Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-2008 Planning Commission Packet CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, August 27, 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 August 13, 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 August 21, 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 CALENDAR: - 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 PDR08-0022 (393-03-021) Yang/Ma, 20215 Blauer Drive - The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing ranch style single-story single-family detached residence and construct a new single-story Mediterranean influenced ranch style home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 3,709 square-feet, including an attached three-car garage. Two Ordinance-sized trees will be removed, per approval by the City Arborist. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be 20 feet, 6 inches. The proposed impervious coverage will be 41.5% of the net site area, well below the allowable 55%. The net lot size is approximately 13,000 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-12,500. Design review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-45.060. (Michael Fossati) 2. APPLICATION ADR08-0016 (503-68-014) Loo/ Posadas, 14141 Palomino Way - - The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a lower level addition to an existing single-story home. The 1 project will add 996 square feet to the existing ground level floor, 131 square feet to the exiting garage, and 874 square feet to a new lower level floor. The total floor area of the home will be 5,049 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 54,276 square feet and the site is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(2). (Cynthia McCormick) DIRECTORS ITEM: - COMMISSION ITEMS: - COMMUNICATIONS - ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 10, 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 August 21, 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, August 13, 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, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of July 23, 2008. Motion: Upon motion and second, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 23, 2008, were adopted. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Rodgers abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 7, 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). 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #FER-08-0001, Balakrishnan, 21789 Villa Oaks Lane, 503-78-036: The applicant requests Fence Exception approval to permit a previously constructed vineyard and property fence located at 21789 Villa Oaks Lane. The average slope of the lot is 12.3%. The total enclosed area will be approximately 1.5 acres. The maximum height of the proposed fence will not exceed the allowable 15,600 square feet. The lot size is approximately 144,184 square feet and the site is located in the HR zoning district. Fence Exception approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-29.020. (Heather Bradley) Ms. Heather Bradley, Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Said that the applicant requests Fence Exception approval to permit a previously constructed vineyard fence. • Explained that this Fence Exception does not include the rear neighbor and only applies for fences on the applicant’s property. • Reported that the vineyard was planted approximately eight years ago and it is assumed that the fence was installed at the same time although a Fence Exception was not applied for at that time. • Reminded that the Planning Commission was made aware of this at the last meeting at which the applicant obtained approval for an addition. • Advised that Finding 1 of Section 15-29.020(c) can be made in the affirmative. Visibility of this fencing is reduced by topography and landscaping on site. • Said that this application is not subject to CEQA review. • Recommended approval. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Explained that a letter from the Balakrishnan’s attorney asks that this Fence Exception be granted without prejudice so that they can come back in the future if they are able to reach agreement with Mr. Holden or the Ms. Ming regarding the portion of the fence on the Garrod Road property. • Advised that as a matter of law the Planning Commission action taken tonight would not prejudice any such right. • Assured that the applicant can apply for a revision. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this would require a new application. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. He added that it would be for a different parcel. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 3 Commissioner Hlava said that she thought that there was no existing Fence Exception process but rather that is why one is being proposed in the updated Fence Ordinance this Commission would be reviewing later in this meeting. Planner Heather Bradley explained that there is an exception process now. She added that where the current ordinance allows 4,000 square foot enclosed area, the proposed ordinance would raise that to up to 6,000 square feet. Director John Livingstone clarified that the existing provisions for exceptions are just for enclosures in Hillside zoning. He added that what is proposed in the amended Fence Ordinance under consideration later this evening is an exception for almost any circumstance. Commissioner Hlava clarified that the ability to support this exception is basically based upon the topography here. Chair Cappello said that one of the three available findings is required. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Dor Yob, Attorney for the Balakrishnans: • Thanked the City Attorney for his comments on her letter. • Advised that the Balakrishnans read the report and are ready to comply with its conditions. • Expressed appreciation for the clarification this action can be done without prejudice. • Said they appreciate staff’s recommendation. Mr. David Lietzke, Resident on Villa Oaks Lane: • Stated that he and his wife, Nancy, are the immediate neighbors. • Added that they see this fence more than anyone else would be able to. • Stressed that they have no objection. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal said that she saw the fence during the site visit and can make the exception findings without prejudice. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Fence Exception Approval to permit a previously constructed vineyard fence on property located at 21789 Villa Oaks Lane, as amended, 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 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 4 APPLICATION #PDR08-0026, Zarkesh, 14575 Horseshoe Drive, 397-20-049: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to add a single story addition to the existing single-story residence. The addition includes approximately 1,428 square feet to the existing 3,061 square foot single-story structure. The total proposed floor area would be approximately 4,489 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 45% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 22,500 square feet and the site is located in the R-1- 20,000 zoning district. Design Review Approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Heather Bradley) Ms. Heather Bradley, Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that a revised resolution with corrections by the City Attorney has been distributed as a table item this evening. • Said that the following added language should be included to Condition 3, “unless relocated outside the required setback areas.” • Described the request as Design Review approval to allow a 1,428 square foot single-story addition. • Explained that the maximum building height that can be approved at staff level is 18 feet. This residence has a maximum height of 20 feet, which requires Planning Commission approval. • Said that the parcel is 22,500 square feet. • Stated that the addition includes two new bedrooms, a new family room and an expanded garage. • Added that the addition would match the architectural style of the existing residence and will consist of light beige stucco. • Distributed a color board. • Reported that no ordinance-protected trees would be removed. • Said that notices of approval from all surrounding property owners have been received. No concerns have been raised. • Advised that all required Design Review findings can be made. • Said that the project is Exempt under CEQA. • Recommended approval. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Rick Hartman, Project Architect, Hometec Architecture: • Reported that the existing residence is a three-bedroom, which is unusual on a lot of this size in Saratoga. • Advised that they are adding two bedrooms, a family room and more FAR for the existing garage. • Said that they designed the addition to avoid any trees. • Said that his only question of the staff report is the issue of fireplaces. • Explained that there is one in the master bedroom that is wood burning and they would be adding one in the new family room. 6 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Hlava asked how many total fireplaces there would be. Mr. Rick Hartman said two Commissioner Hlava asked how many are wood burning. Mr. Rick Hartman said the existing fireplace in the master is wood burning and the new one in the family room would be gas. The living room fireplace would be removed. Chair Cappello pointed out that the report states the carriage style garage doors would be wood while the materials board states steel. Planner Heather Bradley said that this is her error. They are “wood-like” but steel garage doors. Mr. Kapour, Neighbor: • Said he is the rear neighbor. • Advised that he has no objection to this addition. • Explained that originally there was a proposal for a concrete fence and that is something he would object to, as it would change their view. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is not included on the current plans. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that this is a great design. • Advised that he can make all findings to support it. • Stated that there is no excessive appearance of bulk. • Pointed out that the neighbors support this request. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation for the single-story profile. Commissioner Zhao said she can make the findings as well. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to add a 1,428 square foot addition to an existing single-story residence on property located at 14575 Horseshoe Drive, as amended, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** 7 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #ZOA07-0001, Regulations Related to Fences, Walls and Hedges & Negative Declaration: The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance that will update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges. The draft ordinance proposes to 1) establish an exception process that would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; 2) change permitted fencing height and enclosure limitations in the hillside district; and 3) clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. Other related topics, including but not limited to, regulations regarding chain link fencing. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project will also be reviewed and discussed. (Shweta Bhatt) Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the draft ordinance amends the regulations for fences, walls and hedges. • Reminded that at the last study session, the Planning Commission recommended increasing the maximum allowed fenced enclosure area in Hillside Residential zoning from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. • Said that materials and heights are the same as non-Hillside Residential zoning proposed including chain link fencing. Outside of the allowed 6,000 square foot fenced enclosure, only three-foot tall split rail fences or walls composed of stone or stucco would be permitted on Hillside zoned properties. • Listed other changes proposed as including permitting a six-foot solid fence to have an additional two-feet of lattice; permitting open fences, such as wrought iron, chain link or wire material, to a maximum height of eight feet; adding height requirements to driveway sections; adding requirements for swimming pool fencing; and changing fencing requirements for flag lots. • Informed that the proposed changes are summarized in the staff report and the proposed text of the ordinance can be found as Attachment 1. • Added that input from community members are included as Attachment 3 and an email received late this afternoon was provided in hard copy tonight. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that one point raised in the email received late this afternoon was a suggestion to prohibit slats in chain link fences. She reminded that this had been addressed at one time and asked if it is dealt with in the draft ordinance. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that it is not explicitly included but could be added. As it reads now, open fencing has to have four-inch openings with the exception of chain link fencing. The Commission could add language to explicitly prohibit the use of slats. Commissioner Rodgers said that for now this email can simply be taken as public comment and go from there. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Reported that there are a few minor revisions to the draft ordinance as follows: o Page 1, Section 15-06.341 – at the end of the provision, “except for street and driveway intersections as discussed in which shall comply with subsections 15-29,010 e, g & h …” 8 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 7 o Page 2, top of page, same change in text as above. o Page 1, Section 15-06.xxx – recommend that it read as follows, “Height of retaining wall means a vertical line from the highest point of the retaining wall to a point directly below at the lowest natural grade.” Everything else gets deleted until the last phrase that reads, “except for street and driveway intersections, which shall comply with Subsection 15-29.010 e, g & h.” o Page 2, Item D – “The above height limitations do not apply.” Commissioner Hlava: • Raised the issue of Section 15-29.030 – Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. • Read the existing text, “The Community Development Director may impose restrictions deemed necessary to mitigate any visual or other…” • Suggested that it be amended to read, “The Community Development Director may impose restrictions deemed necessary to mitigate any visual, noise, or other…” • Pointed out that noise concerns are the reason why walls are necessary between commercial and residential uses and said that noise mitigation goals should be included somewhere. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the noticing done for this item particularly for residents in the Hillside zoning. She asked if the notice in the Saratoga News is the primary form of noticing. Director John Livingstone said that it is typically the Saratoga News that is used for noticing citywide impact items. He said that whenever possible, they also do a news release. He pointed out that in this particular case, there have been several articles in the Saratoga News. It is also included on the city’s web page. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a list of HOA’s (homeowner associations) that include Hillside districts. Were any HOA’s specifically noticed. Director John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Kundtz said he wanted to compliment Planner Shweta Bhatt on her efforts, which he called tantamount to “herding cats” in order to get all the information together from numerous sessions. He thanked her for her work. Chair Cappello agreed. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Bruce LaFountain, Resident on Pierce Road: • Asked for verification that the ordinance, as written, limits height and materials of perimeter fencing in Hillside districts to a maximum of three feet except for split rail and stucco fence with openings. • Stated that, with due respect to the work of the Commission, this is a flawed process to arrive to these proposed amendments. 9 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 8 • Said that, as proposed, this is a patchwork quilt of totally unfounded, inequitably ridiculous rule making that merely exacerbates beyond all reason a complex and complicated issue that has plagued the city for more than a decade. • Continued that there have been on-going issues of fencing inequities that do not in any manner serve this community since 1998. • Advised that his personal journey with this begin almost one year ago. In that time period, this Commission has vacillated between one extreme to another on this issue with no cohesive format or objective in mind other than to possibly get this off of your collective plates. • Listed issues this Commission has alternately considered including height, materials, locations, colors, areas of enclosure, triangles of visibility, setbacks, perimeter placements, the rights of passage for wild animals, locations of swimming pools, tennis courts and almost anything one might consider appropriated for a major study on the issue except for one thing, the rights, needs and considerations of your affected fellow citizens who have forked over big bucks to pay for their private property. They continue to pay thousands of dollars annually in tax base to sustain this city. • Asked if these taxpaying property owners have any rights. Is anyone on this Commission listening to anything aside from their own subjective opinions about how this grand waste of time impacts the peaceable and lawful rights of our citizenry? • Declared that he cannot imagine how the Commission got this bogged down in their own rhetorical considerations. • Stated that another bureaucratically created solution has been generated and named an exception process. • Questioned why a citizen should have to come to explain themselves to the Commission or to the rest of the city. • Opined that Saratoga is not a self-appointed park. Rather, it is a city, which includes private property and the rights and needs of the property owner taxpayers. • Challenged that a large majority of citizens do not agree with these proposed actions. Chair Cappello advised Mr. Bruce LaFountain that his time has expired and he should wrap up his commentary. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said that given the small audience present he should be able to conclude his last page of comments. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Bruce LaFountain if he could be more specific as to what he is objecting to. Is it the limitation of allowable enclosed fenced area in Hillside zoning? Mr. Bruce LaFoutain said no, it is the issue of perimeter fencing and the restrictions imposed on Hillside zones. He said that these restrictions do not serve the interest of people who need a fence. Commissioner Nagpal asked Planner Shweta Bhatt to reiterate the proposed perimeter fencing requirements for Hillside zoning. 10 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 9 Planner Shweta Bhatt said that currently gaps are required in solid fencing material. What is proposed is to take that requirement for gaps out and in its place impose a three-foot height restriction. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that nothing greater than three feet is allowed. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied not outside of the area of enclosure. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that there is no gap restriction any longer. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked about materials allowed. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that it is limited to split rail fencing, stone or stucco. Commissioner Kumar asked if all existing fencing is grandfathered. If so, when would an exception be necessary? Chair Cappello suggested holding off on this issue until the public comment period has concluded. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Mr. Bruce LaFountain for his participation in numerous meetings. She asked him if he would rather the ordinance be left as it is. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said he wants a fair assessment. Commissioner Hlava: • Pointed out that the current regulations for Hillside fencing are not being followed. • Stated that there are lots of properties with enclosures more than 4,000 square feet in size. • Added that the existing ordinance did not accomplish the original goal. • Questioned whether more laws should be passed that no one follows. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said he wanted to prevent other owners in Saratoga from being surprised some day if someone were to complain about their existing fencing. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Bruce LaFountain what he thinks is the best thing to do about this issue. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said to create a guideline that is adhered to and followed. If not, leave it alone. Commissioner Hlava agreed that no one follows it anyway. Mr. Bruce LaFountain reminded that the city employs selective enforcement based upon complaint. 11 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 10 Mr. Balu Balakrishnan, Resident on Villa Oaks: • Said that he was unaware of previous meetings on this issue. He is only here because he had an exception request earlier on this evening’s agenda. • Stated that 6,000 square feet of enclosure area in the Hillside zoning is not enough. • Added that an exception process should be required for only a few, such as 10 percent, and not for 90 percent of all property owners. • Asked that specific consideration of the needs for enclosing vineyards be incorporated into the ordinance. • Pointed out that a three-foot maximum height is not sufficient to protect vineyards from wild life. They will get over it. • Suggested a specific arrangement based on lot area or agricultural situations. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Kumar suggested a change to the section on noise mitigation, “…fencing to mitigate noise from arterial streets and/or commercial districts.” Commissioner Rodgers asked the City Attorney for a suggestion on where to place this in the language. Commissioner Hlava agreed with Commissioner Kumar’s recommendation, saying that where she had suggested placing this didn’t make as much sense as this does. Commissioner Rodgers said that they might want to add Commercial District to the title of this section. Commissioner Hlava said that the intent is to mitigate noise so cement block is better than a wood fence to achieve that goal. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that one church recently requested fencing for noise mitigation. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said it may be necessary to allow noise mitigation fencing in Public Facilities zoning. • Said that she wished that they didn’t have to deal with Hillside fencing. • Added that she struggles with the 6,000 square foot enclosure since much of the existing fencing currently does not meet that standard. • Said that this ordinance may go from bad to worse. Chair Cappello: • Reminded that there are objectives for Hillside Residential zoning. • Added that there is the desire for safety around the home itself, including a confined area for children to play as well as to keep wildlife out of certain areas. • Agreed that the current 4,000 square foot enclosure allowance is too small. Commissioner Nagpal: 12 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 11 • Said that if they were designing a community with nothing there yet, the ordinance would be easier to enact and enforce. • Said that at the present time the city uses selective enforcement. If a neighbor calls a complaint in against you, the city enforces. • Stated that the ordinance needs to be applicable to the Hillside zoning as it stands today. However, if 90 percent of the existing conditions do not comply, that is difficult. • Expressed concern that so few Hillside zoned properties are represented in this process. • Added that it is currently a no-win situation. • Added that since there is non-compliance with current regulations, would it not be the same with these revised regulations? Chair Cappello stressed that a key objective is the ability for wildlife to roam throughout the hillsides. The three-foot fence height limitation for perimeter fencing allows wildlife passage. Commissioner Nagpal said that perhaps instead of limiting the type and amount of fencing, an objective could be developed such as letting wildlife to pass unimpeded. Chair Cappello stated that no ordinance that reflects current situations could be written today, as conditions are currently a hodgepodge. He stressed the need to get where we want to be not where we are at now. Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that the area is already developed. Chair Cappello pointed out that as wood fencing deteriorates and needs to be replaced the current standards could be imposed. He agreed that it was a good point to have exceptions for situations such as vineyards. Commissioner Rodgers said that exceptions could also be considered for agricultural uses. She said that she had no problem with fencing around a vineyard. Commissioner Kumar said that standard allowances for vineyards, orchards and agricultural uses, including keeping horses, could be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Hlava said she agreed. She said that those three uses should not require an exception process but rather be called out in the ordinance itself. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that she had always thought that the 4,000 square foot enclosure was too small and supported raising it to 6,000 square feet. • Reminded that some had wanted to extend it to 8,000 square feet. • Added that recreation courts are no longer exempt under the modified ordinance but she feels that they should remain exempt from enclosure restrictions. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the definition of Hillside zoning might not need to be changed. 13 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Nagpal said that Hillside zoned properties are not always sloped. She said she is in favor of allowing sport courts to be fenced. Commissioner Zhao stated that the three-foot height limitation for perimeter fencing in the Hillside zoning district is too specific. Chair Cappello said that guidelines are not specific enough to be enforceable. Commissioner Zhao asked what if complaints are brought to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nagpal suggested Design Review type of guidelines for fences. Commissioner Zhao said yes. They could be used to achieve objectives versus an ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this would be difficult to enforce. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that use of guidelines over regulations is more difficult to enforce. They are generally too broad. When they are less specific, it is more difficult to enforce. Commissioner Zhao asked about Design Review style guidelines. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that the Commission does not want to have to consider every fence request. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that the agenda would be filled with these types of applications. Commissioner Zhao said she does not mean for a normal fence request. Commissioner Nagpal said some sort of enforcement mechanism is needed and not the Planning Commission. This occurs upon complaint. Commissioner Zhao supported more freedom for property owners. She said that the requirements are too specific, particularly the three-foot maximum height on perimeter fencing in the Hillside districts. Commissioner Nagpal: • Reminded that the current ordinance did not effectively control fencing in the Hillside district. • Added that the question is, how to make this ordinance reflect the values of the city including having a wildlife corridor; safety; protect vineyards; and still be a credible ordinance. Commissioner Zhao asked how many complaints are there. If there are not too many, why worry now? 14 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 13 Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he lives in the Hillside district. • Advised that the eclectic mix of fencing now is unattractive. • Said that even with just complaint-driven enforcement, the Code Enforcement staff is kept very busy. • Also questioned, why have an ordinance if it is not going to be fully enforced? Chair Cappello: • Said that he supports the rights of property owners but the rights of adjacent property owners must also be taken into consideration as well as the good of the community. • Agreed that some fencing conditions can be considered an eyesore. • Pointed out that the hillside is the gem of the city. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the Hillside Specific Plan calls for the conservation of the rural character and its scenic resources. • Added that the green hillsides are a community view. • Stated that she does not want to see a community that is all walled in. • Said that it appears that there are no complaints about existing hillside fencing conditions, • Questioned why take the time to fix something if it is not broken? Director John Livingstone clarified that the city does receive fencing complaints both on Hillside and non-Hillside zoned properties. Some get to the City Attorney level of enforcement. Commissioner Nagpal asked what kinds of enforcement issues are raised. Chair Cappello: • Recounted that he had someone contact him who was furious with their neighbor’s fence that blocked their view. • Added that in that particular situation, Code Enforcement could not do anything about it. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the issues raised are height issues or the limitation to 4,000 square foot enclosures. Director John Livingstone replied that the complaints received are quite the “potpourri.” They include enclosure issues; chain link fencing; heights; lattice in excess of maximum height, etc. He said that there have been a fair number of fence complaints. Chair Cappello said that a lot of time has been spent refining this ordinance update. He pointed out that often lattice is used on fences but that the current Code does not currently allow use of lattice. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is not much objection to lattice. 15 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 14 Chair Cappello said that use of guidelines is subjective while code enforcement must be very black and white using specific code. Commissioner Zhao suggested using very generic and not so specific standards. Commissioner Kumar said that this draft is a good starting point. He agreed that a lot of time has been spent on it and there have been many iterations of it. It would prevent the occurrence where many different types of fencing meet up in one yard that creates an eyesore. Commissioner Nagpal said it appears the discussion is down to Hillside fencing issues. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the request via email that slats not be allowed in chain link fencing. Commissioner Nagpal said she agreed with that limitation. Chair Cappello suggested a straw poll on the outstanding issues to see where there is consensus. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the area of enclosure in Hillside zoning. She suggested that vineyards and agricultural uses be exempt from enclosure limitations. She asked if the majority also agrees about not counting sport courts. Chair Cappello asked for the straw vote on this issue. Commissioner Kundtz said he supports three of four, but not sports courts. Commissioner Hlava disagreed, saying that she does think sports courts should be enclosed without limitation. Director John Livingstone pointed out that site coverage limits in Hillside zoning is 15,000 square feet in coverage total. A typical tennis court requires approximately 7,200 square feet. On a Hillside zoned lot with a home, driveway and patio, in most cases a sport court could not also be accommodated in the lot coverage. Chair Cappello said that it appears that there is support for allowing additional fencing area for vineyards, orchards and other agricultural uses, including keeping horses. Director John Livingstone said that one must consider “what is a vineyard?” He suggested that data must be generated on what agricultural uses there currently are in the Hillside zoned areas. This will serve as a basis of where this provision is going. Chair Cappello asked how many vineyards are out there. He suggested that if it is just a few, those could be satisfied through the exception process. Commissioner Nagpal suggested having vineyard approvals done over the counter. 16 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 15 Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the Hillside zoned areas used to be all agricultural uses. Chair Cappello agreed. He added that if it were a true vineyard, orchard or corral, this would not be a problem to approve. Commissioner Hlava said she wants to see these allowed without need for an exception. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the current ordinance for Agricultural district zoning requires compliance with the City’s Fence Ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many such zoned properties the City has. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said he was not sure but believes that there is not that many. Chair Cappello said that this appears to be unanimous but that further information is necessary. Commissioner Nagpal asked for feedback on enclosed area allowances in Hillside zones. Is there support for 4,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet or more? Commissioner Hlava said the minimum lot size in the Hillside zoning is two acres. Allowing just 6,000 square feet in enclosed fence area represents just 1/13th of the parcel. She said she would rather support at least 8,000 square feet. She added that 10 percent of the specific lot size would not be excessive. Commissioner Nagpal supported establishing a percentage of lot standard taking topography into consideration. Commissioner Rodgers suggested considering only buildable area. Commissioner Kundtz said he is stuck on zero fenced areas on Hillside zoned properties. Commissioner Hlava supported a percentage of the total lot size. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that there are lots of estate homes on the Hillsides. Commissioner Kumar asked Commissioner Kundtz why he is so against any fencing on a Hillside zoned property. He said the perspective of a Hillside resident has value. Commissioner Kundtz replied that he finds it inconsistent to have fenced in yards with the notion of open space and rural nature and character. This is inconsistent with the Hillside zoning. Commissioner Hlava said that in Commissioner Kundtz’ neighborhood there are no fences. However, if she lived on a busy road such as Pierce Road, she said she would want fencing like Mr. LaFountain does. 17 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 16 Commissioner Rodgers said that the reasons people move to Saratoga are for the beautiful hillsides and wonderful trees. There is a need to preserve these natural resources. Commissioner Kundtz said that he does not understand someone who would move onto a Hillside property and be surprised that there is wildlife there. He reiterated that he struggles with allowing any fencing there. Commissioner Kumar said that new owners pay $3 to 4 million for a lot in the Hillside. Additionally, the demographics are changing in Saratoga. He pointed out that he would want a fenced backyard for his kids. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that fenced in areas intended to protect pets at night does not guarantee their safety. Chair Cappello said that she makes a good point. He said that despite so many previous sessions, there is still no consensus on this one. Commissioner Hlava asked what is the process from here? Is there to be another study session? If so, she reiterated her suggestion for a 10 percent allowance over a set enclosure size. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that if there is to be another study session some additional and different noticing should be incorporated since not all residents get the Saratoga News. Chair Cappello asked for some suggestions. Commissioner Nagpal suggested notifying homeowner associations, particularly those serving Hillside zoned neighborhoods. She also suggested posting notices in the Hillside district. Commissioner Hlava suggested installing three signs, one at each side of Pierce Road and another on Mt. Eden Road. Commissioner Kundtz reminded how Public Works posted signs for one project. He said that this is not a bad idea. Commissioner Rodgers reminded of the noise mitigation issue raised by Commissioner Hlava. Chair Cappello said that per the straw poll there doesn’t seem to be any objection to this suggestion. Commissioner Hlava said that the Fence Ordinance works fine in the flatlands. The concerns are more for Hillside zoning. Chair Cappello said that it looks like there are taller fences on larger lots. 18 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 17 Commissioner Hlava said that those rules are not being changed here. She added that she thinks some of them look nice although not compliant, specifically along Sobey Road. Commissioner Nagpal said that Sobey Road, like Pierce Road, needs privacy from heavier traffic. Commissioner Hlava said that still there are existing fencing rules not being complied with. Chair Cappello said that that the consensus appears to be that the three-foot maximum height for front yards many not be appropriate for some areas. He suggested bringing that specific issue to the study session. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this issue should be explored further. Commissioner Rodgers said that she does not know where to draw the line. Commissioner Nagpal said that if 90 percent of parcels don’t meet the requirements imposed, the exception process would not deal with it. Commissioner Hlava suggested that each Commissioner drive around the community to see what is out there as far as existing fencing stock. Commissioner Rodgers said, “the only reason we got a man on the moon is because we froze the technology at some point.” Commissioner Zhao said that although Commissioner Kundtz prefers to allow zero enclosed fencing in the Hillside zoning, she agrees with Commissioner Kumar’s point that the demographics of the area are changing. Chair Cappello said that a study session is appropriate to allow further input. He suggested that a specific date be determined this evening. Commissioner Nagpal suggested it be pushed into Fall as some have complained that these hearings are happening during the summer when so many residents are traveling. Director John Livingstone suggested either September or October. Commissioner Kundtz suggested October 7th. He reiterated his compliment to Planner Shweta Bhatt for her work on this ordinance, saying that she did a great job! Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a zoning code amendment for regulations regarding fences walls and hedges to a study session to be held on October 7, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. at a location to be determined. (7-0) Commissioner Nagpal asked what about some of the extra noticing suggestions. 19 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 18 Director John Livingstone said that they could work on the signs and notifying homeowner’s associations. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hlava advised that she is serving on a committee with Kathleen King in looking at the CH-2 Zoning District (in the Village). A meeting will take place on Monday, September 8, 2008, at a location to be determined. Commissioner Nagpal announced that one Village Economic Development Committee meeting has been held and a second one is pending (date to be determined). COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:51 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 20 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: PDR08-0022 – 20215 Blauer Drive Type of Application: Demolition of Existing Single-Story Residence and Construction of New Single-Story Residence Owner: Yang/Ma Staff Planner: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner Meeting Date: Aug 27, 2008 APN: 393-07-021 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 20215 Blauer Drive 21 Application No. PDR08-0022; 20215 Blauer Drive Executive Summary Case History: Application filed: 06/26/08 Application complete: 07/29/08 Notice published: 08/11/08 Mailing completed: 08/04/08 Posting completed: 08/21/08 Public hearing conducted: 08/27/08 Project Description: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing single-story, single-family detached ranch style residence and construct a new single-story Mediterranean influence ranch style home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 3,709 square-feet, including an attached three-car garage. Two Ordinance-sized trees will be removed, per approval by the City Arborist. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be 20 feet, 6 inches. The proposed impervious coverage will be 41.5% of the net site area, well below the allowable 55%. The net lot size is approximately 13,000 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-12,500. Design review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-45.060. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval. Permanent Conditions There are no permanent conditions recommended for this project 2 22 Application No. PDR08-0022; 20215 Blauer Drive STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: R-1-12,500 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-12.5) Measure G: Not Applicable Parcel Size: Gross: ~13,000 square feet; Net: ~13,000 square feet Slope: Less than a 5 % slope at building site. Grading Required: Minimal grading required Environmental Determination: The proposed new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.” This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of single-family residences. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exception. Materials and Colors: Materials include clay tile roofing, clay wood Andersen© windows, and exterior cement plaster. The garage door will be fiberglass with a wood- grain finish. The main door will have a cherry finish, insulated clear glass, and an matching elliptical transom, all with a Mediterranean grille made of wrought iron. The exterior colors of the home include sandstone, light browns, off whites, with brown and reddish brown roofing. A colors and materials board is available and on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification # Windows Sandstone Anderson Windows Front Door Cherry Wood, Glass and Wrought Iron Jeldwen Custom Garage Door Fiberglass with Walnut appearance Wayne Dalton - Model 9800 Garage Door Windows Glass Wayne Dalton - Plain Bldg. Color Cement Plaster Khaki Tile Roof Brown/Reddish Brown Blend Clay Tile US Tile – Newport Blend 3 23 Application No. PDR08-0022; 20215 Blauer Drive PROJECT DATA: R-1-12,500 Zoning Net Site Area: 13,000 sq. ft. Proposed Required Site Coverage Maximum Allowable = 7,150 sq. ft. (55%) Footprint of Home: 3,758.6 sq. ft. Driveway: 840 sq. ft. Walkway: 400 sq. ft. Patio: 400 sq. ft. TOTAL Site Coverage 5,398.6 sq.ft. (41.5%) Maximum Allowable = 3,710 sq. ft. Floor Area Proposed First Floor Area: 3,408.8 sq. ft. Proposed Garage Area: 667 sq. ft. Proposed Double-Counted Area: 0 sq. ft. Proposed Enclosed Porch 17.3 sq. ft. TOTAL Proposed Floor Area 3,709.3 sq. ft. Setbacks Proposed 1st Floor 25 ft. 51 ft. 7 in. 11 ft. 2 in. 10 feet Required 1st Floor 25 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Front: Rear: Left Side: Right Side: Height Maximum Height = 388 ft (26 feet) Lowest Elevation Point: 361.4 ft. Highest Elevation Point: 362.6 ft. Average Elevation Point: 362 ft. Proposed Topmost Point: 382.5 ft. (20 ft. 6 in.) 4 24 Application No. PDR08-0022; 20215 Blauer Drive Project Discussion: The applicant is requesting Design Review to demolish an existing single-story Ranch home and construct a single-story Mediterranean Ranch style residence. Two (2) ordinance-size trees are slated for removal. Authorization for removal has been granted by the City Arborist. Architectural Style Mediterranean Ranch Style Arborist Review / Trees Two (2) trees, a Hollywood juniper and a Monterey Pine are slated for removal in order to accommodate the new build. The trees are valued at $5,610 and will be replaced on site. Seven (7) trees are protected by the City Ordinance and are potentially impacted by construction of the new residence. These trees have been identified per an Arborist Review, completed on July 22, 2008. Per approval of this Design Review, the applicant will be required to post a tree protection bond in the amount of $35,250 in order to protect the existing protected trees on site. All recommendations of the City Arborist have been incorporated as conditions of approval within the attached Resolution. Geotechnical Clearance The project will require minimal grading. Per SMC Section 15-45.070 (13) geotechnical clearance is not required. Energy Efficiency and Green Building Techniques The proposed residence will incorporate insulation greater than the minimal levels required by the California Building Code (CBC) within walls and portions of the ceilings. The windows will have high efficiency glazing. A radiant barrier used to reduce summer heat gain and winter heat loss of the home will be built inside, near the roof. This barrier shall reduce building heating and cooling energy usage. A high efficiency furnace, air conditioner and water heater will be included in the project. Lastly, gas fireplaces will be installed rather than wood-burning. This should reduce negative air quality impacts. Landscaping A preliminary landscape plan has been submitted with the proposed plans for the new residence. The landscape plan includes a dwarf fescue sod lawn, Japanese maples, crape myrtles, Cleopatra reds and Dalmatian bellflower throughout the grounds. Staff has included a condition in the Resolution that landscaping in the front shall be installed prior to final building permit approval. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant submitted neighborhood notifications forms for the two (2) side neighboring adjacent properties and one (1) neighboring property across the street. None of the adjacent neighbors submitted comments opposing the project. As of the drafting of this staff report, no neighbor has submitted correspondence in disagreement 5 25 Application No. PDR08-0022; 20215 Blauer Drive with the proposal. The applicant has provided Staff signed documentation that adjacent neighbors of the project are aware of the new construction. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project will utilize natural autumn colors throughout the residence. These colors blend with the overall appearance of the site and adjacent newer residences located to the North and South of the proposed home. The existing and proposed foliage along with the modest height give the new residence a look consistent with the community. 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. As conditioned, the application meets the findings required for Design Approval. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is remaining a single-story residence. Although the existing structure will be demolished and replaced by a new structure, the project will retain a consistent height with existing development within the area. (b) Preserve natural landscape. A preliminary landscape plan has been incorporated into the project application. The landscaping includes water tolerant and shrubbery native to the western hemisphere. The existing site has eleven (11) trees protected by ordinance. Nine (9) of those eleven (11) trees will be preserved during and after the new construction takes place. Furthermore, the applicant is required to plant two (2) new trees, equal to a value of $5,610. The finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that no heritage or native trees are being removed from on site. In addition, the project, as conditioned, will create protection measures for the nine (9) ordinance- sized trees within the construction vicinity. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building, window trim, and proposed roofing materials. The volumes and staggered floor plan throughout the residence will break up the mass the proposed structure will create. The trellis incorporated into 6 26 Application No. PDR08-0022; 20215 Blauer Drive 7 the roof at the rear elevation will furthermore reduce the bulk and mass. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residences in the area are predominately new single-story structures with varying rooflines. The neighborhood is filled with ranch-style residences. Although influenced with Mediterranean elements, the theme of the project is ranch-style in nature, maintaining consistency with the community. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the existing neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The building site is flat and the proposed residence will require minor grading. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook. The project will incorporate varying roof heights in its construction to reduce bulk, retain a single-story structure to minimize height, remain compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height with the existing community, and use a combination of high-quality materials to break up the mass. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application categorically exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Attachments: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Neighbor Notification templates. 3. Arborist Report and tree fencing by City Arborist Kate Bear, dated July 22, 2008. 4. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A". 27 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. XX-XXX Application No. PDR08-0022 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Yang/Ma; 20215 Blauer Avenue Approval to demolish an existing single-story residence and construct a new single-story residence with an attached garage WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to demolish and existing ranch style single-story, single-family detached residence and construct a new single-story home resulting in a 3,309 square foot residence. The residence will not be more than 20 feet, 6 inches in height and will be situated on an approximately 13,000 square foot lot located at 20215 Blauer Avenue, located in the R-1-12,500 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 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”. This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of single-family residences; 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: ƒ Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The project will utilize natural autumn colors throughout the residence. These colors blend with the overall appearance of the site and adjacent new residences located to the North and South of the proposed home. The existing and proposed foliage along with the modest height give the new residence a look consistent with the community. ƒ Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction thereto is compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. As conditioned the application meets the Findings required for Design Review approval. 28 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 Municipal Code (SMC) 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is remaining a single-story residence. Although the existing structure will be demolished and replaced by a new structure, the project will retain a consistent height with existing development within the area. (b) Preserve natural landscape. A preliminary landscape plan has been incorporated into the project application. The landscaping includes water tolerant and shrubbery native to the west coast. The finding can be made in the affirmative. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that no heritage or native trees are being removed from on site. In addition, the project, as conditioned, will create protection measures for ordinance-sized trees within the construction vicinity. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior building and window trim. The volumes and staggered floor plan throughout the residence will break up the mass the proposed structure will create. The trellis incorporated into the roof at the rear elevation will furthermore reduce the bulk and mass. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (e) Compatible bulk and height. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residences in the area are predominately new single-story structures with varying rooflines. The proposal is compatible in bulk and height with the existing neighborhood. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The building site is flat and the proposed residence will require minor grading. In addition, the project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards. This finding can be made in the affirmative. (g) Design policies and techniques. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook. The project will incorporate varying roof heights in its construction to reduce bulk, retain a single-story structure to minimize height, remain compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height with the existing community, and use a combination of high- quality materials to break up the mass. 29 Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project CITY ATTORNEY 1. 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on “Exhibit A” (incorporated by reference, date stamped August 21, 2008) in compliance stated in this resolution. 3. Any proposed changes – including, but not limited to façade design and materials – to the approved set of 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 not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director (CDD), or his designated representative. Any and all changes may require review by the Planning Commission. 4. The project shall incorporate colors and materials as illustrated on the Finish Color Board, date stamped June 26, 2008. 5. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Department. 6. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor (LLS) of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans.” 7. Landscape plan 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. 30 8. 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. 9. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 10. Existing native shrubs and ground cover, if applicable, shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 11. Landscaping along the street frontage shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. A landscape bond may be submitted along with the applicable filing fee in lieu of this requirement. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan to the Building Official. 13. All exterior lighting proposed shall not produce glare or spillover to adjacent properties or provide a distraction to vehicular traffic to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 14. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval demonstrating how all stormwater will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices on file with the City. If all stormwater cannot be retained on-site, an explanatory note shall be provided on the approved plans and subject to prior City review and approval. Stormwater runoff from the project site (if any after compliance with this paragraph) shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. CITY ARBORIST 15. All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated July 22, 2008, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans. 16. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 17. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism, as approved by the CDD, in the amount of $35,250 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 18. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement 31 trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. PUBLIC WORKS 19. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department if necessary for construction within the public right-of-way. FIRE DEPARMENT 20. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Saratoga Fire Department. 32 Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 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 27th day of August 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 33 34 35 36 37 38 Page 1 of 3 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REVIEW Application #:ARB 08-0048 By Kate Bear, City Arborist 20215 Blauer Drive Phone: (408) 869-1276 Owner: Dian Yang and Amy Ma Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN 393-07-021 Report History: #1 Date: July 22, 2008 INTRODUCTION The applicant has submitted plans to demolish the existing house and build a new single story home. Nine trees were inventoried for this report. Two are requested for removal for the project. This project requires that the Site Plan and the Landscape Concept to be revised so that all protected trees are shown and those proposed for removal are clearly indicated, prior to receiving arborist clearance to proceed. The security deposit and requirement for replacement trees may change depending on which trees will be retained and removed. SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION Plans reviewed for this report include Sheet 1, Cover Sheet and Site Plan; Sheet 2, Floor Plan; Sheet 3, Elevations; and Sheet 4, Sections, by Chris Spaulding, Architect, dated June 24, 2008. Also reviewed were a Landscape Plan by Judy Hess Landscape Design, dated June 2008, and a Boundary and Topographic Survey by SMP Engineers, dated May 27, 2008. Nine trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by construction were inventoried for this report. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Tree locations are marked on the attached copy of the Site Plan. Inventoried trees include one English walnut (#1), three American sweetgums (#2, 8 and 9), one deodar cedar (#3), one Hollywood juniper (#4), one Monterey pine (#5), and two Lombardy poplars (#6 and 7). Tree #1 is an English walnut in fair condition. It does not appear to be in conflict with the project, but has been left off of the landscape design. It should be included in the design for the proposed landscape. Tree #2 is an American sweetgum in fair condition and also does not appear to be in conflict with the project. It also has been left off of the landscape design and should be included. The owners have proposed to plant a new Japanese maple in this area. That is acceptable as long as trees #2 and 3 are retained. 39 20215 Blauer Drive Page 2 of 3 Tree #3 is a very large magnificent deodar cedar in good health. The sewer line appears to run right through this tree on the plans. When it is capped for demolition of the existing house, this should occur outside of the tree’s canopy. Care should be taken when the sewer for the new home is connected so that no trenching occurs under the canopy of this tree. If it is necessary for a new sewer line to be installed under the tree, it is acceptable to use a boring method that is at least 2.5 feet below grade. Contact the City Arborist well in advance of performing this work at the phone number at the start of this report. The water line appears to be far enough from this tree that no damage to the tree is likely. Trees #4 and 5 are in conflict with the project and will suffer significant damage during construction of the new home. Tree #4 is a Hollywood juniper of some size. It is in fair health, but is not so valued that the home should be redesigned to preserve it. Tree #5 is a Monterey pine in fair health. It will likely not survive construction of the new home. It is acceptable to remove these two trees and replace them with new trees equal to their combined appraised value of $5,610 following construction. Replacement values for new trees can be found at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. Trees #6 and 7 are Lombardy poplars. The trunk of tree #6 has grown over a concrete walkway in the back yard and completely broken it apart in several places. Tree #7 is planted under power lines and has previously been topped. Both are in fair condition. Trees #8 and 9, two American sweetgums, are proposed for removal. They are not in conflict with construction of the new house. The walkway around the house seems to go right through these trees, but could be designed to go around them instead. I recommend retaining these two trees. The Site Plan does not show trees #4 or 5. They should be included on the Site Plan and indicated to be removed. The Landscape Concept does not show trees #1, 2, 4, 5, or 7. Again, all protected trees should be indicated on the drawings, and if proposed for removal, clearly shown to be removed. One protected oak growing in the back yard was not inventoried for this report. It is in good condition and can be adequately protected with fencing during construction. It should be shown on the landscape plan. Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a security deposit in the amount of $35,250, which is equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees #1 – 3, 6, 8 and 9, is required. The security deposit may be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. Appraisal values are calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000, in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004. REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of building plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process 40 20215 Blauer Drive Page 3 of 3 until final inspection. Tree protective fencing shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to obtaining building division permits. 3. Plans shall show all protected trees on the Site Plan and clearly indicate those proposed for removal. 4. Trees shall be numbered for ease of reference on the plans. 5. Owner shall obtain a Tree Protection security deposit in the amount of $35,250 (for trees #1 - 3, 6, 8 and 9) prior to obtaining building division permits. The security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of the construction project to ensure the protection of the trees. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist, the bond can be released. 6. Trees #4 and 5 are in conflict with the project and approved for removal in order to construct it. Trees with a replacement value equal to the appraised value of trees #4 and 5, which is $5,610, shall be planted prior to final inspection of the project. Replacement values are at the bottom of the Tree Inventory Table. 7. No excavation shall occur within 17 feet of tree #3 for the sewer line or any other work. 8. Excavation for new utilities is not permitted under tree canopies. Utilities include electrical, drainage, water, sewer, gas and irrigation for landscaping. If a new sewer line connection is required under tree #3, it is acceptable to bore under the tree at a minimum depth of 2.5 feet. Entrance and exit holes shall be outside of the tree’s canopy. Contact the City Arborist prior to performing this work at the phone number included at the start of this report. 9. Contractor shall water trees every three weeks throughout the warm months during construction, or more often if necessary to keep trees healthy and vigorous. Trees shall be watered for a long enough period that the root zone of the tree becomes moistened to a depth of one foot below the surface. 10. The City Arborist shall approve any grading or trenching under a tree’s canopy prior to performing work. If approved, it shall be done manually using shovels. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and tunneled under or otherwise worked around; roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. 11. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 12. Any pruning or root pruning of trees on site must be performed by a state licensed tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. Attachments: Tree Security Deposit form Tree Inventory Table Map showing tree locations and tree protective fencing 41 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME Trunk Diameter (in,) - per Guide for Plant AppraisalEstimated Canopy Spread (ft.)Health Condition (100% = best, 0% = worst)Structural Integrity (100% = best, 0% = worst)Overall ConditionSuitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Intensity of Impacts (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest)In Conflict with Proposed DesignNot Shown on PlansOn Adjacent ProprtyAppraised ValueEnglish walnut 1 Juglans regia 12.9 25 50 50 Fair Moderate 2 $670 American sweetgum 2 Liquidambar styraciflua 13.2 15 40 50 Fair Moderate 2 $1,770 Deodar cedar 16.2, 16.2, 3 Cedrus deodara 16.7, 17.2 35 80 40 Good High 3 $24,100 Hollywood juniper 17.1, 4 Juniperus chinensis 'Torulosa'11.5 25 70 70 Good Moderate 1 X $3,500 Monterey pine 5 Pinus radiata 26.4 25 70 80 Good Moderate 1 X $2,110 Lombardy poplar 6 Populus nigra 'Italica'38.3 25 60 60 Fair Moderate 3 $4,950 Lombardy poplar 7 Populus nigra 'Italica'21.5 15 60 10 Fair Low 5 $380 American sweetgum 8 Liquidambar styraciflua 13 20 80 80 Fair Moderate 3 $2,360 American sweetgum 9 Liquidambar styraciflua 11 25 80 60 Fair Moderate 3 $1,400 Total appraised value $41,240 Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. 20215 Blauer Drive July 22, 2008 42 20215 Blauer 6 5 7 8 4 9 1 2 3 43 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 1st day of August , 2008, that I deposited 86 Notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 393-07-021 Address: 20215 Blauer Dr that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 44 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 27th day of August, 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: PDR08-0022 / 20215 Blauer Drive APPLICANT/OWNER: Yang/Ma APN: 393-07-021 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish an existing ranch style single-story single-family detached residence and construct a new single-story Mediterranean influence Ranch Style home. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be 3,709 square-feet, including an attached three-car garage. Two Ordinance-sized trees will be removed, per approval by the City Arborist. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be 20 feet, 6 inches. The proposed impervious coverage will be 41.5% of the net site area, well below the allowable 55%. The net lot size is approximately 13,000 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-12,500. Design review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) Section 15-45.060. 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, August 18, 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 45 August 1, 2008 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 393-07-021 DIAN YANG 20215 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070 393-06-004 YIA-YUAN K & CHAO-HSIANG FU 20312 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4350 393-06-005 DENGWEI & TZEFUNG YAU 20302 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4350 393-06-006 CHARLES J & HILDA GUZZETTA 20288 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4308 393-06-007 JANE DAHLHAUSER 20274 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4308 393-06-008 DAVID E & CARRIE VAN NOORDEN 20260 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4308 393-06-009 MIKE I & ROBIN JANG 20244 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4308 393-06-010 CHIN-CHAI LOW 20232 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4308 393-06-011 JUNGWOOK & SANDRA KIM 20218 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4308 393-06-012 PAUL M HAGELIN 20204 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4308 393-06-013 HORACE J & JANE LAX 20180 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4360 393-06-014 ROBERT B & MILDRED BELL 20174 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4360 393-06-015 GRACE W & WILLIAM NAMENY 20191 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4301 393-06-016 JAMES & PHYLLIS FONG 20201 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4301 393-06-017 FRANK & EVELYN PEAIRS 20211 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4301 393-06-018 CHUN WANG 20221 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4301 393-06-019 CHINGWEN CHANG 20231 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4301 393-06-020 PHYLLIS L PRENTICE 20241 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4301 393-06-021 JOHN W & JINCY NIELSON 20255 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4303 393-06-022 KENNETH P & MARILYNN FISHER 20269 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4303 393-06-023 YONG CHANG 20283 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4303 393-06-024 VEERAPPAN & SEETHA NACHIAPPAN 20297 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4303 393-07-002 JACK & SUZANNAH CHEWNING 20330 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4356 393-07-003 ERIC W CHEN 20291 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 393-07-004 MICHAEL J MURPHY 20301 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 46 393-07-005 ANITA NETTENSTROM 20311 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 393-07-006 LOUIS S & NELLA GAGLIASSO 20331 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 393-07-007 SINA S BONACORSO 20341 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 393-07-008 DAVID LISCOM 20351 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 393-07-010 CHIDAMBARAM & NACHIYA SAMBASIVAM 20346 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-011 KEVIN J & ANA AMATO 20338 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-012 CHEE & CHIE CHENG 20330 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-013 CHI-TAO YUAN 20322 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-014 RICK N CHEN 20314 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-015 JOHN A & IRENE PHELAN 20306 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-016 ROBERT SWENNEY 20298 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-017 NICHOLAS A & MARSHA SHAIN 20290 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4316 393-07-018 VERDUN ROMER 20250 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4355 393-07-019 SHYU-LEE 20220 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4355 393-07-020 MOHAMMAD J HAIDER 20205 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-021 DIAN YANG 21703 CASTLETON ST CUPERTINO CA 95014 393-07-022 JEFFREY & JOANNE BOLDT 20231 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-023 TSENG OF CHANG 20247 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-024 CHEN-WANG 20263 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-025 DALE N & KAREN WALTER 20281 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-026 RONALD M & LINDA HAGELIN 20299 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-027 NANCY L MILLER 20317 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-028 PAUL J SONG PO BOX 70575 SUNNYVALE CA 94086-0575 393-07-029 JAMES B & MEGAN LENEY 20353 BLAUER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4305 393-07-032 WILLIAM R & LINDA MULLEN 12960 REGAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-4321 393-08-005 STEPHEN SIEGEL 20290 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-006 LEO & CARMEN LAWRENCE 20272 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-007 HARRY J & MELICENT SLESNICK 20254 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-008 PETER K & MARILYN THOMAS 20236 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-009 WIRENDRE A & JANE PERERA 20218 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 47 393-08-010 GEORGE M STERES 20200 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-011 JOSEPH P & LORETTA LYDEN 20184 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3854 393-08-012 RAJESH PAI 20168 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3854 393-08-018 WANG LI 20157 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4312 393-08-019 GALIVANCHE 20163 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4312 393-08-020 SHYAM R & KANCHAN TAGGARSI 20169 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4312 393-08-021 RICHARD W & DONNA NABBEFELD 20175 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4312 393-08-022 MICHAEL & ALLYSON MOORE 20181 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4312 393-08-023 WILLIAM W & PATRICIA CAMPBELL 20201 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4353 393-08-024 DEBRA W & HERSEL GUILARDI 20221 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4353 393-08-025 FRED & MARGARET BOYCE 20241 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4353 393-08-026 MING D CHIOU 20261 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4353 393-08-027 JAMES M & GRACE PAK 20281 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4353 393-08-028 ROBERT L & SUSAN MAY 20301 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4364 393-08-029 CHARLES & GENEVIEVE KUHN 98 ANDERSON FARM RD HANOVER MA 02339-1350 393-11-001 THOMAS ROBERTS 20230 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4302 393-11-002 BRENT & MABEL PLESSE 20220 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4302 393-11-003 JOSEPH A & JOAN LADOUCEUR 20210 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4302 393-11-004 ANTHONY & ALICE CHU 20200 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4302 393-11-005 BRIAN K & CHERYL SPANG 20190 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4302 393-11-006 FRANK & JEANETTE HISCOX 20180 ARGONAUT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4302 393-11-007 CLARENCE H & DORA PAHL 20160 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4354 393-11-008 KWANG LEE 20150 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4354 393-11-009 SUN OF YANG 12895 WOODMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3844 393-11-010 JASEN C & KRISTIN MACKENZIE 12901 WOODMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3844 393-11-011 KENNETH D & SHARON TSUKAHARA 12905 WOODMONT DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3844 393-11-020 STEVE I CHIOU 20055 WINTER LN SARATOGA CA 95070-4361 393-11-021 MARIETTE R WILFERT 727 3RD AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118-3908 393-11-033 JON R & JODIE CRASE 20061 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4309 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Alex Lantsberg, Research Dept. 265 Hegenberger Rd., Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94621 48 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 49 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. Application No. ADR 08-0016 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Anna Loo and Robert Posadas; 14141 Palomino Way Deed Restricted Second Dwelling Unit and Lower Level Addition to Existing Single-Story Home WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to add a lower level addition and second dwelling unit to an existing single-story home at 14141 Palomino Way. The total floor area of the home will be 5,049 square feet. The lot is situated in the Hillside residential zoning district and is approximately 1.246 net acres in size; 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 to construct an addition to an existing single- family dwelling is Class 3 categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3. Article 19, Section 15303 (“State CEQA Guidelines”). Class 3 exemptions include the construction of a single- family residence in a residential zone. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in City Code Section 15-45.080 and the City’s Residential Design Handbook 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 proposal protects the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by retaining mature landscaping and substantial setbacks from neighboring properties and the street. The project maintains a significant setback from Pierce Road and a single- story façade along Palomino Way. Furthermore, the addition is heavily screened by landscaping along the rear and sides of the property. 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 project is compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings as detailed in the following Design Review Findings. Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project will not unreasonably interfere with the views or privacy of abutting neighbors. The design maintains the single- story façade at street level (Palomino Way), a 106 foot setback from Pierce Road, and a 108 foot setback from the rear property line. The addition sits lower than the existing home and is 50 Application ADR08-0016 14141 Palomino Way Anna Loo & Robert Posadas otherwise surrounded by significant landscaping along the rear and sides of the property, screening it from adjacent neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project preserves the natural landscape insofar as practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal. The project maintains the single-story façade at street level and most of the existing landscaping in keeping with the general appearance of the neighborhood. The applicant proposes approximately 35 cubic yards of cut and fill, to accommodate the lower-level addition; well below the City’s threshold of one-thousand cubic yards. The project has received geotechnical clearance and the applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project such as site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed project does not include removal of any Native and/or Heritage Trees. One (1) protected tree could potentially be affected by the project; however, as conditioned the project will preserve the tree by requiring tree protective fencing and a $5,000 tree protection bond. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing a new entry and bay windows to break up massing of the large wall expanse and reduce the perception of excessive bulk. The project will be painted a natural earth-toned color as conditioned in the resolution. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood and maintains the single-story façade at street level. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. The City Engineer will review building and grading plans prior to issuance of building permits to ensure geotechnical recommendations have been properly incorporated. (g) Design policies and techniques. The project conforms to City design policies by incorporating design techniques from the Residential Design Handbook. For example, the project maintains a single-story façade to fit with the existing neighborhood, uses architectural features to break up massing, and locates the addition at a lower level than the existing house to minimize impacts to views and privacy. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number ADR08-0016 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 51 Application ADR08-0016 14141 Palomino Way Anna Loo & Robert Posadas PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL 1. Deed Restriction: Secondary Dwelling Unit. The applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction limiting rental of the secondary dwelling unit to below market rate households prior to issuance of final Zoning Clearance. STANDARD CONDITONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2. The applicant shall designate an open parking space, in addition to the minimum two-car garage requirement, on the plans submitted for building construction. 3. The applicant shall upgrade the proposed metal garage door with a carriage-style wood door, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. The applicant shall use a natural earth-toned exterior color, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The proposed home shall be constructed, as conditioned, and as shown on Exhibit “A”, incorporated by reference. 6. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 7. Any changes to the approved plans must 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. 8. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. 9. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace shall be permitted. 10. No HVAC mechanical equipment shall be allowed between the lot line and any required front, side or rear setback line. 11. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 52 Application ADR08-0016 14141 Palomino Way Anna Loo & Robert Posadas 12. 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.” 13. Final landscape, irrigation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: Landscape plan 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. Where 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. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. 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. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 14. A storm water retention plan indicating how storm water will be retained on-site to the maximum extent feasible, and incorporating the New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 15. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. GEOTECHNICAL CLEARANCE 16. The design of the recommended temporary retaining wall adjacent to the existing residence shall be evaluated and approved by the geotechnical consultant. 17. The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for retaining structures and foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall 53 Application ADR08-0016 14141 Palomino Way Anna Loo & Robert Posadas be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of building permits. 18. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. 19. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 20. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. CITY ARBORIST 21. The planter around tree #1 and all fill soil around the tree shall be removed to expose the flare of the trunk where it meets the root system. This work shall be done by hand using shovels and a wheelbarrow. The planter shall be dismantled prior to installing tree protective fencing. 22. The owner shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $5,000 prior to obtaining building division permits. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. 23. Tree protective fencing shall be installed around Tree #1 and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures prior to issuance of City Permits. 24. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated May 23, 2008 shall be followed. FIRE DEPARTMENT 25. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 26. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City’s defense 54 Application ADR08-0016 14141 Palomino Way Anna Loo & Robert Posadas of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City’s action with respect to the applicant’s project. Section 2. Construction must commence within thirty-six (36) months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. 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, on the 27th day of August 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 or Authorized Agent Date 55 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: ADR 08-0016 – 14141 Palomino Way Type of Application: Design Review Owner: Anna Loo and Robert Posadas Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner Meeting Date: August 27, 2008 APN: 503-68-014 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 14141 Palomino Way 56 Page 2 of 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 04/25/08 Application complete: 07/21/08 Notice published: 08/12/08 Mailing completed: 08/04/08 Posting completed: 08/04/08 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a lower level addition to an existing single-story home. The existing home is 19.5 feet high with 3,078 square-feet of floor area including a detached garage. The proposed home will include 5,049 square-feet of floor area. The design will maintain the single-story façade at street level by building a new 874 square-foot lower-level addition behind the garage. The project also adds 966 square-feet to the ground level and 131 square-feet to the existing garage by attaching it to the existing home. The design includes a deed restricted second dwelling unit, a new front entry porch, new bay windows, and a new driveway. The plans include demolition of approximately 29% of the existing exterior walls and approximately 70 cubic-yards of cut and fill to accommodate the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is recommending one (1) permanent condition of approval requiring the applicant to record a deed restriction limiting rental of the secondary dwelling unit to below market rate households prior to issuance of final Zoning Clearance. . 57 Application No. ADR 08-0016; 14141 Palomino Way Page 3 of 9 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Hillside Residential G ENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: Gross: 1.446 acres; Net: 1.246 acres SLOPE: Approximately 32.7% average site slope and 20% at building site GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNATION: Sex and Pd GRADING REQUIRED: Approximately 35 cubic-yards of cut and 35 cubic-yards of fill ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed addition to the existing single-family residence is Class 3 categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3. Article 19, Section 15303 (“State CEQA Guidelines”). Class 3 exemptions include the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Materials and colors include pale daffodil exterior with swiss coffee trim, rosewood blend concrete roof, and new steel garage door. A colors and materials board is available on file with the Community Development Department and will be presented at the site visit and public hearing. Detail Colors and Material Mfg. & Specification # Windows White vinyl frame Milgard Front Door existing to remain Garage Door White; Steel Amarr Heritage Collection Roof Rosewood Blend; Concrete Brookside Exterior Pale Daffodil Kelly Moore #370A-2 Trim Swiss Coffee Kelley Moore #23 58 Application No. ADR 08-0016; 14141 Palomino Way Page 4 of 9 PROJECT DATA: Hillside Residential Zoning Net Area: 1.246 acres (54,276 SF) Proposed Required Floor Area Maximum Floor Area ( - 60% slope reduction) = 4,596 SF (+10% density bonus) = 5,055 SF Existing First Floor Area: 2,393 SF Existing Lower Floor Area: 253 SF Existing Garage Area: 432 SF New First Floor Area: 966 SF New Lower Floor Area: 874 SF New Garage Area: 131SF TOTAL Floor Area (+1971) 5,049 SF Site Coverage Maximum Coverage (15,000 SF or 25% Net whichever is less) = 13,569 SF (+10% density bonus) = 18,996 SF Residence (+966) 3,359 SF Garage (+131) 563 SF Deck around home: (+74) 1,320 SF Front Yard Paving: (+0) 700 SF Rear Yard Paving: (+0) 1,000 SF Pool/Deck: (+0) 2,160 SF TOTAL Site Coverage (+1,171) 9,102 SF (16.8%) Setbacks Front: 31 Feet 30 Feet Rear: 108 Feet 50 Feet Left Side: 106 Feet 20 Feet Right Side: 30 Feet, 6 Inches 20 Feet Height Maximum Height = 26 Feet Lowest Elevation Point: 92.0 Highest Elevation Point: 99.8 Average Elevation Point: 95.9 Vertical distance to topmost roof point from avg. elevation point 19 Feet, 6 Inches 59 Application No. ADR 08-0016; 14141 Palomino Way Page 5 of 9 PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(2) due to the addition of a new lower level floor; converting the home to a multi-story structure. The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a lower level addition to an existing single-story home. The existing home is 19.5 feet high with 3,078 square feet of floor area including a detached garage. The total floor area of the proposed design is 5,049 square feet. The plans include demolition of approximately 29% of the existing exterior walls, the addition of a new lower level floor, additional square footage on the ground level, and expansion of the existing garage by attaching it to the residence. The new lower level floor will include 874 square-feet of floor area. The project will also add 966 square-feet to the existing ground level floor and 131 square-feet to the existing garage. The design includes a second dwelling unit, a new front entry porch, new bay windows, and a new driveway. The net lot size is approximately 54,276 square-feet and the site is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. No trees are proposed for removal. One (1) Coast Live Oak Tree is potentially impacted by construction and will be protected by tree protective fencing. A $5,000 tree protection bond was posted by the applicant. Architectural Style The existing home was built in the 1960s and reflects the Minimal Traditional style with its dominant front gable, large chimney, and low-pitched roof. Staff has recommended that the applicant use a more natural earth-tone exterior color and upgrade the proposed metal garage door to a carriage-style wood garage door. Staff also feels the proposed bay windows on the façade are out of proportion with the rest of the structure. Staff has discussed these issues with the owner and architect. The applicant is open to recommended changes and may bring alternatives to the meeting. Staff has included these recommendations as conditions of approval. Trees An Arborist Report (ARB 08-0029) was prepared for this project on May 23, 2008 and is included in the plan submittal. No trees are proposed for removal. One (1) Coast Live Oak Tree is potentially impacted by construction and will be protected by tree protective fencing. A $5,000 tree protection bond was posted by the applicant. Geotechnical Clearance Geotechnical Clearance (GEO08-0006) was granted with conditions for the project. The Geologic Investigation and Report, prepared by Gilpin Geosciences Inc on November 21 2007, was reviewed by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and Engineer. 60 Application No. ADR 08-0016; 14141 Palomino Way Page 6 of 9 Energy Efficiency The project replaces existing windows with double paned glass for added energy efficiency. Staff recommended that the applicant incorporate additional energy efficient materials and techniques. However, as of the writing of this report, the architect has not provided additional energy efficient materials or techniques. Secondary Unit The design includes a kitchen on the lower level; qualifying it as a second dwelling unit. The applicant has filed a Declaration of Restriction with Santa Clara County to assure that any rental of said unit will be to households that qualify as low or very-low income households. The applicant is respectively asking for a parking-garage waiver and a one-time ten percent (10%) increase in allowable floor area as allowed per Municipal Code Section 15-56.030 when the second dwelling unit is deed restricted. As a condition of approval, the owner shall record a deed restriction limiting rental of the secondary dwelling unit to below market rate households prior to issuance of final Zoning Clearance. The City Code has specific requirements for second dwelling units. The project meets these requirements as described below: · Lot size. The net site area of the lot shall not be less than the minimum standard prescribed for the district. The minimum lot size for the Hillside Residential is two (2) net acres. The net lot size for this property, after the slope reduction, is 1.25 acres. However, the code exempts lots created before April 25, 1978 from the minimum lot size requirement and the City Surveyor has determined that this lot was created before that date. · Unit size. The second dwelling unit shall be at least four hundred square feet and shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet of living space. The second dwelling unit is 874 square-feet and therefore meets this requirement. · Building codes. The second dwelling unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. As conditioned, the second unit will meet required applicable building, health and fire codes. · Zoning regulations. The second dwelling unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, and height limits). The second unit as conditioned will comply with all applicable zoning regulations. · Parking. A minimum of one off-street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the second dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. The garage requirement may be waived if the second dwelling unit is deed restricted so that they may only be rented to below market rate households. If the garage requirement is waived, an open parking space must be 61 Application No. ADR 08-0016; 14141 Palomino Way Page 7 of 9 provided. The unit will be deed-restricted with one open parking space provided on site. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to designate an open parking space on the plans submitted for building construction. · Access. The second dwelling unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. The existing driveway will be replaced and designed to serve both the second unit and the main dwelling. · Common entrance. If the second dwelling unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second dwelling unit and the main dwelling must be served by either a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second dwelling unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. The second dwelling unit is attached to the main dwelling. The main dwelling and second dwelling unit are both accessed by the front door. · Limitations on number of bedrooms. A second dwelling unit may not have more than two bedrooms. The secondary dwelling unit has one bedroom and therefore meets this requirement. · Appearance. All new construction to create a second dwelling unit must match the existing main structure in color, materials and architectural design. The second dwelling unit matches the primary structure in overall appearance. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant obtained signed notification forms from the adjacent neighbors (attachment 2). Neighbors within a 500-foot radius were noticed for this public hearing and a notice was published in The Saratoga News on August 12th, 2008. As of the writing of this report, no negative comments have been received from the public. General Plan Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposal protects the rural atmosphere of Saratoga by retaining mature landscaping and substantial setbacks from neighboring properties and the street. The project maintains a significant setback from Pierce Road and a single-story façade along Palomino Way. Furthermore, the addition is heavily screened by landscaping along the rear and sides of the property. 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 project is compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings as detailed in the following Design Review Findings. 62 Application No. ADR 08-0016; 14141 Palomino Way Page 8 of 9 Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project will not unreasonably interfere with the views or privacy of abutting neighbors. The design maintains the single-story façade at street level (Palomino Way), a 106 foot setback from Pierce Road, and a 108 foot setback from the rear property line. The addition sits lower than the existing home and is otherwise surrounded by significant landscaping along the rear and sides of the property, screening it from adjacent neighbors. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The project preserves the natural landscape insofar as practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal. The project maintains the single-story façade at street level and most of the existing landscaping in keeping with the general appearance of the neighborhood. The applicant proposes approximately 35 cubic yards of cut and fill, to accommodate the lower-level addition; well below the City’s threshold of one-thousand cubic yards. The project has received geotechnical clearance and the applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall inspect and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project such as site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed project does not include removal of any Native and/or Heritage Trees. One (1) protected tree could potentially be affected by the project; however, as conditioned the project will preserve the tree by requiring tree protective fencing and a $5,000 tree protection bond. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing a new entry and bay windows to break up massing of the large wall expanse and reduce the perception of excessive bulk. The project will be painted a natural earth-toned color as conditioned in the resolution. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The project is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood and maintains the single-story façade at street level. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The project is conditioned to conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control standards. The project is also conditioned to require detention of stormwater on site, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. The City Engineer will review building and grading plans prior to issuance of building permits to ensure geotechnical recommendations have been properly incorporated. (g) Design policies and techniques. The project conforms to City design policies by incorporating design techniques from the Residential Design Handbook. For example, the project maintains a single-story façade to fit with the existing neighborhood, uses 63 Application No. ADR 08-0016; 14141 Palomino Way Page 9 of 9 architectural features to break up massing, and locates the addition at a lower level than the existing house to minimize impacts to views and privacy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Design Review with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Neighbor Notification forms 3. Arborist Report by City Arborist, dated May 23, 2008 4. Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels, Affidavit of Mailing Notices 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A" 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 August 11, 2008 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 503-68-014 ROBERT POSADAS 14141 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5379 503-13-021 DAVIS & CHRISTY CHIU 21777 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9723 503-13-026 FRED L & MARIE CALKINS 21711 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9723 503-30-053,078 MARK P LENCIONI 14105 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5364 503-30-076 ANURADHA L MAITRA 14492 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5358 503-31-054 SHERMAN S & LILY FAN 14150 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727 503-31-055 FADI & NAWAL COTRAN 14158 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727 503-31-056 DARKO & VESNA SIMUNIC 14152 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727 503-31-057 ALBERTO SEVILLA 14142 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727 503-31-058 BARRIE ROSENBERG 14134 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727 503-31-059 JAMES CHENG 14128 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727 503-31-060 ASHWIN & DEEPA RANGAN 14170 TEERLINK WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-9734 503-31-077 TING LEE 21800 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9722 503-31-078 HEBER J TEERLINK 21810 MOUNT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9722 503-31-112 MAURILIO & SUSAN DE NICOLO 14171 TEERLINK WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-9735 503-31-113 DENICOLO FAMILY TRUST 14185 TEERLINK WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-9735 503-68-001 WILLIAM H & LINDA GIANNINI 21670 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5378 503-68-002 AZITA MAFI 14601 WEETH DR SAN JOSE CA 95124 503-68-003 RINA PIETERS 14178 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5378 503-68-004 MARIA J ILNICKA 14174 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5378 503-68-005 VINCENT N MORALES 14152 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5378 503-68-006 REMY & LILIANE CROMER 14120 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5378 503-68-007 CARMEN F TAM 14098 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5301 503-68-008 FELIX J & KATHERINE SCHUDA 14066 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5301 503-68-009 CZ TRUST 14034 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5301 75 503-68-010 EUN BRETTNER 14012 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5301 503-68-011 ALI & OMOLBANIN DJABBARI 14011 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5301 503-68-012 JAMES A & KATHLEEN CHRISTENSEN 14055 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5301 503-68-013 RONALD R & DAWNE ROSSI 14111 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5379 503-68-014 ROBERT POSADAS 14141 PALOMINO WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5379 503-68-015 M & SHANLI MIKE 14168 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5391 503-68-016 RICHARD H & SHARON KELKENBERG 14014 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5347 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Alex Lantsberg, Research Dept. 265 Hegenberger Rd., Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94621 CITY OF SARATOGA Attn: Cynthia McCormick 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 Advanced Listing Services P.O. Box 2593 Dana Point CA 92624 76 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 11th day of August , 2008, that I deposited 34 Notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 503-68-014 Address: 14141 Palomino Way that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. 77 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 Cynthia McCormick Assistant Planner cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us (408) 868-1230 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 27th day of August 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 above address Monday through Thursday (and every other Friday) 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. APPLICATION #: ADR08-0016 ADDRESS/APN: 14141 PALOMINO WAY / 503-68-014 APPLICANT/OWNER: ANNA LOO & ROBERT POSADAS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a lower level addition to an existing single-story home. The project will add 770 square feet to the existing ground level floor, 125 square feet to the existing garage, and 646 square feet to a new lower level floor. The total floor area of the home will be 4,592 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 54,276 square-feet and the site is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(2). All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be filed no later than Monday, August 18th, 2008. A site visit will be held on the day preceding the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit Committee agenda. Site visits occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. The Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please contact the Community Development Department at 408 868-1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. 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. 78 79 80 81 82