HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-2008 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 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:
Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 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 October 2, 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 #CUP08-0009 (503-68-007) – MILLER, 14098 PALOMINO WAY - The applicant
requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a generator to provide an emergency
backup power supply for an existing single-family residence. The generator is to be located adjacent to the
north side of the residence on an existing concrete patio. The generator will be surrounded by a wood
enclosure that would screen the generator from view as well as provide noise reduction. The lot is 54,075
gross square feet in size and is zoned R-1-40,000. (Christopher Riordan)
2. APPLICATION #PDR07-0008 (389-25-012) – BRENNAN, 18605 LYONS COURT - The applicant
requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single story residence. The proposal
includes an approximately 594 square foot second-story addition, and a 251 square foot first floor addition
to the existing 2,189 square foot residence (including garage). The total proposed floor area would be
approximately 3,034 square feet (including garage). The maximum height of the proposed building will not
1
exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 60% of
the net site area. The lot size is approximately 8,150 square feet, located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district.
Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060 (Heather
Bradley)
DIRECTORS ITEM:
COMMISSION ITEMS:
COMMUNICATIONS:
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING:
- Wednesday, October 22, 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 October 2,
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, September 24, 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, Rodgers and Zhao
Absent: Commissioner Nagpal
Staff: Director John Livingstone, Public Works Director John Cherbone, Associate
Planner Shweta Bhatt, Contract Planner Heather Bradley and Planning Intern
Rina Shah
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of September 10, 2008.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of
September 10, 2008, were adopted. (6-0-1; Commissioner Nagpal was
absent)
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 September 18, 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 September 24, 2008 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #GPA08-0002 (City Wide): The proposed general plan amendment would
update the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element on the City of Saratoga General Plan to
reflect recent findings concerning bicycle safety by removing the bike route classification from
Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road and Big Basin Way in Saratoga. (John Cherbone/Richard
Taylor)
Mr. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented the staff report as follows:
· Reported that Council had asked staff to review the bike route plan to see if there were
deficiencies.
· Said that in the light of heavy traffic on Pierce, Mount Eden and Big Basin Way, it was
recommended that the City amend its Circulation Element and remove those streets as
bicycle routes.
· Added that this does not mean that bicycle riders would not be allowed to use those
roads/routes but that the City would not be advocating them as a preferred bike route.
· Continued to say that this also does not mean they might not be added back. At this time
these streets are low on the priority-funding list. These projects are so far out into the
future, if ever, due to prohibitive cost of environmental review as well as need for the
widening of roads to be prudent.
· Said that it is better that they are struck from the Circulation Element at this time.
Director John Livingstone pointed out that a letter from Murray Hartman has been provided
this evening.
Commissioner Rodgers mentioned that that the area between Big Basin Way and Pierce
Road and between Congress Spring Road is just as dangerous although not a City road.
PW Director John Cherbone said that this was an oversight when the Element was developed.
The State of California dictates what is right and/or available for their corridor. That is another
reason to remove them.
Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a General
Plan Amendment to update the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
of the City of Saratoga General Plan to remove the bike route classification
4
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 3
from Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road and Big Basin Way in Saratoga, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Nagpal
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #PDR 08-0020 (397-20-096) DENNERLINE, 14781 Farwell Avenue: The
applicant requests Design Review approval to add a 1,559 square foot single-story addition
(including garage) to the existing single-story residence. The proposal includes conversion of
an approximately 900 square foot garage to a second living unit/guest house. The total
proposed floor area would be approximately 6,214 square feet (including garage). The
maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The
maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 35 percent of the net site area.
The lot size is approximately 65,247 net square feet, located in the R-1-40,000 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 the applicant seeks Design Review approval to remodel an existing house
and build a single-story addition of approximately 1,560 square feet including a garage,
bedroom, laundry and mudroom addition and a basement under the garage.
· Described the property as consisting of 1.5 acres located near Highway 9.
· Explained that Wildcat Creek bisects the property and a bridge provides access to an
existing detached garage. This garage is proposed to be converted into a guesthouse with
exercise room. The exterior would be remodeled to match the main residence. The
proposed guesthouse will technically meet the standards for a secondary dwelling unit and
the applicant has the option to record a deed restriction on the unit if they choose.
· Said that no trees are proposed for removal.
· Stated that all required Design Review findings can be made to support this application.
· Recommended that the Planning Commission approve this Design Review application.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the turnaround material is pervious.
Planner Heather Bradley said that a portion is made of pavers set in sand including within the
drip line of some of the larger trees.
Chair Cappello asked if there is a new resolution.
Planner Heather Bradley:
· Said that the City Attorney has made some corrections that are minor not substantive.
· Added that the changes are marked on the new copy.
Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
5
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 4
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic, Project Designer:
· Said that they have created the turnaround on the east side of the creek and added a four-
car garage to replace the existing garage that would now become a secondary dwelling
unit.
Chair Cappello asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic if her client supports recording a deed restriction
liming the guesthouse as a low-income unit if it were ever to be rented.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the owner is considering such a deed restriction without
changing the project design or taking advantage of the allowance for additional square
footage.
Chair Cappello asked if her client would find it acceptable to have this requirement
conditioned in the resolution for approval.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said it would be acceptable. She distributed a material sample.
Commissioner Hlava said that with the conversion of the detached garage into a secondary
dwelling unit there would probably no longer be cars crossing the bridge. She asked if the
turnaround was asphalt or pavers.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that they are all pavers set in sand to satisfy the arborist’s concern
around the oak.
Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic what is the architectural style of this
house. Is it Spanish? Contemporary?
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that it was Mid-Century Modern originally. This home now has Old
World Style with elements of Tuscan design although not a literal interpretation.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed to a discrepancy between the plan sheets A-2 and A-5. One
has a door and two windows and the other has three windows on the same portion of the
house.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said the three windows as depicted on the floor plan are correct.
Commissioner Rodgers said that this correction needs to be made to sheet A-5.
Commissioner Hlava asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic to point out where the front door would be in
relation to the windows in front.
Commissioner Zhao asked what type of screening shrubs are proposed.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic replied that the landscape architect is working on that but they anticipate
evergreen native shrubs with a maximum six-foot high fence as allowed by Code.
6
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 5
Commissioner Rodgers suggested to Ms. Cindy Brozicevic that they consult with the Water
District and cautioned that the Fence Ordinance is subject to change soon.
Ms. Barbara Sussman, Resident on Bella Vista:
· Advised that her home is just across the creek from the main house. It is the closest
property to this site. During the site visit, the Commission saw how close it is to her
property.
· Added that the portion of this project on the Farwell side is of no concern.
· Said that she believes owners should be able to enjoy their homes as long as they don’t
infringe on others.
· Expressed concern about the conversion of the detached garage into a second dwelling
unit.
· Distributed a photograph of recently cut back landscaping that includes redwoods.
· Reported that the former owner of this property together with her father planted 11
redwood trees. Her dad paid for the trees and bushes.
· Stated that the current detached garage was constructed with her father’s approval in a
hearing process much like tonight’s.
· Said that it appears that it is desirable to the Commissioners to designate this proposed
secondary dwelling unit as an affordable unit.
· Added that the Dennerlines have said that it is only to be used by a nanny, family and
guests and she believes them.
· Asked that restrictions be imposed on future tenancy.
Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Barbara Sussman where she would like to see the fence
located along the length of the garage. Is it at the property line?
Ms. Barbara Sussman said that she proposes installation of a living willow fence. She also
stressed the need for one visibility fence as to be without it would be dangerous.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if she is asking for a higher fence.
Ms. Barbara Sussman said she wants it to run the length of the building and that it be high
enough to hide the structure behind it.
Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Barbara Sussman what she is proposing for noise mitigation.
Ms. Barbara Sussman:
· Replied trees and shrubs.
· Added that the use pattern of the structure will be the noise originator, including activity
and lights.
· Suggested that the front door should be facing forward to the main house on the
Dennerline property.
· Said that right now she is not sure where the front door is proposed.
Ms. Deborah Brady, Resident on Farwell Avenue:
· Said that she is the neighbor on the left side.
7
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 6
· Reported that she is blindsided by this project and received no notification.
· Said that she had been told of plans for an exercise room and kitchen remodel and is
shocked by the extent of this addition/remodel.
· Stated that she is surprised that they are not building on the north side of their property
where it is flat. They are required to cut into the slope as proposed.
· Explained that her house, which is on piers, is only five feet from this slope and she is
concerned that cutting into the slope would create instability and slippage.
· Said that excavation and cutting into the slope would occur right near her property and
advised that Tree #8 is on her property line.
· Stated that she does not understand what engineering will be done and requested that the
necessary engineering be done by a licensed civil engineer with sufficient protections so
the slope won’t come down and damage her property.
· Pointed out that the bore test was done in August in a very dry year.
· Advised that a sump pump will be necessary for the basement likely in use for much of the
year.
· Said that this addition is visually intrusive and crowded up to her property.
· Said she joins in the comments made by her neighbor Ms. Barbara Sussman.
Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Deborah Brady if she has experience with hillside slippage.
Ms. Deborah Brady said she has 53 years of experience with her property but it has never
before been cut into or disrupted.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic:
· Advised that a geotechnical report has been prepared for the basement excavation work.
· Added that the amount of hillside area with retaining wall is quite low.
· Said that it is not unusual for a soils report to be done in summer. Borings are done all
year long.
Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that Ms. Sussman’s request is that the front door faces the
main residence.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic explained that the exercise room has one door facing the Sussman
property but the front door faces the Dennerline main residence.
Commissioner Rodgers:
· Asked about the use of the sump pump and where and how the water is drained.
· Inquired if any drainage would be directed at the bottom of the hillside.
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic:
· Said that there would be a perimeter drainage system.
· Assured that the sump pump is very quiet and makes no noise when running.
· Stated that the drainage on site is tied into the perimeter drainage system.
· Added that bioswales work very well.
8
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 7
Commissioner Zhao asked for clarification regarding the door and windows on the front
elevation, including a double door. Which is the main front door?
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the main entrance is the double door on the creek side.
Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if there has been a hydrologist report on the bioswales.
Planner Heather Bradley replied that the information is included in the geotechnical report.
She said that perforated pipe would be used to funnel water into the drainage system. She
added that plan sheet A-6-1 shows the amount of cut into the hillside as approximately two
feet.
Commissioner Rodgers:
· Reported that she has a couple of observations.
· Informed that she likes to recognize architecturally significant structures in Saratoga.
· Stated that this is a lovely home albeit 60 years old. It is time for updating.
· Said that the style is not a unified style but that’s not a criterion for review.
· Opined that the roof in front seems bulky to her but she can probably live with that.
· Said she can make the findings.
Chair Cappello said that there is still the question of the deed restriction. He added that the
mitigation of the noise concern must be decided including whether a landscape plan or fence
is preferred.
Commissioner Rodgers said that the deed restriction on the secondary dwelling unit is not
required as the applicant is not seeking the bonus square footage.
Chair Cappello said that it still should be included in the resolution as a permanent condition
of approval. He asked if other members of the Commission support that or prefer that it not
be required.
Commissioner Rodgers:
· Said that it is up to the applicant. If they are willing, she supports that condition.
· Suggested phrasing the fence condition to read “to a height permitted” to take into
consideration the proposed changes to the Fence Ordinance.
· Said that a new opaque gate should be installed across the intersection of the two
driveways.
· Stated that greenery or latticework between two properties as options to the satisfaction of
the adjacent neighbor to mitigate any noise and views impacts.
Commissioner Hlava:
· Said that if the applicant were willing she too would like to see the deed restriction for this
second unit.
9
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 8
· Said that she reviewed Ms. Sussman’s letter in which she raised a concern over the
possibility of a lot split in the future separating this second unit from the main lot.
· Assured Ms. Sussman that this second unit would never become a separate parcel.
· Reminded that the second dwelling unit is the exact same building as exists today.
· Stated her support for fence and plantings to the extent possible.
· Suggested that it might actually be quieter with the conversion of the garage into a second
unit. There would be no more cars coming back there.
Commissioner Zhao agreed. She added that she does not see the language about the fence.
Chair Cappello said it is Item 4 under Community Development.
Commissioner Zhao asked if this would run all the way to the creek.
Chair Cappello said that it does not require it to go all the way to the creek but rather just the
area near the neighbor’s meditation area, which is located near the existing garage.
Commissioner Zhao said that she could make all the findings to support this project and
agrees on the concept of the deed restriction on the second unit if the applicant is willing.
Commissioner Kundtz:
· Said that he too can support this project.
· Said that the issues raised by Ms. Sussman have been addressed or accommodated.
· Added that his only concern with the property is the road coming in to it.
· Stated he could support this request.
Commissioner Kumar said that he could make all findings including geotechnical aspects and
noise and privacy mitigations handled through fencing and plantings.
Chair Cappello said he too can make the findings and asked staff if there is language in the
draft resolution relating to the deed restriction.
Planner Heather Bradley:
· Replied yes.
· Read the added text, “Applicant shall have a deed restriction recorded and shall provide
documentation to the City of that recordation.”
· Also recommended change to Condition 4 regarding fencing to move this as a permanent
condition of approval and add language “subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Director and installed prior to final building permit.”
Director John Livingstone said that he could work with the neighbors and Water District to
come up with a landscaping/fencing solution.
Commissioner Rodgers:
· Suggested adding the word “then” current City Code regulations.
· Added that the City Attorney has standard language regarding geotechnical standards.
10
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 9
· Suggested amendments to Paragraphs 29 and 30 to read, “The plan shall be reviewed
and shall be subject to approval by the project geotechnical consultant.”
· Said that this edit should be confirmed with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Kumar said that placing a deed restriction on this second unit simply reduces
the City’s requirement for affordable units by just one unit.
Chair Cappello replied that one climbs Mt. Everest one step at a time.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao,
the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application
#PDR 08-0020) to add a 1,559 square foot single-story addition (including
garage) to the existing single-story residence and the conversion of an
approximately 900 square foot garage into a second living unit/guest
house on property located at 14781 Farwell Avenue, with the following
amendments:
· Make Condition #4 a permanent condition of approval;
· Change the language regarding the fence approval by the Community
Development Director under “then” City Fence Ordinance regulations;
· Change Paragraphs 29 and 30 to read that, “The plan shall be reviewed
and shall be subject to approval by the project geotechnical
consultant;”
· Add a condition of approval that the applicant shall record a deed
restriction for the second dwelling unit as a below market rate unit in
the event it is ever rented; by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Nagpal
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #PDR08-0027 (393-40-015) PRADHAN, 20295 Franklin Avenue: The
applicant requests Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing home located
at 20295 Franklin Avenue. The proposed structure will be approximately 3,494 square feet
and will be less than 26 feet tall. The gross lot size is 11,882 square feet and the site is zoned
R-1-10,000. Exterior colors and materials consist of neutral color stucco and brick accent and
composition shingle roof material. Design Review is required pursuant to City Code section
15-45.060. (Rina Shah)
Ms. Rina Shah, Planning Intern, presented the staff report as follows:
· Reported that the applicant has submitted a request for the remodel and addition for an
existing single-family residence.
· Described the additions as being located to the rear and sides of the existing home with a
new porch at the front.
11
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 10
· Added that the maximum height would be 19 feet. Materials include neutral colored
stucco, carriage style doors and a composition roof shingle.
· Distributed a material sample board.
· Advised that several neighbor templates have been submitted, mostly in favor.
· Added that one additional comment was provided that was received via email regarding
height and included in the packet.
· Said that one Ordinance tree would be removed. The arborist reviewed four trees. One
will be relocated and two others protected.
· Said that the home is well designed and constructed of high quality materials.
· Stated that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
· Informed that there is a minimized perception of bulk and height and said that staff is
recommending approval.
· Added text to the conditions of approval to read, “The interior dimensions of the garage
shall be a minimum of 19 feet wide and 18 feet deep.” The 19-foot depth is required by
Code.
Commissioner Rodgers asked about the impact of this change on setbacks.
Director John Livingstone advised that minor alterations would have to be made to the site
plan to meet the setbacks. The space would come out of the pantry. He added that the plans
tonight are not accurate but corrected plans have already been prepared.
Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Dan Winklebleck, Project Architect:
· Said that modified plans to show the garage at the appropriate width and depth are on file
in the Planning Department.
· Stated that the overall height of the building is about context. The existing roof pitch is 5
and 12. It made more sense to maintain that pitch which made the maximum height about
11 inches taller than the normal height limitation that could be approved administratively.
· Said that this remodeled home is in context with the surrounding homes.
· Explained that the lot slopes slightly to the back.
· Said that the house has a nice design that is in context with the overall neighborhood.
Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Rodgers said that the architect made the right decision to keep the roof pitch
the same. She added that she could make the findings for approval.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kumar, seconded by Commissioner Hlava,
the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application
#PDR08-0027) to substantially remodel the existing home located at 20295
Franklin Avenue, as amended, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Nagpal
12
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 11
ABSTAIN: None
Director John Livingstone thanked Planning Intern Rina Shah for her work on this first project.
He explained that she is an unpaid volunteer intern who is already an architect and is currently
in the Masters Program at San Jose State University.
***
Commissioner Zhao recused herself for the next item due to her husband’s professional
affiliation with the property owner. She left the dais and chambers for the duration of this item.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4
APPLICATION #MOD08-0003 (397-18-071) THAKUR, 14900 Baranga Lane: The applicant
requests Modification of Approved Plans (Application #MOD08-0003) to remove an existing
tree near the eastern boundary of the subject property located at 14900 Baranga Lane.
Changes to the topography will be made. The gross lot size is 55,757 square feet and the site
is zoned R-1-40,000. (Shweta Bhatt)
Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Reported that the applicant is seeking approval for the modification of approved plans for a
new home that was approved by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2008.
· Explained that a discrepancy was found between the grading and drainage plan and the
site plans.
· Advised that an existing retaining wall was to be retained. At this time the removal of said
retaining wall is requested as well as the removal of a Eucalyptus tree that is to be
replaced with an Oak tree. This has the support of the neighbors.
· Said that no additional feedback has been provided.
· Added that the item is Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
· Recommended approval.
Commissioner Kumar asked if there is an arborist report on the tree removal.
Planner Shweta Bhatt replied yes.
Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Mr. Thakur, Applicant and Property Owner:
· Said that access to the backyard would be improved somewhat with these modifications.
· Said that the tree to be removed is not in the best of health. It was ranked at 40 percent by
the arborist.
· Stated that he feels this is a stronger project that is better served with a 48-inch box native
oak and his neighbor supports this.
Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Commissioner Rodgers said that she is always happy to rely on the recommendation of the
City’s Arborist and is glad the City has one on staff.
13
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 12
Chair Cappello agreed.
Planner Shweta Bhatt suggested modifying Condition 9 to add the language, “…to the
maximum extent reasonably feasible” and “An explanatory note shall be added on the plans
and subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.”
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted a Modification of Approved
Plans (Application #MOD08-0003) to remove an existing tree near the
eastern property line and removal of a retaining wall on property located at
14900 Baranga Lane, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz and Rodgers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Nagpal
ABSTAIN: Zhao
***
Chair Cappello advised that this is the last meeting for Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt. He
said that she has been a tremendous asset to this organization and handled many difficult
projects.
Commissioner Kundtz wished Planner Shweta Bhatt good luck.
Commissioner Hlava said that she would be missed.
Commissioner Rodgers agreed.
Commissioner Hlava said that Shweta would be working closer to home in her new job.
Planner Shweta Bhatt said that it has been nice working with a dedicated and smart
Commission. She thanked them very much.
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
There were no Director’s Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Rodgers asked when the Study Session on the Fence Ordinance would take
place.
Chair Cappello replied October 7th.
COMMUNICATIONS
14
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 13
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kumar, Chair Cappello
adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:22 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
15
REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Application No./Location: CUP08-0009/14098 Palomino Way
Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit for the installation of an
Emergency Generator for a Single Family Home
Applicant/Owner: Gerald K. Miller
Staff Planner: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner______
Date: October 4, 2008
APN: 503-68-007 Department Head: __________
John Livingstone, AICP, Director
14098 Palomino Way
16
Application No. CUP08-0009/14098 Palomino Way
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT HISTORY:
Application filed: 07/07/08
Application complete: 09/10/08
Notice published: 09/24/08
Mailing completed: 09/19/08
Posting completed: 10/02/08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a generator to provide
emergency backup power supply for an existing two-story single-family residence located at
14098 Palomino Way. The generator would be installed adjacent to the north exterior wall of
the residence, located on an existing concrete foundation, and surrounded by a concrete and
wood enclosure that screens the generator from view as well as provides required noise
attenuation. The lot size is 54,075 gross square feet and is zoned R-1-40,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit Application
to install an emergency power generator with required findings and conditions by adopting the
attached Resolution.
17
Application No. CUP08-0009/14098 Palomino Way
3
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Very Low Density Single-Family)
M EASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 54,075 gross square feet
PROJECT DATA:
Regulation Proposal Code Requirements
Setback · 55 feet from the north
(side) property line
· 258 feet from the east
(rear) property line
· 96 feet from the south
(side) property line
· 92 feet from the west
(front) property line
Generator must be located outside of all
setback areas.
Front / 30 feet
Side / 20 feet
Rear / 50 feet
Noise Level Maximum 48.5 dBA at the
property lines
Daytime (7:00 AM - 7:00 PM) - 60 dBA
Evening (7:00 PM – 10:00 PM) -50 dBA
Nighttime (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM) - 45 dBA
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the
Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited small
new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND SITE CHARACTERISRTICS
This application for a Conditional Use Permit is for the proposed installation of a natural gas
powered generator to provide emergency backup power for an existing two-story single-family
residence. The generator and enclosure would be installed on a concrete pad located adjacent
to the north exterior wall of the existing residence under an existing second story wood deck.
An approximately 7’-6” foot tall concrete and wooden enclosure would be constructed around
the generator for the aesthetic benefit of shielding the appearance of the generator as viewed
from both on and off site as well as reducing the noise emitted by the generator during
operation. The color of the horizontal wood siding used for the exterior of the enclosure would
match the siding of the residence. The area between the top of the wood enclosure and the
bottom of the second story deck would be covered with decorative wood lattice. Access to
the generator would be provided by a gate on the west side of the wood enclosure.
The generator would be operated during the daytime for testing purposes no more than once
per month. No evening or nighttime generator use would occur under non-emergency
circumstances. This testing will not exceed six (6) hours per year at a rate of 15-30 minutes per
18
Application No. CUP08-0009/14098 Palomino Way
4
month.
Section 7-30 of the Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) (Noise Ordinance) limits the residential
daytime maximum decibel level (dBA) for all outdoor uses to 60 dBA. Daytime is defined as
the 12 hour period between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.
Based on the Noise Assessment Study (Attachment 2) submitted by the applicant, the
noise produced by the generator while inside its wooden and concrete enclosure would
not exceed 48.5 dBA, as measured along the north property line.
The intended purpose of emergency generators is to provide temporary emergency power
during those periods of electrical power disruption which can occur both during the day and at
night. Per SMC Section 7-30.030(a), the noise emitted from emergency power generators may
exceed the noise limits listed in the Noise Ordinance (the evening and night limits) when they
are operated during emergencies to provide power that will preserve, protect, or save lives or
property from imminent danger, loss, or harm.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant has shown the project plans to neighbors as indicated in the attached Neighbor
Notification Forms (Attachment 4). No negative comments have been received at the time of
the writing of this Staff Report.
Use Permit Findings
The proposed project is consistent with the following findings stated in SMC Section 15-
55.070 necessary to grant Use Permit approval to install and operate an emergency power
generator.
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district. This
finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed emergency power
generator is a conditionally permitted use in the R-1-40,000 zone residential
district, the generator is located well outside all minimum setbacks, and the noise
emitted by the generator during its operation would not exceed the noise
thresholds for daytime use as specified in the Noise Ordinance.
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity: This finding may be made in the affirmative in
that the generator will meet requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, and
will be surrounded by a 7’-6” tall concrete and wooden enclosure that will
provide both visual screening and noise attenuation. Furthermore, the
generator will only be utilized for emergency purposes when there is an
electrical power outage. The generator is conditioned to meet all requirements
of the building department.
19
Application No. CUP08-0009/14098 Palomino Way
5
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this chapter: This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed emergency generator is a conditionally approved use within R-1-40,000
residential zone district and it has been determined that the project is in compliance
with all applicable development standards of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-
80 (Miscellaneous Regulations and Exceptions).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the Use Permit Findings can be made in the affirmative and that the
proposed emergency generator would not exceed the noise thresholds for daytime use as
listed in the Noise Ordinance and would conform to all of the standards and requirements
of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-80. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit with required findings
and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit.
2. Noise Assessment Study prepared by Lilac Acoustics, dated July 7, 2008.
3. Emergency generator manufacturer specifications submitted by the applicant.
4. Neighbor review letters.
5. Affidavit of mailing notices, public hearing notice, and copy of mailing labels
for project notification.
6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A."
20
RESOLUTION NO.
Application Number: CUP 08-0009
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Gerald K. Miller
14098 Palomino Way
APN 503-68-007
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
for a Conditional Use Permit to install an emergency power generator in association with a
single-family residence in the R-1-40,000 zone district. The net lot size is approximately
54,075 square feet; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15-80.030(k) states that any emergency power
generator located outside a required setback area may be permitted upon the granting of a
conditional use permit from the Planning Commission; 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 proposed project to install an emergency power generator is
categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section
15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies
to new construction of limited small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and
facilities in small structures; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Conditional Use Permit approval pursuant and the following findings
specified in SMC Section 15-55.070 have been made in the affirmative:
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district. This
finding may be made in the affirmative in that the proposed emergency power
generator is a conditionally permitted use in the R-1-40,000 residential zone
district, the generator is located well outside all minimum setbacks, and the noise
emitted by the generator during its operation would not exceed the noise
thresholds for daytime use as specified in the Noise Ordinance.
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity: This finding may be made in the affirmative in
that the generator will meet requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, and
will be surrounded by a 7’-6” tall concrete and wooden enclosure that will
provide both visual screening and noise attenuation. Furthermore, the
generator will only be utilized for emergency purposes when there is an
21
Application No. CUP08-0009/14098 Palomino Way
2
electrical power outage. The generator is also conditioned to meet all
requirements of the building department.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this chapter: This finding may be made in the affirmative in that
the proposed emergency generator is a conditionally approved use within R-1-
40,000 residential zone district and it has been determined that the project is in
compliance with all applicable development standards of Saratoga Municipal
Code Section 15-80 (Miscellaneous Regulations and Exceptions).
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, the application for Conditional
Use Permit approval are hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL –
1. The generator is shall only be used for providing emergency power during power
outages. The operation of the emergency generator shall at all times be subject to
Saratoga Municipal Code Section 7-30 (Noise Ordinance). Monthly testing of the
generator to ensure it is in working order shall not exceed six (6) hours per year at a rate
of 15-30 minutes per month and shall only occur during the daytime hours from
10:00A.M. – 7:00P.M.
STANDARD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS –
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" dated
September 10, 2008, incorporated by reference. The color and materials of the enclosure
shall match those of the existing residence. All changes to the approved plans must be
submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community
Development Director’s approval.
3. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building
Division for the building plan check review process:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page.
4. All recommendations contained in the Noise Study prepared by Lilac Acoustics dated
July 7, 2008, shall be followed. Prior to building permit final, the acoustic engineers
shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director certifying that the noise
emitted from the emergency power generator conforms to the noise ordinance.
22
Application No. CUP08-0009/14098 Palomino Way
3
CITY ATTORNEY
5. Owner and Applicant agree 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 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. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36
months from the date of adoption of this Resolution 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 8th day of October 2008 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
N OES:
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
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. & Location: PDR 07-0008; 18605 Lyons Court
Type of Application: Design Review to add a second story to an existing one-story
residence
Applicant/Owner: Brennan
Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner
Meeting Date: October 8, 2008
APN: 389-25-012 Department Head:_____________
John F. Livingstone, AICP
18605 Lyons Court
44
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 08/08/07
Application complete: 04/01/08
1st Study Session: 06/10/08
2nd Study Session: 07/22/08
3rd Study Session: 08/26/08
Notice published: 09/24/08
Mailing completed: 09/16/08
Posting completed: 10/02/08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing
single story residence. The proposal includes an approximately 587 square foot second-
story addition, and a 260 square foot first floor addition to the existing 2,189 square foot
residence (including garage). The total proposed floor area would be approximately 3,036
square feet (including garage). The maximum height of the proposed building will not
exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the
allowable 60% of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 8,150 square feet,
located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to
Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this design review application
by adopting the attached Resolution. Staff is not recommending any permanent
conditions of approval for this project.
45
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: R-1-10,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-10 (Medium Density Residential)
MEASURE G: Not applicable.
PARCEL SIZE: 8,150 square feet
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: <1%
GRADING REQUIRED: Minimal foundation work only
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed new single-family residence is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for the construction or conversion
of up to three single-family dwellings.
PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS
The proposed colors include light beige painted horizontal wood siding on the exterior
walls with dark rust-red color paint for gutters and trim and an olive green color for the
column and bracket accents. Materials include horizontal wood siding, ledgestone veneer
wainscoting, and a composition roof in a dark brown palette, wood carriage style garage
doors and an all-wood front door both in a natural finish. A color and material board will
be available at the public hearing.
46
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
PROJECT INFORMATION TABLE
Proposal Code Requirements
Site Coverage Residence
Driveway
Patio/Walkways
Pool
TOTAL
2,449 sq. ft.
500 sq. ft.
1,314 sq. ft.
535 sq. ft.
4,798 sq. ft.
58.8%*
Maximum Allowable: 60% =
4,890 sq. ft. max.
Floor Area First floor
Second floor (new)
Garage
TOTAL
1,936 sq. ft.
587 sq. ft.
513 sq. ft.
3,036 sq. ft.
3,040 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Front yard 1st/2nd floor
Rear yard 1st/2nd floor
Right side 1st/2nd floor**
Left side 1st/2nd floor**
25 ft./50 ft.
25 ft./35 ft.
5.5 ft existing/12 ft
7 ft. /12 ft.
25 ft./25 ft.
25 ft./35 ft.
7 ft./12 ft.
7 ft./12 ft.
Height in feet Lowest elevation
Highest elevation
Average Elevation
Topmost elevation
Maximum height
98.60 ft.
99.42 ft.
99.01 ft.
120.92 ft.
21.91 ft.
Maximum height = 125.01 ft.
elevation
26 ft.
* The existing total impervious coverage is 6,091 square feet. The applicant is removing
1,293 square feet of pavement around the pool area as part of this proposal.
** Because the lot is substandard in width, percentage based setbacks apply. The existing
first floor was legally built with lesser setbacks than current City standards, however the
second floor addition will comply and exceed current standards.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
History
This application was submitted on August 8, 2007 as a request for Design Review
approval to add a new second story to the existing single story residence. The lot size is
approximately 8,150 square feet, and the site is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district.
The original proposal was heard at the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2008
and included an 897 square foot second-story addition. The applicants also proposed an
exterior remodel of the first floor of the existing 2,189 square foot residence. The
maximum height of the proposed building was originally designed at 24’-1”. The
47
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
applicants proposed removal of some of the pavement around the pool in the rear yard
and additional landscaping around the perimeter of the property.
At the hearing of May 14, 2008 the Commission heard from the applicants and many
concerned neighbors. The Commission echoed some of the neighbors’ concerns with the
design and privacy impacts and suggested the applicants continue the item to a Study
Session in order to provide the Commission with design alternatives for further review.
The application was subsequently scheduled for three Study Session meetings of June 10,
2008, July 22, 2008 and August 26, 2008 where the applicants presented several design
alternatives and revisions for the Commission and the neighbors to review. At the third
and final Study Session meeting the Commission encouraged the applicants to finalize
there current plan revision and bring it back to the Planning Commission at a Public
Hearing.
Project Design Characteristics
The proposal includes an approximately 587 square foot second-story addition pushed
toward the front of the existing house, and a 260 square foot first floor addition of the
rear left corner of the existing 2,189 square foot residence (including garage). The total
proposed floor area would be approximately 3,036 square feet (including garage). The
maximum height of the proposed building is proposed at 21’-11”. The applicants propose
removing a portion of their rear yard patio and pool deck, reducing the impervious
coverage from 6,091 square feet to 4,798 square feet. Additional landscaping will be
planted in the rear yard (see discussion below). No trees are proposed for removal and the
existing accessory shed structures will be removed.
The proposed second-story addition and remodel is designed in a Craftsman style with
horizontal wood siding, ledge stone veneer at the base of the wood columns, decorative
wood braces and a decorative wood pattern beneath the second floor gable on the front
elevation. The proposed colors include light beige body color with a dark rust-red color
on the eaves, gutters and trim and an olive green color on the columns, brackets and
accents. A composition shingle roof is proposed in a dark brown palette with wood
carriage style garage doors and an all-wood front door both in a natural finish. The
applicants propose to utilize the existing first floor footprint and floor plan. The existing
garage will be slightly reduced in size to accommodate the required setback and the
existing driveway will remain.
Correspondence and Neighbor Review
The neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the project have been very strong in their
opposition to the proposal of a two-story structure. Staff has received numerous letters of
objection and a petition including 21 signatures from neighbors opposed to the project.
The Brennans have obtained support from 26 neighbors, including four that chose to
rescind their name from the petition. Most of the neighbors who oppose the project
attended all of the Study Session meetings and continued to vocalize their opposition to
the project.
48
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
The concerns raised by the neighbors in opposition to the proposed addition include the
following: loss of privacy, loss of natural light, loss of mountain views, negative impact
to night sky from second story lights, negative impact of two-story on the single-story
cul-de-sac.
The applicants have addressed these issues by making changes to the plans as discussed
below.
Plan Changes from Original Submittal
The applicants have addressed the concerns of the neighbors by shifting the second floor
to the front of the ridge-line of the roof thereby eliminating all windows on the rear and
have also eliminated all windows on the sides of the proposed second floor. By shifting
the second floor in this manner and reducing the square footage they have also reduced
the appearance of bulk as viewed from the side and rear neighbors properties. To address
concerns of the Commission they have added decorative bracket and vent details to the
side gable roof ends. They have lowered the maximum height from 24 feet to
approximately 22 feet. They have attempted to put more square footage on the first floor
by relocating the proposed master bedroom addition and have reduced the amount of
square footage on the second floor by approximately 310 square feet.
The neighbors have consistently requested that the applicants look into ways to add on to
the house as a single story addition. This alternative has been analyzed by the applicant’s
architect, however due to setback constraints and the layout of the exiting floor plan it
was determined that the applicants would only be able to add a limited amount of floor
area to the first floor. A single-story project would likely require substantial demolition of
the existing residence.
Arborist Review
The Arborist has prepared two reports for the property. The second report was conducted
at the neighbor’s request that the health of the tulip tree in the front yard be evaluated as
they felt is was not a specimen worth saving. The applicants would like to keep the tree
and have paid a tree care company to treat scale insects and fertilize the tree. The
Arborist has determined that the tree could improve if this care is continued. The City
Arborist valued the tree at $3,780. No ordinance-protected trees are proposed for removal
to accommodate the proposed addition.. The City Arborist has recommended standard
tree protective measures that are included as conditions within the attached Resolution.
Fencing/Accessory Structures
The existing fencing is proposed to remain. Three existing accessory shed structures will
be removed.
Landscaping
The applicants propose to remove some of the rear yard patio and pool deck and will
replace it with lawn, a shrub-hedge and trees. They plan to keep a row of oleanders which
help screen the property from the rear neighbor and will add a 20-gallon oak tree, a 20-
49
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
gallon crape myrtle tree and an additional hedge to fill in the space between the oleander
and the existing oak tree at the rear right corner. Front yard landscaping will remain.
Green Building Techniques
The applicants have proposed replacing all of the windows in the residence with double
paned insulated glass. They also propose to use zero VOC paint for the exterior and
interior and low VOC adhesives, an on demand water heater, engineered and FSC
certified lumber, engineered wood siding, cellulose insulation, house wrap under siding,
motion sensor halogen exterior lighting, new energy efficient appliances, high efficiency
forced air heating system, and a solar pool heater. They also will reuse the existing front
door, will keep the exiting driveway, and do not intend to take any soil off-site. Please
refer to the applicant’s Green Building Strategies list in Attachment #4.
GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS
The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General
Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below:
· Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of
Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The
project proposes a relatively small second story addition (at 24% of the size of the
first floor), which will be designed to minimize visual impacts to the neighbors.
The entire exterior will be remodeled and will utilize a Craftsman style with
horizontal wood siding, stone details, and wooden columns and bracket under the
eaves. Earthtone colors and materials will be used to blend the residence with the
site and neighborhood. All mature trees will be retained as part of the project and
new trees will also be planted to help screen the residence from neighboring
properties and the street. The decorative elements such as horizontal wood siding,
ledgestone veneer wainscoting, wood columns and bracket details and a natural
wood front door and garage doors provide interest to the façade and promotes the
rural atmosphere of Saratoga.
· Land Use Element Policy 5.0 – The City shall use the design review process
to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are
compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The Design Review
application has been reviewed at one Public Hearing and three Study Sessions at
which time the Commission had the opportunity to express their concerns with the
original design and provide direction for changes to the applicants, at which time
the applicants had the opportunity to revise their plans to satisfy the concerns of
the Commission and neighbors, and the neighbors had the opportunity to voice
their objection to the application. Throughout this process Staff has reviewed the
application based on Design Review findings and consistency with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff concludes that as revised and conditioned the
application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval.
50
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
Design Review Findings
The proposed project is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated
in City Code Section 15-45.080:
a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this
finding in that the second story addition has been designed to be forward of the
proposed ridgeline with no windows facing the rear or side properties, ample
setbacks are provided and the addition is will not exceed 22 feet in height. The
only decks proposed will face the street and will be partially blocked by the roof
projection, windows have been placed at the front of the house to minimize
impacts to neighbor’s privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No grading or topographical changes are proposed
for this project and the mature trees located in the front and rear yard will remain
and will be protected with fencing during the construction process in accordance
with the City Arborist’s recommendations. This finding can be made in the
affirmative.
c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed second story addition is
consistent with this finding in that no native or Heritage trees will be removed and
all the recommendations of the Arborist report have been made conditions of
project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all of the trees on site. The
trees will be protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the
applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits, to
ensure that no damage occurs to the protected trees. This finding can be made in
the affirmative.
d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed second story addition is
designed to minimize the appearance of bulk by keeping the height at 22 feet,
well under the maximum allowable height of 26 feet. The proposed second floor
area is approximately 25 percent of the size of the first floor, which limits the
perception of bulk by keeping the second floor relatively small. The architectural
massing and Craftsman style of the home will further reduce the overall
appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, materials and a varied
roofline will create interest and add detail to the façade. This finding can be made
in the affirmative.
e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed second story addition is compatible in
terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. Although there are
no other two-story homes in the immediately adjacent cul-de-sac the proposed
home will be in keeping with other two-story homes in the surrounding
neighborhood. At a height of 22 feet the proposed addition will also be in keeping
with other single story homes (ranging from 16 feet to 18) in the neighborhood.
This finding can be made in the affirmative.
f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed second story
addition would conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control
methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible
and this finding can be made in the affirmative.
51
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed second story addition conforms to
the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook
in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy
and views as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy
efficiency and the neighbor’s privacy into account, through; green building
techniques, second story design and height, window placement, and additional
plantings for privacy screening. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application by
adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Arborist Reports dated September 19, 2007 & August 6, 2008
3. Correspondence
4. Green Building Strategies
5. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels
6. Applicant’s Plans, Exhibit "A"
52
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Application No. PDR 07-0008
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Brennan; 18605 Lyons Court
Approval of a second-story addition to an existing one-story
residence with attached garage
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review approval to construct a new 587 square foot second story
addition and a 260 square foot first-story addition to an existing 2,189 square foot
residence. The new residence will be 22 feet in height and will be situated on a 8,150
square foot lot located at 18605 Lyons Court, which is located in the R-1-10,000 district;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence; and
WHEREAS, the project, which proposes construction of a second story addition
to an existing single-family residence is Categorically exempt from the Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures. This exemption allows for construction of a single family home in an
urban area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in the
Saratoga General Plan have been determined:
a) Conservation Element Policy 6.0 – Protect the existing rural atmosphere of
Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The
project proposes a relatively small second story addition (at 24% of the size of the
first floor), which will be designed to minimize visual impacts to the neighbors.
The entire exterior will be remodeled and will utilize a Craftsman style with
horizontal wood siding, stone details, and wooden columns and bracket under the
eaves. Earthtone colors and materials will be used to blend the residence with the
site and neighborhood. All mature trees will be retained as part of the project and
new trees will also be planted to help screen the residence from neighboring
properties and the street. The decorative elements such as horizontal wood siding,
ledgestone veneer wainscoting, wood columns and bracket details and a natural
wood front door and garage doors provide interest to the façade and promotes the
rural atmosphere of Saratoga.
b) 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 Design Review
application has been reviewed at one Public Hearing and three Study Sessions at
which time the Commission had the opportunity to express their concerns with the
original design and provide direction for changes to the applicants, at which time
53
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
the applicants had the opportunity to revise their plans to satisfy the concerns of
the Commission and neighbors, and the neighbors had the opportunity to voice
their objection to the application. Throughout this process Staff has reviewed the
application based on Design Review findings and consistency with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff concludes that as revised and conditioned the
application meets the Findings required for Design Review Approval.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City’s Residential Design Handbook have
been determined:
a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this
finding in that the second story addition has been designed to be forward of the
proposed ridgeline with no windows facing the rear or side properties, ample
setbacks are provided and the addition is will not exceed 22 feet in height. The
only decks proposed will face the street and will be partially blocked by the roof
projection, windows have been placed at the front of the house to minimize
impacts to neighbor’s privacy. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
b) Preserve Natural Landscape. No grading or topographical changes are proposed
for this project and the mature trees located in the front and rear yard will remain
and will be protected with fencing during the construction process in accordance
with the City Arborist’s recommendations. This finding can be made in the
affirmative.
c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The proposed second story addition is
consistent with this finding in that no native or Heritage trees will be removed and
all the recommendations of the Arborist report have been made conditions of
project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all of the trees on site. The
trees will be protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the
applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits, to
ensure that no damage occurs to the protected trees. This finding can be made in
the affirmative.
d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed second story addition is
designed to minimize the appearance of bulk by keeping the height at 22 feet,
well under the maximum allowable height of 26 feet. The proposed second floor
area is approximately 25 percent of the size of the first floor, which limits the
perception of bulk by keeping the second floor relatively small. The architectural
massing and Craftsman style of the home will further reduce the overall
appearance of bulk. Additionally decorative elements, materials and a varied
roofline will create interest and add detail to the façade. This finding can be made
in the affirmative.
e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed second story addition is compatible in
terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. Although there are
no other two-story homes in the immediately adjacent cul-de-sac the proposed
home will be in keeping with other two-story homes in the surrounding
neighborhood. At a height of 22 feet the proposed addition will also be in keeping
54
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
with other single story homes (ranging from 16 feet to 18) in the neighborhood.
This finding can be made in the affirmative.
f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed second story
addition would conform to the City’s current grading and erosion control
methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible
and this finding can be made in the affirmative.
g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed second story addition conforms to
the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook
in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy
and views as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy
efficiency and the neighbor’s privacy into account, through; green building
techniques, second story design and height, window placement, and additional
plantings for privacy screening. This finding can be made in the affirmative.
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, the exemption from
CEQA is approved, the required findings are made and application number 07-0008 for
Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on “Exhibit A”,
(incorporated by reference, date stamped September 23, 2008) and in
compliance with the conditions stated in this Resolution.
2. Any proposed changes-including but not limited to façade design and
materials – to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded
set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior
appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades
may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing,
stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to
the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission.
3. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials
Board dated stamped September 23, 2008.
4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division.
55
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
5. 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.”
6. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site to the
maximum extent feasible, and incorporating the New Development and
Construction – Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be
detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory
note shall be provided on the Approve Plans and subject to prior City
approval.
7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the
adjacent properties.
8. Rear yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection.
9. 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.
· A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction
equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of
any ordinance protected trees on the site.
10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace per residential structure may be
installed. All other fireplaces shall be gas-fired fireplaces (natural or
proposed) with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger,
variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial
logs.
56
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
11. Exterior lighting shall be positioned so as to not shine into or on adjacent
properties.
CITY ARBORIST
12. The entire reports of September 19, 2007 and August 4, 2008, including the
map showing the location of the tree and protective fencing, shall be
incorporated into the set of final building plans.
13. 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 until final inspection.
14. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, in the amount of $3,780, prior to
obtaining building division permits. The bond 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 by the City Arborist, and the trees
are found to be in good condition following construction, the bond can be
released.
15. 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.
16. Tree shall be watered every three weeks during the dry summer months or
more often as necessary to ensure their continued good health. Water using a
soaker hose or drip line midway between the trunk and the edge of the
canopy. Use enough water so that the soil is moist to a depth of one foot
deep.
17. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the tree’s canopy shall be
manually performed using shovels.
18. If landscaping will occur, design the plans as follows:
a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Install valve
boxes and controllers outside of tree canopies.
b. Select plants that have similar water requirements to the trees under which
they will be placed.
c. Lawn should remain at least two feet from a tree trunk. Do not install
lawn under the canopy of an oak tree. I recommend placing mulch under
the canopy instead of a lawn.
57
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
d. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from
the trunks of retained trees.
e. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees’ canopies.
f. Establish edging material proposed beneath the trees’ canopies on top of
existing soil grade using stakes.
16. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an
ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards.
17. The disposal of harmful products, including but not limited to chemicals, paint
rinse water, fuel, cement rinse water, herbicides, or other materials, is
prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage
beneath tree canopies.
PUBLIC WORKS
18. An encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department is required
for all improvements in any portion of the public right of way or of a public
easement.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
19. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County
Fire Department.
CITY ATTORNEY
20. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its
employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively
“City”) from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to
attorney's fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in
connection with City's defense in any proceeding brought in any State or
Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's
project or contesting any action or inaction in the City’s processing and/or
approval of the subject application.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will
expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
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.
58
Application No. PDR-07-008; 18605 Lyons Court
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, this 8th day of October, 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
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81