Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2001 City Council Agenda ;~~ .u ,~ f'• ~~~~ G ^~ ~~~~~ ~;~. _ _, . 4~ 4i ~~ a AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MAY 2, 2001 • CALL MEETING TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLO ON ITEMS ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:05 P.M. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): WALTONSMITH Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. -CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on Apri127, 2001) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Communications from Boards and Commissions None Written Communications None --~- ~ o Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. CEREMONIAL ITEMS • 1 A. Proclamation -Declaring Apri129 -May 5, 2001 "Municipal Clerk Week" Recommended action: Read proclamation. 1B. Proclamation -Declaring May 20-26, 2001 "Save a Life Week" Recommended action: Read proclamation. 1 C. Appointment of Planning Commission Member Recommended action: Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. 1D. Appointment of Public Safety Commission Member Recommended action: Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the • Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 2A. Approve Council Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting -March 21, 2001 Adjourned Meeting -March 27, 2001 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 2B. Review of Check Register Recommended action: Approve check register. 2C. March Financial Statements Recommended action: Note and file. 2D. Review Planning Commission Action Minutes - April 25, 2001 Recommended action: Note and file. • 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS (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. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council 's approval at the Council meeting) ~F • 3. Saratoga Community Library Renovation and Expansion Project -Environmental Review: APN: 397-301-053; 13724 Saratoga Avenue (Temporary Relocation Site); APN 397-301-047 Recommended action: 4. Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a Tentative Subdivision map, Design Review, and rear yard setback Variance fora 22,582 square foot site, located on Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street -DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 and V- 01-004 (517-08-008 & 016) -TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street. Recommended action: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 5. Fiscal Years 2001/02 and 2002/03 Draft Budget Presentation Recommended action: Accept draft budget for Fiscal Years 2001/02 and 2002/03, and begin budget study sessions. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Plannin Commission Baker Parks and Recreation Commission Streit Finance Commission Mehaffe Libra Commission Bo osian Public Safet Commission Herita e Preservation Commission Waltonsmit Youth Commission ~:.~. Waltonsmith Gatewa Task Force Libr Ex ansion Committee Bo osian CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OTHER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT ~ ~~~~ o,_, °~. ~ 4- ` I 3 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. 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) SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS May 8, 2001 Adjourned Meeting/Joint Session 7:00 p.m. Youth Commission, Chamber of Commerce, SBDC Adult Care Center 19655 Allendale avenue Saratoga, California May 16, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California May 22, 2001 Adjourned Meeting/Joint Session 7:00 p.m. Saratoga Union School District Adult Care Center 19655 Allendale avenue Saratoga, California June 6, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California July 4, 2001 Regular Meeting/Cancelled Legal Holiday July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting/Cancelled Summer Recess August 15, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California • 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 2, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING i, PT: City doager CITY MANAGER: PREPARED B . 191001.4!— DEPT HEAD: • SUBJECT: Appointment of Public Safety Commission Member and Oath of Office. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council approve the attached resolution appointing Carolyn Galvin to the Finance Commission. The terms for this commission will expire on 04/01/05. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the resolution appointing Carolyn Galvin to the Public Safety Commission. The Oath of Office will be administered and signed by the Commissioner. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appointments will not be made to the Public Safety Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Update City's Official Roster. ADVERTISING,NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the Council Agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A—Resolution of Appointment Attachment B—Oath of Office RESOLUTION NO. 01- 027 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION WHEREAS, a vacancy was created on the Finance Commission resulting from the resignation of Thomas Edel; and WHEREAS, a notice of vacancy was posted, applications were received, interviews have been conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill the vacancy. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following appointment were made for term expiring April 1, 2005, Carolyn Galvin The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 2nd day of May, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: John Mehaffey, Mayor ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 2,2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT:Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Saratoga Community Library Renovation and Expansion Project- Environmental Review RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Open public hearing, hear public testimony, close public hearing, and adopt the attached Negative Declaration for the Saratoga Community Library Renovation and Expansion project. REPORT SUMMARY: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental analysis (i.e., an Initial Study) be for the Saratoga Community Library Renovation and Expansion project. The City prepared a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and sent it to thirteen firms that perform this service in the Bay Area. Maureen Owens Hill Consulting was selected to perform the environmental review. Maureen Owens Hill Consulting subcontracted with Fehr and Peers to perform a traffic study that is included in the Initial Study. The proposed project involves the renovation and expansion of the existing library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue and the temporary relocation of the library to a neighboring site (Sacred Heart Church and School at 13724 Saratoga Avenue) during construction. The proposed project will add up to 30,253 square feet of new one-story space for a total of 48,291 square feet and 29,272 square feet of new parking for a total of 68,832 square feet, or 165 parking spaces. The facility will expand into the Heritage Orchard, removing approximately 64,133 square feet from orchard use. Environmental factors that were given the most attention in the attached Initial Study include: 1) traffic (i.e., access and parking); 2) cultural resources (i.e., the orchard is of local historical significance); 3) visual resources; and 4) temporary impacts during construction. The Initial Study (page 10) concludes that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment because revisions in the project have been made or agreed by the City. The mitigation measures are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program on pages 37 and 38 of the attached Initial Study. A notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published by the City on April 4, 2001. The public review period on the Negative Declaration ended on April 26, 2001. No comments were received during the review period. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): An environmental analysis of the proposed project is required under the provisions of CEQA. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Continue consideration of the Negative Declaration to a future meeting and direct the consultant to make appropriate changes to the Initial Study. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will complete a Notice of Determination and send it to the County Clerk for posting. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Negative Declaration 2 of 2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project City of Saratoga The undersigned,Director of Administrative Services for the CITY OF SARATOGA,a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation,has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of . the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description The City of Saratoga proposes to renovate and expand the existing library at 13650 Saratoga Avenue and to temporarily relocate the library to a neighboring site (Sacred Heart Church and School at 13724 Saratoga Avenue) during construction. The proposed project will add up to 30,253 square feet of new one-story space (for a total of 48,291 square feet),4,600 square feet of paths (for a total of 11,981 square feet),and 29,272 square feet of new parking (for a total of 68,832 square feet or 165 parking spaces). The facility will expand into the Heritage Orchard,removing approximately 64,133 square feet from orchard use. Project Location 13650 Saratoga Avenue(Renovation Site) APN:397-301-053 13724 Saratoga Avenue (Temporary Relocation Site)APN 397-301-047 Name and Address of Proponent Mary Jo Walker,Director of Administrative Services City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga,California 95070 Reason for Negative Declaration The proposed library expansion and renovation project is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed project will expand the existing use of the site, the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will insure that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga,California this h-d day of ,2001. t 1O(L i/ MARYJO ALKER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 2, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: 4 DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: alc� PREPARED BY: � DEPT HEAD: AV Qp- SUBJECT: DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Applicant/Appellant-TRAFALGAR INC. Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review, and rear yard setback Variance for a 22,582 square foot site, located on Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street, that would allow four two story townhouses and 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story office or residential condominium. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on January 24, 2001, a study session on February 14, 2001 and took action on this project following a final public hearing on March 28, 2001. Staff recommended approval of the Design Review (with the second story office commercial alternative), the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, the 32.5-foot rear yard setback Variance and the 8 parking space Variance needed to allow an office above the retail space. See attached staff report for details. Approval of all four requests was necessary for the Planning Commission to approve the project. The Planning Commission voted (5-0) to approve the proposed parking Variance, but denied the other three requests on a 3-2 vote. Chair Page and Commissioner Roupe voted for approval of the requests, Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch voted against the requests and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent. Chair Page and Commissioner Roupe felt the necessary findings could be made to approve the project and voted affirmatively on all four applications. They both said that they could support either an office or residential condominium above the Big Basin Way retail space and they supported the reduction from the original request of three to two townhouses on St. Charles Street. The applicant offered to maintain the office for a five year period after which it would be converted to a residential condominium if no new parking were provided in the area. Commissioner Barry stated there is a safety issue and not sufficient hardship to the applicant to grant the rear yard setback variance request. With regard to the proposed townhouses, she preferred smaller units than those proposed. She mentioned lack of play areas, other than the parking area, as one problem. Her preference was for all of the Big Basin Way half of the site to be designated as retail/office. Commissioner Jackman stated that she could support townhouses on St. Charles; however, that the retail space along Big Basin Way needed to be larger to accommodate merchandise displays. Although staff pointed out that the setback requirement apparently was intended to separate residential from commercial uses and did not anticipate development of residential units on both the commercial and residential parcels, the Code requires a setback between commercial and residential zones. Commissioner Jackman was not in favor of approving the rear yard Variance when a 30-foot setback is the standard requirement to separate residential from commercial zones. During the Commission discussion, Commissioner Jackman mentioned the City's need for affordable housing and suggested that the applicant consider building one-bedroom/bathroom units. Commissioner Kurasch said she prefers the total Big Basin Way portion of the site to be retail and that she was not in favor of the temporary office use above the Big Basin Way retail space. She felt the temporary office designation is a cumbersome condition in which no advantage or need has been shown. She also said that the proposed building design was not consistent with the architectural style called for in the Village Plan. Refer to the attached Planning Commission minutes for details. The applicant was given the opportunity to redesign the project, but requested that the Commission take action on each of his four requests. The applicant/appellant has appealed the part of the request that the Planning Commission denied. The appellant's grounds for the appeal are stated in detail in the attached letter to the City Council. It outlines the changes the applicant submitted to the Planning Commission in an attempt to eliminate staff and Planning Commission concerns. Some examples follow: ■ Reduce the number of townhouses off of St. Charles Street from three to two in order to save a Cork Oak tree. ■ Increased the amount of retail commercial space on Big Basin Way from the original proposal. ■ Offered to designate the second floor above the retail as office commercial for five years to give the City the opportunity to create an expanded parking district or some other mechanism to increase off street parking near the site. One half of the site (Parcel A) fronts on Big Basin Way and is zoned CH-2 (Historical Commercial). The rear portion of the site (Parcel B) fronts on St. Charles Street and is zoned R- M-3000 (multiple -family residential). Without a rear yard Variance, a 36-foot setback is required between these to zone districts. The purpose of the setback is to provide a wide separation between the commercial (CH-2) and multiple -family residential (R-M-3,000) zone districts in order to buffer residences from commercial uses. Because the applicant was proposing townhouses next to townhouses, staff felt such a buffer served no purpose and that the findings necessary to grant the rear yard setback Variance could be made However, a majority of Planning Commissioners felt the proposed rear yard setback Variance was inappropriate and it was denied (3-2). The Commissioners believed strict enforcement of the rear yard setback requirements between CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zone districts would confer privileges on the applicant not enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity since this is a requirement that is uniformly applicable between these zones. Although the applicant indicated that the need for the variance was dictated in part by the number of significant trees that the City desires to preserve on the site, many sites in Saratoga have trees, which create design and development limitations. Therefore, a majority of the Commissioners felt this is not a unique physical limitation of the site. Without the Variance the project could not proceed. Subsequent to the Commissions action, the applicant requested Planning Commission reconsideration, proposing to delete the lot line between the two lots, in effect merging them. Since the Code requires the setback only if there is a lot line between residential and commercial zones, this would eliminate the need for the rear yard setback Variance. The applicant requested Planning Commission reconsideration of the project without the variance at its April 25, 2001 meeting. The Commission declined to reconsider the request so the matter is before the Council on appeal. Staff had recommended approval of the application as modified by the applicant with the second story above the retail for office use. The reasons for staff s recommendations were as follows: The Zoning Ordinance 115-19.050 (2)1 allows single-family and multi -family residential units as permitted uses when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail service establishment. The applicant's proposal is consistent with this requirement. The Village Plan stresses the importance of maximizing the amount of retail commercial in the Village core area, and it specifically calls for continuous retail frontage which the applicant has proposed. The application is exempt from the City Council's commercial moratorium since it was filed prior to the March 15, 2000 effective date. The applicant has proposed continuous retail frontage, but some Commissioners expressed interest in more retail throughout the parcel. The City's codes do not require the applicant to expand the proposed 1,316 square feet of retail commercial area. In response to the Planning Commission's desire for additional commercial space, the applicant offered the following alternative proposal: The unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until January 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space would be re- designated as a residential condominium. Four new 3,505 to 4,475 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements, would be constructed if the Design Review request is approved, Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a 2,688 square foot second story office or residential condominium would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The buildings are proposed to be 26 feet high in both the CH-2 and the R-M-3000 portions of the site. The buildings are designed in a contemporary architectural style and incorporate rooflines, materials and detailing that reduce the appearance of bulk and height. Staff felt that the overall architecture appears compatible with the buildings in the surrounding area. Staff believes the design of unit IA/1B that faces Big Basin Way, is compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and is consistent with the Village Plan. The second story windows that face the residential condominiums to the east should not create a privacy problem given the design and site orientation of those units. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's denial, the project will be approved as presented, or as otherwise conditioned by the City Council. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Provide direction and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting to memorialize the decision of the City Council on this matter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A public hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal application from Trafalgar Inc. dated April 6, 2001 2. Appeal letter with attachments from Trafalgar Inc. dated April 17, 2001 3. Staff report dated March 28, 2001 4. Excepts from March 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting 5. Letter in favor from William J. Ward dated April 19, 2001 6. Plans, Exhibit A Attachment 1 Appeal application from Trafalgar Inc. dated April 6, 2001 ir;i ,bl, 5"fig M' -9 THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED By ,I,HE C'ITk CLERK DATE RECEIVED: Fe.L-LL-2101 --- $E:ARINr DATE: i'i?B�1L� 200/ FEE. 2 S-0 • a 6 RECEIPT If 'T Z /2 _— CITY OF SARATOGA PLA►NNENG COMMISSION APPEAL APPLICATION This tti�ro-part application rnu;st be subm tted to the City Clerk, 137'1` Fmitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070. by 5'00 p.m. with' l.�ftern (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, Appellant Name' Address:------ Telephon.e �ft: -- Name of Applicatlt (if different than Appellant): _� ------ - SQ-©s�-+�t J2-�� - ait ,(Ssc=-o�-obi e� e/ _�,��._ a ► � :project file slumber and address: Decision berm, rappealed.: �iC=1vi/�� p1- _ ����'�' q,00, � c.�- i �- aK� ..^ — — Grounds for appeal. (letter may be attached,), 14PpL�tr1 tz �v I.v�}3 �}S f'� �2rt i� ?r!1 r:�5� uNllz=/L za4, Fa�G olt�I Ii�4n�te', "V�i iv c-' cri n; s �o r+ K�=�� c f9 [ --- j2r_ 4 S a V4 4H ?i+CL ; ✓ 1•I r C N +1! +i S 61 Appellant' ,lat�zre hate. (Please do not sign this application and the attached. authoriTa.#io7;n until it is present at City offices) Attachment 2 Appeal letter with attachments from Trafalgar Inc. dated April 17, 2001 TRAFALGAR 11M C Builders & General Contractors License No. 438402 April 17, 2001 The Mayor & Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: SD-00-001, DR-00-011 BSE-00-012, V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Dear Mayor & Council Members: F7� 247 North Third Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 292-0797 FAX: (408) 293-1802 The above application was denied by a 3-2 vote at the Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2001. We wish to appeal the decision to the City Council and wish to point out the following facts. Our original application deleted the lot line between Big Basin Way and the St. Charles Street lots. That decision was the result of discussions we had with Staff in which we expressed our desire to create more of a community between the two lots, rather than two distinct smaller developments. Upon reflection, the then Planning Director thought the lot line should stay and the buildings separated so as to distinguish between two different zoning districts, but gave his support to a setback variance. We agreed to this approach and also to Staffs request for more retail, and the project was re -designed accordingly. More retail space meant more parking, which we provided on site. We also felt that residential units at the rear of the Big Basin lot provide the best transition to the residences on St. Charles Street. The alternative would be to put the parking at the rear, but there was the problem of the large redwood tree, as well as the impact on the residences on the adjacent lots. This plan was felt by Staff to be the best solution and also met our development goals. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 24, 2001, commissioners expressed concern at the loss of a Cork Oak tree on the St. Charles lot, and also the need for more commercial on the Big Basin lot. At the study session with the Planning Commission on February 14, 2001, we tabled plans showing the Cork Oak saved but thereby having to reduce the number of residences from three to two on this lot. It is debatable whether three attached homes is not better use of land for needed housing than two more expensive detached homes, even if it means losing a tree, which, while a nice specimen, will not be very visible. We also showed it was unfeasible to build an The Mayor & Council Members April 17, 2001 Page 2 underground garage on the Big Basin lot which could have provided parking spaces for commercial units. The consensus from the commissioners was that nevertheless, they wished for more commercial on this lot. At the Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2001, we therefore proposed only two residences on the St. Charles lot, thereby saving the Cork Oak tree. We also offered to convert the flat above the retail to office space (albeit on the temporary basis), even though our preference was for the residential unit. Both the flat above the retail and the office are a permitted use and conforms to all aspects of the zoning and the intent of the Village Plan. A convenient way to deny this project was to not approve the setback variance, which if the lot line were not there, would not be needed. Incidentally, we are asking for a variance between residential units, not from residential to commercial. Furthermore, we meet the minimum distance of 20 ft between buildings for this zoning. At no time has any member of the public objected to this setback variance. It was only after the public hearing was closed, and just prior to the vote that some commissioners (for the first time during this whole process) said they would not support the variance, without which the project obviously could not proceed. Following the March 28, 2001 meeting, and with the agreement of Staff, we are proposing deleting the lot line between the lots, in effect merging them. We have therefore asked the Planning Commission to re -consider our application, as we have now withdrawn our request for a setback variance. We think that the project we have proposed will be a good addition to the Village. We look forward to the City Council concurring with us, especially given the opportunity for a 3,300 sq. ft. commercial building on Big Basin Way. The Planning Commission did approve a parking variance for eight spaces for five years, making the conversion of the flat to office legally possible. We attach site plans showing different layouts and the history of how we got to the present project design. This project is somewhat difficult to understand, especially when dealing with 11"x 17" reductions. We would, therefore, subject to Council's agreement, like to propose a study session to enable the Council members to reach a better understanding of our application. Such a session might assist them in making a more informed decision than is possible during the time available at a regular Council meeting. Yours, uly, r, W.S. amble Attachment 3 Staff report dated March 28, 2001 ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 &z V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way &z 20717 St. Charles Street Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: TRAFALGAR, INC. Philip W. Block, Senior Planner ?ME March 28, 2001 517-08-008 &t 016 Department Head: 14b12 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 3/1/00 Application complete: 11/17/00 Notice published: 3/14/01 Mailing completed: 3/15/01 Posting completed: 3/4/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site to allow townhouses and retail commercial space. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. Four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space would be demolished. The original proposal called for the creation of a six -lot subdivision with five new two- story townhouses with garages and a 1,316 square foot retail space with a second story residential condominium that would face Big Basin Way. The Commission will consider the original proposal as well as the following modifications that are proposed to the application as originally submitted: ■ The project would remain divided into two parcels along the existing CH-2 and R- M-3,000 zone district boundary. All of the units would be separate air right condominium units instead of individual lots. ■ There would be two rather than three townhouses on the St. Charles Street portion of the site for a total of four two story townhouses. ■ The proposed retail space with the second story residential condominium along Big Basin Way would be retained. ■ The modified proposal would require a rear yard setback variance. The applicant's request is for approval of either the original proposal as modified above or the following alternative proposal: With the following exceptions, this alternative would be the same as the modified proposal. The unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until March 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space would be re -designated as a residential condominium. 0000M File No. DR-00-011, S_ , JO-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street ■ A parking variance for eight off street parking spaces to allow the space above the retail commercial portion to be used for commercial purposes (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. ■ There would be two rather than three townhouses on the St. Charles Street portion of the site for a total of four two story townhouses. _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission believes that the additional commercial space will be a benefit to the community, approve the Design Review with the unit above the retail space (Unit 1B) designated as commercial office (applicant's alternative proposal), Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, rear yard setback Variance and parking Variance with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-00-011, SD-00-001,V-00-018 and V-01-004. The unit above the retail commercial space (Unit 113) would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space would be re -designated as a residential condominium. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR-00-011, SD-00-001,V-00-018 &z V-01-004 3. Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated December 19, 2000 4. Arborist Reports dated March 27, 2000 and May 17 &r June 6, 2000 (Environmental Initial Study attachment) 5. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes for October 10, 2000 Meeting 6. January 15, 2001 opposition letter from M. C. Burrell,14658 Big Basin Way 7. January 18, 2001 opposition letter from S. and M. Srinivasan,14598 Big Basin Way 8. January 22, 2001 response letter from W. S. Gamble, Trafalgar Inc. (applicant) 9. January 22, 2001 opposition petition from Saratoga Village area residents 10. March 12, 2001 letter in support from Betty S. Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue 11. Planning Commission January 24, 2001 meeting and February 14, 2001 study session minutes 12. Saratoga Village Parking Study prepared by Trafalgar Inc. (applicant) dated March 18, 20001 13. Plans, Exhibit "A" PAPlanning\PhiKPCStaff Reports\BigBasin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V3.28.0l.doc (� �, j 00000j File No. DR-00-011, S_ JO-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-2 (Historical Commercial)- Big Basin Way lot R-M- 3,000 (Multiple -Family)- St. Charles Street lot GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Retail Commercial) -Big Basin Way lot RMF (Multi-Family)14.5 DU/net acre -St. Charles lot MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Net size 22,582square feet (0.518 acres) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9 % GRADING REQUIRED: 600 cubic yards of cut and 600 cubic yards of fill exclusive of basements. The basements involve 1,207 cubic yards of cut and export. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish will be beige stucco and brick veneer with dark beige and green trim and accents. "Nardi -slate" will be used as the roofing material. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Below is a comparison of the two proposed lots (Lot A and Lot B). Lot A Max. Lot B Max. (Proposed) Allowed (Proposed) Allowed (CH-2) (R-M-3, 000) Lot Area - net (sq. ft.) 11,250 7,500 11,332 12,000 Avg. site slope (in %) 6% - 12% 30% Proposed site coverage (sq. ft.) 4,714 6,7501 3,532 4,5332 ( all structures) (42%) (60%) (31%) (40%) Lot frontage (ft.) 75 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft. 60 ft. Lot width (ft.) 75 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. Lot depth (ft.) 150 ft. 100 ft. 151 ft. 115 ft. ' In the CH-2 district the max. net site area covered by structures is 60% z In the R-M-3,000 district the max. net site area covered by structures is 40% PAPlanning\Phil\PC Staff Reports\Big.Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc 000004 File No. DR-00-011, S_ JO-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street LOT A IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS: SUB -TOTAL MAX. ALLOWED CH-2 UNIT 1 1,889 SQ. FT, UNIT 2 1,416 SQ. FT. UNIT 3 1,409 SQ FT. 4,714 SQ. FT. 42% 60% PARKING &z DRIVEWAY 3,119 SQ. FT. 27%) - WALKWAYS 236 SQ. FT. 2% - TOTAL 8,069 SQ. FT. 71% - LOT B IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS SUB -TOTAL MAX. ALLOWED R-M-3,000 UNIT 4 1,888 SQ. FT. UNIT 5 1,644 SQ. FT, 3,532 SQ. FT. 31% 40% PARKING & DRIVEWAYS 2,227 SQ. FT. 19% - WALKWAYS 224 SQ. FT. 2% - TOTAL 5,983 SQ. FT. 52% - LOT A PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT: 28% PROPOSED &t 20% REQUIRED LOT B PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT: NO SET % REQUIREMENT Below is a comparison of the proposed units on Lot A. Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 (proposed) (proposed) (Proposed) Setbacks: Front 15 ft. 72 ft. 116 ft. Rear 97 ft. 34 ft. 3.5 ft. Left Side 6 ft. 11 ft. 11 ft. Left - 2t'd floor 5 ft. 13 ft. 10 ft. Right Side 5 ft. 12 ft. 11 ft. Right - 2nd floor 5 ft. 12 ft. 15.5 ft Height: 26 ft. 26 ft. 26 ft. Max. Allowed (CH-2) 15 ft. 30 ft. 26 ft. RNPlanningThiAPCStaffReports\BigBasinWayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc 000005 File No. DR-00-011, S_ .►0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Below is a comparison of the proposed units on Lot B. Unit 4 Unit 5 Max. (proposed) (proposed) Allowed (R-M-3,000) Setbacks: Front 88 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Rear 17 ft. 83 ft. 25 ft. Left Side loft. 18 ft. 7.5 ft. Left - 2nd floor 13 ft. 14 ft. 7.5 ft. Right Side 10 ft. 10 ft. 7.5 ft. Right - 2rd floor 13 ft. 14 ft. 7.5 ft. Height: 26 ft. 26 ft. 30 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION Background One half of the site (Parcel A) fronts on Big Basin Way and is zoned CH-2 (Historical Commercial). The rear portion of the site (Parcel B) fronts on St. Charles Street and is zoned RM-3000 (multiple -family residential). The present zone district boundaries are being maintained by the proposed Vesting Subdivision Map, which will provide clear definition of use in the future. Because this project has a number of policy issues, the Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on January 24, 2001 and a study session on February 14, 2001. At this first meeting, public testimony was taken and the Planning Commission opened discussion of the project. The Planning Commission, staff and applicant discussed various issues and options and public testimony was taken during the study session. Since the study session, the applicant has revised the rear portion of the proposed site plan to contain two instead of three townhouses. This preserves the exceptional Cork Oak (tree #8) and provides greater open space. The front portion of the site remains the same with a retail space including a second floor residential condominium (Units 1A and 1B) and two townhouses (Units 2 and 3). However, the applicant has offered an alternative in which the unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until January 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking were not available, the commercial office space would be re -designated as a residential condominium. If the Planning Commission prefers the P:\Planning\PhiAPC Staff Reports\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-ON-V 3.28.01.doc 000006 File No. DR-00-011, S_ ,i0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street commercial office option, a parking variance for eight off street parking spaces (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. The applicant has modified the proposed subdivision to be five air space condominiums, including common areas, instead of the previously proposed six substandard lots. Fn vironmental Review Staff has prepared an Environmental Initial Study consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guideline sec. 15060. (the Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached). The applicant's revised plans contain one less townhouse, thus preserving the Cork Oak tree #8 on the rear portion of the site. There are no changes to the front portion of the site, although the applicant has offered to have the unit above the retail space designated as commercial office if the Planning Commission prefers that instead of a residential condominium. Overall the revised plans have less environmental impact. Commercial Policy Issue The issue before the Commission is the extent to which there should be commercial uses on theCH-2 portion of the site. Toward this end, the applicant has offered two alternatives. The first would be retail on the ground floor with residential above. The second would be retail at the street level with commercial above, at least for five years. The Zoning Ordinance {15-19.050 (2)} allows single-family and multi -family residential units as permitted uses when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. The applicant's original request and the alternative are consistent with this requirement. The applicant's intent is to develop the property for residential use, meeting the Code requirement for ground floor retail along Big Basin Way. In response to the staffs concern about maximizing retail commercial uses on CH-2 zoned Parcel A, the applicant increased the initial proposed retail area by 30% to its present proposed 1,.316 square feet which could be divided into two shops of approximately 650 square feet each. In doing so the applicant stated: "The demand for retail space in the Village in general is low with several vacancies already existing in the more desirable retail area on `lower' Big Basin Way (below Fifth Street). To insist on further retail area in the less desirable area of `upper' Big Basin Way (above Fifth Street) would result in the loss of residential units which we feel would be unreasonable. Our design is based upon the present zoning and the intent of the specific Village Plan on which this zoning is based Incidentally, we need the 6112 parking spaces for the retail. This together with the driveway needed to support this parking plus the pedestrian open space means that 50010 of the area of the lot on Big Basin Way is necessary to support 1,300 square feet of retail. We feel that allocating half the lot for retail is fair." PAPlanning\Phil\PC Staff Reports\Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc 000007 File No. DR-00-011, S_ .10-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street The applicant's request was filed prior to the City Council's commercial moratorium (March 15, 2000 effective date). Therefore, the Planning Commission can approve the applicant's request for townhouses on the CH-2 portion of the site if the Commission feels it is consistent with the Village Plan, design policies and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Commission asked about the legal basis for requiring the applicant to expand the retail commercial area. The Zoning Ordinance [15-19.050 (2)1 allows single-family and multi -family residential units as permitted uses when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail service establishment. The applicant's proposal is consistent with this requirement. The Village Plan stresses the importance of maximizing the amount of retail commercial in the Village core area, and it specifically calls for continuous retail frontage, but contains no minimum area standards. The City's codes do not require the applicant to expand the proposed 1,316 square feet of retail commercial area since the application was filed prior to the City Council's commercial moratorium (March 15, 2000 effective date). The Commission may accept the applicant's alternative to use the second floor of the Big Basin Way professional or administrative office instead of the residential condominium as originally proposed. This explained in greater detail below. In response to the Commission's desire for additional commercial space, the applicant has offered the following alternative proposal: The unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until January 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking were not available, the commercial office space would be re -designated as a residential condominium. ■ A parking variance for eight off street parking places (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. Subdl rdsion The applicant originally requested to subdivide the 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. Although the property can be a subdivision of airspace for the purpose of developing condominiums, it cannot be subdivided into physical lots that are smaller than allowed by city code. The CH-2 portion (parcel A) has a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size requirement and the R-M-3, 000 portion (Parcel B) has a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. The applicant has resubmitted the proposal as a five lot (unit) air space condominium project including two common areas. A ground level retail space with a second story residential condominium or office commercial space (Units IA and 113) and two adjacent PAPlannin&MITC StaffReports\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-ON-V 3.28.01,doc 000008 File No. DR-00-011, S_ .►0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street townhouses (Units 2 and 3) occupy the Big Basin Way parcel. Two townhouses (Units 4 and 5) will be constructed on the St. Charles Street parcel. Maximum lot coverage and minimum lot frontage, width and depth requirements have been met. Parcel B, the half of the site that fronts on St. Charles Street, is zoned R-M-3000. The minimum net site area per dwelling unit in R-M districts is 3,000 square feet. Therefore, three is the maximum number of dwelling units that can be constructed on Parcel B (11,332 square feet) assuming all setback, parking and other requirements can be met. The applicant's revised plans contain two, rather than the original three, townhouses in order to preserve the Cork Oak (Tree # 8) and provide for more open space. Rear Yard Variance The applicant has requested approval of a rear yard setback variance. Section 15-19.050 states that where the rear lot line of a lot in the CH-2 District abuts an R-M District, the minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height of a structure over 14 feet in height within 60 feet of the rear lot line. Since townhouse unit 3 is 26 feet high, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 36 foot rear yard setback. The applicant has proposed a rear setback of 3.5 feet for unit 3 and therefore requests a 32.5 foot variance. Neither Units 3 or 4 can be build with out the rear yard set back Variance and therefore little use can be made of Parcel A. Staff finds that there are special circumstances applicable to the property that warrants approval of the Variance request. The staff believes the necessary findings can be made based on the following special circumstances: The Zoning Ordinance clearly contemplates the need for additional setbacks if commercial uses were proposed adjacent to residential uses. This is not the case here, where there would be residential uses in both zone districts. The site consists of two zone districts. i.e. Ch-2 and R-M-3,000. The rear yard set back Variance would not be necessary if the project was not divided in half by the boundary that separates the CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zone districts. The staff believes it is critical to maintain the boundary rather than have it floating in space to avoid future problems. ■ The Arborist Report identifies a number of trees that impact the location of buildings and construction in general on parcel A. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property. The fact that the site is long, narrow and sloping limits design options. R\Planninohi"C Staff Reports\Big Basin Way TtafalgarDR-SDNN 3.28.0l.doc V 0 V 0 0 File No. DR-00-011, S_ J0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Design Review The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space. Four new 3,505 to 4,475 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a 2,688 square foot second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The Big Basin Way half is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street half is zoned R-M-3000. The buildings are proposed to be 26 feet high in both the CH-2 and the R-M-3000 halves of the site. The buildings are designed in a contemporary architectural style and incorporate rooflines, materials and detailing that reduce the appearance of bulk and height. Overall, the architecture appears compatible with the buildings in the surrounding area. Staff believes the design of unit IA and 113, that faces Big Basin Way, is compatible with the pedestrian streetscape. Landscaped sitting areas are proposed in front of the retail space adjacent to the Big Basin Way sidewalk. The second story windows that face the residential condominiums to the east should not create a privacy problem given the design and site orientation of those units. The Public Works Department, City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application and provided recommended conditions. All of these recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval attached resolutions. In addition to the usual design considerations this project is sensitive because it fronts on Big Basin Way in the Village and it impacts a magnificent tree on the adjacent motel property that the Arborist report refers to as "one of the best valley oak specimens that I have seen in the area." Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence located in a multi -family development to have at least one enclosed parking space within a garage plus one and one-half spaces on the site. Each townhouse will have an attached two -car garage plus one-half space in the common area. One off street parking space is required for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area, therefore the 1,316 square feet of retail space in unit lA require 7 off street parking spaces. They are provided between units 1 and 2. The applicant has utilized two compact parking spaces to slightly increase the amount of parking near the retail area. Also, the north side of the site is located adjacent to Big Basin Way off - street parking spaces. Parking Variance The applicant has offered an alternative in response to the Planning Commissions desire for addition commercial on the site. In the alternative, the unit above the retail commercial space would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until January P:\Planning\Phi1\PCStaffReports\BigBasinWayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V3.28.01.doc 000010 File No. DR-00-011, S, j0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or some other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space would be re -designated as a residential condominium. If the Commission prefers this option, a parking variance for eight off street parking places (retaining the same number of parking spaces as the original application) is requested. The project has sufficient parking spaces for the original proposal as modifies and therefore does not need a Variance unless the Planning Commission prefers the applicant's alternative proposal to designate the upper floor of unit 1 as commercial office instead of a residential condominium. A second floor residential condominium requires 2.5 off street parking spaces and 2,115 square feet of commercial office requires 10.5 spaces, at one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, if the Planning Commission desires the second floor be designated as commercial office, a Variance for 8 required off street parking spaces is necessary consequently. The staff thinks there is sufficient justification to grant a Variance. The Saratoga Village Parking Study prepared by Trafalgar Inc (applicant) indicates that there are consistently off street parking spaces available along Big Basin Way west of 6`h Street between 8;00 - 9:00 am,12-00-1:00pm and 5:00 - 6:00pm. Staff finds that there are special circumstances applicable to the property that warrants approval of the Variance request. The staff believes the necessary findings can be made based on the following special circumstances: The Arborist Report identifies a number of trees that impact the location of buildings and construction in general on parcel A. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property. If 8 additional parking spaces were added, one or both of the townhouses (units 2 and 3) would have to be eliminated in order to make room. Additionally, the sloping site is rather long and narrow, which also somewhat limits design options. ■ Most of the retail and other businesses in the Village core area are within parking districts therefore they are able to share parking spaces and avoid having to provide their own spaces. The site is outside the parking districts and therefore must provide its own parking unless a parking space Variance is granted. ■ The City is requesting that the applicant provide more commercial space beyond what the City Code and policies require and this is what necessitates the 8 additional parking spaces. ■ Although the site is located beyond the limits of existing Saratoga Village parking districts, it is adjacent to unrestricted off street parking spaces on Big Basin Way. These parking spaces are beyond the heaviest concentration of businesses and therefore are currently available during normal commercial office business hours. P:U'lanningiPhiAPCStatf Reports\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, S, .10-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street Grading 600 cubic yards of cut and 600 cubic yards of fill exclusive of basements. The basements involve 1,207 cubic yards of cut and export. Geotechnical Review This application did not require review by the City Geologist due to the stability of the site. Trees The City Arborist report dated March 27, 2000 (attached to the Environmental Initial Study) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site and adjacent site. There are fourteen trees exposed to some level of risk by the proposed construction. Significant design revisions are suggested in order to preserve exceptional specimens #3 (valley oak w/ 80-90 canopy), #4 (coast redwood w/ 20 foot canopy), and #8 (cork oak w/ 40-50 foot canopy). The report states that: "However, in the case of tree #3 (the neighboring valley oak) the single descriptive term "Exceptional" does not do this tree justice in the sense that we also use this term to describe small diameter specimens. Tree #3 is one of the best valley oak specimens that I have seen in this area. I consider it to be exceptional of the exceptional, and in my opinion, it should be treated with allpossible care and caution" Some mitigation procedures are suggested in the March 27, 2000 Arborist Report, but further analysis is suggested for trees #1(coast live oak w/ 60-80 foot canopy) and tree #8 (Cork Oak). Following a further site visit(s) an additional Arborist report dated May 17 &z June 6, 2000 was prepared (attached to Environmental Initial Study). The applicant's revised plans contain one less townhouse, thus preserving the Cork Oak tree #8 on the rear portion of the site. Fireplaces The plans indicate that only one wood -burning fireplace will be constructed in each of the new residences and there is one chimney proposed for each townhouse. Correspondence S. Srinivasan and Malini Srinivisan,14598 Big Basin Way (adjacent property owners to the east) have submitted a letter dated January 18, 2001 that raises a number of concerns about the proposed project including the joint ingress -egress easement. W. S. Gamble, Trafalgar Inc. (the applicant) responded with a letter dated. January 22, 2001. M. C. Burrell,14658 Big Basin Way, submitted a letter dated January 15, 2001 that Saratoga is becoming residential at the expense of retail. 000012 P:\Planning\PhiI\PC Staff Reports\Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, S, j0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street ■ A petition from Saratoga Village area residents dated January 22, 2001 expressed opposition to the project and the shrinkage of commercial potential in the Village downtown area. ■ Betty S. Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, submitted a March 12, 2001 supporting the project and the need for additional affordable housing. Conclusion This project is complicated because it involves four requests (Design Review, Subdivision map, setback Variance and parking Variance.) and the site is in two zone districts (CH-2 . and R-M-3,000). Because all four applications are interrelated it makes sense for them to be processed concurrently. There is also the issue of trying to maximize the amount of retail commercial in the Village downtown area under existing City Codes and policies and balancing the desire for more retail with parking needs. The applicant has reduced the number of townhouses on the St. Charles portion of the site from three to two townhouses to preserve a large Cork Oak (Tree #8) and offered to substitute office commercial for the second floor residential condominium assuming an 8 space parking variance is granted and addition parking is created in the area within five years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Commission feels that the additional commercial space would be a benefit to the community, approve the Design Review with the unit above the retail space (Unit 113) designated as commercial office, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, rear yard setback Variance and parking Variance with conditions by adopting Resolutions DR-00-011, SD- 00-001, V-00-018 and V-01-004. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the unit above the retail commercial space (Unit 113) would be designated as commercial office for a period of five years (until March 2006). It would remain as commercial office assuming additional parking was available through an expanded parking district or other mechanism. If additional parking was not available, the commercial office space could be re -designated as a residential condominium. 000013 P:\Planning\PhihPCStgff Reports\Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc THis PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000014 File No. DR-00-011, SD-0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. DR-00-011 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.; 14612 BIG BASIN WAY & 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a first floor retail space with a second floor residential condominium or commercial office (Unit lA and 1B) and four residential townhouses (Units 2 — 5) utilizing five air right condominium units (lots) on two existing parcels totaling 22,582 net square feet; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed townhouses and retail with a second story residential condominium or office commercial, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (A) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residences will be partially screened with existing mature trees and proposed landscaping. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that ]united grading will be necessary, mature trees are being preserved and the site will be fully landscaped prior to completion. The proposed retail and Townhouses in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials such as wood tone colors and stone materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the structures into the surrounding environment. 000015 PAP1anning\Phi1\PCStaffReports\BigBasin WayTralalgarDR-SD-V•V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, SD-v0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street The residences will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air. of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed residences are designed to conform to the design criteria set forth Section 15-45.010 of the City Code. 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 of TRAFALGAR, INC. for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (including Option 2 on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. For a period of five years (i.e., until March 2006), occupancy of the space (Unit 113) above the retail area on Lot B shall be limited to professional office or commercial office as defined in Section 15-06.480 (a &r b) of the Zoning Ordinance. It shall remain as professional or commercial office use if additional parking (i.�., at least eight spaces) becomes available through an expanded parking district or other mechanism. Occupancy of said space (Unit 113) may be changed to any other permitted use after March, 2006, if additional parking is not available. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: A written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans all applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. This shall include specific times during, site preparation, demolition, grading, trenching and construction that the City Arborist provides on site supervision to assure that all Arborist Report conditions are complied with. This is particularly important with regarding to assuring the safety of Tree #3 (Valley Oak). The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 000016 PAPlanningThiNK Staff Reports\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-ON-V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, SL-00-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: -Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide." The plan indicates that there will be no more than on wood -burning fireplace per unit. If a wood -burning fireplace is proposed, it shall be equipped with a gas starter. 4. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing all applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. 5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed (except for any exceptions provided for in the Arborist Reports) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 6. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 7. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on - site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. CITY ARBORIST All recommendations in the City Arborist Reports dated March 27, 2000 and May 17, 2000 &z June 6, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: ■ The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ■ Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. ■ A note shall be included on the site plan and grading 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. ■ A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of all the trees to be preserved per the Arborist Reports. 9. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,903 plus a sum recommended by the Arborist to assure protection of the 0000:11? PAPlanning\Phil\PC Staff Repo ts\Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, SL-d0-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street other trees pending the outcome of Arborist Report recommendations #1-6. This is to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit provisions will be made to assure the presence of an on site arborist selected and supervised by the City Arborist during all critical site preparation and construction phases. This is to insure that all Arborist report conditions are met and to carry out addition investigative work such as confirming trees root locations and protective measures such as discontinuous footings (pier and on -grade beam design). This is particularly important for Trees #3, 4 and 8. 11. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any required native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 12. All utility line, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 13. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 14. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 15. Provide one on -site fire hydrant that meets the Saratoga Fire Districts specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 16. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum with plus one foot shoulders. Driveway cures shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 17. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code -Article 16-60. 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 19. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. P:\Planning\PhiAPG Staff Reporrs\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SDN-V 3.28.0l.doc File No. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 & V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 20. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across the 12-foot ingress — egress easement from Big Basin Way. CITY ATTORNEY 21. 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 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. 22. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 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 28`h day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIn Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission 000019 PAPlanningPhiNK Staff Reports\Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.0l.doc THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK U 00020 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-00-001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.; 14612 BIG BASIN WAY & 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Vesting Tentative Map approval of 2 existing parcels into five air right condominium units (lots) including two common areas, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-00-001 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated March 28, 2001 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted 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, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Initial Study was prepared and a Negative Declaration was issued on December 19, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Vesting Tentative Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated March 16, 2001 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (including Option 2 on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 000021 File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-001,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street 3. Prior to Final Inspection, all landscaping on the approved landscape plan shall be installed. 4. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: ■ Four (4) sets of complete Improvement Plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ■ All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. ■ Provisions for the City Arborist to provide an on site arborist during critical site preparation and construction stages including grading and installation of utility lines and driveways. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: ■ All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist. ■ Provisions for the City Arborist to provide an on site arborist during critical site preparation and construction stages including grading and installation of utility lines and driveways. 6. Construction, alteration or repair activities (for subdivision improvements as well as the construction of the residences) which are authorized by a valid City of Saratoga permit, or which do not require the issuance of a City of Saratoga permit, may be conducted only on weekdays between the hours of 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM so long as the noise level does not exceed 60 dBA at Project property boundary. No such construction work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Construction noise should be reduced whenever possible. The City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. 7. A sign indicating permitted construction hours shall be posted on the site in a visible location. 8. Applicable construction conditions shall be included in any and all contracts with each and every contractor and subcontractor working on the Project. 9. Dust and erosion control will be maximized onsite and on streets in the adjacent neighborhoods shall be maintained in a manner to avoid the accumulation of mud and dirt in the streets. 10. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permits. P TlanningThIPC Staff Reports\Big Basin W ayTrefalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.0l.doc 000022 File No. DR-00-011, SR-v0-001,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street CITY ARBORIST 11. All recommendations in the City Arborist Reports dated March 27, 2000 and May 17, 2000 &r June 6, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. ■ Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan and grading plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit. A note shall be included on the site plan and grading 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. 12. A landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing locations of any native replacement trees. (This number may be reduced depending on the trees that the applicant is proposing to be relocated instead of removed in revised site plan.) 13. The applicant is proposing to relocate instead of remove in the revised site plan. 14. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 15. All retaining walls, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 16. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 17. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City Arborist Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,903 plus a sum recommended by the Arborist to assure protection of the other trees pending the outcome of Arborist Report recommendations #1-6. This is to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. is. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provisions will be made for the City Arborist to provide an aborist on site during all critical site preparation and construction phases. This is to insure that all Arborist report conditions are met and to carry out addition investigative work such as confirming trees root locations 000023 PAPlanningThi"CStaffRepor[s\BigBasin Way TrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-001,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street and protective measures such as discontinuous footings (pier and on -grade beam design). This is particularly important for trees #3, 4 and 8. 19. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, any required native replacement trees shall be installed in accordance with the Arborist Reports. 20. All utility line, driveway construction and other tree protection recommendations in the Arborist Reports shall be strictly followed 21. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 22. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City Arborist recommendations FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 23. Provide one on -site fire hydrant that meets the Saratoga Fire Districts specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. 24. All driveways shall have a 14 ft. minimum with plus one -foot shoulders. Driveway cures shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 25. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code -Article 16-60. 26. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 27. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. 28. Prior to building permit application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy of deed or easement showing legal access across the 12-foot ingress - egress easement from Big Basin Way. PUBLIC WORKS 29. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either 00024 P:�Plannin�hiAPC Staff Reports\Big Basin V.'ayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.0l.doc File No. DR-00-011, Sk-00-OO1,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 30. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: 31. One copy of map checking calculations. 32. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. 33. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. 34. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. 35. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Department. 36. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 37. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 38. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights -of -way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 39. A line of sight study prepared by a licensed engineer shall be submitted to verify that the intersection of access road with St. Charles Street will be safe, prior to Final Map approval. 40. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior 00025 P:�Plannin�PhiI�PC Staff Reports\Big Basin V6'ayirafalgatDR-SD-V-V 3.26.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, Sk-00-001,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: 41. Sidewalk at Big Basin Way within the limits of the subdivision shall be replaced. Encroachment Permit from Caltrans shall be issued for this replacement. 42. Hydraulic calculations for connection to existing storm drain system on Big Basin Way shall be provided. In case capacity of present storm drain system has been reached, alternate way of drainage plan shall be provided. 43. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 44. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 45. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 46. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 47. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Department with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 48. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 49. The owner (applicant) shall deposit a $5,000 cash bond with the City prior to Final Map approval for funding of future AC overlay of St. Charles Street within the limits of the subdivision. 50. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. 51. 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. 300026 PAPlanning\PhihPC Stall Reporrs\Big Basin Way TrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, SR-00-OO1,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 52. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY 53. 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 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. 54. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 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 28`h day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NoEs: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Chair, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commission PAPlannin&hiAPC Staff Reports\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc 0000,27 T His PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000028 File No. DR-00-011, Sk-00-001,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. V-00-018 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR INC.;14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to decrease the required rear yard setback from 36 feet to 3.5 feet. ; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: Strict enforcement of the rear yard setback requirements would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity in that only one of the three proposed buildings could be constructed and therefore only limited use could be made of 11,250 the net square foot parcel. The Variance would not be necessary if the mixed -use commercial and townhouse project was divided in half by the boundary that separates the CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zone districts. The City believes it is critical to maintain the boundaries. A number of significant trees that the City wishes to preserve on this parcel impact the location of buildings and construction in general. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property without this Variance. ■ The proposed reduced rear yard setback would not constitute a special privilege in that similarly zoned properties would be treated the same. ■ The proposed rear yard set back reduction would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area in that it will not be visible from adjoining properties not part of this project, and it poses no health or safety risks. 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 of Trafalgar, Inc for Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PAPlanning\PhiAPC Staff Reports\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc 00 U ()Z File No. DR-00-011, Sk- 00-001,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit "A" (including Option 2 on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. CITY ATTORNEY 2. 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 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. 3. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 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 28th day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission PAPlanningThiNK Staff Reporrs\Big Basin W ayTrafalgarDR-SDN-V 3.28.01.doc 000030 File No. DR-00-011, Sk-00-OO1,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. V-01-004 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRAFALGAR, INC ;14612 Big BasinWay &r 20717 St. Charles St. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to decrease required off street 8 parking spaces; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: Strict enforcement of the parking requirements would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties in the vicinity in that only one or two of the three proposed buildings could be constructed and therefore only limited use could be made of the 11,250 net square foot parcel. The Variance would not be necessary if the second floor area above the retail space (unit 1A) was designated residential condominium rather than commercial office as the City requested. The City believes it is critical to maintain as much street level retail commercial and second floor office commercial in the Village along Big Basin Way. A number of significant trees that the City wishes to preserve on this parcel impact the location of buildings and construction in general. This creates a major physical limitation in making use of the property without this Variance. ■ The proposed reduced parking requirements would not constitute a special privilege in that similarly zoned properties would be treated the same. The City is requesting that the applicant provide more retail and/or office commercial space beyond what the City Code and policies require and this is what necessitates the 8 additional parking spaces. Most of the retail and other businesses in the Village core area are within parking districts therefore they are able to share parking spaces and avoid having to provide there own spaces. The site is outside the parking districts and therefore must provide its own parking unless a parking space Variance is granted. ■ Although the site is located outside the limits of existing Saratoga Village parking districts, it is adjacent to unrestricted off street parking spaces on Big Basin Way. These parking spaces are beyond the heaviest concentration of businesses and therefore are currently available during normal commercial office business hours. 300031 P TlanningThiN'C Staff Reporrs\Big Basin Way TrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.0l.doc File No. DR-00-011, Sk-00-OO1,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street ■ The proposed parking Variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to properties in the area. Strict enforcement of the specified regulation is not required by either present or anticipated future traffic volume or traffic circulation on the site. The project will not generate traffic that can not be temporarily handled by adjacent restricted and unrestricted off street parking during the next five years while the City explores parking districts and other mechanisms to increase Village parking and it poses no health or safety risks. If after that time parking or traffic volume or circulation become a problem the unit 1B second story commercial office can be converted back to a residential condominium. Granting the Variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. 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 of TRAFALGAR, INC. for Variance approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit "A" (including Option 2 on Sheet 6), incorporated by reference. 2. In 2006, the City will review the status of creating a parking district or other parking mechanism in the area including parking variances. It will also be determined whether parking and/or traffic volumes and flows on and around the site are a problem. At that time it will be determined whether the unit 1B should continue as a commercial office or should be converted to a residential condominium. CITY ATTORNEY 3. 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 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. 4. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. �A)00311 � PAP1anning�Phi1\PC Staff Reporrs\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.01.doc File No. DR-00-011, Sk-00-OO1,V-00-018,V-01-004 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street 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 28th day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission PAP1anning\Phi"C Staff Reports\Big Basin WayTrafalgarDR-SD-V-V 3.28.0l.doc J0033 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000034 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For TRAFALGAR, INC. Proposed Townhouses and Retail December 2000 Project Description: Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot parcel into six condominium lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and additional common areas. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing homes with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,300 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access froin Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The site is zoned a combination of CH-2 and R-M-3,000. Project Location:14612 Big Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street Applicant: TRAFALGAR, INC. 247 North Third Street San Jose, California 95112 Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. 000035 CONTENTS Environmental Evaluation/Checklist Negative Declaration Attachment A: Exhibit A (Plans) Attachment B - City Arborist Report, March 27, 2000 Attachment C — Heritage Preservation Commission October 10, 2000 Minutes City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. 0000i i ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No (See attachments for information sources) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? p b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies p 0❑ adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? p ❑ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to p p soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an p ❑ established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Land Use Element, Saratoga City Code - Zoning Ordinance H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population p projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or p indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? p Four existing homes and a second story flat will be demolished to provide a location for the five new townhouses and second condominium. There will be a net gain of one unit. Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Housing Element, Plans ("Exhibit A") M. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ E d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions p from excavation, grading, or fill? City of Saratoga TRAFALGAF, INC. 00UO3"7 Eli'VIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially otentially Less Than No (See attachments for information sou. ) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Subsidence of the land? 0 0 0 0 h) Expansive soils? 0 0 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 0 Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Safety Element IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate 0 0 0 0 and amount of surface runoff? Absorption rates will decrease and surface runoff will increase as the percentage of the lot covered by impervious surfaces is increased. The project will not exceed the maximum percentage of structural coverage allowed by the zoning ordinance for the CH-2 and R-M-3,000 zoning districts which the two lot site is zoned. Building coverage on the Big Basin Way lot will be approximately 4,620 square feet (41.1 %) and on the St. Charles Street lot approximately 4,490 square feet (39.6%). b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 0 0 0 0 such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of surface 0 0 0 water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 0 0 e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 0 0 0 movements? f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through 0 0 0 direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 0 0 0 otherwise available for public water supplies? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Conservation Element, Correspondence from Santa Clara Valley Water District V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing ❑ ❑ ❑ or projected air quality violation? City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. t l000 38 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially otentially Less Than No (See attachments for information sou. ) Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? p 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any ❑ p p change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Air Quality Element VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? p ❑ The proposed project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips on Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue, as well as, on Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street. The addition of six new dwelling units and the approximately 1,000 square feet of proposed commercial space will not have a noticeable effect on traffic congestion. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves p p or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The buildings have been designed to provide for the minimum turning radius required for the safe turning of automobiles into and out of the garages and open parking areas. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? p p d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? p e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? p f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative p p transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Circulation Element, City's Traffic Engineer VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats p ❑ 11 11 (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? p c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, El coastal habitat, etc.)? City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC 000039 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially .,tentially Less Than No (See attachments for information sou. _) Significant significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? p e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? p E Sources: Saratoga General Plan - Conservation Element, report from City Arborist VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? p ❑ ❑ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient p 0 00 . manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral p p resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? Sources: Saratoga General Plan - Conservation Element IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous p ❑ ❑ substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or p p emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health p ❑ El hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health El hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, p p or trees? Sources: Saratoga General Plan - Safety Element X.NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ Existing noise levels will increase temporarily during construction of the proposed project. Construction hours will be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Noise levels are not expected to exceed 75dBA at the property line, which is the maximum permitted for a single event for a construction project. City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, rNC. ENVMONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially .,tentially Less Than No (See attachmentsfor information sou. Significant -ignificant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, in any of the following areas: a) Fire Protection? 0 0 0 E b) Police Protection? 0 0 0 c) Schools? 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 Sources: Correspondence from Saratoga Fire District XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 0 0 0 d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and 0 0 0 disposal facilities? e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? 0 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 Sources: Correspondence from; PG&E, Saratoga Fire District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 c) Create adverse light or glare effects? 0 0 0 Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Land Use Element XIV.. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0 0 0 City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, rNC. 000041 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (See attachments for information sou. ,) Potentially Significant Impact .,tentially .significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact b) Disturb archaeological resources? I7 13 ❑ 0 c) Affect historical resources? 0 t] 0 E On October 10, 2000 the City's Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the application, thus determining that the existing structures on the property have no significant historic value. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which p would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the p potential impact area? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Conservation Element, City's Heritage Preservation Commission XV. RECREATION. Would he proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or p ❑ other recreational facilities? A less than significant increase in the demand for parks and recreational facilities is expected. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan - Open Space and Recreation Element XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality p of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, p to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually p limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. _ 300042 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially ,Lentially Less Than No (See attachments for information sou. Significant significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will p cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan, Saratoga City Code - Zoning Ordinance XVH. DETERNMiATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ✓ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o DATE City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. SIGNATURE For: JAMES C. WALGREN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR D00043 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000044 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Approval (SD-00-001), Design Review Approval (DR-00-011) and Building Site Exemption (BSE-00-012) TRAFALGAR, INC. The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description: Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot parcel into six condominium lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and additional common areas. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing homes with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,300 square feet of retail space with a second story townhouse would face Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The site is zoned a combination of CH-2 and R-M-3,000. Project Location: 14612 Big Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street Name and Address of Proponent: TRAFALGAR, INC. 247 North Third Street San Jose, California 95112 Reason for Negative Declaration The proposed townhouses and 1,000 square feet of commercial area are not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed project will modify the existing use of the site, it is a minor modification, and the anticipated City imposed conditions, assuming the project is approved, will insure that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of 2000. JAMES C. WALGREN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. 000045 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK t)66646 ATTACHMENT B City Arborist Report City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. 000047 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK BARRIE D. CC AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants R E C E I V E ID (4-08) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road JUL 1 3 ZO�� Los Gatos, CA 95033 PLANNING DEPT. A REVIEW OF DESIGN FEATURES AT THE TRAFALGAR PROPERTY AT 14612 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Erik Pearson Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist May 17, 2000 June 6, 2000 Job # 03-00-061 A O00049 A Review Of Dedgn Feats It Tke Trafalgar Pmp" At 14612 Big Basin Way Saratoga Assignment At the request of Erik Pearson, City of Saratoga, this report documents a meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, between Mr. Stan Gambel, Developer, Trafalgar, Inc., Erik Pearson, and myself to review the design features that pose risks to selected trees at the Trafalgar project site located at 14612 Big Basin Way, Saratoga. Observations The stability of tree #1 is in question because of a fungus infection on the north side of the trunk and on at least one buttress root. Due to the fact that the root collar is covered with decorative bark and soil, a thorough inspection cannot be made. It is agreed that a root collar inspection must be done after the root collar is excavated. Mr. Gambel agreed that the drain system would be redesigned as suggested to preserve the root system of tree #3, the neighboring mature valley oak (Quercus lobata), in the report prepared by this office dated March 27, 2000. There is a question about whether or not it would be feasible to construct a basement inside a portion of the root zone of tree 0. This would depend primarily on whether a significant quantity of roots would be lost by the excavation adjacent to construction. Considering the locations of existing buildings and of the existing paved areas on this property near tree #3, it is not possible to determine with any degree of accuracy where significant roots exist. This would require a series of test excavations after demolition of the existing buildings and paving. It was agreed that a series of excavations would be done at the appropriate time in the future. Mr. Gambel indicates that the proposed building adjacent to tree #4 would be constructed using a pier and on -grade beam foundation in order to retain the tree without a major design revision. I agreed to this while at the site. However, recently Erik Pearson informs me that engineering may override my recommendation for a pier and on -grade beam foundation. This may require a meeting with the engineers to address this issue. Mr. Gambel indicates that it may not be feasible to construct the building nearest St. Charles Street and to retain tree #8 as well. If tree 48 cannot be retained, I believe that this tree is significant enough that trees of equal value should replace it. Recommendad'ons 1. I suggest that an inspection of the root collar of tree # 1 be conducted by the city arborist after the decorative bark and soil is removed for a minimum distance of 2 feet completely around the root collar. 2. I suggest that a series of test holes be dug after demolition of the existing buildings and paving to determine the presence of roots of tree 43 in relation to the proposed basement. 3. I suggest that a meeting be arranged between planning staff, engineering, and this office to address the feasibility of the pier and on -grade beam design. 4. If tree #8 will not be retained, I suggest that it be replaced with trees of equal value. Phepasad by: Mickad L Bench, Cw=Nng Arbono May 17, and June 6, 2000 000050 A Review Of Design Featr It TJGe Trafalgar Property At 14612 Big Basin way Saratoga Subsequent Observation of June 6, 2000 Subsequent to this meeting, T conducted an inspection of the root collar and the trunk of tree 41 on June 6, 2000. At approximately 6-inches above grade, four inspection holes were drilled into the depressions in the trunk At all of these locations, the bark and perhaps the outside layers of phloem tissue were somewhat atypically soft for a depth of approximately 2-inches, but the interior wood inside of 2-inches is dense and appears to be healthy. Additional holes were drilled into the top of the buttress roots on the north and east sides. No decay was found. Conclusions The internal wood at all location appears to be sufficiently durable and strong. As a result, it appears that the present internal wood can support the existing structure. Respectfully. sub , Michael L. Bench, Associate Barn d . Coate, Principal E AVar d by: Afwhoel L Bnwk ConWfingArboda May 17, and June 6, 2000 000051 Barrie :r -oate E C E ` �_� and Asek ciates E D Horticultural Consultants APR 1 8 2000 (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road PLAMi 11VG DEN(. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 BIG BASIN WAY AND 20717 ST. CHARLES STREET SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Judi Crowley City of Saratoga Planning Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 Job # 03-00-061 Plan Received: March 8, 2000 Due: April 10, 2000 000052 Tree Survey And Preservati, ecommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 146 ig Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga Assignment At the request of Judi Crowley, Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish the existing buildings and to construct three new buildings on this long narrow property between Big Basin Way and Saint Charles Place in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing_ trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted within acceptable horticultural practices to prevent significant decline. The plans reviewed for this report are the Preliminary Subdivision Plans prepared by Glenn Cahoon, Fremont, sheets 3-7 and 10-14, dated February 2000, and the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Guiliani and Kull, Inc., sheets 1 and 2. Summary This proposal exposes fourteen trees to some level of risk by construction. Significant design revisions are suggested in order to preserve Exceptional specimens #3, 44, and #8. Some mitigation procedures are suggested, but further analysis is needed for trees # 1 and #8. A preliminary bond is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are seven trees on this site and seven trees on the adjacent property toward the south that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. All trees that will be affected by proposed construction and meet the requirements of the city ordinance are included. Typically, the root systems of trees extend outside their canopies a minimum of 50% of the total canopy diameters. If the canopy reaches into the construction area, the root system in all likelihood does as well and, therefore, has been included. The fourteen trees are classified as follows: Tree #1 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #2 tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Tree #3 valley oak (Quercus lobata) Tree #4 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #5 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Tree #6 Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Tree #7 California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera) Tree #8 Cork oak (Quercus suber) Tree #9 American persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Trees #10-Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) (5 trees) Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 000053 Tree Survey And Preservat. zecommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 14t ; ig Basin War 2 and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent —Poor) on data sheets that follow this text. Because the combinations of these ratings maybe difficult to interpret, the overall condition of each of these specimens is rated as follows to aid with planning. Exceptional Specimens Fine Specimens --JS Fair ecimens 3,4,8 5,6,7,10 1,2,9 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Trees located on the adjacent property must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. However, in the case of tree #3 (the neighboring valley oak) the single descriptive term "Exceptional" does not do this tree justice in the sense that we also use this term to describe small diameter specimens. Tree # 3 is one of the best valley oak specimens that I have seen in this area. I consider it to be exceptional of the exceptional, and in my opinion, it should be treated with all possible care and caution. Tree # 10 represents five Italian cypress trees. The diameters of these do not meet the size requirements of the city ordinance for protection. However, this is one of the few species that rarely grow diameter stems large enough to meet the size requirement, despite their age. These five trees are living in a severely restricted space, which has resulted in significantly limiting their growth. Mr. Hernandez, who was present at the time of my site visit, informed me that these trees are about 18 years old. The specimens are quite small for their age. In my opinion, these should be included for protection. Extent of Root Systems The canopy spread of each tree is noted on the tree data sheets, which follow this text. The size of the canopy is one method of estimating the size of the root system. A conservative estimate is that the root system of most species extends outside the canopy by a minimum of 50% greater than its total canopy diameter. Some experts estimate that the diameter of spread of some species, such as oak trees may reach two to three times the existing canopy diameters, depending on the soil type and site conditions. The root systems of the larger specimens are estimated as follows: Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 000054 Tree Survey And Preservai tecommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 14t ;ig Basin Wai and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga Tree #1 (coast live oak) has a canopy spread of approximately 80 feet north to south and 60 feet east to west. I estimate that the root system of this specimen has a minimum diameter of 120 feet, although fewer roots are expected to be found in the compacted soil of Big Basin Way. This specimen has turkey tail fungus (Trametes versicolor) on the north side of the trunk. This fungus generally attacks only dead wood and is commonly an opportunist that takes advantage of pre-existing conditions, usually dead wood resulting from an injury or vascular dysfunction. There is a 15-inch diameter buttress root on the north side that has had the majority of its bark removed. This buttress root also has turkey tail fungus, which may indicate that this buttress root no longer provides stability._ At the very least, its strength is reduced. By tapping the root collar with a hammer, it appears that these sections of the root collar are hollow. Tree #3 a valley oak has a canopy spread of approximately 80 feet north to south and 90 feet east to west. Its root system is expected to have a minimum diameter of approximately 140 feet. Tree #4 a coast redwood has a canopy spread of approximately 20 feet. Because of its typical narrow habit, this species is often an exception to the idea that the root system may be only 50 percent greater than its total canopy diameter. When this species receives adequate moisture it has a vigorous and extensive root system Tree #4, has an exceptionally narrow canopy. With the trunk diameter of almost 4 feet DBH, I estimate that the root system extends a minimum of three times the canopy diameter. Also, this species has a bulb (called a lignotuber) just below grade that is probably two times the size of the trunk diameter (i.e., 7-8 feet in diameter). This is an adaptation for recovery after fire. It will continue to grow at the rate of the trunk growth. It has the capacity to damage the foundation of a two-story building of a typical foundation design. The building is proposed approximately 6 feet east from the trunk, 13 feet on the south side, and about 8 feet on the west side. By this design, the building foundation is at risk of being moved by the tree in the distant future. The rate of growth of the trunk and the lignotuber depends on the proposed design, the extent of the root damage, and follow-up care, which cannot be determined at this time. Tree #8 a cork oak has a canopy spread of approximately 40 feet north to south and 50 feet east to west. I estimate that the root system extends for a minimum diameter of 75 feet. The cork oak species (Quercus suber) is not very common in this area but is nevertheless well suited for most places in this area provided the drainage is adequate. Drainage does not appear to be a problem of this location for this specimen. The root collar of tree #8 is covered by periwinkle (Vinca minor), and it appears that the root collar may well be covered by fill soil. This is difficult to determine without the removal of the periwinkle around the base of this tree. If sufficient fill soil exists, the root collar would be highly susceptible to fungus infections, one of which is oak root fungus (Armillaria mellea). It must be stated that roots grow where there is least resistance to their travel. It is not possible to reasonably determine the extent of root systems or where concentrations of Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting A rborist March 27, 2000 000055 Tree Survey And Preservat. Iecommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 14t Ug Basin Way 4 and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga roots exist without exploratory excavations. Thus, the location of significant root systems as noted here are only estimates. If more accurate estimates are needed for an individual specimen, a series of test excavations would be required. Effects of Construction Tree #5 is in direct conflict with the proposed storm drainage system and in conflict with the proposed new sewer line. Tree #5 would lose approximately 50% of its root system as a result of trenching for the drain system Trees #7, #8, and #9 are in direct conflict with the proposed building on the east side of this property, and would be removed subsequent to the approval of this design. Tree #4 would suffer severe root damage by trenching for the drain system and b} construction on the other three sides. Tree #1 would lose approximately 30-40% of its root system from trenching for the new sewer. These three trees would be so severely damaged that they would not be expected to survive. Tree #3, the large and very Exceptional valley oak, would also suffer severe root damage by trenching for the proposed drain system Tree #3 may be able to survive but it would certainly decline. In all likelihood, the decline would be significant if not severe. Tree #10 the five Italian cypress trees would suffer severe root damage by construction of the adjacent driveway. It appears that the majority of the roots are likely in the location of the proposed driveway. The only tree that would not be significantly damaged by this proposed design is tree # 2, the tree of heaven, which has very little value. In addition to the specific risks; all of the trees are at risk of damage by one or more of the following: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways. 5. The excavations for foundation or for other construction. 6. The trenching for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. The driving or parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 000056 Tree Survey And Preserve Recommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 14 Big Basin Way, and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga 9. Broken branches or bark injuries a result of construction equipment passing too close. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. These suggestions are based on the construction plans provided. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. I suggest that the building on the east side of this property be redesigned in order to retain tree #8. In this event, tree #8 would require a minimum undisturbed root zone of 18 feet from the trunk if two sides of the trees root zone were to be affected. If three sides were to be affected, the minimum clearance must be 22 linear feet. Additional mitigation, such as supplemental irrigation, mulch, platform buffers, discontinuous foundation design (pier and on -grade beam), may also be essential depending upon the proposed design. 2. I suggest that a full inspection of the root collar be done by myself or by Barrie Coate. This involves exploratory drilling with a 1/8 inch diameter drill bit in order to provide evidence of the structural stability. This requires a separate report. In the event, that it appears that tree #1 is presently sufficiently stable, it will be essential to relocate the proposed sewer line and possibly to install a portion of the sewer line by tunneling or using jack and bore equipment. 3. I suggest that units 2 and 3 be redesigned to provide for a minimum clearance of 15 feet between the building foundation and the trunk of tree #4 on all sides. 4. I suggest that any portion of the foundation within 25 feet of the trunk of tree #4 be constructed by a discontinuous footing (pier and on -grade beam design). 5. I suggest that the portion of the storm drain nearest tree #3 be redesigned to be located between units #3 and #4. There must be no trenching or excavation closer than 35 feet from the trunk of tree #3. 6. I suggest that the root collar of tree #8 be cleared of periwinkle and if necessary be excavated with an air spade or a water jet spade in order to determine the health of the root collar and to reduce the risk of fungus infection. 7. I suggest that any further recommendations, which may be essential to preserve existing trees, await the feasibility outcome of recommendations #1-6. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. The value of each of the Exceptional specimens is as follows. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 000057 Tree Survey And Preservai recommendations At The Trafalgar, Inc., 14, lig Basin Wa , 6 and 20717 St. Charles Street Saratoga Tree 43 - $45,806 Tree #4 - $33,767 Tree 48 - $ 8,208 The value of tree #1 is presently appraised to be $23,393. However, this may be reduced subsequent to the analysis of the root collar condition. I suggest a bond equal to 50% of the total value of tree #3 but that a bond to assure protection of the other trees await the outcome of recommendations # 1-6. Respectfully submitt m. M cc a1elm 'enc iate B Okoawt4e.i'nlne4a��� Enclosures: Tree Data Charts Map (2) Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Construction Impacts MLB/sl Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 27, 2000 000058 (C-0 AIMMd IVAOW3M m v c N IVAOW3M aNMW003M Ery 83ZII11M3d S033N w w-6 w w w w (S-1) H31VM S033N I � gi � n � (9-0 3SV3S10 MVTI00100M 1 xI ao ti -9 X x X x M- ; . (S-U 0383AOO NYn00100M a 0 a Y (9-0AV030NNf1M1 d (S- 0 OOOM OV30 c N a (9-0 3SV3SIa NMOMO 33M1 c (S-0 S103SN1 II ■ q 8 11 8 ■ 2 11 g (9-0 kU8018d °JNINn6d �n it 03a33N S319VO a 8 8 c 8 r 8 Z 1H913M70N3 3AOW38 - x x x x x x A E)NISIVM NMOMO U 'a N0IIVMOIS3M NMOMO c 0 w u w ■ o W u g v w u w ■ 4 N w n a VNINNIHI NMOMO °JNINV310 NMOMO (6-0 JNIIVM aMVZVH c (M-Z) JNIIVM NOI11ON00 IT N N m N C V U U mciN V U e U 0 (s 0 3anlonals N m x x x x x _ x (S-0 HIIV3H ^� Ln }j OV38dS pm N m' �i RCID m Q N 9 CD 1HD13H v w w v w $ Q w w w c 133d ZO 63139YVIa Ln Y tl c N w I I c N w II c Fz N w II c N w II -XI 11 c _ � w E A H80 Y HSO p m x x x x x W31SAS-innyv m to H9a o o o m o o o o LU Cali A O Q r 2 L^ V V E `° g O 2 ■n a `c E _� _ s a W E CC r O > E m mgJ Y m 7 i A.2 0 Y LL 0 0. f E Y ° C Y Y 7 J a 000059 0 O (v-0 xuvo Nd wAOW3a o 3 fD 3 N n < m E IVAOW3aaN3WW033a l° i i 7 'a 837nuN3d S033N ° 40 o m p a y F- (9-0 a31VM SO33N " n u u $ ■ to (9- 3SV3SIO HY11001008 m w X X (9-0 03a3A0O atl1103 MON n � x X X x x N O a` a (S-OAV030ANna1 r (S 0 DOOM OV3aIN C O m$ ^ (9-0 3SV3S10 NMOND 33a1 a w w u► y (9-L)S103SNI ■ $ " $ u $ ■ g (9-0 A11aONd °JNINnad At 03033N S319VO e 0 g O e 1H°JI3M ON3 3AOW3a x X y, x e s VNISIVa NMO83 & c NOUV80iS38 NMON3 p 1A N y a SNINNIHl NMO80 'JNINV3I0 NMO80 ■ n $ u ■ (6-) 0NUVa OaVZVH (OL•Z) `JNI1Va NOLLIONOO N N in N c 0 A a ccl u u u u (9-L) 3anlOnals ° U ^ w o X X X X (9-0 H1lV3H r OV3adS 1O $ �, v 0 11 J13H too N y p y e tl 133d z@ 8313NMo Q n r It C � ■ o H80 s U) arN w cmo w H90 R w31sAs•Illnw er H8a o $ p R N C � C to C LAJ .�". 4 1— O Ld s E G Q z Ee z Q e C m OC ^ S a b m CG "C o a •S ° rx e s� U ^ w S U d E O U m m o m Y G�7J C ., d3 di di > xpp 'ti cz In ern In z C X m 2 W U Vi A II II ¢ 11 x x x C6 �L L L = In N n — - — - --------------- 0 loi J-4 Ob � � O � O ^I ~ I _ L R I r2 .qlNj W A V 000091 THis PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000062 ATTACHMENT C Heritage Preservation Commission October 10, 2000 City of Saratoga TRAFALGAR, INC. 000063 City of Saratoga HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2000, 20001 9:00 a.m. Place: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Type: Regular Meeting I. Routine Organization A. Roll Call Present: Peck, Wyman, Hunter, King Absent: Anderson, Koepernik, Peepari Staff: Erik Pearson, Associate Planner Guests: Council member Waltonsmith, Stan Gamble, Phylis Ballingall, Alvin Ingleson B. Approval of nunutes from 9/ 12/00 Commissioner Wyman moved that the Commission approve the minutes and Commissioner Hunter seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 C. Posting of the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Thursday October 5, 2000. D. Oral Communications Commissioner Hunter expressed her interest in the Commission having a mission statement. She will draft one and bring it to the next meeting for discussion. E. Written Communications None. A. Trafalgar; 14612 Big Basin Way - SD-00-001 & DR-00-01 1 Stan Gamble presented his project and explained the site plan and proposed architecture. Commissioner King asked if there would be one or two retail units. Mr. Gamble responded that there could be either one or two. Commissioner Peck asked about the age of the existing structures on the site. He thought they might have been built in the 1920s. Mr. Gamble was not sure, but thought they were built in the 1940s. Commissioner Hunter asked about the roofing material. Mr. Gamble explained all the proposed colors and materials. Commissioner Wyman moved that the Commission approve the application. - Commissioner King seconded the motion. 000064 Motion passed 4-0. II. A. Schuck subdivision (SD-00-003) Planner Pearson presented the letter from Mr. Schuck's Civil Engineer dated October 3, 2000. Larry Schuck presented his memo dated October 7, 2000 and explained that lie would notify the HPC after the framing is exposed. Commissioner Wyman expressed that she was in favor of the proposal. Planner Pearson noted the conditions of approval that had been drafted, which include a requirement for a schedule of inspections to be prepared. Mr. Schuck told the Commisiion that he was nervous about being restricted by the Secretar\- of the Interior's Standards. Commissioner Wyman assured Mr. Schuck that the standards are based on common sense and that he should be able to complete his project in a reasonable manner and still comply with the standards. I. D. Saratoga Federated Church Arvin Ingleson presented the construction project that is currently underway. There are four buildings on the site and the first one was built by Julia Morgan. The Julia Morgan structure was in the best shape. Mr. Ingleson explained that a section of roof needed replacing and that most of the existing roofing is clay tile. Concrete file is only one third of the weight of clay tile. Mr. Ingleson presented a metal roofing that looks similar to clay tile and that the area in need of the new roof is on the back side of one of the buildings. He noted that he likes the look of concrete better and that it would require only a little extra engineering. Commissioner Peck stated that he was fine with the metal roofing and noted that the building was built in the 1960s. Commissioner Wyman noted that she thought she had seen more alternative roofing materials in the past. Commissioners Hunter, Wyman and King noted that they do not like the metal. Mr. Ingleson said that he would find the closest match possible in color and shape to the chapel and will use the concrete tile. III. B. Hunter; 14700 St. Charles Street — DR-00-049 (St. John's Episcopal Church) Planner Pearson presented the plans for the proposed residence and noted that the Commission had approved the demolition of the church building in April of this year. Commissioner Wyman asked in the front of the proposed residence faces Sixth Street. Planner Pearson responded yes. Commissioner Wyman moved to approve the project. Commissioner Peck seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. IV. A. Library Expansion Ph_ylis Ballingall told the Commission that she was happy that the Point of Interest application had been sent to the state, that she voted in favor of the library expansion and that she was concerned about the 0000 's THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK rrrr.. °�- IVL x� fL D JAN 2 . 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONME ooZjoe7 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �IZIZIZI . S. Sfinivasan January 18, 2001 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sir or Madam: E C E W E axismm CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT My wife and I are the owners of the townhouse complex just next door to 14612 Big Basin Way. There are 3 townhouses in the back row that we rent out to families all with children. There is one townhouse in the front row that we reside in with our children; underneath that there are two small retail units that my wife uses for her "Dancing Yogi" studio/gallery. I wish to make some objections with respect to the proposed building of 6 condominiums on the lot next door, i.e. 14612 Big Basin Way/20717 St. Charles Street. Some of the objections are general in nature to the character of the town, and some of the objections are personal in that they affect the quality of my family (and my tenants) living next door: General Objections To destroy what was once commercial property and convert it into residential property changes the character of the place, and in particular the historic district needs to preserve its heritage. Albeit the existing structures are in quite shoddy condition, a remodeling should be sufficient to restore them to acceptable standards and use the area for its original purpose, i.e. retail/commercial, attracting visitors to downtown and showcasing the spirit of Saratoga. The current proposal furthers Saratoga's continual slip into becoming a boring bedroom community and does not add in any way to the development of the vibrant Historic downtown area. 2. There is already a severe strain in providing Internet & phone connections in my neighborhood, as DSL does not penetrate into our region and PacBell cannot supply sufficient phone connections without inadvertently disconnecting the neighbors'. When considering utilities load of a proposed construction, it is not just gas/electricity/water/sewage, but also modern utilities need to be considered. 3. It seems that the builder is trying to "stuff' as much construction as possible into the available space and although it might make sense mathematically, there is a certain sense of aesthetics that one must consider too when building in the Historic District in particular. Reducing the number of condos would a good step in the right direction as it would preserve the character of the area and not make it appear congested. After all, this is on the main road of town and appearances Personal Objections 4. There is already unwanted car traffic from passersby on Big Basin Way that make U-turns into our driveway and we are always concerned about our kids' safety as the cars zip through and around our property. By city code we are not allowed to put any fences to prevent this, and we do comply. However, with the addition of the new parking structures next door there will be an January 18, 2001 Page 2 increase in traffic caused by the new residents. We are extremely concerned about the safety to our kids. Like I said earlier, there are about 6-8 kids in the complex at any one time and they play in the driveway, along with their friends who visit. Any proposal to build next door must consider this point and seek to ameliorate our concerns of safety, e.g. the exit/entry of the cars from their garages onto the street must stay as clear as possible of our land. The easement rights of Trafalgar on to our property is not clear from the title records and we want to ensure that the builder does indeed have ownership of the rights to use our land in such fashion. Any proposal to build must clearly research and document the rights of usage with respect to the various owners. For example, in my title documents it states that in addition to us. the easement rights also belong to John & Marylou Irwin, and William & Shelly Ward. Who are these people and have their consents been obtained? 6. As an extension of the previous two points, the merging of the Charles/Big Basin properties into a single property would increase the usage of the easement area beyond what was originally intended. Instead of just the current 3 retail/commercial properties using our easement area, there will now be 6 properties using the easement area! It is not fair to continually increase the use of the easement from its original intent. We have gotten used to the beautiful views of the Saratoga Foothills from our complex, and the new 2-story construction next door will destroy our views completely. Please keep in mind that the grading of the land is such that our complex is already low lying relative to the land on 14612 Big Basin Way, and a 2-story construction would be relatively higher than our buildings. We would want the builder to demonstrate using whatever techniques available, e.g. story poles, how the landscape/view would be affected, and also to consider reducing the 2-story down to a single story construction, and also reducing the number of condos. 8. There is an underwater stream that flows under our property that we pump out for pure mountain water and any construction next door must ensure that the stream quality and flow is not affected. 9. When, and if, construction actually happens, we would definitely want the builder to not be sloppy in moving equipment, parts and people around the property. A strong fence must be provided between the constfuction area and our townhouse complex for safety purposes, as we are very concerned about our kids playing in that area and trucks/earth-moving equipment being deployed in close proximity. Thank you for listening to our concerns. We are long time residents of Saratoga and will probably live here for the rest of our lives; as such our concerns are deep rooted regarding the welfare of our families as well as that of the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, --2vo-tA V-eV17 S. Srinivasan & Malini Srinivasan 14598 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone: 408.315.5710 (And owners of 14598, 14602, 14608, 14610 Big Basin Way) 000070 JAN-22-01 MON 04:48 F TRAFALGAR INC 40' 293 1802 P.01 TRAFALGAR 1 N C Builders &, General Contractor$ License No. 438402 247 North Third Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 292-0797 FAX: (408) 293-1 SOP January 22, 2001 Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles St. Dear Sir: I refer to the letter from Mr. Srinivasan objecting to our proposed development. I find his objections preposterous, especially since he has just recently bought his complex which is almost identical in concept and density to our proposed development on the Big Basin Way lot. I even showed him our proposed development while he was negotiating the purchase of the retail space and flat. With regard to density, while his lot is 10% bigger, he has four residential units and 795 sq.ft. of retail. We are proposing three residential units and 1300 sq.ft. of retail. two sharing Historically the three structures on our Big Basin Way lot are Houses, with the front an outhouse, We have an easement over Mr. Srinivasan's property as is clearly shown in the Preliminary Title Report and are using it to access these three "houses". We intend to continue use of this easement for access to the proposed new units on the Big Basin Way lot. There is no vehicular access proposed from the Big Basin Way lot to the three units on St. Charles Street. Several months ago, Mr. Srinivasan approached us and expressed an interest in purchasing the completed part of the project on Big Basin Way and we left him a complete set of drawings of the project. I even had some negotiations with his attorney, I can only assume that he must have had no objections at that time and am somewhat astonished and curious about the motives for this U- turn in his thinking, Yours r ly, W.S ?ammb P-S. Is a "dancing yogi" studio/gallery retail? ECEHE D JAN 2 a 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 000071 January 22, 2001 R E C E Y E 0 FEB Qa2001 City of Saratoga Planning Department CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Proposed Single Family Condominiums on Retail/Commercial zoned lot, between Big Basin Way and St. Charles Streets. Ladies and Gentlemen: We object to..khe proposed residential development of the above -mentioned property. We are concerned that allowing residential use of retail/commercial-zoned property will eliminate any chance of retaining a viable and vibrant downtown area. Our understanding is that the lot with frontage on Big Basin Way will retain minimal retail/commercial space. The retail/commercial space, as proposed by the developer is now limited to the lower floor of one building only. As long time residents of the Saratoga Village area, we have witnessed the gradual shrinkage of the commercial potential of this important downtown area. As the downtown commercial establishments are replaced with residential units, fewer people will come to shop. If fewer people come to shop, more businesses will fail. If more businesses fail, we lose our precious downtown. Many of the local residents enjoy the use of the shopping facilities afforded by the local merchants. Residential development forces Village residents to travel long distances for everyday necessities. This lack of convenience however, is trivial when we think of the destruction of the Home Town ambiance provided by a vibrant downtown shopping area. Without the Saratoga Village, Saratoga is just another sprawling residential sub -division. with the associated strip -mall, canned culture, available anywhere. The Village of Saratoga has lost enough of its commercial vitality due to recent projects of similar scope. We feel that it is high time for our elected and appointed officials to take a stand in the face of this rampant destruction of our time honored and cherished Saratoga Village. We the Saratoga Village Citizens agree that we would like to preserve the commercial viability of the Saratoga Village area, e?o77�Aonj 1;1 �/ -04- (�� ,,� % y,f R,4,1-9c 4 �cu, Ailo_/ v24����Q�2lUiCt s �00007z 2o-� 20184 Franklin Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 March 12, 2001 Chuck Page, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratioga, CA 95070 Re: DR-00-011, SD-00-001 and V-00-0188 (517-00-008 & 016) Trafaglar Inc., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street. Gentlepersons: As you may remember, I spoke at the Public Hearing on this application on February 14 in support of the project. I had hoped to appear again on Wednesday, March 14, but am scheduled for skin cancer surgery that day and do not think I will be able to be present. I was happy to note on the agenda that it is to be continued on March 28 when I hope to be able to come. According to the Planning Department no vote will be taken on the application on Wednesday but the Hearing will be opened for public comment. Since I can not be there, I am writing to reiterate my support. I know you feel a commitment to Measure G, but since this application preceded the moratorium, it's mixed use offers a possible opportunity to help meet Saratoga's desparate need for affordable housing. I shall look forward to seeing you on March 28 after the teachers have their meeting on housing with the City Council on March 27. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours, Betty S. Feldheym CITY OF SARA!rOGA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 0000'73 Saratoga Planning Commissic.. _Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 10 SD-00-001, DR-00-011, BSE-00-012 & V-00-018 (517-08-008 & 016) — TRAFALGAR, 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would fact Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The Big Basin Way half is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street half is zoned R-M-3000. The Planning Commission will take testimony, discuss the proposed project and continue the item for a Public Hearing and final action at a later date. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there are two legal lots of record. The St. Charles property is zoned R-M, 3,000 and the Big Basin Way property is zoned CH-2. Staff is recommending keeping that zoning boundary. Said that an informational discussion would occur this evening with a continuance recommended to February 14, for final action. This is necessary, as the Variance was not properly noticed. Commissioner Patrick asked why the condo project was being subdivided. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the subdivision allows greater FAR for each individual lot. Commissioner Patrick said that this project would create six substandard lots ranging in size from 1,756 to 2,489 square feet. Inquired whether the moratorium impacts this proposal. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project was submitted prior to the moratorium. Acting Director Irwin Kaplan advised that these are freestanding condo units that are not attached. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the second floor office. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant must increase parking by 10 spaces and meet ADA requirements to incorporate that office space. Chairman Page pointed out the normal parking requirement per residential unit as 2.5 spaces (one covered and 1.5 uncovered). These units only propose two enclosed spaces. Added that visitors to the site will end up parking in the Village spaces therefore impacting commercial uses. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Stan Gamble, Civil Engineer, Trafalger Incorporated: • Advised that this project includes two lots, Lot A and Lot B. • Said that his firm has constructed 250 homes since 1980 and they just won an award. • The existing parcel profiles are as follows: 1. Parcel A is on Big Basin and has three existing structures. They were originally built as residences. 2. Parcel B is on St. Charles Street and has one existing cottage. • Adjacent Uses are as follows: 0000'74 Saratoga Planning CommissiL. Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 11 1. To the east of Lot A are four residential units over two retail spaces with 895 square feet. 2. To the east of Lot B are four residential units. 3. To the west of the property is a hotel. • Lot A is proposed to be developed with two two-story townhomes and two retail/office spaces of 1,300 square feet with one residential flat above the retail space. • Lot B is proposed to be developed with three two-story townhomes. • The average size of the townhome units on both lots is 2,140 square feet excluding basements. • The proposed density for Lot B is equal to the neighboring project and Lot A includes slightly less. • Provided a time line for the project to date including being initially under contract in October of 1999; in escrow in January 2000 and submittal of his initial plan with the City in March 2000. His project is excluded from Measure G. • Initial staff comments have been met. Included was having a separate structure at the lot line. An increase in retail space in Lot A, provision of additional parking and the retention of a cork oak tree in the center of Lot B. Commissioner Patrick asked about access to St. Charles. Mr. Stan Gamble said that a driveway would connect the courtyard area with St. Charles. Commissioner Roupe stated that while this project is not under the constraints of Measure G or the moratorium, it is the will of the people and the Council to do everything possible to retain the commercial aspect of the Village, including not converting commercial space into residential uses. Inquired whether the Commission does have some discretion. Acting Director Kaplan promised to research and provide a detailed answer for the next meeting. Commissioner Roupe asked what is precluding the applicant from keeping the use strictly commercial. Mr. Stan Gamble replied economics. The parking is limited to 14 spaces. More retail space might be viable if a Variance is possible on the parking requirements. Commissioner Roupe suggested that a Variance on parking might be a possibility. Asked the applicant if he was willing to pursue the idea of a more commercially oriented project. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he would be willing along Big Basin. Added however, that he finds that the retail traffic turns around at Fifth Street. Commissioner Patrick stated that the Village Plan requires plaza type areas. Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out the proposed plaza area that is setback 15 feet from the sidewalk plus there is the 10-foot sidewalk. Commissioner Patrick questioned the roof design. Mr. Stan Gamble said that the steep roof design is cut flat at the top to meet height limitations. Commissioner Patrick inquired whether the easement might be overused with six residential units. 0000'75 Saratoga Planning CommissiL _Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the easement is currently used for three existing residences. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Gamble has a Preliminary Title Report. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he has provided those documents to staff. Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Commission would need one set of clear square footage numbers for this project. There are a lot of different numbers on the various pages of the plans and none of the numbers are corresponding. Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out that some figures are depicting areas of units and not square footage. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that it must be made very clear what square footage the units include. Commissioner Patrick said that the data needed includes property lot lines, the square footage for each proposed lot, each current lot and the proposed buildings. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant has discussed other possible uses for the front of Lot A with staff and whether other alternatives are doable. Added that with Lot B, the units are large and may need to be reduced or perhaps to flip the garage placement in order to allow ambiance, open space and a quality walkable environment. Asked if the applicant has considered providing affordable units. Mr. Stan Gamble said to incorporate affordable units he would need greater density and smaller units. Commissioner Patrick warned that more general information is required this evening rather than a debate on the specifics. Commissioner Roupe expressed confusion with the depiction of fireplaces on the plans Mr. Stan Gamble advised that each residential unit has a fireplace. They are direct vent fireplaces and therefore there are no chimneys required. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the height limitations for these sites. Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the maximum height he is proposing is 25 feet Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the zoning for each lot is different as are the height limitations. The St. Charles property is R-M and allows a maximum 30-foot height. The Big Basin lot is zoned CH-2 and allows a maximum 35-foot height. A moment later he corrected himself to say that the maximum height for CH-2 is 26 feet. Mr. Bill Brown, 14755 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Advised that he had sent an email to staff and proceeded to read it aloud to the Commissioners. • Said that this project is out of character with the area. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Brown if he objected to the residential uses or if he had architectural design concerns. 0000'76 Saratoga Planning Commissic,_ _✓Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Bill Brown clarified that he had no objections to the rear lot but supported the maximum commercial use possible for the Big Basin parcel, be it retail or office. Commissioner Roupe suggested that there might not be incentive to drive to this location for office space. Mr. Bill Brown stated that there is demand for office space in Saratoga including his own business, which is located outside of Saratoga because of limited office space available in Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that Mr. Brown prefers commercial office and/or retail use to residential uses. Mr. Bill Brown replied yes. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if he would support a parking variance. Mr. Bill Brown replied yes. Mr. Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he has a similarly sized parcel but that his property has 3,000 square feet less building that is proposed for this site. • Expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gamble that business stops at Fifth Street. • Said that the easement will be used more than the original intent with this development and that he is concerned about the safety of children due to traffic impacts of the expanded easement use. • Added that the mass of this project will create views impacts. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Srinivasan if he counted basement spaces in his square footage comparisons. Mr. Srinivasan replied yes. Chairman Page asked how many units are included on Mr. Srinivasan's property. Mr. Srinivasan replied that he has four condominiums (three in the back and one over the retail space) and 900 square feet of retail space. Each residential unit has a two -car garage and there are five additional parking spaces. His parcel is a half an acre. Ms. Margaret Marchetti: • Stated that the overall plan and design are very attractive but that the project is still massive and very close to St. Charles. • Said that the Village atmosphere is being lost. • Suggested that the one tree being removed be replaced with a 36-inch box tree rather than the proposed 24-inch box tree. • Added that a parking variance is not a viable option. • Reiterated that her concerns are the massiveness of the project, trees and parking. Commissioner Patrick asked Ms. Marchetti where her property is located in relation to this site. 0000'7"7 Saratoga Planning Commissic,. _✓Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 14 Ms. Margaret Marchetti advised that she is located at Sixth and St. Charles. Added that she does not mind retail space on Big Basin but does not support any on St. Charles. Commissioner Kurasch asked if parking was the reason for that concern. Ms. Margaret Marchetti replied yes. Ms. Betty Riley, Pamela Way, Saratoga: • Expressed her agreement with the comments made by Ms. Marchetti. • Said that she supports retail on Lot A but does not want to see more traffic on St. Charles. Ms. LeAnn Hernandez: • Said that this project will be a great addition to the Village. • Added that when compared to the average of $3 million plus for homes in Saratoga, this project will equate to affordable housing. • Said that she had minor concerns including a 7 a.m. construction starting time. This will pose a problem with their motel next door. • Suggested that the CC&Rs include a restriction that requires that garage doors be kept closed and that no parking be allowed in the courtyard. • Added that this project will represent an improvement over the current structures on site. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Asked that the oak trees be properly cared for on this property. • Said that he felt the density was a cause for concern. • Said that most of the roofs in the area are of a low pitch. Asked that the roof height be reduced if possible. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hernandez if he has been building on his property in the recent past Mr. Hernandez replied that they are currently under construction. Commissioner Barry asked for the square footage and number of buildings on his property. Mr. Hernandez replied that his parcel is an "L-shaped" parcel 150 x 150 and 75 x 150 feet. He has four buildings, two single -story and two two-story. Two buildings have 600 square feet each and the other two have 1,100 square feet each. Commissioner Barry asked if trees on his site are being protected and whether any have or will be removed. Mr. Hernandez replied that they are not removing any trees, except shrub trees. Chairman Page asked Mr. Hernandez if the units are bed and bath or kitchen units. Mr. Hernandez replied that they are bed and bath units. C17fZ1Z1 Saratoga Planning Commissic,. _dinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Stan Gamble said that he wanted to refute some of the comments made. Said that the easement exists for use by this site. Added that the setback is 25 feet. Said that the house sits down five to six feet from St. Charles. Added that the motel has a height variance and is located only five feet from the property line. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Gamble if he owned the property when that variance was sought. Mr. Gamble replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 10:50 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission would need guidance on the issues of the Commercial uses moratorium as well as Measure G. Added that the square footage information must be straight and identify the lots and the size of the residences/structures. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Commission has the Village Plan to serve as a guideline. Added that it is important to retain retail space. The Commission will need to evaluate what mix is fair and best serves the City. Expressed the importance for flow of pedestrian traffic as well as open space. Said that one of the goals of the Village Plan is the side to side development of retail spaces and that goal must be respected. Commissioner Patrick discouraged the applicants and neighbors from pointing at each other with regards to past approvals. Stated that there are trees to protect and that density is an issue. This project might offer a way to arrive at affordable house. Agreed that more reliable square footage figures need to be provided in order to properly evaluate this proposal and that clear drawings and renderings are important. Said that the garage doors are an issue and that imposing construction hours is a good idea. Commissioner Barry expressed her agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners and encouraged the applicant to consider ways of providing parking including underground. Suggested that some tradeoffs could be considered. Traffic and parking are the biggest issues raised by the neighbors. Suggested that staff evaluate the possible impacts on St. Charles and potential mitigation measures to offset those impacts. Said that the project drawings should be made available to the Commission as soon as they are available. Said that a model of the project might be helpful to show the flow of space. Chairman Page agreed and added that he does not want this project to have an impact on Village parking. Commissioner Roupe suggested that story poles might be helpful. Commissioner Kurasch stated that density needs to be considered. Perhaps the size of the units or different configurations. Commissioner Patrick suggested that a Study Session may be appropriate if the Commission wants to consider alternatives and explore square footage issues. That format allows the most flexibility to deal with issues. 0000'79 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION & INFORMAL REVIEW OF TRAFALGAR PROJECT DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 PLACE: Conference Room, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Study Session Chair Page called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe & Chair Page Councilmember Bogosian Absent: None Staff. Planner Mark Connolly Guests:Mr. Stan Gambel Mr. Glen Cahoon Mr. Stan Gambel, Applicant: • Identified their parcels as 517-08-008 and 517-08-016. • Discussed the access easement shared with Mr. Srinivasan. • Provided a copy of the original site plan and proposal. • Advised that they will remove a palm tree and two fruit trees. Commissioner Patrick asked about the access easement. Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the easement is 12 feet wide. Commissioner Jackman asked who owned that easement. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that the townhomes own the easement. Mr. Stan Gambel: • Pointed out the second sheet of his original proposal, which included 1,300 square feet of retail space at the ground level (Big Basin Way) with a loft above that space with 2,500 square feet. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the applicant is aware that this is retail and not office space on the ground floor. Mr. Stan Gambel said that he was aware that the space is intended for retail and not office use. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the lot sizes are for these two parcels. Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 2 February 14, 2001 Mr. Stan Gambel replied that Lot A is 11,250 square feet and Lot B is 11,332 square feet. He continued by stating that the Cork Tree would be retained. Under the new proposal two units, like single-family residences in a flag configuration, will include 2,750 square feet in living area each. This will create two lots from that one lot. Chair Page asked if there will be a share drive. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that there would not be a share drive. Commissioner Patrick asked how this property could be subdivided into substandard lots. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the difference is in creating condominiums and subdividing the lots. Mr. Mark Connolly explained that with condominiums, the owners own air space and not land. Added that staff is recommending keeping the boundary between the two existing lots and their differing zoning districts. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the proposal is for a subdivision or condominium project. Mr. Stan Gambel replied whichever is possible to do. Stated that for the Big Basin Way lot, he is proposing one lot with different Assessor Parcel Numbers for each unit and common area. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the newest proposal does not increase the retail use of Lot A. Mr. Stan Gambel disagreed and reminded the Commission that with this alternate proposal what would have been a residential loft is now being considered as commercial office space. Discussed parking requirements for that parcel. A viable commercial use of this parcel equals 3,400 square feet with 1,200 square feet downstairs and 2,220 square feet upstairs. For 3,400 in commercial space, 17 parking spaces are required. Nine are provided on site. Therefore a Variance for 8 parking spaces would be required. Commissioner Roupe asked if this sort of Variance is possible. Chair Page replied yes. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Gambel what factors he takes into consideration in calling a project viable. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that a 2,500 square foot residential flat is more valuable. Turning that space into commercial space creates the requirement for elevator access and handicapped accessible restroom facilities. Commissioner Roupe added that it appears Mr. Gambel is seeking the same economic viability with the commercial use, as he would have obtained developing a residential use on the upper floor. 00008, r Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 3 February 14, 2001 Commissioner Jackman disagreed that residential use of the upper floor is a given. Added that residential use is a discretionary use at the approval of the Planning Commission and Council and not a given right. Mr. Mark Connolly added that residential use of the upper floor is a permitted use. Commissioner Barry added that the Village Plan is more specific regarding commercial use than the zoning designation. Commissioner Patrick asked for information about the potential for underground parking, suggesting that use of underground parking would require less pavement and impervious surface at the street level. Commissioner Jackman asked if the intended use of the easement would be exceeded with this development. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the shared access easement allows for ingress and egress Commissioner Patrick asked whether more open area is achieved with the underground parking and whether the need for a Variance would be negated. Mr. Glen Cahoon • Advised that under -grounding the parking creates only 16 spaces as a result of the need for the access ramp. Additionally, they cannot put retail space on the first floor directly over the ramp, as there would be no pedestrian access to that space. Their original proposal provided 14 spaces. The only landscape addition would be a small patch of grass at the rear of the site. Commissioner Barry asked what the parking requirement would be if the CH2 parcel is completely commercial in use. Mr. Glen Cahoon replied that 20 spaces would be required. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would be more in support of a Variance to allow reduced provision of parking for commercial uses. Mr. Glen Cahoon stated that this is a constrained lot that lends itself for residential use. Commissioner Jackman disagreed; stating that this is a viable commercial property that she is not willing to give up easily. Mr. Stan Gambel advised the Commissioners to check with staff. The residential use is not discretionary but a permitted use. Commissioner Barry stated that the purpose of this Study Session is to come up with alternatives to the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick agreed and added that the Commission is not here to argue the point. Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project Page 4- February 14, 2001 Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the maximum parking possible on site is 14 spaces, which would allow 2,800 square feet in retail/commercial use. Chair Page stated that retail use on the second floor has been found not to be viable so the second floor would be office space. Commissioner Jackman suggested larger retail on the first floor and maybe one condo on the rear of that parcel. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the justification for mixed use has been made. Mr. Stan Gambel argued that a big office building on stilts would not be an attractive addition to the downtown. Added that it is clear there are no advantages to underground parking. Commissioner Barry stated that there are differing views on the Commission about what represents viability. Commissioner Roupe stated that in Mr. Gambel's case, he is saying what is economically viable in his view and what he is willing to do. Mr. Stan Gambel advised that the City of Saratoga is doing a study on the viability of commercial uses in this area. Suggested that he be allowed to construct a 3,400 square foot retail/office building on the Big Basin lot and four residences on the St. Charles lot. If it were determined after five years that the office use of the upper floor is not viable, he would be allowed to convert that space into a residential flat. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that Mr. Gambel consider three smaller residential units on the other lot rather than two larger ones and only one residential unit on Lot A. Mr. Glen Cahoon stated that parking and access constraints result from three units instead of two. With three units, they need six garage spaces and 1.5 on -site parking spaces. In addition, retention of trees including the Cork becomes more problematic. Commissioner Kurasch suggested flipping the direction of one unit. Commissioner Barry asked what justification there is to approve the rear setback Variance from the required 30 feet. Mr. Stan Gambel replied that the justification is the expanded retail use of the Big Basin parcel and the retention of the lot lines and differing zoning designations for these two lots. He reiterated his offer to accept two residential lots on the St. Charles property, two on the Big Basin property, giving up the idea of the residential lot on top of the Big Basin retail space with a total of 3,400 square foot of retail/office space on Big Basin. Commissioner Patrick added that this proposal would require Variances for both parking and the setback. RIO , Planning Commission Study Session on Trafalgar Project February 14, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Roupe reminded that Mr. Gambel is seeking a conditional five-year option to allow the conversion of the upper floor commercial space into living space should the office space be determined to not be viable at this location. ADJOURNMENT Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment 4 Excepts from March 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 and V-01-004 (517-08-008 & 016) — TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance(s) approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site for townhouses and a retail commercial space. The rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. This applicant has prepared an alternative for Commission consideration, as well as a modification of the original request to reflect concerns raised at a previous Public Hearing. Four existing residences with garages totaling 5,95 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second -story flat would be demolished. Mr. Philip Block, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this project was continued from the January 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Additionally a Study Session was held on February 14, 2001. • The project was originally to include Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and a Variance. The current request is for a Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and two Variances. • Based upon the feedback from the Commission, the applicant has made changes to the project including a reduction in the number of townhouse units on the St. Charles parcel. Originally there were to be three attached units and the proposal now incorporates two detached units with private driveways for each unit, making them more compatible with the existing single-family residences on that street. • The applicant also proposed a compromise by having the unit above the Big Basin retail space constructed for office use with the caveat that it could be reevaluated after five years and perhaps modified to residential uses. At that time, it will be clear whether office use is viable in this location and whether available parking has increased within the Village. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about the access easement and whether this project is adding substantial additional use of this easement. Mr. Philip Block replied that the project is compatible with the easement. Added that the St. Charles units will be accessed by its own property and not through use of an easement. Commissioner Jackman pointed out a letter expressing concern about having a second driveway coming off of St. Charles Street. Commissioner Barry questioned the findings in the staff report for the rear yard variance. Commissioner Kurasch asked what advantages and/or disadvantages exist with this five-year office use agreement with the potential to convert to residential use. Also wondered what the impact would be on the construction of that space. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Philip Block agreed that this is not an ideal situation. Said that it is complicated to approve a project on a temporary basis. Advised that the Commission has to determine whether this proposal is indeed in the best interest of the community. Added that establishing a mechanism to evaluate the use is hard to determine. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the tabulation headings on page four of the staff report are neither clear nor appropriate in this circumstance. Asked whether an elevator is required for the proposed office space, as one is not depicted on the plans. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised the Commission that this project is too small to be required to meet the ADA requirements. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Stan Gamble, Applicant: • Pointed out that a consensus had been reached to save the oak tree and that the townhouse units on St. Charles were reduced from three attached to two detached units. The two units will each have their own driveway access from St. Charles, which will provide space for visitors to park off street. • Said that their proposal has kept as much viable commercial space as possible. • Reminded that the zoning allows a residential flat above the retail space. • Said that they have provided the necessary parking for the residential units and 6.5 spaces for the retail use. • Expressed his opinion that the viable retail uses in the Village end at 5tn Street. • Said that his compromise is to construct the office space above the retail with the potential to revert to residential after five years in case the office use is not successful. This proposal allows the City the opportunity to determine long-term plans for parking for the Village. • Advised that they did a parking study and determined that there is enough on -street parking available during the day to justify the parking variance. Commissioner Roupe asked whether an elevator was planned in the retail/office building on Big Basin Way. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he had checked with Building staff and was advised that since the space is less than 3,000 square feet, he is exempt from the requirement to install an elevator. Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Gamble that there are no guarantees that uses demolished from a site can automatically be replaced in like numbers but rather at the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Roupe asked about the impervious coverage calculations that he reads as being 71 percent on Lot A and 52 percent on Lot B. Mr. Stan Gamble said that staff advised him that there are no maximum impervious coverage limitations for these zoning designations. Mr. Philip Block, Planner, clarified that for residential properties there is a maximum standard for impervious coverage but not in Commercial. The structure footprint faces limitations but not the overall use of impervious coverage on the property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch again asked what advantages there are with the proposed temporary office use of the space above the Big Basin Way retail for a five-year period. Questioned the impact if this project were to be sold to another owner. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that whoever owns the property will be required to comply with whatever is approved by the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch reminded that at the Study Session, the Commissioners had proposed that perhaps smaller units should be considered. Asked if the units above the retail space could be used for affordable units. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that the number of units on St. Charles could be expanded but those units would be too small to be viable. The smaller units would not contain all the desired features of today's homebuyer. Added that he was not interested in design something he had no interest in building and that he was not willing to construct BMR (below market rate) units. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the size of these units suggests family use while no viable play area is being provided on site for children to use. Asked why such play space is not provided and whether it might make more sense to design units for adult use rather than family use. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that these units are being designed more for empty nesters, who typically would use three bedrooms as a master suite, guestroom and office/den. Commissioner Jackman mentioned a conference she recently attended where housing needs were discussed as well as the fact that the Council discussed its Housing Element the night before. Said that teachers currently have difficulty in finding adequate housing. Suggested that the applicant consider building one bedroom/one bathroom units. Mr. Stan Gamble informed Commissioner Jackman that to do so would require the City to rezone the property to accommodate more units. The parking requirement kills that idea. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that a zone change would be required. Commissioner Kurasch advised that State Code allows 25 percent over zoned density to accommodate affordable units. Mr. Paul Hernandez, 13020 La Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Questioned the changes from the original plan that place buildings closer to the heritage oak tree on his property that they are intent on protecting. • Wondered why there are no site poles to show the impacts on the viewsheds. Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez, 14626 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that this is a great proposal and that there are places nearby where children can play. • Reiterated the importance in preserving the heritage oak tree. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Hernandez to specify which tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 5 Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez replied the large heritage oak on their property, which has been designated as a prime specimen tree. Ms. Marilyn Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles Street, Saratoga: • Expressed agreement with the theory that viable retail uses stop at 5th Street and that this portion of Big Basin may not be a good location for retail businesses. • Said that she does not support the placement of BMR units on this street as it has the potential to drive down their property values. • Advised that she liked the redesign of the townhouse units so that they appear as single-family homes. • Asked that a strong landscaping plan be developed for the St. Charles frontage. Commissioner Jackman disagreed with Ms. Marchetti that BMR units drive down property values. Explained that the people who would qualify for these BMR units earn upwards of $120,000 per year and still cannot afford to buy a market price home. Reminded of the concern for teachers in the area who cannot find housing. Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she felt the original plan was fine with residential use above the retail on Big Basin. • Agreed that housing shortages are a crisis in this community and throughout the region. Commissioner Roupe advised that there is no potential for greater tax revenue in office over residential uses. Retail use brings sales tax revenue but there is no financial incentive for office use. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that there is no sales tax revenue for a city with office use Commissioner Barry clarified that the point in maintaining office/retail space in the Village is not tax revenue but rather to encourage the viability of existing commercial uses in the Village. Said that it is too narrow a view just to look at retail space. Office uses helps to build vitality. Ms. Betty Feldheym again stated that housing is more necessary than office space. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if keeping office space above the retail would retain the commercial designation of the space where residential use would not. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that neither use would impact the existing zoning designation Mr. Bill Ward, 20713 St. Charles Street, Saratoga: • Advised that he is representing his Homeowners Association, which had submitted a letter addressing their issues. • Said that they agree than no viable retail occurs beyond 5th Street. Said that he did not want to encourage additional retail as it increases the need for parking in the area. Mr. Srini Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that it is a challenging task for Mr. Gamble to design this project. • Disagreed with the comments that commercial use is not viable beyond 5th Street. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 6 • Added that it takes time to build commercial uses and he purchased his property, adjacent to this project site, six months ago. • Advised that he has opened a yoga business and will open an art gallery in the near future. • Said that it is his intention to develop this section of Big Basin Way. • Added that the current homes on this subject property are much smaller than those proposed to replace them. Mr. Russ Gamble: • Assured that they plan to work with the Arborist to take every step necessary to protect the heritage oak tree on the motel property during construction. If necessary, they will even eliminate the basement in Unit 2 if it compromises that tree in any way. • Said that his development will offer an improvement to the site and the impervious coverage is similar to Mr. Srinivasan's property. • Added that he would be delighted to add landscaping along St. Charles per Ms. Marchetti's request. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:44 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Commissioner Kurasch asked City Attorney Richard Taylor to clarify the advantages or disadvantages to the temporary office use of the space above retail on Big Basin Way and what mechanism would be used to evaluate this use after five years. Mr. Richard Taylor, City Attorney: • Advised that the mechanism is the inclusion of a Condition of Approval limiting the use of that space for five years to office uses. • Should the use not be compliant, the remedy for the City would be a Code Enforcement action. • Added that any future owners will be subject to that Condition of Approval. Commissioner Barry suggested that perhaps five years might not be sufficient time for the City to develop a Parking District for the Village. Wondered if ten years might not be more appropriate. Asked if it is viable that the City has new parking constructed in five years time. Mr. Richard Taylor replied that it was feasible that the parking could be available within five years time. Suggested that language could be added to the Condition of Approval that accepts the approval of a parking structure even if the structure is not yet completed by 2006. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the five-year deadline was the suggestion of the applicant and not the Commission. Mr. Richard Taylor stated that if by January 2006, there is no Parking District, the applicant would no longer be limited to office uses above the retail space on Big Basin Way. Advised that the parking variance will be in effect for 10 years. Added that the applicant always has the option to approach the City to request a modification to this Condition of Approval. Chair Page sought clarification that the proposed uses are legal and allowable. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Richard Taylor replied yes. Added that it is the job of the Commission to flesh out the Code and determine reasonable versus unreasonable uses. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that permitted uses still require review and approval. Mr. Richard Taylor agreed that the Commission does determine allowable uses. Commissioner Roupe said that he could support either proposal for office or residential use above the Big Basin retail space. Added that his preference is for residential use of that space. Said that the reduction on St. Charles from three to two units with individual driveways was a good move. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she was not in favor of the temporary approval for the use above the Big Basin retail space. Said that this is a cumbersome condition to apply and that no advantage has been provided nor a need for this condition. • Added that she prefers to see the total frontage along Big Basin Way as retail. • Expressed concern for the parking in the Village, which is already deficient by 250 spaces. The solution is not to decrease retail space but rather to increase available parking. • Stated that this is an historic area and the existing architectural style should be embraced. Added that visual simplicity is the intent here and this proposed design is not compatible with the design plan for the Village. Added that the Village Plan calls for commercial purposes as much as possible as well as pedestrian access. Commissioner Jackman said that she could support the townhouses on St. Charles. Added that the windows on the retail space along Big Basin Way need to be larger to accommodate merchandise displays. Said that the 3 foot, 5 inch proposed setback between the St. Charles residential units and the Big Basin retail building is inadequate when a 30-foot setback is the standard requirement to separate residential uses from commercial uses. Commissioner Barry: • Said that there are a lot of competing interests here. While the developer has the right to maximize the use and development of his property, the City has the role of maximizing the viability of the Village as well as the goals of the City's Housing Element. • Suggested adding a Condition of Approval to require the front landscaping on St. Charles Street. • Said that she is assuming that the Fire Department supports the entry and exit access provided in this project. • Said that while she can support the findings to allow a parking variance, she cannot support the findings for the reduced setback variance. There is no hardship to the applicant to merit such a reduced setback and that there is actually a safety issue in approving such a reduced setback. • Added that she did not believe that the 3 bedroom/2 bath units were the best design for this property as there is no place to play except the parking area. Rather, smaller units would be preferable. • 'Said that retail/office on the Big Basin Way property is the first choice. Chair Page: • Expressed his agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Roupe. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 8 • Said that the St. Charles portion was nicely redesigned. While he would have preferred more units, he supports the efforts to protect the heritage tree. • Added his support for the setback and parking variances. • Said that he would support either office or residential use of the upper floor on Big Basin Way. • Agreed that the five-year temporary use plan is a good compromise. • Stated his support of the EIR. Commissioner Kurasch asked for further clarification as to what would have to be accomplished within five years to either keep office use or allow the conversion to residential use. Mr. Richard Taylor replied that in 2006, the City would have to re-evaluate the parking in the Village to see if it is sufficient to support this use. This offers the greatest flexibility and is the easiest way for the City to exercise its policy. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Chair Page, the Commission considered approval of the EIR as well as the entire proposed project (Design Review, Tentative Subdivision and two Variances for parking and reduced setback) including two residential structures on St. Charles Street; retail use on Big Basin Way with commercial above, to be re-evaluated in five years; an added Condition of Approval to require landscaping in front of the two residential units on St. Charles; and working with an on -site Arborist to ensure the protection of the heritage oak tree during construction. (2-3-2; Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) This motion failed. Commissioner Jackman requested a short break. Chair Page called a break at 9:25 p.m. Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Commissioner Barry stated that she supports the parking variance but not the setback variance. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Page, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved V-01-004 to allow a decrease in parking required for this project. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Chair Page, the Commission denied V-00-018 to allow a reduced setback between the Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street properties. (2-3-2; Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Chair Page asked Mr. Gamble if he would be willing to redesign. Mr. Stan Gamble asked the Commission to take its vote on the project this evening and he would appeal to Council. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 9 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission denied SD-00-001. (3-2-2; Chair Page and Commissioner Roupe voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission denied DR-00-011 without prejudice. (3-2-2; Chair Page and Commissioner Roupe voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Chair Page advised that this decision could be appealed to Council within 15 days PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2 DR-00-054 & V-01-002 (517-14-087) — MARTIN/ROSE, Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 7,340 square foot two-story residence on a 346,173 square foot vacant parcel. The Variance is necessary for retaining walls to exceed five feet in height and possibly separated by less than 10 feet for parallel walls. The Variance is also necessary to exceed 15,000 square feet of impervious surface due to a long driveway. Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet tall, located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a 7,340 square foot, two-story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. • Added that a Variance is required for retaining walls more than five feet in height up to 10 feet. Additionally, a Variance is required to exceed 15,000 square feet of impervious coverage due to the need for a long driveway to access the site. • The property is zoned Hillside Residential. • Advised that this lot is built on fill and the City's geologist has issued clearance. The Engineering Department will work with the applicant to address drainage, runoff and any potential damage to the private road. • Said that three letters were included in the staff report as well as the minutes from the March 14`h Planning Commission meeting. • Said that the garage was relocated off a hill. • Staff is supportive of this proposal. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the fencing regulations mentioned on page 9 of the staff report are standard rather than Hillside District requirements. Mr. Mark Connolly agreed that this is in error and will be corrected to reflect the regulations from the Hillside District zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the grading difference between the original location of the garage to the current location. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the original placement was at a 45-degree slope and the current placement is between 15 to 20 feet lower down the hill. Attachment 5 Letter in favor from William J. Ward dated April 19, 2001 Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 p.02 WILLIAM J. WARD 20713 ST. CHARLES ST. SARATOGA, CA 95070 40"67-7541 To: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 4/19/01 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Saratoga City Council Meeting of 5/2101 Trafalgar, Inc. Issue Ms. Boyer, I address you now as a private citizen residing in the City of Saratoga at the address stipulated above. Not being able to attend the City Council meeting on 5/2/O1, I am asking for your consideration of my thoughts expressed here. I am attaching for your information some correspondence that I have had with the planning commission as of 3/25/O1, as well as, an amended version of that correspondence, revised on 4/18101. In that correspondence, i was acting on behalf of the Saint Charles Place HOA. This, now, is personal. My wife and I have resided in this "condominium" residence for 13 years. When we bought the place, we expected to "stay a year, or two". It turned into 13 years because the space is so delightful. Although, the weekends when my automobiles never left the garage have diminished, as the hardware store, the drug store, etc. now are gone, it is still a delightful place. We were happy to see the original Trafalgar plan for the lots neat door to us. We could envision a fine addition to our residential community within the Village. There is a real community here in microcosm. It extends from Big Basin Way through 6t6 Street, 4" Street, Lomita, Komina, Oak SL, St. Charles, through to Aloha. There is a "community" here of people who know and look out for each other. I suggest it may be beneficial to add to that community. The need for sales tax revenue is well understood here. However, short of providing adequate parking west of 5'a Street, I can not comprehend how you can expect to "legislate" shopping patterns in the Village of Saratoga. Were there a "parking structure" at the west end of Big Basin Way, in the manner of the Los Gatos venues, it might make sense. Without such convenient parking it is hard to imagine that commercial space in this area can be successfully utilized. In short, I ask the City Council to let other potential residents of this area enjoy the benefits we have enjoyed in the Saratoga Village. That is, a delightful place to live while patronizing the businesses that can survive in the Village. We will continue to "delight" in the Village, no matter your decision. However, I think it is clear that the "market factors", shopping patterns, and other natural demographic patterns are not in concert with the Planning Commissions initiatives on this matter. My thanks to the City Council for their consideration of my view point and opinion on this matter. Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 p. uo 4/19/01 Respectt] Ily Sub 'tted. Bill Ward Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 p.U4 CITY OF SARATOGA 137777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 (408) 868-1269 g�,t r3>�% WARD WILLIAM J AND SHELLEY W T - OR CURRENT OWNER OF A.P.N.: 517-08-053 20713 ST CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070 NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 2nd day of May 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearings on: DR-00-011, SD-0.0-001, V-00-018 and V-01-004 (517-08-008 & 016) — TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street; - Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance(s) approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site for townhouses and a retail commercial space. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. Four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat would be demolished. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearing(s) is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. Questions may be addressed to the City Clerk, (408) 868-1269. 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 a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your community has as much information as possible concerning the project described in this notice. Cathleen Boyer City Clerk Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 p.05 Saint Charles Place HOA 20713 20719 20723 20729 ant Charles St Saratoga. Ca. 95070 March 25; 2001 To: James Walgren, Community Development Director City of Saratoga, Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Trafalgar Project We, of the St. Charles Place HOA, met with Mr. Stan Gamble prior to the Planning Commission's hearing on this matter of 1/24/01. We were pleased to see the plans that were then proposed to include 3 condominiums on the St. Charles parcel and some retail space, as well as, a second level residence condominium on the Big Basin parcel. It appeared to us to be a well -conceived, attractive design of buildings, with most favorable utilization of the site, which adjoins our property. As residents here, we have long enjoyed the location of our property. The short walk to the village encourages us to patronize the local merchants. We looked forward to the enhancement of our neighboring property that would allow others similar benefits. Our primary concerns revolved around increased vehicle traffic on, the extremely narrow, Saint Charles St. Trafalgar's original plan appeared acceptable given those concerns. The new plan that calls for increased retail commercial space on the Big Basin parcel is much less acceptable in our view. The added retail space requires additional parking within the Big Basin parcel. We don't look forward to walking past another "parking lot" on our way to the Village. It would seem that until a "parking structure" of some sort is available at the west end of Big Basin Way, there is little use for retail commercial space west of 5'h St. There ,just is not adequate parking to support true retail commercial utilization. Additionally, the "new plan" requires an added driveway coming off of St. Charles St. This narrow street is already very congested, particularly during drop off and pick up times for the Oak St. school. The additional driveway may be an increased traffic hazard on St. Charles Street. We understand that one condominium unit is lost from the original Trafalgar plan due to the necessity to retain an Oak tree. We support the Planning Department's Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 p.06 action on this. However, we do not support the requirement to make the Upper Level of the building facing Big Basin Way into retail commercial space. We think that is an unrealistic use of the space. It requires additional off street parking on the property which does not add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In the revised Trafalgar Plan, by our count, there will be 23 parking spaces served by an ingress/egress easement we granted several years ago to serve 4 parking spaces which were proposed at the time. This utilizes a single 15' driveway from Big Basin Way, which includes our "fire access" route. The "fire access" is currently, routinely violated. What do you think the "new" commercial project" will produce? We respectfully request your review of the genuine concerns we have expressed here. We would prefer not to have additional commercial space, but rather for you to allow the use of the 2°d floor on Big Basin for residential use. Additionally, we ask that you give consideration to the traffic safety issues on St. Charles Street. Saint Charles Place Homeowner's Association Mr. & Mrs. Kel Carson Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Ellpern Mr. Nanda Gopal Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Ward Wm. Ward Secretary\Treasurer Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 p 07 Saint Charles Place HOA 20713. 207] , 20723, 20729 Saint Charles Saratoga, Ca. 95070 March 25, 2001 (AMENDED) To: James Walgren, Community Development Director City of Saratoga, Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Trafalgar Project We, of the. St. Charles Place HOA, met with Mr. Stan Gamble prior to the Planning Commission's hearing on this matter of 1/24/01. We were pleased to see the plans that were then proposed to include 3 condominiums on the St. Charles parcel and some retail space, as well as, a second level residence condominium on the Big Basin parcel. It appeared to us to be a well -conceived, attractive design of buildings, with most favorable utilization of the site, which adjoins our property. As residents here, we have long enjoyed the location of our property. The short walk to the village encourages us to patronize the local merchants. We looked forward to the enhancement of our neighboring property that would allow others similar benefits. Our primary concerns revolved around increased vehicle traffic on, the extremely narrow, Saint Charles St. Trafalgar's original plan appeared acceptable given those concerns. The new plan that calls for increased retail commercial space on the Big Basin parcel is much less acceptable in our view. The added retail space requires additional parking within the Big Basin parcel. We don't look forward to walking past another "parking lot" on our way to the Village. It would seem that until a "parking structure" of some sort is available at the west end of Big Basin Way, there is little use for retail commercial space west of 5"h St. There just is not adequate parking to support true retail commercial utilization. Additionally, the "new plan" requires an added driveway coming off of St. Charles St. This narrow street is already very congested, particularly during drop off and pick up times for the Oak St. school. The additional driveway may be an increased traffic hazard on St. Charles Street. We understand that one condominium unit is lost from the original Trafalgar plan due to the necessity to retain an Oak tree. We support the Planning Department's Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 p,08 action on this. However, we do not support the requirement to make the Upper Level of the building facing Big Basin Way into retail commercial space. We think that is an unrealistic use of the space. It requires additional off street parking on the property that does not add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In the revised Trafalgar Plan, by our count, there will be 23 parking spaces served by an ingress/egress easement we granted several years ago to serve 4 parking spaces which were proposed at the time. (A note of explanation and amendment to the 3125 memo being made on 4118101. A question was raised at the Planning Commission meeting, but not addressed This ingresslegress issue extends back to what was then the Rosengarten Project That Project was never developed, but was subsequently sold to the Blackwell Brothers who completed the project immediately below us on Big Basin Way. We, the St Charles HOA own the property under a strip of land 12 feet wide extending from the northern border of our property to Big Basin Way. In 1988, when our project was built, it was a requirement to have afire lane access from Big Basin Way to our property. That requirement stig exists. We granted to the Rosengarten project, and subsequently the Blackwell project an ingress/Egress easement over that space to allow them vehicle access to their development. However, in the original Rosengarten proposal that easement was to serve only 4 parking spaces. With the Blackwell development, due to utilization of basements and thereby, increased garage space, the parking allocation increased to 12. The 2nd iteration of the Trafalgar project, including added commercial space would nearly double, once again, the required parking requirement Additionally depending on the type of business resident in that second floor on Big Basin Way, the "turnover rate" on those parking spaces could readily result in increased traffic over that easement by a factor of 10.) This utilizes a single 15' driveway from Big Basin Way, which includes our ire access" route. The "fire access" is currently, routinely violated. What do you think the "new" commercial project" will produce? We respectfully request your review of the genuine concerns we have expressed here. We would prefer not to have additional commercial space, but rather for you to allow the use of the 2od floor on Big Basin for residential use. Additionally, we ask that you give consideration to the traffic safety issues on St. Charles Street. Saint Charles Place Homeowner's Association Mr. & Mrs. Kel Carson Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Ellpern Mr. Nanda Gopal Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Ward Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:05 AM Bill Ward 408-867-5849 P. 09 Wm. Ward Secretary\Treasurer Attachment 6 Plans, Exhibit A b BASIC LAYOUT J- lUNIT IS..---_... i UN_ j--2UJNJTIA UNIT 3 I r r �Z 03 LOT A ADVANTAGES; 1. DISADVANTAGES; 1. 2. 3. 4. Conforms to all required zoning. (No variances required.) 3.5 parking spaces available for retail area of only 700 sq.ft. Not conducive for given "opportunity" with two contiguous sites. Unit 3 encroaches into the drip line of tree #3. Cork Oak removed (required for unit 4 garage access). 15 iw X7 Xg 1 UNIT 4= UNIT 6 X9 j I i UN� ' LOT 8 a ADVANTAGES; 1. Retail to 1,000 sq.ft. 2. Two lots merged creating an appearance of one project. 3. Creative approach (pedestrian access to both properties, creating a Village feel). DISADVANTAGES; l . Buildings could be considered too bulky 2. Cork Oak removed 3. Lot line removed IR 1 ADVANTAGES; 1. 2. DISADVANTAGES; I 2 Retail increased to L300 sq.ft. Buildings separated (lessening the bulky appearance). Lot line to remain, requiring setback variance. Cork Oak removed IN FINAL SUBMISSION (March 2001) ADVANTAGES; 1. 2,000 sq.ft. of Office space offered on temporary basis, with 1,300 sq.ft. retail. 2. Cork Oak saved DISADVANTAGES; 1. Lot line to remain, requiring setback variance. 2. Parking variance required on temporary basis. (as part of item 1 above). 3. Is two single Family homes a better land use than three Town homes? (Not helping to satisfy housing needs). NOTE April 2001: Proposing to remove lot line between lots A & B effectively merging the two lots and eliminating the need for the setback variance. i r � 14612 B W Biwin iW,ay and jqe qd.ews 20717St. CharlesStreet Index Cover Sheet C Vesting Tentative Map I Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan 2 Shadow Study 3 Basement Plans Simple Plot Plan 4 Site & Main Floor Plans w/ square footage 5 Upper Floor Plans w/ option plan 6 Roof Plans & Profiles 7 Exterior Elevations S Preliminary Planting Plan L1 eevision9 BY a sePr'm A nA k rl Re K. o•�. Aus.2aro soa NOhd J.b B16 d9s/N 5MNA03% of @A.N. GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 _� 1 INCH - 20 FEET 36' 3S s' INa I EASEII I 1 T Wn I _ i I a1' LI I 1 W I 81 I D I I 1s' Z I 1 I I C I - I I I I I I I I I LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING DESCRIPTION PROPERTY LINE -------------- ______________ EASEMENT (AS NOTED) C£NTERUNE ______________ BUILDING SETBACK LINE ti ti EDGE OF PAVEMENT CURB AND GUTTER REIAITING WALL -D- STORM DRAIN --E- SANITARY SEWER -W- WATER MAIN --0E-- OVERHEAD UTATY UNE/WNE 10 STORM DRAIN INLET 0 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE q 0 SANITARY MANHOLE o°O SANITARY CLEANOUT w Yl FIRE HYDRANT t m UTILITY POLE ELECTROUER -1- FENCE LINE -AS NOTED TREE DRIP LINE SPOT ELEVATION --345- ELEVATION CONTOUR 1 �Y tyY BIG BASIN WAY IT ST CHARIES STREET 0 V u 0-4 a v1 v VICINITY MAP a a C; � m - o .nl UI lL q o tn D' o, °o c I I w 0 D PROJECT INFO m a l � � VJ APN: 517-OB-008h016 SITE ADDRESS: O 14612 BIG BASIN WAY 0" I SARATOGA, CALIF. T> J.. OWNERS NAME: TRAFAIGAR, INC. a a D I EXISTING USE: RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL Q 3 U m ? Q I I ZONING DISTRICT: < O m BI( BASIN WY: CH-2 (p < '^ I ST CHARLES ST: R-M-3000 cc V' I EXISTING/PROPOSED LOT SIZES: N W �W^ °o U. LOT A: 11.250 SF y' N O LOT B: 11,332 SF O I rN I SLOPE AT BUILDING SITES 8.5% V mI OT m I AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9.2% a I . I I 26 I No' I R d DEVELOPER: Z W` TRAFALGAR. INC. - / 247 N. THIRD ST 1L� SAN JOSECA 95112 coN r PHONE: 468-292-0797 W Q CIVIL ENGINEER: Z W GIULIANI AND KULL, INC. L 11899 EDGEWOOD RD, STE V f AUBURN, CA 95603 PHONE: 530-885-5107 SHEET �OfESSHp4 1 ti. « 2 SHEETS :os)T SHEET INDEX Wr DATE MARCH 18, 2001 SHEET N0 DESCRIPTION �n�•_ i TENTATIVE MAP X doe 110 99282 2 PRELIMINARY GRADING. DRAINAGE h UTILITY GRA1:1)\1999N92R2T� 99G 899292TU.9 282HREFS) p m j N 5 GRAPHIC SCALE d 20 0 10 20 J40 t` u o 1 INCH 20 FEET y' E 'o O P n m Q O � M o � u - o �^ • C 7-y p BUILDING 20' 20' N I C BUILDING )1/ 0L7- 09 u $ M I I ll I 8 A,p oo BUILDING u ^0 ` BUILDING 1 rn C NDO 7R 1 I P 1 a I � � oa co�3 o5s) +° O�Y 'PVC W IN 1o6. 6'PVC 09.0% 7— J .° ... rrr e'S VC ,5% S OWY S S� O Se'r S 57. 6PVL OtOx ,�;A — e� d F S _ _ _ _ ° v I z 417 \ ® I O ot 1 J�6 , UNIT IA9 IB ' I� O ' ' i° ' R i //� FFI021 1 \I I Q J FFCB3.2 I .5 O T q ° N14 S gr I 1 3 cat _ TT O IE� �� au L r-1 .J1J I Z Q FTB1.7 Q O FF9 .6 <) PA RS 103. UIIDI y fF8�.5 FFB6.7 ( Y D O OFFICE I BUILDING O qU� INS k \ FF97.9 T In Q a�, I 70' 6 VC 6UNIT 2 1 UNIT 3 j - - _ 1, CFF106.0 Y-. v, cc a GFF95 °,'° L ae° J U. FFGB1.2 21 CAR i t! CD 0) 04 m 0 FF81.7 1 GA SS fIIl 1 110' YC I WOOD SHED x ° ; IS' VC I T� I O r Y D S-- +O p v 53 eo 1 1 a 1 I a 0 F e _ 6'PVC W.9x r 2S' 6'P7C wff r - - IIDI! .1+ �" REna� D 1B'IB'Pvclax I p 25 6'PVC Nix 3o D vc s7.6xy A'I BUILDING —Oa O41a I I I I I "(' I BUILDING I J t I--- L___ J S• 9 9+° I NOTE: ALL EXISTING ON-SITEI STRUCTURES f' _/'f0 BE REMOVED _ _ z I I 1 I 2O' 1 I I za 0 J H } D Q os Z W �_ C7 J Q W z aCc s 0 4�EE1 2 OF 2 SHEETS DAM MARCH 12, 2001 300 No. 99282 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES BASEM'T. CUT 600 CY. 1,207 CV. FILL 600 CY. 0 CY. EXPORT 0 CY. 1,207 CY. EARTHWORK TOTALS ARE EXCLUSIVE OF BASEMENTS. ACTUAL EARTHWORK QUANTITIES MAY VARY DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE INDEPENDENT ESTIMATE PRIOR TO BIDDING. i ,64?z4T SCUM BEDdM 3 AWK D D� I K/7'✓'NEN D! / 6 Mft— I I , o - r I� OPTION I IAA IS CONDO -RETAILS RESI AJCH-2 ZONING, UPPER FLOOR PLAN Sca,c I°=10'0° ___ 'UNIT 3 _ UNIT 4 UNIT 3 cl OPTION 2 WITH 5YEAR PLAN NIT IAS 18 CONDO -OFFICE OVER RETAIL_- ISAME �FOOTPRINTrAS RESIDENCEI - - _�- CONDO- RESIDENCE OVER RETAIL ROOF PLANS ;�QqM,3 HALL ERPi;T /�`1 BEDR`J'1-3 �sRi�f.2 Evlf�'E i NAIL PARKING SPIES _ CONDO RESIDENCE OVER RETAIL _PRO _FI_LES SECTIONS ENTRY D/N/Na DINING ENTRY - — BASEMENT BA5EMENT tSP4mop w.iw. MasferSuite pIVEr L-fT i 5 ,_ i'L!.II/ LOOT Bt:'1Qt i (? m' .EN1r. �d ,' f: :. ♦. ( ..day cr/^ •. a" 1 __.7^�. • �CONDO_f�E510. OVER RETAIL 0 W.I_W. ,te r Sc4% —YJ— f1j f� R P.i1SEMEA'T `tj to Eq V G, a r 0 rl Ib 0 C rl Q� .O 0 N cs z 0— q(K W o.... 5G tab 81(>=/I-'.1 $M.1 Of enr.. �I �I V4!0? /cc 96 - 96 94 ` 9z I` �•c 'ea ; 66 84 82 80 i 1,#aoNr tw1r aw 18`ol),Aom MMRAL L-A PmrtsN6n UNIT b—_.__---.—-------y- LOT B (R•M• 3000 ZONING) RIGHT SID EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION fF ror.o I UNIT - - _._LOT B (R-M•3000 ZONING) FRONT ELEV._____. _ SOUTH ELEVATION ST,CHARLES STREET C t NARoI• StgrE' /PL1�/N9 HL17. ..OVAL ;VtMaW5 (Acr6NT) 'COPFF.)2 PMF/1a5`MA-MgMt. L JA4/CK'VENEER N LAZY mimm H610 1' LlMlr ZGOoFMM NAn444L op, p1Nl5NEn 6R4LC _ AT `A `(CH •2 ZONING) RIGHT ELEV. FROM BIG BASIN WAY —/..i' UNIT IA. 1.8 CONDO RESIDENCE OVER REAL -�, l O �( LOT A (CH-2 ZONING) _FRONT _ELEV. NORTH ELEVATION BIG BASIN WAY ?d`C1/'NEl6NTL/Mir UNE -'-- h FMM U41UNAL M P•e - -_ - HARD sU#TE'.� N __ v �ctoFlN6 MA7i`74GiL I � — --�cGo ,BODY" � � r 1 ro4 /o2 foo y6 -- —... ---- — - -- -- - 94 - -- -- 84 - - - - UNLL 4 —,UNIT-5 -.-- - . --- LOT B (R-M•3000 ZONING)LEFT SIDE ELEV. FROM ST.CHARLES STREET _ C T O O a id o C URV:-, Eq V !ti ti h h q N O, N > ot. u C M�1 h xEn� o �Q I U W 0 [[0� 7 0 C N V) s.�. Nq=-P o, k mn 95/0 BASIN sn.n� of SM.1. _ •IIrlT�nl� - r.t,�l��gn., ENF'[:ll(•�■ F- I PIA"'llfw I•IYC]•Ilf[i1I1III •Mp••'•1•InrRM'E'Ir.•••.1•Iall •111•:NIL41_��•,(a1s— [Na R1aA�[OtlgaS11115/tlaSISB�V/1;)aIF [rLS:INrII/J1xYY.TA11Il�Ej�r�_ [vA:r1:11�wto 'I"•D•-F' Wall.•E'rrIlr.YG—uTrt (NIr.••'��[lE�� Enunln�[ G [- yr r•r vTrr ua ■ '1anFY'rrm;r.yrnvLLl/,T3�RidBII� � `J;aO[LiCIIIIII�Of•� EI •Iy [� ,d _ mow_ I��.:.�!��� ;� . . •�� �� L FRA - pErL. Iti i} I ;1P W5-h� I M �! -I I i• I '� 1+ i C SAYE ( i Cs,'.vE) - I C SAYE) E.N' ..'6 F . - 1 F F ENc ---t --� yrl (yam to TTW =f G9NJAP ---.—r-- -,ASG_ 3 •NN.L 1.P.OQ.fiM °2PETP° ..4lJ-Dnu ��I I V NW � V -SYM °. °__• I 3AT-A OIL 1 _ � k_`-'•C I. ('�.__ S�a�op • •-p_ _p+- . " fR��T- �l HE D[,I' F-s•�fr _ - —I � Sn+. Fc -SrM -�1;/Va�T�E ! 11 ,• I �I I I I `MERRY 3rAM4,M, - _e• -o.,a _ - NFF. SAS . I 1 —sTN I T(j) GHEfwE) 5-C KPA t I11EN+� _ 1 rREE sro. NEDW� I FCUT Tl)ALL PODOGRPUS MACROPHYLLUI DOOON'UEI•RUNUS SHRUBS SHALLBESINGLE STAKED rSi KIN .DRTAHa S. MANUALLYALL Roars TO RODUEk CLEANHAT ST BE. UTAN VERED SHALL A THE MANUALLY PRODUCE CUT AND7TlFATED WRIT A'fREES TREE MITI CATION I � WITH I.1'I.ODOFY()IE PINSSI'A r2-RUBBERTRFETIFS 23)IE) DENOTES EXISTING. , 6. REPLAC MENTTEEE CIFSPON518LE FORPROVIDINGCEFDUN "LE RCONTRACTOR NTRA TORTTRFFS FCi0. ANY FXIlTING'fREFS THAT ARE FOUND B]"THE 1.JVER'"CORK OAK 2J6"REDWOOD TREE ]<)INIDENOTES NEW ' CITY TO BE IRREPARABLY DAMAGED UUETO CON5I RUCTION ACI'IVfIY. 6-IA"BOB( FLON' EURNG CHERRY ISE(TYPE . DENOTES TYPICAL 4 T./DENTIFICATION:TNEUEVELOPEROR CONTRACTOR CARRYING OLITTHE WORK HE DEVELOPER'. 8HALL COM A CTI'Y UNDSGPE ARCHITECII B2R"BIT%BIRC'IITREES- 36) (D S I -DENOTES DIRELY/Off SIGN P ("I NY Co_ PARK SUPERVISER HERH F. BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE - GENERAL NITRES •PA DAY .1•INTLNANCI TBALL LANDS PE AREAS SHALL BAYS AUTOMATIC IRRmGAiION WITH ALL MAY IF. REMOVED AND THOSE ES THAT IN THE FIELD, TNOSF.TREESTHAT MAY IF. REMOVED ANDTHOSEIATIOTIUT LD, ELOPER ANDS THAT I. HE FIELD, - STOZ 6"I'OP-UP SFRIN'ClFll9 IRMROL Al/f0R'•T -•^r-��- ARE TO BE PRFSERV E E IN ACCORDANCE W ITN THE TBEE PRESERVATION U TOPSOILTO BE SCARIFIEDTO A DEPTH OF B" VNCHES3 1 PROGRAM. 2)INODRf[TMTESOILAMFNDMWTSTHOROWHLY INTOTOPSOIL(MIN. 6"DFFJ) NITRMPN TRFATm REDWMD SAWDUST: 6CU. YDS. PER 1.000 SQ. FT. I OT ION NOTES T�'•F•-r➢ gCT S. A10NI TORING: THE L'I"fY LANDSCAPE. ARCNH ECf AND/OR THE CfTY COM PLIANCEWITHTIIFSEREQUIREMENfS. (2" INCH THICK LAYER MINIMUM.) I TREEBMNCfIESTHAT WILL INTERFERE WITH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PLANNER SHALLMONITOR ' IS MONITORING MAY INCLUDE YERIOUICSITF VISITS.ANY OOMMERCIALFERTILIZERA6.66(4-)040LBS. PER L000SQ, FT, AFTER SNALL.BEPROPERLVPRUNED PRIOR TO SEOINNINGCONSTRUCTION. fN ELY VIO)UGPIT BUPFRVIIORAN 3)RAKE. BREAKUP CLODS AND FIND GRADETO PROVIDE UNIFORM SMOOTHNESS PRUNING SHALL BE KEIT TO A MINIMUM AND COMPLY WTTHACCEPTFD 01HEATTENTIOF ON SITE SE ISORANUTHP. DEVELOPER. THE NOF ANONS 'THE W'11IIIN AND POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE HORTICULTURE PRACT'CFS. UF.VFLOPER HALLB CORRECT DF.V R. AND SHALL. BE CORRECT FU BY DEVELOPER. HNISHED GRADE: I... BELOW TOP-OP1V RB. PAVE. ETC 3. FFNCINC:APROTECfIVE FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AT THE DNIPLINEOF I W ONF.I I)WORKIN[i DAY. IN THY: F.V'ENU THAT ON[- MORE OF THE TREES TO BF. PRFSIRV FD IS JI TREE AND SHRUB PITS: I, WIDER WIDER AND6" DFIPFI(THA11 ROOT BALL THEEKIST7NO TREES BFEOPE ANY CONS1AUCfION ACI'IVI"PIES COMMENCE. DAMAGED, THERA IANOSCAPE AR('HI l ECT SNAIL BE IN WM1FD BACKFlLL 70N NATIVE SOIL MUGGD WITH JON SOIL AAffNOMFNT MIX. SOIL AMENDEB-NT AGX PEJL SPECIFlGTION SEE NOTE 12 ABOVE EX TREES REMAINING SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A 5' HIGH CONSTRUCTION ORANGE TREE PROTECTION FENCE (OR APPROVED EQUAL. I IMEDIAI FLY, THE CI FY LANE RA ARCHI f E('f SHAH. DETERMINE WIIAI SI EIS ARC. NECESSARY TO PN ESE0.VE ACCEPTABLE BY C'17Y)Cl�NS1AUCTED AT THE URIPU EOFTREES. U. IIIIMAGEDLRF:E(S) 7'HE UEVFIA3PER SHALL IMPLEMENT TI3ESE SI FPS INA7IAIFI.Y AIANNFR. 3)000BLH STAKE'IREE5:2 1"X 10'IDNG TREATED IAWFJOfE PINE THEE SLAKES II PER-TREEI SENRE WITH RUBBER TREETIES(.PER 1REF.). SECURE TO STAKE NAll.TO PREVENT SLIPPAGE ANY Dl151'WNICH SETT ON ITETRFES ASA RFSULTOF GRADING IN THE AREA SNAIL BE WASHED OFF ONAUAILY BASIS. THE FENCE SHALL IN'fI1F. EVEM'7'HATONEORMORETREtiS 30 MAULED CANNUI'UE SAVE D.'TIIF. ('IN tANUS(AI'E AR['HITECI SHALL- DF.7ERMINE WITH GALVANIZED RMFlNG USESTRAIGNT GROWTH TREE'IESH)"LSNGTHORAPPROVEOEQUML S TA11 SH - BEMA TMFS IINLAVE BEENC MPIEfEDN UMILALL CONSTKUCTION APPKOPRIAri MITIGATION.ACTIV GRAPHIC SCALE 6) FORM WATER BASINS AROUND TREES AND SHRUBS (BE' DETAIL S H 1.31, 3, EMIT ON ACf1VR1ES: TIIEPULLOWING ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT OCCUR VINETALIORMA FNORSAN SU-ONEAND RESPONSIBLE ENSURING "I IIAT AI.I VENDORS AND SU8C EACTORSANDREGULA 30 10 10 /0 7)FIRBARK GULCH ALL PIAMFD AREAS WIA MIMMUAI 3'IINCHFSI WITHIN THE FENCED AREAS: IONS'F,ES ARE A W ARE OF ANU IN ClIMPOANCE WITH' HfS I? RE(illlA'%OHS. TRUCK IAYER HRBARK MULCH. USE MEDIUM SIZE DECO BARK MULCH. HNM ACCMANCEBY OWNERIREPRFSENTATIVE A. CHANGES IN GRADE B. CHANGES IN DRAINAGE C SOIL COMPACTION MSD GRADING SHALL BE AVOIDED UNDER TILE 10. FFNCING MAY HE REMOVED FOR TNF. 1•RIINING AND FINISH DEFACES OF T IIF: PROJECT I INCH � 16 FEET BI MAINTENANCE'. L DAYS DHIPLINE OFTIIE TRFFS. MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE AW AY FROM V) %ANT AND PLANTING GUARANTEE GROUNDCOVBR-ONS(11 YEAR•SBRUSS• ONE YEAR, TREES•ONE(1) YEAR. PAVING. D. PAVING. 11. ALLTREESTRENSU EIIALLBEIRRIGT EDAERATED AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO F.NS1IHF. SURVIVAL _ 10) ALL PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE KEPT WEED FREE DURING ELDAK AWLKAN P o1GD F. ETRENCHINC. PARKING OF VEHIL'LrS OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. STORAGE OF TOOLS ----- '- '- -- I O ALLANNUAL (1DIDR FLOWER BEDS SHALL HAVE TIM TOP B" (INCHES) OF SOIL WITH SON SANDY LOAM MIX R SON NATO VE SOIL OR OTHER GEAR AND EQUIPMENT, STOCK %LING OF CONSTRUCT ION MATERIAL NL WINO SOIL U AS CEMENT, REMOVED AND REA ACED ROTWILEDIMETHER. G. DUM%NGr' F ANY LIQUID 00. SOLID MA7ERL.SUCH OIL, PAIM.OR WA': FA EALI 13) ALL ANMALCOLORARFAS SHALL BE RACFD EVERY"-' LDAYS. H. FREQUFMSUMMEI:IRRIGATION. 13, NUR. DFNOIFS HEADER BOARD IBEEDETALL.EH.L-A-L L NOSTORAGEOF MATERIALS OF EQUIPMENT SHALL OCCUR WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE DRIPLJNE OF THE TREES. IJ) VISQLIFEN. SHEF T PLASHC ANODE HER NON -POROUS MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PIACED UNDER THE MULCH. SCAFVOU 'UAl1VE CLUSTER' _ INNUA�I COLOR PER SEASO�PER E%POSURE ® IS)NOPLANTSUBSTITLITIONSALLOWED UNLESS AUTHORBY LANDSCAPE 1+ -i 1- P01S DESIGNER 16) ALIGN TREES WITH PAINTED PARKING STRIPES WHERE APPLICABLE. 17) LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR7O NOTI►V LANDSCA![ DESIGNER ONE WEEK PRIOR HANNS NY-HEOERA HELLX 'MJJINS' I GAi.O11A - RITSUWA YELL 1 TOCOMPL[TION IN ORDER TO ECHLDULL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IN[P8C710N. BSI ALLSHRUF BAREAS IWf15®TALLIINAL'CORDNFKS WITH ALL SST TOF FIRBARX � E AM IDGL 1 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN 3-INCH 19) ALL UWN AREAS SHALL HAVE ROCKS ]-INCHES OR GREATER IN DIAIAETFR pE),10VFD. ALLLAWNSHALL '. 701 ALL LAWN AREAS SHALL BE MOWED ONCE A WEER DURING Pr DAYM A INTENA NCL PERIOD. - L-1 1�i 6•=,-O• 111ALLTREES PLANTED IN LAWN AREAS SHALL RAVE AN I['pA1.O:TFA AREA. FREE OF LAWN. AROINOTREE TRUNK. 1 , 9 � Zm r•1 O 3t C p�O� U 1 O 7 w Y a' n • N 4 c c: o o N O -T • v v� E z O QU Z �j d Q O �-< ooW w m L U) N O O SHEET L-1 OF 1 SNEERS DATE I SJ(,{ I I, 2000 OB N0. II 69282 REVISION$: I I — I LJ I I I I I I I I I GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 to 20 +I I INCH 20 FEET I I I o. I H.;I - nlmc F 1 i UNE 22 f 2 FM \ 'r f _221'` `4, C __. -- Hull DIN OFFICE �• illfiAlING 1 � 11- -- I_IGI i oII low?ate` 1 ; & I t 9 7 1 yam%- _.. - 1T I r------1 F -----� �I ------ --' I a � � _ I I Ir �I�li HI,I;IJI�•,; � I � � _� it ;� l � I� i � �--'� .•� l I III I I 301-;);Nf , !J ZZd/O-AM SHAWN STUDY" xgle lu>yplpu I r I I I I 1 I I L--------� II � I I I i 1 " I I 1 i I I A ri 00 0 a D.t. ltJ9, ZZ7 N07W Drawn job °✓5IN SNN v�I of w✓J�/1/l//Sneeze m 6i CD C0 Z J I. QA UNIT IA 9 IB CONDO, RESIDENCE OVER RETAIL 8ASEMENT_PLANS SCALE / ° _ /c'o ° ---_ N�1 I T_? . BASEM'T. 765 SO.FT. T U D !R z D UNIT 4 UNIT "I UN Il UNIT I.A. UNIT I.B. (ABOVE) LOT iCH•2 ZONING) I F- w w B: U) N w J Q U H to r a` r 00 0 a L a u C 0.0 rf x .. m E cl U t yr o °� clz.2 F+ V) o.f. AUP. 70 " Joe glF Ps Tf Ir of en..f. I REVISIONS BY /4 L 13'4' /0//0// /yrGca 45 0' 2I10" 0101 l7/0" /3'0" Ar4'10 2,0/$0 I I oe m i a •I4 0 SP.-CE 1796 �t6�MPFA I'%rLICi°/1 �8 OO,l/'E' VIN �1 V13 ! V n YT CJ 0 Ii w I nq ZJ —� I —_— _ _ p F.. — -- - 1v7RY 0 I I ° �!L 0 ---- F7 o X �1 cn W 0 i b O _ 24 - -- xx EfiEif RN. Nlrr EARA E (_ co) ----- — -- ,1.. .-26 s oR n ' .0 55 C7 /fci�i /��.iaV L /r/u � t: 0090tE . . . . . . . . . (D 6 10 1 - 02 j •-� Ito--- 23_a" l°a"----_-- e'o"— co^-8,00�— --_—T 'n° —--- - /14P go" 3-- /5 rr 9z' 1 JNIT IA& 16 CONDO- RESIDENCE OVE I RETAIL NIT 2��UNIT S k (UNIT 4 -__ UNITS- _ LOT A (CH •2 ZONING) ---- — —_--—_----- --- _ %Y -- LOT B3000_ZONINGL----------------------------------------------- SITE PLAN a MAIN FLOOR PLANS PROPERTIES AREAS•_._- CH-2 ZON'G. 11,250 sq. ft. R-M-3000ZON-G. 11,332sq.ft. LOTH IMPERVIOUSCOVElu E: (BIG BASIN WAY) (St. CHARLES PLACE) STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS 4,714.0 sq. ft. 42%<60% LOTH 11.210 sa.ft. LOT B 1I 332 sttft. UNIT 1 1,889 sq ft. OPEN & PARK'G 5,742 sq.ft. UNIT 2 1,416 sq. ft. COM)ON MUM FOOTPRINTS CONDOMINIUM FOOTPRINTS UNIT 3 1,409 sq.tl. UNIT Ia&lb 1,889 sq.ft. UNIT 1,888sq. fl. PARKING&DRIVEWAY 3,119.O sq.fl. 27% UNIT 2 UNIT 3 1,756 sq.ft. 1,863 sq.fl. UNIT 3 1,644 sq.fl WALKWAYS 236.0 sa.ft. 2% TOTAL .............................................. 8,069.Osq.fl. 71 %71 TOTAL PROPERTY 11.250 sq.ft + 11,332 sq.ft. - 22,582. sq.ft. LOT B IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: BUILDINGS SQUARE FOOTAGE AREAS; UNIT LA (LOT A) UNIT 4(LOT B) STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS 3,532.0 sy.fl. 31%<40% RETAIL UNIT LB 1,316 sq.ft RESIDENCE. LOWER 1,461 sq.fl. UNIT 4 1,888 sq.fl. RESIDENCE UPPER 1.390 so.fl. UNITS 1,644 sq. fl. LOWER 193 sq.ft. LIVING 2,858 sq.ft. PARKING & DRIVEWAYS 2,227.0 sq.fl. 19°/ LOFT 2.115 sa.ft. GARAGE 420 sa.ft. WALKWAYS 224.0 sq.fl. 2% LIVING 2,308sq.R, TOTAL 3,278 sq.ft. TOTAL ....................................... 5,983.0sq. fl.52% GARAGE 380sa.fl. BASEM'T 1.197sa.ft. TOTAL 2,688 sq.ft TOTAL 4,475 sq.11 TOTAL BUILDING 4.004 sq,ft. UNIT 2 (LOT A) UNIT 5 (LOT B) RESI)ENCE RESIDENCE LOWER 1,036 sq fl. LOWER 1,224 sq, ft UPPER 1,334 sa.d. UPPER 1,603 sa.fl LIVING 2.360 sq. ft. LIVING 2.827 sq 0, GARAGE 380so.fl GARAGE 420 sa.fl. TOTAL 2,740 sq.IL TOTAL 3,247.q.fL BASEM'T. 765sa.ft. IA"..T 988 sa. ft. TOTAL 3.505 sq ft. TOTAL 4,235 sq. A. UNIT 3 (LOT A) RESIDENCE LOWER 1,029 sq.ft. UPPER 1,227 sa.fl. LIVING 2,256 sq.IL GARAGE 380 sa.ft. TOTAL 2,636 aq.fl. BASEM'T. 920 sa.fl TOTAL 3,556 sq.R cl u n 4 O� , fpp-1 7 t O. u w F� u rn to E T w U L cl p ,Q1it �zo ri. om S..1. Nr71rL' 0. k an..t or an.sr.