Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2000 Agenda Item 5.BSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 19, 2000 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: KWONG, PARK AND SZE APPEAL - AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DR 97-061,14805 MASSON COURT (APN 503-72-014), A REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 6,461 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY RESIDENCE ON A VACANT 2.75 ACRE LOT WITHIN A HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. LIU) RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Continue the public hearing to February 2, 2000, per the appellants' request. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a request from the appellants of the above-referenced appeal to continue the hearing to February 2, 2000. Also attached is a copy of the appeal application. The City's standing policy is to grant one continuance request as long as the continuance is within a reasonable period of time (usually the next available regular Council meeting or a subsequent meeting approximately within a thirty day period). The appellants and applicant have been informed by staff that this appeal hearing will be scheduled for the February 2, 2000 meeting. Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners subsequent to the receipt and scheduling of the appeal for tonight's hearing date. Therefore, there may be public testimony tonight on the subject appeal. In this case, it is appropriate to receive the public testimony(ies) for inclusion into the records, or allow speakers an opportunity to return on February 2 to present their testimony(ies). FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A Notice of Public Hearing for this evening was published in the Saratoga News and mailed to surrounding property owners, as required by law. A Notice of the Continued Public Hearing will be posted outside the Council Chambers the day following the meeting, as required by law. S. d CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Appellants and applicant have been notified of the continued hearing date. ATTACHMENTS: Letter requesting continuance from Jon Kwong, Joe Park and Robert Sze and appeal application with attachments. Ms. Susan A. Ramos, CMC City Clerk City of Saratoga 12-29-99 From: Jon Kwong 14581 Saratoga Heights Court Joe Park 14800 Masson Court Robert Sze 14780 Masson Court Subject: Continuance We are requesting a continuance for the January 19, 2000 hearing Re. appeal of Planning Commission approval of DR 97-061, 14805 Masson Court. We need more time to prepare for the materials on account of the holidays. For example, the December 8th Planning hearing minutes are not available as of this date, and it won't be available until sometime in January 2000. THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK Date Received ~ o~ 07 ~ ~~ ~ aS~ ° v Fee Hearing Date < < ~ `~ Receipt # ~ ~ ~O I City of Saratoga APPEAL APPLICATION (THIS TWO-PART APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION) ha3 c: 7 ~ ~~'~~ 3 Appellant Name f ~ ny~ w.t~° ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~-~' => ~~ P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) ~~«4~ Address ~~ =~-~,~ tu~~~~<<~~.; ~,~ Telephone ~ (. ; - i Z-?, ~.. Fax Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant) Project Fife Number and ~~ - ~~ ~ i =~ ~ C ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~?~~ Address l~4~'> ~~ l~ ~G.. i ~ T", _ Decision Being Appealed 1 ''_c~ _s=~ - (~C Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): ~~ ~~`~ ,` ~ ~, ~ j`~`~'~,-tom !*A pe{lant's Sig re J ',~ ease do not sign this application and the attched authorization until it is presented at City offices.) c City of Saratoga APPEAL APPLICATION (Part 2) AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, `~ ~} ~~~ , as appellant on Project Fife # 17~-~(` ~" C~~-~~ , hereby authorize Enginee ing Data Services to perform the legal noticing for this appeal application. Signatu APPEAL FEES AS OF 7/99 ,ORES. 99-351: • Municipal Code Section 2-05.030(a) appeals: • No hearing ..............................................................................................$100 • With hearing ............................................................................................$200 • Municipal Code Section 15-90.010 appeals (zoning related): • Appeals from administrative decisions to Planning Commission ............$150 • Municipal Code Section 15-90.020 appeals (zoning related): • Appeals from Planning Commission to City Council ...............................$250 • Request for continuance: • For first request .......................................................................................No charge • For second and each additional request .................................................$250 B TO: City Council City of Saratoga FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park 14800 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze 14780 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong 14581 Saratoga Heights Court December 15, 1999 We are appealing the Planning Commission's decision on December 8, 1999, Re. item 2, DR-97-061 (503-72-014) 14805 Masson Court, on the following ground. 1) The first issue is one of neighborhood compatibility. Not just one neighbor, but the entire adjacent neighborhood finds that the proposed structure on 14805 Masson Court (referred to as proposed structure in the following) is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its architecture, site setback, its bulkiness, and its departure from the policies given in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. Each one of these incompatibility and departure will be detailed in the following. These issues were raised both in letters delivered to City's office prior to the hearing, and raised during the hearing. Departures from the policies in the Residential Design Handbook were cited during the hearing. There are also issues regarding landslide problems and property boundary lines which must be satisfactorily addressed before design approval can be granted. In past practice, the Planning Commission has paid attention to the inputs of the neighbors and adhered to the policies and techniques detailed in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga. The December 8th Planning decision represents a significant departure from this past practice. 2) Site Set Back. In the City's Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements, for the HR zone, front set back is specified to be 30 ft. minimum, and rear set back is specified to be 60 ft. minimum (for a two story). The front yard is defined to be that closest to the curb on a public/private right of way. The rear yard is that opposite to the front yard. The front and rear yards are not defined by the orientation of the house. In fact, the orientation of the house is not defined or mentioned in the Setback Requirements. A builder cannot circumvent the Setback Requirements by simply calling the front yard its side yard; or by calling the rear yard its side yard. The proposed structure has a 20 ft. front setback and a 20 ft. rear setback, which do not meet the - 30 ft./60 ft. requirements. This violation of the setback requirements aggravates the other issues of incompatible architecture, bulkiness, and intrusion on privacy. All the houses in the neighborhood other than the proposed structure diligently complies with the City's setback requirements. We the neighbors do not want a violation to ruin the neighborhood we have worked so hard to preserve. 3) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #2:Follow hillside contours; to avoid large, single form solutions, and to avoid tall support poles for overhanging areas. Proposed structure is mostly a large, single form solution, with tall crooked support poles for overhangs. 4) The proposed structure does not follow Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #4:Minimize building height; to minimize areas of maximum height, vary height of roof elements and to set back higher portions of structure. Masson Court is a narrow private road. All existing houses on Masson Court are either single story or two story with the second story setback, some at the request of the Planning Commission. Proposed structure's lack of second story setback, lack of minimizing areas of maximum height, lack of varying height of roof elements, all at reduced setback less than required, aggravates its problem of bulkiness. 5) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #S:Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood; to be compatible in terms of proportion, size, mass and height, to have architectural style that is compatible, and to avoid overwhelming existing residences. The neighboring houses to the proposed structure aze similar in terms of proportion, size, mass and height. They are either single story or two story with second story setback, 30 to 45 ft. setback from the curb to the house, and ..100 ft. setback from the curb to the garage. Both 14800 and 14780 Masson Court aze smaller in size than the proposed structure. The square footage of 14800 is approximately 50% of that of the proposed structure. Proposed structure with its reduced setback of 20 ft. (front and back) which is less than the required 30/60 ft., is larger than 14800 and 14780 Masson in size and proportion. Proposed structure is incompatible with 14800 and 14780 in terms of proportion, size, mass, and height, and at close proximity resulted from its reduced setback, it overwhelms existing residences on 14800 and 14780 Masson Court. 6) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 1, Technique #6:Use architectural features to break up massing to avoid vertical features that add to the perception of height. The proposed structure's excessive use of two-story high windows and tall, crooked poles drastically incr®ase the perception of height to an already tall and massive structure. 7) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 2, Technique #Z:Integrate with environmental texture and forms; to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting. The clustering of hillside houses as mandated by the HR zoning heightens the importance of each new structure to blend in with existing structures and not to be out of place. Proposed structure with its abruptly cutoff roof and flare out overhangs appears as a foreign object from outer space. 8) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique #1:Control view to adjacent properties. to avoid window and balcony locations that impact privacy, to avoid reducing required setback distances. Proposed structure has a long balcony facing 14780 and 14800 Masson Court. At a reduced setback distances less than required, this balcony poses a major impact on the privacy of both 14780 and 14800 Masson Court. A small balcony on the opposite side also at reduced setback less than required poses a similar impact on the privacy of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. 9) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 3, Technique #2:Locate buildings to minimize privacy impact; to avoid siting structures in direct line-of--sight to neighboring residences. Proposed structure has a long balcony in direct line-of--sight to 14780 Masson Court. At reduced front setback less than the minimum required, proposed structure maximizes privacy impact on 14780. A small balcony on the opposite side at reduced setback of 20 ft., less than the minimum required of 60 ft., poses similar privacy impact on 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. 10) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique #1:Locate structure to minimize view blockage; to not block view with structures, and to avoid using site plans that will create view problems. Proposed structure with its height and bulk at reduced setback less than required maximizes view blockage for 14800 and 14780 Masson Court, and creates major view problems for both 14800 and 14780 and 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Proposed structure is located on a parcel of 2.75 acres. Yet the design calls for essentially vertical construction on a small foot print located directly in the line-of--sight of 14800 and 14780. At a reduced setback of 20/20 ft. instead of the minimum required of 30/60 ft., the proposed structure maximizes view blockage and creates view problems for all its adjacent neighbors. 11) The proposed structure violates Residential Design Handbook Policy 4, Technique #3:Locate structure to reduce height impact; to not block view by excessively high and bulky structures, and to avoid roof forms and ridge lines that impact view. Proposed structure is designed to maximize square footage on a small foot print. To achieve this design goal, setback requirements are violated, and the proposed structure is located and vertically constructed tv maximize height impact, and block view by excessively high and bulky structures. 12) A number of major landslides exist on the site of the proposed structure. In a letter dated Sept. 2, 1999, from the City geologist to the City, it was stated "second landslide (on 14805 Masson Court) extends offsite to the east, where it has impacted the residential development at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court." it was also stated "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." The property owner of Saratoga Heights Court was never notified of this concern. Mr. Kwong of 14581 Saratoga Heights Court raised his concerns regarding the landslide problem and the lack of resolution, both in a letter and also at the December 8 public hearing. On the day of the December 8 hearing where the Planning Commission approval was given, no document in the City file on DR-97-061 adequately addresses the resolution of the landslide problem. During the December 8 hearing, a geological drawing was distributed to the Commissioners which purportedly addresses the resolution to the landslide problem. The Commissioners did not have a chance to study the drawing. Mr. Kwong was given a copy of the drawing and told to review it before returning to the lectern. This drawing was un-signed, un-dated, ambiguous as to the extent of the repair (e.g. how much cut and fill ), and it shows structures (buttress) that extends from the applicant's property 14805 Masson Court into Mr. Kwong's property 14581 Saratoga Heights Court. Down slope landslide was not addressed in this drawing. As noted in the City's geologist's letter, "owner (applicant) should be aware that there is a potential for further landsliding downslope from the proposed repair area", and "future landslide may require ... supplemental mitigation measures by the property owner." A few minutes later, Mr. Kwong was called back to the lectern. When Mr. Kwong raised the questions regarding this drawing he was told that was not the place to ask questions regarding the drawing. How can the City Planning Commission approve the plans for an applicant's structure that extends into neighboring property without the neighbor's approval ? 13) On December 7, the day before the approval Planning hearing, height poles were put up on applicant 14805 Masson Court. Unsured of where the property line lies, the height pole workers repeatedly placed stakes inside Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court property, contrary to the markers placed by surveyor previously hired by Mr. Park. The same workers also placed stakes inside Mr. Kwong's 14581 Saratoga Heights Court property. Due to the property line marker (between 14800 Masson and 14805 applicant) being at the center of the applicant's proposed driveway, the applicant's driveway would have to partially pave over property, however small it is, of Mr. Park's 14800 Masson Court. The approval for the applicant to do so must come from Mr. Park and no one else. The drawings available in the applicant's file show conflicting locations. One drawing shows swimming pool located at rear boundary with no setback. Another drawing shows house located at rear boundary with no setback. The inconsistency among the dra~evings and height poles creates a confusion as to what is the site location and setback that is being considered for design approval. 14) The following are points of fact. Some neighbors did not receive notices to the initial public hearing. The proposed structure's site plan drawings on file at the City office were either out of date or contain conflicting information regarding structure location and setbacks, obscuring exactly what is being considered for approval, New drawings were distributed during the approval hearing, allowing no time for review. Height poles were put up in the late afternoon after the Commissioners' scheduled site tour, and on the day before the approval public hearing. Some Commissioners, in fact, may not have seen the height poles. The sum total impact of the above is critical facts and information were not made available for consideration prior to the hearing. Timely and accurate facts and information to the Commission and the public are necessary for a fair and impartial public hearing. 15) The applicant proposed to cover the structure with a copper roof. The neighbors and several Commissioners have voiced their concerns regarding the copper runoff into the ground and into the bay. In the December 8 hearing, a report from the copper institute supplied by the applicant was presented, which maintains that copper runoff is not harmful to the environment. An opposing view may be found in a San Jose Mercury News article, dated December 10, 1999, where the environmental group San Francisco Baykeeper maintains that copper runoff is harmful to fish, plants, and other animals (copy attached). For protection of the neighbors, the environment, and the public at large, we, the neighbors and the public at large rely on the Planning Commission to make decisions based on findings and a body of unbiased facts. To this end, we are appealing to the City Council, seeking the same protection for the neighborhood, the environment, and ultimately the public at large. We would like to work with the applicant, including study sessions, to resolve all issues to our mutual benefit. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Group sues over metals (1 2/1 011 999) http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/meta110f.htm x ants are unpredictable San ,bra Mwrtrry hews ~ dome ~ Site laden ~ Search ~ Faed~haci[ ~ Hai ~ Cnstoaan Service Register for free a-mail t O~,a~ Q ('}.~}n Dispatches L• a tilQlG Sections News Published Friday, December 10, 1999, in the San Jose Business & Stocks Mercury News 4TechnoloQv SDOrts O inion Group sues over metals Living & Comics Weather Copper, nickel discharge into bay called Classifieds & Services threat to fish Classifie s Jobs: JobHunter Homes: HomeHunter $y PAUL ROGERS NewHomeNetwork.com Mercury News Staff Writer Local & State Home Education ,~ environmental group is contending in a lawsuit Breaking News Digital Ht~ that recent state rules will allow much more copper National and nickel to be dumped into San Francisco Bay, O,~inion potentially damaging fish, clams, plants and other World aquatic life. Mr. Roadshow Contact Us The organization, San Francisco BayKeeper, said About this Hasa Thursday that the South Bay's three sewage treatment plants -- located in San Jose, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale -- will be allowed to release more copper and nickel into the bay than they now can if new rules issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1998 remain in place. " If we're ever going to make sure we protect the bay from copper and nickel and other heavy metals we're going to have to make sure we don't allow increases," said Michael Lozeau of Palo Alto, an attorney for the environmentalists. " We have to prevent the problem from getting worse." 'Phe three South Bay sewer plants release about 170 million gallons of treated sewage a day into the bay. The amount of wastewater, enough to fi116,800 backyard swimming pools, is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act. 1 of 3 12/17/99 9:26 AM Group sues over metals (12/1011999) http://wwly.mercurvicenter.com/premium/local/docs/metallOf.htm Because of the shallow nature of the South Bay, where tidal action takes a long time to flush bay waters out to sea, the sewage plants are required to operate under the strictest controls of nearly any sewage plants in the United States. The wastewater from San Jose's plant, for example, is so clean it is recycled into irrigation water for golf courses and other uses. Yet the plants are not able to efficiently filter out copper, nickel, mercury and other metals that flow through them in parts per billion. On Wednesday, BayKeeper sued the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento Superior Court, challenging the discharge permits the board granted to the three South Bay sewer plants, along with plants in Petaluma and FairFeld-Suisun, as inadequate. State regulators, however, say the rules are not being eased. They note that the 1998 standards were set after exhaustive scientific hearings and reviews of scientific studies. "It`s not like we're just dreaming this stuff up," said Wil Bruhns, a spokesman for the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, based in Oakland. "We've had lots of public hearings." Bruhns said the board did allow copper and nickel discharge levels from the late 1980s to carry forward to the 1998 permits. San Jose, for example, puts 1,679 pounds of copper a:year into the bay. Under the new regulations, it could double that. Sunnyvale, which releases 240 pounds, could increase to 715 pounds a year and Palo Alto could go from 504 pounds to 1,580 pounds under the new standards. e But Bruhns said that will never happen since strict rules regulating the concentrations of heavy metals were kept in place. So the only way more metals could get into the bay, he said, is if the amount of wastewater also increases. And that is unlikely, he said. 2 of 3 12/17/44 4:26 AM Group sues over metals (12/1011999) http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/locaUdocs/metall0f.htm "In Sunnyvale and Palo Alto, there's not a whale lot of room to grow in those areas. You aren't going to double the number of houses or industry," he said. And San Jose is under state order to cap its wastewater releases because the water is so fresh that it is diluting brackish marshes. Copper and nickel can harm the reproductive function of, and even kill, plankton and other animals. Contact Paul Rogers at progers(a~cimercurV.com or (408) 920-5045. ~ fleck to top Sea Jae IAetcary flews lMrma She ledex Sank F f~sman~ Service 'S 4 4,;; ~ ~, ,.. ~ .~ . ~fents are unpredictable ®1999 Mercury Center. The information you receive online from Mercury Center is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright-protected material. 3 of 3 12117!99 9:26 AM