Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 96-48 RESOLUTIONNO. 96- 4s RESOLUTION OF THE CITY (X)UNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF Tt4~. PLANNING COMMISSION V-96-003 AND DR-96-015 WILSON/DAVISON- 15580 PEACH HILL ROAD WHEREAS, Wilson/Davison, the applicants, have applied for Variance approval to 'allow a proposed residence to encroach into the required front yard setback and to allow retaining walls to be located within the required front yard setback in excess of B feet in height, and Design Review approval to construct a new 3,523 sq. ft. two story residence. WHERL~, on June 26, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said application at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and following the conclusion thereof the Planning Commission granted the application; WHEREAS, the granting by the Planning Commission has been appealed to the City Council by Alan and Meg Giberson; WHEREAS, on August 7, 1996, the City Council conducted a de nov0 public hearing on the appeal at wlxid~ time any person interested in the matter was given a full opportunity to be heard; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Commission relating to the application, and the written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: ~5_egxj. on3_. Variance Findings for V-96-015. By unanimous vote of the City Council file appeal from the Planning AUG:30:96"F'Ri"'09':29 ..........liF~'f'RS','Ni~VE~RIBAOK~SILV. FAX NO. 530 351 4481P. 13..3/U~ Commission is hereby denied and the dedsion of the Planning Commission is affirmed. to wit: the applicants have met the burden of proof required to support the application and the following findings have been dctermined: (a) That bemuse of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape. topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the spccified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propcrties in the vichfity and classified in the same zoning district, in that: · Because of the unu,~ual shape of the lot and its exceptional depth, the City's current setback requirement of 20% of a parcel's depth would result in a required front setback of almost 100 ft. This large setback would push the structure down the hill and eliminate any reasonable building area. · The parcel was created in 1958 under earlier deve/opmem standards - the current percentage setback requirements were not adopted until 1992. . The proposal does meet the minimum 30 ft. front yard setback requirement in place when the parcel was created. It also meets current side and rear yard setbacks. · The building pad is constrained by a relatively steep drop from Peach Hill Kd. which necessitates taller retaining walls to provide a reasonable driveway approach and still retain as many of the native trees as possible. The 3 ft. height limit is intended to apply to lot frontages to minimize visual obstruction - these walls will be below the road elevation. (b) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of spedal privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vidnity and classified in the same zoning district based on the special circumstances applicable to the property. (c) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2 AOG:30-gB FR'i"09':'2'9 ............rE'YERS, NAVE, RIBAOKS,S]LV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481?.04/0~ .... ~. Desig-n gevic~ Findings F.0/' DR,-96-015- By unanimous vote of the City Council the appeal from the Harming Commission is hereby denied, and the decision of the Planning Commission, as modified to include a condition prohibiting a sewer connection other than to the existing Peach Hill Road sewer line, is affirmed, to wit: The applicants have met the burden of proof required to support the desi,~ review application, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the sit~ of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: {i) the nature and Iocatlon of residential smactures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unre,~onable interference with views and privacy, in that the stnacture is at a lower elevation than the roadway, is screened by existing native vegetation and is situated well away from most adjoining homes. The natural landscape will be preserved insotkr as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of file site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the gez~eral appearance of neighboring developeel areas and undeveloped areas, in that grade changes are very minimal and tree protection measures are incorporated into the cc~nditions of project approval, The proposed main structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be intogored into the natural environment, in that the home will be largely screened from public views by ~opography and vegetation. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in texms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoz~ng district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. in that the home is proposed at the most practical location in terms of minimizing grading and tree removal and the general massing of the home is compatible with the various architectural designs in the vidnity. The proposed site developttten~ and grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion comrol standards used by the City. 3 - The proposed structure conforms to each of the applicable design policies and techniques se~ forth in the Residential Design Handbook and &~ required by Section 15-45.055. .Section 3. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural dsawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Wilsun/Davison for design review approval and variance approval be and the same is hereby granted to the extent set forth above and only subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed ~ shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by referencc. Building materials and colors shall be per the approved material board. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division stuff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans and engineered grading and drainage plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. All applicable requirements/conditions of rite Resolution and requirements/conditions of the City Arborist (e.g. tree protective fencing) shall be noted on the plans. c. Landscape plan indicating native tree planting and irrigation equivalent to the valuation assigned by the City Axborist of $2,4~32 for tree # 1 in his report. d. Verification that the parce. r.q annexation to the City of Saratoga has been coutpleted pursuant to the requirements of City Council Resolution A-95-001 and the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commig.~ion. 3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 4. All requirements of the City Atborist's Report dated Match 30, 1996 shall apply. This includes, but is not limited to: AUG-3D-96 FRI 09:30 [1EYERS, NBVE, RIBAOKS, SILV. FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 06/09 a. Prior to issuant~. of a Zoning Clearance: · The applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the autount of $5,000 pursuant to the report and recommendation of the City Arborist to guarantee the pre.~ervation of trees on the subject site during construction. · Four to six ft. tall drain link protective fencing shall be shown on the plans as indicated in the report widt the note "to remain in place throt~ghout construction". · All proposed utility trenching shall be shown to be located out of tree canopies. · All other tree maintenance and protection recommendations shall be noted on the plans. b. Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits: · Tree protection fencing shall be instal}ed. · All other applicable tree protection measures shall be complied c. Prior to Final Inspection approval: · The City Atboris-t shall inspect the site to verify that the tree maintenance and protection measures have been followed in order to determine whether the tree protection security may be released. · Any outstanding City Arborist fees shall be paid. 5. Any portion of a structure located under the dripline of a tree shall have pier and grade beam foundation which the beam poured at original grade. 6. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath fire canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the "Planting under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Atborist. No imgation or associated trenching shall 5 ............ 'y 'M ERIBacK ,sILv. FaX NO. SlO 3Sl 4481Y. 07/09 encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the Qry Arborist. 7. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. a. A fire hydrant shall be installed in accordance with the fire district 's spec. ifications, OR a fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the entire dwelling. b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall bc installed and mainxalned in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. c. Ea~y Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. d. Roof coveting shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. e. Fast response fire sprinlder heads shall be installed in garages and workshop areas. 8.' The final development plans shall be submitted to fie applicants' geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechntcal aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that his final recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results Of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical cor~ultant in a letter and submitted Lo d~e City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance eft a Grading Permit. 9. The geotechnical consultant shall lxtspect, test (as needed). and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations, keyways and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel, concrete and engineered fill. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall UG'30-ee .............................. 7 RVLRIBRCK&SlLV. FAX NO. 510 351 .....V. us/u .. be described by the geotechnic~l consultant in a letter and subatitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. Z0. The applicant shall pay any outstanding City Geotechnkal Consultant review fees prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. 1 Z. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. 12. All building and construction related activities .~hall adhere to New Development and Construction- Best Managnement Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 13. Applicant agrees to hold City haxmless from all costs and expenses 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. 14. 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. 15. The only sewer connection allowed will be to the existing public sewer line at Peach Hill Road. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of ~, 1996, by the following vote: AY]iS: Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker and Wolfe None NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Jacobs ABSTAIN: 7 ATTEST: /' Depuvy Citv~Ciexk~ "" ];\WPD~iN~,BW~.73'~I~S96~EACFIP,.D.DEN