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