Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 98-13 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION V-97-011 AND DR-97-053 PERSSON - 21194 Haymeadow Road WHEREAS, Persson, the applicants, have applied for Variance approval to allow a proposed residence to encroach into the required front yard setback to adhere to a standard front yard setback for that zoning district (30 feet) instead of a setback based upon a percentage of the lot's depth (which would be 62 feet), and Design Review approval to construct a new 4,047 sq. ft. two story residence at 25 feet in height; WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, 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 Richard and Abby Weiser; WHEREAS, on April 15, 1998, the City Council conducted a de novo public heating on the appeal at which 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 Coundl of the City of Saratoga as follows: Section 1. Variance Findings for V-97-011. By unanimous vote of the City Council the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby denied and the decision 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 determined: (a) That because of special drcumstances applicable to the property, induding size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the percentage-based front yard setback would deprive the applicant of privileges enioyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and dassified in the same zoning district, in that: · Because of the unusual 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 62 ft. This large setback would push the structure down the hill and would require building in an area identified by geotechnical review as potentially unstable. · The selected building site is the most stable portion of the property. · The selected building site has the gentlest slope of the entire property. The selected building site contains a low number of ordinance-protected trees, as compared to the lower portion of the lot which is more densely covered with ordinance-protected trees. · The parcel was created under earlier development standards - the current percentage setback requirements were not adopted until 199~. · 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. Because of the depth of the lot, adhering to the percentage-based front yard setback would necessitate taller retaining walls to provide a reasonable driveway approach and significantly increased impervious area coverage. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special 2 privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that: · Applicants would otherwise not be able to place their structure atop relatively stable ground as identified by geotechnical investigation. · Applicants would otherwise not be able to place their structure on a slope less than 30%. Applicants would otherwise not be able to place their structure on the most logical building site of the property. · Most homes in this subdivision were approved and constructed prior to 1992, when percentage-based setbacks became required for vacant lots. Therefore, applicant is requesting to be held to exactly the same minimum front yard setback requirements as was applied to other homes in the vicinity. · The Planning Commission would give any property owner the same consideration based on these identified special circumstances and limitations. (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 in that: · The variance will permit development on the most stable portion of the property; denial of the variance would require any proposed structure to be located atop soils identified by geologic review to be potentially unstable. · There is no reasonably foreseeable detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare that might result from the granting of this variance, nor is there any reasonably foreseeable material iniury to properties or improvements int he vicinity. Section 2. Design Review Findings For DR-97-053. By unanimous vote of the City Council the appeal from the Planning 3 Commission is hereby denied, and the decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed, to wit: The applicants have met the burden of proof required to support the design review application, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and with the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy in that the location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements with the exception of the front yard setback as approved herein, that the structure will be screened by several large trees to the east, that the structure is designed to step down the sloping lot, that the substantial majority of the structure is a lower elevation than the roadway, that windows on the west facing side of the house have been minimized and/or will utilize translucent glass, that the structure will be at a lower elevation than the structure immediately to the west, and that the southernmost portion of the second story element was reduced from originally submitted plans to further minimize interference with views from the west. Although, the proposed structure will have an impact on the easterly view of the residence directly to the west of the proposed structure, this does not constitute an unreasonable interference of overall community viewshed or of the view from the adiacent parcel given the above factors and the fact that a substantial easterly view will still exist from the adjacent parcel. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site. The pier and on-grade beam design of the garage reduces the need for grading and reduces potential impacts to ordinance-protected trees. The locations of the main structure and the garage reduce the need for grading and tree removal. The proposed location has also been judged by geotechnical investigation to be the most geologically stable portion of the property. The proposal will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. - The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and 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 which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment by articulation of the 4 facades and rooflines, a design that steps down with the slope, and the use of materials, colors, and other design elements that soften the structure's overall visual impact. The proposed residence 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 shah not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the height and size of the residence are compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood, that the residence meets or exceeds required setbacks, and that the step- down design will minimize interference with the solar access of adjacent properties. - The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. - The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. Section 3. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Persson 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 as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to the arrival of any construction equipment, the applicant shall install tree protective fencing as required by the city arborist, meaning five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing (mounted on two-inch galvanized pipe, driven two feet into the ground) shown on the dripline of each tree as recommended by the Arborist for trees 1-3, 5, 6 and 8. The fences are to remain in place for the duration of the proiect. They may be relocated only for the installation of an energy dissipator. 3. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: 5 a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. , b. Four (4) separate sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c. The applicant shall cause the existing slope easement, as shown on lot 44 of Tract 3946, to be amended by a licensed Land Surveyor for purposes of absolving any encroachments into the easement caused by the improvements proposed. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure that the recommended fill buttress, details of driveway construction, and basement excavations are adequately depicted on the Final Grading and Drainage Plan. The results of the plan review shall be summarized in letters by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits. 5. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed) and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of structural improvements. The results of these inspections and the as-build conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to finatization of the Grading Permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the owner (applicant) shall enter into an 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. 7. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the city geotechnical consultant's review of the project. 6 8. No new 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. 9. Fences and walls shall comply with the R-1 district fencing requirements contained in Article 15-29.010 of the City Code. 10. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, applicant shall submit a plan to the planning staff for its approval that, to the maximum feasible extent, limits the number of construction and construction-related vehicles associated with this project from being on or near the site. 11. Construction activity shall be restricted to Mondays through Fridays, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays on which the city offices are dosed in observation thereof. 12. No ordinance protected tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit, with the exception of trees 4, 7, and 9, for which the city arborist has determined a replacement value of $5,269; replacement trees equalling this value must be planted on site prior to Final Occupancy approval. 13. All requirements of the city arborist's report dated December 30, 1997, shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior issuance of the city of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: * The arborist report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. * It will be necessary to remove lower branches of tree 5 in order to permit driveway and garage access. Pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist. No more than one-third of the total canopy may be removed, and the essential symmetry of the tree shall be maintained. Applicant shall survey the driveway, deck, and comer of the structure to determine if priming can be done within the one-third 7 limitation and if the tree's basic symmetry can be retained while implementing this design. * No grading shall occur within 25 feet of the trunk of tree 5. The garage shall be constructed by pier and on-grade beam design. Adjacent pathways or landings must be installed on top of the existing grade without a soil cut or excavation. * The 6 inch PVC energy dissipator shall be located such that the discharge does not put water into the root zone of adjacent trees. * Downspout drainage shall be designed to direct the discharge a minimum of 15 feet away from the root collar of any tree. * The root zones of trees 10, 11, and 12 must be protected from fill soil intrusion by excavation up-slope from these trees. As a prophylactic measure, silt fencing must be installed and maintained in a vertical condition. * Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $8,281 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: * Tree protective fencing shall be reinspected by planning staff. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: * Assuming the removal of trees 4, 7, and 9, native replacement trees equal to $5,269 (equivalent to one 48 inch box, two 15 gallon, and one 5 gallon trees) shall be planted on site. Planning staff shall inspect these trees 8 pdor to approval. * The city arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection, and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. 14. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 16. Early Waming Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 17. Automatic sprinlders shall be installed in newly constructed attached garages (3 heads per stall). The applicant is to contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 18. Automatic sprinlders are required for the new residential dwelling. A 4- head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinlder system must be installed by a licensed contractor. 19. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus I foot shoulders. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 20. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 21. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attomey'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. 9 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 4. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 5. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 2lib. day of M0y ,1998, by the following vote: A~S: Councilmembers 3acobs and Moran and Mayor Wolfe None NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Bogosian and Shaw ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: J :X~D~ N~ ~ 73~ S 98~E~ S ON. DEN 10