Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-2001 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Chairman Page, Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurash, Patrick and Roupe STAFF: Planners Connolly and Schubert, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Regular Meeting minutes from January 24, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted February 9, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. 1. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, and V-00-018 (517-08-008 &t 016) -TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street; -Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow thelsubdivision 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 and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five n two-story townhouses with garages will be constructed at the rear of the site. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. (CONTINUED 7-0 TO 3/14/01) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 14, 2001 PAGE 2 2. DR-00-048 (510-06-014) - ONG, 19051 Austin Way; -Request for Design Review approval that will involve the demolition of an existing 3,855 square foot single story residence and construct a new single story 6,393 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 60,448 square foot parcel is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-1, KURASH OPPOSED) 3. UP-O1-001(397-24-093 &t 094) - PINN BROTHERS, 20075 Spaich Court; -Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 930 square foot cabana which would be 12 feet, 6 inches in height . A Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within 33 feet of the rear yard property line rather than the required 59 feet, and to be 12 feet, 6 inches in height where the maximum allowed height is 12 feet. There is an existing 4,773 square foot house on the 41,747 square foot parcel which is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 5-2, BARRY AND KURASH OPPOSED) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from January 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:55 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, February 28, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 13, 2001- 3:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Land Use Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2001 C~ ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. DR-00-048 - ONG Item 2 19051 Austin Way 2. SD-00-001, DR-00-011 - TRAFALGAR Item 1 &z BSE-00-012 14612 Big Basin Way 3. UP-O1-001 - PINN BROTHERS Item 3 20075 Spaich Court LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties ~~hich are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesda}~ preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Planning Division Conference Room,13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 9, 2001. STUDY SESSION AGENDA The meeting is a study session between applicants, interested citizens and staff, to discuss advance planning projects, continued applications and general planning issues. The Planning Commission may not make final decisions at this session. A written report will be made of the proceedings. 6:15 PM-7:15 PM: 1. TRAFALGAR INC. PRESENTATION This is a preliminary meeting to present to the Planning Commission Trafalgar's proposal to allow the subdi~~ision 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 and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new two-story townhouses with garages will be constructed at the rear of the site. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would -face Big Basin Way. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. This meeting is intended to provide background and explain the issues surrounding the project before the application is formally considered. This matter is scheduled for Public Hearing at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting the same evening. At that time, Public testimony will be taken and the Commission will have the opportunity to either take action or to continue the matter for a subsequent meeting at a future time. Trafalgar Inc.'s representatives will be at the meeting to make a presentation. ~- ~~ ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES -Regular Meeting minutes from January 24, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted February 9, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. 1. DR-00-011, SD-00-001, and V-00-018 (517-08-008 &t 016) -TRAFALGAR INC., 14612 Big Basin Way psi 20717 St. Charles Street; -Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow 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 and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new two-story townhouses with garages will be constructed at the rear of the site. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 14, 2001 PAGE 2 2. DR-00-048 (510-06-014) - ONG, 19051 Austin Way; -Request for Design Review approval that will involve the demolition of an existing 3,855 square foot single story residence and construct a new single story 6,393 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 60,448 square foot parcel is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. 3. UP-O1-001(397-24-093 ~¢ 094) - PINN BROTHERS, 20075 Spaich Court; -Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 930 square foot cabana which would be 12 feet, 6 inches in height . A Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within 33 feet of the rear yard property line rather than the required 59 feet, and to be 12 feet, 6 inches in height where the maximum allowed height is 12 feet. There is an existing 4,773 square foot house on the 41,747 square foot parcel which is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written -Saratoga City Council Minutes from January 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, February 28, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • • I~'1 U MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Jackman (excused) Staff: Acting Director Irwin Kaplan and Planner Mark Connolly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -January 10, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission minutes of January 10, 2001, were approved with the instruction to insert the correct project description for Agenda Item No. 5. (4- 0-2-.1; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent and Commissioner Barry abstained, as she was not in attendance at this meeting.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 19, 2001. TECI-INICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKE'C Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Item No. 1 - On page 10, staff advises that the City's Geologist did review this project. Also on Page AS-O the calculations are incomplete and depict a percentage of impervious surfaces that exceed that allowed. The walkways and other impervious surfaces will be reduced so as not to exceed the maximum allowable. • Item No 2 -Advised that changes to the fencing are now depicted. • Item No. 4 -Informed that the Variance aspect of this application was not posted. No final action will be taken on this project this evening. The project will be properly posted prior to final action '' by the Planning Commission at its next meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-036 & UP-00-018 (397-OS-091 SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,312 square foot two-story residence with a 608 square foot basement and 529 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that this request is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,312 square foot, two-story residence with a 608 square foot basement and a 529 square foot cabana. A Use Permit is required to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the cabana is 15 feet while the maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. This is a constrained lot in that there is a 30 percent grade at the front of the lot. Concerns have been expressed by'the adjacent neighbor to the east regarding the proposed placement of the house. As mentioned during the Technical Corrections, amendments to the plans will be required to reduce the impervious surfaces for the property to meet allowable percentages. Echo stone and decomposed granite or gravel will be used for walkways. With those adjustments, staff is recommending approval as all other requirements are met. Commissioner Kurash inquired about the cabana. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a Use Permit is required to allow the 15-foot height as well as the placement within the rear yard setback. Commissioner Roupe inquired whether the retaining walls are within the allowances. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff has verified that the maximum height of any retaining walls on site is three feet. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Rick Zea, 4616 Venice Way, San Jose: - • Identified himself as the representative for the applicant and advised that they have worked closely with staff to meet all requirements. Thanked Mr. Connolly for his assistance. • Added that they have also worked closely with the neighbors, having mailed information as well as meeting with neighbors. At the meeting with neighbors, support was expressed. • Requested approval. . • Advised that both the applicant and architect are available for questions. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Zea if there would be any problem complying with the requirement to reduce impervious surfaces. Mr. Rick Zea deferred to the applicant and architect. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Patrick added that she felt there is too much paved area on the property. Asked if the applicants might consider reducing the amount of driveway. Mr. Rick Zea advised that adequate access to the site requires the long driveway. Said that they would consider a compromise material for portions of the driveway as possible. Mr. Maurice Carmargo, 3953 Yolo Drive: • Identified himself as the project architect. • Assured the Commission that it will be easy to reduce the impervious surfaces to meet acceptable standards. Suggested changes to some of the walkway materials. Commissioner Roupe asked about the significance of such changes. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that should the walkways be comprised of decomposed gravel, a 25 percent credit is given that reduces the total amount of impervious surface to allowable levels. Added that the applicants will be using pervious pavers for the hammerhead and flat area in front of the garage, which offers a 25 percent credit. These changes result in 32 percent of impervious surfaces. Chairman Page expressed concern with the numbers provided and ultimate percentage of impervious surfaces that will result on this site. Commissioner Roupe agreed and said that there appears to be a lot of impervious surface. This issue must be resolved to ensure that the project meets allowable limits. Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that there are walkway areas that can be eliminated outright. Assured that he was willing to make changes to meet City requirements. Said that the edges of the driveway can be constructed using pervious material. Chairman Page inquired whether any other architectural design styles had been considered and whether the applicant might be willing to consider the use of wood siding. Added that this Mediterranean-style stucco building is out of character with the beginning of Sobey Road. Said that with the removal of 17 trees from this site, this structure will be highly visible from Sobey Road and that he is not certain this style home fits. Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that they had considered many architectural styles but that the owner has a pretty strong desire to have Mediterranean-style architecture. Added that many trees are staying and that the house is set back quite a way from the front of the lot while retaining a presence to the street. There are limits due to the constraints of the lot. Concluded by stating that this design is compatible and set back. Commissioner Roupe said that the structure gives the appearance of a three-story in that it marches up that hill. Said that the ceiling height in the study seems excessive and inquired why it is so massive, especially since it is at the front elevation that is most visible from the street. Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that the house is single-story on that elevation. Said that the high ceiling for the study was designed to give balance to that whole elevation and a certain prominence to highlight the front entrance. Said that this one-story facade balances with the living room wing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 4 , Commissioner Roupe stated that it rather creates bulk and mass. Commissioner Kurash inquired about landscaping plans around the large oak tree in the front of the property. Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that the landscaping plan has not yet been developed. Said that they could look into adding additional landscaping that is compatible and requires low water. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the neighbor's concerns have been addressed. Asked why the house is situated on the site as it is currently. Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that they moved the house as far back from the east property line as possible. The study has been buried into the hillside. They also created a planting strip between the driveway and house next door. This planting area will allow plenty of room to install screening landscaping. Added that the owner is willing to plant as many trees as necessary. Mr. Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Stated his opposition to this project. • Expressed concern that the structure cascades down the slope of the hill which gives bulk and mass to the house. • Added that this new home has been positioned over his rear yard and pool area, which will greatly affect his privacy. • Said that there is plenty of property in the meadow portion of this lot on which to construct this home. • Advised that many of the 17 trees to be removed are over 30 feet in height. Therefore, his property will be substantially and unfairly impacted by this project. • Suggested that the project be redesigned for placement on the lower portion of the meadow. Added that the City should consider issuance of'a Variance; if necessary, in order to facilitate placement of this home there. Said this would be a good solution to the problems of the current placement. • Expressed his opinion that it was a bad subdivision that created this lot. Ms. Nona Christensen, 18510 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that she owns three acres over several lots, including the lot immediately adjacent to the west to the applicant's lot. • Expressed support for this project and stated that the proposed house will be a beautiful addition to Sobey Road. • Said that several architects were consulted and all came up with the same placement of the house on this lot. Ms. Grace San Filippo, Applicant, 117 El Portal, Los Gatos: • Advised that this is her first experience in building a house. • Said that she feels strongly that she wants aMediterranean-style home to reflect her Italian heritage. •. Said that she has done everything possible to design this project and feels that it will be a beautiful addition to Sobey Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January.24, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Roupe asked why Ms. San Filippo would not consider constructed in the meadow area of her lot. Ms. Grace San Filippo replied that the meadow area is so far back and would feel very isolated and would result in a flag lot appearance. Said that she prefers a home with a street presence. Additionally, to do so would leave her with little rear yard area and without any option for the placement of a cabana on site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 was closed at 8:25 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Barry said that she was not ready to approve this application this evening, as she does not feel it fits with the rural character of Sobey Road. There is still the chance to preserve the semi- rural atmosphere. Said that the mass and bulk issues raised are relevant and that she has concerns about drainage issues. Commissioner Roupe stated his shared concern. Said that this is a large house that cascades down the slope. The high ceiling in the study accentuates the mass and bulk. Commissioner Kurasch said that the proposal is not outlandish and is kind of a trend. Suggested that the house might be a bit ambitious for its lot. Commissioner Patrick reiterated concern about impervious coverage. Added that the house is not compatible with the neighborhood. Said that the siting of the house seems logical but that the mass and bulk are a problem. This is simply too big a house and she cannot support it. Chairman Page stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners' concerns. He listed a concern with the architectural style of the house. Since this part of Sobey Road is more rustic, wood siding might be more compatible. While much of the house may not be visible from the street, from the neighboring homes, this structure will be highly visible. Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears this application would not be approved if put to a vote this evening. Suggested a continuance to allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider several things. Suggested changes include reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site as well as the mass and bulk of the structure (specifically the three-story appearance caused by the high ceiling of the study) and possibly repositioning the structure on the lot. Chairman Page advised that should the application not be approved this evening, the applicant can appeal to Council. An alternative is a continuance to allow some redesign, which can be brought back to the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether the Commission was in agreement that the architectural style was inappropriate. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that the Commission should not stand too hard on that issue. The main issues appear to be the mass and bulk and the cascade effect of this current design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 6 Chairman Page suggested the addition of some stone and a different roof color. Commissioner Barry stated her preference for awood-sided home at this location. Added that since not all seven Commissioners are.here tonight, other views may be forthcoming. Said that this house will have a presence and should be more compatible with the area. Everyone will have to try to be reasonable. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission continued DR-00-036 & UP-00-018 to its meeting of March l4, 2001. (5-0-2; Commissioner Bernald and Jackman were absent) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-052 (397-07-018) - MAESUMI, 15171 Maude Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single-story residence and two accessory structures totaling 3,100 square feet and construct a new 5,235 square foot single-story residence with 2,486 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure is 24 feet tall, located on a 33,105 square foot parcel within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application seeks approval for the demolition of three existing structures totaling 3,100 square feet and the construction of a 5,235 square foot, single-story residence with a 2,486 square foot basement. The maximum height would be 24 feet. The zoning is R-1-40,000 and the lot is 33,105 square feet. This project meets all minimum requirements and is actually two feet lower than the maximum allowable. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Patrick pointed out two light wells that appear larger than the allowable 36 inches. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the -applicant would modify the size of the light wells on their construction plans. Commissioner Barry asked if a color board is available. Mr. Mark Connolly replied yes and distributed the color board to the Commissioners. Chairman Page asked if the new construction hours would be imposed on this project, from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays with no weekend construction permitted. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that those hours would be imposed. Chairman Page inquired why a new fire hydrant is required, as it appears that there is an existing fire hydrant in close proximity. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant had the option to install the fire hydrant or install fire sprinklers throughout the new home. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:45 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Omid Shakeri, 3131 S. Bascom Avenue, #110, Campbell: • Stated that he is available for questions. • Clarified that one Fire Department requirement is for a hose wraparound of 150 feet. Portions of the new house will exceed that distance. The two options to solve that deficiency are either a fire hydrant or installation of fire sprinklers throughout the house. • Expressed support with all the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Barry inquired about the height proposed for the structure. Stated that it was originally 18 feet. Mr. Omid Shakeri advised that the structure would look strange at 18 feet. Their proposal is 24 feet at the highest point to finish or natural grade, whichever is lower. Added that this is not actually a 24- foot height except for the manner in which the City measures. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the light wells exceed allowable size. Inquired about a light well under the balcony off of the living room. Mr. Omid Shakeri said that he would like to seek an exception for the size of that light well. Chairman Page questioned how that light well would serve its purpose of providing light when a balcony is directly above it. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the light well is actually under the library and not the living room with the balcony. Commissioner Roupe stated that he is hesitant to grant an exception to the standard guidelines. Added that it is not really clear what is actually being proposed. Mr. Omid Shakeri said that the intention is to bring the light well beyond the balcony. Expressed confusion for the reasoning for limitations to 36 inches for light wells. Mr. Mark Connolly explained that the 36-inch limitation for light wells is not a Code issue but rather a Director's guideline standard. Commissioner Kurasch asked why 36-inches is a desired size for a light well standard. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the UBC establishes this minimum to provide adequate lighting. In the past some light wells got so wide that the terracing effect often would give asingle-story home the appearance of a two-story. Commissioner Patrick added that it is also a square footage issue. Chairman Page said that he would defer to staff on that issue. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:57 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Patrick said that she was not inclined to adopt an exception to the light well standard. Said that she will support the project if it meets all standards. Suggested altering the angle of the house a bit to ensure that a mature tree's drip line is not impacted, if possible. Commissioner Barry expressed concern about the proposed 24-foot height, as it appears excessive for a single-story home. Added that the light well should stay within the 36-inch limitation. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would want the house to fit the rural character through use of softening materials. Added that the 24-foot height does not seem to be a single-story height. Said that there are some exceptional oak trees and would like to see a landscape plan with native landscaping. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission sought to reopen the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. (2-3-2; Commissioners Barry and Roupe voted for; Commissioners Page, Patrick and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent). The motion failed. Commissioner Barry suggested the addition of materials such as stone to attenuate concerns. Chairman Page said that such a condition would be fitting and appropriate. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by .Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved DR-00-052 with the requirement that the light wells not exceed 36-inchs and that a landscaping plan be developed that is protective of the oak trees on site using native materials and low amounts of irrigation. (3-2-2; Commissioners Barry and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Prior to the vote, Commissioner Barry asked if Commissioner Patrick would consider an amendment to her motion to require an added condition to lower the roof to 22 feet. Commissioner Patrick declined to add that condition to her motion. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 DR-00-047 (503-23-041) - SHAHBAZI, 14231 Burns Way: Request for Design Review approval for a 1,325 square-foot single-story addition and Variance approval to allow the enclosure of an existing porch located in the rear yard setback. The 10,290 square foot parcel is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Maximum height of the structure will be 17 feet tall. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: ~ Advised that this proposal seeks approval fora 1,325 square-foot single-story addition to a residence and a Variance to allow the enclosure of an existing porch located in the rear yard setback. The maximum height is 16 feet, 6 inches. The lot is 10,000 square feet and the zoning is R-1-12,500. This is a constrained lot and the Variance is necessary for a small portion of the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 9 addition. There is no viable alternative to the Variance. The adjacent neighbor has been informed of the proposal. There are no view and/or privacy issues as a result of the Variance. This project meets all other requirements. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the proposed siding material. Mr. Mark Connolly provided the material board. Commissioner Roupe asked why this application is for Design Review rather than a Variance. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that it has been a policy and practice to look as such requests as part of Design Review. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Rick Hartman, HomeTech Architects, 1540 Parkmoor Avenue, San Jose: • Advised that the siding material is hardy blank siding, which will be horizontal rather than vertical. This material looks like hardboard but is cement instead of wood. This is a Class A material, which makes the Fire Department happy. • Said that they would like to request a change in roofing material to Edgelight. This material is a the that looks like a shingle. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:15 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is a supportable Variance for which she has no problem. Commissioners Patrick, Barry, Roupe and Chairman Page concurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved DR-00-047. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved V-00-019. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Chairman Page called a recess at 9:15 p.m. Chairman Page reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 Saratoga Planning Commission 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 Bid 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: . Saratoga Planning Commission 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 meetin . g 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. Saratoga Planning Commission 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. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes 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 atwo-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. IVlarchetti where her property is located in relation to this site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes 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. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Jan 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. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 16 Commissioner Roupe said that scheduling a Study Session might be productive but it also may impact the next Public Hearing date. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff could schedule the Study Session for February 14`" Commissioner Barry said that there are still too many variables and unknowns. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a parking plan in the works for the Village. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that such a plan is in the works but that there is nothing concrete to bring forward at this point. Said that staff would conduct additional research and include the information in the next staff report. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Mr. Mark Connolly read a letter advising the Commission that a Contract Senior Planner has been secured who will- offer day to day supervision for the Department while the search for a Permanent Director is underway. COMMISSION ITEMS ~~ 1. Access to Highway 9: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the issue raised at the January 10`'' meetin g regarding construction access to a site via Highway 9 is still being investigated with Caltrans and the Public Works Department to see what is really feasible. Advised that the applicant has a February 14`" Public Hearing. 2. Oak Street Demolition: Mr. Mark Connolly advised the Commission that the Oak Street Demolition did not represent the common procedure. It is not the practice to allow a demolition to occur prior to approval of plans. This demolition was approved in error and such approval will not occur again iri the future. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from December 12, 2000, and January 3, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. to Wednesday, February 14, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk ~s ~ ITEM 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) sG8-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, FROM: Philip W. Block, Senior Planner 1~+ ~ ~~ DATE: February 14, 2001 SUBJECT: DR-00-011, SD-00-001, BSE-00-012 and V-00-018 TRAFALGAR, INC 14612 Big Basin Way Est 20717 St. Charles Street • PROJECT DESCRIPTION COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow 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 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, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a 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-3,000. BACKGROUND The application was initially considered at the January 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Public testimony was taken and the Commission opened discussion of the project. The public hearing notice was expanded to include the variance and additional public testimony will be taken. The Commission also felt that a study session would be helpful because of the project's complexity. See attached January 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting draft minute excerpts for details. 0000~~ Printed on recycled paper. File No. DR-0-011, SD-00-001, BSE-00-012 and V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way &z 20717 St. Charles Street DISCUSSION On January 24, 2001, the Planning Commission asked that the staff provide further information on whether the proposed subdi~~ision met minimum lot size requirements and if there is a legal basis for the Commission to require additional retail commercial on the CH-2 (Historical Commercial) zoned parcel and/or reduce the number of townhouses from three to two on the R-M-3,000 (Multiple-Family) zoned parcel. Subdivision Lot Size requirements The Commission asked about the legality of subdividing the property into small lots. The applicant's request is 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 a condominium, it cannot be subdivided into physical lots that are smaller than allowed by city code. As proposed, six lots would be created that are less than the square footage requirement. 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. Accordingly, the application cannot be considered unless amended to conform to the minimum lot size requirements. RequiringAdditionalRetgil Commercial The Commission asked about the legal basis for requiring the applicant to expand the retail commercial area. 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 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 staff can find no basis in the City's codes or adopted policies to 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). If the applicant chooses to build a basement below the retail for storage, thereby freeing up ground level space for retail, we might consider it; however, that would be up to the applicant. Justification for Reducing the Townhouse Density Government Code Section 66474 states grounds for denial of a Tentative Subdivision Map or a Parcel Map to include the following: The site is not physically suited for the type of development. ~DDaQ- File No. DR-0-011, SD-00-001, BSE-00-012 and V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way ~ 20717 St. Charles Street ' The site is not physically suited for the density of development ' That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage ...... The City's Tree Ordinance (15-50.110) states " No structure or pavement shall be constructed or installed within ten feet from any oak tree or within eight feet from any other tree, unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority." Additionally, Section 15-50.080 (b) allovti~s the Community Development Director to ask the Planning Commission for its recommendation regarding whether or not a permit should be issued to remove a protected tree. Tree #8, a cork oak with a 40 - 50 foot canopy, is a protected tree under the City Code. It has been classified as an exceptional specimen that should be retained and protected by whatever means necessary in the City's Arborist report. The applicant proposes to eliminate tree # 8 in order to construct a third townhouse on the rear (St. Charles Street) portion of the site. Section 15-45.060 (a) (8) &r (b) states " Whenever in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the construction or expansion of a main or accessory structure maybe incompatible with the neighborhood, or may create a perception of excessive mass or bulk, or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may cause excessive damage to the natural environment, or may result in excessive intensification of the use or development of the site a public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required...." Section 15-45.080 states that "the Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the design and placement of the addition is such that it will not impinge upon the views or privacy of neighboring properties. ' 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; any grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring areas. ' The proposed main or accessory structure 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 which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the buildings into the surrounding environment and the structure's design is similar in scale, 000003 File No. DR-0-011, SD-00-001, BSE-00-012 and V-00-018 14612 Big Basin Way &r 20717 St. Charles Street size and style to homes within this residential area. The main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures 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 in that the design of the structure is sensitive to the natural environment and the height of the Office is compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood. ' The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. ' The proposed main and accessory structure 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. Correspondence • On February 8, 2001 we received a previously submitted letter dated January 22, 2001 with additional signatures. See attachment 2. RECOMMENDATION That the applicant eliminate the substandard lots from the proposed subdivision and reduce the number of townhouses from three to two on the rear (St. Charles Street) portion of the site in order to preserve the exceptional cork oak (tree #8). Further that the requested variance from the CH-2 rear yard setback requirement be granted because it would create a hardship including the loss of t~vo additional townhouses as presently designed on parcel A. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpted Planning Commission meeting draft minutes, January 24, 2001 2. Letter in opposition dated January 22, 2001 3. Site Plan, Exhibit "A" • 000004 Saratoga Planning Commission 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 Bid 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: E Saratoga Planning Commission 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. ~000~6 Saratoga Planning Commission 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. ~00~0~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes 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 atwo-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. ~~~0~8 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes 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. 000009 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes 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. ~O~~g.~ • o~~~~~L~ January 22, ?001 D FEBC~~2001 City of Saratoga Planning Department CITY OF SAR,ATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Saratoga, California 9070 Re: Proposed Single Family Condominiums on RetaiVCommercial zoned lot, between Big Basin Way and St. Charles Streets. Ladies and Gentlemen: We object to the 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 y 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 anv~vhere. 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, • C~~.-~ ~o„~ ~ ~~ ~Q 7 X103 ~,4/rIE~A ~~~2~~vi ~~l - /~ ~4~ ~~~~e~ lU ~~ ~~ v 2oPo+~2~ uJe+~ 000011 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • r~ L 000012 ~~ as o~oaxi n>t +B MtW~ .oZ-.~ 7+rY, ~~ of °jD~'jDQ • '°°~ ~s • W"q^Y •~nro '1/D011-HVS ~O A110 csls-sea (ors) =oa cols-sea (ors) ~ f/M NISVB OI9 Zt9tit f09S6 v~ 'wngny '0 0l!~5 'D~11 D~P3 66811 ~aI ~n~ $ jnspnj~ NOISIA149f1S a3SOdO~Id tM06v,3e ]lrC Q Z >- W b ~ a ~ M1~ r 6 ~ W W W ~ N J 0 ~ ~ ~ W K ~ W ~ uu 2~~ < ~U ~ ? ~ uQ ~ sQT ~ ~ Z W p~ f 4 O -r W <3 W ~ ~ r ~ W J 3< Z < W~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 h V V - h ~~ ~~, ~ ! ~~I ^L- y I I II ^ ~ .. ~ WIj 51T ~1, !~ I 13~ m i INI Z I t- X gp(TN S~~T W U W 8 2 ~ p g u A ~ ~ ~ _ ~% o ~ _ ~ Y ~ ~ aP _ GJ r ~ ~ ~ W m ~ 11~~ 1LL~ !~ !!~ 11~~ 1~ N O `~ ~~ H W '~ N ~NN•'N"• Ul {tl i6S ~(1 ~ rc 1- > ~ rr ~ S o pi's Y)N V L<W li! C' ;yj W O r~OHO~ 1~ Rf J F 8 ~ ~ i Z ~ ~ Z K U1 0 ~ - - ci Ci fv m ~ ~ lgN7 ~ <m ~ W ~ l7 ~~~yW[51 Hf HHI~H r<k~ 4W a ~y~ ~ ZS ~ mN ~ OC ~~~~~~ 03 ~j > 3S _ ~~_ ST CHARLES PLACE - - _~ -- -_ -. -- _--r-_ _---- -_- - _-- ---- _ R R ~~ 00'fL M,OO,pLpLt ai Al,n ~ ,~ zz ~I O ~ L _ ,+I .. r- - a ~ I 1` ~ i -----i t~ r ~ 0 LE E /L ul~ ^ , U c~ a ~ , -u _ ~ ~ ~ I--, , '~ la` m _ ,R'_' O~ ,SL b J~ Q ~ a 1 ~^,. $ I k " ~ ye ~ Z 2. O l~ ~ yl , ,o«. Q E I N ~ ~ sl I $O - J 1 I ..S~OE ;~{ r• T ;; - a '- I I i L®. J ~~ ~ ZS °° I _ a I I j t~ A'LS o ~ ~e ~~ ~ A- ' . i p A q~ ~ A 7E~ I n ~ I ~ - c I a ;; Q I. I ~-~ ~ I ~ll•) I~,LI I ,Et ,E'E5 Y ~ ~ ... a ~ I m ' O L (, W I ~ ~ 1 S~ o ~.A.b V I L b F- I .ot. Ar *- ~I~ (~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ,L'L ~ II l ~~ " ~, ~ ~1 I! f c R C x~,a~E I X/b/I I.~ ,~„' I I{ ~ Q ~~~ I 1~ .0'bl ro JO all I O 'J f }- ) ~I. IW< :l1 1~ -!~ I , ~` I yg rapt Q I ~~1 Obi , . . CY. In ~ ~ i ~ ~ ti ~ I ~ ~ I ~ m ,5"51• A.«, . j I I ~ ~ .n ul I ~ ~ III, I'I ~ I a D ~N ,SI ,. R R R _~ ~ F t l ~~ i' II ~' y~. ?a . ~~ ~ ~~ I ~. ~ .. q #~ I II 11 O b '~ I I I I _ :I ~ 1 . I ~ W ~ W C F _ I-~ ? _ I .. ... I- ~ .00'tL .649LN ~ _ _ ~ j _ _ -._ __~ j( W ~ ~ t J - ~ m a ~ ~ ,i, S Z S ~ 3 z W ~ y~ ~7. T • Trj z ~ •~~ ` - ~ ~ ~ W ~ = <Q ~S ~ ~ ~ I T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 J~ Z~ L$rl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ J p( j pps a W~ ~ W ~ K YI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >j SSSYY~ ~ &J ~ G~ IY~ Ill - - - BIG BASIN WAY - - ~ IaIa11 I ~ x ' ~ ~ ~ d I i ~ ~ j ~R ~ ~, ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I I { y o u >L e p 1 55 1 TS ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~II~ EE I E us R --- - I a ° '~- _ -- -- - - -- -- III; l; ~ ~ R ,i, - W ddW 3A11d1N31 ~ Q ~ r~ ~N JNIIS3A a N `o ~~ N E • • • ,~ • $~, ~ ~ ~~RR ~i~ • .. -~ ' ' n~~~ ~... ~. o ~,~ ~-.~ ~ ~~ ~s~s a , ~.~.,.,, ,. or, ,1.10.. 7. v su 10 4..u . ,~.. ow o.o ~,.~. Q* ~ a 6 u r.o air ..,. T... a.o ~.u.. R Y T406T .aoai e M 10L'.1~ ~Y O p1111~~ .4 a mll OIII ..H LIYY~.D 7.1..0-IIJp. 6 4 Q 4..1.,... w. ~.,~ ,M.. ~.... ,,... ~.~ w wr .~.~ .o~~as~ aw wv 7LL Ol 7ULL 'a1~0Y ^'111II. q TO. M m1171 ~p~pjp~ ga0 ~u 4 . Z N 4 8 f~ wM y IOL17711 to ~OL7t4Yr 7.~i1 7110. Ot 4101 •7.10. A06 10U/J.Y 4. 4MY ~ ' aa ~ ~ ( } o ~ ~ :'TM1:.a1~: ~ sli yS al;~,L ; a° ~ V ~ 3 .14M.1 ~,~. e1.1,~. s W Q dIN~I03I7d~ `dJO,Ld~dS ~dM NI.LSfld IS06T a~uap~sa~ Sup .. d1 O O g q ~ ~ O A r « s ~ < ~y ~~.0.1 ~ _ ..4i 41u o ~1r1 a w J7 ~ ~i ~ 1 r ~ ~ ~" ~ (A ~ ~aooo • ~ ~ 4Jiai~~~1". • ~ ~ y b O ~ 3 ~ ~ 11p NM~ " ~ ' ~~~~~~~ < ~ Is = o 'O ~ ~ <! ««< a ~ I a 8 ~- wr ~A ~ - - 3 g~~~~o .~Eoo a~~~a~~~ ~~~s~~~: • ~~ a 3 ~ Z~~ g~'S~3~I~ E~ ~~~~~~~ S ~~~~~~~lG ~~ ~ •~- _ ~ i ;~ o~ ~~~~~ ~a~~~~~$ ~ ~~~ ~gy~~G ~: ~~s~. ~3 IS~~~~3a8 S~~aQ~3~i . . - ~ ~ ;, ~~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ... _ ,. ~ a ' l ^ 5 .~ ,~\ N, _, ~~; ~ ,. ~ ~, ` _. ;+ • '~.. `~:~.~ o ~ ~~G ..~ ~_. I 1T u :p ~~ ~ ~~~ ~'° ~~ ~~~ k~ ~ ~ ~~~ a ~ ~ ~~~gg~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~3 C ~~,E ~o ~~ ; ~~ ~~a ~~~ ~OZ tr ~ °~1t ^ ~~°~ ~~ eq° ~~~ s~ ~ ~ ~ uQ~ ~ °~a$ ~~ z~~ i o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. 3 j 00 ~~a~ r~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~s~~_ ~~ aa::a oooa eoooa o; w Oni19a w ~O~b nnA rv:. x~.xx%X K.x ~Xxx%.xxx xx nn xx ~ oo:oo a oe:o aaooa ao V ~OUI).1a U'i-'+Y ~LZO LOr o.~ ~>3 uuu~~~ w O ..+ w FI ZI E" J1 ~ o N Z ~ o a U ~ ~ z z 0 ~ w3 aA ++ ~ ~ <a ~m0 ~ ~ W z Z~ ~za a ~m< I~FU~ c ~I <Vdl ~ ~+ r ~ Iv~vio y~ ZI ~m<o ~ ~ U ~ lci~F~ , LL1 ~~c~ , J I ~ a „' O ~OCw~~ I~~Oe F"er~~~ ' ~' ~Itiia~o V 1T. ima.d'..'' UI3.,cn°: a ~~:~ ~ ~' ~~ a a ~: ~' ~ NN~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ r1 Yi ~ >~ O ~~~~ 1Q rO W ~ ~ H v`~.iv v ~~ ~ [F ~ ~ ~ rp < ~ <~ ~ W ~ 4. V. ~ ap 41 faA (aA ~taA ~ ~~~ a ~~ u~ ~ Ga7CCZ~. ~Na .+~'~ ~ ~ 10 1o t pow .. 1 a m bm ~ p~~ ~ < ~< < =vv ~ mac ae zm m ~ E.1QU~ ~ v F~~ ~ p E<..O ~ .a o 'O ~E.~~o ~ w < ~ ~oo,~ o~ ~ .. ~ ~ o<e _va a ~ ~OO°` ~ o O o ~ mmm i3~ m ~ <m > ~<O~ ~ Ol ~ o. ~a a .d p z c7 N a. • a z < ~ < O z 3~y - - s 3 <oe3 ~ -W a < ~~ C9 ~ p f+ Z (i1 :: Z [-1 N p W d 8 F .O1i ~ S v F~? t O N p ~~c~i1r' ,~ < a ~ N.oa ~~~ mn. ~ < v, ~~ v, mC3d to- ~ w ~~ • ~ • ~~ • , . ~~8 • • .~. -~ ^~~~ ~~;il~ ~bi~~S ior ~a~ ur o woo su o • O ¢~ ~ t~ ~m~.av o. n.w. ti a w w ~~ a •+w~ air ow mower SAM aRnV T406T ~' ~- ~ 6 Iwo agar nna Tw ~s.o w~ur vmaau~ su a owi~ar sr ,~ ~,. n...~.r,~.~ „~...o.~. aaaPi~B ~O N ~ e ~ ,~ e ,.~ .. ~.~.....~ .o.~o.. a..... iu Cl iWt 71~OY • 1MN N MD fOM~ M ~117~ ,,.. ~. ~.,~.~. ~ ,dye 77FF~I ~ ~. ~Id a3~S ~ e S n \W • ~~ ~~f ~ ~ a n a Y ~~ ~ ttt ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ _ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o~~~.. _ ~ s ~ ~ 0 N , v O Q~ a Z ~_ -~~- _ ._ A ~LL Tg e n o^ ~~ 0 0 ~~ 00 ~~ ~~ WW 0 0 X ~. Q~~ 3~ P~ `r0 ~6 VO 0 ~ • ~ \ ru.e ~~~ ~ ~ua.e' ~ ~~ ~ ', \\ MK1.9' \ \ )IId ~I~ Y~ ~\ v M~ ~2 o' c' .~ a V ~~ Z ° b ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~a~°• W~~ un UO JJ ~~ ~ ~s J yy11yyO11~WW JJJ~j rW 1~ ~~¢~7¢ aW3 V SSS ~ ~ Q • O O ,Ts ~ J Q W ~ U LLQLL V~ g qo> ~V Q 1 VeQV~ { ~1 ~$ a Q~ U °~ t LL~~OL J b OJ~~ ' O. YW J ryW9ry~~ ~fF~W VQQ V~W~ LL. ~J 9 ~Y a ~ ~~ ~~3 cO 7 J O t in~ r~a.e' r \ ]11d.~1~ ~~~~ • • • .• • Y~~ t ~ • • ~8 ~ ~ ~ • ~~~~ ~• ~~~~ L. o w ~o ~..~ . „N. u..o.. a,-s .,~ a...., ~.,. ,~..v.. ,.,,... 1WiY~1 AIL O OMI~~ i1L s~M SOY T406T .om. v 6 a ~ a o ~„ ~,..~, .~ „»...~,~. ~...,. _. w..,.~,... ~..,.,.,.~. e e a a N ,..~ n. w...~..i ...,~. a., .v„ ' ~ra•a oo ~ ~ Y ., ~, ~. ~,. ~.. ~ . ~ ~ ~ n ~ e i ~ ~ si ~D ~ u \ ~a ar w i/ su a a w ~~ II~~d j00~ „~. a. d0 a n ~ ~ ~ ~~ Q ... °o~ .. e~ RL ~ S M ~ ~ ~ «~ ~ ~~ ~ wu a J ~+ ~o n ~ ~~ • • • .. ~ i~~ t ~ • ~ ~~ ~ l . • ~~8$ yo. u. o rrowoo w o- ror r•~ w ~ ~~~fR~ ~~O~ff1g 9 t -4- ~ou.~ar w o~ n.rw ~ two. ~~awro.o uw ,,. Q ~,. ~ ~.., ~ „~....~.~ ~,~. s.b Qu..v tgosi .~., a a © a a ~ ~.. ,o...,.. N. , ~.. v. o ,. ~... • ~auyto~ ~- a nwi~r .r o~,.~...~~~..~~. ~a~PF~ti ~ ~ : ~ ~ e y..o w Nu..«~ .oaras. air .ra ,~~ f 'G F ~- d iLL d ~1W m1~0Yr. lYr1 M b TOI. N ~9.7r AM A~ .wrssr 10 MaLYm11~1 7F.1 7~ 1aN ~..~ .,a.... ~..~..aurs.~r a« ~.. ~ ~!d I00~ iaamasag e~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ 4 ii i'rw. ~,r~a : w° ~u o s°a .tea, nu. a...~o a -- r - - - - - - - - - - I I I j ~i ,1 ~. ~~~ -~ L - - -~ ~~ ~----~ / ~ ~ ~ - - a$ a~ - - r J i I ~ J I I ~ 1, ~ 1 ~ ~ i I ~ I ~ I - - - - J r - - - Y '~ ~~ f ~. ~/ ~ 4 ~ m d r. e Q N • • • • -~ • ~ 4 . ~ • ~ w ~or ~~ ~a o ye. r o ss~ee sa e{ ~3iPJ '~u~S a d ~ ~. o w' ~.., :10~~ o ~~. a...r ~.~ ,,...v.e .ter. slM ~~Y i906i ~ .~ ~ e a ~ ~~'~~ ~ : a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .m.. . , ~~ w w. ~w~ ~s~oo~ a~~ w o~ nua v~or ~ •~rw w ~o r ~ pT H O swt ~ h ~ 8 f• ii+r ~n w~ uw u ~~atr io tartimr~ Ol a1R1 ~~IO ~ O~1- iO114f1~ Ow a~w a ar r ua .w ~ W win w fQORIAa~ 10~ZZ3 F u o ~ w r ~O Q ~ o ~ ~ s ~ w-voo~ ow rw .ter ntu wao 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a°~ ~ ~~~~~~:~ ~~~ ~~~~3 yy~~ ~jgD EE-a~ a.}gi~ :~~~~ :~3 ~13e~:~i~t~ etE ~~8lt I I', --- - - i ~ :-, i ~~ __~ s~J .? :.. Li ; i i ii L_______.. ii ~i ~~ ~, D" .:: ___= v =--___=_~ °__ n ' V 11 a~ ~_ ~ i ~ I Q c __________, ====_ ~ 1 F S~ ~~ ai ..,-,:T. ;n,~., v~ I ~~^~ j Z .~ ~~ ~~ I 1.; I±i i ~~ ,+'~~ ij~'y.-. ~ ir~-jk~ i `Tf~µ, ~~ , I ~~ ~! i i ~ -- - i i ~~~ Tt-. d~ -- -- ~ ====1' l~ V r' ~ ~~ r. .: 1-! ~ T ~ ~ 1 ~ _-_ n ~. i I i .1~ ~ 7 }'H f~ Y _ __ ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ S-: j i ~ I I' ru. }` _ !~ .L~ ' ~ ~ 3~ _ _ I 1~ ~ ~!ti tl i ~ ~i . _ 1 l. 1 ~~ ~ ~ - . _._ __.._ ~ _ _~ __ - ~`i 1.y _ -~i-~ ~ _ _-._._ I yy T ~ r .~~ fJ e_ ° ~: 1- _ .~- ` - 1 is y . ! ~.y :71. ~ irt~, ~ ~ .~~ ~ I a ~ O i, -- 1 { _ 1~ l i \ --- O ~y T 7 ~. w • ' ~ • • 1; .• • ~i ~t ~31j IOtl 1~~ M O r~O{ ~~ YM O ~ ~7. ~~7~~ 4 4 ~,~ ~ ~u' b ~u a ~ir~ ~'Twi or /OOAw~~w i ~ o... - d!M QR~r T906T ~mr Q g g s ~i I o-~ ,~; ~ ~ °~ e ~ a ~ o-vo a oe~ >w wr arlulaoo ~~p~«a soo . ~ Q a., ..,,, _.ww~.~.~~.~~~,... ~.,,,~~~.y - W~OY ~'lYM M~~ • m1111 v HILL Q H ' O ~ ~ 6 ~ d w Ol .rr u Io~w+ti Io lolOflm1~17M~1 ~n Iar~ n alwl •~.I...G..LL Icu.asr YI. ~.I. w aI ~u l1l~p w n alau~I ~ tQ0 !sa IO R © ~;~ ~ u o ~ \ ~ ; ~ ! w I ar ^w ~ ~ d~oo~ ar ~Iw >•LL o .I w Or suLL rwn E ~ ~ 4 's !;~ 3~~ :~~ e~ ~~ ~~ ~:i w~ d ~1 d d it _~ ~E~ w ~~ ~6~ Q ~A I ~1 *I r =~ S~oe~ ~~4~ -.__ ..._ .. ., n. •. car .o :e-o:A:: ,- ..c ..,._ • • • 1; 1 ~' t ~~~~ ~~~ ~ryQWz ^G~~ ~ I ~. =gyp ~~~ 3~~ri ~~~ o~~ ~~~~ vo. as a uaawae su o~ for ram ss a iou s - ~I°1Oi11rJ ~~~_~$ ~u~ u oa Haar r ~ a, swao~ uw ,r o~ /i~ 4 n°°w+auvi o' n a ®'°"w M aR~OY t406i .~m..or 0 u w a naa ~ rwr auuuaao ~w av-~a ow..n, ~ r. ,~.uoo ,.... aa..n,~wu. ~ 0 ~ vaao .u w,. awar .ar~o. a" aw a~aap~saa Bap - ~ au ~ rw. ,a~aari . •„~.. ~o ]~ppyy~~ w ~ NM V N4l~JaY I l ~ ' ~~ Q n - 7 e ~ D Oli mlYal a~~l 711aft Ol ~1 ~~CO ~ 0alt IO{1IJ11~ OM ~~ 1° i ~i iD~ '~ ~ O1 ` f V ~ ~- 1- ~ } ~ ~. au r i ow w au a an a i~ °°'"i' AIIO~~ A102 ~ 3 ~ nu- aMrvr IQ a Y V ~ Z ~j u u v~ ~~_ .,... Nyy ~jR ~~ a3u ~,~ ~Y ~c ~e~ °$ n:: ~~c c: ~g ~W ~ a- a V t Og~ y S~ i $Y ~a ~° &a :t~ ~~ r o ~ 3~ a~ „i z 3 ~~ ~~ U^ ~: ~~ U u:a W7 `aX ~~~ ~: ~wvw~ au Eel ,.J ~~~ ~~ ,f `art FI ~~ ~_~i i' ~ t, 1 - . ~, _ __ i +:, i5 ~b .I ~p - -= ---- ~' ~ - ;l O M V d O w U • • 1; 1 ~' ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ IOC YID O Yam ~' ~ ~~ ~~~~_J ~A-' 4 '~ ! T7N '~M YO~O lourar to o~ u~or ~..v o1Dn.~'.-='~',+ :.v ° v, : 6~M ~eY T906T .~, Q e e a a su a n«i~ar w ~~~~~.~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ;s ~ p~ ~ d -r sl 1~ .uw u loar~sr to to~aamrrl Ol 4181 A7W0 ~ O~Y 1[U1~>•N ON 4NN ~, 7Y..1LL 10. ~, ~.,..~ a~ ~, ~.~.d ~[d 3~ ~- ° ~ ~ r o -- i i ~ Q a a o a~ e ;~ \~ ~~ ~~ ~..,, • • 04 • ITEM 2 C~B~4 0~ ~i° ° BOO C~1~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 ~~~~~~~ Incomeorated October 22, 1956 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehafley Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Connolly, Assistant Planner DATE: February 14 2001 SUBJECT: DR-00-048; ONG,19051 Austin Way DESCRIPTION The applicant has requested Design Review approval to demolish the existing 3,855 square foot, single story residence, and construct a new 6,393 square foot, single story residence with a 1,198 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 62,291 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. BACKGROUND The application was originally heard at the January 10, 2001 Planning Commission hearing. At that time the Commission had concerns over light well size and safety, the location of utilities, construction access off Highway 9, potential tree removal, and inadequate information regarding the Arborist report. There was also concern from an adjacent neighbor, Mr. Garakani regarding screening and tree removal. In addition the applicant submitted a reduction to the entry element height that was recommended by Staff. However, the modified plans were not received until after the Commissioner packets had been sent out, thus the Commission felt they had inadequate time to review the change. The applicant requested a continuance in order to re-design the proposal and to address the neighbor's and Commission's concerns. • 000001 Printed on recycled paper. File No. DR-00-048;19051 Austin Way ~-''1 L..__J DISCUSSION The revised plans (Exhibit "B") show the structure being lowered to approximately 23 feet from 24 on the original submittal. The applicant has reduced the basement light wells and designed them to wrap around the footprint, and included safety railing. The location of the utilities is now called out, and the elevations now show the basement light well area. There are 3 spark arresters on each chimney, simply as architectural elements with the exception of the wood-burning fireplace. The project has undergone two design modifications, one per the City Arborist recommendations to preserve as many trees as possible, and one per the Commission's request. The footprint change also removes the structure far enough from tree #3(Canary Island Date Palm, valued at $5,127), so that it may be retained. There was concern from an adjacent neighbor, the Keebles regarding access to the property from Highway 9 rather than the shared, narrow right-of-way that exists. Upon consultation with the City Public Works Department it was determined that the City policy is not to allow encroachment onto major arterials when there is another access available. Beyond that, Highway 9 is a CalTrans maintained right-of-way and they would not allow the encroachment due to the property having a safer access on the existing road. Further research was done to see if access off highway 9 just during the construction period would be feasible. Staff was open to the idea, but upon further research by Staff and the applicant, it was learned that CalTrans would disallow this as well for safety reasons. The applicant has done research and is prepared to show that access from the narrow right-of- way during pre and post construction is very feasible. There was further concern brought forth specifically after the January 10, 2001 hearing, from the neighbor to the northeast, Mike Garikani. His concern is two fold. One is removal of trees that screen the project from his home, and the other is over view and privacy issues with the northeast portion of the residence. Mr. Garikani has submitted five alternatives to Staff, which are included in the report. Staff has reviewed all five proposals, all which remove about the same number of trees (protected and unprotected), and have varying degrees of pros and cons to both parties involved, but none mutually beneficial. The applicant feels they have worked with the neighbors in the design, and any design moved to the West would inhibit enjoyment of the property in the rear yard. The applicant has made it known that he is willing to plant landscape screening to the full extent possible on the East property line for this concern. Staff finds that the project can be supported. The rooflines are well articulated and the placement of the residence is sensitive to the adjacent residences, as well as the natural environment. Staff feels that the materials board is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff also feels that the applicant has made design changes in an effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns, and addressed neighbor concerns. All the Design Review findings can be made to support the application. 000002 P:U'lanning\Mark\Memos\ONG memo Feb 14.doc File No. DR-00-048;19051 Austin Way STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-00- 048. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR~00-048 3. Arborist Reports dated June 15, 2000 ~ October 18,2000 4. Original Plans, Exhibit "A" 5. Re~~ised Plans, Exhibit "B" 6. Minutes from the January 10,2001 hearing 7. Proposed alternatives from Mike Garakani (neighbor to the East) • • P:\Planning\Mark\Memos\ONG memo Feb 14.doc o0000~ File No. DR-00-048;19051 Austin Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 62,291 sa. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 5% GRADING REQUIRED: There is no grading proposed for this project MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will be beige stucco with light beige trim and stone veneer accents. Roofing will be a brown simulated slate tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance Lot Coverage: 17% 35% Floor Area: Living area 5,656 sq. ft. 6,408 sq. ft. Garage 737 sq. ft. (Basement) (1198) TOTAL 6,393 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front 76 ft. 30 ft. Rear 140 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 54 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 36 ft. 20 ft. Height: Residence 23 ft. 26 ft. •i ~i •i P:\Planning\iVlark\Memos\ONG memo Febl4.doc 000004 File No. DR-00-048;19051 Austin Way Trees The Ciry Arborist report dated October 18, 2000 (attached), contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are 27 trees on the property potentially at risk of damage by construction, v~~ith the removal of 8 trees with this proposal The report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Fireplaces The plans clearly indicate that only one wood-burning fireplace will be constructed in the new residence. There will also be two gas-burning fireplaces. There are three chimneys proposed with spark arrestors (two for architectural value only). Correspondence There has been one letter from an adjacent neighbor the Keeble's requesting access to the property from Highway 9 due to concerns of tree protection and noise from large vehicles using the narrow access road. There has also been correspondence from another adjacent neighbor Mr. Garakani, with concerns of tree removal, view and privacy issues. P:\Planning\Mark\Memos\ONG memo Fe614.doc ooooOJ • T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~-000006 • BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Zu~~HOxinh Horticultural Consultants d~pZdg~. . (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 OOOZ G ~ r~ ~~ ~~ '~ ~'~ ~: 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~~ -. A REVIEW OF THE LATEST ITERATION OF THE PLAN FOR THE ONG HOME AT 19051 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Community Planning Dept, Mark Connelly City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist October 18, 2000 .Plan Received: 10/12/00 Plan Due: l 1 /7/00 Job #06-00-144A C7 ~000~~ A REVIEW OF THE LATEST ITERATION OF THE PLAN FOR THE ONG HOME AT 19051 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA Assignment I was asked by Mark Connelly, Planner, City of Saratoga, to review the latest plan for the Ong Residence which is dated October 2, 2000. Our previous report on this property was dated June 15, 2000. Summary The latest plan would remove trees # 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0, and 11 due to building location. Most of these would have been removed with the old plan as well. The new building design removes the structure far enough from tree #3 that it could be retained, where previously it would have been removed. Construction distance from tree # 1 is insufficient by a considerable amount. Construction distance from tree #4 is slightly insufficient but probably does not cause a life threatening result. Considering the relationship between the trees on site and the planned demolition and construction I have added eleven trees to the inventory from that offered in our June 15 report due to potential impact on them by the demolition process. Recommendations 1. I suggest that fencing be installed precisely as shown on the enclosed plan before any demolition or construction begin. The fences must be of 5-foot tall chainlink fencing on 2-inch steel posts driven at least 18-inches into the ground. Note that the dash and dotted lines represent demolition period fencing and that the broader dashed lines represent construction period fencing. An inspection of this fencing should be made before demolition begins and before construction begins. Note that in some locations fences are in the same place, meaning that individual fence must be installed before demolition begins and remain in place through construction. 2. The building portion within 20 feet of tree # 1 must be either on pier and grade beam foundation design with no excavation beneath the trees canopy for crawl space or of a foundation with excavation of no greater than 6-inches of depth. If this design is used this foundation must be hand dug and roots of 3-inch diameter or larger must not be cut. If roots of 3-inches or larger are encountered the foundation must be poured around them with a 6-inch pad of styrofoam surrounding the root for protection. Prcparcd bv: Barrie D. Coate, Consultin8 Arbori~t October 18, 2000 00008 vl ~D O .~ 0 --~ CO _O >.. (!) 3 .~ C O~ vi rn O ~--, L v .2r 0 L DG G ~v ~, 0 0 0 0 (V ,Cj r' lr~) /.ltaorad IVnOW3 a ~ 9 E E 1VnOW321 aN3WW0032 -------------- 1 ----- _m ~ ~ > --- W > N ~ > i N m > ~ m ~ N ~ m ----- n ~_ r> ~__ c o > ---- > ---- - ~ a3Zlllla33 S033N w~ w S w E w ~ _ w ~ m w U m " ,~ ~ ~ -- ----------- --- - 1 (S-t) a31dM S033N 1 1 1 1 ^ II u „ u (S-l) 3S`o'3SI0 ab'IIOO lOOa ~ s c o 0 ~ ~ ~ (s-t) 03a3no~ atmo~ loos ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o --------------------------------- ------- " ------- " --- " x x X a` (S~t)AtJ030~Nf1al m N -------'------~-~-~---- ~-~ - N (S-t) OOOM Ob'30 ~' -- ~ -'-_ m --_ _---- o Q -----------------------_------_ __---" N O --_-' --'---- ~ CO _ --- p Q ---- N - p --__-- - ______ V N d (S-t) 3Sb'3SI0 NMOa0 33x1 p, w w w w w w w (S-t) S1033N1 11 II II 0 11 I t p (S't),~11a01ad °JNINfIbd f; ~ g be g ____ c N 03033N S318!/0 d v Z ---------------------------- --- ~ s ---- ---- ~ ---- ~ ----- ~ ------ c ------ ~ 1HJI3M-ON3 3nOW3a 3 „ ~ o c ~ _ --°------------°----------------- ---°-- x ------ x ------ x ------ x ------- X ------- X ------- X I°o `JNISIVa NMOa0 o -----------------°--------------- - ---- --- Nolldaols3a NMOao ---~ ----- ---- ---- a ------- ------- JNINNIHl NMOa0 ° "' ~ ~ a o p v ---- ----°----- -- w --~ w ---- w -- w °JNINtf310 NMOaO II u n II a n ---- II (6'£) ~JNI1Va Oab'Zt/H ;., _: ~p b ~ g g ... ~ r 1ot"Z) JNI1Na NOIlI0N00 N ~ - ~ N ~ N m ~, ~ N N ~ C _ ----- ~ ~ (s-t) 3an10nals ~ ~ ~ .- N N - ------- U --•-----'-_---_--------------------- ------- x __-__-- X X X X . X ~ X (S't) Hllb'3H -- ON3adS ------- c~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In ~ ,n ~ ~ ° ---------------------- 1H~JI3H ----_- uQi p w ----" w ~ N w ~ ~ w -_---_ o c O '- w __---__ ~i w _ ____ O r'1 v N w E 1333 Z~ a313Wb'10 _ W - f°~I I __ ---- ~ - ~,, ------ v N ----- I~ - 6 C --'--- 11 C --__--- I I --___- I I ---- I I ~ I I ~ I I d ~ II H80 - C _ .E -- ~ _ ------- ~ _ ------- ~ W V f -•--------------------------------- H90 ------ f~ w ------ 1~ w ------ N I~ N ----- ~ 1~ ------- 1~ N --_- ~ N __--- v X X X X X v X m~ w W31SAS-Illf1W -----------------------------H80 - ----- o ~. ~ ----- p f0 ----- -- p N 1N Q ----- p N ------- p ry (V j ------- 0 LO 'O ---- ~ ~ OD W ~ to ~ ~ .F c c c _ c Q I"- O O Q ~ ~ V V o ~ ~ E m ~ " m s o~ ~ ~ ~ ° . - ~ c c/~ ,;, _W Vi ~.+ S 2 ~ N~ ~ ~ ~ ' m ~ e a ~ 'c m E CG d- g '~ T a Y c ~ be ~ p c m " m OC ~ m O ° A E _ro ~ m ~ ~ I o ~ > O m O ~ 2 e ° e al ~ a c ~ d '~~'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 3 ~ B ~ K Y N ~ v 'n ~ n n u N ]C twit r; = N _ ~ ~ ~ ~ H°! Q II II it > x ~ Q, L L Lv t!') ~G N ~ r- ems: ,n F- Z x x ~ c~ 'r ir, u;~~~`~.i>F U ~ u u u < n x x .~ _ 6. a, L L t Lt] ~ ~ l!') N ~ n 0009 rr o ~r o .- o '~ N ~ ll) ~ ~ o v ~ G .~ ,~ C ~~ cC bD O t. c3 .G T. 1 O Q` y v 4, "~ Q O .7'~ a, O L O E-•' O 0 U (CL) u(aoRld 1vnOW3M ~~ IVnOW32! aN3WW003?l ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~' $; ~' :_ a v ~ m W U; __ - a3Z1~112i33 S033N ~° 1O ~° ~ ~ w r° w~ w° w~ I (S•L)a31b'MS033N ~i suee a ,,, -(S•L) 3SV3SI0 Llb'IIOO lOOa b ~ ~ - ---------------------------- --- --- cs-L) o3a3no~ atn~o~ loos ~ ~ W ~ ,~ ------------------------------- ----- " X ___ x _ x __ (S•L)Ab'030 NNfkil (S•L) DOOM OF/30 ~ g, ~ --• n ------------------ ---- ---- v --- ~n ~ --- ---~ (S• L) 3S!/3SI0 NMOaO 33x1 w .y p w (S•L) S103SNI ~~ u „ ~~ (S•L) A.LI21012id °JNINf1ad ~ ~ g # 03033N S319b'O _ _ •_-- 1HJ13M-ON3 3AOW32! ~ __-- ~ ----- ~ ------ ~ ---• -----------------------------°-° ------ x x x x JNISIV2! NMOaO NOllb'MOlS3a NM02i0 w ~JNINNIHl NMOLiO -----'°---_°-____----_--_ _-' w __ w _ w _ w `JNINt~3l0 NM02i0 ~~ ~~ - - ~~ ~~ ---• S ~ ~ -------- -- ------ ---- --- (OI-Z) ~JNIltRi NOIlI0N00 ~ v ~ ~ ~ N (S•L) 3a(110f1211S a - Ot/3adS ~ ~ ~ ^~ N ~ ---- .---_ ca ------ ~ u, 1H~JI3H w t~ ch w ~ w w -- -_---133j Z® a313WV10 ~ ~ ~ (O ~~ N C _______ C ___-__ --------°-- ------ II ~ n H90 - c ------ ~ --- ----- H80 w Q N -____ N _-____ N ___. w ~ w --"-------"------------- ---- x X K --- -- -_'-__ X -_: w31sAS-Il~nw ----------------------- ------ o ---- Hea ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~. `° ~ E C !n N X W Cn - 5 ~ ~ -~ ~.. X ~ W ~ N ~ ~ ~ _] yq FA ff' p Q ~„ ~ ~ Q II II II V V o~ c ti >- = x opt ~s ~ ~ ~ ~~:sL to ~" ^ ~ N Q ~ m E ~ ~ y ~ N: to E a OG ~C a' °w " 2 Z C W m ~ ~ ' 7t U ~ Ltd ~ ~ fA fR "> U U~ u u u U - ~ II ~ ~ K ~ G, i9 L ~ S "` m O1 O L3] G• ~}' x N Y sY ~i N `S [~ Q00010 ~~ O ~O O O .~i Q ~-~1 GJ b Q .~ O '--, en s~ 0 0 fr-) wl~arnad ~rnow3a a c m vnow3a aNawwo~aa ~ -- ~ ~ o ~ ~ - m ~ ~ - n ~ ~ - m ~ > - o > r ~ ~ --------------------------°--------- ---- ~ ~ ------ _ i ~ o ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ > -- a3Zlllla3j S433N _- r ~ o r Le ~ o r ~ o r- e~i ~ o r ---- ui v~ o r - y~ o r- X ~ ~ o r- - _- -- (S-l) a31t/M SU33N ~~ ~~ ~~ u n u u (S-l) 3St13S10 a~dll00 lOOa -------------- ____ ~ ~ 0 ~ r - ~i n ~ ~ °~i ~ ~n n 0 ~°r~i ~ a m (s-t) a3a3no~ avllo~ loos ~ ~ ~ --- ~ ---- ~ ----- ~ -- ~ - ______-____-_ x x X x X x X a (s-~)AV~3a ~tNnal „ °1 ~ __ (S-L) OOOM 01/30 o m v m ~ ~ N 0 --_---- _-_ ______ o ~ ~ ~ N ~ __--_ O ______ ~ m (S-L) 3SV3SI0 NMOa~ 33x1 ~ ~ a --- ----------------------------- ------- --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- -- ------ ------- (S-L) S1~3SNt ~~ u a u n u u (S-l) ALaOlad ~JNINnad e o o ° ~ °~ o 0 ° 0 o o n n r rn 0 ~ m ----- ----- ~ ~ 03Q33N S319V0 _ m ------------------------- v '-' v "'- v v v ~ v m c c c c c c ---- c~ Z 1H~JI3M-aN3 3AOW3a $ ~ ~ ~ c4 cg c'S c ---------------- ---- X - X X X x X x a m `JNISIVa NMOa~ - --- U ------- --- O c NOIlVaO1S3a NMOaO - - - --- c __ ----- ------ v ° a JNINNIHl NMOa~ ° N w ----- m m w ~ w ~ w cmo - w ~ - w ~' w JNINV3l~ NMOaO n n n n n n u (6-£) ~JNllfla Oa~H o c ~ ~ o ~ o o I C (Ol-Z) JNI1Va NOIIJONO~ f0 m N N m v tll m 'P Vl ~ ~ N ~ N M ~ ~n (p ~ 'v _-------- _-- v u v v c~ v u e -- ° U (s-~) 3anl~nals N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ a ~ X X X X X X X -- (S-l) H1lH3H '' ~ ~ N r OV3adS ------------------------------ .°n -- c to c°o -- ~ tD '~ --- No 7 N ------ ~ ~ °v ----- ~ ~ o°, ----- ~ r ~ o N t t 1H`JI3H O ,n ,y O v yi O ,n ~ O o ~ O v ~ O m w ~ `~ N w e 133j Z® a313WMU r~i u N n ~ n N o N o N N _- ~ d --------------------- - ----- ---- n n u n E c c c -- c c -- c ------ c ~ H80 ------------------ ---- N ~ - N n M to Nl N ' ~ m ~ H8!] ~ ~ ~ w -- ~ ~ ------ r` » ---- ~ ~ ------ n ~ X X X X X X X W31SASilInW 133 Z/t b lb a313Wb1a o ~ ~ m o m v N o N r> o O v N o O v N o W v N o c ~ ~ c c c c c c c .~.. m m a m w ~ F- y o Q ~ m m ~ tee. ~ V ~ C m ~ 0 ~7s ~ ~s ~ ~ E m ~ W Vi ~„ ~ m ~ ~ iL x f0 c m x ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a o m CMG = R ~ m ~ ~ LL `o ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ eel ~ ~ ~ m a m ~ O m m a ~ o U ~ B U o O 4 'o p ~ > ~ 3 ~i p U U ~ N P1 Q IA m n m Y ~ ~ O 3 H W r. M O d on a ~ocNno Q ~ ~ ~ ' II II II W eti O O w bn s~ a H r°+ chi nevi w o o° c ,~ uuO~~ U u9 U II II Q II x x x R~ io .a ~ .a Or U1 N "mow n 0011 d 0 (_ O O i--, ~i Y Q e-I Ln O p-1 rn v '~ 'C Q ~1 cn .r+ .Q 11 0 0 ~ Ir I.1 ulaaaa ivnowaa v c c m lvnowaa aNawwo~3a m Q m ~ o m ~ ~ m ' m ~ _ ~° m _ w _ ~ a - E --------__'_-----___--'-__- -___-_- ~ a3Zlllla3l S433N N ,R a ~ c ~ a o = m ------ r N i 'n ~ (S-t) a31VM S033N u n u u u u n (s-~) 3sd3slo avllo~ lo0a 0 ~ n n m m <o m m (s-~) a3a3no~ avllo~ looa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -------------------------- --- " ----- " x x x x a m (s-~>~v~3a ~INnal ~ --- O __~___~- ~ ~ m N '- ~ N --___ N __-___ ~ a (S-~) 3Sb'3SIQ NMOaO 33a1 ~, w ~ w ~ ~ ~ ----_- (S'l) S103SNi n u n u u n u (S-L).WaOlad JNINfIad ~ 0 0 ° 0 ° c °o ~ ~ o •- o ~ o, o _ ______ ___ _ - o v # 03033N S318V0 m -~ v v - v v o ~ ~ m Z - C ~ C ~ C' $ C S C ~ ----- C ------ C 1H013M ON3 3/~OW3a c $ $ ~ ____________ _- X X x x x x x ~ ~ `JNISIt/a NMOaO v ----------- ----- ------- ------- 5 NOI1VaOlS3a NMOaO ____-_-~ --_ W ~ ~ N a t 0 - ---- ~ ---- N ~ _______ ~ _______ ~ - JNINNIHI NMOaO v ~ m N o fH u- of ~ v- ~ to ~ en _---- JNINH3l0 NMOaO u o u n n u u (6-£) ONllt/a OaYZt/H e o0 o ° 0 0 0 0 0 e ° e ° 0 0 0 o C ~ (OL-Z) JNIlVa NOIIJON00 "~ N m m tp m tO !q ~ N Vl ~ N M ~ c+~ H ~ N _ ~ ~ v v v ~ ~ _ ------- ~ ° ~ (S-L) 3an10na1S N ~+ x N _-- w x N m x ~ to x~ _ y x N y x .- ,,, x - ------ ------- (9-L) H1lV3H ~"~ ~ ~ av3adS N m ~ ~ ~ N N uN'i O ~ N C N N ~ ~ ___--- _-_-__-'_"_--_-_- -_----- ~ ~ O ~ ~ ? Q -_-_-_ ~ --__'- (h _-'- N _-__ c~ _______ ~ 1HJ13H c ~ ,°~ ~ ° ~ 0 m w 0 `"~ ~ 0 ~"' w .n rn ~'' ~ « ~ 1331 Z~ a313WMO ~n ~ ~~ ,n ~ n '! - ~ --- ~~ ~ v -- v -__-"' ------------------- __--'- ---- N n u n u u ~ c c c - c ~ c ' - c ------- c ~ H94 --------------------- ----- 'A y - ~ • ~ ~ ~• a ' _ '. m ~ ~ H84 - ------------------- _____- r w x n w x v t ~ x -- n w x --- ~ ~ x ------- n w x ---- n w x ___ W31S~lSillnW -____-- x 1331 Z/l b ld a313WM4 o ~ n ~ o v v 'r o ai m ~ o ci eo p o u~ ~ o- ~i co p --- r- e p ~ c c c c c c c W V1 y ~ m ~ m ~ o O'~~~~ ~ = ~ V V o ~ m c ~ ~ E s z + ~ C f l ~ 8 W i/J 8 ~ ~ N Q O ~ ~ ~ C ~ Y ~[ ~ c Ir m s. (;{ 8 C J O O ~ a ~ O O ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ U d °~ . ~ ' ~ R~ ~ 7 a l ~ J m 2 y H o iCi g U U O U U ~. w o Y N N N N N N (r M ~ O a~ 0 3 un I-, N1 W Ga • C!1 O O ~ O t~f O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q I! II ~ n w ;e o 0 w m~ ~ H~~~ (~ O W O O O W U ~ 11 Q 11 x X x 0. ea .G ~ .C OGtnN~~ OOOU12 L G O -~-~ ~i Q m it '~ d .~ O ~, eo O .~ O r-, 0 (c--) ulaolad ivno~a m I E IVAOW3a aN3WW003a ---------------------------- ----- ~ S ~ ~ _- c ~i > ---_ ---- > E v 213ZIlila33 S033N n w ~ H c w ~ ° w w _ ~ F m F - (S-t) 2131VM SQ33N ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ (S-t) 3SH3Si0 21M110010021 ~ 0 ~ ~_______ a m __________~ (S-t) 03213A00 2i`d'i10010021 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ---------------------------------- ------- X X - X X o ---- ------- a` (S-t)AV030 HNn2l1 01 -------°----------- ---------------- ----°- - - a ao °1 (S-t) OOOM 01/3a ~ N -- ---- --- a ~ ------------ -- ---- a i a (S-t) 35t/3SI0 NM0210 33211 c- ~~ a -- w w w w --~ (S-t) S1035NI a ~~ n u (S-L).W2i0121d JNINnMd 0 0 0 0 ~ # 03033N S318d0 v ------------- - v c v r a _- v ~ Z $ ~ c ~ c ~ a 1HJ13M-ON3 3AOW321 X X X X a JNISIH21 NM0210 v --------------------------------- -- a NOI1V2101S3a NM0210 ~~--_---- --___- ~ N aD ~ a ~JNINNIHl NM02lO ~~ri c~i o o .» w w w _--~-~ ONINH3l0 NM0210 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o e (6-£) °JN11H21 421F1ZVH oo °o C -; (Ol-Z)'JNIld21 NOI1JaN00 °' N m ~"' fA ~ Vl W to ~ -- - c ° ~ (S-t) 32in1On211s N m N Vi m to x X x x ~V321dS r`~i ~ cow ------------------ -- -- i ---- S 1HJI3H r~i u w ov r w w w ~ 1333 Z~ a313WM0 ~ ~ n ~ n n n ~ ------------------------- --------- ------- ~ ~~ E ~ c - c - c - H60 ~ t° ------------------------------------ ----- ~ -- ' ` ~ 01 ~ H8Q r N w -- n N w ~ N w ~ N w X X X X W31S.lSillnW -----------------'-- --- 1333 Z/t 41t/ 21313WM4 ~ N -- m ~ 0 0 c c c c ... w m m ao 04N~~ ~ s Z c~~ E _ ,~ a W to ~_ en t~ ~ a ~ m m ~ °G -~ m m o C~ Q ~ ~ > J > J ~ ~ Y N N ~ ~ t- H O 3 F= W C7 M w O M OD c to 0 0p ~ O M O "~ ~ ~ d~9 II II d ' w ~ 0 0 w oo a .o ~~~~ ,Z O O w o $ o ui W `D ~~u9 U ~ n n u .aa ~I o 0 0 c, Ra_o~ ~~nN~~ 000013 A REVIEW OF THE LATEST ITERATION OF THE PLAN FOR THE ONC HOME AT 19051 AUSTIN WAY SARATOGA 3. Since no service entrance locations are shown on this plan, all service entrances must be identified and shown before permits are issued. This includes any additional sewer, water, electrical or TV trenching entering the property. Any subsequent mainline or lateral line trenching for irrigation must be planned outside the canopies of existing retained trees. Construction Conflict Cost Trees which would be removed by implementation by this plan are trees #2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0 and 11. Those trees are valued at $14,823 (tree #2 is smaller than 12-inch diameter at 2 feet). Trees most vulnerable to damage by either demolition or construction include trees # 1, l3, 14, 15, 16, l7, 22, 25, (valued at $48,680) for which a 30% bond ($14,604) should be requested. Trees which may be damaged but are more easily protected include trees # 12, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 27 (valued at $38,125) a lO% bond should be adequate ($3,813). In my opinion, if trees # 19 and 20 (valued at $3,554) needed to be removed that would not be a great loss because they are such poor specimens. Respectf ly submitt~, C.~'~ Ba ~D. Coate BDC/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies `~ u • C: Prepared bc: Barrie D. Coate, Consultin8 Arborist October l8, 2000 OO^ O~~ Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. \ .B'P~C All dimensions and tree locations v ~ .~ ,P.PIK ~\ \ are approximate. ~ \~ ; ', _ J ,P'PIwC \ ~ 16' 0•K Z 10' 1 NC I \ I ~ 12' O• 07_6, OAK . B' OAK I \ ,B'C L~ \ ~. B. D„P \ A O i 6•CC 1•c I 10'CCD / / A Q + \\ ~iC- .6'Mr \, ' I Ac' CC DA / I ~ \ L ~~ ib'CZn•a o ,D•PI Q M ' ~ I B•ccD ~__~ ~ R ,la• we ~ ~6'CCD•R I ~10'CCDAR _ _ 1 .6'Pl~a ~~ r ~ C ~ .lo•PI \ ~ • 10' DAR I = I • p ~ ~.~ . 9' 1 \ (7 1\Jt ~e'WA~ A ~ ~ i A ~ .t~1AK d \\ ~°. ~'[[Nla i ~ 1 L.. ..~ _ _ _ _ ._... _ O 2~•OAK ~ ~ .1B•DRK\ F' I it-IB• ^ ~ - -'~ ~ \ i I I I ~ , r ~ I u z P,nt 1 I ~ P I ~ aE I _ _ I GK i ~Q i ! \ I I \ ~~•'OAK n16'OAK r<6• V' S3' S" ~ 1.~1 Z I ~.': = ~ -.. ~: ~.: O Iw•ria _ I p ~. A r e A ~ , s C ~•OAK ~ / 1 ~ ~ 1~,\-+ ~~•I~ A ~;~ f' ~r rho°v I A , `~ I \ \O 76' OAK I ~ AK 2 N t ~• ~ 1 w Y' _ _ ~ / n \ ~ 1~ I O• NC 1 z s ~ p ~`\ ~.~``~.\~\ ~~`~ .\, P~O ~ .. E'dl M~Pi Rf. ~6 PII~C 91P ~ r 77777 . 6' r-I fl~C° J ~ ~` ~ h `. ..~ ~~. 0 000015 ~.. Barrie D Coate A Review of the Latest Iteration of the Plan for . F.r Associates (408) 353 1052 The Ong Home at 19501 Austin Way - 23535 Summit Road L G t CA 9 Prepared for: os a os, 5033 City of Saratoga, Planning Dept. HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: October 18, 2000 CONSULTING ARBORIST fob #06-00-144A THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000016 BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 R~r.,~..,Fp -- JUN 2 6 2000 PLAlviv~wu ~~r I. AN EXAMINATION OF THE BUILDING SITE AT 19051 AUSTIN WAY (ONG PROPERTY) Prepared at the Request of: Christina Ratcliffe Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 ;7 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist June 15, 2000 Job #06-00-144 Plan Received: June 7, 2000 Plan Due: June 20, 2000 • 00001'7 An Examination Of The Building Site At 19051 Austin Way Assignment I was asked by Christian Ratcliffe to examine the proposed residence location at 1905 l Austin Way, as relates to tree locations toward the goal of recommending changes in placement of the residence, if necessary, in order to preserve significant trees. Summary It would certainly be possible to build the building essentially as designed. If one large redwood; two large Douglas firs and one large coast live oak which are adjacent to but outside the footprint of the new proposed building are to be preserved, some changes in building shape will be necessary. The building plan would affect the health and longevity of eleven trees. Six of those trees #2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are inside the building footprint and of course would be removed. Trees #2, 6, and 8 are too small to be protected by city ordinance. Trees #3 and l0 are immediately adjacent to the building footprint and would be so severely damaged as to be lost if the building is constructed as shown. Trees # 1, 4, and 1 l are slightly farther from the building footprint and with some moderate changes in design could no doubt be preserved if pier and beam foundation is used near them and no excavation is done inside the foundation for crawl space. Discussion By use of the proposed building footprint trees #2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, a small southern magnolia, an 18-inch coast live oak, a small twin trunk European olive, a 10-inch coast live oak, a sma115-inch coast live oak and a twin trunk 12-inch and 18- inch coast redwood would be removed. #2, 6, and #8 are small trees. In my opinion, the only ones of these which are significant are the two oaks #5 and #7 which are healthy and worth preserving. Unfortunately, they are right in the building footprint. Tree #3, a canary island date palm, would have to be removed because of its proximity to new construction but that species is easily transplanted or given away, if desired, and are probably not of great significance to the area. The trees of most concern in my opinion are coast live oak #1, Douglas firs #4 and l0 and coast redwood # 11, which are so close to proposed construction footprint that they would be badly damaged unless changes are made in building design. Construction distances away from each of those trees' trunks should be 20-feet from the trunk of tree # 1, 18-feet from the trunk of tree #4, 18-feet from the trunk of tree # 10 and 20-feet from the trunk of tree # 11. Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist June I5, 2000 000018 • • An Examination Of The Building Site At 19051 Austin Way ~ If the building structure were to be changed sufficiently to accomplish those clearance .. distances it would require significant redesign of the building. Trees which are inside the building footprint as it is presented are valued at $11,327. Trees #1, 4, 10, and 11, which are immediately adjacent to the existing design, are valued at $ l 4, 823. In my opinion, loss of coast live oak tree #5, is the most serious loss due to this construction design. Since there are considerably fewer trees to be damaged east of the proposed building design, I question whether the same building footprint could not merely be moved to the East of Douglas fir #4, oriented east and west rather than north and south since that would only damage some poor pines, some small cedars and fewer overall trees. Respectfully submitted, Barrie D. Coate BDC/sl Enclosures: Tree Charts Map C Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist June 15 2000 00009 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK r~ • 000020 February 7, 2001 • Saratoga Planning Commission Re: Ong residence 19051 Austin Way Dear Chair/Commissioner About 3 years ago my wife and I purchased the property located at 19061 Austin way and since then we lived in it with our three children. This property is located East Side of Ong's residence at 19051 Austin way. Presently a picket fence separates both properties and we have the view of trees # 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 25 in Ong's residence (please see attached drawing for the location of the trees). These trees cover the existing building. One of the main factors of purchasing our property in Austin way was the feeling of being in a secluded with the many trees around us. After reviewing the Ong residence design, it appears that all of the trees that are currently blocking the view of the existing house (trees # 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are to be cut down to accommodate the new house. Our view that was once of beautiful and healthy trees, is now going to be replaced by a 3 car garage with driveway coming as close as six feet to our picket fence and an office building which is perpendicular to the garage. This is not the view we wish to see from our dining area and the yard. Aside from the view of the garage and office building, there is no guarantee that there will not be cars, RV, or boat parked in front of the Ong residence garage. There is also no guarantee that the house will not be sold sometimes in near future and what the new owner might park there. In June, 2000 the Community Planning dept. of Saratoga requested examination of the new building site at 19051 Austin Way by Mr. Barrie D. Coate consulting arborist. The report (# 06-00-144, dated June 15, 2000) indicates that the two significant trees # 5 and 7 (18" and 10" Oak trees) are healthy and worth preserving. An addendum report dated July 12, 2000, by the same consulting arborist indicates that trees # 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 are "exceptional specimen and must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used" (please see the attached reports). However the current plan shows they are to be removed. On January 11, 2000 following the Planning Commissions Hearing (Jan. 10, 2000), I stopped by City Planning Dept. to talk to Mr. Mark Connolly about my concerns. I have also tried to meet Mr. Raymond Nasmeh (Mr. Ong's representative) to go over my concerns with him. However, Mr. Nesmeh scheduled no meeting and I was mainly working with the assistant planner Mr. Mark Connolly. I have followed this issue up with Mark by several emails, phone calls, and stopping at the Saratoga Planning Dept. (please see attached emails). On January 17, 2000 I proposed and submitted four copies of plans with minor modification to Mr. Connolly of which the first three plans would save six trees # 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and facing the house in the East direction. The fourth plan would save the 18" Oak tree #5 that to some degree blocks the view of the house as well (please see attached proposed plans). 000021 On January 29, 2000 I received a call from Mr. Connolly and he told me that the design has been modified to reflect my #2 plan proposal and requested that I go to Planning Dept. for review of the redesign. But when I reviewed the new plan, I did not see any changes. This was communicated to Mr. Connolly as well as other City Planners. We respectfully request the Planning Commission's consideration on the following options: 1) Redesign of the house such that the exceptional and fine specimens reported by the arborist is preserved (report# 06-00-144, dated July 12, 2000). 2) The attached proposed Plan #2 will preserve 6 exceptional and the two fine specimen trees. No modification was done to the existing design, the house was only rotated 45° from its current position (entrance of the house will be towards the East). 3) The proposed plan #5 will only require removal of two main trees (#22, 12" pine and #24, 13" live oak). All the exceptional and fine specimens will be saved. No modification was done to the existing footprint, the house was rotated 90° (entrance of the house will be towards the NE). 4) Since a lot of vegetation is going to be removed, a plan of landscaping should be approved to match the natural look of surrounding prior to final approval. At the previous hearing commissioner Dr. Cynthia Barry proposed continuance based on lack of arborist report for tress #1 -11 (please see attached report #06-00-144, dated July12, 2000). I would like to understand why is an arborist report require only to have it ignored. The natural beauty of Saratoga could only be preserved by saving and maintaining its exceptional and fine specimen trees. The proposed plans #2 and 5 do not require redesign of the existing plan, just relocation on the lot. Both plans not only preserve trees #5,6,7,8,9,10, and 11, they also provide less view encroachment from our site. Thank you and Best Regards, Mike Garakani Pouran Asadipour 19061 Austin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 • 000022 rnasmeh@cbnorcal.co, 10:20 AM 1/18/01 ,Review of plan for T. Ong resi To: rnasmehC~cbnorcal.com From: Mike Garakani <mike.garakani~exar.com> Subject: Review of plan for T. Ong residence Cc: mconnollyC~saratoga.ca.us Bcc: X-Attachments: Hi Ray, Per our yesterday phone conversation, I am available today between 12:00 to 1:00 pm to go over the plan and the concerns I have with regards to removal of tree # 5,7, 8, 9,10 and the view of the proposed garage and office site from my house (19061 Austin way). The front side of my house (future plan) will be facing the garage side of Mr. Ong residence. We need to discuss some minor modification to the proposed plan. If meeting today is not convenient for you, we can meet on Friday Jan. 19, after 9:30 am. Please let me know. Thank you and Regards, Mike Garakani Office: (510) 668-7353 Home: (408) 395-3124 • Printed for Mike Garakani <mike. arakaniC~?exar com> 1 000023 _ Mark Connolly, 09:05 PM 1/18/01 , Re: Review of plan for T. On ' From: ".Mark`Corinolly" <mconnolly.C~3saratoga.ca.us> To: "Mike Garakani" <mike.garakani@exar.com> References: <2.2.32.20010118221016.008d0e7c C~1 pophost> Subject: Re: Review of plan for T. Ong residence Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:05:41 -0800 Organization: City of Saratoga X-MSMaiI-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Thanks Mike, I received them and will get to the review on Friday. Give me a call to make sure I do as things can easily overtake priorities around here. Mark ---=,,- Original--Message ----= From: "Mike Garakani" <mike.garakaniC~exar.com> To: "Mark Connolly" <mconnollyC~saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Review of plan for T. Ong residence > Hi Mark, > Thank you for your response. I have dropped by four copies of possible > modification of the 19051 austin way residence plan for your review. I have > not yet been able to go over my concerns with Mr. Ong. However, I have spoke > with Mr. Raymond Nasmeh who I believe was the representative for Mr. Ong's > project at the last council meeting. I will try to call you tomorrow. > Thanks again, > Mike Garakani > - > At:02:09 PM 1/18/01 -0500, you wrote' > >Hi Mike- > >Unfortunately today is a really bad day, can I ask you to give me a call > tomorrow... > >868-1230 > >Thanks > >Mark • ~__Printed for Mike Garakani <mike. arakani@exar.com> 1 000024 Mark Connolly, 11:22 AM 1/31/01 , Re: Ong residence j To:"'Mark`Conriolly" <mconnolly(~saratoga:ca.us> From: Mike Garakani <mike.garakani@exar.com> Subject: Re: Ong residence Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: Hi Mark, Thank you for getting back to me. I would like to set a time to see you and go over the plan with you. I am available tomorrow and on Friday. Please let me know the time. Thanks, Mike Garakani At 10:11 AM.1 /31 /01 -0800, you wrote: >It is a modification that most closely represents your number two. As I >told you before, the applicant feels like they had come upon an agreement >with you before per your conversations with them, and seem to feel like they >have met your needs and the needs of the Commission with this latest design >modification. >Maybe it would be a good idea to come in and talk to me personally. >let me know. >Mark Connolly >408 868 1230 >---== OrigirialMessage. -=--- >From-: "Mike Garakani" <mike.garakaniC~?exar.com> >To: <mconnollyC~lsaratoga.ca.us> >Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:00 PM >Subject: Ong residence » Hi Mark, » Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Per your request 1 stopped by at » the Saratoga planning dept. to review the redesign of Ong residence. In >our » phone conversation you mentioned that the design was changed to reflect my » concerns and was decided to utilize the #2 of the four proposed plan site >I » have submitted to you two weeks ago. However, the plan submitted to me >today » by Kim does not indicate that any of the four proposed plan was used. >Please » let me know if I was given the right documents for review. The staff were » not sure of the design changes. » Thank you and Regards, » Mike Garakani > ~ Printed for Mike Garakani <mike.garakaniC~exar.com> 1 000025 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000026 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page Absent: Barry (excused) Staff: Planner Mark Connolly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -December 13, 2000. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission minutes of December 13, 2000, were approved (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) with minor corrections as follows (deleted language stricken, new language underlined): • Page 3 -Commissioner Kurasch expressed.... Added that m~ssiug mass and bulk is more evident on one side of the structure than the other. • Page 12 - (4-3; Commissioners ~~ Bernald, Jackman and Chair Page voted against). • Page 14 -Commissioner Bernald... Added that the design of the enclosed porch is in keeping with this Julia Morgan roofline and allows reasonable use of the structure. However, she agreed that the covered porch entry is not in keeping with the design but could support the project nevertheless. ~,ta~ed-h~K s • Page 14 - Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved V-00-017 to grant a Variance that includes all existing square footage in the structure. (x-83 6~-li Commissioner Kurasch voted against) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 5, 2001. ~0~0~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 2 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Item No. 1 -The maximum FAR is 3,040. One gas fireplace is included. Condition No. 17 is not applicable and should be stricken. • Item No 3 -The year on page nine of the Resolution should read 2001. On page 13, the numbering of the conditions omits No. 4. The conditions will be properly renumbered. • Item No. 4 -The address for this project is incorrect in the report and should read 14700. The fact that the proposed new structure is a two-story also should be added to the description. This project incorporates three gas fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace. Commissioner Bernald inquired whether all public noticing was correct for these projects. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that for Item No. 5 the number of stories is also not specified in the staff report. Asked if this project was properly noticed. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied that Item No. 5 was properly noticed as a two-story structure. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-050 (517-09-025) - NAZZAL/KENNEDY, 14499 Oak Street: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,020 square foot two-story residence and construct a new 2,873 square-foot two-story home in its place. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet tall. The property is 8,200 square feet in size and is located within an R-M zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that this project seeks approval for the demolition of an existing 2,020 square foot two-story single family residence and the construction of a 2,873 square foot two-story residence. The maximum height will be 26 feet. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this project, although it is not include on the register, and recommended two Conditions of Approval. One, that the construction plans be reviewed and approved by the HPC. Second, that the HPC has the opportunity to review the color and material boards. Commissioner Roupe asked if the existing structure on this site has already been demolished and if so what approvals were necessary prior to the demolition. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that usually a demolition is not allowed prior to the approval of plans. In this case, the demolition was approved by staff in advance of final plan approval. Commissioner Roupe asked if the basement light well meets setback requirements. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that per the UBC (Uniform Building Code), the light well can encroach on the setbacks. Commissioner Roupe stated that while the report states that the average site slope is two percent, the site seems to exceed atwo- percent slope. oooo2s Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that the slope for the building pad site is two percent while the slope for the entire site is nine percent. Chairman Page advised the Commission that Commissioner Jackman is recusing herself from consideration of this application as it is located near her own property. Commissioner Jackman stepped down from the dais. Commissioner Bernald inquired about the purpose of the light wells. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the light wells provide light and ventilation for the basement level. They are limited to 36 inches in depth. Commissioner Patrick pointed out that according to page four of the plans, the basement has a light well with egress stairs on both the west and east sides while on page two of the plans it shows egress on one side and not the other. Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that the stairwell depicted on the west side is incorrect and will be removed from the building plans. He added that the applicants have worked with staff. Staff has limited the applicant to single family standards although the property is zoned for multiple family residential. The surrounding area is all single family. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:03 p.m. Mr. James Kennedy, Applicant, 540 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos: • Advised that this project has been revised three times and that he has worked extensively with staff. • Agreed that asingle-family residence fits better on this street. • Said that he went below the allowable FAR, as he did not want too much bulk and mass. • Added that they have kept the second story small and did include a basement. • Asked for a change in building material from siding to stucco. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Kennedy whether the Heritage Preservation Commission had the opportunity to see the existing home on this site prior to its demolition. Mr. James Kennedy replied that he was uncertain whether the HPC had seen the structure prior to its demolition. Commissioner Patrick asked whether the fireplace would be gas or wood burning. Mr. James Kennedy advised it would be gas. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this proposal at 2,873 is less than the maximum allowable FAR of 3,040. Mr. Dave Sorensen, 14493 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Advised that his property is to the east of this site. • Stated his main concern is an oak tree located at the rear of the property. ~~0®~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 4 • Inquired about proposed fencing and stated his preference for a landscape buffer over asix-foot high redwood fence. Commissioner Bernald inquired what separates the properties now. Mr. Dave Sorensen replied that there is nothing there now. Mr. John Allen, 14500 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that he lives across the street and is glad that this project is not amulti-family project. • Added that his only request is that cultured rather than flat stone be used on the facade. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Allen about his preference between stucco and wood siding. Mr. John Allen advised that he is not opposed to stucco. Said that he prefers a more natural facade for the lower three feet or so with stucco above that point. Chair Page asked Mr. James Kennedy what sort of stone he planned to utilize on the facade. Mr. James Kennedy advised that he is flexible. He was considering washed river rock or perhaps brick. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that more articulation should be added on the front facade. Mr. James Kennedy said that just using siding is monotonous. A stucco and siding combination is preferable. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner .Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 was closed at 8:12 p.m. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Barry was absent and Commissioner Jackman abstained) Commissioner Patrick stated her opposition to stucco, saying that she prefers the use of wood siding with river rock. Expressed her concern that the original building was demolished prior to the Heritage Preservation Commission's review. Added that she found the west elevation to be very blank. Commissioner Bernald stated her concurrence with Commissioner Patrick's comments with the exception to her concerns about the west elevation. Commissioner Roupe said that he supports this project overall and does share the concern over this building being demolished so early in the process. Suggested adding a condition that a landscaping program be developed between the applicant and the neighboring property owner to the east. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Roupe. Added that she does not see brick as being compatible and that river rock would be more consistent with the house and the neighborhood. Suggested a wainscoting effect using river rock below and wood siding above. Chairman Page concurred. Added that no stucco should be used. Asked staff to provide a Director's Item at the next meeting with an explanation on how the demolition approval occurred in this situation. 000030 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 5 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved DR-00-050 with the following conditions: • • Use of a combination of river rock and wood siding rather than stucco; • Development of a landscape plan together with staff and the adjacent neighbor to the east; and • Limiting any fireplace(s) to gas. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Barry was absent and Commissioner Jackman abstained) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Commissioner Jackman rejoined the Commission for Agenda Item No. 2. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 *** DR-00-048 (510-06-014) - ONG, 19051 Austin Way: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,855 square foot single-story residence and construct a new 6,393 square foot two-story residence with a 1,198 square foot basement. The subject parcel is 62,291 square feet. Maximum height of the structure will be 24 feet tall. The subject parcel is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application seeks approval to demolish a 3,855 square foot single-story structure and construct a new 6,393 square foot two-story structure with a maximum height of 24 feet. The site is 62,291 square feet and the zoning is R-1-40. The Arborist has recommended the preservation of as many trees on site as possible. The light wells will be limited to 36 inches. There is access to the site from Highway 9. A neighbor has written to request that the Highway 9 access be used during construction. However the City has a policy of not accessing off of a major arterial if another access is available. Advised that this project meets all requirements. Commissioner Bernald asked whether the lowering of the entry element is reflected in the plans. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied that the entry is now three feet lower than the original plans. Commissioner Bernald asked why the three chimneys have spark arresters if the fireplaces are not all wood burning. Mr. Mark Connolly said that he would have to defer to the architect and/or applicant. Chairman Page stated that the tree report does not include all the trees on the site. Mr. Mark Connolly said that there are 27 trees on the property in total. Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears that a new 1,100 square foot basement will be added. The staff report states that there is an existing basement when there is not one. Asked staff to please include any basement square footage in future staff reports. 000031 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Patrick stated that the light wells are bigger than allowed and suggested adding to the Conditions of Approval language that clearly states that light wells "shall not exceed 36 inches." Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that this restriction is not a Code issue but rather a Director's standard. The standard has been established to prevent large terraces from being installed, which would present atwo-story element rather than a hidden basement. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:29 p.m. Mr. Con Ong, Property Owner/Applicant, 19051 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Roupe inquired whether it might be possible to eliminate the bay window effect from the basement. Mr. Scott Stottler, Stottler Design Group: • Advised that the stairway in the light well is three feet wide. The light well provides ventilation, light and emergency egress. Said that the design would not work with the elimination of the bay window, as it would impact the floorplan above. Added that the use of steps is safer than the use of a ladder feature from the light well. Commissioner Bernald asked why the three chimneys have spark arresters. Mr. Scott Stottler advised that there are three fireplaces, one wood burning and two gas. The detail used on the plan is a common detail. Assured that they will revise the plans to depict only one wood- burnmg fireplace with spark arrester on its chimney. Commissioner Patrick cautioned that she did not believe that wrap around stairs are safe within the light well. Mr. Scott Stottler assured Commissioner Patrick that the Code requirements would be met including the use of tempered glass wherever necessary. Reiterated that the light well serves the function of providing light as well as egress. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh, Applicant's Representative, 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Advised the Commission that tempered glass will prevent any potential injury from the use of the light well stairway. Chairman Page asked how utilities enter this property. Mr. Scott Stottler advised he could not answer this question and the project engineer is not present this evening. Mr. Tom Keeble, 19041 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Advised that his letter has been misunderstood. He is only asking that access to the site occur from Highway 9 during demolition and construction in order to prevent damage to mature landscaping and the surface of the road. Added that garbage collection regularly accesses this site from Highway 9. 000032 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 7 • Inquired about the status of a large Redwood tree on the property and whether it would be retained. • Asked that the allowable hours of construction be made clear to the contractor. • Said that he had no problems with the design of this home. Chairman Page advised that any trees removed would have to be replaced. Asked if Mr. Keeble has any objection to the use of stucco on this home. Mr. Tom Keeble replied that he had no problem with the use of stucco and that it was appropriate for this home. Mr. Mark Connolly said that nothing would preclude construction access from the Highway 9 access to the property. Commissioner Roupe advised that as Highway 9 is a State roadway, it is not clear whether use for construction access would be permitted by the State. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh, 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Stated that not all access can occur off of Highway 9. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Nasmeh what his role is in this application since he is a Real Estate Agent. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh advised that he makes it a practice to help his clients through the City approval process. Mr. Mike Garakani, 19061 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he like the architecture. • Expressed concern about use of Austin Way for 18-wheel vehicles. • Added that the Redwood tree on this property is huge and would likely have to be removed, as it appears to be located directly where the new home will be constructed. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh advised that the large Redwood tree would be preserved. Mr. Tom Keeble asked if an insurance bond could be required for the road. Chairman Page advised that such a bond would be required. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:52 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) Commissioner Bernald expressed concern over the rear elevation, the wrap-around stairwell, the need to protect trees, the entry feature and the missing pages in the tree report. Chairman Page agreed and recommended a continuance to allow for more complete drawings and information. 000033 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Roupe agreed. He added that someone should also look into the feasibility of Highway 9 access to site during demolition and construction. Stated that the information provided is insufficient. Commissioner Kurasch agreed with the recommendation for a continuance. Said that the Arborist's report is a problem. Agreed that low-lying limbs on neighboring trees can be impacted by this project during construction access. Commissioner Jackman agreed that more detail is necessary, including the feasibility of accessing the site via Highway 9. Said that the entrance of the driveway from Austin Way might have to be moved in order to save a large oak tree. Commissioner Patrick concurred. Stated her unhappiness with the plans in that they are not clear. Said that she will not approve the light well design as presented. Said that she did not believe that it would be a good idea to access the site from Highway 9. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission continued consideration of DR-00-048 to a date uncertain. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 UP-00-014 & DR-00-053 (386-35-069) -CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION, 12033 Miller Avenue: Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval for the demolition of an existing 2,568 square foot, single-story Church of the Ascension parish office building and the construction of a new approximately 3,000 square foot single-story office building in the same location. Additionally, two temporary modular office units have been requested south of the church sanctuary and 45 feet north of Ascension Drive. They will be removed following construction of the new church office. The site is 7.24 acres and is zoned R-1-10,000. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this proposal includes the demolition of a 2,567 square foot office building and the construction of a 3,000 square foot replacement building. The project will include the addition of six parking spaces. The applicants also seek approval for the placement of two modular units on the south side of the church to be removed following the completion of construction. The subject parcel is seven acres. Advised that staff can make findings to support this project and recommends approval. Chairman Page asked whether the church has an existing Use Permit Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether any new uses are proposed that would generate additional traffic. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that this is actually a very small addition and it will have not impact on traffic. The additional parking spaces are to support existing uses. 000034 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Jack Christensen, Architect, stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Jackman questioned why only a half basement is proposed instead of a full basement. Mr. Jack Christensen replied cost. Commissioner Patrick pointed out that neighbors have written to request that the temporary units be located 200 feet to the south, closer to Prospect Avenue. Asked why the proposed placement was selected. Mr. Jack Christensen replied that there is power available on that side and restrooms are conveniently located. This placement is the most appropriate. Mr. Don Johnson, 19997 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Advised that he is a 27 year resident of Saratoga. • Said that the location for the trailer placement was made because it is the simplest and easiest to run power to this location. Placement elsewhere on site creates concerns about cost. • Said that these office buildings will not have restrooms and three people will work from them five days a week. They will be able to access the restrooms in the adjacent church. • Added that there will be no use of these modular buildings after 5 p.m. They will only be used for office use. • Additionally, by placing the modular buildings in this location, there will be minimum repairs to the site required upon their removal. • Said that he had the opportunity to speak with four of the five neighbors who wrote to the City. They have no real hard feelings but rather are just concerned. One concern expressed with the temporary property value impact. Added that existing landscaping will well screen these trailers but that they could put in additional screening if necessary. Chairman Page asked how power would be provided to the modular buildings. Mr. Don Johnson replied that the termination would be from the main junction box in the church over to the trailers. Commissioner Kurasch asked how long the modular buildings would be on site. Mr. Don Johnson replied that construction would begin in June and take approximately 10 months. Commissioner Kurasch suggested including an end date for the use of the modular buildings. Mr. Jack Christensen cautioned that it is difficult to construct anything on a firm time line. Assured that as soon as occupancy of the new office building occurs, these temporary trailers will be removed from the site. Commissioner Kurasch asked if Mr. Christensen could recommend a maximum amount of time for the placement of these modular buildings on the site. . Mr. Jack Christensen said that as long as an extension could be granted if necessary. 000035 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 10 , Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:10 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) Commissioner Roupe stated that he had no problem with this application but that perhaps the trailers could be oriented in another direction or painted some innocuous color, preferably an earth tone. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she had no other objections but felt there might be an advantage to having an expiration date for use of the modular office trailers. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that such a deadline could be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicants work with the neighbors on the placement of the temporary units. Commissioner Jackman said that the church would push the project along. Said that placing the temporary units closer to Prospect would be unsightly. The proposed placement is more obscured by screening. Said that this is a good project. Commissioner Patrick said that she had no objection but was sorry to see the farmhouse go. Commissioner Bernald and Chair Page concurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission approved UP-00-014. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved DR-00-053. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.4 DR-00-049 (517-08-024) -HUNTER, 14700 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,427 square foot single-story residence and construct a new 2,707 square foot two-story residence with a 1,020 square foot basement. Maximum height of the proposed structure is 22 feet tall. The property is 7,261 square feet in size and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is an application for the demolition of a 1,427 square foot single-story residence and construction of a 2,707 square foot two-story residence with a 1,020 square foot basement on a 7,261 square foot site. This proposal fits in the area architecturally and staff is recommending approval. The project meets all zoning requirements. 000036 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Roupe asked whether the Heritage Preservation Commission had made comments on this project. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that the HPC had reviewed the plans in May and approved both the demolition and the plans for the new structure. The original structure had been altered too many times to have any historic significance. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the driveway access would be from 6`h Street. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied yes. Chairman Page noticed that the footprint for the new home is closer to the roadway and asked staff whether it still meets required setbacks. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied that the required setbacks are met. Commissioner Patrick pointed out that the proposed light wells are 3.5 feet wide. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the approved plans would depict no more than 36-inch light wells. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:23 p.m. Mr. David Britt, Britt-Rowe, Project Architect: • Thanked staff and said that he had nothing to add to staff's presentation. • Said that while the building is now closer to the south side neighbor they took great care to mitigate privacy concerns. This space is just garage. The living portion will be further from this neighbor than it was originally. Commissioner Jackman asked if a drainage plan has been prepared. Mr. David Britt replied that a Grading and Drainage plan, prepared by a licensed civil engineer, was submitted to the City. Commissioner Patrick asked if there are wood burning fireplaces. Mr. David Britt stated that only gas fireplaces would be used. Ms. Betty Riley, 20792 Pamela Way, Saratoga: • Said that she likes the design of the new home but wanted to be certain that all required setbacks are met with this project: Marilyn and Walter, Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles, Saratoga: • Said that this will be an attractive home. • Added that she hoped to protect the existing trees that provide nice screening. • Suggested that the street address for this property should be 6`h Street rather than St. Charles since the front door faces 6"' Street. 00003'7 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 12 Mr. David Britt assured the Marchettis that they intend to use the Arborist's guidelines in order to protect the trees on site. Said that the address for this property was originally 6`h Street and was changed to St. Charles long ago. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:30 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) Commissioner Kurasch said that this home has a nice design. While it may be a little large for the lot, it is nicely done. ' Commissioner Jackman said that this project is a good use of space and that she likes the plans. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Kurasch. Commissioner Bernald concurred and said the house is charming. Commissioner Roupe and Chairman Page concurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved DR-00-049. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Commissioner Bernald excused herself and departed the meeting at 9:32 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO 5 DR-00-043 (397-04-026) - FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 4,417 square foot single-story residence and construction of a new 5,693 square foot residence in its place. The maximum height proposed is 25. feet, 10 inches. The parcel is approximately 61,855 square feet located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is an application for the demolition of a 4,417 square foot single-family residence and construction of a new 5,693 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet 10 inches. This is a 62,000 square foot site that is zoned R-1-40. Advised that staff finds the grading plan to be inadequate and is recommending a continuance of this item. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 5 at 9:35 p.m. Ms. Linda Formico, 14456 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Advised the Commission that she received a call at 7:35 p.m. this evening advising her that staff would be recommending a continuance. • Asked the Commission to proceed this evening. • Informed that her husband would be here this evening were he not on business travel. 000038 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 13 • Said that they purchased this property a year ago last October. • Said that there are currently three separate structures on the property, a 2,400 square foot home, a two-car garage and a 1,500 square foot workshop. All will be removed and replaced with a single two-story structure. The new structure will include a 1,000 square foot basement. • Advised that they are proposing a Mediterranean design as there are quite a few in the area and it is an architectural style they like. Advised that the adjacent home is of a Mediterranean style. • Said that of the 53 homes in their immediate area, approximately 65 percent of them are two-story. • . Advised that their lot is 1.5 acres and privacy has been taken into consideration. The upstairs windows facing their neighbors are glazed bath windows with the exception of one that looks at the front of their neighbor's house. • Said that they have obtained their neighbors' support and that the home they are proposing is 1,000 square feet less than is allowed. There will be one gas fireplace. • Advised that with their Grading and Drainage Plan, the proposed cut is 451 cubic yards and the proposed fill is 57 cubic yards. They will export 393 cubic yards. Commissioner Patrick said that these are good plans. Inquired how wide the window wells will be, as the stairs appear to be four feet wide. Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that he cannot reconcile the square footage for this project as none of the numbers appear to add up. Chairman Page asked staff what the square footage of the home will be. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied the total square footage is 5,693 and that 6,400 square feet is the maximum allowed. Commissioner Roupe conceded that the house is well below the maximum allowable. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Linda Formico how the siting of the house was determined. It is closer to the street than the current structure. Ms. Linda Formico replied that she and her husband want their kids in the rear yard in a safe play space. She is expecting their third child. Added that they will have a pool, grass and volleyball court in the rear yard. Chairman Page added that the property is well screened by existing landscaping. Commissioner Jackman added that the house is sti1141 feet from the front property line. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, clarified that any interior height above 15 feet is counted into the square footage. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether staff is still recommending a continuance for this application. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied no, not with the additional information provided this evening by Ms. Formico. 000039 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 14 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 5 at 9:50 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Barry and Bernald were absent) Commissioner Jackman stated that the project is compatible with the area, less than the allowable square footage and that she has no problems with the application. Commissioner Patrick said that she is in favor with a reduction in the light well. Commissioner Roupe concurred. Commissioner Kurasch concurred. Said that the house is a bit massive and that she recommends a landscape plan to help relate the house to the street. Chairman Page said that he found the project to be appropriate. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved DR-00-043 with the reduction in light wells and with the added condition that a landscape plan be developed for the front of the house to help relate the structure to the street. (5-0-2; Commissioners Barry and Bernald were absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS None COMMISSION ITEMS 1. January 23, 2001, PC/HPC/City Council Joint Meeting Chairman Page advised that a Joint Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission and City Council meeting will be held on January 23, 2001. He asked the Commissioners if anyone had any items to propose for the agenda for that meeting. Commissioner Kurasch suggested an update on the status of the Commission as well as Planning staffing. Included would be the effects of the Director vacancy on the scheduling of items such as the Housing Element Update and the Commission Retreat. Commissioner Jackman said that it would make sense to wait for the Retreat until a new Director is hired. • Commissioner Patrick added that since three Commissioners' terms expire in April, it might be more appropriate to have the Retreat following the new appointments. Added that one topic for the Joint Study Session might be to look into jurisdiction and authority for the Heritage Preservation 000040 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 15 Commission to better highlight their power over issues such as the demolition of the house from tonight's Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Kurasch concurred, adding that it would be good to hear what the HPC's expectations are. Chair Page suggested discussion over what is happening on Bowman Road. Commissioner Jackman suggesting evaluating the size of ,basements in the area and perhaps establishing guidelines. Expressed a need to know more about geology and what impact there is to the land with these large basements being added to many new homes. Commissioner Patrick added that it might be a good Retreat topic to discuss where the dirt from these basement excavations is being exported. 2. SABIC, 18817 Devon Avenue, DR-00-019 Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised the Commission that this application for the construction of a two-story residence had a small expansion, which exceeds the original approval by 5 inches. Staff finds that this has no impact and the project still meets all minimum zoning requirements. No Commissioners expressed any concern over this small change to the approval. COMMUNICATIONS None. WRITTEN None. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to Wednesday, January 24, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk • 000041 • T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C7 • 000042 v ~.)(15~~~ ' CCuc~~~~J ~YIC '~~SidenC2~ / b ~ . 1 a ~ ~ Av s ~-I ~,~ ~o~ H -~ Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. i ~ •,.°~~ All dirr~;ensions and tree locations g~ ~ ~`~~~~, ,;.°,.~ ~`' _ ~. are approximate. ~~ ~~ . v lb. vn. t7R M I ,.z'7ny I (~. e•o.r II . ® .~~ - - '~ ~ I ~ ~~ - ~~ ~ a• ¢ one ~ ~ \ 1 / • `~ . c' o•. .. G ® ~ +~.r,•ccj I / Io•cw•a•cc]. ~ 1 Q ~ I- ~\ V,. C'' •, / ,10'PI ~ .'cco•° I I .la•rDnnJja'~---~`t~~. --I T C !, ~ I ~ •`:~`~_ f ml, T. I A n 1;~ .9• Ilwe ~ ' `G .•[[o.F I I o ~ a~ A ;ICI •6' C: Ma _ . !V ' ~J~; ~W ~ I _ N ,e•o.K~ A fl e'::NI c I \ ,' p z o.~-le•^~\1{ ~ - - - - .- - ,i~ ( ~ O \^ ~•:` ~ .. '.O' "11N •~ ~ O ~ ~ 8X....1 ~y ~ O ~D, / ~ T !: I 1' 'rrs I i \ •'~ • o„K ... s• oNC ~~.. {,Sri,.-:~. •:~ '"~', I -~"'~ ~j' 6 a :; `. 1 i ~ I ~~53 5 y rll =C7~ ~ I - ~ ~ ri~~~Krle -~:!.. ' V C ~ t n \ J ~ t ,... '/Y '.t9 c x 1 I~ .:d,;` ~ \~ ~\~~ ~ ,\ ~ Ire\~o:~\ \ \ O` .- b.-~1cy~s5}"~• A M / ~ .`\ \\ \~~ ~~\ ~~ v ~ ~~ ,lk ~.t . !'`i ~ rid ~~' ~~ . n ! 1 I• r'r - ;~,tlye~+F" Ib ~ , 4 .. 1 _ ; t o.~ ~ y ~ -p„ ~~ ` -ter t~ _ S`j~; 7~ y. ' -/ 1 0~~ ' f7},F t r d ~~_. .''~~ ~ .!•' IMC a.PIK e. j K ~ ip~ r I_~ ~T° ~~['~ J`'nV$I-Y~/ 7 \: : i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ u~ .. ,... _ x .....n . ~„_,.. .. r. or..._r.w..,,.. _ z_._..> .,.. _ ._s, , .~ .~_ ~,y. _z_~.. .. _..~-~.artiR °-...-~ 1 ~~: 1 '~~ ;1'~Ii1Der: Co"~sDOnQ t0 _valLat'ior. charts. ~ ; .I: .. •~~c ~'' cirn'ens;or~ aid _-~e ioca.iors ~ a „~ P;; _ , ~e•o~~ '~.a•-•~' c.R p.i:.P ~ / ~~~~ ~~ .~.\ _`\ //I• •.\ Cam' ... ,p Q , - P IK ;as 1 ,n•wa~"K \ ` 1 I , \ \ ", ;'S ~c . 6' - ~ \\ ~ i 111 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ • . ~ ~ ~r j '~ ) ~~ N .r .I -__ _ r:. ~ ~ ~. • \ / ~' _ s~f Dv S~ ® .~ fie' ~\` ,:. / ~,~ °s~g / ~. / Q l0 __ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~. -.. ,( j!R^•~ S/ • --° %~ 000044 ~~a~ti ~z • I i'°P '1LN'sIilDer= CO*T~SDOriCI t0 eV311St.CII Cllz*'CS. p I ,g•~Ij.c I C:1~ full I?SiC;L Si7~: *i.°.~ ICC~CIO:L a~~ i ,,,r m ,,~ r ;~.c ; . t p' I ~ I n II 111 _~` - ~ _ ~"~ '~ t ~ .. ^ t K g.• pAK `~~ ~..~.Q Y ~ g• pAK \ ` t ~ t ~` 1 ~ ~['AP ~ Jar \ »~ ",AK ~l6•plJf ~t~i~t.. ., ~ `~~~ / ' I~ J:' J' _ ` 1= .. \; ~1 i ~ d4f ~~ b .. ~ r / .- ~ . = ~,' ~ ~Y'~_ a'rc' I 1 ~' l 7h' 6Aa I / ~ - . 1 ~E' 11• ~ i ~ ~ `.~ 1 b.K •~ VCJ ~\ ~ / .~ 1 ~ ~ ~ T ~ "a I ~ \v/ ~ ~~ lit // 1 .n '~J f wiel~ ~ +- I _ ~e ~ ~? l ' I ~i ;, Z ~` 0, ~' t~ .\ ~\ .` _ ~ C ~~`~ q ! " 000045 ~~ __T_-.~ . n._..~_ ,._. ~ ~ ..!' o irc Trze :umbers corn°s~ore to evai~ation chz~'s. II i "... G1iIIe^.~]C~5 ?:?C ~I'C° ~OC~IIOP~ sIH ~ `'t ~ nNc ,~ r f~ 1 1 -~ I a 10' 1 M '.. ~ i •' ~ ^ % ,p•eINC % ~ i ~: ` °~ , ~ 1 -- ---------~J -- ' ------- ~. ~ . ~ '~~- .' ~ ~ .0' CC]x"' CCL.a~' ~ ~~ e r ~~ ' ~ I' ~ ~ / 1 C, P I ~ ~ •ii J \ e ~ ~9 _ ', I ~ , 1a' Cc O.a ~p~y* ~V '' ~ ~y-`'~ ~, I ~ sue: ~ e I ~ r-^ ",'"_,_._ 1 ..°t:_,:'_:~ . 4, ~ r \ x \'~ ~/ \~r•O~K nle'Ofw< ~ Via' '~~ \~ ~•~ ~~ ,0.a a i ~= _ 4 3 ~~ \-.. 7.>. t ~ ••/ ~ ~ 1 -~27- - \ ` , - ~_::: - t .~-- n I= ~ a . ~ ~ to• ~ / ~f 0 ~~~ ~i~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ` ~ .r 1~co.Iwc ,~ . we I ~ '~ ~ ` >: .: ~+a ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ;J 'O ~ , •~1~•r/wC IKe'r, a~,. a~~ , ~. ~.. . Y .\ \ . i ` ' r s ~a oirc ..r N i ~ 9' e • t;. , e €~ }' ~~' \, -1 ~6~ / ~'' ~: i ~. ,\./' i D N C q i ~ -. ;' • ~'' elf ~~~ i ~ ,~ 4 ~~~ ' / ~ r .j ~-~ fig' 000046 V ~ ~` ~ I ~aiuation charts. ~I ! ~'•""` Tree nutmb°rs correspond to _~ ~, a!! d1fIlenSi0P5 and Ire:. locations GIs ` ~~ .°••~~ I ~,tr hk JI ` ~ I I i ~ 0 ~ - - - - - - - - -- - - - -\`. \ _ ... it - - ~ - `r%`~. - , i ` ~~ TI i / ~- ~~:... ~•cn•~ aC•C[~.~ % I6 ~ 10' CCU I ~ , la U~ , to a ,~ '~ . r :C V•a •~ ^.r / .l ,o.~~ ~ ,to•wwc ~J ~. .e~n:,~r. b e'CCB , ' P 1 `: G_ i \ / CS ~ f .' CC b.f I t • 19' B ~ 1 11 C I • ` ~ ~ • . B' MII~'K /~~1\ - J VMS h`~'~\~~•.i se ~ I •'- ~` Ir-~ N --- ,._,... I ~~ i , ~ ~. .,K.:ca ~ \~ \ ~~ \ ,,, =fir _ • s .tt;•r ...'. mod; '~. J of ., /' ! j f• ~ \ - J{~ ' ~ / / /l is • i ~ ,~ M~ ^`J t\ j ~r Ise fn' -''L~~ .i 1 ~ ~ '!~ •T2~ ~ '~IMr i D. •~ . . u _ .`. - , ~ . ~'~\~~\\\\\.\=\a`. ~ ,` \.~\ '~~ \~~~ ~~. mss- -..•._ tS• :~ •. r 1 ree ^.!! ci. e a~ ~`a~ # ~ tubers correspond to evaluation charts. I,~[ Tensions and tree locations ~Vg ,..'.~ `\ .~r ~`` i ~j~ ,o•I,~ ~ .. :. orJ . a• cwc I ~ . . e ~:..: , ,. ~ __, ,,.K jl J ~ xy Two ~~'~ ~ /~ (r` .~•~'•' .6 ''~ . .a of-~ ~~ . e' " ' ~~. ~/ /. \ .row ~~~ ~ ., CI ~ 1 4/~ / ~ / f ~ / '~'~~fl~~ ~ i~~y ~- V / ~ ' / I ~ p I ~ Q t ~'~ ~ . J / / % ~ ' r / / / j/ ' ~ -__. ` :, _ .~~ s, \ PV l I~ ~ 1 f ~~ Y~ ~//~ M // Idr / t~~ X /i ~ I . ccrE \ + ~/ i / / ' ` / ~-l '-C" MIN ~ I \\ ~ Q®~ \~'7 , ~~f,.., If .~ / ~, s S~-_acx ~ ~ rJ \ ~.• o.K ,.IC• o'er 1 f ~! ~l,c __ • I `~ -, II I . -.I_ `~ ` ` ' ~ POOL ~~. . ~ y'c j / ' //. //~,. / ~ ~' t \ ~ 'n . ~ 1-0~ n i~ -- ~ _,,'~zS ~' ~ . e• the B..l„ `.~ I Nc ~° I ~ -~~ '_, . ~\ 1111[, D ~~ .~ ~, \- ~I V~~ •. :`~~; ~~ N `: `-~ ~5 -~ /~ 00048 ~. ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ nn ~xx< N~LL~ ~ ua ao ,~ea~.oa ~u w uau ~®0 su io BRIO;~ 'aB'o;ate a Hpueuv au m yaraue ae mmw •anao~a ua aua aar ~u w ~ ~,me ow eaaa.a mx~e ieno ~u mni „ac axa.o rau+w 6e o YA ~ M R d I906I ~ cs3umv ao? ~~ a+auuieaa a¢iu ao ~v~or au ~' ~ ~ ~'~" aaaa sa B p e a S q '~ ,~u®a ~. ww any aour~c an aw HU Ql TOII'~l9gltl BI'lWd N Wgd1M M'QpI1L~ ~ p{ a a 3YLL ~ r: Z F Q 0 AMI A8 NOIlYOfHtl 101a1'JII00l1~11'801F91 $fl MfIB w marl Ase3iccv a emau tauvOrs~f an mwd aia aan ~u low uu aw rontw au a ~•~~~• 28 'n8E1 ~IVINMnd ~-9-I I F- ~ U F } dI11I80~I7d~ `dJO.LdIIdS 1CdM 1~iI.LSfId IS06i a~uapisa~ Sup _ ~ ~~ ~ a o0 -, ~ ~ o '~ $^mmo 0. M m ~ ~aww~ ~ ~ ~ .r> doowa. ~ C~ ~, a m ~'~ M m a~ Q =; V m"a ~«« o c a 3 ~ w ~~ oe..o Q ,~ F ~ W..o~u~wUOC ~ a ~ z °z ~+ U .,aoeaw~o~. 'd ~ °~ Qaaaaaa a a m ~~~ ~Idw h ~ pp ~J~~~~m m J~~ U~~F ~~•'K ~~~~~~~~ ^ tlZ FF ~ r {3~ Z Z,p{~ 3 O} ~O"~~~~~ ~~~OLL4~pF ~~ $~ ~g~ ~ g~~ ~~~a~ ~ ~ a° m~ ~~ =$~3 ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~go~~a~ ~o~~~~~~~ ~9 ~~~~R~~~~~ ~~~~a ~~ . . 0 O ~~ ~s ~~ ' k~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ° ~ -~~ Q ~~~ - ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~o ~o ~ ~ a ~-a sg p ~ ~ ~~_~ ~~ mss ~ 0~ $ ~ ~~~ ~~g ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~m ~-~ ~ 00 ~~~o ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ . . ~~~ ~ ~4~ 0.g ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~s~ ~° ~ ~ ~~~ m~~ ~g~ ~~ ~_ a~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~. O n'.Q in~b w MAZY :.nA-3"'L~. nw v x..XxxXX. x •X%%X'xX%K% xx t~l ? ~maaC ~ ~bo3 cpba'a e§ n C~m11 v bnnY ~M1~n ~;. d OUOWn03- 999 ~Y-•LZOILOKO~~ ~>3 1 y yyy111itii it diti f 9 ~ . w H Q H a a ~ z ~ o o ~ U O ~ G) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Qa W w3~ ~ °` z ~~~ ~ ,~ ~ a a a ~ OE- N "~oo ~ ~ ~~U~ z m~ ~ E" ~ OtaAa~ ~ ~ W ~m~n "" ~ ~ ao ~i O ~i O q°5 °~ o ~~ ~ 0D~ o ~~ ~ x v ~ ~~ ~ . 5i60s 1002 Z0 ~009i SO uer FuJ 0+0'i7-7E02\0~6hE0Z\0002\Z ~ww ~ ~~~ w H~~ Q z 'N° ~'~° °a ~ ~ 4 ~^ ~ z w .-..-. Q w ~a F •a O ~ "v"~ v a ~ ~ ~ t~Il O D! F•F ~ F; ~ F: aWZ ° aQ ~ ~OOEOF~ °'a~oa uFi~~ a U ~o~o ~oN ~ p4 t1C .e .. v, w m c9 a~ ~ ~ ~ N a ., ~ `~ o Q •• ~ w ~~o ~ OW.4' w ~ x.aa w w°i' o ld~~ ~ AU U~w F .a ~a ~ ,,0 .. E,., ~p ~ di ~ oZ p C7 ~,,,, Q .. w w ~ Z O 00 ~,a~"aNn ~.+ y a ~ F~~ Ow ~ wu~ va w d ~a~~ ,~ o a ~~ wm~ z~ °~ ~a O z3a~ ~ -~ Ow ~m 3 ~m3 v ~ ~O a 3 oC~Qc ~' a ~ ~ ~ F o~ d$ ~ ° F ~~ F d>ao a O ~~~~' ,~ Q~ w N a ~ ~e ono w H Q~ w a ~ .mo3a ~ ~ - ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ' ~ ~ ~ • ~~~ ~ ~~~~ m Axr ap dlB®190OD alt of umf eBl®p au dD elaio~ll~. ~SO~RilS wlueuv alu o, Julxxloua sg Hula i,Dlnanap un aup wr au w omen ~,~a opr olplaaa mw.le IBM BD13~d ~ X011 lMB RARIB00.IBLtlM ~gM nR~V T8O6T ss:9~lopr epr 6 o 9QL711£~1 3®I. ~ 30f0IJd~OY 3LL 0 0 ~.' ~~D ~ ~,d a~na sa Sn ~~ ~~., ~'bd®"'~ a ~~+ ~tl~,~ x•,31-1 p p} ~ p ~ ~ ~ e • m e at misrt Ago 9 a0©su lqurprsla on wawa ~, .~ ~{~, Ina w,a,ll~o ~ ~. D0C1tlaC31 29 'n3zf 71VINNV'~d Of0-9'1 i ~ nBjd a~1S ~ ~„~~~~~~ao~~. ~. ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 4 , ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ x ~l~p~S1 ~ ~ aqS~' ~a. ~ n x 8V } ~ ~ ~G7 ~~" x0. ~~~~ ~ ~ 'e~ cep yea ~~(~~ ~ ~' ~a[~i ~ {,;,~ J O ~ Qyp ~ ~ ~ .7~ G ~, re~ ~S _a$ m ~0~.^~ea ~ oo. ~~~ c~~ ~ ~~ >c~< 19 ~~o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ s ~ s 8 ~~~~ ~ O ~ww~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ S~ w~e ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~fas~ O N 3 c O Q` Z 'O~ '1 ~~b J~, ~~ i ~lta.e• JMle.6 P_/ 3HId-0• !V`1~~ { \ I a I Jnle.e \ 1 1 \ 1 ~ I Q m ~~ o~ ~m W w O ~ ° ~o w ~qq~ Y~ m Q~ W W W ~. ~w ~ 3 ~°,~ ~~~~ ~~~o wa~w u ? JJJ f. '~WW7' F1yuF E al~i ?! m W mw W •\ _ ~% j>)ele•s•Jnte s• I _'~~ ylld.Bl \, 911 .0• B ~ I ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ tlid.~l J.d.ZI•V1~1( -,-~__ MN.BI~ 0 m a O n i 1 '- ~ __ 9 ~ ~ ~ u I 1 ava ].zl~ ~ ~ ° I evp.9c ~ 1 I ].e• ~ 1 \ I U 1 I e J].9' W I I J]AI• _ _"vtrp~2 O a \ I ~\ ~I \. \ ~ ]J.9• s '~ J~ 9, _ \~ ,` v _ g I r W ali.9 \ 1 1 .9-~f9 I' -' "- 1 tt 1 ~ I xt~z O to d ~ Jrna.a~ w.el9 l__ ad.m• Jxla.91-~ I ^ \" rrD..z ~ I Jute.e \ I I I etlp .UI• I atl03J.9• O \ O \ NI .n• I N O I I Bv0Jp.9' 3Mtd.9• ~ ~• \ \ \\ 3Nle•B• \ 3 eAl• L-- '~ BNJJAI• I tle0]J .9 \ 3N AI• 3].0 I ~ \ ~' Id•DI o j I NeDJJ.9 \7O \\ 9 \ ~ i vaJJ.9.mJ.D1• I JJ•e TW.9• O \ a tl~ I ~ A+ Q- \\ ~~•. ~ -- ---- -- ---- ---------------------~ J1 ~ Z ~ la.Dl• ~ A' \ \ 31td.0' IIII~ \ JNId •6• 7r~aA° I I ~• y2 I oO~ t .~ Vp J.e' 711 •01 Z Mbq•91a - IMl AI' a ~ 91 )@dJ~P~.,~ % 1\ ' .Lb N w -~ a ~O~ a ~~~ ~~~ p~~~ 4i m r ~ ~~ 0 0 a . ~ o z ~ ~ w~~~~ ~o ~Z. Z~Z~ 2~O~Qd ~r~~ ~U~ Om m~O~• J ~Z W ~JJ ~: JS~~n ~orc m J,0 :t.~ ym gnkt~ ~~~ a~ ~$~a~d ~BW~Wa .JJU~ ~~ mLIDJU Aa~ Q~~ . St6ps 5002 62 92 2[ tZ uet• pall D•p~{e-6602\6~-kEOZ\OOOZ\Z i O~ mp 2' I' y ~ i41. OO. ~ zl• /fs Zt i ~ •O o~ /-- --- _.. ~ ~ i ~ ~ •/ i i i a i i ~ ~ i \ \ \ ~ \ a ~~ 1m \ \ ~ • • 518PS t002 20 EO ~9t 50 urh• tuj fir,P'Ze-1t;02\OW-Vf0210W2\~Z • • • t`qNq ~~ • Z~1 xnr~ .vn u0 naB~+oo su o>, aau esroaaP au 9 ~ @l~03!!@'J '@Bo~@a@g a llYYii wuaur au oaneuioua as mmta ~nacsu w+v ~ . ¢~ ~ 3uB aor 3w 1» a~len as mmls oxv awaaro a3tvPe b@lY1 QR~V iSgfii es311oav eor ~ ul ~U~~ sraua~~l ~u ao PpNVJB~DV 3u B . ~ ~y. o v aaea~uiwM~im~~oo m~n~~uru~iaiw aauap~saa~ Snp 0 ~ ~ ~ ^~ "" Nn A8 wuv7lau !q MdIDf1061YB1 3EITdtl 3811 IKYR F' ~- A of o3un aice~ a so;>eBU xaurorsu oi/v mw~ z9 'n9b smunovv~a mm-S-1 0 U ~ O ~ ' I -ale aeix .~ low tlP, alm rolew au m o~w,~ ~~ asjd i00j~ auu uaxllvno 30 ~~ as nvlm a0uv~ an sl/va aeau ao 3m1 au ~4;'~~Gj"~Q'+i~"'"~ a t~" ~~ A"F v skfiF~ ,, ~ i~, n`A 2 yk, . ~, i nf~r~ r~ ,, ~ ~~~~~'~ n1 ~~< ~''"a y'_ ~~'~' xam un ao uawranro au of wew ~a ~u eo e]ulO~E~S~ `e&o~eaeg 4 Wausau au of u~pnwo as mms Aann~r~sa u~v a"R 0°'' '"tli °'0 iSn u ~e 6 ~ d ~i ~.a,~ ,~ rors l F! TS06i swan ear M 0 - m :wuuaw,.~=, ~i ~ aaMy~r ~u ~ ~ pS q p b' .ao aaoan3 apve vwua ~nu~s+oo Tms saouvar~ds ~.^, ptKH ~ wx~ iavu+m ivr9n'~nr~w inauuA aaua lsa Su ~ e m ~ ~ ~ ~ p a p ~~, e p1LL U1 3ilLL ~p &IDtl~d dd N tID UaLL # 3LLL L10f ~ F ~ AIlI AO'IOILV:)fN1d W ?f711.M1pa1E41 off//--'il 35f1 lgp4 ~°~ ~p`~ tali ~" z9 ~3a ~~~„~, oo-s-~V ne[d ~uamasE9 F ~o ~ ~O . 3B „YNB aauvatFSm fm cNVa 3?1LL do 3611 3Ht sxor~ ~ 3LIL owevxo O ~ ~~ $ ~ ~---. _. I I I I i I I I i I I I I I i I I I. _~ I I I i I L. i i r-----------~ I I .\ ~- - 1 I 1 `- I I I I - _J i~ I I l 1 I I I I I I I L. _..- -- ... I I i I L _.~ I I I I I I I _i I J r-----~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~_ I I I I I ~ I I I I I i I I I L__ l I L, I I I I I ~_ J I G t0 ~. a o~ 6 d m .. w c oaf St6ps 5002 Bt 'trE 8t t2 pep paM 6~p~ge-bE02\6ip-bfOZ\0002\ Z • • •~ • • ¢~~ • i$ V • ~ ~ ~~~~ ~r ~~~ ~, MIr eo naeaa.too au ~. trams teac3a ~u ao 4~~31[QJ '~-Bo~YtY$ a a r+auauv eu m wtrtwe as „+Me weanao ~r ale ear su to men ~ rnw on atalaaa aaw~e taro ~ltasau elva 7trte sa®a.a tauew ~ QY O sA M N d TSO6T te3tow lw 0 anunetr~ aau do asm®oov au e a a da a7wA3 aDYI wwta iYWtStta0 7[vW ataLLl7YgYB atV,A ~u ttw ,~„~ ~rncn aanrsa unuw a~na sa Sa ~., - ~ R Y '" >au d a~w. mtr~ueaa~,w m.°'oa'° A6 p} a p aw..aor ~ F . , . e . Ar« ~a ttaurltsa uo tnunrootta ~ at aan tote w mtrn ~v~~a~a ~~ IVOa0afBtl aw aatre ~..~t. t~ ~ aye „~ au ~ ~„~.,~. Zg '~I 9tVIrIIMf~d m0-9-I Q - sgo}~ena13 Io}Ia~s3 F U ~ .~ \ f O ~ O ~ Q » mme.acuvotcao anv aru s9u ~o aat au ~ 1~ a.., ~I.I.~ a° ~ } aa' ~ ~y~ ~¢~~jj44~ yyQ~~4 ~~ ;ys~g :~3 ..t9~~:s~~dg .~ ~~ ~. ~, I -----~ -_'''-- ~~- it II L~________ 1 II II II II II ___I_D II II ~~ ____Y ____~___~ C.. ~~ // / y'/ ai ® II / I, I, 11 11 11 I~ K II II . - • r I li ; 1 \\ \\ \~ \ \ ~`\ //C i~ egeo Q L~ ,+ a@ ~~~ ~I $I J ~I I p I 5~ ~1 1_AJ1~U . _ _ _ _ '111\ it II II II 11 II II 1~ II 11 11 ~~ II 5 I g3~ ,I _ I r I _ ~ 1 I 11 11 I I O ? ~-- .~ i~ 0~ '' ~ I ..r d t ~ al O ~ ~' w ~~ y~ T 6{~ t002 6Y :92 9[ 50 I+fl' {+j [~+D'Ye-Y~py~Bup-tE02\11002\ Z • • • • R n. R r _ i I�9B11 C'.`_] rat room P.TrEN a ue aPae�o e.r(Ba� ei w•�ar eM•car PLn100D WYTIIPd1 •M. P>t0.'OB N Mi IIJGItl d 01.�.rwo Pq e.w v.ea w e.a.e� right side elevation 1�1 9M BMER BLVD. 0900 MORGM HLL CA 96037 PHONE 408 779••6402 FAX : 408 779 -1203 jelm In g I jilgR 1 1% V^^ .�.r�..�r q O LJ,rO! TY 0' .P�Y p1! (1 i... P " M1TYD W TNPY! ft . end= M. rwwpasawT Ol. DiIP.Elim - i4PIDL� -f$:� ? NY000 YYLL� _ P>t0.'OB N Mi IIJGItl d 01.�.rwo Pq e.w v.ea w e.a.e� right side elevation 1�1 9M BMER BLVD. 0900 MORGM HLL CA 96037 PHONE 408 779••6402 FAX : 408 779 -1203 jelm In g I jilgR 1 1% V^^ q O 4w Lft y a LQ T Q "is 2, 2000 WINS 3/16" SCOTT 6-TG Shiva SCOTT =ZU6TJ1 JOB MG 2034 .~ ~~~ • , . ~ ~~~~ • • . • ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ xcr~ Jen o „aeaa.oo w or< emu e~ w eo s!o•[o;llgJ htBo;a~eg a Iouauv w oa LId10lB ~ mma .anr~aa uJv aua ear w~eo Caen ~vTi`mm~ ~ ~ ~eM ~~tl I$O6T es3mv ear 6 p w ~~ e ~ a ~ ~0 ~~„ 8 o~v eeva esiu ww ngwo ~Ylen 3Jarsd uo u aaaa Sa sa o ~ ~ u e ~Iasia w ILw agree ewEraea~ wvu tiu w evu ~anw a Suva n m ra°~au~Y p{ d p 3>iLL eor ~ - 2 F m E 0 AILI AB e01lV:IBM tl0 /O1D1100091'9Be-Y 3Bfl lOf® at aalwl J.leB31°Cd a ioalau wLVaau axv asrJVe ~..Iw ~«, ~ ~,~ ~ of a~aYUSeJ z9 'n32! ~IVIt•UVO'Id mm'9-I Qi silo{}wag asoi~ L u ~o /O Q W ~- O p ~ Q . ~ „rw acuw,ru»s our amI ;emu eo acre w ~~ ~ aeu awno 3 3 X ~ S R ~ ~ I I I ..-.a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I ~~~ ~ I I I I I ~ ~ j ~~g~~ x of I ml I al I ~i I I ~I I ~I I ~I I~ o I °~~ n ~~~0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1II i l l i l l t ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I ~~~~~ ~°~ ~~ ~~~~ a I fig. $~~ • ~~~o~p ~~n I I $o~ ~~~~ s~~~~~~ ~~q I o I I ~ 8 i ~ .. I - ~ I &I I e _ I ~$ ° I I ~ ~~ ~ I °~ I 3 I _ C Ol Q ,o-~ ~q '1M 'JW 113 .9-,EI ~ el ~ ~ I ''p I Z I ~ ~ I I ~ I R~ .~-,cs ~ I I o A •~ 4 I ~ w + I ~ m I W I .°-A I '1H 'JW X137 .B•.EI I I I } I .l-JL I I r3 I ~ I • a n: . 4 b I ~ ; s a ~~ , ~. ° I ~ ~ 3. I ~ ~,~ ' $~ ~~ ~~ I s ~~ I s' `o g m J, ~ 8 ~--- d ~ W ~ A-A`L ~~ , ! I ~ U ~~~-p--~~ i Q ~~-J' r 14 + 8 I I-I I III I I_I I-I I I I-I `I i °I I I ~I I ~I I ~I I ~I I ~i III ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I i ~ ~ a m ~~ ~~ ~ I ~ ' ~~~~ ~ ~g ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ '~ ~ o °' ~ a ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~~ ~~ °~ ~~ ~ ~ m~ ~, °~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4~ ~~ ~ ~4 ~° ~~~ ~~ ~~ a~ a~ _~ m it I ~I I;I I ~I 1 ~I I ~I I ~I I $I IIIIIIAIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S:fi09 1002 EE EE 8[ SO 0ef IJ! 6+0'9Y-rE02\fiup-bE02\0002\ Z ' • • • .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ • ~ • ~~~~ ~~ ~~ _~ xw~ un eo uam~po ~u a uaa macro au ap ~1~~;{~ `680;Y365` 4 Nauetar au au vNaioue w mm® ~ranw ~ ~ RA n e m ~ ° ~'~ ~ ~r~u~"` M R nV i906I s~ ~ ~ a ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ aanap sa Sn ~ ~ ~ F aQ~1B~IOlNOY ~ gd°1O1uo N°~aau~dir a p { ~ suu ea~ " - ~o F O 0 ANV AB IALLMJI79N !A 1gIL7100LL91~ 3W1 l016 F as o0 „~ «,,.,~„ v« .,~,,, ~ ~ ~, ~ m ~ ~~ ~ m ~ g~~ ~ ~ ~o~cc n ~ a a a ~ ay a ° Q 9 d ~W~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~~ F ~ ~''1 ~~ ~O ~ J~ m „, ~ m_ a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~<~~~~~~a 5{fiP9 IOOZ 2>Z5 A[ 50 uq~ [~~ tnp~6?-6EUZ\fiW-~EOZ\OOOZ~Z • • • • • • C. • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: UP-O1-001; 20075 Spaich Court Applicant/Owner: PINK BROTHERS Staff Planner: Bob Schubert, Senior Planner Date: February 14, 2001 APN: 397-24-093/094 Department Head: 000001 G V V / J J~IQ.IC;I1 L.U UIl File No. UP-O1-001; 20075 Spaich Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1 /4/01 Application complete: 1 /4/01 Notice published: 1 /31 /01 Mailing completed: 2/1/01 Posting completed: 1/25/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a Public Hearing to consider approval of a Use Permit to construct a 930 square foot cabana within the rear yard at 20075 Spaich Court. A Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be setback 33 feet from of the rear yard property line rather than the required 59 feet and to be 12 feet, 6 inches in height where the maximum allowed height is 12 feet. There is an existing 4,773 square foot house on the 41,747 square foot parcel which is located within a R-1-20,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with conditions by adopting Resolution UP-O1-001. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution UP-0l -001 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • 000002 • File No. UP-O1-001; 20075 Spaich Court STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 41,747 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% GRADING REQUIRED: Proposal • LOT COVERAGE: Existing: SETBACKS: HEIGHT: (above natural grade) Proposed: Total: Cut: 0 cu. yds. Max. Depth: 0 ft. Fill: 0 cu. yds. Max. Depth: 0 ft. House & Garage - 4,773 sq. ft. Driveways, etc. 3,268 sq. ft. Cabana g3l1 sq. ft. Code Requirement/ Allowance 8,971 sq. ft. (21%) 45% Right Side: 15 ft. 15 ft. Rear: 33 ft. 59 ft. 12 ft., 6 in. 12 ft. * Through the use permit process, the Planning Commission can approve an accessory structure within the required rear yard setback and up to 15 feet in height. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant has requested Use Permit approval to construct a 930 square foot cabana within the rear yard at 20075 Spaich Court. A Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be setback 33 feet from of the rear yard property line rather than the required 59 feet and to be 12 feet, 6 inches in height where the maximum allowed height is 12 feet. There is an existing 4,773 square foot house on the 41,747 square foot parcel which is located within a R-1-20,000 zoning district. The applicant has recently received approval of a lot line adjustment that is reflected on the . site plan. The lot line was adjusted to create a square rear yard. Without the lot line adjustment the proposed cabana still would have required a use permit. 000003 File No. UP-O1-001; 20075 Spaich Court The only neighbor that could be impacted by the proposed height and location of the cabana is to the south (right side). The neighbor's lot is about three feet above the subject lot which will minimize the impact of the increased height of the structure. In addition, since there is an existing 6-foot wood fence which will further minimize the potential impacts. Use Permit Through the Use Permit process an accessory structure maybe within the required rear setback and up to 15 feet in height. According to Section 15-55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit if the following findings can be made: a) The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The only neighbor that could be impacted by the proposed height and location of the cabana is to the south (right side). The neighbor's lot is about three feet above the subject lot which will minimize the impact of the increased height of the structure. In addition, since there is an existing 6-foot good neighbor fence which will further minimize the potential impacts. c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff feels that all of the above findings can be made for the proposed project. Trees/Landscaping There are no ordinance-protected trees in the vicinity of the proposed cabana. Correspondence There has been no correspondence from the noticed neighbors to date. Conclusion Staff finds that the location and height of the proposed use are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this district. The Planning Commission should accept public testimony before closing the Public Hearing and acting on the Use Permit application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A rove the a licarion with conditions b ado tin Resolution UP-O1- • PP PP y p g 001. 000004 File No. UP-O1-001; 20075 Spaich Court APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. UP-O1-001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA PINK BROTHERS; 20075 Spaich Court WxE1~AS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit approval to construct a new 930 sq. ft. cabana; and WxEx~AS, 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 WxExEAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: ' The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. ' That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. ' That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 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, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of PINK BROTHERS for Use Permit 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", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. ooooos .~ File No. UP-O1-001; 20075 Spaich Court b. 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 a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." c. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered civil Engineer or a Licensed land Surveyor. 3. 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. 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. CITY ATTORNEY 5. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the 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. 6. 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. • ~000~6 File No. UP-O1-001; 20075 Spaich Court PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 14~' day of February 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: • ~i Secretary, Planning Commission ~~00~"~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ~~00~8 ,~-. ..-. • W a • p 0 ai O 3 ~ m • ~ ~„~ OZ .. ~~ .~~ OC ~p+- O ~~ da o~ 0 ~~ v ~ ~~~ `M H~ ~ x~0~ a Aw°~E aux. W~~~~ H~~z ~+ "~~' ~ ~ °~ ~ aN~a ~ D z ~ ~~ ~ ~ o0 © F ~.,.,r f7 n ~ ~ W V ® ~= O H n n n Ls.i ~ Z ~ ~ ,~ I:' • -!- 0 W H ~. -f.,. t I a • N ~~ n: N' W O #. I , _, W W ~ F"1 ~ ~I C7. H ~~C ~ . ~xawa WHOaw A w~~ x ~~x~H w~~~c .~~a w ~~° ~~~ ~~ oo~~ aN~ a F z ,I ,~ ~ • 3 0 w ~ a w 0 u'1/ -I- - a ~~ i ~. \~ ~\'t~ .~ . - ~---~ ~~~ `~\~~ , - ~, . ~. O 4 W a w `~ W O d t \M M .~ ~4 a Q ~~ ~~ ' ~ ~ ~~' • W ~~ ~~ ~.~] _ ^ y N~ W ~ Z 8W/ ANC ~ ~xawa WNOaW AWU~x ~ ~x~ N ~ ~~ 0 H . ~ t7 ~ (~ ~ a 0 ~ ~"MHz ~~~z goo ~aN~a O. d d ~ 0 ~~]] 4C • • City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 MINUTES • SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL January 17, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Conference with Real Property Negotiator Property: 18870 Allendale Avenue Negotiating Parties: City of Saratoga/ Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiator regarding price and terns and payment for real property lease. Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Management Association MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Marcia Manzo to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the meeting tonight would be dedicated to Jeff Swanberg. Mayor Mehaffey reported that Jeff passed away on Sunday, January 14, 2001. Jeff was a senior at Saratoga High School. Mayor Mehaffey requested a moment of silence in memory of Jeff Swanberg. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services • John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 3, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section ~49~4.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 17, 2001 was properly posted on January 12, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. Councilmember Baker reported that he received a call today from a person who claimed to be a representative of CALTRANS conducting a random survey. Councilmember Baker noted he was asked several questions regarding his personal data, his home acid his assets. The caller alleged to not know the name and address of the person they were contacting but later on in the conversation they knew Councilmember Baker's identity and address. Councilmember Baker noted he contacted the Deputy Director of CALTRANS to inquire the validity of the survey and was told by the Deputy Director that he could not confirm that CALTRANS was conducting the survey. Councilmember Baker publicly warned the viewers to be cautious when asked to participate in any type of survey; he noted you are not obligated to answer any of the proposed questions. Councilmember Baker noted he would report back when he hears from CALTRANS. if in fact the survey is being conducted by CALTRANS, he will request the purpose for the survey and the questions asked in the survey. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None 2 City Council Minutes CEREMONIAL ITEMS January 17, 2001 1. COMMENDATION FOR NANCY ANDERSON, HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendation. Mayor Mehaffey read the commendation and reported that Nancy Anderson was unable to attend tonight's meeting and directed the City Clerk to mail the commendation. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items on this sectio~r ~-vill be acted in one motion unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar. 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: JANUARY 3, 2001 -REGULAR MEETING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2A from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian noted on page 7, 6`'' paragraph, "Waltonsmith" should replace "Bogosian". Councilmember Bogosain requested the following insertions to the minutes of January 3, 2001: • Page 7, 7`h paragraph, "and concurred with Councilmember Baker regarding additional information on the 10 properties that abut the creek." • Page 7, 10`" paragraph, "and report back on the 10 properties that abut the creek." Councilmember Waltonsmith requested the following insertions to the minutes of January 3, 2001: • Page 9, 6`h paragraph, "she requests that the Sheriff's Department work with the City to confirm that the definitions or content of each cell in the matrix are appropriate for the City's overall information needs." • Page 12, 2°d paragraph, "as a City function overseen by the City Council." Councilmember Mehaffey noted a few typographical errors and would submit the corrections to the City Clerk and requested that on page 13, 2"`' paragraph, delete the following words "lower rates are expected" and insert "it had entered into an 18-month contract to purchase power at reasonable rates." BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. City Council Minutes MOTION PASSED 5-0. January 17, ?001 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. Councilmember Baker pulled Item 2B from zhe Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker questioned the following ledger entries: ~ Common Wealth Credit Union -page 2 • Redwood Athletic Uniforms -page 9 Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, responded that some employees belong to the credit union and have direct deposit. Director Walker explained that Redwood Athletic Uniforms are for uniforms for the Youth Basketball Program through the Recreation Department. The invoice has been paid out of the Department of Recreation's budget and uniforms expenses are included in the registration fee. Mayor Mehaffey questioned page 6, regarding PacBell. Mayor Mehaffey questioned why a phone line is connected to the Xerox machine. Director Walker indicated that service to the machine is occasionally done r~ through a modem, which requires a phone line. Mayor Mehaffey questioned the amount for the City's insurance company, ABAG. Mayor Mehaffey questioned if the amount was for one (1) or two (2) quarters: Director Walker noted it was for two (2) quarters because the first payment did not get paid. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. DECEMBER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND MID. YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE DECEMBER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND MID YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. - a~ 2D. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES 4 City Council Minutes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. January 17, 2001 WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNIN ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 3. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SUTRO AND COMPANY FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES IN REGARDS TO THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker explained that on November 3, 1999, the City signed an agreement with Evensen Dodge to provide financial advisory services related to the sale of General Obligation Bonds for the Saratoga Community Library Expansion and Renovation Project. Director Walker noted that Evensen Dodge was selected, from the four firms, which were interviewed, primarily because of the quality of the two individuals who were assigned to this project, Mr. Rich Morales and Ms. Katrina Johantgen. Director Walker noted that Rich Morales informed the City of Saratoga on January 4, 2001, that he was leaving Evensen Dodge and unfortunately Katrina Johantgen left the firm several months ago. With the departure of Mr. Morales and Ms. Johantgen the City no longer has continuity with the individuals who were originally hired and had built a relationship with. Director Walker noted that staff recommends the City exercise its option to terminate the agreement with Evensen Dodge and execute an agreement with Sutro and Company. • Councilmember Streit asked if Sutro and Company have the same capabilities of issuing bonds as Evensen Dodge. Rich Morales, Vice President/Sutro, responded that not only is Sutro a qualified firm in the municipal bond business but feels Sutro is a better firm City Council Minutes January 17, ?001 because they have more local resources. Mr. Morales noted that his firm is not proposing any changes to the contract. Councilmember Baker questioned the out of pocket expenses that have been expended to date at Evensen Dodge. Councilmember Baker questioned if a reduction in the term of payment to Sutro would take place. Mr. Morales responded yes. Mayor Mehaffey asked Mr. Morales if Evensen Dodge is amicable ~a-ith the termination of the agreement. Mr. Morales responded yes. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SUTRO AND COMPANY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. PESTICIDE USE -POLICY DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that at the October 18 and November 15 City Council meetings, staff presented information regarding the types of pesticides that are applied in and around City owned facilities, parks, open spaces, medians, right-of--ways, and landscape assessment zones. Council subsequently directed staff to explore implementation of a Pest Management Policy in the City. Director Cherbone reported that the City and County of San Francisco leave a successful Pest Management Policy. The San Francisco Policy is comprehensive and aggressive; a policy that one would expect to see in a large bureaucracy with its own Department of Environment. However, Director Cherbone noted there are good policies and procedures in the San Francisco Policy, which staff believes can be adopted and implemented in Saratoga without requiring extensive staff resources, while preserving the integrity of the policy. Director Cherbone explained the highlights of the draft Integrated Management Policy for the City of Saratoga based on San Francisco's Policy. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Director Cherbone if co~itractors were included in this policy and will the policy change with the State regulations. Director Cherbone responded yes, contractors will be given a copy of the policy and changes recommended by the State are currently done on a regular • • • 6 City Council Minutes basis. January 17, ?001 Councilmember Bogosian noted that in section IV, it mentions that pesticides leave residue after the date posted. Councilmember Bogosian suggested placing permanent signs or warning signs indicating that chemicals are used in that area. Director Cherbone noted if the Council desires placing permanent signs in high use places, he could change the policy. Councilmember Streit asked how the policy would affect the upkeep of the Heritage Orchard. Director Cherbone noted that Mr. Novakovich would have to substitute a couple of the pesticides he currently uses. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested an article in the Saratogan explaining the new pesticide policy. Mayor Mehaffey thanked Director Cherbone for the report. 5. PRIDES CROSSING TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-007 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 BUDGET Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve explained that the opening of Highway 85 resulted in shifting traffic patterns causing residents to complain of unacceptable high volumes and travel speeds throughout the Prides Crossing area. Analyst Reeve reported that at its April 7, 1999 meeting, the City Council selected CCS Planning and Engineering to perform a Traffic Calming Study of Prides Crossing residential area which is bordered by Highway 85 on the west, Saratoga Creek on the east, Prospect on the north, and Cox Avenue on the south. CCS subsequently collected supporting data, held four (4) neighborhood meetings to obtain residents' input, and develop a report recommending traffic calming solutions. Analyst Reeve explained that at the last meeting the majority of the participants supported the three paths of traffic calming activity: 1. Items receiving area-wide support will be implemented by the City as 7 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 part of a Consensus Plan. 2. Traffic calming needs that can be addressed by increased law enforcement will be referred to the Sheriff's Department through the Public Safety Commission. 3. At locations where traffic calming devices are still desired, but not included in the Consensus Plan and which cannot be resolved by increased traffic controls, will be referred to the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (Tool Kit). The Neighborhood Traffic Management plan is being developed separately by CCS and will be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission in February. Analyst Reeve requested that tonight Council approve eight (8) speed limit or stop ahead signs, and two (2) enhanced cross walks for a total cost estimate of $5,200.00. Analyst Reeve noted CCS Engineering has not finished the "Tool Kit". Councilmember Bogosian asked if the total cost, $17,000.00, included the "Tool Kit" or is there an additional charge for the "Tool Kit". Analyst Reeve responded that an additional $5,000.00 has been paid to CCS Engineering. Councilmember Bogosian noted the cost for a minimum program in this area was $22,000.00. Councilmember Bogosian requested a breakdown on what amount of the $330,000.00 the City appropriated for additional Sheriff Deputies is going towards the implementation of the Prides Crossing program. Councilmember Bogosian asked if once the "Tool Kit" is complete could it be implemented into other neighborhoods. Analyst Reeve responded yes. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the neighborhoods were behind this program. Analyst Reeve noted that most of the neighbors are pleased with the program. Councilmember Baker noted that hopefully a year from now Saratoga would have gained a reputation as a tougher city in enforcing traffic regulations. Mayor Mehaffey asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this subject. Sam Furiosi, Miller/Cox Avenue, noted he has lived there for 20+ years and has seen 40+ accidents and a few fatalities on that particular corner. Mr. Furriosi noted nothing has ever been done about the ongoing problem at that corner. Mr. Furiosi suggested the City install a streetlight. Councilmember Bogosian requested a statistical report on the traffic issues on the corner of Miller/Cox Avenue and supports the possibility of installing a 8 , City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 streetlight. Ann Gadd, 12164 Brook Glen Drive, noted she has lived there off and oi~ for 43 years. Mrs. Gadd noted that cars speed down Brook Glen. Mrs. Gadd noted that prior to this meeting she took a petition around to hel• neighbors on Brook Glen Drive and of the people contacted she received 21 si~natui-es supporting the installation of a stop sign on their street. V Elmer Szanto, 12612 Miller Avenue, noted he has lived there for 27 years and represents 26 residents who first started this calming program in June 1994. Mr. Szanto noted that over the years the traffic has increased significantly on Miller Avenue, and most of the increase is due to cut through traffic. Mr. Szanto noted that he feels the data included in the report is inaccurate. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Mr. Szanto if he supports continued traffic studies. Mr. Szanto responded yes. George Gadd, 12164 Brook Glen Drive, noted he has lived there off' and on fo-- about 20 years and over time he has seen a significant increase of traffic on that street. Mr. Gadd suggested installing signs prohibiting outside traffic i»to the neighborhood during peek traffic time as an additional tool for law enforcement. Mr. Gadd requested an additional stop sign be installed on Brook Glen Drive. Councilmember Baker stated he reviewed the Prides Crossing Traffic Study in detail and is bothered by the Consensus Chart in the back of the study it shows all of the new recommendations for traffic calming signs, however none of tl~e current signs are listed. Councilmember Baker stated he is dissatisfied with the final report and feels several areas have not been addressed. Councilmember Streit concurred with Councilmember Baker but suggested that the Council approve the proposed ten (10) traffic-calming devices recommended by staff tonight and continue to study the other areas. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to: 1. Proceed with the additional ten (l0) traffic-calming devices recommended by staff. 2. Analyst Reeve should work with Director Cherbone to lool: at installing a streetlight at the corner of Cox/Miller Avenue. 3. Continue traffic studies in the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Investigate an additional stop sign at Brook Glen Drive. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 9 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 , Mayor Mehaffey introduced and welcomed Mr. Irwin Kaplan. Mayor Mehaffey stated Mr. Kaplan recently joined the Community Development Department as the Interim Director. Mayor Mehaffey noted that Mr. Kaplan brings to the City of Saratoga over 40 years of experience. NEW BUSINESS 6. PRESENTATION OF DESIGN SCHEMATICS OF LIBRARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute contract. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker reported that for the last six months, the Library Expansion Committee and staff members have been working with the Library Architects and various other consultants to develop the schematic design for the Saratoga Community Library. The process consisted of meetings between the Architect and the Library Expansion Committee every two weeks to develop the concept of the building, and three public meetings to receive public input. The result is the design that Mark Schatz , of Field Paoli, will present tonight. Director Walker noted that the Landscape Architect has been working with tl~e Heritage Preservation Commission and Matt Novakovich to minimize the Library expansion project's impact on the Heritage Orchard. The main landscaping theme is orchard related. Director Walker briefly explained the estimated costs to construct the Library as designed. The estimate is the first of two very detailed estimates that will be prepared.by the Architects at crucial stages in the design process. The Architects' estimated a total of $13,520,597.00, plus $1,988,171.00 in design and construction contingencies, for a total of $15,508,768. This includes all costs associated with the completion of the project including renovation and construction costs, moving costs, and temporary quarters for the library during the eighteen months of construction. Director Walker noted that this estimate exceeds the $15 million available for the project, so the process of value engineering has begun to reduce to no more than $15 million, including adequate contingencies. Director Walker noted that on January 25 the Architect and Construction Manager will meet with the Library Expansion Committee to review a list of options for reducing the cost estimate. Director Walker noted that the Citizen Oversight Committee was concerned about the construction being divided into two phases; phase one is the site preparation and construction of the foundation and parking lot, and phase two is the rest of the library construction. The COC felt that the phased approach could pose a cost risk because it limits the Architect's options in phase two to 10 City Council Minutes reduce costs, should the need arise. January 17, 2001 +~ Director Walker reported that the Architect recommended this approach in order to meet the November 2001 deadline of the target opening of the new library. Councilmember Baker stated he strongly opposes any estimate exceeding the $15 million that is available. Director Walker reassured Councilmember Baker that the project group has. already started value engineering to reduce the costs. Mark Shatz, Field Paoli Architects/Project Architect, introduced the project team. Mr. Shatz reassured the Council that staying within the budget is a priority and has begun to prepare a preliminary list on value engineering options and a meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow morning with Gilbane, the cost estimators, and all the sub consultants on the team so they will have a plan in place on how they will achieve the budget goals. Mr. Shatz provided a brief summary of the process to date highlighting the number of meetings involving the Library Expansion Committee, City Council, community workshops, and various city departments. Mr. Shatz introduced Steve Lovell Field Paoli Architects/Pro~ect Ar ~ chitect, who would be giving the design presentation. Mr. Lovell briefly demonstrated how the existing library would be expanding and how it would eventually co-exist with the Heritage Orchard. Mr. Lovell explained that two independent parking studies were prepared, one by Jim Jeffrey, the city's parking consultant, and one by Jane Bierstedt at Fehr and Peers. The conclusion was that the new library should provide 160 parking spaces, including designated accessible and van stalls. Mr. Lovell described in length the new interior/exterior of the library and the new design for the front entry. Mr. Schatz explained to the Council that one way to stay within the budget is to perform frequent the frequent and repetitive cost estimates throughout the project. Mr. Shatz noted that two estimates have been done, the first by Oppenheim Lewis, the second by Gilbane. Mr. Shatz noted that the current estimate for renovation, new construction and site work, temporary quarters, contingencies, permits, fees, and equipment exceeds budget by $500,000.00. Mr. Shatz asked the Council to approve the schematic design and schematic 11 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 construction cost estimate with the contingency of value engineering. Mr. Shatz gave the Council examples of how the cost could go down with minor changes to the interior and exterior of the library. Mr. Shatz noted that construction should start in August 2001. Mr. Shatz suggested temporarily closing the library until the project is complete. Mr. Shatz noted this would save a lot of money. Councilmember Streit questioned if relocating the library to another location is more economical rather than keeping it on the construction site. Mr. Schatz responded that it would be more efficient and more economical to relocate the Library offsite. Councilmember Streit also suggested that more private study rooms be added and suggested contacting the principal at the high school to discuss future curriculum patterns. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she does not support closing the library and supports relocating the Library off site. Councilmember Waltonsmith also expressed concern in regards to the transplanting of the existing trees. A discussion took place of the importance of staying within the budget. Ma or Mehaffe su ested uttin a ca on the bud et of $14.5 million. Y Y gg p g P g Councilmember Bogosian noted he would prefer $14.25 million and opposed closing the library down until the project is complete. Councilmember Bogosian supported the new design for the front entry noting it retains the feeing of the existing building. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the new design was more in conformity with the existing site. WALTONSMITHBOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES WITH THE PROVISION OF VALUE ENGINEERING AND THE NEW DESIGN FOR THE FRONT ENTRY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Baker requested that a maximum dollar amount for the project be added to the motion so it does not exceed the budget. Motion amended to include the specific dollar amount of $14.5 million, total cost of final project. Motion passed as amended 5-0. Mayor Mehaffey declared a fifteen (15) minute recess at 9:27 p.m. 12 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:42 p.m. 7. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH ALTRANS FOR FY 00-01. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve reported since February of 1997, the City, in cooperation with ALTRANS (Alternative Transportation Solutions), has applied for and received funding from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program. Recently the City has been awarded $322,000.00 from The VTA. Analyst Reeve reported that ALTRANS has been providing trip reduction and ridesharing services for 7,500 students of Santa Clara County Community Colleges and Universities since 1993 .and K-12 since 1996. Analyst Reeve noted Steve Blaylock/ALTRANS was present to answer any questions. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she had heard that the VTA was not coin b g to fund ALTRANS this year because of documentation issues. Analyst Reeve responded that the documentation issues have already been handled. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Mr. Blaylock if he has had any success with covering the bus stops in front of various schools. Mr. Blaylock responded that he is still working on that issue. Councilmember Baker asked if ALTRANS plan includes all the schools that serve Saratoga. Mr. Blaylock responded that most of the schools that serve Saratoga are included except Marshall Lane, Westmont High School, Prospect High School, and Rolling Hills Middle School. Councilmember Baker expressed dissatisfaction that all the schools that serve Saratoga residents were not included in ALTRANS service plan. Councilmember Baker noted that this was the third time he has requested all schools be included. Mr. Blaylock noted that some of the schools that are not included are very 13 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 , resistant to the program and have no desire to come aboard. Councilmember Streit asked why Marshall Lane was not included. Mr. Blaylock states that Marshall lane was accidentally left out. Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Baker that all the schools that serve Saratoga should be included in the service plan. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with his fellow colleagues regarding the service plan including all the schools. Coucnilmember Waltonsmith directed Mr. Blaylock to contact the City Council if schools refuse to participate. BAKER/STREIT MOVE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH ALTRANS FOR FY 00/O1. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 8. POLICY FOR ACQUISITION OF CITY OWNED PARKING RIGHTS IN PARKING DISTRICT #3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute contract. Richard Ta lor, Cit Attorne , resented staff re ort. . Y Y Yp p Mr. Taylor explained that the City established Parking District #3 in 1988. Mr. Taylor explained that parking requirements applicable to proposed developments, including expansions, in the Village depend on the parking district in which the development is proposed. The requirements for Parking District #3 is one parking space be provided for each 350 square feet of gross floor area developed. Mr. Taylor noted that in 1988 when the City Council created the assessment district, 31.2 "extra" parking spaces were identified. Mr. Taylor explained that Mr. Jin Lee, owner of the Saratoga Cleaners at 14495 Big Basin Way, has requested that the City sell hiin the development rights associated with some of the 31.2 parking spaces in Parking District #3. Mr. Taylor noted that based on the City's current policy, Mr. Lee would pay $19,546.00 per parking space. Mr. Taylor explained that although Mr. Lee is considering an expansion at the Saratoga Cleaners he has not yet submitted a development application to the City because the feasibility of the project depends, in part, on the City's willingness to sell the development rights of the parking spaces. 14 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 . Mr. Taylor briefed the City Council on some policy issues concerning the proposed purchasing agreement. • The approval of the transfer of development rights not be construed as approval of development application. • The adequacy of current parking in the Village. • The appropriate price to charge for each parking space. Councilmember Bogosian noted that no studies have been done on the cun-ent parking situation, nor has the Village Specific Plan been considered. Councilmember Baker stated he does not support this item in any way and recommended it go back to staff with no action taken tonight. Councilmember Waltonsmith commented that the 1988 study might not be accurate today and recommend a new parking study be done to determine if adequate parking exists in the Village. Councilmember Streit commented that the price of parking spaces listed in Mr. Taylor's report of $19,546.00 is too low and supports further parking studies. Mayor Mehaffey feels the cost of parking spaces should be determined on how much it would be to replace them in today's market. Mayor Mehaffey noted he does not want to prevent Mr. Lee from expanding because the City Council lacks adequate information on the Village parking situation. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to bring more data back to Council, including a cost analysis of the current cost of parking spaces in the Village. 9. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Investment Policy. Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker explained that the California Government Code and City of Saratoga Municipal Code require the City Council to annually review and approve the City's Investment Policy. Director Walker noted that the Investment Policy lays the foundation for the . City's investment management functions. Last year, at the January 19, 2000 City Council meeting, staff recommended minor changes to the Investment Policy from the previous year, and. the Council approved the Investment Policy in its current version. This year the Finance Commission reviewed the Policy 15 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 , at their January 8, 2001 meeting, and recommended forwarding tl~e Policy to the Council after some minor changes. Director Walker summarized the changes recommend by the Finance Commission. Councilmember Baker noted that the changes were not included in the report. Director Walker noted that the changes were accidentally left out of the report but reassured Council that they were not extremely significant. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 10. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY -PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Mr. Taylor explained that the City Council expressed interest in forming a Community Foundation supporting various activities in Saratoga. Mr. Taylor noted that community foundations established by local governments are subject to the Brown Act, Political Reforn~ Act, and other agency restrictions applicable to all actions by the City. Independent foundations are not subject to these restrictions. Mr. Taylor stated that the manner in which the City proceeds in supporting the formation of a community foundation depends on whether the foundation will be independent of the City or will be aCity-sponsored foundation. If the City wishes to support formation of an independent foundation, the City Council could direct staff to take steps to inform the community of the Council's interest and to encourage interested members of the community to step forward. Mr. Taylor noted that most community foundations are established as non- profit organizations that are exempt from federal taxation under section 501(1)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Mr: Taylor explained that if the City wishes to support aCity-sponsored foundation, the City Council could direct staff to solicit applications for a special committee to investigate and create a City of Saratoga Community Foundation. t Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports the City helping create a 16 City Council Minutes January 17, ?001 community foundation and once it is established allow the foundation to run • independently from the City. Mr. Taylor explained that the Council would need to detern~ine the degree of control the City would exercise over a community foundation. In a private foundation, a board would decide how to spend donated money and City Council approval would not be necessary. Mr. Taylor suggested the City form a task force to develop a "Mission Statement" for a community foundation. Councilmember Streit concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith and noted that most people are generally more inclined to donate money to a nonprofit organization rather a government agency sponsored group. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith and Councilmember Streit that the City should start the process of the forniation of a community foundation. Dave Anderson, City Manager, reiterated what he felt was the direction from Council. Mr. Anderson stated that a model of "Articles of Incorporation" for a Saratoga Community Foundation could be drafted and placed on the next City Council agenda. • Mr. Taylor asked the Council how large of a board they would like. Mayor Mehaffey commented that the Foundation could have an executive board of no more than 7 members and a general membership. Mr. Taylor suggested a governing board up to 15 members and other advisory boards for arts, sports, etc. Mr. Taylor commented that the proposed "Articles of Incorporation" could be left open, leaving it up to the Board to decide on what the advisory boards are going to represent. 11. APPROVAL OF CITY ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-006 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING THE CITY OF SARATOGA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES • EFFORTS TO CONSERVE ENERGY John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. 17 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 Director Cherbone explained that since December, California has been undei- Stage 1, 2,and 3 energy alerts. On January 12, 2001, a Stage 3 energy alert was issued and rolling blackouts took place. Director Cherbone reported that this Stage 3 energy alert prompted the League of California Cities to issue a memorandum asking all cities to certify that they will reduce energy usage by 5% by January 16, 2001. Director Cherbone briefly presented several energy conservation methods tl~e City would be implementing at City Hall and the Village until the power shortages are over. Councilmember Baker reported that he recently attended a Cities Association meeting and there was an unanimous decision to write a letter to PG & E demanding that they notify all law enforcement agencies at least one (1) hour prior to rolling blackouts. Councilmember Bogosian supported the energy conservation methods that Director Cherbone presented and suggested removing the Village lights completely. Mayor Mehaffey noted he supported the lights being on in the Village only during the holiday season. Mr. Taylor commented that the Council could agree, as an energy conservation measure, to shut the Village lights off during the State's energy shortage. Mayor Mehaffey noted that at the next Downtown Beautification Committee meeting a policy could be developed in regards to the long term use of Christmas lights. BAKERISTREIT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF SARATOGA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES EFFORTS TO CONSERVE ENERGY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that SASCC is excited about the temporary buildings and that in regards to the VTA PAC voted to support natural gas for the new buses, however the Board of Directors went the other direction and decided that the new buses would use clean diesel instead of natural gas. Councilmember Bogosian reported that the Silicon Valley Joint Animal Control is seeking to hire an Executive Director and they are still looking for property to house tl~e shelter. Councilmember Baker reported that the HCD, KSAR, and the Emergency Preparedness Council have not met yet, but noted that he recently attended the Cities Association on behalf of Mayor Mehaffey. Councilmember Baker reported that the City's Association 18 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 . set a few priorities for the year; housing and transportation were at the top. Councilmember Baker had nothing to report regarding the West Valley Sanitation District Board. Councilmember Streit had no reportable actions or information. Mayor Mehaffey had no reportable actions or information. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian expressed dissatisfaction with the report given to the Council by Rebecca Spoulos, Code Enforcement Officer, of complaints being lodged against residents in Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosian requested that a policy be developed not to include residents that have not violated any codes in the report. If a complaint is lodged and there is no violation, the person should not be listed on the report. Dave Anderson, City Manager, suggested that in the future only the statistical information of code complaints and violations be presented to the City Council. Councilmember Waltonsmith applauded Saratoga schools that received top marks in the school evaluation report prepared by San Jose Mercury News. Councilmember Waltonsmith questioned the status on the progress of getting major bus stops covered in Saratoga. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she does not like to see people sitting out in the elements. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to place the issue of bus stops on a future agenda. Councilmember Streit requested more information on Rule 20 money from P G & E in regards to under grounding. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he recently attended the Mayor/Council Conference in Sacramento and during a conversation amongst other Mayors, the issue of a "Cosecant Calendar" policy was brought up. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to draft a policy concerning the "Consent Calendar". OTHER Richard Taylor, City Attorney, strongly encouraged the Councilmembers to attend the ABAG hearing on January 25, 2001, in regards to the "Regional Housing Needs Determination". CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Anderson had nothing to report. • 19 City Council Minutes ADJOURNMENT Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. spectfully submitt~ ~~ hleen, oyer, 1~ City Clerk January 17, 2001 r~ • • 20