The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-27-2002 Planning Commission Packet~. • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater, 13177 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSENT": Director Sullivan STAFF: Planners Livingstone &~ Welsh, and ?vlinutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIr1NCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 2002 ORAL CovlNtuNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The la~v generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instn~ct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staf f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 22, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028); - To approve the Resolution which found the Garrod Farm project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 7-0) 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 Monday, a week before the meeting. i~ • • • 2. Application #02-025 (386-01-008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road; -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purposes of teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs. The building contains 2,500 square feet and is zoned CV- Commercial, the lot is 18,590 square feet and the property has 10 parking spaces. (WELSH) (CONTII~TUED TO DATE UNCERTAII~T FOR TRAFFIC STUDY) Application #02-008 (366-027-003) HSU/BURROUGHS, 20802 Norada Court; - Request for Design Re~~iew Approval to create asecond-story addition to the existing residence, and Variance to the "floor area reduction rule". The existing home, in the R- 1-12,500 District, contains 2,769 square feet on a 12, 712 square foot lot. The proposed home contains a 651 square foot second story and proposes a 216 square foot addition to the first floor for a total area of 3,636 square feet. (WELSH) (APPROVED 7-0, VARIANCE DENIED) 4. Application #02-044 (386-52-032 ~ 033) MAMMINI CORPORATION; LONGAY GUITAR CENTER (Tenant), 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct music classes in an existing 1,733 square foot commercial space located in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 7-0) Application #02-047 (517-19-040) SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road; Request for Modification of Approved Project to remove a provision in the resolution for DR - 99 -006 which permitted construction of their ne~v home. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail on their property, parallel to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road be omitted from the resolution approving the home, which is no~v built. (WELSH)(APPROVED TO CONTINUE TO DATE UNCERTAIN 7-0) DIRECTOR ITEMS Explanation of Santa Clara County referral process. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports • Energy Efficiency - Re~~ie~v Conservation Element of the General Plan and consider adopting an Energy Element to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. (LIVINGSTONE) COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 PM TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, Apri110, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 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, MARCH 27, 2002 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-047 - SIADAT Item 5 14771 Montalvo Road 2. Application #02-044 - LONGAY GUITAR CENTER Item 4 12302 Saratoga-Sunnj~~ale 3. Application #02-025 - YEH Item 2 20444 Prospect Road 4. Application #02-008 - HSUBURROUGHS Item 3 20802 Norada Court LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site ~~isits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held Tuesday 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 : ` ~~isit 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. i CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale-Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry PLEDGE OF ALLEGLANCE MII~TUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 2002 ORAL CO~~I~4Ui`TICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from disn~ssing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 22, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028); - To approve the Resolution which found the Garrod Farm project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) 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 Monday, a week before the meeting. 2. Application #02-025 (386-O1-008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road; -Request fora Conditional Use Permit to establish a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purposes of teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs. The building contains 2,500 square feet and is zoned CV- Commercial, the lot is 18,590 square feet and the property has 10 parking spaces. (WELSH) 3. -Application #02-008 (366-027-003) HSU/BURROUGHS, 20802 Norada Court; - Request for Design Re~~iew Approval to create asecond-story addition to-the existing residence, and Variance to the "floor area reduction rule". The existing home, in the R- 1-12,500 District, contains 2,769 square feet on a 12, 712 square foot lot. The proposed home contains 'a 651 square foot second story and proposes a 216 square foot addition to the first floor for a total area of 3,636 square feet. (WELSH) 4. Application #02-044 (386-52-032 &t 033) MAMMINI CORPORATION; LONGAY GUITAR CENTER (Tenant), 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct music classes in an existing 1,733 square foot commercial space located in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Zoning District. (VASUDEVAN) 5. Application #02-047 (517-19-040) SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road; Request for Modification of Approved Project to remove a provision in the resolution for DR - 99 -006 which permitted construction of their new home. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail on their property, parallel to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road be omitteda from the resolution approving the home, which is now built. (WELSH) DIRECTOR ITEMS Explanation of Santa Clara County referral process. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports • Energy Efficiency -Review Conservation Element of the General Plan and consider adopting an Energy Element to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. (LIVINGSTONE) COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If } ou would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us a (~ a MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 PLACE: ~ Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: ~ Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 27, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the regular Planning Commission minutes of February 27, 2002, were approved with a minor corrections to pages 2, 7, 10 and 13. . AYES: Barry, Hunter, Garakani, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Jackman and Zutshi REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Single-Story Overlay Zone Director Tom Sullivan informed that he has distributed a memo outlining the results of the Brookview and Saratoga Woods Neighborhoods' postcard survey regarding a potential Single-Story Overlay Zone. He advised that this matter will be scheduled on the April 10, 2002, Planning Commission agenda in order for the Planning Commission to determine whether there is sufficient support to move forward. Commissioner Roupe asked if a particular percentage vote is required or a simple majority. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City actually has the right to go forward even without a poll. However, a municipality usually tries to determine the wishes of the community. The Commission will make the determination as to whether this process should go forward into Public Hearings. Operations of Boards and Commissions • Director Tom Sullivan advised that the second item distributed is an Ordinance, which outlines the operations of Commissions and Boards, including the handling of absences. Advised that two absences by a Commissioner will result in a reminder by the Director and the third unexcused absence can result in dismissal. Commissioners should get an excused absence by calling the Commission Chair. The Chair must notify the Mayor of any absences. Chair Barry stated that it is a discretionary decision as to what represents an excused absence. Hillside Development Chair Barry pointed out the letter in the packet from Gail and Doug Cheeseman, which references eight applications for Hillside Development. Asked staff for a report at the next meeting as to what County projects are pending on the Hillside and/or near Quickert Drive. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to define the sphere of influence and what brings some County projects before the Planning Commission while others are not. Director Tom Sullivan said that Associate Planner John Livingstone will handle that request. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 Application #02-025 (517-09-020) DEERFIELD REALTY CORPORATION, 20514 Saratoga-Las Gatos Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 3,682 square foot orthodontics office in a portion of an existing office building that has a 4,282 square foot main level and a 1,015 square foot basement. The applicant proposes to add 320 square feet to the main level of the building. The office building is located in the CH-1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 3 ~' • • Commissioner Jackman advised that she resides nearby and will recuse herself from this item. She left the dais to sit in the audience. Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: _ • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to establish an orthodontics practice in a portion of an existing office building. This building is currently for sale. The building has 4,282 square feet on the main level and a 1,015 square foot basement and was constructed in 1969. It was once a bank and most recently an office. The applicant proposes to add an additional 320 . square feet to the street level, add windows and modify the planters. Design Review is not required • Stated that the applicant will use 3,682 gross square feet for the dental practice. The remaining space will be leased to another tenant. • Recommended approval with conditions as staff can make the necessary findings to support this proposal. • Identified issues raised at the site visit, which has resulted in three additional proposed Conditions of Approval. The first is to require submittal of a landscape plan for the replacement of trees in poor health. The landscaping must be installed prior to occupancy. The second added condition is to improve the appearance of the existing concrete wall. The third additional condition is to take some sort of action regarding the existing wrought iron gate located at the rear of the property. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to clarify its intent regarding the wrought iron gate. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that she is asking the Commission to provide direction on what it would like to do with that gate. Commissioner Roupe said that the requirement for in light of the fact that this practice operates with 1 reached the conclusion that this parking is adequate. 18 parking spaces seems inadequate and unrealistic 5 staff members. Asked staff to explain how it has Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that parking is calculated based upon a formula. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this leaves only three spaces free for patient parking. Questioned whether this is adequate. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that she has only considered Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Roupe said that this site may have a congested parking problem. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. David Gould, Realtor, Colliers, Walnut Creek: • Thanked staff. • Advised that his client, Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis, has practiced in his current Saratoga location for the last six years and has resided in Saratoga for 15 years. He also has another office in San Jose. • Said that he has read the staff report and finds it accurate. • Said that the number of employees is a total. They are not on site at the same time. Usually, there will be about six or seven staff at any given time. • Stated that this dental practice concentrates on braces for children. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 4 • Added that this will be anowner-occupied property that will have a higher level of maintenance and repair. • Said that he would be available for any questions and that they look forward to moving forward. Commissioner Zutshi asked how many patients will be in the office at one time. Mr. David Gould replied about six. Commissioner Zutshi said that in her experience taking her children to the orthodontist, she has seen no fewer than -eight patients in that office. Commissioner Kurasch asked if that patient count was per doctor. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis, Applicant: • Said that he has been consulting since 1986 and operates as a high quality not high quantity office. • Assured that they do not run a "mill." Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that many patients have very quick five-minute appointments for adjustments. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis said that his current office has five chairs and that he spends an average of 30 to 40 minutes per patient. Commissioner Hunter asked if the patients would be lined up before these new proposed windows and therefore visible from those driving past the building. Reminded that this is an Historic District. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis assured that this would be an nice and attractive office building. Mr. David Gould: • Assured that this is awell-designed project. • Said that this building was constructed as a bank and faced the back of this lot. The front side is currently not friendly as it has a solid facade. They are proposing large windows facing the street and therefore opening the building up. They will use a mix of clear and frosted glass to provide daylighting and making it more attractive both from inside and outside the building. Patients will be able to see out but privacy will be provided for the patients being treated. Commissioner Kurasch: • Asked for clarification on the staff size as it appears that there are 15, 11 full time and 4 part"time.: • Questioned how many are would be on site at any time. • Said that the parking concern is real and wondered if this parking can accommodate the proposed number of chairs, which appears to include seven exam chairs and two consultation rooms. Mr. David Gould clarified that there are 31 parking stalls, including handicapped. They are proposing seven exam chairs, four in front and three on the side. There will also be two consulting rooms with chairs. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that intent of having this many chairs is that they be occupied. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 5 Mr. David Gould said that there is rotating and staging involved. Commissioner Kurasch asked how the staff would rotate. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis: • Said that he had six working at his current Saratoga office yesterday. • Said that he has a predominately female staff, most of whom work part- time. Four staff members work one and a half days a week. • Said that staff on site at any given time will range from six to nine. • Said that he also plans to keep his San Jose office. He can't sell it since he is moving but a few miles away. Chair Barry asked if seven chairs are needed at one time. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis replied no. He added that his current office consists of 1,000 square feet with fewer parking spaces and there is never a problem. Chair Barry asked how many patients would be within the premises at one time, given this site will have seven chairs and two consulting rooms. Also asked how many are new patients versus existing patients simply coming into the office for quick adjustments to their braces. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis said that at any given time, four or five patients are being treated, one is in consultation and one is watching aone-hour video. Ms. Erna Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived around the corner from this site for 19 years and is pleased with the prospect of this project. • Stated that this building has been a forlorn looking one and that she is looking forward to fresh landscaping. • Pointed out that the building is on a bus line and that this would provide anoth_ er means for patients to come to the office. • Said that she has never seen the parking lot used much. • Suggested the removal of the gate to allow pedestrian access. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis: • Thanked Ms. Jackman for her support and said he would be open to any suggestions about what to do with this gate. • Assured that he wants this to be an attractive site and is open to input on how best to achieve that goal. Chair Barry advised that Design Review would be considered by staff. Said that the Commission would be seek some improvement to the concrete wall, alandscape/tree replacement plan and some treatment of the gate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Hunter said that she too would like to see the gate removed. Added that she lives nearby. - Mr. Eric Doyle, Building Owner: • Said that the building has 31 spaces, representing 5.51 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The doctor has nine employees and two doctors for a total of eleven. They propose 8 patients per doctor for a total of 19 people at a time. Multiplying the square footage of 3,682 times 5.51 parking spaces results is a requirement of 21. This site has a slight overflow. Said that it is typical to over park rather than under park a site. This proposal will work. Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis said that most parents drop off their kids and come back to pick them up. Commissioner Kurasch said she is still not clear on the total number of people in the building at a time. Mr. Eric Doyle pointed out that the Ordinance provides the formula. Commissioner Kurasch replied that this provides but a baseline. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:00 p.m. Chair Barry suggested that the Commission require the next tenant come back before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that since that space will not have street frontage, it would not be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Director Tom Sullivan said that it is possible to Condition that requirement as part of this approval. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that at one time, this site had been considered as an alternative site for the Post Office. Commissioner Roupe said that now that he better understands the function of this dental practice, he has fewer concerns about the number of employees but that he also would support the Condition to require Planning Commission review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the second tenant on this site. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission can also condition a six and/or twelve month review of this use, or upon complaint, and bring it back before the Commission if it becomes necessary. Commissioner Kurasch: • AgreedPto the proposal to remove the gate with the nexus being the pedestrian link and benefit to adjacent businesses. • Supported the requirement for a landscape plan and replacement plan for trees in poor condition. • Suggested that the concrete wall should be faced with some sort of stone veneer. • Supported the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for the second tenant in this building. • Said that there are parking concerns as this use is an intensification of previous uses. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there will be an opportunity to revisit this use if problems cause staff to bring it back before the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the fact that this building will be owner occupied would be a benefit. It is in Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis' best interests that this works. Commissioner Roupe suggested that it would be helpful to have elevations in the future. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that it is a stretch in this case to require them since there are no design issues under consideration by the Planning Commission but that staff will note that -preference for future applications. Chair Barry suggested a Condition that directs staff to further review the windows. Director Tom Sullivan assured that staff would be doing this review when the tenant improvement plans are reviewed. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that she would add this Condition to the Resolution to require staff to review the proposed placement of new windows carefully. Commissioner Zutshi said that it is good that this building will be used and agreed that parking can be reviewed in the future if problems should occur. Commissioner Kurasch proposed an automatic review and questioned whether operational hours should be restricted in some way. ~ ° Commissioner Hunter said that she believes that parking for this site is adequate. Chair Barry said that the hours of operation are already limited by the nature of the practice, since the patients are children. Said that she does not have any concern about operational hours. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the requirement to enhance the concrete wall. Commissioner Hunter said that this requirement might be expensive. Director Tom Sullivan said that the wall could be surfaced for a reasonable amount of money, using stucco or plaster. Suggested that the material tie in with the materials used for the building itself. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved Application #2-025 to allow the establishment of an 3,682 square foot orthodontics office at 20514 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, with the following additional Conditions of Approval: • Require a Conditional Use Permit for the second tenant in this building: • Prepare alandscape/tree replacement plan and install prior to occupancy; • Install a decorative treatment on the concrete wall to coordinate with materials used on the building; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 8 • Removal of the wrought iron gate at the rear of the property to facilitate pedestrian access; and - • Review of this Conditional Use Permit in six months, 12 months and upon any complaint. - AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Jackman . Commissioner Jackman returned to the dais at 8:17 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 Aunlication #02-007 (Citvwidel Resolution Amending the Zoning Reauirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings: The Planning Commission has requested that it consider amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to May 15, 1992, vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15, 1992. The ordinance also has different setbacks for single-story and multi-story dwellings. (SLTLLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that he had- contacted Architect Warren Heid who in turn contacted the AIA to invite any interested architects to participate in this evening's hearing. • Said that-the same report was distributed from the February 13, 2002, Planning Commission Public Hearing. • Said that the goal is to have the practice/interpretation and written word to be the same. • Reminded that this is a continued Public Hearing item from February 13`h Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:22 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Expressed regret that his fellow architects did not make this meeting. • Pointed out that the header of the minutes of the past hearing incorrectly read January 23, 2002, instead of the actual meeting date of February 13, 2002. • Said that staff has developed an excellent way to explain rear setbacks but he has some concern. Commissioner Garakani asked why not include front and side yard setbacks. Commissioner Roupe said that this could be done at a later date. At this time, the Commission directed staff to deal only with rear setbacks. Director Tom Sullivan said that at the meeting of February 13, 2002, the Commission gave no direction to readvertise this item with a expanded scope. Mr. Warren Heid: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 9 • Suggested that the text of the proposed Ordinance that deals with adding one foot for every foot above 18 feet should be clarified by adding `for the portion above 18 feet." This simple addition will clarify the intent. • Said that page 2 of the staff report reads "10 feet from the facade." He wondered if it more accurately should read "10 feet from the property line." Director Tom Sullivan said that it was staff's intent to say facade: Mr. Warren Heid said that he questions what he was agreeing to in the last minutes on page 22. _ Commissioner Roupe said that staff will put this matter on a future agenda and incorporate the added text "above 1 & feet." Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:34 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the 10 foot standard came from. Director Tom Sullivan said that it was probably borrowed from another Ordinance. The impact on single story and multi story structures is where the difference exists between the written word and common practice or interpretation. Commissioner Kurasch said that recent practices require different setbacks between first and second floors. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission gave that instruction. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is any architectural reason for 10 feet instead of 12.5, etc. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He said that someone had to make a decision and someone did. Commissioner Roupe said that staff seems to have the right interpretation. Said that the question is whether the Commission -wants to go with the practices over the last 15 years or go with this new proposal. Chair Barry said that it would be nice to hear from other practicing architects. Commissioner Zutshi sought clarification that the second story is set back 10 feet further than the first story element. . Commissioner Garakani said that this is a great proposal and gives flexibility to developers/designers. Commissioner Kurasch said that she differs in opinion. Commissioner Jackman said that this Ordinance would not create a one size fits all architectural standard and that they have to start someplace. This is just the minimum and is a good start. The expanded setback compensates to give use of land while keeping privacy for adjacent properties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 10 Chair Barry said that she sees a-difference between small lots (10,000, 12,500 or 15, 000 square feet) and larger lots. Sought assurance that this Ordinance is not allowing greater encroachment into the setback. Commissioner Garakani said that there is no encroaching into the setback at all. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Municipal Code provides a difference between corner and interior lots and between single story and multi story structures. When the Ordinance was written, corner lots did not require to stagger setbacks. Commissioner Kurasch said that she does not see a conflict with one setback standard for single-story and another for multi-story structures. Commissioner Garakani asked if there are any disadvantages. Commissioner Kurasch said that many are concerned about maxed out properties and air and quality issues. It is important to have large spaces between buildings and nice landscaping. It is a reason why people move and live here in Saratoga. Chair Barry said that on smaller lots, if the first story is allowed to go back further, it could lead to privacy issues or noise impacts on adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that single-story rear setbacks remain at 25 feet. Commissioner Kurasch added that multi-story structures have a larger setback at 35 feet. Chair Barry said that issues include air, space and light. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that smaller parcels allow 60 percent coverage and greater FAR than larger parcels. Chair Barry said that the Commissioners will not all see this the same way. Added that she did not feel comfortable allowing this on smaller lots (R-1-10,000, R-1-12,500). Commissioner Garakani suggested that this might promote two-story structures on smaller lots. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that it is easier to accommodate on larger lots. Commissioner Kurasch said that Saratoga is typically asingle-story town. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that many Codes do encourage single stories. Commissioner Garakani said that he would like input from other architects. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that AIA (American Institute of Architects) was contacted and Architect Warren Heid personally contacted 10 to 12 local architects. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 11 Chair Barry agreed that the attempt was made to solicit input. ' Commissioner Hunter expressed concern that the Ordinance may become restrictive. Mr. Marty Oakley, Builder/Designer: • Said that he has worked in Saratoga over the past 28 years. • Expressed that there is not much problem with the existing Ordinance and that it is clear as written • Said that the additional 10 feet is fine with larger lots. Chair Barry said that the question of whether or not to change the Ordinance is what is being considered this evening. Mr. Marty Oakley: • Said that, in his opinion, the Ordinance does not need to be changed. • Said that these changes become an issue when dealing with 10,000, 12,500 and 15,000 square foot lots. The side and front setbacks are crucial. • Asked the Commission to reconsider expanding the rear setback requirement. • Said that everyone has been able to work with the existing Ordinance interpretation and it has not been a problem in the past. Chair Barry said that the practical interpretation of the Code has been different from the written word. It is her impression that builders have actually not lived with a true interpretation of the Code as it was written. Mr. Marty Oakley said that he has appeared before many Planning Commissioners and the rear yard setback is typically not raised by the Planning Commission as a concern. Commissioner Jackman said that the issue arises when additions are made on existing tract homes. Said that the Commission is trying to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Marty Oakley said that today there is more redevelopment than new homes in Saratoga. Old homes are torn down and rebuilt to today's standards. The Ordinance as it exists is fine. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:17 p.m. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission has several options. To move forward with the proposed drafts, to amend those drafts or to put them aside and keep operating as it is today. Chair Barry said that it might be helpful to determine whether the Commissioners are ready to take a stand this evening. Director Tom Sullivan said that it would be appropriate to take a straw vote. Chair Barry asked for a show of hands. Commissioners Kurasch, Hunter and Barry voted to leave the Ordinance as it is. Commissioners Roupe, Jackman and Garakani supported changing the Ordinance. Commissioner Zutshi abstained. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan said that historically, there have been two different minimum setbacks for first and multi-story structures, requiring the whole structure to be moved if a multi-story. The proposal would change that so that there would be a different setback for the first story and another for the second floor. Commissioner Jackman said that with the proposed Code amendment, the first story would be closer to the back property line than the top story. Commissioner Kurasch said that the whole structure would be further away from the rear setback. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved the Negative Declaration for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: -None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution to amend the Zoning Ordinance requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks as proposed. AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: Barry, Hunter and Kurasch ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~ . *** DIRECTOR ITEMS There were no Director Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Basements: Consider adopting new Zoning Ordinance requirements regarding the construction of basements. (VASUDEVAl~ Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff update as follows: • Advised that she has distributed a revised version of the proposed Zoning requirements for basements, which clarifies definitions. • Said that they have provided definitions of a light well. • Suggested incorporating wording to read " 36-inch high guardrail with self-closing gate or grate. " Commissioner Roupe asked for assurances that light wells must meet applicable setbacks and not encroach into required setbacks. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is already the practice. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Garakani read the description of the light well as including four sides and open from the top. Asked how exiting occurs. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied by use of stairs or ladder. Chair Barry. said that the intent is to permit light wells but provide a maximum size for light wells. Commissioner Roupe suggested that instead of saying guardrail, the requirement can be fora 36-inch high enclosure since it could also be a wall. Chair Barry pointed out that this will still come before the Commission for Design Review. Commissioner Garakani asked why the recommendation is for a maximum four-foot width. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the Uniform Building Code requires a 36-inch clearance. That is a very narrow and tight space. However, the intent is to limit the width. to prevent a daylight basement. Director Sullivan clarified that there is nothing wrong with a daylight basement but the space would have to be counted as livable space. Commissioner Jackman said that they want to treat a basement as a basement with these proposed standards. Commissioner Garakani asked what represents a daylight basement accordirig'to Code. Director Sullivan said that now only the top two feet can_ be above the natural or cut grade. The UBC requires light wells. Basements become floor area if they are a daylight basement with greater than two feet above grade. Commissioner Kurasch said that the setback must be retained even with larger light wells. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that if the basement meets Ordinance requirements for a basement, it is not counted as living space. Commissioner Jackman said that the only change in the current draft from the last draft is the definition of a basement. Commissioner Roupe suggested changing item 2 from "such space" to "the entire basement area." Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a line of text was removed from item 7 and wondered if this was intentional or accidental. Commissioner Jackman said that this line should be returned to the draft. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff would be splitting the review between a geotechnical consultant and staff. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 14 ;. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the reasoning behind supporting a 12-foot high ceiling in a basement. Pointed out that between 32 and 33 cubic feet of soil must be removed for every foot of basement height. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the height maybe needed to accommodate pipes. Commissioner Roupe: _ • Said that the 12-foot height is not finished ceiling. • Recommended reducing the height from the proposed 12 to 10 feet. • Proposed amending item 1 - "... of the main structure, including the attached garage." • Proposed amending item 4 - "...nv~ttash~-t$ thy-~~t~ot~r~ any accessory or detached structure." Commissioner Hunter expressed support for the 12-foot maximum ceiling height. Commissioner Roupe said he could go with either LO or 12 feet. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would like direction from the Commission to do the appropriate Ordinance amendment and environmental determination advertising. Commissioner Kurasch mentioned. a previous proposal to consider the possibility of a "not to exceed" area of basement. Asked why this idea was dropped. Commissioner Jackman said because it is hard to regulate. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that they had looked at other cities and -none regulated the size of the basement. Commissioner Roupe said that it is good policy to encourage basements over building up. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the cost is high for constructing basements. Commissioner Roupe agreed saying it is twice as much. He added that he likes the proposed requirement' for a road repair bond for road maintenance. Commissioner Jackman asked how such a bond amount could be determined. Director Tom Sullivan said that in his previous City, Moraga, if more than 50 cubic yards of import or export of cut or fill is required, the applicant pays a fee to the City for use for road maintenance. Commissioner Roupe proposed limiting the allowable hours for trucks to excavate a site. Director Tom Sullivan said that Code already limits hours. That is outside of this Ordinance. Commissioner Roupe said a requirement for a disposition plan for cut should be required. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 15 Chair Barry suggested imposing a time frame for completion of a basement installation. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the UBC addresses this issue. The basement is considered a part of the foundation walls. Real progress must be achieved within six months and requires a building inspection. Commissioner Jackman suggested a final review with Planner Lata Vasudevan. Chair Barry said it appears that staff is ready for Public Hearing on this proposal. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for this Commission Item at 10:10 p.m. Mr. Marty Oakley, Builder/Designer: • Thanked staff for creating an Ordinance on the subject of basements as this is really needed. • ~ Said it is important for the Commission to truly understand what a basement represents. • Said that square footage is the most important thing and that the City of Saratoga is quite strict on the subject of allowable building space. • Advised that these days, a basement is intended to function just like the main floor, as true living space. The ceiling height is important. At least one regular flight of stairs exiting the basement is recommended. • Said that athree-foot wide light well is not enough space to climb out and get above grade in an emergency. • Suggested that the maximum depth should be increased to five feet for a light well. • Added that today, anine-foot ceiling is the standard and suggested imposing a maximum finish height in the 10 to 11 foot range. Commissioner Kurasch suggested a maximum depth of excavation limit. Director Tom Sullivan said that the maximum needs to be set by Zoning while the minimum is set by the UBC. Added that the maximum excavation depends on the geology. Mr. Marty Oakley offered to prepare diagrams to depict basement height maximum standards. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would like to incorporate 1VIr. Oakley's drawings within the Ordinance. Mr. Marty Oakley said that a basement plays a positive part in a home and is not just storage. Invited the Commissioners to visit a few projects he has constructed that incorporated basements to demonstrate what a basement is all about. Commissioner Jackman advised that a light well is needed by for basement level bedroom. Mr. Marty Oakley said that this is part of the design that certain rooms within a basement require windows. Chair Barry pointed out that this issue will have the benefit of a Public Hearing and that all issues will not be solved this evening. Suggested leaving the rest for the Public Hearing. r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Hunter proposed adding the visit to the basements to the next Commissioners' site visit schedule. Director Tom Sullivan asked Mr. Oakley to provide the appropriate addresses so that they could be added to the next site visit agenda. Mr. Marty Oakley said that he would be glad to give a tour. Director Tom Sullivan said that the direction from the Commission seems to be a concurrence to move forward to Public Hearing. Chair Barry suggested that due to the lateness of the hour, the other items on tonight's agenda under Commission Items be continued to-the April 10th meeting. Commissioner Jackman said that her experience sitting in the audience this evening made her aware that the Commission seems very far away from the audience. Suggested that the Commissioners will need to work at being more welcoming to those in the audience. Chair Barry advised that the League of Women Voters will hold a meeting at West Valley College on March 28th at 7 p.m. to discuss how the college can better meet the needs of the community. Suggested that a staff and Commission representative attend. The meeting will be held in the Regular Board Room in the Chancellor's-Office at the Administration Building. Commissioner Roupe asked if this would include audience participation. Chair Barry said the first 30 minutes would be a presentation. Commissioner Hunter: • Assured that the League of Women Voters always seeks active participation in its sponsored events. ' • Advised that the Heritage Commission is designing a kiosk for installation in front of the Library, which will incorporate the names of people who adopt trees. • Announced that she plans to attend the Planners Institute and offered a ride to any other Commissioners who might plan to attend. Commissioner Zutshi announced a pending site visit for the Library and promised to email the details. Commissioner Garakani encouraged the Commissioners to read the memo prepared by Associate Planner John Livingston regarding Energy Efficiency prior to the next meeting as there is a lot of information contained therein. Commissioner Roupe asked if comments are desired prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Garakani replied that they are not necessary but are welcome. ~~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 17 Director Tom Sullivan said that since Associate Planner John Livingstone will be on vacation on April 10th it would be best to continue this matter of the Energy Element to April 24th Chair Barry asked if any Commissioners were planning to attend the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's meeting on March 20th Commissioner Zutshi said she would attend if another Commissioner would go with her. Chair Barry offered to attend with Commissioner Zutshi. Energy Efficiency -Review Conservation Element of the General Plan and consider adopting an Energy Element to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. (LIVINGSTONE) Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was continued. Ordinance Review -Review of the initial topical areas that Subcommittee will address. (SULLIVAl~ Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was continued. COMMUNICATIONS Written -Minutes from Regular City Council meetings of January 16, 2002, and February 20, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:42 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, March 27, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ,h ~~~ .CONSENT City of Saratoga Community Development Department ITEM 1 ~ MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~/ z DATE: March 27, 2002 UUU RE: CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution of conformity for 22600 Mount Eden Road. REPORT SUMMARY On January 9, 2002 the Planning Commission fourid the proposed project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. The attached Resolution of Approval makes the necessary findings supporting the decision. BACKGROUND The applicant's property is located in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. The applicant has applied for an Architectural and Site Approval through the County to add three residences to the existing property. In order for the County to process the application, they require that the proposed plan meet the General Plan Policies of the City of Saratoga. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed plan and found the project to be consistent with the Ciry of Saratoga's General Plan. During the meeting, the Commission added two conditions of approval. The first condition is that the Garrod Trust enters into an agreement with the Ciry that if the Williamson Act contract is cancelled the City of Saratoga may pursue an annexation. The second condition is that the applicant dedicates a trail easement to Santa Clara County. Both conditions have been agreed to by the applicant and added as conditions of project approval. • oooooi n- THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • ". ooooO2 JA ~' APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Garrod Trust ; 22600 Mount Eden Road WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request from the Garrod Trust ("Applicant") to interpret the General Plan as to its conformity with a proposed project to build three new homes on an approximately 11 acre site where two homes already exist, that is located in the County of Santa Clara unincorporated area, and is in. the Ciry of Saratoga's sphere of influence and prezoned Hillside Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time the project applicant was given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga's review of the proposed County project as to its conformity with the City of Saratoga's General Plan is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Hillside Specific Plan applicable to the project site provides that development on unincorporated lands should proceed `wvith a preferred density of 20-160 acres/unit depending on slope;" WHEREAS, the Open Space Element of the City General Plan includes the following as incentives to be offered to promote continued agricultural uses in the City's hillsides: Residential density bonuses for significant investment in agricultural improvement (eg., vineyards, wood lots or orchards) or open space dedications. Allowing additional dwellings on family farm operations when such additional dwellings will permit continuance of inter-generational agricultural uses consistent with Williamson Act provisions. This will not constitute a residential subdivision of the land under the Williamson Act. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff reports, written materials prepared by the applicant ,and all public testimony presented to the Commission and based thereon determines: 1. The property upon which the project is located is part of a 120-acre landholding of the Garrod Trust that is subject to Williamson Act contract between the Trust and Santa Clara County that is not the subject of cancellation proceedings and as to which no notice of non-renewal has been filed; and 2. The property has been used for agricultural purposes by the Garrod family since 1892 and is currently being used for operation of vineyards, an associated winery, an equestrian center and open space; and 000003 3. Two of the homes to be constructed-will be used by members of the Garrod family employed by the agricultural and open space uses operating on the Garrod Trust holdings and the third home will be used by family members or by employees needed to permit continued agricultural and open space uses on the parcel; and 4. , On-site housing is. essential to maintaining the land's agricultural viability -in this ' instance due to the nature of agricultural operations and the disparity between prevailing agricultural wages and housing costs in the region; and S. The project will be designed and landscaped in a manner that avoids interference, with agricultural operations; and ~ . 6.. The Garrod Trust has previously dedicated one half of its total landholdings (120 of 240 . acres) to the MidPeninsula Open Space District; and 7. As part of the proposed project the Garrod Trust has proposed to dedicate a trail easement over a portion of its property in furtherance of the goals of the Saratoga Parks and Trails Master Plan; and 8. The Garrod Trust has agreed that in the event that the Williamson Act contract on its property is not renewed or is canceled it will not object to the City of Saratoga's annexation of the property or to the Hillside Residential zoning of the property. Wx~t~s, the based on the foregoing and the evidence presented the Planning Commission has determined that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application and that the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan as a whole in that the proposed project will contribute to the agricultural use of -the land by providing housing for the agricultural operations on site and will preserve open space by dedicating a trail for public equestrian and pedestrian use. Now, THEREFOttE., the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: .Section 1. After careful consideration of the testimony, site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission hereby determines that the application of the Garrod Trust for the three proposed homes to be built in the unincorporated area of-Santa Clara County is hereby deemed consistent with the City of Saratoga's General and Specific Plans subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit °A" to the Ciry of Saratoga staff report dated January 9, 2001 incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Garrod Trust shall enter an agreement with the City of Saratoga providing that in the event the Garrod Trust or any successor thereto ; ; '.does not renew or otherwise cancels the Williamson Act contract on any or all of the' Garrod Trust property, then the City of Saratoga may pursue the annexation of the affected property into the City of Saratoga subject to the City's Hillside Residential zoning designation in effect at the time of the annexation without objection by the Garrod Trust or any successor thereto. The annexation will not be effective until the ,date of the termination of the Williamson Act contract. • 000004 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit the Garrod Trust shall dedicate to Sar.~a Clara Counry a public, pedestrian and equestrian trail easement on the southern and partially eastern border of the approximately eleven-acre parcel (APN S03-10-28) on which it is proposed three single family homes for the housing of farm employees. The proposed trail easement is currently in use as a private equestrian bridle path. The trail is fenced on both sides and graveled in places. It is approximately 12 feet to 20 feet wide and 993 feet in length. On the eastern end of the proposed trail easement the trail meets Mt. Eden Road just north of Villa Oaks Drive junction. The proposed trail easement then runs the length of the southern boundary of the Garrod's approximately eleven-acre parcel, with the western .end stopping at the boundary of the Falico Family Trust property (APN 503-10-006). The trail path informally continues eastward, crossing a number of private pazcels until it connects to the Steven Creek County Park. -The proposed trail easement is entirely located in the unincorporated azea of the Counry of Santa Clara and shall provide that the easement be offered by the County of Santa Clara to the City of Sazatoga upon annexation of the land to which the easement applies. The trail easement is over a portion of Segment #45 of the Ciry of Saratoga's proposed trail system improvements shown in the 1991 Pazks and Trails Master Plan. 4. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense. of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 5. This conformity determination will expire if a use permit or site development permit for the uses described herein has not been issued by Santa Clara County within 24 months of the date of this resolution or if the use permit issued by the County expires, is terminated, or otherwise ceases to be in effect. 6. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Gcvernmental entities must be met. Section 2. 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. ~~44~5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of March 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and -comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date •i ooooos • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-019; Conditional Use Permit/ 20444 Prospect Road Applicant/Owner: James Yeh Staff Planner: -Ann Welsh, AICP, Assistant Planner Date: March 27, 2002 APN: 386-O1-008 Department Head: i I ~ ~ l/~ i ~ i Prospect Road i ' ~ I _~-~ ~. ~ ~ 1 ~ , ; I ~ ;~ .I ~ ~ I ~J MER1 c~ ~ ~ ~ ,I i , ~ I I C 1 ~ ti ~~h~ I ~ ~ I ~V ~I H t-- .~. • I ~- ~ ~ N I I I i i~ L--1Y--;, i ~ ~ ~~! ~ ~ ~-2~ I ~ .~,~ ~ ~~ s l ~~ J ~ ~ 400 /' 0 400 800 20444 Prospect Road • 000001 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: U3ll02 Application complete: 2/5/02 Notice published: 3/13/02 Mailing completed: 3/13/02 Posting completed: 3/8!02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Institutional Use on a portion of a property located at 20444 Prospect Road. The 18,590 square foot parcel contains 2,500 square feet of office space. The Institutional Use is to occupy 1,500 square feet of space while a Medical Use presently occupies 1,000 square feet of the building. The applicant proposes to conduct the following activities on the site: teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and conducting other enrichment programs for students. These activities are to be conducted between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday. A total of three persons are to be employed at the site. Parking ~~ for 12 cars presently exists on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit 'A' • ®00002 v STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Commercial - CV District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PDM -Planned Development Mixed MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 18,590 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of conversion of an existing office use into a teaching facility use is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures°, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The applicant proposes no exterior changes to the structure. • • 000003 PROJECT DISCUSSION __ The applicant, James Yeh proposes to operate a teaching facility at 20444 Prospect Road. A teaching facility is classified as an Institutional Facility and requires a Conditional Use Permit in the CV -Commercial District pursuant to Article 15-19.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. Institutional Facility as a Conditional Use An "Institutional Facility" is defined in Zoning Ordinance, Article 15-06.380 as a place, structure or area operated by a public or private organization or agency, used for providing educational, residential or health caze services for the community at lazge. The applicant proposes to conduct the following activities on the site: teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and conducting other enrichment programs for students. These uses fall into the category of Institutional Facility In conducting the use, no exterior changes to the 2,500 square foot building are proposed. The existing structure presently houses a dental practice in the eastern 1,000 square feet of the building. 1-he teaching facility is proposed in the remaining 1,500 square feet. The applicant ilitends to hold a maximum of three classes simultaneously with 10 students per class. Surrounding Land Use Land uses surrounding the site are commerciaUoffice uses to the north across Prospect Avenue, in San Jose, residential uses to the east and south and office uses to the west of the site. The parcel is surrounded by Atrium Drive on the south, east and west and Prospect Road on the north. The proposed teaching facility is compatible with the surrounding land uses. _ Parking Requirements Article 15-35.030 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies Off-Street Parking requirements for various use classifications. Pazking for an institutional facility is required at the rate of "one. parking space for each employee and such additional number of spaces as may be prescribed by the Planning Commission". In terms of off-street pazking, the existing dental office occupying 1,000 squaze feet of , space is identified as a medical facility, which requires one parking space per 200 square feet 'of gross floor azea or a total of five pazking spaces. The remaining seven spaces would be allocated to the proposed teaching facility. Since the applicant has indicated that three persons aze to be employed on the site, it is up to the Planning Commission to determine whether the remaining four spaces aze sufficient to address the pazking needs for the proposed use. To evaluate the adequacy of parking provisions a description of the use is provided. 000004 The proposed teaching facility anticipates a maximum of three classes of ten students per class. The typical class is two hours long. Classes aze for children who will be picked up by their parents. Pazents typically do not wait pazked for their children. The potential circulation and pazking problem created by thirty students entering and exiting from class at the same time needs to be addressed. - • • In order to address a potential lack of pazking, it is recommended that these class times be staggered at half hour intervals and class size be limited to a maximum of ten students per class. Varied starting times and limited class size minimizes the potential for parents queuing up along Prospect Road while waiting to pickup their child. The site has a paved area in the reaz of the property adjacent the dental office that maybe converted into three additional pazking spaces. It is recommended that this area be striped for pazking to create additional parking spaces in order to address the increased parking demand that the proposed use may generate. Access and Circulation The ten parking spaces in the front of the building take access from Prospect Road. The site presently has two curb cuts, which provide ingress and egress from the site along Prospect Road. The two parking spaces to the rear of the lot take access from Atrium Road which is a private access road serving the adjacent commercial and office uses. There is another paved area in the rear of the lot, which could be used to park three additional cars. The intensification of use proposed by the applicant may result in a circulation problem if the hours of operation are not managed to control the numbers of students picked up and dropped off at a given time. A condition of approval should be that the class schedules be organized to stagger class hours to limit vehicular congestion in the parking lot. In addition marking the western curb cut with an entrance arrow and the eastern curb cut with an exit arrow should control the ingress and egress for the lot. Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday: CLOSED Staff has not placed a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation to those stated above to allow the owner greater flexibility for any future adjustments to the hours of operation. ~~~~OS Signage ndi ' of a royal has b n The applicant has not yet proposed any signage. A co aon pp ee included in the attached draft Resolution which requires that the applicant submit a Sign Permit application for review and approval by Staff. Correspondence _ - _. No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative if the above noted conditions on number of students, staggered class hours and parking lot marking can be met. (a) The proposed location of the teaching facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance including minimizing traffic congestion and providing for adequate off-street parking. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Commercial District in which the site is located. (b) That.the proposed location of the teaching facility and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with the provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report: • ~~~0~6 :_. C7 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 02-019 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA James Yeh/ 20444 Prospect Road WHEREAS, the City of. Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 1, 500 (gross) square foot teaching facility in an existing office building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of conversion of an existing office use into a teaching facility use is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 {a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: 1. The proposed location of the teaching facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance including m;nimiz;ng traffic congestion and providing for adequate off-street parking. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Commercial District in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the teaching facility and the conditions under which it would be operated. or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with the provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Now, TxEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: • Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 00000 PLANNING 1. The teaching facility shall operate as represented on the plans mazked Exhibit A. With the revision that three additional parking spaces be created to the reaiaz of the building. 2. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The applicant shall limit the class size to ten students per class. No more than three classes are to run simultaneously. Class hours shall be staggered to ensure that classes do-not start or finish at the same time. A one half hour interval must be maintained between the start and finish of each of the three classes, so that no two classes end or begin at the same time. 4. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 5. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for internal tenant improvements, detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency with the approved Exhibit A plans. The construction drawings shall incorporate a copy of this Resolution as a separate plan page. 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, any proposed exterior modifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. 7. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. - 8. A Sign Permit Application shall be submitted to the Planning Division for any proposed signage for the new business establishment. 9. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga prior to opening the teaching facility. ,,. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on February 14, 2002. They identified the use as a learning center and made the following comments: 10. The proposed use appeazs to constitute a change of occupancy classification from group B to group E division 3. As such, prior to occupancy the applicant shall submit appropriate architectural drawings to the building department for 0~00~8 review that reflects compliance with criteria outlined in-the 1998 California Building Code i.e., exiting, fire alarms, occupancy separation, fire extinguisher placements as may be necessary. Cln ArrORNEY 11. ~ Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 12. 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. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution 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. • 000009 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of March 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ~. This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said -terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • OOOOgO d ~O ~,~z ~--- 1 1 II II II II 11 11 II II I I it ~ I I II II II II 1 II II II II 11 II II II aI ~ ry ' II II 11 II II I II II II ~ I A 1 1~ I I I II I II • I II I II i II I II I II I II 1 e 1 I I II i II 'n¢ un!bty I I I \ i ii ~1 I I ~ ~ S ~ 1 I A ~ \ _ 1--g --------------~- ---- -------- ------------------ - -------•--------- _ ~s. R .~d '^ .00'i£.I 3 .OO.BO.ZO. !J »anvv ~ E~ `m w ~ 1 S + II \ 11 n >3 ~ I I P II I ~ 1 II . I 1 I: m ~ 7 ~ I 1 1 1 I 'o, 1 . I ~ I I X 1 1 I ~ I~~``~ YI ~ I I I1 I 1 , 8 ~,° ~ 1 ~~ I I I , ~ ~' CCC I .d ". , I I I 1 `~ 4 ~ i I J t 1 ~- I -1 I ^Q I ~ I "d 1 I ~ _1_I I I. ~ y I I I I I I I ¢ I II I 1 I 1 1 II 1 t I ~ 1 ~ ~I I 1 y I - I_ O I m ~ _ I - 1d ~ ~1 I 1 0 1 ~-r___--- I II I I 1 I 'a.oo 11 1 I I ~ ______,.i I ( i t I I 1 `~ 1 I I I) ~ y 1 t ~ _ I N ~ - + _ - _ I _ - 1O - I n~ I •~ I I= ~ .~ O 1 1 1 1 --^ 1 "a1 ~ I. I I L .Y_ l i m ~ ~- R ~ 'I 1 1 ~ I ~ 3 11 1 I 1 I 1 ~ I I Ic I I 1 1 I - 1 1 O I I I , I 1 O 11 1 I ~ I. 1 I ' IN I I 1 ~ 1 ~. ^ ~ i 1 IN 11 I I I I ~ I I I Z `~ 1 °I 1 I 1 1 11 1 ~ 1 I 1. I ~ II .------~ / ' I ~ $ I 1 I 1 _~.~ I ~ a I -------------~---I ~ QQ 11 ~~ ~ h R / I I I I I 1 !/ I I 1 i ~ ~ it 1 ~ \ 1 w _ 11 \ ~. ~ __SI D /~ .DO"f£I 3 ..OO.BO.ZO M ., I ~~ I +- -'-~/---------------------~ --------------i---L------------------------~--' II II II II II 11 as wnl"rld 8'• I I ~ ~ II II II II II II „ 1 I ~ ~~I II 11 I1 II 11 II II II II II 1I it II II II II 11 II I 1 II II II 11 I 9 I I -~~ /• . .. __ I~NI~`6 aip'5 e~p !&e ~}YYY' 5D~ 8~~ ~1~ ~~~ $g~ 7 ~~ '~y ~~~~ ~ s~,~ ~ ~ ()V1 \-/~ I b U W a. Z N. b-~ o e m ~ m NN v i..{. W ~ Z` ~n o• V ~-, Z ~. Ltl J ' J~ Q m V-- m r^~r^ o VJ 3 _ 0~ m ai J mo 8 ~, i ~ ~.. ~ a' ~~ : "~ 1 I - Z ... W 1 w -• W'- tlZ.• - . , W J ~3. 1 1 R < U W I C I I I. I N G N_ C~ L- m~.~ ~ - 6 4 ~~~` ~ G ao~tl~~ ITEM 3 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: #02-008, 20802 Norada Court Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: Kathy Hsu Fst Greg Burroughs Ann Welsh, AICP -Assistant Planner March 27, 2002 366-027-006 Department Head: ~ i ~ y GR~;;i G~ ' ~ ~ %~ ~~ .,\ I ' i \~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~` 1 r` 1--~ ~ \ i ~ ~ ~ ~ `~. %~ '-- ~ ', NORADA CT• _~ ,' i f i ~ I \ ~` i~ ' ~ I ~ wr K ,11I 1` i ~ O LOWENA CTs. 400 ' ~ 0 ~ 400 ~ 800 20802 Norada Court 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 1/16/02 Application complete: 2/15/02 Notice published: 3/13 /02 Mailing completed: 3/ 13 /02 Posting completed: 3/ 8 /02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes first and second floor additions to an existing single story house. The first floor addition is 216 square feet and the second floor addition is 651 square feet. The sum of which is an 867 square foot addition to an existing 2,769 square foot residence. The total proposed area for the house with garage is 3,636 square feet. With the proposed second story, the height of the house is increased to 22 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to the height penalty provision in the zoning ordinance, which reduces the total allowable floor area to 3,487, v~~hich is 149 square feet over the maximum allowed on the property given the proposed tvvo-story design. The site contains 12,712 square feet and is located within the R-1-12, 500 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. Deny variance request for additional 149 square feet of floor area and deny setback variance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2.. Arborist Report dated 2/19/02 3. Letters from Applicant and neighbors 4. Plans, Exhibit °A° dated 1/14/02 • 000002 • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M-12.5 -Medium Density 3.48 du/net acre MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 12,712 square feet (gross and net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 1% GRADING REQUIRED: THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL NOT REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN GRADING OF SITE. __ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of remodeling a single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA}. This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of remodeling and adding a second story to one single-family residence. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior of the house is to be composed of beige cement plaster walls, off white trim and brown cedar shake roofing. • 000003 R-1-12,500 Lot Covera e: Existing Proposed Code Requirements for 22 ft residence 5,503 sf. - 44% 5,503 sf. - 44% 6,991.6 sf. - 55% Floor Area: Residence: 2,079 sf. 2946 sf. Gara e: 690 sf. 690 sf. Total: 2,769 sf. 3,636 sf. 3;487 sf. Setbacks: Front: 33 ft. Front: 33 ft. 25 ft. + 4 ft = 29 ft. Side:10 ft. Side:10 ft. 10 ft. + 4 ft.=14 ft. Rear: 51 ft. Rear: 51 ft. 35 ft. + 4 ft. = 39 ft. Hei ht: Sin le sto residence 2 sto residence-22 ft. Max. Allowable 26 ft. • • C~ ®00004-. PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review &r Variance This application is for Design Review and Variance to permit a 651 square foot second story addition and a 216 square foot first floor expansion of an existing single story dwelling. The design of the structure remains contemporary with the .proposed second floor addition having little impact on the mass or style of the structure. The proposed . addition would expand athree-bedroom house with a 690 square foot garage into afive- . bedroom house with expanded master bedroom and kitchen/family room area. The neighborhood presently has a number of two story homes along Norada Court while the homes abutting Beauchamps Lane to the reaz of the house are primarily single story. The applicant has requested a variance to the height penalty that the ordinance imposes on homes, which exceed 18 feet in height. This penalty reduces the floor area allowable on the lot by 223 square feet. The proposed design exceeds the allowable floor area by 149 square feet and a variance is requested for this excess. In addition, it appears that a setback variance is also required in light of Section 15- 45.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that setbacks increase one foot for each one foot of height in excess of 18 feet. Applying this ordinance provision to the proposed expansion requires that the setbacks increase by 4 feet beyond the minimum 10-foot setback identified in Section 15-12.090. The proposed design, which expands the ls` floor area behind the garage, would increase a nonconforming setback since it proposes to extend the existing 11-foot side yard. This extension creates a nonconforming side yard setback since the increase in height of the structure requires aone-foot for one-foot increase in all setbacks. Therefore a variance to the added setback requirement would also be required. Necessary Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. 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 neighborhoods; and (ii) community viev~~ sheds .will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. 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; grade changes will be minirnized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will minim~e the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. ooooos (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. - (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The .proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will ~ . conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. In addition, the Section 15-70.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requires findings for granting a variance (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. c That the antin of a variance will not be detrimental to the ublic health safe or () ~' g P tY welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Actual Findings Design Review The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the p--oposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The subject house is located on Norada Court a cul-de-sac which presently contains seven two story homes and four single story homes. The subject house also abuts the rear of homes that front on Beauchamps Lane. These homes are deed restricted single story dwellings. The adjacent neighbors to the south and east of the subject house have two story homes. The adjacent neighbors to the north and west of the house have single story homes. The only neighbor that has objected to the proposed second story addition.is the neighbor west or rear of the subject pazcel. Their primary objection was loss of privacy due to the second story windows facing north and west of the structure. This reaz neighbor who lives on Beauchamps Lane is concerned that the second story will reduce ~~~0~6 the privacy that they presently enjoy in their rear yard pool and patio. To evaluate the impacts on privacy, the plan details aze analyzed. The redesign depicts second story windows facing north and west of the house located 60 to 72 feet from the rear property line, which is defined by a six-foot high fence. It is a matter of debate whether a window 15 feet at this distance from a fenced property line constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Privacy impacts- to the adjacent reaz yazd could be addressed by creation- of a planted buffer that would screen the rear neighbors from the increase in height of the structure. The Commission should evaluate whether this is sufficient privacy mitigation. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. 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; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposed design has little impact on existing natural landscape since only 216 additional square feet are added to the first floor. This addition requires no tree removal or increase in impervious surfaces. With these minimal changes to the footprint of the house the natural landscape is preserved in it's existing state. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulb. 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 environment. The proposed addition of a second floor adds approximately seven feet to the height of the existing structure and covers about one-third the area of the existing first floor. The addition is set back about 24 feet from the front of the house so the visual impact from Norada Court is rtinim~ed. The second story is located above the rear portion of the house so the perception of bulk will be more prominent from the rear. The height of the proposed addition is very modest for atwo-story structure and the varied roofline minimizes the perception of bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacentproperties to utilize solar energy. The proposed design exceeds the floor azea and setback requirements for the R-1,12,500 zoning district, in this regard the addition is not compatible in terms of bulk and height with the surrounding residences. However, from a visual standpoint, the proposed addition appears compatible with the two story homes on Norada Court. In terms of compatibility with the homes on Beauchamps Lane, the proposed addition is inconsistent with the scale of homes along Beauchamps Lane, which are deed restricted to a single story. The proposed addition will not impact significantly the light and air of ®®~ ~~1`7 adjacent properties since the proposed change is not a substantial increase in bulk. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The redesign proposes no change to existing grading and no change to existing impers~ious surfaces thus grading and drainage are to remain the same. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the spirit but not the letter of applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. The deviation from design guideline policies is a matter of degree. The second floor addition is perceived as an invasion of privacy by one abutting neighbor. It is unclear what constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The proposed addition violates some design policies while complying with other design policies; therefore the findings needed for staff to recommend approval cannot be met without revisions to the plan. The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handbook Policies to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials &r colors as well as retaining a lo~v profile two-story design. The plan conforms with Policy #2, integrate structures v~~ith the environment through use of neutral tan cement facade and brown cedar shake roof tiles and by combining the garage and house iri a single structure. The proposal complies in part -with Policy #3; avoid interference with privacy by maintaining landscaping to the rear of the property to buffer adjacent neighbors. Policy #4, preserve ~~ie~vs and access to views is a finding that is not substantially~ilZipacted since the increase in height is limited to seven feet. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, Technique #1, design for maximum benefit of sun and wind is addressed since the rear patio and ~v~indovvs are on the southwest facing portion of the house which has the greatest sun exposure. Technique #3, allow light, air and solar access to adjacent homes, is addressed since the single-family house does not encroach on the solar access of neighbors Alternatively, complete conformance with Policy #3, avoid interference with privacy is a finding that cannot be made. The proposed second floor addition may compromise neighbors' privacy to a limited extent. Also, complete conformance with Policy # 1, minimize the perception of bulk is another finding that cannot be made since the proposed addition exceeds the floor area and setback requirements of the R-1, 12,500 district. Thus the above analysis concludes that all the necessary findings required for granting design review approval may not be met. The project deviates from the design guidelines in floor area, setback and privacy issues. Revision of the plan to address these issues is recommended prior to approval. J ~00®Q$ !• Actual Findings -Variance (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. The subject property does not have any special circumstances such as the size shape topography or location that would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. The lot size is conforming to the size for the R-1,12,500 for the district. The dimensions of the lot are standard. The topography of the lot is level with a 1% slope. In summary, there is nothing unusual about this lot that would warrant a deviation from the standards. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Approval of the variance would grant the owners a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations imposed on other propemes within the district. The proposed addition to the house is consistent with second story expansions to other houses along Norada Court. However, granting the floor area and setback variance would be inconsistent with the bulk of surrounding structures and current zoning standards. Although the size of homes on Norada Court may vary from 3,100 square feet to 3,600 square feet as the applicant has stated, the sizes of lots on Norada Court also vary. There should be some correlation between the size of lot and the floor area allowance. Since the applicants parcel is not a large as some on Norada Court it is reasonable to assume that the structure size would be within the ordinance limits and not exceed the allowable square footage of 3,487 square feet. (c) That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting the proposed variance would not have any impact on the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the structure. In conclusion, granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege to the property owners and is not consistent with the limitations imposed on surrounding property owners. Staff recommends that the variance be denied. The City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. • 000009 Public Comments This apphcanon has generated a considerable amount of public input. Staff has received letters in support of the project from six neighbors abutting Norada Court. Letters in support of the project were received from two adjacent neighbors, those across the street and owners of the single story dwelling north of the HsuBurroughs house. A letter objecting to the proposed second story and to the variance was received from the rear neighbor who abuts Beauchamps Lane. This neighbor objected to a second" story dwelling abutting their rear yard on the grounds of invasion of privacy. They stated that their homes are deed restricted to prohibit two story additions and they objected to their rear neighbors beinggranted atwo-story dwelling that minimizes their privacy. Community Development 1. The development plan shall be revised to eliminate the proposed variances to floor area and setback as shown on Exhibit A, incorporated by reference. 2. Fireplaces: Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling. 3. Soil and Erosion Control Plans -The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimising the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 4. "Plans should be revised to depict the additional setback requirements that are identified in Section 15-45.040 of the Zoning Ordinance if the height' of the structure is to be built to 22 feet. 5. ;A landscape plan shall "be prepared which provides a complete visual screen between the Hsu/Burroughs second story addition and the homes located to the rear of the subject property along Beauchamps Lane. Fire Protection District The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on January 25, 2002 and their comments are as follows: Required fire flow -the fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants, which are spaced at the required spacing. City Arborist Report The City Arborist inspected this property on February 19, 2002 and issued a report received on February 26, 2002. The report states that although there are many trees on this property, the only one that Q~0®g0 - would be controlled by city ordinance is a 24-inch Chinese elm in the backyard, which is so f ar from the planned construction that it would be unaffected by that construction. No other trees of the size large enough to be controlled by city ordinance are seen here that would be affected and for that reason no tree protection specifications are necessary. Conclusion The proposed addition deviates from the standards outlined in the Residential Design Review Guidelines. The plans should be revised to eliminate the nonconforming floor area and setback elements. The creation of a second story may infringe on the privacy rights of adjacent neighbors. The Commission should determine whether this infringement is an unreasonable violation of the neighbors' rights or whether it is a reasonable use of the applicant's property. The privacy issue may be resolved by creation of a planted buffer between the two properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Revise the Design Review application with conditions and deny the variance request by adopting the following resolution. • • 040011 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000012 Attachment 1 •' RESOLUTION NO.02 - APPLICATION NO.02-008 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Hsu-Burroughs/ 20802 Norada Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and Variance approval for the 216 square foot first floor and 651 square foot second floor addition to an existing 2, 769 square foot single story residence; and, WHEREAS, 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 Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the addition to an existing single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant may not meet the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the follo~~ing findings have been determined: Policy 1, Minimize the perception of bulk In general the design minimizes the perception of bulk. Specifically, the proposed addition of a second floor adds seven feet to the height of the existing 15-foot high structure and overlays one-third the area of the existing first floor. The second story addition is set back 24 feet from the front of the house so the visual impact along the Norada Court streetscape is minimal. The second story is located above the rear of the house so the perception of bulk will be more prominent from the rear. The height of the proposed addition is very modest for atwo-story structure and the varied roofline minimizes the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The design is consistent with the policy to integrate structures into the environment through use of neutral tan cement facade and brown cedar shake roof tiles and by combining the garage and house in a single structure. Landscaping is to be retained as a buffer between adjacent residences and this serves to integrate the structure with the environment. 000013 Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The subject house is located on Norada Court a cul-de-sac that presently contains seven two story homes and four single story homes. The subject house also abuts the rear of homes that front on Beauchamps Lane. These homes are deed restricted single story dwellings. Only the neighbor west or rear of the subject parcel has objected to the second story addition on the grounds of loss of privacy. Privacy impacts to the rear yard should be addressed by creation of a planted buffer that will screen the rear neighbors from the increase in height of the structure. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The proposed design exceeds the floor area and setback requirements for the R-1, 12,500 zoning district, in this regard the addition is ~ not compatible in terms of bulk and height with the surrounding residences. However, from a visual standpoint, the proposed addition appears compatible with the two story homes on Norada Court. In terms of compatibility with the homes on Beauchamps Lane, the proposed addition is inconsistent with the scale of homes along Beauchamps Lane, which are deed restricted to a single story The ro osed addition is erceived as im actin the view of the nei hbor to the P P P P g g rear of the subject house. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and v~~ind The proposed addition will not impair the solar access of adjacent properties since the proposed change is not a substantial increase in bulk. WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined: (a) The subject property does not have any special circumstances such as the size shape topography or location that would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. The lot size is conforming for the R-1, 12,00 districts. The dimensions of the lot are standard. The topography of the lot is level with a 1% slope. In summary, there is nothing unusual about this lot that would warrant a deviation from the standards. (b) Approval of the variance would grant the owners a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations imposed on other propemes within the district. The proposed addition to the house is consistent with second story expansions to other houses along Norada Court. However, granting the floor area and setback variance would be inconsistent with the bulk of surrounding structures and current zoning 000014 standards. s~ Although the size of homes on Norada Court may vary from 3,100 square feet to 3,600 square feet as the applicant has stated, the sizes of lots on Norada Court also vary. There should be some correlation between the size of lot and the floor area allowance. Since the applicants parcel is not as large as some on Norada Court it is reasonable to assume that the- structure size would be within the ordinance limits and not exceed the allowable square footage of 3,487 square feet. ~ . (c) Granting the proposed variance would not have any impact on the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the structure. 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, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs for Design Review is granted subject to a number of conditions. The application for variance approval is denied on the grounds that the variance would be deemed a privilege not currently enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. Community Development 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped January 16, 2002 shall be revised to incorporate the reduction in floor area and increase in setback required to maintain conformance with zoning ordinance standards. 2. Landscape Plan -The applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which will completely screen the rear neighbors from the proposed increase in building height. This plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of the Building Permit and shall be approved by the Planning Director. 3. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the follov~~ing 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 and containing the following revisions: 1. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. 2. 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." 000415 4. Fireplaces: One wood-burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 5. Setbacks: The plans should be revised to provide the correct setback dimensions. Section 15-45.040 requires that setbacks increase by four feet due to the increase in height of the structure. Therefore front, side and rear yard setbacks should be adjusted to this dimensional increase. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management. Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. Plans incorrectly identify the APN number for the parcel as 366-027-003. This should be corrected to 366-027-006 , which is across the street. CITY ARBORIST The City Arborist inspected this property on February 19, 2002 and issued a report received on February 26, 2002. The report states that although there are many trees on this property, the only one that would be controlled by city ordinance is a 24-inch Chinese elm in the backyard, which is so far from the planned construction that it would be unaffected by that construction. No other trees of the size lar e enou h to be controlled b ci ordinance are seen here g g y tY - thatwould be affected and for that reason no tree protection specifications are necessary. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Santa Clara County Fire District reviewed this application on January 25, 2002 and their comments are as follows: Required fire flow -the fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants, which are spaced at-the required spacing. CITY ATTORNEY Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2.:, 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 00006 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of March, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 0~~~~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0000.8 • • --~, BARRI E D. CC .TE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 SurnmitRaad Los Gatos. CA 95033 408!353-1052 r-- r Attachment 2 TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AT THE HSUBURROUGHS PROPERTY 20802 NORADA COURT SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel City of Saratoga Community Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Barre D. Coate Consulting Arborist February 19, 2002 Job # 02-02-017 Plan Received: 2.13.02 Plan Due: 3.15.02 ~~~o~~ FEB 2 6 2002 CITY OF SARATO(iA OOMMUNTfY DEVE:I.OPM~M • 000019 TREE PROTECTION REQUIIt 1VTS AT THE HSUBURROUGHS PROPERTY 1 20802 NORADA COURT, SARATOGA Assignment I was asked to inspect the HsuBurroughs property to determine what tree protection . detail is necessary during the small addition planned at this property. Summary Although there are many trees on the property, the only one that would be controlled by city ordinance is a 24-inch Chinese elm in the backyard, which is so far from the planned construction that it would be unaffected by that construction. No other trees of the size large enough to be controlled by city ordinance are seen here that would be affected and for that reason no tree protection specifications are necessary in this case. Respec y submitt a~ B e D. Coate , BDC/sl • • PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 19, 2002 000020 r L Attachment 3 March 18, 2002 ~~. Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga 1.3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review and Variance Application for Additions and Alterations to Residence 20802 Norada Court, Saratoga, CA Application #02-008 (A.P.N. 366-027-006) Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, The planning department staff encouraged us to meet with our immediate neighbors to show them the proposed remodeling of our home. This letter is to inform you of meetings and conversations we havetiad with our neighbors regarding our application. During the past 2 months, we have met with all of our immediate neighbors on Norada Court to show them our proposed plans. All of them have been very enthusiastic and supportive of the plans that we have submitted to the city. We are listing their names and addresses here: Ted and Jean Reback 20814 Norada Court Beirne and Cynthia Shuffle 20811 Norada Court Fred Francisco 20797 Norada Court Vincent and Shei Cheng 20775 Norada Court Chuck and Mary Page 20790 Norada Court Josh Rosenberg and Mary Chay 20788 Norada Court Barry and Meredith Sudderth 20764 Norada Court Caryl Fairfull 20753 Norada Court Kenji and Fanny Armstrong 20752 Norada Court E. Tsai 20776 Norada Court ooQo21 Re: Design Review and Variance Application for Additions and Alterations to Residence 20802 Norada Court, Saratoga, CA • In addition, we also contacted 3 of the nearest neighbors behind us. On February 10th, we mailed, them each a letter asking if they would like to get together to discuss our proposed plans. These neighbors are listed here: Terrence Mudrock and Sue McFarland 12222 Beauchamps Lane Richard and Nancy Leasia 12250 Beauchamps Lane Mike Kelley and Jill Huchital 12278 Beauchamps Lane Sue McFarland talked with us on the phone on February 17th. She said that they felt our addition would have minimal impact on them because of the distance between our houses and the substantial number of trees. They had no concerns. On February 27th, we spoke with Mike Kelley and Jill Huchital. They were appreciative of our letter and expressed some interest in the project, but were not sure if they would have time to look at our plans. They said they would call us back if they wanted to get together. On March 2"d, we sent afollow-up letter to the Leasias as we had no response to our first . letter. Dick Leasia called us back on March 5th. We described the main points of the remodel on the phone, and recommended that he and his wife meet with us to see the drawings and discuss the plans. Dick said he would speak with his wife and get back to us if they wanted to meet. He also said they might instead go to the city to view the plans. We appreciate that discussing plans with neighbors is beneficial to all concerned, and.we have made a concerted effort to provide our neighbors with the opportunity to do so. We have designed our plans to minimize any impact to our neighbors. All of the neighbors who have looked at our plans with us are very supportive. We greatly appreciate the time they have spent with us and have found their comments helpful. We believe we have followed all of the requirements of the City Ordinance. Thank you for your thorough review of our project and our need for this remodeling. Your approval of our application is truly appreciated. Sincerely, ` ~~ ~`~ ~~'~ , ~~ Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs • 000022 January 14, 2002 Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga 1.3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review Application for Additions and Alterations to Residence 20802 Norada Court, Saratoga, CA Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission, We are writing this letter, accompanying our application for Design Review of a two-story addition to our home, to present a very unusual situation we find that has complicated the process. We respectfully request your assistance to accept and approve our project because of the reasons presented in this letter. We bought our house on Norada Ct. in the summer of 1997. We loved the beauty and charm of Saratoga, and were delighted to be able to purchase a home in this lovely neighborhood. Since we knew that we most likely would need a larger home, it was important to us to find a place where an addition would easily fit in with the neighboring houses. We selected this neighborhood of predominantly two-story houses because a 2"d story addition would fit in. Before purchasing this house, we found out that the sellers had already received approval from the planning commission for about an 1100 square foot addition, including a 2"~ story. In February 1999, we called the Saratoga planning department to understand the rules and what we were allowed to add. We teamed that the previous owner's plans had expired in October 1998. We also learned of a rule change -that we could no longer apply for an exception to the floor area reduction based on height. So, although the previous owners had been approved to add 1130 square feet with roof height of 24 ft, we would only be allowed 808 square feet for 24 ft high roof (864 sq. ft for 23 ft high, 920 sq. ft for 22 ft high.) In March 1999, we went to the city and checked the records on file. We copied the square footage information, etc. from the files. We also confirmed with planner Christina Radcliffe in person that all the information provided over the phone was correct. After visiting the city, we experimented with ideas for making our addition within 800 - 900 square feet. In spring 2000, we selected the architectural .firm Warren Heid and Associates to plan our remodel, and proceeded forvvard with real plans based on the square footage numbers we-had obtained from the planning department. In the course of designing our remodel, our architect discovered that the information we had obtained from the planning department misstated the square footage of the "existing structure". The existing structure was actually larger, so the amount of square footage we were allowed to add was less than what we had been told. We were totally shocked by this finding. I of3 ~ooO~3, ~. ~ Re: Design Review App, lion for Additions and Alterations to Residence f 20802 Norada Court, Saratoga, CA We had accepted the information from the planning department staff in good faith and invested considerable time, effort and money to move the project ahead based on this information. Since discovering this error, we have worked hard on a variety of plan alternatives. Of all the plans, we feel that the one now being presented to you best satisfies the goals of: • Fits nicely in the neighborhood. The proposed plan is compatible with existing houses in the neighborhood, minimizes the perception of bulk, and respects privacy and views. • Good architectural design • Satisfies our requirements • Preserves as much of existing structure as possible, so as to minimize impact to neighbors and us In our design, we have made an effort to keep the roof height low. At 22', it would be the lowest two-story house in our neighborhood. The proposed plan is within the total allowable square footage of 3710, but when you apply the floor area reduction rule, we are over the allowable by 149 square feet. We are requesting a variance to the "floor area reduction° rule. The intent of the floor area reduction rule was to discourage homeowners in predominantly 1-story neighborhoods from building tall two-story homes. Since we live in a predominantly two-story neighborhood (see enclosed two-story residence map), we feel that granting this variance would not violate the spirit of the ordinance. We also are of the opinion that the following meets the required findings for a variance: a) Special circumstances: We live on a cul-de-sac neighborhood with predominantly two- story homes. With strict enforcement of the floor area reduction rule, we could not meet-our need for the square footage required for our use. We are proposing a modestly sized 2"~ story. With strict enforcement of the floor area reduction rule, we would be unable to build a reasonable two-story plan in a neighborhood where two-story houses are common. Most of the houses on our street have square footage in the range of 3100 - 3600 square feet. The total allowed square footage for our lot size is 3710 (without reduction). Our proposed total square footage is reasonable compared to the other houses and fits within the total allowed square footage (without reduction). As outlined at the beginning of this letter, the Saratoga planning department informed us that we could add up to 920 square feet for roof height of 22 feet. The proposal before you only adds 867 square feet, well within the 920 square feet. b) Granting this variance does not constitute a special privilege and is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. There is a predominance of two-story houses in the neighborhood, therefore our ,plan is not inconsistent with our neighbors and the square footage is similar to other residences. ,The previous plan approved for this house was granted an exception to the floor area reduction rule, a decision supported by both the planning staff and planning 2 of 3 ©Q00~~ .- ~ i Re: Design Review App, Lion for Additions and Alterations to Residence 20802 Norada Court, Saratoga, CA commi sion. Clearl the i at that time found the re uest reasonable iven the s y, c ty, q 9 neighborhood. We also feel that there are unusual circumstances leading up to this situation (as outlined at the beginning of this letter). You will not have to deal with these same unusual circumstances again. c) Granting this variance is not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. d) The variance is not for any regulation pertaining to signs. e) The variance is not for any regulation pertaining to parking. Our request may seem unusual, but we feel that there have been unusual conditions leading us to this point. Throughout this entire process, we have tried to do the right thing and worked very hard to come up with the best plan possible. To put our request in perspective: 1. The neighborhood is already predominantly two-story homes. 2. Our proposed addition is much smaller than what had previously been approved (867 sq. ft instead of 1130 sq. ft). 3. The height of our proposed addition is lower than the previously approved plan (22 ft .instead of 24 ft) and lower than the two-story houses existing in the neighborhood. 4. We are only requesting a variance of 149 sq. feet. A variance to the floor area reduction rule would accommodate this and is reasonable given the intent of the ordinance. 5. We are only asking to add what the city informed us we could add. We have met with some of our immediate neighbors to show them our plan and we feel that we have their support for the plan as submitted. Thank you for your assistance to understand our problem. Your support and approval of our request for a Variance, and for the Design Review as presented, is truly appreciated. `~S"in~cerely, Kath Hsu and Gre rrou hs Y 9 9 • 3 of 3 flQ~0~5 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 00006 • • i Richard and Nancy Leasia 12250 Beauchamps Lane Saratoga, California 95070 March 19, 2002 HAND DELIVERED Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Sazatoga, CA 95070 Re: Application #02-008 (366-027-003) Hsu/Burroughs, 20802 Norada Ct. To the Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission: We have resided at 12250 Beauchamps Lane, Saratoga, for the past 11 and a half years, directly behind the property which is the subject of the referenced Application. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed addition and discussed them with the Ms. Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner, City of Sazatoga. We have also discussed the plans with the applicants. After these reviews, we find that we have serious objections to the proposed addition. Privacy Issue When we were looking to purchase a home in Sazatoga 11 and a half years ago, we were specifically looking for asingle-story home that was not surrounded by two- story homes that could invade the privacy of our house and backyard. We were advised that the homes which were built on the east side of-Beauchamps Lane some 13 yeazs ago were all one-story. The City of Saratoga had mandated that the developer of Beauchamps not build any two-story homes on that side of the street in response to complaints from the existing neighbors on Norada Ct. Lowena Ct., and St. Joan Ct., who were worried that two story homes duectly in back of them would interfere with their views of the hillside, and would look down directly into their yazds. This prohibition against two-story homes on the east side of Beauchamps Lane was incorporated into the CC&Rs for the development, and were recorded with the Santa Clata County Recorder's Office on December 19, 1986. Thus, we were assured there would never be any two- story homes on either side of us. And we specifically chose our home at 12250 Beauchamps Lane because the two existing homes backing up to ours were one-story. If the owners of those homes didn't want atwo-story home looming over them, neither did we. Our home has a swimming pool in the backyard, directly behind the applicants' property. We enjoy sunbathing by our pool, and often dine outside on the patio. The side of the applicants' home that currently faces our backyazd has no windows that look 0~00~`7 ~ ~ onto our pool or dining area. [See attached photograph.] The same cannot be said of the proposed addition. The plans appear to add 2-3 new windows to the existing side of the house facing our yard, and the proposed second story has a window facing west, above and into our pool area. The Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga states in Policy #3: "Residential privacy is a key ingredient in the quality of life in Saratoga." We strongly believe that the proposed second. story addition and the addition of 2-3 windows on the west side of the existing home aze an unwarranted invasion of the privacy we have enjoyed for the past 11 and a half yeazs. We strongly believe that a new purchaser of an existing single-story residence should not be allowed to add a second story that infringes on the pre-existing neighbors' peace, quiet and privacy, and request that the Saratoga Planning Commission be sensitive to the concerns of those neighbors. Variance to the "floor area reduction rule" Issue The applicants are also seeking a variance to the floor area reduction rule. The houses in the neighborhood immediately behind applicants' are far less densely developed, and it was cleazly an expectation of ours when we purchased our home that the density would not be increased in the surrounding areas. ~ We are concerned that the proposed home, at 3,636 sq. feet, would simply be too much house for the size of the lot, especially given that it would be two stories tall and overlook our one-story home. For the reasons we have set forth in this letter, we wish to strongly object to the Planning Commission granting approval to the requested second-story addition and additional west-facing windows. yours, Richard A. ~~~~ Nancy A. L is • ~~0~,~8 • • oooo~~ ~Jie~w o~ li c~.nf's ems; ~h'~ 11.e~~ -~or.~ ~- ~ a~ • March 14, 2002 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, My husband and I live at 20753 Norada Court. I am writing to show my support for the addition to Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs' home at 20802 Norada Court. I was invited along with another couple to look at Kathy and Greg's house plans. We all felt that the plans look great and match the style and size of the other houses in our neighborhood. Therefore, we hope you will approve the addition to their house. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, C. Can-1 Fairfull • oooo~Q March 12, 2002 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REF: Application by Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs 20802 Norada Ct. Dear Members of the Planning Board We want to support the application by Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs for an addition and remodel to their residence at 20802 Norada Court. We live across the street at 20797 Norada Court and fully support the addition and remodel. Kathy and Greg met with us to explain and answer any questions regarding their design. We discussed the plans and talked about the addition. We feel that what they have submitted fits well with our neighborhood and will enhance and upgrade Norada Court. We discussed the cities requirement for a variance based on the proposed remodel. Understanding that the city is looking out for the neighborhood we as neighbors find the proposal reasonable and acceptable and ask that the variance be approved. This is a case of a family needing more space to raise a family. Families make good neighbors and good neighborhoods make better cities. Help make Saratoga a great city and vote to approve these plans and variance as submitted. ...~ Fred and Diane Francisco 20797 Norada Court Saratoga, CA. 95070 cc: Kathy and Greg • 00003 March 13, 2002 Planning Commission City of Sazatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sazatoga, CA 95070 Re: Design Review and Variance Request for 20802 Norada Ct. (#02-008) Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We are writing to express our support for the application by Greg Burroughs and Kathy Hsu for an addition to their house at 20802 Norada Court. We live 2 doors down from them at 20788 Norada Court. Greg and Kathy have shown us their house plans. We feel the interior floorplan as well as the exterior of the house look very nice. The addition fits in nicely with the other houses on the cul-de-sac, most of which aze already 2-story. We like their plans and recommend that you approve them. Thank you for your consideration. • S' erely, / J ~ Josh Rosenberg and Mary y ~ GOt~f ~~ 0.04032 • March 10, 2002 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We are writing to recommend you approve the application by Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs for an addition and remodel to their residence at 20802 Norada Court. We live next door at 20814 Norada Court. Kathy and Greg met with us to present and discuss their house plans. We feel their proposed addition looks very nice and matches the character of our neighborhood. The second story addition will not impact our privacy. The only window facing our house looks on a wall and is also screened by tall shrubs. We also understand that their proposal includes a variance. We support the plans and variance as presented, and hope you will give your approval. Thank you. ;%/~,.~ Ted and Jean Reback 20814 Norada Ct. ~o~~~~ March 10, 2002 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We would tike to express our support for Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs' application for an addition to their home at 20802 Norada Court. We live at 20764 Norada Court. Kathy and Greg have reviewed their design plans with us. They also explained that they are requesting a variance. The design matches the neighborhood very well with respect to both the design style and size. In fact, the proposed addition looks like it could have been built with the original development. We feel that this addition will enhance the neighborhood and hope that you will approve their application. Thank you. Regards, Barry and Meredith SudderthMeredith Sudderth • -,~~~1~~ '~ ,~~ ~Ifl~~ 000034 ~_ March 11, 2002 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, ~ . We would like to express our support for the application by Kathy Hsu and Greg Burroughs for an addition to their home at 20802 Norada Court. We live at the end of the cul-de-sac at 20811 Norada Court. We have met with Kathy and Greg and discussed their proposed addition, including the variance request. Their proposed addition fits nicely with this neighborhood and we hope you will give the plans pour support. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Beirne nd Cynthia Shuffle ~ • • 00403 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000036 • _ , S N S1 ~ ~ In (6 ~. L F < F e ^ r -~ C ~ - n w Y _ "o ~'' ~~ '~ ~ -s oa v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p PiU. ~ _ ~ .. rVr w AO 31NM0 ~ v u Nla a] ~lu~ ~ ;:= v ou r C u Z W>i k" NC_ - W W °y ~'~ ~ y~y N a ~`~~ - h~p_ ~ /i.-~~l <ria~o bw ., ~ F ., ~ ~ ar q ° ° ~~ . fAIE d, ~s~y Y Jai m S .. G E u W 9 C i t tl ~ ~ j- J v w a ~ t a a T E ~ ~ ~ ao 3as~ ~~`~ .~ ~ ~~+~:. lo. xa : ro ~ ;, A ONOIIOI H ~' ~ ~ "min°c` .c`~,.: ~ cF`r Il ~ i p'~. d 3 f -moo c ~"s~ W alp .... ~ ~ ?\ ~, .~. t'~ 3 of w w~W w.:l4w w.W.w ~ ~ - °' 0.3, ~=_ u o u° m w-. m -~~~ 1 tlNlh J ~ a NIl au v" m w w d o 0 w n" ~ ° AN00 Nl Oa`-~ dp ~~ - ~ ptl03 • ~ ~ 0 oa w~ -.wmm 0 ~~ •• o ~~ mom N c = o ..•.,. c n• i `=• ° •• .`, a .. YN -'011a111 N a'S v a miry ~ < ~ 4 0 - u a :, „ > a ~ .. ' - m .-. ~.i rv m W '" t- ~`i v° a ~ w w c. .'". ~ -c. a • - - t Q ~ w tCU •+ ci H 9 a s y 0~ n L Lam` d- V U : O - .30i O' ~ L -. ..0. ~ y _a N w V n h 4 rv ~ -"-.~ _ .~ M ~- P-. ac•-a z e.o eaim .T+ew ~ a.~m_ Q ~ •: - .ze 7l` sw O O~ G n d O~ m 4 o O G C w G Y z x O~ x .~-: O H ~G'J ; m 3 LL J~_ .- ~ ° =4 •1 M C f w ~ ~. .~ .n - _" A t Osu N O - M - n :v > Jl o -1 ->. -' w C - n u t N U-C U m F - ~ - _ - .. - - -_. _ _ - -- _ -- _ ~-l S~ ~.. _ ~0 _zl r~ ~ ~. . 0 ' ~ .... ~i1N3lCJ l~ N N N~wOW C O.. m P~ h 'O •~ ~ ~ °H In 7 o c .-. m - ~ v u ~ «~ m .-• E v; „ w ~ „ lY dd 1 / C o a -°~ oiorv~vuo P`O vmrno In .`.: ~ ~oc~~m cPy ~`- 10 ;+~y+w a A F-~ W a o~. s o coca a, u ~ ~nN z1 "osc c e ~ u 130 LiE~ ~.°~ iqq+LR z ~~w .°no~wr'~cv~ ~.,r:.~-+mo cw z w>•y~.oip wF v °'4~v°a ~ Atl O~ '=e~' ~ Tiow o wou w ~ V PVI~ h 4m sow-+c~ o .,t.•m an -a> ^ e r F ~ U V .~ N~ N S S d ~ ~ u~ = 0 d O w m D F u E u "O .. o« m O n .. v~ C~ ~ Q G I U -/ 4 N M• • F I N PU 7 G 41ti tv F ~'i 4 u.n pV d w'O U R P P3.^. w~ ..d p ~D P O fA C L: pq N N L O 4 M~ 7 0 .n N fu O N .~ d C 4 u u w J 7 ° ` •• 11 ; OC K ul o o~ ~. i a m ti W .n c~ OG O a m U C Mi p m 4 n 0 d y P i 3 m 0. m w m U C T 1. -y O G 'O y' fu i O ` t a ~~- O P n w C l+ Q E 6 41 .C u 0 :+ O -+ IE N ~ ~ 7 OJ ~• W Y ~ 7 ~+ w 2 S: G u D V N rv .a ~ U N O C 4 h ~+ Q N C O 41 U u _N O- ~ h 4 U O d Pw Srv'+ Kl7 F..+ Na w p y N b u 3 P d ~ 3 N `N ~;ye+l J ~ CWa ~ F ZO T~N 60UM 4N W rJON dG0 F .O~OWq w C Tu ONC9..r '' Lr / 1 ~ ~- ~ NCO V d m N N G~ -+ / -+ 2] v u .On d U ~- C 9 d 9 ~ u N U -+ ; - '~ V' • O 1~ G O b O 0 L % 9 O O O ~~dd d u e L M u -O P .y u> ) ' ..~ 4 4 rjNXD'NP.4 G. .] ZW /. FFF U: A;Q 'J P O Y. > 'C N OV ~ S a~ ~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W OO U u G O O U L L C N W~ 6 A A U 9 Y w P t + r ~c --i d F~ F vl N E 6 C F u f~ d 4 ?• ~ ~Q~-~ ~ ~p O H / ('/V 7\I 10 0.d ~ .. sue` \ ~ ~ ~' ~~I ~ ~~ 215. c~ :. ~,~ - ~IQ uoe.o. corer 1. ~ IJ N ~ N •~ X` ' ~" us nt T [J , .~.. - s e o Zi / 4 1. ~~~-,, ~- ;y1 ,. y: _ _ _ _ 1~U~ ~•~ w.FN [ou4T y 11 ~^ ~ ~i '~, ~: g•N~ a ,. :'z 1 d,IN ~. :~ ,' - _ ~ , '' t „_ ~ I~ ---- __ ______ ___ ,, 6- 1^-1. ~~. .Z ,~ St JDeN CDU RT p I I I ~ ~ r n 1L. O i - 3 ~ ~° J . oq .C.~. sy.9~_.d`coaNS•~1w_,\ ~~so.85 ~b4t-I 1 w ~ 4 Al . ~ - _ - - - - - "_~- I ' i, ~ ~ 3 a. ~ - ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~' o. ` ,' --1----- ,, o; 8~ j , ~ ----- - ~; ~ ' i+l ~ ~ ~ a ~. d y ~~ 7~ no.ill ~, a ~ ~ - f--- ~~v4 3~i ..o-5F -- _I R I s 7' -- - v]: d ~ - ~ Lam,, i - ; v ~~ 1 ~ ~ C: U ~ >o~ 9~ o ~ o . ' ~ I ~~ i ----7 y o„ ~i ~ a a ~I' ~~ . ~~G, ~ ~ ~~ J t0 h d i} ~ I ~y ~ ~° ~~~i - - ~ :~= ' ~ ~ _ \...,\ V,-~ f~Tl 'r._e \' ~~ _q "-T'~•~ --~,~ _. -_ ~'~ ~aH '~cti-~'C r3'I o`'T~ I : a / 1 ~~,~-`, ' ~ - `,y ~, k I _ L~ az`. :' u ~ m n• 5, 1 e a r ~ r 3~ a ~ n o (~ ~ `.F c d o d _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~'/ ~ \ • d a ~~ _ - _ ~ ~ S • • • Q - ~~ ~ Q ~ O ~s ~ #$8~: ~ N ~i V U ~ N ~i _-~ F Y3 '- - S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~~~ ~~ ,' ; - Sk~~ ''~ S +~ -'~ CS :r, i _ _ --- c~tl O V ~ S ~ Q ~~ -"rte'- ~~ ~` ~Q V ~ > ~ ~L c~ E t~'~x~``~ a`RE a ~~ ~~ T ., S ~.. ~ 3 j L ~ O ~ ~ \ s ~ ~ ~. ~ Q h -_ N ~ ~ ~ O ~. 1V ~ V L M ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N 3 v. ~ ~ ~ 7~ • • • ~ ~ ~~ ,~j u " ~ ~ Q ~ ~O F i~~.t. `U u ~ e~ = ~ z S N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ c• s (~f \`\ T ~ ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~ ~(~ ~ ~ r-r ti w ~ e~ z r ~ ~ ~ - s 5 v ~~_` V ~i (R L~~ ~ ~ ? ~~ ~ ~` ~u 5 i i~ r. ~ U `~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ W `~ L +' ~~ N ~ S / y ~ ~- f"M ` YO: /~~ ~~m ~ L ~ fS ~ j C W `( y X11 ~ Y ~V V~ 3 s 3 ~ ~ I ~~ ~ I ~ I I n 4 0 d d 4 0 1 2 N - I ~~ ~~ ~'~ r ~~_ i i l I- i ~I !. il: 4 ~E Li ~ ir:,c ~u I II I~ 'lil •'•: f ~'II - n! ~N ii ~~'i l l; I ~ _ ~Ii ~- -~ r-~ I I ~, ~ '' ;;II ~ -- -- ; ~ :i~:l' d ~ , 1 i I I -~ _ -- -- - -- - - ----- I ~ o-yy ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~I --. ~1 ~ i ,,,;- ~ , ,~~ ~ y o ~, ~ ~~; ~o~ I I . r ~ I I .1 1 ~ tip o ' ~I r ~ I ~ j I I: ~I~ i I ~i ~ i, I ~ I ~, - ~ -- ~---I` ,nS ~~ ,F ~~ ~~ • ~ • Q L ~'~ ~~ ~i ~ _. i... ~, Q ~ 3~ _,~;t< S ~ f1 ~ ~ ~ _ -'= ' f ~~ M~ S v ~S. ~C. fi b' ? r t Y~ 2 r ~ T ~ L ~ ~ ~ S V ~~ C^l ~j ,~~.. i r~inn; :~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ y 7 ~ V Q ~ ~ ~ ` - S: Gs~fi~G a3 La .~ 1 1^ S ~. v a .,. ~~ ~ ~ ~ -° ~~\ ~ ~ N S ~ ~~ r, ~ i ~ ~ U - N ~ ~ ~ N [\ p a S J ~ ` ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~1. -~ ~` V --- • • • n ~~ _ S M S ~ ~ Q. w. 4. _ Cf~y i ~ ~ Q zN O G` .. (~ ` S ~ Q J S V y ~ ~ ~ U ~;w yir n`'s: ~ ~ - ~~~iLl a-i -N N^• 1 (R \ ~ ~ S O Q O ~ ~ ~ ?_ d s Y ~ a g ~ 4 ~L N ~ ~ ~ ~ OZS f~ ~ 3` ~ . 1 . ~3 ~ i I ~ ,: f ~ I I ' ~ ~ _ .~_ • • • Q ~~ F N ~ ~~ W v U V a]~" y_ ~ S `U N `~ ~ S ill ('~ ~ ~ ~ae ~ ~T: S C ~ ~ ~ -+, ~ Y i ~ ~~ - Q i N _ RSA ,_ S ~ ~ ~ , "' ~ G( ~ ~ a ~ ~ v v ~ ~~ fz_- _` e% z ~ c L tf~ Q ~ U v 1 d~ ~ L v ~ /~ 'J ~ e1 qi ro l G ' s„ ~ :4 z - -~&s~~s cQ ~. S r- C. L 3 ~ C ~ `J ~. L V ~' ~ ~-~ ~ °~ Z V J \ S ~ ,~ Q ~ ~ N ~: 4 3 ~ ~ $ ~ ~ • • s i ~ .\ \\\ ,~~ `\, i it ~ i_n a c ~ ~ - a ~ ~ ~~G ~ b~~d y _ il ~ E - _ $ A' oQ . a8 . y 3~ _ d ~A N q d `~,'h6pd S, to O ~ ~ z v ~ 0 ~ I ~ ~ 3 _ _ V P o ] Q }~ V ' ~ Ua~ ~ ~ NF '~ - =N " <" i ~~~ _ Nmm m W ZW~ o V OJW ~ _ c~ _ . ~ ;y _ <.. r __ o V ~ ~ ~ _ - ~' i I : __ " U ^ i I~ ~ ~o 0 w ~ w ~ ~ Ji ~.. .; n~ ~ ~~ _ I y F ~ A 5 ~ I u I _ LLLL I _ ~ ~, ~ o - - ,i , -- ~~, ~~ _- ;!, =WU ~ I - ~i ~Iw boa g ,. , yoa° ~ I ¢ II q'o -~ in o ~ o ~p~Z ~ ~ J N 1 ' i .Z. ~ ~ - m ~ ~I N ~ I <~~ ~, ~'~ ~, _, \ ~ ~ ~' • b_~«~,~ rcl~ ~I I I; ii li ~~ ))i i /I • s • . ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 02-044, Conditional Use Permit; 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Applicant/Owner: Longay Guitar Center (tenant); Mammini Corporation Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner L/ Date: March 27, 2002 APN: 386-52-032 Est 033 Department Head: i I I ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ >, jrt- C i ; I ~~ Q j ~ I I L ~I ~ li i VJ i L i ~ I ~ I ~ , ~~ ~ I i i ~ i - I I i I I ,~ ~ I i I ~ Seagull Way r '~ ' 'i j ~ 1 i ~ ~ - N. ~ !~ 2 ~ 200 40 ~ Feet----~ i ____ ~ ~. 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 03/OU02 03/08/02 03/13/02 03/13/02 03/08/02 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish a music school in an existing commercial space. The 1,733 square foot commercial space is located in a small shopping center along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at the intersection of Seagull Way. The applicant will be providing lessons in classical guitar. Establishment of a music school in the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 15-19.020 of the Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Plans, Exlribit "A" 3. Applicant's Brochure. • Q-00002 File No. 02-044;12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road STAFF ANALYSIS S ZONING: C-N, Neighborhood Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 24,372 squaze feet (both parcels) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSID: No exterior changes aze proposed ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). • • 000003 File No. 02-044;12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road PROJECT DISCUSSION_ The Longay Guitar Center has been occupying and conducting music lessons at the 1,733 squaze foot commercial space at the subject site since the bea nning of this yeaz. The tenant space was previously occupied by a property management office. Staff was unawaze of the existence of this music school until the applicant applied for a business license last month. The applicant was then informed by Staff that no music instructions maybe conducted at the subject site until a Conditional Use Permit approval is granted by the Planning Commission. The 1,733 squaze foot tenant space is situated in a S,97S square foot commercial building that also has a dry cleaners, a convenience mazket and a hair salon as tenants. Across the street are a funeral home and more shopping/office complexes. The Longay Guitar Center, previously located in Cupertino, was founded 19 years ago and provides instruction in classical guitar primarily to children 3-17 years in age. The music school has 1 director/teacher, 2 apprenticeslteachers and 1 office assistant, and offers mainly private lessons during weekdays and group lessons on Saturdays. Music School as a ConditionallyPernzitted Use • A music school is classified as an institutional facility pursuant to 15-06.380 of the Municipal Code. Establishing a music school in the C-N zoning district requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. Parking and Circulation Parking for the Longay Guitar Center is pro«ded on-site with 23 spaces in front and 14 spaces at the rear of the building. Of the tota137 parking spaces, 3 spaces in front of the adjacent dry cleaners are mazked for 10 minute parking only. Pursuant to Section 1S-35.030 of the Municipal Code, the adjacent retail and service establishments on the subject site tota14,242 square feet-and require 21 parking spaces, leaving 16 spaces for the music school. Pursuant to Section 15-35.030(g), the required number of spaces for the Longay Guitar Center is one space per employee, and any additional number of spaces as maybe prescribed by the Planning Commission. The subject music school will therefore require a minimum of 4 spaces for each employee described above. The applicant has indicated to Staff that there will be 4-6 vehicles at any given time during weekdays, corresponding to the 4 studio spaces for private lessons shown on the attached floor plan. Therefore, a total of 10 spaces for students- and employees will be typically required during any given time during the weekdays. On Saturday mornings, the applicant has indicated that 2-3 vehicles will be at the premises at any given time. Staff finds that the available 16 pazking spaces will be sufficient for the Longay Guitar Center on typical weekdays and Saturday mornings. `OQ0004 File No. 02-044;12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road However, the applicant also proposes to have group classes that will result in 15-20 vehicles at the site approximately two times per month on selected Saturday afternoons. Additional activities that will not occur on a regular basis include: pazent education sessions with 6-10 participants; occasional solo recitals; and an annual teacher development workshop involving 6-10 trainees and 1 trainer held on weekends. Staff finds that during the above described group sessions or solo recitals, 20 vehicles in addition to 4 employee vehicles can be accommodated on-site, leaving 13 spaces for the adjacent dry cleaners, convenience market and the hair salon. In order to ensure that there are parking spaces for the adjacent businesses, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that 3 additional spaces in front of the convenience market be mazked as 10. minute pazking, and 3 pazking spaces at the reaz of the building be mazked for exclusive use by the hair salon employees and customers. Staff would like to monitor the impacts of the additional pazking needs on the surrounding businesses and homes during group gatherings at the Longay Guitar Center. Staff has added a condition of approval that requires a 6 month and a 12 month review of this Conditional Use Permit, and that any non-compliance issues will be presented to the Planning Commission for review. Economic DevelopmentAnalysis The music school is occupying a space that is easily visible from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The music school, which already has an established student base, will increase the number of people who will frequent the small shopping center and will be beneficial to all .businesses located at and near the center. Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday: 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Selected Saturday afternoons: 2:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Sunday: CLOSED Staff has not placed a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation to those stated above to allow the owner greater flexibility for any future adjustments to the hours of operation. Signage The applicant has refaced the preexisting interior illuminated cabinet sign prior to obtaining a Sign Permit. The applicant has since applied for a Sign Permit, and the application is currently under Staff review. • ~~ODrJ File No. 02-044; i2302Samtoga-Sunnyvale Road Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. Conclusion Staff feels that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: The Longay Guitar Center meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Sazatoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses, and will be conveniently located to provide an educational service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities; and • The Longay Guitaz Center will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaze, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and • The Longay Guitaz Center will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • 00006 File No. 02-044;12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. ~~ Application No. 02-044 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Longay Guitar Center (tenant) Mammini Corporation (owner);12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a music school in an existing tenant space; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: • The Longay Guitaz Center meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Sazatoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses, and will be conveniently located to provide an educational service to the residents of Saratoga and neighboring vicinities; and • The Longay Guitaz Center will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to propemes or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and • The Longay Guitaz Center will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Sazatoga Municipal Code. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: ooooo~ File No. 02-044;12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road PLANNING 1. _ The music school shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit "A". 2. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The Planning Staff shall review this Conditional Use Permit in six months and twelve months from the date of this approval, and upon receipt of any complaints. Any non-compliance issues shall be reported to the Planning Commission. 4. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 5. Three parking spaces in front of the convenience store shall be marked as 10 minute parking spaces, and three parking spaces at rear of the building shall be marked for exclusive use by the hair salon employees and customers. 6. The damaged roof above the existing Longay Guitar Center sign shall be repaired. • 7. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga vvithm two weeks from the date of project approval. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The applicant shall provide and mount per manufacturer's instructions, one 2a:lObc rated fire extinguisher. 10. If the existing building is equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, the existing system shall be modified to accommodate the new design. Note: This applies only if a) the building is equipped with fire sprinklers and b) if any wall or ceiling modification occurred to make it necessary to change the fire sprinkler . design. CITY ATTORNEY 11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. • ~00~~8 File No. 02-044;12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road :, 12. 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. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution 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 Sazatoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. -. • • 000009 File No. 02-044;1202 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 27th day of March 2002 by the following roll call vote: -- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property , Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~~00~0 is ~~ == ~ ~ ~ - N ~ 0 a 0 0 '-.- ~ - _ ~ '~ , e~ N Ea' ~ oC ~ , _ ~ --. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ; q - -- 0 00 Q u~ G '==. ; z o r ~ '" ~ s.s ~ 3 M.n ~ w r p ~ ,{. ~ ~~` `.=' .. y. ~ a s ~ ~ Q Fi - a r~ C . ~ ~~ ~ r U ~ ~ O ~~ ~ ~'~ i _~ ~ _ ~" DoE f m~a '.ice ~ G'CC ; ~ U e0 ` f C ~~{ ,ltlM 1'1f19vBS - -- 9N~dt~~SONV'1 . .. _ - 71"7V~'Td41S ~rndv~sanv-i '~j' '~` - _-___ ___~ _________ -__ q ~ Z .-.. O y _ . - ,:-r y ~~ ti ~ - i _ ~ d ~ ~ w ~ ~~ ~ , ~ w ~ ' / ' - ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ m W~ ~ ~~ ' I/ I T -- ~--~} o Y ~ / a u ~ a do O I Y ~ ~ / ~ Z a < ) a N / ~\ \ W ~I d ! / '~ ~ ! / ! ~ / I ~ / ~- ~ / ~~ !~ - / J m. I / z a ' - ~~. m --- ~ v Z / - ~rviev~soNV~ ~ 0 ~ LLp fl' O / \ n EESO~s~E~so~ OLOS6 E!u~o~!Ia~ 'a6o~eaaS paoa alsni(uunS-a6o~a~eS 'S ZOEZ L Jlla3dOad 31b~aOdaO~ INIWWb~W a31N3~ bb~llflJ AdJNO~ ~ . O Q W I, U --~~ a o I ~ ; I w J a p a ___ ~ ~ ~ a Q ~ ~ '~ a I ~ ~ I i -t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I , j ~ Q i J U 2 l N I I w Z ~ ` z h , ~ ; ~ < W ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ w x w W °z •'~ °--L G".. t~3^ ~ - 4 •;.'{t•:•$5.~~~[:,.:;~.~::..~....;, sue` : ~`•r~•:'.'~:":'~:~.••::•• ~ s'~i ~S •.~.. z:. ••, •'.•. ~~~ ~.;~. ~~: `~~~ a6eao~s ~;: (~unlloull) ._ • ~~ ,l ZOOZ`8Z ~JDnJga~ :pas!naJ •~} •bs £EL L OL056 D!uJO~!!D, `D60}DJD$ puoa a~DN(uuns-D6o~DJDS ZO£Z L ~l31N3~ 2!t/ll(1J JIdJNOI •' • r -- M1 ~ • L_J ~. ~'. ~~~=- ~ ITEM 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: #02-047; Modification of ApprovaU 14771 Montalvo Road Applicant/Owner: Mehcli and Lorraine Siadat Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Assistant Planner Date: Mazch 27, 2002 APN: 517-19-040 Department Head: 14771 Montalvo Road • 000001 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 3/4/02 Application complete: 3/7/02 Notice published: 3/13/02 Mailing completed: 3/13/02 Posting completed: 3/8/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant seeks a modification of Resolution # DR-99-006 which approved with conditions the construction of the single family dwelling on the above noted property. The specific condition at issue is that which requires dedication of a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement at the northeastern end of the property. The easement is to connect Montalvo Road with Vickery Avenue. The purpose of the pedestrian trail easement was to eliminate the need to venture onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road when walking to the connecting trail that runs parallel to that road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the requirement for the trail be eliminated from Resolution #DR-99~-006 due to the fact that pedestrian or other access pathways may reasonably be required only in connection with subdivisions or sites requiring building site approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Neighborhood Petirion.from Applicant and letter from neighbor 3. Plans, Exhibit °A° • • 000002 -_ - s STAFF ANALYSIS _____ - ZONING: R-1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD -Residential Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 44,480 Sq. ft. net lot azea PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant seeks a modification of Resolution # DR-99-006 which approved with conditions the construction of the single family dwelling on the above noted property. The specific condition at issue is that which requires dedication of a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement at the northeastern end of the property. The easement is to connect Montalvo Road with Vickery Avenue. The purpose of the pedestrian trail easement is to eliminate the need for pedestrians to venture onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road when walking to the connecting trail that runs parallel to that road. Developing the trail would require construction of a bridge, which traverses the drainage swale and storm drain that currently lies at the end of the property. The applicant is requesting that this condition be eliminated on the grounds of increased liability, excessive costs and loss of privacy. Staff recommendation that the trail easement condition be omitted is consistent with the decision on a similar application involving Design Review of the property at 21842 Via Regina. Here the Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts proposed that the applicant dedicate to the City as a condition of Design Review approval, the existing horse trail on their property. The applicant objected to this proposal and the City Attorney was asked to comment on the situation. The resulting opinion concluded that the Design Review process is intended to ensure that development is compatible with the site and adjacent surroundings and it does not establish the basis to require trail dedications as a condition of approval. The letter from Richard Taylor, Ciry Attorney dated November 16, 2001, identifies a number of provisions in the City Code that aze intended to require or encourage the dedication of trails or other forms of public access. The letter states that, "Section 14- 25.030(q) of the Saratoga City Code requires dedication of pedestrian or other access pathways as may reasonably be required in connection with proposed subdivisions and projects requiring building site approval" The letter also states that, "In the R-OS Zoning District the Code. contemplates voluntary trail dedications and in some circumstances allows the creation of substandard parcels to facilitate such dedications. In the Village's CH-2 Zoning District, the Code requires that twenty percent of the net site area be set aside as pedestrian open space. These and other provisions of the Code are further ~O~~~a~ indication that drafters of the Code did not-intend to require dedications as a part of the Design Review process." "Because nothing in the Design Review process requires dedication of trail and other public access easements, such dedications may not be required as a condition of design review". Given this analysis of the proposal for trail dedication, Staff must, in order to maintain consistency, recommend that the trail easement be removed as a condition of approval of the Design Review for the Siadat property. Correspondence Ten neighboring property owners have signed the applicant's petition supporting modification of the resolution. The petition requests that the resolution be modified to eliminate the trail requirement. Opposing modification of the resolution are two neighbors who affirm the need for a trail to alleviate the pedestrian hazards of walking in the road along that portion of Saratoga- Los Gatos Road. Conclusion Staff recommends elimination of the re uirement fora edestrian trail on the ounds q P ~ that Design Review does not establish a basis to require trail dedications. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Modification of Use application by adopting the Resolution attached to this Staff Report. • 000004 ~. - Attachment 1 __ _ RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 02-045 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Modification of Use to Resolution DR-99-006 to eliminate the requirement for a pedestrian trail easement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed revision to the resolution is~ Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the requirement for a trail easement is not within the purview of the Design Review process; Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of. Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After cazeful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for modification of use to eliminate the trail easement requirement in Resolution DR-99-006 is hereby granted: CITY ATTORNEY 11. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 12. 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. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. 0~~~05 ~- ~` r_ - 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission; State of California, this 27th day of Mazch, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: - ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~00~6 ,' -. ~ i~ NEIGHBOR PETITION TO CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PROJECT TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEDICATION OF A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Application No. DR 99- 006 14771 Montalvo Road, Sazatoga Planning Commission Meeting Datea _March 27, 2002 1. The undersigned aze all neighbors of the Siadats, who live at 14771 Montalvo Road, City of Saratoga. The Siadats' property is a long narrow piece of land that starts at Sazatoga-Los Gatos Road and runs uphill between Vickery Avenue and Montalvo Road. Our respective properties are all located-immediately across Montalvo Road or Vickery Avenue from the Siadats, and together run along the entire length of the Siadat property. Because of our proximity to the Siadat property, we are in a position to notice and be affected by all activities that occur on their property. 2. We are aware that for the last yeaz and a half, the Siadats have been building a new home on their property to replace their prior, much smaller home. 3. Before the Siadats began their project, strangers would on occasion cut across their narrow property at various places. Some of these people were joggers. Others were adults and teenagers driving bikes, motorcycles, four wheel drive vehicles, or other recreational vehicles. These activities not only affected our privacy, but also created noise impacts and safety concerns. 4. Since the Siadats' project started a year and a half ago, their property has been totally fenced off, thereby preventing strangers from cutting across their property and these disturbances and nuisances from occurring. We all have been very happy that the "cutoff" has been closed off during this time, because it has allowed us to once again enjoy the privacy that we assumed we would enjoy when we moved to this beautiful area of Saratoga. 5. We have recently learned, however, that before it will issue a final occupancy permit for the Siadats, the.City is requiring that they dedicate and improve a public path across their property at a point low down on the property, close to Sazatoga-Los Gatos Road. We also understand that the Siadats have discovered that due to the City's requirement of a drainage Swale down the center of the property, there would now have to be a four-foot high bridge over the ditch. We oppose the construction of this path and bridge. ;; 6. We understand that the Siadats have now requested a modification of their approved project to eliminate this public path and bridge. We all strongly support such a modification. The path would invite strangers and the general public to cut the corner between Vickery Avenue and Montalvo Road, rather than simply go another twenty feet and walk around the corner. 7. In fact, the path and bridge would invite mischief and present liability issues for the City as well as the Siadats. Bikers, motorcyclists, and skateboarders would have even less trouble ooooo~ [ -"~~ ~~. speeding across the property on an improved surface, risking injury to themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage Swale would invite children and teenagers to play on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed by the public, the Swale alone would invite children and teens to ride skateboards, motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles up and down its sides in the hope of getting "air." Assuming that the bridge would be somewhat raised, it would attract the same kind of activity. Public access would also invite children and others to play in the water during the rainy season, with potentially significant risks. 8. Even if these risks did not exist, our privacy, particularly the privacy of the two homes at either end of the path, would again be lost if the path were to be built, because all the strangers walking the path would look directly into the front yards of us neighbors. Again, we do not believe this is what the Planning Commission could have anticipated or intended and we support the requested modification. i ,/ Dated: Name: ~~. ~/ ~~~I~'~, Sign ~- ~/~' ~!/ Address y1 9~ Dated: ~ Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address - Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address • • • 0~~0~8 i \ ~~.'~ _._ ~~ speeding across the property on an improved surface, risking injury to themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage Swale would invite children and teenagers to play on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed by the public, the Swale alone would invite children and teens to ride skateboard_ s, motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles up and down its sides in the hope of getting "air." Assuming that the bridge would be somewhat raised, it would attract the same kind of activity. Public access would also invite children and others to play in the water during the rainy season, with potentially significant risks. 8. Even if these risks did-not exist, our privacy, particularly the privacy of the two homes at either end of the path, would again be lost if the path were to be built, because all the strangers walking the path would Look directly into the front yards of us neighbors. Again, we do not believe this is what the Planning Commission could have anticipated or intended and we support the requested modification. Dated: Name G"C~V ~ C1-1-S~~LL 0 Sign ~G~' °" _.n Address /~f'7 ~- ~ ~ ~.~1...~0~0 Dated: Name Y fCTl~' ~ 1} CA S~~o Sign ~~,~., Address / S~7 ~`~~ C~.-~-r~,.~ ~ F~ , ~J o ZO _ --~ Dated: Name Address, Dated: Name Address Dated: Name Address Sign Sign Sign Dated: Name Sign Address 000009 ``~, ~ '~. speeding across the property on an improved surface, risking injury to themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage Swale would invite children and teenagers to play on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed by the public, the swale alone would invite children and teens to ride skateboards, motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles up and down its sides in the hope of getting "air." Assuming that the bridge would be somewhat raised, it would attract the same kind of activity. Public access would also invite children and others_to play in the water during the rainy season, with potentially significant risks. 8. Even if these risks did _not exist, our privacy, particulazly the privacy of the two homes at either end of the path, would again be lost if the path were to be built, because all the strangers walking the path would look directly into the front yards of us neighbors. Again, we do not believe this is what the Planning Commission could have anticipated or intended and we support the requested modification. Dated: Name F2Aryc~S ~r42'1n.~/ Sign 3 ~Z~ Zoo2 Address ~ y Sao m~~.~~ ~~ ~ ~ Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address • • ~~00~0 i ~' speeding across the property on an improved surface, risking injury to themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage Swale would invite children and teenagers to play on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed by the public, the-Swale alone would invite children and teens to ride skateboards, motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles up and down its sides in the hope of getting "air." Assuming that the bridge would be somewhat raised, it would attract the same kind of activity. Public access would also invite children and others to play in the water during the rainy season, with potentially significant risks. 8. Even if these risks did not exist, our privacy, particularly the privacy of the two homes at either end of the path, would again be lost if the path were to be built, because all the strangers walking the path would look directly into the front yards of us neighbors. Again, we do not believe this is what the Planning Commission could have anticipated or intended and we support the requested modification. ~~ r\ Dated: Name ~Q-I~~S ~'T• I V~r~ Sign Address~ZD ~ ~t ~~ Dated: Name G.Ci~~QC~FT/~l ~ U~Pbtf n~Sign ~ ~ Address ~ [ (~~ ~ E Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address • 000011 -""~ ~ _~ `~_ speeding across the property on an improved surface, risking injury zo themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage swale would invite children and teenagers to play on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed by the public, the Swale alone would invite children and teens to ride skateboazds, motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles up and down its sides in the hope of getting "air." Assuming that the bridge would be somewhat raised, it would attract the same kind of activity. Public access would also invite children and others to play in-the water during the rainy season, with potentially significant risks. 8. Even if these risks did not exist, our privacy, particularly the privacy of the two homes at either end of the path, would again be lost if the path were to be built, because all the strangers walking the path would look directly into the front yazds of us neighbors. Again, we do not believe this is what the Planning Commission could have anticipated or intended and we support the requested modif cation. Dated: ~ a/d ~ ~ Date 3 ~a ~a Dated: Dated: ~~~ Name ~ ~, (mil 1 -~-~- Rat ~ Sign ~ + ~ J Ctnt Address ~ T ~'~ / V 1 G~ ~n ~., ~ \ l ~ ~ G~ tr.1~,~~G ~ l.. e Name ~ ~ ~ S u L ~t ~i4 R~.~ L Sign ~' 7L~c~i~~ Address. Name Address ~~ Sign s, Name - Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address liatea: Name sign Address ~~ • • 00012 ,, ~ , ,--~ ~~._ =.. ~ a~ NEIGHBOR PETITION TO CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PROJECT TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEDICATION OF A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Application No. DR 99- 006 rv 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga t: ~ Planning Commission-Mee Date: March 27, 2001 1. The undersigned aze all neighbors of the Siadats, -who live at 14771 Montalvo Road, City of Saratoga. The Siadats' property is a long narrow piece of land that starts at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and runs uphill between Vickery Avenue and Montalvo Road. Our respective properties are all located. immediately across Montalvo Road or Vickery Avenue from the Siadats, and together run along the entire length of the Siadat property. Because of our proximity to the Siadat property, we aze in a position to notice and be affected by all activities that occur on their property. 2. We aze awaze that for the last yeaz and ~a half, the Siadats have been building a new home on their property to replace their prior, much smaller home. 3. Before the Siadats began their project, strangers would on occasion cut across their narrow property at various places. Some of these people were joggers. Others were adults and teenagers driving bikes, motorcycles, four wheel drive vehicles, or other recreational vehicles. These activities not only affected our privacy, but also created noise impacts and safety concerns. 4. Since the Siadats' project started a yeaz and a half ago, their property has been totally fenced off, thereby preventing strangers from cutting across their property and these disturbances and nuisances from occurring. We all have been very happy that the "cutoff' has been closed off during this time, because it has allowed us to once again enjoy the privacy that we assumed we . would enjoy when we moved to this beautiful azea of Saratoga. 5. We have recently learned, however, that before it will issue a final occupancy permit for the Siadats, the City is requiring that they dedicate and improve a public path across their property at a point low down on the property, close to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. We also understand that the Siadats have discovered that due to the City's requirement of a drainage swale down the center of the property, there would now have to be a four-foot high bridge over the ditch. We oppose the construction of this path and bridge. 6. We understand that the Siadats have now requested a modification of their approved project to eliminate this public path and bridge. We all strongly support such a modification. The path would invite strangers and the general public to cut the corner between Vickery Avenue and Montalvo Road, rather than simply go another twenty feet and walk around the comer. 7. In fact, the path and bridge would invite mischief and present liability issues for the City as well as the Siadats. Bikers, motorcyclists, and skateboarders would have even less trouble 000013 e ~~ ~ .. - ,~ speeding across the property on an improved surface, risking injury~o themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage Swale would invite children and teenagers to play on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed by the public, the Swale alone would invite children and teens to ride skateboards, motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles up and down its sides in the hope of getting "air." Assuming that the bridge would be somewhat raised, it would attract the same kind of activity. Public access would also invite children and others to play iri the water during the rainy season, with potentially significant risks. 8. Even if these risks .did not exist, our privacy, pazticulazly the privacy of the two homes at either end of the path, would again be lost if the path were to be built, because all the strangers walking the path would look directly into the front yards of us neighbors. Again, we do not believe this is what the Planning Commission could have anticipated or intended and we support the requested modification. Dated: Name`s Sign ~-yf" - -~ -- ._ i o Z i Zj - 2' Address ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P : v'vi t~). ~~w%~-(o t , ~ri l S~~- Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Dated: Name - Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address • 000014 speeding across the property on an improved surface, risking injury to themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage swale would invite children and teenagers to play on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed by the public, the swale alone would invite children and teens to ride skateboards, motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles up and down its sides in the hope of getting "air." Assuming that the bridge would be somewhat raised, it would attract the same kind of activity.. Public access would also invite children and others to play in the water during the rainy season, with potentially significant risks. 8. Even if these risks did not exist, our privacy, particularly the privacy of the two homes at either end of the path, would again be lost if the path were to be built, because all the strangers walking the path would look directly into the front yards of us neighbors. Again, we do not believe this is what the.Planning Commission could have anticipated or intended and we support the requested modification. Dated: Name V~ J ~~~ Si ~~~- l~y Address !~ ~6 J ~` ue~/ Dated: Name ~ Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address J ®~~~~.5 ..• Ann Weish From: Bob Zager [bzager@soliddata.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 i 1:26 AM To: Ann Welsh Cc: 'bob@zager.cc' Subject: Application #02-047 Hi Anne: • Thank you for taking my call this morning.. I write in opposition to the Request for Modification at 14771 Montalvo Road. The Montalvo/Vickery/Highway 9 intersection is confusing. The Montalvo Gate narrows the roadway at the intersection and blocks visibility as one turns on to Montalvo Road. Due to the non-resident traffic associated with Villa Montalvo, this intersection has: a) an unusually high percentage of traffic that is unfamiliar with the intersection; and b) more traffic than a typical residential road. It is very common to see vehicle/pedestrian near misses near the Montalvo Gate. The inclusion of a pedestrian trail that is parallel to Highway 9 as a condition of the permit was a good idea that should NOT be abandoned. Therefore, I oppose this proposed modification. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Bob Zager 20292 Calle Montalvo Saratoga, CA bob~zager.cc 1 V D~o~6 Y ~ A March 18,2002 _ __. Karen Grellas 22060 Dorsey Wy. Saratoga, Ca 95070 Saratoga Planning Commission _ 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Application 02-047 517 19 040 Siadat - 14771 Montalvo Rd. Dear Sirs: I strongly opyose the modification to remove the requirement that a pedestrian path be mandated on this property. This property has had an easement for a pedestrian trail that has been used with great enjoyment by the residents of Saratoga for years. Currently, the construction fencing that fully encloses the perimeter of Siadat's property prohibits pedestrian thoroughfare. Pedestrians are forced to make a turn on a treacherous blind corner, (Montalvo Rd.Nickery Ln.& Highway 9). This is hazardous; cars, trucks and construction equipment turn from a highway onto a residential street blind to pedestrians. This situation is "an accident waiting to happen". Please enforce the requirement for Siadat to have a pedestrian trail on the property. To allow them to elude this provision would be irresponsible. A vehicle/ pedestrian accident will occur at this site, in its current state with this amount of pedestrian traffic flow. It is just a matter of time. Saratoga City Planning does not want to allow this to happen. Sincerely, D MAR 1 g 2002 CITY OF SAMTOGA ~ODAMUN[fY DEVELOPMENT 0000'. .. ~ s R • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000018 • • N ~ .~ N H ~D m ~.+u ~ ~ qq z 000(q ??Y 33Y O ~ O ~~0~~66~~ QA ~zzzzzzzz Sr jjAjjDDA m ~«««« i~ 0000 p0000 b~ ~~~~bOb°b°6 SA O~~~vvcvc RD (n N (n d t~ Nm N F y 8 s ~~ ~~ '• ~C D \ ~ -i O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~E m F _X N ~ _ N i Z~ ~d4 ~ ~ rn d T ~ m ~iF F R ^ , 0 ~ kF A ~ ` m zA n ~ r p r ~ nm - - 4r 0 ~- D -~_ rn _ _.__ __ y _~ ~ ~ ~' z Z ~ ( i 1 z oz r rn d z z r ~ ti z m 0 . p0 mod ``'~ A~z O~`. ~11~ 8 .??~':0 NA o m z;z m;~ ~. O m ti,; I i a ~~ .\ o ^^\ 1+ a e rn -~ rn Z rn .t m .- _z F1 r ~ ~0 µ J a o a ~ -- ~zx ~~ . . °min ~0 mss %~~ ~Zm ADA ~Zr ~~'v Z~~ ~r$ Ord mze ° ~~ ~ i z a xOAm y~~r zxzo 5~~4TOr-tom - (_-OS DIRECTOR ITEM Ciry of Saratoga - -- __ Community Development Deparanent MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: John F. Isvmgstone, Associate Planner ~~ DATE: March 27, 2002 RE: DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS, referral system from Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Planning Office refers a few projects a month to the City of Saratoga for review. The projects that are referred require discretionary review, similar to the projects that require Planning Commission review with the City. Ministerial projects that may only require building permits and need no formal review by a decision making body, are not referred. All County projects that are in the City of Saratoga's sphere of influence require review by the Ciry of Saratoga. The majority of the projects referred to the City of Saratoga are for small single-family projects that require discretionary review for a variance or building site approval. The County sends the Ciry of Sazatoga a set of plans and a brief project description for review. The projects aze reviewed on a case-by-case basis as to their impact to the Ciry of Sazatoga. Any comments are then forwarded back to the County Staff. Projects that are subdivisions, use permits, or a zone change require General Plan Conformance with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. The County is required to congirm that the proposed project conforms to the density and General Plan designation of the City. The project will not be processed by Santa Clara County if it does not conform to the Ciry of Sazatoga's policies. All applications, including the above entitlements, require a review of annexation if the property •is either directly adjacent to City of Saratoga boundaries, or within 300 feet from the boundary along a public road The City of Sazatoga generally does not recommend annexing small single-family residential projects into the City. ATTACHMENTS Santa Clara County General Plan and County Code • 00000 03/19/02 TUE 11:36 FA% 408 295 1613 SCC COtJNT'Y ];%EC ~ 001 Growth and Development --- ~ Countywide lessee and Policies ' Urban Service Areas: Definitions attd Explanations State taw defines an'Urban Service Area' {or USA) as all developed, undeveloped, or agricuhural lands, either incorporated or unincorporated, within a city's Sphere-of-Influence, which are served by urban facilities, utilities, and services or which are proposed to be served by urban fadlities, utilities, and services during the first five years of an adopted capital improvement program of a city, ff the oily adopts that type of program for those facilities, utilities, and services. jGovL Code Sect. 56080) fn other words, a cityv's USA boundary should provide through some combination of redevelop- ment, infill or expansion, sufficient land or develop- ment potential to accommodate five years of projected urban growth. The USA boundary location may be amended as needed over trine to allow annexation of lands deemed necessary to accommodate projected urban growth_ LAFCO, the Local Agency Fom~ation Commission, has uhimate authority Aver this and other boundary changes. A city's policies for managing Urban Service Area boundaries controls the timing and location of future urban expansion under its jurisdiction. 7ependirig on the local situation, these polices encourage infll of existing vacant {ands as well (7'he total amount and rate of growth is detemuned not by the bcation of the USA boundary but by the chies' general plans, infrastruMure capacity, or in some cases geographic constrairrts, among the various factors involved). The Urban Service Area boundary differs in wncept from a city's Sphere of Influence, or SOt. As strictly defined by state law, the SOI delineates the probable ultimate physical area of a local govern- mental entity, such as a cRy or special district. State law requires that all governmental entities have a defined SOI boundary. Unlike the USA boundary concept, which delineates those areas a city intends to annex and provide with services in a five year time period, the SOt concept has no temporal dimension. In addition, Local appl~ation of SOI boundaries varies throughout the state of California. Post-Fl• Fax Note 7871 °'°B 3 /~ a y pa~~ S To~j" from ~/ c~tmp~ co. ~ PhOnE ~ Phm1e r 1 Q ~ S' V~_ 1 ax 1r 8 - 8.~r.~ Fax s Santa tiara County ~ unique in that h is the ony county to haver employed the USA concept to manage urbari~growth, minimize urban sprawl and efficiently provide urban services. Furthermore, portions of the system of USA boundaries in Santa Clara Gountyfunction as the')arobabfe ultimate physkaf" boundary of a city. For eocample, the City of San Joee has~4hrough its General Plan estab- lisfted a "Graernline Strategy' which fixes the probable ultimate physical boundaries of the city at the bcation of its existing USA boundary, whh minor exceptions. such as the Urban Resewes_ San Jose's USA contains far more than five yrears worth of developnteirn potential, and its redevelopment and iMdl policiies are intended to create additional development potential over time without actual physical expansion. In Santa Clara County, SOI boundaries function primarily to delineate those areas over which cities may extend fong'~range planning authority, but which are not intended for annexation and urban development For all the crt'~es, SOI is still a useful planning tool, because it provides each city with the authority to renirew development proposals in unincorporated areas for consistency with the land use policies outlined in each city's general plan. . The currently delineated USA boundaries in Santa Clara Courriy were determined primarily by the following factors or criteria: • the amount of vacant land supply within cities and development potential remaining with the cities; • the e~acius,ion of (ands generaly unsuned for urban ~dev~elopment and densities, including those characterized by steep slopes, geologic. seismic, flood and fire hazards, and those for which theme is limited access; • the need to protect valuable nature) resources, such as wildlife habitat, riparian corridors; and • 'the high costs of providing and maintairtinq certain areas with urban services, particularly areas~wt'~i geologic or~thernatur~-T6aza~r s. Currenfiy try state taw, cities of Santa Clara County may annex lands within their USA boundaries. without LAF(~ review it the proposals meet certain conditions. lihis procedure is referred to generally as "cly~onducted' annexations. B-a • • 000002 03/19/02 TUE 11:36 FAg 408 295 1813 SCC COUNTY E%EC Growth and Development :~ Courri3rwidclssuaandPottcta ~ ImplementCrliort ftecornmendaHons COYOTE VALLEY - C GD(~ 1 Undertake periodic review of locally adopted LAFCO guidelines and policies. Autend l'.AFCQ guidelines acrd polities for improved cortsis- t,errcy with County policies regarding aruciex ations and urban services area boundary changes where advisable. • • C-GD(i) 2 Mountain the County's Land use, toning and development regulations which govern deveiop- merrtfor the rural unincorporated areas and are iuntended to present wrban development outside of cities' USAs. (See Rural Unincorporated Area Issues and Policies for elaboration.) C-GD(i) 3 Confinue support for city's efforts to promote appropriate irtfill of existing vacant lands and redevelopment through their general plans, development regulations, specific plans, as well aS Other Implemer-ting nux~hanisrn5_ Coyote Valley lies between the soudternmost part of urbtuuzed San Jose acrd the northern edge of the City of Morgan Dill. It is one of the few retxtainingnon-urbar-i:.ed areas of high quality soils andlarge-scale agricultural land holdings in the cour-ty. 'll~e noitltem end of this area is curnentIy included within the Urban Service Area of San Jose. All of Coyote Valley lies within the City of San Jose's Sphere of Influence, or planning area. As of 1913U, the polities of the County's Gesieral Plan recommended that Coyote Valley should remain in agricultural or other rwa-urban uses. Since that time; the City of Sarn Jose has amended its General Plan polities for Coyote Valley. The northemanost portion has been allocated for campus ir-dustrial developm~tt; while the middle third and southernmost portion have been designated "urban reserve" ar-d "greenbelt" areas, respectively. The Role of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) LAFCOs were created by the state in 1 ss3, and enabling legislation related to LAFCOs has been amended several times, most recently by the "Cortese-Knox Government Reorganaation Act oft 985 ' Their basic purpose is to "encourage orderly growth and development through logical formaQion and determination of local agency boundaries.' [Go~rt. Code 56001) LAFCOs are not empowered to determine planrjing goals for local governments. The types of proposed boundary changes. tJ1FC0 may approve or deny include: • Annexation: the addition of territory to e governmental entity (antonym: Detachment) • Ineorpora2ion: the creation of a city (antonym: Disincorporation) • Fomuttion_ the creation of a special district (antonym Dissolution) • Transfer. the exchange of territory between two or more governmental entities The stated objectives of the LAFCO as defined by the Cal'rfomia Association of LAFCC)s are: • to encourage orderly formation of local govern- mental agencies; • to preserve agricultural land resources; and • to discourage urban sprawl. The LAFC4 of Santa Clara County cons"rats of two members of the County Board of Supervisors, a representative of the City of San Jose, one other city representative, and a member Of the pubUc ap- pointed bar the other four members. The Santa Clara County LAFCO, in conjunction with the cities and County, adopted the basic polices and gufde- rines contained in the Urban Development/Open Space Plan of 1973. These guidelines and polices augment those identified in statutes that 1-AFCO must use in evaluating proposals for any govem- merttalboundary change, most notably annexation= and urban service area expansions. LAFCO must also consider how proposals for boundary changes conform to applicable city and County general plans. ~l002 ~~~ ~J00003 03/18/02 TUE 11:37 FAg 408 295 1613 SCC COUNTY FBEC I ~ Growth and Development -- ` Countywide 7ssr~s and PaIicirs Gbssary of Jurisdictional and Growth Management Boundary Terms Boundary t. Incorporated Area Boundary 2. Urban Service Area (USA) Boundary S. Long Term Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) 4. Sphere of Influence (SOt) Boundary 5. Boundary Agreement Line Definitivrt / Description 'City linvts"; Delineates lands currently annexed to city Delineates areas currently (provided with urban services, facilities, and utilities or proposed ta~ receive such services within 5 years Delineates areas appropri~~te for and rlcrily to be needed for urban purposes within the next 20 years In Santa dare County, ge,vera4ly defined as planning area C.e. area covered by general plan); often inciu es bllside areas the dry has des~'g~ated for Han-urban uses and dons not irrtend to provxie with urban serviioes. (State defines as the probable uhimate physics[ boundaries and service area of the city.) Delineates limits beyond which a city wiU not be allowed to annex terfttory. Hypothetical Relationships Among Jurisdictional and Growth Nianggement Bourtda,ries 1. 2. 3. 4 Boundaries Incorporated Area ---- Urban Service Area --- Long Term Urban Growth Boundary Sphere of influence -~ S. Bourxiary Agresment --~ •~• +~. Line ; ~•~•~:- ' ~ ~\ ~~ m I .. • ~ 003 e • • B-12 000004 • 03/19/02 TUE 11:37 FA% 408 295 1613 SCC COTJIVTY F.%EC __ Growth and Development Implementation Recorrtmendoiior>s C-GD(i) 4 Employ County General Plan policies for Co}rote valley during the process of: . a. LAFCO review of proposed armexations and Urban Service Area expansions into Coyote Valley by the city of San Jose; and b. reviewing San Jose's proposals for specifiic land use and development patterns for Coyote valley. ES?ABUSHIN6 LONGTERM URBAN 6ROVViH BOUNDARIES (UGBS) Jointly-adopted pofacies of the cities and tl~e County of Santa Clara have established cities' . "urban service area" boundaries for the purpose of guiding the timing and location of urban development, 't'hese boundaries fiu~ction as "short teen" urbane growth boundaries fiat generally indicate the areas within which each city is willing and able to pt+ovide urban services and facilities over a free year period. Long term urban growth boundaries may also be a useful tool for local govea~au~nts in Santa Clara County to plan for and manage urban expansion over periods longer than five years. 'the X98(} General Plan recommended that such bowidaries be established which would define the ultimate "limit of future urban expansion" for each city within the county (Policy LU 9~. Long term urban growth boundaries would delineate areas each city sees as appropriate and needed for future urban growth over the next 20 years, and conversely, would also indicate those areas cwt deemed appropriate or necessary to ®®~ URBAN ~ RURAL aacomrmodabe projected needs for urban land4. As su~chh, they would complement the existing system of urban service area boundaries by providing a longer term framework within which incremental expansion of urban service area boundaries could take place. ^ Paxposes and Potential B®nefils of Long Terrri Urban Growth Boundaries Long term urban growth boundaries have several basic purposes or functions. in and of themselves, they delineate areas Intended for future urbanization from-those not intended for urban uses. However, as a part of the overall countywide strategy for managing and acmm- modatingfuture urban growth, they can be instzvrnental in: • promoting compact urban form and deveI- opment patterns; • protecting valuable natural resource areas; • preventing urbanization of hazard areas; Arid enhanang greenbelt opportur-ities. bn addition to these overall functions, long term urban growth boundaries may provide a wide variety of benefits to local governnnents, land- owners, and the general public: • For local governments, they could provide a useful tool for. i. directing the location and extent of future urbanization, and ii. planning for needed infrastructure improvements and efficiently provid- ingurban services. For landowners, they would increase the ~erlaicity over long-tacm-land use-in urban fringe areas, providutg. i. disincentives for speculative land purchases, and ii. a surer sense of whether and when lands might be needed for urban purposes. For example, farmers would be given a more solid basis for making long tezm investment deasions Coan- cernir~g Purchases of land, equipment, or other major capital outlays. ~ 004 B-9 -.1100005 03/19/02 T[JE 11:37 FA% 408 295 1613 SCC COUNTY E;(EC f~005 • For the general public, long berm growth boundaries would provide: i_ greater assurance that important natural resouaire arms and critical hazard areas will be protected from urbanization, and ii. additional assurance that e~cbending . urban development into new areas will not result in reductions of urban service levels received by existung neighbor- hoods. ^ Criteria for Defineafing Lang Term Urbar- Growth Boundaries ' There are a number of criteria,.or factors, which would need bo be included ion the methodology of delineating long term urban growth bound- aries including. • population and ea~nomic forecasts for ~~% • estimates of the total lazed supply needed to accomzriodate forecasted growth; • types of developa~t to be accommodated, whether only residential, or also commer- c~al, industrial, az~d all other types of land uses; • the desired density of developmait within existing urban areas (infill) and Within expansion areas to promote transit use, air quality, housing affon3ability; • types and locatonn of natural resource areas to be protected from uz'ban development; 8'10 • types and location oaf natural hazard areas tv be avoided, as well as geologic, topographic, and other physical constraints to urban development; • crontiguity of future urbanisation to existing urban areas; • fiscal capacity of local governments to pzovide~ needed levels of urban services, as well as available infrastruchue capacity and limitatitms; and • titre duration of the boundaries (20 years), the frequency of review, and reestablish- ment proCEdureset forth under the guide- lines approved by the Local Agency porma- tion Commission (LAPCO) and local juris- dictions. ^ Adoption Attemafives and tcntorce~ment There are three basic alternatives by which long term urban growth boundaries might be adopted-e?[iI er~foiced. "IY~ese are as'follovvs: Cities a~uld individually delineate and adopt growth boundaries. Some cites have already adopted similar types of planning boundaries for their own purposes- The Couniy and an individual city could mutually define and adopt an urban growdl boundary aztd the policies for land use within and outside of the boundary line. 'The County and a collection of cities could enter unto a mutual process for defining and adopting such boundaries. • ;7 a~0006 Growth and Development - ~ Countymidc Tssua cold PcIicrsa Sent By: SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING; 408 288 9198 Mar-19-02 5:11PM; Page 2/5 • • j Uninc. --, General Land Use ent Urban Unincorpasated Area lasaus avid Polices S-rategy ~2 Enwre Conlormify of Development ` ~ With Cities' General Plans Within cities' Urban Service Areas, the County does not apply any General Plan designation or classification of prescriptive land uses or densi- ties to unincorporated:parcels. Instead, allow- able land uses and densities are determined by the applicable city's general plan. This arrange- ment reflects one aspect of the division of authority between the cities and the County under the jointly-adopted countywide "urban development policies." Assuming that all urban unincorporated areas will eventually be annexed by the cities, it is appropriate that the city which will have ultimate jurisdiction over an area have the ongoing authority to plan for what are presently unincorporated areas. The responsibilities of the jurisdictions (County and city) aze fairly straightforward. For urban unincorporated lands ineligible for annexation or for which annexation has been refused or deferred, the County is obligated to administer current planning functions, such as permit processing, zoning administration and code enforcement; whereas; each city addresses through its general plan the long range planning issues of land use, density and other issues. In order to ensure that development permitted under County jurisdiction is generally in con- formance with what would be permitted accord- ing to each city's general plan, the County applies zoning districts and development regulations compatible with the applicable dty's general plan designation. Given the varyety and complexity of some cities' development regula- tions, it is infeasible for the County to attempt to administer the actual regulations of the cities. When there are differences between County and city development regulations of some conse- quence, such as for setbacks, building height and bulk restrictions, or other standards, the County may be able to adjust its standards to minimize dtose inconsistencies. In any case, the County strives to work cooperatively with the applicant, the city and other interested parties to ensure that the resulting development is as R-6 consistent as possible with#he policies and regulations of the city involved and will not present future problems for either the property owner, the city, or adjacent=esidents. Policies artd lI-L11Z 6 County land use and development regulations within a dty Urban Service Area shall be gener- ally compatible with the applicable city's general plan designations and accompanying policies. II-LM 7 Subdivisions, use permits and zone changes for unincorporated property within a city Urban Service Area shall conforrnwith the applicable land use and density criteria of the city's general P~• LI-LM 8 County zoning, land development, and building regulations should be designed and adminis- tered to: ' a. preserve and enhance the quality of existing urban unincorporated areas; and b. maintain community identity, through heritage resource preservation, conservation of historic structures and places, and other similar measures. ~ tec~~st t~ rova~ pevetoP porat~ Pockets to Untr°O ~/ C1tY Ge ~r t Plan .her Rye uice~'ents • • • 0~0~0"~ Sent By: SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING; Page 3/5 General Land Use Management ; u~mc. ~__, U~tian Uxincorporatel! Arta Issues oral POIu'iL" u-i.Nr 9 In cases where significant differences exist between County and ary development stan- dards (i.e. setbacks; height, bulk regulations), resulting in potentially inappropriate develop- ment orconflicts; the County should consider adjusting or modifying its ordinances and standards to minimize problems and achieve greater conformance with city standards. II-LM 10 No applications for subdivisions, use permits or zone changes for property within any city's L;rban Service Area may be accepted by the County for processing unless it is accompanied by a statement fmm the applicable city affirming city general plan conformance. Implementation Recommendation u-I.NI(i) 9 Review all present County zoning districts applied within Urban Sen~ice Areas and wm- pazewith applicable city general plan designa- tions. Identify significant inconsistencies and if needed, rezone inappropriately zoned areas to zoning districts ghat conform with city general plans. iI-LM(i)10 Inform cities of County general plan conform- ancepolicies so that policies and authority are fully understood by city staff and officials. Li-l.M(i)11 Evaluate Count•,~ and city development stan- dards and regulations for possible inconsisten- cies of significance and modify County regula- tions where necessary ro rectify or minimize the impacts of inconsistencies. prelates to policy 6} stra~egy;}"3 -~ ,Provide Services as Efficiently and Equltob/y at Possible Although joint County, city, and 1-AFCO policies promote the annexation of urban "pockets," partly on the basis that urban services are most efficiendy provided by cities, in reality many developed urban unizYCOrporated areas may not be annexed in the immediately foreseeable future. In the interim; the County should ensure that necessary urban Services and facilities are provided as efficiently and cost-effectively a possible to these areas. Not only does the County have a responsibility to provide basic levels of urban services to urban unincorporated area residents, but by?maintaining and upgrad- ingexisting sen~ces and facilities, the County and the cities facilitate the ultimate annexation of thesE; areas. Nevertheless, it remains difficult for local governments to pay for basic urban services, much less improve upon them, in light of outcomes of Prop 13. ~ Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1976, necv funding source have become virtually non-existent, due to the 2/3 voter approval requirement for ne~v taxes and reduced gro~vth in property tax revenues overall- Because it is recognized that cities should not be expected to provide services without compensation, the financial burden falls to the County. Therefore, cooperation among jurisdictions to exploze creative, cost effective measures becomes the only option to costly provision of services:in the unincorporated urban areas. • • R-7 408 288 9198 ; Mar-19-02 5:12PM; ooooos iY tll b .mr d a~.a m b ~ +.i"+ ~ b O~~ 0 0 'W .a d 0 6) O N v v~ Od0 +'[a ~~ C "' C v '~ ~ ~ ~,~ wC~'~ ~ m ago ~" g '~ ° m ~ ~ ~:~ E~•. ° ~" o.C d~~m~Caye~ ~= o ~ ~ ~~ 8 0~~' ummma° ~, t0 p~~ •p a C„ (} ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ •~" d d O 07 O O ~"' .~ C O ~ m .~" O ~ +~ •.+ ~''' ~ ~ ~s ~ m W .~i ~ y d . ~ .C C7 :A 0.7 i:a ,~ ~ C: '. ~ ~ d ~ ND 61 m ~ ~ d ;~ m ~ Cd ~ ~.. y ~ N C '~ O. cc N c y~j ~ U ~ m .~ C ~ C C .~ •~ ~ v ~ "O ~ O ~ D ° 'O ° .,+ C p~ .r a 41 ~ ~ '.',7 O '4' ~ ~ !~ .C ~ y V O O ~ pp ~ ~ v O g0 ~ ~`" ~ N ~ ~yU O i:~ y ~ rr Cp a..1 o eD o' ~ o~ ~ awi~3 y+~' ,ao C•,°~ o° v >,~ m s.. ~~ °: .~ ~'~~3'1.0 C~ ~ I c~ m O G :R! N V O N O c~ W 'f. p O R! m ~~ E [~ m ~+ O b ~ ~ ~ g '~ 4 4l C m ~y3 ~ ~ w yD, cd m .~ G ~ vi ~ ~y m A •'^'' ,~,, ~ W ~ r. y y, .~ ~ O ° O .C ~ ^ 'C +a O .r~ 4+ G d m .k 7 a. y O '~ v y CJ c7 ~ ~ ~, e'~ 'c3 -. C a'b y. ,.~ as o '° ~ C ° ° g m .~ b ° c -o a 'v z `" d ca~o~~,~5 xo c~~ w °.~ ..~ a~vd`'o ~ oo°~m~ '~ v a C .C Nyr O '_' ;; v "" 0° p F+ ~ . c$ ~ t"'~ C m ~ ~ ~ O. m p ~ C. ~ r. y m ~w ° ~ °' '~i ~ ,o g a ~ ~ ,b ca ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~y ~ e~ ~ a ~ cv ~ d y r ~ ~ ~ ~"'.. 2 ,''a ~ .~ 0 c~~ ~ y ~ Cp O V •a •~ 0 !. 41 O a'3 m c~.~ d O ~ ~ w ~~+ ~ ~ r :~ y ~ ° ,C O !O •~i '~ m ~ .~ ~ [ '~ 4D ~ a' ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ +' Q ~ .G .d d1 F" eo ~..., -. 3 .. --, u~ .. v ~ g d ... ~ C w :2.~'~ ~°o mmeq-a~d~ ~°° c~bv.~ ~o ~a Ey+,~, ~o.,°°ao^,~`'3' e ~ Oyi ~ ~ 'S3 v C O ~ ~ C n1 M ea°r _.^~. - ~ •^Ci ' " ~ ~ Z ~~ -,w%4-,~...... -.. .. .. - ~~ ... G> ~"~~O CCi m ~•pG ~ '~O ~ v ° ~ ~ Elmo O ~'b~ O m~•~bQ ~ C w ~ "" p.~ ~m~ C ~'~ " m ~ ~ Q ~ a~ g ~ ~ Q lvp ~ .~ O .p a •c L a Z 2a~~ z ~ '° oZ a q•^'3 4.. C`° ~~ W ~ ~;~~ o c ~ ~+~ C~ o O °e ~' w C ~ ~ ° ~ oN~ A ~C 'C C ~ ' Zi „ ~' .5 ~ ~. Zi E.r y ~ o c0 +' C C o c s C cd m O ~ ~ 01 ~ v ~ m :: F Q ~ -~-~~ ami 3 >, ~ = x ~ o ~°~ymp~ m cda~~ W o °'°,a ~ ~°' 7QGN C ,.-. o ~ ° o ~--~ ~ v 4> ~ ~ aCi ,,4 ~ ~ ~y,, C ~ .~ ~ >' aci oc > ~ Q ~ o ~ f~. G .o b ~ N c~ ~ 'C ~ ~ .fl o~ 'd ~ y '?~ y ~ o >, C ,~ .5 _ ~ tr ~ >,a0i a~i ~~ q ~ aCo,~ w aN ~ W ~^ ~~ ~c y v ~'o C ~~~~'' m >,tid oC~ d ~~~m0 '° p~ CL ~5~ ~ -cs° ami ~z~_,; m o c w+:;~ c rr U ~ ° o~-°~° o 4 -; aa tL... .. ~... ~ ~ a x ~ ~ o~-~+ m aao 3 ~~.~ v~ m ao o ~~:z a :r: 000009 5/~ aB~d ~WdZl~S ZO-6l-~eW ~ 8616 88Z SOb ~JNINNb'ld AlNf10~ b~a`dlJ d1NdS ~~8 l~eS ~~ ,n ~A ~~~ C dy d.:j o U m ~ m .~ m ~ ++ .r +, ~' ~''~°`~~ °c'~ O p ~ m ~ 'tS as --.-_~ c ~ w p ~ `~' -mr, d °. a""11 C'' ~ a~ m ^m~~ '~ a o c c ~~~O a~ ~ ~ .., rA ... o ~ ~ ~ ~ y i, .ti m N N ~+~ ~ °y ~ ~~ O~cV tp.~~'d O ~ eo Z y V m '~ ~~ :. p, C w V~~ .~ m m .~ ~ ~ m ~+~ v.~ O p ~ u1 ~ m ~ m m 'p ~ ~ ~ m ~ ' ~ a '~ U '~ m ~ °' o .G Q ~ a' m 'd -• 7 a ~' m .'~~ ~ •~ ~ cd ~' ~ ~ ~' '~E~i ~ ado ° ~' W ~ ~, . o~ 3 ~~ dV~ ~ w.d o.°~ ~~;~ m c ~ ~p+ s ~ ~ eso :3 a~e+ CO as ~ ~ m v v ~ ~Q+ ~' ~ " ~ ~ cp7 A+ ~ m ~ '~p,myc~~'~~•, aaam''b~`~'o.o~mo yr.m v N .n .n .+ v U .o, 0 O U O U U ~o+ .;:1::s:ii~3 m m v O d 7 o m m +~ ~ CL aj O 8 r, G ++ > U~~ u a e6 ° g v ~a w m do .~m~~~ ~~~;dbm~iasm zoN - ~'m S-C~xo ~'"' t~ O d Cr W "~ "~ ..r ` c~ ~~ ~ ~ m •~ fA W .7 ~ "y" o ~ ~ ~ .a0 G ~'"' .tr" titl O s.a d 0 ~ .-i Ci w d r+ ~ '~ ~'O ~' ; ~ ~>> oo O. ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~' p ~ 00 .-i w+ U1 ~ C 'ef' 4 0 [ :p " ~ m c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, b Q ~ ~ m m w m ~ ~Qp c xi d ~ "a q o '~ ~ c. C. ~ r' 'b ~ ~ bb ~4 ~ ~ ~ 'y ~ p rt7W ~ O .~-1 F~ ~ m •~ ~ '~ ~ ~Q p A C. Jf ~ ~ ~ ~„ ? 1~ d ~+' ~ fmr +O+ ,0~~' v O O! ~ U~ C~ .wpn ..~.~ C~ ~ '~' (7 '*' ~ +~ to ~ w ~ ~+ ~ r+ ~ O g ~ ~ Q m ;,,, ~ _ ~« ° m m4°'m'~ ~ sow°... m vm, oca~a„oo~~ oi~ vJ a~ >w° 3 d C tv U 'y ~ ' c ~~ o v . ~ :~ C w, .°'•~o ~ = G rr~~ ~, ~ tom. ~ M ~ L 0 ~ y ~~ U a ~ •` •V Ci Z ~~ C ~ `~, ~ eC m O ~ C 'D O O O O. U ~s ..a C ~ 7 m 3°~. .. • ~~ C :V ~_ C 7 a G •r. 0~00~~ g/g a6ed `Wd61~4 ZO-61-~~W 8616 88Z 80ti ~~JNINNbId A1N110~ blib'l~ 1IlMdS ~~9 ~~aS ~r ~. ~. e. r~~- UB COMMITTEE REPORT Ciry of Saratoga Community Development Department _ : _ MEMOR.AND~TM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner Planning Commissioners Mike Gazakani and Lisa Kurasch DATE: March 27, 2002 RE: Energy Efficiency Subcommittee The Conservation Element of the General Plan (C0.4.0) states the following: "Encourage energy conservation, maximum energy efficiency and the utilization of renewable energy resources, keeping aesthetics in mind, in order to reduce dependence on nonrenewable resources for satisfying basic and non-basic energy needs." The General Plan then gives four policies to implement the above goal. 1. Consider developing an Energy Element within the General Plan to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. 2. Promote cooperation with other governmental and private agencies to formulate and implement energy planning programs. • 3. Facilitate dissemination of information on energy conservation techniques and alternative energy resources. 4. Support voluntary recycling efforts. After reviewing the above goals and policies of the General Plan, the subcommittee came up with a plan to increase the energy efficiency of homes in Saratoga. EDUCATION The first part of the plan is education. This can be broken down into two sub categories. The first part of education would be to develop and provide handouts and information at the front counter. Staff could also collect and maintain a library of information that could be available to the public for review. The information could also be provided on the City Web Site. Attached to this memo are some of the reference materials already collected by other cities. 000001 The second part of the education process would be to invite local builders, architects, and homeowners to City sponsored workshops. Local providr_rs of energy efficient materials and nonprofit organizations would give presentations at a City initiated workshops. The workshops would provide public awazeness of green building techniques and resources, as well as opportunity to explain City policies and goals for energy efficiency. ORDINANCES The subcommittee reviewed several possible ordinances ghat are currently being used or are in the planning process. The following is a brief summary of some of the possible ordinances. 1. Marin Counry's BEST program is an incentive based program to get builders to voluntarily improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The program gives builders who participate expedited processing and waiver of the Title 24 fee. In order to participate in the program the builder must complete one of the following three alternatives: 1. Exceed Title 24 energy performance by at least 10%. 2. Install an on-site renewable energy system producing at least 75% of building and site annual energy usage. 3. Complete prescriptive requirements outlined in Marin County's energy efficiency checklist. The subcommittee liked this program but felt that the incentives were not enough to promote voluntary program participation. 2. Marin County is currently working on an ordinance for Big and Tall residences. The ordinance as proposed would require any residences over 4,000 square feet to either comply with the Title 24 energy budget fora 4,000 square foot house, or install on-site renewable energy system that produces a minimum of 75% of annual energy use for all buildings and site amenities. The above ordinance is preferred by the subcommittee. The subcommittee's intent would be to have basement included 3. San Francisco -Proposition B, just approved by 730,0 of city voters, allows the city to issue up to $100 million in bonds to build solar energy systems for city buildings. 4. Palo Alto- A policy was adopted last April for Palo .Alto to become a sustainable community. The work plan to implement it includes a community resource inventory, a recently passed construction ,and demolition recycling ordinance, and a water and energy management plan that so far saves the city $161,000 annually. 5. Santa Monica -adopted performance based ordinances for reducing energy consumption and water runoff for commercial, muiucipal, institutional and multi-family buildings. Targets for compliance are 20-25% higher than state or federal requirements. The measures so far save the city $200,000 annually. 6. Davis- requires additions to CA Title 24 requirements for alterations and remodels of residential structures in that alterations cannot increase annual energy use in btu's/squaze feet. ~~ 004002 t'. ~~\ 7. Austin -started- the nation's first municipal green building program funded by money the city saves by following its own energy conservation guidelines. These require city buildings to be built to a sustainabiliry standard. The program offers free educational and consultation resources, fact sheets and newsletters to residents. In addition, the Manage It Green program provides assistance to government agencies in establishing green building programs. 8. Aspen- has a program called the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP). This program requires new homes or remodels over 5,000 square feet to offset a small portion of their fossil fuel energy consumption through the use of on-site renewable energy or through a flat fee payment to REMP. The mitigation money is then spent on energy efficient programs in the community such as retrofit lighting projects and solar hot water for affordable housing projects. ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION The subcommittee reviewed to whom the proposed ordinances would apply to and feel that the opportunity to install energy efficient measures is the greatest with new single-family homes. New-home construction is also the most inexpensive time to install energy efficient measures. The subcommittee feels that after gaining more experience with energy efficiency measures the ordinance could in the future be expanded to remodels over 50% of the existing home size. RECOMMENDATION The Energy Efficiency Subcommittee is recommending that the education plan as discussed above be implemented and that further investigation into the Big and Tall ordinance being implemented in Marin be continued. The Energy Efficiency Subcommittee would like the Planning Commission's feed back on the above items or any additional items not mentioned above. If the Planning Commission supports the subcommittee's recommendation, amore detailed package of information will be provided for further review. ALTERNATIVES Continue to use the current Residential Design Handbook Energy Efficiency section to promote energy efficient designs. Two recent new homes approved by the Planning Commission on Fruitvale Avenue and Sobey Road incorporated several of the design elements in the handbook with the addition of each project providing a source of renewable energy. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of the County of Marin's Big and Tall handout 2. Copy of the County of Marin's energy efficiency checklist 3. Copy of the City of Saratoga's existing energy efficiency guidelines 00003 ~"_-. r.- - <-~. f, . .~:_... • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000004 - ~". ~'~ ~ ` . `~'- - ~~ 'i/ . ~ -- '~ ~' Marin's BEST - Building Energy Efficient Structures Today Marin County Community Development Agency Big and Tall Houses Sustainability Opportunities ~ittachment 1 Residences that are 4000 square feet or more in gross floor area are classified as "big and tall" and must comply with the development code requirements for improved energy efficiency by choosing one of two options. Option #1: Meet title 24 requirements for a building of 4,000 square feet regardless of the actual size of the building. For example, a house of 7,000 square feet can only use the title 24 requirements for a house that is 4,000 square feet. Option #2: Instal] an on-site renewable energy system that produces a minimum of 75% of the annual energy use for the building and site amenities. Examples of energy efficient design techniques and building materials are included below to help your project meet the development code standards. 1. Building Design - Cross ventilation for cooling, and night cooling of thermal mass • Operable window/door vents . • Raised floor with outside air delivery • Unobstructed air path on the floor plan - Orient building to south: aspect ratio greater than or equal to 1.5 (width e/w divided by width n/s) or at least 40% of total glazing on south and more than 8% and less than 13% area of solar glazing as a ratio of floor area. > Window shading requirements: south side horizontal shading 9 inches deep for every 12 inches of window height on at least 75% of south glazing or trellis shading with deciduous plants or functional equivalent as determined by Chief Building Official. - - Window shading requirements:. deciduous trees (certain species in the fire zone) on east and west side or exterior roll down shades on all windows or exterior vertical fin shading elements (projecting 1' for 3' of window minimum) on 75% of east and west glazing. 2. Envelope - Insulation • Roof: derived R-value* is 30 minimum or radiant barrier and reflective roofing material or structurally insulated panels or green "living" roof for 75% of the roof area or functional equivalent (such as strawbale) as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Walls: derived R-value is 24 minimum or structurally insulated panels or functional equivalent (such as strawbale) as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Crawl space: derived R-value is 24 minimum. • Slab edge is R-10 minimum. - Doors and Windows • Center of glass U-value all windows is less than or equal to 0.26 or less than or equal to 0.3 with fiberglass frame • Tuned orientation SHGC: south is greater than or equal to 0.7, east is less than or equal to 0.4, and west is less than or equal to.0.4. OOOOOS ~~ ^ LED exit signs ~_:> o Renewable energy systems to provide 25% of modeled baseline electrical load (examples: - photovoltaic system, wind energy conversion system, micro-hydro system, and hydrogen fuel cell). Project meets electrical systems criteria: 5. Cooling System - if provided Check zone building box and one other box: ^ Zone building so that "temporary use" spaces, if proviided, will only be cooled when occupied (required for ILD). o Occupancy sensors to automatically shut down cooling supply to unoccupied zones. ^ Evaporative cooling system ^ No mechanical air conditioning (example :raised floc-r with outside air supply for cooling) ^ Space cooling appliance with SEER*** not less than 14 for 1LD and 13 for ELD. Project meets cooling system criteria: 6. Heating System Check one box: ^ High efficiency HVAC equipment with AFUE not less than 92% o Occupancy sensors to automatically shut down heating supply to unoccupied zones '. ^ Air heat recovery system o Solar air heating system ^ In-floor radiant heat o Ground source heat pump ^ Raised floor air supply system Project meets heating system criteria: • ooooos \~ '~ .. .• ~ .~ Marin's BEST Building Energy Efficient Structures Today Marin County Community Development Agency Residential Checklist Attachment 2 To comply with the BEST program requirements for residential structures a project must either exceed title 24 requirements by at least 10%, or meet the criteria in this checklist, or install an on-site renewable energy system that produces a minimum of 75% of the annual energy use for the building and site amenities. By complying with the BEST program you will receive building permit fee rebates and expedited permit processing. Inspectors will sign in the blanks below each section when the requirements have been met. 1. Building Design Check one box: o Small building: Residential house with a maximum of 1000 gross square feet of conditioned area per dwelling unit. Or check one box: ^ Orient building to south: aspect ratio greater than or equal to 1.5 (width e/w divided by width n/s) or at least 40% of total glazing on south and more than 8% and less than 13% area of solar glazing as a ratio of floor area. a ^ Window shading requirements: south side horizontal shading 9 inches'derp for every 12 inches of window height on at least 75% of south glazing or trellis shading with deciduous plants or functional equivalent as determined by Chief Building Official. _ ^ Window shading requirements: deciduous trees (certain species in the fire zone) on east and west side or exterior roll down shades on all windows or exterior vertical fin shading elements (projecting 1' for 3' of window minimum) on 75% of east and west glazing. Project meets building design criteria: 2. Envelope Check one box: ^ Small building: Residential house with a maximum of 1000 gross square feet of conditioned area per conditioned area. Or check both boxes: ^ Insulation • Roof: derived R-value* is 30 minimum and radiant barrier and reflective roofing material in non-coastal areas or structurally.insulated panels with minimum R-30 or green "living" roof for 75% of the roof area or functional equivalent as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Walls: derived R-value is 24 minimum or structurally tnsulated panels or functtonal equivalent (such as strawbale) as determined by the Chief Building Official. • Crawl space: derived R-value is 24 minimum. • Slab edge is R-10 minimum 00000 r--' . ~. ^ Windows • Center of glass U-value all windows is less than or equal to 0.26 or less than or equal to 0.3 with the frame. • Tuned orientation SHGC: south is greater than or equal to 0.7, east is less than or equal to 0.4, and west is less than or equal to 0.4. Project meets Envelope criteria: 3. Hot Water Systems Check one box: ^ Solar domestic hot water system ^ High efficiency EnergyStar** hot water heater/boiler ^ On demand gas water heater Project meets hot water system criteria: 4. Electrical Systems . Check energy efficient appliance box and one other box: ^ Energy efficient appliances - EnergyStar** refi-igeratar, dishwasher (if installed), stove, washer and dryer (self certification required) ^ Maximum general lighting load: less than 1.0 watts pe:r square foot ^ Efficient general lighting: greater than 40 lumens watt Project meets electrical systems criteria: 5. Cooling System - if provided Check one box: ^ Evaporative cooling system ^ Space cooling appliance with SEER*** not less than :L3 ^ Whole house fans Project meets Cooling System criteria: 6. Heating Systems Check one box: ^ High efficiency HVAC equipment: AFUE not less than 92% ^ Air heat recovery system ^ Radiant heating system ^ Solar air heating system ^ Ground source heat pump . Project meets Heating System criteria: 'Derived R-Value takes the rntire wall construction into consideration for calculating thermal transmission. •` Energy star is a program under the US EPA that establishes energy e:fficirncy guidelines for building equipment and materials. "'SEER is the Seasonal Energy Efficirncy Rating ~~~~~~ Attachment 3 v m z 'n 0 rn z rn ~o rn rn z n a+~w~<IeovaR~o<try w fD 3 w 0~ 7 rn O SD fD O ID r S O ID wd1 tY fD r O n rS -1 to fD 10 KRC wrt W ww?OiK 01 N w cD O ~G G Q ~1i 7 rt fA K~fA 7K ~'< 7~ O O G~tn ? Clwfet C5O d ° a~~ -+~Rw tD a>~ ° fANCfl1wAOH0 ArfGKt rtwrd A Stt~ O w? w~ a~"t w7 0 fD r~< ~OS[t7.G'O't77 ~~~ ~~fD~°c~~ono r+~n ~C w~] N~ ?tp d d a S 3 rf O w-C lp --~ ~ fD A A 0~ S-~a 1 R-^ ~G a *1 O % 10 ID m w 3' ID G Iprr~w 7At~0r`C wg a10 ro ~ KlT< A R aC n fp wC SwwO IpOwa'MNCIwplJrlww I rt~ 1 110fpmrap I plm O 000009 r- ~~k ~~ F,~~x~ ~,~P~ N ~~~~ I, ~~ ~~~ D w ~~ ~ ~ ~~ - D '' ~ 3 ~'~ - - Z ~ 1~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ .~ ~ ,, ~. ~, _ ~ , ,, ,. .. , .,,_ ., ., ~\ „\ \ ~ ~'~ ~v ~ . ~ ,~ j'Y, ' n ` ~ ~ .. ~~~ i o \~ .\ ~ z ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~~~ I~ O ~~ n~ z c C'1 4. i .. v 3 a~ 3 ~ ~~ ~~ _. .~ N 3 3 E 3 c ~ ®~LILI~~ r • ~~~ g~k ~~~ ~~~- S ~~~ $ ~ F~P ~~ ~~ p~ b ~ ~. ~ ~ E~ s 3 ,, ,. ~\. ~. Z T ';~ i'1 7 ~I 0 Z 0 Z O A S ~' Z C N 3 N !7 rt O ~/ /* H C y C 3 3 a _, 3 OQOO~L~. ~.~~' 7° _ ~~~~ ~s~~ • ~'~ P ~~-~ ~~~ ~~ SS ~;5 ~. ~~. ~~ A ~~ ~~~ ,~ \~. ~~~ / F' O_ ~ ~ n cn C ~. ~~ W ~. ~Q Z rt e' 3 a 0 N N O r.. !~ . . ~« O y • • 000012 y e • _' ~ . ~~ £ ~~ ~~~ ~s? ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ O A Z c m ~~ .~ 0 0 ~~ z y 3 ~~ !~ H 3 rt O rt y 3 000013 f ~ :__- a ~..`_ ' • THIS PAGE HAS l3EEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000014