Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2002 Planning Commission PacketF CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman Absent: Commissioners Garakani and Zutshi Staff: Planners Livingstone, Vasudevan & Welsh, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 10, 2002 (APPROVED 4-0-1, HUNTER ABSTAIN) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -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 discussing 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 July 18, 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 - None 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. APPLICATION #02-072 (397-24-073) - RUEHLE, 20075 Spaich Court; -Request for Design Review and Use Permit approvals to construct a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 12 feet and will be located on a 49,800 (gross) square foot lot in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. There is a 4,773 square foot single-story residence on the site. A Use Permit is required because the proposed accessory structure will be located within the rear yard setback. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 5-0) 2. APPLICATION #02-047 (517-19-040) - SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road; Request for Modification of Approved Project to remove two provisions in the resolution for DR - 99 -006. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail on their property be omitted from the resolution of approval. The applicant requests permission to allow afive-foot high fence beyond the front yard of the property within the City right-of- way. This is a change of the requirement that athree-foot fence be permitted in the front yard of the property as permitted by resolution DR-99-006. (WELSH) (DENIED 5-0) 3. APPLICATION #02-127 -CITY OF SARATOGA, Austin Way; -Request to designate all of Austin Way a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway that was built in 1904. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 5-0) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 10:30 PM TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, August 14, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive this Agenda via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planning~asarato ae ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION i `1 LAND USE AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 -11:30 a.m. (Please note the new time) 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, JULY 24, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA • 1. Application #02-127 - HERITAGE DESIGNATION Item 3 Austin Way 2. Application #02-047 - SIADAT Item 2 14771 Montalvo Road 3. Application #02-072 - RUEHLE Item 1 20075 Spaich Court LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits 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 visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA t~ DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 5:00 p.m. PLACE: St. Andrew's Schoo1,13601 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 18, 2002 STUDY SESSION AGENDA The meeting is a study session between applicants, interested citizens and staff, to discuss advance planning projects, continued applications and general planning issues. DR-O1-035, LL-O1-008, UP-O1-013, ED-O1-002 (393-25-022) ST.ANDREWS PARISH AND SCHOOL; 13601 Saratoga Avenue; -The proposed project includes the construction of a bell tower, gymnasium, parking garage, reception hall, discovery center, youth room, Sunday school rooms, and the expansion of existing classrooms. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS for the Commission to receive comments and concerns from the community on the proposed project. (Opportunity for members of the public to comment only on the item appearing on the Agenda.) 2. REVIEW OF THE REVISED PROJECT PLANS for 13601 Saratoga Avenue for the Planning Commission to review the proposed project plans and model with St. Andrew's staff and consultants. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 7:00 PM Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • STUDY SESSION REPORT .: • CSDA ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL ARCHITECT To: Planning Commission From: Jorge Rico, Project Architect Date: July 24, 2002 RE: Study Session for St. Andrew's Parish & School Existing Site Description: St. Andrew's Parish and School is a private school and church occupying 5 acres adjacent to Saratoga Ave., approximately'/2 mile west of 85. The property is zoned R-20,000 and falls within the definition of a "Quasi- Public Facility" under the City's general plan. It is surrounded by residential properties on three sides and bounded by Saratoga Ave. and the Public Library on the fourth side. Along the northern portion of the site runs a creek and an adjacent public path. The current school buildings occupying the site consist of one and two story wood framed structures totaling 39,000 sf, and does not meet the space needs in both size and configuration of the school. The Sanctuary, situated on the southeastern corner of the site is the tallest structure on site and is approximately 1 1,500 sf. Between the school buildings and Saratoga Ave. lies a gently sloped parking lot with a capacity to park 203 vehicles. The balance of the site is a mix of walkways (hardscape) a play area (pervious ground cover) and planting. Proposed Plan: The proposed improvements to the site are as follows: 1. Demolish the existing school buildings and replace them with new buildings designed to better serve the Parishes space requirements and the Schools educational needs. 2. Regrade and reconfigure the front parking lot to enhance drop- off and pick-up queing capability. 3. Miscellaneous site improvements such as an outdoor eating area at the northwestern tip of the site, improvements to site drainage, enhancement of outdoor gathering areas for school and parish activities, and an increase of native tree species on site. New building construction will total 72,345 sf and will include six new structures. A brief description follows: Corlett, Skaer & Devoto Architects, Inc.120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1 170 PH (415) 693-9800 jrico@csdarchitects.com - San Francisco, California 9 4 1 0 4 Fx (415) 693-9830 Page 1 of 1 000001 !. CS DA ARCHITECT ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL ~, Parish Hall/Performing Arts/Gymnasium Building: This building consists of a lower level at 15,168 sf for activities such as basketball, volleyball, lockers, storage, theater and food service facilities. Above the lockers and storage area is a narrow 3,250 sf strip housing Sunday School classrooms. These spaces were arranged to take advantage of a 12 foot grade difference which allows the larger space to be set at a lower grade elevation thereby reducing the perceived building height. The buildings perimeter spaces, Theater, kitchen and Sunday School classrooms have lower roofs than the Performing Arts/Gymnasium space as a means of softening the buildings bulk. Administration/Classroom Wing: This 24,928 sf building houses classrooms in the lower and upper floors with Administration and a Discovery Center on the main level. The building's entry, which also serves as the campus' main entry, faces Saratoga Ave. This is the largest building in the proposed development, and has been placed in the middle of the site away from property lines in order to mitigate its impact. In addition, the lower floor level is situated to make it appear as a two story building when viewed from Saratoga Ave. The Administration/Classroom Wing is linked via a bridge to the nearby Classroom Wing. North Classroom Wing: The two story 16,332 sf North Classroom Wing houses 15 classrooms and related support spaces. Kindergarten and pre-kindergarten face the rear property line for direct access to a dedicated play area separate from the older students. Clergy Offices: This 8,660 sf two story plus basement building houses all of the administrative functions for the Parish as well as the balance of Sunday School classrooms. Spaces are roughly divided into public spaces on the ground floor, with administrative staff offices on the upper level. Lower level (basement) spaces include Sunday School, Teen's Meeting Room, Storage and mechanical/electrical rooms. Parish Center: Seventy percent of the one story 4,000 sf Parish Center is allocated for Parish functions such as wedding receptions, after service activities and group meetings. The remaining floor area is occupied by a Nursery that provides care for infants and small children during Sunday services. Outdoor spaces are integral to the function of this building. On the Nursery side a fenced play area maintains security for small children and acts as a buffer between the building and the adjacent property line. The west side includes a pedestrian walkway that serves as a connection • • • _Corlett, Skaer 8~ Devoto Architects, Inc.120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1 170 PH (415) 693-9800 jrico@csdarchitects.com San Francisco, California 9 4 1 0 4 Fx (415) 693-9830 Page 2 of 1 000002 _ __ CS DA ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL ARCHITECT between the Sanctuary's side doors and an outside gathering area ~' under a heritage Oaks canopy. Bell Tower: This bell Tower is a 54 ft high wood clad structure no taller than the ridge of the adjacent Sanctuary. A unique feature of this bell tower is that it will have a full peale of bells (12) in the key of F, and will be the only full peale in the United States west of Texas. Bell ringing will be restricted to certain hours and days of the week as set forth in the use permit. During practice sessions, the tower's openings will be closed to act as acoustic barriers absorbing the sound. Covered Walkways and Outdoor Eating Area: Site Circulation between the various buildings will occur under covered walkways made of redwood posts and rafters, with low sloped roofs. Where walkways meet the outdoor stairs, the upper stair landing will be framed by a similar roofed redwood element known as a "gateway". The Outdoor eating area is a covered redwood deck at the northwestern tip of the property. The cover, or roof will be similar in construction to that of the covered walkways employed throughout the campus. It's a peaceful outdoor space framed by trees and is will be used for school group activities and as a student lunch area in nice weather during the school year. Site Building Vocabulary Overview: Due to the residential nature of the local area, the "skin" or exterior finish for the buildings will consist of combinations of horizontal wood siding, and cement plaster, asphalt shingles and bronze anodized alum widow frames with clear glazing. As a unifying element, all of the buildings will have a 6 ft high neutral gray textured cement plaster base. Buildings associated with the Parish will have 8 inch horizontal lapped siding above the base. These would be the Sunday School classrooms (at the front of the Parish Hall/Performing Arts/Gymnasium building), Clergy Offices building, Parish Center and Bell Tower., The School Buildings, which are the Administration/Classroom Wing, North classroom Wing and the Parish Hall/ Performing Arts/ Gymnasium Building will receive a smooth cement plaster finish above the textured base. All buildings will have galvanized sheet metal gutters and downspouts painted white. • Corlett, Skaer & DeVoto Architects, Inc.120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1 170 PH (415) 693-9800 jricoQcsdarchitects.com San Francisco, California 9 4 1 0 4 Fx (415) 693-9830 Pa e 3 of 1 U(~0®03 w • 1 HIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C7 • 000004 PROJECT TEAM CUENr lANOSCAPE ATK;HIIECT St AndreN s PoHsh and Shcaol Oeet9'rarlm 13801 Saratoga Are. 1081 AfiEer Are. Samlog0. G 95070 Bakelel, CA 94708 Harry Ild(ay, Hood of School Rebecca Coalman, Principal T: 408/ 867-3785 T: 510/ 559-1074 ' F: 408/ 741-1&52 F: 510/ 559-1034 Rev. Emet Cakrol, Podah T: 408/ 887-3493 ACWSIIC ENGMEQt F; 408/ 887-7498 Fdeard Padt Associates 2171 NortMamplan Dr. p~~T NN1AGp1dENf San Jose, CA 95124 Premier Commercial, Inc. JeN ~ ST ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL 1.100IRirerAd,Su8e300 L•40B/723-8900 FairfieN, CA 94533 F: 408/ 723-8099 . Scoit Sheldon T: 707/ 436-7300 TRAFFIC fXVISULTANi F 707/ 421-9958 Fehr d: Peers Aasadatas 255 N. Narl~t St, SuRe 700 ~~ San Jose, G 95110 CaleN, Skoar d DoVoto McNtacls, Inc. Sohrab Roehid 120 Nantgomery SL, ~ 1170 T: 4~/ 278-1700 San Frmaisco, G 94104 F: 408/ 278-1711 Jorge Rao, Project Arch'dat T: 415/ 693-98W F 415/ 639-9830 CNIL ENGINEER Creegml ~ D'Mgdo 1075 Narht 10th SL, suite 1 W Smi Jose, G 9611,2 Dorid VotThiee T: 408/ 998-1214 F: 408/ 998-0944 JUL 0 5 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATAI FIRE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE CRITERIA DRAWING INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ~~pPOrECF~ P 22131 Cobnier CcurE cA s4ese ' a W wrn,c 17eAc ~pporeCA~ ~ a ~ ZONING: AH-1, 20,000 GENERAL PlAtk OUA51-PUBLIC FACWtt A0.1 COVER SHEET A11 ARCHRECNTUL 571E PLAN D0.1 DENOl1f1011 PLAN y , , , a 828.832-4480 Z ~ APNr 397-25-022 m G 828.932-2774 FA)( y~ G Q EKISITNG UWO USE RiNATE SCHOOL AND CHURCH C0.1 GRADING 9 DRAINAGE PUN ~~9t ~ {~4 SURAOIINDNG LANG USES ~ ,y~ I NORTH: AESOEMIAL SOIRH: AESNEFRIU L1.1 E7160NC SRE CONOfODNS -TREE REIIDVAL PUN Iune6,2002 S) lixlteiwwalUopmingprotxGon,wallsadjacmtlousswacdproperlyliacbctwxn ~' AESIOfT41N1 WEST: RESIOFNML PARCEL SQE (tn square feet rc taros): 5 ACRES L1.2 LANCSCA.PEPUN L1.3 SIfE GRCIRATION, PMKING R PA484G PlM! RevBeA fills PIw Review Mnme Performing AdslGytn and Admintilaas savcture, will nadroPolly ~wnplywith CBC Table S-A Particular atteadon is dircc7td to wu0 aegmmla with opa+Engs witlrin 10 foot NANRAL FFANRES AND VEGEfATpNk GENRE SLOPE FRON SARATOGA AVE L1.4 SAE UGHITIG, UNOSFIIPE OEfNLS to: Samw2aFimDisldet aFlhcpmpmryline. TO CREEKBm, SEVERAL NATNE OAKS NDTE SEE CML DRAWING, C0.1 Fl~i SLOPE, CUf 6 FlLL INFORWTKIN A21 LONER LEVEL PLWV ATI'N; Omie Kroulc Copy: CSDAArchitects. 6) FueAlannSystrm. Awnsolidated,adtlressablt;liretlsmnayetemehallbeprovidedfor ARCH17ernlRe~ rcrulc ~-~ ---~- A22 NNN LEVEL PLAN A23 UPPER LEVEL PLAN ATTN:lorgeRicgProjxlArclutxt l 1 dtorrmpvaetrvct~rts.PitcalamireponioglamuraiatianshellbebybuUding,Door, cotuolidated,firoalatmeantwltndannut7cintotyanels peofdeviu Cmaal amaaadt ~ PROPOSED K5: FAONT: 1 5' (f0 EDGE DF PARIONG) A24 ROOFPIAN u, 7a. From FirePro4d sa gy; . , y ahaUbekuatmmtheadmitntualioabaUdutgundaromoteaiterobcdeimilacdupon 1 ~ A~ `~ ~ ~K 8AN LEFT SIDE: 20' RIGM SIDE: 20' A1.1 PERFOflMINC ARTS/C1N k 8ELL TOWER ELEVATIONS AJ.2 ADNIN/CLASSROl01 WING 4 NORTH CIASSROON WING ELEVATONS TimathyCallahm,P.F..,FircPmkctionEagiout robmissionofbtilWingdesigrplane. ASJ CLEA6Y OFFICES R PARBtI CENTER ELEVARONS flixipal RC: RCVIew of Rcrlaed 6kc PLm- datedSB1N2 7) 6xil Discharge WJlkwaye. Isteriur ail wa9.ways and steirwaya abill not ba Ixatal HENkOS OF PROPOSED F911lDINGS ' " A3.4 BU6DING SECIWNS St. Andrew's Pariah B: School where opttlbrga in exterior wmUs ereprohibited or eequirod to be ptOtetted. [CBC Sitcraiiplmtahouldckarlydehdlthetpcitwaysfromtheatruduro SatioalQ06 2 IJ PERFORMING ARfS/GYNNASNN: 28 -0 0 SOUTH EIEYARON (on sloped grade) 39'-0" 0 NORTH ELEVARON N-1 MATERWS BOAAO 3tratoga,CA . . . wmply wia7 this tapdramcnl. Perciculu utanionwexil staisvxys betwew slnrctuses ApNpr,/Clq$$RpOy y11NG: 39'-6" 0 SOUTH ELEVATION - ~~~ wherewpuationbecweenbuildiagsis20feesarleae (ao sloped grade) 44~-0~ 0 NORTH ELEYAIK)N ` ' " At therequeataoddircctiosoldtek'aeDistrict,wchtvcptrfom,cdagenemlrevirwnf 8) HaeerdwsSpacca. Specialuacsandharatdaaspocce{iaschanllahnralodea,ehops areledendpsotwtalpvrGBC6ectioo)05.2.1 ate )shnllhep NORM CLASSROOM W9lG 30 -0 CLERGI' OF}1CES 3g-0" 0 SOUTH ELEVARON 4a-D' 0 NORM ELEVATION l d d LOCATION MAP thcrevisedaiteplmsubmitted. CodcreferoncesprovidedaretotboCaUfomiaBuildiegCoJc, p . (on e ope gra e) ~ ~ i 199R alidan. Gurcomments, general in naluro, arc as follows: rovidedattvaryPrelimim,ymnuurebesedaponthesingle oommmte ai A PAR91 CENTER: 24 -D ' " Genera[ . 1) 1'he2001CalifaniaOuildingSwidardtCodeiscuaendybeingd'u'Ribotedwitlfastetod , p g n, preliminary caJc eaelysiJ sib Sheet, dNed May 22, 2AIY2, submitted. ~ BELL TOIVFR: 54 -D 5QE OF SIAUCRIAE$ t' a 9 ~5 ai y~ t - sr F ~ ~ I ~ iQ 'ov'a !p ~al.ra" iyL v.'y~ ~~" "?~.. 'I ~„ ) ~ i r<r- t ~~~ ' ~' I ~ eRmlive Dale ofNovaMer 2flh2. We would enlicipale the new.aructurea wotild wmply ~ wilN1he2001 CJ3CunlesepermilplmsmsuhmiOAdbeforothaldate. TotalPxgra:l EKISIING: PROPDb~D: SCHOOL 77,188 SF LDWER LEVEL 34,415 SF PDRfABIE 2,704 SF AWN LEVEL 27,165 SF 0. 1.. . 1 7, d I"""°' r ~ ~~ ~ r f 4~.., /~'~ ~,~ c '~• i "rx ~ 3`"fi"`-~aa ° I ~ ~ ~ ~ - s ~~~ ~ ~( . ~ i 1 v~` ~~ h ~' 2) Cm•aite fue hytltaats and 5ro Oow, is aaordsncewitb me California Firc Code, ahal! be SNICHLIRf 11.44fi SF UPPER LEVEL 11.Ofi5 SF 50 936 SF NEW CgdSTRUCRON 72 7D5 SF e , . I ~ ogtl°` ~+~ _1}x 3 K ~ - cf - M~v m c;~ "' q '' I °t am 1'"'°`` 1 provided. Ow ~eubmdwvUateplanfaraitingofragaircdfuahydrenta,and w f i d fi fl t d , , SANCRWif (~~ 11.446 SF a , < t - r ~, .4 w A ~°~`" t !'d a wror e a vv. " ° ~ ° ~ "~ ~_~~ ~ . wn o a re re o eremm~a al l f i h Ub d ' 7DTAL OVERALL SF 84,151 SF p-b"~~, ~~ni~d a~ 0 ~ "', ~o a ~ ~~ } °""e° ~' ° J ~ orelllhe a}n n erptutec e s4uclurcss e e vedeparttnmlwmioc7iotu(ET)Cs) J) F oneuhmiasionoftheeivildnwin roferencal eciLaiu llawimtob l MATERIAISANDCOLORSPROPOSm p °"'"~~"'s'-a'~°'~J ~A~~ ,p/ ~i P ~ ~ ~ ~ / P~ g p ro csp citedateccn above. A fue hydrant shallbc wacwrmtly loaned within 75 ket of ibis IDeotion. NEIRRAL GREY CEIkM PLISIER 845'E AT All BUILOINCS, BALANCE OF EMERgR WAl1S TO BE EITHER LIGHT BEIGE CEllENT P1151ER qq GAPPm a / o ~ a q ~ "'4e ' `r i ! ~f ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°~j~ ~a , HOPoZOMAL SIDING PAINTED BROWN DART( BRONZE ALUM WNDOW FRAMES ~ ~ y I , ~ 0 3q" e!a 2'~ ~ a) Firc6prii>klaSyatemt. PttCBCSatan904.2.4.I,IirospdrAtlasshallbeprovitled within ellbuilding5of&loccnpanry, Parricolurtrmdonisgivmrol}maated2slory . WITH CLEAR CLASS 6 BROWN ASPHAULT SHBIGLES ,a,,,,,1. fi ! ~~g~~'. U '~ ~ "'~~ e~,.r. o i ~ classroom wing being'Smspnnklarod". Spriaklaa aro rcgairod pet relacneed (B(: PROPOSED NEW LANDSCAPMG ~Y ~ i ~e ~g~ i 1 3 ~-t.c. n 3~ - .. ~ ~ ~ ~' R 'TM.~e y':~ ' 7 ~ ~ Sxdaa SEE DRAWING L11 FOR SPECBIC 1A110SCAPE MFORMUION ~ ° ~, ~ -~ +i p 7 ~'-_fl ; Q ..~`' ~' -'~, ~,,,,~ ,L ;.. III ~1 ~ ~ gg ~C ~ a 1 ~ J~~ ' ~ t 2 f „ Gq~ '. ~, if ; ~ ~~_'P ~~ 4°yq ~1 ~ \~ ~ y ~.,.: {tr.M..:.. i,? 4i i8, ARCHITECTS CvW, Sear 6 Derato ArdAsb, Ins. 120 e1Fmrdam, G~9410f tkdgn0wdtrcMacbaom 415.W3.9800 415,W]98J0 O3NBATAM ARDIRCf SrANP ADMORnv APPrlovu PADFJ.R WORfSS 5T. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN, DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 R1AM OIIE: OESCR1Pa0N: OW,'NII ffY: d0(9 B1'. ~: Q'QI AACHIECIS 2002 COVER SHEET PoBNN. Y+ILE I~,,,,, , i1~ ,r dllY 0. ~ ~ 21JIAI NCR A0.1 • • 10' Sewer Pipeline Eoseme Per 2277 OR 339 -Location Taken Irom 103 Maps 16 s SHEET NOTES A3.a a _ _ ____ A3.4 / ~ _ _ 1- NEW PARKING COUNT -- -' -- -~ ---""- ~/ / 146 STANDARD SPACES ~ 9'-6"x18'-0" COVERED / / / ~ 50 COMPACT SPACES @ 8'-0'x16'-0" OUTDOOR ~ DN \ / / / ~ 7 ACCESSIBLE SPACES ~ 14'-0"x18'-0" \ / / AREA j ~\ ~ ~ / j\ \/ l.\ 203 SPACES TOTAL 60'x40' FIRE /\1 ~ / / / / / / \ \ I ~ A3~.a 2- SEE "L" SERIES DRAWINGS FOR LANDSCAPE INFORMATION ENGINE \~~ / / / \ I wre gear, anCe Easement 3- SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR PROPERTY LINES, GRADING, DRAINAGE, ETC. HAMMERHEAD ~ ~ \/ / \ \ per 1709 Mops 16 TURNAROUND / / /I~ / ~ \ \\ ~ N /// /~ \~ 0 I \\y\/`, ~\ 1 /~ ~\ I //// //c c,i~ ~ /\\ ~ z ~[ J / // ~ \ ~ ~ / /, / NORTH WING \\~ I ~ ~ /~ ~ (Lower Level) ~ ~ `~ 0 " ~/ FF351 ~ \~\/ - I\ ~ 1 GYM / ~ / /~/\\\\\\~ A3.4 ~ / ~~~-~ (Lower Le~eQ ~ ~ ~ V \ / -._Ff3511 ~ /~ ~ I 1 / ~___ j ~DN~ AD1aINwiNCaTlo~~~ I~ D ~ ~~ 1 ~, c C .G c c c c _~ C c c c L V bb i a ~ I SUNDAY 5CH00~--____ ~• ~ (Main Level) I' FF363/' I (Main LeveQ j~ / ~,_ FF362 ~ ~w \ ~ ~~_ / ~ ,, •' ~ `~4~ / ~~N ' CLERGY /,: r (PARAEIEE)' , '~~~ 1`•t ~ (Main Level) \ ~ ~ I ' ~ `~~'~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FF363' F~ ~ PARISH ~I ~+'®~ --~ ~ CENTER ~~~ PEED `tMain Level) euM ~~ ~-=-'------~ ..\ .FF363 I /' I ~ ~ I ~, I I ,', ~ V~ \~ y~ I` SPEED I EXISTING ~ ~1' ® SANCTUARY ~I a ® ~I C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C ® O Ili ® ~ ~, 1 11~ 5' PGE and PTT Easement ~1 I Per 4447 OR 113 -0 F36 I', o- BELL TOWER I~ 4 4 ~I I ', ---------------------- -- ---------------------- --i1 SARATOGA AVE. SITE PIAN stole r_ro ~N O 15' 60' 30' ARCHITECTS Corlett, Skaer & DeVoto Amhitects, Inc. 12p Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 San Franrisco, CA 94101 designOcsdarchitects.com 415.697.98W 415.697.9870 CONSULTANT ARCNRECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOCA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARN: DAre oESCRwnoN: DaAwN Rl: cHxro er: COPYRIGHT: CSU4 ARCHITECTS 2002 SHEET IIRf ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AIGINAI SCALE W 11' i2' ~JOLY 5, 2001 OB ND.: 4131.ot SHEET NUMBER: ~ 1 . 1 ~F'% ~ 4,. ~.ry i~ y~ i Li , i ~ f:--' r M ,' ~ ~I I ~1 4 ~ -,.. , } ;: ' ~: NSZ'I`I.~"E ~`' ia,~ ~ ~, ~ , , ......... _.._.. ..e,.. ._ . .... .............. ;........... ___ . ...._ r.. .3~,,::,:::cre ,, ,, . .: e,. ,,.Z,. ~\. NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWING L1.1 FOR SPECIFIC TREES SLATED FOR REMDVAL OR PRESERVATION. ,r , ,r ~ N i __ /. 0 3D' i 15' 60' -.._.._._.__,.. it --- ` a \3 ~ - ~. _, ," ~- \ ~. ~ ~~, r ~ I ~ vv v ~` ~t r ~ i ri ~ ~ is ~ERI~Ai;E _ ~~~ ~1~~'v ~I i ` ki ~G ~+tj// ~yR~s~ ~~ .v x., ~ ~r~'~f~i~~~ ~e„' Td"k~,MAN ~ \\ \\ ~ ~ ... ~i ~ \ \ // I / ~~~.. .., \,A,\ ~ ~ t ' ,~ ~ ~ ~, .~ ;r 7~ EXIS NG UI~DING \~\~ \A ~'' ~ IMPR VE N S ;A ~\ i ~ ~~ x ST C?t6 E TQ E \ ~~`~ r F ~ ~ ~ DE L~S~E~ ~ / _- \~ \ r ~r I \ \ r \ k.. ~ ' r \, ,. ,, \ I ' T` ~ . ~ d. ~ .I > ~ ~ Y .'~ ~ (,~ \ \ ~,; ~HERITAGE~ II a}< ~,,... ~2. \ _ `'.'-TREES ~ '.. ;- ' .~S ; r}, ~ _y \ \ ~' TO REMAIN i I : , ~ ` >> r' ` ; \. ~~ I ~.. , I ' f/r '"a /` ~ 8:: I\~„\ \~'~ I __,i III` ',. ,. , ~ ~\ ~ i, F ~ , \) ', ,- , 'l i_ _ _ ~ ~ I', I , , ~'~ _. _- ;~ ~' .. ,~ ,. ~ i ~ v ~ ~~ _ , f I- V _ _: S„ ~ -, ~~~, ~~{ ~ ,, ~_ ~ t ~ _~~` ., I: \..~\ ~i ~I ~.I EXISTING HARDSCAPE TO BE t I` '~ REMOVED & REPLACED - ~ ~ ~ ~i `i d v i 1 _ .._.. SEE CIVIL DRAWING C0.1 ~ __ _li •~ \~(~ I 1 ~ ~' ~ _ EXISTING SANCTUARY "~ y '~, 1 ~ ~' v° TO REMAIN ` ..._. _ ~ / ~ ` 4- ' .~ ~i ~ 1;~~ ~ , . . i 1, 1 r. ;, .. `~ ~ po.2- ~~ ~ \ ~~ ~ y ...... .. ,_ ~. .. ... ARCHITECTS 0orkt6 sH«r 8 Devote Amh'dede, me. 120 Rml9~ery Street, Suite 1170 San Francoco, G 94104 designOcsderthitects.com 115.697.9800 415.697.9870 CONSULTINT ARCNi>Ecr sravP CONSULTIM SVd1P AUTHORffY APPROVAL PRO,ECf IDORESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH ~ SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOCA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARK, Gh: DESCRPIgN: ORAWN 6Y: CHK'0 BC COPrRICHf: C56q ARCHRECTS 2002 SHEEP TRLE DEMOLITION PLAN NLL SC4LE iQ„n 1. 1~ 'AAr s, teas B HD.: tutor SHEEP NUNBER: D0.1 ss^ t";G L : ,'n.~F ; ~a~~ `'";,.. 1c, sa°ar P~Rna Em.aanl lJ~,~"I~'~ r~~ ~ ~iiT l g' ~`~~ "•"^r) z >"f1( REIpVE t AEP E p s.., r + "'!:_ TaVen Tian 10.1 - 1E0B ~^ / ~.. ~d}'S 16 rr ) ' ~Ll07T INVJ13.58 (S N)r o .,... ..... ~ _ 3 ri 5 ' ' r "'$~". _ L PR.60', ~ \~ ..... 1000' I~T.EP [GSR nP+ ~ r ~ r ~ t.1,y ~:.1` dNSAA3q' c ~^ ~ ~ ,, r t~ A ia~ . ' '" ~ ~AT f~ ;e IIYJ{61f ~CUTJ r _ \r `, - i e, ; r f0 Pud0e and ~ ~ ! ~ '' ~ um4' uvwrow 1-' ~~6}6~ pf, A`"° - ~ e. o\, Eaaamanl Pm 1701 wo7, IB w r, ~'<„ 9 / P~ar',a J~r~ ~..,i ,~ ...ire ~ ~ V ~ ,~ ay C 1` z ~~, ~ ~ r; '~~. Mie Cleormn Emmenl ~ , ~5;,~. ~ ~,.~ ~~~.,~ \s # ` Ps 7819 ~w fd ry F r ,,, <' ? ~~ .... ~7 ; • ,. \ 1 'j y' v ~ ~ ~ Y F G ~ OTT ~ \, ... .. / ~" ~ l°f~ p r~ //{//fr _... ~ ~ JO 0 30 60 acala 1'= 30' feet fd~~~~~ T~ ~ '~>,. GYM (~ ~ ~,~ ,°~"` ~ \ ° ~. nom w Rs u R ~ ~ FF `~"' ~ i ~ ~ < I y. ~ ~ 35 r ~ , A , ~~ ~ ~ 1 ,. a \ \ q v a ~ y J ' ~ BR350.E J ~i 1 r >sz?' ~~ ~ \ ~ - INVJiad 1 ..~ a.,t ~ ~ l x,i 1 ~ ~ •; a \ \ ~ \, l ~ ,j -- L N q , [_ /1 \ A, Y _ ~ ` , Y ' ~ ~` end " ~' ~ ,;,~ ~' ~~QF~ ~ ~ ~ h , ...: ~ o :.~;.. . F - r ~ ,\ ~ ~ TcJS7.oT ~y ~ .~~ ,362 „ ,~ ~ dedr ;- •, . ~o ~F ~ >~ { '~ 11 4 f ~ f ~~ J G" J57A1R - ~, dl .~ , 1•~ G 0" n a r, y ~ r r~ ~ Y 'i S r ~'~~ J ;\ ~~b'3 \ . •/ ` TC759 „ NY55J.~ pl -'' TCJ81 i' ~ t~ ,? ~ ~ ; r n r ~ < i~ r a H 158.50 ~ 'Q nnJSd.7s ur) - ^ s ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ a t m RIwJSS.w ' ,: ~ ~ ~i3 r t %~' ". ,. mass ei ~ _ t ~ iwss~.e~ !drt E51Re t ~ - J i ) GLRER f ~ ~ r. ; i ~ ~ r , i ~. ~ r I 6.1 - , ~~,~ rr'i ~ V ~.vv rT\'(,~ i ~t. ~ ~~- ~c~ 3 ~ ' ~~ TCJ .8J ,, _. _: < _ T ~r ..: .. ~- T~aO TCJd191 1OJd i i ~ / ~ 19 ~ t ~~- \~ i r. \ - _.._. s . , , ~ .. . : ~ i .: -- ,.,... -~ J .. ~ 3 ~ ~ i ~\ ..\ 4 ~ ~.r ~ ,i ~\ - ~. i ~ - , i . \ ti ...._..._ .. _ ~ \ ' ' __ .._ .... _.. .._. _. _.. ~~ i ~- 1 t W P, ~l \I F ,n..a. V . ~ i i . ... _. ~ ~ " ~' _- ,. T .0 o ~ II '... E a i \ ___.... _ ST i E ` N TO RENAI ~ , ~ ~ i -' 7.B0 TS ,:. TCJ6280 7 ~ ~ TC35 ZI5 :z ~.,. ft ~ ~ ~ 8610 ~ ::5~- ~ ~ R m ... . '' ~ r ~ 1 rG4 ,- , . \ t~ n ~ : _ t %~ .. ~. .._ ~ 83 -~ - '%'; ._ 3 .~~~~ ~ r . l ~\ ;; r. H ~„ ~1 t . A ~ I ~.. ~ r \ j ..~._5' POE and PR Eaaamenl ~ ~~ TCJBJ.87 ~~TCJBJ.H i ~ ~' FF363 = tr ~ ^~: \. - ~ ' ~~ R3d7A 92 r ~ ~ ~ ~ v~r' PB ~ TCJ8611 ' ~.r r d e o r r y :-.~ \.r/ - ~, _ _ v ~ ~ r ,~ 3 TC18771 'i / rr } r CUIBi ? } TWBJ.N T $A ~ 3 ~ . ~ rr . _ F /,'. o v 5 s: . h , t ~V( ~ ' ;r~ \ ~ UNIT OF q ~ J ' ~ 'r TCI88.15 / W ` CJ R7 55 ~ T0JR3,50 3 '~ ~ . o C ~` ~ YATCN EX ~ ~ - --,~ ., ° ~ ~ ~ $' . o10+`r'" - .. .,` . i~ ~ p;: ~ ~ r ~~ gahG TG8795 >L . ~, :,,~ :: _ ... ,,, i ..' .>.,~,. ~ .. .. .- fIlER.:._ IJ. - _,...._.. ... , ~ and ._. r . __ ... _-, < <s n • ,. ~ ' ~ <, ~. < . ~ ~ •.,,i NAmH ER. ' ~, 7Wd7.0 a a----~'r ~~-. .. n ., '\ ~..~ r i \ yo i/ , _ ........ ....._......_ ~ f ~J. x ~ ~ ~'15,.1~D e' '~- , ; ___.. _... .. ___ _ _ . a, . £ . ~ ~ C l / _. .... - ` ...___ "" , ,. w ,f' C .l ~',~Vi,~is~i yy {i yLl~erLif i ' i i ,,~ ,, u r . 3 ,:;~ _ 4 ~ . ...._..rt. c ,... ,. ._ ........ ........ . i~ ::: ,. ~ , ......~...,y ~' ~ VI OF 1 SHEETS • a 67 a Tree SDecies List (Based on survey performed by Barrk <oates 8 Assodates, ansu lung Arborlsts, ao.as•oty •r Hotly Oak iC xx Ho1Jy Oak t5' s; Hotly Oak ;o' x4 Coast Llve Oak t;' :5 Hol ry Oak. 15' x6 Holly Dak 20' x7 Coast LWe Oak 7S' s8 Coast Llve Oak 7S' s9 Caan Llve Oak 7;' stn Japanese Priret so' aft ProittessMulberry y5' eta Coast Redwood xo' rr;• Coast Redwwod x;' ss4 Coast Redwood ao' ssS Holly Oak ao' ssa Interior Live Oak SS' aty Interior Uve Da4 qo' n8 SweetGUn 20' nq Sweet Gem zo' x20 Swell GOm a5' sat Sweet GUm r;• aan Sweet GUm r;• ez; tweet Gum 10' s24 Sweet GUm xo' •x5 SWeK GUm t;' aza sweet Gum zo' a27 sweet GUm z0' aa8 MOMerey Plre 40' x39 91ve Atlas hdar ;o' x3D Coast LEVe Oak x5' sat Coast LWe Oak ;r x3a Deodar Cedar ao' a;3 Oeadar cedar s;' xS4 Deodar Cedar rs' a35 Tasmanlan aiue Gum 4p' x;a Tasmanlan Blur Gum 40' a;7 Tasmanian Blue Gum ;o' x;8 Tasmanian 81ue Gum ;D' s3q Coast Live Oak ~ ;o' r4D Coast Llra Oak s;' s4r Coast Llve Oak t~ aqa Coast Redwood s;' s43 Coast Redwood +o' e44 Coast Redwood ao' s4; Coast Redwood xq' x4a Coast Live Oak t,~ sq) Coart Llve Oek ;e' s48 CaUfwnia Buckeye ;o' s4q Coat LWe Oak ;a' x50 Cease Lwe Oak 30' xtt Coast CWe Oak ;o' s;l Jacaranda ;o' a53 Coast LWe Oak 40' a;4 Coast Live Dak 40' a55 Coast Live Oak )5' a5d Monterey Pine ;o' a;7 Monterey Pine ao' •58 Monterey Pine rs a;g Monurey Pine ;~ ado Monterey Pine s5' sas MontemY Pine 40' s61 lollan Stare Pine 30' sd3 MonMroY Pine 35' +64 Monreroy Pine xo' a65 Monterey Noe ;D' a66 Monterey Nae ;o' ab) Monterey NOe 17' a68 Monterey Plae t5' sdg BailtyAcacia xo' s7o Deodar Cedar 40' xT Bailey ACada 40' s71 Deodar Cedar xs' x13 Deodar Ceder 4e' x74 Cwst Live Oak rs' ers inaerlor Live oak 3b' s76 Interior Live Oak ao' a77 laterlor Gve Oak a5' a78 interior Live Oak ;o' t79 Callforrda Sycamore q; xdo laterlor Uve Oak r5' e8s lateriar live Dak t5' aB2 Monterey Piae ty aBS Monteroy Nae so' a84 MonteroY Pint xD' a8S Moacercy PFnr 1S' add Moateroy Plne 30' a87 Moeterey Plne xo' s88 Montorcy Pi ne z;' xaP Monterey Plne io' •90 Monte rcy Plne 40' aqr Monfirey Plne 4D• a9a Moo2e rey Pinr 7;' Tree To de Removed so gs Sweea. Dam asB •zy 4'he as sww.t bums are an ornamental fret that wlll6e repWced with appropriate ornamental speciees m the propped landscape plan, 4 @ Eucalyptus a;S • 38 These trees are considered a haiard In the presence of sdlool children. It was recommended by the arbwlst that they be considered for removal. 3 ~ Deodar Cedar x70 - 7z The Deodar Cedars wlil be replaced with native ' evergreens in the proposed landscape pion, (Some thlnnEngg of existing evergreen buffers mayybe recommended by arborlst for the health of remaining trees). ~~ L A N D S C A P E PLAN N t N G to6t MILLER AvE BERKELEY,CA 94708 TEL]FAX Sto.5S9.7D34 desigmaorics;pearthlmk.net PROJ ECT TEAM Rebecca Coffman, LdfldsCaPe Architect PROJECT Saint Andrew's Parish & School t36ot Saratoga Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Tel: 4oa8b7.3785 Insal raM®rx+Wr4s7nM CCINSULTANTS: pA~T '.'. 6. Ix. oz ?wS.oZ REV 5 ON: EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS TREE REMOVAL PLAN SCALE: t° = 30' L1.1 • Landsca a PIaR Notes 1 i Lunch Deck/Amphitheater PWuk decking x Handicap Access to Lunch Deck DG w! metal edging a d as per e st ng (MS~Jo n ) xi i son ge 4 Hardscape/bail Play Concrete aAG w/banwalr 5 TVDet exist~rignters w/ setbacks as Dkmer size as per AAakt reNeW & aPArwal 6 Pre-K, 1-K & K Play Area . FLer, sandxt pavan, tartdbx 7 P engineeere block retaining wall 1 (see Geta L s.4) WnNn anopy or Gtl+tlrg tree as per Arbalsts reVIEW a approval WJCedAtlanS 8 Informal Eandscape be steps rtevye exls[Ing tlss In came location 9 8' Wood Fence (See detail L t.4) Poper Acourtl®1 Ergtneers report to Heritage Oak Terrace wJJ BBQ Sandset paver w/ deckirg @ rooiball as per Arborlsts review & appaval w/canmtlons ~+ Nursery Play Area MyerACmstlcal enyrneers repro +x Covered walkway +; Sundial/Focal Point To be determined +4 Seat Wail W/Arbor Corxmte or ssme w~ tlmaer +S Church Plaza +6 0 tlonal Raised Planters w/ p se ating Cwcrete w store +7 Flower Bed +8 Flag Poles (replace existing) +9 Handicap Access to Parish ao Labyrinth z+ Memorial Gardens/.Burial Area As perexistlng apedal ux permit xz £mergencyA<cess Oaompored grantee, gate exlstlng z; Site Lighting (see L +.4) z4 Landscape Trees - approx.;4 hew Ail exiRing trees are marked P . z; Landscape Buffer l.a+ water cnnswnpdmr skub buffrr w/ sea»nal color a6 Drop-offJDick-up Area Des~'c,~.s L A N D S C A P E 0 PLAN N I N G ~o6t MILLER AVE BERKELEY,CA 94708 TELJFA% 5+0.559•+034 desi9nworks;pearthlink.net PRO1 ECT TEAM: Rebecca Coffman, LdRdSCaPe AK~IILeCt PROJECT Saint Andrew`s Parish & SCh00i ~3~t Saratoga Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Tel: 408.8673785 Fax: 4o8.74t.s852 CONSULTANTS: ~.~.~ ryE4i5iQN• LANDSCAPE KLAN SCALE: ~" _ ;o'-o" L1.Z • PAVENG CgL~gTlONS EXISTING Existing Acreage Total 5.ood AC. Fxlsting Pervious t.o9 AC. [~ Existing impervious ;.qt6 A[. / t7o,gao k.tq. 81d9~•49ddo ft.sq. Paving - ta+,uo ftsq. mtl' I( e~ i i i ~~ '~ AV G CA tULATION5 • PROPOSE Proposed Acreage Tor:i ~ ~„e e~ ® Proposed Dervlous © Proposed Imperviouf Note• I"xSs[ g and propost Includes a5 Ac. recei lot Nne adJunment. a ;~` ,_ ,.. I~igiilw~s LANpSCAPE PLAN N i N G to6t MILLER AVE • BERI<ELEY,CA 94708 TELJFAX 5to.559•to34 de~gnwakg@earthl Ink'net PR0IECT TEAM; Rebecca Coffman, Ld hliSCd P2 l~l'C h It2Ct Pr~o~ICT Saint Andrew's Parish & School t36a1 SaratogaAve. Saratoga, CA 9S07o Tef: 408,867.3785 Eau: 408.74~.t85x coNSUi_TAniTS: ,.oS.oZ R~yIA~ -. .... .___.. T_,._...:. _ Proposed`Site P v'in REO tiR D OFF STREET PARKING cCN Ui c Weekend Required Existing Proposed Church Congregation (goo + 4~0o xoo xs8 Weekday gmrch Admin. (n+ x) 6 School Admai. (l4+ t) 14 Teachers (q4+ g 34 Visitors (tb enanate) t6 Gym • flex seats (pdo sf. +4o)z4._ To[al qq 187 xt8 Note; hao Parbkners is maximum seating capac,Ry in Sanctuary NNcal swipe is ~0 to moo. b this ~e~gdrap wne7tMibd~~av~ali~kiti~al~ [es Sundays. (IRYULATION & PARKIN$,,:,_EXIS'rtNG ~~ Existlug Student drop-otEJptdrup ~ t;o lineal ft. g ~'J- Existing DarWng Spaces tg7 weekdays ~;~ YK,er xoo weekends: Proposed Site Circulation SITE CIRCULATION PARKING & PA1lING NO SCALE L~~3 • - Existing Site Paving • ~Existing•fii#e~Circu„ la~tion • • • NOTES • Prc-engineered stack wall ryztem. • Alan BI Wak syste tter or equ vaMnt. • Maximum height of ~ 1.75'. • Total height of 3 tiers N07E5 • As recommended 1n acousgcal report, the txis[Iny d' high fend along the NE property Ilne @ the play yard wig be'upgraded o an e' high fence. • Pence to be solid wood, air tight whhout gaps. Board A batten pattern or equ[vaknt. • pence to extesxl mintmum no' from NE wmer s abng eastern property bouMary. • Minimum height to be 8`. ProQosed Retaini_~ n^ q_~_Sec^ tfon Scale - i!x" = t'-o" ~`~ ' tr... of ...... °, ° etice Proaosed Fence Elevation scale - ~/x' = 1'-0" NOTES - Existing tjahiina (~) Parking tot 4 - z;' post lightlagg standards w( dtssippaa~ion Lo xo' radhts. Approx..; foal: candles. • t Q telephone pole f fight. (z) Property Emry • t - to' post Ilghgng ®entry. • t - my of Saratoga street lamp adJaceat to Church sigaage abng Saratoga Ave. • Upltghtkig P Church s{gnage. (3) Pkza • 4 - ro' posY lighting along walkway B N cenkral plaza. • 3 - upllg4ts in ezlkmg frets. • 4 -down lights in heritage oak. (q) Walkways, Buil g~E~ ~~5 9htlnylsln • Primari{y p the covered walkways. • Wall fixtures Q eirtry doors. • StnlrwaRs insuffkimtly Ili. (s) Safety, Night Ligbgmg t - motbn adWated Bght 4 fire lane/seMte road. • t - motion adivated light @ portahle classroom rear of buildtng. • May be other safety Bghflig. GNEA E5 • All existhig sfte light€ng to be removed. • AB .Iighgng to empbpY cue-otf fixtures to reduce glare by restAding high angle light, • Parking deli 11ylet post layout shown is provldug requ(rement of t:o foot candles. yhis Ellumination level can be achleved of numerous tombinatbns.and will be fixed ac<os~ng t° specifk fixtures chosen. • AB lllumkiatkm data & photometrk charts to be submitted for specific fbWRS as per manufddarelY' apldflca[t0115 prior ro constnsdlon approvals. N~OT~~~P o sad LigA na y only nsutam (s) Parking Lot Parking deck to love a continuous distrlbngon o9 t.o foot candle meiltnum 1lghtlng level as required to promote ~persanal safety and natural survelElance. (Current Itghgng n approz..5 fc.). z Pro rty E Pot Isyhung ~ entry @ pelt to be Improved. • t -City of Saratoga street lamp ad}aam to Church slgnage along Saratogga Ave. to remain. Upligkting P <hurdi signage to be Improved. (3) Plaza • Poi Iightlng along walkway & in central plaza at minimmri t.o k, level. • Upllghts in new trees as part of overoli Plaza lighting scheme to be determined. • 4 -down lights in heritage oak (E}. (4) Walkways, Building Entries, Stalrwalis • Prou[ded.by Bove lichglig in the covered walkways, waatt~ fixtures ~ entry door, 6 Intermediate height post al! Ilghttig to walkways, oftkts, elassrooms, and stalrwel[s to arkleve min t.o F<. (5) Safety, Night tlghtln • Motion aQwahd I hts ~ fire lane f servke road as need Motion adiva[ed fl9ni ®rear play area & rear Batt to diuourage umvanted actlvtry durhsq oft-hours. May be other safety Ilghgng. I~invads L A N D S C A P E P L A N N I N G toot MILL ER.AVE BERKELEY,CA 947x8 TELJFAX 51o.SS9•to34 designwarks3apearthlipk.net PROJECT TEAM Rebecca Coffman, lzndscape Architect PROJECT Saint Andrew's Parish & School t36ot Saratoga Ave, s~atoga cA 95a7o Tel; 408.867.3785 Fa>r 4o8.74t.t85z CONSULTANTS: '~~- 7.a5.aZ k-~L~}'I.s SITE LIGHTING LANDSCAPE DETAILS NO SCALE L 1.q- ~tisJr:a ~v.te 1;1cl~tt~n4 ' No scAfe PrAPflsed"Site: Liahtinb ~ ~" . ~ i ,_rwnraw..•.. No Scale 1 FLOOR PIAN - SOWER LEVEI SCAIE I/16'-I'V HALL/PERFORMING ARTS/GYM 15,168 S.F. 'CLASSROOM WING 8,308 S.F. CLASSROOM WING 8,166 S.F. ' OFFICES 2,833 S.F. CENTER - -- OWER - -- LEVEL TOTAL 34,475 S.F. PARISH CENTER i t______ BELL TOWER - SEE A1.1 FOR ACTUAL LOCATION N ~ BELL TOWER ~`. 0 16' ~`, ABOVE ;' 8' 32' ARCHITECTS CadetL Skoer ~ OeVOto Architects, Inc. 120 MaMgomery Street, Suite 1110 San Francisco. CA 94104 desi~~sdarchitects.com 415.693.9800 415.693.9830 CONSULTANT ARCHITECT STMdP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARR: DALE: ~SCRIPfION: DRAwN Br: CHKD BY: cowRlcxr: CSDA PRCNITECT$ 2002 SHEET TRIP LOWER LEVEL PLAN RIGIN41 SCdlf I°~ ~1. I Y OB ND.: ~JUL:Y 5, 2002 2131.01 SHEEP NUMBER: A2.' O PARISH HALL/PERFORMING ARTS/GYM 3,250 S.F. ARCHITECTS Corlett, Shaer A DeValo ArchBects, Inc. 120 Nontgomery Street, Suite 1110 Son Francisco, CA 94104 design0adarchitecls.mm 415.693.9800 415.693.9870 CONSULTANT ARCHRECT STPLIP CONSULTAM SIANP AUNiORITY APPROVAL PROJECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95D70 NARK: DALE: DESCRIPTION: DRAWN Bf: CHK'D BY: PIRICHf: CSDA ARCHITECTS 2002 SHEET TRLE MAIN LEVEL PLAN RIpNPl SCALE I~in II 12. ~~u~r s. zone OB NO.: 2utm SHEEP NUNBER: A~,/~ BELL TOWER - SEE A1.1 FOR 0 16' ,~ FLOOR PIAN -MAIN LEVEL AcruAL LocanoN - I SfAIE I/16'-I'4' -.i 8' 32' CDA ARCHITECTS Corlett. Skaer k OeVato Nchitecu, Inc 120 Nontgomery Street, Suite 1170 San Francisco, C4 94104 designOcsdorchilects.cam 415.693.9800 415.693.9870 `~ FLOOR PLAN -UPPER LEVEL SCNE 1/Ib'-1'p CONSULTMII O PARISH HALL/PERFORMING ARTS/GYM - -- 0 ADMIN/CLASSROOM WING 8,310 S. F. O NORTH CLASSROOM WING - -- O CLERGY OFFICES 2,755 S.F. O PARISH CENTER - -- BELL TOWER - -- UPPER LEVEL TOTAL 11,065 S.F. 4UIHUHIIi IV'YI(VVI1L PROTECT PDDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 IN4RK: DATE: I DESCRIPTIDN: ~': CSDA W2giREC1$ 2002 SHEET TRLE UPPER LEVEL PLAN BELL TOWER - SEE A1.1 FOR ACTUAL LOCATION 0 16' 8' 32' I~uinuiunull• 12• OB NO.: ~aULY 5, 2W1 71]IAI SHEET NUNRER: A2.3 • ARCHITECTS Corld6 9kac k OeVWo kchRecls, Inc. 120 Ilantgomery Streel, Suite 1170 Son Froncieco, CA 94104 Ees~nOCSdorMRecls.wm 415,89J.90(q 418.69J.98J0 CONSULiANI ARCHOECi STNlP CONSULTAM SGAIP AUTHORITY APPRQJAL PA0.1ECf POORESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH ~C SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARAiOGA, CA 95070 NARI(: p17E: OESCRIPfiON: DRAWN Bi: CHN'0 8Y: COPYRIGHT; CSOA ARCHOECiS 2002 91EET 1RLE ROOF PLAN 0.RNAl SCALE I~iun~i i1. 12. ~Nlr a mat B NO.: aur.oi sxEEr LAINBER: A ~, A BELL TOWER - SEE Ai.i FOR ROOFPL4N ACTUAL LOCATION `- i6' ~ scuF: i/1Y=ru ~~~ 8' 32' • • I r 11 I I I d _ 5~.._ _ _ ASPHALT SHINGLE CEMEM PASTER -COLOR ~2 /-'~' LOW 'E' DOUBLE IYAZING IN ~L BRONZE ANODIZED FRAt1E ""'~ ~ ~ -- ~., PERFORMING ARTS /GYM. -EAST ELEVATION 4 . SCAlE 1,1e~,~+7 as ~ PERFORMING ARTS /GYM. -NORTH ELEVATION ~) scetE 1/fe~•rrc lEA'flk2ED CEMEM PIASTER -COLOR ~3 -- ASPHALT SHINGLE ~-- LOW 'E' DOUBLE GUSIF~ IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME .- CEMEM PtAS1ER -COLOR t2 .- lE%IURED CEMEM .PLASTER -COLOR f3 i,0.R00F ~ +390 ~ ASPHALT SHINGLE B' W000 SIDING - COLOfl ~1 LOW 'E' DOUBLE GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME TE1fURED CEMEM PIASTER -COLOR ~3 MAIN LEVEL ~ +36- 2 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ y _ ___ _ LOWER LEVEL - - '---------------------------------- E +35i v' ~, PERFORMING ARTS /GYM. - SOUTN ELEVATION ;~ '~ 3 ~ so¢:Ina~ra ~~ ~ IUZING IN FRAME COLOR (1 i3 T.O.ROOF ~ +390 ~ PERFORMING ARTS /GYM. - WEST ELEVATION ~~ sw¢:1/fe~•ra _ T.O.PARAPET +375 _ MAIN LEVEL ' +36~ _ ~owER +351 c1AssRwu 2~ f~ ~ PM15N 4 ADUw ® cDrrtR ~ ~~ 41MNPSU4 ~~ ~3 0 BFLL T9wER 0 16 SCALE ~y B 32 NOTE: SEE SHEET M-t FOR M4TERIAIS COLORS AND FlNISHES ~. r ~' ARCHITECTS Cotleli Skaer 8 DeVOto Achitecls, Inc. 1Z0 Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 Son Frauisco, CA 94104 desynOcsdarchilecls.com 415.693.9600 415.693.9830 CONSULTAM WtCHUECT STAMP CONSULTANT STAMP AUTHORITY APPROVAL PROTECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MARK: DATE: DESCRIPTION: DRAWN BY: CNK'D BY: CAPYRIGM: CSOA ARCHRECTS 2002 SHEET 1BIE PERFORMING ARTS /GYMNASIUM ELEVATIONS RlciNU scALE IO 11, IZ~ JUNE Re, YW7 21]1.01 SHEE7 1 NUMBER: A3.1 PA1NfFD CORRUGATED MEru DECK BUILMNG '~ r~ BEYOND ~ ~~ ~ -' HIGH POIM OF COVERED WAllCWAY .~ ~ . cDNC. ~~ I ~ ~ ~~ ,~ I ~ ~~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~~ I WALkWAY ROOFED BAIDCE TO NORTH CLASSROOM WING A~HALT SHINGLE = CEMENT PIASTER -COLOR j2' - . ~ OPERABLE LOW 'E• DOUDLE L^-- ~w. ~ NlODDT:DNFRAME ZE ~ ~ ~_ TE%NRED CEMEM PUSIER -COLOR #3 - 1,'s I - I - i - I 81 ADMIN. /CLASSROOM -WEST ELEVATION ~~ SCAlE~. I/Id41'U' ~~ ~F,~~i EAST CLASSROOM WING -EAST ELEVATION _ __~ ADMIN, / CLASSROOM =NORTH ELEVATION F ~ / $GtE, IJId~I ' WOOD FASCw ANO GSM GUTTER PaN1EO WHfIE - ASPNAU SHINGLE ~- CEMEM PIASTER -COLOR $2 - - OPERABLE LOW 'E• DOUBLE CWJNC IN BRONZE - ANODIZED FRAME - ROOffD BRID(I TO NORTH CIlSSROOM WING TE%TUREO CEMEN PUSTER -COLD ~~ ~.~1 _~~- I~ ~'i _ _ I__ ADMIN. /CLASSROOM -SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: I/Id'•I'tl ----- --ti--- ~. _ _ ISSS- _ y ~, _~_ ®®~ I: ~ ADMIN. /CLASSROOM -EAST ELEVATION I sratE: U1e'•ra _ T.O.HIGH ROD +403 ' _ T.O. ROOF ~ +39- 5 v _ _UPPER LEVELA +376 ~ MAIN LEVEL .: +363.5 LOWER LEVEL +35; °" _ T.O.HIGH R00~ +40- 3 'v' _ T.O. ROOF ~ - +395 ~ ROOFED BRIDGE i0 NORTH CUSSROOM WING _UPPER_ L +376 , 1 ` _ -MAIN LEVELS' Y - +363.5 - O W ER LEVEL ' L ~- - ~ , , +351 Y _ woaD FASCw AND csM - ~ ' CUffE'A PANTED WHITE I ~~~-.~~_ - A~HPLT SHINGLE T ~` - ~: ~ y~:.,,, ~- ~"~~~ CEMEM PIASTER - COLOA ~2 - ~ ~-~'-- ~~~! ~" #" - _ MAIN. LEVEL +363.5 _ _LOWER LEVEL +351 NORTH CLASSROOM WING -WEST ELEVATION SGU, 1/16'•1'-0' 1 I / SCaE: Ill6'•I'0 2 ~~ 4~~~1 3 4444446 ~~ ~ AF65N 8~ ~+. ~ ~ 5~ a 1s ~ SCALE ~~ 7 B 32 ~ ~ NOTE: SEE SHEET M-t FOR MATERUIS COLORS ANDIRNPBHES DELL towLR i° CONCRETE CaUMN BASE-J REOW000 COLUMNS, BEAMS AHD RAFTERS ~ COVERED WALKWAY /BUILDING ENTRY 9 ~ scaE 1,le~ra ~ (COVERED WALKWAY TYPICAL THROUGHOUT SITE) ~ NORTH CLASSROOM WING -NORTH ELEVATION 6 W000 FASCw AND GSM -! curlER PaNrEO wHl>E w y.- ' • ~~* OPERABLE LOW E DOUBLE GtAZMG IN BRONZE ® ® ® ® .. ' ANDDQED FRAME ' ' _ T_ _.~ _ _ 4 _ _ ~~-. i- _ ~~ , _ "~ -~ TEKNRED CENENf PlA51ER -COLOR a3 ,, e t ~ _ ~ ~. z . ~'~ NORTH CLASSROOM WING -SOUTH ELEVATION / scas:lp6'•ra \ J wooD Pascu AHD au CURER PANTED MriAE - ASPfULi S ISLE- - - CETLENf PIASTER - COLOR j2 OPEAA&E LOW 'E' PoUBLE A GLAZING IN BRONZE , ~ ANODIZED fRA11E _ -„__,_,. _ _ ' TEI(NRED CEMEM Pl15TER -COLOR +3 ' _ .. ~t ~ _ ~. _~5 d. _ _T.O. ROOF +381 _ , _ MAIN LEVELS +363.5 _ _ LOWER LEVEL ® +351 _ T.O. ROOF +38__-~ ARCHITECTS Corlett, Skoer h DtVoto Architects, Irc. 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1170 San Francisco, CA 94101 designOcsdarchilecls.com 415.693.9600 415.fi93.9830 CONSULTANT ARCHRECi SfPMP CONSULTANt STAMP AUTHORItt APPROVAL PROTECT ADDRESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 136D1 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 WRN: DATE; DESCRIPDON: DRAWN ar: cHK'D IT+: coPTlacHr: CSDA ARCHAECTS 2004 SHEET RTIE ADMIN. / CLASSROOM - NORTH CLASSROOM WING ELEVATIONS IcINa sDALE 14„ ,,, it' 12' JUNE te, ~ N ~ eUlAt SHEET NUMBER: A2,2 !• - WOOD FASCU PND CSM CURER PANTED WHRE - ASPHALT SHINGLE _8' WOOD SIDING _ __-__,~ - COLOR ~I ~- - OPERABLE LOW 'E' DOUBLE -. GLAZING IN BRONZE -~ ~~~ PNODIZED FRAME •.-~ ~"-' -TEKNREO CEMENT PUSTER -COLOR ~3 -- - /~ PARISH CENTER -EAST ELEVATION ~~ 6CAB 1/la~ra T.O. +367 1~T.O.PA '+376 A x ~ ~ t ~ Ana ~, PARISH CENTER -NORTH ELEVATION U $CAE: IJIa'~I'0' WOOD FASCl4 PND GSM ' - GUTTER PANTED WNNE ASPHALT SHINIXE 6' WOOD 9DING ` ° __ fALOR fl _ _ OPEAABIB LOW 'E DWBtF - .,'~~ __ __ _ GAZING IN BRONZE ,~^ ANODIZED FFANE . - -.; TE7(fUREO CEMENT ' { PIASTER -COLOR }3 r - -~1: T.0 ROOF' ~" .v - +J~- 87 ~ ~7 PARISH CENTER -WEST ELEVATION r1 PARISH CENTER -SOUTH ELEVATION scAF llle~ra ~ acAlt: lAa'•ra. - W000 FASCU ANO CSM CURER PA67fED WHILE-.- - ASPHALT SHINGLE-; ^T- 8' WOOD SIDING - caLOR ~I --- OPERABLE LOW 'E' DOUBLE GLAZING IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME ~- 1FRURED CEMEM ` PASTER -COLOR +3- CONCRETE SEEPS __~ _'- -~~~~~ t : I _ . - yL.+ ~_ .. CLERGY OFFICES -NORTH ELEVATION ~ ~ SCO1H l/la~ra wood FASCU Awo csM ~ cuTIER PANTED WHDE - ~ ASPHALT SHINGLE =Y - ~~ _. B' w0~ SIDING _ -COLOR ~1 ~r ~„ ~ CEMENT PVSIER -COLOR +Z T i - 1. = OPERABLE LOW 'E' DOU&.E _ _ _ _ ' GAZING DI BRONZE - -_ ~- ANODIZED FRAME " ~ ~ 1E7(iLIREO CEMENT -~.. ~ ":OPEN y ,R PlA51ER -COLOR ~3- =ln -------___-~- _ _ LOWERLEVEL' ~, CLERGY OFFICES -WEST ELEVATION scAE:llle+ra -T.O.HIGH R00 ' ' +399 , _ _ T.O. ROOF ~ +392 ~ ^ -__ ~ ~~ +375R ~EVELy V 1~ . i~'?2~:: _ ,r~ ..~;'. ° t _ MAIN LEVEL ~ I , ~ +363 4 I I - -~_------- --------~- _ LOWER LEVEL, +35~ LERGY OFFICES -!EAST ELEVATION - - - - -y -- -~ T.O. ROOF - r ' -- -- - - - - - ASPHALT SHRICLE ^ - +417 , .c y, WOOD SIAUTS ~ COLOR 8Z . .~ ; - OPERABLE W000 ~ ~,. ~, _ = BAFFLBS - cDLaR d2 - ~ BELFREY --.. .. - - _ - - .CLEAR cLaZING_ _ ' _ _ - LEVEL -~ - ^~~~ IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAME - ~ y,. +J91 ~ ^ a a ~~ -' ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ INSULATION G~M~~ + -: ~ :, ~ u; ~ .;: ,~ _ ~ iECTUREO CEMENT - '~" ~ ~. r`; '~ ' ~~` PLASTER - coLDR ~ ~ L RINGERS - ~T' ~ CHAMBER ~ +363 ~ ,. n BELL TOWER SECTION ~/ suu: ul°`ro' 2 ~ BELL TOWER -EAST G SCALE: ule'-ra ELEVATION ~ BELL aTOWER -SOUTH ELEVATION WEST AND NORTH SIM.) ~ (FACI NG SARATOGA AVE.) - T.O.HIGH R00 +399 ' _ _ T.OT.O. R~ +392 _ UPPER LEVEL ' +37~ _ MAIN LEVEL ,~ +363 ~ 0 I ~ , ADNIN r,8 ~ X11 6f11BUWM """~~~/ "" e ~ 4 2 2 ~I ~i ' o is ~"°~ SCALE ~~ 8 32 1 NOTE: SEE SHEEP M-I FOR MATERIALS WLORS AND FlNISHES ARCHITECTS Corlett, Skaer & DeVoto kthitede, Inc. 120 Montgomery Street, Su6e 1170 San Frantiuo, C4 94104 designOtsdorthiletts.tom 415.691.9800 415.691.96]0 CONSULTPNi ARCHITECT STAMP ooNSULTANT srAaP AUTHORItt APPROVAL PROIECi ADDRESS ST, ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 MaRK: DATE: DESCRIPDON: DRAWN B1: CHK'D BY: COPiHIGHf: CSDA ARCHITECTS 2002 SHEET TOLE BELL TOWER, CLERGY OFFICES, PARISH CENTER ELEVATIONS IcINU scuE 14,,,~ Ir~~z. ~JONE Ze, 7004 ~~ 3131.01 SNEET NUMBER: A3,3 -. T.O.ROOF r +390 ,I T.O.PARAPET +375 PARKING suNwr scHOOL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MNN LEVEL +362 LOCKERS flASKETB4t COUAf ~ KRCNEN LOWER LEVEL, ~ SECTION -GYMNASIUM - ~} scup Ina~a~a RETNNING MULL WHEAE PNMEO CORRUGATED REOUOtED FOR ACCESS~LE METAL COVER 12 PATH 6 TRAVEL T.O. COVER _ _ ~I IZ IXIS7INC SLOPE +356.5 ~~~ ~CK ~1 UNDISTURBED ANO PoS~ ~OPEN ~OPEN T.O.PAVING 349 T.O. DECK ~ ~ + _ +343.5 EXISTING GRADE +340 COVERED OUTDOOR AREA - (SECTION VIEW NORTH) SECTION - -NORTH CIASSR00M WING - r J scAle Ipa•ra ~~ R ARCHITECTS C7rldl, S1aer 8 CeVa1o Architects, bc. 120 Aknlgamery Street, Suite 1110 Son Fmn[isco, CA 94tH Eesig~esd7rchileclsxom 415.693.9600 415.693.9670 CONSULTANT ARCHDECf SpW' CONSUIiAM SIAMP A.UTHORItt APPROVAL PROJECT N)ORESS ST. ANDREW'S PARISH do SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGq CA 95010 WRK: O1TE: DESCRIPTION: DRAWN BY: CHK'D 6Y; COPYRICHI: CSGA ARCHRECTS 2002 SHEET TREE BUILDING SECTIONS K;INAL SCW.E I~nin~u~~~~~ II. 2• JULY 5. 2071 '~ 4131.01 SHEET NUNBER A2 A sECrioN ~ ~ D~~ SfNE: I/1M`1'U' I 6' 32' CEMENT PLASTER, COLOR /2 CEYENi PLASTER, COLOR ~3 `ri ~.'~ ~; :: ~, BROWN ASPHALT B' LAPPED HORIZONTAL "HARDIPUWK' SIDING, COLOR ~1 2' DARK BRONZE ALUAIINUN WOJDOW CLEAR LOW 'E' DOUBLE ARCHITECTS ~.~~~. 120 MaA9anny S6cd, Su1e 1110 San kaKmo, G 94104 as.~a.9eao 415.3.9830 CONSIATIM n9~00~cr sr~ caxsuirart svuv nulxortnr narm0vu aan~cr em~Fu ST. ANDREW'S PARISH & SCHOOL PLAN. DEPT. SUBMITTAL . 13601 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOCA, CA 95070 ~~sc: aetE er: axb ar: csa naamFCrs 2002 SHEET TntF MATERIALS BOARD Say i~~„~~ ,i,iiill• 2. ALLY 4'lOa2 ~~ pINAI SNEET M-1 ,,~ ,_ _+~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Jackman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 10, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of thePublic will be allowed to address thePlanning Commission for- up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct 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 July 18, 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 - None 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. 1. APPLICATION #02-072 (397-24-073) - RUEHLE;`20075 Spaich Court; -Request for Design Review and Use Permit approvals to construct a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 12 feet and will be located on a 49,800 (gross) square foot lot in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. There is a 4,773 square foot single-story residence on the site. A Use Permit is required because the proposed accessory structure will be located within the rear ~_ yard setback. (VASUDEVAN) 2. APPLICATION #02-047 (517-19-040) - SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road; Request for Modification of Approved Project to remove two provisions in the resolution for DR - 99 -006. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10- foot wide pedestrian trail on their property be omitted from the resolution of approval. The applicant requests permission to allow afive-foot high fence beyond the front yard of the property within the City right-of-way. This is a change of the requirement that athree-foot fence be permitted in the front yard of the property as permitted by resolution DR-99-006. (WELSH) 3. APPLICATION #02-127 -CITY OF SARATOGA, Austin Way; -Request to designate all of Austin Way a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway that was built in 1904. (LIVINGSTONE) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS - Commissioner's sub-committee reports ~ ~ COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, August 14, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive this Agenda via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato a.ca.us } • ~r r ~~ v u ii u'-1 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioner Hunter and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhous and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 26, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded regular Planning Commission minutes of June submitted with a minor correction on page 11. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Jackman ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA by Commissioner Barry, the 26, 2002, were approved as Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 3, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-015 (503-72-034) - HSU, 21775 Congress Hall Lane: Request for Design Review Approval to add 1,840 square feet to an existing 4,325 square foot house for a total area of 6,165 square feet on a 2.78 acre property. The maximum height of the addition will be 18 feet..__The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for an 1,840 square foot single-story addition on and existing 5,325 square foot residence. Design Review Approval is required because the home would exceed 6,000 square feet. • Stated that the subject property consists of 2,78 acres gross and 61,650 square feet net (since the property has a 25 percent average slope. • Described the home as featuring Spanish-style architecture with stucco walls and the roof. • Said that the proposal complies with requirements and the necessary findings to support this proposal can be made. Additionally, there would be no tree removals and minimal grading required. • Recommended approval. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch expressed confusion over a marking on the plans. Mr. Hsu, Applicant/Owner, 21775 Congress Hall Lane, Saratoga: • Clarified for Commissioner Kurasch that that marking represents a tree's canopy. Commissioner Barry asked at what point the location of a fault precludes construction. Mr. Hsu replied that this was a question for a structural engineer. Director Sullivan elaborated that there is no set distance to a fault. The closer to a fault line, the more. significant the remediation requirements become. Commissioner Roupe cautioned Mr. Hsu that the home includes a substantial deck area and that the amount of area to be enclosed within fencing on a Hillside District property is 4,000 square feet. Mr. Hsu assured Commissioner Roupe that he is aware of that fact. Chair Jackman pointed out that there is no fencing now and asked if fencing is proposed in the future. Page 2 -5 • Mr. Hsu replied not in the foreseeable future. /' Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 3 Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Roupe stated that this proposed addition is compatible with the house and neighborhood and that he would support this project. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Garakani agreed. Commissioner Kurasch agreed. Chair Jackman said that this proposal was nicely done. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #02-015) to allow an addition on an existing home located at 21775 Congress Hall Lane. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2 *** APPLICATION #02-045 (503-78-004) - BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTION INC., 21888 Villa Oaks Lane: Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,825 square foot two-story home with 1,346 square foot basement on a 1.01 acre property. The maximum height of the structure is 26 feet. The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the subject site is a vacant lot consisting of 44,083 square feet gross and 37,911 square feet net. The parcel has an 11 percent average slope. • Described the proposed new single family home that would consist of 5,825 square feet and include a three-car garage. • Stated that the necessary findings can be made to support this request. • Informed that comments were received from both the rear and adjacent neighbor. One neighbor is , requesting that a condition be imposed requiring that an access easement be granted. ' • Said that the project preserves the natural landscaping and no Tree Removal Permits are proposed. • Added that the home's design would minimize the perception of bulk. The home is of a similar size to those in the neighborhood. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Kurasch sought assurance that this project would not cut into the buffer. Planner Ann Welsh assured that ther i e s enough room to sustain the visual buffer. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 - Page 4 Commissioner Barry asked if setback issues have been remedied. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. This project's setbacks would be made conforming. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the impact to the nearest neighbor appears to be minimal. Chairman Jackman sought assurance that the light well would not encroach into the setback. Planner Ann Welsh stated that the applicant is aware that they cannot encroach into a setback. Commissioner Roupe pointed out an area below a terrace that includes a structural wall above. He questioned the height and also whether this area would be enclosed. If so, it would need to be counted as square footage. Planner Ann Welsh pointed to Page A-4 and stated that this is a retaining wall and not a full wall. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that he wanted it made perfectly clear that this area couldn't be completely enclosed without being counted as square footage. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:23 p.m. Mr. Michael Davis, Project Designer: • Stated his agreement with the staff report and made himself available for questions. • Added that the house is being rotated a bit to meet setbacks and that the retaining wall does not encroach into the easement. The height of the retaining walls mentioned by Commissioner Roupe is two to three feet. Commissioner Garakani asked for the distance between the two retaining walls. Mr. Michael Davis replied five feet to allow landscaping between them. Commissioner Garakani asked what the applicant thinks about the neighbor's request for an emergency access easement. Mr. Pete Blaettler, Applicant, 21888 Villa Oaks Lane, Saratoga: • Stated he is not agreeable to the easement request. • Said that he sees this easement as having a detrimental impact on his property. • Pointed out that there is another option for this easement through the Thomas property. • Added that placing this easement onto his property would impact his backyard setbacks and would require the removal of two trees. Commissioner Roupe asked where was the current access. Mr. Pete Blaettler replied off of Via Regina. Commissioner Barry asked staff to give a briefing on the request for an emergency access easement. Planner Arm Welsh: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 5 • Advised that the neighbors (The Rhetts) provided the proposed map for the emergency access easement just the day before. The Rhetts are asking that this emergency access easement be made a Condition of Approval. • Stated that she faxed the proposal to the Fire Chief. He thought a secondary access would be prudent and saw it as a public benefit. Commissioner Roupe questioned whether the Rhetts themselves would be offering an easement through their property. Planner Ann Welsh stated that this request affects the design of the Blaettler property is that the neighbors are proposing this very late in the process. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that the City Attorney had previously provided a memorandum stating that the authority for the Planning Commission to exact dedications through Design Review is very limited. This would not preclude the two property owners from negotiating an agreement. Commissioner Barry asked if this proposal is the only way to provide the secondary emergency access. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the most logical access is though the Thomas property. Mr. Pete Blaettler stated that Mrs. Thomas has indicated an openness to provide an access and has discussed this matter with the Rhetts. Ms. Marilyn Riding, 21836 Villa Oaks, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a neighbor to the east of the subject property. • Stated that it has been a pleasure working with the applicant through this process and that she has provided a letter of support and is also here in person to support this application. • Said that this home will be an asset to the neighbor and she believes the builder will be considerate of the neighborhood. This will be the last property built here and she looks forward to seeing this home constructed. • Expressed concern over the easement issue and particularly the late date at which the Rhetts brought the issue forward. Stated that the Rhetts were well aware that this project was underway and raised this issue of an easement at the very last minute, which is totally unacceptable. • Stated that she is not in favor of the emergency access easement through this project. Ms. Hannelope Thomas, 21955 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Stated that she is the neighbor to the west of the Rhetts. • Added that she has been in court with the Rhetts. • Said that she was willing to give a five foot wide easement, for a consideration, to allow the Rhetts to access the sewer lines, provided that the necessary gravity is available. • Added that the area is way too steep to serve as an emergency access road. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Thomas what she thinks about the design of this home. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 6 Ms. Hannelope Thomas replied that she thinks it is a nice home. She added that she will not even be able to see it from her home. The story poles are hardly visible. She stated that the Rhetts are trying to accomplish something under false pretenses. Ms. Marilyn Riding, 21836 Villa Oaks Lane, Saratoga: Stated that the trees that would have to be removed to accommodate an emergency access easement are, at 18-inches, very significant and would leave a hole in the landscaping screening. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the plans for the landscaping of the rest of the property. Mr. Pete Blaettler said that there are no plans for the rear•yard. He added that the trees in question are on the Rhett property rather than his. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Barry: • Commended Mr. Blaettler on his work with his neighbors in the redesign of this home, saying that the Commission appreciates that effort. • Said that this is a well designed home and setbacks have been dealt with. • Declared that the Commission does not have the legal basis to require the requested fire road access and that she finds that to be an unreasonable request of this property. • Said that she would not support the requirement for the fire road access. • Suggested the inclusion of native drought tolerant plans with the landscape plan. Commissioner Rou e said that he is in su ort of the ro'ect and o oses the fire access easement. • p PP p J PP Asked for clarifications to be put on the drawing that there would not be an enclosure on the lower terrace. Commissioner Garakani said that he supports this project and finds it to be a nice one. Said that he had originally been concerned about the color of the roof and building but once he saw the samples he finds them to be nice. Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports this project and finds this house to be compatible with the area. While she would not choose this size home for the Hillside, there is precedent in the area and this proposal is compatible with what is there. Said that she is satisfied that the buffers will be maintained. Chair Jackman said that she likes the design and the work done with the neighbors. Agreed that she would not support the fire access easement since the Commission has no legal authority and also because it was brought up at the very last minute. , Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Berry, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of - anew residence on property located at 21888 Villa Oaks Lane with the rotation of the structure sufficient to meet setbacks. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: .None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Chair Jackman reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. **~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 Page 7 DR-00-051 & BSA-00-003 (503-30-002) -WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two story single-family residence on a 19,210 square foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 3,609 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that two letters in opposition were received today and distributed to the Commission this evening. • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Building Site Approval to allow atwo- story single-family resident on a 20,000 square foot vacant lot. The floor area would include 3,609 square feet and an attached two-car garage. The maximum height is 26 feet and the zoning is Hillside Residential. • Said that the project meets all necessary findings except for privacy impacts. Staff is recommending some modifications to mitigate privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbor to include the replacement of French doors with 2 foot by 2 foot windows; the elimination of the wraparound front porch on the right side and the inclusion of fast growing landscaping. • Added that there is no fencing proposed at this time but that the applicant has been made aware of the requirements for both corner lot and Hillside District fencing standards. • Recommended approval with the requirement that Council must adopt the recently modified Basement Standards. Commissioner Barry asked Planner Oosterhous to review the two letters received. Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that one email from a Ms. Dora Brends, 12451 Old Oak Way, is asking the City to adhere to the Specific Plan mandates. Commissioner Roupe asked how this application holds up to Measure A and the Specific Plan and whether is conforms to requirements. Commissioner Barry stated that this parcel may be a legal non-conforming lot. Measure A calls for one building unit per two acres on a flat lot. , Commissioner Roupe pointed out that similar projects have been approved. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Hillside Residential zoning district was created as a result of Measure A. Stated that as long as a project is consistent with the Hillside Residential zoning requirements, it will also be consistent with Measure A requirements. Added that this parcel has been a lot for some time and that it was previously approved for a house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of 3uly 10, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Specific Plan states a parcel is exempt if it was created prior to Apri125, 1978. She asked when this parcel was created. Mr. Tom Walker, Applicant, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga, replied that the parcel was recorded in 1956. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if this parcel is then exempt from Measure A. Director Tom Sullivan responded that the parcel is exempt from the minimum parcel size since it was recorded prior to adoption of Measure A. Chair Jackman pointed out that a letter signed by five neighbors on Pierce Road is asking that the rural character of their area be preserved. ____ Director Tom Sullivan stated that this parcel pre-existed 1978 and is exempt. Even if a lot line adjustment is processed, it will not lose its exemption. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Michael Rowe, Britt-Rowe, Project Architect: • Stated that this is a unique lot. • Pointed out that this proposed home is 800 square feet smaller than the 4,400 square foot home previously applied for in 1979 and incorporates.a walkout basement style. • Said he was available for questions. Commissioner Roupe said that this is a difficult lot with its topography and expressed concern about the privacy for immediate neighbors. Asked if Mr. Rowe would consider the use of translucent glass for the dining room windows, which overlook the neighboring property. Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes. Commissioner Roupe pointed to page A-4 of the plans and asked for clarification that the retaining wall would be five feet high. Additionally, he asked if the retaining wall would encroach in the sideyard setbacks and sought assurances that Mr. Rowe would agree to meet retaining wall requirements. Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes. He added that on the title there was a public easement on the private street, which is not permitted. The Title Company removed that easement and this gave them more room to meet setbacks. Commissioner Barry asked how far the house would be moved. , ' Mr. Michael Rowe replied about 10 feet. Chair Jackman asked if the retaining wall was near Pike Road. Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the maximum slope was in the buildable area of the lot. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 9 Chair Jackman asked the significance of the two story poles, specifically the taller one. S Mr. Michael Rowe replied that the taller pole represents the back ridge. However, the story pole is actually five to six feet taller than the house will actually be. Commissioner Roupe said that a reduction in height would take away some of the imposing character. Commissioner Garakani questioned the stick placement on one side. He said that he measured it out and the placement does not match the plans. Commissioner Barry said that she had concern about the height and that a possible reduction by five feet from the height depicted on the existing story poles, may work. Said that it was hard to determine. Mr. Michael Rowe said that the size on the construction plans is accurate and assured that the pad would have to be certified as being at the proper elevation prior to construction. Commissioner Garakani stated again his problem with the placement of the sticks on the property. Chair Jackman agreed that the Commission cannot envision something that's not correctly portrayed. Commissioner Roupe said that the purpose of story poles is to help determine the impact on the Hillside. Agreed that Commissioner Garakani has raised a legitimate point. Chair Jackman agreed that she could not support if the markers are not correct. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the staking should be done by a licensed surveyor. Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission cannot envision this project based upon the story poles provided. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it would need to develop specific standards for minimum story pole requirements. Commissioner Roupe stated that for a difficult site such as this one, the story poles need to be more precise. Commissioner Barry said she shares these concerns. Added that there was no applicant or representative on site for either Commission site visit, which is unusual. Mr. Dave Dennis, 18735 Cabernet Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he hired the contractor to put the story poles up and was not given a lot of criteria for the installation. They had two story poles and an outline of the borders and reminded of the difficulties in this installation due to the heavy brush in the area. Ms. Jean Lundeen, 13810 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for their concern over her privacy. • Asked that the Commission work to conserve the rural atmosphere of her neighborhood. • Expressed thanks for the efforts of the Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Lundeen if the removal of the wraparound porch, the modification of the French doors to be replaced with two foot by two foot windows at header height and an agreement by the applicant to use translucent windows in the dining room, thus equaling no view onto her property, would satisfy Ms. Lundeen's privacy concerns. Ms. Jean Lundeen replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Lundeen if she agrees that this proposed home is large and imposing and out of character for this area. Ms. Jean Lundeen replied yes. Mr. Tom Walker, Project Applicant: • Stated that he obtained a Building permit in 1980 but was issued a red tag. • Said that he came to Council meetings for over a year. • Added that he was never notified that his permit expired and he understands that a permit expiration cannot occur while a red tag is in effect. • Stated that he has acted in good faith. • Said that he should not have to pay fees again. Commissioner Kurasch asked 1VIr. Walker for the average slope under the structure and questioned if there is any way to shift the house away from the hill and neighboring property. Mr. Tom Walker replied that perhaps the home could be moved forward to Pierce and down to Pike but that this change may impact trees. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that there maybe setback problems. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the slope on which they would be building upon. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the slope beneath the home would be 24 percent. Commissioner Kurasch said she questions the actual slope of the building pad. Commissioner Garakani reminded of the three setbacks on this property, two at 30 feet and one at 20 feet. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Barry: • Advised that she has no questions at this time but is not ready to support this project tonight. • Suggested a Continuance to allow better story poles to be installed. • Stated that she is concerned that this home may be too massive for this site. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he shares those concerns and has trouble envisioning this house on this property. • Added that the story poles need to be close enough to give an accurate vision of what is proposed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 11 • Encouraged the idea of a Continuance. • Suggested that the applicant attend the next site visit. Chair Jackman expressed concern over the size of this proposed home, as it does not seem compatible with the Hillside area. Commissioner Garakani stressed the importance in having the story poles more exact. Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed with the need for better story poles. • Said that this proposed home does not fulfill the intent of the Hillside area in size and compatibility and six neighbors have sign a letter in agreement to that concern. • Suggested both a Continuance and redesign of this proposal to deal with issues of size and scale. • Asked that the applicant confirms the slope under the footprint and that she would appreciate this being done to set her mind at ease. Commissioner Barry said that it appears all Commissioners want a Continuance and some want some redesign. Suggested that the Commission gives more specific direction and guidance as to what changes it would like to see. Commissioner Roupe agreed that specific direction on square footage and height should be provided. Chair Jackman pointed out that the maximum square footage allowed is 3,880 and the proposal is for 3,609 square feet. Commissioner Barry agreed that the applicant has met the Code requirements. Said that as a Design Review issue, it appears this house is too much for this lot. Said that it would help if the second floor were not as long as the first floor, which gives it a massive box-like appearance. Commissioner Kurasch agreed and suggested a reduction in the second floor element and in the actual size of the house overall. Chair Jackman asked if an approximate 15 percent reduction might suffice. Commissioner Kurasch suggested approximately 500 square feet. Chair Jackman said that this would allow approximately 3,100 square feet. Concurred that this house is too large for this lot. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for the 500 square foot reduction. Commissioner Roupe did not. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a new home on property located at 13800 Pierce Road (DR-00-051 and BSA-00-003) to the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 2002, to allow the applicant to install better story poles and to consider design changes to reduce the size and bulk of the home, including Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 12 reducing the second story, as well as to confirm the slope beneath the footprint of the home. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: Roupe ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Jackman called a break at 9:10 p.m. Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #02-035 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court: Request for an extension of approved plans to construct a 6,500 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 87,712 square feet and is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. The Planning Commission approved the previous Design Review application. The approval was appealed to the City Council by neighboring property owners. Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking a 12-month extension of a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new home. • Described the project as having a maximum height of 26 feet on an 88,000 square foot lot and would incorporate a modern style design. • Advised that the original approval was granted on December 8, 1999. That approval was appealed to Council. Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. • Added that the project received geotechnical clearance in 1999. • Advised that staff met with the three original appellants and have developed a compromise requiring the structure to be moved 18 feet to minimize visual impacts of this home on the neighboring properties. • Reminded that to date there have been seven public hearings on this project. • Recommended approval of this extension with two added Conditions. One that the building footprint be moved 18 feet laterally to the north with the requirement that further geotechnical review be provided. If following such geotechnical review this move is not possible; the structure would remain in its original proposed location. The second additional requirement is that the roof material be changed to asphalt shingle. Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is an Extension since the approval has actually already expired. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the applicant filed in a timely manner but the approval has since expired. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that if the geotechnical report shows that the move of the building pad by 18 feed is not feasible, it would remain in the original location. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 13 Chair Jackman stated that she thought the Council approved the project as the Commission had approved it. Commissioner Garakani asked if the building pad is being moved 18 feet forward due to proximity to neighbors. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The move tucks the house out of the neighbors' viewshed. Commissioner Roupe said he had no problem with asphalt shingles but wanted to go on the record, as believing that cooper roofing would not have had a significant environmental impact. Commissioner Barry cautioned that for the Bay, copper is a significant problem. Added that a better way to deal with runoff is to contain as much water on site as possible. Added that it was not in her to approve a copper roof. Asked what would happen if there is a dispute on survey lines. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this sort of dispute is a civil matter. Added that the City is not requiring surveys at the beginning of an application process rather than at the time of building plan submittal. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that Council mentioned the location of the house in their minutes. Chair Jackman said she would be happier if the corners of the property were marked. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the issue at hand this evening is a one-year extension. While the Commission can revisit and recondition this project, it has already undergone seven public hearings. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether Design Review could be looked at again or if this is simply an Extension application. Said that he was told the Commission could look at the whole thing again. Director Tom Sullivan said the Commission could consider the design but that this request is simple in nature. Chair Jackman said that she understood the house could not be moved because the land is unstable. Commissioner Roupe said that the applicant may have more expensive remediation if the house is moved. Asked staff how the Commission can determine when it is unreasonable to ask the applicant to move the structure 18 feet. Questioned if there is a criteria of reasonableness that is applied. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the criteria is not cost but rather if the remediation is a practical solution. The guidance of geotechnical engineers would have to be considered. Commissioner Barry asked if there is ever a point when a geotechnical engineer says that an area cannot be built upon. Added that she had been told previously that engineers can fix just about anything. Suggested specifying the requirement to move this home 18 feet. Commissioner Roupe agreed that doing so makes this requirement crystal clear and leaves no ambiguity. r Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 14 Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Liu, Applicant and Owner, 14805 Masson Court, Saratoga: • Said that the Condition to move his home 18 feet to the north would result in almost half of the building being on landslide area, which greatly increases costs, difficulties and risk. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Liu if he has met with his neighbors. Mr. Liu said he met with the neighbors previously but not prior to this hearing. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the 18 foot compromise came from. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that staff met with the appellants and came up with this 18-foot compromise. The applicant declined staff's invitation to participate in that meeting. Director Tom Sullivan elaborated that this compromise is the result of a current discussion with the appellants. Commissioner Roupe said that it appears there is a difference of opinions. Asked staff to clarify that the proposal is to move the home 18 feet to the right per the plans: Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Planner Christy Oosterhous added that staff is recommending further geologic review to the previous June 17, 1997, Geotechnical Report, which indicated that the building site area is located approximately 60 feet from the slide area. Mr. Liu said that he was not sure that 60 feet is correct at this point. Commissioner Kurasch said that Mr. Liu may not understand how landslide area is measured compared to natural erosion. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Geotechnical Report map does not show property lines nor define building envelope. Commissioner Roupe said that Mr. Liu maybe looking at erosion rather than slide area. Mr. Liu said that he would have to build more flat area, which may not be environmentally best. Mr. Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, Saratoga: • Said that during the review process numerous mistakes were made on drawings and on installing the story poles. • Stated that the neighbors find the proposed design highly unusual and incompatible with their neighborhood. - • Pointed out that the project .has been on the market for two years and suggested that a more conventional project would sell. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 15 • Said that following the appeal process several meetings have been held between the applicant, appellants and staff. Moving the structure 30 feet would have alleviated most concerns and an 18 foot compromise was reached. • Advised that Mr. Liu recently had his property disced and the work encroached 100 feet onto his property, destroying drainpipes. • Asked, for the record, that the applicant be required to have professional survey markers placed between properties to prevent such occurrences in the future. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kwong if the issue of a compromise location was brought up earlier in the process. Mr. Jon Kwong replied yes. A compromise location was raised at meetings. Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission has jurisdiction to require Mr. Liu to have survey markers installed. Director Tom Sullivan replied sure. Commissioner Garakani stated that the applicant has said he would do so at the site visit. Mr. Joseph Park, 14800 Masson Court, Saratoga: • Advised that the design drawings were done without a site survey and intruded 10 feet onto his property. . • Stated that he wants to make sure that there is a Condition in writing to require the move of the structure by 18 feet. Ms. Mable Sze, 14780 Masson Court, Saratoga: • Asked the Commission to deny this extension, as the proposed house is incompatible with the surrounding structures. • Stated that many issues were raised before the original approval. • Added that the proposal to move the home 18 feet was raised when the project was appealed to Council. • Said that instead the applicant extended the house but did not move it as agreed upon. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if what was approved is different that what the Planning Commission had originally approved. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she has no plans on file with a shift in the footprint. The record does not show a change and there was no Condition in the Council Resolution to make that change. Chair Jackman said that she looked at the minutes and saw no mention of change. The Council Resolution says that the project is approved as the Planning Commission approved it. Mr. Liu: • Assured that he would hire a licensed land surveyor and put the property markers in place. • Stated that moving the house 18 feet to the north results in unknown costs. However, he believes the costs will be high but that lus main concern is safety. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 16 • Said that he is willing to cooperate with the neighbors and City staff to make this project work. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Liu to make sure that the stakes placed are about three feet high. Commissioner Roupe: • Asked that the footprint of the house be marked by a licensed survey. • Added that the design of the house was previously discussed at length. This is the quick issue of granting an extension with 18-foot move of the building footprint and with a good property survey to mark out the property line and footprint. • Suggested a Continuance. Chair Jackman said that there should be a Record of Survey document prepared. Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant should also provide recorded data used to substantiate to the City Surveyor. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she agrees in concept to what is proposed and holds to the requirement for the move of the structure by 18 feet. • Added that the Council decision weighs heavily. Said that Council wanted the applicant to work with neighbors on issues such as setbacks, encroachment and height. • Pointed out that the Resolution adopted by Council upheld the Planning Commission "as modified." • Stated that a compromise would best suit this situation. . Commissioner Roupe said that it should be made clear that the structure will move by 18 feet. If not, no deal or start over again. Commissioner Barry: • Said she supports Commissioner Roupe's point. It is important to be consistent and support neighbor concerns. Council denied the appeal so this is the design. However, the home should be moved by 18 feet. • Stated that the story poles should have been installed in an accurate manner. • Agreed that it is reasonable to require documented survey of the property. Commissioner Garakani asked why install more story poles if the Commission is going to approve this Extension tonight. Commissioner Roupe said good point. He added that following a land survey and the moving of the story poles by 18 feet, the Commission needs to go back and look at the site. Supported a Continuance. Commissioner Barry also supported a Continuance with the requirement that the story poles be moved 18 feet to the north. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the 12 months for the Extension begins at the previous expiration • date which was May 17, 2002. 1 ~` Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 17 Commissioner Roupe asked if there is any latitude in that fact. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the request for an extension of approval for 14805 Masson Court to a date uncertain and with the conditions that: 1. That a Record of Survey be prepared for the property and 2. That story poles showing the building envelope relocated 18 feet laterally to the north from its original location, be installed. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Liu, Applicant: • Asked to be able to leave the original poles on the original location and put balloons 18 feet to the north. Commissioner Roupe stated that the poles are not in the right location as they are even for the original approval. Chair Jackman told Mr. Liu that the Commission has given him specific instructions. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Liu what the purpose would be to keep the poles where they are with the balloons depicting the 18-foot relocation. Mr. Liu said to provide a comparison. Commissioner Roupe said that the current placement is incorrect now. Mr. Liu asked if he could use balloons instead of poles since the terrain is steep. Commissioner Barry said that she has no problem with heights being depicted by balloons. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:35 p.m. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS *** There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Jackman asked about scheduling a Retreat. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2002 Page 18 ;~~ Commissioner Garakani asked for more information on what a Retreat would involve. Director Tom Sullivan advised that a Retreat offers the Commission a chance to discuss .issues informally (although it is an advertised meeting) and perhaps have guest speakers. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission think about issues to discuss. Chair Jackman said the Commissioners should think about subjects and dates and asked how October would be for the Commissioners. Director Tom Sullivan said that mid-October would be good and said that Saturdays work best. Chair Jackman advised that Council has made recommendations on the Basement Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan advised that Council has directed staff to make modifications so that if 80 percent or more of a basement is subterranean, the 20 percent that sticks out would still be counted as basement instead of counted as floor area. Twenty-one (21) percent or more would be counted against the floor area. Added that Council is appreciative of the Commission's efforts. Commissioner Kurasch announced that she is not certain of her availability for the August 14th Commission meeting as she has family obligations. Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the times of site visits from 3 to 5 p.m. on Tuesdays to 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Tuesdays. Chair Jackman suggested trying this for the next site visit. Commissioner Roupe asked staff for some standard boilerplate requirements for Conditions of Approval. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this issue falls within Commissioners Hunter and Barry's Subcommittee. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, July 24, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ~~ ITEM 1 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: #02-072; 20075 Spaich Court Applicant/Owner: Mr. and Mrs. William Ruehle Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner • Date: July 24, 2002 APN: 397-24-073 Department Head: ~-~Z, Qpp401 20075 Spaich Court ~~ CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04/11/02 07/01/02 07/10/02 07/10/02 07/05/02 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval and Use Permit approval to construct a 925 square foot cabana with an 861 square foot basement. A Use Permit is required to allow the 12 feet tall accessory structure to be located within the required 60 feet rear yard setback. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-45.065(a), Administrative Design Review is required for all new accessory structures. Instead of separating the Use Permit and Administrative Design Review approvals, Staff has required Design Review approval to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review both the Design Review and Use Permit findings required to approve this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review and Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit A • • 000002 5 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential-Low Density MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 49,800 sq. ft.(gross)/40,243 sq. ft.(net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 1 GRADING REQUIRED: None, other than excavation for the basement. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project, which proposes the construction of a detached accessory structure, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction or conversion of small structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The siding will be sand finish light beige stucco with stone veneer accents, and wood windows and doors with white trim. The roofing will be light-weight concrete tile. The exterior material and colors will match the existing one story home on the property. • Q~~~ Proposed Code Requirements Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 31% 45% Footprint of all structures 5,794 sq. ft. Driveway and front wallcs 2,969 sq. ft. Rear Patios and Pool (to be .3,840 sq. ft. (constructed) - TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 12,603 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable Existing Residence 4,123 sq. ft. Existing Garage 650 sq. ft. Cabana 925 sq. ft. (Basement of Cabana) (861 sq. ft.) TOTAL 5,698 sq. ft. 6,000 sq, ft. Setbacks -Cabana: Minimum Requirements Rear (from edge of lightwell) 11 ft.- 6 in. 60 ft.' North side 71 ft. 15 ft. South side 15 ft. 15 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable: Cabana 12 ft. N/AZ ' Through the Use Permit process, and pursuant to MCS 15-80.030(j), the Planning Commission can approve an accessory structure within any required setbacks. z Through the Use Permit process, and pursuant to MCS 15-80.030(j), the Planning Commission can approve an accessory structure of any height. • • • ooooo~ PROJECT DISCUSSION t h r sted Desi Review a royal and Use P rmit a The apphcan as eque gn pp e pproval to construct a 925 square foot cabana with a basement within the 60 foot rear yard setback at 20075 Spaich Court. The subject property is located within the Hayfield Estates subdivision. The maximum height of the cabana will be 12 ft. and will be located a distance of 11 ft.- 6 in. (15 ft. - 3 in. from the cabana main level exterior wall) from the rear property line. As shown in Exhibit A, the applicant also proposes to install a pool and concrete patio adjacent to the cabana. The applicant had initially proposed the cabana's location near the north side adjacent to the row of tall eucalyptus trees. However, Staff requested that the cabana be situated in the vicinity of the presently proposed location to ensure that the eucalyptus trees will not be damaged during basement excavation and construction. These trees along the north side of the property are located within a 10 feet wide tree preservation area established as part of the Hayfield Estates subdivision approval. An Arborist Report shown in the attached Exhibit A was prepared in June of 1998, in conjunction with.the construction of the existing home. The same tree protective measures will be required as a condition of approval for this application. Staff was initially unsure about the impacts of this proposed location of the cabana on the neighboring properties. However, no concerns were raised when the applicant showed the proposed cabana to all of the neighbors. The proposed prairie style cabana is well- proportioned and will complement the appearance of the existing 18 foot high single family home on the site. Staff feels that the proposed rear yard setback of the cabana is necessary to have a sufficient distance from the main structure on the site. The proposed basement beneath the cabana is inconsistent with Planning Commission's recommendation that the City Council adopt an ordinance prohibiting basements beneath accessory structures. However, there is currently no basis to deny the proposed basement since the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is not yet in effect. Moreover, the existing residence does not have a basement. Design Review A prairie style accessory structure consistent with the style of the existing single family home on the site is proposed. Architectural elements include aloes-pitched roofline with wood accent columns, French doors, an arbor porch, and stone veneer accents. The project site is located in the Hayfield Estates subdivision, and the homes in the vicinity are typically one-story prairie style homes. • ~Q~00~:~ s The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: Policy #1: Minimize the perception of bulk: The proposed cabana is well-proportioned and articulated with a variety of architectural elements. The distance between the proposed cabana and the existing home will create a good composition of structures and open spaces on the subject property. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: No trees are proposed for removal. Since the project site is flat, no grading other than excavation for the basement will be required. Policy #3: Avoid interference with Privacy: Privacy is not an issue with the proposed cabana since it is a single story structure and the windows face north, in the opposite direction of the nearest properties. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The subject site is flat, and the proposed cabana will have no impact on views or access to views. Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency: The proposed cabana will be very well insulated to minimise noise impacts on the surrounding properties. The basement is proposed to provide a naturally cool retreat during hot weather. Use Permit Through the Use Permit process, an accessory structure may be within the required rear yard setback, and maybe 12 feet in height as proposed in this application. According to MCS 15-55.070, the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit if the following findings can be made in the affirmative: a. The proposed location of the cabana is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. That the proposed location of the cabana and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the proposed cabana will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff finds that all of the above findings can be made in the affirmative because the location and the height of the proposed cabana are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this district. Q0~0~ Trees There are no ordinance-protected trees in the vicinity of the proposed cabana. However, Staff is requiring tree protection for the trees along the north side of the property per the City Arborist's recommendations. Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. Conclusion The proposed cabana conforms to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook. Staff also finds that the location and height of the proposed structure are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this district. The Planning Commission shall accept public testimony before closing the Public Hearing and acting on the Use permit and Design Review application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve application #02-072 with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • ooooo~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • Q004~8 • Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 02-072 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM RUEHLE - 20075 SPAICH COURT WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and a Use Permit to construct a 925 square foot detached accessory structure with a 861 square foot basement within the rear yard setback; 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 Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of a small accessory structure, is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS the a licant meets the burd n f pp e o proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy #1: Minimize the perception of bulk: The proposed cabana is well-proportioned and articulated with a variety of architectural elements. The distance between the proposed cabana and the existing home will create a good composition of structures and open spaces on the subject property. Policy #2: Integrate Structures with the Environment: No trees are proposed for removal. Since the project site is flat, no grading other than excavation for the basement will be required. Policy #3: Avoid interference with Privacy: Privacy is not an issue with the proposed cabana since it is a single story structure and the windows face north, in the opposite direction of the nearest properties. Policy #4: Preserve Views and Access to Views: The subject site is flat, and the proposed cabana will have no impact on views or access to views. (~~~~~ Policy #5: Design for Energy Efficiency: The proposed cabana will be very well insulated to minimize noise impacts on the surrounding properties. The basement is proposed to provide a naturally cool retreat during hot weather. 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: a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it- would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. All of the above findings can be made in the affirmative because the location and the height of the proposed cabana are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, and is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this district. Now, THEREFORE, 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 Design Review approval and Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING The cabana shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit A incorporated by reference. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated June 30, 1998 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of any City Permits. 3. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. 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 written certification that the proposed cabana is per the approved plans." Q~~Q~~ ^e 5. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the 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. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 7. There shall be no cooking facilities in the proposed cabana, unless the applicant obtains a Use Permit for a Second Unit. CITY ARBORIST All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated June 30, 1998 shall be followed. 9. Prior to issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, security in the amount of $1,274 pursuant to the City Arborist's Report to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uruform Building Code Class A prepared or . built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10 % shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) NOTE: CABANA SHALL BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING EWAS PANEL. 11. Early Warning Fire Alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. CITY ATTORNEY 12. 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. 13. 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 $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. 000011 A Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of July 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date •~. • 000012 _ _ __ _ _ _ r: \• SCALE I'=10' so 2 ~" e2 ~ rJ 54' 42 06' E 467 94' r._ (~aR.EUC D~o~mc -_~.I__- e .~5...~..~... r~9 --.2~L 6<K:S-nnT20'Etr ~ ~~ _-JF ___ __~.~ ~~ :.~_... _&-19.. J4Q'.-- C 6'r. ~^°..~ ~~ .'.~.~ ... 2--- . a-... _ '••. ~e u:. ..~~ :^`'. _ . __. i-~.._ 1 .... ~ ~ _ cue. 1.'•a ~~°oe ~ O~EUC. ... [,n ~lareue ~ ~y0aA6 ~ e Euc ~~' ~ ale Et Gi_ . ~ . , . Ole•EIIC. ~ oao•EUC. ~ , ~ ss~euc, j s. ~: - cr. / .J - ~, u. ~: _ ~ ~ ~ . ,~03- , ~ ~ ' ~, ' 7 s ~ I / so9 __'--~ ._3A! -~. 506.15 + ' r 10$ - - _. , - -l ~ I ~ I I , I - ~ i39.96~ - ~ ~ f+e~ll}/ I I I 1 I i \ .: -- _._ s 1 / i ~, f ~ ^~., I"tl5'r, ~ 1 be , ~ ` I II ' _____ -~.. -. ~ 7 .e9i. p5 '. i ,. _- _.~ ~.._ _ r .. \ --~ I I ~_ 1 ~ t5 ~JJ 7 ~ I I p~~~~ ~OIJR'~: ~ j 2 ~ I 9 l ..: -..:+="~ :_..:~~•, , <3 a<( ~ _. __ _.~- ........ ._...~• _ -' -I j ~ ~ T'SnJ~}5'r1 '~ ~~~ I •`\`. v ~ _ .. _ / I ,. ~ _ \ i 2.96 I ~, ,\,,~ r<. '^FF\~ -'-- _ .~___'~ I ', ~._-~ -_\_'. f f r['J .PES'iDGnCE.' 1 , ' ~ 1 F ~~ 1 URE ~ '~ __ __- _- \I 55 _ I I S. ~ "~ / i DS 1.15 I x,501 .2r 1 ' ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ I ..99.89 < ~ I ~--' 9R ` 40n,19 3 1~- JI 9\ \ I , i I ~ ', \ 1 7" 1 1 ,~p 1 z2 5 ~,~~ 1"DI I I ' 1I I ' I ,`~\ ) I' V ~ 159''SS GARAGE ~ ~ , 11 ; : ; D i ~ i ~~5oi nr Ma. ... . ~ : 50.09 I .. _. _ ` I ~ \501 T ; _~A.f.._.~6Nf1 / 1 _ I 9J , _ ___. ...__. I i ~________ I ~y I 1'~ ~ __.__ _ I ~` 501 5fi '( ` ` .. 1 S~ nr _ _ _. _. .30.t:6? _ .. ._.501.17 _ _ _ _ y ~ 2'612CN .50:.2; i '[r JJ ~ I S~~O,OC ~~yy~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ '~ .5a,66 r~~-__....._~ .~~' S , O 1 _ _ . I 5oa es 5o1.r~ , __ o ,z ,~ Btldltlq jllpllDYPl16N1'8 _-•-- --- _ _ 01 ~l ' • , I . ?~e., - --._._ _. ., _ i0L 5r _ _ .-.SO1.56 .. __ _ _" ~ so crr=-___ ~: V ~ LO s~~.e :,FiIICk uIMC. :'.::, ~ solos' r.. I Irv (1 ,.~.:..r._.=.r,.~.•s:cr:.:._.."-_'~' ~ ~ . .. ___ ~ ~ = ~ 11 02 adossSEYR ----°__--- N 51 Sa~+5" E -----=-'~-'--- ~ CITYO~SARATOGA 1= ICQMMUNITY pEVELOPMENT n o ,~, ~ rl rn Y 15 .%OB AD. ND. BY. DRTE , REVISIDN' .. 'Br. OnTE DATE: ~;'~e/oz ~.. 22082 BCALE: HOA. ; "!7" WESTFAL I NG LNG I NEARS - - -- PERT. ,~,~e L . ~ SITE PLAN sr+FFT ~ ' ~ DESIGNED: _ _ By: HARRr ICttA N YAr S SeRAfODb' GA 95D70 I+oa,aei-D244 '20075 SPAtCHCO(lRT, SARATOGA, CA ~ 1 _ _ __ _ ' ., '~DflAYN: N! -__ DATE: 4953 . 14583 BIG BA I ~ , J. Q~ Steve C3enzinq Architect l~ a-/- -~ Abh ~ ~ E~ ~ / ref~;ti~ / / j ~ ~ ~ ~ /l ~/ ~ /r `~'~f r ~- ~~ ~~ ~~ / ~ ~ ~ R:ieobaio' ~•t]e.~r / ~ o j ~ ~ Vt / o° eb / ~e ~~e ~ ~ ~ 4\ / 4~A~ ~ f / ' ~' // ~r A 0 u U~ th b `pI `/ 9 ~~' ~' b / /// ,v~ J/ / ~~~ ~ I bo ey en~ h •~ - "- ~p,~/ E%IerlNb MOUSE `d a 0 PooL~eP `e¢ A a~. o ~°. ~~ L -A 10 d9 M~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ /be 8.'~~ OB' 20' E dAIfA6! /y / ~ ~e, ~~f 9r b 13d ee'44'! te.B ]' ~IT~ I~L~4N ,~~ . ~~-o~ APN,. OWNER - Mk. a MRO. WILLIAM.IIUCNLE 300T.b8PAIGM COURT $ARATG6li, GA V0C ~ RCBIdLNTIMC 20NIN6 -let -2Q000 812E OPLbT - 49,DODeP-diR008 RI611T OP VYAY - 908'1 b} NC7 LOT JIYC - 40,248 eP AL4bWA9y~E 8P I$Y GOdC - bd00 bt' . ENIBTIN~RC$ILbCNGC -41''a$ ~>ilerlN~~ale,aa'e - 66b Rf~0Pd9lD PdOL CABANA - 93d 1f~TAL- bP - 069b ~ Ok IMPFtCVIOUE GOVCRA~C-MAk ALI.CWABLC BY GODC-40 %•22410 eP kLiLBTRUGTURC'8 ~ '-$T94 dRIVOWAYIPRONTVIALIG$ -2969 REAR PATI061 POOL =0840 TOTALIMPRCVIOU$ G7VLkAbC - 12600 BP • 81 % AVCNtA6C 01TC 660PC~- 1 % ~WEEt INbEX ~ - i31TL PLAN 3 ~ I°A1~TIAL ENLAt~GPi~ 511"E PLAN - ~LGGR FLAN 4 - EXT. L'L~VA1`IONS 3 - SECTION 6 - ARBORI~T REPGRT Steve Benzlhg, ArGhlteCt 7/9/2002 4:07 PM spaich ~t slte.dwg i~ao3 frederi-k burg Saratoga ca~ i~orn la tel x}08 869 6910 faK ?08 867 60>I email ~nnztrdv~attbi,:an ~. .sd 3 >b; r .•dw r y : x ~,a. ~d Ns.+y. hR - kuxdui nre•xR 4'Ine I'~:Y arl ruiWk~.-ed d)e Rdsa .m r r ~ rrn+ ~ ,tried ear u t .wd u m .nWda> ~,~k~..d.,;e,. 01TC PLAN pG>7~ Ng15° 1'Or: IVir• & Mrs, Gill f+'uehle 20075 `.~palch Ct, Saratoga, CA oa':e: 4/10/02 ~.ae: No'rEV dravn Irk: 5Nd3 Jol> nn. 2Jh e,'nreE ~ of $ meets ~~ ~~ "" ~ r / ,. ~. :' 1 1 I I _.I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 90~dD1'40"W 160.00 6DIdD1'40'W 60.26' ENLA•RG~D 51TE PLAN 1 /8" ~~ '~'~ ~1 ~.I 2".. I N I m a R m 0 J A 0 I I Steve L'~enzinq Arc~tir.,:'r.t ~;'~~~~~'' li-edei i~ k ~l~url~ s~trataga ~~~ifornl~t c.:.... I',°,.~~,~~'.eil~ ,., DITL ALAN ('OLD ~ {i ~ I',n ~A !Ju . P, PJ~, ~ ~ C~III Pu,a'~h ,~; ~~~ .~.. ;,E ~~I,.h (,I~,. ?:ar,~htiyi, I,!~, I~,,. a~loio~ ~,~ 11-~~i~~ h.,~I. ~ , I D -1,..,,~~ A ~ ~• Steve f3enzinq 9A5EMENY FLOOI! PLAN 1/4" +i i. De'RAfuxs AROUND L16Ni YIELL I I I I BEDR~OM ~ ~ /~• A1Y-0 I GAME ROON // Q rvnwweE I I I I ~ ~ POOL ROOM SxEL`IEE NOTE: TNltkE 9NALL ENO BAR sa-Dw te~-D 5 Ryy~~ ILITIES iHl5 "- o I I I I AR80R ADV w/ A90NRT LV / u~'~ II ~ i ~ / -~~- - - ~~ ~, o ~ ~ i- - -~ i ~ I I ~ ~ / BAi B / ~ /~ -OUTLINE OP 0.00P ~ - ~ - - - -' f - ~~ ADO'/E ~ _. _ ~' FLOOR PLAN 1/a" SQUARE f00tA6E GAL05 ~1 - 95'x39'•874 M2 -29'x4'-- t00 TOTAL Sf A 929 architect ~~o~ frederiG~bur~ Saratoga calltornla nl ~IdB ~h7 h91rJ 'a~ q0B 867 6051 matl l~enr.*ch~'attbl.com ;a~~cq~,v aDV:e :n wnnMls al ANS., „-~:o~~,s•m.+ r:,~,:~rw~ra~ ,-.e AV i~.l•+mt we Ad:kd-erne 2, >fin;t~ f~. ~uln ~.rrAou: e,A ieyartmhM+ Slmmn o d•hrem Wmdut:. a' mgltwy Yr Yrx nm:~o's~rarA,~Ja~i.+ta~n rvtN.> eJa.~9re^,.~,',Jcn~•<,l,~mru~ a. FLOOR PLAN5 hod Ncuse for: Mr. & Nirs~ f3dl I?uehle 20075 5palch rt, Saratoga, CA dam: a/to/o2 scNle~, IJrIfGl7 drain hy'. ifJ.P~ yk nn. 21015 sheet ~ af' b ShEefS Steve f3enzinq C7 ( 11 ~J RLDPINe TO MATLN RE31plNL@ 6kY '~ gEI9rv0(1L7ARlpR '. 6 e.enadv .~. ~ . cauMlm srscca simr>b ~ ~ I s7aNe Goum ~ wAtcX r~Nldll pR, MATLX TONE ~ Rl91DENC! " ' RESIDING! RE RS NORTH ELEVATION (fALIN6 REAR) WEST ELEVATION fFALIN6 POOL1 NORTH ELEVATION _ , - - I E%TERIOR MATERIALS 1 CALORS r r 91DING-SAND FINI5H 4TULL0-LIGHT BEIGE TO MATLN WEST EL~VATION RESIDENLE _ II I I - EA5i ELEVATION STONE ALLENTS TO MATLN E%15TING RE5IDENLE ROOFING - LIGHTWGi. C.ONL TILE TD MATLN Ex15TING _ i RESIDENLE WINDOW51 DOOR5 -WOOD, PAINTED WHITE TO MATLN r I ~ I I~ ____~ 60UTN ELEVATIdN ' ~ M7L OUTTlRe~ ~~ ' 1., IklPAegIAW C%P09lD'. ~~ , rvDLD ~ ~ RAFTCR TAIL'. , LdJIMNe ~ AS ~1~T I k~ ee' ' 54JLL0'61DIN0.: ~~ RMUN6 _ ~PMfL _ ~ _ .~_ ~_ .. _ NAT AL <PINI N 6M EASTELEVATION (EALING TREE51 ~ 90UTN ELEVATION (PAGING HOUSE) EXTERIOR ELEVATION5 1/4" 6TONE Y1AIN5LDT IIBN GRADE arch Itect 2~c~ frederl4~bur~ Saratoga calltornia til t08 P,Fii 6910 as 908 8G7 6071 ;mall f~ernxchG'attbl.ccm ~)~dE4Hri" ~; f, 17f G' fR/A~`YF +vs V..M' 144M~L`nF( aei J~.~ rues le r:r*L, ue~..am U,Ka.,,u.aa.,~en ~.o ~. ok.e .,d r~ m; ~.~,x y,„e ~„ nN ou~V.xn 5J-..+`ic•v d~-.u( .t"k n:1 RhdraJav'~ chnh~, v.+l v~r~.+d ai' c. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS pool Nalse for; Mr. & Mrs, f3dl P.uehle 20075 5pa~ch Ct, Saratoga, CA ~~ a/lo/o~ «~alc: NOrCr7 d~ann hl 5;A'3 ids ro, ~( 2105 :het 4 Df 6 ,beets ,, Steve ~enzinq architect i2ao3 frederi ~~bur~ sara~Oga ca~itornia lol ~+(~i &E7 6°IO f~,, MBE 8h1 60h1 ;moil C3enra~<haattbic~i eaixesn~ ~~a irk a fE+'=~~Y.S a,. -.-ae» mar r,~.NnJy _nc Bk~ ', 4u n~A nd mx, is z n b ~^en' i...~.~1h.nKd s Uri r J.C,ksi- , x.Ro-: enl .r ;Un m:rtm.rli Kr N ve~i+~x'a i-~ r.~~~v.~.+ n pikxe n xy~.'r. ~ I7 r...... ~rt.. 5EGTIDN ~• A SECTION 1 /2" GRADE I'od Nw~e fir ~blr, & Mr:,, Gdi P~uehle 200 r 5 '>pa~ich Ct~ 5arata~a, LA ~-,~: ai t oio~ srale~, N(rlliYJ drartn by: 5fdp !ob ~, 210 C. ,~ P g a ~ ~ ~~ a ~kO s ~~ g~ ~~~ ~~' ~~ ~~ ~.5~ ~~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ gg~ ~ a ~ 8 A A. ~ y A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ cQF ~~x~ ~ ~~ ~11 ~~'a b ~ t !s~ ~~a ~~ I i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~o ~~~~ sy ~ ~ ~~ ~~ r ~~~ b n a B ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ g~~ ~~p ~~ ~ >, ~ gig v ~ ~ A~~ ~ ~. ~ ~8 ~~~~ yp~~ ~a 5 @ ~ $ ~a8~ ~~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ IPII U+YaW Twrm owwwaxiwwrw 8 # __ 6 # P # i # a # # # IILYYiWW ~ s p .~ .~ .~ .~ ii . . _ . - -- MlltliIYMWLx ~ 1 IF113YY6gYYTM1WY ~ !! M ' 1 a y lipl00tl Ii 11031LLAO~YY IPIU.Ya30 K1AW w A ¢1laoaww IPII/iYdWONNOYa 9itl1 uuuaitlM lenuaom/aww ~ d ~` Ymoi~viiiiwa ~ r >i ~ r r wi~itl ruurouwxYnYo _ _ 0 ~ ua oruYYariirY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {{ @tlitlNafW9 • y - - aowx„ - cYiwi A A R A R ?~ R d 7 umix B R p • R R p A atutOYiun'n R , A f A A " j ~ t 9 f ""' 9 9 ~ 9 9 „p --_-__ wuwuvlw _'_ Ma d # ~ d d t i i d f d 9 !; s° `8~0~1 # { E9, 6 ~ ~ $ i 1 i ! a p ' ~~ ~ ~qq~yg~ ~ 9k.~ Y~ l '~ ~~~d ~ ~ s r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ i ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ e g5~~ ~~ ~~ ~R. • ,~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~s ~: ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ 999111 fi x~ e ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ IPYIlipiMlYwoNiY tYMI11YYaYtl~lrow R # a # a # E # a # A # # iaSY , ~ t 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ WUY3IYMIW3N ~ ~ ~ ICII3P'iitllunlwl00tl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R 1P1103tliWaWlloiY00Y X M ~ M KI ~ K d alunnwwil Ul10oaMiliO y F fF111iYipatilDYi RYI wuiwa aawwtlYilAiw ~` { ~ # ~ i ~ ~ x aiuYllNVOYa NCLL'ItlaWYwVOri _ _ 4 ii I 1 IMaMlnlaraw ~ ~ ~ @ ¢ ~ _ IirO~rdxawroa ~ ~ ~ / d # IFt1iWLLawYLi - • ,G muw,~ - cYaui : A A a A p A ~ umuv A R ~ R B A A A ~3af0YilMrla ` 7 f C , A t tl , i A i , i A , i •.' 3i ~ q wa t ~ ~ : d ! w 9 B & 6 _ _ _ wuw+liYl o Nio w ~ d ~ p 6 p. a J p ~ ;~ a q F i j ~~ ~~~ai ~i~~ F ~ i ~ E yE 9 `~ ~ O ~~ ~~~ p 'a ~~ ~~~ - 3 n 8 ~~ AA$. ~GI i,~'w~ p ~€ alp ~~ak 3 A g~ ~9~ #~a i I ~~ e w i 'C ~\, CV i L_ 1' o ~I ii i ~,I ~~ ~~ L _ 1 ~p s __ Steve C3enzinq Architect I2~t0~ frederiG burg Saratoga tali ornla tel SOB !36~ 6910 faa gvf,3 ~'F; h051 email t3enrardl~C ~ttbLU~n ~.P~ ," . ;~~. ~Y~ ,. A h 1 ~ I~ h o 14 `d Mrs -,1 ,+ACVn.w ~ih n~t W.nr ~. brz~iolzl~lr p-~GG~.. pool Ncuse fa: Mr. & Mrs.1341 f;uehle 20075 Spaich Ct~ Saratoga, CA ,rile: N(J(EO dram 64' S1v~6 a ~~ ITEM 2 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: 02-047; Modification of ApprovaU 14771 Montalvo Road Applicant/Owner: Mehdi and Lorraine Siadat Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP, Assistant Planner Date: July 24, 2002 APN: 517-19-040 Department Head: ~~~. '~ ~ , \ ~ ~ ~ y~ ~," .e ~ /~'~ ~_ /G~~' / f i i ~.~ '~ c9 G " ~ i T ? ~ ~..' `~,' / ~ /.~ F ~9mo''-, A ~ ' ` ~ , ~ ~. '9.p, j ~~ ~%'~ ~~, ` ~ ~ ~~. ,. ~, ~`~~ \ ~~~ L_ ~ / ~ ~; ~~-i' RAN _. ,~ /~ __-- / ~,6~e,~ ~ ;" i ;~ ~ ~ .~F~ ~! ~ ~ ~~ .1.9' O 'yT~ ~ \ - X400 ~ ~ 0 ~° ~ ~ 40'0 ~ '~~ ~ ~ --~~~~--- - 806 Feet G'Q~\s~~i ,~\\ / /~ ',~ ~~C„P j , ^,045 ~r; ~,- `~~, ~ ,- ~~~. 14771 Montalvo Road • `~OOQO~ 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 Continuance granted: 3/27/02 Notice Republished 7/10/02 Remailing Complete 7/10/02 2nd Posting Complete 7/4/02 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 conditions at issue are: 1) Dedication of a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement at the northeastern end of the property, 2) Limitation of fence height to three feet when located within the front yard. 3) Permitting the fence to encroach on the City right-of- way. The applicant requests that the pedestrian trail requirement be eliminated as a condition of final approval and that asix-foot high tubular steel fence be permitted within the right of way of Montalvo Road and within the front yard setback of Vickery Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the trail requirement be retained since this requirement was imposed as a condition for granting Building Site Exemption. Regarding the fence height, staff recommends that the fence height be limited to three feet as required by the zoning ordinance. Regarding the fence located within the City right-of-way staff finds that the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to public streets and rights-of-way and that the Public Works Department has jurisdiction in that area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution for Application No. 02-047 2. Applicant's -Attachment to Modification of Approved Project Fact Sheet 3. Dept. of Transportation-Encroachment Permit ltr. 5/22/02 with alternative design 4. Staff Report of November 10, 2002 5. Resolution No. DR-99-006 6. Minutes of meeting, March 27, 2002 7. Site Plan -Exhibit "A" 8. Minutes of meeting, November 10,1999 9. Neighbor Correspondance in Support of Removing Trail Requirement 10. Neighbor Correspondance Against Removing Trail Requirement 11. Encroachment Permit for Montalvo Road 12. Memorandum from Jonathan Wittwer, City Attorney dated July 16, 2002 13. Neighbor's Letter -Against Modification of Approval, received 7/17/02 ooooo 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 area PROJECT DISCUSSION Pedestrian Trail This application was continued from a previous hearing, which was scheduled on March 27, 2002. Staff reviewed the request for elimination of the trail requirement on that date and that review is herein revised to reflect the comments.from City Attorney, Jonathan Wittwer on the matter of the trail. The current review reverses the staff recommendation on the trail issue. The previous (March 27, 2002) review overlooked that the site was granted a building site exemption on two conditions; one was that the trail be dedicated and constructed across the Siadat property. As the City Attorney, Jonathan Wittwer comments, pedestrian and other access pathways may reasonably be required in connection with a site needing building site approval. This site required building site approval and an exemption from the requirement was granted only on the condition that the 10-foot wide pedestrian easement be dedicated and improved. As the City Attorney indicates, once building site approval is required, the Planning Commission has clear discretionary authority to require a pedestrian or other access way. The previous staff review cited a memorandum by the City Attorney noting that pedestrian pathways may not be required as a condition of the Design Review process. Since this application required building site approval, the Planning Commission, according to legal counsel, acted within their discretionary authority. Furthermore, an alternative design was proposed which provided a safer means of pedestrian access along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. One of the reasons for continuing the meeting on March 27, 2002 was to explore the viability of the alternative design. The alternative design called for elimination of the trail along the Siadat property and creating avehicular/pedestrian separated path along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. A conceptual plan was sent to Cal Trans in order to apply for an Encroachment Permit. The response to this conceptual design from Cal Trans was not positive. Cal Trans cited sight distance problems and concerns with moving the guardrail. Since the alternative design proposal was not favorably received by Cal Trans and since legal counsel supports the Planning Commission requirement for an easement through 000003 the Siadat Property, the staff recommendation at this time is to retain the easement for the trail across the Siadat property. Fence Height and Location along Montalvo Road Regarding the request for a sitY-foot high tubular steel fence to surround the applicant's property, staff makes the following observations. The applicants have been granted an encroachment permit to place athree-foot high fence within the right-of ~vay of Montalvo Road. This encroachment permit allows the applicant to fence in for their sole use approximately 8,000 to 12,000 square feet of City property along Montalvo Road. The encroachment permit extends for approximately 440 linear feet along Montalvo Road and has a width of 15 to 30 feet for the length of the road. It is in this area that the tubular steel fence is proposed along Montalvo Road. The encroachment permit allows the fence to be located within five feet of the paved roadway. The submitted plans show the fence to be located within about 10 feet of the paved road. According to the Public Works Department, they granted the applicant this right because it is advantageous from the City's standpoint to have the Siadats' maintain this area rather than have the City maintain this grassy, wooded right-of-way. In addition, the Encroachment Permit is granted with the condition that any structures placed within the right-of way must be removed at the City's request. However, the Encroachment Permit was granted subject to all rules and regulations of the City of Saratoga. In order to be consistent with the Encroachment Permit the fence height must comply with existing zoning since the permit requires consistency with existing zoning provisions. Thus, the height cannot exceed three feet and still be consistent with the terms of the Encroachment Permit. In terms of zoning, the ordinance allows fences at a height of three feet within the front yard setback. The Siadat's front yard property line along Montalvo Road begins at the edge of the right-of-way, which is approximately 35 feet back from the edge of the paved road.. In terms of jurisdiction, it appears that the Public Works Department has the right to regulate activities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 15-05.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to public streets or rights-of- way. Thus, it appears that the City may allow a fence within the right-of way and the Encroachment Permit is the means for allowing this. The Encroachment Permit granted for this property contains plans, which specify the fence height as three feet in the area along Montalvo and Vickery Avenues: Thus, the Encroachment Permit limits the fence height to 3 feet as shown on-the plans. In this regard the Encroachment Permit is consistent with zoning standards for fence heights within front yards. Fence along Vickery Avenue The fence along Vickery Avenue is within the required front yard setback and thus within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to allow asix-foot high fence within this area a variance would have to be granted. The findings required for granting a 00000 variance include special circumstances applicable to the property, which preclude strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance. A variance is also justified if interpretation of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other owners of properties in the immediate vicinity. As the applicant has demonstrated, only one of the properties across Vickery Avenue has a fence greater than five feet high in the front yard of the property. This does not constitute an overwhelming majority of properties in this area. Thus, granting a height variance along Vickery Avenue would constitute granting a special privilege not enjoyed by other adjacent property owners. Moreover, since the City Public Works Department has allowed the applicant to enclose approximately 10,000 square feet of frontage along Montalvo Road, allowing the applicant to enclose this and Vickery Avenue with asix-foot high fence would seem to be granting a privilege to the property owner that is not enjoyed by others in the neighborhood. CORRESPONDENCE Ten neighboring property owners, representing seven homes have signed the applicant's petition supporting elimination of the trail requirement. In addition, a letter has been received from a neighbor asking that the requirement for the trail be removed due to concerns about sight distance and privacy. Opposing modification of the resolution and supporting the trail requirement are five neighbors who signed a petition representing five homes and two additional letters from neighbors. CONCLUSION The pedestrian trail requirement should be retained since this was a condition of exemption from building site approval. The fence height should be limited to three feet within the front yard and rights-of-way of the property. The encroachment permit which allows the fence within the City's right-of-way should be supported since is it in the City's interest to limit maintenance concerns along Montalvo Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is to uphold the requirement for a trail as identified in Resolution DR-99-006, limit the height of the fence to three feet within the right-of-way of Montalvo Road and within_the front yard of Vickery Avenue and allow the fence within the right-of-way as permitted by the encroachment permit. • ooooo~ THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ooooos 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 Approval, Resolution DR-99-006 to eliminate the requirement for a pedestrian trail easement and to permit a six foot high fence in the City right-of-way and in the front yard setback; 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 a permitted exaction within the Building Site Approval process and a public benefit that serves the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Ciry; WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance limits the height of fences to three feet within the front yard and the findings necessary for granting a fence variance along Vickery Avenue cannot be made; WHEREAS, the Encroachment Permit granted for the fence along Montalvo Road requires consistency with all City regulations including fence heights; Now, THEREFORE, 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 modification of approval to eliminate the trail easement requirement and to permit asix-foot high fence in the front yard of Vickery Avenue and in the right-of-way of Montalvo Road in Resolution DR-99- 006 is hereby denied: CITY ATTORNEY a. 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 000007 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. b. 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 Ciry 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. • • ~~~~~~ c PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of July 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 Ov~ner 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 • 000009 t THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 00000 Attachment ATTACHMENT TO MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PROJECT FACT SHEET Pr evious Application No: DR 99-006 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga [CONTINUED FROM NOTES SECTION ON FACT SHEET FACE PAGE] Our application to demolish our old home and build a new one was originally approved b}- the Planning Commission in November of 1999. At that time, several conditions were imposed by the Commission. Condition No. 4 (mis-numbered no. 7 in the Resolution) required us to extend the existing Montalvo Road storm drain system across our property to the drainage system at Highway 9 prior to a final inspection approval being issued. Condition No. 5 (mis-numbered no. 8 in the Resolution) required us to dedicate and build a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail with an all weather surface across the northeastern end of our property prior to a final occupanc}~ permit being issued. Privacy We certainly were not comfortable with the requirement for a public path across our property. During the sixteen years before we started this project, people used to cut through our property at various places. We have had walkers, joggers, motorcycles, bicycles, four wheel drive vehicles, and other motorized vehicles use our property as a "cut through" between Vickery Avenue and Montalvo Road. This has never been with our permission, and we have always considered these people to be trespassers. In fact, we have called the Saratoga Sheriff on many occasions to report these activities. We roto-till the property twice a year. On numerous occasions, we have had people get stuck in the mud. We have even seen four wheel drive vehicles that had to be towed out. We often found empty beer bottles and other evidence of alcohol use in the thick underbrush in the areas where strangers had cut through the property at various places over the years. Since we began this project eighteen months ago, however, our property has been completely fenced off and trespassers have not been able to use it as a convenient cutoff. In fact, until we fenced it off, we did not truly appreciate how much our privacy, and the enjoyment of our property, would be restored once trespassers were effectively prevented from entering the property. We certainly had no full appreciation of that fact when the project was originally approved, and did not challenge Condition No. 5 at that time because we were so eager to get started on our new home. ___ As part of our project, we cleared the thick foliage and underbrush along the length of the property, where people had cut through, apparently gathered, and deposited their trash including alcohol containers. We did not want to see these activities repeated, and we assume the City feels the same way. This also opened up our property and accented the beautiful trees, which can now be enjoyed by area residents driving up Montalvo Road or Vickery Avenue. By the same token, however, the clearing of foliage and underbrush made our house completely visible -1- 0000~1 from any part of the lower part of the property. Therefore, we left some of the thick foliage at the very bottom of the property next to Highway 9, to screen our house from the hiQhwav. If a public path is now installed between our house and Highway 9, the only place it could possibly be installed, our privacy will be destroyed.because the general public will be able to walk across the now cleared space and will have a view directly into our windows that face Highway 9. In addition, there is every reason to anticipate that, as in the past, the general public will use the path and bridge as a dog run, with the usual health and safety concerns as well as noise and privacy issues. 2. Public Safety and Liability. a. The Swale. In addition to our privacy concerns, however, we believe the situation has changed since the original approval such that the requirement for the public path should be removed from the conditions of the original project. After initial approval, the City Engineer then determined that we would have to construct crock-lined drainage swale about ten feet wide and 2 or 3 feet deep down the center of the property, connecting to the Highway 9 drainage system, in order to conform with Condition No. 4. This in turn now means that if the path required in Condition No. 5 is installed, there will have to be a bridge over the swale at least four feet above the rocky bottom of the swale. We have been informed by our architect that the path alone will cost at least $4,158.00. Obviously, a bridge would require further significant expense. In addition to the privacy issue and cost, we are extremely concerned that if the public were to have access across our property via the path, the swale and bridge would invite the kind of activity that would create significant liability issues for our family, as well as the City, and would again invite nuisances on our property. The path obviously would encourage and invite the general public to resume using our property as a cut through. Based on our previous experience, the path would not just be used by pedestrians. There would be nothing to stop kids from racing their bikes, scooters, skateboards, and even motorcycles on the path and across the bridge, competing with walkers and risking injury to everyone. Children would undoubtedly play on the bridge and could easily jump or fall onto the rocks and hard dirt below. Mere access to the Swale off the path would invite youngsters and adults to use the swale for rock jumping or as a "ramp" for their motorcycles, bikes, or other vehicles. For that matter, there would be nothing to prevent them from driving their vehicles up the floor of the Swale toward our home. Children might play in the swale during the rainy season, with potentially disastrous results. b. Pedestrian dan ers. Just as importantly, a public path across our property at any point would direct pedestrians out into traffic on either Montalvo Road or Vickery Avenue, where drivers would not be expecting it. There is already a paved pedestrian path, and marked pedestrian crosswalk connecting to the paved path, along Highway 9 where Vickery Avenue and Montalvo Road enter the public right of way. The right of way at that point is very wide and there is ample room for pedestrians to walk around our property using the public right of way, without being directed -2- 000012 into traffic. In fact, they have been doing just that for the past eighteen months while our property has been fenced off, without complaint. In contrast. the public path envisioned in Condition 4 would not connect to the existing paved path along Highway 9, but would be offset from it. Drivers on either Montalvo Road or Vickery Avenue would suddenly be confronted by pedestrians exiting the path and crossing the street at a place where no driver would have reason to expect pedestrian cross-traffic. We shudder at the possibility that children running out into either street from the path could be hit. We certainly do not think it would be appropriate to expose our family to potential liability for injuries suffered by the public on and around our property, and we do not feel that the City should open itself to similar liability. We do not believe that the public interest justifies these risks, all of which would be incurred merely so that the general public could cut across our property rather than walk another twenty feet around the corner where there is ample room to do so safely. The risks and privacy issues far outweigh any minor convenience that could possibly be gained by requiring or allowing such a "cutoff." In addition, because the general public never had any right to cut across our property in the first place, our project has had no public impact or effect on a public right, and we do not believe it would be fair for the City to continue to insist on creating such a right at our expense. In fact, a public path and bridge would effectively cut us off from, and deny us the use of, the section of our property between the path and bridge and Highway 9. s We do not believe that the necessity for the drainage Swale and bridge, and the resulting safety and liability issues, were anticipated or considered, or could have been fully anticipated or considered, in 1999 when Condition No. 4 was first imposed. Given that the path and bridge would create endless possibilities for mischief, nuisance, loss of privacy, and even significant injury, we believe that it would be appropriate to modify the approved project to remove any requirement for a public path across our property. _ ~ ~` Dated: ~ ~ ~. '. ~ , ~ r ~, __ Mehdi Siadat ,_ , r' Lorraine Siadat 14771 Montalvo Road Saratoga, CA 95070 • - 3 - 000013 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • C7 000014 s, Attachment 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAV15 Go~~ernor EpARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION O. BOX 23660 AKLAND, CA 94623-0660 (510 286-4401 (510) 286-4454 TDD May 22, 2002 • City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention Morgan Kessler Gentlemen: 04-SCL-9 7.85 -$ 02-0719 F1ez your power! Be energy efficient! This is in regard to your April 9, 2002 submittal for your Encroachment Permit Application, to remove and relocate sidewalk, guard rail and stop signs; add white traffic strips and arrows for a right turn lane and a stop sign; remove or trim bushes and add plants in front of the proposed guard rail along State Highway 04-SCL-9, Post Mile xx, in the City of Saratoga. We have following comment, which must be addressed before we consider your application complete: 1. The description of work on the Encroachment Penmit Application does not match with what is shown on your plan sheet. For an example, the plan sheet shows relocation and addition of stop signs, bushes and plants, which are not listed on the permit application. Please clearly clarify the scope of work within the State right of way. ~ _ - ~ . 2. All dimensions of the proposed work within the State right of way shall be in metric units. A combination of metric and English units is acceptable. _,=, . ;. , 3. Moving the guardrail closer to the traveled way is not acceptable from the safety standpoint because it will lose its effectiveness in shielding the headwall and increases its chances of being hit. _ ~ _ ~'~ _ ~-~. ~ - r ~ - , ~ ~ , 4. The pedestrians on the proposed crosswalk would be virtually invisible to the motorists turning into Vickery Avenue and Montalvo Road because the corner sight distance would be severely reduced if not non-existent. °Caltrans improves mobility across California' 000015 ~'' _ ~ • ~ a:' i of Sarato a C ty g May 22, 2002 Page 2 Please revise your plan accordingly and submit (5) five set of your revised plan for our further action. Reference file No. 02-0719 in your submittal. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Lalji Patel at (510) 622-5973. Di ict anch Chief Office of Permits LP/ • Q~~~~~ °Caltrans improves mobility across California" No7 ES I. HOVE Ckl ~T Ir~l~ G~~.1:L' '~Atl_ 'T~1.~P. K~-7S CENTEKI I AtE QF F1bJ Y q IN pKDt~. TD Tr1~0YIDE l/NOt~GFr• ~~rACE ~o~l< s' wrDE -FA~-Fi4~l~r . ~. (NSIALL VCW v~A"K~ "KAIL ~~K CAL-TT~'A,NCi ~~~ANL7AI~L sPEC~F-Ca?101.15, 3. 1 N `~'S"'A ~ L. /~ ~ E-yC E Ot•1 'tom fit- ~~~ ~1EADwALI_ SAT~ATt~~A -- LOS ~ q IBS ~'pAD +I-iGNwaY 9~ LE~E,~ ~ ~I a-S~~xK BRAIN iu~ET 0 Vp • -UTIL.~TY ~1'OL~ Q r2,1 0 - sTO'P s1G N ~ (Ej - Exls,-t~-C~ O ---h---M- ~T~> E 0~ f ~U E H E N 1 'PTcvpo sED 'PAT i1 W AY S I W '~Or051=D'RI O"DI --- - - C2 EKI,TING OSSl./alk - .. ~__.....-.__ _ _~_'-CQ. I~E_`~ENoybD.. - .. .- .. _.. -. ` `~` -P~Oi'USEP -p~AUT ~l --- ~-- 'YRO`POStJ~ -------- _ o 1 ~ \`._ A'tE;q ld^ WIDE ~7J~ ~UI 6~aR17EA11_ / ~ CE)'R (E l 5 --- - ~ _N, j ~~ CE16~R~ LAND>~~ . CEC T~~B i ~"PT~O-PDSETJ ~- / -~ ` G i ~9rr74/AL~' ~~ / ~ ~'i. 0 \~ ~~DI ~ I Z ~ . Q W ~ I V I 1 1` (E~`ROCK,LINED SWA LE /~ 1 ~EA~IwAL ~ - , ~o~~ ~ ~ I ti ~ *~ti~- F ~ ~ ) ~ua~E I 5 11: I I • "PIZQ~DiE U CRCYf wEI+IF ...t C~ kEMOU~ (g) -PA Al' ~ - --~ - - SCALE: III G 2~~ APPROVEDBY: DRAWN BY 11' DATE: 3 ~`~- O REVISED `PRO'PO:EU ~AT}F1ltAY A,T #IG.HWp,~ 9 `~'E.i I.1EEN VICKE~Y ~UENUE ~. IyOUTALvO'~ ORAWIN6 NUMBEI ~/ 111 IIIINTlD ON MO. 100011 CUWNIIM • • • • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ooooi8` ITEM 5 Attachment 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: DR-99-006; 14780 Vickery Avenue ' Applicant/Owner: SIADAT Staff Planner: Erik J. Pearson, Assistant Planner ?~ Date: November 10, 1999 APN: 517-19-040 Department Head: ~n ~ , i• • ' 000019 CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SCfMMARY 2/1/99 10/8/99 10/27/99 10/28/99 10/21/99 The applicant is requesting Design Review and Building Site Exemption approval for the demolition of an existing 2,100 square foot residence and the construction of a new 5,229 square foot, two-story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 24 feet. The site is 44,480 square feet (net) and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. The lot size is based on the City releasing to the applicant a portion of the right-of--way of Vickery Avenue in exchange for an improved drainage facility along Montalvo Road and the dedication and improvement of a pedestrian easement from Montalvo Road to Vickery Avenue. This will require approval from the City Council and the Design Review approval will be conditioned on the Council's approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-99- 006. ATTACHMENTS l . Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-99-006 3. Arborist Report 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • 0000~~ File No. DR-99-006; 14780 Vickery Avenue STAFF .ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 44,480 square feet (proposed net lot size) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.6% GRADING REQUIRED: None Proposed MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior finish will be light beige stucco with white trim and limestone colored pillars. Roofing will be a mission-style the ("Old- World Blend"). Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. Lot Coverage: Proposal 16% (7,743 sq. ft.) Code Requirement! Allowance 45% (20,016 sq. ft.) Size of Residence: Setbacks: Height: First Floor: 2,869 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1,720 sq. ft. Garage: 640 sq. ft. Existing Cottage: 320 sq. ft. TOTAL: 5,549 sq. ft. Front: 32 ft. Rear: >80 ft. Exterior Side: 28 ft. Interior Side: 47 ft. 24 ft. Total allowable for site: 5,551 sq. ft.' Front: 30 ft. Rear: 15 ft. (Cody Lane) Exterior Side: 25 ft. (Vickery) Interior Side: 15 ft. 26 ft. ~ This figure is after a reduction calculated for the building height of 24 feet (§ 15-45.030(f) of the Zoning Ordinance). The allowable floor azea is also based on a net site azea of 44,480 square feet. If the City Council denies the abandonment of a portion of the Vickery Avenue right-of--way, the net site azea and the allowable floor azea will be less. C:1Erik~PC Staft'ReportslSiadatdoc UUUV~~ File No. DR-99-OOu; 14780 Vickery Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant is requesting Design Review and Building Site Exemption approval for the demolition of an existing 2,100 square foot residence and the construction of a nevi- 5,229 square foot two-story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 24 feet. The site will be 44,480 square feet (net) and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Staff feels that the Mediterranean style architecture and proposed colors are appropriate for the neighborhood. Several residences with similar styles and colors already exist in the area. The site has many mature trees which will be retained and will help to help soften the appearance of the residence from the street and adjacent properties. Building Site Exemption The Building Site Exemption has been conditionally approved by the City Engineer. The applicant is required to improve the drainage system along Montalvo Road to Highway 9 and to dedicate and improve a 10 foot wide pedestrian easement across the property between Montalvo Road and Vickery Avenue. In exchange for these improvements, the City will abandon a portion of the Vickery Avenue right-of--way. The net lot size mentioned above is based on the City Council approving the abandonment. Staff will recommend that the City Council release 4,400 square feet of right-of--way, an area 10 feet wide by 440 feet long measured from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The owner's property line is the centerline of Vickery Avenue and 30 feet of the right-of-way covers the site. The physical road uses less than 20 feet of the easement and the City has no intention of widening Vickery Avenue and using the additional 10 feet of easement. Cody Lane, located at the western most corner of the lot, is wider and uses a portion of the 10 foot wide easement in question. This portion of the easement will remain unaffected. If the easement is released to the applicant, the benefit to the Siadats will be to build a slightly larger home and the benefit to the City will be an improved drainage culvert along Montalvo Road and a pedestrian easement across the property from Montalvo Road to Vickery Avenue. This will require approval from the City Council and the Design Review approval will be conditioned on the Council's approval. If the City Council denies the right-of--way abandonment, then the residence will have to be redesigned with a smaller total floor area and the revised plans will be presented to the Planning Commission. Parkin The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached three-car garage. C:~Fri1dPC StafTReports~Siadatdoc OOOO~~ File No. DR-99-006; 14780 Vickery Avenue Grading No grading has been proposed. Trees ~, , The City Arborist report dated March 5, 1999 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are about 90 trees on the property, but only 32 are at risk of being impacted by construction activities. Four trees (21, 24, 25 and 36) will be removed. Replacement trees will be required to be planted prior to the final inspection of the residence. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Once the City Council approves the right-of--way abandonment, improvement plans for the new drainage culvert and the pedestrian easement will also be reviewed by the City Arborist. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence should not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-99- 006. • ~:~~~ s~~~ 00.0023 • • O~OQ~i~- Attachment ~ • RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Siadat; 14780 Vickery Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the demolition of an existing 2,100 square foot residence and the construction of a new 5,229 squaze foot, two-story residence on a 44,480 square foot pazcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence will be screened from existing residences by mature oak trees. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofaz 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 appeazance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that only four of about 90 trees will be removed. -The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minirt~ize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment in that the materials and size of the proposed residence aze compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood. -The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the residence will be located well away from adjacent residences. 00~02~ File No. DR-99-006; 14780 Vickery Avenue fi -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. 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 Siadat for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a) Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b) Include on the site plan the water and the gas/electricaUtelephone lines rerouted around tree numbers 32 and 20 per the Arborist's recommendation. c) The site plan shall show the driveway to be constructed of a pervious material per the Arborist's recommendation. d) A landscaping plan for the front yard shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director. 3. All recommendations of the City Arborist's Report dated March 5, 1999 and shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a) The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. _ b) Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing and the plywood platform buffer shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be installed and inspected by staffprior to issuance of a Building Permit. C:~Erik~PC Staff Reports~Siadudoc 00002' File No. DR-99-006; 14780 Vickery Avenue • U • 9 10 11 12 13 Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. No ordinance size tree shall be removed (with the exception of trees 21, 24, 25 and 36) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 14. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 15. 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. 16. 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. C:~Erik~PC Staff Reports\Siadatda 0~002~ File No. DR-99-006; 14780 Vickery Avenue c) A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall pazk or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d) Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a foram acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $11,046 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. e) Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures and the planting of replacement trees. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. f) Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations. 4. The owner (applicant) shall extend the existing Montalvo Road stone drain system, which terminates at the subject property, to the drainage system at Highway 9. A CATRANS encroachment permit shall be obtained for the connection to the Highway 9 drainage system. Engineered improvement plans for this work shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department prior to Zoning Clearance. Work shall be completed prior to a Final Inspection approval being issued for the residence. 5. The owner (applicant) shall dedicate a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement across the subject property connecting the Montalvo Road and Vickery Avenue rights of way. The pedestrian trail shall be improved to minimum City standards (including but not limited to anall-weather surface, signage and an open rail fence with bollazds at each end) prior to a Final Occupancy Permit being issued for the residence. 6. In exchange for the above work (conditions 4 and 5) the City agrees to abandon a portion of the unimproved public right of way of Vickery Avenue to the subject property owner. A description of the right-of--way shall be prepazed by a licensed land surveyor and submitted to and approved by the City Surveyor prior to City Council approval. The abandonment of the aforementioned public right-of--way is contingent on City Council approval. 7. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepazed or built-up roofing. 8. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60. 000028 c:~~rc saa'~s;~caa File No. DR-99-006; 14780 Vickery Avenue r i Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Sectoon 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 10~' day of November 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • 004029 • • 000030 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 2002 Attachment 6 CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO 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) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning commission approved Consent Calendar Item No. 1, approving the Resolution finding the Garrod Farm project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S Application #02-047 (517-19-0401 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 omitted from the resolution approving the home, which is now built. (WELSH) Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02-047 to a date uncertain. This item will be re-advertised and re-noticed. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 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) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: ~ Advised that the applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for 20444 Prospect Road, within a CV-Commercial zoning district. OUOU31 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • s "00003 • • • fw ypoe NMy10nR rOMCi ro ifs .aii>Hy r-- _ vic-cErz.Y•4vENKE 1 -~ 'q'68i nNG ~~ pe Nt fiNp .. ~.__ 4..R ARI°A!N f°f °. ~~~ ... - O OO ~ IN NIIG -f~ / O Nr ~.ON R y -- -~~ O p ~- y-' 0 0 Attachment 7 _~ _ 1 ", ~ ii J T~~~ t~ '~~ X1 • ~? • .~ ~ v ~?~ O O ~ O ~~• K r / \.. CONwpIf°.s ni N°nrM 1..i ,v/,( ma,s .I..+ovk s ~c.~G NNyar. Nf~v.~t.pp =M 1 ~`iI"".uy AIM' 6°~•S'• O 1 / 1'¢ Q V 14800 4821 W W • riiry~y coyc or .nv°wyur FENCE LEA-iENA ® a,i. ,. ~„f~w, rf..ur ..~... _ !w. tt~luURS~s.~o•[ [fNW~y ~~ ~ a o-M r4f4U1511f ~.O fNpNy ti Rf.UU a a~SnNy °' o- M REDNypp f Ncf ~R'~alGR ~C°N uN0 s1i w/ IS-AV NHN4NS lIN1 MpNrA W0 NM. 11))) MoHrA lve Rpgp 111]t MONrAp ROA° .omow~Nf~q~Apa,Ipoe Nornfi w/ .>•.,,. ,, ~Iyn..oNr,~v '.wi i' ~T~ roNr~~vo wp~A°n° ~~ "1DNrALVp.n~. 7°11 j I+our.llvo IIO~,ap ~~ 10 r+eNt.l~vo- Nf~yMi ~~. u,~f .,o...,a~, I'~ 20 OODU33 • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • O oOO~~r Attachment b Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 November 10,1999 There vas no one from the ublic who wished to address this sub~ect. P J COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:1~ P.IvL). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Barry commented she liked the design, noting that the project met the infill design criteria. She said the houses and plans are compatible within the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick noted she had no objections to the proposal. Commissioner Jackman remarked that the project was large but compatible with the neighborhood. She will vote to support the proposal. Commissioner Page concurred that this is a great design, except for the columns as he described and he would like to see those changed. He will support the underfloor exception. Commissioner Roupe stated he supports the project. He referred to the rendering and elevations v~~hich he said shows the front porch area is lower than the peak of the house and does not look so accentuated, which may be an artistic illusion. He suggested the applicant work with staff to address Commissioner Page's concerns. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, stating she supports the underfloor, feels the entryway is a bit grandiose, and would like to see the objects that go across the top removed and the whole element lowered. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-040, GRANTING THE UNDERFLOOR EXCEPTION AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF TO MODIFY THE ENTRANCE TO NOT BE SO IMPOSING. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). 5. DR-99-006 (517-19-040) - SIADAT, 14780 Vickery Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 5,229 square foot, two-story residence. The driveway will be relocated so that primary access to the site will be from Montalvo Road. The site will have a net lot size of 44,480 square feet and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a request for design review consideration to demolish an existing home which sits on the property bounded by Vickery Avenue to the north and Montalvo Road to the south. He said this is a very long, narrow parcel that fronts up to Highway 9. It is ,- located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district and the net size of the property is just over one acre. The proposal includes changing the access from Vickery Avenue to Montalvo Road and retain the existing cottage building. Director Walgren reported that the second part of the application is a request for a building site approval for all properties in Saratoga that were created more than 15 years ago or as part of a subdivision that was recorded more than 15 years ago. He said the building site approval process allows the City to determine if additional roads rights-of-ways, and public improvements such as fire hydrants are necessary. He said the City Public Works Department is recommending exemption from the process which is standard when all utilities and roads rights of ways issues have been addressed satisfactorily. He noted that the City has ODD~~rJ t'lanning Commission Minutes Page 1~~ of 19 November 10,1999 surplus right-of-way that is being dedicated for public road right-of-way on Vickery Avenue, and the Cit~• has been working with the property owners to process a relinquishment or abandonment of the surplus right-of-vvay. He conveyed that the benefit to the applicants is that it increases their net site area and allows the home to be at the 5,200 square foot as proposed. He said that without the abandonment of the right-of-way, the floor area would be reduced. In exchange for that abandonment, the Public Works Department has met with the applicants and developed a list of conditions, including that public storm drain improvements be completed along Montalvo Road and requiring a pedestrian connection perpendicular across the property approximately within the middle of the finger that extends out to Highway 9. Director Walgren expressed that the applicants are concerned with the requirement regarding the pedestrian connection, and continued to describe the benefits of the easement. He said that the proposal meets the minimum zoning ordinance standards. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding the applicant's concern about insurance or legal ramifications of the easement should somebody be hurt, Director Walgren said that the issue has been researched and tried and precedent has been set. He said it would be no different than public sidewalks or public pedestrian/equestrian trails, and the liability would ultimately fall on the Ciry if it becomes a public easement. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any restrictions as to how high a fence on the easement could be, and Director Walgren responded that the section should be no more than 36 or 42 inches in height; however, a section could be six feet in the area where debris is coming in to the property. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:38 p.m. Ms. Lorraine Siadat, 14780 Vickery Avenue, addressed the Commission as the owner of the property. She asked that the condition of the foot path be removed. She said her concern is liability, and she does not want the area turned into a dog run. She noted the area is dark at night, and she would not v<~ant anyone tripping and falling along the path. She said the traffic on Vickery and Montalvo are not used to people darting out from the trees which is what would happen and someone could get injured. She said although there is a designated crosswalk, people tend to cut through her property. Commissioner Patrick asked whether the applicant had any plans to fence off the "finger" of the property to prevent off-road vehicles, and Ms. Siadat described the incidents related to off-road vehicles entering the property. Ms. Siadat said once the plans are approved, she would like to call in a landscape architect and begin designs for fencing. Responding to Commissioner Patrick's inquiry regarding her vision of fencing, Ms. Siadat described the open space where one can see the trees, ground, and wildflowers. In reply to Commissioner Patrick's question, Ms. Siadat said she would not be opposed to a condition that she put in asplit-rail or open type offence. Commissioner Roupe described the path/sidewalk he saw at yesterday's site visit and suggested that the applicant could consider fencing at the end of the property which would not be obtrusive to the applicant but would still allow access to the downtown area without having to get on Highway 9. He asked if the applicant would object to a pedestrian connection being placed at the end of the property inside the barrier (on the property side) instead of the middle of the property. ~0~~.~6 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 ~ of la November 10,1999 Ms. Siadat responded she would have no objection. Commissioner Jackman commented that putting the walkway through the center of the applicant's property would be very destructive to the applicant's privacy. She said she would like to see on the applicant's side of the traffic barrier some way of continuing the asphalt walk along the ver~~ tip of the property and leave the rest of the property so it is closed in for the applicant's use. Mr. James Iverson, 14701 Vickery Avenue, addressed the Commission as the property owner across the street from the "finger" of the Siadat property, stating he was opposed to the path through the middle of the property. His concerns for not putting the path in the center of the property included the City malting that kind of requirement of any property owner against their wishes; liability issues; maintenance issues; safety issues; loitering and littering; and privacy issues. He encouraged the Commission to favor the end-of- property approach to the path and if a fence is required, he asked that neighbors who would be impacted be included for input. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:4? P.I~~1.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the property layout and felt strongly about not ha~~ing the walkway through the middle of the property. She said she would like to see asee-through fence, and would like to see the project go forward. Commissioner Page agreed with Commissioner Jackman and noted the design is appropriate to the neighborhood. He said he was in support of the pathway at the end of the property. He said it was appropriate to note that the City is giving up its easement on the property in lieu of other elements. He said he was not in support of fencing the area aside from open fencing, and strongly urged the applicants to work with the neighbors before installing fencing. He said he would support the project with the condition that the walkway be at the end of the property. Commissioner Roupe said he could support the project with the condition of the relocation of the walkway. He urged the applicant and neighbors to work with staff to maintain open fencing so the area remains an open space. Commissioner Barry agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She commended the applicant on the good job she has done in taking care of the area. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that this is not a taking, but atrade-off, and that the applicants are getting something in exchange for giving up a portion of their property for the path. She said she would want the path at the end, and noted it is important that it be a continuation of the Highway 9 pathway. She stated she would require the peninsula be fenced in open fencing as approved by staff as a condition. She commended Mr. Spaulding, the architect, for the wonderful design. She said fencing is very important for, the applicant's safety as well as the City's safety. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, noting the design fits in beautifully with the neighborhood, and expressed her appreciation to Ms. Siadit for the care to the property she has demonstrated. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-006 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WALKWAY THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY BE OMITTED AND PLACED ALONG THE TIP OF THE PENINSULA NEAR HIGHWAY 9, AND THAT THE 00003'7 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1? of 19 November 1Q 1999 PROPERTY BE FENCED WITH ASEE-THROUGH FENCE, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT.) DR-99-041 (503-09-022).- SVOBODA, 22040 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 864 square foot horse stable. The application includes a request for an exception to allow the prefabricated structure to exceed the 12 foot height limit b}• one and one-half feet. The site is 5.15 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report. He said this type of application would normally not be required to come before the Commission; however, the cumulative square footage of the property, including the existing home and stable, exceeds 6,000 square feet, and design review approval is required by the Commission. Additionally, the prefabricated structure exceeds the height limit of 12' , and the Commission can approve additional height up to 15' maximum if the findings can be made. He described the lot, stating the proposal meets all zoning ordinance requirements and horse permitting requirements. He noted that no corral is proposed at this time; however, if it were proposed in the future, there would be two constraints to doing so. He said the constraints are that the hillside district limits fencing to no more than 4,000 square feet total and corrals are only permitted in areas that have an average slope of less than 15 percent. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:53 p.m Mr. Bill Svoboda, 22040 Mt. Eden Road, presented a brief history of the project, noting that the raised roof creates ventilation and better circulation for the horses. Responding to a question from Commissioner Pa ere ardin an easement on the r g g g p opert}', Mr. Svoboda said that the area is an existing trail with no easement, but he does not have access to Mt. Eden Road. Mr. Svoboda said he brought in gravel to help the erosion problem. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the applicant would be pursuing a corral or paddock in the future, and Mr. Svoboda responded that he envisioned such a component in the upper level east of the house. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that great care should be taken because of the hillside district if the applicant proceeds with a corral or paddock. Commissioner Barry asked if there was room to put in a corral, and Mr. Svoboda responded that approximately one and one-half flat acre exists in the area. Responding to a question from Commissioner Bernald, Mr. Svoboda said he planned to walk the horses up from the house area to the upper level and walk them down. There was no one else present who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICKBARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:00 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stated she had no objection to the proposal, and noted that red with a green roof is hardly unobtrusive, but it cannot be seen from where it is sited. She would vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Barry concurred. OOOU38 Attachment 9 NEIGHBOR PETITION TO CITY OF SARATOGA PLANTNINv ~t~ivii~-itJJtU'~ IN SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PROJECT TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEDICATION OF A PEDESTRIAN EASEI~~IENT Application No. DR 99- 006 14771 Montalvo Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 27, 200? 1. The undersigned are all neighbors of the Siadats, who live at 14771 Montalvo Road. Cite of Saratoga. The Siadats' property is a long narrow piece of land that starts at Sarato~_a-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 propert}~. Because of oui- pro~imity to the Siadat property, we are in a position to notice and be affected by all activities that occur on their property. ?. We are aware that for the last year and a half, the Siadats have been buildin~~ a ne~~• 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 safet~~ concerns. 4. Since the Siadats' project started a year and a half ago, their property has been totally fenced off. thereb}• 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. ~. 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 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 000039 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, dump 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 ofactivity. Public access would also invite children and others to play in the water during the rain.' 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(,, ~Gd1' t'li ~~a~ ~11'f~, Sign ~iL2f~ ~~.- ~~2~ Address i (% -~.~Q' /l7 ~~~/,•~ 9p_ ~ ~i ,~ ,1 ~ . _ ~~~ Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address, Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address • ~~QO~~ 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 plav on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface below. If it could be accessed b}' 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 amact the,. ,same kind of activit}~. Public access would also invite children and others to play in the water during the rain}' season. with potentially significant risks. g. 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'~= ~V ~ C~• ALL 4 Sign - ~°~ - -" Address / ~7 ,~l.S~~O YI T/~~ i4 ~c~sign .~ ~•-~~o~ Dated: Name C o Address % ','-7 `~`'~`~~~ Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address speeding across the propert}- on an improved surface, risking injury to themselves and pedestrians. The bridge and drainage Swale would invite children and teenagers to pla}~ on the bridge, jump off it in play, and fall off it by accident onto the rocky surface belov~~. 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 activit}-. 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 F/~~o~c~s ~b~42.'f19.1/ Sign 3 ~Z' Z o0'Z Address / ~/ 7c~D m~7~/I L /c~ Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address • 00002 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 activit}~. 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 ~Q.~ ~• ~ ~~r~Sign Address_1 ~~ D ( ~t ~- Dated: Name ~.c~,~r~ ~-n! 1,U ~, njSign Address / Y ~o~ l~~ c.,t ~ ~ ~ ~1, ~ti Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address, Dated: Name Sign Address 00003 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 pla}~ 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 activit~~. Public access would also invite children and others to play in the water during the rain}~ 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 ~_1 ~.~l~J ~',~ Rat 1 Sign / ~ J G,,~,t -~ ~a/b Address ? ~'~ / 1 ~ ~ ~`b l2~ ~ ~ r i ~~ Date Name ~` a ~ S u L ~( l iq tR ~ .i= Sign i:.~. 7~ ~.Xiz ~~~` - 3~ ~ Address ~~ Sc _1 ~ 7 ~/ l t C~ (;(-cam , ~- ccr-~ i Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Address, Dated: Name Address Sign 11ateC1: Name Jtgn Address Sign • 00004.4 L ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~,~ ~~~ ! 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 Date: 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 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 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 Sazatoga. 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 OOOU45 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 rain}~ 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. v~ ~ Dated: Name` ~ - Sign - =-~ ~'~ ~.2~ -:-~' - u Z ~ ~. ~j Z Address l 1-{' ~ ~ l v ~, . ~ . ~ J ~~ 1. Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign. Address oooo4s 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 pla}~ 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 ~~j '~ ~ Address _ 1~ ~~ ~ ~` ~~/ Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Sign Address Dated: Name Address Sign Dated: Name Sign Address • OOOU4~7 Cheryl Jordan 20150 Mendelsohn Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 July 15, 2002 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Meeting July 24th for Case # 02-047; 14771 Montalvo Rd. Dear Sirs and Madames, As a resident of the Montalvo neighborhood, I would like to convey my concern regarding the requirement of a footpath across the Siadat property. I regularly walk along the Hwy. 9 footpath en route to the Village. Before the fence was erected around the Siadat property I attempted to push my child's stroller across the dirt path at the end of their land, but found it to be too cumbersome as well as unsafe. I found that the crosswalk is a much better means for travel as it is paved, and more importantly, in view of oncoming traffic. The small stretch of land where the old path is located is obscured by trees so it is difficult to see cars turning on to Vickery or Montalvo. As a driver it is impossible for me to see anyone who might be attempting to cross the road using the dirt path rather than the crosswalk. I strongly urge you to reconsider your mandate for a path across the Siadat property not only for their privacy,but for the safety of those who are crossing the intersection. Once my child is old enough to walk along side me, I will insist that he use the existing crosswalk, and I hope you will make that the only option for other foot travelers as well. Si `r ly, ~ - ry J r an ~~~o~~ ~• JUL 1 6 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA ~~,~n+i i~aTV nFVFi nnn~~••- 000048 • Attachment l~ PETITION TO PROHIBIT REMOVING PEDESTRIAN TRAIL REQUIREMENT ON SIADAT PROPERTY 14771 MONTALVO RD. SARATOGA APPLICATION 02-047 (517-19-040 ) CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION It is important to Saratoga resident safety as well as quality of life to have a pedestrian thoroughfare on 14771 Montalvo Rd. Cun ently ,crossing over from Montalvo Rd to Vickery Ln. is dangerous for pedestrians. The Planning Commission perceived these safety issues and mandated a trail when approving The Siadat's new home. This pedestrian trail requirement needs to stand! ! Name -:~ ~~, ~~~ .,~ ~~- :.~ C. ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~, 4~ ~_ ~; Address ~, f ~5 ~ .5 ~, ~-~ .~ March 18.2002 Karen Grellas 22060 Dorsey W_y. 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 o se 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./Vickery 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, :7 D ~~~~~~ MAR 1 g 2002 CITY OF SARATOGA CO-QMUNITY p~VELOPMEAfi' OOOUS v Ann Welsh From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Anne: Bob Zager [bzager@soliddata.com] Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:26 AM Ann Welsh 'bob@zager.cc' Application #02-047 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 004051 1 ~„~ l~~sti ~e : S%~ cFa-{ 0~- P~a~E ~ Acct a ~e' ,~ ~' /~~zv,,n~d ,ay Qir' P~ ~S ~ ~~D. ~ ~~~ Gps~~i~ ~o lL 1~,~'-fan ~ ~~ ~ ~~d/~J ~ /Jw U"~ / y~5d i ~o~ l~il8tr~ ~„~ / '- ~ ~ ~9~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ 8-~3 • • UODUS~ ., ~~ ~~~, ~,,~ Attachment 11 ~2e: s ~ ~ ti (~ _ Z , S ReCerpt # Z-7 Appicabon x Date : Q _ i - o c APPL.I~CATION FAR FJVCROacN~uT p~jr The undersigned hereby applies m the City of Saratoga for an ENCROACHMENT PERMtT under the terms of Articles 10-15 and 10-15 of Chaplet 10 of the CRy Code and do idemnfy the Cdr pusuarrt >3o ArtiGe 10-2o.oso. Name of Street or other Public Prpperttr. 1 ~-~ ~ ~ I ti f e~ 1 ~-r. ~./ ti's f~ C~ ~_ ~; Nature and Location oy+f Encroadmert~(AA,tbch plan/or slaebch as requrred) ~ : ~ • . h :~ J,~~°--/~ 'v,J Imo`. /,? G' t ,.~ ~.I G/•.1 !%'!! ii R INsi/-~~~ HifVtMV ~' ~~©i`1 i E;XI S-7'iN~ ~ pv`t d~~ For Emergency Repair Contact ~,; icy ~_ , r ~_ ~ < r . ~. y .- , Estimated Cost of Encroadrrnent s The undersigned oertr7y that tarn famTrar vrilh Caliomia Labor Code Section 37003800 covering W ork- ~an's Compensafbn krstrrance and the oertEication of wee or a corrser~t to set-inavre for Woric- rarfs Compensation Ir>suranee as eondBon to issuance of a permR by the Clly. I hereby cert~y as -bvrs: I have fried with you, the eert~irdte n;gvaed by CaliFomfa Labor Code Section 3800(1) or (2) or (3) or M the performance of the work for whidr this permit is issued I shalt not engage or empty arty person or enuty h any roamer so as to become subjed 1o the Workman's Compen- sation Laws of Cardomia. ~...• • •~••, ••~ ••••r w ~~ ~uarynwrug, my ptaoe Of residen0e(or Permanent blssress address) for aY purposes of rotiee caled far under Sedbn 10-20.110 of the City Code straq be set forth bebw: NAME: ~L~I ~t. 2. f / t l~ S l a.~~ C~~ TELEPHONE NO.: ~ (L- 7 - ~ 5 3 • 1 declare under penalty of Per)ury. that the foregoing is true and domed to the best of my knowledge and belief. Ea:cuted at Saratoga. Cagomla, this ~~ day of ~ a r c~ ~ ~ .~- 200 APPLICANT BY: ~ ya~~ ~,Lf G ~~ M you have arty questions regarding the toe of the permit; please contact 868-1274 . E you have arry questions reagarding irspedbns. please cortad 868.1243. in addition, all applicants must contact the Public Works Inspectors Office (868-1243) at least 24 hours prior to work commencing. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT OU-Z~3 Permission s hereby granted m the above named Number. in the above application. subject b the folbwing eondd ~ ~~ Ure work spedfied at the bcation 1 hS--F~I~ w. i vt r vh ~ ~ ,,_L, Irrspecibn : 1.__ 2,__ Completion Notice This work has been inspected b found complete as of .This does not release - the pennktee ~ other obigatbns corder Articles 10-15b10-20 of Chapter 10 of the City Code. This Permit is good urrl8 rewked or expires in accord wih ks terms. Dated this t day of_ S ~Nf . 200 ~ CITY OF SARATOG ~ A Municipal CorQOOOS3 8Y I ~ ~ •G True: ~ ~> - , t ~, . .~ Receipt # ~ ~~ 2 ~ ~ ~ Dace : ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ EtPPLICATrdV . EN A 1NENT PF_RIIR' The undersigned hereby app6as m the City of Saratoga for an ENCROACHMENT PERMIT underthe => terms of Amides 10-15 and 10-15 of Chapter 10 of the City Code and do fdemrrly the Ciy ptrstrant to Article 10-2o.oso. _ ~ Name of Street or other Pubic Property. ~ ~ ~ ~ ; !'~'' ~ : ? ~ +C4 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ F. ' CZ!~ `- Nature and Location of Encmadrment:(Attachplan or slaetch as requ ired) ~; ~ ~; ~ ~. _ . -- For Emergency Repair Cortad: c,l i - ~ Y~ l t ).~ ~~, c, c~L-;' ;~ `; - C ~ Estimated Cast of Enooadnnent s .~ ~ ~ ~ C-~ t `~ ,The undersigned oertt7y that lam famEar with CalTomla Labor Code Section 3700if3800 oovemg Work- nan'sCompensation kcstranoe and the oertTication of hs~rranoe or a consent to set-inaine for Work non's Compensation tr>strance as cordEon to issuance of a permR by the City. 1 hereby certi~r as I have tried whh you. the oertiicale regaled by Cali<omla Labor Code Section 3800(1) or (2) or (3) a ; M the perfonnanoe of the work for which this permit is issued, l shat not engage or empty any person or errtMy h any roamer so as to become subject to the Worbnan's Comperes action Laws of CaiforNa. my for aB pteposes of rotioe tailed for u nder Sedbn 10-20.110 of the Cit)r Code shay be set forth bebw: .~ ,NAME: !~ G ~ ~i ~;'~ ! I)-E.... ~~ i ~ Ll lCt~ TELEPHONE NO.: ~(~-7 - / ;~ -. ~7 ~~ ADDRESS: I declare order penally of perjury, that the'., foregoing f5 true and coned tD the best of my knowledge and bebef. EaEwted at saratoga, CaRomia, this 3 i day of C~- ~ i ~'i ~ ! : `~ .200 ,~ APPLlC+4NT , BY: '~~ t ~ Cc ~ ~--~. ~ .t Cc~ C~CC~ ~ g you have any questions regardng the issuance of the permk. please contact 868-1274 . E you have arty questions reagarding R~peWons, please oordad 868-1243. in addition, all applicants must contact the Public Works Inspector's Office ~ (868-1243) at least 24 hours prior to work commencing. ~ ENCROACHMENT PERMR ~ Number. ~~ -213 ~` Perrnissbn ~s hereby grar>ted m the above named appicard m pertonn the work spedfied at the location ~ ~ the above appiicatbn, subject to the foiawirq eondrb'ons: ~~~~ . Inspection :1. 2. Completion Notice This work has been inspeaed b found complete as of .This does rot release the pennittee of other obigatiorrs under Amides 10.15b10.20 of Chapter 10 of the City Code. This Permit is good urt8 revolaed or e>~es h accord wih its terms. Dated this ~ day of ~ ~~200 0 - CITY OF SARATOGA, A Murucrpal Corp. ey: 14eX, ~:,/1 Titre: ~S; ~.~000054 ... e / ~P \- , ~ ~ / l ,- ~ ~ / (\ ~\\ U ~\ ~ ~ c~~,P_ Lr ~ ~ ~ ~ry\ \ ~ ~~ ~lOE~ 1 __ ~ _ ,~~ • ~ ~- N ,~ G ~ / - / \` --_ ~ rP r i ~ ~ _ \ - ~ - ~ ~~ ., f! •- . l v ~ I ~~e2aaC~~ev~ 7er~~ ~/,v.S ~ --~~ • ^' ~ =X i~ 1 ~~! ..O' O 4 ~.~C~~~\.~V~~ ~ t l Tip l L ~.`:~ f.a~I'V ~ N Es:~£J • --..._.,,,s OOUO~S • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . • OOOU56 JUL-16-2002 TUE 04:35 PM WITTWERPRRKIN FAX N0, 8314294057 P, 02 Attachment 12 • Jai~nli~n,i ~ilfwcr ~A A Y 1'r~ll\ ~ ~1v~ Ldp ~~~i~:iA:n .''. 1°ar~:in I~J75ocmH RfN;R Srnr•:F:7•. Svlrr:221 S.+rri'A C~itU'/„ C,Ai.II'L1[trti7A ~~~(rn 7't:l.rrrtnrvc: x8311 a~9.4b55 1~ACSIMILG: (8311 ~:'J.~057 C.MNI., orricc(~~wi(Iwerp~rtcin can PA1NI.EGA1. .tang Rinalrli July 16, 2002 "Porn Sullivan, AIC:P Co~nnwnity Development Director City elf Saritog;i 1:3777 Fnritvale Avenue Saratol;a, CA 95U7U • Re: Options Available to the Planning Commission re Requested Modification of Apprcwal of T)evclopment at 14771 Montalvo Road Application No. 02-047 Applicant/Owner: Mchdi andlrotraine Siadat APN: 517-19-040 licaring Datc: July 24, 2042 Dc;rr Mr. Sullivan; City Attorney Richard'1'aylor ~md planner Ann Welsh have requested that this office review the rnater•inls r•clated to the; above described Application requesting modircation of the 1999 APhrovul of l~evelopmcnt itt 14771 Montalvo Road by eliminating the requirement fora 10 foot l~cdcstrian casement. The objective of such review is to provide advice n'garding the options rtvtrilable to the Planning Commission at its public hearing on this matter on Jtrly 24, 200'?. Our response follows. 1t is clear' from the Staff Report and Minutes rcbardinS the 1999 Public Hearing before the City Planning Commission that two separate approvals were required by the City, namely: (l) 1)~sign Review Approval: and (2) Building Site Approval (sec statement oFthen-Director Wrr(gren in Mim.ttes (p.) of I9]). An exemption from the Building Site Approval requirement was "conditionally approved" by the City Engineer (19)9 Stf. Rpt., p.4). One of the conditions on which the Building Site. Approval Exemption was based was that the Applicant "dedicate and iurhrovu a 10 font wide pcdesU•ian casement" over the property. Id. This was in exchange for the City abandoning a portion of lire Viekcry Avenue right-of-way to the Applicant. Id. The abandonment of the Vickery Avenueright-elf-way, in turn, allowed the Applicant to build a larEet• home bec~lusc of the floor ar~c.a ratio would he applied to a larger parcel. Id and page 3 ~(fn.l) of 1)~9 Sif. Rpt. I am advised that tlic Vickery Avcnuc dedication has never been accepted by the City ar granted to the Applicant. OOOUS'7 JUI.-16-2002 TUE 04;35 PM WITTWERPARKIN Torn Sullivan, ATC:'P 11771 Mrml~tlvo July 1G, 2002 PagC 2 FAX N0. 8314294057 P. 03 There wits no aPPe;tl of the conditions of the Design Review Approval or the conditions of the Building Site Exemption Approval. Hence, those conditions became binding (sec Section 4 of Res. No, 99-00G) and subsequent events do not require the City to eliminate any such _... conditions. On the: other hand, subject to compliance with the City Code as specified below (or a variance therefrom) the City, in its discretion, may eliminate any one or more of such conditions. I'he 199q Staff Report also matte it clear that the exchange of the City's Vickery Avenue right-of-wly for the 10 foot wide. pcdcstrian casement and an improved drainage systcrn along Montalvo Road to Highway 9 required approval of the City Council. Id. Indeed, the Design ltevic;w ~PPmval was for that reason conditioned on the Council's approval of the abandonment. Id and Para. ti of Resolution No. DR 99-00~. As the current staff recommendation states, under the City Code, pedestrian and other access Pathways may reasonably be required in connection with a site requiring building site approval. (2002 Stf. Rpt., p.2) See also the Memorandum of City Attorney Richard Taylor io Cc~mnninily 1•)evelopment Director Tom Sullivan dated November 1G, 200! stating that City Code "Section 14-25.030(q) requires dedication of `pedestrian or other access pathways as may re;t,,anably be required' in connection with Proposed ... projects requiring building site ~tPPt•ovals." Tltc subject aPPlicat:ion required a Building Sitc Approval. An exemption from the Building Site Approval regteiremcnt was granted only on the express condition that the 10 foot wide pedestri;tn c~tsemcnt be dcdicatc;d and improved. "thus, in the absence of the 10 foot wide Pcclcstrian cascntcrtt there is no exemption, and a Building Site Approval is required. Once the I3ttilclirtg Site APPrc~val is requited, the PIanning Commission has clear discretionary authority to rc:gttire ;t pedestrian or other access pathway. llowcvcr, the requirement far a 10 foot wide pcdcstrian pathway may have become binding unless a variance from the floor atra ratio rc;quiremenl is also applied for and granted. Thatt is because tllc house atttltorized by the Design Review Approval has been constructed at the larger size which was anthorired only on the basis of the City abandoning a portion of the Vickery Avenue right-of way to the Applicant and that abandot~tncnt was, in turn, expressly conditioned an the dedication attcl improvement of a 10 foot wide pcdcstrian easement. Thus, if the City 1'lannittg Commission is to elimin;ttc the rcquircment far a 10 foot wide pcdcstrian easement, it must be conditioned on the City Council either: (1) rescinding the requirement for abandonment of the Vickery Avcnuc right-of--catty; (2) waiving its right to have a 10 foot Pcd-strian Pathway in exchange for the ahandonment of the Vickery Avenue right-of-way; or (3) accepting the Vickery Avcnuc right-o('-way if it hasn't been accepted and granting the 1-bandonn~cnt if it hasn't yet been granted. If the City Council chooses to rescind, then a v,~riance application would be necessary with trospcct to the sire of the house consttlictcd on the • r~ • OOOUSt~ • JUI.-16-2002 TUE 04:36 Phl WITTWERPARKIN Tarn Sullivan, AICP 14771 Montalvo July 1G, 2UU2 Pa~c 2 .. FAX N0. 8314294057 P. 04 ApUIicant's property. Section 15-7O.O2U(a) authoi7zcs the Planning Commission to grant an ~~Pl?licrition for variance as to site area coverage (floor area ratio). It is my understanding that no such variance application has yet bccn filed. ilndcr• the foregoing circumstances, the City Planning Commission has the following oPtians: (1) Deny the Application to eliminate the 10 foot wide pedestrian easement and ditcet Community Development Staff to proceed with full implementation of the conditions of Resolution No. 99-OOG; a• (2) Approve the Application ro eliminate or modify the 10 foot wide easement conditioned upon one of the following actions by the City Council: • (a) waiving or modifying its sight to have a 10 foot pedestrian pathway in exch:~nge for the abandonment of the Vickery Avenue right-of-way; or (b) acccptiiig the Vickciy 1lvcnue right-of-way if it hasn't bccn accepted and brtntinb the abandonment if it hasn't yet been granted (:3) Continue the Application to eliminate the 10 [oot wide pedestri~m easement until Applicant has filed an ahplication for a site coverage variance, the variance applicalio~~ Iias bccn approved, and the City Council has rescinded the requirement for abandonment of the Vickery Avenue right-of way. Plcasc advise if you have further questions in this regard. Very truly yours, -- anuthan Wittwer cc: Richard Taylor Ann Welsh C, UUUU59 10-13-1995 8:13AM FROM .Edward Cumaso>a 18575 Montalvo Road ~. Saratoga, CA 95070 7-16-02 .. Saratoga Planning ~±Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue . Saratoga, CA 95070 . Re: Application # 02-047 Siadat 14771 lvZontalvo Rd. Dear Sirs, This request has two major problems: ~. 1 } Removal: of the 10 foot pedestrian trail that neighbors r av:: used for many years forces them out into a dangerous, blind coz-~><er in order to get from Montalvo across Vickey to vh~aik into tov~~ n. 2) No fence. should ever be allowed in City Right of 'VVav.. Nu fence should be taller than four feet within 10 feet of City Ril;ht i~f VVay. The proposed five foot fence in the Right of VVay will crea:,:e a tunnel effect and force pedestrians on Montaivo Rd into' tl~:;.s busy street. No change to the original resolution of approval should ~be granted. Sincerely; ~G •-~.~.,~,.,..~ ~~. P_ 2 • • • ~, [7 • N6W ry00p N6fyFl{Ok F6NGS ro ry~~H 6xISTIN4 _ -- r .... ~~ -- VICk6RY ~VENI~E 1'681 6 nNq ~~~ __ I D N61 --- Ot6 ROPAfkb- F4NC~.~._:~>:~-:::.'.'~--._ ,hS N66DEa, ~ . ~ . . ... -~ ..... -. . .... .... O ., o ~ ~ .. .... ..._ '~ ... ~N6W ... b ~6Nl~O~yMT IRON F6 G N 0 • •. I. ., r9 ~~ ~ 0 ~/ O o O - a I 0 ' ~ ° °%o 0 0 0 ~. - ~ ~ .~ .. N6W b' 6N WRO OZON {y 1 P .I .. ~ 6 ,~ ~ Q 0 FA4T0 .:hi ~~"1. ~~ ~ O~ II . /' 4AT65 ;' ~J D N6La6p 6 ~ /y =6NGN4 ~ I^ .Ifk 4AT5_ If}' • ~\ (f)-.• N6W ry00A 6 • / TO6MATCk 6x15 GNt~ ~ TINf~.., i • 6xISTING 504a 66 R6PAIR~6D AS NN6C6a61L.__.. ___ 0 1 y, Y4800 i-¢82Y ' % o t ~ a ~ o r-____._-.~ ;~ c .; .- .: of - ; ~~ • . /~ ,_ _ -= - " _-_ - ° r~• ~~"- _ - _ , _ ~ _ ~,, St ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ o A~ ~ ~~ 0 .__ .--- ~ ~0 0 ' ,~r~ a ~~r.\ 6r~ o ~~,, ~ ~!!~ ~ r ~~ ~~ , ..v__ 0... o ~"-..~ _ o ~ • ~ _ ._. ~ _ - o , 0 ..-.~-~ • o o....\ o - // 6W 6' O%N ~ON4kT ~ 1 .. r 1~ 6D(y6 OF DAV61.>6NT ~EIyCE LEGENA ® 6x157fNC16'-0' /~. R6aWODa F6NC6 TD R6MAIN _ NEW b'tt16NLAR ST66L O%N FENGNCI ~~ N6W 6'~O~Ii. 7uskLAR S7E6L OPEN F6NGN4 NC6 L1Gi EXI57~N5 b'•0• NR6aWOOa ~1~20 I I i ~I ~ 61cISi7N4 AD, JAO6NT Ip s S W/+S•~, k F6NGNS 4~,~~PROP6R 14y20 MONTALVO ROAa 14t4i MONTH WO RAAa 1177) MONTH WO ROAD i4f00 MONTALYO ROAa t4f21 MONTALYO ROAy I I APDITIONALN61lgV~OR Oa F6NGNGiy FRONTPRO%R MOM6S W/+.5-00,M LIN65 14970 MONTAWO ~f ~•+`~ MONTH WO R~O~ ~~ MONTALVO ROAa 7W77 MONTALVO ROAp 7~ 6A10NTALVO ROAa MONTAlYO N61C~kTS 70160 ~NTALVO N6141{TS EXH(Bf~' q ~'~ ° ~ r '~- , ~~~ t ,- ~; N6W P6a6S}RNN PATF}%R ~~~ ~Nali10NS OF APPROyAL v . ~j1 ~ AlVO H61fIkT5 1 4.6 MONTAWO f • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: App # 02-127/ Austin Wa}~ Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: John F. livingstone, Associate Planner ~~ ~ (/ ~ Date: July 24, 2002 i APN: N/A Department Head AU511N WAY r STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) RHC (Residential Hillside Conservation) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCELSIZE: Not applicable AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Approximately S% GRADING REQUIRED: No significant grading will occur. ENVIRONMENT AL, DETERMINATION The proposed project designating Austin Way as a Heritage Lane is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Sections 15061(3), the general rule exemption and 15331, "Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation", Class 31 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the restoration and preservation of historic resources. PROJECT DISCUSSION The Heritage Preservation Commission is recommending to the Planning Commission that Austin Way be designated a Heritage Lane. The proposed Ordinance will create a Heritage Lane zoning overlay for the existing single-family residential district. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the existing brick roadway and hopefully restore the portions that have been patched with asphalt. Staff is hoping that the Heritage Lane Designation will increase the possibility of obtaining a grant to assist with the preservation and maintenance of the existing brick roadway. In an effort to not limit improvements to the existing exposed brick portion, staff is recommending that all of Austin Way be designated as a Heritage Lane. PROJECT BACKGROUND Initially one of the neighbors who lives on Austin Way started a petition to have the street dedicated a Heritage Lane. The applicant had obtained support from six neighbors when the momentum for the project slowed. Early this year the Heritage Preservation Commission voted to initiate the process and subsequently started the application process. On Apri130, 2002 staff mailed a notice of the intent to designate Austin Way a Heritage Lane to every neighbor who has property adjacent to Austin Way. Some of the properties were only connected to Austin Way by a flag lot or in some cases the main part of the lot was located in a 000002 - File No. 02-I27,~Austizr Way neighboring City. In all a total of 16 property owners where sent letters (Attachment #3). In order for the recommendation from the Heritage Preservation Commission to proceed to the Planning Commission no more than forty-one percent of the owners could object to the proposal. Staff received two letters of objection to the proposal within the required 45-day period and one letter after the 45-day period (Attachment #4). The three letters would only tota118°ro, therefore allowing the proposal to continue to the Planning Commission for re~~iew. ORDIN:~NCE Some of the feedback received from the neighbors that objected to the Heritage Lane designation was the additional review of modifications to their homes by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The notice sent to the neighbors was explicit about this additional requirement. The current code for a Heritage Lane allows the Heritage Preservation Commission to review and comment upon all planning entitlement applications and applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits invol~-ing work to be performed upon or within a designated Heritage Lane. The Heritage Preservation Code also allows the Planning Commission to include such regulations or controls over the designated property, as the Planning Commission deems reasonably necessary for the conservation and preservation of the roadway. Staff is recommending that any significant landscaping, paving, or construction ~~ithin 10 feet of a property line directl}' adjacent to Austin Way be subject to re~~iew by the Hci-itagc Preservation Commission. The only other designated Heritage Lane is Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga Avenue has several historic structures fronting along the roadway. Austin Way has no historic structures designated on the Ciry of Saratoga's Historic Resource list. Staff feels that in this pamcular circumstance the additional level of review for properties on Austin Way is not necessai}~ and that the review of projects only within 10 feet of the roadway would be sufficient to preserve the proposed Heritage Lane. HISTORY Saratoga's Austin Way used to be part of the main road between Saratoga and Los Gatos. In 1940 the highway was realigned to eliminate the hazardous curves where Bainter Avenue and Quito Road intersect it. Austin Way commemorates Daniel B. Austin, a California pioneer who bought acreage in this area in 1882 and was the co-founder of a winery that was located near Austin Corners. He also helped establish the school that was named after him. The interurban tracks of the Peninsular Railway ran alongside the highway. The trolley line was in operation from 1904 to 1933, ]inking the towns of the central Santa Clara Valley. The Saratoga segment of Austin Way is one of the very few remaining sections of brick highway paving to be found. It is the goal of the Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission to have Austin Way designated a Heritage Lane to ensure that the picturesque surface will not become just another section of asphalt. _- C:\MyDocuments\JohnL\HPC1Austumway\PCSta$Report.doc OoOOO~ File No. 02-127,~Austin Way GENERALPLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies in that the Heritage Lane Designation will protect the aesthetics and ensure the preservation of the road. Circulation and Scenic Hi~hway Element CI.6.60a-Protect -the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural qualities of Saratoga through street design and landscaping. CI68.Oc-Encourage thepreservation of the width and appearance of those roads designated as heritage resources by the city FINDINGS/CRITERIA In order to designate a roadway a Heritage Lane, the road.. must meet a minimum of two findings stated in Section 13-15.010 of the Heritage Preservation Chapter 13. In this case the proposed Heritage Lane meets all of the criteria listed in the above referenced section including the following: It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or narion; or It embodies distinctive characteristics of a sryle,type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials. Austin Way's brick roadway was built in 1904 and meets the above stated criteria in that it represents a special element of Saratoga and Santa Clara County's history. Austin Way's brick roadway is one of the last remaining brick roadways and exemplifies distinct characteristics and style. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the Ciry Council approval of the Heritage Lane Designation for Austin Way by adopting the attached Resolution recommending the attached draft Ordinance to the City Council. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. City Council Ordinance 3. Letter to neighbors 4. Letters from neighbors 5. Historic Photo C:\MyDocuments\JohnL\HPC1Austin Way\PCS[aff Report.doc OOO~O~ Attachment 1 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DESIGNATE AUSTIN WAY A HERITAGE LANE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a recommendation from the Heritage Preservation Commission to designated Austin Way as a Heritage Lane; 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 proposed project designating Austin Way as a Heritage Lane is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Sections 15061(3), the general rule exemption and 15331, "Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation", Class 31 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the restoration and preservation of historic resources and; WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for a Heritage Lane, and the following findings have been determined: In order to designate a roadway a Heritage Lane the road must meet a minimum of two findings stated in Section 13-15.010 of the Heritage Preservation Chapter 13. In this case the proposed Heritage Lane meets all of the criteria listed in the above referenced section including the following: It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or nation; or It embodies distinctive characteristics of astyle, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials. Austin Way's brick roadway was built in 1904 and meets the above stated criteria in that it represents a special element of Saratoga and Santa Clara County's history. Austin Way's brick roadway is one of the last remaining brick roadways and exemplifies distinct characteristics and , style. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan required to support said application for a Heritage Lane, and the following findings have been determined: • 000005 ~,. The proposed Ordinance (Attachment #2) is consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies in that the Heritage Lane Designation will protect the aesthetics and ensure the preservation of the road. Circulation and Scenic HiQhway Element CI.3.30-Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural Qualities of Saratoga through street design and landscaping. CI.8.0-Encourage the preservation of the width and appearance of those roads designated as heritage resources by the City Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration the application to designate Austin Way as a Heritage Lane is hereby recommended to the City Council for approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 24th day of July 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • ooooos Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING AUSTIN WAY A HERITAGE LANE V~~'HEREAS; the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission have recommended to the City Council that Austin Way be designated a Heritage Lane. The proposed Ordinance will create a Heritage Lane zoning overlay for the existing single-family residential district and; Vl~'HEREAS; the proposed project designating Austin Way as a Heritage Lane is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Sections 15061(3), the general rule exemption and 15331, "Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation", Class 31 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the restoration and preservation of historic resources and; WHEREAS; the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies in that the Heritage Lane Designation will protect the aesthetics and ensure the preservation of the road. Circulation and Scenic Highway Element CL6.60a-Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural dualities of Saratoga through street design and landscaping. CI68.Oc-Encourage thepreservation of the width and appearance of those roads designated as heritage resources by the City WHEREAS; in order to designate a roadway a Heritage Lane, the road must meet a minimum of two findings stated in Section 13-15.010 of the Heritage Preservation Chapter 13. In this case the proposed Heritage Lane meets all of the criteria listed in the above referenced section including the following: It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or nation; or It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials. Austin Way's brick roadway was built in 1904 and meets the above stated criteria in that it represents a special element of Saratoga and Santa Clara County's history. Austin Way's brick roadway is one of the last remaining brick roadways and exemplifies distinct characteristics and style. • ~000~~ NOW, THEREFORE, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby deems ,Austin Way a Heritage Lane and subject to the following: That any significant landscaping, paving, or construction within 10 feet of a property line directly adjacent to Austin VVay be subject to review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the Ciry of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption. A copy of the Ordinance shall also be sent to the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning commission, Saratoga Historical Foundation, Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and all adjacent property owners. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the Cit}~ Council of the City of Saratoga held on the _`h day of 2002, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the day of , 2002. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: .ATTEST Nick Streit, Mayor • Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, Ciry Attorney t ~~~0~8 4 , .. ~ ~~ n~~ ~..:% Attachment 3 o/~- 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (SOS) 8Gfi-1°00 Incorporated October 2°_, 1956 April 30, 2002 RE: Designation of Austin Way as a Heritage Lane Dear Sir or Madam: COLT'CIL ;~tED1BERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosran .lonn Menaffev Nrck Strer! Ann Wartonsmrtn The City of Saratoga's Heritage Preservation Commission is recomrmending that all of Austin Way be designated as a Heritage Lane. The intent of the Heritage Preservation Commission's proposal is to preserve the brick roadway. As part of the designation the condition that any building or additions to homes, demolition, grading, or tree removal permits would be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission as stated in Section' 13-10.050 (e) of the enclosed Municipal Code. Ordinary maintenance and repair would not require review. The bricks on Austin Way were laid around 1904 when the Railway ran alongside Austin Way. The trolley line connected Saratoga to San Jose and was in operation to 1933. The Heritage Preservation Commission's goal is to have Austin Way designated as a Heritage Lane, thereby ensuring that the picturesque surface is preserved for years to come. Written objections to the proposal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice to the Heritage Preservation Commission. If you have any questions please contact me at 408.868.1231. Sincerely, John F. Living one Associate Planner Enclosures 1. Copy of map showing Austin Way and brick area 2. Copy of Ordinance Section for Heritage Lanes 000009 ~~ .~ ~., j ~ ~\ ~\ ~ ~ ~. ~. Lis DR. ~`~TOs •.:k y. ;;r~•. may"" ~~ ~~~`~:, tO /. ., w ~ Y SUNNYSIDE O VOO~O Attachment 4 Ma}' 23, ?000? RE: Designation of Austin Way as a Heritage Lane Mr. John Livingstone 13777 Fruirvale Avenue Saratoga, California - 95070 Dear Mr. John Livingstone, After reviewing your recent letter regarding the designation of the Austin Way as a Heritage Lane, we have decided to strongly and respectfully object to the proposal on the following basis: 1. The bricks on Austin Way significantly contribute to increased amounts of wear and tear on automobiles that travel on this road daily. 2. The bricks create a significantly higher level of noise as compared to other paved roads. 3. It would introduce additional government control over the immediately affected taxpayer properties by the need for additional and unnecessary permits and possibly fees (unfair taxation). It is incomprehensible the cultural value that a brick road will have on its citizens and the potential value that it will bring to their properties. We would instead kindly suggest that the bricks be covered to eliminate the two problems described above. Sincerely, ,.- , ~ , , v `. Flavio S. DeCastilhos 15705 LANCASTER ROAD MONTE SERENO, CALIFORNIA - 95030 000011 v. • Stephen D. Hall 19201 Bountiful Acres Saratoga, CA 95070 May 9, 2002 Heritage Preservation Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Designation of Austin Way as a Herita a Lane Members of the Heritage Preservation Commission: I received the enclosed letter from the City of Saratoga recently and am writing to object to the proposal to designate Austin Way as a Heritage Lane. The reasons for my objections are both because I am a property owner that may be affected and because I am a taxpayer and resident of Saratoga. As a property owner, I do not believe the Ordinance should include our property at all. To begin with, our property fronts on Bountiful Acres and has a Bountiful Acres address. Only the Northwest side or our property is on Austin Way. Secondly, our home was built in or around 1975, hardly a "heritage" house by anyone's definition. To cause this house to fall under that designation seems totally inappropriate. Although that portion of Austin Way that is bricked may have historical significance, the homes on or near it almost certainly do not. Wouldn't it be easier and less onerous to simply designate the brick portion of Austin Way a Heritage Lane? I am also very concerned about the additional governmental review and approval process this will present to homeowners affected by this act. We currently have a very diligent Planning Commission in Saratoga and adding another review body to this would cost a property owner more time and more money and take a bit more of his discretion as a property owner away from him. We are long-time residents of Saratoga (1979). We have raised our four children here - and have enjoyed its beauty and unique rural charm. We have also enjoyed Saratoga for its quietness, lack of restrictions and freedom to do as we wish as property owners and residents. Let's make sure we preserve those values as well. Sincerely, • 000012 ~~ John Livingstone From: Mike Garakani [mike.garakani@exar.com] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 11:24 AM To: john)@saratoga.ca.us Subject: Designation of Austin Way as a Heritage Lane Hi John, With reference to the recent proposal by Heritage Preservation Commission, I do not have any objections to preserve the brick roadway and fix the damaged areas with the same or similar material. However, I do object the designation of Austin way as a Heritage Lane. Regards, Mike Garakani 19061 Austin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 • • 1 000013 n THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 000014 8 0 ~~ ~ • • t"7 f"'f n f"'f ~, s, + I\ I t / ,~, ~ i • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ooooss