HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-1985 City Council Agenda packet'7-
AGENDA BILL NO. Y8.3
DATE: 6/24/85 (7/3/85)
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
Fiscal Impacts
N/A
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Report to the City Council 6.
2. Agenda Bill dated 4/23/85 7.
3. Minutes dated 5/1/85 8.
4. Appeal. Letters 9.
5. Staff Report for A -1069 10.
Council Action 11.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Resolution No. A- 1069 -1
Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/27/85
Exhibits for Original Proposal
Exhibits for Revised Proposal
Solar Shade Study
Correspondence Received on Project
7/3: Granted Protiva appeal subject to conditions; denied Coughlan appeal.
Initial: 0
Dept. Hd.
A -1069, Eric L T ncaa Proti va; lot 071 Apper AppTT can of LIMO=
SUBJECT: tion of Design Review Approval to Limit the Size of the Residence to 2,380 sq. ft.
and Appeal of Design Review Approval by William Althea Coughlan
Recomendation
1. Determine the merits of appeals and uphold or reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission.
This item has been continued from the 5/1/85 City Council Meeting to give the applicant an
opportunity to provide revised.plans. Attached is a Staff Report analyzing the new proposal
and the Agenda Bill from the previous City Council Meeting.
2. Staff recommendations for approvals and conditions were consistent with the Planning
Commission's actions.
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Original Proposal
Height: 30 Ft.
Size of Structure (Per Staff):
First Floor: 1,640 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 1,512 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 3,152 sq. ft.
Rear Yard Setback: 52 Ft.
Impervious Coverage: 36%
Exterior
Materials: Old Mill Masonite Vertical
Siding, Dove Gray
CaTVW off 'IVOZ
1,555.5 sq. ft.
1,000 sq. ft.
2,555.5 sq. ft.
59 Ft.
34%
Diane Lewis
Planner
DATE: 6/24/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 7/3/85
Revisions to Plans for Linda Eric Protiva, A -1069, Lot 10
14466 Oak Place
The applicants submitted revised plans which show a further reduction in height and gross
floor area. The following table outlines these changes in comparison to previous proposals:
Previous Proposal
Before the City Council New Proposal
26 Ft. 24 Ft.
1,542 sq. ft.
896 sq. ft.
2,418 sq. ft.
57 Ft.
34,0
Open Vertical Wood Siding,
Dove Gray
Garage Height: 19.5 Ft. 19.5 Ft. 15.75 Ft.
It should also be noted that with the new proposal, the garage has been relocated to the
left of the residence. Also, the master bedroom has been cantilevered out to the rear yard.
Again, the City Council has the option to approve or deny the appeals making the necessary
findings, if applicable, per Exhibits "B -2 and C -2."
Approved:
DL /dsc
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 4/23/85 (5/1/85)
8 <T)
DEPARTN T: Co m ,ni ty Development
A -1069 Linda Eric Protiva, 14466 Oak Place, Lot 10, Appeal by Applicant of Condi
SUBJECT: tion of Design Review Approval to Limit the Size of the Residence to 2,380 sq. ft., and
_zp. J of Design Review Auroval by William Althea Coughlan
Issue Summary
Applicant received Design Review Approval to construct a two -story residence on a substandard
lot. One of the conditions placed on the project's approval was that the size of the home be
reduced to 2,380 sq. ft. This condition was originally placed as a restriction on the lot at
the time of the Building Site Approval. The applicant has complied with all the other condi-
tions of the Design Review Approval, but wishes to have a total gross floor area of'2,522 sq. ft.,
or 142 sq. ft. over the limit set down by the Planning Commission. The neighbors, William
Althea Coughlan are appealing the Design Review Approval because they feel the 26 ft. height of
the structure would impact their solar access and that the 6 ft. side yard setback would make
the proposed residence too close to their home. The Coughlans would prefer that the proposal
be changed to a one -story structure with a minimum 10 ft. side yard setback on the side adjacent
to their property. Staff has made a preliminary solar shade study to determine the solar access
impacts on the Coughlan residence. The Coughlans do not have solar equipment on their roof,
but feel that a portion of their home would be shaded by the Protiva project.. The solar study
showed that in the worst _case, between 9 :00 a.m. and 12 Noon on December 21, 1985, that approxi-
mately one -third of the Coughlans home and lot will be shaded. And this would be the same if
the home was moved back so that it was 10 ft. from the property line on the east.
Recommendation
1. Determine the merits of the appeals and uphold or reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission.
2. Staff Recommendations for approval and conditions were consistent with the Planning
Commission's actions.
Fiscal Impacts None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal Letters
2. Staff Report for A -1069
3. Resolution No. A- 1069 -1
4. Minutes dated 3/27/85
5. Exhibits for original proposal
Council Action
5/1: Continued to 6/5.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Att Y
C. Mgr.
6. Exhibits for Revised Proposal
7. Solar Shade Study prepared by staff
8. Correspondence received on project.
3- 5/1/85
gn Review Approval to construct a TWo -StoLy Residence on a Substandard
at 14466 Oak P1. (A -1069)
1. Appeal of Above Approval (Appe.Llant, W. and A. Coughlan)
2. Appeal of 'Condition of Above Approval to Limit Size of Residence to
2,380 sq. ft. (Applicant/appellant, L. and E. Protiva)
Staff explained circumstances of appeals and answered questions concerning distances
between houses and between properties and legal status of lots. The public hearing
was opened at 7:58 p.m.
Althea Coughlan, 14474 Oak Place, spoke as an'appellant objecting to the proposed
house. She reviewed the points in the appeal letter and pointed out the distances
involved on the maps. She requested the new house be built as a one -story no more
than 22 feet high.
Linda Protiva, 14466 Oak Place, then spoke as the applicant /appellant. She
addressed the Coughlans' concerns by stating that they (the Protivas) had a vested
interest in the appearance of the new house, since they would be direct neighbors.
Recognizing that the neighbors were concerned about height and setbacks, she stated
that a two -story house was desirable because it mould be.more energy efficient and
entail less impervious coverage of the lot, preserving more trees. She reviewed the
points in her letter and stated that the square footage could not be further re-
duced. She felt the proposed plan provided optimum utilization of the property.
Concerning her own appeal, she said she had been led to believe that the Planning
Commission's decision on square footage was not necessarily final. She cited a
precedent for the addition of square footage to a house on a substandard lot. She
then said that decreasing the square footage to that required by the Commission
would not affect the exterior dimensions of the house. The reduction would be
accomplished by leaving a porch unenclosed, she said, which would cause it to be
removed from the floor area calculations. In answer to Councilmember Moyles, she
pointed out the location of various trees on the lot. In response to Counciln nber
Hlava, she said that the possibility of turning the proposed house around on the lot
had not been considered by the Planning Commission; she could not foresee the
ramifications of such a move and would need to discuss it with her designer.
Greg Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga- Los,Gatos Road, spoke against the Protiva appeal,
saying that he lived behind the lot in question. Contrary to the Protiva's
statement, he said, his house was single story rather than two story. He feared the
addition of another two-story house in the area because his house would then have
too many two -story houses around it, reducing his privacy. He favored building on
two combined lots rather than on one, and he suggested that a comprehensive plan be
established for development of the small lots. Mayor Fanelli replied that land use
planning might be an appropriate tool, but that the City did not have the power to
force owners to sell two lots as a unit.
Counciiir nber Callon remarked that she would not vote on the matter because she had
missed most of the public hearing. She suggested, however, that the City Attorney
might check State merger statutes.
Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, spoke against the Protiva application. She stated
the current Protiva residence touched It 11, and part of the structure encroached
on Lot 13. She believed the house should be re- designed not only to reduce the
floor area, but also to reduce the height and bulk in relationship to neighboring
houses and increase the distance fran the Coughlan house. She pointed out the
applicant's statement that balconies could be added later without Planning
Catmission approval and characterized the statement as a "veiled threat" if the
extra area were not permitted. She asserted that the applicant was explicitly told
what square footage was allowed and made contrary plans in spite of those
instructions. She also asserted that the Protivas had cut down a large persimmon
tree without a permit. She requested that the proposed house be limited to one
story with a maximum height of 22'; that the house be set back at least 12';•that it
be built of material conforming with the area rather than Masonite; and that the
persimmon tree be replaced with another tree.
Dolores Smith, 14560 Westcott, stated that the situation was murky and should not be
judged too quickly. She felt a voluntary merger of two substandard lots would be
the best solution.
CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 5.
Mayor Fanelli then recessed the meeting from 9:11 to 9:28 p.m.
B. Consideration of Revisions of Second Unit (wdi_nance
4- 5/1/85
Mrs. Protiva rose again to state that the property awned by Mr. Grodhaus and Ms.
Smith .did not border her lot. She also disputed the statements that her house
touched the property line, saying that it was as much as 12' from the line.
Mrs. Coughlan rose again to state that the Protiva house was 6' to 8' from the
property line.
No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
In answer to Councilmember Moyles, staff explained that according to a.1978 map on
which the lot lines might not be accurate, the Protiva house was about 1' from the
Lot 11 property line and did encroach on Lot 13..
Councilrnember Clevenger inquired as to the precedent cited by Mrs. Protiva, and
staff replied that the house mentioned was on Carniel. Mr. Toppel of the City
Attorney's office recommended that the Council judge each .case on its merits rather
than relying on precedents. He then explained the Council's options to grant, deny,
continue, grant conditionally the appeal or request further modification of the
design.
Councilmembers discussed issues, saying that Oak Place is one of the few historic
neighborhoods left in Saratoga; the main issue is design, not just height or set-
backs. Councilmember Hlava commented that she had been on the Planning Canmission
when the original design was discussed, and the discussion centered around an even
smaller house. She felt the long side of the house with the 6' setback should be
adjacent to. the developer. Councilmember Myles pointed out that modern standards
would not allow the houses to be built as in the past. He preferred to err on the
side of preserving the character of the neighborhood. He stated a willingness to
grant the Protiva appeal if Mrs. Protiva merged the two lots.
After further discussion, Mayor Fanelli asked Mrs. Protiva if she preferred to have
the Council act on the proposed design, with the understanding that if her appeal
were denied she would have to return to the beginning of the approval process; or if
she preferred to return to the Council with a new design which met the guidelines of
the Planning Commission. Mayor Fanelli summarized the Council's view that. the
design should be compatible with the neighborhood, meet the height and setback and
requirements with respect to the immediate neighbors, and be within the 2,380 square
feet allowed by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Protiva stated that she could return
to the Council with a new design on June 5; it was pointed out that if either she or
the staff were not fully prepared by then, the hearing could again be continued.
Councilmember Myles added that he would be accessible to discuss the design with
Mrs. Protiva in order to avoid her developing a design which he would feel bound to
vote against.
Mr. Toppel explained the proposed changes, which primarily liberalized restrictions
on existing second units, represented the apparent consensus of the Council at study
sessions. He noted that the Second Unit Ordinance was to be before the Planning
Commission May 22, and that the purpose of this hearing was simply to gain public
input, not to take action. He then answered questions on the ordinance. The public
hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m.
John Cahill, 12077 Carol Lane, expressed satisfaction with the flexibility of the
proposed ordinance as compared to the current ordinance. He favored more
flexibility, however, as to the requirement for owner occupancy.
Barbara Simner spoke as President of the League of Women Voters. She stated '.that
the League favored preservation of currentthousing stock, including existing seccond
units.
Louise Cooper, Mt. Eden Rd., suggested consideration of liberalizing restrictions on
new second units in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district.
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of
Project
Project
Applicant:
File No.:
Address:
*Please do not
City offices.
appeal please
RECEIVED
APR 0 51985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
"M- P' 77l/*
a PEE
7 4/4»
1
y9-/c
4
Project Description: cL N a -/n /�"It 4
494 4 ea.4_ 4
Decision _Being Appealed: ,L A m'0,5
q
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may e attached
).-U_ o(
o5
Appellant's Signature
Date Received:,
Hearing Date: 5 -YC
Fee
/CV
CITY USE ONLY
ca-fo /2-e ccZfo �,>n_ 6/44-
94 f
sign this application until it is presented at the
If you wish specific people to be notified of this
list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITI-IIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
Saratoga City Council
1377 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
RECEIVED
APR 051985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
April 3, 1985
Dear Council Members,
We would like to appeal the limitation on square footage
allowed for our single family two story residence on Oak Place.
Our site approval limits the square footage to 1990 sq. ft. for
the dwelling and 380 sq. ft. for garage or a total of 2380 sq. ft.
During the Design Review the Planning Commission has required
us to reduce our proposed structure heighth from 30 feet to
26 feet and they have denied our request for a compromise on
the square footage issue, i.e. 2522 sq.ft instead of 2380 sq.ft.
We have redesigned the house to 26 feet from 30 feet, and
we can reduce the square footage in the following areas:
eliminate bedroom #4 and bathroom 333 sq. ft.
eliminate extension on bedroom #2 65 sq. ft.
eliminate extension on dining room 84.5 sq.ft.
master bedroom 66 sq. ft.
halls 48 sq. ft.
This reduces the footprint from 1620 sq. ft. to 1535.5 sq. ft. or
to 23% coverage... We would like to be able to build 142 sq. ft.
over what wasallowed in our Site Approval. This increase of
142 sq. ft. represents only a 61 increase over the 2380 sq. ft.
which was approved in Nov. 1983. Allowing this small increase
would eliminate cutting back upstairs rooms and adding balconies
which would create privacy problems for neighbors. We hope you
will consider this a reasonable request. Thank you for your
consideration!
S,i ncer,el9,
Linda and Eric Protiva
P.S. This increase would not affect the footprint of 23%.
Name of Appellant:
Address:
Telephone:
Name of
Project
Project
Project
Applicant:
File No.:
Address:
Description:
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds" for the Appeal
CITY USE ONLY
/alp
APPEAL APPLICATION /90
acef EJCte,-
Ai 7 2.) l..(a
�7tiC�
a:c, e,,) /6c,ci
7Ae v✓ e 6.6
y 9C
(Letter may be attached):
Appellant's Signature
Date Received:
Hearing Date: ,25
Fee /r7 1
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Background' History: On March 27, 1985, the developer, Mrs. Linda
Protiva, presented the Planning Commission with a very aggressive
plan for a tiny, non- conforming lot at 14466 Oak Place: a house
of 3,130 sq. ft. to sit on a lot of 6,750 _sq. ft. 'We were
extremely grateful when the Planning Commission cut the size
of the proposed house to 2,380 sq. ft., but appeal to the
Council to consider the two issues below for possible incorporation
into the re- designed plans for the new house.
1) Height This house, which will lie due east and only 6'
from our property line, will 'deny our house of solar access.
Even though our house, a Mediterranean -style house built during
the twenties is a two -story house, it is 'only 20 high. The
proposed house will be 26' high.
A one -story house would far better preserve our light,
air, and privacy, but if this house is to be a two -story
structure, we feel that the height should not exceed 20'.
The houses will be very close together and even a 6'.
will make the new house appear to tower over our older home.
2) Set -back It is true that there are 3 2 -story houses on
Oak Place, in addition to ours. However, all the two -story
houses sit on very large parcels, except for our house which
is on a 53' lot and is in size only 1,942 sq. ft. with a
190 sq. ft. detached garage at rear of the property.
Protiva's lot is even narrowerjthan ours -only 50'- -the
proposed house will be substantially larger the proposed
set back of 6' is j'ust too tight.
Oak Place, is, after all, R -1- 10,000 zoning; it should
not end up resembling condominium development. This lot is
not a single, isolated lot. There are two other non conforming
lots on the parcel that Mrs. Protiva plans to develop. Thus
the impact on Oak Place will be very great.
We would further draw the Council's attention to the
fact that most other houses on Oak Place that are built on
small, non conforming lots have garages at the rear of the
property; driveways between homes permit air circulation and
light.
All houses on Oak Place but one have driveways between
homes. For example, our driveway provides a full:13' set -back
between our home and our current closest neighbor. The proposed
house will have no driveway providing the much needed separation.
We appeal to you to specify that in the re- designing of the
house 1) the garage must be at the back of the property_,2) a
driveway must separate the houses from our house, in conformance
with the practice of the great majority of houses on Oak Place
built on small non conforming lots, or if not a driveway,
then at least a set -back of 10' should be provided.
RECEIVED
APR 0 51985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Sargt,;
APPROVED BY
DATE:
'NITjA lS
07 WI 04 214,\
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised: 3/27/85
DATE: 3/18/85
COMMISSION MEETING: 3 /27/85
APN: 397 -22 -09
APPLICANT: Linda Protiva OWNER: Eric 6 Linda Protiva
APPLICATIO' NO. LOCATION: A -1069, 14466 Oak Place
ACTION REQUESTED: Design Review Approval for new two -story single family
dwelling.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final Building Site Approval and Building
Permits required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt
ZONING: R 1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density Single Family
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
PARCEL SIZE: 6750 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The lot is flat and has fir and oak trees
on site.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3%
Report to the Planning Commission
A -1069, Linda Protiva
EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft. Rear: 52 ft.
HEIGHT: 30 ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 36%
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor
(Including Garage): 1640 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 1495 sq. ft..
TOTAL: 3115 sq. ft.
3/18/85
Page 2
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut 16.7 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth 1 Ft.
Fill 0 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth 0 Ft.
Left Side: 6 ft. Right Side: 6 ft.
Per Applicant: Per Staff:
1640 sq. ft.
1512 sq. ft.
3132 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does meet all the requirements and
standards of the zoning ordinance.
MATERIALS COLORS: Dove gray masonite siding with cedar shingles roof
materials.
ANALYSIS CONCERNS: The major issue involved with this Design Review is
that the home is to be built on a substandard lot. At the time the lot
received building site approval, one of the conditions placed on the lot is
that the new residence could not exceed 2380 sq. ft. without Planning
Commission approval. The square footage of the lot is 68% of that which is
required for this zoning district, and the 2,380 sq. ft. is 68 of the
Design Review standard for gross floor area.
The applicant is proposing a 3132 sq. ft., two -story structure. A two
story residence was chosen to retain the ordinance size fir tree which is
located in the middle of the lot.
Staff has three concerns in regard to the project. First, the size of the
new residence is much greater than 2,380 sq. ft. limit added as a condition
to the Building Site Approval. Next, the 18" oak near the west property
line is very close to the proposed structure. Staff would require that
minimum of 10 feet from the trunk be kept clear of buildings or paved
areas. Also, this 10 ft. distance should be sectioned off during
construction so that no grading or heavy equipment would be allowed in this
area. Lastly, the height of the proposed residence should be reduced. By
changing the pitch of the roof, a four foot reduction in height would make
the residence more compatible to surrounding homes.
The applicant has made an effort to minimize privacy impacts to adjoining
properties. To the west and east, there is only one second -story window
facing in either direction. Most of the windows face north and south where
vegetation and distance between structures mitigate privacy concerns.
FINDINGS:
Report to the Planning Commission
A -1069, Linda Protiva
3/18/85
Page 3
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy Compatible Infill
Project
The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not
unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that
the parcel is an infill lot and not located on a hillside.
The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the
surrounding residences in that the use of second story windows on the
west and east elevations has been minimized. And to the north and
south, vegetation and distance between buildings mitigates privacy con
concerns.
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree and soil
removal and grade changes in that no ordinance size trees shall be
removed and minimal grading is required.
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk.
The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation
to the immediate neighborhood in that the project as modified by Staff
will be reduced in size so as to be compatible with the size of the lot.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes
within 500 feet and in the same zoning district in that with the
reduced height and gross floor area, the residence will be comparable
in height and size to existing homes in the area.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards
The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control
standards in that all City standards shall be met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per.the Staff Report dated March
18, 1985, Exhibits "B C subject to the following conditions:
1. Height of'structure shall not exceed 26 feet.
Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations
shall require Planning Division review and approval.
3. Total gross floor area including garage shall be reduced to 2380 sq.
ft.
V
Report to the Planning Commission
A -1069, Linda Protiva
3/18/85
Page 4
4. Methods to preserve the 18" oak on site to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Division in coordination with the
City Horticulturist, prior to issuance of Building Permits.
5. Any building under a tree shall have a foundation type which protects
the tree.
6. Prior to issuance of any permit, protective fencing shall be placed
around the trees and the building staked so that the planning staff may
check the impact on the trees.
DL /bjc
P.C. Agenda 3/27/85
4
Diana Lewis
Planner
DATE:
PLACE:
TYPE:
BUIL1 T G SITES
3.
MINUTES
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 9, 1983 7:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, Nellis, Peterson, Schaefer and
Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 8:10 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioner McGoldrick
Chairman Schaefer welcomed the new Commissioner, Don Peterson.
Minutes
Chairman Schaefer asked that the verbatim summary she had given of the Second
Unit Ordinance be added to page 1 of the minutes of October 26, 1983 (this is
attached). Commissioner Nellis moved to waive the reading of the minutes of
October 26, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded the
motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried and Peterson abstain-
ing because they were not present.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Schaefer asked that Item #2 be removed for a separate vote. Com-
missioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to approve the
remaining item on the Consent Calendar listed below. The motion was carried
unanimously 5 -0.
1. SDR -1458 John Rankin, Glen Una, Request for One -Year Extension
Commissioner Schaefer explained that the recommendation to place no parking
signs at the end of Crisp Avenue had been discussed at a study session. She
stated that she has a concern about placing no parking signs there because
of problems for the handicapped and the fact that enforcement would be diffi-
cult. She noted that parking is allowed on the rest of Crisp and it was
originally intended to be a through street. Commissioner Siegfried moved to
approve Item #2, Recommendation to City Council to place no parking signs at
the end of Crisp Avenue. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was
carried 4 -1 Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
SDR -1553 Eric and Linda Protiva, Oak Place, 1 Lot, Request for Tenta
tiv- Building Site Approval
Staff scribe. e project. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee
report, noting that this is a small lot. Discussion followed on the need
for sidewalks as required in Condition II -B. Staff clarified that this con-
dition is subject to a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Commissioner Schaefer
suggested that the following be added to Condition VI -A: "The residence shall
not exceed 2,380 sq. ft., which is approximately 68% of the standard 3,500
sq. ft. in that zoning area. since this is such a small lot. It was clari-
fied to Linda Protiva that this figure would include the garage. She indicated
that some of the plans they had reviewed had been slightly that figure.
After discussion it was determined that it should be added to the condition
that the residence shall not exceed 2,380 sq. ft. unless otherwise expressly
approved by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR -1553, per the Staff Report dated
November 3, 1983, adding the condition that the size of the house shall be
no greater than 2,380 sq. ft., which is approximately 68% of the standard
3,500 sq. ft. in that zoning area, unless previous approval is obtained from
the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 5 -0.
1
7
DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO:A -1069
RESOLUTION NO. A- 1069 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an
application for Design Review Approval of a new 2 -story single family
residence adjacent to 14466.Oak Place and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (care met the burden of proof required
to support his said application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of
the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, the application of ERIC AND
LINDA for Design Review Approval be and the
same is hereby (granted) (de subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report dated March 18, 1985 and
Exhibits B and C.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27th day of March 19 85 by
_the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: Commissioner J. Harris
ABSENT: Commissioners B. Harris
and McGoldrick
ATTEST:
Secretary Planning Commission
'Chairman, Pla ping °v ission
Planning Commission Page 3
Minuts Meeting 3/27/85
A -1068
proposed to make three windows that face off of the entry stair opaque,
reduce the nunmber of windows off of the bedroom wing and grade niches
so that the window is set back into the room. He commentedthat this
solution was satisfactory to Ms. Burke. She expressed approval.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve A -1068, Darwish, per the Staff
Report dated March 18, 1985 and Exhibits B, C and D, with Condition #1
amended to read that the height will be 24 feet, Condition #3 to read
that the gross floor area will be reduced to 3700 sq. ft., and with the
changes to Condition #4 relative to the windows. Commissioner Schaefer
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0.
Discussion followed on A -1069, Eric and Linda Protiva. Staff explained
the application and noted that during the Site Approval for this lot
there was a condition placed stating that there would be no more than
2380 sq. ft. of structure. They commented that they would recommend
approval for a structure of that size.
Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, noting the two
story homes in the area and their setbacks.
The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m.
Althea Coughlan, 14474 Oak Place, spoke in opposition to the proposal,
citing (1) bulk of house on a small lot, (2) setbacks, and (3) height of
the home.
Greg Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, spoke in opposition. He
stated that he had been told by the title company that these lots had
been subdivided 50 years ago but would conform to current standards. He
asked that they all be reviewed relative to building. The City Attorney
commented that they are lots of records and developable as such. Staff
clarified that this lot is a lot of record; there may be one of the five
lots that may not be.
Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, expressed concern over the size of the
home for the small lot.
Dolores Smith, 14560 Wescott, spoke in opposition to the size of the
home.
Linda Protiva, the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposal,
addressing (1) height, (2) square footage, and (3) oak tree on the site.
She described the other homes and lots in the area.
Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
After discussion relative to the square footage there was a consensus
that the home should not exceed 2380 sq. ft. and be no more than 26 ft.
in height. It was also determined that the applicant should comply with
the City horticulturist's recommendations regarding the oak tree on
site. Commissioner Harris expressed concern with the side yard
setbacks. She asked if the home were reduced, would there be larger
setbacks. Staff stated that it would depend on the new design.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve A -1069, Eric and Linda Protiva„
per the Staff Report dated March 18, 1985 and ExTiiTifs'$ and C, amending
Condition #4 to allow Staff to review and approve the report from the
City horiticulturist. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which
was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting, stating that
she feels the setbacks should be larger. Staff was asked to submit
input at the next meeting regarding the status of the four remaining
lots of this subdivision.
Discussion followed on Item #7, A -1070, Sinsley Construction.
Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that
this is not the major ridgeline about which the Commission was concerned
during the review of the Dewey property. She stated that there is a
back drop of the County hillside off of Prospect.-
The public hearing was opened at 8:38 p.m.
Brian Trusler, 21450 Prospect Road, stated that he and his neighbors
agree with the recommendations in the Staff Report. He stated that the
3
-•■•••ce• e•-likeqfplirPlIPVMPOVIMErttelrOrir
1
I
I
t 115 e ,q c•
.M!5,r'N'1 r
1
March 27, 1985
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga City Hall
13777 Fr•uitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Commissioners,
This i s_ to clarify our position regarding proposed building by Mr. and Mrs.
Protiva on their property at 14464 Oak Place, Saratoga.
Previously to becoming completely informed, we signed a letter in support of
the Protiva's proposed structure. Subsequently, we considered the proposal
more thoroughly. We have reviewed the b u i l d i n g site and proposed =_.tructure
and can no longer support the Protiva's plan.
We have concerns in the following areas:
1. The size of the proposed structure is not in proportion with the lot
size.
2. The building would have the appearance of being too close to the adjacent
residence •owned by Mr. and Mrs. Coughlan. Again, it's the size of the
proposed house that enhances this effect.
3. The siding for the house proposed by the Prot i vas is inappropriate for•
the neighborhood. The homee. on Oak Place have shingle, clapboard or stucco
exteriors,.keepinq them compatible with our historical ambiance.
4. Mrs. Protiva commented to us that she wished to -keep the proposed lot
size small to keep future. options open for placing yet another structure.
She indicated an interest to place another house between the current proposed
structure and her main residence. Additionally, Mrs. Protiva spoke of the
possibility of future plans to level their current garage and quest house to
accommodate a third residence. This means three homes in addition to the
main residence that currently occupies the property.
I f the Prot i vas develop their property in the above mentioned manner we would
have Great dislike for the appearance. It would be most incorigr•uous with our
well established neighborhood with homes dating back to the turn of the
century.
Please consider the genuine concerns of the home owners of Oak Place.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Moreno— Lorshbougi,-
Dr. Hugh A. Lor•=.hbough
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Commissioners,
March 25, 1985
RECEIVED
MAR 2 61985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
We, the residents of Oak Place and neighboring streets,
seek your urgent attention to the matter of proportion of
size of lot to size of house on the structure at 14466 Oak
Place which is being proposed for construction tonight.
We realize that the lot is an old legal lot of record.
However, the Commissioners may be interested to learn that
originally there were ten such lots of legal record, all
50 feet in width, between the corner of Oak Place and
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Mrs. Protiva's proposed building
site, hers being #10. We would like to point out, however,_
that though there are no vacant lots, only 7 houses now
occupy the 9 lots. What happened to the other two 50 -foot
lots
It is very simple. Only one house was actually built
on a lot as narrow as 50 feet. All other building sites were
larger. To -be specific:
the first structure on the south side of Oak Place
the second house
the third house
the fourth house
the fifth house
the sixth house
the seventh house
Saratoga
Standards Protiva
3,500 3,115
(house)_ (house)
10,000 x
(lot) (lot)
x =8,900 sq. ft. of lot required
Lot width
85'
62 1/2'
62 1/2'
50'
59'
75'
53'
Other houses on the street north and east of the proposed site
sit on very large parcels.
Mrs. Protiva proposes to build a house of 3,115 sq. ft.
on a lot of only 6,750 sq. ft. However, following the ratio
set by the Saratoga Planning Commission for a lot of 10,000
sq. ft, to build a house of this magnitude, Mrs. Protiva needs:
If Mrs. Protiva wishes to build this house, let her
follow the time- honored Oak Place tradition of carving off
a piece of the next lot and adding it to the proposed building
site. An additional 16 feet from Lot #11(which also belongs
to her) would give her the additional 2,160 sq. ft. of lot
that she needs. A big plus would be that the proposed house
could be set back an additional 8 feet, e.g., a total of
14 feet on each side, not the nronosed 6 feet.
Frankly, we are not all that thrilled with the draftsman's
design of this house. The proposed weathered timber exterior
would be appropriate for a house on the beach at Santa Cruz,
but is not at all compatible with the old clapboard, shingle,
and stucco houses of Oak Place. The proposed roof line will
peak at 29 feet -a full 9 feet higher than the Coughlan's
20 foot peak, though both are 2 -story structures, and
the difference will be dramatic since the two houses will be
so close.
If-_x o.l, Please make the house conform in exterior
appearance, in height, and above all in bulk and size to
Saratoga standards, e.g.
A single story structure would obviously best preserve
the Coughlan's light, air and privacy. The house proper
should be about 2,000 sq. ft; the garage, about 360 sq. ft.
As a benchmark, the Coughlan's house is 1,942 sq. ft., the
garage, 247 sq. ft.
Oak Place is a well- preserved area that was historically
the original village of Saratoga. It would be a great shame
to destroy it with improper development.
3,500_ x
10,000 6,750
x= 2,362.5 sq. feet of house
a,
tatjkoti-IRi
Saratoga Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
March 4, 1985
Dear Commissioners,
Having last night reviewed draftsman's plans for
a proposed 2,600 sq. ft. house to be built on a
6,750 sq. ft. lot between 14466 Oak Place and 14480 Oak
Place, I am very concerned over the eventual housing
density of the entire parcel.
I am aware that the original parcel contains
5 vestigial lots However, none of these lots contains
the 10,000 sq. ft. that is now required in the area.
Moreover, the original residence straddles two of the
lots; two others do not have proper frontage on the
street. The situation is made worse because the
Coughlan residence at 14480 Oak Place was built during
the twenties before setback requirements and appears
to be closer to the lot lines than it should be. The
same is true of another property that is contiguous
with the parcel at 14466 Oak Place, belonging to Ms.
Delores Smith, 14560 Westcott Drive.
With this letter, I am appealing to the Planning
Commission to review the entire parcel at 14466 Oak Place
and to determine which of the five lots will, in fact,
be given approval for development before any one lot is
developed. Improper development of the five non conforming
lots will have a tremendously negative impact on the
four properties contiguous with 14466 Oak Place as well
as on the entire Oak Place neighborhood and neighbors
need to be informed as soon as possible of the Planning
Commission's decision.
Sincerely,
hl
,4 -t Oe5
RECEIVED
MAR 0 51985
COMMUNITY OEVELOPM yT
QtU
C. Holly Davies
14478 Oak Place
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Linda,
Mrs. Linda Protiva
14466 Oak Place
Saratoga, CA. 95070
March 4, 1985
Thank you for taking the time last night to show
us the draftsman plans for the house that you propose
to build on the site between your home and the Coughlans,
14480 Oak Place.
You asked that we get hack to you with our honest
reactions to the plan, and since I prefer the written
word for important communiques, I am choosing to do so
with this letter.
I am sorry that I will not be able to sign the
statement of support that you asked us to sign. 1 feel
the house you propose to build is too large for alot
of only 50" x 135" and -of even greater and deeper
concern -that development of your five lots will lead
to too great a density in the Oak. Place area.
For that reason, I am writing the town Planning
Commission to ask that before they give approval for
any one lot to be developed, they review the entire
parcel and determine how many of your five lots will
definitely be approved for development. I think all
of your neighbors, and you as well, need this information
before development proceeds.
c.c. Commission=
V. Campbell
W.. Coughlan
G. Grodhaus
__D Smith.
Ii Lorshbough
J-. Paravagna
A -069
Saratoga Planning Commission
1377 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
March 11, 1985
1 lift
p,r`R 121985
Dear Commissioners,
In response to the Davies' letter of March 4, we would
like to clear up two issues:
1. Size of House
The house and garage we propose to build has a
footprint of 1620 square feet. The Coughlan's
house and garage on the right side of the lot has
a footprint of over 1800 sq. ft. Our residence on
the left side is also over 1800 sq. ft. All these
lots are the same size and the proposed house is
smaller in lot coverage than both houses on either side.
Because of the location of a 45 foot tall fir tree, it
is impossible to build a single story house within
the setbacks. Therefore, we opted for a smaller
footprint and doubled it into the second story.
Both the houses on either side are two stories as
is house across the street. We purposely selected
a conservative colonial style with woad siding consistent
with the style of the neighborhood. Two of the three
houses surrounding the proposed house are considerably
larger in total square footage.
2. Density
53% of the lots on Oak Place are under 8000 square feet.
The way houses are built on these lots is again part
of the character of the street. Mrs. Davies states
that the Coughlin's house "appears to be closer to
lot lines than it should be." However, the Coughlin's
house is on a lot 50' X 135 and is within the allowable
setbacks,ie. 6 feet from the fence line.
Our lot went through site approval procedures with very
little concern from neighbors. We had it on the market for
a year and neighbors showed little or no interest. During that
year, we had several offers from developers which we turned
down after reviewing house plans that were inconsistent with
village houses. It is difficult to understand the objections
raised by the Davies when a few months ago we were told by
Mrs. Davies that she wished we would build on the lot rather
than sell it to a developer as we would have a vested interest
in doing it right.
We hope the questions raised by Mrs. Davies have been
adequately answered. Please keep us informed should any
other questions arise. Thank you for your consideration.
erel
Linda and
14466 Oak
Saratoga,
A °4
Eric V. Protiva
Place
CA. 95070
.To the Saratoga City Council
April,24,1985
In reviewing our appeal to the
Council for the -May 1st meeting,.irn paragraph
1 dealing with the height of our house, we found
we had made a mistake in reading:the blue prints
and had not allowed for space between the floors:
and ceilings.
We want to correct our figure on
the height of our residence. from 20 feet =to
22 to the grade.
Sincerely,
PRODUCT 204.1 /Nieti Inc., Groton, Mass 01471.
E. J. HAHAMIAN
Civil Engineer
SAN JOSE, CA
JOB
SHEET NO OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
On April
24
1985,
I
dences on Oak Place by
ation methods and report as follows:
1) W.C. Coughlan, 14474 Oak
2) Dr. H. Lorshbou h, 14475
measured
ON OAK
All;heigts are calculated from the
roof (excluding chimney) down to av
Dated April .24,..1985
the heights of
means of horizontal
P1 -23,2 feet.
Oak Place --24.0 feet.
Submitted by
the fol
and verti
top of the highes
erage adjacent gr
lowing re si
cal triangul-
t point
ound o..__...._..
on the
aw
E.J. _Hahamian,. -RCE- 13318
Te. .Z
CORRECTIONS TO COUGHLAN'S APPEAL
There are 18 lots on Oak Place and 14 houses. Of the lots, 11 out
of 18 are under 8000 square feet. The lot we are planning to
develop is not a "tiny, non conforming lot" as stated in the appeal,
Our lot is not an unusual lot size for Oak Place. In fact, the
Coughlan's lot at 6413 sq.ft. is 337 sq.ft. smaller than ours which
is 6750 sq.ft.
Our original square footage request represented a footprint of
1640 sq.ft. The Coughlan$ have 1640+ sq.ft. coverage (house and garage)
on a smaller lot than ours. Our original request for 3132 sq.ft.
was to optimize the use of interior space and not to exceed the
Coughlan's lot coverage. We have now reduced our original request
from 3132 sq.ft. to 2522 sq.ft. which is 142 sq.ft. over the alloted
2380 sq.ft.
HEIGHT: The height)t of the Coughlan's house is 23.2 ft. (see enclosed
report) and not 20' as claimed in their appeal. Also 4 of the 14
houses on Oak Place are 2 stories.
SET BACKS: We are within Saratoga's legal limits. We have
carefully developed a plan that would minimize impervious coverage
and preserve a 45 foot fir tree. A side driveway and rear garage
would significantly increase impervious coverage and threaten
3 heritage oaks. Rather than 1 house as claimed on the Coughlan's
&flitte'rIA/L) appeal, 5 of the 14 houses on Oak Place (i.e. #14441, 414451, #14478,
#14490, and #14494)do not have driveways separating them with a
garage in back.Our plan is consistent with driveway variations on
Oak Place.
City of Saratoga
Saratoga, California April 26, 1985
Dear Mayor Fanelli and the entire City Council:
I need to express my feelings on the matter of
Second Unit Housing." An issue pertinent to older
City residents, is the stringent zoning of the "thou
shalt not" policy, while a neighbor "shalt
I understand the heed for policy and its compliance, but
all good policies and rules needs room to bend and be
flexible.
The problem' a case in pointl
1) Earning capacity is limited. C.
2) Ilahate. 'blast my sixty nineth birthday. I no longer can
care for a large home, lawn and yard. (yes I am
handi.capped.).-, like _many -older- people- have developed
health problems.
3) My daughter and son -in -law live on the border -line
of zone R1- 10,000 and R1- 12,000 (Lacy corner Reid).
The Solution:
1) Their home adapts perfectly to division no add onts,
no exterior changes, and yet, each unit would maintain
two entrances and exits. They desire it, I desire it.
2) My home would provide an income, either through rental
or a sale. (a very important consideration),(for me)
Neighborhood advantages:
1) Density Three adults, versus two adults and three
younger people(children with drums, trumpets, piano,
saxaphone, skate boards, games, etc. etc.)
2) Two automobiles (in a garage), versus a four car family.
Summary
1) Where applicable, a second unit is usually of benefit
and great joy for all concerned.
2) A wide a ""donsideration a hope a "way "out f` r
for older residents who have supported the community for
decades, and will continue to do so the second go-
aroundl
An advantage for all, when children have grown, been
educated and established homes of their own, a natural
"homing instinct" for plder people.
I thank you all more sincerely than words can
express, for myself and all others who may apply.
please give it your heart -felt consideration.
3 r
to Michael Fl qrr e s
C. C.
riet Handler
13385 Ronnie Avenue
Saratoga, California
Saratoga City Council
1377 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECEIVEC.)
APR 0 51985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RECEIVED
MAY 111985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
April 1985
Dear Council.Members,
We would like to appeal the limitation on square footage
allowed for our single family two story residence on Oak Place
ur site approval limits the square footage to -1990 sq.- t..fo
C. the dwelling and 380 sq. ft, for
garage or a total of 2 8 sq.
During the Design. Review the. Planning Commission has required
us to reduce our proposed structure heighth from 30 feet to
26 feet and they have denied our request .for a compromise on
the square footage issue, i.e. 2522 sq.ft instead of 2.31tp sq.ft.
We have redesigned the house to 26 feet from 30 feet, and
we can reduce the square footage in the following areas:
eliminate bedroom #4 and bathroom :333 sq. ft.
eliminate extension on bedroom #2 65 sq. ft.
eliminate extension on dining room 84.5 sq.ft.
master bedroom 66 sq. ft.
halls 48 sq. ft.
This reduces the footprint from 1620 sq. ft. to 1 535.5 sq. ft. or
to 23% coverage. We would like to be able to build 142 sq. ft.
over what.was'allowed in our Site Approval. This increase of
4142 ft. represents only a 6% increase over the ?380 sq. ft.
W?rith was approved in Nov. 1983. Allowing this small increase
would eliminate cutting back upstairs rooms and adding balconies
which would create privacy problems for neighbors. We hope you
will consider this a reasonable request. Thank you for your
consideration!
i�ncer el�t,
Linda and Eric Protiva
P.S. This increase would not affect the footprint. of 23%.
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
Fruitvale Ave.
Sa.ratoga,California
t
Dear"Council Members,
THOMAS A. TISCH
14735 Aloha Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Although we` were iiot` p`re sent'at the "council "meeting
of May 1, when the. Protiva project was being
dscussed "have had the occasion to discuss the matter
with_people who were there.
The.-gist of, the neighbors' comments, we -feel, were
unduly critical of-the character and intentions of Mrs.
Pro-tivaiand.completel.y ignore-the real intentions and
-contributions that the Protiva's have made to our
Saratoga community over the five We feel
that the purpose- of the neighbors' comments about- the
Protivas are intended to preserve a vacant lot at all
costs: Such behavior is inappropriate in Saratoga
anywhere, especially the project has approved by,
the planning commission.
Mrs. Protiva became an active and effective member
of the Saratoga community from the moment she arrived.
She has "served on the music committee Montalvo,
particu -larly in a raising capacity. She helped
Montalvo Association set and achieve its musical goals.
She also was a founding director of Kids Are Special, an
organization that works with children of alcoholic
parents to the -cycle of chemical depend I`ri
this capacity -she helped establish an organization that
has grown to serve.the schools and communities
throughout Santa Clara County and received funding from
United Way. _She--has recently, very successfully, helped
raise funds for the- San Jose Repertory Theater as co-
chairman of the aution committee. During these same
years she has attractively remodeled her present home on
Oak Place.
These activities are those of a person and family
committed to service and quality of life in the Saratoga
area both culturally_ and physically. These are not_the
activities of a person who "takes advantage of anyone
else, nor of one to take maximum benefit from
development without concern of its impact: on the
neighborhood.
June_ 30, 1985,
A new home on Oak Place may serve as a continued
incentive to owners in this area to either restore or
modernize, acting as a catalyst for uplifting the entire
neighborhood.
We have lived in Saratoga for approximately 13
years (on Aloha Ave.) and also are deeply committed to
the S a r a t o g -a c.o mmu-n_Lty-. W e_f_e e.l._ t h.a-t_ _th.e_s t.a_t.e me -n.t.s
made regarding Mrs. Protiva are false and that you
should be informed otherwise. We regret that we cannot
be at the council meeting of July 3 but have had long
standing plans for an extended July 4 weekend.. We urge
you to approve the proposed house plan submitted by the
Protiva's for Lot #10.
Sincerely,
f'1
Tom and Rokmary Tisch
cc: V. Fanelli
L. Iti oyles
M. Clevenger
J. Hlava
L. Callon
H. Davies
S. H. Lorshbough
G. Bx. Grodhaus
J. Donahoe
MUM 1905.
14466 Oak Place
Saratoga, Calif.
June 20, 1985
Mr. and Mrs. W.C. Coughlan
14474 Oak Flace
Saratoga, Calif —95070
-95070
Reference your letter dated May 20, 19
The 1978 map you have chosen to use as a reference is a
preliminary topo map used at that time for exploring the
possibility of moving lot lines. This map never became a
final map and is not one to be used for referencing set backs
or placement of our house on the lot. There are final maps
at City Hall which show precise placement of our house and
set backs. You will note that our house is 4.3' from the side
property line on theirest.
Unfortunately some of you seem to continue to get facts
wrong. fie hope this will clear the record.
cerely,
Linda and Eric Protiva
AGENDA BILL NO. ,4 0
DATE:6/26/85 (7/3/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Impacts
Council Action
CITY OF SARATOGA
GPA 85 -1 -A, Amend Land Use Policy LU.4.2 of General Plan to Permit Limited
Expansion of Non Residential Uses in Village Area
Issue Summary
At its meeting of May 8, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending
that General Plan Land Use Policy LU.4.2 be amended to permit limited expan sion of non-
residential uses in the Village area. The proposed amendment would allow new.commercial
uses only adjacent to existing commercial uses in the Village, excluding properties adja-
cent to Oak and St. Charles Streets.
°Recomrendation
1. Staff recommended adoption of the amendment to Land Use Element Policy, LU.4.2
2. The Council should open the public hearing, take testimony, and close the public
hearing before deciding on the amendment.
3. If the Council wishes to approve this amendment, it must first approve the negative
declaration for this project.
Possible increase in revenue from sales taxes collected from commercial retail use.
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A Planning Commission Resolution
Exhibit B Proposed amendment to Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2
Exhibit C City Council Resolution
7/3: Tabled until Village Plan considered.
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
LU.4.2 "Non- residential development shall be confined to sites
presently designated on the General Plan for non-
residential uses with the exception that residentially
zoned sites within the Village boundary contiguous to an
existing commercial district (but excluding those
properties adjacent to Oak Street and St. Charles Street)
may be designated for non residential uses. Existing
non residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new non-
residential zoning districts added unless the General
Plan is amended in conformance with the statement above."
REVISED WORDING FOR LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY LU.4.2
RESOLUTION NO. GPA 85-1
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY AND MAP FOR A SMALLER
THAN 1 ACRE SITE AT 20661 FIFTH_ STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application from David
Morrision to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Designation of a
12,000 sq. ft. parcel (APN 519 -9 -37 and a portion of 519 -9 -45) from
Residential Multi- Family to Retail Commercial; and,
WHEREAS, Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2 must be amended prior to any
action on the above request; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular
meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65353, held a public hearing
on May 8, 1985, and reviewed the proposed amendments to the Land Use
Element; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the draft
negative declaration and the findings attached as Exhibit "B
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga:
That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend
Land Use Element policy LU.4.2 to read as follows:
LU.4.2 "Non- residential development shall be confined to sites presently
designated on the General Plan for non residential uses with the
exception that residential sites continguous to existing non
residentially designated sites in the Village (Area J) may be
designated for non-residential uses. Existing non-residential
zoning shall not be expanded nor new non residential zoning
districts added unless the General Plan is amended in conformance
with the statement above."
Amend the Land Use Element Designation of a 8,467 sq. ft. parcel at
20661 Fifth Street (APN: 519 -9-37) from Residential Multi Family to Retail
Commercial as shown on Exhibit "C based,on the ability to make the
findings as stated in Exhibit "B
The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter
passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 8th day of
May, 1985, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST:
Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick,
Peterson and Schaefer
None
Commissioner Siegfried
Chair an, Planning Commission
FINDINGS
EXHIBIT "B"
1. The proposed General Plan amendment will maintain the residential
character of adjacent residential neighborhoods by proper separation
and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
2. The proposed amendments will encourage the economic viability of the
City and will be compatible with adjacent commercial development and
activities.
3. The proposed General Plan amendment will not adversely affect the
public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to
adjacent properties or improvements.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
POLICY LU.4.2
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in
accord with Government Code Section 65353, held a public hearing on May 8, 1985,
and reviewed a proposed amendment to Policy LU.4.2 of the Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, after the closing of said public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan
Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at a regular meeting of
1985, held a public hearing in accordance with Government Code
Section 65355, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the said Land Use Element,
and
Having heard the evidence presented, both written and oral, the City Council
of the City of Saratoga hereby MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS in connection with
the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan:
1. The proposed General Plan amendment will maintain the residential
character of adjacent residential neighborhoods by proper separation
and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
2. The proposed amendment will encourage the economic viability of the
City and will be compatible with adjacent commerical development
and activities.
3. The proposed General Plan amendment will not adversely affect the
public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to
adjacent properties or improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the findings set forth hereinabove, the City
Council of the City of Saratoga resolves as follows:
That Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2 shall be amended to read as •follows:
LU.4.2 "Non- residential development shall be confined to sites presently
designated on the General Plan for non residential uses with the
exception that residentially zoned sites within the Village boundary
contiguous to an existing commercial district (but excluding those
properties adjacent to Oak Street and St. Charles Street) may be
for non residential uses. Existing non residential zoning shall not
be expanded nor new non residential zoning districts added unless
the General Plan is amended in conformance with the statement above."
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the
day of 1985, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
POLICY LU.4.2
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in
accord with Government Code Section 65353, held a public hearing on May 8, 1985,
and reviewed a proposed amendment to Policy LU.4 .2 of the Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, after the closing of said public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan
Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at a regular meeting of
1985, held a public hearing in accordance with Government Code
Section 65355, and reviewed the proposed amendment to the said Land Use Element,
and
Having heard the evidence presented, both written and oral, the City Council
of the City of Saratoga hereby MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS in connection with
the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan:
1. The proposed General Plan amendment will :maintain the residential
character of adjacent residential neighborhoods by proper separation
and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
2. The proposed amendment will encourage the economic viability of the
City and will be compatible with adjacent commerical development
and activities::
3. The proposed General Plan amendment will not adversely affect the
public safety; health and welfare.or be materially injurious to
adjacent properties or improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE based upon the findings set forth hereinabove, the City
Council of the City of Saratoga resolves as follows:
That Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2 be amended to read as follows:
LU.4.2 "Non- residential development shall be confined to sites presently
designated on the General Plan for non residential uses with the
exception that residentially zoned sites within the Village boundary.
contiguous to an existing commercial district (but excluding those
properties adjacent to Oak Street and St. Charles Street) may be designated
for non residential uses. Existing non residential zoning shall not
be_expanded nor new non residential zbnin districts, added unless
the General Plan is amended in conformance with the statement above."
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the
day of 1985, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR