HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-1992 City Council Agenda packetMEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance
Attachment:
Audit Engagement Letter.
Motion and Votes
SARATOGA CITY n
AGENDA ITEM
February 5,/l992
SUBJECT: Audit Engagement Letter, June 30, 1992
ZO
hoL 4,me,
Recommended Acti on
Authorize the City Manager to confirm the terms of 1991/92
audit as specified in the attached engagement letter from
Maze and Associates and approve an Appropriation Resolution
to fund the expansion of audit services.
Report Summary:
In February, 1991, the City selected Maze and Associates
through a competitive proposal process as its independent
auditor for Fiscal Years 1990, 1991 and 1992. They have
completed two fiscal year audits in a timely, efficient and
satisfactory manner. In Fiscal 1991 audit services were
expanded to include the audit of our Appropriations Limit
calculation required by Proposition 111 and assistance to
City staff in preparing its Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) for submission to the Award Programs of the
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers and the
Government Finance Officers Association. The Finance
Advisory Committee has met with the audit firm, reviewed
the engagement letter and concurs in the continued selection
of Maze and Associates as the City Auditor. Approving the
terms of the engagement letter allows the audit firm to
begin its interim field work for Fiscal 1992.
Fiscal Impact:
The total estimated Audit Fee under this contract is $49,647
plus out -of- pocket costs incurred during the course of the
audit. Audit fees are budgeted in Financial Management
(74). Due to the expanded services described above a budget
increase of $5,000 will be required in Fiscal 1993.
1
t*4 AZE
ASSOCIATES
January 29, 1992
Dear Harry:
Harry R. Peacock, City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to
provide for the City of Saratoga for the year ended June 30, 1992. The
services we have been engaged to provide are outlined below, but we are
also available to provide accounting and consulting services at your
request.
1) Audit of the general purpose financial statements.
2) Testing of compliance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and
applicable laws and regulations and issuance of our report.
thereon.
3) Tests of compliance for Metropolitan Transportation
Commission /Transportation Development Act Programs and
preparation of required reports.
4) Preparation of the general purpose financial statements.
ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
1670 Riviera Avenue Suite 100
Walnut Creek, California 94596
(510) 930 -0902 (916) 972 -7333
FAX (510) 930 -0135
5) Review and assistance in preparation of the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report.
6) Input and preparation of camera ready color and black and white
graphs to be included in the City's Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report.
7) Agreed upon procedures report prepared in compliance with
Proposition 111 Appropriations limitation requirement.
Our audit will be a Single Audit made in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards for financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States; the Single Audit Act of 1984; and the provisions of OMB Circular
A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments and will include tests of the
accounting records of the City of Saratoga and other procedures we
consider necessary to enable us to express an unqualified opinion that the
financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and to report on
the Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance on the City of Saratoga for a
Single Audit. If our opinions are other than unqualified, we will fully
discuss the reasons with you in advance.
A Professional Corporation
Page 2
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the
transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include tests of the
physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation with selected
individuals, creditors, and banks. We will expect written representations
from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for
responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit we will also
request certain written representations from you about the financial
statements and related matters.
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the
amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit
will involve judgement about the number of transactions to be examined and
the areas to be tested. Also, we will plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. As required by the Single Audit Act of
1984, our audit will include tests of transactions related to federal
assistance programs for compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
However, because of the concept of reasonable assurance and because we
will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a
risk that material errors, irregularities, or illegal acts, including
fraud or defalcations, may exist and not be detected by us. We will
advise you of any matters of that nature that come to our attention and
will include such matters in the reports required for a Single Audit. Our
responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit
and does not extend to matters that might arise during any later periods
for which we are not engaged as auditors.
We understand that you will provide us with the basic information required
for our audit and that you are responsible for the accuracy and
completeness of that information. We will advise you about appropriate
accounting principles, but the responsibility for the financial statements
remains with you. This responsibility includes the maintenance of
adequate records and related internal control structure policies and
procedures, the selection and application of accounting principles, and
the safeguarding of assets.
We understand that your employees will type all cash or other
confirmations we request and will locate any invoices and other
documentation selected by us for testing.
Our audits are not specifically designed and cannot be relied on to
disclose deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control
structure. However, during the audits, if we become aware of such
conditions or ways that we believe management practices can be improved,
we will communicate them to you in a separate letter.
The fees for items one through four are based on our proposal dated
January 17, 1991 and increased 3.5 percent over 1991 representing an
increase in the Bay Area Consumer Price index.
The fee for item five will be $3,000 which represent.. a $2,700 reduction
over 1991 due to the fact that statistical data is available for the prior
ten years and the City's CAFR is already in conformity with CSMFO and GFOA
standards.
Page 3
The fee for item six will be $2,070 which represents a 3.5% percent cost
of living increase over 1991.
The fee for item seven will be $1,035 which represents a $1,465 decrease
over 1991 since only one year will be reviewed in 1992.
Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility
involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your
audits. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work
progresses and are payable on presentation. In accordance with our firm
policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes thirty days or
more overdue and may not be resumed until your account is paid in full.
These fees are based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel as
discussed in our letter above, and the assumption that unexpected
circumstances will not be encountered during the audits. If significant
additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a
new fee before we incur any additional costs.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Saratoga and
believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our
engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree
with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign
the enclosed copy and return it to us.
Yours very truly,
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of
Saratoga.
By: efege....4
Title:
O Date: 1Z
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance
SARATOGA CZTY cOUMCIL
AGENDA ITEM
February 5 1992
1
2r3,r'
1 C..,
"1":"~‘.-
SUBJECT: Audited Financial Statements, 6/30/91, Report on
Compliance with the Proposition
111 1990 -91 Appropriation Limit Increment and
Recommendations for Improvements in Internal
Control
Recommended Action:
Review, note and file.
Report Summary:
Submitted herewith is the City's audited Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the period ending June 30, 1991.
The report was prepared by the Finance Department and has
been submitted to the California Society of Municipal
Finance Officers and the Governmental Finance Officer's
Association for review and recognition under their
respective award programs. The report has been audited by
Maze and Associates. The Auditor's opinion for the
combined financial statements of the City is included as
page 9 of the CAFR.
This document differs from previous years in the expansion
of the Finance Director's Letter of Transmittal and the
addition of a comprehensive Statistical Section which
includes both statistical tables and colored graphs.
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report strives for full
disclosure, completeness and fairness in its presentation
and follows the guidelines set forth by the Government
Finance Officers Association of the United States and
Canada.
Proposition 111 allowed for an Appropriation Limit Increment
in its restatement of the rules for calculating the
Appropriations Limit. The Auditors have determined our
compliance with the League of California Cities Article
XIIIB Appropriations Limitation Uniform Guidelines.
The annual audit process includes a study and evaluation of
the system of internal accounting control utilized by the
City. The Auditors found no condition which constitutes a
material weakness in interal accounting control. However,
they recommend a tightening of Cash Receipts Controls at the
Building Counter. Staff will return to the City Council
with our report indicating procedural changes to be adopted
once the described condition is evaluated to determine the
level of segregation which is cost beneficial to the City.
Fiscal impactt
None.
Attachment:
Audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30,
1991.
Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with the
Proposition 111 1990 -91 Appropriation Limit Increment.
Recommendations for Improvements in Internal Control.
Motion and Vote:
2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 2 r3
MEETING DATE: February 5, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Request to Authorize 10K Montalvo Run /Walk on
Saturday, April /8, 1992
Recommended Motion: Approve in concept the holding of a run /walk
as proposed on April /8, 1992, conditioned on compliance with all
requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval
includes authorization for the City Manager's Office to issue a
Special Events Permit when it is determined that all conditions
have been satisfied.
Report Summary: Bradford Martin, a physical therapist who lives
and works in Saratoga, is requesting authorization to hold a 10K
run in the Montalvo area on Saturday, April 18, 1992, from
approximately 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The race would be limited
to 200 participants, and proceeds from the race will be donated to
the Montalvo Association. The race route, in addition to public
roadways, involves private roadways and areas within the
jurisdiction of the County Parks Department. Therefore, the
City's approval of the race would be for only that portion of the
route which is within the City's jurisdiction. A map outlining the
route is attached. The requirements for a Special Events Permit
include the following: 1) payment of a $60 non refundable filing
fee; 2) payment of $250 fully refundable cleanup deposit; 3) Mr.
Martin assume financial responsibility for law enforcement
personnel which may be required; 4) Mr. Martin obtain a Certificate
of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as an additional insured
party for at least $1,000,000 in liability coverage; and 5)
encroachment permit from Cal Trans. This race is essentially the
same as the ones the City has approved in previous years.
Fiscal Impacts: None are anticipated.
4
Attachments: 1. Map showing route of foot race.
2. Correspondence from Mr. Martin outlining details
of event.
Motion and Vote:
0
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 5, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Request to Authorize 10K Montalvo Run /Walk on
Saturday, April /8, 1992
Recommended Motion: Approve in concept the holding of a run /walk
as proposed on April /8, 1992, conditioned on compliance with all
requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval
includes authorization for the City Manager's Office to issue a
Special Events Permit when it is determined that all conditions
have been satisfied.
Report Summary: Bradford Martin, a physical therapist who lives
and works in Saratoga, is requesting authorization to hold a 10K
run in the Montalvo area on Saturday, April 18, 1992, from
approximately 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The race would be limited
to 200 participants, and proceeds from the race will be donated to
the Montalvo Association. The race route, in addition to public
roadways, involves private roadways and areas within the
jurisdiction of the County Parks Department. Therefore, the
City's approval of the race would be for only that portion of the
route which is within the City's jurisdiction. A map outlining the
route is attached. The requirements for a Special Events Permit
include the following: 1) payment of a $60 non refundable filing
fee; 2) payment of $250 fully refundable cleanup deposit; 3) Mr.
Martin assume financial responsibility for law enforcement
personnel which may be required; 4) Mr. Martin obtain a Certificate
of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as an additional insured
party for at least $1,000,000 in liability coverage; and 5)
encroachment permit from Cal Trans. This race is essentially the
same as the ones the City has approved in previous years.
Fiscal Impacts: None are anticipated.
Attachments: 1. Map showing route of foot race.
2. Correspondence from Mr. Martin outlining details
of event.
Motion and Vote:
SFµ
1n
3
n
a
d
k
a
d►
1 pre+
f V I 1 A
Sa�iw j
0A1da rvQ VU V7 71
6 AreV le 9if/
ar0
r
(I b�
N NI 2
0 91 3
J 1
S
x
7
7 V
4
1
N 1 3
0
W
lvr+k► very
J ig
Dear Ms. King:
Orthopedic Physical
Therapy Specialists
of Saratoga
This letter outlines the 5th annual Villa Montalvo Run Walk
scheduled for April 18th. The 10K race starts and finishes at
Montalvo, see course map. At no time will traffic be detained
unless for safety reasons. There are numerous volunteers along
the course in addition to the two required sheriffs. All runners
must pre register and runners will not exceed 200. All parking
will be done inside Villa Montalvo park. There will be no sound
amplification devices used. Restroom facilities are at Montalvo.
The race is scheduled to start at 8 :00am and all runners should
be off the roads by 9:3Oam. I have applied for insurance in the
amount 1 million and the City of Saratoga will be named as an
additional insured as will the State of Calif. and the Parks
Dept. A certificate will be forwarded to you as soon as I receive
it. I will also send you a copy of the encroachment permit
comming from Cal- Trans. The 2.8 mile non competitive walk is held
on the trails at Montalvo. The event is sponsored by Brad Martin,
P.T., Ronald O 1 eson, D.D.S., Edward Li t t l e j ohn, M. D. and David
Wetterholt,M.D.. All proceeds are deflated to the Montalvo
Association, a non profit organization.
If you have any questions please call.
Si rely:
74*4.
Bradford F. Martin, P.T.
Jan 13, 1992
City of Saratoga
Carolyn King
13777 Fruitvale Ave
18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 130 Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 866-1070
JA N 17 .1992
Ms. Carolyn King
Assistant to the City Manager
Montalvo Association Ci ty Hall
3 "uno'C..Ceroo a...
Executive Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
'Fare' Saratoga, CA 95070
Board of Trustees
President
e• M a•
First Vice President
Second Vice President
Sao? •_,cas
Secretary
Treasurer
.osecn Mamore
Board Counsel
"Ca:- a
Past President
P':co Boyce
Chr'c ra M Back se
M 9areroerg
Nees A Cac
L.15 M Caner
?atn.c:a A .om0 :r
S Gregory Dawes
Sanwa =arcs
M ■orae E. For
3a:es
Da-. e•
A ;a :re Jenks
,.r James',lasuda
Rcoer7 c Moore
Reny 'J Orson
A'ar rr
Caro y L Rosen
Beatree F Sc^m'ct
Andrea Thomas
Emeritus
Michael H Antonacci
James R orroton
O//wa C Davies
Jean Kuhn Doyle
Margaret Dyer
Warren 8. Heid
John S. Langwill
David S. Meeker
RAdm Ralph M. Metcalt
William C. Randal
Britton W Saterlee
Bernard Sims
Betty Speer
Ex Officio
Hor.. Dianne McKenna
Santa Clara County Supervisor
Hon. Wlilem A. Kohler
Mayor of Saratoga
15400 Montalvo Road
PO Box 158
Saratoga, CA 95071 -0158
408/741 -3421
FAX: 408/741 -5592
VI L L A M O N T A L V O
T H E B A Y A R E A S T O R i C GARDEN F O R T H E L?
January 27, 1992
Dear Ms. King:
This letter will confirm Montalvo's intent to host the fourth
annual Villa Montalvo Walk and Run sponsored by Brad Martin.
It is my understanding that the date selected for this event
is Saturday April 18th. I have spoken with both Park
Manager Raleigh Young and Senior Ranger Janine Mohring
about the event and they are comfortable with the
arrangements Brad Martin has made ,The race has County
Parks approval.
All of the monies raised through the Villa Montalvo Walk and
Run will go to support the arts programs at Montalvo during
1992. We are grateful for the funding this event generates
and the longstanding commitment Brad Martin and his
sponsors have provided over the past few years.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any
further questions.
Sincerely yours,
C.J-Na-ILt
Elisbeth Challener
Executive Director
JAN 2 9 1992
Orthopedic Physical
Therapy Specialists
of Saratoga
event and there was no problem. Over the past 4 years we have had no complaints
Sincerely:
Jan 24, 1992
Carolyn King
Assistant to the City Manager
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga
18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 130 Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 866 -1070
JAN 2 9 1992
RE: VILLA MONTALVO RUN WALK
Dear Ms. King:
I have given a letter to the Sheriffs dept., see copy. Enclosed is a check for 31 to
cover clean -up deposit and filing fee, the Indemnity Agreement. There are no sound
amplification devices used during the event. The Montalvo Association will send you a
letter stating that all proceeds will be donated to them. As I stated, the home owners
association in that area is not organized. 4 years ago I did inform the president of the
and I'm sure everything will be fine this year. I will not be informing the residents of the
event although there will be a banner up in Saratoga and an article in the Saratoga
News. You will also receive a letter indicating the County Parks dept. approval.
Clay J �b
4 94 (W.64. .I €e Sf4,iian)
Jan 23, 1992
Sincerely:
Santa Clara County Sheriff
This letter is in regards to the 5th Villa Montalvo Run Walk scheduled for April 18th.
The City of Saratoga requests that the Sheriffs Dept review the course /map to approve
the traffic plan.
We always have two reserve Sheriffs present during the event I have already
contacted the reserve office for this years event. The race starts at 8:OOam and all
runners should be off the road by about 9:OOam. This is a very small race, limited to
200 runners. Runners must pre register, no race day registration. This insures that we
dont have excess traffic going to Montalvo. All parking is done inside Montalvo park.
There are no roads blocked at any time before, during or after the event. Please see
course map. We do not stop traffic unless for safety reasons. The runners are guided
by chalk arrows on the road along with numerous volunteers. We have never needed
to route any traffic around the course because (1) the race is very small, (2) the
runners are running along the side of the roads, (3) they are not crossing highway 9.,
(4) there is very little traffic in the montalvo neighborhoods between 8 -9am.
Since all roads remain open there should be no problems for emergency vehicles. We
also have the Red Cross at Montalvo during the event. Please review this matter and
inform me and Carolyn King, Assistant to the City Manager, of your opinion.
If you have any questions or suggestions please call.
,r
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 _/37 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 5, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager (YJ
SUBJECT: Change of Title from Chief Building Inspector to
Building Codes Administrator
Recommended Motion: Approve change
Report Summary: Council is requested to approve the change in
title for the management position of Chief Building Inspector to
Building Codes Administrator. This position serves as division
head for building inspection. The title of Building Codes
Administrator better represents the position responsibilities in
supervising and managing the City's building inspection function.
This is a change in title only; there is no change in the job
description, salary range, or organization of the Engineering
Department. The division head is supervised by the City Engineer,
who retains the title of Building Official.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: 1) Job description with new title
2) Revised management salary chart
Motion and Vote:
City of Saratoga September, 1986
BUILDING CODES ADMINISTRATOR
DEFINITION
Under the general direction of the City Engineer, is directly responsible for
managing all building code enforcement functions. As a division head,
supervises a technical and clerical staff, and directly performs complex
inspections, plans checking and other technical duties.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
Assizes full supervisory responsibility for all building code enforcement
activities of the Inspection Division. As necessary, coordinates inspections
concerning public improvement projects and municipal code compliance with
Division staff and other City personnel.
Implements and manages all Division programs consistent with community neeeds,
City and Department policies and legal requirements. Assists in the
development of Division programs and policies.
Evaluates programs and develops means for improving services and personnel
utilization and performance. As appropriate, institutes such improvements or
recommends their adoption.
Directly performs a variety of high -level technical work, including conducting
complex inspections, reviewing plans and interpreting codes.
Coordinates inspection activities with other appropriate agencies as well as
with other City departments and divisions. May represent the City on inter-
agency committees and in other cooperative programs.
Prepares and administers the Division budget.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS
Education: Equivalent to Associate of Arts degree from an accredited college
or university supplemented by college -level coursework in engineering,
architecture or a closely related field.
Experience: Four years of increasingly responsible building inspection
experience, including at least two years in a supervisory capacity.
Experience in building construction or professional engineering may be
accepted in lieu of appropriate amounts of inspection experience.
Certification: Possession of at least one of the following certificates
issued by the International Conference of Building Officials: Building
Inspector, Combination Inspector, or Plans Examiner.
Driver's License: Possession of a valid, appropriate State of California
Driver s License.
MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/92
City Manager
City Engineer
Maintenance Director
Planning Director
Finance Director
Assistant to the City Manager
Recreation Director
Building Codes Administrator
Environmental Programs Manager
Maintenance Superintendent
$5655 $7352
$4917 $6393
$4468 $5809
$4468 $5809
$4468 $5809
$4265 $5544
$3770 $4901
$3991 $5189
$3991 $5189
$3491 $4538
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.2 4 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 5, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Enginee ing
Recommended Action:
Discussion:
Fiscal Impacts:
Motion Vote:
SUBJECT: Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Medians Capital
Project No. 924: Approval of Cooperative
Agreement with CALTRANS
Attachments: 1. Cooperative Agreement
Approve Cooperative Agreement and authorize its execution by the
Mayor and City staff.
Attached is a Cooperative Agreement between the City and CALTRANS
stipulating responsibilities for the City's median project on
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. between Big Basin Way and Verde Vista Lane.
The Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and myself and
the language and requirements in the document, (mostly standard
CALTRANS stuff), is acceptable. The Agreement is required before
the City can obtain 1) CALTRANS' certification of the right -of -way
secured for the project and 2) the Encroachment Permit required
from CALTRANS to advertise the project for bids. As staff is now
planning to proceed with this project at this time, it is
recommended that Council authorize the execution of the attached
Cooperative Agreement.
The Agreement requires the City to eventually post a $10,000 Letter
of Credit with CALTRANS until such time as the City awards a
construction contract for the project. Sufficient funds exist in
the adopted FY 91 -92 budget in Capital Project No. 924, Account No.
4510 to post the Letter of Credit.
__Printed on recycled paper:
2 VA 8C.
OEUT Ofd uno
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: February 5, 1992
SUBJECT: Design Review #91 -026; Ruehle, 21097 Comer Dr.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
Project Description:
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Ruehle, are appealing a Planning
Commission denial of their design review request to construct a new
5,221 sq. ft. two -story residence. The subject property is a
currently vacant 1.89 net acres parcel located along the north side
of Comer Drive within the Northwestern Hillside Residential (NHR)
zone district. The proposed site improvements also include a rear
yard pool, pool house and associated decking. Staff found that the
proposal complied with all applicable development regulations and
that the necessary design review findings could be made to support
the project.
Overview:
The Planning Commission first reviewed this application in October
of 1991. The item was continued to a November public hearing to
allow staff to address questions raised regarding the accuracy of
the parcel size information. As discussed in the attached staff
memo dated November 13th, the gross and net site area information
shown on the plans, and the associated allowable floor area
calculations, were determined to be accurate.
Another issue of concern raised at the October meeting was with
regard to a 22 ft. height restriction placed on this parcel as part
of an earlier application. In 1986, the Planning Commission
reviewed and approved a request for building site consideration for
this lot. This application was granted a one -year extension in
1988, at which time the 22 ft. height restriction was incorporated
into the resolution. This earlier application expired in 1989 and
-the property owner subsequently adjusted the parcel boundaries to
deed 3.32 acres of this lot to the Dymand parcel on the south side
of Comer Dr.
At the November meeting, discussion ensued regarding whether or not
this earlier 22 ft. height restriction should be applied to this
project. Staff's analysis concluded that based on the relatively
small area of roof ridgeline that exceeded 22 ft. in height, and
the architect's efforts to minimize building mass through carefully
articulated elevations and rooflines, the design review findings
could be made to support the proposal as submitted. A motion made
to approve the project died for lack of a second. The following
motion to deny the project ended in a tie vote (Bogosian, Forbes
for /Moran, Tucker opposed). Pursuant to Article 2- 15.050 of the
City Code, the applicants have decided to accept the tie vote as a
denial and present this item for City Council consideration.
Staff's original review of the project concluded that the design
review findings could be made to recommend approval with the
conditions contained in the resolution. The attached staff reports
include the analysis and findings supporting this recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
IMt5 Well U eAA
g
es Walgren
ssociate Planner
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission minutes dated 11/13/91
2. Staff memo dated 11/13/91
3. Plans, Exhibit "A"
JW /dsc
it4W
Commissioner Tucker amended the motion to delete the circular
drive.
The amendment died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Forbes amended his motion to include cutting the
proposed parking pad near the garage in half.
Commissioner Forbes withdrew his motion.
MOTION to approve DR -91 -058 with a smaller pad in front of the
garage and adding three additional trees on the west side of the
lot.
M/S Forbes /Bogosian Ayes 3 Noes 1 (Moran) Absent 3
5. DR -91 -026 Ruehle, 21097 Comer Ave., request for design
review approval to construct a new 5,221 sq.
ft. two -story residence on a 1.95 acre site
within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. A rear yard pool, pool house
and associated decking are also proposed
(cont. from 10/23/91; application expires
11/19/91).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report, reviewing concerns
expressed by the Commission and neighbors at the last public
hearing. Staff was directed to review and respond to those
concerns. Mr. Walgren reviewed staff's findings, noting that the
triangle piece of property was part of the Diamond parcel
originally and in 1989 an application for a lot line adjustment was
made and approved by the City, shifting the lot line creating a
single parcel south of Comer Drive and a single parcel north of
Comer Drive (parcels B A). Staff has also researched the design
review application that was approved later in 1989 for parcel A and
it has been determined that the residence approved for parcel A
where the correct calculations for the revised parcel
configuration, and the calculations used for parcel B are the
correct parcel calculations and the amount of floor area reflected
are accurate. Planner Walgren added that the 20 ft. height
limitation originally placed on the Ruehle was from a 1986 building
site approval application that has since expired.
Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 10:53 p.m.
Mr. Benzing stated that his previous concerns have been addressed
and in addition to the request to extend to 25 ft. 3 in. he would
also like the Commission to consider that the overall length of the
ridge that is at the 25 ft. 3 in. height is only 21 ft. in length
out of the overall building width of 106 ft. The architectural
integrity of the home demands that this height be there to keep
proportioning of the home correct. Mr. Benzing added that
surrounding homes have been approved for heights up to 25 -26 ft.
He stated that he would like to address the issue of placing brick
around the lower garage portion of the house, proposing that the
brick be eliminated and the area be screened with landscaping that
10
can be approved by staff as a landscape plan.
Luanne Nieman expressed continued concern with the lot line
adjustment stating that the presentation made to the public in 1989
did not accurately portray the Diamond property. The documentation
she has been able to get pertained only to the Flynn portion of the
property not the Diamond portion of the, property. Ms. Nieman
stated she is not protesting this particular proposal but is
protesting how the public was informed regarding this parcel of
land, and wants this discrepancy on the public record. She added
that the matter was not presented the same as it is being presented
now. Ms. Nieman asked that the accuracy of future presentations be
scrutinized as this is not the first time this has happened.
Mr. Wang, 21027 Comer Dr., expressed concern with drainage
problems, indicating he wants to be sure the new plan has adequate
drainage in place, including a retaining wall. Mr. Wang also
expressed concern with the privacy issue, asking that adequate
screening be in place between the two properties.
Warren Heid, architect, reported that the natural drainage on the
property is a swale and this is a permissible type of hillside
drainage.
Mr. Benzing stated that the landscape plan tries to address some of
the privacy concerns, and are presently planning to plant trees
along the property line to provide the screening Mr. Wang is asking
for.
Mr. Ruehle, 21097 Comer Dr.
privacy screening.
Mr. Whitten, 21045 Comer Dr.
screening, stating he would
construction is finished.
stated it is his interest to present
also expressed concern with landscape
like the landscape be started when the
MOTION to close the public hearing at 11:11 p.m.
M/S Forbes /Tucker Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3
MOTION to approve DR -91 -026 with the condition of added tree -type
screening along the borders.
M/S Tucker/
Motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION to deny DR -91 -026 without prejudice.
M/S Bogosian /Forbes
Commissioner Forbes stated he finds this a very prominent ridge and
the house as presented is too high.
Commissioner Bogosian suggested the designer come to terms with
this being a prominent site; this is a very tall and massive
structure and possibly the building could be set further into the
hillside. He added he would like to see the building no higher
11
than 22 ft. as proposed on the original site approval.
Mr. Heid questioned why the conditions being imposed now were not
presented to the applicant previously. The City Attorney
determined the issues being discussed are not out of order.
Chair Moran asked if the Commission would be amenable to a
continuance so that a redesign could be considered to reduce the
ridge line that is over the 22 ft. height restriction.
Commissioner Forbes stated he would be agreeable, and clarified
that he was not present at the October 23 meeting and therefore had
no vote prior to this evening.
Commissioner Bogosian stated that if the applicant feels he could
work within that guideline, he would consider withdrawing his
motion and would move toward continuance. He added that he has
visited the site and viewed it from different perspectives in the
neighborhood.
Planner Walgren noted that the application expires on November 19,
excluding the 90 day extension.
Mr. Ruehle stated that the information submitted saying this is not
a principle ridge line and they are therefore living within the
rules; the neighbors have not complained about the height of the
house and he is not sure of the implications here.
Mr. Heid stated that the applicant has not had an opportunity to
address the 22 ft. height restriction and he feels that this is a
beautiful home but he will go to 22 ft. if that is the only
condition. He added that the amount of height being proposed (26
ft.) would not be that imposing.
Stan Eisner, Interim Planning Director, suggested that all
Commissioners have an opportunity to speak to the question of
design and that would give the applicant an opportunity to be able
to focus on all of the issues that are before the Commission before
making a decision.
Commissioner Tucker stated she was previously concerned about the
22 ft. height restriction and she feels the restriction took into
consideration a much larger parcel. She stated she feels it is not
necessary to look at the 22 ft. height restriction as a height
restriction put on this property as it is today because it is at a
lower elevation. Commissioner Tucker further requested that those
Commissioners not able to make findings identify the issues and
conditions in the resolution to give the applicant some direction.
Commissioner Bogosian stated he is not suggesting we look at a
prior restriction but look at this site and its relationship to the
view, the neighbors, etc. If the building were lowered to 22 ft.
and the same elements could be kept in the building he could
support it.
Stan Eisner, Interim Planning Director, stated it appears the
Commission is evenly split and no resolution is going to come of
this matter. He noted that if denied, the applicant has the rite
12
to appeal to the City Council; if continued, he would hope the
Commission would make a clear statement of exactly what the
concerns are so the applicant can address them.
Mr. Heid requested the matter be continued to the next meeting and
a 90 day extension be granted. He further stated the applicant
would like to review this with staff.
CALL FOR THE QUESTION
Ayes 2 (Forbes /Bogosian) Noes 2 (Moran /Tucker)
Absent 3
Chair Moran noted that the application was not approved
come back to the Planning Commission on December 11,
public hearing for a re -vote by the Planning Commission
MOTION to reopen the public hearing and continue the
December 11, 1991.
M/S Tucker /Forbes Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3
Commissioner Bogosian left the meeting at 11:40 p.m. leaving the
Planning Commission without a quorum to continue business.
Chair Moran announced that the Desert Petroleum item #6) will be
continued to the December 11 meeting.
MOTION to continue items 6, UP -550, Desert Petroleum; item 7, DR-
91 -035, Chen; item 8, SM -91 -007, Hancock; item #9, DR -91 -052, Hu;
and item 10, DR -91 -037, Chao to the December 11, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting.
M/S Tucker /Moran
6. DP -550
7. DR -91 -035
8. 8M -91 -007
Ayes 4 Noes 0 Absent 3
and would
1991 as a
matter to
Desert Petroleum, 12600 Saratoga Ave., review
of compliance with existing use permit
conditions which allows the operation of a
gasoline service station in the R -M -5,000 P.C.
zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Chen, 12505 Crayside Ln., Lot #18, request for
design review approval to construct a new
5,511 sq. ft. two -story residence on a one
acre parcel within the R- 1- 20,000 zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The
subject property is Lot #18 of the Beauchamps
subdivision (Tract #8316); application expires
2/8/92).
Hancock, 20410 Montalvo Oaks Pl., request for
site modification to previously approved plans
for an existing residence in order to
construct a pool, spa, arbor, decks and
sitting areas in the rear yard area, per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is
located within the R -1- 20,000 zone district.
13
1.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Printed on recycled paper.
M E M O R A N D U M
Planning Commission
Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner 1f
November 13, 1991
SUBJECT: DR -91 -026 Ruehle, 21097 Comer Dr.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
The following analysis explains the background of these issues.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
The applicant requests design review approval for a new 5,221 sq.
ft. two -story residence in the NHR zone district. The application
also includes a rear yard pool, pool house and decking.
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the
10/9/91 meeting and continued due to concerns raised by the
Commission and /or the neighbors. Staff was directed to review and
report back to the Commission on the following issues:
The first issue is related to the boundaries of the subject
site. The question was raised by a neighbor and was related
to the small triangular area shown as part of the Ruehle's
property. The neighbor claimed that this area belongs to the
property across Comer Drive (21116 Comer Drive), owned by
Dymand. The neighbor also said that this site area was
already considered in the floor area calculations for the
Dymand house at the time of design review approval.
2. The second issue is related to a 22 ft. height restriction
which was placed on a previous building site approved by the
Planning in 1986 and extended in 1988. The
building site approval had not been finalized, and
consequently expired. At the 10/9/91 meeting, the Planning
Commission, directed staff to explore the background for this
restriction, and study the reasons for the height limitation
and its applicability for the current proposal.
4
1
Site Boundaries and Area Calculation
After review of the documents, recorded parcel maps and staff
report, it was found that the site boundaries as presented on the
Ruehle's application are the accurate boundaries. Thus, the area of
the site, the average slope and allowable floor area calculated for
the proposed home are correct.
Originally, the property consisted of two lots of record, and had
a different configuration. At that time, the lots belonged to Mr.
Dymand who is the current owner of the property across from Comer
Drive. In 1989, the boundaries of the property were changed
through lot line adjustment approval. The original two lots
included areas on both sides of Comer Drive. After the adjustment,
the lots were separated by Comer Drive. All the areas to the north
of Comer Drive, including the triangle in question, were
transferred to one site, which was later sold to the Ruehles. All
of the area south of Comer Drive was transferred to the second lot
the Dymands. The recorded parcel map indicates that the net area
of the sites are 1.951 acres for Ruehle's site and 7.877 acres for
the Dymands. The Ruehle's site required additional right -of -way
dedication which further reduced the net site area to 1.89 acres.
In 1989, the Dymands applied for design review and variance
approval. It appears that some of the previous parcel maps
recorded on the property were not drawn clearly. As a result, the
applicant showed the triangular shaped area across Comer Drive as
part of his property. Staff reviewed this error carefully and
found the error was a graphical error only. The square footage,
gross and net, used for the site and for the floor area calculation
for the home was indeed the correct area. It should also be noted
that a variance for the floor area of the home was approved for the
property, and the approved home of 9,555 sq. ft. exceeds the
allowable floor area by 615 sq. ft. Furthermore, the triangular
area is about 3,000 sq. ft. and may add only about 60 sq. ft. to
the floor area of the home.
In conclusion, the site boundaries and floor area presented by the
Ruehles is accurate. Secondly, the triangular area was not
considered for the floor area calculations of the Dymand home.
The 22 ft. Height Restriction
As indicated in the previous staff report, the building site
approval which included a 22 ft. height limitation for the
structure was expired, and this condition can no longer be applied
to this property. However, the Planning Commission may require
reduction in the structure height through the design review
process, in order to comply with the design review findings.
Following the Planning Commission direction, staff reviewed the
background for the height restriction approved in the past. In
1988, the applicant requested an extension to the 1986 building
site approval. The restrictions of the building site approval in
1986 were carried on to the conditions of the 1988 building site
approval. At the Planning Commission meeting in 1986, there was a
very brief discussion suggesting that a 22 ft. height is more
appropriate for the site, which led to this condition. At the 1988
Planning Commission meeting, the item was on the consent calendar
and there was no discussion related to the conditions. The
Planning Commission minutes from the 2/26/86 meeting are attached
for the Commission's review.
It is important to note that the Dymand building site across Comer
Drive is located on a major ridge which is 55 ft. higher than the
elevation of the subject site. The home approved on that site is
25 ft., 3 inches. In addition, the proposed home is not excessive
in height and only small portions of the roof are at maximum height
of 25 ft., 3 inches.
The 10/9/91 staff report with the analysis and recommendations is
attached for the Planning Commission's reference.
Attachments:
1. Resolution DR -91 -026
2. Staff Report dated 10/9/91
3. Unapproved minutes 10/23/91
4. Recorded parcel map
5. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/26/86
6. Correspondence
7. Plans, Exhibit A
TA /dsc
RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -026
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ruehle; 21097 Comer Drive
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for design review approval to construct a new, 5,221
sq. ft., two -story residence with a pool, pool house and associated
decking; 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site
does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding
residences in that the nearest adjacent homes to the east are at
much lower elevations with views oriented towards the valley floor,
away from this development.
The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
the surrounding residences in that the habitable areas of the
proposed residence are situated well away from any adjacent homes.
The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree
removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no tree removal is
necessary or proposed and that grading is limited primarily to
excavation to set the structure into the hill.
-The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in
relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the second story
floor area has been minimized and the structure has been designed
to integrate into the existing topography.
The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those
homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in
that both the older two -story homes on Comer Drive and the newer
two -story structures visible to the north are similar in size,
scale and design.
The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar
access of adjacent properties in that the nearest adjacent
residence is located well away from this development.
-The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion
control standards.
File No.•DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
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 Ruehle 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 permit or grading permit, a
zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department.
3. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5
ft. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet
in height and no fence or wall located within any required
front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a
reversed corner lot shall exceed three (3) feet in height.
All fencing requirements for hillside zone districts shall
also apply.
4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
5. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain-
ing a Tree Removal Permit.
6. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope.
7. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
8. Exterior colors shall be medium to dark earthtone as reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission. The brick veneer
exterior shall also be shown on the plans to continue around
the entire garage and at the lower level east elevation prior
to the issuance of a zone clearance.
9. Landscaping for screening per the conceptual landscape plan
shall be installed prior to final occupancy.
10. Prior to the issuance of a zone clearance, applicant shall
submit final landscape plans for the Planning Director's
review and approval, indicating additional screening adjacent
to the east side of the pool decking. Precise species and
sizes of plantings shall be indicated on the plan with roughly
50% of the proposed trees to be 24 inch box minimum.
11. All proposed and future landscaping shall consist of native
and drought tolerant species in conformance with the City's
xeriscape guidelines.
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
12. All tree preservation recommendations outlined in the Arborist
Report dated May 13, 1991, shall apply.
13. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall
be submitted to the Building Division prior to the issuance of
a Zoning Clearance:
a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.).
c. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for walls 4 feet or higher.
d. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
removed.
e. Erosion control measures.
f. Standard information to include title block, plot plan
using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's.
owner's name, etc.
14. Any portion of a structure located under the dripline of a
tree shall have pier and grade beam foundation with the beam
poured at original grade. Soil in the area beneath the tree
canopy shall be covered with 8" of chips during construction
to prevent compaction of soil by equipment and the tree trunks
wrapped with 3 layers of snow fencing to 8' above ground to
prevent damage by equipment.
15. Prior to the pre grading meeting, 6' chain link or welded wire
mesh protective fencing shall be placed around the trees under
the dripline as indicated on the Arborist Report dated May 13,
1991. This fencing shall be indicated on the grading plan
prior to the issuance of a zone clearance.
16. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code
Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Reroofing, less
than 10 shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix E,
City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210).
17. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and main-
tained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City
of Saratoga.
18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted
to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a
building permit (City of Saratoga 16 -60).
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
19. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. (City of
Saratoga Code 16- 15:110).
20. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one
ft. shoulders.
a. Slopes from 0o to 11% shall use a double seal coat of 0
S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the
proposed dwelling.
b. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of
A.C. or better on U' aggregate base from a public street to
proposed dwelling.
21. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans
(i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements
and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to
ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporat-
ed. The Project Structural Engineer shall review the struc-
tural aspects of the development plans and confirm that the
anticipated ground motion parameters are accounted for in the
design of the structures and foundations.
The results of the structural plan review and geotechnical
plan review shall be summarized in letters by the structural
engineer and geotechnical consultant and submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of
permits.
22. Subsurface excavations made during grading and construction
shall be observed, logged, and sampled (if necessary) by the
Project Engineering Geologist. The Project Geotechnical
Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction.
Following the completion of grading operations, the residen-
tial site, driveway, and natural and artificial slopes shall
be documented by the consultant to demonstrate the long -term
stability of the development.
The results of the geotechnical inspections and documentation
of site stability shall be summarized in appropriate letters
and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to release of the grading bond.
23. The applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with
the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the application
prior to zone clearance.
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
24. The applicant shall perform drainage and erosion control
improvements in the vicinity of APN 503 -17 -063 to mitigate the
additional runoff from the proposed project. Such improve-
ments shall not exceed $7,500 including the preparation of an
engineered drainage and erosion control plan to be approved by
the City Engineer. The applicant shall be eligible to enter
into an agreement with the City to be proportionately reim-
bursed for the cost of the drainage and erosion control
improvements from any future development which the City
approves and which contributes runoff to the watershed in
which the improvements shall be constructed.
25. The applicant shall submit revised plans for Planning Director
review and approval prior to the issuance of a zone clearance
indicating the following changes to the pool, pool house and
associated decking plan:
a. The pool and associated decking shall be pulled in closer
to the main residence, west of the moderate downslope, to
minimize the amount and depth of fill necessary.
b. The entire pool and decking pad shall be lowered to the
extent feasible to additionally reduce the fill quanti-
ties.
26. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall install a fire
hydrant which meets Saratoga Fire District standards. The
applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement of 50% of the
cost of the hydrant installation from the developer of APN
503 -18 -025. The reimbursement shall be guaranteed through an
agreement between the applicant and the City which will
specify that the City will require reimbursement prior to Zone
Clearance of any development application for APN 503 -18 -025.
27. Required fire hydrant shall be located so that no part of any
structure shall be further than five hundred feet from hydrant
and the fire protection system shall be designed and charged
with water under pressure so that the hydrant shall deliver no
less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other avail-
ability shall be such that 1,000 gpm minimum shall be main-
tained for a sustained period of two (2) hours.
28. 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.
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
29. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi-
ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250.000 shall be payable to
this City per each day of the violation.
Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution
to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the
Building Division when applying for a building permit.
Section 6. 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 Commis-
sion, State of California, this 23rd day of October, 1991, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Signature of Applicant Date
Chairperson, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
Applicant /Owner: Ruehle
Staff Planner: ,James Walgren
Date: October 9, 1991
APN: 503 -17 -027
21130
5
-r7- 25
21116
21690
503 -17. 21
0
a
132.23
1724
(2
21072
01..11
zloee
5 O3 -17 -10
(1)
21020
se
/2 90_,
3-17.4
129$5
503 11 2/
sob8g
3e7, f- 2j Ce1
3-43 .2
303. NO
;3.
12999
503 /1 66
12 QS..
607.4
t /2 10/
o7-,1-
1 2 973
4 (e)
11e'
r0
l �e Y 11 (9
20975 (A)
9o3 -/6 72
209 76 (1{ :I
903 -16 -$4 1
201$9 (A) I1
54- /6 73
11
JI
10964 0.1
•03. -11
0
12996(6) U
50+-16 -77
COMER
20440 (0)
103 16 -76
1 277(41
03.1(, -eL
4314
503 43.
132 41
503 -1rs3
21097 Comer Drive
Director Approval:
DR.
loss
503.14 -43
130 71
609.14 6 0
12991
503 -16-47
0 3 6
seo3
13041
Se3-16_yl 13/00
403 -/6 e 9
'1117
-r
0;9
570
/5040
*03 )6-31
z 4,
Nw
i3'i00
603 -16-32
$03
4 6-41.
Cr.
0
13150
g03• R. 3,-
/312
903-
ar
O 1314 u) I 1744
d/ 507 /6- 6'7 50346
.Q 6 V
0 W
13180 (0)
.44x- /1. -14
1320 5o1 -16
got 303-16.53
CASE HISTORY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting completed:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -91 -026
3. Arborist Report
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4/19/91
5/19/91
9/11/91
9/12/91
9/05/91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review approval to
construct a new 5,221 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 1.95
acre site within the Northwestern Hillside Residential (NHR) zone
district. A rear yard pool, pool house and associated decking are
also proposed.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposal conforms with all applicable
development regulations with regard to allowable floor area,
impervious coverage, height, location and setbacks. Per the
attached discussion, staff feels that the design review findings
can be made to support the project with the conditions contained in
the resolution.
Ingress and egress to the residence includes a driveway and
circular turn around off Comer Drive and a second driveway off a
private access easement servicing the garage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolu-
tion DR -91 -026.
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
ZONING: NHR
PARCEL SIZE: 1.95 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 37%
GRADING REOUIRED:
STAFF ANALYSIS
Cut: 1,510 Cu. Yds.
Fill: 618 Cu. Yds.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Alternating brick veneer and grey
painted stucco exterior with simulated slate shake roofing.
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE: 105 ft.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 11.4% (9,640 s.f.)
HEIGHT: 25.3 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
SETBACKS:
Garage: 839 s.f.
Pool House: 300 s.f.
1st Floor: 3,203 s.f.
2nd Floor: 1,179 s.f.
TOTAL: 5,521 s.f.
Front: 50 ft.
Rear: 145 ft.
Right Side: 40 ft.
Left Side: 90 ft.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
Cut Depth: 5 Ft.
Fill Depth: 4 Ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
25% (up to a maximum
of 15,000 s.f.)
26 ft.
5,532 s.f.
Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 50/60 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 20 ft.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review approval to
construct a new 5,221 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 1.95
acre site within the Northwestern Hillside Residential (NHR) zone
district. A rear yard pool, pool house and associated decking are
also proposed.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to construct a new,
two -story residence along the north side of Comer Drive just above
Pierce Road. The proposal conforms with all applicable development
regulations with regard to allowable floor area, impervious
coverage, height and setbacks. The subject property is a foothill
lot which has expansive views of the greater valley floor area.
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
The site is also visible from the Sara Hills neighborhood to the
south and parts of the Parker Ranch subdivision to the north. The
northern edge of the level pad area is lined with good sized Coast
Live Oaks which will screen much of the building's north elevation
from view. The remainder of the parcel is relatively void of
significant vegetation. The City's Horticultural Consultant has
reviewed the plans and his tree preservation recommendations are
incorporated into the resolution.
This hilltop site is situated at a roughly 50 ft. lower elevation
than the adjacent vacant Dymand property to the west. The lot
slopes from the pad to the north, towards the large 30 -acre
Williamson Act parcel, and to the south and east. Existing new and
older two -story homes are developed to the south and east, also at
lower elevations.
An application for tentative Building Site Approval was made for
this site in 1986. In 1988, an extension was granted to this
approval with an additional condition that construction not exceed
22 ft. in height. This application has since expired. In 1990, an
application was reviewed and approved for a Lot Line Adjustment map
which was subsequently recorded. Based on utilities now being
available in this area, no road improvements or dedications
required and the recordation of a recent Parcel Map, the City
Engineer has recommended granting the parcel exemption from
Building Site Approval at an administrative level.
Though the 22 ft. height restriction expired with the original
application, staff took this into consideration while reviewing
this proposal and feels that the design can be supported as
submitted. As indicated on the attached plans, it is only a
relatively small portion of the roof area which extends up to 26
ft.
Design Review
The applicant's proposal is for a relatively traditional hipped
roof structure with alternating brick veneer and stucco exterior
finish. The design of the home meets the policies outlined in the
Residential Design Handbook in that the structure follows the
hillside contours by stepping the floor plan down the site. The
proposal also uses architectural features to break up massing and
create horizontal proportions. In order to soften the structure's
multi -level appearance from lower elevation vantage points, staff
recommends that the brick veneer be continued along the entire
garage and east elevation lower level. Staff does not anticipate
that this development will adversely affect downslope neighbors'
views or privacy, and feels that all of the design review findings
can be made to recommend approval of the application.
Grading
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
The site cross sections represented on page 9 of the plan set
indicates that this hilltop parcel would not be considered a major
or minor ridge. Major ridges are plotted on an aerial base map
used by the City. Minor ridges are defined in the NHR zoning
ordinance as a ridge which is 50 ft. or more above two points 150
ft. distant from the top of the ridge on either side.
A conceptual landscape plan has been included in the packet
indicating screening trees to be planted along all four elevations.
A condition of approval will require that this proposed landscap-
ing, which is in conformance with the City's xeriscape guidelines,
be installed prior to final occupancy approval. Staff is also
requesting additional screening trees adjacent to the east side of
the pool and decking. These additional trees shall be incorporated
into a final landscape plan for Planning Director review and
approval prior to the issuance of a zone clearance.
A material board will be available at the public hearing represent-
ing the type and style of brick veneer, composition roofing and
colors proposed.
A total of 1,510 cu. yds. of earth removal is necessary to
accommodate this project. The basement accounts for 560 cu. yds.
of this cut, while the remainder is for the house and driveway. As
in other similar hillside development proposals, staff can support
the relatively large amount of excavation based on the benefit of
having the structure set into the hill as much as possible.
Staff is concerned, however, with the proposed 610 cu. yds. of fill
necessary to build up the back of the site for the pool, pool house
and associated decking. Though swimming pools are a permitted use
in all of the residential zone districts, and this proposal does
conform with applicable setback, slope and coverage requirements,
the NHR grading standards prohibit the creation of flat visible
pads surrounding the main residential structure." [S15-
14.060(g)]. Since this pool /pad area does not surround the
residence, staff agrees with the applicant that it is not strictly
prohibited. A large number of existing residences within this area
can be seen with similar pool and decking improvements. As a
mitigation to the amount of fill proposed at the moderately steep
east end of the site, however, staff recommends that a revised pool
plan be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior
to the issuance of a zone clearance, indicating the following
modifications:
1. The pool and associated decking shall be pulled in closer to
the main residence, west of the moderate downslope, to
minimize the amount and depth of fill necessary.
File No. DR -91 -026; 21097 Comer Drive
2. The entire pool and decking pad shall be lowered to the extent
feasible to additionally reduce the fill quantities.
Geology
Development of the property is constrained by slope instability
associated with the steep north and south facing topography and
dormant landslides. The stability of the slopes have been
evaluated and appropriate setbacks have been reviewed and cleared
by the City's Geotechnical Consultants. The City Engineer has
reviewed the consultant's analysis and has granted preliminary
geotechnical clearance of the application with the conditions
contained in the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR-
91 -026.
BARRIE D. C a TE
and ASSOCIA .S
Horticultural Consultants
408 353 -1052
23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT THE RUEHLE PROPERTY
21097 COMER DRIVE
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of:
James Walgren
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit by:
Terence Welch
May 13, 1991
Job #4 -91 -128
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT THE RUEHLE PROPERTY
21097 COMER DRIVE
SARATOGA
On May 13, 1991, our firm surveyed the trees at the Ruehle property, 21097 Comer
Drive, Saratoga. A 5,478 square foot residence is proposed for this 1.95 acre lot. This
hilltop lot appears to have already been roughly- graded. It drops off steeply on the north
side.
This report will contain assessments of the present state of_the 7 trees found to be
affected by construction on site, and measures to be taken to protect them 'during
construction.
All trees on site which will be affected by construction activities were numbered and
tagged. Trunk locations were roughly located on the plot plan which was provided to us.
The species of each was identified, and D.B.H. (diameter at breast height height and
spread were estimated. Health and condition were rated. All of this information was
recorded on the enclosed map and charts. In addition, text was used for further
clarification.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Trees #1 through 5 are immediately adjacent to the roughly graded proposed homesite.
They are Growing at the top of the slope, and will be adequately protected with one
common fence during construction.
FERTILIZATION
Where sub- surface fertilization has' been recommended, it should occur in May, 1991,
unless otherwise stated. A solution of 4 lbs of Romeo Fertilizer's Greenbelt 22
per 100 gallons of water should be injected at the rate of 10 gallons per inch of diameter
at breast height (DBH).
This fertilizer provides_ stow release nitrogen- fertilization, as well as trace elements
such iron, zinc, etc.
Any tree which has had excavation occur within its dripline should be assumed to be
stressed. This stress can be reduced by providing supplemental irrigation to the
rootzone which is still intact.
IRRIGATION BEFORE AND AFTER ROOT DESTRUCTION
Any tree whioh has had excavation occur within its dripline should be assumed to be
stressed. This stress can be reduced by providing supplemental irrigation to-the
rootzone which is still intact.
Irrigation- is best provided using "ooze" -type soaker hoses.. They area "easily available at
hardware suppliers such as Orchard Supply Hardware,. and Home Depot.. These hoses
-1-
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT THE RUEHLE PROPERTY
21097 COMER DRIVE
SARATOGA
dribble water into the ground, providing deep watering wherever they are laid down.
Where the rootzone is intact, the soaker hose should be placed at the dripline. Where
root destruction has occurred, it should be placed over the cut ends of the roots. If left
on over night, enough water should easily be provided to penetrate 24" deep. Depth of
penetration should be checked with a soil probe or shovel.
Starting four weeks before any grading will occur near the tree, it should be irrigated to
a depth of 24 using soaker hoses as described above. Monthly irrigations during the
dry season should occur until one year after construction is completed.
FENCING ROOTZONES DURING CONSTRUCTION
A temporary construction period fence should be erected around each tree which is to be
retained in the final landscape. This fence should be erected at the dripline of each tree.
If groves of trees'are to be.protected, one common fence can be erected around the entire
grove. A common fence can be utilized on the uphill side of trees #1 -5. Where
construction intrudes into rootzones, this fence should be erected 24" from the limits of
that construction. It should consist of portable cyclone fencing, or wire mesh securely
attached to metal posts driven into the ground. It should not be easy for construction
workers to move, or take down,
This fencing should be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and
should not be removed until final landscape grading is completed. If for any reason it
becomes necessary for any machinery to enter the fenced -in rootzone of a tree, an
International Society of Arboriculture .Certified Arborist should be consulted- first:
It cannot be emphasized enough how important these fences are. From our experience,
soil compaction and trenching through rootzones are the number one causes of tree
stress in the post construction period. The fences are the silent guards around the trees.
It should be explained clearly to all contractors and workers on site that .these fences. are
sacred.
Trenching of any sort must be planned to avoid traveling beneath tree canopies. This
must include planning for P.G. &E., sewer lines, electrical power, cable T.V., and
irrigation. Plans. should show specific locations of trenches, if possible.
PRUNING. AND OTHER WORK
,Pruning, cabling, and any other specific treatments recommended in our reports, should
be completed before construction is finished.
All pruning should be performed by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist, according to Western
Chapter I.S.A. Pruning Standards (see copy enclosed). No pruning should be performed
by carpenters or grading personnel, before, during or after construction.
-2-
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT THE RUEHLE PROPERTY
21097 COMER DRIVE
SARATOGA
DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPING
All plantings within 10' of the driplines of Coast Live Oaks Quercus agrifolia, should be
drought tolerant. The definition our firm generally uses is any plant which, once
established,- needs no more than monthly irrigation during the dry season to be
maintained in good condition. Plants which need no irrigation during the dry season
would be preferable, but such a requirement would restrict plant palettes severely. See
the publication "Drought- Tolerant Plants and Landscapes for the Bay Area," published
by East Bay Municipal Utility District.
All irrigation within a dripline, or within 10' of a •dripline of a Coast Live Oak should be
"drip" irrigation. No above ground sprayers, such as "MicroJets," should be utilized in
these areas.
No plantings should occur within 6' of the trunk of Coast Live Oaks. A mulch of organic
matter or stones is acceptable in these areas.
Specific Trees
Tree #1, Coast live Oak, Quercus agrifolia
'This large old Oak is in relatively good condition and has a fair structure.
Extensive decay is present down the center of'its southern -most trunk. This does not
necessarily mean the trunk will fall apart. Adequate vascular tissue seems to be present'
to support the limbs of this trunk. When this tree is pruned; end- weight removal
should be performed on all of the major.limbs which emerge from this decayed trunk. In
addition, end weight removal should be performed on the two east facing major limbs
which are part of the eastern-most trunk. Dead weight removal should also be
performed on this tree.
This tree will be protected by a fence which_ will be part of the common fence prot4cting
trees #1 through 5.
Trees #2 and 3 Coast Live Oaks
These two trees were hastily pruned when grading occurred some time back on this lot.
Stubs and improperly cut branches should be recut by a Certified Arborist as described
under "General Comments
These trees should be sub- surfaced fertilized and irrigated:
Tree #4, Coast Live Oak
This Oak has a relatively poor structure, leaning toward -the south east. The limb at 7'
-3-
TW:la
Enclosures: Map
Charts
Chart Definitions
ANALYSIS OF THE TREES
AT THE RUEHLE PROPERTY
21097 COMER DRIVE
SARATOGA
above grade is poorly attached to the tree. If this tree is to be retained in the landscape,
it should be pruned every two years by a Certified Arborist. -End- weight removal should
be performed as the tree grows larger to prevent limbs from splitting out.
Tree #5, Coast Live Oak
This young, healthy tree has a good structure. It should be protected behind the same
fence which will protect trees #1 through 5. See enclosed map.
Tree #6, Fruiting Almond, Prunus amygdalus
This old tree has lost at least one trunk. It is extensively decayed down the center. All of
the multi- trunks are candidates to split out. It is in poor health and should be removed.
Tree #7, Coast Live Oak
This tree is a fine example of the species. It is irr excellent health and has a good
structure.
Some included bark is present in the two major portions of this tree. 'Performing end
weight removal every two years on the western facing trunk should reduce the chance
that it will split out. This fine specimen should be protected with a construction period
fence as shown on the enclosed map.
Respectfully submitted,
Terence Welch, Associate
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
cr
cD
cn
U t
11
0
co
1.6/C 149 31VC]
rn
01
4,
w
n
Key
BARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1032
7
B
H
D D
y
D
3
Z
TI
Q
j
7
y
V
v
7
D
M
y
7
y
y
D
y
H
:D
y
Plant Name
o
cn
w
'CO
w
ro
DBH (inches)
x
x
x
x
MULTI -STEM
aD
o
ro
DBH (inches)
N
DBH (inches)
o
8
8
o
o
8
o
HEIGHT
Ul
01
ao
o
o
o
o
SPREAD
1
w
CO
CO
CO
N
HEALTH (1 -5)
iv
4=6
CO
CO
CO
n)
ro
STRUCTURE (1 -5)
NEEDS THINNING
Iv
w
REMOVE ENDWEIGHT
ROOT COLLAR
COVERED (1 -5)
ROOT COLLAR
DISEASE (1 -5)
0)
TRUNK DECAY
INSECTS (1 -5)
TREE CROWN
DISEASES(1 -5)
CO
N
N
ro
DEADWOOD (1 -5)
DAMAGE TO
PAVING (1 -5)
CABLES NEEDED
w
w
w
NEEDS FERTILIZEP
w
w
w
NEEDS WATER
RECOMMEND
REMOVAL
REMOVAL PRIORITY
PRUNING PRIORITY
0 O -n D
G)
E 1 m
m
z
-1
cr
cD
cn
U t
11
0
co
1.6/C 149 31VC]
'1
41k)
1-11 Iri
490
500
VA.
to
N 67'26 25' E
173.46'
1
dik PRONIA.
'6
Pk. If ri e e
l
46 .-,:ti l I
417
3 P1701.4 1,1 X e
I --r
6 •i• 12'..)
_AISO r ....-kr• ,-k,„s 1.------
........-4,... ....rrk
4 1.)./ ........k •ta. ma"
7 7 7
vs% 14 54 'I i
to fo: ........0
....ft.....
j j
1 1
/1 I
Planning Commissio7 Minutes
10/23/91
grading should be allowed on this lot, but she will leave the
swimming pool issue as is as long as any future site modifications
will come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
M/S Caldwell /Bogosian
111,,
Commissioner Caldwell added the condition of 100% bonding for five
year maintenance for restoration and landscaping.
Commissioner Durket stated he feels not all concerns have been met;
the house is far too long and it sits on a more than prominent
site.
Chair Moran expressed agreement with the City Attorney's comments
regarding the pool and she was happy with the current color of the
home.
CALL FOR THE QUESTION Ayes 4 Noes 2 Durket, Favero)
Absent 1
Chair Moran called a recess at 9:05 p.m.
The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
8. DR -91 -026 Ruehle, 21097 Comer Ave., request for design
review approval to construct a new 5,221 sq.
ft. two -story residence on a 1.95 acre site
within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. A rear yard pool, pool house
and associated decking are also proposed
(cont. from 9/25/91; application expires
11/19/91).
The Acting Planning Director gave the staff report noting that
staff concerns related to the swimming pool, the pool house and the
decking, have been addressed by the conditions of the resolution
requiring the applicant to relocate the swimming pool closer to the
house.
Commissioner Favero asked for information regarding slope set backs
and the Acting Planning Director responded the average slope is
37 the building site is less than 30% and does not require a
variance.
Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 9:23 p.m.
Steve Benzing, architect, addressed Commissioner Favero's concerns
about setbacks, stating that they hired a soils engineer to address
this issue who determined they should move the house away from the
steep part of the site. Mr. Benzing then reviewed the proposed
plan for the Planning Commission. The only change requested
concerned condition #8, requiring the brick veneer exterior
continue around the entire garage and the lower level elevation.
Mr. Benzing requested approval to landscape this area in lieu of
10
Planning Commissi! Minutes
10/23/91
placing the brick veneer to maintain the continuity by keeping
stucco since there is no other brick on this level.
Commissioner Caldwell asked how much of the roof area would extend
to 26 ft. Mr. Benzing reported that approximately 30% would be at
that height.
Ms. Nieman, 13217 Padero Ct., expressed concern that the previous
approval was based on using part of the Ruehle land. She further
stated that Mr. Diamond received approval based on the using part
of the land that is now Mr. Ruehle's land; the site approval and
building permits were based on using that land and it had been made
very clear that Mr. Diamond would not further subdivide the
property. Ms. Nieman further expressed concern with the lack of
access by fire vehicles to part of her property due to alterations
to the creek by surrounding development. Ms. Nieman questioned how
the lot line adjustment happened to allow the current situation to
exist without public notice.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if Ms. Nieman was concerned that Mr.
Flynn and Mr. Diamond are making use of this property to maximize
their properties and Ms. Nieman responded that was correct since
both are using this piece of land to get approvals.
Commissioner Favero asked for further clarification regarding the
fire access to her property. Ms. Nieman reported that at this
point they still do no have access to the back of her property. At
one time Mr. Crowell had agreed they needed it, but later issued a
letter indicating that the access was not necessary. Ms. Nieman
stated this was not the reason she was here tonight. Instead she
wanted to know how the land in question got transferred.
Resident, 13451 Old Oak Way, noted she had also been at the meeting
Ms. Nieman referred to and Mr. Diamond had been adamate that
nothing should bisect the property because he wanted to landscape
the whole driveway and the property was treated as his at that
meeting.
Commissioner Tucker stated she was not prepared to vote until this
matter is cleared up because the applicant is almost at the maximum
on the property.
Jack Harris, 21083 Comer Drive, stated the piece of property in
question was never discussed at that previous meeting; the property
was divided between Schwartz and Flynn and the issue of access at
that time was across the Diamond property.
Mr. Benzing noted that if the triangle- shaped piece of property in
question was not included, the loss in lot area versus the average
site slope would be about the same and they could build a slightly
bigger home.
MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
11
Planning CommissillIMinutes
10/23/91
M/S Tucker /Favero Ayes 6 Noes 0 Absent 1
Chair Moran asked if staff can verify that the square footage would
be greater if that triangle- shaped piece of property were not
included. Acting Planning Director Adar stated that she could not
respond at this time as staff has not had an opportunity to
investigate this and it is not shown on the parcel map.
Commissioner Favero stated that the issue of the piece of property
in question being used by two different properties needs to be
addressed before the Commission can take any action on this matter.
Commissioner Caldwell agreed, also noting that the foundation for
the decision in 1988 by the Planning Commission to restrict the
height of any structure on the site to 22 ft. is an issue in her
mind. She further stated that the issue of the triangle- shaped
piece of property should be addressed before moving into technical
aspects of the application.
Commissioner Tucker suggested continuing this item and direct staff
to resolve the issue of the property in question and provide the
Planning Commission with the minutes of the meeting where the 22 ft
height restriction was discussed.
Commissioner Bogosian stated he would like the issue of the
triangle- shaped piece of property addressed in the form of a
written memorandum before moving into the design review aspects of
the proposal.
Chair Moran added that she does not feel that 30% of the ridge
portion is a minor and would like to consider the 22 ft. height
restriction that was originally imposed.
MOTION to continue DR 91 -026 to November 13, 1991 meeting for a
resolution of those items noted.
M/S Caldwell /Bogosian
Chair Moran clarified for the applicant that the Commission is not
asking for changes at this time but are asking for additional
information from staff.
Harry Peacock, City Manager, suggested the Commission reopen the
public hearing at this time as they may want to take additional
testimony on this matter.
The prior motion was withdrawn by Commissioner Caldwell.
MOTION to reopen the public hearing and continue DR -91 -026 to the
November 13, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
M/S Caldwell /Favero
Warren Heid, architect, clarified that it appears the triangle
12
Planning Commissicinutes
10/23/91
piece is a part of the Ruehle property and this comes as a complete
surprise.
CALL FOR THE QUESTION Ayes 6 Noes 0 Absent 1
9. DR -91 -044 Lin, 20170 Rancho Bella Vista, request for
design review approval to construct a new
4,440 sq. ft. two -story residence on a 20,033
sq. ft. parcel within the R -1- 20,000 zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code
(cont. from 9/25/91; application expires
12/24/91).
The Acting Planning Director presented the staff report and
history.
Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 9:53 p.m.
Mr. Haws, 2067 Colusa Way, San Jose, addressed the Commission
regarding the arborist's report, noting they have complied with
arborist's wishes. Mr. Haws referred to letters received from Mr.
Mrs. Virgil and Mr. Mrs. Verone, and noted that these neighbors
have agreed to withdraw their objections after meeting with the
applicant at which time the plans were presented and their concerns
were mitigated. Mr. Haws continued to review the plans before the
Commission.
Commissioner Tucker asked if Mr. Haws had a written statement from
the neighbors regarding their withdrawal of their objections and
Mr. Haws responded he did not.
David Chen, applicant's representative, 19071 Portos Drive, stated
he was present at the meeting between the neighbors and the
applicant noting the neighbors were given an opportunity to review
the plans and seemed very pleased with them.
MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
M/S Caldwell /Bogosian Ayes 6 Noes 0 Absent 1
Commissioner Favero asked if the issue of privacy has been
resolved. Acting Planning Director Adar stated it has been
completely mitigated.
Chair Moran stated she felt it would be more appropriate for the
neighbors that had the objections to withdraw them rather than it
being done by a third party.
Commissioner Durket stated the Commission has to look at the
project in a "global" awareness and hear from the other neighbors
also.
Commissioner Bogosian'stated he agreed we should be looking at the
effect the project will have on all neighbors. He further stated
13
OF THE FOLLOWING
BENTS CAN NOT BE
EXISTING 60' R/W
BK 5952 OR 234 248
R =310.00'
FORMER PARCEL LINE A X4°00'
L221.64
Z '0394. AC
Kin j 8° 55 'V s44 0
9 0. 2 9 00' W
e =196
55.2 QO R 6 6 .6,
R 223 00' T 90 66.87
4) 34• L =107.78 1 R2260.00'
R2132.70 6 =4 °09
6.16 °00' Li 18.15
L =37.06
N
N
NET 7.877 AC
■SEMENT VOL. 75 DEEDS P 460
.0 1321 O.R. 181
3S 9 EGRESS 2869 O.R. 597
1 A n r; -r i l` '_r
PARCEL A
(N
0
0I
fs s 3o N
-6 4 4 s ov rwPM
�Ol 87°26 173.46') �N PCL. A
dr
40k 44. sli,
‹•..n
X4
[2----FORMER
PARCEL
LINE.
89 °53'3TE 279.74
50' EASEMENT 9 R/W
9798 0.R. 691
'O•
S
Hi' fir` I T 3
R•276 EXISTING 60' R/W TO 5693
6. 11°42 4 3` BK5952 O.R. P. 243
L• 56.21 ND Ilk 5703 OR. 284
u 3!•53'31' W
141.00)
0 I
0
0
N
AO n I
a
PARCEL B
NET 1.951 AC
0 I
0
N
I
SNIFFEN
LOT 2
Tr. 5693
EXIST. 30' I.&E.
AND P.U.E. RUNNING
WITH PCL. A.
4818 O.R. 210
NOR: ING
Pa.
1v�Jt� -s
Commissioner Pines moved to approv -590 Moa., aauilly
previously stated by Staff. missi••er Guch seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimous
Commissioner Pines mo to approve A -1160, changin ondition #1 from
25' to 24'4 C. issioner Burger seconded the mo on, which was
carried unani •.sly.
Commiss'•ner Pines moved to approve SDR -1616, with the amendment the
con.- ion from the Fire District, as previously discussed. Commissio
rger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
The public hearing was opened on Item #2, George Flynn, at 7:47
p.m•
Commissioner Guch gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the site
and building pad. She stated that she had removed the item because she
would like a condition added that would restrict the height of the
house. She suggested 22 ft., which would allow for a two -story but
would not be as objectionable as a home with a greater height.
Commissioner Burger concurred. At Commissioner Harris' inquiry,
discussion followed on a the possible splitting of this lot. Staff
indicated that it had been determined that a variance could not be
granted to split a lot.
Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, indicated that no scenic easement was
proposed for this site. The City Attorney clarified that accessory
structures could be put on the one side of the lot west of Comer. Staff
noted that a modification for the building site approval would be needed
to put accessory structures there.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR
1601. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 6 -0.
Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR -1601, adding Condition VIII -D
to state that the building of a future home would be restricted to a
height of 22 ft. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was
carried unanimously 6 -0.
aring was opened on Item #4, Elizabet
p.m.
cant referenced the petition from the neighbors relativ
CORRESPONDENCE
411 411
WARREN B HEIR AIA
A ND A S S O C I A T E S
A R C H I T E C T S PLANNERS
1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY P.O. BOX 14 SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 867 -9365
November 8, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: DR -91 -026
Mr. Mrs. W. Ruehle
21097 Comer Drive
Dear Chairperson Moran and members of the Planning Commission;
I am writing to you so that you may have time to review these
issues prior to the public hearing Wednesday November 13, 1991.
At the Commission meeting of_October 25, 1991. Mrs. Nieman
raised an issue regarding a portion of Mr. Mrs. Ruehle's
property. She stated that it was her opinion that a portion of
the Ruehle's property was used by Mr. Steve Dymand in floor area
calculations for his Design Review application. She also stated
it was now being counted again in the floor area calculations of
the Ruehle's application.
I have reviewed this situation with Mr. Todd Graff, presently
with HMH Civil Engineers (Engineers for this project), and
formerly the City planner involved wita the Dymand design review
application, and with Ms. Tsvia Adar. Mr. Graff's finding are
presented in a letter to Mr. Ruehle, a copy of which is attached.
Ms. Adar and I calculated the allowable floor area for the Dymand
property and it is our conclusion that the portion of property in
question was not used by Mr. Dymand in his floor area
calculations.
At that same Commission meeting, Commisssioner Caldwell inquired
about the former and expired condition of a 22' -0" height
limitation imposed on a previous application for this property as
mentioned in the Staff Report. The Staff Report is not
recommending the 22' -0" limitation for the Ruehle application,
however it was included in the Staff Report as information.
In reviewing the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February
26,1986, this office found that Commissioner Guch removed the
Flynn application for Tentative Building Site Approval (SDR -1601)
from the Consent Calender, and then recommended the condition of
a 22' -0" height limitation. There was no discussion from other
Commission members and the application was approved with this
added condition.
City of Saratoga Planning Commission
November 8, 1991 Page 2
The Flynn Tentative Building Site Approval expired February 26,
1989.
It also must be realized that the aforementioned Flynn
application was for one lot, with a gross area of 5.57 AC. (See
attached map). In September 1989 the Flynn property was divided
into two parcels by an approved Lot Line Adjustment. This Ruehle
application is for only the northern 1.95 AC of the original lot.
The southern portion of the original Flynn Tentative Building
Site Approval property is now a portion of the Steven Dymand
property, which has a total acreage of 8.25 AC. Mr. Dymand
applied for, and was granted in September 1989, a variance to
permit a height of 26' -0" for a home on this acreage. This is
contrary to the condition imposed by the Planning Commission in
1986 on the Flynn Tentative Building Site Approval.
By City Ordinance, the height limit in the Northwest Hillside
Residential Zone is 26' -0 The proposed Ruehle residence is
designed to a height of 25' -4 as calculated in accordance with
the City of Saratoga methods. The portion of the roof ridge that
extends to this height is only 21' -0" in length compared to the
overall building length of 106' -0 In our opinion, to reduce
the height of the ridge of this residence will drastically change
the proportions. An unbalanced relationship between the roof and
walls of this traditional style home will be created if the
height is reduced.
The surrounding homes are higher than 22' -0 both recent
construction and older homes. To require this reduction in
height is not consistent with the height of the immediate
neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Ruehle will not have the same
privilege of height granted previous neighbors.
I will be attending the Commission meeting on November 13, 1991.
If you wish to contact me prior to that meeting I will be glad to
discuss this matter.
Thank you for your consideration of the above information.
Sincerely,
Warren_B. Heid AIA Associates
Steven M. Benzing
Project Architect
cc: Mr. Mrs. William Ruehle
Ms. Tsvia Adar, Assistant Planner City of Saratoga,
November 6, 1991
Job No. 1927-01-99
Mr. William Ruehle
10220 Stonydale Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Comer Drive, Saratoga
Dear Mr. Ruehle:
SENT ,AY: XEROX Telecopier 7017;11 5 -01 2 :21PM HMH Incorpora d-+ 4088673750;# 2
41
MI Kenneth H. Hankins, R.C.E.
HMH, Incorporated Edwin J. Miller. H.C,E.
Civil Engineers Planners Surveyors June! T. Harper
John E Emus. R.C,E.
WlMiam J. Wapner RCE.
Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the preliminary title report (274366 -SR)
prepared by Santa Clara Land Title Company on May 3, 1990. The legal description
In this document Indicates that the subject property Is 2.25 gross acres in area.
Included within the boundaries of the property Is the small triangular area on the north
side of Comer Drive at the westernmost edge of the property. This legal description
is consistent with the record boundary exhibit that we provided to you on February
20, 1991. Subsequent to the Issuance of the title report, the Comer Drive right -of -way
was dedicated to the City of Saratoga. Therefore, the gross area of the subject
property is 1.95 acres. The net area (based on City of Saratoga requirements) of the
subject property is 1.89 acres due to an access easement along the street frontage.
We have also reviewed the Lot Line Adjustment Map prepared for Steven Dymand
(dated April 1989) and a recorded Parcel Map (Book 613, page 14) dated April 28,
1990. Both of these maps were prepared by Jennings- McDermott- Heiss, Inc. It
appears that these maps are inconsistent in that the Lot Line Adjustment Map
Indicates that the triangular area was to be included with the Dymand property
whereas the recorded Parcel Map Indicates that the triangular area is part of your
property. It appears that the Lot Line Adjustment Mapis graphically unclear since the
acreage figures are consistent with the Parcel Map.
It Is our understanding that, In calculating allowable floor area for the Dymand
property, the City used the figures shown on the Lot Line Adjustment Map. Based
on the information that we have reviewed, it appears that these figures are correct
and consistent with the Parcel Map although the Lot Line Adjustment Map may not
have been clear. Therefore, it Is our opinion that the triangular piece was not
included in the Dymand floor area calculation.
.On November 5, 1991, we spoke with Mr. Bill Heiss of Jennings- McDermott- Heiss,
Inc. Mr. Heiss stated that the intent of the Lot Une Adjustment was to consolidate
all property on the north side of Comer Drive into one parcel. The recorded Parcel
Map carried out that intent.
.MM M.......
1353 Oakland Road P.O. SOX 811510, San Jose. CA 95161-1510 408/294 -3232 Fax 408/298 -381Z:
SENT +Y: XEROX Teleccpier 7017;11— 8 -91 2:22PM
November 6, 1991
Job No. 1927 -01-99
Page 2
We hope that this letter will clear up any confusion concerning the boundaries of your
parcel or your allowable floor area. Please let me know If you require our attendance
at the Planning Commission hearing on November 13, 1991.
Very truly yours,
HMH, Incorporated
Todd Graff
Associate Planner
TG:cs /19270199.Itr
cc: Ms. Tsvia Adar, City of Saratoga
Mr. Bill Heiss, Jennings- McDermott Heiss, Inc.
HMH Incorporated
4088673750;# 3
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Martin Jacobson
DATE: 4/12/89
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION:
APPLICANT /OWNER: Flynn
APN: 503 -17 -27
SDR- 1601.2; Comer Drive
PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
"407 -1 o 8
sort
col
21029
Iz4bs (L)
4 -17 -E1
20175 (Al
?o9 72
12.135
501 1s -21
21190
55.17 L1
12 tic. (n1
�t4.7f
COMER DR.
£O 40 (0)
•ti►- le- 74
12!!1
00I 1111
12!11
se..J 1L-f
TO:
FROM:
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Planning Director
DATE:
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for DR -91 -061,
V -91 -016, Marchetti, 14668 6th Street
1
2/5/92
8).6
This item was originally heard at the January 8th, 1992 regular
Planning Commission hearing. The Draft Minutes from that meeting
are attached for reference.
The proposal is a request for Design Review approval to construct
a new, two story, single family dwelling and for Variance ap-
proval to encroach into the required front, side and rear yard
setbacks in the R -M (Multi Family) 3000 zoning district. The
project site is nonconforming in terms of site area, width, depth
and frontage. A complete analysis of the site is contained in the
staff report dated 1/8/92 (attached).
Staff was able to support the design and felt strongly that the
proposed home would be an attractive addition to this section of
6th Street, however, all of the required findings for the vari-
ances could not be made. With this in mind, staff asked the Com-
mission to offer direction in regard to the three following
alternatives.
Alternative One- Approve the application as submitted. Requires
making all of the required Variance findings.
Alternative Two- Ask the applicant to redesign the project to
that meet the setback standards of the coordinate residential
zoning district. This would still require a variance from the
setback standards of the R -M zoning district.
Alternative Three- Ask the applicant to redesign within the
applicable R -M zoning standards. This would eliminate the need
for any variance.
As indicated in the report, the preferred staff alternative was
number one.
The Planning Commission discussion centered on the Variance
requests as related to the setback standards of both the Multi
Family and R -1 zoning districts. A motion to approve the Variance
was defeated by a vote of 4 -2. The Variance was subsequently de-
nied.
The Commission continued to discuss the item and expressed,
several times, the willingness to review a scaled down, rede-
signed version of the proposal, particularly one that met the R -1
zoning district setback standards.
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated 1/8/92
2. Planning Commission Draft Minutes dated 1/8/92
3. Plans
ively Submitted,
an A. isner, AICP, AEP
nterim Planning Director
REPOR c TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -91 -061, V -91 -016, 14668 6th Street
Applicant /Owner. Marchetti
Staff Planner. George White
Date: 1/8/92
APN: 517 -08 -001
Director Approval:
File No. DR -91 -061, V -91 -016, 14668 6th St.
CASE HISTORY:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Application filed: 10/14/91
Application complete: 11/12/91
Notice published: 12/25/91
Mailing completed: 12/26/91
Posting completed: 12/19/91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review
Approval to construct a new, two story, single family home and
variance approval to encroach into the required front, side and
rear setbacks in the R -M -3000 zoning district per chapter 15 of
the City Code.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:The project is located in the Village area on
a substandard lot. The site is occupied by a small one story
bungalow which is scheduled to be demolished.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Staff seeks direction from the Planning
Commission as to which of three listed alternatives is desira-
ble.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Design Review Criteria, Sec. 15- 46.040 City Code, Exhibit "C"
3. Plans, Exhibit "A"
4. Setback Comparison, Exhibit "B"
gw /dsc
File No. DR -91 -061, V -91 -016, 14668 6th St.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -M 3000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential
Multi Family
PARCEL SIZE: 5000 Square feet.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 11.8%
GRADING REOUIRED: Cut: 420 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 3 ft.
Fill: 12 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 1 ft.
MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Gray composite shingle roof, tan
siding with brown trim and cobblestone veneer wainscotting
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE: 67' max.
WIDTH OF STRUCTURE: 29' max.
PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
LOT COVERAGE 1746 sq. ft.(35 2000 sq. ft.(40
HEIGHT 26' 30'
SIZE OF 1st Floor: 1271 sq. ft.
STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 1118 sq. ft
TOTAL: 2389 sq. ft.
Note: Excluded from the floor area amounts are the below grade
basement and the garage area that does not exceed 7.5 feet in
height. These areas are 1209 and 468 square feet, respectively.
The total living area of the proposed structure is 4066 square
feet.
SETBACKS:
Front: 15'.
Rear: 18'4"
Exterior Side: 15'
Interior Side: 6'
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Current Site Conditions-
(There are no floor
area standards in the
R -M Zoning district)
Front: 25'
Rear: 25'
Exterior Side: 15'
Interior Side: 12'
The project site is located on 6th Street at the junction of St.
Charles and Pamela Way. The parcel is presently occupied by a
dilapidated, one story, single family residence. The lot is
bounded on the north by a similar residence, on the south by St.
Charles Street, on the east by a vacant parcel and on the west
by 6th Street.
The parcel is substandard in that it is 5000 square feet in size
where 14,000 square feet is required. In addition, the width and
depth of the parcel do not conform to the district standards.
The existing structure encroaches into the required interior
File No. DR -91 -061, V -91 -016, 14668 6th St.
sideyard setback by 3 feet, into the front setback by 6 feet and
into the exterior side setback by 4 feet.
The structure is not listed on the inventory of Historic Re-
source for the City of Saratoga nor does it appear to be of any
value, either historically of architecturally.
Zoning
While the primary use in the R -M -3000 zoning district is multi-
family residential, single family residences are permitted. The
fact that the site is only 5000 square feet in size makes it an
unlikely candidate for a multiple family development without a
variance being granted to do so.
Since the proposal is for a single family home, staff feels that
it is useful to be familiar with the appropriate standards that
would be applicable to this project if it were located in a R -1
zoning district. A comparison table follows:(A visual compari-
son has been provided by the applicant and is attached as
"Exhibit B
Proposal R- 1- 10,000
Height 26' 26'
Setbacks
Front 15' 25'
Rear 18'4" 20'
Ext. Side 15' 15'
Int. Side 6' 12'
Floor area 2389 Sq. Ft. 2400 Sq. Ft. Max
The proposal, as submitted, still deviates from the R -1 zoning
standards for the interior side, front and rear yard setback
requirements.
Design Review-
The plans call for the construction of a 2389 square foot, two
story home. As noted, the basement and garage areas are excluded
from the floor area total. The style of the residence is vague-
ly Tudor or as expressed by the applicant: "English Country
The applicant has been very cooperative in removing much of the
architectural detailing that conflicted with the Village Design
Guidelines. The final proposal is an articulated, two story
structure which incorporates a number of intersecting gable end
roof elements. A continuous band of roofing separates the upper
and lower stories to reduce vertical massing. The home is fin-
ished with mullion windows and minimal half timbering. The
result is a structure that meets the design criteria established
in the Village Plan and conforms, except for the setbacks which
are discussed below, with all aspects of the R -M zoning dis-
trict. A rendering of the proposal, as seen from the intersec-
tion of Pamela Way and 6th Street, has been included for an
additional visual aid. (cover page of "Exhibit A
Staff feels that, if the attendant Variance request is granted,
all of the Design Review criteria required by Chapter 15 -46 of
File No. DR -91 -061, V -91 -016, 14668 6th St.
the City Code can be supported. This criteria differs from the
Single Family Design Review Findings. The applicable criteria is
listed below. (Section 15 -46 has also been attached for Commis-
sion review as "Exhibit C
Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the
natural landscape and be nonreflective.
Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile
or other materials such as composition as approved by the
Planning Commission.
The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of
height, bulk and design with other structures in the immedi-
ate area.
If staff is directed to prepare a resolution for approval these
criteria will serve as the basis for the Design Review findings.
Variance Discussion
The applicant is requesting that a variance be granted to
encroach into the required interior side, front and rear yard
setbacks. The site plan show a 6 foot interior side where 12
feet is required for a 26 foot tall structure, a 15 foot front
setback where 20 feet is required and a 18 feet 4 inch rear
setback where 20 feet is required.
The site is severely constrained by its size and configuration.
The applicant contends that, by granting the variances the
proposed structure will conform with the front setback that has
been historically established on 6th Street and that will
provide a usable backyard. In addition, it is submitted that the
interior side setback will be increased from the existing 3 feet
to 6 feet and the exterior side will be increased from 11 to 15
feet.
While staff commiserates with the applicant over the obvious
constraints of the lot, it is clear that a structure could be
designed that would meet the setback requirements of the dis-
trict. It is clear that a structure that conforms to the R -M
setbacks standards for this lot would be somewhat unorthodox and
probably impractical for a single family residence. Staff
strongly concurs with the applicant that the opportunity exists,
with this request, to replace a dilapidated structure with an
attractive, well designed residence. Since the letter of the
code could be achieved by redesigning the project, staff cannot
technically make all of the required Variance findings and,
therefore, must fall short of recommending approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal carefully,
keeping in mind the potential development of this site under the
R -M standards as they relate to the appropriate R -1 standards.
Staff believes strongly that this project would be a welcome
addition to this portion of 6th Street. The proposal is in
compliance with the Village Design Guidelines and meets all
other requirements of the code except for setbacks. Staff can
make all of the required Design Review findings based on the
File No. DR -91 -061, V -91 -016, 14668 6th St.
design crieteria of Chapter 15 -46. Since the approval of the
Design Review is contingent upon the granting of the Variances,
Staff suggests that the Commission consider three alternatives:
1. Approve the project as submitted. This requires the
Commission to make all of the required Variance findings in
addition to Staff's findings for Design Review. Staff would
prepare Resolutions for approval to be adopted at the next
regular Planning Commission meeting.
2. Continue the application to allow the applicant time to
revise the plans to a projects that conforms to the appropriate
R -1 setback standards but that still requires a variance from
the R -M setback standards.
3. Continue the project to allow the applicant to submit a
plan that conforms with the existing R -M setback standards and
requires no variance.
As previously stated, Staff cannot make all of the required
Variance findings to support this project as submitted. Staff
feels strongly, however, that this proposal could be an attrac-
tive addition to the Village area and would meet the needs of
the applicant as well as the intent of the Village Plan. Alter-
native number 1, therefore, is preferred by Staff.
dr -91 -06
Page 15 -137
P4 1 5 mot' c_"
Zoning Regulations S15- 46.040
(b) The application shall be accompanied by the payment of a process
fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City
Council, together with a deposit toward the expense of noticing the public hearing
as determined by the Planning Director.
S15-46.040 Design criteria
In reviewing applications for design review approval under this Article, the
Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the
architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features
include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the
signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be
harmonious in appearance.
(c) Landscaping shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to
being placed in rows or regularly spaced.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural
landscape and be nonreflective.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood singles, wood shakes, tile, or other
materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No
mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately
screened.
(f) The proposed develoment shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk
and design with other structures in the immediate area.
S15 46.050 Expiration of design review approval ezteodoas
(a) Design review approvals granted pursuant to this Article shall expire
twenty-four months from the date on which the approval became effective, unless
prior to such expiration date a building permit is issued for the improvements
constituting the subject of the design review approval and construction thereof is
commenced and prosecuted diligently toward completion, or a certificate of
occupancy is issued for such improvements.
(b) Design review approvals may be extended for a period or periods of time
not exceeding thirty -six months. The application for extension shall be filed prior to
the expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee in such
amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. If a
public hearing was conducted on the original design review application, a public
hearing shall similarly be conducted on the application for extension and notice
thereof shall be given in the same manner as prescribed in Subsection 15- 46.020(b)
of this Article. Extension of design review approval is not a matter of right and the
approving authority may deny the application or grant the same subject to
conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES DATED 1/8/92
9. DR-91-061 Marchetti; 14668 6th Street, request for design
V -91 -016 review approval to construct a new, 2,386 sq.
ft., two story, single family home, and a
request for variance ap?roval to encroach into
the required front, side and rear yard
setbacks in the R zoning district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planner Walgren summarized staff report.
Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at about 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Marchetti said he is hoping the Commission will accept
Alternative #1. He gave a brief biography on his wife and himself.
He said they had purchased this property last August with the
intent of converting it into a home for their family. Even though
the property has restrictions, he feels the Village area is what
they have been seeking. This is not a "speck" home, it will be
their residence. They need to utilize as much space as possible to
accommodate their family and justify their investment in the
property This is a non conforming lot. Both R -M and R -1
standards are impractical. The proposed footprint is more
conforming to setbacks than the existing house yet it allows some
room for a backyard. On 6th Street the setback from the road would
be 27 ft. He said this is the first new construction in the area.
Allowing single family rather than multiple dwelling in the R -M
district will encourage other single family dwellings rather than
multiple dwellings. Thus reducing congestion in the area. He
feels this development may encourage others in the area to make
improvements. Mr. Marchetti said they have talked to many in the
neighborhood and they support the project and some of their
comments are "this home will be an attractive addition to the
neighborhood He presented to staff 38 signatures who are
homeowners who are in favor of the proposed plan.
Mrs. Marchetti wished to thank George White and James Walgren in
the Planning Department for all their help in this project.
Comm. Bogosian asked staff if you add in below grade rooms that is
up to about 3,000 sq. ft. Planner Walgren said the residence
15
including the garage would be close to 4,000 sq. ft. minus the
garage would be about 3,600 sq. ft. and that is including the 1,200
sq. ft. below ground, it will be finished off, but it will be below
grade.
Comm. Tucker asked if this application would harm the tree that is
already there. Planner Walgren said the tree you are discussing is
on the adjacent property. The City Arborist was not involved in
reviewing this proposal because the tree is not on this lot.
Mr. Herman Wersh and his sister, stated they had the adjacent
property -after much discussion it was discovered they were not
speaking about the Marchetti property.
M/S to close the Public Hearing Favero /Durket. Ayes 6
Chair Moran closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m.
Comm. Bogosian stated he looked over the site and has seen the
plans. He cannot make findings number one of the Variance that
there is a special circumstance with the lot. There are
alternatives that could be proposed for building on this lot that
would conform to the setbacks. Therefore at the outset he will not
be able to support the project on those grounds. Moving on to the
issue of the design, he would like to see something that did
conform to the lot brought back to the Commission.
Comm. Favero says he is also concerned with the size of the home
versus the lot, however the Commission is talking about mixed
residential, multi family and there is no opposition from the
neighbors. The kind of Variance that the. Commission is granting
seems to be minor setbacks versus an attractive house in an area
that is already quite high density with condos nearby. He will be
proposing that the Commission approve this application.
Comm. Tucker said she will not be able to vote in favor of this
proposal, because like staf,f she cannot make the findings for the
Variance. She said her thinking is to look at this as an R -1 -10
and to try to put something that would conform to those standards
on this lot.
Comm. Favero said that is exactly the attraction -that we have the
benefit of lower density environment in a situation where it is
both multiple family dwelling and has the density, and the
applicants are willing to put in a single family home in a mixed
zone.
Comm. Forbes agreed that it is a well designed house, but this is
not the place for the house, so he said he will not be supporting
this. Comm. Favero asked what it would take to get support?
Chair Moran asked if this was R -1 -10 lot what would be the maximum
house size? Planner Walgren replied 2,400 sq. ft. above grade is
just under 2,400 sq. ft. but that is excluding the garage, because
the interior height is less than 7 -1/2, roughly, including the
garage it is now 2,800 sq. ft.
16
Comm. Favero asked what is acceptable to the Commissioners as a
single family house size? Comm. Forbes said 2,400 sq. ft., and one
story above ground. Chair. Moran said she finds two -story to be
appropriate there. Comm. Favero said he felt comfortable with
that, because of the two -story condos right down the street.
Comm. Bogosian said he would seek a plan that scaled down the
house. He believes a single family dwelling can be economically
and feasibly built on that lot and still conform to the setbacks.
He would like to see that presented to the Commission, maybe in a
Study Session. He agrees with Comm. Favero that a single family
use would be more desirable than multi family. He would like to
see if the applicant could come back with some alternative that
would fit. He would move toward the staff's #2.
Comm. Favero said if we ask the applicant to come back with a
modified design that either would conform precisely to the rules or
with more modest variances required. Would that be something that
would be acceptable to you? Perhaps a 300 or 400 sq. ft.
reduction? Comm. Bogosian said he would like to see something at
the outset that would meet the setback requirements, not exceed
them at all.
Comm. Tucker addressed Comm. Favero's concerns -some of her
concerns are along the same lines as Comm. Bogosian in that this
house is in this area, the R -M area, but the homes adjacent to it
are modest two -story and directly to the north that is a much lower
elevation to this home. When there is not enough setback then
privacy issues start coming up. She finds it very difficult to
grant the Variance.
The Interim Planning Director interjected that in the discussions
you have given the applicant and their design professionals a more
than a little bit of direction. In proposing Alternative #2 you
have suggested that they meet the R -1 setback since there are
preparing for a single family house, I think that we can provide
them comfortably, at least for the look -see to stay within the R -1
and to have the flexibility of the Variance if it is necessary
against the R -M requirements. If you are leaning in that direction
both set of restrictions to meet the R -1 standard would give them
at least the condition of the lot. One other matter that he wished
to talk about -Comm. Bogosian suggested that they come back to a
regular meeting or a study session -he reminds the Commission that
the Study Sessions agenda is pretty well filled up for the next
couple of months, he would suggest that the option would be to come
back to a regular session.
Chair Moran said the Commission is dealing with a very small lot
and privacy concerns can add up very fast and whatever we do for
this lot we will have to live with it for many of the adjacent
lots.
City Attorney interjected she would at least like to make a
comment -in deciding which of the three options to give direction
on, keep in mind that two of them do require findings and as you
try to decide which way to go you might look at the Variance, you
could find yourself to make findings. They are strict and
17
difficult as you can tell from staff's struggle with the staff
report.
Chair Moran said suggestion #2 seems to be we are giving a strong
signal to the applicant to extend right out to the yellow box.
Comm. Tucker gets the impression that the yellow line is meeting
all the setbacks that are required by the R -10 zone, taking into
consideration that this is a substandard lot and we do look at
substandard lot differently and due the calculations. So why can't
we build without a Variance.
Chair Moran said this is not zoned R -110. The Planning Director
said the zoning of the property is R -M. If they can meet the R -1
standard, it is still going to be necessary to grant a Variance
because they are in the R -M zone.
Comm. Bogosian asked staff, bottom line, what is the maximum amount
of sq. ft. of living space the applicants could have if they stayed
within the blue lines. Planner Walgren said using the multi- family
setback envelope and anticipating that they had a full envelope, it
would be a 3,700 sq. ft., below grade basement and two stories
above. Also the staff analysis interpretation was that you also
end up with an awkward structure that was basically centered in the
middle of the lot and would be permitted to go up to the maximum
height of 30 ft.
Comm. Favero wants to say for the record, he thinks the Commission
is chasing minutes of issues of bureaucratic caliber and we are
missing the larger point.
M/S Favero /Durket motion that the plan be approved with option #1.
Comm. Tucker asked that the mover spell out the Variance findings
that he is making.
City Attorney clarified that the motion would be to improve the
project unless we do have to make the findings tonight, it would be
direct staff to prepare a Resolution containing directions of what
you want those findings to be.
Comm. Durket said that he could make the findings for the Variance.
In response to Comm. Tucker's asking the mover to spell out the
variance findings that he is making he then read the Variance
findings contained in the City Code.
Chair Moran asked the City Attorney to comment on the suitably of
those findings.
Comm. Favero said if Chair Moran is asking her to pass judgement on
the quality of his findings, he objects to that.
Chair Moran said no, her concern is that the Commission has to give
a reason to support the findings, rather that just read them. If
we are to pass this tonight and we direct staff to prepare a
Resolution, then it has to be a strong one.
18
Responding to the Chair's question the City Attorney said that just
as in the design review there are the standard findings that
eventually give conclusions. The findings must be supported by
factual evidence, the findings that Comm. Favero read into the
record are the stymie point. They reflect the conclusion that you
come too. The second part of that (unable to make this out) is
that you've got to support those findings with substantial evidence
from the record. Take the first finding for example that because
of the special circumstances applicable to the property including
several different things, you must identify these special
circumstances, might be size, might be shape, location, etc., any
or all of those. The second part of that specify you deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties. She stated the findings are fine, but they must be
supported by evidence.
Chair Moran thanked the City Attorney. She said we now have a
motion and second for approval of the Variance. There was no
discussion and Chair Moran called for a vote.
Ayes 2 (Comm Durket Favero)
Noes 4
Chair Moran said the Variance is denied, so therefore we will not
go forward with the Design Review at this point. The Commission
must now decide where they want to go from here. Chair Moran
suggests a compromise what Mr. Eisner suggested -that we look at
alternative #2 and ask
Comm. Favero said you can't do that now. Comm. Durket agreed that
it can't be done now because we have turned down the Variance.
The Interim Planning Director said that is the only option that is
available to you at this point, because you denied the Variance
which eliminates option one and two, so the next issue would be to
continue the matter to a certain time.
Chair Moran said she thinks the Commission should consider Option
#2, even though technically we cannot. Comm. Tucker said Option #2
is the map, that is not what is before us. In other words they
could come within the setbacks that are required and still be
within the R -1 -10. The configuration is drawn with a Variance in
mind, or are you just saying that is the 2,400 sq. ft. plopped
down.
The Interim Planning Director said that was the point, it was drawn
with a variance in mind. Option #2, had you not denied the
Variance, gave the applicants the opportunity to address the R -1
standards, and hopefully to address the R -M standards, you left
them the option of having some flexibility in having a variance,
but to a lesser degree. Having taken the action that you have
taken, what you are doing is directing them to continue the design
review and come back to you with a design that meets the setback
zone for the R -M zone and that is the option that is available to
you.
Comm. Tucker said she was voting for denial of the application
before the Commission this evening. She said it bothers her that
19
the Commission cannot go forward and look at an R -1 -10, direct the
applicant to build to those standards without a variance
Planner Walgren said that in affect, we are denying this Variance
application, if it is not possible to take a revote to keep the
Variance open for flexibility purposes the applicant would have to
technically make a new application to consider a variation or
modify the plan.
Comm. Forbes said suppose they came back two weeks from now with a
3" difference in variance tonight we did not deny with prejudice
so why couldn't they come back again with a difference in the
variance. Planner Walgren said they would have to make a
reapplication and be re- noticed to start the process all over
again.
The City Attorney suggested a motion to deny the Variance with
these dimensions, but leaving open the possibility for the
applicant to come back or continue the application and let the
applicant revise the project.
M/S Tucker /Moran Move for a revote.
Comm. Tucker said this application does warrant a Study Session.
Comm. Forbes agrees with this thought. Comm. Tucker said to look at
the R -M and R -1 -10.
Comm. Bogosian repeated that he cannot make the findings for the
Variance and will therefore not be able to vote for any kind of a
Variance at all.
City Attorney suggests if this is what the Commission wants to do
let the motion to reconsider to go forward. You have the motion
before you, let the motion be withdrawn and then you will have a
motion -she suggests to continue this item and direct the applicant
to come back.
Chair called for the motion to be withdrawn.
Ayes 5
Noes 1
At this point there is no motion on the floor.
Mrs. Marchetti asked to have the Public Hearing reopened. Chair
Moran said the Public Hearing is closed, if Mrs. Marchetti wishes
to force a vote, then it can be reopened. Chair Moran said her
sense is that it would be a "no" vote, but you do have the right to
appeal this to the City Council.
Comm. Forbes made a motion to let the applicant tell the Commission
what they want. Comm. Favero seconds.
Ayes 6
Chair Moran stated the Public Hearing is now reopened at 10:37 p.m.
20
Mrs. Marchetti said she is not sure she is understanding the
Exhibit, the yellow outline is the nonconforming R -1 setback, what
we are proposing is the pink line is what we are proposing, so we
are coming forward within 15 ft. of the street. Normally it would
be 20 ft. in an R -1 zone lot. We moved the R -1 forward 10 ft.
There is a right -of -way on 6th St. which is about 12 ft., so really
the house is 27 ft. from the street.
Mr. Roger Griffin, speaking for the applicants, trying to get
clarification. If we were to go with R -1 standards we could come
back to a continued Public Hearing and not have to wait for a Study
Session.
The Interim Planning Director said there is another set of lines on
the drawing that you have not considered. It seems to him that if
they match the R -M standard the blue line standard on the side, but
had the flexibility of going farther back, the depth of the lot to
the yellow line, granted it would still require a variance, but
that would give them the flexibility of design, the space that they
are looking for and it would reduce the degree of the variance that
they originally asked for.
Comm. Bogosian said we are talking about a variance, but we are
talking all sorts of design review. It is important to remember
that as a Commission we are charged to do two separate actions on
this project.
Mrs. Marchetti said all the neighbors were in favor of this
application.
Chair Moran called for a motion on the Variance. Comm. Favero said
he would like to reenact his original motion.
M/S Favero /Durket to approve V -91 -016.
The City Attorney said the motion would be to direct staff to
prepare a Resolution containing findings to approve the Variance.
Comm. Forbes will not support this Variance.
Chair Moran asked for a vote on the motion.
Ayes 2 (Favero and Durket)
Noes 4
M/S to deny DR -91 -061 Tucker /Forbes
Several Comm. gave their views as to why they will or will not
support this motion. Very hard to distinguish the speakers.
Ayes
Noes
4
2
Chair Moran told the applicants that this is a denial of the
project and the applicants can appeal this decision to the City
Council within 15 days.
The Interim Planning Director left due to illness.
21
T 1 T L E
OWNER
Pt 151 l' 0
at SP
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PKIPON01.1104/X4 FM
MUM a 11411104 NACCIIITTI
44444 CTN. ST.
SARATC414. CA
j
t.
Rt1MARARA
T
A
ja II
v
&AO".
..1
1
ti f
"DP74PP0'4
O'
1
a
a
EXISTING SHE
(10 OE REnovEO)
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1 20'
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: T -2P
OFFICE
GAME RM.
WI NE
ROOM
4!• -0
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
MEN
A
BASEMENT LIVING AREA 1208.67 sa.ft.
ST(
HA17EYy 1
BAT1 BEDROOM
1
L11
u•
-1
SCALE, 1 /4• -1' -S•
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
4 -0
40' -0
FIRST FLOOR LIVING AREA 1270.67 sq ft
GARAGE AREA (T-4 NT l) 468.22 sa ft
DINING RM. FOY
LIVING RM
20' -0
SCALE: 114••1
8 -a•
DECK
1
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
2' -18
tiASTtR
EIEDRPOM
SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA 1118.20 sa.ft.
V-A
1•-a•
71'
BEDROOM
1 -a
BEDROOM
CLOSET
12•-8'
BEDROOM
DECK
-4-
SCALE: 114'.1• -8•
LJ
L.LJ
c>
a
c>
LJ
uJ
z
u_.
FEW
WEST ELEVATION 6th. ST.)
SSE. ,T.., -1
GINET
ant SINGLE 100F
WOW n 131c tT1V.
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
1111 11 11=
11
SOUTH ELEVATION (ST. CHARLES)
STAIE3 1M-1'-I
3 COAT SHORN
STO® WAU HIGH
Lit• IF Ma
Moor TIM
sw mAtE.m asuTOlE
•B®t m 3111CO3 STOW
WOW WELLS
16321e12 WHOA TV.
FINISH
IGNARE
PROPERTY
N ATURAL
GRADE
L i
RETAIN!
WALL
B SECTION
12
SCALA:
ISTING
GRADE
LOW CONC. OLE.
RETAINING WALL
B
GA
NATURAL
GRADE
A SFCT I ON
_PROPERTY
LINE
00C1
12
H
SCALE, 114 -G
F INISH
c c: AN L:NE:es:
Immli WALL
VEW
IA 6A. 6L OPEET
CAPS
NORTH ELEVATION (SIDE)
111111
■1111■
-4
EN BE
NO IN Dil
■11■
4 liill E
EAST ELEVATION (REAR)
mm
L
1
STLLE
61 GA 61 O6+EY
CAPS
COOP. SINGLE R00F
mVM 6Y ELK cTRP.
3 MAT SPOOTN
STUCCO WALL RASH
ZIAOF MI061
f MOW TIM
M FRAMMM COX STOt
N6W 6Y STUCCO STOW
0133C W/ WACEO 7116
REDII® OFOOf
I■
■1■
1■
■1■
S1OOE 1,E1E. IASE)SR
MOOWS T4.W/ STARS
6133100( WOW
SCALE: 1/4'..1'-o•
COMP. SINGLE ROOF
TXMMT 6E E1X ON.
3 COAT 4OOTM
31110 WALL RCM
1Tµ OF m661
f WJOO/ TONS
SAN FRM ®M MOESTOC
VENEER OE SIUOM SURE
OCA IF BELLY
BAN)
-mil
zicid A reVi-ace
t,i■#•,:".1,'•"!!!•••••••"t.
To1.1-14 It772i -80-3 A )ALL ac-
t-ria14 cletrtilAt..4crra3
0
0
.1-
c:1Ver4derdel
l gt
I
pi
0
0
0
(N)
IP
Printed on recycled paper.
2/71
UMW off hNaa3
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
February 5, 1992
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Subject: Library Expansion Committee
Recommended Actions:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Mania
Francis Stutzman
1) Appoint a member of the City Council to the Committee (if desired).
2) Appoint a member of the staff to the Committee.
3) Direct recruitment effort to begin to select a member of the general
public to serve on the Committee.
Background: At your January 21, 1992, joint meeting with the Library Commission
you accepted the Commission's proposal to create a five member Committee
consisting of two Commissioners, one Councilmember, one staff member and one
member of the general public. The purposes of the Committee, as I understand
them, are to:
1) Work with staff to prepare an RFP for architectural services through design
development to expand the library by up to 18,000 square feet.
2) After the RFP is approved by the Council and circulated, to consider
proposals submitted by architects and recommend an architect to the City
Council.
3) To meet periodically with the architect during the design development
process to review the pruyLess of the work and give guidance to the
architect as design proposals are developed, and to present to the City
Council at the completion of the work at least two expansion proposals
which are acceptable to the Committee.
Subsequent to the Council's joint meeting with the Commission, the Commission
Chair, David Newby, has clarified that it was the Commission's intention that
the Committee consist of:
2 Commission members
1 City staff member
1 County staff member
1 General public member
Council should confirm this charter and the makeup of the Committee. Council
may wish to consider whether it is important to have a member of the Council
serve on the Committee as a sixth member. When the Finance Advisory Committee
was given the task of developing the Civic Center Improvement Plan, the Council
liaison to the Committee was included in the meeting as I recall. In retrospect
Printed on recycled paper.
Library Expansion Committee
February 5, 1992
Page -2-
I think the perspective of a councilmember proved to be helpful, especially in
dealing with the issues of overall layout and the scope of the project as the
design developed. While I know each of you has enough major commitments as
councilmembers, I don't think the work of the Committee would involve more than
about eight to ten meetings spread over the same number of months. However, I
also expect the meetings would normally occur in the late afternoon (i.e. 4 -6
p.m.) rather than at night to make it easier on the staff and Commission members
whose evening commitments are already substantial.
You should, therefore, select:
1 City Councilmember (as appropriate)
1 City staff member (either the City Manager or City Engineer would be the
recommended choice)
and authorize a recruitment process for the general public member.
I suggest the Council authorize notifications, press releases, notices and other
general means to find persons interested in serving on the Committee during the
remainder of February with interviews slated before your March 10th joint meeting
with the Public Safety Commission.
My suggestion for the staff member is based on the proposition that Mr. Perlin
and I are the most experienced staff members in selecting and working with
architects. Regardless of which of us takes the assignment, it must be
recognized that the spring season is the most intensive for both of us because
of the budget and capital improvement plan update and review process.
Consequently our time to devote to this effort will be constrained. If the
Committee is formed around April 1st, we should be able to get the RFP developed
and to the City Council in early July. Selection could take place over the next
couple of months and be finalized in early September. The work program would
probably take four to six months and involve meeting monthly during that time,
based on our experience with the work in developing the design for the Civic
Center.
Susan Fuller, the County Librarian, has contacted me and volunteered one of her
staff people to sit on the Committee.
If these proposals are acceptable, you should act on them now so the recruiting
effort can commence.
j040.hrp
Attachment
Peacock, City Manager
Printed on recycled paper.
OEM 04 0 [002)
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
February 5, 1992
To: City Council
From: Staff Representative, Library Commission
Subject: Library Expansion Committee
At a Commission meeting on January 28, 1992, the Library Commission
appointed Commission Chair David Newby and Commissioner Bill
Watkins to serve on the Library Expansion Committee.
Karen Campbell
Staff Represen ative, Library Commission
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
Printed on recyled paper,
Attachment
MEMO
TO: City Council/Planning Commission
FROM: James Walgren, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Multi-Family Residential District Density Standards
DATE: February 7, 1992
At the February 5th City Council Meeting discussion ensued
regarding the City's current density standards for the multi-family
zone districts. Questions were raised during the Marchettist
design review appeal concerning how many dwelling units would be
permitted on their 5,000 sq. ft. parcel. Pursuant to section
15.17.050 of the City Code (attached) the minimum net site area per
dwelling unit in an R-M-3000 zone district is 3,000 sq. ft. The
Marchetti property would need to be at least 6,000 sq. ft. to
permit two dwelling units. Whether considered a single family
residence, a townhome or a condiminium, one dwelling unit is the
maximum density permitted on this particular parcel.
In addition to the density regulations, development proposals
within an R-M district must also comply with site frontage, width
and depth standards and site coverage, building height, parking and
setback requirements. These additional requirements become quite
restrictive when attempting to develop a relatively small parcel.
Sections:
15- 17.010
15- 17.020
15- 17.030
15- 17.040
15- 17.050
15- 17.060
15- 17.070
15- 17.080
15- 17.090
15- 17.100
15- 17.110
15- 17.120
15- 17.130
15- 17.140
15- 17.150
15- 17.160
Purposes of Article
Permitted uses
Conditional uses
Site area
Site density
Site frontage, width and depth
Site coverage
Front yard, side yards and rear yard
Height of structures
Distance between structures
Accessory uses and structures
Fences, walls and hedges
Signs
Off street parking and loading facilities
Design review
Storage of personal property and materials
S15- 17.010 Purposes of Article
Zoning Regulations S15- 17.010
ARTICLE 15-17
R -M: MULTI- FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
sss
In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the multi family
residential districts are included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following
purposes:
(a) To reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of
types of dwellings, at a reasonable range of population densities consistent with
sound standards of public health and safety.
(b) To preserve as many of the desirable characteristics of single family
residential districts as possible, while permitting higher population densities.
(c) To provide space for community facilities needed to complement urban
residential areas and for institutions which require a residential environment.
(d) To protect residential properties from the hazards, noise and congestion
created by commercial traffic.
(e) To protect residential properties from fire, explosion, noxious fumes and
other hazards.
S15-17.020 Permitted uses
Zoning Regulations S15- 17.020
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the R -M districts:
(a) Single family dwellings.
(b) Multi- family dwellings.
(c) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted
use, including garages and carports, garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures,
recreation rooms, hobby shops, cabanas and structures for housing swimming pool
equiprn ent.
(d) Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties,
not including nurseries, greenhouses or storage of landscaping equipment, products
or supplies for commercial uses.
(e) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations
prescribed in Article 15 -40 of this Chapter.
(f) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their
guests.
(g) The keeping for private use of a reasonable number of dogs, cats and
other small mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set
forth in Article 7 -20 of this Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards
prescribed in Subsection 15- 11.020(h) of this Chapter.
S15-17.030 Conditional uses
The following conditional uses may be allowed in the R -M districts, upon the
granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter:
(a) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional
use.
(b) Community facilities.
(0) Institutional facilities.
(d) Police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and
facilities.
(e) Religious and charitable institutions.
(f) Nursing homes and day care facilities.
(g) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations,
drainage ways and structures, storage tanks and transmission lines.
(h) Recreational courts, to be used solely by persons resident on the site and
their guests.
Page 15 -78
(i) Model dwelling units utilized in connection with the sale of dwelling
units in a residential subdivision, located within the same subdivision or, in the
discretion of the Planning Commission, within another subdivision developed by the
applicant, for such period of time as determined by the Planning Commission, not to
exceed an initial term of one year and not exceeding a term of one year for each
extension thereof.
(j) Hotels, in the R -M -3,000 district only.
S15-17.040 Site area
The minimum net site area in each R -M district shall be as follows:
Net Site Area
District Interior Lot Corner Lot
R -M -3,000 12,000 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft.
R -M -4,000 12,000 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft.
R -M -5,000 10,000 sq. ft. 11,000 sq. ft.
S15-17.050 Site density
(a) The minimum net site area per dwelling unit in each R -M district. shall
be as follows:
Net Site Area
District Per Dwelling Unit
R -M -3,000 3,000 sq. ft.
R -M -4,000 4,000 sq. ft.
R -M -5,000 5,000 sq. ft.
(b) If after dividing the net site area of the property by the area required
per dwelling unit or per structure containing a dwelling unit, a remainder of ninety
percent or more of the area required for an additional dwelling unit or structure is
obtained, one additional dwelling unit or structure containing a dwelling unit may be
located on the site.
S15-17.051 Location of building sites
The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any structure shall not
exceed thirty percent slope, and no structure shall be built upon a slope which
exceeds forty percent natural slope at any location under the structure between two
five -foot contour lines, except that:
(1) A variance pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter may be
granted where the findings prescribed in Section 15- 70.060 can be
made, and
Supp. #11, 10/89 Page 15 -79
Zoning Regulations §15- 17.040
(2) An exception under Article 14 -35 of the Subdivision Ordinance may
be granted where the findings prescribed in Section 14- 35.020 can
be made.
S15-17.060 Site frontage, width and depth
The minimum site frontage, width and depth in each R -M district shall be as
follows:
District Site Frontage Site Width Site Depth
R -M -3,000 60 feet 100 feet 115 feet
R -M -4,000 60 feet 100 feet 115 feet
R -M -5,000 60 feet 100 feet 115 feet
S15- 17.070 Site coverage
Zoning Regulations §15- 17.060
The maximum net site area covered by structures in each R -M district shall
be forty percent.
S15- 17.080 Front yard, side yards and rear yard
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the minimum front yard,
side yards and rear yard of any lot in each R -M district shall be as follows:
Front Side Rear
Yard Yards Yard
25 feet 10% of site width 25 feet
(b) A side yard of more than twenty -five feet shall not be required, and a
side yard of less than ten feet shall not be permitted, subject to the following
exceptions:
(1) The exterior side yard of a corner lot shall be not less than fifteen
feet.
(2) One foot shall be added to an interior side yard for each two feet
of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure
within thirty feet of the side lot line for such yard exceeds
fourteen feet in height; provided, that an interior side yard of more
than twenty -five feet shall not be required.
(c) No structure used for human habitation and no structure containing
machinery or other fixed equipment capable of creating noise audible outside of the
structure shall be located closer than five feet from a side or rear property line.
Supp. #11, 10/89 Page 15 -80
S15-17.090 Height of structures
(a) No structure shall exceed thirty feet in height.
(b) No structure shall exceed two stories; provided, however, this restriction
shall not apply to a structure located within the Village which is found by the
approving authority to be compatible with existing structures and the natural
environment.
S15-17.100 Distance between structures
(a) Where there is more than one structure on a site, the minimum distance
between a structure used for human habitation and another structure shall be ten
feet.
(b) No structure used for human habitation shall be located closer than
twenty feet to any other structure used for human habitation on the same site.
S15- 17.110 Accessory uses and structures
Accessory uses and structures shall comply with the special rules as set forth
in Section 15- 80.030 of this Chapter.
S15- 17.120 Fences, walls and hedges
Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with the regulations set forth in Article
15 -29 of this Chapter.
S15- 17.130 Signs
No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in an R -M district,
except as permitted under the regulations set forth in Article 15 -30 of this Chapter.
S15- 17.140 Off street parting and loading facilities
Off street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the
site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15 -35 of this Chapter.
S15-17.150 Design review
Zoning Regulations 515-17.090
All structures shall be subject to design review approval in accordance with
the provisions of Article 15 -46 of this Chapter.
Supp. #11, 10/89 Page 15 -81
Zoning Regulations 515- 17.160
S15 17.160 Storage of personal property and materials
The regulations and restrictions set forth in Section 15- 12.160 of this Chapter,
pertaining to the storage of certain items of personal property, shall apply to the
R -M districts and the same are incorporated herein by reference.
Supp. #11, 10/89 Page 15 -82