Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-1985 City Council Agenda packet42- 4 7 1 FJ i AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 11/22/85 (12/4/85) DEPARTr4NT: Community Development s Issue Summary Fiscal Lnpacts Exhibits /Attachments Council Action 12/4: Approved Resolution MV 162. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Ad. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Elimination of Parking on Portions of Big Basin Wy, Oak St..and.Komina Avenue In order to increase the safety of the intersections of Fourth Street at Big Basin Way, Third Street at Oak Street, and Komina Avenue at Oak Street, it would necessitate the elimination of certain parking spaces. This proposed parking elimination.would increase the sight distance and /or reduce congestion. Recommen Adopt the MV resolution prohibiting parking on portions of Big Basin Way (State Route 9), Oak Street and Komina Avenue. The cost for installing signs and related work for this, would be approximately $500 of which would come from the traffic control budget (710- 45 -70) 1. Resolution No MV- 2. Memos from Sr. Engr. Tech. to Director of Community Development along with sketches showing locations. 1 RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON PORTIONS OF STATE ROUTE #9 (BIG BASIN'WAY, OAK STREET AND KOMINA AVENUE) The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the followinq portions of streets in the City of Saratoga are hereby declared to be congested areas and the following limits for parking of motor vehicles are hereby established for said portions of said streets: Name of Street State Route #9 (Big Basin Way) Oak Street Komina Avenue RESOLUTION NO. MV Parking Limit NO PARKING ANYTIME Description On the westerly side from the southeasterly pro- longation of the southwest- erly curbline of Fourth St. to a point 30' south- westerly thereoT. On the northwesterly side NO PARKING from the southeasterly exten- ANYTIME sion of the southwesterly curb line of Third St. to a point 42'+ southwesterly thereof. On the northwesterly and the NO PARKING southeasterly sides from the ANYTIME northeasterly crosswalk line at Oak St. to a point 50+ northeasterly thereof. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed as delineated above. ATTEST: The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of December, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CITY CLERK MAYOR MEMORANDUM Attached is a sketch showing the location. ED :cd Attachment OZU'W ©2 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Erman Dorsey Senior Engineering Technician /VO rE TO: Director of Community Development DATE: 9 -26 -85 FROM: Erman Dorsey, Senior Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ELIMINATION OF PARKING SPACE ON BIG BASIN WAY The parking space on the northwesterly side of Big Basin Way immediately southwesterly of Fourth Street should be eliminated because of the lim- ited sight for vehicles entering Big Basin Way from southeast bound Fourth Street. This situation exists any time a vehicle is parked at this spot (quite frequently large cars or vans are parked here). A few years ago the spaces on the northwesterly side of Big Basin Way northeasterly of Fourth Street were eliminated because of the same prob- lem, which improved the safety of the intersection to a safer level. I recommend that the necessary Council action be approved to eliminate the space as outlined above. I •-f<z /,cec/ /o Dori t K7 0 h x//8/85 re9Grd'in9 E,4i'5 ry7&TL /er- A ir�c/iCa ,'erg ,/h e /i,7' /fr a// 75 t‘//e ahave rise,- ///e) �✓o 77 spocN so ri ver tX.a ff /c°re° are fo cro ss cc..del/ a /ori9 819 8Os /2J 4'y. also 6 wi /ocat i /s= 5- PROPOSED EL /M /NA /ON OF PAP/NG SPACE ON B/6 BAS/N WY. PROPOSED PARKING SPACE T© BE SLIM ,t/ATED Ati lkiv V f '�Q ..c0 -F., IF....; ti 'f S 4 /MT' rn sr,4L oaLvw off 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGR. TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: ELIMINATION OF PARKING ON A PORTION OF OAK STREET DATE: November 14, 1985 In order to improve the sight distance for vehicles traveling southeast bound on Third Street, after stopping at Oak Street, two possible parking spaces (42 ft) should be eliminated on Oak Street immediately southwesterly of Third Street. Presently there are no spaces marked at this location, but with no legislation and signs prohibiting vehicles from parking here, it does create a problem from time to time. Attached is a sketch showing the location of the proposed parking restriction. Erman Dorsey Senior Engineering Technician PROPOSED ELIMIMATION OF PARK/A16 ON TH/RD STREET •ttv==.-. ^,N \\Ikt `‘P CT,M7 cDO 0 'Ong? 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: ERMAN DORSEY, SR. ENGR. TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: ELIMINATION OF PARKING ON A PORTION OF KOMINA AVENUE Attached is a sketch showing the location of the proposed parking restriction. Erman Dorsey Senior Engineering Technician DATE: November 15, 1985 Recently the City Council approved a number of stop sign installations, including Komina Avenue at Oak Street. Along with the stop sign placement the recommendation to paint a 50 foot double yellow stripe leading up to the stop bar or crosswalk line was made. Due to the narrowness of Komina Avenue, a double yellow stripe is not appropriate due to vehicles parked along Komina Avenue near Oak Street. Be- cause of this congested situation, I am recommending that a "No Parking Anytime" zone be established along both sides of Komina Avenue for a distance of 50 feet back from the crosswalk line. This recommendation would certainly increase the safety of vehicles turning into and out of the inter- section, as well as the safety of the numerous pedestrians. PR O PODS E,D EL /M /N,4 T /4N P4Rk /A/a ON IOM /NA AVE, N AGENDA BILL NO. ?0 ram: 11/22/85 (12/4/85) S Issue Summary DEPARIY ENT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA Exhibits /Attachments 1. Report to Mayor and City Council 2. Resolution No. SUP -13 -1 3. Staff Report dated 10/11/85 4. Appeal Letter 5. Minutes dated 10/23/85 6. Exhibits Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Council Action 12/4: Motion to grant appeal, waiving owner occupancy requirement, failed 2 -2. 12/18: Granted appeal 3 -2 with conditions. SUP -13, Frieda McKenzie, 20471 Williams Avenue, Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Second Unit Use Permit The Second Unit does not comply with the following Ordinance requirements: 1. The second unit maintains a 5 ft. side yard setback where 10 ft. is required. 2. The second unit is located on a site that is not 1.6 times the minimum lot size. 3. Only two covered parking spaces are provided on the site where three are requried. 4. The second unit or main dwelling is not occupied by the record owner of the property or by a person who is 60 years old or physically handicapped. Recommendation 1. Determine the merits of the appeal and uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision. 2. Staff recommended denial of SUP -13. Fiscal Impacts None UMW cD2 0 IMO REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Robeh rS ok DATE: 11/25/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/4/85 SUP -13, Frieda McKenzie, 20471 Williams Ave., Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Second Unit Use Permit Six second unit use permits have been reviewed by the Planning Commission since the second unit ordinance was amended. Five of the use permits have been approved. The subject second unit use permit was denied because it did not comply with the following ordinance requirements. 1. The second unit maintains a 5 ft. side yard setback where 10 ft. is required. 2. The second unit is located on a site that is not 1.6 times the minimum lot size. 3. Only two covered parking spaces are provided on the site where three are required. 4. The second unit or main dwelling is not occupied by the record owner of property or by a person who is 60 years old or older or physically handicapped. In its meeting of 10/23/85, the Planning Commission denied the application because of the number of requirements that the second unit does not comply with. The Commission was particularly concerned about non compliance with the owner occupancy requirement. This is the first application that does not involve an owner occupancy. The ordinance allows the Commission to waive this requirement if by reason of special circumstances in a particular case, the application of this restriction would result in extreme hardship upon the owner or occupant of the property. Staff could not determine any special circumstances in this case. A student currently resides in the second unit and no one is currently living in the main dwelling. Mrs. McKenzie, the owner of the property, owns and has lived on another site in the City for 35 years. She has rented out the second unit to students since 1973 and the main dwelling on the site to various tenants since 1959. Director of Community Development USE PERMIT CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the application of FRIEDA MC KENZIE Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one story second unit at 20471 Williams Avenue and WHEREAS, the applicant (tax) (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the Second Unit Use Permit be, and the same is here by (x =a (denied) subject to the 'following conditions: ATTEST: Per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (twooppwwwxmomigialiumumsaximilOm taxxiiiinatxxxxxHxxml5puag (the Planning Commission could not make all the requisite findings), and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of October 19 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J Harris, Pines and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried RESOLUTION NO. SUP -13 -1 FILE NO: SUP -13 for a Second Unit City of Saratoga irPPROYE17 BY: J DATE: 7 INI► OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit Og'27' ©2 gi REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING: 10 -23 -85 APN:397 -28 -034 APPLICANT: Frieda McKenzie OWNER: same APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SUP -13, 20471 Williams Ave. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Under state law the project is exempt from CEQA. DATE: 10 -11 -85 ZONING: R- 1- 10 GENERAL PLAN Residential DESIGNATION: Medium Density EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential PARCEL SIZE: 15000 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Fruit trees and shrubs ACTION REQUESTED: Second Unit Use Permit Approval of an existing detached one story Second Unit. HEIGHT: 10 ft. BUILDING INSPECTION: Report to Planning Commission Date: 10 -11 -85 SUP -13, McKenzie, Williams Page 2 AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Site is flat SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: N/A EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 896 ft. Rear: 32 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 18% Left Side: 83 ft. Right Side: 5 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Main Residence: Second Unit: Other Accessory Structures: TOTAL: 1,517 sq. ft. 264 sq. ft. 289 sq. ft. 2,070 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the existing right side yard setback does not comply with required setbacks. In addition, one parking space is required on the site. MATERIALS COLORS: The second unit is finished in antique white redwood board and batten. The roof is multi- colored grey and brown asphalt shingle. A private inspection service conducted an inspection of the second unit and submitted a detailed report regarding the condition of the unit. To comply with the Building Code, the applicant must provide an approved electrical junction box at the rear of the main house where the circuit wiring continues to the cottage, and properly protect all exposed wiring. Some additional conditions have also been recommended: 1. Correct condition of surface water collection at the west side of house to prevent water infiltrating the foundation and crawl space area. 2. Consult a competent pest control contractor to determine if there is any pest infestation or wood destroying organisms around the perimeter of the building where there is wood to earth contact. 3. Install smoke /fire alarm and place a fire extinguisher in the kitchen sink cabinet for safety. 4. Consider the energy saving devices mentioned in the report. Report to Planning Commission Date 10 -13 -85 SUP -13, McKenzie, Williams page 3 FIRE INSPECTION The Saratoga Protection Fire District has inspected the second unit and indicates that they can serve the second unit in a normal manner and have no conditions. SEWER The application has indicated that the site is served by sewer. PARKING A detached two car garage exists on the site. Section 16A.4 states that a minimum of one covered parking space shall be provided for a second unit in addition to the parking required for the main dwelling. This requirement may be waived provided that not less than 3 off street parking spaces are available on the site,. and there is no feasible location on the site for such covered parking space. An additional covered parking space could be located to the right of•the existing garage. This would require extension of the existing driveway, but would not interfere with any existing structures, or fall within any required setback areas. PRIVACY There is a window located on the right side of the second unit 5 ft.from the side property line. There is no landscaping or no fence existing between the second unit and the adjacent property. No privacy impacts were noted to the residence to the left and Saratoga High Schools located tothe rear of the site. COMPATIBILITY The scale, mass, material, and general design of the second unit are compatible with the attached garage, the main dwelling and other structures in the vicinity. The applicant indicated that the second unit was built in 1907. OCCUPANCY The applicant has indicated on the application that the record owner of the property does not occupy the main dwelling or the second unit. As indicated, the applicant will not be in compliance with Section 16A.4. This requirement may be waived or modified if the Commission determines that by reason of special circumstances in a particular case, the application of the restriction will result in extreme hardship upon the owner or occupant of the property. The property owner has resided on a different site in the City for 35 years. The applicant has also indicated that the second unit or the main dwelling is not occupied by a person sixty years or older or by a person who is physically handicapped. This requirement may be waived if the current Report to Planning Commission Date 10 -23 -85 SUP -13, McKenzie, Williams Page 4 'tennant is in lawful possession of the premises as of August 18, 1984. Such tenancy may be continued until the expiration or termination of the lease. The applicant has indicated that the person currently residing in the second unit has been there since prior to August 18, 1984. Such tenancy may be continued until the expiration or termination of the lease. However, no one is currently residing in the main residence. Since there is no precedence for waiving the occupancy requirements Staff is taking a conservative position and is recommending that the requirements not be waived and that the application be denied. FINDINGS 1. The second unit does not comply with the side yard setback and no landscaping exists between the second unit and the adjacent property. The location is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which it is located. 2. The location of the second unit and the conditions under which i't would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties. or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The second unit will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the ordinance and the General Plan. 4 The second unit does not comply with all applicable standards of Section 16A.4. A 5 ft. side yard setback is being maintained where a 10 ft. setback is required, and the second unit is located on a site that -is not 1.6 times the minimum lot size of the zoning district. In addition, the second unit does not comply with the parking or occupancy requirements. These requirements may be waived lay the Commission, however Staff is recommending that these requirements not be waived and that the application be denied. 5 Because there is no landscaping along the eastern property line between the second unit and the adjacent property, the second unit will unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. 6. The second unit is designed to be compatible with the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling: 7. The second unit is designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, and material, and landscaping. 8. the second unit will not cause unreasonable noise, trafic congestion, parking congestion or overload existing public facilities. Report to Planning Commission Date 10 -13 -85 SUP -13, McKenzie, Williams Page 5 Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the second unit Use Permit having been unable to make the necessary findings. APPROVED: CL /kah P.C. Agenda: 10-23 -85 Cindy Lashbrook /ter 411110ter WANDS a T a as1 i use ®iii et 0 i m 10 1 "�r1� rie iii 4 ®r e® ilar.104 04A a; 01414. -5CN 1. n Wigs fitegissf,s! 4 41 se 11115111 Of-1044-0 1 Rill 1f1 mtill iliwi p :111 ®1 ti i* 8 WOO *A oti 410) #4 ,e4-4t,i4.44 u P -13 ousts 1'�cl�erretQ yr,Irr� 110 40181 11 ®e 4 i usaO 0.040 \o November 1, 1985 Ms. Frieda B. McKenzie 15311 Bellecourt Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. McKenzie: Very truly yours, uauwogi 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 We have received your Appeal Application dated October 31, 1985, regarding the Planning Commission's denial of your application for a Second Unit Use Permit at 20471 Williams Avenue (application SUP -13). We have received your check #794 in the amount of $100.00 for the appeal, and the public hearing on this matter has been set for December 4, 1985. The City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Robert S. 'Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Deputy City Clerk r RECEIVED 0 CT 3 1 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: Decision Being Appealed: for Second Unit Use Permit APPEAL APPLICATION Frieda B. McKenzie 15311 Bellecourt Avenue, Saratoga. Ca 95070 354 -4944 Frieda B. McKenzie APN 397 -28 -034 Su f- /3 Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be 20471 Williams Avenue, Saratoga, Ca 95070 Application for Second Unit Use Permit Denial of Planning Commission for application attached): Appellant's Signature Date Received: /2 -j Hearing Date: /2->J Fee CITY USE ONLY *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THHIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. RECEIVED 15311 Bellec :art Avenue OCT 311985 Saratoga, Ca 95070 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT October 30, 1985 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Saratoga: Re: APN 397 -28 -034 I am writing to appeal from the October 23, 1985 decision of.the Planning Commission denying my application (397 -28 -034) for a Second Unit Use Permit. The second unit in question is a small cottage located on the same lot as the primary unit, which is a detached, single family house. Both are located at 20471 Williams Avenue and are among the oldest homes in the neighborhood. I purchased the units in 1958. The house has been rented to various tenants since 1959; the cottage was first rented in 1973. Both units are carefully maintained. As indicated in the Report to the Planning Commission prepared by the Staff in connection with my application "Report the principal ground for denial was that neither the house nor the cottage is occupied by someone who is over age 60 or handicapped, as required by section 16A.4(h) of Ordinance NS-3. In recommending that the application be denied, Staff 1 The Report also notes (at page 3) that the existing setback on the right (i.e., eastern) side of the cottage is only five feet from the property line, and finds that this situation will "unreasonably interfere" with the privacy of the residents on the adjoining eastern property. finding No. 5. The Report neglects to mention that since 1967, I have owned the adjoining eastern property, 20371 Williams Avenue. Like 20471 Williams Avenue, it contains a detached single family house that is rented out. Whatever diminished privacy there may be as a result of the cottage on the 20471 Williams property is reflected in the rent asked for 20371 Williams Avenue. Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Saratoga October 30, 1985 Page 2 conceded that it was taking a "conservative position" because there is no precedent" for waiving this occupancy requirement. Report, p.4. I submit that for at least two reasons, the requirement should be waived in my case. First, failure to grant a permit in this case will result, after the present tenant in the cottage moves out, in a permanent reduction in the number of units within the City that young, lower- income people can afford. Ever since I first rented it out in 1973, the cottage has been occupied by part -time students and one full -time student, most of whom have attended West Valley College. The rent I have charged has been low; the current rent is only 4225 per month. It is hardly a secret that the number of low -cost rental units available to students within the City of Saratoga is exceedingly small. If a Second Unit Use Permit is denied in this case, it will become even smaller, and the effect of section 16A.4(h) will have been to discriminate against younger persons in favor of older or handicapped ones. Second, prior to the time the cottage was rented out, I spent nearly 4i6 500 in refurbishing the unit to make it a satisfactory dwelling. If the present tenant moves out anytime soon, that investment will be lost. California cities are required to allow the owner of a prior nonconforming use a reasonable period of time within which to amortize his investment before discontinuing the use. Failure to waive section 16A.4(h) in my case might well be inconsistent with that requirement. The mere fact that there is "no precedent" for waiving the occupancy requirement of section 16A.4(h) does not mean that a precedent should not be created. For the reasons given above, I believe it should be in my case. Sincerely, Frieda B. McKenzie CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 1985 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Pines and Peterson Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Minutes Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of October 9, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Peterson and J. Harris abstaining since they were not present. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR -1453 Michael Conn and Carole Wellbeloved, Request for One -Year Extension to a Tentative Building Site Approval for a single lot on Vaquero Court, in the NHR zoning district 2a. SDR -1613 German Leff Platonoff, Request for Tentative Building 2b. A -1128 Site and Design Review Approvals to construct a new, two -story residence at 14301 Paul Avenue, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district 3. SUP -3 Christopher and Ulla Beach, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one -story second unit at 18645 Paseo Tierra, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district 4. SUP -13 Frieda McKenzie, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one -story second unit at 20471 Williams Ave. in the R -1- 10,000 zoning dis- trict 5. SUP -14 James and Eleanor Perazzo, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one -story second unit at 15100 Pepper Lane, in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district Item #4, SUP -13, Frieda McKenzie, was removed for discussion. The public hearing on the balance of the items was opened at 7:34 p.m. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the items on the Public Hearings Consent Calendar. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on SUP -13, Frieda McKenzie. Staff explained that this item had inadvertently been added to the Consent Calendar. They commented that they are recommending denial of the use permit because it does not comply with the guidelines and requirements of the Second Unit Ordinance. They described the application, stating that they are unable to make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 7:37 p.. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes Meeting 10/23/85 SUP -13 Mrs. McKenzie, the applicant, stated that she has had this property for many years as a rental. She noted that the lot is 1/3 acre. Staff explained that one of the requirements of the ordinance is that, relative to detached second units, the lot must be 1.6 times the required minimum lot size in the zoning district. Mrs. McKenzie commented that at the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting she had attended when the ordinance was being considered, there were many unhappy people there who felt the fees were exhorbitant and that the people who had come forward and made application were going to be the guinea pigs. She stated that she felt the City was going to be losing inexpensive housing. Chairman Peterson commented that he under §tands the points the applicant is making. However, he feels that the City Council has made it very clear to the Planning Commission that they do not want the Commission approving second units where there is not an owner occupancy on the property. The City Attorney pointed out to the Commission that the City Council deleted the provision that would have allowed an owner occupancy on an adjacent site. However, they instead provided one avenue of allowing non -owner occupancy or person under 60 if there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or showing of extreme hardship. He stated that this is the first application since that amendment to the ordinance which does not involve an owner occupancy or required age, and Staff, as indicated in their report, has taken the position that they do not find any exceptional circumstances or extraordinary hardship in this case. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris commented that in view of the fact that all of the points that have been brought forward are items that the City Council and Planning Commission felt strongly about in the deliberations, it would be going against the whole process if this second unit were allowed. She noted that the other two second units on the agenda did not meet all of the stipulations, but did meet a majority of them, particularly the owner occupancy and 60 or over requirement. Commissioner B. Harris agreed, noting that in addition there are problems with setbacks, lot size and parking. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny SUP -13, per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. The appeal period was noted. (Later in the agenda it was noted that there were people present who wished to speak on Item #2, SDR -1613 and A -1128, German Leff Platonoff. The applicant asked for reconsideration of the matter. Commissioner Burger moved to reconsider the matter. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The mater was discussed at the end of the public hearings.) The public hearing was opened at 10:28 p.m on SDR -1613 and A -1128. German Platonoff, the applicant, addressed the conditions of the Staff Report. Relative to the height of the structure, he indicated that he had provided a solar study to ensure that the neighbor did not have any sunlight blocked by his proposed home. Commissioner Burger gave an on -site visit, describing the homes in the area. She noted that Mr. Szalay's home is 26 ft., and feels that, if the solar problem can be worked out, a height of 24 ft. for this home would not impact because it will be sitting further back on the street than the home across the street. Discussion followed on the solar study. Mr. Platonoff addressed the square footage, discussing the other homes 2 Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes Meeting 10/23/85 SUP -13 Mrs. McKenzie, the applicant, stated that she has had this property for many years as a rental. She noted that the lot is 1/3 acre. Staff explained that one of the requirements of the ordinance is that, relative to detached second units, the lot must be 1.6 times the required minimum lot size in the zoning district. Mrs. McKenzie commented that at the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting she had attended when the ordinance was being considered, there were many unhappy people there who felt the fees were exhorbitant and that the people who had come forward and made application were going to be the guinea pigs. She stated that she felt the City was going to be losing inexpensive housing. Chairman Peterson commented that he under §tands the points the applicant is making. However, he feels that the City Council has made it very clear to the Planning Commission that they do not want the Commission approving second units where there is not an owner occupancy on the property. The City Attorney pointed out to the Commission that the City Council deleted the provision that would have allowed an owner occupancy on an adjacent site. However, they instead provided one avenue of allowing non -owner occupancy or person under 60 if there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or showing of extreme hardship. He stated that this is the first application since that amendment to the ordinance which does not involve an owner occupancy or required age, and Staff, as indicated in their report, has taken the position that they do not find any exceptional circumstances or extraordinary hardship in this case. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris commented that in view of the fact that all of the points that have been brought forward are items that the City Council and Planning Commission felt strongly about in the deliberations, it would be going against the whole process if this second unit were allowed. She noted that the other two second units on the agenda did not meet all of the stipulations, but did meet a majority of them, particularly the owner occupancy and 60 or over requirement. Commissioner B. Harris agreed, noting that in addition there are problems with setbacks, lot size and parking. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny SUP -13, per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. The appeal period was noted. (Later in the agenda it was noted that there were people present who wished to speak on Item #2, SDR -1613 and A -1128, German Leff Platonoff. The applicant asked for reconsideration of the matter. Commissioner Burger moved to reconsider the matter. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The mater was discussed at the end of the public hearings.) The public hearing was opened at 10:28 p.m on SDR -1613 and A -1128. German Platonoff, the applicant, addressed the conditions of the Staff Report. Relative to the height of the structure, he indicated that he had provided a solar study to ensure that the neighbor did not have any sunlight blocked by his proposed home. Commissioner Burger gave an on -site visit, describing the homes in the area. She noted that Mr. Szalay's home is 26 ft., and feels that, if the solar problem can be worked out, a height of 24 ft. for this home would not impact because it will be sitting further back on the street than the home across the street. Discussion followed on the solar study. Mr. Platonoff addressed the square footage, discussing the other homes AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDATION 11/27/85 (12/4/85) 12/4: Continued to 1/15. 1/15: Continued to 2/19. 2/19: Introduced ordinance. 3 /5: Adopted Ordinance. Initial Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: HP -11, Ordinance Designating Nardie Home at 14650 6th Street as a Heritage Resource ISSUE SUMMARY 1. Mr. Mrs. Mauldin submitted an application for Heritage Resource Designation prepared for the Nardie home at 14650 6th St. u-- 2. The Commission has determined that the Nardie Home meets the criteria for Heritage Resources per Ordinance No. 66. 3. If this designation is approved, all proposed modifications to the Nardie Home would have to be reviewed by the Commission. 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance designating the Nardie Home as a Heritage Resource. 2. To adopt this ordinance, the Council must make the necessary findings at the time of the ordinance's first reading. 3. A second reading of the ordinance would be required at the next Council Meeting. The ordinance would go into effect 30 days after the second reading. FISCAL IMPACTS None anticipated EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. HP -11 2. Application and Commission,' Report /Findings 3. Minutes of Heritage Preservation meeting of 11/6/85 COUNCIL ACTION ORDINANCE NO. HP -11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE NARDIE HOME (APN 517 -8 -4) AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Preservation Commission, the application and supporting materials, the City Council has determined that the findings per Exhibit "B" can be made and hereby designates the property known as the Nardie Home. SECTION 2: This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1985, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST; CITY CLERK MAYOR EXHIBIT "B" REPORT OF FINDINGS HP -11 1. The Nardie home reflects special elements of the cultural, social and architectural history of the Saratoga Village. 2. The Nardie home embodies distinctive characteristics of a style (Victorian cottage). a• Qk 1 4% 9c D o 1 Nab c)l 1 4 e RECEIVED OCT 2 41985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. Je Date •eived 10 -24 -85 Designation No.HP -11 Meeting Date Fee (No fee for designation only) I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name 2) Historic Name -NONE B. Location /Address 14650 6th Street, SARATOGA C. Assessor's Parcel Number 517 -8 -4 D. Use of Site Rental Residence 1) Original Residence -E. Present Owner Elizabeth Nardie (Please attach. documentation of ownership) 1) Address P M 14,cs i4A1 K/A) dh1- 2) Phone Number tS76' 7 0767 3) Public or Private Ownership 4) Has Owner been Notified of Application? yea. Purpose of Application A. Application for Designation or Permit? Designation 1. If application for permit .;Lief :y describe proposal and alteration% required. -see attachment- B. Application for Heritage Landmark, Lane or 1. If application for heritage lane or district please attach required petitions (Section 6(a) Ord. No. 66). 2 III. Description A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site (including major vegetation features) or structure and describe any existing major alterations from its original condition: (1) See attached pest control inspection report (2) No Major alterations from original condition (3) No majQ j g etation features B. Architectural Style .Victorian C. Year of Construction a�`,j':190® D Name of Architect or Builder E. Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) see attached Title Report 1) Frontage 50' 2) Depth 50' 3) Approximate Acreage 250Csq. Ft. F. Condition of Structure and /or Site (circle one): 1) Excellent 2) Fair °Deteriorated G. Is structure altered or unaltered? unaltered H. Secondary structures on site. Describe. -NONE- I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? Original J. Photo (Date Taken: IV. Significance 3 Location Map (Label iyte and surrounding street. roads and prominent landmarks) A. Briefly describe historical and /or architectural importance of the resource (include dates, events and persons associated with the site): 401 lorktatv (Attach sheet if more space required) B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates): !�I ki -i C. Does this site /structure have a county, state or federal historical landmark designation? gy V. Form submitted by: 1) Name c Q( j 7-- Cr 'd )fl u O// i A7 2) Address X5 7 S 60 k I Wla(.VI Ro of iPCr a S d ,3 3) Phone Number ''C 7- /7 V U 4) or Saratoc'a Heritage Preservation Commission I M P O R T A N T Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation or permit application to alter such a resource, the following should be read carefully. 1 I, the applicant, understand that by applying for a permit to alter such a resole si..te of this resource will be subject to the limitations and provisions of Ordinance No. 66. I also agree that these limitations and provisions will be complied with as well as any conditions upon which the application is granted. In witness whereof, I here unto set my hand this day of 19 Signature Print Name Address Phone: Residence 3- 314) Business n2 VI. Recommendation of Commission to (circle one): City Council /Planning Commission /Community Development Department A. The Heritage Preservation Commission is for /against the proposed designation /permit application. B. Comments: This Victorian cottage is one of the few remainin• in the Sarato•a Villa •e distri t r senta- tive of this early period of architecture. With its detailing and style it is a significant contributor to the charming historic Village character. Though it will take an effort on the part of the owner to restore it, the have ex•ressed a wi 1i•n ss to coo•erate fully with this Commission to ensure its architectural inte- grity is maintained. We are pleased with this effort to rescue part of Saratoga's heritage intact! 4 o C. Findings: 1. The Nardie home reflects special elements of the cultural..soecial and architectural history of the Saratoga Village. 2. The Nardie home embodies distinctive characteristics of a style (Victorian cottage). Signed Chairman of Heritage Preservation Commission ATTACHMENT TO HISTORICAL DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM We want to convert the current use from a residential rental unit to a small office building. We plan no structural modifications other than those required to restore the building to its original condition. Specifically, we will build a foundation under the house, repair the roof, rebuild the front porch, rebuild the bathroom, redo the electrical system, and landscape the property. To do this we will need a zoning variance to permit less than the total required number of on site parking spaces. The lot is 50'x50' and there is not enough room for 4 parking spaces. CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 6, 1985 PLACE: Saratoga Community Library TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cameron, Hefd, Voester, Koepernik, Bielinski, Chairperson Landsness Absent: Commissioner Kvamme MINUTES The minutes for September 26, 1985 were approved with the following correction: the boundaries of tie proposed historic district should not read Oak Place are but Park Place area. The minutes for October 16, were approved unanomously. I. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Heid suggested we communicate to the city council the urgent need for staff help to maintain basic heritage commission needs. Commissioner Cameron will draft a memo to the city manager, with a copy to the mayor. A. Preparation of bronze plaques Report Commissioner Koepernik reported on the progress of design of the plaques, stating that a mock -up should be here soon. B. Warner Hutton House Report Commissioner Voester reported on activities in San Diego's Heritage Park. Chairperson Landsness suggested talking to the County Historical Heritage Commission regarding their experience in relocating historic structures. The Commission discussed the upcoming discussion of acquisition of the Warner Hutton house, scheduled for the next city council meeting. Commissioner Landsness presented a letter sent to Cal Trans requested agreement with the city's desire to designate the house a landmark. C. Other Pending Designations Comm. Voester Report Mr. Zambetti was unsure as to if he would resubmit his designation. Commissioner Voester is working on the designation of the Fireman's Bell. The next priority will be to work with Madronia Cemetary. D. Home Tour Commissioner Kvamme has spoken to Fox and Carskaden and obtained a $1000 contribution toward the printing costs of the Home Tour brochure. E. Village Beautification The Commission reviewed the report dated September 27, 1985 of the Saratoga Village Task Force. Commissioner Landsness reported on the input she provided regarding the need for a historic overlay zone, .or design criteria similar to that developed by Pacific Grove. II. NEW BUSINESS A. MAULDON /NARDIE DESIGNATION B. Commissioner Voester suggested a news story be done on the extent of various designations; Commissioner Bielinski offered to write a release and get it .to the papers. C. GYPSY HILL FARM III. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Landsness presented the application from Mr. Nardie to have the victorian on 6th and Big Basin designated. Commissioner Heid emphasized that the Commission should in no way get involved with the parking issue, only the working with the owners on designation, use of historical building code, etc.etc. Commissioner Koepernik visited the site and presented photos. The Commission agreed that there appeared no historical significance to the site or architectural structures; only the age of the house and its rustic charm were of interest. The Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm. Res pec tf u lly, Submi t ted -c G c i .1-C— Seonaid Bieli.4iski, Commissioner AGENDA BILL NO. f4 DATE: December 4, 1985 DEPARTMENT: Community Services CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Uncontrolled Party Cost Recovery Issue Summary: Fiscal Impacts: Initial: s Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. /04K The Public Safety Commission recommended the City send a letter to the parents of youths responsible for hosting a party which got_out of control and required the attention of the Sheriff. The letter would identify the costs to the City from the Sheriff for their involvement, and would ask the parents to reimburse the City. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval, although the City cannot technically prosecute if the offending parties fail to pay. The Public Safety Commission is aware of this, but concluded that such a letter should still be sent any- way in the hopes that the offending parties would voluntarily reimburse, the City in response to the letter alone. The attached draft letter incorporated changes recommended by the City Manager, City Attorney, and Community Services Director. Because the City cannot require collection of the identified debt, a fiscal impact cannot be estimated. Any fiscal impact would be positive, however. The average cost of a response by the Sheriff to an uncontrolled is 150. per occurrence. Exhibits /Attachments: Draft reimbursement letter recommended by the Public Safety Commission. Council Action: 12/4: Approved letter with amendments to be worked out by Mayor. Passed 3 -1 (Nbyles opposed). Date name DRAFT Dear: O the Sheriff's Department responded to a citizen's complaint relative to an uncontrolled party at your residence. The Sheriff's records indicate that there were no responsible adults in attendance at the residence when Sheriff's units arrived and that a party was in progress in an uncontrolled manner. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department charges the City additionally for calls such as were made to your residence to break up a situation which was out of control. The bill for that specific incident is attached. We consider you to be legally responsible for the payment of this cost by reason of your negli- gent failure to supervise and control the activities conducted upon your prop- erty. Your check for payable to "City of Saratoga" should be sent to the City Offices at the above address, to the attention of the City Treasurer. We in Saratoga are working very hard to provide an enjoyable and safe community while being constantly aware of the rights of others. In the atmosphere of an uncontrolled party, there is a high probability that the property rights of neighbors will be violated, to say nothing about the very objectionable noise and congestion. We hope that you will understand our concern and take appropri- ate steps to insure that this unfortunate incident will not reoccur. We suggest if adults leave their children alone overnight that the following precautions be taken: 1) The Sheriff's Department be notified of the absence. (The Westside Stations's number is 867- 9715) 2) A responsible adult be asked to look after your children, including during the late evening; and 3) be available to assist the children left at home, if needed. We look forward to your support in making our City a better and safer place in which to live. Sincerely, Hal Toppel City Attorney