Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-07-1985 City Council Agenda packet
CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. eq.-7 Initial: Dept. Hd. 7 -29 -85 (8 -7 -85) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development DATE: SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR -1523 GERALD JACOBSEN (DAY), _SOBEY_ROAD�_ Issue Summary The public and private improvements required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. This "construction acceptance" will begin -the one (1 year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "construction acceptance" to the subject building site. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond Council Action 8/7: Approved. C. Mgr. MEMORANDUM RSS /dsm Amount: $13000.00 OTR7 of Address: P. 0. Box 2387 Saratoga, CA 95070 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council FROM: Director of :Community Development SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1523 Name Location: James Day Construction, Sobey Road Public Improvements required for SDR -1523 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: James W. Day Construction Address: P. 0. Box 2387, Saratoga, Calif. 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type: Cash Bond and Assignment Certificate Issuing Company: James W. Day Construction Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 4150, Assignment Certificate 3. Special Remarks: Release Cash Bond of $2,000 and Assignment Certificate of $4,500.00 Ro t S. Shook DATE: 7 -29 -85 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 7 -29 -85 (8 -7 -85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: 00 Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE, SDR-1419, JOHN E. QUARNSTROM, CARNIEL_AVENUE Issue Summary The public improvements required for the. subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant construction acceptance" to the subject building. site. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits/Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond Council Action 8/7:- Approved... MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Director of :Community Development SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR-1419 Name Location: GBH Public Improvements required for SDR -1419 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: 2. Improvement Security: Type: _Cash Bond_.. Amount: $4,000.00 Issuing Company: Address: 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 John E. Quarnstrom, Carniel Avenue JOHN E. OUARNSTROM Address: 535 Shadow Glen San Jose, Calif. 95129 John Schadegg 555 West Middlefield Road Mountain. View, Calif. 94043 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 6844 Release 50% of Cash Bond $2,000.00 Ro rt S. Shook DATE: 7 -29 -85 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 7 -30 -85 (8 -7 -85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT= FINAL MAP APPROVAL, RE-1, JOHN ROSS, AUSTIN WAY Issue Summary 1. This is an over 50% expansion to an existing single family house. 2. This application is in with the new exemption process for over 50% expansion to an single family house. 3. All conditions for the City and other departments have been met. Recommendation Adopt Resolution #RE -1 attached, approving Final Parcel Map for John Ross. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. RE -1 2. Location Map Council Action 8/7: ,.Approved. gqq Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council. of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. RE -1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF JOHN ROSS The ..996 acre parcel shown. as Parcel. "A" on the Final Map prepared by Westfall Engineers and submitted to. the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be .approved as one individual building site. CITY CLERK MAYOR LOCATION MAP AGENDA BILL NO. goo DATE: 7 -29 -85 (8 -7 -85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Fiscal Impacts None Council Action 8/7: CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval.SDR -1585 ___________Albert Lorincz Glen Una Drive (2 lots) Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution 1585 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Status Report for Building Site Approval 4. Location Map Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Smtr ary 1. SDR -1585 is ready for Final Approval. 2. Bonds and fees have been submitted to the City. 3. All requirements for the City and other agencies have been completed. Reconinendation Adopt Resolution No. 1585 -02 attached, approving the Final Map for SDR -1585. SECTION 1: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 1585 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF ALBERT LORINCZ The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The 0.769 acre. and 0.758 acre parcels shown as Parcels A and B on the final Parcel Map prepared by Nowack and Associates, Inc. to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: MAYOR OEU'W cD2 0 2' o C REPORT TO COMMISSION APPROVE) APN: 510 -05 -10 1.;h .6. Commission Meeting: 1/9/85 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1585, A -1040, LL #6, forPancel' 1, behind 19605 Glen Una Drive, V -680 for Parcel 2, 19605 Glen Una Drive, APPLICANT: Ann Lorincz PROPERTY OWNER: Albert Ann Lorincz Revised 1/9/85 DATE: 1/4/85 ACTION REQUESTED: Lot Line Adjustment, Building Site and Design Review on parcel 1 and Variance /Use Permit Approval for 24 ft., 15 ft. and 35 ft. rear yard setbacks for an existing garage, cabana and arbor, respectively, where 60 ft. is required, and a 17 ft. and 10 ft. sideyard setback for the existing cabana and garage where 20 ft. is required. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Variance Approval required for the percentage of impervious coverage on Parcel 2 and Building Permit required for Parcel 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density Single Family ZONING: R -1- 40,000 EXISTING LAND USE: Parcel 1 Vacant Parcel 2 Single Family Residence PARCEL SIZE: Parcel 1 28,265 sq. ft. Parcel 2 33,003 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: Parcel 2 is presently developed with a single family residence, pool and various accessory structures. The lot is relatively flat and is landscaped. Parcel 1 gently slopes downward from left to right. Various fruit, nut and avocado trees exist on the lot. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Parcel 1 6.20- AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Parcel 1 -6.2 Parcel 2 Level Parcel 2 Lev Report to the Planning( mmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680, LL #6, Lorincz GRADING REQUIRED: Cut 165 Cu. Yds Cut Depth 2.5 Feet (For Parcel 1 only) Fill 150 Cu. Yds. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front 30 Ft. Rear 104 Feet (of Parcel 1 with, Lot Left Side 37 Feet Right Side 20 Feet Line Adjustment) PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front 78 Feet Rear 15 Feet (of Parcel 2 with Lot Left Side 25 Feet Right Side 17 Feet Line Adjustment) HEIGHT: 18.5 Ft. for parcel 1 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 23% for Parcel 1 43% for Parcel 2 SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Parcel 1 only ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project for Parcel 1 does not meet all..Zoning District, requirements in that area, which is a legally created substandar lot, is below the required parcel size for this zoning district. For the adjusted Parcel 2, the rear yard setbacks for the existing garage, cabana and arbor are, respectively, 24 ft., 15 ft., and 35 ft. where 60 ft. is required, and a 17 ft. and 10 ft. side yard setback for the existing cabana and garage where 20 ft. is required.. Also, the.percentage of impervious coverage for_Parcel exceeds the 35% standard required by the zoning ordinance. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: For new home on Parcel 1: Exterior Materials Beige board and batten with dark brown trim and used brick veneer. Roofing Materials Brown cedar shakes C 1/4/85 Page 2 Fill Depth 2.0 Feet First Floor (including garage): 3762 sq. ft. Second Floor: 0 Total: 3762 sq. ft. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 6 The site owned by the Lorincz was split prior to 1970, when they acquired it as 2 lots of record. A house and several accessory structures are located on Parcel 2. The garage and flower arbor currently have nonconforming side and rear setbacks respectively. The cabana crosses the property line between Parcel 1 and 2. The applicants now desire to build a one -story home on Parcel 1. In order to do this they must either remove the cabana or legalize it in some manner. Since the applicants do not wish to remove the cabana, they are proposing a lot line adjustment switching 1971 square feet from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2, and vice versa. The lot line adjustment does not impact the building of Parcel 1 since it is a lot of record. This lot line adjustment requires a variance. /use permit on Parcel 2 for 1) a 15' rear yard setback and 17' sideyard setback for the cabana, 2) a 10' side yard setback and 24' rear yard setback for the garage and, 3) a 15' rear yard setback for the flower arbor. All of the structures would be staying in the same location but, with the adjustments, would all be Report to the 'mm Planning ission SDR -1585, A -1040, V -68& LL #6, Lorincz FINDINGS: C 1/4/85 Page 3 located within Parcel 2. The lots would remain the same size as they are currently since an equal amount of land is being switched, so they are not any more nonconforming in size. This lot line adjustment would improve the situation of having 'a structure across a property line assuming that the cabana is to remain. Additionally if the commission grants the lot line adjustment, staff is recommending a condition requiring Parcel to take part in the deferred improvement agreement for sewers. Prior to acting on the lot line adjustment the Commission needs to act on the variances for the structures it would impact. VARIANCE V -680 The two lots addressed in the staff report are legally created substandard lots. On Parcel 2, three accessory structures, the garage, flower arbor and cabana do not meet current setback requirements. The cabana presently straddles the common lot line between the parcels. A lot line adjustment is included as part of the application so that, with the adjustment cabana is setback 15 feet from the rear property line of Parcel 2. This same lot line adjustment also involves changing the rear setback of the garage and the flower arbor. The garage setback was reduced from 46 feet to 24 feet and the arbor's setback was increased from 8 feet to 35 feet. The existing side setbacks of the garage and cabana are 10 feet and 17 feet, respectively. These setbacks ate unaffected by the change in property lines. 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship Requiring a strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance in this case would necessitate that the three accessary structures be removed or relocated. This would pose an unnecessary hardship for the garage since it appears to be a legally constructed substantial structure which is currently nonconforming with respect to setbacks. No practical difficulty exists with the flower arbor or cabana since they could be relocated or reduced in size. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances The garage and cabana were located on the property prior to the current owners purchase of the parcel in 1970. Because these structures were built presumably at a time when less stringent requirements were enforced, exceptional circumstances do exist for the garage and cabana. No exceptional circumstances exist for the arbor. 3. Common Privilege Denial of this variance would result in the property owners not being able to maintain their existing garage due to the location of an existing or proposed property line. Thus, the applicants would be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by other property owners in the same district with respect to their garage. Cabanas and flower arbors are not a common privilege in the district. 4 Special Privilege: Due to the exceptional circumstances involving when the garage and cabana were originally built, the granting of the variance for these buildings would not be considered a special privilege. Report to the Planning" mmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V-680,, LL #6, Lorincz 1/4/85 Page 4 5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the variance for the rear and side yard setbacks of the existing garage per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1985 and Exhibit "B -1" with the following conditions: 1) Variance application shall be made for the percentage of impervious coverage on Parcel 2 prior to Final Map Approval. 2) The workshop shown on the site plan for Parcel 2 shall be removed. Staff cannot make findings 1 and 3 for the cabana nor finding 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the flower arbor and thus recommends denial of the variances for these structures. However, if the Commission can make these findings we recommend a third condition: 3) No second kitchen in the cbana is permitted. The existing stove in in this structure shall be removed. If the Commission grants one or all of the variances, staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment per Exhibit "B -1" dated 12/20/84 subject to the following conditions: 1. Removal or relocation of all nonconforming structures which have not received variance approval for their setbacks. 2. Submittal of a deferred improvement agreement for hook up to the sewer for Parcel 2 prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20' half- street on Glen Una Drive and enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement for improving Glen Una to City Standards (see condition II. E. of SDR -1585, attached). If the Commission denies the variances, the lot line adjustment is unnecessary. Report to the Planning mmission SDRf1585, A -1040, V -68�, LL #6, Lorincz SDR -1585 1/4/85 Page 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting Building Site Approval for a single lot of record. Because of the distance to the nearest sewer main and the cost of constructing a sewer system for this site, staff is recommending a deferred improvement agreement for sewer facilities. This is subject to Health Department Approval of the septic tank system prior to Final Map Approval. The Fire District is concerned about a turnaround for the site but is willing to consider a sprinkler system as an option. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: December 6, 1984, The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1585 (Exhibit "B -1" filed December 20, 1984) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record or Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable ..Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. Half- Street on Glen Una Drive. D. Improve Glen Una to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline. (D.I.A.) 2. Asphalt Concrete Berm. (D.I.A.) 3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. (D.I.A.) Report to the Planning emission SDR -1585, A -1040, V-680, ,L #6, Lorincz 1/4/85 Page 6 E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse: D.I.A. F. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. G. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. H. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. K. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Community Development for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. L. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements. D.I.A. 2. Storm Drain Construction. D.I.A. M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. D.I.A. N. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements marked "D.I.A." III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Foundation B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Drainage details. (conduit type, slope, outfal•l, location, etc.) C. Bonds required for removal of structures prior to Final Map Approval. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT A. Construct an approved turnaround that is within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the first floor of all buildings. Fire truck turnaround may not be used for any required on -site parking. Options as approved by the Fire Chief. Report to the Planning: -mission SDR -1585, A -1040, V -68,LL #6, Lorincz 1/4/85 Page 7 V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. B. A septic tank permit for a sewage disposal system on this lot is required prior to Final Map Approval. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification.' VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B Applicant is to enter into recorded agreement with the City of Saratoga agreeing to participate in the formation of a sanitary sewer assessment district, and to connect to sewer when available. (See Sanitation District letter attached) C. At the time of development, applicant is to install dry and plugged sewer facilitie on site in anticipation of connection to future sewer line Sanitation District No. 4. On -site sewer improvement plans to be approved by said District prior to final approval. D. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessiblity. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni- ties on /in the subdivision /building site. VIII. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Report to Planning Com ..sion A -1040 12/28j84 Page 8 The project under consideration for Design Review is a one -story Single Family Re- sidence with attached garage. Scaling off the height of the structure to what appears to be the cut pad, the structure's tallest point rises to 18.5 feet. Existing residences surrounding the parcel are setback a sufficient distance so that no privacy impacts are anticipated. Lastly, the pool and greenhouse shown on the site plan, would not meet side setback requirements with the proposed lot line adjustment. It should be noted that staff is not approving this pool loca- tion and is recommending that the greenhouse be relocated. FINDINGS: 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy and Compatible Infill Project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the new home is to be constructed on a relatively level site and no views will be affected. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surround- ing residences in that the home is single -story and adequate setbacks are pro- posed. 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree and soil removal and grade changes in that the home and driveway are located so as to main- tain many existing trees. In addition, minimal grading is required. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the size of the residence is less than the gross floor area Design Review Standard. Also the bulk of the home is minimized in relation to the area of the lot. 4. Compatible Bulk and Height The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 feet and in the same zoning district in that the residence is of compar- able size and height to those of surrounding homes. 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control stan- dards in that all City requirements shall be met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 12/28/84 and Exhibits "B, C subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits detailed grading and drainage plans shall be implemented during construction. 2. Any modifications to the proposed site development plans or elevations shall require Planning Division review and approval. 3. All conditions of the Building Site Approval shall be met. 4. The greenhouse shall be relocated so as to meet all setback requirements, or a variance approval shall be obtained. Report to Planning Commit on A -1040 APPROVED P'e'''''' DL /KK /bjc P.C. Agenda 1/9/85 5. The pool site shown on the plot plan is not approved as part of the Design Review. This pool location would require a variance approval by the Plan- ning Commission. 6. Removal of any ordinance size tree requires a tree removal permit. Diana Lewis, Planner i 12/28/84 Page 9 Kathy K rdus, Senior Planner Findings were made for the arbor by the Planning Commission on 1/9/85 (attached). FINDINGS: Arbor File No. V- 680(C) Lorincz 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship Removal of the arbor would create an unnecessary hardship because of the location of a large silk tree. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances The City will be revising the zoning ordinance in the near future to allow such structures to be located in the setback areas. The property line could be redrawn to have the arbor meet setback requirements but the revised lot line would not make any sense. The arbor provides privacy between the subject site and the adjacent site. 3. Common Privilege With the future revision of the zoning ordinance concerning arbors and trellises, the location of an arbor in a setback area will be a common privilege. 4. Special Privilege There are exceptional circumstances regarding the arbor; denial of the variance would be a denial of common privilege. Therefore, granting the variance will not consitute a grant of special privilege. MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR71585 ALBERT LORINCZ (have) (;mot) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 1 -9 -85 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication Yes Date Submitted 7 -27 -85 Record of Survey or Parcel Map Yes Date Submitted 7 -27 -85 Storm Drainage Fee .$.1100.00 Date Submitted 7 -27 -85 Receipt 7969 All Required Improvement Bonds N.A. Date Submitted Receipt# All Required Inspection Fees $200.00 Date Submitted 7 27 85 Receipt# 7969 Building Site Approval AgreementN_A Date Signed Park and Recreation Fee $1300.00 Date Submitted 7 27 85 Receipt# 7969 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (C}�c (Final) Building Site Approval for Albert Lorincz SDR- 1585 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non Compliance Shook ector of Community Development AGENDA BILL NO. q01 DATE: 7/26/85 (8/7/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. kcr C. Mgr. Appeal of Denial of Tree Removal Permit at 21185 Tollgate Road Saratoga, CA., by Mr. Mrs. James Perisho Issue Summary The applicants requested a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Monterey Pines and two deodor cedars. An on -site inspection revealed that the two pines were infested with borers and could decline rapidly. The inspector also determined that the smaller cedar was too close to other trees and should be removed. The larger cedar, however, is a beautiful specimen and will help to fill the void created by removal of the pines. Staff could not make the findings to permit removal of this cedar. Therefore, staff approved the Tree-. Removal Permit for the Monterey pines and the smaller deodor cedar and denied the permit for the larger cedar. Recommendation Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny the Tree Removal Permit for the larger deodor cedar. If the Council grants the appeal, staff recommends that the applicants be conditioned with a replacement tree, minimum 15 gallon size. Fiscal Impacts N/A Exhibits /Attachments 1. Tree Removal Permit Application and Denial 2. Appeal Letter Council Action 8/7: Granted appeal; no replacement tree required. O: I V >r. D JUL 1 8 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: APPEAL APPLICATIC;q t �lctwie S a Act_ Palme,Ict Pe.r 1 ra +O c& 95© >a 7�1�/ /7 .1 J e CC e-t Per,`SA d jree 1 0 04_ Date Received:/-/Y Hearing Date: r-7 -7' Fee CITY USE ONLY Decision Being Appealed: Ceher remove d c/ei, Jj S--fa Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Se e c Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH-HIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. July 11, 1985 Ms. Diana Lewis Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue .,Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Tree Removal Permit Application, Perisho Residence, 21185 Tollgate Road Dear Ms. Lewis: aumvxmalommil REED ASSOCIATES RED ireD JUL 1 8 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am the landscape architect working on the Perisho residence. It has been brought to my attention that the large cedar tree listed on the Perisho Tree Removal Application has been denied. The plan which the Perishos and I came up with was to add a lawn area to their rear yard. If we keep the large cedar, it will greatly reduce the size of the proposed lawn. The tree does not soften any views from either. the street or adjacent property. Enclosed is a layout of the new planting, including new trees. It would be possible to also add a new cedar outside of the proposed lawn area. I hope you will take this additional information into consideration on the appeal for tree removal. Sincerely, REED ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Reed Associates Landscape Architecture 690 W. Fremont, Suite I Sunnyvale, Calif. 94087 408- 733 -6139 I (Article III, Chapter 8, Saratoga/.City Code) Name of Applicant iarneia___ Application Da t 7/A /25 --r- Address2L/2P5 7; J/td 7/ 0 /R Phone /1? Date Name of Property Owner if Different from Above List Nualber Trees List Type List Size (Measured of Trees Aliork of Trees36 24" from the Base of CITY OF SARATCCA TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION MW PERZECT cz .2a2XL2L.k._ (TO BE CO:TLF.TED BY STAFF DATE OF ON SITE INSPECTION: INSPECTED BY: RA 1 JJ ei 5 the Tree; Diameter or Circumference) to Remove Trees: dialciA.A.40- S APPLICANT (TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT) LOCATION OF TREE Plot all trees to be rethoved from property on the back of this fora or a separate sheet (show dimensions from property lines and exist- ing Structures to tree). SPECIFIC REASONS FOR PEI:OVAL OF TREE(S): 7 4p (1) aruL, 0.14 iLe -1 4 -'L-J ant-6( etuz,_ cvtiz CP__C40, co-kJLA- Z6, J_,, CNATUR E OF *NOTE: Trees may be removed only if found to be within the criteria as established by Section 8-75 of the Saratoga City Code. ATE 1. This tree removal peTT it is approved in accord with' Saratoga Cicy Sec s .75, the u::dC s i Code, s ned hereby .making the following finding or findings: The condition of the tree with respect to disease, danzcr of falling„ pro :cimity to or y c: :i.,tin� o proposed structures. and/or interference with utility ity scrvices, is such that it is in furtherance of the public health or safety to permit its removal, and /or The location of the tree with respect to proposed im- provements unreasonably restricts the economic enjoy ment of the property in question. Conditions of Permit: r &Aeiae�GEa4� This tree removal permit is denied for the following reasons: /Vb k ,rJGrs) 1 ovAc Of �,°e 4- G 42-- �Q -,�J Fi c VaD Ce_44rF0 j iyoK L PLANNING C DIRECTOR or Desibnatcd STAFF REPRESENTATIVE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 7 -02_85 James and Pamela, Perisho 21195 Tollgate Rd. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re:' Tree Removal Permit Application Dear Mr. and Mrs. Perisho: Enclosed is a copy of your tree removal permit application to remove the cedars and pines you noted. As shown on the application, you have received a permit for removal of the.pines and the small cedar. The permit for the larger cedar is denied in that the necessary findings for its removal cannot be made. The inspector who did the site visit stated that this tree will help fill the void when the other trees are removed. If you wish to appeal this decision to the City Council, you must do so in writing to the Community Development Department within 10 calendar days. There is a $50.00 processing fee for the appeal. If you have any questions, please contact me between the hours of B :00 a.m. and noon, weekdays. Sincerely, Diana Lewis Planner tree 011117 cDO 0 oCc� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -:3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce l-i/ava David Moyles AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 7/30/85. (8/7/85) DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Request Investments (Farley Edna Young), 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Request to Amend the General Plan Zoning Designation from R -1- 10,000 to C -N Issue Summary Applicants request changes to the General Plan and Zoning Designations of 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. from Residential Medium Density Single Family to Retail Commer- cial and from R -1- 10,000 to C -N in order to allow a mixed residential /art gallery use on site. The residence was formerly occupied by the Shrager Gallery, which was a non conforming use. This use is no longer valid since the amortization period has expired. The site was part of a 1979 subdivision under the R -1- 10,000 zoning district standards, thus the residence is surrounded by residential use and character. Pr'.ior to any revision of the General Plan Map for the site to Commercial, the Land Use Policy regarding expansion of non residential zoning districts will need to be amended. Several other General Plan goals and policies may be involved in this de- cision. The specific use proposed appears to be low- intensity but the requested change would allow much more intensive uses. Parking and access to the site would be difficult for commercial uses. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not amend their Land Use Policy, LU.4.2; and deny the request to amend the Land Use Element and Zoning Designation at 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road in agreement with the staff recommendations. Fiscal Impacts Loss of potential sales tax revenues Exhibits /Attachments CITY OF SARATOGA o 1. Negative Declaration dated 6/26/85 2, Staff Report dated 7/2/85 3, Resolution GPA -85 -3 4. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing of 7/10/85 Council Action 8/7: Application withdrawn. 5. Written Correspondence (14 6 P/1 175 3) 6<. Exhibits Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. 0-- 3 EIA -4 Saratoga NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT w-- File No GPA 85 -3 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,_and.Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect -(no sub adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the General Plan and Zoning Designations of a .78 acre site at 20375 Saratoga Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, CA from residential medium density single family (M -10) to retail commercial and from R -1- 10,000 to C -N (Neighborhood Commercial). The applicant intends to operate a combined residential /art gallery use on the site. FARLEY EDNA YOUNG 1141 Cooper River Drive San Jose, CA 95126 C -225 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION This proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since the site has been occupied by a non conforming commercial use, the smallness of the site limits potential adverse impacts and any specific use proposal for the site will require a separate environmental review. Executed at Saratoga, California this 26th day of June 19 85 ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION 4414441. 111 14)• APPLICANT: 0 CJ' V_... PROPERTY' OWNER: T i III 1 L 1 VI.II1 1• Farley 1Y LU11Q I GUI ILJ 1 1 \DI LI\ 1 1 V WI�LI\ 11 ry l nve� 4r'len 1 4 s ADDI TnATTn4.1. 4.114 O 1 nnATTP1hl. 111 1 L.1V1111VI'4 14V• I. LV4)1111V1.1. ACTION REQUESTED: Amend the General Plan and Zoning Designation 4)f the: subject pr'oper'ty from Residential 'medium Deri5ity Singles Fam•Iiy (M -10) tG Retail Commercial J from R-1--10,000 t.. 1411 1\Gtail GVI'lTcrl.iat and 44) V I'4. ,.1 OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: A J 'a t_ the the 4)11 ILI\ 1111 1\VVI ILJ 1 \LW'Vtl\LU• IIITIelIUTicn40 44) 411E LGA1. Uf 4tle LVning VI 1� 1 1 o w mixed x d J t: 1 1 7 44) allow IltnGU residential/art gaaiar y use and a use .permit may be. J 1 e_quired. ENVIRONMENTAL this project. 714441 T 4.447'• R-1-10,000 L.VIVIIVV.. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Density Single Family (ti 10) EXISTING LAND VJL• Site was formerly ly Vccu ..lied. by the Schrager Gallery' L which was a noircorlformillg use. Site i5 currently vacant. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Jingle Family Residential; Dlll Lady of 'Fatima 14__.._1 l u_._ located d t fro 4)VIIVG1cs4)Gn' 4 114)1'10 is 1V1.Q4GU UUe east from site.- DADI -.CI 7 CTC. ?O A_...- ?7 ❑"7 •T 1 I IIILLL J 1 I_ I U Acres G� .l./ I J I I Sy 1 A11C17A1C CTTC CI 1405. 47__17 11VL1 \114)1_ JAIL JLV1 L• Gentle DI I/ L. U .J COMMISSION MEETING: 7/10/85 VJ 470 OC )'.IC. ?0/I7!'75 Saratoga Gatos-- CIJ 4)111 UJ J 4) LLJ1 L.4JJ IJ JDra 4VIJQ LVO VD44)s \U. ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration.has'beeri prepared for Report to the Planning Commission 7/2/85 GPA 85 -3, C -225, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Page 2 EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 57 Ft. Rear: 44 Ft. Left Side: 18 Ft. Right Side: 70 Ft. HEIGHT: .Two -Story 26 -27 Ft. PROJECT HISTORY: ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN CONCERNS: Per Applicant: Per Staff: SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor: 2630 Sq. Ft. (does not include Second Floor: 2226 Sn. Ft. garage) TOTAL: 4856 Sq. Ft. The subject property is occupied by. a two .story Georgian -style home built in 1911 by G.A. Wood. The home is listed in the City's inventory of structures and places considered to be of historic significance. It is staff's understanding that prior to the City's incorporation 1956 a gallery /antique shop use was established on the site and was allowed to continue as a non- conforming use. It should be noted that the amortization period for this use has expired and the only uses that can be allowed on the site are those associated with single family residential zones. In 1979 the property was subdivided into three lots consistent with the General Plan and R- 1- 10,000 zoning standards. All three lots, including the subject property, are occupied by single family dwellings sharing a common access road. The applicant has requested amending the General Plan and Zoning designations of the subject property to allow commercial use. These amendments are the first steps in allowing the proposed use. The next Steps include amending the text of the C -N distict to conditionally allow combined residential /art gallery uses and. 'then a use permit application for the specific. use itself. However, prior to making the changes listed above, a larder General Plan policy which governs all future commercial development in the City must first be considered and modified before a specific change in the subject property's designation is allowed. Land.Use Element Policy LU.4.2 currently states the following: LU.4.2 "Non- residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for non residential uses. Existing non residential zoning shall not be ,expanded nor new non residential zoning districts added The City Council is currently considering an amendment of this policy as part of the Morrison General Plan Amendment (GPA 85 -1) to change the r r r- c c c C0 En CD EO CD r n .a r -n ILI o r Ci f 01 t1 u, :o C 0 -n C: 1-- 0 I C. -n 73 rf. rf N 3 n ul CI ti -1 "Cr 1 1-- c0 -1 f•- -J n 01 :1 En Cr f N f N 01 C: I DI I 0 c: CI co f° N rf :I 31 1- 3 e-f NJ 1 cf CI 0- N f° 31 at f- N 0) cf tl nI [L 21 n :1 CL 01 cf f- -i I _I DI f- rf n, -D f•. al 01 DI OF N >C r 01 r DI cf i :f r 1 :1 :1 I 01 ti. rf f•• 0 01 :1 N n cf 01 cf ti) Or CI ILl cf n, 01 1:11 (.1, n. EL rf c-)- :r 01 N f- 0 01 N N n CL n -f f :r o. :I 1 c: c, 0 [L rt- I N r f° W C: C') n 1 01 N (31 ui nI m rf CD 1 f•- rf 0) f• CI) 0 1- f- 0- n, -1 :r rf f•. n, CL LEI 'I r O, rf 01 C: rf D, 0) CL 1 DI (1 nl f- 03 al (L! f- rf CL f.. f- IT 01 0 1 f- CL -r CI CI) rf f- cr DI 0 n N N 01 3 CL 'f- 01 n N UI 'i 0) 3 t 0 n :r ILI" 0 01 01 Cr DI 0 N f :1 0 -n f•• f•• 01 n I" -n 0 1.0 :t al 1 CL 1 DI cf 01' f- DI. cf 1 01 CL 3 CL 0, ,-f- a) 1.. _l: f•- f- i 0) C 0, f•- I tt 01 01 3 CL f 0 N I 0) -n :I :I 1 01 rf nl f- 0I :f n -n 31 0) -n 0) 01 CI rf 3 f :r 01 Cr C; f•• rf N tl CI CL 01 n, Di :1• w T 0 .01 f- n, I--. f CL f CI 01 n! M. CI 01 CL fr Co f.. 0 N :I f DI n I DI n rf 01 tt rf CL :1 CI N CL :1 OF -f (1 01 :r at DI n rf (1) 01 :I :i 1- CL CI f.. 0 CL n 0 :r 1 f- n f- O. 3 0 f CL f- C :r 3 co 3 f• 1-- 01 CL 1 0, cf DI f- co rf rf 01 1 3- GI :1 n 0 [L u, a 0 :r f•• n f•• I-.. 3 I-.. N 01 rf 01 al 0 C1 01 n I rf f. 0 rt.. n, f 1 3 N c_ N N al N' N 0 0) CL 0) 0. CL 3 CL 01 01 3 01 0) n -n CI f- rf tl N 0 N 0) at 01 f•• rf 0 C: 0, f•• 0 3 CL CL rf 1-•• 0) f'• CL CI 3 w :f CL 10 0 N DI N O N (1 0 DI CL :r CL :1 n r~ n1 el- 0 71 cr 31 :1 3 N r r 01 rf 0 N 3 C! 0) _t" n ni f CL 01 1 1 1 f•- :1 C1 at n! 3:. 0) 0) CL 'El :1 0" tl c3. ul c: ul (1) ul 1 ti 01 01 f•- I 3:1 ti, f•- ul 01 C1 CL 0) N n1 1 3t (1) f•- t• cf ti f•• N w ul 0 tt 0 0. tI 0 C, 0 TI cf N f•- 01 CL Di CL n t1 N 01 -I :r n (0 f•• CI n. (1) DI. 01 D1 01 0 Di cf cf 1 1 3 cf 3I n 1 0) f- rf t_.. cf I f- 01 IL, f•' 0) f•- rf rf 01 ul 01" C! N DI K; rf f-• 1 ul :r :i c: n -n at N• 01 f•- N n 01 f•- rf N CL t 1 0 0 0 N N IT ul f.. t, n c• h :I :1 0, 01 f•- CI 1--- 01 f•• 01 f- C: UI 01 31 CD rf f- DI 0) el- :I f•• DI DI f•• rf DI r 1 c: f•- 01 f- f- 1 cf :r :1. DI Cr c, CI 1 :i Ot `c; DI f- CL N CL rf 01 N :r ttl CL CL r tI' --I I CL 0 -n :0 CL CD %0 .D C1 :r C, f... f.• C, :r Or 0I n1 01 0 nl 1-- N 0, 0, f- I D,. 1- 1-- rf w _y" tl C7 CL r~ CL .1 f 0, 1- 0 CI 0) 0 0, r-•' 03 :r CI LEI. CO I n :1 %I" :f. N al r f :I. in rf n at C CI n n1 (0 1 C: GI 01 f r11 co N cr- Cif ri- 3i [r rf 0s c: CI :r 0) 1 c: -n 0) (1) rJ 31 :1 rf 01 C, 0 31 :r C, f•- 3 CL N N cif. r a D rf CL rn c� N [r n c: t). I :1 I :r n, u," 0 Y. :r >1. 0 GI 1 f•• -n 0 :r r f•- w u, :i i- 0, n c: N m a. n 0,. n, m rf D, 1 0I 1. uI a 01 .1 1 a, 01 (CI f•- 31 cf F-• C:. cL rf 0,. I 0, 01 :1 ni. :r C 0 :i nI c1 f•- N CL 0, f• :1 I w 0 CI f 3: tI 0,. ecl. :f u, :I 1-'; rf of f.. aI C: f- f- CI rf CL ILI 1 ICI" c-1- f- u! U, I. CL la Ct Cr. DI r'. CI. 1- CL N 1 cf :1 CL rf (1) (LI [r 0 :1 :1 C,. 1 Q, a rf N --1 N c: 01 DI m m <i rf f rf m rf u, :r ct :I :r C! r f- a .r :1 f 1 N 1 t N. N rf n, 0. _1 f•- 01 Cr 1 rf -n N DI I rf C, 1 0l f n 31. :1 a" CI N :r n f- N u, [L N N f• D, Tr f•• (LI c: CI D, rf tl a u! N N u, LEI f- 1 n 0) n 1 nl rf 3 i M f• a n f•• n 71 CI. f.• u, O 0" CL ul N 0 -n O. CI 01 'CI. f•- CL QV 01 "C1 f•. 3 1 0 ul TI 0 1 nt 1 3 N ti cf CL 0 rf C, 01. I D 0 01 0 I f :1. Cr a, :I rf N N ul" :r 3 rf f•• '1 E. c: 01. 3 1 rf t i CL rf f CL N 7 fl c; f- Cr N, co IL) f• Cr n, f•. 0 N CL C4 f• N Cr CL r_. CL .:1' 9, n, i Cr DI. :1 CI f cf 01 1 C 0, C, CL f- rf 'c; f-• 3 0 1 I cr D, n tl n f CL f.. f- rf t, N (I) D, rf f- r+- C! U N N N rf :r rf 31• N Ti :r a is 1-- f- ,-1- 0 0l. 01 :r 0, :r 01 f- rf xi N .1 C t) f•. 1 :1 f•- N Ct rf m :f 01 f•• -n 0 cf n :1. 1 D, .L u! 1 Co CL 1 O 0 0 n t1: 0 :r -0.- LEI D CL 01 f•. 01 N 0 0, f-• -n l G N 0l 1 ILi GI :I u, 31 elk- f- 0 CL 3. -I rf u1 N 01 0 :1 r N :r 0 f•• O f•- -1 cf CI 0 r EL n DI CL 1 01 130 O :I ;71. 01 CL o, n, N 0, f- CL N O f•. 0, ICI f- CL f- :1 0I nl• 1 1-- f- f'- 0, f•• r f [L ul N f- n r~ cL :I f•• L i cf n 0 rf CL 1 f° 0 ICI CL m c!. 01. 0 DI 3 cr m D, f- [r N CO Gt C: f- 01 cf G 0 rf f.• f.. f- DI N -n :I N f- C, 1 N F-1- rf Ct :1 0I f- r,_ :1-c:,- 0 rf 1 01 CL C: CI 31 31 CD f- CD I f• N CL N N Cr :1 Co 01 co f.. 0, 1 c- f•. N: 3t 31 rf 3 01: of I 7- 10 cf 0 n rf f Co 0 1 3 ul u, "nl rf w 1 cif N f" 0. =3 (3 C, -1 rf N N f•- 0I =1 n, f- 0 n 0, cf u 1r) -i <-1- n 0i .3) D 7 C f•• N tr :r Ti f•- rf DI :r :I' f C: f- .-s- CL rf p1 Ci 01. 01 CL f GI f•. C, CI 0 f- 0, n, u, f- 01 1 :1 N N 1 0 :I N CI 0 -J 3 4-1- tI n1 (0 CL 1 N :1 I CL f- f•• 0, O ID CL t N N rf cf 11 cf rf 1 f' 1 ICI IV !to N f- :I CL f C_! .r f•• N. n n N O 0) f• N 0, 1 0 (Ll 01 cf �c: DI CO DI 01 =b CI f- 01' n C f• CI 3t. W CO- D- 1 mail N C! 01 p, O :1 N c. 0 CL f Lit 0- C, -n 1 1 1 CL f•• C: N f•• f N f,. cf cf C: I-- 0l 3 0l ul •c: 1 -n 3 u1 0 :I 01 f- ,--4- f•• 0) I- f.. cf f- a, N Cn Cr pI f•- el- .1 0, N :r 1 cf 01 01 rf C: ICI rf 0, N 01 ci [L 1-- CL nt. CL 0 :1' rf nl 0 I— Gl. 01 C, Report to the Planning Commission GPA 85 -2, C -225, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road CIRCULATION NOISE CI.2.0 Facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic within and through the City, taking into consideration the environmental, historical, and residential integrity of the City. CI.5.0 Use presently planned street capacities in determining land uses and acceptable development densities. If it is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. CONSERVATION CI.5.1 The City shall require adequate access in keeping with the density of development. C0.5.0 Protect historical and archaeological values and significant geographic landmarks from destruction by development whenever possible. N.1.0 Protect Saratoga residents from excessive noise. ANALYSIS SITE SPECIFIC:. N.1.0 The City shall maintain and 'enforce the noise standards specified in the City's noise ordinance. The subject property is surrounded by single family residential use. Designation of the site for commercial use would constitute what is commonly known as "spot zoning" since the site is not contiguous to any commercial zoning. Spot zoning is discouraged since it generally would, allow use in areas where they could be incompatible and do not follow a logical or efficient. development pattern. The proposed amendment would place a single family residential lot (MATHS) between two commercial uses (The Napkin Ring catering service and the subject site). Such a position is not generally considered desirable for residential uses. Although the specific use of the property proposed by the applicant appears to be of low intensity, (See letters from Edna Young dated June 17, 1985• and June 19, 1985) the proposed amendments could allow much more intensive uses to occupy the site such as retail shops and restaurants. The subject property currently shares a common minimum access road with two other residential lots although the site also has a separate entrance. Commercial use of the site could generate traffic which would conflict with residential use of the minimum access road and would be greater in volume than what is expected for minimum access roads. For purposes of general 7/2/85 Page 4 c) 0 1, 141 ril 0. --I 0 r h :r :r =t 0, a (1l 21 =I ,11 0 (13 rn :i n z 0 c: -h o ut pi Tl c I C, TI CI 01 •4- 0.1 01 1 CL 1-• r I-- 0, 3 3 al 3t 1 0. CI I-- :1 0 o 0 o C: -h n ci :1 _1 _I c. :1 c. 21 f CL c. 01 :r of -1 r1 T 41; 0 c■-• nl c. r :I El 01. n1 ril -h al o, c. C: c. IEI 3 :r :r. c) En o. n r n n,. -I. a, o 0 c. CO 1 CI C_ (it -0 -31 r 1 3 u1 E 1",.1 31. al al ak 21 -s• Di a T1 _1 1. 1J (11 El 3. 01 1 0 01 1 01 I r.) 0 01 CL 1 (11 _I ut 1 0 o 3-" CL 0 0) al (11 c. •CL :1 CI n 13 0 0 ICI CL _1 -I 0 C: 0. a c. 21 0'- 0) 0, 1 0 _I 0 at al :1 CL c: h 0 Of 1 CL a) CI 1- r- 1 _t 13. n1 c. co E: 1--• c r 1 1 u) :r at al a 91 1 a) ICI -l. n 0 to _i TI n, CI n 3 co :1 rJ 1 -1 3t :r al c. 0, 0 c. =1 Di c. :r c. n c. ti to 1 0 (I3 (1) 0 El 0 1 1 ul CL 01 _3 cJ c. 01 al tl o h 01 CL 0 0 =1 0 :r =1 31 n, :1 0 CO ti 0, I-" E: Ill CI ,f- el- c. m 0 1 u) r r .71 u1 cr I :1 (1 a c1- (1) pi 1-" 3-.- DI. CD 1 CL r 0 01 E 0: al N 01 _I 0) E: 0 f c. 0 0 0 c. n 0 Cl 10 1 PI o, -h 33 [L c. 1 :1 33. 01 1-' 117 :1 c. _n) o 1 T1 (3 _b I.. CL DI 0 :b to C -h -h 0 al 31 0 C c CI c. 0 01 n1 -h :I c. al DI N :3 r3 :r 1 co 1 c. al CL 31 0) 21 01 1-- c. 01 :I 0L .r 0- o o CL a1 0 a,- r. c. co :1 u) al CD 1 In E: 1 a) to u1 C, co 0 c. .3 311 0 :r 01 CL 31 n, (11 CI' 31 n rn 1 n). -h (11 Cl to 3 c: :1 1 a) :1 c. C: DI (11 r I 0 _I 0 al 01 n, -I .3 c. CJ 01 TI c. c. E; .-4 0 _r :r 1-•• :1 --3 n, c. c. (11 n, c. (11. o T CJ TI I ul El I c. tl tl c. n) LO CI tl :1 0 1 Cl. n 0 1--• tI 1-•- 01 0 h 01 c. 1-•- ul 1-•. nl 1--. CL :r 21 nl n 01 (1i TI CL 0 0, C: CL 0 0) ar Cl n1 31 0 CO DI :1 0 i 01 (I) c. 31 CL CL 1 t1.•. 21 =1 01 nl 1. 0 a, IT .4- 1 0 1-- 1 01 t3 0 c. 0 r. ul 0 ur u, 01 h 1-- o nl al 01 u1 CL 1 01 01 nl tr _I' cr 01 N CL a) (1 Di 01 :1 c. Ct C) 0). ICl c: CL T :r h t i u1 n, Of t1 a) 0, N., -1 c. 1 CI 0, 0l :r 0 CI _i t, 0 co tl -h -h t1 c. 1 DI 1 21 u 31 0 21 1 r i ll 0: r n cr c. al: n 91 0 3-.. nl •c; 01 T :I h (1t n� 0. c. n :1 1 t13 0 r (11 -1 n) 0 a) T3 a T11 0) 0 1 0 CL CI C1 CL -l tI pi 0- 0 21 N. _I 01 C: cr a, c. i--• (11 EL 07 CL 01 01 n 0 E: CL :r :1 nl 0 01 u1 c: :1 c. t to :r co CL CL (II PI 0 1D 0 1 cr :r [t 0 CL CI CI -1 c. I 01 T c. r1 0. o C1 :r E: Cl. CI o 0 CL _i :b Cr 0 I c1- co- Of h0 (11 r c. c. 01 7 c T c. 0 3- (11 1 c. :r N t tI n CJ C) 1 C: -1 r.. CI c 0 0 I =1 01 31 CL cr Cl Cr 0- =1 1 C: N 0 Ol al 1 1 I o, ul cr f u1 0, CI O -h n 0,. T, _I (1) 0, 01 I TI c..•. m 01 0 n C: O ti 0 u) 0 al T al .r 01 DI CL _I -1 1-- CL E: 1 0, 1 N :1 (U t-- CL CL 0) 1- j f.' c. n1 ICl n, :r m 3i (11 C, 1 011 01 1 Ci 1 (1) nl h 3 al 3-) CI Cl 0 01 r C:- O) CL 3 CD C1) .0 CL D -1 C: Et Pi au)). n =b 0, 0 0) ce p 0 u) c. -n T h c. a1 C L (1 al al r1- T 1 U1 T 0 n) ID O Cl 3 (1)1. I :1 _I 0 CL ICI 21 D 0 CI h •.1 c. .1 ID T rn n) c1. O 1 ul 31 :1 1 u1 1 [L ICI N C -71- 1 ul :1 OI E: c. 1 CL •0 DI '0 -h w :i 0, 01 O DI O h 01 01 c: (11 01 1 u1 01 a N E :r c TI c. 0, 'El 01 --t 0, -r 0, =r -I 0, 0 -r 01 1 1-.. a1 I n' a) 3-- al. c. 7:- 01 01. 7r 0 3 3-.. 31 03 c. :1 J 2 1- C: r (LI 01 0 IC) t o TI 7 10 n, -n CL DI (11 ID- c. ul 0, I al (11 0, PI c. TI c. 7- w T o, al 0, al 0 :I :r. r1- l 01 1--• n1 to 01 CL •-t- 3... p O) 0, 0 0 CL (1) :3 E: -h c) -1 n El nl 0, _1 n, c: c. [L c. (I c. 1 CI 1--1 CL :r al u) 01 1 h 1 al _3 r f co cr :1 c. c. 1 a1 o, I a c. nl h (11 UI 0 TI 0 E: 1 =1 o o O 0 0, c. :l CI 21 n, =3 21 c..1 n 0 01 c. _C t CL I U, 0 :1 0 0 0 PI CI -h ICI 0, CL c. c. (1) 01 .0 Ln T o' w 0 T at co 0 cr n al 1. or 1--• 0: 1 1 al. at -h u1 01 to 0 Cl I al 1 :I 1 O 3-. e. 4N. CI :I. 1 0 U 1 :r -,-f 0 0) E: c.. CI :r c. 0 -U co 0. a :r 7.3 ul b o 30 1 CL c'- 01 01 _T tl c. c1- 0 a, ICl PI 0 nl tr n a :r E: 1-_- a o (I) nl 3-- I .Q :1 a CL 0 0, I, n E: 01 E.' ICI N 1 01 0, 0 0 a) CI 'El- :1 C: c. .i El 0 c. tl c. al 01 01 ((1 0) CL to I C: Cr- 0 7r 0 1 al I c. in cr :I Cr n 3 c. 0 c. (1 nl 0 10 co u) 0 0' -h (11 0 CL 01 01 CL Cr 01 CL tit :1 (1) c,- :i T CL 01 (I) 03 c. c. O, C: :r0) ca n :1 h CI (I) T r :1 .0) C c1- a, 01 01 CL 3 0) 'r I n tl n) n, n, TI c. 0 al. TI Pi 3 co 0 DI 01 0, 1 n 31 1 1 7- 01 7r al :1 :i -h r- 3 c1- a, I C) -1 c. El u) CL h 1 ID Co 0 1 1:n n. ct- n c5 ,0 al 0, 0 1 IT Cl 0 n) ul 1 =1 Zr. =1 :b TI 01 21 Ti t-•. "Cl 0 CL c. a, 01 ri 01 CO I n, C, 1 I Ln c. _1 El CI CL al 1 1 c. 01. 0, ul L.3 c. ul I 01 0 CI r I--.... a b 0- a 01 c. 1 I :r 1. 01 1-•- 01 r^.) n, c. 01 1. TI r- r CD b CL tut I Ln 0 a, 01 o to c. r- CL 0) 0 0 01 (1 (-3 1 33 ut 1 s< 1 CD :1 =1 0. -h (..l nt 0 ul 01 -J 1 CL Ln ILI c. 31 c l Er 01 01 =1 C:' -1 Cn c) c. CL (11 1 a) 01 CI (W. 01 01 1 33 :1' ID 1 01 :1 CL c. _I nl ,-I- 1*. c. 01 Cr 0) 0 W n r 0) CI to 0) 1 co C: I CL 0, :i 1 u, :r al 3 0 nl c, .1 r .1 0.- cr Cr c r E m. L4 [L -3- 0) CI CL Cn 01 c: 1: CI) 1-- 01 1 1 01 CL 1 -.I (1) C: co- (11 CO c. 01 0 Cr Cu 0) u) al :1 Cl 0 C3 0 (1) b CI 0 _r 0, :1 1_.. rl CL u). (u C1 0 c: 31 r CL cr n 21 nl. m u, a) I c. c. 1 01 01 1 n 01 CL _t. c. t1 01 c. Lit a 01 01 C: CL t Cr 01 0 DI I-.. C: C: c. 21 0) 01 al CL :3 c. 0. :r 44 a, _b E7, 01 4 n1 1-. n. 0- 1 -0 0 r al 01 :1 CI 1 ID rd c. c. c: 0) DI CI (II El to c* co :r :r 01 in Ln c. 3 .-l- c. rl T 0 IT a) -h 0) 0 ••i IQ\CJut t to the Planning Commission 7/2/85 Gcd OC n_;'7"YC '7A :•'7C Saratoga-Los C D_ 441 11 UJ .J 44 a. a..J YJ.J 1 J Vat VS 1 \44QU J Pa1 e U If 1 X41 J 1 L' General Q1._ J f 1_ ''1_ 1 11 Qp 1,1QI1 *1 i.7 used then .the Plan ue.7igrlatj0n for the site ii self would be considered ,unchanged and rezoning could not occur since the zoning of the sloe IIIUst be LOnsisten4•i.Jith the General Plan. OCnnMMCAInA r T n111 I \L JU1111LIVU11 1 14411 Staff 1 474.441'11'I47nds that option n I be used. In regard d to 4 applicants.' N L Ile specific f is r G ues 4 t V c th designation g. 1 f 1( 1 1. D...1 7 FN y change the L 7 4. 01. 4114 4714e 40 1\4764711 n____ 1 J J: denial f this 44441'111471 4.1471. staff 1 474.u1'II'IGn Us 4447111471 Q I request for 1 e reasons mentioned in the staff r cpu1 t. Since staff recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment, and the Zoning of a site rust be consistent with 1L_ G_ 1 D1 1 _f C J Je 1 f the 41147 4447r1er471 Plan, staff I GcoI'Il'1erlU47' 147ni471 01 4 147 prGpOSed zoning change. I]n1Cn1 {I 1 v 1 I \ULUUI 4L If this request is Voted on and not continued, a resol.uitlon describing the action of the Planning Commission and specific findings Will be prepared for Commission consideration at its meeting of July L. t.II.. This 1teili will be scheduled or City Council consideration at is meeting 1 f City 1 '1• tang of August 7th. /10Q0n1 1Gn 111 1 I\UVLLJ IlI JL I n Luj4 I 0 .4.. A rgeilda L UJ Mic iiaei Flores Associate Planner tommilreAr oulgiiiiiittA4 iiiii =rib Ipt::-BP 141 404 Ids it,0) e0 $1,t1i, t 41W ell, 4*# t ii° 1 -1 k- 4* 20,000 �4$a .74, row* g .A.,........„.. SCHOOL, Change from Residential Medium w. Density Single. Family (M -10) to tt Retail Commercial, Rezone from R- 1- 10,000 to C -N (Neighborhood =nil Commercial r te` ♦O A I Ai p 4 %I 4 4 ef 401....olioli reltt w. in Mil 1141i■ ANIE :t Pac 65-3) Q 2 z SARATOGA HIGH 5G44001, N 4�N1� -O R-1-12;500 r Yotc RESOLUTION NO. GPA 85 -3 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING THAT THE. CITY COUNCIL DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP FOR A SMALLER THAN 1 ACRE SITE AT 20375 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received.an application from Edna and Farley Young to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Designation of a .78 acre parcel (APN 397-22-49) from Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Retail Commercial; and, WHEREAS, Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2must be amended prior to any action on the above request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65353, held a'public hearing on July 10, 1985, and reviewed the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the draft negative declaration and the findings attached as Exhibit "B NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not amend Land Use Element policy LU.4.2; and That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not amend the Land Use Element Designation of a parcel at 20375 Saratoga =LOS Gatos Road (APN 397- 22 -49) from Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Retail Commercial as shown on Exhibit "C based on the findings as stated in Exhibit "8 The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 24t17day of July 1.985, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners. Burger,. B., Harris,..J. Harris, Peterson, Pines, Schaefer .and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: Chairman, Planning Commission FINDINGS: EXHIBIT "B" t. The proposed General Plan amendment will not maintain the residential character of adjacent residential neighborhoods and could have adverse impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed General Plan amendment could adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which limit commercial development. 7 Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes Meeting 7/10/85 SD -1584 Commissioner Siegfried agreed with Mr. Lohr, stating that the Commission does not want this to end up with all single- story, massive homes, spread all over the lots. He added that the Commission should put some caps so the homes are not too high, yet allow some flexibility. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close. the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve SD -1584, per Exhibit B, with the modified conditions, and in addition the height shall be reduced to 18 ft. on Lot 7. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. There was also a consensus to change the conditions in the Staff Report dealing with height limits and pad elevations; specifically Condition I on page 8, to reflect what is on the exhibit, and to have a blanket 26 ft. height limit on any lot that is not otherwise specified in the conditions. The vote was taken on the motion to approve SD -1584. The motion was carried unanimously 6 -0. 6. A -1101 Mr. and Mrs. Sudin Vittal, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two -story single family residence on a hillside lot which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard at 15265 Montalvo Heights Court in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from June 26, 1985 (to be continued to July 24, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to July 24, 1985. 7. SUP -11 Vuka Stepovich, 14233 Old Wood Road, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing, detached,one- story second unit in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from February 27, 1985 (to be continued to September 25, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985. 8a. GPA 85 -3- Ary Consider Amending the General Plan and 8b. C -225 Zoning Designations of a .78 acre property at 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from Residential- Medium Density Single Family (M -10) to Retail Commercial and from R -1- 10,000 to C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) The application was explained by Staff, indicating that they were recommending denial because the parking is insufficient and the noise relative to any commercial use here would be a problem for the adjacent residential. They added that they feel the proposal is incompatible with the residential surroundings. The correspondence received on the proposal was noted. A petition from Mary Lou Taylor with 9 signatures, in favor of the proposal, was submitted. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Edna Young, the applicant, explained that they had purchased this property with the intention of moving both their residence and the art gallery which they own in San Jose. She explained that Ary Investments is a four family corporation. She noted that they do have a 1973 letter on stationary from the City, written to Alice Schrager, regarding a grandfather clause. She referenced their letter describing the proposed operation of the gallery. Ms. Young stated that the gallery use is lower than a residential use that would utilize six bedrooms. She cited the history of the site, noting that there have been no complaints from ,neighbors regarding the usage over the last 25 years. She pointed out that the home is on the Heritage Commission's inventory and they would consider applying for landmark status with that Commission. She added that they would be glad to abide by reasonable conditions put on a conditional use permit to make it compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. 5 GPA 85 -3, C -225 Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes Meeting 7/10/85 Young suggested that if the Commission has concern about controlling uses in the future, one possible alternative would be to expand the borders of the Village to include this property and develop some special rules that would allow the gallery,, keeping it a residence. She added that the home could also revert back to residential at the time they would sell or vacate the property. She stated that they would appreciate a study session with the Commission, adding that they do not feel they are asking for any different kind of use than has been consistently in the home and on the property for the last 25 years, and would like to discuss any adjustments that the Commission feels might be necessary. She submitted letters in favor of the proposal, the deed, and some signatures of people who live in Saratoga, in support. The hours of the operation were discussed. She clarified that all business of the gallery could be conducted by appointment. Steve Richard spoke in favor of the application, stating that he had always considered the Schrager property to be a commercial venture and urged the Commission to recommend approval. He commented that the new neighbors certainly were aware of the commercial development that was there when they purchased the property, and he feels this would be an asset to the longstanding neighbors and would not impact the value of their property or their life style. Richard Arian, 20160 Mendelsohn Lane, spoke in favor of the application, stating that he feels the Youngs would be a wonderful asset to the City and the use is perfect for the building. Tom Tish, 14735 Aloha, spoke in favor of the application, stating that he has known the Youngs for a long time and also the Schrager gallery. He commented that he feels it would be an outstanding addition to the City and submitted a letter to that effect. Mr. Tish noted the other commercial uses in the neighborhood. John Witkin, 14020 Pike Road, spoke in favor, stating that he feels the Youngs should be allowed to use their talent in this community. Ken Rodriquez, architect, stated that he has known the Youngs for eight years, both on a professional level and as a homeowner. He noted their integrity and commented on the availability of parking at their present gallery. He commented that he feels that the driveway in front of the Schrager mansion would support very adequately the amount of cars that typically the use has generated. Mr. Rodriquez commented on the quality of their gallery. He stated that he feels that it would be an asset to the community to have this use, which is an appointment only type of traffic, vs. a high and walking traffic. He noted the low noise involved with their operation. Debbie Rodriquez stated that she was a former neighbor of the Youngs and spoke in favor of the application from a personal standpoint. Terry Rose, Carnelian Glen, spoke in favor of the application, stating that he has personally known the Youngs for years and has done business with them. He stated that he feels the intended use of this building is consistent with the use that has been there for many years. Betty Maus, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, stated that she has lived next door to the property for thirty -three years and spoke in opposition to the application. She commented that she has a feel for the historical significance of the area. She indicated that Greg Grodhouse would speak further for her this evening. Jack Christian, President of Montalvo- Mendelsohn Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition. He commented that one day there could be a 7 -11 on the same site if it is rezoned. He stated that he does not feel that people are thinking to the future. He added that that operation has existed for twenty some odd years without rezoning, and he does not see any need to rezone it now. He commented that, if the City wants that 7 Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes Meeting 7/10/85 GPA 85 -3 and C -225 gallery to be there, there must be some way to do it without rezoning. Commissioner Siegfried asked the people in opposition to indicate if the issue was (a) rezoning commercial or (b) the gallery operation, and whether if a way was found to allow this gallery, would they be opposed to that. Mr. Christian stated that their homeowners group does not want a zoning change, and they have no opposition to the gallery on the site. Greg Grodhouse, 20379 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, spoke in opposition, representing the Davies, the Coughlans, Ms. Maas, the Mattis family, the Campbells, and himself. He indicated that these are the families most affected, in that they border the property. He submitted a petition, signed by 73 people, in opposition to the application. He stated that they all feel that the Youngs operate a very quality gallery, are nice people, and they welcome them to Saratoga. However, they all support the arts, noting that they just loaned their neighborhood in support of the San Jose Symphony for the Designer Showcase, but would like the Youngs to place the gallery in a place of commerce. Mr. Grodhouse commented that the grandfather clause, if there was one, expired and the neighborhood would like the property to be used as stated. He gave a history of the site, indicating that in 1979 it had been subdivided and two additional homes were formed. Therefore, the buffer between this property and the other homes has been reduced by these additional homes. Mr. Grodhouse noted that they share common easements and private easements. He pointed out other commercial uses that could go on this property if it is rezoned. He also discussed the access to the property and the potential traffic. He stated that he explored the grandfather clause when he purchased his property, and there is certainly a difference in saying that you purchase a property with a limited time left for a home business, vs. •saying that you purchase the property when it has a full retail use. Mr. Grodhouse pointed out the residential in the area along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. He urged the Commission to reject the application and maintain the consistency of past decisions. He clarified that they are opposed to the rezoning and any use other than residential. Suzanne Lorshbaugh, 14475 Oak Place, spoke in opposition to rezoning to commercial use and the property being used for anything other than a residence. She gave the history of the structure, stating that it is a private residence. She discussed the traffic problem in the neighborhood already caused by the Federated Church, stating that this use would add more. She stated that they have a very historical neighborhood, and she feels that they are under severe serious attack from commercialism in their neighborhood. She commented that she is wondering how far is it the City's intention to extend the business district or the Village area of Saratoga. She explained that she is in the process of petitioning for historical landmark status of her home, and are interested in possibly the whole neighborhood being designated as such. She added that this is a residential area, not commercial. Frank Mattis, the next -door neighbor, stated that if this is rezoned commercial he will be sandwiched in between commercial, and he added that his property value will decrease. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, stated that she lives directly on the alley which would become the ingress and egress for the site. She noted that Charlotte Wendell lent support to the application as an individual, and was not speaking for the Montalvo Board. John Saunders, Aloha Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application. He noted the traffic and parking involved with the Showcase Mansion. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger asked if the nonconforming use that was enjoyed by the gallery and the antique shop was in effect solely because this operation was ongoing before the City's incorporation. The City Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes Meeting 7/10/85 X GPA 85 -3 and C -225 Attorney stated that was his understanding, and that use has expired. He explained that the City's ordinance has never contained a grandfather clause beyond the amortization period, and that period would have expired long ago. He commented that there is another provision in the ordinance that says once a use is abandoned for 90 days, then regardless of the amortization period, it expires by reason of that 90 -day termination of use. He explained that the particular use of this property as an antique shop was discontinued for more than 90 days, so the nonconforming use has both expired and been abandoned. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she is not anti -arts, and she thinks that were this building located in any other area, it would be a wonderful use. However, having been very active in the General Plan process, she feels very strongly about the Land Use Element, which states that anything that is presently designated on the General Plan as residential shall stay that way and the City shall not expand commercial into that which is residential. She added that it is her duty as a Commissioner to make sure that is upheld, and she sees no need to change it. Commissioner Burger agreed and added that the proposed use by the Youngs would, in another area, be ideal and she welcomes it into Saratoga. She stated that the problem the Planning Commission is faced with is that the only way that use can be brought into that-.building is by rezoning, and she feels that would essentially be spot zoning. She commented that she feels that is very dangerous, because as soon as it is zoned commercial the City does ,not have any protection for the future as to what sort of a commercial establishment goes in there. Therefore, for that reason alone she would vote against the application. Commissioner Siegfried concurred. He stated that, having been on the Commission for a long period of time and being sensitive to not expanding commercial areas into residential areas, he would have to vote against the application. Commissioner Peterson stated that he wished he could find a way to support the gallery there in a very limited use. However, he cannot support a-change to the General Plan or the rezoning because of lack of parking, the proximity to the existing residential, plus the fact that it is in a sense spot zoning. CommissionerJ. Harris moved to recommend denial of GPA 85 -3and C -225. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. It was pointed out that this matter will be noticed for August 7, 1985 to the City Council. Discussion followed on the possibility of operating a gallery as a home occupation. The City Attorney stated that the present Home Occupation Ordinance would not allow this activity to be conducted in a residential zone by reason of the fact that (1) There are sales being conducted on the premises, and (2) There are employees on the premises. He stated that it might be possible, but some of the issues may not be acceptable, to have the Village boundaries drawn to include this parcel, with the understanding that the underlying parcels are still zoned residential, and developing a special Home Occupation Ordinance that is applicable only to the Village. He explained that that would be under a use permit process. The property would remain residentially zoned, and there could be a home occupation in that Village district, which would become a separate zoning district overlay, that would allow it to operate under a use permit. He added that the only difference between that type of home occupation and a home occupation in other residential districts would be that this would require a use permit; it would allow employees, and it would allow on -site sales. He explained that the problem with that is that there may be some objection to drawing the Village boundaries to include these properties, even though the inclusion of the properties within the Village would not change the zoning. He added that additional language could be added to reaffirm the policy that the properties remain residential. 8 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 7/10/85 Page 9 GPA 85 -3 and C -225 Chairman Peterson commented that he and Commissioner Siegfried were on the Village Task Force, and they spent a lot of time looking at the Village and the boundaries. He indicated that they had discussed that very item, and he stated that he does not feel there is much support from the Village Task Force level to include the three or four residences in question. Break 9:15 9:35 p.m. 9a. A -1105 Brett Cross, Request for Design Review Approval to 9b. V -704 allow a second -story addition to an existing one -story residence and Variance Approval to provide one covered parking space where two are required at 12601 Paseo Cerro, in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district Staff explained the project, stating that they were recommending approval of the design review and denial of the variance. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the usable yard space in the rear appears to be small. She commented that there is heavy screening on both sides of the lot. She added that there is very little room on either side of the home to accommodate a driveway, since the lot is substandard in width. She stated that the placement of the garage in the rear yard would necessitate a change in the proposed design of the home. The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Cross, the applicant, submitted a model of the proposal. He commented that, looking at the plans, the structure looks flat and high. However, in viewing the model it does not appear that way. He described the design, noting that there are no windows on the southerly side, in order to avoid impacting the neighbor's view. He noted the letter from the neighbor, in support of the project. He discussed the parking area, stating that he did mot want to place a two -car garage in the back yard because of needing space for children and heavy landscaping there. He discussed a tandem parking arrangement, stating that that would shade two windows which would eliminate 25% of the solar capacity. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she felt since the use is being intensified so much, that it needs to have covered parking spaces, rather than having cars parked out in front which depreciates the value of ,a neighborhood. Mr. Cross stated that the only feasible way to get two covered parking spaces would be to put a covered space in front of the garage, i.e., in tandem, and he indicated that that could be done. Discussion followed on this possibility and the solar aspect. Commissioner Siegfried asked if there is a way of extending the rear wall a little and the wall a little in the front, to have a tandem garage. Mr. Cross indicated that it would probably be more feasible to come out from the front. Commissioner Peterson stated that he felt if there was a carport out in the front it might make the design more attractive. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus to support a carport in tandem. It was clarified to Mr. Cross that the code says that a carport must be 9 -1/2 ft. wide, and anything outside of that could be open. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A -1105, per the Staff Report dated July 1, 1985 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. It was noted that if Mr. Cross has the covered parking he does not need the variance. Therefore, Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V -704. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 9 AGENDA BILL NO. 9:06 DATE: DEPARTMENT: Issue Summary Council Action: 8/7: Report confirmed.with revised list. CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens Exhibits /Attachments: 1. List of candidates for property liens. 2. Summary of July 25, 1985, Administrative Hearing 3. Correspondence from Mr. Terry Rose Initial: Dept. Hd. August 7, 1985 C. Atty C. Mgr. In the Spring of. 1984, the City Council adopted Section 7 of the Saratoga Municipal Code outlining financial collection procedures for solid waste disposal accounts in conjunction with the requirement that all Saratoga addresses would have to subscribe to Green Valley's solid waste collection service. Section 7 indicated that each Saratoga homeowner who failed to pay for the service would be turned over to the City for collection. The City, in turn, would achieve collection through the filing of a lien against the owner of the property. The lien would include the amount of the original bill, interest and late charges added by Green Valley as by ordinance, and a $40 administrative charge imposed by the City to recover the costs associated with the processing of the lien. Recommendation In accordance with Section 7 of the Municipal Code, the attached list of individuals are eligible to have liens placed on their properties for the amounts indicated due to either the non- payment of their refuse bill or non compliance with the City's mandatory refuse collection ordinance. Fiscal Impacts: None. The $40 administrative charge fully recovers the costs of staff and contractor time associated with the filing of the lien. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens O ©0 LV DATE: 8/7/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 8/7/85 PURPOSE In accordance with Section 7 -15 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, the purpose of this report is to inform the Council of delinquent solid waste disposal accounts which have been referred to the City for collection. Section 7 of the Municipal Code states that the City will attempt collection through the filing of a property lien against the property at the service address. ANALYSIS In the Spring of 1984, the City Council adopted Section 7 of the Saratoga Municipal Code outlining financial collection procedures for solid waste disposal accounts in conjunction with the requirement that all Saratoga addresses would have to subscribe to Green Valley's solid waste collection service. Section 7 indicated that each Saratoga homeowner who failed to pay for the service would be turned over to the City for collection. The City, in turn, would achieve collection through the filing of a lien against the owner of the property. The lien would include the amount of the original bill, interest and late charges added by Green Valley as authorized by ordinance, and a $40 administrative charge imposed by the City to recover the costs associated with the processing of the lien. The Municipal Code indicates that individuals who are candidates for the lien proceedings will have a right to two public hearings; an administrative hearing and a hearing before the City Council. The purpose of the administrative hearing is to give individuals who feel they are on the list of delinquent accounts by mistake, the opportunity to show cause why their names should be removed. The purpose of the Council hearing is to give individuals who participated in the first hearing an opportunity to appeal their cases to the highest decision making level of the City, the City Council. The attached list of delinquent accounts is for those who had not paid their quarterly refuse bill during the months of March, April, and May, 1985, and have not shown sufficient cause as to why their names should be removed from the list. Their administrative hearing was held on July 25, 1985, in the City's Community Center. A summary of the hearing is attached. Three people attended the hearing, and one presented sufficient evidence causing his name to be removed for this particular list (Mr. Foster). Others have submitted written testimony in lieu of attending the administrative hearing, or have called and referenced evidence which was confirmed by Green Valley Disposal, causing their names to be removed from the list (in most cases, payment was made to Green Valley instead of the City when the account was in the process of being transferred to the City for collection). Only one person has submitted written testimony in lieu of being present at the Council's public hearing, and the letter from Mr. Terry Rose is attached which constitutes his testimony. The remaining list of individuals are those who have not paid their refuse bill for the period commencing March 1, 1985, and ending May 31, 1985, and fall within the purview of Section 7 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. CONCLUSION In accordance with Section 7 of the Municipal Code, the attached list of individuals are eligible to have liens placed on their properties for the amounts indicated due to either the non- payment of their refuse bill or non compliance with the City's mandatory refuse collection ordinance. PREPARED BY: Todd W. Argow Community Services Director twa12 Acct Name F. STAUFFER 18931 Ansley Place Barbara D. DURBIN 12269 Atrium Circle Muh SYNN 20931 Canyon View Dr. Terrence J. ROSE 14595 Carnelian Glen Ct. Maynard SWIFT Ralph FLYNN Helmut BRUNS �fikc OLAVARRI Felix ROSENGARTEN 13902 Malcolm Ave Janct DAMPER Misano ARAKI Acct Address 13810 Saratoga Vista Ave. 19290 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd 13545 Saraview Drive 15155 Vii.ki,1 y Eame 13250 MLCulloLh Strcct 14045 Quito Rd Prop. owner Stauffer, Nelda W. same same MONTGOMERY Lloyd Lcoro DAY ct al P/o Address same same Amount Parcel $94.20 386 -20 -024 70.30 386 -56 -008 Muh Okji SYNN Terrence Trudy ROSE same Marilyn K SWIFT same Ralph M. Jr. Rosem FLYNN same Helmut Sigrid BRUNS same same 503 -28 -007 70.30 397 -37 -010 31 70.30 397 -30 -042 70.30 510 -06 -049 70.30 503 -53 -052 70.75 -i Felix Loretta ROSENGARTEN same same 1 88.77 503 -50 -002 7n 30 503 4 70.30 2 397 -02 -075 Time: July 25, 1985, 10:00 a.m. Place: Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue Type: Administrative Hearing on Lien Proceedings for Delinquent Garbage Collection Service The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. City Attorney Hal Toppel, Community Services Director Todd W. Argow, and Dennis Varni of Green Valley Disposal Company were present. Mr. Topped explained that this hearing relates only to statements covering the billing period ending in May, 1985. A second hearing will be held on August 8 to deal with statements covering the billing period ending February, 1985. Any payments received were first applied to the later billing (May); once the account is assigned by Green Valley to the City for collection, Green Valley then shows a zero balance for the account. The purpose of these hearings is solely to listen to people against wham a lien is being claimed for non payment of the charges, and to make appropriate adjustments on the basis of the testimony received. No decisions will be made today; we will notify you by mail. The purpose today is to gather information, check the records, and advise you later if the lien has been lifted if there is a record of payment or some legitimate reason why payment was not made. Robert Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, 379 -9198. Green Valley records show the billing period ending in May as being paid. Mr. Foster also received a notice of lien proceedings for the billing period ending in February. He has talked to Mr. Argow in the past. About a year and a half ago, service was stopped for about 3 weeks, so after that time Mr. Foster made other arrangements for his garbage. Mr. Foster desires service, but will not pay for what he is not receiving. Mr. Varni said that service may have been stopped because the bill was not paid. Green Valley will research this and get back to Mr. Foster. Jean Denny, 12350 Via Arrriba Dr. Green Valley records show this account as being paid. Mrs. Denny has also received a notice for the Dec -Feb. quarter. Mrs. Denny said she has written'letters to the City Council regarding this and the Council has not responded. She said if her home is liened, she will sue the City; this bill is not Constitutional. Mr. Toppel said he did send a letter to Mrs. Denny stating that because her check was indicated as having been intended for full payment for the service rendered and was negotiated by Green Valley with that condition, that as far as the City is concerned, our records show Mrs. Denny has paid in full, although she paid less than what had been billed. There is no lien being claimed against her property. Terry Rose, 14595 Carnelian Glen Ct. Has lived at address for 9 years and has never taken the garbage service. He removes the trash from his residence. Mr. Rose has not requested and does not want the service. He feels that by removing his garbage daily he is within the ordinance, since the purpose of the ordance is to provide health, sanitary safety measures. Trash removed on daily basis is better than trash removed once a week. No one further appearing to speak, the hearing was delcared closed at 10:35. PREPARED BY: TERRENCE J, ROSE 14595 Carnelian Glen Saratoga, CA 95070 July 29, 1985 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Ordinance No. 38.119 Garbage Disposal Dear Mayor and Council Members: For nine years my family and I have resided in Saratoga at 14595 Carnelian Glen We have of —the trash removal service provided by Green Valley Disposal Company. I have personally removed all trash and garbage from our Saratoga property on a daily basis. Section 7 -1, Purpose of Chapter of the above captioned ordinance is quoted as follows: "This Chapter 7 is determined and declared to be a health, sanitary and safety measure necessary for the promotion, protection and preservation of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Saratoga." It is difficult for me to comprehend how the daily removal of trash and garbage does not fully meet, and even exceed, the stated purpose of the ordinance. Surely all the people of Saratoga are better served having my trash and garbage removed on a daily basis as opposed to only once every seven days. In the unlikely event you disagree with my position, perhaps you could instruct the City Attorney to give me a clear and logical justification as to how and why I fail to be well within the stated purpose of the ordinance. I apologize for not being able to attend the hearing, but I will not return from a long trip until late in the evening of the hearing. I trust you will hear further explanation_ of my _position_ from Mr. Todd_ Argow, with whom I have discussed the matter. I respectfully request that you direct the Director of Community Services and the City Attorney, if necessary, to rule that my daily self removal of trash and garbage from my property is within the purpose of the ordinance and thereby exempt me from any payment or assessment for such services by Green Valley Disposal Company or its successor. Thank you for your time and. consideration. Sincerely, 1 4-44_, t) Terrence J. Rose Sk' TJR:jj AGENDA BILL NO. go Initial Dept. Hd. DATE: 7/29/85 (8/7/85) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development c. Mgr. SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Concerning a Condition of Approval for Lighting (V -609) Ralph Renna ISSUE SUMMARY 1. On 7/13/83, the Planning Commission approved a variance to construct a masonry wall over 6 ft. in height and to allow solar panels to be located in the required side yard setback area. 2. A condition of approval for the wall is that the applicant submit a lighting plan for Planning Commission review. 3. It is indicated in the minutes of the 7/13/83 meeting and the approval letter that the intent is to allow lighting in 4 or 5 ft. high sections of the fence and not on any portion of the' fence 6 ft. or higher as measured on either side. 4. Wald height is measured from natural or finish grade whichever is lower to the top of the wall including a light fixture if one exists. 5. The applicant submitted a lighting plan which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 26, 1985,. showing 59 proposed lights on the wall. 6. The plans submitted by the applicant indicated a 1 ft. light on each column along the front and side property lines. The plans indicated the height of the slumpstone wall itself to be 6ft. 7. The Planning Commission approved lighting along the driveway in the front of the property. Conditioned on approval is that the lamps be spaced 24 ft. O.C., (allowing approximately 12 lights) that the side adjacent the neighbor be blocked out, °and that no portion of the fence with_the lamp on top exceed ft. in height without obtaining variance approval. 8. A condition of the Design Review Approval for the second story addition to the residence is that the slumpstone retaining walls in the front yard shall be limited to 4 ft. in height. RECOMMENDATION Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny the Planning Commission decision. FISCAL IMPACTS None EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal letter from Randy Hess for Mr. Mrs. Renna 2. Staff reports dated 6/7/85 5/17/85 COUNCIL ACTION 8/7: Denied appeal. 3. Resolution.-Nos. V -609 -1 V -609 -2 4. Approval letter 18/83 5. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearings of 6/26/85 and 7/13/83 6. Exhibits Name of Appellant: Project Address: Project Description: See attached letter. Decision Being Appealed: 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Project File No.: V- 6.0 APPEAL APPLICATION MR. AND MRS. RALPH R. RENNA Address: 3613 Countrywood Court, San Jose, CA 95117 Telephone: (408) 267 -5300 Name of Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Renna 15041 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California Residence. A decision of Planning Commission which did not approve lighting plan as requested by applicant and limited lights to areas specified in Planning Commission report dated 6/26/85. Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Appellant's Signature, *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. k Hearing Date: �t Fee L` c: l� CITY USE ONLY THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. PHILLIP M. ADLESON RANDY M. HESS BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PATRIC J. KELLY July 8, 1985 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal Application Dear Sir or Madame: This law office represents Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Renna with regard to the appeal application attached hereto. The grounds for the appeal are as follows: 1. No variance is needed on the walls as the walls do not exceed six feet in height. 2. The City is without jurisdiction or rights under the law to limit applicants' lighting in the manner in which they have attempted to place their limits. 3. There is insufficient evidence to support the modification and /or denial of applicants' lighting application. 4. There is insufficient evidence to support the City's restriction of lights as ordered and as is set forth in their memorandum dated June 26, 1985. 5. The decision of the City Planning Commission was an abuse of discretion. 6. The Planning Commission acted discriminatorily in its decision. 7. The City of Saratoga, in its order, and ordinances, if any, permitting such an order, are unconstitutional under California and United States Constitutions. Very truly yours, ADLESON, HESS CIIRISTENSEN Bv: RMH:jw t- ndy M.ss ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN PERKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS 110 NORTH THIRD STREET SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 (408) 297 -6605 411.11. 08 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOP;. NT JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH j\ ci 1l Lucille Hise Planner LH /dsc P.C. Agenda: 6/12/85. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lucille Hise, Planner DATE: June 7, 1965, *Revised 6/26/85 SUBJECT: 'V -609, Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road City of Saratoga APPROVED BY: C DATE: —G INITIALS: The Planning Commission granted 'variance approval (V-609) o n July 1 .l 1983 to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the required side yard at 15041 Sobey Road. A condition of approval is that the applicant submit a lighting plan for Planning Commission review. I t is indicated in the minutes from the 7/13/83 meeting and the approval letter that the intent is to allow lighting in 4 or 5 ft. sections of the fence and not on any portion of the fence 6 ft. or higher as measured from either side. The plans submitted indicate that a 1 fl.. light will be located on each column of the wall along the front and side property lines. The plans indicate that the height of the slumpstone wall is 6 ft. Since wall height is measured to the top of the wall including a light fixture if one exists, the total height of the wall as shown on the plans will be 7 ft. The plan submitted does not comply with the intended condition. Staff recommends that the Plannning Commission riot approve the plan as submitted. It should be noted that a condition of the Design Review Approval for the second story addition to the residence is that the slumpstone retaining walls in the front yard shall be limited to 4 ft. in height. *On 6/26/85, the Planning ommission approved o'ved lightin a 9 PP lighting along the driveway in the front of the property. Conditioned on the approval, is that the lamps shall be spaced a iti.nimun of 24' 0.C., lamps adjacent to neighboring properties shall be blocked out on the one side closest to the pru.clty line, and no portion of the fence with.the lamp on top shall exceed a 6 ft. height without obtaining a variance approval. Planning Division shall review and approve the lighting plan prior to issuance of any permits. Lighting may be placed along the driveway as shown on the diagram attached, as long as the above conditions are met. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: V -609, Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road REQUEST: Variance approval to construct a masonry fence over 6' in height and install solar panels in the side yard with a minimum setback of 4.6' where 20' is required. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None PLANNING DATA: OTrrnY a 7NoC� DATE: 5/17/83 Commission Meeting: 6/8/83 PARCEL SIZE: 42,776 square feet GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Single Family NOTICE: Notice of this project has been posted on site advertised in the Saratoga News and mailed to surrounding property owners. SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: This site contains a two -story single family dwelling which is presently under construction. The subject masonry wall was built during construction of the dwelling and borders the northern, western and southern property lines. SETBACKS: Solar panels: Left side 4'6" HEIGHT: Fence: ranges from 6 -9 feet Solar Panels: 5 feet SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Solar Panels: 162 square feet Report to the Planning Commission V -609, Ralph Renna Page 2 5/17/83 COLORS MATERIALS: Fence: slumpstone with 24 square inch wrought iron inserts at 10 foot intervals. RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The subject site is situated below Sobey Road and is also at a lower elevation than the adjoining properties to the south. The greatest height of the wall occurs along the southern property line. The wall is being constructed so that there will be backfill placed up against the wall on the subject site causing the height to appear between 6 -7' on the applicants site and 8 -9' on parcel adjoining to the south (see elevation, Exhibit fC") The solar panels as proposed will not extend above the fence height. FINDINGS: 1. Physical Hardship Fence: The area where the fence-exceeds the allowable fence height, appears to be a low point' in terms of elevation between the subject property and the adjoining property. It appears that the cause for building the wall to its current height was to increase privacy to the subject lot. However, it appears to Staff that this could have been accomplished with landscaping as well. Also, Staff noted that the most used rear yard area of the adjacent property to the south is far enough above the subject property that the fence does not significantly serve to increase privacy. Therefore, Staff cannot make this finding regarding a practical difficulty in terms of site topography which could warrant the construction of a fence in excess of 6'. Solar Panels: There does appear to be a practical difficulty regarding the siting of the solar panels on the site. The other area available, which could maintain the proper setbacks is on a slope which rises up in the rear of the site. If the panels were sited here they would become more visible to the surrounding area. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Fence: The fact that the subject property contains sloped topography is not uncommon for this zoning district. Staff noted that the pro- perty is located at a lower elevation than the surrounding area which tends to make it difficult to screen the rear yard for privacy. However, it does not appear that a 8 -9' fence makes a significant improvement, and that landscaping of the site will eventually help to screen the rear yard. Solar Panels: There is an exceptional circumstance associated with the siting of the solar panels in that the proposed location is the least visible site on the property. Also, since the height is less than 6', staff does not feel the solar panels create an impact to the surrounding area. Report t� the Planning Commission V -609, Ralph Renna Page 3 5/17/83 3. Strict or Literal Interpretation Fence: In this case staff does not feel that strict or literal interpretation of the fence height requirements deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the district. Solar Panels: Strict interpretation of zoning regulations could deprive the applicant the use of solar panels in area on the site which creates the least impact to the area. 4. Grant of Special Privilege Fence: Staff noted no exceptional circumstances or physical hardships associated with the property, and so cannot make this finding. APPROVED SL /bjc Solar Panels: Staff does not feel that granting of the variance for the solar panels would be a.qrant of a special privilege as there are exceptional circumstances associated with them. 5. Public Health, Safety Welfare Fence Solar Panels: Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the solar panels and denial of the variance for the fence in excess of 6' in height. P.C. Agenda 5/25/83 Sharon Lester Planner t,AN27 tW051.,viC FRoFV e c CI PANEL. nerr (p'F+t9H c ''cc.oNS. Ke'icGoN PRA. 1.4N6 ,HIGH MP'•'•GNE Wt. 3 N 0 4?a oY q v, P t'1 00° 4'"V1., W r ..;),:'L -(b IA "�M.f� ?Is 5E E i. (oCt\A C,A, ,-s 1 SL F �r f 1 vi. !.ANTS OF HXLP,M •1Q ✓l4 T I v twit. s rcr+++ f- 1 Q VARIANCE the application of Ralph Renna and 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 AYES: NOES: RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received lighting Plan for 15041 Sobey Road WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (fit) met the burden of proof Variance V -609 -1. be, and the same is here- by (granted) kleathed4 subject to the following conditions: subject to the amended staff report.dated June 7, 1985 and the enclosed exhibit. FILE NO: V 609 for a ,review of BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted) (thNxnaluviciammimmuixxkxmultk3aatkglata<NNIcg quica cx 3cdi ga), 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 26t hday of June 19 85, by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris and Peterson None ABSENT: Commissioners Siegfried and Schaefer ATTEST: None SecrcLa d `t' stopk. t, '4) rolr.'44 cat. t/s/* c. -ruw, GO CAT1 OPI OF MADVED 6:04TiNci To CoNOTION5 GONNTIC;' i-64T1,14 Cr< 114! N L4, t4 se. rnes• 1. f-!Ax sE.LocATevALON PE: DRAitig(6 MI PI 111VM :74 0.C. 7 9.44 1 ;05pw7; 1 7 1 .2rjf; i ti\e i p CLO‘" @l• k2 c1 71-4e nOPERTY LINE. 4; NvpurT 71-1 FEN( E 101 TAE ChM' 5. PLANN1N 1'/1I 11? 1,6 1 116 14 4LL 0(CCG JAI t451414 W404 Am? APPR Va" Li TiN& FLAN FAIOA 44 ro K.,umkr4c6 oF D Ft42. s nt cm/ L,441) s T 5/1.5.4 LIGHT PaThll, 12 eZ ,TYPICAL. e mom I caul. re- TREE r L-R NTING SCHEID(JL.E- v(v.c l.. r y• P' a. 1 r... 14' a'cIL 0 ht Aorr en 15 CO-6- 0 rp.inT TFEZ 15- OAL. 0 F I P. 11 15 le 60. 94. 4, 0 1......1 wr f R.e.. 4.1•2 N. 1. 14 0 1' I.G.ter e_d24 2 2 RHINO. VARIANCE baRXRUMKX RESOLUTION NO. V -609 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received the application of RALPH RENNA construct a masonry wall over 6 ft. in height -at 15041 Sobey Road and solar panels in the required side yard and WHEREAS, the applicant (has) Cl =fcxaak) 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 Variance (granted) (ataxic (21X subject to the following conditions: Per Exhibit "B" and (1) Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for Planning Commission review. (Intent is that lighting would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft. sections.), and (2) Applicant shall write letter, offering, at his expense, to do the grading and associated drainage improvements on the Hexim property to reduce the measurement of the fence to 6 feet, as approved by City Engineer. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached hereto be approved and adopted) (laaxRiar mixgxEsammixximxxxotalixriat wtikRxRiixR xkilkx motia t xfimazmgm), and the Secretary be, and is Secretary, .nn ng Commission Y AYES: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners Crowther and Nellis ABSENT:Commissioners Bolger and Schaefer ATTEST: FILE NO.: V -609 for a Variance to be, and the same is hereby hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of July 19 83 by the following roll call vote: July' 18, 1983 OFFICE:Community Development Mr. Ralph Renna 3613 Country Wood Court San Jose, CA 95117 RE: Variance #V -609 Dear Mr. Renna: r.. r r 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -:3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Fanelli John Mallory David Moyles At its meeting of July 13,'1983, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission gave consideration to your request for a variance to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the required side yard at 15041 Sobey Road (application V -609). After careful review of this request, the Planning Commission granted approval to V -609 per Exhibit "B subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for Planning Commission review. (Intent is that lighting would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft.' sections.) 2. Applicant shall write letter, offering at his expense, to do the grading and associated drainage improvements on the Hexim property to reduce the measurement of the fence to 6 feet, as approved by City Engineer. A copy of Resolution V -609 -1 is enclosed for your record. This decision is subject to a 10 -day (calendar) appeal period, during which time you may appeal, and a 15 -day appeal period during which time the City Council may appeal the decision. After the expiration of this appeal period, you may apply for a building permit by pre- senting this letter or a copy thereof. Also, please be advised that this variance is only good for one year. During this year the building permit must be issued and construction commenced; otherwise, the application may be renewed for one addi- tional year, provided that prior to the expiration of one year from July 28, 1983 an application for renewal of the variance is filed with the City Planning Commission, who may grant or deny this renewal application. Mr. Ralph Renna RE: V -609 If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, obert Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Enclosure cas July 18, 1983 Page 2 cc: J. C.' LaGiusa, 1936 Camden Ave., San Jose Mrs. Rosemary Hexim, 15091 Sobey Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes Meeting 6/26/85 GF -344.1 The City Attorney stated that the ordinance now reads that if there is a use permit granted to legalize an existing second unit, it is not included; if it is a new unit it is included. Therefore, it depends on whether it is an existing or new unit within the R -1- 10,000 district. Commissioner Siegfried clarified, in response to Mrs. Johnston's comments, that while the senior citizen has to be in one or the other of the structures so that in fact the second unit could be occupied by someone who is not a senior citizen, there is a second requirement on the second unit. That is, there can be no more than two people in a unit. Commissioner Burger moved to approve GF- 344.1, with the changes relative to the limit of five units. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried added that he was voting for the amendment; however, he has never been terribly much in favor of the ordinance. He explained that it was mandated by State law that if the City did not adopt a Second Unit Ordinance the City might end up with a State ordinance applying to it. He indicated that he shares Commissioner J. Harris' concerns about the opening up to the R -1- 10,000 district, and he would hope that when this comes before the City Council they will take a very close look at that. MISCELLANEOUS 15. V -609 Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road, Review of Lighting Plan; continued from June 12, 1985 Staff explained the history of this application. They stated that when the plans for the lighting were submitted for a building permit it was determined that there were lights proposed that were essentially inconsistent with the Planning Commission's intent. Staff recommended denial of the plan, with direction that a plan be resubmitted that meets with that intent. (Commissioner Siegfried left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.) Randy Hess, attorney for the applicant, questioned the need for a variance for the wall. He explained that originally the wall was over 6 ft. high on the neighbor's side of the property. The applicant had backfilled that side of the property so that both sides of the property are now 6 ft., and the wall is not over 6 ft. The City Attorney commented that there was a variance granted for the wall, and what is now before the Commission is the lighting plan. He explained that Staff has determined that the light on that portion of the wall that was measured at 6 ft. would therefore be higher than 6 ft., and a further variance would be required. He stated that the lighting was to be subject to further review and approval by the Planning Commission. He added that a condition of the variance was that Mr. Renna backfill on the other side of the wall. Therefore, the variance was granted for the wall which originally measured 6 -8 ft. and backfill was done as required by the variance. He explained that, from Staff's point of view, it was a 6 ft. wall, measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lowest, and it doesn't shrink to a 5 ft. wall because of backfill required by the variance. Mr. Hess commented that he does not think that a wall 6 ft., measured from either side of the dirt, is a 7 ft. wall because there is a portion of the retaining wall underneath the dirt. He explained that Mr. Renna's home is in a valley, and he was required to grade and raise the dirt on his property up several feet. He stated that the wall is now in a valley and is 6 ft. The City Attorney commented that if the wall is 6 ft. and it has a 1 ft. light, it still is over 6 ft. Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes Meeting 6/26/85 V -609 Mr. Hess indicated that the lights around the home are all low- voltage lights and do not shine into any neighbors' homes. He commented that it is evident that it is not the case in Saratoga that a light is considered as part of the wall, and he submitted photographs of homes in the vicinity which have lights that are well over 6 ft. tall. He added that Mr. Renna's lights are for his security and his aesthetics. Discussion followed on Mr. Renna's lights and those of other homes in the area. Mr. Hess pointed out that there are approximately 20 homes in the area with lights that are over 6 ft., some of which are up to 10 ft. high. Mr. Hess explained that Mr. Renna had originally requested a variance so he would not have to backfill his neighbor's yard, which he eventually did. He stated that he was denied that variance for having a fence over 6 ft. and within a very short time a variance was granted on Sobey road to theMagnum property for a fence which appears to be well over 8 ft. tall. He added that all Mr. Renna is asking that the Commission give him what everybody else on Sobey Road has. It was clarified that there will be 59 lights, 12 ft. apart. Commissioner Burger pointed out that the minutes from July 1983 state that the lighting plan will be submitted for Planning Commission review, with the intent that it would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft. sections of the fence, and not be allowed on any portion of the fence 6 ft. or higher. The photographs submitted by Mr. Hess of other lighting in the area were discussed. The City Attorney commented that some of those fences were around recreation courts and many of the lights were on fences that were set back. He explained that if a fence is within the setback or if there is a structure within a setback, the 6 ft. height limitation does not apply. He added that there is no way to determine, just based on the pictures, whether the lights are at the front of the property or on lower portions of the walls. He commented that, with respect to those fences that are at the property line or within the setback, and, based upon the pictures, appear to be 6 ft., again they may have been put in later. We don't have enough information with respect to each property; there could have been a variance or an approval at the time; it could have been put in later after there was an approval of the other structure; it could have been done illegally, or they could be legal. There is no prohibition against the lighting per se; we are dealing with a fence at a property line, which has a 6 ft. height limit on it. Commissioner Peterson stated that his major problem is that he looks at the plan sees 60 lights, and light pollution comes to his mind. He commented that he does not understand why the applicant needs 60 lights around a house. He added that the purposes in the R -1 district speak rather directly to the ordinances controlling illumination and glare, and he feels that 60 lights, even if they are 25 watt, is just far too much light pollution. Mr. Hess indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Renna are agreeable to reducing the number of lights so there will be 1 light for every 24 ft. on the side wall, which will reduce the amount of light substantially. Commissioner Peterson questioned why the lights have to be on top, and Mr. Hess indicated that it was from an aesthetic viewpoint and there is more expense involved if it is behind the wall. Mr. Renna clarified that the walls bordering the driveway are 30 Commissioner Burger stated that she could understand why the applicant would want some light along the driveway; however, she has a lot of trouble with that light on a high wall along the perimeter. Commissioner J. Harris commented that as the lights go back along the property line, one neighbor will see the interior lights on the opposite wall and the other neighbor will see the lights from the opposite wall. Therefore, she does not understand how they can possibly be blocked off so no one sees them. Commissioner Burger stated that she would be able to support a light every 24 ft. on the walls that are 30" high, that is, Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes Meeting 6/26/85 V -609 along the driveway, not on the perimeter, but in the inside of the lot. However, she cannot support any of the lighting that would require a variance on a 6 ft. wall. Commissioners J. Harris and B. Harris agreed. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the lighting plan for V -609, as modified to delete the lights in every area except where delineated in the discussion, and with the further condition that the lighting as approved be alternative posts, so it would be every 24 ft. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4 -0. The appeal period was noted. 16. Tract 6781, Teerlink Ranch, Mt. Eden Road, Determination Rela- tive to Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Electric Service Line Staff explained the request. They described the area and stated that their usual recommendation would be to require the undergrounding. However, because of the location and the damage that would be done to the area, they do not have a problem with the request. Discussion followed on the Paul Masson property. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that it was difficult to even see the poles and wires, and it was the con4ensus of the committee that they would rather see the poles and wires stay than scar the hillside. Commissioner Burger moved to grant the request from Lea Engineering to not underground the Paul Masson service through Tract 6781 westerly of the cul -de -sac of Heber Way. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4 -0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from McBain Gibbs, Regarding Amendment to CC &R's for height restriction on Lots 5, 6 and 12, Tract 6628. Staff stated that they feel there are some errors in the letter, indicating that they have no recollection of a 23 ft. height on Lot 5 or a discussion with Mr. McBain relative to Lot 12. Bob McBain, the applicant, addressed the lots in question, specifically Lot 12. The other lots in the area were discussed. It was noted that the Planning Commission would still have control over the homes on these lots at the Design Review stage. Commissioner B. Harris stated that she feels that conceptually the applicant is trying to convey to the Commission that his sense of concern is similar to that of the Commission regarding the design, and the numbers mentioned by the applicant are certainly within the guidelines. She added that as long as the Commission still has the right to deny the Design Review if it is not acceptable, she has no problem. Chairman Peterson noted that the Planning Commission will be looking at the Design Review very carefully. Staff pointed out that when the applicant was before the Commission relative to a change to the CC &Rs concerning two stories, it was the Commission's decision at that time that the height limitation be substituted, and that limitation was 21 ft. Commissioner B. Harris moved to recommend to the City Council that the CC &Rs be amended relative to Lot 12 only, that the height limitation not exceed 21 ft., with a maximum elevation of 981. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. The applicant was requested to submit a copy of the amended language of the CC &Rs to the Commission. Oral by Commission 1. Tentative Agenda for the Planning Commission Retreat (disussed by Chairman Peterson) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Rpsppc ful itted, bent S.' Shook, `Secretary raft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7/13/83 PUBLIC HEARINGS V -609 3 Page 3 BUILDING SITES 6. SDR -1541 Carson Heil, 14781 Farwell, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 lot, and Site Modification Approval for addition on over 10% slope Staff explained the proposal and noted that the applicant does own the adjacent small parcel, and the elimination of the property line between the two would create a solution to the setback problem. They stated that they recommend approval, with the condition that the property be reverted to acreage, thereby eliminating the lot line problem, and the condition that either a garage be provided or a variance be obtained for lack of a garage on the site. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee Repgrt, describing the site. Commissioner Nellis added that one of the major concerns brought out by Mr. Heil was that the site is presently on a septic tank and putting it on a sewer could create all sorts of environmental problems. A letter from Mr% Heil was noted. Mr. Heil clarified that he would not consider splitting the property at this time since it would ruin it. He discussed possibly moving the property line back to the creek and described his proposal. The requirement for the sewer system was discussed. There was a consensus that this matter should be scheduled for a study session to consider the possible options. It was directed that this item be continued to a Committee -of- the -Whole on August 2, 1983 and the regular meeting of August 10, 1983. 7 alph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road (near Sperry Lane), Request for Variance Approval to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the required side yard in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from June 22, 1983 Staff explained the application and noted that it had been discussed at a study session. They indicated that they had reviewed the matter of impervious coverage and it has been determined that there is actually 37% coverage. Dis- cussion followed on this issue. The public hearing was opened at 8:31 p.m. Mr. Renna described the solar panels and the drainage system. He clarified that it was not his plan to put a slab underneath the solar panels at this time. He added that he had not been able to obtain a sample of the lighting but des- cribed it. Randy Hess, attorney for Mr. Renna, addressed the wall and noted the neighbors in support of it. Mr. Renna explained the attempts he had made to work with Mrs. Hexim, the adjacent neighbor. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava reported that she had measured the fence and the major problem appears to be the L- shaped area where the culvert has been constructed and which is the border of the Hexim property. She explained that there is no water supply there so it would not be feasible to do any landscaping along the fence. She proposed that a condition be added that the applicant shall get permission from Mrs. Hexim to do some grading on her side to reduce the height of the fence to 6 ft. The lighting on the fence was discussed. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he would be inclined to deny any variance on the fence, since the applicant says it does not exceed 6 ft. Commissioner Nellis agreed that he would like to see the applicant work with the neighbor to bring` the grading up to 6 ft. However, he would also like to see him work with the neighbor to landscape the fence to soften the effect. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was having a difficult time making the Planning Con _;ion f Meeting Minutes 7/13/83\ V -609 (cont.) findings but feels it is a tremendous waste to ask someone to tear down that immense structure. She added that she would like to see the neighbors work it out, perhaps with a Staff member. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not have a particular problem with the solar panels, as long as there is no slab under them so it doesn't increase the impervious coverage. He added that it appears the only area where the variance is needed is in the corner where the swale was. He stated that he feels he could make the findings on the basis of the fact that it is an unusual situation in the sense that the property was filled and essentially a retaining wall was built to retain that fill, and then the fence was built 6 ft. in height above the retaining wall. The lighting was further discussed. The City Attorney commented that the Commission has the authority to condition a variance regarding the lighting. He added that, relative to Commissioner Crowther's comment, the applicant may feel the fence does not exceed 6 ft., but as the ordinance has been interpreted by Staff we believe it does, which is why the applicant is here. As far as the neighbor is concerned, if the Commission imposes the condition that the applicant must grade the outside of the fence or landscape it, he is being required to perform work on someone else's property who may not con- sent. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -609 for the solar panels and wall as presently constructed, per Exhibit "B with the conditions that there be nothing on top of the wall and the applicant shall write a letter offering, at his expense, to do the grading on the Hexim property to reduce the measure- ments of the fence to 6 feet. She made the findings based on Commissioner Siegfried's thoughts that it is a retaining wall with a 6 ft. fence on top and it is an unusual situation because of grading and the filling of the swale, which is what causes the fence to be over 6 ft. in that particular area. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Mr. Renna discussed the condition to work with the neighbor, citing his pre- vious attempts and explaining the location of the culvert. Commissioner Nellisl asked to amend the motion to state that the offer be extended to landscaping j as well, and commented that he would like the same offer extended to the neighbor on the other side as well. There was a consensus that there would be a major problem with landscaping because of the irrigation. Discussion followed on the condition relative to the lighting. It was deter- mined that the condition, would read that the applicant shall submit a light- ing plan for Planning Commission review, with the intent that it would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft. sections of the fence and would not be allowed on any portion of the fence 6 ft. or higher as measured from either side. ,Staff asked for clarification.regarding the offer to the Hexims for the grad- ing. They commented that they assumed it would require the extension of the pipe. It was clarified that the Commission would like a culvert that would allow some fairly level grading in that one small section of the L of the fence. Mr. Renna discussed the cost of the culvert, stating that it would be prohibitive to put the culvert on the Hexim property. He added that the culvert runs parallel to the fence, so he would have to do the whole fence in excess of 100 ft. long. Discussion followed on the condition, and it was determined that the condition should read that the offer be made to the Hexims to do the grading and associated drainage improvements to reduce the measurement of the fence to 6 ft., as approved by the City Engineer. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he would not vote for the variance because no landscaping is being required. He noted that the Commission routinely conditions to have landscaping and he is disappointed that that offer cannot be in the letter. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Nellis and Crowther dissenting. The 10 -day appeal period was noted. 8. A -887 Bill O'Meara, Lot 10, Farr Ranch Road, Parker Ranch, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district Commissioner Crowther abstained from the discussion and voting on this item because of pending litigation. Staff explained the proposal. They clarified that there is an erroneous comment in the Staff Report that indicates that 4 Page 4 July 31, 1985 TO: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. SARATOGA, CA95970 Subjeet W-609 Renna Lighting Plan 1 object to the lighting plan proposed by R. Renna --for 15041 Sobey Road The height of the exceeds the legal limit above the six foot fence. The large quantity of lights covering his entire lot would make Sobey Road hook like a car lot or Las Vegas at night. This commercial effect does not belong in the Saratoga area. j UL 311985 YeSofieyrgVi s Saratoga, CA 95070 JULY 31, 19 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REFERENCE TO: APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF LIGHTING FOR RESIDENCE AT 15041 SOBEY ROAD (R. RENNA APPELLANT /APPLICANT) V -609 I strongly object to granting a permit forthe Renna lighting plan. The lights on above property are above the six foot fence height and are closely spaced around the entire property. The lights must number over a hundred. If lighted, the 100 plus lights would light up the entire area and into houses surrounding them. This is not appropriate in the rural setting of Sobey Rd. and Saratoga. Rose Hexem 15091 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 cc: Mayor Martha Clevenger Q r F 4 tI�T JUL 31 1555 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. Members of the Saratoga City Councils G! C�F_ rMED JUL 3 11985 John and Carolyn Armstrong 15121 Sobey Rd. Saratoga Ca. 95070 Reference: APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF LIGHTING PLAN FOR RESIDENCE AT 15041 SOBEY RD. R, RENNA, APPELLANT /APPLICANT) (v -609) Our family wishes to voice our objection to the wall lights being proposed. This is a long standing objection amoung the neighbors in the near surround and nothing has changed to remove that objection. The lights are inappropriate for this neighborhood. The Tanning 7i Co gsio;n refused a permit at least twice ard. -the City Council has rejectedi the lights at least once. How many times do we have to say no before it means NO? Thank you f yoyr consideration ..e)-230f- John D. Armstrong 14961 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 July 30, 1985 Saratoga City Council Members: We may be unable to attend the Council meeting August 7 at which you will—discuss-Mr. Ralph- Renna' -s- appeal of your denial for lighting the wall surrounding his property on Sobey Road. Therefore, via this letter, we wish to make our view on this subject available for the record. We attended the council meeting at which you originally denied Mr. Renna's request to light this wall. We strongly support this decision and do not want it to be reversed. The reasons for denial given by you and the neighbors are as valid now as they were then. Sobey Road is one of the few roads in the valley that still has a rural feeling. At night you can see the stars because they are not diffused by city lights. Excluding driveway and house lights, the walls surrounding Mr. Renna's property are wired for approximately 75 lights. This is the equivalent of exterior lighting for a medium size housing development. Certainly, lighting of this magnitude would ruin the rural character of Sobey Road. We urge the Council to stand by its original decision to deny permission to Mr. Renna to light his wall. J Jo Thunen .t.. PHILLIP M. ADLESON RANDY M. HESS BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN PATRIC J. KELLY DUANE W. SHEWAGA August 1, 1985 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ADLESON, HESS. CHRISTENSEN 8c KELL A PF1OFESSIONAL CORPORATION 110 NORTH THIRD STREET SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 (408) 297 -.6605 Re: Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Renna Appeal Our file: 83 -240 Dear Honorable Council Members: AUG 7 1985 BEVERLY HILLS OFFICE 190 NORTH CANON DRIVE. #200 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 (213) 273 -8106 OF COUNSEL: RICHARD PECH This letter is written in support of Mr. and Mrs. Renna's request for appeal of the approval of lighting plan. The issues set forth in this letter should be resolved at the hearing on appeal. The first issue is whether a variance is needed for Mr. and Mrs. Renna's wall. It is the contention of Mr. and Mrs. Renna that no variance is needed as the wall is six feet high. Further, on July 31, 1985, my law office contacted your building department and was informed by Bobbie that no building permit is needed to build a fence six feet or under on a residence property, unless it is on Highway 9, Highway 85, or on Saratoga Avenue. Therefore, obviously no building permit is needed for Mr. and Mrs. Renna's wall either. As no variance is needed, the lighting plan which was a condition of the variance is also not needed. I understand from the Planning Commission and the City Attorney, that it is the City's interpretation that the wall, although only six feet high, is considered by the City to be higher than six feet because a portion of it is underground. Such an interpretation is unsupportable. If this is the case, any wall in Saratoga which is approximately six feet high has some portion of it underground. Therefore, if your interpre— tation of the laws in this regard requires the Rennas to obtain a variance, then the vast majority of individuals in Saratoga who have walls that stand at six feet also require a variance. City Council City of Saratoga August 1, 1985 Page Two I therefore request that at the appeal hearing you rule that no variance is needed as to Mr. and Mrs. Renna's wall as it is under six feet high. With such a ruling, Mr. and Mrs. Renna would withdraw the variance order which applies to the walls and this matter can be resolved amiably. As to the merits of the lighting plan, numerous photographs were submitted to the Planning Commission showing lights on walls in excess of six feet. Generally, it is the rule and not the exception that homes in Mr. and Mrs. Renna's immediate area have lights on top of their walls, and that those lights stand well over six feet high. I do request that the exhibits previously introduced to the Planning Commission be reintro- duced at the City Council meeting. I must again point out the discriminatory treatment Mr. and Mrs. Renna have received at the hands of the City. Mr. and Mrs. Renna had applied for a varian_c_e __for walls that slightly exceeded six feet high on a portion of their walls, which were not clearly visible from Sobey Road. That variance was rejected and Mr. and Mrs. Renna were required to make the visible portion of their wall six feet high, an order they have complied with. However, a very short time later, a neighbor on Sobey Road was granted a variance to place a fence directly on Sobey Road which easily exceeds eight feet in height. When Mr. and Mrs. Renna requested a variance for balconies on his home, this was soundly denied by the Planning Commission and City Council. Yet, as I understand it, balconies have been approved for Mr. and Mrs. Renna's next door neighbor, as well as other nearby neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Renna have been attempting to get plan checks approved for the past several months but have constantly found delays on the part of the City. For example, Louise in the Building Department, had mistakenly calculated square footage so as to tell the Rennas that they had exceeded a square footage limit authorized by the City. In fact, Louise has now confirmed to Mr. LeGessa (Mr. and Mrs. Renna's plan drawer) that the home was within the square footage requirements and that she had made a mistake in the calculations. Numerous other errors, delays, and discriminatory action on the part of the city are too numerous to detail here. It is apparent that the City is r.. A City Council City of Saratoga August 1, 1985 Page Three affording a different level of scrutiny to Mr. and Mrs. Renna. This discrimination must stop now. My clients have informed me that they are in the process of retaining counsel to file a civil rights action against the City with regard to the events stated herein and other events. My clients have authorized me to file an action for declara— tory relief and for writ of mandate should we not prevail on the issue of the walls at this hearing. You should not understand the foregoing paragraph to be a threat to the City. Rather, they are an attempt to cause you to make some type of rational decision in this case. The City has been acting like an ostrich with its head in the sand, refusing to look at Mr. and Mrs. Renna's side of the matter, and blindly believing that its actions with regard to the Renna residence have been totally correct. I am simply asking you to reflect upon the decisions you have made, reflect upon the absurdity that a wall standing "'slit from ground level could be anything bzut a six foot wall, and then make a rational decision in this matter. In the past, the. City's decisions with regard to Mr. and Mrs. Renna have appeared to be totally emotional, based upon personalities, and not based on facts, economics, or rationality. This is clearly borne out by the actions of the City with Mr. and Mrs. Renna's neighbors who have received far greater rights from the City on much weaker grounds. I would request that the members of the City Council drive down Sobey Road and the surrounding area, and view the lights in Mr. and Mrs. Renna's immediate neighborhood. Even if a lighting plan is required, Mr. and Mrs. Renna's lighting plan is reasonable and has very low output lights, will be blacked out around his neighbors, and will not be clearly visible from Sobey Road. Further, as all of Mr. and Mrs. Renna's neighbors have lights on their walls, there is no rational reason to deny Mr. and Mrs. Renna their rights. We still vigorously dispute that you have such a right to deny Mr. and Mrs. Renna their lights as planned. My clients and I would welcome any attempt to resolve the City Council City of Saratoga August 1, 1985 Page Four issue of the lights and balconies before further attorneys fees and costs are spent. We would be happy to sit down with the City at a conference to see whether this could be resolved. Very truly yours, ADLESON, y S, CHRISTENSEN KELLY d i gm d.c4 By. RMH:jw c.c. clien andy M. H -ss 1 14949 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ATTN: Deputy City Clerk Ref: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Lighting Plan for Residence at 15041 Sobey Road (V -609) Please be advised that as owners of property which overlooks the Renna residence, we strenuously object to the elaborate lighting plan submitted by Mr. Renna and strongly support the Planning Commission's rejection of this plan. The plan as submitted is completely out of character with the rural setting of the neighborhood and should not be permitted. If implemented, it will only amplify an already serious neighborhood problem. Please note that the wiring required for this lighting was installed over two (2) years ago without benefit of approval and must be removed or brought into compliance with all applicable building codes. July 31, 1985 Yours truly, ,(1."/ .va t: Mr. Mrs. `i' and J Kelly D. MRS. M. C.ROSS,l'ilA:: 15002 F2ERRY SARATOGA, C!. 95070 CLL y 40q taf 114 ,2,L-ri4L-