Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-1986 City Council Agenda packeta� AGENDA BILL NO. 0 7 2 DATE: May 15, 1986 DEPT: City Attorney SUBJECT: Urgency Ordinance pertaining to radio antennas Summary: In response to a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council directed staff to prepare an urgency ordinance controlling radio antennas pending a study of the need for new regulations as a result of the limited preemption ordered by the FCC. The proposed ordinance will prohibit installation of all new radio antennas except: (a) Roof mounted antennas not exceeding 15 feet in height above the roof line or 45 feet as measured to the ground, whichever is less; and (b) Ground mounted antennas not exceeding 30 feet in height or the height limit applicable to accessory structures, whichever is less. The ordinance will require a 4 /5ths vote for adoption and will become effective immediately. Fiscal Impacts: None. Exhibits /Attachments: Proposed urgency ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption of ordinance. (The ordinance must be read in full and not by title only. Council Action: 5/21: Adopted ordinance. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4-,0 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ha,//e4L--, Fiscal Impacts: None. Council Action: 5121:.7:: Adopted resolution. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 0 7 AGENDA ITEM _7 A DATE: May 14, 1986 DEPT.:' City Attorney CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Lorincz Revocation of final building site approval for SDR -1585 and suspension of design review approval for A -1040 Exhibits /Attachments: (a) Administrative record of proceedings conducted by Planning Commission. (b) Resolution adopted by Planning Commission on May 14, 1986. (c) Proposed resolution for adoption by City Council. (d) Letter from William Shellooe Summary: Final building site approval for SDR -1585 was granted by the City Council on August 7, 1985, based upon the written approval of the proposed septic system by the County Health Department. The Health Department subsequently determined that a portion of the septic system located on the adjacent lot (formerly owned by the applicants) encroached upon the lot to be developed. The Health Department therefore withdrew its prior approval. The matter was then referred to the Planning Commission and following the conduct of a public hearing, the Commission has recommended that the final building site approval be revoked and the design review approval be suspended. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution revoking final building site approval for SDR 1585 and suspending design review approval for A -1040. EXHIBIT A Planning Commission Minutes 4/23/86 Page 5 14. 13. A -1164 Parnas Corporation, request for design review approval for a two -story single family residence with grading which exceeds 1,000 cu. yds. on Lot #9, Tract 6665, Saratoga Heights Drive in the NHR zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Wendy Weisman, Squirrel Hollow, verified that the privated drive would not cause her to have headlights in her bedroom, dining room, and living room windows. Ray Goney, 14080 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, stated there were several people in his area who were concerned about a thoroughfare from Harriman to the highway. The Planning Commission assured that there would not be. Commissioner Siegfried /Peterson moved for approval of Resolution A- 1185 -1 and findings of the staff report for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and parcel A with a condition 10 that the homes on lots 1 and 2 should be done in a way to maximize the sideyard setbacks. The Commission also added the condition to provide screening along the property line between Parcel B and lands of Miner (south by southeast). Parcel 8 would be continued to 5/14/86. Associate Planner Caldwell presented the staff report and findings of Exhibit A -1. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. A- 1164 -1 and Exhibit A -1 with conditions to include revised grading plans to eliminate rear retaining walls and proposed fill subject to approval by the City Engineer. Mr. Cotton's letter regarding the results of the geotechnical field inspections to test the property was presented. Commissioner Guch reported,on her site visit. The public hearing was opened at 9:08 P.M. .away. Wendell Roscoe, designer for the applicant, stated the Parnas Corporation felt they should provide an area for children to play or an eventual pool. The level area would be screened. The area was designed so it would not be visible downslope but would be usable. It would also eliminate the need to haul the dirt Commissioner Peterson /Siegfried moved to approve A- 1164 -1 with the condition of allowing 1,410 cu. yds. of earth for construction of a 4,400 sq. ft. single family dwelling and that any future pool would be in that area. No additional grading would be allowed for a pool and a review should be done by a city geologist. GDR-1585 Albert and Ann Lorincz, APN 510- 05 -10, A -1040 Consider revocation of final building site approval and design review approval on parcel behind 19605 Glen Una Drive per Chapter 15 of the City Code A letter from the Dept. of Environmental Health dated April 17th was presented. Eased on that letter, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council tnat since the conditions of the final map of approval have not been made, that the final building site approval be revoked and the design review approval be suspended, since the information submitted 0005 Planning Commission Minutes 4/23/86 Page 6 was inaccurate. The applicant would have the remaining months of the tentative map to complete the conditions and work out the problems of the leach line. There were also two letters from law offices: John J. Hartford in support of the Lorincz property and a letter from Nino, Felice and Arata who represent the Shellooes. The public hearing was opened at 9:24 P.M. Albert Lorincz, applicant, stated he was willing to do whatever is right and reasonable. He stated the plans showed exactly where the leach line was. About 13 years ago he had the leach lines cleaned out for preventive maintenance. Dr. Lorincz stated they were on the east coast when the drain field was created. He feels there is no basis for the Planning Commission to revoke their site and design approvals. Bill Shellooe, 19605 Glen Una Drive, discussed placement of the leach line based on the slope of the land. Originally, Mr. Shellooe could not prove that the leach field ran north. Subsequently the Shellooes dug up the septic tank last week through 2-3 feet past the Lorincz line and turned on the water. He brought two neighbors to verify Mr. Lorincz's son in -law placed the drain field in its present location and that Dr. Lorincz was aware of the location. Steve Fox, 19630 Juna Lane, has property on the southeast corner that butts the property in question in their northwest corner. He stated he has known the Lorincz family, including their son -in -law, for a number of years. He stated that in 1972 or '73 Brad was out there with heavy equipment trenching and making arrangements for a drain field in property that is npw being disputed. There is no doubt in Mr. Fox's mind that that is what •happened. He did not know when the Lorincz's were on the east coast, but at one time or another, they were out there with Brad determining layout of this drain field. David Morrison, 19590 Juna Lane, stated he lives directly north of the vacant lot owned by Dr. Lorincz. The lot is approximately 28,000 sq. ft. and is relatively small. The average lot is 70,000 sq. ft. Dr. Lorincz wants to build a home and create a second leach field and a septic tank on this vacant lot. Dr. Morrison is opposed to the construction because it would involve a leach field on top of another leach field. He is concerned that the leach field would lead to sewage in his yard and pool area. Mrs. Ann Lorincz, applicant, stated that 13 years ago A-1 Septic Service did regular servicing and some rooting service. She stated Dr. and Mrs. Lorincz were on the east coast and didn't supervise any leaching. She also stated her present son -in -law was 16 or 17 at the time. Steve Baird, Deputy City Attorney, stated that these are advisory public hearings for the City Council, and the Planning Commision should make a recommendation to the City Council. The two actions proposed were: (1) revocation of the building site approval and (2) suspension of the design review approval on the 2nd property. The building site approval could be revoked based on the leaching of the property. The Health Department condition is not being met. There is no need for a new application. The present permit would expire January of 1987, 0006 Planning Commission COMMUNICATIONS Commissioners Siegfried/Pines moved to adjourn at 9:55 P.M. Passed 5-0. Respectfully submitted, vuthue Hsia cretary Planning Commission Written Oral by Commission 1, City Council Report There Minutes 4/23/86 Page 7 and the Lormcz'" could apply for three one-year extensions. The key piece of evidence is the letter from the Health Department who states the Planning Commission should revoke the permit. Commissioners Siegfried/Pines moved to uphold staff's recommendation to revoke final building site approval. Passed Associate Planner Caldwell distributed Planning Commission budget information and design review process transcriptions from the City Council meeting. She also presented a listing of courses from the UC Extension Office regarding Planning courses. Commissioners shall return the completed form, to the Planning Secretary if they wish to attend a course. 0007 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. SDR 1585.1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING REVOCATION OF FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SDR -1585 AND SUSPENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL A -1040 WHEREAS, Albert Lorincz and Ann Lorincz "the Applicants were the owners of that certain real property located at 19605 Glen Una Drive, consisting of two lots of record designated as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2; and WHEREAS, the Applicants applied for tentative building site approval for Parcel 1, such application being identified as SDR -1585, and design review approval for a single family residence to be constructed on Parcel 1, such application being identified as A-1040; and WHEREAS, tentative building site approval and design review approval were granted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on January 9, 1985, subject to the terms and conditions as set forth in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 4, 1985, as revised January 9, 1985; and WHEREAS, the tentative building site approval contained a specific condition for approval of the septic system and issuance of a permit therefor by the County Health Department, to be satisfied prior to the granting of final site approval; and WHEREAS, approval of the septic system was issued by the County Health Department based upon the understanding that the septic system servicing Parcel 2 was located entirely upon Parcel 2 and did not encroach upon Parcel 1; and WHEREAS, in reliance upon approval of the septic system by the County Health Department, final building site approval for Parcel 1 was granted by the Saratoga City Council on August 7, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have sold Parcel 2 and remain the owners of Parcel 1; and WHEREAS, upon discovery that a portion of the septic system servicing Parcel 2 may have been installed upon Parcel 1, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 23, 1986, to determine whether the final building site approval for Parcel 1 should be revoked and the design review approval for said Parcel suspended, at which time the Applicants and any other persons interested in the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission has found and determined as follows: 1. Approval of the septic system by the County Health Department was based upon the assumption and understanding that the septic system servicing Parcel 2 was located entirely upon Parcel 2 and did not encroach upon Parcel 1. 2. Upon further investigation by the County Health Department, said Department has concluded that a portion of the septic system servicing Parcel 2 is located upon Parcel 1 and such portion is currently in use. 3. Neither the County Health Department nor the City of Saratoga will permit the septic system for one site to encroach upon the area of an adjacent site. 4. The County Health Department has advised the City that its prior approval of the septic system was based upon incorrect facts, and by reason thereof, such approval should not have been granted. By letter to the City dated April 17, 1986, the County Health Department has recommended a revocation of the final building site approval for Parcel 1. 5. No evidence has been presented by the Applicants or any other person to dispute the findings and conclusions made by the County Health Department that the septic system servicing Parcel 2 is partially located upon Parcel 1. 6. Because the septic system has not been approved by the Health Department, the specific condition of tentative building site approval pertaining to the septic system has not been satisfied and the Applicants were not entitled to receive final building site approval. Such approval should therefore be revoked. 7. The design review approval for construction of a single family residence upon Parcel 1 was specifically conditioned upon all conditions of the building site approval having been satisfied. Consequently, a revocation of the final building site approval would necessarily require a suspension of the final design review approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AS FOLLOWS: (a) The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Saratoga City Council that final building site approval for Parcel 1 as granted pursuant to SDR -1585 be revoked on the ground that the Applicants have failed to satisfy the condition pertaining to approval of the septic system by the County Health Department. Upon such revocation, the tentative building site approval granted to Applicants would remain in full force and effect, having an initial expiration date of March 9, 1987, with possible extension thereof not exceeding a total of 36 months, as provided in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. (b) The Planning Commission further recommends that the design review approval granted pursuant to A -1040 be suspended until such time as the condition pertaining to the septic system has been satisfied and a new final building site approval has been granted by the City Council. The design review approval would similarly remain in force for an initial period expiring on January 9, 1987, with possible extension thereof not exceeding a total of 36 months, as provided in the City's Zoning Ordinance. -2- i s`- (c) The revocation of final building site approval and suspension of design review approval as recommended herein shall not affect the approval by the Planning Commission of a lot line adjustment between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 pursuant to application LL No. 6, or the setback variances for certain accessory structures located upon Parcel 2 as granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to application V-680, and such lot line and variance approvals would remain in full force and effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission Chairman of the Planning Commission County of Santa Clara California April 17, 1986 Kathy Kerdus Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 1:/ RE: SDR -1585 19605 Glen Una Drive Saratoga, CA Subsequent to my letter dated January 30, 1986 to you, another inspection of the drainline in question was performed on April 17, 1986. At this inspection an opening in the drainline located at the property line allowed me to observe effluent flowing from the.septic tank located on the Shellooe property onto the Lorincz property.- Based on the information obtained from this inspection and the inspection on January 23, 1986, the condition and location of the septic tank and drainfield system are inconsistent with the facts as they were made available to this agency at the time the original lot line adjustment and building site approval were granted. In view of these facts, -this agency recommends the revocation of the building site approval for the Lorincz property. For further information or assistance, please contact the under- signed between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., Monday through Friday at (408) 299-6060. Ny TOKARZ, S. IRONMENTAL HEALTH SANITARIAN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES JT:ar An Equal Opportunity Employer Health Department 2220 Moorpark Avenue San Jose, California 95128 Mrs. Mrs. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION} APN: 510 05 -10 an APPLICATION NELI a LOCATION:' SOR 75 65, "A 1090 Parcel to rear of 19605 Glen Una Drive 19605 Glen Una Drive PROPERTY OUHERS Dr." and ,y`t Mr'; and Albert Lorxncz William Shellooe Oroiect DescrintionTo consider revocation of Final Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval on parcel behind 19605 Glen Una Drive because drainfield for septic tank for adjacen residence may be located on subject parcel. Issues: Revocation of Final Building Site and Design Review Approvallocation of drainfield; issuance of Final Building Site Approval on inaccdrate information. Staff Recommendation:! Direct staff to make 'findings that conditions of Final Map flpproval not been made and to prepare resolution foe revocation of Final Building Site Approval and suspension'of the Design Review Approval since information- submitted_for grant was inaccurate. Resolution will. be recorded againSt site. Attachments: Letter from Health Department, dated 1/30/86 Letter to Dr. and Mrs. Lorincz, dated 3/10/86 Staff Report, dated 1/9/85 0056 Background-and Anaivsis: In February the. City received a from Jim Tokarz of the County Environmental Health Department' stating- that the- leachfield for 19605 Glen Una,, recently' purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Shellooe, "might be located on the newly- created parcel to- the rear, which. is still owned by Dr.. and Mrs. Albert Lorincz. The site approval for the parcel to the rear of 19605 Glen Una. Drive required by conditon U.S. that "A septic tank permit for a sewage disposal system on this lot is required prior to- Final Map- Rpprova-1'. This condition was to insure that the Health Department would review the site prior to Final Mate Approval for conformance with its conditions- including a provision that drainfields and septic tanks are to be at least 10' back.from property lines. According to. Jim Tokarz, at the time of the "inspection conducted as part of the <site approval process, Mr. Lorincz only revealed the location of the original leachfield-,- .which apparently failed at a later date the location of the original leachfield was only on the property of 19605 Glen Una (Shellooe), and thus the parcel to the rear obtained the Health Department clearance necessary for Final Site Approva Since the Final Site Approval and Design Review Approval may have been granted with false information, staff gave the Lorincz's two" weeks <letter attached) to. provide additional documentation prior to setting the item for hearing by the Planning Commission to consider revocation of the approvals. Letters fraM the attorneys of both property owners were received but no documentation on the 'lcation of the drainfield. Therefore, the public hearing was set and noticed., Mr. Tokarz reexamined the septic tank and drainfield at the Shellooe property during the week of April 7th. He stated "it is pretty obvious" that the drainfield goes onto the adjacent parcel. _The tight line had been exposed to the property line to the rear_1he line was plastic, rather than terra cotta, which-. indicates it was constructed in the mid -70's or later. At the request of staff, Mr. Tokarz and Mr. Shellooe reexamined the tight line on April 17th.. A letter from the Health Dep will be forthcoming prior to your hearing on Wednesday, night stating that the_drainfield for the Shellooe house is _definitely located on'the Lorincz parcel to the rear.: Additionally, the Health Department is recommending revocation o the Bu ilding Site Approval since it was based on false information. The City staff and the Health Department policies agree that drainfields and septic tanks need to be on the same parcel as the residence they serve. The Shellooe property is constrained for placement of the septic tank system given the 1> required setbacks, 2) existing pavement and structures, 3) slope of the. land, and 1) desires of the property owners) to retain certain structures. If the lot line were readjusted it would be possible to fit the drainfield on the Shelloee property, but this would mean an unequal exchange of property between lots which are 0057 already nonconforming or location of a cabana on a property line. The location of the drainfield is the responsibility of the applicant at the time of building site approval, and should have been resolved prior to Final Building Site Approval by the applicants, Dr. and Mrs. Lorincz, and their engineer. Staff is recommending that the Commission direct staff to make the appropriate findings and prepare a resolution to revoke the Final Building Site Approval until the matter is resolved either by receipt of a grant of a lot line adjustment or other approval ar action. Since the drainfield location or lot line adjustment may affect the allowable location for the house, staff is recommending that the design review approval also be suspended in conjunction with the site approval. The tentative approval would still be valid until January 9, 1987, with the possibility of three one-year extensions. Since Final Site Approval has been previously granted, staff recommends that the resolution be recorded against the property. Kathy K dus Senior- Planner 0058 4 COEUW 04 0 U©gfi Dr.. and Mrs. filbert Lorincz 13005 Paseo Presada Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Lorincz: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 We have received a letter from the Health Department, attached, which indicates that the property that you formerly owned, 19605 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga, may have its leachfield located on the parcel to the north. If this is the case, the Site Rpproual and Design Review Rpproual received on this parcel may be invalidated by the Planning Commission. The first step in any such process would be to determine whether grounds exist for a revocation of your Building Site Approval. Unless you can prove that the leachfield is entirely on the Shellooe property, 19605 Glen Una Drive, the basis for building site approval will no longer exist and such an approval could be revoked, along with the Design Review Rpproual. If you have any information proving that the leachfield does not cross the property line or other appropriate documentation, please submit it to rie by March 25_ 1986. If it appears that further action is required on this issue, a public hearing will be scheduled with the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Building Site and Design approvals should be revoked. You will be notified as to the time and place of such a meeting. If you have any questions or responses to this letter, please contact me at 867 -31.38. Sincerely, Kathy K erdus Senior Planner cc: Bill Shellooe Jiro Tokarz City Attorney City Manager COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles County of Santa Clara California January 30, 1986 Kathy Kerdus Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: SDR -1585 19605 Glen Una Drive Saratoga, CA Health Department 2220 Moorpark Avenue San Jose, California 95128 /RECEIVED FEB 3 1986 30MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT On January 23, 1986 I inspected the septic system at the above location with Mr. Bill Shellooe, the new property owner. The inspection revealed that the septic tank top was in a deterio- ated condition. Also observed was a drainline extending northerly from the septic tank toward the new parcel, indicating that the leachfield might be located on the newly created parcel. During the inspection conducted as part of the lot split process, Mr. Lorincz, the applicant, only revealed the location of the original leachfield, which apparently failed at a later date. Information brought to my attention after the lot split was .approved indicates that Mr. Lorincz was aware of the replace- ment drainfield and its location. In addition, replacement of the deteriorated septic tank top was a condition for approval of the lot split, was not done prior to recording of the parcel. For further information, please contact the undersigned between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., Monday through Friday at 299 6060. a-i TOKARZ R.S. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SANITARIAN CC: Bill Shellooe JT:ar An Equal Opportunity Employer 0060 APN: 510 -05 -10 oauw go szA2 REPORT TO COMMISSION APPROVED CY Revised 1/9/85 C DATE: 1/4/85 Commission Meeting: 1/9/85 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1585, A -1040, LL #6, for Parma i, behind 19605 Glen Una Drive, V -680 for Parcel 2, 19605 Glen Una Drive,. APPLICANT: Ann Lorincz PROPERTY OWNER: Albert Ann Lorincz 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 ∎)o Parcel 2 Level Parcel 2 Leve 0061 Report the Planning (7 mmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680, LL #6, Lorincz GRADING REQUIRED: Cut 165 Cu. Yds (For Parcel 1 only) Fill 150 Cu. Yds. PROPOSED SETBACKS: (of Parcel 1 with Lot Line Adjustment) Front 30 Ft. Left Side PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front 78 Feet (of Parcel 2 with Lot Line Adjustment) HEIGHT: 18.5 Ft. for Parcel 1 Left Side 25 Feet 1/4/85 Page 2 Cut Depth 2.5 Feet Fill Depth 2.0 Feet Rear 104 Feet 37 Feet Right Side 20 Feet Rear 15 Feet Right Side 17 Feet IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 23% for Parcel 1 43% for Parcel 2 SIZE OF STRUCTURE.: First Floor (including garage): 3762 sq. ft. Parcel 1 only Second Floor: 0 Total: 3762 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project for Parcel 1 does not meet all_.Zoning District, requirements in that its area, which is a legally created substandarc 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 percent of impervious coverage for Parcel 2 exceeds the 35% standard required by the zoning ordinance. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: For new home on Parcel l: Exterior Materials Beige board and batten with dark brown trim and used brick veneer. Roofing Materials Brown cedar shakes 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 0062 Report to the Planning >mmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V- 68k, #6, Lorincz FINDINGS: 4. Special Privilege: 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 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 the 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 1G feet and 17 feet, respectively. These setbacks are unaffected by the change in property lines. 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship J 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. 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. 0063 Report to the Planning mmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V- 68�,LL #6, Lorincz 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: 1/4/85 Page 4 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 cabana 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 2) 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. 0064 ft Report to the Planning )mmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V -68LL #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 l 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. 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.) 0065 Report to the Planning zmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V -680, .LL #6, Lorincz C. r 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 to 24 ft. or better Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings 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. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements. D.I.A. 2. Storm Drain Construction. D.I.A. L. 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 Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 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. 0066 Report to the Planning �nmission SDR -1585, A -1040, V- 68(,,LL #6, Lorincz 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 C 1/4/85 Page 7 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 facilities 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 2) 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. 006` Report to Planning Com( pion A -1040 12/28/84 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. 0068 APPROVED Report to Planning Comm( on A-1040 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. 12/28/84 Page 9 Diana Lewis, Planner Kathy K rdus, Senior Planner Findings were made for the arbor by the Planning Commission on 1/9/85 (attached). 0069 File No. V- 680(C)` Lorincz FINDINGS Arbor 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. 0070 SD15 I X85, A1040 LLB v- &go April 30, 1986 Virginia Laden Fanelli 20812 Fourth St. #15 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Fanelli, It is my understanding that the City Council of Saratoga will address an issue involving- our property at 19605 Glen Una Drive during' the May 7, 198 6 council sessi on. My wife, Mary Louise, and I, as the new owners of 19605 Glen Una Drive, wish to clarify the problem we are currently experiencing with the subject property. At the time of the original purchase of this property, we were led to believe that it was completely self- sufficient. Subsequently, it has been proven by the County Health Department and by our new neighbors that the leachfield for our septic tank is contained on the lot directly to the north, now owned by Dr. Lorincz who also sold us 19605 Glen Una. The actual location of our drainfield is in the same location as the drainfield approved with Dr. Lorincz's building site approval. Because of the slope of the lot and location of existing structures, it is now evident that we do not have room on our current lot to relocate a drainfield. As a result, my wife and I both appeal to you as a member of the City Council to uphold the decision of the April 23, 1986 Planning Commission and approve the revocation of Dr. Lorincz building site approval at least until such time as our problem, which was originally caused by Dr. Lorincz, is solved. If you would like to view the situation in question, please call us on 408 395 -5081 and we will be glad to invite you over. Sincerely, William R. SShellooe