Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-1992 City Council Agenda packetPrinted on recycled paper. V IMU 4 04 1r o C� M E M O R A N D U M 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: The Mayor and City Council FROM: Tsvia Adar, Associate Planner 1 PF DATE: March 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Request for relief to file plans pending zoning ordinance revision Troutman, 13070 Regan Lane COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman On 11/20/91, the City Council adopted a number of amendments to Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance. One of the amendments was related to required yard setbacks. In addition to a fixed distance, the new standards include a percentage of site dimensions which, in some cases, increases the required setbacks. In applying the new standards to existing structures a large number of existing non conforming structures resulted. Consequently, the new standards created practical difficulties and physical hardships which serve as grounds for variance approvals. To avoid this type of situation, staff recommended to the Planning Commission a number of modifications to the adopted ordinance, one of which is to apply the new setback standards to newly created or vacant lots only. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments, accepted staff recommendations, and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the changes. The proposed amendments to the zoning code are scheduled for City Council review at the 4/1/92 meeting. Mr. Troutman, the owner of a home located at 13070 Regan Lane, is interested in expanding his house. The addition, as presented to Planning staff, does not comply with the current rear yard setback requirement, but will comply with the proposed amendment to the standard if adopted by the City Council. In his letter (attached), Mr. Troutman requests relief to submit plans for the Planning Department's review prior to adoption of the amendments by the City Council. It should be noted that Mr. Troutman discussed the proposed addition with staff. However, no application was submitted to the City. Compliance with all the City's zoning code standards and regulations must be verified once a formal application is filed. The City Attorney reviewed Mr. Troutman's request and his advice is that an application may be submitted for review by the Planning and /or Building Department, prior to adoption of the amendments. However, the owner must also sign a letter of understanding, indicating that approval of the project is contingent on the adoption of the amendments to the ordinance by the City Council, and that his application will be processed at his own risk. Design Review or Administrative Review and approval, as well as the necessary building permits cannot be issued until the code amendments become effective. Attachment: 1. Letter from Mr. Troutman dated 3/15/92 2. Existing section of the Code related to rear yard setback Ms. Karen Anderson Ms. Martha Clevenger Mr. Victor Monia Mr. F. L. Stutzman Mr. Willem Kohler, Mayor City of Satatoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Subject: One story addition at 13070 Regan Lane Dear Mr. Kohler. We have been working with a local architect to design a master bedroom and bathroom addition to our home at the above address. We submitted the plans to the Planning Department on March 5, 1992 and were horrified to find the addition was four feet too close to the rear lot line. This would not have been a problem before Ordinance No. 71.99 was passed in December 1991 as we are 31 feet from the rear lot line. Using the 25% rule we need to be 34 feet from the rear line. tJ We discussed a variance with the planning department and were told there was no basis, but they told us they have submitted a plan to the City Council that will change the rear lot line back to the original rules April 1, 1992. I hope this is not an April Fools joke because our sense of humor is gone. This delay causes a major financial impact as we have paid architect fees and ordered all new windows for the house as well as the addition, totaling approximately $20,000. One, we give our full support to changing back to the original setbackrules. We feel that the unannounced rule changes cause both delays, approximately two months, and fmancial hardship. Two, can we submit our plans for approval to the Planning Department now, so when the changes to the lot lines are approved April 1, no joke, we are ready to start construction? We appreciate your help and support. Frustratedly yours, )1142 Gil Troutman MAR 1 9 1992 13070 Regan Lane Sara toga, CA 95070 March 15, 1992 EXISTING REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT (e) Rear yards of =corner 'lots created after January 1, 19 92i The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 Dis- trict shall be twenty -five percent (25 of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single- story Multi -story District Rear and Rear Yard R -1- 10,000 25 ft. 25 ft. R-1-12,500 25 ft.. 25 ft. R -1- 15,000 30 ft. 30 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. 35 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. (f) Rear yards of corner lots created prior to January 1, 1992. The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 Dis- trict shall be twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, or the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single -story Multi -story District Rear Yard Rear Yard R -1- 10,000 10 ft. 10 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. 10 ft. R-1-15,000 12 ft. 12 ft. R- 1- 20, 15 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 20 ft. (a) Rear yards of interior lots. The minimum rear yard of any interior lot in each .R -1 district shall be twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: Single -story Multi -story District Rear Yard Rear Yard R-1-10,000 25 ft. 35 ft. R -1- 12 25 ft. 35 ft. R- 1- 15,000 30 ft. 40 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. 45 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. (h) Determination of yards for flag lots.- On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer ADOPTED ON 11/20/91 Printed on recycled paper. 2I Ug'n7 off 0 U(001 M E M O R A N D U M 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: March 26, 1992 SUBJECT: AZO 92 -001, Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at two regular Planning Commission hearings and one regular adjourned meeting. On February 26, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Resolution AZO- 92 -001 (attached), recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Additionally, the Commission recommends adoption of the associated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. These amendments are an outgrowth of the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Ordinance 71.99. During the implementation period following the adoption of Ordinance 71.99, staff has experienced a number of technical difficulties. The newly amended code sections inadvertently created nonconforming situations, primarily in regard to existing residential structures. The new standards create practical difficulties and physical hardships which could serve as the grounds for variance approval in many cases. As a result the aforementioned, staff recommended to the Planning Commission, a number of amendments and clarifications to the zoning code. The clarifications contained in the attached Draft Zoning Ordinance amendments are intended to resolve technical difficulties while maintaining the purpose of the original ordinance amendments. During the review period, the Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate a number of modifications to various sections of the proposed amendments. Staff has attached the proposed ordinance, along with a compilation of the existing code sections that are proposed to be amended. The compilation is organized and numbered in accordance with the Draft Ordinance for comparison purposes. Y, 4, The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the amendments as proposed in the draft ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Meg C Chairperson, Planning Commission TA:cw Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Amendments 2. Negative Declaration 3. Planning Commission Resolution AZO 92 -001 4. Memo to the Planning Commission dated 2/26/92 5. Compilation of Existing Code Sections to be Amended 6. Draft Study Session Minutes dated 1/28/92 7. Correspondence RES -NO Saratoga BAS111151!(%3t: --71• ^:3?lC°"_"`_`°"": ".a. l:: DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act: of 1970 File No. Zoning Amendments 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, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of: the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION An ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending various sections of the zoning regulations of the Saratoga City Code, concerning design review setbacks, minor grading, fences and definitions in the residential districts. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION To allow amendment of the City Code concerning design review, setbacks, minor grading, fences and definitions in the residential districts. Executed at Saratoga, California this (day of t 1991. DIR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S :ORIZED STAFF MEMBER The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: That the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 26, 1992, to consider draft amendments to the City Code at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Section 2: That the Planning Commission determined that changes to the development standards, including setbacks, house size as a factor of building height, and the design review criteria are necessary to protect the City's scenic resources and to advance the City's progress in meeting General Plan goals; and Section 3: That the Planning Commission has reviewed a draft Negative Declaration which concludes that the proposed amendments to the City Code will not have a significant environmental impact, and recommends that the City Council adopt this Negative Declaration; and Section 4: That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the zone amendments attached as Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 15 -06, 15 -12, 15 -13, 15 -14, 15 -29, 15 -45, 15 -50, 15 -65, 15 -70 AND 16 -15 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO THE REVISIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA, AND GRADING SECTIONS FOR R -1 AND HILLSIDE ZONE DISTRICTS Secretary to Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. AZO -92 -001 Chair,14nning C ission Flag Lots MEMORANDUM: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: February 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Grading standards and policies My„ NSeN 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anaerson ,Manna Clevenger Willem Kchier Victor Mono Francis Stutzman This item was originally scheduled on. the.. 1 /8/92 Planning Commission meeting and was continued to the 1/22/92 hearing. At this meeting, the Commission asked that then item be discussed further at the 1/28/92 study session. Subsequently, 'the Planning Commission accepted all of the changes asp proposed`, except for the following: 1. It was suggested that the application of the residential setback standards as proposed by staff, should exclude flag lots. 2. Clarification was desired in relation to. the City grading standard allowing a maximum slope ratio of: or 2:1. 3. Staff was asked to provide any existing policies or criteria for minor grading projects between 10 and 49 cubic yards. The minutes from the 1/28/92 study session are attached. Construction on flag lots has typically raised more privacy and visual impacts than other lots. The configuration of flag lots, surrounded by lots at all sides, has the potential of greater impact on adjacent properties than standard. lots. Flexibility in the setback requirements for additions to existing structures can be beneficial in minimizing these impacts without the necessity of variance approval. The more restrictive regulations are proposed to applied to vacant lots in general, including flag lam 'The question concerning the proposal to amend the Building Code to allow a maximum of 2:1 graded slopes was to the City Engineer. The City Engineer recommends allowing 2 graded slopes. 0001 Printed on recycled paper. In many site conditions, such a slope ratio has the advantage of reducing the total amount of grading and better integration with the existing terrain and naturally steep slopes. In addition, 2:1 graded slopes are considered to be stable and are permitted by the City Engineer and the City Geotechnical_ consultant when found appropriate. Staff is recommending amendment of the Building Code to allow 2:1 slopes when found appropriate and advantageous.,It. should be noted that the NHR section of the Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission approval for 2:1 graded slopes. This will still apply to all hillside parcels. The second issue was related to minor gradingprojects. A copy of the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission pertaining to review of grading projects between 10 and 49 cubic yards, is attached. The criteria described in the memorandum has been successfully applied since 1990 and allowed: adequate review and control. Staff recommends the continuance. of this policy. TA:cw For comparison purposes, staff has prepared a compilation of existing code sections that are proposed to be.. changed or clarified by this ordinance. The code sections are numbered to correspond with the section numbers of the Draft Ordinan ce _This compilation is attached for reference. Staff has also prepared a Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA regulations. It is attached for review.._ Since the adoption of the recent amendments to the zoning ordinance, staff has experienced many technical difficulties, mainly with applications for additions to. existing structures and occupied lots. The new standards create practical difficulties and physical hardships which can serve as grounds. for: variance approval in a large number of cases. As a result, compliance with the ordinance becomes difficult and the purpose: of the amendment cannot be achieved. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission remit the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the Associated Negative Declaration to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. Attachments: 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments 2. Negative Declaration and Initial Stud T 3. Existing Code Section Compilation.: t ._.v. 4. Memo from Associate Planner, datedr 8?/r8/9 5. Draft Minutes from the. 1/28/92 Planning? Commission Study Session 6. Correspondence 000002 EXISTING CODE SECTION COMPILATION CORRESPONDS TO SEC.. 2 815- 12.090 mat yard, side yards: ass rear yard (a) The minimum front yard o!_ any lot in each R -1 distri t shall be twenty percent (20%) of the lot depth, the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: (b) Side yards of interior lots. The:minimum side yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be- tan percent (10%) of the lot width, or the distance indicated in the following table for each side yard, whichever is greater: Individual Aida loch. (c) Side yards of corner lots crated after January 1, 1992. The minimum side yard of any corm lot in each R dis- trict shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot or the dis- tance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards, whichever is greater. Interior =strict ct Aida Y R -1- 10,000 R- 1- 12,500 R- 1- 15,000 R- 1- 20,000 R- 1- 40,000 (d) lido yards of corner lots crested prior to January 1, 1992. The minimum side yard of any corner lot in each R dis- trict shall be ten percent (10%) of the lot width, or the dis- tance indicated in the following table for interior and exterior side yards, whichever is greater: Distri R- 1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R- 1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 2intxiglit R- 1- 10,000 R- 1- 12,500 R- 1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 10 ft. 10 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 5 EXSOM Y 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft._ 10 ft. 10 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. Exterior Yeni 15 ft. 15 ft. 15. ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. or Interior D Exterior i ce. '.mss Aida Vard Ws Ind R- 1- 10,000 10 ft. 25 ft. R -1- 12,500 10 ft. 25 ft, R-1-13,000 12 ft. 25 ft. R -1- 20,000 15 ft. 25 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. (e) Rear yards of corner lots created alter January 1, 1992. The minimum rear yard of any corner lot in each R -1 Dis- trict shall be twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: D Single Multi -story $ta= Yarsi R- 1- 10,000 25 ft. 25 ft. R- 1- 12,500 25 ft. 25 ft. R -1- 15,000 30 ft. 30 ft. R-1-20,000 35 ft. 35 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. (f) Rear yards of corner lots created prior to January 1, 1992. The minimum rear yard of any cornerr lot in each R Dis- trict shall be twenty five (25%) percent of the lot depth, or the distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: District Single-stork- 1 1 Multi-story Mar Y= R -1- 10,000 10 ft. 10 ft. R- 1- 12,500 10 ft. 10 ft. R- 1- 15,000 12 ft. 12 ft. R- 1- 20,000 15 ft. 15 ft. R -1- 40,000 20 ft. 20 ft. (g) Rear yards of interior lots. The minimum rear yard of any interior lot in each R -1 district shall be twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, or the applicable distance indicated in the following table, whichever is greater: niitailt Single-story p Multi-story Btu= Uzi R■1- 10,000 25 ft. 35 ft. R- 1- 12,500 25 ft. 35 ft. R- 1- 13,000 30 ft. 40 ft. R -1- 20,000 35 ft. 45 ft. R -1- 40,000 50 ft. 60 ft. (h) Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measur- ing the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would impact the lots normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SEC.3 mss -is. 0so Croat yard, side yards amd: reword (a) front yard. The minima front yard:. shall be thirty (30) feat or twenty (20%) percent of ths, lot dam, whichever is greater. (b) rids yards. The minima side yard aball bs twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard: ant treaty -five (25) feat in the case of an exterior side yard, or ties percent of the lot width, whichever is greater. (c) near yard. The minima rear yard: shalt. be thirty -five (35) feet in the case of a single •shy stamOMumtaed forty -five (4 5) feet in the case of a multi-story structur+e, aa: twenty -five (25 percent of the lot depth, Wbid mmat im greeter. (d) Oeteraimetioa of yards for flag ]vets. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its averagO:degth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for tb+s porpses of sees= ing the front, side and rear yards, unless tor do so would impact the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SEC.4 (g) Grading. The combined cut aid l of any grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the. following findings: (1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and (2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being pre- served and protected; and (3) The increased grading is necessary to promote: the compatibility of the construction with. the natural terrain; and (4) The increased grading is necessary integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and (5) The increased grading is necessary to.reduce.the:promi nence of the construction as viewed* from surrounding views or from distant community views. I fi t,. h t Y r. L�fis.Lf5i1+ `4'dl�iY� +isS ltiat s SEC. S 815 -i4 L00 Front yard, tide yards, acs: senor yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (3 0) feet or twenty percent (20 of the lot depth, whichever is greater. yards The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feat i l the ease of an interior aids yard_ and twenty -five (25) feet in the case of an exterior aids yard, or. ten percent (10%) of the lot width, whichever is greater. (c) Rear yard. The minimum rear yards shall. be fifty (50) feet in the case of a single- story structure? and. sixty. (60) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, one try -five percent (25%) of the lot depth, whichever is greater.. (d) Determination of yards for flaw lots.. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the: purpose of measur- ing the front, side and rear yards, unless: to do so would impact the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. SEC. 6 Sections: 15- 29.010 15- 29.020 15- 29.030 15- 29.040 15- 29.050 ARTICLE 15-29 FENCES, WALLS AND SEDGES Height restrictions Fencing within hillside districts Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets Fencing adjacent to scenic highways Barbed wire prohibited S15-29.010 get restrictions (a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or Vail located within any required yard shall exceed six feet in height. (b) Front yards and exterior side yards of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any required front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height, except as follows: (1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not exceeding six feet, it such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided, however, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of.'sueh nonconforming; fence or wall, any replacement fence: or weil.shall.not exceed three feet in height. (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a. height not exceeding five feet. SEC. 7 (f) floor area reduction for certain seas districts. After the 'allowable floor area is calculated in paragraphs (d) (s) above, the maximum allowable floor area for all structures shall be reduced by 1.5% for each one (1) foot of maximum building height exceeding 18 feat for all lots located in. any 2-1 zone district. The maximum building height shall bar-determined to mean the height of any existing or proposed main struuatura- located on the sits. The maximum building height for any main structure shall be determined in the tanner prescribed. in Section 13- 06.340. The Planning Commission may grant an exception to permit additional floor area tip to the maximum presaribed in paragraPhs (d) (e) above, provided that all of that following findings ars made: i. There is a predominance of two story structures in the neighborhood: and 2. All the findings in Section 15- 45.080(a »f) are present. SEC. 8 S15- 45.050 Underfloor demon= All new single family main structures and accessory structures, or additions thereto, shall be designed to follow the slope of the site so as to reduce the clearance between ground floor levels and finish grade: to not more than five feet. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to this requirement if the Commission is still able to make all of the findings set in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. SEC. 9 S15- 45.070 Application requirements (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as tie shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing property lines, easements and dimensions, structure setbacks, building envellorr topography, location of all trees over twelve inches in diam ter as measured two feet above grade, and areas of dense vegetation and creeks: (2) A statement of energy conserving features. proposed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot water or space: heating, passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated windows, or solar shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Planning Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if requested by the Planning Director. (5) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including:cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Landscape plans. (9) Preliminary title report showing all parties having any interest in the property and any easements, encumbrances and restrictions which benefit or burden the property. (10) Such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the Planning Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets SEC. 10 "S15- 50.120 Violations; penalties The violation of any provision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. In addition thereto, any person unlawfully removing or destroying any tree without a.permit shall be penalized as follows: SEC. 11 515- 65.160 Nonconforming sites A lawfully created site having an area, frontage, width or depth less than the minimums prescribed for the district in which the site- is located may be used for a. permitted or conditional use, but shall be subject to all. other regulations for the district in which the site is located, except the followings (a) Where the width of a site does not conform with the standard for the district, the minimum width of interior side yards shall be not leas• than ten percent of the width of the site or six feet, whichever is greater, and the minimum width of an exterior side yard of a corner lot shall be not less. than twenty percent of the width of the site or fifteen feet, whichever is greater. (b) Where the depth of the site is less than the standard for the district, the rear yard shall be twenty percent of the depth of the site or twenty feet, whichever is greater. SEC. 12 (b) No variance for setbacks, distance between structures, fences walls and hedges shall be required, however, for nsv main structures proposed to be built on existing grading pads where: DATE: Tuesday, January 28, 1991 PLACE: Senior Adult Day Care Center 6 :30 p.m. 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, .CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 6:30 D.M. REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Present: Commissioners Bogosian, Forbes, Moran, Interim Planning Director Eisner, Planner Walgren, Asst. City Attorney Faubion, and ES Consultants Turrell and Halsey. Absent: Commissioners Caldwell, Durket, Favero Tucker 1. City of Saratoga Miscellaneous amendments to Ordinance 72- 99, an ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending various sections of the zoning regulations concerning subdivisions of sites, design review, impervious coverage, setbacks and grading in the Residential and Agricultural districts. Administrative amendments and clarifications to the Design Standards. Commissioner Moran opened the Study Session at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Bogosian wanted to clarify that no decisions would be made at the session, only direction to staff. Commissioner Moran suggested that staff constant on each items of the list of Ordinance changes. A discussion ensured regarding the various items on the change list. The Commissioners were amenable to all the proposed changes except: The staff proposal regarding the application of the recently adopted residential setback standards should not apply to flag lots. They wanted clarification on whether. the City grading ordinance allowed 2 :1 or 3:1 graded slopes at maximum. The wanted criteria for minor grading to be prepared for the next public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Adjourned Meeting 1/22/92 Commissioner Moran indicated that all of the requested changes were acceptable, subject to the aforementioned comments and that the Draft Ordinance could be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting. Planner White and Walgren agreed that the item could be scheduled on the February 26th Planning Commission agenda. A discussion ensued regarding slope density, clustering and the recently adopted Lot Determination table. Planning Director Eisner felt that the lot determination forced clustering and did not provide a clear alternative to potential subdividers. he also felt that issues of bulk and mass were not addressed by the clustering provision. Commissioner Bogosian felt clustering was the direction that Saratoga was headed and that the lot determination table was not an unreasonable constraint to potential subdividers. Commissioner Moran concluded the discussion of Item #1 at 7:30 p.m. :30 2. SD -009 Wong, Chiquita Court Reques or tentative map approval to subd •e a 26.4 acre site int• ive new parcels ranging from to 10.7 acres in size. The ubject property is locate •etween Chiquita Way and Chiquita ourt, within the I- one district, and is proposed to be cessed by a cul sac off Chiquita Court. This is the last five Planning Commissioner the DEIR prepared for complete review of C Attorney Faubi legislation r programs wh Commis inve er Bogosian reiterated his gations and erosion impacts and not been adequately addressed in the then or not the document is adequate. Sta hat much of the questions raised during the DEX be addressed at the tentative map and /or building permit stage. ha Page 2 ourned meetings to allow the e public to review and comment on subdivision. Staff is hoping to 7, 8 and 9. presented overview of the recent ring Cities to •opt mitigation monitoring CEQA review is invo ern that the soils igation measures IR to consider again stated view would grading CORRESPONDENCE 4c1-1 a 3 C tfee 14174 J .1/ Z--4Itz- a Gyt, C/ 7, H/S2zi_. ,rya ei3- 4 4 ,eq ct ,4ke 7Z(2 -1 by Ma ioy r7 c C,d Grp .e:ca` cis X16/ e- .cam RECEIVED FEB 12 1992 PLANNING DEPT. ptr€A a/zt. -A '4) o;-6 �rcc cZ ,pe y arc. J -L ©4 6 ile-,t, 64- ce4,,,z5 an,e --fr l 'gaGZ-ey-e-c-e (s `7 07iJ r� /99 a A.4 rte- 71 -23 f /SlG6 ��fsrkC- CITY OF SARATOGA Planning Commission 13777 Frultvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca., 95070 Re: Recent Ordinance Changes in Property Setback Requirements Dear Sirs: Upon submitting blueprints of the proposed remodelling of our main bathroom for preliminary review, January 2, 1992, I was shocked to learn that the property side yard setback code had been changed suddenly from 10 to 12 feet, effective Dec 20, 1991. Our remodelling was planned two years ago after dry rot was discovered while removing the linoleum. The tub was removed and bad flooring replaced so that only the toilet and sinks are functional. Further activities were put on hold pending the outcome of divorce action taken by my wife in May 1990. I was finally given title to the family home in late Oct 1991. In mid -1991, I rechecked with the Building and Planning Departments and was given verbal assurance and codes that a 2 foot bay window was permitted for expansion of the small main bathroom. A set of blueprints was prepared accordingly. We just completed pouring a large reinforced concrete retaining wall required to comply with a recent Saratoga ordinance prohibiting visible garbage cans in the driveway. Now that that project is finally completed and we have our home, my sons and I were hoping to complete the bathroom. The original bathtub was sold in anticipation of getting a new one. The previously planned and sanctioned remodelling does not appear to be possible now due to the new ordinance. I was told by Planning personnel that a variance request would cost $980 with little hope given for success. I don't have any money left to spend on speculative issues. Rather, I am asking that the new ordinance be reviewed for its effectiveness in achieving the real purpose intended, i.e. limit large hillside developments. Your personnel were surprised by the quick action taken and expect much hardship in cases such as mine. They were most sympathetic and eager to help, but could not achieve compliance with the new rules in our case. We are located in a cul -de -sac with an odd shaped 1/3 acre lot having five sides. Our side yard faces the neighbor's side /back yard, with their house located more than 40 feet from our bathroom. Also, our bathroom is at the second story level since the lot slopes down from the front yard on that side. It was planned to cantilever the 2 X 8 foot bay window floor plan area so that ground level is unobstructed. In this situation, the new ordinance does not accomplish anything, especially since there could never be a neighboring building in close proximity to the second story bay window. Forcing us to cram everything into the existing 8 X 8 feet room will require loss of existing cabinets or return to the less desirable shower over the -tub design. Internal expansion is not practicable as can be ascertained by examining the original house plans. To avoid being too rigid, it is proposed that some provision be added in the new ordinance to include the total (adjacent) environment in considering new setback changes. The new code might state that the previous code additions are acceptable when overall distance to adjacent buildings, excluding bay windows, is 24 feet or more (Sum of code side yards). Second -level cantilevered bay windows, per previous code, should be considered in waiver requests. We have been in this home for 20 years, and hope that reasonably high Saratoga standards will be maintained without being overly restrictive and counterproductive to real improvements and rightful enjoyment of our homes and community. (No more Palo Altos, Please!) Thank you for your attention and careful consideration in this matter. Very Truly Yours, Jan. 8, 1992 20617 Debbie Lane Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council of Saratoga, As Nineteen -year residents in an R -1 zone of Saratoga, we are writing to express our very strong recommendation that the floor area reduction based on maximum height, as approved by the council in ordinance 71.99 section 24 (f), not be applied to homes built before the adoption date of that ordinance. Our split -level home, built in 1963, has a flat tar and gravel roof with a vault extending above a portion of the living room and master bedroom. The vault top is higher than the imposed maximum of 18 feet permitted by this recent ordinance. We are in process of planning an addition to our home under the architectural guidance of Mr. Steven Benzing of Warren B. Heid and Associates. The roof of our planned addition would be at the same height as the existing flat roof, that is, lower than the existing vault top. Yet, Mr. Benzing informs us that, since our 29 -year old home is of height greater than the recently decreed maximum, we would be penalized about 300 square feet of permitted area that we could add to our home. This would significantly reduce the decree of enjoyment realizable from our property. For existing homes, the application of the recently imposed height restriction to an addition that in no way increases a long existing home height seems unreasonable to us, as well as unfair because of it's retroactive or ex post facto nature. Many other long time Saratoga residents surely will also find themselves penalized similarly Should they'plan future home additions. We urge the council, therefore, to approve Section 7 (f) of the current draft ordinance: to wit, that the subject ordinance be applied only to new construction built after the adoption date of that ordinance, and not be applied to homes existing before that ordinance. 21221 Canyon View Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 March 26, 1992 Sincerely yours, Dean R. Chapman Marguerite C. Chapman O, A MAR 2 7 1992 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: Attachments: Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 21 AGENDA ITEM: March 24, 1992 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT(' SUBJECT: LINE PAINTING AIRLESS SPRAYER Recommended Action: Adopt Appropriation Resolution appropriating $5,000 to purchase an Airless Paint Sprayer. Summary: Included in the 1992/93 operating budget is $9000 for the purchase of a replacement for our Traffic Line Spray Rig. Although we are slightly ahead of schedule, we have determined that a sprayer manufactured by Graco with a retail price, including tax, of $4855.01 will best fill our needs. We have an opportunity, if we can place our order prior to March 31, 1992, to receive a spray tip line kit (a $390 value) free. Because of this opportunity and the fact that our current striper is in need of repairs costing over $400, we are asking that we be allowed to place an order at this time. The attached comparison summary will show that we have received the prices from four competitive sprayer manufacturers. Fiscal Impact: The net effect is a reduction of $4,000 between the 1991/92 and 1992/93 fiscal year budgets. 1) Appropriation Resolution 2) Memo from Maintenance Superintendent to Maintenance Director with cost spread sheet. Transfer: 5,000 from (0001 -2000) 5,000 to (8083 -6740) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NUMBER _91 -46.10 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE F.Y. 1992 BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 91 -46 be amended as follows: 1 FUND BALANCE FIXED ASSET REPLACEMENT Purpose: Shift funding from subsequent year to current year to provide for replacement of Traffic Line Spray Rig. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: MAYOR March 18, 1992 MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Manager Maintenance Director LINE PAINTING AIRLESS SPRAYER As you are aware, included in the 1992/93 operating budget is $9000 for the purchase of a replacement for our Traffic Line Spray Rig. Although we are slightly ahead of schedule, we have determined that a sprayer manufactured by Graco with a retail price, including tax, of $4855.01 will best fill our needs. We have an opportunity, if we can place our order prior to March 31, 1992, to receive a spray tip line kit (a $390 value) free. Because of this opportunity and the fact that our current striper is in need of repairs costing over $400, we are asking that we be allowed to place an order at this time. The attached comparison summary will show that we have received the prices from four competitive sprayer manufacturers. Thank you for your consideration of this request. mt Attachments 8oe 3 7 4-0 Lil‘9y0-147 &44144444/-2,-- oxzy44. (rf- k4L(PA ac.)441.4 ‘Ate"4- D f) C4144Ad41 24,0zoi G,.�....s 16 i C "9/Iti4t- Ame-- March 10, 1992 MEMO TO: Dan FROM: Gary SUBJECT: AIRLESS PAINT SPRAYER The traffic control budget for fiscal year 1992/93 reflects $9,000 in 6740 Machines /Special Equipment for the replacement of our existing lane striper. I am requesting a transfer of funds from 3033 -6740 1992/93 to 3033- 6740 1991/92 in order to purchase a replacement as soon as possible. The lane striper marked for replacement is in need of major repair, with estimated repair costs that exceed $400. I have contacted several manufacturers of airless lane stripers and the Line Laser Striper made by Graco is by far our best choice. See attachments. mt Attachments AIRLESS STRIPER SPECIFICATIONS MB -A5GM GRACO PREC.DESIGN KEL -CRES Dimensions 57X38X37 56X37X40 35X25X39 56X37X40 Weight 250 212 280 235 Frame 12 guage Rec.Steel U- Channel Tube Steel Pump GRACO GRACO GRACO GRACO UHMWPE UHMWPE UHMWPE UHMWPE Tires 4.00X8PNEU 16 "PNEU 12 "PNEU 400X8PNEU Engine 3.5 HP 4 HP 5 HP 4 HP Low oil Shutdown Yes Yes Yes Yes Paint Output 1 gpm 1 gpm 1 gpm 1 gpm 1 gun price $4,590 2 gun price $5,150 $4,700 Bead dispenser 535 $135 $6,900 included $4,750 $5,200 $1,075