Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-1986 City Council Agenda packetS'-2 AGENDA BILL NO. 0 DATE: 3/18/86 (4/2/86) FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A 4/2: Continued to 4/16. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -720, A-1165 Joseph Helen Brozda, Northwest Corner of Big Basin Way and Third St. by the Brozda's Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a variance request to allow 15 substandard parking spaces where approximately 69 spaces are required and to allow no off- street loading facilities where one is required, and design review request for a new parking deck which became a moot issue when the variance was denied. SUMMARY: This project has a history of two previous variance requests. The first variance, V -541, was granted in 1981 for limited period of time to allow further investigation of alternative solutions to the parking problem. Another application was made in 1983 for a parking deck which provided 15 substandard parking spaces where 7 spaces existed. A variance (V -627), design review (A -929) and, later, a tentative building site approval (SDR -1573) were granted in 1984. No construction commenced on the parking deck and the previously approved variances and design review requests subsequently expired. Therefore, when the new owner of the restau- rant on site applied for a business license, staff required that he apply for a variance for the existing, inadequate parking. The Commission reviewed this variance request on 1/18/86 and required that the property oweners, the Brozdas, reapply for the parking deck. The Commission reviewed the parking deck proposal at two study sessions and at the public hearing on 2/26/86, voted to deny the request. The reason for the denial was the large discrepancy between the number of spaces proposed and the number required. The property owner is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance and design review requests as the parking deck proposal was identical to the previous variance request which was approved by the Commission in 1984. Also, additional matters concerning in lieu parking were not determined at the Planning Commission level. EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report to Mayor City Council 6 Exhibits 2. Staff report dated 1/2/86 7. ,Correspondence 3. Memo dated 2 /20/86 (with relevant minutes) 4. Staff report dated 2/20/86 5:. Minutes dated 1/8/86, 2/12/86 2/26/86 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.) Conduct a public hearing. 2.) Determine the merits of the appeal and uihoTd or reverse th'e Planning Commission decision. 3.) If the Council decides to uphiold the appeal after reviewing the testimony, the Negative Declaration must first be approved making the finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Also, since no handicap parking space is being provided, the Council must find that requiring a handicap space would create an unreasonable hardship due to the physical constraints of the site. ACTION: ZU7' ©2 0 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Appeal of Denial of V -720 and A -1165 ISSUES DATE: 3/25/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/2/86 Should the City Council uphold or deny the appeal by Dr. and Mrs. Brozda of the Planning Commission's decision on February 26, 1986 to deny the variance and design review requests for a parking deck which would have provided 15 substandard parking spaces where approximately 69 spaces are required and the variance request to allow no loading facilities where a minimum of one loading space is required? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS There are three parts to the variance application. The first is to allow 15 parking spaces where 69 spaces are required. Staff recommends denial of this request, as use of the site has intensified with no provision for additional parking. The required variance findings could not be made. The second is the request to allow substandard parking spaces t9' x 18') where 9.5' x 18' spaces are required. Staff recommends denial of this request because the proposal could be altered to provide 14 parking spaces which meet length and width requirements and which also includes one handicap space. The third is to allow no off street loading space where one space is required. Staff recommends approval of this request as the dimensions for the loading space, 12'x 45', would eliminate a significant number of parking spaces on site. This would create a physical hardship for the property owners. With the denial of the variance request for the parking, the issue of the design review request for the parking deck became moot. Staff had recommended approval of the design review for Report to Mayor and City Council U-720, R-1165 the deck if the variance was approved. 3/25/86 Page 2 If the Council upholds the appeal, the Negative Declaration should be approved first. His°, if the project is to be approved as presented with no handicap parking space provided, the Council is required to find that compliance with this State requirement or equivalent facilitation would create an unreasonable hardship due to the physical constraints of the site. BACKGROUND There has been two prior variance applications for the parking on this site. The first variance ((3-541) was required when the former newspaper office changed to a retail/restaurant use, thereby intensifying the need for on-site parking. U-541 was granted for one year to allow additional time to investigate other solutions to the parking problem. The Commission required reviews at certain intervals to ensure that the property owners were continuing in their efforts to resolve the parking situation. U-541 was extended until a new variance application was made in 1983 for a parking deck. Uith the deck, 15 parking substandard spaces were proposed where 7 spaces previously existed. A variance 0-627), design review (R-929) and encroachment permit were granted in January 1984. Later, tentative building site approval (SDR-1573) was granted in September. No construction has commenced on the parking deck since the approvals were granted and U-627 and R-929 subsequently expired. R recent request for a business license by the new owner of the restaurant on site resulted in the application for another variance. Since adequate parking is not being provided and the previous variance approvals had expired, a business license could not be issued. The owner of the restaurant, William Carlson, submitted a variance application ((3-720) to allow the existing number of parking spaces. At the public hearing on January 8, 1986, the Planning Commission voted to deny the request unless the Brozda's reapplied for the parking deck and modified the previous variance application. At this meeting, two property owners in the Uillage spoke in opposi- tion to granting the variance for the existing parking. Plans and applications for the.parkign deck were submitted. At two study sessions, the Commission reviewed how the parking was calculated previously and how the uses on site have changed. It was noted that for previous variance requests, the employee parking was not included in the parking ratio computations. At the meeting on Feb. 26, 1986, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the variance for the parking and the issue of the design review request for the parking deck became moot. The Planning Commission's reason for the denying the request was that 2 Report to Mayor and City Council U-720, R-1165 the discrepancy between the number of parking spaces being pro- vided and the number required was too great. It was noted that employee parking was not considered in the earlier variance applications. At this same meeting, the Commission approved the design review request for exterior changes to Tollgate Barn. The property owners are appealing the denials of U-720 and R- 1165 as these applications are identical to previous applications which were approved. Yu uek Asia Di ctor of Planning YH/dl/dsc 3 3/25/85 Page 3 HPN: 503 -24 -28 and 503 -24 -41 MT' cDO REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION *Revised: 1/8/86 DATE: 1/2/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 1/8/86 APPLICANT: William Carlson OWNER: Joseph Poppy.Brozda APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: 11 -720, 14503 Big Basin Way ACTION REQUESTED: Variance Approval to allow 9 existing substandard sized parking spaces where approximately 42 spaces are required for restaurant and retail type uses. The applicant's plans .indicate 7 parking spaces on site. An on site visit revealed .that 9 spaces were actually in use. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED: V -541 approved 5/13/81, subsequently replaced by V -627 approved 1/11/84 which later expired. Design Review and Tentative Building Site Approvals received in 1984 for a parking deck. The Design Review Approval has expired. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically exempt per CEQA, Section 15301 ZONING: C -C GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial PARCEL SIZE: 14,600 sq. ft. EXISTING LAND USE ON SITE SERVED BY PARKING: Restaurant with outdoor dining, two clothing stores, gallery, hair salon, printers and 3500 sq. It. of vacant commercial space. SURROUNDING' LAND USES: Retail and office uses are across from the site, Saratoga Inn is under construction behind the site; to the right are retail and residential uses and to the left, more retail uses. NATURAL FEriTUPFS VEGETATION: The lot is totally developed. PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING BUILDING: Clothing Stores Restaurant (2 Floors) Gallery (2nd Floor) 1975 sq. ft. 1990 sq. ft. 1963 sq. ft. Report to Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 2 Hair Salon (1st Floor 15301) 1963 sq. ft. Printers (Lower Floor of Barn) 1634 sq. ft. Total 9,525 sq. ft. A For Rent" sign attached to the Tollgate Barn is advertising 3,500 sq. ft. of space to leas. This area appears to be presently used as storage. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that parking required for the entire site was previously estimated at 42 spaces and only 9 spaces are provided. Additionally, the parking spaces provided are substandard in size. Two variance applications for the insufficient parking on this site have been previously made by the property owners. The first variance request, V -514, was required by the City when the former newspaper office use changed over to a retail and restaurant use known as Maddalena's Upstairs Downstairs. This intensified the use of the site, thereby necessitatin a variance application for parking. The Commission heard public testimony over a 4 month period in early 1981 and granted the variance for one year. This was to allow some time for the possible formation of Parking District No. 3 or to investigate other solutions to the parking problem. Also, 90- day reviews by the Commission were required as part of the variance approval to insure that the property owners were continuing in their efforts to resolve the inadequate amount of parking on site. Although many avenues were explored by the property owners, the Commission and other groups, an on -going solution was not found until the property owners made a proposal for a parking deck in late 1983. With the new parking deck, a total of 15 spaces could be provided. However, at this same time the property owners were proposing to further intensify use of the site by adding a studio apartment on the second story of the barn. This area was formerly used as storage and was in addition to the other uses including outdoor dining for the restaurant. The restaurant, outdoor dining and apartment use alone would have required a minimum of 22 additional spaces. It should be noted that the parking spaces for the proposed deck were substandard in size. Therefore, aside from the Tentative Building Site and Design Review Approvals required•for the deck, a new variance (V -627) was also necessary. The required approvals were granted for the parking deck in January 1984. Conditions of approval included that a stairway to Parking District #1 be included and the property should be used so that no combination of uses 2 Report to the Planning Commission 1/2/85 U -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 3 would require more than 15 spaces. No construction has commenced on the deck -since that time and the Variance and Design Review Approvals have subsequently expired. The latest variance request was initiated after a Business License was applied for by the new owner of Bella Mia Restaurant. The Business License could not be granted as adequate parking is not being provided and previous variance approvals had expired. ANALYSIS The Staff Report for V -514 indicated that 42 parking spaces would have been required for the uses then on site. With the existing uses, Staff would now estimate the parking needs as 66 spaces. This figure includes parking for employees where applicable and assumes 20% storage space for the retail uses. For the restaurant alone it is estimated that 29 parking spaces would be required. This figure is_based on the two -story floor plan submitted by the applicant and includes 7 spaces for the outdoor dining area. The second floor is used as a waiting room storage area and office. Therefore, all but the storage area would be included in the square footage computations for parking. What has not been included in the total parking needs for the site is the 3500 sq. ft. in the barn being advertised for rent. If this were included as retail space another estimated 16 spaces would be required. It is obvious that the existing parking is serverely inadequate for the amount of parking required for this site. Previous variances were granted with the expectation that some additional parking could be obtained for the site by either including the site in with the future Parking District No. 3, by construction of the parking deck, or by the establishment of in -lieu parking fees. Since none of these have materialized, Staff has an obvious concern over the continued intensified use of the site. The previous tea room /retail use that was the topic of the first variance request, later expanded to a full restaurant use with outdoor dining. Staff also feels that after construction of the Hotel at the end of Third Street; the Tollgate Barn will become a more attractive commercial location. The future request for more businesses on this site is inevitable. Staff sees the following options available to the Commission related this variance request: 1. Limit the use of the site by denying the variance request for insufficient parking. The restaurant use with outdoor dining would not be allowed to continue. Future businesses proposed for the site would be limited to those uses which are less intense or the same as present uses. This would particularly effect the future use of the Tollgate barn. 2. Continue the variance request•until the appropriate approvals for the parking deck•may be processed. The Tentative Building' Site Approval SDR -1573 for the parking deck is in effect until 9/27/86. 3 Report to Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 4 The associated variance and design review approvals have since expired, therefore, new applications must be submitted and considered by the Commission. A deadline for completion of the project should be given. 6. Continue the variance until the City can adopt an in -lieu parking fee. The in -lieu parking fee would allow the property owner to 'pay a fee so that parking may be provided elsewhere in the Village. These fees can range from $10,00.0 to $15,000 or higher. Since this option was discussed previously and the City has not put an ordinance in place, there is no guarantee that this will be accomplished in the future. 4. The restaurant could be limited to evening use only when the other uses on site are generally closed. The elimination of outdoor dining and use of the upstairs as a dining or waiting room would further ,reduce parking demands. Commercial use of Tollgate Barn would be restricted unless additional parking could be provided. 5. Continue the variance request until a certain date to examine the possibility of the applicant being able to obtain development rights for parking from elsewhere in the City. Future plans for Parking District #3 may include parking which may be purchased. The specifics of the formation of this parking district, particularly the time frame, is still uncertain.' For each of the previous variance requests, Staff has been unable to make the required findings and could not recommend approval. Staff finds it it impossible to recommend approval of the variance for this application as the parking needs on site have not decreased. To continue the item to a later date has not accomplished anything in the past, and the property owners have not followed through with the plans for the parking deck. Since parking is a critical issue in the Village, allowing a use to continue without the provision of adequate parking would be a precedence for future development on the site and throughout the Village. Some of the existing parking is substandard in width and all are substandard in length. With the new parking ordinance, 25% of the spaces on site may be compact (7.5 ft. wide with double striping and 16 ft. long). The widths of the existing spaces vary from 10' to 7' and the lengths are approximately 13 ft. to 14 ft. Due to the location of the existing buildings on the site, the back-up area for cars coming out of the parking spaces are limited. For perpendicular parking, a minimum of 24 ft. of backup area is required. In working with the site plan, Staff found that with a combination of angled parking and perpendicular parking, there was adequate room on site for 8 spaces, two of which are compact. The circulation on site would be tight but not impossible. Therefore, Staff cannot make the required findings. Report to the Planning Commission V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way FINDINGS: 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship There are no physical constraints associated with the property which would make it unique from other properties in the same zoning district. The major problem with the site is that there are too many uses of too great an intensity on site and no area to provide adequate parking. Also, the parking lot could be restriped to provide ,8 angled and perpendicular parking spaces.'&ut this will result in the loss of one parking space on a site with a critical need for parking. 2. Exceptional Circumstances As previously stated there are no physical constraints associated with the site which would not generally apply to other properties in the area. There is public park:.ing_available on nearby streets which relieve some impact, but this parking is meant for other uses as well as those on site. There are_no exceptional circumstances that would prohibit the applicant from restriping the parking are so that the width and length requirements for the parking stalls are met. Common Privilege It is not a common privilege to be allowed to increase the use of the site without the provision for additional parking. Also, to have substandard size parking stalls would not be a common privilege since the parking could be angled in the areas where back -up space is fight. With the combination of angled and perpendicular spaces, 8 spaces could be provided on site that wold meet the required lengths and widths. 4. Special Privilege: 1/2/88 Page 5. Approval of the Variance Application would be a grant of special privilege since there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the site that would warrant granting a Variance for inadequate parking for the intensified use of the site. Although other uses in the "C -C" zoning district may not have sufficient parking, this is not reason enough to allow and inadequate parking situation to become worse. Additionally, allowing the existing parking to remain substandard width and depth would be a special privilege not afforded other property owners in the area. 5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare: Granting the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare except that allowing the uses to intensify on a site that does not have adequate parking impacts the parking for surrounding businesses. This may be materially injurious to the properties and improvments in the area. 6. Traffic Volumes RECOMMENDATION: 8. Creation of a Safety Hazard: 7. Parking or Loading of Vehicles on Public Streets: Report to the Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14603 Big Basin Way Page 6 The present or anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or other uses in the area require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of regulations in that by permitting an inadequate parking situation to continue the interests of other commercial uses would not be protected. Surrounding businesses would be required to provide adequate parking before creating more parking demands. The applicant is requesting that he should be granted and exception to this regulation. It does not appear that the use of the site had created a problem in terms of parking or loading vehicles on public streets so that the free flow of traffic is interfered withor loading vehicles on public streets so that the free flow of traffic is interfered with. It does not appear that the use or existing parking space size creates a safety hazard. However, granting the variance to allow the uses on site to intensify without providing additional parking would be inconsistent with zoning ordinance objectives to ensure that private lands are ultimately used for purposes which are most appropriate and beneficial to the City as a whole. Also, the objective of the ordinance to provide for adequate off street parking and truck loading facilities is not being met. Staff recommends denial of the Variance request to allow the intensified use of the site without providing additional parking having been unable to make findings 1, 2, 3; 4, 5, 6, and 8, and denial of the request to allow the existing substandard -size parking, having been unable to make findings #2, 3 and 4. If the Commission can make these findings, per the Staff Report dated 1/2/86 and exhibits "B and C Staff has included the following recommended conditions: 1. Grant the variance for the the amount of parking provided for a time period of one -year. This would allow additional time for the establishment of Parking District #3, or for consideration of an in- lieu parking fee. 2. A trash enclosure shall be provided on site. Plans for the enclosure shall be submitted to the Planning Division within 10 days of this approval. The enclosure shall be constructed within 30 days of this approval. Report to the Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 7 3. The parking lot shall be restriped to provide six standard size spaces and two compact spaces. APPROVED DL /bjc P.C. Agenda 1/8/86 Diana Lewis Planner *On 1/8/86, the Planning Commission denied the variance requests per Staff Report dated 1/2/86 subject to receipt of a complete application for Design Review and modification of the variance for the parking deck before January 17, 1986. The tentative Building Site Approval for the parking deck will expire on 9 -27 -86 unless a Final Map Approval is received or an extension is granted. VARIANCE FINDINGS (Supplement to Variance Application) FILE NO. 7,2-0 Variance applications are requests to construct structures or create lots, parking spacings, etc., that do not conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which the site is located. Five (5) findings must be made to obtain approval. (Additional findings are required for variances pertaining to signs and parking). The findings point to the special circumstances that would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulties inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The special circumstances pertain to the physical characteristics of the site, including site size, dimensions, shape and topography. The circumstances are to be site specific and not pertain to all properties within the zoning district. Please describe in clear, concise language how your project would meet the required findings below: 1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance. ifl C1i-ED 2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district, (The exceptional circumstances are no to be a result from actions of the owner.) a-` c i SH SET 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. SSE T��iCtft=,D `at1 -aF� 4. Granting the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district. 3 E t C N-ED Stf Er S. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4 l hereby certify that all the information contained in the supplement is, to my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. Name Signature VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. If strict interpretation of the zoning Ordinance were enforced, we would not be able to operate our business. We would not be able to accommodate enough customers, with the space available, to meet our expenses. 2. We feel there is room for more parking spaces on our property than has been previously approved. Please see Exhibit A and Exhibit B. 3 We are aware of other restaurants in our district that are operating under a variance. Therefore if we are denied a variance, we will be deprived of priveleges engaged by other owners. 4. Granting the variance would not constitute a special privelege because other businesses in our district also do not have sufficient parking(according to the existing Zoning Ordinace). As new business owners in the Village, we are looking forward to contributing to finding a solution to the parking problem. We are only asking for more time, like other businesses, until we can investigate solutions to this problem. 5. We operate a clean, quiet, well -run restaurant during reasonable hours. Granting us a variance would pose no threat to public health, safety, or welfare. It would not be materially injurious to any properties in the vicinity. THREE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS RELATED DIRECTLY TO PARKING 6. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or the uses of sites in the vicinity rea- sonable require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. We feel that when the hotel is opened behind us and the offices located across the street are completed, an undetermined percent of our walk -in customers will come from'these vicinities. This will lessen the number of parking spaces needed for our restaurant as they will have parked in other designated lots. 7. The granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. All delivery trucks have access in the back of the rest- aurant so there is no hazard to traffic on Big Basin Way. The granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. As we have stated previosly, we find no safety hazard that would result from this variance. it 1'Yl iL\ 6 r ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY WE FEEL WE SHOULD BE GRANTED A VARIANCE 1. We estimate that most of our customers are in the Village for other reasons (ie. shopping,or business) and, patronize our restaurant for convenience. Therefore they are using one parking space in town for several business and personal uses. 2. The remaining balance of our customers are merchants in the Village or their employees who walk over from their busi- ness. These customers are coming from banks,offices, shops, beauty parlors...etc. 3. At night, when we do the majority of our business, most all other retail shops, banks, and small businesses are closed. This leaves many on and off street parking spaces available for our customers. 4. When the Saratoga Inn opens this spring, we estimate that 1/3 of our business will be guests of the Inn and will walk over instead of driving. 5. At this time, we have several employees that carpool be- cause they are in the same family, are roommates or live in the same area. We also have three employees at this time who walk to work. This makes available more spaces for customers. 6. To our knowledge, there has never been a complaint from local residents or other businesses of lack of parking. 7. There is a general feeling among other merchants that Bella Mia enhances the Village, particularlyfrom the standpoint of it being an historical building. They feel it is a positive addition to the business community. Mbst�irnportant.ly .there=:is ai.:nnanimou.s 1,feelin.g: that' there has::7not ibeen: any discernible 2c ti; r parking impact as a result of the restaurant. In. 1 DISH WAs Na STbRA E DIN NC Room 1 12 ONE 1 FT. 1 F1 RS Ti 'F 1-00 ,SEGofd F -00RA EXHIBIT A--PARKING S PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DUIL-12 1 1 cp LI_ Gia.cr fa P_ A I 14503 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Assistant Planner DATE: February 20, 1986 Diana Lewis Planner MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: V -720, A -1165; Brozda, Northwest Corner of Big Basin and Third Street Additional Information: Requested at Committee of the Whole on 2/18/86. The Planning Commission at its Committee -of -the Whole Meeting on 2/28/86 directed staff to provide a table to show what parking is presently required and what parking "credits" from previous uses would be applicable. This table has been prepared and is attached. To explain further what uses were approved at the time of the previous variance request (v -627), the minutes and staff report refer to limiting the use of the site so that no more than 15 parking spaces would be required. The uses at issue in this application were the antique shop in the barn, the restaurant with outdoor dining and the studio apartment on the top floor of the barn. Because the other uses on site were "grandfathered in" with the seven existing parking spaces, this would leave the newer uses with eight parking spaces to share. There was dis- cussion in the minutes that outdoor dining at Bella Mia could be allowed as long as the indoor dining was not used. However, this did not become a condition of the Variance Approval. Rather, a broader condition was included so that no more than 15 park- ing spaces, 8 spaces for the intensified use of the site and 7 spaces for the "grandfathered -in" uses, would be required. The minutes for the meeting on 12/14/83 and 1/11/84 are attached. V -720 Brozda Location Type of Use Floor Area Area Used for (sq.ft.) Parking, Ratio sq.ft.) 14511 -14515 Intensive Big Basin Retail 14503 Big Restaurant Basin *(outdoor dining) Parking Ratio Estimated No. of Em- ployees for Parking Parking Previous Spaces Use Required 1975 1580 1:200 2 10 Intensive 10 Retail 1990 1168 1:75 6 21 Office 8 (21 seats) (1:3 seats) (N.A.) (7) (None) 14501 Big Basin: 2nd floor Prof. Office 1963 1963 1:250 N.A. 8 Apartment 1st floor Personal Ser. 1963 1963 1:200 3 13 Intensive Establishment Retail Tollgate Barn: Lower Level: Intensive 1634 1307 1:200m 2 9 Intensive Retail A Retail Main Level: Potential 1677 1342 1:200c 1 8 Personal Intensive Service Retail Establish. Upper Level: Storage 1677 Y.A. Y.A. N.A. 0 Storage Total Number of Spaces Required: 69 Spaces Total Credit from Previous Uses: 48 Spaces Total Additional Spaces Required: 21 spaces 40 At the Committee -of- the -Whole Meeting on 2- 18 -86, it was determined that the outdoor dining was not4be counted separate- ly as the seating in the dining room is not to be used at the same time as the outdoor seating. Credit 'for Parking From Previous Use 2 10 9 0 Additional Spa( Required 0 13 6 3 0 -1 0 Planning Commission 'Meeting Minutes 1/11/84 2 Page 2 SD -1355, SD -1356 and SD -1368 (cont.) does not necessarily guarantee the issuance of a building permit unless there is some other agreement with the City, which there is not, at the moment. Commissioner Crowther commented that he thought there is a section of the Government Code which requires that the City not approve any tentative map which is inconsistent with the General Plan. The City Attorney explained that that would relate to the initial approval. He stated that he does not view this continuation as an approval and, in fact, it should be clear on the record that the extension of the expiration dates of the tentative maps does not constitute any new or additional approval by the City. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve Items 1, 2 and 3 listed below. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would vote against this, since he can not believe that it is in the City's best interest to extend these maps, and he also believes it might be in violation of part of the Government Code. The motion was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 1. SD- 1355 Heber Teerlink (Lambert), Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval, 25 Lots, Request for a One -Year Extension 2. SD -1356 Anthony Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval, 23 Lots, Request for One -Year Extension 3. SD -1368 Anthony Cocciardi and Alan Chadwick, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval,.11 Lots, Request for One -Year Extension PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.4-541 Joseph Brozda (Bella Mia's), Request for Continuance of Variance Approval from required parking for a restaurant use at 14503 Big Basin Way, iri a C -C zoning district; continued from December 14, 1983) 7a. V -627 Joseph Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow the creation 7b. A -926 of 15 parking spaces that do not comply with City Parking Space Design Standards and would provide fewer spaces than required by ordinance (at least 20 spaces would be required) and Request for Design Review Approval of parking deck and exterior modification to barn at northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way; continued from December 14, 1983 Since the public hearing had been closed on this matter and there were people present to speak on it, Commissioner Siegfried moved to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. The public hearing was reopened at 7:40 p.m. Staff commented that they had determined that no new windows on the rear elevation and the side elevation facing Third Street would be permitted under the Uniform Building Code, and suggested that a condition be added to that effect under the Design Review. Doug Adams, attorney representing the Brozdas, introduced John Mallen, the attorney representing the tenant. Mr. Adams indicated that they are in agree- ment and are trying to work out a solution through Option #1, i.e., giving up the studio apartment and working out the other five spaces within the restaurant through Mr. Mallen's suggestions. Mr. Mallen described the present dining area at the Bella Mia Restaurant. He proposed an accordian type of dining, with no outdoor dining in the months of November, December, January and February, and that there be no dining at all in the interior dining room whenever the outside dining area is full. The enforcement of this suggestion was discussed. Mr. Mallen gave the history of the restaurant, stating that he felt it was a real credit to the Village. Bruce Nicholson, consultant, submitted a picture showing the development of the back end of the barn and discussion followed on this. Wayne Faree, geotechnical consultant from Terratech, addressed the geological part of the project, indicating that he did not feel there was a problem. Planning Commission r 'Meeting Minutes 1/11/84 l Page 3 V -541, V -627 and A -926 (cont.) He discussed the slope and the proposed piers. He commented that the project will decrease the slope and will greatly enhance the stability and strength of it. He added that he sees no difficulty in strengthening the structure. Staff discussed the parking ratios for dining and the enforcement of Mr. Mallen's proposal for dining. At Commissioner McGoldrick's request, Don Eagleston, representing the Village Merchants Association, discussed their reaction to the variance. He stated that Bella Mia's and outdoor dining has been very well accepted by the Village. He indicated that he understands the need for complying with ordinances and the extremeness of this situation and the unusual circumstances. He commented that both the Brozdas and Bella Mia's appear to be willing to sacrifice and deintensify their use. Mr. Eagleston added that the parking deck has been accepted by everone. He stated that when Parking District #1 went in they failed to put any access to the Village, so the proposal to put in the parking ramp is also alleviating that parking problem and would be the applicant's donation to the City for the exchange of the variance. He indicated that they had no problem with the new size of the parking spaces, and he feels that other people in the Village will be coming in for the smaller parking stall sizes. He added, however, that he feels that, in legal limitations, they are entitled to ask for that also. Commissioner Peterson commented that there would be only a 6" difference on either side and he sees that as no significant issue. Commissioner Hlava indicated that she would be perfectly willing to look at that size as a standard for the whole Village. Commissioner Crowther commented that he probably could not grant the variance if it were not for the stairway. However, he thinks the Commission is not setting a precedent because the applicant is giving the stairway down to Parking District #1 in return for the granting of the variance. Mr. Eagleston commented that granting a variance in an unusual situation of this type does not set a precedent for other people in the Village in other situations. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that, if the accordian dining room area is the wish of the entire Planning Commission, she would like to see some sort of permanent sign to that effect inside the restaurant, which would ensure less policing and people would be aware of the policy. Commissioner Schaefer asked about policing and possible fines. The City Attorney noted that there soon will be a Code Enforcement Officer and the City will be adopting an ordinance for enforcement through citations. He stated that the Commission can certainly condition the variance so that if the policy is violated, in addition to other remedies that may be available to the City, including review and possible revocation of the variance, the applicant would be subject to a citation with a monetary fine involved. Commissioner Hlava commented that Mr. Eagleston was very persuasive. She stated that she had not thought about the stairway down to Parking Lot N1 as part of a tradeoff situation, and she can see that that might be somewhat beneficial. She added that she still cannot make the findings for the excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance, for what is essentially an intensification of use. She commented that she thinks that it is important to realize that the Brozdas, because of some of the uses on their property predating some of the current ordinances, already have more intense use on their property than would today be allowed with the amount of parking available. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he-has had an opportunity to listen to public testimony, study carefully the Staff Report, visit the site, and read the minutes of the last meeting. He stated that he agrees with the sentiments expressed by Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried at the last meeting and contained in the minutes of December 14, 1983. He moved to approve V -627, per Exhibits "B" and "B -1 making the findings for the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, with the stipulation that the applicant use the property so that no more than 15 parking spaces are required by ordinance. In additior the applicant shall provide a stairway, in addition to the fire exit stair- way proposed, which will connect the subject property with Parking District #1. The location of the stairway shall be submitted for Staff review and 3 Aga) Page 4 rining Commission 1r x eting Minutes 1/11/84 V -541, V -627 and A -926 (cont.) approval, and if there are any violations determined by Staff, these viola- tions shall be reported to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. At Commissioner Crowther's suggestion, Commissioner Nellis amended his motion to indicate that it be a well lighted stairway, and that both the location and design of the stairway shall be submitted to Staff. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. I I The City Attorney discussed the procedure for the issuance of citations for violations. He suggested that a condition be added to the variance, 1 stating "The property shall be used so that no combination of uses will require more than 15 parking spaces. Any violation of this condition would be deemed a violation of the Zoning Ordinance of a kind that would enable the Community Services Officer to issue a citation." Commissioners Nellis and Peterson accepted that amendment. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that there is an equity problem here, in terms of other merchants in the Village. She stated that the City has firmly stuck to requirements for existing merchants and existing commercial development, and even minor intensification of their use has resulted in their having to go out and find parking spaces. At Commissioner's Siegfried request, Staff clarified that the same method of counting and coming up to the requirement for 15 spaces would be used anywhere else in the Village in the same situation, and would not be setting a precedent. Commissioner Nellis commented that up until now the applicant.. has not provided the required parking places, and when this deck is built they will meet that requirement. The City Attorney clarified to-Commissioner Peterson that, in the future if there is an In Lieu Ordinance, at that time the applicant can come back with a request for parking if they want to do something with the barn and studio, and it would be within the discretion of the Commission to approve it or not. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she had previously voted no on this matter because she could not make the findings for the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. She explained that she feels that the geologist and Mr. Eagleston have solved her problems with that so she can make the findings, and will be voting for the application. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels very strongly against this project because she does not feel that the parking deck as proposed would be safe in a tremor. She added that people who shop during the day downtown using large wagons have told her they would not go in there to park. She stated that Staff has recommended against it and she would be voting against the applica- tion. The vote was taken to approve V -629. The motion was carried 5 -2, with 'Commissioners Schaefer and Hlava dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A -926, per the Staff Report dated December 5, 1983 and Exhibits "C" and "D adding a condition that there be no new wall openings on the rear elevation and the elevation facing Third Street. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -2, with Commissioners Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she still feels very strongly in favor of the restaurant por- tion of Bella Mia's continuing; it was the rest of the way that the problem was solved that she does not agree with. There was a consensus that, instead of having a sign in the restaurant regarding the seating, the restaurant can come back to Staff with a proposal as to how they are going to notify the public. It was noted that V -541 has been replaced by the new variance application V -629. 8. A -910 S. Tyler and G. Kocher (Duke of Wellington), Request for Design Review Approval to enclose an existing dining patio at 14572 Big Basin Way; continued from December 14, 1983 It was directed that this be continued to January 25, 1984, at the request of the applicants. No one appeared to address the Commission. *She added that she also has a concern about the accuracy of the scale of the drawings for the landscaping that is going to cover the decking in the back and the general safety of the deck. 4 0 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 14, 1983 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:35 p.m. and Commission,' Peterson arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Nellis Minutes: Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of November 22, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Mr. Martin, 14403 Donna Lane, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct a pool and decking on a slope greater than 100 2. SDR -1495 Sorenson and Garner, Oak Street, 1 Lot, Request for.One -Year Extensi6n 3. SDR -1555 George and Alexis Geranios, 18690 Afton Ave., Over 50% expan- sion, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar list above. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried una mously 4 -0. 4a. SDR -1545 Warren Sturla, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 4b. V -615 and Design Review Approval for four (4) office condominiums 4c. A -900 and Variance Approval for compact parking and a reduced side setback at the southwest corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek Drive in a P -A zoning district; continued from October 26, 1983 It was directed that this be continued to February 22, 1984, at the applicant's request. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. 5a. A -910 Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Tyler, Mr. and Mrs. George Kocher (Duke of 5b. V -619 Wellington), Request for Design Review Approval to enclose an existing dining patio and Variance Approval to allow additional floor area without additional parking provided at 14572 Big Basin Way; continued from November 9, 1983 It was directed that this be continued to January 11, 1934, at the applicant's request. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. Joseph Brozda (Maddalena's), Request for Continuance of Vari- ance Approval from required parking for a restaurant use at 14503 Big Basin Way, in a C -C zoning district; continued from November 9, 1983 7a. V -627 Joseph Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow the crea- 7b. A -926 tion of 15 parking spaces that do not comply with City Parking 7c. EP -19 Space Design Standards and would provide fewer spaces than required by ordinance, Request for Design Review Approval of parking deck and exterior modification to barn, at northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way, and Request for Encroa ment Permit to construct a stairway which would encroach abort 6 feet into the Third Street right -of -way These items were discussed simultaneously later in the agenda, after the appli- cant had arrived. Staff gave the history of application V -541 and explained th new application. They recommended denial of V -541, the new Variance V -627 as requested by the applicant, and the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 Page 2 V -541, V -627, A -926 and EP -19 (cont.) They noted that they can make the findings to allow the compact ta p a and decreased stall length for some of the narking stalls. Staffdescribed the new parking plan and the slope of the site. Discussion followed on the conditions from the Fire District. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Commit- tee report. She noted that the slope is very steep. The required parking spaces were discussed. Staff also described the locatior of the emergency access. The City Attorney distributed a proposed draft of ar ordinance regarding in lieu parking, for the Commission's consideration at a future study session. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Doug Adams, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would be willing to comply with Staff Option No. 1, to eliminate intensification of uses on the site, i.e., pull out the studio apartment and eliminate outdoor dining. He noted that this would give them the required 15 parking spaces. He commented that the owner of Maddalena's, Ms. Rouse, is not in favor of this proposal. He noted that she was present; however, she had not been aware of the public hearing at this time and would like her attorney to address the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Adams discussed the sizes of the parking spaces and commented that he will also discuss the Fire District's conditions with them. It was clarified that the Brozdas have always been the applicant on this appli cation and they are the property owners. The City Attorney commented that if outdoor dining rights is part of the tenant's lease and the Commission approves this with the understanding that the outdoor dining is eliminated, that is strictly a problem with the owner and the tenant. He added that the application is on behalf the property owner. He commented that the tenant may wish more time to respond. He stated that he feels that, in view of the situation, the City would want to give the tenant every opportunity to address this issue, even if it requires continuing the matter for the tenant's at -ie to be here. Mr. Adams suggested that the Commission grant the variance r :d ing the parking and the slope, and continue the other matter, because it c uld then be handled by discussion between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the in lieu parking situation. Discussion followed on the condition regarding in lieu fees. It was deter- mined that it should state that no intensification shall be permitted unless a further application is made, either for a variance or payment of the in lieu fees. Commissioner Peterson stated that he had a problem with limiting the outdoor seating and he would be in favor of limiting it to the number of seats It was noted that there would be difficulty with enforcement if this were done. Bunny Rouse, owner of Maddalena's, noted that she was not aware that there was a new variance and stated that her attorney was not present. She stated that if the outdoor dining is deleted she might as well close the restaurant. She indicated that she would be more than happy to give up indoor dining and work with the Brozdas and the City. Discussion followed on a condition regarding the number of seats. The parking ratios for indoor and outdoor dining were discussed. It was noted that a letter from Mai Industries had been received, in opposi- tion to the variance. Discussion followed on whether to close the public hearing or continue it. It was the consensus to close the public hearing and take a vote on the deck, and reopen the public hearing later if' necessary. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff clarified that Exhibit "B -1" is for 4 compact stalls and 11 9 ft. x 18 ft. stalls. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the stairway should be one of the conditions of the variance, since it is one of the mitigating circumstances. He added that the only way he could make the findings with regard to the variance on the parking stalls is to have the stairway as part of that, since that will give access to Parking District t1 and will impr the parking situation. It was determined that there could be a condition the variance that there he a stairway at this point, and it could later be specified where and what that will be at the Design Review stage. Commissioner Siegfried asked Staff if the 9 ft. x 18 ft. parking space has 2 C Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 3 Page 3 V -541, V -627, A -926 and EP -19 (cont.) been considered elsewhere in the Village in terms of the ability to create more parking space, and what kind of precedent would be set for the future. Staff commented that there had been no study of a reduction in general regard- ing parking spaces. Commissioner Hlava stated that she cannot make the findings to make an excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance. She commented that if there were no other way for the applicant to use their land she might possibly be able to make some kind of exception. However, this is an intensive commercial site, which is already short of parking spaces. She added that they will be intensifying the site by adding an antique shop in the one building and further uses in another one. Commissioner Hlava stated that she cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance or the findings for the variance and would be voting against this. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she can make the variance findings but cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V -627, per Exhibits "B" and "B -1 on the condition, which the applicant has agreed to, that the outdoor dining be eliminated in the existing restaurant and that the stuio apartment option he eliminated. Commissioner Crowther pointed out that there had been a consensus to not specify how the applicant gets the 15 spaces. Commissioner Siegfried amended the motion to state that the approval is on the basis that the uses of the property be such that in fact the requirement for parking be 15 spaces, rather than 22 as originally proposed, and making the findings for the excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance. He explained that this is different than other situations in thesense that a house is not being built on a slope, and the deck can be supported away from the steepness of the slope. He added that, while there is some intensification of use, the City is well short of parking on that site right now and he feels that getting to 15 spaces and putting in the stairway, which will make better use of the space below, is going to help the parking situation. He clarified that the requirement for a stairway is part of the motion for approval of the variance, and the location will be specified at Design Review. Commissioner Crowther stated that it should be added that the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance is conditioned on the J applicant showing that there are no geological problems with that site. Com- missioner Siegfried accepted that amendment to the motion. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. Commissioner Peterson suggested a condition allowing Maddalena's to work with Staff to allow some kind of outdoor seating during the warmer months. Com- missioner Siegfried commented that his motion states that they can only have uses which come up to a total requirement of 15 parking spaces. He added that the applicant can come back to the Commission with a proposal for the use of the restaurant and the Commission can determine at that time if they meet the condition. Commissioner Hlava stated that she feels there is an equity issue here in terms of the other merchants in the Village. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels the 9 x 13 ft. is in fact a usable number for parking spaces and he feels that the Commission should maybe consider moving in that direc- tion generally. The vote was taken on the motion, which resulted in a split 3 -3 vote, with Commissioner McGoldrick, Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she does not see the deck as a practical solution and she cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. The City Attorney stated that if a motion fails by an evenly split vote under the ordinance it automaticaly comes back to the Commission unless within 10 days the applicant files an appeal to the City Council. If it comes back a second time and again fails for any reason, including an evenly split vote, it is deemed a denial and it may then he appealed to the City Council. It was to be determined if there will be a full Commission at the next meeting, since a new Commissioner will be replacing Commissioner \ellis in January. Staff explained the proposal for the encroachment permit EP -19. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve EP -19, per the Staff Report dated December 5, 1983 a- Exhibit "B Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carries: unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried commented that one of the main reasons he was willing to make the motion for approval was that he is willing to consider moving generall to 9 ft. x 18 ft. parking spaces throughout the City. He added that if he was Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 Page 4 V -541, V -627, A -926 and EP -19 (cont.) not willing to consider that he would not have been in favor of the variant-c' It was directed that V -627 will be continued to January 11, 1984 unless appealed to the City Council by the applicant. V -541 and A -926 were also continued to January 11, 1984. 8. V -628 Mr. and Mrs. Nederveld, Request for Variance Approval for a 50 ft. rear yard setback where 60 ft. is required at 19015 Springbrook Lane in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district This item was heard later in the evening because the applicant was late in arriving. Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She stated that a very small section of the balcony encroaches into the setback and there are no privacy impacts. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commission. Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V -628, per the Staff Report dated December 1, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 9a.A -923 Victor Tinsley, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 9b.SDR -1556 and Design Review to construct a one -story single family resi- dence on the northeast side of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (150 ft. northwest Belle Court), in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district Staff described the project. They noted a correction to the Staff Report, stating that Condition 2 under Design Review should read: "Fencing is pro hibited within the road dedication." Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She noted that the applicant was con- sidering redesigning the driveway, which would result in fewer trees being removed and provide better visual access onto the highway. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant had indicated that he was going to moves_' the house forward so he would have a 70 ft. setback in the rear. The public hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. The conditions of the Staff Report were explained to Mr. and Mrs. Tinsley. It was suggested that the applicants contact the San Jose Water Company concern ing further discussions regarding the requirement for a fire hydrant. Mr. Tinsley clarified that he is going to make the driveway straight out and also is moving the house forward. Sid Kaufman, 19677 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road asked about the requirements for completion of the project. The City Attorney commented that the construction and completion is the responsibility of the owner. He commented that the City does not impose a date by which it must be completed; however, there is a date by which work must be commenced after a building permit is obtained. Staff clarified that the Uniform Building Code does not have any closure on it as long as there is activity on the permit on the structure. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR -1556, per the Staff Report dated December 7, 1983, as amended, and Exhibits "B "C" and "D Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A -923, per the amended Staff Report dated December 7, 1983 and Exhibits "B "C" and "D Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. 10.A -924 Mr. and Mrs. Barr, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence on the southeast corner of Allendale Avenue and Camino Barco, in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Elaine Nilson, 18945 Allendale,•.: addressed the Commission, and it was explained that the item is being continued at the request of the applicant. Ms. Wilson indicated that they would appear at the next meeting. It was directed that this be continued to January 11, 198 EIA -4 Saratoga 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 The proposal is to construct a new parking deck on a slope greater than 40 The parking deck and the existing parking lot will provide 15 parking spaces where it has been estimated that 66 spaces are required. The parking spaces proposed are substandard in width and no off street loading or handicap parking spaces are being provided. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIREO (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Joseph and Helen Broda 14900 Montalvo Road Saratoga, CA. 95070 File No. V -720, A -1165 It has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment in that the impacts of the project may be mitigated by following the recommendations of the City Geologist, complying with the Uniform Building Code and complying with the conditions placed on the project through the Variance and Design Review processes. Executed at Saratoga, California this 17th day of January 1986. ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APN: 503 -24 -28 and 503 -24 -41 APPLICANT:' Douglas Adams ©ff '2] 123 Revised: 2/20/86 Revised: 2/14/86 Revised: 1/31/86 Revised: 1/8/86 DATE:` 1/2/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 2/26/86 OWNER: Joseph Helen Broda APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V -720 A -1165, Northwest Corner of Big Basin.Wav and Third Street ACTION REOUESTED: Variance and Desion Review Approvals. to permit construction of a new parkino deck and to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') par}.ino spaces where approximately 69 9.5' x 18') are required for the 'restaurant and retail uses on site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap parking space where a minimum of one space each is required. Design Review Approval is also requested for exterior changes. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED: V 541 approved 5/13/81,, subsequently replaced by'. V -627 for the oarkina deck that was approved on 1/11/84. Design Review and Tentative Building Site Approvals were also granted for the parking. deck. All previous approvals have expired except the Tentative Building Site Approval which expires on 9/27/86 unless an extension is granted or a final map 15 approved. An Encroachment Permit (EP 1S) was granted for the proposed steps edjacent to the printers in Toll Gate Barn to encroach in the Third Street right of -way. The encroachment permit has not'expired but may be revoked if the Commission so desires. OTHER APPROVALS REOUTRFD: Design Review is required for any exterior remodelling, Building Permits are required. Business Licenses are required. ENVIRONI lENIfiLliaaiiLIENII Negative Declaration completed 1/17/86, ZONING: C C GENERAL PLAN DFSTCNATION: Retail Commercial FXTSTIN6 I ANA USE ON SITE FEP Fn BY PARKTNf Restaurant with outdoor dining, two clothing stores. gallery, hair salon, printers and 3500 sq. ft. of vacant commercial space. Report to Planning Commission •V -720, A -11E5, Brozda, Big Basin Way APPR0XIMATF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING BUILDING: Clothing Stores 1975 sq. Restaurant (2 Floors) 1990 sq. Office (2nd Floor 15301) 1963 sq. Hair Salon (1st Floor 0 15301) 1963 sq. Printers (Lower Floor of Barn) 1634 sq. P„;hle Retail Space in Toll Gate Barn 1677 sq. TOTAL 11 ,202 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 2/20/86 Page 2 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Retail and office uses are across from the site, Saratoga Inn is under construction behind the site; to the right are retail and residential uses and to the left, more retail uses. PARCEL.SIZE: 14,600 sq. ft. GRADINSS: Cut: 14 cu. yds. Depth: 1 Ft. No fill is proposed. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The lot is totally developed. Parking Required 10 spaces 21 spaces 8 spaces 13 spaces 9 spaces 16 spaces TOTAL 69 spaces ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet .all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that there is only 15 parking spaces proposed. where approximately 69 spaces are required, as indicated in the body of the report, •and the parking spaces provided are substandard in width. The spaces proposed are .9 ft. wide where a minimum of 9.5 ft. is required. Also, no loading space or handicap space is being provided. PROJECT BACKGROUND Two variance applications for the insufficient parking on this site have been previously made by the property owners. The first variance request, V -514 was required by the City when the former newspaper office use changed over to a retail and restaurant use known as Maddalena's Upstairs Downstairs. This intensified the use of the site, thereby necessitating a variance application for parking. The Commission heard public testimony over a 4 month period in early 1981 and granted the variance for one year. This was to allow some time for the possible formation of Parking District No. 3 or to investigate other solutions to the parking problem. Also 90- day reviews by the Commission were required as part of the variance approval to insure that the property owners were continuing in their efforts to resolve the inadequate amount of parking on site. Although many avenues were explored by the property owners, the Commission and other groups, an on -going solution was not found until the property owners made a proposal for a parking deck in late 1983• With the new parking deck, a total of 15 spaces could be provided. However, at this same time the property owners were proposing to further intensify use of the site by adding a studio apartment on the second story of the barn. This area was formerly used as storage and was in addition to the .other Report to Planning Commission _ion Z/20/86 V -720, A -1165, 9 Brozda,.Big Basin Way Page 3 uses including•outdoor dining for the restaurant: The restaurant, outdoor dining and apartment use alone would have required a minimum of 72 additional spaces. It should be noted that the parking spaces for the proposed deck were substandard in size. Therefore, aside from the Tentative Building Site and Design Review_ Approvals required for the deck, a new variance (V -627) was also necessary. The required approvals were granted for the parking deck in January 1984. Conditions of approval included that a stairway to Parking District #1 be included and the property should be used so that no combination of new uses would require more than 15 spaces.. No construction has. commenced on the deck since that time and the Variance and Design Review Approvals have subsequently expired. The Tentative Building Site Approval will expire on 9 -27 -86 unless Final Map•Approval is received or an extension is granted. The latest variance 'request was initiated after a Business License was applied for by the new owner of Bella Mia Restaurant. The Business License could not be granted as adequate parting :is not being provided and previous variance approvals had expired. The Planning Commission reviewed this variance proposal at. it.smeeting on 1/8/86 and voted to deny the request unless the propertyowners reapplied for the parking deck by January 17, 1986. V -720 Since the required applications were submitted by the deadline, the variance request initiated by William Carlson has been modified to include the parking deck proposal. The revised plans for the deck are very similar to those submitted in 1984._- There are 15 parking spaces provided, 11 spaces are •9' x 18' in size and 4 spaces are 9' x•16'. Indicated on the plans is a stairway that leads down to Parking District #1. In the variance request for the parking deck initiated in 1984, the parking for the intensified use of the site was examined separately. Using the assumption that the existing minimal parking provided for the retail uses could be "Grandfathered -In then the additional spaces required for the change in use of the site was then estimated at 15 spaces. By constructing a parking deck, the property owners were only able to create 8 additional spaces. The actual amount of parking required for all the uses on site was examined in the first variance request, V -514. The Staff Report for V -514 indicated that 42 parking spaces would have been required for the uses then on site. With the existing uses, Staff would now estimate the parking needs as 69 spaces. This figure includes parking for employees where applicable, includes the advertised rentable area in Toll Gate Barn, and assumes 20% storage space for the retail uses. For the restaurant alone, it is estimated that 21 parking spaces would be required. This figure is based on the two -story floor plan submitted by the applicant. The second floor is used as a waiting room, storage area and office. Therefore, all but the storage area on this floor would be included in the square footage computations for parking. The Commission the Study Session on 2- 18 -86, Report to Planning Commission V -720, A -1165 Brozda, Big Basin Way 2/20/86 Pape 4 agreed that the 7 spaces required for outdoor dining would not he included in the parking required on site, as the indoor dining at the restaurant .is not to he used simultaneously with outdoor dining, However it is c4lioUs that the existing parking is severely inadequate for the amount of parkino required for this site, Staff has an strong concern over the continued intensified use of the site. The previous tea room/retail use that was the topic of the first request, later expanded to a full restaurant use with outdoor dininn, Staff also feels that after construction,of the .Hdtel at the end of Third Street, the Tollgate Barn will become a more attractive commercial location, The future request for more businesses on this site is inevitable, There are still other options open to the Cemni.ssion in considering the variance request for the number of parking spaces provided. In addition to providing the parking deck, the Commission could still require payment of in -lieu fees or the purchase of t.he development rights to other parking spaces .located elsewher in the City. Another option is to limit the us on site so that less parking spaces would be required, i.e., elimint.inn outdoor dininn or limiting the hours of the restaurant to when other lines are closed. For each of the previous variance requests 9 e o t n for the am un. of r4 -:n St f ac eP unable make the findings to recommend a ppro v a l -provided, Staff h,�,�. been .p Although the parking cjec.k proposal does provide additional spaces, the parking spaces proposed are significantly less than the estimated p 88 sn s. needed To require that the property owner bear more o f the financial burden t provide parking in the Village would seem appropriate, It would also be more fair to those downtown merchants and property owners which have been made to provide parking under a -more strict standard. Alen n ot pro i s the St mandated handicap parking space. re i5 n P.. The a provision in the State regulations where existing facilities may he exempt fro this requiremen Ho since parking spaces are being created by the construction of a new parking deck, Staff does not feel that th ex may apply in this case. A ch i the parking layout could provide a handicap space and all parking spaces could then meet the in mi e m i. ,aM r d widths, By elimina ±i.n.o parking space #3 on the pr d site space for walkway to r,nns e plan, a aal�;. the entrance o f Toll rate Barn could be maintained while changing space #2 into e hand A? space and increasing the widths of spaces p asi.p.g h. w d_hs f spa 44 through #ions By '1*Ai7Jddi= JdCj}OUP Jog uOisSTWWJJ go 01 1ieq gwop G} eAeu pylori 5..1Uf90 A+J'v oJd elj} }Fq} OS owT pg1Tuirt "Q' J03 pd }UeJu dCj ptiivo vOU>=TJE'A d A snoTAgud *uop S' duTe" v gq i w igo sdSPds jo Ja 'wnu *q v}@521seAui,' v} sJduliv A }JPdc?JU dtj} uoj paysTTgP}sd Pq ptrioC{s }Twit dW(} ijiep E6UT treed dy+ Jv j }sdnb j a ueTJPA dtj} jog TPA0j0de gv UGt }TpUG:.i eq pinc0 sr'-u. 'der*TIT d4} uT suoTlenoT Jetj v uT 5uT: ued G} 5 }I.t TJ P5i3143j110 SJautiO i {}JgdvJQ dy} dAetj G} }udWdJTfbdJ e siq pin° 2 Jc4i P 'J'<3AO gnuoCjD sgss4UtSnq 5e dJti}rij °yt uT sddj <rsvC{} gulnbgu p'(ilvD UOTs5Tww00 dui '}utod sTql lo pd47Tme }5d uddrj seq Seg3 dsda} 5uTJTtibdJ JC J i3j DTijdA OU JGAd(1Of.i tC Sudoud .0gp Eu i ued go 01 ueT}TppV UT 5ev3 5uT'`jJPd ngT1 -UT dJTnuda pi.no uoTssTwLie`j dai `t 'pgleuTWTid dq AeW dtTS Uv 5vsti Jit.j }d Jv° 'poAiludde'A vq .ou pylori A5n 5uTuip J%iupJnU pue }UeuneltaJ op' `d 1T5 U'ii 5d5ti 4U n}Tsud }UT v4 UT UUT +pnp J ti✓ eJTtllidJ pttldiq d;3UPTJLA ayt jo 1PTuPrj `pd}UdsdJd SL Isgmbsu d uelu3A stn. gA`vJdde /Grin! UGTSSTWW03 GUtUUPtd d l 's}TWJPd GurptTtiq jo voliPrissT G} Jv"TJd °jddp PCj} (i ;TAvJ UTeE7f? 15T5vjo.:y j iY }T J dtj} }eql pudwwoogu pTlivrl J3e15 ;p go J03 03UPTJei gtj} +UPjEr G} 6uTTtTri 5T UGT55TWWOJ aryl Jr 'suoT}TpUo) UTe+Jd5•q1Tm T ?Aoudde pi pu J pug 1786t UT tesvdCJC `ry+ permgTA ;J }ST5OiCa9 tj dyi 'pdlugu0 A15nvTAvJd ieAOJddd d }TS 6uTptrria eAT }t"5}Uel do co +Jed P dwP idq pt v} pdJ.nd3dj seri %0.17 spercr0nd Igo vCtv't_s e Uo uOt }SnJt5u60 mode v} dptiPt.itpupj uvTeTAlpgn5 viy} O{ UOt1dgox U(J %j» SOOeJCAe leo dd°T5 1? uG :j ✓dp. 5Ui 1Je%i`].' °4+ to uollp IJ+SUV:i go sT pgssguppe dq G+ 5pddu }PC.j} Wd {T }Se[ d4I 'ti q pJ'q te%:it';Agd gigPuo5ediun uet d+cdJ✓ mom u0T }e'ti }T5 STtj{ UT cfJt'I.ds 5uTpeGt e Jvj +ue+WciJIn J v`i.j} 30 +uciwg JvfC.iti +otJ +s pry} }t=4+ gn0TAgo 5i +l 'dj'gTSSod dq ptnom }ei.j} uuTAJed jo 'j_unowe d4+ Ajtueeii4 TU%lt; donpdJ pttion czTS uT per }twit /J`vA ST eo. 101 51.1 P UT v:ieds JO `<rLJet z., .y, sg s t Y"�iAvJ `d' Ts Uv sdsli UC..AIIC s�rJ pug TTelgu jv v8P 1v0j d.nenus dy} J0 j. NdpTAoud di gPeds 5uip'e`vt }vdJts -jjb 65P x ,z1 'guo jo wnwTuTw c rat sguTnbgu .'r;.rUcuTpJd d4i 'd }Ts iiv pe3pTA0ud' saJrds GuTpeo( GU a-1g aJa4+ le'a+ 1n0 tuTud pTr 4 s 43e +J 'uVT+'SCottdde snot gud Aug uT Ndsgauppr }vu lj5n041T j jo '�r1Ts UV burlued lF +G+ go 7U ISL /\1d.FCwT.ltladdC aq Ptrio(�1 pOpTAVJti sgpg s }Jg dw03 3v }uncwe go pug s}u;w*Jinbaj Cjtddp pue a }ppi tle }y Cut 4J>=d WnwruTw. `rq+ gw prnol sdoeds asa 11 /Td .gogd5 d'e"-.DTpU24 t pug SOJCds }:.J "rdwon Sdai d5 Lur:JPd pJepuel 01 dq pylori }r10i {el Our:7Jed vy} o} 3u W}sr1rpogu °y+ 3o +1r j `t 'y}pTm `14 5'a pdJTT"iuda dyt edW o} pgueprrn dq plrici:i 5t pug P j sj }5 &LIT:jJed 'sdp1:d5 }:JPdwo;J padlu elCgnop uoj topin W1lLTU'tW i+ij} sT ij'.iTtjrl 'Lj:ieP +4 t J L U+ c:.j7F put" lt# g0005 jo SIB pim 'vlj} O'luTUi..iei.j:i f f1 uTSea 6Ta 'epZcas `99tt -b `on-( U0T55tuW00 5Uiuueld t/} }Jvddtj S i O l id0 C e 2, Exrentional Circumstances 3, Common Privilege 4, Special Privilf..,che; Report to Planning Commission 2/20/136 V-720, 6 Brozda,,Bin Basin Way Pane 6 FINDINGS: 1, Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship There are no pnysicalconstraints associated with the property which would make it unique from other properties in the same zoninq district, The major problem with the site i5 that there are to Many U5e5 of too nreat an intensity on site and no area to provide adequate parking, In the manner previously described in this report, _the parking layout could be changed 50 that the required dimensions of tne,parking stalls could be provided at the loss of one of the proposed spaces, It would create an unreasonable physical hardship to provide an off loading space, The required dimension of this space (12' x 45') would significantly reduce the amount of .parking that would be possible on site, As previously stated there no physical constraints associated with the site which would not generally apply to other properties in the area, There i5 public parking available on nearby streets which relieve some impact, but this parking is meant for other uses a5 well as those on site. There are no exceptional circumstances that would prohibit the applicant from revising the parking layout so that the .width requirements for the parking stalls are met, Since the parking area is. limited in 5iZa and requiring a loading space would unreasonably reduce the number of parking spaces on site there exceptional circumstances to grant a variance for the loading space, It is not a.common privilege to be allowed to increase the use of the 5ite without the provision for additional parking. Also, to have substandard size parking stalls would not be e common privilege since the parking layout could be modified to create parkino stalls that conform to the requirements, Requiring the loading space would result in a significant 1055 of parking spaces which would be a c privilege, Approval of the Variance Application would be a grant of special privilege since there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the site that would warrant granting a Variance for inadequate parking d.- the intensified use of the site. Although other uses in the "fl-C" zoning district may not have sufficient parking, this 15 not reason enough to allow this inadequate parking situation. Additionallv allowing the proposed parking to be substandard in width would be e special privilege not afforded other property owners in the area, Since there are exceptional circumstances for the loading space, granting this variance would not be considered a special privilege, Report to Planning Commission 4 /20/86 V -720, A -1155, Bro de,, Big Basin Way Page 7 5, Public Health, Safety and Welf Granting the var1ances would not be detrimental to the p h sa fet y o ,del fare, except that allowing the uses to .ntens.i.fy on a s it e i that does not have 'adequate parking c e impacts t.h.. parking for surrounding businesses. This may be materially injurious to the properties a d improvments i re n... ,.n the area, 5_ Tr Uoli.lmes The present or anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the us e of the site or .other uses in the area •require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of regulations. in that by permitting an inadequate parking situation to continue the interests of other commercial uses would not be protected Surrounding businesses would commercial .ding b w-_ be required to provide adequate parking before creating more parking demands. The applicant is regUe ting that he should be granted and exception to this regulation. Granting the variance for th loading space would not impact traffic volumes, 7. Parking or Lo,adinq of Vehicles on Public Streets; It doe not appear that the use of the site had crested a problem in terms of parking or loading vehicles on public streets so that the free flow of traffic is interfered with, R Cre of e Safety Hazard: The .Lack of an off-street loadi s has not created a safety .hazard., However, grant,i.ng the variance to allow the uses on site to intensify without providing additional parking would be inconsistent with zoning ordinance objectives to insure that private lands are ultimately used for purposes which are most eppropniatee and beneficial to the City as .a whole. Also the objective of the ordinance to provide for adequate off strePt parking 15 not being met, RFCQMMENPATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance for the off street loading space, denial of the variance to provide 15 parking spaces where approximately spaces are required, having been uneb1e to make Findings #1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8 and dental of the request to allow substandard width parking spaces having bPen unable to make Findings #1 „3, and 4, If the Commission can make the findings for the variance request per Staff Report dated 2/20/86, Staff had included the following conditions; One handicap parking space sh be required or the determination must be made by the Commission that requiring this space for an existing facility would create an unreasonable hardship. Report to Planning Commission 'V -720, A -1165, Brozda, Big Basin Way 2/20/86 Page 8 2. Design Review is required for the parking deck and all conditions of that approval shall be met. 3. Application for building permits for the parking deck shall be submitted no later than 3 months from the date of this approval. 4. The City Geologist shall re- review and approve the project prior to issuance of the building permits and all recommendations of the City Geologist shall be met. All conditions of the City Geologist report dated 6/14/84 shall be met. 5. A revised site plan that shows a modified parking layout as discussed in this report shall be submitted for staff review and approval within 30 days of the date of this approval, unless a variance is granted by Commission. 6. The property owner shall investigate the possibility of purchasing development rights to any. parking spaces available in Parking District No. 1, and shall provide a written report to the Commission within 3 months of the date of this approval. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits: A -1165 a) A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval showing how the proposed parking deck shall be screened. b) The property owner shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City of Saratoga to insure that the land- scaping installed is properly maintained. 8. The applicants shall provide a well- lighted stairway which would connect the subject property with Parking District No. 1. This stairway shall be landscaped to provide an attractive accessway. Landscaping, lighting and stairway plans shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the deck. In reviewing design review applications for structures other than single family dwellings, the Commission. is to be guided by certain criteria outlined in the Ordinance. The applicable criteria include: 1. Landscaping shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. 2. Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be conreflective. Report to Planning Commission V -720, A -1165, Brozda, Big Basin Way 2/20/86 Page 9 3. Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or otehr materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. 4. The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area. Prior to approval of this Design Review application, the Planning Commission must grant the variance, V -720, for the parking deck. The construction of the deck will add over 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage and will require the removal of several trees under 12" in diameter and a large oak stump. A small hedge or cluster of vegetation at the southwestern edge of the existing paved area would also have to be removed. The deck would be visible only from the eastern parking lot of Parking District No. 1. A portion of the slope on the northern side of the deck could be planted in trees to provide some screening, but the westernmost edge of the deck leaves no areas for landscaping. If the parking deck is approved by the Commission, sufficient areas on the deck should be set aside for planters containing some sort of hanging vegetation. The parking deck will have galvanized steel pipe handrails and chainlink; fencing on the underside of the deck to prevent access underneath. No color for the handrail is indicated on the plans, but the chainlink fence is to be screened with ivy. Also noted on the plans is a new trash enclosure. The enclosure is to be a wood siding that will match the existing building. Elevations of the proposed stairs down to Parking District No. 1 are not shown on the plans. However, review of this stairway will be required as a condition of the variance approval. Exterior changes to Toll Gate Barn are being proposed. These modifications include the addition of the fire exit stairs to the western elevation, removal of windows and the addition of doors for the fire exit stairs, and new stairs, door and window on the east elevation. The plans note that the new windows shown on the north elevation will not be installed. The previous Design Review Approval (A -926) was conditioned on the removal' of these proposed windows. The barn is considered a historically significant structure, therefore, Staff would request that the Heritage•Preservation Commission review the proposed plans prior to the Design Review Approval. As of this date, there has been a scheduling problem for this review. The item was scheduled for the February 19, 1986 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting, but this meeting has been recently cancelled. There has been an effort to schedule another meeting on February 26, 1986, in the afternoon so that the plans can be reviewed prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. As of the writing of this report, this later meeting has not. been definitely scheduled. APPROVED: Report to Planning Commission V -720, A -1165, Brozda, Big Basin Way DL /dsc P.C. Agenda: 2/26/86 k 3ana Lewis 2/20/86 Page 10 It has been brought to Staff's attention that the lattice work to the rear of Bella Mia's restaurant has been done without prior building permits. After researching the permit files, no building permit for this addition was discovered. The property owners will be asked to provide proof of a building permit or will be required to obtain the necessary permit to legalize the addition. It is the City's policy to require double fees when legalizing illegally erected structures /additions. RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission approves the variance request under V- 720, then Staff would recommend approval of the Design Review application per Exhibits "C and D" subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping plans, drawn up by a licensed landscape architect, illustrating how the proposed parking deck will be screened (including headrails) shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaping plans for the stairway connecting the site with Parking District No. 1 shall also be submitted if the stairway is a- condition of variance approval under V- 720. 2. The trash enclosure shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permits for the parking deck. 3. Paint colors for the proposed parking deck shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 4. Detailed construction plans for any stairway connecting the site with Parking District No. 1 shall be submitted to Planning Staff for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 5. Any revision to the proposed elevations and site plan shall be subject to staff review and approval. Major modifications will be referred to the Planning Commission. 6. Any revisions to the exterior of Toll Bate Barn shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 7. The property owners shall be required to provide proof that a building permit was obtained for the lattice work to the rear of Bella Mia Restaurant. If this permit has not been obtained, the property owners shall be required to obtain permits to legalize the addition and rouble fees shall be required. This information shall be provided within 10 days of the Design Review Approval. VARIANCE FINDINGS (Supplement to Variance Application) a maximum of 18' in length to provide a minimal 24' aisle way to allow adequate_a considering these constraints and what other cities allow. common privilege of maximizing parking on site. ct FILE NO. Also refer to: V -627 Variance applications are requests to construct structures or create lots, parking spacings, etc., that do not conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which th'e site is located. Five (5) findings must be made to obtain approval. (Additional findings are required for variances pertaining to signs and parking). The findings point .to the special circumstances that would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulties inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The special circumstances pertain to the physical characteristics of the site, including site size, dimensions, shape and topography. The circumstances are to be site specific and not pertain to all properties within the zoning district. Please describe in clear, concise 1 -anguage how your project would meet the required findings below: 1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance. The physical problem with the site (which affects some of the parking stalls) L.— Y.— u.— OMM- 011_0 2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district, (The exceptional circumstances are no to be a result from actions of the owner.) ictrict 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. Because of the location of the existing buildings, denial of a partial 1111 11 .c _11 4. Granting the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the saire zoning district. Approval of this variance for the dimensions of some of the parking stalls would not be a grant of special privilege since there are exceptional circumstances associated with the site which warrant such a variance. 5. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity. There will be no adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare or on adjacent properties due to parking stall dimension variances. The three findings related directly to parking are: 6. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by by the use of the site or the uses of sites in the vicinity reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. The variance for parking stall dimensions has no bearing on future traffic volume and therefore would have no adverse impact. 7. The granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. It does not appear that the use has created a problem in terms of interfering with the free flow of traffic thus far. 8. The granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. As indicated before, it does not appear that the use creates a safety hazard as it relates to the requested variance. I hereby certify that all the information contained in the supplement is, to my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. HELEN L. BROZDA Name Signature 0/83-- DV-72.0 Q -11(5 11Zozo,4 1` Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes 1/8/86 9. A -1157 Gerald Butler, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two- story, single family residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard on Lot 5 of Tract 6732 on Montalvo Heights Court (to be con tinued to January 22, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to January 22, 1986. 10. V -718 Jeff and Kim Hutchins, Request for Variance Approval to maintain a 20' rear yard setback where 25' is required at 20793 Pamela Way (withdrawn) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 11. V -720 Joseph and Poppy Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow 7 parking spaces which are sub standard in size on a site which has a restaurant and retail -type uses where approximately 42 parking spaces are required at 14503 Big Basin Way Staff explained the past parking deficiencies of this property and the history of the applications. They reported that the variance for parking has expired and the Tentative Building Site Approval is about to expire unless there is a request for continuance. They discussed the intensification of the use on the site and'the options available. Staff indicated that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial of the application. The City Attorney commented that the City Council expressed a very strong sentiment at their meeting last night that if the variance is granted, it should be on some condition revolving payment of in lieu fees, an obligation to join the parking district or something equivalent. Staff stated that they were at the meeting also and feel that it was not necessarily the Council's intent to have the applicant join the district because the district may not be able to reach this property, but in some way to provide parking somewhere in the vicinity to accommodate this property, i.e. acquiring.of development rights or the payment of in lieu fees. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Bill Carlson, current owner of Bella Mia Restaurant, stated that he discovered after he bought the restaurant that the variance for parking was lapsing and it had to be renewed in order to get a business license. He commented that he feels that he is the pawn in a chess game with the parking situation. He noted that there are three other businesses on that property that are doing business without any problem. He stated that he did not feel that he should be the one that has to find the solution to the parking situation. He added that he would help to find a solution; however, if he is asked to cut down to just open at night or to seat only 50% of the capacity, as suggested in the Staff Report, he would not be able to survive as a successful restaurant. He stated that there have been no complaints from neighbors about the parking. There was a consensus that the property owners are responsible for speaking to the issue of the variance and not Mr. Carlson. Chairman Peterson commented that he feels Mr. Carlson is in the middle, and he feels that the Commission needs to urge successful business in the Village. Doug Adams, representing the Brozdas, stated that they intend to file a._. new application for the variance. Staff clarified that the variance application will have to be renoticed for the appropriate parking spaces and the applicant needs to apply for an extension on the Tentative Building Site Approval before January 11, 1986. They added that Final 6 Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes 1/8/86 V -720 Building Site Approval should then be obtained from the City Council. Staff noted that the design review for the deck has also expired, so the applicant will need to reapply for that. They clarified that once the variance is granted and the conditions complied with, then Mr. Carlson's business license could be issued. It was also clarified that Mr. Carlson can continue business while the application is being processed. Mr. McKenzie, 14554 Big Basin Way, stated that the Commission has been as kind as they can be to these people for more than two years. He commented that if they are going to use his and the other owned parking spaces, they should pay for them. He pointed out that, in order to satisfy the City of Saratoga, he had to buy property from the bank next door. Jim Rosenfeld stated that he is very uncomfortable with the existing situation at this corner. He commented that he would like to support Mr. Carlson. He added that paying for the parking spots may have some financial considerations but it is not practical. He stated that it appears that the Commission either has to set some deadlines to improve the parking that exists there, or make some proposals that would be effective whenever this property is changed in ownership. He added that perhaps in the future something like the old barnyard structure in the back might be considered appropriate parking and would make a very positive contribution to that corner. He commented that he feels that corner is going to be impacted somewhat by people who do not want'to park down in the parking lot below for their hotel. He stated that he feels it is important that the Commission give clearly defined direction to the Brozdas in the next few months. The process for the project and the parking requirements for the site were discussed. It was pointed out by Mr. Adams that the Tentative Building Site Approval was valid until September 27, 1986. Staff stated that they would check into this matter. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V -720, subject to receipt of an application fpr design review and modification of the variance by January 17, 1986, and an application for an extension of the Tentative Building Site Approval, if necessary, by January 11, 1986. Commissioner. Pines seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously 7 -0. It was noted that this matter will be reagendized for February 12, 1986 upon receipt of the applications and scheduled for a study session on February 4, 1986. MISCELLANEOUS 12. UP -565 Odd Fellows Home (Community Gardens), Fruitvale Avenue, Notification of Special Events The Special Events were noted by the Planning Commission. 13. EP -24 Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell, Reconsideration of Encroachment Permit (City Council Referral) Staff explained that this application had been previously denied on a split vote by the Commission. They stated that it had been appealed to. the City Council, and the Council has now referred the matter back to the 7- member Commission for reconsideration. They referenced the memo from the City Manager relative to this matter. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he could understand the City Manager's perplexity in reading the minutes. However, he thinks,that everyone on the Commission understands that they have the duty to vote on what is before them, but, as so often happens in the City, the Commission does look at compromises. He added that he took a little offense to the letter from the City Manager. He stated that the City Manager seemed to presume that the Commission did not really understand, and they do. Staff 7 r77,1!!!17 Apr Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 2/12/86 It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 7 Page 7 14a. Negative Declaration V -720 Dr. and Mrs. Brozda 14b. A -1165- Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda, Request for Design Review 14c. V -720 Approval for a new parking deck and Variance Approval to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') parking spaces where approximately 66 spaces (9.5' x 18') are required for the restaurant and retail -type uses on -site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap parking spaces where a minimum of one off street loading space and one handicap space would be required at the north- west corner of Third St. and Big Basin Way (to be con- tinued to February 26, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 15. SD -1567 Dividend Development, Request for modification to con- ditions of Subdivision Approval requesting private gated street and clarification of light and air easement along western property lines (Lots 13 through 18) of SD -1567 (Tract 7763) south of Prospect Road and the S.P.R.R. tracks 16a. V -725 PMS Management, Request for Variance and Sign Permit 16b. SC -2 Approvals to permit a 24 sq. ft. freestanding sign in addition to approximately 17 sq. ft. of signage which already exists for the Saratoga Walk -In Clinic. The proposed sign is not in conformance with the previously approved Sign Program, exceeds the total square footage allowed for signage and does not meet the required 20 ft. exterior sideyard setback requirement at 12224 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Staff explained the application, recommending denial of the variance and sign permit. The City Attorney commented that, relative to the regulations on signs in the new Zoning Ordinance, it was not the intent to change any existing sign program. Commissioner Guch gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the area. It was noted that correspondence had been received on the application. The public hearing was opened at 8:47 p.m. Craig Maynard, of Cal-Neon Signs, gave a presentation on the proposed sign. He described the walk -in clinic location, indicating that they need a sign that is more visible. He indicated that they are willing to modify their request relative to size and height. Commissioner Siegfried commented that this is a unique service and is of value to the community. He stated that, while he would have a difficult time deviating from the signage that is now there and could not approve the proposed signage, he would be willing to look at an alternate plan. Mr. Maynard stated that they would be willing to reduce the size of the sign to 3 feet, and would like to keep the name "Saratoga Walk -in Clinic" and the hours on it. He added that they would be willing to give up the hours that they have on the building. The lighting of the sign was discussed, and Commissioner Pines suggested that the sign be turned off when they close, instead of having the hours on it. Commissioner Burger stated that, while being willing to looking at an alternate sign that was smaller, she would like to have the sign moved so it is lighted but directly below the sign that is currently outside the clinic. Mr. Maynard stated that they feel that putting the sign at the intersection was the best point of visibility. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 2/26/86 V -721 district where the lots are not zoned HCRD, and the slope on this site is only 4%. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Break 9:00 9:20 p.m. 10a. Negative Declaration V -720 -Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda 10b. A -1165 Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda, request for design 10c. V -720 review approval for a new parking deck and exterior remodeling of Tollgate Barn, and.vari- ance approval to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') parking spaces where approxi- mately 66 spaces (9.5' x 18') are required for the restaurant and retail -type uses on -site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap park- ing spaces where a minimum of one off street loading space and one handicap space would be required at the northwest corner of Third St. and Big Basin Way; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the application and the background of the project. They commented that the Heritage Commission reviewed the barn this afternoon, and has no problem with the proposal. They added that the Heritage Commission would like to review any exterior changes. They noted the letter from the Fire Chief, requesting that the barn be conditioned for sprinklers if the variance is approved. Staff indicated that they were unable to make the findings for the parking variance on the site and recommend denial. It was clarified that the employees are now included in the parking standards. The public hearing was opened at 9:28 p.m. Doug Adams, representing the applicant, commented that the application on file is identical with the former variance granted in 1984. He stated that the findings that they had made for the present application are those findings made for Variance V -627 in 1984; these findings were discussed. He addressed the former and present uses on the site. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines inquired about the schedule for the project, and Commissioner Guch commented that the Commission had asked for more specific information on the timeline. Discussion followed and Mr. Adams indicated that they could submit an updated schedule. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would not support the variance. He commented that he was still upset over the way the matter was handled. He indicated that the only way he could support the project would be if the applicants come up with six additional parking spaces, or it is conditioned for in lieu fees. He added that possibly the other property owned by the applicants behind the barn could be used for parking. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has no problem going forward with what was approved the last time; however, at that time the employe, parking was not included. He commented that he feels the employee parking should be included and he would approve what was previously approved; however, that will not give the applicants the same use. Further discussion followed on the parking spaces and the use. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V -720. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -1165 for the exterior remodeling of Tollgate Barn. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6- 0. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting 2/26/86 V -720 and A -1165 It was noted that the denial of the variance makes the Design Review Approval for the parking deck moot. The appeal period was noted. 11. SD -1567 Dividend Development, request for modification to conditions of subdivision approval request- ing private gated street and clarification of light and air easement along western property lines (Lots 13 through 18) of SD -1567 (Tract 7763) south of Prospect Road and the S.P.R.R. tracks; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the request. The public hearing was opened at 9:48 p.m. Dick Oliver, of Dividend Development, discussed the request, along with a third issue relative to clarification of the zoning on the site. Staff explained to the Commission that the site is zonedNHR because of a negotiated settlement, and it was allowed to have approximately 20,000 sq. ft. lots. Staff commented that they and the City Attorney have agreed that when a house is developed per the settlement agreement, when it gets final occupancy then the actual NHR zoning will occur. They stated that Mr. Oliver is concerned about that because the setbacks for NHR are substantially larger than those for 20,000 sq. ft. lots. They added that, because of the settlement agreement and the fact that it is zoned NHR, there is no clarification possible from the Commission on that issue. The City Attorney explained the settlement agreements, noting that they were executedin connection with the Measure A litigation. He agreed with Staff that the issue is not really a planning issue. He suggested that Mr. Oliver coordinate with his office to work out the language needed by Dividend in their report to the Department of Real Estate on this issue. Mr. Oliver described the proposed entrance and fencing of the subdivision. He also addressed the condition regarding the light and air easement, stating that he would like to remove the easement on the right hand portion of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 because of the height limit within the easement. 12a. V -724 12b. SM -26 Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed by the Commission relative to the preservation of views of the residents in Parker Ranch. Mr. Oliver stated that he was restricted to a 20 ft. height on lots 1, 4, 8 and 9, and requested that he have the same limitation on the light and air easement just for those lots. Commissioner Burger stated that the Commission had spent a lot of time working on the conditions for this subdivision and were very sensitive to all of the impacts that could occur. She commented that she is not convinced that a condition should be changed because the land has now been purchased by a developer and he is unhappy with some of the conditions on some of the lots. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner Burger moved to deny a modification to the condition on SD- 1567 relative to the light and air easement, and to have Staff approve the change in the fencing and median strip at the entrance. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Amen, request for variance approval to fence an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. and site modification to locate a swimming pool on the site at 21510 Saratoga Heights Drive The application was explained by Staff. They stated that the CC &Rs were amended to state that no fencing should enclose more than 4,000 sq. ft. Page 7 Dear Sirs: December 30, 1985 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 As a property owner of the northeast corner of 3rd and Big Basin Way, Saratoga, I am greatly interested in the creation of more parking spaces and in adequate parking spaces. I do not believe that the granting of a variance in the Joseph Brozda property, 14503 Big Basin Way, should be granted. I do not believe that substandard parking spaces should be allowed in this crowded retail area. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, Charles C. Smith 19020 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED DEC 3I 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Cali Investments 19939 Charters Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 March 27, 1986 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear People: As the owners of Village Square shopping center located at 14510 Big Basin Way in Saratoga, we are concerned about tpie possible approval of the new parking deck on the corner of 3— and Big Basin Way. If this parking deck consisting of 15 spaces instead of the required 66 spaces is passed, not only will it worsen the parking situation in Saratoga, but tenants and their customers will be forced to park in the Village Square lot which is soley for our tenants and their clients. Cali Investments is assessed every year for the use of our parking area. We pay a great deal of money to the city and feel it would not be fair if tenants other than those at Village Square used the lot. These spaces are already in demand, and if the parking deck is approved, a major problem would arise. We would appreciate the city council take this matter into serious consideration, and in the future when new buildings are constructed, to closer evalute the shortage of parking in Saratoga. Sincerely, Lynne Cali Cali Investments :_f27 cDO 000°7 (408) 867 -3438 Apri, 1986 To: City Council Fran: City Manager Subject: BROZDA Appeal 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles On Wednesday, April 9, 1986, the City Manager met with the City Attorney and City Engineer to discuss the Council's directive relative to the subject variance appeal and parking district #3. Assistant Planner Diana Lewis has calculated the gross floor area of the Brozda buildings in order to apply the parking ratio for parking districts so as to determine the minimum required parking for the Brozda site as now develo The parking district ratio is one space for each 380 square fE of gross floor area. The calculated floor area is 13,221 square feet yielding a required 35 parking spaces rather than the 69 required if a premises is outside the parking district area, as is the case with the Brozda property now. If the City were to approve the parking deck proposed, the Brozdas would have to acquire 20 excess parking spaces in order to meet the requirements unless the City were to grant a variance on the number of required spaces. As far as I know, this has not been done in a parking district area. Currently it is anticipated that the creation of parking district #3 would result in an excess of 30 spaces over existing minimum requirements. It was planned to apportion these spaces among three property owners in exchange for dedication of property. In the event the City has to acquire property, the development rights for the extra spaces would belong to the City. Currently the Chabre property is allocated 21.6 of the 30 spaces. As you know, there is a high probability that that property may have to be acquired. Further, unless Brozda is allowed to develop at least 13 spaces on his existing site, then even with all the extra spaces from district #3, he would still be short. Extending the area in district #3 from its existing southerly boundary and taking in the three parcels between the southerly boundary and Brozda would only yield six more spaces including the current spaces on Turkey Track Lane. Attempting to include these parcels would create even further complications for district #3, and therefore is not advised at this time. One final factor the Council directed we research is the cost of the spaces. Assessments are spread on a parking place requirement basis. The total cost of developing the parking is divided into the number of spaces created, yielding a cost per space. Assessments are then calculated on the number of spaces required by each parcel in the district. Until an appraisal is completed on the portion of the three parcels which need to be acquired, the actual cost of each space cannot be calculated with any degree of confidence. However, on a proforma basis, the assessments could be spread in several ways. To: City Council Subj: BROZDA Appeal Let construction and incidentals equal Let acquisition cost equal Number of spaces to be spread Spaces required for businesses Number of development right spaces Cost per space $6,321 2. Spaces to be 9 x 18. 110.75 80.75 30.00 Page 2 4/11/86 The first would spread on an equal basis both construction and acquisition: $200,000 500,000 TOTAL COST $700,000 The second would be to spread the construction cost over the required spaces and the acquisition cost over the development right spaces: $200,000 4. 80.75 2,477 per space $500,000 30.00 16,667 per space A third possibility would be to use a composite of the first two methods and spread 1/2 the acquisition costs to the required spaces, and the other half to the development right spaces. $200,000 4 110.75 $1,806 $250,000 T 80.75 3,096 $250,000 4 30.00 $8,333 Cost per required space $1,806 $3,096 $4,902 Cost per development rights space $1,806 $8,333 $10,139 Even the second method, which results in the lowest cost to the existing businesses, is some $700 per space more than the cost if acquisition were not necessary. Because only three of the eleven parcels are involved in the acquisition, the remaining eight pay a higher assessmentthan otherwise required, and the total cost of acquisiton cannot be spread back to the property owners who were paid for their property. Conversely, if the land being donated had the value shown in the above proforma, any other method of assessment would mean those people would be paying more than their fair share of the assessment. On balance then, the most equitable method appears to be method number two. If the appraisal comes in any place close to the proforma, the cost per space to Brozda would be $16,667. RECCKIENDATION Approve variance request to provide 15 spaces in lieu of the required 69 subject to the following conditions: 1. Design of parking deck be approved by the Planning Commission for consistency with Village character. To: City Council Subj: BROZDA Appeal 3. Both Brozda parcels be included in parking district #3 so that parking deck becomes part of district when formed. 4. Brozda agress to purchase 20 spaces from parking district #3 at a cost of $16,000 a space. jm Enclosures (2) Page 3 4/11/86 TO: FROM: DATE: City Engineer Assistant Planner 4/9/86 SUBJECT: Parking information requested for inclusion of the Brozda property into Parking District No. 3 Tko 4-kc. "14' +h- Thi ci Firs n--i (n 14cic A 1411 Pig lain ti.tv 141ri nig Ii=. 14. II P nig 1 4=v 2 Turkey Track Ln. 14477 Big Basin Way *Areas are estimated Diana Lewis, Planner MEMORANDUM 7 -1-+hi cal nn Tollgate Barn (3 levels) Fi n-r Ar-e. 1Q7C f+ f4 .Z[47C. .cq. ft. 5280 sq. ft. Total gross floor area: 13,221 sq. ft. No. of parking spaces required: 35 spaces (1:380) The following figures show the square footage of the buildings between proposed Parking District No. 3 and the Brozda property: Address Use Floor Area t 3rd 8. Big Basin Way Cleaners apartments 3240 sq. ft. on 2nd floor (garages) (2344 sq. ft.) 14479 14481 Big Basin Way Real estate, travel 3360 sq. ft. agent, apartments on 2nd floor Used clothing store 1721 sq. ft. Total Gross Floor Area: 8321 sq. ft. No. of parking spaces required: 22 spaces (1:380) 7 SUBJECT: UMW cD2 'E aCe3 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS IF THE PARKING DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE IS POSSIBLE OPTIONS IF THE PARKING DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE IS NOT POSSIBLE 1 DATE: 4/9/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/16/86 Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to deny V -720 and A -1165, Jospeh Helen Brozda, northwest corner of Big Basin Way Third Street This item has been continued from the City Council Meeting on 4/2/86 to give staff an opportunity to gather more information on the formation of Parking District No. 3. Staff has included here some options available to the Council if the parking district is a plausible alternative or if it is not. 1. Grant the variance request for a limited period (possibly six months) to allow formation of the district and to permit the existing businesses to continue. 2. Grant the variance with no time limit but with the condition that the property owners enter into a legal agreement with the City to join the parking district when it is formed. This is the process used by the City for the Rosenfeld and Masek properties. However, these property owners were required to provide parking at the 1:380 ratio prior to the formation of the parking district. Since space for parking is not available on the Brozda site, in-lieu parking fees may be required until the parking district is formed. 3. Deny the variance and the uses on site will have to change to less intense uses pending formation of Parking District No. 3. 4. If the number of parking spaces required for the site exceeds the number that can be provided in the parking district, the present uses will have to change or the Council may require in -lieu parking fees. 1. Approve the variance request as submitted to permit 15 substandard parking spaces. 2. Deny the variance request which would require reducing the intensity of use on site. Bella Mia Restaurant could not obtain a business license. All other businesses which have legally obtained business licenses would be considered nonconforming uses due to the insufficient parking. A use permit is required to legitimize nonconforming uses. Further, use of the main level of Tollgate Barn has been discontinued. According to the ordinance, nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for more than 90 days will be considered abandoned. Therefore, future use of this area as a retail space may be prohibited if the parking requirements cannot be met. 3. In -lieu parking fees could be required either in conjunction with the variance request or instead of the parking deck or parking district proposal. There is no ordinance to require these fees at present. 4. If rights to parking in other adjoining parking districts are available, the property owners may be required to purchase the use of these spaces in conjunction with the variance request or other means of increasing the parking for the site. ogc,-;,„ Diana Lewis Assistant Planner DL /kah 2 AGENDA BILL NO. /04471 DATE: 3/24/86 (4/2/86) DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SDR -1259 Summary: Joseph E. Politi received Building Site Approval on February 14, 1979. This site is in the Measure "A" area. He has been unable to complete work for a number of reasons. He is now requesting another one year extension. He indicates in his letter that work will be accomplished this year. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1,. Letter from Joseph E. Politi CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM Recommended Action: Grant a one -year extension for improvement of the private access road. Council Action 4/2: Approved.,. Ropert S. Snook Director oi Community Services City oil Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga. Ca. 95073 Dear Mr. Shook: Thank you ior your consideration. February 156 14-17 Deer Canyon Lane Saratoga, L. 95070 The purpose oi tnis letter is o request a one year extension to the improvement Agreement ior SDR-1259. Pike Road. 1 lot. We will start the recuired improvements as soon as the grading moratorium is over this Spring. Sincerely, Joe and Sandra Politi RECEIVED FEB 1 8 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 3/27/86 (4/2/86) DEPT.: Engineering Fiscal Impacts: $84,100 CDBG Jobs Bill Grant $26,000 Pavement Management (General Fund) Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Bid Summary /0ck3 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM `7 SUBJECT: AWARD. OF CONTRACT RECON'STRUCTION OF ELVA AVENUE Summary: This project was approved and HCD funds ($77,500) appropriated in fiscal 1983 -84. $2400 for preliminary surveying was expended from these funds, leaving a balance of $75,100. The project was not included in the 1984 -85 or 1985 -86 capital improvement budget. The funds will have to be reappro- priated along with the $9000 approved for the 1986 -87 fiscal year. In addition an additional $26,000 must be appropriated from the pavement man- agement program to cover the bid plus approximately 5% contingencies and field engineering. Bids were opened March 26th. Five bids were received, with the lowest being $104,421 from Raisch Construction Company. The engineer's estimate. for the work was $106,774. Recommended Action: Award the contract for Reconstruction of Elva Avenue to Raisch Construction Company in the bid amount of $104,421. Council Action 4/2: Approved staff recommendation and appropriations resolution. .9ineer's Ufl.int e Est. Raisch iit Const. Duran U Venable O'Grady Paving Wattis Const. ten Description Quantity Unit Amount Amount Amount Un Pric e Amount i t Amount 15 Construct Concrete 75 S.F. 5.00 375.00 8.0 600.00 NI 187.50 5.0 375.00 5.0 375.00 Walkway 16 Install 2" x 6" Redwood 1,100 L.F. 2.00 2,200.00 3.60 3,960.00 3.01 3,300.00 2.7, 3,025.00 3.55 3,905.00 Header Board 17 Remove and Replace 613 S.F., 4.00 2,452.00 8.0 4,904.00 3.51 2,145.50 7.5 4,597.50 3.5 2,145.00 Concrete Sidewalk 18 Adjust manholes, water 12 Each 100. 1,200.00 150.0 1,800.00 225.0 2,700.00 '50.0 3,000.00 317.0 3,804.00 valves and monument box TOTAL: 101,738.00 99,661.00 00,509.90 100,653.50 115,833.71 Schedule B 1 A.C. 1 -1/2" Overlay 85 Ton 40 3,400.00 34.0 2,890.00 40.1 3,400.00 40.0 3,400.00 42.- 3,587.00 2 Install Fabric Mat 935 S.Y. 1.75 1,636.25 2.( 1,870.00 1.8 1,729.75 2.3 2,197.35 2. 2,337.50 TOTAL 5,036.25. 4,760.00' 5,129.75 5,597.35 5,924.50 TOTAL A B 106,774.25 104,421.00 105,639.65 106,250.85 121,758.21 DATE: March 2C�,19 TIME: 2: 00 P _M laity of Saratoga Community Development Department BID SUMMARY PROJECT ELVA AVENUE Sheet 2 o12 Engineer's Est. Houge Const. ten Description ty L Unit nit Price Amount 1 Amount Unit Amount Unit Price Amount Pr4 Amount 1 Clear and Grub L.S. L.S. 4000. 4,000.00 1949E. 19,496.01 2 Road way grading 28,700 S.F. 0.55 15,785.00 0.3C '8,610.01 3 Install Aggregate Base 1,062 Ton 15.0 15,930.00 15.3 16,291.0: Class II Install Asphalt Concre 538 45.0 24,210.00 46.6c 25,119.2 Install 12" R.C.P. 30 w al 50.0 1,500.00 90.0C 2,700.01 6 Concrete Drop Inlet 900.(1'1,800.00 1500. 3,000.01 7 Raise Existing Curb Each 500.0 500.00 1000. 1,000.01 Drop Inlet 8 Construct Asphalt Berm 1,205 L.F. 7.00 8,435:00 4.8E 5,844.2' 9 Construct Asphalt •2,290 S.F. 2.50 5,725.00 3.0C 6,870.0( Driveway 10 Overlay Asphalt ConcretE 143 Ton 40.0 4,890.00 44.0C 6,292.01 Driveway 11 Remove and Replace 587 S.F. 8.00 4,696.00 6.0C 3,522.11 Concrete Driveway 12 Construct Wooden 96 L.F. 10.0 960.00 12.5C 1,200.00 Retaining Wall 13 Construct Asphalt 650 L.F. 5.00 3,250.00 5.0 3,000.11 Concrete Dike 14 Install Asphalt 3 Each 1000, 3,000.00 300.0 900.00 Pavement Undulation DATE: March 26,198 6 TIME: 2:00 P M. uity of Saratoga Community Development Department BID SUMMARY Sheetl of 2 PROJECT ELVA AVENUE ."igineer's Est. Houge ii t F i Const. Unit Pt'1CQ ten Description Quantity Unit PT']C� price Amount Amount Unit p Amount price Amount 15 Construct Concrete 75 S.F. 5.00 375.00 4.5 337.50 Walkway 16 Install 2" x 6" Redwood 1,100 L.F. 2.00_ 2,200.00 6.5 7,150.00 Header Board 17 Remove and Replace 613 S.F. 4.00 2,452.00 4.5 2,758.50 Concrete Sidewalk Each 18 Adjust manholes, water 12 100. 1,200.00 250.0 3,000.00 valves and monument box TOTAL: :101,738.00 117,090.55 Schedule B A.C. 1 -1/2" Overlay 85 Ton 40 3,400.00 .1.79 5,252.15 2 Install Fabric Mat 935 S.Y. 1.75 1,636.25 1.25 1,168.75 TOTAL 5,036.25 6,420.90 TOTAL A B 106,774.25 123,511.45 DATE: March ZL,198E_ TIME: 2: 00 P. .M li l ,y U1 J CL 1 CL L Uga Community Development Department BID SUMMARY PROJECT ELVA AVENUE ►J1lC UI� Engineer's Est. tyaisch \in't _price Const. Duran. Venable O'Grady Unit pi-ire Paving I Wattis Const. ten Descri tion p Quan tity Unit Init Price Amount Amount Unit Price Amount Amount 3 ;t Price Amount 1 Clear and Grub L.S. L.S. 4000. 4,000.00 10400 10,400.00 14535 14,535.00 10001 10,000.00 14001 14,000.00 2 Road way grading 28,700 S.F. 0.55 15,785.00 0.62 17,794.00 0.38 10,906.00 0.3 8,897.00 0.8' 25,543.00 3 Install Aggregate Base 1,062 Ton 15.0 15,930.00 ,13.5Q 14,337.00 14.00 14,868.00 15.51 16,461.00 15.3-' 16,269.84 Class II 1 ,,i Install Asphalt Concrete 538 Ton_ 45.0 24,210.00 '34.0C 18,292.00 34.00 18,292.00 39.7'. 21,385.50 42.20 22,703.60 Install 12" R.C.P. 30 L.F. 50.0 1,500.00 65.0 1,950.00 75.00 2,250.00 50.0u 1,500.00 170.0 2,100.00 6 Concrete Drop Inlet 2 1 Each 900. '1,800.00 2000. 4,000.00 950.0 '1,900.0 1100 2,200.00 ',1050 2,100.00 7 Raise Existing Curb Each 500. 500.00 200.0 200.00 450.0 450.00 7.50 750.00 1100 1,100.00 Drop Inlet 8 Construct Asphalt Berm 1,205 L.F. 7.00 8,435:00 2.0 2,410.00 7.60 9,158.00 4.0 4,820.00 3.65 4,398.25 3,068.60 9 Construct Asphalt •2,290 S.F. 2.50 5,725.00 2.5 5,725.00 2.25 5,152.50 2.6 5,954.00 j1.34 Driveway 10 Overlay Asphalt ConcretE 143 Ton 40.0 5,720.00 34.0 4,862.00 40.00 5,720.00 60.0 8,580.00 42.21 6,034.60 Driveway 11 Remove and Replace 587 S.F. 8.00 4,696.00 9.0 5,283.00 4.20 2,465.40 5.5 3,228.50 4.01 2,348.00 Concrete Driveway 12 Construct Wooden 96 L.F. 10.0 960.00 14.0 1,344.00 20.00 1,920.00 30.0 2,880.00 23.4. 2,248.32 Retaining Wall 13 Construct Asphalt '600 L.F. 5.00 3,.000.00. 2.0 1,200.00 4.60 2,760..00 2.51 1,500.00 3.6^ 2,190.00 Concrete Dike 14 Install Asphalt 3 Each 1000, 3,000.00 200.0 600.00 600.0 1,800.00 500.1 1,500.00 500.0 1,500.00 Pavement Undulation DATE: March 26 ,198 6 TIME: 2:00 P City of Saratoga Community Development Department BID SUMMARY Sheet l of 2 PROJECT ELVA AVENUE AGENDA BILL NO. /0i DATE: 3/21/86 (4 -2 -86) DEPT.: Inspection Services SUBJECT: Summary: Fiscal Impacts: Exhibits /Attachments: Authorization to Purchase A New Truck Bids were opened on March 7, 1986, for the purchase of a new light truck to replace a vehicle currently being used by the In Epections Services Division. Two bids were received and are summarized on the attached metro. $6,000 has been budgeted in account 50- 4550 877 -72 for this purchase. The final cost of the low bidder is $5-,240.45. 1. Memorandum 2. Copies of the two bids received Recommended Action: Council Action 4/2: Approved staff reocimiendation. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4F CITY MGR. APPROVAL Staff recommends that the Council accept the proposal from Smythe Isuzu and authorize the issuance of a purchase order. 10[H7' og MEMORANDUM TQ: Bob Shook FROM: Steve Harper SUBJECT:. Truck Bids Smythe Isuzu 4201 Stevens Creek Blvd. Santa Clara, CA. 95051 Base truck price 6029.45 price of addalternates selected Amount to determine low bidder 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Two bids were received and opened March 7, 1986, for replacement of a vehicle used by the Building Inspection Division. Listed below is the summary of the bid received for the alternates chosen. 6205.00 #1 Automatic trans. 338.00 N/A #3 Air conditioning 548.00 796.00 #6 Lockable Tonneau 325.00 405.00 Cover Sub -Total 7240.45 7406.00 Subtract trade in allowed by bidder 2000.00 600.00 5240.45 6806.00 DATE: March 18, 1986 Oak Tree Mazda 4250 Stevens Creek Blvd. San Jose, CA. 95129 Based on the information shown on the summary we would recommend acceptance of the bid from Smythe Isuzu, 4201 Stevens Creek Blvd., Santa Clara, CA. 95051, in the amount of $5240.45 including trade -in allowance. CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION TRUCK PROPOSAL FORM Bids must be submitted by March 7, 1986 2:00 P.M. Please complete the following: Alternate A (No trade -in) I COST OF NEW TRUCK 5,635.00 II. SALES TAX 7% 394.45 III TOTAL 6,029.45 Alternate B (with trade -in) I COST OF NEW TRUCK 5635.00 II. AMOUNT OF TRADE -IN 2000.00 III. NEW COST 3,635.00 Sales Tax 394.45 Total 4,029.45 IV. "30 Days From the Time of Authorization to Purchase is is Received From the City V. ADD ALTERNATE #1 338.00 VI. ADD ALTERNATE #2 $not available on the model in the bid quote. VII. ADD ALTERNATE #3 548.00 factory installed VIII. ADD ALTERNATE #4 $not available on the model in the bid quote. IX. ADD ALTERNATE #5 275.00 dealer installed X. ADD ALTERNATE #6 325.00 dealer installed The City of Saratoga reserves the right to select Alternate A or Alternate B or in any combination with Add Alternate 1 through 6 for low bidder. 4 I. DEVIATIONS FROM SPECIFICATIONS Note if deviations exist. Attach separate sheet outlining same. II. BID VALID UNTIL 4/30/86 III. COMPANY OR DEALER NAME SMYTHE ISUZU, INC. Address 4201 Stevens Creek Bvld. Phone Number 408 983 -5320 Person Responsible For Bid Santa Clara, CA 95051 JOSEPH COSSELL Title Fleet Manager V. ADD ALTERNATE #1 VI. ADD ALTERNATE #2 VII. ADD ALTERNATE #3 VIII. ADD ALTERNATE #4 IX. ADD ALTERNATE #5 X. ADD ALTERNATE #6 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION TRUCK PROPOSAL FORM Bids must be submitted by March 7, 1986 2 :00 P.M. Please complete the following: RECEIVED FEB 2 0 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT lternate A (No trade -in) I. COST OF NEW TRUCK 5040 �G II. SALES TAX �(-9 Fj III TOTAL k A ternate B (with trade -in) I. COST OF NEW TRUCK II. AMOUNT OF TRADE -IN 60 III. NEW COST 5g. V* Sales Tax 4 76 Total IV. 30 Days From the Time of Authorization to Purchase is is Received From the City The City of Saratoga reserves the right to select Alternate A or Alternate B or in any combination with Add Alternate 1 through 6 for low bidder. Note if deviations exist. Attach separate sheet outlining same. II. BID VALID UNTIL 4, I. DEVIATIONS FROM SPECIFICATIONS III. COMPANY OR DEALER NAME Address Title Phone Number Person Responsible For Bid OAK TREE MAZDA 40701 4250 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. SAN JOSE, CALIF. 95129 PHONE (408) 247 -2212 c YG V7,2 0,Z/ F. AGENDA BILL NO. 0 4- DATE: 3/14/86 (4/2/86) DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: Fiscal Impacts: None Council Action 4/2: Denied appeal. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM SA- CITY MGR.. APPROVAL A -1169 Mr. Mrs. John Hamm, 14104 Okanagon Dr., Appeal by Thomas Linda Parker of the size of the windows on the second story expansion Summary: 1. The project is 305 sq. ft. expansion of a second story on the southern (right) side of the residence. 2. The second story will maintain a 40 ft. setback from the southern property line. 3. Deciduous landscaping is located along the right side of the residence. 4. Currently one small window is located in the second floor on the right side. 5. The addition is locating the second story 10 ft. closer to the prbperty line and increasing the size and number of second story windows. 6. The addition was approved with a revised condition that evergreen landscaping be installed along the right property line. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Memorandum to the City Council dated 3/17/86 2. Resolution No. A- 1169 -1 3. Staff report dated 2/14/86 4. Appeal application 5. Minutes dated 2/26/86 6. Exhibits. Recommended Action: Determine: the merit of the anpeal.and uphold, modify or reverse the Site Review Committee decision. xos& REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Appeal of condition of design approval A -1169; 14104 Okanogan Drive The applicant is proposing a 305 sq. ft. second story expansion of an existing second story. The neighbor to the south (right) has appealed the approval because of the size of the proposed windows on the right side addition. Staff recommends that the Council uphold the decision of the Site Review Committee. The evergreen landscaping will provide privacy screening for the adjacent property from the proposed second story windows. The residence will maintain a 40 ft. side yard setback where 20 ft. is required. Currently, a small window is located on the right side. The addition will locate the second story 10 ft. closer to the property line and will increase the number and size of windows facing the adjacent, property. At the Site Review Committee meeting, the contractor and designer indicated that the window location was based on a site analysis and that the windows looked down on the adjacent garage and front yard. The contractor indicated that the windows were to provide light and that locating a window in the front of the residence would destroy the symmetry in the front of the house. The applicants were willing to plant additional trees to provide screening. No opponents attended the meeting. The Committee felt that potential privacy impacts were minimized by the distance between the two residences. The approval includes a condition that evergreen landscaping be installed along the property line to reduce potential privacy impacts. uchuek Hsia Banning Director YH /11 /dsc OXLVW ©2 BACKGROUND ISSUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND JUSTIFICATION DATE: 3/1,7/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/2/86 '.DESIGN REVIEW FILE NQ.A 7.1169: application for Design Review Approval of an expansion to an existing two -story residence at 14104 Okanogan Drive WHEREAS, the applicant (has) xxdx) met the burden of proof requirf to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after ca consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of MRS. JOHN HAMM same is hereby (granted) (:e4) subject to the following conditions: ATTEST: e CITY OF SARATOGA SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Site Review Committee has received an Per the amended. Staff Report dated February 14, 1986. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Site Review Committee, State of California, this 26th day of February 19 86 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Committee members Burger and Guch NOES: None ABSENT :Committee member Hsia ret ite Review Committee RESOLUTION NO. 1169 -1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA and MR. AND for Design Review Approval be and the Chairman, Site Review 'mmittee APN: 397 -16 -83 APPLICANT: Louis Leto APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: ZONING: R- 1- 40,000 P -C EXISTING LAND USE: Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: PARCEL SIZE: HEIGHT: 24 Ft. Residential ACTION REQUESTED: Desion Review Approval to expansion to an existing two-story residence. Building Permit .836 acre (36,416.16 sq. ft.) *Revised: 2/26/86 DATE: 2/14/86, SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE: 2/26/86 OWNER: Mr. Mrs. John Hama A -1169; 14104 Okanooan Drive Cateoorically Exempt allow a second story GENERAL PLAN Single Family DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: A laroe evergreen is located in front of the residence. Deciduous trees are located on the right side. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: The site is level. GRADING REQUIRED: No grading is required since the addition is above an existing portion of the residence. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 60 Ft. Rear: 115 Ft. Left Side: 40 Ft. Rioht Side: 40 Ft. Report to SRC A -1169_ Hamm_ Okanogan Drive IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 20% SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing First Floor (Including Garaoe): 2 sq. ft. Second Floor: 1,358 sq. ft. Proposed 2nd Floor Addition: 305 sq. ft. TOTAL: 4.266 so. ft. 2/14/86 Paoe 2 MATERIALS COLORS: Exterior lap siding painted white with grey trim. Roof Shake (Addition to match existing residence) ANALYSIS CONCERNS: The proiect meets all the requirements and standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The site is located within a P -C development. An open space area lies between the site and Fruitvale Avenue. The site is 36,416 sq. ft. The Design Review floor area standard allows 15.5% ratio of building to site area (6200 40,000). The site is less than the standard and with the proposed addition, the residence is below the 15.5 (4200 36,416 11.7 A Use Permit was approved in September, 1979 for a second story expansion to the residence. Report to. SRC A -1169, Hamm, Okanogan Dr. UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE IJITH VIEWS AND PrIVnCY Is the average site slope less than 10X7 Will the praject be located 50 as not to be on a ridge? Will the locator, cf the project be such that it is net on a visible hillside? Is the heiuht or placement of the structure such that it Will not effect mayor views of surrounding hones? Are views fram 5w properties being pl cocl ved? Is the pad elevation of the structure lower or the same as the pads of sur- rounding homes? Are the locations of windows and decks such that they !will not create any Unreasonable privacy impacts? Is there existing landscaping that will provide screening and thereby reduce privacy .anoerns or visual impacts? Have the tcparraphic and geologic constraints iiipased by the building site conditions been considered? Copilent.i: Landscaping exists along the right side of the residence. However, the landscaping is deciduous. The residence currently has one small window on the 2nd story on the right side. The addition is locating the second story 10 ft. closer to the property' line and increasing the number and size of windows on the right side. ru_sEruc NATURAL Lr,rJ0:c: rE Are trees ar areas of dense veastati.n ben preserved with the pr0)ect? Are the trees to be removed less than ardinalicc size? Can the structure be repositioned or reduced in sice to avoid or reduce the number of trees to be removed? Is the structur_ located so that it is not within I3 ft. of an aril: or 3 ft. of any other tree? 2/14/86 Page 3 COND X X X X Report to SRC A -1169, Hamm, Okanogan Dr. PRESERVED NATURAL LANDSCAPE, cont. Will the trees to be protected be fenced during construction? Are the graded areas sloped and contoured to match existing terrain? Are the cut and fill slopes below the maximum slope permitted as conditioned under any previous approval? Has the building pad area been previously graded? Are the amounts of grading proposed appropriate for the project? If grading is an issue, would an alterna- tive foundation design reduce grading' amounts? If required, has the City Geologist re- viewed the project? Has the City Geologist determined that the proposed building site i, appropriate? Will the grade changes be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas? Are the proposed topographic changes aesthetically pleasing? Will the site's natural features such as swales, creeks, etc., not be disturbed, as the result of the project? PERCEPTION OF EXCESSIVE GULI: Does the orientation on site and /or design of the structure or addition minimize the perception of bulk? I, the total footage less than the Design Review Standard? 2/14/86 Page 4 YES N/A c N APR NO X X X X X X X X X X X Coiroents: The proposed addition is above an existing one -story portion of the residence. No grading is required. No ordinance size trees will be removed. X Report to SRC A -1169, Hamm, Okanogan Dr. PERCEPTION OF E;CESSIUE BULK, cont. Is the si_e of the proposed structure minimized by the area of the lot? Is the structure screened by existing vegetation or topographic conditions, thus reducing the perception of bulk? Is the second story offset to reduce the appearance of bulk Comments: A large pine tree is located in front of the right side of the residence. Landscaping to the right of the structure helps to minimize the perceived bulk. The 305 sq. ft. addition will not significantly alter the size of the residence. COMPATIBLE GULI, HEIGHT Are there existing structures within 600 ft. of the property and within the are zoning district that are of similar height and /or bulk? Are design techniques being used to reduce the appearance of bulk or height of the structure /addition? If height is an issue, can the pitch of the roof be reduced to lower the the structure;' Will the light and air of adjacent pro- perties be teQaunab1y preserved' as a result of the project? Will the project maintain the ability of adjacent properties to use solar energ.y? Comments: The second story addition is to an existing two -story residence. The area is predominantly one story. A two -story structure is located on Montauk within 500 ft. of the site. The addition is designed to be compatible with the existing residence. CURRENT GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL STrINDARD5 If a requirement of a previous approval, was the grading plan prepared by a li- censed civil engia er? 2/14/86 Page 5 X X X X X X t Report to SRC A -1169, Hamm, Okanogan Dr.. CURRENT GRADING 3 EROSION CONTROL ST?'NWIRDS cont. If a hillside lot, has the applicant indicated erosion control measures for protection of graded slopes? Generally, will new drainage be directed away from neighboring properties? Will the project tie into the City's Master Storm Drainage Plan? Comments: The project will not require any grading or impact the existing drainage since the addition is above an existing one -story portion of the resi- dence. OTHER CONCERNS Are structures on site not of historical' significance? Has the Historical Preservation Com- mission reviewed improvement plans of any historical structures on site? Is the area under the prupused building, pool, or recreational court site less than 10%, 30% or 40% slope? Is the subject parcel not located adjacent to a__scenic highway? Are the fences, walls and hedges, proposed or existing, within City requii for height and location? Do baywindows., decks and accessory structures maintain required setbacks? Are encroachments into required yards by eaves, chimneys, etc., within ordinance requirements? Comments: 2/14/86 Page 6 X X X X X X Report to SRC A 1169, Hamm, Okanogan Dr. FINDINGS 2/14/86 Page 7 1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy (and Compatible Infill Project) -The project is a second story expansion. The height of the structure is not being changed. The residence with the addition will not unreasonably interfere with existing views. -The project is locating the two -story portion of the residence closer to the adjacent property. The side yard setback. is 40 ft., twice that of the required setback. Trees are located along the side of the residence. However, the trees are deciduous and do not provide year round screening. Currently, one small window faces the adjacent property. The addition will have two windows. Steff recommends then the proposed windows be shortened in Length to reduce poteritie+ privacy impec4s- The windows ehoatd begin 5 ft- above ftoor tevet- 2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape The natural landscape is being preserved as the addition is above an existing one -story portion of the residence. No grading is required. No ordinance size trees will be impacted by the addition. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the 305 sq. ft. addition is to an existing two -story residence. The height of the residence will remain the same. 4. Compatible Bulk and Height The site is located within a predominantly one -story neighborhood. However, the project is an expansion of an existing two -story residence. A two -story residence is located on Montauk within 500 ft. of the site. The height of thr residence will not be changed with the addition. The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties. 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards No grading is required as the expansion is located above an existing one -story portion of the residence. Report to SRC A -1169, Hamm, Okanogan Dr. 2/14/86 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project per the Staff Report dated 2/14/86 and Exhibits "B C subject to the following conditions: *1. Evergreen landscaping shall be provided along the right property line prior to final occupancy. Landscape plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. APPROVED: LH /dsc SRC Agenda: 2/26/86 Lucille Hise Planner Ref:WOOD 5C14001. F3-1 ritol000 //VI H /IA m W5ST VA1.1.0.Y cow.ece Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: RECEIVED MAR 0 4 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL APPLICATION Thomas W. and Linda D. Parker 14136 Okanpsan Drive; Saratoga (408) 867 -7674 Work: (415) 594 -3261 John and Peg Hamm lice 14104 Okanogan Drive; Saratoga Second story addition to existing structure Decision Being Appealed: HSP of full 1 ength Sri ndows at side of house overlooking our backyard and home Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): We want to appeal the building permit decision allowing full length second story windows to be placed at the side of the new master bedroom addition. These windows would overlook our entire backyard including the pool area. They would also give visibility through the sliding glass door of our master bedroom. I had spoken with the city planner before the site hearing. She told me that the planning department recommends that side windows start at 5 feet from the floor line. I did not attend the site hearing since we believed the city would enforce the planner's recommendation. We did not want to cause friction with new neighbors. However, we plan on remaining in'our home for many years while Mr. and Mrs. Hamm stated they will only be in this home 3 -5 years. We do not mind if Mr. and Mrs. Hamrradd on to their master bedoom. This addition should not make us give App up our privacy in our own home and backyard. ant's Sign u /e Date Received: Hearing DatC: i5 Fee CITY USE ONLY G *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 APPLICAITION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DEC SIO, o+' Site Review Committee Page 2 Minutes Meeting 2/26/86 A -1167 this is an ideal location for the addition, and the need is there. Discussion followed on two stories in the neighborhood. Mr. Heid addressed the deck, explaining that it is only a landing for a circular stairs which goes down to the pool. Mrs. Hurtig commented that she would like the deck for access. GUCH /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 2 -0. Committee member Burger commented that the Committee are always sensitive to the neighbors' concerns about privacy. She stated that it is not part of their deliberations to consider property values. She commented that she feels that it is up to the applicants to decide whether they need more space, and the need issue would not be considered in her deliberations. Committee member Guch commented that the 6 ft. deck looks like a landing, rather than a deck, and she would find it very difficult to assess someone's need for an addition. She added that the addition seems to be in keeping with the house. She commented that she did not feel a concern regarding the privacy. Committee members Burger and Guch agreed that the landscaping appeared full and there was a lot of it. Discussion followed on the windows. GUCH /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE A -1167 per the Staff Report. Passed 2 -0. The appeal period was noted. 3. A -1168 Gill and Cathy Reeser, request for design review approval for a new, two -story residence at 21463 Continental Circle The application was described by Staff. They reported that a design review application was previously denied by the SRC for a residence on the site because of its three -story appearance. They commented that they are recommending that landscaping be provided along the rear. They addressed the slope of the site and added a condition to the Staff Report to state that the City Geologist review the project prior to issuance of building permits. The public hearing was opened at 3:30 p.m. The additional conditions were pointed out to Mr. Reeser and his designer. GUCH /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 2 Committee member Burger noted the response of the applicant to the Committee's initial concerns regarding the three -story appearance. BURGER /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE A -1168 per the Staff Report dated February 26, 1986. Passed 2 -0. 4. A -1169 Mr. and Mrs. John Hamm, request for design review approval to allow a second -story expansion to an existing two -story residence at 14104 Okanogan Drive The proposal was described by Staff. The public hearing was opened at 3:35 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Hamm, the applicants, and Lou Leto, the contractor were present. Mr. Leto addressed the condition regarding the windows on the right side, commenting that they do not feel that they will impact the neighbors. He stated that you would be overlooking the garage and front yard from those windows. He noted that the applicants would be happy to plant additional trees on that side of the house. He added that the Site Review Committee Minutes Meeting 2/26/86 A -1169 Page 3 windows were to provide light in that corner. Mr. Leto indicated that putting a window in the front would destroy wall space and the symmetry in the front of the house. Robert Aviles, the designer, commented that the location of the windows were determined based on an analysis of the situation and look down over the garage and front yard of the neighbors; therefore, there is no impact on the neighbor. He discussed the size of the windows. GUCH /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 2-0. Committee member Guch noted that there is quite a distance between the two houses. She stated that she agrees that some of,the design element might be lost by changing the window. Committee member Burger agreed. BURGER /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE A -1169 per the conditions of the Staff Report dated February 14, 1986, deleting Condition 1 and replacing it with a condition regarding evergreen landscaping along the southern property line, to be reviewed and approved by Staff before issuance of a building permit. Passed 2 -0. 5. A -1170 Dr. and Mrs. Alexander_ Sywak, request for design review approval to construct a new, two -story resi- dence at 12860 Star Ridge Court (Tract 6528, Lot 47) Staff explained the proposal, indicating that there was a discrepancy in the calculation of the floor area of the residence of 98.5 sq. ft. They indicated that the residence will need to be reduced to the standard per Staff's calculations in order for the application to be acted on by this committee. They noted that there are tradeoffs involved in this project, in that, although the residence could be lowered to reduce the amount of fill, that additional fill around the residence also reduces visual impact. Staff stated that there is a 58 ft. setback from the street, which generally reduces perception of bulk; however, the large setback also locates the structure on a higher part of the site. The public hearing was opened at 3:45 p.m. Raymond Rooker, the architect, described the trees on site and the square footage. He indicated that they agree to the condition of reducing the structure to 6200 sq. ft. He described the proposed home, commenting that it is stepped with the slope. The grading on the site was discussed. Mr. Rooker commented that they have a traditional pitched roof and have been discussing perhaps lowering that by a couple of feet. He also indicated that they were planning additional landscaping. Committee member Burger commented that the fact that the residence is being located within 2 ft. and 5 ft. of some ordinance size oaks concerns her. Mr. Rook indicated that he did not feel there would be any damage to the trees and stated that he had no problem working with the City Horticulturist to ensure that the trees will not be damaged. GUCH /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 2 -0. Committee member Guch stated that she feels there has been a great deal of effort, made to make the house compatible with the site as far as mitigation of appearance of bulk on the hillside. She commented that she would be comfortable with making a tradeoff with the grading to see the house compatible with the hillside visually. She indicated that she could approve the application, with the condition regarding the City Horticulturist and the house being reduced to 6200 sq. ft. Committee member Burger noted that Staff could not make Finding #2, which is preservation of natural landscape. She commented that she 3 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 3/18/86 (4/2/86) FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 6,8 DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -720, A- 1165 Joseph Helen Brozda, Northwest Corner of Big Basin Way and Third St. by the Brozda's Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a variance request to allow 15 substandard parking spaces where approximately 69 spaces are required and to allow no off- street loading facilities where one is required, and design _review request for a new parking deck which became a moot issue when the variance was denied. SUMMARY: This project has a history of two previous variance requests. The first variance, V -541, was granted in 1981 for a limited period of time to allow further investigation of alternative solutions to the parking problem. Another application was made in 1933 for a parking deck which provided 15 substandard parking spaces where 7 spaces existed. A variance (V -627), design review (A -929) and, later, a tentative building site approval (SDR -1873) were granted in 1984. No construction commenced on the parking deck and the previously approved variances and design review requests subsequently expired. Therefore, when the new owner of the restau- rant on site applied for a business license, staff required that he apply for a variance for the existing, inadequate parking. The Commission reviewed this variance request on 1/18/86 and required that the property oweners, the Brozdas, reapply for the parking deck. The Commission reviewed the parking deck proposal at two study sessions and at the public hearing on 2/26/86, voted to deny the request. The reason for the denial was the large discrepancy between the number of spaces proposed and the number required. The property owner is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance and design review requests as the parking deck proposal was identical to the previous variance request which was approved by the Commission in 1984. Also, additional matters concerning in lieu parking were not determined at the Planning Commission level. EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report to Mayor City Council 6 Exhibits 2. Staff report. dated 1/2/86 7. ,,Correspondence 3. Memo dated 2 /20/86 (with relevant minutes) 4. Staff report 2/20/86 5: Minutes dated 1/8/86, 2/12/86 2/26/86 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.) Conducta public, hearing. 2.) Determine the merits of the appeal and uphold or reverse the Planning Commission decision. 3.) If the Council decides to uphold the appeal after reviewing the testimony, the Negative Declaration must first -be approved making the finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Also, since no handicap parking space is being provided, the Council must find that requiring a handicap space would create an unreasonable hardship due to the physical constraints of the sited COUPJCIL ACTION 4 2 "a-7a 5 /7/fl uaumi (Do REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Appeal of Denial of V -720 and A -1165 ISSUES STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS DATE: 3/25/86 COUNCIL MEETING: 4/2/86 Should the City Council uphold or deny the appeal by Dr. and Mrs. Brozda of the Planning Commission's decision on February 26, 1986 to deny the variance and design review requests for a parking deck which would have provided 15 substandard parking spaces where approximately 69 spaces are required and the variance request to allow no loading facilities where a minimum of one loading space is required? There are three parts to the variance application. The first is to allow 15 parking spaces where 69 spaces are required. Staff recommends denial of this request, as use of the site has intensified with no provision for additional parking. The required variance findings could not be made. The second is the request to allow substandard parking spaces <9' x 18') where 9.5' x 18' spaces are required. Staff recommends denial of this request because the proposal could be altered to provide 14 parking spaces which meet length and width requirements and which also includes one handicap space. The third is to allow no off- street loading space where one is required. Staff recommends approval of this request as the dimensions for the loading space, 12'x 45', would eliminate a significant number of parking spaces on site. This would create a physical hardship for the property owners. With the denial of the variance request for the parking, the issue of the design review request for the parking deck became moot. Staff had recommended approval of the design review for Report to Mayor and City Council U -720, R -1165 the deck if the variance was approved. If the Council upholds the appeal, the Negative Declaration should be approved first. Rlso, if the project is to be approved as presented with no handicap parking space provided, the Council is required to find that compliance with this State requirement or equivalent facilitation would create an unreasonable hardship due to the physical constraints of the site. BACKGROUND 3/25/86 Page 2 There has been two prior variance applications for the parking on this site. The first variance (U -541) was required when the former newspaper office changed to a retail /restaurant use, thereby intensifying the need for on -site parking. U -541 was granted for one year to allow additional time to investigate other solutions to the parking problem. The Commission required reviews at certain intervals to ensure that the property owners were continuing in their efforts to resolve the parking situation. U -541 was extended until a new variance application was made in 1983 for a parking deck. With the deck, 15 parking substandard spaces were proposed where 7 spaces previously existed. A variance (U -627), design review (11-929) and encroachment permit were granted in January 1984. Later, tentative building site approval (SDP-1573) was granted in September. No construction has commenced on the parking deck since the approvals were granted and U -62? and 8 -929 subsequently expired. A recent request for a business license by the new owner of the restaurant on site resulted in the application for another variance. Since adequate parking is not being provided and the previous variance approvals had expired, a business license could not be issued. The owner of the restaurant, William Carlson, submitted a' variance application (U -720) to allow the existing number of parking spaces. At the public hearing on January 8, 1986, the Planning Commission voted to deny the request unless the Brozda's reapplied for the parking deck and modified the previous variance application. Rt this meeting, two property owners in the Village spoke in opposi- tion to granting the variance for the existing parking. Plans and applications for the•parkign deck were submitted. At two study sessions, the Commission reviewed how the parking was calculated previously and how the uses on site have changed. It was noted that for previous variance requests, the employee parking was not included in the parking ratio computations. At the meeting on Feb. 26, 1986, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the variance for the parking and the issue of the design review request for the parking deck became moot. The Planning Commission's reason for the denying the request was that 2 Report to Mayor and City Council U-720, R-1165 the discrepancy between the number of parking spaces being pro- vided and the number required was too great. It was noted that employee parking was not considered in the earlier variance gpplications. At this same meeting, the Commission approved the design review request for exterior changes to Tollgate Barn. The property owners are appealing the denials of U-720 and R- 1165 as these applications are identical to previous applications which were approved. Vt4tuek Hsia Di ctor of Planning YH/dl/dsc 3/25/85 Page 3 oauw ©2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APN: 503 -24 28 and 503 -24 -41 *Revised: 1/8/86 DATE: 1/2/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 1/8/86 APPLICANT: William Carlson OWNER: Joseph Poppy.Brozda APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V -720, 14503 Big Basin Way ACTION REQUESTED: Variance Approval to allow 9 existing substandard sized parking spaces where approximately 42 spaces are required for restaurant and retail type uses. The applicant's plans .indicate 7 parking spaces on site. An on site visit revealed .that 9 spaces were actually in use. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED: V -541 approved 5/13/81, subsequently replaced by V -627 approved 1/11/84 which later expired. Design Review and Tentative Building Site Approvals received in 1984 for a parking deck. The Design Review Approval has expired. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically exempt per CEQA, Section 15301 ZONING: C -C GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial" EXISTING LAND USE ON SITE SERVED BY PARKING: Restaurant with outdoor dining, two clothing stores, gallery, hair salon, printers and 3500 sq. ft. of vacant commercial space. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Retail and office uses are across from the site, Saratoga Inn is under construction behind the site; to the right are retail and residential uses and to the left, more retail uses. PARCEL SIZE: 14,600 sq. ft. NATURAL FEr'Tii^cS VEGETATION: The lot 15 totally developed. Report to Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 2 APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING BUILDING: Clothing Stores 1975 sq. ft. Restaurant (2 Floors) 1990 sq. ft. Gallery (2nd Floor) 1963 sq. ft. Hair Salon (1st Floor 15301) 1963 sq. ft. Printers (Lower Floor of Barn) 1634 so. ft. Total 9,525 sq. ft. A For Rent" sign attached to the Tollgate Barn is advertising 3,500 sq. ft. of space to leas. This area appears to be presently used as storage. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that parking required for the entire site was previously estimated at 42 spaces and only 9 spaces are provided. Additionally, the parking spaces provided are substandard in size. PROJECT BACKGROUND Two variance applications for the insufficient parking on this site have been previously made by the property owners. The first variance request, V -514, was required by the City when the former newspaper office use changed over to a retail and restaurant use known as Maddalena's Upstairs Downstairs. This intensified the use of the site, thereby necessitatin a variance application for parking. The Commission heard public testimony over a 4 month period in early 1981 and granted the variance for one year. This was to allow some time for the possible formation of Parking District No. 3 or to investigate other solutions to the parking problem. Also, 90- day reviews by the Commission were required as part of the variance approval to insure that the property =owners were continuing in their efforts to resolve the inadequate amount of parking on site. Although many avenues were explored by the property owners, the Commission and other groups, an on -going solution was not found until the property owners made a proposal for a parking deck in late 1983. With the new parking deck, a total of 15 spaces could be provided. However, at this same time the property owners were proposing to further intensify use of the site by adding a studio apartment on the second story of the. barn. This area was formerly used as storage and was in addition to the other uses including outdoor dining for the restaurant. The restaurant, outdoor dining and apartment use alone would have required a minimum of 22 additional spaces. It should be noted that the parking spaces for the proposed deck were substandard in size. Therefore, aside from the Tentative Building Site and Design Review Approvals required for the deck, a new variance (V -627) was also necessary. The required approvals were granted for the parking deck in January 1984. Conditions of approval included that a stairway. to Parking District #1 be included and the property should be used so that no combination of uses ANALYSIS 2 Report to the Planning Commission 1/2/85 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 3 would require more than 15 spaces. No construction has commenced on the deck since that time and the Variance and Design Review Approvals have subsequently expired. The latest variance request was initiated after a Business License was applied for by the new owner of Bella Mia Restaurant. The Business License could not be granted as adequate parking is not being provided and previous variance approvals had expired. The Staff Report for V -514 indicated that 42 parking spaces would have been required for the uses then on site. With the existing uses, Staff would now estimate the parking needs as 66 spaces. This figure includes parking for employees where applicable and assumes 20% storage space for the retail uses. For the restaurant alone it is estimated that 29 parking spaces would be required. This figure is based on the two -story floor plan submitted by the applicant and includes 7 spaces for the outdoor dining area. The second floor is used as a waiting room storage area and office. Therefore, all but the storage area would be included in the square footage computations for parking. What has not been included in the total parking needs for the site is the 3500 sq. ft. in the barn being advertised for rent. If this were included as retail space another estimated 16 spaces would be required. It is obvious that the existing parking is serverely inadequate for the amount of parking required for this site. Previous variances were granted with the expectation that some additional parking could be obtained for the site by either including the site in with the future Parking District No. 3, by construction of the parking deck, or by the establishment of in -lieu parking fees. Since none of these have materialized, Staff has an obvious concern over the continued intensified use of the site. The previous tea room /retail use that was the topic of the first variance request, later expanded to a full restaurant use with outdoor dining. Staff also feels that after construction of the Hotel at the end of Third Street, the Tollgate Barn will become a more attractive commercial location. The future request for more businesses on this site is inevitable. Staff sees the following options available to the Commission related this variance request: 1. Limit the use of the site by denying the variance request for insufficient parking. The restaurant use with outdoor dining would not be allowed to continue. Future businesses proposed for the site would be limited to those uses which are less intense or the same as present uses. This would particularly effect the future use of the Tollgate barn. 2. Continue the variance request until the appropriate approvals for the parking deck may be processed. The Tentative Building Site Approval SDR -1573 for the parking deck is in effect until 9/27/86. 3 Report to Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 4 The associated variance and design review approvals have since expired, therefore, new applications must be submitted and considered by the Commission. A deadline for completion of the project should be given. Continue the variance until the City can adopt an in -lieu parking fee. The in -lieu parking fee would allow the property owner to 'pay a fee so that parking may be provided elsewhere in the Village. These fees can range from $10,000 to $15,000 or higher. Since this option was discussed previously and the City has not put an ordinance in place, there is no guarantee that this will be accomplished in the future. 4 The restaurant could be limited to evening use only when the other uses on site are generally closed. The elimination of outdoor dining and use of the upstairs as a dining or waiting room would further reduce parking demands. Commercial use of Tollgate Barn would be restricted unless additional parking could be provided. 5. Continue the variance request until a certain date to examine the possibility of the applicant being able to obtain development rights for parking from elsewhere in the City. Future plans for Parking District #3 may include parking which may be purchased. The specifics of the formation of this parking district, particularly the time frame, is still uncertain. For each of the previous variance requests, Staff has been unable to make the required findings and could not recommend approval. Staff finds it it impossible to recommend approval of the variance for this application as the parking needs on site have not decreased. To continue the item to a later date has not accomplished anything in the past, and the property owners have not followed through with the plans for the parking deck. Since parking is a critical issue in the Village, allowing a use to continue without the provision of adequate parking would be a precedence for future development on the site and throughout the Village. Some of the existing parking is substandard in width and all are substandard in length. With the new parking ordinance, 25% of the spaces on site maybe compact (7.5 ft. wide with double striping and 16 ft. long). The widths of the existing spaces vary from 10' to 7' and the lengths are approximately 13 ft. to 14 ft. Due to the location of the existing buildings on the site, the back -up area for cars coming out of the parking spaces are limited. For perpendicular parking, a minimum of 24 ft. of backup area is required. In working with the site plan, Staff found that with a combination of angled parking and perpendicular parking, there was adequate room on site for 8 spaces, two of which are compact. The circulation on site would be tight but not impossible. Therefore, Staff cannot make the required findings. Report to the Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 5 FINDINGS: 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship There are no physical constraints associated with the property which would make it unique from other properties in the same zoning district. The major problem with the site is that there are too many uses of too great an intensity on site and no area to provide adequate parking. Also, the parking lot could be restriped to provide 8 angled and perpendicular parking spaces, &ut this will result in the loss of one parking space on a site with a critical need for parking. 2. Exceptional Circumstances As previously stated there are no physical constraints associated with the site which would not generally apply to other properties in the area. There is public park.ing_available on nearby streets which relieve some impact, but this parking is meant for other uses as well as those on site. There are,no exceptional circumstances that would prohibit the applicant from restriping the parking are so that the width and length requirements for the parking stalls are met. 3. Common Privilege 4 It is not a common privilege to;be allowed to increase the use of the site without the provision for additional parking. Also, to have substandard size parking stalls would not be a common privilege since the parking could be angled in the areas where back -up space is 'fight. With the combination of angled and perpendicular spaces, 8 spaces could be provided on site that wold meet the required lengths and widths. 4 Special Privilege:' Approval of the Variance Application would be a grant of special privilege since there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the site that would warrant granting a Variance for inadequate parking for the'intensified use of the site. Although other uses in the "C -C" zoning district may not have sufficient parking, this is not reason enough to allow and inadequate parking situation to become worse. Additionally, allowing the existing parking to remain substandard in width and depth would be a special privilege not afforded other property owners in the area. 5. Public Health Safety and Welfare: Granting the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare except that allowing the uses to intensify on a site that does not have adequate parking impacts the parking for surrounding businesses. This may be materially injurious to the properties and improvments in the area. 6. Traffic Volumes 8. Creation of a Safety Hazard: 5 Report to the Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way Page 6 The present or anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or other uses in the area require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of regulations in that by permitting an inadequate parking situation to continue the interests of other commercial uses would not be protected. Surrounding businesses would be required to provide adequate parking before creating more parking demands. The applicant is' requesting that he should be granted and exception to this regulation. 7. Parking or Loading of Vehicles on Public Streets: It does not appear that the use of the site had created a problem in terms of parking or loading vehicles on public streets so that the free flow of traffic is interfered withor loading vehicles on public streets so that the free flow of traffic is interfered with. It does not appear that the use or existing parking space size creates a safety hazard. However, granting the variance to allow the uses on site to intensify without providing additional parking would be inconsistent with zoning ordinance objectives to ensure that private lands are ultimately used for purposes which are most appropriate and beneficial to the City as a whole. Also, the objective of the ordinance to provide for adequate off street parking and truck loading facilities is not being met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends of the Variance request to allow the intensified use of the site without providing additional parking having been unable to make findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, and denial of the request to allow the existing substandard -size parking, having been unable to make findings #2, 3 and 4. If the Commission can make these findings, per the Staff Report dated 1/2/86 and exhibits "B and C Staff has included the following recommended conditions: 1. Grant the variance for the the amount of parking provided for a time period of one -year. This would allow additional time for the establishment of Parking District #3, or for consideration of an in- lieu parking fee. 2. A trash enclosure shall be provided on site. Plans for the enclosure shall be submitted to the Planning Division within 10 days of this approval. The enclosure shall be constructed within 30 days of this approval. :J, Report to the Planning Commission 1/2/86 V -720, Brozda, 14603 Big Basin Way Page 7 3. The parking lot shall be restriped to provide six standard size spaces and two compact spaces. APPROVED DL /bjc P.C. Agenda 1/8/86 Diana Lewis Planner *On 1/8/86, the Planning Commission denied the variance requests per Staff Report dated 1/2/86 subject to receipt of a complete application for Design Review and modification of the variance for the parking deck. before January 17, 1986. The tentative Building Site Approval for the parking deck will expire on 9 -27 -86 unless a Final Map Approval is received or an extension is granted. VARIANCE FINDINGS (Supplement to Variance Application) a --11 r\ Sit CET A r D FILE NO. p C 7 Variance applications are requests to construct structures or create lots, parking spacings, etc., that do not conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which the site is located. Five (5) findings must be made to obtain approval. (Additional findings are required for variances pertaining to signs and parking). The findings point to the special''\ circumstances that would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulties inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The special circumstances pertain to the physical characteristics of the site, including site size, dimensions, shape and topography. The circumstances are to be site specific and not pertain to all properties within the zoning district. Please describe in clear, concise language how your project would meet the required findings below: 1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance. 2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district,' (The exceptional circumstances are no to be a result from actions of the owner.) 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. 4. Granting the Variance' will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the .limitations on other properties in the sale zoning district. 3E AllAC 4-ED Sr}- Si=►= /1 14E-ET Name 1 5. Granting the Variance' will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 1 hereby certify that all the information contained in the supplement is to my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. Signature VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. If strict interpretation of the zoning Ordinance were enforced, we would not be able to operate our business. We would not be able to accommodate enough customers, with the space available, to meet our expenses. 2. We feel there is room for more parking spaces on our property than has been previously approved. Please see Exhibit A and Exhibit B. 3. We are aware of other restaurants in our district that are operating under a variance. Therefore if we are denied a variance, we will be deprived of priveleges engaged by other owners. 4. Granting the variance would not constitute a special privelege because other businesses in our district also do not have sufficient parking(according to the existing Zoning Ordinace). As new business owners in the Village, we are looking forward to contributing to finding a solution to the parking problem. We are only asking for more time, like other businesses, until we can investigate solutions to this problem. 5. We operate a clean, quiet, well -run restaurant during reasonable hours. Granting us a variance would pose no threat to public health, safety, or welfare. It would not be materially injurious to any properties in the vicinity. THREE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS RELATED DIRECTLY TO PARKING 6. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use �f the site or the uses of sites in the vicinity rea- sonable require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. We feel that when the hotel is opened behind us and the offices located across the street are completed, an undetermined percent of our walk -in customers will come from these vicinities. This will lessen the number of parking spaces needed for restaurant as they will have parked in other designated lots. 7. The granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. All delivery trucks have access in the back of the rest- aurant so there is no hazard to traffic on Big Basin Way. 8. The granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. As we have stated previosly, we find no safety hazard that would result from this variance. ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY WE FEEL WE SHOULD BE GRANTED A VARIANCE 1. We estimate that most of our customers are in the Village for other reasons (ie. shopping,or business) and patronize our restaurant for convenience. Therefore they are using one parking space in town for several business and personal uses. 2: The remaining balance of our customers are merchants in the Village'or their employees who walk over from their busi- ness. These customers are coming from banks,offices, shops, beauty parlors...etc. 3. At night, when we do the'majority of our business, most all other retail shops, banks, and small businesses are closed. This leaves many on and off street parking spaces available for our customers. 4. When the Saratoga Inn opens this spring, we estimate that 1/3 of our business will be guests of the Inn and will walk over instead of driving. 5. At this time, we have several employees that carpool be- cause they are in the same family, are roommates or live in the same area. We also have three employees at this time who walk to work. This makes available more spaces for customers. 6. To our knowledge, there has never been a complaint from local residents or other businesses of lack of parking. 7. There is a general feeling among other merchants that Bella Mia enhances the Village, particu.larlyfrom the standpoint of it being an historical building. They feel it is a positive addition to the business community. Most importantly; there A? unanimous ,feeling :.that? .there has_"not been "any discernible =c,i 1, r parking impact as a result of the restaurant. In v, 7,23 p►sHcl) sit STtoRkiE N J N G RC? or 1 1 7' A D I N NC) Ro arvy ONE *5Q. FT t j ,F RSS" .'F I_0o EXHIBIT A--PARKING S S PREVIOUSLY APPROVED t. 1 1 11; I 1 ..1 2. 14503 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 I Sr1 c,: 1 sc TO: Planning Commission FROM: Assistant Planner "DATE: February 20, 1986 SUBJECT: V -720, A -1165; Brozda, Northwest Corner of Big Basin and Third Street Additional Information Requested at Committee of the Whole on 2/18/86. The Planning Commission at its Committee -of -the Whole Meeting on 2/28/86 directed staff to provide a table to show what parking is presently required and what parking "credits" from previous uses would be applicable. This table has been prepared and is attached. To explain further what uses were approved at the time of the previous variance request (v -627), the minutes and staff report refer to limiting the use of the site so that no more than 15 parking spaces would be required. The uses at issue in this application were the antique shop in the barn, the restaurant with outdoor dining and the studio apartment on the top floor of the barn. Because the other uses on site were "grandfathered in" with the seven existing parking spaces, this would leave the newer uses with eight parking spaces to share. There was dis- cussion in the minutes that outdoor dining at Bella Mia could be allowed as long as the indoor dining was not used. However, this did not become a condition of the Variance Approval. Rather, a broader condition was included so that no more than 15 park ing 8 spaces for the intensified use of the site and 7 spaces for the "grandfathered -in" uses, would be required. The minutes for the meeting on 12/14/83 and 1/11/84 are attached. Diana Lewis Planner MEMORANDUM V -720 ozda Location Type of Use Floor Area (sq.ft.) 14501 Big Basin: 2nd floor 1st floor Upper Level: Storage Prof. Office 1963 Personal Ser. 1963 Establishment Area Used for Parking, Ratio (sq.ft.) Parking Ratio Estimated Parking Previous No. of Em- Spaces Use ployees for Required Parking 14511 -14515 Intensive 1975 1580 1:200 2 10 Intensive Big Basin Retail Retail 14503 Big Restaurant 1990 1168 1:75 6 21 Office Basin *(outdoor (21 seats) (1:3 seats) (N.A.) (7) (None) dining) Tollgate Barn: Lower Level: Intensive 1634 1307 1:200' Retail l' Main Level: Potential 1677 1342 1:200c Intensive Retail 1963 1:250 N.A. 8 Apartment 1963 1:200 3 13 Intensive Retail 2 1 1677 N.A. N.A. N.A. 9 Intensive Retail 8 Personal Service Establish. 0 Storage Total Number of Spaces Required: 69 Spaces Total Credit from Previous Uses: 48 Spaces Total Additional Spaces Required: 21 spaces 40 At the Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting on 2- 18 -86, it was determined that the outdoor dining was not '\be counted separate- ly as the seating in the dining room is not to be used at the same time as the outdoor seating. Credit 'for Parking From Previous Use 10 8 2 10 9 9 0 Additional Spa( Required 0 13 6 3 0 -1 0 Planning Commission "Meeting Minutes 1/11/84 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 Page 2 SD -1355, SD -1356 and SD -1368 (cont.) does not necessarily guarantee the issuance of a building permit unless there is some other agreement with the City, which there is not, at the moment. Commissioner Crowther commented that he thought there is a section of the Government Code which requires that the City not approve any tentative map which is inconsistent with the General Plan. The City Attorney explained that that would relate to the initial approval. He stated that he does not view this continuation as an approval and, in fact, it should be clear on the record that the extension of the expiration dates of the tentative maps does not constitute any new or additional approval by the City. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve Items 1, 2 and 3 listed below. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would vote against this, since he can not believe that it is in the City's best interest to extend these maps, and he also believes it might be in violation of part of the Government Code. The motion was carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 1. SD -1355 Heber Teerlink (Lambert), Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval, 25 Lots, Request for a One -Year Extension 2. SD -1356 Anthony Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval, 23 Lots, Request for One -Year Extension 3. SD -1368 Anthony Cocciardi and Alan Chadwick, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval, 11 Lots, Request for One -Year Extension 6. /V -541 Joseph Brozda (Bella Mia's), Request for Continuance of Variance Approval from required parking for a restaurant use at 14503 Big Basin Way, in a C -C zoning district; continued from December 14, 1983) 7a. V -627 Joseph Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow the creation 7b. A -926 of 15 parking spaces that do not comply with City Parking Space Design Standards and would provide fewer spaces than required by ordinance (at least 20 spaces would be required) and Request for Design Review Approval of parking deck and exterior modification to barn at northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way; continued from December 14, 1983 Since the public hearing had been closed on this matter and there were people present to speak on it, Commissioner Siegfried moved to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. The public hearing was reopened at 7:40 p.m. Staff commented that they had determined that no new windows on the rear elevation and the side elevation facing Third Street would be permitted under the Uniform Building Code, and suggested that a condition be added to that effect under the Design Review. Doug Adams, attorney representing the Brozdas, introduced John Mallen, the attorney representing the tenant. Mr. Adams indicated that they are in agree- ment and are trying to work out a solution through Option #1, i.e., giving up the studio apartment and working out the other five spaces within the restaurant through Mr. Mallen's suggestions. Mr. Mallen described the present dining area at the Bella Mia Restaurant. He proposed an accordian type of dining, with no outdoor dining in the months of November, December, January and February, and that there be no dining at all in the interior dining room whenever the outside dining area is full. The enforcement of this suggestion was discussed. Mr. Mallen gave the history of the restaurant, stating that he felt it was a real credit to the Village. Bruce Nicholson, consultant, submitted a picture showing the development of the back end of the barn and discussion followed on this. Wayne Faree, geotechnical consultant from Terratech, addressed the geological part of the project, indicating that he did not feel there was a problem. Planning Commission Page 3 `Meeting Minutes 1/11/84 3 V -541, V -627 and ,1 -926 (cont.) He discussed the slope and the A p proposed piers. He commented that the project will decrease the slope and will greatly enhance the stability and strength of it. He added that he sees no difficulty in strengthening the structure. Staff discussed the parking ratios for dining and the enforcement of Mr. Malien's proposal for dining. At Commissioner McGoldrick's request, Don Eagleston, representing the Village Merchants Association, discussed their reaction to the variance. He stated that Bella Mia's and outdoor dining has been very well accepted by the Village. He indicated that he understands the need for complying with ordinances and the extremeness of this situation and the unusual circumstances. He commented that both the Brozdas and Bella Mia's appear to be willing to sacrifice and deintensify their use. Mr. Eagleston added that the parking deck has been accepted by everone. He stated that when Parking District #1 went in they failed to put any access to the Village, so the proposal to put in the parking ramp is also alleviating that parking problem and would be the applicant's donation to the City for the exchange of the variance. He indicated that they had no problem with the new size of the parking spaces, and he feels that other people in the Village will be coming in for the smaller parking stall sizes. He added, however, that he feels that, in legal limitations, they are entitled to ask for that also. Commissioner Peterson commented that there would be only a 6" difference on either side and he sees that as no significant issue. Commissioner Hlava indicated that she would be perfectly willing to look at that size as a standard for the whole Village. Commissioner Crowther commented that he probably could not grant the variance if it were not for the stairway. However, he thinks the Commission is not setting a precedent because the applicant is giving the stairway down to Parking District #1 in return for the granting of the variance. Mr. Eagleston commented that granting a variance in an unusual situation of this type does not set a precedent for other people in the Village in other situations. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that, if the accordian dining room area is the wish of the entire Planning Commission, she would like to see some sort of permanent sign to that effect inside the restaurant, which would ensure less policing and people would be aware of the policy. Commissioner Schaefer asked about policing and possible fines. The City Attorney noted that there soon will be a Code Enforcement Officer and the City will be adopting an ordinance for enforcement through citations. He stated that the Commission can certainly condition the variance so that if the policy is violated, in addition to other remedies that may be available to the City, including review and possible revocation of the variance, the .applicant would be subject to a citation with a monetary fine involved. Commissioner Hlava commented that Mr. Eagleston was very persuasive. She stated that she had not thought about the stairway down to Parking Lot #1 as part of a tradeoff situation, and she can see that that might be somewhat beneficial. She added that she still cannot make the findings for the excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance, for what is essentially an intensification of use. She commented that she thinks that it is important to realize that the Brozdas, because of some of the uses on their property predating some of the current ordinances, already have more intense use on their property than would today be allowed with the amount of parking available. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he had an opportunity to listen to public testimony, study carefully the Staff Report, visit the site, and read the minutes of the last meeting. He stated that he agrees with the sentiments expressed by Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried at the last meeting and contained in the minutes of December 14, 1983. He moved to approve V -627, per Exhibits "B" and "B -1 making the findings for the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, with the stipulation that the applicant use the property so that no more than 15 parking spaces are required by ordinance. In additior the applicant shall provide a stairway, in addition to the fire exit stair- way proposed, which will connect the subject property with Parking District #1. The location of the stairway shall be submitted for Staff review and ty j rning Commission tr „eting Minutes 1/11/84 i V -541, V -627 and A -926 (cont.) approval, and if there are any violations determined by Staff, these viola- tions shall be reported to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. At Commissioner Crowther's suggestion, Commissioner Nellis amended his motion to indicate that it be a well lighted stairway, and that both the location and design of the stairway shall be submitted to Staff. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. The City Attorney discussed the procedure for the issuance of citations for violations. He suggested that a condition be added to the variance, stating "The property shall be used so that no combination of uses will require more than 15 parking spaces. Any violation of this condition would be deemed a violation of the Zoning Ordinance of a kind that would enable the Community Services Officer to issue a citation." Commissioners Nellis and Peterson accepted that amendment. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that there is an equity problem here, in terms of other merchants in the Village. She stated that the City has firmly stuck to requirements for existing merchants and existing commercial development, and even minor intensification of their use has resulted In their having to go out and find parking spaces. At Commissioner's Siegfried request, Staff clarified that the same method of counting and coming up to the requirement for 15 spaces would be used anywhere else in the Village in the same situation, and would not be setting a precedent. Commissioner Nellis commented that up until now the applicant has not provided the.required parking places, and when this deck is built they will meet that requirement. The City Attorney clarified to Commissioner Peterson that, in the future if w there is an In Lieu Ordinance, at that time the applicant can come back with a request for parking if they want to do something with the barn and studio, 4;• and it would be within the discretion of the Commission to approve it or not. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she had previously voted no on this matter because she could not make the findings for the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. She explained that she feels that the geologist and Mr. Eagleston have solved her problems with that so she can make the findings, and will be voting for the application. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels very strongly against this project because she does not feel that the parking deck as proposed would be safe in a tremor. She added that people who shop during the day downtown using large wagons have told her they would not go in there to park. She stated that Staff has recommended against it and she would be voting against the applica- tion. The vote 'was taken to approve V -629. The motion was carried 5 -2, with 'Commissioners Schaefer and Hlava dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A -926, per the Staff Report dated December 5, 1983 and Exhibits "C" and "D adding a condition that there be no new wall openings on the rear elevation and the elevation facing Third Street. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 5 -2, with Commissioners Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she still feels very strongly in favor of the restaurant por- tion of Bella Mia's continuing; it was the rest of the way that the problem was solved that she does not agree with. There was a consensus that, instead of having a sign in the restaurant regarding the seating, the restaurant can come back to Staff with a proposal as to how they are going to notify the public. It was noted that V -541 has been replaced by the new variance application V -629. 8. A -910 S. Tyler and G. Kocher (Duke of Wellington), Request for Design Review Approval to enclose an existing dining patio at 14572 Big Basin Way; continued from December 14, 1983 It was directed that this be continued to January 25, 1984, at the request of the applicants. No one appeared to address the Commission. *She added that she also has a concern about the accuracy of the scale of the drawings for the landscaping that is going to cover the decking in the back and the general safety of the deck. 4 Page 4 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 14, 1983 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:35 p.m. and Commissior Peterson arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Nellis Minutes: Commissipner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of November 22, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Mr. Martin, 14403 Donna Lane, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct a pool and decking on a slope greater than 10°% 2. SDR -1495 Sorenson and Garner, Oak Street, 1 Lot, Request for.One -Year Extension 3. SDR -1555 George and Alexis Geranios, 18690 Afton Ave., Over 50; expan- sion, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar list above. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried una mously 4 -0. 4a. SDR -1545 Warren Sturla, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 4b. V -615 and Design Review Approval for four (4) office condominiums 4c. A -900 and Variance Approval for compact parking and a reduced side setback at the southwest corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek Drive in a P -A zoning district; continued from October 26, 1983 It was directed that this be continued to February 22, 1984, at the applicant' request. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. 5a. A -910 Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Tyler, Mr. and Mrs. George Kocher (Duke of 5b. V -619 Wellington), Request for Design Review Approval to enclose an existing dining patio and Variance Approval to allow additional floor area without additional parking provided at 14572 Big Basin Way; continued from November 9, 1983 It was directed that this be continued to January 11, 1984, at the applicant's request. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. Joseph Brozda (Maddalena's), Request for Continuance of Vari- ance Approval from required parking for a restaurant use at 14503 Big Basin Way, in a C -C zoning district; continued from November 9,, 1983 7a. V -627 Joseph Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow the crea- 7b. A -926 tion of 15 parking spaces that do not comply with City Parking 7c. EP -19 Space Design Standards and would provide fewer spaces than required by ordinance, Request for Design Review Approval of parking deck and exterior modification to barn, at northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way, and Request for Encro ment Permit to construct a stairway which would encroach abort 6 feet into the Third Street right -of -way These items were discussed simultaneously later in the agenda, after the appli cant had arrived. Staff gave the history of application V -541 and explained ti new application. They recommended denial of V -541, the new Variance V -627 as requested by the applicant, and the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. (dia Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 2 Page 2 V -541, V -627, A -926 and EP -19 (cont.) i i They noted that they can make the findings to allow the compact parking stall: and decreased stall length for some of the narking stalls. Staff described the new parking plan and the slope of the site. Discussion followed on the conditions from the Fire District. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Commit- tee report. She noted that the slope is very steep. The required parking spaces were discussed. Staff also described the locatior of the emergency access. The City Attorney distributed a proposed draft of ar ordinance regarding in lieu parking, for the Commission's consideration at a future study session. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Doug Adams, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would be willing to comply, with Staff Option No. 1, to eliminate intensification of uses on the site, i.e., pull out the studio apartment and eliminate outdoor dining. He noted that this would give them the required 15 parking spaces. He commented that the owner of Maddalena's, Ms. Rouse, is not in favor of this proposal. He noted that she was present; however, she had not been aware of the public hearing at this time and would like her attorney to address the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Adams discussed the sizes of the parking spaces and commented that he will also discuss the Fire District's conditions with them. It was clarified that the Brozdas have always been the applicant on this appli cation and they are the property owners. The City Attorney commented that if outdoor dining rights is part of the tenants lease and the Commission approves this with the understanding that the outdoor dining is eliminated, that is strictly a problem with the owner and the tenant. He added that the application is on behalf the property owner. He commented that the tenant may wish more time to respond. He stated that he feels that, in view of the situation, the City would want to give the tenant every opportunity to address this issue, even if it requires continuing the matter for the tenant's at le to be here. Mr. Adams suggested that the Commission grant the variance r :d ing the parking and the slope, and continue the other matter, because it c uld then be handled by discussion between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the in lieu parking situation. Discussion followed on the condition regarding in lieu fees. It was deter- mined that it should state that no intensification shall be permitted unless a further application is made, either for a variance or payment of the in lies: fees. Commissioner Peterson stated that he had a problem with limiting the outdoor seating and he would be in favor of limiting it to the number of seats It was noted that there would be difficulty with enforcement if this were done. Bunny Rouse, owner of Maddalena's, noted that she was not aware that there was a new variance and stated that her attorney was not present. She stated that if the outdoor dining is deleted she might as well close the restaurant. She indicated that she would be more than happy to give up indoor dining and work with the Brozdas and the City. Discussion followed on a condition regarding the number of seats. The parking ratios for indoor and outdoor dining were discussed. It was noted that a letter from Mai Industries had been received, in opposi- tion to the variance. Discussion followed on whether to close the public hearing or continue it. It was the consensus to close the public hearing and take a vote on the deck, and reopen the public hearing later if n ecessary. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff clarified that Exhibit "B -1" is for 4 compact stalls and 11 9 ft. x 18 ft. stalls. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the stairway should be one of the conditions of the variance, since it is one of the mitigating circumstances. He added that the only way he could make the findings with regard to the variance on the parking stalls is to have the stairway as part of that, since that will give access to Parking District a1 and will impr the parking situation. It was determined that there could be a condition the variance that there he a stairway at this point, and it could later be specified where and what that will be at the Design Review stage. Commissioner Siegfried asked Staff if the 9 ft. x 18 ft. parking space has a c (in) 3 Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 V -541, V -627, A -926 and EP -19 (cont.) been considered elsewhere in the Village in terms of the ability to create more parking space, and what kind of precedent would be set for the future. Staff commented that there had been no study of a reduction in general regard- ing parking spaces. Commissioner Hlava stated that she cannot make the findings to make an excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance. She commented that if there were no other__ way for the applicant to use their land she might possibly be able to make some kind of exception. However, this is an intensive commercial site, which is already short of parking spaces. She added that they will be intensifying the site by adding an antique shop in the one building and further uses in another one. Commissioner Hlava stated that she cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance or the findings for the variance and would be voting against this. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she can make the variance findings but cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V -627, per Exhibits "B" and "B -1 on the condition, which the applicant has agreed to, that the outdoor dining be eliminated in the existing restaurant and that the stuio apartment option he eliminated. Commissioner Crowther pointed out that there had been a consensus to not specify how the applicant gets the 15 spaces. Commissioner Siegfried amended the motion to state that the approval is on the basis that the uses of the property be such that in fact the requirement for parking be 15 spaces, rather than 22 as originally proposed, and making the findings for the excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance. He explained that this is different than other situations inthesense that a house is not being built on a slope, and the deck can be supported away from the steepness of the slope. He added that, while there is some intensification of use, the City is well short of parking on that site right now and he feels that getting to 15 spaces and putting in the stairway, which will make better use of the space below, is going to help the parking situation. He clarified that the requirement for a stairway is part of the motion for approval of the variance, and the location will be specified at Design Review. Commissioner Crowther stated that it should be added that the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance is conditioned on the applicant showing that there are no geological problems with that site. Com- missioner Siegfried accepted that amendment to the motion. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. Commissioner Peterson suggested a condition allowing Maddalena's to work with Staff to allow some kind of outdoor seating during the warmer months. Com- missioner Siegfried commented that his motion states that they can only have uses which come up to a total requirement of 15 parking spaces. He added that the applicant can come back to the Commission with a proposal for the use of the restaurant and the Commission can determine at that time if they meet the condition. Commissioner Hlava stated that she feels there is an equity issue here in terms of the other merchants in the Village. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels the 9 x 18 ft. is in fact a usable number for parking spaces and he feels that the Commission should maybe consider moving in that direc- tion generally. The vote was taken on the motion, which resulted in a split 3 -3 vote, with Commissioner McGoldrick, Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she does not see the deck as a practical solution and she cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. The City Attorney stated that if a motion fails by an evenly split vote under the ordinance it automaticaly comes back to the Commission unless within 10 days the applicant files an appeal to the City Council. If it comes back a second time and again fails for any reason, including an evenly split vote, it is deemed a denial and it may then he appealed to the City Council. It was to be determined if there will be a full Commission at the next meeting, since a new Commissioner will be replacing Commissioner Nellis in January. Staff explained the proposal for the encroachment permit EP -19. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve EP -19, per the Staff Report dated December 5, 1983 a-� Exhibit "B Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carriec unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried commented that one of the main reasons he was willing to make the motion for approval was that he is willing to consider moving generall to 9 ft. x 18 ft. parking spaces throughout the City. He added that if he was Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 Page 4 V -541, V -627, A -926 and EP -19 (cont.) not willing to consider that he would not have been in favor of the variancz! It was directed that V -627 will be continued to January 11, 1984 unless appealed to the City Council by the applicant. V -541 and A -926 were also continued to January 11, 1984. 8. V -628 Mr. and Mrs. Nederveld, Request for Variance Approval for a 50 ft. rear yard setback where 60 ft. is required at 19015 Springbrook Lane in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district This item was heard later in the evening because the applicant was late in arriving. Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She stated that a very small section of the balcony encroaches into the setback and there are no privacy impacts. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commission Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V -628, per the Staff Report dated December 1, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 9a.A -923 Victor Tinsley, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 9b.SDR -1556 and Design Review to construct a one -story single family resi- dence on the northeast side of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (150 ft. northwest Belle Court), in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district Staff described the project. They noted a correction to the Staff Report, stating that Condition 2 Design Review should read: "Fencing is pro- hibited within the road dedication." Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She noted that the applicant was con- sidering redesigning the driveway, which would result in fewer trees being removed and provide better visual access onto the highway. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant had indicated that he was going to movt— the house forward so he would have a 70 ft. setback in the rear. The public hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. The conditions of the Staff Report were explained to Mr. and Mrs. Tinsley. It was suggested that the applicants contact the San Jose Water Company concer; ing further discussions regarding the requirement for a fire hydrant. Mr. Tinsley clarified that he is going to make the driveway straight out and also is moving the house forward. Sid Kaufman, 19677 Saratoga Los Gatos Road asked about the requirements for completion of the project. The City Attorney commented that the construction and completion is the responsibility of the owner. He commented that the City does not impose a date by which it must be completed; however, there is a date by which work must be commenced after a building permit is obtained. Staff clarified that the Uniform Building Code does not have any closure on it as long as there is activity on the permit on the structure. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR -1556, per the Staff Report dated December 7, 1983, as amended, and Exhibits "B "C" and "D Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A -923, per the amended Staff Report dated December 7, 1983 and Exhibits "B "C" and "D Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. 10.A -924 Mr. and Mrs. Barr, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence on the southeast corner of Allendale Avenue and Camino Barco, in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Elaine Wilson, 13945 Allendale,.. addressed the Commission, and it was explained that the item is being continued at the request of the applicant. Ms. Wilson indicated that they would appear at the next meeting. It was directed that this be continued to January 11, 198 EIA -4 Saratoga PROJECT DESCRIPTION NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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, 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. The proposal is to construct a new parking deck on a slope greater than 40 The parking deck and the existing parking lot will provide 15 parking spaces where it has been estimated that 66 spaces are required. The parking spaces proposed are substandard in width and no off street loading or handicap parking spaces are being provided. Joseph and Helen Brozda 1.4900 Montalvo Road Saratoga, CA. 95070 It has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment in that the impacts of the project may be mitigated by following the recommendations of the City Geologist, complying with the Uniform Building Code and complying with the conditions placed on the project through the Variance and Design Review processes. Executed at Saratoga, California this 17th day of January 1986. ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER File No. V -720, A -1165 GBWE ff REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APN: 503 -24 -28 and 503 -24 -41 APPLICANT: Douglas Adams Revised: 2/20/86 Revised: 2/14/86 Revised: 1/31/86 Revised: 1/8/86 DATE:' 1/2/86 COMMISSION MEETING: 2 /26/86 OWNER: Joseph Helen Bro:da APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: V 720, A 1165 Northwest Corner of Bio Basin-Way and Third Street ACTION REOUESTED: Variance and Desion Review Approvals to permit construction of a new parking deck and to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') park.ino spaces where approximately 69 9.5' x 18') are required for the restaurant and retail uses on site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap parking space where a minimum of one space each is reouired. Design Review Approval is also requested for exterior changes. OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED: V 541 approved 5/13/81, subsequently replaced by V -627 for the parking deck that was approved on 1/11/84. Desion Review and Tentative Building Site Approvals were also granted for the parking. deck. All previous' approvals have expired except the Tentative Building Site Approval which expires on 9/27/8E unless an extension is granted or a final rap is approved. An Encroachment Permit (EP 19) was granted for the proposed steps adjacent to the printers in Toll Gate Barn to encroach in the Third Street right of -way. The encroachment permit has not expired but may be revoked if the Commission so desires. 0 FPPROVALS REOLIIRED: Design Review is required for any eterior remodelling. Building Permits are required. Business Licenses are required. EN)IRQNIIFNT� A5 E SMENT: Negative Declaration completed 1/17/8E. 7QNING: C C GENERAL. PLAN DESICNATIOj Retail Commercial FXTSTINf 'AND _IISE ON SITE 5ERvFn BY PPFTN(: Restaur with outdoor dining, twn clothing stores, Qallery,, hair salon, printers and 3500 sq. ft. of vacant commercial space. Report to Planning Commission V -720, A -1165, Bro =da, Big Basin Way PARCEL SIZE: 14,600 sq. ft. r_ Cut: 14 cu. yds. Clothing Stores 1975 sq. Restaurant (2 Floors) 1990 sq. Office (2nd Floor 15301)• 1963 sq. Hair Salon (1st Floor 0 1530.1) 1963 sq. Printers (Lower Floor of Barn) 1634 sq. Possible Retail Space in Toll Gate Barn 1677 sq. ft. TOTAL •11,202 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 2/20/86 Page 2 SUiRRniiNnIN'3 LAND USES: Retail and office uses are across from the site, Saratoga Inn is under construction behind the site; to the right are retail and residential uses and to the left, more retail uses. Depth: 1 Ft. No fill is proposed. NATURAL FEATURES VEGETATION: The lot is totally developed. APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE nF EXISTING BUILDING: Parking Required 10 spaces 21 spaces 8 spaces 13 spaces 9 spaces 16 spaces TOTAL 69 spaces ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project_ does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that there is only 15 parking spaces proposed where approximately 69 spaces are required, as indicated in the body of the report, and the parking spaces provided are substandard in width. The spaces proposed are _9 ft. wide where a minimum of 9.5 ft. is required. Also, no loading space or handicap space is being provided. PROJECT BACKGROUND Two variance applications for the insufficient parking on this site have been previously made by the property owners. The first variance request, V -514, was required by the City when the former newspaper office use changed over to a retail and restaurant use known as Maddalena's Upstairs Downstairs. This intensified the use of the site, thereby necessitating a variance application for parking. The Commission heard public testimony over a 4 month period in early 1981 and granted the variance for one year. This was to allow some time for the possible formation of Parking District No. 3 or to investigate ether solutions to the parking problem. Also, 90- day reviews by the Commission were required as part of the variance approval to insure that the property owners were continuing in their efforts to resolve the inadequate amount of parking on site. Although many avenues were explored by the property owners, the Commission and other groups, an on -going solution was not found until the property owners made a proposal for a parking deck in late 1983. With the new parking deck, a total of 15 spaces could be provided. However, at this same time the property owners were proposing to further intensify use of the site by adding a studio apartment on the second story of the barn. This area was formerly used as storage and was in addition to the other Report to Planning Commission V -720, A -1165, Brozda, Big Basin 1.Jay uses including•outdoor dining for the restaurant: The restaurant, outdoor dining and apartment use alone would have required a minimum of 22 additional spaces. It should be noted that the parking spaces for the proposed deck were substandard in size. Therefore, aside from the Tentative Building Site and Design Review_ Approvals required for the deck, a new variance (tJ -627) was also necessary. The required approvals were granted for the parking deck in January 1984. Conditions of approval included that a stairway to Parking District #1 be included and the property should be used so that no combination of new uses would require more than 15 spaces. No construction has. commenced on the deck since that time and the Variance and Design Review Approvals have subsequently expired. The Tentative Building Site Approval will expire on 9 -27 -86 unless Final Map Approval is received or an extension is granted. The latest variance request was initiated after a Business License was applied for by the new owner of Bella Mia Restaurant. The Business License could not be granted as adequate parLing.is not being provided and previous variance approvals had expired. The Planning Commission reviewed this variance proposal at its meeting on 1/8/86 and voted to deny the request unless the property owners reapplied for the parking deck by January 17, 1986. V -720 2/20/86 Page 3 Since the required applications -were submitted by the deadline, the variance request initiated by William Carlson has been modified to include the parking deck proposal. The revised plans for the deck are very similar to those submitted in 1984. There are 15 parking spaces provided, 11 spaces are •9' x 18' in size and 4 spaces are 9' x•16'. Indicated on the plans is a stairway that leads down to Parking District #1. In the variance request for the parking deck initiated in 1984, the parking for the intensified use of the site was examined separately. Using the assumption that_the existing minimal parking provided for the retail uses could be "Grandfathered -in then the additional spaces required for the change in use of the site was then estimated at 15 spaces. By constructing a parking deck, the property owners were only able to create 8 additional .spaces. The actual amount of parking required for all the uses on site was examined in the first variance request,•!» -514. The Staff Report for V -514 indicated that 42 parking spaces would have been required for the uses then on site. With the existing uses, Staff would now estimate the parking needs as 69 spaces. This figure includes parking for employees where applicable, includes the advertised rentable area in Toll Gate Barn, and assumes 20% storage space for the retail uses. For the restaurant alone, it is estimated that 21 parking spaces would be required. This figure is based on the two -story floor plan submitted by the applicant. The second floor is used as a waiting room, storage area and office. Therefore, all but the storage area on this floor would be included in the square footage computations for parking. The Commission' at the Study Session on 2- 18 -86, Report to Planning Commission 2/20/86 V-720, A -116S, Bro da, Big Basin Way P ala 4 agreed that the 7 spaces required for outdoor dininn would not be included in the parking required on site, as the indoor dininn at the restaurant is not to be used simultaneously .with outdoor dining. However, it i5 obvious that the existing parking is severely inadequate for the amount of parking required for this site. Staff has an strong concern over the continued intensified use of the site. The previous tea room /retail use that was the topic of the first 'Variance e request, later a;•;pandPd to a full restaurant use with outdoor dining, Staff also feels that after construction ..of the Hotel at the end of Third Street, the Tollgate Barn will become a more attractive commercial location. The future request for more businesses on this site is inevitable. Y�. There are still other options open to the Commission in considering the variance request for the number of parking spaces provided. In addition to providing the parking deck, the Commission could still require payment of in -.lieu fees or the urchaa of the-development p e rights to other parking spaces located elsewhere in the City. Another option is to lim the iies on site So that leas parking spaces would be required, i.e., eliminating or limiting the hours of the restaurant to when other !uses outdoor dininn hours are closed. For each of the previous variance requests for the amount of parking provided, Staff has been unable to make the findings to recommend approval Although the parking deck n oG es e additional s p n g proposal a �o provide spaces, the 15 parking spaces rn ose significantly than the ma R: g -pa s p, ,.p d are si ni f rant 1 v less a P _i .�t Cq 5r�araG needed, To require that the prop owner bear more of the financial burden to provide parking in the Village would seem appropriate. It would also be mo re f to those downtown merchants and property owners which have been made to provide parking under a more strict standard, Also not provided is the State m handicap parking space. There is a provision in the State regulations where existing facilities may be exempt from this nt However, since parkin spaces are being created by the construction of a new parking deck, Staff does not feel that th e may apply in this case. A cha in the parking layout could orovlda a handicap space and all parking spaces could then meet the minimum required widths, By eliminating parking space #5 on the proposed sit plan, space for a walkway to the entrance n, f o l 1 (-late r T Barn could be maintained while changing space its into a handicap space and increasing the widths of spaces #4 through 0, y through R 1 Tzi OJdd Jegioue JO3 Uoit5 iiuwO0 dy} v} l oeeq eiOo G} *A-eq pino i S..7 1j190 A}Jvdoud dy} ley} OS owT4 pd }TWIT JOJ Tle}UeJG e9 p/nu:. gnue ueA dy} ',tSTiOTAdJd duOp Sd pduTe }qv vq Aew sgoed5 JO Jvggwnu did} v}1=5T}5eAllT O} SJdumo A}Jeduud dy} Jv} pdySTTgg}sd gqpTfiGyS }ttTT erWi} d ''1:,dp GuT`1Ji=d dy} Jul }Sdnbou d;iut✓TJeA ay} Jof •T"tAGJdde Jo uoT }TpUG:; e dq prnGO SYyl 5 g/ TT11 dy} uT 5uoT1Go.of Joy }v uT 5uTAued G} S }yOTJ c5i3L Jfld sJauilo i }Jddoud dy} dut=y O} }U`vjcJTfibdj e gq pTnoo dJdyl y Jtii O VIGU yJ g ZiSS 3Ui5flq 5L gun }ri *iAI. UT 50;1,'j gsggl dJTnbdJ FY/flop UGTs5TWW03 dial }uTCd sTy} }r pdysTTge }5e udaq 5ey 5'UTJTiibdJ JG t3' 3T dA vU Jdt r1G sdd� asdy} t y" i-'i 'jeSGaGad Andp 5U t `Jed ay} G} UGT1Tpp2 UT sde3 5uT°= {J>=d n ;Tl -uT ;Jinb u ptflu3 uoTssTWWGj du '2 'pd}euTWTT* dq Aew d }TS uv sgsn Jdy }C) Jv "p Aoudde' g q }Gu pT11ur a5n 5uTUTp JOOpJfib pug }UgJT g;gtJ UG 5a5fi jG %TTSUi }UT ay} UT UOT }OnpGJ e eJT11ti J pTflai+i e0U>yTJLA dy} to TeTUtic 'z 'pi }u ;SeJd 5O }satibsu e:iU1=TJl A oy} *Aoudde Aew Uvt55tJWOTJ 5uTuu*T dyl 'I 'S }tWJ�d GUipjTfiq 40 dOUefi55t G} J utJd o p ay} maTAvJ uTt✓fie 15T5OTv`v1 A4T0 dy} ley} pu;Wftoosu plrOT1i 44e +s J0. d;)Ue Je/ dy} }UeJS' G} SUTTTTm ST UGTSSiWWOJ dy} dr _•SUCT }Tpuoi UTg}Jd0 y }TM TgAoudde O p• -p i UdWoogu pug V8Ei UT Te'SvdvJd dy pdt'liatAsu 7 f }T3 aqj 'pd}ugu0 "T5livTAv -d T'ei'OJddv d}TS GUTpT1na diet }e}Ud owl 4O }Jt d f: e4ir3iyq pug v} peJ- S>=t1 %l 5pad:ixd yew+ vClv'T_s e u0 uoT}onj}sUG, moll* o} d uv TSTATpgns cy} G+ uit }d "e.:ix.v• uv %t7f/ 5e5eJe leg; *dors e U0 vigp 5UT`.jJed dy lo uol-.0nulguoo dy} 5T pdSsaJpp -S dq O} 5p au log; Wd }t 15L'T dyl diySpJey TenTgAgd oTq'uvSeeiun ue G1 ptr uoTleft }t5 sty} UT gpeds 5uTpeoi 1= JOJ }uiw j dy+ Jo +uduiv:iJujiie }:51J }5 ay} 511vTA 5T +1 •eTyi55vd dq pii1bm }cu} uuT4..ieu Jo }iinvWc dy} AT }ue;!'iITUCiT5 *onlpgJ pifioM g2Ts ul pd} TWIT f\JdA ST +r4+ lot Sul lueed uT d:ii:ds JO *5.JeT gTql auTpTAoud 'd' i 5 Uv Sc5T1 lugunglggu pug TT V10.) J6 dug100 cJriiii5 d JGj pvptAOJd gq goods Suipeol }ddJ }5 -Jlo i s 17 h ,Gl uo Jo iAnwTulw e }ey} S diTf1Goj v✓ueutpJO dyj 'd }ts Uv pdpTAGJd' sa:,rds GuTpeOT GU dJ'e aJay} }>,y} ino }uTVd pil`i01.. 34e+s 'uvTlgoTTddg sno ACJd Aug UT pd55dJppc }Ou ybnoy +TV "GlTs UG 5Ui 1Jed TF +G} dy} Jo %SL f Td+eWTxoudde vq Pln°r:, popT/ Jd sgoed5 T.:Jedwoo 3G lunowe Oy} pug e }U'vt JTflbeJ y }dap pue y}pTm TTe }s 5uT1Jed WnWTUTW dy +COU1 NI TIVT'i sgoeds asdy} TIv •dJeds deoTpue4 1 pile SOJeds lnedwoo L 'Sd.:ipdg GuT :1Jed p-i pug +S 01 aq p'i(nor lnoAeeT 5uT lu'd dy} G} }UdW}SflipetiJ dy} }u }lfiSVJ v1.;1 'y}pTm •14 5' pdjtnv;J dy} }odW G} pdu ptrn dq pino.i pue p1 s GTf 5T 1t' }5 5uT 4Jed S ;;z d5 loedwoo pediJ }5- glgnop JO4 y}pTM WrIWTUTW dy} s T y;,Tyi•l y:ie-G '14 5'L G} G l$ puC l t G v:i1=[i5 fP 5y p m dy} GuTEu q S d 5 C 8 'J d VJ UTS!a 5Ta 'rpZ0J8 `9911 -d "on-( U0TS5TWW00 5UTUUeTd G} 1_10 ;8 Siv011d0 TIM cD [al 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles Report to Planning Commission V-720, A 1165, Brozda, Big Basin Way FINDINGS: .1, Practical Diffjuity or Unnecessary Physical Hardship There are no pfiysi.cal'constra.ints associated with the property which would make it unique from other properties in the same zoning district, The major problem with the site is that there are to many uses of ton great an intensity on site and no area to provide adequate parking, In the manner previously described in this report, the parking layout could be changed 50 that the required dimensions of the parking stalls could be provided at the,loss of one of the proposed spaces, It would create an unreasonable physical hardship to provide an off- street loading space. The required dimension of this space (12' x 45') would significantly reduce the amount of .parking that would be possible on site. 2, Exceptional_ Circumstances As previously stated there are no physical constraints associated with the site which would not generally apply to other properties in the area, There is public parking available on ne=arby streets which relieve some impact, but this parking is meant for other uses as well as those on site. There are no exceptional circumstances that would prohibit the applicant from revising the parking layout so that the width reouiremen.ts for the parking stalls are met, Since the parking area is. limited .in site oral requiring a loading space parking unreasonably reduce the number of parking spaces on site, there ere exceptional circumstances to grant a variance for the loading space, 3, Common Priv l e It is not a- common privilege to be allowed to increase the use of the •site without the provision for additional parking. Also, to have substandard size r :parking stalls would not be a common privilege since the parking.. layout could be modified to create parking stalls that conform t the requirements, Requiring the loading space would result in a significant loss of parking spaces which would be a tom J' C!!!2 n privilege, 4 Special P ;/20/86 Pane 6 Approval of the Variance Application would be a grant of special privilege since there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the site that would warrant granting a Variance for inadequate parking d the intensified use of the sate, Although other use in the "c zoning district may not have sufficient parking this is not reason enough to allow this inadequate parking situation. Addit.ipnally e l l ow ng the p parking to be substandard in width would be e Special privilege not afforded other property owners in the area, Since there are exceptional circumstances for the loading space', granting this variance would not be considered .a special privilege, uguw %ling? 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Laden Fanelli Joyce Hlava David Moyles Report to Planning Commission U -720, A -1165, Bro.zda, Big Basin Way 5, Public Health, Safety and Welfare: Granting the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, sa o w elfa re except that allowing the uses to intensify on a Site that does not have adequate parking impacts the parking for surrounding_ businesses, This may be materially injurious to the properties and improvments in the area, 6, Tr Volume The present or anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of th site or other uses in the area require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement e at a t b permitting oaf regulations. in that pe, _cone zn inadequate parking situation to continue the interests of other commercial uses would not be protected., Surrounding businesses would be required to provide.adequate parktnn before creating m parking demands. The applicant i.5 requesting that he should be granted and exception to this regulation, Granting the variance for the loading space would not impact traffic volumes, 7.. Parking or Loading o f ki on Puhl i Straet5: It does not appear that the u se of the site had created a problem in terms of parking or loading v ehi c l es on public streets 50 that the free flow of traffic is interfered with, 8, Cr of a Safety Hazard: RErOMMENDATInN: afit) 2/20/96 Page 7 The lack of an off street loading space has not created a safety hazard, However, granting the variance to allow the uses on site to intensify without providing additional parking would be inconsistent with zoning ordinance objectives to insure that private lands are ultimatelyed for purposes which are Most appropriate and C beneficial to the City as whole. 1 P objective t h Also, t.h ob .ct� A of he ordinance to provide for adequate off parking is not being met, Staff recommends approval of the variance for the off street loading space, denial of the variance to rovide_ 15 parking s pa a where approximately p ,.._c s t? spaces are required, having been unable to at Findings #1,2,3,4,5,5 and 8 and denial of the request to allow substandard width parking spaces having been unable to make Findings 41, ,3, and 4. If the Commission can make the f. variance request p r 5 of Report dated 0 /B5, Staff h a findings for the vac ce P Staff included the following conditions: 1. One handicap parking space shall be required or the determination must k7? made by the Commission that requiring this space for an existing facility would create an unreasonable hardship, Report to Planning Commission U -720, A -1165, Brozda, Big Basin Way 2/20/86 Page 8 2. Design Review is required for the parking deck and all conditions of that approval shall be met. 3. Application for building permits for the parking deck shall be submitted no later than 3 months from the date of this approval. 4. The City Geologist shall re- review and approve the project prior to issuance of the building permits and all recommendations of the City Geologist shall be met. All conditions of the City Geologist report dated 6/14/84 shall be met. 5. A revised site plan that shows a modified parking layout as discussed in this report shall be submitted for staff review and approval within 30 days of the date of this approval, unless a variance is granted by Commission. 6. The property owner shall investigate the possibility of purchasing development rights to any parking spaces available in Parking District No. 1, and shall provide a written report to the Commission within 3 months of the date of this approval. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits: 8. The applicants shall provide a well- lighted stairway which would connect the subject property with Parking District No. 1. This stairway .shall be landscaped to provide an attractive accessway. Landscaping,- lighting and stairway plans shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the deck. A -1165 a) A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval showing how the proposed parking deck shall be screened. b) The property owner shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City of Saratoga to insure that the land- scaping installed is properly maintained. In reviewing design review applications for structures other than single family dwellings, the Commission• is to be guided by certain criteria outlined in the Ordinance. The applicable criteria include: 1. Landscaping shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. 2. Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be conreflective. Report to Planning Commission 2/20/86 V -720, A -1165, Brozda, Big Basin Way Page 9 3. Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or otehr materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. 4. The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area. Prior to approval of this 4esign Review application, the Planning Commission must grant the variance, V -720, for the parking deck. The construction of the deck will add over 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage and will require the removal of several trees under 12" in diameter and a large oak stump. A small hedge or cluster of vegetation at the southwestern edge of the existing paved area would also have to be removed. The deck would be visible only from the eastern parking lot of Parking District No. 1. A portion of the slope on the northern side of the deck could be planted in trees to provide_ some screening, but the westernmost edge of the deck leaves no areas for landscaping. If the parking deck is approved by the Commission, sufficient areas on the deck should be set aside for planters containing some sort of hanging vegetation. The parking deck will have galvanized steel pipe handrails and chainlink; fencing on the underside of the deck to prevent access underneath. No color for the handrail is indicated -on the plans, but the chainlink fence is to be screened with ivy. Also noted on the plans is a new trash enclosure. The enclosure is to be a wood siding that will match the existing building. Elevations of the proposed stairs down to Parking District No. 1 are not shown on the plans. However, review of, this stairway will be required as a condition oft he variance approval. Exterior changes to Toll Gate Barn are being proposed. These modifications include the addition of the fire exit stairs to the western elevation, removal of- windows and the addition of doors for the fire exit stairs, and new stairs, door and window on the east elevation. The plans note that the new windows shown on the north elevation will not be installed. The previous Design Review Approval (A -926) was conditioned on the removal' of these proposed windows. The barn is considered a historically significant structure, therefore, Staff would request that the Heritage Preservation Commission review the proposed plans prior to the Design Review Approval. As of this date, there has been a scheduling problem for this review. The item was scheduled for the February 19, 1986 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting, but this meeting has been recently cancelled. There has been an effort to schedule another meeting on February 26, 1986, in the afternoon so that the plans can be reviewed prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. As of the writing of this report, this later meeting has not been definitely scheduled. 2. The trash enclosure shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permits for the parking deck. Report to Planning Commission V -720, A 1165, Brozda, Big Basin Way It has been brought to Staff's attention that the lattice work to the rear of Bella Mia's restaurant has been done without prior building permits. After researching the permit files, no building permit for this addition Was discovered. The property owners will be asked to provide proof of a building permit or will be required to obtain the necessary permit to legalize the addition. It is the City's policy to require double fees when legalizing illegally erected structures /additions. RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission approves the variance request under 0- 720, then Staff would recommend approval of the Design Review application per Exhibits "C and D" subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping plans, drawn up by a licensed landscape architect, illustrating how the proposed parking deck will be screened (including headrails) shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of building .permits. Landscaping plans for the stairway connecting the site with Parking District No. 1 shall also be submitted if the stairway is a- condition of variance approval under V- 720. 3. Paint colors for the proposed parking deck shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 4. Detailed construction plans for any stairway connecting the site with Parking District No. 1 shall be submitted to Planning Staff for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. 5. Any revision to the proposed elevations and site plan shall be subject to staff review and approval. Major modifications will be referred to the Planning Commission. 6. Any revisions to the exterior of Toll Gate Barn shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 7. The property owners shall be required to provide proof that a building permit was obtained for the lattice work to the rear of Bella Mia Restaurant. If this permit has not been obtained, the property owners shall be required to obtain permits to legalize the addition and double fees shall be required. This information shall be provided within 10 days of the Design Review Approval. APPROVED: DL /dsc P.C. Agenda: 2/26/86 i/ 3ana Lewis 2/20/86 Page 10 a VARIANCE FINDINGS FILE NO. 1 Also refer to: V 627 (Supplement to Variance Application) Variance applications are requests to construct structures or create lots, parking spacings, etc., that do not conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which the site is located. Five (5) findings must be made to obtain approval. (Additional findings are required for variances pertaining to signs and parking). The findings point ..to the special circumstances that would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulties inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The special circumstances pertain to the physical characteristics of the site, including site size, dimensions, shape and topography. The circumstances are to be site specific and not pertain to all properties within the zoning district. Please describe in clear, concise language how your project would meet the required findings below: 1. A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance. The physical problem with the site (which affects some of the parking stalls) i the 1 rX-ai i n n of t eyi st i ng hui 1 d i rlgc T1 prki a maximum of 18' in length to provide a minimal 24' aisle way to allow adequate_a lE considering these constraints and what other cities allaa. u.- e.• 0 2. Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district; (The exceptional circumstances are no to be a result from actions of the owner.) 0.0 1 ictrirt #1 which will enhance the usAfulness of Parking District 41. 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. Because of the location of the existing buildings, denial of a partial variaiac.° fnr the Pricing stall rlimPncinns woiilrl r3Pny applicant the common privilege of maximizing parking on site. 4. Granting the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning, district. Approval of this variance for the dimensions of some of the parking stalls would not be a grant of special privilege since there are exceptional circumstances associated with the site which warrant such a variance. 5. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity. There will be no adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare or on adjacent properties due to parking stall dimension variances. The three findings related directly to parking are: 6. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by by the use of the site or the uses of sites in the vicinity reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. The variance for parking stall dimensions has no bearing on future traffic volume and therefore would have no adverse impact. 7. The granting of the variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. It does not appear that the use has created a problem in terms of interfering with the free flow of traffic thus far. 8. The granting of the variance will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. As indicated before, it does not appear that the use creates a safety hazard as it relates to the requested variance. I hereby certify that all the information contained in the supplement is, to my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. HELEN L. BROZDA Name g 2T.. 5-- Signature DV-720 1/(05 1i2ozDA, t ytiw..0 i Cr i Planning Commission Minutes 1/8/86 0 Page 6 9. A -1157 Gerald Butler, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two story, single family residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard on Lot 5 of Tract 6732 on Montalvo Heights Court (to be con tinued to January 22, 1986) It directed that this matter be continued to January 22, 1986. 10. V -718 Jeff and Kim Hutchins, Request for Variance Approval to maintain a 20' rear yard setback where 25' is required at 20793 Pamela Way (withdrawn) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 11. V -720 Joseph and Poppy Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow 7 parking spaces which are sub standard in size on a site which has a restaurant and retail -type uses where approximately 42 parking spaces are required at 14503 Big Basin Way Staff explained the past parking deficiencies of this property and the history of the applications. They reported that the variance for parking has expired and the Tentative Building Site Approval is about to expire unless there is a request for continuance. They discussed the intensification of the use on the site and"the options available. Staff indicated that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial of the application. The City Attorney commented that the City Council expressed a very strong sentiment at their meeting last night that if the variance is granted, it should be on some condition revolving payment of in lieu fees, an obligation to join the parking district or something equivalent. Staff stated that they were at the meeting also and feel that it was not necessarily the Council's intent to have the applicant join the district because the district may not be able to reach this property, but in some way to provide parking somewhere in the vicinity to accommodate this property, i.e. acquiring,of development rights or the payment of in lieu fees. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Bill Carlson, current owner of Bella Mia Restaurant, stated that he discovered after he bought the restaurant that the variance for parking was lapsing and it had to be renewed in order to get a business license. He commented that he feels that he is the pawn in a chess game with the parking situation. He noted that there are three other businesses on that property that are doing business without any problem. He stated that he did not feel that he should be the one that has to find the solution to the parking situation. He added that he would help to find a solution; however, if he is asked to cut down to just open at night or to seat only 50% of the capacity, as suggested in the Staff Report, he would not be able to survive as a successful restaurant. He stated that there have been no complaints from neighbors about the parking. There was a consensus that the property owners are responsible for speaking to the issue of the variance and not Mr. Carlson. Chairman Peterson commented that he feels Mr. Carlson is in the middle, and he feels that the Commission needs to urge successful business in the Village. Doug Adams, representing the Brozdas, stated that they intend to file a new application for the variance. Staff clarified that the variance application will have to be renoticed for the appropriate parking spaces and the applicant needs to apply for an extension on the Tentative Building Site Approval before January 11, 1986. They added that Final 6 Planning Commission Minutes 1/8/86 V -720 Building Site Approval should then be obtained from the City Council. Staff noted that the design review for the deck has also expired, so the applicant will need to reapply for that. They clarified that once the variance is granted and the conditions complied with, then Mr. Carlson's business license could be issued. It was also clarified that Mr. Carlson can continue business while the application is being processed. Mr. 'McKenzie, 14554 Big Basin Way, stated that the Commission has been as kind as they can be to these people for more than two years. He commented that if they are going to use his and the other owned parking spaces, they should pay for them. He pointed out that, in order to satisfy the City of Saratoga, he had to buy property from the bank next door. Jim Rosenfeld stated that he is very uncomfortable with the existing situation at this corner. He commented that he would like to support Mr. Carlson. He added that paying for the parking spots may have some financial considerations but it is not practical. He stated that it appears that the Commission either has to set some deadlines to improve the parking that exists there, or make some proposals that would be effective whenever this property is changed in ownership. He added that perhaps in the future something like the old barnyard structure in the back might be considered appropriate parking and would make a very positive contribution to that corner. He commented that he feels that corner is going to be impacted somewhat by people who do not want'to park down in the parking lot below for their hotel. He stated that he feels it is important that the Commission give clearly defined direction to the Brozdas in the next few months. The process for the project and the parking requirements for the site were discussed. It was pointed out by Mr. Adams that the Tentative Building Site Approval was valid until September 27, 1986. Staff stated that they would check into this matter. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V -720, subject to receipt of an application for design review and modification of the variance by January 17, 1986, and an application for an extension of the Tentative Building Site Approval, if necessary, by January 11, 1986. Commissioner. Pines seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously 7 -0. It was noted that this matter will be reagendized for February 12, 1986 upon receipt of the applications and scheduled for a study session on February 4, 1986. MISCELLANEOUS 12. UP -565 Odd Fellows Home (Community Gardens), Fruitvale Avenue, Notification of Special Events The Special Events were noted by the Planning Commission. 13. EP -24 Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell, Reconsideration of Encroachment Permit (City Council Referral) T) Page 7 Staff explained that this application had been previously denied on a split vote by the Commission. They stated that it had been appealed to the City Council, and the Council has now referred the matter back to the 7- member Commission for reconsideration. They referenced the memo from the City Manager relative to this matter. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he could understand the City Manager's perplexity in reading the minutes. However, he thinks.that everyone on the Commission understands that they have the duty to vote on what is before them, but, as so often happens in the City, the Commission does look at compromises. He added that he took a little offense to the letter from the City Manager. He stated that the City Manager seemed to presume that the Commission did not really understand, and they do. Staff Planning Commission r Minutes Meeting 2/12/86 v 0 Page 7 14a. Negative Declaration V -720 Dr. and Mrs. Brozda 14b. A -1165- Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda, Request for Design Review 14c. V -720 Approval for a new parking deck and Variance Approval to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') parking spaces where approximately 66 spaces (9.5' x 18') are required for the restaurant and retail -type uses on -site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap parking- spaces where a minimum of one off street loading space and one handicap space would be required at the north- west corner of Third St. and Big Basin Way (to be con- tinued to February 26, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 15. SD -1567 Dividend Development, Request for modification to con- ditions of Subdivision Approval requesting private gated street and clarification of light and air easement along western property lines (Lots 13 through 18) of SD -1567 (Tract 7763) south of Prospect Road and the S.P.R.R. tracks It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 16a. V -725 PMS Management, Request for Variance and Sign Permit 16b. SC -2 Approvals to permit a 24 sq. ft. freestanding sign in addition to approximately 17 sq. ft. of signage which already exists for the Saratoga Walk -In Clinic. The proposed sign is not in conformance with the previously approved Sign Program, exceeds the total square footage allowed for signage and does not meet the required 20 ft. exterior sideyard setback requirement at 12224 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Staff explained the application, recommending denial of the variance and sign permit. The City Attorney commented that, relative to the regulations on signs in the new Zoning Ordinance, it was not the intent to change any existing sign program. Commissioner Guch gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the area. It was noted that correspondence had been received on the application. The public hearingwas opened at 8:47 p.m. Craig Maynard, of'Cal -Neon Signs, gave a presentation on the proposed sign. He described the walk -in clinic location, indicating that they need a sign that is more visible. He indicated that they are willing to modify their request relative to size and height. Commissioner Siegfried commented that this is a unique service and is of value to the community. He stated that, while he would have a difficult time deviating from the signage that is now there and could not approve the proposed signage, he would be willing to look at an alternate plan. Mr. Maynard stated that they would be willing to reduce the size of the sign to 3 feet, and would like to keep the name "Saratoga Walk -in Clinic" and the hours on it. He added that they would be willing to give up the hours that they have on the building. The lighting of the sign was discussed, and Commissioner Pines suggested that the sign be turned off when they close, instead of having the hours on it. Commissioner Burger stated that, while being willing to looking at an alternate sign that was smaller, she would like to have the sign moved so it is lighted but directly below the sign that is currently outside the clinic. Mr. Maynard stated that they feel that putting the sign at the intersection was the best point of visibility. Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes Meeting 2/26/86 V -721 district where the lots are not zoned HCRD, and the slope on this site is only 4%. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Break 9:00 9:20 p.m. 10a. Negative Declaration V -720 -Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda 10b. A -1165 Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda, request for design 10c. V -720 review approval for a new parking deck and exterior remodeling of Tollgate Barn, and.vari- ance approval to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') parking spaces where approxi- mately 66 spaces (9.5' x 18') are required for the restaurant and retail -type uses on -site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap park- ing spaces where a minimum of one off street loading space and one handicap space would be required at the northwest corner of Third St. and Big Basin Way; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the application and the background of the project. They commented that the Heritage Commission reviewed the barn this afternoon, and has no problem with the proposal. They added that the Heritage Commission would like to review any exterior changes. They noted the letter from the Fire Chief, requesting that the barn be conditioned for sprinklers if the variance is approved. Staff indicated that they were unable to make the findings for the parking variance on the site and recommend denial. It was clarified that the employees are now included in the parking standards. The public hearing was opened at 9:28 p.m. Doug Adams, representing the applicant, commented that the application on file is identical with the former variance granted in 1984. He stated that the findings that they had made for the present application are those findings made for Variance V -627 in 1984; these findings were discussed. He addressed the former and present uses on the site. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines inquired about the schedule for the project, and Commissioner Guch commented that the Commission had asked for more specific information on the timeline. Discussion followed and Mr. Adams indicated that they could submit an updated schedule. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would not support the variance. He commented that he was still upset over the way the matter was handled. He indicated that the only way he could support the project would be if the applicants come up with six additional parking spaces, or it is conditioned for in lieu fees. He added that possibly the other property owned by the applicants behind the barn could be used for parking. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has no problem going forward with what was approved the last time; however, at that time the employe parking was not included. He commented that he feels the employee parking should be included and he would approve what was previously approved; however, that will not give the applicants the same use. Further discussion followed on the parking spaces and the use. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V -720. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -1165 for the exterior remodeling of Tollgate Barn. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6- 0. Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes Meeting 2/26/86 V -720 and A -1165 It was noted that the denial of the variance makes the Design Review Approval for the parking deck moot. The appeal period was noted. 11. SD 1567 Dividend Development, request for modification to conditions of subdivision approval request- ing private gated street and clarification of light and air easement along western property lines (Lots 13 through 18) of SD -1567 (Tract 7763) south of Prospect Road and the S.P.R.R. tracks; continued from February 12, 1986 Staff explained the request. The public hearing was opened at 9:48 p.m. Dick Oliver, of Dividend Development, discussed the request, along with a third issue relative to clarification of the zoning on the site. Staff explained to the Commission that the site is zoned NHR because of a negotiated settlement, and it was allowed to have approximately 20,000 sq. ft. lots. Staff commented that they and the City Attorney have agreed that when a house is developed per the settlement agreement, when it gets final occupancy then the actual NHR zoning will occur. They stated that Mr. Oliver is concerned about that because the setbacks for NHR are substantially larger than those for 20,000 sq. ft. lots. They added that, because of the settlement agreement and the fact that it is zoned NHR, there is no clarification possible from the Commission on that issue. The City Attorney explained the settlement agreements, noting that they were executedin connection with the Measure A litigation. He agreed with Staff that the issue is not really a planning issue. He suggested that Mr. Oliver coordinate with his office to work out the language needed by Dividend in their report to the Department of Real Estate on this issue. Mr. Oliver described the proposed entrance and fencing of the subdivision. He also addressed the condition regarding the light and air easement, stating that he would like to remove the easement on the right hand portion of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 because of the height limit within the easement. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed by the Commission relative to the preservation of views of the residents in Parker Ranch. Mr. Oliver stated that he was restricted to a 20 ft. height on lots 1, 4, 8 and 9, and requested that he have the same limitation on the light and air easement just for those lots. Commissioner Burger stated that the Commission had spent a lot of time working on the conditions for this subdivision and were very sensitive to all of the impacts that could occur. She commented that she is not convinced that a condition should be changed because the land has now been purchased by a developer and he is unhappy with some of the conditions on some of the lots. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner Burger moved to deny a modification to the condition on SD- 1567 relative to the light and air easement, and to have Staff approve the change in the fencing and median strip at the entrance. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 12a. V -724 12b. SM -26 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Amen, request for variance approval to fence an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. and site modification to locate a swimming pool on the site at 21510 Saratoga Heights Drive 7 The application was explained by Staff. They stated that the CC &Rs were amended to state that no fencing should enclose more than 4,000 sq. ft. December 30, 1985 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Sirs: As a property owner of the northeast corner of 3rd and Big Basin Way, Saratoga, I am greatly interested in the creation of more parking spaces and in adequate parking spaces. I do not believe that the granting of a variance in the Joseph Brozda property, 14503 Big Basin Way, should be granted. I do not believe that substandard parking spaces should be allowed in this crowded retail area. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, Charles C. Smith 19020 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 D RECEIVED DEC 3i 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1'- Cali Investments 19939 Charters Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 March 27, 1986 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear People: As the owners of Village Square shopping center located at 14510 Big Basin Way in Saratoga, we are concerned about tie possible approval of the new parking deck on the corner of 3— and Big Basin Way. If this parking deck consisting of 15 spaces instead of the required 66 spaces is passed, not only will it worsen the parking situation in Saratoga, but tenants and their customers will be forced to park in the Village Square lot which is soley for our tenants and their clients. Cali Investments,is assessed every year for the use of our parking area. We pay a great of money to the city and feel it would not be fair if tenants other than those at Village Square used the lot. These spaces are already in demand, and if the parking deck is approved, a major problem would arise. We would appreciate the city council take this matter into serious consideration, and in the future when new buildings are constructed, to closer evalute the shortage of parking in Saratoga. Sincerely, Lynne Cali Cali Investments DOUGLASS M. ADAMS ROBERT P. ETIENNE MARTIN N. LETTUNICH JOHN R. KAHLE Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ADAMS, ETIENNE LETTUNICH ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 14363 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 TELEPHONE (408) 867 -3474 May 7, 1986 Dear Council Members: Our clients, Joseph and Helen Brozda, have examined the economic feasibility of building the deck on their property and paying for the additional spaces required by the City of Saratoga. They have been told this would cost them approximately $503,000. This figure is a total of the following: DMA: fl Build deck and improve Barn (est.) Pay for 20 spaces $10,139 /space 300,000.00 203,000.00 $503,000.00 Based upon these figures and the bonding of the cost of the spaces the Brozdas have determined that the project is economically feasible. They therefore offer that the subject property become a part of Parking Assessment District #3 upon this basis, and that a contract be proposed by the City of Saratoga in this regard. There is also another alternative, which is for the Brozdas to purchase all of their required additional spaces and not build the deck. Either alternative would be satisfactory to the Brozdas. They would, of course, prefer the alternative which cost them the least. That appears to be the purchase of the additional spaces without building the deck. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, DOUGLAS M. ADAMS r2 UMW' ©2 `11' o C� MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council City Manager Brozda and Parking District #3 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SAR,ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 DATE: 5/6/86 Bob completed his work on the various recalculations on this sub- ject too late on Friday to get them in final form and out to you in your agenda packets. The attached sheets show his calculations. In summary, here is what they show: 1. By including Brozda and the three intervening parcels, the net square footage of the district would total 110,309 sq. ft. 2. A 60% petition would require 66,186 square feet. 3. Chabre and the three others only have 38,954 square feet, 5,170 square feet short of the remaining 40 4. We would need almost everyone else to sign the petition in order to get this district started. 5. Because Masek is building less than previously anticipated, the number of development right spaces under the current ratio of 380 square feet is now 37 rather than. 30. 6. By adding Brozda and the other three lots, a total of 190.68 spaces would be required at 380 square feet. With fifteen spaces being provided on the Brozda site, 26 development right spaces would remain after Brozda is given 20 from the district. The number of excess spaces would decrease for each space Brozda provides under the fifteen proposed. 7. By changing the parking ratio to one per 400 square feet from 380 square feet, seven more development right spaces would be created using the current district area, and ten more using the expanded district area after meeting Brozda's need for spaces. Again, this would drop if Brozda provided fewer than fifteen spaces on site. To: City Council Subj: Brozda and Parking District #3 Page 2 5/6/86 Conclusion: If everything fell into place and we were able to achieve the expanded district, or even if we had to leave the other three out, the fact that we would still have either twenty -six extra spaces or seventeen extra spaces (37 -20 for Brozda) seems to me to be sufficient reason not to raise the ratio to one per 400 square feet. Trying to find a spot to park Friday evening, even with the Inn not yet open, convinced me we need more spaces, not more develop- ment right now. .1 If the spaces cost Brozda $10,000+ as was postulated at your last meeting, his representatives indicated he would prefer not to build the parking deck. Brozda's engineer is proposing a 10 space parking layout. Erman Dorsey is critiquing this now, and we'll be able to give you the staff opinion on it and the parking deck layout at the meeting. Even if Brozda were to agree to 1) join the district and 2) pay the $10,139 per space levy based on my cost assumptions which you re- ceived last time, and the Council agreed on how many on -site spaces Brozda were required to have, this whole thing still rests on the parking district being created. I am not yet confident in my own mind that we have structured a foolproof method of proceeding, especially with the other three parcels being included. After our meeting next week with special district counsel, I will feel more comfortable. Unfortunately for all of us, Brozda included, we still have too many unanswered questions to resolve. Options: 1. Delay everything until your June 4, 1986, meeting or longer, if needed, to see how the numbers shake out. 2. Decide on parking deck or no parking deck and chain Brozda to the district for the added spaces at a cost certain ($11,000 would be a good number). If it costs more, we eat the difference; if it costs less, he eats the difference. If the district is never formed, he is off the hook; if it is, we have a means of recovering a major portion of the City's cost contribution to the district. arry R. c t Peacock jm Attachments Property Owner Cunningham Western Federal Chabre Sullivan Wickersham Casabone Meade Cancellieri Payne Masek Rosenfeld Wallace Melton Melton Brozda X 38954 35.3% 44124 40.0% VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT #3 X Net Area Sq. Ft. 5,265 9,810 25,375 1,910 5,000 6,735 4,175 4,510 7,260 9,000 7,690 4,000 4,836 4,743 10,000 110,309 5170 Additional area to make 40% 5/2/86 C Property Owner VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT #3 Net Area Sq. Ft. Cunningham 5,265 Western Federal 9,810 Chabre 25,375 Sullivan 1,910 Wickersham 5,000 Casabone 6,735 Meade 4,175 Cancellieri 4,510 Payne 7,260 Masek 9,000 Rosenfeld 7,690 Wallace 4,000 Melton 4,836 Melton 4,743 Brozda 10,000 110,309 5/2/86 EciSt'ing Current No. of Add Property No. of Current No. of Add Property No. of Building No. Spaces Develop. No. Spaces Develop. No. Spaces Develop. No. Spaces Develop. Property Owner Area 380 Rights 380 Ri•hts 400 Ri•hts 400 Ri•hts Cunningham 7380 19.40 19.40 Western Federal 2340 6.16 6.16 Chabre 10440 27.47 27.47 Sullivan 1750 4.61 4.61 Wickersham 5980 15.74 15.74 Casabone 2150 5.66 5.66 Meade 2040 5.37 5.37 Cancellieri 2560 6.74 6.74 Payne 3420 9.00 9.00 Masek 4520+ 14.00 14.00 Rosenfeld 7545 19.85 19.85 Wallace 1721 4.52 Melton 3360 8.84 Melton 3240 8.53 Brozda 13221 34.79 TOTAL )k .has reduced square footage 71667 134.00 37 190.68 26 127.32 44 181.17 36 171 217 171 +7 217 +10 VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT #3 171 Existing 31 Add Property 15 Brozda 217 Available 191 Required 26 Excess ess 0- 18.45 5.85 26.10 4.38 14.95 5.38 5.10 6.40 8.55 13.30 18.86 18.45 5.85 26.10 4.38 14.95 5.38 5.10 6.40 8.55 13.30 18.86 4.30 8.40 8.10 33.05 217 Available 181 Required 36 Excess 5/2/86 OFF STREET PARKING BROZDA 5/5/86 Presently there are seven (7) existing parking spaces southerly of Third Street, between the existing buildings and the Toll Gate Barn. Two of these spaces are somewhat restrictive, as they are located in front of doorways (including the double door at the barn). There are two proposals for off street parking at this location; 1) Fifteen Space proposal and 2) Ten Space proposal. These proposals are analyzed as follows: 1) Fifteen Space Proposal This proposal is to construct a cantilevered deck out over the steep down slope to the southwest and provide fifteen (15) parking spaces, including four compact car spaces. All fifteen spaces are proposed to be 9.0 feet wide (center to center) using double stripes two feet apart. Each standard space is to be 18.0 feet in length with the compact spaces being 16.0 feet in length. The City's design standard parking space is 18.0 feet in length and 9.5 feet in width, marked by double stripes two feet apart for standard cars and 16.0 feet in length and 8.0 feet in width (with single stripe) or 7.5 feet wide when using the double stripes two feet apart. 2) Ten Space Proposal This proposal is to use existing paved area and provide ten (10) parking spaces, including three compact car spaces (33% City Ordinance is not to exceed 25 The standard parking spaces are proposed to be 9.5 feet using double stripes two feet apart. Each standard space is to be 18.0 feet in length. The compact spaces are proposed to be 7.5 feet using double stripes two feet apart and 16.0 feet in length. Both the standard and the compact spaces are in compliance with the City's design standard. Both of the above proposals show an aisle width of 23.5 feet with a couple protrusions consisting of a stairway with some concrete steps and enclosed overhang which cuts down the aisle width for at least 2 or 3 spaces. The standard aisle width for 90 degree parking is 24 feet (City standard) or 26 feet (Institute of Transportation Studies). In each proposal the layout shows parking spaces in front of the existing doorways of the bar as discussed previously under the existing conditions. This again would be somewhat restrictive if the accesses were to be used, even if the double doors were to be recessed. t4 Off- Street Parking Brozda They have proposed one handicapped parking space in both of the proposals, which is in compliance with the accepted standard of one per 25 or less spaces. In both cases the handicapped space is shown to be 9.0 feet wide with double stripes, four feet apart on only one side (the standard requirement is to have double stripes four feet apart on both sides of the 9.0 space). Also, the handicapped space is located one space in from the entrance /exit to the lot and should be located immeditely adjacent to the exit of the lot. In conclusion, there are two major concerns; one being the restrictive aisle width due to the protrusions and the 23.5 foot width; and the other being the spaces located in front of the doors which may not be usable. By eliminating the two (2) spaces in front of the doors, the handicapped space could be brought to standard, and possibly the two spaces opposite the steps and enclosed overhang could be made into compact car spaces, which would provide more aisle clearance. The preceding, of course, would reduce the total number of spaces in either proposal by two (2). ER:cd C Erman Dorsey Senior Engineering Technician 5/5/86 Page 2 4&.;2 STATRWAY PG&E Bo Y RCP 1 IR *Wm.. C. 1 as) G Ya• I' J e►s X41 a I� :.o�rastw�a�r 0 V P- js PARieb(65 SPACcS 1 `T" t -1' r -1 11 11 II t prowl Vci 01 zotta ("•4 4a AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: 3/27/86 (4/2/86) CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4G- DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: RECONSTRUCTION OF CHESTER AVENUE AND TEN ACRES "NOTICE OF COMPLETION" Summary: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting of June 5, 1985, awarded the contract for the above project to Piazza Construction Company Due to ground water along Chester Avenue and Ten Acres, the cost of construction was run over by $59,184.99. This extra cost was due to stabilization of sub base, installa- tion of sub drains and extra asphalt concrete. This overrun was reported to you in. August 1985. The developer of Tract 7382 contributed $7591.00 to pay for work performed under this contract on the tract frontage of Ten Acres. This was in lieu of the developer performing the work himself which might later have been damaged by this contract. The City Engineer is concerned with the final surface of the asphalt on this project, feeling that possibly it is not dense enough. The contractor does not feel that the surface is substandard, and the firm of Testing Engineers supports their position that the surface is not likely to deteriorate and that it will densifv during warmer weather. As a compromise the contractor has committed to a two"yyar guarantee rather than the usual one -year, under the conditions des- cribed in the attached letter dated March 26, 1986. Under these conditions we recommend acceptance. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion 2:° Appropriation Resolution 3: Letter from Piazza Construction dated March 26, 1986 Recommended Action: The work on the subject project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recommendation that this work be accepted. per the conditions listed in the March 26, 1986 letter from Piazza Construction Company. We recommend that the City Council adopt Appropriation Resolution No. to provide funds for the additional costs of the project. Council Action 4/2: Approved recommendation, including appropriation resolution.. Nome Street Address City 8. L RECORDING REQUESTED BY r AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO N atirP is hereby given that the undersigned, ..Harr.y....R....Peaco.ck.... I the agent of] the owner of th certain lot piece or, parcel of land situated in the City..saf. Sax:at.acja County of Santa Clara State of California, and described as follows, to-wit: Reconstruction of Chester Avenue and Ten Acres Road That as owner of said land, did, on the 5.th day of t) 19 85 enter into a contract with Piag_za Construction Company for Reconstruction of Chester Avenue and Ten Acres Road upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the county of State of California, on the day of 19 That on the 4th day of September 19 85 the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said Piazza Construction Company That the name and address of all theowner of said property are as follows: and the nature of title to said property is STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of being duly sworn, says: I am /the agent of] the owner of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 Delete words in brackets if owner signs. This document Is only p.m.! form vAsich may be want to use in simple transections end in no .0.0 ects. or is intencksi to act, es substitute Von the KM. orin ettotneY7ThiWblistleddiVnbliffildrIMTWISItartnicilthernprm nedolWyTestiSty-provnion-o•ShUTirtsriiiscrEdscalresArsl Cowderv's Form No. 774—NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY OWNER. (C. C. P. Sec. 1193.1) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Natio of Tampletitm City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Calif. 95070 SS. Owner By Agent RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1985 -86 FISCAL YEAR 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 2241 be amended as follows: Transfer: Subsidiary: Purpose: Provide full funding for increased costs of reconstruction of Chester Avenue and Ten Acres. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: $59,184.99 from Unreserved Fund Balance to Appropriations. Fund 45. 45- 4170- 944 -72 Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2241. 1 Mayor March 26, 1986 City of Saratoga Department of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Re: Gentlemen: Robert Shook Director of Public Works Chester Avenue Ten Acres Road PCC Job #85015 1. Piazza Construction will extend its maintenance guarantee from a one year guarantee to a guarantee until 8 -15 -87 (two years from the completion of the paving). PHONE (408) 225 -2033 As discussed at our 3/12/86 meeting, it is Piazza Construction Company's opinion that the surface of the AC on the referenced project is acceptable. Terry Chiccino of Testing Engineers concured with this opinion. It is our understanding that the City of Saratoga is concerned that the surface is too coarse in some locations and that ravel- ing may occur as a result of this coarseness. It was agreed that no corrective work is required at this time, but that the surface condition will be monitored on a regular basis to check for future deterioration. Piazza Construction Company proposes that the City of Saratoga accept the project and pay us our retention due, based on the following conditions: 2. This extension of the guarantee will be for any surface deterioration resulting from materials or workmanship provided by Piazza. P.O. BOX 23550, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95153 120 GRANITE ROCK WAY, SAN JOSE, CA 95136 City of Saratoga Department of Public Works Attention: Robert Shook March 26, 1986 Page 2 FDR.bj 3. The City will monitor the surface conditions. If any surface deterioration occurs they will set up a meeting with Piazza and Testing Engineers. Testing Engineers will recommend a method of correcting the surface deterioration, and when that method is ac- ceptable and approved by the City, Piazza will perform the corrective work at no cost to the City. Please review this proposal and advise us as to its acceptability as soon as possible. Very truly yours, PIAZZA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Franklin D. Ruona Vice President /General Manager