Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSI OSKAR R. THURNHER 19931 BELLA VISTA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 March 18, 1990 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Councilmembers: This is further to my letter to you the application of the Ng family on story addition to their home. (copy dated February 24, Bella Vista Avenue attached) 4 Al 1990 regarding for a second Dr. Ng visited me today to review and discuss his plans for the proposed modification of his home. He explained that at the time he was considering purchase of his home, that he was given encouragement by the Saratoga City Planning Staff that a remodeling with a second story addition would be would not be objected to by the City, and that on this basis, he decided to go ahead with the purchase. If this is true, I believe the Ng family has suffered an injustice. I continue to believe that second story conversions in this area are inappropriate and inconsistent with the character of this neighborhood and the original development philosophy that was established. I am concerned about the precedent if this application is approved. Extensive changes of this kind in a neighborhood ultimately affect privacy, views and the relationship between space and landscape, and building structures. I am puzzled as to how the Staff could support such a project and even give advanced encouragement to the applicant at the time of purchase of the home, only to have the Planning Commission unanimously disapprove it. I may be missing something but it sounds like there is a lack of togetherness on the part of the City administration on the issue. I understand that the item was even put on the Commission's Consent Calendar, presumably indicating that approval would be a routine matter. Although I fully support the Planning Commission's judgement and ruling on this matter as being in the best interests of the neighborhood, I think the Council needs to consider the issue of fairness in the.City's dealings with the Ng family. If Dr. Ng was misled, then the Council should probably approve his application. Sincerely, Oskar R. Thurnher 19931 Bella Vista Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 I OSKAR R. THURNHER 19931 BELL.A VISTA AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 05070 February 24, 1989 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitdale.Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Councilmembers: I am a homeowner on Bella Vista Avenue and I am writing to express my support of the Saratoga Planning Commission decision to deny permission to add a second story on the Ng residence at 20040 Bella Vista Avenue. I understand that the Council will now decide either to sustain or overturn the Planning Commission's ruling at your forthcoming March 7, 1990 meeting.' I hesitated to take this action as it is never pleasant to go against the wishes of a neighbor to develop their property as they .choose, however 'I believe that overturning the Commission's decision to deny the application could set a bad precedent in terms of-future changes to our predominantly single story neighborhood setting. Only two two —story homes exist on our street.- One was built at the turn of the Century, and the other is situated on a large secluded lot at the end of a common driveway. Neither blocks a view of the hills. Horseshoe Drive is similarly developed. If the Planning Commission's recommendation is overturned, I believe that it will become more difficult to deny other applicants who desire to convert to two — story residences in this area, and such actions would have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood. Such changes would be inconsistent with the original. development philosophy. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Sincerely, Oskar R. Thurnher Homeowner 19931 Bella Vista Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 ZAMBETTI and PRICER LAND USE CONSULTANTS JUDGE FOSTER BUILDING 14510 BIG BASIN WAY, SUITE 2 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 March 1, 1990 Mayor & Councilmembers; On behalf of the Ng family, they have requested a continuance of the Appeal DR - -89 -114 until the meeting of March 21,1990. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Yours; ne` Zambe/z i TEL (408) 741 -0332 FAX (408)741 -0312 'z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ? 3CI MEETING DATE:3 /21/90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning AGENDA ITEM: 8 ((A CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of DR -88 -102 Appellant /Applicant: Brian Pool; Location: 20334 Thelma Ave. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council refer the application to the Planning Commission with specific direction to the applicant to architecturally relieve the side and rear elevations. Report Summary: The application has a long history and came to the Planning Commis- sion through the City's inspection process. The project was in- spected and was noticed by the City that a building higher than approved and a second story was being constructed. The applicant is seeking design review approval to authorize the construction and to allow a second story. The Planning Commission was unable to grant design review approval due to the massive appearance of the side and rear elevations. Staff recommended approval of the project with modifications to improve the appearance of these elevations. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes 12/13/90 & 2/14/90; Committee -of- the -Whole report 1/16/90 2. Correspondence 3. Planning Commission staff reports with attachments Motion and Vote: 3/21: Continued to 4/4; staff to prepare chronology. Ot t I 01-1111MA' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 3/21/90 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of DR -88 -102 Applicant /Appellant: Brian Pool; Location: 20334 Thelma Ave. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overview The proposal has a multi -year history with the City. The essence of the request is to legalize the construction of an unauthorized second story addition. The Planning Commission denied the re- quest because it found the rear and side elevations to be stark and overpowering to the adjacent property. Background To briefly summarize the rather involved history relative to this project, the following synopsis is provided: September, 1986: Application to the Site Review Committee to construct a second story addition was denied. November, 1986: Appeal of Site Review Committee's action denied by the City Council. March, 1987: Plans submitted for review by the Planning Department rejected because a "sizable second story" was shown. October, 1987: Revised plans showing a 22 ft. maximum height and an unusable attic space were approved administratively by the Planning Department and Building Permits issued. October, 1988: Stop Work Order issued when the inspector noted the addition exceeded the 22' height limit by approximately 7" and stairway was constructed to the "attic." 1 DR -88 -102; Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave. November, 1989: Design Review application filed to authorize a second story. November, 1989 - Planning Commission conducts two (2) public February: hearings and one study session to review history and project alternatives. The applicants propose to convert spaces shown on the approved plans as "unusable attic storage" into second story living area, and to allow the structure to exceed the 22 ft. maximum height shown on the approved plans. The approval of this design review application will enable the applicant to proceed with construc- tion without significant modification to the structure as the second story floor area has already been constructed. The following table provides a summary of the project details of the current proposal: Zoning: R- 1- 10,000 Parcel Size: 15,550 sq. ft. Average Site Slope: 2% Grading Required: None General Plan Designation: M -10 Materials & Colors Proposed: Gray composition shingle roof; stucco and wood siding painted gray with brick accents. Lot Coverage: Height: Size of Structure: 1st Floor: 2nd Floor: Total: Proposal 8061 sq. ft. (52 %) 22 ft. 7 in. 2745 sq. ft. 736 sq. ft. 3481 sq. ft. Code Requirement Allowance 9335 sq. ft. (60 %) 26 ft. 4128 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 25 ft. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 88 ft. Rear: 35 ft. Right Side: 9 ft.* Right Side: 10 ft. Left Side: 14 ft. 5 in. Left Side: 10 ft. *Existing non - conforming setback 2 DR -88 -102; Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave. The applicant is seeking reversal of the Planning Commission denial to allow construction of a 736 sq. ft. second floor addi- tion to an existing one -story residence resulting in a total floor are of 3481 sq. ft. The site is located in the predomi- nantly single story Thelma Ave. neighborhood east of Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd. The Planning Commission compared the current proposal to the plans initially rejected by both the Site Review Committee and the City Council. The Commission found the initial approval was essentially similar to the current proposal, except that rear facing windows were shown on the initial plans and have been excluded. The removal of the rear windows was the applicant's response to the privacy concerns of rear yard neigh- bors. Analysis The Planning Commission found the construction to be inappropri- ate for the one story character of the neighborhood. The Plan- ning Commission noted that from the street, the'second story was set back considerably and was under a long sloping roof which essentially provided a one -story appearance. However, the Plan- ning Commission did find the side and rear views to be inconsist- ent with the City's design objectives. The stark and two dimen- sional appearance of the side elevation and the minimal amount of setback to the property line caused the Planning Commission to conclude that the proposal to legalize this construction was unacceptable. Staff recommended that the project be modified to improve the rear and side elevations by adding a roof element between the first and second stories to provide a degree of architectural relief. This alternative was discussed with the Planning Commis- sion at public hearings and some Commissioners found this propos- al would improve the appearance of this addition. However, the applicant felt that the alternative would interfere with the ability to park a recreational vehicle in the rear yard. The Council will find a schematic drawing of staff's proposed archi- tectural modification attached to the Planning Commission staff report included in this packet. The applicant communicated to staff that he did not fully under- stand the staff's architectural alternative. The applicant indicated a desire to propose architectural modifications to attempt to mitigate the Planning Commission's architectural concern. The City Council could refer the application to the Planning Commission with direction to the applicant to improve the side and rear elevations. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council refer the application to the Planning Commission with specific direction to the applicant to architecturally relieve the side and rear elevations. The 3 DR -88 -102; Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave. Planning Commission would provide a written report to the Council regarding the proposed changes within 45 days. Step en Emseile Planning Director 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 December 13, 1989 Approval of Minutes of November 8, 1989 Continued Commissioner Harris requested that on page 5, paragraph 4, after the third sentence the following sentence be included: "The third unit was removed by condition of the Planning Commission." HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 1989 AS AMENDED. Passed 5 -0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on December 8, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR -88 -102 Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave., request for design review approval to construct a 736 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one -story home for a'total of 3,481 sq. ft. in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. 1/10/90 per the request of applicant). ------------------------------------------------------------ 2. DR -89 -046 Naghavi, 20233 Seagull Way, request for design review approval to demolish an existing single story residence and construct a 3,197 sq. ft. two - story residence in the R -1- 10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 1/10/90). ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. DR -89 -039 Pearce, 14857 Bohlman Rd., request for design review approval for a new 6,755 sq. ft. one -story single family dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 1/10/89). ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. DR -89 -095 Strom, 18832 Ten Acres Rd., request for design review approval to construct a two - story, 4,813 sq. ft. single - family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 1/10/90 per request of applicant). ------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 4 Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Scott Cunningham, 14375 Saratoga Ave., Designer, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He said a number of the concerns expressed at the Study Session were incorporated in the plans. Mr. Jack Cook, 20550 Komina Avenue, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he is still opposed to the structure as it is still a two story structure and too much of a billboard effect exists. Mr. Cunningham commented that the eave height was lowered approximately 3 -1/2 feet. He said the Applicant received feedback at the Study Session that if the issues of height, bulk and mass could be worked with the two -story would be more acceptable than removal of trees on the site. He indicated if there is some way to deal with Mr. Cook's concerns the Applicant would be happy to work with him. HARRIS /TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Tappan indicated the present plans are an improvement over the previous plans. BURGER /KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -100 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS' 5. DR -88 -102 Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave., request for design review approval to construct a 736 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one -story home for a total of 3,481 sq. ft. in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (public hearing closed 1/24/90). ------------------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Siegfried noted there was a tie vote on this item at the last meeting. Commissioner Tucker indicated that she would be changing her vote from the last meeting because at the last Public Hearing she did not have a chance to view the site. After viewing the site, she PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued agrees with some of the other Commissioners that the wall is too stark. She said she is viewing this as a new application and in studying it from that point of view she would not approve it as it is. In response to a question from Commissioner Kolstad, Planning Director Emslie reviewed the proposal. The Public Hearing was reopened at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Brian Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave., addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Pool reviewed the application in detail. He indicated the Applicant does not like the sheer wall either but they were forced to do that because they were attempting to comply with other laws regarding a motor home which was parked in front of the house. The Applicant could not get the motor home past the eaves if there was overhang. Mr. Michael Berry, 20333 Thelma Ave., addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Berry said he too opposes the sheer wall but he is in favor of the second story. BURGER /TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:14 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger expressed concern that a one story home was approved but part of the application is for a second story. She said she will not be voting for the application for that reason. KOLSTAD /TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -88 -102 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. The motion was denied without prejudice on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Kolstad and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Moran and Tucker 6. DR -89 -088 Blum, 14598 Deer Spring Ct., a request for design V -89 -022 review approval to construct a two - story, 9,233 sq. ft. single - family dwelling and cabana in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The variance request is to exceed the allowed floor area by 1,553 sq. ft. and to allow a 15 ft. high accessory structure where 12 ft. is permitted (cont. from 12/13/89). ------------------------------------------------------------ Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. Committee -of e -Whole 1/16/90 volumes expected from the subdivision are significant con- cerns. 2. DR -88 -102 - POOL, 20334 THELMA AVE. Chair Siegfried and the Planning Director summarized the public hearing held in November, 1989. The purpose of the study session was to review pertinent facts in an informal And productive setting. The applicant presented both the original plans and plans turned down by the Site Review Committee and the proposal. The applicant reviewed the history of the project and the sequence of events leading to the construction of the story addition. The Commission concluded by stating that the members will view the site and determine the impact of the second story before a decision is rendered at the public hearing on Janu- ary 24, 1990. 3. DR -89 -088, V -89 -022 = BLUM, 14598 DEER SPRINGS CT. The Planning Director reviewed the status of the project and the Planning Commission direction given at the public hear- ing. The architect reviewed the issues as viewed from the applicant's perspective: grading reduction, cabana height and building size. The architect explained that minor reduc- tions are possible but the home will still exceed the square footage as defined by the City. The Commission felt very strongly that it wants the square footage reduced to a point where no variance will be re- quired. Mr. Blum felt that there were unique circumstances to justify granting the variance. The Commission concluded by directing the applicant to rede- sign the home to conform with size limitations. The cabana did not contribute significantly to the Commission's concern regarding the massive appearance of the home. 4. DISCUSSION OF REAR YARD SETBACKS AND ENCROACHMENT OF POOL STRUCTURES The Planning Commission asked that this section be clarified and requested the City Attorney include this on his legisla- tive calendar. ADJOURNMENT 2 0 i1l.lUiu�: 'L( Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: �z Date Receive Hearing Date Fee CITY 'US: APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: Ifo Z- Description: Decision Being Appealed: Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Uity offices. appeal please 1 Appellant's Signature is application until it is presente at t e' If you wish specific people to be notified of this list them on a separate sheet. THIS APP!.Tr, %TION }•!r!c-T Pr. c�,n�!TT�.rr� ;:�IT;tIN 11111 D,,I I'F Ut I'(1E DCc:ISIO: TrN (10) CALF; IDAR DAYS 0' November 8, 1989 planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California In re: Notice of Public Hearing - November 8, 1989 DR -88 -102 - Pool, 20334 Thelma. Avenue Dear Planning Commissioners: As a neighbor, living at 20280 Thelma Avenue, Saratoga, I am deeply distressed by the circumstances surrounding the addition of the subject property. Last year the request for a second story addition was denied by the City. Later construction was started and then ordered stopped. It is nay-understanding that an attic area only was approved. Isn't this present request repeating what was previously denied? I feel the Planning Commission did a thorough job of evaluating the request last year. I think their decision should not be overturned because of the following: 1. Over the years all requests for two story additions have been denied. 2. In the appraisal process conformity carries a heavy, positive value factor for a neighborhood. When conformity is lost, value declines. 3. The character of homes on Thelma Avenue is single- story, ranch style. 4. The lots are large, containing approximately 15,000 to 16,000 and over square feet, with depths of 160 to 170 feet, more than adequate to expand at ground level. 5. Several recent additions have been constructed -- additions at ground level. They are beautifully designed and built and are in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. They bring a positive benefit to our street and enhance the value of our property. 6. If just one second story addition denial is reversed, I fear a precedent will be set for future additions which may affect our street in a negative way. I ask the Planning Commission to review the action Which contributed to the denial last year and not overturn their previous decision. Respectfully submitted, Char otte F. Bucar'a 20280 Thelma Ave. Saratoga, California � 7 / � C November 3. 1989 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga. CA 9507() Re: DR -88 -102 - Pool, 20334 Thelma Avenue We are opposed to the design review application for the addition r,f a 73; ? -C) o I— ( r, o CIL- 4- RECEIVED Nov -61989 PLANNING DEPT c, =A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: M E M O R A N D U M Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Date: February 14, 1990 David Moyles Donald Peterson To: Planning Commission Francis Stutzman From: Planning Staff Subject: DR -88 -102, Pool, 20334 Thelma Avenue Due to a voting deadlock at the January 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has requested a second vote on the application to legalize previous construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Pursuant to Commission procedures, the applicant may request one re -vote. It the re -vote also results in a tie, the application is deemed denied and is appealable to the City Council. The public hearing on this item has been closed. Recommendation: Staff recommends conditional design review approval by adopting Resolution DR -88 -102. l Martin J cobson Assistant Planner Attachments: Fnnted on recycied paper 1. January 24, 1990, Memorandum 2. Staff Report of 11/8/89 3. Resolution DR -89 -102 as (175:M1xW go 0&iazlzaz� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Date: January 24, 1990 To: Planning Commission From: Planning Staff Subject: DR -88 -102, Pool, 20334 Thelma Avenue This application has been continued from the November 8, 1989, public hearing and a January 16, 1990, study session. No addition- al information has been presented to staff and our recommendation for conditional approval remains. The primary difference between this request and the previous application is a difference in the roof alignment. The current design shows a continuous roof form sloping away from the street, resulting in a more single story appearance. The denied applica- tion broke the roof line at the second story floor line making the home clearly two story in design. w� Martin Ja obson Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Staff Report of 11/8/89, for reference 2. Resolution DR -88 -102 AF FOR REFERENCE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson DATE: 11/8/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR-88-102; 20334 Thelma Av APPLICANT /OWNER: Pool APN: 393 -40 -009 Q N FOR REFERENCE ■ r cow I'34oe 144) 10413 �•JI) CAM Cod')) (+f4) C5s) C•ib) f•)7) C45 391-245 01 391. �- 204=5 391.21 20+,67 20 ;67 20345 20'sts 20269 -3` 20401 �1- 391-29 391-2'1 3'11-21 2 01 341-2?- 2026 I>j4 I 37 3911 -29 34 _ 31: 341.2y- 31 >� 34 c u 371-29 i,642o 648) �. 02 3�1- 9- 2 20437 v AE T DR. � , 1344' 879 2 47) 70) ( ") C(•B) (p 2) 1(01) 7 391.29- 13442 20449 2037(. 203.34 20332 20304 20292 202 391 - 29 391- 211- 391- 29 391-29- 391 -2 1- 3411 _,Z.? - 371 (440 y7 I6 17 IB 24 2g >j11-Z1 13465 C88� 13464 39°i9- (T5) ► 71 C67) J 3q1 -s9 -41 40 �� 2020(0 20368 1 3 34a 13.45(0 134 f." 3 9 13` a91 9U 91 -29- 391-21- 91_=q- 711 -29-26 13487 11 74) 15 19 23 (76) Ciy� 0 311- (i1 Qo394 Y 05 77) 2042. 391•i•1 (72) C64) 1')487 13 39 20496 _ 133vT, 2046- !0440 - _,M I'•>>j79 433(.8 '391 -29-27 %6 391- 29 311- 391 -29 391• to 12 20390 1-29 0(w 07 08 o9 20912 391- 311-29- 391-21- I S4 of 391 -29- 14 21 22 391 -21-28 13, 4591 13520 � 391 -01- 260 Q (1) C2) C3) (1N CD1 C& C7) (a) (9) ((o) 13450 2'001) 20441 20423 204045 20507 t03GA 20 ;51 20717 Z0315 20247 Zc"z" 2oZr.1 391 -Ot- i11-ot- 311-01 311.01- 991•01- 391 -01- 391 -0 391 -01 391-01 191-d D91-OI ggl.a 391 -01 z(i2 38 37 31v 33, 14 33 32 31 30 29 2f3 27 99 Site TN EL MA AVE. 1 (� 1 ( (30) 121) (261 C27) (26) C25) (!1) col C191 1i56d 20468 204.30 20430 20410 20+310 t0370 252 CZL) te'3fb 2024a 20280 202!.2 j11 -o1 391 -o1- 311 -e1- 511.01- 31 /-or 391 -01- 371-of 391-01- 391-0 371-01- 391.01- 391-0)- 20 391 j 0 2(.3 42 43 44 4s 44, 47 48 50 431 g2 453 o O 12 ¢ M�yt (1) (2) t3) C4) C41 203716 < 203"5 2033.3, 20313 20243 202 20 ot- 391.01- 311.01- 91- 01- 391•cf- 311-79 J1, 57 646 ges 5 1J 391 -OI -261 ~��♦ FRANKLIN AV 9 0 11) 1g 1 1f• 20374 • 20144 Qo3t4 1!0304. 20294 Lot 13, 2024 ;11 -01. 71-01- 371• */- 391 -01 I -ol - 391-1 1 Z 6( 62 63 64 65 (06 C28) T") OAR) C21) (1?J te30 16 (17) (is) (2 7 -2c� 71"1/1 7AfgR rorAi 20.020 C29� 9now e 9nOAR) iY 1 7n(2w6�) a FOR REFERENCE ■ r -File No. DR -88 -102, CASE HISTORY: 4 Thelma Avenue EXECUTIVE BUMMARY Application filed: 11/16/89 Application complete: 7/27/89 Notice published: 10/25/89 Mailing completed: 10/26/89 Posting completed: 10/19/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Article 15- 48.080, a request for design review approval to construct a 736 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one -story home for a total of 3,481 sq. ft. in the R -1- 10,000 zone district at 20334 Thelma Avenue. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposal meets all minimum zoning ordinance standards with regard to floor area, height, coverage and setbacks. This application is to legalize unauthorized work. The existing home maintains , nonconforming front and right side setbacks that the project is unaffected by. All required findings can be made to recommend design review approval. The design of the home and presence of mature landscaping buffer the addition and gives the appearance of a one -story home. Adequate setbacks,, limiting the area of maximum height and window orientation result.in preserving existing views and privacy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval by adopting Resolution DR -88 -102. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -88 -102 3. Project Plans, Exhibit A 4. Exhibit B 5. Exhibit C kim3 File No. DR -88 -102, 4 Thelma Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10 PARCEL SIZE: 15,550 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2% GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Gray composition shingle roof; stucco and wood siding painted gray with brick accents. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ nr.rnwnurV LOT COVERAGE: 8,061 sq. ft. (52 %) :HEIGHT: 22 ft. 7 in. SIZE OF 1st Floor: 2,745 sq. ft. STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 736 sq. ft. TOTAL: 3,481 sq. ft. 9,335 sq. ft. (60 %) 26 ft. 4,128 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft.* Front: 25 ft. Rear: 88 ft. Rear: 35 ft. Right Side: 9 ft.* Right Side: 10 ft. Left Side: 14 ft. 5 in. Left Side: 10 ft. *existing, non - conforming setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's design review approval to construct a 736 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one story single family dwelling for a total floor area of 3,481 sq. ft. The site of the project is located at 20334 Thelma Avenue in the R- 10,000 zone district. The site is relatively level with a 2% slope. Two ordinance protected monterey pine trees are located on the lot: one in the front the other in the rear yard. Nine other fruit and nut trees are scattered in the rear yard along with a 132 sq. ft. storage shed. The existing home maintains nonconforming front and right side yard setbacks. A review of the City's building division records indicates the applicant has been issued permits for activities not normally requiring Planning Commission approval. The permits allowed a minor room addition on the first floor and alteration of the height and File No. DR -88 -102, e.%. 4 Thelma Avenue pitch of the roof. Due to an error by the contractor during the roof alteration, the height of the structure now measures 22 ft. 7 in. Any structure greater than 18 ft. high requires Commission approval (15- 45.060). The applicant has subsequently choosen to improve the attic space of the home to create a two story dwelling. The plans submitted with this application essentially reflect the as -built condition of the structure with the exception of four windows shown on the elevations that have yet to be installed. The second floor creates space for two new bedrooms and a bathroom. Design Review: Staff is able to make all required findings to recommend design review approval based on staff prepared alternatives marked Exhibit B and C. The elevations prepared by staff result in a symmetrical appearance to the left elevation and reduce apparent mass and bulk of the rear. Impact of the roof change will eliminate an attic area shown on the proposed second floor and reduce by one foot the adjacent wardrobe and dressing areas. Staff would be unable to make all required findings for approval if the alternative design by staff is not adopted. The addition will not interfere with views from neighboring property by limiting the area of maximum height and adequately setting back that area from the property lines. The project preserves privacy of the surrounding neighbors by orienting second floor windows toward the applicant's rear yard. The perception of bulk is reduced by a design that limits the area of maximum height to a 23 ft. long ridge. An existing monterey pine is located in front yard that softens the impact of the addition. When viewed from the street, the home exhibits the appearance of a one story dwelling which is compatible to homes in the neighborhood. The project does not exceed the maximum height or floor area permitted on the site and is consistent with the zoning ordinance in terms of coverage and setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval by adopting Resolution DR -88 -102. LEFT ELEVATION STAFF PREPARED ALTERNATIVE Exhibit "B" REAR ELEVATION STAFF PREPARED ALTERNATIVE Exhibit "C" U 4 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Moyles Donald Peterson November 20, 1986 Mr. Brian Pool 20334 Thelma Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Pool; This is your official notification.of the Saratoga City Councils action on your appeal, which was heard November 19.' The City Council voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, A'a � e Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk [Coury 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM T : Mayor and City Council DATE M: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director S BJECT: Chronology for DR -88 -102 - Applicant: Brian Pool Location: 20334 Thelma Avenue -------------------------------------------------------- OVERVIEW 4/18/90 This public hearing was continued to allow staff to prepare a chronology in an attempt to clarify the statements made by the applicant at the Council's March 21, 1990 hearing. BACKGROUND The applicant, Brian Pool is representing his parents who have obtained a building permit to construct a one story, 22 ft. high addition to their one story home. The applicant and his parents are long term owners of the property without history of violating the City Code or constructing illegal additions. The applicant presented evidence which demonstrates to staff a pattern of code compliance but does not have direct bearing on the facts related to the application before the City Council. PWAI Staff will attempt to walk the Council through the events :since the applicant initiated discussion of an addition to the existing single story home in 1986. SEPTEMBER 1986 The applicant prepared plans for a second story addition which were presented to the City's Site Review Committee. The plans proposed a 1262 sq. ft. two story addition to the one story residence. The proposal met with all City standards including a maximum height of 22 feet 6 inches. The addition also proposed second story windows that faced the rear yard which created privacy concerns from these neighbors. The staff recommended that the addition be denied based on three issues: 1) the neighborhood was.exclusively one story homes; 2) the addition interfered with privacy of adjacent property; 3) it 1 was noted that 1156 sq. ft. of floor area was added without permits. The Site Review Committee reviewed the plans and agreed with the staff recommendation and denied the design review approval. Regarding the additions constructed without permits, the appli- cant noted that the additions which consisted of a back porch and covered patio /storage constructed by a previous owner prior to 1961 when the Pool family purchased the home. NOVEMBER 1986 The applicant appealed the decision of the Site Review Committee to the City Council. At this time the Council reviewed the action of the Site Review Committee and the testimony of adjacent neighbors who opposed the application due to privacy concerns. Residents who adjoined the rear of the property presented testimony that a second story addition will compromise the priva- cy they currently enjoy. The City Council concurred with the findings of the Site Review Committee and denied the appeal. The Councilmembers stated that the lot was capable of accommodating a single story addition and that there were mass and bulk concerns with a 4000 sq. ft. resi- dence in a R -1- 10,000 zone district. Upon receiving the City Council's final decision, the applicant submits plans for a one story addition to the Planning Depart- ment. DECEMBER 1986 Staff reviewed the applicant's one story addition and noted that because portions of the existing structure were constructed without building permits, the proposed addition combined with the existing unpermitted patio /storage area constituted more than a 50% addition to the residence. Staff informed the applicant that additions comprising more than 50% of the existing structure required either building site approval or an exemption from the City Engineer. The plans were returned to the building designer on December 3, 1986. It was also noted that the one story addi- tion resulted in more impervious coverage than the code allowed. Staff provided the applicant with the appropriate application forms for a site variance to have greater building coverage. The applicants opted to reduce the building footprint to save a mature pine in the rear yard and not apply for the variance. MARCH 1987 The applicant submitted revised plans for a single story addition to the Planning and Building Departments for permit approval. Staff noted that interior room areas having vertical height greater than 7 ft. 6 in. constituted living area and therefore are counted as floor space. Since the applicant's plans showed an attic area greater than 7 ft. 6 in. this area was technically 2 a second story. Because a two story structure was deemed unac- ceptable for this location, the plans were returned to the appli- cant's designer. The applicant finds it pertinent that the plans were reviewed by the Building Department and were approved. Subsequently, the Planning Department was asked by the Building Department to approve the plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The Planning Department failed to sign -off on the plans due to the second story concerns. SEPTEMBER 1987 The applicant resubmitted plans for a one story addition. Ac- cording to the applicant, the time lapse was due to a lack of contact from City staff. The applicant stated that he was una- ware that the plans constituted a second story addition and was therefore unable to act on the discrepancy. The essence of the revised plans addressed the two story element and the privacy concerns of the adjacent neighbors. The attic space was reduced to 7 ft. 5 in. so this space did not count as a second story. Also a mansard was proposed for the rear elevation roof. The mansard feature eliminated windows within the upper attic area which mitigated the privacy concerns of the rear yard neighbors. The total height of the revised single story addition was 22 ft. At the time these plans were considered by the Planning staff, single story additions up to 22 ft. in height were considered administratively without hearing before the Planning Commission. Since the plans were technically defined as a single story and was within the height for administrative consideration, the plans were approved by the department. OCTOBER 1987 Building permits are issued for a single story at 22 ft. in height including a kitchen, dining room, bath and family room. FEBRUARY 1988 Construction commenced. The City inspected and passed founda- tions. MARCH 1988 Construction continued and the City issued a stop work order requesting an engineers certification of the underfloor struc- tures such as plumbing, electrical and mechanical services. The City noted that there was insufficient underfloor clearance. The applicant complies and performs the work required by the Building inspector. 3 JUNE 1988 The City conducted an inspection of the structure and notified the applicant that there are portions of the existing residence that were constructed without permits, consisting of a back porch /patio and storage areas. The unauthorized structures are the same structures discussed by staff in its report to the Site Review Committee and the City Council two years prior. The applicant applies for and receives permits for the unpermitted structures. Again, the applicant stated that the structures in question were built prior to 1961 when the Pool family, purchased the home by the previous owner. The red tag is lifted and work proceeds on the addition. SEPTEMBER 1988 The City issued a permit to allow the roof pitch of the existing residence to change. OCTOBER 1988 Construction continued. The City issued a stop work order at the framing stage of construction. In addition to several of the building inspector's concerns, it was noted that a the plans did not conform to the 22 ft. height shown on approved plans. The Building Official stated that no framing approval will be given until the height variation is resolved. The applicant performed all the required correction. NOVEMBER 1988 The applicant submitted an application for design review approval for a two story addition. The applicant is required to obtain design review approval because the plans as constructed deviate from the 22 ft. height limit by 7 in. The applicant reasoned that it would be worthwhile to again pursue the second floor. The applicant has stated that this course of action was recom- mended by a staff member. The rationale for this direction was to avoid the need for a variance for site coverage. JULY 1989 The Planning Commission conducted its first public hearing and testimony from the applicant and adjoining neighbors is received. The neighbors discovered that the proposed second story contains no rear facing windows which mitigates their privacy concerns. No further objection was received from the neighborhood., Neigh- bors across the street and to the side spoke in favor of the project as proposed. DECEMBER - FEBRUARY 1990 The Planning Commission conducted both public hearings and study sessions to review the project history. The Planning Commission determined that the applicant was essentially requesting a second story when a similar request was denied in 1986. While the plans were revised to mitigate the privacy concerns, the Commission felt that the side elevation, were bulky and massive. A majority of the Planning Commission were unable to make design review findings to allow the two story structure. CONCLUSION In conclusion staff can support the request for design review approval subject to modifications to improve the architectural appearance of the side elevation. Staff finds the following facts support this recommendation. 1. The deviation from the City approved plans is minor and does not significantly alter visual appearance of the structure. Reducing the building to conform with the height shown on approved plans will not improve the archi- tecture of this proposal. 2. A conditional approval of the design review application to include additional architectural relief on the side eleva- tion will have greater impact in improving the aesthetics of this proposal than adhering to the plans as they were approved. 3. The privacy concerns raised at previous hearings have been eliminated by the applicant through revisions to the plans to eliminate upper level windows. 4. The second story is unobtrusive when viewed from the street. The approved and proposed plans utilizes essen- tially the same long sloping roof that gives a one story appearance from the street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conditionally approve DR- 88 -102 subject to the submission of a revised elevation showing architectural relief on the side elevation of the addition. The revised elevation should be incorporated as an exhibit to a Council resolution approving this project. 5 SULLIVAN BARBARA E 20269 THELMA AV SARATOGA CA C I T Y O F S A R A T 0 G A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 (468) 867 -3438 95070 393/33/046 NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 21st day of March, 1990, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 736 S . FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE -STORY HOME AT 20334 THELMA AVE. FOR A TOTAL OF 3,481 SQ. FT. IN THE R- 1- 10,000 ZONE DISTRICT (APPELLANT /APPLICANT, POOL) (DR -88 -102) The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. Public hearings will begin when that item is reached on the agenda, but no later than 8:00 p.m. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice. or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council Committee at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before March 15. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk _71i %o t cz EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ( V MEETING DATE:3/21 /90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning AGENDA ITEM: FD CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -89 -088 & V -89 -022 Applicant /Appellant: Sheldon Blum Location: 14598 Deer Springs Ct. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this variance to eliminate the cabana. Report Summary: The applicant requests City Council reversal of a Planning Commis- sion decision to eliminate a cabana proposed to be constructed with his new residence. The applicant feels the cabana is uniquely needed as it screens an unsightly water tank. The Planning Commis- sion and staff both felt that the applicant had code conforming alternatives to screen the water tank and found no unique circum- stances were present to justify the variance. Consequently, the Planning Commission approved only the design review application, since the residence conformed with the City's maximum allowable floor area and the residential design guidelines. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes 12/13/89 & 2/14/90; Committee -of- the -Whole report 1/16/90 2. Resolutions DR -89 -088 & V -89 -022 3. Correspondence 4. Planning Commission staff reports Motion and Vote: 0919W o §&%k1XQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 3/21/90 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of DR -89 -088 Appellant /Applicant: Sheldon Blum; Location: 14598 Deer Springs Ct. Overview The Planning Commission approved a design review application to allow the construction of a new residence which complies with the City's allowable floor area. In addition to the main residence, which is just within allowable floor area limits, the applicant requested approval of variance for a pool side cabana. The variance was denied by the Planning Commission and design review conditions set out that deleted the cabana. The applicant has appealed the variance denial as well as design review conditions eliminating the cabana. Background The applicant requested Planning Commission's design review and variance approval to construct a 7,678 sq. ft. residence and a 462 sq. ft. cabana totaling 8,139 sq. ft. of allowable floor area as a counted by City Code. A 1,083 sq. ft. basement is also proposed which does not count as floor area but is subject to design review approval. The Code allows 7,680 sq. ft. as the total amount of floor area allowed on this site. The following summarizes the project's details: Zoning: NHR General Plan Designation: RHC Parcel Size: 3.136 acres Average Slope: 20% Grading Required: Cut: 907 cu. yds. Fill: 500 cu. yds. Total Grading: 1407 cu. yds. 1 DR -89 -088; Blum - 14598 Deer Springs Ct. Materials & Colors Proposed: Clay tile roof, stucco siding painted "Rose Breath ". Proposal Lot Coverage: 14,458 sq. ft.(10.6 %) Height: 26 ft. Code Requirement /Allowance 15,000 sq. ft. (11 %) 26 ft. Size of Cabana: 462 sq. ft. Structure: 1st Floor: 4417 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 3260 sq. ft. Total: 8139 sq. ft. 7680 sq. ft. Basement (not counted as floor area): 1083 Setbacks: Front: 88 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 200 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 42 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 65 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. The applicant is seeking reversal of the Planning Commission's denial of the variance for floor area and modification to the design review approval to retain the cabana. The Council should be aware that the Planning Commission reviewed initial house plans showing the residence by itself exceeded the allowable floor area exclusive of the cabana. At a Planning Commission study session held in January, specific direction was given the applicant to reduce the residence to be less than code allowed size. Several Commissioners indicated they would consider the variance to allow the cabana. Some Commissioners noted that approximately 800 sq. ft. of the main residence exceeded 15 feet interior height and was counted twice as floor area. Given the double counted floor area exceed- ed the area of the cabana and was an integral component of the house plans, some Commissioners indicated they would consider the variance further. With this direction, the applicant prepared plans to reduce the size of the residence, retain the cabana and pursue the variance for floor area. However, in considering these revised plans, the Planning Commission found that while the proposed residence met with the City's design objectives, the findings to grant the variance were not present. Therefore, the Planning Commission approved the design and rejected the request for a variance. Analysis The applicant stated before the Planning Commission that his building site is unique which justifies granting a size variance. The presence of a large and unsightly San Jose Water Company 2 6R -89 -088, V -89 -022; Blum - 14598 Deer Springs Ct. storage tank, as the applicant has indicated, forces the need for the cabana to screen this view from outdoor living areas. Ac- cording to the applicant, the water tank unfairly restricts the size of a home because an additional accessory structure is essential to full enjoyment of the property. Further, the applicant points out that the granting of the vari- ance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood because of the location of the subject site, and the siting of the residence and cabana. Because the property is located at the end of a cul -de- sac, the applicant feels that views of the site's excess size would be very limited. The location of the residence and cabana away from the top of the slope also would restrict distant views making the development compatible with all visible neighborhoods. The Planning Staff recommended that findings were not present to grant the variance; and the Planning Commission concurred with this recommendation. The Commission noted that the proposed residence was nearly at the maximum development allowed by code. The Planning Commission disagreed with the applicant's contention that the site was unique due to the visibility of the water tank, since alternates such as landscaping in combination with fencing and other non - enclosed structures would serve equally as well as the proposed cabana. Therefore, the applicant enjoyed full usage of the property without the necessity for a variance. Further, the Planning Commission felt that the. applicant also retains the option to reduce the size of his residence to accommodate the cabana also without the necessity for a variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this variance to eliminate the cabana. Stephen Emslie Planning Director Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes 2/14/90 & 12/13/90 Committee -of- the -Whole report 1/16/90 2. Resolution No. DR -89 -088 3. Appeal Application 4. Staff memo to Planning Commission dated 2/14/90 SE /dsc PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued agrees with some of the other Commissioners that the wall is too stark. She said she is viewing this as a new application and in studying it from that point of view she would not approve it as it is. In response to a question from Commissioner Kolstad, Planning Director Emslie reviewed the proposal. The Public Hearing was reopened at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Brian Pool, 20334 Thelma Ave., addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Pool reviewed the application in detail. He indicated the Applicant does not like the sheer wall either but they were forced to do that because they were attempting to comply with other laws regarding a motor home which was parked in front of the house. The Applicant could not get the motor home past the eaves if there was overhang. Mr. Michael Berry, 20333 Thelma Ave., addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Berry said he too opposes the sheer wall but he is in favor of the second story. BURGER /TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:14 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger expressed concern that a one story home was approved but part of the application is for a second story. She said she will not be voting for the application for that reason. KOLSTAD /TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -88 -102 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. The motion was denied without prejudice on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tappan, Kolstad and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Moran and Tucker 6. DR -89 -088 Blum, 14598 Deer Spring Ct., a request for design V -89 -022 review approval to construct a two - story, 9,233 sq. ft. single - family dwelling and cabana in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The variance request is to exceed the allowed floor area by 1,553 sq. ft. and to allow a 15 ft. high accessory structure where 12 ft. is permitted (cont. from 12/13/89). --------------------------------=--------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 8:16 p.m. Mr. Michael Helm, 200 Seventh Ave., Santa Cruz, Architect, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He said the structure was reduced in mass and bulk to conform with the allowable square footage. Mr. Helm indicated the cabana was designed to shield an existing San Jose Water tank on the property next door. In response to a question from Chairperson Siegfried, Planning Director Emslie indicated the cabana would have to be open on three sides in order for it not to be counted. Mr. Sheldon Blum, Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He pointed out that his property is the only one affected by the water tank and is in view of the only open space he has for recreational use. He said he had no alternative other than the cabana to mitigate the problem. Mr. Blum pointed out that the two adjacent neighbors were agreeable to his design. The cabana does not affect anyone's views, it does not offend anyone and does not involve any form of invasion of privacy. Ms. Lynn Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea Court, addressed the Planning Commission. She said the house cannot be seen from her property but her property is impacted by everything that goes on in the hills. She said she is concerned about the precedent a variance would set. The house is very large and bulky. She said the Applicant knew the water tank was there when he purchased the property, and if he wants to put a structure in front of. it he should be willing to sacrifice something else in order to be able to construct the cabana. BURGER /TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Tappan stated he is sensitive to the Applicant as the water tank is an eyesore and understands the Applicant's desire for wanting to put something between his property and the water tank. Commissioner Burger indicated that the cabana is not the problem but felt square footage of the house should be under control as the house is massive and bulky. She said she reviewed the findings the Planning Commission is required to make by the State in order to allow the variance and she cannot in good conscience make those findings. Commissioner Burger said she would be in favor of approval with one solid back wall on the cabana to eliminate the view towards the water tank and a small enclosure for a bathroom. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan said he had no trouble with stipulating some kind of a structure with three open sides and a back wall to shield the water tank and something other than a traditional roof and would have no trouble voting in favor of the design review. Commissioner Moran clarified that the Applicant is free to reduce the size of the main structure and then go with the full cabana as is currently proposed. She said she is unable to make findings for a variance on this site and indicated she is appreciative of the Applicant's willingness to work with the staff and with the Planning Commission in trying to get the project to a more manageable size. Commissioner Moran expressed concern about the precedent of granting a variance in this case and is unable to vote for that but said she would support the staff recommendation for the design review. BURGER /HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -088 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. BURGER /TUCKER MOVED TO DENY V -89 -022 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. 7. DR -89 -115 Nishimura, 19956 Baroni Ct., request for design V -89 -041 review approval to demolish an existing home and construct a new 2,429 sq. ft. two -story home pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is located within the R -1- 20,000 zone district and is nonconforming in width, depth, and area, and includes a large Santa Clara Valley Water District easement along the back property line. Variance approval is also requested to allow the home to encroach 8 ft. into a required front yard setback. This application was continued from the .1/10/90 public hearing to allow the applicant to submit a revised proposal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:38 p.m. The Applicant was present and did not wish to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Paula Wallace, 19978 Baroni Court, addressed the Planning Commission. She expressed several concerns relative to privacy and safety. She is concerned that the two -story home will be looking down on her property. Ms. Wallace also expressed concern that the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 8 15. DR -89 -088 Blum, 14598 Deer Spring Ct., a request for design V -89 -022 review approval to construct a two - story, 9,233 sq. ft. single - family dwelling and cabana in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The variance request is to exceed the allowed floor area by 1,553 sq. ft. and to. allow a 15 ft. high accessory structure where 12 ft. is permitted. ------------------------------------------------------------ Chairperson Siegfried noted receipt of a letter from Lynn and Robert Sprague expressing their concerns regarding the proposal. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated December 13, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Sheldon Blum addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Blum described the property. He stated a San Jose water tank borders the property and the purpose of the cabana is to screen the property. He said he did not agree with the Staff Report that the water tank be screened by landscaping because the tank would still be visible through the trees. He also stated that the cabana does not impact the other neighbors. He pointed out that the site for the building is the only reasonable and compatible area for it because it is centrally located and is far enough from the street. If it were moved backwards, the yard area would be lost. The reason for additional square footage is based upon double counting of the ceiling level. Mr. Michael Helm, Architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He discussed the attempts made to minimize the impact to the neighbors and various aspects of the Staff Report. Mr. Wilhelm Kohler addressed the Planning Commission regarding his concerns about the size of the house. Mr. Frank Saude addressed the Planning Commission. He is the homeowner adjacent to the Blum's property. He stated he has no problems with the project. Mr. Wong, a neighbor, stated he had no objection to the proposal. HARRIS /BURGER MOVED TO. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Passed 5 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 December 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan stated he has no problems with the double counting issue or the cabana. Commissioner Burger stated she is not bothered by the cabana. Her concerns are in the grading and the square footage. She said it is her feeling that the grading should be reduced and the square footage should be reduced. Commissioner Harris concurred with the comments made. Commissioner Moran stated she agrees with the Staff Report. Chairperson Siegfried said he is not concerned with the cabana but is concerned with the size of the home. At the request of the Applicant, the item was continued to February 14, 1990 with a Study Session on January 16. 16. V -89 -028 Petrossi, 14720 Montalvo Rd., a request for variance approval to construct an 8 ft. high,sound wall with a zero setback where 15 ft. is normally required and to replace an existing 6 ft. fence with another 6 ft. fence in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------ Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated December 13, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. TAPPAN /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:46 P.M. Passed 5 -0. Commissioner Tappan moved to approve V -89 -028; Commissioner Moran requested an.amendment to require a 3 ft. wall in the front. Commissioner Burger stated the proposed 6 ft. wall on the outside property line does not concern her but questioned how much noise abatement would occur with a 6 ft. wall across the front of the property and if the 6 ft. wall is necessary. Planning Director Emslie said staff felt the site is unique in that it is so close to Highway 9 and that the effectiveness of the sound wall would be diminished if there was not a continuation of the wall. Committee -of .e -Whole 1/16/90 volumes expected from the subdivision are significant con- cerns. 2. DR -88 -102 - POOL, 20334 THE LMA AVE. Chair Siegfried and the Planning Director summarized the public hearing held in November, 1989. The purpose of the study session was to review pertinent facts in an informal and productive setting. The applicant presented both the original plans and plans turned down by the Site Review Committee and the proposal. The applicant reviewed the history of the project and the sequence of events leading to the construction of the story addition. The Commission concluded by stating that the members will view the site and determine the impact of the second story before a decision is rendered at the public hearing on Janu- ary 24, 1990. 3. DR -89 -088, V -89 -022 = BLUM. 14598 DEER SPRINGS CT. The Planning Director reviewed the status of the project and the Planning Commission direction given at the public hear- ing. The architect reviewed the issues as viewed from the applicant's perspective: grading reduction, cabana height and building size. The architect explained that minor reduc- tions are possible but the home will still exceed the square footage as defined by the City. The Commission felt very strongly that it wants the square footage reduced to a point where no variance will be re- quired. Mr. Blum felt that there were unique circumstances to justify granting the variance. The Commission concluded by directing the applicant to rede- sign the home to conform with size limitations. The cabana did not contribute significantly to the Commission's concern regarding the massive appearance of the home. 4. DISCUSSION OF REAR YARD SETBACKS AND ENCROACHMENT OF POOL STRUCTURES The Planning Commission asked that this section be clarified and requested the City Attorney include this on his legisla- tive calendar. ` ADJOURNMENT 2 - VUU1v. -. RESOLUTION NO. DR -89 -088 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Blum - 14598 Deer Spring Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a two story, 7678 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the NHR zone district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that adequate setbacks to property lines are proposed and the structure is located at a lower elevation than a home to the north so distant sight lines are uninterrupted. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that landscaping will screen the project from adjacent homes.- Also, the proposal is oriented in a manner to preserve exiting privacy by avoiding direct lines of sight onto neighboring properties. -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no tree removal is proposed and grading is limited to the amount necessary to develop the site and will preserved natural topography. -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the structure proposes a hipped roof, varied roof elements, balanced grading in terms of cut and fill, and emphasizes horizontal elements. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that the proposal has a similar floor area to homes approved in the neighborhood. Two nearby homes measure 6480 sq. ft. and 6796 square feet. The design also reflects a harmonious architectural appearance with the surrounding structures. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that adequate setback to the property lines are proposed. -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that an appropriate volume of grading is proposed to develop the site and the Building Department will require erosion control measures during construction. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve.as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits- submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Sheldon R. Blum, for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Height of structure shall not exceed 26 feet. 4. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed 7680 square feet. 5. The maximum height of an exposed underfloor area shall not exceed 5 ft. 6. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. 7. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 8. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope. 9. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. 10. Exterior colors shall be medium to dark earthtone and subject to staff review and approval. Pastel colors are not permitted. 11. Prior to. issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for Planning Director review and approval. 12. Applicant shall submit a report by licensed professional to include details on: a.) Soils b.) Foundation 13. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to.issuance of a zone clearance: a.) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) 0 b.) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) c.) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 4 feet or higher. d.) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. e.) Erosion control measures f.) Standard information to include title block, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's. owner's name, etc. 14. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Reroofing, less than 10 %, shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code `Appendix E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. c. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior. to issuance of a building permit (City of Saratoga 16 -60). d. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. (City of Saratoga Code 16- 15:110). 15. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. a. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of A.C. or better on U' aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. b. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 32 ft. 16. This resolution does not grant approval of the Cabana indicated on Exhibit "A ". Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. , Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of February, 1990, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Siegfried, Tucker, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Moran and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Tht onditions are hereby accepted. ,2%�gQ Signature of Applicant Date RESOLUTION NO. V -89 -022 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST Blum - 14598 Deer Spring Court WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance Approval of plans to exceed the allowed floor area by 460 sq. ft. in the NHR zone district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: -A strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance in that the applicant is still allowed to construct a 7680 sq. ft. home on the site which the Commission is not denying as a result of this resolution. -No 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 in that the property is similar in slope, shape, topography, and has an open space easement crossing the eastern side of the site that is comparable to parcels throughout the subdivision. - Granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zoning district in that two variance requests to exceed the allowed floor area on nearby parcels were denied by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Sheldon R. Blum, for variance approval be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 14th day of February 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Siegfried, Tucker, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Moran and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: None Ch irman, Planning mmission ATTEST: v v Secretary, Planning Commission varideny.res Date Received: ( A, Hearing Date: Fee: Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: APPEAL APPLICATION SHELDON R. BLUM 311 Woodland Park Lane, Mountain Vie�kt, CA QA9AI 415) 966 -855A Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File No.: Project Address: V -89 -022 14598 Deer Spring Court, Saratoga, CA Decision Being Appealed: Denial of Variance allowing Cabana which exceeds floor area standard by 460 square feet. Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be attached): See.Attached Letter * Ap el nt s Signature SHELDON R. BLUM *Please donot sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. LAW OFFICES OF Sheldon R. Blum 2242 CAMDEN AVENUE, SUITE 8 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95124 ( 408 ) 377 -7320 City Council of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 February 23, 1990 RE: Project Address: 14598 Deer Spring Court Saratoga, California Description: Appeal for Variance Approval of 460 sq.ft. Cabana Honorable Council Members: This herein appeal is respectfully submitted so as to obtain Variance approval to construct a Cabana as special circumstances and findings do exists unique only to this parcel, which causes unnecessary hardships and difficulties to the applicant, inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. . The property site consists of.3.136 acres with 50% of the parcel dedicated as Open Space Easement with slopes averaging 40 %, thereby severely restricting and limiting the allowable building square footage. A copy of the Tract Map Number 6628, which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A ", clearly reflects that the size and shape of the property is two (2) to three (3) times larger than any other parcel in the Toll Gate area subdivision. In addition, the property is located at the end of a cul -de -sac without any neighbors bordering the eastern or southern portion of the parcel as a result of the dedicated Open Space Easements. Unfortunately, there exists a massive, overpowering and unsightly San Jose Water Tank at the southern area of the property line measuring approximately 30 feet in height and 40 feet in width, which is located in plain view, abutting and adjacent to the property site. The subject water tank is not visible nor does it impact or otherwise effect any of the other neighboring properties classified in the same zoning district except applicant's parcel. A copy of the subject San City Council of Saratoga February 23, 1990 Page 2 Jose Water Tank is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "B ", and incorporated herein by reference. The proposed Cabana was architecturally tailored and designed so as to effectively eliminate and avoid the overwhelming, non - conforming, and stark visual impact of the San Jose Water Tank, as it is located adjacent to the only usable outdoor recreational space on the property, thereby uniquely affecting applicant only. Furthermore, the proposed Cabana is not visual to the neighboring or valley residents, as its location and size provides a low profile and it meets all remaining zoning regulations. On February 14, 1990, the Planning Department approved a resolution for the applicant to construct an allowable 7680 sq. ft. residence of which 863 sq. ft. was double counted floor area due to the ceiling heights in the entry and diningroom greater than 15 ft and denied applicant's.Variance request to construct a 460 sq. ft Cabana in vague, abstract and boiler plate terms. It is particularly significant to note that on January 16, 1990, a Study Session was held, whereat the proposed Cabana was discussed and the general consensus from the majority of the members of the Planning Department were to vote for Variance approval of the Cabana, as all five (5) of the required findings were met and satisfied. In addition, the surrounding property owners within the classified zoning district voiced their approval for the construction of the Cabana, even though two (2) of which were previously denied a variance to increase the allowable square footage of.their residence. It should also be mentioned that the members of the Planning Department had also advised applicant that they have Previously allowed Variances on ceiling height, if it was part of the architectural theme of the residence, which was also indicated in applicant's approved mediteranean villa residence. A strict or liberal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance, in that denying the Variance would prevent applicant from effectively eliminating, and ameliorating the subject private nuisance in terms of mass, bulk and height which is incompatible, obtrusive and unsightly, to applicant's property only. City Council of Saratoga February 23, 1990 Page 3 Planting trees, vegetation nor ineffective to resolve the problem, as trees, Are seasonable and take seven (7) to ten (10) disproportional and unpredictable size and he would never be any assurance of its affect on overpowering water tank. the like, would be vegetation, etc. years to grow in fight, and there discarding the Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances exist that are applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which does not apply generally to the other properties in the same zoning district, as the subject San Jose Water Tank is not visible nor does it impact or otherwise affect the neighboring properties. Furthermore, as a result of the slopes, shape, topography and dedicated Open Space Easement crossing the eastern and southern portion of the property site, applicant is precluded from the complete utilization of the property or alternatively enjoying the only remaining usable outdoor recreational space on the property site. Granting the Variance will not constitute a,grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the same zoning district as unique circumstances clearly exists on this parcel as above - described. In addition, the neighboring homeowners have expressed to the Planning Department their approval for applicant's construction of the Cabana and granting the requested Variance would not be considered precedent setting due to the intimidating water tank, the dedicated Open Space Easement, the significant size of the parcel, and the consent of the surrounding neighbors. Furthermore, granting the Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as the proposed Cabana is designed so as to be architecturally harmonious and compatible with the approved residences in the zoning district and does not interfere with the views, privacy or visual distance between surrounding neighbors. In addition, the Cabana integrates with the environment and incorporates energy efficiency and conservation devices. It should finally be emphasized that the applicant would not have found it necessary to apply for a Variance had the allowable building square footage not been so severely restricted or limited due to the generously dedicated Open Space Easement or otherwise had the residential entry and /or the diningroom ceiling City Council of Saratoga February 23, 1990 Page 4 height not been double counted building floor area by the Planning Department as previously established by precedent. Lastly, the two (2) homeowners who were previously denied a Variance to increase the allowable square footage of their residence voiced approval for the project, and the requested Variance is for the construction of a separate and apart functional structure, so as to eliminate a physical hardship and difficulty to applicant. In these regards, the proposal is a total summation in keeping with the standards, design policies, objectives and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and City of Saratoga, in addition to achieving the only necessary and adequate protection at no community or neighboring detriment. Please do not hesitate to call me if I can be of any assistance in answering any of your questions, as I sincerely request your approval. a O R.O.S. 199•M•6 I 1 I I� 1,. I� 1 I I 69 x I w. s9 IK." A 40 `� 39 1.06 AC, L' V !25 g�% 41 42 M � z NS. N ��o ,u jut G p`N-, _... 3 R 2119 • °s9� xill O1.2 Mt;u 1, 15 AC. NET 0.95 AC. NET►_ 93 ' } A -963 6 2 ��2i 97 A 9 b 4 12 l02 1.51 AC. GR. /22 1.39AC.NET TRACT N° 6628 �� .0 85 '•,' •, C. C. 7606474 ` ° — •r 5 �f 11cPiy� i` � IOO AC. NET \ �i PCl B • -A 0�� � 194 AC. GR. GQ� .p 'sue 181 AC. N ET C\v 1.57 AC. GR. //7 1 :22AC.NET ' �/ . 111599 /20 / /9 Wit, _ W� t 1.10 AC. GR. C 3.16 C. G 1.48AC.GR. "/ R. 1.41 AC. NET / 1.07AC. NET 3.14 AC. NET �0 s / 155.7 _„ 302.09 01731-01— 62 ' "" ' 40 E EXHIBIT A • 3e LL -► 9 `^ lk ��trsso's• - L. Y• +s r. eo 49t <�a 43— = �q Z sir `�t 4 r l �M ./ • r ..az 5% X45 A' ��• �('p �-2 44 ., e 'b ' 82�INO 128 \_ s •J (2.05 AC.) PCL -'- P. xf- ; 9 / C 8 1.15 Ac NET Cfl-? 7 -1 SI 127 "O;X 126 14 /24 's "- 1.44 AC. GR.: e: 1.20AC.NET - - -- e .L.o _ v1s.e ,vq pOs4sn N H R . : PCL.I 92SIs,I 123 o 13 ns is_� 1.42AC. GR. I 1 I I� 1,. I� 1 I I 69 x I w. s9 IK." A 40 `� 39 1.06 AC, L' V !25 g�% 41 42 M � z NS. N ��o ,u jut G p`N-, _... 3 R 2119 • °s9� xill O1.2 Mt;u 1, 15 AC. NET 0.95 AC. NET►_ 93 ' } A -963 6 2 ��2i 97 A 9 b 4 12 l02 1.51 AC. GR. /22 1.39AC.NET TRACT N° 6628 �� .0 85 '•,' •, C. C. 7606474 ` ° — •r 5 �f 11cPiy� i` � IOO AC. NET \ �i PCl B • -A 0�� � 194 AC. GR. GQ� .p 'sue 181 AC. N ET C\v 1.57 AC. GR. //7 1 :22AC.NET ' �/ . 111599 /20 / /9 Wit, _ W� t 1.10 AC. GR. C 3.16 C. G 1.48AC.GR. "/ R. 1.41 AC. NET / 1.07AC. NET 3.14 AC. NET �0 s / 155.7 _„ 302.09 01731-01— 62 ' "" ' 40 E EXHIBIT A • 3e LL -► 9 `^ lk ��trsso's• - L. Y• +s r. eo 49t <�a 43— = �q Z sir `�t 4 r l �M ./ • r ..az 5% X45 A' ��• �('p �-2 44 ., e 'b ' 82�INO 128 \_ s •J (2.05 AC.) PCL -'- P. xf- ; 9 EXHIBIT 14605 Bougainvillea Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 December 12, 1989 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners, DEC RECEIVED �1��� u�x~v^�o"�,° PLANNING DEPT We are concerned about the proposed Blum house on Deer Creek Ct.~ DR-89-088, V-B9-022" and are opposed to an approval of the design and variance application. Our concerns are many: the house exceeds the maximum square footage allowed, especially since these figures do not reflect a basement that is itself as large as many homes in Saratoga; the height of the cabana, since the Blums knew of the water tank when they bought the property; the excessive grading of an already beautiful and buildable lot; the large bulk of a full two-story house on the lot which is itself up a steep slope; and the Mediterranean style and color which are not compatible with the natural hillside property. The Planning Commission has reasonable guidelinesfor hillside buildin;. Aoproval of this application would set a precedent which could lead to great abuses in building on the Saratoga hillsides. The natural beauty and ooenness of the hillsides need to be preserved and can be with careful and controlled building of new homes. Thank You for your consideration. Yours truly, Lynn SMrQUL- Robert Sprague 00 �\ Date: To: Date: L3777FRUTITV,A LE:A VF_ NUE.SARATOGA.CAL_IF(_)RNI.A950 0 (408) 867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: M E M O R A N D U M February 14, 1990 Planning Commission Planning Staff Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Subject: DR -89 -088, V -89 -022; 14598 Deer Spring Court, Blum On December 13, 1989, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing to consider the above referenced application for design review and variance approval to construct a 9,233 sq. ft. single family dwelling. The variance request was to exceed the allowed floor area by 1553 sq. ft. and to construct a 15 ft. high accessory structure where the maximum allowed height is 12 feet. At that time, the Commission was unable to make the required findings to approve the project as submitted. At the direction of the Commission and planning staff, the applicant has subsequently submitted revised plans for considera- tion. The project still requires a variance to exceed floor area standards by 460 square feet. Total floor area for which the applicant is requesting approval, measures 8140 square feet. This figure includes a 462 sq. ft. cabana located adjacent to the pool, and the 7678 sq. ft. home of which 863 sq. ft. is double counted floor area due to ceiling heights greater than 15 feet. Those areas with heights greater than 15 ft. are located above the dining room and the entry. The height of the proposed cabana is 12 feet and does not require a variance. Staff continues to be unable to make all required findings to recommend approval of the variance request. No exceptional or extraordinary conditions exist on the site which warrant variance approval for this project. Approval of the variance would con- stitute a grant of special privilege because requests to exceed allowable floor area on two adjacent parcels was denied by the Commission. One purpose of the cabana, which is approximately equal to the amount that the project exceeds the allowed floor area, is to screen a San Jose Water Works storage tank located on an adjacent parcel. It has been pointed out that an option is available to use landscaping to accomplish the same effect. An unenclosed accessory structure, such as a gazebo or arbor, could be used in tandem with landscaping to increase screening. If the cabana were Printed on recycled paper. deleted from the application, the project would be below the maximum allowed floor area and staff would able to make all required findings to recommend design review approval. The structure would not disturb distant sight lines enjoyed by the property to the north which is located at a higher elevation. The proposal is also oriented in a manner to preserve privacy of adjacent neighbors. No tree removal is proposed and grading will preserve natural topography. The project is compatible to homes in the neighborhood proposing similar floor area and a complimentary architectural design. The preception of mass and bulk is reduced by use of a hipped roof, balanced grading in terms of cut and fill and an emphasis on horizontal elements of design. Two other issues also concerned staff: the amount of grading proposed and the exterior color of the home. The most recent grading plan proposes the movement of 1407 cubic yards of material; down from the original proposal of 2230 cubic yards. No new color sample has been submitted for the home, so a condition on the resolution is included to require a medium to dark earthtone color, subject to staff approval. Staff does not consider colors in the pastel spectrum as appropriate for this project. Recommendation: Staff recommends the commission review the applicant's revised plans and deny the variance application by adopting Resolution V -89 -022. Furthermore, we recommend that conditional design review approval of the project be granted by adopting Resolution DR -89 -088. The resolution includes a condition that essentially prohibits construction of the cabana by limiting the maximum allowed floor area. Martin ildcobson Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Resolutions DR -89 -088 & V -89 -022 2. Staff Report of 12/13/89 3. Exhibit 'A' REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Partin Jacobson DATE: December 13, 1989 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -89 -088, V -89 -022; Deer Spring Ct. APPLICANT /OWNER: Blum APN: 503 -28 -120 Q Staff Report for Reference drN, File No. DR -89 -088, V -89 -022; 14598 Deer Spring Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 7/13/89. Application complete: 9/25/89 Notice published: 11/29/89 Mailing completed: 11/30/89 Posting completed: 11/22/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Articles 15- 45.080 and 15- 70.060, a request for design review and variance approvals to con- struct a 9,233 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling in the NHR zone district at 14598 Deer Spring Court. A variance is requested to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 1,553 sq. ft. and to allow a 15 ft. high accessory structure where 12 ft. is permitted. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is unable to make all required findings to recommend either design review or variance approval. Design review findings cannot be made based on neighborhood compatibility and excessive grading issues. Variance findings cannot be made by staff because no unique conditions with regard to the shape, size or topography of the lot. Granting a variance for floor area also constitutes a grant of special privilege. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct the applicant to submit revised plans addressing issues raised by staff and schedule a study session to review the plans. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Plans, Exhibit A 3. Correspondence between staff and project architect. kah:ws5 \mj \perpt \dr ZONING• NHR dqN STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC PARCEL SIZE: 3.136 acres, 136,604 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 20% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1640 cu.Yds. Cut Depth: 15 ft. Fill: 590 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 6 ft. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Clay tile roof, stucco siding and painted "Rose Breath ". PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE 14,458 sq. ft. (10.6 %) I. HEIGHT: 26 ft. CODE REQUIREMENT_( ALLOWANCE 15,000 sq. ft. (11 %) 26 ft. Cabana: 462.5 sq. ft. SIZE OF 1st Floor: 4,948.5 sq. ft. STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 3,822.0 sq. ft. TOTAL: 9,233.0 sq. ft. 7,680 sq. ft. Basement: 2,195 sq. ft. (not counted as floor area) SETBACKS: Front: 87 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 200 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 35 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 60 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the Planing Commis- sion's design review and variance approvals to construct a two story 9,233 sq. ft. single family dwelling and cabana. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 1,553 sq. ft. and to allow a 15 ft. high accessory structure where 12 ft. is permitted. The site is located in the NHR zoning district at 14598 Deer Spring Court, approximately 175 ft. south of Tollgate Road. The property rises nearly 16 ft. in elevation from Deer Spring Court to a relatively level building site. An open space easement paral- leling the east and south property lines occupies 60% of the lot's area. The easement is characterized by very step east facing sloped covered with dozens of ordinance protected valley, live and black oak trees in very good health. The property offers excellent distant vistas from the northeast to the south. A 6,480 sq. ft. home is currently under construction immediately to the north; to the east, is a two story 6,796 sq. ft. home. A large San Jose Water Works storage tank is to the south of the subject parcel. Variance: The applicant is requesting variance approval of two zoning regulations: allowable floor area and height of accessory structures. The proposed home exceeds the maximum allowed floor area by 1,553 sq. ft. The height of the 462 sq. ft. cabana is 15 ft. where a maximum of 12 ft. is permitted. Staff is not able to make all required findings to recommend variance approval for either item. Floor Area: The proposed project measures a total of 91233 sq. ft. This figure repro ants the 462 sq. ft. cat to and 909 sq. ft-. of floor area in the home counted twice because the ceiling height is greater than 15 ft. The proposed floor area exceeds, by 1,553 sq. ft. 20 %, the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. No unique conditions with respect to the shape, size, dimensions or topographic condition of the lot are present that do not'apply to properties in the same subdivision or throughout the zone district. The lot has a 20% average slope but a relatively level building pad. The open space easement only affects the steepest portion of the lot and continues on to adjacent properties. Strict application of the zoning ordinance does not impose a hardship on the applicant. A home of 7,680 sq. ft. can still be constructed on the lot. Denial of the variance does not prohibit the applicant all reasonable use of the property. Because applicants on two adjacent properties were denied variance request to exceed floor area standards, approving this variance amounts to a grant of special privilege and is inconsistent with the limitations placed on those properties. Cabana: The applicant proposes to construct a 462 sq. ft: cabana measuring 15 ft. in height in order to shield from view a San Jose Water Works storage tank on an adjacent parcel. However, the zoning ordinance limits the height of detached accessory structures to 12 ft. Currently, the tank is half obscured by a 28" diameter live oak tree. Young, evergreen conifers growing in front of the tank will continue to increase in size and further block the view to the tank. Denial of the variance will not result in a physical hardship to the applicant. If the applicant wishes to-further obscure from view the water tank, an effective alternative is the installation of addition- al landscaping. Strict application of the height restriction does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners because a cabana could still be built (not taking into account floor area restrictions) that meets ordinance standards. As discuss previously, no unique physical circumstances exist on the property which would warrant variance approval. Design Review: The project's architect describes the architectural style of the proposal as "refined Mediterranean Villa." The hipped roof is to be finished with terra -cotta clay tile; stucco is proposed as the exterior siding and painted "Rose Breath." The home features three, second story balconies with precast concrete railings, arched, wood frame windows and a columned and arched entryway. Staff is unable to make all required findings to recommend design review approval of this application. With the exception of floor area and cabana height, the project meets all minimum zoning ordi- nance standards such as coverage and setbacks. One of staff's concerns is that the proposal does not preserve the natural topography of the site by cutting to a depth of 15 ft. with a total volume of grading equaling 2,230 cu. yds. of material. The proposed grading indicates that the property is being tailored to fit the proposed home rather than designing the project to fit the site. The applicant should take advantage of the relatively level, existing building pad and )loy a stepped foundation are appropriate. The proposed home is not compatible to surrounding houses in the neighborhood. Though the structure does not exceed the 26 ft. height limit, the floor area is at least 2,400 sq. ft. greater than nearby homes. For this reason, staff has determined that the proposal is incompatible in terms of mass and bulk to adjacent dwellings. Staff also considers the choice of "Rose Breath," a pastel, for this prominent location to be inappropriate. An earthtone shade should be used as an alternative color. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the applicant be directed to submit revised plans which address three areas of concern: 1. Reduce the amount of grading proposed. 2. Lower the height of the cabana to a maximum of 12 ft. 3. Reduce the proposed floor area to a maximum of 7,680 sq. ft. which should result in a reduction in the bulk of the project. A date should be set for a study session before the Committee-of-the - Whole to review the plans and consider their conformity to the zoning ordinance. Based on what staff considers to be the need for extensive revision to the plans submitted in what would become a new application, the Commission may wish to deny the application without prejudice. FOOTNOTE: The applicant has submitted a scale model of the proposed dwelling which is available in the Planning Depart- ment offices for review purposes. The model will also be presented at the public hearing. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / �r/ AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: —March-21,-1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: Request to Authorize 10K Montalvo Foot Race on Saturday, April 14, 1990 Recommended Motion: Approve in concept the holding of a foot race as proposed on April 14, 1990, conditioned on compliance with all requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance. Approval includes authorization for the Community Services Director to issue a Special Events Permit when he determines that all conditions have been satisfied. Report Summary: Bradford Martin, a physical therapist who lives and works in Saratoga is requesting authorization to hold a 10K run in the Montalvo area on Saturday, April 14, 1990, from ap- proximately 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The race would be limited to 150 participants, and profits from the race would be used for the maintenance of hiking trails behind Montalvo. The race route, in addition to public roadways, involves private roadways and areas within the jurisdiction of the County Parks Department. There- fore, the City's approval of the race would be for only that portion of the route which is within the City's jurisdiction. A map outlining the route is attached. The requirements for a Special Events Permit include the following: a) payment of a $50 non - refundable filing fee; b) payment of $250 fully - refundable clean -up deposit, c) Mr. Martin assume financial responsibility for law enforcement personnel which may be required by the Commu- nity Services Director; d) Mr. Martin obtain a Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as a primary insured party for at least $1,000,000 in liability coverage. This race is almost identical to the one the City approved last year which was held on April 22, 1989, and the year before on April 23, 1988. Fiscal Impacts: None are anticipated. Attachments: Map showing route of foot race Correspondence from Mr. Martin outlining details of event Motion and Vote: Orthopedic Physical Therapy Specialists of Saratoga 7,-�7 � I I/ f� /-cz 4, 1-) 7" t ci� Gt G-z t tz L'-t, 7C '7� t1c zql' L 7,C I 18805 Cox Avenue, Suite 130 • Saratoga. CA 95070 • (408) 866-1070 I G 8 A z N W A y 7 R 7%.e A 6.,Z l`f� J9go V c�P A� 6 q K 4 stChA'�es hQ tf A1; ®fo® uolvn}-eer5 ��Ill' (! ilci , -1�4�0 * cy 64 9 0 y SOH/V r Al A F 4 v o 0 0 IV T ,w, a a PEAL 4 5 {a Finish NISI s P,9 7wlsetA L F N ana S&L/tf/FioiSk parKih9 Lot *y --?© Piedmovtt -� Q �ea�l� N II --�© 6Leh Una ---> H urn e —� (&LarK --)@ Pef?er --�Q ParK ParK dr. --� Q MevideIsohv) -4Q Bonnie Brae Ln. —> C Ni 11 --� ® M0vljalvo Rc}. ® Bonnie gr-ae WY Mehdelsol� r\ OVA patkway © Vic Ke(I _ Q Lomi+0. ® AIokq -?Q Kom'kna. -� cc, sfi. -� ® 6s 6 +.> a sf.charles -�Q ocl,� 6f.-4Q 4wy 9 -� ElevqJ-ed I,ual Kwo,y i-a Pdiway alohy O q --� a Mo��alva Rd --� E�fra�ce oF IMo,.�alvo —� iri�ish , Vol- UNTEE 95 a) Ex'+ o-� M b v� Wv J pri veway £ P� ed�► o �t b) M; d Peas, 4111 I mile m4rk Q Pearl, Iii ll £ G leh 0114 rl\� S-CC- iov\ d) 6 It � U v� t Su►,se+ 2i� erse c+i 6 e) Park ti Ic' Pepper Z w,il� marK f) 4,0 51-exi o" o v` Par K G) 4,..yq area h) 14111 � Mop }alvv Rol. 0 130vinie. Brae wy 3 M*rlV- Mark J) Sohile. brae. WV MevidelsokA k) Mehdels,kh j 0jrf area- L) Kowi-+oq i AloAo, �`1) ICorviino, 4mi1 e Mar« r s4rz%io�, N) Komiha QaK s-�, 0) Sf. C k a r I ,es oa i( 5'}. P) s -, Chants 6-L, s4, Q) U ai< ch. > 14",1 9 R) A t>ko, � gwyq S) 1 wy q . Smile AAarI(. T) HWy 4rVieKerV/Mov`7 Wva Rd, urea U) E ✓r1rAv1ce To M 6,. +,tva Noy e; AovierS are Penn;►, Oki a- -44DIO s SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 21, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's SUBJECT: Amendment to Resolution No. 85 -9.69, the resolution establishing the method of setting Management salaries, to revise Section 4, Job Market Survey Recommended Motion: Adopt Amendment Report Summary: In June 1986 the Council adopted a resolution which outlines a comprehensive management compensation system. The resolution provides for utilizing the League of California Cities salary survey for management benchmark positions. Last fall the League announced that they were discontinuing the annual salary survey. This amendment allows for substitution of data gathered by the Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service to which Saratoga belongs through a joint powers agreement. Saratoga regularly utilizes data from the Employee Relations Service Annual Compensation Survey for non - management employees. Fiscal Impact: Executive Management survey data will be provided as a service which is covered by the annual membership fee. Attachments: Amendment to Resolution No. 85 -9.69 Resolution No. 85 -9.69 Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 85 -9.69 WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the City Manager to pre- pare a system for Management Compensation that provides for performance -based compensation for Management staff as well as a method of determining internal relationships and establishing salary ranges consistent with annual market surveys, and WHEREAS, the procedure outlined in resolution 85 -9.69 provides for utilizing the League of California Cities market survey which is no longer available, and therefore the following procedure will be used: Each year the Intergovernmental Employee Relations Executive Management Survey will be utilized in determining Saratoga's comparability in the local government job market. Additional salary data will be ordered as necessary so that each year four- teen cities in five surrounding counties will be compared with Saratoga. The fourteen cities chosen will be those which are the nearest in population to Saratoga, the seven next smallest and the seven next largest. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 21st day of March 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION N0. 85 -9.69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE MANAGRMU CCQENSATION SYSTEM AND SETTING MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986/87 WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the City Manager to prepare a system for Management Compensation that provides for performance -based compensation for Management staff as well as a method of determining internal relationships and establishing salary ranges consistent with annual market surveys, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Management Compensation System as follows, and 1986 /87 Management salary ranges (Attachment B). 1. Review and Appraisal All management employees will be reviewed twice during their first year of employment, and annually on their anniversary date thereafter. Salary adjustment will be made based upon the performance appraisal. Overall performance will be judged as unacceptable, marginal, satisfactory, excellent or outstanding. If unacceptable appraisal is given, another review will be conducted in three months. If marginal appraisal is given, another review will be conducted in six months. A total of three marginal or unacceptable appraisals will be grounds for dismissal. These reviews are in addition to any scheduled review period. All appraisals will be in writing utilizing the Performance Appraisal form (Attachment A). 2. Compensation for Performance Control Point. All management personnel will be hired in at a salary low the established control point. Each management employee shall be entitled to. advance in salary to the control point no sooner than two years after hire, nor no longer than four years, so long as they receive appraisals rated satisfactory or above. Movement beyond the control point to the top of the range depends upon continuing achievement of satisfactory or better ratings. Salary Adjustment. Salary adjustments based on appraisal ratings are to Fe- as follows: Unacceptable Performance - a 2% reduction in salary Marginal Performance - no salary adjustment Satisfactory Performance - increase equal to the rise in the cost of living over the past 12 month period adjusted to the next highest whole percentage point. Excellent Performance - cost of living plus 1 %, 27, or 3% depending on how close all the rating factors are to the uniform excellent category. Outstanding Performance - cost of living plus Q. or 57. depending on how close all the rating factors are to the uniform outstanding category. During the first six month review period for new management personnel, the salary adjustment shall be one -half the normal adjustment for satisfactory and above appraisals. 3. Internal Relationships A system of internal relationships shall be maintained and reviewed periodically, but no less frequently than every three years, to set forth the salary relationships between the various management positions and the non - management positions they supervise based on the comparable duties, responsibilities and authorities of each position. As a general rule, the salary differentials between the positions in the superior - subordinate relationship shall not be less than 15%. City Manager and City Engineer; at least Mo, but not more than 2570 City Manager and Maintenance Director; at least 25%, but not more than 35% City Manager and Planning Director; at least 25%, but not more than 3570 City Manager and Finance Director; at least 25%, but not more than 35% City Manager and Community Services Director; at least 30%, but not more than 40% City Engineer and Senior Inspector; at least 20%, but not more than 3070 Planning Director and Associate Planner; at least 25%, but not more than 35% Community Services Director and Community Center Manager; at least 15%, but not more than 25% Senior Inspector and Building Inspector; at least 1570, but not more than 25% Community Center Manager and Recreation Supervisor; at least 25%, but not more than 35% Maintenance Director and Street Maintenance Supervisor; at least 25%, but not more than 35% Maintenance Director and Parks and Building Maintenance Supervisor; at least 2570, but not more than 35% City Manager and Administrative Assistant; at least 60%, but not more than 70% 4. Job Market Survey Each year the League of California Cities salary survey for management benchmark positions in five surrounding counties will be utilized in determining Saratoga's comparability in the local government job market. The fourteen cities nearest in population to Saratoga will be used, the seven next smallest and the seven next largest. These cities are Pleasanton, Pittsburg, Cupertino, Pacifica, Newark, San Bruno, Campbell, Monterey, Martinez, Danville, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Pleasant Hill, and Marina. -2- The median salary for each position in the survey is used to establish the mid -point of the range. The control point is set at 57. above the mid - point, and the top of the range at 10% above the control point. The bottom of the range is 307. below the top. If a flat salary figure rather than a range is provided in the survey data, mid point will be estimated by using 90% of the existing salary given, or in the case of the City Manager's salary, 857. of the salary given. New salary ranges will be approved and go into effect on July 1 of each year through adoption of a resolution passed by the City Council. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of June, 1986, by the Following vote: AYES: Councilmen)exs Callon, Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Yom, e, � � — CITY CLERK -3- _�e SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �3 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: 3-21-90 MGR. APPROVAL En ineerin SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program Recommended Action: 1. Adopt resolution authorizing the City to e a co- applicant for the NPDES Permit. 2. Authorize the City's continued participation in the Santa Clara Valley NPS Program implementation. 3. Review and comment on the Draft NPS Program Implementation Agreement. Report Summary: For the past several years, the City of Saratoga has participated with the other Santa Clara Valley cities in the development of a federally mandated program to improve the quality of urban stormwater (nonpoint source) runoff into the south San Francisco Bay. The program has progressed to the point where the Santa Clara Valley dischargers are ready to file an application for a NPDES Permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Before this can happen however, each governing body must adopt a resolution authorizing its agency to be listed as a co- applicant on the permit application. In addition, each agency will be asked to execute an Agreement stipulating the terms of the cooperative arrangement for implementing a NPS Program. Fiscal Impacts: Unknown at this time, however estimates for FY 1990 -91 indicate a minimum of $40,000 as the City's share of the areawide program and an additional amount to implement a local program. Attachments: 1. Summary staff report. - to be distributed later' 2. Comprehensive staff report. 3. Resolution. - be distributed later-/ 4. Draft NPS Program Implementation Agreement . 5. Santa Clara Valley NPS Control Program - Volume III: Imple- mentation Program. - to be distributed later -,, 6. NPDES Permit Application. - to be distributed later f Motion and Vote: /\ � l\ g, J 2s; � 4()8) 867-1A438 C0UNCII, MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles SUMMARY STAFF REPORT Donald Peterson Francs Stutzman TO: The Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer' C Re: Santa Clara Valley NPS Program Since 1986, the City of Saratoga has engaged in a cooperative effort with the other twelve Santa Clara Valley cities, the County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, to develop a program to control pollutants in urban stormwater (nonpoint source) runoff which discharges into the south San Francisco Bay. The program is being developed to comply with requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay (1986 Basin Plan) as well as federal requirements of the Clean Water Act and E.P.A. regulations. Ultimately the thirteen cities et.al., (collectively known as the 'Dischargers'), will obtain a permit from the RWQCB to implement the program. This permit is referred to as the NPDES Permit and the program for which it will be issued is referred to as the NPS Control Program. The ultimate scope of the NPS Control Program is unknown at this time. What can be assumed however, is that the program will be bold, comprehensive and costly. To date, over $2 million has been spent simply to gather data, develop control strategies, devise a program implementation and produce a permit application. Saratoga's share of this cost has been roughly $30,000 and is expected to exceed $40,000 annually for next year and beyond. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has assumed the lead role in the development of the NPS Control Program. The following reports have been published bringing the program to the point where it is now at: 1. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Study, Volume I: Loads Assessment Report. 2. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Study, Volume II: Control Measures Report. 3. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program, Volume III: Implementation Program. Copies of Volumes I and II are available for review in my office. A copy of Volume III is enclosed with this report. Volume III is the important document as it discusses how an NPS Control Program may be implemented in the Santa Clara Valley. Printed on recycled paper. With the completion of Volume III, the Santa Clara Valley dis- chargers are set to apply for a NPDES Permit from the RWQCB. A copy of the permit application is attached for you to review. Also attached is a Resolution the Council must adopt authorizing the City of Saratoga to be listed as a co- applicant on the permit application. To date, only the Santa Clara City Council has adopted such a resolution however, it is anticipated that by the end of next week, all of the other governing bodies will pass similar resolutions for their respective, agencies. It is not anticipated that any one agency will elect to drop out of the program at this time as the repurcussions to an agency for doing so could be severe. Also attached for Council consideration is a draft of an Agree- ment among the Santa Clara Valley dischargers providing for implementation of the NPS Control Program. The Agreement was drafted by the City Attorney's offices of Palo Alto and San Jose and is now being circulated for review and comment by all of the agencies. Eventually, the City of Saratoga will be asked to execute such an Agreement which should be regarded as the - formal cooperative arrangement among the public agencies for implement- ing the NPS Control Program. In effect, the Agreement is actual- ly a more important document than the NPDES Permit since without it, the permit would be virtually unenforceable. There remains much to be decided about the NPS Control Program. At the countrywide level, questions regarding funding alloca- tions, implementation scheduling and permit enforcement need to be answered. Similarly, at the local level, the City Council will have to decide how much of an effort Saratoga will make to carry out such a program locally. Before any decisions are reached however, the agency representatives will continue to meet to address these issues and to explore common efforts to imple- ment the program. The results of these meetings will be present- ed to you over the next couple of months for consideration and action. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council: 1. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City of Saratoga to be listed as a co- applicant on the Santa. Clara Valley NPDES Permit Application. 2. Authorize the City of Saratoga's continuing participation in the NPS Control Program implementation. 3. Review and comment on the attached Draft Agreement Providing for Implelmentation of the Santa Clara Valley NPS Control Program. -2- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA rMM 4D EXECUTIVE SIIMMARY NO. I 2LS- MFETING DATE: March 21, 19 9 0 MGR.. APPROVAL JW/K ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SU=CT: MV- Resolution - No Parking on a Portion of Scully Avenue Recommended Action: Adopt MV- Resolution establishing a NO PARKING ZONE on the westerly side of Scully Avenue, just southerly of Colby Court. Report Summary. We were requested by Louis P. de Give, of 19774 Colby Court (southwesterly corner of Scully Avenue & Colby Court) to eliminate parking on a portion of Scully Avenue. This portion would be approximately 20 lineal feet in front of Mr. de Give's R.V. access gate, located 105 feet southerly of Colby Court. The Public Safety Commission approved the recommended NO PARKING zone at their February 12, 1990 meeting. Fiscal Impacts: The cost to establish this NO PARKING zone is estimated to be $150 for sign(s) and red curb. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV 2. Memo to Engineering from Public Safety Commission. 3. Memo to Public Safety Commission from Engineering (includes location map, memos, & letter from Mr. de Give). Motion and Vote: c RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SCULLY AVENUE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following designated portion of street in the City of Saratoga is hereby declared to be a congested area, and the following limit for parking of motor vehicles is hereby established for said portion of said street: Name of Street Description Parking Limit Scully Avenue On the westerly side from NO PARKING a point 105± southerly from ANYTIME the southerly curb line of Colby Ct. to 125± southerly thereof This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 ! ' COUNCIL. MEMBERS: Karen Anderson fi�. 1 1 1990 Martha Clevenger ll A David Moyles February 28, 1990 Donald Peterson CITY OF SARATOGA Francis stutzman CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE To: Erman Dorsey, Senior Traffic Technician From: Community Services Director Subject: No Parking Request at Scully Avenue This is to inform you that the Public Safety Commission approved your staff recommendation to establish a no parking zone in front of 19774 Colby Court at the southwesterly corner of Scully Avenue and Colby Court for a distance of approximately 20 lineal feet in front of Mr. de Give's RV access gate which is located at 105' southerly of the south curb line of Colby Court. The Commission took this action at their regular meeting on February 12, 1990. Please let me know if you have any questions. Todd W. rgow jm Printed on recycled paper. OTTE 0 1900& •f 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Commission DATE: 12 -19 -89 FROM: Engineering Department SUBJECT: No Parking Request - Scully Avenue We have been requested by Louis P. de Give, of 19774 Colby Court (SW'ly corner of Scully Ave. and Colby Ct.) to eliminate parking on a portion of Scully Avenue. This portion would be approximately 20 lineal feet in front of Mr. de Give's R.V. access gate, which is located 105 feet southerly of the south curb line of Colby Ct. Apparently when the Congregation Beth David Synagogue (which is across Scully Ave. from Mr. de Give's residence) has a large crowd, vehicles park in front of R.V. access gate. There is no driveway opening in front of this gate. Mr. de Give is the E. C. for Saratoga and he would use his R. V. as an Amatuer Radio Operating Base in an emergency. The R. V. unit could be mobile on a short notice. The Engineering Department recommends that the above des- cribed portion of.Scully Avenue be a 'No Parking Zone'. ED /df Attachments 1�. �I sc_ U / .v SO' — �1 II u u n ai ai 11 ro v N h 1 MI Flo n� 1� I _ i DRAWN BY 4.Oars4-y APPROVED BY /I IM V Q 4 >4 i4 4 �I y IM CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING -CONGREGA T /OW BErdV.. OjAYLO SCALE HOR. 1 — ,%hvyvn. VERT. 1 = DATE IfGG., /989 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408)1167 - 3438 2 i MEMORANDUM OCT 261969 TO: Erman Dorsey FROM: Todd W. Argow CITY or SARATO F ^�v +rdEER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Request for the Establishment of a No- Parking Zone October 23, 1989 Attached is a letter from Louis P. deGive dated October 10, 1989, requesting the establishment of a no- parking zone to clearly establish a driveway access at 19774 Colby Court. Mr. deGive obtained the approval from our Planning Department on July 20, 1989, for the storage of his r.v. However, the access to his r.v. is frequently blocked by visitors attending a church next door. He requests that we either paint the curb in front of the r.v. red, or post a no- parking sign at that location. Please advise as to your recommendations, and thank you for your attention in this matter. 1117, cr TWA: jd Attachment 19774 Colby Ct. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 October 10, 1989 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 05070 Attn: Mr. Todd Argow Re: Parking Restrictions Dear Todd: After completing the fence to "hide" our R.V., I find that some people ignore the homemade sign on the gate: "PLEASE DONT BLOCK ACCESS ". This is especially true when the Synagogue across the street has large crowds. On three separate occasions in the last two days the access has been blocked for periods up to four hours. Since I am the E.C. for Saratoga and will use the R.V. as an Amateur Radio Operating Base in an emergency, it is essential this unit can be mobile on short notice. The Sheriff's Dept. will not honor my sign. TherefAre, I request that the city either place a NO PARKING sign in the affected area or paint the curb red so the sheriff will honor same..I have enclosed a sketch with requested dim - ensions marked. Thank you for your cooperation. Si rely yours, Louis P de Give, WA6RAG Encl l AP tgy I -- pro�c city ors a oga Aj lk 0. f i I Planning Do rtmeni or l r. I � � � ,C t �� � I .1.. I ! � � lT �► -- -- - - - - CIL 09A C, IRrffit�T'Ll ! I t I ! I I i LJ 11 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. r. AGENDA ITEM f � MEETING DATE: 3-21-1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Grant Final Building Site Approval for SD 88 -010, Mt. Eden Rd., Value Design Homes (2 Lots) Recommended Action: Approve Resolution SD 88- 010 -02, approving Final Building Site. Report Summary: 1. SD 88 -010 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for the City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 88- 010 -02. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: / RESOLUTION NO. 88- 010 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Value Desian Homes The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The land 2.00 acre and 5.00 acre parcels as shown as Parcel A and B on Final Parcel Map prepared by Kirkeby & Associates, Inc. and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular i meeting held on the day of. 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -010.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Mt. Eden Road APN: 503-09 -007 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of two (2) lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -010.1 Of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference. to the Staff Report dated 9/28/88 and memo- randum dated 2/28/90 hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this. body has heretofor received and considered the Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 16th day of June, 1988 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: N.A. 1. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). See Parcel Map 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. ft. Half- Street on Mt. Eden Road. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. 5. Improve Mt. Eden Road to City Standards, including the following: See Improvement Plans a. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and flowline SD- 88- 010.1, Mt. Euen b. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24) c. Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. A.C., 4 ft. P.C.C.) d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. 6. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. c. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels. 7. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 6 in. aggregate base from Mt. Eden to within 100 ft of proposed dwelling. a) The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 feet. b) Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. c) Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. S. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base See Improvement within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. Plans 9. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. 10. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 11. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 12. No direct access allowed on Mt. Eden Road from lots. 13. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 14. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: a. Street Improvements. b. Storm Drain Construction. C. Access Road Construction. 15. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. 16. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to SD- 88- 010.1, Mt. Eden _.oad be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. Done 17. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements including the equestrian trail per Condition #27 or 29. 18. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. 19. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works. 20. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. With:-Building a. All fire hyrdrants shall be located within five hundred feet Permit from the residence and deliver no less than one thousand gallons per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14- 30:040(C)). 21. Fire hydrants: Developer shall install two fire hydrants that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to building permit issuance. Done 22. Existing wells must be sealed or maintained in accordance with S.C.V.W.D. standards. The wells must be tested and inspected by the District if to be used, and much be property registered. 23. Grading plans for future structures must be approved by S.C.V.W.D. to prevent siltation of downstream. 24. The owner should extend the water main in Mt. Eden Road up the driveway to a fire hydrant at a location as required by the Fire District. 25. Design review by the Planning Commission, is required for the homes on lots A and B. 26. Tree removal is not permitted unless a permit is obtained pursuant to Article 15 -50 of the City Code. D'One 27. The developer shall dedicate 10 ft. equestrian easements and improve the equestrian trails, from the south eastern corner to the northwestern corner. The location and route of the trail easement to be determined by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Equestrian trails to be a minimum of 8 feet wide with additional land if necessary to go around obstructions. Other approved width See Improvement to meet requiremets of Parks and Recreation Commission. Trail Plans grading to be done by the developer prior to building permit issuance. Pathway to be constructed comparatively level from side to side and unobstructed. The grading plan of the trail shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The trunk and any other portion appropriate shall be constructed with an all weather surface, as directed by the staff and Parks and Recreation Commission. With Building 28. Detailed site development plans should be submitted to the City for Permit SD- 88- 010.1, Mt. Eden toad geotechnical review prior to issuance of building permits on individual lots. In addition, the following evaluation should be satisfactorily completed prior to approval of the proposed guesthouse (or other habitable accessory structures) on Parcel B: Additional fault trenching be performed to clearly identify the eastern limit of the shear zone identified in Trench #1. The eastern edge of the no- building zone may require modification based on the results of additional subsurface exploration. With Building Permit As an alternative to completion of the additional fault characterization studies, the proposed guesthouse site could be relocated to an area which is clearly free of surface faulting rupture hazards. The results of this investigation (or a proposed alternative site for the guesthouse) should be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Geologist and Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for the guesthouse. Done 29• Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit improvement plans for the equestrian trail for the .Parks and.Recreation Commission review and approval in order to determine if the proposed slope meets acceptable standards and safety criteria. If not approved by the Parks and-Recreation Commission, the application shall be resubmitted to the Planning Commission to reconsider the location of the trail. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article is -g0 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of February, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Siegfried, Tucker, Burger, Harris, Kolstad Moran, Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ,+ Chair, Planning o ' sion Secretar , Pla ing Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted Signature of Applicant Date SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO Storm Drain Fees Park & Recreation Fees Plan Check & Inspection Fees Final Map Check Fees SD NO 88 -010 N. A. $10,054.00 $10,000.00 300.00 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: 9/28/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV._ APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -010, Mt. Eden Road 141-1 APPLICANT /OWNER: Kirkeby /Lands of Value Design Homes APN: 503 -09 -007 Q N L� REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: 9/28/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV._ APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -010, Mt. Eden Road 141-1 APPLICANT /OWNER: Kirkeby /Lands of Value Design Homes APN: 503 -09 -007 Q N ` \ ♦ is `! 1 � 0330 . • r 0 3 • I Nr/ d IY l!! SITE T R, 010) It wtE *act, WSJ '. � ,� hbu•1 • ti SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. r % AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: 3-21-1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL /,6TJ En ineerin 41(e SUBJECT: Grant Final Building Site Approval for SD 89 -013, Pierce Road, Mc Neil (1 Lot) Recommended Action: 1. Approve Resolution No. SD 89- 013 -01 approving Final Building site. 2. Authorize mayor to execute Deferred Improvement Agreement for Report Summary: various street work, utility and drainage for street. 1. This is an expansion of a existing single family residence. 2. SD 89 -013 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 3. All requirements for the City and other departments have been completed. 4. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 89- 013 -01 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: 0 RESOLUTION NO. 89- 013 -01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Mc Neil The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 0.582 Acres Parcel shown as Parcel "A" on the Final Parcel Map prepared by Joe L. Akers, City Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular I meeting held on the day of. 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -013 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF MC NEIL - 13621 PIERCE ROAD WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of one (1) lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -013 of this City, and; WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 11/8/89 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exemption in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 24th day of July, 1989 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: Done 1. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of See Parcel Map record, submit three (3) to -scale prints) . — 2. Submit Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for the area 30 ft. from center line on Pierce Road. 3. Submit Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to provide easements, as required. 4. Improve Pierce Road to City Standards, including the following: (DIA) S See Deferred a) Designed structural section 10 ft. between centerline and flowline. b) P.C. concrete curb and gutter (R -36). c) Pedestrian walkway (6 ft. A.C.). � tl i d) Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. 5. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved .equal using 2 -1/2 in. A.C. on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. 6. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. See Building 7. Construct valley gutter across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway & Grading Plan as approved by the City Engineer. 8. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 9. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. N. A. 10. Obtain encroachment permit from the City Engineer for driveway approaches pipe crossings of City street. 11. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: a. street improvements (DIA) Done 12. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. (DIA) 13. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be N. A. completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. (DIA) 14. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. (DIA) See Permit from 15. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. The property shall be annexed to the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to final map approval. Sanitation District 16. Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards. N. A. 17. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works. 18. Flood control easement and a 15 ft. ingress and egress easement shall be dedicated to SCVWD prior to final map approval. The final map, showing the boundaries of the easement, shall be submitted and approved See Permit by the district prior to final approval. The ingress and egress f r om S. C. V. easement shall be graded and paved for an H -20 loading per SCVWD Water District requirement prior to final map. 19. There shall be no overbank drainage from the developed portion of the lot to the creek. An outfall structure should be designed to discharge storm waters to the creek. Suggested design details will be submitted and approved by SCVWD prior to any building permit issuance. 20. Existing wells on the site shall be treated in accordance with SCVWD requirements and standards prior to any building permits. ® :/ 21. Design review approval by the Planning Commission shall be required for any structure on the site. 22. No tree removal is permitted unless obtained per the City Code Section 15 -15. With Building Permit 23. Detailed geotechnical investigation - a geotechnical consultant with the resources of a geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist should conduct a detailed geotechnical investigation of the subject property. This investigation should address, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Earth materials - the types of site earth materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, alluvium and fill) should be identified and their distribution shown on an original engineering geologic map and accompanying cross section(s). Slope stability - the long -term stability of natural and proposed cut and fill slopes should be evaluated under both seismic and static conditions. This evaluation may require a subsurface exploration program of strategically placed boreholes and /or test pits to sample and determine the strength characteristics of teh subsurface soil and rock materials. Seismic setting - the seismic setting of the property should be characterized and potential seismic hazards (i.e. ground shaking, liquefaction, etc.) to the proposed development should be evaluated. Flood hazard analysis - the potential for flooding at the site should be evaluated. Appropriate erosion mitigation measures should be recommended, as necessary, to reduce erosion along the stream banks and ensure the long -term stability of proposed residential improvements. Soil and foundation engineering - the applicant's geotechnical engineer should conduct a site specific soil and foundation investigation for the proposed residence. This investigation should consist of a subsurface exploration program and an appropriate laboratory analysis. This investigation should address, but not necessarily be restricted to: development of recommendations for site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design criteria for residential foundations, retaining walls and roadways. The results of this investigation should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to approval of building permits. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. I i Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of November, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: .Siegfried, Harris, Burger, Tappan, Moran, Kolstad NOES: None ABSENT: Tucker ATTEST: Chairman, Plannin C ission ecre ry, P anning Commission TRACT NO x tc SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Storm Drain Fees N. A. SD NO 89-013 Park & Recreation Fees N. A. Plan Check & Inspection Fees $200.00 . Final Map Check Fees $290.00 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Tsvia Adar DATE: November 8, 1989 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -89 -013, DR -89 -089, V -89 -027; 13621 Pie ce Rd. APPLICANT /OWNER: McNeil APN: 503 -14 -004 Q 1346!(191 h• yol)-lr.ol 0(O. 1653 +C6) / 506-56 -o9 O % I+S497C2o7 .4�. 11541.C4i ge3'4i•04 03-96-09 1341 9 (2-0 \ 5o•,•g6 -o) 1395aCp 5e!•6i.o1 13531 (22) 5of -i6- to t' \ 13559 C31 Spa -13'� 50)'56.0! p(tt 135 11 -oi 50)-6 13611 ql s-s6- ti r •`6'4 9� I5597ltS> y 13615 R 501.14•!4 136 -4(t) Sob-IY•= '-•' (24) jo4 -1359 � —r 13427 sos -w'12� 50•!•14 -3) v j3f12i 21496 (4i) 61990 � -r 401•if•o! col) -#4 -01 13635 5ow=14.1: sµ77(661 2: ,0l) -I4•l)w // 13(.51 ; -51 -04 yol) 507-H•103 13840 gp) -14-36 fo7.14•D f03 -14.10 13627 11476 (541 50"1 _I*. 39 SO!•!l)- 01 - 21818 607.1)•61 1381 �I 506- 14 -'yl 5p!•M -Oi 21464 (63) soi -5)•O1 s1 ;54Cf°) . sos- *1-09 70 so3-14-1! 01 Y17B6 21792 13648 i3,f.14" 409 -13 -112 -.WS- 1'1-62 50l)•11 -03 '01 CS=) 21412-o 4 21!69 (fl) io7 "0l) -04 dD s.l-fi -07 fto� n & 4 5 S (A) 21144 p M * 50Y =4 -67 03.29 •1� I7fi2 Sol) -3o- 50!• 13 -111 h 21700 1374.0 .10-4 - 70- 64 1.7812 , 503- 13-43 I' -1271 (2). 13!00 507 -l0•�/ 1378)• 507 -29. 04 / 5017 -50 -2o .78 13010 To1-i0-OI 1-1445 I 13850 °�O-03' .107-3o-LS 21295 tl)) S1 31- 30 5p)• -q.07 f SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 4K MEETING DATE: 3-21-1990 Y MGR. APPROVAL Z&2-� ORIGINATING DEPT: En i ne e r i n SUBJECT: Grant Final Acceptance for Use Permit 87 -001 and Release Bond, Cypress Properties, Inc., Saratoga Recommended Action: Grant Final Acceptance for UP 87 -001 and release bond. Report Summary: Cypress Properties, Inc. was required to install landscaping in the median between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive. All improvements per approved plan have been completed. All improvements for the above project were completed on 3 -1 -89 and developer has maintained it for one year. Fiscal Impacts: The City will maintain landscaping in the median between Lawrence Expressway and Kosich Drive. Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: iti1EMOO RANDLI,� 097T @2 0&M&UQ) 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA CALIFORNIA LIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 ' TO: City Council FROM: City Encrineer -" SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Use Permit 87 -001 Location: Saratoga Avenue DATE: 3 -12 -90 The one (1) year maintenance period for has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements Ohave been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion N. A. , which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: _ Cypress Properties, Inc Address: 3000 Sandhill Rd., Menlo Park, Ca. 94025 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: - 3. Improvement Security: Type: A. slimment Certificate Amount: _ 831.0a0,00 Issuing Co: I -rdon Bank Address: Palo Alto Certificate No.: 44073 4. Miles of Public Street: 0.0 5. Special Remarks: " •,RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook d t SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /7cF AGENDA ITEM 41 MEETING DATE: 3-21-90 CITY MGR. APPROVAL_ ORIGINATING DEPT: En ineerin SUBJECT: Grant Final Acceptance for SDR 1628 and Release Bond, Cox Ave. Recommended Action: Grant Final Acceptance and release bond for SDR 1628. Report Summary: All the improvements for the above projects were completed in 1988 and the developer has maintained it for one year. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Bond Memo. Motion and Vote: �K MB 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 -'J (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Citv Enaineer -_. Final Acceptance for Location: Cox Avenue SDR 1628 DATE: 3 -12 -90 The one (1) year maintenance period for has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion N. A. , which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: PAN CAL Investment Address: 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 3. Improvement Security: Type: Ass ;anment Certificate Amount: 52.000.00 Issuing Co: San Jose National Bank Address: One North Market Street San Jose, a.-95113 Certificate No.: 01- 502190 -30 and 01- 502190 -31 4. Miles of Public Street: 0.0 5. Special Remarks: 'RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1-/ OF MEETING DATE:3 /21/90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning AGENDA ITEM: orf CITY. MGR. APPROVAL Appeal of DR -89 -114; Planning Commission denial of SUBJECT: second story addition; Applicant /Appellant: Ng Location: 20040E Bella Vista Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission's denial of DR -89- 114. Report Summary: The Planning Commission and Staff disagreed regarding this applica- tion. The Planning Commission felt the proposed remodel was a significant departure from the character of the Bella Vista neigh- borhood resulting in significant compatibility concerns. Staff on the other hand, reported that the proposal met with design objec- tives and would not appear incompatible given the heavy vegetation and large setbacks provided. Staff can identify three (3) courses of action the Council may wish to follows: 1) uphold the appeal; 2) deny the appeal; 3) refer the applicant.to the Planning Commis- sion with revised plans to produce a more compatible design. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes 1/10/9089 2. Correspondence 3. Planning Commission staff reports Motion and Vote: _V RMT CI 97fIS: fAT do &T 0) 07"A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council DATE: 3/21/90 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a second story addition. DR -89 -114. Applicant /Appellant: Dr. and Mrs. Jonathan Ng; Location: 20040 Bella Vista Avenue OVERVIEW The Planning Commission denied plans for construction of a 1855 sq. ft. addition to an existing one story residence that would have resulted in a 5879 sq. ft. two story residence. The Planing Commission concluded that the proposed plan altering the style of the existing residence would be incompatible with the neigh- borhood. Staff reported that the proposed new construction complied with City ordinance and was consistent with the Residen- tial Design objectives. Staff viewed the neighborhood as an area larger than what ultimately the Planning Commission based its decision. While staff recommended that the proposal was consist- ent with the Horseshoe and Montalvo neighborhoods, in the vicini- ty of this project the Commission decision was based on Bella Vista as the compatibility benchmark. BACKGROUND The proposal is to remodel an existing 3050 sq. ft. home which includes an existing detached 576 sq. ft. guest house. The applicant would now like to relocate the existing garage, add 398 sq. ft to the first floor, and build a new 1855 sq. ft. second story addition totaling 5879 sq. ft. which is less than the allowable floor area for this site. The subject property is a large, 39,082 sq. ft., tree lined parcel which fronts on the end of the City maintained Bella Vista. The existing home is a well maintained single story ranch style structure which the applicants would like to remodel in a Mediterranean style. The entire neighborhood, including Horseshoe Drive and Bella Vista is characterized by the absence of curbs, and gutters, and 1 as well by the large number of mature trees and vegetation. Many of the homes in the vicinity are single story wood frame ranch style homes. However, there are also larger two story homes interspersed. At the end of Bella Vista Avenue is the Italian Villa, Rancho Bella Vista which is on the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. The homes immediately located at significant The home to the right residence and is also The home to the left i vegetated natural swal applicant's home is nc of vegetation. adjacent to the subject site are either setback or are screened by dense foliage. is located approximately 60 ft. from this being remodeled as a one story residence. entirely screened from view by a densely The structure directly across from the t visible from the road due to the amount The site includes an existing tennis court and guest house. Due to the amount of existing hard surface on the site, the applicant is proposing a permeable gravel driveway to maintain the percent- age of impervious coverage at code stipulated levels. The plans indicated that the gravel horseshoe driveway as "new" when this driveway is currently existing. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing two -car garage currently along the north elevation and relocate it to the south end of the home. This will bring the home into conformance with the current City Code, as the old garage encroached into the required side yard. An additional 398 sq. ft. of first floor area is proposed to accommodate the relocation. The second story addition of 1855 is to be constructed over the existing home and only minimally increases the structure's footprint. The following table summarizes the project's details: ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD PARCEL SIZE: 39,082 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The home will be finished in light grey painted stucco with darker grey trim and cornerstone treatment and charcoal /grey asphalt shingles. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 27% 2 35% HEIGHT: 25 ft. 6 in. 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 4024 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 1855 sq. ft. TOTAL: 5879 sq. ft. 5922 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 66 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 70 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 38 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 40 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. ANALYSIS Staff concluded that the size and design of the proposed recon- struction would not be appropriate for many Saratoga locations. However, the subject site is large and secluded by trees and will not produce a detrimental impact. The east elevation is visually articulated when viewed from the street by the stepped down single story addition along the south end of the structure. The south and west elevations are also adequately proportioned to reduce the home's visual mass. To off -set the structure's north elevation, staff recommends that two specimen size (24" or larg- er) evergreen trees be installed to provide adequate screening. Staff considered the compatibility of this proposal to compare favorably with the style and size of homes within the older and well established neighborhoods in the vicinity. The large lot size common to the R -1- 40,000 zone district and the presence of abundant mature landscaping greatly reduces the perception of overbuilding in this type of neighborhood. Because the proposal is similar to other compatible homes seen in the surrounding areas as seen in the Horseshoe, Montalvo and Farwell neighbor- hoods, reconstruction will not disrupt the neighborhood or create a destabilizing precedent. The Planning Commission found that Bella Vista is an area that is reflective of the many elements that make Saratoga unique. The Planning Commission concluded that the rural one story flavor typified by this neighborhood should be guarded against the intrusion of new inappropriate second story construction. The Commission opined that a second story would be extremely diffi- cult to design for this site and still retain the uniqueness of this neighborhood. However, the possibility of alternate second story designs was not ruled out altogether by several Commission- ers. The Planning Commission was unable to make design review findings because the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed second story represented a dramatic departure from the one -story ranch style context of the Bella Vista neighborhood. The Council may choose one of three courses of action: 1) grant the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission denial of design review; 2) deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission 3 design review denial; and 3) refer the revised plan to the Plan- ning Commission for additional consideration giving specific direction to the applicant to produce a more compatible design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission denial of DR -89 -114. Ste hen LKmslie Planning Director kah:ws5 \se \memo \cc \ng 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 January 10, 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued a decision. The house is large and with the tennis court will have quite an impact on that section of Pierce Road. She expressed concern about cutting down the oak tree. Commissioner Harris also said she would like a condition added that a barricade be erected to prevent any more four -wheel driving on this property. Mr. James asked on behalf of the Applicant if they could resume work on the house and hold the tennis court separate. Chairperson Burger said she felt the consensus of the Planning Commission is not to separate design review and the question of the tennis court. Commissioners Kolstad and Tappan said they would be agreeable to the Applicants' request. MORAN /HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ENTIRE MATTER TO JANUARY 24, 1990 IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT. Passed 5 -1; Commissioner Tappan was opposed. Chairperson Siegfried resumed chairing the meeting. 9. DR -89 -114 Ng, 20040 Bella Vista Ave., request for design review approval to construct an 1,855 sq. ft. second story'addition to an existing single story home for a total of 5,879 sq. ft. in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Tappan said he removed the item because, although he is not necessarily against the design, he notes that it is such a radical departure from what is currently there. He is also bothered by mention in the Staff Report that neither neighbor on either side of the project made any contact with staff concerning the project since it is such a departure from the California ranch character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Burger said she feels the design is inappropriate for that neighborhood. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 10, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:26 p.m. Mr. Gabriel Ng, Architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he spoke with staff and was informed a neighbor did call with concern about one of the windows in the upstairs bathroom. Mr. Ng PFpLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 January 10, 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued said that the neighbor was concerned because from that window their house could be looked into. Mr. Ng stated that in order to see into the house a person would have to lean out from the building. The Applicant is willing to do some treatment for that window such a making it smaller or using obscure glass. In response to a question from Commissioner Burger regarding the nature of the guest house, Mr. Ng stated there is a bathroom and kitchen and it is an empty structure. Commissioner Tucker asked the City Attorney if the fact that the guest house has a kitchen does not it qualify as, a second unit. She requested that a second unit use permit be made a condition. Mr. Ng stated that the term "kitchen" is an overstatement. There is a refrigerator in the guest house, and they think of it as a kitchen but it is really not a kitchen. There is no cooking done in the unit. He requested a definition of "kitchen ". City Attorney Toppel explained that this type of situation is normally handled by a condition that says staff can look at it and if it is a second unit a permit should be obtained. If it is not, then a restriction is included that the unit shall not be used as a second unit without obtaining the proper permit. TUCKER /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Tappan said he removed the item because there is such a stark difference between the existing home and the plan. He expressed surprise that some neighbors did not step forward. Commissioner Burger stated that she felt this particular design is in the wrong neighborhood. She said she also felt this neighborhood is probably one of the last vestiges of rural Saratoga that people keep talking about trying to preserve. The neighborhood is almost 100% single story California ranch style homes with darker colors and set back from the street, and there are no curbs or gutters. Commissioner Burger stated that in her opinion the home is inappropriate for this particular site. She said she could not vote in favor of this design. Commissioner Harris said she agrees with Commissioner Burger. She indicated she felt the home was stark, almost cold looking, and could not envision the home in that setting. Commissioner Burger stated that although the site was not on the list of places to make a land use visit that a special trip was made because there was concern. rFLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 January 10, 1990 ---------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Kolstad stated he is concerned about incompatibility with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tappan said he is very familiar with that street which is a very quiet rural California ranch environment. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Burger and could not vote for the design. KOLSTAD /HARRIS MOVED DENIAL OF DR -89 -114 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 7 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. DR -88 -064 Yonan, 13845 Upper Hill Rd., request for design V -89 -045 review approval for a new 5,873 sq. ft. two -story single family dwelling in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow 40% slope under the building site where 30% is the maximum allowed (cont. from 12/13/89). ------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 10, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Mr. Lou Dorsich, Architect, appeared for the Applicant. He said he has met with staff and Mr. Kennedy to assess the impact on the rear deck of Mr. Kennedy's property. TAPPAN /HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8 :55 P.M. Passed 7 -0. TAPPAN /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR -88 -064 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. MORAN /BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V -89 -045 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. 11. DR -89 -106 Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1,949 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 6,931 sq. ft. in the R -1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. MC) Z QXR& 13777 FRUITV. - \LE AVENUE . SAR.- \TO(;A. (ALIFORNIA 9,5()7( ) (408) 867 -3438 January 22, 1990 Dr. and Mrs. Jonathan T. Ng 20040 Bella Vista Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Ng: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Movies Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman We have received your application for an appeal of denial of design review approval to construct an 1,855 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing single story home for a total of 5,879 sq. ft. at 20040 Bella Vista Ave. We have also received your check in the amount of $115.00 for the appeal and noticing requirements. At your request, this matter has been set for the City Council meeting of March 7, 1990. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo," which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. Please submit eight 11x1.7 -inch drawings of your project exactly as submitted to the Planning Commission. The drawings should be submitted to me by February 19. If you have substantive questions on your appeal, please contact the Planning Department; for procedural questions, you may contact me. sincerely, A't'C . Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Department Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: T r Date Reccived. I 1��' / -�-= Hearing Date: Fee CITY USE APPEAL APPLICATION Dr. Jonathan T & Siulee S. Nn 20040 Bella Vista Ave - - ITome 408 - 741 -1517 office 4nR_2q�;_n _s14 Dr. Jonathan T. & Siulee S. Mn ' 20040 Bella Vista .Ave- - Project Description: Desian Pewiew aporoal to contruct a second story addition within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter of the City Code Decision Being Appealed: Denial of DR -89 =114 & request for the adoption of Resolution DR -89 -114 Exhibit "A" Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached) : 'Reasons for the .Appeal . The proposed nlans meets all the code requirements and below allowances of the Design Review Ordinance Article 15745. The plans show less coverage, heinht, and size of structure then allowed by Ordinance; also the setbacks are greater then required, especially the sideyards. The sideycard setbacks are 38 ft. and 40 ft, where 20 ft, is required, and frontyard setback is 66 ft. where by Ordinance requi -res only 30 ft, Neiahborhood has not objected to the proposal at the Public Hearinq or in writina; because the Nq family met early on in the desiqn stake with the adjacent homeowners; and at that time discuss their design stvle and landscapinq ideas for the second story addition of their present resident. The staff report states that thi's home does not appear out of context on this one acre parcel There are am larger "estate" stvle homes in the area, for example the Rancho-Bella Vista Subdivision which are on half acre lots contructed to the maximum setbacks. The neighbors .to the North and East have two -story homes and other homes in the area under going extensive remodel i nq . po ITUa t s gnat 51 e *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 thou on a separate sheet. TIITS APPLTCATION MUST DC SUBMITTED 14MITH TEE (10) .CALENDAR DAYS OT T1tU DATE UF THE BLL131UN. �" iii OSKAR R. THURNHER 19931 BELLA VISTA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 February 24, 1989 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitdale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Councilmembers: I am a homeowner on Bella Vista Avenue and I am writing to express my support of the Saratoga Planning Commission decision to deny permission to add a second story on the Ng residence at 20040 Bella Vista Avenue. I understand that the Council will now decide either to sustain or overturn the Planning Commission's ruling at your forthcoming March 7, 1990 meeting. I hesitated to take this action as it is never pleasant to go against the wishes of a neighbor to develop their property as they choose, however I believe that overturning the Commission's decision to deny the application could set a bad precedent in terms of future changes to our predominantly single story neighborhood setting. Only two two -story homes exist on our street. One was built at the turn of the Century, and the other is situated on a large secluded lot at the end of a common driveway. Neither blocks a view of the hills. Horseshoe Drive is similarly developed. If the Planning Commission's recommendation is overturned, I believe that it will become more difficult to deny other applicants who desire to convert to two -story residences in this area, and such actions would have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood. Such changes would be inconsistent with the original development philosophy. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Sincerely, Oskar R. Thurnher Homeowner 19931 Bella Vista Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 AMN FREDERICK BUECHNER 19915 BELLA VISTA DoKIxV)F SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 February 23, 1990 City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga. CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen: Inasmuch as I do not drive at night, I am submitting this letter in support of the Council's denial of design review approval to construct a second story addition to the existing single family home situated at 20040 Bella Vista, Saratoga. With the exception of the last residence on Bella Vista, which was constructed before all other residences, built 60 or 70 years ago, all present residences are single story, and I feel having a two - story house at the entrance to the privately -owned section of Bella Vista would definitely depreciate the attractiveness of the area and possibly depreciate values. Visitors to our area invariably remark on the beauty of Bella Vista, and the residents fear a two -story structure would be a negative. May+I remind you that Bella Vista has no designation as "Avenue, Street, Drive, Court" or other. Fifteen or twenty years ago the City Council, at the request of our residents, deleted any such designation, and it is now purely "Bella Vista ". I thank you for considering my- -and our -- position on the above matter. Sincerely, C USA Retired i) Of PETITION TO. CITY COUNCIL Ref.: DR -89 -114 - Ng, 20040 Bella Vista We, the undersigned, resident of � (�A- reveiwed the proposed remodelling plan of 20040 Bella Vista. We do not consider the design inappropiate for the neighbor- hood. There is sufficient landscaping on the property; and sideyard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks, that this home does not appear out of context with the neighbor- hood. As adjacent neighbor, our family can envision that home of Ng's in that location, that there is enough mature trees and vegetation to set this home correctly on the parcel. And the plans that have been submitted are keeping with rural setting of Bella Vista and the Hertiage Resource Bella Vista Villa, which is similar in design. We, therefore, do not think will have any negative effect on we do not object to the "STYLE" proposed by the Ng Family. the approval of this plan -the surrounding houses, or "TWO - STORY" home �7 PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL Ref.: DR -89 -114 - Ng, 2004013ella Vista We, the undersigned, resident of 2-001$ 8ea► "A reviewed the proposed remodelling plan of 20040 Bella Vista. We do not consider the design inappropiate for the neighborhood. There is sufficiet landscaping on the property; and sideyard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks, that this home does not appear out of context with the neighborhood. As adjacent neighbor, our family can envision that home of Ng's in that location, that there is enough mature trees and vegetation to set this home correctly on the parcel. And the plans that have been submitted are keeping with rural settig of Bella Vista and the Hertiage Resource Bella Vista Villa, which is similar in design. We, therefore, do not think the approval of this plan will have any negative effect on the surroundig house, we do not object to the "STYLE" or "TWO- STORY" home proposed by the Ng family. S sf,� VJ 4-o JR apilu�° o/ h1j4Av� wl.# + q ✓!� V 4' " -I oc-t Z0019 V�fi' C04 ces PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL Ref.: DR -89 -114 -,Ng, 20040 Bella Vista We, the undersigned, residents of .20015 1QE1-'1Ri SIPS"? reviewed the proposed remodelling plan of 20040 Bella Vista. We do not consider the design inappropiate for the neighborhood. There is sufficient landscaping on the property; and'sideyard, front -yard, and rear yard setbacks, that this home does not appear out of context with the neighborhood. As adjacent neighbor, our family can envision that home of Ng's in that location, that there is enough mature trees and vegetation to set this home correctly on the parcel. And the plans that have been submitted are keeping with rural setting of Bella Vista and the Hertiage Resource Bella vista villa, which is similar in design. We, therefore, do not think the approval of this plan will have any. negative effect on the surrounding house, we do not object to the "STYLE" OR "TWO- STORY" home proposed by the Ng family. L!� P ,r PETITION TO. CITY COUNCIL Ref.: DR -89 -114 - Ng, 20040 Bella Vista We, the undersigned, resident of ";L-00 / I reveiwed the proposed remodelling plan of 20040 Bella Vista. We do not consider the design inappropiate for the neighbor- hood. There is sufficient landscaping on the property; and sideyard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks, that this home does not appear out of context with the neighbor- hood. As adjacent neighbor, our family can envision that home of Ng's in that location, that there is enough mature trees and vegetation to set this home correctly on the parcel. And the plans that have been submitted are keeping with rural setting of Bella Vista and the Hertiage Resource Bella Vista Villa, which is similar in design. We, therefore, do not think the approval of this plan will have any 'negative effect on -the surrounding houses, we do not object to the "STYLE" or "TWO-STORY" home proposed by the Ng Family. PETITION TO. CITY COUNCIL Ref.: DR -89 -114 - Ng, 20040 Bella Vista We, the undersigned, resident of �r^^�'h' proposed � reveiwed the ro osed remodelli plan of 200 Bella Vista. We do not consider the design inappropiate for the neighbor- hood. There is sufficient landscaping on the property; and sideyard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks, that this home does not appear out of context with the neighbor- hood. As adjacent neighbor, our family can envision that home of Ng's in that location, that there is enough mature trees and vegetation to set this home correctly on the parcel. And the plans that have been submitted are keeping with rural setting of Bella Vista and the Hertiage Resource Bella Vista Villa, which is similar in design. We, therefore, do not think the approval of this plan will have any negative effect on -the surrounding houses, we do not object to the "STYLE" or "TWO - STORY" home proposed by the Ng Family. ,70c v p A -c , 2l,1 e PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL Ref .: DR -89 -114 - Ng, 20040 Bella Vista We, the undersigned, resident of 4�7/ reveiwed the proposed remodelling plan of 20040 Bella Vista. We do not consider the design inappropiate for the neighbor- hood. There is sufficient landscaping on the property; and sideyard, front yard, and rear yard setbacks, that this home does not appear out of context with the neighbor- hood. As adjacent neighbor, our family can envision that home of Ng's in that location, that there _is enough mature trees and vegetation to set this home correctly, on the. parcel. And the plans that have been submitted are keeping with rural setting of Bella Vista and the Hertiage Resource Bella Vista Villa, which is similar in design. We, therefore, do not think the approval of this plan will have any negative effect on the surrounding houses, we do not object to the "STYLE" or "TWO - STORY" home proposed by the Ng Family. V 17 r /f -N REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR -89 -114; 20040 Bella Vista Avenue Applicant /Owner: Gabriel Ng l Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: January 10, 1990 '�7 APN: 397-20-013 Director Approval: tiF ROUECT/ SIT W A File No. DR -89 -114, 20040 Bella Vista Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 10/12/89 Application complete: 11/15/89 Notice published: 12/29/89 Mailing completed: 12/30/89 Posting completed: 12/23/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review approval to construct an 1855 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing single story home, for a total of 5879 sq. ft., within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PROJECT DISCUSSION: This proposal is to remodel an existing 3050 sq. ft. home with an existing detached 576 sq. ft. guest house. The applicant would now like to relocate the existing garage, add 398 sq. ft. to the first floor, and build a new 1855 sq. ft. second story addition for a total of 5879 sq. ft., which is under the maximum allowable floor area for this site. The subject property is a large tree lined parcel which fronts the end of the City maintained Bella Vista Avenue. The existing home is a well maintained single story ranch style structure which the appli- cant's would like to remodel into a larger "estate" type residence. The site has been granted building site exemption with conditions attached, due to minimal off -site improvements being required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -89 -114. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -89 -114 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" MJ/ kah DR -89 -114, 20400."A'a11a Vista Avenue OEM, STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD PARCEL SIZE: 39,082 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3.5% GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: The home will be finished in light grey painted stucco with darker grey trim and cornerstone treatment and charcoal /grey asphalt shingles. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This large level parcel is located at the end of the City maintained portion of Bella Vista Avenue. The entire area of Horseshoe Drive and Bella Vista Avenue is characterized by the absence of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and by the number and size of the mature trees and vegetation. Most of the homes in the vicinity are single story wood -frame ranch style homes, but there -are also larger two - story homes as well. At the end of Bella Vista Avenue is the Italian Villa, Rancho Bella Vista, which is on the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. The existing home to the right of the subject property is located approximately 60 ft. away from this residence, and is currently being remodeled itself. The home to the left is entirely screened from view by a densely vegetated natural swale. The structure directly across from the applicant's home is not visible from the road due to the amount of vegetation. The site includes an existing tennis court and guest house. Due to the amount of existing hard surface on the site, the applicant is proposing a permeable gravel driveway to keep the percentage of impervious coverage down to a permissible level. The gravel horse- shoe driveway shown as "new" on the site plan of Exhibit "A" is currently in place. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE 27% 35% HEIGHT: 25 ft. 6 in. 26 ft. SIZE OF 1st Floor: 4024 sq. ft. STRUCTURE: 2nd Floor: 1855 sq. ft. TOTAL: 5879 sq. ft. 5922 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: 66 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 70 ft. Rear: 60 ft. Right Side: 38 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 40 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This large level parcel is located at the end of the City maintained portion of Bella Vista Avenue. The entire area of Horseshoe Drive and Bella Vista Avenue is characterized by the absence of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and by the number and size of the mature trees and vegetation. Most of the homes in the vicinity are single story wood -frame ranch style homes, but there -are also larger two - story homes as well. At the end of Bella Vista Avenue is the Italian Villa, Rancho Bella Vista, which is on the Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory. The existing home to the right of the subject property is located approximately 60 ft. away from this residence, and is currently being remodeled itself. The home to the left is entirely screened from view by a densely vegetated natural swale. The structure directly across from the applicant's home is not visible from the road due to the amount of vegetation. The site includes an existing tennis court and guest house. Due to the amount of existing hard surface on the site, the applicant is proposing a permeable gravel driveway to keep the percentage of impervious coverage down to a permissible level. The gravel horse- shoe driveway shown as "new" on the site plan of Exhibit "A" is currently in place. DR -89 -114, 2040Fr"_tella Vista Avenue 10` Design Review: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing two -car garage along the north elevation and relocate it to the south end of the home. This will bring the home into conformance with the current City Code requirements , as the old garage encroached into the required side yard. An additional 398 sq. ft. of floor area is also included in the first floor plan. The second story addition of 1855 sq. ft. is to built directly over the existing home and only minimally increases the structure's footprint. The proposed home is a large and slightly boxy design which would not be appropriate for many locations within Saratoga. However, on this large and relatively secluded parcel the home does not appear to have a detrimental impact. The east elevation is broken up visually from the street perspective by the stepped down single story addition along the south end of the structure. The south and west elevations are also adequately proportioned to reduce the homes visual mass. The structure's north elevation is the most massive in appearance of the four, and staff recommends that two 24 inch box evergreen trees be provided along this side of the home to provide future screening. Another condition of approval will be for the applicant to provide an additional 24 box tree within the required front yard-as a re- placement tree for the two being removed at the garage. Neither of the two trees to be removed are of ordinance size. Neighbor Concerns: Staff has received comments from area residents who were interested in the proposal. While each of the respondents felt that the remodel was a departure from the existing home, none of them raised objections to the proposal, or felt that it was unduly out of character with the neighborhood. It should be noted, however, that neither of the two directly adjacent homeowners, who will be the most affected by this remodel, have responded to staff regarding this application. Landscaping: There is sufficient vegetation on this site, particu- larly along the side property boundaries, that staff is only requir- ing three trees as a condition of approval: two 24 inch box ever- green trees along the north elevation to soften the homes appearance,. and one 24 inch box tree of the applicant's choice to be located within the required front yard area as a replacement tree for the two being removed at the garage. Conclusion: While the proposed home is a departure from the existing low ranch style homes in the area, it does not appear out of context on this parcel. There are a handful of larger "estate" style homes in the area, including Rancho Bella Vista, which are similar to this proposed residence. Taking this into account, staff feels that the design review findings can be made to recommend approval of this application. Date Rec 'ved: Hearing Date: Fee: APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: I1r Mrs, -D au t Address: plc:,__ Telephone: Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File No.: 0 R - ; <( - /-� `l Project Address: I)!) ) e v P 14 C c Decision Being Appealed: Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be attached): r- r%.x. C- \ 0 V &v V 1 LvvV, L..,\ ,Q �/ � �i 1��,\ �ll.� "Il�i.� lip 1kL�. �'�L'��LC�_(•�_ vF�• ,;�. ✓�\ u CCU_ G1 i7L 1�W w.i �'YU i [ 1.Cu C c" r * App gllantls S g ture l�- •l.1'VVVri ,�C.c�.�.cL JZ� .�Yv`.`�'�y� hb—�. *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS it EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE:3 2'_,_0 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning AGENDA ITEM: CITY. MGR. APPROVAL k4zed/ SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -89 -017; Planning Commission Denial of a two - lot subdivision; Applicant /Appellant: Pierce /Waller Location: 14584 Horseshoe Drive Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to reject approval of SD -89 -017. Report Summary: The applicant is similar to a proposal reviewed and rejected by the Council in 1989. The applicant has proposed alternative access via a flag corridor extending from Horseshoe Dr. rather than Horseshoe Ct. In reviewing the application, the Planning Commission found that the site was physically unsuited for the proposed development and denied the application. Staff analysis had recommended this conclusion. Fiscal Impacts: None ttachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes 2/14/90 2. City Council minutes 3/1/89 3. Excerpt from Subdivision Map Act 4. Exhibit "B" area parcel map 5. Exhibit "C" original proposed subdivision 6. Correspondence 7. Resolution SD -89 -017 8. Planning Commission staff report Motion and Vote: � 1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial Sion; Applicant /Appellant: Joe Waller Location: 14584 Horseshoe Drive DATE: 3/21/90 of a two -lot Subdivi- (SD -89 -017) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- oxen i e ra The Planning Commission denied a proposal to subdivide a lot currently improved with a single family home into two lots. The proposal was spun off of an application rejected by the City Council last year except with alternate access. The Planning Commission was unable to make findings to grant the subdivision based on drainage, access and compatibility concerns. Backaround The Council is familiar with this proposal since a similar project was considered and rejected in February, 1989. The application is somewhat different than the previous proposal in that access to the proposed lot extends from Horseshoe Drive as a flag lot. The previous proposal showed access directly from Horseshoe Ct. Other than including flag access from Horseshoe Drive, the cur- rent proposal is essentially the same as the previous proposal ultimately rejected by the Council. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.018 acre into two lots of 20,100 sq. ft. (parcel A) and 22,686 sq. ft. (parcel B). These two proposed parcels meet all requirements for site frontage, depth, width and site area for the R -1- 20,000 zone district. The site is located at 14584 Horseshoe Drive and is situated at the corner of Horseshoe Drive and Horseshoe Ct. The new flag lot would gain access through an access corridor along the south property line of the existing home to Horseshoe Drive. While Horseshoe Ct. is a privately maintained minimum access road serving only five parcels, Horseshoe Drive is a City maintained road which serves all the homes in Tract 247 and four homes from Tract 6722. 1 SD -89 -017; Pierce Waller - 14584 Horseshoe Dr. The proposed parcel "B" portion of the existing site would be created to allow the development of a single family home. This portion of the site is overgrown with dense vegetation which in- cludes a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. If vegetation were removed to construct a new home, greater portions of the site will become visible and expose the new construction. The General Plan designation for this are is Low Density Residen- tial (RLD), which calls for a maximum density of 2.18 dwelling units per net acre. The net site area of parcels A and B, de- ducting the flag corridor, is 42,786 sq. ft. which meets this criteria (a minimum net site are of 39,965 sq. ft. would be necessary to subdivide this property). In conducting its review of the proposed subdivision, the Plan- ning Commission was not able to make the required findings and denied the application. To briefly summarize: the Planning Commission felt that the increased density and the inferior flag lot configuration prevented the Commission from granting this request. The Commission noted that perhaps the proper engineer- ing of the swale could promote proper drainage, but the increased density in a transitional area was an inappropriate land use conclusion. Analysis When the City Council heard the previous version in March, 1989, several issues were raised as reasons to deny the proposal. Specifically, these Council issues were included: 1. Whether the increased number of driveways accessing Horse- shoe Ct. would trigger required street improvements which all of the Horseshoe Ct. homeowners would have to partici- pate, and would result in alteration of the rural character of the neighborhood. 2. Whether sanitary sewer hook -up was available. 3. Whether adequate drainage for the area was available. 4. Whether the proposed lot split and increased density was compatible with the existing development in the area. The revised submittal attempts to address these issue raised previously by the City Council. However, staff concurs with the conclusion reached by the Planning Commission that all of Coun- cil's concerns have not been adequately resolved. Access The flag lot configuration eliminates driveway access onto Horse- shoe Court and circumvents the access issue. 2 SD -89 -017; Waller - 14584 Horseshoe Dr. Horseshoe Ct., a privately maintained road, is currently improved to minimum road access road standards. Minimum access roads require less restrictive design requirements than do roads which access more than four parcels. The concerns with the original subdivision proposal, with its access from Horseshoe Ct., was that this additional parcel would trigger required street im- provements, specifically the widening of Horseshoe Ct. to local street standards requiring 26 feet of pavement. Horseshoe Ct. is a 50 foot wide right -of -way with an 18 foot wide paved roadway. The access to Horseshoe Drive which is fully improved to local street standards, would require no improvements if access to this subdivision were approved. Sanitary Sewers Sewer hookup is available from either the end of the Horseshoe Court cul -de -sac or Horseshoe Drive. With its proposed flag access, parcel B would have not difficulty in obtaining sanitary sewer from Horseshoe Drive. The letter from the West Valley Sanitation District is attached to the Planning Commission staff report included in this packet. The homeowners on Horseshoe Ct. have stated concerns about ob- structing the drainage swale that crosses through the site. Apparently, run -off from the natural swale during prolonged rain floods Horseshoe Court. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage calculations prepared by Westfall Engineers and concurs with their study which indicates that an additional home would not overload the drainage culvert at the base of the swale. According to the calculations, any failure of the drain is a result of maintenance deficiencies. However, flooding at Horseshoe Ct. is still occurring and will compound with development at this location. Much of the run -off diverted through this swale is currently percolating into this densely vegetated parcel. Any increased impervious coverage at this site will only increase the possibility of erosion and flooding. It appears that the location of this natural swale across this site is the reason for it originally being created with its elongated configuration, and the reason for the existing home's placement at the opposite west end. Compatibility: Though the proposed lots would be smaller than a majority of the properties within the zone district, both parcels A and B meet all minimum zoning site standards for the R -1- 20,000 zone dis- trict. Much of the original neighborhood concern involved this issue since the parcels which use Horseshoe Court for access are located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. Though this new propos- al accesses Horseshoe Drive, the issue of compatibility remains. The lots within Tract 247, Horseshoe Drive, are mostly between 22,500 and 38,000 sq. ft. There are also three or four larger 3 SD -89 -017; Waller - 14584 Horseshoe Dr. parcels within this tract which could be subdivided further given the R -1- 20,000 zone standards. All of these potential lot splits would require a flag lot configuration to gain access and would greatly alter the existing character of Horseshoe Drive. Flag lots are permitted in the zoning ordinance and the Planning Commission has approved them in the past. However, these flag lots have been found to be most appropriate in the zoning dis- tricts with one acre minimum lot requirements. In the R -1- 20,000 to R -1- 10,000 zoning districts, flag lots have been found to raise compatibility issues with the existing development. The subject property was not created along with Tract 247, though it is the same zone district. It was created before the City was incorporated and is more similar to the adjacent parcels within the R -1- 40,000 zone district which range from one acre to five acres. It is the existing homes on these larger sites which are most directly adjacent to, and will be most impacted by, this proposed lot split. CONCLUSION One of the concerns of both the Planning Commission and staff regarding this lot split is the impact a new home will have on the existing natural drainage swale which services the greater 11.5 acre area. Though the drainage culvert at the base of the swale has been shown by Westfall Engineers to be sufficient for its task, Horseshoe Court still has a flooding problem during prolonged rains. This is believed to be a maintenance problem attributed to a clogged culvert. However, mechanical drainage systems will often back up and with the existing foliage removed and a new structure built with increased impervious coverage the drainage problem will only increase. Another concern both the Planning Commission and staff has with the application is the compatibility of these two 20,100 sq. ft. and 22,686 sq. ft. lots adjacent to an area of one acre to five acre parcels. This is most clearly evident when reviewing a parcel map of the area, which is attached to this report as Exhibit "B ". With its flag lot configuration and corner loca- tion, the proposed lot split is not consistent with the existing parcels on Horseshoe Drive and is clearly out of context with the lots on Horseshoe Ct. Lastly, the Planning Commission and staff were concerned with the fact that a similar version of this application has already been reviewed by the City Council and has been denied. This new application, with its flag corridor access, is even less compati- ble from a land use perspective than the original proposal. Staff and the Planning Commission found that a flag lot develop- ment for this site is not appropriate. 4 SD -89 -017; Waller - 14584 Horseshoe Dr. In deciding this application, the Planning Commission reached the following findings: 1. The site is physically unsuitable for this type of develop- ment. The existing natural swale will be impacted no matter where a future home is located and with increased impervious coverage the existing erosion and flooding problems will only increase. 2. The site is physically unsuitable for the proposed density of the development. The proposed flag lot configuration is less appropriate for this site than the original standard frontage lot initially proposed and rejected by the City Council. The parcel configuration is not consistent with either the existing parcels on Horseshoe Drive which are in the same zone district or the larger parcels accessed by Horseshoe Court. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to reject SD -89 -017. tep en Em ie Planning Director SE /dsc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 20 15. SD -89 -017 Pierce /Waller, 14584 Horseshoe Dr., request for subdivision approval to create two parcels of 20,100 and 22,686 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The property is located at the corner of Horseshoe Dr. and Horseshoe Ct. and is within the R -1- 20,000 zone district. Both the existing home and the proposed parcel will access Horseshoe Drive. ------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. He corrected a typographical error in the Staff Report that the flag road accesses Horseshoe Drive not Horseshoe Court. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:25 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, 1175 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. Using an overhead projector, Ms. Fanelli reviewed the history of the proposal: A neighbor at 14570 Horseshoe Court addressed the Planning Commission. She expressed concern about development of this lot. She said she spoke with other neighbors who were concerned regarding compatibility of the area, the drainage and sewer hookup. A representative of Mrs. Jolene Foster, 14519 Horseshoe Drive, addressed the Planning Commission on her behalf. Mrs. Foster is concerned regarding drainage and erosion. A neighbor from 14568 Horseshoe Court, addressed the Planning Commission and expressed concerns regarding drainage and compatibility. A neighbor at 14578 Horseshoe Court addressed the Planning Commission. He commented that he does not believe the flag lot solves the access problem and expressed concern that there may be a,problem with cars parking at the lot. Ms. Fanelli addressed the comments of the neighbors. She said the solution to the drainage problem could be handled during the design review in such a way that it will improve the problem as it now exists. She also indicated that access of the flag lot could be handled in a condition for landscaping and fencing. HARRIS /KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:43 P.M. Passed 7 -0. °N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 21 Commissioner Burger said she did not think the issue in this case is drainage but one of density. She stated she views this application as inferior to the original application but the message from the City Council after the first appeal was loud and clear and she suspects the message would not change and stated she cannot vote in favor the lot split. Chairperson Siegfried stated he does not think the flag lot configuration is the answer and is not inclined to vote for a flag lot configuration for lots less than 30,000 square feet. Commissioner Tappan said he felt it would be fair to give the Applicant some direction. HARRIS /TUCKER MOVED TO DENY SD -89 -017 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. 16. UP -89 -015 Cali -Del Monaco, 14510 Big Basin Way, request for use permit approval to expand the Florentine Trattoria restaurant into existing commercial space within the Village Square retail center pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The restaurant is located in the CH -1 zone district and is part of Parking District #4. ------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:48 p.m. Mr. Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, representing Mr. Del Monaco and Cali Investments, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Zambetti stated in regard to item 4 of the Resolution there will be a time clock on the exhaust fan. Ms. Fay Mongraw, 14591 Oak Street, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated her bedroom is directly behind the kitchen area of the restaurant. She said her main complaint is in regard to the cleaning which is done at night. Ms. Mongraw indicated the homeowner's association and individuals have complained repeatedly with regard to the cleaning from midnight on by the restaurant. Mr. John DiManto addressed the Planning Commission. He expressed concern regarding a reference in the Staff Report to a future variance request for outdoor dining and said if that happens he will have some concerns about the impacts of this. iETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6 ,,LARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger continued as follows: - Applicants purchased a property with problems; they had children who needed bedrooms and this proposal was appropriate and reasonable for the lot In addition, all the neighbors were supportive; she agreed that people in the neighborhood were the best group to determine the appropriate standards for an area Concluded that there were times when it was appropriate to grant a variance for excessive square footage; the Planning Commission had done so for another applicant at their recent meeting Councilmember Moyles commented as follows: - Concurred with Councilmember Stutzman in this matter; however, he prefaced his remarks with the observation that the position Councilmember Peterson had taken in this matter was entirely consistent with his philosophy on design review His perspective on land use decisions was somewhat different from Councilmember Peterson He stated he had more ambivalence about government's right or interest in regulating the size of homes and less confidence that design review standards were productive of anything worthwhile Summarized his philosophy on land use as laissez -faire - With respect to this Appeal. there was no dispute that the home in question was a large structure; such was the cause for some legitimate concern - Noted that the public articulated concerns about "creeping density" at a previous Council meeting - Stated he would uphold the Planning Commission's decision in this matter because the Variance Findings had been adequately defended and as Councilmember Stutzman noted, the Commission had accurate information on this Application Mayor Anderson commented as follows: - Stated she had reviewed the various variances granted during her tenure on the Council - Felt the variance application process was necessary since the application of numerical formulas was not always appropriate; exceptional circumstances existed The Prolo home was large and had large common rooms; however, it also had small bedrooms and few of them for a home of its size; it was a difficult home for a family to move into The property would be greatly improved by having this common design for the entire house and a better proportion of private bedroom areas to public, common areas of the house - Noted the special physical circumstances of the house and the lack of objection from neighbors Common thread of her previous approval of variances was the lack of impact on adjacent properties and minimal objection from the neighbors; in this case, no one objected to the request With respect to the structure's intrusiveness, there would be minimal impact; one neighbor abutted the site and this property owner was a considerable distance from the Applicant's house - Did not see granting of a Variance as precedent setting; the lot had a number of unique features - Concurred with other Councilmembers whc would not approve a new house of this size - Stated that she would uphold the decision of the Planning Commission Councilmember Moyles noted for the record that he could not rely on the distinction of whether a new house or an existing home were under consideration; such was an artificial distinction. Variances had to stand or fall on their own merits, not on the age of a structure. Secondly, he did not agree with the reliance placed on neighborhood consensus; such was not important in the analysis of an issue - MOYLES /CLEVENGER MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DR488 -100 AND V-88-043. Passed 4-0 -1, Council- member Peterson abstaining. Break: 9:01 - 9:16 RboL B. Appeal of tentative map approval for two -lot subdivision at 14584 Horseshoe Dr. in the R- 1- 20,000 zone district (Applicant, Pierce; appellants, Billner, Kraft, Ladd, Clark) (SD -88- 015) Planning Director Emshe presented the Memorandum dated March 1, 1989. In response to Councilmember Moyles' question, the Planning Director stated that the number of driveways accessing Horseshoe Ct. had not been considered by the Planning Commission; such would tri88er required street improvements. Councilmember Clevenger felt Staff Report on this Item was incomplete; since there had been no response from West Valley Sanitation District, Staff assumed that sewage disposal was available. i..r ETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 7 MARCH 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Councilmember Clevenger stated that a Representative of the West Valley Sanitation District informed her that the application was evaluated and a reply sent to the City containing information on the options available for this parcel; this letter was unavailable in the packet. She had concerns whether any other information was missing. The City had not had applications with minimal access roads for several years; now there were two before the Council. She favored referring this Item back to the Planning Commission for review. Councilmember Stutzman asked whether the accuracy of the Tentative Map was in question as stated by the Appellants. The Planning Director responded that the Applicant had now produced a survey stamped by a licensed engineer; Staff felt that the survey had been verified The Public Hearing was opened at 9:27 P.M. Mr. William Clark, Appellant, commented as follows: - Reviewed construction of his home at 14582 Horseshoe Dr. which fronted on Horseshoe Ct. - At that time (1966) there were no drainage problems; noted the existing drainage Swale which ran along the north side of his property - In 1975, the road was required to be repaved with construction of a gutter and storm drain to remove runoff from Horseshoe Dr. - During the 1982 -83 and 1983 -84 winter storms, this storm drainage system was inadequate - The problem was the erosion that was occurring in this area; he felt that to allow another house of about 3,500 sq. ft. with the additional square footage to drain would create further problems Mr. Kersten Kraft, Appellant, commented as follows: - Stated he was the owner of the historic site in this area and the easement named Horseshoe a nd - His greatest concern was public safety; noted that Horseshoe Ct. served the driveways a pedestrian use by the neighbors; it was dangerous for two cars to pass - Increasing the use of Horseshoe Ct. by adding a home substantially increased the use - Second concern was the nature of the subdivision which he did not consider minor; this proposal would impact the historic building and the rest of the existing neighborhood Objected to the creation of two R-1-20,000 lots in an area of R- 1- 40,000 zoning; while he recognized that Horseshoe Dr., was designated R-1-20,000, the new subdivision would not access the R- 1- 20,000 neighborhood or the road maintained by the City; rather it would access on Horseshoe Ct; such was not in the best interests of the existing neighborhood - Did not object to the subdivision as such; rather he asked that one individual's gain not be put ahead of the existing neighborhood's well being Mr. David Ladd, Appellant, concurred with the above and reiterated concerns about drainage. Ms. Dottie Billner, Appellant, stated she had purchased their lot for the character of the area, the privacy and the proximity of the historic structure; she was reluctant to see the road widened and improved in order to accommodate six sites. A representative of Mrs. Foster, 14425 Horseshoe Dr., stated that her greatest concern was that if this subdivision were allowed and she later determined to develop an extra parcel of property she owned, she would be financially responsible for the widening and improvement of Horseshoe Ct. Secondly, the drainage crossed her property; further development would impact her site. Mr. George Pierce, Applicant, reviewed the history of the property and noted that his home fronted on Horseshoe Ct.; he added that he had a 50 ft. right -of -way along the extent of his property for an ingress /egress easement and for utilities, if required. He wished to subdivide his property since he could no longer maintain it; he added that zoning designations were determined by the City. In response to Councilmcmber Clevenger's question, the City Attorney stated that the easement referred to by Mr. Pierce ran with the lot; he suspected that at the time the easement was granted, there was not a determination where the garage would be. The deed provided along with the title to the lot itself, an easement that covered Horseshoe Ct. and was for the benefit of the existing parcel. However, this easement had no direct bearing on the question before the Council. Mr. William Plimpton commented as follows: - Stated he had been retained to design a home if the subdivision were granted - Felt the 'Conditions placed on this Application reflected the fact that the Planning Commission had carefully reviewed this item and its possible impacts Applicants were sensitive to the concerns of neighbors on Horseshoe Ct.; nonetheless they asked that this parcel be zoned R -1- 20,000. - Staff Memorandum, January 25th, stated tliat these lots were compatible with the zoning district MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 8 MARCH 1. 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Plimpton continued as follows: - Agreed there would be impacts on Horseshoe Ct., but he questioned whether such would be as mayor as presented, especially if access were brought in along Mr. Pierce's property - Noted a deferred improvement agreement between the Horseshoe Ct. residents; such reflected the concern that any new subdivision be brought into conformity with earlier subdivisions - Noted that Horseshoe Ct. could be widened while retaining the rural character of the area - Drainage patterns were reviewed; comments of the City Engineer were noted - Agreed that some erosion existed; suggested mitigations were reviewed - Urged that the Appeal be denied Ms. Jakita Cymbal, Westfall Engineers, stated that the property was not in a designated flood zone nor was the site within the Water District's jurisdiction; there was a watershed of about ten acres. PETERSON /CLEVENGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:07 P.M. Passed 5 -0. Councilmember Peterson favored remanding this Item back to the Planning Commission per Staff Recommendation. Councilmember Moyles stated he was willing to grant the Appeal; he could not envision the number of homes proposed for Horseshoe Ct. There were already four homes with sole access on Horseshoe Ct., not counting Dr. Kraft's home; six homes on this access would be inappropriate. However, he felt there was a developable lot in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district and suggested consideration of a flag lot configuration. Councilmember Clevenger was willing to grant the Appeal due to her strong feelings about the drainage and the fact that she did not wish to see Horseshoe Ct. widened; she noted that the latter would cause the loss of several Oak trees and change the character of the area. Drainage had been a continuing concern in this area. Councilmember Stutzman commented as follows: - Stated he had made a site visit - Had concerns regarding the drainage swale and questioned where the water could be re- routed - In addition, flooding had occurred in the area - Removal of the existing, dense vegetation would cause further erosion on -site and substantially increase the water runoff - Road widening would cause the loss of several Oaks which would change the area's character - The existing historic house would be impacted by the addition of new homes - Stated he was willing to grant the Appeal Mayor Anderson also had strong feelings regarding this matter; this parcel was unsuitable for a subdivision due to the drainage swale. She had concerns whether routing drainage around the house would be effective; in addition, an R-1-20,000 lot fronting on Horseshoe Ct. would be incompatible with the adjacent R- 1- 40,000 lots. Finally she did not wish to see the cul-de -sac widened since such would change the character of the neighborhood. MOYLES /CLEVENGER MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SD-88 -015. Passed 4 -1, Councilmember Peterson dissenting. Councilmember Peterson stated that while he would probably have voted against the Application, he felt strongly that this item should have been referred back to the Planning Commission for review. C. Ordinance revising Heritage Preservation Ordinance (first reading and introduction) City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum of March 1, 1989, and presented a revised Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:26 P.M. There were no speakers. CLEVENGER/STUTZMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. Passed 5 -% PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS IN CHAPTER 13 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HERITAGE PRESERVATION AS AMENDED. Passed 5 -0. The Subdivision Map Act environmental, social and technological factors. (Added by Stats.1978, Ch. 1154.) Telephone service 66473.2. The legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426 to provide for the availability of individual household telephone service to each residential parcel in the subdivision. (Added by Stats.1980, Ch. 870.) Cable television systems 66473.3 The legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the design of a subdivision for which a tentative map orparcel map is required pursuant to Section 66426 to provide one or more appropriate cable television systems an opportunity to construct, install, and maintain, on land identified on the map as dedicated or to be dedicated to public utility use, any equipment necessary to extend cable television services to each residential parcel in the subdivision. "Appropriate cable television systems," as used in this section, means those. franchised or licensed to serve the geographical area in which the subdivision is located. This section shall not apply to the conversion of existing dwelling units to condomini- ums, community apartments, or stock cooperatives. (Added by Slats. 1985, Ch. 917.) Findings: 664735. No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative consistency with general map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, and specific plans together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1. A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan. (Amended by Slats. 1983, Ch. 101.) Telephone or cable TV 66473.6. Whenever a city or county imposes as a condition to its approval of a tentative map replacement, under- or a parcel map a requirement that necessitates replacing, undergrounding, or permanently grounding, or relocation or temporarily relocating existing facilities of a telephone corporation or cable television cost reimbursement system, the developer or subdivider shall reimburse the telephone corporation or cable television system for all costs for the replacement, undergrounding, orrelocation. All these costs shall be billed after they are incurred, and shall include a credit for any required advance payments and for the salvage value of any facilities replaced. In no event shall the telephone corporation or cable television system be reimbursed for costs incurred in excess of the cost to replace the facilities with substantially similar facilities. (Added by Slats. 1985, Ch. 865.) Findings: grounds for denial 138 66474. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. ` (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements-of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. (Amended by Stars. 1982, Ch. 518.) 66474.01. Notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Section 66474, a local government may approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Added by Stats.1985, Ch. 738.) 66474.1. A legislative body shall notdeny approval of a final orparcel map if it has previously approved a tentative map for the proposed subdivision and if it finds that the final or parcel map is in substantial - compliance with the previously approved tentative map. (Amended by Stats.1982, Ch. 87. E,ffecdve March 1, 1982.) 66474.2. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or (c), in determining whether to approve or disapprove an application fora tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code. (b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a local agency which, before it has determined a tentative map to be complete pursuant to Section 65943, has done both of the following. (1) ** *Initiated proceedings by way of ordinance, * ** resolution, or motion. (2) ** *Published notice in the manner prescribed in subdivision (a) of Section 65090 containing a description sufficient to notify the public of the nature of the proposed change in the applicable general or specific plans, or zoning or subdivision ordi- nances. A local agency which has complied with this subdivision may apply any ordinances, policies, or standards enacted or instituted as a result of those proceedings which are in effect on the date the local agency approves or disapproves the tentative map. (c) If the subdivision applicant requests changes in applicable ordinances, policies or standards in connection with the same development project, any ordinances, policies of standards adopted pursuant to the applicant's request shall apply. (Added by Stats.1982, Ch. 1449. Ste note following 65961; Amended by Stats.1988, Ch. 548.) 66474.4. (a) The legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it finds that the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Division 1 of Title 5) and that the resulting parcels following a subdivision of that land would be too small to sustain their agricultural use. For purposes of this section, land shall be presumed to be in parcels too small to sustain their agricultural use if the land is (1) less than 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land, or (2) less than 40 acres in size in the case of land which is not prime agricultural land. For purposes of this section, agricultural land shall be presumed to be in parcels large enough to sustain their agricultural use if the land is (1) at least 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land, or (2) at least 40 acres in size in the case of land which is not prime agricultural land. (b) A legislative body may approve a subdivision with parcels smaller than those specified in this section if the legislative body makes either of the following findings: (1) The parcels can nevertheless sustain an agricultural use permitted under the contract, or are subject to a written agreement for joint management pursuant to Section 51230. 1, provided that the parcels which are jointly managed total at least 10 acres in size in the case of land which is not prime agricultural land. Tbs Srbdivlslox Map Act Tentative map approval with EIR and finding Finding of substantial compliance prohibits denial Tentative map approval Lands subject to Williamson Act contract 139 17 S •. \byti\ 93 SEC.7 TPSS. RAW. M.D.M. /�; yob 6s op". �S / �72 1Qy Lo F N'4P / \\9� �� ^` e 3 Opp' \ 32 i 31 94 pQ�`' S';s �.�°' 0p ' v�IL° 4 93 9. . 14844 / �� >'' w �♦\, �`.y \,^ 4 P 14138 `� _ t7 i��� �• PL'f •. 1 Q�% ai b on o• r�, � -- ` —!50 -- 1- -- 1 - -- Ss N G�5 W I 111 u+ u 7 R� 9.0 10 35 0 fir° 0 47 ,0 ; ' v 49 � 0 7 2:9 d lots ac I 91 =2062 -- -- - -------- -- - - -- u: /� 2. a 00 Ln 36 46 r- i N Sp 169, 0 5 C7 1 ��L 9 e Sri 9 ♦ — � — ♦ 4.18 AC. (P.l � �• L ,Ib 230.25 I N ? tot BELLA o ` , V/SrA 8 37 0 45 co 5 1 66 o, 3 J \ I ^..8•i Z 1-- -- --- O - 1E _ i 749 A O bfl 0t I.O8AC. o y� d e 27 57 of bus r 1.541 AC. m \ e 62 w o t-• Q 419 �. to 0, -97 rn I 7S ---------- - --- -- FPM. 49 At, .94 ti`o \4�° ,6ti 1 ` \'. 26 ? 4 596 1.37AC. � O O 53 � � ,PCL-.I t ° � I. 1.18 AC .^ g ^~ q 1 • - - - - - - -- -- - - -- t50 175.87 21 i ` 96 J t", W � BELLE V STA "39 42 i m 5400 �= room roo4o �s` `� ti° ♦ma PG. ?.r _ . _- V') � i ^ : W 8'Sj ,4 �ti� 90 vl Q 12 �, oo� Z, p - - - - - - - -- - -- 4 — .751 AC a0prt A4 *� I \D h \ tJl 150 I 450 ' 0 zoo 59 77 _� 41 r tc ° " ----n ------ J -- r /3 14 58 a'� .I . 463AC 166 2-Y 9.1.93 1 �H i� 31107 W*4 10.29 14'T.95 W1.04 PT N. LOT -+ GUTZEITS SUED R.O. S. 31816 p SARATOGA - LOS GATOS B UHU I D 517 1 Exis t;�g Pi -i.o f_e Rood 30" 24 CMR ;; .� I ^ 00 9f • 6 Oo4 I .3 / • I sy 1` R • �S o0 k�k ' Ex:s[iny Orivewoy � / ' Oak I2'Pne \wt" 4 _ 4 • aD g2G1F R4 err ]o °.,., 0. p . 55C.0 � D.S.F hl Densa :I I %ees old °I (ID tEria[. Qi•.vewoy Eaiariny � Go�oye Exist Conci. o Por,o 484 E ° �. p °red • v oreO I 6•P. "e • 1 .O , 30" Q �� 1 \ a 0 /Z690' N.52 °43'/5 "W Q/ W open iron pipe * •`IP..e -P I � I ---� Sco /e : I `= 20' BURTIS W. MEYER 14606 HORSESHOE DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 408/867-3511 27 April T090 Hart,, Clevenger, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Frui-tvale e Saratoga, Cal. 95070 9ear Mrs. Clevenger; We are enclosing copies of a letter we sent to the Planning deportment in re,-,arC. to the ( SD89-017), hie wanted to be sure that you had a copy and we request that you eistribute the other copies to the other council Dembers. V1 are very concerned about the Pine trees on our AN of the property. Any disturbance of their roots could be •0to detrimental to their health. in addition, we feel that the flag lot would not be right Zr the neighl3orhood. We urge you to keep this in mind then you Lre consid!orir t1he a-j,\)eaT anCl the council will reject tile ar)�a.l. !bank Vol: for your consideration. Sincorely, EURTIS W. MEYER 14606 HORSESHOE DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 408/867 -3511 21 April 1990 Manager, Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Cal. 95070 Dear Sir: This letter is in reference to the Pierce/Waller appeal (SD89 -017). We are the neighbors on the South side of George Pierces lot. The driveway which he proposes for the flag lot would pass between his house and ours. Along the property line are two huge pine trees, both with trunk circumferences in excess of 10 feet. As you know, a pine tree spreads prop roots for a considerable distance at or just below the ground surface and these do extend into his yard for probably farther than the proposed width of the driveway. If a driveway were to be built, the excavation would certainly do great damage to those roots, possibly even killing the trees. If not that, the supporting structure of the trees would be so weakened that, in a severe storm, the trees could fall into our garage. That would be the loss of two beautiful 40- year -old trees, besides which, who would pay for the damage to our property? The subject of the drainage in that area has been brought up repeatedly, but we would like to call your attention to the fact that the seasonal creek in our back yard often runs 3 feet wide and a foot deep during a heavy rain. Add to that all of the runoff from Bill Clarks yard and that which would be generated on the new lot from all of the roof and paving and we question whether the existing culvert could carry all of that water. In summary, we believe that to allow the flag lot as proposed would be a detraction in this area not be good policy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Telephone (40F 378 -2407 November 15, 1988 Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratcga, CA 95070 RE: TENTATIVE MAP (LAND OF PIERCE) SD -88 -015 Gentlepersons: SERVING RESIDENTS nF CITY OF CAMPREI L TOWN OF LOS GA TOS CITY OF MONTE SERENO CITY OF SARA TOGA UNINCORPORATED AREA This office has reviewed the plans for the above project. The existing residence on parcel "A" is on Sewer. Sewer Service to the future residence on parcel "B" can be achieved with the following alternatives: 1) Connect a 4 -inch lateral to the existing main sewer on Horseshoe Drive, through a private sewer easement within parcel "A ". A pump will be required in the on -site plumbing system. 2) Construct a 200 -Ft sewer main extending from the end of Horseshoe Court to the property line. The proposed sewer extension will be a Public Sewer System and will be designed in accordance with the District's Standards. Please contact the undersigned if any questions arise. Ver tr y yours, Jon than K. Lee Assistant Civil Engineer JKL /kt cc: Westfall Engineering 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 George Pierce 14584 Horseshoe Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 (FORMERLY CCUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO 4� WILLIAM G. CLARK A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION September 19, 1989 255 NORTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 190 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 TELEPHONE: (408) 292 -2434 FAX (408) 292-1264 Mr. George Pierce 14584 Horseshoe Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear George: V, I continue to have reservations about the adequacy of the present drainage system should a new home be constructed in the area. Increasing the capacity on the west side of the driveway will necessarily increase the burden on the east side. I note Foster's people are objecting to this since they will claim it will add to the erosion of their property. In speaking with your builder on the last occasion, I can only state that he was not informative concerning the house plans. While my only concern has been the drainage question, my family has questioned me about the possible disturbances that a new home might present. It looks as though any house on the lot' would necessarily look down on our yard eliminating the privacy we now have. An attractive brick wall might solve the problem, but there is a question as to whether the city would allow a wall at a height where it would be effective. My family has likewise asked where the location of the building would be, how it would face and where the building pad would be located. Is the lot contemplated to be completely fenced? Is the building a one story or two story residence, and if one story is it suspended by posts on the lower side? We have been good neighbors over the years. However, we will cease being neighbors when the new lot is created and if this comes to pass, your builder or his purchaser becomes my neighbor. Your contractor seems to have an "in" with the Planning Commission staff and I have reason to be skeptical of his representations and and apprehensive of his ability to push things through the City to his particular desires. At the present time, therefore, I cannot give blanket approval to the lot division, but I will remain receptive to further information. Obviously, I wish to strike a fair balance in protecting the integrity of my property and at the same time cooperating with you. JB AAMG ds, CLARK Planning Commissioner City of Saratoga Dear Sir: My property is adjacent to the proposed Flag lot subdivision of George Pierce. I have no objection to the subdivision provided that the builder provides adequate drainage in the swale that lies on our properties. J, , 1'� 1 ' ctober 7, l; p '=fanning Co=issioner City of Saratoga, Saratoga, "alifornia. 95070 Dear Sir: i am located directly across Horseshoe Drive from the flag lot sub- division proposed by George Fierce of 1458d Horseshoe Drive. I have �o objecti to the proposed Sub division. Sincerely, i �J' i % Stephen G. Gribi 14595 Horseshoe Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Date Rec9Aved: Z 2- Hearing Date: Z% Fee: APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: 'A 0 Sr i LJC-- �� '-V- Address: 7 0 Zm �-1 .� l zz U n.. Telephone : 6 ; - 't -7 1 q Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File No.: / S s?— ::z Project Address: �����t 1--1 ov-sr 9L43 ti �}- Decision Being Appealed: Lo�- Grounds for for Appeal (Letter may be attached): Ap lant's Signature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. oft RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -017 RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE MAP OF WALLER /PIERCE; 14584 HORSESHOE DRIVE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of two lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -017 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and will all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdi- vision and land use is not compatible with the objectives, poli- cies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 2/14/90 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, conditions (c) and (d) set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) OF Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should not be grant- ed. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly no- ticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 14th day of February, 1990 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby denied. Section 1. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California,, this 14th day of February, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Siegfried, Tucker, Burger, Kolstad, Harris, Moran and Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ­1�f« Secretary, Planning Commission fic"� reed Chair, Planning mmission 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: SD- 89_017; 14584 Horseshoe Drive Applicant /Owner: Waller/ Pierce Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: February 14, 1990 APN: 397 -20 -027 Director Approval: 2��1+460 37724 -49 (�30 111. 24.40 2e 200 20205 397 -U-05 31724 -4e (2) � 1 3) 144,S2 Igjb -4- - O !17.24- l9�oy !� 01 777.24 -44 /4650 �q 65 to It fy1 � s (71 (>) 14.85/ 14631 19 3n-)7. o6 37737 -07 �Q.S30 1y 14590 117 21 01 14573 1z... -33 �. 397 -21 -23 )17.7.7.04 0) 317-2/- (2) 317 )7S,° (131 /4542 4 5 30 , 3.. fa ' 2G 1455} 317 -37-0 ' 317 -2,-11 1757e 317"37 -04 • ro. 117 -37-02 31721-19 1761771 ✓ °0 ✓ .45 14551 377 -37.1, - 1'):-Z= �S +3. 317"20-31 r'Z1 (IZ r .a ggg 14 &00 (10 14544 317 -2 -49 145 iC 117 7"03 457, 31t zl- 14431 (U - 317"37-01 377 "IC. -3- ) S 45'- 11 O�� 317 -37 -,2 Z /457 1 � 562 ) 1_ V 91721.24 rs, r� r_ � 39rrn -3c 3 zo 7 14 &53 (g :4&. J1 I 9 Q��w )17.)7.11 41' zD -37 317.2n ■ 4 ■ T 7.=1_ TE (yl 14600 Ori :,. 7 L 717 3>.N i4(.3 'Q 4:.: 3172_'' �7i t/) I`♦5 (1) 397 -21 -22 317.20 "38 / 3/] -rc "45 r7, g 3 1- ro -31 f7.&30 a 41 37] -rc. r B 37710 '114 5o 7 - rc.52 0270 11-0& f1) 317.20.73 OV 14&11 y� 128 7 °'7� -79 fro; fIFF���� 317. z;0_7.7 13n 4G 55 �g(V 397.2_.2 ioz &o 14 670 317.20.53 200,:1 41711 - V7 317 -20.42 • r, 1: Q (1t) 14 317 "2n 14C. 10 397 -zo- J97 2C.VI ?B 317 -zo -A 54 �v (4) -_`` \# 17&95 37720 74 377- ?0.7, 35' 20 -9. _ \C 14720 377 -20.55 r,y) 78 se . ,21 a777 4n 11 -11 3i 14 1315 7 1, 2c (i) 20101, ,17•H -I� 0` d I 0� i J s r a 0 4 3gT2o. % 19,31 r 1/ ?1/5 7- 2o ;97 "10 g 14 ,02 '1 J17'zo.q 2oo0p {4 � ico 11 ?9 >'20.13 317 -z0 -21 S39�looO 20ezz ',o 377gp.yy ,11Dp ',f l 14990 rto -&4 71 >. iv, -S7 // Z41e O l 14ki °17 r 34111 �J 400 201 low < 111 5C' s17•rG,_( -5 2t J/ +27y 317 20" File No. SD -89 -017; 14584 Horseshoe Dr. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 11/9/90 Application complete: 12/15/90 Notice published: 1/31/90 Mailing completed: 2/1/90 Posting completed: 1/25/90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for subdivision approval to create two parcels of 20,100 sq. ft. and 22,686 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The site is located at 14584 Horseshoe Drive in the R -1- 20,000 zone district and is at the corner of Horseshoe Drive and Horseshoe Court. Both the exist- ing home and the proposed parcel will access Horseshoe Drive. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The proposed two -lot subdivision meets all minimum zoning site standards regarding frontage, width, depth, and area. The newly created parcel includes a 1560 sq. ft. access corridor, or "flag" access, which provides ingress and egress to this site from Horseshoe Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the proposal by adopting Resolution SD -89 -017. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution SD -89 -017 3. Parcel Map, Exhibit "B" - 4. Previous proposal, Exhibit "C" 5. Planning Commission minutes dated 12/14/88 and 1/25/89 6. City Council minutes dated 3/1/89 7. Excerpt from Subdivision Map Act 8. Letter from the West Valley Sanitation District 9. Correspondence from neighbors 10. Site Plan, Exhibit "A" dsc:ws5 \jw \sd SD -89 -017; 14584 �rseshoe Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD PARCEL SIZE: Existing: 1.018 acres Proposed: Parcel A: 20,100 Parcel B: 22,686 AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 7% PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.018 acre parcel into two lots of 20,100 sq. ft. (parcel A) and 22,686 sq. ft. (parcel B). These two proposed parcels meet all requirements for site frontage, depth, width, and area for the R -1- 20,000 zone district. The site is located at 14584 Horseshoe Drive and is situated at the corner of Horseshoe Drive and Horseshoe Court. The proposed lot split will create a new parcel with a "flag" lot configura- tion which will gain ingress and egress through an access corri- dor along the south property line of the existing home to Horse- shoe Drive. While Horseshoe Court is a privately maintained minimum access road serving only five parcels, Horseshoe Drive is a City maintained road which serves all of the homes in Tract 247 and four homes from Tract 6722. The proposed parcel B portion of the existing site is overgrown with dense vegetation and includes a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. In its current state, it is difficult to even walk through the property. It is also difficult to foresee the impacts this site will have with a new structure built on it once it has been cleared of foliage. The General Plan designation for this area is Low Density Resi- dential (RLD), which calls for a maximum density of 2.18 dwell- ing units per net acre. The net site area of parcels A and B, deducting the flag corridor, is 42, 786 sq. ft. which meets this criteria (a minimum net site area of 39,963 sq. ft. would be necessary). BACKGROUND: A variation of this application was heard and approved by the Planning Commission in January, 1988. This approval was ap- pealed to the City Council and was subsequently reversed in March of 1989. The City Council felt the proposed density was incompatible with the existing homes in the adjacent R -1- 40,000 zone district (the parcels to the east of Horseshoe Drive are all one acre and greater in size). The Council also felt that certain issues were not thoroughly considered when the lot split was tentatively approved, including: 1. Whether the increased number of driveways accessing Horseshoe Court would trigger required street improve- ments which all of the Horseshoe Court homeowners would have to participate in. SD -89 -017; 14584 rseshoe Drive 2. Whether Sanitary Sewer hookup was available. 3. Whether adequate drainage for the area was available. 4. Whether the proposed lot -split and increased density was compatible with the existing development in the area. DISCUSSION: Access: Horseshoe Court, a privately maintained road, is currently improved to minimum access road standards. Minimum access roads require less restrictive design requirements than do roads which access more than four parcels. The concerns with the original subdivision proposal, with its access from Horseshoe Court, was that this additional parcel would trigger required street im- provements, specifically the widening of Horseshoe Court to local street standards requiring 26 foot wide pavement. Horse- shoe Court is a 50 foot wide right -of -way with an 18 foot wide paved roadway. This revised proposal, with its flag lot configuration, accesses Horseshoe Court to circumvent this issue. Sanitary Sewer: Sewer hookup is available from either the end of the Horseshoe Court cul -de -sac or Horseshoe Drive. With its proposed flag access, parcel B would have no difficulty in obtaining sanitary sewer from Horseshoe Drive (see attached letter from West Valley Sanitation District). Drainage: The homeowners on Horseshoe Court have stated concerns about obstructing the drainage swale that crosses through the site. Apparently, run -off from the natural swale during prolonged rain floods Horseshoe Court. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage calculations prepared by Westfall Engineers and concurs with their study which indicates that an additional home would not overload the drainage culvert at the base of the swale. According to the calculations, any failure of the drain is a result of maintenance deficiencies. However, flooding at Horseshoe Court is still occurring and will compound with development at this location. Much of the run -off diverted through this swale is currently percolating into this densely covered parcel. Any increased impervious coverage at this site will only increase the possibility of erosion and flooding. It appears that the location of this natural swale across this site.is the reason for it originally being created with its elongated configuration, and the reason for the exist- ing home's placement at the opposite west end. SD -89 -017; 14584 rseshoe Drive Compatibility: Though the proposed lots would be smaller than a majority of the properties within the zone district, both parcels A and B meet all minimum zoning site standards for the R -1- 20,000 zone dis- trict. Much of the original neighborhood concern involved this issue since the parcels which use Horseshoe Court for access are located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. Though this new pro- posal accesses Horseshoe Drive, the issue of compatibility remains. The lots within Tract 247, Horseshoe Drive, are mostly between 22,500 and 38,000 sq. ft. There are also three or four larger parcels within this tract which could be subdivided further given the R -1- 20,000 zone standards. All of these potential lot splits would require a flag lot configuration to gain access and would greatly alter the existing character of Horseshoe Drive. Flag lots are permitted in the zoning ordi- nance and the Planning Commission has approved them in the past. However, these flag lots have been found to be most appropriate in the zoning districts with one acre minimum lot requirements. In the R -1- 20,000 to R- 1- 10,000 zoning districts, flag lots have been found to raise compatibility issues with the existing development. The subject property was not created along with Tract 247, though it is the same zone district. It was created before the City was incorporated and is more similar to the adjacent par- cels within the R -1- 40,000 zone district which range from one acre to five acres. It is the existing homes on these larger sites which are most directly adjacent to, and will be most impacted by, this proposed lot split. In the originally approved tentative map, staff had made the recommendation that any new home on Parcel B be limited to a maximum 3,500 sq. ft. and that it be limited to a one -story in height. This condition of approval was intended to mitigate both the compatibility problems associated with this lot split, and the potential privacy impacts a new residence would create. CONCLUSION: One of the concerns regarding this lot split is the impact a new home will have on the existing natural drainage swale which services the greater 11.5 acre area. Though the drainage cul- vert at the base of the swale has been shown by Westfall Engi- neers to be sufficient for its task, Horseshoe Court still has a flooding problem during prolonged rains. This is believed to be a maintenance problem attributed to clogged drainage pipes. However, mechanical drainage systems will often back up and with the existing foliage removed and a new structure built with increased impervious coverage the drainage problem will only increase. Another concern staff has with the application is the compati- bility of these two 20,100 sq. ft. and 22,686 sq. ft. lots adjacent to an area of one acre to five acre parcels. This is most clearly evident when reviewing a parcel map of the area (Exhibit "B "). With its flag lot configuration and corner location, the proposed lot split is not consistent with the SD -89 -017; 14584 rseshoe Drive existing parcels on Horseshoe Drive and is definitely out of context with the lots on Horseshoe Court. A final concern is the fact that a similar application has already been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council and has been denied. This new application, with its flag corridor access, is even less compatible from a planning perspective than the original proposal. Staff does not feel that a flag lot development is appropriate for this site. In conclusion, staff has been unable to make the following find- ings: 1. The site is physically suitable for this type of devel- opment. The existing natural swale will be impacted no matter where a future home is located and with increased imper- vious coverage the existing erosion and flooding prob- lems will only increase. 2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. The proposed flag lot configuration is less appropriate for this site than the original standard lot proposal. The parcel configuration is not consistent with either the existing parcels on Horseshoe Drive or the larger parcels accessing Horseshoe Court. As a result of this, and the fact that a previous proposal with a more conventional access has already been deemed inappropriate and denied by the City Council, staff recommends denial of this two -lot subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application by adopting Resolution SD -89 -017.