HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-29-1981 CITY COUNCILAGENDACITY OF SARATnGA
` AMIDA BILL NO.
DATE: April 29, 1981
*'• City Manager
-------------------------- - - - - --
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Ste: Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP),
Nori- Resident owner (Rental) component. -
Issue Summary
Responding to concerns expressed by members of the City Council during the
Housing and Community Development Act public hearings, the SHARP Loan
Committee has suspended taking action on any non - resident owner SHARP loan
applications, two are currently pending. City Council consideration of
the staff report on this matter is requested so that they may provide
specific 'direction.
Recommendation
Re- affirm the existing Rental Component to the SHARP.
•
Fiscal Impacts
SHARP interest income will be reduced if the Rental Component is deleted.
Exhibits /Attachments
Staff Background Report
Council Action
may supply the Owner with a bond, satisfactory to the Owner, protecting the Owner - -_
against any possible lien.
13. In the event that Owner should rent or lease the property during the
period of such loan, at all times until such loan is paid in full Owner shall not
charge nor receive as rental or consideration for the use or occupancy of said •
premises any amount or amounts in excess of the maximums established pursuant to
Santa Clara Housing Authority Fair Market Rent Schedule and rent the unit to a family
whose income does not exceed 80% of the median county-income. Without limiting any
other provisions of the Agreement, any rentals charged in viofiation of this paragraph
or failure to rent to a qualified family shall make the entire loan immediately due
and payable at the option of the City.
14. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The Owner shall assume the defense
of and shall pay, indemnify, and save harmless the City, its designees, and employees
from all suits, actions, claims, demands, damages,.losses, expenses,.and costs of
every kind and description to which the City, or its designees or employees, may be
subjected by reason or any act or omission of the Contractor or the Owner, its agent
or employees, in undertaking and performing under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Owner have executed this Agreement as
of the date first above written.
CITY OF SARATOGA
t
Title
By:
Owner
By:
Owner
C,
0
� 4
•
t 4 yroa t 4 "j,z z, r
Q1 O&MZXO
�
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 4/29/81
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/ 6/81
Background Report to City Council on SARATOGA HOUSING
SUBJECT' ASSISTANCE and REHABILITATION PROGRAM (SHARP) Non -
Resident Owner (Rental) Component
--------- ( Refer- -to - Agenda_ ------------------------- - - - - --
During the public hearings for the FY 1981-82, Housing and Community
Development Act (HCDA), members of the City Council expressed concern
with the existence of a non - resident owner or Rental component to the
SHARP. Consequently, the SHARP Loan Committee has suspended taking
action on any non - resident owner loan applications. At this time,
two are currently pending.
• The rental component of the SHARP was authorized during FY 1978 -79,
in an effort to comprehensively address target area needs. At that
time it was recognized that the deterioration of rental units was
having a negative impact on certain neighborhoods, primarily Saratoga
Gardens and Elva - Paul - Springer. Experience has shown that it is
difficult to encourage resident owner home rehabilitation if it is
perceived that the deterioration of adjacent rental properties will
continue, contributing to the overall decline of a neighborhood.
HCDA regulations provide that loans may be made to non - resident
owners if the beneficiaries of such loans (the tenent(s)) are of low
to moderate income.
The SHARP Owner Participation Agreement, Section 13 (attached), re-
quires a SHARP loan recipient to rent the subject unit to a low to
moderate (income not to exceed 80% of the median for Santa Clara
County) income family and receive rent or compensation that does not
exceed "Section 8, Fair Market Rents" for existing units, established
annually by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (not a county
agency) and HUD. Currently, the non- resident owner may receive a 7%
loan and is required to meet the above conditions. Should these not
be met, the City, at its option, may require the entire loan
(principle and interest) immediately due and payable. SHARP loans
are for a period of 15 years or until title to the subject property
is transferred or the property sold, in the case of Zero percent,
deferred loans (recipient must be under 50% of the County median).
J' ^ 7
Mayor and City Council -2- 4/29/81
•
Of a total loan volume of 32, four loans have been for rental units
(not including Hakone Gardens, which must meet the OP Agreement
criteria, but is a conditional grant to the-City). To date, the
average rental unit rehabilitation cost is $6,125. while the
average owner occupied unit costs $12,500. As of this time, all
units completed under the SHARP, both owner occupied and non-
resident owner, remain in the ownership of the original.loan
recipient, none have changed hands.
The City Housing Assistance Plan identifies a need for the develop-
ment of 60 rental units, however,.in approving the FY 1981 -82 HCDA
Joint Powers Agreement and Application, the City Council instructed
HUD that "....it does not want low and moderate federally assisted
housing in Saratoga" (new construction). The Rental Component of
the SHARP is currently the only avenue open to the City for
assisting in meeting.the rental housing need, short of new, subsi-
dized construction. At the time the Rental Component was developed
and authorized, the cities of Saratoga and San Jose were unique in
offering this feature, today most Santa a!,-dra County cities offer a
rental component to their housing rehabilitation programs.
Other financial assistance programs aimed at increasing the avail-
ability of affordable rental units are being developed by the
State, i.e., "Moderate Rehabilitation Program" and the "State •
Deferred Rehabilitation Loan Program." These programs will be
available to non - resident owners through the City, if the rental
component is maintained. The Mod. Rehabilitation Program, however,
provides direct access between the non - resident owner and the local
Housing Authority, but, relies upon partial or full HCDA funding.
Should the City Councils' primary concern center on the possibility
of windfall profits to non - resident owner participants, and should
the current OP Agreement not provide sufficient safeguards, the
Council may wish.to direct the City Attorney to strengthen the
Rental Agreement or provide a penalty for early sale, if the Rental
Component is to be maintained.
The SHARP rental component provides the highest interest rate of
return of SHARP funds at 7 %. However, a higher interest rate would
discourage program participation and encourage the non - resident
owner to pass along the additional interest costs to the low to
moderate income tenant. In many instances, this increase would
force the rents beyond Section 8 levels and cause the non - resident
owner to be in violation of Section 13 of the Owner Participation
Agreement.
Stan V,,Onbkie •
Housing and Community
Development Coordinator
/da
' CITY OF SARATOGA
• � Initial:
AMnA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: April 29, 1981 C. Atty.
DEPARTMM: City Manager C. Mgr.
-------------------------------------------------------------- -------- 5L__:
5�. Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP),
Non- Resident owner (Rental) component. 1<
lot
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
Responding to concerns expressed by members of the City Council during the
Housing and Community Development Act public hearings, the SHARP Loan
Committee has suspended taking action on any non - resident owner SHARP loan
applications, two are currently pending. City Council consideration of
the staff report on this matter is requested so that they may provide
specific direction.
Recommendation
Re- affirm the existing Rental Component to the SHARP.
Fiscal Impacts
SHARP interest income will be reduced if the Rental Component is deleted.
Exhibits /Attachments
Staff Background Report
Council Action
Approved 4 -1 (Mallory opposed).
may supply the Owner with a bond, satisfactory to the Owner, protecting the Owner
against any possible lien.
13. In the event that Owner should rent or lease the property during the
period of such loan, at all times until such loan is paid in full Owner shall not
charge nor receive as rental or consideration for the use or occupancy of said
premises any amount or amounts in excess of the maximums established pursuant to
Santa Clara Housing Authority Fair Market Rent Schedule and rent the unit to a family
whose income does not exceed 80% of the median county income. Without limiting any
other provisions of the Agreement, any rentals charged in violation of this paragraph
or failure to rent to a qualified family shall make the entire loan immediately due
and payable at the option of the City.
14. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The Owner shall assume the defense
of and shall pay, indemnify, and save harmless the City, its designees, and employees
from all suits, actions, claims, demands, damages, losses, expenses,.and costs of
every kind and description to which the City, or its designees or employees, may be
subjected by reason or any act or omission of the Contractor or the Owner, its agent
or employees, in undertaking and performing under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Owner have executed this Agreement as
of the date first above written.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Title
By:
(Owner).
By:
Owner
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 4/29/81
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/ 6/81
Background Report to City Council on SARATOGA HOUSING
SUBJECT: ASSISTANCE and REHABILITATION PROGRAM (SHARP) Non -
Resident Owner (Rental) Component
--- - - - - -- (Ref Lilo.- 8---)--------------------------------
During the public hearings for the FY 1981 -82, Housing and Community
Development Act (HCDA), members of the City Council expressed concern
with the existence of a non - resident owner or Rental component to the
SHARP. Consequently, the SHARP Loan Committee has suspended taking
action on any non - resident owner loan applications. At this time,
two are currently pending.
The rental component of the SHARP was authorized during FY 1978 -79,
in an effort to comprehensively address target area needs. At that
time it was recognized that the deterioration of rental units was
having a negative impact on certain neighborhoods, primarily Saratoga
Gardens and Elva -Paul- Springer. Experience has shown that it is
difficult to encourage resident owner home rehabilitation if it is
perceived that the deterioration of adjacent rental properties will
continue,-contributing to the overall decline of a neighborhood.
HCDA regulations provide that loans may be made to non - resident
owners if the beneficiaries of such loans (the tenent(s)) are of low
to moderate income.
The SHARP Owner Participation Agreement, Section 13 (attached), re-
quires a SHARP loan recipient to rent the subject unit to a low to
moderate (income not to exceed 80% of the median for Santa Clara
County) income family and receive rent or compensation that does not
exceed "Section 8, Fair Market Rents" for existing units, established
annually by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (not a county
agency) and HUD. Currently, the non - resident owner may receive a 7%
loan and is required to meet the above conditions. Should these not
be met, the City, at its option, may require the entire loan
(principle and interest) immediately due and payable. SHARP loans
are for a period of 15 years or until title to the subject property
is transferred or the property sold, in the case of Zero.percent,
deferred loans (recipient must be under 50% of the County median).
Mayor and City Council -2- 4/29/81
Of a total loan volume of 32, four loans have been for rental units
(not including Hakone Gardens, which must meet the OP Agreement
criteria, but is a conditional grant to the City). To date, the
average rental unit rehabilitation cost is $6,125. while the
average owner occupied unit costs $12,500. As of this time, all
units completed under the SHARP, both owner occupied and non-
resident owner, remain in the ownership of the original loan
recipient, none have changed hands.
The City Housing Assistance Plan identifies a need for the develop-
ment of 60 rental units, however, in approving the FY 1981 -82 HCDA
Joint Powers Agreement and Application, the City Council instructed
HUD that "....it does not want low and moderate federally assisted
housing in Saratoga" (new construction). The Rental Component of
the SHARP is currently the only avenue open to the City for
assisting in meeting the rental housing need, short of new, subsi-
dized construction. At the time the Rental Component was developed
and authorized, the cities of Saratoga and San Jose were unique in
offering this feature, today most Santa Clara County cities offer a
rental component to their housing rehabilitation programs.
Other financial assistance programs aimed at increasing the avail-
ability of affordable rental units are being developed by the
State, i.e., "Moderate Rehabilitation Program" and the "State
Deferred Rehabilitation Loan Program." These programs will be
available to non - resident owners through the City, if the rental
component is maintained. The Mod. Rehabilitation Program, however,
provides direct access between the non - resident owner and the local
Housing Authority, but, relies upon partial or full HCDA funding.
Should the City Councils' primary concern center on the possibility
of windfall profits to non - resident owner participants, and should
the current OP Agreement not provide sufficient safeguards, the
Council may wish to direct the City Attorney to strengthen the
Rental Agreement or provide a penalty for early sale, if the Rental
Component is to be maintained.
The SHARP rental component provides the highest interest rate of
return of SHARP funds at 7%. However, a higher interest rate would
discourage program participation and encourage the non - resident
owner to pass along the additional interest costs to the low to
moderate income tenant. In many instances, this increase would
force the rents beyond Section 8 levels and cause the non - resident
owner to be in violation of Section 13 of the Owner Participation
Agreement.
Stan `C_li'nekie
Housing and Community
Development Coordinator
/da
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. q
DATE: 4/29/81
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
--------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Formation of a Finance Advisory Committee
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty._ _
C. Ma .
During the past year, the City Council has favorably considered establishment of a
Citizens finance advisory committee. You have directed the City Manager to review this
proposal and report back with recommendations.
Recommendation
1. That the City Council approve the attached resolution establishing a Finance Advisory
Ccnnnittee .
2. That the City Council set aside time at your May 9th meeting to discuss recruitment
and selection procedures for members with the City Manager.
Fiscal Impacts
Cost impacts are expected to be minimal and involve principally allocation of staff time
in meeting with the Ccmnnittee.
There are no direct revenue impacts.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution to Establish Finance Advisory Conmittee and Define its Function
2. Report from City Manager dated 4/29/81
Council Action
Adopt Resolution. Passed 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARA'IOGA ESTABLISHING
A FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND DEFINING THE FUNCTIONS THEREOF
IIA EREAS, The City Council of Saratoga desires to provide means of effective
citizen participation in affairs of the City government; and
WITEREAS, The City of Saratoga faces important and urgent needs concerning its
financial operations and fiscal condition which result from the current economic
climate and changes in revenue proposed by the Governor of California; and
WHEREAS, there are those within the community of Saratoga who possess the skills,
knowledge and experience in financial matters that would be useful to the City
government in responding to its needs.
THEREFORE, IT IS NOW RESOLVED that
1. A Finance Advisory Committee be and is established.
2. The purposes and functions of the Ccmittee are determined to be:
a. To review from time to time the financial management system and operations
of the City and to make such recommendations as needed and appropriate that
would maintain these systems and operations up t6 date and satisfactory
for the City's needs.
b. To review quarterly financial reports on budget performance with the
City Manager and present recommendations or convents as appropriate to
the Manager and to the City Council.
c. To undertake and perform such other specific tasks as may be assigned from
time to time by the City Council.
d. The Committee is to function in harmony and cooperation with the City
Manager to the extent possible. It is not intended that the Committee
function in an oversight capacity.
3. The Finance Advisory Committee shall consist of three members who shall serve
three -year overlapping terms of office. Members shall be selected on the
basis of their knowledge, experience and qualifications in financial management.
4. The Committee shall meet at least once quarterly with the City Manager to
review financial reports and to discuss other matters of concern. The Committee
shall report to the City Council its findings and recommendations whenever
needed or desired.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga this
day of , 1981, by the following vote:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmen>bPrs:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
C.
Clerk
Mayor
o� S1�R�9
�p
�� =�? "• CITY of = � ' ATOGA
rkmlv
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 4/29/81
COUNCIL MEETING: 5/6/81
SUBJECT * Formation of a Finance Advisory Committee
The City Council has,directed me to report to you on the matter of forming
a finance advisory committee. The purposes of such a committee would be:
1. To. increase opportunities for citizen participation in City
government functions and affairs.
2. To tap community resources and utilize the skills and talents available
within the community to assist the City government in areas of need.
3. To provide a means of monitoring the City's financial condition and
adequacy of financial system on a more regular basis than is provided
by the annual independent audit.
I strongly support the above purposes that a finance advisory committee
could serve and concur in the City Council's proposal to establish such a
committee.
There are several areas of immediate concern to us in which a finance
advisory committee could provide very positive and constructive assistance.
First, our financial management systems need to be improved and updated in
order to provide.us with,the.means of monitoring and controlling the City's
financial activities more closely in the current economic climate. It has
been many years since these systems have been reviewed and updated. The
City does not have capability at present to meet our nee ds`in this area. As
• result, not only are.we unable to monitor our financial performance on
• continuing basis during the year, we also are not utilizing our financial
resource capacity to its fullest - -we are not obtaining maximum yields on
City funds.
Second, this coming fiscal year, 1981 -82, presents some very real challenges
never before faced by the City. Saratoga, as a City, relies heavily on
revenues collected and distributed by the State and Federal governments.
Since the passage of Proposition 13, the funds have not been affected
Mayor and City Council -2- 4/29/81
greatly. The State Government provided "bail -out" monies to replace funds lost
to Proposition 13. In the coming year, the State no longer will have this
ability and the Governor has proposed a budget based on changes that will $nave
a far more serious effect on fiscally prudent cities /such as Saratoga ,than did
Proposition 13. Saratoga faces great uncertainty in the coming year and the
real risk of losing substantial revenues. It will require considerable effort
and attention, along with meeting our financial systems needs discussed above,
in order to deal with these uncertainties and to adapt to the changes forth
coming.
Attached is a draft resolution for your consideration that will establish a
finance advisory committee to assist us in meeting.these challenges and which
defines the purposes of the cammittee. I recommend further that, upon adoption
of.a resolution, we meet to discuss procedure for recruiting and appointing
members to serve.
Y�4- ", -
J. re Do=fetz
City Manager
CITY OF SARATOGA
r.. 6
Initial:
AGENDA BILL: NO.. Dept. Hd.
DATE: C. Atty�
DEPART!=: Planning C. Mgr.
Appeal on approval of a two -story conversion at 14721 Live Oak I;an
SUBJECT: Appeal
Appellant - Tom & Julie Harris; Applicant - Donald Elam
Issue Summary
On May 7, 1981, the Planning Director granted approval for a second -story addition to
an existing single -story dwelling.
Summary of Appellant's 'Letter:
1. Appellant feels addition substantially impacts the privacy of their hone.
2. Second -story windows will look into living room.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny
3. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Director.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal Letter
2. Letter to Mr. Harris from Planning Director dated May 15, 1981.
3. Staff Report dated April 27, 1981
4. Exhibits B and C.
Council Action
Mallory /Watson moved to deny appeal on condition that Mr. Elam either install
fixed permanent stained glass windows or windows six feet above the floor instead
of the windows shown as the two right -hand windows on the north side, second story.
Passed 3 -2 (Jensen, Clevenger opposed).
PH.
May 12, 1981 14691 Live Oak Lane
Saratoga, CA 95870
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Sirs:
Hy wife and I want to appeal th- use permit, file
number UP -490, granted for the.Elam's on May 7,
1981. We appeal this permit because it substan-
tially impacts the privacy of our home to the
North of the Elam's. Both the planning director
Mr. R.S. Robinson, and the staff planner, Mr.
Michael Flores, agreed that our privacy would be
sufficiently impacted to require that three of
the north side second story windows should have
their bottoms six feet above the finished floor.
level of the second story. Unfortunetly, they
didn't realize that the remaining north side
second story windows will look directly into
our living room. (They didn't realize that the
south side of our .living room is mostly glass).
Thank you.
Sincerely,
° Tom & Julie Harris
D
May 1S, 1981
•
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
(408) 867 -3438
Mr. Tom Harris
14691 Live Oak Lane
Saratoga, CA 9SO70
RE: Use Permit LJP -490
Dear Mr. Harris:
• SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
\1
This is a follow -up to my conversation with you today regarding
the condition on the Elam two -story conversion, which I was
requirdd to remove because of a contradiction to the Uniform
Building Code.
The condition that I added to the Elam's two -story conversion
permit was that the first three windows on the northern side of
the building be at minimum 6' above the finished floor elevation
for the second story. It was brought to my attention by the
Building Department that I had in fact violated Section 1204 of
the Uniform Building Code, which requires: "Where windows are
provided as a means of egress or rescue they shall have a finished
sill height not more than 44 inches above the floor." My pro=
vision that required 72 inches is definitely a safety violation,
and our City Attorney concurred that I must remove that condition
from the use permit requirement.
I have reviewed your appeal of the Elam's addition, and I feel that
your concerns are adequately' addressed, even with the modification
to this particular condition.
The appeal for your item has been tentatively scheduled for June 17,
1981. It will appear in the Saratoga Newspaper on May 27, 1981 or
June 3, 1981, and you should be receiving an agenda prior to the
meeting on June 17th.
If either Mike or I can assist you in answering any questions with
regards to the appeal process, please feel free to contact us.
,Sincerely,. f
1 �
S. Itobins'on, _Jr.
Planning Director
RSR:cd - Enclosures
cc: Mr, and Mrs. .Donald Els.n, 147211 Live Oal: Lane, Saratoga, CA
* Revised 5/7/81
(Condition 5 deleted 5/15/81).
A MID
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
STAFF REPORT
CONVERSION PERMIT
FILE NO.: UP -490
APPLICANT: Donald Elam
LOCATION: 14721 Live Oak Lane
REQUEST: Use Permit Approval to add second -story addition to an existing
single -story residence.
SITE SIZE: 43,564 sq. ft.
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Size of Addition: 3,018 sq. ft.
2. Site Coverage: 6.9%
3. Height of Structure: Existing: 17' +
Proposed: 24.15"
4. Exterior Facade: Existing: Wood Siding /Desert Tan
Proposed: to match existing
5. Roof Materials: Existing: Shake
Proposed: to match existing
6. Design:
a. Compatible with existing Design of Structure: yes
b. Compliance with Ordinance requirements:
1. Setbacks: See comments
2. Coverage: complies
C. Comments: The proposed addition will cover the entire main structure
as well as the 484tp adjacent accessory structure which will be
connected to the main dwelling. The addition will use the same
STAFF, REPORT
UP�X490
gable roof design of the existing
other dwellings in the vicinity.
substandard in lot width (135.5 w
yard requirement is 13.5 ". The
this requirement.
7. Adverse Impacts On:
a. Privacy: None noted
11;
4/27/81
Page 2
structure and is compatible with
Since the subject structure is
here 150' is required) the side
proposed structure complies with
b. Views: None noted
C. Aesthestic Character: None noted
d. Quantity /Quality of Light and Air: None noted (including solar
utilization)
e. Comments: There is a large deck that is proposed with this addition
which will face south overlooking the rear yard of the adjacent
structure. However, because of existing vegetation along the side
property line and the upward sloping (3 -5 feet) nature of the adjacent
site, privacy impacts are not substantial. Impacts can be mitigated
with the addition of 2 -3 evergreen shrubs or trees to the landscaping.
The rear and north side second -story elevations do not present privacy
impacts because of existing '.vegetation and distance to private areas.
8. Description of Vicinity:
a. Location of Other Two -Story Structures: There °are no other two -story
structures immediately adjacent to the subject property. One structure
in the vicinity has a steep gable roof, and creates the appearance of
a two -story dwelling.
b. Comments: Overall the introduction of the proposed two -story addition
to the neighborhood will be compatible because the subject dwelling is
situated on a lot lower than dwellings to the south, and many trees in
the vicinity are higher than the proposed structure.
Ordinance NS -3.31 indicates,that a new two -story structure may be
constructed if an existing two -story is immediately adjacent or across
from the proposed two -story structure but not if only single story
structures are in the vicinity. The Planning Director can vary from
this requirement if no adverse impacts are anticipated to the privacy,
views, aesthetic character, or quantity and quality of light and air
of adjacent properties. The preceding sections of this report indicate
that no adverse impacts are anticipated.
INDINGS:
The proposed location of the mulit -story conversion is /ixxxok in accord with
the objectives of the zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located.
The proposed location of the multi -story conversion and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained wilt /will not be detrimental to
public health, safety, and welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
STAFF, i REVORT f •
[JP -490
. • 4/27/81
Page 3
FINDINGS (cont'd):
3. The proposed multi -story conversion does/does xok comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the ordinance.
4. Comments on Findings: The proposed addition complies with the purposes of
the multi -story ordinance in that it protects privacy, does not unreasonably
interfere with views, has no adverse impacts on aesthetic character and will
not reduce the quantity and quality of light and air avialable to adjacent
properties.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve /ik4gr per Staff Report dated 4/21/81 and
Exhibit(s) B & C subject to the following condition(s):
1. Any changes in the proposed elevations shall be subject to Planning Depart-
ment review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Landscaping plans illustrating how the privacy of the adjacent property to
the South will be protected, shall be submitted for Planning Department
review and approval. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final in
spection /occupancy.
3. Since a more than 50% expansion is proposed, tentative and final building
site approval is required prior to issuance of building permits.
14. Three 6' box trees shall be planted to protect the privacy of the adjacent property to the
south. Said trees shall be bonded for with the City.
.5. Applicant shall be responsible for maintainance of the trees at the western edge of the site
and shall replace dead trees to ensure privacy protection.
Sharon Lester, Planning Aide
SL /da
Hearing: 4/28/81
1)
(original Condition 5 deleted by Planning Director 5/15/81).
P.
ti
YN
ri
-UVP CAr1 LANF-
(2LOT PI AN
if
's .
t
i = I
f '
I
i
I -
I
—fs. II
R�SO G1 11
1�P _ x p
-- -- - -- r - -.- -- - - -- — I ! ! ii Ll L I�� L� U I IT T
- i
_
-1 s �- i I I
t.. �—p cns - i - � -
y� i¢
V ..
d
l
1 \�
I
5
a sw:.
EXHIBIT
..
FILE NO. '"
...
•.�
-
, . ..
CITY OF SARATOGA
.
-e1
,
i
_
—fs. II
R�SO G1 11
1�P _ x p
-- -- - -- r - -.- -- - - -- — I ! ! ii Ll L I�� L� U I IT T
- i
_
-1 s �- i I I
t.. �—p cns - i - � -
y� i¢
V ..
d
l
1 \�
I
5
a sw:.
.g
Sail e: l/q -� o, F I . ExFiletr `L "
FILE No.
TV OF.SARATOGA
CI
Tr
JAI
•v. u�'� r s� ral.l, wJ y �" !O� LO? �'� I, �o O - _I�t _ �1 —T.r ors � d
_ .. ._ I�� -v / 8 -O' � °�t �WrNvo✓✓ �_ _ ."I.o' -o" f .:. 18'� G� y. ...
- '= ir<Y ' SIGN. � — ✓�c2'i� / � � oa- fey,.,.. ,
I�
I
i G
t
L—
O
p + 7
t
a,.. /Z7 ai I
SM..
TP
0
7
�O
.Q
I'
• 1
•.i
�CG:6
VAT O4
EXHIBIT - ---''�
FILENO. _
CITY OF SARATOGA _
Way �Li,
Ir mr'+r�
�G�� Gjl ✓� ri'I
I�1
I�
i
11M]IOMi �T
?u
TR.
Cam,-
EQ^'$
1 �O5't =`
U
Jam\
J
�.v
I'
li
FTI
IT
IT I
I ��iv� Q-i
ACV,
%VI
LLIA, t_':
CITY OF SARATOGA
1
AGENDA BILL NO. � Initial:
Dept. Hd. V4,Lf2
/
DATE: C. Atty. f
DEPARTMENT: Planning C. Mgr.
----------------------------------------------=-- - - - - --
SUBJECT: Appeal on Denial.of a Use Permit for a Financial Institution at 20473 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road (UP -487), Appellant and Applicant - Imperial Savings and Loan Assn.
Issue Summary
On May 13, 1981, the Planning Commission denied the request of Imperial Savings to locate
a Financial Institution in the "C-C" (Community Commerical) District.
Summary of Appellant's Letter:
1.-- -Planning Commission decision is unwarranted, contrary to staff recommendations, in excess
of its jurisdiction, and arbitrary.
2. Present bank quarters are inadequate.
3. Proposed location will allow bank to expand and reduce concentration of Financial
Institutions along Big Basin Way.
4. Efforts have been made to make the design of the project acceptable.
5. Planning Commission did not indicate reasons for denial and proposal is for relocation
o_f .-an' existing bank, not creation of a new one.
6. Appellant requests hearing de novo.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny, or, determine if a de novo hearing is
warranted.
3. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
�l. Appeal Letter
2. Minutes for the April 8, 1981, and May 13, 1981 Commission Meetings.
3. Staff Report dated April 1, 1981
4. Addendum dated May 5, 1981.
5. Exhibits B, C, and D
Council Action
6/17: Continued to July 1, for purpose of setting date of de novo hearing.
7/1: Mallory /Clevenger moved to set de novo hearing for August 19, 1981.
8/19: Jensen/Watson moved to grant use permit with three conditions. Failed 3 -2.
SCAMIPINH, P;10RTARA ("k
PAt'tcrnEtvs �t L:-iv/
405 CAIIJFpRN;A STf, Ll
SAN FPANC;1500, Cr \,.IFQi:iIIA
HARMS
911 CM.
May 20, 1981
To the City Clerk and City Council
City of Saratoga
Santa Clara County, CA
Re: Notice of Appeal from Decision of the
Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga, California
Gentlemen:
r,14 !�
LA C- Yg-7
A,- 7& 2-
Imperial Savings and Loan Association (Imperial
Savings) does hereby appeal, pursuant to,Section 16.7 of the
N.S. -3 Zoning Ordinance, as amended, from the decision
rendered by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
on May 13, 1981, denying the application of Imperial Savings
(UP 7487: A -762) to allow it to relocate its present banking
facilities from.its present location at 14417.Big Basin Way,
Saratoga, to 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road,,' located within
the "C -C" (Community Commercial) zoning district.
1
This appeal is taken on the ground that the said
decision rendered by the Planning Commission, denying the
application of Imperial Savings and Loan Association for such
use permit and for design approval is unwarranted, contrary
to the recommendations of the staff, in excess of the juris-
diction of the Planning Commission, and arbitrary.
Imperial SavincT,s has been located at its present
address for more than fifteen years. Its business operations
have increased to such an extent that the quarters presently
occupied by it are wholly inadequate to enable it to render
proper services to its customers and clients. It'is not feasible
to enlarge or.extend the present quarters occupied by it, and
the location selected by Imperial Savings at 20473 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road is such that it can be modernized, renovated and
rendered attractive and adequate to take care of the present
business volume of Imperial Savings, and provide for its
expected future growth.
The design and drawings of the proposed renovation and
the landscaping of the surrounding grounds submitted by GM
Associates, AIA Architects, have undergone many changes in a
To the City Clerk and
City Council -2- May 20, 1981
genuine effort to make such design, plans and improvements
attractive and completely acceptable to the staff of the
Planning Commission. In the two reports made by the staff
of the Planning Commission, one dated 4/1/81 and the second��
one dated 5/5/81, various changes and suggested modifications
were recommended. All of these changes and modifications
have been agreed to by Imperial Savings.
In its report of May 5, 1981, the staff recommends
that the application be approved, subject to the addendum and
conditions therein stated, and Imperial Savings is agreeable
to the provisions of said addendum and conditions.
The proposed location lends itself very favorably
to the operation of a financial institution and will bring
about a diminution of one financial institution in the now
crowded "Big Basin Road business area. It is well known that
there are at the present time an excessive number of savings
and loan and barking institutions located in the business
section of-Big Basin Road. This over concentration of financial
institutions has hindered the development of.the district into
a high foot traffic merchantile area. The intended move of
Imperial Savings to the proposed location will be beneficial
to the area.
Because the Planning Commission made no findings, nor
did it give, orally, any reasons in the course of its hearing
for denying, contrary to the recommendation of its own staff,
the application, Imperial Savings does not know what motivated
the Planning Commission's denial. Imperial Savings knows of
no logical basis for the denial and respectfully submits that
no reasonable basis exists for denying the application. Were
the application of Imperial Savings one for the issuance of a
use permit authorizing it' to open a new financial institution
in said "C.C." (Community Commercial) district, then it could
reasonably be argued that there are already too many financial
institutions in said district, but such is not the case here.
All that Imperial Savings is asking is a use permit authorizing
it to change from one location to another,less congested and
less developed,distant approximately two blocks from its present
location. Such a move should tend to relieve the congestion on
Big Basin Road and will result in the facilities of Imperial
Savings being adequate for use by-its customers and clients.
For these reasons Imperial Savings respectfully
requests that the City Council review all of the matters, plans,
drawings and reports filed with the Planning Commission in con-
nection with the subject matter, and either overrule the decision
of the Planning Commission by ordering the issuance of the
permits requested or otherwise grant to Imperial Savings and
Loan Association a hearing de novo at a time and place suitable
7
To the City Clerk and
City Council -3 -. May 20, 1981
to the City Council, at which time and place Imperial Savings
will submit to the.said Council such additional data as it
may desire to entertain in order to enable it to reach an
appropriate decision.
SCAMPINI, MORTARA & HARRIS
By
ngelo J, campini
Attorneys or Imperial
Savings and Loan Assn.
Respectfully submitted,
IMPERIAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION
wt �Q
Vile—President
"
' .9
Commission Page 3
.;et.ing Dlinutes - 4/8/81
STIR -1436 (cont. )
noted that Condition VIII -D of the Staff Report should be amended to read:
"Construct driveway 12 ft. wide plus a 3 :ft. shoulder.... ". The present
proposal and history of the project were discussed. It was reported that
the driveway was moved 10 ft, from the property line, with landscaping and
f.ec.i.ng required, to minimize any sound from vehicles that may go to the
residence on Parcel B. Staff reported that this item had been discussed
;1
„.
at a Committee -of- the - Whole by the Commission and at the Land Development
Committee meeting, and at both meetings there was a consensus for the access
'
off of Ashley Way.
The public hearing was reopened at 8:08 p.m.
Bill lici.ss, civil engineer for the project, stated that he feels there is
an asset to the community by what is occurring. He explained that Ashley
Way presently terminates as a deadend street without any turnaround, and
the applicant is dedicating and improving, as part of this concept, a full
".
cul -de -sac turnaround. lie stated that they were working on the drainage
problems. Mr. Reiss described the proposal, including the landscaping and
fencing. He indicated that Parcel A would not be utilizing the same drive-
way.
�1
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
...
Commissioner King moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1436.
�,
Commissioner Nionia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
r-'P
n ..
Commissioner King moved to approve SDR - 1486, per the Staff Report as amended.
Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
'
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she felt that this is the best compromise,
but for future cul -de -sacs she would still have a concern about adding
other driveways as a way of allowing more homes on cul -de -sacs. She
-
indicated that she felt this should be part of the record for future refer-
once.
3. UI' -487 - Imperial. Savings, Request for a Use Permit to allow a financial
-
4. A -762 institution to locate in the "C -C" (Community - Commercial) district
at 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, and F inal Design Review Approval
Staff described the proposal. They noted that there had been a change in
-r
the ordinance about two years ago, trying to preclude real estate offices
and financial institutions from the Village and "C -V" districts, in order
to increase the tax base. As noted in the Staff Report, this is a situa-
tion where they are relocating a financial institution from the center of
. .:..
the village to the outskirts, to allow some additional commercial type
„
,•• -••'
activities to be located within the middle of the Village.
The alley way was discussed. Chairman Laden indicated that it should be
verified who the owner is and who will maintain it. She stated that she
would like to be assured that the alley way will not be closed off.
The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that lie was disturbed that thev were consider-
ing an ivory plexiglass trim on the sign, since this building is located
on a scenic highway. Ile stated that, if the Commission favors a bank in
that location, or some savings and loan, then the sign should be in wood
or some material to keep in character wi-th the scenic highway. Flo added
that, as a merchant, he does not think that, by moving the bank there, the
City will get more tax dollars than what they have been receiving from the
businesses that have been housed in the Melon's Antiques building. Flo
stated that he would be against allowing the use to move.
3
.Jr•r"(Xr � =.y� ti(�
++�erb��..w _�ud6y=fxflp.cw . ;t✓yi'`�
�Ga
,.i.ng Commission
ceti.ng Minutes - 4/8/81.
UP -487 and A -762 (cont.)
Gr Page 4
Since no one appeared, Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing.
Commissioner 13o.l.ger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Chairman Laden stated that she fools as much commercial type of tax base
business should be put on Big Basin as possible, and perhaps this is one >i
method of doing it.
Commissioner King stated that he agreed with Commissioner Zambetti's concern
about the visual impact of the building. lie added that he favored moving
the financial establishments off of the Village main street.
Commissioner Zambett:i. stated that he felt this is a very important retail
sales tax dollar base location, and it should not be used as something that
does not generate sales tax dollars to the City.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she :felt there were many other uses that
could be considered for that building; possibly it could be divided up
into smaller stores, such as the Opera House i.n Los Gatos.
The parking ratio and the employee parking were discussed. It was deter-
mined that this item should be continued, in order to discuss some of the
concerns with a representative of Imperial Savings. Commissioner Moni.a
moved to reopen the public hearing and continue it to the meeting of
May 13, 1981. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, _
with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
S. V -545 - Leonard Metz, Request for a Variance to allow the construction of
a pool cabana to maintain a 15' side yard where 20' is required,
at 15102 Montalvo Road
Staff- described the proposal. They commented that they had included
several. options in the Staff Report which would comply with the ordinance,
including a reduction of the size of the cabana and relocating it to the
other side of the pool. They stated that, since these viable options are
available, and there are no constraints associated with the site, Staff
cannot make the necessary findings and recommends denial. The letters
from the neighbors, favoring this proposal., were noted into the record.
Commissioner King stated that he had visited the site'with Staff, and had
no additional comments to add to the Staff Report.
The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Metz, the applicant, explained that the previous owner had put the
pool in the wrong location. He stated that the pool is located in such a
way that the pool house has to be a certain minimum-size in order to be
usable. 1-10 explained that if they make the building narrower it would be
totally unusable. Mr. Metz indicated that his main object was to enclose
the pool equipment to reduce the noise in the neighborhood. He also noted
that the previous owner }lad put in a lot of concrete which they would like
to utilize. Ile added that putting the cabana on the other side would
jeopardize some very large beautiful oak trees, and they would also have to
add an additional amount of concrete,which would take away from the greenery
of the property. Mr. Metz stated that the structure in this location does
not have a visual impact from the street. lie stated that if the cabana
were smaller and within the setbacks,. it Would not be adequate or acceptable
architecturally.
Donald Call, 14930 Montalvo Road, stated that he is the adjacent neighbor
to the immediate north. lie indi.cat,cd that they did not feel this would be
an objectionable variance. Ile described their property and stated that
the enclosing of the pool equipment would bo favorable and the structure
would be a barrier between the two properties.
The designer for the project described the proposal.. Mrs. Metz submitted
- 4 -
/ '' * 11
George dock, the architect, discussed the parking spaces that the present
Imperial Savings has. The signage was discussed, and it was indicated
that the signs must be approved as part of the Design Review Approval.
Commissioner Schaefer also indicated that she would like to request that
the lighting be turned off at 9:00 p.m., except for security lighting,
2
Planning Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes - 5/13/81
SDR -1.18S (con t.)
ate. The requirements of the "C -V" district were discussed. Staff l
also explained that under a use permit the Planning Commission has' the
power and authority to vary both height limitations and setback limita-
tions .
Chairman Laden gave the background of the use permit. Commissioner
Crowther stated that he had sat in on the General Plan meetings on this
site, and thought it was determined that apartments were needed in the
Village to provide a base of business to many of the current businesses
that are located in the Village. He stated that it may be that the mixed
use is the best use for this site, but he did not believe it was consistent
with the General Plan.
Chairman Laden indicated that it was felt that it was in compliance with
the intent of the General Plan to continue the Village as a commercial
activity, and that the people who operated commercial endeavors had
determined that each of those added to their ability to stay as active
merchants because it helped to bring business to that area.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he had agreed in concept with the mixed
use for this area. -However, he did not recall the issue of density
being discussed at the -study session. He added that he also has problems
with the setbacks and with the height of this project.
Staff pointed out that the application before the Commission at this time
is the Tentative Building Site Approval. They explained that the use
permit and design review approval have been approved. Staff discussed
the reorientation of the three parking spaces in Parking Assessment
District No. 3, so that the entry way for Parking District No. 1 to the
site could be accommodated.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the findings for this project have
already been made, and a determination of consistency with the General
Plan had been made at the time the use permit was issued.
It was clarified that SDR -1485 meets all of the conditions of the use
permit. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR -1485 per the Staff
-
Report. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with
Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting.
PUBLIC LE;ARINGS,
-
-
4. UP -487 - mperial Savings, Request for a Use Permit to allow a financial
5. in to locate in the "C -C" (Community Commercial)
district at 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, and Final Design
Review Approval; continued from April 8, 1981
w,xrsa�.
Staff described the proposal. It was explained that at the last meeting
there were no respt•esentatives from Imperial Savings present, and the
Commission had several questions regarding the number of employees that
- :.
would be working at the bank and the parking spaces designated. They
also expressed some concerns-about the relocation from the Village to
Helen's Antiques. Staff noted changes in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she has a. concern that it is on
a scenic highway. Staff indicated -hat an extensive amount of landscaping
would be added.
The public nearing was opened at 8:10 p.m.
George dock, the architect, discussed the parking spaces that the present
Imperial Savings has. The signage was discussed, and it was indicated
that the signs must be approved as part of the Design Review Approval.
Commissioner Schaefer also indicated that she would like to request that
the lighting be turned off at 9:00 p.m., except for security lighting,
2
�,.... ',...:'.�....- '�S-- aa' - - - -. i.:+.,• �.::; �. ie:.: a+,». r.= ti.:.+: J: �'+ a..`:: L. e: ��. �e: a. t.• y+ v:: �.:+: o..:.z..:..•ti.:,..:.:e.:�y.:::x
Planning Commission Page 3
Alecting Minutes S/13/81
Ull -437 and A -762 (cons_.)
because of the scenic highway.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Zambetti. stated that the building where they are going to
relocate is a 3,000 sq. ft. structure that brings sales tax dollars to
the City. The present location is on Big Basin Way, in a 1900 sq. ft.
structure, and does not bring any sales tax dollars. He explained that
if this is approved, the Commission would be allowing a bank to increase
its square footage, even though it has moved off of Big Basin Way, and
has moved to a road that has a higher traffic volume and will have much
more exposure, and the City will lose the sales tax volume that could be
generated from a 3000 sq. ft. building. Commissioner Zambetti added that
he was concerned about the 1900 sq. ft. building that is being vacated,
since it would be a poor location now for retail.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he shared the concern about sales tax
dollars, but quite obviously these dollars are not really coming in
because businesses keep going out of business at that location. He
added that lie also shared the concerns about the fact that there may be
s,; some difficult problems in bringing a retail establishment into that
vacated location on Big Basin Way.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels the antique business is
declining, and more people do not want to cross the highway at that
�'_;•"' intersection. Therefore, she indicated that she now feels that if the
bank can go into that location and improve the site, perhaps it would be
a suitable arrangement.
Commissioner Laden moved to approve UP -487, per the Staff Report as
amended. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny UP -487 without prejudice. Commis-
sioner Monia seconded the.moti.on. Commissioner Monia commented that
he had several problems with this particular property being developed
into a bank. He stated that within the next year perhaps some other
reasonable development for the property might come forward; if not,
perhaps the Commission might reconsider and give Imperial Savings the
right to relocate there. St >aff pointed out that if the Commission denies
the use permit without prejudice, the applicant can come back immediately
with a revised proposal; therefore, the Commission may wish to deny the
use permit at this time.
Commissioner Zambetti amended his motion to read to deny UP -487, eliminat-
ing the without prejudice. Commissioner Monia seconded the amended mo-
tion. Tile motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer
dissenting. The applicant was notified of the 10 -day appeal period,
and the Design Review A -762 was suspended for the time being.
6. V -S41 - R. A. Maddalena, 3rd Street and Big Basin Way, Request for a
Variance from the parking requirements described in Section
11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for a eomhined restaurant /retail
sales operation in the "C -C" (Community - Commercial) District;
continued from March 2S. 198i
Staff explained the history of this application. The\. noted that there
had been a meeting with the Villa, ,,c Merchants to get their feeling with
regards to parking in the entire Village. A letter from Mr. Aird, the
president, was noted, which indicates their position with regards to the
Upstairs - Downstairs, as well as the entire parking situation. At the
meeting the possibility was also discussed of having the Brozdas and Mr.
Maddalena participate in some designated fee for a period of time, with
the eventuality of a parking assessment district being formed. Staff
indicated they were opposed to that position, and they indicated they had
3
..._i.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION \'
DATE: 4/1/81
Commission Meeting: 4/8/81
SUBJECT UP -487 Imperial Savings
20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
REQUEST: Allow a financial institution to locate in the "C -C" (Community
Commercial) zoning district.
SITE SIZE: 17,037 sq. ft.
STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant currently operates a financial institution
at 14417 Big Basin Way and wishes to relocate to the
site currently occupied by Helen's Antiques. The reason for the move is
to allow the financial institution to expand in size.
This proposed location should have no adverse impact since it complies
with the intent of the ordinance in that no new financial institution
will be created in the Village area. The relocation could benefit the
Village since an existing financial institution would be located on the
outskirts of the Village. The space then vacated by the financial use
(located nearer the heart of the Village) could then be used more inten-
sively by a retail use.
The parking lot areas will be improved and landscaped including a
parcel separated from the bulk of the site by an alley. The applicant
will provide 14 spaces for the 2,964 sq. ft. of floor area used for the
active banking area (customer service areas). Four spaces are provided
for employees and three additional compact parking spaces are also pro-
vided. These spaces do not comply with ordinance requirements (8' X 18'
or 20' where 8.5' X 23' is required). However, these variations can be
approved by the Planning Commission if they so desire. Sufficient parking
will be available to the use without the compact parking stalls.
The exterior of the existing building will be modified in several minor
ways but there will be no additional floor area. In fact, the building
will be reduced in size by the deletion of a loading dock and the
storage shed currently attached to the rear of the building. New land-
scaping around the perimeter of the building will be planted and new
sidewalks and paved areas will be created. Details of these factors are
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/5/81
Commission Meeting: 5/13/81
SUBJECT* Addendum to UP -487 and A -762, Imperial Savings
20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
This item was continued from the meeting of April 8, 1981, since
the Commission had several questions regarding the application,
but the applicant was not present to answer. There were
questions as to the ownership of the alley and whether it would
remain open. There were questions as to the number of employees
that would work at the bank in light of the fact that only 4
employee parking spaces have been designated.' Concern was
also expressed about use of plexiglass materials in the proposed
signage of the bank.
According to the Department of Public Works, the alley is not
dedicated to the City, therefore, the City is not responsible
for maintaining the alley. The alley then must be maintained by
the property owner.
Mr. George Mock, architect for the project, indicated in a tele-
phone conversation that only four employees will be necessary to
operate the bank. Mr. Mock, or one of the Bank's representatives
should be available for questions at this meeting.
The applicant has also indicated that a wood sign can be used
rather than an internally illuminated plexiglass sign. The
wooden sign must still be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Recommended Action: Staff is'still recommending that these
applications be approved per this addendum, the original Staff
Reports and conditions, and the original exhibits, subject to
the following additional conditions:
1. Condition #1 of UP -487 should be modified to read
that the encroachment permit must be issued by the
State's Department of Transportation.
Report to Planning Cc, /:,.,',.ssion
UP -487
4/1/81
Page 2
described in the Design Review Application (A -762) also on this agenda.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed location of the financial institution is in accord with
the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
2. The proposed location of the financial institution and the conditions
under which it would be operated.or maintained will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per Staff Report dated April 1, 1981 and
Exhibits "B ", "C ", and "D" subject to the following
conditions:
1. All sidewalks and curb-cuts shall be constructed to comply with the
standards of the Department of Public Works. Encroachment permit
must be issued by Public Works.
2. All parking lot and alley areas shall be paved per Department of
Public Works standards. -
3. Circulation pattern shall be clearly marked on site.
4. Applicant shall comply with all conditions listed in the Staff
Report for Design Review Application A -762.
Approved: �-
Michael Flores Assistant Planner
MF /clh
P. C. Agenda: 4/8/81
Ip
Planning Commission -2- 5/5/81
2. Condition #5, should be added to UP -487 to read:
the alley contained on the site shall be maintained
and kept open to public access by the owner of the
property.
Comments: The Commission shall maintain continuous jurisdiction
over use permit UP -487 as per Section 16.6 -1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Approved �yvlf xil' — ti . Mike Flores. Flores., Assistant Planner
MF /da
P.C. Agenda: 5/13/81
J.
r
r f
\ ��r���� '� /( �• 1. 1 � J}
� // � �' / /•�- mac' � J!-� �.,�� f
a... -� .. - r Ian c z— i��rI r?"""_ ` .,� _� _ ',�,� • 'i_ jjjj
EXHIBIT fo
FILEN, L FA-76-Z !Qa
CITY OF SARATOGA
1
U
- Ll
:c z
f t
111/// r ✓ YrFrIJ'� '" r � '. i � p 1 / r :.., . , ..,
__ -v � __..... - -_ _�`��•,`� • '�..I EXHIBIT- •
LEW
FILE NO.
[II[Tlllp _ _[YILDINp , \� +' tt � CITE OF SARATOGA � !
. J ».P.W -- - - �` �� 16.E -•�� .,. r____ +_wr � � = F-
e •� - -v� - 7 c.
i
O I
,
a:
_ _ r
`ice-
7
EXHIBIT
FILENO.
C ITY OF S ARATOGA
J
1,frip. Me" "4mh
"A ft.t- Vf
WTA
Fn
.............
_4p. .............
rl F]
t)
slli.yr i_
G
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE:
DEPARTMENT: Planning
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Appeal on Denial of a Cabana in the rear yard at 19104 Springbr�ok Lane
StJBJECrC: (UP -493) , Appellant and Applicant - Norman Dion
Issue Summary
On May 13, 1981, the Planning Commission denied (without prejudice) approval for a 9'
high, 353 sq. ft. cabana in the rear yard.
Summary of appellant's Letter:
.-,l. Cabana complies with spirit and intent of ordinance
2. Cabana angle and landscaping reduces visual impact.
3. Cabana conforms with purposes of ordinance and will not adversely impact adjacent
properties.
4. Cabana will allow for maximum use of energy conservation measures including solar
panels.
5. Shape of lot and location of house contrain location and size of cabana.
--6-::,,Approval would be consistent with past rulings where the project meets the spirit
and intent of the ordinance.
7. Appellant requests hearing de novo.
Recommendation,
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
2. Determine merits of appeal and approve or deny, or, determine if a de novo
hearing is warranted.
3. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Appeal Letter
2. Minutes for May 13, 1981, Commission meeting.
3. Staff report dated May 4, 1981
4. Exhibit B
Council Action
6/17: Set de novo. hearing for 8:00 p-.m., July 1, 1981.
7/1: Callon /Clevenger moved to grant use permit based on staff recommendations with
condition that solar panel be located flat on roof of cabana. Passed 3 -2 (Jensen,
Watson opposed).
JOHN ARNDT WILSON
LAWRENCE W. SONSINI
HARRY B. BREMOND
JOHN B. GOODRICH
MARIO M. ROSATI
MARK A. BERTELSEN
ARTHUR F. SCHNEIDERMAN
CRAIG W. JOHNSON
JEFFREY D. SAPER
ROY L. FARROW
DOUGLAS M. LAURICE
P. CHRISTIAN ANDERSON
STEPHEN P. BERKE
CHARLES T. C. COMPfON
THOMAS M. DUFFY
CHRISTOPHER L. HARTWELL
MICHAEL A. LAORA
ROBERT P. LATTA
J. CASEY McGLYNN
LINDA HENDRIX McPHARLIN
WEBB B. MORROW, III
R. BRUCE MOSBACHER
JUDITH MAYER O'BRIEN
GREG L. PICKRELL
RANDALL D. SMITH'•
BLAIR W. STEWART, JR.
ANN YVONNE WALKER
STANLEY B. WATSON
'MEMBER D. C. BAR
••MEMBER N.Y. BAR
LAW OFFICES OF
WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH 8, ROSATI
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
TWO PALO ALTO SQUARE
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94304
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
May 21, 1981
RAPIFAX /TELECOPIER
(415) 493-6811
TELEX
345500 WILMOSON PLA
Re: UP -493 (Dion) - Appeal of Decision of City
Planning Commission Denying Use Permit to
Allow Construction of Cabana at 19104 Springbrook
Lane, Saratoga, California - Request For Hearing
de novo
Dear Council Members:
This office represents Norman Dion, 19104 Springbrook Lane, Saratoga,
California. On May 13, 1981, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission
voted to deny Mr. Dion's request to construct a cabana over 6 foot high
(9 foot maximum height) in his rear yard. The grounds for Mr. Dion's
appeal are as follows:
1. The Staff Analysis Report to the Planning Commission dated
May 4, 1981, accurately states the size of the cabana. The cabana
complies with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
2. The cabana will be located at an angle in the rear of the
property line which tends to reduce its visual impact.
3. Landscaping will be installed to the rear of the cabana
which will reduce its visual impact.
4. The proposed location of the cabana is in accord with the
objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located."
5. The proposed location of the cabana and the conditions under
which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
Public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
TELEPHONE
(415) 493-9300
RAPIFAX /TELECOPIER
(415) 493-6811
TELEX
345500 WILMOSON PLA
Re: UP -493 (Dion) - Appeal of Decision of City
Planning Commission Denying Use Permit to
Allow Construction of Cabana at 19104 Springbrook
Lane, Saratoga, California - Request For Hearing
de novo
Dear Council Members:
This office represents Norman Dion, 19104 Springbrook Lane, Saratoga,
California. On May 13, 1981, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission
voted to deny Mr. Dion's request to construct a cabana over 6 foot high
(9 foot maximum height) in his rear yard. The grounds for Mr. Dion's
appeal are as follows:
1. The Staff Analysis Report to the Planning Commission dated
May 4, 1981, accurately states the size of the cabana. The cabana
complies with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
2. The cabana will be located at an angle in the rear of the
property line which tends to reduce its visual impact.
3. Landscaping will be installed to the rear of the cabana
which will reduce its visual impact.
4. The proposed location of the cabana is in accord with the
objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located."
5. The proposed location of the cabana and the conditions under
which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the
Public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH a ROSATI
-2-
May 21, 1981
6. The proposed construction will allow for maximum utilization
of energy conservation measures, including but not limited to solar
panel collectors for the swimming pool.
7. The proposed construction will allow for one single accessory
building for the housing of swimming pool equipment as opposed to
separate accessory buildings in the event a use permit is not granted.
8. In order to maximize energy conservation measures, 7 to 9
solar panels are required. As a result, the proposed roof size
cannot be reduced.
9. The proposed construction will increase the value of existing
neighboring properties.
10. Mr. Dion has been informed that the proposed construction has
the approval and consent of neighboring property owners.
11. There is no evidence that the granting of a use permit for
the construction of the proposed cabana is /or will be objectionable
to property owners of future building sites which is adjacent to the
Dion property.
12. The proposed cabana is included in the applicant's original
building plans which are on file. At no time did the applicant mislead
the Planning Commission staff with respect to the proposed construction.
Mr. Dion relied on the staff's advice in planning the proposed cabana.
13. The shape of the lot and location of the house essentially
dictates the location and size of the proposed cabana.
14. The granting of a use permit is consistent with prior rulings
where the proposed construction meets the intent and spirit of the
City's ordinance.
15. There is substantial compliance with the City's set back
requirements.
Pursuant to Section 16.7 and 16.8, I would appreciate it if at tie time
of the hearing on the appeal,'that the City Council consider holding a
hearing de novo.
WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
-3-
May 21, 1981
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
Very ruly yours,
IH RY B. BREMOND
HBB /JJ
Encs.
Planning; Commission Page 10
Meeting Minutes - 5/13/31
SDR -1490 (coat.)
unanimously I
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR -1490, with the condition
added that "No further construction is permitted without modification of
Use Permit UP- 360." Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which
was carried unanimously.
(Coinmiss--Io or Monia left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.)
f
1 UP -493 - Norman Dion, 19104 Springbrook Lane, Request for a Use Permit
to allow the construction of a cabana over 6' high (9' max.
hci�ht) in the re aired rear yard
Staff described the proposal. The Deputy City Attorney stated that
there was a request by the applicant to install footings and foundations
for the cabana because it was tied in with work going on with respect
to the rest of the structure, which was not the subject of the variance.
An agreement was prepared between the City and the applicant which
permitted him to do that work, but with the expressed understanding that
he would apply immediately for a use permit, and should the use permit
be denied by the Commission, then all of that work was to be removed.
The Deputy City Attorney advised the Commission, while reviewing this
application, to ignore the fact that any work with respect to the cabana
has been done, since the applicant understood that he was performing.
the work at his own risk, with no guarantee or warranty of any kind that
the use permit would be granted.
The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m.
Don Smith, the architect, addressed the Commission. Commissioner Zambetti
questioned the fact that the house seems to have been developed with the
greatest intensity for the front, with the house moved further and
further back, even though a cabana had been planned. Mr. Smith stated
that the landscape plans originally submitted to the City indicated
that the cabana would be in the proposed _location. He explained that
they had not gone into any detail and the owner . was not originally going
to build the cabana, but then decided to go ahead with it. Mr. Smith
commented that the house had been moved so far to the rear of the lot
because the applicant wanted the house up as high as he could get it for
maximum view.
Staff explained that if the structure were reduced to less than 250 sq.
ft. it would still need a use permit, since the structure is over 6 feet
in height and it is within the rear yard.
Mr. Smith described the location of the cabana and the pad elevation.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he had a problem with the feet that —'
the adjacent Brookman Estate has not been developed yet, and there may
be problems with that particular parcel as well, with the fact that it
will be encroaching.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny LIP -493 without prejudice, stating
that he felt that the site had been poorly planned from the beginning,
and if the applicant decreased the SiZe of the structure and lowered the {
height of it, it would he within the required yard. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion.
Staff clarified that any accessory structure over 6 feet in height in this
rear yard area would need a use permit. Staff stated that if the Commis-
sion has a problem with this structure they should give the applicant
specific direction as to the acceptable height of the structure and the
- 10 _......
.....�. �- ,.,..- ..,.�....... .., _._�.: ..._4` ..,. �.... _.. .. N.> A. u ..rw..+- •.,�C..�..�,,.wai.ew�t. �ww�.rxwJ..,�.ti
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutcs - 5/13/31.
Page 11
Staff described the application. They stated that they feel there are
physical constraints associated with the property which allows them to
make the findings necessary and are recommending approval. The corres-
pondence received in opposition and in favor were noted into the record
Staff indicated that the applicant has submitted a copy of what they
feel was the original- permit, and it does not have Condition No 3,
that the corral was to he relocated when the adjacent
1 property was
dex-cloped, on it. Staff also rioted that the Knapps had received a
verbal clearance from an inspector at the tine the barn was completed;
therefore, the Staff Report has been conditioned to get requisite
building permits and pay whatever fees are necessary. Staff discussed
UP - -193 (cont. )
acceptable size. �)
„
Chairman Laden commented that they would like a redesign of this cabana
on the hack property that would not impact future development on the
"
adjacent property, since the Commission feels they need to take that
into consideration. The vote was taken on the motion to deny UP -493
Without prejudice. The motion was carried unanimously. The applicant
was notified of the 10 -day appeal period on this decision.
11a.Nel-ative Declaration - V -522 - Allen Don
llb.V -S22 - Allen Don, Old Oak Way, Lot #12, Request for a Variance to allow
the construction of a single- family residence to maintain a
10' side yard where 20' is required on a site near the terminus
of Old Oak Way
Staff gave the history of the application and described the current
proposal.
The public hearing was opened at 11:00 p.m.
Mrs. Don addressed the Commission, stating that they have been through
the process for almost a year, and now they have just learned that they
will also need Design Review Approval of the structure. She added that
Staff has indicated that the structure shown in the exhibit is too tall,
and the designer will prepare a new exhibit if the variance is granted.
C `'•
Mrs. Don commented that they need to get a building permit before
September and she asked if it was possible to consider both the variance
and design review at one meeting.
Chairman Laden stated that it would be more appropriate to take action
this evening on the variance, to determine if the variance is going to
be granted prior to redesigning the home. Staff commented that the
design review consideration could be on the next agenda if the new exhibit
were submitted by the beginning of next week.
Roger Griffin, the architect, clarified that the deck on the plan with
the revised height situation on the building will no longer exist along
the north property line.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for V -S22.
Commissioner Schaefer secorded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissionor Zambetti moved to approve V -S22, making the findings. Com-
missioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously'.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she would like landscaping along
the north property line to act as a buffer, and it was noted that this
could be covered in the Design Review application.
12. V -SSO - Ronald Knapp, 20335 Wardell Road, Request for a Variance to
"
allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their present
location which does not.meet current ordinance setback require-
Monts (SO' from any property line and 100' from any dwelling
not on tile. site)
Staff described the application. They stated that they feel there are
physical constraints associated with the property which allows them to
make the findings necessary and are recommending approval. The corres-
pondence received in opposition and in favor were noted into the record
Staff indicated that the applicant has submitted a copy of what they
feel was the original- permit, and it does not have Condition No 3,
that the corral was to he relocated when the adjacent
1 property was
dex-cloped, on it. Staff also rioted that the Knapps had received a
verbal clearance from an inspector at the tine the barn was completed;
therefore, the Staff Report has been conditioned to get requisite
building permits and pay whatever fees are necessary. Staff discussed
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/4/81
Commission Meeting: 5/13/81
SUBJECT: UP -493 C. Norman Dion
19104 Springbrook Lane
REQUEST: Allow the construction of a cabana over 6' high (9' maximum) in
the required rear yard.
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
SITE SIZE: 40,163 sq. ft.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 3.7 -1 of the zoning ordinance requires that
any accessory structure over 6' high to be located in
the required rear yard must receive a use permit. The proposed cabana
is 353 sq. ft. in size and would maintain a.9' -6" rear yard setback. The
ordinance requires that a structure 9' high maintain a 9' rear yard
which this structure complies. However, the ordinance also requires that
any structure over 250 sq. ft. in size maintain a minimum 25' rear yard
setback.
Approximately 221 sq. ft. of the structure encroaches beyond the 25'
setback line so it appears that the structure complies with the spirit or
intent of the ordinance if not the letter. The structure is located at
an angle to the rear property line which tends to reduce its visual
impact. Also, landscaping will be installed to the rear of the cabana
which will further reduce its impact.
The structure will utilize a white stucco exterior with a tan or beige
wood trim. The structure's flat roof will support flat mounted solar
panels. No adverse privacy impacts are anticipated.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed location of the cabana is in accord with the objectives
of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
2. The proposed location of the cabana and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
' Report to Planning Co(F I's sion 5/4/81
UP -493 Page 2
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. The proposed cabana will comply with the General Plan but will not
comply with the 25' rear yard setback required for an accessory
structure over 250 sq. ft. in size. However, Staff would recommend
approval of the 9' -6" rear yard setback since it seems to comply
with the intent of the ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve per Staff Report dated May 4, 1981 and
Exhibit "B" subject to the following conditions:
1. Final landscaping plans shall be submitted for Planning Department
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. No modification to the exterior appearance of the cabana or its
location shall be allowed without prior Planning Department review
and approval.
Approved: ---
Michael Flores, Assistant Planner
MF /clh
P. C. Aganda: 5/13/81
(-jli
I. A. 1,
i Hry ft�,�
.6
r-7 —771
X -e
r L.-31 o
.I BIT—
FILE No.
CM OF SARATOGA
Vt5T
;6
-a—. .1. -
-T