Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-16-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
1..1.4.1 VL J[uV 1.L %-A-1t% i P.=T ' BILL NO. DATE: 12-16-81 DEPARTMI Wr:. o m ,n i y Deve 1 opment Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT. Final Building Site Approval, SDR -1469, Ralph Renna Sobey Road ---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Stunnazy 1. All the improvements on Sobey Road were done under SDR -1207. 2. Requirements for City Department and other Agencies have been met. —3. All fees have been paid. Recomnendation Adopt resolution No. 1469 -02, attached, approving the Building Site of subject SDR -1467. Fiscal Impacts None. Exhibits /Attachments A. Copy of Tentative Map Approval. B. Report to Planning Commission C. Resolution #1469 -02 D. Status Report for Building Site Approval E. Location Map, Council Action 12/16: Mallory/Vatson moved approval. Passed 5 -0. Mr:iMORIh.NDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -_j_4_U, Sobey Road (have) ( 1X9y&(XN) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 10 -14 -81 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items: Offer of Dedication Yes Record of Survey or Parcel Map FxiStin Storm Drainage Fee $1,100.00 Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds N/A All Required Inspection Fees N/A Building Site Approval Agreement N/A Park and Recreation Fee $1,300.00 Cr It Date Date Date Date Date Submitted Date Submitted 12 =3 -81 Receipt Submitted -- Submitted -- Signed -- Submitted 12 -3- 11 -20 -81 11 -12 -81 # 00140 Receipt# -- Receipt# -- Receipt# 00140 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (C* (Final) Building Site Approvai for Ralph Renna SDR -1469 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) - Reason for Non - Compliance Robert 5. 5hookk Director of Community Development RESOLUTION NO. 1469-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Ralph Renna The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 0.948 Acre Parcel shown as Parcel "B" on the parcel map, prepared by Civil and Construction Consultants, Inc., recorded in Book 331 of Maps at Page 39 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 meeting held on the 16th day of December 1981 by the following vote: T AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Director of Community Development MAYOR d� �. Oy � � �J ,- i 1111111111 I.A. " 40 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Ci'y c,, C, c:-c4 DATE: 10/8/81 Commission Meeting: 10/14/81 SUBJECT SDR -1506 (1469) - Ralph Renna 15041 Sobey Road Tentative Building Site A��roval _ 1 Lot --------- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- REQUEST: Tentative Building Site approval fora single lot of record (1973) between Sobey Road and Sperry Lane in the R -1- 40,000 Zoning District. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration attached, dated 9/24/81. PUBLIC NOTICING: Posting on site, advertising in the newspaper and mailings to 20 property owners in conjunction.with the Design Review public hearing.. GUMRAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -1- 40,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: SITE SIZE: SITE SLOPE: Low Density Residential Single Family Residential 42,776 sq. ft. 15% STAFF ANALYSIS: From Sobey Road the site slopes down to a drainage swale (under the City's jurisdiction) and then up to Sperry Lane. A slope easement on site below Sperry Lane has been dedicated to the City. The house has been located out of the drainage easement at the request of staff. Staff conditions reflect no additional concerns with the site. They do include a reccminendation for the improvement of Sobey Road. Copies of the City Geologist's reports are attached for your review. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if Report to Planning Commis ,�..1 ( 10/8/81 . SDR -1506 (1469) Page 2 approved under this application. Said determination date: September 14, 1981. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR 1506 (1469) (Exhibit "B" filed August 28, 1981) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval (Currently $1,100.00 /Lot). B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. Half - Street on Sobey Road. p; T D. Improve Sobey Road to City Standards, including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2. Asphalt Concrete Berm. 3. Undergrounding Existing Overhead Utilities. E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes. 2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach. G. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 inc. Aggregate Base. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. Arte 'Rep ,k, I _ ort to Planning Commission`( SDR -1506 (1469) C10/8/81 Page 3 I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Dept. of Public Works for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements. 2. Storm Drain Construction. L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. O. Comply with Standard Engineering Conditions. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for: 1. Soils. 2. Foundations. B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued as required by geotechnical consultant. C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes,'cross- sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). All proposed grading to be contoured. 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.). Provide private drainage easements. 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. Erosion control measures. 5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. 6. Define limits of influence due to 100 year flood. No structures within that zone or less than 1 feet above flood water surface. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - County Sanitation District No. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated September 28, 1981. Report to Planning Commission - 10/8/81 SDR -1506 (1469) Page 4 ' V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. (A -789 submitted concurrently with this application). B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. C. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision/building site. VIII. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Approved: Kathy KeFdus, Planning Assistant KK /dra P. C. Agenda: 10/8/81 CITY OF SARATOGA �J Initial: AGENDA BILL NO: /.�' Dept. Head: DATE: December 16, 1981 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr SUBJECT: Exchange Program with Japan Issue Summary The City staff have been working with contacts in Japan regarding a potential exchange program so that Japanese Garden Specialist Jack Tomlinson could go to Japan for six months of training and in turn a*,qualified individual would be sent to Saratoga to work at Hakone Garden during this same six months. Discussion regarding the program has been held between the City staff, Mr. Yasui of Kyoto and various other people in the area who have been working with the City on the development and restoration of Hakone Garden. We are now prepared to recommend the exchange program be implemented. Recommendation Authorize the implementation of an exchange program with Japan to allow Jack Tomlinson to train for six months in Japan, if Japan will provide a qualified individual to care for Hakone during the same six months, and the period of exchange recommended as April through September of 1982. Any formal documents to implement the exchange will be brought to City Council for your approval. Financial Impact Cost to the City will not exceed the amount budgeted for the current Japanese Garden Specialist salary and benefits. Exhibits /Attachments Background memo. Council Action 12/16: Clevenger/Watson moved to accept staff recommendation to proceed. Passed 5 -0. f S``ARts . REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/04/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/16/81 SUBJECT: Japanese Garden Specialist Exchange Program The following is complete information available to date on the potential Japanese Garden Specialist Exchange Program with Japan. Concept of the Exchange Program Over the past six or seven years Saratoga has established a special relationship with some individuals from Japan through Hakone Gardens. The greatest part of this relationship is that between Mr. Kiyoshi Yasui, leading contractor and builder of teahouses in Japan who is employed by the Emperor of Japan, and Tanso Ishihara, former Japanese Garden Specialist for Saratoga who died in May 1980. After Tanso's death Mr. Yasui continued his involvement with Hakone Gardens and City staff members Roy Swanson and Jack Tomlinson are primarily responsible for this continuation. In August of 1980, after Tanso's death and the hiriing of Jack Tomlinson, Mr. Yasui was in the United States and Roy Swanson met with him in San Francisco. At this meeting Mr. Yasui proposed a formal exchange program of Japanese Garden Specialists so that Jack could go to Japan for training and in turn Mr. Yasui would send a trained Japanese Gardener here to Saratoga. The idea was further discussed with Mr. Yasui when he was here in June of 1981 for the dedication of Hakone, and Roy and Jack have had several discussions with him both verbally and in writing since that time. As a result of these discussions City staff began to investigate the possibility of actually implementing an exchange program. Consideration for Implementation Major areas to be determined prior to any implementation of the program include acceptance by Saratoga and involved Japanese officials, financial arrangements including salary and benefits, housing, transportation, length of exchange, appropriate time of the year, passport and visa requirements as well as many other minor details. Japanese Garden Specialist Exchange Program Page Two Because the City has never participated in a program of this nature the Internationa U City Management Association was contacted to see if an established policy or proposal was available for our use as a,gui;deline. The Director of International Services stated the ICMA has assisted with very few exchanges, they have been primarily at the City Manager level or above and only with countries such as Germany or England, never with an Asian country. They.di'd not have any information to provide for us, but stated they would be very interested in an article for their magazine if the Exchange Program was implemented. As a result of this staff began to forge into the area in order to determine answers to the many questions. It is recommended the exchange take place for a minimum of a six month period of time, and that it be during the months of April through September of 1982. This seems to be an ideal time of the year for a learning experience in Japan as well as an appropriate time of the year in California. Mr. Yasui has notified us that if the exchange program is implemented, Jack will be working with the Imperial Household Garden Staff headed by Mr. Sanyo, and although that staff exists of over 600 people, Mr. Sanyo has made the commitment to see to Jack's training. Mr. Yasui has also arranged for Jack to spend time working with Dr. Nakamura, Head of the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Kyoto and Dr. Yumeda who is considered to be the foremost authority in the world on bamboo. It is being recommended that Japan pay Jack the equivalent salary for the six months period, provide medical insurance and some form of worker's compensation. The City-of Saratoga will be employing the exchange individual on a contract basis so that involvement with State and Federal taxes will not be a problem. We will also provide medical insurance and worker's compensation. The exchange individual will work directly under the supervision of Park and Landscape Supervisor Roy Swanson, will work full time at Hakone Garden and will also be assisting the Bamboo Society in its plans to initiate establishment of the bamboo grove. It is hoped that the exchange individual will also have an opportunity to learn some of the duties and responsibilities of our regular park and landscape maintenance for other areas besides Hakone. It is anticipated the City will be able to assist Jack with transportation to Japan and it is our understanding that the Japanese people will take care of the transportation of the exchange individual. If the Council gives approval to begin implementation of the Exchange Program Jack Tomlinson will contact the Japanese consulate in:-San Francisco to determine visa and passport requirements. It is my understanding that a six month stay will require more than a tourist visa and this will probably also be the case for the individual coming here from Japan, initial disucssions with individuals at the consulate indicate they will be very cooperative in assisting in this matter. Also for Council's general.information Jack has been taking Japanese Language classes for approximately two years and will therefore be able to communicate appropriately in Japan. Japanese Garden Specialist Exchange Program Page Three The City will probably have no part in selecting the individual who will be sent to Hakone Gardens, but because Mr. Yasui is deeply involved in Hakone and because of his level of expertise and willingness to participate in the program, I feel it is important to trust his judgement on the individual that will be sent to Saratoga. Financial Implications The entire Exchange Program, including transportation for Jack Tomlinson, can be provided by the City within the dollar amount budgeted for salary and benefits for that employee for a six month period of time. If the exchange employee is placed on contract in order to eliminate the problem with State and Federal taxes, the City will also save the City's portion of the retirement program. It is anticipated the employee will be hired at Step A of the salary range, Jack is currently-on Step B and there will be a slight savings in that area. This amounts to approximately $2,000 which is sufficient to cover the transportation for Jack which at November 1st prices was about $1,400. Jack will not accumulate sick leave or vacation while he is on the Exchange Program, but will be eligible to retain the amounts that he has on the books when he leaves. The staff also recommend that Jack be given the right to use up to two weeks of vacation prior to or immediately following his six months of exchange so that he could spend an additional two weeksr'in Japan if he so pleased. Jack has agreed to sign a letter of commitment to the City of Saratoga stating that he will work for a minimum of one year for the City after his return from Japan, so that the City would benefit from his experience. General Comments This Director highly recommends the City Council approve the implementation of the Exchange Program. It is planned that any contractual or written documents regarding this program will be brought to the City Council for your approval. This kind of opportunity does not occur very often, and Jack Tomlinson is very much looking forward to working with such outstanding people in Japan as stated above. The experience and knowledge that he can gain from this six months Exchange Program will be invaluable to the City and will greatly assist us in maintaining the authenticity of our Hakone Japanese Gardens. I will be available at the Council meeting to answer any questions you might have on this Exchange Program. Barbara Sampson, Director Maintenance Services Department cc: Roy Swanson Jack Tomlinson ;�••�--�.- CITY of = � ' ATO GA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/08/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 12/16/81 SUBJECT JAPANESE GARDEN SPECIALIST EXCHANGE PROGRAM The Parks and Recreation Commission, at their regular meeting of December 7th, reviewed the proposed Japanese Garden Specialist Exchange Program and highly recommends the City Council authorize the implementation of the exchange. The Commission feels the City will receive tremendous benefits from Jack Tomlinson being allowed to increase his knowledge and skills by training with and learning from such outstanding people in Japan. ms Barbara Sampson, Secretary Parks and Recreation Commission + CITY OF SAW,,'l'OQ% i� A=- IDA BILL NO. DATE: 12 -16 -81 DEP ,12,7x: Community Development --------------------------- -------------------------- St r: Fee Schedule-Modification ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue SLxrmaty The Council has directed that fees should be collected to cover the cost of services provided. Staff has reviewed the Fee Schedule and found that there is a need to update many of the current fees, and has prepared appropriate resolutions to accomplish this. Reccmrendation Adopt Resolutions 7808 -15, 780 -16 and 780 --17, altering and establishing fee schedules. Fiscal Impacts Revenues increased so as to fund services provided. E,zhibits /Attachmants 1. Report to City Council dated 12 -10 -81 2. Resolution No. 780 -15 3. Resolution No. 780 -16 4. Resolution No. 780 -17 Council Action 12/16: Mallory/Watson moved to adopt resolutions and get report on appeal fees. Passed 5 -0. 1 lo,� • • =A REPORT TO MAYOR CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT * Fee Schedule DATE: 12 -10 -81 COUNCIL MEETING: 12- 16 -81 As part of the budget approval the Council approved in concept the increase of fees to more accurately cover the costs of admin- istering the land development processes. Staff was directed to return to the Council with recommended fee modifications per that concept. Attached are three resolutions for your consideration which, when coupled with a modification in "valuation rates, Staff feels will facilitate that concept. Change in valuation rates is made by me in my capacity as Building Official. The existing fee schedule is shown in writing next to the proposed fee for your information. I recommend that Council adopt Resolutions 780 -15, 780 -16 and 780 -17.* Fees will be effective immediately upon Council's actions. RSS:cd Attachments R e t S . o Director of Community Development • *Inadvertently incorrect numbers were assigned to the Resolutions; these are the correct numbers. RESOLUTION NO. 780 -13 A RESOLUTION ALTERING $ ESTABLISHING FEE SCHEDULE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby established for payment to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the following enumerated applications, and no delivery to nor acceptance by the City or any of its officers, agents or employees of any of the following enumerated applica- tions shall be considered as filing thereof, until said fee has been paid in full. This fee schedule shall become effective immediately and shall be applicable to all applications filed from and after its effective date. TYPE CHANGE IN ZONING Residential 0 - 9.9% slope 0 9.9% slope (building greater than 221)* Hillside lots Condo /Multiple Family Non - Residential Modification of Approved Application *Public Hearing Charge (First hearing and additional charge for any requested con- tinuance for re- noticing) USE PERMIT Residential (single - family districts) Tennis Court Multi- Family Non- Residential PD (.General Plan Designation) Temporary ($200 cleanup deposit in addition) VARIANCE (Including Public Hearing) Residential Non - Residential ENVIRO04ENTAL IMPACT REPORT Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Report Administrative and Handling FEE $500 $145 /lot $145 /lot $160 /lot $350 /lot $350 /lot $ 7S /lot $100 $200 $200 $500 $500 $1000 $ 75 $200 $250 $ 75 $500 TYPE Single Family Residential Building Site Approval up to and including 4 lots Building Site Approval for all other types Single Family Residential Subdivision Approval first 10 lots - each lot over 10 Multiple - Family Building Site Approval Lots of 1 acre or less Lots of 3 acres or less Lots of more than 3 acres Modification of Site Development Plan Lot Line Adjustment Time extension to approved applications Preliminary Tentative Man Reversion to Acreage (Public hearing cost additional) FINAL MAP 1st lot 2nd - 4th lot 5th and above GENERAL PLAN CHANGE ANNEXATION Plus LAFCO Fee ENCROACITN,IENT PERMIT Fences, walls and hedges Non -fence SIGN PERMIT MINISTERIAL PERMIT (i.e. horse) STORM DRAIN FEE "A" R -1- 10,000 R- 1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Planned Development FEE $125 /lot plus $ 75 noticing fee for 2 or more lots $265 /lot $47S $ 20 /lot $300 /lot $600 /lot $1000 /lot $ 7S $ 7S $ 75 $100 $125 /lot $100 $100 /lot $ 50 /lot $ 35 /lot $750 $100 LAFCO'Fee $100 $ 50 $ SO $ 25 $1100 /lot $600 /lot $650 /lot $720 /lot $850 /lot $1100 /lot Same as fee for District with which PD is combined RM & PA Districts $2400 /gross acre C & M Districts $2800 /gross acre Churches, Schools, etc. $1425 /gross acre Public Utilities and other quasi- commercial $2400 /gross acre 2 U TYPE FEE *IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING F, INSPECTION FEE ~ For the first $10,000 12% For the next $30,000 10% For the next $60,000 6% For all improvements over $100,000 4% *Where slopes are greater than 10 %, increase fee by 1% above fee percentage shown. SECTION 2: The portion of Resolution 780 -5 Altering and Estab- lishing Fees for Building, Plumbing, Heating, Com- fort Cooling, Electrical, Plan Checking and Grading Permits is — hereby rescinded and pursuant to Section 3 -3, 3 -19, 3 -41 and 6 -2.2 of the Saratoga City Code, as amended.by Ordinance 38 -83, the following schedule of fees elaborated in Exhibit "A ", "B ", "TD" and "E" is hereby established for payment to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the enumerated applica- tions, and no delivery to nor acceptance by the City or any of its officers, agents, or employees of any of the following enum- erated applications shall be considered as filing thereof, until said fee has been paid in full. This fee schedule shall become effective immediately and shall be applicable to all applications filed from and after its effective date. s. SECTION 3: Except as above - modified, the schedule of fees heretofore adopted by Resolution 780, as amended, shall be and remain in full force and effect, The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 198 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR rt42'i 3 t ` 0 EXHIBIT "A" BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1.00 to $900.00 $15.00 $901.00 to $2,000.00 $15.00 for the first $900.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and includ- ing $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof Plan Check Fees shall be 65% of the Permit Fee EXHIBIT "B" PLUMBING PERMIT FEES 1) New Single Family Dwelling 2.5� /SF 2) Commercial /Professional 2� /SF 3) Institutions, Multiple Residential 3� /SF 4) Additions of more than 500 SF U /SF 5) Additions of less than 500 SF $20.00" 6) Remodels, residential $30.00 7) Remodels, commercial $45.00 8) Swimming Pools (with pump & heater) $20.00 9) Misc. Structures $20.00 10) Misc. permits without associated building permit $20.00 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) EXHIBIT "C" HEATING & COMFORT COOLING PERMITS New single family dwelling Commercial /Professional Institutional, Multiple Residential Additions of less than 500 SF Additions of more than 500 SF Remodels, residential Remodels, commercial Misc. Structures Misc. permits without associated building permit 14 /SF 1.34 /SF 1.34 /SF $20.00 84 /SF (Minimum $20.00) 84 /SF (Minimum $20.00) 14 /SF (Minimum $20.00) $20.00 $20.00 Plan check fees shall-be 25% of the permit fee EXHIBIT "D" ELECTRICAL PERMITS 1) Single family dwelling 2.5� /SF 2) Commercial /Professional 3� /SF 3) Institutional, Multiple Residential 3G /SF 4) Additions less than 1000 SF $20.00 5) Additions more than 1000 SF 2� /SF 6) Remodels, residential $20.00 7) Remodels, commercial $35.00 8) Swimming Pools, etc. (with pump & heater)$20.00 9) Misc. Structures $20.00 10)' Misc. permits without associated $20.00 building permit Plan check fees shall be 25% of the permit fee EXHIBIT "E" GRADING PERMITS PLAN CHECKING FEES 50 to 100 Cubic Yards 101 to 500 Cubic Yards 501 to 1000 Cubic Yards 1001 to 10,000 Cubic Yards 10,001 to 100;000 Cubic Yards $100.00 for the first 10,000 Cubic Yards plus $11.00 for each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 Cubic Yards $200.00 for the first 100,000 Cubic Yards plus $10.00 for each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. 200,001 Cubic Yards or more $300.00 for the first 200,000 Cubic Yards plus $5.00 for each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. GRADING PERMIT FEES 50 Cubic Yards or Less 50 to 100 Cubic Yards 101 to 1000 Cubic Yards - $30..00 for the first 100 Cubic Yards plus $12.00 for each additional 100 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. ,1001 to 10,000 Cubic Yards $130.00 plus $10.00 for each additional 1000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 Cubic Yards $220.00 plus $45.00 for each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 Cubic Yards or more $625.00 plus $25.00 for each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $100.00 $ 20.00 $ 30.00 RESOLUTION NO. 780 -14 A RESOLUTION ALTERING & ESTABLISHING FEE SCHEDULE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby estab- lished for payment to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the following enumerated applications, and no delivery to nor acceptance by the City or any of its officers, agents or employees of any of the following enum- erated applications shall be considered as filing thereof, until said fee has been paid in full. This fee schedule shall become effective immediately and shall be applicable to all applications filed from and after its effective date. TYPE CONSTRUCTION TAX 25¢ per square foot of any building or structure. 20¢ per square foot of any mobile home lot. SECTION 2: Section 14- SS(a)(1) and Section 14- 55(a)(2) of t e Co e of the City are hereby repealed. SECTION 3: Section 14- 55(a)(4) shall be modified to read as of ows: Reconstruction of a building which was damaged or destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood or other cause over which the owner had no control; provided, that compliance with any building code or other ordinance requirement of the City or of any other applicable law shall not be deemed a cause over which the owner has no control, and only if the number of square feet in the building is not increased. If the number of square feet in the building is increased, the tax imposed under this article shall apply to such increased floor area. SECTION 4: Except as above modified, the schedule of fees ere o ore adopted by Resolution 780, as amended, shall be and remain in full force and effect. The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 198_, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO, 780 -IS RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH (C) OF TABLE I OF THE SARATOGA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, RELATING TO SERVICE FEES FOR GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 4 o rtic e One of Ordinance NS -60, the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, which permits the fees set forth in Table I attached to said ordinance to be modified and changed from time to time by resolution of this City Council. SECTION 2: Subsection (C) of Table I of the appendix of rr i�nnance NS -60 and Resolution 780 are hereby amended to provide as follows: (C) SERVICE FEE - GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Where the subdivision comes within the provisions of Section 13,9 (Hillside Subdivision) of this ordinance, or is located wholly or in part in an HC -RD zoning district or Specific Plan area, a fee shall be paid representative of the actual cost to the City of a Consulting Engineering Geologist Investigation and Report concerning the development, consist- ing of a partially refundable deposit as listed below, together with such additional funds, as required, to fully reimburse City for all such expenses. Said payments and regulations relating thereto shall be as follows: by City: (1) . Subdivisions in areas not geologically mapped Type Application Deposit Single Lot Site Approval $ 500.00 Minor Subdivision (1 -4 lots) $ 750.00 Major Subdivision (less than 20 lots) $1000.00 Major Subdivision (more than 20 lots) $1500.00 City: (2) Subdivisions in areas geologically mapped by Type Application Deposit Single Lot Site Approval $ 200.00 * Minor Subdivision (1 -4 lots) $ 350.00 * Major Subdivision (5 or more lots) $ 500.00 * *And in addition, $100.00 per lot to reimburse City for cost of preparation of its geologic map. In addition, any actual charges by City Geologist for review of the subdivision in excess of the above deposit amounts. (At cost) (3) Partial Refundability In the event the cost to the City shall be less than the initial deposit by more than $2S, City shall in that event reimburse such excess to the subdivider. (4) Payment (a) Deposits as above prescribed shall be paid at the time of application for tentative -.. __...... approval. (b) Additional charges shall be paid upon billing by City and not later than Final Map Approval. - (c) Any refund in excess of $25.00 shall be determined at time of final map approval. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and aopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 198_, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ... . .... MA YOR 'A >a,• ATTEST: CITY CLERK ' V1 , 4 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: - 12 -16 -81 DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. ,SUBJECT: SDR -1396, George & Wanda Bottom (Mauldin), ---- - - - - -- -Non grant -of Modification to Site Development Plan, Denial of V -563 & ---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7=796. Issue Summary On 11/17/81 the Planning Commission did not grant a modification to the site development plan and subsequently denied their request for a height `° variance and design,review.approval for the structure..proposed in their,— Id modification. The Planning Commission could not grant the modification since the structure was located on a slope under structure averaging , more than 40% and in this zoning district, HC -RD, no process for exception or modification exists by Ordinance. The applicant believes that his proposed residence will have less environmental impact and be safer than if it were shaped to fit the area with an average slope of under 400. Recommendation options 1. Conduct a Public Hearing on the Appeal. 2. Determine the merits of the A peal and approve or deny or direct staff to modify the Ordinance to allow for a.Variance procedure in the HC -RD district for structures on slopes exceeding 40% and requesting the applicant submit proof that his house design is safer than on a lower slope at the time of his variance application..: 3. Staff recommends 'denial of the proposal in conformance with Ordinance requirements -even granting the appeal would not allow building as proposed. CfttioT s `are listed on the other side) Fiscal Impact - None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Appeal letter. 2. Geology Report dated 12/7/78. 3. 'Sta T" Report dated 11/11/81. 4. Resolutions V -563 -1 and A- 796 -1. 5. Unapproved Minutes of Planning Commission meeting 11/17/81. 6.. Site Man Council Action 12/16: I,9allory/Watson moved to deny without prejudice, taking no position, but asking the Planning Commission to review whether there should be a variance procedure in the HCRD ordinance as to percentage of slope.on building site. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). i i SDR -1396, V -563 and A -796 Options: 1. Deny modification of site approval because the proposed structure is on a slope greater than 400. 2. Deny modification of site approval without prejudice and direct Staff to prepare an ordinance change to provide a variance process for building on over 40 %. 13520 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 November 23, 1981 To: Saratoga City Clerk From: Michael and Carol Mauldin Subj: Request for Appeal to the City Council from Planning Commision's Decision on Nov. 17, 1981 Ref: SDR -1396 BACKGROUND We currently reside at 13520 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga and have been residents of the City of Saratoga for over 15 years. We purchased 13 acres of raw land from George and.Wanda Bottom in April 1981 which is loc- ated on Bohlman Road. We purchased the property with the knowledge that a tentative map allowing for the development of a single family residence had been previously approved by the City of Saratoga. The tentative map listed specific conditions that required implenentation prior to the granting of Final Site Approval. During our ownership, we have attempted to meet and comply with all of these conditions. To date........ (1) Alicensed geologist has performed the required Geological Survey. (2) We have contracted with Nelsen Engineering to provide a record of survey /parcel map. This map with all of the required copies has been submitted to the city. (3) We have contracted with Nelsen Engineering to design a septic system . conformed to the design criteria established in the geologist's report. We have received approval from the Santa Clara County Health Department to install the system as we designed it. Our plan is to construct the system next summer. (4) In conjunction with the Saratoga Heights Water Company, we have designed a water system that meets the flow requirements of the Fire Department. We plan to lay the connecting pipe and install the required fire hydrant in the Spring of 1982. (5) We have paid the Park and Recreation fees. (6) We have contracted with a house designer and a civil engineer (strucural) to design a house consistent with the geologist's report. The preliminary plans have been completed. DESIGN CRITERIA......... The City Geologist, Mr. Cotton, in aletter dated June 22, 1979, cautioned that the now approved site "is very marginal" and that "safe development can only take place under the careful review and inspection of the project geologist and foundation engineer." Impressed with his precaution we con- tracted with Mr. Bob Schwenke of Environmental Concepts and Mr. Walt Hoskins of Hoskins' Engineering to design a structure that (1) first and foremost would be optimized as far as structural safety and stability was concerned. In addition, the house would be designed such that: (2) it met and addressed all of the cautions noted in the geologists's report. (3) it neutralized any problems of potential slide material noted in the report. (4) minimized grade and fill requirements. (S) was in harmony with the environment, ie. it didn't stick out over the hill and wasn't obtrusive from the valley. (6) optimized our view of the valley below. RESULTS....... Mr. Schwenke has designed a house that takes full advantage of the natural unusual contours of the approved site. In so doing, he has used the data in the geologist's report to design a structure that is as safe as any that can be built on this site. In addition to its safety features, the house is unobtrusive and blends in harmoniously with the mountain. THE PROBLEM...... Although expert opinion will attest that the proposed plan is as safe as any development possible,.the calculated % of slope exceeds the 40% limit established in the city ordinance for HC -RD. The reason that the 40% value has been exceeded is due to a phenomena unique to this particular site. - The application of the slope formula to this site with its unusual contours creates a distortion. The "slope problem" is amplified because we are told that there is no pro- vision in the HC -RD ordinance for a variance to the 40% prohibition. In con trast, the general subdivision ordinance, which also contains the 40% pro- hibition, has provisions for variance due to "unusual site considerations." a DILEMMA...... At this point our two alternatives, which are in direct contrast to each other are: (1) Redesign the house such that it does not exceed the 40% slope and sacrifice optimum safety, structural stability, and ecological harmony. (2) Modify the tentative map such that we are allowed to exceed 40% slope and yet achieve our objectives of optimum safety and minimum environmental impact. REQUEST.. Therefore, we respectfully request to appeal to the Saratoga City Council the Planning Commission's decision to deny the modification to the tentative map to permit the slope for this structure to exceed 40 %. Our request is based on the fact that, due to the unusual contours of the topograghy of this particular site, there is a conflict between two major design parameters, ie. (1) less than 40% slope, and (2) optimum safety and minimum ecological impact. OBJECTIVE....... Our objective is to obtain a variance to the 40% prohibition in the HC —RD ordinance similar in language and lattitude to the City's General Subdivision Ordinance. Sincerely., Carol auldin Michael Mauldin �IE'�1(i)R.�ND�1tiI uguw oa §&UUSUO�& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 Don Wimberly TO: Director of Inspection Services DATE: December 6, 1978 FROM: William Cotton, City Geologist SUBJECT: Bottom, SDR -1396 --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- We have completed a geotechnical review of-the subject property using the Engineering Geologic Studies Report prepared by J.C.P. dated August 22, 1978. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed building site is situated on the axis of a steep -sided ridge which is underlain by old landslide material (OLS - Congress Springs Study, 1977). The flanks of the ridge are characterized by very steep topography (30 to 35 degrees or 50 to 70 percent slopes) which are considered by the applicant's consultant to be "unstable slopes (subject to surficial or skin -type landsliding)." However, the actual building site is located on the more stable brow of the ridge and according to the consultant, this area should not be significantly affected by slope failure procession. In our opinion, this site should be considered a very marginal building site not only because of the potential slope instability, but also because of the problems with the location of septic tank leachfields on steep, potentially unstable slopes located below the proposed building site. RECOMMENDED ACTION We would not recommend Tentative Map Approval until the applicant has satisfied the geologic and soil engineering requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 38.88, Section 3. Specifically, this area is located in the Pd categorie (i.e. Ground Movement Potential Map) and, therefore, a detailed geologic and a soil foundation investigation should be satisfactorily completed. Of primary concern is: 1) The headward progression of the landsliding (i.e. surficial or skin -type) into the proposed building site from the steep slopes flanking the ridge axis. 2) The influence of the septic tank effluent on the stability of the hillside and the building site. 3). The influence of the specific geologic and soil engineering conditions of the site on the actual development plan as depicted on the Te: q ive Map (October 1978, Civil '1 Construction Consultants, Inc. Memo to Don Wimberly Bottom, SD' -1396 December 6, 1978 Page Two 4) The geologic and soil engineering basis for any statements regarding the stability of the building site. The results of this additional work should be reviewed by the City Geologist prior to Tentative'Approval. /cp Respectfully submitted, William R. Cotton CEG 882 -001 ENINT".I.A 1111 11�111EM REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION D "i.:_ 4I DATE: 11/11/81 II,\;1"f i "'.? t i/ , Commission Meeting: 11/17/81 SUBJECT A -796, V -563 Michael Mauldin, Bohlman Road REQVE�ST: Modification to the site development plan for SDR -1396, which modifies a 25' front yard setback to 20' and places the dwelling on an over 40% slope. The applicant also requests concurrent consideration of the proposed residence through the Variance (for height) and Design Review applications. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration at Building Site Approval SDR -139 PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper, posting the site and mailing notices to 29 property owners in the vicinity. - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Slope Conservation. ZONING: HC -RD SURROUNDING LAND USES: Rural single family residential SITE SIZE: 13.25 acres SITE SLOPE: 55.4% at house site 42.6% overall on entire parcel HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 42' maximum SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 1,885 sq. ft. 2nd Floor: 2,945 sq. ft. 3rd Floor: 347 sq. ft. Total: 5,077 sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO: Complies with requirements. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Complies with requirements. Report to Planning CD fission 11/11/81 A -796, V -563 Page 2 SETBACKS: Front: 20' Right side: 140' Left side: 90' Rear: 5001+ GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 930 Fill: 35 Cut Depth: 20 feet Fill Depth: 5 feet INTRODUCTION This project proposal requires variance, design review and site modification approvals. The design review cannot be approved unless the five findings can be made for the variance. Since the proposed footprint of the design review proposal varies significantly from what was approved with the tentative map; neither the height variance nor the design review may be approved without site modification approval. Therefore, because the design review proposes a modification to the site development plan, it.is necessary to approve the modification prior to considering the design review and variance requests. Design review is required for this project because it is a two -story structure over 26' in height which is also on a hillside lot, and, because it was a condition of tentative map. The variance is required because the structure is over 30' in height. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /STAFF ANALYSIS: This site which is located in the Congress Springs Study area recently received its first one -year extension for the tentative map. The granting of Final Site Approval depends upon the applicant's ability to comply with the strigent requirements contained in the tentative map approval. These requirements are related to the geologic character of the site and its capacity to accommodate a single- family dwelling and a septic system. Staff has noted that the slope calculations indicated on the Tentative Map pertaining to the building site location, vary significantly from the present application for design review: The approved site development plan determined the building footprint to have a slope of 39.9 %; however, the present ap- plication indicates the slope at the building footprint to be 55.4 %. It appears the present proposed building site encompasses more of the steep sloping area to the southwest and northeast than was previously approved. Both the subdivision ordinance (Sec. 13.9 -3c) and the Hillside Conservation Residential District ordinance (NS -3.33 Sec. 3.24c) state, "No site shall be approved which bears a slope of over 40% at the area on which the structure is to be located." Therefore, this proposal does not meet ordinance requirements. A modification to the site development plan (tentative map) is also required for the new building footprint because it also modifies the front setback on the tentative map from 25' to 201. (The HC -RD ordinance allows modifications to setbacks to be made by the Advisory Agency without a formal variance if the appropriate findings can be made.) It appears that the setback change would not create an adverse impact. The only relatively level area on the site is located on a knoll adjacent to Bohlman Road. In order to locate as much of the structure as possible in the level area, it is neces- sary to move it forward. Staff consulted the Saratoga Fire Chief and determined that the reduced setback would not impair fire access. Report to Planning u�..In ission = 11/11/81 A -796, V -563 Page 3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW.ANANLYSIS: The proposed exterior materials to be used for the structure are dark brown wood siding and trim primarily used for the front and sides of the structure. Tan- colored stucco.is proposed for the side elevations and the rear. The proposed rear elevation will include wood decking, stucco walls, and approximately 40 -50 percent will be window area. The elevation which faces northeast views downtown Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley. Site inspection revealed that the presence of a large madrone and several oak trees below the home site would help mitigate the visual impact from the Village. Some window reflection - during the late - afternoon hours could be visible to those living below the site. The County Health Department has approved a site for a leach field on the subject property. The site for the leach field is at the bottom of the property where the slope is 9 %+ and would require 300' of pipe to connect to the dwelling. The geologic recommendations are included with this report. PRELIMINARY VARIANCE (HEIGHT) ANALYSIS: Considering the site topography it appears that there is a physical hardship associated with the stie. The "worst- case" height which is 42' +, is measured at the side elevations, where the lowest point is measured from natural grade and is not directly underneath.the highest point which is the portion adjacent to Bohlman Road. Due to steep slope of the building site area, the house is stepped down in levels and does not appear to be three stories, one over the other. Until the site modification is resolved, Staff cannot determine whether an alternate building site might impact the site less in terms of height. RECO"ENDATION: As Staff mentioned in the Introduction, approval of the modifications to the tentative map need to be resolved prior to consideration of the variance and design review requests. In light of ordinance requirements, it appears the applicant should consider an alternative building footprint which has a slope of 40% or less underneath. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the site modification request per the Staff Report dated 11/11/81 and Exhibits B, C and D. And continuance of the public hearings (Design Review and _ Variance) subject to receipt of new plans at which time fees for readvertising will be required. Approved: S aron Lester Planning Aide SL:jd P.C. Agenda: 11/17/81 RESOI IJTION NO.- V 5 6 3 -1 - CITY OF SAPv%TOGA PLAITIrII1,G CMIISSION STATE OF CALIFOI;I�I ii L), 2J0 : V - 5 6 3 i711EREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Cc- =,Ussion has received the application of MICHAEL MAULDIN for a Variance to allow the construction of a single family dwelling over 30' in height .� and (42' max.) _ .... -. 17= -REAS, THE applicant (Jaxx) -(has not-) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; W4. = EFORE, BE IT.RESOLVED that after careful' consideration of r:inaps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the .applicat-ion for the Variance be, and the same is hereby fUL=j:ad) (denied), subject to the folloi ng conditions-: Per the* Staf ' f Report dated November .11, 1.981 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D" . BE IT FU2`iHER RESOL171"D that the Report of Findings attached hereto -be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision. PAS')ED AED ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga 1'l:uining Cc=,jissiotl, State of California, this 17th day of November 19 81y by the follo;aing roll Call vote: ' IMS: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther,.King, Laden and Schaefer NOES: None ADS]...Yr: Commissioners Monia and Zambett' 7 ATTE Secretary,•P an ing- Commission File No. V -S63 (M. Mauldin) FINDINGS: 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant or privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. S. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. DESIC -N RLVIEV FILE NO: A- 796 1 RESO uriON NO. A - 7 9 6 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review Approval of construction of a single family dwelling over 30' iri height (42' max.) on Bohlman Road ; and ICEREA.S, the applicant ) (has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and other exhibits submitted in connec- tion with this matter, the application of MICHAEL MAU LD I N for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (eel) .(denied) subject to the following conditions: P.er the Staff Report dated November 11, 1981 and Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D ". PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 17th day of November , 19 81by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, *King, Laden and Schaefer NOES: None ABS.Wr: Commissioners Monia and Zambetti A ecretary, ar ni --Ti ; Corimussion 7/z irml/ illaiUUng LOMITUSSion Planning Commission Page 8 Meeting Minutes 11/17/31 UP -S13 and A -762 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 10 :25 P.M. Doug A ams, representing the applicant, discussed the proposal and the additio of the community room. He commented that they would like to be able to e the space shown as the community room in the future if they need to e and again. The alley was discussed, and he indicated that they had re eived an opinion that it was owned by the City at this time, but they wou not get a guaranteed title on it until the middle of Janu- ary. The Deputy City ttorney was questioned about the question of title of the alley. He st ted that it is a question of determining if it is a public street. He stated that one option would be to require that. the applicant arrange f r some purchase or at least a license. He added that if it is a public th oughfare, then there may be some responsibility on the part of the City. He added that if it is found that the City owns it, then the applicant wit end up with some maintenance involved because it is an integral part of t e overall development. He commented that, if the applicant wishes to restrict public access, then it is a matter of whether the applicant wishes to bu that land from the City and close it off; he noted, however, that the ap icant's circulation plan uses it as a thorough- fare. Staff stated that they had bee assuming that the portion that traverses the property in question was pa of the site. They stated that if it is a public thoroughfare, the City y not wish it to become part of this parking lot. Mr. Adams stated tha his copy of the preliminary report indicates that all of the parking a eas shown on the site plan are owned by the applicant. It was noted that Conditions 5 and 8 in the Staff Report would cover any problems with the all \inhat Discussion followed on the bike path area. Mr. George Mock, the architect, commented that CalTrans ino take a portion of the exist- ing pavement for the path and not any f the property beyond the road- way. Commissioner King moved to close the public h aring. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimo sly. It was determined that the condition regarding t future use of the commun- ity not be added at this time; the applicant can turn to the Commission for modification. Commissioner King moved to approve UP -513, per the \themotion, ort dated November 12, 1981, making the findings. Commissioer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to approve A -7621 per the rt dated 'No•v ber 12, 1981. Commissioner Crowther seconded which was carrie unanimously. 13a.V -S63 - ichael Mauldin, Bohlman Road, Request for a Variance and Design ) 13b.A-796 - eview Approval to allow the construction of a single family dwelling over 30 in height (421 max) The Deputy City Attorney explained that this house is proposed to be constructed upon a portion of the site having a slope in excess of 40 %. He commented that the Subdivision Ordinance per se prohibits construction on an envelope having a 400• slope, but does give the Planning Commission discretion to have variances from that. He added that, however, the HCRD Ordinance is more stringent and contains a prohibition against construc- tion on a 40% slope, and there does not appear to be any provision for the Commission to depart from that. lie stated that, similarly, a review of the ordinance pertaining to the granting of variances, while it refers to setbacks and heights, etc., does not refer to slope. The Deputy City Attorney stated that apnarently this site did have a prior approval, but it was based upon the structure being located at a different portion of the site which had a slope that did not exceed 40 %. He added that, as long as the applicant wants to put the home at this particular location on the site, he falls squarely within the prohibition under the HCRD Ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11/1,7/8.1 V -563 and A-796 (cont,) Page 9 The Deputy City Attorney stated that he had discussed this with the applicant's attorney, and it is their position that putting the home on its earlier site actually caused more grading and damage environmentally than its present proposed location. He added that that may be a matter for this Commission and the City Council to consider in terms of a possible revision to the HCRD Ordinance. However, he noted, this is a situation where the Commission is dealing with the ordinance as they now read. He commented that, if the Commission were to deny this application, the appli- cants could appeal to the City Council, who might want.to either act on their own or direct th.e Commission to consider the ordinance per se. Commissioner Crowther noted that Mr. Cotton's letters on this are also not too reassuring. He pointed out that the letter talks about it being a very marginal site, and now a different location is being considered than the one he reviewed. The public hearing was opened at 11:10 p.m. Bob Schwenke, representing the applicants, clarified the location of the proposed residence in relationship to the original tentative map. He stated that the unfortunate part about the slope formula is that, once a footprint is taken and stretched out over a longer distance on the countours, it- - the slope percentage. He commented that they were asking the Commission this evening to go ahead and deny this application and give the Council some direction to clarify this formula. The geology of the site was discussed. Mike Mauldin, the applicant, stated that he had purchased the property with the tentative map already approved but no house designed, and they commis- sioned Mr. Schwenke to design the safest house he could on that property with the least environmental impact. Chairman Laden stated that the Commission does not have the authority to go against this particular ordinance; however, the applicant has the right to appeal to the City Council, who could then direct some change in the ordinance if they felt that that was appropriate. - Commissioner Crowther commented that he believes that other communities have similar restrictions. He added that generally it is considered that the steeper the slope, the higher risk you are taking; he would not want to recommend that the ordinance be changed. Commissioner Bolger commented that in this community there are a great number of hillside lots which have an approved tentative map, and then another person purchases it, and they want another design on the site. He stated that he has a great deal of problem with that and would like to address that issue at some later date. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.. It was the consensus of the Commission that they could not approve the modification to the site development plan for SDR -1396. Commissioner King then moved to deny A-796 per the Staff Report. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny V -S63, per the Staff Report. Commis- sioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the City Council should review designs on areas with an over 40% slope if they are geologically more sound than another area. Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt that that was a planning issue, and it should be agendized and studied at a study session by the Commission. The 10 -day appeal period was noted. 14. V -564 - M. Oudewaal, Request for a Variance to allow an addition to an existing office building to maintain a 7' side yard where 17.2' is required and to allow a front property line adjustment to maintain a 4' front yard where 25' is required, at 14375 Saratoga Ave. Staff described the proposal. They indicated that there are parking spaces ` ''�= t• ;rat:' rt a'+ . eve. Ise RE ul II 51TE . . ............. .... ...... II II 1.00 CITY LIMITS !' CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AG'aTDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: 12/16/81 C. Atty. DEpAR` mENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJBC: SDR -1503 Martin Oudewaal, et. al., 45 room inn at the northern terminus of Third St. Appeal of Conditions of Tentative Building Site Approval. Issue Su mm The applicant has appealed eight specific conditions of the approval. Attached is an issue summary of the two major conditions being appealed - parking to be provided and access required for fire protection. The storm drainage conditions are standard and credit will be given for any ? fees previously paid. The traffic signal costs have not been determined� but the Plumed Horse and Wright & Co. have been similarily conditioned. The access for the SCVWD is not intended to be paved. Those areas to be landscaped are on Third Street as shown on Architects Plans. Recommendation 1. Conduct a Public Hearing on the appeal. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. .- 3. Staff recommended approval of the proposal subject to the conditions of the report. Fiscal Impacts None noted. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Response to November 6, 1981 Letter of Ann_ea1 2. Comments from Bond Counsel dated December 8, 1981 , 3.. Report to City Council dated 11/20/81.re Issues Summary - - 4.' Letter of Appeal dated November 6, 1981 5. Staff Report dated 10/9/81 (ammended 10/28/81). 6, Addendum dated 10/23/81. 7., Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting.l0J28 /81 Council Action 12/16:. Continued to 1/20. 1120: Mallory /Clevenger moved to deny, finding that project is allotted 34 parking spaces plus 4 which may be called up by deferred improvement agreement and requiring 1 parking space only per unit. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). Mallory /Clevenger moved to grant fire easement as proposed by M Heid b sed on studyw and approval by staff and documentation from property owners. Passed 5 -�. Mallory /Jensen moved to accept staff report's clarification of six conditions withdrawn by Mr. Heid. Passed 5 -0. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL `-A /6 r —PaLMAN49 DATE: 1 -15 -82 COUNCIL MEETING: 1-20-82 SUBJECT' SDR -1503 - Martin Oudewaal, et al, 45 -room inn This matter was continued from your meeting of December 16, 1981 so that three items could be expanded upon and clarified, i.e., (1) parking spaces cantilevering into Saratoga Creek, (2) park- ing spaces on Third Street, and (3) fire access over private properties. Relative to the cantilevered parking spaces, the applicant has requested approval from the Santa-Clara Valley Water District for such construction. I have spoken to the district relative to this matter and find that they are considering approving such a proposal upon receipt from the owner of a recordable document guaranteeing his perpetual responsibility for the maintenance, reconstruction, if necessary, and all liability relative to this facility. In the matter of the number of parking spaces on Third Street between this property and Big Basin Way, the City is obliged to provide ten spaces which are currently striped. Additional spaces cannot be created because they would impede the access to the existing spaces. However, by restriping spaces the ten spaces may be retained while providing for some landscaping areas at the end of Third Street. Concerning the formalizing of the fire access across private lands, the applicant has drafted an easement document which is currently being reviewed by'his attorney prior to submission to the property owners. Staff has not seen this document to deter- mine its adequacy. R S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd E REPORT TO. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12 -11 -81 COUNCIL MEETING: 12-16-81 SUBJECT Response to November 6, 1981 Letter of Appeal, SDR,1503 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Oudewaal et a1 - 45 -room Inn - - - - -- Listed below are Staff's comments relative to the November 6, 1981 letter of appeal. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ENGINEERING SERVICES: A. The Storm Drainage Fee is a standard condition and any fees previously paid would be credited against those due under this application. D. There is an agreement between the City and the property owner relative to the City's responsibility for construction of a Storm Drain Facility from Third Street to Saratoga Creek. L. The condition for paying a pro rata share of any traffic signal constructed at Fourth and Big Basin (250 of that portion not funded by CalTrans) is the same condition placed on two other recent site developments, i.e., the Plumed Horse and Wright $ Company. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: G. The access for the Santa Clara Valley Water District is not intended to be paved and modification of the condition to that extent would be appropriate. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION; C. The areas to be landscaped are those areas on Third Street as shown on the architect's plans. D. Refer to C. I. See Issue Summary dated.November 20, 1981. No additional information has been submitted to support the applicant's• position relative to the available number of spaces. Attached hereto is current comment by Bond Counsel for the u Report to City Council RE: SDR -1503 - Oudewaal December 11, 1981 Page 2 Parking District, along with documents relative to previous inquiries of a similar type. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT: D5. See Issue Summary dated November 20, 1981. RSS:cd Attachments Ro ert S.-Shook Director of Community Development t JAMES T. MORTON PHILIP D. ASSAF PEGGY L. MCELLIGOTT THOMAS B. ADAMS SHERROD S. DAVIS LAWRENCE C. JENSEN GERALD A. LASTER JAMES L COPELAND MAYER A. DANIEL JOAN E. BRIODY JAMES M. PARMELEE ROBERT K. BOOTH. JR. THOMAS A. LAKE ERNEST A. WILSON OF COUNSEL WILSON MORTON ASSAF & MCELLIGOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 630 NORTH SAN MATEO DRIVE P. O. BOX 152 SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA 94401 (4151 342 -3523 RECEIVED DEC 9 1981 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 DeceMber 8, 1981 ATTENTION: Mr. Robert S. Shook, Director of Community Development RE: VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 Dear Bob: NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE SUITE 1530 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 (714) 759.1801 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 152 SAN MATEO. CA 94401.0152 You have requested my comments relative to a request by one of the property owners who participated in the district to restripe a portion of the lot to create three additional parking spaces in order that he may proceed with his planned development which development will require more parking spaces than is now available to his property. The formula used in spreading the assessment in this project was a very detailed one and I am enclosing a copy of the formula taken directly out of the Engineer's Report. You will note that each owner was questioned as to the amount of building area, as defined, which he desired to include within the assessment. Building area included not only existing building but contemplated new construction or expansion. The owners of Parcels 5, 7, 13 and 14 entered into agreements with the City to provide, at such time as further improvements on their property were constructed, additional parking spaces. These particular parcels were given credit in terms of an exception in the amount of building area represented by the spaces. The district was established to comprise a particular area which had a need for parking and the formula was established, recognizing the area's need for parking and the contribution which each parcel would make both to the parking problem and to its solution. In 1969 and in 1971, certain property owners included within the district were refused permission to deviate from the formula in order to be able to further develop their property. In one instance, there was a request to "transfer parking space credit" and in the other instance, an attempt was made to substitute dollars for parking spaces. In both cases, the City refused to go along with the proposals on the basis that to do so, would destroy the balance which had been achieved in the parking district project and would create immediate problems and aggravate future problems. I am enclosing correspondence t'. T r� WILSON MORTON ASSAF & MCELLIGOTT City of Saratoga Attn: Mr. Robert S. Shook December 8, 1981 Page Two with regard to these two instances for your information. To deviate from the formula at this time would destroy the concept behind the parking district. Any property owner would have the right, based upon the precedent established, to request the same treatment. The creation of three additonal parking spaces by restriping a portion of the existing lot should be for the benefit of all and not merely the justification for allowing one property owner to further develop his property without providing addtional parking, especially if that particular owner has previously entered into an agreement with the City, acting as trustee for the remaining property owners, to provide additional spaces. The granting of any request to deviate from the formula and the understanding reached with the property owners at the time the district was formed would result in magnifying the parking problem and upset the whole theory upon which the assessments were spread. I would strongly recommend that the records be searched in this particular case to determine whether the property owner involved has entered into an agreement similar to the one included herewith. At the time the district was formed, it was proposed that these agreements be recorded in the office of the County Recorder in order that notice thereof would be given to all. I hope that this will answer the inquiry requested in your letter and if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. PDA: rva Enclosures 8490A -338a Very truly yours, for WILSON OR TON ASSAF & cELLIGOTT - June, 1969 The purpose of the agreement, as set forth in paragraph E of the recitals of Pacts on page 2, is to bind the owner and ber successors and assigns to the providing of parking spaces in-the manner described in the agreement. The agreement clearly and unequivocally obligates lairs. Anderson and her successors to pro- vide at least twenty -six offstreet automobile parking spaces in such a manner as would satisfy the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The requirement to provide:.these spaces is uniformly expressed as mandatory. The only leeway which could be allowed would have to be within the terms of the City Zoning Ordinance i#hich i assume would allow the satlsfa.ction of the requirement on another parcel of property within a stated distance of the prop- erty in question. The only x'unetion of paragraph 7 of the agreement was to provide the City an additional remedy "in the event of violation of this agreement: by ovmer, ieerHeirs, successors or assigns, or in the event this agreement is held to be .invalid or unenforceable for any reason ". The "ability of the City to take appropriate reassessment proceedings is permissive in terms, meaning that the City may undertake such proceedings but is not obligated to. The immediate remedy contemplated by the agreement is the withholding of any building permits unless the requirements of the agreement are satisfied. a R. Huff Page Two June 24, 1969 r Iti .0 cRAT ED 1956 ;rot SARATOGA *+ i e� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 June 9, 1969 pan MaLeo, kaiiiornia Village Parking District Dear Ken: I would like your interpretation of our agreement with Frances Anderson in regard to providing additional parking spaces on Assessment No. 5 in the parking district. As you know, in return for her agreeing to construct 26 parking spaces on her own property, the City granted her an offset against her assessment. Mrs. Anderson was to provide space on her property for the spaces; and the city was to withhold issuance of building permits for building area beyond the area for which Mrs. Anderson was assessed until the parking spaces were included in her building plans. Now Mrs. Anderson's architect has developed a plan for this parcel pro- viding only nine spaces. Mrs. Anderson claims that, in accord with para- graph 7 of the agreement, if she does not provide the parking spaces, she merely pays an amount ,,equal to--the cost of each space and develops her property as' -she sees fit. Our view is that paragraph 7 was included to insure that public access to the spaces she constructs is not restricted; or to prevent conversion of area originally designated as public area not subject to the square footage computation to shops or other computed area uses. r. We contend that paragraph 3 governs and that any plans submitted shall in- clude providing for the required parking. i +e feel that we have no option but to require the 26 spaces, to allow a reduced building area, or to per- mit development of the required spaces on a nearby lot. One other alterna- tive might be for Mrs. Anderson to "buy" spices or building area from another participant in the parking district. 0 I will appreciate your interpretation of this point. Yours truly, R. HUFF G CITY IV) "!INISTRA'rOR JRH:tjr WJML:KIJ:mf 11 "5/67 A G R E E M E N T VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT N0. 5 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this �_ day of 7 1908, by and between FRANCES B. ANDERSON, herein called "Owner ", and the CITY OF SARATOGA, .a y municipal corporation of the State of California, herein called "City, W I T N E S S E T H: This Agreement is predicated on the following facts: A. The City Council of the City is conducting proceedings to Resolution of Intention No. 329, adopted May 4, 1966, as pursuant improvement of certain parcels of amended, for the acquisition and land therei n particularly described as off - street automobile parking `the within the assessm ent district -'c:•`. " <'= '<'��::��'��� ^:��s: lots for the benefit of properties _. described in said proceedings. of a certain parcel of land situated B. Owner is the owner within the boundaries of the assessment district described in said µ, proceedings, which. parcel of land is identified as Diagram and Assess - 5 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 503 - 25-18, 19 and a por- ment Number tion of 20 and is hereinafter referred to as "the Subject _... " Property". of the assessment in said pro- C. The formula for the spread forth in the Engineer's report, Village Parking ceedings, as set b District No. 1, Saratoga, California, prepared Y Creegan and D'Angelo, v`, a:: ^• w +�- Civil Engineers, Engineer of Work and on file in the office of the City Clerk, .provides for relief of the Subject Property of a portion would otherwise have been levied against it of the assessment which the basis that the Owners of the Subject Properties would agree on in the manner hereinafter described at the to provide parking spaces time the Subject Property is further improved. 9. Any plans for the construction of any improvements on any portion of the Subject Property shall include the providing of said parking spaces and shall show their location on the Subject Property, •s.�.i <ii- 2 The amount of said credit is based on 12,311 square feet of build - •�o:zLati:: %.`: ing area for which twenty -six (26) parking spaces will be required. : > %<a D. The City is an owner of land within the boundaries of the - assessment district and is or will be the owner of the proposed - -- parking lots to be acquired and improved in said assessment proceed- ings, and is acting as trustee for all of the property owners in said assessment district, including the owner of the Subject Property and the owners of the other lands subject to assessment in said proceed- ings. E. The purpose of this Agreement is to bind the owner successors and assigns to the providing of said parking spaces in the manner hereinafter described for the benefit of the lands of the City and of the other lands within the boundaries of said assessment district. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED, as follows: " 1. In consideration of the relief from the assessment levied '.�...- against the Subject Property in said assessment proceedings, Owner hereby agrees to provide the necessary land for and to construct, on the Subject Property, such improvements as may be necessary to provide at least twenty -six (26) off- street automobile parking spaces. 2. Said parking spaces shall be constructed in strict accord - �`' " "' "�� "' ance with plans and specifications therefor to be provided by Owner and to be approved by the Director of Public Works of the City, and °' "'� shall comply in all particulars with the standards for off - street parking facilities set forth in Section 11.3 of City Zoning Ordi- nance No. NS -3, as now or hereafter amended. The location of said parking spaces on the Subject Property shall also be subject to the approval of the City Director of Public Works. 9. Any plans for the construction of any improvements on any portion of the Subject Property shall include the providing of said parking spaces and shall show their location on the Subject Property, •s.�.i <ii- 2 =u�`•=`+ = - ;:'i and the Owner hereby agrees that the City may withhold any building permit for said improvements until such time as said plans include . said parking spaces. Said parking spaces shall be constructed by the Owner, in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefor, as approved by the City Director of Public Works. 5. Owner understands that existing City Ordinances provide of within an assessment district formed for for relief properties the purpose of providing off- street parking facilities from the . .• requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance to provide parking spaces at the time buildings are constructed, and said Owner does hereby u�- +r�: -� - -: expressly waive any and all rights which she might otherwise have under said Ordinance to the extent involved in performing her obligations under this Agreement. - 'rTayr 6. All of the parking spaces to be provided by the Owner under this Agreement shall be open to public use to precisely the same extent as the public off- street parking facilities provided by the assessment district, it being the purpose of this Agreement that the twenty -six (26) spaces being provided hereunder be con- sidered as parking district spaces provided in consideration of _ relief from Zoning Ordinance parking requirements and assessment V district assessments which might otherwise be applicable. 7. The consideration for the providing of said spaces by Owner under this Agreement is the relief which the property owner ursi?++icw4 has enjoyed from a portion of the assessment which would otherwise have been levied. Owner therefore consents and agrees that in the event of violation of this Agreement by Owner her heirs, successors or assigns, or in the event this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, City may take appropriate reassess- ment proceedings against the Subject Property for the purpose o charging it with its full share of the cost of the parking facili- ties provided by said assessment district. 8. The doing of the act of constructing off - street auto - \3'.IYYirib°..rw. ' mobile parking spaces on the lands of Owner is hereby expressed to be for the benefit of the lands of the City, including both and the lands the lands owned by the City for street purposes owned by the City for off - street parking purposes, as well as for /.:_. the benefit of the lands of other property owners within the !::�• `;:`:`.''- °` '`'.'1':,, boundaries of the assessment district, for whom the City is act - ing as trustee in the conduct of said assessment proceedings, the covenent to perform said act of providing said parking and - spaces is hereby made by the Owner of said lands expressly for :;r:'';;r } ^•`::' "' their successors and assigns and to the successors and assigns of the City and the other property owners in said assessment district. Said covenant, pursuant to Section 1468 of the Civil �4t1; Code of the State of California, therefore runs with all of the Subject Property and with the lands of City and of the other property owners within said assessment district. 9. This Agreement shall not be construed to prevent the use by the Owner of the Subject Property, either at ground level or above or below ground level, for any lawful purpose, pro- vided, that such use shall not prevent the use of the Subject Property for off - street automobile parking purposes. 10. Owner hereby grants to City an easement for the pur- pose of maintaining and operating the off - street motor vehicle parking facilities to be constructed by Owner pursuant to this Agreement. Said easement is hereby accepted by City. Upon completion of said off - street motor vehicle parking facilities in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor as herein provided, the City shall become responsible for said maintenance and operation and Owner shall have no further responsibility with regard thereto. 11. Forthwith upon execution thereof by both the Owner and the City, this Agreement shall be recorded in the office 4 �'�,- �'`'•'� "�= '.fig_ ��... "t r.. - - -•• of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara in order that the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto shall be put on notice as to the contents thereof, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, the City by officers thereunto duly authorized, have caused these presents to be executed all on the day and year first above written. �pr1w,4dc�ia] FRANCES B. ANDERSON, Owner ®I CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, By ayor ATTEST: 5 November la, 1971 Re: Village Parking District No.. 3 Dear Mr. Huff: This is a, belated count oh your memorandum of October 13, 1971 directed to the City Attorney., Me oaaier of property assessed under d: agraaa and assessment No. 13 in the PurkiM D; s ric t proc eedIngs (Larry ry ier has asked whether he uan "transfer parking szaca credit Prom the old ;youth canter property. wo his buildinS on Big Basin 1%. a former parcel is in the Parking riat and was asaesaed for they improvenenta and the latter is not.. I would comment that the Parking District was established to c:mprise a particular area of the City which had a need for !parking and a parking district.. The assejssmsnt formulas were duly established,. recogniz --. ing the area's need for parking and the contribution which each parcel would make both to the park4 rg problem and to its solution. Any p, i•�' Iage accorded any single parcel. In the Diatrlct would halre to be made uniformly available to any other parcel who made a similar ivgasst. If the so called transfer of cred.ita were to be T:ade to any degree whatsoever, the whole parking. district " truc ture pied formula would soon boc=4 chaotic. Parcel No. 13 nies the Parlkivq District fourteen spaces now bacaaae of the credits allowed in establishing the asseenment. 1 'am not able to viisualiae what ef'f'ect the credit trans- fer would have an this obligation. t November 1o, 19 TI Page Two It is therefore my oonalusion that a000mplishinsg J,, < CITY OF SARATOGA MEMORANDUM 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. - SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 V . "' t Phone: 408 - 867 -3438 Oc TO City Attorney - .. DATE - .. DATE October 13, 1971 . SUBJECT: Village Parking District #1 Larry Tyler asks if he can transfer parking space credit from-the old youth center property to his building on Big Basin Way. He has had several feelers on establishment of a restaurant in the vacant portion of the building but he does not have sufficient parking space available adjacent to his building. As you know the assessments in the parking district were based on the number of square feet of present and future building area each property owner would have in the parking district. Transfer of spaces to another building outside the parking district would reduce the building area.available to the owner for development in the district. In addition while each parking space in the district meets the parking requirement for 400 to.500 squar, feet of building, the same space would meet the SIGNED - J.R. Huff /T% requirement for 400 to 500 square feet of building the same space would meet the requirement for only 75 square feet of restaurant service area or 200 square feet of floor space for a building outside the district. Can Tyler use Parking Dist. spaces to meet parking requirement for Big Basin Way property? If so, what agreements will be necessary to cover the transfer of spaces from the property inside the district to the property outside? By copy of this memo to Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch I am asking Ken Jones or Phil Assaf to comment on this request too. cc: Wilson, Jones, Morton & Lynch SIGNED FORM AVAILAnLE FROM GRAYARC CO.. INC. 882 THIRD AVE.. B- KLYN..N. Y. 11272 THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED DETACH THIS COPY — RETAIN FOR ANSWER. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBONS INTACT. 0 0 Y�(f 0919W Q1 19002 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 11/20/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 11/24/81 SUBJECT Issues Summary for SDR -1503, Martin Oudewaal, et al, 45 room Inn at the northern terminus of Third Street The following is an outline of the issues that must be resolved prior to construction. I . Park�i n 1� The Planning Commission at Tentative Building Site Approval required the applicant to provide one space per room, one space for employee, and one passenger unloading space. Only one space per room is required by ordinance. B. The applicant only has 8 spaces credited to the site (for 3800 sq. ft.) through Parking District No. 1. C. Applicant proposes 30 new parking spaces on the site but this number will be reduced since 4 of the spaces encroach into Saratoga Creek. The Water District objects to this since the creek will be further constricted,which could create higher water velocities and, thus, increased erosion. D. Applicant's ability to provide additional parking through restriping of Parking District No. 1 since the City's Parking District Assessment Attorney has determined that the district cannot be restriped for the benefit of one user. E. Applicant can receive no parking credit for Fun Fabrics building since it was part of the 3,800 sq. ft. parking credit agreed to by the property owner and the City in April 1974. Report to Mayor and City Council 11/20/81 Page 2 F. Applicant has option to reduce the size of the building to comply with parking requirements but he maintains any reduction of rooms below 45 makes the project economically infeasible. II. Access Required by Fire District A. Saratoga Fire District required, as a condition of approval, access from Rosenfeld's parking lot (the old Clef House Site) to Third Street through the Wallace, Melton and Smith properties. This access was considered necessary to get fire fighting equipment to the eastern side of the building in case of a fire on that side. B. The Fire District indicated that an alternate loop route, using an existing driveway serving two commercial properties would provide another connection between Big Basin Way and Third Street. C. Applicant maintains that the emergency access required in A. above cannot be created without the City's help since he does not have control over these properties. VertS. R000k Director of Community Development RSS /mf /jd WARREN B. HEIR AIA A N D A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S 14630 BIG BASIN WAY . P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA . CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867 -9365 November 6, 1981 Honorable City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Re: The Inn at Saratoga (SDR -1503) Martin J. Oudewaal et al Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is submitted in appeal of certain items of the Staff Report with the amended date of October 28, 1981 for the Tentative Map Approval for the subject project as granted by the Planning. Commission on October 28, 1981. The items under this.appeal for clarification and /or reconsideration are as follows: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES: A. The Storm Drainage Fee has been paid under SDR - 1225 and this item of the appeal is for clarification and acceptance of payment. D. The Storm Drainage System has been met through the Agreement dated April 3, 1974 on Page 6, Paragraph 4 and letter dated September 12, 1980 where the City of Saratoga shall install an underground storm drain from the northerly terminus of Third Street to Saratoga Creek. L. This appeal is to clarify the amount of the pro rata share of the cost for the possible traffic signal at Big Basin Way and Fourth Street, The Staff Report requests twenty -five (25) percent as the pro rata share for this application based on the opinion that the Inn would produce 2.5% to 8% more traffic compared to a 6,000 sq.ft. restaurant previous- ly approved for the site. The inn would have 45 rooms with a poss- ible 45 cars, while the restaurant would have approximately 80 cars for 250 occupants. The percentage of pro rata share is the concern of the applicants considering the area to use the intersection and also since this is a State highway there should be some state funding for the possible signaling. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: G. It is the opinion of this office after a meeting with representatives from the Water District and Fire District that this condition was not required because it would destroy the existing landscaping and trees necessary to the preservation of the creek bank. The appeal is to omit this requirement because of the above comment and that the excavation and fill required for the access would in fact, destroy the existing Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Saratoga November 6, 1981 - Page 2 natural vegetation. Emergency access would be available for the Water District use over their access easement between the structure and the creek without a paved surface, as is normal for their needs in this area, The Fire District's decision was to have access to the structure from the Third Street side, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION C. The appeal is for clarification of exactly what portions of the public right -of -way be landscaped and irrigated, The area is not specifically mentioned and cannot be completed without clarification. There has been mention that the area is the same as Paragraph H of this division. D. The appeal for this paragraph is for clarification of the area involved, and it is assumed that it is for the area in Paragraph C and /or H, I. The appeal is for the additional parking spaces required for one employee and one passenger loading space, plus the approval of how spaces were obtained for the application, The ordinance requires parking for each room only, and even though the Planning Commission has the option to add parking spaces, the burden of the Inn on the existing Parking District is such that these extra spaces would not misuse the District. The Inn parking requirements would be considerably less than the previously app- roved restaurant. The owners of the property madea study of the existing parking spaces being used (copy enclosed) and the use is minimum. There are options in the Staff Report for obtaining parking spaces and these have been explored. The need for forty -five (45) rooms for the Inn is, and has been, a requirement for a successful project. The infor- mation presented to the Planning Commission (copy enclosed) for credits for parking for the site, along with the proposed parking layout, does provide forty -five (45) parking spaces total for this project, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT: D5. This appeal is for the Fire Access Road over the Wallace, Melton, and Smith property. This condition is, to the knowledge of the applicant, impossible since this application does not have any control of these par- cels. Emergency access for fire apparatus per code is available at Third Street and through existing paved parking areas on these parcels. At present Parking District No. 3 is in the formation stages and is a reality only in design concept, Fire safety is paramount. and the structure will meet all safety requirements, however this condition cannot be met with- out the assistance of the City. This appeal is presented to you to assist with the approval of the project. As you know it has been accepted by the Village merchants and property owners by petition. It will be designed and constructed to be a safe and useful addition to the Village. I sincerely request that your honorable body assist with the appeal decisions of this application. Thank you. roel , W i WBH:hw cc: Martin J. Oudewaal et al WARREN B. HEIR - A N D A S S O C I A T E S - A R C H I T E C T S . P L A N N E R S .14630 BIG BASIN WAY . P.O. BOX 14 SARATOGA . 'CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867 -9365 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ..THE INN AT SARATOGA M. OUDEWAAL, D. SCOLARI, AND M. MANDARIC October 22, 1981 7' BASIC BUILDING REQUIREMENTS 1, Structure to be five (5) stories in lieu of four (4) stories as presented. .2.'.Structure to be forty -five (45)..feet less in length than presented. 3.. Appearance to be the same style, except one (lj story greater in height. HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE 1. The'pad height for structure is approximately Elevation 468' and Third Street = ..''is approximately Elevation 490', or a difference of 22'_t, With the average height of. site as 11' -0" and the average height from that grade to average height of roof, the overall height of 34' -0" for the building is within the height requirements of the ordinance, 2, :.The structure will be approximately 414" below the height of the adjacent barn ridge. PARKING AND LOADING 1. The requirement for 45 room by ordinance is 45 parking spaces. 2. :The agreement accepted by the City dated April 3, 1974 states on Page 5 "that the usuable area will support construction of 3,800 plus or minus square feet of floor space and thus necessitate eight (8) off - street parking spaces, therefore which spaces are credited to the site by the Off- Street Parking District ". 3.!.A review of the Parking District has shown that three (3) additional spaces can be obtained at an area along the creek west of 4th Street, where existing 18 spaces can be restriped for compact spacing of 8' -0" wide spaces to provide 21 spaces. 4. Under the original agreement the structure occupied by the Fun Fabrics was .included as an existing structure with a requirement of four (4) parking spaces .for the 1,800 sq.ft, building. With this building being removed these four (4) spaces would be credited to the new structure. 5. A summary of the above for parking would be 8 from'the agreement, 3 from re striping, and 4 from the removal of the existing, with a total of 15 parking.` spaces. These 15 spaces, along with the 30 additional provided on the project site, would give a total of 45 parking spaces to meet the ordinance. ..6. A loading space has been included in the area at Third Street giving a total of eleven (11) spaces at Third Street, or one (1) over the accepted ten (10) r Y Page 1 - Response to Staff Report The Inn at Saratoga 3 _ I, a, `SITE CONSTRAINTS - 1,. The length of the structure has been shortened by 45' -0 which will .preserve the cluster of 5 oak trees, a 28" dia. oak tree, and several smaller trees. 2,' A small deck area could be placed to the east of the structure using the creek and trees for a country setting, 31. Trees and natural landscaping at creek would be preserved with additional .landscaping, such as native Toyon, ferns, and Snow Berry bushes planted to maintain the natural setting. ENGINEERING SERVICES 1. "Storm Drainage Fee of $19928.31 has been paid for Final ,Map approval, Storm Drainage System has been met through statement on Page 6, Paragraph 4 of the Agreement dated April 3, 1974 and letter dated September 12, 1980 There may be some additional drainage system at the new parking area, which can tie in with the system provided by the City of Saratoga. 3 A six (6) foot walkway may be advantageous, however it would be in the ;Water District Easement, and the Water District prefers to maintain the :natural topography and planting as it now exists. 4, :The Watercourse will be kept free of any fill from construction and the channel section will lie maintained at any reconstruction at parking area so that flow will not be retarded, 5.,:A bond in the amount of $8,000,00 was part of the Final Map Approval for the site. DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES 1.,. The Soils Report for the site has been presented to staff with recommend - :a on foundation design. 2.- County Geologist Report is on file and accepts site for structure. 3, Additional geotechnical investigation will be made for new structure require . ments and will be presented when structure is in Plan Check stage for Build ing Permit.. Final Map of site and Plat has'been filed with County Recorder. 5. Complete working drawings, specifications, structural engineer's calculations .'energy calculations, and soils report will be presented to the Building Inspection Department at time of Building Permit, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT N0, 4 ` l...Sanitary sewer fees in the amount of $10269 have been paid to the District by Present owners. SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT i 1. Existing septic tank used by Fun Fabrics will be pumped and backfilled to County Standards, and a $1,000.00 bond will be posted to insure completion, ;..Page 2 - Response to Staff Report The Inn at Saratoga PARKING DIST. #1 TOTAT. SPACES AVAILABLE - 151 VACANT SPACES TIME T THTiRS. r rRI. S S4T.. S SUN. M MON. T TUES. 10:00 9 96 9 944 1 10 9 / //t / /o5 12: 00 6 69 c c '30 9 98 i i 4i 1 104 7 79 2: 00 & & ,� 6 6 f' 1 1.0 3 % %.1'7 7 76 x•: 00 L L 7 7 7,,? 1 117 1 131 9 97 7 78 6: 00 1 106 / / .3.3 n: 00 / / XV r r 7 1 1139 THURSDAY, OCT.15 THRU TUESDAY, OCT.20, 1981 Prepared by: Tyler /Kocher SOUTH WEST SIDE OF 4TH STREET - PARKING DIST. #1 TOTAL PARKING SPACES - 103 VACANT SPACES TIME THURS. FR. SAT. SUN. MON. TUES. 0:0 0 0 ... . .... 9 7/ 76 8 6 NORTH EAST SIDE OF 4TH STREET PARKING DIST. .93 95 39 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 48 49 7� 59 b 4:7,- VACANT SPACES 96. 86 TIME THURS FRI. SAT, SUN. NION. TTIFS. 10:00 40 _4 12:00 322 46 29 36 2:00 37 26 3S D 401 3-7 34- 23 4-3 3 36 36 4:00 36 4 0 47 3 44 6:00 4,Z 47 47 1 -� I,/ P:00 -30 I SOUTH WEST SIDE OF 4TH STREET - PARKING DIST. #1 TOTAL PARKING SPACES - 103 VACANT SPACES TIME THURS. FR. SAT. SUN. MON. TUES. 0:0 0 0 ... . .... 9 7/ 76 8 6 .2:00 2:00 -37 40 4o 6-3 6y .93 95 39 4:00 33 49 7� 59 b 4:7,- 6: 00 70 96. 86 97 7 c5,.. lk: 00 go 1 99 --1 9 6 _4 .TIME THURS END OF 3RD STREET TOTAL PARKING SPACES - 10 VACANT SPACES 0 A Ir QYTN MON TILES. 10: 00 ... 6 ... . .... 9 12: 00 7 7 J_ 2: 00 4:00 6- o- -J - /0 P-00 - - -..._ THURSDAY, OCT. 15 THRIT TUESDAY, OCT. 20, 1.981 *'age 2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of Sarattog APPROVED EY: -� ✓/ C� *Amended (10/28/81) DATE: 10/9/81 Commission Meeting: 10/14/81 SUBJECT SDR -1503 - Martin Oudewaal, et al Big Basin Way (Terminus of Third Street) Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Commercial) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval for a hotel in the "C -C" Community Commercial District. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Wildwood Park and single family residential to the north; retail commercial to the south, east, and west. SITE SIZE: 30,013 sq. ft. SITE SLOPE: 25% HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 24'_from average finished grade to mid -point of roof; 34' from lowest finished grade to mid -point of roof; 41' maxim= exposed line. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 27,160 sq. ft. SETBACKS: 22' from northern property line; 22' from eastern property line; 8' from southern property line. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants propose the construction of a four story, 45 room hotel on a site which was previously approved for a 6,000 sq. ft+ restaurant (SDR -1225 and A -519). Construction of', the project would entail tre removal of 4 ordinance size sycamores, 2 ordinance size oaks, (plus a cluster of smaller o ,--cs), and 2 ordinance size maples. Some smaller trees will also be removed. -:7he building housing Fun Fabrics will be demolished for parking. The applicants propose the addition of 30 parking spaces to the site. According to Staff research the final agreement between Tyler /Kocher and the City signed April 3, 1974 credits the property with eight parking spaces. The applicants must provide additional spaces to make up the deficit between what is alloted by parking District No. 1 (8) and the number required by Ordinance (45). This Report to Planning Ccnrdss':T: <~ ;;; 10/9/81 SDR -1503 Page 2 means that an additional 37 spaces would have to be provided, 7 more than the applicants propose. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated that the creek bank is subject to severe erosion and bank failure. Both the building and parking areas should be constructed with this in mind. The Water District suggests that parking spaces 22 through 25 be moved back from the top of bank so as not to extend over the creek bank. A storm drain system will be necessary for site drainage and the District recommends that there should be no disturbance of vegetation between the proposed building and the creek. The building will be fitted with a sprinkler system and smoke detectors. A fire hydrant will be provided on Third Street. The Saratoga Fire District has expressed concern about the need for adequate fire escape to the outside and the need for access along the north side of the proposed building. The parking spaces on Third Street would be rearranged under this proposal but the number of spaces (10) would remain the same. The third floor of the hotel would be connected to Third Street by a Bridge. (An encroachment permit for the bridge and landscaping has already been received under a previous application). The applicant will be conditioned to provide access from Third Street to Parking District No. 1 as in previous applications. PROJECT CONCERNS: Considering the size constraints of the site and the limited parking credited to the site through Parking District No. 1, it is apparent that the size of the hotel must be reduced. The number of roans provided must therefore be reduced to a maximum of 38 rooms. This number could be reduced to 34 if the Commission determines that the four spaces which are proposed to be beyond the top of the creek bank are to be deleted. More parking spaces could be lost if employee parking is required. If the number of rooms are reduced then the building can be reduced in size which would reduce its impact on the site.. The applicant, however, has indicated that some of the smaller rooms could be combined to create suites which would reduce the parking required. Staff is also concerned with the amount of vegetation that is proposed, to be removed. Not all of 'the trees that would have to be removed are shown on the plans. For example, there is a cluster of large Sycamore trees between the 28" Oak and the cluster of 5 oaks that would be removed. There are also a variety of smaller trees that will be removed due to construction. If the structure were reduced in size (i.e., length) fewer trees would have to be removed. The structure could also be moved more to the west of the site which is its flatter portion. However, this could move the building very close to the parking area or might even remove some spaces. Considering the probability that the building will be reduced in size to acccmmodate City parking requirements (i.e., reduce the number of rooms by 7) , -staff would recommend that the building be reduced in size so that at a minimLun the cluster of 5 oak trees would be preserved. This might also allow a small deck area to be built which could take advantage of the creek setting. If the structure is moved further to the west the 18" white oak might also be saved. It should be noted that one of the parking spaces of Parking District No. 1 would have to be removed to allow access to the hotel parking area. A space would have to be relocated to accommodate this entrance. It is not clear where this space i Report to Planning Commis-' SDR -1503 \ 10/9/81 Page 3 would be relocated therefore the building might have to further reduced. Concern has been expressed by residents near the terminus of Third Street that the ten parking spaces on Third Street be preserved. It has also been suggested that people using the hotel would park in these spaces all day and this would adversely impact adjacent businesses on Big Basin Way. Strict enforcement of the two hour parking unit on Third Street could eliminate this concern. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: October 6, 1981. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1503 (Exhibit "B--2 ". filed October 28,1981) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CIONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established.by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following�Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Improve walkway to City Standards, including the following: 1. Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. A.C., 4 ft. P.C.C.) between VPD #1 & VPD #3. D. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following: 1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes. Report to Planning Commiss;�r_.. \, 10/9/81 SDR -1503 Page 4 2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes. 3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc. E. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. F. Protective Planting required on cuts and fills. G. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Parking Lot. 2. Storm Drain Construction. 3. Pedestrian Walkway. H. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. I. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be ccmpleted within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. J. Post bond to guarantee ccrnpletion of the required improvements. K. Construct parking per approved plans. * L. Enter into "Deferred.Improvement Agreement" and provide bond for payment of pro rata (250) share or traffic signal.at Big Basin Way and Fourth Street. Agreement and bond to run 5 years after completion of all on -site public improvements. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Prior to Final Map Approval: Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional: 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued. C. Prior to Final Map Approval: Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc). 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to retrain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures. 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's nacre, etc. 2eport to Planning Collis: SDR -1503 D. Prior to Final Map Approval: 10/9/81 Page 5 Bonds required for removal of existing building. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ODUDT!'Y SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service is available. A pump may be necessary to pump the effluent to the main sewer stubbed into the parking lot. B. Applicant to sulmit fees to County Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance with letter dated September 2, 1981, prior to issuance of permits. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA OOUNI'Y HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank in City of Saratoga parking lot to be pumped and backfilled. to County Standards. `_A $1,000.00 bond to be posted fA insure - completion of work. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. District accepts no responsibility for any damage to parking areas or the building from bank erosion, bank failure. or other cause. B. There shall be no parking stalls beyond the existing top of creek bank. C. Building foundation shall be designed as a retaining wall that would be stable if creek banks erode back to the foundation. There shall be no foundation or overhangs in the existing district easement. D. There shall be no overbank drainage into creek from the site. It shall be collected and discharged into the creek through a storm drain system. E . There - shall -be -no disc u -rbanee -o€ - existing -vegetation - between -the -proposed building =and = ereek. - (Deleted) -- 1ISubmit i rovement plans including grading and foundation plans for review land issuance of hermit. - - * G. Access shall be provide&between and the top of bank. Ac cess block or some other approved material that will allow revegetation. This access and its..construction shall be reviewed and approved by both the Santa ClanaNlValley Water District and the Saratoga Fire District. -- VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PEST DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Prior to issuance of building permits the structure shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. C. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Landscaping and irrigation - - I - -_ .,L- _ -„ nn A-, r F . -rvnnl at i can of Report to Planning CF,`�ission 10/9/81 SDR -1503 Page 6 D. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped within the public right of way. * E. The- proposed -hotel -shall fie- reduced -ice Zia& to- ocUPly -with- parking xe�ire- rxents.- - Mod}f ed- plans- sha -li -be - suknui-tted -at- the time -of- Design- Reivew. (Deleted) F. Structure shall be reduced in size and moved to preserve,at a minimm,the cluster of 5 oak trees. G. A pedestrian corridor connecting the terminus of Third Street with Parking District No. 1 shall be provided through the site. Said corridor shall not require entrance into the building. H. The terminus of Third Street shall be improved and upgraded for its entire width and for a depth of 50 feet (2,500 sq. ft.). Improvement plans shall designate and detail installations of trees, planting areas, pedestrian street furniture, paving and striping as approved by the C mnmity Development Department. * I. Applicant shall provide 1 parking space per room, one parking space per employee, and one passenger unloading space for the project. This may be accomplished by combining the spaces credited to the site through Parking District No. 1 with: 1. Additional spaces on site 2. Restriping Parking District No. 1 to provide compact parking stalls which would provide additional parking subject to review and approval by the City Council. 3. Purchase of unused parking space allotments from other members of Parking District No. 1. 4. Any combination of the above. If the applicant finds that sufficient parking cannot be provided for the 45 room structure, then the structure may be reduced in size to accommodate the parking the applicant can provide. * J. A Geotechnical Investigation shall be conducted in accordance with the City Geologist's letter dated October 8, 1981. Results of the investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engin -er and City Geologist prior to Final Building Site Approval. JIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. As per letter dated 10 /9/81. * B. A fire hydrant shall be provided at the intersection of Third Street and Big Basin Way prior to final inspection /certificate of occupancy. Location of the hydrant shall be approved by the Fire District prior to Final Building Site Approval. * C. Access shall be provided per condition VI. G. subject to Fire District Approval. * D. Comply with conditions in letter dated.10 /23/81 (Listed below) * 1. Early Warning Fire Reporting System: Said structure shall have smote detectors in each room whic shall be installed so that they can be monitored in a central place within the structure and be capable of designating individual room signals. Said system shall also have the capability to transmit signals to central station. Report to Planni�.,,., Commission Page 7 SDR- 150 3 * 2. The building shall have an approved automatic sprinkler system. Exterior walls shall be protected within the provisions of the Building Code. This system is to be monitored and connected to the Alarm System (See #1 above) so that a signal can be transmitted to the central system upon activation. * 3. Separate wet standpipes shall be required. Hose connections for Fire Department use shall be provided on all floors per National Fire Protection Agency (NFP) Bulletin No. 13 - Installation of Sprinkler Systems (1980 Edition). In addition, a fire hydrant shall be installed at the corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way. 4. Exit Enclosures: In addition to the requirements of Section 10.109 of the 1973 Uniform Fire Code all exits leading from the corridors shall exit to the ground floor. In addition, two exits are required from either end of the building to the required roadway connecting Third Street to Parking District Three. All stairways shall include landings connecting stairway flights and shall lead from the building to the exterior on Third Street and the ground floor. * S. Access Roads for Fire Apparatus (Section 10.27, UBC - 1979) Connection to Third Street from Parking District Three, i.e. Rosenfeld parking lot, by way of the Wallace, Melton and Smith properties on the west northwest side of the proposed building prior to issuance of building permit. As an alter- nate, a loop involving the use of the driveway from Big Basin Way serving Assessor's Parcel Numbers 503 -24 -13 and 14 and access across the rear of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 503 -24 -14 and 1S to Third Street. Approved MF /dra P. C. Agenda: 10/14/81 a Michael Flores, Assistant Planner *As amended 10/28/81 Planning Commission Meeting Report to Planning Commission Addendum to SDR -1503 10/23/81 Page 2 There is also the option of the applicant buying out the parking spaces of other properties in the parking district that have not expanded to their full square footage allotment. The applicant has indicated this option could be explored. The applicant also feels that the requirement of one loading berth can be complied with if a loading berth is allowed near the Third Street entrance in the City right -of -way. The City would have to modify the existing encroachment permit to allow the loading berth in the right -of -way. The Commission also received input from the Chief of the Saratoga Fire District regarding fire safety for the proposal particularly in terms of access. Staff met on site with representatives of the Fire District, and the Water District. Both agreed an access road along the northern side of the building would be desirable. The applicant also presented a soil and foundation investigation for the previous restaurant proposal. Copies of this report are attached for the Commission's information. Some Commissioners have indicated some concern as to whether an E.I.R. should be required for the project. It should be noted that when a restaurant was proposed for the site the Water District had initially requested an E.I.R. but withdrew that request when the pro- posed building was redesigned. They have not requested an E.I.R. for this project. The City Geologist has not requested an E.I.R. and his initial determination is that liquefaction is not a problem. However, he has re- quired a geotechnical investigation. This can be conditioned to occur prior to Final Building Site Approval. The project is also an infill project which will not require significant expansion to serve the project. Grading and drainage impacts can be mitigated through current City codes and ordinances. The traffic impacts associated with the Inn are slightly higher 2.5 % -8% when 80% occupied and compared to the 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant previously approved for the site. A 25% increase is possible when the Inn would be fully occupied. These increases are not considered significant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve per this addendum, Exhibit "B -1 11, the Staff Report dated October 10, 1981 and the following additional conditions: VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT * E. Delete. * G. Access shall be provided between the north side of the building and the top of bank. Access shall be constructed out of turf block or some other approved material that will allow revegetation. This access and its construction shall be reviewed and approved by both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Saratoga Fire District. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City ci Sc�� to ^a DATE: 10/23/81 ar,i 4'ED [,,,y: -. r: —Lt a-, D�, � r:: � Commission Meeting: 10/28/81 LS: SUBJECT: Addendum to SDR -1503, Martin Oudewaal, et al Big Basin Way (Terminus of Third Street) ---------- Tentative Building-Site - - - - - Approval - 1 Lot (Commercial) ------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 14, 1981 to the Committee -of- the -Whole (C.O.W.) meeting of October 20, 1981. At that meeting the applicant submitted revised plans which shortened the proposed building from 213.' to 171' but added a fifth story. The height of the major portion of the structure-- would be lower than the existing barn when viewed from the south. The major issue to be resolved is the number of parking spaces the applicant could provide. At the C.O.W. meeting the majority of the Commissioners indicated that the applicant must provide 45 spaces as required by ordinance with no additional spaces for employees. The applicant was 7 spaces short of the 45 required. The Commission indicated that it might consider allowing a portion of the spaces in Parking District No. 1 to be restriped, to create compact spaces and thus increase the number of spaces. Since that time the applicant feels he has found a solution to the parking problem. He indicates that 18 spaces along the northwestern boundary of that portion of the parking district which is on the southwest side of Fourth Street could be restriped to provide 21 compact parking spaces `8' wide. This would give the applicant 3 more spaces and would make about 12% of the spaces in the parking district compact spaces. However, only the City Council can allow the proposed restriping and this matter would have to be submitted to them for review and approval. The applicant has also indicated that the existing Fun Fabrics Building credits the site with an additional 4 spaces since it was in existence at the time the parking district was formed. (Fun Fabrics is 1,831 sq. ft. 1,831 divided by 473 equals 3.87). However, the agreement between the property owner and the City (dated April 3, 1974) only allows for 3,800 sq. ft. of con- struction at a credit of 8 spaces. No credit is mentioned for the Fun Fabrics Building. Report to Planning Commission 10/23/81 Addendum to SDR -1503 Page 3 VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION * E. Delete. ** I. Applicant shall provide 45 parking spaces for the project. This may be accomplished by combining the spaces credited to the site through Parking District No. 1 with: 1. Additional spaces on site 2. Restriping Parking District No. l'to provide compact parking stalls which would provide additional parking subject to review and approval by the City Council. 3. Purchase of unused parking space allotments from other members of Parking District No. 1. 4. Any combination of the above. If the applicant finds that sufficient parking cannot be provided for the 45 room structure, then the structure may be reduced in size to accommodate the parking the applicant can provide. * J. A Geotechnical Investigation shall be conducted in accordance with the City Geologist's letter dated October 8, 1981. Results of the investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geologist prior to Final Building Site Approval. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT * B. A fire hydrant shall be provided at the intersection of Third Street and Big Basin Way prior to final inspection /certificate of oc- cupancy. Location of the hydrant shall be approved by the Fire District prior to Final Building Site Approval. * C. Access shall be provided per condition VI. G. subject to Fire District Approval. ** D. Comply with co ditions in letter dated 10/23/81. Approved: Mic ael Flores, Assistant Planner MF:jd P.C. Agenda: 10/28/81 * *amended and incorporated into Staff Report dated 10/9/81. *incorporated into Staff Report dated 10/9/81. Planning Commission ` Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 10/28/81. A -791 (cont.) go on the free- standing sign. It was sugg ted that Staff review the record to see if there is anything relative to t agreement that Commissioner Zambetti suggested was made at the time of the original application. Commissioner Crowth \int ated that he felt the proposal should be evaluated on its merthis time. He moved to approve A -791, per the Staff Report. Coner Bolger seconded the motion, stating that there is a reduction size of the presen t sign. Commissioner Monia stated tha he felt it would be worthwhile to have Staff review the original apple tion. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger withdrew their motion and second t approve A -791. Staff was asked to review the file, and it was directe that this item be continued to the meeting of November 17, 1981. BUILDING SITES Declaration SDR -1503 - Oudewaal, et al 4b. SDR -.1503 M.�Oudewaal, et al, northern terminus of Third Street, Construc- t on of a five - story, 45 -room hotel, Tentative Building Site D roval; continued from October 14, 19.81 Commissioner Bolger commented that he feels this problem should be addressed, so, that in the event additional police service is needed, the City does not become impacted in a negative way. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the philosophy of a room tax is perhaps the necessity for additional police and other services for a project of this kind. However, in that case the tax would be applied to any establishment operating as a hotel or inn, and not particularized to one property owner. Commissioner Crowther passed out the State guidelines and discussion followed on the Negative Declaration. lie commented that lie was con cerned that, because of traffic and other issues, the project might have a significant effect on the environment, and, therefore, an EIR must be prepared. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the EIR in this situation ".. .. - 2 - :F i gave a report on the project, stating that it has been changed from a 4 to 5- -story structure. It was noted that there were major issues relating to parking and access. They noted that the Staff Report is written in such a way that if the determination is made that the number of parking spaces that are required cannot be met, then the structure would be reduced to accommodate that. The parking problem and options were reviewed. Staff noted that the applicant feels he can meet the loading berth requirement if it can be located at the terminus on Third Street near the entry; this would necessitate the. granting of an encroach- ment permit. Letters from the City Geologist and the Police Department were noted into the record. Staff indicated that the Sheriff's Department was unable to elaborate on the cost to the City for additional protection. Discussion followed on the conditioning of supplementary police services to be funded by the operator of the hotel. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that he would have a serious question as to the legality of requiring the applicant to pay for additional police services, should it become necessary due to the activities of the hotel. He commented that that would be in effect a special tax. He explained that the applicant would make arrangements for a security guard, if necessary, at his own cost. He added that there are vehicles by which an operation of this kind can be taxed, but he would not want to tie it directly to police enforce - ment. Commissioner Bolger commented that he feels this problem should be addressed, so, that in the event additional police service is needed, the City does not become impacted in a negative way. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the philosophy of a room tax is perhaps the necessity for additional police and other services for a project of this kind. However, in that case the tax would be applied to any establishment operating as a hotel or inn, and not particularized to one property owner. Commissioner Crowther passed out the State guidelines and discussion followed on the Negative Declaration. lie commented that lie was con cerned that, because of traffic and other issues, the project might have a significant effect on the environment, and, therefore, an EIR must be prepared. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the EIR in this situation ".. .. - 2 - :F i Commissioner Crowther noted that there has been no negative public input on this project, and he feels that is important. He added that if there is widespread public concern on a project, then.he feels an EIR should be prepared. The number of required parking spaces was discussed. Commissioner Monia commented that he felt the Commission should require a few more spaces than the absolute minimum. Discussion followed on handicapped spaces and employee spaces. Commissioner King stated that he felt the site was being overdeveloped. He added that he felt an inn of a smaller size might mitigate some of the problems regarding parking and loading. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels that the design of the front of the structure with parking places directly in front of the door is unacceptable. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he feels 45 rooms are appropriate for this site. He commented that this inn, if developed and successful, will also be successful for all of the merchants and for the City, and he feels that should be taken into consideration. Warren Heid, the architect, gave a presentation on the project. He discussed the parking spaces on the creek and the methods of using these spaces, one of which would be to build a structure and cantilever it out. He described the parking stalls and the service entry. He commented that he feels they are 45 spaces for parking and have met the ordinance require - ments. He added that he has also reached an agreement with Chief Kraule regarding access. Staff stated that they were attempting to be in contact with the bond counsel regarding what needs to be done in the assessment district to accomplish restriping of parking spaces for the benefit of ono of the property owners. They explained that they believe that there is some- thing relative to the funding with regards to restriping, and this will. be determined and taken into consideration. .:.xt 3 e ... ..: .. .cam.. ,..._;.,: Planning Commission C C Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 10/28/81 SDR -1503 (cont.) is essentially a judgment call. He explained that the City Council adopted some guidelines; this particular project is in a commercial area, so there is no presumption one way or the other that it would ` have an effect. Therefore, the guidelines adopted by the City Council as they would apply to this project are simply neutral; they neither require or prohibit an EIR. He added that the Commission could certainly require an EIR and support that requirement by these guidelines; by the same token there is some history as to this project that might similarly support a finding for a Negative Declaration. He explained that, accord - ing to the Staff Report, there was an earlier requirement of an EIR by the Water District, which they have since abandoned, and no other agency `: >•:. ._:' reviewing this proposal has requested an EIR. He indicated that he did not feel the Commission is necessarily bound to require an EIR, if someone comes along and requires it, if they are otherwise satisfied that whatever effects they perceive are being mitigated by the restrictions on the development. It was noted that the City Geologist has not requested an EIR on the project. The initial study done on the project was discussed, and Staff reported that it was their determination that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, primarily because it _ ,.:;;;,;;;..:.::.,,:.,;;;;;•, is an inf.ill project; it had been reviewed before as a restaurant proposal, and the soil and foundation study done at that time did not indicate any particular problem. Regarding the traffic impacts, Staff commented that - .• "••_••••• their assessment determined that the inn would not have a greater traffic impact than a proposed restaurant. They added that they determined that the Negative Declaration would be the appropriate document, because any impacts the proposal would have could be mitigated by using the current code and ordinances, as well as specific conditions in the Building Site Approval. They noted that a geologic study will be completed before final approval is granted. Commissioner Crowther noted that there has been no negative public input on this project, and he feels that is important. He added that if there is widespread public concern on a project, then.he feels an EIR should be prepared. The number of required parking spaces was discussed. Commissioner Monia commented that he felt the Commission should require a few more spaces than the absolute minimum. Discussion followed on handicapped spaces and employee spaces. Commissioner King stated that he felt the site was being overdeveloped. He added that he felt an inn of a smaller size might mitigate some of the problems regarding parking and loading. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels that the design of the front of the structure with parking places directly in front of the door is unacceptable. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he feels 45 rooms are appropriate for this site. He commented that this inn, if developed and successful, will also be successful for all of the merchants and for the City, and he feels that should be taken into consideration. Warren Heid, the architect, gave a presentation on the project. He discussed the parking spaces on the creek and the methods of using these spaces, one of which would be to build a structure and cantilever it out. He described the parking stalls and the service entry. He commented that he feels they are 45 spaces for parking and have met the ordinance require - ments. He added that he has also reached an agreement with Chief Kraule regarding access. Staff stated that they were attempting to be in contact with the bond counsel regarding what needs to be done in the assessment district to accomplish restriping of parking spaces for the benefit of ono of the property owners. They explained that they believe that there is some- thing relative to the funding with regards to restriping, and this will. be determined and taken into consideration. .:.xt 3 e ... ..: .. .cam.. ,..._;.,: Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes Meeting 10/28/81 SDR -1503 (cont.) Mr. Heid discussed Chief Kraule's requirement for an access for fire equipment. He explained that he has shown a ramp on a revised drawing from the Rosenfeld property up to the upper level. He commented that if the parking district were formed, at some future date the Fire Depart- ment would have complete access from Third Street in behind the building. :::.: -:> c: . r.• °....,i: Mr. Heid described the proposed ramp. r +!ibyYt;:jr�ii:lid?i;r;ti'JatyF Chief Kraule from the Fire Department discussed the conditions in his letter dated October 23, 1981. He stated that some type of connection is needed between the Smith property and Wallace property and Parking District No. 3, in order to get emergency vehicles through. Mr. Heid stated that it was his understanding that the concerned property owner does not care to enter into an assessment district at this time. Mr. Heid described the fire precautions he has taken with the design of the building. Chief Kraule commented that he feels that the building, as designed, will be a safe one, but it is a high rise and the only way to control fire in it if there is a failure of the system is interior fire fighting. There- fore, he feels that there must be access from the outside, through the ramps that would be facing Third Street and the proposed road. Mr. Heid stated that he feels the access connection to the proposed park- ing district has to be something that the Planning Commission and City Council ask for. It was noted that this access is a condition of the project. Discussion followed on an alternate access via the driveway between the Melton building and the Wallace building. Chief Kraule stated that that is a deadend access. He commented that there is about a 2� -3 ft. drop; it is very close to connecting, but does not. The parking issue was again discussed. Mr. Heid addressed the loading and unloading zone. He indicated that they would have a day manager and a night manager; the other management would be off the property. The issue of a loading area directly in front of the hotel was addressed. ft was determined that there should be one clear space in front of the build- ing. Commissioner Zambetti moved to require 47 parking spaces with regards to Building Site Approval for SDR -1503. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Bolger dissenting, stating that he would be in favor of a requirement of 45 spaces. He added that he felt there would always be the problem of congestion in front of the hotel, even with a space there. It was clarified that the 47 spaces would consist of 1 space per room, 1 for the employee, and 1 clear space in front of the front door; handicapped parking will be included in that number. Discussion followed on a cantilevered structure over the creek to provide 4 spaces. There was a consensus that this would be allowed, provided that the applicant can satisfy the Water District requirements. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the Negative Declaration is premised on the overall impact of the project. He commented that it specified that it will be mitigated through requirements of the City, and those requirements are listed in more detail in the Building Site Approval. Commissioner Zambetti. moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1503. Commissioner Moni.a seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR -1503, per Exhibit 'B -211, the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981 as amended, the Addendum dated October 23, 1981., and the letter from the Fire District dated October 23, 1981, with 47 parking spaces required, 1 per room, 1 for the front, and 1 for the m 1 Q p oyee. Lomm ssioner Bolger seconded the motion. 4 - Planning Commission Page 4a Minutes. Meeting, 10 /2.8/81 Addition to SDR -1503 (Oudewaal - Inn) Mr. Heid was asked about the hotel foundation elevation of 368 ft., shown in the exhibit, said elevation being below the to flood elevation shown on the map for the Johnston property across the creek. Mr. Heid indicated that this elevation in the exhibit was incorrect and should be 468 ft. Mr. Heid was asked if all of the elevations of the parking lot and the hotel were above the 100 -year flood elevation. He replied that all elevations were above the level of the 100 -year flood. r Planning Commission 'Minutes Meeting 10/28/81 14;i -4`$ ltt?, SDR -1503 (.cont.) Page 5 Staff clarified that the condition in the Fire District's letter is for the construction of that access between the Rosenfeld property and Third Street. The alternate of circular access from the driveway between the Melton building and the Wallace building and around Third Street was dis- cussed. Chief Kraule stated that he would like to see a through road. He commented that, as an alternate plan, the loop would be acceptable, but the ideal solution would be a connection between Third Street and the Rosenfeld property. Commissioner Monia stated that he would like the motion to allow for the alternate plan as well, since he feels the access with the ramp may be a difficult thing to obtain. Commissioner Bolger asked for the reasoning of Commissioner Monia's request, since basically both of the properties are connected to the same people; the ownership is common, and he feels there will be the same problem with the circular area around those two properties, as opposed to the ramp in the back. He added that he feels Chief Kraule has been most clear that he feels the most appropriate way would be to try to get the ramp through. Commissioners Zambetti and Bolger amended their motion and second to include that the access can be accomplished by a ramp between the Rosenfeld property and Third Street, or a circular loop from the driveway between the Melton building and the Wallace building and around Third Street as an alternate. Chief Kraule stated that the ramp would be preferred, but the alternate loop could be an option. The vote was taken on the motion to approve SDR -1503, with the above amendment. The motion was carried, with Commissioner King dissenting. It was noted that parking space #19 is 3 ft. over the property line of City -owned property. The Deputy City Attorney commented that on the copies of the map it does not clearly show the boundary'line, as opposed to topo- graphy lines and the lines of the Water District easement. He stated that he has informed the applicant that, at the time of Design Review Approval, this issue of encroachment onto City -owned land will have to be dealt with and the City will have to issue its, consent. Break: 9:30 - 9:50 p.m. Sa. Negative Declaration - SDR -1508 - M. Oudewaal 5b. SDR -1508 - M. Oudewaal, 1.4629 Big Basin Way, 1 lot (Condominiums), Tenta- 5c. A-793 - tive Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval Staff described the proposal. They commented that the density of the project should be determined at the Building Site Approval, since that determination was not made at the time of the use permit. They stated that they feel the proposed density of 4 condominiums was appropriate for the area. It was determined that Condition VIII -G should be added to read: "Geotechnical investigation shall be conducted as described in City Geologist's letter dated October 22, 1981. The results of the investiga- tion shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geologist prior to issuance of the building permit." Commissioner Bolger stated that he feels the site is very narrow and the height of the structure would be sufficient without the towers. Commissioner Crowther commented that, even though the applicant is now in compliance with the ordinance by the change of the roof design, the side yard setbacks are still not in compliance. hie added that he considers it to be creeping rezoning to .allow deviations from the ordinance via a use permit and lie is opposed to that. Commissioner King moved to approve SDR -1508, subject to the Staff Report „ S :s WARREN B. HEIR • AIA A N D A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S 14630 BIG BASIN WAY . P.O.BOX 14 . SARATOGA . CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867 -9365 January 15, 1982 Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Re: Appeal for SDR -1503 - Martin J. Oudewaal et al The Inn at Saratoga Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: The following information is presented to you as additional information for the subject project with regards to the pro- cess followed by this office for the parking requirements and the fire access lane. Attached is a draft of the Easement for Fire Lane on the Smith and Melton property on Big Basin Way. This document has been presented to the property owners and Chief Kraule for their review and acceptance. I hope to have the document signed for the forth coming Council Meeting. Also attached is a copy of the statement of property owners of land within Parking District No. 1 stating their approval of the additional three parking spaces through restriping. To date I have verbal approval of the following and will present the signed documents the night of the meeting. Accessment Accessment Accessment Accessment Accessment Accessment Accessment Number Number Number Number Number Number Number 1: 2: 3: 4: 10: 12: 13: Herring parcel Flanagan parcel Valk parcel Flanagan parcel Anderson parcel Kocher /Tyler parcel Kocher /Tyler parcel This office is in the process of contacting the other parcel owners and expect to have their approval for the meeting. Mr. Joseph Long with Accessment Number 11 has been contacted and has not responded to this date. Honorable Mayor and City Council SDR -1503 - Oudewaal et al January 15, 1982 Page 2. This office has also met with Mr. William Carlson of the Santa Clara Valley Water District with regards to the pro- posed structure for four parking spaces at the creek bank. As of this date the District has taken our presentation (proposed section, parking plan, and section) under advise- ment. The proposal and any possible documentation for re- cording should be available for the Council Meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this project. Si nc#rely, arren B. Heid WBH:hw Encl: cc: Mr. Martin J. Oudewaal et al i . r _EASEMFNT FOR'EMERGENCY FIRE LANE Pearl•Smith, 14493 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Thelma D. Melton, 14487 Big•Basin Way, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Bordon M. Melton, 14487 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Ca. 950.70 Grant, convey, and dedicate to SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, a public district, an easement for an-Emergency Fire Lane and Fire Gate purposes in, upon, over, and across that certain real property in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California for emergency vehilcle use in times of,need only for these parcels and surround- ing parcels, described as follows,-and known as:' Smith Parcel, located.at.14493 Big Basin Way, Sara- toga,' California 95070, with Accessor's Parcel Number 503. 724 7015. Melton Parcel, located at 14487 Biq Basin Way,-Sara- toga, California, 95070; with Accessor'•s Parcel.Number' 503 -24 -014. It is;also agreed that this emergency fire lane easement shall be'for emergency use only and not for public right - of -way. The driveways as shown,on the Plat on Page 2 will serve as the fire lanes with the new fence and gate to serve as a fire gate, .locked-with fire district locks, all as shown,on'gate details prepared by Warren B. Heid,, AIA and Associates and shown'on..lPage 3. Dated this day of 1982 Signed and delivered in the presence of Acknowledgement of Subscribing Witness Page 1 of 3 pages E-1 w H x E-4 f— Emergency Vehicle Gate Emergency Fire L ne Easement Carport .Building- .0 ?, o 4P ror- .r Ln M •.-1 tf1 ri VI , • r-I Nroroo acn.N W W tT M O M •IJ Ln �� $4 z roqw row Par tng a 0 aJ r� 0 , A ' Building I a� ro Ln ro ro� 9 a) L: •rl O N • ri . ro robo k MU O. qw M tT N •rl ro I W CQ tT M On4JLn �� Nom• roar roa N BIG BASIN WAY PLAT,FOR EMERGENCY FIRE LANE EASEMENT BETWEEN BORDON M. AND THELMA MELTONt AND PEARL SMITH AND SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT Page 2 of 3 pages. 4J c a� e N ro w a� rd a� N. P4 U O O 01 N O W z tij z C7 H til E w ti] En t1i G] .�zzz oo! H to ►C 00. it H z �0 rt-11 H t=J tr1 zH ortxj : Erl0t1lN V-j vi l-3 En _ H 'yx. LTA ��J t X H N tti r PLO9 cures - -- _ z. 1YP!'?�C?. .. The UNDERSIGNED, as property owner of a parcel or parcels of land that is part of Parking District No. 1 in the Village Area of the City of Saratoga, agrees that the restriping of eighteen (18) parking spaces in Parking District No. 1 to twenty -one (21) parking spaces will benefit all of the properties within Parking District No. 1 and not just the pro- perty for the proposed Inn at Saratoga under SDR- 1503. The three (3) additional parking spaces will be credited to Parcel No. 13 of Parking District No. 1 for their use to acc(xnplish the total number of parking spaces for the Inn at Saratoga. Property Owner Address Parking District No. 1 Assessment Number. I / / I / / / / I I I RATOGA eoo \ 10 l \ 1 y0. B jo LEGEND dssrssxni ZWnLY Awoaavy Olssessnxid AimGv 150.00' Pored DAx/7da0 CITY OF SARATOGA VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NUMBER ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM CREEGAN AND D'ANGELO ENGINEER OF WORK ,r o �F 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 0 `»x (408) 887 -3438 November 13, 1981 Mr. Warren B. Heid P. 0. Box 14 Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Heid: Thank you for your letter of November 6, 1981 concerning an appeal of some specific conditions in the Staff Report for Tentative Building Site Approval for SDR -1503. We note that you letter also asks for clarification of other conditions in the report. Your check #14308, in the amount of $30.00 for the appeal fee, has been received and the public hearing is set for December 16, 1981. Please be advised that the. City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. Sin erely, (� . J I I Fdo ert S . "Shoo k Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Mr. Martin Oudewaal, 14375 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 City Manager Deputy City Clerk l� WARREN B. HEIR • AIA A N D A S S O C I A T E S A R C H IT E C T S • P L A N N E R S /,2 -�r -e C1 1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 0 867 -9365 November 6, 1981 Honorable City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Re: The Inn at Saratoga (SDR -1503) Martin J. Oudewaal et al Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is submitted in appeal of certain items of the Staff Report with the amended date of October 28, 1981 for the Tentative Map Approval for the subject project as granted by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1981. The items under this appeal for clarification and /or reconsideration are as follows: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES: A. The Storm Drainage Fee has been paid under SDR - 1225 and this item of the appeal is for clarification and acceptance of payment. D. The Storm Drainage System has been met through the Agreement dated April 3, 1974 on Page 6, Paragraph 4 and letter dated September 12, 1980 where the City of Saratoga shall install an underground storm drain from the northerly terminus of Third Street to Saratoga Creek, L. This appeal is to clarify the amount of the pro rata share of the cost for the possible traffic signal at Big Basin Way and Fourth Street, The Staff Report requests twenty -five (25) percent as the pro rata share for this application based on the opinion that the Inn would produce 2,.5% to 8% more traffic compared to a 6,000 sq,ft. restaurant previous - ly.approved for the ".site. The inn would have 45 rooms with a poss- ible 45 cars, while the restaurant would have approximately 80 cars for 250 occupants. The percentage of pro rata share is the concern of the applicants considering the area to use the intersection and also since this is a State highway there should be some state funding for the possible signaling. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT: G. It is the opinion of this office after a meeting with representatives from the Water District and Fire District that this condition was not required because it would destroy the existing landscaping and trees necessary to the preservation of the creek bank. The appeal is to omit this requirement because of the above comment and that the excavation and fill required for the access would in fact, destroy the existing Honorable Mayor and City_ Council Members City of Saratoga November 6, 1981 - Page 2 natural vegetation. Emergency access would be available for the Water District use over their access easement between the structure and the creek without a paved surface, as is normal for their needs in this area. The Fire District's decision was to have access to the structure from the Third Street side. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION C. The appeal is for clarification of exactly what portions of the public right -of -way be landscaped and irrigated, The area is not specifically mentioned and cannot be completed without clarification. There has been mention that the area is the same as Paragraph H of this division. D, The appeal for this paragraph is for clarification of the area involved, and it is assumed that it is for the area in Paragraph C and /or H, I. The appeal is for the additional parking spaces required for one employee and one passenger loading space, plus the approval of how spaces were obtained for the application, The ordinance requires parking for each room only, and even though the Planning Commission has the option to add parking spaces, the burden of the Inn on the existing Parking District is such that these extra spaces would not misuse the District. The Inn parking requirements would be considerably less than the previously app- roved restaurant. The owners of the property madea study of the existing parking spaces being used (copy enclosed) and the use is minimum. There are options in the Staff Report for obtaining parking spaces and these have been explored. The need for forty -five (45) rooms for the Inn is, and has been, a requirement for a successful project. The infor- mation presented to the Planning Commission (copy enclosed) for credits for parking for the site, along with the proposed parking layout, does provide forty -five (45) parking spaces total for this project. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT: D5. This appeal is.for the Fire Access Road over the Wallace, Melton, and Smith property. This condition is, to the knowledge of the applicant, impossible since this application does not have any control of these par- cels. Emergency access for fire apparatus per code is available at Third Street and through existing paved parking areas on these parcels. At present Parking District No. 3 is in the formation stages and is a reality only in design concept, Fire safety is paramount, and the structure will meet all safety requirements, however this condition cannot be met with- out the assistance of the City. This appeal is presented to you to assist with the approval of the project. As you know it has been accepted by the Village merchants and property owners by petition. It will be designed and constructed to be a safe and useful addition to the Village, I sincerely request that your honorable body assist with the appeal decisions of this application. Thank you. i rel , W WBH :hw cc: Martin J. Oudewaal et al WA.RRBN B. HEIR AIA 1 A N D.- A S S O C I A T E S -- z A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E S 4 1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867 - 9365' t ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION . THE INN AT SARATOGA - M. OUDEWAAL, D. SCOLARI, AND M. MANDARIC October 22, 1981 . I BASIC BUILDING REQUIREMENTS t, 1. Structure to be five (5) stories in'lieu of four (4) stories as presented, 2. Structure to be forty —five (45).,feet less in length than presented. 3. Appearance to be the same style, except one (1) story greater in height. •HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE The pad height for structure is approximately Elevation 468' and Third Street is approximately Elevation 4901, or a difference of 22'.:t,. With the average height of site as 11' -0" and the average height from that grade to average height of roof, the overall height of 341-0" for the building is within the ,.. height requirements of the ordinance, 2, The structure will be approximately 41-0" below the height of the adjacent barn ridge. PARKING AND LOADING 1 The requirement for 45 room by ordinance is 45 parking spaces, f 2. 'The agreement accepted by the City dated April 3, 1974 states on Page 5 "that the usuable area will support construction of 3,800 pl.us or minus square feet of floor space and thus necessitate eight (8) off - street parking spaces, r. therefore which spaces are credited to the site by the Off- Street Parking District". 'A 3. review of the Parking District has shown that three (3) additional spaces can be obtained at an area along the creek west of 4th Street, where existing 18 7: spaces can be restriped for compact spacing of 8' -0" wide spaces to provide 21 spaces. 4.' Under the original agreement the structure occupied by the Fun Fabrics was included as an existing structure with a requirement of four (4) parking spaces for the 1,800 sq.ft, building. With this building being removed these four .(4) spaces would be credited to the new'structure. 5.. A summary of the above for parking would be 8 from'the agreement, 3 from re-!, ., „ striping, and 4 from the removal of the existing, with a total of 15 parking , spaces. These 15 spaces, along with the 30 additional provided on the project:',''. site, would give a total of 45 parking spaces to meet the ordinance. 6. A loading space has been included in the area at Third Street giving a total. of eleven (11) spaces at Third Street, or one (1) over the accepted ten.(10) Page 1 - Response to Staff Report The Inn at Saratoga r SITE CONSTRAINTS 1 The.length.of the structure has been shortened by'45' -0 ", which will preserve the cluster of 5 oak trees, a 28" dia'.'oak tree, and several smaller trees. 2. A small deck area could be placed to the east of the structure using the', ''. creek and trees for a country setting, w i 3. ,Trees and natural ,landscaping at creek would'. be preserved with additional landscaping, such as' native Toyon, ferns,,and,Snow Berry bushes planted to maintain the natural setting. ENGINEERING SERVICES ; 1. Storm Drainage Fee of $1,928.31 has been paid for Final Map approval 2: Storm Drainage System has been met through statement on Page 6, Paragraph 4 of the Agreement dated April 3, 1974 and letter dated September 12, 1980 _ There may be some additional drainage system at the new parking area, which.:::'; can tie in with the system provided by the City of Saratoga. 3.:. A six (6) foot.walkway may be advantageous, however it would be in the,1" ',Water District Easement, and the Water District prefers to maintain the natural topography and planting as it now exists, ' 4..'Ijhe Watercourse will be kept free of any fill from construction and the. .-channel section will be maintained at any reconstruction at parking area 9, so that flow will not be retarded. ' 5:;:A bond in the amount of $8,000.00 was part•of the Final Map Approval for the site. DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES { 1.. The Soils Report for the site has been p presented to staff with recommend - ations on foundation design. 2.''County Geologist Report is on file and accepts site for structure. 3. Additional geotechnical investigation will be made for new structure `require. ments and will be presented when structure is in Plan Check stage for Build ing Permit. 4.. Final Map of site and Plat has'been filed with County Recorder. 5.. Complete working drawings, specifications, structural engineer's calculations'",'.', energy calculations, and soils report will be presented to the Building Inspection Department at time of Building Permit. ' COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 1 :: Sanitary sewer, fees in the amount of $1,269 have been pail to the District by present owners. SANTA CLARA COUNTY.HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1.. Existing septic tank used by Fun Fabrics will be pumped and backfilled to County Standards, and a $1,000,00 bond will be posted to insure completion. Page'2 - Response to Staff Report. The Inn at Saratoga SANTA,CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1. Creek vegetation will maintained and reinforced with new landscaping between building and creek, in accordance with meeting with William Carlson.. 2. Storm drainage for parking area will tie into new system installed by City— of Saratoga per agreement, and there will be no overbank drainage into creek from parking area or building, however there will be the normal and natural drainage from open landscaped area per Paragraph 1 of this section into creek. 3.• The creek section will be restored where erosion has taken place at parking area with natural rock to maintain channel section and natural appearance. 4.. Grading plans and foundation plans will be available for review prior to issuance of Building Permit. Foundation will follow the Soils Report with ..' piers and grade beam at creek. PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION 1.. Project will comply with Design Review requirements with exterior elevations same as presented for Site Approval. 2. Project will be evaluated for solar energy use, however, the heating system planned for the strucure is such that passive or natural heating or cooling. ; opportunities are limited. 3.` The project will include landscaping at pedertrian entrance at Third Street.',,.,,' SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 1. "' A meeting with Fire Chief and Water District found that an access road at creek bank was impractical due to topography and vegetation. 2.� Structure will be constructed to satisfy hotel fire protection requirements .';. with smoke enclosures at stairs at each end of building, fire sprinkler sys tem and wet standpipes each floor, smoke detection system with closures at each room to corridor and central detection panel at office /registration, and fire resistance construction per codes., Warren B. Heid AIA Architect Page 3 - Response to Staff Report The Inn at Saratoga rA J PARKING DTST. 461 TOTAT, SPACES AVAILABLE - 151 VACANT SPACES TTME THTTRS. FRI. SAT. SUN. MON. TUES. 10:00 96 94 109 1 445 12:00 67 (130 98 /10 164 79 2:00 6 1� 6 8 10.3 1.355 %,-e 7 76 +:00 67 7,-? 117 131 97 78 6:00 1106 136 / 3.3 / -4-) 11Z2 x: 00 1,Z0 1,4-77 / 3 9 1,A( % �¢ THTTRSDAY, OCT.1.5 THRU TUESDAY, OCT.20, 1981 Prepared by: Tyler /Kocher Page 1 WORTH EAST SIDE OF 4TH STREET - PARKING DIST. #1 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 48 VACANT SPACES TTME I THTTRq.! FRI- SAT. SUN. MON. TUES. SOUTH WEST SIDE OF 4TH STREET - PARKING DIS T. #1 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 103 VACANT SPACES TIME THURS. FR- SAT. SUN. MON. TUES. 0: 00 6 ........... 9 10:00 /�o 74 IJ -2: 00 .00 -37 A -7 40 40 12: 00 32 3-S 4-6 39 36 2:00 .37 2 3,5 0 37 4:00 34- 23 4-3 .'3(9 36. 36-- 6: 00 36 40 47 44 P: 00 30 4,,? 47 SOUTH WEST SIDE OF 4TH STREET - PARKING DIS T. #1 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 103 VACANT SPACES TIME THURS. FR- SAT. SUN. MON. TUES. 0: 00 6 ........... 9 74 IJ -2: 00 .00 -37 A -7 40 40 ...... ...... 6s. .93 95 66 8 39 4:00 33 49-- 7� 579 bl 6:00 70 96, 86 97 76.--. lk: 00 1 90 1 8-5 -91 99-- END OF 3RD STREET TOTAL PARKING SPACES - 10 VACANT SPACES ,TIME THURS. FRI. SAT. SUN. MON_ TUES. 0:00 6 ........... 9 2: 00 2: 00 4: 00 6. (9 --- /G ... . .. .. ... ........... 9 '7 7 7 . P: 00 - -Yo THURSDAY, OCT. 15 THRU TUESDAY, OCT. 2.0, 1.981 Tlage 2 .. � • - ... .: �+ 1i.+5Y C.t _ ` ((i� '4`S't:� it' A h-�u�i� '�'Rb �A";. � � f � r WARREN B.. HEIR AIA A N D A S .' S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S 1.4630 BIG BASIN WAY •' P.O. BO X.14 •`:. SARATOGA.� •' CALIFORNIA 95070 '. 867 -9365. PARKING INFORMATION APPEAL OF SDR -:1503 TO CITY COUNCIL Date: January'20, 1982 The following information is.presented'as additional information since the council meeting of December,l6, 1981. 1. The Santa C1ara'Valley Water District, by telephone call from William Carlson, has approved the concept of the cantilever parking for four (4)'spaces over the creek bank with approved and signed documents from the applicants relieving the Water District of•any construction costs, responsibility by the Water District or City of Saratoga, and agreeing to maintain the structure and creek bank,at this location. ` 2. Fifty percent (50 %).of the property owners in Parking District No. 1 have approved restriping for three (3) additional park- ing spaces. They represent sixty -eight (68) percent by area. (49,798 sq.ft. of 73,743•sq.ft.) and sixty -eight (68) percent of'the total assessment,($216,987.00 of $319,82.7.00). The balance of.the property owners are being contacted. Because the majority'of landowners approve I request that the City Council request PAD #1 attorney to reconsider his comments in his letter dated December 8,.1981 and accept these three (3) parking spaces. 3. The square footage for Fun Fabrics Building was not included in the square footage of the presently approved restaurant. The PAD #1 agreement reads "able to and does construct buildings. or other structures with floor spaces in excess of 3,800 sq.ft. they agree to provide such additional off - street parking spaces as may then be required-according-to the same ratio imposed ". The agreement states. "able- to arid.does construct ", which implies new construction, therefore the existing building would not be included in the total construction as agreed by previous members of the City Council that approved the restaurant. Because of this background I request that the City Council allow these four (4) spaces be credited for the use of SDR -1503. Summary on Parking 1. Parking Requirements and Spaces'Provided Restriping PAD #1 3.spaces Fun Fabric building removal' 4 Allowed by Agreement •8 Provided on -site per, drawings 30.... " spaces Parking - Page 1 of 2 pages .r, Parking Page 2 of 2 pages... r r - r r r i r r i i i i r r r r r r 2 jp0 AR-A -a�� aa-aa► a � Z � O NA LEGEND AnesnwAo aw/*/ AzrrAsr O/ssc"~/ w Ai mAer 150. A9' Porre/ DDgxi — CITY OF SARATOGA VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICT NUMBEF ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM CREEGAN AND D'ANGEL ENGINEER OF WORK Parcel Building Future Spa ces Credit Net Area for Parking Rate X4.222 Assessment Total Number Area For Credit . Ft. Assessment Parkin Far Sewer Assessment 8,950 37,791.88 1,313.00 39,10-4.82 '/2 8,950. 3, 3,200 131512.19 0 13,512.19 1/3 2,140 2,100 8,867.37 1,313.00 10,180.37 17,000 17,000 71,783.45 1,038.00 72,821.46 5 3,900 ' - 30900 161F467.97 1,158.00 17,625.97 6 1,050 1,050 41433.68 0 4,433.63 7 17,650 _ 26 11,983 5,667 23,929.23 40.00 231969.23 5,500 ; ,59500 23,224.05 0 231224.06 9 2,050 2,050 8,656.24 957.00 9,613.24 .�jp 2,000 .' = 2,000 8,445.11 1,173 9,618.11 2,200 2,200 9,289.62 0 9,2009.62 4,000 16,890.22 1,173.00 18,063.22 Y134,000 14 6,452 12 52,984.65 704.00 53,688.65 14 .191000 4+ 2 922 3,578 15,108.32 747.00. 15,855.32 > z z 0 0 D z r O _93,100 42 191357 73,743 3110384,00 90616.00 160 Public Parking Spaces 202 Total Spaces 93,100 _. 460.89 Sq. Ft./Parking Space 321,000.00 1. 1 73 3 �Sz7 June 241 1967 64 -7 The UNDERSIGNED, as property owner of a parcel or parcels-.of land that is part of Parking District No.'l in the Village Area'.of the city of Saratoga,_` agrees that the restriping.of eighteen (18) parking spaces in Parking District No. 1 to twenty -one (21) parking spaces will benefit all of the properties within Parking District No. l and not .just the pro perty for the proposed Inn at Saratoga under SDR 1503. The three.(3),.additional parking spaces will be.credited to Parcel No. 13 of Parking District No. 1 for their use to accomplish the total number of parking spaces for the Inn at Saratoga. Property Owner LT 1A40 14411 JR (4 +3A6„J WAS Address a AHn •4 Parking District No. 1 Assessment Number. The UNDERSIGNED, as. property owner of a parcel or parcels of.land that is part of Parking District. No., l in the Village Area of the city of Saratoga, agrees that the.restriping of eighteen (18) parking spaces in.Parking District No. 1 to twenty -,one (21) parking spaces will benefit all of the propertiP, s .within Parking•District.No. l and'not just the pro . perty for the proposed Inn at .Saratoga under SDR- 1503. The three (3) additional parking spaces will- be credited to Parcel No. 13 of Parking District No. � 1 for their use to accomplish the total'number of parki.ng - spaces.for the Inn at Saratoga. 0".u,. Property Owner 73.:, Address 3 Parking District No. 1 Assessment Number. Property Owner Address I0 Parking District No. 1 Assessment Number. Cam, 710 1.451.9 Big Basin Way Address 117 -04 -001 Parking District No. 1 Assessment Number. 14519 Rig Bgsin Way. Address 12 `03 -24 -030 Parking District No. 1 Assessment NLUnber. j.. ... ....,• - -. , .•....__., .. .•..�, •:r. �. yy epp 4Bt -T�7h fib•$'' .• r r '`�F :..: � TYLER /KOCHER, without proration. Close of escrow shall ba within ton (10) days after completion of the assessment Split and division hereinafter reforred to in Paragraph 2,•.;'' 1 CITY represents;,that it is purchasing said parcel to .add to its existirg Wildwood Pa.k, and is purchasing and acquiring the same under the 'threat of.eminent domain. 2.: Irediately upon the effective date of this agree- ment CITY will initiate the requisite proceedings in connection with Saratoga Village Parking District No. 1 to divide and �i split the assessment betwaen that portion of Parcel No. 2 being purchased by CITY (horeaftar called Parcel 13 -A), and °. '�hi.�� that portion of Parcel 2 being retained by TYLER /X00KER (he ie- It"^(.'i%.ji'ril -rte •.jbi.�.24' ,C4... inaftez referred to as Parcel 13 -R), go that the assessment' applicable to Parcel 13 -A will be 62.2% of the total, and ` that applicable to Parcel 13 -B will be 31.8% of the total' and the amounts remaining unpaid from and after July ], 1974 after such division shall be no more than as follows; PARCEL 13 -A (CITY) PARCF,L 13 -13 (TYL6:R 1KOC'f iR) Principal $30,653.76 Principal (parking) '$14,274.02 Interest 16,928.72 Principal (sewer) 704.00 Interest 7,,868.0S The net assessment reeuction for Parcel 13 such that the usable, area will support construction of 3,800 „• •v.1:r 4u..pr_m&jLus . s mare feet _. ... necessitate • „•- ,.;o.:.. �,...+ ..:: ' eight (8),_Q �t t.r ,t_ packing sEages:.therefor which spaces are credited to the site by the Off- Strce_ Parking District, In the event that TYLER /K0C:!ZR is le;ally able to and does_ struct buildings. fir, o her.. C.ructtt:es...c iC ,, lgor spaca ,in oacoss - of 3,8G0 sc, ft.',.t'hey aoree:-to provide,such additional off- street parking spaces as nay'then be required according to the - > am© ratio original l i qs in the establishment of Village Parking District No. 1, and in accord with the ordinances of the City, and at A ` h 1 ___...._,.. ..' •.-.._... xo .:ar.wsn.au••..c,.v.:.- .,,w... .... ; .w...... ; TYLER /KOCHER's sole cost and expenees WARREN B. HEID AIA A N D A S S O C I A" T E S A RCHITECTS . P.L'ANN.ERS 14630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867 -9365 EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS LANE INFORMATION APPEAL OF SDR -1503 TO CITY COUNCIL Date:. :January 20, 1982 The following information is presented as Additional information since the council meeting,:g9"December16, 1981. 1. Emergency Fire Access Lane Easement has been signed by Smith/ Melton. and by Chief E. Kraule , per attached copies. 2. Letter from Oudewaal et al agreeing to pay all costs for this easement and improvements to property owners, per attached .copy• Wa`fren B. Heid AIA Architect Page 1 of 1 page .._ �.. to � �i,��r i � ,,.� �`•,,, *� ��`"� °t�''��'i`' i i F.i'9 i� ,36 Ji �'" .v. �j .a, Y 1 �:rl�' 7 i.;' .:y;. Re: Application SDR -1503 The Inn at Saratoga,.. Dear Mrs. Smith and Mr.,and Mrs. Melton,. This letter is to confirm that the Undersigned applicants for the subject project will be re- sponsible for any,,and .,all costs .involved for the Emergency Fire Lane'Easement and Fire Gate, incl -. uding construction of the gate and fence at the' property line, paving of area for'sioped surface at gate or other required areas, attorney fees with regards to easement document, notary'public fees, architect's fees, and any.cost directly in- volving this work: It is understood that construct- ion costs for the fence, gate,.and paving will be paid for only.if- the.project receives approval from the City of Saratoga and the project is built. Sincerely, Martin J. Oudewaal x Daniel F. Scolari Milan Mandaric 14375 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, California MJO:hw cc: City of Saratoga Saratoga Fire.District 1 Y' 'iv i't : Y r' tfJn iF EASEMENT,FOR EMERGENCY•FIRE LANE Pearl Smith, :14493'. Big. Basin' Way, `• Saratoga,. Ca.': 95070 Thelma D. ° Melton, `.14487. Big , Basin Way- Saratoga, •. Ca... ,95070 , Borden M. Melton, 14487 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, Ca: 95070 ; Grant cone I ; P ;. � :' convey,., and'-dedicate ',,to SARATOGA =FIRE. DISTRICT a . ublic district, an..easement'for:an Emergency Fire .Lane and Fire :Gate purposes in; ".:upon, `over, and across.•those: certain real. properties in the'City of. Saratoga, County, of,. Santa', Clara #,�State.of Calif - ornia ' for em ergency;:vehicle` use•. in times of: need�`only for these'`;. •:.•,, °•.,.,,' parcels and surrounding - parcels, , with 'said parcels -..for •the -ease ment known,,... and described`'aa follows: Smith Parcel,- located at 14493 Big Basin Way;• Saratoga, Ca. 95070, with Accessor 's. Parcel ;Number`503 -24- 015..' Melton Parcel, located. 'at 14487..Big Basin Way, Saratoga,.Ca. 95070, with Accessor s Parcel Number., 503 -24- 014... It is also ,agreed, that this Emergency' Fire. Lane Easement shall be.' for emergency, use only• and.. -not - for • public . right- .of -way. The drive - ways shall•be those.as shown on the Plat on Page,2'of this''document with said driveways. serving as the fire.•lanes.:.. The new, fire gate and fence :;,-located at the: adjacent. property -lines as shown on Page.;:... '2 of• this'document: and detailed'on:Page 3 of this document; shall. be locked ' with', Fire; District'lpck' and ,'shall' remain' locked except.• for- emergency use. Dated this' 20 VA °day •rof _.. -re- Page 1 of 3 pages. Emergency Fire Lane Easement BIG BASIN WAY PLAT FOR EMERGENCY FIRE LANE - EASEMENT BETWEEN BORDEN'M..AND THELMA MELTON, AND PEARL SMITH AND SARATOGA.FIRE DISTRICT Page 2 of 3 pages Initial Garages Par ing �-- Emergency, Gate ,Vehicle Emergency;Ivire'.L ne'Easement. Par ing s~ 0 Carport 4-) a . �. . Q W ro • Building ig •' Building,' w w c• I E-4 .. a. q U) Ln A4 -H tT � N M ' 0 N 44 AO t7T M O Oo •rj rt3. 1 44 W t)) M W ro ON to Oro Z ar� I rU tb to 0W41 wZ. n croa j 4 w4 BIG BASIN WAY PLAT FOR EMERGENCY FIRE LANE - EASEMENT BETWEEN BORDEN'M..AND THELMA MELTON, AND PEARL SMITH AND SARATOGA.FIRE DISTRICT Page 2 of 3 pages Initial C7Ht�1iH cntZwtz��!! " Z 0 U Hw6G a 14 t� - p �z t1i �a - tl • tx tai UiLu a H sP ul _ �Hvi 0 tai X-0 0 : ��— HNtdW .. 1:rdt4E -._ :.