HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. - `11 � AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 1996 CITY MGR.:
li
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Approval of Design Services Agreement for Saratoga Avenue
Signal Improvements - Capital Project No. 9605
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to approve the Design Services proposal from CCS, Inc., and
authorize staff to issue a standard professional services agreement
for the work.
Report Summary:
Attached for Council approval is a Design Services proposal from
CCS, Inc. (the TETAP Consulting firm) for the Saratoga
Ave. /Scotland Dr. Traffic Signal and the modifications to the
Saratoga Ave. /Fruitvale Ave. intersection and traffic signal, both
of which constitute the recently established Capital Project No.
9605. Staff is satisfied with each of the elements of the proposal
and recommends its approval by the City Council so design work can
begin at this time. Although the proposal suggests a 14 week time
frame for the design work, staff believes this can be compressed to
10 weeks so that the project will be ready to bid in mid -June.
Assuming signal hardware equipment can be ordered ahead of time and
on hand for when the contractor is ready to proceed, construction
should be complete and the new signal operational by the end of
August.
Fiscal Impacts•
Total design fees are proposed at $18,000 which includes
construction support services. The approved project budget
contains $20,000 for this work.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The Design Services proposal will not be approved and design work
will not begin. The obvious implications of this are that the
project schedule would be delayed by an unknown amount of time.
Follow Up Actions:
A standard Professional Services Agreement will be executed and the
Consultant will be authorized to proceed.
Attachments:
1. Design Services proposal from CCS, Inc. dated March 14.
March 14, 1996
CCS057 -96
Larry Perlin
Public Works Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Saratoga /Scotland and Saratoga / Fruitvale Signals
Dear Larry:
JLL ccs
IFPLANNING AND ENGINEERING
H C J F 0
Corporate Headquarters
42080 Ospod Road. Saile Ohre
brenronl. Californria9i531
5101656 -7091 • Fax 510/056-38_25
This letter presents CCS's proposal to design a new traffic signal at the Saratoga/Scotland intersection
and modifications to the existing signal at the Saratoga/Fruitvale intersection. A detailed scope of work
is attached as Exhibit A. The following sections present a fee and schedule for CCS to complete the two
designs.
The proposed CCS staff is Steve Fitzsimons, Project Manager: John Gildea, Senior Reviewer; Matthew
Jue and David Kobayashi, Designers; and support staff. The project manager will attend all project
meetings, and will lead the design effort. The senior reviews will be scheduled before each submittal,
and will include a field review before submittal of the draft plans. Matt will provide input on signal
timing and coordination issues, and David will provide design support.
Fee
CCS Planning and Engineering will complete the two designs for a lump sum fee of $18,000.00. ($9,000
for Saratoga/Scodand, $6,000 for Saratoga/Fruitvale, $1,000 for initial timing plans, and $2,000 for
services during construction.) This fee assumes CCS will use survey information collected by the City
or AsBuilt plans as the basis for base mapping. Also, this fee assumes a completely updated traffic signal
plan will be'prepared for the Saratoga/Fruitvale intersection, since work will be required on at least 3
of the 4 quadrants.
Schedule
The proposed schedule for this project is presented in Table 1 below. A two week period is anticipated
for the CFrY to review every milestone deliverable. Overall we anticipate a 14 week period to prepare
a bid -able set of documents.
s:\057- 96\covax.we0
a 4 ...
Larry Perlin
March 14, 1996
Page 2
Table 1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Please give me a call if you need any additional information or detail to evaluate this proposal.
Otherwise we look forward to working with you again.
Sincerely,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Steve Fitzsimons, P.E.
Senior Engineer
e:\057- %\CovER.weo
NUMBER OF WEEKS FROM
TASK
Atn'eOR mnoN TO
PROCEED
1.
Data Collection, Field
Review, and Coordination
with City Staff
a. Initial Meeting and
1
Data Collection
b. Field
1
Reconnaissance
C. Project Management
Ongoing
2.
Draft Design
6
3.
Pre-Final PS &E
10
4.
Final PS &E
14
5.
Bid and Construction
22
Services
Please give me a call if you need any additional information or detail to evaluate this proposal.
Otherwise we look forward to working with you again.
Sincerely,
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
Steve Fitzsimons, P.E.
Senior Engineer
e:\057- %\CovER.weo
Exhibit A
CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 1 - DATA COLLECTION, FIELD REVIEW, PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The purpose of this task is to exchange information pertaining to the project, confirm the work scope, and
monitor and report on the project status.
1.1 - Initial Meeting and Data Collection
CCS shall schedule an initial meeting with CITY staff to discuss issues, concerns and requirements of this
project. CCS shall prepare an agenda to request any available background information such as the items
listed below:
► As -Built improvement plans
► Aerial photographs
► Accident Records if applicable
► Utility information and contacts
► Right -of -way information
At the initial meeting, CCS shall discuss design standards and issues and confirm the project format, such
as the ones listed below, for project deliverables.
► Border and title block layout
► Sample of Signal Plans
► Sample of Specifications
► Special design details and requirements
► Special bid documents
1.2 - Field Reconnaissance
CCS shall perform a comprehensive field review which includes the following activities:
► Verify surface features on "As- Built" plans.
► Take photos and necessary measurements of existing field conditions.
► Identify visible utility installations that may conflict with signal poles.
Based on the field review and the above information, CCS shall develop base plans for the project
intersection. The base plans shall be sent to the utility companies for verification of the locations of utility
lines. CCS staff shall ensure coordination between proposed signal equipment and utilities.
The base maps shall indicate critical approach widths, lane widths, existing channelization, driveways,
trees, surface utility equipment, street lighting, existing and proposed crosswalks, and overhead utility
lines. A recommended signal phase diagrams and locations for signal poles shall also be shown.
Deliverables: Three half size prints (11 "x17 ") of base plans with existing conditions, right -of -way,
above - ground utilities, recommended pole locations, and phase diagrams shown.
A -1
TASK 2 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2.1 - Draft Plan (80% submittal)
Once lane configuration and signal phasing are approved, draft signal design plans shall be prepared
consisting of four drawings depicting the following information:
Drawing One - Saratoga / Scodand Signal Installation Plan
► General and project notes
► Proposed signal phasing diagram
► Controller, service cabinet, signal heads, and signal pole locations
► Types, locations and designations of detectors
► Existing right -of -way lines
► Sizes and locations of conduit runs and the associated pull boxes
► Prepared at V=20' scale
Drawing Two - Saratoga /Scotland Signal Installation
► Equipment Schedules
► Conductor Schedules
Drawing Three - Saratoga/Fruitvale Signal Modification Plan
► Proposed signal phasing diagram
► Controller, service cabinet, signal heads, and signal pole locations
► Types, locations and designations of detectors
► Existing right -of -way lines
► Sizes and locations of conduit runs and the associated pull boxes
► Existing and proposed pedestrian- related signing and striping
► Modifications to existing signing and striping
► Prepared at 1" =20' scale
Drawing Four - Saratoga/Fruitvale Signal Installation
► Equipment Schedules
► Conductor Schedules
CCS staff shall identify any additional rights -of -way or permits required to construct, operate and maintain
the proposed signals. This scope assumes City staff will provide applications, drawings and legal
descriptions for required additional right -of -way or to obtain easements, if required
Deliverables: Draft signal design plans (11 "x17" submittal)
Preliminary construction cost estimate
TASK 3 - PRE -FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES - 95% submittal
In this task, CCS shall prepare detailed design plans, specifications and construction cost estimates
(PS&E), incorporating review comments on conceptual plans. The PS &E shall include:
P. Design drawings as described in Task 2 with City comments incorporated
A -2
► Technical special provisions for the traffic signal and striping work
► Estimate of quantities
' Updated estimate of construction cost
All plans shall be prepared using AutoCAD version 12 format. The PS&E package shall include half size
drawings and be submitted for the CTTY staff's review.
Deliverable: Pre -Final PS &E (11 "x17" plan size)
TASK 4 - FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES
The purpose of this task is to finalize bid documents for bid by contractors.
CCS shall meet with the CITY staff to review comments on the Pre-Final PS&E. Based on the
discussions and decisions made at the meeting, CCS shall prepare the Final PS&E for the signal and
striping work All final plans and documents shall be reviewed and signed by a registered engineer in the
State of California.
Deliverables: One set of reproducible project plans (Mylar, plus CAD files on disk)
One reproducible set of technical special provisions
Final quantities for bidding
Engineer's estimate of construction costs
TASK 5 - BID AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
CCS shall provide assistance to CITY during the bidding process. Services will include providing initial
signal timing plans for the two intersections, to establish parameters such as minimum and maximum
green times, pedestrian settings, detector extensions, and fixed -time offsets and splits, etc. Potential
additional services may include answering inquiries from bidders, or assisting in issuing addenda as needed
during the bid period.
CCS staff shall also be available to provide CITY with the following services during construction:
► Review shop drawings and vendor submittals on equipment and materials submitted by the
Contractor,
► Resolve changes or conflicts in the design,
►
Fine tuning of signal timing plan.
Since it is not possible to anticipate the required level of effort for this task, this Agreement assumes 24
hours labor (initial timing plans will require an 8 hour effort). Services requested by the City in excess
of 24 hours labor will be considered as extra work CCS shall not perform Task 5 work without written
authorization from City.
CITY SERVICES
WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS: The City will do the following:
• Prepare roadway improvement plans, including handicapped ramps
• Prepare a title sheet
A -3
• Prepare the bid forms, bond forms, and general provisions
• Provide available AsBuilt Road and Right-of- -Way information
• Provide plats and legal descriptions if required
A-4
1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Q� AGENDA ITEM +5 1 6)
MEETING DATE: April 3, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE
SUBJECT: 1995/96 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolution amending the Fiscal Year
1995/96 Budget.
Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1995/96
Budget for a supplemental appropriation from Fund 16 - Hillside
Repair (unreserved fund balance) for emergency repair work
performed on Damon Lane, Project No. 8506 - Tract No. 6701. Also
included with the resolution are a Budget Resolution Supporting
Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule for your consideration.
An explanation supporting the resolution has been provided by the
Public Works Director in the attached memorandum.
This resolution has no impact to the General Fund. There is
sufficient balance available in Fund 16 - Hillside Repair to
finance the supplemental appropriation.
Fiscal Impacts: Overall expenditures for Fund 16 - Hillside Repair
increase by $11,476.00.
Follow Up Actions: None.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Outstanding
vendor invoices, authorized under emergency measures, will not be
paid.
Attachments
c: \execsumm \exsm0329.96
1
TO: Finance Director
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Emergency Repair Work on Damon Lane in Tract No. 6701
DATE: March 26, 1996
On March 21, I authorized Sunstone Construction Co. of Campbell to
perform emergency repair work on Damon Lane in Tract No. 6701.
Specifically, Sunstone was authorized to install temporary shoring
using a Helix anchoring system along a portion of the concrete
retaining wall above the road. (For a complete summary of the work
authorized, see the attached proposal from Sunstone dated March
20.) The wall was severely stressed due to the recent activation
of a landslide above it, and it was my opinion that absent these
emergency shoring efforts, the wall would have failed potentially
resulting in damage to both public and private property. On March
22 and 23, Sunstone completed the emergency work at a cost of
$11,476.
The purpose of this memo is twofold. First, it is to serve as a
report to the City Council of the circumstances of the emergency,
the services procured to respond to the emergency, and the costs
thereof, as required by City Code Section 2- 45.070(c). Second, it
is to request that you prepare the necessary Resolution and
supporting documentation to transfer $11,476 from the Fund 16
(Hillside Road Repair) balance into Capital Project No. 8506 (Tract
6701 Repairs) , Account No. 4510 (Contract Services) , to provide the
authorization and funding for the completed repair work. Per the
aforementioned City Code section, the Resolution is to appear on
the agenda for the next regular City Council meeting, in this case,
April 3.
If you need any additional information concerning this, please let
me know.
,'
Larry Il P rlin
S " �e
CM OF SARATOGA MUMG1BNC Y B
ML11N-7t NMI i ON,) I"toIM- 46 1 m11 Iii.
IL76 G llmam Ave.
OFIT11-1 .0,
I "I1)11,1t ( .�u)1)
City of Saratoga
Fruitdale Ave.
Saratoga Ca. 95030
Attention: John Chourbone
Office (408) 867 -3438
RE: Emergency repairs @ Damon La. retainingwall (upper) landslide Saratoga Ca.
Construct temporary shoring utilizing 8 Helix tie -backs & I -beams ® the face of the
retainingwall adjacent to Damon Ln. being affected by the landslide. Due to time constraints
and the unkown depths and scope of the landslide there are no guarantees express or
implied as to the adequacy of the proposed shoring. This work should be considered
temporary and is not a long term solution to the active landsliding.
Temporary Shoring:
1 Install 8, SS-5 Helix tie -backs depth determined at installation price per ft. installed $45.00
includes installation equipment, labor & material.
Sunstone Labor Rates
for the balance of the project:
1 Formen $50.00 per hr.
2 Carpenter $45.00 per hr.
3 Laborer $37.00 per hr.
Material•
I Material is cost plus 20% contractors markup-
* NOT TO EXCEED $14,000.00 WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM CITY OF SARATOGA
See all notes on following page:
Pqp 1
. 4cc r. 9 I (a 0 - 45"10 — $50& �,u
d A. 3. Cha=8
Pawadadon Canbodna
'7 • •' '".".e
MY OF SAIlBATOGA EMMGMqCy 2
*Note 1 excluded from this estimate or to be by others are the following:
1 Soils /Structural engineering, or inspections or special inspections (by owner).
2 Plans or specifications, perrnit or plan check or their associated fees by owner.
3 Calling for inspections for Engineers or building authorities by owner.
4 Locating of all underground utilities, pipes or conduits etc. and there removal or protection
S Access provisions for Ingress or egress to construction areas.
6 Cosmetic repair to the primary residence or any appurtenant structures.
7 Landscape or landscape irrigation repair or replacement of any kind.
8 Construction or supply of material of any kind not listed in this estimate.
9 Driveway repair or replacement.
10 Code upgrades, asbestos abatement
11 Concrete flatwork replacement i.e. walkways, curb & gutter, roadways, driveways etc.
CX a Poundac a ccmflamsmmr
TOTAL P.03
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��� 4 AGENDA ITEM �Q
MEETING DATE: April 3, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT. Cc mun' y Dev lopment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a Use Permit approval
request by Mr. & Mrs. Kolotouros; 20201 Merida Dr.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appellants' request and uphold the Planning Commission's
denial of the Use Permit request.
Report Summary:
Request for Use Permit approval to continue operation of a
nonconforming commercial trucking business from the residence at
20201 Merida Drive. The subject property is 20,878 square feet in
size and is located in an R- 10,000 zoning district.
Use Permits have been granted for this business in the past. The
most recent permit expired in October of 1992, and since that time
the business has been operating without a Use Permit.
Summary of Planning Commission Action:
This application was first scheduled for the Planning Commission
meeting of February 14, 1996, but was continued due to the late
hour of that meeting. The Planning Commission then reviewed the
application at the meeting of February 28, 1996.
As the attached minutes reflect, the Commission concurred with
staff's determination that continued use of the property for a
commercial trucking business was not compatible with the nature of
the residential district. The required findings could not be made
to support continuation of the nonconforming use and the proposal
did not comply with the applicable zoning regulations. The
application was denied by a vote of 7 -0.
Appeal:
Mr. & Mrs. Kolotouros stated in their grounds for appeal that they
felt the Commission considered irrelevant issues and they did not
respond effectively.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission gave the request careful consideration at
the public hearing meeting. They visited the subject property
prior to the meeting date and assessed existing site conditions.
Ultimately they found that the required findings could not be made
to approve the Use Permit request to continue the nonconforming
business. Staff is recommending that the Council uphold the
Planning Commission's denial of the Use Permit request.
Public Notice:
A public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject parcel and published in the Saratoga News.
Follow Up Actions:
A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action
which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council
meeting.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission minutes dated February 28, 1996
2. Resolution UP -95 -008
3. Correspondence
4. Staff Report dated February 14, 1996 (with attachments)
5. Photos submitted by applicant
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 1996
PAGE - 9 -
allow the applicant to consider the comments expressed this evening.
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the tentative parcel map request
before the Commission was a discretionary action and that the division of land must still
meet the intent of land planning and development of the area, even if the request meets all
technical code requirements.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS SD -95 -009 AND V -95 -014 TO MARCH 13, 1996. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0).
Community Development Director Curtis asked if the only alternative that would be
acceptable to the Commission was a guest house without a kitchen?
Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not oppose the lot split if it can be designed in
a different way to allow the integrity of the existing structure to remain the same, even it
requires the approval of a variance.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not opposed to a lot line split so long as a
condition was stipulated that would restrict the size of the home on the second lot.
Planner Walgren informed the Commission that it could place restrictions on the new parcel
relating to the new home to be built (i.e.,design, location, height and square footage, etc.).
Community Development Director Curtis stated that should the Commission approve a lot
split with recorded restrictions, that the only way the condition(s) could be amended was to
return to the Commission for the approval of an amendment.
4. UP -95 -008 - KOLOTOUROS; 20201 MERIDA DR.; Request for Use Permit approval
to allow a nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a
residential zoning district. The subject property. fronts onto Merida Dr. and abuts
Prospect Rd. to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878 sq. ft. in
size and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (cont. from 2/14/96 to late hour;
City review deadline is 7/22/96).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that the continued use of the
business would not be compatible with the nature of the residential district and does not
meet the criteria that is necessary to approve a conditional use permit. Therefore, staff
recommended denial of the use permit request. He informed the Commission that a letter
was included in the packet that was unsigned in opposition to the request. Also, letters were
distributed to the Commission this evening from neighbors supporting the continuation of
the operation and one additional letter in opposition to the request.
Commissioner Asfour indicated that it would have been beneficial to hear from the two
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 1996
PAGE - 10 -
adjoining neighbors and that he would not consider the unsigned letter in opposition to the
request.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:51 p.m.
Maria Kolotouros, wife of the applicant, furnished the Commission with photographs of the
area. She stated that she hoped that the Commission had the opportunity to read the letters
in support from the neighbors. She also hoped that the one anonymous letter received would
not carry as much weight as the letters from the neighbors in support. She stated that any
noise generated by the use would be drowned out by the constant noise from the freeway.
She indicated that there has never been a violation of the Fuel Storage Ordinance. The
violation addressed by staff was due to the removal of the underground fuel tanks. She
apologized for not informing the City of the removal of the tanks. It was her belief that the
constant fumes from the freeway was a much bigger problem than the use of the trucks. She
informed the Commission that it has been difficult to find commercial property to park the
trucks and if a lot was found, they could not afford the rental price.
Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Kolotouros how long her family would be requesting
renewal of the use permit? Ms. Kolotouros responded that her husband was at a retiring
age and that once he retires (approximately seven years), the business would cease.
Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she was not opposed to individuals maintaining home
offices and other kinds of home occupations. She asked why the business could not be
conducted out of the home and that the trucks be parked in a different location. Ms.
Kolotouros indicated that she could not afford the rental fees required to park three trucks.
Jim Kolotouros, son of the applicants, spoke on behalf of his father. He informed the
Commission that his father wished to thank the City for allowing him to maintain the family
business for 25 years. He indicated that in a few years this use would cease due to the
retirement of his father and that neither of the sons plan to take over the business. For the
past ten years, the family has actively and aggressively searched for an alternative place to
park the trucks. As this was a small business, it has always been prohibitively expensive to
find the funds to lease a parking space. He indicated that his family has worked hard over
the past years to address concerns raised and that they have tried to be good neighbors. He
felt that the individual who wrote the anonymous letter did not understand the situation.
He requested that the Commission take into consideration those comments of the neighbors
in support of the use. His family would continue to address any issues or concerns that may
be raised. He requested that the use be allowed to continue for a short while longer.
Commissioner Patrick asked why Mr. Kolotouros (father) could not park the trucks where
he commutes to work. Jim Kolotouros responded that most places do not allow for truck
parking and that rental costs were prohibitive.
Peter Kolotouros, elder son of the applicants, indicated that he did not receive a copy of the
letter of concern received this evening. He indicated that his family would address any
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 1996
PAGE - 11 -
issues of concerns expressed. He informed the Commission that there were few places that
would allow trucks to park due to zoning restrictions and that the business has been reduced
from eight trucks to four trucks.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 9:09 P.M.
Commissioner Siegfried recollected that the City allowed the Kolotouros to park their trucks
at this location until such time that the freeway opened. He remembered that this property
was once used as farm property with farm equipment stored on site. Therefore, the City
justified the
parking of the trucks on a short term basis. He stated that he could not support the
continued use in a residential area.
Commissioner Kaplan commended Mr. and Mrs. Kolotouros on raising two fine sons. She
indicated that at the site visit, she was immediately struck by the gasoline fumes and noticed
that there was a broken truck left on site. She acknowledged that the property was located
adjacent to Highway 85 but that the issue was the use on this property. She noted that the
applicant has stated that the trucks could not be parked elsewhere due to zoning restrictions.
She asked why the City was being asked to violate its own zoning regulations. She stated
that normally she would not put much credence to an anonymous letter. However, she
could understand that there are situations where neighbors do not want to precipitate an
argument with a neighbor. Therefore, she would give credence to the anonymous letter. She
stated that she could not support the use permit.
Commissioner Patrick acknowledged that this business has been around for a long time.
She indicated that she also smelled fumes at the site visit. She stated that as years went by,
it was noticed that the trucks kept being parked closer and closer to the home and that the
trucks were know being parked in the driveway. She indicated that she could not support
the continuation of the use.
Commissioner Pierce indicated that he drove by the property and observed that the site
appeared to be well cared for. He agreed that the time has ran out for the continued use
of the property as a business. With the completion of the freeway, he could not see any
reason to grant the use permit.
Commissioner Abshire noted that the Kolotouros family has conducted a successful business
over the past several .years. However, the use was incompatible with the area and the
neighborhood. He felt that the time has run out for its use and that it was time for the
family to change the operation.
Chairman Murakami stated that he respected the family for all the time that they have been
in this area. He felt that the time has come for this business to let go and cease the
operation in this location.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 1996
PAGE - 12 -
Commissioner Asfour indicated that he has driven by the business for the past 13 years and
that the applicant should be commended for maintaining a clean operation. He indicated
that he was inclined not-to approve the request.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK
NO. UP -95 -008, DENYING THE USE
UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0).
MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
PERMIT: THE MOTION CARRIED
Community Development Director Curtis indicated that whether the Commission's decision
is appealed or not and if the appeal is denied by the City Council, continued operation
would result in violations and that citations would be issued. However, staff would work
with the applicant to give them a reasonable time to correct the violations.
THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:15 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT
9:30 P.M.
Commissioner Asfour recommended that items 5 and 6 be combined as one public hearing
with a vote being taken separately.
5. DR -95 -054 - MAXIM INVESTMENTS; 28000 AUDREY SMITH LANE;
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,037 sq. ft. two -story
residence on a vacant 51,054 sq. ft. hillside parcel. The subject property is lot #1 of
the Audrey Smith Subdivision and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
6. DR -95 -052 - MAXIM WVESTMENTS; 28021 AUDREY SMITH LANE;
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,759 sq. ft. two -story
residence on a vacant 44,893 sq. ft. hillside parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
The subject property is lot #4 of the Audrey Smith Subdivision and is located within
the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on agenda items 5 and 6. He noted that Lot 1
would require the removal of three ordinance protected trees. Their removal was anticipated
when the map was approved for this subdivision. The remaining thirty ordinance protected
trees would be retained. The City arborist has provided a replacement value for the trees
to be removed and that this condition has been incorporated in the resolution of approval.
Also, the city arborist's measures for tree protection, including the relocation of utility lines,
modifications of lawn areas, etc., have also been incorporated as conditions of approval. The
issues relating to lot 4 were similar and were primarily related to tree protection matters
that have been incorporated in the conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of
both design review applications.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Bill Hershman, 1190 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, applicant, informed the Commission that
Mr. McKay, project designer, was present to answer any questions which the Commission
RESOLUTION NO. UP -95 -008
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DENIAL OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Kolotouros; 20201 Merida Dr.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Use Permit approval to maintain a nonconforming
trucking business and truck storage yard in a residential zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof
required to support said application, and the following findings
have been determined:
(a) That the proposed trucking operation is not in accordance
with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the
residential district in which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed trucking operation and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained would be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, and would be materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed trucking operation will not comply with
each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 15 -65 of the City
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the. City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the application for
Use Permit, exhibits and correspondence submitted in connection
with this matter, the application of Kolotouros for Use Permit
approval be and the same is hereby denied.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
File No. UP -95 -008: 20201 Merida Drive
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 28th day of February 1996 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Abshire;-Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce & Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Ch ers7 PI—anning ommission
ATTEST:
Secreta , Planning ommission
G.K. Trucking
Building Materials
November 12, 1995
City of Saratoga
Planning Commission
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Request for extension of Resolution No. UP -91 -001; Use permit for Kolotouros, 20201, Merida Drive
This letter is to request a review by the Saratoga Planning Department for the extension of a Use Permit
granted by the City of Saratoga, Resolution No. UP -91 -001. G.K. Trucking would like to amend the
expired Permit to reduce the number of vehicles permitted to park at 20201 Merida Drive from three
vehicles to one.
As of November 12, 1995, we were able to speak to all of our most affected neighbors (3 total) regarding
any outstanding concerns with the business as it exists today. We also had the pleasure to speak to our
newest neighbor located at 12035 Marilla Drive regarding recent concerns about the parking of one truck
near the adjoining fence. In our discussion we all came to the agreement that the truck would no longer
be parked by the fence resolving all concerns raised in the last few weeks.
As outlined in the original request dated February 12, 1991, I would like to run the business with the one
truck until my retirement. The truck is my only means of income and I am not at the point in my life
where I can start my business from ground zero. I am now 61 years of age and the business will cease
when I am no longer able to operate it. Pending any outstanding concerns from my neighbors, I feel my
request to be reasonable and in accordance with previous rulings by the City Council. Especially
considering the unique circumstances and history of 20201 Merida Drive.
Thank you for considering our request. If there are any questions, current or past outstanding concerns
from any of our neighbors please feel free to contact us at (408) 252 -5984. We look forward to discussing
this renewal request further with the City in the near future.
Sincerely,
/% u vhf'
George and Maria Kolotouros
20201 Merida Drive Saratoga - California 95070 (408) 252 -5984
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn.: Planning Commission
Heather Bradley
Dear Heather,
FEB 0,2 1996
PLHIVIV 114k-i UtPT.
I am responding to the notice of hearing scheduled for February 14, 1996, in
which a residence is requesting permission to operate a trucking business out
of their home. I am a neighbor and don't want to get my family involved in
a neighborhood dispute, therefore I am writing this letter anonymously.
It was my understanding that these people had agreed to discontinue operating
their business out of their residence as soon as the freeway went in. That
never happened and they have continued to drive their trucks through the
neighborhood when leaving or returning home. They also spend time in the
evenings and weekends making repairs to their trucks, this can get quite noisy
at times. Most of this activity is during thespring, summer and fall months
but is not limited to those times.
I am concerned for the safety of my children because of the people that are
hired to drive and maintain the trucks. This is a business consisting of
several very large trucks.
I am sure that this operation has a very negative effect on the value of our
homes and there are many other reasons this business should not be allowed to
operate out of a residence. There are no benefits to anyone except to the
owners and the people they hire.
Please dont assume that if people don't complain openly that they condone
this activity. I beg you to stand behind your former position and reject
the request for a use permit.
FEB 12 1996
PLANNINU DEPT.
Mr. and Mrs. Paul & Sue Wang
20211 Merida Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 253 -0188
February 10, 1996
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Our names are Paul and Sue Wang. We currently reside at 20211 Merida Drive in Saratoga, and have
lived there approximately 4 years. Our residence is directly adjacent to the home of George and Maria
Kolotouros, on the eastern side of our property line. We are writing this letter to express our hope that the
Kolotouros family receive the permit they are requesting. We would also like to state that we consider the
Kolotouros family to be excellent and thoughtful neighbors, who have gone out of their way to contribute
to the creation of a neighborhood environment that we are fortunate to be a part of.
We believe that the Kolotouros household behaves in a manner that is very considerate of our concerns as
residents and parents. We have one son and one daughter who currently attend Lynbrook High School.
We have never felt that our children's safety was threatened in any way by the Kolotouros' going to and
from work. In all honesty, we are much more worried about those residents who drive too quickly around
our neighborhood streets, threatening children, pedestrians, and drivers alike. There has never been a
case where we felt our privacy was violated by high noise levels or household chores they were performing
on their property. When we first moved to 20211 Merida, we were of course aware that a truck was
parked in our neighbors yard. We considered it to be a non -issue however, just as parking a recreational
vehicle in one's yard would be a non - issue. To put it simply, we consider the Kolotouros family to be
good neighbors.
When we moved to Saratoga, our hope was that we would find a safe and healthy environment to raise our
children. We consider ourselves very fortunate that one of our neighbors is the Kolotouros family,
because they share these same values, and have worked with the community to make Saratoga a better
place to live. Once again, we request that the Planning Commission approve the permit they are seeking.
Thank you for your time.
nicer ,
Hill a
r
FEB 12 1996
PLANNING DEPT.
12182 Kirkbrook Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
February 11, 1996
City of Saratoga
Planning Comnission Members
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Planning Conmission Members:
Our names are Donald and Shirley Goss. We have lived at 12182
Kirkbrook Drive, Saratoga for nearly 25 years. We travel every day
on Kirkbrook Drive to Merida Drive to Covina Court and onto Prospect.
Mr. & Mrs. George Kolotouros live at 20201 Merida Drive which we
pass by everyday. Miere have .never been any traffic problems, noise
problems or any public nuisance caused by trucks being parked in the
Rolotouros' yard. They have a unique corner lot and the large parking
area behind their house is not visible from the street so area residents
are never aware of the trucks.
The Kolotouroes make their living with these trucks, we know then
personally, and they are honest hard-working people. They have sent
two sons to universities in the area. They have.been in business 45 years.
We urge you to renew their expired permit and let their continue working
in peace until their retirement. They should not be deprived of making
a living.
We are sorry that we are unable to attend this meeting due to prior
commitments. Please exercise good judgment in making your decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Donald C. Gross
Shirley ss
FEB 12 1996
PLANNINU DEPT.
February 10, 1996
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Hearing UO -95- 008 - Kolotouros 20201 Merida Drive
Dear Planning Department Members:
My family has lived at 20255 Merida Drive since 1972 and are 3 doors from the
Kolotouros family. We have never been bothered by their trucking business. They have
reduced the number of trucks they have to only one or two.
The Kolotouros property is very unique. It's completely surrounded by walls so
that nothing can be seen from the neighborhood. Anything going on behind their walls is
their business, just like in your own bedrooms and backyard.
The Kolotouros family should be able to do what they want with their own
property. They have made and continue to make every effort possible to be good
neighbors. They have come and asked us how they could be better neighbors many times,
and they have always respected any recommendations we could make. We only wish all
our neighbors were so willing to ask how they could make the neighborhood better.
We do not and have never felt that they operate their vehicles in an unsafe manner.
We cannot say the same for other neighbors in the community who think of Merida Drive
as their personal race track. Just last week, a reckless driver drove up onto my lawn for
perhaps the 20'h time in the years we have lived at 20255 Merida. We think that if every
driver was as cautious and safe as George Kolotouros, the roads would be much safer
than they are now.
We recommend they receive the permit they are seeking until Mr. Kolotouros
retires and we hope they can live happily ever after. Their boy's are choosing a different
line of work and will not continue their trucking business.^
Douglas & Barbara Frandsen
cc: File
Mr. and Mrs. George & Maria Kolotouros
FEB 12 1996
PLANiviivu utPT.
Mr. and Mrs. Allen C. & Beth L. Stitt
12055 Kirkwood Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
February 11, 1996
Saratoga Planning Commission
City Offices
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We have been owners of 12055 Kirkwood Drive, Saratoga since 1969. We are directly
across the street from the Kolotouros property. We have never had a problem with noise
or traffic with them. They have always been considerate, cooperative and wonderful
neighbors during the 26 years we have known and lived next to them.
We hope that the Saratoga Planning Commission will approve their permit and let them
remain as long as it is necessary for Mr. Kolotouros to continue his livelihood until his up-
and- coming retirement.
Sincerely,
Allen C. &
Beth L. Stitt
let
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Planning Commission:
1< : Marilla Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
February 12, 1996
RECEIVED
FEB 13 1996
PLANNING DEPT.
We regret that we did not meet the Thursday deadline to have our letter included in
your information packets, however, we hope that you will consider our correspondence
regarding UP -95 -008 (APN 386 -45 -075), the request for use permit approval to allow a
nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a residential zoning
district. We are unable to attend the public hearing on February 14, 1996.
The property requesting approval for this permit is on a neighboring street, and there
are no other commercial businesses. We had noticed the trucking business as a result of
numerous occasions when the trucks have blocked the street as they are backing onto
the residential property. Additionally, we have heard repairs being performed on the
trucks and have noticed the increase in diesel fumes. When walking down the street on
the weekend, it is obvious that the activity is not a result of traffic on Highway 85 or
Prospect Road, but results from the trucking business. It is obvious that trucks are
parked and repaired on an daily basis on this property.
Most residents use Covina and then Merida to approach their homes, as do many
students on their way to Blue Hills School. This street is the most direct way for many
of our neighbors to approach their homes, in addition to providing quickest access to
Prospect Road, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Highway 85 and Blue Hills School. The
traffic on this small residential street can be more than it appears from reviewing a city
map.
There is no reason to have the added traffic in this residential neighborhood, not to
mention the additional noise and air pollution. We strongly oppose the zoning use
variation requested by the owners of the residential property. We understand that the
business has had a permit in the past, however,. there has been sufficient warning that
this permit would expire and that this business would need to find other property for
the trucks. We appreciate the requester's position, however, a commercial trucking
business should not be run from our neighborhood.
Regards,
Pam and flick Ehrlich
RECEIVED
MAR 131996
Planning Commission 3311 Cove Circle PLANNING DEPT.
City of Saratoga Stockton, Ca. 95204
13777 Fruitvale Avenue March 8, 1996
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
RE; UP -95 -008 (APN 386 -45 -075) - Kolotouros; 20201 Merida Dr.
Dear Planning Commission:
We regret that we did not meet the deadline for the meeting to have our letter in with your information packet,
however, we hope that you will consider our correspondence regarding the above, the requesf for a use permit
approval to allow a commercial trucking business to continue in a residential area. We never received
notification of such meeting and would like to have on record our current mailing address for future notices
(please see below). We understand that this permit was denied at the February meeting, and that the said party
is asking for an appeal.
The property requesting this permit is in a residential neighborhood. We have complained about this as a
problem in the past and they just keep getting the use permit renewed. Our property is next door to this
Trucking Business and when we were living there the trucks were constantly a nuisance, the smell of diesel, the
annoying noise evenings and weekends of working on the trucks. We had our house on the market for sale and
were unable to get market value because of the Trucking Business in our back yard. If you would like more
information on this, we can arrange for you to talk to the Real estate agent. We have since taken the property off
the market and are renting it.
We were told that when the new 85 Freeway was completed that the Trucks would no longer be coming into
20201 Merida Dr.. But we can see that this is not true.
We hope that something can be done about this problem as we strongly oppose the zoning use variation
requested by the owners of the residential property.
Sincerely,
Leon and Lorraine Pettitt
Owners of; 12035 Marilla Dr.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Mailing address; 3311 Cove Circle
Stockton, Ca. 95204
Phone; 209 - 941 -9551.
- 1 -
20201 Merida Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
March 26, 1996
City of Saratoga
City Council Members:
Ms. Ann Marie Burger, Mr. Paul Jacobs, Mr. Gillian Moran, Ms. Karen
Tucker, and Mr. Donald Wolfe
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Members of the Saratoga City Council,
We are writing this letter to thank you in advance for taking under
consideration our appeal of # UP -95 -008: 20201 Merida Drive, presented to
the Saratoga Planning Commission on 2/28/96. In this letter we will explain
our reasons for wishing an extension to our use permit and clarify some issues
that we feel were misrepresented in the Planning Commissions deliberations;
part fault of our own for not completely clarifying our request and not being
able to correct some of the Planning Commissioners' assumptions during their
deliberation. At that time we were unaware that the public hearing could be
reopened during the Commission's deliberation.
We would also like to apologize in advance if you find this letter lengthy
or detailed. This matter is of great importance to our family and we do not
wish to make the same errors we had during the Planning Commission's
hearing by assuming the members understood the basis of our request or the
unique history of the property for that matter. We encourage and hope that
you will all have a chance to review not only this letter but the minutes of the
Planning Commission's deliberations in detail.
Brief History of 20201 Merida Drive Home
For those of you unfamiliar with the residence we would like to explain
the unique nature of the home and business. The home was originally built
and owned by one Mr. Rankovich. Mr. Rankovich owned a good deal of
land in the Blue Hills area which was utilized for farming (primarily cherry
orchards) prior to Saratoga's incorporation and zoning ordinances. The
home is the original farmhouse built by the Rankovich's in the late 1940's.
The home was built with the intention of it being a working farmhouse with a
fuel tank and pump on the premises. This was done to service the heavy
machinery used for the farming operation. Our father became interested in
the property due to several factors associated with its unique nature; (1) Mr.
Rankovich was operating tractors and multiple pieces of heavy equipment on
the premises, and (2) its location; the home being near a busy thoroughfare
(Prospect Road) drowned out any possible noise created by the business
itself. This was all back in 1969.
Permits
16 years later in 1985 we approached the Planning Commission to obtain a
permit for the business based on the concern of a single neighbor. Prior to
this single individual new to the neighborhood, never in the 16 year period
between 1969 and 1985 was there any mention by any neighbor of the
business having a negative effect on the neighborhood. Furthermore, the city
also seemed to be little concerned with G.K. Trucking for those 16 years.
Excepting for this one individual, the consensus was that we were valued
neighbors and many were not even aware a small business was run out of the
home at all. Letters by all our adjacent neighbors and a petition to validate
that fact were submitted to the Planning Commission at that time. A permit
was granted.
In 1988, we requested an extension of our permit. Once again our
neighbors rallied to our support citing the unique circumstances of our home,
our contributions to the neighborhood, and the fact that the business had no
negative impact on the neighborhood. An extension was granted until the
completion of Highway 85.
During the period after our extension, understanding that our father was
nearing his retirement and our permit would expire at the completion of
Highway 85 the business was dramatically changed:
*Business downsized from 8 trucks to 4 trucks.
*The trucks eliminated were all of the "18 wheeler" variety that had
trailers. The smaller trucks kept were the size of a medium to large
sized recreational vehicle.
*The fuel storage tank, which had tested negative to any leakage was
proactively removed by us. (Currently, the State and County are still
organizing the disposal process in our yard)
*The family decided that upon my father's retirement (currently 61 years
old) the business would not continue. Neither son would be taking up
the business.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
*Parking was found for three of the four trucks. The fourth truck being the
one my father drives. Although not relevant to this case, the other
trucks, having the same size as the one our father drives (size of
medium/large RV) are parked in adjacent cities at each of the drivers
residences with no problems being raised by those respective cities.
It should be quite apparent from the actions we have taken that indeed the
business is nearing its end.
Our Request
Our request is that you permit one vehicle to park on the premises until our
father retires. My father is currently 61. Once again, we would like to assure
the Council that the business will no longer exist when my father retires.
Having said this we do not feel our request is unreasonable based on the
unique circumstances of 20201 Merida and the support of our neighbors
which we are so appreciative of.
Enclosed you will find a photo of the vehicle so that you may compare its
size to a medium/large sized RV. The vehicle works approximately 8 months
out of the year and the remaining time remains idle.
The vehicle can in no way be seen from Prospect Road or Merida Drive. It
is completely out of sight.
We invite all the Council members to visit our home and the surrounding
area to see for yourselves what impact the single truck has. If it is not too
much of an imposition we intend on calling each of you to personally invite
you to visit our home and neighborhood. We encourage you to weigh all
correspondence emanating from our neighbors in deciding what negative
effect, if any, we have had on the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission Minutes
Once again we would urge all of you to review the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting and especially the deliberations amongst the
Commission members so as to understand why we are so concerned about the
outcome of our request. Let us briefly outline the main topics discussed by
the Planning Commission members during their deliberations:
i.) Smell of Fuel: Almost every planning member mentioned the smell of
fuel on our property in their discussion. This is true. But what they
a
failed to consider is that the smell was from the removal of the existing
fuel tank dating back to the 1940's. We initiated its removal (at great
cost) so as to eventually remove any semblance of a farmhouse or
trucking operation at 20201 Merida. The smell emanates from the dirt
removed and stored in our yard by the County. By law, we may not
remove it or tamper with it until the County has completed its
processing. We would gladly remove the intrusive dirt pile from the
middle of our yard if allowed to. Once the County has completed its
testing it will initiate the removal of the dirt. We were led to believe by
the manner in which the planning members were talking that the smell
was significant evidence of our business being a detriment to the
neighborhood -which in no way is the case.
2.) Big Business: It was our impression that the Commission members
understood that all we were requesting was for permission to operate a
single vehicle from our home. We left with the feeling that the
Planning members felt the same operation was in place as in the past.
As was outlined earlier, the business is being phased out: we no longer
have 8 trucks, we no longer have fuel storage at our home, we are not
requesting to have 3 trucks parked on the premises as was the permit in
the past—we simply would like to park the ability to park a single
smaller truck at our home so that my father may retire in peace.
3.) Good Neighbors: Several of the Planning Commission members
commended us on being good neighbors based on many of the letters
they received from our neighbors. And yet this seemed to have very
little weight in light of their decision to deny our request. Furthermore,
one planning Commission member felt it appropriate to consider an
anonymous. Without a name or even an address how do any of us
know if it is written by a legitimate concerned Saratoga citizen or
someone who just does not like GK Trucking and may not even live in
Saratoga for that matter? We feel for the Planning Commission
member to even mention the anonymous letter or place any legitimacy
on it is inappropriate.
A good deal of blame should be placed on us though. By the way the
Planning Commissions deliberations went it is obvious that we did a very
poor job in presenting ourselves or our objective. In hindsight, we should
have asked that the public hearing be reopened so that we could address the
concerns they raised. As we have tried to do in this letter. Furthermore, due
to our hearing being postponed by the Planning Commission, many of our
neighbors that came to the original hearing could not attend the rescheduled
hearing.
We understand that it is the Planning Commissions duty to look after the
well being of the Saratogan citizenry not only in the present, but for the
future. Many of the decisions it makes regarding variances, permits, and the
like are based on what is the long term impact. From the deliberations, it
seemed to us that the reason for denying our request was simply a feeling of,
"You are using your house for a nonconforming use and your time is up...."
We once again urge you to review the minutes of the deliberation for
yourselves.
With all due respect to the Planning Commission, we feel that their
decision was hastily made, was not equitable, and excepting for one planning
commission members personal input shows very little sympathy or
compassion.
We are not talking about a major trucking operation that is requesting to
operate indefinitely. We are asking you to allow a 61 year old man to park a
single truck (his only livelihood) in his yard until his retirement in 3 years —
maybe less. The truck is completely out of sight and is no louder than the
adjacent Highway 85. Again, we realize our request is just as unique as the
home we live in. A home with a history that dates back to the infancy of
Saratoga.
We can only ask you to objectively weigh the issues concerning parking a
single truck in our yard (i.e. sight, sound, etc.). We hope you consider the
input of all our neighbors and friends that live with us and what impact we
have had on them. If the City Council finds that we pose a significant
negative impact on our neighbors we must accept that decision. But if the
Council finds otherwise, we thank you for allowing our father to retire in
peace. This business ends, the trucking ends with my father. Please carefully
consider all the issues before taking this away from him.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If any questions arise
prior to or during our appeal please do not hesitate to call us.
Respectfully Yours,
2
c
r
Iv
o✓A PI
1 u
. I
2
3
3
4
5
6 '
i�
v
»
I
_ I�
!r
r e
aol�(Iss
e
ci D
- Pc�,r.� « ._ a
134, b F _
_
StaS
9?
_r y'�
6
7
3 �;
9
I
I
(I
I
it
126W C&-:—
o ve-o
8
9
T
10
d 1`0 +
Z/
IXIA oi
4�
z
5 ISS
93
z3_
I
12
12
13
14
15
PIK,
& -7
13
15
16
17
� --,y Gross
Z
17
74—
18
19
20
21
"'Flo
IA'�'KVAWA��
DA
A)A.) L)
LJ F-
4— nn
1 11
206
2
22
23
24
2 d
Q11
IWO t4y,le
A—
22
23
2
q7
25
26
7.)
o'7
ZSL,)g
z
25�
26
27
28
OA
0 A
ilww
_o
27
28
29
ps
01111ACA,
c
I IV,
LL
29
30
30
31
32
33
6 Z_
R
J.
7. 1
at
31
32
33
34
TI
35
36
37
38
39
ov
_T2_
ri
35
3
3
39
40
40
_lLJl_LLLI==U
il
Wat,
YJ A
K-. L;
File No. UP -95 -008: 20201 Merida Drive
EXECUTIVE SUMBIARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application-filed:
11/13/1995
Application complete:
01/22/1996
Notice published:
01/31/1996
Mailing completed:
02/01/1996
Posting completed:
01/25/1996
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Use Permit approval to allow a nonconforming commercial
trucking business to continue within a residential zoning district.
The subject property fronts onto Merida Drive and abuts Prospect
Road to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878
square feet in size and is located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the request for Use Permit approval by adopting Resolution UP-
95 -008.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution UP -95 -008
3. Resolution UP -595
4. Resolution UP -88 -015
5. Resolution UP -91 -001
6. Correspondence
File No. UP -95 -008: 20201 Merida Drive
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density (M -10)
PARCEL SIZE: 20,878 square feet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting Use Permit approval to allow a
nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a
residential neighborhood.
The site is triangular in shape with the rear (northeast) property
line adjacent to Prospect Road and the Prospect Road -Route 85
overpass. The site is northeast of the intersection of Merida and
Kirkbrook Drives. There are residential properties to the south,
southeast and west of the site. Access is only available from
Merida Drive since construction of Route 85 eliminated the
property's access onto Prospect Road.
PROJECT HISTORY:
December 1985 The Planning Commission approved Use Permit # 595
to allow the continuation of the nonconforming
commercial trucking operation subject to the
conditions that; a wood fence be continued along
the property to reduce the visibility of the
trucks, and that the applicant obtain a permit for
or abandon the underground fuel tank. The Use
Permit was valid for three (3) years with the
requirement that one of the three trucks be removed
each year. The intent was to allow the applicant
to gradually phase out the operation.
December 1988 The Planning Commission approved Use Permit # 88-
015 subject to the conditions. that; the permit
expire and the use be terminated on July 11, 1990,
or when Route 85 construction eliminated access to
Prospect Road, whichever occurs first: that only
three trucks be allowed on site, and no vehicle
repairs of any kind be allowed.
March 1991 The Planning Commission approved Use Permit # 91-
001 subject to the same conditions as UP -88 -015
except that; the permit would expire and the use be
terminated when construction of Route 85 prohibits
File No. UP -95 -008: 20201 Merida Drive
access onto Prospect Road or as determined by the
Planning Director.
October 1992 Completion of Route 85 prohibits site access from
Prospect Road causing Use Permit # 91 -001 to
expire.
Since the initial Use Permit was approved in 1985 there have been
many complaints made to the City regarding violations of the
conditions of approval. These complaints primarily regarded
repairs to trucks and the number of trucks kept on site.
During the previous Public Hearings neighbors have vocalized both
support and opposition to the trucking operation. Neighbors who
have no objection make the point that the business existed before
anyone moved to the neighborhood and they were aware of the
operation when they bought their homes. Others claim that the
operation has intensified since they moved to the neighborhood and
that the noise, fumes, and traffic are negatively effecting them
and their property values.
Since the construction of Route 85 which effectively terminated the
Use Permit there have been continuing complaints and Code
violations filed with the City. These complaints have led to a
number of investigations and citations. The citations have
generally been for Code and Health Department permit violations.
For example, that trucks were being parked on the property, repair
work was being conducted on trucks on the property, and fuel was
being stored on site in an underground tank without proper permits.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Because the previous Use Permit has expired the business is now in
specific violation of the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Code sections
9- 40.010, 9- 40.020, and 9- 40.050. These sections prohibit
commercial trucks (five ton capacity) of the size used by the
applicant to use residential streets or be parked on private
property in a residential zoning district and further, prohibits
vehicle repair in residential.districts on a regular basis.
The applicants are also in violation of certain sections of the
Home Occupation Ordinance which prohibits the following in
residential zoning districts; storage of equipment outside the
dwelling, the appearance of the business beyond the boundaries of
the site, more than one truck of % ton capacity, and truck traffic
significantly in excess of the normal amount for the district.
Because the use has been in existence for such a long time it is
not known whether the applicant has ever received approval for a
home occupation with their business license.
File No. UP -95 -008: 20201 Merida Drive
The following list provides examples of some recent Code
violations.
January 1995 Complaint filed with the City regarding repairs to
a truck on site after expiration of Use Permit.
February 1995 Complaint filed with the City regarding storage of
diesel fuel on site, Health Department states that
fuel storage tank permit expired in February 1994.
May 1995 Complaint filed with the City regarding storage and
repair of trucks on the property in the evenings
and on weekends in violation of City Ordinances.
July 1995 Health Department inspection finds several
violations related to fuel storage.
November 1995 Sheriff issues citation for having trucks on site
overnight in violation of City Ordinances.
Staff has been in contact with the Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
regarding removal of the underground fuel tank. The applicant has
removed the tank and is in the process of soil remediation which is
being overseen by the Water District.
FINDINGS•
In order to approve the continuation of a nonconforming use through
the granting of a Use Permit the Planning Commission is required to
make three findings pursuant to Section 15- 65.140 of the City Code:
1. The use is compatible with the objectives of Chapter 15 -65 and
the purposes of the R -1 zoning district.
An objective of the Chapter is to protect conforming uses from
inharmonious influences and enhance property values. Although
the site is screened, Staff has concluded that the trucking
business does not comply with the objective and represents an
inharmonious influence to the residential neighborhood.
Additionally, as indicated in a letter from a neighbor, the
business is perceived as having a "negative effect on the
value of our homes ".
2. The conditions under which the use, will be continued will not
be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare.
Staff has determined from the numerous complaints and
citations for violations mentioned above that this use is
causing disruptions of the neighborhood beyond what is
normally acceptable in residential districts. Since the
File No. UP -95 -008: 20201 Merida Drive
trucks can no longer use Prospect Road for ingress and egress.
there is a potential threat to traffic safety in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
3. The use will-be compatible with and not detrimental to uses
and properties in the area.
Staff finds that the operation of .a trucking business in a
residential neighborhood is not a compatible use. The
business represents a disruption to neighborhood peace and
safety, due to noise, commercial truck traffic, fumes, and the
storage of unsightly trucks.
It should also be noted that staff has recommended denial of each
previous Use Permit request upon consistently finding that this
commercial trucking business is incompatible with the residential
neighborhood.
Conclusion:
Although the trucking business has been in operation for
approximately 25 years, the applicant has known for the past eleven
years that the use was meant to be phased out. More recently, the
applicant was also aware that the use was supposed to terminate
when construction of Route 85 eliminated access from Prospect Road.
Since the findings for approval cannot be made and based on the
history of conditional approvals and the number of citations issued
for violations of the previous Use Permits staff is recommending
denial of application UP -95 -008. If the Planning Commission
approves this Use Permit a Resolution of Approval would be prepared
for adoption for the February 28, 1996 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION•
Deny the application by adopting Resolution UP -95 -008.
<r'M1Y
ray PILE NO UP-595"'4..'
J
n
L4l4 t F R' -] kp tlt•� w.
T
%7 ✓�`K {� r,, j x, rtt � 1 t ;„, 7 n� �� .
�'Jha7RESOLUTION NO,l UP -595 -1 "
,CITY,: OF . SAr.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
' n { OF
STATE
7 � CALIFORNIA
rr
` WIIEr.]rAS„ the •City of Saratoga Planning Conumiission has received
tha application of GEORGE AND MARIE KOLOTOUROS for a Use Permit
to allow a nonconfo rming truck /agricultural use to continue operation
at 20210 Prospect Road p
( s and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) RXXXXXX4 met the burden of proof
required t' Support his said application;
NOW, THE -FORC, BE IT RESOLVL•'D that after careful consid�. ration
°.•'
i• Yl of snaps, fact:;, oxliihits and other
` Y ••- - evidence submitted in. this: matter,
the application for the Use Permit
be, and the same is here-
by (g ) 9:t/1s 9=) subject to the following conditions:
z: Per the amended Staff Report dated December 4, 1985.
4 k `
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached hereto ,
r i �w be approved and adopted) ( t? t�f}{} i4l C? ci�XC3CX�X�xr34tX�fiLKdCX��X }�K,� '<�
s�it
' , �E}(Sd}�;fi74RJ�I�X7�XX�Rx►7rt, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to;'.'
X73.•` +.i: 1.. . ::'Tr.•• .'i Ei14'..
notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 11th day of December 85
19 , by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, Guch, B. H J. Harris, Peterson,
Pines and Peterson
NOES: None .
v� ABSENT
AT!' None �7
JrS
S
� -S.dy( w! tit.: •.. •: : "c• �.... .. • .. '1" :� FR�•.
. i .,ec.ruLaiyy�wrtr•y�r:arr_.t't� sN; r,: aitvnrr�Y4 ...Ch81Xm8n:'�Plnnninc,• (`c�mmiacinn `'�''• .,.. ..
_ 7 .a,
Repot - P.lanninp;Commiaaio Date" 12/2;85 >�
oapect `,Kolotouros ,i* gT Pepe 4
L a fa
wily be',,d tuned and remedied by County Health during the required
X permit_ process
(fb"` 4.. Compatibility with Land Uses a(od Properties in the Surroundina Area
A nursery is located on state property 'to the cast of the site. Trucl.s
are used by the nursery. Vacant lano is located across Prospect Road.
The `operation is compatible with the uses. However, residential
properties are located to the south and the west. The operation is not
:v :.�;•; compatible with the residential use.
ti,`•,T RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Use Permit having been
-, ' unable to make Findings Y1, $2, and 44. If the Planning Commission wishes
to
approve the application Pe r Exhibit B, the necessary findings must be
made and Staff has recommendp.d conditions:
1. The 'wood fence shall be Cont. + :nued along the eastern
•;;" :��., fl Gordon of the
property to reduce the visibility of the trucks as seen driving along
>r•�
P Road.
rospect
2. The operation shall be phased out. One truck shall be removed each
year from the site. The use permit is valid for 3 years.
P.C. Agenda: 12111185
3. The applicant shall
obtain a permit for or abandon the underground fuel
tank.. The applicant
shall contact the County Health Department within
two weeks of the date
of the approval.
APPROVED: �Ai✓
/t'l 44,,-t./
Lucille H15e
?
Assistant Planner
�
�4, � 1i
,i;
LHi;ah
P.C. Agenda: 12111185
�
�4, � 1i
Use Permit
A
RESOLUTION NO. UP -88 -015
RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA pLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF
A USE PERMIT
KOLOTOUROS, 20210 PROSPECT ROAD
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has re
an application for the extension of a Use Permit received
nonconforming storage and maintenance to maintain a
residential zone; and yard for trucks
in a
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a dui
Public hearing at which time all interested
full opportunity to be heard and to Parties were Y noticed
evidence; and given a
present
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has
to approve application UP -595 which allows paenonconformin findings
business to operate at
objectives of the zoning ordinance Prospect Road relative tom` "king
health and safety, . the maintenance of the t� the
the zoning ordinance; and
compliance with the applicable Pubic s
and provision of
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that these fin
previously made in granting UP -595 are currentl dings
Y present.
W THEREFORE, Planning esolve asfllow s: City o-f Commission
Section 1. After careful consideration of the
and other exhibits submitted in connection with site
this
application of George Rolotouros for use permit Plan,
the same is hereby extended subject to the a matter, the
approval be and
1• This following conditions:
Permit shall expire and the use terminated on
1990, or when Route 85 construction eliminates the applicant's
access to Prospect Road; whichever occurs first. July 11,
2. The maximum number of trucks allowed to be stored on
be three. site shall
3. No vehicle repairs of any kind are allowed at this site
Section 2. Applicant shall si • these
conditions within 30 days of the gn the agreement to
resolution shall be void, passage of this resolution or said
Section
City and other
3. All applicable - requirements of
Governmental entities must be met.
the State, County,
section 4. Unless a
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga pursuant to the requirements of
become effective ten City Code, this resolution shall
(10) days from the date of adoption.
1
r
t
UP -88 -015, 20210 Prospect Road
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 11th day of January, 1989, by the
following vote:
AYES: Ca missioners G ch, Harris, Tucker,
Burger, Kolstad
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Tappan and Siegfried
Chairman Planning Comm Sion
Secr ary, P nning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
- G�•Siy.S C1 _ ,�� +..,fir �.� � . .- y !/
Signature of Applicant r O
Date
UPVAR
2
jo1919 9
PLANNING DEPT,
RESOLUTION NO. UP -91 -001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT
Rolotoures, 20210 Prospect Road
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for the extension of a Use Permit to maintain a
nonconforming storage yard for trucks in a residential zone and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:
(a) That the proposed truck storage /operation is in accordance
with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed truck storage /operation and the
conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and would
not be materially.. injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
(c) That the proposed truck storage/ operation will comply with
each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and
other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the
application of George Rolotouros for use permit approval be and
the same is hereby extended subject to the following condition:
1. This permit shall expire and the use terminated when
construction of Route 85 prohibits access onto Prospect Avenue
or as determined by the Planning Director.
2. The maximum number of trucks allowed to be stored on site
shall be three.
3. No vehicle repairs of any kind are allowed at this site.
Section 2. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
rsolution shall be void.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Govermantal entities must be met.
File No. UP -90 -001; 20210 Prospect Road
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article. 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall
become effective ten (10) days from the date of operation.
Passed and adopted by the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission, State of California, this 13th day of March, 1991, by
the following vote:
AYES: BOGOSIAN, DURKET, MORAN, TUCKER
NOES: FORBES
ABSENT: CALDWELL
G •
Ch irman, Planning ClorWission
ATTEST:
File No. UP -91 -001; 20210 Prospect Road
IA440- twait I AW -
Secre ary, Planning Cdtiksslon
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Applicant Date
�'� 0 /�
.... ��
P
Exhibit 4: Front profile of vehicles.
0
M)
N V
Shirleen Carmichael
12077 Kirkbrook Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
April 13, 1996
Saratoga City Council
City Offices
Mr. Paul Jacobs, Ms. Gillian Moran, Ms. Karen Tucker, Ms. Ann Marie Burger,
Mr. Donald Wolfe:
I am very sorry that I am unable to attend this meeting due to previous
engagements, but I would like to express my feelings in reference to this matter.
My name is Shirleen Carmichael and I have lived on 12077 Kirkbrook Drive,
right across the street from the Kolotouros residence for the past 26 years.
I am not a so- called friend or relative of the Kolotouros', but having lived right
across the street from them, I see them every day. I can also say that they have
not created traffic, noise or pollution in our neighborhood.
Their house is unique and well -kept, with beautiful flowers and trees surrounding
their property. Their property is fully - enclosed, and with the trees it is very
difficult, if not impossible, to see what is in their yard.
I very much support the Kolotouros petition to give Mr. Kolotouros permission to
drive his truck to and from work everyday.
Sincerely, _
Shirleen Carmichael
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 3, 1996
TO: City Council
FROM: Harry Peacock, City Manager,
SUBJECT: Kolotouros Appeal - Request for Continuance
The applicant has appealed the denial of a Conditional Use Permit
by the Planning Commission. Staff has received a letter asking for
the City Council to grant a continuance of the public hearing from
April 3rd to April 17th.
The current City policy is to grant a first request for continuance
at no charge. Any subsequent request for a continuance requires
that a fee be paid.
Since continuances can only be granted by the City Council, staff
is not authorized to make such an approval before the fact. It is
our policy to note on the agenda that the request for appeal has
been submitted and that the City Council may grant the request
rather than proceeding with the hearing as scheduled.
As a matter of practice the City Council has routinely granted a
first request for continuance. I do not recall any such request
being denied by the City Council during my tenure with the City.
However, the discretion to do so rests with the City Council on a
case by case basis. Ms. Kolotouros has been so advised.
I
Date Received: q t" it
Hearing Date: .? �C_1 a f�-
Fee:
13, vii FEB 2 9 1996
D
CITY Ur' SARATOGA
Receipt No.: CITY MANA(;fat'S QyFILg
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: C 01✓ioC D X 4,0 �d
Address: :��,��/ �P1�1 �!� �� 0% , S 70 22
Telephone:
Name of Applicant (if
different from Appellant:
Project File Number and Address: �_; l— �i� 4'
Decision Being Appealed:
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): .
i z c CltmpS / r .l ('01 -��
*Appellant's Signature
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
yz�-/16,
File No.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
i
as appellant on the above file, hereby
authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the
above file.
Date: 1,2 - R Signature: '1� ? . p
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 CO) ? � AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 3, 1996
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Commun' y Development
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
JF
SUBJECT: DR -94 -042 - Skov; 14970 Sobey Road
7A
Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a Design Review request
to construct a second story addition to an existing single story
residence. The appellants are Richard and Diana Anderson of 14971
Quito Road.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appellants' request and uphold the Planning Commission's
approval of the Design Review application.
Project Description:
The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new 536 sq. ft.
first story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second story addition to an
existing 4,154 sq. ft. single story residence with a detached
garage and recreation room. The subject property has a net site
area of 44,328 sq. ft. and is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district. The property is characterized by westward sloping
topography; however, the building site is virtually flat.
Summary of Planning Commission Action:
The application was heard by the Planning Commission on February
14, 1996. Staff's review of the project concluded that the Design
Review findings could be made and staff recommended approval of the
project with the conditions as listed in the Resolution. The
attached staff report includes the analysis and findings supporting
this recommendation. As the attached minutes reflect, opposition
to the proposal was expressed at the public hearing regarding the
effects of the proposal on existing views and privacy. After
reviewing neighborhood concerns, the Commission approved the
application with an additional condition requiring that the
applicant eliminate the proposed second story deck. The
application was approved by a vote of 5 -2, with Commissioners
Patrick and Pierce voting against the project.
Appeal:
The appellants, Richard and Diana Anderson, live at 14971 Quito
Road which is located directly to the east and above the project
site. The Andersons have stated in their grounds for appeal that
they feel the Planning Commission has failed to make adequate
Design Review findings to approve the application for a new second
story addition. They have expressed concern regarding the height
of the addition and its impacts on their existing hillside views.
Recommendation:
At the February 14, 1996 public hearing, the Planning Commission
gave careful consideration to the proposed project. Prior to the
meeting date, they visited the Skov property, as well as the
Anderson property and the downslope Pouliot property, to assess the
existing site conditions and the potential for impacts on
surrounding neighbors. Ultimately, they found that the necessary
Design Review findings could be made to approve the application
with the conditions as listed in the approved Resolution. Based on
this review, staff recommends that the Planning Commission decision
be upheld and that the appeal be denied.
Public Notice:
A public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject parcel and published in the Saratoga News.
Follow Up Actions:
A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action
which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council
meeting.
Attachments:
1. Appeal letter
2. Planning Commission minutes
3. Resolution DR -94 -042
4. Staff Report dated February
dated February 14, 1996
14, 1996 (with attachments)
n-t— c.�..r.I.
4
C-4 .
G..v� h � ►�u� � o ,-,.� v.-� l S S l w. i'\d -o I��-�- —► +� `-" ^"�+� -'1
A" —1 /V \YJY'DV t Sl o�S -c S(J. 040• 0 80 Xrb
�w�c..QCt GA- �.t y-c�t� ►'� �/J �" -rrt .-� cQ. �,-.� L�r-� s. he='s
P-". t LA*- v-L yr kt s
b Al � cow_
CiLY- \-&,,% r --poY t., V tsrt. a-"o cr u-s- lo-',
CQ . �� �-J� )
Pr4k�hso�. • F�- irk- Sy-+', � tC�.�_
s�-� 5070
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
REF: DR -94 -042 (APN 392 -04 -090)
February 14,1996
PRESENTER: Richard F. Anderson
AT ISSUE:
- REQUEST BY NEIGHBOR TO ADD A 2nd STORY TO AN
EXISTING STRUCTURE."
MY POINTS OF CONTENTION:
o SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A CLOSE SETBACK TO OUR
PROPERTY LINE. THIS PLACES THE CURRENT STRUCTURE
CLOSER THAN USUAL TO OUR LIVING AREAS
o A 2nd STORY IS DIRECTLY VIEWABLE FROM OUR LR, FR,
ENTRY WAY, OUTSIDE LIVING AREAS.
AND, DIRECTLY BLOCKS 100% OF THE HILLSIDE VIEW
FROM OUR NEW GUEST COTTAGE. !
o SUCH AN ADDITION DRAMATICALLY AFFECTS -
* PROPERTY VALUE
* OUR ENTIRE LIVING ENVIRONMENT
* SETS A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO MAY
INTEND TO FOLLOW SUIT.
o TWO YEARS AGO, THE PLANNING C0MVIISSION
- APPROVED, then rescinded, AN ARCHITECTUAL PLAN
FOR REBUILDING OUR GUEST COTTAGE. IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN 3' HIGHER THAN CODE.
WE SCRAPPED $5000 OF DRAWINGS AND FEE'S &
DESIGNED THE PRESENT STRUCTURE. NEITHER ROOF
PLAN WAS VIEWABLE FROM A NEIGHBOR ! ! ! !
NOW YOU & I ARE DISCUSSING AN ENTIRE 2nd STORY ON
A NEIGHBORS STRUCTURE. WHY SHOULD SUCH A PLAN
EVEN HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE SUBMITTED?
I & TWO OTHER ABUTTERS ARE UPSET, & AGAINST
THIS PROPOSAL.
o THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS PREVIOUSLY AWARE
OF OUR OBJECTIONS.
o WE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS OF SENIORITY. I DO NOT
FEEL THAT A NEWER NEIGHBOR HAS THE RIGHT TO
OBSTRUCT MY LIVING PLEASURE OR DEVALUE MY
INVESTMENT, TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.
RESPECTFULLY,
S
4v b �- `-i
0�' 1 w " �\
v ems,.' t> -
PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
PAGE - 5 -
Commissioner Kaplan stated that as a matter of policy, she did not believe that placing
landscaping against a house does what architectural changes are suppose to accomplish.
Chairman Murakami indicated that he agreed with the comments of Commissioner Kaplan
and felt that the use of landscaping would be covering up something that would still be the
same.
Commissioner Siegfried felt that if the project was conditioned to include the use of trellis
and landscaping, it would be acceptable to him. He noted that the use of stucco has been
a California style since the 1900s. He did not see any reason why this project could not be
approved with the condition as recommended by Commissioner Abshire.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
DR -95 -045 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO INCLUDE THE USE OF
LANDSCAPE/ TRELLISES - TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR,
ABSHIRE, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED; NOES: KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK;
ABSTAIN; NONE; ABSENT: NONE.
2. DR -94 -042 - SKOV; 14970 SOBEY ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to
construct a 536 sq. ft. first story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second story addition to an
existing 4,154 sq. ft. single story residence with a detached garage and recreation
room. The subject property is a 45,389 sq. ft. parcel located within the R -1- 40,000
zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He noted that correspondence has
been received from the up slope neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. They cited their
concerns as being located above this property and that the 23 foot tall addition would
obstruct their view. Also received was correspondence from the property owner directly
down slope. Staff's analysis, prior to receiving these letters and visiting the property, was
that the massing of the home, the addition and the orientation of the windows and living
areas would not impact the neighboring property owners. He noted that one of the
conditions in the resolution requires that the east facing upstairs windows be either obscured
or be upper level windows so that there would not be a view problem between the two
property owners.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:09 p.m.
Camilla Skov, applicant, stated that she did not believe that the addition would seriously
impact any of her neighbors. She informed the Commission that the neighbors down slope
have expressed concern that the addition may impact the value of their property as well as
invade their privacy. She indicated that she would be willing to plant materials acceptable
to the neighbors to address their concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
PAGE - 6 -
Diana Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, informed the Commission that she previously requested
an addition to her cottage. The addition was approved by staff, later to be rescinded due
to the 18 foot height. The requirement for the addition was modified to met city standards.
She felt that after 20 years at this location, her view was now being threatened by this
proposal. She indicated that this was an area of single story homes and felt that the
addition would set a precedent for others to follow. She requested that the Commission
deny the request because her view shed would be blocked and that her property would be
devalued.
Richard Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, stated that he would not agree to have 44% of his
view obstructed so that another neighbor could have a view. He indicated that he moved
to his site for its view. He felt that the addition was inappropriate as it would allow an
increase in roof height to an already prominent roof line. He felt that there has to be a
justification why other property owners can usurp other individual's views. He could not see
any justification for approving this request.
Richard Pouliot, 14976 Sobey Road, informed the Commission that he resides below the
proposed site. He did not believe that a second story addition was appropriate as the second
story addition would be facing directly into his backyard. He stated that he would agree to
consider other alternatives that would be less obtrusive. He felt that there was enough room
in Ms. Skov's property to place an addition. Also of concern to him were property value
impacts.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 8:23 P.M.
Commissioner Kaplan asked staff to indicate what view would be seen from the deck.
Planner Walgren clarified that the deck would be looking at Mr. Pouliot's property and that
the second story deck would be 8 to 10 feet higher than that of the first level deck. He
noted that the home is proposed at 23 feet in height and that 22 feet was the typical height
for a contemporary single story home.
Chairman Murakami asked if there was any way that the house could be built at a one story
level to accommodate the extra square footage as he perceived the lot to be built out and
severely constrained by the hillside. Planner Walgren responded that the site was
constrained due to topography and the required building setbacks. He noted that the
addition could be placed on the front lawn area but doing so would eliminate the front yard
area.
Commissioner Abshire stated that he hates to see development come between neighbors.
He stated that he could not support the upper level deck as it would be invading the
neighbor's privacy.
Commissioner Patrick felt that the topography in the area creates the problem and that
anything built in this area was going to look down to the Pouliots' yard. She stated that she
PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
PAGE - 7 -
did not see an initial concern of view blockage from the Anderson's property and that they
would still have the same view. She indicated that she was inclined to approve the request
as proposed.
Commissioner Pierce felt that it was unfortunate that the properties were situated the way
they were. He noted that the short setbacks would not exist if the homes were sited side
by side. Because of this fact, he felt that the Commission needs to take a serious look at the
second story addition.
Commissioner Asfour indicated that at the site visit, it was his belief that anything built
would be visible. He stated that the only way he could approve this request would be if the
second story deck was eliminated.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he visited the site at the request of Mrs. Anderson
so that she can show him how her view would be impacted by the addition. He stated that
he did not believe that the second story addition, given its proportions, would impact the
Anderson's view. He stated that he would defer the issue of eliminating the upper level deck
to the Commission.
Commissioner Kaplan indicated that in viewing the site from various angles, she did not find
the second story addition to be objectionable. She felt that the size of the addition was
modest and that it may improve the house and give the homeowners an opportunity to clean
up the property. Also, the addition would enhance not only the subject property but that of
the neighbors. She did not believe that the addition would impact anyone's life style and that
she could support the addition as submitted.
Chairman Murakami stated that at the site visit, it was noticed that the lot was constrained
as far as where an addition can be placed. Legally, the owner was within the limits to
construct the addition at the height being requested. He indicated that he understood the
concerns as expressed by the Andersons. However, he would support the request with the
elimination of the upper story deck.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 8:35 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUESTING A RESPONSE FROM
THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE ELIMINATION OF THE UPPER LEVEL
DECK.
Ms. Skov stated that she would not object to the elimination of the second story deck.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 8:35 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
DR -95 -042, AS CONDITIONED BY STAFF WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE
SECOND STORY DECK. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
PAGE - 8 -
PATRICK AND PIERCE VOTING NO.
The Commission recessed at 8:36 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:48 p.m.
3. GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004 - INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD
FELLOWS; 14500 FRUITVALEAVE.;The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has
submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility
located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application requests for General Plan Text
Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review approval have been heard at several
Planning Commission public hearings. An Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared for the project and recommended for certification by the Planning
Commission to the City Council.
Odd Fellows' representatives are now requesting that the City of Saratoga enter into
a Development Agreement with Odd Fellows to assure that upon approval of the
project they may proceed with the project in accordance with existing rules and
regulations (cont. from 1/24/96; City review deadline is 3/6/96).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that
the development agreement has been noticed for tonight's meeting and that it was prepared
by the applicant's representative. The development agreement would allow the applicant a
10 year window period to build out as the applicant feels that this time period would be
necessary for a project of this type and scope. In exchange, the applicant would offer the
city the following: 1) a guarantee that there would be an open occupancy availability to all
seniors; 2) program to provide early notification to Saratoga seniors of unit availability; 3)
allows for perimeter landscaping adjacent to Crisp Avenue to be installed prior to
commencement of construction of the buildings; 4) open space easement; 5) proposed
additional drainage improvements beyond what the scope of the impact of the project; and
6) a guarantee that should the project be approved, that the 11 units proposed on the 10.6
southern acres would be developed.
Planner Walgren recommended that the public hearing be opened on the development
agreement and that the development agreement be discussed. Should the Commission find
the development agreement acceptable, staff would recommend that the development
agreement, the general plan text amendment, the use permit and the design review
applications be forwarded to the City Council for approval. He informed the Commission
that the State's Permit Streamlining Act requires that local jurisdiction complete its review
of projects such as this one within a one year period. He indicted that this project would
be nearing that one year time limit (March 6, 1996).
Planner Walgren read into the record correspondence received from the following
individuals: Jeffrey Schwartz, San Marcos Road, (summarizing eight topics of concern, many
of which deal with the procedural review of this project); Linda Callon with the law firm of
Berliner Cohen, representing the Odd Fellows (addressed the fact that a letter was received
from the Law Offices of William D. Ross, representing the Fire District, contesting the EIR
RESOLUTION NO. DR -94 -042
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Skov; 14970 Sobey Road
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Design Review approval to construct a 536 sq.
ft. first story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second story addition to
an existing single story residence with a detached garage and
recreation room totaling 4,154 sq. ft.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the necessary
findings could be made to support the floor area exception request
pursuant to Article 15- 45.030 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed
addition, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and
location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the
neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid
unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the
proposed addition meets or exceeds the minimum setback requirements
for the zoning district and the proposed height of 23 ft. should
not unreasonably impair neighboring views.
-The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by
designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized
and will be. -in keeping with the - general appearance of neighboring
developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that only one tree will
be removed and no grading is required.
-The proposed addition in relation to structures on adjacent lots,
and to the surrounding region,. will minimize the perception of
excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment,
in that the proposed addition is well massed and articulated.
-The proposed addition will be compatible in terms of bulk and
height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots
and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same
zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not
(i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties
nor .(ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to
utilize solar energy, in that the addition is setback in compliance
with the required setbacks, the 23 ft. maximum height is in
File No. DR -94 -042; 14970 Sobey Road
compliance with Code standards, and the design utilizes techniques
to minimize the perception of bulk and mass.
-The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
-The proposed addition will conform to each of the applicable
design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design
Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, DR -94 -042, application for Design
Review approval, be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
"Exhibit A", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for a Building permit, the following shall
be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a
Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporat-
ing this Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution
(e.g. modifications to plans) shall be noted on the
plans.
3. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the plans shall be
modified as follows:-
a. The second story deck shall be eliminated.
b. The bathroom windows on the east elevation shall either
be redesigned as upper "clerestory" windows OR the window
material shall be changed to obscure glass.
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall
indicate the location of one (1) 36 inch-box size tree on the
site plan. The tree shall be consistent with the City's
xeriscape standards and shall be planted prior to the issuance
of Final Occupancy approval.
5. The height of the addition shall not exceed 23 feet.
6. No ordinance size tree, besides the one (1) Chinese Elm tree,
shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal
File No. DR -94 -042; 14970 Sobey Road
Permit.
7. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
8. All building-and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing
storm water pollution.
9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State
or Federal Court challenging the City's action with respect to
the applicant's project.
10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi-
ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 14th day of February, 1996, by the
following vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami & Siegfried -
NOES: Patrick & Pierce
ABSENT: None
Chairper on, Planning C mmission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -94 -042; 14970 Sobey Road
Applicant/ Owner: SKOV
Staff Planner: Anne Dailey
Date: February 14, 1996
APN: 397-04-090 Director Approval: All
W �
r
1
i
S INO RD
ip
IY �
ttIW I
lm
O
1
O
\ 1 m
32
<J
L WOODBA K
S OOK
L
A
DO
L RD
W
W
/ Y
y'/ W AUD AVE
14970 Sobey Road
File No. DR -94 -042; 14970 Sobey Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
09/12/94
Application complete:
01/24/96
Notice published:
01/31/96
Mailing completed:
02/01/96
Posting completed:
01/25/96
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Design Review approval to construct a 536 sq. ft. first
story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second story addition to an
existing 4,154 sq. ft. single story residence with a detached
garage and recreation room. The proposal includes a request for an
exemption from the floor area reduction required for structures
over 18 feet in height. The subject property is a 45,389 sq. ft.
parcel located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Review request by adopting
Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -94 -042
3. Two -story Residence Map
4. Correspondence
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
the attached
File No. DR -94 -042; 14970 Sobey Road
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density
PARCEL SIZE: 45,389 sq. ft. (gross)
44,328 sq. ft. (net)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 14o
GRADING REQUIRED: None
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: White stucco finish with brown trim
and a wood shake roof to match the existing residence.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE: 200 (9,046 sq. ft.)
HEIGHT• 23 ft.
SIZE OF
35
ft.
30
STRUCTURE:
Rear:
102
ft.
Existing Residence:
2,563
sq.
ft.
Existing Garage:
546
sq.
ft.
Existing Recreation /Dressing:
1,045
sq.
ft.
1st Floor Addition:
536
sq.
ft.
2nd Floor Addition:
769
sa.
ft.
TOTAL: 5,459 sq. ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
300 (13,617 sq. ft.)
26 ft.
*5,766 sq. ft.
* With the -7.5% deduction for a structure 23 feet in height, the
Allowable Floor Area is 5,334 sq. ft.
SETBACKS: Front:
35
ft.
30
ft.
Rear:
102
ft.
50
ft.
Right Side:
30
ft.
20
ft.
Left Side:
112
ft.
20
ft.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics: The subject property is an interior flag lot
located at the end of a private street off of Sobey Road. A
portion of the driveway serves as an ingress /egress easement for
the neighboring property and has been deducted from the gross site
area. The property is characterized by gradually sloping westward
topography, with an average slope of 14 percent. The slope at the
building site is virtually flat.
File No. DR -94 -042; 14970 Sobey Road
Current development of the property consists of a 2,563 sq. ft.
single story residence, a 546 sq. ft. detached garage, and a 1,045
sq. ft. detached recreation building and dressing shack adjacent to
the existing pool area. Properties within the neighborhood are
developed with both one and two story residences.
Proposal: As a new second story, the applicant is proposing to
build a 769 sq. ft. master bedroom suite with an adjacent redwood
deck. A 536 sq. ft. first floor addition is also proposed, which
includes the expansion of the dining room and bedroom and a new
redwood deck. The proposed colors and materials will match those
of the existing residence.
Design Review: Staff feels that the proposed addition is
compatible with the existing residence, as well as other homes in
the area, in terms of proportion, mass, and height. The proposed
addition meets or exceeds the required setbacks and the 7.5 ft.
height increase should not unreasonably impair neighboring views.
Additionally, the existing topography and vegetation of the site
should help to provide a buffer between properties.
Staff has evaluated the placement of the proposed windows and
second story deck and feels that the majority of the windows, along
with the proposed deck, are oriented to the west and should not
adversely effect neighboring properties. However, there are three
windows proposed on the east elevation (two bathroom windows and
one stairway window) which could potentially impact the privacy of
the adjacent property to the east. In order to minimize any
potential impacts, staff feels that the applicant should either
redesign the windows as upper "clerestory" type windows or that the
window material should be changed to obscure glass. Staff feels
that the window at the stairway landing is appropriate based on the
proposed use of the area.
Tree Preservation: The applicant is proposing to remove one (1)
ordinance s -ize tree which is-in conflict with the proposed
construction. The ornamental tree, which has been identified as a
Chinese Elm, is 49 inches in circumference and is located to the
west of the existing residence within the footprint of the proposed
deck. Although the City Arborist did not visit the site, he has
recommended a replacement value equal to one (1) 36 inch box size
tree.
Floor Area Reduction Exception: The applicant is requesting that
the Planning Commission grant an exception to the 1.5 percent floor
area reduction required for each foot of maximum building height
exceeding 18 feet. The Planning Commission has the authority to
grant this exception if the Design Review findings can be made and
there is a predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood
pursuant to Article 15- 45.030 of the City Code.
As demonstrated by the attached two -story map, there are many two-
File No. DR -94 -042; 14970 Sobey Road
story structures in the surrounding area. Staff believes the
Design Review findings can be made and recommends that this
exception be granted. If the exception is not granted, the
applicant would be required to reduce the maximum floor area from
5,459 sq. ft. to 5,334 sq. ft.
Correspondence: The property owners directly to the east have
expressed opposition to the proposed addition. They feel that the
proposal will negatively impact their westerly views and that it
will decrease their property values. Correspondence has been
attached to this report.
Conclusion: The proposed addition has been designed to conform
with the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design
Handbook and to satisfy the findings required per Section 15- 45.080
of the City Code. The project further satisfies all other zoning
requirements in terms of minimum setbacks, maximum height and
impervious coverage. Therefore, staff is able to recommend
approval of the design review request, as well as the request for
an exemption from the floor area reduction required for structures
over 18 feet in height.
RECOMMENDATION•
Approve the Design Review request by adopting the attached
Resolution.
Ww i_
"'Err
- _4a_
a Z.
Tr
ti
ix
vp
1A TIN *1 cl
P-i
71r
L
Ff.,
!rWotl 4-,,An�
L 4,
44
94.17
,ti tic LA
; a ...
',T
nt:
PCL. I
x":! 44
14 I.S?AC-GR.
%y 72 AC. NET
120
r
'4
00
4
ji-
`Ty
RLI
Fr
*(Vllv
_13d
A W,
la
3L', ZER
6 log-ol'-w3v
13N
set
Rw
U—S
-13d
919W
er
-�DQ_ q 4- b40, C4PN 04 -090)
FEB 0 8 1996
P�C'hylt Y-, j w
CcrlYnk SS►ov-, : PLANivI114u utPT.
COL
is -�--� —�o � �-�-�� , -P,�,� ,�•-� Ck �.,., � � ��. Sal
W`A- b1ly" tom, -
U
— C2—
lit
U
4D —� c
AAZ�rLlx e U -�-f�L 4D
t�vL�
off• v 5� Cven�.� d� ) —,-moo L Gb a,� cu
Cam\ o SR- b o�
r4x—clo- d
-3—
-1 -94
LL � S- A-b P. Y\YnA --
Yll
U � _
Wr,r�,r� W L
, 'S VOL r s -for ASu�v� G +Pro c!L
Zt, W a-o I `�
Lo
Z
40 Y' •�,,�
VA BTU - e.u,u.� ra.��.� -� o-- ,,,,1-- �► -�-� -a G Q-o �Pc
Sc�
J) ta-yxp, INA
u,-6
C41— q50-70
C C . Ov m rtn
FEB 0 8 1996
PLANNING DEPT
((/" y G 9c�
Dili QEG -n �s �-p 7-17�=— lgLA -A,) C-f,6 AbOW`' L 4-
�l
Gv � t
Fig �iE,� ��F.f
U
1
,4 7`a X74- kC ��< 4- � tiro -� ra` 6
�- y
bc
�1.-f fl D C3J'T� U�17 os� 7" -r A
P�so
�ot/� �cC' .✓'vhf �� p,�l� w�''�LU 7'`�r
1-s
Y
�'� ✓f�fic�'-�UL� �
Y
��/ h6;�,6
- C • C. �aea�q -.ev ��rr�oa� t � �m`�
RECEIVED
Saratoga Planning Commission FEB 141996
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Planning Commissioner,
The purpose of this letter is to express my concerns over the proposed expansion of
14970 Sobey Road, Saratoga. (DR -94 -042 [APN 397 -04 -090] ).
I am the homeowner of 14976 Sobey Road, directly next door and downhill from the
above property, and I believe the neighbor most impacted by the proposed second story
addition. I have a good rapport with the owner of the above property, and wish them
nothing but the best, to do whatever makes them happy, to live and let live so to speak.
My live and let live philosophy applies to all people, but a line must be drawn when that
freedom has a direct negative effect on me and my family. The issue here is privacy.
As our realtor (Lita Ruble of Alain Pinel) will attest, I spent over eight months searching
for the right house to raise my family. Ms. Ruble can document many, many rejections
of properties from my consideration based solely on privacy matters. I had intended to
find a home in the $750,000 to 900,000 price range, but had to spend almost $ 1.3
million to attain the location and privacy that were of upmost importance to my family.
can not stress the privacy aspect of my purchasing decision enough; it made my realtor's
task very, very difficult.
Currently, we enjoy the privacy that we paid heavily for. The proposed addition of a
second story next door would have been the determining factor in not purchasing this
home. The subject property, 14970 Sobey Road, is situated on a hilltop with ample
views, which I'm sure they paid heavily for. The problem lies in that a second story
would be a crows nest looking directly into my outdoor living areas, a total and complete
loss of privacy. My outdoor living areas consist of a back yard, a side yard and a pool,
all to be in direct and full view of the new second story addition. Not only does the
second story allow visual access to my yard, the plans call for an outside deck to built off
the addition, directly above and facing my back yard! The owner stated she had no
interest in looking into my back yard, and I do believe her sincerity, but she said she
intends to sit out there and enjoy the view. She has said that she would be looking to the
right, toward the valley, and not into my yard, directly beneath her. She has offered to
put in some trees to help obstruct her view into my property, and has been very nice
about it, but I have severe questions about the feasibility of a such a green wall. With a
large lot, there is only one reason to build upward, the VIEW, and I can't see someone
spending the money on a second story addition and then plant very tall trees for the
neighbor's sake, ruining her own view. I'm also thinking long term, as we have every
intention of staying here and raising our children in this house. At any future time, she
or any new owner could decide to drop the trees in favor of a fuller view. I would have
no objection to this project if it could be guaranteed that a full wall of mature evergreen
trees were planted that totally protected me, forever, and that this room will only be for
the one same person, forever. Obviously, no one can make such assurances. The future
of this. neighborhood is of great concern to my wife and myself. Aside from the privacy
issue, we don't want to see two story homes here any more than someone subdividing for
condos. The intentions of the present owner seem harmless enough, but any of a million
unforeseen circumstances could have a great effect on my quality of life and the value of
my home. I would consider a loss of privacy to not only have a great detrimental effect
every day on our quality of life, but also literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in
property value. (When we purchased this home there were many similar homes on the
market, without the privacy, for hundreds of thousands of dollars less). We would find it
disconcerting to know that on a daily basis a person would be able to see anything and
everything in our yard that he or she desired. This goes against every reason we paid
such a premium to purchase this house and call it home. The are five homes on our
private drive, ALL are single story.
Though I certainly believe a person has a right to improve their property, it should not be
at the expense of others. The current size of their house, about 4200 sq. ft. seems ample
for 3 adults and a toddler, though I do not dispute their privilege to upgrade. The
question is how. Why a second story addition when there seems to be ample space for a
ground level addition? Why an addition facing directly into my property, with outside
decking no less? Why was this project started in 1994 and being attempted now? Did
the previous owners know something when they moved? Why hadn't the neighbor ever
tried to talk to us about this expansion or ask about our concerns? Were they hoping I
would throw out the Planning Commission notice as junk mail?
A short discussion with the owner about the second story addition came about only
because I went and knocked on her door. Though she is willing to try to minimize the
impact on my family and my property; at this time, under these circumstances and
design, I seek your protection and ask that you not allow this to happen. Maybe
something can be worked out in the future to the satisfaction of all, it certainly would
have helped if the owner had spoken to us about this a long, long time ago.
Please deny this project as currently designed; I have no desire to live my life and raise
my family under the scrutiny of a neighbor, no matter how well intentioned.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Richard L. Pouliot
14976 Sobey Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 354 -0114 -
Date Received:
Hearing Date: 3 1 8176
Fee: $675
Receipt . No . •
APPEAL APPLICATION
— -
D
E Cr E V E
D
FEB 2 9 1996
CITY OF SARAH TPA
CITY MAN. GY"'M 0"J"
C2
Name of Appellant: _ . ��,r -e o ka vie` -AN, Aes
Address: 14- ok 1 t Q t, 40 R a" Sa a *V" Coq— 95e�o
Telephone: 35 1 ro 194 91 %e 785-6190
Name of Applicant (if ,
different from Appellant: CLL*-^%\Xe Skov
Project File Number and Address: IDR- q-4- 04.1
1 64 41-1 D So y�o�
Decision Being Appealed: �4p�y.i ow yq- S- �-o�r� .
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):
M.
* Appell t s Signature
*Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you
wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a
separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION:
File No.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
I, , as appellant on the above file, hereby
authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the
above file.
Date:— -/ Signature:
Saratoga City Council
City of Saratoga
13 777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Ref Appeal of Design Review Approval, 14970 Sobey Rd.
Dear Members of the Council,
�B
,PR .zt9%
C7 �4 "Z
?-1-1�
Being some what short on construction detail, I am not sure what to think about the second story
addition that my neighbor is contemplating. However, I thought it an appropriate time to at least
address the issue of future view obstruction on remodels and "tear down properties ".
Saratoga is moving into a later stage development cycle where existing lots of nice building
character (flat) are becoming scarce and more and more construction will revolve around hillside
lots and future second story additions. This would be a strong possibility on the two properties
directly below my lot which adjoins Mr. Anderson, when ever my good neighbors retire and move
on or elect to sell their properties. In both cases my view would be impacted strongly.
It is to this long range end and possibly to assist Mr. Anderson, that I believe our city needs to
develop a stronger ordinance clause within its regulations to better protect asset value of existing
homes. Some of the beach cities have developed ordinances which handle that very nicely and
possibly could better resolve future disputes down the road. I know some cities require, where a
view is impacted, a pole and flag installation for assisting in demonstrating just where the visual
impacts occurs, thus allowing for easier judgements.
It seems to me in the case of Mr. Anderson and possibly future property owners, a more detailed
ordinance on view obstruction is in need of development.
I appreciate your time reviewing my concerns, good luck in your decision making.
Very Truly Yours,
Dennis McFarlane
18600 Rancho Las Cimas
Town Council
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Skov Family Addition
Dear Sir /Madam:
� U
D��� r�
APR 2 1996
D
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY ,m,4.NACsER'S OFFICE
March 26, 1996
n� U
C`
With regard to the subject addition, we believe it will enhance the
property and prove beneficial to the values of the neighboring
property.
The design approved by the Planning Board is attractive without
being obtrusive. We hope you will concur with the Planning Boards
Decision.
Sincerely,
Lola P. Johnson
James R. Johnson
6 be Rd.
March 28,1996
HONORRBLE MRYOR PRUL JRCOBS and CITY COUNCIL
CITY of SRRRTOGR
Bear Mayor Jacobs and Council Members;
Ref: (BR- 94_042) (RPN- 397 -04 -090).
We are appealing the decision made by the Planning Commission
on the Skou request to build a second story onto the residence
at 14970 Sobey Road, Saratoga, Ca
This appeal is brought forward to the council because we feel
the Planning Commission has made findings which were not
supported by the presented evidence, and that the decision is
prejudicial to our rights.
* Area surveys undertaken by a staff member, of the general
proximity to the site were in extreme error in indicating that
the adjacent neighborhood is predominately two story homes
Our survey will show this to be that only 6 homes of 52 lots
are true two -story dwellings.
40 are singles, and 6 are downward sloping second story.
* The Planning Commission has granted a waiver to allow this
Skou structure, which will exceed the typical 22' height and
the maximum square footage by 120sf.
1/ The 2nd story is being allowed on the basis that there is no
further buildable land on this acre lot.
That is inaccurate. The current 4000+ sf house has
approximately 12000sf of adjacent unused land on the
S/W side of the residence
2/ The area survey which was submitted by a City Planner, to
the Planning Commission was biased and inaccurate.
(reference, copies of original, and my corrected chart)
3/ The Planning Commissioners ignored the fundamentals of
our right to privacy. Our entire indoor /outdoor living is
oriented towards the Westerly view.
The Skou house is set 30' from the property line, placing
our residences in close proximity.
The proposed 2nd story will be directly in view from our
dining, living, family rooms, deck areas, and guest cottage.
THERE IS NO RU01 D I NG the intrusion.
We have polled Saratoga residents and have obtained many
petition signatures, supporting a concern against 2 story homes
in areas that are predominantly one story, OR that remodelling
would obstruct or impede a current structures view.
These people agree that property owners DO NOT have the right
to arbitrarily interfere with a neighbors view when alternate
measures are available for dwelling expansion!
They are concerned that this Skou approval will set a precedent
in their nei6ghborhoods.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully, Richard 6, Diana Rnderson
Reference attachments:
Rrea map displaying 1, 1.5, D 2 story homes
Survey signatures
w
ATKINSON - FARASYN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LEONARD J.
SIEGAL
660 WEST DANA STREET
HAROLD S.
TOPPEL
P.O. BOX 279
ROBERT K.
BOOTH, JR.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
STEVEN G.
BAIRD
TELEPHONE ( 415) 967 -6941
MARC G. HYNES
i -, v rnTt
FACSIMILE 14 15) 967 -1395
March 27, 1996
Honorable Mayor Paul Jacobs and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Land Use Appeal
DR -94 -042
Dear Mayor Jacobs and City Council Members:
J. M. ATKINSON 11892 -19821
L. M. FARASYN (1 9 15-1 9791
I represent Richard and Diana Anderson, owners of a
home located at 14971 Quito Road in Saratoga. I am writing this
letter in connection with their appeal of a project at 14970
Sobey Road.
My clients object to the expansion of the addition of a
second story to the existing structure on Sobey Road. The
addition will significantly affect my clients' enjoyment of their
private property by restricting their view and, accordingly, will
diminish the quality of their living environment.
The proposed second story addition is in an area of
predominantly single - family homes. Where second stories do
exist, they have been designed and constructed in a manner to
diminish the apparent bulk, something which has not been done
with the proposed addition.
My clients understand that City zoning regulations
prohibit height, elevations and placement of buildings or
additions which unreasonably interfere with views and privacy of
adjacent property. The approved addition does not satisfy these
prohibitions. Inadequate efforts have been made to minimize the
perception of excessive bulk, as required by Saratoga zoning
regulations. The house, with its second story addition, will not
be compatible with existing residential structures within the
immediate neighborhood, and the same zoning district, as required
by City law.
City policy is for property owners to respect a view
from neighboring or higher residences. City policy states that
blocking views with structures or using site plans that will
Honorable
Page Two
March 27,
Mayor Paul Jacobs and City Council
1996
create view problems should be avoided. City policy states that
higher portions of structures are to be located so as to avoid
view interference. None of these policies have been properly
observed in this case.
Saratoga residents have repeatedly expressed their
desire to maintain the City's rural residential character
through low residential densities and the relatively low profile
and height of residences. As stated in the preface to Saratoga's
Residential Design Handbook, "The protection of views, both from
the hillsides to the valley and from the valley floor to the
hi-ll.si,des, has also been an inportart part of Saratoga's physical
development." With the recent enactment of Measure G, Saratoga
voters confirmed their desire to maintain the City's existing
character in the face of continuing pressures to build and
develop at the expense of existing residents. Your favorable
consideration of my clients' appeal will demonstrate your
recognition of the community's desires to maintain Saratoga's
unique physical characteristics and quality of life.
MGH:cwb
y yours,
YNES
Town Council
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Skov Family Addition
Dear Sir /Madam:
`APR 31996
March 26, 1996
We fully support the Skov's planned addition to their home. The
improvement to their home will enhance the property values of all of
the neighboring homes.
We support the Planning Board's approval of their plans.
Sincerely,
AY
Gerald C. J en
4.
Ruth Jacobsen
14960 Sobey Rd.
Town Council
City Of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Skov Family Addition
Dear Sir /Madam:
i n
APR 3 1996
March 26, 1996
We wish to convey our approval of the Skov's plans to add to their
house. The improvement to their home will be beneficial to our
neighborhood property values and will fit in nicely with the terrain.
We hope you will add your approval to that of the Planning Board.
Sin rely,
ndie Mandell
Art r a
14950 Sobey Rd.
3