HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ' SZ53 4 AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: January 4, 1995 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development
SUBJECT:
Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance application request (LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015) .
Recommended Motion(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission
decision and deny the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance requests.
Report Summary:
On November 9, 1994, an application was presented to the Planning
Commission requesting Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an
existing lot line between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel. A
Variance was also requested to allow one parcel to be under the minimum
lot size requirement based on the parcel's new average site slope. The
Planning Commission decided by a 6 -0 vote that the Variance findings
were not present to approve the request because it would result in a
grant of special privilege. Because the Lot Line Adjustment request was
contingent on the Variance's approval, both requests were denied.
Within the attached letter dated November 16, 1994, the applicant states
that there are several reasons which exist to support the Lot Line
Adjustment and Variance requests. For example, the applicant has
indicated:
* Both parcels are over two (2) acres and will remain the same size.
* The request would allow a reasonable rear yard area for planting
and landscaping on a relatively restricted site.
* The Lot Line Adjustment would allow the property owner of Parcel
"B" to maintain the top portion of the hill (i.e. brush and weed
abatement) better than the owner of Parcel "A ".
The staff report presented to the Planning Commission at the November 9,
1994 public hearing recommended approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and
Variance requests. Staff initially felt that the Variance findings
could be recommended to support the proposal due to the "technical"
nature of Parcel A's nonconformity. Although the land proposed to be
adjusted was equal in area, the Lot Line Adjustment would cause the
File No. LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 21152 Chadwick Ct./13245 Padero Ct.
average slope of Parcel A to increase. Technically, this increased the
parcel's nonconformity with current site /slope to lot size requirements.
The Commission concluded that since the slope of the property determines
the minimum lot size, regardless if the parcel size remains the same,
the Variance findings could not be supported. After further
consideration, following Planning Commission discussion at the public
hearing, staff agrees with the Planning Commission that the Variance
request does not meet a literal reading of the necessary findings, and
that both requests should be denied.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Advertising, Noticina and Public Contact:
Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of
the subject property. Notices were also posted at City Hall and
advertised in the newspaper.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
A grant of special privilege will result and a precedent will be set for
future deviations from the lot size /slope ratio.
Follow Up Actions:
None
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolutions LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015
2. Applicant's appeal letter dated 1-2/21/94
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 11/09/94 & 11/22/94
4. Planning Commission Memorandum dated 11/09/94
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
RESOLUTION NO. LL -94 -002
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENIAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Barkas; 13245 Padero Ct. (Parcel A)
Chadwick; 21152 Chadwick Ct. (Parcel B)
WHEREAS, a Lot Line Adjustment between APN 503 -15 -037 (Parcel
A) and APN 503 -15 -41 (Parcel B) has been filed with the Community
Development Director of the City of Saratoga for the relocation of
a contiguous lot line; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is not consistent
with the General Plan and the regulations of Saratoga's building,
zoning and subdivision ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is contingent on
approval, of a Variance request (V -94 -015) which can not be
supported;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga denies the Lot Line Adjustment as shown on
Exhibit A.
Section 1. 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, this 22nd day of November, 1994, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick &
Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Caldwell
Chairman, Plan ling Commission
ATTEST
Secretary to the Planning Commission
r
RESOLUTION V -94 -015
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST
Barkas; 13245 Padero Ct.
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has
received an application.for Variance approval to allow Parcel A to
be under the minimum lot size requirement based on the parcel's new
average site slope created as a result of a Lot Line Adjustment;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has Not met the burden of proof
required to support said application, and the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
(a) That because there are no special circumstances
applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulations would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district.
(b) That because special circumstances do not exist, the
granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in
the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve.as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Barkas /Chadwick for
Variance 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 22nd day of November, 1994, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan,Murakami., Patrick &
Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Caldwell
File No. V -94 -015; 13245 Padero Ct.
n, Planningvcommission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning tommission
Dec. 21, 1994
To: Saratoca City Council
From: Allen Chadwick 9 Alex Barkas
Re: Appeal of lot line adjustment of parcel "A" V -94 -015 and parcel "B"
LL -94 -002.
Parcel "A" is the Barkas property that fronts on Padero Ct. and backs up
to the Chadwick property on Chadwick Ct. that lies 130 ft. higher e,lev-
vation than Parcel "A ".The proposed lot line adjustment consists of a
trade of a 40 ft. strip of land from the rear of the Barkas property,
parcel "All for an equal plot of land from parcel "B ", the Chadwick Ct.
property.
Parcel "B" has city approved house plans. The home had to be designed
with a width of just 22 feet in order to fit between a mature oak tree
and the existing property line leaving only 20' from the house to the
existing Barkas property line.
Both parcels are over two acres and their size will not change. Both
parcels conformed to the zoning ordinance when developed but no longer
conform due to the changes in the zoning ordinance. The only difference
caused by this adjustment will result in one percentage point greater
average slope For parcel "A" after the exchange. This difference will
not have any effect on the site as pointed out by the planning depart-
ment report.
The purpose of the request is to allow parcel "B" to have control of the
area for the followinc reasons: To use this strip as a fire break and
plant fire resistant plants in this buffer area (sketch attached); to
have a side yard and to allow a deck within the existing property of
parcel "B" without it then being against the existing Barkas property
line.
The 40' strip is in a relatively flat area of the knoll as illustrated
on the enclosed section. There will be no structure placed on this
section and none of the residences on Padero Ct. can be seen from this
area. Please refer to section.
The referred to 40' strip cannot be seen from the Barkas residence nor
can it be accessed to remove the weeds and brush for fire protection
as the grade is too steep to get to it.
We feel that the planning department recommendation to approve this trade
clearly points out that there is no negative affect on parcel "A" and
we feel that parcel "B" needs to have control of this fire break area
as otherwise there is no way for it to be serviced.
Without this land trade the Barkases remain responsible for land that
they cannot service adjoining a very prestiges future home. They are,
therefore, also very much in favor of this land trade.
Thank you all for your consideration in the above matter.
Sincerely, _ L
Z4�t-7— Z�4
Allen Chadwick
i r
v
V
V
Q
Z
V
A
LANDS DF CHADMICK
Job Nome: CHADWICK AND BARKAS/VIJCIK SECTION
VERTICAL SCALE: I inoh = 410 feet
HORIZONTAL SCALE: I Inoh = 20 feet
Dorhod Lin• Noturo! Cround
Soiid Lin • Pr000sed Ground
LANDS OF BARKAS/VIJCIK
Exisr
Sol s-
PRCFaWV RESIDENCE ,
Q� J
LANDS OF BARKAS/VIJCIK
Exisr
Sol s-
LANDS OF CHADVICK
U LAAVS OF BARKAS /VI,A^IK
S {� - MdltRD IFSfOfMYyJI
✓ob Nome: CHADWICK AND BARKAS /V/JCIK SECrICN
VERTICAL SCALE: / Inoh 'lO reat
HORIZONTAL SCALE: l Inoh 20 rent
Or.n i LIn• Nnt ur n/ Gr��n♦
$n /f/ Lfn• . Ir�n�i�n 6r •�nI i
c
0
FIREBREAK PLANTING
s aF�
� + a
C,
d §
B
w
U
Z
w
O
c
Y 1
U P
31,
� F
Q a
U Y
W' 1I
J
J
Q
EMS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
PAGE - 14 -
THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:10 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT
9:25 P.M.
7. LL -94 -002 - Chadwick & Barkas; 21152 Chadwick Ct. & 13245 Padero Ct., request
V -94 -015 - for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line
between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel per Chapter 14 of the
City Code. A Variance is also required to allow one parcel to be under
the minimum lot size requirement based on the parcel's new average site
slope per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Both parcels are located within
the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (Cont. from the 8/10/94
public hearing at the request of the applicants; application expires
4/19/95).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that staff has
received several letters regarding this item and for Agenda Item No. 8. He informed the
Commission that the staff update memo to the Commission addressed the issues raised by the
neighbors. While staff is available to discuss the issues this evening, the issues raised in the
letters primarily address the original subdivision approval or the approvals of homes within
the subdivision and are not necessarily related to this particular lot line adjustment request.
Staff therefore recommending approval of the applications as presented with the conditions
contained in the resolutions.
Chairman Asfour asked staff if the Commission should review the variance request before the
lot line adjustment because if the variance is denied, then the lot line is also denied. Planner
Walgren responded that consideration of the variance should be conducted prior to the lot line
adjustment request.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not feel that the lot line adjustment could be
granted unless the Commission makes the findings that is would result in conformance to the
zoning ordinance. The only way that the Commission could make that finding was to grant
a variance. She noted that the reason that the lot does not conform to the zoning ordinance
was due to the slope situation and that the reason for the variance request was due to the
slope. Planner Walgren stated that it was staff's belief that the findings could be made to grant
a variance based on the discussion as stated in the staff report. If the Planning Commission
does not agree that the three variance findings can be made, than both the variance and the
lot line adjustment should be denied. Planner Walgren further clarified that part of staff's
discussion supporting the variance was that the 8,000 square feet that contained the greater
slope was located within an open space easement, it is not developable and does not contribute
to a larger house being permitted on either parcel. The lot line adjustment would allow for
an increased yard area for parcel B.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that when she read the report, it struck her that the City
was trying to undue something that would indemnify the city's zoning ordinance. Properties
are subdivided according to certain parameters, slope being one of the parameters. She did not
know how you could separate them. Planner Walgren responded that the slope lot size
requirement adopted in 1992 was intended to create new parcels and that this subdivision tract
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
PAGE - 15 -
was approved in the 1960s or 1970s.
Commissioner Siegfried asked staff if the only reason for the lot line adjustment was to grant
some additional flat yard area? Planner Walgren responded that that was his understanding
but felt that the applicant could address this question further.
Commissioner Kaplan felt that the applicant was not only gaining a flat pad area but that- he
was also to gain a distance from a line that was located in the middle of the hill that would
allow him to build closer to the edge of the hill.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was also interested in the discussion as stated in the
letters received regarding the driveway and the additional environmental impacts that would
result with the driveway. She inquired as to staff's response to the discussion pertaining to
the driveway. Planner Walgren stated that the comments in the letter addressed the driveway
for a house that was approved for the parcel in 1991. The driveway was an approved
configuration of that design review application with preliminary grading and drainage plans.
He noted that several of the neighbors have raised the question of whether it would make
sense to place the driveway along the top of the , ridgeline where the existing dirt road' is
located rather than having to cut, fill and grade a road down the side of the hill. He stated
that the top of the ridgeline was not part of this parcel, but that it was part of an adjacent
parcel.
Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Allen Chadwick, 21152 Chadwick Court, property owner, informed the Commission that
another issue existed. That issue being that the house was located 20 feet from the property
line and was designed to preserve the oak tree. In his discussion with Ernie Crow, Saratoga
Fire Chief, he did not feel that the 20 feet was enough of a setback. If. you place a deck out
there, you would have a parking lot right off the deck. He informed the Commission that
you could not remove the brush and weeds from the property because it belonged to someone
else. From a fire standpoint, Mr. Crow felt that the setback for the lot should be at 40 feet.
Commissioner Patrick inquired if the house could be moved back. Mr. Chadwick responded
that the home could not be moved back because of the large oak tree that is located on the
lot.
Alex Barkas, owner of the 13245 Padero Court parcel, addressed the change in slope as being
one degree. He did believe that the small change in slope warranted a variance. The whole
issue of the need for this 40 feet of additional space was to make it a saleable house and lot.
He stated that he would prefer that the property be developed rather than to have the existing
situation (a place used for parties). It was his understanding that if he was to transfer property
that there would be no possibility for the house to be moved closer to the hill. He stated that
he would not be supportive of a deck and that it was his understanding that the 40 foot buffer
was to have no construction on it whatsoever and that it would only have vegetation or
gardening.
PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
PAGE - 16 -
Commissioner Abshire inquired as to the actual depth of the lot that would be increased by
this parcel exchange (how many feet would be added to parcel B)? Mr. Chadwick responded
that Parcel B would be increased by 40 feet.
Mr. Barkas stated that he would not be supportive of a variance that would result in the house
being moved closer to the edge of the lot.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that a letter was received
from Ray Piontek stating his position on this issue.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 8:42 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI
ABSENT).
Commissioner Caldwell commented that in the past, the Commission has been advised that
it could not condition lot line adjustments. She inquired if that was correct.. City Attorney
Riback responded that the Commission could not condition lot line adjustment, but that
variances could be conditioned. He also informed the Commission that the variance should
be considered before the lot line adjustment.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned what condition(s) could be placed on the variance. She did
not feel that the variance would address the concern from the property on Padero Court
looking up the hill at the structure. She asked if the exchange of land was part of the parcel
where the development was going to sit. Chairman Asfour responded that the development
was going to sit on the existing property. Commissioner Kaplan commented that the
applicants were claiming that if the variance was conditioned, that the City could prevent any
building from.being placed on that piece of land. She questioned if the condition would apply
to the entire property. Planner Walgren responded that currently, the way that the house was
approved, it is 20 feet from the east property line. He clarified that the approved house could
be built at the 20 foot side yard setback. Within that 20 feet, you could not have any
structures or any built up decks that were not at grade.
Commissioner Siegfried clarified that should the variance be granted along with the lot line
adjustment, it would allow for additional decking on the back of house. Planner Walgren
stated that with the additional 40 feet of land, the side yard setback would remain at 20 feet
and would allow an additional 40 feet east of the house for decks, accessory structures, arbors,
etc. .He. questioned what the owner was trying to accomplish by the variance.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she had a problem with the "boot strap approach" that has
been taken to justify the variance on the basis of the slope that exists on the site. The slope
was the reason the site did not meet the minimum lot size requirement per the zoning
ordinance. She noted that the city has never approved this type of variance. Therefore, she
could not support the variance.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 9:50 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
PAGE - 17 -
Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Chadwick what he proposes to do with the house if the
40 feet variance were granted. Mr. Chadwick responded that the 40 feet would provide a back
yard. However, he proposed that no structure is to be built. Commissioner Siegfried inquired
if Mr. Chadwick was proposing the installation of additional decking to the back of the house
because as it now stands, decking would not be allowed in the back of the house. Mr:
Chadwick responded that the 40 feet might allow the installation of a raised deck in the back
of the house but that it would only go to the original property line, if that.
Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Barkas if additional decking was to be built within the
existing 20 feet of backyard area, would that be of concern to him. Mr. Barkas responded that
it would not be of concern to him so long as it does not encroach into the additional 40 feet.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 9:51 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION TO DENY V -94 -015 ON THE BASIS THAT THE FINDINGS TO
GRANT THE VARIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE (I.E., THE SLOPE OF THE
PROPERTY DETERMINES THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES).
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would not support the motion as he has never
granted a variance to create a lot /house that would not otherwise have been created. He
stated that he did not have a problem in granting variances to additions to houses. It seemed
that this variance would allow Mr. Chadwick to do something that he could not do with the
existing lot.
Chairman Asfour concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments because he felt that it
would be granting, of a special privilege.
THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT).
City Attorney Riback clarified that the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution and
that the public hearing was closed. The item would appear on the consent calendar of the
November 22 meeting with the resolution reflecting the Commission's action. Final action
would take place on November 22.
8. DR -91- 006.2- 21152 Chadwick Ct., request for a second one -year extension of time
for a Design Review approval to construct a new 5,416 sq. ft. two -story
residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The site is approximately
2.79 acres and is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning
district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that the neighbors have raised the issue of new
development that has occurred in the area. It has given the neighbors and others cause to look
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 22, 1994
PAGE -2-
THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSTAINING AND
COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT).
ORAL COMMUNICATION
No comments were offered.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
November 18, 1994.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there were two minor corrections as
follows:
1. Item No. 8, Page 46, condition 14 of the approval resolution, the City Arborist has
revised the security deposit amount from $8,781 to $6,897.
2. Item 11, page 87, under the discussion of the trees that would be necessary to be
removed, the report should be corrected to note that a total of 16 trees would be removed
to accommodate construction. Seven trees are recommended for removal and nine trees
could otherwise remain but are within the proposed building envelop.
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR
1. LL-94 -002 - Chadwick & Barkas; 21152 Chadwick Ct. & 13245 request for Lot Line
V -94 -015 - Padero Ct., Adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line
between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel per Chapter 14 of
the City Code. A Variance is also required to allow one parcel to be
under the minimum lot size requirement based on the parcel's new
average site slope per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Both parcels are
located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (Cont.
from the 11/9/94 public hearing. to adopt Resolutions of denial;
application expires 4/19/95):
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED. TO APPROVE CONSENT
CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0
(COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT).
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR
2. SD -94 -002 - Lester/Von Dorsten; 14120 Saratoga. Avenue, request for and
DR -94 -011 - Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review Variance approvals to subdivide
DR -94 -012 - a 1.3 acre parcel into two (2) separate parcels and to construct two new
_ 04
ITEM #7
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL &LEALBEftS:
Ann Marie Burger
Paul E. ,Jacobs
M E M O R A N D U M Gillian e Moron
Karen Tucker
Donald L. Wolfe
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Rermoyan, Assistant Planner
DATE: November 9, 1994
SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment-#94-002 & Variance #94 -015
Chadwick & Barkas; 21152 Chadwick Ct. & 13245 Padero Ct.
Discussion:
This item was originally scheduled for the August 10, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting but was continued to the September 28, 1994
meeting at the request of the applicant (Mr. Barkas) in order to
resolve some additional issues pertaining to the item. Because
several of the issues remained unresolved, the item was continued
for a second time from the September meeting to a date uncertain.
Since that time, all of the outstanding issues have been resolved
and the item was renoticed for the November 9th meeting.
Correspondence:
The City has received correspondence from surrounding neighbors
expressing objection to the Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
applications. The major concerns noted within several of the
attached letters are as follows:
Safety -
* The future driveway to the previously approved residence
on Parcel B is a safety hazard to the entire neighborhood
because it will cause adverse environmental damage.
* The new development lacks proper site drainage and
buffers to soften impacts on the environment and the
neighborhood..
* The City's approvals of the two adjacent homes within the
Chadwick Place Subdivision lack proper drainage and
visibility mitigation measures.
Printed on recycled paper.
File No. LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 21152 Chadwick Ct.& 13245 Padero Ct.
Visibility and Privacy -
* The Lot Line. Adjustment will add to the buildable
envelope of Parcel B which would, therefore, open up
possibilities of constructing a larger house or
additional ridgeline structures.
* A house constructed on Parcel B will create an invasion
of privacy, building density, and view obstruction to
adjacent properties.
History -
* Previous approvals within the subdivision have
intensified off -site drainage impacts and created
visibility concerns.
The neighbors have requested the Commission's decision of the
subject applications be delayed in order to further discuss the
above concerns.
Staff's review of the Lot Line Adjustment application and the
neighbor's concerns reveals that they are unrelated. The neighbors
are correct in that the Public Works Director has verified existing
drainage erosion problems associated with the subdivision's storm
water outfall. These problems have been identified and are being
addressed by the City's Public Works Department independent of this
application. This current application is a request to relocate an
exiting lot line between two parcels. Because the lot size of both .
parcels will remain unchanged, the adjustment will in no way allow
the property owners to construct larger residences. Concerns
regarding bulk and mass, privacy and view blockage were originally
reviewed during-the Design Review process for a.home on Parcel B.
The Planning Commission, at that time, was able to make all of the
required findings to grant application approval. In addition,
conditions of Design Review approval on Parcel B require that the
'City's Geotechnical Consultant and Public Works Director review
final drainage plans in order to preserve the slope's stability.
Section 66412 of the Subdivision Map Act - governing lot line
adjustments states that:
11 ... an advisory agency shall limit its review and
approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels
resulting. from a lot line adjustment will conform to
local zoning and building ordinances.11
Staff's review of the Lot Line Adjustment request indicates that
both parcels will conform to all.building, zoning and subdivision
ordinance regulations including parcel dimensions, residence floor
File No. LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 21152 Chadwick Ct.& 13245 Padero Ct.
area, required setbacks and impervious coverage. Staff's review of
the Variance request, as discussed within the attached Staff
Report, reveals that all the required findings can be recommended.
Recommendation:
Approve the application by adopting Resolutions LL -94 -002 and V -94-
015.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions LL -94 -002 and V -94 -015
2. Staff Report dated 8/10/94
3. Correspondence
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 13245 Padero- t. /Chadwick C
Applicant/ Owner: garkas /Chadwick
Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan
Date: August 10, 1994 I,
APN: 503-15-037 & 503-15-041 Director Approval: l�/
File No. LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 13245 Padero Ct. & Chadwick Ct.
EXECUTIVE - SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed.:
3/28/94
Application complete:
.7/20/94
Notice published:
7/27/94
Mailing completed:
7/28/94
Posting completed:
7/21/94
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing
lot line between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel per
Chapter 14 of the City Code. A Variance is also required to allow
one parcel to be under the minimum lot size requirement based on
the parcel's new average site slope per Chapter 15 of the City
Code. Both parcels are located within the Hillside Residential
.(HR) zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the application by adopting Resolutions LL -94 -002 and V -94-
015.
ATTACHMENTS:-
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions LL -94 -002 & V -94 -01.5
3. Site Plan, Exhibit "A"
File No. LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 13245 Padero Ct. & Chadwick Ct.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: Hillside Residential (HR)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC)
PARCEL SIZE:
EXISTING PROPOSED CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
Parcel A: 2.07 acres * 2.07 acres * 5.82 acres **
Parcel B: 2.79 acres * 2.79 acres * 4.24 acres **
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:
EXISTING
Parcel A: 41%
Parcel B:, 33
LOT COVERAGE:
EXISTING
Parcel A: 6,025 s.f.(5 %)
Parcel B: 0 s.f.
FLOOR AREA:
EXISTING
HOUSE
SIZE
Parcel A: 2,709 s.f.
Parcel B: 0 s.f.
SETBACKS:
PROPOSED
42%
33%
PROPOSED
6,025 s.f.(5 %)
7,919 s.f. (7 %)
EXISTING
CODE REOUIREMENT
ALLOWANCE
5,766 s.f.
6,180 s.f.
PROPOSED
Parcel•A: Front: 34 ft.
Rear: 220 ft.
Right Side: 27 ft.
Left Side: 106 ft.
Parcel B: Front: 65 ft.
Rear: 460 ft.
Right Side: 80 ft.
Left Side: 37 ft.
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
15,000 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
PROPOSED
CODE REQUIREMENT/
ALLOWANCE
5,766 s.f.
6,180 s.f.
CODE REQUIREMENT
ALLOWANCE
Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 50/60 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 20 ft.
Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 50/60 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 20 ft.
* Parcel size is the same due to even exchange of land
** Existing Non - conforming
File No. LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 13245 Padero Ct. & Chadwick Ct.
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
The two lots are cul -de -sac parcels, one of which is developed with
a single- family residence (Parcel A) while the other remains
undeveloped (Parcel B). The two properties are contiguous to each
other in that one parcel's rear yard abuts the other parcel's side
yard. Both sites are characterized by relatively steep hillside
topography with average slopes of 33 and 41 percent.
The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will involve the equal transfer of
relatively rectangular portions of land between the two parcels.
Although each parcel's lot size will remain unchanged, the average
site slope of one parcel will slightly increase because the
adjustment will involve the transfer of unequally sloped sections
of land..
Both parcels are presently considered legal non - conforming in that
they do not conform to the City's current minimum net site area
requirement. These parcels were created under the provisions of
the previous Ordinance which required a minimum net lot size of 1
acre. The current Ordinance, adopted in 1992, requires a minimum
net lot size of 2 acres plus an increase in parcel size based on
the parcel's average site slope.
Actions and Limitations:
Section 66412 of the Subdivision Map Act governing lot line
adjustments states that "...an advisory agency shall limit its
review and approval to a determination of whether or not the
parcels resulting from a lot line adjustment will conform to local
zoning and building ordinances."
Staff's review of the Lot Line Adjustment indicates that Parcel B,
although non - conforming in existing site area, will not increase
its degree of non - conformity since its average site slope to lot
size ratio will remain unchanged. On the other hand, Parcel A's
existing non - conforming situation will be intensified because the
lot line adjustment will increase the parcel's average site slope
by approximately 1% and, therefore, require a greater net site
area.
Variance:
The applicant is applying for Variance approval to allow Parcel A
to deviate from the minimum net site area requirement due to its
increase in average slope. Staff feels that the Variance findings
can be supported 'because; a) the allowed buildable floor area on
the site will remain unchanged since the existing and proposed
average slopes are over 30 %; b) the lot size will remain unchanged;
c) the adjusted area which contributes to the increase in site
- slope is considered undevelopable land, and; d) the regulation
.which determines minimum site area based on average site slope was
intended for newly created parcels. Therefore, staff can recommend
File No. LL -94 -002 & V -94 -015; 13245 Padero Ct. & Chadwick Ct.
all of the required Variance findings which support that there are
special topographic circumstances applicable to the property which
would deprive the applicant of privileges shared by other property
owners who have minimally sloped parcels.
Summary:
Both parcels will conform to all building; zoning and subdivision
ordinance regulations including parcel dimensions, residence floor
area, required setbacks and impervious coverage.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the application by adopting Resolutions LL -94 -002 and V -94-
015.
I=
The Neighbors on
Chiquita Way, and
Padero Ct.
August 9, 1994
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070.
Request for a Delay of the commissioners' decision on the request
for lot line adjustment, LL -94 -002; V -94 -015.
Members of the Planning Commission:
We respectfully request that the commissioners delay the decision
on the lot.line adjustment, LL -94 -002; V -94 -015, until the impacts
of the development of parcel B are fully reviewed and disclosed to
the community. Please refer to the attached maps for the following
discussions.
The property owner of parcel B requested an adjustment to the lot
line between parcels A and B. The adjustment mainly increases the
buildable area of parcel B. At the public hearing on Nov 10, 1993,
both the Pionteks and the Starks have raised the concern of
potential problems due to the location of the lot line between
parcels Band C. Namely, the construction of a hillside driveway
which violates many provisions in the city ordinances. We question
why the property owner'is requesting adjustment to a lot line that
is mainly beneficial only to the property owner, and yet ignores
the request to adjust the lot line that causes neighborhood
problems. The priority is obviously made only to the property
owner with total disregard to the neighborhood impacts. We have
had many bad experiences in the recent past, and it leads us to
believe that it is important for the .property owner and the city. to
address all of the lot line issues as a whole and to discuss the
full impact of the requested adjustment with the community. We
have several specific concerns:
1. There is a history of the developments on this hill involving
changes that lead to more changes. All of those approved
changes were noted by the applicants to pose no impact, and
yet, they were in fact detrimental to the neighborhood. As a
result, the neighbors have to remedy or suffer the conse-
quences of those changes. There has been definite insensitiv-
ity to the - existing residences, and there has been a lack of _
forth -right disclosure. We can quote.many such cases, and
yes, we have become suspicious of changes. For all we know,
this adjustment may also lead to additional negative impacts.
2. There is an existing dirt path on parcel B that is currently
used by all visitors. The lot line between parcels B and C
appears to be intentionally located such that the existing
dirt path cannot be used for the driveway to the new house on
parcel B. This lot line forces the drive.way to be cut into
the side of the steep hill. The cut has to be wide enough and
strong enough to support a fire truck and will be several
hundred feet long. This drive way will be right next to the
backyard of two existing houses. It is a safety hazard for
the new house as well as the entire neighborhood. It follows
.the path that causes the most adverse environmental impacts,
it violates many provisions in the city ordinance, and is a
major encroachment to what is left of the natural hillside.
3. Any new development is supposed to provide buffers to soften
its impacts on the environment and neighborhood. It is
supposed to also provide a plan for proper drainage. We have
not seen any plan so far and we fear that history will repeat
itself, that no buffer or proper drainage will be in place.
We have additional concerns of headlights shining into our
living. areas, and their storm water causing erosion. and
flooding the neighborhood.
It is not too late to work -on minimizing the impacts of the
development of parcel B on the neighborhood. A minor adjustment to
the lot line between parcels B and C., and a relocation of the
driveway will prove to be .beneficial to the neighborhood, the
property owner, and the environment.
We request that the commissioners delay the decision, and the city
conducts discussion sessions to iron.out the concerns. We feel
that the discussions will benefit everyone. The little delay
upfront might resolve many neighborhood problems in the future. As
a next step, we would like to invite all of the planning commis-
sioners out to our neighborhood, to see first hand the negative
impacts of what is happening as a result of this Chadwick project.
Sincerely,
The Starks, 21247 Chiquita Way
The Pionteks, 21195 Chiquita Way
The Niemans, Padero Ct.
\. O 10 o 2030
i b 100
`i{
1
Pmt
(zo I
1 1 ( G
i I
I
I,OT L111LS AD11151MIENT TAnla
►ARCRL A
►ARCR1.1
mG11010
I
RXL111TIG
►RO►G1®.
ARRA (AC)
1.061
2.111
1.766
L1►1
AVERAGE IL.O►E 10. 90
i
71.90
11.890
MMIDEW IF
1 1 ( G
i I
I
I,OT L111LS AD11151MIENT TAnla
J
►ARCRL A
►ARCR1.1
mG11010
►ROPMUD
RXL111TIG
►RO►G1®.
ARRA (AC)
1.061
2.111
1.766
L1►1
AVERAGE IL.O►E 10. 90
11.110
71.90
11.890
MMIDEW IF
110E
0
1
1111
RRGuc11011
Go%
100
600
400 rACFOR
REDUCED Rt■ .891
.111
1.111
1.010
AREA IF
FOR 11001
1010
1010
110612.071
1"1
I1111..m1
Iln
Folt 40001
1000
6000
1111..010 -
IA
6601..070
►'•
MAXIMUM
AILOWA1Il
rCOOR AREA
1611
SMI
1110
1111
J
Ir
...... ................
�,.;*F7, -w
/ �^ • i '1 11 I t I
I , 1 /I�
/ / S1 iw ; t -�
hv
nitre,
SITE Ppk.K
4t) . . #.%
RECEIVED
August 11, 1994 AUG 3 0 1994
PLANNING DU -T,
Planning Commissioners
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 -5199
RE: LL -94 -002 Barkas, Chadwick, 13245 Padero Court & a vacant parcel on Chadwick Court
V -94 -015
When Daisy Stark addressed you at the August 10, 1994, Planning Commission meeting, she
focused primarily on the concerns of neighboring properties on Chiquita Way. Although we concur with
these concerns, this letter addresses our concerns about the request from the Padero Court perspective.
We do not believe that the lot line adjustment should be granted for the following reasons: .
1. Safety: The Barkas property sits on a sliding hillside. During the rains in the early 1980's, the
former owners left the house in fear of a mud wash. After the rains, they built two of the four retaining
walls holding the hillside over the house. The hillside slips and slumps in constant movement toward
Padero Court. In all, there are five levels of retaining walls on the Barkas property. During those rains,
residents of Padero Court were evacuated due to threat of flooding of Calabasas Creek. Padero Court is
a blind cul -de -sac. A slide on the Barkas property could block the only emergency escape for the
residents of Padero Court.
We cautioned the Planning Commission when approving the Chadwick proposal two years ago,
and are still not comfortable with the proposal to build a 5,700 square foot house with adjoining patios and
driveways without a drainage plan or a plan to support the crumbling hill under the house at the top of this
slide. Approval of the lot line adjustment only adds land to the face of the Chadwick parcel. The deeper
set -back opens up possibilities moving the house pad for an even larger house and would allow for the
addition of more ridgeline structures, i.e., pool, decks, fences, etc.
2. Visibility and privacy: A house built on the pad as proposed will loom over the neighboring
properties on Padero Court. Standing on the Chadwick building pad, one looks into the swimming pool at
the David House residence, and into the house and back patio of the Bernard Nieman residence. The
proposed structures on the Chadwick property will sit squarely on top of the Barkas and House homes on
Padero Court with a diminished set -back. This invasion of privacy, building density, and view obstruction
are not within the code and philosophy of Saratoga's Hillside Development Plan.
3. History: The Chadwick - Cocciardi story is slowly fading from the memories of the City of
Saratoga Planners and Planning Commission, but not from the neighboring residents. As building is
approved and appears on the hillside, we are further reminded of the City's betrayal and lack of
consideration and protection of existing developed properties. Just look at the Campbell house, 21258
Chadwick Court, built on fill moved in by illegal grading which created a "buildable lot." The adjoining
Hong residence, 21210 Chadwick Court, with land cut and filled, butts right up against it. Both are built
on the ridge line without adequate drainage consideration or visibility impact concerns to protect the
neighboring properties. Revegetation plans seem to have fallen victim to negotiations and compromises
with the developers and new builders. Changes made after Planning Commission approval of the sites
surprised the neighbors with larger than expected houses, changed and less buffer vegetation, and
created misunderstanding and hostility between neighbors.
Planning Commissioners, Ck Saratoga
8/11/94
page 2
We don't trust the developer and lack confidence in the City of Saratoga. The request for a
variance is suspect, leaving an illogical lot line wrapping the Barkas property around the neighboring
House property and visually downsizing an already non - conforming lot. It changes the Chadwick parcel
to accommodate more imposing structures on a geologically unstable hillside. Just what is up?
This sensitive land demands a total and comprehensive plan rather than piecemeal plans,
changes, variances, and more changes. With the present available information about this
proposal, wer uest that it be denied.
Submitted y: } �!
Name:
Address:
August 11, 1994
Planning Commissioners
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 -5199
RE: LL -94 -002 Barkas, Chadwick, 13245 Padero Court & a vacant
V -94 -015 parcel on Chadwick Court
When Daisy Stark addressed you at the August 10, 1994
Planning Commission meeting, she focused primarily on the
concerns of neighboring properties on Chiquita Way. Although we
concur with these concerns, this letter addresses our concerns
about the request from the Padero Court perspective. We do not
believe that the lot .line adjustment should be granted for the
following reasons:
1. Safety: The Barkas property sits on a sliding hillside.
During the rains in the early 1980's, the former owners left the
house in fear of a mud wash. After the rains, they built two of
the four retaining walls holding the hillside over the house.
The hillside slips and slumps in constant movement toward Padero
Court. - In all, there are five levels of retaining walls on the
Barkas property. During those rains, residents of Padero Court
were evacuated due to threat of flooding of Calabasas Creek.
Padero Court is a blind cul -de -sac. A slide on the Barkas
property could block the only emergency escape for the resident's
of Padero Court.
We cautioned the Planning Commission when approving the
Chadwick proposal two years ago, and are still not comfortable
with the proposal to build a 5,700 square foot house with
adjoining patios and driveways without a drainage plan or a plan
to support the crumbling hill under the house at the top of this
slide. Approval of the lot line adjustment only adds land to the
face of the Chadwick parcel. The deeper set -back opens up
possibilities moving the house pad for an even larger, house and
would allow for the addition of more ridgeline structures, ie
pool, decks, fences,.etc.
2.' Visability and privacy: A house built on the pad as proposed
will loom over the neighboring properties on Padero Court.
Standing on the Chadwick building pad, one looks into the
swimming pool at the David House residence, and into the house
and back patio of the Bernard Nieman residence. The proposed
structures on the Chadwick property will sit squarely on top of
the Barkas and House homes on Padero Court with a diminished
set -back. This invasion of privacy, building density, and view
obstruction are not within the code and philosophy of Saratoga's
Hillside Development Plan..
3. History: The Chadwick- Cocciardi story is slowly fading from
the memories of the City of Saratoga Planners and Planning
Commission, but not from the neighboring residents. As building
ri , ,
is approved and appears on the hillside, we are further reminded
of the City's betrayal and lack of consideration and protection
of existing developed properties. Just look at the Campbell
house, 21258 Chadwick Court, built on fill moved in by illegal
grading which created a "buildable lot." The adjoining Hong
residence, 21210 Chadwick Court, with land cut and filled, butts
right up against it. Both are built on the ridge line without
adequate drainage consideration or visibility impact concerns to
protect the neighboring properties. Revegetation plans seem to
have fallen victim to negotiations and compromises with the
developers and new builders. Changes made after Planning
Commission approval of the sites surprised the neighbors with
larger than expected houses, changed and less buffer vegetation,
and created misunderstanding and hostility between neighbors.
We don't trust the developer and lack confidence in the City
of Saratoga. The request for a variance is suspect, leaving an
illogical lot line wrapping the Barkas property around the
neighboring House property and visually downsizing an already
non - conforming lot. It changes the Chadwick parcel to accomodate
more imposing structures on a geologically unstable hillside.
Just what is up?
This sensitive land demands a total and comprehensive plan
rather than piecemeal plans, changes, variances, and more
changes. With the present available information about this
proposal, we request that it be denied.
S11hmi t t Pd by
Nam(
Address: JJ V �a.
C It 9 070
LIA
T11"'U
`7Y / -SI y7
August 11, 1994 .RECEIVED
AUG 15 1994
Planning Commissioners PLANNING DEPT.
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 -5199
RE: LL -94 -002 Barkas, Chadwick, 13245 Padero Court & a vacant
V -94 -015 parcel on Chadwick Court
When Daisy Stark addressed you at the August 10, 1994
Planning Commission meeting, she focused primarily on the
concerns of neighboring properties on Chiquita Way. Although.we
concur with these concerns, this letter addresses our concerns
about the request from the Padero Court perspective. We do not
believe that the lot line adjustment should be granted for the
following reasons:
1. Safety: The Barkas property sits on a sliding hillside.
During the rains in the early 19.80's, the former owners left the
house in fear of a mud wash. After the rains, they built two of
the four retaining walls holding the hillside over the house.
The hillside slips and slumps in constant movement toward Padero
Court. In all, there are five levels of retaining walls on the
Barkas property. During those rains, residents of Padero Court
were evacuated due to threat of flooding.of Calabasas Creek.
Padero Court is a blind cul -de -sac. A slide on the Barkas
property could block the only emergency escape for the residents
of Padero Court.
We cautioned the Planning Commission when approving the
Chadwick proposal two years ago, and are still not comfortable
with the proposal to build a 5,700 square foot house with
adjoining patios and driveways without a drainage plan or a plan
to support the crumbling hill under the house at the top of this
slide. Approval of the lot line adjustment only adds land to the
face of the Chadwick parcel. The deeper set -back opens up
possibilities moving the house pad for an even larger house and
would allow for the addition of more ridgeline structures, ie
pool, decks; fences, etc.
2. Visability and privacy: A house built on.the pad as proposed
will loom over the neighboring properties on Padero Court.
Standing on the Chadwick building pad, one looks into the
swimming pool.at the David House residence, and into the house
and back patio of the Bernard Nieman residence. The proposed
structures on the Chadwick property will sit squarely on top of
the Barkas and House homes on Padero Court- with a diminished
set -back. This invasion of privacy, building density, and view
obstruction are not within the code and philosophy of Saratoga's
Hillside Development Plan.
3. History: The Chadwick- Cocciardi story is slowly fading from
the memories of the City of Saratoga Planners and Planning
Commission, but not from the neighboring residents. As building
is approved and appears on the hillside, we are further reminded
of the City's betrayal and lack of consideration and protection
of existing developed properties. Just look at the Campbell
house, 21258 Chadwick Court, built on fill moved in by illegal
grading which created a "buildable lot." The adjoining Hong
residence, 21210 Chadwick Court, with land cut and filled, butts
right up against it. Both are built on the ridge line without
adequate drainage consideration or visibility impact concerns to
protect the neighboring properties. Revegetation plans seem to
have fallen victim to negotiations and compromises with the
developers and new builders. Changes made after Planning
Commission approval of the sites surprised the neighbors with
larger than expected houses, changed and less buffer vegetation,
and created misunderstanding and hostility between neighbors.
We don't trust the developer and lack confidence in the City
of Saratoga. The request for a variance is suspect, leaving an
illogical lot line wrapping the Barkas property around the
neighboring House property and visually downsizing an already
non - conforming lot. It changes the Chadwick parcel to accomodate
more imposing structures on a geologically unstable hillside.
Just what is up?
This sensitive land demands a total and comprehensive plan
rather than piecemeal plans, changes, variances, and more
changes. With the present available information about this
proposal, we request that it be denied.
Submitted y:
Name:
G Ow
August 11, 1994
Planning Commissioners
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070 -5199
RECEIVED
AUG 18 1994
PLANNING DER
RE: LL -94 -002 Barkas, Chadwick, 13245 Padero Court & a vacant
V -94 -015 parcel on Chadwick Court
When Daisy Stark addressed you at the August 10, 1994
Planning Commission meeting, she focused primarily on the
concerns of neighboring properties on Chiquita Way. Although we
concur with these concerns, this letter addresses our concerns
about the request from the Padero Court perspective. We do not'
believe that the lot line adjustment should be granted for the
following.reasons:
1. Safety: The Barkas property sits on a sliding hillside.
During the rains in the early 1980's, the former owners left the
house in fear of a mud wash. After the rains, they built two of
the four retaining walls holding the hillside over the house.
The hillside slips and slumps in constant movement toward Padero
Court. In all, there are five levels of retaining walls on the
Barkas property. During those rains, residents of Padero Court
were evacuated due to threat of flooding of Calabasas Creek.
Padero Court is a blind cul -de -sac. A slide on the Barkas
property could block the only emergency escape for the residentss
of Padero Court.
We cautioned the Planning Commission when approving the
Chadwick proposal two years ago, and are still not comfortable
with the proposal to build a 5,700 square foot house with
adjoining patios and driveways without a drainage plan or a plan
to support the crumbling hill under the house at the top of this
slide. Approval of the lot line adjustment only adds land to the
face of the Chadwick parcel. The deeper set -back opens up
possibilities' moving the house pad for an even larger house and
would allow for the addition of more ridgeline structures, ie
pool, decks, fences, etc.
2. Visability and privacy: A house built on the pad as proposed
will loom over the neighboring properties on Padero Court.
Standing on the Chadwick building pad, one looks into the
swimming pool at the David House residence, and into the house
and back patio of the Bernard Nieman residence. The proposed
structures on the Chadwick property will sit squarely on top of
the Barkas - and House homes on Padero Court with a diminished
set -back. This invasion of privacy, building density, and view
obstruction are not within the code and philosophy of Saratoga's
Hillside Development Plan.
3. History: The Chadwick- Cocciardi story is slowly fading from
the memories of the City of Saratoga Planners and Planning
Commission, but not from the neighboring residents. As building
is approved and appears on the hillside, we are further reminded
of the City's betrayal and lack of consideration and protection
of existing developed properties. Just look at the Campbell
house, 21258 Chadwick Court, built on fill moved in by illegal
grading which created a "buildable lot." The adjoining Hong
residence, 21210 Chadwick Court, with land cut and filled, butts
right up against it. Both are built on the ridge line without
adequate drainage consideration or visibility impact concerns to
protect the neighboring properties. Revegetation plans seem to
have fallen victim to negotiations and compromises with the
developers and new builders. Changes made after Planning
Commission approval of the sites surprised the neighbors with
larger than expected houses, changed and less buffer vegetation,
and created misunderstanding and hostility between neighbors.
We don't trust the developer and lack confidence in the City
of Saratoga. The request for a variance is suspect, leaving an
illogical lot line wrapping the Barkas property around the
neighboring House property and visually downsizing an already
non - conforming lot. It changes the Chadwick parcel to accomodate
more imposing structures on a geologically unstable hillside.
Just what is up?
This sensitive land demands a total and comprehensive plan
rather than piecemeal plans, changes, variances, and more
changes. With the present available information about this
proposal, we request that it be denied.
suDm:
Name:
Address. 37`� -I 0 C��e1AC
Sc- Oct /CI a Ca- �� 070
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �,� AGENDA
MEETING DATE: 01/04/95
CITY
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development��
ITEM:
MGR:
SUBJECT: Request for Variance approval to construct a five foot
high wrought iron fence and entry gate within the required front
yard setback where three feet is the maximum height permitted
pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Recommended Motion(s) : Deny the appellant's request and uphold the
Planning Commission's action to deny the Variance request.
Report Summary:
Planning Commission Action - On November 9, 1994, the Planning
Commission reviewed and approved the applicant's request for a Lot Line
Adjustment to relocate the east side property line to better accommodate
perimeter fencing, which was required by the City Building Department to
enclose an existing swimming pool pursuant to Chapter 16 of the City
Code.
The proposed fence also involved a Variance request to allow it to be
located within the required front yard setback. The Planning Commission
denied this request (5 -1) based on the following:
1. No special circumstance unique to'the subject property exist that
prohibits the installation of a fence to enclose the existing pool.
2. Reasonable fencing alternatives exist that would allow the pool
area to be enclosed and conform with the Zoning regulations.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements - The maximum permitted fence height
within the required front yard (30 feet) is three feet and the
applicants are proposing five feet to meet the pool fencing
requirements. In order to conform with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements, the proposed fence would have to be shifted back a minimum
of 30 feet from the front property line.
Applicants' Appeal - The applicants are appealing the Planning
Commission's decision denying the Variance. A letter of correspondence
from the applicants' attorney /representative to the City Clerk is
attached. Photos and correspondence from the Cornelius' neighbors were
also submitted as support for the Variance and are included in Exhibit
A. The applicants feel the Variance request is justified due to
"universal neighborhood support," lack of visibility of the fence due to
existing vegetation, and their desire to utilize existing brick work.
However, none of these meet the legal findings required to approve the
Variance. The applicants' letter to the Planning Commission (included
in Exhibit "A") expands further on the applicability of special
circumstances unique to the subject property. However, none of the
reasons stated prohibit placing the proposed fence outside of the
required front yard.
Cornelius Appeal
January 4, 1994
Page 2
Fiscal Impacts: None
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Notices were mailed to
surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
Notices were also posted at City Hall and advertised in the newspaper.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion: Approval of the
Variance would allow the applicants to construct the fence within the
required front yard.
Follow Up Actions: Resolution reflecting City Council's action to be
placed on the January 18 meeting agenda.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution V -94 -018
2. Applicant's appeal letter dated 11/16/94
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/26/94 & 11/09/94
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10/26/94
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
Lynn \wp \forms \exesumm
r�
0 RESOLUTION NO.,V -94 -018 0
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Cornelius; 14199 Short Hill Court
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for the Variance approval to allow a five foot high
fence and entry gate within a required 30 foot front yard where
three feet is the maximum permitted; 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 applicants have not met the burden of proof required
to support said application, and the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
(a) Special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings do not exist
which would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district in that there is no physical circumstance that
prohibits placing the fence outside of the required 30 foot front
yard; and
(b) That the granting of the variance would constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations 'on
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district in that the fence could be shifted back 30 feet and still
meet the pool fencing requirement and not have a significant impact
on the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Cornelius for
Variance 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, State of California, this 9th day of November, 1994 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Abshire, Asfour, Caldwell, Kaplan .&, Patrick
NOES: Commissioner Siegfried
ABSENT: Commissioner Murakami
I
i •
File Nos. LL- 94 -00O& V -94 -018; 14199 & 1 321 bhort Hill Court
Chairman, Planning/ Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
0
.. t ..
Date Received:
--
Hearing Date: 74g�
Feet $450
Receipt NO-: 2 C�
•
E C F, �1
D
NOV 1 6 1994
CITY OF SAI. ,l A'TGGA
CITY .lci'1:AN GEi'i15 OFFICE_
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant :.. 1�ichael Kay, Pritchard and Kay
Address: 255 North Market Street
Telephone: (408) 292 -2434
Name of Applicant (if Harold and Rillie Cornelius
different from Appellant:
Project File Number and Addrese: V -94 -018; 14199 Short Hill Court, Saratoga
Decision Being Appealed: Denial of Request for Variance
Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached):.
See attached documentation.
*Appellant's i a rn
Michael Kay, o PRITCHARD and KAY
*Please do not sigA 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
11 Michael Kay , as appellant
authorize Engineering Data Services to perform
above file.
Date: 11 -14 -94 Signature:
this above file, hereby
noticing on the
r
•
•
LAW OFFICES
PRITCHARD AND KAY
255 NORTH MARKET STREET
SUITE 190
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TELEPHONE (408) 292 -2434
MICHAEL KAY'
-AI.JO ADMITTRI) TO PRACTICH IN TIIIE
DISTRICT OF COI.VMIIIA. FLORIDA
AND H.I.INO19
November 16, 1994
Via Personal Delivery
City Clerk
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Appeal of Denial of Application for Variance
PLANNING COMMISSION RES. NO. V -94 -018
Owners: Harold and Rillie Cornelius
Property: 14199 Short Hill Court
Greetings:
FACSIMILE
4408) 292 -1264
We represent Harold and Rillie Cornelius, who are the
owners of the above referenced property. Transmitted herewith
are materials as detailed below, which constitute their
appeal of the decision of the Saratoga Planning Commission
denying a variance. The denial was made by Planning
Commission Resolution No. V -94 -018.
1. Appeal Application
2. Filing fee in the amount of $450.00
3. Eight (8) reduced copies of drawings
showing the proposed fence line
4. Eight (8) copies of drawings of the
proposed fence
5. Eight (8) copies of correspondence
from this law firm related to the
original application as submitted to
the Planning Commission
6. Eight (8) sets of correspondence from
the Cornelius' neighbors indicating
their approval of the proposed fence
and support for the variance
7. Eight (8) sets of photographs showing
•
•
fences constructed within the setback
in the general vicinity of the applicants'
property
This application arises because of the city's requirement
that outdoor swimming pools be fenced.
There has been universal support for this application by
the neighbors on Short Hill Court. No objection from any
member of the public to the application was raised at the
Planning Commission's public hearing.
This fence will be largely hidden by existing
landscaping. If the fence is constructed entirely outside the
setback, it will cut through an exiting fruit orchard.
In addition, construction of the fence, as proposed,
utilizes existing brickwork already located on both sides of
the driveway. Construction as proposed is the most
appropriate and natural to the premises as they exist today.
We trust that the information and documentation as
submitted will permit you to favorably consider this
application. Should you believe further information or
discussions would be helpful, please advise us. In addition,
should any additional documentation be helpful, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
4 ul
Ve y y ours
PRIT D and KAY
Michae Kay
cc: Harold and Rillie Cornelius
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
PAGE - 7 -
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
DR -94 -016 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0
(COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT).
4. LL -94 -006 - Cornelius /Moore; 14199 & 14321 Short Hill Ct., request for Lot Line
V -94 -018 - Adjustment to relocate a side property line between two parcels pursuant
to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Parcel 397 -14 -023, Lands of Cornelius,
is also requesting Variance approval to construct a five foot high
wrought iron fence and entry gate within the required front yard setback
where three feet is the maximum height permitted. The subject
properties are approximately 40,000 sq. ft. and are located within an R -1-
40,000 zoning district. (Cont. from 10/26/94; application expires
2/26/95).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report.
Commissioner Kaplan inquired if staff discussed alternatives with the applicant. Planner
Walgren responded that staff had the opportunity to discuss the various alternatives available
with the applicant.
Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Pete Pritchard, 255 North Market Street, San Jose, representing the Corneliuses, requested that
the co- applicant, Ron Moore, be allowed to address the Commission at this time.
Ron Moore, 14231 Short Hill Drive, neighbor of the Corneliuses, informed the Commission
that he spoke to the adjacent residents. The residents on Short Hill Court and Chester
Avenue seem to think that the installation of an entry gate and wrought iron fence would be
appropriate. Being the only adjacent neighbor, other than West Valley College, he stated his
concurrence with the comments expressed by the neighbors. He felt that it would be more
appropriate for the gateway to engulf the property and not shut off the access to the existing
orchard.
Commissioner Abshire asked if Mr. Moore would consider constructing a similar gate as
proposed on his property. Mr. Moore responded that his property does not lend itself to such
an entry gate because his house is closer to Short Hill Court where the Cornelius' home was
setback further from Short Hill Court and would lend itself to a gateway fence.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that there were two points raised in the letter attached to the
staff report by Michael Way. The first point raised by Mr. Way was located on page 117, item
C, second paragraph, states that the ability to build the fence was thwarted by the topography
of the site. She requested that staff respond to this issue. Planner Walgren responded that the
letter was referring to the various grade changes that occur at the back of the residence where
the pool decking was located. It would be physically difficult for the Corneliuses to put the
fencing immediately around the pool and the pool decking. He (Walgren) felt that there were
other alternatives to fencing in the pool. An alternative which would not necessitate a
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
PAGE - 8 -
variance would be to bring the fence 30 feet from the Short Hill property line to provide the
enclosure requirements. The second question she (Caldwell) had dealt with the statement that
an inspector advised the applicant that he could not cite the owner for a five foot fencing
around the pool if he could see the situation from the street. Community Development
Director Curtis responded that he did not know what that statement meant. Commissioner
Caldwell clarified that an inspector could cite a property owner if he observes a situation
where there was not fencing around a pool on a public street.
Mr. Pritchard stated that under certain circumstances variances could be granted and that the
Commission could take into consideration such things as geographic, topography, or other
physical conditions of the site or in the immediate vicinity. He felt that the most salient
feature of the property was that it backs up to West Valley College. A six foot fence along
the westerly side of the site exits that extends to the property under discussion. The six foot
fence is partially located on top of a 20 foot high mound and that the fence shields the area
from the football practice field. The chain link fence that extends right out to the street due
to setbacks in certain locations was 18 to 20 feet above the street level. He felt that the
mound was .the most prominent topographical feature that distinguishes this particular lot
from the others. He informed the Commission that the fence would be located behind the
trees and would extend out approximately ten feet. He felt that special circumstances exist
that would apply to this property that would not apply to other properties in Saratoga.
Commissioner Caldwell asked staff if the existing pilasters were considered structures under
City code.. Planner Walgren responded that the columns would be considered as structures
and that they were conforming structures. He informed the Commission that fencing was
limited to three feet in maximum height in the front setback, but that you could have up to
five foot tall columns and five foot open bar /open wire entrance gating. So the columns and
the gating itself do not require the variance. However the perimeter five foot fencing would
require a variance.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that it was her perception that the applicant wanted to tie in
the existing pilasters to the fence structure. She felt that it could be argued that the property
created the special circumstance.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI
ABSENT) .
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
LL -94 -006 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER
MURAKAMI ABSENT).
Commissioner Caldwell stated that a fence was warranted because having one would provide
safety and security from a public stand point. She felt that some of the reasons behind the
setback ordinance was to have front yards to be front yards and back yards to be back yards
and not to have a gated community where there is visual intrusion right up in front of a
property. On the other hand, the property already has the basics for the gate. She felt that
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
PAGE - 9 -
there could be some compromise to the situation.
Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. He felt that
there were circumstances that could warrant a variance for the fence (i.e., topography, width
of the site coupled with the fact that it fits up against the West Valley College area. He did
not feel that it would set a precedent for the neighborhood and he did not feel that the site
was noticeable.
Commissioner Caldwell felt that the finding that could be made to grant the variance was the
location of the existing pilaster structures. She felt that at some point, the property owner
would need to install a driveway or that they would need to wrap the gate around the house.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that there was an option to gate the swimming pool and not
involve fencing the entire property. She stated that she would be inclined to go along with
this alternative because she could not make the findings to approve the variance request and
felt that approval would be granting of a special privilege.
Commissioner Abshire commented that the gate would prevent outsiders from accessing the
pool. He noted that there was a small child residing on the premise and felt that there would
need to be a temporary fencing or obstruction between the house and the pool to protect the
child.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that there were several swimming pools in the area that
have been fenced off from outsiders and yet were not fenced off from the existing home. He
commented that Commissioner Abshire's concern was the concern of the homeowner and was
not one that the code addresses.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not feel that the pillars created a special
circumstance. She felt that individuals could construct pillars and thus create special
circumstances. She stated that she would have a difficult time making the findings that are
required to approve a variance.
Commissioner Caldwell stated her agreement with Commission Kaplan's comments that there
was a reasonable alternative. After consideration, she felt that there could be an alternative
solution that can be accomplished that would not cause a hardship.
Commissioner Kaplan stated for the record that the City Attorney makes a statement on item
3, page 117, pertaining to a retaining wall. As a pool owner with a retaining wall, she stated
that an alternate location for the fence could be accomplished.
COMMISSIONER PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-
94 -018 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE
MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED VOTING NO AND
COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT.
PLANNING COMMIS~ ''N MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 1994
PAGE - 25 -
Chairman Asfour informed the public as to the policy that no new public hearings would
be considered after 11:30 p.m. and that the Commission has indicated that it is its intent to
continue items 4, 5 and 6 but that they would be the first items of .discussion at the
Commission's November 9 meeting.
4. SM -94 -008 - Chang /Tsai; Burgundy Way /Fruitvale Avenue, request for Site Modi-
V -94 -023 - fication approval to allow the installation of an entry gate across a
private road that accesses four lots pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City
Code. The applicants are also requesting Variance approval to allow
an eight foot high masonry wall along the Fruitvale Ave. frontage of
Parcels C and D where six ft. is the maximum permitted. The subject
property includes four separate parcels which are approximately 40,000
sq. ft. each and are located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
5. DR -94 -016 - Chang; 19486 Burgundy Way (Parcel D), request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 5,890 sq. ft. single story residence on a
vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. A swimming
pool and 100 sq. ft. pool accessory structure are also proposed. The
subject property is approximately 42,410 sq. ft. and is located within an
R -1- 40,000 zone district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. LL -94 -006 - Cornelius /Moore; 14199 & 14321 Short Hill Ct., request for Lot Line
V -94 -018 - Adjustment to relocate a side property line between two parcels
pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Parcel 397 -14 -023, Lands of
Cornelius, is also requesting Variance approval to construct a five foot
high wrought iron fence and entry gate within the required front yard
setback where three feet is the maximum height permitted. The
subject properties are approximately 40,000 sq. ft. and are located
within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS FOR AGENDA ITEMS 4, 5 AND 6 TO NOVEMBER 9. THE MOTION
CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT).
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of this Saturday
morning's EIR scoping session to be held at the Odd Fellow's site. It is a meeting being
conducted by staff and the EIR consultant. The meeting would be an adjourned meeting
and pubic notices have been sent to properties within 500 feet of the site. The visit would
be similar to that of a land use visit. He informed the Commission that the EIR was
anticipated to be distributed by December 1, 1994 for public review. He encouraged all
Planning Commissioners to attend the scoping session.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: LL -94 -006 & V -94 -018; 14199 & 14321 Short Hill Ct.
Applicant /Owner: Cornelius /Moore
Staff Planner: Lynette Stanchina
Date: Oct. 26, 1994
APN: 397-14-020 Director Approval:
File Nos. LL -94 -006 & V -94 -018; 14199 & 14321 Short Hill Court
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
06/22/94
Application complete:
08/26/94
Notice published:
10/12/94
Mailing completed:
10/13/94
Posting completed:
10/06/94
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Lot 'Line Adjustment to relocate a side property line
between two parcels pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Parcel 397 -14 -023, Lands of Cornelius, is also requesting Variance
approval to construct a five foot high wrought iron fence and entry
gate within the required front yard setback where three feet is
the maximum permitted. The subject properties are approximately
40,000 sq. ft. and are located within an R -1- 40,000 zone district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Lot Line adjustment application and deny the Variance
request by adopting the attached resolutions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions LL -94 -006 & V -94 -018
3. Correspondence
4. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File Nos. LL -94 -006 & V -94 -018; 14199 & 14321 Short Hill Court
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R- 1- 40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD)
LANDS OF CORNELIUS (APN 397 -14 -023):
Original Site Area: 40,206 sq. ft. Net Change: - 96 sq. ft.
Proposed Site Area: 40,110 sq. ft.
LANDS OF MOORE (APN 397 -14 -020):
.Original Site Area:. 40,032 sq. ft. Net Change: + 103 sq. ft.
Proposed Site Area: 40,135 sq. ft.
BACKGROUND:
The subject properties are located on
Avenue and each is developed with
Parcel #23, Lands of Cornelius, also
not enclosed by a fence. The current
area to be completely enclosed by a
fencing (good neighbor) is acceptable
act as a portion of the fence.
Short Hill Court off Chester
a single family residence.
has a swimming pool that is
City Code requires the pool
five foot fence. Perimeter
and the residence itself may
In order to conform with the swimming pool fencing requirement, the
Corneliuses are proposing to place a five foot wrought iron fence
along the east side property line and across the front of the
property. A black cyclone fence is proposed along the rear of the
property. The west side of the property has an existing six foot
cyclone fence adjacent to the West Valley College property.
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT:
To better accommodate the location of -the fence along the east side
property line, the applicants are proposing a lot line adjustment.
The proposed adjustment will conform the legal lot lines to the
natural growth and contours of the property as utilized by the
adjoining properties and provide for a greater side yard setback
for the existing swimming pool.
The proposed adjustment conforms . with all the development
regulations in Chapter 15 of the City Code, such as minimum lot
width, depth, size, and setback requirements. The proposed change
in net site area of each parcel is not great enough to impact the
maximum permitted floor area.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed Lot
Line Adjustment.
File Nos. LL -94 -006 & V -94 -018;. 14199 & 14321 Short Hill Court
FENCE VARIANCE:
The proposed location of the fence within the required front yard
setback requires Variance approval. The maximum permitted fence
height within the required front yard (30 feet) is three feet and.
the applicants are proposing five feet to meet the pool fencing
requirements. In order to conform with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements, the proposed fence and gate would have to be shifted
back a minimum of 30 feet from the front property line.
Due to the configuration of the lot, staff feels this would have
minimal impacts on the applicant. The property is similar in shape
to a flag lot in that it has a 60 foot wide corridor which accesses
Short Hill Court and then it widens to approximately 180 feet. If
the applicants shifted the fence back 30 feet it would still be
located within the narrow portion of the lot and would not have a
significant impact on the use of their yard areas.'
Staff does not feel the Variance findings can be made to support
the applicants' request. There is not a special circumstance
unique to their property that supports placing the fence within the
required front yard. Approval of this request would constitute a
grant of special privilege.
A letter of correspondence to the Planning Commission from the
Corneliuses attorney /representative is attached. The letter
outlines several reasons why the applicants believe the Commission
should support the Variance request. Staff recognizes that the
subject property does have some unique circumstances compared to
other properties in the area. However, these circumstances do not
prohibit placing the proposed fence outside of the required front
yard.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance
application based on the finding that it would be a grant of
special privilege..
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends. the Planning Commission take the following
actions:
1. Approve the proposed Lot Line Adjustment; and
2. Deny the Variance request to allow a five foot tall fence
within the required 30 foot front yard setback.
LAW OFFICES
PRITCHARD AND KAY
255 NORTH MARKET STREET
SUITE 190
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TELEPHONE (408) 292 -2434
MICHAEL KAY'
ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. FLORIDA
AND II.I.INDitl
December 1, 1994
City Clerk
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Ms. Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
t)tG 21994
Re: Appeal of Denial of Application for Variance
PLANNING COMMISSION RES. NO. V -94 -018
Owners: Harold and Rillie Cornelius
Property: 14199 Short Hill Court
Dear Ms. Cory:
FACSIMILE
(408) 292.1204
As you are aware, we represent Harold and Rillie
Cornelius. As you are also aware, the City Council has
scheduled a hearing for January 4, 1995 to consider their
appeal of the decision of the Saratoga Planning Commission
denying a variance. This will confirm that all materials
which you have requested, to date, are presently in file. The
filing is, therefore, complete.
In the interim, should you require any further
information: or documentation, be please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Ver t y yours,
PR7TC nd KAY
m.�
cc: Harold and Rillie Cornelius V
LANV OFFICES
PRITCHARD AND KAY
255 NORTH MARKET STREET
SUITE 190
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TFLEPROINE (408) 292 -2434
MICHAEL KAY'
•ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THE
_ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. FLORIDA
AND ILLINOIS
October 10, 1994
Via Personal Delivery
Planning Commission
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
68
FACSIMILE
(408) 292.1264
Re: Application for Variance
Owners: Harold and Rillie Cornelius
Property' 14199 Short Hill Court
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We represent Harold and Rillie Cornelius (the
"Applicants ") who are the owners of the property at 14199
Short Hill Court. There are two (2) applications pending
before you.
The first application, for a lot line adjustment, has
the support of the Planning Department. However, we have been
informed that the Planning Department is unable to support
the second application, which is for a variance to build a
fence within the setback.
While the personnel in the Planning Department have been
courteous and helpful, we respectfully disagree with the
conclusion that has been reached. We hope that the following
information will assist the Planning Commission in voting to
approve both of the applications.
Although not dispositive, it should be persuasive that
the neighboring property owners have been informed of the
pending applications and have voiced their support. The fact
that there is an absence of objecting neighbors should favor
the granting of the application for variance.
1. Brief History. The applications arise because the
City's Building Inspector was on the adjoining property and
noted that on the Applicants' property there was an unfenced
swimming pool. The Building Inspector thereafter cited the
Applicants. Relevant code sections require either the fencing
of the entire property or of the pool itself.
It should be noted that many nearby properties in
Saratoga have unfenced pools. This is true throughout
Saratoga. The Building Inspector advises that he can only
cite properties when he is legally on the property or on an
adjoining property and can see the violation. He advises that
he cannot cite properties that have violations that he can
see from the street.
Without waiving any of their rights, but in order to
resolve the citation and comply with the code requirements,
the Applicants agreed to build a fence, but for the reasons
set forth below determined to fence the entire property.
2. Applicability of Special Circumstances. The first
finding necessary for the grant of a variance relates to
special circumstances of the property. The size, shape and
topography of the applicant's parcel make granting of this
variance proper. In fact, the failure to grant this variance,
because of the following special circumstances, will deprive
the Applicants of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the vicinity (all classified in the same zoning
district).
a. This property differs from neighboring
properties. It is unique in that it
has a very limited length of frontage
running along Short Hill Drive. If the
variance is denied and the fence is built
behind the setback, the fence will be built
no more than ten (10) feet from
where it is now being proposed to be built.
However, because it will be built further
from the frontage and because it will,
therefore be built across a wider portion
of the property, the length of fence
visible to the street will be far greater.
Placing the fence where the Applicants
request will mean that a smaller length
of fence will parallel the street.
b. This property adjoins West Valley College. The
college maintains a 6 foot chain link fence
- which borders the Applicants' property and
comes to the street itself. This fence runs
along the street directly next to the subject
property. That fence is far less attractive;
uses more of the setback (in fact all of it);
and, frames the subject property.
Because that fence is within the surroundings
of the Applicants' property, it must be
considered with respect to this application.
If the Applicants' built their fence without
using the setback it would be inconsistent
with the established surroundings.
C. The topography of the property makes it
impossible to merely fence the pool. The
pool is surrounded by a standard four (4) foot
(approximate) pool deck. However, on the North
(to the street) side, the pool deck adjoins
a three (3) foot wall which is a retaining
wall for landscaping. The landscaping runs
from the house to the street.
First, building the fence at the end of
the pool deck, but on the deck level will
result in a fence around the pool which
is less than three (3) feet high because
anyone standing on the ground level outside
the fence would be standing three (3) feet
above the patio level.
Second, there is no way to build the fence at
the ground level without rebuilding and
regrading the entire garden area. This would
simply be too burdensome and unreasonable.
d. The topography of the property requires that
the fence be built as proposed because
location of the fence along the street
is necessary because the slope of the property
so dictates. The property from the house rises
to the street. It also rises through an
existing garden. Therefore, as noted above,
the fence's utility would be minimized.
Also, the placement of the house's gardens
and long established trees and plantings
also dictate that the fence be built as
proposed by the Applicants. Additionally,
placing the fence as proposed will not
require major changes in these plantings
and the long - established drainage pattern now
in place. Drainage runs throughout the above
referred to retaining wall to the pool deck.
Any changes in the same necessitated by
fencing the pool would require changes to the
existing drainage plan.
e. As noted above, the adjoining College
property is fenced. That fence runs
along Short Hill Drive (at the street) and
then makes a right angle turn at the property
line of the Applicants. Denial of this
application will force the Applicants to
build a fence that crosses the Applicants'
property after the right angle turn of the
College's fence. Thus, the street view
will be as follows: a fence on the street,
a right angle turn away from the street and
then another right angle turn across the
Applicants' property.
Granting the application will permit the
Applicants' fence to cut out the two
right angles and soften the view from the
street.
3. Grantinct the Variance Will Not Constitute Grant of
Special Privilege. The second finding necessary for the
grant of a variance relates to the finding that this not be
considered a grant of special privilege. Many houses in
Saratoga are built with fences within the setback or with
fences at the street. In fact, as noted, the adjoining
College's fence is on the property line at the street.
Although many fences built at the street may have been
"grandfathered" under prior ordinance or built illegally,
they have, nevertheless, been built.
If the variance is not granted, the Applicant's property
will be disadvantaged. The granting of the variance will
bring this property to the level of-reasonable use enjoyed by
neighboring properties. Only by the granting of this variance
can parity be achieved. The failure to so approve this
variance will constitute an unconstitutional application of
the City's zoning code.
4. Granting the Variance Will Not Be Detrimental to
Public Health Safety or Welfare. The third finding necessary
for the grant of a variance relates to the finding that this
variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare. We are unaware of any facts which would support
any argument that the granting of a variance to the
Applicants would be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare.
On behalf of the Applicants,
consideration.
cc: Harold and Rillie Cornelius
-... ---- L, :. v�-
thank you for your
V 4ie yours,
P and KAY
My
Re: V -94 -018 - Lands of Cornelius
To whom it may concern:
We have reviewed the plans for the
proposed wrought iron fence and gate to
be built in the front of 14199 Short Hill
Court, and find that we have no argument
as to why it should not be built. To the
contrary, we find that the proposed
structure is esthetically pleasing and
will do nothing but add to the attractive-
ness of their property and in no way
detract from the homes of those of us who
are neighbors.to Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius.
We recommend that the Planning
Commission approve their requested
variance.
i
i
-� -1-
SarratogaorW467F
October 9, 1994
(408) 867 -6473
To Whom It May Concern:
We have seen the plans for the proposed fence for the
Cornelius residence at 14199 Short Hill Ct, We have no
obJectlons to such a fence.
Sincerely,
Monte S. Bernstein
44'z�e� oz�� �'
Roberta L, Bernstein
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
have reviewed the plans and architectural sketches of the fence construction
planned by Mr. and Mrs. Harold Cornelius of 14199 Shorthill Court, Saratoga,
CA. I find those plans to be viable engineering wise, most pleasing visually,
and highly consistent architecturally with their existing construction and with that
of the Shorthill Court neighborhood.
Shorthill Court is essentially a cul -de -sac, with only 7 homes on the Court,
which intersects with Chester Avenue. As the only next door neighbor of the
Co' meliuses, the construction of a fence between our properties should be and
is of vital concern and interest to me.
I believe that the plan which the Corneliuses and their architect have settled
upon is appropriate to their purpose and in no way detracts visually from the
Shorthill Court neighborhood or the area surroundings. I have observed many
other fences in the area, on nearby cul -de -sacs such as Apricot Hill, Arcadia
Palms, and Via Tesoro Court, and on Chester Avenue. The design proposed by
the Corneliuses has more architectural integrity and visual substance than most
of these other constructions.
I reaffirm my acceptance of the fence design and construction proposed by Mr.
and Mrs. Harold Cornelius, 14199 Short Court, Saratoga, CA. I feel that such a
construction will enhance rather than detract from the Shorthill Court
neighborhood.
Ronald A. Moore
14231 Shorthill Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
COLUMNS RAISED TO 64 h—
1' X 2' PUNCHED
Y FRAME / .0—
CONTINUESALONG PROPERTY LINE
SIB' V ERTICAL PICKETS - a 5J6' ON CENTER
i IH'X IIr XC C- SCROLLS
��II M ��' "MEAMENNENNE11, ""'�* ����������ri�riiiiiiiiIiiii�i�I I Ii 11 \ \ \\ ` , y1aMMMlMIMIMM.'N MMINr!71M- s�MIMNJM; \ \ \\
I 0
ELEVATION AT dRIVEWAY ENTRANCE
SIB In. PICKETS
4 518' On Cantor
518 IrLPICKETS
4 Str On Canter
1 1/2 in. !j.
t�
2 In. Sq. POSS
On Canter In comrata
Ad welds to be ground
smooth.
All Iron work to be prime
painted and receive a finish
coat of rust- InhlbMve
seml -gloss black paint.
1
ADSH -210 ADSH -217
(SHOWN)
188-58
Dead.: En:.+
i-T
r
7i
i.
188-58
Dead.: En:.+
m
I
r
7i
i.
J-!A
m
I
- -.--.
.
. ljl.�e-;
i ", ''' t.. . ,.V�..�. , . - 7. - .*I.
,- - J,.4�, 7*- + -.,.r , --:'. W�-k�t � j I " - . "I W . ..- . -
��-- "v - .
.',k,t�-
�.,. 1*�q;�-.:` ,�::;
I 1". �,,- ,Zt4-7�4t` - . b, .!f
"J41 - . . -, .4-_-.�t �,,%'-- , . .!
. ,13 . . , 1. . , ,, '. !:� .. - t , . , 1�
C - ..t'. , - .- � ....4.."', - . ", �, .� - .. , - b . .. .
- , - . .. : .. .. -, - .
�--.���-.'-I�4.,.",.,�!.,f�q.., L);,q.*t-.",�-:,. .1�' ,,,:�� �.';,::. .-�" ,-.�*: . .'.- ..' - . , ..�
.1 :j"! 7. ... '. -* , i
.. ;
.
--, r, ...m.. .''.
I
_.,.. .4-.1 '-,"." .
.. � . - , ...,
r. " -";,:,�,.-�Iy,' ". " �J.: I- .1,1,1- a - .- � , I .. I � 1, . �: . 4
, ., N_, :- �: '. � � .1. I .. ... . I , I - I . % �
U., I--, , -
- ...... . .... ... . ,
- . . I .1 - �- -111-- -.4,
1� ...
. ..;- - . FC.
. - � jr. 1;1,-.-�'-Pi� �
,�l , _Nt"'.1
- � � 'I - -, - - - ... -.- - . . ...,-' 6.. . , * . ...
-... �
..,.:,,".-.t,;,; [: . � '.1 . .., I
" " *
. I I
. . , . . . � -
1,� , - . . � . : - "
-?,,.",��.';v - � � , - . .. I - .. 1. ,
,P---1-.,., � . j I � . . . . . . . . �. . .. '. j
, i � :--'�.'�, ;, ., ... : 1, , . - z . , .
. -
, ..
, , r . i
1.,.".",;-.-. : " , - ... . � - . .
.1 .. . .
IN, �: �,Z,J-.--� 1,,,�e fi�'. �.� ��
-;- - -1-1--, 1, - . '. r 1 ----�
,
. I . .
- "
A -�. -, _ , - , - , ,� . , - �,-� 4 , : � � � �; ;,
--,,�� -;� ,;;, - ..
". .... I
- , A, . t
--.-.-� .. 1".. I I , ; ` -�,.
� ,
%. � . -
, .. . - - ..
.;1, - - . -.- .�--:, -
� -1-. ... -� .
-
;; , , : .1. " ;1 -� .. , .. , ., ; .
- _ ` : . . ...i. :,.
-
. .. , :.
. .
, .
. , . . , ... ...... �. - .
t � :
, ! ..:: -.. . � *r �
,
. *� , ,; .; , .
...:- ;- -, � . 4 � �.; �
. , I - '-- I '. �
b 1� � -. .
., , �t,:, ! '- - k
�
; . Ve
. � �. . :. �
.. .
� �
• :
, . . . : .
f * , , - ,
- . , .
'. , . ..... '........'-.. f
... ;.. I" .---.-.:,.
.F I ..�::.
. . -1
�........ .....-�, -, , , . I . . .
$ . `, !
-
�..,:
., -
; ,.:1 .,'
. �� !- !"'I'�.t.;,'.
I., .---:�' ,;. --�-.,;,
...�,,
.... �-� .,..'.
� I �
q�. : .. I..i
... .., "...., ,,,-..�", '� .. I.,^:_
. - . , , - .-:.,� -i'-�'; .;�' ;,-,j;-,%.;;-.4�-.;.-;:- � .. I 1. -1. I - -
- -.- .
. . . �- ��s ,�� -*; , : � ,-, - , .., ��,- -, .
�* --'.', .., . ., . .. " .. . . .`
. . . .,- .. : . t � ?.1. '. , . , . . . , : : . I . :1 1-1
;: �'�- ��- .,"'-,.:�- - -.,��'.-!!. , . . � ,
, -', ;1 ; I . I 1-�v
,
.....'-3,-�-
�-,.,-,<,; :;t "I"'...: �*;,t, .-.'.'---'�; �,:-:- . . '. . :.-. . . . . �
,:-,i %%�.,',i�:;;:-, '-",!-,�- . ,.-, .,.- -, , . - - 11 , -1 ..,: .. 1 . . . . . . .
. .- � . � . ...
'-� - :. - .
,�-; -�- - ,..:."r:."i�..',,-',;�.,'.���f.�,: .-,;;.--. !. ��i .:,., . : . , t . .. �
, .� ""..r. . " - 0-1 - . . "
'.;:,...-:'-.-�*.!::.,. 1. . I 140f;,
'! . �.Z. (Adjacer . . , . ; V, '' I.. � - .�.7: , .... �. : . � .", 11 - .. ,�,'�;��,,,�',.�� . , I .-I. ::,.,t . �4,�t�-.t�,,�;::",�-��- i, ...;'.......
,
- " � 1
.-N-... ,:-j... .
- ,�..!.....� . .
I -:!
,
"..., � .
-`�
-..-.:,�l-,,'.; � ...
i:-.. .. - -",.
.
- t,!,�':,',-.,-. n1lo,
.,--:-"-; .E1 ' ,
F141
1.
. I I
Wroughtj
I . .�
� . �. .
.;�:..!�:�.,..;��,.-��,'; �,'f- .
-��,;-��_-' . -
--.
- - 1 .;;-, .:
- - . .. Approx.;%:-
,-�,��, � . .
��. .� ..
!. ii.-;:.-..:. .;, k. - . . .
.
-
�,. -�;- . ..
.- -. ,-
'--,..1.--rt:,--,
-, . - -.*�- * -` ,
.,.,�.:,...- -...,.,."",.,.,,�",�.-�,c�7.��-.,.,�.-,�...-
,i����::�,��-,.,.-:'�.,,.,,,?ri"., .. j.
..'... -, - _ ... `_ ..I.,
,�'1.-. i.,--'.. . . . ,.
,�:�. ... .1 , -;z..".... '.''.
..:..�,.�,.�l'-..,'::.:.��'�:'!:',"*"�'t"'"';; ' . -, ...�'L.'
. .�,.,
.
. .
,
-,
: . .. . - . .
. I �..
. .�, .
I ; ,
A
',
- . . . - - - - - - - -: .-L .. -7. -�:-!� - Z
_�F. i Z��I' ',�� 7 , ��7'�: ;.'�� 1. ,. 1 �-- .. - . L
"� � . . , , .
_ :,r.; ,Z . , , _� . .. + ,: . . ' '.
_ _ - ,�:f - ,
. �. _ ,�..; ' ' - . . 4 ' ++ L r. ,�,
. -_ , _.' L.:-','."._. +." , � '. .1- . '. . _- _ , A �
t, - , � . 4, 'P
�1,
� '.L � ,,:�- *. �.-",:, '�',
L , .
: L', j' -' ',
- * , � ,
- " '-" + �
:_.5.. '. ; ,. ,
,
-:"-�,--,',,.n
%� "
- � - - � . �� ,,:- '.
1, , , " .z � - - , . + . +_
I � Ii., . ," " -�- I - - ' -.1 L, ,. : :: . + . � . . . .
1, .
*; , ,-�L'.."j...�.Z'� .
.
--j
S; '
,� , -:-,,
A L . .
-
+ .4N,,
. ; , , . I .1 . I ,
I � % . .
;-�; ; ; ;, " :` , , '.:-I,
��, �
. .
-t;, ,
, Y, -.�'�;% -+ - .,*i -'-,� !,.,.� +. L .
.� :.- , . . . .. - , . . ,; - - - -, - ."L.",
. , � - . . . 1. . � - , +., , .
'i '. + -, ., ,, r ; : - . . +. I � .
'., � _. ..' ' '; '. - :, , ' � �,� L�" " i - L � . . * . . . . . . -: +* . �. -
.-Z .+.::.,, . A , I . . . ,�
, ! . . . ••4•
:. ..
, ., , ,-, . ,
.� . - .. .. � , .,:"
, I .. . . . . U4
. , .. ... -.. 71, tt :, '. . .. + 11-�,':?',; :�: �, - ', ::::.:. " : L �+:. : ,..�.�. 4' ".� �." �,.�. : .. , . .'� , , + +- - I I + . . . . , , , . , � ..
.." . .+{
_
d•
. - . +:tjp,�,
.,; �. , ,
, ,
- - 1* : ��-":: _ I ,
!: ,� �j .,� " .�;;� �. � , ,-_ �..,
, L
L
;- . ,,, :', .-. -, - .". * , , * . . �. 4tv
t, ., ,
I -, :.i.". ::, -,�,'
:.,! - -;-il-, I , ...�.-. , ... . � . . .:" ' , L; � ), -L I . . . ,
, . . ,4 , - � " . t: , , �" , .. . .� '. . . . . 11 1. . . ,
I , ;' . . + I
, i � ,� - , . I , , , , . .. I
, - � ::.��' .L,', - . . . , ,
�.��-.-� � ` +, ... ; , + , , �'-
i , - - � :- .. . �... . . "� ... , , , .: .. . . ` :. * ,
:i:� _ . -.'. �4 .
!,."-� �! �.- '.j..' .. . -, ,.; .. -. '!�- .' ,, .
- I, �:. .. , '. , " , � . . . . , :
. . . I ..; .,: , " . , - :-- , ,+ t " , .., t . + '. . '. -, + , - 4 , - - W.- + - . . � , . . .. . - . 1. "
,4 . . � :4 .. ; , 7. . .. . . L;. , .
, . . ,- � " . ... ;�, . " . -, I - .. - - " + - I � - - " , �1 I , - . . I . � . I . I . . 71
` , - - I �- -, -,� .-j . - -..� , . . � ,. .. /': !t � ,-'� , , :, * :. . . , . " .. .�
L. .. ; , ;� .... ... . � . , . , . . . . , . .. ,. . .
. �� . ." . ' � ' "' L. � ' -,.. - , :.'+,;i,��
! .;?
- I ! �. , - ��. . ; . : : -
.. . � � ; .!, - , , , �� --I � 1 - - I I ,- f . � , - , , , ., \' �- , .
. , . . . � , 1�1 I . . . -� I - %,t�,; k''i� t \ �6,� : .,
. . � : !� . � . � . . . Jt .*L AL!!���� ..-, . . . .
. , ,
i , , ,*, V, It, N � '' }ii , ' ' L ��_ " .1 N � k.".
- .-. , 1+ t , :�,-.-.,�- .'-7. J��. "' # �.%� �,;-'�, �\;.A 4 " � V , , ,� q,',"
� * - ' ' : ' , - j' L ' ' ' ' - ' " . . � � L , ' , \ , ." ' � , " .
. - , \ � , . .
- , . I . .. . I . , � � �,, �, , L '., �*..�L .\..
- - - . , . . * _tat � 'A �, ..' .".
,� . � � - - I - "I , - � . O ,,%,t 1. _ . .� \ .,\ , . 1 \-,
. . . , - , - ", - , � -1 ,� I I -� A, , , � , , 11 . � , ',
:�. � �, , ,
� , ."
. " � . , . \ ,
. � � . ,.":� � rot;, . � I
. 1. . ,\. , , . , . , . . -
.� . . ". . -� , , " , , � .
� � " ,,, " -,•' - I,
'. " " � � I \.:, �
.\ - I , ,
I '� - - ' +- .' --,� , - t. "Y i", �� , , - �1 , ". .
.�:� .t � . . '. . � . I - .", R+ t ,1� � " I ♦ L �t . I , � . ., ,. k - 11
1� , . , .. , - , . �: , ... .. ♦. kV.
I.- , " L � � 0
:1-.
. , %, , �*
, � �. . . .. .. � . . � , . " . ;.. - . � . , :; � ,M- �':t--,-: ,,v .
. , � " . . . . � ,
.. - " �
. .
-. -,
..., .. - - ,
. ,
. . .... ......; 11 .. ,% ,
� �
I .
,
n-
-
, .,- ,-,, , , , ,t
- *
-...?..
�
- -t
. .... - ., .-�
- �` I ''��' + ...
. ,
1 . .,. ♦
S',
�ml ,
t "
. -
+
�� . ..
♦� .. �
1,
V. "
� :: f i .. , � . � �-, .. � . . �� . "_- �� '- .. . �,:, --..
.... . . .. . .... 1. ... '.
-�
. . . . � . . .. . . . .
. . . I . + , , .�� : - I . v . � .. , . . ': :: :,. ,:. ,- ; .
. I , . . .., - .. - . .
.. . ,,�. . �: ;
---- : . -
: , . - .. .. ... . :
- t.. .. :. . . ,. .. . �� . ,. .. �'; , " , . . .. : �:.
, , : " .. , " .. .�, . . f '� � . i ." , ♦ * I - .. -
.1,
:
�
, : .; * .. .
-
.
�� : '. - � +. � . : ,- .� . . .it.. , - 7 -',,, ,- .. ' . +:1 - . 1: . . I . ,� .. . , , �., . �. *. .
. _ I , . . - , . , . . , . . t.
.
�,
-
I
%.
1
,
;t
��
-
,
,
\ .-. .
. . . , ,
'i �.
,
�.!.
� ,
�:.-t�'-�.,,.
.*!::':
,�L� ':
, ,
. .
( � -
- " - I
- .. �-
- I
. .L ,� : .1 .11 I
�
. - -
lot. �H -:*�-!: :*� .. - -
..... , �...'�,",:L,..",�'..� ,.- ".-
. . .. . . . _: . . , - .;'.....;.�,:!
? , . . -- , .�.:j--:.,-;.. .......�',..-.�.�:,.;I�....�'..,."..".^.�.I.-
- 1: . I . � � �- 1-� ." Z-.:�..,`: � ;---1�,-,-.!.-�;.:,
. . ,:% .-'. �.:t-��,,�'.. . I...� �,.��.,, .'%..,.�%.....L�;:...
.1 .�. L -6'.1,...-...;�.--- ..." 1'.;�L
, -
Dead.,-Ehd)----.:.' .1 ' .. . I -, - �., �-+-..::-� ",;,....�,:;,
. , , . . If., I � ".
I.- . .. % . ... "'. : .. ... I., �,'.:. �- .. "... ,
.
.1 . . .-. �: .+::, -,-. " `-
- *
.. t
1`--*---1---
�.. . . : � �
. . I - : ..
... I. , ;:1 . 1, .,.. .: . . "
,
-
,
-
I
' (2)�' ... ,�',' . �. , . : .. :- w
. . . . -':+�I,:�:*..'.
: + .... �. , , ...�., '..'.... ...:.
A.6s _: : - .+
.. . : - ,� " -.'-�
. .. - . . . .
,..- , . . . .. . . -::... , , ..-�:,.'..,
I . : . . - .,..: ..
- . I.- + "' *; ,,� �,�.
., , I I . - .
. 'i � . -. : ,�;�.,;�,,,�t;:.!,::*.:..,..',�.'.
1. .1 .. .. - , --
(,pe...On ..Str6et,+. . .. 11�t.-- -:!-.:1.!.. i�.!::�;,��-- I- -
V . . . . . I ''. '- ".�,:...
I '�' I 1. . +.... . �
'
.
L
t1from'. Stre'et)'+
�
0 .,
.
,
."i
�
, .
�
-:� �-.'
T. , I " .. ,
,." .: -,:*��.�..� , ,
,
, '";....
- ,
'.,
.
r! .-:,. : : . ,� - . - - . - I W�
T z . �, - '. . . ,, . . . , . . . - :. + ; , . :!+ - , ,. �,. ,
. .:, :, . �: . . .. ., , . .. �,, .�� � :�� .:� . . - � . -- - - I;c.:.4 I . - . 1.11 �
, , ., . - . . :. .-- .. . - . - .i, �t;:.%, �
- , . .. . ...1. . .... . ; i . . 7- .. , . " : i I 1; - V �. ,�. !-t t, �` t !,
-, , 1. .. .., .. , ... . . ".... . I t . , 11 -, - '- - - - . . , -- ,� - -
. �+ ) - � - , . , � � . . W., . 1. �, 1: ,. ., ,'.'.' ,]� ., . . f;;. , . I , ,t4 ,,--.f�', -,�;k .1;
. . i , . i � . . I a - + I. -, - . . . . . . .. I I . . � , I . '. .. .. .:,-:,, 5� ,� - :
!..!. ';: . . . . . .. . :. ; .+,�. t", .
. . -1. I .. . I- -
,!:i,� . , � I . is'.1. .�, .... . . " . I . ., �
j?. .�. ... . , I
-
+ I : � . . ; . I � ... ,
- .. .� , . ! . ;�,;
.
, + . � . - � - 'i, -, . ., .l �;'A. , �_,, � "'m . , .+� .
. . . . ; , .. ..
. �
�-"`.-,.,��: .�. . ,. .. '. , I . . : : , . � I , . 1 .._, : � . -�-, , ;�L t;� 1.
.. :.% , I . . ,� ,, .. ..
.".. ; f�4
I .",.,.
� %1. " ;�- , .!;�. . '. � ., -.1 .. �-,,j
y:.� : , � � 11 0,%
f,.-:��%'�.t`�.�,";. , ;�, . ". ; ., .-.� , - '-, , - : . - I , V , � ".. . . .�, , . . .
, ; - . �,.. . .. - .�,;_ . %. :- ... . ... !-'. : -% "' : ! ; !) � ;`.-t---'
- , .�
�;.. , . . ;� ;: .. . - -., : " ,� - " * S�
- - , , . . .
I--, ...- . - , ,
.i. '. ,
O . . �
"'", .,�..!-
.
; , .. .. ,�.% ;,� ..�,,� , 'i.,.- - ,-. " ,�,, �, .. � .1: t - �,� .. . :tt " �,* : . .. z
11 - - , -.
- , , ,:."... ;-4,� '.�, � ,
�, ?�z -� ", �c,. -�"�. -�'. -'z.':; .-. 7 ..: -- - !": :�.`: "; .','-. , , '. I , --- , ---
, ,; , . ; : ...... - - . ..... . .,... ... ,.,,!',,:..,, � , �-- - -
. , , . . " ; .� . '. , .
v .. - -�-',', : - . .
1,il . . : . : �.:- ��, :. - " ,� "". . 1�-,'!". , �--.' ,-,----,-.�.,--:.-.�,-,,
:_ :e-� ,.: , : - . '-,--- �-. . � �, , , , ; - , . t , - � :�: : , '. '. ': � * 'I , .. ..
. . . -IN � , - - - - , .-. - , ", . , .".. .. ., , !.* � , .*. ,- : ,-.*". � -, .,. , ... .. 4 : - .. �
. !� : ! " � ,.� - � - . : . . . . , - -
- .,
, I . . I , . . I . .
� IV
�1.1'i :i,:,.,-"1 ,
� - . I : . . . , . . . : . I . .
.., - . ,.� , - - �'. s . : :1 ,
1 i �.� .. �, ... .
Fi.,
i
,
k
�W.-.*-�:
- - . '.1
� . ,
,�
� , * .�.: -- . -t �
�1. . : -1 . '; . " , : . � , . ... ; . . �� . , . . -i,
, .
- - - .. - : - '.,�� :�- -* � � ., -* '. - . � " , ! -
,�,�:;� .� .�.*.
jR
f . - : ,
�.,....�l'.�...-,".'....'..*,.,tl�.......-.,".,"."'..,...*,
. . 'I 1. * I k; . % .�,-. - V .. � .. . I . ... 1, . � -, .I; ., : , : , � , . t!
. . .
;- '- .... ; . . .., . . . " , .. '. .. . " � . . I . :,.(,
. .
;,
, ! , j , , . .
. .i. 4. , .. i
. ". . , .1 �. . .
W. , . . ,� � . . .: , ,-. , . �, .� . tr, � , i : . . - ; , - � ., . :. , .,. , , ", ': . '. . � :
- - - - -
;;,���:�, . . .. � � , ,,
. � , . , . " . , ; : . I . � .1 '. ." ; , . . r I , . ., , . : . %� , '. ", :. I ...: ,% , � �-: - - . � -.4. - , , - - .,.� . . ,� , . , ,:., . ,
� . , . . , . . ... . , . . ., . .: ,... t. , , , , .. .
.�, . .1. � .. :. 1, , . . . �'i . . * -. :,
K )
I -
N. . - : -.1 : , � , .. - .,: ,, i.. . , . ",
-, . If - ; . , .. �;-- .., �-, , . - . 'I ..
� . ;- .� .. .� � � " x " . ..: ...
. - . .., L - '. . � I - . .
- �. . -�.�- , -".::a ,-; ." � . ,I,- . :..' , .-',�� .. .. . . - .. - .. � �, � : � ,-� -'..., ,� , z % . . ..
� � ,�.�:�-..---. , - t , v
, * -
. . � .
, *
. . � , *t -, , ,, � �, �
17�.
�
,
.. * �',-.-`�-.�
". I I . I , I .
11 .; , , . '. ; -"; i ... i .7�, .: "
2 ; .1. : . , . , I . I t . ... - . . . . .. . , .. .. ... I , . . .., ., . �. � t , i., . • t ...* I .
-;.�
.: .
,
.�
J.
- .
11 ". I
I
,�. I . ,
. I � 11 ..
..:i
•
"'.
. .
- .
- I ! �. , - ��. . ; . : : -
.. . � � ; .!, - , , , �� --I � 1 - - I I ,- f . � , - , , , ., \' �- , .
. , . . . � , 1�1 I . . . -� I - %,t�,; k''i� t \ �6,� : .,
. . � : !� . � . � . . . Jt .*L AL!!���� ..-, . . . .
. , ,
i , , ,*, V, It, N � '' }ii , ' ' L ��_ " .1 N � k.".
- .-. , 1+ t , :�,-.-.,�- .'-7. J��. "' # �.%� �,;-'�, �\;.A 4 " � V , , ,� q,',"
� * - ' ' : ' , - j' L ' ' ' ' - ' " . . � � L , ' , \ , ." ' � , " .
. - , \ � , . .
- , . I . .. . I . , � � �,, �, , L '., �*..�L .\..
- - - . , . . * _tat � 'A �, ..' .".
,� . � � - - I - "I , - � . O ,,%,t 1. _ . .� \ .,\ , . 1 \-,
. . . , - , - ", - , � -1 ,� I I -� A, , , � , , 11 . � , ',
:�. � �, , ,
� , ."
. " � . , . \ ,
. � � . ,.":� � rot;, . � I
. 1. . ,\. , , . , . , . . -
.� . . ". . -� , , " , , � .
� � " ,,, " -,•' - I,
'. " " � � I \.:, �
.\ - I , ,
I '� - - ' +- .' --,� , - t. "Y i", �� , , - �1 , ". .
.�:� .t � . . '. . � . I - .", R+ t ,1� � " I ♦ L �t . I , � . ., ,. k - 11
1� , . , .. , - , . �: , ... .. ♦. kV.
I.- , " L � � 0
:1-.
. , %, , �*
, � �. . . .. .. � . . � , . " . ;.. - . � . , :; � ,M- �':t--,-: ,,v .
. , � " . . . . � ,
.. - " �
. .
-. -,
..., .. - - ,
. ,
. . .... ......; 11 .. ,% ,
� �
I .
,
n-
-
, .,- ,-,, , , , ,t
- *
-...?..
�
- -t
. .... - ., .-�
- �` I ''��' + ...
. ,
1 . .,. ♦
S',
�ml ,
t "
. -
+
�� . ..
♦� .. �
1,
V. "
� :: f i .. , � . � �-, .. � . . �� . "_- �� '- .. . �,:, --..
.... . . .. . .... 1. ... '.
-�
. . . . � . . .. . . . .
. . . I . + , , .�� : - I . v . � .. , . . ': :: :,. ,:. ,- ; .
. I , . . .., - .. - . .
.. . ,,�. . �: ;
---- : . -
: , . - .. .. ... . :
- t.. .. :. . . ,. .. . �� . ,. .. �'; , " , . . .. : �:.
, , : " .. , " .. .�, . . f '� � . i ." , ♦ * I - .. -
.1,
:
�
, : .; * .. .
-
.
�� : '. - � +. � . : ,- .� . . .it.. , - 7 -',,, ,- .. ' . +:1 - . 1: . . I . ,� .. . , , �., . �. *. .
. _ I , . . - , . , . . , . . t.
.
�,
-
I
%.
1
,
;t
��
-
,
,
\ .-. .
. . . , ,
'i �.
,
�.!.
� ,
�:.-t�'-�.,,.
.*!::':
,�L� ':
, ,
. .
( � -
- " - I
- .. �-
- I
. .L ,� : .1 .11 I
�
. - -
lot. �H -:*�-!: :*� .. - -
..... , �...'�,",:L,..",�'..� ,.- ".-
. . .. . . . _: . . , - .;'.....;.�,:!
? , . . -- , .�.:j--:.,-;.. .......�',..-.�.�:,.;I�....�'..,."..".^.�.I.-
- 1: . I . � � �- 1-� ." Z-.:�..,`: � ;---1�,-,-.!.-�;.:,
. . ,:% .-'. �.:t-��,,�'.. . I...� �,.��.,, .'%..,.�%.....L�;:...
.1 .�. L -6'.1,...-...;�.--- ..." 1'.;�L
, -
Dead.,-Ehd)----.:.' .1 ' .. . I -, - �., �-+-..::-� ",;,....�,:;,
. , , . . If., I � ".
I.- . .. % . ... "'. : .. ... I., �,'.:. �- .. "... ,
.
.1 . . .-. �: .+::, -,-. " `-
- *
.. t
1`--*---1---
�.. . . : � �
. . I - : ..
... I. , ;:1 . 1, .,.. .: . . "
,
-
,
-
I
' (2)�' ... ,�',' . �. , . : .. :- w
. . . . -':+�I,:�:*..'.
: + .... �. , , ...�., '..'.... ...:.
A.6s _: : - .+
.. . : - ,� " -.'-�
. .. - . . . .
,..- , . . . .. . . -::... , , ..-�:,.'..,
I . : . . - .,..: ..
- . I.- + "' *; ,,� �,�.
., , I I . - .
. 'i � . -. : ,�;�.,;�,,,�t;:.!,::*.:..,..',�.'.
1. .1 .. .. - , --
(,pe...On ..Str6et,+. . .. 11�t.-- -:!-.:1.!.. i�.!::�;,��-- I- -
V . . . . . I ''. '- ".�,:...
I '�' I 1. . +.... . �
'
.
L
t1from'. Stre'et)'+
�
0 .,
.
,
."i
�
, .
�
-:� �-.'
T. , I " .. ,
,." .: -,:*��.�..� , ,
,
, '";....
- ,
'.,
.
r! .-:,. : : . ,� - . - - . - I W�
T z . �, - '. . . ,, . . . , . . . - :. + ; , . :!+ - , ,. �,. ,
. .:, :, . �: . . .. ., , . .. �,, .�� � :�� .:� . . - � . -- - - I;c.:.4 I . - . 1.11 �
, , ., . - . . :. .-- .. . - . - .i, �t;:.%, �
- , . .. . ...1. . .... . ; i . . 7- .. , . " : i I 1; - V �. ,�. !-t t, �` t !,
-, , 1. .. .., .. , ... . . ".... . I t . , 11 -, - '- - - - . . , -- ,� - -
. �+ ) - � - , . , � � . . W., . 1. �, 1: ,. ., ,'.'.' ,]� ., . . f;;. , . I , ,t4 ,,--.f�', -,�;k .1;
. . i , . i � . . I a - + I. -, - . . . . . . .. I I . . � , I . '. .. .. .:,-:,, 5� ,� - :
!..!. ';: . . . . . .. . :. ; .+,�. t", .
. . -1. I .. . I- -
,!:i,� . , � I . is'.1. .�, .... . . " . I . ., �
j?. .�. ... . , I
-
+ I : � . . ; . I � ... ,
- .. .� , . ! . ;�,;
.
, + . � . - � - 'i, -, . ., .l �;'A. , �_,, � "'m . , .+� .
. . . . ; , .. ..
. �
�-"`.-,.,��: .�. . ,. .. '. , I . . : : , . � I , . 1 .._, : � . -�-, , ;�L t;� 1.
.. :.% , I . . ,� ,, .. ..
.".. ; f�4
I .",.,.
� %1. " ;�- , .!;�. . '. � ., -.1 .. �-,,j
y:.� : , � � 11 0,%
f,.-:��%'�.t`�.�,";. , ;�, . ". ; ., .-.� , - '-, , - : . - I , V , � ".. . . .�, , . . .
, ; - . �,.. . .. - .�,;_ . %. :- ... . ... !-'. : -% "' : ! ; !) � ;`.-t---'
- , .�
�;.. , . . ;� ;: .. . - -., : " ,� - " * S�
- - , , . . .
I--, ...- . - , ,
.i. '. ,
O . . �
"'", .,�..!-
.
; , .. .. ,�.% ;,� ..�,,� , 'i.,.- - ,-. " ,�,, �, .. � .1: t - �,� .. . :tt " �,* : . .. z
11 - - , -.
- , , ,:."... ;-4,� '.�, � ,
�, ?�z -� ", �c,. -�"�. -�'. -'z.':; .-. 7 ..: -- - !": :�.`: "; .','-. , , '. I , --- , ---
, ,; , . ; : ...... - - . ..... . .,... ... ,.,,!',,:..,, � , �-- - -
. , , . . " ; .� . '. , .
v .. - -�-',', : - . .
1,il . . : . : �.:- ��, :. - " ,� "". . 1�-,'!". , �--.' ,-,----,-.�.,--:.-.�,-,,
:_ :e-� ,.: , : - . '-,--- �-. . � �, , , , ; - , . t , - � :�: : , '. '. ': � * 'I , .. ..
. . . -IN � , - - - - , .-. - , ", . , .".. .. ., , !.* � , .*. ,- : ,-.*". � -, .,. , ... .. 4 : - .. �
. !� : ! " � ,.� - � - . : . . . . , - -
- .,
, I . . I , . . I . .
� IV
�1.1'i :i,:,.,-"1 ,
� - . I : . . . , . . . : . I . .
.., - . ,.� , - - �'. s . : :1 ,
1 i �.� .. �, ... .
Fi.,
i
,
k
�W.-.*-�:
- - . '.1
� . ,
,�
� , * .�.: -- . -t �
�1. . : -1 . '; . " , : . � , . ... ; . . �� . , . . -i,
, .
- - - .. - : - '.,�� :�- -* � � ., -* '. - . � " , ! -
,�,�:;� .� .�.*.
jR
f . - : ,
�.,....�l'.�...-,".'....'..*,.,tl�.......-.,".,"."'..,...*,
. . 'I 1. * I k; . % .�,-. - V .. � .. . I . ... 1, . � -, .I; ., : , : , � , . t!
. . .
;- '- .... ; . . .., . . . " , .. '. .. . " � . . I . :,.(,
. .
;,
, ! , j , , . .
. .i. 4. , .. i
. ". . , .1 �. . .
W. , . . ,� � . . .: , ,-. , . �, .� . tr, � , i : . . - ; , - � ., . :. , .,. , , ", ': . '. . � :
- - - - -
;;,���:�, . . .. � � , ,,
. � , . , . " . , ; : . I . � .1 '. ." ; , . . r I , . ., , . : . %� , '. ", :. I ...: ,% , � �-: - - . � -.4. - , , - - .,.� . . ,� , . , ,:., . ,
� . , . . , . . ... . , . . ., . .: ,... t. , , , , .. .
.�, . .1. � .. :. 1, , . . . �'i . . * -. :,
K )
I -
N. . - : -.1 : , � , .. - .,: ,, i.. . , . ",
-, . If - ; . , .. �;-- .., �-, , . - . 'I ..
� . ;- .� .. .� � � " x " . ..: ...
. - . .., L - '. . � I - . .
- �. . -�.�- , -".::a ,-; ." � . ,I,- . :..' , .-',�� .. .. . . - .. - .. � �, � : � ,-� -'..., ,� , z % . . ..
� � ,�.�:�-..---. , - t , v
, * -
. . � .
, *
. . � , *t -, , ,, � �, �
17�.
�
,
.. * �',-.-`�-.�
". I I . I , I .
11 .; , , . '. ; -"; i ... i .7�, .: "
2 ; .1. : . , . , I . I t . ... - . . . . .. . , .. .. ... I , . . .., ., . �. � t , i., . • t ...* I .
.".. ; f�4
I .",.,.
� %1. " ;�- , .!;�. . '. � ., -.1 .. �-,,j
y:.� : , � � 11 0,%
f,.-:��%'�.t`�.�,";. , ;�, . ". ; ., .-.� , - '-, , - : . - I , V , � ".. . . .�, , . . .
, ; - . �,.. . .. - .�,;_ . %. :- ... . ... !-'. : -% "' : ! ; !) � ;`.-t---'
- , .�
�;.. , . . ;� ;: .. . - -., : " ,� - " * S�
- - , , . . .
I--, ...- . - , ,
.i. '. ,
O . . �
"'", .,�..!-
.
; , .. .. ,�.% ;,� ..�,,� , 'i.,.- - ,-. " ,�,, �, .. � .1: t - �,� .. . :tt " �,* : . .. z
11 - - , -.
- , , ,:."... ;-4,� '.�, � ,
�, ?�z -� ", �c,. -�"�. -�'. -'z.':; .-. 7 ..: -- - !": :�.`: "; .','-. , , '. I , --- , ---
, ,; , . ; : ...... - - . ..... . .,... ... ,.,,!',,:..,, � , �-- - -
. , , . . " ; .� . '. , .
v .. - -�-',', : - . .
1,il . . : . : �.:- ��, :. - " ,� "". . 1�-,'!". , �--.' ,-,----,-.�.,--:.-.�,-,,
:_ :e-� ,.: , : - . '-,--- �-. . � �, , , , ; - , . t , - � :�: : , '. '. ': � * 'I , .. ..
. . . -IN � , - - - - , .-. - , ", . , .".. .. ., , !.* � , .*. ,- : ,-.*". � -, .,. , ... .. 4 : - .. �
. !� : ! " � ,.� - � - . : . . . . , - -
- .,
, I . . I , . . I . .
� IV
�1.1'i :i,:,.,-"1 ,
� - . I : . . . , . . . : . I . .
.., - . ,.� , - - �'. s . : :1 ,
1 i �.� .. �, ... .
Fi.,
i
,
k
�W.-.*-�:
- - . '.1
� . ,
,�
� , * .�.: -- . -t �
�1. . : -1 . '; . " , : . � , . ... ; . . �� . , . . -i,
, .
- - - .. - : - '.,�� :�- -* � � ., -* '. - . � " , ! -
,�,�:;� .� .�.*.
jR
f . - : ,
�.,....�l'.�...-,".'....'..*,.,tl�.......-.,".,"."'..,...*,
. . 'I 1. * I k; . % .�,-. - V .. � .. . I . ... 1, . � -, .I; ., : , : , � , . t!
. . .
;- '- .... ; . . .., . . . " , .. '. .. . " � . . I . :,.(,
. .
;,
, ! , j , , . .
. .i. 4. , .. i
. ". . , .1 �. . .
W. , . . ,� � . . .: , ,-. , . �, .� . tr, � , i : . . - ; , - � ., . :. , .,. , , ", ': . '. . � :
- - - - -
;;,���:�, . . .. � � , ,,
. � , . , . " . , ; : . I . � .1 '. ." ; , . . r I , . ., , . : . %� , '. ", :. I ...: ,% , � �-: - - . � -.4. - , , - - .,.� . . ,� , . , ,:., . ,
� . , . . , . . ... . , . . ., . .: ,... t. , , , , .. .
.�, . .1. � .. :. 1, , . . . �'i . . * -. :,
K )
I -
N. . - : -.1 : , � , .. - .,: ,, i.. . , . ",
-, . If - ; . , .. �;-- .., �-, , . - . 'I ..
� . ;- .� .. .� � � " x " . ..: ...
. - . .., L - '. . � I - . .
- �. . -�.�- , -".::a ,-; ." � . ,I,- . :..' , .-',�� .. .. . . - .. - .. � �, � : � ,-� -'..., ,� , z % . . ..
� � ,�.�:�-..---. , - t , v
, * -
. . � .
, *
. . � , *t -, , ,, � �, �
17�.
�
,
.. * �',-.-`�-.�
". I I . I , I .
11 .; , , . '. ; -"; i ... i .7�, .: "
2 ; .1. : . , . , I . I t . ... - . . . . .. . , .. .. ... I , . . .., ., . �. � t , i., . • t ...* I .
. .. ... ... . .. ..
11 1
dl t
F.7
Ti
.8800
c 01.
Stucco
pprox.,;..,
-lw
11 1
dl t
Ss
Lr
ti
19123M.
:Wrought
ht -M
g
F ence.&
Gtu
Direcft.A
di
ww .
: i7
. .........
Xl
—VI
eC
yr
.. ....... . ..
17'
454,E
Wrou
x
.,..(Appro.
]NOW
yyet
.03
1'• 4 t � S
}
f:
1•
T..
is
4
t �
} 1
Ten
S S f
F r� `• t
a , J
!
3- Hauses
With'
r
X
(Approx
et
7
t
r
't
�= I
r
orthfll)
r
1 1
t.
ces
of reet� 1
F {
s Y i
s
5i
f !.. 1 r t t` � .{ •5
1 3 t
I .y
h
1• 1
1400;
\ x
s
{1 Block .
L
WOO
(Approxi .
a•
.fie:
f
Mt
'r. �
' I � ' �
r ir'�1t'�`�•
f t 1
1 c ij ;C ,
1�-�'
•r�i� t'? L r �.f�s
�'I
41
't
�= I
r
orthfll)
r
1 1
t.
ces
of reet� 1
F {
s Y i
s
5i
f !.. 1 r t t` � .{ •5
1 3 t
I .y
h
1• 1
1400;
\ x
s
{1 Block .
L
WOO
(Approxi .
a•
.fie:
f
't
�= I
r
orthfll)
r
1 1
t.
ces
of reet� 1
F {
s Y i
s
5i
f !.. 1 r t t` � .{ •5
1 3 t
I .y
h
1• 1
s l
l,Uf -
... r
- —
—�,%
\ ;.
1
: -� "' -, ;, '''' ...,.. I � I'- ,�� ,
' t , ... �FY
: , . -- - I. - .. --� --'-!-': �-,:, -`.,�-, . 1. —.1 � . . � -�, . .� . t- - . -.1'.i z: :�: - i . ... � � . - J: .. - .
� -:�-.1-:v. I...."' I I. ... ,V . . .�s.. — ...., , �. - - ,...
:.., 1>,
o f.
t . �. + {
1 .ry +•1.
�� I 4i
. z�
I!J
! rj.
9+
f gs
J %�'
- - L -+'+s+
JS
J
f'A
,,
*,
e.
fi '.
l r %'
. r.
ti , 4 } �
,•
1 1. ?{
J
± ..
r +, 5. .. ,i
. y' F 1 4
140
, (1 Block)
1 ` f 9' .
/ ,' I ..� -'i.'....,
/ y, . .
rOV�
;.
;. _iAppro. 1. i,
t:
7J
- ,/ .J" , ,
F
i
` : { . ,.
i 1'.
I ;.fi �)
r ' ti.
T r
i
14• J,
,/ J + J f , 4 t�l
r r,,
J( /J { }ti
r ! �. , / •' !.:? it , I 15`
1 . ( 5 r J�1.
/ J 1. .. 1 - F `1 1. f 1 / _ , !`Ss
, 1; 1 r
f S .. If ! f r _ r :�
f +' /
I /.
T t .. { �5
i :
. 't ' ',,• J 1 ,fir"' ,
_ !: iy. I a
,l /<
�•
f ; i'.
i:.
4 ,lfj. t ¢ \.F, I i..,
'• 1 '.v (;
�.
II Vii. �: .f.
/ .
I
.
1'sT�.
i�
,
MITI j- f,q�� {r•...rr, N ,. ' f 1 l 1
I
i .
I .. ,
f I� I ,I' ;i
f !.. '
f ' ` Ydf '' ,1 , 'I
, t;'
a • I
r'
_ _ . _...J J I ,
,I
F.
. • 'r 1' �,t i! R I ......
r
A'
! �' -. r
,� G Y t \- T f
1.. ,IJ , " +11./ Imo, I ,�.
, t � , f ,/ , ; r I ''r
1 .. 41 ., + 1..
�fier -
I.IS J>•Jti hfll lil ..r r \/ yt 4 1t
�'
I orth*"i) , I
1 e t, III , i t ,
! . \ 'P %M
! .i ti, ,. �c, k J(t,, a .,l•
, JI �1J i , It`
J ,l ; \,� .ill
ices.' \ t
1 ,, L +NJ Y / -f,
t: I . . :I-,- I - . Streets 1� �<< �.; f , ���, J\ i.
{ 1" .
+�, ,� t,
.S 1 i f .,. IS
. 1 yl �\.
.4� -.i',, \ . , 11 \ 1
+ z �,1 ,..
1 i ,r * '. \ % 1!'.''. I :1` r Zf , .I, s,. 'fit• -n ` _ ` 11
+ i., i Ili' d' 1 \ ( Y:'. ..
l , �t 1 ,
t. .J pr f 1 1 t 1 1 i'• •- f 1 I. ii: �1s *11 . � I a 'I1 . I .t' , - a - s a: s Y . ,-�"
,, , \
2• f 1 ! /' � .., a
r-J t 11` I f' 1 t' , L , i
p 11 1 �;
1�.' I , . \ � ', .f t t
ygygyyp I , , 1. 1 �� t
w.:. , . _ . _ _ .. .
f +' /
I /.
T t .. { �5
i :
. 't ' ',,• J 1 ,fir"' ,
_ !: iy. I a
,l /<
�•
f ; i'.
i:.
4 ,lfj. t ¢ \.F, I i..,
'• 1 '.v (;
�.
II Vii. �: .f.
/ .
I
.
1'sT�.
i�
,
MITI j- f,q�� {r•...rr, N ,. ' f 1 l 1
I
i .
I .. ,
f I� I ,I' ;i
f !.. '
f ' ` Ydf '' ,1 , 'I
, t;'
a • I
r'
_ _ . _...J J I ,
,I
F.
. • 'r 1' �,t i! R I ......
r
A'
! �' -. r
,� G Y t \- T f
1.. ,IJ , " +11./ Imo, I ,�.
, t � , f ,/ , ; r I ''r
1 .. 41 ., + 1..
�fier -
I.IS J>•Jti hfll lil ..r r \/ yt 4 1t
�'
I orth*"i) , I
1 e t, III , i t ,
! . \ 'P %M
! .i ti, ,. �c, k J(t,, a .,l•
, JI �1J i , It`
J ,l ; \,� .ill
ices.' \ t
1 ,, L +NJ Y / -f,
t: I . . :I-,- I - . Streets 1� �<< �.; f , ���, J\ i.
{ 1" .
+�, ,� t,
.S 1 i f .,. IS
. 1 yl �\.
.4� -.i',, \ . , 11 \ 1
+ z �,1 ,..
1 i ,r * '. \ % 1!'.''. I :1` r Zf , .I, s,. 'fit• -n ` _ ` 11
+ i., i Ili' d' 1 \ ( Y:'. ..
l , �t 1 ,
t. .J pr f 1 1 t 1 1 i'• •- f 1 I. ii: �1s *11 . � I a 'I1 . I .t' , - a - s a: s Y . ,-�"
,, , \
2• f 1 ! /' � .., a
r-J t 11` I f' 1 t' , L , i
p 11 1 �;
1�.' I , . \ � ', .f t t
ygygyyp I , , 1. 1 �� t
w.:. , . _ . _ _ .. .
1. 9161-
'i
F4t it".
1 t i t, f F
V4
Iron
..-Mtop-ght
.. ..... .. . .
birecAlv Ad
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
q7
....... ....... ....... ......
i4'
�s ora
Zj
&
j. &
'i
F4t it".
1 t i t, f F
V4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....... ....... ....... ......
�s ora
&
j:.:
'i
F4t it".
1 t i t, f F
V4
sups
y,r
� , 1.1 !
IT
♦.
Y7.;i�•�i+44r,d73 ,w�
J..
r +1
in
z
,
�.\IrI P��\\ 1
Cto
'
f:
Chain L�r
r
Near
/ Y
,r
r
c
!
rri
d.
i.
.t
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �--
MEETING DATE: January 4, 1995
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager
AGENDA ITEM U
CITY MGR.
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Permanent Positions in City
Service
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No. Authorizing Permanent Positions in
City Service for fiscal year 94/95
Report Summary:
This resolution restores the Department Head position of Assistant
to the City Manager to full time, effective May 1, 1995. As of
July 1, 1993, the position was reduced to 60% as part of the
reorganization of departments. At the present time, personnel
changes and the work load in the City Manager's Department make it
necessary to have this position authorized.at full time. .
Fiscal Impact•
No impact in 94/95 fiscal year.
Follow Up Actions:
Direct staff to begin recruitment to fill full time position.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion:
Staff will not be able to recruit to fill vacancy.
Attachments:
Resolution No. Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service
� r �I IJ I � •
I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. !� 7
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 4, 1995
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD: luw
SUBJECT: Written Communication from Friends of the Saratoga
Libraries requesting lease of surplus office trailer
Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the request and direct staff
to add the office trailer to the current lease agreement by
amending the agreement.
Report Summary: The Friends of the.Saratoga Libraries have written
the attached letter indicating their desire to lease and use the
surplus office trailer owned by the City (the former Maintenance
Director's office). The Friends would use the trailer to store
used books prior to placing them for sale at the Book -Go -Round
bookstore at the Village Library building leased from the City. As
the Friends provide considerable financial support to the Saratoga
Community Library, the request seems worthy,of Council's approval.
If Council agrees, the trailer can be incorporated into the
existing lease agreement with the Friends by amending the agreement
to include the trailer as part of the leased property.
Fiscal Impacts: Adding the trailer to the lease agreement would not
increase lease payments to the City. The Friends currently lease
the Village Library building for $1 per year. As an alternative,
the City could probably sell the trailer at a surplus property
auction for around $3,000.
Advertising Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City
would not lease the trailer to the Friends. Instead, the trailer
would be auctioned at an upcoming surplus property sale.
Follow Up Actions: The lease agreement will be amended to include
the trailer.
Attachments: 1. Letter from Friends dated December 16.
2. Current Lease Agreement with suggested change.
1
Friends of the Saratoga Libraries
P.O. Box 2642 Saratoga, California 95070
Mk- t A W-91 1?&AO JAI
C I T� p F 64,v- 4 i OC4-
3'777 I=RV /TV1q Lc AL) CA) U6'
V ,U r o &�A 1 CA q6-0170
�EC�M��ie lc/ 19'914
�)rAA MR. I:�FR4 /AI )
5 TQ�ASv<2��2 d F 7 Feel --N p5 bF TH/C �A.C'�4 ToG� ,C /B,2ARiF5�
14M AUjW&> Z IZC/> i /OA-1
FOP- �6-A:5E AND 064r 6F >/IE JMo 3j Le- 6Fr-1C6' UNIT DCt�N�O
L34 14- CI-11 6P,64-,1Z47-,v6,4.
7-4a UN t i WILL 6 U:�CD FoAz ,5'Tc&/4 4 i5- mF 06,0e5 p9/0 2,
0 5A4-0'=- A T j NL 60,0K 61ERa 74 O gY 1 f_ { 9- lel&V 05. r
!E 5o4e pv/LpoS,• bF !W� Sorpo,e—, Or
Ak44-N4c ,qevr TkIAT C4AI F6- FC0V1PtD -
7�ohtK you Foie qoo r ✓ A.o
Fu,erl4 dirsc��s5io�v, Mq IPNoNE AIuM0&r, l5
7l7• ��
AMENDMENT TO LEASE
THIS AGREEMENT to Amend the Lease, made as of this
day of May, 1991, between the City of Saratoga, ( "Landlord "), a
municipal corporation, and Friends of the Saratoga Libraries,
( "Tenant ").
WITNESSETH•
WHEREAS, Landlord is the owner of certain land and the
building and other improvements thereon hereinafter described as:
The Saratoga Village Library Building, located at 14410 Oak
Street, Saratoga, California, comprising an area of approximately
' and aA o ;�«.t bra%kr &5cuib,ed
1622 square feet )A( "Premises "); and
QS...•
WHEREAS, by that certain lease dated February 4, 1986, as
amended March 6, 1991, Landlord has leased to Tenant the subject
Premises; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to have the lease amended
in respects hereinafter more particularly set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to amend the lease
as follows:
I.
That Landlord hereby leases and Tenant hereby rents the
entire premises at 14410 Oak Street, comprising an area of
approximately 1622 s and an offict frallen dfscribed a5 .. .
y square feet for a term commencing upon the
date of execution of this Amendment To Lease, and expiring July
31, 1994, and for the sum of $1.00 as rent for the entire term of
this Lease.
1
Except as expressly amended hereby, the lease, as previously
amended, and all of the terms, covenants and conditions thereof,
remain.in full force and effect.
Dated: 7
Dated: %911 � 31
mnru \273 \agree \FSLAmend.1se
2
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation
By: �/� 6�
Harr R. Peacock
FRIENDS OF THE SARATOGA
LIBRARIES
By:
SARATOGA�j CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �-�.� v AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 4, 1994 CITY MANAGER '
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Purchase of Speed Monitoring Radar Trailer
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS(S
Approve the purchase of the Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar
Trailer (SMART).
BACKGROUND
The Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer is a portable, self -
contained speed display unit designed-to promote speed awareness.
SMART is towed to a site that has experienced frequent speed
related problems. The 8- foot -high unit is equipped with. a large
display and a radar gun similar to those used in police ears.
Studies show that the average speed tends to remain lower after the
SMART is moved to another location. Speed awareness goes up and
motorists slow down. Enforcement may take place from a patrol car
down the street, or curbside from the radar trailer. This is an
effective way to deal with the many speed related complaints which
are presented to the Director of Public Works and the. Public Safety
Commission, but do not justify additional traffic control measures.
FISCAL IMPACT•
Funds for the trailer were approved in the Police Protection FY 94-
95 budget. Total costs for the unit are $10,288.53.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Staff will work with the media to provide public education
regarding the radar trailer and promote awareness.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Purchase the equipment and have the Public Works Department develop
procedures for maintenance and implementation.
SARATOGA CITY.COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Y c� q AGENDA ITEM D
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 4, 1995 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Cox Avenue Wall Colors
Recommended Motion(s): None. It is recommended that the City
Council leave the wall colors as they are.
Report Summary: As a follow -up from your previous meeting, staff
has checked the record to determine whether the previous City
Council ever decided to repaint the community walls along Cox
Avenue. No such decision appears to have been made. A brief
summary of the history of.the wall colors is as follows:
1. The wall colors were originally approved by the City in
early October of 1989 (Attachment 1).
2. The walls were built and painted in the summer of 1990.
Prior to the walls being built, staff verified that a sample of the
wall colors matched the colors which were previously approved.
3. In early 1993, a field meeting was held with Traffic
Authority staff to review among other things, the possibility of
repainting the walls at Traffic Authority expense. Although
Traffic Authority made no commitments at the time, they suggested
that. the City solicit bids for repainting the walls and the matter
would be left open for further discussion. During the summer of
1993, staff solicited one bid for $5,200 to repaint the walls.
4. At the August 4, 1993 City, Council meeting, Eileen Goodwin
acknowledged that the City could draw from its discretionary
freeway landscaping funds to repaint the walls (Attachment 2).
This was confirmed in a follow -up letter from Ms. Goodwin dated
September 17, 1993 (Attachment 3).
At this point in time, it appears as though the City will have a
surplus of between $5,000 and $10,000 in discretionary freeway
landscaping funds after the Cox Avenue landscaping project is
completed. These surplus funds could be used to repaint the walls.
A more recent bid from a painting contractor suggests that the
walls could be repainted for a cost of $3,100.
r
I believe the Council has three options from which to choose. They
are:
1. Do nothing. Leave the walls as they are.
2. Direct staff to repaint the walls using surplus freeway
landscaping funds.
3. Direct staff to repaint the walls, but assess the cost
against LLA -1 Zones 3 (Greenbrier Landscape District) , and 22
(Prides Crossing Landscape District) proportionally.
Staff recommends Option 1 for two reasons. First, the soon to be
installed landscaping will invariably tend to screen the walls,
softening their appearance over time as the landscaping matures.
Second, the walls will eventually need repainting at some time in
the future and the colors can be changed at that time if it is
still desired. However, if the Council opts to repaint the walls
now, then it is strongly recommended that the walls be painted
using the same colors as were used for the Saratoga Ave. visual
barrier walls.
Fiscal Impacts: Depends on Council's action. Up to $3,100 if the
Council decides to repaint the walls.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A.
Follow Up Actions: Depends on Council's action.
Attachments: 1. Letter to Traffic Authority dated October 9, 1989.
2. Minutes from August 4, 1993 City Council meeting.
3. Letter from Traffic Authority dated September 17,
1993.
Q gur
13777 FRL]TVALE AVENUE • SAR -� \"1 OGA. CALIFORNL-\ 95070
(408) 867 -:3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyies
Donald Peterson
October 9, 1989 Francs Stutzman
Jim Bluse-
Santa Clara County Traffic Authority
1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224
San Jose, CA 95110
RE: File No. 172 -3
Dear Mr. Bluse:
The color board for the Cox Avenue community walls
forwarded to the City on October 4, 1989, is hereby
approved.
Sincerely,
arry R� Peacock
City Manager
]m
cc: City Engineer`.`
r
City Council Minutes 4 August 4, 1993
1) Oral Presentation from Traffic Authority on Draft 1993
trategic Plan
Ms. Eileen Goodwin, \13a Authority, gave an update on Highway 101,
Highway 237 and H. She noted the Strategic Plan being
circulated for 199 deficit of $1.7 million, but they are
moving in the rigion. Ms. Goodwin stated the Measure A
Program, passed in 1992, is under litigation. She reviewed
the jump start progd by the new measure. Ms. Goodwin stated
the Traffic Authorito move forward with their plans at this
time to stay on sc save the tax payers approximately $25
million.
In response to Councilmember Anderson's questions, Ms. Goodwin stated,
regarding the wall on Prospect, she received a petition from the
homeowners and the engineer is reviewing this with regards to noise and
visibility. She noted they will have a community meeting within the
next few weeks. Regarding the tilt -up walls on Cox, Ms. �o 'n stated
landscaping funds can be used for aesthetic purposes to paint the wall
another color. She noted they have received no compl 'nts egarding
the color.
N response to Councilmember Kohler's question, Ms. Goodwin stated the
ra season did hold up construction work, but the Traffic Authority
has en working with the contractors to stay on schedule as much as
possib She noted Route 85 will be .open by the end of 1994.
Councilme er Kohler pointed out that the debris on the Paul Masson
site will b recycled and used for the. freeway.
In response t Councilmember. Monia's question regarding reflective
noise, Ms. Good 'n stated Cal -Trans is doing this study. She stated
landscaping does 1p with the reflective noise.
C. WRITTEN MMUNICATIONS
1) Parks Nd Recreation Commission Recommendation to
Approve Bonsai Display Area in Hakone Gardens
Staff recommends that the ity Council approve in concept and ask
Hakone Foundation to prepare n amendment to the Hakone Garden Master
Plan - to incorporate a bonsai display area for formal City Council
approval at a later date.
Ms. Gladys Armstrong, Presiden
information
ne
Foundation, stated the
presented
to the Coun
to
the Garden Committee who
approved the project.
She notare
asking for approval in
concept, for a Bonsai
Garden only
\CON
BURGER /KOHLER MOVED TO
APPROVE THOF
A BONSAI GARDEN. PASSED
5 -0.
2) Thomas S. Brachko, 16732 darwood Circle, Cerritos
90701, requesting Support fo Legislation for Employer
Tax Credit to Teach English
Councilmember Tucker stated it would be a good \lan to support this
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
TRAFFIC AUTHORITY
Jlm Beafl Zoe Lofgren- Susan Hammer Jack Lucas Barbara Tryon
mead. ChaUperson \Ace Chairperson
Eileen 0. Goodwin, Executive Director
September 17, 1993
Mr. Larry Perlin
Director of Public Works
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, C 950 0
Dear n: Mr. P r
SUBJECT: VARIOUS LANDSCAPING ISSUES
In response to your letter of August 12, 1993, regarding various landscaping issues, the
Traffic Authority confirms that the City of Saratoga .may draw from their discretionary freeway
landscaping funds for revegetation of Rodeo Creek, landscaping along Bonnet Way, and
landscaping and painting of the community wall along Cox Avenue. Further, we agree to
purchase several of the trees removed during construction of the Bonnet Way soundwall to
mitigate for visual intrusion near the Blue Hills pedestrian overcrossing. Within the next week,
our staff will contact you to select the trees and determine the planting locations at Kevin
Moran Park. It is our understanding that the price of $400 per tree includes transportation and
replanting, and that the City agrees to maintain the trees.
We look forward to working .with you on the Route 85 landscaping projects. Thank you
for your continued support of the Measure A Program.
Sincerely,
EILEEN 0. GOODWIN
Executive Director
EOG /GLP /sic
1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224, Son Jose, California 95MO -1308 (408) 453 -3777 • Fax (408) 453 -1321
Printed on recycled paper