Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSy SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2— .5 o�� AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: JULY 5, 1995 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEF T. HEAD: SUBJECT: Quito Rd. /Westmont Ave. /Sousa Ln. Traffic Signal (Capital Project No. 9503) - Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. Report Summary: All work on the Quito Rd. /Westmont Ave. /Sousa Ln. Traffic Signal (capital Project No. 9503) has been completed by the City's contractor, G.A.B. Construction, Inc., and inspected by City staff as well as staff from the City of San Jose. The final construction cost for the project was $64,999.25, which is 4.5% below the awarded contract amount of $68,089. The difference between the f inal construction cost and the awarded contract amount is due to less concrete work than was originally thought would be necessary to build the traffic signal. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts: The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Capital Project No. 9503 to cover the entire cost of the construction contract. Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty days thereafter. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Attachments: 1. Contract Summary. 2. Notice of Completion. CONTRACT SUMMARY PROJECT: Quito Road /Westmont Avenue /Sousa Lane Traffic Signal CONTRACTOR: G.A.B. Construction, Inc. CONTRACT DATE: 02/01/95 CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 06/16/95 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $68,089.00 CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY: $5,000 CHANGE ORDER INCREASE: $0.00. FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $64,999.25 PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: -4.5% i t SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL c ,`f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 `�v MEETING DATE: JULY 5, 1995 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM S Y, CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Summary Vacation of Trail Easement on Lot 6 - Tract 7770 Owner: Alan Chadwick Recommended Motion (s) Move to adopt the Resolution of Summary Vacation of the trail easement. Report Summary: The owner of Lot 6 in Tract 7770, Alan Chadwick, has applied for final abandonment of a 15 foot trail easement across the easterly boundary of the property established at the time the final map for the subdivision was approved. The abandonment was preliminarily. approved by the Parks & Recreation Commission in July of 1992, but was never finalized since then. It was determined by the P &R Commission that the trail easement is not needed because this particular trail segment was eliminated from the Parks and Trails Master Plan due to the fact that the easement could never be functionally developed with a trail. As a result, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend abandonment of the trail easement. Staff concurs with this assessment of the easement and recommends that the Council now formally abandon it by passing the attached resolution to summarily vacate the easement. Fiscal Impacts: The applicant has paid $250 to cover the City's costs to process the abandonment request. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The easement would not be abandoned and would continue to exist. Follow Up Actions: The Resolution will be recorded. Attachments: 1. Resolution summarily vacating the trail easement. 2. Minutes from the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of July 6, 1992. II. IV. V. mt 7/6/f I'L he consensus of the Commission was that,,asr,,dangerous as it i its present condition, money shqu- 1,T''fie appropriated for its repa1 ter a structural engi ee `has evaluated its condition. If no mon is availabl .,aoq- the stage should be closed off. A possible s do ;.would be to take money from another park project not ye�,.o °b such as Beauchamps or Ravenwood Park, as the safe sue here s d have highest priority as it carries wit a great liability.`"Th4&,jpage of Saratoga also has to be pNf"e'_n into consideration. WaraMi.]J er. 6/0 C. Tract 7770 Trail Abandonment After consultation with Bill Brooks, a resident trail user, it was determined that the trail abandonment should be approved. Pierce /Ward. 6/0. A. E1 Quito Park Community Gardens Secretary Trinidad provided background on the.2ommunity arden for the Commissioners. He introduc.Q& a Saratoga g ener, Calvin Judd, who maintains plats at E1 Quito. The missioners asked to view the'GArden Plots at their t meeting prior to adopt. -�ng the recommended rules and ulations. They a.1-so wanted a few changes to the rules, nd clarificfon of a "senior" citizen. Pierce /Ward. 6, ION AND STArF 'Rr&PORTS Joan Pisani.A%ve a brief ATIONS e on the Warner Hutton House. A,'ecretary Trinidad advised the Commissi rs that the City budget and possible cutbacks were tied to State budget. B. A farewell to Commissioners dinner wad planned f my 20. Adjournment 9:OOPM. Pierce /Ward. i #idW Secretary 7/1/91 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Secretary, Parks and Recreation Commission SUBJECT: MEETING OF MONDAY, JULY 6, 1992 II.1*4400* Architect, Jeffrey Heid, will present his final r�t on Park improvements and costs for Wildwood Park. -,,se" Or The C ssioners are being asked P� eview and approve final plans fo provements at Wild d Park as recommended by staff an direct staf o forward same to City Council for their appro II.B. Wildwood Park Stage,oA'TL§,&,Repairs The Co ssioners are being asked to ect staff to request a jj#VM00 budget appropriation from Coun or repair to the ge area at Wildwood Park. Abandonment of Chadwick Subdivision Tract 7770 Trail. Recommendation: This item was re- agendized from the May meeting so staff could obtain additional data. Based on the information gained from trail user, Bill Brooks, representing a large segment of Saratoga equestrians, staff is recommending approval of the abandonment of the Tract 7770 Trail. The Commissioners should direct staff to transmit back to the Planning Department. "' UMIFT Qe O&M2LUZO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia M E M O R A N D U M Francis Stutzman TO: Terrence Ward, Parks & Recreation Commission Chair FROM: James Walgr.en, Associate Planner DATE: April 29, 1992 SUBJECT: -Request to Abandon a Pedestrian /Equestrian Easement Chadwick; 21152 Chadwick Court At a public hearing meeting on August 28, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a request to allow the construction of a new 5,416 sq. ft. single family residence within the Chadwick Place subdivision (Tract 7770). A condition of approval was to require the applicant to improve the recorded pedestrian /equestrian easement to City standards. The applicant is now requesting that this easement, recorded as part of the tentative map conditions of approval in 1979, be abandoned. Noting that the proposed equestrian trial has been eliminated from the recently adopted Parks and Trails Master Plan maps, Planning Department staff has agreed to consider Mr. Chadwick's request. Before submitting this request to the City Council, however, staff would like to receive input from the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission's determination will likely form the basis of our office's recommendation on this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. JW:cw Enclosures: 1. 2. Location map Site plan REPORT TO. THE PLANNING COMMISSION _pplication No. /Location: DR -91 -006; 21152, Chadwick Court Applicant /Owner: Chadwick Staff Planner: James Walgren. Date: July 24, 19 91 APN: 503-15-041 Director Approval: 21152 Chadwick Court 21116 a c 11072 set • 1 �-oL a ate.- . X01 -17 -10 p' t1i11 TR 7770 21213 " � D _ M 11 Li>< {07•I�•ti +l Se} IS -t7 •_.mss- 13 O 1 }iW •� d 2122 _ w I � 1 fll�1•(Il 13.311 iel{hN � I � I I sot -17 -1 � 1 J eronlc+i sow -Ib-fl +o1 -r.ror �1 .� :u +scat, mn ;ron � 911.4(. -01 Mme• M-07 �o'O / • :Ixooc7l ru + :cu s1o�o(�J sos•�r -/s s1� -aa-�o •off- IJi -I( a •17-1 � 1 14+17 (go)) � ISlL•!U)1 f°t•s+ -w (eS/�0(l17 � ,�3 ses-l7 -off 11713(14) S°7•�t�Ot �e1•SI -ol 40.67 -ei 1!l�lclll -��•e 4 -If -� 7 Q (T 1fo•1 -9i•ll •M- io ��� zo•ez• �6 114n cn 21152 Chadwick Court SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 5003 AGENDA ITEM: 0 MEETING DATE: I ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Develo me J CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: HP -23, Heritage Landmark Designation proposal for the Almond Hill House located at 14475 Oak Place. Recommended Motion: Approve the Heritage Landmark Designation by adopting Resolution HP -23. Report Summary: The subject property is commonly known as the Almond Hill House and is located at 14475 Oak Place. The house was built between 1910 an 1912 by Emily Ruth Harris Bell, sister -in -law of David Bell, owner of the imposing Bellgrove Estate. The property once included a carriage house which is now separated from the site by Oak Place and is a private residence. The house is undergoing a complete, renovation by the current owners, Cheryl and Dave Martlage. After visiting the property, the Heritage Commission considered the Landmark Designation request at their regular June meeting. The Commission unanimously voted to support the Landmark Designation and commended the applicants for their significant preservation efforts. Fiscal Impacts• A bronze plaque is customarily bestowed upon the recipient of a Heritage Landmark Designation at a cost to the City of approximately $75.00. Follow -up Action: None. Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion: Subject property will not be designated as a Heritage Landmark. Attachments: 1. Excerpt from "Saratoga 's Heritage ". 2. Resolution HP -23. Motion and Vote: 14475 Oak Place mily Ruth Harris (Mrs. John) Bell, built this house as a widow on land she purchased from her brother -in -law, David Bell, owner of the imposing home Bellgrove. The broad sloping roof covers a porte cochere which was the original location of the home's entrance. The original carriage house for the property is now separated from it by Oak Place and is a separate residence. r• r , SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2- s � 1 AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: JULY 5, 1995 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAE SUBJECT: Award of contract for installation of street monuments in Tract No. 6781 (Teerlink Ranch) Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the proposal from Chrisp Co. to install 35 street monuments for a total of $6,475 and authorize staff to issue a purchase order for the work. Report Summary: Staff has solicited proposals from qualified contractors to install 35 missing street monuments in Tract 6781 (Teerlink Ranch) using the informal bidding procedures contained in Article 1,2 -15 of the City Code. The monuments are needed to establish property lines and street rights -of -ways and should have been installed when the subdivision improvements were completed several years ago. However, since they were not, it is proposed to utilize a portion of the remaining proceeds of the cash bond posted with the City by the developer to complete the monumentation work. Two contractors responded to the City's request for bids. Chrisp Co. of Fremont submitted the lowest bid if $185 per monument or $6,475 total. As this contractor is well qualified to perform this type of work, and since the unit price for the work is fair, it is recommended that the Council accept the proposal from Chrisp Co. and authorize staff to issue,a purchase order in the amount of $6,475 to them for the work. If approved, the work should be completed by the end of July. Fiscal Impacts: As noted, the work will be funded from the remaining proceeds of the cash bond which the City still retains. This work, as well as other work necessary to finalize all of the subdivision improvements never completed by the developer, are programmed in the budget in Capital Project No. 8505. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The proposal will not be accepted and a purchase order will not be issued. The monuments will not be installed which will create future problems for surveyors and civil engineers working in the area. State law requires that the monuments be installed as shown on the final map for the subdivision. Follow Up Actions: The purchase order will be issued. Attachments: 1. Proposals from Chrisp Co. and Bressani Construction. C1�- SENT BY:CHR'6sp co Fremont CA ;i>—>l—:> ; 2:37PM 51049 0 27;O 3-o OH .1-94P COMPANY OYOT-ATION/PROPOSAL 14087410940;# 1 4AM Road 0 -!v Kc-, 3749C wirt. wo(>d Cie 3abg CLIRM-r DATE: JOB OPB2VINO DA TIM$; PROJECT NAMEk C—I-Nvto PROJECT LOCATION- PROJECT WORMNG DAYS: CAL DAYS:- 9qQ I UOUIDATED DAMAGES S L%WR, MATBRIAIS, ImLs AM TAM INCLUDW UNIM OT,=W= r4o= DESCRIPTION I I uNrr PRICE QUANTITY UNIT SPECtAL CONDITIONS AND SUPPLEMPNIAL INFORMATION "CUSTOMER ORDER NO. --�j ADDENDUM(S) NOTED VMrfW AUMORMAMON 19 RBQUn= PRIOR To pRoCM]VM V= Wop X ACCEPT= By I I BY TOTAL U Z4 197 'ft UC. A431311 Since 1953 BRESSANI CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS CONCRETE tONSTRUCTION 377 Vale Drive San Jose, CA 95123 V June 28, 1995 CITY OF SARATOGA Attn: John Cherbone 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 RE: QUOTATION - Monuments Teerlink Subdivision Mt. Eden & Pierce Rd$. Saratoga, Calif. Phone (408) 224-4126 Fax (408) 224 -4127 SCOPE: - Install survey monuments as per attached detail. City to supply stradled monument locations and "Punch" monument pins. 30 each C $351.00 each = $10,530.00 EXCLUDES: - Fees and Permits. - Testing and Inspection. - Handling of toxic earth or materials. We appreciate the opportunity to quote these improvements and should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, R. Bressani, Jr.' RB:sg SARATOGA CITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: 2— J Y 0 MEETING DATE: July 5, 1995 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: —6 A ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Lot Line Adjustment, Design Review and Variance requests by the Heaths; 14300 Saratoga Ave. Recommended Motion: Deny the appellants' request and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Lot Line Adjustment, Design Review and Variance requests. Report Summary: Description: Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to merge a 20 ft. wide property strip to the main parcel. Variance approval is requested to allow the proposed cumulative building square footage (including accessory struc- tures) to exceed the allowable for this property by 1,432 sq. ft., to allow a 25 ft. tall two -story garage (one- story, 15 ft. in height maximum permitted) and to allow the second story addition to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches. Design Review approval is also necessary to add 2,204 sq. ft. of first and second floor area to an existing two -story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory. The subject property is 29,770 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Summary of Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission heard these application requests at their May 24, 1995 public hearing meeting. The Variance requests included exceeding the allowable building floor area for this property by over 1,400 sq. ft. and allowing a two -story accessory garage structure. Staff was not able to find that special circumstances existed to warrant these floor area and building height Variances. The applicant has stated that he is being penalized for the several existing historic accessory buildings on site. The three accessory buildings which may be considered historically significant (the "carriage house ", "shed" and "office ") total 608 sq. ft. Staff recommended that the applicant be directed to: • Remove the less significant accessory buildings. • Eliminate the garage second story living area and reduce the garage to a two -car configuration (if necessary). Heath Appeal Page Two These two changes would bring the property into conformance with,the City's building floor.area limits. It would also, eliminate the.two- story accessory-building Variance. The Variance to'exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches could be supported given the need to.match the historic structure's existing roofline. As the attached minutes reflect; the Commission concurred with staff's determination that no special circumstances exited to. warrant, the degree of Variances requested.' 'The Commission. did feel that a. lesser Variance could. be granted reflecting a "credit" for the 608 sq. ft. of historically significant accessory buildings; allowing a total of 5,008 sq. ft. of site building area. Appeal: The Heaths chose not to, pursue either staff's or the Planning, Commission's recommendations and requested a vote on the applications as presented. The attached appeal letter expresses the' Heaths! opinion that the Commission did not give their proposal fair consideration. Recommendation: The Planning Commission gave. these application requests careful consideration at the public hearing meeting. They visited the subject property before -hand and assessed exiting site conditions. Ultimately, they found that the Lot Line Adjustment and ,Design Review requests could be supported but that the necessary Variance.findings could not be made to approve the contingent applications. Staff is.recommending that the Planning Commission decision be upheld and-that the appeal be denied: Public Notice: Public notices were mailed to property owners within 500 ft. of. the subject properties and a notice was placed in the Saratoga News. Follow -up Actions: A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council.meeting. Attachments: 1 Heath appeal letter 2.. Planning'Commission minutes dated 5/24/95 3.. Resolutions LL -93 -008, V -93 -020 & DR -93 -032 4. Staff Report dated 5/24/95 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" I Date Received: G Hearing Date: S s Fee: 450 Receipt No.: 33.-7.5-3 APPEAL APPLICATION ECEN E DD JUN 2 1995 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Name of Appellant: !! G-k a C n ae4 t' q4\ Address:' lq-300 scrjnco o Qrc; lcxhc c Q `:�S01 U Telephone: tj6e)70 (511Z 1 372 2223 L`, Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: pe - 9d o i3 , ✓-93 o ao Decision Being Appealed: �iar,,,�',.G, Go w,rr.�sslon o1�n,aJ o� Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): *Appellyaht's" S *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. Appeal for Home at 14300 Saratoga Avenue Exhibit A We are appealing the planning commission decision because they did not consider the following salient information before making their decision: 1. They claimed there was no grounds for a variance when there are many. This house is 125 years old and on Saratoga's historical registry. We are seeking to maintain as much of original structure as possible while still developing adequate useable space and a livable floor plan. 2. There are four large trees on the lot. We have attempted to impact the trees as little as possible while at the same time seeking to design a workable floor plan. We realize that many other home in the area have been demolished due to their obsolesces. We are seeking to build something that will allow this house to remain on the historic lane though the next century. 3. They also did not consider the fact that there are two legal lots (R1- 10,000), not just one, when they were considering maximum square footage. We are combining two lots to make this an estate not just another "California Ranch ". The total square footage is almost 30,000. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1995 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Patrick commented that she did not believe that the height of the home would impact the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he found the home to be attractive and felt that the design was fitting for the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -93 -019 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT). 4. LL -93 -008 - Heath; 14300 Saratoga Avenue, request for Lot Line Adjustment approval V -93 -020 - to merge a 20 foot wide property strip to the main parcel. Variance DR -93 -032 - approval is requested to allow the proposed cumulative building square footage (including accessory structures) to exceed the allowable for this property, to allow a 25 ft. tall two -story garage (one -story, 15 ft. in height maximum permitted) and to allow the second story addition to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches. Design Review approval is also necessary to add 2,204 sq.ft. of first and second floor area to an existing two -story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory. The subject property is 29,770 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that staff was supportive of the lot line adjustment. He further indicated that staff was unable to support the variance request for the floor area and informed the Commission that the staff report indicates ways to redevelop the site and still bring the property under the allowable square footage (i.e., elimination of some of the less historically significant accessory buildings located on the property). Staff did not feel that the variance for the two story garage could be supported because there were no special circumstances nor physical hardships relative to the parcel that would support it. Regarding the design review application, staff indicated that it could support the design review with the changes listed in the staff report. He noted a correction in the staff report located on page 4. The applicant has pointed out that the square footage number of 4,773 square feet was not a number that was given to him originally by the staff planner and noted that the correct allowable square footage should be 4,400. This correction does not change staff's analysis because the same recommendation would still apply, having the home brought down to the 4,400 square foot limit. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from Patricia Hardt, the neighbor located to the right of the parcel, who has expressed concern with the gravel driveway, the old trailer building and other items that have been stored on the property. The use of the driveway and the question as to whether there were rental units on the property were also of concern. He informed the Commission that the issue of the rental units is being investigated by staff and that whether these applications go forward or not, staff would continue to investigate the rental issue. He further informed the Commission that Ms. Hardt was requesting that a six foot solid fence be built along the property line for privacy reasons and indicated that staff felt that this would be a reasonable condition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Caldwell asked if the tree that was shown on the plan(s) was a pine or a Douglas Fir tree. Planner Walgren responded that the tree was a Douglas Fir. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter from Ms. Hardt asks if there were permits or limitations that regulate the use of the site. Planner Walgren responded that as far as he knew, there were no permits to have a second dwelling unit on the property. He indicated that a property owner is permitted to have a second unit if it meets minimum Uniform Housing Code, parking and lot size requirements. Commissioner Kaplan stated that in looking at page one of the engineering drawings, it indicates that there is an existing shed (pump station) located on the site and asked if it was a historical building. Planner Walgren responded that the pump station and the carriage house have been identified as historical buildings and that there is some historical significance to the office building located directly behind the oak tree. He recommended that Mr. Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, further address the historical significance of the buildings. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the care of the trees located on the site. She asked if the bonding recommended was sufficient to protect the trees; whether the Planning Commission had the authority to increase the bond; and whether in the future the City could inspect the trees to ensure that no damage is done to the trees as the project is completed or that they be reviewed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit? Planner Walgren responded that staff would schedule regular inspections by the City Arborist during construction, if necessary, and that a final inspection is always required prior to the release of a security deposit. Regarding increasing the amount of the bond, Planner Walgren stated that it was his belief that the bond amount could be increased. He informed the Commission that the City arborist recommended the bond amount and that the bond amount was a percentage of the trees' total value. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the City arborist usually requires a 10% bond and that it was the arborist's opinion that the bond amount was sufficient. He further indicated that the bond amount was a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Patrick requested clarification as to which structures were to remain. Planner Walgren responded that the applicant was requesting that all structures remain. It was staff's recommendation that only the carriage house, the existing shed, and the existing office be retained and that the remaining structures be removed to bring the property's floor area down to the allowable square footage. In response to Commissioner Patrick's question regarding the need for two garages, Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the site visit, the applicant indicated that the garage was going to be eliminated. Doing so would address the neighbor's concern. Planner Walgren stated that staff was recommending the removal of the garage, therefore, eliminating the need for the gravel driveway. Commissioner Patrick stated that any concern for the safety of children would be mitigated with the elimination of the opening of the gravel driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1995 PAGE - 6 - Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mark Heath, applicant, informed the Commission that he has lived in this house for six years, that the house was built in 1870 and that he and his wife have an appreciation for its historic significance. He indicated that he was concerned with the way the site is treated and how it is developed. He stated that the lot is zoned R -1- 10,000 and that the lot is almost 30,000 square feet and that with the changes and the addition, the lot coverage would be increasing 18 %, about a third of what is allowed under code. He suggested that the carriage house, rock shed, the office building and the small storage garage be retained. Doing so would provide for a lot coverage of 14 %. He noted that he was only 794 square feet away from the allowable square footage. He informed the Commission that the Historic Preservation Commission recommended that he retain three historic buildings. He felt that granting of the variances could be justified because he was being requested to retain historic structures. He indicated that he wanted the front of the house to remain as is and that proposed changes would occur to the rear of the house. He stated that the reason the second story was proposed on top of the garage as because it was the most efficient area to place it. If the house was moved back on the lot, it would give it a "row housing" effect. He stated that he would prefer to have a stepped back appearance, having the garage up front. He indicated that he wanted to save all of the significant trees with direction from the City arborist because they add value to the site. He noted that he has planted 21 new trees since he has moved into the home. Regarding the second story, he did not believe that it was an issue because every house contiguous to his with the exception of the house located directly to the right have two story structures. He indicated that he was not willing to give any more in this area and that there was an impasse between himself and staff. He requested that the Commission approve the plans. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the plans depict an existing green house located to the north of the new garage. She inquired if the green house was proposed for removal? Mr. Heath responded that the green house and the potting shed are proposed to be removed. Regarding the existing 180 square foot garage, he stated that he would like to retain the existing garage and use it as storage or as a workshop. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Mr. Heath indicated that the existing office building may have been used as a hay barn before being converted into an office. He clarified that the main house was being used as living quarters. He identified the structures that he is allowing some friends to reside in (i.e., the structure located to the back of the main house and the cottage house). Mr. Heath stated that he would like to retain the historic office structure if at all possible. Commissioner Caldwell asked about the second garage located along the western property line and asked if the square footage was included in the table depicted by Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath responded that the garage was included in the new square footage and that the greenhouse, cottage shed and the storage building were not included in the square footage. Commissioner Caldwell asked if Mr. Heath would agree to install a six foot fence along the western property line as requested by the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Heath responded that he would like to install a screen between his property and that of the adjacent neighbor. He indicated that he was considering mounding the area and planting redwoods instead of installing a typical PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1995 PAGE - 7 - redwood fence to address Ms. Hardt's concern. He further clarified that the gravel area would be converted into a landscape planting area. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Heath was planning to close off access to Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Heath responded that he would consider planting a hedge along Saratoga Avenue or agree to install a three foot high fence. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that something be done to close access to Saratoga Avenue so that children do not run out onto the street. Mr. Heath stated that it was a concern of his and that he would agree to install hedges to close off access to Saratoga Avenue. Chairman Murakami asked if Mr. Heath has considered which accessory structures he would agree to remove. Mr. Heath responded that he may be able to eliminate the storage garage because it has no historical significance or value once the new garage is built. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the second story on the garage was being built to allow for more living space. Mr. Heath responded that the second story on the garage was being proposed to maintain the roof of the house and also to add more living space without adding more ground floor covering. Placing the additional living quarters on the ground would give the house a ranch -like appearance. Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), commented that the HPC reviewed the original plans in November. The HPC made its recommendation based on those plans. He informed the Commission that the HPC has not reviewed the plans before the Commission and that the original review of the HPC made an issue of the large fir tree located in the front. At that time, the fir tree was meant to be removed, but since then, the garage has been moved over and the fir tree is to be retained. As far as the HPC is concerned, there are no issues regarding the fir tree. Architecturally, when the HPC reviewed the additions, they appeared to be compatible with the original design. Commissioner Siegfried asked if Mr. Peepari could give him some sense of the relative historic value of the carriage house, the pump shed and the office structure. Mr. Peepari commented that three of the structures located to the rear of the site were of significant value and were part of the original stone house and that the HPC felt that those three structures were of historical significance and should be maintained. Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Peepari how would the HPC feel about the architectural integrity of the garage should the Commission restrict the garage to one story. She indicated that she was not inclined at this time to approve a second story garage. Mr. Peepari responded that the HPC recommended or stated that a two story garage would be preferable. However, it was his opinion that adding a two story garage that close to the existing house would appear to be massive. He recommend that a one story garage be approved. Commissioner Patrick asked if it would be preferable, architectural and historical, to relocate the two story garage to the other side of the house, more to the rear where the existing storage garage is located? Mr. Peepari responded that he could not answer that question because he has not reviewed the plans before the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1995 PAGE - 8 - COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:31 P.M. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE LL -93 -008. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she agreed with Mr. Peepari that a two story garage would appear massive stretched out as proposed and that she would have difficulty supporting that design. She further stated that she would not be able to make the findings to approve the variances. Chairman Murakami stated that he would have difficulties making findings and special circumstances to allow a variance for that type of garage, especially with all the existing structures on the property, noting that three of them were of historical significance. He felt that there has to be some limitations because there is too much square footage proposed. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has no problem with the height of the house. He agreed that a one story garage would be appropriate to make it blend better. He stated that he would not support a second story on the garage. In order to bring the square footage down, he would agree to eliminate every structure, keeping the carriage house and the shed, deferring to the Commission which other structures are to be retained. He indicated that he would not have a problem granting a variance to preserve the trees. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. She felt that it was important to move the garage at least ten feet to protect the Douglas Fir tree. Commissioner Patrick felt that the garage, at two stories, would give it an appearance of two houses (row house approach) and could not support the two story garage. She stated that she could find historical significance for the retention of the carriage house, the existing shed /pump house and the office structure. Commissioner Abshire stated that although he would like to comply with the owners wishes, he agreed with the Commission that the garage was not appropriate. He did not feel that allowing the additional square footage would be fair to the households in the City and that he concurred with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the existing carriage house could accommodate the on site storage. She recommended that the carriage and the pump house be retained. She would support the HPC recommendation for the retention of the office structure but that the existing green house, the potting shed, the existing building on the south and the existing garage should be eliminated. She recommended that a condition be added which would require the continuation of the hedge along Saratoga Avenue which would completely visually screen and block the entrance from Saratoga Avenue. She also recommended further discussion regarding the value of the trees because she wanted to make sure that there was some leverage for the preservation of the trees during construction. She recommended that the bond amount be increased if at all possible. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Caldwell commented that during the discussions with the Tree Committee, the City arborist did feel that it would be appropriate for the City to require a higher percentage amount to bond for the value of the tree. However, the City arborist was not willing to do so until there was a policy shift on the City's part. She recommended that the bond amount be increased where there is to be activity around oak and the fir trees. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the applications be continued as the applicant has heard clearly the Commission's concerns. He agreed to increase the bond amount from 20% to 30% at a minimum. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 PM. Mr. Heath stated that he does not want a lot line adjustment because both lots were created prior to the creation of the city and that he believes that he has two legal lots. He indicated that he has heard the Commission discuss what he can and cannot do with the house and the trees. He stated that he values the property much more than any other person. He also values the integrity of the City. He stated that he does not see the point to continue these applications because he did not feel that anyone present was being reasonable or listening to what he was saying. He indicated that he would want to continue on with the process and see if someone else would listen to him because no one here was listening to him. He stated that the house has historic value and he sees people all around him tearing these same houses down. He did not believe that the Commission was allowing him do something beautiful with this house and indicated that he resents that. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:41 P.M. Planner Walgren clarified that the Commission was going to give credit for the three historic accessory buildings. He indicated that a variance would still be required to allow the property to exceed the allowable square footage by 608 square feet. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission approved the lot line adjustment this evening. She asked if the lot was a buildable lot because it appears that the lots would be 20 feet wide. City Attorney Riback commented that in all likelihood, it would not be a buildable lot. Community Development Director Curtis noted that once a lot line approval is granted, the applicant would need to record the lot line adjustment. If the applicant does not record the lot line adjustment, it would remain as two lots. Planner Walgren clarified that it was staff's recommendation that if the lot line adjustment was to go forward, that it be continued to the June 14 meeting to allow staff to prepare resolutions for the lot line adjustment, variances and design review applications. Since there are no resolutions before the Commission this evening, nothing has formally been approved. He recommended that if the Commission still plans to approve the lot line adjustment, that it be kept with the other two applications. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 1995 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried prefaced his motion by stating that it was the sense of the Commission this evening to approve the lot line adjustment, grant the variance on the four inches additional height to the existing house, deny the variance on the two -story garage because the Commission does not believe it should be a two -story garage, and that the Commission would consider giving credit for the existing two or three historically significant accessory structures to be preserved in terms of granting variances for the square footage for the house and garage. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED / KAPLAN MOVED TO DENY LL -93 -008, V -93 -020 & DR- 93 -032 BECAUSE THE COMMISSION COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS TO GRANT THE VARIANCES AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:47 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:59 P.M. City Attorney Riback excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. 5. DR -95 -024 - Nishimoto; 14330 Paul Ave., request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,424 sq. ft. single story residence and build a new 2,740 sq. ft. two -story home in its place. The subject property is 7,500 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 9:00 p.m. David Britt, Los Gatos, project designer, informed the Commission that he concurred with staff's recommendation and that he would answer any questions which it may have regarding the design. Michael Sparacino, 14325 Springer Avenue, stated his support of the design of the project with the exception of the rear window. He informed the Commission that the rear window looks directly into his rear yard and his family room. He recommended that the bottom half of the rear window be opaqued and that the bottom half of the window be mount at least five and half feet so that there is not as much access to his rear yard in terms of view. He informed the Commission that he has discussed this concern with the applicant and that it was his belief that the applicant is in agreement with the request. Mr. Britt responded that the owner was willing to opaque the window and mount the window at the requested height. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED / KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT RESOLUTION NO. LL -93 -008 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APN's 397 -23 -025 & 026 Heath; 14300 Saratoga Ave. WHEREAS, a Lot Line Adjustment between APN 397 -23 -025 and APN 397 -23 -026 has been filed with the Community Development Director of the City of Saratoga for LL -93 -008. WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment has been filed concurrent with Variance and Design Review applications; and WHEREAS, said Variance and Design Review applications have been denied based on the Planning Commission's inability to find that special circumstances exist to support the proposed building Variances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby also deny the Lot Line Adjustment as shown on Exhibit A in order to keep the three concurrent applications together in light of the applicant's stated desire to appeal the Variance and Design review denials to the City Council Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Heath for Lot Line Adjustment 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, this 14th day of June, 1995, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Asfour & Abshire !(.0 Chairm , P anning Com ission ATTEST Secretary 4b the PlannincJ Commission RESOLUTION NO. V -93 -020 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Heath; 14300 Saratoga Ave. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Variance approval to allow the cumulative building square footage (including accessory structures) to exceed the allowable for this property by 1,432 sq. ft., to allow a 25 ft. tall two -story garage (one - story, 15 ft. in height maximum permitted) and to allow the second story addition to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches. 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 of the absence of 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. The Planning Commission recognized that three of the existing accessory structures, the "shed ", "carriage house" and "office" per Exhibit A, could be considered locally historically significant and were able to find that special circumstances existed to warrant a Variance of 608 sq. ft.; the cumulative square footage of these three structures. The Commission also agreed that the height of the existing Heritage Resource Inventory residence supported the minor building addition height Variance. The Planning Commission could not find, however, that special circumstances existed to warrant the >1,000 sq. ft. building square footage Variance nor the 25 ft. tall two -story detached garage.. Since the applicant would not consider modifying the plans, the Variance application was denied in its entirety. (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 given the degree of the Variances requested. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: File No. V -93 -020, 14300 Saratoga Ave. Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Heath 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 Commission, State of California, this 14th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Asfour & Abshire Char , Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commiss RESOLUTION NO. DR -93 -032 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Heath; 14300 Saratoga Ave. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to add a 2,204 sq. ft. one and two -story addition to an existing two -story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Design Review application has been filed concurrent with Variance applications for building square footage, height and story configuration and contingent on these Variances being approved; and WHEREAS, said Variance requests have been denied based on the Planning Commission's inability to find that special circumstances exist to support the degree of the proposed building Variances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby also deny the Design Review application as shown on Exhibit A in order to keep the concurrent and contingent applications together in light of the applicant's stated desire to appeal the Variance denials to the City Council 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 Heath for Design Review 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 14th day of June, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Asfour & Abshire File No. DR -93 -032, 14300 Saratoga Ave. ATTEST: Chai ers n, lanning Co mission SecretaxO�r, Planning gommissioi REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: LL -93 -008, V -93 -020 & 14300 Saratoga Ave. DR -93 -032; Applicant /Owner: HEATH Staff Planner: James Flalgren Date: clay 24, 1995 APN: 397 -23 -025 & 026 Director Approval: 1 t+ o u u Jaratoga Ave. File No. LL -93 -008, V -93 -020 & DR -93 -032; 14300 Saratoga Ave. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 8/18/93 Application complete: 1/17/95 Notice published: 5/10/95 Mailing completed: 5/11/95 Posting completed: 5/04/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to merge a 20 ft. wide property strip to the main parcel. Variance approval is requested to allow the proposed cumulative building square footage (including accessory structures) to exceed the allowable for this property, to allow a 25 ft. tall two -story garage (one- story, 15 ft. in height maximum permitted) and to allow the second story addition to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches. Design Review approval is also necessary to add 2,204 sq. ft. of first and second floor area to an existing two -story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory. The subject property is 29,770 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be continued to the June 28th public hearing to allow the applicant time to modify the plans per the staff report suggestions. If the applicant does not choose to modify the plans, staff would be unable to support the Variance requests and would recommend preparing denial Resolutions for the June 14th public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff analysis 2. Letter from applicant dated 9/30/94 3. Arborist report dated 11/7/94 4. HPC minutes dated 11/8/94 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. LL -93 -008, V -93 -020 & DR -93 -032; 14300 Saratoga Ave. STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 29,770 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 13°6 GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Horizontal wood siding with composition shake roofing to match existing. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 150 (4,619 sq. ft.) 6001 HEIGHT: 26.3 ft. 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Garage: 1st Floor: 2nd Floor: Accessory Structures: TOTAL: SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Right Side: Left Side: PROJECT DISCUSSION: Overview: 748 sq. ft. 1,919 sq. ft. 2,111 sq. ft. 1,054 sq. ft. 5,832 sq. ft. 4,400 sq. ft. 51 ft. Front: 25 ft. 81 ft. Rear: 35 ft. 20 ft. Right Side: 10 ft. 10 ft. Left Side: 10 ft. This application to add approximately 2,200 sq. ft. of first and second floor area to an existing two -story home was submitted to the City in August of 1993. The application was deemed incomplete by staff planner Lynette Stanchina, who notified the applicant by letter in September of 1993 that additional information and plan corrections /modifications would be necessary before the application could be scheduled. Revised plans were submitted in August of 1994. Further modifications were still necessary and these were made and submitted in January 1995 - the same time that Lynette left City employment. File No. LL -93 -008, V -93 -020 & DR -93 -032; 14300 Saratoga Ave. The project has also been complicated by the degree of the Variances requested; two -story accessory building and a proposed floor area exceeding the allowable by over 1,000 sq. ft. In addition, the project has been required to be reviewed by staff, the City Arborist and the Heritage Preservation Commission each time the plans have been significantly changed. The reason this overview of the project's progress has been included is to address the unusual and uncommon delay in hearing this application. The proposal itself is to add 1, 129 sq. ft. of new first floor area (including the 748 sq. ft. three -car garage) and 1,075 sq. ft. of new second floor area. This includes a two - story garage attached to the main residence by a breezeway. Lot Line Adjustment: A 20 ft. wide, 141 ft. deep, separate parcel abuts the southwest property line. The property owner is proposing to merge this 2,830 sq. ft. parcel with the main 26,940 sq. ft. parcel. From the City's perspective, this would "clean -up" an old remnant parcel and reduce the site's building square footage nonconformity. Staff is recommending approval of the Lot Line Adjustment. Variance: The applicant's Variance requests include exceeding the allowable building floor area for this property by over 1,000 sq. ft. Staff does not find that special circumstances exist to warrant this degree of floor area Variance. The applicant has stated that he is being penalized for the existing historic accessory buildings on site. The three accessory buildings which may be considered historically significant (the "carriage house ", "shed" and "office ") total 608 sq. ft. Staff would recommend: • Remove the less significant accessory buildings. • Eliminate the garage second story living area and reduce the garage to a two -car configuration (if necessary). These two changes would bring the property into conformance with the City's building floor area limits. It would also eliminate the two -story accessory building Variance. The Variance to exceed the 26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches could be supported given the need to match the historic structure's existing roofline. Design Review: With the above recommended changes, staff feels that the Design Review findings can be made to aonrove the uroiect. File No. LL -93 -008, V -93 -020 & DR -93 -032; 14300 Saratoga Ave. City Arborist Review: The City Arborist has reviewed these plans on at least two separate occasions and continues to recommend a minimum 10, ft. setback from the large Douglas Fir next to the proposed garage. Staff recom- mends requiring this change prior to approving the application. Heritage Preservation Commission: The HPC has reviewed the plans and the site conditions and is generally supportive of the proposal. In fact, they have indicated that they support the two -story garage since they feel it better integrates with the Heritage Resource Inventory home. Staff, however, cannot support the necessary Variances and feels that a one -story garage would also be compatible. Minutes from the HPC's November 8, 1994 meeting are attached. HPC Chair Robert Peepari has also been invited to attend the May 24th public hearing.. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that this item be continued to the June 28th public hearing to allow the applicant time to modify the plans per the staff report suggestions. If the applicant does not choose to modify the plans, staff would be unable to support the Variance requests and would recommend preparing denial Resolutions for the June 14th public hearing. Mark & Cynthia Heath 14300 Saratoga Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 September 30, 1994 Lynette Stanchina City of Saratoga -- Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Findings for variances for the project at 14300 Saratoga A-venue Dear Ms. Lynette Stanchina: 1. Maximum floor area variance: We should be allowed to have a variance from the maximum floor because our lots and house are unique in the following ways: a. Currently we have two legal lots. Both were created prior to the state lot line act and the creation of the City of Saratoga. I have also research the history of the lots back to their inceptions and neither were ever used as access easements. b. The current maximum (which was recently implemented) is 4400 square feet per R1- 10,000 lot. Our plans are only requesting a total of 5586. c. Six hundred and eight of the total proposed square feet are located in three historic buildings that are not part of the main house. d. Since our house was build in 1870 the floor plan is less than efficient for today's lifestyle therefore the proposed 4049 square feet is not' exorbitant or extravagant by any means. e. Our lots have a combined total of almost 30,000 square feet. The total building area is only 18.6% of the lot and the coverage is a mere 11.4% of the lot. The proposed impervious coverage is 79 feet less than the current coverage. f. The slope of the lot should not be a consideration for figuring-the floor area. Our lot is on Saratoga avenue which can hardly be considered a hillside. Also the building are is virtually flat within a few feet from front to back. 2. Maximum height restriction: The maximum height restriction for the new construction should be waived since the current home is well over the limit. The addition should be allowed to match but not exceed the current height. 3. Height limit of a gate on Saratoga Avenue's "Historic Lane ": When we initially purchased our house we planned to install a 7 to 8 foot gate on the driveway (since there is already a hedge of this height on the remainder of the frontage). This would be for both aesthetic and protection of our family. b. We are the last house at the last house on the "historic lane" closest to the village. We are also across from a condo complex. c. In February a drunk wandered down from the village and broke my back window attempting to invade my home while my family slept. We feel a gate of this height in addition to our hedge is a necessity for the protection of our family. Sincerely, ark eath 741 -5112 BARRIE D.... ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 - 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED NOV 3 0 1994 rt}u414114G DEPT, AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT THE HEATH RESIDENCE 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Lynette Stanchina City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate November 7, 1994 Job #10-94-326 BARRIE D. ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT THE HEATH RESIDENCE 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA The Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to analyze the health of the two major trees on the property and predict the effects of proposed construction on those trees. Findings . The two major trees on the property are one Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menzeisii, which is one of the largest remaining in the area and is probably an indigenous tree as opposed to a planted one. This tree may be 120 to 150 years old but is probably less since the soil of this site is of such excellent quality and so well drained, a virtually perfect environment is created for active, healthy, rapid root growth. The tree is 44.7 inches diameter at 2 feet above grade and 41.8 inches DBH (diameter at 4-1/2 feet). The tree is approximately 90 feet in height and has a branch spread at the largest dimension of 50 feet. The tree is in reasonably good health, retaining active, vigorous shoot growth and a dense canopy of foliage. It does lose several branches every year but that is not uncommon for old Douglas Firs. The second tree on the property which would be affected to the greatest degree by proposed construction is no doubt the largest Coast Live Oak I have seen of its age in Saratoga. This tree is not nearly as old as many of the large Oaks I have seen in on AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT THE HEATH RESIDENCE 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE Saratoga, but again, due to the excellent quality of soils on the site the tree has become enormous in a relatively short time. This tree may be as much as 120 years old but I doubt it considering the relatively juvenile bark still seen near the base of the trunk. This tree has a 65.7 inch diameter at 2 feet above grade and a 59.8 inch DBH. Its canopy dimension north to south is 56 feet and east to west is 81 feet. The tree has a dense, healthy, lush green canopy of foliage over its entire canopy and would appear from a distance to be in excellent health and have no problems. A closer look at the base of the trunk shows that that is not true, however. There is one of the largest conk fungi I have ever seen at the base, probably the basidiocarp of Inonotus hisidus. This conk is not as dangerous a species of these conk- causing fungi as Ganoderma, the more commonly seen one, but is nonetheless dangerous in that its function is to change the wood in the interior of the tree in structure while it removes all the cellulose. In order to determine how extensive the decay is in the trunk of this tree I used a 1/8 inch diameter, 12 inch long drill bit to drill holes in the most vulnerable portions of the trunk on the three sides opposite and away from the conk fungi. I found a full 11 inches of normal, sound, healthy tissue in all parts of the trunk, except for the portion which the conk fungi are actively working. This signifies that although the decay is definitely progressing in the trunk, 75% or more of the trunk is still solid, sound, healthy wood which is adequate to support this tree. -2- AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT THE HEATH RESIDENCE 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE It should be noted that a tree of this size with a decay organism working in the trunk for as many years as this has been operating can never be considered entirely safe. This tree has received excellent care due to the sincere efforts of the owner in excavating dirt which had been piled around the trunk and which caused the decay organisms. to begin operating and remove all other excess soil on other sides of the trunk to prevent Oak Root Fungus infection. He has had an excellent job of tree pruning done to reduce end - weights on the longest limbs, to reduce the density of the canopy and to balance the crown more effectively than it was previously. As a result, the tree is much safer than it was before the current owner purchased the property, but none the less, is a very old specimen with extensive incidence of decay. I fully expect this tree to remain upright and structurally sound at least another five years and probably another twenty years. Recommended Mediation with Construction 1. A new garage is planned adjacent to the fir tree which if installed as planned would remove that tree. Since there is no technical reason to remove that tree, I cannot agree to the plan as presented. I suggest that the garage be moved back so that the corner is no closer than 10 feet from the trunk of that tree and if installed in that manner, the garage would cover a very small proportion of the area beneath the tree's canopy. I suggest that the driveway into the garage be composed entirely of pervious paving materials and that both the garage and the slab floor and those pervious paving materials be layed on top of any large roots which are encountered in that area. -3- AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT THE HEATH RESIDENCE 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE The method by which those roots should be located and their depth ascertained should be by hand - digging in all areas in which the driveway pavement or the slab for the garage would be installed to actively locate any roots of 3 inches in diameter or larger. No roots of 3 inches in diameter or larger should be cut. If they are located in this hand - excavation process, they must be left exposed for examination by a planner or by our office. The final excavation depth for the garage or any driveway must be determined by the depth of those 3 inch diameter or larger roots. The driveway material in all areas beneath the canopy of the tree must be of some pervious material, such as those specified in the enclosed schematic. No compaction of the soil in preparation for the driveway installation is allowed. Any roots encountered of 3 inch diameter or larger during that excavation for the garage must be covered with a 3 inch layer of Styrofoam padding or equivalent before concrete is layed for the garage slab floor. A construction period fence must enclose the majority of the canopy of the tree during construction and remain in place and intact from before rough grading begins until all construction is completed. The Lar$e Oak Tree This tree currently has two major roots growing beneath the foundation of the existing house. I suggest that during demolition of the existing portion of the house which will be removed that all demolition on the north and east side be from the inside of the existing structure. -4- AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT THE HEATH RESIDENCE _ 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE I suggest that all existing foundation pieces which are to be removed be removed by breaking the pieces up and hand - loading them into a skiploader, as opposed to breaking them up with a skiploader and scooping them up. The area beneath the existing foundation will be an area highly vulnerable to damage of at least two major roots which will be found beneath that foundation. 2. When new foundations are being.prepared, a 6 inch pad of Styrofoam must be layed over any root of 3 inches in diameter or larger which is encountered and the foundation framing must be built to avoid that Styrofoam, meaning cutouts may have to be created. 3._ The foundation in that area must be of pier and grade beam design with the grade beam layed at or above existing grade. No trenches of any kind may be dug beneath the canopy of the tree, such as would be necessary for a standard foundation. Once the grade beam forming is done and a pad of at least 6 inches of Styrofoam padding is layed over exposed roots, the concrete for the beam may be poured over the top of those pads. This procedure will leave expansion room for growing roots and will protect roots during forming of the foundation. No excavation into the existing soil grade inside the existing foundation should be allowed since there will obviously be large, significant supporting roots in that area and severing of those would certainly endanger the safety of this tree and its health. 3. Since it is obvious that it will be necessary for construction equipment to -5- AN ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ON TREES AT THE HEATH RESIDENCE 14300 SARATOGA AVENUE work in at least part of the area beneath the canopy of this tree on its west side. I suggest that all areas beneath the canopy and 5 feet beyond the canopy in whichequipment must work have an 8 inch thick layer of tree chips layed over all soil areas in which equipment might travel and that chip layer be covered with a layer of 314 inch drain rock. This combination will form a protective layer for roots which will not be disturbed by equipment travel if it is maintained during the entire time of construction. The value of the two trees is $44,380.00 A 20% bond of that amount would be $8,876.00, and considering the very sensitive nature of the project to these two trees does not seem exorbitant. BDC:Ia Enclosures: Map Value /Bond Chart Respectfully submitted, AM'4"c OP.� Barrie D. Coate BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408)353 -1052 ISA EVALUATION CITY OF SARATOGA VALUE OF TREES WHICH WILL BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION DBH sq "/ (nxr2) Value per sq. inch Basic Value Adjustments Total Species Condition Location Key # Genus /species /class $27.00 1 Douglas Fir 41.8 137.58 27 37,033 30% 80% 90% $7,999 2 Coast Live Oak 59.8 2807.2 27 75,794 100% 60% 80% $36,381 Quercus agrifolia JOB TITLE: Heath Residence JOB #10 -94 -326 DATE:11 /7/94 TOTAL VALUE THIS PAGE $44,380 SUGGESTED BOND 20% $8,876 page 1 of 1 CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, November 8, 1994, 9 a.m.* PLACE: Warner Hutton House TYPE: Regular Meeting *Note: The Commission will meet at 8:30 a.m. to conduct a field inspection of the Francis Dresser House located-at 14300 Saratoga Avenue., Commissioners Ansnes, Davis, Roepernik, Peak,, and staff met with the applicant, Mr. Heath, at.the site. I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. Roll Call Present: Ansnes, Davis, Fine, Roepernik, Peck, Peepari Absent: Dutro Staff: Secretary White, Assistant Planner Stanchina Guests: Mr. Heath, Mr. and Mrs. Cutler, Mr. sturma B. Approval of Minutes of 10/11/94 The minutes were approved as submitted, MIS Ansnes /Roepernik. C. Posting the Agenda Pursuant to Government Code Section 94954.2, the agenda was posted on Friday, November 4. . D. Oral and Written Communications Commissioner Ansnes reported on the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Von Dorsten application. II. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion of the draft proposal for the Santa Clara County Parks grant program (Continued from October 11). The Commission offered suggestions to staff for inclusion in the draft application. Staff was directed to forward the completed draft to the County by the November 15 deadline. 2. Review and discussion of the draft street name handout (Continued from October 11). Several names were added to the list by the Commission. Staff was instructed to begin using the handout immediately. 3. Update on the continued review and mapping of the historic resources identified in the 1948 Landmark Application provided by the State of California. (Continued from October 11). Commissioners Davis and Ansnes reported on their efforts to map .and research the historic resources identified by the State landmark application and ia- .Lcated that they were contiL__ing their research. III. NEW BUSINESS 1. DR -93 -032, V -93 -020, Heath, 14300 Saratoga Avenue. Review of a proposed remodel and addition to the Francis Dresser House which is listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The Commission expressed concern about the removal of the large pine tree to accommodate the garage addition. Staff explained that the applicant contended that the tree was diseased but the City arborist had not yet completed his report on this site. The Commission asked to revisit the tree issue once the arborist report was available. The Commission forwarded 'the following recommendation to the Planning Commission, X/S Davis /Peepari: - The project design is supported by the Heritage Commission. A two story garage addition is preferable to maintain architectural consistency with the existing house. - It was suggested that the garage addition be moved back or detached entirely from the main house to avoid removing the large pine tree. - The Commission determined that the accessory structures proposed to remain on the site were. historically significant. - The Commission asked the applicant to preserve the rock work at the intersection of the existing house and the new garage addition. 2. Saratoga Dry Cleaners, 14495 Big Basin Way. Review of exterior modification to the Hutchinson Building which is listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The Commission acknowledged that this structure had been remodeled several times. This fact was reinforced by photographs from the historical museum showing the building before and after remodeling. The Commission supported the basic plan that was submitted but asked the applicant to provide plan details for staff approval that included the following, M/s Fine /Peck: - Incorporate substantial, wooden window frames, sills and doors rather than the metal frames indicated on the plan. -The iron tie downs visible through the Third Street stone wall should be retained as a cosmetic feature. -The Third Street stone wall should not be stuccoed. 3. DR -94 -046, UP -94 -008, 14523 Big Basin Way. Review of a proposal to expand and remodel an existing historic to accommodate a new restaurant. The Commission indicated that the building was not on the Heritage Inventory because it had been modified over time to the point where its historical integrity was in question. The HPC supported the proposal which preserved the front facade. The proposed addition was considered have little impact to the building or its surroundings. 4. Discussion and scheduling of a Heritage Commission field trip to visit all of the remaining heritage lane candidates. Staff was directed to arrange the field trip to visit as many of the potential heritage lanes as possible. 5. Discussion of the designation of the Warner Hutton House as a Heritage Landmark. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution for landmark designation to be reviewed at the nest available HPC meeting. IV. ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION None. V. ADJOURNMENT hpcmnov