Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-07-1987 City Council Staff Reports
a SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. `�`' AGENDA LTEM MEETING DATE: 10 -1 -87 (10 -7 -87) CITY MGR. APPROVAL E ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Department SUBJECT: Award Contract '.'Overlay certain city streets Recommended Motion Award Contract for.overlay certain city streets Report Summar The City received six bids on October 1, 1987 for above project. Y. This project was approved in 1987 -1988 Capital Improvement Budget::,, The lowest bid was ,RaischConstruction Company of Mt..View, with total bid of $153,915.50. The Engineer's Estimate for this work was $1.54,611,55. Fiscal Impacts: $153,915.50 General'Fund. This Project was approved'in,1-987- 1988 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of Street Maintenance Program. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. ' E~ i e 's Est, Raisch Const. Graoite Const- Piazza Const.. "Gradewa e Description tity 't 1 A,mount.. 1 Amount it Amount t Amount rt 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Install " Ov la Install Fabric Mat A.R. 4000 halt Binder Repair FaiT8��ion ofStree Wedcre Cut 1" A.C: Overlay (Machine) Conform Asphalt Raise Manholes 2,459-.00 27,768.0'0 6.,942.00 13 237.00 •5 890.00 303:00 90.0 32.0 tons S.Y. al S.F. L.F. ton ton; 37.0 0.70 1.25 1.80 1.00 45..0 50.0 200. 90,983.00 19,437.60 8,.677..50 23i:32fi 6.0:" 5,870.00 13 635.00 4,500.00 6,400.00 31.1 0.50 ati Z•oo 3� ,7s 31.7 160. 78073 -? s ig'g ;oa 6942.0 06 47¢ -oa S90 o 96 Zo•.z5 28 57. 50 5 zo• 00 33 -o 0.45 1.0 1.80 I.30 34-0 °zs =o 230:1 $i 147.0 -)Z 49 bo 6942.00 23 826=60 7,657•00 1.0 30Z•0 Z, 250. o 7 l -60 >o Z8•o 050 1 -oa 3.3s' 0.85 28.0 Zg.o zoo•o 60 5 � -0 13, g84.a 6942.0 44 343-95" 50o6-50 848 oa 25 zo -oo 64.00.o0 34.25 0.50 .84-zzc 13,985 /.00 6940• 2.0 ! -D. 31•D 26474- 5890 11393. 5o•o 14o.0 4500 • 4A8oPa Ll L4 ' " Do le Yellbpe Paint -4" Broken Yellb� Paint 4" White Solid. Ede Ins 1 270 Double g Install Blue Marker Paint Pavement Mark' s 1 100.0 1 T._Q L.S: fleach L.S. 0.30' 0.25 10.0 250: - 312': 95 813:90 25.00 110..00 250.00 0• -75 o•75 d.75 7.0 • D 590: 426.7 5 2034 -.75 75. 00 189p.oa- S 8 • oo 5Gl -o: -o� 0. 0.00 0 -80 7.0 q: a Soo. ' 4.55. Zo 21 70• -4a D -aa 1890•a q q - a po.o 0.65 o•34 0v5o 3 =•la 8• o 1(,ob 369.85- 9 ZZ -4Z 5o =oa g3'1.00 : 8Q' . 0- 160 oa ! .0 1. o ! - p 6s$ S • 0 5 6CO Z713•e ..iL2 1536L3 88 - C 440• 4g0 -Z TOTAL 54, 611.55 15 cl 1S=5fl 1.57A 74 %�'a 154, 559.77 161 5 .7S �o D .0 0 0 r .75 - n in eer's_ Es± -: � Wattis Const. 0' Description tity it 1 VZ7 Amount. Amount it Amount t n oust It A is �� ov 1 2, 459'.00 tons .0 90 983.00 - .33.97- 83,409 • ZS 36.0 88 524 - o o 2 Install Fabric Mat 27,768.00 S.Y. 0.70 19•,437.60 0.53" 15 Z7Z -4D 0.55 15 Z7Z.40 3 A.R. 4000 halt Binder 6;,942.00 gal 1.25 8,677.50 1.1 z 7775-04 -10 7636-20 4 5 Re air FaAGFG ion ofStree Wedge Cut 13 237.00 5 890.00 S.F. L.F. 1.80 1.00 2 226.60 5 870.00 1.99 1.04 z6, 341-63 617-5. 6o Z. -o 0.95 26654.0-0 5595.50 6 1" A.C. Overlay (Machine) 303.00 ton 45.0 1133,663-55,0000 40.94 /2.404 •.S7- 36.0 0 908. 60 7 Conform halt 90.0 ton, 50.0 4 500.00 7s.00 G 750 - o0 50.0 4 5 00 8 Raise Manholes each 200. 6, 400.00 230.0 7360.0-0 z5o 000 •C D Double Ye 312.95 1.7-7 77- Z • 63 0.9Z 4,46-5-9 Paint •4" Broken YeL.F. 0.30, 813.90 0.7¢ Zoo•7 -6 Z O-g7- z7- z- 4•� -6Ll Paint 4" White SolL.F. Ae 0.25 25.00 1:o6 106 • av o -87- L2 Ins 1 270 Double F,36 1 7 / 7 . Z a- 7.50 ZO Z 3 Install Blue Markeeach 10.0 110.00 1 5.90 J 74-. 90 : D c7 4 - 00 L4 Paint Pavement Mark' s L.S: L.S. 250. 250.00 iz5o. 1250 .. 600• (v ov -oo TOTAL 54,611.55 171417,17 . )7z,5 $7.3¢ w i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 10 -7 -27 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING AGENDA ITEM L('n CITY MGR. APPROVAL� SUBJECT: Final Acceptance of Tract 7495 and Release of Bonds Tricia Way Recommended Motion: Grant "Final Acceptance" to subject tract and release of bonds. Report Summary: The Public Improvements for the subject tract have been satisfactorily completed and maintained for a one -year period. . Fiscal Impacts: W . Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. 2. Resolution 36 -B. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. "1 °t y' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 -.: -5 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: 9 -24 -87 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Tract 7495 SDR Final Acceptance) Location: Tricia Way - Wilson Develognent, Inc. All improvements required of Tract '7495 and agreed to in the 1apma merit of Tricia Wood Agreement dated 4 -16'44 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is-included for your use: 1. 'Developer: Wilson Developrent Address: 14370 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, Ca: 95070 2. Improvement Security: , Type: Security Bond Amount:_ 95, 000•.00 Issuing C o .: Amwest Surety Insurance Co Address: P. O. Box .4500 Woodland. Hill, CA. 91365 Receipt, 5153 3. Special Remarks: Robert S. Shook RSS /dsm AA, �ti1EMOORANDrt]MI 097f @2 0&M&XQ)S& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council DATE: 9 -28 -87 FROM: Cite Encrineer SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for TRACT 7495 Location: WILSON DEVELOPMENT, Inc. Tricia Way The one (1) year maintenance period for TRACT 7495 has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion 36B , which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: I. Developer: WILSON DEVELOPMENT Address: 14370 Saratoga-Ave., Saratoga, Ca. 95070 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 7 -30 -85 3. Improvement Security: Type: Security Bond Amount: Surity Bond $95,000.00 Issuing Co: Amwest Surety Insurance Co. Address: P. 0. Box 4500 Bond #k aa,: 1049626 4. Miles of Public Street: 0.078 Miles 5. Special Remarks: `RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook Rec rded at `the request of, and --co -'e returned to: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 RESOLUTION NO 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS _ ,ZTCTA ["MY= —.'— It appearing that on or about g- 18.785 , the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivisson map and on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub- divider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. Now, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution—rejecting the dedication o map: f certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision Map of e'x'act No. .7495 recorded in Book 529 of Maps, at Page 3.0_& 31 , 'in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on — Ma Z • -4 . 19 . 84 and as-set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de- clared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: That certain Improvement Bond No. 1049627 dated May 3, 1984 issued by AAiIGI LT SrrR. ry INSURANCE COMPANY — ' and TheaC ocb°erand fore19o� resolution was passed and adopted on the 7th • at a regular meeting of the City Council of 8' aay of the following vote: SWntoga by AYES: NOES- ABSENT ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 1 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: Oct. 7, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Final Building Site Approval for SD 87 -013 Paul Avenue, David Cunningham AGENDA ITEM 4�- CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution SD 87- 013 -02 attached, approving Final Building Site. Report Summary: 1. SD 87 -013 is ready for final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for City and 'other departments have been completed. 3. All fees and bonds have been submitted to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None. . Attachments: 1. Resolution SD 87- 013 -02. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO. SD 87- 013 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF David Cunningham The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The Land designated Lot 8 shown on Tract "Map of Subdivision No. 1 of the Mary Springer Tract in the Quito Ranch" recorded in Book K of maps at Page 69, Santa Clara County Records and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual Building Site. e. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO, SD -87 -013 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF, APN 503 -27 -063 (Lot #8) - Robert Jordan WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un" der the.Subdivision Ordinance'of the City -of Saratogay'for:tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of-' .1 ' .lot-. all as .more particularly set forth in File No', SD -87 -013 of" thus City, and WHEREAS; this Advisory Agency hereby.finds that the proposed Subdivision, together with the provisions .for. its design and im- "provement, is consistent with the Saratoga' - General Plan.and with all specific plans relating thereto,- and =the proposed' subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated August 26, 1.987 being hereby made for further particulars, and . .WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received.'and considered the (Categorical Exemption) (Eilkx�gaxixatexlta) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions Of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections.(a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect, to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in. accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth'. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision,-which map'is dated the day of 1a1P , 19 s7 and is marked Exhibit c the here inabovereferred to file,` be and the same s ere y con -- ditionally approved.. The conditions of.said approval are as-mo-a particularly set'forth'on.Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by-ref ere' nce. ' -- The above and foregoing resolution was.duly passed and adopted by the' Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of August' .. • F 119 8_ 7 ._ at 'which a quorum was present, by t_e following vote: AYES: Chair-Harris, Comissioners Guch, Siegfried, Tucker, lay -& Kols.tad NOES:' None' VISORY AGEN ABSENT: Comissioner Burger By: Ch- irman, aAni.ng ommission ATTEST Seer t ry, Planning Commission SD -87 -013 14226 Paul Ave. EXHIBIT A I. Specific Conditions - Engineering Dept. A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking & recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 33 ft. turnaround area on Paul Avenue. D. Improve Paul Ave. to City Standards, -including the following: 1. Designed Structural Section widened from existing edge of pavement to provide 32.5 ft. radius between centerline and back at herm at turn around. 2. Asphalt Concrete Berm. E. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. F. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. G. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements.. H. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. I. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. J. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. II. Specific Conditions Santa Clara Valley Water District A. In accordance with District Ordinance 8S -1, the existing well shown' on the plans should be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. Improperly constructed or abandoned wells can be a hazard and may be a source of groundwater contamination. We request that wells be sealed in accordance with District standards unless they are to be used for the proposed development. In this case, they should only be used after proper testing and inspection. We request written confirmation from the 7 developer' or his engineer regarding the existence of any wells and their proposed disposition. III. Specific Conditions - Saratoga Fire Protection District Fire Hydrants: Together with developer of adjacent lot to the south (Lot #9), devel.oper shall install one fire hydrant that meets the Fire District specifications. Prior to Final Map Approval, evidence shall be provided, satisfactory to the City .Engineer, that all arrangements have been made with the wager district that the hydrant shall be installed. IV. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara County Environmental Health Services The application is approved subject to the following conditions: A. A sanitary sewer connection will -be required contact County Sanitation District No. 4. B. If there are any, existing septic t.an.k(s) they must be pumped 'and backfille'd in accordance with Environmental Health standards. Contact the district Sanitarian for final inspection upon completion. C. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. VI.. Specific. Conditions - Planning Department A. Conditions to be completed prior to issuance of a building perit. V. Specific Conditions - Building Department A. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork: quantities) 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures G. Standard information to include titl,eblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. 'Signature of Applicant Date S D—,8 =013 DR-87-09d 14226 Paul Ave. '0qQ t 0 %'S \C.1 20900 J0 5 I 12q— (0 3- kL2ORT TO PLANNING COMMIS.SIQjj- Jordan New SFD N4 D`'Q R Vs 21 rj) 31, '11aiD 11 03.1z 5163 - 2 c 1>. C" 20 ZZO 14 x f) 0 (ft) S.\ 08(67( 2.-) )4'.4 1 ' AK 50J. 0 IV '7- 35- NLZ "29 /1 fGIJ 4 (S' tic, ,8 14,Z '?> Zz. 70 2 (61 Z� C,Z) &A.Z' (31) $c 21g05L41 142 14 - I t I � 27 11b1 7. 9. 21N15 C5) yho�. I's a all S °;.9 49 68 1*311 42 5,01. (Z So) 2 '5 Z7/ C 143 94 It 0jj 5�0"' - 141 IQ co)-27 -°1 "03. Z7 Z 14 Qn Sol.. (467.) 79 -.ex 503 34 1 (1 1.4 3; ZZ 209oo. -zr_ (4,Y) 29410 I't :1 (4 -z7- so., IQ .j12 sbi 1 0 2 60 Zl 5 �O - =75 0.1 98 141" q (JI S030.27., or) 14 'S 145 7 -) lit S. 1436 51 IV ti Iro 74.1'2 >. Wil SOD. V Z'p. go, S.2 rA 1.0 Z ?- - 20011 yj pia -Z 11� i- co fV ca 0 oN 0 Go —1. 1 - 09, tiv 1I . 1 6 0 k; 40. (4)j Q 0 ir 41 A by IN CPO IV to * " 'i I RESOLUTION NO. SD 87- 013 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF David Cunningham The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The Land designated Lot 8 shown on Tract "Map of Subdivision No. 1 of the Mary Springer Tract in the Quito Ranch" recorded in Book K of maps at Page 69, Santa Clara County Records and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as one _(1) individual Building Site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the_ day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ' ABSENT: MAYOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 1(L -7 -87 ORIGINATING DEPT: �1�_E;RTNC, SUBJECT • FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SDR 1628 Cox Avenue, Pan Cal Investment L Bitter Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM q._L- CITY MGR. APPROVALO -2 Adopt Resolution 1628 -02 attached, approving Final Building Site. Repoft Summary: 1. SDR 1628 is ready for Final Building Site approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been conpleted. 3. All fees and bonds have been_ submitted - =to the City. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1628 -02. 2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. r � � RESOLUTION NO. 1628 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Pan Cal Investment The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: 0.4362 Acre Land designated Parcel 1 on Parcel Map, prepared by Kier & Wright and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual Building Site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR r RESOLUTION NO, SD- 1628 -1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Marcus'Bitter, 19040 Cox Avenue WHEREAS, application has been made, to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and un- der the Subdivision Ordinance'of the City-of Saratoga,'.for tenta- tive map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of'' 1 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File Na. 'SDR -1628 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed - subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and im provement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and gen- eral land use and programs specified in such General Plan, refer- ence to the Staff Report dated July 23,, 1986 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received.and considered the kQAba9czd=a)1x>BXexPdKi0*xxtDMX (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions. of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections' (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 13th day of May , 19 86 and is marked Exhibit B in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same hehereby con - ditional.ly approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated here- in by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the • 23rd day of 'July , 19 86 at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Burger, Harris, Guch, Pines, Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: None M ADV SY AGENCY Chairman, PiaqHling Coolission ATTES I Secr t ry, Planning Commission { r SDR -1628 EXHIBIT A I. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees) (if parcel is 'shown on existing reap of record, submit three (3) to scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. half street on Saratoga Creek'Drive. D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements as required,. E. Improve Saratoga Creek Drive to City Standards including the following: 1. Overlay existing pavement along Saratoga Creek Drive. 2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24) repair as directed by City Engineer. 3. Pedestrian walkaway (4 ft. P.C.C.) along Cox Avenue. 4. Underground existing overhead utilities. F. Convev storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourses, as approved by the City Engineer. G. Construct standard driveway aprproaches. H. Provide adequate site distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. I. No direct access allowed on Cox from lots. J. Obtain encroachment permit from the public works department for - driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. K. Engineered improvement plans required for: 1. Street improvements 2. Storm drain construction 3. Pedestrian walkway L. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. M. Enter into improvement agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. C II. DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Applicant's geotechnical consultant shall prepare and submit a ' soils and foundation report. B. Detailed on -s.ite improvement plans showing drainage details, all existing structures, with notes as to remain or be.removed, erosion control measures, and standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos,, owner's name, etc. III.COUNTY SANITATION DLSTRI.CT NO. 4 A. Provide 4 inch building sewer ahead of the street improvements in accordance with the letter dated May 27, 1986. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH A. Sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Company V. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to final map approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to SCVWO for reivew and certification. VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT' A. Design review approval required on projec -t' prior to issuance of permits. / B. Staff design review required for landscaping to be provided along Cox Avenue in Right-of-Way adjacent to walkway prior to final approval. RESOLUTION NO-. 1628 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Pan Cal Investment Tfie City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: 0.4362 Acre Land designated Parcel 1 on Parcel Map, prepared by Kier & Wright and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual Building Site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of , 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 0 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1 'Z; ' MEETING DATE: October 7, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: Report on Need for CSO Swing Shift Recommended Motion: Note and file. Report Summary: Since the CSO program two CSO's have been assigned different swing shift. Currently, the day shift Monday through Friday, and the swing s Tuesday through Thursday and 2:00 p.m. Saturd air. AGENDA ITEM 4 V,, CITY MGR. APPROVAL lq�W was established in 1984, the shifts; a day shift and a is from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. gift is from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Last year, Council directed staff to examine the swing shift to determine if it would be more desirable to have both CSO's working day shifts. Based on that review, staff recommends no changes be made in the CSO, shift assignments at this time. In summary, the swing shift allows for essential CSO follow -up on code enforcement matters not possible during the day shift since many of the involved parties work during the day. The report was forwarded to the Public Safety Commission which examined it at their regular meeting on August 10, 1987 and decided to support the staff recommendation. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Report by Community Services Director dated July 14, 1987 2. Excerpt from Minutes of Public Safety Commission of Aug. 10, 1987 Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. g �fti SUMMARY REPORT NEED FOR CSO NIGHT SHIFT Prepared by Todd W. Argow July 14, 1987 In response to Council direction, I have conducted a review to determine whether or not it is effective to have one CSO working a swing (or evening shift). RECOMMENDATION Based on my review, it is my recommendation that one CSO continue to work swing as currently scheduled. This recommendation is based on the ability of the CSO's to be responsive to citizen complaints between the hours of 7 in the morning to 10 or 11 in the evening (depending on the day of the week), their ability to handle and follow -up on code enforcement activity, and the ability of the CSO program to be cost effective as a result of law enforcement activity which occurs. BACKGROUND Since the CSO program was established in 1984, two CSO's have each been assigned a different shift; a day shift and a swing shift. Originally, the day shift was from 7:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and the evening shift was from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday. In 1986, I modified the swing shift slightly so that it was from 1:00 D.M. to 10:00 D.M. Tuesday through Thursday, and 2:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. This was done because I noticed a repeating pattern of the evening CSO charging the City overtime to finish Up on assignments involving parties which typically occurred on Friday and Saturday evenings. The one hour modification of the swing shift assignment has almost eliminated overtime charges resulting from party activity. The day shift has remained unchanged since the beginning of the program. ANALYSIS In analyzing the need for a CSO swing shift, I first compared the nature of activities occurring in the day shift with those of the swing shift to determine if there was any significant difference. This was done through an analysis of CSO activity logs for the months of May and June, 1987. The sample is fairly representative of CSO activity throughout the year. The summary below shows the results of that analysis. In some cases, a Specific activity is shown as occurring 100% during either the day shift or the swing shift. This means that during the sample period, the activity happened to occur entirely during one shift, and does not mean such activities exclusively occur during that shift all the time. In addition, an activity may have occurred during the day shift, for example, but essential follow -up to that activity may have occurred during the evening. Activity 1. Vehicle storage on Dvt. property (incl. autos, boats, RV's, trailers) 2. Sight obstructions (e.g. bushes obstructing views at intersections) 3. Sign ordinance violations (e.g. business signs) 4. Enforcement of Business License Regulations 5. Encroachment into Public Right of Way 6. Tree Removals without a Permit 7. Accumulation of Trash on Private Property 8. Obstructions of Public Sidewalks 9. Fences and Walls Violating Zoning Codes 10. Animal Ordinance Violations (e.g. dog killing neighbor's cat) 11. Noise Ordinance Violations 12. Chemical Dumping 13. Parking Enforcement 14. Zoning Setback Violations 15. Barking Dog Complaints 16. Juvenile Disburbances (e.g. kids in streets; not parties) 17. Other Disturbances (e.g. assist Sheriff; neighborhood disputes) 18. Obscene or Harassing Telephone Call Complaints 19. Vehicles Stored on Street over 72 hours 20. Vehicles Towed 21. Party Complaints (assist Sheriff, enforce City codes) 22. Illegal Dumping Vj Average # of %_,DLiring Activities % During Swing Per Month Day Shift Shift 7 92% 8% 2 100% 0% 3 80% 20% 5 11% 89% 1 100% 0% 2 25% M. 1 100% 0% 1 0% 100% 2 100% 07. 1 0% 100% 2 0% 100°70 1 070 100% 26 707. 30% 3 50% 50% 3 607. 40% 6 17% 83% 1 0% 100% 5 27% 737. 31 61% 397. 8 20% 80% 2 0% 100% 2 0% 100% 23. Welfare Checks (e.g. status of elderly 1 0% 100% 42 resident at request of relative) 77% Y 4 24. Repair of Vehicle in Public Area 2 50% 50% 25. Lost Property Reports 1 0 %.- 100% _ 26. Alarms (assist Sheriff) 1 50% 50% 27. Traffic Control at Accident Scenes 4 43% 57/. 28. Other Traffic Control (e.g. Railroad 2 75% 25% Crossing malfunctions) 29. Evidence collection at Crime Scenes 2 33% 67% 30. Petty Theft Reports (assist Sheriff) 7 36 % „ 64% 31. Vandalisms 12 65% 35% 32. Found Property Reports 3 50 %.. 500% 33. Investigations of Unauthorized Solicitors 3 17% 83% 34. Patrol Checks: Businesses 20 13% 87% Parks 42 236% 77% City Buildings 4 0 100% Schools 4 29% 71% Other 4 13% 87% From a law enforcement perspective, parties, vandalisms, and accidents occur with a greater frequency during the swing shift; all of these activities CSO's are authorized to handle. In the absence of a CSO, Sheriff officers would be involved in this function, and would charge the City $85 an hour as opposed to the $24 an hour the CSO's cost the City (the hourly CSO figure includes fringe benefits). In addition,, a greater number of park disturbances occur during the swing shift than is the case with the day shift. Sheriff's officers handle park disturbances on a lower priority basds., Because CSO's are not required to respond to the broad spectrum of assignments which require the attention of a sworn officer, they are usually more available to respond to these kinds of calls. Therefore, having a CSO working during the swing shift makes it possible for the City to offer its residents an 'improved level of service. Even lower on the priority list than park disturbances for Sheriff's officers are patrol checks. Patrol checks are performed in the absenc=e of any other assignments by the officers.. Again, as a result of the greater availability of the CSO's, patrol checks of City property (including t-he Chamber of Commerce and the Museum) as well as patrol checks of businesses are performed on a more re=gular basis. Activity o.f this nature represents an improved level of service.. From my point of view, however, the determining factor which does more to justify the existence of a CSO swing shift involves the expanded availability of CSO's to respond to citizen complaints. CSO's do respond to new citizen complaints even after City Hall is closed. When City Hall is oDen, the majority of citizen complaints are referred to the CSO's from City Hall. After City Hall is closed, however, citizens call the Sheriff's Office (or County Communications by dialing 9 -1 -1) to express their concern. County Communications then dispatches the CSO via radio directly to follow up on the complaint. Citizens are routinely advised to follow this procedure if they wish to contact a CSO after City Hall is closed. CSO's have also reported to me there is a much higher degree of citizen contact occurring in the Village area during the CSO swing shift. From a code enforcement perspective, business license enforcement, unpermitted tree removals, sidewalk obstruction complaints, animal ordinance violations, noise ordinance violations, chemical dumping violations, and other related code enforcement violations occur with a greater frequency during the swing shift. In addition, the nature of some of the code enforcement activities which involve the CSO's can only be effectively followed up on in the evening. This is the result of the obvious fact that many people work during the day. Some citizens filing a code enforcement complaint with the Ctiy Specifically request that they not be contacted at their place of business. Follow up with these individuals can only be accomplished during the evening after they have returned home from work. Even more frequently, individuals which are the cause of a code enforcement violation cannot be contacted until they return home from work during the evening. This is especially true of barking dog complaints, for example. While the CS0's do leave a warning notice when they receive a new barking dog complaint, it is no where near as effective a.s a personal followuD with the owner of the animal after he or she returns home from work in the evening. If the offense is a repeat violation, contact must be made with the individual in order to issue a citation. This requirement applies to other kinds of code enforcement violations in addition to barking dogs. In this sense, the ability of CSO's to make contact with citizens during the evening hours and on Saturdays has proved to be very valuable to the effectiveness of the program. From a time expenditure perspective, the CSO's appear to be Spending equal amounts of time on code enforcement activity between the day and swing shifts. During the two month sample period, for example, CSO's spent 178 hours of time on code enforcement during the day, and 1.74 hours of time on code enforcement during the evenings. The chief advantage to having two CSO's both working day shifts would be the increased manpower to respond to code enforcement complaints which occur during the day. More code enforcement complaints occur during the day than during the evening. With only two CSO's to provide law enforcement and code enforcement assistance to a city of approximately 30,000 people, the CSO's frequently find themselves spread pretty thin. In my opinion, however, this benefit is more than offset by the handicap of not 4 being able to make evening contact with citizens. The benefit is further offset through the lack of availability of CSO's to respond to fresh code enforcement complaints which may occur after City Hall is closed. CONCLUSION Even if both CSO's were to work a staggered day shift schedule resulting in one CSO working on a weekend, the benefits of having a CSO available during the evening outweigh the benefits of having two CSO's assigned to work during the day. As a result of the CSO swing shift, the CSO program is more cost effective, provides a higher level of service to the community, and results in the expanded availability of code enforcement personnel to respond to and follow up on citizen complaints. It is in light of these considerations that I recommend no changes be made in CSO shift assignments. PREPARED BY: Z-D Todd W. 4rw Community Services Director ]m 5 PSC MINUTES - AUGUST 10, 1987 OTHER TRAFFIC MATTERS Page 5 Chairman Mulford indicated that he felt the traffic light standard at the intersection of Highway 9 and Highway 85 ought to be changed approaching the intersection from Los Gatos; he felt that traffic could not see the traffic light until they were almost at the intersection. By changing the traffic light to one which extends out into the intersection, he felt it would be better observed by the traffic traveling northbound on Highway 9. Mr. Argow indicated he would refer the matter to the City's Engineering Department. The Commission requested that the item be agendized for September. Com. Newby indicated there was a visibility problem at the intersection of Thelma and Hammons; a request she had noted previously. When on Hammons, it is difficult to observe traffic crossing on Thelma. She had understood that the Maintenance Department had confirmed a sight obstruction and had planned to remedy the situation. Mr. Argow indicated he would look into the matter. JULY CSO ACTIVITY REPORT Mr. Argow pointed out that the majority of CSO time was being sDent on code enforcement activities (as opposed to law enforcement activities. EXAMINATION OF NEED FOR CSO'S TO WORK SWINGSHIFT Mr. Argow presented the Commission with a report that he had prepared for the City Council in resDonse to their direction. The City Council had asked him to examine whether or not a CSO swingshift was justified. After conducting an extensive analysis, Mr. Argow was recommending that no changes be made in the CSO scheduling. He had examined and identified the CSO activities which occur during the daytime as opposed to those which occur more often in the evening. All things considered, the most important point he emphasized was the ability of CSO's to follow u p with both reporting parties and violators alike in the evening when they returned home from work. This is only made possible through the existence of the swingshift. MOTION: It was moved by Com. Borah with a second from Com. O'Rorke that the PSC sun_ported the staff recommendation and complimented the staff for an excellent and thorough report. Motion passed by unanimous vote. . SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 3 `/ AGENDA ITEM t C) MEETING DATE: September 16, 1987 CITY MGR APPROVAL } ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF ESSICK WALK- BEHIND ROLLER ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Recommended Motions ut Me purchase of Essick Vibrating Roller Model V30W2R to Ricker Machinery Company in the amount of $8,518.27. Report_ Summary Informal bids were received on an Essick Vibrating Roller Model V30W2R with 10.5 HP Wisconsin Robin Engine, Hydrostatic Drive, Electric Start, Carrying Hangers. Three bids were received. Ray N. Imhoff Company of Concord bid $8,966.60, R.A. Anderson Company of San Rafael bid $8,881.00, the lowest bid was $8,518.27 from Ricker Machinery Company of San Jose. Fiscal Impact $9,000 is included in the 1987 -88 fiscal year budget funded from Fixed Assets Replacements 8300 -6740. Attachments Copies of bids. Motion & Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. MCA '�j RICKER• MACHINERY CO. 909 - 7TH. STREET SAN JOSE, CALIF. , 7TH 8 MARKET STS: ' • r` *;: -701 KINGS ROW, BLDG. 21B - OAKLAND, CA. 94607 ' • ' SAN JOSE, CA. 95112 (415) 893 -3690 (408) 293 -7705 ' TO: City of Saratoga DATE- 8/12/87 I 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 GENTLEMEN WE ARE PLEASED TO -QUOTE YOU -ON THE FOLLOWING: Essick Vibrating Roller Model V30W2R with 10.5 HP Wisconsin Robin Engine, Hydrostatic Drive, Electric Start, Carrying Hangers $8,380.00 -Less 5% Municipal Discount. 419.00 $7,951.00 7% Sales Tax 557.27' $8,518.27 FOB Destination Terms Net 30 Days RICKE�fV o I N • CO. f SIGNA ORE qi t.: MOORE BUSINESS FORMS.INC..M .. ��F °» �w L 7�`�?c�'u3 -.r � - , -• 'o' _ PSfr.!,- �.,.,..a1..sr. ;3r , . RAY N. IMHOFF CO. 3190 SANTA PAULA DR. CONCORD, CA M18 GARY ENRIOUEZ CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA, CA 95070 AUGUST 13, 1987 ..AS PER YOUR .REQUES.T, .I WOULD .LIKE TO QUOTE YOU ON THE FOLLOWING: ONE EACH ESSICK WALK- BEHIND ROLLER MODEL V30W2R WITH WISCONSIN ROBIN GAS ENGINE $8,380.00 TAX 586.60 $8,966.60 PAYMENT TERMS: NET 30 DAYS F.U.B. POINT: DESTINATION r SINCERELY, 4 �g 9 = E /�_ � RAY IMHOFF C AXI JAidersom Company MANUFACTURERS' REPRESENTATIVE 110 BELVEDERE STREET SAN RAFAEL. CALIF. 94901 (415) 456 -3100 August 12, 1987 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Mr. Gary Enriques I am pleased to quote you on the following; One ea. Essick Model V30W -2R Vibrating Roller, walk - behind, with 10.5 HP Wisconsi -n Robin Engine e $8,300.00 Sales Tax 581.00 $8,88.1.00 Terms: Net 30 days F.O.B.Point: Saratoga Thank You R. A. Anderson CITY OF SARAT06A AGENDA ITEM r' AGENDA BILL NO. _13.� ; �- DATE: October 7. 1987 DEPARTMENT: Plannin❑ CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: DR -87 -043; Brown, 14470 Oak Place - Appeal of Planning Commission decision approving a design review application to construct a new 2,175 sq. ft. one -story home in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal by approving Resolution DR -87 -043 SUMMARY: 1. On June 10, 1987, the Planning Commission first considered the applicant's request to construct a new 2,426 sq. ft. single -story (20.5 ft. high) residence on a 6,750 sq. ft. infill lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. At that meeting, the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the plans needed to be revised in order to make the required findings to support the application. 2. On August 12, 1987, the applicant's architect presented revised plans addressing the Commissioner's concerns and on a 3 -1 -2 vote approved DR -87- 043. 3. On August 24, 1987, the appellant, Ms. Davies, appealed the Planning Commission's action approving OR -87 -043. 4. The grounds for the appeal were addressed by the Planning Commission in the course of its deliberation and all of the required design review findings were made. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff-report to the 2. Appeal letter dated 3. Planning Commission 4. Report to the Plan and 6/10/87 Reports 5. Plans Motion and vote: City Council dated 10/7/87 & resolution DR 37 -043 8/24/87 minutes dated 8/12/87, 7/8/87, 6/10/87 ning Commission dated 8/12/87 which includes the 7/8/87 to the Planning Commission Appeal denied 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed) ro 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: planning Director DATE: October 7, 1987 SUBJECT: DR -87 -043; Brown, 14470 Oak Place - Appeal of Planning Commission decision approving a design review application to construct a new 2,175 sq. ft, one - story residence in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. A. BACKGROUND On June 10, 1987, the Planning Commmission first considered a request for design review (DR -87 -043) approval of plans to construct a new 2,426 sq. ft. one -story (20.5 ft. high) home on a 6,750 sq. ft. infill lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. At that meeting, the Planning Commission reached a consensus that the plans should be revised as follows: 1) reduce the floor area of the home to approximately 1,700 sq. ft. excluding the garage, 2) reduce the height of the proposed home, 3) increase the front yard setback, and 4) reduce the number of driveway cuts along the 50 ft. wide lot by incorporating the existing on -site driveway easement and rotate the garage so that access to it is from the east. On July 8 and August 12, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans and approved DR -87 -043 on August 12th. B. ANALYSIS OF APPEAL The primary issue expressed by Ms. Davies in her 8/24/87 appeal letter centers on the perception of bulk issue and the effect that the pro- posed home will have on overcrowding of the area. In the past, the policy of the Planning Commission has been to require that the size of a home on a substandard lot be reduced by the same percentage that tiic lot .-,;ze is of the district standard. For example, the applicant's lot is approximately 32 percent less in area than the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum and therefore, the Planning Commission's policy would be to consider a similar reduction (i.e. 32 %) in the 3,500 sq. ft. floor area standard. In fact, at 2,175 sq. ft., the applicant's proposal represents a 38 percent reduction in the R- 1- 10,000 district floor area standard. In addition to requiring reduction in floor area as a way to reduce the perceived bulk of the home, the Planning Commission approved a residence which is lower in height than the existing homes located on either side of the applicant's lot. As such, a majority of the Plan- ning Commissioners were able to make the required design review findings regarding bulk, height, views and compatibility and approved the application on a 3 -1 -2 vote. The other concern brought up by Ms. Davies relates to the existing home located to the east of the applicant's lot and referred to as the Protiva residence. The appellant suggests that because of the size of the Protiva's home and its proximity to his right side property line, the applicant's proposed home should not be more than 1,660 sq. ft. in total area. The appellant argues that anything larger would give Oak Place an appearance of being grossly overbuilt. The Planning Commis- sion dealt with this issue in its deliberations and required the appli- cant to reduce the floor area and height of the home and also required an increase to the front and left side yard setbacks as a way to mitigate bulk and overcrowding concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission approving DR -87 -043. Yuchuek Hsia, Director Design Review -I- RESOLUTION NO.QR 043 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION S1ATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a new 2,175 sq..ft. single story home at 14470 Oak Place. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, NOW, THEREFORC., BC IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with `this matter, the application of Donald Brown for design review approval be and the same is' hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. See Exhibit A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12 day of Au4u5t 19 87 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Harris., Commissioners Burger, Tucker NOES: Comiasi.oner Clay A13SENT: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried Ch •rman, Planning Commission ATT V Sec �t ry,w Planning ^Gamm.ission 0 DR -87 -043, 14770 Oak Place EXHIBIT 'A' 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution 5ha -11 be void. 2. Obtain zoning clearance on the construction drawings prior to submitting plans to the Building Department. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits, a 6 ft, h,i,gh chain link or welded wire mesh protective fence shall be placed around the oak tree under its dripline. 4. The maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 18 ft. 5. Construction plans shall be in substantial compliance with those approved and not exceed 2,175 sq. ft. in area. G. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit the following for Planning Department review and approval: a. Landscape plans for the area adjacent to the' north elevation. of the garage. 7. Landscaping for screening in the area adjacent to the garage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Obtain final building site approval on SD -87 -005 prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. The existing driveway easement on the applicant's lot shall be cancelled and the driveway for the lot at the east removed in accordance with the approved plans. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date 3 Da'tu l�c�uiti'� Hearing D:,Le,�� % Pee jGo, o 0 CI1'Y USE O APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: CaLsfana Molly .fimiI Address: �`�" 7� Oa,I�JAI�C r T X5070 Telephone: _9(07 -6907 Name of Applicant: O kil grokiry Project File No.: Dk-- �7— O Project Address _ I`H-76 OIL ME(, Project Description: S it. � I nG I � I1 SibyL Decision Being Appealed: Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): Thcl S1,U of fio, house, a, M S is 460 hrf�, - irl. CM, RnC � wif h, the, pro�,;Vt, S Cur tJ M(,djh, (Q., , i,if 6;11 1s �.nd. � o IUO s in sI'z�, aid the,. -Firs ilal�S�, -AOL buy I off. � bu,l� one a,n� LOAg. 0 �gD s -� Will YC�uli In. 700 rzGtL Gl. �yiYu'�6n Oak. �PI 16L � t d r i vc w Con �i �a1�' o rt, W1 I. l A,180 n'n ab ok t o,_ h avll unn� ( Gssc�r �. vcwa c�� on rc,la�i uc i �i na (s �louSe . A- Ano Appellant Signature' *Please do not sign this City,offices. If you w appeal please list them TIITS APPLICATION MUST BE THE DATE 01. THE UL-C, 0, application until it is presented at the Lsh specific people to be notified of this on a separate sheet. SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS Or Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 To the Council: LAUG987 . August 24, 1987 I am appealing the "Donald Brown" application, number DR -87 -043, approved August 1.2, 1987. A 2,175*3q. ft. house on Lot 11 will constitute too much structure for the site. To the east, Lot 1 1 is seriously encroached upon by the house on Lot 12, the Protiva's current residence. Building a large new house in the narrow sideyard of the original house will badly overcrowd both sites. No one knows exactly by how much the Protiva's current residence encroaches upon the setback area. There are two maps at the Planning Commission which contradict each other. In 1986, the Protiva's refused to have a third party verify the property line between Lots 1 1 and 12. In any case, both maps show the house as clearly invad'in , the setback area The Protiva's current residence on Lot 12 is a large house of 3,10o square feet without the garage. By statute, no more than 2,380 sq. ft. or about 35% of the size of the lot, should be al lowed in structure on Lot 12; the current residence exceeds that limit by approximately 700 square feet, much of it built by the Protiva's about five years-ago. I think it is grossly unfair that acting on the premises of having a large parcel, the Protiva's enlarged the-house to its present size, --'a structure of 3,100 sq. ft. Much-of the enlargement and enclosing was built inside the legal setback area from Lot H. The enlarged house is too big to sit on a 50 ft. wide, 6,750 sq. ft. lot. Lots 11 and 12 should be considered in combination as the original house seriously encroaches on Lot 11. No more than 2,380 + 2,380 or 4,760 sq. ft. should be allowed on the two lots combined. Jn order to maintain the proper proportion of 3,500 sq, ft.: 1.0,000 sq. ft. of our zoning area, no more square footage than 4,760 - 3,100 or 1,660 sq. ft. (including the garage) should be allowed on Lot 11. To allow more structure on that site will give Oak Place an appearance of being grossly overbuilt. Please note also that the applicant for the new house on Lot 1 1 is officially Mr. Don Brown of Washington state. However, the city attorney, Mr. Hal Toppel, showing admirable acumen and diligence, has determined that a true sale was not concluded. A copy of his findings is enclosed. I am aware that the Planning Commission is attempting to force the merger of an 8,122 sq. ft. triangular parcel behind the Protiva's residence upon which the current garage sits. It's true that this merger would bring the technical size of lot 12 to 17,400 sq. ft. However, in my opinion, gerrymandering in this parcel will do little to alleviate the appearance of overcrowding on Oak Place from the street. The triangular parcel is 135 feet from the street and historically, probably belonged to the property currently under the ownership of the Young's: Sincerely, I.j1h C. Holly Davies c.c.: The Hon. Donald Peterson Councilwoman Karen Anderson Councilman David Moyles Councilwoman Marty Clevenger Councilwoman Joyce Hlava Mr. and Mrs. Joe Donoho Mr. and Mrs. Darrell E. Dukes Mr. and Mrs. Greg Grodhaus Mr. and Mrs. Jack Paravagna Ms. Dolores Smith Mr. and Mrs. Alain Pinal PAUL B.. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEOAL HAPOlO S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN O. BAIRO To: From: Re: Dated: ATiiINS.ON • FARASYN ATTf7 t7N CVO AT A�G� .. �_T .660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94048 (4151 .967 -69x1 MEMORANDUM Saratoga Planning Commission Hal Toppel, City Attorney Application for Tentative Building Site and Design Review Approvals for a Single Family Dwelling at 14470 Oak Place (Applicant: Donald S. Brown) June 22, 1987 J. M. ATKINSON, (1692 -19821 L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -19791 In the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 1.0, 1987, pertaining to the applications filed by Donald S. Brown for tentative building site and design review approvals to construct a single family dwelling at 14470 Oak Place, it is recommended that the circular driveway be utilized as the exclusive means of access to the garage. This driveway currently services the house on the adjacent property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Protiva. At -the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1987, a - representation was made. to the Commission that the Brown property was subject to an easement for the circular driveway exclusively for the benefit of the Protivas and that Mr. Brown had no legal right to utilize this driveway as recommended by staff. After reviewing the factual circumstances surrounding the applications for development of this site, I do not accept the argument that the City must recognize the creation of an exclusive easement in favor of the Protivas. The factual circumstances raise serious questions concerning the true identity of the applicant in this case and• the legitimacy of the document which purports to create the exclusive easement. The City is not required to place form over substance by accepting what appears to be a contrived arrangement intended solely for the purpose of avoiding anticipated development conditions. My refusal to accept the easement as a valid constraint. upon the actions of the City is based upon the following circumstances: 1. As .a result of the applications filed by the Protivas for the development -' of Lot 10 (which was approved) and Lot 13 (which was denied), any person filing an application for development of Lot 11 could reasonably anticipate that such application would provoke the same intense opposition from the neighbors as demonstrated on the earlier proposals for development of the other sites. The anticipated opposition did, in fact, manifest itself at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Com- mission on June 10, 1987. Among other things, the neighbors objected to the number of driveways on Oak Place resulting from the creation of a new driveway for Lot 11 (the Brown property) while continuing to preserve the existing circular driveway for Lot 12 (the Protiva property) . The same issue was raised on the Protiva application for development of Lot 13, wherein the staff Y similarly expressed a preference for the driveway on Lot 13 to be combined with the circular driveway on- .I - Th.�. IF; nA+f Iva wed -by the City Council when it denied the Protiva application for development of Lot 13. The resolution -adopted by the Council specifically mentioned the creation of multiple driveways and the consequent loss of existing landscaping as one of the reasons for denial. The issues and concerns raised during the design review proceedings pertaining to Lots 10 and 13 would certainly suggest to the Protivas that any proposal for the development of Lot 11 would necessarily involve a discussion of the circular driveway. We now have two applications submitted to the City showing the clear intention of the Protivas to preserve this driveway for their own exclusive use. The circumstances strongly suggest that the Protivas have attempted to remove the circular driveway from. the realm of discussion by conveying Lot 11 to a third party (who then becomes the purported applicant) and reserving unto themselves an exclusive easement in the instrument of conveyance. 2. In response to my request, we have now obtained a copy of the recorded deed executed by Mr. and Mrs. Protiva transfering legal title to Lot 11 to Donald S. Brown. A copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ". As you will observe, it is a gift deed for which no consideration was paid by Mr. Brown. Moreover, the deed was executed and recorded after, the applications for building site and design review approval were filed. It should also be noted that the gift deed was recorded on the same day a preliminary title report was issued in response to a specific request from the City to furnish this report. I have been told that Mr. Brown is a relative of the Protivas, but I do not yet have any concrete evidence proving this to be the case. But regardless of the particular relationship between the parties, it is reasonable to assume that the Protivas did not make a gift of valuable property to a stranger. Throughout the processing of these applications; Mr. Brown has certainly been conspicuous by his absence. He has never met or otherwise communicated with any member of the City staff and to the best of my knowledge he was not present at the public hearing on his own applications (although I .did observe Mrs. Protiva in the back row, busily taking notes). While there is 'nothing illegal about any of this behavior-, or lack of involvement on the part of Mr. Brown, the deed conclusively establishes that the conveyance of Lot 11 to Mr. Brown was not part of an arm's length transaction and he is not a bonafide purchaser who paid value for the property. 3. The title Company that issued the preliminary report to the' City was not involved in the recording of the gift deed and the report itself was issued to and at the request of Linda Protiva, who is-identified by the title officer as their "contact person." When asked why the preliminary title report contemplated the issuance of a lender's title insurance policy, the title officer responded that Mrs. Protiva had advised the title company that the property would be sold and refinanced after completion of 'construction. There has been no direct communication of any kind between the. title company and Mr. Brown. 4. The identity of the "client" for whom professional services are being rendered on this project is unclear, to say the least. For example, at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, Mr., Norm Matteoni appeared and identified himself as counsel for Mr. Brown. However, Mr. Matteoni has previously appeared before the Planning, Commission and the City Council as the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Protiva. Unless we are dealing with a group of people who constitute a single applicant, I can only assume that Mr. Matteoni and his clients Ve C � have resolved between themselves any conflict of interest questions that may be created by his dual representation of the Protivas .and Mr. Brown. The same client identity question can-be Throughout all'of the discussions concerning the employment of Mr. Pines as the architect for this project at a time when he was still a member of the Planning Commission, Mr. Pines consistently referred to his clients as being the Protivas. I would again emphasize that the foregoing circumstances have not been described for the purpose of suggesting any form of illegal conduct, but -rather as the factual and circumstantial basis for the City to ignore the easement purportedly created in the gift deed from the Protivas to Mr. Brown. The City has always taken the position that it may not lawfully impose conditions involving property which is not owned by the applicant. The obvious justification for this rule is that the applicant has no control over the property and rights of third parties. I do not believe we are dealing ' with such a situation in this case. The imposition of a condition upon Mr.' Brown to take access from the circular driveway is one which I believe he is able to satisfy. All of the facts and circumstances suggest that the Protivas are actually controlling the applications filed by Mr. Brown, and they are the parties from whom a modification of the easement rights must be obtained. There is another aspect to the conveyance from Protiva to Brown which should also be mentioned. The gift deed states that the easement was reserved for the "use and benefit" of Lot 12, and not merely for the purpose of access. This language is virtually equivalent to outright ownership in the sense that the Protivas would be entitled to utilize the easement area for any purpose they might desire. Moreover, such use would be entirely exclusive. In substance, the easement constitutes a lot line adjustment between Lot 11 and Lot 12, without the prior approval of the City. If the Protivas had applied for such approval, it would probably have been denied since the lot line adjustment would increase an existing nonconformity with respect to lot frontage (by reducing the-frontage from 50 feet to 40 feet, where 60 feet is required). Based upon the foregoing, it is my recommendation to the Planning Commission that your decision concerning the driveway access should be made strictly upon planning considerations, including the issues raised by Mr. Pines during his presentation to the Commission on June 10. If it is your decision to require that the circular driveway be utilized as the means of access to the garage, you should impose that condition irrespective of any claim that the Protivas have reserved an exclusive easement which deprives Mr. Brown of all rights to use that portion of his property on which the easement is located. Q��Ero1d S. 1 HSTedz ' :•s.�i 1� rj 1987 GIFT DEED' IN CONSIDERATION OF LOVE AND AFFECTION. ERIC Y. PI_ANf�ll�,�>< t 'and LiNbA C. PROTIYA. husband and wife. 'as joint tenants, hereby grant to DONALD S. BROWN, a married man. the ' real ' property v� property i.n the. City ot Sarattoga. County of Santa is r� r Clara. State of California. described as follow-: ALL OF LOT 11. in Block % As shown on tha'ticertain map entitled. •Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots. being part of the Quito Rancho. at Saratoga•, which.Nsp was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Sa to Clara, State of California in Vol. 00• of Maps* at pages 58 and 59. I Reserving to Grantors an exe usive easement for U5 P - l F -/Toy EN V over and across a portion o the above described Lo't 11, said easement being described as follows Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Lot 11, then along.the Easterly line thereof Southerly 47.32 feet; thence leaving said line NoRTM3doo' k/t.ST aaopfeet to a point which 1s dista*nce lu,.00 feet (right angle measure) from the Easterly line of said lot: thence parallel with said Easterly line Northerly 30.00 feet to the Northerly line of said Lot 11 (also being the Southerly line of Oak Place. 50 feet wide); thence along said Iasi-named line Easterly 10.00'feet to the point o.f beginning situated within the city limits of Saratoga. Santa Clara County, California. The above de.fcrlbej easement is for the exclUlive the Of owners of Lot 12. in Block 1 of the above mentioned map, their successors and assigns, -and shall be kept free and open from obstructions of any kind. save'and except for public utilities. Eric Y-jrjPrott va Ex 01 I ' i I FILED ►OR REOORO RE MSMPF AT RECUCST OF WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO + HAT ZO 4 22 f}i'97 ?Q.�s�f S 11-Al OrrlrAL rZZCOR08 C . �....,It C -A.0 %;::UHIY- :AERIE VNE �cuc*FLDOe. j�'� Fwd (.7 S IuIP �j¢ 4ECORDER K157PAGE.1475 rj 1987 GIFT DEED' IN CONSIDERATION OF LOVE AND AFFECTION. ERIC Y. PI_ANf�ll�,�>< t 'and LiNbA C. PROTIYA. husband and wife. 'as joint tenants, hereby grant to DONALD S. BROWN, a married man. the ' real ' property v� property i.n the. City ot Sarattoga. County of Santa is r� r Clara. State of California. described as follow-: ALL OF LOT 11. in Block % As shown on tha'ticertain map entitled. •Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots. being part of the Quito Rancho. at Saratoga•, which.Nsp was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Sa to Clara, State of California in Vol. 00• of Maps* at pages 58 and 59. I Reserving to Grantors an exe usive easement for U5 P - l F -/Toy EN V over and across a portion o the above described Lo't 11, said easement being described as follows Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Lot 11, then along.the Easterly line thereof Southerly 47.32 feet; thence leaving said line NoRTM3doo' k/t.ST aaopfeet to a point which 1s dista*nce lu,.00 feet (right angle measure) from the Easterly line of said lot: thence parallel with said Easterly line Northerly 30.00 feet to the Northerly line of said Lot 11 (also being the Southerly line of Oak Place. 50 feet wide); thence along said Iasi-named line Easterly 10.00'feet to the point o.f beginning situated within the city limits of Saratoga. Santa Clara County, California. The above de.fcrlbej easement is for the exclUlive the Of owners of Lot 12. in Block 1 of the above mentioned map, their successors and assigns, -and shall be kept free and open from obstructions of any kind. save'and except for public utilities. Eric Y-jrjPrott va Ex 01 I ' i I Planning Commission Minutes 8/12/87 9. DR -87 -043 Brown, 14470 Oak Place, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 2, 175 sq. ft. one -story single family residence in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 8, 1987. ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of August 12, 1987. Planner Caldwell noted the addition of a Condition 9, to read, "The existing driveway easement on the applicant's lot shall be cancelled and the driveway for the lot at the east removed in accordance with the approved plans. " Commissioner Clay asked whether there were remaining questions regarding the lot line; the City Attorney stated that the location of the lot.line with respect to the Protiva home was not an issue in this Application. Staff was satisfied that regardless of any ambiguity with respect to the location of this lot line, there was sufficient: setback of the proposed house that a variance would not be necessary. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:35 P.M. Mr. David Pines, Architect, stated he had not received a copy of Condition 9 previous to the Hearing; with-regard to the Minutes of July 8, 1987, he noted for the record that Applicants were still reviewing the title report and the deed to ascertain whether the easement was legal. Drawings were required to be submitted three weeks prior to this meeting; he stated that at the time of the Hearing, he was operating under the assumption that an easement existed. Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga, felt that the only concession made by Applicant was the relocation of the garage door. In addition, she noted the following: - The new driveway cut - Apparently plans called for retaining the horseshoe driveway across the property; she suggested that once a building permit had been issued, the Protiva's would grant themselves an easement across the front yard of this property - Large size of the proposed structure on an infill lot on an old street; - The adjacent home,. which was approximately 700 sq. ft. larger than would currently be allowed on a 6700 sq. ft. lot and encroachment of the side yard setbacks. She suggested a reduction of the proposed structure by 700 sq. ft. to maintain the proper proportion between structure and yard and prevent the overbuilding of Oak Place. The City Attorney suggested consideration of a Condition of Approval stating, "The driveway access shall not be widened or relocated; no additional driveway cuts shall be made on this lot." He added that the City required a cancellation of the easement. Mr. Pines responded that the Applicants had fully complied with the Commission's requests; he noted the approval of a nearby two -story house, with 1270 square feet more space in the same historic neighborhood. BURGER/CLAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 :43 P.M. Passed 4 -0. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -87 -043 WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION 9. Passed 3 -1, Commissioner Clay opposed. .. PlAnning Commission Minutes 7/8/87 15. SD -87 -005, Brown, 14470 Oak Pl., request for tentative building site and design DR -87 -043 review approvals of plans to construct a new 2,426 sq. ft. one -story single family residence in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from June 10, 1987. . --------------------------------------=---------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, July 8, 198.7, recommending that DR--87-043 be continued to August 12th as stated in the Staff Report. The City Attorney'`called attention to and.reviewed iiis Memorandum of June 22, 1987. Planner ell noted that in Staff f Analy k the proposed trellis had been rem6ved and replaced by cantilevered beams with cross members', thus actual square footage would be 2125 sq. ft:, - a 'reduction of 301 sq. ft. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:44 P.M. Mr. David Pines, Architect, reviewed the Revised Submission to Planning Commission, dated June 14, 1987, and noted for the record that in his view, the height reduction, of 2 1/2 ft. did not affect the bulk of the house, it reduced the slope of the roof to one that was not as acceptable as the original roof peak proposed at 22.6 ft. He sfated that the garage had-not been rotated in order to present why he felt- that the current position was more beneficial to the neighborhood and noted the decrease in landscaping if the garage were turned as suggested at the previous meeting. He added that the repositioned garage to essentially drive up to the front door of the house; such was not considered good planning and, noted for the,record that there was precedence for placement of the garage as originally proposed. Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga, presented a written statement noting her continuing opposition to the proposed plan: Proposed house was too large for the lot Lot 11 and 12 should be considered as one property due to: the invasion of the setback area by the Polli Mansion and the fact that the original house on Lot 12 (Polli) had a .driveway easement across the front yard. of Lot 11 (Brown) Excess structure on Lots 11 and 12 as allowed in R- 1- 10,000 zoning Required ratios for the R -1- 10,000 district had been maintained on Lot 10 ( Pinel) Lot 12 (Polli) house was a 3400 sq. ft. house on a 6750 sq. ft. lot. The small triangle piece of property to the rear of the properties in question had nothing to do' with the appearance or development of Oak Place. Mr: Pines commented that several of the above items did not even address the property under consideration; he reviewed the square footage of the proposed house. The City Attorney stated that the City had initiated proceedings for the merger of the triangular parcel with the Protiva parcel ; this item was not relevant to the application under consideration. Ms. Jane Piriel; 14472 Oak Place, Saratoga, urged that the: = Driveway /garage be facing from the east and not to the property front - 'New survey be done to ascertain the east boundary in relation to the Protiva home Further consideration of the proposed color which was still in the gray range SIEGFR1ED/9URGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9 :00 P.M. Passed 6-0.; r Commissioner Siegfried commented that the reduced height and square footage of the house had been addressed by the Applicant; however, he continued to favor a change in the placement of the driveway with access off the existing easement. The City Attorney suggested that the Commission indicate their approval of the design in concept, if so inclined; thus the only remaining issue on the continued DR -87 -043 would be access of the driveway. 7/8/87 con't Mr.- Pines proposed that approval of DR -87 -043 be conditioned to require a change in placement of garage /driveway and asked that the entire project not be delayed to August 12th in order to rotate the garage and install a window, subject to Staff review. The Planning Director noted the established policy of not approving plans without review by the Commission; consensus readhed that this policy would be followed. Platiti6f CAldwell suggested. that there were architectural and landscaping concerns resulting from'the necessary changes; however, revised plans could be presented to the Commission at the Jul 22nd Meeting, without a Staff Report, if such were the desire of the Commision. Com.mtssionef Siegfried objected to A five week delay for the Applicant and felt that such a delay was inappropriate. Chairwoman Harris noted that Mr. Pines had chosen to delay submitting such a change in time,for consideration to night even though the Commission had expressed its desire previously. Mr. Pines noted that a drawing/site plan was already on file in the City.. Commissioner Burger favored following the procedures and policy already in place,: namely, voting on SD -87 -005 with a Continuance of DR -87 -043, pending review by Staff. StEGFtIED/BMGER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD -87 -005, CONTINUING DR -87 -043 TO AUGUST 12, 1987. Passed 6 -0. Commi§sion'was in favor of DR -87 -043 in concept; reduction in height, the proposed size and color of the house-were acceptable. Rotation of the garage to be submitted for review. Commissioner Clay noted his concern with the size and compatibility of the proposed house ;, he concurred with the proposed rotation of the driveway /garage. Planning Commission Minutes 6/10/87 9. SD -87-005 Brown, 14470 Oak P1., request for tentative building site and design DR•87-043 review approval of plans to construct a new 2,426 sq.ft, one -story single family residence In the R- 1.10,000 zoning district per Chapters and IS of the City'Code Commissioner Burger repotted on the land use visit. �- Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning' Commission, June 10, 1987, The Public Hearing. was opened at 7 :55 P.M. Mr. David Pines, Project Architect, trade an extensive study of the existing neighborhood: Photographs and slides were presented to demonstrated the mixed architectural styles of this neighborhood and the placement of garages and driveways on Oak Street The Proposed one -story house was designed to fit between existing two-story homes, s urn the east to make the transition between homes on either side. The adacent Mans on's circular driveway would not be utilized to serve the new residence; negative !m would a the Proposed driveway would be oriented to Oak Place and use turfbllb oc wk hi would appear as a lawn from the street; the neighborhood environment would be best served. with placement of the driveway as proposed. He reviewed the design elements of the house: ' dding, wood shingle roof, double hung windows. French doors and a,trellises, The 2364 square footage Included the garage but not the open trellised logic of counting the trellised area in the total square footage. The sitee lur hadh39g6 mooned the ,•cove: age; there were no windows placed where they would impactad'acent homes. paviow J ;'. Mr. Norm Manlonl Pointed out the following considerations: . ! •. Legal considerations; the driveway of the adjacent Mansion had exclusive easement across the lot in question; this area is unavailable to the Applicant. Design considerations; placement of the driveway as ''the front of the property. making the street unat tra proposed would Invite cars to pant In unattractive. The City Attorney requested a recorded deed to determine whether the Applicant did or did not have rights to the Property covered by the circular driveway. Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga, cited a letter of April 27, 1987, to Councilmember Moyles and noted the impact on adjacent. homes of the circular'driveway which extended over ro • •' •• Before incorporation, P Vim' lines. the proposed:house would not have been placed on a 50 R wide lot Today, no one would build this house on such a.lot - ' No one should be allowed to build on this propert She-asked that this ro' • + _ y' P 1� be denied. ' 'The .City Attorney addressed comments made in the letter of April 27, 1987; he reviewed • :.� merger ordinances adopted =adjacent cities and stated that the Saratoga Ordinance was one of Ne most restrictive. He added that the property in.question was a legal lot of record. Ms. Jane Pinel. 24472 Oak Place, Saratoga, noted concerns as stated in letter, May 26, 19' Bulk of the ptvposed.bouse - Height of the proposed house Access to the garage was intrusive • Additional concerns were Proposed color and the need for a survey of the property, Ms. Delores Smith noted the impacts of this proposal on her home and asked the Commission for consideration of the existing neighborhood. Mr. Gene Zambetd, 14375 Oak Street, Saratoga, reviewed the status or'this property and. tasked that Information be obtained from the appropriate agencies; Chairwoman Harris noted that "Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval addressed this concern. Planner Caldwell confirmed that the appropriate. agencies had been contacted; their . responses were recorded in Exhibit Mr. Pines stated that a fire' hydrant was not required on this property. WG BUROEUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE pUBLIC HEARING AT 8:39 P.M Passed 5-0, Commissioner Burger noted.thmthought given 10 this application; while she felt that the home was well designed, the total square footage needed to be reduced. She noted concerns regarding Perception of bulk, setbacks, and the overall size of the house. Commissioner Siegfried concurred regrading square footage of the proposed house; his major concerns were: • Driveway, essentially there were two driveways on a limited.frontage of property Heightof the structure needed to be reduced Commissioner Ouch concurred with the above and suggested consideration of turning the garage to face.another direction. In addition, she expressed concerns regard Jng the height of the structure due to the proximity of adjacent homes and favored a color other than they already used on the adjacent concerns. home Commissioner Tucker stated that the above eommeAn adequately addrettsed her concerns. 6/10/87" con't Consenstu reached that the 4u are not Including the garage other concerns were height and b �e ..Yam setback In relation to the PPmxlmately 1700 :q. garage, and possible turning of the ars Proposed house, front The City Attorney ' g ge• not the Y requested the Applicant to submit any documents demonstradn w Property rive owner had rights to use or the driveway; if in tact, there was an exclusive easdnent this the driveway by the adjacent home owner, then the Applicant g Nether or Credit .far this space, pp cant could not be given SIEGFit1ED /GUCH MOVED TO CO TO JULY 8,1987, ME �M1E APPUCA77ON "SD- 87-005 �G OF 7TM PLANNING COMMISSION.- PassDR- 87-043 REP T TO PLANNINIG DR -87 -043 BROWN 14470 Oak Place Design Review j�j �� ilwam Zz- ,`,O �'►� yO c' 197 - 2l- ,1' tb � a 1 2 j91- 0 7 w 2 o5 tip, (� r t15 7-T 3-17-t3 0¢ ry0 ,1' �QCLI °��'� C6, �, 9.4i �o�yZZ l O �4 033- � 0'C'' 397.22 -44 A h q b A� X97 -27 �°O c . rL op �a1 397.22- 4R ,v ` ,3°�4 t 47'22 -2(0 OcP • 3 :�" pP ,449.0 • 39 ? OAK PL . � - Z4 - �i r 144 52 IC (i�t)�r 14478 397-24- « yo 144 9 8 14494 14490 I� oa OI oK �y 3902 03• 04 q-, °� 07 vry� a�0 \a o �o Zo 365 14 4 / 317- ZI -CM 31 2o37S U) Z0400 317 -ZZ -0 1 I 2ln J, arV� 397 Z li 7 -/O- Z03(oo 1 397 -Z1- 13 21- ' It 17 -10-17 A, 471 �r 2o33S Z.0 3 �� i 97 - �7- zI ^ G 3 REPORT TO PLANNING GQMMISSIQN FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: August 12, 1987 APPLICATION NQ, & LOCATION: DR -87 -043; 14470 Oak Place APPLICANT: Brown APN: 397 -22 -09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval of plans to construct a new 2,175 sq. ft. one - story (18 ft. high) single family dwelling on a 6,750 sq. ft. infill lot in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. This item is continued from the July 8, 1987 regular Planning Commission meeting. ISSUES: 1. Design Review: All of the Design Review findings can be made. The proposed home is compatible in bulk and height with the surrounding neighborhood and no privacy impacts are anticipated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -87 -043 and-Findings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution DR -87 -043 2. Exhibit B, Findings 3. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 7/8/87 5. Plans I OR -87 -043, 14770 Oak Place EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS: 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill Project -The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the subject lot is a level infill lot and the height of the proposed home has been kept to a minimum. -The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the proposed residence is a low -level single' story structure (18 ft. high) and the applicant has minimized the number of windows located along the critical east and west elevations. 2. Preservation of the natural, landscapq -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no removal of ordinance size trees is necessary nor is any grading required. 3. Perceiation of exce live bulk -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bull; in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the total floor area has been adjusted to 2,175 sq. ft. which is an appropriate size for the 6,750 sq. ft. lot. 4. Compatible bulk and height -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with -those homes within 500 ft, of the site and in -the same zoning district in that the single story design is consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and the proposed floor area to appropriate given the size of the lot. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the proposed residence is only 18 ft. in height and adequate setback are maintained. 5. Grading and erosion control standards -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. TECHNICAL INFORMATION/STAFF-ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: August 12, 1987 AP.N: 397 -22 -09 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -87 -043; 14470 Oak Place. AM ON REQUESTED: Design Review approval of plans to construct a new one - s-tory 2,175 sq. ft. residence. APPLICANT: Brown PROPERTY OWNER: Brown OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Final building site approval /Building Permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEQA ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Medium Density Permits EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (garden area /open space area used previously by the. owner of the adjacent lot). SURROUNDING LAND USES: single family residences (t'wo story hones to the east and west). PARCEL SIZE: 6,75.0 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Two large elm trees exist in what will become the City's right -of -way. A large oak tree is located in the rear portion of the lot. The remainder of the lot ha.s a variety of trees and shrubs. SLOPE A.T BUILDING SITE: Level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed HEIGHT: 18 ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Left Side: 7 ft. Right Side: 6 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 38% (256S sq. ft.) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Per Applicant First Floor (incl.. garage.): 2,175 sq. ft.. TOTAL: 2,175 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The .project doses meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. MATERIALS 6 COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: Grey horizontal wood siding with white trim Roof: Wood Shakes STAFF ANALYSIS This item is continued from the 7/8/87 regular Planning Commission meeting and the 8/4/87 Committee -of- the -Whole (C.O.W) meeting. At its 7/8/87 meeting the Planning Commission voted to approve SO -87 -005 (building site approval) but continued the design review portion of the application to the 8/4/87 C.O.W. meeting. Although the Planning Commission was in favor of the applicant's proposal in concept, a consensus was reached that the garage should be rotated so that access to it was from the east side and that the existing driveway easement .that cut across the northeast corner of the lot should be incorpoated into the project to reduce the number of driveway openings occurring along the 50 ft. wide lot. At the C.O.W. meeting, the applicant presented a number of different options on the location and the design of the driveway. A consensus was reached favoring the S -type as is presented in the attached plans. Staff agrees and recommends approval of DR -87 -043 per the Findings in Exhibit B. REPORT TO PLANNIN6 COMMISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: July 8, 1987 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -87 -005, DR -87 =043; 14470 Oak Place APPLICANT: Brown APN: '397 -22 -09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting tentative Building Site and Design Review approvals of plans to construct a new 2,245 sq. ft. one - story (18ft. high) single family dwelling on a 6,750 sq, ft. infill lot in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. This item is continued from the June 10, 1987 regular Planning Commission meeting. ISSUES: 1. Building Site Approval - No issues 2. Design Review: Although all of the Design Review findings can be made staff recommends that the applicant utilize the existing driveway easement to minimize the number of driveway cuts along the 50 ft. wide lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Resolution')fo.`SD -87 -005 for building site approval 2. Continue DR -87- 043 'to August 12, 1987 to allow the applicant additional time to amend the plans so that the existing driveway easement is utilized as the exclusive means of access to the garage and access to the garage is taken from the east side. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolutions SD -87 -005 2. Exhibit C, Findings 3. Technical Information /Staff'Analysis 4. Memo from City Attorney S. Letter from applicant's architect 6.' Resolution DR -86 -043 7. Planning Commission minutes 6/10/87 B. Report to Planning Commission dated 6/10/87 RC /rc � i RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -005 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Donald Brown APN #397 -22 -09 (Lot #11 of Saratoga Park Lots Subdivi o ) WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval o.f a site, all as more particularly set forth in File-No. 5D- 87- 005'of this City, 'and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement:, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified i•n such General. Plan,. reference to the Staff Report dated July 8. 1987 being hereby made for further particulars, and FC� WHEREAS, this body'has heretofor received and considered the Categorical Exemption prepared for this project i.n accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 24th day of March, 19CI and is narked Exhibit C in-the'hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby conditionally aN rovved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. . The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 8 day of July, 1987, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ADVISORY AGENCY ABSENT: by. Chairman, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commission 0109 SO -87 -005 14470 Oak Place EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval I. The applicant shall sign the agreement to the conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. II. Specific Conditions Engineering Division 1. Pay, storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" required fees (If submit ('3)` -to scale 3. Submit "Ir'revocable half- street on Oak to City for checking and recordation and pay parcel is,shown on existing map of record, prints. Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. 'lace. 4. Enter into a "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to improve Oak Place to City standards, including the following: a. Designed structural section between centerline and flowline. b. P.C. concrete crub and gutter (V -24). C. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.). 5. Convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the City Engineer. c, 6. Construct standard driveway approach. 7. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 8. Water courses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flaw. III. Specific Conditions -'Santa Santa Clara Co. Health Department 1. A sanitary sewer connection is'requ.i.red. 2. Any existing septic tanks) must be pumped and backfill.ed in accordance with Environmental Health standards. 3. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. IV. Specific Conditions - County Sanitation District #4 1. The applicant obtain a sewer. connection permit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 0110 V. Specific Conditions — Santa Clara Valley Water District I. The applicant shall submit plans showing the location and intended'use of any existing wells for review, certification and registration prior to the issuance of a building permit. VI. Specific Conditions - Planning Department I. Tree removal is prohibited unless in accordance with City Code Section 15 -5 ©.050. 2. Record non - access easement along the parcel frontage.. T i 0111 OR -87 -043, 14770 Oak Place EXHIBIT C FINDINGS• 1. Unreasonable interference with views or privacy (and compatible infill project - The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the subject lot is a level infill lot and the height of the proposed home has been kept to a minimum. - The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the proposed residence is a low -level single story structure (18 ft. high) and the applicant has minimized the number of windows located along the critical east and west elevations. zf 2. Preservation of the natural landscape - The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no removal of ordinance size trees is necessary nor is any grading required. 3. Perception of excessive bulk - The project will minimize the perception o.f excessive bulk in relation to t:he immediate neighborhood in that the total floor area has been adjusted to 2;245 sq. ft. which is an appropriate size for the 6,750 sq.' ft-. lot. .C. 4. Compatible bulk and'heioht - The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within 500 ft. of the site and in the same zoning district in thatthe single story design is consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and the proposed floor area to appropriate given the size of the lot. - The project will not interfere with the light,, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the proposed residence is only 18 ft. in height and adequate setback are maintained. 5. 6radino and erosion control standards - The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in than no grading is proposed. 0_112 TECHNICAL.INFORMATION AND STAFF ANALYSI COMMISSION MEETING• July 8, 1987 APN: 397 -22 -09 APPLICATION NO & LOCATION• SD -87 -005, OR -87 -043; 15570 Oak Place. ACTION R UST D: Tentative Building Site and Design Review approvals of plans to construct a new one -story 2,_245 sq. ft. residence. APPLICANT: Brown PROPERTY OWNER: Brown OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED_ Final building site approval /Building ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEQA Permits ZONING; R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION• Residential - Medium EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (garden area /open space area used e previ the owner of the adjacent lot. Previously by SURROUNDING LAND US ES• single family residences (two story homes to the east and west). PARCEL SIZE• 6,750 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Two large elm trees exist in what will become the City's right -of -way. A large oak tree is located in the rear portion of the lot. The remainder of the lot has a variety of trees and shrubs. SLUE AT BUILDING SITE• Level AVERAGE 'SITE SLOPE:' Level GRADING REQUIRED• Ifone proposed PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 30 ft. Rear: 25 ft. Left Side: 7 ft. Right Side: 6 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 38% (2 565 sq. ft.) HEIGHT: 18 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Per Staff Per Applicant First Floor (including garage): 2245 sq. ft. 2183 s q. ft. TOTAL: *2245 sq. ft. 2183 sq. ft. *includes 120 sq. ft..trellis /walkway ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior: Light warm grey horizontal wood siding, white trim with flashi painted burgundy Roof: Wood Shakes Note: A color board will be available at the meeting 0113 STAFF ANALYSIS A. Background This item is continued from the 6/10/87 regular Planning Commission Meeting. In its report to the Planning Commission dated 6/10./87, the staff recommended approval of the Building Site Approval application., but recommended the Planning Commission continue the Design Review application and instruct the applicant to incorporate the existing driveway easement that cuts across the northeast corner of the site into the project so that the number of driveway cuts along the 50 ft. wide lot is kept to a minimum. On 6/10/87 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reached a concensus on the following points; (1) the square footage of the house should be reduced to approximately 1700 sq. ft., not including the garage, (2) the height avid bulk of the house should be reduced, (3) the front yard setback should be increased and (4) the number of driveways should be reduced by the rotating the garage entrance so that access is from the east rather^ than the north. The item was continued t,o the 7/8/87 Planning Commission meeting. B. Analysis The applicant has submitted revised plans and a letter outlining the proposed revisions to the original plans. Specifically, the applicant has proposed the following revis.ionsc c�irst Submittal Revised Submittal Per-`Staff Per Applicant Per Sta-ff Per Aoolicant Floor Area 2426 sq. ft. 2364 sq. ft. *2245 sq. ft. •2183 sq, ft. Height 20.5 ft. 18 ft. Front'yard Setback 25 ft. 30 ft.. No. of Driveways 2 2 *represents a 181 sq. ft. floor area reduction. In addition, the left side yard setback has been increased from 6 ft. to 7 ft. and the impervious coverage percentage has been reduced slightly from 39% to 38%. Finally, the exterior color has been revised to a Light grey wood siding with white trim- ( a color board will be made available at the Planning Commission meeting). The only issues that have not been addressed by the applicant are the number of driveway cuts along the site's frontage and the access to the garage. 0114 In.its 6110/87 Report to the Planning Commission, staf applicant utilize the existing driveway easement as the access to the garage and that access to the garage be rather than the north: In doing so, a new driveway necessary and the area directly in front of the garage street could then be landscaped. f suggested that the exclusive means of from the east side cut would not be and closest to the At the public hearing, the applicant's attorney suggested that the easement across the subject lot was an "exclusive easement for the property owners to the east and unavailable to the applicant." In response, the City Attorney requested that the applicant submit a recorded.deed to determine whether or not the applicant had use of the easement. The City Attorney has written a memo advising the Planning Commission (see memo) that it does not have to recognize the easement as an exclusive easement and could require the applicant to incorporate it into the current project. . As such, staff recommends that the applicant incorporate the existing driveway easement into the project and rotate the garage so that access to it is from-the east rather than the north. Recommendation 1. SD -87 -005 - With regard to Building Site Approval, there are no major issues. The proposal is consistent with the-General Plan and the other agencies contacted recommend conditional approval. Staff also recommends approval. 2: DR -87 -043 - With the exception of the driveway issue, the applicant has revised the plans in accordance with the comments made at the 6/10/87 Planning Commission meeting, and staff i,s able to make all of the Design Review findings. However, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue DR =87 -043 to August 12, 1987 to allow the applicant additional time t6x amend the plans to show that the existing driveway easement is utiliz,e'd as the exclusive means of access to the garage and to rotate the garage so that access is from the east. 0115 PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Hal Toppel, City Attorney Re: Application for Tentative Building Site and Design Review Approvals for a Single Family Dwelling at 14470 Oak Place (Applicant: Donald-S. Brown) Dated: . . June 22, 1987 J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -19821 L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) In the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 10, 1987, pertaining to the applications filed by Donald S. Brown for tentative building site and design review approvals to construct a single family dwelling at 14470 Oak Place, it is recommended that the circular driveway be utilized as the exclusive means of access to the garage. This driveway currently services the house on the adjacent property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Protiva. At the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. on June 10, 1987, a representation was made to the Commission that the Brown property was subject to an easement for the circular driveway exclusively for the benefit of the Protivas and that Mr. Brown had no legal right to utilize this driveway as recommended by staff. After reviewing the factual circumstances surrounding the applications for development of this site, I do not accept the argument that the City must recognize the creation of an exclusive easement in favor of the Protivas. The factual circumstances raise serious questions concerning the true identity of the applicant in this case and the legitimacy of the document which purports to create the exclusive easement. The City is not required to place form over substance by accepting what appears to be a contrived arrangement intended solely for the purpose of avoiding anticipated development conditions. My refusal to accept the easement as a valid constraint upon the actions of the City is based upon the following circumstances: 1. As a result of the applications filed by the Protivas for the development of Lot 10 (which was approved) and Lot 13 (which was denied), any person filing an application for development of Lot 11 could reasonably anticipate that such application would provoke the same intense opposition from the neighbors as demonstrated on the earlier proposals for development of the other sites. The anticipated opposition did, in fact, manifest itself at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1987. Among other things, the neighbors objected to the number of driveways on Oak Place resulting from 'the creation of a new driveway for Lot 11 (the Brown property) while continuing to preserve the existing circular driveway for Lot 12 (the Protiva property). The same issue was raised on the Protiva application for development of Lot 13, wherein the staff 0116 similarly expressed a preference for the driveway on Lot 13 to be combined with the circular driveway on Lot 12. This view was also articulated by the City Council when it denied the Protiva application for development of Lot 13. The resolution adopted by the Council specifically mentioned the creation of multiple driveways and the consequent loss of existing landscaping as one of the reasons for denial. The issues and concerns raised during the design review proceedings pertaining to Lots 10 and 13 would certainly, suggest to the Protivas that any proposal for. the development of Lot 1.1 would necessarily involve a discussion of the circular driveway. We now have two applications submitted to the City showing the clear intention of the Protivas to preserve this driveway for their own exclusive use. The circumstances strongly suggest that the Protivas have attempted to remove the circular driveway from the realm of discussion by conveying Lot 11 to a third party _ (who then becomes the purported applicant) , and reserving unto themselves an exclusive easement in the instrument of conveyance. 2. In response to my request, we have now obtained a copy of the recorded deed executed by Mr. and Mrs. Protiva transfering legal title to Lot 11 to Donald S. Brown. A copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", As you will observe, it is a gift deed for which no consideration was paid by Mr. Brown. Moreover, the deed was executed and recorded after the applications for building site and, design review approval were filed. It should also be noted that the gift deed was recorded' on the same day a preliminary title report was issued in response to a specific request from the City to furnish this report. I have been told that Mr. Brown is a relative of the Protivas, but I do not yet have any concrete evidence proving this to be the case. But regardless of the particular relationship between the parties, it is reasonable to ' assume that the Protivas did not make a gift of valuable property to a stranger.. Throughout the processing of these applications, Mr. Brown has certainly been conspicuous.by his absence. He has never met or otherwise communicated with any member of the City staff and to the best of my knowledge he was not present at the public hearing on his own applications (although I did observe Mrs. Protiva in the back row, busily taking notes). While there is nothing illegal about any of this 'behavior, or lack of involvement on the part of Mr. Brown, the deed conclusively establishes that the'conNieyahce of Lot 11 to Mr. Brown was not part of an arm's length transaction and tie is not a bonafide purchaser who paid value for the property. 3. The title company that issued the preliminary report to the City was not involved in the recording of the gift deed and the report itself was issued to and at the request of Linda Protiva, who is identified by the title officer as their "contact person." When asked why the preliminary title report contemplated the issuance of a lender's title insurance policy, the title officer responded that Mrs. Protiva had advised the title company that the property would be sold and refinanced after completion of construction. There has been no direct communication of any kind between the title company and Mr. Brown, 4. The identity of the "client" for whom professional services are being rendered on this project is unclear, to say the least. For example, at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission on June 1.0, Mr. Norm Matteoni appeared and identified himself as counsel for Mr. Brown. However, Mr. Matteoni has previously appeared before the Planning Commission and the City. Council as the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Protiva. Unless we are dealing with a group of people who constitute a single applicant, I can only assume that Mr. Matteoni and his clients 0117 have resolved between themselves any conflict of interest questions that may be created by his dual representation of the Protivas and Mr. Brown. The same client identity question can be raised with respect to David Pines. Throughout all of the discussions concerning the employment of Mr. Pines as the architect for this project at a time when he was still a member of the Planning Commission, Mr. Pines consistently referred to his clients as being the Protivas. I would again emphasize that the foregoing circumstances have not been described for the purpose of suggesting any form of illegal conduct, but rather as the factual and circumstantial basis for the City to ignore the easement purportedly created in the gift deed from the Protivas to Mr. Brown. The City has always taken the position that it may not lawfully impose conditions involving property which is not owned by the applicant. The obvious justification for this rule is that the applicant has no control over the property and rights of third parties. I do not believe we are dealing with such a situation in this case. The imposition of a condition upon Mr. Brown to take access from the circular driveway is one which I believe he is able to satisfy. All of the facts and circumstances suggest that the Protivas -are actually controlling the applications filed by Mr. Brown, and they are the- parties from whom a modification of the easement rights must be obtained. There is another aspect to the conveyance from Protiva to Brown which should also be mentioned. The gift deed states that the easement was reserved for the "use and benefit" of Lot 12, and not merely for the purpose of access. This language is virtually equivalent to outright ownership in the sense that the Protivas would be entitled to utilize the easement area for any purpose they might desire. Moreover, such use would be entirely exclusive. In substance, the easement constitutes a lot line adjustment between Lot 11 and Lot 12, without the prior approval of the City. If the Protivas had applied for such approval, it would probably have been denied since the lot line adjustment would increase an existing nonconformity with respect to lot frontage (by reducing the frontage from 50 feet to 40 feet, where 60 feet is required). Based upon the 'foregoing, it is my recommendation to the Planning Commission that your decision concerning the driveway access should be made strictly upon planning considerations, including the issues raised by Mr. Pines during his presentation to the Commission on June 10. If it is your decision to require that the circular driveway be utilized as the means of access to the garage, you should impose that condition irrespective of any claim that the Protivas have reserved an exclusive easement -which deprives Mr. Brown of all rights to use that portion of his property on which the easement is located. _ "I . . HST:dz �0L.Ha NUU 0118 RECORDING REQUESTED BY RtC FI RMF MICRO 1JHEN RECORDED HAM TO ` sMrF 9/0 M.P. -t 44,0 1 • , �( MAIL eA, 9 (-le 2 RECEIVE=D MLED ►OR RECORD AA�T,R�ECUES'1' 9F MATZO q 22 FH .'81' ('m1rAL rZC0RD9 LAt;A1E KtNE 4ECORDER 157PAGE1475 Ju�y 1987 GIFT DEED nrp-T IN CONSIDERATION OF LOVE AND AFFECTION, ERIC Y. r PLANN%3tdTrYA'And LINDA C. PROTIVA, husband and wit ...,...:Jj,.• °�.:� Dated: y, tinda rot va fxt�r6ri 0119 "' t I e. as joint ttgan'tse hereby grant to- DONALD S. BROWN. �:c .._... a married man. the , a•' -'• ',.. real property i:n the City of Saratoga. County of. Santa • Clara . State of California. • 1 � described as�foll.or•: V�; ,:t,:;: -, ;, y, :•:- ±-ALL OF LOT 116' in Block 1. as shown on that certain map entitled. "Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots, being part of the Quito Rancho. at Saratoga•. which.Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Salta Clara. Sti•,tr 4, of California in Vol. -0• of Maps9 at pages 58 and 5q. _; M,,;:'_,,.:•.•' �• {;c;1�;'_ ";�'^ :' Reserving to Grantors an exc ustve easement for US e F-N t oym EN over and =, ��'.r4 ?.'• across a portion of the above described Lot •11, said easement " being described is follows: i ,•,� .• Beq.1nni.nq at the Northeast Corn rr of said Lot 11, then ' along the Easterly line thereof Southerly 47.3.2 feet; thence leaving said IInoNoRTy3doo'k/E<5T.2aoofeet to a point which is distance lu.00 feet (right angle measure) from the Easterly line of said loth thence with said Easterly line Northerly 30.00 feet Parallel lthe �:,.. Norther line Of said Lot 11 (also being the Southerly. line 'of Oak Place. 50 feet wide); thence along said 1%it- nrtmed itne Easterly 10.00'feet to the point of ('beginning situated within the city 11�1ts of Saratoga. Santa Clara County. California. The above, described easement is for 'the exclusive . Of owners of lot 12•. in Block 1 of the above mentioned t* their successors and assigns. and shall be-kept free and open from obstructions of any kind. save'and except for public utilities ...,...:Jj,.• °�.:� Dated: y, tinda rot va fxt�r6ri 0119 "' t I ,. DAV,ID PINES AIA in size as +allows: ARCHITECT 20180 MENDELSOHN LANE SARATOOA, CA 95070 408 867 -5606 A June 14, 1987 zi Building 2484 s.f. BROWN RESIDENCE JUN 1 t-) 1,987 -14470 OAK PLACE I�LA,'��Itl�!u SD-87 -005 DEPT. DR -87 -043 8E- 1-MEP .The revised residence has been reduced in size as +allows: • eer_St�+f Per A 2426 s. +. zi Building 2484 s.f. -120 s.f. Trellis -120 s. +. 2306 s.f. 2364. s. f. -1$1 s.f. Area s.+. reduction -_1991 s.+. 2125 s.f. 2193 s.f. -400 s.f. Garage' -400 s.f. 1725 S.F. LIVING AREA 1783 S.F. The revised impervious coverage of the project is as follows: Method_ #1 ' 387 s.f. driveway in easement Impervious 218�_!s_fi residence Area _ 2570 S.F. + garage Impervious Coverage =•38% . Method_ #2 Parcel Map Site Area t501x iz5') 6750 s.f. Exclusive Easement Area Net Site Area 6363 S.F. Impervious Area = 2183 s.f. residence + garage Impervious Coverage = 34.3% 01,10 Brown Resi dence June 14, 1987 _ ... Page 2. The revised setbacks for the project are as follows: Front 30'(increAged) Rear 25' East Side ( l of tY West Side (right) 71-0" (increased) , -7' -6" , and 23' —On 6' -011, 9' -011,. and 17' -0" Total Building Sides Lineal Footage = 160 ft. 63.2% of sideyard setbacks are greater than minimum 6' -0 "•required 36.8% of si deyard setbacks-are at the minimum Total Front and Rear Lineal Footage = 74 ft. 50% of setback greater (increased) 50% of setback at minimum The revised .hel ghts of the residence are as follows: :W Main area of house = 18' -0" at peak (decreased') Entry area = 16' -0" at peak (decreased) Garage _ 14' -6" at peak (decreased) The colors of the residence have been changed as requested. Please refer to the Color Board submitted. c 0121 Design Review RESOLUTION NO.DR -86 -043 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a new. single story residence at 14470 Oak Place. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Donald Brown for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. See Exhibit B PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8 day of July, 1987 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: t.. i BY: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission 22 OR -87 -043, 14770 Oak Place Exhibit B 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to the conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Obtain zoning clearance on the construction drawings prior to submitting plans to the Building Department. 3. The applicant shall utilize the existing driveway easement as the exclusive means of access to the garage. Access to the garage shall be from. the east and no more than one driveway is permitted. 4. Prior to the issuance of any permits, a 6 ft. high chain link or welded wire mesh protective fence shall be placed around the oak tree Linder its dri.pline. S. The.maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 18 ft. 6. The total floor area shall not exceed 2,245 sq.) ft. including the covered trellis walkway. 7. Construction plans shall be in substantial compliance with those approved. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit the following for Planning Department review and approval: a. Landgdape' plans for the area adjacent to the north elevation of the garage. 9. Landscaping for screening in the area adjacent to the. garage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy... The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted.. Signature of Applicant Date 0.123 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert T. Calkins DATE: June 10, 1987 _ APPLTCATION N0 LOCATION• SD -87 -005, OR -87 -043; 14470 Oak Place APPL_ ICANT: Brown APN: '397 -22 -09 --------------- - - - - -- ___________________ .PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant-15 requesting tentative Building Site .and Design Review approvals of plans to construct a new 2,426 sq, ft. one - story (20.5 ft.. high) single family dwelling on a 6,750 sq. ft, infill lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. ISSUES: I. Building Site Approval - No'isaues 2. Design Review:. All of the Design Review findings can be made but'staff recommends that the applicant incorporate the existing driveway easement in the project number of driveway'cut's along the50nft. wideolotiniMize the STAFF RECOMMENDATION - 1. Approve Resolution No. SO -87 -005 for building site approval' 2. Continue DR -87 -043 to the 6/24/87 regular Planning Commission meeting and instruct the, applicant to incorporate the existing driveway easement into the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution SD -$�' -005 2. Technical Information /Staff Analysis 3. Letter from Holly Davies dated 5/16/87 4. Letter from Jane Pinel.dated 5/26/87 S. Resolution DR -86 -043 and Findings RC /rc 0.1.26 RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -005 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Donald Brown APN # 397- 22 -0 -9 (Lot #11 of Saratoga Park Lots Subdivision) WHEREAS," application has been Made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the ,Subdivision Ordinance of t-he C °ity of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 1 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. S 87 -005 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated June tO 1987 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS-, this body has heretofor received and considered the Categorical** Exemption- prepared ,for this project in accord with t•he currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 24th'day of March, 1987 and is marked Exhibit C in the hereinabovereferred to file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. - The above and, foregoing resolution. was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 10 day oft June, 1987, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT:- by: Secretary, Planning Commission ADVISORY AGENCY Chairman, Planning Commission 012. SD- 87 -OOS 14470 Oak Place EXHIBIT "A." Conditions of Approval I. The applicant shall sign 'the agreement to the conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said ,void. resolution shall be II. Specific Conditions Enoineerin❑ Division "1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect-at the time of obtaining Final approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay Map- required fees (If .parcel 'is shown on existing map of record, submit (3) to scale prints. 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 2S ft. half - street on Oak Place, 4. Enter into a• "Deferred Improvement Agreement" to improve Oak Place to City*standards,'including the following: a. Designed structural section between centerline and flowline. b. P.C. concrete crub and gutter (V -24). C. Pedestrian walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.). S. Convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse 'as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Construct s.ta.ndard driveway approaches. 7. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required,at. driveway and access road intersections. ,8. Water courses must be kept'free of obstacles which will 'change, retard or prevent flaw. III. Specific Conditions - Saratoaa Fire District 1, The applicant shall install one fire hydrant that Meets the Fire Districts specifications. Hydrant-, shall be installed and accepted prior to final building site approval. IV. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara Co Health Department 1. A sanitary sewer connection is'required. 2. -Any existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards, 3. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. V. Specific Conditions - County Sanitation District #4 I. The applicant obtain a sewer connection permit prior to the Issuance of a building permit. IV. Specific Conditions - Santa Clara Valley Water District 1. The applicant shall submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells for review, certification and registration prior to the issuance of a building permit. VII. 'Specific Conditions - planning Department 1. No tree removal is permitted unless in accordance with City Code Section I5- S0.0S0. a�29. 1 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.� MEETING DATE: October 6, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT : Underground Utility Conversion Big Basin Way - 5th Street to Springer Recommended Motion:* AGENDA ITEM ___7D CITY MGR. APPROVAL Authorize staff to request utilities to begin work on conversion project. Repoft Summary: Caltrans planning reconstruction of Big Basin Way. Ideal time to convert overhead facilities. Project will cost approximately $260,000 of the $443,000 Rule 20A funds available.. Overhead services will have to be converted to underground by property owners. Fiscal Impacts: No City funds. Approximately $260,000 P.G. &E. Rule 20A funds. Attachments: 1. Staff Report. 2. P.G. &.E. letters of 4/15/87 and 5/22/87. KA-4- _ __.-3 Staff recommendation 5 -0 -. 4 7 �2) REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 9 -15 -87 COUNCIL MEETING: 9 -30 -87 SUBJECT: Underground Utility Conversion Big Basin Way 5th Street to Springer In anticipation of the Caltrans project of reconstructing Big Basin Way, this office requested that P.G. & E. review the costs for undergrounding their facilities between 5th Street and Springer Avenue. Attached is their letter indicating a cost of about $260,000. We currently have about $443,000 in the City's Rule 20A account as shown on the other attached P.G. & E. letter. 'Therefore, this project can be funded if that is your desire. Service conversions are additional costs born by the property owners. Your direction is required to request P.G. & E. and the other utilities to begin design work. RoMert S. Shook City Engineer RSS /df Attachments l 62-6203 No. *a Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, California Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 7854 -E Canceling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 6915 -E RULE No. 20. REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES A. The Utility will, at Its expense, replace its existing overhead electric facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads, and on public lands and i)rivate property across which rights of way satisfactory to the UtlI ty have Been obtained by the Utility, provided that: 1. The governing body of the city or county in which such electric facilities are and will be located has a. Determined, after consultation with the Utility and.after holding public hearinga on the subject, that such undergrounding is In the general public Interest for one or more of the following reasons: (1) Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of over. head electric facilities;. (2), The street or road or right-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (3) The street or road or right -of -way adjolns or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or air area of unusual scenic interest to the general public. b. Adopted an ordinance creating an underground district In the area In which both the existing and new facilities are and will be located requiring, among other things, (1) that all existing overhead communication and electric distribution and service facilities in such district shall be removed. (.".) that each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have installed in accordance with the Utility's rules for underground service; all electrical facility changes on the premiss-, necessary to receive service from the underground facilities of the Utility as soul, as it is available, and (3) authorizing the Utility to discontinue its overhead service. 2. The Utility's total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding within any city or the unincor- porated area of any county shall be allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in such city or unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead meters. The amounts so allocated may be exceeded where the Utility establishes that additional participation on a project is warranted. Such allocated amounts may be carried over for a reasonable period of time In communities with active undergrounding programs. In order to qualify as a community with all active undergrounding program the governing body must have adopted an ordinance or ordinances creating an underground district and /or districts as set forth In Section A.l.b. of this rule. Where there is a carryover, the Utility has the. right to net, as determined by Its capability, reasonable limits on the rate of performance of the work to be financed by the funds carried over. When amounts are not expended or carried over for the community to wbtch.tbey are Initially allocated they shall be assigned when additional participation on a project is warranted or be reallocated to communities with active undergrounding programs. 3. The undergrounding includes both side of a street and extends for a minimum distance of one block or 600 feet, whichever is the lesser. Upon request of the governing body, the Utility will pay for the installation of no more than 100 feet of each customer's underground elcctrir service lateral uccusloned by the undergrounding. The governing body may establish a smaller footage alluwance, or may limit the amount of money to be expended oil a single customer's electric service, or the total amount to be expended on all electric service installations in a particular project. Advice Letter No: 910 -E Issued by Decision No. 820101R W. M. Gallavan Vine- President —hates and (continuedI Date Filed Sept. 22, 1982 Effective _Oct . 21, 1982 Valuation Resolution No. 79 --211 c: ' 02.0102 NO. 04 Pacific (has and Electric Company San Francisco, California Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 6229 -E Canceling Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 4386 -E RULE No. 20 REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (.Continued) B. In circumstances other than those covered by A. above, the Utility will replace its existing overhead facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads or other locations mutu- ally agreed upon when requested by an applicant or applicants when all of the following conditions are met: 1. a. All property owners served from the overhead facilities to be removed first agree in writing, to have the wiring changes made on their premises so that service may be furnished from the underground distribution system in accordance with the Utility's rules and that the Utility may discontinue its overhead service upon completion of the underground facilities, or b. Suitable legislation is in effect requiring- such ue.cessary wiring changes to be made and author- izing the utility to discontinue its overhead service. 2. The applicant has: a Furnished and Installed the pads and vaults for transformers and associated equipment, conduits, ducts, boxes, pole bases and performed other work related to structures and substructures in- cluding breaking of pavement, trenching, backfilling, and repaving, required In connection with the installation of the underground system, all in accordance with the Utility's specifications, or, in lieu thereof, paid the Utility to do so; and b. Transferred ownership of such facilities, in good condition, to the Utility; and c. Paid a nonrefundable sum equal to the excess, if any, of the estimated costs, exclusive of transformers, meters and services, of- completing the underground system and building a new equivalent overhead system. 3. The area to be undergrounded includes both sides of a street for'at least one block or 600 feet, whichever is the lesser, and all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities within the area will be removed. G In circumstances other than ,those covered by A. or D. above, when mutually agreed upon by the Utility and an applicant, overhead electric facilities may be replaced with underground electric facilities, provided the applicant requesting the change pays, in advance, a nonrefundable sum equal to the estimated cost of the underground facilities less the estimated net salvage value and deprecia- tion of the replaced overhead facilities. Underground services will be Installed and maintained as provided In the Utility's rules applicable thereto. D. The term "underground electric system" means as electric system with all wires Installed under - ground, except those wires in surface mounted equipment enclosures. .MUV1CC LCUUr 1VV. JYV-r. Issued by Date Piled June 3, 1976 Decisions No 85497 & 85788 W. M. Glallavan Effective July 3, 1976 Vice: President —Rates and Valuation Resolution No. 42.4208 000. 02 Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, California Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 7854 -E Canceling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 6915 =E RULE No. 20 REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES A. The Utility will, at its expense, replace its existing overhead . electric facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads, and on public lands and private property across Which rights of way satlstactory to the Utility have been obtained by the Utility, provided that: 1. The governing body of the city or county in which such electric facilities are and will. be located has a. Determined, after, consultation with the Utility and after holding public hearings on the subject, that such undergrounding Is in the general public interest for one or more of the following reasons: (1) Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of over- head electric facilities; (2) The street or road or right-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (3) The street or road or right -of -way adjoins or.passes through a civic area orpublic recreation area or ,air area of unusual scenic Interest to the general public. b. Adopted an ordinance creating an underground district In the area in which both the existing and new facilities are and will he located requiring, among other things, (1) that all existing overhead communication and electric distribution and service facilities in such district shall be removed, (2) that each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have installed iii accordance with the Utility's rules for underground service, all electrical facility changes on the promises nece:rsary to receive service from the underground facilities of the Utility as noun as it.ia available, and (3) authorizing the Utility to discontinue its overhead service. 2. The Utility's total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding within any city or the unincor- porated area of any county shall be allocated in the same ratio that the number of overhead meters in. such city or unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead meters. The amounts so allocated may be exceeded where the Utility establishes that additional participation on a project is warranted. Such allocated amounts may be carried over for a reasonable period, of time in communities with active undergrounding programs. In order to qualify as a community with all active undergrounding program the governing body must have adopted an ordinance or ordinances creating an underground district and /or districts as set forth in Section A.l.b. of this rule. Where there 'is a carryover, the Utility has the right to set, as determined by Its capability, reasonable limits on the rate of performance of the work to be financed by the funds carried over. When amounts are not expended or carried over for the community to which they are Initially allocated they shall be assigned when additional participation on a project Is warranted or be reallocated to communities with active undergrounding programs. 3. The undergrounding includes both aide of a street and extends for a minimum distance,of one block or 600 feet, whichever is the lesser. Upon request of the governing bony, the Utility will pay for the installation of no more than .100 feet of each customer's underground electric service lateral occasioned by the undergrounding. The governing body may establish a smaller footage allowance, or may limit the amount of money to be expended on a single customer's electric service, or the total amount to be expended on all electric service installations in a particular project. (continued) Advice Letter.No: 910 -E Issued by Date Filed Sept. 2.2, 1982 Decision No. 9201018 W. M. Gallavan Effective —Oct - 21, 1982 Vice - President— Rates and Valuation Resolution No. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Js'U� I& + 10900 NO. BLANEY AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 • (408) 973.8930 April 15, 1987 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Attention: Mr. Robert S. Shook Dear Mr. Shook: t tEGe,iv IUD APR 16 M i ENGINEERING r Fr- We have completed a preliminary review of your request to underground the overhead pole line on Big Basin Way from Fifth Street to Springer Avenue. The preliminary estimate of costs associated with converting approximately 1,300 feet of overhead electric distribution facilities to underground is $260,000. The undergrounding conversion would be done in accordance with our Electric Rule 20A, copy attached. The costs stated in this letter are preliminary costs and are submitted for initial discussion purposes only. They are applicable for a 90 -day period from the date of this letter; and they are not offered as a firm quotation. If the City wishes to proceed with this project, the amount to be charged against the budgeted allocation for the City of Saratoga will be the actual cost of the conversion project rather than the estimated cost of doing the work. These costs do not include charges against your allocations for service conversions. If you choose to include service conversions in the project, as provided for under Section A of Electric Rule 20, further review will be required to establish appropriate costs. If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 725 -2227. Si cerely, James H. Lauth Reconstruction Distribution Engineer Attachment MAY PACIPIC GAS AND ME R59 ;'V'1:?,I0 COMPANY IP G�, T + 16780 LARK AVENUE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030 -2315 • (408) 354 -3122 MAY `1, t ItJbi P-1r1NEERINC me RECEIVED MAY 2 6 1987 May 22, 1987 CITY MANAGER Mr. Harry Peacock City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Peacock: On March 25, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued Resolution E3028 adopting PGandE's 1987 underground conversion allocation of $38 million. This is the amount specified in the Five -Year Plan for conversion projects completed under the provisions of PGandE's Electric Rule 20A. The City's share of this allocation is $97,700, an increase of $5,100 from 1986. The following is a summary of our current Rule 20A accounting: Unexpended Allocations, Year End 1986 $345,104 Plus 1987 Allocation $ 97,700 Less Committed projects $( 0) Balance of Uncommitted Rule 20A Allocations $442,804 For a conversion project under construction, the estimated cost was utilized to compute the unexpended allocations. Projects started on or after January 1, 1982, are adjusted for actual cost upon completion in accordance with CPUC Decision No. 83 -02 -065. Sincerely, Tom Naughton Area Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Agreement with law firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson to secure training and consultative services as part of the South Bay Area Employee Relations Consortium Recommended Motion: Approve "Agreement for Special Services" and authorize City Manager to execute. Report Summary: Eleven public agencies from the South Bay area are forming a consortium which will provide five workshop days of employee relations training per year and unlimited telephone consultation with the law firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson. Manager /Supervisor training will be held in the Palo Alto- Fremont area and will provide the latest information and 1, techniques on the conduct of employee relations in the legal context. The annual contract cost for the consortium is $15,000 which is split equally among the participating agencies. The firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson represents public sector management in all matters pertaining to employment and labor relations and has developed personnel training consortia throughout the state. The consortium will provide expert legal advice and training on a very economical basis. Fiscal Impacts: $1365 /year. Sufficient funds are budgeted in the legal services program. Attachments: Agreement Staff report Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ilj / MEETING DATE: October 7, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Agreement with training and consultative Relations Consortium Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM �( CITY MGR. APPROVAL 1W law firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson to secure services as part of the South Bay Area Employee Approve "Agreement for Special Services" and authorize City Manager to execute. Report Summary: Eleven public agencies from the South Bay area are forming a consortium which will provide five workshop days of employee relations training per year and unlimited telephone consultation with the law firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson. Manager /Supervisor training will be held in the Palo Alto- Fremont area and will provide the latest information and techniques on the conduct of employee relations in the legal context. The annual contract cost for the consortium is $15,000 which is split equally among the participating agencies. The firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Friersor represents public sector management in all matters pertaining to employment and labor relations and has developed personnel training consortia throughout the state. The consortium will provide expert legal advice and training on a very economical basis. Fiscal Impacts: $1365 /year. services program. Attachments: Agreement Staff report Motion and Vote: Sufficient funds are budgeted in the legal wl GB'a. lx REPORT TO MAYO CITY COUNCIL RAND SUBJECT: DATE: 10/2/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 10/7/87 Recbn� motion; ---------------------- Approve "Agreement for Special -------------------------------- Services 11 and authorize City Manager t Bauer_ ound; The city execute.. tY of Saratoga has been the South Bay nvited. to for mono y ared to form a consortium 3° ten other relationsnt /suPezvisory per o which will provide lowlic agencies in For several critical 1 Cost training sponsorship very the law firm of Liebee elements of employee Ponsorship of successful one day and half b • Cassidy and Frier training Pr r the League of California cities Y workshops under the son has I�ea °g which they are now Presenting to localua together a package of arrangement. genies in a consortium A second aspect of the consortia consultation entitles r a expertise �� the f grin � s atto genies to rn representn attorneys. The firm is hi unlimited telephone �PlOyment and labor g public sector g�Y regarded for Phone relations, The in all fitters their rn the e loYee relations field The opportunity for pertaining to should prove to be Veils type of cons ry valuable. upon �- ntentionstof or the consortia join making the co $15,000. Eleven a are the Cities of U per , fiber $1365 genies have expressed the S�yvale Gatos, City, Fremont, Milpitas, Mountain View, A ed •LOS Gatos, Los Altos and Palo Alto, � genies involved The contract year and the Cupertino, Union Sanitary District. to offer the folan October 1• The new South 1• Managers and Su lowing workshops for the first year: Y Area Consortium has chosen 2• Effectively Admin Steszors fights and Obligations 3. fManagers and Superviso s Guide �lA Dion and D• -full day ocess - iscipline 'pr 4 • Counci Avoiding Discr' full day fibers Dinner Worksho �iination Liability - 5• Effective & PlOYtmnt P - an overview of 6• Advanced Evaluation Interviewing and Selection employee relations 7• Hancilin and Discipline - half day g Disability Rehr 'half day y Conclusion; ement for Safety Members - half day Staff feels that Pert training o rapidly changes djoining con ug the Consort is a very economical g legal area ofloces which are vital Way to acquire the _ _ Yee relations. �' keeping up with the AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into between the CITY OF SARATOGA, A Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred.-to as - "City ", and the law firm of LIEBERT, CASSIDY & 'FRIERSON, A Professional Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Attorney ". WHEREAS City has the need to secure expert training and consultative services to .assist City in its relations a -nd negotia- tions with its employee organizations; and WHEREAS City has determined that no less than eleven public agencies in the Southern Bay Area have the same need and have agreed to enter into identical agreements with-Attorney; and WHEREAS Attorney is specially experienced and qualified to perform the special services desired by the City and is willing to perform such services; NOW, THEREFORE, City and Attorney agree as follows: Attornev's Services During the year beginning October 1, 1987, Attorney will provide the following services to City (and the other aforesaid public agencies): 1. Five days of group training workshops covering such employment relations subjects as negotiation strategies, employment discrimination and affirmative action, employment relations from the perspective of elected officials, grievance and discipline administration for supervisors and managers, planning for and .responding to concerted job actions, current court, administrative and legislative developments in the personnel relations .area, etc., with the specific subjects covered and lengths of individual workshop presentations to be determined by the City and the other said local agencies; 2. Availability of Attorney on an unlimited basis,. for City I o consult by telephone. 3. Providing of a monthly newsletter covering employment relations developments. Fee: Attorney will provide these special services to City for a fee of One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty -Five Dollars ($1,365.00) payable in one payment on or before October 1, 1987, or, at option of City, one -half on or before October 1,. 1987, and the remaining one -half on or before February 1, 1988. Said fee will cover Attorney's time in .providing said training and consultative services. Additional Services: Attorney shall, as and when requested by City, make itself available to City to provide- representational and other employ- ment relations services at its normal hourly fees. Independent Contractor: It is understood and agreed that Attorney is and shall remain an independent contractor under this Agreement. Term: The term of this Agreement is twelve (12) months commencing October 1, 1987. The term may be extended for additional periods of time by the written consent of the parties. Condition Precedent: It is understood and agreed that the parties' aforesaid rights and obligations are contingent on no less than. eleven (11) local agency employers entering into a substantially identical - Agreement with Attorney on or about October 1, 1987. Dated: LIEB'ERT, CASS DY & FRIERSON A Professiona l Corporation II A M DATED: CITY OF SARATOGA A Municipal Corporation By SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: V 47) AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 7, 1987 CITY MGR APPROVAL ` ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maintenance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: HAKONE DONATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Recommended Motions Accept and acknowledge by way of letter from the Mayor, a donation of $25.00 to Hakone Gardens from Mark and Anna Stickel of Mountian View. Report_ Summary Mark and Anna Stickel of Mountain View donate Gardens. A copy of the letter of acknowledgement been forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal_ Impact Attachments Letter of acknowledgement. Motion & Vote Staff recommendation 5 -0. d $25.00 to Hakone and the check have M SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 ^ t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0.a AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: October 7. 1987 ORI6INATING DEPT.: Plannina CITY M6R. APPROVAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: UP -87 -012; Broner, 12246 Via Roncole - Appeal of Planning Commission decision granting a conditional use permit for a glass pool enclosure to be located within the required rear yard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the planning Commission approving the conditional use permit (UP -87 -012). Report Summary: 1. On July 8, 1987, and again on August 12, 1987, the Planning Commission considered a conditional use permit for a glass pool enclosure to be located within the required rear yard. By a 3 -1 vote, the use permit was granted allowing the enclosure to be 6 ft. from the rear property line and 4 ft. from the left side property line. 2. On August 21, 1987, the Commission's action was appealed by Ms. Lavadia Palmer. 3. The three grounds for the appeal were adequately addressed by the Planning Commission during its proceedings. The application was approved in accordance with City Code and was appropriately conditioned. Fiscal Imaacta: N/A Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. Motion and Vote: Appeal denied 3 -2. Staff Report to City Council dated 10/7/87 Appeal application dated 8/21/87 Resolution UP -87 -012, approved 8/12/87 Planning Commission minutes, 7/8/87, & 8/12/87 Reports to the Planning Commission Plans MEMORHHDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: UP -87 -012; Bronner, 12246 Uia ning Commission decision to grant a allowing a pool enclosure to be located yard. --------------------------------- - - - - -- H. Background. DATE 1D17/.B7 Roncole - Hppeal of Plan - conditional use permit within the required rear On July 8, 1967, the Planning Commission considered a condi- tional use permit to allow an accessory structure within the required side and rear yards, pursuant to Section 15- 80.030 Cd)C1 >. The proposed accessory structure is a glass and metal pool enclosure designed to cover an existing pool. Hs reflected in the minutes from that meeting {attached), the Planning Commission continued the item to allow the appli- cants the opportunity to revise their plans to address the concerns raised at the meeting. The applicant submitted revised plans showing a reduction in the size and height of the enclosure, an increase in the side and rear setbacks, and the addition of a gutter and down spout system to control drainage. Ht the subsequent meeting on August 12, the Commi- ssion was able to make the required findings and approved the conditional use permit by a vote of 3 to 1. B. Hnalvsis of Hnaeal. There are essentially 3 issues raised by the appellant as stated in the attached appeal application. These have to do generally with: 1) code compliance, 2> aesthetic impact, and 3) disruption of drainage. 1> Code Compliance - The appellant claims that the pool enclosure is an "illegal" structure in that it does not comply with the 10ft. minimum side setback for the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. However, through the granting of a use permit, the Planning Commission has the authority to modify the setback requirements for accessory struc- tures (section 15- 80.030K >. In this case, the side set- back was modified to allow a minimum of 4 ft., but in all other respects the project complies with the applicable standards of the zoning ordinance. 2) Aesthetic Impacts - The findings the appellant refers to are those required to approve a design review appli- cation. At issue here is the granting of a use permit which requires a completely different set of findings. While not a required finding in this case, the Planning Commission discussed the issue of aesthetic impact and decided that the pool enclosure would not cause a negative impact since it is only 8 ft. in height as allowed by code (section 15- 80.030 (d)(1)), and landscape screening will be required as a condition of approval to soften the appearance of the enclosure. 3) Drainage - The appellant claims that the new structure will cause significant drainage problems, possibly resul- ting in damage to her property. The Commission felt that with the revision of the plans to include a gutter and down spout system, the applicant had sufficiently addres- sed this issue. C. Conclusion /Staff Recommendation. The issues raised by the appellant were adequately addressed by the Planning Commission in the course of its deliberation. Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission by approving UP -87- 012. Y c uek Hsia, Director bA Date Receive Hearing DagW'77— Fee .: l�o,vv . CITY USE ONL' APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: . Address: v�o1�i R19 �wD Lf Telephone: (;/�,9) �S7- q, 3� MY 234-3-76 u Name of Applicant: R /✓t P Project File No. :' Project Address:. Project Description: Decision Being Appealed: J55S ), Vd C- -z— ,A= /(? Grounds for the,-Appeal (Letter may be attached): :s 7__1_/9 cAl 6-D / ,�F7 _16,° ppellant s Signature *Please do not.si.gn this application until it is presented,at the .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 WITI•ITN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DA'rE OF THE DEC S 0, . GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL This is an illegal structure. It's too close to my property and could possibly create a drainage problem. Water . run-of f could flood my property. Proposed plants will take years to hide this large structure which will be visable from anywhere in my backyard and ruin the.view from my deck (which extends from my kitchen, breakfast nook, and diningroom). In the FINDINGS, from your Planning Commission pamphlet, there are six requirements that are supposed to be. met. 'This-proposed structure . doesn't meet most of them. " 4 For example: „r b .,"I. .Avoids unreasonable interference w.ith�views'or'privacy. This structure infringes on my privacy and WJ-11. dominate the view from my backyard. 2. Preserves the natural landscape..' -.:No backyard can accoma -- date a structure of this size. .3. Minimizes.the perception of excessive bulk. With 2 feet of it higher.than the fence, and my property-2 feet lower than theirs, it will look even larger from my side of the fence. Especially since., it's too close to the fence. (4 feet instead of the 10 feet that it should be if it was Legal.) 4 Is compatible in bulk and height with surrounding structures. - see explanation of number 3.. .5. Incorporates current grading and erosion control standards. - Since my property.is 2 feet.lower, when they forgot and left a hose running, I had wate'r.running down the. ide of my house out the front gate to the street. This structure will have water run -off .that would normally be collected in the'pool--during a heavy rainstorm which could possibly flood.my backyard and do damage. to my house especially the,basement recreation. room and the foundation of my _ house: The plastic.. roHout.drains,"as described by the salesman, are suppose to be directed -to the other side of the property and water diverted down another neighbor's driveway. The.drawing shows them only directing water away from the s 'tructure, but no proposed drain, only no downspout.on the side of -my property. . 6: Preserves natural contours. -.Glass and metal natural? ' Concfusion: It's too large, it's too close to my property, and I don't want to be flooded and have my property damaged. r r RESOLUTION NO. UP -87 -012 A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARAT06A APPROVING USE PERMIT BRONER - 12246 VIA RONCOLE WHEREAS, The' City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit Approval of plane to construct a pool enclosure within the required rear yard; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of'proof required to support his said application, WHEREAS The Planning Commission finds: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of t -he Zoning Ordinance and' the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use -and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts. (c) That the propo ed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mr. & Mrs.' Broner for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. See Exhibit A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the C.ity of Saratoga Planning Commission, State Of California, this 12th day of August 19.87 , by the following vote: AYES: Chair Harris, Commissioners Burger, Clay NOES: Commissioner Tucker ABSENT: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried OK:;C,� Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST (/ Sec a ary, Planning Commission 11P -87 -012; 12246 Via Roncole EXHIBIT A I. Applicant sha]J sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Use must be inaugurated or construction commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 3. Construction plans shall be in substantial compliance with those approved by the Planning Commission -on August 12, 1987. 4. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. S. Drainage to be conducted away from the property to the north. Drainage plan to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 6. Landscape plan with evergreen trees for screening along the northerly property line to be approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. Screening per approved plan to be installed prior to final inspection. I The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 8, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 1 Page 9 17. UP -87 -012 Broner, 12246 Via Roncole, request for a conditional use permit to allow a glass pool enclosure to be located within the required rear yard, 5 ft. from the rear property line and 1 ft. from the left side in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, July 8, 1987. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:46 P.M. Mr. Preston Hill, Representative of the Applicants, stated that Mr. Broner had met with his builder and would address compliance.with all the requirements of the Code with the exception of an encroachment at one point of the proposed structure. He added that the request would not result in an intensification of use,since the Applicant, due to health, wished to use his pool for non - weight bearing exercise; thus the Applicant would be removing several amenities of the pool such as the diving board. Mr. Maurice Broner, Applicant, reviewed his health needs which require non - weight bearing exercise, the building materials of the proposed structure and asked for consideration of the following: - Parcel was 10,829 sq. ft. in the R -1- ,10,000 - Accessory structure will not reduce any landscaped area nor increase impervious coverage - Open area was and would remain landscaped and/or planted -with a garden - No grading would be required - The pool structure would replace an existing 8 ft. privacy fence Mr. Mike Louthan, Contractor, reviewed the dimensions of the structure, the proposed design which would reduce the size of the structure and answered questions addressed. Ms. Lavadia Palmer, 12234 Via Roncole, Saratoga, felt her rights were being denied by the encroachment of the proposed structure into the side yard setback. She noted that her property was a foot or two lower than the Broner's yard and added that there would be serious drainage problems from water flowing off the roof of the pool cover and into her property; examples were cited of other drainage and flooding problems. Mr. Louthan confirmed that this structure was designed with a gutter system and downspouts could be designed to direct the water away from Ms. Palmer's property. . Commissioner Tucker, noting that the plans had been redrawn and not made available to the Commission for review, asked that this Item be continued; Applicants were not opposed to a Continuance. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that the Applicants address the following: - Increase the setback at the location adjacent to Ms. Palmer's property - Plans for gutter and downspout system Commissioner Burger concurred with the above. The Public Hearing remained open; UP -87 -012 to be Continued to August 12, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 AUGUST 12, 1987 8. UP -87 -012 Broner, 12246 Via Roncole, request fora conditional use permit to allow a glass pool enclosure to be located within the required rear yard, 5 ft. from the rear property line and 1 ft. from the left side in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 8,. 1987. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- -------------- Planning Director Hsia reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of August 12, 1987.' Commissioner Clay questioned whether there was input from the neighbors regarding encroachment into the side and rear yard setbacks. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Preston Hill, Representing the Applicants, reviewed the efforts of the Applicants to fit the pool enclosure structure to the site; concerns raised on adequate drainage had been addressed Mrs. Lavadia Palmer, 12234 Via Roncole, Saratoga, stated that salesmen for the pool enclosure could not guarantee that there would be no drainage onto her property and salesmen suggested she build a trench on her property. She objected to the expense that would be incurred and expressed concerns regarding potential damage to her property from drainage. Mr. Hill responded that Staff had adequately addressed the problem of drainage. Mr. Maurice Broner, Applicant, stated that the drainage system had been designed so that run off would.be to the side opposite of Mrs. Palmer's property. Planner Caldwell stated that plans were rcviewcd by the Chief Building Inspector, Staff was confident that the system as proposed would control drainage on the property and direct it toward the south and to a storm drain. She cited Building Code requirements that drainage had to be controlled on site. The City Attorney advised that the Commission could rely upon the opinion of the City Engineer as to whether the drainage system was adequate; however, if damage occurred to the adjacent property it would be the responsibility of the Applicant, not the City. If further verification was desired by the Commission, approval could be further conditioned. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:27 P.M. Passed 4 -0. In response to Chairwoman Harris' request, the City Attorney reviewed the actions available to the Commission, concerns raised by neighbors and additional conditions of approval that could be imposed. He noted that City Engineering Staff had reviewed the plans for an accessory structure and were satisfied that drainage would be directed away from adjacent properties. The height, reduced to 8 ft., would meet requirements regarding accessory structures. Commissioner Burger felt the Applicant had made a good faith effort to respond to concerns voiced, namely, a reduction in height and square footage; furthermore, only one corner of the pool enclosure encroached into the setback. The drainage had been addressed BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF UP -87 -012. Commissioner Tucker felt that drainage was not the only issue; impacting Mrs. Palmer's view was also a issue. She would not vote favorably on this Application and asked that the Commission consider requiring additional screening to prevent.visual impact. Chairwoman Harris stated she would second the Motion with the following Conditions: Further review by the City Engineer Additional screening be required as suggested above. BURGERIHARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF UP -87 -012 AS AMENDED. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO REQUIRE FURTHER REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING. Passed 3 -1, Commissioner Tucker opposed. Mr. Preston confirmed that the screening required would be landscape screening 7 TORT TO PLANNING COMM I S.S IO�c� UP -87 -012 MR. & MRS. BRONER .12246 VIA RONCOLE POOL ENCLOSURE i as. Ca) 3u. -1z -sa • IZ7-97 `' • !i- 3610. 12 -30 • •C2) Iz��( -c=al, -��c•1z -a► 12533 11 36(0-12-541) 12361 CZ n TA Z N 1 LV i zo�a $P2 (os Pus FRoSPEC<i dpAD osla(4+ ol3q ;!a(6) 2070p(7 12050 G z • p, 11015 - ?3 31.6-z3 N& -Z3 023• 3&6-Zz- 'A) W lE') 31x6 -22 04 05 04 19 izos ru �zotL 2j j07ff 2or�10 o7NC9 20703( _ "118 2 1206.3 .2! 1.6'23 4.23 ,o o♦ 366'23- og 0 12126 C 2.0.540 96b -.22 2o555 aWE HILLSHP&C ! � NrL•?�L 12041 1+-(s Z1 iii -L2 -2L WAY 1'7 2 07 32 20720 Zo70o 12144 C4 07fQ Jbi-2J 346-=3 36� 20 3"-22 21 36( ---21 0 _a (>r . 1 11 14 2/1.2 C 3G�. -iz 3" -z C1� ((t) Ci0) (11) 10 34V -22 20 07 08 �' - 12157 I4 ; Cj11 " 2°'11 K•Zd-2L /slit 20611(l 0171 2! 64 e717� 366.22 3" -2Z '('27 �4 6 2r 2 0==• tow ( A Aa 122IOp( 3L(.- Zo. 3(. 2 yea0 - 19 ►2 to614 (14) W. -zz- 10 - 24 2a- 2�.C.1 r. r Q 4 t.647- 4C1 69 0640 ;� -22 i0 �3tS =` c1♦J c1T) \ 3r 6% • 'Sw.- 9K -1 Z 31 °I 03 O4 O o zo i rho ai c( Im SEF 5►Ltr' 16 a, to rt (1 22,5 < nhv 4 •'b. :�,7 ♦! (U cry n J 3f.f. -It -49 47 IL3o� dl) . as. Ca) 3u. -1z -sa • IZ7-97 `' • !i- 3610. 12 -30 • •C2) Iz��( -c=al, -��c•1z -a► 12533 11 36(0-12-541) 12361 CZ n TA Z N 1 LV i zo�a $P2 (os REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lisa Welge DATE: August 12, 19.87 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -87 -012; 12246 Via Roncole APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Broner APN: 3.66 -23 -052 PROJECT OESCRI'PTION: Pursuant to Section 15- 80.030(d) -(1), the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure (pool enclosure) within the .required side and rear yards i.n the R -1 -10 „000 zoning district. This item is continued from the July 8, 1987 regular meeting. ISSUES: The revised propo,sal calls for modification to only one standard (the 10 ft. side setback: requirement), as oppo:sed to the three (3) requested in the initial proposal. The proposed side setback has been increased to 4 ft. which is rea- sonable given that placement of the pool enclosure is limited by the location of the existing pool. The issue of drainage has been addressed by.the inclusion o-f gutters, downspouts and directional tubes to divert drainage away from the adjacent property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve UP -87 -012. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution UP -87 -012 2. Technical Informa..tion and Staff Analysis 3. Minutes from July 8, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting 4. Applican.t's Letter S. Plans LW /dsc C C TECHNICAL.INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETIN6: August 12, 1987 A N: 366 -23 -0.52 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: U.P -87 -012; 12246 Via Roncole ACTION REQUESTED: A conditional use permit for an accessory structure (pool enclosure) within the side and rear yards.. APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Bron'er PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED:. Zoning clearance, building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically exempt ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10, Residential - Medium Density EXISTING LAND USE: One -story single family home SURROUNDJNG LAND USES:. One and two -story single family homes PARCEL SIZE: 10,829 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Level Lot developed, with one story home, pool and.landscaping, SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: None PROPOSED SETBACKS_: AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level Front: N/A Rear: 6 ft. Left Side: 4 ft. Right Side: HIS ft. HEIGHT: 8 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 37.5% (4,017 sq. ft.) SIZE OF'_STRUCTVRE: Pool Enclosure: 640 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of- the zoning ordinance in that a modification to the side setback requirement is requested. MATERIALS & COLORS.PROPOSED: Glass with bronzed framing C UP -8.7 -012; 12246 Via Roncole STAFF ANALYSIS A. Proposal The applicants are proposing to build a 640 sq. N. glass pool enclosure within the required side and rear yards on a 10,629 sq. ft. lot in the R -1 -10 „000 zoning dis-trict. The structure is proposed to be B ft. in height and located 4 ft. from the left (northeast) side property line and 6 ft.. from the ream (southeast) property line. Pursuant to Section 1S- 80.030(k), the applicants are requesting a modification to the I'm ft. required side yard setback for the structure. (1S- 12.090) (4 ft. is proposed). The previous submittal involved modifications to these standards as well: The 6 ft. required rear setback for enclosed accessory ,structures (1 5- 80.030(d) (1 ) ) ( 5 ft.. was proposed) ; and 2. The 8 ft. height limit for enclosed accessory structures located 6- 8 ft. from the rear property line (.Section 15- 80.030(d)(1)) (10 ft. proposed). The subject lot is level, but it is somewhat higher in elevation (2 -3 ft.) than the adjacent lot to the northeast (12.234 Via Roncole). It is developed with ,a 2,750 sq. ft., one - story home and formal landscaping the backyard is divided by an 8 ft. redwood fence which separates the house from the pool area. A 4 -5 ft. fence runs along the rear and side property lines, separating the pool area from the adjo.i.ning properties. Within this area also are two trees and some shrubs.. The trees are in the corner of the lot where the left side and rear property lines meet. B. Staff Analysis The applicants have substantially revised the plan to meet staff's and the Commi•ssion's concerns. The pool enclosure has been reduced in size (from 900 to 640 sq. ft.) so it now complies with the 6 ft. required rear setback. The height has also been reduced from 10 ft. down to the 8 ft. maximum allowed. The only modification now requested is to allow a 4 ft. left side setback where 10 ft. is the minimum required for a structure (a 1 ft. setback was previously proposed). This modification seems reasonable, given that placement of the enclosure is constrained by the location of the existing pool, which was built with the minimum pool setback allowed (6 ft.). As such, it is impossible t•o set the structure back 10 ft. and still cover the pool, which will be necessary to trap heat within the enclosure. Given the practical difficulty involved in complying with the l,m ft. side. setback, granting the modification to allow a 4 ft, setback should be considered. 2. The issue of drainage, which was raised at the previous meeting, has also been addressed. The revised plans include 6 inch gutters along teh top of the enclosure and downspouts with directional. C C UP -87 -012; 12246 Via Roncole tubes to divert the drainage away from the adjacent property to the left toward the lawn area on the right. C. Conclusion /Recommendation Approve the application. The proposal has been revised to meet the concerns previously expressed and the required findings can he made. C Cr PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 8, 1987 Page 9 PUBLIC:HEARINGS Continued 17. UP -87 -012 Broner, 12246 Via Roncole, request for a conditional use permit to allow - a glass pool enclosure to be located within the required rear yard, 5 ft. from the rear property line and l ft. from the left side in the R- 1- 10,000- zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ---------------------------------------- ---- - -- - -- -- - - - -- Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning DirectorHsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, July 8, 1987. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:46 P.M. Mr. Preston Hill, Representative of the Applicants, stated that Mr. Broner had met with his builder and would address compliance with -all the requirements of the Code with the exception of an encroachment at one point of the proposed structure. He added that the.request would not result.in an intensification of use since the Applicant, due to health, wished to use his pool for non- weight bearing exercise; thus the Applicant would be removing several amenities of the pool such as the diving board. Mr. Maurice Broner, Applicant, reviewed his health needs•which require non- weight bearing exercise, the building materials of the proposed structure and.asked for consideration of the following: - Parcel was 10,829 sq. ft. in the R -1- ,10,000 - Accessory structure will not reduce any landscaped area nor increase impervious coverage - Open area was and would remain landscaped and/or planted with a garden - No grading would be required - The pool structure would replace an existing 8 ft. privacy fence Mr. Mike Louthan, Contractor, reviewed the dimensions of the structure, the proposed design which would reduce the size of the structure and answered questions addressed. Ms. Lavadia Palmer, 12234 Via Roncole, Saratoga, felt her rights were being denied by the encroachment of the proposed structure into the side yard setback. She noted that her property was a foot or two lower than the Broner's yard and added that there would be serious drainage problems from water flowing off the roof of the pool cover and into her property; examples were cited of other drainage, and, flooding problems. Mr. Louthan confirmed. that this structure•was designed with a gutter system and downspouts could be designed to direct the water away from Ms. Palmer's property. Commissioner Tucker, noting that the plans had been redrawn and not made available to the Commission for review, asked that this Item be continued; Applicants were not opposed to a Continuance. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that the Applicants address the following: - Increase the: setback atthe location adjacent to Ms. Palmer's property - Plans for gutter and downspout system Commissioner Burger'concurred with the above. The Public Hearing remained open; UP -87 =012 to be Continued to August 12, 1987. rte_ - -- —_ - - - -- _ -- -- — :... - -- —_- _- - .—;- — . _ _ -. _ -� : -- - -� •- — _ . �_ — - - -- • -- - _` — Mayo Clinic Physical Medicine . and Rehabilitation 3- 976 -737 Mr. Maurice A. Broner TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: C Rochester, Minnesota 55905 Telephone 507 284 -2511 July 30, 1987 RECIEivEo AUG 5 19v PLANNING DEPT. This letter is in regards to Mr. Maurice A. Broner who was evaluated here at the Mayo Clinic by the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation on July 29, 1987, regarding treatment of his peripheral neuropathy and plantar fascitis. After determining the diagnosis,, it was our opinion that the patient would require a comprehensive physical therapy program which would include recon- ditioning exercises in the form of swimming. The patient informed me that he was able to use his swimming pool in the summer, but it was too cold in the winter. It is our opinion that it is medically necessary that Mr. Broner be able to use his swimming pool in a relatively climat.e.co.n.tr.oll.ed environment on a year -round basis. This is essential for his mediFceal" weTl`bei ng- as he requires a reconditioning exercise program for his cardiovascular health as well as his musculoskeletal health. . If you have any questions, please feel free to inquiry with us. Thank you very much. Btad 4 rom, M.D. Lloyd T.' o d, M.D. BHH /st .REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lisa Wedge DATE: July 8, 1987 APPLICATION NO, & LOCATION': UP=87 -012; 12246 Via Roncole APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Broner APN: 366 -23 -052 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to Section 15- R0.03W d)(1), the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure (pool enclosure) within the required side and rear yards in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The structure will be located 1 ft. from the left (northeast) property line (10' required) and 5 ft. from the rear (6' required) property line, and will be '10 ft. i.n height (8' allowed). The request involves moddfic,ation of the side and rear setback requirements and the height limit for acce-s_sory structures, pursuant to Section 15- 80.030(k). ISSUES: The proposed use does not comply with all applicable provisions of the zoning code, since modifications to 3 standards are requested. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the purposes of the R -1 zone in that it creates a congested situation where adequate light, air and open space are not preserved. Also, it will be visible from adjacent properties due to its height and proximity to the property lines, and the lack of adequate screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATI'ON:. Deny UP -87 -012. If the Planning Commission can make the findings and wishes to approve the application, the Resolution and conditions are attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Techn =ical Information and Staff Analysis 2. Resolution UP -87 -012 3. Plans LW /dsc i C TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: July 8, 1987 APN: 3.GG -23 -052 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION.: UP -87-012; 12246 Via Roncole ACTION REQUESTED: A conditional use permit for an accessory structure. (pool enclosure) within the side and rear yards. APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. B.roner PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Zoning clearance, building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically exempt ' ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10, Residential - Medium Density EXISTING LAND USE: One -story single family home SURROUNDING LAND USES: One and two -story single family homes PARCEL SIZE: 10,8219 sq.' ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Level lot developed with one story home, pool and .landscaping. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE': Level AVERAGE S "ITE SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: None PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: N/A Rear: 5 ft. Left Side: 1 ft. Right Side: 25..S ft. HEIGHT: 10 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 39.5% (4,277 sq. ft.) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Pool Enclosure: 900 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and f standards of the zoning ordinance in that modifications to the side and rear setbacks and the height limitation are requested. 1 MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Glass with bronzed framing F , UP -87 -012; 12246 Via Ro.ncole STAFF ANALYSIS A. Proposal The applicants are proposing to build a 900 sq. ft glass pool enclosure within the required side and rear yards on a 10,829 sq. ft. lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. The structure is proposed to be 10 ft. in height and located 1 ft, from the left (northeast) side property line and 5 ft. from the rear (s,outheast) property line. Pursuant to Section 15- 80.030(k.), the applicants are requesting modifications to the following s't,andards: 1. The 10 f-t. required side yard setback for the district (15- 12.090) (1 ft. proposed); 2. The 6 ft. required rear setback for enclosed accessory structures (IS-80.030'(d)(1)) (S ft. prop,osed ); and 3. The 8 ft. height limit for enclosed accessory structures located 6- 8 ft. from the rear property line (Section 15- 80.030(d)(1)) (10 ft. proposed). The subject lot is level, but it is somewhat higher in elevation (2 -3 ft.) than the adjacent lot to the northeast (12234 Via Roncol.e). It is developed with a 2,750 sq. ft., one -story home and formal landscaping. "rhe backyard is divided by an 8 ft. redwood fence which separates the house from the pool area-. A 4 -5 ft. fence runs along the rear and side property lines, separating the pool area from the adjoining properties: Within this area also are two trees and some shrubs. The trees are in the corner of the lot where the left side and rear property lines meet. B. Staff Analysis. 1. Staff is unable to make "the fi.nding that the project complies with all the appiicabl;e provisions of the zoning code. As described above, the application involves modification o•f 3 5t- andards - the rear and side setbacks and the height limitation,. With regard to the side property line, the structure will only be 1 ft. from the fence, w.hic,h contributes to a perception of crowding. Furthermore, the 10 ft_. high structure will be visible from adjacent properties, since the subject property is higher in elevation, and neither the fence along the property lines nor landscaping will provide adequate, screening. The cement deck of the swimming pool extends almo,st right up to the fence on the northeast side, leaving little or no room for planting. Whil -e it is true that the number of windows facing the subject lot on the adjacent homes is minimal and none of them will -look right at the new pool enclosure,. nevertheless, t:he structure will be seen easily from either yard. Obviously, the applicant is restricted as to where to locate the pool enclosure, since it must fit over the existing pool. However, modification of 3 standards to allow this is not reasonable. If the structure is to be allowed at all; staff would recommend that I UP -87 =012; 12246 Via Roncole it be reduced i.n size so that the 6 ft. rear setback at least could be maintained. Due to the placement of the pool, it would be difficult to increase the 1 ft. side setback, but if it can be done, staff would also recommend this. Finally, the height should be reduced to 8 ft. to comply with the standard. The applicant has indicated that it may be possible to revise the plan so that the 6 ft. rear setback is observed, and a reduction in height to 8 ft.. is also possible. 2• The location of the proposed use is also somewhat contrary to the purposes of the R -1 district in that adequate light„ air and open space is not preserved. Such a large glass and metal structure in an already fully developed back yard (pool, 8 ft. fence, patio) crea,te.s a congested situation that is not in keeping with the residential character o,f Saratoga. Again; perhaps if the size and height of the structure could be reduced as suggested, this perception of density could be alleviated. 3. The proposed pool enclosure is 900 sq.. ft. While it is considered a "structure" by definition (1S- 06.670), it is not calculated as "floor area" according to Section 15- 06.280 in that it certainly is not habitable. As such, staff has considered it as coverage, but has not included it in a calculation of total floor area for the lot. If the Planning Commission feels it is appropriate to do so, design review of the structure would be required, since the total .floor area would exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. floor area standard for the R- 1- 10,000 district (2,750 sq. ft. house + 900 sq. ft. pool enclosure = 3,6S0 sq. ft.) C. COnclUSion /Recommendation Staff is unable to make the findings that. the use complies with all applicable provisionslof the City Code nor is it consistent with the purposes of the R-1 distri,ct. As such, staff recommends denial. However, if the Planning Commission can make the required findings, the Resolution and conditions of approval are attached. r RESOLUTION NO. UP -67 -012 A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT - BROKER - _12746 VIA RONCOLE WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit Approval of plans to construct a pool enclosure within the required rear yard; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, WHEREAS The Planning Commission finds: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed' location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Mr. & Mrs. Br.oner for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. See Exhibit A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of July 19 87 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: r' Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Plann.i.ng Commission UP -87 -012; 12246 Via Ronco.le EXHIBIT A 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Use must be inaugurated or construction commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 3. Construction plans shal1 be in substantial compliance with those approved by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1987. 4. Prior to s- ubm:ittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 5. Height of structure shall not exceed 8 feet. 6. Total size of the pool enclosure shall not exceed 750 sq. ft. (if Planning Commission determines that the pool enclosure should be considered floor area). 7. The pool enclosure shall maint:ain.a minimum 6 ft. setback from the rear property line. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. AGENDA ITEM M DATE: October 7. 1987 DEPARTMENT: Plannina CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: OR -87 -052, UP -87 -011 - Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way - Appeal of Planning Commission decision approving design review and use permit applications to construct 8 townhouse units and a 1,251 sq. ft. retail building on a 43,500 sq. ft. parcel in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission approving DR -87 -052, UP -87 -011. SUMMARY: 1. On July 22 and August 26, 1987, the Planning Commission considered a request for design review and use permit approvals of plans to construct 8 townhouse units (in two buildings) and a 1,251 sq. ft. retail building on a 43,500 sq. ft. site located in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. 2. On August 26, 1987, the Planning Commission voted 4 -1 -1 to approve both applications. On September 6, 1987, Mr. William Carlson, representing the Saratoga Village Association, appealed the Commission's action. 3. The grounds for the appeal were addressed by the Planning Commission in the course of its deliberations. The Planning Commission was able to make the required design review and use permit findings and appropriately conditioned the approvals. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report to the City Council 2. Resolution OR -87 -052 3. Resolution UP -67 -011 4. Appeal letter dated 9/8/87 5. Planning Commission minutes 6/26/87, 7/22/87 6. Report to the Planning Commission MOTION AND ACTION: Appeal denied 5 -0. uglyw o0 O&MAN900Z 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: October 7, 1987 FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: DR -87 -052, UP -87 -011 - Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way Appeal of Planning Commission decision approving design review and use permit applications to construct 8 townhouse units and a 1,251 sq. ft- retail building on a 43,500 sq. ft- parcel in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. A. BACKGROUND On July 22, 1987, the Planning Commission first considered a request for design review (DR -87 -052) and use permit (UP -87 -011) approvals of plans to construct 8 townhouse units and a 1,251 sq. ft. retail building on a 43,500 sq. ft. parcel in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. At that meeting, the Plan- ning Commission reached a consensus on two main issues: (1) that the height of the townhouse units should be reduced and, (2) that the elevations of the townhouse units and the retail building should be redesigned to incorporate existing design elements found in the Village. In addition, the Commission questioned whether access to the project should be permitted from Big Basin Way. Both the design review and use permit applications were continued to the August 26, 1987; regular Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to address the above con- cerns. At the August 26, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented revised plans showing a reduction in the height of the townhouse units at the each end of the two buildings to 30 ft. 9 in. (the interior units remained at 33 ft. 6 in. in height). In addition, the elevations of the townhouse units and retail building were revised to incorporate design features that are currently found in the Village. Consequently, the Planning Com- mission was able to make the required design review and use permit findings and voted 4 -1 -1 to approve both applications. On September 8, 1987, the appellant, William Carlson representing the Saratoga Village Association appealed the Planning Commis- sion's action. B. ANALYSIS OF APPEAL In his appeal letter, the appellant argues that the residential use "is not appropriate in the commercial zone" and that "there should be at least 25,000 sq. ft." of commercial space on site. The Planning Commission considered similar concerns in their deliberations of the project and found in making the use permit findings that the proposed mixture of residential and commercial uses was appropriate and consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Additionally, the appellant expresses a concern regarding the proposed access to the project. Mr. Carlson states that "no vehicular crossings of sidewalks" should occur and questions whether if "access is obtained through the adjacent parking district could 4th Street handle the additional traffic ?" With regards to the first point, although the recently adopted Village Plan suggests minimizing the number of accessways to and from Big Basin Way so as not to interrupt the flow of pedestrian and vehicular movement along that street, the plan does not imply that accessways should be prohibited as the appellant suggests. In this case, dual ingress /egress points were required by the Saratoga Fire District as a way to ensure adequate access to the site in case of an emergency. Lastly, in its review of the project, staff determined that traffic generated as part of the proposal would not have a significant or adverse impact. There- fore, if ingress /egress to the project was prohibited along Big Basin Way, and channeled through Parking District #1 to 4th Street, the traffic impact on that street would be negligible. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal by affirming the decision of the Planning Commission approving DR -87 -052 and UP -87 -011. Yuchuek Hsia, Director N Design Review RESOLUTION NO.DR -87 -052 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga P'lanning Commission has received an application for design review approval of 8 townhouse units and a 1251 sq, ft. commercial building at 14599 Big Basin Way. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a °fter careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings„ plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Navai et al for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions -: 1. See Exhibit A. .PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Sara't:oga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26 day of August 19 87 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Harris, Commissioners Guch„ Siegfried & Clay NOES: Commissioner Tucker ABSENT: Commissioner Burger Abstaining: Commissioner Kolstad Ct ATT Sec etary, Planning Commission Planning Commission 14599 Big Basin Way DR -87 -052 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval 1. The owner shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. 2. Use must be inaugurated or construction commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 3. Construction plans shall be in substantial compliance with those approved by the Planning Commisai.on on 8/26/87. 4. Prior to submittal for building or grading permits, a zoning clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. S. Height of the 4 townhouse units a't the ends of the two buildings sha.l.l not exceed 30 ft. 9 in. i "n height as measured pursuant to City Code Section 1S- 06.340. The remaining 4 units shall not exceed 33' 6" in height. G. Height of the commercial building shal_1 not exceed 20 ft. in height as measured pursuant to City Code Section 15- 06.340. 7.• Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Department for review and approval. a. Landscaping and irrigation plans -for the area within the public right -of -way. _ b. Any modifications to the proposed site developmen# plans or elevations. 8. No signs are approved as part of this application. 9. With regards to the protection of the 63 in. redwood trees, the applicant shall submit development plans to the City Horticultural Consultant for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. All requirements o.f the horticultural consultant for the protection of this tree shall be followed. 10. The applicant shall comply with all of the conditions of SDR- 1485. 11. No restaurant facility approved unless adequate on -site parking is provided pursuant to City Code Section 15- 35.030. 12. Exterior colors shall comply with the conceptual Village Plan design standards and subject to staff review and approval. 13. If the house is to be demolished, the applicant shall obtain a demolition prior to demolishing any structures on site. 14599 Big Basin Way DR- 87 -0S2 14. Applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation to the Building Department and report by licensed professional to include details on: a) Geology b) Soils c) Foundation. 15. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the. Building Dept. prior to issuance o'f grading or building permits: a. Grading (limits of cuts, f'ills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfal.l, location, etc.) C. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. d. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. e. Erosion control measures f. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's. owner's name, etc. 16. Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20':210) b:. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed in each townhouse unit and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. C. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documenta't.ion relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit (City of Saratoga 16 -60). d. If an emergency access gate is deemed necessary; it shall be approved by the Saratoga fire District. 17. The applicant shall agree to join an assessment district for public facilities maintenance and /or parking which may be formed in the future. 14599 Big Basin Way DR- 87 -0S2 18. All off -site improvements shall be constructed or bonded in accordance with the Village Plan, including paving and landscaping. 19. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit of the Marsh- Metzger residence, the applicant shall document the structure by submitting photographs and a floor plan to the secretary of the Heritage Preservation Commisaion. The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted,. Signature of Applicant Date RESOLUTION NO.UP -87 -011 A RESOLUTION OF THE SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING USE PERMIT APN'S 503 -76 -1 .2.3.4.5.6.7.8 9.10; NAVAI WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Use Permit Approval of plans to construct 8 townhouse u "nits on a 43,500 sq. ft. site zoned C -V (Visitor Commercial), including proposed modifications to the code to allow the townhouse units to be 31 ft. 6 in. in height where 20 ft. is allowed and to reduce the right side yard setbacks for the town house units to 14 ft. where 20. ft., is required. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support his said application, WHEREAS The Planning Commission finds: (a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord . with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes 'of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.. (c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Navai et al for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. See Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26 day of AUQU5t 19 87 by -the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Harris, Commissioners Guch, Siegfried &',Clay NOES: Commissioner Tucker Abstaining: Commissioner Kolst d ABSENT: Commissioner Burger ' A Ch r an, Planning Commission TTE Secr t ry, Planning Commission 1.4599 Big Basin Way_ UP -87 -011 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval 1. Owner shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution, or said resolution shall be.void. 2. Use must be inaugurated or construction commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. 3.. Construction plans shall be i,,n sub,stantial compliance with those approved by the Planning Commission on 8/26/87. 4. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval for OR -87- OS2. S. The trellis structure proposed adjacent to the commercial building shall not exceed the length of that structure. 6. The applicant shall comply with the cond.it,ions set forth in SDR -1485. 7. To ensure that on site circulation is functioning properly, applicant shall request review of the use permit within two years from the date of final inspection.* The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date PC! Box 725 Saratooa,CA.95071 September 3, 190 "7 Re: 1.45,99 Bi; Basin Way,Saratoga Use permit87 -011 Saratoga City Council DR 87 -052 VfL %1 -01t Saratoga, Ca- Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen: By a unanimous vote of those present on August 26, 1937, the members of the Village Association voted to appeal the decision of the Panning Commission approvin.- a 1250 sq. ft, commercial buildin- and eight condo units on the above property. For the following reasons we believe the decision should be over.`urned by the City Council: 1. The condo use is not appropriate in the commercial zone. For many years the retailers have been asking for more retail zoning so the retail area would be enlarged, hence more shops, more variety, more shoppers. There is a limited supply of commercial land along Big Basin Way, we believe it should be used for commercial /retail purposes. ,2. The 1250 sq. ft. commercial buildin3, as shown on the map, is -much too small for the site. To make an impression as a retail development there should be at least 25,000 sq. ft—of commercial buildin -s. 3- 1'AW.kCshould be no vehicular crossings of sidewalks. This is in direct conflict with the approved Village Plan concept as approved by the City Council on I•;ay 20, 1987. There also could be legal problems if a person were injured when hit on the sidewalk.. 4. If access is obtained through the adjacent parking district;( for condos) could 4th Street handle the additional traffic? Enclosed is our check in the amount of $100. to cover the appeal process. ( o*.- 0 ,M Q_* - 4 William Carlson Pres. Village Assoc. Planning Commission Minutes 8/26/37 10. UP -87 -011 Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way, request for use permit and design review DR -87 -052 approval of plans to construct eight condominiums and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial, building in the C -V zoning districtper Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued. from July 22, 1987. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, August 26, 1987. Planner Caldwell noted thefollowing corrections: - Staff Analysis, fifth paragraph, to read, "...the height of the retaining walls will range between 3 ft. 4 in. and 1.1 ft. 7 in." - Exhibit "A ", 13., add, "The applicant shall obtain demolition permit prior to demolishing.:" - Exhibit "A ", 19., delete final phrase, "for inclusion into the Heritage Resource Inventory." The City Attorney advised the Commission regarding the rationale for deleting the above and noted that the structure had not been designated as a heritage resource and thus, there was no existing, constraint on the property requiring a listing in the Heritage Resource Inventory. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Applicant, summarized concerns expressed by the Commission at the previous hearing, as follows: - Height of townhouses, particularly as viewed from Big Basin Way - Architectural style and compatibility with the Village - Commercial/residential access to the site Revisions presented at the Study Session of August 4, 1987, included: - Reduction in height of townhouses; townhouses at 33 ft. 6 in. would have no visual impact- from Big Basin Way. She noted a correction due to an error in measuring the cross section at the 'highest point of the ridge, which would measure 33 ft. 6 in. - Revised designs showed significant architectural detail and blended with the Village style - Ingress /egress plans reviewed; posted signs would direct traffic with a review in two years She asked that Exhibit "A ", 16.d., be deleted due to revised ingress /egress traffic patterns; an exhibit was presented addressing concerns expressed by Mrs. Ann Fitzsimmons in her letter of . August 12, 1987. Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Task Force, reviewed testimony and stated that the proposed 1200 sq. ft. commercial use was insignificant. He added that vehicle ingress /egress .over pedestrian walkways was undesirable and contested the statement that a tentative map could not be changed; an example was cited. He asked that the limited area available in the Village be used for commercial development. Mr. Terry Kirk, Chairman Plaza Association; stated that tenants of the Plaza del Robles were, . opposed to the proposed development;. they favored retail use with public parking to the rear of this site. He cited parking needs peculiar to a condominium/townhouse development. Ms. Laura Mitchell, resident and business owner in Saratoga, cited inconsistencies of the proposal under consideration with the Saratoga Village Plan, namely: - Height of townhouses in excess of the allowed 25 ft. - Ingress /egress violations on Big, Basin Way - Visibility of parking from Big Basin Way Mr. Rankin added that the area in question had been predominately zoned visitor /commercial. Ms. Jackie Welch, 20925 Jacks Rd., Saratoga, asked for further consideration of a project that she felt was not compatible with the spirit of the Saratoga Village Plan and cited her letter. Her first preference for this site would be the preservation of the Marsh - Metzger house, perhaps as a bed and breakfast; a retail use on this site was acceptable. Ms. Mary Boscoe, 14611 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, objected to the height of the proposed development and questioned the compatibility of such with the existing area. She favored < =' preservation of the historical, less intense development on this site and consideration of underground parking. Ms. Fanelli responded that the proposed project was consistent -with the Saratoga Village Plan: - Project was on a transitional parcel of property, located between commercial and residential - Village Plan called for residential use to be located above or behind commercial structures; in this, the project was consistent with the Plan - On -site parking available for both the residential and commercial use - Commercial parking was behind the building and designed to protect the street view Ms. Fanelli added that issues discussed with the Village Merchants Association and at public hearings were larger than the project under consideration, such as Parking Distric'V 3 and public rest rooms. Negotiations were in, process to attempt to relocate the Marsh - Metzger house. SIEGFRIED /GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:48 P.M. Passed 6 -0 Commissioner Siegfried understood the concerns raised by Village merchants; however, he felt that the proposal was a reasonable compromise with the various elements under consideration. The Applicant had complied with the Commission's request to redesign a commercial stucture. Commissioner Siegfried felt that due to placement of the townhouses to the rear of the site, height would not have a significant visual impact on Big Basin. Way. He was favorable to the project as proposed and felt that delaying this application for further considerations in the implementation of the Village Plan was not possible. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to a combined commercial /residential development of this site; however, she noted concern regarding adequacy of the proposed parking for residential use, the disruption of pedestrian walkways by ingress /egress of vehicles and noted consider- ation of comments made by Village Merchants. Commissioner Clay summarized comments of the public as follow s:.questions regarding the amount of commercial use, the best use of the site and ingress /egress unto Big Basin Way. He felt that compromises had been reached in the mix of commercial /residential use, height had been satisfactorily addressed due to the drop off of the rear property reducing the visual impact and use of rear ingress /egress by residents; he was favorable to the project as proposed. Commissioner Guch understood concerns regarding the ingress /egress of this site; however, emergency access had to be addressed also. She felt that parking for the commercial structure would not visually.impact Big Basin Way nor would the height of the townhouses impact the street due to the stepping down of the property. She complimented Applicants on the . architectural redesign of the project in with the Village atmosphere. Staff noted the following changes in addition to those-previously stated: - Exhibit "A" 5., to read, "Height of the four townhouse units at the ends of the buildings shall not exceed 31 ft, 9 in.in height.The remainder of the units shall not exceed 33 ft. 6 in. in height." Resolution UP -87 -011, first paragraph; height as amended above. Exhibit "A ", 16. d, add, "If an Emergency access gate is deemed necessary .... SIEGFRIED /CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF UP -87 -011, AS AMENDED. Passed 4 -1 -1, Commissioner Tucker opposed, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. . SIEGFRIED /CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -87 -052, EXHIBIT "A" AS AMENDED. Passed 4 -1 -1, Commissioner Tucker opposed, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. Chairwoman Harris added that she felt that this was the best compromise possible. Break 10:04 - 10:15 P.M. . _Planning Commission Minutes 7/22/87 10. UP -87 -011 Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way, request for use permit and design review DR -87 -052 approval of plans to construct eight condominiums and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building in the C =V zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 8, 1987. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 22, 1987, and noted the following changes in ,Exhibit B' Conditions of Approval, DR -87 -052: 12. to read, "No restaurant facility approved unless adequate on -site parking is provided..." 13. to read, "Exterior colors shall comply with the Conceptual Village Plan Design Standards and subject to staff review and approval." 17. add, d., "Gate to be approved by the Saratoga Fire District." 18. to read, "Agree to join an assessment district for public facilities maintenance and/or parking which may be formed in the future." 19. to read, "All off -site improvements shall be constructed and bonded in accordance with the Village Plan, including paving and landscaping." Planner Caldwell added that this Application was identical with the previously approved project, which had expired; however, the Heritage Preservation Commission now wished the existing home to be retained as part of the proposed development. Staff recommended approval of both the Use Permit and the Design Review application. Commissioner Tucker questioned the following: - Manner of determination the number of employee parking spaces required - Whether a study assessing traffic impacts on Big Basin Way had been completed - Ingress /egress traffic patterns to the site - Type of commercial development. proposed The Public Hearing was opened at 7:28 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Applicant, reviewed the history of this application and noted that the house had previously been determined to be structurally unsound for moving to another site; the Use Permit was then modified to allow destruction of this home. In 1980, the Use Permit and Design Review applications were evaluated, approved and modified as follows: - Number of townhouses reduced from 10 to 8 units - Both retail shop and townhomes were reduced approximately 4 ft. in height Ms. Fanelli reviewed the plans and stated that currently: - The. height of the proposed townhomes was 33 ft., where 20 ft. was allowed - Garages were placed under townhouse units due to the narrowness of the lot - Proposed three stories conformed with the Village plan - Commercial building would be at an elevation of about 513 ft., with 20 ft. at its highest point and a 10 ft. setback. - First townhouse would-be 96 ft. from Big Basin Way, with a pad of 503 ft. elevation ; impact from the street would be minimal. She rioted the Heritage Commission's review of the existing residence and added that the site had not been designated as a historical residence. Information on the historical importance of this site presented to the Commission was found to be inaccurate by the Applicants; examples were cited. Mr. Bill Carlson, President, pillage Association, stated that the Executive Board had no objection to this development. He noted concern regarding the limited ingress /egress to the' development and favored an exit on 4th Street; the Board continued to support the Village Plan and the development of Big Basin Way past 5th Street for retail/commercial use. Mr. Miles Rankin noted his active involvement in the Saratoga Village Plan and favored the. development of this property. He addressed the following concerns: - The need for more and varied commercial in the Village area - A proposed 1250 sq. ft. of commercial use of a 44,000 sq. ft. site .would not create the desired atmosphere; interruptions in commercial establishments would cancel the continuity being sought. He suggested consideration of a 50150 commercial /residential-, split as more beneficial for the Village. - Proposed parking was not to the rear of the property as promoted by the Village Plan; he` noted potential traffic hazards in backing out - Proposed driveway would cut across the sidewalk, interfering with pedestrian traffic - Proposed height of the structures - Failure to collect the in -lieu fees for parking to eliminate on -site parking Mr. Richard Tyrrell, Heritage Preservation Commission, noted that the Marsh- Metzger house was listed on the inventory of historical sites. He noted that some members of the Heritage Preservation Commission were not convinced that the house could. not be relocated. Ms. Sharon Landsness, Heritage Preservation Commission, stated that the inventory was being updated and corrected where necessary and reviewed the opinion of historian M. Oden regarding this site. She noted concern that this property would not be subject to architectural guidelines and noted potential impacts to the adjacent Irwin -King house from decisions made on this property in terms of: - Setback differences between historic /residential property and commercial/retail - Lack of a transition between historic /residential and commercial/retail - Current availability of unleased retail space in the Village Ms. Mary Boscoe, 14611 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, noted concerns regarding density and " height of the proposed condominium and added that she understood that commercial was to stop at 4th Street; in addition, the proposed commercial would be located very close to the street. She felt that this proposal would set a precedent for the Village. Mr. Frank Behnke stated that while he had no objection to the proposal, he was concerned that future condominium owners would dictate the use of Village property he owned. Ms. Anne Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, objected to the setback differential between retail /commercial and residential, the proposed retail use of this site and parking in front of the building; the above would completely obscure the historic structures. She objected . demolishing the Marsh- Metzger home due to her great interest in. historic homes. Ms. Barbara Voester, Heritage Preservation Commission, added that the site of this historic home commercial uses ended and the historic /residential area began; she asked that this transition point be retained. The Commission's decision on this issue would set a precedent. Ms. Fanelli responded that: - Parking district 6 and in lieu of fees would not serve the property in question. - Retail use without street exposure would be marginal - There was already a physical interruption in the continuity of retail - Current Applicants had already attempted to save and/or relocate the house - Fire District requirements for ingress/egress on the site dictated two exits - Bringing people to the Village to live would benefit the Village - Questions remained regarding the historic value of the home in question Ms. Fanelli responding to questions, reviewed the extensive renovation needed for the house. Mr. Herbert Quavis, Architect, detailed the extensive renovation needed, adding that there would be very little of the interior finishes left; the structure itself was a problem. 'Commissioner Burger noted that there was currently no -transition between retail /commercial and residential use in the Village. She added that old did not necessary equate, with historical; in this case, she did not feel that this structure was of historical significance and was not, favorable to incorporation of this home into the proposed development. Commissioner Guch was not favorable to intensifying commercial use on site. Commissioner Burger concurred that a small commercial building would meet the needs of a transitional use and stated that this proposal would accomplish such a transition. Both Commissioners favored .a reduction in the height proposed. Commissioner Tucker understood that the three story height was allowed to the rear of the property, wherevisual impact would be lessened. Commissioner Clay noted that his concerns were: - Automobile traffic crossing the pedestrian walkways - Questions regarding the historic preservation of this building; he suggested a compromise of incorporating the design elements of the present structure in the new building Commissioner Siegfried favored this proposal and added that the requested 33 ft. structure was 100 ft. removed from the street. The structure proposed was less impactful on adjacent:: properties than a,single, large commercial structure to the front of the property. Commissioner Guch noted reservations regarding the 33 ft. height; in addition, she asked that the parking' requirements be reviewed. Chairwoman Harris expressed concern regarding the plainness of the design for the commercial building; Ms. Fanelli responded that Victorian style design elements would be added. With regard to building height, a change in the roof style would lower the height 2 -3 ft; however, such would probably be insignificant and the Victorian flavor would be lost. Chairwoman Harris summarized the concerns of the Commission; Planner Caldwell stated that if the Commission did not wish to retain the existing structure on the property, Staff'suggested a Condition of Approval be added, to read, "Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the Marsh - Metzger residence, the Applicant will document the structure by submitting photographs and a floor plan to the Secretary of the Heritage Preservation Commission for inclusion into their resource inventory. GUCH(CLAY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON UP -87 -041 AND DR -87 -052 TO AUGUST 26, 1987, WITH A STUDY. SESSION'TO BE .HELD ON AUGUST 4. 1997. Passed 6 -0. �GITOT,Llk: fit �� ; � -O'er P 1. LA'S", FROM: Robert T.-Calkins DATE: August 26, 1987 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -87 -011, DR -87 -052; 14S99 Big Basin Way APPLICANT: Navai APN: -r- X03 -76 -1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 9,10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Sections 15- 55.070, 15- 19.050, and 15- 46.040, the applicant is requesting use permit and design review approvals of plans to construct 8 townhouse units (in two buildings) and a 1,251 sq. ft. retail building on a 43,500'sq. ft. parcel in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. This item is continued from the July 22, 1987 regular Planning Commission meeting and the August 4, 1987 Committee -of- the - Whole meeting. ,ISSUES: 1. Use Permit - At the 7/2,2/87 meeting, the Planning C'ommAssion expressed a concern over the proposed 33 ft.. height of the townhouse units. At the 8/4/87 Committee -of- the=Whole meeting, the applicant presented revised drawings stating that the height of the townhouse units had been reduced to 30 ft. 6 in. from 33 ft. However_ the revised cross section drawings submitted to staff after the C.O.W. meeting indicate that the revised height is actually 31 ft. 6 in. As such pursuant to City Code Section 15- 55.030,. the applicant requests the Planning Commission modify the height limitation for the townhouse units in a C -V zoning district from 20 ft. to 31 ft. 6 in. 2. Design Review - Pursuant to the Commiss-ion's comments at the 7/2.2/87 regular Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised the elevations of the .retail building.and the townhomes in an attempt to reflect the existing architectural style found in the Village area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In staff's opinion, the revised plans address the major concerns expressed by the Commission at the 7/22/87 meeting. Sta -.ff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution UP -87 -011 and DR- 87 -OS2-. ATTACHMENTS:- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Resolution UP -87 -011 Resolution DR-87 -052 Technical Information /Staff Analysis Correspondence received dated 8/12/87 Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/22/87 Report to Planning Commission dated 7/22/87 TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISSION MEETING: August 2.6, 1987 APN: 503-76-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -87 -011, DR -87 -052; 14599 Big Basin Way ACTION REQUESTED: Use permit and design review approval of plans to construct 8 condominimum units and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building in _ the C -V zoning district. APPLICANT: Navai PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A negative declaration was adopted when the project received tentative building site approval (SDR -1485) ZONING: C -V GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION.: RMF (Multi family Residential) EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residence SURROUNDING LAND USES: West - Single family home, East - commercial building, North - Parking District #1 PARCEL SIZE: 43,500 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The subject lot is fairly level` as it extends to the existing house, but then slopes moderately to steeply towards the rear. A large redwood tree will be preserved but the mature oak is proposed t,o be removed. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 12 -30% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1295 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 8 Ft. Fill: 175 Cu. Yds. Fil_1 Depth: 14 Ft. PROPOSED SETBACKS: Commercial Residential Front: 10 ft. Left Side: 31 ft. Front: 86 ft. Left Side: 29 ft. Rear: 336 ft. Right Side: 13 ft. Rear: 30 ft'. Right Side: 14 ft. HEIGHT: Residential Building Commercial Building 31 ft. 6 in. 16 -20 ft. STRUCTURE COVERAGE: 18.% (7,830 sq. ft.) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.: 27% (11,745 sq. ft.) SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Commercial Residential 1251 sq. ft.* 3 bedroom units: 2,457 sq. ft. 2 bedroom units: 2,142 sq. ft. include 450 sq. ft. designated as "storage area" 1111e.*, 1 UP -87 -011, DR -87 -052 14599 Big Basin Way ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the Planning Commission is being asked to modify the height and vari,ou's setback requirements of the C -V zoning district through the use permit procedure. MATERIALS &COLORS PROPOSED: Commercial Building: horizontal beveled siding exterior with a cedar shake roof Townhouse Units: 6 in, masonite beveled siding ex- terior with a cedar shake roofs -STAFF ANALYSIS This item is continued from the July 22, 1987, regular Planning Commission meeting and the August 4, 1987, Committee. -of -the Whole meeting. At the 7/22/87 meeting, a consensus was reached on two main issues; (1) that the height of the townhouse units should be reduced and, (2.) that't'he architectural design of the townhouse units and the retail building should be changed to incorporate existing design elements found in the Village, i.e. Victorian. Lastly, the Commission questioned whether access to the project should be permitted from Big Basin Way. At the 8/4/87 C.O.W. meeting, the applicant presented revised plans -showing a reduction i.n the height of the town house units to 31 ft. 6 in., and significant changes in the architectural design of both the townhoues and the retail building. The revised elevations show a; greater Victorian influence in the design of the buildings. Generally, the Commission was pleased with the design changes and the reduction in height. With regards to the access question, it was felt that access from Big Basin Way was needed, particularly for patrons of the commercial building. Ln addition, there was some discussion that perhaps a gate should be erected between where the retail use ends and the townhouses begin. The consensus was that the use permit should be reviewed by the Commission in two years so that vehicular circulation patterns could be analyzed. The s'ta•ff has added condition #7 to the Use Permit resolution to meet the above directive. One aspect of the proposal which was not discussed in the previous staff report was the height of the retaining walls that are proposed to line both sides of the property. The applicant has indicated that because of the lots severe slope and proposed gradings, the height of the retaining walls will range between 3 .ft. 4 in. and 10 ft. 8 in. The highest retaining walls will occur towards the rear of the property. While, the full height of these wal.l,s will be visible only from the interior of the site; the design is such ghat the top of the wall will be at or below the existing grade of the property to the east. As such, when viewed from the property to the west (Ms. Fitzsimmons property) no part of the retaining wall will be visible. :, -± ✓ B. Recommendation The applicant requests the Planning Commission approve a design review applications to construct 8- townhouse units ft. commercial building on a 43,500 sq. ft. lot in the C -U Use permit approval is required because the applicant residential use in the commercial district and has reques to the code relating to setbacks and height. use permit and and a 1,251 sq. zoning district. has proposed a ted modifications Staff believes that the proposed residential use is appropriate, is consistent with development objective for Area J - Village Area and is consi ;tent with the city's housing element of the G:eneral Plan. In addition, the requested modifications in the setbacks and height will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor be materi,ally injurious to properties or improvements in the immediate vic-i.nity. Also, Design Review approval is required for all proposed structures on the site. In staff's opinion, the applicant has followed the design criteria standards set forth in City Code Section 15- 46.040. Staff is recommending that the Planning. Commission approve both applications by adopting Resolutions UP -87 -011 and D,R -87 -052 and findings. N r �7 RECEIVED August 12, 1987 pU G 1 i1 1987 PLANNING DEPT. +� City of Saratoga Planning Commission r 13777 Fruitvale Avenue PLANNING DEPT. - Saratoga, Ca. 95070 re: Navai Development, "Creekside Condominiums ", 1.4599 Big Basin Way Dear Commissioners:. As-the property owner-'at 1460'S'Big Basin Way,"I have two concerns: :.(1) Egress from the proposed development,; (2) Type of building material used in construction of "fence" on the West side of the project.' With respect to egress, Creekside Condominiums would be the first property .after the curve. on Big Basin Way traveling in a -Westerly direction. Egress from the new development would be haz- ardous if cars are parked on the.street in front of the property.' Our property is .one property further West from the curve.' My daughter has lived on this property_ for nearly four years.. On several,occasions she has had near misses when-trying to make .a' left turn onto Big Basin Way from our property. If a van o.r.truck' is parked there, it is like playing Russian roulette to egress and turn left. Rather than risk it,`my daughter will frequently . turn right and comeback. Since the new development is even closer to the curve, .I do not see how it will be possible to egress and turn left onto Big Basin Way without risking life.and limb, if cars are parked ih front on the street. Since there wll.be a business in front of the new development, there will be much more activity than at the present time, thereby compounding the problem. A partial solution would be to eliminate parking on the street in front of the property;.. if this is done,' I - would .- suggest. that the parking in front of 14605 Big Basin Way also be eliminated for safety reasons: 'a It is understandable why the developer chose to put the drive- way on the West side of this property, however, the problem is not eliminated by distancing the egress from the curve. The danger can. .be lessened however, by not allowing cars to-park g park an the. street in front of.the new de:velopment.' With respect to the type of building material to be used for the wall to be erected on.the West.-side (our side) of the develop- ment, I understand it is to be of man -made material (masonry) similiar to the wall at the "Miljevch development" on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road.'.If so, I believe this,type of wall would look like a big chunk'iof cement traversing the length of the property, sort of like -a prison wall from our side. Certainly,- .a'grapestake fence or Page 2 Navai Development August 12, 1987 natural stone fence would be superior (natural, rustic) and more in keeping with.the character -of the Village and furthering its "quaint" character. I respectfully request-"the Planning Commission to consider the above. I would suggest that the Planning Commission again visit the site, particularly with respect to the egress problem. Sincerely yours, e Ann Fitz morons 13480 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95,070 867 -4231 " cc.: Stonepine Condominiums owners at 14605 & 14611 Big Basin Way. ' F 4 r ri eyY t tk•cA?e �q k't-n'z ' r. 4:.'V � ?'.1 t; �1 j: n -s NY] im 1 ilk, 19 _,- 1 y_ 1 FROM: Robert T. Calkins -DATE:, truly 22, 1987 APPLICATION NO, & LOCATION: UP -87 -011, DR -87 -052 1.4599 Big Basin Way APPLICANT: Navai APN: 503 -76 -1 ,2,;3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 -----t----------------------------------------------------------------------- PgOJ CT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Sections IS- 55.070, 15- 19.050, and 15- 46.040, the app.l.icant is requesting use permit and design review approvals of plans to construct 8 townhouse units (in two buildings) and a 1,251 sq. ft. retail building on a 43,,500 sq. ft. parcel in the C -V (V'istor Commercial,) zoning district. ISSUES: 1. Use Permit - Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 55.030, the applicant requests that the Planning C.ommi.ssi.on modify the Following code requirements: a. increase the height of the townhouse units to 33 ft. where 20 ft. is the limit. b, decrease the right side yard setback for the townhouse units to 14 ft. where- 20 f't . - i.s required. C. decrease the right side yard setback for the trellis structure adjacent to the commercial building to 1 ft. where 6 Vt. i -s required and increase the height.of this structure to 9 ft. where 8 ft. is allowed. In each case, staff believes the.requested modifications are reasonable, are in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements i'n the vicinity. In addition, staff finds that the applicant's'proposal- t.o provide residential units in a C -V zoning district meets the intent of the City's General Plan and all -of the necessary use permit findings can be made._ 2. Design Review - No maj''or issues have been, identified. Staff is able to make all of the required findings and recommends approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:' 1. Approve the applications by adopting Resolutions UP -87 -011 and DR -87 -052 and Findings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution UP -87 -011 2.. Resolution DR -87 -052 3. Technical Information, /Staff Analysis 4. Memo from Heritage Commission dated 7/16/87 5. Report from Tree Surgeon re:- 42 in:. oak 6. Letter of oppositi -ons dated 6 /25/87, 7/8/87 7. Report to City Council dated 10/06/82 re,:. TR.7178 .. �� r - - - a: .Yitii 3M1 �.. P• � � -t TECHNICAL INFORMATION /STAFF ANALYSIS COMMISS.I'ON MEETING: July 22, 1987 APN: 503 -76- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -87 -011, DR -87 -052; 14599 Big Basin Way ACTION REQUESTED: Use permit and design review approval of plans to construct 8 condominium units and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building in the C -V zoning district. APPLICANT: Navai ` PROPERTY OWNER: Same OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED /REQUIRED: Building permits ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A negative declaration was adopted when the project received tentative building site approval (SDR- 1485) ZONING: C -V GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION': RMF (Multi family Residential) EXISTING LAND USE: Single family residence SURROUNDING LAND USES: West - Single f=amily home, East - commercial building, North - Parking District #1 PARCEL SIZE.: 43,500 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The subject lot is fairly level as it extends to the ekisting house, but t=hen slopes moderately to steeply towards the rear. A large redwood tree will be preserved but the mature oak is proposed to be removed. SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 12 -30% AVERAGE SIT GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 1295 Cu. Yds. Cut Fill: 175 Cu. Yds.' Fill PROPOSED SETBACKS: Commercial Front: 1'0 ft. Left Side: 31 ft-. Front: Rear: 336 ft. Right Side: 1.3 f't. Rear: E SLOPE: Depth: Depth: esi 86 ft. 30 ft. 18% B. Ft. 3 Ft. dent -i a l Left Side: 29 ft. Right Side: 14 ft. FREIGHT: Residentia.1 Building Commercial Building 33 f't . 16 -20 ft. STRUCTURE COVERAGE 18% (7,830 sq. ft.) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 27% (11,745 sq. ft.) SIZE OF STRUCTURE(S): Commercial * Residential 1251 sq. ft. 3 bedroom units.: 2,457 sq. ft. 2 bedroom units: 2,142 sq. ft. * includes 450 sq. ft. designated as "storage area" to _sr UP -87 -011, DR -87 -052 14599 Big Basin Way ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet al.l the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that the Planning Commission is being - asked to modify the height and vari.ou:s setback requirements of the C -V zoning district through the use permit procedure. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: Commercial Building: horizontal beveled siding ex't.erior with a cedar shake j roof Townhouse Units: 6 in. mas'onite beveled siding exterior with a cedar shale roofs STAFF ANALYSIS A. Proposal /Background The applicant requests Use Permit and Design Review approvals of plans to construct 8 townhouse units and a 1,251 sq. ft, retail building on a 43,500 sq. ft. long and narrow parcel in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. The Subject parcel is located 'at 14599 Big Basin Way, approximately 50 ft. southwest of 5th Ave:. Use Permit approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 55.070 is required to allow for multifamily dwellings on the commercially zoned. site and Design Review approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 15- 46:040: Between 1980 and 1981, the Planning Commission approved a t,enta:tive subdivision map (SOR- 1485), use and design review permits (UP -541, A- 741) for an identical project on the subject property and in October 1982, the City Council gave final subdivision Map approval (TRACT 7178). Because final subdivi ion map's are good for 15 years, this part of the project continues to have a valid approval. However, the' use permit and design review approvals have since expired; the current proposal is to reinstate those two previous approvals. The project site is approximately 43,50.0 sq. ft. in total area and has an average slope of approximately 18 percent. Saratoga Creek traverses the northwestern portion of the parcel. A 15,620 Sq. ft. easement to the Santa Clara Valley Water District dedicated at the time the final map was approved occupies the northwesterly portion of the site. A 42 inch Live Oak and several other smaller trees exist.ing on -site are proposed to be removed; however, the very large redwood tree located along the westerly property line is proposed to be saved. . -,, :�� ..rte• .: - . �: ".;.•;. ;yr.4, _�� ,: The subject property is currently developed with a period' style hone and detached garage which are proposed to be demolished as part of this application. The Marsh - Metzger house was built in 1909 and is proposed for inclusion in-the Heritage Resource Commissions inventory. The - Heritage Commission has reviewed the current proposal and has recommended that if the app.licant's project is approved, he should - incorporate the existing home into the development plans (see memo from Heritage Commission) As stated above, the applicant proposes to construct 8 townhouse units in two multi -level buildings and a 1251 sq. ft. single - story commercial bui.lding. The commercial building will be located to the front of the lbt adjacent to Big Basin Way, while the townhoues will be sited to the gear of the lot. The proposed townhouse units include five 3- bedroom units (2,457 sq. ft. each) and three 2- bedroom units (2142 sq, ft. each). These units consist of three levels; the lowest level being the garage and storage area, the middle level will be the living areas, and the upper level will be the bedrooms. The garage /storage level is partially below grade and as a result the eastern elevation of the townhouse units appear to be 2 1/2 stories in. height. All of the units will have a balcony off the,westerl.y side: of the living area level. Exterior materials include horizontal 6 i,n. masonite beveled siding and cedar shake roofs. The proposed retail building is single story (16 -20 ft, high) in design and approximately 1,251 sq. ft. in total floor area of which 450 sq. ft. i.s designated as "storage area ". A hori.zontal beveled siding exterior and a cedar shake roof is proposed. B. General Plan Compliance Proposed Uses - The subject site is•located within "Area J - The Village" as defined in the City's General Plan and is designated RMF or multifamily residential on t.he.General Plan map. Generally, commercial uses should not be promoted in RMF designated areas; however, Area J "Guidelines for Development" include encouraging multifamily residential /commerci'a.l mixed uses by "promoting high quality multifamily projects with small commercial shops particularly in portions of the Village which are south and west of Fifth St. on Big Basin Way." In addition, the Housing Element of the City's General Plan encourages multifamily residential /commercial mixed uses in the Village area. 2. Density - Approximat.ely 6,400 sq. ft. of the front portion of the 43,500 sq. ft. lot will be occupied'by the commercial use. The eight townhouses will occupy the remainder of the site or approximately 37,100 sq, ft. resulting in a residential density of 1 unit per,4,637 sq. ft. (i.-e. 37,100 sq. ft. ; 8 units). Residential land uses in the Village Area range from single-family detached homes to multifamily developments. I.n the immediate vicinity of the project site multifamily densities range from 1 unit per 3,000 sq, ft. (along St. Charles St.) to 1 unit per 4,000 sq, ft. (along Big Basin Way west of 6th St.). In.comparison, the proposed density of the residential portion of this project (i.e. 1 d unit per 4,367 sq. ft.) is lower than the existing surrounding densities and therefore satisfies an Area J Development •Dbject.ive requiring that "resi.dential projects proposed for areas south and west of Fifth St. on Big Basin Way be at a density no greater than other multificialy family projects in the Village Area." In conclusion, staff believes that the applicant's proposal to construct 8 tow:nhomes and a small retail building on the front portion of the lot adjacent to Big.Basin Way is consistent with the City's Housing Element and with Area T development goals, and therefore meets the objectives of the City's General Plan. - C.- Igning Code Compliance. 1- U5e /Setback5 —Since residential uses in the C -V zoning district are a conditional use, use permit approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 55.070 is required. In addition, the applicant i.s requesting the Planning Commission modify the following zoning code requirements: a. Increase the height of the townhouse units to 33 ft. where 20 ft. is the maximum. b. Decrease- the right side yard setback adjacent to the townhomes to 14 ft. where 20 ft. is required. C. Decrease the right side yard setback for the 9 ft. high redwood trellis adjacent to the commercial building, to 1 ft. where 6 ft. is required and increase the he -fight of this structure to 9.ft. where 8 ft. is allowed. The above variations from the zoning code can be approved by the Planning Commission through the Use Permit process in accordance with .City, Code Section 15- 55.050. f 2- Acce5s /Parking - Access to the project will be provided from Big Basin Way via a 20 ft. wide driveway. Emergency access to the project and access to Parking District 41 from the project site is provided by the use of a gate and back -up barriers located along the 'rear of the property. This arrangement allows traffic to exist the subject site via Parking District #1, but entering the site at this point is restricted to emergency vehicles only as required by -the Saratoga Fire District and - approved by the City Council. Currently, City Code Section 15- 35.030(c) requires one covered parking space within a..garage for each dwelling unit plus one and one -half additional space on the site for each dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed two covered parking spaces in a garage for each townhouse unit and an additional 10 on -site guest parking spaces for a total of 26 spaces where 20 spaces are .required for the residential portion of the project. In addition, the applicant proposes a total of 8 parking spaces for the retail building. City Code Section 15- 35.030(h) requires one parking space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area excluding floor area used exclusively for storage and loading. Although the applicant has proposed a 1,251 sq. ft. retail building, only 801 sq. ft. is designated as display area. The remaining 807 sq.. ft. is proposed as "s.torage area" and therefore, the applicant has met the parking ratio for the retail_ building. But, even if the entire commercial building was used as "display" area, sufficient on -site = parking exists. D. Staff Analysis 1. Use Permit - The app.licant is requesting use permit approval to allow residential uses in the C -V zoning district and to modify v various zoning code requirements as discussed above in 0.1. To recommend approval of the use permit the following findings found in City Code Section 1S- SS.070 must be made: 1) that the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord - with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 2) that the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or ma'terial.ly injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. With regards to the proposed residential use i,n a commercial zoned district; the subject site is located in ,a transitional area between intense commercial uses to the northeast such as restaurants and retail uses and less intensive commercial and residential uses to the southwest. The commercial building proposed adjacent to Big Basin Way continues the retail focus along the street; but, because of its small size and the total area of the site devoted -to commercial uses, the level of intensity o.f the commercial portion of the site will be considerably less than other commercial zoned sites located to the east of the subject site. The two townhouse buildings are proposed towards the rear of the site and will be setback approximately 96 ft. from Big Basin Way. The narrowness of the lot, the down slopi,ng topography and the location of _ the proposed commercial building will result i °n the townhoues having little visual impact when viewed from Big Basin Way. In staff's opinion, the applicant's proposal will provide an interesting mix of residential and commercial uses by providing a unique housing opportunity for people who enjoy liviang close to the Village while at the same time maintaining a commercial focus along Big Basin Way. In conclusion, staff finds that the applicant's proposal to construct 8 townhouse units on a commercial zoned site is appropriate and consistent with the density of nearby residential uses, will not be detrimental to the public health, safely and welfare, i -s in accordance with the objectives of the City's zoning ordinance and.is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. The second half of the us.e permit request desire to have the Planning Commi55ion vary requirements regarding setbacks and height. approval of this part of the use permit; required to find that granting of the detrimental to the public health, safety request is in accord with the objectives of t'he purposes of the zoning district. concerns the applicant's or modify the zoning code Once again, to recommend th'e Planning Commission is use permit will not be or welfare and that the the zoning ordinance and Staff feels that the applicant's request to vary from the right side yard setback requirements will not adversely effect adjacent properties and recommends the Planning COmmis'sion approve the modification (Specifically, the applicant's request to decrease the right sideyard setback for proposed trellis structure will provide an interesting and unique covered entry way to the townhouse units to the rear and will help soften the commercial buildings' easterly elevation. Consequently., while the trellis is proposed to be setback 1 ft. from the right side property line and 9 ft, tall, no adverse impacts are- anticipated. Additionally, the applicant requests the Planning Commission modify the right side yard setback for the _townhouse buildings to allow a 14 ft. setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. Again, staff believes that the requested modification is reasonable and that no adverse impacts will result. In fact, by staggering the townhouse buildings along the right side property :li -ne, only 20 lineal ft. or it percent of the total 178 lineal feet adjacent to the right side property line is setback 14 ft., while 88 lineal ft. or 50 percent meets or exceeds the 20 ft. setback requirement (see chart below). Townhouse units Setback From Right Side Pl. 14' 15' 16' 18' 20' (minimum side yard setback) 22' 26' Lineal Ft_. (_both bui ldinos ) 20' 30' 10' 30' 54' 24' 10' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant modifications to the right side yard setbacks and allow a 1 ft. setback for the trellis structure and a 14 ft. setback for the two townhouse buildings. Finally, the applicant requests the Planning Commission modify the 20 ft. height limit, for structures in the C —V zoning d'istri.ct and allow the townhouse units to be 33 ft. in height. While staff is hesitant to recommend approval of this portion of the application, in the final . analysis it is able to make the required use permit findings and recommends that the Planning Commission modify the hei.ght limit to allow increasing the height to 33 ft.. In staff's opinion, the proposed height will not interfere with the solar accessibility of surrounding properties, will not appear -to be cut of character for the Village Area and is consistent with the recently adopted planning recommendations contained in the Village Plan document that states that "3 -story structures could be permitted on the = rear of properties which slope down to the creek, on the north side of Big Basin Way." As indicated earlier, the residential structures would have little visual impact when viewed from Big Basin Way and will be most visible only from Parking District No. 1. 2. Design Review :a• r'- a. Commercial Building - As stated above„ the applicant is proposing a 1,251 sq. ft. single -story building. A total_ of 8 parking spaces are provided in accordance with City Code Section 15- 35.030(m), which requires i parki.ng space per 200 Sq. ft. of floor area a *,clu:ding storage area. The required parking Spaces will be located to the rear of the building and hidden behind its left wing which will ensure minimal visual exposure from Big Basin Way. Exterior materials include horizontal wood siding with a wood shake roof which will assist in helping the structure blend in with the natural environment. In sta.ff's opinion, the proposed building will be harmonious with and compliment other existing structures i.n the Village area. b. Townhomes - The applicant proposes to construct 8 townhouse units in two multi -level buildings. The applicant has attempted to follow the natural contours of the site by stepping each unit down the back side of the lot; for example, the grading plans submitted by'the applicant show a 23 ft. difference in pad elevations between the first unit (closest to Big Basin Way) and the last unit (closest to Parking District #1). The design of the residential units are somewhat more contemporary than the structures currently in the Village; however, the scale of the project„ the materials used and some of the design features will ensure that the units are compatible with the existing Village architecture and the natural setting of the site. The applicant proposes a 6 in. beveled horizontal ma onite siding exterior with medium cedar Shake roofs. In general terms, both the commercial building and townhouse units are similar in design and compatible with the site and the existing Village-architecture. In staf'f's opinion, the applicant has followed the design criteria setforth in City Code Section 15- 46.040 in that al.l three buildings are harmonious in appearance, the proposed materials and colors proposed will• blend in with the natural landscape and be nonrelecti've and the overall development will be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the Village Area, m� r� a e. Conclusion/Recommendation The applicant requests the Planning Commission approve a use permit and design review applications to construct 8-town'hou5e units and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building on a 43,500 sq. ft. lot in the C- - V zoning district. Use permit approval is required because the applicant has proposed a residential use in a commercial district and has requested modifications to the code relating to setbacks and height. Staff believes t -hat the proposed residential use is appropriate, is consistent with development objective for Area J - Village Area and is consistent with the city's housing element of the General Plan. In addition, the requested modifications in the setbacks and height will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements i.n the immediate vicinity. Also, Design Review approval is required for all "proposed structures on the site.. In staff's opinion, the applicant has followed the design criteria standards set forth in C-ity Code Section 15- 46.040. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve both applications by adopting . Resolutions 'UP-87-011 and DR-&7-052 and findings I 13777 FR.UITVALE AVT:NUI- • SARA- I'OGA, CALllFOIIN.IA 05070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: SUBJECT Heritage Preservation Commission Marsh - Metzger house, 14599 Big Basin Way DATE: July 16, 1987 At its meeting of Judy 8, 198`7, the Heritage Preservation Commission had the opportunity to review the retail /condominium . mixed -use. development application for property at 14599 Big Basin Way. The application w.•as brought to the Commission's attention because the 'property currently contains an historic structure proposed for demolition; the property is listed on the inventory of heritage resources that the Commission is currently working on.. After significant discussion on this application during which alternatives to demolition, such as incorporating the structure into the project or moving it, were explored, the Heritage Commission concluded that the structure makes a significant cont.ribution to the Village and should be retained; The Heritage Commission's unanimous recommendation to the Planning Commission is, therefore, as follows: "The Marsh - Metzger house at 14599 Big Basin Way was built in 190.9 and is associated with both the J.E. Marsh family who came to Saratoga in 1860 and th.e Metzger family who were early. merchants in the town. ' The structure, is very representative of the California Bungalow style and maintains its original size and shape with little. modification. The 'structure is highly visible on Big Basin Way and contributes significantly to the historic character of the Saratoga. Village: For these reasons, the Heritage Preservation - Commission recommends to the Planning Commission that a,ny use and design of the property include retention of the existing historic structure." The Heritage Preservation Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on this application. v Y VUtA t/I.CL Warren Heid, Chairma Heritage Preservation ommission LE FS TREE SURGED NS, INC. 18531 Vessing Rood; Saratoga, Calitornia :95070 (408) 379.8011 April 7, 1980 D I`'1 P R 0 v M�&i�,p M., +•lC�I(r A Mr. Karnil Navai T. N. A.. Construction Developmrvrnt Co. 1901 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 328 Campbell', CA 95008 Dear Mr. Nava. 'Phis letter wi.11 c•r)nt I'll, olir !,rvolitl ' on April 1 l'mo in the rear of 14590 Big Hasin Way, Sarato- ;;,. x�,,• h;)v(` �,.,�r: �,(,t.I , prciF:c)s(�t1 M construction plans whom:- in Intt'nd tU IiYN(:Ill :i "C•!;iininc `. .d! :l feet from 42 inAi Live (..?.tk (QL1(21-C1.1s :11_'''ifu!i;.)t. ( +. 1 clt;r' (;ncl( rStancling that the v;tll will gu orl t.trf ric)xn hill 5tclr r)I thc r:( r. xx5. fr (1 111is will have no sitirliCi( .lrti. IM;DaCt e)I1 1.h( ! (� ( . Y'ou must rn.lrrl+ -lin Ili l),t!:Irti. t 1,1 t.w(c`n ! t,Oiti ;lttc! t'.-own so that 1S,'i'(, V(,ll i.i ( 1 "li liri' ('�,(,iti ;1 CW;1l)111`1,St!Iir3t? ;'1irvil "I of should be r'(em0 v(•(i. :�Itlr',• ;1!llir't,:lill ll(`lY 25'�r (If tll(°• tl'(• Aw :, f)r(jr;('n off rt'rently any minor' I' ,r)Iti �`(,l'I a,'ua IrbC;ly' Cl -ill kc nt( lYl'C)1)i('1t, xx r 'n7aSi (,';lur1C)n you 11OLl' -vt 1 , ar(I(i r1(, gill in Hit, 1;mnit`cliat(' arc:t of tllc• j."t-own. I would I,(• r(,miss as a prc)ff`5 :;:ix>nal ar'bor°ist if I did not suggest You rt.`t_n()vt• flit- trtI totally. It is not our blisiness to concl(`m our lovely old n<(tive.,� I)ut in this case our reasons art.,: 1. Looking at the large limb on the ground and the various cavatie.s, it is apparent there is extensive heart rot, _.. 2. -The tree is showing severe stress. -3. Standing in a vacant lot it was no problem but putting buildings and peop!e next to it is a serious liability. Thank you for calking Lee's Tree Surgeons, lne. if e may be of any further assistance please call us at the abov(, rnJrrl)c.•r-. LLL /jm Cc: Mchael Flores REMOVALS • TRIMMING FEE n1:14G Yours truly, Lee L. L e h President BRACING • CARLING • SPRAYING r r i M E M O R A N D U M t f0' _CITY OF SARATOGA ` 1987 DATE: JUN 2 June 25, 1987 FROM: Doreen J. Croft 585 North Calif. Ave. PLANNING DEPT... ; Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Hearing 7/8/87 NAVAI, 14500 Big Basin Wy THIS IS TO EXPRESS MY DEEP CONCER14 ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF CONDO - MINIUrSS ON BIG BASIN WAY. I BOUGHT L%Y PROPERTY AT 14611 E BIG BASIN WAY WITH THE HOPE THAT I WOULD RETIRE THERE FROM MY WORK-AT DE ANZA -COLLEGE.. THE-INCREASE IN DENSITY, PARKING AND TRAFFIC ARE DEPRE- CIATING THE QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PARTICULARLY, THE QUAINT VILLAGE OF SARATOGA THAT MAKES IT TKE ATTRACTIVE PLACE THAT IT IS. I DO HOPE THE CITY WI -LL REFLECT THE CONCERN OF PEOPLE SUCH AS MYSELF AND WORK TO RETAIN THE UNIQUENESS! AND QUIET CHARh_ OF SARATOGA., MS -8 (150$ i19) 1339 rCITY Or S, -qb -� Initial: 11GaU\ BILL N10. Initial: Dept. lid. � ] DATE: October 6, 1982 C. Atty. DEPART:2a\T: Community Development ----------=-------------------- --- - -- -------------=------- --- -c- Mgr_---- -- - --- -- S=zCr• FINAL MAP APPROVAL TRACT 7.178 , KAMIL NAVAI, BIG BASIN WAY -(8 townhouse units & 1 commercial unit) Issue Sun-aary 1. The tract 7178 is ready for final approval. 2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City. 3. Requirements of City Departments and other agencies have.-been met. 4. A Negative Declaration was approved, with the project dated July 8, •1980. Recc:zrendation Adopt Resolution 1485 -2 attached, a-pproving Final Map of Tract 7178 and authorized execution of contract of Improvement Agreement Fiscal Imoacts None ��'311b1tS�l\�t�C�Il�nt.� . 1. Copy of Tentative Map approval 2. Resolution No. 1485 -2 3. Location Map 4. Report to Plahning Commission Ccuncil Pction a. Y r C C C RESOLUTION NO. 1485 -2 .RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL aAP OF TRACT 7178' WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of _ Tract 7178 Big Basin Way Way-having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor.completed and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable,at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: None NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with,, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. ('2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by' the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section $66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent.to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga., secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or neqotiable bonds, in amount of tP f C estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets,-public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-160 as amended and with the improvement plans and specificat -ions presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be t� as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate a,s shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified 'to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council o.f the City of Saratoga on the day of 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES - ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 7am" cl: V'r Lr 0 r co'. wipe > CL 0 ),c OWG 1. LOCA-1-10j's4 MAP TRAC T 7 •�1 C M G C ,3 :.Y�l ✓!a:."x .0S Y REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT DATE: 5/7/81 Commission Meeting: 5/13/81 SDR -1485, K. Navai and M. Kermani, 14599 Big Basin Way Tentative Building Site Approval 1 Lot Background: On August-27, 1980, the Planning Commission a UP -448, to allow the construction of eight multi - family dwelli ingounits and one retail store. This project also received Design Review Approval (A -721) on the same date. Grading for the project was also reviewed at that time. Previously, this property received Tentative Building Site Approval (SDR -1378) on October 5, 1978, for a restaurant use, which has since expired. (These reports are attached for the Commission's information.) At its Committee -of- the -whole meeting*of March 31, 1981, the COT - mission discussed the General Plan designation of the property and the issue of density. The 1974 General Plan Map shows the property as apartments which would not allow the construction of the retail building-. However, the Planning Commission determined that the intent of-the General Plan Was to allow mixed uses in the Village area. In particular, that, commercial uses be located to front on Big Basin Way and that multi- family uses be located to the rear or'above such uses. Therefore, it was determined that this project is consistent with the General Plan. Project Descri Lion: The site is approximately size and has an average slope of about l&%. is in�the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. Saratoga Creek runs through the north- western portion of the site. All 'structures are located outside of the required Santa Clara Valley Water District easement. Proposed building pad elevations would keep the buildings free from flooding from the 1% flood. jThe units ,proposed are townhouse-units rather than condominiums as originally indicated in the use permit. This means the owners of the units would own the ground area immediately underneath them rather than just air space. Access to the site will be provided from Big Basin Way via a 20' wide driveway. Access will also be provided from Parking District No. 1 which is designed to promote one -way traffic through the site by use planning Conanisssion -2- \. t. 5/7/81 of a gate and back up barriers. This will allow traffic to enter and exit the site by Big Basin Way, but the site could not be entered from Parking District No. 1 except by emergency vehicles. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements-of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of :Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and avail- able-fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative.eclaration was prepared and has been filed with the County- of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date: July 8, 1980. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR- 1485 (Exhibit B filed January 29, 1981) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Depart- ment regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is .hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars.. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building-Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. .In addition thereto,,. applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT •A. Construct standard driveway approach. B. Provide adequate sight- distance and remove obstructions of view as required. C. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. D. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the Director.of Public Works. E. Obtain encroachment.permit from CAL TRANS for work done.within State right 'of way. F. Install one (1) Big Basin Way style street light on Big Basin Way. U r Planning Commission -3- 5/7/81 G. 'Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit grading and drainage plans to CAL TRANS for review and approval. H. Replace existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along- - Big Basin Way as directed by Director of Public Works. I. All access ways to be a minimum of 18 ft.. wide. J. All access ways, parking areas, and other quasi - public paved areas are to be surfaced using a minimum of 2-�" A.C. on 6" aggregate base. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior'to building permit being issued. C. Detailed on- site'improveinent.plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross, - sections, . existing and proposed- elevations, earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A.. or R.C. -E. for walls 3.feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures. 6. Standard information to include'ti.tleblock, plot plan using record data, location map,•north arrow, sheet nos., .owner's name, etc.) D. Bonds required f.or erosion control prior to issuance of permits. E. Compliance with the City Geologists review dated 4/21/81. F. Demolition permits required for removal of existing structures.. Planning Commission -4- I .5/7/81 •IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to County Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance with letter dated March 26, 19811 prior to issuance of permits. - V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 4.2 feet. B. -,Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. C. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. D. Developer to install l hydrant.(s) that meet Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. E. As 1 of the hydrants will be on -site, the developer is to grant an easement to make - these hydrants public as per the, require- ments of the Saratoga Fire District. F. Developer shall deposit a fee of $10.00 per hydrant .prior to the issuance of a building permit. VI., SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC,CONDITIONS —SANTA CLARA,VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Dedicate a right -of -way easement to'the Santa Clara Valley Water District as shown on the map submitted by the District. B. All grading adjacent to the SCVUJD right -of -way to be done in accordance with sheets 20-20B of said agency. Details of grading to include the cross - sectional view at the right -of- way and are to be shown on the Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit issuance prior to construction. C. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. D. Any wall, curb or gate within the required right-of-way be maintained and repaired b g Y shall y the applicant.. Planning Commission -5- 5/7/81 E. No overbank site drainage into creek allowed. Site Drainage shall be incorporated into an existing storm drainage system. If-outfalls are required, outfall structure details and - number shall be submitted for review and issuance of permit by the District. F. Improvement grading and landscape plans for District review and issuance of permit. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A.. {'The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for review and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improvements. B. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agree- ment with the City -for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and private landscaped areas. The appli- cant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas. s C. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a homeowners association for the express purpose of main- taining all'landscaped areas within the public right -of -way, The C,C, &R's of the homeowners association'shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, prior to final approval. D. C,C, &R's shall state that the City has the right but not the duty to enforce the C,C, &R's. The C',C, &R's shall not be amended without written consent from the City of Saratoga. " E. A revised site plan showing -the parallel guest parking stalls shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to final approval. COMMENTS: An implied finding o.f,consistency with the General Plan was made during the approval of the use permit for this project-. Now a specific finding of consistency with the General Plan must be made for this Tentative Building Site Approval.. Approve C_ Michael Flo e , Assistant Planner MF /da Agenda: 5/13/81 . 4 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM. AGENDA BILL NO. `1 1 DATE: October 7. 1987 DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: SUP -12 - Bolander, Reconsideration of a City Council decision to revoke Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Lane. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reaffirm the original decision, finding that the appellant failed to comply with the original use permit conditions in a timely manner and deny the appeal. SUMMARY: 1. On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved with conditions Mr. Bolander's request for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit at property located at 142231 Douglass Lane. 2. On January 14, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to satisfy condition #6 of the original approval requiring a one -year review of the use permit. The Planning Commission continued the 1 -14 -87 public hearing three times (3/25/, 4/8/ 4/22) to allow Mr. Bolander additional time to complete all of the conditions of the original approval. 3. On May 13, 1987, the Planning Commission voted 3 -2 -1 to revoke Mr. Bolander's second unit use permit for failing to comply with the condition requiring Mr. Bolander secure the proper building permits for the second unit. 4. On May 20, 1987, seven days after the Planning Commission's decision to revoke his use permit, Mr. Bolander secured the required building permits for the second unit thus satisfying all of the conditions of approval. S. Mr. Bolander appealed the decision of the Planning Commission revoking his second unit use permit and on June 17, 1987, the City Council voted 4 -1 to uphold the Planning Commission's decision revoking the second unit use permit and denied Mr. Bolander's appeal. 6. On August 19, 1987, the City Council voted 3 -2 to reconsider Mr. Bolander's appeal. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A EXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. City Council Minutes dated 6/17/87 3. Staff report to City Council dated 6/17/87 Motion and Vote: Revocation confirmed 4 -1 (Hlava opposed). 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: October 7, 1987 FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: SUP -12 - Bolander, Reconsideration of a City Council decision revoking Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Lane. BACKGROUND The appellant, Charles Bolander, requests the City Council reconsider its decision to revoke his Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Lane. On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the appellant's application to legalize the existing second unit and imposed six condi- tions of approval, only two of which required further action by the appellant: abandon the existing on -site fuel tank and obtain building permits for the second unit. Also, the Planning Commission required that the use permit be reviewed in one year's time. Fourteen months later, on January 14, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the appellant's use permit and was informed that Mr. Bolander had made no effort to abandon the fuel tank nor obtain the proper building permits. On May 13, 1987, after 3 -1/2 months of repeated continuances, the Planning Commission voted 3 -2 -1 to revoke the appellant's use permit for failing to comply with the original conditions of approval. Speci- fically, although the fuel tank was certified closed on 1/27/87 (14 months after the original approval date) the requirement that the appellant obtain building permits for the second unit had not been completed. A majority of the Planning Commissioners felt that giving the appellant 18 months to complete two simple conditions was adequate time and that granting further continuances was unreasonable. Seven days after the Planning Commission revoked the use permit, Mr. Bolander obtained the proper building permits thus completing the last condition of approval. On May 21, 1987, Mr. Bolander appealed the Planning Commission decision and on June 17, 1987, the City Council voted 4 -1 to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission revoking the second unit use permit. In voting for revocation, the Council found that Mr. Bolander had failed to present any justifiable reason for the extraordinary long delay in satisfying the conditions of the second unit use permit, despite being given repeated opportunities to do so. Finally, on August 19, 1987, the City Council voted to reconsider their action revoking Mr. Bolander's second unit use permit and set an October 7, 1987 hearing date. CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION No new evidence has been introduced into the record that was not pre- sented at the June 17, 1987 City Council meeting. The City Council should reaffirm its original decision and the decision of the Planning Commission by denying the appeal and revoke Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit. Mr. Bolander will be required to remove the kitchen facilities from the structure and refrain from renting the building as a second unit. In addition, since June 17, 1987, when the Council affirmed the deci- sion of the Commission, Mr. Bolander has continued to rent the second unit, in violation of the City's directive. If the Council reaffirms its June 17th decision, no new application should be submitted until at least October 7, 1988, or one year from the date that the second unit ceases to be occupied. Yuc uek Hsia, Director A. Appear of xevocanon of Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 - Douglass Lane Per City Code Section 15- 56.100 (SUP 12) (Appellant/applieani, C. City Council -Minutes Bolander) June 17, 1987 Planning Director Hsia reviewed the recent-decision of the Planning Commission to revoke the Use Permit for a second'urdt and noted the actions available to the Council at this time. The Public Hearing was opened 7:47 P.M. Mr. Charles Bolander, Appel] antlapplicant, noted compliance with all requirements and made himself available for questions. In response to Mayor Mava's question regarding the length of time needed to comply with terms of the Use Permit, he stated that.he travelled for'business; in addition he noted health problems. Ms. Jeanne Johnston, 14210 Douglass Ln., Saratoga, presented letters in favor of upholding the decision of the Planning Commission from - Lee and Marilyn Ferguson - Joseph B. Coolidge, June 16, 1987. She read a prepared statement addressing.the following issues: - Use Permit should be revoked permanently - Appellant did not comply with zoning and second unit restrictions until forced to do so - Contributory issues (lack of property maintenance, the fact that this minimal lot contained both a second unit and additional structures) had an adverse impact on the neighborhood and contributed to the deterioration of property values of adjacent owners Appellant's commercial use of the property in a single family residential area - Unit was not rented to senior citizen until passage -of the second unit Ordinance in 1984; the question remained whether current tenants in the second unit were senior citizens - Length of time necessary to remove•a gas tank from the property - Noted a history of disregard for zoning restrictions, lack of property and second.-unit maintenance and use of this unitaas a commercial property. Mr. Robert Finocchio, 14250 Douglass Ln., Saratoga, supported the decision of the Planning Commission, concurred with the :above-statement and noted that according to the report: - Unit was operated in violation of City Codes for a 15 month period - Question remained whether the property was in compliance with current City Ordinances Mr. Bolander questioned whether the issue was a second unit permit or the condition of lawns and the number of cars on a property; he stated that over 75% of the time, the unit had been occupied by a senior cigzen. Currently, the unit was occupied by a senior. citizen. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Passed 5 -0. Councilmember Peterson noting the controversy of second units in the City and the efforts of the officials to accommodate owners of these units, added his concern regarding the delay in compliance with Conditions of Approval imposed by the Commission. Councilmember Clevenger, noting the opposition to this appeal, stated that since she had not visited the site, she could -not vote to grant approval at this hearing. She was favorable to an extension of this appeal to allow'.time for a site visit. Councilmember Anderson noted that she had made a site visit; her concerns were as follows: - Verification that senior citizens currently occupied the second unit - Disregard for human welfare in the storage and use of fuel on site for over a year's time - Disrepair of an attached carpoNshed and visual impact from the street - Cited the Council's decision on the Batson appeal - Lack of adequate setbacks and amount of debris on,the site - Noted that the site in question was intact, an old time country neighborhood - Leniency already extended to the Appellant in obtaining compliance to Conditions imposed Councilmember Moyles confrned.his analysis tor the narrow grounds laid down by the Planning Commission; in view of the delays involved and the Appellant's inability to offer any reason for excusing him further, he would vote to sustain the revocation of the Use Permit. Mayor Hlava concurred with placementof Conditions the Commission felt appropriate as well as their decision to revoke the Permit for noncompliance; however, now that Conditions had bee met, there was no reason not to grant the request. She added that•efforts of the City to legalize existing second units would be negated if the appeal were denied. PETERSON/MOYLES MOVED TO REAFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SUP -12. Councilmember Clevenger noted that if a vote were taken at this time, she would vote to deny the appeal; Councilmember Anderson noted the discrepancy between an estimated one day's work required to fulfill necessary Conditions of Approval and the length of the delay. The Planning Director and the City Attorney reviewed procedures required to reapply for a permit if the appeal were denied; consideration given to a denial without prejudice. Councilmember Peterson noted that the issue was whether the Council wished to affirm or deny the Planning Commission's decision; he called for the vote on the Motion. Passed 4 -1, Mayor Hlava opposed. ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REAFFIRM THE DECTSION QF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SUP -12, DENYING THE APPEAL VJ1Y'HUUT PREJUDICE. There was no second to the amended Motion. ha SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: June 17, 1987 . ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning .. CITY MGR. APPROVAL n SUBJECT: SUP -12 - Bolander, Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to revoke. Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Ln. Recommended-A6tion: The City Council may affirm the decision of the Planning Commission finding that the appellant failed to comply with the original use permit conditions in a timely manner. or may accept the new evidence and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission-,: Report Summary: _ 1. On November -13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved with conditions Mr. Bolander's request for a use permit to legalize an'existing second unit at'property located at 14231 Douglass Lane. 2. On January 14, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to satisfy condition #6 of the original approval requiring a one -year review of the use permit. The'Planning Commission continued the 1 -14 -87 public hearing three times (3/25/, 4%8/ 4'/22) to allow Mr. Bolander additional time-to cc*' omplete ap all of the conditions of the original proval. 3. On May 13, 1987,. the Planning Commission voted 3 -2 -1 to revoke Mr. Bolander's second unit use permit for failing to comply with the condition requiring Mr. Bolander secure the proper building permits for-the second unit. 4. On May 20, 1987, seven days after the Planning Commission'`s decision to revoke his use permit, -Mr. Bolander secured the required building permits for the second unit thus satisfying all of the conditions -of approval. Fiscal Impacts: N/A ..,. _ i ,.. _ •} Attachments: F- 1. Staff report to City Council ^ 2. Planning Commission minutes dated 5/13/87, 4/22/87, 4/8/87, 3/25/87, 1/14/87 3. Reports to'Planning Commission dated 5/13/87, 1/4/87; 11/7/85 4. Lette 'S'supporting revocation 5, Appeal Letter Motion and Action f�4 YY. 3"�� �. ya °� - � tr m:. - .k;,�.,� -rte$ �•{� Ze v ;b tR _ _ � �� . Qq �0 � aS90 (d . REPORT TO MAYOR AND - - ,: CITY COUNCIL ; :',':µ 4= • ;i�- :; «; : >. - ' i _ - - 4t,: - DATE:— 6/8/87 3wr e y .... ...... COUNCIL MEETING** 6/17/87 _ SUP -12 - Bolander, Appeal of,the Planning ` SUBJECT: Commission decision to revoke Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit for- property located at- 14231 Douglass Lane BACKGROUND ,�_,.;,; .•' The appellant, Charles Bolander, requests. the City Council overturn the Planning- Commiss'ion's decision to• revoke his Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass -Lane. On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commis's ion.approved the appellant's application to legalize the existing second unit and imposed six conditions of approval., only two of which required further action by the appellant: abandon the existing on -site fuel tank and obtain building permits for the :.,.. second unit. Also, the Planning Commission required that the use permit be reviewed in one year's time. Fourteen months later, on January 14, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the appellant's use permit and were informed that- Mr. Bolander had made no effort to abandon the fuel tank nor obtain the proper building permits. - On May 13, 1987, after 3 -1/2 months of repeated continuances, the. Planning Commission voted 3 -2 -1 to revoke the appellant's use permit for failing to comply with the conditions of approval. Specifically, although the ; "fuel tank was certified closed on 1/27/87 (14 months after the original approval date) the requirement that the appellant obtain building permits for. the second unit had not been completed. A major' ity of the .Planning- Commissioners felt that giving the appellant 18 months to complete two simple conditions was adequate time and that granting further continuances rte' would not guarantee voluntary compliance with the conditions. Seven days after the Planning Commission revoked Mr. - Bo,la.nder's use permit, • he obtained the proper building permits and, therefore, has completed the last condition of approval. "' Report to Mayor and City Council- 6/17/87 SUP -12; 14231 Douglass Ln. - Bolander page 2 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION,.. While the appellant has complied with the conditions of the original approval, compliance came about only ,after the Planning Commission revoked the second unit .use permit. In renting the second unit for the past 18 months in violation of the use permit approval, the appe -llant has demon- strated a flagrant disregard for the City Code and the welfare of the occupants of the second unit,. However, by ultimately securing building permits for the second unit, the appellant has now completed all of the conditions of approval and recordation of the use permit can take place.. The City Council may affirm the decision of the Planning Commission finding that the appellant failed to comply with the condition's of the original approval in a timely fashion or may accept the new evidence and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. If the City Council grants the appeal, the appellant will be required to sign the Second Unit Use Permit agreeing to comply with all applicable restrictions and standards of the second unit ordinance. If the Council affirms the decision of the Planning Commission and denies the appeal, the applicant will have to "remove the kitchen facilities from the structure and refrain from renting the building as a second unit. Planning Commission Minutes 5 /13/87 14. SUP -12 Bolander, 14231 Douglass Ln., consider revocation of a second unit,use permit for property located. at 14231 Douglass Ln. per City Code Section 15- 56.100. ' Application. Planning Director Hsia provided an update of the status of this Appli-- - --------- ~------- ~ -- --- ..... cation. .. .. The Public Hearing was opened at 9;53 P.M.': Mr: Bolander, Applicant, apologized for the delays and noted that-he had a problem with time. He has paid the necessary permit fees; however, due to health problems he was further delayed. He had scheduled time within the coming week to complete the work required and would cap"for an inspection this coming Tuesday. He asked -that the Commission continue this Item cne_more time: Ms. Jeanpe Johnston, 14210 Douglass Ln., Saratoga, cited the letter previously submitted on this matter. and noted the time period already allowed to the Applicant. Neighbors were required to look at this property at which there was no maintenance:. Mr. Bolander responded that work required on the property could not be seen by neighbors. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:53 P.M: Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Burger noted that this Application was scheduled for review since January 14, 1987, and was not convinced that there had been any real effort by the Applicant to accomplish the minor tasks required. Commissioner Siegfried stated he would make a motion to extend this Application to one more Meeting of the Planning Commission and noted that items to be corrected were interior and minor, Commissioner Callans concurred. SIEGFRIED /CALLANS MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP -12 TO MAY 27,1987. Failed 2 -3 -1, Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Burger opposed. Commissioner Clay abstaining. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO REVOKE SECOND UNIT USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14231 DOUGLASS LN. Passed 3 -2 -1, Commissioners Siegfried, Callans opposed, Commissioner Clay abstaining. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/22/87 MTS.CRTI LIANEOUS: 18. Update on SUP -12 -Boland' Boland'er, 14231 Douglass Ln.. Planner Caldwell updated the Planning Commission on the status of this Application; a Public Hearing was scheduled for May 13, 1987. lop, 74J ;� ir` -'f Y.I t1 f �:P•) - V` �1 a �' k. l' -N t �l'd� { _ • -1'. j r.V1 t � y r 'S l 'L . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/8/87 9. SUP -12 • Bolander, 14231 Douglass Land setting public hearing for April 22, 1987, to revoke a second unit use permit due to nonc approval.' ompliance with conditions of --_____------------------------------------------------ Planning Director Hsia provided an update of this Application and.:noted that the Applicant had not complied with the Conditions imposed. He suggested.for consideration: Continuance of the Application to the April 22, 1987, meeting or, Setting of the date for a. Public Hearing on the revocation of the Use Permit. Planner Caldwell added that the plans be submitted by the Applicant had not met the requirements of the building department. basic Mr.- Charles Bolander, Applicant, apologized for the delay, stating it was his understanding thafthe Commission wanted an inspection report and required a building permit; he presented the inspection report .Requirements of the building department were cited. $1500 in required fees • Drawings rendered by an architect He stated that he could not financially afford to have an 'architect draw plans on a building which had existed for 40 years. He presented an estimate from Mr. Dick Powell, architect, on the cost of the required drawings and asked for a further extension since Mr. Powell was out of town during the coming week. Commissioner Siegfried questioned the length of time the Applicant had taken to raise the above concerns; in response to a further question, Mr. Bolander stated that he understood the cost of fees involved only two months ago. The City Attorney reviewed the process of obtaining necessary use and building permits and noted that it was a standard requirement that buildings be brought up to code. He suggested that standard operating procedure of the building department was to require architectural drawings; however, it was the Applicant's responsibility to contact the building department for .the necessary information. Commissioner Siegfried was willing to consider a continuance with an understanding that a study*session, if considered necessary, and the Public Hearing be set for a specific date. Staff recommended that a Public Hearing for revocation of the Use Permit be set for April 22, .1987; Planner Caldwell noted the April 14, 1987, Meeting of the Committee of the Whole wherein the Applicant could present-further information. Commissioner Tucker favored setting a date for a public hearing; she noted the Planning .Commission's continuance of this Application on more than one occasion. Mr. Bolander responded that he was scheduled to be out of town on April 14th and his architect was out of town until the fifteenth of the month. GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVOCATION OF THE USE PERMIT ON APRIL 22, 1987. Passed 6 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •3/25/87 ` 18. SUP -12 Bolander, one year review of a second unit use permit approval for property located at 14231 Douglass 'Ln., in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district per ` Chapter 15 of the City Code. . Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of March 25, 1987. Planner Calkins stated that the Applicant was having difficulty completing architectural plans to be submitted to Building Inspection Department; the Applicant had assured him that plans _ would be submitted within the time limits of the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Guch was favorable to granting the requested.two -week delay and noted'the desire that the Commission not give any appearance of unfairness. Commissioner Siegfried concurred. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to granting the two-week delay with the understanding that failure to come forward on April 8, 1987, would result in a negative vote. PINES /CALLANS MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP -12 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1987. Passed 5 -1, Chairwoman Burger opposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/14/87 6. SUP -12 Charles .Bolander, gone year review'of a:second unit use permit for property _ located at 14231 Douglass Lane in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. ---- w- r--- _-------------------- -- -------------------- - - - -L- J Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, January 14, 1987. Planner Caldwell noted that Santa Clara Co. Health Department indicated a permit had been applied for to remove the on -site fuel tank, date of closure will be January 26, 1987. Condition 1 of the Report will be complied with at that time. In response to Commissioner Tucker's questions, the Planning Director stated notification of the Hearing en the extension was done. He confirmed that the Applicant would have to comply withfhe age restriction on occupancy of second units. Commissioner Siegfried stated for the record that if all necessary steps were not taken, the Commission would be reluctant to consider further extension of this Application. Chairwoman Burger concurred. — The Public Hearing was opened at 8 :15 P.M. There were no speakers. . SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Passed 6-0. CONTINUE SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO APMOI EZ - 12. Passed 6-0. all. r � .nf 7 7V1j.4 4 k .. Y '4• • .. _ .. ,.ay.ggt.i....+e,y/TYl ZC•.. � 01 �� r;; REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION.; ,, ROM: Robert Calkins , -..., , w „•. DATE May 1.3, 1987. APPLICATION &''LOCATION:' SUP -12; 14231' Douglas Ln'. APPLICANT: Charles Bolander APN:• 397 -24 -36 t rz gn _ ---------------------------- - - - - -- ----------------- PROJECT' DESCRIPTION: This item is continued feom .'.t:he April 22, 1987 Planning Commission meeting when the Commission voted to” �. consider the .applicant's second unit use permit for property 11ocated revoking Douglass Ln. at 14231 •15SUES: The applicant has not satisfied all of the condl- t1ions .of approval; specifically, the applicant has not received the proper building g permits and the eecond unit use perm t cannot be recorded :with t:he Countys • Recorders Office. -' _ _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Revoke SUP -12 per City Code Section 1S- 56.100(b) for failure to comply with the original conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: I. Staff Analysis 2. Notice of Correction dated 4/21/81 3. Report to Planning Commission dated 11/7/85 ' 4.. Letter supporting revocation STAFF ANALYSIS A. Rackoround /Discussion The following is a chronology of the events surrounding SUP -1'2: November 13- 1985 The Planning Commission approves SUP-12 subject to conditions - including a one -year review of the use permit. January 14 1987 - The Planning Commission holds a public hearing to review SUP -12. The applicant had -not completed any of the conditions of approval. The public hearing is continued 8 weeks to March 25, 1987, to allow Mr. Bolander additional time to comply l with conditions of approval. March 2S.' 1987 - Mr. Bolander satisfies the condition requiring abandonment of the on -site underground fuel tank but states that he is having difficulty completing architectural plans to be 5.0 mitted to Building Inspection Division so that permits for the second•unit can be issued. The Planning Commission continued the item to their April•8, 1987, meeting, April 8. 1987 - Staff - informs•the Planning Commission that Mr. Bol.ander submitted plans to the Building Inspection Division, but that the Building Official. de.terminted that the plans were inadequate. The.Planning Commission voted to set a April 22, 1987 Public hearing date to consider revoking Mr. Bolander's second unit use permit. Noticing difficulties delays this public hearing until the May 13, 1987 meeting. April 22- 1987 - Staff informs the Planning Commission that Mr. Bolander applied for a building permit and an inspection of the second unit occurred on April 2.1, 1987. However, the Building Inspector identified several deficiencies that would need to be corrected prior to issuance of a building permit. B • C -Qmq,L 51gn ReE21192r d t AIl Pursuant to City Code Section 15- SG.010, the Planning Commission may revoke a u.se perr;it for e, second unit if it finds that the "holder- of the permit has violated any of the conditions" setforth in the original approval. Approximately 18 months ago, the Planning Commission approved SUP -12 and imposed six conditions of approval, two of which required further action from the applicant: abandon the fuel tank and obtai.n building permits. At the time that this report wa•s published and mailed to the Planning Commission, Mr, Bolander had not obtained the proper building permits for the second unit. According to the building inspector the required corrections necessary to obtain the building permit are minimum in nature and could be completed in one day. Previously, staff has recommended 'that the Planning Commission grant additional time so that the applicant could satisfy all of the conditions of the original approval. Staff was hesitant'to recommend revocation because.it appeared as though Mr. Bolander was making a good faith effort'to secure the required permits. In the final analysis, however, staff feels Mr.. Bolander has not made a concerted effort to obtain the necessary permits in a timely fashion. Therefore, staff = - recommends..the Planning Commission revoke SUP -12 for failure to comply with the original conditions of approval. R6 ORT TO PLANNI 'NG COMMISSION ROM: Robert Calkins DATE: January 14, 1987 - APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: Second Unit Use Permit, (SUP-12)-. One Year Review; 14231.Dougla5s Lane - APPLICANT: Charles B'olander . ..i APN: 397- 24-36 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: One year review of a Second U ni.t Use Permit (SUP -12) for existing detached second unit located at 14231 .Douglass Lane in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning d15tr-icif. ISSUES: The applicant has not complied with t-he conditi -ons of the use permit including: I). Failing to obtain the proper permit to abandon the existing on- site fuel tank; and Z) Failing to obtain the necessary building permits for the second Lini t ; and 3) Failing to record the Second Unit Use Permit with the County Recorders-Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that th'e Planning Commission grant the applicant an additional six weeks or until February 18, 1987, to obtain the proper permit to abandon the fuel'tank and receive the -necessary building permits and continue the public hearing to it.s regular meeting on March 11, 1987. -_' ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 1/14/87' f- 2. Resolution SUP -12' 3. Report to Planning Commission dated 11/7 /8S 4. Planning Commiss „ion minutes 11/13/85 . r MEMORANDUM DATE: January 1.4, 1987 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ONE YEAR REVIEW OF SUP -12 .(SECOND UNIT USE - PERMIT) AT 14231 DOUGLASS LANE. A.' BACKGROUND /CISCUSSION On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved SUP -12, legalizing an existing detached one -story second unit at 14231 Douglass Lane and conditioned the approval to require a one -year review of the use permit. In addition to the-one-year review requirement, the Planning Commission imposed the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the second unit and comply with any additional requirements of the Inspection Division. 2. The 200 gallon fuel tank shall be abandoned and dispensing of fuel discontinued-prior to issuance.o.f a building permit. 3. The use permit shall be recorded as required per City. Code Section 1.S- 56.090 within 30 days of the final approval of the use permit. -Failure to comply with the above conditions or any violation of any applicable restrictions or standards contained in the Second Unit Ordinance, could constitute grounds for revocation of the use - permit as provided for in City Code Section 15- 56.100, According to the County Health Department's Hazardous Materials Division, ` the applicant, Mr. Bolander has not received the proper permits to abandon the existing on -site fuel tank as required by 'the..Planning Commission. County Health Department records indicate that their only contact with Mr. Bolander regarding this matter was back in June 1985. According to the County., under normal circumstances, the permitting.process usualay' takes between 4 -6 weeks to complete. .In addition, since the issuance of building permits is directly tied to the abandonment of the fuel tank, Mr. Bolander has been unable to secure the proper. and necessary building permits for the second unit -from the City. Finally, the Planning staff has no record of the applicant ever recording the second unit use permit with the County Recorders office as required by the Planning Commission. I - Mr. Bolander has indicated via a telephone conversation on December F. 1986, that failing to obtain the necessary permits to abandon the fuel tank was an `oversight" on his part and that he "fully intends to comply- with all the conditions of approval. ". Mr. Bolander has requested -that th'e Planning Commission not consider'revo'king the second unit use permit at this time but grant him additional.time so he may satisfy all of`t'he conditions of approva� CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION Staff has, reviewed the subject, file and has found. -no record of any complaints from neighborhood residents regarding the use of the second unit* - - (i.e., noise, traffic or occupancy). As such, staff feels 'i't is reasonable to allow the applicant a.dditional"'time to secure or make a good faith effort to secure the.necessary permits to abandon the fuel tank from the County and to obtain the proper building permits from the City. Staff redo mends the Planning Commission allow Mr. Bolander an additional six weeks, or until February 25, 1987 to comply with conditions 2, 4 and 5 of the approved st °aff report and continue the public hearing until March 11, 1987. . Robert Calkins Assistant Planner REPORT TO PLANNING COM MISSION City of Sorol'gp" 1',1' ?r'0VED BY: ,C/ _- .... *Revised:. 11/13/85 LIAT E : DATE: 11/7/8S COMMISSION MEETING: 11/13/85 APN: 39-7- 24-39 APPI.TCANT: Charles Rolander OWNFR: same APPI.ICATTON NO. b. LOCATION: S'UP -12, 14231 Dounlass Lane - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION RFOf1FSTFh• Second Unit • Use Permit. Approval for an existi,ng,detached. one -story second unit. OTHFR APPROVALS RFOUTRFn: Building Permit r FNUTRONMFNTAI- ASSFSSMFNT: Under State law this pro CEOA. t is exempt from 711NTN(_ . R- 1 -7.,0 0001 GFNFRAI PI AN OFS.IGNATTON: Residential -L.ow Density _ Singl.e Family EXISTING LAND USF: Single Family Residential SURR)IINOTNG LAND USES: Single. Familv Residential F PAR('.--L ST7F,: 20,040 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES 14 VFGFTATTON The site .has shrubbery along the rear property line and in the front of the residence. Lawn areas are located to Report to Planning Commission SUP -12., Bolander Date: 11/7/85 Paoe 2 the side of the second unit., behind and on the side of the main dwelling.- and in front of the circular drive. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE• The site is SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: N/A fairly level EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 151.5 ft. -Rear:' 3.5 ft. (35 ft. required) a Left .Side:': 3 ft, Right Side: 28.S ft r- HEIGHT: 11 ft, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. 50% SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Second Unit: -Ma in, Dwelling 750 sq. ft. ,: 2,077 sq. f't. Other Accessory Structures: 909 sq. ft_ TOTAL: 3,736 so. ft.. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The oroiec't does not meet all reouirements and standards of the zoning ord.inance.. The structure maintains 'a 3 ft, side yard setback and a 3.5 ft. rear yard setback where 1S ft. -and 35 ft, are required respectively. The second un,tt is attached to a shoo and a two car carport. Since the structures are attached, the setbacks are measured from the end of the structure and are in essence considered to be one structure. A covered parking space is not provided for the second unit. Also, the Lot is" not 1.6 times the. standard for the zoning district. These reouirments can be varied under the use permit. MATERIALS 8 COLORS• The exterior of the second unit is finished in beige stucco with a red tile roof, r ! - BUILDING INSPECTION A building inspection was conducted by a private inspection service and a. report was prepared and submitted to the City concernino the-condition of the second unit. The applicant ha,s comolet.ed the work on the second -unit in response to the building inspection re•oort. - FIRE INSPECTION The property has been insoected by the Fire Marshall of the Saratoga Fire District. The report from the Ffre District indicates that a 200 gallon fuel tank and dispenser is located next to the cottage. The Fire District and Staff recommends that the tank 'b'e abandoned and dispensing discontinued. _ 9 Report to Planning Commission SUP -12, Bolander Dater 11/7/85 Paoe 3 OCCUPANCY The applicant has indicated that the second unit will be occuied by a Maximum of two persons and that he ,owill comply with the ordinance regarding occupancy of the-main dwe.11ing'and the second unit. SEWER According to the applicant the Main residence and the second unit are served by sewer. PARKING The second unit is attached to'a shoo and two -car carport. The carport itself Maintains a 3 ft, side vard setback and a 3.5 ft. rear yard setback. Two covered 'parking spaces are required for the Main dwelli,ng and one covered space for the second unit. The requirement for the second unit Parking space may be waived provided that not less than three off - street spaces are available on the site and there is no feasible location on the site for such covered parking space.' There is an existing parking area between the Main dwelling and the second unit. A covered parking space could feaSibly be located in thin area and maintain required setbacks. Staff recoMMat that n parking .perking space be provided for the second unit. covered COMPAfiIBILITY ' The second unit, which is finished in stucco with a file roof,,is attached to an accessory structure with a wood exterior and a flat' roof. These two structures are compatible in terms of scale, MaSS, and height but not in terms of the general design. The second unit is compatible with scale, mass and height of the main residence.. The applicant has indicated that the second unit has existed since. the 1940s prior to incorporation of the city. PRIVACY , A small window is located on the left end of the second unit. The adiacent residence, which is at a higher elevation, has a window facing t'he subiect F. site. A fence has been erected on t•he adlacent property. There is mature vegetation located to the rear of the'second, unit. Staff impacts from the second unit. noted no privacy FINDING 1• The second unit does not comply with the side yard and the rear vard setbacks. However, because of the location of the windows in the v second unit and the existing vegetation and the difference in Report to Planni „no Commission Date: 11 /7 /CS SUP712, Bolander Paoe 4 elevation between the subject site and the oro,oerty_ to the Left. the location is in accord with t-he objectives:' 2. The location of the second unit and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the ,public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to .properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3._ The second unit will comply with each of the aoolicable orovisions of this ordinance and the General Plan. 4. The existing second unit does not comply with the standards described in Section 16A.4 A 3.S ft. rear yard setback and a 3 ft. side vard setback are bei.no maintained where 35 ft. and 15 ft. setback* are required resoective.ly. Also: the second unit is located on a site that is the minimum lot size of the zoning district and is not 1.6 times the standard lot size. These requirements may be modified with the use .oermit. An additional parking s.oace is required for the second unit if there Is a feasible location for such space: A condition of aooroval is that one additional parking space be provided on the ,site. S. The second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise avai -1 able to residents of ad.ioinino properties. 6. The existing second unit is not desioned to be comoa.tibl.e with the exterior a.opearance of the att.ache;d accessory structure or the main dwelling. The structure is compatible in t.erm5 of mass: scale and heioht but does use different exterior Materials. r 7. The second unit is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaoino. 8. The second unit will not cause unreasonable noise: traffic congestion, parking congestion,..or overload existing facilitLes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the second unit Use .Permit, per the Staff Report dated 11/7/$5, Exhibits "B” and "C ", subi.ect to -the following conditions: 1. The appIfeent eheii ,or-o.vsde one edditione} covered rerkino apace on efte- Pient theii be tebmttted Wtfh'the bdtid'no permit plant for the second unft7 2. The applicant shall obtain a buildind permit for.the exisitno second unit. The applicant shall comoly with any additional requirements of the•Lnspection Services Division. Report to Planning Commission SUP- 12,8olander Date: I1 /l /8S Paoe S 3. Any violation of these conditions or any violation of the. �onino .' ordinance by this second unit shall constitute grounds for the revocation of the Use Permit per Section 16A.10. 4. The Use Permit shall be recorded as required per Section 16A.9 of the Zonino Ordinance within 30 days of t Permit. phe final approval of the Use 5. The 200 oallon fuel tank shall be abandoned and disoens.ino of . fuel ' disc'o'ntinued prior to issuance of a building .permit. # 6. The Use Permit shall be subject to review by the Planning Commis- sion one year from the date of ao,oroval. -APPROVED: . c CL /dsc P.C. Agenda: 11/13/85 ' -- �% 14210 Dougl�(}La Saratoga, ca. May 5, 1987 Rol Notion of Hearing Saratoga Planning Commission for May 139 1987 The Planning Commission Application: SUP- 129.Revocation of Use Perms Locat -ions 14231.Douglas Lane City-Of Saratoga Saratoga, r377�1 "- F�rtiityv�le ` .. • ��,•�'- .,.,.�. -,� •., . �,.. - .: , ... Cai - - Saratoga, Ca. ry _ Attnt Mrs Robert Caulkins, Asst. Planner Dear Mr. Caulkins: 4 irk 1" 6 1987 Attached you will find a copy of an original letter, dated Nov. 1�1, � � if DEPT. to tks Planning Commission si ned b Mr. ached' are copies of the Saratoga Planning Commission sagenda dfor � hearings {oneaeuse Permit -6r Mr. Bolander's (SUP -12) second units.- These agenda are dated June-.269.1985, Sept. 25, 1985, Oc:.t. 239 1985 and Nov. 13, 1985. There was another hearing on this use permit in 1986 and one on Jan. 13, 1987. The above letter and the copies of the agenda, including the meetings of 1986,1987 and the one called for May 139 1987 make a total of seven hearings ealled.for reviewing the use permit for these same second units. They most assuredly convey the Pant that.the Planning Commission-has shown a great leniency and tolerance in this matter. It has gone on since June 1gre and it is now May, 1987. Is it not time to make a final decision to revoke, permanently, this use permit for a second unit at 14231 Douglas Lane? The facts as stated in•our original letter are still (,after two rears) relevant.. Mr. Bolander has made no effort or attempt to correct these itemst nor improve his property in concurrence with the Planning Commission instructions and suggestions, under which they allowed him a second unit at the hearing on Nov. 3, 1985. In justice to Mr. Bolanderg the number of oars parked in and Around the property# is somewhat lees than two years ago. However there is still no proper garaging for the cars still there. The property is still overcrowded with all the many unite, and the lack of covered or closed car shelters only adds to the feeling of clutter and makes it most un- attraotive from the street. The granting of those variances necessary,to allow the existance of the second .unite, a 3.5 foot rear yard set back and a 3 foot side yard set back, where 35 feet and 15 feet are required, only adds to the sense of overcrowding and makes it a further eyesore# Unless the property is well maintained and brought morein keeping with tine appearance of the rest of the neighborhood, we do not feel the second units on Mr. Bolander's property belong there. We feel that Mr. Bolander has taken advantage of both the Planning Commission and the neighbors; by uontinuiag to live here] reciewing continuances and extensions from the planning Commssion., using the income from his rentals, and doing nothing to improve or upgrade his property. Page 2 This neighborhood and the City of Saratoga has waited pati enily sin Nov.. 1985 for the necessary improvements to be made, and they have not' been done. We "feel, most strongly, that Mr. Bolander has-had more than enough time to complete - these improvements. We urge the Planning, Commission to revoke this second use permit. 'This matter has taken years and a great deal of time, and still Hr. Bolander has- shown no sense of responsibility towards rectifying the problem. deem he wants the income from his It would second units without the necessity of , meeting the City's rules and regulation. He has totally disregarded all injunctions by the city to bring his property up. to code in all these yWB- We suggest the City has spent enough time and thought,_and will now revoke his second unit use permit. Very truly you s ' 1 Jeanne G. Johnston J.F.B. J stoa F- u: C�o `.. 14210 Dougl,_1LaL, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 The Planning Com:,ciscion Re: Report To The Planning Commission City of Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dated 11/7/85 Application No. SUP -12 Location: 14231 Douglas Lane Saratoga, Ca. Ladies and -Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: -_ Shortly after Mr. and Mrs. Bolander moved into their house (1977) on Douglas. Lane, Mr. Bolander's parents came to live with them, and moved into ai existing second unit on the property. Mrs. Bolander's mother came to star with them also, sometime: around 1979, at which time Hr. Bolander built (without a permit) another second unit, attached to the-original, into which Mrs. Bolander's mother moved and lived. After their parents died, Hr. and'Rrs. Bolander rentrd out these.two separate units to a succession of young women. Two years ago they rented one of the units to an elderly couple from the eaat coast who came here for the winter only, and used .one of the unite a second time for the name purpose. After a short vacancy, he rented one of these units to -the presa:t tenant. He is now applying for a use permit for a single second unit, with two bedrooms. Obviously he has installed a door or hall (or installed it when the second,' second unit was built) in order that the two separate units he has been previously renting out,' can now be turned into one. We feel he has misinformed the Council and Planning Commission on the status of these units. The Report to the Planning Commission dated 11/7/851 recommended that a second unit use permit be granted. We recommend strongly against a use permit for the following reasons: 1. The property as it.now- stands, is overcrowded, and the accessory structures are an eyesore.from the street. There has been little or no perceivable maintainence during the years the Bolanders have lived there. The situation has become a nuisance. Over these years Mr. Bolander has rented these units, he has given no thought for the neighbors, in the amount of traffic in and out of his driveway, and the number of cars always parked in and about the house and the tenant units. 2..If variances are granted for the required setbacks, and another garage added, it will engender further overcrowding, with the main house, the two second units, the sheds, the added garage and the front and side driveways. To consider giving variances and adding another building, will indeed make it an eyesore and most certainly not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and the open space ambience of this street. 3. Mr. Bolander surely could not have lived on this street, in Saratoga, since 1977, and not known that having'two rental units was against all zoning rest - rictiona for this completely reidential only neighborhood. The history of Mr. and Mrs. Bolander's use of this property since the death of their respective parents has been totally,for profit, with no regard to senior citizen housing. At no time during these years have they made any attempt to comply with the existing applicable zoning regulations. They have utilized the property with a complete disregard to the neighbors and to-the lava of the City of Saratoga. I I i I i -� ff- / Page 2 rm We strongly urge no ascond unit use permit be granted. The existing units could be utilized as a two -car garage, thereby taking some of the heavy traffic from the side' and front of the house. The present shed, now used as a ahop, should hgve a door on it which should be kept olosed at all times. The other two sheds could-be torn down. This would allievate the need for granting aide variances. There is a precedent which has been established in this neighborhood for the die - allowing of a second unit permit, In the spring of 19839 Mr. and Mrs.•Rohrig aold their two -acre property on the corner of Douglas Lane and Durham Court to the Long Meadow Development Co. (Hr. Griffith), which was situated almost across the street from Mr. Folander"a.property. A meeting was held before the Planning Commission to decide on the sub- division of the acreage. The residents of Durham Court complained about a second_,init which was on the property, and requeated-that it be torn down. Their reason was that it created congestion and was a nuisante. The Planning Commission granted their request, and the second unit was torn down. If a second unit is granted, we sincerely hope it will be granted for senior citizens only. There should be some guarantee that only one unit will be used by only one family unit. Thank you for your consideration of this matter which moat assuredly affecta the residents at this and of Douglas Lane. i L Very truly yours, Jeanne G. Johnston - • is J.F.B. Johnston L June .8 , 1987 14300 Douglass Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Grace.E. Cory,-Deputy City Clerk Saratoga.City Council .13777 Fruitvale Avenue - Saratoga, CA 95070 • Re: Hearing regarding revocation of second unit use, Bolander .Dear peputy City Clerk and Council Members: .Since I will be out of town on the evening of 17'June, I would request that this letter in regards to the revocation of the second unit use for Mr. Bolander suffice in lieu of my presence. While Mrs. Lohr and I have only owned our Douglass Lane property .for.less than-three years, one of the reasons that prompted our purchase and move was the quiet esthetics of the neighborhood. In addition, we heard that the City of Saratoga had tough city codes and enforce them. Were we hearing falsely? or Were we just gullible in both cases? Without allowing this to become a lengthy diatribe, let me state a few facts as I see them. I was present at the Council meeting where you granted the gentleman the 18 -month permissive period, in which to put his house in order-. He did not do it... DENY the appeal. Compared to the building permits that -I have purchased, the work that I have done, the amount of improvements that 'I have made to my property in this.same time span, I cannot understand why the appellant was not to get the requirements-finished to code. The above paragraph contains the conclusive argument, he did not do as he promised. The following contains some comments directed towards esthetics. In either case:, Council Members, I, charge you to vote to DENY this appeal. Vote with your head and not your heart, no matter what type of story is presented. s As I sit in my dining area and look down Douglass Lane, I can see the front yard ( ?) of the Bolander property. I see several Palm trees seriously in need of a trimming and brown dirt. No grass, no green. If the landscaping were meant to be a desert motive, I could understand this lack of green vegetation. The addition of rock or gravel would tend to soften this area of total neglect. Water savings must be terrific. As you drive by, there are usually five to seven automobiles parked in a-somewhat haphazard manner, an open ended shed and an assortment of outbuildings in need of TLC. It at least looks lived in, by how many people I would not venture to guess. Not a sight to charm or to please. is As I explained before, neither you nor I have the time to waste on the.chance.that there is some humanistic need for the further consideration of this appeal. The man did not fulfill the pro- mises-he made to you. He has obviously never done anything to- .make his property harmonious with his peers. Although I have purchased many building permits, it is my understanding that he _ has never applied or purchased appropriate building permits from - you for his property. It doesn't seem quite fair to me, one who is striving to become a good Saratogan. My tax dollars are newer, but just as good. - _ I would urge you to vote and DENY the appeal or any use permit for the property other than single unit family and pressure Mr. Bolander.to clean up his act: A good place to start would be"to-1'tear down and clean up the back area and eliminate those outbuildings and the need for a*grant °ing of variances. Please, give this matter your honest consideration. The man has had adequate time to do what was. requested, STOP the procrasti- nation NOW. Si n ee r ly, ' A l9 14210 Dougi ) Lane JUN p $% Saratoga, Ca. " Re.: Notice of Hearing with Saratoga City Council • Application :SUP -12 Appeal of Revocation of Second unit Use Permit Location: 14231 Douglas Lane, Saratoga, Ca. Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council.: We sincerely hope the City Council will not reinstate the second unit use permit for 14231 Douglas Lane. We do' request it to be permanently revoked. Our reasons have been contained.in our letters to the Planning Commission, dated May 1987 and Nobember 1985, and are restated below as follows: 1) When,..il4r. and Mrs. Bolander purchased their property in 1977, there was oiily -one second unit on it. They built an additional second unit illegally (i.e. without a building permit) in 1979, and connected it to the original unit. Allegedly, they are now renting them as one, two bedroom unit. 2) After the deaths of their respective parents, the Bolanders did rent them as two separate units, listing them as a one bedroom unit and a studio unit_, and charging separate rents for each one (i.el one rent for one and one rent for the other). None of the people to whom they rented these units was a senior citizen. They were all young women, who seemed to be coming and going with some frequency, causing the property to be very overcrowded with cars, noise and congestion. 3) Because the Planning Commission granted a second unit use permit for the connected two units in November of 1985 (now to be listed as one, two bedroom unit), the variances necessary for the existence of this unit were allowed. These are large variances, and because of the second unit, the structures are very close to the adjacent properties. 4) It seems there has been little to no perceptible maintainence on the property since 1977, and it has the appearance of being run down. Together with the added clutter of the second unit, a shed, plus no _ garaging for any of the cars, it is certainly not compatible with the wellymaintained residences of this street. 5) The Planning Commission has 'dealt with Mr: Bolander and his second unit problems since 1985. The Commission finally revoked his second unit use permit in May, 1987, as he still had not met the simple building inspection requirements. 6) Mr. Bolander's cavalier attitude towards the city requirements has been reflected in his record of use of this property since he moved to Saratoga. He built the additional second unit and it seems, either did not'want to know, or never inquired as to whether this building was allowed in this area. He paid-no-attention to the current zoning laws. Page 2 7) After building the additional unit, he then rented these two units to non- family members, none of whom, to our knowledge, were senior citizens, again not complying with the zoning regulations for this completely single family, all - residential street. To us, it shows a total lack of any.sort of civic responsibility, and certainly a disregard for his'own neighborhood. 8) Mr. Bolander has had many reviews and continuances from the Planning Commission during the years from 1985.to the present time, and it is only under the duress of the revocation of the second unit use permit that-he has, finally at the eleventh hour, met the bare minimums which were required in 1985. It was also only under duress of the second unit ordinance which was passed in 1984, that he rested his unit to senior citizens at all. This is not a record of good faith. 9) He hid to meet simple conditions to maitain his use permit -, and he did not`do so until forced. Meanwhile 'he has collected his rent, even though by city ordinance, this building failed to pass the Building Ins.pector's requirements. We have no assurance that if the second unit use permit is reinstated, he will not again violate the city ordinances, as he has to flagrantly done in the past. The record shows he has.not complied with them in all these years, unless he was forced to do so. We recognize the wish of the-City Council for .adequate senior citizen rental housing. However, we feel that Mr. Bolander failed to addess the senior citizen's housing problem-as such, instead concentrated his efforts on personal financial gain, while successfully skirting the legal require- ments of Saratoga. Only after the Planning Commission on May 13, 1987 revoked his,use permit, did he take any steps to comply with the require- ments on which the permit was predicated. We are sure that you, as members of the City Coucil recognize that every downward step of erosion of the quality and tone of a neighborhood is historically irreversible... The process is comparable to that of price or tax increases; they never reverse. We may stand alone, but at least we request that we be counted.as opposing Mr.-Bolander's appeal for reinstate- ment of his use permit. As members of the neighborhood for 24'years, we have done our utmost toward maintaining the quality of this area. Thank you for your consideration of this long - standing problem, and for recognizing that there is more than ,just senior citizen housing-involved in this case. It is also, very much the adverse impact that this particular second unit has had on our neighborhood. Very t yours, anne G. Johnsto J.F.B. nston dune 9,. 1987 dM- PM MON UES) WED THURS FRI" JOB ADDRESS Job Description /Sq.it. summary Data inspection requested for 'A - Permit No. Inspection called for.by }� Company S Name Gvmcr _ I U�() Call back phone Name ' Name A BUILDING B PLUMBING C ELECTRICAL D MECHANICAL Frame (3/4) Rough (1/2) Rough (1/2) Rough (1) Grading (3) Water service (2) Temp pole (1) Furnace (1) Foundation (2/3) Top out (2) Services (2) Water heater (1) Retainingwall (3) Sewer (2) Final (2) Ducts (1) Slab (2) Gas Test (2) E ENERGY Underfloor (1/2) Underfloor (2) Underfloor (2) Underfloor (2) " Block /Masonry (2) Shower pan (1) Frame insul. (3/2) Final (1) Sheetrock (1/2) Final (1) Firial (1) G MISC. Stucco lath (2) F POOL H ROOF Site check (2) Shear wall (2) Excavation -steel (3) Tear off (2) Complaint (3) Bonding -ore guntte Final (2/3) Pre- plaster (3) Progress (2) Landscape (2) Pool /cover /fence (2) Final (2) Investigation (3) Total unit count A ± B+ C+ D+ E+ F+ G+ H = Solar (3) Passed OUTCOME OF INSPECTION Correction Notice Given p Yes p Failed Unable to inspect /door tag hung O O' NOTES -SITE CONDITIONS - .OBSERVATIONS , L tL �v 27, I CORRECTION NOTICE TThe foilowing r ction must be anTare of td be covpr�e ntil ref�specte 1 O f , .n Inspector's Signature T ..t-- „� -t- -�► r1late _ 7 "14iftbiluN uivclIUN •a _ ta, . City of Saratoga ,`.... _ ... 13777 FRUINALE AVENUE -Phone: 867 -4600 _ _ C o -rrecti o n-, Notice �� �.....• _ -..' -. '. NAME JOB ADDRESS 3 b f��l 4•—LO &C Inspection of your work revealed that the following -is not in accordance with the city and /or state laws governing this work. p�= b lS �/v N Ec. r These corrections must be made and are not to be covered until reinspection is made. When corrections = have been made, please call _ .,�r.. for inspection. Date Inspector pr Eruild' Opivision f DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG 0—, - - Form 300.6 #.�- .y��'"4.y.. ..�.v.; •J�2. >{a, .•�i. ey .a - _°' "1' k: 'tir `� ♦.i _. ..-.� .....,, -.-.s .M��. z`�R� - _ Py ern . , -:-,• '-r.... - ., +� "'. -�,c '.1 �... ... .:" . . , .. n•. 1' w.. ° - _ ^! - t .` -} . LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN E. S. HAWES 444 CASTRO STREET SUITE 400 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94041 TELEPHONE (415) 969 -6886 HAND DELIVERED October 1, 1987 Don Peterson, Mayor Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: C. M. Bolander Trust Second Unit Use Permit Dear Mr. Peterson, Thank you for agreeing to reconsider your decision regarding Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit. In an attempt to address some of the concerns expressed by neighbors at prior hearings (and which may be expressed Wednesday), the Bolanders have undertaken extensive landscaping of the premises. Mr. Bolander has removed old palm trees and replaced them with attractive evergreens. He has also planted shrubs and plans to install a lawn. In addition, Mr. Bolander has worked on the garage door of the second unit. If you have not already seen the inprovements by the Bolanders, they invite you to drive by at your leisure. Otherwise, photographs will be available for your viewing at the City Council Meeting on Wednesday. Thank you. BESH /kdg cc: Charles Bolander Very truly yours, Brian E. S. Hawes MRS. JOSEPH P. LONG r 14215 DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA" 9�i5070 a�'r IRA . �2� 7Le-�. 121� 447 12A-� 742-1� tl dam% f�lrj /33 11 /2 /s� Don, Dave, Yuchuek: As you can see from the various notes on this letter, Yuchuek is going to verify that no second unit still exists on Bolander's property. Then we can reply to Jeanne Johnston. Betsy 0q.tpber 2-9, 1987 1-14210 `Ijoti - glas- Lari6 C a . 95070 TdIe 8,67 6409 D: ear Mr, Peters on: Attached. i& a letter A I?M r4_ oIm_z Mr,., Bola4der of 14,231 �Doxgla,s Lane. Ag,proximat,oly eight or ten, people: and down,Ddi 1s Lane; received. the 'same letter on., the.- same- d&y.,. .,-All were sent c'erti,f Led, mail. We are, concerned, haq we :d!o not' f�e.&l t,hajt llowiing- lir.,. BOldiCder -�ol a keep his former i-etenan I -,tsl I as , I , i6Sts`l ih�his second! units, was the intent of the City C,dundil:l s decision made- at, the Council. on Octo''ber 9, this year. There must Ve surely,* Sq me Way b Y W41 c'h ouncl� The, Mr,. Bol-Ander can be made to; comply with the �D 1 orders. -d'eadlAn'e, l' bell gve for this order was Qc�tobe,--e, 31,,- ,1,,9,8,7,. Ad -some 6�f the, Dou-glas• Lake, people said at the October 9 meeting •e rely -on, the. City, Governm,ent, to, carry, out, the pr-inc-i'ple'a of the .-"laws and. ordina aes o th`e ciU -tjereTpre many' qu�s,, ion , s a r e d, If, tiese lt:enant/gu6stis are lowed to odfiti"nue, using- t hese Units. 'There is aompre'hensive documentati�on. available in. our files., which, will refute Mr,. - BclandFer,ls better„ Id'e would. a•-opre,ciate, it if f t i me c)ould, b-e obt,a-ifted: with some mqr 0 e r, s, ;of 'the, City Council and/or the: ?Iafthing Cbmmiszi.`bn to pre go 6;V-er the entire mai-teri. 'dhi16 this will not solve, the pr6bIem,-when,, ;;ve are sure, Kri, 3,61ander will apply- for new igermits. in 198'8't, at least we, will have, a definitive !Ist_qp," to fitrw Bola d:erlz, 'or,es'en,�, g�'cti'ons thir , yearei. Hop'efully, such: - . --- - _,__4 - --- - _ -_ I A meeting could, h_ owever,, 'prevent another two 'or "t'hre'e years of hea ilri,g&, - 48 haVe Jus�t oc.c7ured when, th'e mattei, YJ:-Ises in 198- We: will 'be truly grateful i:f' you could. aid ,. and advl,s;e us on, this•, as� w,.e,,4 like .you., i would like to-.have this matter behind 'us . i nne. Johnstd J. F-,.B,,,., Jb,'hxfst,on)• N.B;. 'I 'hdVe ,sent .a: copy 6-f Mr. Hd�lahaer"a letter to 'both, ',Mr. P4,v 'Moyles, and to, Mrsi, Burger ot the Planning, Commission, v j�v I tl� ILI copy October 25, 1987 Dear Neighbors on Douglass Lane: This letter is to inform you of the Bolander property at 14231 Douglass Lane on which the Saratoga City Council has denied a Second Unit Use Permit for the reason: "Bolande,r failed to timely file necessary permits to finalize the permit after application." The necessary finalization was seven days after the Planning Commission's decision to cancel the permit. If any of you are interested you may call at the City Hall offices and review all the necessary permits and you will-find they were filed, paid in full and approved for the two bedroom second unit. The City has inspected the unit and have found the oven (singular) and cooking stove (singular) have been removed. Just ten years ago last April our family moved to Saratoga bringing with us my parents and my wifes' mother. They enjoyed the peacefullness of the neigh - hood as we have and the two bedroom guest house. Charles Mother was struck by a sand and gravel truck by the fire station up in Saratoga. After that we were not able to care for her so she and Father had to be placed in a nursing home where eventually both of them passed away after a couple of years. Some - time after that Victoria's Mother passed away in our guest home at the age of 90. Soon after these occurences the City of Saratoga passed a second unit ordinance to,accomodate SENIOR CITIZENS (those 60 years of age and over). It was thought by the city possibly some 400 property owners would come forward and apply for a second unit permit for their guest homes. Wrong. Less than 20 applications were received at City Hall by the deadline_ The Bolander's, as good citizens, made application prior to the deadline.' The law passed stated that the second units could have no more than two bedrooms and one of the residents must be 60 years of age. Bolander's application was filed and approved on this 'basis. It seems strange the citizens of Douglass Lane did not come out to oppose the second unit ordinance prior to its passing. It also seems strange that so many of the SENIOR CITIZENS are now very concerned that other senior citizens should not live on Douglass Lane by an ordinance that has been sanctioned by the City. After all, the guest house has been on the property some 40 years. The Bolander's have now been given the final word that the appeal to reinstate the permit was rejected by the City Council. Although we feel the sentence is greater than the act we will abide'by the decision of the City Council and pay our just dues to society -- namely not renting the second unit because of the lateness of filing final permits, even though the application was approved. Those of you who have passed by our home will find the palm trees have been removed which were even an eye sore when we moved here ten years ago. A hedge has been planted across the front of the property with ground cover in front of the hedge to the street and you will also find additional trees have been planted which will now -be followed by a planted lawn. We are still dedicated to the welfare and plight of senior citizens and will continue to do whatever we can to address the issue of making a home for them -- legally. Charles spent seven months working in Hayward 1976 -77 comuting to our home in Santa Ana, California on weekends where the family remained while Charles endeavoured to find adequate residence for family and our senior parents. Will I be misunderstood if I make a constructive statement? My wife and I have invited Miss Maxine Bouchard (over sixty years of age) and Mrs. Justin Waite (also over sixty years of age.) to be our guests. We are allowing them to live in the two bedroom guesthome.- Miss Bouchard is a decendent of pioneers and has lived in the valley nearly all her life. Within the last years as a senior citizen she has gone through a trying experience of losing most of her assets including the home she owned through a fraudulent building contractor. Mrs. Waite just recently lost her husband Justin. She and her husband have been our friends over the years. We have enjoyed our association through friendship and traveling together. Miss Bouchard hopes-to travel as her circumstances. become more adequate visiting f:.riends and relatives she has not seen in years. Mrs. Waite will return to her home on the East coast after her stay here. ° The first statement many will make, I am sure, will be to the effect that Bolander's will receive money under the table, a Swiss bank account will be credited,, the senior citizens will pay the utility bills, etc., etc. Let us assure you no compensation of any kind will be received from either Miss Bouchard or Mrs. Waite. We will pay the utility bills for th-e guesthome out of our own funds. The Bolander's are caring citizens and do have a heart. We do not have concern as to guests.you may have and we would be pleased if we too can have the same privilege. There will be no problems with guests on this property. Please, any of you who have questions,' suggestions, comments call on us in person or by telephone. Our number is 867 - 9635. We have always been good neighbors in this community and other communities in which we have resided and will continue to be good neighbors. If we do not receive comment from you we will assume you have no problems with the Second Unit Ordinance as imposed by the City of -Saratoga. We thank all of the neighbors on Douglass Lane who have supported us and Senior Citizens. It has been appreciated. Sincerely, hr Charles and Victoria Bolander P.S. In case you didn't happen to see Larry Slonaker's column in the "San Jose Mercury News "October 24, 1987 we are enclosing a copy for your read- ing. Considering the senior population is the fastest growing segment of the total population,•only through each of us helping the other can Americans be responsible. Designated agencies do not have the budget or manpower to do so. Jose Mercury News, Saturday morning, October 24, 1987 OIJ�jtY t . Ion el 'die ahis ` way HE WAS nobody, really. It would be easier to tell her sto- ry if she had been somebody.. if she had been somebody, and if she had been a bit more angelic, a bit softer around the edges. You know, like the el- �derly neighbor woman who sort of adopts kids in the neighborhood, and maybe sends baked goods next door now and then. But she pretty much kept to herself. She could be charming, but she also could be cantankerous. And she died alone, in dark- ness and in.fear. Nobody, you might say, deserves this. On the night of Sept. 2, this 70- year -old woman clambered up on the steel railing of an overpass above a railroad line in Santa Clara, near her apartment house, and jumped off. She died 33 feet below on a N d of sharp stones, in a depression be- tween two sets of tracks. Lying there be- side her were four keys and a gaudy neck- erchief decorated with nautical flags. Nobody knew who she was. So they gave her a name — Jane' Doe. And a number — Case 87 -1383. For two weeks, that was her identity. T'S PECULIAR that a person could live for several years in -the midst of 1Y2 million people and remain so iso- lated that her death would create a mys- tery. After all, the very fact of one's exis tense, the very fact one occupies however tiny a portion of this valley, should stir the air enough that it must occasionally touch someone else. And as it turns out, once in a while peo- ple did feel the mild breeze of Jane Doe's existence. People knew she was alive. They knew because, a few days before she died, she sent her landlady a note along with her rent check, saying that if anything happened to her, her furniture should go to a suppart group for family memb .rs of the mentally ill. .t And because, on the rnorning of the da• 'she died, she called the group — Parents Alliance for the Mentally III — said she I was in "terrible trouble," and asked that someone come over. (No one could.) least two on the night she died, at policemen driving by on the wa to work at separate times saw her stand- ing on the overpass. People knew she was alive, all right : They just didn't know how to keep her that way. Her existence caused a bit of a stir, . but not much. Not even when.she died. She carried no identification, and no one immediately came forward to,report her missing, so lice had a hard time establishing who she was; As a result she was consigned to the almost ludicrous austerity of a police re- porL A neighbor who knew her, Lorraine Lif- fland, said'that °she had a sense of humor. So, if she could somehow read her own po. lice report, she might even find its utter impersonality amusing. Part of it reads: Trademark of suspect (Unusual fen_ Lure of crime that is most, apt- to recur from crime to crime): Victim jumps off overpass killing herself. She was nobody. And they didn't have to .worry'— she wasn't going to bother-any- one anymore. T HERE WERE people in her life . who cared about her, even if they didn't really know her — Liffland; the people atPAMI, where she often visit- ed, the landlady who called police to re- port her missing. The portrait they paint of Jane Doe is complex.. She had.a.bright side. She was "a fun - loving person," Liffland said. "She lilted to be around people, she liked lone- ing, she liked — life." And she had a dark side. "Her self -es- teem was very low. She was alone and she wasn't well.... She felt her aloneness so much. "A lot of times shewas hostile. Who wouldn't be under those circumstances ?" Jane Doe was married but had been.sep. arated from her husband since the early '70s. He is now in a Seattle rest home. As far as anyone knows.— and in her case, it's not far at all — she had no,chil- dren of her own. She had lived alone for 31/z yearn in the apartment:bouse for low - income people. She had a pension from having served in the Army from 1944 to 1946. As far as anyone knows, she was nev- er institutionalized. In fact, most of her ac- quaintances saw no sign of mental prob- lems. Section That includes several people at PA.NU- ;who have firsthand experience with the 'tally ill So, when she called PAW on y Sept. Z, it was easy to misunderstand her. She talked with volunteer Jack McWil- Luw, and according to McWilliams' notes 4n the log, told him she was in "terrible trouble." She asked if he could come over right away. y McWilliams knew her because she often - .visited the agency's office, bringing vast amounts of clippings and typewritten writ - ings on mental illness. "I never knew she had problems," he'said later. "I thought she was just a retired person" $P,e SLONAKER, Page 6B vacuum. Suddenly, someone yelled, p°' "Jumpl" I flinched — then looked up to see a blue Toyota pickup driving away. Prom that spot on the overpass, Jane Doe lived eight blocks. What finally . brought her there and pushed her over the railing? None of the acquaintances felt they knew' Carole Calkins, the president of PA M, characterized her as "someone who r' . slipped through the cracks." i And she did so with barely a stir. She was nobody. Or — maybe it's the same s-- Piing — she had nobody. Of the dozens of people I talked to about her, nearly all .de- scribed her with a variation of this sen- tence of Liffland: "She felt•her aloneness so much", That is the frightening thing about all of this. Among all of us, she was-,so alone that no one could be there for her when she re- ally needed them. She was so alone that no one knew how to help her. And she was so alone that she lay dead for two weeks before the police and coro- ner's office would figure out who she was. Eventually they identified her through the keys she had with her. One key let investi- gators into her apartment, where she had left a note. In it, she willed her possessions to PAMI, and wroth "I don't scant anyone involved in my illness but myself." It was as though.she wanted to wrap her life back within herself, and leave no sign that it ever had happened. - Well, she didn't leave much. A table and chairs. Typewriter. Phonograph. No pic- tures. It's as though she was never there. It's as though she was nobody at all. Bufthat's not the way it was. She was somebody. Her name was Lena Papin. And I don't know all the troubles Lena Papin bore, and I don't know what made her stop that night on the overpass to final- ly lay them down. I just hope that the last thing she saw wasn't that endless row of blind doors. I just hone the last thing she heard wasn't the guy in the blue pickup. Write Lar li Slonaker at 750 R`ddc•r Park. D7 -ive, San Jose 95190, or call 920-5809. A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -34:3$ COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava November 13, 1987 David Moyles Donald Peterson Mrs. Jeanne Johnston 14210 Douglas Lane Saratoga, CA. 95070 Dear Mrs. Johnston: I am in receipt of your letter dated October 29, 1987, regarding the Bolander accessory structure at 14231 Douglas Lane and understand your concern that Mr. Bolander may not be complying with the Council's order of October 9, to discontinue the second unit. To bring you up -to -date on the City's action since the October 9th City Council meeting, the cooking facilities in the units on the Bolander property were removed and inspected on October 13, 1987, by Brad Lind and Steve Harper of the Building Division. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 15- 06.330, the unit is now a guest house and is allowed in the zoning district without any special permit. Since Mr. Bolander has complied with the City Code, he is within his rights as a resident of Saratoga to have guests stay in the unit, as long as it is not rented, let or leased.. The staff will inspect the unit on a periodic basis to ensure that no cooking facilities are installed. In the meantime, it would not be necessary to hold a meeting with some Planning Commissioners and Council members, as you suggest, to go over the entire matter since Mr. Bolander is operating within the limits of Saratoga's laws and ordinances. However, please feel free to contact the Community Service Officers when you feel that the use is in violation of those laws. Sincerely, �100 Jle- Don Peterson Mayor cc: David Moyles, Councilmember Ann Marie Burger, Planning Commissioner Todd Argow, Community Services 11/2/87 Don Dave �'Yuchuek As you can see from the various notes on this letter, Yuchuek is going to verify that no second unit still exists on Bolander's property. Then we can reply to Jeanne Johnston. Betsy October ?9, 1987 1/1 14210 Douglas Lane Saratoga, Ca. 95070 I, Pone 867 -0409 71 Dear Mr. Peterson: � `�" � 1&10 Attached is a letter from Mr. Bolander of 14231 Douglas Lane. 7 Approximately eight or ten people up and down Douglas Lane received the same letter on the same day. All were sent certified mail. we are concerned, as we do not feel that allowing Mr. Bolander to keep his former "tenants" as "gu:ests" in his second units, was the intent of the City Council's decision made at the Council meeting on October 9, this year. There must be surely, some way by which Mr. Bolander can be made to comply with the Council's orders. The ' deadline, I believe, for this order was October 31, 1987. As some of the Douglas Lane people said at the October 9 meeting, we rely on the City Government to carry out the principles of the laws and ordinances of the city, therefore many questions are raised if these "tenant /guests" are allowed to continue using these units. There is comprehensive documentation available in our files, which will refute tor. Bolander's letter. We would appreciate it if time could be obtained with some m mb, rs of the City Council and /or the Planning Commission to presen�to go over the entire matter. While this will not solve the problem when, we are sure, Mr. Bolander will apply for new permits in 1988, at least we will have a definitive "stop" to Mr. Bolander's present actions this year. Hopefully, such a meeting could., however, prevent another two or three years of hearings, as have just occured, when the matter arises in 1988. We will be truly grateful if you could aid and advise us on this, as we, like you, would like to have this matter behind us. Cordially, J ne Johnston ( rs. J.F.B. Johnston) V.B. I have sent a copy of Mr. Bolander's letter to both Mr. David Moyles, and to Firs. Burger of the Planning Commission. J.G.J. �r�lr; ate' f October 25, 1987 ,f Dear Neighbors on Douglass Lane.: This letter is to inform you of the Bolander property at 14231 Douglass Lane on which the Saratoga City Council has denied a Second Unit Use Permit for the reason: "Bolander failed to timely file necessary permits to finalize the permit after application." The necessary finalization was seven days after the Planning Commission's decision to.cancel the permit. If any of you are interested you-may call at the City Hall offices and review all the necessary permits and you will-find they were filed, paid in full and approved for the two bedroom second unit. The City has inspected the unit and have found the oven (singular) and cooking stove (singular) have been removed. Just ten years ago last. April our family moved to Saratoga bringing with us my parents and, my wifes' mother. They enjoyed the peacefullness of the neigh - hood as we have and the two bedroom guest house. Charles Mother was struck by a sand and gravel truck by the fire station up in Saratoga. After that we were not able to care for her so she and Father had to be placed in a nursing home where eventually both of them passed away after a couple of years. Some- time after that Victoria's Mother passed away in our guest home at the age of 90. Soon after these occurences the City of Saratoga passed a second unit ordinance to.accomodate SENIOR CITIZENS (those 60 years of age and over). It was thought by the city possibly some 400 property owners would come forward and apply for a second unit permit for their guest homes. Wrong. Less than 20 applications were received at City Hall by the deadline. The Bolander's, as good citizens, made application prior to the deadline. The law passed stated'that the second units could have no more than two bedrooms and one-of the residents must be 60 years of age. Bolander's application .was filed and approved on this basis. It seems strange the citizens of Douglass Lane did not come out to oppose the second unit ordinance prior to its passing. It also seems strange that so many of the SENIOR CITIZENS are now very concerned that other senior citizens should not'live on Doug -lass Lane by an ordinance that has been sanctioned by the City. After all, the guest house has been on the property some 40 years. The Bolander's have now been given the final word that the appeal to reinstate the permit was rejected by the City Council. Although we feel the sentence is greater than the act we will abide by the decision of the City Council and pay our just dues to society - - namely not renting the second unit because of the lateness of filing final permits, even though the application was approved. Those of you who have passed by our home will find the palm trees have been removed which were even an eye sore when we moved here ten years ago. A hedge has been planted across the front of the property with ground cover in front of the hedge to the street and you will also find additional trees have been planted which will now be followed by a planted lawn. We are still dedicated to the welfare and plight of senior citizens and will continue to do whatever we can to address the issue of making a home for them -- legally. Charles spent seven months working in Hayward 1976 -77 comuting,to our home in Santa Ana, California on weekends where the family remained while Charles endeavoured to find adequate residence for family and our senior parents. Will I be misunderstood if I make a constructive statement? My wife and I have invited Miss Maxine Bouchard (over sixty years of age) and Mrs. Justin Waite (also over sixty years of age) to be our guests. We are allowing them to live in the two bedroom guesthome. Miss Bouchard is a.decendent of pioneers and has lived in the valley nearly all her life. Within the last years as a senior citizen she has gone through a trying experience of losing most of her assets including the home she owned through a fraudulent building contractor. Mrs. Waite just recently lost her husband Justin. She and her husband have been our friends over the years. We have enjoyed our association through friendship and traveling together. Miss -Bouchard hopes-to travel as her circumstances become more adequate visiting friends and relatives she has not seen in years. Mrs. Waite will return to her home on the East coast after her stay here. The first statement many will make, I am sure., will be to the effect that Bolander's will receive money under the table,, a Swiss bank account will be credited, the senior citizens will pay the utility bills, etc., etc. Let us assure you no compensation of any kind will be received from either Miss Bouchard or Mrs. Waite. We will pay the utility bills for the g:uesthome out of our own funds. The Bolander's are caring citizens and do have a heart. We do not have. concern as to guests.you may have and we would be.pleased if we too can have the same privilege. There will be no problems with guests on this property. Please, any of you who have questions,'suggestions, comments call on us in person or by telephone. Our number is 867 -9635. We have always been good neighbors in this community and other communities in which we have resided and will continue to be good neighbors. If we do not receive comment from you we will assume you have no problems with the Second Unit Ordinance as imposed by the City of Saratoga. We thank all of the neighbors on Douglass Lane who have supported us and Senior Citizens. It has been appreciated. Sincerely, Charles and Victoria Bolander P.S. In case you didn't happen to see Larry Slonaker's column in the "San. Jose Mercury News" October 24, 1987 we are enclosing a copy for your read- ing. Considering the senior population is the fastest growing segment of the total population, only through each of us helping the other can Americans be responsible. Designated agencies do not have the budget or manpower to do so. 4 n Jose Mercury News, Saturday mornini October 24, 1987 • � t k Sionaker _ the lonely ' �'dle this way. HE WAS nobody, really. It would be easier to tell her sto- ry if she had been somebody .... if she had been somebody, and if she had been a bit more angelic, a bit softer around the edges. You know, like the el- `' derly neighbor woman who sort.of adopts kids in the neighborhood, and maybe sends baked goods next door now and then. But-she pretty much kept to herself. She could be charming, but she also could be cantankerous. And she died alone, indark- ness and in fear. Nobody, you might say, deserves this. On the night of Sept. 2, this 70- year -old woman clambered up on the steel railing of an overpass above a railroad line in Santa Clara, near her apartment house; and jumped off. She died 33 feet below on a bed of sharp stones, in a depression be- tween two sets of tracks. Lying there be- side her were four keys and a gaudy neck- erchief decorated with-nautical flags. Nobody knew who she was. So they gave her a name — Jane' Doe. And a number — Case 87 -1383. For two weeks, that was her identity. T'S PECULIAR that a person could live for several years in the midst of 13/2 million people and remain so iso- lated that her death would create a mys- tery. After all, the very fact of one's exis- tence, the very fact one occupies however tiny a portion of this valley, should stir the air enough that it must occasionally touch someone else. And as it turns out, once in a while peo- ple did feel the mild breeze of Jane. Doe's existence. People knew she was alive. They knew because, a few days before she died, she sent her landlady a note along with her rent check, saying that if anything Happened to her, her furniture should go to a support group for family membe*s of the mentally ill. ;t And because, on.the morning of the day :she died, she called the group — Parents Alliance for the Mentally Ill — said,sbe was in "terrible trouble," and asked that . someone come over. (No one could.) And least two�� on'the night she died, at policemen driving by on the way to work at separate times saw her stand- ing on the overpass. People knew she was alive, all right They just didn't know how to keen her that way. Her eustenee caused a bit of -a stir, .. but not much. Not even when. she died. She carried no Identification, and no one immediately came forward to report her missing, so po- lice had a hard time establishing who she w.as..As a result she was consigned to the almost ludicrous austerity of a police re- port - A neighbor who knew her, Lorraine Lif- fland, said that she had a sense of humor. So, if she could somehow read her own po- lice report, she might even find its utter impersonality amusing. Part of it reads: Trademark of suspect (Unusual fea- ture of crime that is most apt to recur from crime to crime): Victim jumps off overpass killing herself. She was nobody. And they didn't have to worry' — shewasn't going to bother any- one anymore. T HERE WERE people- in her life who cared about her, even if they didn't really know her — Liffland,: the people at PAMI, where she often visit- ed, the landlady who called police to re- port her missing. The portrait they paint of Jane Doe is complex. She had a bright side: She was "a fun - loving person," Liffland said. "She liked to be around people, she liked danc- ing, she liked — life." Andshe.had a dark side. "Her self-es- teem was very low. She was alone and she wasn't well.... She felt her aloneness so much." "A lot of times she was hostile.. Who .. ouldn't be under those circumstances ?" Jane Doe was married but had been sen arated from her husband since the early '70s. He is now in a Seattle rest home. As far as.anyone,knows — and in her case, it's not far at all — she had no chil- dren of her own. She had lived alone for 3% years in the apartment house for low- income people. She had a pension from having served in the Army from 1944 to 1946. As far as anyone knows, she was nev- er institutionalized. in fact, most of her ac- quaintances saw no sign of mental prob- lems. Section That includes several people at PAMI• :who have firsthand experience with the Vamta11y ilL So, when she called PAhn on Sept. 2, it was easy to misunderstand her.. She talked with volunteer Jack McWil- liams, and according to McWilliams' notes in the log, told him she was in "terrible trouble." She asked if he could come over right away. McWilliams knew her because she often visited the agency.'s office, bringing vast amounts of clippings and typewritten writ- ings on mental illness. "I never knew she - had problems," he said later. "I thought she was just a retired person-" • $ee SLONAKER, Page 6B vacuum. Suddenly, .someone yelled, `Jump"' I flinched — then looked up to see a blue Toyota pickup driving away. From that spot on the overpass, Jane Doe lived eight blocks. What finally . brought her there and pushed her over the railing? None of the acquaintances felt they knew' Carole Calkins, the president of PAMI, characterized her as "someone who slipped through the cracks." i And she did so with barely a stir..She was nobody. Or — maybe it's the same thing — she had nobody. Of the dozens of people ,I talked to about her, nearly -all de- scribed her with a variation of this sen- tence of Liffland: "She felt.her aloneness so much." That is the frightening thing about all of this. Among all of us, she was so alone that no one could be there for her when she re- ally needed, them She was so alone that no one knew how to help her. And she was so alone that she lay dead for two weeks before the police and coro- ner's office would figure out who she was. Eventually they identified her through the keys,she had with her. One key let investi- gators into her apartment, where she had left a note. In it, she willed her possessions to PAMI, and wrote, "I don't want anyone involved in my illness but myself." It was as though she wanted to wrap her life back within herself, and leave no sign that it ever had happened. Well, she didn't leave much. A table and chairs. Typewriter. Phonograph. No pic- tures. It's as though she was, never there. It's as though she was nobody at all. But that's not the way it was. She was somebody. Her name was Lena Papin. And I don't know all the troubles Lena Papin bore, and I don't know :hat made her stop that night on the overpass to final- ly lay them down. I just hope that the last thing she saw wasn't that endless row of blind doors. I just hope the last thing she heard w sn't the y in the blue pickup. Write Larr;; Slonaker at 75J Piddcr Part: DTivc, San Jose 95190, or caU 920S&09. TECHNICAL. INFORMATION AND STAFF ANALYSIS OOMMISSION MFETING• June 10, 1987 APN: 397 -22 -09 APPLICATION NO & LOCATION• SD -87 -005, DR -87 -0431 15570 Oak Place. ACTION REQUESTED: Tentative Building Site and Design Review approvals of plans to construct a new one -story 2,426 sq. ft. residence. APPLICANT_ Brown PROPERTY OWNER: Brown OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED/REQUIRED: Final building site approval /Building ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Exempt under CEQA Permits ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL, PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Medium EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (garden- area /open space area used eprevi the owner of the adjacent lot. Previously by 5URROUNDLNG LAND USES• single family residences (two story homes to .the east and west). PARCEL SIZE: 6,750 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION:* Two large elm trees exist in what will become the City's right- of -way. A large oak tree is located in the rear portion of the lot. The remainder of the lot has a variety of trees and shrubs. _SLOPE•AT BUILDING SITE: Level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Level GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 25 ft. Rear: 25 ft. •Lef,t Side:. 6 ft. •• Right Side: 6 ft. IMPERVIOUS COV RAGE•" 39% (2626 sq. ft.) HEIGHT: 20 ft. 6 in. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Per Staff Per Applicant First Floor (including garage): 24'26 sq. ft. 2364 s q. ft. TOTAL: .*2426 sq. ft. 7. 2364 sq. ft. *includes 120 sq. ft. trellis /walkway ORDINANCE COMPLIAN The project does meet all the requirements and standards of the.zoi ing ordinance. MATERIALS & COLORS PROPOSED: "Exterior: Light warm grey horizontal wood siding, white trim with flashing painted burgundy Roof: Wood Shakes STAFF RNFILYSIS A. Background /Pr000sal The applicant, Donald Brown, is requesting tentative Building Site and Design Review approvals of plans to construca a new 2,426 sq. ft`. single story (20.5 ft. high) home on a substandard, 6,750 sq'-. ft. inf'ill lot in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The subject•lot; Lot #11 of the Saratoga Park Lots Subdivision, is a legal lot of record as it was part of the above subdivision recorded in the early 1900'5. The subject lot is level'and appears to have been used as a garden /open space area 'for the residents of the existing home to the east (Protiva's). Located immediately to the west of the applicant's 10 I 'is a two- .story (24 ft. high) 2,418 sq. ft. residence on a 6,750 sq, ft. lot. The lot to the east is developed with a large two -story period style home. Finally, to the south of the applicant's lot is a 8,12.2 sq.. 'ft.' triangular shaped' "parcel that has•a garage /storage building on it. (Note,: Currently, the City is in the process of requiring the merger of the triangular shaped parcel with the Protiv.a lot (14466 Oak Pl. ). B. Stuff Analvsis E� .1. Building Site Approval - There are no Major issues with regard to the request for building site approval. Although the subject lot Is substandard in terms of site area, width and frontage, it is a legal lot of record as it was.part of the Saratoga Park Lots Subdivision and is shown on the subdivision map recorded in the early ".1900's.'' All. -of the responsible agencies have reviewed the project and are recommending approval•subject to the conditions lf_sted in Exhibit A. of Resolution SD -87 -005. Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan "Guidelines For Area H Development" which states that "vacant residential parcels shall be developed as single family residential at the same density as the surrounding-_ residential area ". In staff's opinion, the site is physic Oily suitable for the. type and density of development proposed. 2. Design Review a.• Floor Area - Acco has proposed a approximately 120 to the front door -ding to staff's calculations, the applicant total of 2426 sq, ft.- which .includes sq. ft. of trel -lis covered walkway leading of the home. The f 'loor area standard for the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district is 3500 sq.' ft., however, the applicant's lot. is approximately. 32 percent in area smaller than the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum for the zoning district. Using staff's calculations, the floor area proposed by the applicant is 30 percent less than the 3,500 sq. ft. standard; but using the applicant's floor area figures, the proposed residence is 32 percent less than the floor area standard. 0131 In. the past, --the Commission has required that the size of a home be reduced by the percentage that the lot size wa's of the district standard. In this case, staff believes the applicant has followed the above-policy and feels that homo "fits" the lot, will not appear excessively bully and is compatible in size with other homes in the immediate neighborhood. b. - Height - Although two - story homes exist on both sides of the applicant's lot and other two -story homes are scattered throughout the neighborhood, in staff's opinion, one -story low - level period style (early to Mid 1900 -'s.). dwellings are the majority. The applicant has proposed a one- story-home with a maximum height of 20.5 ft. In staff's opinion, a one - story structure on the subject lot is appropriate and should be encouraged, particularly since two- story homes exist on either side of the lot. The one -story design is 'sensitive to'the one -story feeling that currently exists in the neighborhood and helps to reduce the perceived bulk of the home. Also, privacy concerns one mitigated by not .,having second story windows looking onto adjacent lots.'. c: Setbacks -.The subject lot is 50 ft':•wide and according to City Code Section 1S- 65.160, the side yard setbacks for a lawfully ' created lot having a substandard width is 10 lot's, actual e width or 6 ft. whichever is percent the according to the above, the minimum required side i therefore, fore, for the applicant's lot is 6 ft. Yard setback The applicant has proposed a house that is staggered along both side property lines with setbacks ranging from 6 ft. (bedroom areas) to 7.S -8 ft. (living /dining areas) to 24 ft. (one side of the garage and.hallway areas). As a result, the home is given visual depth when viewed from adjacent properties to the east and west which helps reduce the perceived bulk of the home. Also., two interesting•bpen space areas are formed from slaggering the side elevations of the home. d. Driveway. - The applicant proposes to construct a new block" driveway to serve the "turf incorporating the existing driveway easement cu {geracross the northeastern'corner of the lot. As a result, the lot's frontages which is only 50 ft. wide is carved up for two separate driveways, leaving very little area for significant front yard landscaping. In staf -f's opinion, a much better solution would be to utilize the existing driveway easement and enter the garage from the east side rather than the north. While this solution would require the removal of 2 orange trees and increase the area of impervious coverage by approximately 200 sq. ft., the overall effect would be to provide more open space in the front yard area capable of being landscaped. For example, although the proposed "turf block" driveway is not included in the -impervious coverage calculations, given its intended use i.e. driveway nd ' Y parking area, the likelihood that this area will look "landscaped" is suspect. If, however, the existing driveway easement is Incorporated into the project design and access to the garage is taken from the east, the area directly in front of the garage-could then be landscaped in the true sense of ' the- term with little or no effect on the overall design of the home, C. Conclusion & Recommendation The proposed project meets all of the standards of the'zoning ordinance and in staff's- opinion will be compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Privacy impacts have been mitigated by limiting the number of windows a.long the east and west elevations and impacts on existing views have been mitigated by keeping the structure one -story which also assists in reducing the perception of bulk. In the final analysis, staff can make .all of the Design Review findings, but recommends the Planning Commission require the, appli-c•ant- to Incorporate- the exi-sting driveway easement,* int'o the development so that the number o,f driveway cuts along the lot's frontage can be kept to a minimum. However, if the Planning Commission wishes .,to approve. DR- 67- 043,.•,the Resolution with conditions and Findings are attached. Design Review' RESOLUTION NO.DR-86 -043 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga Planning.CoMMission has received an application for design review approval of plans to construct a new single story residence at 14470 Oak Place. WHEREAS, the applicant has Met. the burden of proof'required to support his said application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after c.areful'consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, and other exhibits submitted in connection wi'tFrth;is Matter, -the application of Donald Brown for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to the conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be vo.i d. 2. Obtain zoning' clearance on the construction drawings prior to submitting plans to the Building Department. 3.. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a 6 ft. high chain link or welded wire mesh protective fence shall be placed around the oaf; tree under its dripline. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10 day of June, 1987 by the following roll call vote: AYES: _ NOES: ABSENT: BY: Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The fore.g.oing conditions are hereby accepted.. Signature of Applicant Date' OR -87 -043, 14770 Oak Place EXHIBIT e FINDINGS: 1. Unreasonable interference with views or orivacv and compatible infill project The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the subject lot is a level infill lot and the height of the proposed home has been kept to a minimum. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residenc'es.in that the proposed residence is a low -level single story structure (20.5 ft. high) and the applicant has minimized .the number of windows located aloh'g the-critical east and west elevations. 2. Preservation of the natural lftpd5cQpe The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no removal of ordinance size trees''is necessary nor is any grading required. 3. Perception of excessive bulk - The project will minimize the perception o.f excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the total floor area has been adjusted to 2;426 sq. ft. which is an appropriate size for the 6,750 sq. ft. lot. 4. Comoat'ible bulk and height - The project is compatible in terms•b.f bulk and height ,with those homes within 500 ft. of 'the site and in the same zoning district in thatthe t6ingle story design is consistent with the majority of the homes in;the neighborhood and the proposed floor area to appropriate given the size of the lot. - The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar"access of adjacent properties in that the proposed residence is only 20.5 ft. in height and adequate setback are maintained. Grading and erosion control standards The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that no grading is proposed. Mr. Robert 'Calkins, Pl"frT Dcpartmcnt i"iay" 16, 1987 - City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 11"l1'l 9 1987 . Dear Robert, PLA!VN !IA'f Dr'pr Yesterday, while reviewing architect David Pines"plans fora new house next to the Protiva's present residence at 14466 Oak Place, I commented that usually my feedings become more cogent a few days after seeing a set of plans. The gelling process has now occurred, so here goes. My deepest concern is over the closeness of the new house to the Protiva's current residence (about 10 feet apart), but I realize that since the lot is a iegal lot of record nothing can be done about the fact that i t is severely substandard both in square footage and frontage on Oak Place: 6,750 sq, rt. where a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. is required; 50 ft. frontage where at ieast 85 1t. is required. g My first objection is to the retentlon of a driveway easement across the new hou'se's front yard. The retention of approximately 10 ft. across the front of the lot for the old horseshoe driveway of the original residence will create even a smaller visual frontage for the new house than it already has. Frgnt hould not be render d v15c�attY mil r. Retaining an easement will also effectively reduce the new owner's square footage available for landscaping. scuaQe fs ag_ain already ;3bstandard and should not be further mfnlmlzed think the Protiva's" should be asked tore- route their present 'driveway rather than 'impinge on the integrity of the new house. If the driveway of the original residence is allowed to run across the new house's front yard, then the new house's front yard will not , conform with the rest of the street. Every other house on the south side of Oak Place has a small, autonymous, rectangular front yard. This yard will have a driveway for another house carved through it. A large proportion of the new house's front yard is already'paved for its own driveway . Even if turfstone"is used, It's still a paving material, and to allow a second driveway,to cut across the front yard is, in my opinion, excessive . think a side entry Into the garage such as ,you had sketched on the plans, rather than a double car garage- facing the street, would be far more in conformity with every other house on Oak Place than what has been drawn. At present there are no double car garage doors in the front of a house facing Oak Place. .�1.3B To reiterate, I do not like the shared easement house's front lawn. It give_ s a strong .impression of across the new space 'on a street that has always been single fami residential. living Y tial. Second, I must once again question the position relative to the old house. Since there is a dispo anon of the lot line file at the Planning Commission, and since a visual Inspection maps on street would seem to reveal that the house is visual Inspection from the later map on rile-, I'would like to request that a than It appears on the civil engineer be named by the city to shoot the line and lla third party and for all any question concerning the location of the old house rest once to the'lot line. use relative would be happy to pay the civil engineer's fee for i city can obtain the Protiva's permission. Earlier, Mrs. Linda P work if the refused to allow the lotline to be verified by Mr. Rodney D. Westfi ll Big Basin Way, a Saratoga civil engineer hired by myself to shoot , 14583 fine Even though the Protiva's are not developing the lot upon Which th e old house sits, nonetheless, the. position of the old house relative e o lot line and the total distance between the two houses is*crucial to the impact of the new house on Oak .Place and should be conf i the shadow:of a doubt. rmed beyond the Mrs. Joyce Hlava, Mayor Mrs. Marty Clevenger, Council Mr. David Moyles, Council Mrs. Karen Anderson, Council Mr. Don Peterson, Council Mr., and Mrs. Alain Pinai- Mr. and Mrs. Greg Grodhaus Mr.-and Mrs. Bobby Bramlett Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Donoho .Ms. K M. Hall Mr. and Mrs. Alain Pinal Mr. and Mrs. Jack Paravagna Ms.. Dolores Smith Mr. and Mrs. Virgil Campbell Sincerely, C. Holly avies ' 0 13.7,* May 26, 1987 Mrs. Jane Pinel 14472 Oak Place Saratoga, CA 95070 Mr. Robert Calkins Planning Department' City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mt. Calkins: . ' . n 1987 ('I-I' NI :I N r, t, E'r f I am writing this letter out of deep sadness. I learned just a few days ago that the planning Commission is about to-consider issuing a permit on anew house to be built between my home and the Protiva's home on Oak Place. This house would be on a narrow strip of land, squeezed in between two two -.story homes, including one historic home that was not meant to be flanked against a . side fence! ;�: I. knew that the neighbors were planning to build on such lot, but I must admit I could not believe would get their way, e e they I looked at the plot plan and the design of the proposed structure, and wondered whether�an thin be built anymore that will enhance or at least conform with the character of the neighborhood. Is Oak will Place, this quaint tree -lined street so rural and yet part of the village, going to look like a condo project? Is the majestic, centuries -old oak tree on the subject land meant to decorate a postage -stamp -sized yard? What's going on? Where are we going_ ? It is depressing and revolting. As if it was not bad' enough,- the height of that proposed 'one- story" house would be only slightly than that of a two - story home. Y ghtly less If indeed a house is to be built on that land, let's at least use a little bit of sani common sense. ty, god taste, ,and. . Three major - aspects of the proposed construction are particularly appalling: I. The total combined square footage of the proposed structure is 2,354. The ground ratio between ' the house and the lot would result in an incredible abomination, leaving little space for what is referred to as a backyard, completely overwhelmed by one huge oak tree. The total square footage should not exceed 2,000 square feet; that is, 1,600 maximum for the house and 400 for the garage, leaving a decent amount of room at the rear of the property. 2. The maximum height of the structure should not exceed 16 feet, as it would stand between two two- storied homes and would otherwise convey the picture of an obtrusive monolith two-storied home is only a hair higher than the one -story structure they are cur ently . prMy oposing! 3. The access to the garage"should be. from the east side in order to avoid that barrack look from the street. This would allow all the present fruit trees and other foliage to remain in front of the structure and would help to convey a little greenery and serenity to a street and a neighborhood that depend on it. My husband, who is a real estate executive in the Bay Area, does not want. to join with me on this letter because he does not want to make this dispute, which is one of simple al values and living standards to become instead a real estate or political affair. But I personally cannot hide my feelings, as I believe they must be expressed, not only for my sake, but for the benefit of others an the benefit of this town, which I like very much. d also for S'ncerely, ane pi P.S. I find it a little puzzling that there should be a discrepancy between two surveys on the property in question. Both surveys were conducted by the same person and both are on file with the city. The discrepancy is in relation to the side property line. The first survey shows the boundary line running right next to, if not directly through, the Protiva's home (14466 Oak Place). In the second survey, the line has moved. It seems only proper thata third survey should be performed to ascertain where the house stands within the parcel. If this is indeed a legal lot, the parties interested in developing the land should have no objection to confirming this once and for all, and indeed, would find it in their best interest to erase any lingering doubts. cc: Mayor Joyce Melva Councilwoman Karen Anderson Councilwoman Marry Clevenger Councilman David Moyles Councilman Don Peterson 01,39- :..:..' r33f- LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN E. S. HAWE S 444 CASTRO STREET SUITE 400' MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94041 TELEPHONE (415) 959- 6886 HAND DELIVERED October 1, 1987 Don Peterson, Mayor Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA.95070 - Re: C. M. Bolander Trust Second Unit Use Permit Dear Mr. Peterson, Thank you for agreeing to reconsider your decision regarding Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit. In an attempt to address some of the concerns expressed by neighbors at prior hearings (and which may be expressed Wednesday), the Bolanders have undertaken extensive landscaping of the premises. Mr. Bolander has removed old palm trees and replaced them with attractive evergreens. He has also planted shrubs and plans to install a lawn. In addition, Mr. Bolander has worked on the garage door of the second unit. If you have not already seen the inprovements by the Bolanders, they invite you to drive by at your leisure. Otherwise, photographs will be available for your viewing at the City Council Meeting on Wednesday. Thank you. BESH /kdg cc: Charles Bolander Very truly yours, Brian E. S. Hawes STAFF - REPORT CONVERSION PERMIT FILE NO.: UP -489 March 30, 1981 APPLICANT: Eric & Linda Protiva LOCATION: 14466 Oak Place REQUEST: Allow the construction of a second -story addition to the rear of an existing two -story structure. SITE SIZE: 6,750 sq. ft. ZONING: R -1- 1.0,000 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Size of Addition: Lower Level: 169 sq. ft. + Upper Level: 412 sq. ft. + 2. Site Coverage: 26.7% + 3. Height of Structure:" Existing: 23' + . Proposed: 23' + 4. Exterior Facade: Existing: Off white shingles Proposed: to match existing 5. Roof Materials: Existing: Grey /shakes Proposed: to match existing 6. Design: a. Compatible with existing Design of Structure: Yes b. Compliance with Ordinance requirements: 1. Setbacks: See comments 2. Coverage: Exceeds 20 coverage maximum by 6.7% c. Comments: The addition will maintain existing non - conforming rear yard. (23' where 35' required) and side yard (4.3' where 6' required) setbacks. The lower level addition will enclose all'existing covered porch.which i 33 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 G�` - .:s:'• (108) 867 -3438 STAFF - REPORT CONVERSION PERMIT FILE NO.: UP -489 March 30, 1981 APPLICANT: Eric & Linda Protiva LOCATION: 14466 Oak Place REQUEST: Allow the construction of a second -story addition to the rear of an existing two -story structure. SITE SIZE: 6,750 sq. ft. ZONING: R -1- 1.0,000 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Size of Addition: Lower Level: 169 sq. ft. + Upper Level: 412 sq. ft. + 2. Site Coverage: 26.7% + 3. Height of Structure:" Existing: 23' + . Proposed: 23' + 4. Exterior Facade: Existing: Off white shingles Proposed: to match existing 5. Roof Materials: Existing: Grey /shakes Proposed: to match existing 6. Design: a. Compatible with existing Design of Structure: Yes b. Compliance with Ordinance requirements: 1. Setbacks: See comments 2. Coverage: Exceeds 20 coverage maximum by 6.7% c. Comments: The addition will maintain existing non - conforming rear yard. (23' where 35' required) and side yard (4.3' where 6' required) setbacks. The lower level addition will enclose all'existing covered porch.which Staff .1report �� 3 /30/81 UP 40" _ -Page 2 currently maintains the same setbacks. The second story will also maintain these existing setbacks (i.e. no increase in existing building footprint) therefore, there will be no increase in non- conformity. The lot is sub- standard in size by 3,250 sq. ft.. Therefore, some variation in site coverage should be allowed.. Actual coverage (existing) will not be increased by addition. 7. Adverse Impacts On: a. Privacy: No adverse impacts b. Views: No-adverse impacts C. Aesthetic Character: No adverse .impacts. d. Quantity /Quality o.f Light and Air: No adverse impacts. e. Comments: The rear & right elevation second story windows will not create privacy impacts to adjacent property owners because of existing mature oaks and pines along the property lines. -- 8. Description of Vicinity: a. Location of Other Two -Story Structures: There are two other two -story structures in the same block as the subject structure. b. Comments: The structure will be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood and complies with the location standards of the multi -story ordinance. This is an expansion to an existing two - story structure so no new visual impacts will be created. FTMnTNCq- 1. The proposed location of the multi -story conversion. is /2rXx1,t�:Ck in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the multi -story conversion and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained xWwi.11 not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare, or materially injurious to.properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed multi -story conversion does / x=tx comply with each of the applicable provisions of the ordinance. 4. Comments on Findings The proposal does not technically comply with the- rear and*side yard setback and coverage requirements largely due to the sub - standard size of the subject parcel (6,750 1). However, there is no reasonable Sta. f F�port , 3/30/81 up- •'4�y, Page 3 single -story expansion alternative and the proposal does comply with the intent of the multi -story ordinance in terms of privacy impacts, aesthetic character, interference with views and quality and quantity of light and air. Therefore, it is.recommended that the coverage variation be approved with this use permit,. RECOMMENDED ACTION.: Approve / per Staff Report dated March 30, 1981 and rExhibi.t(s) B & C subject.to the following condition(s): 1. Any changes in the proposed elevations shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. r! Sharon Lester; Planning Aide SL /dra Hearing: ro /-3-3-7 PART I MARCH 1987 to OCTOBER 1987: SUMMARY OF MEETINGS WITH PLANTING STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSION, STUDY SESSION WITH COMMITTEE -OF -THE- WHOLE, AND NEIGHBOR INPUT 14470 Oak Place (Lot ##1.1) is a legal lot of record in the City of Saratoga with a size of 6750 sq. ft. The application for design review for a single story residence on the above lot was made on March 24, 1987, seven months ago. The City Planning staff recommended approval for the June 10, 1987 Planning Commission meeting stating: 1. There were no building site issues 2. All design review findings can be made but recommended the applicant incorporate the existing driveway easement into the project to minimize the number of driveway cuts along the 50 ft. wide lot. 3. The project met all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance and on the following was under the set requirements: a. SIZE: 2426 sq. ft. This is 1074 sq. ft. or 31% under the allowed size of 3500 sq. ft. as per ordinance NS -3.54 Sec. 13A.6a (Exhibit 1) b. HEIGHT: 20 ft. 6 in. at the highest point reducing to 16 ft. toward the front. This is 9 ft. 6 in. below the allowed height of 30 ft. as per ordinance .NS -3.54 Sec. 13A.6b (Exhibit 1) C. SETBACKS: 52.4% of the building's sidewalls have a setback of more than th°e required 6 feet. The rest meet the minimum 6 ft. setback requirement. The front and rear setback is 25 feet and also meets ordinance NS -3.54 Sec. 3.7 (Exhibit 1) d_ IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 36% was proposed where 60% coverage is allowed as per ordinance NS -3.54 Sec. 3.7 (Exhibit 1) See Staff Report dated June 10, 1987 for further details (Exhibit 2). As the architect and former member of the Planning Commission, I am well aware of the city's requirements and concerns for the Village Area. Extensive study of the entire neighborhood was made in order to design a house which would be aesthetically consistent and particularly insure the house would not have excessive bulk or height. Photographs of neighborhood houses to endorse compatibility are attached as a reference along with an assessor's parcel map showing where the house in each photo is located and the location of the project site which serve to demonstrate that this project will have no negative density impact on the neighborhood (Exhibits '3 & 4). Please also see my presentation to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 5 Exterior paint color chart and photos of grass -crete are attached). At the Planning Commission hearing on June 10, 1987 two neighbors objected to the project on the following issues: bulk, height, color, driveway location, and no one should be allowed to build on the lot as lot was too small and not wide enough. See minutes of Public Hearing held on June 10, 1987 (Exhibit 2). After closing the Public Hearing at the June .10 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners voiced the following concerns: Page Two of PART I too much square footage and bulk, not enough setbacks, driveway enters garage from the front rather than the side, too much height, two driveways instead of one shared drive, and the house color was too gray. The consensus reached by the Planning Conunission was that the square footage had to be reduced and the height, bulk, front yard setbacks, garage and driveway had to be addressed by the applicant even though this application more than satisfied all the governing ordinances. The project was therefore continued to July 8., 1987. (Exhibit 12). On July Commissioners meeting: 1. SIZE 2. HEIGHT: 3. SETBACKS: 8, 1987 the following changes to address the concerns of the Planning and the two neighbors were presented at the Planning Commission 4. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 5. COLOR: ORDINANCE 3500 sq. ft. 30 ft. sideyard 6 ft. front 25 ft. rear 25 ft. 60% FIRST DESIGN 2426 sq. ft. 20 ft. 6 in 52.4% were greater th an 6 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 36% dark gray See staff report dated July 8, 1987 for more details drawings and elevations (Exhibit 6 & 7). SECOND DESIGN 2125 sq. ft. (a reduction of 301 sq. ft.) 18 ft. stepping down to 14 ft. 6 in) 63% greater than 6 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 31% Green Breath (Exhibit 5) Also attached are the revised At the July 8, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, the same two neighbors objected to the proposed house for the. following reasons: house was still too large, Easterly neighbor house too close and too large, Westerly neighbor house plus proposed house will result in excessive structure, driveway /garage facing North instead of East, questions on survey of Eastern Boundary of neighbor's lot, color still too gray. (As the architect, I duly noted that several of these objections did not even address the property). After closing the Public Hearing on July 8, 1987, the Planning Commissioners expressed the following concern: the placement of the driveway was still not satisfactory. The project was therefore continued to August 12, 1987 in spite of the applicant's request for the Commission to condition an approval with the requirement that the driveway be changed to satisfy the Planning Staff, and therefore eliminate still further delays to the project. The request was denied. Page Three of PART I On August 4, 1987 a study session was held with the Committee -of- the -Whole and architect. At the study session with the Planning Commissioners alternatives for the driveway placement were presented and studied. A number of options were submitted and a consensus was reached favoring the "S- type" alternative. Approval of the project was recommended and the Staff concurred. On August 12, 1987 the project came before the Planning Commission for the third time. One of the same neighbors attended and expressed the following concerns: only a garage door had been changed, there was a new driveway cut, complained about driveway easement which had been canceled by the Protivas, structure too large for lot, adjacent home is too large and too close to property line. With two commissioners absent, the application was approved by a vote of 3 to 1. See Staff report of August 12, 1987 (Exhibit 8). The above neighbor then appealed the Planning Commission's decision which then forced a hearing at the City Council level scheduled for October 7, 1987. Imo:\" am APPLICANT'-S POSITION Satisfied Ordinances and Codes of the City The architect representing the applicant worked very closely with Planning Staff and the Planning Commission following every directive and-has met every requirement in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation considerably compromising the original design. The applicant has been more than reasonable in meeting concerns of compatibility, bulk, height, impervious coverage, setbacks, square footage, driveway placement and even exterior color. IL Arbitrary and Capricious Complaints of Neighbors Two neighbors have continuously shifted their objections to frustrate and harass the applicant and delay the project. In the process, the neighbors are also economically affecting the prior owners of the lot. The neighbor on the West boundary of the proposed site bought. their house in 1986 fully aware that a house would be built on the adjacent lot as this was disclosed in the sales contract covering their own house. The second neighbor„ the more vociferous of the two, lives in the third house to the West of the proposed site; changes her arbitrary objections as soon as prior ones have been satisfied. The applicant feels strongly that this second neighbor's objections are being influenced by vindictiveness and negative personal motives; that they are purposefully frivolous objections and not valid arguments. These arguments have continuously influenced the perception of the project and delayed the project unnecessarily. For example, the objection that the Protiva house on Lot 12 sits on only 6750 sq. ft. is absolutely false. The City initiated a merger of the back triangular lot with Lot 12 and approved a lot line change which widened the lot at the same time. This was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission without objection by a single neighbor. Lot 12 has a total square footage of 17,400 sq. ft. and is 75' wide where the house is located. Any reference to Lot 12 is irrelevant to the application of Lot 11 and is purposefully voiced to mislead and confuse the application of Lot 11 (See Exhibit 9). 111. Precedence on the Same Block In 1986 and 1987 two other separate applications have been approved within 150 feet of the proposed site. The first, a remodel, which is the third house to the West of the proposed site. This applicant was allowed to build a garage 22 ft. high, was allowed 45% impervious coverage, variances on side setbacks., and has a total square footage of 3242 sq. ft. The Planning staff report of 3/20/86 stated, "The project does not meet all the requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance in that a 7.5' exterior sideyard setback is being maintained where 15 feet is required. Also a portion of the proposed garage is 15 feet in length where 18 feet is required." And yet the house was greatly enlarged and the garage built. Please see staff report of March 20, 1986 (Exhibit 10). The second application approved on August 12, 1987 is for a new two -story house of 2406 sq. ft. which is 26' high with 6 ft. sideyard setbacks, and 43% impervious coverage to be built directly across from the above neighbor on a non- conforming lot of 8881 sq. ft. and was approved at the same meeting as was the project for Donald S. Brown (Exhibit 11). No neighbor stood up and objected to this new two -story house nor was it appealed. Yet both of these projects affect the neighborhood's density as much as the Brown project. Page Two of PART II ]V. Special. Privileze The applicant who has economic rights to develop his property, as a result has suffered negative economic impact by the delays necessitated by revisions and meetings. The original project more than conformed with every city ordinance six months ago. Too much attention has been given .subjective, irrelevant, and arbitrary issues generated by two neighbors, (one of whom has even developed her property with special variances and consideration). This harassment has progressed too far.. All neighbors should be treated equally and not singled out for any special privileges or be discriminated against. V. Compatibility Summation As PART I verifies, this project was carefully researched and conceived with a painstaking effort to meet every code, ordinance, guideline of the City. It was hoped that this attention to the above requirements would allow the project to pass approvals quickly as have the other two projects on the same block. All the issues raised such as compatibility, bulk, square footage, impervious coverage, setbacks, height, and density have been more than satisfied as substantiated by the attached photos, maps, and drawings. The applicant is seeking your approval and support for the City Staffs recommendation for denying the appeal and affirming the decision ofthe Planning Commission (Exhibit 12). Matteoni, Saxe & Nandal Lawyers. 852 North. First Street 3rd Floor l San Jose, California 95.112 / Telephone (408) 971 -6411 October 5, 1987 Mayor Don Peterson City of Saratoga 20602 Seville Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Brown Application for Residential Design Review; 144.66 Oak Place; Council Agenda October 7, 1987 Dear Don: i 33-7 A Professional Association Norman E. Matteoni* Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda " Professional Corporation Peggy M. Cocker Enclosed is a letter I' have addressed to the City Council for this coming Wednesday's hearing regarding the above application. Excuse my salutation to Madam Mayor. -I simply dictated the letter too fast. This design review has been worked out after extensive meetings with the Planning Commission. The matter was before the Commission three times in public hearings and in one study session. You may recall that the neighbors on Oak Place were resistive to a prior application by Protiva for development of a lot, two doors East, last year before the City Council. The question was one of design., and the Council rejected the design on that lot because of the size and bulk. A two -story home was proposed there. You were the only member of the Council to vote in favor of the Protiva application. This residence is one story and smaller. It meets . the ordinance in every respect and, in fact, has been down scaled at the direction of the Planning Commission. I trust that the Council will approve this applica- tion which has a favorable endorsement from Staff and the Planning Commission. Veryltru yours, NORMAN E. /MATTEONI NEM:md enc Mat teoni, Saxe & Nanda /Lawyers 852 North First Street 3rd Floor / San Jose, California 95112 / Telephone (408) 971 -6411 A Professional Association Norman E. Matteoni* Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda. • Professional Corporation October 2, 198.7 Peggy M. Cocker City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 9,5070 RE: Brown Application for Residential Design Review; 14466 Oak Place; Council Agenda October 7, 1987 Dear City Clerk: 'P1eas-e Place the enclosed letter before the Council for its hearing on October 7. Thank you. Very tru Vy NORMAN E M NEM:sd .Encl. Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda /Lawyers 852 North First Street • 3rd Floor / San Jose, California 95112 / Telephone (408) 971 -6411 A Professional Association Norman E. Matteoni* Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda * Professions! Corporatlan October 2, 1987 Peggy M. Cocker Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 .Re: Brown Application. For Residential Design Review; 14466 Oak Place; Council Agenda October 7, 1987 Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council: I represent Donald Brown in this application which comes before you on October 7, 1987 by way of an appeal from one of the neighbors. David Pines will address you that evening on the architectural design features. The design has been worked out carefully with staff and the Planning Commission, which had four (3 hearings and one study session) separate reviews of the item. In fact, the Commission directed certain changes which required the additional reviews. If you compare the minutes or tape of the three hearings before the Planning Commission, you will discover that much of the neighbors' concern was picked up by the Commission and satisfied in the second review, although some neighbors still objected. I simply want to point out that this is a separate legal parcel from the adjacent Protiva parcel. The question of sharing a driveway which had previously been reserved for. the exclusive use of theProtiva residence has been resolved so that this parcel has its own drive located where the Commission directed. The Protiva residence parcel has been merged with the rear triangular lot at direction of City Council to create an overall parcel adjacent on the East of Honorable City Council October 2, 1987 Page Two 17000+ square feet. Further, the house for this site has been reduced in size and height, well within the zoning requirements and set further back on the lot. It is a single story which is well within the keeping of the varied architectural styles, size and bulk of lots along Oak Place. NEM':md cc: Mr. Hal Toppel Mr. Donald Brown Mr. David Pines V tr y your � ux� NORMAN E. MATTEON OCT 0 7 1987 20363 Park Place Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council, Much to my objections the City of Saratoga has allowed a two story house 26 ft. high to be built on an 8881 sq. ft. lot with 6 foot sideyy/ard setbacks to be approved for building next door to my home where I've lived for the past ten years. The proposal before you tonight for 14470 directly across the street from the two story Waller project has less bulk, less square footage, is single story, and does not impact the area adversely whatsoever. The City ordinances need the same interpretation for every applicant on the street not for just a privileged few. I recommend approval of the house on 14470 Oak Place. It blends in exceptionally well and will be an asset to a street that needs new homes. Very ttrnuly urs, Mrs. Byron ngletary OCT 0 7 1987 Rosen Horticultural Services 12250 "B° Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 October 3, 1987 Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council: I have been contracted by the Protivas and Don Brown to develop a landscaping plan that will provide immediate screening around the new house on Lot #11. I have already surveyed the site, studied the architectural plan and feel privacy can easily be maintained between both houses. The atriums (or indentations on either side of the proposed house) will particularly allow for specialized planting by the new owners to give them even additional privacy and charm. These atriums are in my opinion a very unique approach to designing privacy and bringing the garden into the interior of a house at the same time, and are wonderful for a small house on a lot of this size and dimension. I have done a lot of landscape design work in Saratoga and feel this house is particularly well suited to the Village neigh- borhood. I am looking forward to starting my work and trust that you will back up the decisions of the Saratoga Planning Staff and the Planning Commission and support this application of Don Brown's. Sincerely yours, �Oulv 1 (44, LI 4 �A_ Carolyn L. Rosen OCT 0 2200ODorsey Way Saratoga, CA 95070 October 4, 1987 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Ref: Application — �rLCwN— W-87 -o43 It is curious that the above application is before you for approval because of one neighbor's appeal even though it more than satisfies every City ordinance and code and was thoroughly researched by a Saratoga architect to ensure its compatibility with the neighborhood concerning bulk, size, square footage, setbacks and height. There were three hearings before the Planning Commission plus one study session with the Committee -of- the - Whole. It is doubly curious that a two -story structure directly across from the appellant's property was approved on the same day by the Planning Commission but was not appealed and therefore does not come before you for discussion even though it has a far greater impact on the neighborhood regarding density, bulk, height, size and has more square footage, etc., etc. In addition, the appellant herself applied for and received variances on setbacks and size of garage; was allowed a second story on the garage and imperious coverage unbelievably high and yet she was allowed to build without having to come before you. Are there special privileges being granted on Oak Place? The above application before you is below every ordinance and requirement the City has. It was reduced in size, height and square footage several times by the Planning Commission. It has addressed and met every issue including bulk and even color. I hope you will judge the application on the merits of its case. Sincerely, 7 William H. Craft Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda /Lawyers A X33 7 852 North First Street o 3rd Floor l San Jose, California 95112 l Telephone (408) 971 -6411 A Professional Association Norman E. Matteoni* Allan Robert Saxe Margaret Ecker Nanda * Professional Corporation October 2, 1987 Peggy M. Cocker Honorable City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Brown Application For Residential Design Review; 14,466 Oak Place; Council Agenda October 7, 1987 Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council: I represent Donald Brown in this application which comes before -you on October 7, 1987 by way of an appeal from one of the neighbors. David Pines will address you that evening on the architectural design features. The design has been worked out carefully with staff and the Planning Commission, which had four (3 hearings and one study session) separate reviews of the item. In fact, the Commission directed certain changes which required the additional reviews. If you compare the minutes or tape of the three hearings before the Planning Commission, you will discover that much of the neighbors' concern was picked up by the Commission and satisfied in the second review, although some neighbors still objected. I simply want to point out that this is a separate legal parcel from the adjacent Protiva parcel. The question of sharing a driveway which had previously been reserved for the exclusive use of theProtiva residence has been resolved so that this parcel has its own drive located where the Commission directed.. The Protiva residence parcel has been merged with the rear triangular lot at direction of City Council to create an overall parcel adjacent on the East of t'r Honorable City Council 17000+ square feet. been reduced in size requirements and set single story which is architectural styles, NEM:md October 2, 1987 Page Two Further, the house for this site has and height, well within the zoning further back on the lot. It is a well within the keeping of the varied size -and bulk of lots along Oak Place. cc: Mr. Hal Toppel Mr. Donald Brown Mr. David Pines v tr y your .NORMAN E. MATTEON