Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-1991 City Council Agenda packetPrinted -on. recycled paper. TO: City Council FROM: Planning Staff DATE: December 13, 1991 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 M E M O R A N D U M SUBJECT: DR -91 -041; Waller, 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place Appeal of Planning Commission Decision COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the application of a design review for a new, two -story home at 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to deny the project based on his opinion that the project meets all the City standards and conforms with all existing homes on the same street. A letter from the appellant's representative is attached. The application was first presented to the Planning Commission at the 8/28/91 public hearing. The major issues related to this application were: 1. The impact of the proposed home on an existing 48" Blue Oak tree. 2. The height of the proposed home and the view impact on surrounding homes. 3. The appropriateness of a two story home on the subject site and the perceived prominence and visual impact of the proposed home. The applicant then revised the plans to address the Commission's and neighbors' concerns. At the 10/9/91 meeting, the Commission considered the revised plans and determined that the revisions did not satisfy the Commission's concerns related to the visual impact and voted to deny the project. Appeal of this denial was originally scheduled for the 10/31/91 City Council meeting but had been continued to allow the applicant to address technical discrepancies in the plan set. As discussed above, the applicant had presented hastily revised plans to the Planning Commission at their 10/9/91 public hearing. Most of the changes were a result of the City Arborist's concerns regarding the preservation of the large old Blue Oak and include: 1. Re- surveying of the property to accurately plot the 36 inch Blue Oak and 18 inch Elm trunks and canopies; 2. Elimination of excavation within the Blue Oak's canopy; 3. Shifting of the building footprint approximately one ft. to the southeast to retain appropriate setbacks from the Blue Oak; and 4. The lowering of certain elements of the roofline to reduce necessary tree limb pruning. Planning staff has compared the corrected plan set with the plans reviewed by the Commission and finds them to be visually, physically and substantively the same. Staff does not feel that these revised plans need to be remanded back to the Planning Commission in that the Commission's denial findings were based on the inappropriateness of a two -story home in general at this site. Staff's original analysis of the project concluded that the design review findings could be made to recommend approval of the project both before and after the revisions. The attached staff reports include the analysis and findings for approval of the project. The City Horticulturist has reviewed the revised plans and is satisfied with the proposed location of the home in relation to the existing trees. His recommendations for tree protection and preservation were incorporated into the proposed resolution for approval. The City Horticulturist's reports are attached for the City Council's review. Letters of support have been received from Duane Sand and Martin Dermer, neighbors who previously objected to the project. These letters, and other recently submitted letters, supporting and objecting to the project, are attached under "New Correspondence Respectfully submitted, Aoe V) 2°h1 A,► ES WALGREN,! sociate Planner TA:cw Attachments: 1. Supplemental Arborist Report dated 11/13/91 2. Letter from the appellant's representative dated 10/31/91 3. Resolution for Denial, DR -91 -041, dated 10/9/91 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 10/9/91 5. Staff reports from 10/4/91 and 8/8/91 including correspondence from neighbors and City Horticulturist report. 6. City Horticulturist updated report dated 10/11/91 related to the revised plans 7. New correspondence BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408- 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVOOAKS PLACE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: James Walgren, Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate November 13, 1991 Job #6- 91 -203C RECEIVED NOV 2 5 1991 PLANNING DEPT. N BARRIE D. C•ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -10 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA On November 13, 1991, I met Mrs. Fanelli of Fanelli Consulting at the Hallengren residence at 20420 Montalvo Oaks .Place: The goal of this meeting was to clarify tree preservation requirements for a large Blue Oak and a Siberian Elm after significant confusion between the contractor's understanding about tree preservation requirements, the building location marks on the ground, and the details of my office's tree preservation requirements based on original plans Since that original date, the building's relationship to the trees has been changed and building wall elevations' have been adjusted to fit beneath the canopy or outside the canopy of the large Blue Oak tree near the-north-west corner of this lot. In addition, we discussed in detail what can and cannot happen adjacent to a Siberian Elm tree near the south -east comer of the lot. Two,basic subjects are of concern. One of them is pruning of excessive amounts of the Oak tree's canopy and_the other is di of unacceptable, levels of root mass area beneath the canopy of that tree. In order to prevent unacceptable damage to the canopy, it has been agreed that the building ridge as shown on the'enclosed plan will not be higher than 16', the western- most wall will not ,be higher than 13', and that no branches larger than 3" in diameter will be cut from the area above that sloping roof. To provide positive assurance that inappropriate pruning will not be done above this section of roof, I suggest the following procedures: 1., That an ISA Certified Arborist be asked to prune the tree, to provide the necessary clearance before construction begins and that that arborist not remove branches larger than 3" in diameter during that pruning. 2. I suggest that the roofing contractor be asked to sign a letter that specifies that _neither- he nor his personnel will remove any parts of this tree during construction. AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA In order to prevent unacceptable levels of damage to the root mass of this tree, I suggest that either all areas of construction beneath any portion of the canopy be of pier and grade beam design with the beam,layed at grade with no excavation of any kind beneath the canopy, or a slab floor be used -as shown as in the enclosed plan with aeration tubes installed before the slab is poured. In either case, it should be clearly understood by all parties concerned that no excavation beneath any part of the tree's canopy will be allowed Any activity which occurs in areas beneath the canopy in which activity is authorized must be done by hand, not be wheeled equipment. It will be necessary to remove two or three 2 or 3" diameter branches from the east side of the canopy to conform to the margin of the building, but that will not cause damage to the tree if properly' done. The Elm tree It has been agreed that a soil cut of at least 1' can be done in any area beneath the canopy of this tree beyond a 3' circle around the trunk. The canopy margin has been marked on the ground in orange paint and it is shown on the enclosed plan at its actual location. Since the 2% fail that is intended on the enclosed plan from the front (south) of the garage will result in an 18" to 2' deep cut in several portions of the tree canopy area, I suggest that a ridge be formed in the driveway area. No more than 1' below existing grade approximately 20' from the south of the garage wall, and that fall toward the garage and away from the 'garage from that point be created, rather than creating a much deeper cut at that area approximately 20' from the garage front. Another option that would be beneficial would be to raise the height of the garage slab finished floor to reduce the amount of soil cut necessary in the area south of and in front of the garage. It is still assumed that any pavement beneath the canopy of the tree and inside the dripline will be of pervious paving materials, not impervious materials: The enclosed schematic must be followed. A third tree, an almost dead Blackwood Acacia, Acaciamelanoxylon, is seen -2- AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA approximately 20' south of the Elm tree. I suggest that the Acacia be removed and that the stump ground out or painted with a combination of 1 part Round -up and 3 parts water to reduce stump sprouting. Before any construction equipment appears on scene protective fences must be erected as shown on the enclosed plan. Those fences must be of orange plastic construction fencing mounted on 6' angle posts driven at least 18" into the ground. Inspection Points We should inspect the tree protection procedures at the following stages. 1. When construction period fences have been erected as shown on the enclosed plan. 2. When aeration tubes have been installed adjacent to the large Oak if a slab floor is used, or when forms have been constructed for pouring a beam if pier and grade beam is used. 3. When hand cutting of soil west of the Elm tree has been done for inspection of large roots. 4. When construction is done and preparation for pervious paving in front of the garage is being made. BDC:la Enclosures: Map Pervious Paving Respectfully submitted, Barrie D. Coate Interlocking pavers or bricks 2" layer of sand- Layer of Mirafi 400 filter fabric 4" of *2 drain rock or pea gravel DETAIL PERVIOUS PAVING IN ROOTZONES OF SENSITIVE TREES original soil compacted to no more than 80X sweep sand only in cracks e4 BARRIED_ COATE AND ASSOCIATES 23535SummitRd Los Gato s, Ca 95030 (408)353 -1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists PERVIOUS PAVING IN ROOTZONES OF SENSITIVE TREES JOB DATE: SCALE: 1 TW board or other type of retaining wall circling tree minimum of 12" from trunk root root collar trunk Printed.on: recycled paper. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867.3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Tsvia Adar, Interim Planning Director DATE: October 31, 1991 SUBJECT: DR -91 -041; Wailer, 20420 Montalvo Oaks Appeal of Planning Commission decision COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the application of a design review for a new, two -story home at 20420 Montalvo Oaks. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to deny the project based on his opinion that the project meets all the City standards and conforms with all existing homes on the same street. The letter of appeal and a letter from the appellant's representative are attached. The application was first presented to the Planning Commission at the 8/28/91 public hearing. The major issues related to this application were: 1. The impact of the proposed home on an existing 48" Blue Oak tree. 2. The height of the proposed home and the view impact on surrounding homes. 3. The appropriateness of a two story home on the subject site and the perceived prominence and visual impact of the proposed home. The applicant revised the plans to address the Commission's and neighbors' concerns. At_the 10/9/91 meeting, the Commission considered the revised plans and determined that the revisions did not satisfy the Commission's concerns related to the visual impact and voted to deny the project. Staff analysis of the project concluded that the required design review findings can be made and staff recommendations supported the approval of the project before and after the revisions. The attached staff reports include the analysis and findings for approval of the project. The City Horticulturist reviewed the proposed plans and is satisfied with the proposed location of the home in relation to existing trees. His recommendations for tree protection and preservation were incorporated into the proposed resolution for approval. The City Horticulturist's reports are attached for the City Council's review. Letters of support have been received from Duane Sand and Martin Dermer, neighbors who previously objected to the project. These letters, and other recently submitted letters, supporting and objecting to the project, are attached under "New Correspondence Respectfully submitted, 1;A/A. Mo TSVIA ADAR, Interim Planning Director TA:cw Attachments: 1. Appellant letter dated 10/10/91 2. Letter from the appellant's representative dated 10/31/91 3. Resolution for Denial, DR -91 -041, dated 10/9/91 4. Planning Commission minutes dated 10/9/91 5. Staff reports from 10/4/91 and 8/8/91 including correspondence from neighbors and City Horticulturist report. 6. City Horticulturist updated report dated 10/11/91 related to the revised plans 7. New correspondence RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -041 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Waller; 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a new, 4,123 sq. ft., two -story residence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residenc- es in that the 26 ft. tall, two -story structure will obstruct existing homeowners' viewsheds. The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that development of this property will be accentuated by the site's visual prominence. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section '1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Waller for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, DURKET, FAVERO, FORBES NOES: CALDWELL, TUCKER, MORAN ABSENT: none File No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks ATTEST: S -creta P -nning Commission A•pe lant's Signature *Please do not City offices. appeal, please Date Received: 0 0 a Hearing Date: q Fee: "X APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: �J C r1p1.� (-)r 11?,r' Address: C, 0 Z j/t/tr:., J-i:t t1 Telephone: 4 '1 1 `7 7 c 4/> ?<C., Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File No.: c) 1 OC 1 Project Address: �C. 4' 2 14/)r-,1-- t.4 Li C Decision Being Appealed: l N `Nickt:t (/`'ma Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be attached): The r:r� 1i` P r- L 1. r.L:4•L 54,A. 4 c.. t *Li+ Nc. e 1 1 1 4 0 (1) r J l (/�.�y_'i•A.r �r�..vi r t A y Itzir sign this application until it is presented at the' If you wish specific people to be notified of this list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning /Property Management 1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 996 -8188 October 31,1991 Dear City Councilmembers: On behalf of Mr. Joseph Waller, applicant, and Mr. and Mrs. Hallengren, the lot owners, we would like to review the application for Design Review at 20420 Montalvo Oaks which is on appeal to you. You will note that this application was heard by the Planning Commission at two public hearings and one study session. At these hearings, there seemed to be three rather separate issues of discussion raised by the neighbors and the commission: the control of water runoff and mud slides, the siting of the house to preserve trees and views, and the design of the home itself. We would like to discuss the several steps which have been taken to resolve these concerns. Water runoff and mud slides: When Mr. Rivoir created this subdivision, he was conditioned to provide a drainage system to control the water runoff created by the new street and houses. Mr. Walser assumed this responsibility when he purchased two of the lots and installed the system as per plan. The system proved to be inadequate and at the present time, it is being upgraded. Once the new system is in place, the Montgomery home on Vickery Lane will be protected. The damage caused by water runoff and mud slides has been paid for by Mr. Waller and steps taken to ensure that similar problems will not arise. These Vickery Lane neighbors have stated that they are now satisfied with the project as proposed.. Biting of the house: The proposed house is sited within in the building envelope which was approved by the City when this lot was created, and which according to current staff review is environmentally the best location. As suggested at the first Planning Commission hearing, the house has been adjusted within the envelope to provide more distance from the large oak tree on the knoll to ensure the tree's safety. This also moves it away from the steep slope on the northern side of the property protecting both the hillside and the views of the long time residents on Vickery Lane. The only other neighbors affected by the house placement are the Hancocks and Rivoirs. Only the kitchen of the Hancock home faces this lot as the Hancock home was designed to take advantage of the views of the hills to the south. Because of the relative elevations of the Waller and Hancock lots, any home, single or two story, on the Waller lot will block a portion of the Hancock's view. Since the Rivoir house as approved has its garage located next to this lot, there is no view or privacy impact from this proposed home. Any new development causes some impact to the neighbors. Both the Planning Commission which approved the original building envelope and the staff in their review of this proposal felt that the proposed location has a view impact on the least number of neighbors and also is environmentally the most appropriate. Design of the residence: The home is of Country French design, beginning with a one story element closest to the street and rising to two stories toward the back. It has been set at an angle to protect the existing oak tree and to reduce the feeling of bulk as you view it coming into the cul- de-sac. It is in keeping in design and size with the four other new or approved homes on Montalvo Oaks. The Hancock home at 20410 is approximately 5300 sq. ft. and 30' high. The home at 20416 is 4100 sq. ft. and 26' high. The newly approved Rivoir home is 3970 sq. ft. and 25' high. This home is 4100 sq. ft. and 26' high and its finished elevation will be 4 feet lower than the approved home next door. Attached you will see the comparison between the Waller house and the house to be built on the Rivoir lot which was approved by the Planning Commission within the last four months. These studies show the relative elevations, length of the two homes as they appear from the cul- de-sac and the overall size of the homes in comparison to the lot size. The staff, in both their written and spoken comments concerning this proposed house, have stated that "the house is well massed and articulatd to minimize the perception of bulk" and "integrated into the existing vegetation" to keep it from being unduly prominent. With the resolution of most of the neighbors concerns and the revisions which have been made, we believe that this home should be approved as per the staff recommendation. very truly yours, �b/ y nia L. Fanelli 0) 0 i♦ WALLER HALLENGREN LOT 221.03' 217.3' 57.5' N N Approx. scale: 1" 40' RIVOIR LOT 159.33' 111.5' 141.85' 0 26' 625.5 WALLER HALLENGREN RELATIVE SIZE OF WALLER VS RIVOIR HOMES FROM THE CUL -DE -SAC Height Difference 4' RIVOIR 25' 1 +630.5 y.• ti CALL FOR THE QUESTION All ayes UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMISSION MINUTES, 10 /9/91 was correct. Commissioner Favero asked if a precedent was being set here in regard to elevation and exceeding the height limit and questioned if this should go before the City Council. Planner Walgren indicated the condition was being specifically placed on this individual parcel, and would be looked at case by case. The City Attorney stated that any action the Commission takes is precedent setting to the extent that someone else has similar conditions. This condition is applied to meet a specific situation and each application would be evaluated on a. case by case basis. Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarification of the policy regarding bonding conditions. Planner Emslie responded that the policy states that replacement and protected trees shall be bonded for 100% of their retail value. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Michael Helm, 200 7th Avenue, Santa Cruz, project architect, reviewed the modifications made to the plans and indicated he and the applicant are agreeable to all conditions and ask for approval of the Commission. MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:24 p.m M/S Tucker /Durket All ayes MOTION to deny DR -91 -022 and SD -89 -011.2 without prejudice for the following reasons: 1. this site is even more prominent and a significant percentage of the roof line exceeds the 200' contour; 2. applicant did not accomplish a meaningful second store relief; 3. the color is far too white. N/S Caldwell /Bogosian Commissioner Favero indicated he would like to see the Commission articulate what they would like to see from the applicant. Commissioner Caldwell stated she has been very specific in her motion as to what she would like to see. 5. DR 91 041 Waller, 20420 Montalvo Oaks, request for design review approval to construct a new 4,123 sq. ft. two -story residence on a 22,651 sq. ft. parcel within the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 8/28/91; application expires 1/26/91). Planner Walgren presented the staff report, noting that staff recommends approval of this project. Mr. Walgren further reported that staff had received landscape plans today (Exhibit H) and they would be included in the resolution should the Planning Commission approve the project. Planner Walgren reported that the house plan has been modified to leave 16' between the house and the trees. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Michael Layne, 513 Monterey Avenue, Los Gatos, architect, addressed the Commission regarding the proposed plan and stated that every effort will be made to see that the trees nearest the house are preserved. Mr. Hogan of Saratoga expressed concern with the protection of the six Blue Oaks and the Elm tree, and suggested several measures that could be taken to see that they are preserved. His suggestions were in the areas.of grading, irrigation and utility trenching. He further suggested that inspections be made at key stages of the construction of the proposed home. Mr. Waller, applicant, stated he will take all necessary precautions regarding drainage and asked that the Commission look at their building project and the drainage issue as two different matters. Duane Sand, 14910 Vickery Lane, reported that the changes made since the last meeting were very good and he was pleased with the landscaping plan submitted. Mr. Sand did express concern with the drawings regarding the roof line and concern with the drainage issue. Richard Rivoir, 20411 Hill Avenue, reviewed maps plotting the property and expressed his concerns with drainage construction as well as the bulkyness of the proposed structure. Joseph Waller, 2367 Bay, San Francisco, applicant, addressed some of the concerns expressed by other speakers, indicating specifically that there is a separate agreement regarding the drainage issue. Betsy Mace, 20172 Glen Brae Drive, expressed concerns with the height and location of the proposed structure. Mr. Hancock, 20410 Montalvo Oaks Place, asked that the Planning Commission pay special interest to the height of this proposed project. Keith Miller, 14900 Vickery Lane, expressed concern with the close proximity of the house to the trees and with the drainage issue. MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. M/S Caldwell /Tucker All ayes MOTION. to deny DR -91 -041 without prejudice. M/S Durket/Bogosian Commissioner Durket stated his belief that it is not possible to put a two story home on this particular lot. He further stated this is a very nice home, but is not appropriate for lot. Commissioner Tucker spoke in favor of the design, stating she feels it is compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. 9 Commissioner Favero asked if the issue of a single story structure was considered at the study session. Commissioner Durket indicated it was not requested, but he had mentioned he would like to see a single story. Commissioner Favero indicated he could only support this if it were a one story structure. CALL FOR THE QUESTION Ayes 4 Noes 3 (Caldwell, Tucker, Moran) Chair Moran again invited members of the audience with items on the agenda to ask for a continuance of their item at this time. Steve Straight, applicant for Items 13 &.14, DR -91 -055 and DR -91- 056 requested his item be continued to the October 23 meeting. MOTION to continue DR -91 -055 and DR -91 -056 to the October 23, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. M/S Forbes /Tucker Ayes 5 Noes 0 Abstain 2 (Caldwell Favero where out of the room at the time the vote was taken) 6. SD 89 009 Wong, Chiquita Ct., request for tentative map approval to subdivide a 26.4 acre site into five new parcels ranging from 2.6 to 10.7 acres in size. The subject property is located between Chiquita Way and Chiquita Court, within the NHR zone district, and is proposed to be accessed by a cul -de -sac off Chiquita Court. A draft Environmental Impact Report will be presented which will then be available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days, per the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Planner Walgren presented the staff report and history of this item, noting that the most critical environmental impacts have been summarized in the staff report. Mr. Walgren reported that staff is recommending the Planning Commission direct the applicant to proceed with a modified bridge access alternative. Ms. Turell, project manager of the EIR for Engineering Sciences, presented their findings and reviewed the site plans for the Planning Commission as well as various alternatives as recommended by the EIR. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the statement identifying the mitigated alternative as the most favorable applies to individual site development as well (as regards landslide repair). Ms. Turell responded that the statement is intended to include individual site development. Commissioner Favero asked Ms. Turell if enough mitigation could be implemented to preserve the biological and hydrology type of impacts. He indicated the documents expressed substantial concern with these issues and felt we should focus on the environmental 1 0 Printed on recycled paper. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: October 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Design Review #91 -041 Waller, 20420 Montalvo Oaks Respectfully submitted, (0l ES WALGR ssociate Planner STAFF REPORTS Item #5 OETT 04 0 o ig3 13777 FRVITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 14081867-3438 M E M O R A N D U M COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Mona Francis Stutzrnan This application for a new, two -story residence was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at the August 28th public hearing. The item was continued to a September 17th study session to address neighbor concerns regarding the perceived prominence of this proposed development. Height poles were also requested to assist Planning Commissioners and neighbors in assessing the project's visual impact on the neighborhood. At the following study session meeting, the applicant's architect discussed potential modifications to the plans to mitigate concerns. The Planning Commission and neighbors present were generally amenable to the proposed revisions and the applicant was directed to present these changes at the October 9th public hearing. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and continues to recommend approval of the project. Although the home has not been shifted to the south as discussed at the study session, elements of the north elevation second floor have been recessed. All pertinent technical information remains the same. The proposed residence conforms to all applicable development standards and staff feels that the necessary design review findings can be made. A landscape plan will be distributed at the public hearing. QOOfr') MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: October 3, 1991 Attachments: 1. Resolution DR -91 -041 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/28/91 3. Correspondence 4. Staff Report dated 8/28/91 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" 0000E1 RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -041 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Waller; 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a new 4,123 sq. ft. two -story residence and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden support said application, and the following determined: The height, elevation and placement of the does not unreasonably interfere with views residences in that the structure is setback nearest adjacent home. In addition, the homes of Montalvo Oaks Place have views oriented hills away from this development. of proof required to findings have been project on the site of the surrounding well away from the along the south side towards the western The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the lot is relatively isolated at the end of Montalvo Oaks Place and this development will not increase any privacy interferences. -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that the proposed grading is minimal and no tree removal is necessary or proposed. -The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the structure's varied roofline and exterior architectural treatments will minimize the home's mass and bulk. -The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district, in that the residence will be similar in size, scale and design to those homes already constructed, or approved for construction, within this development. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the structure is setback well away from the nearest adjacent home. -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards. File No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks NOW, resolve Planning follows: Commission of the City of section 1. After careful consideration of the site architectural drawings, plans and other e connection with this matter, the application submitted in review approval be and the same is hereby n Waller for design Y g following conditions: ranted subject to the 1. The development shall be located and constru Exhibit "A incorporated b y refer cted as shown on reference. 2. Prior to submittal for buildin zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Depar mtmen a 3. The maximum height of an exposed t exceed 5 ft. xPosed underfloor area shall not 4. No retaining wall shall have an exposed ft. In addition, no fence or wall 1 shall exceed that exceed 5 in height and no fence or wall located within an feet front yard or within an Y required reversed corner lot shall exceed three (3) side yard a 5. No structure shall be e feet in height. permitted in any easement. 6. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without ing a Tree Removal Permit, ut first obtain- 7. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 2 :1 slope. 8 All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. 9 Exterior colors shall be medium to dark earthtone as r and approved by the Planning Commission. eviewed 10. Landscaping for prior t screening shall be installed pri occupancy. o final 11. Prior to zone clearance approval landscape plans for the Planning a pp lica nt shall submit approval, indicating the placement of three 24 inch box native and drought tolerant screening trees along the north side of the home. Any additional landscaping shall be in conformanc with the City's xeriscape guidelines, e 12. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing the following shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of a zone clearance: a 00097,j File No. DR 91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks a.) Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b.) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) c.) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 4 feet or higher. d.) All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. e.) Erosion control measures f.) Standard information to include title block, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet no's. owner's name, etc. 13. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, 6' chain link or welded wire mesh protective fencing shall be placed around the two trees under the dripline as indicated in the attached City Arborist's report dated June 12, 1991. ments of the arborist shall be met, including but other not to, the following: a. Prior to the issuance of a zone clearance the driveway shall be redesigned per either alternative #1 or City Arborist report, incorporated by reference. #2 of the b. No drilling for foundation piers shall be allowed within three feet of the trunk of the large Blue Oak (tree #2). When drilling for piers within 10 feet of the trunk, a pilot hole should be dug by hand, 24 inches deep, and the width necessary for the pier, to ascertain if any major roots over 6 inches in diameter are present. If major rots are encountered, the location of the pier should be adjusted to avoid them. c. Any limb removal or pruning done on either the Elm or the Blue Oak shall be performed by a Certified Arborist. 14. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Reroofing, less than 10$, shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code A City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). PPendix E, 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and main- tained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60, City of Saratoga. 0O00E4 File No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks 16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation rela- tive 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). 17. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. (City of Saratoga Code 16- 15:110). 1 8. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of 0 S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. b. Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 -1/2" of A.C. or better on U' aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. c. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PPC concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public street to proposed dwelling. d. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius us o f 21 19 Parking: provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire Dis- trict. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 20. The applicant shall retain the services of a alified geotechnical consultant to: a) inspect current sitecondit- ions, b) review the recommendations geotechnical report by Freeman -Kern Associates, Inc., and l c) provide supplemental geotechnical design criteria and grading recommendations, as needed. The results of the geotechnical update shall be summarized in a letter by the consultant and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant prior to Zone Clearance. 21. Applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with City Consultant's review of application prior to zone clearance. 22. The geotechnical consultant shall review the proposed develop- ment plans and approve all geotechnical aspects of the plans, to ensure that the updated recommendations have been properly incorporated. 0©00F5 Pile No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. 23. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test and approve all geotechnical aspects of the projectsconstruc- needed), tion. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechni- cal consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to release of the Grading Bond. 24. The applicant shall connect the existing storm drainage system on Montalvo Oaks Place to the existing system on Vine Street prior to zone clearance. 25. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impos- sible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. 26. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court challenging the City's action with respect to the applicants project. Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. to eachcset of construction plans whichxw' copy of this reso Building Division when applying for a building permit. to the g permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote: 0000 16 Bile No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks AYES: NOBS: ABSENT: Signature of Applicant Date Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. 0000 M/S Caldwell /Favero Planning Director Emslie indicated staff would like to set the date for the site visit at this time. He recommended one weekend visit and one weekday visit. The site visits were scheduled for Saturday, September 14 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Monday, September 16 from 5:00 p.m. to 7 :00 p.m. CALL FOR THE QUESTION Chair Moran called for a break at 9:25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:40 p.m. 4. DR -91 -041 Waller, 20420 Montalvo design review approval 4,123 sq. ft. two -story sq. ft. parcel within district per Chapter 15 7 Ayes 6 Oaks, request for to construct a new residence on a 22,651 the R -1- 20,000 zone of the City Code. Planner Walgren presented the staff report, indicating that staff has reviewed the plans, found them to be consistent with City ordinances and recommends approval with conditions contained in the resolution. Chair Moran announced to the audience that the Planning Commission cannot begin any public hearings after 11:30 p.m. and if any applicant wanted to request a continuance now was the appropriate time to do so. There were no requests. Planner Walgren reported that staff received four letters regarding this matter. They were from Dwayne Sand and Elaine Guard, 14910 Vickery Lane; Daniel Hancock, 20410 Montalvo Rd; Mr. Mrs. Ellis, 14920 Vickery Lane; and Keith and Jaime Miller, 14900 Vickery Lane. Commissioner Caldwell referred to letters referring to subdivision improvement issues and asked how these fit in with the Planning Commission's consideration. Planner Walgren responded that the City Engineer is aware of the drainage issue onto Montalvo Oaks, adjoining residences and the Toyon Lodge and therefore placed condition #24 regarding drainage connection prior to issuance of zone clearance. Planning Director Emslie reported that this project was not developed under subdivision standards but through the process of amending lot lines. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Michael Layne, 513 Monterey Ave., Los Gatos, generally discussed the design of the house and indicated he would answer any questions the Commission may have. 0000 t ,.3 Dwayne Sand, 14910 Vickery Lane, expressed concern with the survival of a tree located on the property; the massive look of the structure itself; and the issue of one wing of the house hanging over the edge of the slope. David Elgart, 20301 Hill Avenue, stated he lived on the adjoining property, but is more concerned with the Vine Street extension and the unhealthy environment being created by trucks stirring up dust while working in the area. Keith Miller, 14900 Vickery Lane, stated he would like to see height poles erected at the site. Michael Layne responded to the concerns expressed by neighbors, explaining that all elements are a compromise of factors. Mr. Waller, 20417 Montalvo Oaks, applicant, addressed the concern with drainage, indicating that he is taking immediate steps to correct the problem. MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:16 p.m. M/S Tucker /Bogosian Ayes 6 Commissioner Bogosian reported he had visited the site; this is a prominent site; 26' height is excessive for the area; appears very bulky as proposed; and felt the project would have to be scaled down sufficiently to make the findings for design review approval. Commissioner Tucker indicated she would like the opportunity to view the site before committing herself and she would like to have poles erected at the proposed height and the height of the previous house for comparison. Commissioner Forbes expressed agreement with Commissioner Tucker's request and suggested giving the applicant the choice of proceeding this evening or move to a study session. Commissioner Favero stated he felt there is a continuing problem with notifying neighbors and would like to see staff take a pro- active stance in contacting involved parties. Planning Director Emelie indicated that the site study could take place on September 10, the study session September 17, and the public hearing could be scheduled for October 9. The Commission was in agreement. Chair Moran asked staff to take note that all neighbors were to be notified. MOTION to continue DR -91 -041 to a study session on September 10 with site poles to be connecting on the ridge line. M/S Bogosian /Caldwell Ayes 8 000 c:9 The Planning Commission Saratoga City Council 20410 Montalvo Oaks Place Saratoga Ca 95070 28th August 1991 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Re: 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place I want to register my strong concern about the proposed plan for the above house for the following reasons: 1.The proposed house will sit on the top of a knoll. The proposed bulk of the 2 story design at street level means there is a major risk it will dwarf the Montalvo Oaks Place development. Please note the knoll is approximately 8 feet above the street. I understand that the land will be lowered about 4 feet. However the height of the house. if planned for approximately 26 feet, will be around 30 feet above street level. Both my house and that at 20416 Montalvo Oaks Place have been designed so that only story is visible at street level and they compliment the contours of the surrounding area. 2.The two story house at street level also means it will very visible from surrounding areas at a time when I thought there was emphasis on designs that showed empathy with the .contours of the local terrain. 3.A historic oak tree on the site must be at risk with the proposed design. 4.Views of the surrounding hills from the Montalvo Oaks Place development will be severely restricted. In summary I believe a single story house at street level and the additional story if required, below the height of the knoll would be far more in keeping with the overall tone of Montalvo Oaks Place and Saratoga as a whole. Please note and accept my apologies for not attending this evening's meeting due to a prior engagement. This letter should be seen therefore as my comments regarding this proposed development. Reg a� L l c �t David Hancock Duane Sand and Elaine Gord 14910 Vickery Lane, Saratoga (h) 867 -5818 (w) 285 -2165 August 28, 1991 To: Saratoga Planning Commission This letter concerns the siting and architectural plan for a proposed 4120 sq ft house by Mr. Joe Waller at 20420 Montalvo Oaks. (This letter corrects and supercedes our letter dated August 25.) This location is the hilltop summit that adjoins and overlooks our home at 14910 Vickery Lane, and our immediate neighbors' homes (Keith Miller at 14900 Vickery Lane, and Scott Ellis at 14920 Vickery Lane). We strongly object to the current siting plan and architectural plan. 1. This plan will cripple and eventually destroy the magnificent, unique oak tree at the summit. 2. This plan violates the 26 foot height limit for this zone, and tries to disguise the violation. 3. This plan puts the northern wing of the house on unstable soil. 4. This plan unnecessarily reshapes the hill, putting us all at risk of further mudflows again this winter. 5. This plan violates the promises made to us by the original project developer to limit the visual impact on us of all new homes on this hillside. This promise was essential to our active cooperation in allowing utility easements. The current plan unnecessarily creates a large visual intrusion that will further destroy the existing character and property values of the neighborhood, in the same manner as Mr. Waller's previous attempt at castle building next door (at 14891 Vine Street). Following are details on the above points. 1. As now planned, the new house is far too close to the oak tree. Its foundations and two -story walls are placed well within the existing canopy of branches and corresponding root system. Construction will cause immediate destruction of half of the canopy and root system on the tree's south and east sides. I believe the damage to roots will inevitably cause the tree's premature demise within a few years. This tree is among Saratoga's most interesting and unique; it must be preserved in good health if at all possible. It should not be pruned into a bonsai houseplant. 2. The house plan shows a 26 foot rise from the first story's floor to roof peak. It carefully does not show the exposed above ground height of the foundation wall on the north wing that overhangs the hillside. The pertinent drawing artfully suggests, without overtly lying, that the floor is at ground level. The total height of this northern face of the house, from existing ground level to immediate roofline, is actually 33 feet. 5. This hillside and hilltop development project was begun by our neighbor Richard Rivoir. Mr. Rivoir promised us repeatedly that all the new homes on this hill would be carefully sited and designed to avoid becoming an overwhelming visual presence. They would all be sited so that the lay of the land would screen the new homes from our view almost entirely. In particular, Mr. Rivoir promised that the eventual house on the hilltop lot now called 20420 Montalvo Oaks would be as unobtrusive as the single -story home originally on that lot. The bulk of the new house would NOT be visible from our lots below, even before landscaping. The plans proposed now by Mr. Wailer totally violate that promise. Mr. Rivoir similarly promised repeatedly that the new house on the adjoining hillside lot (now called 14891 Vine Stree) would be sited beyond a hillside flank from us, to hide the bulk of that house from our view. Mr. Waller broke that promise also. To maximize that house's views and price, he changed the house siting to be much closer to ours, on top the flank rather beyond it, and stacked the house in a vertical way such that it had four times as much visual impact on our house than we expected from Mr. Rivoir's promises. The result was a great intrusion on the former privacy and isolation of our home and Mr. Miller's home, and probably a huge decrease in the property values of our homes. To compound the injury to our property values, this incompleted castle has remained unroofed and unpainted for nearly a year, and has suffered internal damage from winter rains. No one wants it; no one would want to live underneath it. We did not contest those unfortunate plan changes before construction of that house began, because we were unaware of Mr. Waller taking the project over from Mr. Rivoir, and we didn't recognise the address on planning commision notices, and because we were trusting and naive. Mr. Rivoir's promises to us were not just a matter of being a friendly neighbor or of deflecting our resistance to any changes. Those promises were essential to the project being successful. On the basis of Mr. Rivoir's promises to us, we cooperated fully in removing important obstacles to his project. The utilities for the project run underneath our parking area. Getting any kind of easement across the parking area or across any piece of Mr. Miller's land would have been impossible without the easement changes we made to our deed, for no compensation. Our reward for being so helpful was to be screwed by Mr. Waller. We consider Mr. Rivoir's promises to us to be a verbal contract. We consider Mr. Waller to still be bound by those verbal contracts established by the original developer. 3 5. All of Mr. Waller's and /or Mr. Rivior's other broken promises to us must be kept: a. Rainwater run -off will be diverted from streaming onto our property. b. There will be no more mudflows onto our property. If any do occur thru unavoidable circumstances, Mr. Waller is to immediately repair all affected landscaping etc. c. Mr. Miller's expenses in reconstructing our parking area on Mr. Waller's behalf will be repaid. Mr. Ellis's expenses in cleaning mudflows from his pool will be repaid. d. The broad hillside scar from the utilities trench will be immediately re- landscaped. e. The property lines will be immediately planted with trees large enough to screen from us the existing unfinished castle at 14891 Vine Street (a very tall order), and also any visible part of the proposed new house at 20420 Montalvo Oaks. 6. The standing hay covering the hillside must be immediately mowed or disced to reduce the current danger of fires spreading from an unoccupied house to our homes and trees. 7. The unsightly scaffolding on 14891 Vine Street must be taken down immediately. 8. Completion bonds on the new house must be made larger than normal, to account for Mr. Waller's established habit of leaving lots of unfinished business for neighbors to handle. Duane Sand fZ„ Elaine P. Gord 5 August 28,1991 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: DR -91 -041 Waller, 20420 Montalvo Oaks, APN: 517 -19 -062 Saratoga Planning Commission: We want to advise the City of Saratoga's Planning Commission that we are totally supportive of the letter you received from Duane Sand and Elaine P. Gord dated 8/25/91 regarding the proposed construction by Joe Waller at 20420 Montalvo Oaks. We, too, have been duped by Mr. Waller. In April of 1990 we had a mud slide into our pool and surrounding area due to improper grading and drainage at the property directly above us. Once again Mr. Waller failed to honor his plans to properly landscape this property which would have eliminated the resulting mess. We advised Mr. Waller of our problems and he personally inspected our pool. Mr. Waller said for us to arrange to have the pool drained, white washed and refilled and he would reimburse us for same. We hired The Backyard Center to do this for us however, we elected to clean up the mud around the pool ourselves. We sent a copy of the bill from The Backyard Center along with the water bill to refill our pool to Mr. Waller. Our first letter to Mr. Waller went unanswered. We since have sent two certified letters which have been ignored. We are enclosing copies of correspondence and bills for your review. We also have photographs to document our cause. We have been advised by professionals to place a lien on the property. We hesitated to take this action in hopes that Mr. Waller would be a man of his word, however, it appears that this is not so. It is not only the money and inconvenience that is an issue, it is the principle! Mr. Waller did place hay on the slope to prevent further problems, however, the water was then diverted to Toyon Lodge, located at 14950 Vickery Lane. The plans for the property directly above us showed extensive landscaping on the ridge for proper drainage and privacy for all. Mr. Waller also promised to trim the eucalyptus trees on that ridge, as they need proper care or they will die soon. It would be a shame to lose this established growth. We, too, cannot comprehend how the Planning Commission could grant further construction to Mr. Waller whose greed, uncaring and inconsideration of Saratoga and its residents is proven. We believe that Mr. Waller must properly rectify all existing problems with those properties already in existence before beginning any new construction. It is a shame that Mr. Waller has no respect for our lovely community as he seems to only see dollar signs! 14920 Vickery Lane Odor! 5 o :r ��n�[r� Ca rvv�tor\ a Aoc=. Ana a kUtl-Act exeC'c-R.ass Get l Co cszaQ r �r� copfc c\cm--fu t cv.r —Oki/3 \-)ci-ez\ ti'v�c_2, 4 1\ 1 t4 L. too c `ram Cam, cSo REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR-01-041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks Applicant /Owner: Waller Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: August 28, 1991 APN: 517 -19 -062 L Director Approval: g■7,o 23 10) 7 -60 7. 0 -44 3 A' 482 417 (4) 14746 717-11 -43 14 4 11 917-1 44) 1483 911-27 t.810 6 317 -14 -01 0 61 147 517.11 (7) 1471 4,11-11- (8) 14712. 917- 11 -4(s '4 517 (43 ,4 804 97.27.03 45 4.) t 0 O1 14150 517- 14751 511 27 04 14400 914, -11- 27 14190 517- -41 X4 430 (1) 14 610 4,7.11 -4q a 146 7 -1( -50 d[; 147 517 -1) C1 146a 917 -11-51 ,4743 517 -11.54 (t1) 14787 517 -11 35) 1 0 91 (12) 1478 017 1479 517.27 1471 911. 27 7- 3. 470 0 4 7 27'' 5 413 9 7 80 •27 7 (43) 14 17 9-41 (24) 14743 917 -11. 14; 11 1 68 5, 0 7.11 10, 4 4,7 ¢7" t4) (4 757 3l1 (2144 14761 0,7-11-211 Cti) 47 7 .27 I v (8) 14 710 8(7 30 (27) 14 441 117-11-2 1474 517.l1 38 (e) 1472 517.14 1 7 6o 209110 317 11 21 0 (1 20315 517- 41-2G (3) 20 30 314 -14 -22. 20260 317.11 1) (4780 511.11-40 !2) 147 77 4,11.14 41 (2.) 2°3 4317 -14 -(4 (1.) 2012412 517.11-29 143 4,47 -18.37 (1) 20t7, 517 -11 It 71 2427o 317.1144 17 -11-31 24 517 -40 2 20540 717 -(2 v 2041e V (2) 14644 4317 -11 t. ij 34) (4 731 4oS (37) 917. 11 9(. 14712 517 -27- 07 31 7 -27 06 1471' 0ij7. 27 4 9, v.- 144 7 45 O (3,4,3,2,) 4 k:s. 20411 S17.14 -34 (AI :40 517-14-14, 1 20270 317-11 ,1? =0=90 917-10 14 20192 517 2 0 -17 20230 447-2°- 20 NNI 2 018 517 -2c 2 01 4.4 917- 20.04 2 S1 20420 Montalvo Oaks File No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks CASE HISTORY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 5/28/91 Application complete: 7/26/91 Notice published: 8/14/91 Mailing completed: 8/15/91 Posting completed: 8/08/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review consideration to construct a new 4,123 sq. ft. two -story residence within the R -1- 20,000 zone district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to build a Tudor style home incorporating bay room extensions, dormer windows and steeply pitched roof slopes on this 22,651 sq. ft. hilltop parcel. The development is in compliance with the City Code regulations with regard to allowable floor area, impervious coverage, height and setbacks and staff feels that all of the design review findings can be made to recommend approval of the proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR 91 041. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -91 -041 3. Arborist Report 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 22,651 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 21% GRADING REQUIRED: SETBACKS: Site Characteristics: Cut: 346 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 4.0 Ft. Fill: 293 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 2.5 Ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior stucco finish painted olive with brown and off -white trim and shake roofing. PROPOSAL CODE REOUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 18% (4,044 s.f.) 45% HEIGHT: 26 ft. 26 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Floor: 2,106 s.f. 2nd Floor: 1,576 s.f. Garage: 441 s.f. TOTAL: 4,123 s.f. 4,128 s.f. Front: 33 ft. Rear: -122 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 15 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 35/45 ft. Right Side: 15 ft. Left Side: 15 ft. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review consideration to construct a new 4,123 sq. ft. two -story residence within the R -1- 20,000 zone district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The subject property is located north of Hill Avenue at the end of Montalvo Oaks Place. The parcel was granted building site approval by the City in 1988, following an earlier approved Reversion to Acreage request to create the currently existing four parcels where nine legal non conforming lots formerly existed. This lot is the last vacant property within this development that has not been approved for construction. The site has a relatively level building pad adjacent to the road. The rear half of the parcel is a steep north facing slope. Two mature trees, a 20 inch elm and a canker gnarled 50 inch Blue Oak, border the buildable area of the site. Barrie Coate, the City's OO;'rl'1 c Bile No. DR -91 -041; 20420 Montalvo Oaks Horticultural Consultant, has reviewed this project (see attached report), and his tree preservation conditions are incorporated into the resolution. The property provides views towards the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Parker Ranch area foothills to the north and the greater valley floor to the east. While this new home will be situated on one of the more visible lots within this development, staff does not feel that it will be unduly prominent. This is mainly attributed to the densely wooded nature of this part of Saratoga; any new construction will be integrated into the existing vegeta- tion. A condition of approval will also require the placement of three additional 24 inch box native and drought tolerant screening trees along the north side of the home. Design Review: The applicant is proposing to construct a new two -story home on this currently undeveloped parcel. An earlier non conforming residence built on this property has since been removed. The proposal conforms to all applicable development regulations with regard to allowable floor area, setbacks, impervious coverage and height. Though the building's elevations appear rather vertical on paper, in perspective, the structure is well massed and articulated to minimize the perception of bulk. The residence will also be compatible with the existing homes, and those approved for construction, within this development. Staff feels that the project employs techniques suggested in the residential design handbook and that all of the necessary design review findings can be made to recommend approval of the application. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR- 91 -041. 0, 0 1w1) and ASSOCIti ES Horticultural Consultants 408 -353 -1052 23333 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: James Walgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Terence Welch June 12, 1991 Job #6-91 -203 eoor"4.t and ASSOCIr_ ES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23335 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA On June 12, 1991, our firm surveyed the trees at the Hallengren property, 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place. A 4237 square foot residence is proposed for this .52 acre lot. Two relatively important trees on this site will be affected by construction. Tree #1, EIm tree, Ulmus sQ This tree has a 20" DBH (diameter at breast height). It is in relatively good health, and has a fair structure. The canopy of this tree is adequately dense, considering that this tree has not received any supplemental irrigation water since the existing house on site was tom down. Honeydew is seen on the top of the leaf surfaces. This is caused by the activities of the EIm Bark Scale, This small, white and black, sucking insect can be seen attached to most of the twigs and branches which are larger than pencil diameter. This insect is likely to be stressing the tree by diverting significant amounts of carbohydrates. This insect should be controlled with a dormant spray in January of 1992. On the west side of this tree a section of bark has been damaged, possibly during demolition of the previous structure. This damaged area is approximately 10' X 8" and is located at grade level. If the tree's health is maintained, this should callous over with no serious structural problems resulting. This tree should receive supplemental irrigation. Some root Toss will occur during construction, causing loss of absorbing roots. Such root Toss could induce further drought stress. This stress can be reduced by providing supplemental irrigation to the rootzone which is still intact. Irrigation is best provided using "ooze -type soaker hoses. They are easily available at hardware suppliers such as Orchard Supply Hardware, and Home Depot. These hoses dribble water into the ground, providing deep watering wherever they are laid down. Where the rootzone is intact, the soaker hose should be placed at the dripline. Where root destruction has occurred, it should be placed over the cut ends of the roots. If left on over night, enough water should easily be provided to penetrate 24' deep. Depth of penetration should be checked with a sod probe or shovel. Starting four weeks before any grading will occur near the tree, it should be Irrigated weekly to a depth of 24', using soaker hoses as described above. Monthly irrigations during the dry season should occur until one year after construction is completed. -1- ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA This tree should also be fertilized between now and September, 1991. A solution of 4 ibs of Romeo Fertilizer's Greenbelt 22 -14 -14 per 100 gallons of water should be injected at the rate of 10 gallons per inch of diameter at breast height (DBH). This fertilizer provides slow release nitrogen fertilization, as well as trace elements such as iron, zinc, etc. End weight removal should be performed on this tree in December, 1991 or January, 1992. This pruning should concentrate on the six major limbs of the upper canopy. All pruning on site should be performed by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist, according to Western Chapter I.S.A. Pruning Standards (see copy enclosed). No pruning should be performed by carpenters or grading personnel, before, during or after construction. The Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker should prune the trees in cooperation with the landscape architect to provide clearances where needed before grading equipment is allowed on site. As presently designed, the driveway will be installed 4' to the south -west of this tree. This will result in the covering of approximately 40% of this tree's root zone. One of the following two alternatives: 1) All paving within 20' of the tree's trunk should consist of pervious paving (see enclosed detail). This could consist of brick or interlocking pavers on gravel and sand (see enclosed detail). The soil beneath the pervious paving should be compacted to no more than 80% compaction. The construction period fence should also be erected around the area which will have interlocking pavers installed, until these pavers are installed. 2) The edge of the driveway would be pulled back to no closer than 10' from the trunk of the tree on the west, south -west sides. These two alternatives have been roughly marked on the enclosed map. They are labeled as 'alternative 1 and *alternative 2." Both of these alternatives are based on the assumption that no other root damage or paving will occur adjacent to this tree. FENCING ROOTZONES DURING CONSTRUCTION A temporary construction period fence should be erected around both of the trees at the location shown on the enclosed map. Where construction intrudes into rootzones, this fence should be erected 24' from the limits of that construction. It should consist of portable cyclone fencing, or wire mesh securely attached to metal posts driven into the ground. It should not be easy for construction workers to move, or take down. -2- 000( ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA This fencing should be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and should not be removed until final landscape grading is completed. If for any reason it becomes necessary for any machinery to enter the fenced -in rootzone of a tree, an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist should be consulted first. It cannot be emphasized enough how important these fences are. From our experience, soil compaction and trenching through rootzones are the number one causes of tree stress in the post construction period. It should be explained clearly to all contractors and workers on site that these fences are sacred. Trenching of any sort must be planned to avoid traveling beneath tree canopies. This should include planning for P.G.& E., sewer lines, electrical power, cable T.V., and irrigation. Plans should show specific locations of trenches, if possible. No chemicals, solvents, paints, etc. should be dumped on site. No concrete residue should be washed into the soil within 20 feet of a rootzone. All trash and debris should be removed from the site, rather than dumped or buried where it might affect roots. Tree #2, Blue Oak, Guercus douglasii This magnificent specimen has an approximate D.B.H. of 50 a height of 30' and a spread of 50'. For many decades this Blue Oak has been infected with an unidentified canker. This canker has caused extremely large growths to form on the trunk and limbs on this tree. The resulting gnarled appearance is very distinctive. Staining can be seen where the tree routinely bleeds as a result of these cankers. This canker is not necessarily something that can or should be cured. This is a very distinctive looking tree. It is remarkable how relatively healthy this tree is, considering that these cankers are so extensive throughout its crown. A comer of the proposed house is designed to be within 8' of this tree's trunk. Since the foundation will be pier and grade beam, no severing of roots should occur. This drastically reduces major root destruction. Such a foundation rests on deeply set drilled piers, rather than a perimeter footing, which requires the excavation of a relatively deep trench. No drilling for piers should be allowed within three feet of the trunk of this tree. When drilling for piers within 10' of a trunk, a pilot hole should be dug by hand, 24" deep, and the width necessary for the pier, to ascertain if any major roots over 8" in diameter are present. If major roots are encountered, the location of the pier should be adjusted to avoid them. The root zone of this tree should be fenced in as shown on the enclosed map. All statements made for tree #1 In terms of fencing in the root zone apply to this tree also. .3. 000 0 I Several limbs will need to be pruned to allow clearance for the single -story room which will be built adjacent to this tree. Both of these limbs are on the east- facing branch which emerges at 6 to 8' above grade. These two limbs are: 1) a 10" diameter at 10' above grade. 2) the limb within inches of it, immediately above, which is approximately 8" in diameter. Removal of these two limbs should allow sufficient clearance for the addition. All pruning should be performed by a Certified Arborist as described for tree #1. Dead wood removal should also take place in this tree. Any any dead stumps should be recut correctly according to Western Chapter ISA Pruning Standards (copy enclosed). If there is any doubt as to which two limbs need to be removed, or where to cut them, please call our office to arrange a meeting on site. This tree should receive supplemental irrigation and fertilization as described for tree #1. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. If there are any questions at all during the design or construction phase about this tree, please do not hesitate to call us. TW:Ia Enclosures: Pervious Paving Detail WCISA Pruning Standards Map ANALYSIS OF THE TREES AT 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA Respectfully submitted, Terence eich,Associate Barrie D. Coate and Associates 0 0 0 n Interlocking pavers or b 2' layer of sand Layer of Mirafi 400 filter fabric 4' of •2 drain rock or pea gravel original soil compacted to no sore than a DETAIL PERVIOUS PAVING IN ROOTZONES OF SENSITIVE TREES sweep and only in crac s BARRIED. COATE AND ASSOCIATES 23533Su itRd LesGstss.Ca 930341 (4x)353 -1032 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists PERVIOUS PAVING IN ROOTZONES OF SENSITIVE TREES IOD DATE: SCAj L 1- -4 TW e board or other type of retaining wall circling tree minimum of 12' from trunk root WESTERN PRUNING STANDARDS WESTERN CHAPTER ARIZONA CALIFORNIA HAWAII NEVADA CHAPTER Certification Committee PO. Box 424 Sc. Helena, California 94574 BARRIE D. COATE Name,Nerd C.noNow C....NI$ Maw1M 4 09.393 -IOU 73935 Soma Nese to. Gatos. CO 95030 WINN whe .00R1 t• Or CoMO* MOO .Mo.usn rlIusomoMN sot4?'a Mal lrternatiotial Sodetii of Arboriculture 00 Purpose: WESTERN CHAPTEli ISA PRUNING STANDARDS Trees and other woody plants respond in specific and predictable ways to pruning and other maintenance practices. Careful study of these responses has led to pruning practices which best preserve and enhance the beauty, structural integrity, and functional value of trees. In an effort to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, the W.C. ISA Certification Committee has established the following Standards of Pruning for Certified Arborists. The Standards are presented as working guidelines, recognizing that trees are individually unique in form and structure, and that their pruning needs may not always fit strict rules. The Certified Arborist must take responsibility for special pruning practices that vary greatly from:these Standards. I. Pruning Techniques A. A thinning cut removes a branch at its point of attachment or shortens it to a lateral large enough to assume the terminal role. Thinning opens up a tree, reduces weight on heavy limbs, can reduce a tree's height, distributes ensuing invigoration throughout a tree and helps retain the tree's natural shape. Thinning cuts are therefore preferred in tree pruning. When shortening a branch or leader. the lateral to which it is cut should be at least one -half the diameter of the cut being made. Removal of a branch or leader back to a sufficiently large lateral is often called "drop crotching." B. A heading cut removes a branch to a stun, a bud or a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal rote. Heading cuts should seldom be used because vigorous, weakly attacned upright sprouts are forced just below such cuts, and the tree's natural form is aiterea..n some situations, branch stubs die or produce only weak sprouts. 00(",t .1;-3 C. When removing a live branch, pruning cuts should be made in branch tissue just outside the branch bark ridge and collar, which are trunk tissue. (Figure 1) If no collar is visible, the angle of the cut should approximate the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and the trunk. (Figure 2) D. When removing a dead branch, the final cut should be made outside the collar of live callus tissue. If the collar has grown out along the branch stub, only the dead stub should be removed, the live collar should remain intact, and uninjured. (Figure 3) E. When reducing the length of a branch or the height of a leader, the final cut should be made just beyond (without violating) the branch bark ridge of the branch being cut to. The cut should approximately bisect the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the trunk or branch cut. (Figure 4) E A goal of structural pruning is to maintain the size of lateral branches to Tess than three fourths the diameter of the parent branch or trunk. If the branch is codominant or close to the size of the parent branch, thin the branch's foliage by 15% to 25%, particularly near the terminal. Thin the parent branch less, if at all. This will allow the parent branch to grow at a faster rate, will reduce the weight of the lateral branch, slow its total growth, and develop a stronger branch attachment. If this does not appear appropriate, the branch should be completely removed or shortened to a large lateral. (Figure 5) G. On large- growing trees, except whorl- branching conifers, branches that are more than one -third the diameter of the trunk should be spaced along the trunk at least 18 inches apart, on center. If this is not possible because of the present size of the tree, such branches should have their foliage thinned 15% to 25%, particularly near their terminals. (Figure 6) H. Pruningcuts should be clean and smooth with the bark at the edge of the cut firmly attached to the wood. I. Large or heavy branches that cannot be thrown clear, should be lowered on ropes to prevent injury to the tree or other property. J. Wound dressings and tree paints have not been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing decay. They are therefore not recommended for routine use when pruning. 2 branch bark ridgy FIGURE 1. When removing a branch, the final cut branch should be just outside the branch bark collar ridge and collar FIGURE 2. In removing a limb without a branch collar, the angle of the final cut to the branch bark ridge should approximate the angle the branch bark ridge forms with the limb. Angle AB should equal Angle BC. 3 FIGURE 3. When removing a dead branch, cut .t- side the callus tissue that has beg r :0 !%;rm around the branch. pony FIGURE 5. A tree with limbs tending to be equal- sized. or codominant. Limbs marked B are greater than 4 the size of the parent limb A. Thin the foliage of branch B more than branch A to slow its growth and develop a stronger branch attachment. 4 In removing the end of a limb to a large lateral branch, the final cut is made along a line that bisects the angle between the branch bark ridge and a line perpendicular to the limb being removed. Angle AB is equal to Angle BC. FIGURE 6. Major branches should be wel spaced both along and arounc the stem. 11. Types of Pruning Mature Trees A. CROWN CLEANING Crown cleaning or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying, diseased. crowded, weakly attached. and low -vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. B. CROWN THINNING Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind -sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should more than one third of the live foliage be removed. At least one -half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two thirds of the trees. Likewise, when thinning laterals from a limb, an effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along the branch. Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion's- tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches. Lion's- tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, displaces the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, water sprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. CROWN REDUCTION Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and /or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one -half the diameter of the cut being made. D. CROWN RESTORATION Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be thinned to a lateral, or even headed, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings overa number of years. 5 II. Types of Pruning Mature Trees (continued) E. CROWN RAISING Crown raising removes the lower branches of a tree in order to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles. pedestrians, and vistas. It is important that a tree have at least one -half of its foliage on branches that originate in the lower two- thirds of its crown to ensure a well- formed, tapered structure and to uniformly distribute stress within a tree. When pruning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through the foliage of the tree, rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. I11. Size of Pruning Cuts Each of the Pruning Techniques (Section I) and Types of Pruning (Section II) can be done to different levels of detail or refinement. The removal of many small branches rather than a few large branches will require more time, but will produce a Tess- pruned appearance, will force fewer watersprouts and will help to maintain the vitality and structure of the tree. Designating the maximum size (base diameter) that any occasional undesirable branch may be left within the tree crown, such as 1' or 2' branch diameter, will establish the degree of pruning desired. IV. Climbing Techniques A. Climbing and pruning practices should not injure the tree except for the pruning cuts. B. Climbing spurs or gaffs should not be used when pruning a tree, unless the branches are more than throw -line distance apart. In such cases, the spurs should be removed once the climber is tied in. C. Spurs may be used to reach an injured climber and when removing a tree. D. Rope injury to thin barked trees from loading out heavy limbs should be avoided by installing a block in the tree to carry the load. This technique may also be used to reduce injury to a crotch from the climber's line. 6 TREE PRESERVATION WALLER 20420 MONTAWO OM PLACE PREPARED FOR JAMES WM.GREN CITY OF SARATOGA J06•041 -203 DATE: 2h1/E1 e s1 0 ►11 dimensions and locations ire approximate. ihmbess Chown correspond to charts. BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES 400 23535 Summit Rd Las Gatos, Ca 95030 (406353.1062 Horticultural Consultants l' •.....,1an. ,1rxwiatit VINO 4 I bad Howe 69 Lt teimoreri 00 0 6 r, i i; f� i- ‹E' DO BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 MINIMUM PROTECTIVE PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES WALLER PROPERTY 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE Prepared at the Request of: Mr. James Walgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate October 11, 1991 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos. CA 95030 MINIMUM PROTECTIVE PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES WALLER PROPERTY 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE Irrigation For both trees beginning now. To apply 10 gallons water per 1" trunk diameter. Weekly irrigation, 4 weeks. Monthly irrigation for next year. All with low volumn soaker hoses. Foundation near Oak #2) 16' from trunk No excavation should be allowed within 20' of the trunk or beneath the canopy, to include foundation cuts, or crawl space preparation. No utility trenches may be dug in this area. Pier and grade beam must be used, and the beam must be laid on existing grade. No frequently irrigated landscape should be used near the canopy. Garage floor near Elm #1) The garage entrance must be layed on existing grade, except where fill will be necessary east of an existing 2' high stone wall. Soil cuts near Elm A 12" soil cut will be necessary in the driveway south of the garage and within 4' of the Elm. In any area within 10' of the trunk which must be excavated, hand dig to rough grade elevation. If roots of 3" of larger are encountered do not cut them, and cease digging and call our office. All areas within 20' of the trunk must be of a pervious paving surface which must be defined and installed. Loose gravel is not acceptable. The enclosed schematic will offer examples. MINIMUM PROTECTIVE PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES WALLER PROPERTY 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE Inspections: An arborist must inspect the site: 1. When soaker hoses are installed. 2. When protective fencing is installed. 3. When piers are to be drilled and equipment to do exploratory drilling is on site. 4. When beam pouring supports are being constructed. 5. When driveway near Elm tree is being dug. BDC:Ia Enclosures: Sketch Respectfully submitted, 0 400 cererA Barrie D. Coate BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 MINIMUM PROTECTIVE PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES WALLER PROPERTY 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE Prepared at the Request of: Mr. James Walgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate October 11, 1991 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 MINIMUM PROTECTIVE PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES WALLER PROPERTY 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE Irrigation For both trees beginning now. To apply 10 gallons water per 1" trunk diameter. Weekly irrigation, 4 weeks. Monthly irrigation for next year. All with low volumn soaker hoses. Foundation near Oak #2) 16' from trunk No excavation should be allowed within 20' of the trunk or beneath the canopy, to include foundation cuts, or crawl space preparation. No utility trenches may be dug in this area. Pier and grade beam must be used, and the beam must be laid on existing grade. No frequently irrigated landscape should be used near the canopy. Garage floor near Elm #1) The garage entrance must be Iayed on existing grade, except where fill will be necessary east of an existing 2' high stone wall. Soil cuts near EIm A 12" soil cut will be necessary in the driveway south of the garage and within 4' of the EIm. In any area within 10' of the trunk which must be excavated, hand dig to rough grade elevation. If roots of 3" of larger are encountered do not cut them, and cease digging and call our office. All areas within 20' of the trunk must be of a pervious paving surface which must be defined and installed. Loose gravel is not acceptable. The enclosed schematic will offer examples. MINIMUM PROTECTIVE PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES WALLER PROPERTY 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE Inspections: An arborist must inspect the site: 1. When soaker hoses are installed. 2. When protective fencing is installed. 3. When piers are to be drilled and equipment to do exploratory drilling is on site. 4. When beam pouring supports are being constructed. 5. When driveway near Elm tree is being dug. BDC:Ia Enclosures: Sketch Respectfully submitted, O trivh24-c exer4 Barrie D. Coate Limits or Alternative S2 Limits of Alternative °I /5 /7 Coio N a l isf use lo be /emored or Y lop i f BARRIE D. C ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: James Walgren, Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate November 13, 1991 Job #6- 91 -203C RECEIVED NOV 2 5 1991 ,PLANNING DEPT. BARRIE D. C ATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1032 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA On November 13, 1991, I met Mrs. Fanelli of Fanelli Consulting at the Hallengren residence at 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place. The goal of this meeting was to clarify tree preservation requirements for a large Blue Oak and a Siberian Elm after significant confusion between the contractor's understanding about tree preservation requirements, the building location marks on the ground, and the details of my office's tree preservation requirements based on original plans. Since that original date, the building's relationship to the trees has been changed and building wall elevations have been adjusted to fit beneath the canopy or outside the canopy of the large Blue Oak tree near the north -west corner of this lot. In addition, we discussed in detail what can and cannot happen adjacent to a Siberian Elm tree near the south -east comer of the lot. Two -basic subjects are of concern. One of them is pruning of excessive amounts of the Oak tree's canopy and d the other is disturbance of unacceptable, levels of root mass area beneath the canopy of that tree. In order to prevent unacceptable damage to the canopy, it has been agreed that the building ridge as shown on the enclosed plan will not be higher than 16', the western- most well will not be higher than 13', and that no branches larger than 3" in diameter will be cut from the area above that sloping roof. To provide positive assurance that inappropriate pruning will not be done above this section of roof, I suggest the following procedures 1., That an ISA Certified Arborist be asked to prune the tree. to provide the necessary clearance before construction begins and that that arborist not remove branches larger than 3" in diameter during that pruning. 2. I suggest that the roofing contractor be asked to sign a letter that specifies that neither he nor his personnel will remove any parts of this tree during construction. AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA In order to prevent unacceptable levels of damage to the root mass of this tree, I suggest that either all areas of construction beneath any portion of the canopy be of pier and grade beam design with the beam layed at grade with no excavation of any kind beneath the canopy, or a slab floor be used -as shown as in the enclosed plan with aeration tubes installed before the slab is poured. In either case, it should be clearly understood by all parties concerned that no excavation beneath any part of the tree's canopy will be allowed. Any activity which occurs in areas beneath the canopy in which activity is authorized must be done by hand, not be wheeled .equipment. It will be necessary to remove two or three 2 or 3" diameter branches from the east side of the canopy to conform to the margin of the building, but that will not cause damage to the tree if properly done. The Elm tree It has been agreed that a soil cut of at least 1' can be done in any area beneath the canopy of this tree beyond a 3' circle around the trunk. The canopy margin has been marked on the ground in orange paint and it is shown on the enclosed plan at its actual location. Since the 2% fall that is intended on the enclosed plan from the front (south) of the garage will result in an 18" to 2' deep cut in several portions of the tree canopy area, 1 suggest that a ridge be formed in the driveway area. No more than 1' below existing grade approximately 20' from the south of the garage wall, and that fall toward the garage and away from the garage from that point be created, rather than creating a much deeper cut at that area approximately 20' from the garage front. Another option that would be beneficial would be to raise the height of the garage slab finished floor to reduce the amount of soil cut necessary in the area south of and in front of the garage. It is still assumed that any pavement beneath the canopy of the tree and inside the dripline will be of pervious paving materials, not impervious materials. The enclosed schematic must be followed. A third tree, an almost dead Blackwood Acacia, Acacia melanoxylon, is seen -2- AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREE PRESERVATION REPORT FOR 20420 MONTALVO OAKS PLACE SARATOGA approximately 20' south of the Elm tree. I suggest that the Acacia be removed and that the stump ground out or painted with a combination of 1 part Round -up and 3 parts water to reduce stump sprouting. Before any construction equipment appears on scene protective fences must be erected as shown on the enclosed plan. Those fences must be of orange plastic construction fencing mounted on 6' angle posts driven at least 18" into the ground. Inspection Points We should inspect the tree protection procedures at the following stages. 1 When construction period fences have been erected as shown on the enclosed plan. 2. When aeration tubes have been installed adjacent to the large Oak if a slab floor is used, or when forms have been constructed for pouring a beam if pier and grade beam is used. 3. When hand cutting of soil west of the Elm tree has been done for inspection of large roots. 4. When construction is done and preparation for pervious paving in front of the garage is being made. BDC:la Enclosures: Map Pervious Paving 1 -3- 1 Respectfully submitted, Ce Barrie D. Coate SID Interlocking pavers or bricks 2" layer of sand Layer of Mira.fi 400 filter fabric 4" of #2 drain rock or pea gravel original soil compacted to no more than 80Z VP- DETAIL PERVIOUS PAVING IN ROOTZONES OF SENSITIVE TREES sweep sand only in cracks BARRIID_ COATE AND ASSOCIATES 23535SummitRd Los Gatos,Ca 95030 (408)353 -1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists PERVIOUS PAVING IN ROOTZONES OF SENSITIVE TREES JOB DATE: SCALE: 1 "-4 TW 14 6 lb board or other type of retaining wall circling tree minimum of 12" from trunk root root collar NEW CORRESPONDENCE October 30, 1991 Duane Sand 14910 Vickery Lane Saratoga 408/ 285 -2165 (day) 408/ 867 -5818 (home) To: Saratoga City Council Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial for Waller's Plan for Hallegren Home on Montalvo Oaks Court I am the neighbor living north of and immediately below the proposed new house on Montalvo Oaks Court. I am in favor of the proposed design and proposed siting. I strongly prefer that plan to the possible alternatives for developing this lot, which would likely have much worse impact on my property values and those of the other down -hill neighbor, Mr. Keith Miller. When the Planning Commission members discussed and voted on this plan after closing the public hearing, some of their stated reasons for voting against this application seemed to me to be incorrect, irrelevant, or grossly unfair. The format of the meeting did not allow the public (me) to then bring up the obvious objections to those strange reasons. I was quite surprised at the final vote and the Commission's satisfaction with its reasoning. Some members apparently vote against all two -story designs, regardless of the neighborhood or the lot's practical requirements. This house is surrounded on all sides by large two -story houses, including a new one that was approved by this commission just a few weeks before. One member was concerned with the visual impact this house would have on neighbors to the south, hemming in the private road and blocking one lesser valley view from an existing home. The relevant facts are: 1. The view from cars on this road (shared driveway) is irrelevant; no one can park there anyway. 2. The road will be even more walled -in by the new home being built next door by Mr. Rivoir, which was approved just weeks ago. 3. Any construction 10' or taller on the Hallegren lot will block the north valley view from the existing home (which has plenty of other, much better views remaining). 4. The need to develop this lot in this particular way was inevitable, given the width of the lots Mr. Rivoir created when he subdivided the hilltop. Some members preferred that a much smaller house be built on the Hallegren lot. All neighbors would probably agree that they would personally benefit from such a choice. But it is grossly unfair to the Hallegrens for the Commission to arbitrarily impose that constraint on this lot, now. The adjacent hilltop lots all have large homes, or recently approved plans for large homes. Can a 6 week difference make that much difference in whether adjacent large homes 1 are acceptable or not? The submitted revised plan meets all the written rules that apply to this lot. This outcome looked extremely subjective to me. Some members preferred that the proposed compact hilltop siting be replaced by a stepped "one- story" design that sprawls downhill towards my house and Mr. Miller's house. A stepped design could have been nice, if the oak tree wasn't already occupying the best ground for such a design. But avoiding that tree would cause any large hillside home to sprawl towards me in a very ungainly way, with an incredible number of stairs. My space, privacy, and property value would be further impacted. The steep hillside above me would suffer extensive cuts and fills in midwinter. The bulkiness of the house, when viewed from further north, would be equal to or more than the bulk of the current design. Hallegrens' southern neighbors might benefit slightly from a stepped design, but it would be worse for northern neighbors and far worse for the Hallegrens. Some members were highly influenced by the objections of neighbors (including some concerns I expressed at the first meeting). The majority of these objections really have nothing to do with the proposed house design. They mostly deal with mistrust or anger over problems that occurred in prior projects here. The rest of the neighborhood objections are one form or another of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Saratoga should accept or reject this proposed house design based fairly on whether this house is acceptable by City standards, not by erraticly applied subjective impressions or by whether the builder is liked or hated. In particular, the design should be judged by exactly the same standards applied recently to the Rivoir project next door. If instead the guiding principal of these decisions is NIMBY, then let it be MY back yard that you preserve; keep this new house up on the flat crown of the hill, where it belongs. 2 Saratoga Planning Re: NEW CONSTRUCTION PLANNED AT LOT NO. 14, SARATOGA,•CA Rainbow Financial Corporation is the present owner of 20416 Montalvo Oaks Place, Saratoga, rahich is: .the :property closest to the proposed construction on Lot No. 14. presently owned by the :Hallengrens with construction to be performed by Joseph Waller. It is my distinct impression that the new construction proposed will fit in very nicely with all the properties in the area and will enhance the value of the other prop- erties. Here at Rainbow Financial we believe that the Hallengren's proposed residence should be permitted to be approved and to go forward with construction. MDD:mcs Rainbow Financial Corporation 15720 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 (408) 395 -5111 October 31, 1991 By: Sincerely, RA NBOW FINANCIAL CORPORATION MARTIN D. D ER, President 20172 Glen Brae Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 November 1, 1991 To the Saratoga Planning Commission Re: 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place The plans before you for 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place are exactly the same plans that you denied at the meeting of 10/9/'91. As potential home owners interested in buying the lot at 20415 Montalvo Oaks Place, we want to reiterate our concerns over these proposed plans. The height of the structure in a full two story front facade is very visible from the street. It -gill overpower the house that has been approved for the lot at 20415. It will overpower other homes in the area that have just one story visible from the street. The proposed plans are also situated very close to the house that has been approved for the lot at 20415. If these plans are approved, the lot at 20415 becomes much less desirable. In addition, the character of Montalvo Oaks Place will be considerably degraded. Please reaffirm your previous motion requesting the builder to come back with plans that conform to the contour of the lot and the other homes in the area. Thank you very much, Sincerely, a-Ch Tom and e6y Mace JOHN F. MALLEN NEAL A. CABRINHA DAVID P. DE CARION Councilmembers City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Councilmembers, LAW OFFICES OF MALLEN, CABRINHA 8 DE CARTON 12901 SARATOGA AVENUE, SUITE 2 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 November 1, 1991 TELEPHONE (408) 996 -3242 FAX (408) 996 -1421 D ,9 D NOV 11991 CITY (J&' SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S MICE Re:, Development. Application .of--Wal -ler, 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place. I am an attorney practicing in Saratoga. I have been asked by a number of residents in the Hill /Montalvo /Vickery area to articulate their concerns regarding development of Lot 14, 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place. It is not their purpose to prevent the development of Lot 14, nor to impose their architectural tastes on the owner, Mr. Hallegren. No one wants to remake the project in their own image. What is wanted, however, is a project which takes into account the visual sensitivities of the surrounding residents regardless of who they may be. Someone observed once that the problem with life is that everyone has a different idea of what is fair. The planning analogue would be a different 'idea of what is visually obtrusive. Were this not the case, Saratoga would only need one architect. Of particular concern to some of the surrounding residents is the current proposal to place a two -story structure on the top of a ridge. After viewing the site and reviewing the Planning Commission packet of October 4, 1991, it assaults one's sense of credibility to believe: a. The project will minimize the perception of excess bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood. b. That it is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes in the immediate area. c. That the building site is relatively level. d. That the Planning Staff concluded the structure would not be unduly prominent. Yet all of the foregoing were findings contained in the October 4 packet. A personal inspection reveals it would be different to arrive at those findings unless the finder were aesthetically impaired. Boiling the whole affair down, the proposed project is a two -story house set on one of the highest points in the area, the foundation of which would be approximately eight feet above the adjacent street, above the roofline of adjacent Lot 15, of lot E, of the Ellis and Gord lots and of the Miller lot. It would be about even with the floor of the second story of the Hancock house. Only two adjacent lots are at about the same elevation. To put a 24 -1/2 foot high structure on the proposed site would be to block an impor -tant visual --corr -ides— from several- --ex sting houses. The residents agree with the belief expressed by Commissioner Durket at the October 9 Planning Commission meeting that [I]t is not possible to put a two story home on this particular lot," and with Commissioner Bojasian who stated at the October 4 Planning Commission meeting that the subject is a prominent site; 26 feet in bight is excessive for the area; appears very bulky as proposed The residents urge that the appeal be denied and that alternatives be explored. These could include deeper foundation excavation, relocation of the home on the site, a reduction in height possibly to one story, or a combination of these. Relocation would also help assure the least stress to the existing historic blue oak (tree no. 2 in the Planning Packet of October 4), the viability of which is also of great concern to residents of the area. To reiterate, it is not the intent of the surrounding residents I represent to obstruct the project in any way. They merely want to ensure that a residence visually compatible with other hillside neighborhoods in general and the Hill/Montalvo /Vickery area in particular is constructed. gp Sincerely, David City of Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 October 31, 1991 Richard A. Rivoir Laurie Rivor 20411 Hill Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Design Review #91-041 Hallengen Residence Dear Members of the Council, The denial by the Planning Commission should be upheld. 1. This is not only the last undeveloped lot in a very quaint neighborhood, but one of the last visible undeveloped hilltops in Saratoga. Great care should be taken by the Planning Commission in ap any future proposal. 2. A very unusual gnarled blue oak sits in the front portion of this lot, so rare that no one seems to know of another like it. It would be nice if a future proposal does not block the view of this magnificent tree from Montalvo Oaks Place and Hill Ave. 3. Since the height and proximity of the two new homes on either side of this site are already established at a lower elevation than the knoll, the height and bulk of any new proposal must be greatly considered. 4. The distance from the garage doors to the property line on the denied proposal dd not allow for sufficient turn around area due to the location of the elm tree. For safety reasons a car must be able to turn around before reentering the street. There have been at least five concerned neighbors that have sent a negative letter to the Planning Commission; Miller, Gad, Ellis, Hancock, and Hank Helbush of Design Focus. In condusion, I feel, as they do, that there is a better solution. Sincerely ichard and Laurie Rivo'r Saratoga City Council City Offices Saratoga California 95070 re: 20240 Montalvo Oaks (91 -041) Dear Councilmembers, DANIEL S MOUNT 14720 FARWELL AVE SARATOGA CAL 95070 October 31, 1991 I am writing to express concern about the proposed development of the lot located at 20240 Montalvo Oaks. I am negotiating to buy a home near the site in question The proposed structure is not in keeping with the neighborhood. It is another example of an oversized structure that might be impressive, but would so overwhelm the surrounding homes that it would do a grave injustice to the neighboring owners who would see little else but the newly proposed home. Saratoga as a community has decided that it did not want to be known as the city with enormous homes that detract from the natural beauty of the area. Requiring homes to fit into their environs is good policy. The City of Saratoga required (as generally accepted norms of good taste required) that the neighboring homes be build to fit into the hill. The neighboring homes are one story as they face the street, and become two story only as the contour the hill slopes away from the street. The proposed structure is a two story structure, all of which is prominently stacked on top of a hill for the entire city (and particulary the unfortunate neighbors) to see forever more. When the planning commission decided that this proposed structure was not in keeping with the recognized goals of community development, it was doing its job admirably. The City Council should not reverse this decision. Daniel S. Mount /7/ NOV m1 1991 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga DESIGN FOCUS L A Dear Saratoga City Council: D S C A P E S November 1, 1991 This letter is to reiterate some points that were brought to your attention during the city council meeting on October 9, 1991 in a letter from us regarding a large Blue Oak located the original Baron property on Hill Avenue t now identified as 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place). Our previous letter was not read in the city council meeting on October 9, 1991 as was stated by the city planning department. We ask that this letter be specifically addressed. This particular Blue Oak is an old specimen with a growth habit which exibits an unique burl -like structure causing the tree to have an overall majestic appearance. John Coulter (former director of the Saratoga Horticulture Foundation), stated to me that the gnarled appearance of the tree was caused by a hard canker -like growth or gall. He had seen only once before a tree of this growth confirmation. It has come to my attention that this Oak is in danger of damage and demise due to a planned home site excavation and construction. I have obtained a site plan and memorandum on this subject which is identified as: Design Review #91 -041, dated October 4, 1991. This memorandum contains some items which I feel should be addressed. a) These plans were drawn incorrectly. The tree has a lopsided canopy which leans in the direction of the proposed residence. The actual canopy of the tree extends well over forty feet from the center of the trunk. b) Disturbance of the Oak Tree's root system will result in severe damage. The existing grade should not be altered in any attempt to reduce the presence of the proposed structure. c) The residence should be sited so the tree can be appreciated by the public. We must preserve this Oak for future generations to enjoy. It is my fear that the stature of this tree will be lost before a Historic Tree Program can be implemented in the City of Saratoga. P.O. Box 605 Saratoga, CA 95071 408 867 -3747 Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts on this important and relavent matter. Sincerely, 2)04--2)dt-- W. Hank Helbush Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning /Property Management 1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 996 -8188 City Council October 31,1991 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Councilmembers: On behalf of Mr. Joseph Waller, applicant, and Mr. and Mrs. Hallengren, the lot owners, we would like to review the application for Design Review at 20420 Montalvo Oaks which is on appeal to you. You will note that this application was heard by the Planning Commission at two public hearings and one study session. At these hearings, there seemed to be three rather separate issues of discussion raised by the neighbors and the commission: the control of water runoff and mud slides, the siting of the house to preserve trees and views, and the design of the home itself. We would like to discuss the several steps which have been taken to resolve these concerns. Water runoff and mud slides: When Mr. Rivoir created this subdivision, he was conditioned to provide a drainage system to control the water runoff created by the new street and houses. Mr. Waller assumed this responsibility when he purchased two of the lots and installed the system as per plan. The system proved to be inadequate and at the present time, it is being upgraded. Once the new system is in place, the Montgomery home on Vickery Lane will be protected. The damage caused by water runoff and mud slides has been paid for by Mr. Waller and steps taken to ensure that similar problems will not arise. These Vickery Lane neighbors have stated that they are now satisfied with the project as proposed.,. Siting of the house: The proposed house is sited within in the building envelope which was approved by the City when this lot was created, and which according to current staff review is environmentally the best location. As suggested at the first Planning Commission hearing, the house has been adjusted within the envelope to provide more distance from the large oak tree on the knoll to ensure the tree's safety. This also moves it away from the steep slope on the northern side of the property protecting both the hillside and the views of the long time residents on Vickery Lane. The only other neighbors affected by the house placement are the Hancocks and Rivoirs. Only the kitchen of the Hancock home faces this lot as the Hancock home was designed to take advantage of the views of the hills to the south. Because of the relative elevations of the Waller and Hancock lots, any home, single or two story, on the Waller lot will block a portion of the Hancock's view. Since the Rivoir house as approved has its garage located next to this lot, there is no view or privacy impact from this proposed home. Any new development causes some impact to the neighbors. Both the Planning Commission which approved the original building envelope and the staff in their review of this proposal felt that the proposed location has a view impact on the least number of neighbors and also is environmentally the most appropriate. Design of the residence: The home is of Country French design, beginning with a one story element closest to the street and rising to two stories toward the back. It has been set at an angle to protect the existing oak tree and to reduce the feeling of bulk as you view it coming into the cul- de-sac. It is in keeping in design and size with the four other new or approved homes on Montalvo Oaks. The Hancock home at 20410 is approximately 5300 sq. ft. and 30' high. The home at 20416 is 4100 sq. ft. and 26' high. The newly approved Rivoir home is 3970 sq. ft. and 25' high. This home is 4100 sq. ft. and 26' high and its finished elevation will be 4 feet lower than the approved home next door. Attached you will see the comparison between the Waller house and the house to be built on the Rivoir lot which was approved by the Planning Commission within the last four months. These studies show the relative elevations, length of the two homes as they appear from the cul -de -sac and the overall size of the homes in comparison to the lot size. The staff, in both their written and spoken comments concerning this proposed house, have stated that "the house is well massed and articulatd to minimize the perception of bulk" and "integrated into the existing vegetation" to keep it from being unduly prominent. With the resolution of most of the neighbors concerns and the revisions which have been made, we believe that this home should be approved as per the staff recommendation. Very truly yours, V jnia L. Fanelli WALLER HALLENGREN LOT 221.03' t 57.5' (pi r 114 Approx. scale: 1" 40' RIVOIR LOT 159.33' 111.5' 217.3' 141.85' ►I 14-■I 17.68' 26' 625.5 WAILER HATLEN(RIN RELATIVE SIZE OF WALLER VS RIVOIR HOMES FROM THE CUL -DE -SAC Height Difference 4' RIVOIR was correct. Commissioner Favero asked if a precedent was being set here in regard to elevation and exceeding the height limit and questioned if this should go before the City Council. Planner Walgren indicated the condition was being specifically placed on this individual parcel, and would be looked at case by case. The City Attorney stated that any action the Commission takes is precedent setting to the extent that someone else has similar conditions. This condition is applied to meet a specific situation and each application would be evaluated on a case by case basis. Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarification of the policy regarding bonding conditions. Planner Emsiie responded that the policy states that replacement and protected trees shall be bonded for 100% of their retail value. Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Michael Helm, 200 7th Avenue, Santa Cruz, project architect, reviewed the modifications made to the plans and indicated he and the applicant are agreeable to all conditions and ask for approval of the Commission. MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:24 p.m M/S Tucker /Durket All ayes MOTION to deny DR -91 -022 and SD -89 -011.2 without prejudice for the following reasons: 1. this site is even more prominent and a significant percentage of the roof line exceeds the 200' contour; 2. applicant did not accomplish a meaningful second store relief; 3. the color is far too white. M/S Caldwell /Bogosian Commissioner Favero indicated he would like to see the Commission articulate what they would like to see from the applicant. Commissioner Caldwell stated she has been very specific in her motion as to what she would like to see. CALL FOR THE QUESTION All ayes 5. DR -91 -041 Waller, 20420 Montalvo Oaks, request for design review approval to construct a new 4,123 sq. ft. two -story residence on a 22,651 sq. ft. parcel within the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 8/28/91; application expires 1/26/91) Planner Walgren presented the staff report, noting that staff recommends approval of this project. Mr. Walgren further reported that staff had received landscape plans today (Exhibit B) and they would be included in the resolution should the Planning Commission approve the project. Planner Walgren reported that the house plan has been modified to leave 16' between the house and the trees. 8 Chair Moran opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Michael Layne, 513 Monterey Avenue, Los Gatos, architect, addressed the Commission regarding the proposed plan and stated that every effort will be made to see that the trees nearest the house are preserved. Mr. Hogan of Saratoga expressed concern with the protection of the six Blue Oaks and the Elm tree, and suggested several measures that could be taken to see that they are preserved. His suggestions were in the areas.of grading, irrigation and utility trenching. He further suggested that inspections be made at key stages of the construction of the proposed home. Mr. Waller, applicant, stated he will take all necessary precautions regarding drainage and asked that the Commission look at their building project and the drainage issue as two different matters. Duane Sand, 14910 Vickery Lane, reported that the changes made since the last meeting were very good and he was pleased with the landscaping plan submitted. Mr. Sand did express concern with the drawings regarding the roof line and concern with the drainage issue. Richard Rivoir, 20411 Hill Avenue, reviewed maps plotting the property and expressed his concerns with drainage construction as well as the bulkyness of the proposed structure. Joseph Waller, 2367 Bay, San Francisco, applicant, addressed some of the concerns expressed by other speakers, indicating specifically that there is a separate agreement regarding the drainage issue. Betsy Mace, 20172 Glen Brae Drive, expressed concerns with the height and location of the proposed structure. Mr. Hancock, 20410 Montalvo Oaks Place, asked that the Planning Commission pay special interest to the height of this proposed project. Keith Miller, 14900 Vickery Lane, expressed concern with the close proximity of the house to the trees and with the drainage issue. MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. M/S Caldwell /Tucker All ayes MOTION to deny DR -91 -041 without prejudice. M/S Durket /Bogosian Commissioner Durket stated his belief that it is not possible to put a two story home on this particular lot. He further stated this is a very nice home, but is not appropriate for lot. Commissioner Tucker spoke in favor of the design, stating she feels it is compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. 9 Commissioner Favero asked if the issue of a single story structure was considered at the study session. Commissioner Durket indicated it was not requested, but he had mentioned he would like to see a single story. Commissioner Favero indicated he could only support this if it were a one story structure. CALL FOR THE QUESTION Ayes 4 Noes 3 (Caldwell, Tucker, Moran) Chair Moran again invited members of the audience with items on the agenda to ask for a continuance of their item at this time. Steve Straight, applicant for Items 13 14, DR -91 -055 and DR -91- 056 requested his item be continued to the October 23 meeting. MOTION to continue DR -91 -055 and DR -91 -056 to the October 23, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. M/S Forbes /Tucker Ayes 5 Noes 0 Abstain 2 (Caldwell Favero where out of the room at the time the vote was taken) 6. SD 89 009 Wong, Chiquita Ct., request for tentative map approval to subdivide a 26.4 acre site into five new parcels ranging from 2.6 to 10.7 acres in size. The subject property is located between Chiquita Way and Chiquita Court, within the NHR zone district, and is proposed to be accessed by a cul-de -sac off Chiquita Court. A draft Environmental Impact Report will be presented which will then be available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days, per the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Planner Walgren presented the staff report and history of this item, noting that the most critical environmental impacts have been summarized in the staff report. Mr. Walgren reported that staff is recommending the Planning Commission direct the applicant to proceed with a modified bridge access alternative. Ms. Turell, project manager of the EIR for Engineering Sciences, presented their findings and reviewed the site plans for the Planning Commission as well as various alternatives as recommended by the EIR. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the statement identifying the mitigated alternative as the most favorable applies to individual site development as well (as regards landslide repair). Ms. Turell responded that the statement is intended to include individual site development. Commissioner Favero asked Ms. Turell if enough mitigation could be implemented to preserve the biological and hydrology type of impacts. He indicated the documents expressed substantial concern with these issues and felt we should focus on the environmental 1 0 December 12, 1991 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Councilmembers: Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning /Property Management 1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 996 -8188 RE: DR -91 -041 20420 Montalvo Oaks We would like to express our appreciation of your willingness to continue this item for several meetings in order for us to be assured that the plans as presented are technically correct. During this time, we have also been working with the neighbors and Barrie Coate in an attempt to take into consideration each of their concerns. The plans before you for approval have been revised in the following manner: 1. The two major trees, the oak and the elm, are correctly sited and the elevations correctly stated as the result of two survey reviews by Westfall Engineering. 3/1 2. The placement of the home has been slightly adjusted to ensure that no structure is closer than 16' to the center of the oak tree as required by Mr. Coate. 3. The driveway has been realigned to stay a minimum of 3' from the elm tree. A hammerhead has been added for safety at the suggestion of the neighbor. 4. The living room roof has been lowered to a maximum height of 16' under the canopy of the oak tree. The living room is designed to be built on a slab with appropriate drainlines in order to eliminate any excavation. Both of these changes were made at the suggestion of Mr. Coate. 5. The central section of the home has been lowered into the site so that the finished floor is 1 foot below grade, thereby reducing the visual height. In addition, the pitch of the roof over the master bedroom has been changed to reduce the height and visual impact to the neighbor below. We believe that these changes, while not changing the basic home design, have accomplished several important goals. By taking two more surveys, the engineer has been able to plot exactly the trees and elevations so that no alterations in design will be required at the time of building. We feel that these changes address, as much as possibile, the neighbors' individual concerns. Most importantly, the trees will be protected. This 2 story house design is certainly in keeping with the other homes along Montalvo Oaks. It provides the greatest unobstructed views for the neighbors on Montalvo Oaks while protecting the hillside above the neighbors on Vickery Lane. There is only a small portion of the roof at 26' in height, with the most visible elements measuring from 16' to 22' maximum. We are requesting, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Hallengren that you uphold the appeal and approve this design review. Please let us know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Virk/inia L. Fanelli City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Appeal of Waller- Hallengan Application 20420 Montalvo Oaks Place December 12, 1991 Richard A. Rivoir 20411 Hill Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Members of the Council, This design for a two story home on this knoll has been submitted twice to the Planning Commission by the applicant in the last two years. It.... went to the Commission, went to a Study Session, went back to the Commission, was denied by the Commission, was appealed to the Coundl, was continued by the applicant for changes and corrections, was continued again for changes and corrections, was continued again for changes and corrections, and is now before you! Remember that on the 23rd of this month, a new ordnance, 71.99, is being adopted by the City of Saratoga to better control sensitive sites such as this. Michael Layne, the designer of this home, draws beautiful homes, and this is unquestionably a beautiful site. It is possible that this site and this home just were not meant for each other. The majority of the Plannning Commission and the majority of the neighbors do not support this application. Several Commissioners stated that the home, as proposed, blocks the last view corridor from the road and the Hancock home. It is a fact that the two story 23 foot tall garage in the corner of the lot, within this view corridor, will now stand two feet higher than presented to the Planning Commission, as measured from the natural Bade to the ridge. Also, the preservation of the historic oak tree was a major concern. Hank Helbush of Design Focus, a local horticulturalist and landscape architect stated that he had cared for the tree for 20 years and was concerned for the trees ability to survive this dose construction and questioned the siting of the house on this lot. The proposed house is still considerably doser to the rare oak than the old house. And Barry Coates can't guarantee that it will survive the close construction, even with protective measures. In summary, the majority of the property owners on Montalvo Oaks Place still oppose the application. The two closet homes on either side have recently gone through foredosure and are being offered for sale by their lenders and investors, Pacific Western Bank and Rainbow Financial. Both of these homes have ridges lower than the first floor of the proposed home. Neither home has a permanent resident to voice an opinion. The only supporting neighbor is over 100 feet from the proposed house. I am asking that the Planning Commission decision be upheld which will require the owner to comply with the new ordinance. Sincerely Richard A. Rivoir A 4 (I W. QWN S1 a TAN i C.L 1 1 0 41 &N 4- L 4-1-4-1 10 AW'�1T1. 'h'IAR -I I�(A ce tOTHUS'b 4 ‘k\ QUPzGU AElRI'LIA 62UN GOGGI NU Vlet.11 H' P 7 l 0MITA fu I,ErgEND V( jg2Uk.N.1 JM Norrat=?-i 11- 4 4J 1F4Z/1J ,'L N1L 3 I'9 61"1 ARi'UTI.4 'MAI lNA 10 61/ SOT 15 ��ANr�T 4 Jh `PARK STA P1 2L-1-" P L I1 7 DR -91 -041 20420 Montalvo Oaks Dear Councilmembers: Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning /Property Management 1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 996 -8188 ZI 11 ,1i rig/ Attached you will find letters in support of this application which may not have been placed in your packet. In addition, you will find .a landscape plan for planting between the Hallengren parcel and the properties of the Miller's and Sand's as agreed upon in accordance with Mr. Miller's letter. We would also like to make a correction to our letter of October 31, 1991, which stated that the Hancock home was 5300 sq. ft. and 30' high. The square footage we quoted included a non- living area basement. The actual numbers for the Hancock home are 4800 sq. ft. and 29' high.