Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1999 Agenda 5BSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: s~~ AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: July 7,1999 CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ~ ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: SD-98-008 and DR-98-052,19101 Via Tesoro Court - NAGPAL Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an application to divide a 2.46 acre parcel into two lots -Lot 1 being 58,236 sq. ft. and Lot 2 being 48,921 sq. ft. The denial included a Design Review request to construct a new 5,301 sq. ft. residence on Lot 2. Lot 1 contains an existing 6,240 sq. ft. residence listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory. The property is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: Background At the May 12 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal to subdivide their 2.46 acre property into two parcels of 58,236 sq. ft. and 48,921 sq. ft. A new residence was proposed for Lot 2 with the existing historic home being retained on Lot 1. A similar application had been made in 1995 which did not include plans for a new home and did require Variance approval for the proposed subdivision. That application was also denied. In reviewing this application the Planning Commission visited the property, reviewed the planning staffs analysis and recommendation and heard testimony from adjacent neighbors present at the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Commission could make all of the findings required in City Code Section 15-45 and 14-20 in that the design of the proposed residence and the configuration of the lots did conform to all General Plan and Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements. However, the Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Roupe absent) to deny both applications upon finding that the site was not physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed subdivision and building location and that the unusual configuration of the proposed lot boundaries resulted in a new home location that would be in direct proximity to an existing residence to the south and would negatively impact this property with vehicular noise, SD-98-008 and DR-98-052,19101 Via Tesoro Court - Nagpal existing residence to the south and would negatively impact this property with vehicular noise, traffic and headlight glare. Moving the proposed residence to the west, further away from the adjacent home, the Commission felt would negatively impact the existing historic adobe residence on the subject property by visually placing it in the historic residence's rear yard. The Commission further found the proposal to be incompatible with the surrounding residential development pattern. Detailed meeting minutes are attached for reference. ' The applicants filed an appeal application on May 25, 1999 requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Subdivision and Design Review applications. The applicants have stated as their grounds for appeal that the Planning Commission's denial of the application was based on inadequate and unsupported findings. A comprehensive appeal document has been submitted to staff by the appellants and is attached to this appeal memorandum. Staff will be prepared to respond to this document at the July 7 appeal hearing. Staff has scheduled a site visit for interested City Councilmembers for Tuesday, July 6, at 3:00 p.m. The site visit has been posted as a public meeting so all Councilmembers may attend. We will meet at City Hall in the Planning Division offices. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and grants the appeal, the project will be approved as presented. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission minutes dated May 12, 1999 2. Denial Resolutions SD-98-008 and DR-98-052 3. Staff Report dated May 12, 1999 (with attachments) 4. Exhibit "A", plans 5. Appeal documents dated June 30, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSI~.~ MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 23 - including a strong recommendation of maintaining the character of the Ramsdell home. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-99- 005 INCORPORATING COMMISSIONER KURASCH'S MODIFIED CONDITIONS, INCLUDING A CONDITION OF COMPATIBILITY AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING HOME AS EXPRESSED BY CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 8. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052 (397-13-057) - NAGPAL, 19101 Via Tesoro Court; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create two parcels from one existing 2.46 acre parcel. The site is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The existing residence, which is on the Heritage Resources Inventory, is proposed to remain. Applicant also requests Design Review approval for asingle-family, two-story, 5,301 sq. ft. residence, with a maximum building height of 25 ft., 10 in. on the proposed 48,921 sq. ft. parcel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that this application is more detailed than the planning commission would normally receive on a tentative parcel. He informed the Commission that staff recommended and encouraged the applicant to develop house plans to give the Planning Commission additional information to work with as this is an unusual and slightly difficult map request. He said that the tentative map, although the lot is irregular in configuration, does meet all general and specific plan criteria for this general plan designated area. It also meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. What makes this application unusual is the fact that it has a very significant, historic adobe brick building presiding in the middle of the property and is listed in the city's historic registry. As a result of the significance of the property, the property owners have designed the subdivision to go around the existing home, allowing the lot split to occur and retain the historic home. This results in an unusual lot configuration. He informed the Commission that it first heard this proposal in 1995 and included a variance request. The Commission had a problem supporting the tentative map as a result of the variance and the configuration of the map at that time. The previous application resulted in an S-shape property line, putting the proposed new residence in the rear yard lawn area of the existing historic adobe building. The Planning Commission, at that time, had a difficult time visualizing a second home in the rear yard of the existing residence. The applicant has since reworked the map to move the proposed home outside the rear yard area up above the embankment where the existing driveway loops through the property. Director Walgren informed the Commission that following the advertising of this application, the adjoining property owners expressed concern with the proximity of the residence to their property as well as the fact that a vehicular driveway is proposed and are concern with head lamp glare with cars pulling in and backing out of the driveway. He said that the adjacent residents have submitted a letter that has been distributed to the Planning Commission. 1t<was his belief that the author of the letter, Mr. Ratner, was present this evening who is prepared to read his points into the record. He noted that there are physical constraints associated with the lot. There PLANNING COMMISSI~,~J MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 24 - may be an opportunity to take the garage element and shift it to the other side of the residence to address concerns. This would result in a significant redesign of the home but that this would be a potential alternative. He wanted to make it clear that shifting the home in its entirety to the north results in the same application reviewed previously and denied by the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission that there was one other issue that it needed to be made aware of. There is an old pedestrian equestrian easement that wraps around the property on its frontage that was recorded as part of the overall subdivision. He said that either the pathway was never improved or that over the years, residences have encroached their yard improvements into the pathway. He said that the pathway does not exist in this development. He said that the Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed this proposal and stated that they would like to see the pathway improved to an eight-foot pedestrian corridor which would require the construction of a very tall retaining wall in some areas. This would violate the city's retaining wall height limit and would require the removal of four or five healthy native oak trees. A compromise suggestion is to install a pedestrian pathway to the extent feasible without having to remove any of the ordinance protected oak trees or to do any significant grading or retaining wall construction. He said that this is the way the condition is drafted in the resolution. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there was an issue with moving the garage or any of the oak trees on site? Director Walgren stated that it was noted at the site visit yesterday that the building wraps around the valley, evergreen oak and that it does encroach somewhat into the tree's dripline, resulting in an impact to the tree. He stated that the arborist has noted that if the building can be built entirely on pier and grade, these impacts would be mitigated. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she did not see on the first page analysis the height limit allowed. Director Walgren indicated that the height limit allowed is 26 feet and that the home is proposed just a few inches under 26 feet. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She said that serious consideration was given to the issues which the planning commission and the neighbors raised in 1959. The issues were preservation of the existing historic home, maintenance of the open atmosphere around the home, preservation of the trees and landscaping, and a new home design of the style and the size compatible with the existing neighborhood. She said that it has always been the intention if the Nagpals to retain the existing home, if possible, as they too appreciate its history and its style. In response to the 1995 issues, she said that the first step was to create a lot which contained the existing house and which was in conformity with all city's codes. This application eliminates the need for any variances now or in the future when it is necessary to repair the historic structure. The second issue was to preserve the atmosphere surrounding the home and to have the largest setback possible between the existing home and any home proposed. For this reason, the new lot is proposed to face onto Via Tesoro which allows for a 50-foot rear yard setback plus the 20 feet side yard of the existing home. This leaves 70 feet in between the two homes/structures in which no other residential structure can be built in the PLANNING COMMISSI~~~f MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 25 - future. This not only preserves most of the lawn area but also preserves the pool area and a portion of the existing trellis. The proposed lot configuration also makes it possible to build a new home without removing any of the existing vegetation or mature trees. She said that all of the trees along Chester Avenue will be saved and all of the vegetation and trees along the driveway will be preserved. Most important, the heavy vegetation located on the rise will remain in order to give the ambiance to the existing home. Lastly, the new home needed to be of a size and design to complement the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood. She said that in June 1998, when very preliminary plans had been put together, the neighbors were invited to join her and the Nagpals to review the proposals and to provide input. It was the Nagpals desire to address all the neighbors' concerns prior to making any final plans or to submit an application. She met with the neighbors who responded to the letter. As a result, several significant changes were made to the plans. When the plans were completed, a home was placed and situated on the lot to save all of the trees and to eliminate any need for grading, using the existing mature landscaping to screen both the existing home and the neighbors' homes from the proposed new home. She felt that the style of the home compliments the existing home and those of the neighborhood in size and design. The same material, colors, and roof the will be used in the new home. As far as size and massing goes, this is a 5,300 square foot home, including 421 square feet enclosed patio and approximately 560 squaze feet of garage. Approximately 75% of the home is one story. The use of the hexagonal design has given great articulation to the architecture. With the use of varied roof lines and the architectural articulations, it eliminates any massive look of the building. Mrs. Fanelli stated that following the revisions based on the neighborhood input, the application was submitted in October 1998. Since then, the plans have been reviewed by numerous individuals, agency and staff, including the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC voted unanimously in favor of the plans. She informed the Commission that recently, Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal again sent a letter to the neighbors inviting them to join in the review of the plans. There were no objections to any of the plans or the subdivision from any of the neighbors who agreed to meet with the applicants. The only objection received thus far has been from Mr. and Mrs. Ratner who reside next door. Contrary to the statement in their letter, they too were sent letters both in June and in April. Unfortunately, they did not respond to either of the letters. She said that the Ratners' greatest issue seems to be their privacy. She said that Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal took into consideration the placement of the home. It was important to them to make sure that the home did not impact the Ratners more than it needed to. The great constraint was all of the other elements of the site that needed to be recognized. She felt that the best thing that can be done to recognize the problem that the Ratners might face is to design a home that would have the least impact to them. There are no windows on the side of the home on the first level except for the nook which is located 105 feet away from the Ratners' home. She indicated that the windows are used to provide light. The only other windows located on this side of the home are the windows located in the master bedroom, noting that most of the windows, except for the upper portion, are blocked from the Ratners by the roof pitch. The Ratners' second stor3cthat faces this lot have only one small window in the upstairs. She noted that between the two homes, there is mature landscaping which completely blocks the first floor view. Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal have PLANNING COMMISSI~~~( MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 26 - stated that they are willing to work with the Ratners to ensure that sufficient landscaping is installed and maintained along the driveway. The other issues that the Ratners raise if the driveway and its use. She said that the driveway is currently being used by the existing home. As a condition of approval, the driveway will be terminated and will only be used for the new home. Therefore, no more than one home will be using the driveway. In their letter, the Ratners states that they have built a stately home and that they do not want the value diminished by this application. She agreed that the Ratners have a stately home which stretches 20 foot setback on one side to 20 feet on the other side. At 7,897 square feet, she said that it was the largest home in the neighborhood where the average size home is 5,600 square feet. She felt that the intensity used by the Ratners is greater by far than what is proposed by the Nagpals. Harry Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Court, admitted to receiving a letter in June 1998 and losing it. He said that he called the planning department on a monthly basis to find out what was going on and that no one seemed to know anything. He said that he does not have a problem with the lot split but that he has a problem with a residence being sited 20 feet away from his home. The house faces his living quarters where he spends a substantial amount time. He said that his bedroom and his grandchild's bedroom, the swimming area and the lounging area in the backyard will have the privacy impacted. He noted that this is a 2.5 acre parcel. He asked why the home has to be placed right next to his home. He noted that there is no parking on Via Tesoro in the front of the home and that parking of cars would impact his privacy. He wanted the Nagpals to know that he would prefer that they move the home away from him and that the parking be reconfigured. He said that he would appeal the application if it is approved as submitted. Mark Fredkin, 99 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, representing Mr. Ratner, stated that he was aware of the tradeoffs and conflicts associated with the review of land use applications having sat as a Planning Commissioner in a neighboring community. He said that the design review findings that the Commission has to make relates to the issue of height, elevation and the placement of the property so that it does not adversely impact the adjacent home. He did not believe that the Commission can make these finding in the present context. He said that he contacted Mrs. Fanelli in order to try and meet to discuss this application. He said that with the various schedule, they could not meet. He said that he intends to meet with Mrs. Fanelli, if given the opportunity. He said that a tradeoff has been created in order to provide value to the Nagpals, noting that a design was created that impacts the Ratners. If you look at the driveway configuration and you look at the front of the home, the front of the house faces the Ratners, where people will walk into the house. He noted that the front door is on the 20-foot setback, impacting the Ratners. He said that no one is suggestion that a lot split should not occur. What is being suggested is that this lot split be done in a way that would allow economic benefits to the individuals looking to split the lot that there be equal consideration to the economic impact or consideration to the Ratners whose property is going to be impacted. He requested a continuance of the design review application so that he can work closely with the Nagpals, Mrs. Fanelli and their architect to work on something that may be mutually acceptable that would address alternatives to the location of the garage and siting the home away from the bedroom wing of the Ratners' residence. PLANNING COMMISSI~,~~( MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 27 - Mrs. Fanelli stated that she too was sorry that the Ratners did not respond in June as it would have saved a lot of time and effort in design. She said that the Nagpals intend to live in the new home as it will be a home designed to meet their family needs and so that their older parents can live down stairs in a separate bedroom area. This home is not being proposed to create value for a sale. She noted that the actual entrance to the house is 43 feet from the Ratners. She realizes that the driveway is located along the Ratners' sideyard, 20 feet from their house. However, it is not any different from the driveway currently being used by the Nagpals. She noted that most of the homes on the street are setback 20 feet from the side yard. Had the Ratners come to them earlier, it would have been easier to design the house. To move the garage now would result in the total redesign of the house, which would be expensive and time consuming. To move it further to the north is possible but would diminish what is trying to be done, leaving the ambiance and the landscaping to protect the existing home. Commissioner Kurasch asked if any thought was given to reconfiguring the driveway? Mrs. Fanelli responded that this is the third house design that has been prepared since June 1998 and since meeting with some of the neighbors. She said that redesign would be possible, however, she felt that there were trade-offs, noting that the footprint of the house will be kept small. It is not a home with a large number of rooms and therefore would not be occupied by a large number of individuals. She felt that it was a tastefully designed home. If the Commission directs the redesign of the home, a redesign will be submitted. However, it was her belief that the home meets all the criteria of the design review and the subdivision ordinance. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would not support the application. She said that the city does not require a meet and confer between neighbors and the applicants. Therefore, this is an issue for her. She said that she would not support the lot split because the lot split could end up requiring a certain design which she did not believe would be a good idea. She agreed that the driveway needs to be modified. She felt that moving the new house as far as possible from the historic house to maximize its value would be of a benefit to the property owner. However, this cannot be done at the expense of the neighbors. She felt that the Ratners deserve a less intrusive alternative design. She felt that a study session would be appropriate in order to review different alternatives to what she knows is a difficult site. Commissioner Page agreed that the driveway is an impact. He felt that the position of the home is probably caused by the split of the lot and that the home/driveway impact the Ratners' privacy. He did not believe that the size of the Ratners' home is an issue and that it should not be discussed. In looking at the lot, he did not know how it could be split and not site a home where the home is proposed. He felt that additional work was needed. He supported a study session with the applicant coming back with a design that everyone can agree upon to ease_the impact on the privacy issue. PLANNING COMMISSI~~•1 MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 28 - Commissioner Kurasch agreed with the comments expressed by Commissioners Patrick and Page as they address her main concerns (i.e., the driveway). She felt that moving the entrance of the home may mitigate the Ratners' concern. As designed and sited, the project would not work because of the impacts that it will impose on the Ratners. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she could not support the design of the house as presented. She wanted to make sure that this comes to a timely end for the applicant. She said that she understands that it is disturbing to have to go back to the drawing board. She said that she did not like the front of the house facing the side yard of another home. She agreed that the driveway has been in the area a long time but swinging it around and having more cement to accommodate athree-car garage would impact the tree. She stated that she was concerned about the tree being impacted with a cement pad. She wanted to make sure that when the design returns to the Commission that there is some way for the applicants to get some sense that the Commission is agreeing to the design. Regarding the pedestrian path and the horse path, she stated that she was very concerned with its downsizing. She would like to make sure that the horse path remains. She said that it was sad that Saratoga has few hiking paths and therefore, she did not want to lose these paths. She said that the home was nicely designed but that it was positioned oddly. Therefore, she could not support it. Commissioner Jackman supported going to a study session. She stated that she liked the design of the house. She understood that Mrs. Fanelli has given the Commission reasons why the home cannot be moved. She wondered if the architects and the individuals involved could study other alternatives (i.e., moving the home toward Chester Avenue) to see if they would lessen the impacts to the Ratners without destroying the environment. Chairwoman Bernald felt that there was a problem with moving the home toward Chester Avenue because there is quite a slope that drops from this point and begins to interfere with the yard. She stated that she agreed with everything that has been said. She said that the Commission needs to go a step further. She felt that the Commission needs to take a futuristic look at this application and say that the Nagpals bought the one home. She noted that the existing house did not meet the needs of the Nagpals and that they are now building another home. She said that there may be changes requested in the future if this house does not meet their needs and that the city would be left with two homes, one that should be protected forever because it is an extraordinary special jewel in Saratoga's crown. Secondly, the home that is being requested at this time is a slap in the face to the existing neighborhood. Therefore, she could not support the application. She said that she understood that the applicant has been through a lot and that she appreciates this fact. However, she could not make the findings that would allow putting this size house oriented toward the Ratners' home when all the other homes are oriented toward the street. There is a problem with the garage/driveway being so close to an existing neighborhood home. Also, there was language in place in 1959 that states that the city should preserve the atmosphere and openness around existing homes. She did not believe that this subdivision would protect this language. She said that she would not be supporting either the subdivision or the design review applications. She clarified that the way the house is sited, it PLANNING COMMISSI~~1 MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 29 - makes the house run the length of the Ratners' property. She does not see how the house could be moved farther down on the lot because there is a tremendous drop off. This would then begin to infringe upon the back yard of the historic home. It also cuts into the trellis which provides a tremendous atmospheric ambiance. For these reasons, she was having trouble with the whole plan as presented this evening. Director Walgren stated that should the application be continued, he suggested a study session between the applicants and the neighbors. He felt that the Planning Commission has given clear direction as to what they would want to see in terms of improvement to the project. He felt that the applicants can work with the neighbors to make plan revisions, not to debate whether the plan revisions are necessary or not. These plan revisions can be brought back to the Commission at a later hearing, concluding the matter in that way. He clarified that it was the direction of the Commission to move the home to the north, protecting the rear yard of the existing historic home and to protect the oak tree (i.e., redesigning the entire home and taking the garage and flipping it to another side, orienting the front of the home toward the cul de sac). Commissioner Patrick clarified that she was not supporting either application. She said that she would not vote for the lot split because she felt that design was inappropriate and that she is not inclined to give site approval at this time. She said that she would not oppose a continuance if so requested. Commissioner Page felt that the applicants have been through a long process. However, if they are willing to extend the process a little longer in order to return with something that the Commission and the neighborhood would feel more compatible with, he would agree to a continuance. Commissioner Bernald stated that she was ready to go another step as this site has been reviewed several times. She would like to vote to deny the applications with prejudice. Director Walgren clarified that denial with prejudice would mean that a similar application could not be resubmitted for a period of one year versus turning around and resubmitting a revised application the next month. He noted that a negative vote on a tentative subdivision map needs to reference the specific findings that the commission has. He identified the following findings that can be made to deny the tentative map: 1) the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and 2) the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE APPLICATION NO. SD-98-008 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE FINDINGS SUCH AS: THE PROPOSAL OF HIGH ELEVATION AND PLACEMENT ON THE SITE WHEN CONSIDERED III-REFERENCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY VIEW SHEDS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES; THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE PLANNING COMMISSI~.~f MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 30 - PRESERVED IN SO FAR AS BEING PRACTICAL; AND THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE INTEGRATED INTO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE APPLICATION DR-98-052 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE ABOVE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 9. DR-99-009 (397-24-010) - PINN BROTHERS, 20040 Spaich Court (lot #5 of the Hayfield Estates subdivision); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,670 sq. ft., two-story residence. The site is 60,157 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. Commissioner Kurasch stepped down from discussion of this item. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that the project meets all subdivision restrictions and conditions of approval as well zoning ordinance requirements for this particular district. The architecture of the home was pre-approved at the subdivision level. Architectural exhibits were submitted as part of the vested tentative subdivision map which dictated the homes of a mix of craftsman or prairie style architecture using earth tone colors, materials, siding, brick and stone detailing. He said that the plans are consistent with what the planning commission reviewed at the tentative map stage. He recommended approval of the application with the conditions contained in the resolution. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Chuck Bommarito, representing Pinn Brothers, stated that he has reviewed the staff report and concurred with the staff report. He said that there was an issue in Barry Coate's report regarding tree damage down in the creek area. He said that since the report was distributed, he met with Mr. Coate and reviewed the installation of the storm system. He said that Mr. Coate came to the site after receiving the report and approved the installation. He clarified that there was no damage to the tree nor was a fine imposed. He furnished the Commission with a colored rendering. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if the rendering depicted the picture of the home? Mr. Bommarito said that the colored rendering depicts the home and that the colors were in close proximity to the colors of the home. He provided the Commission with a color board. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Jackman stated that the design of the house was compatible with that of the neighborhood. She said that she was not clear which trees are to be protected. RESOLUTION NO. SD-98-008 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Nagpal: 19101 Via Tesoro WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Pazcel Map approval to subdivide one existing parcel into two pazcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-98-008 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby fmds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Sazatoga General Plan and with all specific regulations relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use aze not compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Planning Commission meeting minutes from the meeting of May 12, 1999 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 12, 1999 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heazd and present evidence; and WHEREAS, upon closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 5-1 (Commissioner Roupe absent, Commissioner Jackman opposed) to deny the request pursuant to Article 14-20.070 of the Subdivision Ordinance upon finding that: That the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed subdivision and building location in that the unusual configuration of the proposed lot boundaries resulted in a new home location that would be in direct proximity to an existing residence to the south and would negatively impact this property with vehiculaz noise, traffic and headlight glare. Moving the proposed residence to the west, further away from the adjacent home, would negatively impact the existing historic adobe residence on the subject property by visually placing it in the historic residence's rear yazd. The proposed subdivision was further found to be incompatible with the surrounding residential development pattern. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed subdivision, which map is dated Apri19, 1999, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted 5-1 (Commissioner Roupe absent, Commissioner Jackman opposed) to deny the request pursuant to Article 14-20.070 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Sazatoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from he date of adoption. DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12"' day of May, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: C air, Pl g mmission ATTEST: cre , P1 Commission RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-052 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW Nagpal: 19101 Via Tesoro Court. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,301 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft., 10 in. on a 48,921 square foot parcel; 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, elevations and placement of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, interferes with views and privacy in that structure's size and placement are found to be unreasonably obtrusive to adjacent properties, and that relocating the structure to the west would result in negative impacts on the existing historic structure. • The structure is incompatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood in that its proximity to the existing adjacent residence to the south is incompatible with the type of development in this area, and the possible relocation closer to the historic residence would likewise be incompatible. The request for subdivision approval has been denied, therefore this application cannot be approved. 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 Nagpal 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. DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12~' day of May 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • y~ , Chairpe o , P 'ng ommission ATTEST: ~/V! S cre 1 Commission .,rlrvllssloN STEM 8 REPORT ~ O THE PLANNING CL Applicant No./Location: SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court ApplicandOwner: NAGPAL ~ ~ Staff Planner: Christina. Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner ~~ Date: May 12, 1999 397-13-057 Department Head:1!K~ . APN: 19101 Via `Tesoro ~;our~ ~ '-[}~i!`f~ File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 10!28/98 Application complete: 4/14/99 Notice published: 4/28/99 Mailing completed: 4/29/99 Posting completed: 5/ 7/99 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide into two lots an existing 2.46 acre lot containing one existing 6,240 sq. ft. residence that is on the Historic Preservation Registry. The existing residence would then be on Lot 1, and is proposed to remain. The applicants are also requesting Design Review approval for construction of a 5,301 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft., 10 in. on the newly created Lot 2. The property is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Tentative Parcel Map and the Design Review request by adopting Resolutions SD-98-008 and DR-98-052. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions SD-98-008 and DR-98-052 3. Resolution HP-98-O1 4. City Arborist Report, dated 12/10/98 5. Correspondence 6. Tentative Parcel Map, Exhibit "A" 7. Site Plans, Exhibit "B" E~00002 File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 2.46 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 11.08 % existing lot 10.16 % proposed Lot 1 11.07 % proposed Lot 2 GRADING REQUIRED: None proposed COLORS PROPOSED: Beige stucco with terra-cotta curved the roof to mirror adjacent historic residence ALLOWANCE of nterior of et parce size: sq. sq. rootage: it ept oor rea: sq. sq• . et ac ': root: - g t si e: . e si e: ear: . of orner of et parce size sq. sq• . rootage: . it ept oor rea: sq. sq• . et ac root: . nterior rig t si e: . xterior a si e: ear: 'Per Section 15-12.090(b), setbacks on newly created lots aze percentage based or standard setbacks, whichever is greater. 000003 File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court PROJECT DISCUSSION BackgrLound In 1995 the applicant requested subdivision of this parcel and was denied. The initial proposal had a different configuration than what is before the Commission today, and required Variance approval to maintain an existing setback on Lot 1. The proposal before the Planning Commission today meets all General Plan, Subdivision, and Zoning Code requirements and does not require a Variance. Additionally, at staff's request, the applicant is concurrently proposing a residence on the newly created vacant parcel. Staff felt that this was necessary in order to properly evaluate the possible impacts of the proposal. Tentative Parcel Mau The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval to subdivide this 2.46 acre site into two separate lots. The existing historic residence on Lot 1 is proposed to remain. The applicant is also requesting Design Review approval to construct a new residence on the newly created Lot 2. The property is located on the corner of Via Tesoro Court and Chester Avenue, and is characterized by gently sloping terrain and numerous trees. Surrounding development consists of similar density single-family homes. Currently a circular driveway is used to access the existing lot. As part of the Tentative Map proposal, a portion of the existing driveway will be removed, so that the newly created parcels will have separate driveway access; Lot 1 from Chester, and Lot 2 from Via Tesoro.2 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance: The City's Subdivision and Zoning regulations are the implementation tools of 5aratoga's General Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act. The Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum standards for lot sizes, depths, widths and frontages. It also regulates building placement, modifications to natural topography and Ordinance-protected tree removal. This Tentative Parcel Map complies with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size, configuration and setbacks. A clarification should be made here regarding the reason for the somewhat unusual configuration of the lots. The Zoning Ordinance (as amended in 1992) requires that newly created lots apply parcel percentage-based setbacks. As a single existing parcel, the current front yard setback would be 30 ft. The existing historic residence is located approximately 52 ft. from the front property line. The front yard setback for newly created lots is 20% of the parcel's depth (52.2 ft. for Lot 1). Thus, the proposed configuration meets all Zoning requirements, without requiring any Variance approval. Although this is an unusual configuration, it will allow the historic residence to remain and be in conformance with the current Zoning Ordinance. The applicant could propose a more regular lot configuration, but that would necessitate the demolition of an historically important structure. z If the driveway connection were to remain, it would require the granting of accesslegress easements, which would need to be deducted from the gross area in order to calculate allowable floor area. In addition, setbacks would have to be measured from the edge of the right-of--way, rather than the property line. (Sections 15-06.620 & 15-06.590) Q00004 File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court Other DepartmenbAeencv Review This Tentative Parcel Map has been reviewed by the Public Works Department, the City Geologist, City Arborist, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Saratoga Fire District, the West Valley Sanitation District, Pacific Gas & Electric, the Saratoga Union School District, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Pazks and Recreation Commission. All their recommendations and conditions have been included in the attached conditions of approval. Of note among these recommendations is that of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) that the existing 10 ft. wide pedestrian/equestrian easement along Chester Avenue be improved. This easement contains several Ordinance-protected trees. Staff has included the improvement of this pathway as a condition of approval to the extent feasible without damaging any Ordinance- protected trees. Planning Staff, the City Arborist, and the PRC will jointly consider any pathway improvement plans. Staff has some concerns regarding the PRC recommendation of the pathway which will be discussed in more detail at the site visit and at the Planning Commission hearmg. Design Review The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,301 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft., 10 in. from natural grade. This includes an attached three-car garage. No other accessory structures or uses are proposed. The residence design utilizes several of the techniques recommended to minimize building bulk and mass in the City s Residential Design Handbook. The rooflines are well articulated to reduce the building mass, and large expanses of walls are avoided. In addition, the applicants have endeavored to design the residence with the adjacent historical home in mind. Specific design elements, as well as material and color choices, mirror the adjacent historic residence. Staff had initial concerns regarding the relative size of the proposed residence (5,301 sq. ft.), but given the design, the size of existing homes in the surrounding azea, and that the allowable floor area for this lot would be 6,060 sq. ft., staff feels that the size, placement and design are appropriate for this location. Additionally, the placement of the proposed residence minimizes grading and does not call for the removal of any Ordinance-protected trees. Correspondence Staff has received correspondence from three neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Zierdt of McClay Court do not oppose the development, but expressed concerns regarding possible negative impacts to their residence from drainage and runoff. Staff feels that due to the topography of the lots and the conditioned improvements, their concerns can be readily addressed. Roberta and Walter Weideman of Chester Avenue are in support of the proposal, but expressed concerns that the existing vegetation, and particularly Oak trees, would be damaged by the proposed equestrian/pedestrian pathway. Staff feels that by conditioning the proposed pathway as discussed above, no Ordinance-protected trees will be damaged. Marcia and Harry Ratner of Via Tesoro Court are opposed to the proposed lot split and residence on the basis that the proposed location is too close to their existing residence and that it will be too much of an imposition on their privacy, particularly the second story element. f~4~OQ5 File No. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052;19101 Via Tesoro Court The proposed setbacks conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements as set forth in Section 15- 12.090 (b).When reviewing the plans, staff notes that the second story element is placed on the farthest portion of the residence from the Ratners. The nearest portion of the first story is 42 ft. from the Ratners' residence, the second story is 80 ft. from the Ratners' home. Staff feels that the placement of the residence is not only in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, but preserves Nc „~,~~ Ordinance protected trees and requires no grading. Moving the residence toward the ~; as the Ratners suggest, would result in increased grading, possible impacts on Ordinance-protected trees, and would require either the re-design of the residence or a request for a Variance to the setback requirements. Staff does note, however, that the proposed residence configuration calls for placement of the garage 42 feet from the Ratner's residence. Although the existing driveway is not proposed to change, staff feels that the presence of a garage may create an additional impact to the Ratners. Staff therefore recommends that the applicant submit a landscape plan for staff approval in order to provide screening along the eastern side of the parcel. This has been added as a condition of approval. Conclusion Staff feels that the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan, as well as meeting all requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances as detailed in Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Staff also feels that the Design Review findings outlined in Section 15.45-080 of the Zoning Ordinance can be made in regards to the proposed residence and supports the application for Design Review approval. RECOMMENDATION Approve the applications by adopting Resolutions SD-98-008 and DR-98-052. ~U~046 RESOLUTION NO. SD-98-008 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Nagpal: 19101 Via Tesoro WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Pazcel Map approval to subdivide one existing parcel into two parcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-98-008 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific regulations relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated May 12, 1999 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code Sections 66474 (a) - (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated Apri19, 1999 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinafter referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of the said approval are as follows: 1. A portion of the existing circular driveway shall be removed so as to create separate and individual access to each lot. 2. Applicant shall submit to Planning staff plans indicating improvements for a pedestrian/equestrian pathway within the, easement along Chester Avenue to the extent feasible without endangering any Ordinance-protected trees. 3. Pathway improvement plans shall be reviewed by Planning staff, the City Arborist and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to recordation of the Final Map. 4. Future development on both lots shall adhere to the then current Zoning requirements. Future homes shall be sited and designed to minimi7P the amount of pad grading necessary and the removal ofordinance-protected trees. S. Subdivision improvement construction hours shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils public safety. The Public Works Director may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. No construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays. ~0~40~ File No. SD-98-008; 14101 Via Tesoro Court 6. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property comer locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 7. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a) One copy of map checking calculations. b) Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c) One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d) One copy of each documentldeed referenced on the Final Map. e) One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 8. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. 9. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of--way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. 10. All structures or appurtenances straddling the proposed lot line between Lots 1 & 2 shall be removed prior to Final Map Approval. 11. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 12. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. 13. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivi- sion improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 14. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. ~~~~~8 File No. SD-98-008; 19101 Via Tesoro Court 15. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 16. All requirements for tree protection as recommended by the City Arborist shall apply throughout subdivision improvements construction. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 18. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. 19. All recommendations of the City Geotechnical Consultant shall be adhered to. This includes, but is not limited to: a) Prior to Final Map approval the owner's (applicant's) Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct an investigation of the property. As part of this investigation, the consultant should characterize site geotechnical conditions and provide geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed construction. The investigation should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following tasks: • The consultant shall prepare a Geotechnical Site Plan (1"=10') depicting slope gradients, locations of proposed improvements and exploratory borings, and the distribution of earth materials (alluvium, colluvium, and bedrock). In addition, the consultant shall prepare geotechnicaVgeologic cross sections (1"=10') depicting existing and proposed slope profiles, the probable thickness and extent of surfical materials, locations of exploratory boreholes and proposed improvements, and anticipated groundwater levels. The seismic setting of the property shall be characterized and seismic ground motion parameters should be provided in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code for consideration by the structural engineer in the design of the residence and retaining walls. The consultant shall also provide estimates of anticipated total and differential settlement. 20. Lot 1 shall connect a new building sewer at Chester Avenue in place of the connection at Ten Acres Road. 21. Lot 2 shall connect a new building sewer at Via Tesoro Court. 22. Subdivision shall connect to San Jose Water Company prior to issuance of building or plumbing permits. 23. Per Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, the owner shall show any existing wells on the plans. The well(s) should be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. ~~oa09 File No. SD-98-008; 19101 Via Tesoro Court 24. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 25. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from he date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12~' day of May 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Chairperson, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commission 100010 RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-052 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CONIMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA NAGPAL: 19101 Via Tesoro Court. WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,301 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft., 10 in. on a 48,921 square foot parcel; 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 of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been deternuned: - The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the placement and height of the proposed residence will not adversely impact adjacent properties. - The natural landscape will be preserved insofaz as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed azeas and undeveloped areas, in that minimal grading is proposed, and all Ordinance-protected trees on the site will be preserved. - The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the proposed design is similar in scale, size and style to other homes in this neighborhood and surrounding areas. - The proposed residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the design minimizes the perception of height and bulk, and the placement of the residence on the lot will not unreasonably impose on adjacent properties. - The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standazds used by the City. - The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-45.055. X00011 DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court 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 Nagpal for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a) A staff approved landscaping plan in order to help screen the new residence from the neighbor to the east of the parcel. b) Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c) Four (4) sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 3. All recommendations of the City Arborist Report dated 12/10!98 shall be followed. This includes, but is not limited to: a) Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance: • The Arborist Report shall be included as a separate page in the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. • Protective chain-link fencing shall be located in such a manner that it protects the entire root zone unless otherwise noted. Fencing must be in place before any materials, construction or grading equipment arrive on site and must remain in place until all construction is completed, including cleanup operations, unless supervised by an arborist certified by the ISA. • Chain-link fencing must be a minimum of 5 ft. tall mounted on 2 in. galvanized pipe, driven 2 ft. into the ground and shall be shown on the plans as indicated in the report with the note "to remain in place throughout construction". • The tree protective platform buffer for tree #2 shall be inspected by the City Arborist prior to construction of the new path. • The applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $5,698 pursuant to the report of the City Arborist to guarantee the preservation of trees on the property during construction. (~~00~2 DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court b) Prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits: • Tree protection fencing shall be inspected by the City Arborist. • All other applicable tree protection measures shall be completed. c) Prior to Final Inspection approval: • The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify that the tree maintenance and protection measures have been followed in order to determine whether the tree protection security may be released. Any outstanding City Arborist fees shall be paid. 4. All recommendations of the City Geotechnical Consultant shall be adhered to. This includes, but is not limited to: a) Prior to Zoning Clearance the owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project. b) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the project geotechnical engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the detailed site development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading and design parameters for the proposed construction) to ensure that his/her recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval c) Prior to finalization of the grading permit the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of project construction. The inspections should include, but are not necessarily limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City.Engineer for review. 5. An approved residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in the garage per the City of Saratoga Ordinance. The designer/architect shall contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. U00013 DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court 8. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 9. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this pernut shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12"' day of May, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ~D00014 RESOLUTION HP 98-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONIlVIISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE HERITAGE RESOURCE IIWENTORY WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Resolution HP-88-O1 to periodically update the Heritage Resources Inventory by Resolution as additional heritage resources become known and documented; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that the property known as 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. is historically significant as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that the property known as 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. is historically significant as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and that it meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and therefore no further CEQA processing is required. WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that the property known as 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. meets at least one or more of the criteria for designation of a heritage resource as outlined in Section 13-15.010 (a through g) of the City code, and the following findings have been determined: • The properly is identified with the 17r. Clemmer Peck family, significant in Saratoga history; and • The residence embodies distinctive characteristics of adobe construction; and • The residence contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby amends the Heritage Resource Inventory, set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, to include the site known as 19101 Via Tesoro Ct.. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Heritage Preservation Commission this 12a' day of January 1998, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: URA ~ ~ _~ -~~' _.lN ~ `~ Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Heritage Preservation ' sion ~~~~~1~ ~~001 BARRIE D. ~,` _~TE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 RECEI1fED DEC 2 8 1998 Fax 408-353-1238 PLANNING 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 45033 D~fPgRTMEN7' TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE PROPERTY OF MR, AND MRS. AMIT NAGPAL 19101 VIA TESORO CT. SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Christina Ratcliffe City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95(170 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist Recd: 11-12-98 On-Site: 12-10-98 Due: 12-16-98 Mailed: , f a - a~- 98 Job # 11-95-291-98 t~0001'7 TREE SURVEY AND PRESER v ATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE rtUrERTY 2 OF MR. AND MRS. AMTT NAGPAL, 19101 VIA TESORO CT., SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Christina Ratcliffe, Planner, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to construct a new residence on a new subdivision lot in the content of potential damage to existing adjacent trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be minimized. The plan reviewed for this report is the site plan and the construction plans prepared by S.M. Nagpal, Architect, sheets Al-A7, dated 10-20-98. Summary Only two significant trees are at risk of damage by this proposal. The other trees on site are small fruit trees. Tree # 1, will be at the greatest risk and its species is very sensitive to the type and quantity of construction proposed in its root zone. Significant mitigations are suggested. Tree #2 will need minimal protection. The two trees have a value of $15,318. A bond of $5,698 is suggested to assure protection. Observations There are several trees on this site, but there are only two trees that are large enough to be protected by city ordinance. The other trees are all small diameter (2-3-inches) fruit trees. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The two trees are classified as follows: Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) Cork Bark Oak (Quercus suber) These have diameters of 21 and 23-inches respectively and are both in exceptional condition. Tree # 1 is the primary focus of this proposal because the proposed residence will affect 3 sides (west, north and east) sides of the root zone. The forth side (south} has been paved (approximately 20-30% of the root zone} for several years. It does not appear that any pruning will be required to tree # 1 for construction of the single story portion of the residence nearest the tree. The cut for a typical foundation for the new residence will be located at the following distance (approximate) from the trunk of tree # 1: Distance From the Trunk 12 feet North East Prepared by: Michael L. Bench December 10, 1998 000018 TREE SURVEY AND PRESIsR v ATION RECOMI~NDATIONS AT THE r~cOrERTY 3 OF MR. AND MRS. AM1T NAGPAL, 19101 VIA TESORO CT., 5ARATOGA 8 feet North 10 feet North West At these distances severe root loss will occur unless the foundation is constructed by an alternative method such as pier and on-glade beam desiga The valley oak species (Quercus lobataj is less tolerant of root loss than other oak species. It will be essential to minimize the total volume of root loss. and to provide supplemental irrigation to temporarily compensate for absorbing roots that will be destroyed. Tree # 1 will also suffer sever root loss by soil compaction during construction unless a platform buffer is provided to prevent soil compaction adjacent to the foundation facing the tree. The location of utilities (electrical, water, cable, phone, sewer, drainage, or landscape imgation) are not shown on the plans provided. It will be essential to specify their location to prevent further root damage during installation of these services. Although tree #2 is a good distance from construction of the residence, it is located near new paving for the driveway. Equipment must not be parked or.operated within 5 feet of the canopy of tree #2, and materials must not be stockpiled under the canopy. Lot 1 Christina Ratcliffe asked that I comment on the condition of tree #7, a multi-stem Coast live oak (Quercus agr~olia) with regard to the adjacent waterfall construction. Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal report that they moved back to this house about a year ago (January 1998 I believe Mrs. Nagpal reported). Since that time, they have removed all of the ivy on the slope east of the house. Mrs. Nagpal reports that the waterfall construction has occurred within the past two months and that tree #7 had declined prior to waterfall construction. Presently the tree is nearly dead. In November 1995, I reported tree #7 to be in excellent health. Conclusions Regarding Tree #7 The present severe decline is likely a result of root damage during removal of the ivy. It would take a specimen in excellent health much longer than 2 months to reach such advanced decline if caused by the quantity of root damage (20-25% of the total root zone} which occurred during construction of this waterfall. It appears that the decline of tree #7 must be a result of root damage caused when the ivy was removed. However, some of the coast live oaks on site are exhibiting symptoms of severe stress. The thinning canopies are the most noticeable symptom. A large coast live oak (2?.? inch diameter in 1995, and noted as tree #1 in the report dated 11-29-95) recently died. In 1995 it was in exceptional condition. It is very unusual for a coast live oak of such Prepared by: Michael L. Bench December 10, 1998 ~~0019 TREE SURVEY AND PRESER~ rsTION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE PrOr~RTY 4 OF MR. AND MRS. AMIT NAGPAL, 19101 VIA TESORO CT., SARATOGA excellent health to decline and die of natural causes in a 3-year period. I suggest that the present cultural practices in use, including the use of herbicides if any, be reevaluated. Recommendations To minimize construction damage to the retained trees, I suggest the following: 1. Provide temporary construction fencing located in such a manner that it protects the entire root zone (defined as a radius of 15 times the trunk diameter measured from the trunk) unless noted otherwise. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. Fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction unless supervised by an ISA certified arborist. In my experience, a less substantial fencing material is not respected by construction workers. The fencing must be in 2 phases for tree # 1. Phase I will be for house construction. Phase II will provide for pathway construction. During Phase II, the .fence must be no more than 1 foot from the edge of the new path. If this is not feasible, a platform buffer must be provided between the fence and the edge of the path. See Recommendation #5 far a description. 2. The original grade within 25 feet of the trunks of trees # 1 or #2 must not be graded or scraped. If positive drainage is needed to shed water away from the residence, it must be done without grading. Sandy loam fill soil may be added in this area by hand, but it must contain no more than 10% clay. Trenches for drainage must be radial, like the spokes of a wheel, and must reach no closer than 10 feet from the trunk. Radial trenches must be a minimum of 10 feet apart at their perimeter.' 3. Any portion of the foundation of the residence within 25 feet of the trunk of tree # 1 must be constructed by pier and on-grade beam design. There must no footings inside of this area. The beam sections must be strictly on or above grade. A cut of even 1-2 inches must not occur, since the majority of roots exist in the top 10-12 inches of soil. No excavation for crawl space maybe done inside of the foundation in areas beneath the. original tree canopy. 4. Trenching or excavations across the root zone for any services or utilities must be a minimum of 25 feet away from the trunks trees # 1 or #2. This includes trenches for landscape irrigation or roof drainage. However, radial trenches may be done as described in Recommendation #2. 5. It will be essential to provide a working space between the foundation and the protective fencing for tree # 1. To achieve this, I suggest providing a platform buffer, which consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose) spread over existing grade and covered by 1 inch ~ Radial Trenching In Sensitive Root Zones Prepared by' Michael L. Bench December 10, 1998 ~'®~o~Q TREE SURVEY AND PRESBRti tiTION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE P~.Or~RTY 5 OF MR. AND MRS. AMIT NAGPAL, 19101 VIA TESORO CT., SARATOGA plywood full sheets, tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for worker on foot using hand-carried tools or wheelbarrows. 6. Tree # 1 must be given supplemental water during dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks during each dry month. 7. Trees #1 and #2 must not be subjected to bark injuries or to broken branches by construction equipment or delivery vehicles. 8. Sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunks of trees. It is strongly suggested that spray irrigation not be designed to strike closer than 20 feet from the trunks. 9. Materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of diseases. 10. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 11. The pathway (3 feet wide from the paved area and 6 feet wide to the entry} must be achieved, completely on grade without excavation or grading. The materials must be pervious including the base materials, which must not contain granite fines. Edging must be by pier and beam design. If these cannot be achieved, the entry paths must be redesigned. Value Assessment The values of the trees is calculated according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. The combined value of trees # 1 and #2 are $15,315. I suggest a 50°lo bond for tree # 1 and a 25% bond for tree #2. Thus, the total bond suggested for tree protection is $5,698. Respectf~ll i Michael L. Bench, Ass~~o~-ciat~~e ,, arrie D. Coate, Principal Enclosures: Tree Data Chart Map Radial Trenching in Sensitive Root Zones (1) BDC/sh Prepared by: Michael L. Bench December 10, 1998 (~40~21 -- ,L }, ,,, a' ~ t 1 ' ' ; '~` x ~ ~ t r{~~~ ;.a ~+ a ~1Rk ''; ~ ",fir ~ ~ S,~ ,"`~ ~~ ,,',~t j:, ~ ~~;\~' ?(t ,, t4 ` t 1,1 ' ` '.2 t~~. ~~.,~~~~ N O •~ ~~ o ao ' o °~ ~ x~,. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ r. ~ j~~ ~ ~~\ ~~ ~ . ~ ~C"~ 4 ~ '~ ~ 1~ ." . ' ~~ '~ ~ :~~' i~, ,r~ ` a ~~ >r` 'ii ~4 ~ ~ ~' ~,~ ~~. ~`' . c ~~ ~ c c ~~• .2 ~~~~~ o ., ~~ O ..- ~ " ~a v 3 0 W ~ C L .~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ O ~U x ~.:. _ ~~\, ~`~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~..'~ a .~ ~ tf1 c~ .`+~ ~~ ~ ~ ... O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N c,~., ~ O ~ c~ •~ ~ c~~r ~ O c~i~ a~ .~ D O ~ '~ ~ aA ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ N °' N -d ~ .~ 4J .--~ Q, ..~ ~, ~ ~ o +:~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ a•~~ ~~ ; o ~ ~~~ o~o~ .~~ ~ o~~~ ~~~~ ~~ o~ .~ ~ - \` .. `.~~:~'~ •. ~, a~ ~t~ 4 ,,,,'~ ®Q~ Qr itl e- r O 7 +s OO O N F- ~_ r O r T H 'O Q m a a eo Z (~~) JWaORId ItMOW32~ Z- ' ~- ~' '1VAOW32i ON3WWOO32! ~ O i a3znLLa3d S033N ~ N ~ h ~ N ~ ____ N --~«-~- (S'L)a31VMS033N " " " " " " (S-L) 3SV3SI0 aV1lOO lOOa -« -- E (S-l) 03a3AOO abTOO lOOa ~ )( ~ X '~ X ~ X ~ X _ X _««__.~ (S-L)~LtlO30 71Nf1a1 _.. (S-L) OOOMOV3O ^ ~ N n ~ ~ r a (S~ 4) 3Sb'3S10 NMOaO 33x1 y N N N - N _.-~_ - (S-L) S103SN1 " " n ° ° ~~ (S-L).l1RlOlad JNINfIad r r -~ --- a # 03033N S319V0 _ $ ~ ~ $ 1FiJ13M-ON3 3/1OW3a x x x x _« x ____ x a JNiSMa NMOaO ~ NOI1t/L1O1S3a NMOaO N ~ « ---- a a JNINNIHl NMOaO N y ~ ~ -« ,~ -°' w __ «_~_-~JNINd31O NMOa3 " ° ° ° u n ------ (OL-Z) °JNI1Va NOLLIONOO N N °- ---- ~ (s-L> 3anl~nals r X ~ X x --- X --- x ------ " (9-L) Hll`d3H ~- h N ~ ~ ~ ««---«_«___-_-___-- O/ ~ 1H°JI3H ~ N m N N ~ ~ 133d Z~ a313W~d10 ~ „ r u n u ~' " W31S~lSillflW -«. -«-- »__________________~ ~ ~ a o o c c H80 n1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ C . t/1 O<N~~ m E K i V V ~ e ~ c3 ' ~ ~ ~~ O .~ N .Y m ~ 0 0 p0 r M O S j0 r- r 1~ 1p > u N N N 10 " " g ~piDN- ~~r~a-rN` N pp ~ ry N O _s a a Q~ u ~ ~ ~ o K 0 N 00 m a 000023 . , ' }, O U U ~ U ~ v~ • w O O O . ~ ~..d.UC ~, ~ U ~~ O•~a ~ o a~ ~~~ affix ~ ~. 'ol ~y,_ ~r T •.~ ~;+ t - r `- ~~ "-'fi't - [-+ N ~ y ~ ,, \ t '~f~~ ~idt x i Zyti, ~ 4~: f ^ ;fie P n ~ ..~ ~ ~ E -~..~ 9 ~ r. 1;\ i,l~~a ... r.~ r• .r '!~ta' G. { + y Fi .Q I~+ 7 ~`-~ 'k- ~+ a ~ ~ + '_ A3 ~.~;.~; ~ r~ p'~ ;'.b`,~`ia 1ts1.1; ~~ ~ C~,'v: y~ ,~ti . ~ T.r'V,s ~,f A y arm *t :~s !t j'a,' ~ ~0.~~'.7 + . ~~f ~ 2. 1 ~: '# X tt:r A~,x ~r+e ,.i~V . l C~ ~~'+~1 W H !may `~ r c; ~. '~ ~~~. 'rl ~ ti.+'~~ .T,NC y .y~rY'Ce. /~'f! .- ~ N P4 _ . ~ 1. ~ c r_ Vii?. ~l :n • /> ~ . , ~~.. ~ ~ ~ ~~. =r .. + ;y' T -° ~ r ~:• ~ ~ ~ :. '~j t ` r w ~ ~ ` m f~ ~ r ~~ 't• ~; * ~~ \~ y g,. ` ~ ~~.% , t : '; .. r " tie ' ~'. O,' + t ' t > ~ City of Saratoga Community Development Department re: A.P.N. 397-13-057 MAY 0 6 1999 i ~RJ1,RvRWRNG D~%f1R31VfER4" , We are writing in response to the petition of subdivision on 19101 Via Tesoro Ct. Our home at 14345 Maclay Court is directly below and behind the proposed development. We have just recently purchased the house and are dealing with excessive run-off that is accumulating under our house from the lots directly behind and above us. This accumulation has caused unusual settling in our home and is undermining the foundation. We are concerned that the new house and its new gardens (pool or whatever) will increase the run-off problem that we are trying to solve. We are not opposing the development as such, but are concemed about how it will negatively impact our property's current problem. We expect that the architect, builder, and owner will be aware of our concerns, be sensitive to our issues ,and be prepared to take any positive steps to prevent further damage. Please feel free to contact us if you wish r hank you for your attention to this concern. Rachel and G e Zierdt 14345 Maclay Ct. Saratoga, CA (408) 867-3033 X00025 ~~o~~s ~~ MAY 0 6 1999 pi,At~&ilty~ Eiw-i~eteKl~+f!~s~"' 14233 Chester Avenue Saratoga, California 95070-5624 May 6, 1999 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Mr. James Walgren Community Development manager Dear Mr. Walgren This letter is in regard to your recent letter regarding the notice of a hearing on SD-98-008 and DR-98-052 (397-13-057) - NAGPAL, 19101 Via Tesoro Court. Having reviewed the above lot split, home placement and elevation, we have no objections and are satisfied with the current planning effort. However, we learned at a recent walkabout of the property with the Nagpal's that the City was requiring a "pedestrian path" to be constructed along the Chester Avenue side of the property. We absolutely and totally object to this "pedestrian pathway" due to the changes required in existing landscaping and damage/loss of existing oak trees. Shown in the enclosure is a cross section of the property directly in front of our property at 14233 Chester Avenue. The trees shown are in a virtual straight line from our property. Within a distance of 50 feet (centered on the cross section) a total of eleven oak trees exist ranging from 8" to 24" dia. To pro~~de a Leve14 foot path would damage or cause some of the trees to be removed. One could, of course, construct the path around the oaks on top of the hill 18 feet from the street; but, what pedestrian (in his right mind) would want to climb an additional 10 feet after climbing Chester Avenue (west) on one of the steeper hills in this area of Saratoga. From Short Hill Court to the area of the cross section, the road rise is 60 ft. plus in distance of 320+ feet. Furthermore, the adjoining properties are developed and pedestrian pathways do not exist. So why only this property? Sin~~y~ G~ , lter H. W 'deman ~.~--L Roberta Weideman CC: Amit Nagpat Virginia Finelli ~~~~:~.~ Cam,- _ .3Sr~/ b ., ~Q ~, ~ ~~~~~ ~(~~ :~ !~ .n C^ a ~~ ``, ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~t~~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~3 V~ ~a ~q ~~ ~~ V _~ Ll j ,• ~ 0 i ar N .~ ~~~ ~ 3~3 4 ~~ .~ ~~. c `~ Q C A. ,Q C v 1 L~®~I April 27, 1999 Ms. Christina E. Ratcliffe Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 RE: Proposed lot spilt and design review 19101 Via Tesoro Court Dear Ms. Ratcliffe: It is our understanding that the property owners of 19101 Via Tesoro Court, Mr. & Mrs. Nagpal, have a proposed lot split and design review before the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the May 12th meeting. Furthermore, that they have had not one but two informal panning department submissions (after the original turn down) for the purposes of gaining their recommendation and approval. At no time have we been directly consulted or have their detailed plans been offered to us for our reaction. We live at 19103 Via Tesoro Court (as their next door neighbors and the people with the most exposure to their proposal). As of now, their proposed residence is going to be immediately adjacent to our home, some 20 ft away. As presently designed, the structure is going to be over 5,000 sf in size, and most notably damaging to our privacy, in addition to being 20 ft away, it is to be two stories in height. This proposed lot split and building design are not in our best interest nor are they acceptable to us. Our privacy would be destroyed.We bought our property over some 13 years ago and bui{t a stately home on a lot which has as its best point a vast open country view, unfettered by the crowding and clutter typical of much of suburbia. What is being proposed is our worst nightmare. We would have people looking into our house and yard continuously and traffic and noise immediately adjacent to our living quarters--our master bedroom--not only through the construction period, but permanently. The proposal would also reduce the desirability and marketability and the ultimate value of our home because it reduces the privacy we are now afforded by the original, "pre lot split" condition. This loss of value is something we would have to consult lega{ counsel about, as well as the administrative and legal proceedings we most likely are going to have to engage in from this point forward. The Nagpals are a family of 6 people. There are two very young children and a set of elderly parents in addition to Mr. & Mrs. Nagpal. We do not understand the logic of building a two story 5,000 square foot home for two elderly people, (the owners' parents}, who have lived with their chi{dren for over 10 years that I am aware ofi in an existing 6,000+ sf home. This would give the Nagpals something like 11;000 sf of living space. The new home proposed is going to be two stories, something elderly ~QOU~9 April 27, 1999 City of Saratoga Page 2 people would find difficult to use. We think it is more likely that this new proposed home will be eventually, if not immediately, sold and the proceeds used to improve or replace their current home, on which nothing has been done. Their present home might even be torn down, and a newer more grandiose home constructed. In either case, it would all have been done at the expense of our privacy. Therefore as part of any lot split and design review, f would propose a building moratorium be placed on the original lot should a partial or complete demolition be proposed in the future. As to the lot split, ideally, we would prefer it on another part of their vast 2.5 acre parcel rather than next door to us. Should the Nagpals be unable or unwilling to do this, then we would request that the home be built on a location as far as possible towards Chester and away from us. This is something we would insist on and fight for. Also, we would like to see (as would the planning department), a much more modest sized home, and preferably one story rather than two. The closer the home is and the higher it is, the less privacy we retain. As an alternative or in combination with this change, we would also request that the property owners and the planning department consider a variance in the application so that home could be moved closer to their original home, away from Via Tesoro and into the 50 ft setback area. This would make sense if the Nagpals really were going to use the home for their family. It would allow them to build much closer to the original home, and not burden us with the brunt of their expansion plans. Before a lot split and proposed design has been found mutually acceptable and approved, we would definitely want the location and house height changed. They should also submit plans for a permanent fence and large trees for screening purposes. We recognize that the lot split and design review approval is a long and arduous consensus building process. Our suggestions, since we are most affected, should be implemented and made part of the lot split and design approval. We will be present at the meeting on May 12th and we will both speak in opposition to the proposed lot split and design review. We wanted the Planning Department as well as~the Planning Commission to be aware of our feeling on the matter and hopefully take them into consider when making a decision. Please make sure each organization gets a copy of this letter. We believe this proposal has been deliberately delayed so as to wait for a change in Commission members who might be more favorable. This delayed action when combined with a consultant to assist in planning department approval is supposed to smooth the way for this proposal. We find it absolutely unacceptable and will fight it until all of our rights have been exhausted. Sincerely yours Marcia & Harry Ratner 19103 Via Tesoro Court, Saratoga, CA 95070 ~r~®~~Q cc Saratoga Planning Fanelli Consulting, Mr.& Mrs. Nagpal Commission/Saratoga Planning Department Inc. ~~®~31 Ir . Y p~ d C~B5s4 04 BOO C~L°~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker Stan Bogosran May 25, 1999 John Mehafley Jrm Shaw Amit Nagpal and Subashree Vedantham Nrck Streit 19101 Via Tesoro Court Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMIVIISSION DENIAL OF SD-98-008/DR-98-052 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP/DESIGN REVIEW Dear Appellants: This letter will confirm receipt of your appeal of Planning Commission denial of SD 98-008, a request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create two parcels from one existing 2.46 acre parcel located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district; and DR 98-052, a request for a single family, two story, 5,301 square ft. residence with a maximum building height of 25 ft., 10 inches on the proposed 48,921 square ft. parcel, along with your check in the amount of $250.00 covering the appeal fee, on May 25, 1999. According to Section 15-90-070 of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall schedule the matter for hearing within thirty days after the date on which the notice of appeal is filed. However, per your request for additional time to prepare the materials for this meeting, we will schedule the .public hearing on the regular meeting of July 7.1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Civic Theater/Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. If you wish to request a continuance, you may do so without charge. Any subsequent requests for continuance must be accompanied by a fee of $250.00. The deadline for submitting any additional materials for the Council agenda packet on your appeal is Thursday, July 1, 1999. If you wish to submit written documents after that day, please provide ten copies of each document to the City Clerk no later than noon the following day. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten (10) minutes for your presentation on this appeal. The hearing is "de novo", which means that any relevant issue for or against your appeal may be considered, whether or not it was considered by the Planning Commission and regardless of whether the Planning Commission approved the application. If you have technical questions about your project, please contact the Planning Department at 868-1222. If you have questions about the process, you may contact me at 868-1269. Sincerely, G~~~~;~ilZ~. p Susan A. Ramos City Clerk cc: Planning Department Pnnied on recycled paper r Date Received: '-' ~~ ~~ Hearing Date: Fee : ~~~ ~ a Receipt No.: W v ~S~ - <<33 APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: AMIT NAGPAL and SUBASNREE VEDANTHAN~ Address: _.19101 Via Tesoro Court, Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone: (408) 741-5501 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant): Project File Number and Address: SD-98-008/DR-9-052 Nagpal: 19101 Via Tesoro Court Decision Being Appealed: Denial of Tentative Parc 1 Mav/denial of design review Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): Planning Commission denial of Tentative Parcel Map is appealed based on inadequate and unsupported findings. Denial of design review is appealed' based upon inadequate and unsupported findings. _.___~ -._,.•- ern, ~- +~. . *Appellant's Signature *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. .~ ~ File No. AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, ~ ~~ ~~_~_~-' as appellant on the above file, hereby authorize Engineering Data Services to perform the legal noticing on the above file. Date: ~ Signature: BERLINER COHEN • ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORA TIONS SANFORD A. BERLINER` FRANK R. UBHAUS TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD KATHLEEN K. SIPLE JOLIE HOUSTON ANDREW L. FABER LINDA A. GALLON THOMAS P. MURPHY MARION L. McWILLIAMS WILLIAM J. GOINES' ROBERTA S. HAYASHI ELEVENTH FLOOR JAMES A. MOEWE V. MIA WEBER ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS JAMES P. CASHMAN TAMARA J. GABEL MATTHEW P. DUDMAN RALPH J. SWANSON STEVEN J. CASAD SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 THOMAS M. GROSS JASON A. SILLS PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY NANCY J. JOHNSON , WILLIAM E. ADAMS JOHN F. DOMINGUE JOSEPH E. DWORAK JEROLD A. REITON TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800 SHARON KIRSCH DAREN G. WEIN SAMUEL L. FARB ROBERT L. CHORTEK MARK V. ISOLA KATHARINE HARDT-MASON ALAN J. PINNER JONATHAN D. WOLF FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388 CARL M. DURHAM CATHERINE A. DWYER www.berliner.com 'A Professional Corporation OF COUNSEL HUGH L. ISOLA` RETIRED KEVIN F. KELLEY SAMUEL J.COHEN' June 30, 1999 Mayor Jim Shaw Members of the City of Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • Re: July 7, 1999 Agenda, Planning Commission Appeal File SD-98-008 and DR-98-052; 19101 Via Tesoro Court Dear Mayor Shaw and Members of the Council: We represent Amit and Susie Nagpal, the applicants and appellants, and this letter is written in support of their appeal of the Planning Commission's denials of their Subdivision and Design Review requests. The Design Review plan set has been revised to incorporate all input from the next-door neighbor and from the Planning Commissioners. The applications are consistent with all city plans and policies and should be approved. As part of this submittal, you will find: (i) letter from Susie and Amit Nagpal, (ii) Exhibit A -former plans, (iii) Exhibit B -new plans, (iv) Exhibit C -Landscape plan and artist's renderings, and (v) Report from planner Thomas Cooke, AICP, on planning issues. Background The property is 2.46 acres in size, more than twice the size of any other nearby lot. Because of the design of the adobe, it is not a very livable house for a family with children, and the Nagpals desire to subdivide and build a new house that that will move into, while still preserving the original structure. • 1ALF1449270.02 91-063010316001 Mayor Shaw Members of the City of Council of the City of Saratoga June 30, 1999 • Since 1997 they have worked closely with Staff to design a lot split that meets all City plans and policies and requires no variance. At Staff's suggestion, they have also completed the design for the new house to help the City visualize the relationship of the two houses and how the property would look with both houses. The Application on Appeal The Application for Subdivision and Design Review that was submitted to the Planning Commission, and which was recommended for approval by Staff, was worked out after extensive consultation with neighbors. Unexpectedly, the next door neighbor did appear at the Planning Commission hearing and objected to the Design Review, on the basis that the new house would impair his privacy. Although he had received variances to construct an oversized house on a sloping lot, and his own house is only 20 feet from the Nagpals' property line, he objected to the location and orientation of their new house. He hired an architect who submitted a letter with written requests for modification to the new residence. Following the Planning Commission denial, the Nagpals met with this neighbor and his architect, and have revised the orientation and location of the new house by turning it to face away from the neighbor's house, as well as moving it further away. Each of the architect's written requests has been accommodated in the new plan. Other neighbors who have reviewed • the plans or attended neighborhood meetings are in support of the application. The Planning Commission denied the request for reasons that were not adequately supported in the record (see below). They seemed to feel that the subdivision would have a significant impact on the existing house on the property. We may have failed clearly to communicate to them how the two properties would inter-relate. As you can see on the attached drawings, the grounds of the existing house will be somewhat reconfigured. With the lot split, the access road off Via Tesoro to the existing house will be removed; this frees up a great deal of land on the east side of the lot, which will become the new backyard for the existing house. The pool, which presently is in the "L" of the existing house, will be relocated to the eastern side of the house and the former pool area will be turned into a gracious outdoor sitting/side yard area. Reasons to Approve the Present Request As the original Staff Report recognizes, the original application complied with all provisions of the City's General Plan and subdivision and zoning regulations. It was recommended for approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission and by Staff. The only difficulties with the applications were the neighbor's claimed loss of privacy and the Planning Commission's feeling that it would have a negative effect on the existing house. Although we do not agree that either one of these impacts is real, nevertheless, we have • revised the application to satisfy both concerns, and to more clearly express the design objectives. 1ALF1449270.02 _2_ 91-063010316001 Mayor Shaw Members of the City of Council of the City of Saratoga June 30, 1999 • revised the application to satisfy both concerns, and to more clearly express the design objectives. As discussed above, there are two basic changes to the former plans. First, the new house has been reoriented and relocated exactly as the neighbor's architect requested. Second, the moving of the swimming pool and the closing of the access road on the east side of the existing house, along with the revision of the existing pool area, will actually improve the ambiance and functionality of the existing residence. The Planning Commission Findings for Denial are not Valid A subdivision that conforms with all City policies and regulations can only be denied if the City makes one or more of certain findings enumerated in the City's subdivision ordinance. Legally, all findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Planning Commission stretched to make one subdivision finding, which is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The only finding the Planning Commission made is • Subdivision Finding: "That the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed subdivision and building location in that the unusual configuration of the proposed lot boundaries resulted in a new home location that would be in direct proximity to an existing residence to the south and would negatively impact this property with vehicular noise, traffic and headlight glare. Moving the proposed residence to the west, further away from the adjacent home, would negatively impact the existing historic adobe residence on the subject property by visually placing it in the historic residence's rear yard. The proposed subdivision was further found to be incompatible with the surrounding residential development pattern." The factual bases stated in this finding are incorrect, as follows: (a) Negative impact on adjacent property. There actually would be minimal or no impact, particularly with the reorientation and relocation of the new house in the revised plan. The garage of the new house is 42 feet from the property line, and the living area is more like 60 feet away. The purpose of City setbacks is to define an acceptable level of proximity of structures -here the required setback is only 20 feet. The living areas of the neighbor's house are aligned toward the back of his property, which is not impacted by the new house at all. There is also extensive landscaping between the properties. (b) Negative impact on existing residence. As discussed above, the new house does • not negatively impact on the existing one. The two houses are significantly separated and have very little visual contact. With the reconfiguration of the yard space of the existing residence as w~Flaas2~o.oz _3 _ 91-063010316001 Mayor Shaw Members of the City of Council of the City of Saratoga June 30, 1999 discussed above and as shown on the attached plans and drawings, it is clear that the grounds of the existing house would become more usable than before. (c) Incompatibility with surrounding residential development pattern. This is simply not true. Properties on Via Tesoro are generally smaller in size, and have houses comparably situated to the proposed new one. The proposed new house is quite a bit smaller than the existing house on the property and than the neighbor's house. We have had a highly experience professional planner, Thomas Cooke, AICP, analyze the existing land use pattern. He reviewed the City's General Plan and subdivision and zoning regulations, and inspected the site and the surroundings. His report, Exhibit D, confirms that the proposed subdivision is fully consistent with development in the area and that the Planning Commission's findings are not correct. The Application for Design Review was denied based on two stated findings, neither of which is accurate nor supported by substantial evidence. The findings are as follows: Design Review Finding 1: The height, elevations and placement of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential • structures on adjacent lots, interferes with views and privacy in that structure's size and placement are found to be unreasonably obtrusive to adjacent properties, and that relocating the structure to the west would result in negative impacts on the existing historic structure. Design Review Finding 2: The structure is incompatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood in that its proximity to the existing adjacent residence to the south is incompatible with the type of development in this area, and the possible relocation closer to the historic residence would likewise be incompatible. These findings merely reiterate the same misstatements made in the subdivision findings. They discuss the impact on the adjoining residence and on the neighborhood as a whole. For the reasons stated above, neither finding is accurate, and neither is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Conclusion The Nagpals have spent a great deal of time, energy, and money, to design a split of this oversized lot and a new house that are fully consistent with the neighborhood and have no more impact on adjacent residence than any other residence in the area has. They conform with all • w~~aasz~o.o2 _4_ 91-063010316001 Mayor Shaw Members of the City of Council of the City of Saratoga June 30, 1999 City requirements and policies and require no special variance or other special treatment. We urge your approval. Very truly yours, ALF:cem BERLINER COHEN ANDREW L. FABER E-Mail: alf@berliner.com Attachments: Exhibit A -Old plans Exhibit B -Revised plans Exhibit C -Landscape plan and artist's renderings Exhibit D -Report from Thomas Cooke, AICP cc: City Clerk James Walgren, Director of Community Development Virginia Fanelli Susie and Amit Nagpal • IALFl449270.02 -5- 91-063010316001 • June 30, 1999 Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: City Council Appeal SD-98-008 and DR-98-052 19101 Via Tesoro Court Hon. Mayor Shaw and Members of the City Council: First, we want to thank each one you for taking time from your busy schedules to review our application to build our new home on Via Tesoro Road in Saratoga. We have both lived in Saratoga for many years. Our parents live here, we were married in Saratoga, and our children were bom and go to school here. We have lived on the 2.46 acre property on Via Tesoro Court since 1991. Our lot is twice the size of the typical lot in the area. We enjoy the unusual adobe structure and community we live in. Because of the design of the adobe home we have found that it is not very livable for a family with • children, and we desire to subdivide and build a new home that we intend to move into. During the time that we have lived in our current home, we have put in a lot of effort in order to maintain and improve the property including the house, landscaping, and ambience. It has been a matter of great pride for us. Our commitment to enhance both properties is reflected in the graphic representations enclosed in our submittals. It has always been our objective to landscape the property as reflected in the attachments, and we are willing to commit to the plans as a condition of approval. We believe that the Planning Commission had difFculty visualizing how the lots would co-exist. The graphic representations that are attached assist with this visualization, and further substantiate our goal to improve the existing landscape and neighborhood. The current layout of the property has the backyard facing the road frontage (Via Tesoro Court and Chester Road) which is inconsistent with the layout of typical homes in the area. The subdivision will provide for the front of the property to face the roads and the backyards will be behind the homes. The current expansive current lawn size will be reduced to be more practical and typical of homes in the neighborhood. The existing house is designed in mission style. It remains however a home, and thus needs a reasonable size lawn and yard. The proposed plan is designed to provide ambience and practicality. The proposed home has been designed to maintain many of the architectural features found in the existing home, and is consistent in size and design with respect to the neighborhood. Since 1997 we have worked closely wit#; James Walgren, Christina Ratcliff, and other city staff members to design a subdivision that meets all city requirements and requires no variances. At the suggestion of city staff we completed the design for the new house to assist in the visualization of the final plan. We have worked very hard to ensure that the subdivision application and house design represented a strong planning effort that staff, our neighborhood and community could be proud of. The planning staff supported and recommended our submittal to the Planning Commission. We held neighborhood meetings and invited comments during the development of our plans. Over the past few weeks we had the opportunity to meet with the majority of our neighbors. The majority of them have expressed support of our efforts. We will provide you with a list of neighbors supporting our efforts. A few days before our Planning Commission meeting our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Ratner expressed concern over our submittal. On the day of the meeting we were provided with a letter from their architect identifying their concerns with respect to the location and orientation of our house. Unfortunately, there simply was not enough time to respond to the issues identified in the letter. Soon after the Commission meeting we initiated the efforts to address the concerns noted to us. We met with the Mr. Ratner and his Architect two weeks ago at our home to share with them our revisions in response to their letter with the hope that we could seek concurrence. At the meeting, Mr. Ratner's architect expressed the desire of his client for additional spacing between his property and the location of our proposed home. The location of the home on the revised plans provides for more than forty feet spacing between our proposed home and the property fine. Additionally our proposed home is not in the "line-of-sight" of the Ratner's view from the side facing our property. We have also proposed additional screening in this area in our landscape plan. We believe this be a reasonable compromise, but have not to this day, gained Mr. Ratner's concurrence. We hope you will see that our request represents an application that not only conforms to all city requirements and policies and requires no variance but also serves to enhance the neighborhood and the existing property. Once again our goal is to build a home that we can live in, and be a part of the community for a long time. We hope our efforts reflect the great deal of time and energy we have spent to be consistent, compatible, and sensitive to our surroundings, and preserve the environment. We thank you for your consideration, and urge your support and approval. Sincerely, Amit and Susie Nagpal 19101 Via Tesoro Court Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741-5501 II~3c.. 23-Si i},s= _~}.;_ °v ~ z= i ~ O A~~ xi_ A C I I~~ r o p a~~ ~ v N Q c -. ~~ i Z 0 u~ i" 'e° 0 2 A "~~CHlBTER A Z 2 V T O A Y 0 '~1 5 0 Z O -~ I /.~ :/?S~ /" / , .' / /~%(, T''~' ~ r.'V/// C A ~b 9 4,o O~ N 39>. R ~3. , Y O~ MFR NgN~ m~ ~?3 "'~z ~~+i ~N'~ ~ o~ `z n r Z ~~ su~_^ '` ~~ mZ Z 1. 43 'b ~ a 6 .~- ~~ N Z y ~ m {-7~ m ~ ~ ^8 p O S ~ SSSS ~ O - O py ~ ~i FJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ 2 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ g ® ~ ti ~p ~ o o Y _ ~ '•~ 2y yy s ~~O _E $ ~`c ~± Syy .s ~ ~ .T i « ~ S x ~% f ~' r r ~"` '~^ ^ " T ygv~ g ~ 3 : ~ s g ~^ ~ g ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ p m ~ ~i. C ~j m ~ ~ 4 (^ M Tp t ~ F n' c 2 F 't Ey pp y pii ~ s ~ z O ,~9 z ~ ~ m £ ~ s~~~ s$~ 4~. aBP ~ ~ ~ $~~; ~g ~g~ os~~ ~ 000 m ~~~~ G a ~, ':: a ~ , ' ~ _r ~~%~' " ~CNEST_ER_RVENU-E ~~ /-- ..~ ;• ._ ,, ,~ "- ` - _ ~ 8/`~ .~ ~ j '~/ \'i \ R+ _I\\ ma'r' ` 4` I / °2 •~ _ _ S~ ~ ' , ~ .tea ~.. ~, C y S J I, tr- o' l ~ -1~ 1~ ? .vi°o t l 1 '.' ~~n~ o \ Y~'r Qyo \ I i ~I ~` ~ ~ , ~ Z 2 ~,~ ~ i F ~ O r m cJ 'y ... ~ 'po ~ ~~\po~~~ ~/ ~! I s,,y. ~ ~ J _ ~ lA iAW O ~^ , °R> 1~ ~ ~~ \~~ ~ ~ ~ X ! X (y \ I~ G~ ~ ~1 p \ S / 'A~1'yOS mo ~! / ~9,~ RR, km ~ ~ ~ / O ` Nf'PS V _ / // °n i ~~ ~'~~~ ~o, U ~~ ~~rrz~ n ~~~ ~~ ~~~ _ RESIDENCE FOR :?~ ~ '-~~' MRS.& MR. AMIT NAG PAL ~ = o: ~~ : ~; o~ 19101 VIA TESORO GT. SA RATOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 i z >a xc. s ~ ~ moOw> A w» ~-_ a O (1 ~0 ~- „-~ k. D r p'~1 .'~? -4 ~ C A O ~ - ~ ~ ~ a T gp y * x p ~ ~ o Z ~ ~_ _ O N 1 -T '~ ~= N °- am iv ~' ~. N °°,~~n W rn inn n n i n. _~ g, _ ~ 8 0 o g°-~ RESIDENCE FOtZ ~ - :_° $ _ ~• M R5. & M R. AM IT NAGPAL (\,7 .1 :'oi 19101 VIA TE 50R0 CT. SARATOGA ° °J ° i [AL~FORNIA 95070 ~~ _. t t ~. ~~ ~ ~-~ ~~ 0 tt.~ N Z F - g N R F QZ 8 3 l~, o '~ " a+ m ~~ L l~ ~j ~, a , 1 11 ylt 11 It 11 I t~ltl ``__ '~ r __ '_ F Z s ~ _ ? - m °.~ x° ~ F "-~ ~- i r v ~`~~ C a r _ 4 ~Z s -- ;: u+ r a y t N N u N n ors " Z s 6'O' ffi" F. 1 1 11 11 tl 11 11 ~~•Y" 1 l 11 11 r~` 1 Z_Q 111 '~2 11 ~° 1 5 ~R t1 ~~> _ ~ 1 yam- .. _ es.:~-- J iD - 1 = L 1' ~~ ta^ O +°" o ,'`1 3 ~a,ooR ' ~~ o °. 0 c ~ ~ z-" ,~~~_-_-^~ o o S Z N _ _ ~ I1 1 ~ vl ~ t a 11 -~ ~! 1 1 ~1 11 ~ A 11 $ 1 1 1 1 0 1 111 ~ 1 1 1 11 ~ 1' ~ 1 t 1 ,1 1 11 Iv ~ ,~ 1 1 ~ 11 ~ 11 1 1 I~ 1 1 1 1 ,1 1 111 t 1 '11 1 I 11 -- _-_ 11 11 _ V __ ~~I _ 1 J'~- R ENGE I-~{~NA~p~L f"~~ ` 1 A~pGA R~. & M ~~ 0 ~-~_ ShR OR 9507°-~ 19101 cnllfOR NIA __- t ~___ t .--- t t ~- -' ,t N 6~ ;_. ~~ f z L m• :~z ?o o~ RESID~NGE FOIZ MR5.8 MR. AMIT NAG PAL 19101 VIA TESORO CT. SARATOGh GALIFOI2NIA 95070 i t i t >-_ n P N -1 a~ I T I it z I N I n Y Y ~ O rn -n l~ CLZ LL ~T~ J a ~~~ ~- .~-- t I \~ I : ~ I~ I r I = -=iii I' ~~ AIL ~Y ~- J_r i~ i ~~ m r c T 1 O ~ Z ~~`, ~ m l ~-~ ~ ~ -~-~1 i D ~~-/1 ~ ~~~ ~7.~~- 1~ ~ ~, ~ ~ --~ '~ 1~1 i ;~~i ~ ~ ;.'~ ~ . _. ~" ~« - -- _ _ ~~ -~ \ r ~''-'r~ _ ;: I ~ 7 1. ` ~ ~- J~ ~ '. 1 R I ~ _I __ . = i.J~~~.4yy ~. G~ \~ I -„~. 11~ I \113-6 (M=0 FWn E._6fUD8F~ 33!0_ f_ 3=3~ -- 1-~- I I I ~IB~~O~I~ ~~ FROM E.6G.oe~ f-_~~- I i m y Z < I Gl pOO 6~ 8m R I T i -_ '" N m - r ~ y ~ - ` ~ ~~ ~ r { Z~ ' o i i \\I n 0 Z 8 N ~ ~ N i O Z s A o ~ o n y -_+ A N ~~_~~ _ 15-4Y __~~ 15_10 ___._ _ ._-.-~. l ll x c i Z N y N T/' ~ m ~ ~ O ~ T ~ ~ A 8 m A m i ~ y `~\1,\\\, , \ \ \ ~ ~ ,\ 1.1 11 ~ z ' O ;~ x y ~'1 ~ _~ ~ L I o o RESIDENCE FOR MRS. & MR. AMIT NAGPRL 19101 VIA TE SORO GT. SARhTOGA CALIFORNih 9507a i ! !!i' ~~{ ^t 1 1 1 1 l ~-_.. t~ ~~~ .,t `"~ ~ _ ~~` \\Q" ~~~ f \'~i.. N ~~ 1 1 ~',,~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ ~ 1 ~? u~, ~ 1 'jj ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~I ~~,~ 1 1 , . '' , 1 1 I I~~ 4` j ;;' /'r t ~~' 1 ~. l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ I n m x C 4~ O ` ~ ` ~ -._-- = ~ _ i5 p_ 6enD~~ - NTS n ~ j*~ rn ~ ~=w T p ~4'Z A ~. (i R O~~ ~ Y A 7' ~ ^ ~ ~ ~fis - ~~o ~ ~ I r ~ I ` I ~ 1 ~~ -~* _~ ' ~' ~ 1 ~'r 1. - ' _-~t 7'~i. s s 8 T S K i L ? N ~~ S O 1Aw (ppy g A 8 Zh A y Nj ~ Z ~ ~ A ~ ~ m p_~,~ _ 4• a f. e Z o~= RESIDENCE FOR MfZS. & MR. l~MIT NftGPkL 19101 V!A TESORO GT~ SA RA TOGA CALIFORNIA 95070 i Z I Q C R~ B 1• s y t~~ ~~,r~~;,~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ of ~;1~ ~" ~`! ~y~ ~ t4 ' ~f , , -S ~-i ^v ;.rS fi~ ". ~ ''' ~.4~1 L~ 1`~Y ",,6 ,, m ~ ~ " ~`°~i s ,~ - r .~. ~~~~~ tom, .t ~~ =C ' (\ G ~~-i" I i I ~~~ ~ /~ x ~. E / ~~ 'a zn z m ~I Z ~ ~1 fr ~ -~) !r ~ \ /~ 'gr ~Ig ~+ £ ~ Li~~ ~ 'x na ~ Q S ~g ~'° '° ~ v`66~ ~~~ mi~A ~ s ; o~wa°,~, ~ n {-_g; S I ~` F - - ° 8 `~~ 5 4~ ~ ~ use o u -~ 6 4 n a a^ R ~ g 2~ 3 3 3 8 S 4 p p,,.o°i°~ m'r R °_S o0u mS€° °a3~ ° ~ Ic'm .E °~ g 3' s ~ 3 3 n3°o °g ~ .. L ~ -~}, tits. ly ~° n _ I?. o" °2°05= ~ ~I i ~ ,. = A!: ~ - I - ~° III a i ~..a 6'° IPo ~ o % x ° F or= PESIDEtJ~~ FOB. i~ R.5 ~ M R ~M' ~ ~,; «GPAi 191 ~I VIT TE SGRG GT ~+f='.; Ci GA i.ALI FC IiN1.A j5c/o n m REVIEW OF TENTATIVE PARGEL MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR 19101 V#A TESORO Ct7#IRT, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA RIND DENIALS OF APPLICATIONS BY THE SARATOGA CITY PLANNFNG COMMISSION Prepared for:.. (1tlr. Amlt &, Susie Nagpal Prepared by; Thomas Cooke Associates ~~,. .tune 3D, 1999 f 1 June 30, 1999 Mr. Amit & Susie Nagpal 19101 Via Tesoro Court Saratoga,CaNfornia 1 Dear Mr, & Mrs Nagpal; THOMAS COOK E ^0^ ^~~^ ^^^ Associcrtes As requested I have reviewed both your submittal to the City of Saratoga to subdivide the existing lot at 19101 Via 7esora Court and to construct a new two- story, 5,301 square foot residence on the newly created 48,921 square foot parcel and the subsequent denial of the tentative parcel map and design Urban Design review application by the City Planning Commission. As yuu know, approval of the application is continquent upon conforming to to the City's General Plan, subdivision and zoning regulations, and design review requirements. Affer reviewing your applications, city staff's recommendations, and the actions token by the City Planning Commission, I can only conclude that there IS no basis whatsoever for the Commission's denial of either the parcel map o- design of the new residence. The basis for my conclusions are summarized in the attached memorandum and accompanying exhibits. Also appended to these materials is a brief summation of my professional qualifications. Sincerely, Thomas Cooke Associates ~,,, ~e~ Thomas Cooke, AICP f Enclosure ~~ New Community Planning City & Regional Planning Community Revital¢ation Corporate & Institutional Master Planning Development Regulations & Design Guidelines Transit Planning 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 Tel: {510) 437-8099 Fax: (510) 437-8097 ~~ REVIEW OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR 19101 VIA TESORO COURT, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Prepared by Thomas Cooke, A1CP Purpose To review the May 12, 1999 dental by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission of the tentative parcel map and design review application for 19101 Via Tesoro Court so as to determine if there are any reasonable bases for the Commission's decision. Each of the findings made by the Commission and used as the basis for their denial are evaluated below. I have also reviewed the City's subdivision and zoning regulations and concur with the city staff's findings that 'This Tentative Parcel Map complies with all minimum zoning standards with regard to parcel size, configuration and setbacks.' The critique below thus focuses on three arguments used by the Commission to justify denial: (1) the new development will negatively impact a neighboring residence due to proximity; (2) the proposed subdivision and structure will be incompatible with surrounding development; and (3) the proposed structure will negatively impact the existing historic adobe residence. M i fl t i t Evaluation of Commission Findings The Commission has based its denials on the basis of required findings for denial of 14-20-070 of the city's subdivision regulations, namely (b) (3) 'That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed" and (b) (4)' That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.' The sole basis for Commission's making of these two findings required for denial is the contention that the proposed new residence would be incompatible with nearby residences and the neighborhood. Each of the contentions of incompatibility made by Commission's findings are evaluated below, In my professional Judgement as a planner and urban designer with more than 30 years experience, I can find no basis to support Commission's contentions. Indeed, offer having examined the submittal and the neighborhood setting I can only conclude, as has city staff, that the project fully complies with the City's standards and guidelines. 1. 'That the s/te !s not physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed subdivision and buildings location in that the unusual configuration of the proposed lot boundaries resulted in a new home location that would be in direct proximity to an existing residence to the south and would negatively impact this property with vehicular noise, trafrtc and headlight glare.' (Denial of Tentative Parcel Map) 'Direct proximity' The distance between the closest point of the proposed residence and the adjoining residence would be sixty feet while the closest distance between facing windows more than 110 feet. (See Exhibit 2.1 B) The distance between the new residence and the adjacent residence to the south would be greater than the distance between that adjacent residence and the adjacent residence along its south property line. As shown in Exhibit 1, the proposed distance between these proposed new Thomas Cooke Associates o Community Planning & Urban Design Page 1 L ~_ ~~ residence and the adjacent residence is also greater than the distance between many other residences along Via Tesoro Court and Chester. Perhaps the Commission's decision was based on the erroneous statement in the letter from adjoining residents Marcia and Harry Ratner to the city which stated 'their (the Nagpal's) proposed residence is going to be immediately adjacent to our home, some 20 ff away.' The facts are that the Nagpal residence would have a 40 foot side yard while the neighbor to the south has provided only a 20 foot side yard. 'Vehicular noise and traffic' The total number of vehicular trips generated by a single family detached residence is 9.55 per day, the majority of which trips occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers.) The occurrence of less than one car per hour can hardily be regarded as creating traffic and noise levels sufficient to justify denial. If such a standards were to be used no new residences could be approved by the City. Moreover, since the existing residence already has vehicular access from Via Tesoro Court which would be eliminated, the actual increase 1n trips entering and leaving the property would be even less than the average rate, further calling into question the basis for the Commission conclusion. 'Headlight glare' AS shown in Exhibit 2.1 B the proposed residence is separated from the adjoining residence by a dense landscape barrier, which combined with differences in topography effectively buffers the adjoining residence from headlight glare. The layout the driveway and garage also helps ensure that glare will not be a problem. Car entering will turn leff into the garage and when exiting will back out of the garage, both movements which direct headlights away from the adjoining residence. 2. 'The proposed subdivision was further found to be incompatible with the surrounding residential development.' (Denial of Tentative Parcel Map finding.) 'The structure is incompatible in terms of bulk and height with the existing structures on adjacent lots and those within the Immediate neighborhood in that Its proximity to the existing adjacent residence to the south is Incompatible with the type of development in this area. ' (Denial of Design Review findings.) 'Bulk and Height' Shown below are the size of other nearby residences. Five of the existing residences on Via Tesoro exceed the 5,301 square feet of the proposed residence while two residences are smaller. As shown in Exhibit 4, the majority of residences along Via Tesoro Court, including the residence to the south of the subject property are two story structures. Since the proposed residence fully complies with the City's floor area and height requirements for the neighborhood and is equivalent in size and height to all other neighboring residence there is no rationale basis for the Commission's conclusion. Additional measures have also been taken to mitigate height and bulk impacts by combining one and two-story building masses ,use of articulated roof forms, and articulation of building facades. These are all measures which adhere to the City of Saratoga's Residential Design Handbook guidelines. Thomas Cooke Associates ^ Community Planning & Urban Design Page 2 Existing Residences Square Feet Via Tesoro Court 19103 7,897 (Adjoining residence) 19123 6,615 19143 7•~ 19163 6,276 19180 4,095 19160 5,750 + 608 Cabana 19140 4,500 Chester 14,318 5.548 3. 'The height, elevations and placement of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to the nature and Jocatlon of residential structures on adjacent lots, Interferes with views and privacy in that structure's size and placement are found to be ~' unreasonably obtrusive to ad/acent properties..." (Denial of Design Review) 'interferes with views and privacy" The City's design review findings in 15-45.080 require that a building 'avoid unreasonable interterence with views and p~ ivacy. The conditions and measures listed below indicate the applicant has fully compiled with this condition. / The new residence locates the garage along the south side and maintains a distance of 60 feet from the adjacent residence so as to maximum the distance between be habitable areas of both residences. / There is a dense landscape barrier with a height 10 or more feet along the common side lot line which separate the two residences which total obstructs views between the ' two parcels at ground level. (See Exhibit 2.1 B. And 4.1 G.) / The wall of the adjoining residence which faces the proposed residence contains only one small window, the view from which is already partially screened by existing landscaping and thus the potential for adversely affecting the neighbors views or privacy is not a factor. (See Exhibit 2.1 B.) / The new residence would be located downslope from the adjoining residence and the southernmost portion limited to one story, both measures which further eliminate any potential problems of interterence with views and privacy. / Since other residences facing the proposed are located across Chester and Via ' Tesoro Court at a distance of 180 feet more and are separated by large trees, neither views or privacy are at Issue for these properties. 4. 'The possible relocation of new residence closer to the historic residences would likewise be Incompatible.' (Denial of Design Review) I The proposed relocation actually would improve the setting for the existing residence by increasing the distance between it and the new residence. Additionally, removal • Thomas Cooke Associates a Community Planning & Urban Design Page 3 of the post-1960 trellis and swimming pool would improve the setting by restoring the area immediately adjoining the older residence to a state more closely approximating the earlier condition. The proposed new residences is designed with cone-story element facing the older residences and maintains a minimum distance of 68 feet so as to reduce its visibility from the older residence. ' Conclusions ' Construction of the new residence would contribute to, rather than detract from, the overall character and appearance of the neighborhood. At present the Via Tesoro frontage of the applicants site is unlandscaped and fenced in from the street by a six foot high chain link fence and row of Oleander bushes. (See Exhibit 2.2.) In its present condition this frontage is an incompatible gap in an otherwise consistent and attractive street frontage. As shown in Exhibit 4, the frontyards of the remainder of the street are enclosed by low walls or hedges or are landscaped with lawns and terraces. The majority of the residences face directly on the street and have prominent front entrances. Construction and landscaping of the proposed residence would eliminate the existing incompatible condition and result in an architectural and landscape appearance similar to other residences along Via Tesoro Court. The existing naturalistic landscape appearance of Chester Avenue is also retained. As shown in Exhibit 3, the combination of slope and vegetation to be retained would screen the new residence from view from Chester Avenue at the approach to Vis Tesoro Court. The applicant's design has been executed in a very sensitive manner. The most notable features are: / The building has been designed to fit the natural downslope of the site thereby minimizing it s apparent bulk and need for site disturbance. / Existing major trees have been retained including those along Chester which effectively block view of the new residence from Chester and retain the dominant naturalistic appearance of street. r r ~~ / The two-story portion of the residence has been placed along the north edge and at the lower portion of the lot and the a lower one-story portion of the residence located along the south to minimize any Impacts on the adjoining existing residence. / The new residence orients it major entrance to Via Tesoro Court to complement the siting and design of the other residences along Via Tesoro. / The garage has been placed along the south side as to maximize the separation between the habitable portions of the adjoining residences. / The new residence employs forms, materials and color which match those of the existing residence and thus help ensure an appropriate setting for the older residence. The use of traditional materials and color and similarity in scale to nearby residences will blend into and complement the diverse architectural styles of the other residences on Via Tesoro Court. Thomas Cooke Associates o Community Planning & Urban Design Page 4 i EXHIBIT 2.1: Existing On-Site Conditions ",~ A. Portion of site to be occupied by proposed new residence, Looking toward Chester. B. View toward adjacent residence to the south. Distance between closest facing windows greater than 110 feet. EXHIBIT 2.2 Existing On-site Conditions (cont.) C. Frontage of proposed new parcel along Chester Avenue and Via Tesoro Court ~: -= D. View of Via Tesoro Court frontage EXHIBIT 3 Site Relationship to Chester Avenue F. View at corner of Via Tesoro and Chester Avenue. New residence would be screened by existing Live Oaks which are to be retained, E. View from Chester approaching Via Tesoro. Proposed new residence would not be visible. EXHIBIT 4.1 Existing Architectural and Landscape Appearance of Via Tesoro Court Frontage ~. G. Adjacent residence to south of proposed lot. i~ i~ ii i~ M ~' ~u 1 J LJ ~~ EXHIBIT 4.2 Existing Architectural and Landscape Appearance of Via Tesoro Court Frontage (cont.) I. Via Tesoro Frontage J. Via Tesoro Frontage 1 i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ EXHIBIT 4.3 Existing Architectural and Landscape Appearance of Via Tesoro Court Frontage (cont.) K. Via Tesoro Frontage i I~ ~~ L Via Tesoro Frontage ' f ssional 6~ualifications for Tom Cooke Pro e Principal of Thomas Cooke Associates For the past 35 years Mr. Cooke has provided community planning and design services to both public and private clients throughout the U.S. He has been member of the faculty of the graduate school of City and Regional Planning, U.C. and has he been a recipient of a Ford Foundation Grant for the study of European city planning practices. At present Mr. Cooke is serving as an consultant to the City of Oakland, California and is preparing a comprehensive revision of that city's residential and commercial zoning and accompanying design review standards and procedures. Attached are additional materials listing some of Mr. Cooke's prior community planning and urban design protects and professional awards. L ~~ i L 1 THOMAS COOKE, AICP Position: Principal, Thomas Cooke Associate Education: Master of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley Bachelor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame cum laude Experience: Mr. Cooke co-founded Sedway Cooke Associates and led that firm's urban design, redevelopment area planning, community planning, and institutional and corporate master planning work throughout its 32 year of existence. Since forming Thomas Cooke Associates in 1995 he has continued to emphasize urban design and planning and the integration of these two fields. His work in these areas has been distinguished by the ability to devise plans and programs that balance development ' objectives with environmental objectives and the ability to achieve community consensus in politically sensitive situations. Pr%ct Mr Cooke has prepared numerous new community plans, specific plans, area plans, Experience: and downtown plans including the following projects: o Sterling Forest Comprehensive Plan, a new community on a 17,500-acre site in the ' New York City metropolitan region o the new community of Klahanie -Seattle metropolitan area ~ New Capital City of Alaska Plan o City and County of Honolulu Urban Design Study ~ Aptos Seascape Specific Plan ~ Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan o Emeryville Bayfront Specific Plan o Downtown Anaheim, CA ~ Ontario ' Downtown Plan and Holt Boulevard Plan o Rice Canyon Specific Plan ~ U.C. Berkeley Westside Study o campus plans for the University of California"s Berkeley, Santa Barbara and Davis campuses. Mr. Cooke has prepared transit station area plans and joint development studies for numerous communities including the following projects: ' ~ Beaverton Downtown Plan, a transit station area plan for downtown Beaverton, Oregon o Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, a transit station area plan for a 125-acre site in Pleasant Hill. CA ~ Long Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project intensified mixed-use development at transit stations ~ North Santa Clara Master Plan ' concentrated development around two transit stations on a 1,300-acre site o Oakridge Mixed-Use Development Plan intensified development on a 100-acre site of a new light rail station ~ Portland Gateway Urban Design Study, focused on the relationship of a 14-block area and the light rail line ~ San Jose Light Rail Corridor ' Study evaluated land use impacts and joint development opportunities along a 16- mile corridor o SCRTD Metro Rail Joint Development Study analyzed joint development opportunities of areas adjoining 19 stations along an 18.5-mile corridor Mr. Cooke also has prepared numerous master plans for redevelopment areas, comprehensive plans, urban design plans and guidelines, transportation/land use plans, and environmental studies for cities and counties throughout the United States. Professional Mr, Cooke was Chairman of the American Institute of Planners' Urban Design Depart- and ment and has authored articles for professional journals on urban design methods, Communify planning of transit-served communities, and innovative use of development Activities: regulations as urban design tools, He is a former member of the faculty of thegraduate school of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley and has been a frequent speaker at national and regional conferences for such organizations as ULI and APA. He has also served for more than ten years on non- ' profit housing corporation boards responsible for both construction and manage- ment of low-income housing. • THOMAS COOKE ASSOCIATES o Community Planning and Urban Design 1 t n 1 1 1 1~ PROJECT AWARDS AND PRIZES The following are among the award-winning projects headed by Thomas Cooke. Plan for the New Capital City Of Alaska; First Place, National Invitational Competition; Alaska New Capital City Planning Commission. Anaheim Center Guide for Development; Award for Plan Implementation, American Planning Association, California Chapter, Orange County Section. Klahanie, Washington; Large-Scale Community Planning, King County, Washington Building Council. Arcata Physical Design Recommendations for Achieving Community Social Goals; Award of Honor; American Institute of Planners, California Chapter, Northern Section. Chula Vista Bayfront Plan and Program; Award of Honor; American Institute of Planners, California Chapter. Pleasant HIII BART Station; Award, County Supervisors Association of California; Award, National Association of Counties. Estes Park (Grand Prairie) Development and Park Plan; Project Planning Award; American Planning Association, Texas Chapter. Long Beach Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Development; Outstanding Planning Award; American Planning Association, California Chapter, Los Angeles Section. Monterey Bay Science and Technology Center; First Place, Invitational Competition; University of California, Santa Cruz. Oakland Energy Efficiency Housing Retrofit Program; Meritorious Program Award; American Planning Association, California Chapter. Ocean Park Neighborhood Development Guide, Santa Monica; Outstanding Planning Award -Specific Plan; American Planning Association, California Chapter, Los Angeles Section. San Francisco Bay Regional Ocean Coastline Plan; Award of Merit; National Association of Regional Councils. San Francisco Chinatown Housing/Recreation Program; Award of Excellence; American Institute of Planners, California Chapter. San Francisco Downtown Conservation and Development Planning Program; Meritorious Program Award; American Planning Association, California Chapter, Northern Section. Trl-County Coastline: Policies for Conservation and Development; Award of Merit; American Institute of Planners, California Chapter, Northern Section. UC Davis Meadow District Planning Guide; Honorable Mention, Outstanding Planning Project; American Planning Association, California Chapter, Sacramento Valley Section. THOMAS COOKE ASSOCIATES o Community Planning and Urban Design