HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.23.�
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 3, 2007
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN
AND NEW SWIMMING POOL. LANDS OF ALON, 27673 LUPINE ROAD. (9-
07-ZP-SD-GD)
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner�—
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan and
swimming pool, subject to the attached conditions of approval in Attachment 1.
The new two-story residence and basement were conditionally approved on appeal by
the City Council at their meeting on March 17, 2005 (SDP#247-03-ZP-SD-GD). The
Planning Commission first reviewed the project at the July 22, 2004 hearing and
continued the project requesting that the applicant work to lower the house by up to 10
feet, reduce the size of the second story, and propose a landscape screening plan for
immediate installation. The applicant returned with a redesign to the Planning
Commission on January 27, 2005. The revised plans showed the house lowered by three
(3) to five (5) feet and a portion of the second floor moved back, farther away from the
road right-of-way. The Planning Commission denied the project 3-1-1.
On March 17, 2005, the City Council approved the project with specific conditions
including:
• Reduce the floor area by 560 square feet.
• Install immediate landscape screening.
• Install a combination of synthetic turf and solar panels on the roof.
• Install non -reflective glass on the entire building.
The new residence is a contemporary two-story design with a partial basement and an
attached two -car garage. Throughout the public hearing process several neighbors have
stated their concerns with the size, visibility, and architecture of the proposed home.
DISCUSSION
Article 8 of the Site Development Code (Attachment 2) addresses landscaping to
maximize compatibility of development with the natural environment and to ensure that
Planning Coni nission
Lands of Alon
27673 Lupine Road
May 3, 2007
Page 2 of 7
structures, as viewed from off-site, blend harmoniously with the natural landscape and
are unobtrusive.
Landscape Screening Plan
The applicant was required to install immediate screening as conditioned by the new
residence approval. The applicant has exceeded the minimum screening requirement
and installed 61 coast redwoods, 19 oak trees, and 250 English Laurel shrubs around the
perimeter. Several redwood trees and Bay Laurel shrubs were installed outside the
property boundaries and are required to be transplanted inside the property boundary
(condition #7). Two (2) of the recently installed coast redwoods are within proximity to
a storm drain pipe. The Town Engineer has required that these trees be transplanted to a
different location (condition #15).
With this application the applicant is proposing to install several additional trees and
shrubs including:
• 3-48" Coast Redwoods
• 148" Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island palm)
• 150-15 gallon English Laurel
Planning Commission
Lands of Alun
27673 Lupine Road
May 3, 2007
Page 3 of 7
Pool and Spa
The pool and spa are proposed to be located to the southwest (front) of the residence
and would not encroach into any of the required setbacks. The proposed new patios,
walkways, pool, spa, and decking total 1,028 square feet of new development area.
Area
Maximum
Proposed
Existing
Increase
Left
Development
16,038
15,544
14,516
1,028
494
Floor
7,586
0
7,482
0
104
Fences, Columns. and Gate
The proposed plan shows new fences and driveway entry columns and gates. The
proposed fence is a four and a half (4.5) foot tall black vinyl coated chain link fence
along the Lupine Road frontage and along the vehicular access easement used by the
Lands of Lee, 27751 Lupine Road. The Town Engineer has required that fences that
cross the drainage easement be installed with gates for access and maintenance.
The proposed columns measure five (5) feet nine (9) inches tall and are a minimum of
32 feet from the centerline of the Lupine Road right-of-way. The columns include one
louvered light each.
The proposed entry gate averages six (6) feet tall and complies with Town standards.
Li Plain
The applicant has proposed nine landscape lights along the driveway within the front
setback. Lighting Policy #1 allows two driveway column lights in the front setback only
and the Planning Director or Planning Commission can allow additional lighting for
safety. The proposed lights in the setback are downlights and will be mounted less than
one foot from grade. Per Lighting Policy #2 the lights alternate on each side of the
driveway to avoid a "runway" appearance and are spaced at approximately 20 feet apart.
Committee Review
The Environmental Design Committee provided comments that were forwarded to the
property owner and landscape team. The committee noted the proposed driveway fights
in the setback. They also recommended that the applicant should include additional
plantings near the residence.
Planning Commission
[ands of Alon
27673 Lupine Road
May 3, 2007
Page 4 of 7
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA
The proposed swimming pool and landscaping is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15303,
Class 3 (e) and Section 15304, Class 4 (b).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Article 8 of the Site Development Code (includes Ordinance 503)
3. Outdoor Lighting Policy
4. Comments from Environmental Design Committee, dated January 29, 2007
5. July 22, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. January 27, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
7. March 17, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes
8. Landscape screening plans (Commission only)
Planning Commission
Lands of Alon
27673 Lupine Road
May 3, 2007
Page 5 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN
AND SWIMMING POOL
LANDS OF ALON, 27673 LUPINE ROAD
File #9-07-ZP-SD-GD
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required
landscaping shall be first reviewed by the Planning Director or the Planning
Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. All new plantings shown on the plans shall be installed prior to final
inspection. All exposed slopes must be replanted for erosion control to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit of $10,000.00 shall be posted prior to final
inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment
and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be
released after two years if the plantings remain viable.
4. Outdoor lighting locations are approved as shown on the plans. Any future
proposed lighting shall be first submitted for Planning Department review and
approval prior to installation. Lighting shall be the minimum needed for
safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect
on adjacent properties.
5. The location of all fences, gates, and columns shall be certified in writing by a
registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved
location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan prior to
final inspection.
6. The location and of all fences, gates, and columns shall be certified in writing
by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the
approved location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development
plan prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission
[ands of Alon
27673 Lupine Road
May 3, 2007
Page 6 of 7
7. All trees and shrubs installed in the right of way shall be relocated onsite to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Planning Director. This condition shall
be satisfied prior to final inspection.
S. All fences and plantings installed (temporarily or permanently) outside the
property boundaries shall be completely removed prior to final inspection.
9. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official:
a. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure
(fencing).
b. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover.
c. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors
providing direct access to the pool.
d. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool
shall be equipped with a self-closing, self -latching device with a release
mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.
10. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Pool equipment shall be enclosed for noise mitigation and screening. The
pool equipment enclosure shall be screened with landscaping and may
not encroach into any required setbacks.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
11. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed
as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The
proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns.
Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department
and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department prior to final inspection.
12. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place
during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15) except with prior
approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet
of any property line.
Planning Commission
Lands of Alon
27673 Lupine Road
May 3, 2007
Page 7 of 7
13. The location and elevation of the pool shall be certified in writing by a
registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved
location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan prior to
final inspection.
14. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private
driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and
release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of
the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check
15. The two redwood trees installed in the Storm Drain Easement (as redlined on
the approved plan) shall be relocated onsite to the satisfaction of the Town
Engineer and Planning Director. This condition shall be satisfied prior to final
inspection.
16. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed
shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be
replanted prior to final inspection.
17. If any trees or large shrubs are proposed to be planted within the right of way
or public utility easements, a letter shall be required to be submitted which has
been stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer verifying that the
proposed plantings, when mature, will not conflict with any existing public
utilities that are located either underground or overhead and will not negatively
impact the available sight distance for traffic on the adjacent roadways or
block existing pathways or roadways. The letter shall be required to be
submitted to the Engineering Department prior to final project approval and
prior to commencement of planting.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planing
and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to final building inspection
approval.
CONDITION NUMBER 14 SHALL BE COMPLETED, REVIEWED, AND
APPROVED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR
PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until May 3, 2008).
All required building permits most be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building
permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years.
ATTACHMENT 2
§ 10-2.703 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.802
necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
(§ 6, Ord. 384, eff. October 18, 1996)
Article S. Landscaping
Sec. 10-2.801. Purpose.
The purposes of this article ate to create the maximum compatibility
of development with the natural environment; to preserve the rural qualities
of the Town, to insure that structures, is viewed from off-site, blend
harmoniously with the natural landscape and are unobtrusive; to maintain
soil stability, to abate noises; to protect wildlife habitats; to retain aesthetic
quality; and to protect properties against fire and other natural forces.
(§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985)
Sec. 10-2.802, Landscaping policies.
(a) Erosion. Landscaping shall be required to control erosion,
retard soil creep, and reduce the potential for landslides.. .
(b) Noise. Landscaping and berms may be required to shield
Town residents from unnatural noises' -such as those from freeways, arterial
streets, and nonresidential land uses:
(e) Visual effects. Landscaping shall be required to mitigate the
visual effects of development from off the site: -
(d) Preferred plans. Landscaping should utilize fire retardant
-
species. Native or naturalized plants or other plant species that blend
naturally with the landscape should generally be favored:
(e) Maintenance. Landscaping shall be maintained in -healthy
condition by property owners and shall not intrude into easements, paths,
or the lines -of --site required at intersections and along roads.
(f) Tree preservation. Every feasible attempt should be made to
preserve existing trees.
(g) Views. In order to prevent blockage of scenic views and vistas,
the height at maturity of proposed plants and trees shall be considered in
determining the appropriateness of landscaping plans.
(h) Amount required. The Town shall require only the minimum
amount of landscaping necessary to implement. the above policies. The
amount of landscaping required by the Town shall be determined by the
size of structure, the types of materials, and the colors proposed for struc-
tures. Structures that blend with the natural landscape will normally require
(Los Altos Hills 10.15-97)
1058
ORDINANCE NO. 503
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
AMENDING SECTION 10-2.802 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
WITH REGARD TO LANDSCAPING POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("Town") wishes to
preserve the rural qualities of the Town, to insure that structures, as viewed from off-site, blend
harmoniously with the natural landscape and are unobtrusive; to maintain soil stability, to abate
noises; to protect wildlife habitats; to retain aesthetic quality; and to protect properties against
fire and other natural forces.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("Town") has
deternrined that eucalyptus trees me invasive, nonnative tree species which are not suitable
within the vicinity of structures and roadways because they are potential safety and fire hazards.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does
ORDAIN as follows:
1. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 10-2.802 of Article 8 (Landscaping) of
Chapter 2 (Site Development) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10-2.802. Landscaping policies
(f) Tree preservation. Every feasible attempt should be made to preserve existing
trees except those trees identified in the Los Altos Hills Landscape Guidelines
invasive plant list.
(g) Eucalyptus Trees. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E.
sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis),
Honey Gum (E. melliodora), and Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees
shall be removed at the time of the construction of a principal residence or at the
time of the construction of any structure, combination of structures, addition or
alteration to structures which individually or cumulatively equal or exceed twelve
hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. Exceptions shall be made for eucalyptus
trees greater than 150' from any roadways or structures.
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall take effect
thirty (30) days after adoption. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance the City
Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of
those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law.
I oft
§ 10-2.805 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.901
(c) The type of landscaping shall be appropriate for the
composition of the soil in which the plantings are to be located.
Required landscaping should thrive with as little maintenance as
possible.
(§ 15, Ord. 299, eft. December 11. 1985)
Sec. 10-2.806. Irrigation systems.
Sprinklers and other landscape irrigation systems shall not be
allowed in any public right-of-way without an encroachment
permit. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) .
Sec. 10-2.807. Maintenance of landscaping.
Landscaping shall be maintained in a natural, healthy condition.
Diseased or dead plants shall be replaced. Combustible brush shall
be removed from the site. A minimum of twelve (12') feet vertical
clearance shall be maintained over driveways, public pathways and
public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall be maintained according to
.the conditions of any performance bond filed with the Town: (§ 15,
Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985]
Sec. 10-2.808. Fences and walls.
Any wall. or fence may be required to be landscaped. (§ 15,
Ord. 299, eff. December I1, 1985)
Sec. Article 9. Recreation Courts
Sec. 10-2.901. Tennis and other recreation courts.
(a) . Grading. Grading for tennis courts and other recreation
courts shall not exceed six (6') feet of fill or twelve (121. feet of cut
and fill. A site development application for a tennis orother
recreation court which proposes grading in excess of the limits in
this article may be approved. by the Planning Commission upon
finding that the excess cut or fill,
(i) Will not result in slopes prone to landslides or
soil creep;
(d) Can be landscaped and/or contours rounded to
render the cut or fill inconspicuous when viewed from off the site;
(iii) Can be properly drained according to methods
approved by the City Engineer.
(b) Screening. Recreation courts shall be landscaped and
screened sous to be unobtrusive from off-site. The structure will
1059 (Los Altos Hills 34-87)
§ 10.2.802 IAS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.805
less landscaping for screening purposes than will structures composed of
non -natural materials and bright colors.
Where slopes are too steep to support continuous ground cover,
niches and ledges may be required for planting. Landscaping may be
required for cuts and fills along public roads.
(§ 15, Ord 299, eff. December 11, 1985)
Sec. 10-2.803. Site development.
Landscaping to tender structures inconspicuous from off-site and in
conformance with the provisions of this chapter shall be requited by the
Site Development Authority as a condition of approval of a site devel-
opment application. _
(§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985)
Sec. 10-2.804.Preferred species lisL
. The Planning Director shall maintain a preferred species list for distri.
bution to applicants. The list shall note any special qualities of particular
plant species, such as size at maturity, drought or faro resistance, soil
requirements, etc:
(§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985)
Sec. 10-2.805: Size and.placgment.
The number and size at maturity of plants used to screen and break up
the outline of structures should be scaled to the size of the structures and
the siting angles from prospective viewing points; the types of building
materials used, and the color scheme of the structure. In evaluating the
adequacy of proposed landscaping, the following guidelines shall be
considered:
(a) The shape, outline, color, and form of all structures shall be
tendered unobtrusive when viewed from any location off-site at the time
landscaping has matured
(b) The type of landscaping used shall be sensitive to the natural
topography. For example, on steep slopes, plants that will maximize erosion
control should be selected.
1058-1 (Los Altos Hills 10.15-97)
ATTACHMENTS
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Policy Re: Outdoor Lighting
Code Sections:
Article 10-2.10 of the Site Development Ordinance outlines criteria for outdoor lighting.
In particular, Section 10-2.1003 indicates that outdoor lighting should use "the minimum
wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area" and that outdoor light sources "shall
be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off-site." The Zoning and Site
Development Ordinances limit lighting within the setbacks to "driveway light fixtures,
limited to one fixture on each side of a driveway, for a maximum of two (2) fixtures per
lot," but additional fixtures may be approved if necessary for safety.
Intent:
The purpose of Code provisions regarding outdoor lighting is to assure that the open and
peaceful character of the Town is maintained, that adequate lighting is provided for the
enjoyment of outdoor use areas, and that lighting does not intrude on the privacy of
neighbors. The intent of this policy is to clarify more specifically the types and numbers
of lighting fixtures that the Town feels are generally consistent with the Code provisions,
but to allow flexibility for additional lighting when it is necessary for safety purposes or
where it is not visible from off the site.
Policy:
1. The number of lights on the exterior of a structure should be limited to providing
for one light per doorway, with the exception of two lights at the main entrance, at
double doors -Dr garage doors, etc., and additional lights only where the Planning
Director or Planning Commission determines they are needed for safety.
2. Pathway and driveway lighting should be restricted to low -height fixtures and
should be spaced the maximum distance apart which will still provide for safe
use. In order to avoid a "runway" appearance, it is recommended that lighting be
placed on only one side of the driveway or walkway, or alternate from one side to
the other. Recessed louvered lights are suggested for walkways and steps.
3. Generally, lighting fixtures should be shielded downlights for which the bulb is
not visible from off site. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry,
garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site.
4. Downlighting from trees is acceptable if provided for safety or for outdoor use
areas, where minimal in number, and where the bulb is not visible from off site.
Outdoor Lighting
5. Uplighting of trees is generally not allowed, unless it is clearly demonstrated that
the number of such lights are minimal and the glow of the uplighting would not be
visible from off site.
6. Spotlights should be limited in number, and directed away from clear view of
neighbors. Shielding of spotlights with shrouds or louvers is suggested.
7. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure
sodium, and metal halide lighting, is prohibited.
8. Lighting in setbacks is limited to two driveway light fixtures only, for the purpose
of locating and identifying the site. No lights are allowed in side or rear yard
setback areas, except where determined to be necessary for safety.
9. The Planning Commission and/or staff may allow lighting different than that
outlined above when the proposed outdoor lighting is determined to be necessary
to safely illuminate the area, or where the size of the property and/or extensive
screening will assure that lighting glow and fixtures are not visible from off site.
Approved by City Council: September 30, 1997
l �� e� w� . 9-�
Environmental Design and 1'rotectimt Couunillce ATTACHMENT 4
Landscape/llardscape Evaluation
Applicant Dade
Mitigation:
Crecks, drainage, casements:
Planting Plan:
Significant issues/comments:
JAN 2 9 2007
TONT! OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2004
Page 2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ATTACHMENT 5
Approved 8/17/04
4.1 LANDS OF ALON, 27673 Lupine Road (247-03-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a
Site Development Permit for a 7,578 square foot new residence (maximum
vertical height 27) (continued from the June 29, 2004 Fast Track Hearing) (staff -
Angelica Herrera Olivera)
Staff introduced the request for a two story residence with a basement and swimming pool which
was continued from the June 29`" Fast Truck hearing. At that meeting, seven separate property
owners voiced concern with the proposed residence. The issues centered on the structure height,
visibility, and architectural style. The applicant's residence does not exceed the maximum
height, floor, and development area standards or minimum setbacks. However, it does not fully
comply with non -numerical standards stipulated in Site Development Ordinance Section 10-
2.702, which grants the Planning Commission discretion to restrict the height of any structure
proposed on highly visible lots. The applicant is proposing to render the proposed structure
unobtrusive by the use of: specific color selection for the roofing and exterior siding materials
that will blend with the natural landscape and through extensive landscape screening. The lot's
high elevation in comparison to surrounding properties and the leach field's location between the
residence and the street may make it impractical to adequately screen the new residence from
neighboring properties with large trees.
Chairman Kerns asked staff for clarification regarding conditions #2 and #3 ("reviewed and
approved" by the adjacent property owners rather than "just reviewed").
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Stan Field, project architect, provided three packets to the Commission, staff and neighbors for
review. He stated that Los Altos Hills is a diverse community and the style of homes that have
grown up tend to express that diversity. This particular neighborhood is typical of this overall
picture representing an eclectic mix that is somehow tied together through an added emphasis
placed on good landscape design together with a rigorous yet valid grading policy of the Town
which ensures any structure is well grounded and follows closely the natural topography of the
land fall. He further discussed the design philosophy of the structure. The site, although large in
gross acreage is constrained by the slope and lot unit factor. A shared driveway and easements
cut into the site at an angle, a large drainage swale which is subject to seasonal flooding, oak
trees, and septic field define the building siting. He felt the building siting was compatible with
the terrain and its slight angle to the contours is compensated by the four foot step in the design.
The house is well set back from paths and the street which preserves privacy yet retains
individuality and interest. The house is also well framed by both the land around and above it
together with the large existing and proposed trees. He noted that they tried unsuccessfully to
follow the Town's policy of shared driveways but eventually decided to create a separate
driveway on the southern end which successfully allows garage doors not to face the street. He
continued by discussing the main architectural features, materials and colors as well as the trellis.
The roof areas will be covered with earth tone colored gravel to prevent any glare and will be
free of any unsightly equipment.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/12/04
July 22, 2004
Page 3
In discussing the neighbors views, he noted the following: 1) Harrison: they have consulted
extensively with them as they are the most affected and through careful discussions, have arrived
at a positive tree screening proposal that works to the benefit of all. 2) Hamilton: view is
minimally affected and they would like to propose offering the Hamiltons the services of their
landscape team to propose the appropriate plantings on their property as this will be the most
affective screening solution, possibly requiring a low bush of approximately 4 feet in height and
8 feet wide. 3) Lee: they are situated on the top of the hill above the Alons. They have inspected
their property extensively and believe that they will not be affected other than the concerns
regarding the glare which will be mitigated through the use of earth tone colored gravel. 4)
Haghighi: their views are partially screened by the massive Eucalyptus and Heritage Oak and
will benefit from the same screening that satisfied the Harrisons.
In conclusion, he stated, based on the sectional drawing, trees along the Lupine street property
line will adequately soften the overall setting. He did agree with staff that the site is a highly
visible lot. Also, he noted that the story poles have been positioned along the extremities of the
stone walls. This was done for simplification but does not accurately reflect the much smaller
outline created by the three dimensional stepping and terracing in both plan and section. A third
of the proposed house is 2'6" above the height of the existing house and two thirds of the
proposed house is lower than the existing house.
Further discussion ensued regarding the septic field in front of the house where they propose to
landscape. Mr. Field stated they have a series of terraces they will propose as part of the
landscaping, however, the landscape plan has not been developed. They are confident that there
will be sufficient area between the leach field and the house. He discussed the siting of the
house and the reasoning for the location (pushed back up the hill as far as possible on site) due to
the constraints of the lot. They do need as much leach field as possible in front of the house as it
is the only available place. Any proposed screening requires that the house sit back as far as
possible. Chairman Kerns felt that if the house was moved forward it would lower the top of the
house and may be easier to screen. Mr. Field referred to the grading policy. The present
structure elevation is at 359. Mr. Field felt the design was consistent with the recommendations
of the Town regarding blending into the site.
Chairman Kerns asked if it was correct that they were considering moving the location of the
pool. Mr. Field responded YES. At the time the landscape screening plan is submitted, the pool
location will be changed.
Rick, project landscape representative, felt it was important to screen the views to the property
from the street. The Harrison's property is up on the hill. They will have a view of the house
from their finished floor or from their porch. The issue for the Harrison's would be to have
pleasant landscaping to look at (not necessarily putting redwoods right up against the building)
and for him, making the house fit the context of the neighborhood. He felt the trick would be to
screen the view from the driveway to the house. He further responded to questions regarding
screening the fagade of the house facing south (small area between the leach field and house).
He felt they could use the same approach used on the adjacent residence (Lands of Patel).
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8112/04
July 22, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Alon, applicant, felt there were two issues: screening/planting from the street which the
Patel residence represents very clearly; and the issue of how additional screening can be made
pleasant for the Harrisons. He provided a computer generated photo of the proposed house with
screening trees.
Commissioner Collins asked why they would block the views of their house with screening. Mr.
Field stated this was to demonstrate how screening can be done. With fine tuning, one would
create openings so it does not block the views.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Mark Harrison, 13490 Page Mill Road stated there have been many changes on Lupine Road
over the last 45 years. He discussed several meetings with the project architect and Mr. Alon
proposing several different options, indicating they are somewhat satisfied with the proposal.
However, he feels that the house is too high. He provided a history of the projects on Lupine
Road, in particular the Draeger and Chen (now Patel) developments. Mr. Harrison provided
photos of the story poles. The Town has made arrangements so that houses fit into the
neighborhood. It is only their desire that whatever is built, it keeps the integrity of the
neighborhood. He would like to see the structure lowered. He understood that the applicants
want to move forward before the grading moratorium but it is his desire to know what is being
built there, what it is going to look like, and how it will effect the rest of the neighborhood before
construction starts. He would like to know what the final product will be.
Farad Haghighi, 27840 Via Feliz, his property looks directly onto the Alon property. He stated
that much of the existing vegetation and trees have been removed from this dominate lot with a
proposed visible structure. The owners should be concerned with the neighbors and
neighborhood. The previous house could not be seen from his site but without the vegetation
and trees they will be looking at a massive house. He suggested lowering the house, making it
smaller with the addition of much vegetation for screening. They had not been contacted by the
new owners regarding the construction prior to a few days ago.
Jitze Couperus, 13680 Page Mill Road, stated he does not see this property from his back yard
but he has been a part of the Lupine Acres Community for a long time and has seen two new
homes go up around him. He suggested lowering the house by nestling it into the hill.
Regarding landscaping, many times it is not kept up regardless of the required deposits.
Ash Patel, 27765 Lupine Road, discussed the history of his house ( previously owned by the
Chens) and the process they had gone through and the changes made to the house design which
included lowering the house 7 feet. When he moved in he was not satisfied with the landscaping
as the house was very exposed. He has since added screening including several large trees. The
height of the Alon house will make landscape screening challenging. Anything that can be done
to drop the house will make a big difference.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/12/04
July 22, 2004
Page 5
Pat Ley, 26850 Ortega Drive, Environmental Design Committee representative at the Fast Track
meeting. At that time she questioned the code which states "the purpose is to create the
maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment to insure that structures
viewed from off-site blend harmoniously with the natural landscape and are unobtrusive". This
house will be visible beyond this range of hills to the next range of hills (will be seen from 15
miles away). She felt this house was impossible to blend in with the landscape. The landscaping
should be all around the house, not just at street level. The offer to landscape other people's
property is not a sufficient way to landscape.
Gary Cross, architect with Anderson Brul6 Architects, representing Su and Jon Lee at 27715
Lupine Road. They could not be at the meeting but wanted him to bring up their concerns
regarding the reflectivity of the materials of the roof, the massing of the proposed structure and
the lack of context to the proposed area (environment and surrounding area). The reflectivity
and glare of the roofing material is a prime concern especially from the patio and deck area.
They are requesting the use of a non reflective material and the ability of reviewing the proposed
gravel material to make sure it meets the requirements and will not blow off to one side during
windy days. The Lee's also would like the mass and height of the building reduced (reduce 5-8
feet) asking for a building that will fit in and be harmonious with the environment and the
surrounding neighborhood.
Tim & Lynn Hamilton, 27677 Lupine Road, stated that they can see the story poles from every
room in their home which faces the hills. Their concern is that the structure is too high. They
will see the structure every time they are on their driveway with their four children. It impacts
the entrance to their property. They had signed a letter that was drafted as a group, explaining
the principle concerns. He has no idea regarding the reflectivity from their prospective. He
asked the Commissioners to not leave it for the neighbors to rely on screening techniques to
solve this problem. They have seen the landscape plans and there is only one tree (heritage oak)
that will be saved. He is not confident that the existing eucalyptus tree will remain let alone
redwood trees be planted. He asked that the building be lowered 10 feet and that he have a clear
understanding of the entire project before it starts.
John Dukes, 27783 Lupine Road, felt the structure should be mitigated from the road. The house
should be lowered 10 feet, the entire landscape plan be reviewed and the location of the pool be
determined. There have been so many trees removed since the property was the purchased. If
the house is lowered 10 feet, the house would be acceptable.
Brigita Silins, 27693 Lupine Road, agreed with previous speakers regarding height and mass.
She asked what would happen if the trees on the back and side of the house are removed. Also,
she does not know where the pool will be located.
Mr. Alon addressed issues regarding size, showing the plans to neighbors, the changes and
modifications to plans, and the possibility of a shared driveway. He provided a photo of the
house in 1982 when the house was built indicating no vegetation. Regarding lowering the house,
it was investigated by his engineers however, pushing the house down will create a bigger
problem for the Lee's with more exposure of the roof. He discussed the existing oak trees on the
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8112/04
July 22, 2004
Page 6
property noting they love landscape and dislike what is on the site currently. They are 100%
committed to deal with the issue of reflectivity and stated they were interested in building a nice
house that would fit the area with the proper landscape design.
Chairman Kerns questioned the applicant regarding the removal of vegetation (small trees and
shrubs) from the site, the photo taken from the deck area from the Hamilton property and the
condition of approval regarding the use of non -reflective glass (#3). Mr. Alon understood the
condition and had no problem with it. Regarding lowering the structure he stated there would
not be an issue as long as it was reasonable and in the same physical location. He preferred
lowering the pad rather than shifting the location of the house. Also there was not an issue with
condition #2, reviewing the non -reflective material with neighbors. He indicated lowering the
structure 10 feet would be impossible.
Tim Toby, civil engineer, Lee & Sung Engineers, stated lowering the house by 10 feet would be
an impossibility because you are digging so far down into the ground, you are basically cutting
the hillside away. Right now there is a series of two 4 -foot retaining walls right behind each
other right at the rear of the house. The more you lower it, the more you have to cut into the hill.
The Planning Director indicated that part of the problem is caused by the driveway at the rear of
the house.
Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the house, the leach field, and the drainage swale
going through the property. It was agreed that it would be impossible to connect to sewer.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Cottrell stated he had received numerous e-mails, letters and phone calls voicing
opposition to this project although there are two letters voicing support from residents who do
not live in the neighborhood. The Commission tries to strike a balance between the rights of the
owners and neighbors. As a Commission, they are not allowed to comment regarding
architecture features. The building is massive and too high. Under code 10-2.702, he feels that
the house should be lowered 5 feet. Also, they should require as large of a landscape deposit as
possible, held for two years. The landscaping should be conditioned to go around the perimeter
of the property and up to the west side as well as the other side. Regarding reflectivity, he felt
this would be easy to achieve with earth tone colored gravel. The pool location has to be
determined as well as the building lowered into the ground. With those conditions, he would
support the project.
Commissioner Mordo felt that the structure has not adapted to the visibility of the site. The
design is maxed on all levels (development, floor, height, flat roof); placing it on a highly visible
site imposes hardship on the neighbors. He feels strongly about the property rights of the owner
but also believed in the property rights of the neighbors. He cannot see building a house of this
size and mass on this site. We should not give into the 5 feet just because the engineers say they
cannot lower the structure more than 5 feet. Perhaps design the house a little differently. The
Commission has the authority according to the ordinance to limit the height to a one story or
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/12/04
July 22, 2004
Page 7
reduce the height from 27 feet. He suggested limiting the size of the second floor on the east
side of the property and limiting the sticture to one story on the west side. He would be in
favor of lowering the structure but more than 5 feet. He agreed with the comment regarding the
landscape deposit as there should be a stronger incentive to complete the landscaping. They
should not count on landscaping alone but also do structural things like lowering the height and
lowering the base of the house. Also, the pool location should be known before approving this
application.
Commissioner Clow agreed with the previous Commissioners' comments. This is a massive
house on a highly visible lot. It has never been the intention of the Town to maximize floor area,
development area and height. If the engineer is correct and the house cannot be lowered, it may
be necessary to redesign. He suggested following the ordinances, making the house less
obtrusive, 10 feet lower, providing trees and landscaping. He would recommend continuing this
project, having the applicant work with staff to meet requirements and meet the spirit of what the
neighbors are asking for. The landscape deposit should be large.
Commissioner Collins felt it was important that a neighborhood have similar characteristics. In
this case, although they cannot comment on the design, she would like to see something that is
more consistent with the neighborhood suggesting either lowering the house by 10 feet or
making it a single story. On the other issues, she agreed with the other Commissioners.
Chairman Kerns felt this was a difficult application, trying to reach a balance between the
applicant and the neighborhood. As mentioned, they are not here to review style. This house
meets the ordinances with one exception of the siting and minimizing the profile. He agreed
with Commissioner Cottrell that he personally does not have an issue with the architectural
design but felt it would be good to lower the structure by 5 feet which is reasonable. A 9 to 10
foot reduction would impact the site too much. In reviewing the site, he noted that many of the
homes in the area do not have landscaping and are visible from the Alons and other homes in the
area. He would prefer to have the neighbors work through some agreements ahead of time and
try to resolve the issues rather than coming before the Planning Commission. He would prefer
not sending the application back for a redesign but to keep the design as is and simply lowering it
by 5 feet, leaving the house where it is. He agreed with a increased landscape deposit and
landscape should address the entire house.
Discussion ensued regarding lowering the house 5 or 10 feet versus a redesign, working with
staff, the required landscape screening plan with a larger deposit imposed and a better way to
enforce completed landscaping.
MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Mordo and
seconded by Commissioner Clow to continue the request for a Site Development Permit for a
7,578 square foot new residence (maximum vertical height 27) directing the staff to work with
the applicant to come up with a revised design through a combination of lowering the base of the
house (an average of 10 feet preferred) and perhaps reducing the size of the second floor and use
of berms to mitigate the fagade and reduce the aspects of the house, returning to the Commission
for review as well as the landscape screening plan, Lands of Alon, 27673 Lupine Road.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/12/04
July 22, 2004
Page 8
AYES: Comndssioners Cottrell, Clow, Collins & Mordo
NOES: Chairman Kerns
Brief break at 9:13 p.m.
4.2 LANDS OF JESSEN, 10435 Berkshire Drive (46-03-ZP-SD-CDP, VAR); A
request for a Site Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,144
square foot addition and a variance for two required parking spaces (one covered
and one uncovered) to encroach 13 feet into the 40 -foot front yard setback. (staff -
Angelica Herrera Olivera)
Staff introduced this item by reviewing the staff report and variance and Conditional
Development findings. The findings describe in detail the alternative locations that were
explored, which would have required excessive grading and major remodeling of the existing
residence. The proposed location will be less obtrusive to surrounding properties when viewed
from the street. The intent of the ordinance will still be served as the privacy of neighbors and
the natural beauty of the neighborhood will be maintained with the proposed location in the front
setback.
Commissioner Mordo questioned whether the Town was requiring more parking spaces on the
property and because of our requirement for four parking spaces on the property, the applicant
needs a variance for the required parking. He was concerned with the needed grading. Staff
responded that the applicant is proposing to enclose an existing carport and therefore triggering a
variance procedure for the improved parking space in additional to their fourth parking space
within the setback. The Planning Director discussed the Town grading policy in regard to
working with an existing house on a sub -standard lot. The strongest finding for the proposed
grading is that the lot is sub -standard in terms of its size and lot unit factor.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Noel Cross, project architect, was appreciative of the staff report stating this lot was recently
annexed into the Town, smaller than the average acre, and very steep. The applicant is only
trying to improve the existing house. He referred to his two letters provided in the staff report.
Currently they are below the maximum floor area allowed and 9 feet lower than the allowed
height.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Collins agreed with the staff report as what is being requested is in the back, not
visible to any neighbors and does not seem to be a burden on anyone else. Commissioners Clow,
Mordo and Cottrell voiced support of the project. Chairman Kerns also supported the
application.
ATTACHMENT G
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
13eae eea Tom, Z7,2LVS
Page 2
Mr. Alexander has thereby requested the Planning Commission rescind condition #2 and to
change condition #6 to allow the number of horses to be kept or maintained at this facility not to
exceed 54.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Dan Alexander, Elena Road, President, Westwind Community Bam, had nothing fiuther to add
to the report.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Brief discussion ensued.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by
Commissioner Collins to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the Conditional Use
Permit be approved with the revised Conditions of Approval, as presented in the staff report,
Lands of Los Altos Hills (Westwind Barn, 27210 Altamont Road.
AYES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Carey, Collins & Cottrell
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Clow (stepped down)
This item will appear on a City Council agenda.
3.2 LANDS OF ALON, 27673 Lupine Road (247-03-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a
Site Development Permit for a 7,348 square foot new residence (maximum
vertical height 27 feet) (continued from July 22, 2004) (staff -Leslie Hopper).
Commissioner Cottrell stepped down from the hearing due to the proximity of his residence to
the project site.
Staff reviewed the staff report indicating this is a complex project that was first reviewed by the
Planning Commission on July 22, 2004. At that time a number of neighbors voiced concerns.
The applicant has provided a model of the project for review although it depicts the original
design which has been changed due to direction given at the last meeting. At the July 22
meeting, the Planning Commission made several recommendations noting that the house did not
blend in with the natural surroundings. They requested that the house be lowered as much as 10
feet, if possible, and also suggested that the second story be reduced in size and that landscaping
be added to reduce the visual impact of the house. The applicants, in revising the plans,
responded by lowering the house by 3 feet in the middle portion and 5 feet on the west side and 5
feet at the garage. They also adjusted the second story by pushing back the master bedroom (7 '%
feet) which reduces the visual impact somewhat but the actual size remains the same. The
ground level first story was actually increased by 188 square feet. Other changes to the plans
that were not in response to the Planning Commission recommendations included the configured
circular driveway which involves grading that does not comply with Town regulations. Staff
provided a display of the area to demonstrate the driveway and retaining walls indicating a 14
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
4- :5.- 27 Zoo 5
Page 3
foot cut required to create this driveway. If the cut is measured from natural grade, the cut is
even deeper, approximately 19 feet. This cut does not comply with the Town regulations which
limit grading cuts to 4 feet. The circular driveway, which is not needed for access to the garage
and parking area, will require up to 14 feet of cut and construction of retaining walls up to 14
feet in height, far exceeding the Town's maximum of 4 feet of cut and maximum wall height of 4
feet. Also, the driveway and retaining walls are located in the setback, and the driveway pushes
the project over the MDA because it counts 100% as development area regardless of the
proposed surface. The proposed driveway is not necessary as they have an existing driveway to
the residence. There is also an issue with the pool which is to be located in the front yard
requiring up to 13 '% feet of 511 compared to the limit of 3 feet. Consequently, staff fords it hard
to support this application. The proposed revisions indicate the house was only lowered 5 feet, at
the most, rather than the requested 10 feet and the revised plans also raise additional issues that
were not a part of the original plans. Now there me grading issues and a setback encroachment
and, due to the circular driveway, they have exceeded the MDA.
Another issue was the architectural style (contemporary) which has attracted much criticism.
Under the code, the Planning Commission is not authorized to consider architectural style when
making a decision on projects. Because there me so many problems with the revised plans, staff
is recommending denial because the residence is sited on a highly visible lot; it cannot be
rendered unobtrusive under Sec. 10-2.702(b); the project does not comply with the Town's
grading policy; and it is not consistent with setback requirements and/or maximum development
area. As an alternative, the Planning Commission can offer the applicant the opportunity to
request a continuance for redesign of the new residence and pool consistent with Sec. 10-
2.702(b) of the Municipal Code ("Permit Streamlining Act").
Discussion ensued regarding review of the revised plans, notifying the applicants regarding the
problems with the grading, pool and circular driveway indicating that they would not be
approved as submitted. Staff also recommended further reduction in height on the house. There
were no further revisions.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Alon, applicant, was familiar with the house site, and reviewed the MDAIMFA prior to
purchasing the property to make sure the numbers would provide for his family needs. They
have spent almost one year on the design of the house without requesting any exceptions. The
house met all the guidelines and requirements for a Fast Track hearing. However, three
objections were raised by the neighbors; height of the proposed building; reflectivity of the roof
and materials; and the bulk of the building. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission examined the information provided, noting that to reduce the base of the house
would require grading exceptions. The motion was as follows: directing the staff to work with
the applicant to come up with a revised design through a combination of lowering the base of the
house (an average of 10 feet preferred) and perhaps reducing the size of the second floor and the
use of berms to mitigate the fagade and reduce the aspects of the house, returning to the
Commission for review with a landscape screening plan. He touched on two issues: (1)
lowering the house more than 5 feet would effect the design of the septic system; and (2)
inability to relocate the driveway leading to their neighbors, forcing him to build another one.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
ZTZ-27 ZOOS
Page 4
with the restrictions facing them, he felt they followed the spirit of the motion to the fullest
extent. They lowered the west side of the house by five feet; lowered the east side of the house
by three feet; lowered the extreme left side of the house by five feet; and reduced the profile by
two feet. They revised the design to accommodate the two foot difference in height between the
two sides. They pushed the second floor 7.6 feet back creating a nesting effect, required and
recommended by the City ordinance effectively creating an almost 9 foot appearance of
reduction of the house. There has been a major revisions in every section of the house including
the garage. The extensive landscape design will provide screening higher than any other
neighbor around. The design took into account many measures addressing the reflectivity by the
use of shading and color selection. The existing design included an eight foot and four foot cut
on the west side and a 10 foot and four foot cut on the east side, totally about 14 feet. The new
design will increase it about 5 feet which is exactly what they were requested to do (push it down
by as much as l0e feet). The civil engineer has assured them of the safety and integrity of the
design. The house does not violate setback issues and is not the biggest house on the street. The
framework on the existing house resides on the same exact location of the current house with the
exception of the additional grading. They believe that they met most of the requirements. They
felt they have kept the neighbors informed at each step. They have the approval from the Fire
Department as well as the Health Department for the septic system and leach field and all other
requirements. The previous proposal blends with the existing house on the property. The new
proposal further reduces the visibility. The house is lower than the current house on the property
and overlaying the existing house. He noted a recent meeting with staff regarding the changes.
They have met every request, even conflicting at times. They have answered the issues and
objections raised. The solution generated the need for a small number of exceptions which they
we asking the Planning Commission to approve. They are assuring the City that they are willing
to be flexible, consider possible modifications to the pool as well as the shape of the driveway.
If the Planning Commission would approve the plan and would like to see the house lowered less
than five feet to minimize the effects of the grading, they would be willing to accept that also and
move forward with their lives. He stated that there was not one single place in the house that
was not lowered.
Commissioner Collins questioned lowering here and there and pushing back really adds up to the
spirit of the motion.
Staff indicated they had a discussion earlier today with the applicant and told him that staff did
not look at the reduction in height the same way he did. The actual structure has been lowered
up to five feet; some sections 3 feet, other sections 5 feet. Pushing the master bedroom back 8
feet may have reduced the visual impact but did not reduce the height.
Further discussion ensued regarding the circular driveway, grading and encroachment. The
applicant was trying to get cars to the front of the house (easy entrance for elderly parents).
Commissioner Kerns asked if they could discuss the circular driveway as there are concerns
regarding the retaining walls in that area as it is partially into the setback.
Mr. Alon stated that they are trying to get to the front door of the house to make an easy entrance
from his elderly parents. Originally they developed a circular design then went to a hammerhead
design then back to the circular design. They have indicated to the City that they would be
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
4Beeemb ,3984 -T , 27 'Loo 5
Page 5
willing to go back to the hammerhead design however, they do need a flat entrance to the house.
They will do their best to keep within the guidelines.
Mrs. Alon indicated a discussion with the Planning Director yesterday at the site discussing
several issues. She provided a handout for the Planning Commissioners noting presently, that
there is a 55 foot driving area in front of the house where they can drive up to the door. They
want to keep the original design which allows them to drive to the front of the house. The other
driveway is the access to the basement/garage which is not the main entry to the house. With the
hammerhead design, they should be in compliance with grading.
Commissioner Carey had met the applicants and some neighbors at the site as well as reviewing
the tapes from the previous Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commissioners
recommendation was to lower the second story asking what options were investigated.
Mr. Alon indicated that the second story is 9 feet in height and the fust story is 10 'h feet in
height. They looked at pushing the house down which was not a good option from the
neighbors standpoint. The existing driveway cannot be used (neighbor's driveway) so the
proposed driveway is within a few feet. Commissioner Carey was concerned with the placement
of any driveway as it relates to the location of a few oak trees. Mr. Alon assured everyone that
they will not be removing any of the trees in the location of the driveway.
Sandy Ayers, landscape architect, provided a display of the landscape screening design for the
site. Their desire is for 100% screening of the site, proposing screening in excess of other
properties in the area. They will use large specimen trees. He indicated that the neighbors have
reviewed the plans. They will use 16" box trees for immediate impact. The Eucalyptus trees
will remain. Screening on the back side is not shown as it would have to be determined on the
site after the house is framed. He further discussed the circular driveway and grading to flatten
out the area. It was noted that if the pool and yard area could be smaller, the house could go
down the hill slightly to avoid encroaching into the septic area.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Alon noted there is not an opportunity to connect to sewer due to the
expense. Commissioner Clow asked how they reduced the house when it is still 27 feet which
was addressed by the project planner (shifted and lowered). Stan Field, project architect,
addressed the question regarding the reduction of the house (dropped into the ground). Mrs.
Alon also addressed the grading plan, trying to please the neighbors and the City. Commissioner
Kerns stated if the pool could be lowered 5 to 6 feet, it would be more in compliance with the
grading policy. Mrs. Alon expressed their flexibility. Commissioner Carey stated that at the
previous Commission meeting there was a Environmental Design Committee member who
stated this house would be visible from areas 50 miles away. Commissioner Collins
complimented the landscape architect on his efforts to landscape the site.
Mrs. Alon stated that it was never their intention to ask for any exception or grading; they did it
to accommodate the neighbors. They are tied between pleasing the City (not grading), pleasing
the neighbors (grading), not grading more because of the septic. The real issue is the neighbors'
reaction, not their compliance.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
4)eeember9-,-2804 Sn.1 2 -712 o
Page 6
Commissioner Kerns stated that the applicants are willing to change the circular driveway in the
back to a hammerhead to improve the area (no setback issue). There is an issue with the pool in
the front area due to the amount of fill. He asked if they would be willing to lower the pool area
by 5 to 6 feet to make it more in conformance with the grading policy.
Commissioner Clow, in defense of the applicant, noted at the previous meeting he suggested
filling the area, making it high so that you could put hedges on top of that to provide screening of
the house from the road and the fill area acts like a bent to provide natural screening of the
house. He pleaded guilty for even making the suggestion.
Mrs. Alon stated again that they are very flexible. They have been trying to follow direction. If
you tell them to lower to pool to get approval, they will lower the pool. If they suggest applying
for the pool at a later date, they will. The point of the pool from a landscape point of view, is
that it provided a terrace which provides more screening with the vegetation. IPs very hard to
please everyone. She provided photos of the houses in the area noting explaining their views. It
was suggested letting the neighbors express their own views.
Bernard Falcon, Mir Mirou Drive, reviewed the design and the efforts made by the applicants to
please everyone. He appreciates comments from the neighbors. He felt the house will blend in
well, will not detract from the street, will enhance the value of the street and the homes of the
neighbors. He supported with the project with the changes proposed which he felt was a nice
compromise for everyone.
Pat Ley, Ortega Drive, Environmental Design Committee, had originally stated that this house
will be seen from 50 miles away. The road is a cul-de-sac and the Alon house will be very
visible from Page Mill Road.
Tim Hamilton, 27677 Lupine Road, referred to an e-mail dated May 11, 2004 sent to the Alons.
It indicated he had met with their architect. They discussed the portion of the plans that involved
using a portion of his driveway. But before proceeding with any agreement they needed more
information and binding commits on these items: (1) Gate. They would like to insure that the
gate they put in is in keeping with the feel of the driveway. Ther concent was with the
construction of a large ornamental gate. Chambers next door and the gate is simply (4 feet high),
they are fine. (2) Location of the entrance with respect to the oak trees. Save the oak trees by
making the entrance 10 feet north of the existing tree. This is not what the current plan
suggests.(3) Legal fees. We will not pay legal fees associated with crafting an agreement that
grants you rights and easements to his land. He was sure there were more than a few details to
work out that may have impact on deed, title and value of his property. They will need to
consult with an attorney to review any agreement. They were okay conceptually with allowing
Alons access from his driveway but in granting such access he wants a say in the design of the
entrance, they want to do it right and they do not want to pay for it.
Mr. Hamilton stated this was the last correspondence he had with Mr. Alon stating he was not
going to trade rights for promises. There is a lack to commit contractually by Mr. Alon. His
preference would be one driveway. He wants an evergreen commitment. He never said NO. He
appreciates the reduction in height from his perspective but one thing that has not changed is the
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
-9ecembcr9, J� Z712- 00-g
Page 7
size of the house. It is massive. If the house was dropped an additional 5 feet, he would be
concerned for the neighbors with the amount of earth that will be going up and down that road
for two years.
Stephanie Munoz, Robleda Road, cannot see the house. Her concern was everyone wanting to
build a bigger and bigger house. How can you build a large house without it being conspicuous.
She felt the Alon house was nice but somewhere else.
Mark Harrison, Page Mill Road, representing his father, Melvin Harrison 27744 Lupine Road.
He thanked everyone who had been to the site. He stated he has been a resident of Los Altos
Hills for 45 years. He appreciated the efforts made by the Alons. However, with the new
suggestions made for screening, he will have to wait until he is 71 before the house will be
screened. He provided photos taken from his father's front deck of the site. They have an issue
with the size and bulk of the proposal which is difficult to screen. For their information, Sharon
Atkins sold the property to the Alons. She had her house for sale for 1 '6 years. She told him
that she had a possible buyer but the MDA was not up to the standard needed by the new buyer.
She brought in several truck loads of dirt and filled in the drainage area. He felt this improved
the MDA. He suggested having someone recalculate the MDA. When asked how he felt with
having the house move down the hill, Mr. Harrison was not sure. He would need to see story
poles. Every time he looks out of his house, he sees this house. He felt planting large trees
adjacent to the house, not down close to the street, was important. He was willing and had the
time to explore other possibilities with the applicants. He did not feel the 5 foot drop made a
difference from his view.
Commissioner Kerns asked if he was willing to plant trees on his property.
Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, felt the best way to review landscaping is
after framing. When proposing a landscape screening plan, they do not expect the house to
disappear but mitigate it so it blends into the natural terrain. The leach field does not show any
plantings at all. It is important to have erosion control on the property. If grass is planted, she
suggested bunch grass which does not require much water. Smaller vegetation is better or
ground cover would be good.
Farhad Haghighi, 27840 Via Feliz, provided photos of the area 2 '/2 years ago noting tree
removal from the property. This house is massive. He felt the applicants should be willing to
work with the smaller home owners. He felt there was no way landscaping will help him. The
height should be reduced 10 feet. Just trees alone are not enforceable even with a bond. The
house should be smaller, lowered with screening.
Jonathan Lee, 27751 Lupine Road, has had extensive discussions with the applicants. He has a
verbal agreement with the applicants to screen the house as best m they can. He will plant on his
side of the property also. He will be looking down on a flat "office building" roof The
applicants suggested putting gravel on the roof to soften the look. He discussed lowering the
house by 10 feet by digging deep. However, on his hill there will be the equivalent of a 19 foot
retaining wall. He was concerned regarding the integrity of the hill as he already has movement.
There are rules and regulations for the good of all, requesting the Alons to honor them (grading,
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
;�eea Saw Z7/ aooS
Page 8
height of retaining walls, setback, etc.). He does not want a massive retaining wall that he will
have to deal with.
Jean Mordo, Councilmember, former Commissioner, voiced concern regarding how the hearing
was progressing. He hears the desire to make a compromise but in his opinion the role of the
Planning Commission is not to make a compromise but to apply the laws and regulations. It is
nice to work together but what if they all agree to something that is against the regulations.
What would you do? He felt the staff report was great stating they should apply the rules. He
felt bad for the applicants and felt the process has been terrible to them as we have not stood by
our rules. We have given them the impression, perhaps early on and still giving them the
impression tonight, that if you go around and talk to the neighbors you will be able to work your
way and find a compromise. This is why they have insisted on continuing to build this house on
that lot. He felt it was a beautiful house but this is not the right place. We have specific riles
protecting the hillside, ridgelines and highly visible lots. Because we have not been clear with
them, they have been insistent and lost 1 'h. years and probably a lot of money trying to force this
project on the wrong lot. Tonight we are continuing the same process and not doing them a
favor.
John Dukes, 27783 Lupine Road, addressed this massive house. He felt it was wrong to try to fit
the original design onto the site. A significant re -design is needed
Jitze Coupems, Page Mill Road, analyzed the project regarding the size, siting, etc. but what has
not been said is that maybe the house does not fit even though it fits within the guidelines of so
many square feet. There are circumstances wherefore a given lot with a given designed house
just cannot be made to fit without severe compromises one way or problems the other way.
Mrs. Alon discussed the retaining walls noting they do not want to risk the slope. They are using
professional and expert civil engineers to make sure they accomplish safety.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Clow felt Jean Mordo made good point. Sometimes you cannot build to the
maximum development area. This is a highly visible site. The neighbors are very concerned.
The efforts regarding landscaping have been heroic but it looks like another 15-20 years before
you would have a mitigation that would really work The applicants have tried very hard but this
is not a situation where he sees it meeting the ordinances. Staff has recommended denial which
is extremely unusual. He also recommended denial of this application.
Commissioner Carey felt if they could figure out how to drop the house by 10 feet and reduce the
second story as recommended by the Commission last July, they would have a much easier time
with an agreement. The house does not quite fit the lot. He was sympathetic to the fact that the
Alons, when buying the property, understood there would be a certain amount of floor and
development area available to build on this lot. Being a highly visible lot, there are restrictions
on what they can build. In order tomake this work in everyone's best interest, a significant re-
design is necessary that will probably reduce the size of the house, at least the second story and
will in some way continue to keep the house at a lower level then what the original plan
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
AesesibeF9,-2004 Sam Z 7 ZOO cl
Page 9
indicated. He felt there were ways to lower it more than indicated. Whether 10 feet is
achievable was not known but he believed that more than 5 feet is achievable.
Commissioner Collins agreed that the applicants have made a terrific effort to compromise with
the neighbors. However, all the adjustments and modifications they have made does not reduce
the obtrusiveness of the house. It is a beautiful house but remains obtrusive. She would agree
with the staff recommendation for denial. As mentioned in July, she thought it was a beautiful
house but it should be a single story house with a basement which should fit the lot beautifully.
Chairman Kerns stated that this was a difficult project. As stated at the last hearing, reducing the
house by 10 feet into the dirt is difficult. He was personally okay with the house as designed.
He did not feel the house itself was the issue as it can be mitigated with landscaping. However,
he was concerned with the circular drive in the back although the applicants expressed
willingness to modify it to meet Town codes. He was also concerned with the pool area in the
front regarding fill. He would recommend approval of the house as it is with the changes to the
circular drive and the pool area. They do need to give the applicants direction in terms of a re-
design.
Commissioner Collins stated if they were to give them specifies on re -designing, she would not
want to send them out again with the neighborhood and ask them to work together on the design.
A specific direction would be to request a single story house.
Commissioner Carey did not feel it was appropriate to restrict the residence to a one story (two
story with some reduction of the second story).
Discussion ensued. Commissioner Clow felt with a creative design and a smaller footprint they
could come up with something that might fit the neighborhood. At the last meeting, they
discussed reducing the height of the house. If the house is one story rather than two story it
would be a lot fewer square feet.
The Planner Director noted that code indicates that single story structure may be required on
highly visible hillside lots. They can focus on a few areas; height, size of the home and go
downward.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by
Commissioner Carey to deny the request for a Site Development Permit for a 7,348 square foot
new residence and pool, Lands of Alon, 27673 Lupine Road, subject to the findings, Attachment
1 of the staff report.
AYES: Commissioners Collins, Carey & Clow
NOES: Chairman Kerns
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cottrell (stepped down)
The decision is subject to a 23 day appeal period
Brief break at 9:20 p.m.
ATTACHMENT �
11.3 Appeal of Denial of Site Development Permit for a New Two -Story
Residence with Basement; Lands of Alon; 27673 Lupine Road; File #247-03-
ZP-SD-GD
Councilmember Mordo stepped down from consideration of this item. He recused
himself at the advice of the City Attorney and explained that he had participated in
discussion of the project at the Planning Commission hearing.
Planning Director Carl Cahill introduced this item to Council. He provided Council with
a brief historical summary of the project. Cahill explained that initially the project was
scheduled for a fast track hearing based on the criteria set forth in the Municipal Code.
Subsequent to the hearing, staff received comments from neighbors that they were
opposed to the project based on the height, size and visibility of the proposed new
residence. The neighborhood objections were deemed substantive and the project was
forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission reviewed
the project twice. At the July 22, 2004 hearing, the Commission determined that the lot
constituted a highly visible lot and directed the applicant to lower the profile of the house
by ten (10) feet. On January 27, 2005 the Planning Commission reviewed the revised
plans for the project that included a reconfigured driveway and swimming pool. Cahill
noted that the applicant lowered the profile of the house by three (3) to five (5) feet. The
Planning Commission deemed that the revised plan did not comply with their direction to
lower the profile of the house by ten (10) feet and that the newly proposed driveway and
pool were not consistent with code requirements.
Leslie Hopper, Project Planner, introduced Senior Planner Debbie Pedro to Council and
thanked Pedro for her assistance in developing the presentation and noted that Pedro
would be assisting her with the PowerPoint presentation that would accompany her
report.
The PowerPoint presentation included: an aerial of the project site in context with the
Lupine Road neighborhood with property boundaries, property owners and residence
locations identified; a three dimensional color rendering of the proposed house that
reflected the building materials chosen for the residence; the original July 2004 plans on
a site plan; the revised January 2005 plans on a site plan; a January 2005 revised plan
with the lowered areas of the house highlighted to reflect which were lowered by three
(3) feet and five (5) feet; a comparison of the elevations of the overall height of the
residence original plans -July 2004 and revised plans -January 2005 (Hopper noted that
the reduction in profile was achieved by additional grading); the proposed landscape
screening plan as viewed from the Harrison property; a slide of the recommended
conditions of approval for Option 1 (Exhibit A) based on the revised plans of January
2005 and Option 2 (Exhibit B) consistent with Planning Commission directives of July
2004; and a photo simulation of the view from the Harrison property.
Planning Director Carl Cahill explained that the architectural features of the proposed
home that included the buttresses (columns) and the bay windows had been calculated
into the development area for the home. He noted that similar features have not been
included in floor area calculations before because they generally comprise very little
space, but an exception was made with the Alon proposal due to their contribution to the
bulk of the house.
11
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2005
Cahill reviewed the staff recommendation for a green, living roof with Council. The
original plan called for a gravel roof that neighbors had suggested appeared too
commercial. Staff had proposed a green roof but the applicant had offered that it was too
expensive, difficult to maintain and would require additional structural work and had
proposed integrated solar panels with synthetic turf background.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Zvi Alon, applicant, thanked Council and Town staff for the time and effort they had
invested in his project. He provided Council with an historical overview of his quest to
obtain his site development permit, explaining that it had been an eighteen -month effort
that was both difficult and frustrating. Alon offered that when he purchased the property,
he had considered remodeling but decided to build a new home and explained that his
proposed new residence was only two feet higher in one area than the existing two story
home. He added that two story homes exist in the area and he did not consider his lot
highly visible since it was not located on a hillside or ridge lot.
Alon distributed a packet to Council titled "Supplement Information for the Alon Home".
He reviewed the material with Council that included: 1) a list of Fast Track approvals
with homes similar to the Alons in floor area and height highlighted; 2) photographs of
houses approved in Fast Track including the surrounding views; 3) photographs of homes
on Lupine Road and within the Lupine neighborhood; 4) a color rendering of the
proposed Alon house before landscape screening; 5) picture of the existing house on the
lot with story poles for the proposed residence; and 6) a landscape screening plan for the
residence that included a sketch with the view from the Harrison residence. Alon stated
that he was of the opinion that many homes in Los Altos Hills were visible due to the
topography of the Town and asked that he be treated fairly and equitably not differently
because neighbors have complained. If this became the determination for "highly
visible", then every lot that is visible to three or four neighbors should be considered
"highly visible".
Alon offered that he had expended many months of effort on his project. He added that
the original design had met all of the Town's ordinances and did not include any variance
requests. He had not been advised that the lot was considered highly visible until the
neighbors objected to his project at the Fast Track hearing with respect to the residence's
height, visibility and size. Based on their objections, the project was forwarded to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing. Alon noted that it was his belief that the
neighbors objected to the architectural style of the home more than the size and he hoped
that his landscape screening plan would satisfy their concerns. He added that it was
important for Council to understand that his proposed design did not block or inhibit any
of his neighbors' views.
Alon summarized for Council his two appearances before the Planning Commission. He
believed that the revised design before Council for their consideration (Option A) had
met the spirit of the Planning Commission's direction. The new design had the visual
affect of lowering the profile of the house and his comprehensive landscape design would
substantially screen the home from the neighbors. His closest neighbors to the east and
west were supportive of the revised plan. The Planning Commission still denied his
request for a Site Development Permit and offered the Alon's no clear direction on what
12
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17,2005
would be required to obtain approval. Alon acknowledged that at this point he appealed
the Planning Commission's decision to the Council.
Alon requested that Council consider approving the original design that was submitted to
Fast Track but explained that he would accept approval of Option 1 (Exhibit A), the
modified design with the hammerhead driveway design, to ensure that the concerns of his
neighbors were addressed. Alon submitted that he would be willing to include a roof that
was comprised of synthetic material (grass) and solar panels. He distributed synthetic
turf literature to Council and displayed a solar panel.
Alon reviewed Option 2 (Exhibit B) with Council and offered that it would be an undue
hardship and added that he had already made substantial modifications to his project plan
to address the neighbors concerns noting that his roof was only visible to one neighbor.
Alon discussed the inclusion of the architectural features in the floor area calculations.
He noted that similar features on other homes had not been counted. Alon explained that
the bay windows did not have any foundation walls beneath them and could never be
converted to floor area (distributed a schematic of a window). The columns, in addition
to being an architectural function, would shade the house and reduce the heat and glare.
Alon added that they could serve to house the air conditioning units but he would be
willing to remove the units and accept a condition of approval that they would never be
accessible.
He thanked Council for the opportunity to present his project and offered that his
landscape architect and the project architect were present and available to answer
questions.
8:30 p.m. City Council Meeting Recessed
8:40 p.m. City Council Meeting Reconvened
Mark Harrison, Page Mill Road, thanked everyone that had visited his site. He explained
that he resides directly across the street from the Alon property and believed that the
proposed structure would be overbearing. Harrison had lived in his home for forty-five
(45) years and treasured the rural aspect of the neighborhood. He supported Option 2
(Exhibit B) that would require additional lowering of the height of the house.
Resident, Natoma Road, stated that he supported the Alon project. He expressed his
belief that when he purchased his home, he bought the lot not the view adding that views
change, trees grow and new homes are built. He urged the City Council to "look at the
large picture" and support the initial submittal.
George Haber, 13164 La Cresta, stated that he had experienced similar frustrations when
he built his home in Los Altos Hills. He suggested that the Los Altos Hills site
development process created animosity between neighbors and encouraged the Council
to listen to the neighbors but ultimately to follow the law.
Michele Harrison, Page Mill Road, stated that they are very inclusive neighbors and not
unreasonable but that they are very concerned that the building is "in their face." She
supported Option 2 (Exhibit B). Harrison requested the Council adhere to the codes.
13
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2005
Mr. Haghighi, Via Felice, thanked the Council for visiting the site. He expressed his
belief that the home was very obtrusive and massive and felt that Option 1 (Exhibit A)
had not been changed significantly from the original submittal. Haghighi was of the
opinion that the landscape screening would not mitigate the project and noted that it was
being built at the maximum MDA/MFA allowable for the highly visible site. He offered
that the proposal would affect his privacy and property values.
Signm Corrigan, Robleda Road, requested clarification on the current height requirement
for homes. Planning Director Cahill explained that the height limit was twenty seven
(27) feet unless it was a large lot and then the setbacks could be increased and the height
limit would be thirty two (32) feet. She questioned if the variable decision process was
appropriate in light of the Alon's project meeting all of the codes and development
guidelines.
Resident, Via Ventam, questioned why the Alon's neighbors were opposing the project.
He supported the project.
Sandy Ayers, Project Landscape Architect, addressed Council. He reviewed the
screening plan with them and noted that the design included mature and fast growing
evergreen species. Ayers added that he had successfully sourced several very large trees
(84 inch boxes) that would be planted to soften the profile of the house.
Jonathan Lee, Lupine Road, commented that he had engaged in many meetings with the
Alons and their architect. He explained that he had a view lot and values his view
greatly. He opposed the Alon project because he would be looking at a massive house
with a commercial looking roof top. He did not oppose them building a new home but
prefered the existing ranch house and open space landscape. Lee supported Option 2
(Exhibit B) that would allow him the maximum screening.
Ms. Dayan, Via Ventana, suggested that bigger homes than the Alon's proposal were
being constructed throughout Los Altos Hills. She supported the Alon proposal Option 1
(Exhibit A) and believed it was unreasonable to ask them to reduce the height any
further.
Brigita Silins, Lupine Road, stated that she had seen many changes to her neighborhood.
She compared the Alon design to the Fenwick residence that was similar in architectural
design and was built on a highly visible ridge and questioned how the Alons could be
denied their project. Silins explained that as a neighbor, she had initially opposed the
first plan but that the Alons had been willing to compromise and she supported their
revised design and appealed to the fairness of the neighbors and City Council to support
the project.
Cornelia Haber, La Cresta, questioned if purchasing a property forty-five years ago
entitled a resident to stop all change. She supported the Alon design Option 1 (Exhibit
A) and as an architect believed it was a beautiful design.
Jitze Couperus, Page Mill Road, stated that he did not reside on Lupine but lived in
Lupine Acres. He suggested that the code was very specific about highly visible houses
14
City Council Meeting Minutes
Much 17, 2005
and that it clearly states that a single story house may be required. Couperus encouraged
the Council to support Option 2 (Exhibit B).
Resident, Natoma Road, wished to clarify for Council that Option 1 (Exhibit A) was
three to six feet lower than the existing house. She supported Option 1.
Evan Wyth, Moon Lane, spoke in support of the applicants. He believed that standard,
buildable lots should be treated the same. Wyth explained that he was Chau of the
Town's Municipal Code and Policy Review Committee. The Committee had reviewed
the Code and made recommendations to the Council for changes to remove the
inconsistencies in land use policies and wording that could be misinterpreted. The
recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Council. Wyth noted that during the
Code review process, the Committee determined that a highly visible lot was one that
was on a ridgeline or top of a mountain not an ordinary lot that was only highly visible to
a few neighbors. The Committee felt that personnel preferences of architectural styles
were very subjective and should not be incorporated into the Municipal Code. They
believed that property rights would very widely if decisions were not based on the
Municipal Code as a common determinate, but on the activism of local neighbors.
Mary Davey, resident, addressed Council and explained that she has been a resident of
Los Altos Hills since 1961 and served on the City Council during the 1960's and 1970's.
She respectfully requested that the City Council deny the applicants' request for hearing
and defer the project back to the Planning Commission. She believed that the new
information that had been gleaned at this meeting regarding the roof material warranted a
further review by the Planning Commission. Davey stated that she hoped the Council, as
they reviewed new development as it came before them for their consideration, would
embrace the opportunity to maintain the rural environment of the Town.
Tim Hamilton, Lupine Road, suggested that there should be an Exhibit C offered for the
proposed project that would identify the lot as a highly visible lot He thanked the
Council for visiting the site. Hamilton did not believe that the artist's rendering was an
accurate presentation of the mass, size and volume of the home. He favored a single
story home but he could support Option 2 (Exhibit B) with the ten (10) foot height
reduction.
Lynn Hamilton, Lupine Road, stated that she believed it would be easy to achieve the ten
foot height reduction by lowering the ceiling heights of each level. She believed this was
a reasonable request.
Ms. Lee, resident residing above the Alon property, offered that she had not had an
opportunity to view the new roof proposal. She loved the Waal environment of her
neighborhood and Los Altos Hills and suggested that the proposed project would affect
their quality of life. Lee requested that the Council consider the lot highly visible when
making their decision. Lee would prefer a single story home but as a minimum could
accept Option 2 (Exhibit B) with the ten (10) foot reduction.
Resident, Esperanza Road, encouraged the Council to be objective and approve the
Alon's request for a new residence. He suggested that they had followed the Code and
made the necessary changes to their design to accommodate the neighbors concerns.
15
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2005
Ms. Alon, daughter of applicant, read a statement into the record. She explained that this
had been a very emotional process for her family. She loved Los Altos Hills and offered
that there were many larger and more visible homes in the community. She questioned
why their home needed to be reduced in height and pleaded for a fair decision and
approval of Option 1 (Exhibit A).
Carol Gottlieb, resident and former Planning Commissioner, explained that when
reviewing new homes, the Commission strove to have the home fit into the site and in the
past required homes be reduced in height to help mitigate the home on the land. She
noted that the flat roof added to the massive appearance of the home.
John Dukes, Lupine Road, explained that he was hying to protect the unique Los Altos
Hills rural character of their quiet street and neighborhood. He did not believe that the
proposed large columns of the house and the roof on a steeply sloping lot met the Town's
requirements. Dukes suggested that the proposed structure did not fit the site as defined
in the former Design Guidelines brochure and he preferred to see it returned to the
Planning Commission for further review. He could support Option 2 (Exhibit B) with a
few additional modifications.
Lynn Dukes, Lupine Road, stated that she had resided on Lupine Road since 1968. She
offered that her neighborhood had a special rural nature. Dukes expressed her concern
that the proposed new structure was too massive and would inhibit the view of the rolling
hills and rural landscape and suggested that the home needed to be reduced in size. She
supported Exhibit B which was in accordance with the Planning Commission's directives
and believed it was the only one that addressed the bulk of the home.
Nancy Couperus, Page Mill Road, explained that her property was a part of the original
Lupine Acres and considered this area her neighborhood. She believed that the massive
size of the proposed home was not in character with the neighborhood and would impact
all of the neighbors. Couperus noted that the Planning Commission had denied the
project twice because the home did not follow the code and was not compatible with the
surrounding environment. She supported Option B or a decision by Council to direct the
project back to the Planning Commission because of the new roof element.
Mr. Joffe, Manuella Road, hoped that everyone would look at the bigger picture and
resolve the conflict. He suggested that neighbors had too much power in the process and
often abused this power.
Resident, Elena Road, supported the Alon project and questioned the weight that was
given in the process to the aesthetic values of the neighbors.
Ms. Alon, daughter of applicant, addressed Council and asked that they please approve
her home. She explained that she and her family had waited a long time to build their
dream home.
Stan Field, project Architect, addressed Council. Field explained that he taught
architecture at the University of California at Berkeley and had designed many homes
including several homes in Los Altos Hills. He noted that he "lived architecture" and
16
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2005
considered it the furthest thing from tonight's discussion. His definition of architecture
was the situational dynamic of the site and the client. Field suggested that the Alon
design mirrored the form of the land and terrain and belonged on the site and that the
home's columns were an integral design feature and structural component of the home.
He displayed samples of the project's building materials to the Council.
Zvi Alon, stated that he enjoyed the neighborhood very much and planned to be a good
neighbor. In response to several comments, Alon offered that be had never tried to hide
the home's square footage and stated that the artist's rendering was a true representation
of his proposal. He explained that Exhibit B would be substantially more expensive then
his original Fast Track design and hoped that the Council would approve the original
design or Exhibit A.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Jones welcomed the Alon family to Los Altos Hills. He expressed his
preference for Council making a ruling on the applicant's request tonight and not
deferring the hearing back to the Planning Commission, offering that government should
provide answers as quickly as possible especially when a resident was building a home
because time was money. Jones explained that because there had been neighbor
objections at the Fast Track level, the process called for a Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission and this was appropriate, however endless reviews with an endless
number of inputs should not be acceptable. Jones commented that he believed one of the
key issues that needed resolution was how the design features that included the bay
windows and columns would be calculated into the square footage, noting that if they
were added to the maximum floor area (MFA), the home would be over the maximum
allowable number for the lot.
Councilmember Warshawsky noted for members of the audience; this was the first site
development permit that had been reviewed by Council in five years. He acknowledged
that there were many different architectural designs and styles in Town. Warshawsky
expressed his hope that a common ground could be found for this project and he
supported Council making a determination tonight to allow the applicant to move
forward. He concurred with Jones that the extra square footage from the architectural
features should be considered and was amenable to a green roof but felt that a reduction
of ten (10) feet was excessive.
Mayor Pro Tem Kerr concurred with Jones and Warshawsky and supported the Council
taking action on the item at the meeting. He commented that he was of the opinion that
the planning process was not broken and functioned well with the majority of projects.
Kerr offered that former Councils approved many of the residences that were used as
comparables by the applicant and the present Council was not bound by their actions and
would review each project on its own merits. He suggested that he believed property
values would not be hurt by a new five or six million -dollar project. Regarding the
design, Kerr believed that the height was acceptable and suggested that technology be
used to mitigate the effects of the house on the neighborhood and environment. He
defined technology as: 1) the applicant's proposal for a green roof comprised of a
combination of synthetic grass and solar panels and suggested that he would like to see
enough solar panels to provide for twenty-five percent of the energy consumption of the
17
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2005
house; and 2) a reduction in light pollution emitted from the house. Ken supported a
condition of approval that would prohibit skylights and possibly a volunteer agreement
from the applicants regarding transmission specs noting that this was not a currently a
part of the Town's ordinances. He favored the air conditioning units and mechanical
units being contained within the columns as shown in the plans, adding that this would
mitigate the noise pollution and visual impact.
Mayor O'Malley expressed his belief that everyone in Town should be treated equally.
Ordinances and rules ensure that applicants do not have to negotiate with neighbors and
ensures that the neighbors could feel secure that something would not be built that does
not met code. He supported Option 1 (Exhibit A) and recommended that the square
footage of the columns be calculated in the floor area because they were different and
added to the bulk but he would not include the bay windows because they had not been
counted on any other project. O'Malley supported a green or black roof as a substitute
for the gravel roof In response to the discussion and comments that the lot was highly
visible, O'Malley explained that when he had served on the Municipal Code Committee
that defined the term, the consensus of the Committee was that a highly visible lot meant
a lot on a ridgeline. They had not said exclusively ridgeline because that would have left
to interpretation what ridgeline, so they added "highly visible and ridgeline" but they
clearly did not mean a lot that sets in a valley. O'Malley noted that the home did not
block anyone's view and reiterated that it was important for everyone to be treated the
same during the planning process.
Council discussion ensued. Council consensus was for approval of Exhibit A with a
reduction in the square footage by 560 feet, a green roof or the applicant's alternative
roof of combination solar panels and synthetic grass and no skylights.
Planning Director Cahill clarified for Council that the grading requirement for Option 1
(Exhibit A) was a minor exception to the grading policy and was endorsed by the code
when it was done to lower the profile of the house. Cahill noted that the retaining walls
would be hidden by the front of the house.
City Attorney Steve Mattas read into the record the modifications to the conditions of
approval for Option 1 (Exhibit A). Condition of Approval #6: The first sentence was
deleted and replaced with "The roof enclosed by the parapet walls shall be a non -
reflective material composed of a combination of synthetic turf and black solar panels
and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department upon consultation with the
adjacent property owners to the north. The solar panels shall be designed to include
approximately 800 square feet of panels in the roof design. The Planning Director shall
have the discretion to modify the solar panel roof requirement. New additional
conditions of approval included: 1) The size of the floor area proposed for the residence
shall be reduced by 560 feet to account for the floor area associated with the
buttresses/columns subject to verification by the Planning Director, and 2) If skylights
were proposed by the applicant, the project would return to the Planning Commission for
approval.
Council discussed the proposed motion with the project Architect and applicant. Zvi
Alon, applicant, agreed to the modified conditions of approval for Exhibit A and stated so
for the record.
18
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17. 2005
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Jones and
passed by the following roll call vote to approve the requested sited development permit
for the new residence subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A identified in the
March 17, 2005 staff report to the City Council with the following modifications:
Revised Condition of Approval #6: The roof enclosed by the parapet walls shall be a
non -reflective material composed of a combination of synthetic turf and black solar
panels and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department upon consultation
with the adjacent property owners to the north. The solar panels shall be designed to
include approximately 800 square feet of panels in the roof design. The Planning
Director shall have the discretion to modify the solar panel roof requirement. In addition,
the color of all exterior surfacing materials including the wood/metal trellis materials
shall conform to a light reflectivity value of 50 and be of an earth tone color chosen to
blend into the visible hillside. A color sample of all roofing and exterior surfacing
materials shall be fast reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and subject to
conferral with adjacent north/ south neighbors prior to acceptance of construction plans
by the Building Department.
New Conditions of Approval:
• The size of the floor area proposed for the residence shall be reduced by 560 feet to
account for the floor area associated with the buttresses/columns subject to
verification by the Planning Director.
• If skylights were proposed by the applicant, the project would return to the
Planning Cormnission for approval.
AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councils tuber Jones and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Councilmember Mordo recused himself from consideration of this item and did not
participate in the vote.
10:45 p.m. City Council Meeting Recessed
10:55 p.m. City Council Meeting Reconvened
Council returned to open session and addressed the unfinished agenda items.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Mordo and
passed unanimously to adjourn to the Closed Session at 11:45 p.m.
12. CLOSED SESSION
19
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 17, 2005