HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.2TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 27, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH
BASEMENT AND SWBvfIVIING POOL; LANDS OF ALON; 27673 LUPINE ROAD;
FILE #247-03-ZP-SD-GD.
FROM: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION that the Planning Commission:
• Deny the application subject to the findings in Attachment #1 because the proposed
residence is sited on a highly visible lot and cannot be rendered unobtrusive under Sec. 10-
2.702(b) of the Municipal Code; it does not comply with the Town's grading policy; and it
is not consistent with setback requirements and maximum development area.
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.
BACKGROUND
This request for a Site Development Permit was continued from the July 22, 2004 Planning
Commission hearing where seven separate property owners attended the public hearing to voice
their concerns regarding the visibility, height, size and architectural style of the proposed new
residence. The proposed residence met maximum height, floor and development area standards,
and minimum setbacks. However, the Planning Commission determined that the two-story
contemporary design located on a highly visible lot did not "blend in" with natural surroundings
as stipulated by Sec. 10-2.702(b) of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission directed the
applicant to revise the design to lower the profile of the house by 10 feet. The Commission also
suggested that the size of the second floor be reduced and landscaping be included to soften the
appearance and reduce the visual impact of the house. The Commission's direction was
consistent with the following code requirements:
Sec. 10-2.702(h)
"Ridgelines, hilltops, and highly visible lots shall be preserved by the siting of
structures to take advantage of natural topographic or landscape features which
would cause structures to blend with their natural surroundings. The Site
Development Authority shall consider the following guidelines in approving the
location of a structure:
(1) Single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on hilltops,
ridgelines, and highly visible lots.
Plowing Commission
27673 WPineRoad
January 27, 2005
Page 2 of 5
(2) Cut foundations should be used in place of fill on hilly terrain.
(3) Native or naturalized vegetation should be used to conceal structures
wherever possible.
(4) Structures may be located on ridgelines or hilltops only when they can be
rendered unobtrusive by one (1) or more of the following techniques:
(i) The use of natural vegetation and/or added landscaping.
(ii) The use of a low -profile house, with a sloping roofline and
foundation that follows the natural contours of the site.
(iii) The use of exterior roofing and siding materials and colors that
blend with the natural landscape."
DISCUSSION OF REVISED PLANS
In response to the Planning Commission's direction to lower the profile of the house by 10 feet,
reduce the size of the second story, and include landscaping, the revised plans include the
following changes:
• The west side of the house and garage (approximately 60% of the structure) has been
lowered by 5 feet and the east side of the house (approximately 40% of the structure) has
been lowered by 3 feet.
• A portion of the second story (the master bedroom suite) has been pushed back 7-1/2 feet.
• A preliminary landscape screening plan has been included.
Other changes have been made to the plans that are not consistent with the Commission's
direction or the Municipal Code:
• Floor area on the ground floor has been increased by 188 sq. ft.
• Development area has been increased by 952 sq. ft. for a total of 16, 151 sq. ft. (113 sq.
ft. over the MDA).
• The driveway at the rear of the house has been reconfigured and expanded into a circular
driveway that entails grading cuts up to 14 feet deep.
• The circular driveway, which is not needed for access to the garage or parking area,
encroaches into the rear setback area.
• Extensive retaining walls up to 14 feet in height have been added.
• The pool has been located in the front of the house, which entails grading fill up to 13-1/2
feet.
These changes are discussed in more detail below.
Planning Commission
27673 Lupine Read
Juana, 27,2W5
Page 3 of 5
Structure
The applicant has revised the plans so that the west side of the house and garage is lowered by 5
feet and the east side of the house is lowered by 3 feet. This has been accomplished primarily by
digging down deeper into the site. The effect of lowering the building pad is illustrated in the
section drawings on Sheet A9. For example, Section C shows that the parapet is approximately 3
feet lower in elevation when compared with the original plans. This reduction does not comply
with the Planning Commission's direction to lower the house by 10 feet.
In an effort to reduce the visual impact of the second story, the master bedroom has been pushed
back 7-1/2 feet. However, the size of the second story has not been reduced as recommended by
the Planning Commission. The office on the ground floor has been enlarged by 188 sq. ft. so that
the exterior wall lines up with the wall of the master bedroom that is now located directly above.
Landscaping
As directed by the Planning Commission, a landscape screening plan has been included with the
revised plans. The screening plan features a variety of trees and shrubs planted along the street,
consistent with the neighboring property to the west (lands of Patel). The proposed trees include
cedar, redwood, Chinese pistache, and California pepper tree. Closer to the house, smaller trees
(palms and strawberry trees) and a variety of shrubs (ceanothos, Carolina laurel cherry, Matilja
poppy, and others) will soften the appearance of the house. The drawings on Sheet LLL show
the house from the Harrison residence across the road when the screen plantings have matured,
and demonstrate how the large trees along the street will effectively screen the new residence
from view. Sheet L1.2 illustrates the house from the same viewpoint with newly planted
landscaping.
Grading
In the revised plans, the grading volume has increased significantly as shown below:
Original Plans
Revised Plans
Percent
Increase
Estimated cut
Within building footprint
1900 cu.yd.
1875 cu.yd.
-1%
Outside of footprint
830 cu.vd.
1375 cu.vd.
66%
Total cut
2730 cu.yd.
3250 cu.yd.
19%
Estimated fill
Within building footprint
-0- cu.yd.
-0- cu.yd.
--
Outside of footprint
795 cu.vd.
965 cu.vd.
21%
Total fill
795 cu. yd.
965 cu.yd.
21%
Total export
1935 cu.yd.
2285 cu.yd.
18%
Planning Commission
21673 Lupine Road
January 27, 2005
Page 4 of 5
As shown above, total cut and fill has increased 20%. Virtually all of the increase has occurred
outside the building footprint in order to accommodate the circular entry driveway at the back of
the house and the pool in the front. As stated in the attached memo from the Assistant Engineer
(Attachment #2) the pool area will require up to 13.5 feet of fill, compared with the Town's
maximum of 3 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.
Moreover, 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.
Under Sec. 10-2.702(c) of the Municipal Code, additional grading may be allowed for the
purpose of lowering the profile of the building provided that at the completion of the project the
visual alternation of the natural terrain is minimized. In this case, additional grading is proposed
for the purpose of providing an unnecessary circular entry driveway and pool area.
SUMMARY
The neighbors' objections to the proposed residence are based primarily on the height and siting
of the structure on a highly visible hillside lot. If the Planning Commission determines that the
visibility of the new residence cannot be adequately mitigated with landscape screening, the
Commission should deny the application based on the recommended findings attached as
Attachment #2. As an alternative, the Planning Commission could offer the applicant the
opportunity to request a continuance for redesign with the use of a low -profile house style, with a
sloping roofline and a foundation that follows the natural contours of the site, pursuant to Section
10-2.702(b) of the Town's Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Findings for Denial
2. Staff report dated July 22, 2004
3. Revised Worksheets #1 and #2
4. Memo from Assistant Engineer dated December 14, 2004
5. Letter from neighbors received January 18, 2005
6. Revised Development plans.
cc: Zvi Alon Stan Field
10725 De Anza Blvd. 545 Alto Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95010 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Planning Commission
27673 alpine Road
January 27, 2005
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT #1
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
NEW RESIDENCE AND SWB041NG POOL
LANDS OF ALON, 27673 LUPINE ROAD
1. The proposed residence and pool do not comply with Sec. 10-2.702(b) of the Town's
Municipal Code. Located on a highly visible hillside lot, the two-story contemporary
house does not blend in with the natural surroundings. The proposed residence does not
have a low profile and cannot be rendered unobtrusive by the use of landscaping and
exterior colors and materials that blend with the natural landscaping.
2. The proposed residence and pool are not consistent with the Town's grading policy. The
proposed residence entails up to 13.5 feet of fill for the planting area southeast of the pool
at existing contour elevation 316, whereas a maximum of 3 feet of fill is allowed. Up to
14 feet of cut is proposed for the circular driveway at existing contour elevation 348,
whereas a maximum of 4 feet of cut is allowed. There is up to 12 feet of differential
between the finish elevation of the pool coping and existing contour elevation 316,
whereas a maximum of 3 feet differential is allowed. Under Sec. 10-2.702(c) of the
Municipal Code, additional grading may be allowed for the purpose of lowering the
profile of the building provided that at the completion of the project the visual alteration
of the natural terrain is minimized. In this case, additional grading is proposed for the
purpose of providing an unnecessary circular entry driveway and pool area and cannot be
allowed.
The proposed circular driveway is not consistent with Sec. 10-1.505 of the Town's
Municipal Code because it encroaches into the rear setback area and is not necessary for
access to the garage or parking area. Previous plans for the house included a different
configuration of driveway that did not encroach into the setback. Since the driveway is
not necessary but only a desirable amenity, and alternative configurations can be
developed without encroaching into the setback, a variance in setback requirements is not
warranted.
4. The proposed retaining walls do not comply with the Town's height standards. The
proposed retaining walls are up to 14 feet in height, whereas the Town's maximum
allowable wall height is 4 feet.
5. The proposed improvements do not comply with the Town's maximum development
area. The proposed development area is 16,151 sq. ft., which exceeds the MDA of
16,036 sq, ft. by 113 sq. ft.
ATTACHMENT X
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 22, 2004
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH
BASEMENT AND SWINIMING POOL; LANDS OF ALON; 27673 LUPINE ROAD;
FILE #247-03-ZP-SD-GD.
FROM: Angelica Herrera Olivera, Assistant Planner
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director L.L
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Continue the public hearing and direct the applicant to reduce the visible profile of the new
residence, pursuant to Section 10-2.702 of the Town's Municipal Code; OR
2. Approve the requested Site Development Permit subject to the attached conditions of
approval, with the finding that the height and visibility of the new residence can be mitigated
through extensive landscape screening and exterior material and roof color selection,
pursuant to Section 10-2.702 of the Town's Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
In initial meetings with the applicant's architect, staff advised the architect of the Planning
Commission's discretion to restrict the height of any structure proposed on highly visible lots,
pursuant to Code Section 10-2.702 of the Town's Municipal Code. In addition, the applicant and
his architect were advised in each of the four plan review comment letters to share the
development plans with surrounding neighbors of the property.
This request for a Site Development Permit was continued from the June 29, 2004 Fast Track
hearing where seven (7) separate property owners attended the public hearing to voice their
concerns regarding the visibility, height, and architectural style of the proposed new residence.
While the applicant's residence meets maximum height, floor and development area standards
and minimum setbacks, it does not fully comply with non -numerical standards stipulated in Site
Development Ordinance Section 10-2.702.
Code Section 10-2.702 of the Town's Municipal Code states the following:
`Ridgelines, hilltops, and highly visible lots shall be preserved by the siting of structures to take
advantage of natural topographic or landscape features which would cause structures to blend
with their natural surroundings. The Site Development Authority shall consider the following
guidelines in approving the location of a structure:
(1) Single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on hilltops, ddgelines, and
highly visible lots.
(2) Cut foundations should be used in place of fill on hilly terrain.
PUaning Commission
27673 Lupine Road
My 22, 2004
Page 2 of 13
(3) Native or naturalized vegetation should be used to conceal structures wherever possible.
(4) Structures may be located on ridgelines or hilltops only when they can be rendered
unobtrusive by one (1) or more of the following techniques:
(i) The use of natural vegetation and/or added landscaping.
(ii) The use of a low -profile house, with a sloping roofline and foundation that
follows the natural contours of the site.
(iii) The use of exterior roofing and siding materials and colors that blend with the
natural landscape."
DISCUSSION
The subject property is located on the north side of the Lupine Road cul-de-sac off of Page Mill
Road. The 1.67 -acre parcel is bound by three other private properties to the north, east, and west.
There is an existing split-level redwood house and detached garage structure on the property
which sits on a pad cut into the lot's hillside. The property's eastern boundary is dotted with
several medium-sized oaks and large eucalyptus trees.
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
1.82 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.67 acres
Average Slope:
18.6%
Lot Unit Factor:
1.362
Floor Area and
Development Area:
Area
Maximum Proposed
Existing
Increase Left
Development
16,038 15,199
9,402
+5,797 +839
Floor
7,586 7,578
4,867
+2,711 +8
Site and Architecture
The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a two-story residence with an
attached three -car garage, daylighted basement, and a swimming pool. The first floor of the
proposed new residence is 4,492 square feet; the second floor is 2,698 square feet, in addition to
388 square feet of lower level space not conforming to the basement ordinance. The second
story accounts for approximately 36 percent of the total floor area for the main residence.
Covered terraces and decks on the first and second stories of the residence, as well as, an outdoor
pool constitute the outdoor living area. Proposed decks and terraces cover 1,786 square feet,
patios and walkways constitute 130 square feet, and the pool, spa and surrounding deck area
constitutes 543 square feet.
The proposed new residence is not situated parallel to the natural grade as is recommended in
Section 10-2.702 in order to render a structure on a hilltop less obtrusive. As seen in the site
sections on Sheet A9, the new residence is situated on an enlarged cut/fill foundation pad, which
starts south of the existing pad, to accommodate a driveway that leads to the front entry.
Planning Commission
27673 Lupine Road
July 22, 2004
Page 3 of 13
The architectural style of the new residence is modem, with a stucco and limestone exterior, floor
to ceiling windows, and a flat parapet roof. Neighbors in attendance at the Fast Track hearing
stated that the boxy structure had the appearance of an office building and was not consistent
with the rural residential character of their neighborhood. Staff has required in condition of
approval #2 that the roof enclosed by the parapet walls be a non -reflective material which is
reviewed and approved by the adjacent property owner to the north. In addition, the exterior
stucco, limestone, and 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. Condition of approval
#3 requires non -reflective glass on the entire residence to mitigate the potential shiny look of the
structure for surrounding properties. A sample of the exterior and roof materials shall be first
reviewed and approved by the immediate neighbors to the north and south of the property and the
Planning Department prior to the submittal of construction plans to the Building Department.
Height and Visibility
The proposed new residence is situated midway up the northern sloped portion of the property.
The structure's building pad is cut into the hillside to create a daylighted basement level with a
first story finish floor that is approximately 2-5 feet lower than the finish floor of the existing
residence. A majority of properties along Lupine Road are visible from at least one direction.
However, the majority of homes on these visible lots are single -story, low -profile ranch style
homes. Flatter lots along Lupine Road contain a mixture of one- and two-story residences.
The vertical plane height of the
proposed new residence ranges from
24-27 feet from existing grade or
building pad, whichever is lower. The
maximum overall height is shown to
be 35 feet as measured from lowest to
highest point of the new residence.
The photo on the left was taken from
the southern side of Lupine Road,
from the neighbor's porch across the
street.
Lighting and Landscaoine
No skylights are proposed on the new residence. Exterior lighting shall be limited to one fixture
per exit with the exception of two fixtures at double -door exits. Lighting fixtures shall generally
be shielded downlights. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent
properties, and the source of lighting should not be directly visible from off the site. Light
fixture specifications and detailed lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department. Staff
recommends that all outdoor lighting for the driveway and landscaping be forwarded to the
Planning Commission for review along with the landscape screening plan as noted in condition
of approval #7.
Naumng Commission
27673 Lupine Road
July 22, 2W
Page 4 of 13
Most of the existing vegetation will not be affected by construction of the proposed residence.
Condition of approval #8 requires that the trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced
for protection and preservation. The applicant's architect proposes to mitigate the visibility of
the proposed residence, as shown by the erected story poles and orange netting, with mature -
sized landscaping. Due to the lot's higher elevation and the septic leach field located between
the new residence and the street, it may not be possible to adequately screen the new residence
from neighboring properties with large trees. The Planning Commission will review a
landscape -screening and erosion control plan once the house is framed. All planting required for
screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection and occupancy
of the new residence.
Swimming Pool
A swimming pool is proposed on the southwestem side of the new residence within the front
yard of the lot, north of the septic leach field. The pool equipment is enclosed within one of the
limestone -clad pilasters protruding from the new residence's facade.
Driveway and Parking
The proposed garage entries do not face the street or any one neighbor, with the possible
exception of the easterly neighbors who may see it as they drive southwesterly along their
driveways to Lupine Road. The Zoning Ordinance requires at least four on-site parking spaces,
which have been provided in the three -car garage and two uncovered parking spaces located
outside of the required setbacks (see Sheet A2). Other than the driveway access, no other
pavement is proposed within setbacks.
Grading and Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of
approval as specified in Attachment 1. All proposed grading on the site conforms to the Town's
grading policy. Proposed grading quantities for the project include 2,730 cubic yards of cut, 795
cubic yards of fill, and 1,935 cubic yards to be exported from the site. The majority of the soil
export is due to the basement and foundation of the new residence which constitutes 1,900 cubic
yards of cut.
The proposed drainage for the site involves sheet flow around and away from the new residence,
with three energy dissipators located at least 30 feet from the east, west, and south property lines.
A fourth energy dissipator is also proposed at the existing culvert at the entrance of the existing
driveway outside of the southwesterly corner of the property. In addition, a retention/dissipator
structure shall be installed east of the new leach field and west of the existing Eucalyptus trees,
which involves three 24" -wide perforated pipes buried four feet into the existing. grade to retain
and dissipate the storm water from the new development. Condition of approval #16 requires
that the peak post -development storm water discharge match the peak pre -development levels.
The final drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to final inspection and
occupancy of the residence.
Planning Commission
21673 Lupine Road
July 22, 20N
Page 5 of 13
Septic System
A 400' expansion field will be added to the existing septic system located on the southwestern
side of the property, east of the existing driveway. The County Health Department has reviewed
the plans and given preliminarily approval of the location of the system. Conditions of approval
#18 and #19 require that the applicant acquire a permit for the septic system from the Santa Clara
County Health Department prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department
and that all conditions of the County Health Department be met prior to final inspection and
occupancy of the new residence.
The location and size of the expanded leach field limits the amount of landscape screening that
can be used to screen the home.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans for the new two-story residence
with basement. The Fire Department determined that a fire sprinkler system is required
throughout all portions of the building as well as an onsite fire truck turnaround, as stated in
conditions of approval #28 and #29.
Committee Review
The Pathways Committee has requested that the applicant construct a Type IIB pathway starting
at the southwest comer of the property and continuing along the southern property boundary, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The Environmental Design Committee recommended that all trees, especially oak trees, be
fenced at the dripline and protected during construction of the new residence and swimming
pool.
SUMMARY
The substantive opposition to the proposed residence is primarily based on the maximum
proposed height and obtrusive siting of the structure on the hillside of a highly visible lot. If the
Planning Commission determines that the visibility of the new residence can not be adequately
mitigated from all directions through landscaping, earth tone exterior and roof materials, and
minimal exterior lighting, then the Commission should require the applicant to reduce the height
of the structure with the use of a low -profile house style, with a sloping roofline and a foundation
that follows the natural contours of the site, pursuant to Section 10-2.702 of the Town's
Municipal Code.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have
Planving Commission
27673 Lupine Road
July 22, 2001
Page 6 of 13
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval (7 pages);
2. Worksheets #1 and #2 (2 pages);
3. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments, updated June 7, 2004 (2 pages);
4. Environmental Design & Protection Committee comments, received January 15, 2004
(1 page);
5. Pathway Committee recommendation (1 page);
6. Development plans.
cc: Zvi Alon Stan Field
10725 De Anza Blvd. 545 Alto Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95010 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
27673ng Commission
276]3 alpine Road
IuIY 22, 2004
Page 7 of 13
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH ROOF TERRACES, BASEMENT, AND
SWIMMING POOL
LANDS OF ALON, 27673 LUPINE DRIVE
File #247-03-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The applicant shall demolish all existing structures and driveway prior to the Planning
and Engineering Site and Grading Inspection. No other modifications to the approved
plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. The roof enclosed by the parapet walls shall be a non -reflective mategaI �w�lljpty�s
reviewed aad-appreved by the adjacent property owner to the north an� fa`t�i m
Department prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
In addition, the exterior stucco, limestone, and 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 sample of the roof and exterior materials shall be first reviewed anti,
apprgy4d Wheimmediate neighbors to the north and south of the property, respectively,
an "'M099 Department prior to acceptance of construction plans by the
Building Department.
3. The entire residence shall utilize non -reflective glass to mitigate the potential shiny look
of the structure for surrounding properties. Manufacturer specifications and a sample of
the non -reflective glass shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department
prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
4. Exterior lighting shall be limited to one fixture per exit with the exception of two fixtures
at double -door exits. Lighting fixtures shall generally be shielded downlights. Lighting
shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source
of lighting should not be directly visible from off the site. Light fixture specifications
and detailed lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department
prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
S. After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -rough framing
inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the applicant shall submit
a landscape screening and erosion control plan for review by the Planning
Commission. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to
screen the view of the residence from surrounding properties and maintain privacy
between neighbors. All landscaping required for screening purposes and erosion control
Planning Commission
27673 Lgive Road
July 22. 2(0,1
Page 8 of 13
(as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection and
occupancy of the new residence.
6. A landscape maintenance deposit shall be posted prior to final inspection and
occupancy of the new residence. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate
establishment and maintenance shall be made two (2) years after installation. The deposit
will be released after two (2) years if the plantings remain viable.
7. All outdoor lighting for the driveway and landscaping shall be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for review along with the landscape screening plan. Lighting fixtures shall
generally be shielded downlights. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or
reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting should not be directly visible
from off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or
entry lights.
8. Prior to receiving a Building Permit, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip line.
Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior issuance of
Building Permit. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in
advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of
construction.
Tree fencing requirements:
1. Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees.
2. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a minimum
height of five feet (5') above grade.
3. Fences are to he mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into
the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than 10 -foot spacing.
4. Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during 0 construction periods.
5. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines
of these trees at any time.
6. No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved.
9. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the new residence
(and roof eaves) and swimming pool are no less than 40' from the front property line and
30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence and
swimming pool shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the
new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan."
The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning
Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection.
Planning Comrttission
27673 Lupine Roan
July 22, 2004
Pagc 9 of 13
10. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence
complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at
any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below
natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof
materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state
that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a
thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or
finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the
highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall
submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to
requesting a final framing inspection.
11. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
12. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
13. If demolition is required, clearance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permit.
14. 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.
15. Standard swimming pool requirements:
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 Town Engineering Inspector.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed (solid) on all four sides with a roof for noise
mitigation, and the enclosure shall be screened with landscaping prior to final
inspection. The pool equipment enclosure may not encroach into any required
setbacks.
Muni, C..m 'Jon
27673 Lupine Road
July 22.2004
Page 10 of 13
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
16. Peak discharge at 27673 Lupine Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 247-03,
shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property.
Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak
discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic
model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post
development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10 -year return period storm
and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the
pre -development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2
plan copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a letter shall be submitted from the project
engineer stating that the detention storage design improvements were installed as shown
on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations.
17. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right of way to the Town
over Lupine Road. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits
that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town
shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved
exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town
prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
18. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health Department
prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
19. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
20. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as
revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering
Department No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to
April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place
within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway
access.
21. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground prior to final
inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
22. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of construction plans by
the Building Department. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during
Planning Commission
27673 Lupine Road
July 22, 2004
Page 11 of 13
construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the
site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the
rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new
residence.
23. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior
to acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department. The
grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust,
noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Lupine Road and surrounding
roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for
construction vehicles; clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris
box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris.
Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box,
since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town
limits.
24. 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 occupancy of the new residence 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 construction plans by
the Building Department.
25. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and roughened where the pathway
intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection and
occupancy of the new residence. The Town requires a minimum of 5' of driveway
starting from the edge of existing pavement shall be asphalt concrete. An encroachment
permit shall be required to be issued by the Public Works Department for all work
proposed within the public right of way prior to start work.
26. The applicant shall construct a Type IIB pathway starting at southwest corner of property,
continuing along southern boundary of property up until the bulb where the Fran
Stevenson's path abuts; taking into consideration the small creek and built to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineer, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new
residence.
27. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated January 30, 2004,
the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Geotechnical Plan Review—The applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall
review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project building and
grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
Planning Commission
27673 Lupine Road
July 22, 2004
Page 12 of 13
design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have
been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and
approval prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building
Department.
b. Geotechnical Field Inspection—The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect,
test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction.
The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation
and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel
and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be
described by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval prior to final inspection and occupancy of
the new residence.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from
Cotton, Shires & Associates dated January 30, 2004.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
28. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department shall be included in all portions of the buildings. Three sets of plans
prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the Fire Department and received by the Planning Department, prior to
acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department, and the sprinklers shall
be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and
occupancy of the new residence.
29. The fire truck turnaround shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction of
the Santa Clara County Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the
new residence.
30. The applicant shall place address numbers on all buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property prior to final inspection
and occupancy of the new residence. The address numbers shall be a minimum of four
inches high and shall contrast with the background color.
Planning Commission
27673 Lupine Road
July 22, 2006
Page 13 of 13
BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
31. Properties must pay School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto) fees before receiving their
building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of required fee
payment forms that have been completed by the Town to both the elementary and high
school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts.
Throughout the construction, a Site and Grading inspection and a Pre -Rough inspection shall be
required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the
Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final Building inspection and
occupancy of the new residence.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until July 22,
2005). All required building permits must 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.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LEN 6: Buma ENGINEERING, INC.
Ps
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET 81 25FT INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT
ATp�T�A^CcH1���fM�
�ryryENT t
FECEN a+
JUN 14 2004
V00FLOS LTOS MS
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA), AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
ROPERTY OWNER(S)
Zvi Al.
ROPERTYADDRESS
27673 Lupine Road- Los Altos Hills, CA
ALCULATED BY
Kevin Tsoi i DATE June 14, 2004
EFERENCE MAP:
2040117STE ,OUR 2040117 Cl
.CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE
A. NET AREA (An) 1.67 ACRES B. CONTOUR INTERVAL (I) 5 FE
C. DRAWING SCALE 1"= 20' (Pre-existing)
D. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)
2708.0 FT.
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES
E. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
CONTOUR LENGTH
IVOHRS
CONTOUR LENGCII
INCHES)
305 2.0
395
485
575
310 10.8
400
490
580
315 15.8
405
495
585
320 18.8
410
500
590
325 15.8
415
505
595
330 14.2
420
510
600
335 14.2
425
515
605
340 13.4
430
520
610
345 12.4
435
525
615
350 11.5
440
530
620
355 6.5
445
535
625
360
450
540
630
365
455
545
635
370
460
550
640
375
465
555
645
380
470
560
650
385
475
565
655
390
480
570
660
TOTAL 135.4
CONVERT INCHES TO FEET (MULTIPLY BY MAP SCALE) _ (L) =
2708.0 FT.
E. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
S= (0.0023) (5.0 FT) (2708 FT) = 18.6%
(1.67)
F FE
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
Y C
�G
LUF =(An){] -[0.02143(5-10)])= 1.362
i
1
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA(MDA)
MDA= 16038 SQUARE FEET
1
P
4. CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
FCA
MFA— 7586 SQUARE FEET
6- X4.04
If the Rope is less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is "ital to the net area.
If the LUF is equal to or less then.50, you will need a conditional development permit.
mace an appointment with the Town Planner for further information.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
t 6SUNGFNGINEEFING. Inm
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 8874086
WORKSHEET N2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
PROPER Y OWNER()
Zvi Alon
PROPERTY ADDRESS
27673 Lupine Road - Los A t0s Hills, CA
CALCULATED BY
Kevin Tsoi1
DATE June
14, 2004
REFEREN MAP:
ZU4U117STE
JOB# 2040117
1
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
(TO BE
0
DEMOLISHED)
+ 4492
2698
Existing
A.
House and Garage (From Part B)
3690
B.
Driveway & Parking + From Walk
2680
0
(Measured] IM' along centerline)
0
C.
Walkways
310
D.
Patio
342
—72-03—
E.
Decks/Ibneces
F.
Pool, Spa and Decking
0
G.
Accessory Building (From Parc B)
1177
H.
Any other coverage (Pavilion)
0
1.
4' Walkways (420 so NOT COUNTED
0
Totals
9402
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from worksheet #1)
2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
3. Floor Area (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
(TO BE
DEMOLISHED)
Existing
Totals 9402
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic & Basement
d. Gsrage
B. Accessory Buildings
a. It Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
Totals
(TO BE
DEMOLISHED)
Existing
2304 +
810
0
576
1177 "
0
0
4867
Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from worksheet #1)
" denotes floor area supplied by architect
*" 1>LUF>.5; allowable MDA = 7500s.f.(
+++
11I IF>.5allnwable MFA=5000s.f.fm
Proposed Total
7578 7578
5013 5013
0 0
130 130
786 —7-86-
543 543
149 149
0
0 0
5199 _T3T99—
160366q. Ft. 48G7��ryaatp4aa.t J
Proposed Total
15199 15199
Proposed
Total
0
4492
+ 4492
2698
2698
388
388
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7578
]586 Sq. FL 'r 8 �Y2fPVIA/11 nj
•1
if LUF<.5, conditional development permit applies
CODMOC.
SHEET
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fico • u .sodd.org
PIAN REVIEW NUMBER 04 1221
BLDG PEBMR NUMBS
ATTACH_
CONTROLNUMBEN
FILE NUMBER 247-03-ZP-SD-GD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
REQUIREMENT
r of revised Civil Engineering driveway plans for a proposed new single
residence.
Updated:6/7/2004 See below ****
le fire department turn -around appears to comply with standard, detail and
ecification D-1 of this department. It is noted however that parking in the area
in front of the garage is not permitted if this area is to be utilized as the
rn-around. As noted in earlier plan reviews, the driveway gradient in the area of
I turn -around is requested to be lower than what currently is shown on plans.
le Civil Engineer is requested to provide a driveway profile through this section
the driveway for analysis.
The driveway appears to comply with standard, detail and specification D-1 of this
department.
)mittal still under review -pending receipt of revised plans as noted in comment
above.
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department
CRI PLANS SPECS NEW AMC AB
OCCUIP C
CONST. TYPE
AppllrsMEme
DATE
PAGE
AH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
STAN FIELD ASSOCIATES
6/2/20041
IF 2
CIFLOOR
APER
LOAD
DESURIMON
BY
Residential Development
Hokmson, Wayne
AMC OF PROJECT
LOCATION
SFR
127673 Lupine Dr
as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clam County and the communlOes of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Alms,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
CODE/SEC.
SHEET
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
__ -PNNREVIEWNUMBER 04 122
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • W Sccfd.org
BLBG PERMIT NUMBER
COMROLNUMBER
FILE NUMBER 247-03-ZP-SD-GD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
REWIREMEM
Updated comments 6/7/2004:
This department has receiving and reviewed faxed revisions of the driveway plan
and profile of the cross -slope condition at the lower garage area. This location is
acceptable as the proposed fire department turnaround location. The applicant is
advised however that parking in this area shall occur outside of the required
turnaround dimensions. wh
CA, PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
OCCUPANCY
CONST.TYPE
AW.MN IN.
DATE
PAGE
LAH E] E] ❑ ❑ ❑
STAN FIELD ASSOCIATES
6/2/2004
2 2
OF
SECIFLOOR
AIFA
L010
DESCPIPDON
BY
Residential Development
Hokanson, Wayne
NAME OF PROJECTLOCATION
SFR
27673 Lupine OF
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Seruing Santa Clam Countyand the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos HMIs, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
lAN. 17.20,A 9:051'M TOW" Of LO` ALTO:: HILLS dZR �c--� , NO. P1? bF, llp�\/
_ -C -
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMI CTEE �^ "' _MENT
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION 1-10
L o %f JAJ'J i S 206¢
Applicant's Name; _ .
Address: a-7 �-+o F'j
Reviewed by Date: I1 -1v-:
Existing Trees: (Continent on size, type, roadilion, location with respecl. to building
site. Recommended protection duriinng construction.)
L�— SHEET 2
uvics
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation Erosion potentia(- All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
Creeks and rhainage: (Should a cnaservatiou easement be recomanended? Sufficient
space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridees, fences)? Is then; a
need for removal of invasive species?)
Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors- Will drivewny
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recormnendect nungotien
(height, color, landscifp@•�)-�.'�)-. II I
CdiGO AGI
ice.. B D_ d _ GA.CdSN ectne 7-1PEM0.$2
`r s
ATTACHMENT 5
A. Master Pathway Map Ad-hoc Committee update
B. Planning Commission report: Dec. meetings.
C. Town Council report: December meetings.
D. County S1 Trail update (Cassam).
E. Other Committee member activities.
i. Pathway Liaison with Westwind Barn Board
Insufficient time to cover these items. Postponed until Feb 23rtl meeting.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Privacy Screening Prograrfi. Second reading of a new program to assist in
providing privacy screening from pathways for new, critical connectors.
B. Impact fees. It has been recommended in the past to adjust the way impact fees
are calculated ("Report of Council Policy Regarding Construction of Roadside Paths',
4 May, 2000). Discuss alternative formulas and whether to recommend a change to
the Council.
Due to loss of a quorum, we were unable to cover this item. Postponed until Feb 23'd
meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Recommendation on properties:
i. 27673 Lupine Road (Alon residence; new home and pool).
Recommendation: IIB path starting at SW corner of property, continuing
along southern boundary of property up until the bulb where the Fran
Stevenson's path abuts; taking into consideration the small creek and built
to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. Unanimous approval.
ii. 27460 Altamont Road (Chen residence; major addition). The owners were
present. Recommendation: Upgrade path to 118. Approved: Aye 6, no 0.
abstain 2 (DK, DM).
28238 Christopher's Lane (Me residence).
Recommendation: Restore existing to IIB status and grant 10 it
easement over the pathway. Unanimous approval.
V. Moody Road, Parcel #2 (Phan, new residence).
Recommendation: 1) request on-road easement on Chaparral; 2) request
10 ft easement adjacent to the property line along Moody Rd. on south side
of the property; 3) grant 10 if easement and construction of standard 5 ft
IIB path on the other side of Moody Rd. (underlined added by NG) — to
follow creek for the length of the property.
V. 26739 Fremont Road (new Town Hall)
Recommendation: Request to maintain adequate separation of path from
road, to prevent cars from parking on path. Unanimous approval.
vi. 12252 Menalto Drive (Parivash new residence)
Recommendation: Collect impact fees. Unanimous approval.
vii. 24931 Oneonta Drive (Lands of Kits).
July 15, 2004
Planning Conunission
Town of Los Altos Hills, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
- JUL 16 2004 -
TOWN OF IAS ALTOS HLLS
We submit on behalf of neighbors on Lupine Road and Via Feliz the following concerns
and objections to the building known as Lands of Alon.
There are three fundamental objections to the building:
1) Height of proposed building
2) Reflectivity of materials used on the on root sides and front of the building is a major
concern to neighbors across, beside and above the proposed building
3) Bulk of building
Area 1: The site sits at an elevation where existing building is already high, but because it
sits back on the site it does not obstruct or protrude. The proposed building sits out from
existing pad and also is two stories, thus pushing everything up and out. It overwhelms
the views of adjacent neighbors - particularly the Harrison, Lees, Hamiltons and
Haghighi`s.
Area 2: The materials being proposed for the flat roof and walls could pose a problem
with reflectivity. The path of sunlight will shine directly on either end, the front and also
the roof, thus impacting neighbors above, directly across and also to each side.
Area 3: The building mass is excessive. The proposed bulk although possibly within
MDA guidelines, is obtrusive and obstructs existing views. It overwhelms the property
and is far beyond the general theme of homes in the area. The size coupled with the height
creates a sum total of mass that exceeds reasonable standards for Lupine Road and for
building in general. This will directly impact many neighbors.
We respectively request the following: 1)the height of the building be lowered a minimum
of ten (10) feet; 2) the materials used on the sides and roof be re-examined in regards to
texture, color and reflectivity; 3) the building itself be reduced.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We look
forward to a productive meeting when we all meet on July 22oe
Town of Los Altos Hills
RE: Lands of Alon
Page 2
!.✓
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
July 16, 2004
TO: Planning Commission Members
RE: Proposed new home on Lupine Road
Although our home is on Page Mill Road, we are part of the original Lupine Acres
subdivision As the last house on Page Mill before Lupine Road, we consider this
our neighborhood.
Over the years we have seen changes occurring to our neighborhood, both remodels
and newer homes being built. Most, not all, conformed to the character of the
neighborhood — setting back into the land so as not to dominate the landscape. The
two most recent large rebuilds — the Draeger and Chen homes - did raise concern in the
neighborhood, and some accommodations were made by the owners to mitigate the
impact.
Now the neighborhood is faced with another home clearly out -of -scale with the
rest— one which will dominate the land and adversely affect the view of the neighbors
opposite and others around it. Both the height and bulk of the home are offensive -
looming over the landscape and creating reflectivity problems for those who must face
the home. This is a highly visible lot and for that reason deserves special consideration.
We ask that the Planning Commissioners each take time to visit our neighborhood,
consider the residents who will clearly be impacted by this home, and find some ways
to mitigate this building for everyone's sake.
Jitze and Nancy Couperus
RECENM
JUL 16 2004
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
The Members of the Planning Commission
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Lands of Alon
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
RECEim
JUL Is 2004
rOWN OFLOSA1rOS NNLS
Having looked at the markers of the proposed house of the Alon family, my
husband and I have great concerns about the visual impact the height of the
building will have for our neighbors and us. Although the plans are
according to the specifications of the ordinances set by the site development
guidelines, they do not seem to be in accordance with the guidelines of view
protection as stated in Sec. 1-2.701. In part they read:
The purposes of this article are to insure that the site... con-
figuration of structures are unobtrusive when
viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained: that buildings
do not dominate the natural landscape ...... (underlining mine)
From what we can discern, it appears that the proposed plans for the
dwelling have been ignored.
We fully understand that the Alons have wanted to maximize the views from
their house; however, it should not be done to the detriment of the views of
their neighbors. Therefore, we would like to suggest that the height of the
building be reduced by about 10 feet so as not to impact the visual field of at
least five neighbors and, yet, allow the Alons to enjoy the view to the
beautiful surrounding hills also.
July 16, 2004
ATTACHMENT
- - Planning Commission Minutes __.. .Approved 8/12/04
July 22, 2004
Page 2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
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's Fast Track 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 Towns 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—--- -__--. _.... _..__- ApprmPaamma _—.. _..
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 Harrison.
In conclusion, be 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 CommissionMinutes----- ---- ----—Approved 8/12/04 ---------
July
- ____—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 Harrison. 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 -_.._..
July 22,2004
Page 5
Pat Ley, 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, 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, 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, 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 _ _. _ _ - _ - .__-_ApprovedBL12/24
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 (43). 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 42, 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 me 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 in to 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__. _ _— - __. _ __ _ — __ ___.. Apprnvcd-M2[92
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 structure 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 fapade 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.
Manning Commissior�iMinutes
July 22, 2004
Page 8
AYES: Commissioners 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 1
TOWNOFT.OS ALTOS BILLS—
(� UUk G BUNG ENGINEERING, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
,CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET #125FT INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA), AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
R( Zvi Alan
MF yG
pae=2 -Las Altos Hills, CA
Kevin ism
1 DATE1 (REV. 1 )
20W117STE
11
1. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE
A NET AREA (An) 1.67 ACRES B. CONTOUR INTERVAL (1) 5 FT.
C. DRAWING SCALE 1"=20' (Pre-existin
D. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)
305 2.0
395
485
575
310 10.8
400
490
580
315 15.8
405
495
585
320 18.8
410
500
590
325 15.8
415
505
595
330 14.2
420
510
600
335 14.2
425
515
605
340 13.4
430
520
610
345 12.4
435
525
615
350 11.5
440
530
620
355 6.5
445
535
625
360
450
540
630
365
455
545
635
370
460
550
640
375
465
555
645
380
470
560
650
385
475
565
655
3%
480
570
660
TOTAL 135.4
CONVERT INCHES TO FEET (MULTIPLY BY MAP SCALE) = (L) _
E. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
S= (0.0023) (5.0 FT) (2708 FT) = 18.6%
(1.67)
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
LUF =(An)(1-[0.02143(S-10)1)= 1362
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA)
MDA= 16038 SQUARE FEET
4. CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
MFA= 7586 SQUARE FEET
C=* If the slope Ts less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area.
t� H the LUF is equal to or less than 50, you will aced a conditional development permit.
make an appointment with the Town Planner for further int'oronatimn.
2708.0 FT.
ant By: Leasung; 5108873019; Nov -29-04 9:19AM; Page 212
ala W74*M
I19.+.r1�
Rev/sr_.•/
A.
B.
rA$EA(SQDAh mmAGM
(10 B6
1 � 3U �E'}YY.10 P,]IlKl1iZYk)PR'Iq��lY
1.71R'1'HIR —
!,IK1pN11I,VY.+II:'�
I:Ineb3'J2Iw A�QI'
- ■rqV M:�m+:mmvm.
"TteY�N.:rr
:1�I1 [ 1:�. -
w
A.
B.
rA$EA(SQDAh mmAGM
(10 B6
DEMOUMD)
xou»uMGKW(Fmm Pon B)
3690 •
R
7W
Tow
Ddvawy&Pxkiaa+Pim W.&
2fiM)
He
47333a8 63.5-lS
.d lar.louY m.iadhw)
Walk
wwwaya
3-10
243
243
r.do
3`42
s36 •
3li 8
Dmin/1'msca
1203
1464 •
1
Pmt,6pamDatioa
0
1192 •
1192
EW4B.)omm
1117
198
I9E
Agoh.. w.s<(Q. wC&do)
0
310
X -I -Pm Am ABowad- MDA(6Cm wv1LAW fl)
lf-0SY .R.
(TO BE
DPA OOHED)
RO�ACE
EWenS
Fx"o
Taw ..
AGM Town
9x6
15839
15929
MF AGR)
cmn
DBMWAILW)
Existing
PtOPO-d
Taal
Rmeand Cmp
L III P19m
2306 •
4680 •
4690
D. 2nd Mar
810+
2666 •
255E
' AIDC&BMPmeal
0 *
-�—+
0
1 0-K
576
_+
0
kxu.al'Bu06ap
la Flom
1173 •
0
0
`0
2nd Fl.
p
0
U
Attic Od Barerml
0
—r—
Totals
7�--—
_
lYccAm Allw- MVA (fN wakhM lq
® -
•d+ 6mx %Whod by adkiax
...IAAWa3;AM" MDA •7560r.L(min), If LUFc.S. m.MmW L.bpmolW.ul pplia ..
- ATTACHMENT
December 14, 2004
TO: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner
FROM: John Chau, Assistant Engineer
RE: Alon Residence
27673 Lupine Road
File#247-03-ZP-SD-GD
New Residence
At your request, the Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject
property's site development plan using:
Topographic Survey, Overall Site Plan, Partial Grading and Drainage Plan, and
Partial Utility Plan prepared by Lea & Sung Engineering, Inc. dated April 21,
2004, last revised November 15, 2004, and received November 30, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on our review of the referenced plans, it appears that the project engineer and
designer have not met all the requirements of the Engineering Department.
Consequently, the following items still need to be addressed and three sets of revised
plans submitted for review. The applicant should respond to each of the following items
in writing either in a separate letter or with margin notation:
1. The proposed project does not meet the Town's grading policy. The Town limits
grade differences between the existing ground and the proposed finish floor
elevation or finish grade to a fill differential of 3' and a cut differential of
4'outside of the building footprint and 8' within the building footprint.
• Up to 13.5' of fill is proposed for the planting area southeast of the pool at
existing contour elevation 316. Maximum of 3' of fill is allowed.
• Up to 14' of cut is proposed for the circular driveway at existing contour elevation
348. Maximum of 4' of cut is allowed.
• Up to 12' differential between the finish elevation of the pool coping and existing
contour elevation 316. Maximum of 3' differential is allowed. Please make
appropriate revisions.
2. Show how grading is proposed at the lawn area west of the circular planter.
3. The proposed retaining walls exceed the Town's maximum allowable wall height
of 4'. Up to 14' wall high is proposed for the circular driveway at existing
elevation contour 354'. Please make appropriate revisions.
4. Please revise the Estimated Earthwork Quantities table to show maximum
proposed fill of 13.5' instead of 6.5'.
S. Confirm the turning radius for the driveway leading to the upper parking space
and the circular driveway. Per AASHTO standard, minimum of 24' outside
turning radius and 15.3' inside turning radius are required.
Please note that the above comment does not preclude additional comments from other
reviewing bodies. Additional comments may follow upon receipt of the items requested
above.
17 Jaunuary, 2005
Planning Commission
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Freemont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 64022
Re: 27673 Lupine Road
Dear Planning Commission Members:
wedo V-
ATTACHMENT" 6
RECEIVED
JAN 18 2005
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
This letter is to inform the commission that the surrounding neighbors of 27673 Lupine
Road (those undersigned), do not support the revised plans submitted by Mr. and Mrs.
Alon as received by the town of Los Altos Hills on November 30, 2004.
As we have in the past, this group of neighbors welcomed an opportunity to meet with
the Alons to hear about their revised plans. We did so on January 8, 2005 and heard that
the building would be lowered by 3 ft on one section, and 5 ft on another. We heard that
the master bedroom would be recessed by 7 ft, and we heard of a plan to provide
screening with landscaping. We also learned that no change was made to the physical
size of the proposed building; that the proposal it to simply dig into the hill.
Though this proposal improves the visual impact to neighbors somewhat, it is simply
insufficient and unacceptable. The proposal does not meet the 10 ft reduction directed by
the Planning Commission, does not reduce the size of the building, and, if constructed,
would create an immense and obtrusive structure in the neighborhood.
subsequent to our meeting with the Alons, three of us met with Leslie Hopper, Project
Planner, and learned that the plan requires excessive grading - 14 feet of cut to
accommodate the mass of the building, and a circular driveway. This grading and cut
into the hill would require 20 ft of retaining wall, and may undermine the integrity of the
hill itself, creating a serious threat and hazard to the Lees.
Other concerns remain. The surrounding neighbors still have no firm commitments about
reflectivity of materials on the roof, windows, or the 8 "towers" (5'x 10' columns) which
support the building. The newly set story poles are on the inside of these columns, and
therefore under represent the visual impact on the neighbors. From the meeting with Ms.
Hopper, we learned that the front glass between the towers are "bay" windows and we are
concerned about the extent to which they protrude. Further, landscape promises are not
truly enforceable by the town and we are concerned about any screening solutions
proposed in substitution of true design changes.
Most of us attended that last Planning Commission meeting where the Alons' prior
proposal was considered. The direction was clear: redesign and lower the building 10 ft.
To be clear, this neighborhood has grown frustrated with the Alons unwillingness to
compromise. Rhetoric aside, this proposal is not a redesign. It includes minor
modifications with a lot of grading. It addresses neither the concerns of the neighbors,
nor the direction of the Planning Commission.
We request that the town follow through on its direction to reduce the height and redesign
this proposal.
Thank you.
/�