Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/2005`r' Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 8/11/05 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes ( 1 ) #7-05 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Carey, Cottrell & Clow Absent: Commissioner Collins Staff: Debbie Pedro, Senior Planner, Lani Smith, Planning Secretary 2. RE -ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Carey and passed by consensus to elect Commissioner Cottrell as Chairman. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to elect Commissioner Collins as Vice -Chair. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF GOESE, 13480 Wildcrest Drive (90-05-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for 6,414 square foot partial two-story new residence on a highly visible lot with a 714 square foot basement (maximum structure height 27') and a 817 square foot swimming pool. Existing landscape screening is proposed to be removed. (staff -Debbie Pedro) Staff introduced this item stating this application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review because it is a visible lot on a hilltop with the house sited on a ridge line. She provided an aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding area. She further highlighted the information in the staff report. She stated that the new driveway would take the same access off of Wildcrest but about half way up a new portion of the driveway, which includes the fire truck turnaround, will be constructed leading up to the new garage. The fire truck turnaround will require the construction of two 3 -foot terrace retaining walls on the east Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 2 side of the driveway. The Town received three letters from neighbors regarding this project. All three neighbors are in support of the project but the down hill neighbor mentioned the need to provide landscape screening on the north side of the house. The construction of the driveway will require the removal of several significant mature trees (cedar, two cypress trees, and a walnut tree) that currently provide screening on the east side of the building site. On the south side, the visible portion of the house will be the new driveway with the terrace retaining wall. The two story building will be more visible because of the removed landscaping and according to the Site Development Ordinance, ridgelines, hilltops and highly visible lots shall blend with the natural surroundings and native or naturalized vegetation shall be used to conceal structures, whenever possible. The applicant has demonstrated some effort to design the new house to blend with the surrounding areas by utilizing a sloping roof line and the use of darker, natural materials on the building exteriors. However, because several of the significant trees will be removed, they need to be replaced and additional trees need to be planted to insure that the building will be well screened. Therefore, staff recommends a 3 to I ratio replacement of mature screen trees for every tree removed. With regard to the open space easement, the building site is surrounded by moderately steep to very steep slopes on the north, east and south sides. She provided views of the approximate areas with slopes that are at or over 30%. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an Open space easement on the lower south facing slope. Staff believes that this is reasonable because while part of the property will be in an easement, it will leave a large remaining area on the property to be utilized for agricultural purposes such as an orchard or vineyard. However, if the Commission deems it appropriate, it can require a larger easement boundary to cover more areas of the land that has slopes of more than 30%. The applicant has indicated that they would like to plant a vineyard within the open space easement. The purpose of the easement is to preserve the land in its natural state, including the natural terrain and natural vegetation. Planting a vineyard in the open space easement will have an environmental impact because of the use of fertilizers and pesticides. There may also be erosion problems on the steep slopes since there are usually no ground covers around the vines. In addition, the applicant may need to fence off the easement to protect the vines from deer and other animals. The Town's Open Space Easement agreement has standard, consistent language that prohibits planting of any vegetation other than native. Allowing a deviation would set a precedent to allow non-native vegetation in the easement. Staff further noted corrections to the staff report as follows: Condition of approval 419a was completed during the review process and should be deleted; and #25, changing "prior to submittal ojplans jar building plan check" to "prior to issuance of building permit". This would allow the applicant additional time to get the easement agreement approved. Brief discussion ensued regarding the planting of vineyards in open space easements, and the term "open space easements" versus "conservation easements". Staff indicated there is a distinction between the two which was previously clarified by the City Attorney. Basically, a conservation easement is a voluntary dedication of easement, and open space easements are required as part of a site development approval. So they use the term "open space easement" if it `, is required as part of a site development proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 3 Chairman Cottrell stated that in his conservation easement document he can plant a vineyard and there are other vineyards in Town that are so steep that he knows it is a conservation easement. Commissioner Kerns felt a conservation easement or an open space easement were the same as it relates to what you can do in them. He knew there were areas in Town that have conservation easements with vineyards. There is no difference. Commissioner Carey noted that there were areas on this property with slopes greater than 30% that are not in an open space easement. Staff clarified that the purple areas were the slopes over 30% and the green areas are where the applicant has proposed the dedication of an open space easement. The dedication of open space easements have been required for a number of reasons; slopes over 30%; areas next to a creek; also for oak coverage. Commissioner Carey asked if areas with greater than 30% slope should be in an open space easement, why isn't this whole area not being required to be in an open space easement? Staff stated that they are working with the applicant to try to allow them some areas where they can use the property for agricultural pursuits such as an orchard or a vineyard (purple areas only). For clarification, Commissioner Carey stated that in the past they have required and potentially in the future they will require all areas of greater than 30% slope to be in an open space easement. However, the applicant has requested that in this circumstance the purple areas remain outside the open space easement but in addition even if they put the green area into an open space easement, the applicants would still like to plant a vineyard in that area. `y Commissioner Kerns discussed the driveway which was designed to meet the fire department's 15% slope requirement. In the past, the fire department has allowed portions of the driveway up to 20% slope. He asked if the Commission can make an exception to save the Cedar tree. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Brad Blackman, applicant's representative, stated they had no objection offering the open space easement on the right side slope (all of the purple area). They were never told or asked to provide more. They do feel strongly regarding the left side of the property as it is the entry to a single home, not visible to anyone except to two homes, and they will probably treat the area as an open space easement as they plan on restoring the former fruit tree orchard there which is a part of their landscape plan. Regarding the possibility of a 20% slope in some areas, the project team did not feel the fire department would allow exceptions. Tom Klope, project architect, stated that this was the end of a difficult 10 month project. The difficulties included: site constraints; regulations of the site; working with fitting the house on the ridgeline; and working with Ryan Rucker with the fire department regarding several alternatives for the driveway. They were working with a shrinking MDA. Because they had to move the driveway toward the left (or down hill) to keep a 15% slope they had no choice but to eliminate the four (4) trees as identified in the staff report with screening value. They plan to bring the landscape plan back to the Commission for review as required and discuss with the Commission the accurate means of screening this house to the best of their ability with proper plant material which should be native or on a hillside setting like this, oak trees. The staff report Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 4 indicates a 3 to 1 ratio of replacement trees. Conditions #2 indicates that the applicant shall replant 15 mature tree specimen (minimum 20' tall x 10' wide). They have investigated the cost, for the record, of a 20' tall, 10' wide live oak tree ( $4000). Due to the constraints of the site they need a crane that could reach 25 feet and the cost would double ( $8000 a piece for any oak that size brought onto the property). Regarding the Atlas Cedar, they contacted Joe Amas of Trees of California which is one of the finest trees movers in the region. The estimated the cost to dig out the Cedar would be $25,000; its survival would be minimal at best. In Mr. Klope's opinion he felt it would be better to apply the $25,000 toward trees which are more appropriate to this setting and provide greater screening value. Regarding the open space easement, their desire is to have vineyards on the south facing slope and an orchard on the north facing slope. Both of those slopes were historically orchards in the past. He felt they have done their best to pull this site plan together in a way that meets their clients parameters for his project as well as Town codes and ordinances. Brian Peters, project architect, discussed the process, studying many ways to utilize the site. The beauty of the site is that is has wonderful north and south orientation for views. The main goal was to be able to capture the views and exposures from the main living areas of the house. So rather than building a large mass in the center of the pad, they wanted to create a usable space in the court yard space, creating thin profiles of the home so they would get light from multiple sides and also be able to get views of the western hills and also to the north towards the east bay. He further discussed the roof line which would bring the house down into the hills. They will be using natural woods and materials as well as copper gutter fascias which will all blend together. They have worked really hard to keep simple roof forms. He discussed and illustrated the pallet of materials to be used, keeping the architecture quiet and simple. Mr. Hurley, project civil engineer, discussed the amount of time working with the fire department to lay out the driveway with different options which did not work for either the fire department or for the site. The proposal is the best they could come up with to minimize the grading around the existing hill and to minimize the impact on the hill itself. Brad Blackman stated that he researched other sites before proposing the vineyard as they did not want to ask for something that had not been approved previously. He had reviewed the past eight to 10 conservation easement agreements in order to draft theirs. He provided a copy of the approval from Carl Cahill recommending it to the Town Council, and the Town Council resolution as well as a copy of the actual recorded document which included the permission to install irrigation systems and vineyards. Commissioner Carey had before him a copy an open space easement agreement from the Altamont Road subdivision that the Commission approved recently which Mr. Blackman was involved with at that time. Section 3 of the agreement for an open space easement talks about restrictions on the use of the property, in particular 3c -against the grading of land for reasons other than intended permitted uses; 3d -against the cutting the vegetation, except as may be required for fire prevention, thinning, elimination of deceased growth, and similar measures; and 3e -against any plantings other than native vegetation. He noted that this was different from the rV L J Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 5 4 information Mr. Blackman had researched. For a point of information, Commissioner Carey stated that code indicates that the replacement ratio for a heritage oak tree is actually 5 to 1. Mr. Blackman responded stating that the Altamont property's slope was and still is heavily filled with native vegetation (lots of oak trees). His client at the time was not interested in a vineyard so they did not pursue the topic of a vineyard in the conservation easement. He felt that the conservation easement documents are negotiated documents in the pursuit of individual homeowners. Commissioner Kerns agreed. Tom Klope discussed the landscape screening plant stating that he felt a 3 to 1 ratio was appropriate however the size is quite large. Generally on oak trees in particular, when they bring large specimens they tend to sit for some time and not grow. In choice locations they could bring a few in. He recommended that in other areas they plant smaller trees as they hit the ground and start glowing. He asked if they are going to screen the house heavily now or are they going to plant it in a way that over 5 to 8 years they begin to develop that screening. The 20 x 10 is a 72 inch box tree. He would propose the 24 inch box or 36 inch box size. If there is a location that warrants a large tree to be placed on the property, they have entertained that idea on other projects in order to take care of major concerns of adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Kerns felt the box size is not as important as the actual size of the tree. In the past they have specified size as opposed to box size. He was concerned that there are 15 of the large trees which is too much. He suggested fewer of the large trees but specifying perhaps some 20 x 10 with the rest 10 feet tall by 5 feet wide (total of 15). Mr. Klope was in agreement to develop a ratio or mix. He noted that the cost of a 24" or 36" box tree would be substantially less as they would not require the use of a crane for planting. Mr. Blackman referred to the rendering of the site with further discussion of the landscape screening. He felt it would be best to review the landscape plan (number and size) after framing of the house. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated that allowing vineyards in conservation easements began during a period when they had a Council that was not concerned with the sustainability of either wildlife or plantings. She felt they now have a "green" Council. She felt the Town has no control over vineyards. This is a serious problem due to spraying (keeping children and animals inside) and water runoff. She referred to the Geese's hilltop property which is a water shed area. If left alone, native plants will grow. It would be helpful if a few oak trees were planted in this area to help it along. The Town's water shed is what waters the rest of the land during the warm summer months. This area, if left natural, acts like a sponge. Since the water goes to the bay eventually, she would like to keep it as clear as possible. She continued by discussing apricot orchards and an oil spray that is usually applied to the trees in the winter months. She does not know of any other spraying that is done to the orchards. She would prefer, on this project, an open space easement on the upper portion of the property Anything planted on the top portion will drain down. She would prefer orchards on the opposite side of the property. Another concern discussed was the copper flashings noting copper is Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 6 4 poisonous to the water. She suggested contacting Beau Goldie with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for more information. She discussed trees and replacement of boxed trees. She provided a resource to Tom Kope where the trees are not boxed but actually wrapped and the trees are healthier. Commissioner Carey stated that the Environmental Design Committee recommendation was for a one-story residence. Wayne, with the Evenshine Group, La Paloma Road, representing the owners, voiced support of this project with the vineyard. He stated in Napa they have vineyards on sloped areas but they do have erosion control with the use of seasonal grasses in the winter time. He felt Tom and the applicants were looking into this. They would be in support of either mature trees or boxed trees. On the La Paloma property, they planted several hundred trees, the box variety, which have grown well. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Kerns was okay with the open space easement proposal and he would support a vineyard as they have allowed this in the past. He would like the Commission to make a change to the requested number of trees. The landscape portion is requiring 15 trees of the 20' x 10' wide variety. He would like to see more variety of trees with a fewer number of the larger trees (five larger trees and maybe 10' x 5' wide variety 10 smaller trees) for a total of 15 trees. He would like to reserve a number as the landscape plan will return to them and they can modify the plan if necessary. He would like them to review a landscape plan at least based on that number of trees. He felt oak trees would screen the house better than a cedar tree. Also, he could support the second story as they have done an excellent job with the design and the use of materials. Commissioner Clow agreed. He did support the project with a vineyard. He did like Brad's suggestion regarding a 25 foot oak tree near where the Cedar was located with three to five larger trees and a number of smaller trees. They can review landscaping needs after framing. He felt the house was not as visible as it may appear on a topo map. The roof design is very good as well as the choice of colors which helps the house become less visible. The ordinance indicates they may require a one story but it does not say they have to require a one story. He felt the applicants have done much to mitigate the visibility. Commissioner Carey felt the project would be beautiful. The three major issues that they are dealing with are: ridgeline (highly visible lot); open space issues (where and what to require); and landscape screening. The applicants and designers deserve much credit in terms of how this particular structure fits into the ridgeline location. He would maintain the recommendation of the planning staff regarding the 3 to 1 ratio for replacement of new trees to those being removed. The question is how many bigger ones should they require. He felt a key issue was the landscape screening and they need to provide strong guidance with the idea that it will be fine ( tuned. Regarding the open space easement issue, it was his understanding that anything over a `, 30% slope should be in an open space easement. He agreed with Sandy in that the area to the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 ` Page 7 4I south side of the property should be dedicated an open space easement where the slope is 30% or greater. The north side of the property, with the same slope, would not be in an open space easement as it is the drive up to their property and this may be requiring too much for people who have their house surrounded by open space easements. The next question is what to allow in an open space easement. He liked vineyards but if they are going to dedicate an open space easement it means that they do not terrace it, irrigate it, or fertilize it. He felt the right thing to do is not allow a vineyard in an open space easement. He would like to hear more feedback from the Commissioners regarding where do they require it, and what do they allow an open space easement to be used for. Chairman Cottrell agreed with his fellow Commissioners regarding the beautiful design. Regarding the fact this is a highly visible lot, a great many of the houses in this Town are on highly visible lots. There are three visible houses from this property. He felt with the proper landscape mitigation this house will be fine on this site. He agreed with the 3 to 1 ratio for replacement trees but he also felt they should wait until the house is framed to decide. He also was confused with conservation easements versus open space easements. Every time there is space over 30% slope they have placed it into a conservation easement. They have many examples in Town where they have allowed vineyards or orchards inside a conservation easement. If it is a special case, the applicant has to ask for that exception and it is usually granted. He felt all the slopes over 30% should be in a conservation easement and he was willing to allow a vineyard or orchard on either side of the house. (16W Commissioner Carey felt if they allow an exception so the north side of the property does not fall within an open space easement (request from applicants) then they should maintain the south side of the property as an open space easement without the vineyard. Mr. Blackman requested a reduced landscape deposit. The Commission recommended leaving the condition as is. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence with a basement and swimming pool, Lands of Geese, 13480 Wildcrest Drive, accepting staff recommendations with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: delete 17a; #25, change prior to submittal of plans for building plan check to prior to issuance of building permits; 3 to 1 ratio for tree replacement for landscape mitigation with a mix of large and smaller trees, one being a 25 foot tree to replace the existing Cyprus (three to five larger tress with the remaining smaller trees); and allowing a vineyard in the proposed conservation easement as proposed by the applicant. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Kerns & Clow NOES: Commissioner Carey ABSENT: Commissioner Collins This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. ( Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 8 5. OLD BUSINESS -none 6. NEW BUSINESS -none REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7.1 Planning Commission Representative for July 7's, Commissioner Clow, reported on the following: creation of a new committee reviewing highly visible lots and fences; committee to review the update of the General Plan; and a presentation from the Bullis Charter representatives. 7.2 Planning Commission Representative for July 20 -Commissioner Cottrell 7.3 Planning Commission Representative for August 4�-Commissioner Carey 7.4 Planning Commission Representative for August I8U-Commissioner Kerns 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of June 23, 2005 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the June 23, 2005 minutes. 9. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING -JUNE 28, & JULY 5, 2005 �r 9.1 LANDS OF JARVIS, 23923 Jabil Lane (243-04-ZP-SD-GD); CEQA Status: exempt 15303 (a). A request for a Site Development Permit for a 6,714 square foot new residence (maximum height 30') (staff -Brian Froelich). Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF BHARGAVA, 11860 Francemont Road (67-05-ZP-SD-GD); CEQA Status: exempt 15303 (a). A request for a Site Development Permit for a 4,990 square foot two-story new residence with a 964 square foot basement (maximum height 27' feet) (staff -Debbie Pedro). Approved with conditions. 9.3 LANDS OF JAYCO INVESTMENTS LLC, 26535 Altamont Road (28-05-ZP- SD-GD); CEQA Status: exempt 15303 (a). A request for a Site Development Permit for a 1,748 square -foot basement addition and remodel. (staff -Debbie Pedro). Approved with conditions. 10. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING -JUNE 28, JULY 5 & 12, 2005 10.1 LANDS OF AWDISHO, 12234 Tepa Way (29-05-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 1,900 square foot patio, swimming pool and spa (staff - Brian Froelich). Continued to a Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2005 Page 9 Approved 8/11/05 �I 10.2 LANDS OF LIU, 12690 La Cresta Drive (117-05-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan (staff -Debbie Pedro). Approved with conditions. 10.3 LANDS OF GARVERICK, 14460 Miranda Court (14-05-ZP-SD); CEQA Status: exempt 15301 (e). The applicant requests a Site Development Permit for an addition of 1,241 square feet of living space (maximum height 25 feet) and remodel. The existing house is approximately 2,900 square feet, mostly single story. No trees are proposed to be removed (staff -Brian Froelich). Approved with conditions. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Smith Planning Secretary