HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.3•
?. 3
Town of Los Altos Hills August 11, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT
PATIO, SWMD41NG POOL, AND SPA. PURSUANT TO SECTION 10-2.702 (E) OF
THE SITE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS AN
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 25 FOOT STRUCTURAL SETBACK CITING THAT
THE "CREEK" IS AN ARTIFICIALLY EMPLACED LANDSCAPE WATER
FEATURE; LANDS OF AWDISHO; 12234 TEPA WAY; FILE # 29-05-ZP-SD.
FROM: Brian Froelich, Assistant Planner b'5r-
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director C„G,
That the Planning Commission:
Allow a lesser (10 foot minimum) setback from the top of creek bank finding that the water
channel is a man made landscape feature.
ALTERNATIVE
The Planning Commission may deny the proposal and uphold the 25 foot setback citing that Site
Development Code Section 10-2.702 (e) applies to this creek/water feature.
The subject 1.106 acre irregularly shaped property is located on the northeast comer of the Tepa
Way and Adobe Lane intersection. The relatively flat site (3% slope) is developed with a single
story dwelling and detached garage totaling approximately 3,500 square feet built in 1957. The
property is part of the Pink Horse Ranch Subdivision approved in January of 1956 by the Town.
The subdivision map indicates that Adobe Creek was altered to its current alignment with the
approval of the subdivision. The subject property contains a portion of the original creek channel,
which is now a secondary water channel that diverts water upstream from Adobe Creek and
meanders through several properties in the subdivision and then flows back into Adobe Creek.
At some point since subdivision map approval the direction of the original channel (now
secondary) on site was altered to the formation that currently exists on the property. There are no
permits of record to indicate the original channel onsite was approved by the Town to be altered
to its current state.
This proposal was initially reviewed at a Site Development hearing on June 28, 2005 and was
referred to the Planning Commission after it was determined that the creek feature may be
subject to the 25 foot structural setback required for creeks. The proposal includes a 1,900 square
foot patio, pool, and spa located approximately five (5) feet from the top of bank at the nearest
point.
I ds of Awdisho
Planing Commission
August 11, 2005
Page 2 of 4
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Section 10-2.702 (e) of the Site Development Code (attached), structures shall be
setback a minimum of 25' from the top of bank of all creeks. The code section also allows the
Planning Commission to approve lesser setbacks without requiring variance findings.
DISCUSSION
A copy of the proposed plan was sent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for comment. The
response concluded that the primary Adobe Creek channel is within their jurisdiction but the
original creek channel in question is not. They provided suggestions regarding drainage and fill
that were incorporated into later submittals by the project engineer.
This situation appears to be unique and may be the only one of this kind in Town. The applicant
requests a five (5) foot setback, 20 feet less than is required from the top of bank for all creeks
citing that the creek is man made. Because these waters are from Adobe Creek and discharge
back into Adobe Creek, staff recommends a minimum ten (10) foot setback from top of bank to
minimize the introduction of pollutants and sediments into Adobe Creek.
An existing patio (approximately 300 square feet) is located in the side setback area but is not
reflected on the plans. There are no permits for this hardscaped area on file and staff has included
a condition that it be removed prior to submittal for building permits, if the project is approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA)
The proposed patio, pool, and spa addition is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15303, Class 3 (e):
"Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming
pools, and fences. "
The proposal meets the above requirements for CEQA exemption.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Environmental Design committee comments
3. Santa Clara Valley Water District correspondence
4. Site photos
5. Copy of tract map
6. Copy of Section 10-2.702 (e) of the Site Development Code
7. Project plans (Commission Only)
r
Lands of Awdisho
Planning Com ion
August 11, 2005
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENT
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SUE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
A NEW POOL SPA, AND PATIO
LANDS OF AWDISHO, 12234 TEPA WAY
File #29-05-ZP-SD
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
I. 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. 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.
3. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior
to installation.
4. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. The pool equipment enclosure may not encroach into any required setbacks.
5. Any required permits shall be issued by the Building Department, prior to
commencement of work on the proposed improvements.
6. No pool water discharge shall be pumped into the creek feature. No non-native plants
or use of fertilizers or pesticides shall be permitted within 25 feet of the top of bank.
7. The property owner shall completely remove the illegal patio in the side yard setback
area and planning staff shall inspect the removal prior to submittal of building
permits.
lands of Awdisho
Pluming Commission
August 11, 2005
Page 4 of 4
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
8. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as
surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of runoff. The proposed
drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage and
grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies
corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection.
9. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during
the grading moratorium (November 1 and April 1) except with prior approval from
the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line.
10. The location and elevation of the pool shall be certified in writing by a registered civil
engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location and elevation
shown on the approved Site Development plan prior to final inspection.
11. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and
public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy
permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the
roadways and pathways prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check.
12. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. 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. 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.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the
Planning and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to final building inspection
approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 7, 11, AND 12 SHALL BE COMPLETED, REVIEWED, AND
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR
TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until August
11, 2006). 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.
��
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE
LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPEEVALUATION
AtkD-,>t%W0
Applicant's Name: 'Qio e l $ {-{"2 . MAR 10 2005
Address:
I 33c� �[E:PO4 L&F" oFlosALTOS ffLS
Reviewedby: �'—e bi n QcL , Date: 3 • (� • O S-'
In �
Mitigation needed:
Visibility from off site: from distance (directions), from nearby
neighbors (directions) (include need for screening for privacy).
Noise: from pump/pool
Lights: from fixtures
Fence materials: color
Other:
air conditioner , sport court
automobile headlights
open/solid Erosion control
Planting Plan Evaluation: (Circle required trees and shrubs on plan)
Are species appropriate: Deciduous?
Future height (view, solar, drive/path blockage)
Fire hazard
Hardiness/frost
Drought tolerance
Meet mitigation needs
Creeks and drainage: Is there a conservation easement?
Are there sufficient protections in place?
Will fences impact wildlife migration?
Invasive species should not be planted near a waterway.
Other: Are there obstructions to pathways, including future growth of plants?
Are all noise mitigations in place?
No construction in road right-of-way.
O
Page I of 1
Brian Froelich ATTACHMENT 3
From: Sue Tippets[stippets®valleywater.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:30 PM
To: bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Subject: 12234 Tepa Way (our file30568)
Thank you for referring the plans for the proposed poll construction at 12234 Tepa Way to us for review. The
watercourse shown on the plan and identified as a brook does not qualify as a District facility. Therefore the
proposed construction does not need a District permit. Nonetheless, the pool is quite close to the bank of the
watercourse and the deck is about a foot higher than existing grade at the corner nearest to the creek. Drainage
from the outfall concentrates flow which can cause erosion The outfall also collects drainage from the pool deck
with a short time of exposure to the air increasing the potential for chlorinated water to enter the watercourse.
District recommendations:
• move the comer of the pool further away from the creek so there is room to match grades w/o
placing fill along the creek bank and to minimize erosion of the bank from the pool deck.
• Delete the outfall into the creek, direct drainage from the patio into landscaped areas or to the lawn.
3/30/2005
1
" 9l
r r
t
� r
1r .
s
IFY
r �^
ice-
1
W5 XWU 91•[
O
ti M
Acres
1
1.658 Acres
,{•—s�'u'srw..
30 30
A
—4
069
nl
L
P7KE
_
yl�
/ ti
15
1.020 Acres
AwoL;6�%O
N q!a I Original Adobe Creek
,, e LNC- L10
Acres
}a
18 .�
1064 Acres
recorded June
County Recoro.,
on MIS mop.
ATTACHMENTS
3
1.122 Acres
W 1}tjt y,g.
—3Ai'El.PiC 73237 gid. t3.
ADOBE
SA
'szp, NO `_ ev i•i37os 'r'k`�' e�'N
<ac. a�:es� _371.ie rs rl 19
LANs—" 1 1.104 Acres
" '� s"'b'so-. # • der J
res is,
Q a �
17
S$ 1.126 Acres
i C
of
M.MY53'E. 99AIn N\ F Ji,ES�
Cay 10
0 dy tl`PQ5 a 1
1
2
1.151 Acres
20
1.093 Acres
40 Fos Y.
•� P
p
01 \\`.
Ot
4�
oA^
Sec. 10-2.702. Siting.
Page 1 of 1
TITLE 10. ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT` ATTACHMENT l.P
CHAPTER 2. SITE DEVELOPMENT'
Sec. 10.2.702. Siting.
(a) Alternative locations. The location of buildings and structures shall be selected so as to
minimize run-off from the site, the volume of off-site drainage created, the destruction or
alteration of natural vegetation, and the impairment of scenic views from off the site.
(b) Preservation of ridgelines, hilltops, and highly visible lots. 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 rause 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.
(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.
(5) Hilltops or ridgelines shall not be cut down, flattened, or similarly graded to create a building
pad in excess of the actual area covered by the principal residence.
(c) Disturbance to the site. The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as
possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum
necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile
of buildings. 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. The removal of vegetation and alteration of drainage pattens shall be the minimum
necessary to accommodate the proposed structure.
(d) Passive solar energy conservation. Opportunities for passive solar energy shall be considered
in the siting of buildings.
(e) Creek protection. Structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25') feet from the top
of bank of all creeks. Greater setbacks may be required along major creeks in the Town;
however, lesser setbacks may be allowed where approved by the Planning Commission.
Improvements required to all creeks shall be accomplished to appear natural and to maintain the
natural meandering course of the existing creek. Creeks and banks shall be protected so as to
remain in their natural state as much as possible. They should not be disturbed by the building or
grading process. No grading shall be allowed in creeks or within the required setbacks from top
of bank. Siting of structures shall be done with safety as a primary concern. Safety concerns and
preservation of riparian habitat are required to be simultaneously addressed when designing
development and required improvements to creeks.
(§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; §§ 6, 7, Ord. 370, eff. May 20, 1994)
h ttp://www.bpcnet.con/codesAosaltoshills/_DATAr=E 10/CRAPTER_2_SITE_DE V E... 8/2/2005