Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2Item 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 7, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: A .REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN AND AN ADDITIONAL GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION OF 6" OF CUT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 7' OF CUT FOR THE YARD AREAS; LANDS OF CUE; FILE # 122-10-ZP-SD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner.. /, APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Directorlv� RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for landscape screening, hardscape improvements, and an additional Grading Policy exception of 6" of cut to the previously approved 7' for the yard areas, subject to the conditions of approval and findings of approval in Attachments 1 and 2. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the west side of Ascension Drive. The surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, north, and, south, and a vacant property across Ascension Drive to the east. On June 5, 2008, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Permit for a new 6,304 square foot single story residence with a 5,785 square foot basement, 1,243 square foot cabana, and 953 square foot swimming pool and spa. In addition, a Grading Policy exception of up to 12'6" for the backup area adjacent to the 'basement garage, driveway, and yard areas was approved (File # 252-07-ZP-SD-GD). CODE REQUIREMENTS Per condition of approval #5 of the Site Development Permit for the new residence, this application for landscape screening has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Section 10-2.801 and 10-2.803 of the Site Development Ordinance are used to evaluate landscape plans to address erosion, visual effects, tree preservation, views, and the amount required to adequately screen the new construction. Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.07 acres Net Lot Area: 1.07 acres Average Slope: 12.24% Lot Unit Factor: 1.025 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Cue 26491 Ascension Drive October 7, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgft) Maximum* Existing** Proposed Increase Remaining Development 15,014* 13,835 15,007 1,172 7 Floor 6,035 6,034 0 0 1 . (Basement 5,785) *includes 500 sq. ft. solar bonus per Section 10-1.502 of the LAHMC ** square footage approved with the new residence With the proposal, the hardscape has been modified to include patios and walkways along the rear of the residence and a new pool deck. In addition, a concrete courtyard along the south side of the property has been added where a grass courtyard was previously proposed. The size of the pool and spa has also been increased to 1,160 square feet. LANDSCAPE SCREENING Existing Landscape The existing vegetation consists of acacia, pine, palm, walnut, and non -heritage oak trees. A row of eucalyptus trees were removed along the southern property line per condition of approval #2 of the new residence. A 14" acacia and 24" pine tree along the front property line are proposed to be removed with this application. Proposed Trees The applicant is proposing to install 40 trees which range in size from 24" to 84" box. In addition to the trees, 165 shrubs ranging in size from 5 gallon to 24" box are proposed. The proposed plantings are designed to screen the new residence, cabana, and pool from offsite. With the approval of the new residence, the abutting neighbor to the north, at 26555 Ascension Drive (Lands of Zunino) had concerns that new landscape along the northern property line will shade his rear yard area. The project landscape architect had presented a sunlight encroachment exhibit to the Commission, demonstrating that 15' tall trees and shrubs will not shade the vegetation on the neighboring property. As a result, Condition #5 for the new residence required that screen trees along the shared property line shall not exceed 15' in height. The applicant is proposing seven (7) - 36" box Carolina Cherry trees and a row of English Laurels along the northern property line. The applicant's landscape architect (Thomas Klope Associates) has stated that the screening along this property line will be maintained to be no greater than 15' in height (condition of approval #4). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Cue 26491 Ascension Drive October 7, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Oak Tree Removal Prior to the submittal of the new residence application, the applicant had removed two (2) heritage oaks, approximately 18" in diameter, without benefit of Town approval. Condition of approval #5 of the new residence, required the replacement of the oaks at a 5 to 1 ratio with 48" box trees pursuant to Section 12-2.501 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. At the June 5, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant's landscape architect had stated that replacing the two (2) oak trees with ten (10) - 48" box oaks would result in landscaping on the property with too many tall and heavily branched trees. The applicant requests to replace the two (2) heritage oak trees with five (5) - 20'11 x 20'W olive trees which are equivalent to 84" box, two (2) - 48" box coast live oaks, one (1) - 36" box coast live oak, and one (1) - 24" box coast live oak (condition of approval #5). OUTDOOR LIGHTING The applicant is proposing to install nine (9) low voltage tree down lights, five (5) light fixtures are proposed within the cabana, and twenty one in -set step lights are proposed for the front steps, south side yard steps to the light well, and steps leading to the cabana. All proposed lights are located outside of the required setbacks, except two down light fixtures located on the driveway entrance columns. GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION Total grading quantities for this project include 110 cubic yards of cut, in addition to the 8,369 cubic yards approved with the new residence, basement, swimming pool, cabana, yard area, driveway, and backup areas. Per the applicant's civil engineer (Lea & Braze Engineering), when they took over the project as the engineer of record and revised the grading and drainage designs for the landscape plan, they found it necessary to lower the grade of the rear yard by an additional 6". This is because the California Building Code (CBC) requires the grade on the exterior of the building to be 8" away from any wood surface. The previous plan did not allow for adequate grade to comply with the CBC. In order to comply, the applicant is requesting an additional 6" of cut to the previously approved 7' (Attachment 3). dM 4 ' �it ,.,,.�.5" b c�...,w�rz•3.G .. ,.a< .a.. s, .a, c1a},�.w _t...�.'SL,,:m s.�� SN �.., f��4nSi_ 4?i;, 5 Olive 20'H x 20'W = 84" Box 2 Coast Live Oak 48" Box 1 Coast Live Oak 36"Box 1 Coast Live Oak 24"Box OUTDOOR LIGHTING The applicant is proposing to install nine (9) low voltage tree down lights, five (5) light fixtures are proposed within the cabana, and twenty one in -set step lights are proposed for the front steps, south side yard steps to the light well, and steps leading to the cabana. All proposed lights are located outside of the required setbacks, except two down light fixtures located on the driveway entrance columns. GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION Total grading quantities for this project include 110 cubic yards of cut, in addition to the 8,369 cubic yards approved with the new residence, basement, swimming pool, cabana, yard area, driveway, and backup areas. Per the applicant's civil engineer (Lea & Braze Engineering), when they took over the project as the engineer of record and revised the grading and drainage designs for the landscape plan, they found it necessary to lower the grade of the rear yard by an additional 6". This is because the California Building Code (CBC) requires the grade on the exterior of the building to be 8" away from any wood surface. The previous plan did not allow for adequate grade to comply with the CBC. In order to comply, the applicant is requesting an additional 6" of cut to the previously approved 7' (Attachment 3). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Cue 26491 Ascension Drive October 7, 2010 Page 4 of 7 NEIGHBOR CONCERNS On September 30, 2010, staff received an email from the neighbor at 26555 Ascension Drive (Lands of Zunino) regarding the height of the proposed screening along the northern property line. He feels that the English laurel shrubs should be kept at a maximum of 8' and the Carolina cherries should be a maximum of 12' tall instead 15', so his pumpkin patch abutting the property line will not be affected by the shade of the trees and shrubs. He also stated that the pine and acacia located along the front property line that are proposed to be removed with this application, should remain to mitigate the existing power pole and power lines (Attachment 4). COMMITTEE REVIEW The Environmental Design and Protection Committee noted that clustering of the perimeter shrubs would be preferred instead of a single row of English Laurel along the property lines (Attachment 5). CEQA STATUS This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. FNIVOKWOOMU W i 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Findings of Approval 3. Letter from Lea & Braze Engineering dated August 2, 2010 4. Email from Vince Zunino dated September 30, 2010 5. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated August 5, 2010 6. Minutes from the June 5, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting 7. Sunlight Encroachment Exhibit Prepared by Thomas Klope Associates 8. Grading Policy 9. Site Development plans Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Cue 26491 Ascension Drive October 7, 2010 Page 5 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPE SCREENING FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, POOL, SPA, AND CABANA LANDS OF CUE, 26491 ASCENSION DRIVE File # 122-10-ZP-SD PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. 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. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $25,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 3. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. 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. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 4. Screen trees and shrubs along the north property line by the driveway shall not exceed 15' in height at maturity. The species of the shrubs and trees shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to installation. 5. The two (2) heritage oak trees that were removed prior to submittal of the application for the new residence shall be replaced with five (5) 20'H x 20'W olive trees which are equivalent to 84" box, two (2) 48" box coast live oaks, one (1) 36" box coast live oak, and one (1) 24" box coast live oak. 6. Fences and gates are approved as shown on the plans. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Cue 26491 Ascension Drive October 7, 2010 Page 6 of 7 7. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the lighting plan. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. No Uplights are approved. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 8. Any revisions or additions to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and approved prior to commencement of this project. The approved plan shall be stamped and signed by the project engineer and shall supersede the previously approved drainage plan. 9. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 through April 15) except. with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 10. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 11. All irrigation systems must be located at least five feet from the Town's pathways and outside of the public right of way and public utility easements. The Town staff shall inspect the site and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 12. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after October 29, 2010 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until October 7, 2011). 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Cue 26491 Ascension Drive October 7, 2010 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL RADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR THE YARD AREAS LANDS OF CUE, 26491 ASCENSION DRIVE File # 122-10-ZP-SD 1. The proposed area of grading is not on a hillside and will not result in the substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained. 2. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are highly visible from off-site. 3. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 4. In order for the new residence to comply with the California Building Code Sections 2304.11.2.2 and 1803.3, the additional 6" of cut is required. Attachment 3 Main Office-, 2495 Industdam , ,,..J...�� ALEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC. H"rd, CA 94545 Ph: 510.887.4086 CIVIL ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS Fx:610.887.3019 Sacramento Region: 3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 300 Roseville, CA 95661 Ph: 916.966.1338 Fx:91Ngdg��! ED August 2, 2010 1 Town of Los Altos Hills AUG 0 4 2010 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Subject: Grading exception 26491 Ascension Dr., Los Altos Hills Lea & Braze Job#: 2100102 Planning Department: This letter is in response to the grading exception being requested for 26491 Ascension Dr. At the request of the owner and contractor, Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc. has taken over as engineer of record on the subject property and has subsequently revised the original grading and drainage plans for the new landscape plan. As part of this revision, we have reviewed the original grading and while we have tried to maintain the original intent as much as possible, we have determined that it is necessary to lower the grade in the rear yard an additional 6". This is due to building code issues that require the grade on the exterior of a building be 8" from any wood surface (CBC 2304.11.2.2). In addition they also require a grade of 5% away from the building for the fust 10' (CBC 1803.3). The previous plan did not allow for adequate grades to comply with the California Building Code. In order to comply with the building code and provide for a positive drainage away from the building, we opted to lower the grade of the rear yard an additional 6" from what was previously approved. By doing so, we provide a positive release for runoff to flow and maintain adequate drainage away from the house. This drainage is necessary to prevent damage to the structure over time and help prevent flooding of the rear yard and light wells in the future. Our request for this additional 6" is strictly an engineering request to both comply with building codes and provide a overall better drainage pattern. By doing so, the overall increase in cut is only 110 cubic yards of material. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, No. 63127 lxp. 06-30-12 Jim Toby, P.E., P.I Sr. Project Manger Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc. • www.leabroze.corn 4 } —1d Attachment 4 Nicole Horvitz From: Vince Zunino [vince@zunino.net] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:31 PM To: mark@custom-dreams.com Cc: Nicole Horvitz Subject: RE: Ascension Landscape Screening Attachments: newcomments26491 ascension. pdf This email is to document the discussion between, you Tom Klope and I regarding the Landscape Plan for the adjoining property. This new landscape plan has changed significantly from what we discussed and agreed to before as follows: 1. The original plan showed the solid wall of English Laurel along my property line held to a maximum of 8 feet. This requirement needs to be added to your new plan. 2. We agreed to explore adding a requirement to holding the height of the Carolina Cherries along the property line to 12 feet instead of 15 and perhaps repositioning them as necessary to ensure that full privacy screening is provided to your client from his windows facing my property. 3. The last landscape plan that was discussed showed the two mature trees in front of the property being protected and saved as they provide good screening of the power lines and power poles running along the front of the property for both your client and the neighbors. Removing these trees will create an eyesore and remedial action should be considered. As I said at our meeting, if you will work with me to adjust this landscape plan to minimize the height of the the solid wall of landscaping along my fence line I will be happy to support the plan. I have attached a copy of my prior comments for your reference. vince --- On Tue, 9/28/10, mark(ibcustom-dreams.com <markQcustom-dreams.com> wrote: From: marknu custom-dreams.com <mark@custom-dreams.com> Subject: RE: Ascension Landscape Screening To: "Vince Zunino" <vincezunino.net> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 9:23 AM That's a bummer about the pumpkin. It's impressive even with the crack! Klope and I will meet you Thursday morning at 9am. Let's meet in your front yard. Your shading concerns were taken into consideration during the initial landscape screening design, so we'll bring the design and exhibits to go over it again. Thank you for taking the time to meet. See you Thursday. Mark From: Vince Zunino [mailto:vince@zunino.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:41 AM To: mark@custom-dreams.com Subject: Re: Ascension Landscape Screening Hi Mark, Thanks for touching base with me regarding your Landscape Plan. I appreciate the opportunity to review it. As you may recall, it was the shadows cast by the proposed landscaping along my property line that triggered my initial concerns regarding your development. Hopefully we can agree on an alternative that will minimize this problem. I am available to meet you and Tom just about any day this week except Friday. If you want to shoot for 9 am Thurday, that would work for me or feel free to suggest a better time for you. Please let me know if this works for you. My number is 948-7932. Thanks, vince By the way, my biggest pumpkin is gone already. It split which disqualifies it for compitition so I took it to a pumpkin patch in Half Moon Bay. What you see now in the patch is my little pumpkin. Here's a picture of my big one that got away: (1,400 lbs.) Vincent Zunino 26555 Ascension Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 May 28, 2008 To: The Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Re: Updated Comments Regarding the Proposed New Residence at 26491Ascension Drive Summary: I have worked extensively with the applicant in an effort to resolve a number of concerns I have with this proposed development. Unfortunately, there are several significant issues I raised that have yet to be adequately addressed. My most significant concern is the huge nonconforming cut proposed for the side setback along my property line for car access to the basement garage. This large cut which is highly visible from the road and daylights most one side of the basement does not meet the requirements of the basement ordinance or the grading policy. In addition, the extent of the cut results in a significant negative impact to the current and intended uses of my property bordering this development.. My specific concerns are listed below: 1. The Proposed Gradina Cuts are Excessive The application requests exceptions to the grading policy for large extensive cuts to lower the backyard and accommodate most of the rear of the main structure. The cuts required average about 7.5 feet over a substantial area which is currently mostly flat. There is nothing particularly challenging about the topography of this site that would justify these large cuts. The proposed structure was never designed to fit on the contours of this gently sloping parcel. Instead the applicants have submitted a series of applications which grossly and materially misrepresented the existing natural grades on the site to make it appear that this proposal conforms to our ordinances. Now that the applicants have been compelled to correct the elevation discrepancies on the original application documents, the applicants are requesting that their non -conforming plan be approved without any effort to design a conforming structure. The first version of these plans submitted was represented to me by the applicant and the Planning Department as being fully compliant with all town ordinances and was being "Fast - Tracked" through the planning process. However, upon reviewing the elevations shown on the plans, it was immediately apparent that the entire front of the basement facing the road was 4 to 7 feet above the existing grade and clearly did not meet the requirements of the basement ordinance or the grading policy. It was also obvious on inspection that the topo map contained a number of gross elevation and contour errors. I brought these errors to the attention of the Planning Department. The next version of the development application submitted by the applicant was again based on the same obviously altered and misleading topographic map. When I again made an issue of these misrepresented elevations, the applicant submitted a third application based on a new survey. This survey was fairly accurate, but in the third development application, the applicant tampered with the survey results to again misrepresent the existing elevations around the front of the basement. This was the application that was originally scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on May 1. These elevation "errors" were exposed prior to the meeting and the application was continued to the June 5 Planning Commission meeting. The current application is the fourth application submitted and the first to accurately portray the existing grades on the site. It is clear now that this proposal is largely non -conforming to our Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 05/28/08 Page 1 of 6 grading policy. No attempt yet has been made by the applicant to design a fully conforming structure for this site. Recommendation: This developer should be required to submit an accurate, fully -conforming development proposal that has been specifically designed to fit the contours of this site. Appropriate remedies should also be considered to discourage the use of the deceptive tactics outlined above being used to subvert the fair application of our ordinances in our Fast -Track and Planning Process. 2. Sunlight Encroachment by Required Screening My property lies to the north and downgrade from the proposed development. In my experience, it is subject to deep shadows in the fall and winter months due to the seasonal declination of the sun. The extent of the cut required for the turnaround means that all required screening must be pushed to within 10' of the property line. I currently use this area of my property for developing new genetic varieties of giant pumpkins. The proposed screening and solid fence will put my patch in total shade by the end of growing season. This also means that the entire back of my property will be in deep shadow by the time of the winter solstice in late December. This will negatively impair my planned future planned use of my back lot for solar power generation. Eliminating the deep cut for the driveway up the setback would mitigate this problem significantly by allowing the screening to be brought closer to the home. This would move the shadow line off my property by about 10 feet. ,ENG �'{". ;.•.=,i¢ Lv�r.Dc' �;•. SEM=.,O'� 10 %tom 1 I �I 2 �X W -'i IN!a bPPr� Grr,Za luax �� \\ PFoR; 'TR::D :aPDSrD This diagram shows the highest point of the sun at noon during the fall and winter months. Cross section shown is near the front of the proposed basement garage. I worked extensively with the applicant to attempt to resolve this issue. I also made several reasonable proposals which would mitigate this problem but was unable to reach a suitable resolution with the applicant. The proposed cut for the driveway and turnaround also lies well outside of the requirements of the basement ordinance and grading policy as noted below. Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 05/28/08 Page 2 of 6 3. The Proposed North Driveway Requires Excessive Grading Cuts and Large Retaining Walls Which Significantly Exceed the Requirements of the Grading Policy The basement ordinance requires that: "Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's grading policy". The large cut and retaining walls proposed for the turnaround to the basement garage exceed 13 feet and will be clearly visible from the road and my property. The large cut proposed for the north driveway and turnaround will exceed 93 feet in this gently sloping area adjoining my property. In addition, the side of the proposed basement garage daylighted by this cut will be visibly above natural grade. The proposed structure will have the appearance of a very large non- conforming two-story home that has been partially buried below grade which it is. Z2.B 27.1 - Diagram 21. Diagram of the proposed cut near the west end of the basement garage shows the scale of the retaining walls. The large cut significantly exceeds the grading policy maximum limit of 8 feet. Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 05/28/08 Page 3 of 6 This front view shows the back and sides of the proposed driveway retaining wall in grey. The side and back of this huge retaining structure will be clearly visible from many angles from the road. Some of the angles of view from the road are illustrated here with red arrows. The right side elevation shown on the submitted plan misrepresents the view of the proposed home from my property. The retaining wall shown here follows the natural grade at the edge of the no grading limit as required. A significant portion of the garage and basement will be clearly visible from my property and from various angles from the road. Recommendation: The large retaining walls required for the driveway to the basement garage are visible from the road, don't meet the requirements of the basement ordinance and are well in excess of the limits set by the grading policy. The proposed development should be modified in a way that meets our ordinances and conforms more closely to the actual contours of the site. Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 05/28/08 Page 4 of 6 4. Improper Removal of Heritage Oaks Last September four large Oaks and approximately half a dozen smaller Oaks were cut from the property with out the benefit of permits. After removal of the larger Oaks, the stumps were ground up and branches cut from neighboring pines and juniper bushes were used to cover the area around the stumps. A deep layer of decaying oak leaves can still be found where these Oak trees were removed. Four large Oaks were removed from the lot without permits last September as indicated by the red circles above. The stumps were then ground up and the area around the two largest trees covered with pine and juniper branches. The submitted plan also requests the removal of most of the remaining trees and shrubs on the lot. There are several -trees that should be saved. A large Monterey Pine and a large Acacia tree near the front of the lot help screen a telephone pole and the wires which cross the front of the lot. The large pine also provides screening of the large house on the neighboring property from the road. Recommendation: I have proposed and reached preliminary agreement from the applicant to replace the four larger Oaks that were removed with drought tolerant trees of a similar size to be used as part of his landscape plan. Other measures adequate to discourage tactics of this sort should be applied as appropriate. In addition, the large Monterey Pine and Acacia tree near the front of the lot should be protected and saved because of the valuable screening they provide. Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 05/28/08 Page 5 of 6 5. Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Plan Exist There are reasonable alternatives for the applicant to make the proposed home fully compliant to the basement ordinance and the grading policy. A rough sketch of a conforming plan that I proposed to the applicant is shown below. The front and corner of the home with the basement garage is made two story. The driveway can then be brought to the front of the structure and the level of the finished floor can be raised. The huge cut required for the north driveway and the excessive cuts required in the rear of the property can be eliminated. Most of the proposed home's original design can be retained with this approach. This rough sketch shows a proposed driveway alternative that is fully compliant with the basement ordinance and our grading policy. It would also mitigate the late fall and winter shading of my property by allowing screening to be planted nearer the proposed home. Conclusion: There are significant problems with this application in that it clearly does not meet the requirements of several of our ordinances. The large proposed cuts and retaining walls needed for the driveway and turnaround for the basement garage will visibly mar the natural topography of this gently sloping site and are well in excess of the limits set by our grading policy. Alternative designs are possible which are fully compliant with our ordinances. The applicant should be required to design a home that more comfortably fits the contours of the site and complies fully with all town ordinances. Sincerely, Vincent Zunino Copy: Nicole Horvitz, Debbie Pedro Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 05/28/08 Page 6 of 6 RECEIVED Attachment 5 E nvironmen_ . Design and Protection Comm_ :;e AUG 0 2010 LANDSCAPE SCAPE TOVM OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Reviewed by: r ' Date 06 (C)5 1 1© Applicant Name Address • A -S Cs�A Ccm Site impact/lighting/noise: 0 1'l C(,q' cqfl L Creeks, drain ge, easements :A3 Existing Vegetation: Significant issues/comments: 1A l Attachment 6 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 7/17/2008 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, June 5, 2008, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. 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 Carey, Commissioners Cottrell, Clow, Collins and Harpootlian Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Richard Chiu, City Engineer; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner; and Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, stated that at the meeting on May 8, 2008, the City Council had approved Phase Three of the updated General Plan. On behalf -of the City Council she acknowledged Commissioner Cottrell's two years of dedication and hard work on the General Plan Ad Hoc Committee by presenting him with a gift. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Carey renumbered the agenda to hear item 3.2 first. 3.1 LANDS OF ASCENSION DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 26491 Ascension Drive, File #252- 07-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 6,034 square foot single story new residence with a 5,785 square foot basement which includes an attached secondary dwelling unit (maximum height: 24'6"), a 1,137 square foot cabana, and a 631 square foot swimming pool and spa. The applicant is also requesting a grading policy exception for the pool, the driveway/backup/access area adjacent to the basement garage, and portions of the side and rear yards. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) & (e) (Staff -Nicole Horvitz). Continued from the May 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioners Clow, Collins, Harpootlian and Chairman Carey had met both with neighbors and the applicant; Commissioner Cottrell had met with the applicant. Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report stating that the project was continued from the May 1, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. The project site is 1.07 acres in size with a 12.24 percent slope. The proposed plan has a single story residence with a basement, cabana, pool and second unit in the basement area and includes an ADA ramp for access from the driveway. The driveway along the northern property line would serve a three car basement garage and the driveway along the southern property line would serve a two car garage at grade Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/17/2008 June 5, 2008 Page 2 level. Two rows of eucalyptus trees that provide significant screening are required to be removed. The applicant confirmed with staff that two heritage trees had been removed prior to application submittal. After consultation with the neighbors, a preliminary landscape screening and tree replacement plan had been developed and submitted by the applicant. It included many 15 gallon shrubs planted around the perimeter of the property, five 84 inch box olive trees, two 24 inch box and two 36 inch box oak trees. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code requires a five to one replacement ratio for heritage oak trees removed before application submittal. The proposed grading policy exception included a 10 foot 6 inch cut for the driveway backup area for the basement garage, 16 feet of cut for the ADA access ramp to the second unit and seven feet of cut for the rear yard. Staff's recommendation included the removal of the ramp, pushing the terrace walls forward to reduce the cut to 10' 6" and allow six feet of cut around the perimeter of the house at a five foot distance from the house, and raise the elevation of the pool to meet the grading policy limits. Commissioner Cottrell asked if there was an alternative to the ADA access ramp. Nicole Horvitz explained that for wheelchair access, the garage floor could be lowered two feet to have the entire basement on one level. Commissioner Harpootlian pointed out the other alternative for wheelchair access would be entry to the main level and use of the elevator. Nicole Horvitz confirmed that there was no requirement for single family residential projects to provide ADA access to the second unit. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners and staff regarding previously granted grading policy exceptions. Chairman Carey asked if staff had any comments on the difficulty of obtaining a correct topographical map for the project. Richard Chiu, City Engineer, replied that a neighbor had brought to staff's attention that the project's original topographical survey was incorrect. The applicant then submitted a new map from a different surveyor, which was within acceptable tolerances of what is expected from a survey. Commissioner Harpootlian asked if other incorrect plans with an engineers' stamp had ever been submitted. Richard Chiu replied that staff accepts stamped and signed plans and surveys as accurate. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, said that she is not aware of any other submitted topographical survey being challenged for accuracy. Chairman Carey asked if two or four oak trees had been removed before submittal of the application. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/17/2008 June 5, 2008 Page 3 Debbie Pedro confirmed that two heritage oak trees had been cut down, but it was not clear if the other two trees removed had been large enough in diameter to be heritage oaks. Commissioner Harpootlian had concerns about the grading policy exception in regards to the basement ordinance. Debbie Pedro explained that the Planning Commission had the authority to allow grading policy exceptions. For this project, staff had prepared findings to support the additional cut for the basement garage to allow a lowered profile of the house and the terraced retaining walls to help reduce visibility from offsite. Brad Blackman, applicant and Barton Court resident, extended an apology to the neighbors and staff for the errors in the project submittal. The focus for this development had been consideration of all the surrounding neighbors in order to protect their views by building a low profile home. He is also committed to providing ADA requirements in the new home and building it "green". He stated that lowering the basement garage floor by two feet would provide easier access to the second unit. Scott Stotler, designer, explained that the adjacent properties had been taken into. consideration to keep the impact of the new residence as minimal as possible. He felt the basement garage was a good concept for keeping cars out of view. The tallest parts of the retaining walls are approximately 85 feet from the street and include planters and screening plants to break up their expanse of the wall. The circular driveway and landscape screening will keep most of the wall from view. He was in favor of changing the proposed design to remove the ADA ramp. The proposed grading in the rear yard provides extra neighbor privacy and easier access to the yard. Commissioner Cottrell asked about the lower garage floor and the need for the ADA ramp. Scott Stotler explained that the garage floor was originally the same level as the rest of the -basement but was raised to minimize the height of the retaining wall at the driveway back up area. With the higher garage floor came the need for the ADA ramp. If the garage were dropped, access to the second unit would be through the garage. Commissioner Collins confirmed with Scott that the priority was to gain ADA access to the second unit. Mark Blackman, applicant, explained that Custom Dreams has made a focus of sustainable development practices. This includes creating indoor and outdoor spaces that are useable and accessible for everyone. There is a demand for secondary dwelling units that have ADA compliance. Commissioner Harpootlian suggested locating the driveway and garage at the same level of the main structure and the elevator used as access to the secondary unit. Mark Blackman stated that Commissioner Harpootlian's idea had been considered. However, locating the driveways on the sides of the property provided the opportunity for more landscape screening at the front of the property and a lower profile for the new home. Planning Commission Minutes June 5, 2008 Page 4 Approved 7/17/2008 Scott Stotler stated that homeowners would rather see more landscape screening in the front of their homes than garage doors and parked cars. Commissioner Cottrell asked what the height of the proposed structure is in relation to the existing structure. Scott Stotler replied that the proposed ridge height for the new structure is considerably lower than the existing house. Brad Blackman said that the submitted design for the basement garage access was not the best solution. He felt lowering the garage floor to the level of the rest of the basement made more sense. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Prabhat Dubey, Ascension Drive, stated he had viewed the proposed plans and was in full support of the project. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, requested that the trees nearest Mr. Zunino's property be kept pruned to a height as not to affect his garden. She also had concerns that the width of the front yard iron fence was not wide enough for wildlife to pass through. Mark Blackman said that the width of the fence and the need for wildlife passage would be taken into consideration. Tom Klope, Landscape Architect, said that the perimeter screening plan with the significantly sized olive, oak and palm trees would provide privacy for the site. The neighbors had been consulted on the location of the replacements for the heritage oak trees. Proposed for the area near Mr. Zuino's pumpkin patch are Saratoga laurel shrubs that will be kept trimmed to 15 feet in height. This should allow for enough sunlight on his pumpkin patch during the pumpkin growing season. Chairman Carey asked why only four oaks were proposed for the replacement of the heritage oak trees that had been cut down. Tom Klope answered that planting 10 new oak trees on the site would result in a landscape with too many tall, thickly branched trees. Available for immediate planting were the large 20 foot by 20 foot olive trees to provide effective screening. The olive trees are easy to keep trimmed to 20 feet in height and allow for more sunlight on the site. Brad Blackman, said that it was important to have the flat backyard play area and pool area accessible from the house yet be out of view of the neighboring properties. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Collins supported the screening plan and felt needs had been addressed in screening the house from view of the Zunino propety and also providing adequate sunlight for Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/17/2008 June 5, 2008 Page 5 the pumpkin patch. The additional cut in the basement for the purpose of ADA access would not be noticeable and was the only reason to grant the exception. The grading exception for the cut in the backyard area was not necessary and she supported staff's recommendation. She felt that the entire back yard did not need to be ADA accessible. Commissioner Clow did -not think the oak trees had been cut to create more area for the future structures. He was satisfied that the topographical survey issues had been resolved. He felt lowering the basement garage was the best solution to provide ADA access and was a good reason to allow the additional grading policy exception. He would support additional cut to have a flat backyard and create more privacy for the neighbors. He felt the landscape screening plan was very responsive to the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Cottrell felt lowering the garage was a better solution than the ADA ramp. He supported a larger flat backyard area instead of the limited five foot area. The applicant should be congratulated on the efforts to accommodate neighbor issues, particularly Vince Zunino's and the measures taken to protect the pumpkin patch. Commissioner Harpootlian felt that a change in policy was being set for the basement ordinance. He would like the proposed retaining walls to be mitigated with tiered sections along the side of the north driveway, the driveway moved down and made more "S shaped" to make the wall less visible. He supported staffs' recommendation for the backyard grading. The landscape screening plan should be returned to the Planning Commission and the landscape screening deposit increased to $25,000. Chairman Carey congratulated the applicant for their green building principles, trying to achieve ADA access and working hard with the neighbors. The neighbors deserved credit for their attention to details and the changes made because of their diligence. He felt convinced that lowering the garage was better than the ramp for access to the second unit. The landscape screening plan should return to the Planning Commission and the landscape screening deposit should be increased. Creating a flat backyard to make a more functional open area and lowering the pool would be an advantage for both adjoining neighbors and applicant. He supported a grading exception for the backyard. Debbie Pedro suggested inclusion of a condition of approval to ensure that the secondary unit conforms to all ADA construction guidelines for the building permit. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the project with a grading policy exception for the driveway and backup area including lowering the garage by an additional two feet to allow the finish floor of the garage to be at 211.5, level with the rest of the basement. Also, eliminated the proposed ADA access ramp and extend the planter to the wall of the house as shown in the diagram. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Collins, Cottrell and Chairman Carey NOES: Commissioner Harpootlian Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/17/2008 June 5, 2008 Page 6 Commissioner Harpootian explained that his no vote was prompted by the unmitigated height of the solid wall on the side of the driveway. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approve a grading policy exception for a cut of up to seven feet to create a flat rear yard and flat portions of the side yard per the submitted plans. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Cottrell and Chairman Carey NOES: Commissioners Harpootlian and Collins MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion made by Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Collins to forward to the City Council the recommendation to approve the project with an increase in the Landscape Screening Deposit to $25,000 and the required review of the Landscape Screening Plan by the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Collins, Cottrell, Harpootlian and Chairman Carey NOES: None This item is subject to a 22 day appeal period and will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. 3.2 LANDS OF LAMPRON, 14238 Stanford Court; File #227-07-ZP-SD-GD-VAR; A request for a Site Development Permit to replace/rebuild an existing swimming pool and a variance to allow the pool and decking to encroach within the side yard setback. The existing swimming pool and decking was approved to encroach 19 feet into the side yard setback by the Planning Commission in 1968. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15302 (Staff -Brian Froelich). Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Clow had met with the applicant. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report explaining the project as the rebuilding of legal non -conforming swimming pool and decking in the side yard setback. In 1968 the Planning Commission had approved a variance for a pool and decking in the setback. Section 10-1.401 (c) of the Zoning Code requires that when more than 50 percent of a legal non- conforming structure is proposed to be rebuilt, the Commission must make two findings in the affirmative. Site constraints include 30% and 40% slopes in areas that are not in the setback, nine heritage oak trees and a septic field. The applicant proposed to reconstruct the pool in a similar location. Development area in the setback for the proposed project would be reduced and setbacks increased by 11 feet. The pool equipment would be moved to a conforming location. The neighbor nearest the setback encroachment had submitted a letter of support for the project stating the privacy and visual impacts would be improved. Commissioner Harpootlian asked about the proposed reduction in the size of the driveway. Brian Froelich explained that a portion of the non -required circular driveway was being removed to provide development area for the larger deck. .:+ 1;jfld� ON SAA PROPERTY -LINE PLAN HILLS, 4SjQ14-QRlVELOS ALtbS Appo>e- AIV4 to 'ova a pOmp",--1 V, FF20 po�,� 225; P r,- 440.r a. 2 9- EXI ZI 16� d.,n- 0\ -- 7-:-- -0)( Ll 1pox 4 0 L's T-1 c,e .:+ 1;jfld� ON SAA PROPERTY -LINE PLAN HILLS, 4SjQ14-QRlVELOS ALtbS Appo>e- AIV4 to 'ova a pOmp",--1 V, FF20 po�,� 225; P r,- 440.r a. 2 9- EXI ZI 16� d.,n- 0\ -- 7-:-- TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov Code Sections: Attachment 8 LDSALTOS HILLS CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "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." Section 10-2.703(a) requires: "Type II foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent: The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides, and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to minimize import or export of soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Policy: 1. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'** 3' Accessory Bldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. * * Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8') for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer.