Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13eI TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 8, 2005 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING AND LIGHTING PLAN FOR THE 9,618 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN SEPTEMBER, 2002. LANDS OF PERREI.L, 26300 SILENT HILLS LANE (39-05-ZP-SD) FROM: Brian Froelich, Assistant Planner 25 APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director G,C. That the Planning Commission: Approve the request of a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan, subject to the attached conditions of approval in Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVE Continue the public hearing and direct the applicant to propose more substantial landscaping. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission approved a Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling unit, carriage house, and a cabana (104-02-ZP-SD-GD) for this property on September 12, 2002. The approval was appealed to the City Council and upheld November 7, 2002. The Site Development Authority approved a subsequent Site Development Permit for a wine cave on April 8, 2003 (17-03-ZP-SD-GD). CODE REQUIREMENTS The requested Site Development Permit is referred to the Planning Commission for review per condition number four (4) of application 104-02-ZP-SD-GD. Article 8 of the Site Development Code (attached) addresses landscape plans address erosion, noise, visual effects, maintenance, tree preservation, views, size and placement and amount required to adequately screen new construction. DISCUSSION Article 8 of the Site Development Code addresses landscaping of development sites and compatibility with the natural environment to ensure that structures, as viewed from off- site, blend and are unobtrusive, while retaining aesthetic quality. Meeting minutes from Planning Commission Lands of Pettell 26300 Silent tells Lane September 8, 2005 Page 2 of 6 the September 12, 2002 Planning Commission hearing (attached) indicate substantive neighbor concern over views, oak trees, screening, and drainage. Landscape Screening Pursuant to Section 10-2.805(a), in evaluating the adequacy of proposed landscaping, the applicant must demonstrate that the shape, outline, color, and form of all structures will be unobtrusive when viewed from any location off-site at the time landscaping has matured. Landscaping policy (h) of Section 12-2.802, regarding amount of landscape screening required states, "The amount of landscaping required by the Town shall be determined by the size of structure, the type of materials, and the colors proposed for structures. Structures that blend with the natural landscape will normally require less landscaping for screening purposes than will structures composed of non -natural materials and bright colors. " The site is currently contains over 40 oak trees ranging in size from 5" to 63" and the project was conditioned to have paint colors with a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and a roof with a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. The photos above demonstrate the views of the new residence from the Pathway between the Cleary property and the Pennell property. Screening from this Pathway consists of several pepper and oak trees. Per conditions of project approval the property owner was required to provide "reasonable" screening as viewed from the Cleary residence. Per conditions of approval the property owner was required to plant 10 new oak trees. These trees have been planted and are noted on sheet LT -9.0 of the plans. The smallest of these trees is approximately 15 feet tall. Planning Commission Lands of P.11 26300 Silent Hills Lane September 8, 2005 Page 3 of 6 The Environmental Design Committee conducted a site visit and reviewed the plans. The committee recommended that additional erosion control measures be taken to secure the hillside above the wine cellar. The property owner has responded with a proposed native shrub (aretostaphylos) in a quantity of 131, 5 -gallon and planted with four (4) foot spacing. The Committee also had concern with the lighting located on the exterior stairways and recommended alternating the lights from side to side. The property owner has not made changes to the subject lighting citing the lights are low wattage (10w), louvered, needed for safety and would not be visible from off site. The proposal includes one fixture noted as a spotlight located at a stairway that leads under the cabana. This light is shielded and directed downward into a stairway that leads into a basement. Easements The property contains two conservation easements. These areas are required to remain clear of buildings and structures. There is a vineyard located partially in one of the conservation easements. This is permitted under the recorded agreement (see attached). The property also houses a PG&E easement, water district easement, and a sewer easement. No new screening trees are proposed in these easements. Visibility The property is not highly visible from surrounding areas except the entrance to the Cleary residence and Silent Hills Lane. The photo to the left, taken from Silent Hills Lane depicts the most visible corridor to the new residence. The landscape plan does not propose any screening plantings in this area to preserve views. Summary Two adjacent neighbors have submitted letters in support of the proposed screening. As of the writing of this report no substantive concern or comments have been received from neighbors. The property owner has addressed the original project conditions of approval with regard to landscaping and responded to all staff and committee comments with the exception of the stairway lighting. Planning Commission Lands of Pe=11 26300 Silent Hills Lane September 8, 2005 Page 4 of 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Comments from Environmental Design Committee, dated March 23, 2005 3. September 12, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4. November 7, 2002 City Council Meeting Minutes 5. Original Conditions of Approval for new residence 6. Easement agreement 7. Support letters from neighbors 8. Landscape screening plans (Commission only) Planning Commission Lands of Penvil 26300 Silent bills Lane September 8, 2005 Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMIv1ENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN LANDS OF PERRELL, 26300 SILENT HILLS LANE File #39-05-ZP-SD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required landscaping shall be first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or Planning Commission, depending on the scope of changes, prior to planting or commencement of work. 2. All required plantings and lighting shown on the plans shall be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. All exposed slopes must be replanted for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection of the new residence. 3. A landscape maintenance deposit of $5,000.00 shall be posted prior to final inspection of the new residence. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be released after two years if the plantings remain viable. 4. Exterior and outdoor lighting locations are approved as shown on the plans. Please note that any additional lighting shall be first submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to installation. Generally, lighting shall be the minimum needed for safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. 5. The property owner shall contact the Building Department and acquire any and all required building permits prior to commencement of work on landscape or hardscape. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any revisions or additions to the previously approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be Planning Commission lands of Perrell 26300 Silent Hills Ione September 8, 2005 Page 6 of 6 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. 2. 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. 3. If any trees or large shrubs are proposed to be planted within the right of way or public utility easements, a letter shall be required to be submitted which has been stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer verifying that the proposed plantings, when mature, will not conflict with any existing public utilities that are located either underground or overhead and will not negatively impact the available sight distance for traffic on the adjacent roadways or block existing pathways or roadways. The letter shall be required to be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to final project approval and prior to commencement of planting. 4. 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. 5. 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. 2��. � dsv H2"P ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE p'g�pC�M LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPEEVALUATIONPRCIIYYAA Applicant's Name: P E 2 (-E(-L MAR 13 2005 OF LOS ALTOS yltu Address: 26 300 Si �� I {'(��S 1�� Reviewed by: Date: �-� • fir• Mitigation needed: Visibility from off site: from distance (directions), from nearby neighbors (directions) (include need for screening for privacy). Noise: from pump/pool _, air conditioner , sport court _ Lights: from fixtures , automobile headlights Fence materials: color , open/solid Erosion control Other: 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. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2002 Page 8 AKM NT 3 Commissioner Kerns felt the applicant has done a very good job with the sub ' sion, Hilly Lots 1 and 2 with Lot 3 a little less desirable. He liked Mr. Lac bruch's WK tion regarding the planting bulb in the cul-de-sac. He also liked the ggesting of a 14 wide roadway, maybe even reducing it to 12 feet with 4 foot de all weather shoulders. felt there are conditions regarding water problems. 'ssinner Wong agreed. The ' a need to review new construction hei at the future Site Development Pe 'me. Commissioner Cottrell also a . This is an excellent subdivision plan. He w supporta 14 foot width all the and he liked the idea of a planting bulb. Chairman W also. She supports a 14 foot width roadway. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDELN and seconded by Commissioner Cottrel three lot subdivision of 9.47 acres, and of Malek, Buena Vista Drive, with the approval and the corrections made by ti Motion by Commissioner Kerns to the City Council approval of a ated Negative Declaration, Lands ions/changes to the conditions of sultant: Condition #5, the paved section of the roadway shall be 14 fepAide with two foot all weather surfaces; and that there be a 23 foot planting ci a in the center of the cu -sac bulb, subject to Fire Department approval. AYES: ChCommissioners Wong, Cottrell & NOES: Non/anloueu, ABSTAIN: Cor Clow This item wiltlappear on the October 3, 2002 City Council agenda. LANDS OF HUANG, 27580 Arastradem Road (203 -00 -TM -ND -GD); AN request to delete the approved subdivision condition requiring conservation easements on the six lot subdivision and instead pay the required park land dedication in lieu fees. This item has been continued at the applicant's request to October 10, 2002. 3.4 LANDS OF FERRELL, 26300 Silent Hills Lane (104-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, a secondary dwelling unit, carriage house, and a cabana. Staff (Angelica Herrera) introduced this item noting the deletion of the guesthouse and the wine cave and any related geotechnical issues from the Site Development Permit, which will be reviewed under a separate application. She discussed visibility, height, and the concerns of neighbors regarding the previous oak tree removal. This could be reviewed at the time of the Site Development Permit for landscaping. Commissioner Cottrell disclosed he had met briefly with the applicants. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 9 Steve Amn, 81 Langton Street, San Francisco, project architect, discussed the complex parcel, and working very closely with staff. They are not asking for any variances, trying to wrap the house around the hill rather than sitting on top of the hill. He provided renderings of the project from different directions. Under consideration is the new residence, carriage house, cabana and pool only. They accept all conditions of approval except #3, asking for the landscape screening plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (preferred review by staff) as well as clarification regarding plantings "not exceeding the height of the new residence". Condition #4 was questioned regarding the chain link fence requirement, they are interpreting this to mean it is a metal frame fence with a orange plastic infill which is already in place. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, had taken pictures of oak trees that were cut down. She went to the site today and they are planting grape vines. She asked for a continuance, as this was not permitted under the subdivision conditions of approval. Tony Spohr, 27380 Julietta Lane, reiterated comments and letters previously made to the Planning Commission and City Council in December 2001, January 2002, and as recently as June 2002 at the City Council meeting where the pathway easement through the property was summarily vacated. At that meeting the City Council stated they would be careful to be sure his property rights were looked after in this process. This is a five acre site with the main house crammed up on the top of the hill which is only 40+ feet from the lot line that separates his house from this property with a 200 plus feet in the front. Since the lot was two lots previously, there are two large building sites available. He asked that the house be moved down the hill so it is further from his house and does not overwhehn.the general surrounding area He suggested reversing the plan which would lower the profile and provide a view of the bay. A lesser request is for the Commission to grant him a view easement with the conditions of approval with the right to also trim. the bushes and trees along the lot line so they are even with the top of his house. This would at least provide that they see over the roof and down to the valley, enjoying the view they have enjoyed for 17 years. Tod Cole, project landscape architect, addressed the landscape screening issues noting the idea is to plant trees which, at their maturity, will not obstruct the Spohr's views. Tom L.eFevre, 14850 Manuella Road, voiced support of the project. Gary Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, provided an overview of his letter indicating three main issues: (1) the requirements left unfinished from the Fshner subdivision; (2) massive walls and reflection and mitigation by means of screening and landscaping; and (3) traffic and equipment noise. He also mentioned the water runoff from the Abode Creek water shed. He is at the bottom of the hill and felt after all of the construction, there will not be any place for the water to go. Trees along Silent Dills Lane were never put in by the developer. Also, the developer did not finish the pathway which he felt was being addressed by Town staff. He was concerned with the fronts of the buildings. If they are not going to build the guest house, he would prefer the cabana in that area so it is Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10124/02 September 12, 2002 Page 10 not jutting out into their view. He provided a rough map noting the areas of concern indicating a row of oak trees would be nice between the pathway and the roadway coming in from another lot. Regarding traffic and construction equipment, he asked that the applicant use the other entry way to bring the larger equipment in. He asked that they not use Silent Hills Lane for parking as there should be ample parking on site. He hoped they use noiseless pumps for the pool and for the air conditioning system. Of course, drainage is an issue. Nobuko Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, was shocked with the proposal. She felt the property was over developed and intrusive on their side of the property. Mr. Perrell has cut many oak trees without permission. He should plant many oak trees especially in front the carriage house and cabana to block it from their view and to help keep rain runoff from flooding their home. She voiced concern regarding noise and damage caused by Mr. Perrell's workman requesting repair of the damage, now and in the future. She asked that the pathway be left as is. She discussed the back flow valve (should not be moved or disturbed), the LeFevre subdivision conditions, moving of the fence, and the planting of trees which will block their view. Charlie Perrell, Fairway Drive, Los Altos, applicant, noted that they did not cut down 20 oak trees. When they purchased the property, they hired a professional arborist and brought in another professional specializing in oak trees, etc., and a landscape architect who determined the health of the trees only. The only heritage oak tree removed was removed with a permit from the Town. The Environmental Committee person came by and claimed they had cut down many trees which was not accurate. They agreed to just resolve the issue by planting six new oak trees. He would be glad to show anyone what they have done. What they did was for the health of the trees. The design shown on the Plans was worked out with the Pathway Committee. They do not plan to run the pathway over the water control valve. He noted that they did plant some vines on the property which had a temporary fence around it with permission from Town Hall. Unfortunately, someone left the gate open and the deer destroyed the vineyard. He noted that the project is on 3 'h acres, not 5 acres. Mr. Spolu s view concerns were taken into account with many changes made to the plans indicating the house is barely visible from the Spohr house with the views preserved. Regarding the Cleary's request for oak trees, he felt their view would be protected with the olive trees. He further stated that they are well beyond the setback and they should not impact the Spohr's. Regarding the reflective materials, he provided samples of the materials for review noting there should not be a reflectivity problem. There was a concern raised regarding the dripline of two oak trees. Mr. Perrell noted the driveway could be moved. Sandy Humphries discussed the heritage oak tress removed (healthy trees) on this site and what she felt was illegal grading for the grape vines. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Kerns felt the applicant had done an excellent job placing the house and supports the application as submitted with the driveway moved to try to get it out of the dripline of the trees. He supports the restoration work being done and hoped they can protect the surrounding trees in the area. Hopefully they will take into account the drainage issues with their plan. The landscaping will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Clow agreed with the siting of the house considering the large oak trees around it. Moving the house farther down the hill would encroach onto some of the oak trees. He felt there was a legitimate concern regarding landscaping and screening and the need for significant oak trees and landscape expense to make up for some of the oak trees that appear to have been removed He would also like to make sure the drainage does meet the Cleary's concerns. We would not support a view easementicorridor. He voiced support of the application. Commissioner Wong liked the design of the house. He indicated that the landscape screening plan will return for Commission review with a five to one ratio for tree replacement. They should address any drainage onto the Cleary property. Landscaping should not block the Sporh's views. Commissioner Cottrell also liked the plan and felt it was appropriately sited He would like to see the landscaping on the upper side limited in height so not cut the view of the neighbor above (review landscape plan). Drainage should be addressed The Planning Director addressed condition #4, and the need for the request. Another issue besides having a certified engineer certifying the location and elevation of the house at the time of framing, it should be at the height that the architect specified or less. Chairman Vitu agreed with previous comments. Two issues needing to be addressed are the drainage so the Cleary's do not have any drainage damage on their property. At the time of landscape review, they will address the replacement of oak trees which have been removed. She supports some type of landscaping with a mature height of no higher than the house. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, carriage house, cabana and pool,. Lands of Perrell, 26300 Silent Hills Lane, with the recommended conditions of approval with a reminder that the oak trees to be replaced with a strong consideration on the protection of the view of the neighbors (no redwood trees). AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Kerns &Wong NOES: None This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period %4,5.LANDS OF SEINER, 27869 Saddle Court (47-02-ZP-SD-V ); A a Site Development Permit for a 50 oot addition (maximum tei and a v ceed the 27 foot maximum height allowed Continued to th�eMber 10, 2002 Planning Commission mee�.rQLe request of the ATTACHMENT un Downey, 14330 DeBell , recommended that the current Council defer this until the new Councilmembers were seated. .100 Jeannek Foley, 13124 Byrd Lane, recommended preserving the con§pKation easement his had not been the recommendation of the Planning Commiss' and she questioned ft they were being asked for now. She also noted that A adero was a scenic road an shocked at the fence. Sophia Huang, applic referred to the discussions at both t Tanning Commission and City Council regard[ conservation easements. She p1p0ed to follow the intent of conservation easements by pftng them on lots with slojOFof 50%. The City Attorney noted that the n ive declar n for this project should have been recirculated to address the specific Is of action of conservation easements. He noted that the public hearing on this iss closed and a twenty day review period for recirculation of the negative declar n sh take place. MOTION SECONDED AND RIED: Moved 'nn, seconded by Casey and passed by the following rol 1 vote to recirculate the place ' e declaration for Lands of Huang for a twenty review period specifically address the reduction in the amount of conservat easements. AYES: ayor Pro Tem Cheng and Councilmembers Cas Finn and O'Malley 10ES None �B None STAIN: Mayor Fenwick 11.6 Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a site development permit for a new residence, carriage house, cabana and pool, lands of Penell, 26300 Silent Hills Lane Charles Perrell, applicant, noted that this project had been approved unanimously by the Planning Commission at their 9/12/02 meeting. He had never applied for a variance and had worked very hard to meet all the Town's ordinances. He had also worked hard to address the issues raised by the neighbors the Spohrs and he did not believe his project interfered with their views. Mr. Perrell referred to renderings showing his project and its impact on the neighbors. Mr. Perrell also asked that condition A.3 which states in part that 'subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening, landscape lighting, and erosion control plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission' be changed to review by the Planning staff. He did not believed his project had any significant screening challenges and the house would be set back from the neighbors. In addition he noted that he had voluntarily moved the cabana and carriage house further away from the Cleary property. November 7, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting 18 Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, stated that this condition had been placed on the project because there had been problems with this project before. Tony Spohr, 27340 Julietta, noted that they had attended all the meetings on this property and they were concerned that the siting of the house could impede their view and privacy. He believed Mr. Perrell could easily move his house down the hill which would be a good compromise. Mr. Spohr asked that it be made a condition of this project that the landscaping be maintained in such a way that their view would not be affected, for example no higher than the rooftop of his house. Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, commented that it was very important to check on on the landscaping for the protection of views. Dr. Gary Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, spoke to two areas of concern. He recommended that conditions A3 and A5 include a statement about 'landscaping along Silent Hills lane with trees' described in one of the Eshner development maps. The wording that the `applicant will provide reasonable screening as viewed from the Cleary residence' was fine as stated. Dr. Cleary also recommended that Condition A10 should make a statement about drainage that relates to the impact on the Cleary property. Such a statement could read that 'water damage from the Perrell property (uphill from the Cleary property) will be satisfactorily addressed to eliminate potential water runoff that may damage the Cleary property.' Dr. Cleary commented that this request was being made so that if in the future there were any issues with the Petrel] property relating to drainage and/or landscaping there would be specific references in the conditions of approval to the concerns he had raised. Leo Quilici, 27350 Julietta Lane, noted three areas of concern: 1) the wine cave into the hillside should be minimized to prevent drainage problems; 2) the recommended planting screening along the ridge where their property met the Perrells and the McReynolds would block their view to the east and south; and 3) the height of the trees along the ridgeline concerned them as their view could be blocked. Nobuko Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, noted that there had been water issues over the past year with this property and construction damage to the water meter. Mr. Perrell wanted to move the water meter and she supported moving it to the other side of the path. Mrs. Cleary also referred to the 1999 Eshner subdivision map and noted that trees were to be planted along Silent Hills, preferably evergreen. Tod Cole, project landscape architect, noted that the choice of olive trees had been made because they thought these trees were native plantings, sensitive to views and best for screening. November 7, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting 19 Casey asked why the landscaping would go back for Planning Commission review and the Planning Director reported that it was believed at the Planning Commission that this was a better course to take. She also asked about the requirement for the placement of certain trees and was advised that oaks had been removed from the property and the code requires that five trees be replaced for each removed. Cheng commented that the applicant had taken into consideration the siting of house and the landscape plan would be going to Planning Commission for approval. Fenwick stated that he was very impressed with the landscaping plan for this project. Mrs. Spohr, 27340 Julietta, urged everyone to come to their house to see the impact this project would have on their views. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a site development permit for a new residence, carriage house, cabana and pool, Lands of Perrell, 26300 Silent Hills Lane subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. 11.7 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of a site developmen permit for a new residence and pool, Lands of Evershine, 1 0 La Paloma Road The Plan. Director's staff report included the notation that this oject had been determined t categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant t icle 19, Section 15303(a), "New stmcticn' that allows one single-family r nce in a residential zone." The Plarim ommission also determined that t exception to the grading policy, with a proposeN26,square to 27', was an acce le method of lowering the profile of the proposed foot residence, vided that at the completion of the project the visual alhe natural [era' as minimized. Mr. Chan, applicant, commented tha h lved for sixteen years in Los Altos Hills and had designed this unique home to 'nto the lot. It was eleven acres and no variances were being requested/Aut of the neighbors was in favor of the project. Tom Klope, landscape archi , believed they had succ Ily arrived at a solution for this unique site regardin a home. They had integrated house into the hillside. Natural landscaping w eing used on most of the lot; mature s were being placed and no existing tree ere being removed. Terry Eger, 1 0 Alta Lane North, stated that he did not have a prob with the proposed se but he did with cutting down into the hill 27'. He was cont ed that this con precedent setting. He not agree with cutting into the hill so exte 'vely and ' not believe that anyone had looked carefully at the impact this would hav th rounding lands. Mr. Eger asked that if Council allowed this project they have mite plan in place for the dirt. November 7, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting 20 LOSALTOSHILLs CALIFORNIA November 27, 2002 Mr. Charles F. Ferrell 1405 Fairway Drive Los Altos, CA 94022 Re: File # 104-02-ZP-SD-GD 26300 Silent Hills Lane New residence, carriage house, cabana, and pool ATTACHMENT 6' Dear Mr. Ferrell: Your request for a Site Development Permit for the above referenced projects was approved at the City Council meeting of November 7, 2002. Please note the following conditions which apply to these approvals: A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The cabanafloorplan meets the Town's definition of a secondary dwelling unit. No additional dwelling unit shall be approved on the property. A fifth required parking space must be noted on the site plan and Worksheet #2 revised accordingly prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check. 2. Three (3) complete sets of revised plans including: 1) the deletion of the wine cave and guest house from all plan sheets, 2) deletion of lighting fixtures A" and "D"from all plan sheets, 3) corrected locations of all proposed fencing on all civil and planning site plans, and 4) The driveway shall be relocated outside of the drip line of the 33" oak on the north side of the carriage house, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending upon the scope of the changes, shall approve any other changes or modifications to the approved plans. 3. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by the Planning Director, and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roof materials shall have a light reflectivity, value of 40 or less. White trim area should be minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings, and trellises. All color samples shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 650/941-7222 Fax 650/941-3160 Mr. Charles F. Perrell November 27, 2002 Page 2 painted and constructed in conformance with the approved color(s) on file prior to final inspection. 4. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening, landscape lighting, and erosion control plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant will provide reasonable screening as viewed from the Cleary residence. The landscape screening plan shall propose ten (10) oak trees to be planted on the property. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence and accessory structures from surrounding properties and streets, but that will not exceed the height of the new residence. Staff recommends that one third of proposed plantings be drought tolerant plantings. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection, unless the Planning Director finds that unusual circumstances, such as weather or site conditions, require that planting be delayed. In those instances, a deposit of an amount equal to the cost of landscape materials and installation, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be submitted to the Town. Landscaping shall in any event be installed no later than six months after final inspection, or the deposit will be forfeited. 5. Prior to beginning any grading operation or demolition, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip line. The chain-link fencing shall clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the chain-link 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 chain-link fencing must remain throughout the course of construction and the construction crew shall pay special attention to the care of the existing trees. No storage of equipment, vehicles, or debris shall be allowed within the drip fines of the fenced trees. 6. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit), equal to the cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer), but not to exceed $5,000.00, shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 7. Skylights, if utilized shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. Mr. Charles F. Perrell November 27, 2002 Page 3 9. Only lighting on the exterior facade of the main residence and accessory structures is approved as shown on the plans. However, no outdoor lighting is approved. The Planning Commission shall review all outdoor fighting with the landscape plan. Lighting fixtures shall generally be shielded downlights. Any security lighting must be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation and shall be limited in number and directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or louvers is suggested Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting should not be directly visible from off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights, except where determined to be necessary for safety. lo. Standard swimming pool requirements: a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site. b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction of the Town Engineering Inspector. c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety. d Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation, and the enclosure shall be screened with landscaping. The pool equipment enclosure may not encroach into any required setbacks. B. ENGINPFRINGDEPARTMENT: 11. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as surface flow wherever, possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Two copies of the final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 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. A letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection. 12. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall he submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 13. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground Mr. Charles F. Ferrell November 27, 2002 Page 4 14. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence, carriage house, and cabana and prior to final inspection, the location and elevation of the new residence, carriage house, and cabana 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. At the time of framing inspection for the new residence, carriage house, and cabana, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan. 15. 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. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 16. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check All construction trucks shall be parked on the property site. The grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Fremont Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities (shall be located on the property site out of the setbacks); parking for construction vehicles; clean-up area; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 17. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 18. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection. Mr. Charles F. Perrell November 27, 2002 Page 5 19. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A copy of a permit from the City of Los Altos shall be required to be submitted to the Town prior to submittal of plans for building plan check. 20. The property owner shall restore the existing pathway and construct a Type IIB pathway connecting the existing pathway from Eshner Court to Silent Hills Lane on the subject property, prior to final inspection. 21. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated August 22, 2002, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Supplemental Ouarry Slope Stability Evaluations — The Project Geotechnical Consultant has provided recommendations for constructing retaining walls between the carriage house and the quarry slope rather than buttressing the quarry slope or reducing the slope's inclination. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should consider providing recommendations for increasing the height of the freeboard of the perimeter retaining walls between the carriage house and the slope. As alternatives, recommendations could be provided for shifting the carriage house footprint away from the steep slope, additional buttressing, or reducing the inclination of the quarry slope. The selected restoration alternative should be depicted on the proposed site development plan and appropriate engineering geologic cross sections. Appropriate documentation to address the above should be submitted to the Town, for review by the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant, prior to final geotechnical approval of the site development layout. b. Geotechnical Plan Review — Updated site development plans should be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and recommended design criteria should be modified, as necessary, for the proposed project. The geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. Swimming pool design criteria have been provided that include supporting the eastern portion of the pool on end bearing piers that are to be embedded a minimum of 2 feet into competent bedrock materials. These recommendations appear to be appropriate for the site conditions, provided that the retaining wall located down slope of the pool is designed to resist lateral loads in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations in the June 22, 2001 report. The applicant should understand that the swimming pool shell will be founded on bedrock materials toward the west and on piers toward the east, and may be susceptible to differential settlement, particularly if the excavations for the end W. Charles F. Ferrell November 27, 2002 Page 6 bearing piers are not sufficiently cleaned of slough. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should consider the performance benefits of providing similar foundation types for the entire pool shell structure. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Geotechnical Consultant and Town Engineer for review, prior to acceptance of plans for buildingpermitplan check. c. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining wall prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The excavations for the swimming pool piers should be closely inspected by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to assure the bedrock materials are encountered at the anticipated depths, and that all excavations are cleaned of loose debris prior to pouring of concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to feral (granting of occupancy) project approval. For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates dated August 22, 2002. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 22. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Fire Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection. 23. All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. W. Charles F. Perrell November 27, 2002 Page 7 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 1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21a, 21b, AND 22 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until November 7, 2003). 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. Please contact us if you have any questions. Siincerrelly, - Carl Cahill Planning Director cc: Steve Amn, 81 Langton Street, San Francisco Angelica Herrera ATTACHMENT(, OWN IRl6 STATE MEKT- W` htl-eby state that we ave the owners of pr have some r&h t, tltle OP/,7k.-at /s. and fo Me rral ov erty included wH9i/n. the &Agiv1.r o4. Jhawn. ,v 7f1/ t mop; Phot we ore f e on7lyperrons wbati consent/s ntctsrory tapers v c/const/a 7b sa/drreCproperty, that we hereby m/sreat to themq,tin9 and rrco�/ng a! so/d Jubd/visioti os shown within the d/,rtin44t/yt 6or<fer line, We herebyyokd/cote�bpub//e usethotportfonaTAL7gMQNT [ANiandal/ef S/LENT�1/LLS LANE oss�iown. on.'sa/d mop wifh/a sold subd/vision, , We o/so hereby dedicvtc fbr pub/ic use evsements for pub//e uti/i7�es . storm dro/n., sonitary,rewe � eQQuestr�on. frgi/��edeatiiati coremenitlond r/ops Can$ nt,undc�as,oroverrKoatctrir/ao>sripaoflenddeajgnotedofP,t/.E, (PUBLIC UT/L/TY EAJEmur)v J,O F. (STORM OR,�INAGE EASEMEkT%J,d.�, F. (SAN/TARYdEWER fAJEMt'Al f� Q,T, E. (lQUESTQlAN TRAIL EASEMENT)i.P, B�•PATNWAY : fAlEMENT�, J.E. (JCOPE EASEMENT ..Bald eosementJ ta(�x kep opus and free frons Our%dla old sfructuref opanyy E/nrlexeeotlawful taxtJandutil�l`ycompanystrn3ueturrs, We a/so hereby ded cafe q UMANNAS17A71ONSETBACIK LINE and a CONJERYAT/ON EASEMENT os shown upon, Bald moo wi*h& said sabdNls/on. fb be tent f from Dui/d/nays and sft4lil is d my R/nd . Only mmoval of AwA A,- �/re p�7�Cc7fo r j *m ovary ympn ofan/ma/s; eu/fivgt/eti w orname4*1 Or fru/t` 6edr/ng trees orJ/nes; eonstrr teen cfornamenlnlyordenw'.Pveures wh/Ahavomalved opprovaL from Me 8/7e 0mlopmen7` Cbmm/ttee; and Joe,% -37yl S fdlmr, wh/eh w//! a/law m rgt/az eyc6eolwila//{e w/*/a �Sfa Consery47SO4, Easement. AS OWMIA ✓, lE SHW Q RAYMOND O)S KELLY AND UNIVERSITY NATIONAL -SANK AND TRUST COMPANY AS CO-TRLISTEES UNDER THE RESTATEMENT OP INTER v/VOS TRUST 0k✓ULEs ESHNER AND MARGARET HARKINS ESHNER - AS AMENDED SEPTEMBER 29, /97¢ BY� '% Y. / ar. AS TkL/J7EE : luvSTORSY/ECO, INC. q Cq/Morn/q CpraorgtidO 65!09410727 P'1 puC 16 05 07:21a LeFavre ATTACHMENT 7 AUgW 17.2005 Ta ndl.nsAbs His 26M FMWMR R=d Las Mos His. CA94022 R. Pend loll 75300SW*Hls Lena end 28411 EshwCOu t Oeapwv*Qswft 1 mvpadve pwmn LWdscws Sao ng.l.eld�� a•d Fofor adm Conhopp�mf0mswd lana and 1 also aMpod to fps pierow s wa Siad His aid at 29900 $ia'4 FiOc, eie br Ealma Cast bla IwWedfisa�an June 90.2005 and nniwad f+laa and tam I ,* f,,r b aeWM bs ao Mkbd P*d ad ted R EB an eWarJlra ad3fios b 00 neigidotluod. - . gkaeM. T owwar I� IO;, B-25-2005 8: 38MFROM FiORTgJ 650 949 2121 V _ Y Y RECEIVED AUG 2 5 2005 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 24,2005 Gut Cahill, Planning Director Meaning Commissioners Town of Los Altos Bills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, Calif. 9= Re:' Perrell Iota 26300 Silem Hills Lane & 26411 Eshuer Court Our home is adjacent to the above referenced properties and we recently visited the site. We we in support of their plans for the following: Landscape screening and lighting Erosion control for 26300 Silent dills 1me Fencing and gate plansfor both properties We believe that their plans are very good and the finished project will be an awatedve addition to our neighborhood . We ere looting forward to seeing its oomple M Sincerely, Jack and Nancy Horton Loa Altos Hills, Calif.