Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 � .l TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS April 8, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission • RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE; LANDS OF WONG; 14470 DE BELL ROAD; FILE#268-97-ZP-SD-GD. FROM: Suzanne Davis, Planner JT) APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Dire or RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the project, subject to the recommended conditions in Attachment 1 which includes requirements to reduce the overall height by two feet and to reduce the difference between the finished floor and natural grade to five feet or less; OR 2. Deny the requested site development permit making findings for denial; OR 3. Approve the requested site development permit as submitted, subject to the recommended conditions, deleting the redesign criteria from condition#1. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission considered plans for a new residence on March 25, 1998, and voted unanimously to continue the application for redesign. The Commission expressed concerns about the overall height of the house (27 feet), the height as measured from the lowest to highest point (35 feet), the lack of stepping at the rear of the house, two-story vertical elements on either side of the front entry and the height of the foundation wall below the balcony (seven to eight feet). The applicants were directed to redesign based on the Commission's comments. Revised plans have been submitted in response, although not,all of the concerns have been addressed. DISCUSSION Site Data Gross Lot Area: 1.01 acres Net Lot Area: 1.01 acres Average Slope: 15.3% Lot Unit Factor: 0.90 Floor and Development Area Area Maximum Proposed Existing* Increase Left Development 11,711 13,146 11,831 -164** +44 Floor 5,162 5,162 2,859 +2,292 -0- *Existing house,driveway and some hardscape to be demolished. Planning Commission April 8, 1998 Lands of Wong Page 2 The following comments were made by the Commission at the March 25 meeting (staff responses are in italics: • Reduce the overall height. Staff suggested that the applicants reduce the overall height by a minimum of two feet. The building pad has been lowered eight inches, reducing the sectional height by this same amount. The height could be reduced further by changing the roof pitch, lowering plate heights and/or lowering the building pad. • Reduce the height as measured from the lowest to highest point. The height as measured from the lowest to highest point would be 31 feet three inches with the current plans. The previous plans indicated 35 feet fcr this measurement. • Reduce the height of the foundation wall below the balcony. Staff suggested that the foundation wall be lowered so that it would not exceed five feet in height, however, the applicant does not wish to lower the wall. Instead a planter with a two foot high wall approximately four feet in depth has been added in front of the foundation wall. The planter would allow landscaping to be done to screen the foundation wall, and both the wall and planting would break up a vertical appearance. The existing pool area precludes the wall from being back filled to reduce the height. • Step the rear of the house down the hill. The house has not been stepped any more than originally proposed. Architectural detailing has been added to help break up the vertical massing of the house. The applicant has pointed out that none of the surrounding neighbors would be able to see the entire rear elevation due the existing screening around the perimeter of the site. Photos will be available at the meeting. • Lower the two-story vertical elements on either side of the front entry. The two wings have been lowered so that the roof lines are below the main roof ridge. Staff feels that this is a very beneficial change and that the front elevation conforms to the desires of the Commission and addresses the concern of the neighbor across the street. In conclusion, staff recommends that the foundation wall below the balcony be lowered so that it does not exceed a height of five feet and that the overall height of the house be lowered by at least two feet, inclusive of the eight-inch reduction that has already been done. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have. Planning Commission April 8, 1998 Lands of Wong Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Planning Commission Minutes of March 25, 1998 (four pages) 3. Revised Worksheet#2 4. Revised development plans: site, floor & roof plans, building sections, and elevations (nine sheets) cc Pak Ching & Betty Wong 14470 De Bell Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Tom Sloan, Architect Metro Design Group 255 N. Market Street, Suite 255 San Jose, CA 95110 Mark Helton Giuliani &Kull, Inc. 20431 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 230 Cupertino, CA 95014 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF WONG-14470 DE BELL ROAD File #268-97-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The foundation wall below the balcony shall be reduced so that it is not higher than five feet and the overall height of the house shall be reduced by a minimum of two feet (inclusive of the 8-inch pad lowering that is already proposed). Revised plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department,prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Any other changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending upon the scope of the changes. 2. The trees and shrubs located along DeBell Road shall be protected during construction. Other than the 30-inch pine and six-inch fir, no trees may be removed from this area without prior approval from the Planning Department or unless approved with the landscape screening plan. Subsequent to fmal framing, a landscape screening and erosion control plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development hearing. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will help screen the site from neighboring properties and from the roadway. Neighbors at 14440 and 14467 DeBell Road shall be consulted about landscape screening prior to submittal of plans. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer and the Planning Director) must be installed prior to fmal 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 not later than six months after final inspection, or the deposit will be forfeited. 3. 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 fmal 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. 4. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new residence. 5. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim area should be minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, garage doors, columns, railings, and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval,prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s)prior to final inspection. Planning Commission April 8, 1998 Lands of Wong Page 5 6. At the time of foundation inspection(s), the location, and elevation of the new residence shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved locations and elevations shown on the approved site development plan. At the time of framing, the height of the structure shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved site development plan. The hardscape and driveway locations shall also be certified at time of installation. 7. The outdoor lighting locations are approved as shown on the floor plans. Any changes to the approved plan requires approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. Lighting specifications for exterior lighting shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. Any lights on the second floor must be down shielded fixtures. 8. Standard swimming pool conditions: 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 City Engineer. c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety. d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation and screening, and may not encroach into any required building setbacks. 9. Any significant trees shall be fenced at the dripline, prior to commencement of any grading or construction. The fencing shall be of a material and structure to clearly delineate the driplines. Town staff must inspect and approve the fencing prior to issuance of any building permits. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the dripline of the fenced trees. 10. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the floor area approved under this permit is close to the maximum, and the development area is the maximum allowable level of development allowed by the Town. The disclosure statement will be prepared by the Planning Department and shall be signed and notarized by the property owners prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 11. A pathway fee ($7.00 per linear foot for the length of the DeBell Road frontage) shall be paid to the Town,prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 12. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated January 15, 1998,the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The project geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project and summarize the results of their plan review in a letter to be submitted to the Town,prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Planning Commission April 8, 1998 Lands of Wong Page 6 b. The project geotechnical consultant shall describe the results of inspections and as-built conditions of the project in a letter to be submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to final inspection. For further details on the above requirements, please reference the letter from Cotton, Shires&Associates dated January 15, 1998. 13. A revised grading and drainage plan that has been stamped and signed by the project engineer shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 14. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 15. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 16. 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. 17. 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 The grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on DeBell Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; clean-up area; parking for construction vehicles; 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. 18. 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 19. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, and the existing driveway shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection. Planning Commission April 8, 1998 Lands of Wong Page 7 20. The property shall be connected to public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit is required for any work within the public right-of-way, and shall be issued by the Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT 21. The property address shall be placed so that they are clearly visible and legible from DeBell Road. Numbers shall contrast with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches high. 22. The driveway shall be a minimum of 14 feet wide and shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches. The driveway shall have an all weather surface that is designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and the gradient shall not exceed 15%. 23. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in the new residence. The details of the sprinkler system shall be included with construction plans. The plans shall be stamped and signed by the Fire Department and submitted to the Town,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. The applicant may propose alternate means of achieving an acceptable water supply in lieu of fire sprinklers, subject to the approval of the Fire Department. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12a, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 AND 23 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPT. Protective tree fencing shall be installed and approved by the Planning Department, prior to issuance of any building permits. Properties residing within the Los Altos or Palo Alto School District boundaries must pay School District fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to the school district office(s), pay the appropriate fees, and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until April 8, 1999). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall begin within one year and completed within two years. 'ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT March 25, 1998 Page 2 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING -it Loughmiller, 801 Church Street, Mountain View, applicant, briefly discussed o- ann. .ation. He requested support of the variance noting if it were not for the .ter Distri easement,he would not need to make this request. CLOSED ' ..1:LIC HEARING It was noted that 'uring the December 10`11 Planning Commiss'n hearing, the parking issue was discussed • ormally and the Commission indicate+•'general support given the constraints on the site. 4 t that time, the applicant was • ected by the Commission to return with the required re: est for a variance as the p .: ect before them was not noticed for a variance request. Commissioner Cheng had no prob =g with 4 e request as this was a unique situation. Commissioner Schreiner felt the findin: . ere good for granting the variance. She felt a little hesitant granting the variance wi •u . owing what LAFCO will do regarding the annexation. The Planning Director • t LAF will support the annexation. However, if denied, nothing can be done ,'ii the prope : ,'s annexed. Another option for the applicant would be a lot line .. justment. MOTION SECONDE P AND PASSED: Motion by`' ommissioner Jinkerson and seconded by Commi, oner Cheng to approve the request for variance to allow required parking within a, `-quired setback, with the four (4) Finding° ,and the recommended Conditions (A ,."hment 1) of the staff report. • AYES: • Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Schreiner, Cheng & Ji ''� on NOES: None ABS ' Commissioner Aurelio ' is item is subject to a 10 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF WONG, 14470 De Bell Road (268-97-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. This item was introduced by Ms. Davis noting the receipt of a revised Worksheet#2 and a revised site plan indicating a change to the hardscape so that the project will be in conformance with the allowable development area. They have also shown a design change from a circular to a single access driveway. She also clarified that the existing hardscape number is slightly over what is allowed as technically they have a grandfathered number of 11,831 square feet. The applicants are bringing the property into conformance with the maximum development area based on slope density calculation. • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT March 25, 1998 Page 3 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom Sloan, 255 N. Market Street, San Jose, project architect, discussed the project, highlighting the following: nesting the new home into the existing home site; lowering the driveway and garage; the roofline; breaking up the second story facades; maintaining the existing trees for screening; and working with the adjacent neighbor (Shukov) and their architect so there will not be a view blockage. Commissioner Schreiner asked what the elevation of the Shukov's first floor and second story would be as she wanted to make sure they will not be looking into this second story. Chairman Gottlieb requested the elevation of the driveway. Both were concerned with views onto this property. Mr. Sloan indicated that the finished floor level would be 99.5; the roofline will be 10 feet lower than the Shukov main floor level, and the roofline will be 7 feet higher than the Shukov's driveway. Discussion regarding the height of retaining wall (foundation) ensued. Mr. Sloan noted one problem they are working with is the grading that was done when the original house was built. Chairman Gottlieb stated the present house steps down the hill; it drops off single story from the road, and drops down the hill. This is the way a proper house on this property should be built. Mr. Sloan noted that there is up to 8 feet of crawl space on the lower level currently; the existing house has a lower level that was added rather than stepping the house down. Marjorie Evans, 14511 DeBell Road, neighbor across the road, stated a portion of the new second story addition will block off a portion of her view. At the very least, screening is needed for the blockage of lights and the blank wall, although she would prefer a change to the plans. She supports the recommendation for coordination with neighbors on landscaping and lighting. She was concerned with the two story facade from her perspective. Also of importance, besides the height issue, is the color, as she would not like it to be similar to the new house on Miranda Court. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The assistant engineer provided information regarding the finished floor elevations for the Wong and Shukov properties noting the Wong property is 25 feet lower than the Shukov property (Shukov's finished floor of the basement will be at the highest point of the Wong roof). The Planning Director noted that the house is essentially the same footprint on the Shukov side of the property and approximately 4-5 feet higher than the existing house. He did not think lowering the house would make a significant difference. Commissioner Schreiner was concerned with the view from below as it will appear as a very large, bulky structure. She asked if the house could be moved down the hill and lowered. She would like to lessen the impact on the surrounding smaller homes without reducing development or floor areas on this lot. She felt with some design changes the Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT March 25, 1998 Page 4 house can be made less obtrusive, and sit on the site better. The Planning Director noted lowering the house into the site would lower the foundation wall below the terrace. This is a similar situation as what had occurred on the Shukov propertywherethe original grading needed to be corrected. The assistant engineer clarified for every foot the garage is lowered increases the retaining wall heights would increase. The 2 to 3 foot retaining walls would be 3 to 6 feet high, if the garage were lowered 2 feet. Commissioner Jinkerson stated the Commission required the Shukovs to make changes to lower the profile. One end of the Wong residence could be lowered so it steps down the hill to reduce the visual impact of the rear elevation. He was not as concerned with the back side of the property. He did understand there are some constraints with keeping the pool. Commissioner Aurelio agreed with the previous comments. The applicants have maximized the development and floor area numbers. There is a need to mitigate the appearance of bulk. He further discussed maximum development area versus allowable. He was concerned with the back elevation not following the contours. Commissioner Cheng had no problem with this design other than lowering the balcony (terrace) and reducing the difference between the grade and finished floor. Regarding bulk, she felt they are seeing many designs similar to this. If we do not want this type of home,we need to change the ordinances to be more reflective of what the Town wants. Commissioner Aurelio felt the ordinances and Design Guidelines did provide clear direction as to what the Town wants. He felt all applicants and architects should be given a copy of the Design Guidelines to eliminate any confusion. Chairman Gottlieb felt the window elements on either side of the entrance are very massive and not neighborhood friendly. The Shukovs went through three designs to get the house nestled into the property. She was concerned with the length of the house and the massive elements on either side of the front entry (two stories high). She would prefer to have the second story nestled in a little more and the house stepped down the hill and a reduction in height by 4 feet. RE-OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Pak Wong, 14470 DeBell Road, applicant, commented that the Shukovs view will not be blocked. The lowest level of the Shukovs is at the top of his roof. There will be a few trees removed because they conflict with the house and/or are not in good health. They will be planting replacement trees. The house is on a hillside and the more you lower it the more you lose the view. They are trying to maintain some view for themselves. He was concerned with having high retaining walls outside the garage. He did not feel the house would be visible from off site. They are following the contours of the hill. To Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT March 25, 1998 Page 5 address a previous issue, he stated the retaining wall facing the pool is part of the foundation. The retaining wall which is made of wood is leaning badly and he is taking this opportunity to repair it and move it to be a part of the foundation of the house. The top of the roof of the new house will be approximately 5 feet higher than the existing house (22 V2 feet). Tom Sloan, project architect, stated the existing house has been sinking during the last year and they are dealing with a man-made situation (grades). The house is already stepping down the hill. A request to drop the house 4 feet is basically dropping it into the site 8 feet. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner would like a redesign due to the bulk of the two story which is almost over the entire house, in addition to the impact on the neighbor to the left which will be considerable. The fact that the present house is only 22 feet high only reinforces her feeling that the height from highest to lowest ( 35 feet) will impact the neighbor. She would like a redesign using all the different criteria and options given by the Commission (or a combination of these). MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner, seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson, and amended to continue the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Wong, for redesign, following the criteria and concerns expressed by the Commissioners to reduce the impact, referencing Sec. 10-2.702(b) of the Site Development Ordinance and the Design Guidelines, working with staff to try to lower the house and the mass of the house according to the Town guidelines. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Cheng asked if the Commission wanted the applicant to re-grade. Chairman Gottlieb felt as the land lowers, the house should step down the hill. The present house is built correctly with the playroom underneath. The roofline of the second story should step down. The Planning Director clarified the design points: on the Shukov side of the property (uphill side), there should be more of a one story facade; mass on the back needs to be mitigated; try to reduce the overall height, if possible; reduce the foundation wall from 7-8 feet to 4-5 feet; try to bring grading closer to 3 feet (grading policy disparity); and the lowest to the highest should be below 35 feet. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Aurelio, Jinkerson& Schreiner NOES: Commissioner Cheng This item will be re-noticed. Brief break at 8:30 p.m. A1= 2-01-98 03 :37 PM METRO}CROSS 408+2806658 P. 01 ATTACHMENT 3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road• Los Altos Hills, California 94022 •(4I5)941-7222 • FAX(415)941-3160 . WORKSHEET #2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA I • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • SI • • * III • N . . IL-L`" k. oNly • -PROPERTY ADDRESS 14'f-_70 06_ . f3E�L R•o,Ab �� • I • .. g M e_'`r2•v n ES l6•H &1zoU 10 ' . i-v, 33o '12' I. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Wit/ Existing Proposed otal (Additions or Deletions) A. House and Garage (from Parr 2.A.) 272 212443. • . 5072.. B. Decking S I(o < 510 O C. Driveway and'Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) • S•"1 c < 3/7> A q D. Patios and Walkways 17 23 <3/07> 13 5 E. Tennis Court Q ,- . e 0 F. Pool and Docking ;3j 17(> <4s4, > 1-7 50 . G. Accessory Buildings (from Pati 13) 14(p ( 5 (o> 10 H. Any other coverage '7 0 < 7 50> 0 TOTALS 11 , $31 < I (O 4-... I (0!0 7 Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA(from Worksheet#1) I-1,1 I I 2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE:FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed : Total • • (Additions or Deletions) • A. House and Garage • • a. 1st Floor *OQj Z • 20'7 • b. 2nd Floor I $3 2 11 1+ • c. Attic and Basement a • d. Garage 4914- I (01 (o S I • B. Accessory Buildings • a. lst Floor 1 440 < 4,,) qQ b. 2nd Floor • O • 0 0 c. Attic and Basement0 • 0 0 . TOTALS 2 -�p _ _11452 ,.I/0 '2. r Maximum Floor Area Allowed- MFA (from Worksheet #1) 5, 1 !02 I • —I • a _ -, .9 e - SIA?,r/1l'1Q ... ( A_/1..S • Revisal 2/26/96 •