Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 Town of Los Altos Hills June 10, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE; LANDS OF HILL; 13870 LA PALOMA ROAD; File#114-97-ZP-SD FROM: Curtis S. Williams,Planning DireQW RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission EITHER: 1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the attached conditions of approval(Attachment 1); OR 2. Approve the request, but modifying condition #1 to require that the gable on the right side of the house be deleted and revised to match the roofline on the left side. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 1.59-acre parcel located on the east side of La Paloma Road, directly behind the property at 13890 La Paloma (Lands of Whitney). The property was created as part of a two lot subdivision (Parcel Map 615-M-9, 10) that was recorded in 1990. Surrounding properties are all developed with single-family residences. The site is currently developed with a single-story residence (built in the early 1970s) which, along with the carport are proposed for demolition. Several easements exist on the site including a 10-foot wide sanitary sewer easement and 5-foot wide PG&E/PT&T facility easement along the eastern(rear)property line, and a 2-foot wide PG&E/PT&T guy anchor easement along 20 feet of the southern boundary (near southeast corner of property). Access to the property is from a private 25-foot wide ingress/egress and private storm drain easement which intersects with La Paloma Road. On September 24, 1997, the Planning Commission considered a previous design for this site which proposed a two-story, 27 foot high residence. The Commission denied the project, finding that the site was a highly visible hilltop and that a one-story structure was appropriate. The Commission also stated that the lot is within the La Paloma corridor, and that development at a one-story, 23 foot height was necessary to be consistent with other approvals in the area and to preserve the"open" character of the corridor. On November 5, 1997,the City Council upheld the Commission's denial. The minutes of both meetings are attached, along with the Council's findings for denial. CODE REQUIREMENTS According to Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, all new residences are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Generally, the sections of the Zoning and Site Development Codes utilized to evaluate new homes include floor and development area limitations, grading,height, setbacks,visibility, arid parking requirements. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 2 DISCUSSION Site Data: Net Lot Area: 1.59 acres Average Slope: 13% L.U.F. 1.49 Floor Area and Development Area: Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Remaining Development Area 20,673 15,733 16,778 -1,045. 4,940 Floor Area 8,716 7,021 3,862 3,159 1,695 *Note: Existing 2,597 square foot house and 513 square foot carport to be demolished. Existing barn and sheds (totaling 752 square feet)to remain. Revisions to Previous Plan The applicant has revised the previous plan in two significant ways. First, the maximum height of the structure has been reduced from 27 feet to 23 feet, by lowering ceiling heights, in particular lowering the high ceilings in the family room and living room. Secondly, the entire second level floor area has been pushed to the rear half of the structure. The result is that the front elevation presents a single-story appearance with a steep roof and the rear elevation shows a two-story facade with little roofline visible. The square footage has not changed from the earlier proposal, although the "volume" of the house has been reduced by limiting the ceiling heights. Areas over the family room and to some extent the living room which added to the bulk and height on the second floor are now gone, although the floor area remains the same. Site and Architecture The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a new 5,432 square foot two-story residence, with an 837 square foot attached garage. A 757 square foot basement (which meets the Town's definition) has not been included in the floor area calculations. The design includes patios in the front and rear of the residence, which are included as development area. The existing barn and sheds, pool, and decking (less 540 square feet to be removed) will remain. A 513 square foot carport will also be removed, along with extensive pavement to the rear of the house, so that the total development area will be decreased by 1,045 square feet. The exterior materials proposed for the residence include a mixture of brick veneer with stucco and timbering as accents. Wood trim windows and shutters, wrought iron balcony railings, tile balconies, standing seam copper dormer roofs and manufactured slate roofing are also proposed. Height and Visibility The maximum height of the house on a vertical plane would be 23 feet above existing grade. The second story of the residence is proposed to cover approximately 53 percent of the ground floor footprint. Staff notes that some of the entry area is in excess of 17 feet in height, and condition #1 would require modification to the plans to either reduce the roof height or countthe area as floor area. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 3 The existing house is oriented in an approximate southwest to northeast orientation, and due to its single story construction and mature pine and magnolia trees (both located along the driveway), it is mostly screened from near and off-site vantages, even though it is located at a higher elevation than surrounding properties. The proposed residence would be oriented along a north-south axis (approximately 90 degrees from existing), and as proposed with a partial second story and at 23 feet in height would be more visible from both adjacent and off-site properties (from La Paloma Road and from homes along Alta Verde Lane, Viscaino Road and Anacapa Drive, which look directly across the valley to this site). Story poles have been erected on the site outlining the proposed new residence for the Commissioners' review. Staff notes that the site forms a knoll above the surrounding properties, and is highly visible from off-site. Both the Site Development Code and the Design Guidelines suggest that "single story buildings and height restrictions may required on hilltops, ridgelines, and highly visible lots". Furthermore, by way of policy decisions by the City Council and Planning Commission, La Paloma Road has been established as a corridor of an "open" character, and to be protected as such. Most homes built along this road are highly visible from off-site (especially to the west across the valley). The surrounding properties have all been limited to a maximum height of 22-23 feet and are single-story or only have small second story features. Staff has prepared a comparison of recent approvals for properties along La Paloma Road, for Commission review: LANDS OF ADDRESS PAD ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT Kirsch 13930 La Paloma 324 feet 22.5 feet Tsui 13928 La Paloma 305 feet 23 feet Whitney 13890 La Paloma 302 feet 22.5 feet Shah 13818 La Paloma 300-302 feet 22.5 feet Sorenson 13820 La Paloma 330 feet 22 feet Silvestri 13935 La Paloma 293 feet 23 feet Hill 13870 La Paloma 338.5 feet 23 feet proposed The current application is generally consistent with the.previous approvals in that it is a maximum of 23 feet in height, which has been used for other properties along La Paloma and sometimes for"single story" development in other parts of Town. The project design has also been revised such that the structure would appear to be a single story residence from La Paloma Road and other properties across the valley to the west. The two story elevation of the project is only apparent from the rear, which is well screened from adjacent properties on Fremont Pines Road. The location of the site differentiates this project from others which tend to be visible from all sides. Second Story Gable Above Garage While staff believes that the project generally is consistent with the Town's intent for limiting height on hilltops and in the La Paloma corridor, the second story gable above the garage presents a two-story element which is partially visible from the west and south. If the second story bonus room were deleted or reduced so that the gable is eliminated and the roofline modified to match the opposite side, then the single story appearance would be carried out on three sides of the structure. If the Commission wishes to modify the project accordingly, condition #1 should be revised to require the elimination of the gable and reduction of the second floor area to replicate the roofline at the north end of the house. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 4 Lighting and Landscaping Two small skylights and one larger one are proposed with the new residence. The larger skylight and one of the smaller ones would be located on a flat portion of the roof, and condition #8 would require that all skylights reduce emitted light and that no lights be placed in skylight wells. The proposed exterior lighting for the residence is shown on the elevations (sheets 5 and 6) and appears to be in conformance with Town standards. Staff has included standard condition #7 which indicates that lighting be limited to one light at each exit, with two permitted at the entryway and the garage, and that the lighting fixtures be downshielded and must be submitted for approval prior to submittal of building plans. Sheet 1 of the application plans shows several existing trees that no longer exist. These include the 24-inch, 26-inch, and 6-inch pines located on the west side of the driveway, and the 24-inch pine tree on the southern side of the property, adjacent to the 11-inch pine. As indicated above, this site is located at a higher elevation than surrounding properties highly visible from both adjacent and off-site properties. Additional plantings (specifically trees that would reach a height of 30 feet or more at maturity) on the west side of the driveway would help to partially screen the new residence. Condition #2 would require a site development hearing subsequent to framing to review the landscape screening plan. Nonconforming Accessory Structures The applicant proposes to retain an existing barn structure and two sheds, all of which are located within setbacks, very close to the property lines. The total floor area of the three structures is 752 square feet. While the Town's Zoning Code does not mandate removal of the structures, it does prevent the rebuilding of those structures for a use other than the existing permitted uses (barn and storage). Staff recommends and has included a condition (#11) to require that a disclosure statement be recorded acknowledging that those particular structures shall not be used for purposes other than for storage and/or barns/stables, and shall not be converted to habitable space. Parking and Driveway The proposed garage provides three of the four required parking spaces, with an additional space indicated near the front entryway, and located out of the setbacks. The driveway as proposed meets the requirements of the Fire Department. The applicant has conferred with the neighbor to the south regarding a portion of the driveway being located within the setback. According to the applicant,the neighbor did not have any concerns about this. Grading and Drainage Approximately 600 cubic yards of cut and 100 cubic yards of fill grading are proposed in order to excavate for the basement and to expand the building pad. Finished floor elevations would differ by 1 foot between the garage and the main house. Small (less than 2 feet) retaining walls are proposed around the parking stall area and along the southern side of the driveway as it nears the house. The proposed drainage for the site would involve sheet flow away from the house (as it now does). Staff notes that the proposed development area and impervious surfaces would be less than existing, so that runoff rates should not impact the La Paloma drainage basin adversely. The final drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to final inspection of the residence per condition#19. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 5 Staff and Committee Comments The Fire Department has requested that the address be clearly labeled, that the driveway be designed and maintained to support fire apparatus loads, and that the vertical and horizontal clearances of the driveway be maintained(Attachment#3). Additionally, the applicant must either sprinkler the house or provide a new fire hydrant within 450 feet of the new residence. The Environmental Design Committee recommends protection of the magnolia tree during construction (no grading within dripline), and that additional screening be required for the new residence. As previously discussed, a site development hearing will be required when the landscape screening plan is prepared. The Pathways Committee requests restoration of the II-B path along La Paloma Road (condition#20). Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recommended conditions of approval; 2. Worksheet#2; 3. Fire Department letter, dated June 20, 1997; 4. Recommendation from Pathways Committee, dated June 23, 1997; 5. Recommendation from Environmental Design Committee, dated June 2, 1997; 6. November 5, 1997 City Council Minutes and Findings 7. September 24, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes 8. Development plans. cc: Mr. &Mrs. Hill Von Haws 13870 La Paloma Road 2067 Colusa Way Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022 San Jose, CA 95130 Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE 13870 LA PALOMA ROAD (LANDS OF HILL) FILE#114-97-ZP-SD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The applicant shall revise the plans to show a reduction in the ceiling height of the entry to less than 17 feet or shall provide a revised Worksheet #2 counting such floor area twice. The revised plans and/or worksheet must be submitted for the approval df the Planning Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Any further modifications to the approved plans requires prior approval of the Planning Director or Planning Commission depending upon the scope of the changes. 2. Subsequent to fmal framing of the residence, a landscape screening and erosion control plan shall be reviewed by the Site Development Committee. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. 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 not later than 6 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 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. 4. 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, 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. 5. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new construction. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 7 6. Prior to commencement of any grading on the site, all significant trees (including the magnolia in the front yard) are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure 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 fence must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. 7. Specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Lighting shall generally be limited to one light fixture at each exit, with two permitted at the entry and on the garage, unless additional lighting is determined to be necessary for safety purposes. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape plan. Lighting fixtures shall generally be downlights. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. Any security lighting 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 or lighting should not be directly visible from off site. No lighting may be placed within the setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry lights, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 8. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 9. 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 heights of the structure shall be similarly certified as being at the heights shown on the approved site development plan. The hardscape and driveway locations shall also be certified at time of installation. 10. 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 must be located out of the setback. 11. A disclosure statement shall be recorded indicating that the existing buildings within the required setbacks shall not be used for purposes other than for storage or stables, and shall not be converted to habitable space. The statement will be prepared by Planning Department staff, and must be •signed by the owners, notarized and submitted to the Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 8 B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 12. 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 between 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 except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 13. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 14. 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. 15. 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 La Paloma Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; 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. 16. 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 shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 17. The property owner shall be required to re-connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. 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. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 9 19. 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. A final grading and drainage plan shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The plan shall include details for the proposed drainage for the new residence. 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. 20. The applicant shall restore the type IIB pathway fronting the property along La Paloma Road. The work shall be completed to the satisfaction of - the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 21. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property prior to final inspection. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and be a minimum of 4 inches with a 3/8 inch stroke. 22. The vertical clearance for the driveway shall be a minimum of thirteen feet six inches. This dimension and the fourteen foot width of the driveway shall be maintained. 23. The driveway shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 24. The applicant shall either install a residential fire sprinkler system throughout .the residence (approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department), or the applicant shall locate a new fire hydrant within 450 feet of the new residence. The details of the sprinkler system shall be included with the 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. Required fire hydrant or water supply installations shall be in place, inspected, tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to start of framing. • Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning Department and Engineering Department at least two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, AND 24 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. Hill: June 10, 1998 Page 10 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. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until June 10, 1999). 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. 1 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hilts,California 94022 • (415) 941-7222 • FAX(415)941-316Q PRECEIVED . PLANNING DEP WORKSHEET #2 MAY 1 4 1998 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR F LOS ALTOS HILLS • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME 4-r , PROPERTY ADDRESS lb.: -t o (,._44_, P aL z—,cni., C ._ CALCULATED BY DATE 1. j2gVEL_QPMENT_AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total (Additions or Deletions) A. House and Garage (from Part B) G a.V 4'1 (e.1(4ei B. Decking ---- C. Driveway and Parking . (Measured 100' along centerline) (p(z1- -34,2( pl) D. Patios and Walkways \ C\72 - + j(g 'L 40 E. Tennis Court F. Pool and Decking 22$0 540 I-140 G. Accessory Buildings (from Part 13) 7 5 _ `7 " H. Any other coverage (f410- Pot ) 5 13 = 5 13 .� • TOTALS i 1133 Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA,(from Worksheet #1) 9,0 i 6 7. 3 2. FLOORAREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total (Additions or Deletions) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor a54-1- Z A 5L,C b; 2nd Floor c21 .-I a 11?, c. Attic and Basement ( -151 ) . d. Garage 3-7 - 5 3'j B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Floor .:q..s- 5,4 s 15-a 15.a. b. 2nd Floor • C. Attic and Basement TOTALS 10.11 j Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) ''7 /,6 TOWN USE L ONY CHECKED BY--- 47,91.1111111111111111101111 . DATE . , OL' : 1111 Rev{sd 12/09/93 . LRL MAC HD/ORSCINALS/PLANNINC/SVoek hest 02 CA+ • 7.T 3 • CONTROL NUMBER BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 9 7- 1 6 2 9 • PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS IDE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT • This plan review is fora new two-story single-family residence with a combined floor area of 6,269 square feet. Access is from La Paloma Road a conforming public street. Project Planner is Debbie Pollart.. 1 Access Dimensions: The driveway width noted on the plans is fourteen feet. 2.2.2.1 Vertical clearance shall be a minimum of thirteen feet six inches. Both dimensions shall be maintained. • ?C • . 2 • Access Surface Requirements: The apparatus access road (driveway) shall be 2.2.2:2 designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving, capabilities. 3 Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow is 2,250 GPM at 20 psi. residual. The , 3.2 closest hydrant does provide this required flow. FC 4 Distribution of Fire Hydrants: The average spacing of fire hydrants for a PP• required flow of 2,250 GPM is 450 feet apart. A second hydrant closer to the I-B residence would need to be installed to meet the code requirement. action 5 FC 5 Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in PP• residences equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, but can be no less I-A than 1,500 GPM. The closest hydrant can provide this quantity of flow. !ction 5 FC 6 Timing of Required Water Supply Installations: Required fire hydrant and )1.3 , • water supply installations shall be in place, inspected, tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to start of framing.. F . 7 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all )1.4.4 . new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background and be a minimum of four inches in height. IISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE El CI 1 OD House Of Haws 6/20/97 1 OF 2 EC/FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Construction Dunlap, Dan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION •LANDS OF HILL 13870 La Paloma Rd • • CONTROL NUMBER • • BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 9 7- 1 6 2 9 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT • The address shall be located on a post or alternate means at the street and the residence shall have an address placed on it due to the distance from the road and unable to be seen from La Paloma Road. To clarify the water supply requirement from above: the applicant may chose to install a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence reducing the • • fire flow requirement from 2,250 GPM to 1,125 GPM. The one hydrant located on La Paloma meets the distance requirement for a 1,125 to 1,500 GPM flow. Or the applicant may choose to locate a new fire hydrant within 450 feet of the' new residence. • • • DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE E El El El House Of Haws 6/20/97 2 of 2 SEC./FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY • • • Residential Construction Dunlap, Dan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION LANDS OF HILL 13870 La Paloma Rd • fs—n—pct.-k4 . • 2 . . • easement with the pathway slope not • • 12631 Miraloma Way; Lands of Breet�c,�or_ exceeding 15%. 5/27/97 Restore II-B path along Summerhill and . 14400 Kingsley Way; Lands of Clevenger. construct II-B path along Miraloma with Construct II-B paths along Altadena the drainage ditch between the path and Drive and Kingsley Way. 3/24/9.7 the road. 2/24/97 • 13001 La Cresta; Lands of IIsiao: No 27371 Moody Road; Lands of Rocchetti'& request. 2/24/97 • IIerdel : Construct II-B path along Moody 25309 Lt. .:7ma; Lands of Lougl,miller. Road on the property side of the ditch Construst a native path in a 10 foot and acquire a road and pathway easemen.c..along the southern boundary easement as needed to encompass the path. 7/28/97 of the .I•.r.operty from the water tank access road to the southwest corner of • 26075'Newbridge Drive; Lands of i the prgp.erty. Provide pathway. easement . CritcJfield: Restore II-B paths along La over the access road: 5/27/97 amended Paloma and Newbridge. 5/27/97 • 6/23/97 24021 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of J. Lohr 13870 La Paloma Road; Lands of Hill: Properties: No request. 2/24/97 . • Restore:II=B path along La Paloma. I 24036 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of J. Lbhr 6/23/97 Properties:. Restore II-B path along Oak • ' 13935 La Paloma Road; Lands of Knoll Circle. 1/9/97 1 Silvestri: Construct II-B path along La 24044 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of Lohkr. Paloma: 7/28/97 Restore II-B path along Oak Knoll Circle. 25703 Lomita Linda Court; Lands of • 4/28/97.. 1 I Stitt: Construct II-B path along • • , 24052 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of Lohr: • •Ravensbury Avenue that deals with the Restore II-B path along Oak Knoll•Circle. •drainage problems there. 3/24/97 5/27/97 10699 Magdalena Road; Lands of Urbach: 12113 Oak Park Court Lands of Lohr No request.' 6/23/97 Restore II-B path along Oak Park Court. 11240 Magdalena Road; Lands of Hu: 6/23/97 Restore II B path along Magdalena. . 12117 Oak Park Court; Lands of J. Lohr 1 3/24/97 Properties: Restore II-B path along Oak 28625 Matadero Creek Court Lands of Park Court. 2/24/97 Groff&Taylor. Construct a native path 12129 Oak Park Court; Lands of Prime in a 10 foot easement along the Home Development: Provide either a • boundary with 28620 Matadero Creels Court so as to connect the cul-de-sac to Pathway easement covering the entire • the existing path on the lower portion of human habitation setback or an property. Restore the latter path. • easement 15 feet wide beginning on the • 4/28/97 • southern boundary of the property at a point 100 feet from the southeast 28500 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of corner and procgeding in a northerly Rutner: Restore II-B path along Matadero direction with a slope in the direction of Creek Lane. 7/28/97 travel not to exceed 10% and connecting e; with the existing pathway easement' . 28510 Matadero Creek LanLands of along the eastern boundary. 6/23/97 • Jain: Restore II-B path along Matadero Creek Lane and the asphalt path above 26700 Palo Hills Drive; Lands of Scifre_s: Page Mill Road. 2/24/97 . Replace existing asphalt path along e; Lands of Godinha Fremont Road and Palo Hills Drive with a 12205 Meualto Driv II-B path. 5/27/97 No request: 6/23/97 26666 Snell Lane;.Lands of Orton: No • request. 7/28/97 • i • N J S • ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COitiINIITTEE .. .._.) NEW RESIDENCE EVALUAJTION j'-id 1 IJJ! Applicant's Name: nffc: (( i -i.-_ :7. , . • •, . . .. .. , Address: ) ,-A-61)-1/2CL Reviewed by: k‘/P1 r1 A& kt-ttG u"— Date: Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building • site. Recommended protection during construction.) /3/i 0--vn FOYt t - Z lwzLi 6z " C `�(.V r„ 0-_ qa-od ,dam. ' doZe2.0 yt O c 2 z Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All grading at least 10' from property line?) I dA)t/a/.062-y'' R0 ` 7d, A(i1-17`v7i be ipT ( i;2-e- ' • Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will I construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a need for removal of invasive species?) �- ,c, - I Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on.neighbors. Will driveway impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation • • - (height, color, landscape).) •• _ -k; 4 lk Vci . e /0 77— Z, 'h c( — ?tad) sciitiM/i ., %alis /5 CZ_ /e:e • _ keU/)id , �� LGY S ./ire il.e,,) ; U�7S0' � Other Comments: 4 ;?epee TD gee- s- / 'v) amed J � • • , . , ' Bill Hofing, 26045 Torello Lane, supported the petition submitted by Rose • Bittman. He thought Kingsley was quite narrow and believed the four-wheel drive ue on the Korman property should be addressed by the Town. Casey believed this was a privacy issue and supported the abandR r` ent of the path on Altadena and relocating it to Kingsley which also afforded an. trance to Esther Clark Park. Dauber believed that the Kingsley path needed to be ' proved as well as the access to Esther Clark Park. She further commented that this s•. •• d be a high priority on the Town's crew schedule and the Town should work wi •''alo Alto on the entrance to the • park. Siegel and Hubbard stated their support for •= abandonment of the path on Altadena and relocating it to Kinglsey. Council further c• urred with the City Manager's recommendation to keep a storm drain ease ;•., on the Altadena path so that the Town could continue maintanence. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK ! A SECOND: Moved by Dauber to work on upgrading Kingsley Path immediat- ; as well as a good entrance to Esther Clark Park; to put a log across the the current e.• ''ment at the Snell Lane connection; and to continue the discussion on abandonment to e time when the entire path.system for this neighborhood is agendized. MOTION SECONDE P 4 D CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Johnson and passed by the follow'•b roll call vote to determine that the pathway located along Kingsley Way was.the best . weather connection to Esther Clark Park and to initiate the process to abandon the off- d path over the former Lowell Lane that connects Altadena Drive to Esther Clark P. . , subject to the installation of the rest of the Type IIB path along Kingsley Way to the - ection at Esther Clark Park. In addition the storm drain easement shall be maintaine. d the entrance to Esther Clark Park off Kingsley shall be improved. AYES- Mayor Casey and Councilmeirbers Hubbard, Johnson and Siegel NO - Councilmember Dauber P.uber supported the improvement of the Kingsley path but did not think it was appropriate to abandon the path over the follner Lowell Lane without review of the entire neighborhood path system. 11.2 Request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Hill, 13870 La Paloma Road Dr. Hill, applicant, stated that he had appealed the Planning Commission's denial of his project. He stated that his project required no variances and conformed with the Town's codes. He did not believe the La Paloma policy of not allowing two story homes was fair especially since it was not written down and he had had no knowledge of it when he purchased the property. In addition there were five two-story homes near his lot. He did suggest that his understanding of the policy had actually been achieved in that the homes along La Paloma were one story. On the other hand his proposed home was 440' off La Paloma and could not be seen. Concerning the ridgeline issue, Dr. Hill did not believe this applied to his project. There was a grove of trees behind his property which provided more than enough mitigation of the home. Dr. Hill stated that in his preplanning meetings with staff he had been advised that if a two story home could be mitigated it might be approved and staff said nothing to him about height. Von Haws, the applicant's designer, reiterated his client's request for a one and a half story home and further commented that this proposed project was a football field and a half from La Paloma. November 5, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 7 • The following residents addressed the Council in support of Dr. Hill's project: Hugh March, 13101 La Paloma; Bart Nelson, 26052 Fremont Road; Lalla Carsten, 13761 La Paloma; Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road; and Mr. Ryan, 26970 Orchard Hill Lane. They believed the Hill project conformed to the Town's codes and should not be subject to an unwritten policy. All residents should be treated equally. The following residents did not support the Hill project: Fred Osterlund, 26238 Fremont Road; John Glathe, 13801 La Paloma; Bill Whitney, 13890 La Paloma; Dave Mooring, 13791 La Paloma; and Carol Seeds, 13801 La Paloma. They addressed the drainage issue in the La Paloma area and some stated the house was massive and would negatively impact their view. Mr. Mooring stated that consistency was important and for six years it had been clear in the La Paloma area that 23' was the height limit. The Planning Director referred to the Town's codes and the design guidelines. He further noted that the La Paloma policy was a consistent interpretation for the La Paloma area. He stated that he had met with the applicant and the applicant's previous designer and had advised them that the proposed house did not comply with the policy for the La Paloma area. • • Casey stated that this La Paloma policy had never been discussed by the residents in the area. She supported the Hill application stating that one could not see the house because it was set so far off La Paloma and there was a grove of trees. She further believed that a two story house actually had a smaller footprint. Johnson stated that there had been quite a bit of resident input when the Nelson subdivision was being discussed on La Paloma. He referred to the ridgetop rule and emphasized the importance of consistency. The house • should have a 23' height limit. Hubbard sis : d-that consister_;;y in the LAPaloma Corridor was important and the applicant had been.advised of this policy. Dauber also believed • consistency was important and also mentioned that the sheds should be moved out of the setback areas. Siegel concurred that this was a highly visible project. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard and passed by the following roll call vote to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the request for a site development permit for a new residence on Lands of Hill at 13870 La Paloma Road, based on the findings approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 1997 and amended by Council to include the following statements: La Paloma Road is considered to be a view corridor and generally homes have been limited to one story and 22-23 feet in height and to reference page 14 of the Design Guidelines and Section 10- 2.701 of the Town's Site Development Code. AYES: Mayor Pro Tern Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber, Hubbard and Siegel NOES: Mayor Casey 11.3 Request for a site development permit for a detached garage ; ions and a major remodel of an existing residence, Lands of .. ,A� 10 Corbetta Lane • This item was continued to the next C• -e mg at the request of the applicant. 11.4 Di -• aster Path Plan: Southwest Section of Town—Offload Paths November 5, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 8 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF HILL - 13870 LA PALOMA ROAD (Denied by City Council on November 5, 1997) La Paloma Road is considered to be a view corridor, and generally homes have been limited to one story and 22-23 feet in height. The existing building pad sits atop a knoll and is higher in elevation by a minimum of 14 feet than surrounding properties. As proposed, the two-story Hill residence would have a maximum roof elevation of 365.5 feet. As comparison, the next two highest lots (in elevation) -the Sorensen residence and the adjacent Kirsch residence have maximum roof elevations of 350.5 and 346.5, respectively. Also at issue is the orientation of the proposed structure. The north-south orientation gives a much broader profile of the house than what currently exists. These features of the proposal are contrary to the provisions of Section 10-2.701 of the Site Development Code, which states that the purposes of the article include: "to insure that the site, location and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site" and "that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape." The project would similarly be inconsistent with the Town's Design Guidelines (p. 14) which state that: "In a neighborhood of predominantly one story dwellings, one story or modified two story structures are encouraged" and "Compatibility with a neighborhood occurs when homes retain their individuality without dominating." Some homes along La Paloma Road do have small second story features, but these were approved with a maximum height of less than 23 feet. The proposed second story would overlay 70 percent of the first floor and would conflict with Section 10- 2.702(b)(1) of the Code, which states "single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on hilltops, ridgelines, and highly visible lots", and with Goal II A of the Design Guidelines, which states, "Houses on prominent and highly visible hilltops or ridgelines should flow with the land and may be required to be one story." • trrthe,H--r)tAQT. 7 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/8/97 September 24, 1997 Page 2 • Wolfgang Stuwe, 14555 Miranda Road, applicant, stated he had built his home in the 1950's and questioned the request although he was willing to work with the Commission. • CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING , - — Commissioners Cheng and Stutz voiced support of the project with the requested . Conditional Development Permit and Variance. Commissioner Stutz was not concerned with the covered porch area as the area is needed with two children in the family. It was clarified that with a .50 acre parcel with less than 10% slope, possible MFA/MDA numbers would be 3,000/7,500 square feet. Chairman Gottlieb and Commissioner Jinkerson were in support of the project as submitted. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by • Commissioner Jinkerson to approve the Site Development- and Conditional Development Permits for additions to an existing residence, and a variance to allow floor area to exceed the maximum allowable, Lands of Stuwe, with the recommended conditions of approval and - findings for the Conditional Development Permit and Variance. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng & Jinkerson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Schreiner This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar October 15, 1997. • - _ - 3.2 LANDS OF HILL, 13870 La Palomq a Road (114-97-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. This item was introduced by the staff noting a call from a neighbor who only requested the applicant adhere to the same rules as everyone else. A note from the Tsui residence voicing concerns with the project was received. Ms. Davis also provided'permit history regarding • the;bam (permitted as barn, not for living•space) andthe shed (not permitted). She further discussed the original subdivision. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Cary Hill, 13870 La Paloma Road, applicant, discussed some of the issues as listed in the staff report. He did not feel the report was balanced. He provided the Commission with copies of correspondence to and from staff and a typed review of the staff report which highlighted the following: improvements that the development will have on the local drainage problem on La-Paloma Road; second story covering 70% of the footprint_of the house; north-south orientation of the house; highly visible. from La Paloma Road; property constitutes a knoll; the City Council and Planning Commission establishing La Paloma Road as an "open" area; the misconception related to,policy regarding visual mass and Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/8/97 September 24, 1997 Page 3 height deemed the same; no written policy regarding restriction of development on La Paloma Road; riot mentioned'contact'with 29 neighbors; Mr. Whitney's opposition against any construction on applicant's property which would use the easement over his property during the c6nstruction; pavement, removed from turnout in driveway; fire department requirements; and Pathway Committee requirements. Dr. Hill provided a model of the project and photographs of other similar houses in the area. Von Haws, 2068 Colusa Way, San Jose, project designer, stated this project was a sister project to the houses on Sherlock Road and Burke Road. They are reducing the footprint by making it two story. Further design elements include reducing pavement, the desire for a front yard, the height and the distance from the street, and contact with 29 neighbors without objections. He was available for questions. - David Mooring, 13791 La Paloma Road, requested consistency in the Planning Commission approvals. He had tried for years to construct a two story house without success. _He felt the maximum height of the house should he 22-23 feet. Bill Whitney, 13890 La Paloma Road, commented on the storypoles which indicate a very - large house which may not fit into the neighborhood. . • Carol Seeds, 13801 La Paloma Road, reviewed the project with Dr. Hill. Originally, she • was opposed to the four feet over the height limit. She was led to believe that they were the only neighbors who opposed this house. However, after viewing the story poles, she concluded 'that the house will be very big; larger than assumed. The house is being proposed as two story which is not allowed on La Paloma Road. The fact that it is set back is not relevant as she will see the second story more clearly. She voiced opposition to the project. Jeff Egan, Fremont Pines Road, voiced no problem with this house which abuts his property to the rear. Dr. Hill noted other two story houses in the area on La Paloma Road (Sorenson and Shah), one house that appears to be two story (Kirsch), and two houses on Fremont Pines Road also two story. _ - • John Glathe, 13801 La Paloma Road, stated he had signed a statement supporting the project only with adequate screening and lighting restricted. He had not seen the story poles at that time. He did not feel Fremont Pines Road had anything to do with projects on La Paloma Road. The house is very big and he asked for consistency in approvals. , ' Ms. Davis clarified that only a portion of the Sorsenson and Shah structures were two-story • and between 22-23 feet in height. _ — • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/8/97 September 24, 1997 Page 4 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING • Commissioner Jinkerson quoted Town; Guidelines stating houses on prominent and highly visible hilltops or ridgelines should flow with the land and may be required to be one story. He agrees with this statement and will not support this project as presented. Commissioner Cheng could support the project if it was lowered to 22-23 feet in height. Commissioner Stutz stated this project was reviewed at a site analysis meeting previously by two . Commissioners (Stutz and Schreiner). At that time, there was no assurance the project would be.approved, and she did not recall any mention of two stories. Other homes in the area were required to be lowered. She further discussed the tremendous amount of paving in setback stating no new development should be allowed in setbacks (existing structures okay to remain). She cannot support this project. Chairman Gottlieb stated a need to be consistent with past policy on the La Paloma Road basin. They can have two stories if the height is kept down as this is.a highly prominent knoll. She also does not want to see pavement in setbacks as they have ample space without encroaching. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to deny the request for-a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and approved the findings for denial, Lands of Hill. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz & Jinkerson NOES: None • ABSENT: Commissioner Schreiner • The appeal process was explained for the applicant and audience. 3.3 - LANDS OF SIMMONS,. 26350 Esperanza Drive (193-97-SD-MOD); A request for a modification of a condition of approval of an approved Site Development Permit requiring construction of a pathway. This item was introduced by Ms. Davis noting the September 22, 1997 review by the Pathway Committee of the request to delete the requirement for construction of a Type FIB pathway along the property frontage and requiring a pathway fee to be paid to the Town. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING - Charlie Simmons, 26350 Esperanza Drive, applicant, had reviewed the , Pathway — Committee's memo, discussing safety issues relating to crossing the street twice as - proposed, the pathway shown on the outside of the loop on the Pathway Map, the need for tree removal if path goes in,_and the requested pathway crossing two driveway.