Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 e 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 17, 2008 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE � SCREENING PLAN FOR A NEW RESIDENCE; LANDS OF GOESE; 13480 WILDCREST DRIVE; FILE#205-07-ZP-SD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director 7? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development permit, subject to the recommended conditions in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND This application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review per condition of approval #2 for the new residence approved on July 14, 2005. (Attachment 2) The subject property is a 1.897 acre parcel located on the crest of a ridgeline near the end of Wildcrest Drive. The property is currently being developed with a two-story residence with a basement, and a pool. The lot has an average slope of 26.2%. The surrounding neighborhood includes a mix of one and two-story homes. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.897 acres Net Lot Area: 1.897 acres Average Slope: 26.2% Lot Unit Factor: 1.238 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgft) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 11,049 11,020 0 0 29 Floor 6,425 6,425 0 0 0 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 17, 2008 Page 2 of 5 The existing landscaping on the property consists of a variety of trees including crape myrtle, flowering plum, and California bay. There is also a large mix of shrubs on the property. Per condition of approval #2 for the new residence, the applicant was required to replace the trees being removed at a three to one ratio for "landscape mitigation with a mix of large and small trees, one being a 25 foot tall tree to replace the existing Cypress. The remaining replacement trees shall consistent of a minimum of three to five large trees (minimum 20' tall x 10' wide) and ten to twelve smaller trees" (Attachment 2). To satisfy this condition the applicant is proposing to install the following: Qty. Size Qty. Size 1 25' tall tree to replace the Cypress 1 25' tall Cedar-72"box 3-5 20' tall x 10' wide 3 20' tall x 20' wide Olive Trees 5 24"box Fern Vine 10-12 10' tall x 5' wide 7 24"box Victorian Box 1 11 tall x 6 wide California Pepper 2 12' tall x 5' wide Southern Magnolia In addition to the required screening, the applicant is proposing two (2) - 60"box Copper Beach trees and eighty nine(89) - 15 gallon shrubs of various types. Solar panels have been constructed on the south slope of the property for the new residence (building permit # 14219 issued on 7/21/2006). The applicant is proposing eleven (11) -15 gallon English Laurel around the structure to help screen the panels from the neighbor's view. COMMITTEE COMMENTS The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented on the extent of landscape coverage on the property and the amount of water the landscaping will require. The Committee also suggested using more native plants for additional mitigation closer to the residence to soften the appearance of the house. (Attachment 3) The comments have been forwarded to the applicant. a Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 17,2008 Page 3 of 5 OUTDOOR LIGHTING The applicant is proposing to install two (2) full shield luminaire 18 watt lights mounted on the driveway columns, four (4) ground mounted driveway lights, four (4) inset wall lights along the driveway, eight (8) ground mounted pathway lights, and three (3) step lights on the stairs. CEQA STATUS This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Conditions of Approval for SDP#90-05-ZP-SD-GD dated August 5, 2005 3. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments dated November 9, 2007 4. Minutes from the July 14,2005 Planning Commission meeting 5. Landscape Plan Attachment 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 17,2008 Page 4 of 5 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LANDS OF GOESE 13480 WILDCREST DRIVE FILE#205-07-ZP-SD PLANNING: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the site plan. Any new lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department,.prior to installation. Lighting shall be the minimum needed for safety, 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. 3. No new fences are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit of $20,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection of the residence. 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. 5. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control, as determined by the City Engineer, must be installed prior to final inspection. ENGINEERING: 6. 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, 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. 7. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 8. 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission January 17,2008 Page 5 of 5 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. LOSALTOS HILLS Attachment 2 W,ago Wo _.9^3 W., CALIFORNIA August 5, 2005 Mr. and Mrs. Goese 13640 Burke Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: File#90-05-ZP-SD-GD 13480 Wildcrest Drive New residence and swimming pool Dear Mr. and Mrs. Goese: Your request for a Site Development Permit for the above referenced project was approved at the. Planning Commission meeting on July 14, 2005. The City Council has upheld this approval. Please note the following conditions which apply to this approval: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as .otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. After- completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre-rough framing inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the applicant shall submit a landscape screening and erosion control plan for review by the Planning Commission. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the residence and the driveway retaining walls from surrounding properties and streets. There shall be a three to one ratio for tree replacement for landscape mitigation with a mix of large and small trees, one being a 25 foot tall tree to replace the existing Cyprus. The remaining replacement trees shall consist of a minimum of three to five large trees (minimum 20' tall x 10' wide) and ten to twelve smaller trees. 3. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer)must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $20,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 650 / 941 - 7222 Fax 650/941-3160 Mr. and Mrs. Goese August 5, 2005 Page 2 5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, including the existing 12" oak tree along the west property line, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced.prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The 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. Existing. perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 6. The property owner shall grant an open space easement to the Town over the southeastern portion of the property as shown on the approved plans dated July 14, 2005 where the slope of the land is 30% or greater. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to issuance of the building permit. 7. A landscape planting plan for the open space easement shall be prepared consisting of native plantings and proposed pathways consisting of decomposed granite and not to exceed 4' in width. All plantings shall be installed prior to final inspection of the residence. The plans shall note the use of a temporary irrigation system only. No permanent irrigation system may be installed in the easement. The plan shall be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of the building permit. 8. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved site plans. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. 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. The number of lights on the exterior of a structure should be limited to one light per doorway,with the exception of two lights at the main entrance, at double doors or garage doors. Any security lighting shall be limited in number and directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or louvers is suggested. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 9. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that"the location of the new residence and roof eaves are no less than 40'from the fi^ont property line and 30'from the side and rear property lines. The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection. Mr. and Mrs. Goese August 5, 2005 Page 3 r 10. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state . that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35')foot horizontal band based measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped: and.signed letter(s) to the. Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection. 11. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 12. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 13. Exterior finish colors shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less, per manufacturer specifications. Roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications-. All color samples along with the reflectivity value of each 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. 14. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 15. 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. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise mitigation and screening. 16. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official: a. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure (fencing). b. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover. c. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors providing direct access to the pool. d. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool shall be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with a release mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor. Mr. and Mrs. Goese August 5, 2005 Page 4 17. 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. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 18. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated June 17, 2005,the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage'improvements and design parameters for foundations, etc.) to that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan check. b. Geotechnical Field Inspection—The geotechnical consultant should 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 prior to the placement of steel and.concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as-built)project approval. For fin-ther details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires &Associates, Inc., dated June 15,2005. 19. Two sets of a final grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plait 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. 20. 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 I to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place Mr. and Mrs. Goese August 5, 2005 Page 5 within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 21. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 22. 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. 23. 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 operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Wildcrest Drive and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. A copy of a recorded private sanitary sewer easement of the neighbor property shall be required to be submitted to the Town prior to issuance of building permit. A sewer hook-up permit shall be obtained from the Town prior to issuance of building permit 27. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $46.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check Mr. and Mrs. Goese August 5, 2005 Page 6 FIRE DEPARTMENT: 28. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in the new residence. Three copies 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 29. The applicant shall provide an access driveway and fire truck turnaround with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. 30. The property address shall be placed on the main residence so that it is clearly visible and legible from the street or road.fronting the property. The address numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with the background color. CONDITION NUMBERS 13, 18a, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27 AND 28 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. 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. The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until July 14, 2006). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, 17 Carl Cahill Planning Director cc: Brad Blackman, Custom Dreams, 300 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94022 Debbie Pedro Attachment 3 4-- RECL Environmental Design and Protection Committee NOV J'- 3 2007 Landscape/Hardscape EvaluationTOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Applicant Date t. 9 ., o Name Address -- � ~�- Reviewed by: Mitigation: Creeks, drainage, easements: Planting Plan: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 4 utes of a regular Meeting Approved 8/11/05 Town of Los Altos Hill PLANNING COMlVIISSION THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes ( 1 )#7-05 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Carey, Cottrell & Clow Absent: Commissioner Collins Staff: Debbie Pedro, Senior Planner; Lani Smith,Planning Secretary 2. RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Carey and passed by consensus to elect Commissioner Cottrell as Chairman. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell; seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to elect-Commissioner Collins as Vice-Chair. 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR-none 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF GOESE, 13480 Wildcrest Drive (90-05-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for 6,414 square foot partial two-story new residence on a highly visible lot with a 714 square foot basement (maximum structure height 27') and a 817 square foot swimming pool. Existing landscape screening is proposed to be removed. (staff-Debbie Pedro) Staff introduced this item stating this application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review because it is a visible lot on a hilltop with the house sited on a ridge line. She provided an aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding area. She further highlighted the information in the staff report. She stated that the new driveway would take the same access off of Wildcrest but about half way up a new portion of the driveway, which - includes the fire truck turnaround; will be constructed leading up to the new garage. The fire` truck turnaround will require the construction of two 3-foot terrace retaining walls on the east Planning Commission Nfinutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 - Page 2 side of the driveway._ The Town received three letters from neighbors regarding this project. All three neighbors are in support of the project but the down hill neighbor mentioned the need to provide landscape screening on the north side of the house. The construction of the driveway will require the removal of several significant mature trees (cedar, two cypress trees, and a walnut tree) that currently provide screening on the east side of the building site. On the south side, the visible portion of the house will.be the new driveway with the terrace retaining wall. The two story building will be more visible because of the removed landscaping and according to the Site Development Ordinance, ridgelines, hilltops and highly visible lots shall blend with the natural surroundings and native or naturalized vegetation shall be used to conceal structures, whenever possible. The applicant has demonstrated some effort to design the new house to blend with the surrounding areas by utilizing a sloping roof line and the use of darker, natural materials on the building exteriors. However, because several, of the significant trees will be removed, they need to be replaced and, additional trees need to be planted to insure that the building will be well screened. Therefore, staff recommends a 3 to I ratio replacement of mature screen trees for every tree removed. With regard to the open space easement, the building site is surrounded by moderately steep to very steep slopes on the north, east and south sides. She provided views of the approximate areas With slopes that are at or over 30%. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an Open space easement on the lower south facing slope. Staff believes that this is reasonable because while part of the property will be in an easement, it will leave a large remaining area on the property to be utilized for agricultural purposes such as an orchard or vineyard. However, if the Commission deems it appropriate, it can require a larger easement boundary to cover more areas of the land that has slopes of more than 30%. The applicant has indicated that they would like to plant a vineyard within the open space easement The purpose of the easement is to preserve the land in its natural state, including the natural terrain and natural vegetation- Planting a vineyard in the open space easement will have.an environmental impact because of the use of fertilizers. and pesticides. There may also be erosion problems on the steep slopes since there are usually no ground covers around the vines. . In addition, the applicant may need to fence off the easement to protect the.vines from deer and other animals. The.Town!s Open Spac6 Easement agreement has standard, consistent language that prohibits planting of any vegetation other than native. Allowing a deviation would set a precedent to allow non-native vegetation in the • ent. Staff Rirther noted corrections to the staff report as follows: Condition of approval #17a was completed during the review process and should be deleted, and #25, changing "prior to submittal ofplans far building plan cheek" to "prior to issuance of buildingpernfit". This would allow the applicant additional time to get the easement agreement approved. Brief discussion ensued regarding the planting of vineyards in open space easements, and the term "open space easements" versus "conservation easements". Staff indicated there is a distinction between the two which was-previously clarified by the City Attorney. Basically, a conservation easement is a-voluntary dedication of easement, and open ,space easements are required as part of a site development approval. So they use the term "open 'space easement" if it is required as part of a site development proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 ` July 14, 2005 Page 3 Chairman Cottrell stated that in his conservation easement document he can plant a vineyard and there are other vineyards in Town that are so steep that he knows it is a conservation easement. Commissioner Kerns felt a conservation easement or an open space easement were the same as it relates to what you can do in them. He knew there were areas in Town that have conservation easements with vineyards. There is no difference. Commissioner Carey noted that there were areas on this property with slopes greater than 30% that are not in an open space easement. Staff clarified that the purple areas were the slopes over 30% and the green areas are where the applicant has proposed.the dedication of an open space easement. The dedication of open space easements have been required for a number of reasons; slopes over 30%; areas next to a creek; also for oak coverage. Commissioner Carey asked if . areas with greater than 30% slope should be in an open space easement, why isn't this whole area not being required to be in an open space easement? Staff stated that they are working with the applicant to try to allow them some areas where they can use the property for agricultural pursuits such as an orchard or a vineyard (purple areas only). For clarification, Commissioner Carey stated that in the past they have required and potentially in the future they will require all areas of greater than 30% slope to be in an open space easement. However, the applicant has requested that in this circumstance the purple areas remain outside the open space easement but in addition even if they put the green area into an open space easement, the applicants would still like to plant a vineyard in that area. Commissioner Kerns discussed the driveway which was designed to meet the fire department's 15% slope requirement. In the past, the fire department has allowed portions of the driveway up to 20% slope. He asked if the Commission can make an exception to save the Cedar tree. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Brad Blackman, applicant's representative, stated they had no objection offering the open space easement on the right side slope (all of the purple area). They were never told or asked to provide more. They do feel strongly regarding the left side of the property as it is the entry to a single home, not visible to anyone except to two homes, and they will probably treat the area as an open space easement as they plan on restoring the former fruit tree orchard there which is a part of their landscape plan. Regarding the possibility of a 20% slope in some areas, the project team did not feel the fire department would allow exceptions. Tom Klope, project architect, stated that this was the end of a difficult 10 month project. The difficulties included: site constraints; regulations of.the site; working with fitting the house on the ridgeline; and working with Ryan Rucker with the fire department regarding several alternatives for the driveway. They were working with a shrinking MDA. Because they had to move the driveway toward the left (or down hill) to keep a 15% slope they had no choice but to . eliminate the four (4) trees as identified in the staff report with screening value. They plan to bring the landscape plan back to the Commission for review as required and discuss with the Commission the accurate means of screening this house to the best of their ability with proper plant material which should be native or on a hillside setting like this, oak trees. The staff report Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14,2005 Page 4 indicates a 3 to 1 ratio of replacement trees. Conditions 42 indicates that the applicant shall replant 15 mature tree specimen (minimum 20' tall x 10' wide). They have investigated the cost, for the record, of a 20' tall, 10' wide live oak tree($4000). Due to the constraints of the site they need a crane that could reach 25 feet and the cost would double ( $8000 a piece for any oak that size brought onto the property). Regarding the Atlas Cedar, they contacted Joe Auras of Trees of California which is one of the finest trees movers in the region. The estimated the cost to dig out the Cedar would be $25,000; its survival would be minimal at best In Mr. Klope's opinion he felt it would be better to apply the $25,000 toward trees which are more appropriate to this setting and provide greater screening value. Regarding the open space easement, their desire is to have vineyards on the south facing slope and an orchard on the north facing slope. Both of those slopes were historically orchards in the past. He felt they have done their best to pull this site plan together in a way that meets their clients parameters for his project as well as Town codes and ordinances. Brian Peters, project architect, discussed the process, studying many ways to utilize the site. The beauty of the site is that is has wonderful north and south orientation for views. The main goal was to be able to capture the views and exposures from the main living areas of the house. So rather than building a large mass in the center of the pad, they wanted to create a usable space in the court yard space, creating thin profiles of the home so they would get light from multiple sides and also be able to get views of the western hills and also to the north towards the east bay. He further discussed the roof line which would bring the house down into the hills. They will be using natural woods and materials as well as copper gutter fascias which will all blend together. They have worked really hard to keep simple roof forms. He discussed and illustrated the pallet of materials to be used, keeping the architecture quiet and simple. Mr. Hurley, project civil engineer, discussed the amount of time working with the fire department to lay out the driveway with different options which did not work for either the fire department or for the site. The proposal is the best they could come up with to minimie the grading around the existing hill and to minimize the impact on the hill itself. Brad Blackman stated that he researched other sites before-proposing the vineyard as they did not want to ask for something that had not been approved previously. He had reviewed the past eight to 10 conservation easement agreements in order to draft theirs. He provided a copy of the approval from Carl Cahill recommending it to the Town Council, and the Town Council resolution as well as a copy of the actual recorded document which included the permission to install irrigation systems and vineyards. Commissioner Carey, had before him a copy an open space easement agreement from the Altamont Road subdivision that the Commission approved recently which Mr. Blackman was involved with at that time. Section 3 of'the agreement for an open space easement talks about restrictions on the use of the property, in particular 3c-against the grading of land for reasons other than intended permitted uses; 3d-against the cutting the vegetation, except as may be required for fire prevention,thinning, elimination of deceased growth, and similar measures; and 3e-against any plantings other.than native vegetation. He noted that this was different from the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 5 information Mr. Blackman had researched. For a point of information, Commissioner Carey stated that code indicates that the replacement ratio for a heritage oak tree is actually 5 to 1.. Mr. Blackman responded stating that the Altamont property's slope was and still is heavily filled with native vegetation (lots of oak trees). His client at the time was not interested in a vineyard so they did not pursue the topic of a vineyard in the conservation easement. He felt that the conservation easement documents are negotiated documents in the pursuit of individual homeowners. Commissioner Kerns agreed. Tom Klo e discussed the landscape screening plant stating that he felt a 3 to 1 ratio was appropriate however the size is quite large. Generally on oak trees in particular, when they bring large specimens they tend to sit for some time and not grow. In choice locations they could bring a few in. He recommended that in other areas they plant smaller trees as they hit the ground and start growing. He asked if they are going to screen the house heavily now or are they going to plant it in a way that over 5 to 8 years they begin to develop that screening. The 20 x 10 is a 72 inch box tree. He would propose the 24 inch box or 36 inch box size. If there is a location that warrants a large tree to be placed on the property, they have entertained that idea on other projects in order to take care of major concerns of adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Kerns felt the box size is not as important as the actual size of the tree. In the past they have specified size as opposed to box size. He was concerned that there are 15 of the large trees which is too much. Hes�suggested fewer of the large trees butspecifying perhaps some 20 x 10 with the rest 10 feet tall by 5 feet wide (total of 15). Mr. Klope was in agreement to develop a ratio or mix. He noted that the cost of a 24" or 36" box tree would be substantially less as they would not require the use of a crane for planting. Mr. Blackman referred to the rendering of the site with further discussion of the landscape screening. He felt it would be best to review the landscape plan (number and size) after framing of the house. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated that allowing vineyards in conservation easements began during a period when they had a Council that was not concerned with the sustainability of either wildlife or plantings. She felt they now have a "green" Council. She felt the Town has no control over vineyards. This is a serious problem due to spraying (keeping children and animals inside) and water runoff. She referred to the Goese's hilltop property which is a water shed area. If left alone, native plants will grow. It would be helpful if a few oak trees were planted in this area to help it along. The Town's water shed is what waters the rest of the land during the warm summer months. This area, if left natural, acts like a sponge. Since the water goes to the bay eventually, she would like to keep it as clear as possible. She continued by discussing apricot orchards and an oil spray that is usually applied to the trees in the winter months. She does not know of any other spraying that is done to the orchards. She would prefer, on this project, an open space easement on the upper portion of the property Anything planted on the top portion will drain down. She would prefer orchards on the opposite side of the property. Another concern discussed was the copper flashings noting copper is Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11/05 July 14, 2005 Page 6 poisonous to the water. She suggested contacting Beau Goldie with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for more information. She discussed trees and replacement of boxed trees. She provided a resource to Tom Kope where the trees are not boxed but actually wrapped and the trees are healthier. Commissioner Carey stated that the Environmental Design Committee recommendation was for a one-story residence. Wayne, with the Evenshine Group, La Paloma Road, representing the owners, voiced support of this project with the vineyard. He stated in Napa they have vineyards on sloped areas but they do have erosion control with the use of seasonal grasses in the winter time. He felt Tom and the applicants were looking into this. They would be in support of either mature trees or boxed trees. On the La Paloma property, they planted several hundred trees, the box variety, which have grown well. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Kerns was okay with the open space easement proposal and he would support a vineyard as they have allowed this in the past He would like the Commission to make a change to the requested number of trees. The landscape portion is requiring 15 trees of the 20' x 10' wide variety. He would like to see more variety of trees with a fewer number of the larger trees . (five larger trees and maybe 10' x 5' wide variety 10 smaller trees) for a total of 15 trees. He would like to reserve a number as the landscape plan will return to them and they can modify the plan if necessary. He would like them to review a landscape plan at least based on that number of trees. He felt oak trees would screen the house better than a cedar tree. Also, he could support the second story as they have done an :excellent job with the design and the use of materials. Commissioner Clow agreed. He did support the project with a vineyard. He did like Brad's suggestion regarding a 25 foot oak tree near where the Cedar was located with three to five larger trees and a number of smaller trees. They can review landscaping needs after framing. He felt the house was not as visible as it may appear on a topo map. The roof design is very good as well as the choice of colors which helps the house become less visible. The ordinance indicates they may require. a one story but it does not say they have to require a one story. He felt the applicants have done much to mitigate the visibility. Commissioner Carey felt the project would be beautiful. The three major issues that they are dealing with are: ridgeline (highly visible lot); open space issues (where and what to require); and landscape screening. The applicants and designers deserve much credit in terms of how this particular structure fits into the ridgeline location. He would maintain the recommendation of the planning staff regarding the 3 to 1 ratio for replacement of new trees to those being removed. The question is how many bigger ones should they require. He felt a key issue was the landscape screening and they need to provide strong guidance with the idea that it will be fine tuned.' Regarding the open space easement issue, it was his understanding that anything over a 30% slope should be in an open space easement. He agreed with Sandy in that the area to the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/11105 July 14, 2005 Page 7 south side of the property should be dedicated an open space easement where the slope is 30% or greater. The north side of the property, with the same slope, would not be in an open space easement as it is the drive up to their property and this may be requiring too much for people who have their house surrounded by open space easements. The next question is what to allow in an open space easement. He liked vineyards but if they are going to dedicate an open space easement it means that they do not terrace it, irrigate it, or fertilize it. He felt the right thing to do is not allow a vineyard in an open space easement. He would like to hear more feedback from the Commissioners regarding where do they require it, and what do they allow an open space easement to be used for. Chairman Cottrell agreed with his fellow Commissioners regarding the beautiful design. Regarding the fact this is' a highly visible lot, a great many.of the houses in this Town are on highly visible lots. There are three visible houses from this property. He felt with the proper landscape mitigation this house will be fine on this site. He agreed with the 3 to 1 ratio for replacement trees but he also felt they should wait until the house is framed to decide. He also was confused with conservation easements versus open space easements. Every time there is space over 30% slope they have placed it into a conservation easement. They have many examples in Town where they have allowed vineyards or orchards inside a conservation easement. If it is a special case, the applicant has to ask for that exception and it is usually granted. He felt all the slopes over 30% should be in a conservation easement and he was willing to allow a vineyard or orchard on either side of the house. Commissioner Carey felt if they allow an exception so the north side of the property does not fall within an open space easement (request from applicants) then they should maintain the south side of the property as an open space easement without the vineyard. Mr. Blackman requested a reduced landscape deposit. The Commission recommended leaving the condition as is. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence with a basement and swimming pool, Lands of Goese, 13480 Wildcrest Drive, accepting staff recommendations with the followingo additions/changes ns/c hanger to the conditions of approval: delete 17a; #25, change prior to submittal of plans for building plan check to prior to issuance of building permits; 3 to 1 ratio for tree replacement for landscape mitigation with a mix of large and smaller trees, one being a 25 foot tree to replace the existing Cyprus (three to five larger tress with the remaining smaller trees); and allowing a vineyard in the proposed conservation easement as proposed by the applicant. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Kerns & Clow NOES: Commissioner Carey ABSENT: Commissioner Collins This approval is subject to a 23 day-appeal period.