Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Vie! Town of Los Altos Hills January 14, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL; LANDS OF GODINHO; 12250 MENALTO DRIVE; File#115-97-ZP-SD-GD APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams,Planning Due or RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission EITHER: 1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with revisions to minimize the cut for the front terrace and to reduce lighting; OR 2. Approve the requested Site Development Permit as above, but also direct the applicant to revise the plans to delete the basement below the garage to further minimize cut. BACKGROUND The subject property for the proposed new residence is a flag lot located at the terminus of Menalto Drive (Assessor's Parcel No. 182-26-015, Lot 3 of Tract 3477, established in 1963). A 10-foot wide public utilities easement exists along the interface of the cul-de-sac. The site is currently vacant. Surrounding lots are developed with single family residences. On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed new residence for this site, and directed the applicant to revise the plans to 1) move the house further down the hill to reduce its visibility; 2) further lower the building pad or better step the structure to lower the overall height and view impact on the uphill neighbor; 3) revise the driveway and terrace design to meet the Town's basement definition or to count the area below the terrace as floor area; 4) clarify separation of the garage from the basement to meet the Town's basement definition; and 5) provide a minimum two-car garage. The minutes of the September 10th meeting are attached. 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, and parking requirements. Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 2 DISCUSSION Net Lot Area: 1.17 acres Avg. Slope: 15.8% L.U.F. 1.016 Floor Area and Development Area: Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Remaining Development Area 13,030 12,782 0 12,782 248 Floor Area 5,801 5,800 0 5,800 1 Revisions The applicant has made the following substantive revisions to respond to the Commission's direction: 1) the house has been moved approximately 25 feet down the hill and slightly to the west, lowering the overall pad and height of the house by about 3 feet; 2) the garage has been shifted to the west side of the house and is no longer at the basement elevation (though there is a basement below the garage); 3) the garage is now a two-car garage,with two additional spaces provided along with adequate turnaround in front of the house; 4) the basement is now completely below grade, as the garage is no longer at the same level as the basement and the front terrace is cut into grade, with no basement or garage space below; and 5) decking around the pool and a walkway from the pool to the house have been added. The effect of the changes is outlined in the applicant's spreadsheet(attached) reflecting roof heights of the original proposal compared to those on the revised plans. The column titled "difference in roof elevation" shows an overall reduction of 3.25 to 5.75 feet in the peak roof elevations of the proposed structure. Of particular importance, the elevation of the roof over the master bedroom wing (primary view corridor) would be 3.75 feet lower and 25 feet farther down the hill from the uphill neighbor's view than the initial proposal. The revisions have eliminated the issues about the basement being exposed on the south side and the driveway and garage concerns regarding floor area below the front terraces. Floor area has not altered from the previous plans, as the additional garage space has been accommodated by shrinking both the first and second floors slightly. There has been an increase in development area due to the pool decking, patios and walkways being shown, although there remains 248 square feet available for further potential development. Site and Architecture The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a new 5,359 square foot two-story residence, with an attached 441 square foot two car garage. A 4,382 square foot basement is proposed, meeting the Town's definition of a basement and is thus not included in the floor area calculations. Two patios are proposed off of the north and northwest sides of the house,two terraces are proposed at the front of the house, and these in addition to the pool constitute the outdoor living space proposed. Staff has included a condition of approval (#7) requiring that a disclosure statement be filed with the property stating that the floor area approved with this application is at the maximum allowable for the lot. The second story (1,330 square feet) covers 30 percent of the first floor. The maximum height of the house on a vertical plane would be 26 feet above the finished grade, although Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 3 the roof heights above existing grade range from-9 feet for the garage and 11.5 feet at the master bedroom to 23 feet above the dining room. The overall height from lowest point (existing grade) to highest point is 27 feet. The site is visible to surrounding properties (all developed)in that it exists at a lower elevation than the adjacent property to the west, and is located at a higher elevation than the properties to the east, south and north. The proposed residence will impact the Bay view from the home to the south(12220 Menalto Drive). The revised plan, however, will be a considerable improvement over the original plan in preserving that owner's view corridor to the north(Bay), as the master bedroom, study, and living room rooflines are now proposed at or as much as 5 feet below the sightline from the 12220 Menalto living room. Staff notes that virtually any house at the subject site will have adverse impacts on the Bay view of 12220 Menalto Drive, and that that property has a substantial view in the opposite direction (southwest) as well. The story poles have been adjusted to outline the revised plans for the Commissioners'review. The exterior materials proposed for the residence are stucco with clay tile roofing, wrought iron balcony railings, and wood doors, window frames and shutters. A copper roof is proposed over the family room. A 6-foot high curved glass block wall (approximately 15 feet in length)is proposed in the master bedroom(please refer to south and east elevations). Lighting and Landscaping Two small skylights are proposed, one over the entry and one over the living room. Lighting is shown (but not labeled) on the first floor plan and generally includes two fixtures per exit(each shown as double door exits). Due to the orientation of the exits(either close together or perpendicular and in close proximity), staff has modified condition #6, which recommends that lighting be revised to show only one light for the kitchen nook exit and one light for the dining room exit, and to eliminate 2 of the 4 lights shown for the patio off of the office and living room. Lighting is not shown on the garage, but two lights would be permitted. The condition also includes standard language that the lighting fixtures be downshielded and must be submitted for approval by staff prior to submittal of building plans. The property is a flag lot but is visible from the Menalto Drive cul-de-sac, Briones Way, and Westridge Court (a private road). Existing vegetation on the lot is sparse, with only a 42-inch black walnut and 6 and 8-inch pine trees, all proposed to be retained. The site slopes down to the north (rear) and east property lines, towards Westridge Court. Mature vegetation, including Italian cypress and oleander shrubs, exists along the northern property line and help to partially screen it from homes along Westridge Court. Screening will be needed to mitigate impacts to the properties to the east and south. Staff understands that the applicant has agreed with some of his neighbors to prune existing trees to restore views, but no written correspondence has been received relative to this issue. A site development hearing would be required subsequent to framing to review the landscape screening plan. Pool The pool is proposed on the northern portion of the lot, and is to be located approximately parallel to the natural topography of the site. Pool equipment has not been shown on the plans. Standard pool conditions (#9) will require that equipment be located out of the setbacks. Pool decking and walkways to the house from the pool are now shown, reducing available development area on the site. Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 4 Parking,and Driveway The four required parking spaces are accommodated with the two garage spaces and two surface spaces located off the driveway(out of setbacks). The driveway from Menalto Drive leading to the property will be 14 feet in width. All of the driveway and the back up areas are located within the side yard setback. The Fire Department has indicated that the revised plans are acceptable as far as access is concerned and therefore staff has not included the previous condition requiring modification of the turnaround area. Grading Policy Approximately 1,950 cubic yards of cut, up to 16 feet in depth, (in order to accommodate the basement in some areas,particularly below the garage) and 250 cubic yards of fill (up to 4 feet in height) are proposed in order to form a level building pad and to establish positive slope gradients around the residence. Excess cut would be exported off-site. Finished floor elevations would range from 195.0 for the garage to 191.5 for most of the house (193.0 at the entry) to 190.0 for the master bedroom. The patios below the house would step down to 191.0 and 189.0, respectively, and the pool would be situated below that at about the 184.0 elevation. A three foot high maximum retaining wall is shown uphill of a portion of the pool, and a four foot high wall wraps around some of the driveway to the garage. Neither of these walls should be highly visible. Most of the project grading would now be consistent with the Town's grading policy,particularly with respect to fill. Staff is concerned, however, with a couple of areas of cut. First, the terrace between the garage and the entryway is cut from 4-8 feet below existing grade, in excess of the 4 foot maximum recommended by the grading policy. Condition #1 requires that the applicant revise the plans to raise the terrace to 193.0 and slope gradually to the 195 foot elevation at the driveway,thereby minimizing the depth of cut(also providing a little more mounding to screen the house from the road). This may require deleting a portion of this terrace (the other front terrace complies with the grading policy). The second area of concern is the extent of cut for the garage and the basement below. Although the applicant has revised the plans to step the basement "up" at the garage to minimize the amount of cut, there would still be a combined 16 foot cut (8 feet for the garage at the corner plus 8 feet for the basement) at this point. While these limits are not necessarily in conflict with the grading policy, the combined cut appears excessive. Staff suggests that the Commission consider eliminating the basement below the garage, thereby reducing the maximum cut to 12-13 feet. If so desired, condition #1 should be changed accordingly. Drainage The proposed drainage for the site would include swales around the house to keep the drainage away from the residence,with dispersed surface sheet flow below the development and outlet below the garage to a drainage swale over the rear of the property. The Engineering Department will review a final drainage and grading plan prior to submittal of building plans and will inspect fmal drainage and grading prior to final inspection. The site will be served by sewer and will extend lateral lines in Westbridge Court to connect to an existing sewer main in Briones Way. The sewer line has been relocated from the previous proposal to follow the side of Westbridge Court so that the road will not be torn up for installation. • Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 5 Staff and Committee Comments The Fire Department has requested that the address be clearly labeled, that the driveway have a minimum width of 14 feet and be designed and maintained to support fire apparatus loads, and that the vertical and horizontal clearances of the driveway be maintained (Attachment#3). In addition,in order to meet required fire flows the house will be required to have a sprinkler system installed. The Environmental Design Committee commented on the initial proposal that the grading would be extensive and regarding the potential for view impacts to the neighbor above. The Committee noted that there are no significant trees to be impacted, and will review the landscape plan after the house is framed. The Pathways Committee has no request for pathway improvements or easements. As shown on the Master Path Plan, the closest path is along Briones Way. Since no pathway improvements are required and the project involves a new residence, a pathway fee has been requested pursuant to Section 10-2.608 of the Site Development Ordinance. The fee of $7.00 per linear foot of the average width of the lot (since the frontage of the lot is a panhandle)would provide for future path improvements in the Town(condition#8). Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recommended conditions of approval; 2. September 10, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes; 3. Revised Worksheet#2; 4. Applicant's Table Re: Roof Elevations 5. Fire Department letters,dated July 9, 1997, and December 31, 1997; 6. Recommendation from Environmental Design Committee, dated June 24, 1997; 7. Development plans. cc: Mr.Norman Godinho Mr. Ernie Renner 27872 Via Corita Renner Surveying and Engineering Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 2260 Bay Road, Suite B Redwood City, CA 94063 Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL LANDS OF GODINHO-12250 MENALTO DRIVE FILE#115-97-ZP-SD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Revised plans shall be submitted showing the front terrace adjacent to the garage at an elevation of 193.0, and sloping up to 195.0 at the wall adjacent to the driveway, with reductions in the size of the terrace if necessary. Revised plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director 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 final framing of the residence, a landscape screening and erosion control plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development hearing. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties. 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. 6. Revised lighting plans shall be submitted prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, limiting lighting to one light at the kitchen nook exit, one at the dining room exit, and two at the patio at the office/library and living room (two would also be permitted at the garage). Any additional outdoor lighting requires approval by Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 7 the Planning Department prior to installation. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. Light fixtures must be approved by the Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights, unless determined to be necessary for safety. Landscape lighting shall be shown at the time of landscape screening review. 7. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the floor area (5,800 square feet) established for the property under this permit is at the maximum level of development currently allowed by the Town. The Planning Department will prepare the statement and the signed, notarized document shall be returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 8. A fee of$7.00 per linear foot of the average width of the lot (since the frontage of the lot is a panhandle)shall.be paid to the Town prior to final inspection. 9. 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. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 10. 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 fmal grading and drainage plan that is stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted for approval prior to submittal of plans for building plan check Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection. 11. 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. 12. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 13. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and prior to final inspection, 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 location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan. Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 8 The location and elevation of the pool shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan prior to final inspection. At the time of framing inspection for the new residence, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan. 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 Menalto Way 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 driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,prior to final inspection. 18. The property owner shall be required to connect to public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer main extension plan for the portion of the line proposed within the public right of way (Briones Way), that is prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be required to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to submittal of plans for building plan check An encroachment permit shall be required to be issued for the work proposed within the public right of way prior to submittal of plans for building plan check. An as-built mylar shall be required to be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 19. 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. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and be a minimum of 4 inches in height. Lands of Godinho: January 14, 1998 Page 9 20. The driveway to the residence shall have a minimum width of fourteen feet. Vertical clearance shall be a minimum of thirteen feet six inches. Both dimensions shall be maintained. 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. 21. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in the new residence. The details of the sprinlder 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. The applicant may propose alternate means of achieving an acceptable water supply in lieu of fire sprinklers, subject to the approval of the Fire Department. Upon completion of 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, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, AND 21 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. 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 January 14, 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. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 8 MOTION SECONDED. .ID PASSED: Motion by Co s - slier Cheng to approve th e development permi a a change to condition#13 to r:. .+ e a pathway easement to anted (seconded by - • issioner Jinkerson with accep of a friendly amendmen require the light wells •- e minimum required by the U • Building Code). A - . Commissioners Chen 1 erson& Stutz ► . S: Chairman Gottlie. ommissioner Schreiner This approval is subject - . 1 day appeal period. 3.5 LANDS OF GODINHO, 12250 Menalto Drive (115-97-ZP-SD); A request for a Site development Permit for a new residence and pool. Norman Godinho, property owner and applicant, stated that he is present and available to answer any questions. He had read the staff report and is in agreement with the staff recommendation. His designer is also present. Chairman Jinkerson asked whether the area under the house where cars can be parked was counted as floor area since it is essentially enclosed on three sides with a terrace over it? Discussion ensued on the garage and its relationship to the basement. Peter Rip, 12220 Menalto Drive, lives adjacent to the site. The story poles really helped he and his wife visualize the proposed project. Their home has glass and windows overlooking the property and he is concerned about the visual impact. He submitted a letter from the Penns, another adjacent neighbor stating their concerns about the project. He felt that the guidelines are not being met relative to maintaining a natural open view of the hills and that the house is fairly obtrusive in its design. The house is much larger than any others on the street, it doesn't fit into the neighborhood, it is three stories and it would entirely block their bay view. They would like to have the house moved down the slope. Thomas MacDonald, Briones Way, owns the property that abuts the applicant's lot on the northeast corner. He and his wife prefer not to see closed fencing on the eastern boundary a it would block their view. The trees in the lower corner should be lower growing species so as to not block views when they mature. The upper part of their lot where it abuts the subject property has had drainage problems in the past. Much of the slope of the applicant's lot is toward their property and they do not want increased run-off. Ingrid MacDonald reiterated her husband's concerns about drainage. Their deed includes a provision that requires trees and vegetation to not block views of neighboring properties. Staff noted that the applicant's lot is part of a different subdivision that the MacDonald's lot. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 9 Roy Rogers, 27279 Briones Way, accesses his property from a private road called Westridge Court. He is also concerned about drainage. He asked who would be responsible for maintenance if the storm system is installed in Westridge Court? Ms. Proft clarified that it is a sanitary sewer not a storm sewer. She noted that there is a condition requiring the dissipaters to be moved away from the property line (uphill) so the water is dispersed on the applicant's lot. Walter Leach, 12475 Briones Way, lives downhill of the site. He asked if the sewer could be installed alongside the driveway (Westridge Court). He is sympathetic to the Rips regarding their view and believes that a resident who has lived there for 10 years should be accommodated. He commented that many of the neighbors had moved there for the views.He also questioned the proximity of the pool to Westridge Court rather than being closer to the proposed house. Peter Campagna, 12233 Menalto Drive, lives across the street from the lot. Any movement north would help his view and would help the Rip's view. He is here to support the Rips. Norman Godinho stated that he shared his plans with his neighbors from the early stages of design. He has tried to minimize the impact on the neighbors. He would be willing to remove or trim the walnut tree to open up a view corridor for the Rips. He lost all of the views from his current home on Via Corita due to later development of surrounding properties. He doesn't,plan to plant trees that will block views of neighbors. He would like to have a chain link fence to keep his dogs in. He is willing to put the sewer line in a different location if it can be done. The basement and garage below grade do not impact the height of the house, and he does not believe that the house would be viewed as three stories from off the site. Also, he would like to move the pool closer to the house. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schreiner read an excerpt from the Site Development Policy that states that buildings should not dominate the natural landscape, and that consideration should be given to impacts on neighbors. She could see the story poles from her property on Saddle Mountain. Many homes in this area are very visible. The proposed house would be very visible to dozens of homes. She would like the applicant to consider moving the house down and the three story affect should be minimized. The house should be two-stories as viewed from all areas. She is concerned that there is only a one-car garage and that the basement is not a true basement since there is three feet of fill. Moving the house down would help the neighbor's view and would make it less obtrusive visually. Commissioner Cheng agreed that more than a one-car garage is needed, and asked if moving the house down would help the neighbor's view? Mr. Williams answered that yes it would lower the profile of the house, and it could be moved down the hill 20 feet or so. • Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 10 Commissioner Jinkerson said if the house is moved down, the pool will also need to be moved. The retaining wall might not be necessary if the house is moved. The impact on the neighbor would be reduced while giving the applicant what he wants. The garage and underground area is essentially a three-car garage and should count as floor area. Commissioner Stutz agreed with. Commissioner Jinkerson. She feels very strongly that the garage should be for more than one car. Chairman Gottlieb concurred with what has been said. The house isn't really being built on the contours, and it should be a stepped down house on this lot. The pool could be relocated to facilitate a redesign of the house. There is no reason for the backup area to be within the setback. She also questioned whether the basement meets the Code definition. Mr. Godinho stated that the house does step down. Chairman Gottlieb commented that the Commission could request a one-story house since it is on a knoll and while they can't promise the neighbor an unobstructed view, the situation can be improved. Mr. Godinho said that the house could probably be moved down 20 to 30 feet and that it could be lowered by grading down further. Commissioner Schreiner said they don't want Mr. Godinho to dig a hole for the house. The Commission would like to have the design changed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner (seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson)to continue the application for redesign with the direction given by the Commission. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng, Jinkerson, Stutz& Schreiner NOES: None 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report subcommittees-none. 4.2 special meeting will be held on Tuesday Septe 1. -• '16, 1997, to review the Housing Element and there is a joint wo ,;, "`sion with the City Council on October 29,1997. 00"• 5. NEW BUSINESS The Commission requested s .asement window wells should b own more clearly on plans (the depth and windo . - . . • O. • 0 lb k t• TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road•Los Altos Hills California 94022. 415)941-7222•FAX(415)941-3160 WORKSHEET N2 . EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA U :,W ,, , . . .r. • IV AND FLOOR AREA •TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION 41.t'�t/�}-+� ?o / 1 . 22-So M C-nl'kc-7v P'Z. (ASIttrr,s H1 L-LS C/9 ,? t 2z Y�triAT) 65-aJ t %m'o UA•rh 1.2 /3I7?7 w4.cuc,Arh�13Y r . 1, P V if OPMENT AREA, (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Proposed Total Existing (Additions or eletions) S Soa SP�o O• A. House and Garage(from Part 2.A) 2 g B. Decking 248 C. Driveway andDENEWE ( • g 7 2-3 97 (Measured 100'along centerline) D. Patios and Walkways a 3 0 7 2_3 0 7 E. Tennis Court 2.0 8 0 2_0 E o F. Pool and Decking G, Accessory Buildings(from Part 13) H. Any other coverage• TOTALS 12,7 g L MDA(from Worksheet#1) I /3, I Maximum Development Area Allowed- . . 2. g00R AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total (Additions or Deletions) . Al House and Garage a It p a. 1st Floor - / 3 3 0 . -3 b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement s, d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings . a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement TOTALS 5480© 5-80O• . Maximum Floor Area Allowed-MFA(from Worksheet#1) Raiud 2/26/96 • Date:Jan 5,1998 • Proposed Godinho residence-12250 Menalto Drive,LAH File :menalto3 Roof&story pole heights -Original proposed location- -New Location-Move 25'north pole existing first floor roof roof height existing first floor roof roof height new-roof old-roof differences highest new-roof Pear Ripp's roof height # elevation elevation height above exist elevation elevation height above exist elevation elevation in roof elevation height above Living room above Ripp's elevation elevation olovatlon on lot highest elev elsvadon+4R LR+4R. on lot approx. Garage 199.00 195.00 13.00 9.00 208.00 209.50 -1.50 208 0.00 Idtchen 14 198.50 194.25 25.50 21.25 195.50 191.50 25.00 21.00 216.50 219.75 4.25 209.50 7.00 208 8.50 dining room 15 196.00 194.25 25.50 23.75 193.50 191.50 25.00 23.00 216.50 219.75 -3.25 209.50 7.00 208 8.50 living room 16 194.50 194.25 20.00 19.75 191.50 191.50 17.00 17.00 208.50 . 214.25 -5.75 209.50 -1.00 208 0.50 study 17 193.50 192.75 16.00 15.25 191.00 191.50 14.00. 14.50 205.50 208.75 -3.25 209.50 -4.00 208 . -2.50 family room 18 196.00 194.25 16.00 14.25 191.00 191.50 15.00 15.50 206.50 210.25 -3.75 209.50 4.00 208 -1.50 master bedroom ' 19 193.75 192.75 14.00 13.00 191.50 190.00 13.00 11.50 203.00 206.75 4.75 209.50 -6.50 208 -5.00 garage 195.00 driveway entrance elevation 202.50 garage-OW entrance height difference -7.50 • °&, FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTROL NUMBER .'Esr:tsar' 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos; CA 95030-1818 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER COURTESY 8.SERVICE (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 9 7-3 4 5 7 FILE NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT Review of proposed new 10,286 square foot single family residence. This project is located within the hazardous fire area. Planning Director Curtis Williams is the planner for this project. 1. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall apply to the Building Department for applicable construction permits. UFC 2. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 2,750 GPM at 20 psi Appendix III-A residual pressure. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. UFC 3. Required Fire Flow Option (Single Family Dwellings): Provide required fire 903.2 flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet OR Provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. The fire sprinkler system shall conform to National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D, 1994 Edition, and local ordinance requirements. UFC 4. Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in Appendix III-A buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems but, can be no less Section 5 than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 1500 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This flow shall be taken from any two fire hydrants, on or near the site so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE LAH El El El El El THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNER 12/31/97 1 OF 1 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION LANDS OF GODINHO 12205 Menalto Dr A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMIT NUMBER PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97- 1638 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT This plan review is for a new two-story single family residence, including a full basement with a total floor area calculated at 7,421 square feet. Access is from Menalto Drive. Project Planner is Debbie Pollart. UFC 1 Access Dimensions: The driveway to the residence shall have the fourteen foot 902.2.2.1 width shown on the plans maintained. A vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches shall also be maintained. UFC 2 Access Surface Requirements: The apparatus access road (driveway) shall be 902.2.2.2 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. UFC 3 Fire Department (Engine) Turn-Around Required: Dead-end fire apparatus 902.2.2.4 access roads (driveways) in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with the turning around of fire apparatus. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standards. Turning radius shall apply as well. Note: A copy is attached. UFC 4 Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow is 2,250 GPM at 20 psi. residual. The 903.2 closest hydrant does not provide this requird flow. • UVC 5 Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in App. residences equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, but can be no less III-A than 1,000 GPM. The closest fire hydrant can provide this quantity of flow. Section 5 UFC 6 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addreses shall be placed on all 901.4.4 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. DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE ❑ ❑ ❑ Richard Elmore • 7/9/97 1 1 LIDDED ❑ OF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION Residential Construction Dunlap, Dan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR L12205 Menalto Dr ' RECED ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE ANN 2 1EIV997 NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION Applicant's Name: 7-7 `,i',/e /-t - TOWN Of LOS ALTOS HILLS 0 Address: ‘&' /1-7 .,ft — -- _ C� w Reviewed by: —___ Date: d�._ --) Existing Trees: (Conunent on size, type, condition, location with respect to building site. Recommended protection during construction.) (_ll N.i . • Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation- Erosion potential. All • grading at least 10' from property line?) _ail -_:C •61iI • _ L)_*, _ " 1 _ JOC) . Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a need for removal of invasive species?) • Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation (height, color, landscape).) • 77 g_____„4.) ,._ iLft l 0_,-,- oth2 _u_rt-Lu ' .. I .--/ ... 6_--- ____L. t.,_ -)ki Al\A . _______ Other Comments: l r . 1_ I p(442_--‘t,L___ II 7 ' i.) A rl I( �} .:S1. —n 4._:_r_ l� }lam �-1 1 1- C' 1 Ube/ L-F `IC) (11/P S