Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.2 i TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS June 28, 1995 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL;LANDS OF GOLDBERG; 12012 EMERALD HILL LANE. FROM: Suzanne Davis,Planner SD APPR BY: Curtis S.Williams,Planning Director RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit as submitted,subject to the attached conditions of approval. OR 2. Approve the residence and require the applicants to redesign the pool and outdoor area,providing direction to the applicant on appropriate changes. OR 3. Continue the application to a datel certain, and provide direction to the applicants for redesign of the project to further reduce grading. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission considered this application at its June 14, 1995, meeting, and denied the project without prejudice to allow the applicants to redesign the house and outdoor areas in response to concerns raised at the public hearing. There was no public testimony either for or against the project, although the Planning Commission discussed a number of concerns. These concerns induded the amount of cut,the potential visual impact of the pool, spa and patio area at the back of the house,the.height and number of retaining walls proposed, and the apparent lack of stepping in thehouse foundation. Some Commissioners felt that if the impact to the hillside could not be lessened,a pool might not be-possible on this lot. . The Planning Commission was not able to come to.,a consensus on what elements of the proposed project should be redesigned, and voted 6-0 to deny the application without prejudice. The applicants met with staff following the • meeting, and have returned with revised plans which werechanged in response to the issues discussed on June 14. A public notice was sent out to property owners within 500 feet of the property advising the neighbors of the new public hearing date. Planning Commission i r June 28, 1995 Lands of Goldberg Page 2 DISCUSSION Site Data: Net Lot Area: p.04 acres Average Slope: 33.0% Lot Unit Factor: .54 Floor irea and Dev lopment Area: Area Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Left Devel. 11,550 11,500 -0- 11,500 +50 Floor 7,700 6,914 -0- 6,914 +786 The following are staff co ents on-the issues and the revisions to the plans: • Raise t house to (a) r duce the amount of grading.and(b) reduce the height and number of retaining w lls. The hose has been aised three feet and the retaining walls have been modified. One wall below the pool has been eliminated, and two sections of wall have been eli' ated at the front of the'house. The lower wall has also been reduced in length. The height on the iterraced walls near the front entry have gon from five to four feet, and the grade will be sloped so that only three fee of the walls will be exposed (see sections). the lower wall beginning at' the driveway and running along the base of the slope in.front of the house will range in height from about six inches to four feet. The grading volume have also changed due to the raising of the house. The amount of cut h s been significantly reduced from 3000.to 1580 cubic yards. However,the fill has increased from 1075 to 2100 cubic yards. Approimately 520 c bic yards will need to be imported to the site. The logical place to get the needed material is from''the Lohr subdivision, which las a lot of ex ess material. This would eliminate the need for trucks to drive up an down Stonebrook drive,,which has been of concern to many residents in a area. The project engineer intends to contact the Lohrs regarding this roposal. Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Lands of Goldberg Page 3 • Visual impact of the pool, spa,steps and patio areas. The applicants have included a conceptual landscape plan in the plan set to show the Commission that the retaining walls and outdoor area will be sufficiently landscaped. The walls at the front of the house will be criblock or other similar material so that planting can be done to hide the wall and help it blend into the hillside. The walls at the back of the house will also be landscaped: These walls can eitherbe painted an earthtone color or a stone veneer can be applied. If stone or other natural material is used and/or an appropriate color is used,for the masonry walls,they will better blend into the site. Treatment of the walls and planting can go a long way to reduce reflectivity of the outdoor area and have it better fit the site. The patio,planters and steps could also be a darker color rather than a lighter concrete color. A condition(#8) has been added to require this treatment of the rear yard hardscape. . The proposed changes to the outdoor area are minimal,and the Commission will need to decide whether further redesign is necessary,or if the landscape and color enhancements are adequate to address concerns about this area. While the pool is situated counter to the contours,the applicants note that it is designed to fit the slope,and that the rear yard layout"steps"with the contours to minimize grading. The applicants will also provide photos of the site as viewed from off-site locations to demonstrate that the area is not as visible as the Commissioners believe. • Stepping of the foundation. Section 9-1.228 of the Town Code defines a step-on-contour foundation as ". • • a foundation design which results in the first floor levels of a structure being of different elevation". The definition also includes a provision stating that"the difference in finished floor elevations shall be a minimum of 21 inches unless otherwise approved by the Site Development Committee at the time of site development review." The finished floor elevations vary from 571.5 to 575 forthe main floor and drops to 565.5 for the lower level of the two-story portion. The foundation and the roof lines have stepping elements,although elevations of adjacent sections of the house differ by 18 inches rather than the recommended 21 inches. The master bedroom suite is two feet lower than the living room and one and one-half feet lower than bedroom and bath 2. The kitchen area is one and one-half feet higher than the living room, and the garage is one foot lower. The patio and spa have been located below the house with the pool several feet lower,so that the development steps down the hillside. The code does give the Planning Commission the discretion to approve the project as proposed,if the Commission determines that the Planning Commission , June 28, 199 Lands of Goldberg Page 4 changes are adequate to address the concerns discussed at the June 14,. 1995,meeting. Staff is available to answer)any questions that the Commission or the public may have. Recommended conditions of approval are attached should the Commission(decide to approve the project(see Attachment 1). ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions'of approval 2. Planning Commission ' utes of June 14, 1995 3. Revised development pans: site &engineering plan,elevations,floorplans, roof plan, sections and ,onceptual landscape plan,(six sheets) cc: Arthur &Marilyn Goldberg 1 Bay Tree Lane Los Altos,'os,'CA 94022 Susan Roberts Giuliani&Kull 20431 Stevens Creek Boulevard,Suite 230 Cupertlino,CA 95014 Glenn Cahoon G &G Design ' 1585 Tlie Alameda San Jose,CA 95126 ii , 1 ' -Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Lands of Goldberg Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL • LANDS OF GOLDBERG-12012 EMERALD HILL LANE A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The driveway may not encroach into the Purissima Hills Water District easement. In addition, access from the driveway to the front entry shall be provided. Revised plans shall be approved by the Planning department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Any other changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Planning. Director or the Planning Commission,depending upon the scope of the changes. 2. Prior to final inspection the final landscape planting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Site Development Committee. The Site Development Committee may require a deposit, a landscape maintenance agreement, or other security to assure that the approved-landscape is planted and maintained.• Outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape plan. 3. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within,the skylight wells. 4. Paint color shall be chosen 13y the applicant and approved by staff in conformance with the Town's adopted color board. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval prior to painting the exterior of the residence. 5. Fire retardantroofing is required for the residence. 6. Standard swimming pool requirements: a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site. b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction of the.Tcwn Engineering Inspector. c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety. d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides and roofed for noise.mitigation. - 1 1 Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Lands of Gold erg 1 Page 6 7. A deed restric 'on shall be'recorded stating that the development area established by the approval of these permits is the maximum allowable level of development currently allowed by the Town,and that any further expansion requires Planning Commission approval. They recorded restriction will be prepared by the Planning Dep rtment and shall be signed and notarized by the property own rs prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 1 8. Rear yard walls and other hardscape shall utilize non reflective Materials and&olors,with a combination;of masonry, stone and/or concrete of colors compatible with the residence. details of these materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval, prior to accepts ce of plans for building planIcheck. 1 B. ENGINEERING DEP TMENT: 9. As recommended by William Cotton &I Associates in their report dated May 4, 1 95,the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The pr ject geotechnical consultant shall evaluate the ' retainin wall design and shall provide a letter summarizing the resu is in a letter for review and approval by the Town Geologi t and Engineering Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. The project geotechnical consultant shall summarize the results f their plan review in a letter and submit it to the Town E gineer for approval, prior'to acceptance of plans for building lan check. c. The proj ct geotechnical consultant shall describe the results of inspe tions and as-built conditions of the project in a letter to be submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to final inspection. For further details on the above requirements, please reference the letter from William Cotton&Associates dated May 4, 1995. 10. T o copies of gradingand construction operation plan shall be submitted by e property owner for review and'approval by the City Engineer nd Planning Director priorto acceptance of plans for bzilding plan c ck. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust,noise,and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Prospect Avenue,Stonebrook Drive and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Lands of Goldberg Page 7 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,theyhave a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 11. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as surface' flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. The grading and drainage plan shall be stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer and shall be approved by the Town prior,to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 12. A plan for the export operation and circulation shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building.plan check. The plan shall include the method of excavation, number of trucks per day, days of the week, hours per day, maximum duration, circulation, flagmen, and clean-up. Emerald Hill Lane, Prospect Avenue and any other streets in the vicinity ofthe project shall be kept clean and free of dirt and mud- tracking during the construction of the project. All streets shall be cleaned by the end of each work day. 13. Any, and all, changes to the existing grading and drainage plan 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 access to Emerald Hill Lane. 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. 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. Planning Commission 'I June 28, 1995 i Lands of Gol•berg Page 8 15. The property owner shall inform thel Town of any damage and shall repair ay damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways,public ard.private roadways prior to final inspection and release of occupancy,permits and shall provide the Town with photographs 'of the 'iexisting conditions of the . roadways and pathways prior to acceptance Of plans for building plan check. 16. All public utility services serving this property shall be undergrouned. - ' 17. e location, elevation and height of the new residence, decking, driveway an pool shall be certified in jwriting by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor 'as being in the locations, elevations and heights approved by the Town and as shown on the ite Development Plan. 1 18. a new resi ence shall be required to connect to sanitary sewer service. The equired fees shall be paidI to the City of Los Altos and a copy of th receipt shall be submitted to the Town, prior to acceptance of flans for building plan check. The applicant shall also be equired toay the Carter sanitary sewer reimbursement fee of $787.50 prior o'submittal of plans for building plan check. 19. 1The consery tion_ easement shall be' fenced off at its northerly boundary du ing construction to prevent storage of materials and construction equipment access through this protected area. The fence shall b in place and shall be inspected by the Engineering Department P 'or to issuance of building permits. 20. Upon completion of the construction,!a' final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14,1 15 AND 18 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIG*ED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY NGINEER IrRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. CO NSERVArION EASE ENT FENCING SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE EN INEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 'Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Lands of Goldberg Page 9 Properties residing within the Los Altos School District boundaries must pay School District fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet#2 to both the elementary and high school district offices,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 28, 1996). 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. Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos ills j PLANNING COM ISSION Wednesday,June 14, 1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chamber,rs,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#13-95 (3) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission m eting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chi firman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Doran,Gottlieb,McMahon (arrived at 8:15 p.m.) &Stutz Absent: Commissioner Finn Staff: Curtis Williams,Planning Director;Sheryl Kolf,Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis,Planner;Susan Manca,Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Seciri etary 2. PRESENATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF GOLDBERG, 12012 Emerald Hill Lane (56-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request. for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Staff reported that the pool eq 'pment location,not shown on the plan,will be out of the setbacks. Worksheet#2 walls provided. There was a suggestion to haul their export to the Quarry,if possible. Coirmissioner Stutz requested the notes from the informal site analysis meeting,however the current staff had not a1ttended this meeting;notes . from that meeting were not available. Commissioner Gottlieb noted a need for consistency in the preparation bf plans and what is allowed in setbacks. OPENED PUBLI HEARING i 1 Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 2 Art Goldberg, 1 Bay Tree Lane,Los Altos, applicant,reported that there was a stepping stone pathway leading from the driveway to the front door of the residence which was shown on the landscape plan. Unfortunately,the Commission had not reviewed this. plan. He indicated that he would_not object to a paved walkway (condition#1). At the. time of the site analysis meeting with three Commissioners,several recommendations were discussed and changed on the current ubmittal: lowering the overall height of the house from 27 feet from existing grade to 23 feet from existing grade;added additionalsteps in the house;stepped down from the house to the first patio,then step further down the hill to conform more with the contour of the land and to lower the apparent height on the property in conformance with the recommendations of staff. The recommendations of the staff were followed. Staff had sent them a report indicating that they had conformed to the recommendations that were made at the site analysis meeting. At the same meeting,there was a concern that the retaining wall next to the pool was too high and that the area could be stepped further down the hill. With this concern in mind,rather than having a one level patio behind the house,they took it down onto two levels with approximately half the area being further down the hill where the actual pool area is located. Mr. Goldberg was asked if he had considered placing the house further up.the hill. He responded that there was no flat area up the hill and the grade is actually steeper than in the present location. It would also require a longer driveway. There was also a concern with the heritage oaks in the upper location. The placement of the.pool was for convenience and they preferred not to develop the entire top of the hill. The placement of the pool in the upper areawould also require additional expense and excavation for a level area. Mr. Goldberg noted that the fourth parking space is adjacent to the east side of the house and inside the setback. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY _ Chairman Schreiner's recollection of the site analysis meetingwas that they asked the applicant to step down the house visually. However,it appears to be a large house on a flat pad. In answer to a question,Mr. Goldberg noted the lack of the landscape plan. However,it was the landscape architect's recommendation,rather than having high retaining walls,they actually use three relatively low retaining walls,using crib lock covered with plantings. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the cut and fill. Commissioner Stutz noted that the top of the wall contour line was mentioned, however no mention of the bottom of the wall elevation. They cannot predetermine the height of the walls. Also,the plans were two different sizes with the architectural drawings being too small. She would prefer the plans being the same size. Ms. Kolf noted that the.landscape-plan is not reviewed at this stage,however the retaining walls were reviewed as part of this application which included the height. Glen Cahoon, 1585 The Alameda,San Jose, architect, answered questions regarding the retaining walls up by the entry,commenting that each of those walls stair-step down approximately five feet each. Commissioner Stutz was concerned with the safety of Planning Commission Minut s DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 3 vehicles exiting the driveway onto the cul-de-sac. The 5%grade as shown off the court in the road right-of-way is th 5%up and the 10% down,then dropping to 14% down to the lower level: Ms. Kolf noted that according to the engineer's plan,it is not 5%up and then 10%down. They are showing the drainage direction down which would indicate 5% down from the bulb,then ' creases to 10%. Commissioner Cheng asked how the original plan'dif ers from this plan. Mr. Cahoon noted that originally the pad grade for the house was 2 feet higher,. , ere was a 10:12 pitch roof which made the roof line up higher;less stepping of the flor plan;and the house was not dropped into the site. It was noted that the height of the house from the lower pad'to the ridge line was 331/2 feet. Commissioner Doran was cocerned that the applicant was asked at'the site analysis meeting to contour the houseo the hillside which has a;different meaning then stepping the house. Commissioner Stutz noted that they have stepped the house down according to her calculations Only 2 feet going across the front of the house. The slope of the land in that location is a out 20%. If it was stepped down perhaps 8-10 feet,it would be more approaching hat she would like to see on this type of property. Commissioner Gottlieb comm nted that a step down house does not mean just stepping down inside the house. It me ns bring the foundation down the hill on the contour. Mr. Cahoon commented that ey had addressed this in a couple of way. Originally, when they met vlith a few of e Commissioners,they asked that they bring the whole profile of the house down. The Goldbergs did not want tohave the type of house that you would have la 10 foot space,then go down 3-4 steps then another 10 foot space,etc. They did not want a marathonhouse. What they did to resolve this was to bring the house down by hutting a little eater pad,doing some soft retaining walls going up the hill and then they modulated 4 as much as they could,stepping throughout the house. The left side of the house which is approximately 80 feet long is being stepped approximately 3 feet from the main entry level down into the master suite. In addition, this is where the have the lower basement. This area of!the house is a two story element which is being droppeld into the grade. If they were to count the basement, from the basement to the master suite level,there is approximately a 9 foot elevation. From the master level to the entry,there is a 3 foot:difference in elevation in that location. In addition,when they did the steps,they pulled the roofs all down with it so the house appears to be going own the hill and around that particular side of the house. 1 Commissioner Gottlieb read a erpt from the ordinance on grading noting that"all cuts and fill shall be rqunded to na al contours. Finished grade shall conform to the natural grade as much as possi le and shall not contain sharp angles or other unnatural features." She felt more coulda done to better fit the lot;the house does not fit the site. Mr. Cahoon felt they have step ed down the house as much as they felt was reasonable. In addition, they h ve lowered the whole profile of the house. Mr. Goldberg commented on his mother living with them shortly and the need for flatareas in the house to get around. 'Commissioner Doran noted because of the steepness of the 1 1 i • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 4 lot,if the house is stepped more,it will increase grading. Mr. Goldberg pointedoutthat the "flat area"being discussed bythe oak trees is not a part of his lot. It belongs to their neighbors (Pierce) and this is where they plan to put their house. Commissioner Stutz likes to see pools placed onthe contours. She felt a 20% slope was notpool property and this may be a lot that cannot support a pool,suggesting a lap pool rather then the lawn area. Chairman Schreiner also had problems with the . . placement of the pool due to William Cottonls.report. Commissioner Stutz felt they were grading a flat area for the house,maybe thepool should be in that location rather than behind the house. It was agreed not to consider the project without the pool. Commissioner Doran felt this was the.logical place on the lot for the house suggesting approving the house with a redesign of the back area. Mr. Goldberg noted that.the original plan when they met with some of the Commissioners had only 465 c.y. of cut and fill. Because of some of the changes,it has the cut and fill and the export. He would prefer to minimize the cut and fill requesting not to be.asked to create further requirements for cut and fill. The garage and house were placed on the same level for convenience,making it more livable. Commissioner Doran was still concerned with the front retaining walls as mentioned in William Cotton's report. Ms. Kolf noted that the actual-construction of the retaining walls would be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and also by William Cotton before the plans went to the building department. The current plans show what conceptually can be done. Whether it be keystone walls or something with more substantial footings is not decided at this point. Mr. Cahoon addressed the Cotton report noting that the process is reviewed. Ih addition,the soils engineer from Terrasearch reviewed a variety of types_of retaining walls. They choose to use this earthstone type wall because it is a much softer type of wall and do a series of terracing or stepping the walls so you do not see a 10 foot high wall or a largevertical wall. This would be more natural,staying with the natural terrain and will be a nice element to landscape up against. Further discussion ensued by the Commission. Commissioner Stutz commented on the following: stucco retaining walls by the swimming pool with a very visible balustrade around the edge of the pool;a dormer on the right side elevation of the garage which adds to the bulk;too many steps coming down the rear south elevation; 15 feet of walls to lower the house is not desirable;and the house could be 5 feet higher with less grading required. She suggested a redesign to reduce the cut and fill. Other suggestions included: reduce the deck area in the back of the house;change the pool to a lap pool,.maximum 8 feet-wide; and moves the spa up to one of the planter areas so it will not bea prominent spa at the outside edge to follow the contours. She noted the pathway committee did not require any construction of paths,calling attention to the fact that this lot fronts..on.Stonebrook. They have a 10 foot easement and should have a constructed path,not necessarily just in its present location. She indicated the proposed location on the plan. They should ask for a continuation of the path at the upper level. Planning Commission Minutes 1 ' DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 5 I Commissioner Stutz noted that they were getting very faxed regarding-steep lots. She quoted from a rreport'dated December, 1983 discussing pools,tennis courts and flat house pads from the grading standpoint;pools being the greatest problem with regard to abusive grading. Two suggestions from that report were pool sites could not be placed on slope' over 7 1/2%with the maximum slope of the excavated soil to be less than 15%, and riot disturbing more than 2,000 square feet of land for the pool. For the flat house pads,almost all houses coming to site development cut on a flat pad,with little or no effo made to use a step foundation although many of the houses could follow the conttur of the hill. The conditions that were discussed at that time (1983): step foundations should be required on all sites having=more .than a 10%slope with the only grading pemitted for the driveway;and hillside grading to create a flat yard should not be permitted. Commissionerottlieb was c 9 ncerned with the pool location; 15 feetof retaining walls being excessive;the slope of tie roof should follow the line as indicated on page 4 of the Design Guidel' es;and flat lot house on a steep lot. Commissioner Doran felt that the house was in a logical,place on the lot. Two items needing to be addressed were the rear recreation area because it does go against the contours in the iJear yard causing cut. She recommended that the siting of the house be approved,not tle rear yard a+d that they look at the front yard to minimizethe cut in the front yard and the retainir}g walls. Raising the house 5 feet would be appropriate. The walk-way'should be looked at also. Commissioner heng agreed with the suggestion to raise the house to reduce the cut. She felt the back yard needs t be redesigned especially the pool (needs to be on contour). She fe t they have a�ready put many steps in their house. When the house is raised,the retaining wall will e reduced. 1 Chairman Schreiner noted tha according to code and the Design Guidelines,on a sloping site,the structure shot}ld be stepped down the hill utilizing one story building elements so you get'a feeling of the house following the contour of the land. She felt they all agreed'that the back y?rd,-the decking,the pool,sand the retaining walls need to be redesigned. She also felt a need for some redesign of 'the house. Mr. Cahoon noted that the original She was higher but what they heard at the site analysis meeting was to bring down the house and the roof which constituted more grading which did not appear to be an issue. They wgre agreeable to raising the house up 3-5 feet if they can maintain and hold the same tr nsition and steps within the house. Regarding the pool _ being redesigned on contours,this:can be done althoughlhe felt structurally it was placed correctly bottom of th pool follows contours now),It was noted that in order to have the pool straight up by e back of the house,they will need to remove the deck/lawn area. Mr. Cahoon ould like a consensus on(raising the house,doing less grading and relocating the pool. The applicant does not;want to again start all over. He would not want to stair.ste -down house. It was understood that when they step i ', Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 6 the house down,this means that the lower level is bigger and the upper level is smaller. Mr. Goldberg noted that they had been in the process of trying to design the house to conform with both code and the recommendations of the Commission,meeting with staff and Planing Commissioners,with recommended information conflicting from one meeting to another. At this point they would be willing to raise the level of the house, trying to redesign the pool area so it conforms more to the contours even though this is in conflict with what structural engineers recommend. They had attempted in the landscape plan to show shrubbery behind the retaining walls to minimize the effect and visibility. They were willing to accept the recommendations on the pathway through the bottom of the property. He does not want to go back and start redesigning the house for the third time. They were willing to work with the Commission. Chairman Schreiner would like something done to reduce the bulk in the back area (retaining walls around the pool). There was a concern with the flat pad. Mr. Goldberg disagreed with the comments regarding flat pad since the interior is stepped. From the initial meeting with the Commissioners,they added additional steps,going back toward the master bedroom wing as well as going down to the living room. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Chairman Schreiner,seconded by Commissioner Cheng and failed by the following vote to approve the house design with the condition to raise the house 3-5 feet,minimize the retaining walls in the front area. Recommended a redesign of the back yard area to return. AYES: Commissioners Doran and Cheng NOES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Gottlieb &Stutz ABSENT:- : Commissioners Finn&McMahon MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion Chairman Schreiner,seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb and failed by the following vote for a redesign of the entire project including the back area. AYES: Chairman Schreiner &Commissioner Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners Stutz,Cheng fst Doran ABSENT: Commissioners Finn&McMahon MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to deny the site development permit for a new residence and pool without prejudice. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Gottlieb,Cheng,Stutz&Doran • NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Finn&McMahon This applicant can either be appealed to the City Council or return to the Planning Commission for a redesign.