HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.2 �r
TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS July 12, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SPORT COURT, RETAINING
WALLS, AND ASSOCIATED GRADING; LANDS OF HWONG,
12813 CLAUSEN COURT (105-95-ZP-SD)
FROM: Curtis Williams, Planning Dire
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit as submitted subject to
the attached conditions of approval;
OR
2. Continue for redesign as directed by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
On January 25, 1995 and March 8, 1995, the Planning Commission denied the
applicant's request for a grass play area, citing the extent of grading and
retaining walls associated with the project, and the limitation on allowable
development area. The applicant appealed the Commission's March 8th denial,
and the City Council upheld the denial on April 19, 1995. The minutes of the
Council and Commission meetings are attached.
The applicant has revised plans subsequent to the Council action, and is now
requesting approval of a sport court, lawn area, related retaining walls, grading,
and a trellis and walkway.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Development of 3,000 square feet or more of development area and fills and cuts
in excess of 3 or 4 feet, respectively, require a Site Development permit, to be
reviewed by the Commission. Criteria for review, in addition to compliance
with Zoning Code requirements for setbacks and allowable development area,
etc., include Site Development Code Section 10-2.408, which states that:
•
"All cuts and fills shall be rounded to natural contours. Finished
grades shall conform to the natural grade as much as possible and
shall not contain sharp angles or other unnatural features."
Additionally, Section 10-2.901 specifies criteria for tennis courts and sport courts,
including limiting cuts to.6 feet maximum and cuts and fills combined to 12 feet
maximum, requiring landscape screening, and requiring surfaces and retaining
. Planning Commiission: July 1', 1995 '
Lands of Hwong
Page 2
walls to be colored with nat ral tones. Article 10-2.1001 prohibits lighting of,
tennis and recreation courts.
DISCUSSION
The applicant's current prop'sal includes a 3,000 square foot sports court; an
adjacent 15 foot wide lawn ar-a; retaining walls around half of the pad area, up
to a maximum of 3-4 feet in h:ight; an open trellis structure 11 feet in height; and
a walkway from the recreatio area and trellis back to the house. Gates, fencing
and lighting shown on the ,.fans are not a part of this project, but will be
considered at a (staff level. I, cluding the proposed d lvelopment, the site area
and development area calcula ions would be as follows
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 1.0! acres
Average Slope: 13.,.%
Lot Unit actor: 0.9
Floor Area and Develo•ment Area:
Area Max. Exist. Prop. Incrs. Left .
Devel. 13,104 9,965 13,055 3,090 +49
Floor 5,587 5,583 5,583 -0- + 4
,
Since the Commission's Marc 8th meeting and the subsequent Council meeting,
the applicant has revised the i.lans to reduce the sports court to a 3,000 square
foot area, withii the limitat.ons of the allowable development area, and to
surface the court with asphalt. The proposed project has also significantly
reduced the amount of gradi g required. The following table compares this
proposal to the p evious two .lans:
7/12 3/8 1/25
Plan Plan Plan
"Pad" area 4,500 sf 6,834 sf i 8,040 sf ;
Grading
Cut 75 cy 528 cy 1,646 cy
Fill 90 cy 420 cy 157 cy
Retaining Wall Max. 4.5 ft. 4.5 ft. 11 ft.
,
Planning Commission: July 12, 1995
Lands of Hwong
Page 4
3. Condition #7 has been added to indicate that the site is developed to the
maximum development area and floor area allowed.
4. Condition #8 has been added to require certification of the setback of the
existing pool and pool decking, to determine the extent of the
encroachment and possible measures for correction. The Commission
may recall that the pool existed prior to Dr. Hwong's purchase, but staff
needs to determine whether the encroachment is significant enough to
require modification.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community
may have.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Worksheet #2
3. April 19, 1995 City Council minutes
4. March 8, 1995 Planning Commission minutes
5. January 25, 1995 Planning Commission minutes
6. Site Development plans
cc: Lawrence Hwong
12813 Clausen Ct.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Peter Fu
200 Covington Rd.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Planning Commission: July 12, 1995
Lands of Hwong
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPR OVAL FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
SPORTS COURT RETAINING WALLS,AND GRADING
LAND'. OF HWONG (105-95-ZP-SD)
10813 CLAUSEN COURT
A. PLANNING DEPAR I MENT:
1. Any changes o, modifications to the approved plans must be
submitted for r-view by the Planning Director or the Planning
CSI mmission, d-pending on the scope of the changes, and must be
approved prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check..
2. Prior to accepta kce of plans for building plan check, plans shall be
revised to mai tain more rounded contours at the downhill
transition from the sports court to the lawn area. Exposed retaining
wall height sha 1 not exceed three feet, and the retaining wall along
the Clausen Co rt frontage shall not extend beyond the edge of the
sports court. co retaining wall for the lawn area shall extend
closer than fift (50) feet from the Clausen Court property line.
3. Prior to acceptan e of plans for building plan check, a landscape
planting plan s all be submitted for review and approval by the
Site Developm-nt Committee. Particular attention shall be given to
plantings whic will be adequate to break up the view of retaining
walls and fenci g from the roadway and surrounding properties.
Retaining walls shall utilize non-reflective colors, with a
combination of asonry, stone, and/or stucco or concrete of colors
compatible wit the hillside. Details of these materials shall be
submitted to the Planning Director for approval,prior to acceptance
of plans for build ng plan check. All landscaping required for
screening purposes or for erosion control 'must be installed, and
finishes on all r:taining walls must be completed, prior to final
inspection.
4. A landscape m.intenance deposit, equal to the cost of materials and
installation for .11 landscaping required for screening purposes or
for erosion cont ol, shall be posted prior to final inspection. An
inspection of th- landscaping to ensure adequate establishment and
maintenance shell be made one year after the installation. Fifty
percent (50%) o the bond shall be returned following the date of
the inspection, i maintenance is adequate The remainder will be
released two ye.rs after installation if the plantings remain viable.
Planning Commission: July 12, 1995
Lands of Hwong
Page 6
5. Lighting of the sports court is prohibited. Any additional outdoor
lighting requires approval by 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. No lighting may
be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights.
6. Prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, the existing lights
on the walkway steps to Clausen Court must be removed.
7. A deed restriction shall be recorded stating that the development
area and floor area established by the approval of this permit are
the maximum allowable level of development currently allowed by
the Town, and that any further expansion requires Planning
Commission approval: The recorded restriction will be prepared
by the Planning Department and shall be signed and notarized by
the property owners prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
8. Prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, the location of the
pool and pool decking relative to the nearest property line shall be
certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor. The site development plan shall be revised to reflect the
actual conditions in the field, and must show all existing landscape.
Prior to final inspection for the project, the location and elevation of
the grading,sports court, retaining walls, and trellis shall be
certified in writing by a registered engineer or licensed land
surveyor as being in the location and at the elevation approved by
the Town and shown on the Site Development plan.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
9. 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 Clausen Court, Voorhees Drive and
other roadways in the area; storage of construction materials;
placement of sanitary facilities; clean-up area (see Engineering
Department for specifications); 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.
Planning Commission: Jul 12, 1995
Lands of Hwong
Page 7
10. The property wner shall inform the Town of any damage and
shall repair a y damage caused by the construction of the project to
pathways,pri ate driveways, public and private roadways prior to
final inspection and shall provide the Town with photographs of
the existing c.nditions of the roadways and pathways prior to
acceptance of p i ns for building plan check.
11. Any and all c anges to the proposed grading and drainage shall
irst be appro ed by the Town Engineering Department. No
grading shall ake place during the grading moratorium
(November 1 o April 1) without prior approval from the Town
Engineering epartment. No grading i permitted within ten feet
of property li es.
12. The site drain.ge must be designed to meet the goal of reducing the
rate of run off .ssociated with the proposed development. A final
grading and d ainage plan stamped and signed by a registered civil
engineer shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and ap.roval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
deck. The dra nage outlet needs to be detailed and shown as to
how it will tra sition to the street drainage, and the plan must
include details of the drainage system where it daylights. As-built
c.rainage shall be inspected prior to final inspection, and any
deficiencies co rected to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department.
13. Any areas on t e site that have had the native soil disturbed shall
be protected f.r erosion control during the rainy season and shall
be replanted p for to final approval.
14. Upon complef on of the construction, a final inspection shall be
required to be .et with the Town Planner'and the City Engineer two
Weeks prior to inal inspection.
CONDITION NUMBERS 1 2,3, 5,6, 7, 8, 9,10,AND 12 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGN ID OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND
THE CITY ENGINEER PRI•R TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
PLANS FOR PLAN CHEC 4 BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND/OR
COMMENCING ANY CO 'STRUCTION ON THIS PROJECT. ALL OTHER
CONDITIONS MUST BE S • TISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.
NOTE: The Site Developme t permit is valid for one year from the approval
date (until July 12, 1996). Al required building permits must be obtained within
that year and work on items riot requiring a building permit shall be commenced
within one year and complet-d within two years.
- TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont ):orad • Los Altus I tills, Coli(orniai 94022 • (415) 941-7222 • FAX (415) 941.3160
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • _
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME L AWR ENG P\/O ti 67
PROPERTY ADDRESS / 2S!3 CLA U S6+4 CT-
DATE 6 -20 -°lam
CALCULATED BY Fti-
1. p \TELOmu T A.R.F. (SQUARE FOOTAGE) pro ®sed Total
Existing p
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage (from Part B) '''',L3 3
B. Decking
77L/ -7'7(.4
C. Driveway and Parking , 3
(Measured 100' along centerline) I ,7
D. Patios and Walkways
- p0�� �°`oo
E. Tennis Court . !� �3
F. Pool and Decking / s--/3
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
H. Any other coverage ---- D ✓5
TOTALS ;' Th,5
Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) / � '� °.--.- I
Max/i�mum�yDeveloTpTm�7e�nt�y�T r
2. �•LL M: AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Proposed Total
Existing P
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd FloorI
c. Attic and Basement
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor •
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS S 3
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet 01)
558 '7
ll>WN TNI• ()NI Y
t_UI MAC III)/OKIGINAIS/PLANNING/Wurislwri 0.
i
• Casey thought,,,: s issue shot Id be agendized for ri€ication. Siegel noted at the
neighbor wr " was complaini g was not Pres"-"`.. and he was uncomfora.,.., with
proceed',: . without that person being pr-, it. Johnson did not beli- } it should be
age - " ed and Hubbard noteo that th .,,, was a normals procedur-,4r site
elopment permits. Dauber sta ►a that mediation should b,;' ttempted before it
came back to Council. �,. ` '
•
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 Request for a site drvelopment permit to allow grading and retaining
walls for a grass pla area, Lands of Hwong, 12813 Clausen Court
Mr. Hwong, applicant, stated hat they had met with staff prior to purchasing this
property and hal specifically i iscussed the grading involved for the play area. He
shared pictures of the project. Dr. Hwong did not block the view of his neighbors
and the area had a natural lo k.
•
Peter Fu, applicant's architect referred to the computer generated pictures of this
•
project and presented background information on this application. He stated that
they originally had requested - tennis court and retaining wall but had been advised
that a redesign Would be bette . Thus, they had submitted a redesign for a play area.
.. Mr. Jabbour, 12890 Clausen C curt, stated that he was a neighbor and this project
definitely impacted his proper y. He had a direct view of the play area which was a
large flat area and he did not .elieve this project was in compliance with the Town's
ordinances. He Wanted assura ce that a future owner off this property would not be
allowed to build a tennis cour where the play area was planned. In addition Mr.
Jabbour noted t1-4t the pool 01 the Hwong property encroached into the setback and
he believed the property should access off Voorhees not Clausen.
Mr. Hwong, applicant, respon ed that the deck not the'pool was in the setback and .
this was in place when he pur(hased the property. He Also noted that the access
issue had been decided before he had purchased the property.
Carol Gottlieb, Planning Coin nissioner, noted that thei Commission had held three
meetings on this project and denied the project as it was not within the allowed •
development plans nor in con ormance with the Towns Codes. Grading was
usually not allowed for landscaping.
Dot Schreiner, ChairmanIof tl e Planning Commission, commented on the grading
being proposed fcbr the play ar•a which was beyond what was allowed for this lot.
She noted that the applicant h•d the option of keeping the contour of the land and
reducing the prol.iosed area fr m 6,100 square feet to 3,000 square feet.
April 19, 1995 ,
Regular City Council Meeting
9
• Gene Ravizza, 24700 Voorhees, stated his support for the Hwong project.
Hubbard referred to the Town's Code concerning the preservation of the natural
look and scenic views. In his opinion the applicant had gone beyond the intent of
the Code in that cut and fill was appropriate for structures but not for other
purposes. Casey commented on neighborhood compatibility. She believed this
project was consistent with other properties in the neighborhood and was not
excessive. Dauber stated that she believed an artificial drainage basin was being
proposed. She also believed clarification was needed as to what constituted a tennis
court. Was it a large flat area surrounded by a fence? In this situation Dauber
believed there was an excessive amount of grading. Johnson commented that the
applicant went through a redesign of his project and had complied with the
recommendations from the Planning Commission. He noted that the retaining
wall was going to be screened and he believed the play area was an appropriate use.
Siegel recommended denial of this project because of excessive grading.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard and
passed by the following roll call vote to deny the request for a site development
permit to allow grading and a retaining wall for a grassy play area for Lands of
Hwong at 12813 Clausen Court, subject to the findings to be prepared by the City
Attorney for approval at the next Council Meeting.
AYES: Mayor Dauber and Councilmembers Hubbard and Siegel
NOES: Councilmembers Casey and Johnson
Siegel commented on the issue raised during this hearing of encroachment into the
setback and asked how this had happened. He urged the role of the building official
be one of aggressive responsibility in seeing that the approved plans were those
built.
ww
12. AD OURNME
.f .
There beim,. o further new or old business to discuss-. ' �eity Council
Meetiny,---'7as adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
•- Res ectfull submitted,
Patricia Dowd
a #`` City Clerk
at Y
The minutes of the Ar..r11 19, 1995 Regular City Council Me-.r ig were
approved at the x4,` 17, 1995 City Council Meeting. April 19, 1995
R , lar City Council Meeting
I0
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/8/95
January 25, 1995
• Page 3
of the file showing that a roa• •ccess could be accomplished b r than what is sho n
on parcel 2 press fitly.
MOTION SECO v- D AND P ° SED: Motion by 'ssioner Doran an conded
by Commissi. -r McMahon to =pprove the lot 1' adjusrent.
AYES: Chairman Schrein-r,Co ' toners Finn,Stutz, Dora cMahon,
Gottlieb & Cheng
• •ES: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 LANDS OF HWO G, 12813 Clausen Court(200-94-SD); A request for a
Site Development ermit for grading for lawn and play area (continued
from December 14 1995).
Ms. Niles introduced this item c.mmenting that when visiting the site, staff noticed that
the decking around the pool is e croaching in the setbacki The project was approved
without the encroal hment. Dec ing is allowed to encroach into the setback five feet.
This is encroaching,in one area,up to nine feet. The normal procedure would be to ask
the applicant to remove the area (24 square feet)which is not in accordance with the
approved plans. At this point,s nce the project has been finaled in that area,perhaps
the Commission could help dire t staff regarding this issue. The slope easement was
discussed. Commissioner Dora discussed the Council's discussion regarding
abatement issues. Ms. Niles noted there was a new property owner since the project
was constructed. At the time of inal, the conditions of approval for this project only -
required that the foundation be e-certified. The pool and deck were not required to be
re-certified, suggesting this coul be added to the conditions of approval on future
applications.
Ms. Kolf noted that the deck enc oachment shown on the plan is not the way the deck
appears out in the ¶eld. The enc oachment is less than it appears.
•
OPENED PUBLIC rEARING
Lawrence Hwong, 12813 Clause Court, applicant and Peter Fu, his structural engineer,
were present for questions. In a swer to questions, he noted that his closest neighbor's
retaining wall is seven feet and t e highest point of his proposed retaining wall will be
11 feet, sloping to zero. Dr. Hwo g would like a clay tennis court if the clay material
the Council is reviewing can be sed as a reduced rate of MDA as he does not have the
MDA needed presently. If the cl:y material is not approved,he will use the area for a
putting green. Commissioner G.ttlieb was concerned with the 11 foot cut as most of the
big cuts for tennis courts are insi a the property. This cut will be 15 feet from his
neighbor's property. If the retaining wall fails, this would effect his neighbor. The
•
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/8/95
January 25, 1995
Page 4
amount of cut into the hill and possible noise resulting from same was discussed
although Mr. Hwong did not feel this was a problem. -
The Planning Commission received two letters in favor of the project from neighbors,
• Mr. and Mrs. Kopal and Paul Partti. He had contacted two adjacent neighbors
regarding the project,who have reviewed his plans without any objections. There will
be native trees,shrubs and vines along the retaining wall for landscape screening.
Dr. Hwong was asked if he was willing to wait for the City Council's decision regarding
the clay material before he proceeded with construction. He commented that he would
rather not. In deciding what the Commission would actually be voting on(play area
versus tennis court),Ms Niles commented if they were looking at the play area, there
would be no problem with grass going into the setback area. However,there is a height
problem with the retaining wall in the setback. If they are looking at a possible tennis
court,it cannot go into the setbacks. With the retaining wall in the proposed location,
you would assume that the tennis court surface would go to the retaining wall. If the
tennis court only goes to the setback line,it would be a little unusualto have an 11 foot
retaining wall 15 feet behind the tennis court fence. Even if the chain link was not there,
staff would not recommend the design.
Commissioner Doran discussed a possible drainage problem as she had noticed water
backed up out of the storm drain during her site visit. Ms. Kolf noted that grading and
drainage concerns are a part of the conditions of approval.
Commissioner McMahon discussed the retaining wall and compliance with the General
Plan,ordinances and the Design Guidelines Handbook. Mr. Fu commented that the
wall is not 11 feet continuance,only in one corner. The cross section shows the wall
tapering down to zero. He further discussed the visual impact from El Monte noting
they could barely see the height poles at 11 feet... Dr. Hwong discussed ordinance 10-
2.901, 'recreation courts should not exceed 12 feet of cut and fill." He believes he is
withinthe 12 feet. Commissioner Gottlieb noted the remaining portion of the
ordinance, "can be landscaped and/or contours rounded, to render the cut or fill
inconspicuous when viewed from off the site." It wasnoted that Dr. Hwong will not see
the 11 foot wall from his house. The neighbor will not see the retaining wall because
their property is higher. Total square feet of visual retaining wall was discussed. Ms.
Niles commented that the code states "walls or fences shall not exceed a maximum
height of six feet when located between setback lines and property lines,provided,
however the height of " Retaining walls may be allowed at higher than six feet but
this is usually considered within the building area of the lot and not in the setbacks.
Height is measured from natural or finished grade,whichever is lower.
Commissioner Gottlieb noted that if the retaining wall fails,both the applicant and
neighbor would be effected. Dr. Hwong stated he has the best structural engineer and
guarantees there will not be problems. If there are problems in the future,he would be
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/8/95
January 25, 1995
Page 5
the one responsible for the Jabbo property. He noted Mr.Jabbour and his engineer
have reviewed his blueprint wi no noted concerns. Ms.Niles noted that an 11 foot
retaining wall built in the setbac would require a variance. Commissioner Cheng
asked if they could raise the play area so the retaining wall would be lower. Dr. Hwong
responded that it Would be possi le. Ms. Koff noted that fill in the front portion of the
lot is nota situation that the engi eering department would like to see. There is already
a steep slope and this would crea e a potentially unstable slope. Commissioner Finn
asked the applicant what he_wou d think of changing his request to a six foot wall
rather than a 11 foot wall. Dr. H ong did not feel this would be a problem. However,
the lowest he would like to go w tuld be seven to.eight feet only in the one corner. It
was noted that anything over six eet would require a variance. •
Commissioner McMahon presen i•d a sketch asking if they could have a 51/2 foot wall
at the bottom and a 1/2 foot wal at the top,with no change of the slope in the front. In
other words, take the 11 foot wal and put some in the front and some in the back (break
it up). Ms. Niles commented tha ina.normal situation,note adjacent to the road,that
may not be a problem. She felt e gineering was having a problem with it being so close
to the road with a steep slope alr:ady. Another option would be to ask the applicant to
make the area smaller so the retai 'ng wall is not as close td the road.
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Discussion ensued. Commission:r Finn discussed the Lohr subdivision and the
retaining wall close to an intersec ion. Commissioner Stutz wondered how they were
proposing a tennis court when the y did not even have half the development area
needed. She would not approve t is much grading for a play area. She would not
approved an encroachment into a setback area. They could have a play area(3,000
square feet) with no walls over t ee feet,restricting the amount of the land they could
level. Commissioner Gottlieb agr-ed with Commissioner Stutz notingthere should not
be cuts within 15 feet of a setback. Commissioner McMahoi agreed. She could never
support a design that makes an 1 foot cut into a hillside,for anything. Commissioner
Doran also agreed. he would lik•.to see a redesign of the play area return to the
Commission. Commissioner Fi felt there was mitigating circumstances in the
neighborhood;one being the neig bor's seven foot retaining wall behind them. He
would be in favor of a redesign of a six foot cut with the applicant realizing he could
never have a tennis court within t i e setback area. Commissioner McMahon's proposal
would be acceptable to him regal..ing the cut and fill. Commissioner Cheng noted that
the discussion is for theplayarea, not a tennis court. She would be in,favor of the
applicant lowering tike retaining all;keeping it out of the setback. Chairman Schreiner
did not feel it was reasonable to g to all this trouble just for a play area allowing this
amount of grading and cut. She as not in favor of the present design. Commissioner
Stutz commented that the Commi 'sion looks at each lot individually.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/8/95
January 25, 1995
Page 6
The applicant was asked if he would be willing to return with modified play area which
would not require excessive grading,limiting the play area not to exceed 3,000 square
feet with the area not fenced. Dr. Hwong felt this could be accomplished.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and'
seconded by Commissioner McMahon to continue this application to February 8th to
allow the application to return with modifications as suggested by the Commission.
AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Finn,Stutz;Doran,
McMahon&Gottlieb
NOES: None
4.2 LANDS OF FRE► • HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, 128:• •iscaino Place
(19-94-ZP-S' P); A request for a Site Develop•• t Permit for a
caretake '- nit and a landscape plan (continue rom July 20, 1994).
Commissioner . tlieb stepped down from the proc: ing as she is a member of the
Fremont Hill ountry Club.
Ms. Ni • noted that an applicant.can sub • ' a landscaping plan at any time, although
usu. the landscape plan is done afte aming of a structure. The only structure
(. ' •itional bulk)in framing is at th- ont of the club house. She felt the applic was
. ying to plant the trees sooner se ey will, grow sooner. Commissioner S noted
that the biggest area needing scape was along Roble Ladera Road. as noted
that no new lighting was b-' g proposed.
OPENED PUBLIC H' G
Patrick King, general ma• :er,was available for questions. Chairman Schreiner
commented that one . + e conditions of approval requ' d planting where they had
removed the Euca .tus trees. This is not shown o e plan. Mr. King asked that the
landscape arc ' ct address this question.
Jim La • •augh,landscape architect, di ssed the area in question notin ey are
pro• ing some coast live oak trees a e top of the slope that they felt . Id mitigate
• e of the view and replace the alyptus trees that were cut dow• 4 inch box). He
further discussed types of tree d their location. Commissioner tz discussed tree
sizes; areas of concern;land pe policy.; and concern with scre- ng from off site.
Jean Struthers, Enviro ental Design Committee,walke. e property with Dexter
Hake, a committee ember and a member of the Frem. Hills Country Club. She
noted some mis es'on the plan in that the upperp. ing lot is a different
configuratio en shown. Both felt oak trees aro d the upper parking lot would
improve t eat for the cars sitting on the parking lot as well as the view from off-site.
Approved 4/12/95
Minutes of a Regul : r Meeting
Town of Los Altos ills
PLANNING COM ISSION " •
Wednesday,Ma ;ch 8,1995,7:10 p.m.
Council Chambers,26379 Fre , ont Road
cc: Cassettes#06-95'(3) "
1. ROLL CALL AND PLE 9 GE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Planning Commission me ting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Chairman Schre. er, Commissioners Cheng, Doran,Finn,Gottlieb,
McMahon&Stu
Staff: Mike Porto and Debra Pollart,Acting Town Planners;Sheryl Kolf,
Assistant Engine r;Susan Manca,Planner; Lani Lonberger,Planning
Secretary
2. RE ENTATION FR THE FL*•
None.
3. • k ' ND .
None.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 L DS OF HINGING, 12813 Clausen Court(200-94-SD); A request for a
- Site Developmen i Permit for grading for lawn and play area (continued
froJanuary 25, 995).
Staff had nothing further to'ad 41 to the staff report. The Commission discussed the
difference between a tennis co rt and a sports court, the response to previous requests,
drainage, and the 24 square fo•t decking in the setback which was put in by the
previous owner. In the future, here will be added wording to the conditions of
approval noting "the location o the foundation,pool, decking (etc.) shall be re-certified
by a registered civil engineer o licensed land surveyor as being in the location
approved by the Town and as s own on the site plan."
•
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/12/95 •
March 8, 1995
' Page 2
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Dr. Hwong, 12813 Clausen Court,applicant,noted that he had made changes,hopefully
to the satisfaction of the Commission.
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Commissioner Gottlieb read Sec. 10-2.408 "Cuts and fills"noting the proposed retaining
wall does not conform to this ordinance. She could possibly support the project'if the
project would not end with a retaining wall but come down on a natural slope to the
natural grade.
Commissioner Stutz stated at the previous meeting, and again,she could not approve
more than 3,000 square feet for a play area or any other area that was graded to a flat
pad. This is all the development area the applicant has left. The plan shows a reduction
to 6,834 square feet,however there is still 3,695 square feet over the allowed
development area. The neighbor's court located above this property is 50X100, totally
inside the setback lines. Also of concern was that this lot and probably the entire
subdivision was an old sand dune area with sand washing down the street into the
storm drain after a rain. She felt the hill would continue to slide indefinitely. It is not
good planning to build the wall almost right up to the slope easement.
Commissioner McMahon visited the site three different times. In reviewing the.
ordinances,Articles 9 and 10, and the natural land features to be preserved" and "site
design shall be compatible with the terrain." she commented that this project does not
comply with the ordinances. Where there is a.natura114 foot height difference, they are
introducing a level area; a level area of the magnitude of approximately 7,000 square
feet. Putting something flat of this magnitude in an area that has a natural 14 foot drop
does not comply with Town ordinances and for that reason she would not be able to
support the application.
Commissioner Finn discussed other approved projects noting this was a lawn area. He-
did not understand why the grading was an issue. He was in favor of the project with
noted changes. If the applicant would grade further and reduce the retaining wall in
the front, it would even be a nicer and would be in favor of the project.
Commissioner Cheng commented that the applicant has made tremendous changes as
presented from the previous meeting. She felt they should not guess an applicant's
intentions. A lawn play area is being proposed at this time which she supports. Since
they have in the past approved grading to build retaining walls for tennis courts,she
felt they needed to be consistent.
Chairman Schreiner would not like to see cutting into a hillside to have a flat pad.
They try not to disturb the natural hillside qualities with as little grading as possible.
Planning Commission Minute Approved 4/12/95 `
March 8, 1995 .
Page 3 .
•
She felt at the previous meetin: that it might be possible for the applicant to return with
a re-design to ha',e some type of grassy area within the perimeters of 3,000 square feet. . ,
Even though the applicant has complied with the other requests,the main issue was not
addressed.
MOTION SECONDED AND 'AILED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by
Commissioner Stutz to appro • the project with a condition noting instead of a wall at
the front of the property,the a ea be further.graded at least to a 2 to 1 slope so that a
wall would not be necessary.
AYES: Commissioners I heng,Finn & Doran
NOES: Chairman Schrei er,Commissioners McMahon,Gottlieb, &Stutz
ED AND ASSED: Motion byCommissioner Stutz and seconded
MOTION SECOND
by Commissions McMahon t. deny the request for a site development permit to allow
grading and retai 'ng walls fo a grass play area.
AYES: Chairman Schrei er,Commissioners Gottlieb,Stutz &McMahon
NOES: Commissioners I heng,Doran& Finn
The appeal process and appeal period was explained to the applicant.
•
Dr. Hwong noted frustration a d disappointment with the process.
4.2 LAND' OF AB a 0, 13981 Fremont Pine ane (2-95-ZP-SD); A request
for Site D evelo•ment Permit for a n- , residence,pool and cabana
•
(continued •m , ebruary 22, 199- .
Staff noted changes to the staff - ,ort• et lot area is 1.08 and the proposed area figures
should be corrected to be the s• - . he existing area figures. The assistant engineer
provided the Commission wi • an addi ••nal condition of approval regarding a
pathway (#15) request.
Chairman Schreine :iscussed terns noted in th- taff report including: the proposed
house color (li: ' gray) which •s inconsistent with o e Town's standards; and a
condition for a applicant to d-dicate an additional 1, - X1(5)feet of public right-of way
along Fre.• •nt Pines Lane to o t tain the required 60 foot .ht of way along that road.
Curre the right of way for 'remont Pines Lane is 50 feet ide. The MDA/MFA
wo • change with the dedicat on.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING