Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 22, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TWO STORY NEW RESIDENCE, SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE, HARDSCAPE AND SURFACE PARKING SPACES,A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PARKING CONFIGURATION THAT CREATES OBSTRUCTED VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR THE GARAGE, AND A CREEK SETBACK VARIANCE; LANDS OF HANABE; 26691 MOODY ROAD; FILE#400-14-ZP-SD-VAR ' FROM: Suzanne Avila,AICP, Planning Director CSC RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the.requested Site Development Permit for a new residence, and Variances for creek setback, house setbacks, parking in the setback and obstructed parking, subject to the findings in Attachment 1 and conditions of approval in Attachment 2. BACKGROUND The subject property is a .77 acre parcel located on the north side of Moody Road, adjacent to Moody Court. The original parcel was created prior to the Town's incorporation, and the property was modified by a lot line adjustment approved by the City Council on August 24, 2006. The existing residence was built in 1940. The existing residence encroaches into the front, side and rear setbacks and the 25-foot creek setback. Surrounding land uses include single family residences to the west,north, and east, and Hidden Villa across Moody Road to the south. On August 6, 2015 the Planning Commission considered the proposed project. The Commission continued the matter and requested that the applicant revise plans to increase the front setback to at least 18 feet and modify the open space easement to include more area on the east side of the creek. The Commission also requested clarification from the Pathways Committee on its request for the installation of a path along the property frontage (see Attachment 3 for revised PWC recommnedation). The applicant has revised the plans to increase the front setback and modify the open space easement (see Attachment 6). Staff requested that the Pathways Committee revisit its request for the installation of a pathway and that a representative of the Committee attend the Planning Commission meeting. CODE REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Section 10-1.1007 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance, in reviewing a Variance application the Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed development meets the standards of the Town by considering evidence in support of the findings for approval (Attachment 1). In Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 2 of 12 addition,per Section 10-2.702 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the top of bank of all creeks, however, lesser setbacks may be allowed where approved by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: .77 acres Net Lot Area .528 acres Average Slope: 11.2% Lot Unit Factor: .514 Floor Area and Development Area: Original plans Area (sq.ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 7,500 2,014 5,183 3,169 2,317 Floor 5,000 1,167 3,453 2,286 1,547 Current plans Area (sq.ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 7,500 2,014 5,101 3,087 2,399 Floor 5,000 1,167 3,420 2,253 1,580 Site and Architecture The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and detached garage and to construct a 2,913 square foot two story residence with a 421 square foot attached garage. The total floor area (3,420 square feet) also includes an 86 square foot area of the house that exceeds 17 feet in height. The proposed residence complies with the Town's floor area,development area,and height requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The front setback was increased to 18 feet as requested by the Planning Commission. The setback is to the roof eaves which are the closest point of construction. The corner of the garage remains at 13.5 feet with the second story set back to 18 feet. The garage could not be shifted further back without pushing the house closer to the creek and the depth of the garage cannot be reduced to less than the minimum required 20 feet. The portion of the garage that extends into the 18 foot setback requested by the Commission covers nine square feet. Setting back the second floor helps reduce the massing of the front elevation. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 3of12 Variance Requests Due to the shape of the property and the location of the required leach field and creek,the building site is severely limited. The existing residence is located within the required building setbacks and the creek setback. The house is about four feet from the top of creek bank at its closest point and the detached garage is about eight feet from the top of bank. In addition, because of the right of way dedications the net lot area and setbacks have been affected, further limiting the developable area on the property. The new residence is proposed to encroach into the front, side, and rear property lines setbacks and within the Town's standard 25 foot creek setback. In addition, two required surface parking spaces are proposed within the front setback. Parking encroachments are not uncommon on small and/or unusual shaped properties. Section 10-1.601 of the LAHMC states that the four required parking spaces shall be unobstructed at all times. Due to the shape of the property, one of the proposed surface parking spaces would obstruct one garage parking space. There is not another viable location for a fourth parking space on the property that would not result in the need for a greater encroachment into the setbacks. The existing residence is located 20 feet from the rear property line. The applicant is proposing to locate the patio/landings 12 feet and the residence 14 feet fromthe rear property line. The Commission discussed the proposed setbacks at the August 6, 2015 meeting and determined that the proposed encroachment was acceptable due to the site constraints and because there are no neighboring homes that would be impacted by a reduced rear setback. The new residence and hardscape is located 16 feet from the top of the creek bank at the closest point. The applicant submitted a report prepared by TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. evaluating the impact of the proposed residence on the creek. The report states thatthe proposal will not substantially modify or improve the creek. However, it will provide an opportunity to enhance and restore the riparian habitat and provided preservation/restoration measures. The Open Space Committee reviewed the proposed creek setback and indicated support for the reduced creek setback as it is an improvement over existing conditions. Condition #6 requires an open space easement over the area within 16 feet from top of bank on the western side of the creek and from the creek to the east side property line. The open space easement is shaded on the site plan (see sheets A-1 and A-lA of Attachment 7). The easement boundaries were extended to include more of the area on the east side of the creek as recommended by the Planning Commission. Recommended variance findings are included in Attachment 1. In evaluating the variance findings, the Planning Commission should consider the fact that the lot area is a unique shape and the imposition of the same setbacks and zoning standards would result in a substantial reduction in the property's buildable area and outdoor areas, and create limitations on the siting of the dwelling and parking areas. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 4 of 12 Outdoor Lighting Proposed exterior light fixtures will be down directed in compliance with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Policy (see Attachment 5). Condition #9 specifies that any changes to the approved lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Trees &Landscaping Four trees are proposed to be removed, including three pines and a privet. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new residence(Condition#2). Any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance deposit to ensure viability of plantings will be collected prior to final inspection(Condition#3). Grading and Drainage Minimal grading will be required to construct the new residence. Proposed grading volumes include 30 cubic yards of cut and 5 cubic yards of fill. Runoff from the new residence will be directed into a gravel basin located east of the proposed garage. Overflow will be directed into a bio swale. The Engineering Department reviewed the proposed grading and drainage plan and found it to be in compliance with the Town's Ordinances and policies. Neighbor Concerns One neighbor visited Town Hall to review the plans and one neighbor called to inquire about the project. To date,staff has not received any comments from the public. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site on October 9, 2015. Pathway Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommended dedication of a 10 foot wide pathway easement adjacent to Moody Road and Moody Court and construction of a type IIB pathway along Moody Road. Staff requested that the Pathways Committee revisit its recommendation as it appears infeasible to install a complete pathway due to topographic constraints and the location of Moody Road. The Pathways Committee discussed the matter again at its September 28, 2015 meeting (see Attachment 4). The Committee reaffirmed its recommendation that a 10-foot wide pathway easement be granted for the segment of path that runs from Moody Road to the Artemis Ginzton path and that a pathway easement be granted over Moody Court. The Committee further recommended that the property owners work with the Town to pursue an encroachment permit from the County of Santa Clara to allow construction of a pathway within the 10 foot road right- of-way currently under County jurisdiction. The new pathway would extend from the foot of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 5 of 12 native path on Moody Road to Moody Court. Conditions #24 through #26 pertain to pathway construction. CEQA STATUS The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a) which allows construction of a single family residence in a residential zone. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended variance findings (one page) 2. Recommended conditions of approval (six pages) 3. August 6, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt(five pages) 4. Pathway Committee recommendation(one page), received September 29, 2015 5. Exterior lighting details (one page) 6. Applicant's letter(one page), received September 14, 2015 7. Revised development plans (seven sheets) Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST LANDS OF HANABE, 26691 MOODY ROAD File#400-14-ZP-SD-VAR 1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The proposed dwelling is located on a substandard sized and shaped lot. Therefore, the imposition of the same setbacks and zoning standards that apply to a one acre conventional shaped lot deprives the property owner of certain privileges, including a substantial reduction in the property's buildable area, outdoor areas, and limitations on the siting of the dwelling and parking areas. The location of the creek and leach field further restricts development on the property. The existing house and garage encroach into the front, side and rear yard setbacks and the 25 foot creek setback. 2. That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The setback variances for the residence, hardscape and required parking area are due to the substantial reduction in the building envelope that results from the strict application of the 40 foot front and 30 foot side and rear yard setbacks on the substandard shaped lot and the required 25 foot required creek setback The approval of the setback variances results in a design that is compatible with the neighborhood. 3. That the granting of such variance will not-be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property,improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. The development of the property will not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties as the proposed development does not exceed the maximum floor area or development area standards. 4. That,the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property. The variance request is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zoning district. Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 2 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 7 of 12 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF HANABE; 26691 MOODY ROAD File#400-14-ZP-SD-VAR PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection,the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control(as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 3. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 4. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, shall be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment,vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Tree fencing shall remain throughout the entire construction period. 5. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that"the location of the new residence and roof eaves matches the setbacks as shown on the Site Development plan". The elevation of the addition shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s)to the Planning Depaitalent prior to requesting a final inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 8 of 12 6. The property owner shall grant an Open Space Easement to the Town over the creek (16 feet from top of bank on the west side of the creek and the area on the east side of creek to the property line). All existing structures within these areas shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. No structures are permitted and no grading or fill shall be permitted. Native vegetation may be planted within the easement but no irrigation or sprinkler systems are permitted. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building permit 7. All hardscape and floor area proposed to be removed (as shown on the site plan, sheet A-1A) shall be removed prior to final inspection. 8. No new fencing is approved. Any new fencing or gates require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 9. A maximum of one light per door and two for double doors is allowed. Light fixtures shall be down directed, shielded or have opaque glass. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Locations of outdoor lighting fixtures shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 10. Exterior finish colors of all buildings shall have a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications. All color samples 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. 11. The project is subject to the Town's Construction Time Limit Ordinance (Chapter 10, Title VIII of the Municipal Code). The maximum time for completion of the new residence shall be 36 months from the date of Building Permit issuance. Failure to complete the project in the allotted time may result in substantial penalties and fees. 12. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable,prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. 13. At time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty(50)points. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans.The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 9 of 12 drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 14. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide documentation verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED®certification. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 15. Peak discharge at 26691 Moody Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 400-14, shall not exceed the existing pre-development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre- development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s)utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10-year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre-development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 16. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the energy dissipaters, and completion of the grading activities and state that items have been installed and constructed per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to final inspection. 17. All hydrant use is strictly prohibited by the Purissima Hills Water District. A permit for obtaining water for grading and construction purposes must be obtained from the Purissima Hills Water District, and submitted for approval to the Town Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building check. The permit will authorize the use of water from specific on-site or off-site water sources. 18. 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 (October 15 to April 15) 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 10 of 12 19. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 20. Two copies of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of 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. 21. 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 Moody Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery,Inc. for the debris box,since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 22. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways,prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 23. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement adjacent to Moody Road and Mood Court to the Town. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 24. The property owner shall work with Town staff to pursue an encroachment permit from the County of Santa Clara to allow construction of a Type 2B pathway along Moody Road within the 10 foot road right-of-way currently under County jurisdiction. If permitted by the County, the pathway shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department,prior to final inspection. 25. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,prior to final inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 11 of 12 26. A pathway easement shall be granted over Moody Court for the length of the property. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building permit. 27. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health Depai tuient prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 28. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final inspection. 29. The property owner shall submit an elevation certificate for the Construction Drawings of the new residence to the Town that indicates the new residence meets F.E.M.A. requirements for the new construction prior to acceptance of building permit plan check 30. The property owner shall submit elevation certificates for the new residence to the Town that indicates the new residence meets F.E.M.A. requirements for the new construction during Building under Construction and at Finished Construction prior to final inspection. FIRE DEPARTMENT 31. This project is located within the designated wildland urban interface fire area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of CA building code chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC 701A.3.4 prior to project final approval. 32. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department,prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 33. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all 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. 34. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and standard detail and specifications SI-7. CONDITION NUMBERS 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 29 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 26691 Moody Road October 22,2015 Page 12 of 12 Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of approval.The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after the appeal period provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein.If you believe that these Conditions impose any fees,dedications,reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000,you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees,and/or a description of the dedications,reservations,and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications,reservations, and other exactions,pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a),has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020,you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 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. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until October 22, 2016). 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. ATTACHMVIENT0 3 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday,August 06, 2015, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 L ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus Staff: - Suzanne Avila, Planning Director;Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner; Genevieve Fernandez, Assistant Planner; Jaime McAvoy, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. I PUBLIC HEARINGS j 3_1 LANDS OF HANABE; 26691 Moody Road, File #100-14-ZP-SD-VAR; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 3,453 square foot two story residence (including a 430 square foot garage), a setback variance to allow the residence, garage, and hardscape to encroach into the side, rear, and front yard setbacks, and to allow a parking configuration that creates an obstructed vehicular access for one (1) required parking space. The applicant is also requesting a creek setback variance. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (Staff-N. Horvitz). Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioner Partridge said that he had spoken with the applicants. Commissioner Tankha said that she had also spoken with the applicants and Nancy Couperus. There were no other disclosures. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Assistant Planner Nicole Horvitz presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Commissioner Abraham asked questions regarding the location of the pathway dedication, as he did not feel this was the most desirable location for the pathway. 1 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 6,2015 Approved October 1,2015 Planning Director Suzanne Avila reminded the Commission they have the ability to request an in-lieu fee instead of the construction of a pathway Walter Chapman, Chapman Design Associates, designer, addressed the Commission and spoke on behalf of the project. He was accompanied by the homeowner, Mr. Hanabe, and went through a powerpoint presentation that Mr. Hanabe had created. Commission asked questions of the applicant and designer. Commissioner Mandle asked where the setback of the existing house was relative to the new configuration of the right-of-way on Moody Road. Ms. Horvitz confirmed it was 20'. Commissioner Partridge inquired as to the types of trees to be removed. Ms. Horvitz said no heritage oaks were to be removed. Commissioner Tankha asked about the side yard encroachments. Ms. Horvitz responded that the L-shaped portion to the north encroached to a 10' setback with the hardscape, and that the 40' setback from Moody Court will be maintained. She further asked about a request made by the Pathways Committee for a 10' pathway dedication on Moody Road, and if there was enough room for one. Ms. Horvitz confirmed that with the dedication there would be room for a pathway. Chair Couperus asked why the property seems to be off Moody Road,but the plans give the impression that Moody Road goes over the"triangle"that is the property. Ms. Horvitz said that portions of the road are within the property,hence the necessity for a right-of-way dedication. Commissioner Abraham said that the pathway has always been on the south or east side of Moody, but here they are asking for one on the north side. All along the immediate area, the north side of Moody has steep areas that would make extending the pathway a challenge. The south side is flat and would be a better choice. Ms. Horvitz informed the Commission that the south side of Moody was not within Town limits. Commissioner Mandle asked for clarification on how the client was defining the setbacks. Mr. Chapman confirmed that the staff report reflected the correct numbers, and the setbacks were shown to the eaves and building wall. Commissioner Partridge commented on how close the house was to the road, and it will be even closer with the proposal. He applauded the applicant for obtaining the support of the neighbors,but said that he was concerned about how close the home was to the street, as Moody was a busy road. He also asked, with it being so 2 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 6,2015 Approved October 1,2015 close to the road,how they planned to screen the home. Mr. Chapman said they will be proposing new trees in the center of the circular driveway, and that the oleander hedge that runs along Moody, or a similar type of hedge, will be maintained. The pathway easement would cause them to remove some of the current screening. Commissioner Tankha asked for more clarification about the setback lines. She then asked Mr. Chapman if there was any way they can push back from Moody Road. Mr. Chapman said that wherever they move back it pushes the house into another setback, so he had looked for a centralized location to "share the burden"in all directions. Jeffrey Widman, Los Altos Hills, stated that he would love to see a new house on the property, but is concerned about the variances of setback requirements. He was able to develop on his lot without concessions, and felt that more of an effort could be made. He also expressed concern for safety, as the proposed property is located on a turn on the road. Mr. Chapman responded to comments made by Mr. Widman. Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Abraham said that they are dealing with an unusual shaped property that is severely constrained by the shape, with a creek running through it. He saw similarities between this property and Lands of Ingham from the last meeting, except this was a larger property. He did not think a better job could have been done, and that there would be minimal impact as there are no close neighbors. He would eliminate that pathway and request an in-lieu fee. He also requested that the applicant not be charged for the full amount of frontage, as most of that land is unusable. Commissioner Mandle said that she liked the garage being moved away from the creek, and had no issue moving the house closer than 25' to the creek. She did not have an issue with the tandem parking, and said it would be a major improvement over what is currently there. She said that she was uncomfortable with the 12' side yard setback, and that she supported staff's recommendation of the 20'setback. If the pathway was not necessary, she would be ok with eliminating it, and would like to hear the Pathway Committee's reasoning behind its location. Commissioner Tankha agreed the lot was severely constrained and the applicant was limited on what could be done. She said that she was uncomfortable with allowing 13' setbacks from Moody road. She was willing to meet the applicant and staff in the middle somewhere between 13' and 20'. She was also interested in the logic behind the Pathways Committee's decision for the location of the pathway dedication. 3 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 6,2015 Approved October 1,2015 Commissioner Partridge agreed with the other Commissioners that the setback was not conducive for building, and they needed to figure out a way to modify it for the best result for the applicant and the Town. He too had an issue with the Moody Road setback being only 13'. He said that he preferred giving more latitude on the rear setback as it would not affect neighbors, and that moving the home from the front will reduce noise for the applicant and improve the ability to screen the house from the street. He said that he could not fully support what was presented at this time. Chair Couperus said that he did not feel this setback was reasonable for a two story home, and that it was very "in your face" from Moody Road. He then said that removing the leach fields would allow for more development area and would remove the need for a two story house, and suggested the applicant research extending the sewer line to the property. He agreed that the pathway was unnecessary at its location and would also like to know the logic behind it. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Abraham moved to approve a request for a Site Development Permit for a 3,453 square foot two story residence (including a 430 square foot garage), a setback variance to allow the residence, garage, and hardscape to encroach into the side, rear, and front yard setbacks, and to allow a parking configuration that creates an obstructed vehicular access for one (1) required parking space, with added amendment that ceiling heights be reduced to 8 feet maximum, the roof pitch will be reduced to 3 and 12, remove condition #23, and condition #24 shall be amended to say that the property owner shall pay the pathway in lieu for no more than 200 lineal feet. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. AYES: Commissioner Abraham NOES: Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED 1-4. Commissioner Partridge asked the applicant how they felt about an 18' setback. Mr. Chapman again requested the Commission deny the application so that they may appeal to the City Council, as he did not feel 18'was conducive to the project. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Partridge moved to deny the variance request for the proposed site development permit for a new residence at 26691 Moody Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Abraham. 4 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 6,2015 Approved October 1,2015 Before a vote could be made, Mr. Chapman said his client did not want to be denied, and would agree to a continuance. No vote was taken as Commissioner Partridge withdrew his motion, and Commissioner Abraham withdrew his second. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Partridge moved to continue the request for a variance for the proposed site development permit for a new residence at 26691 Moody Road, and requests that the applicant return to the Planning Commission with an increased south setback of 18 feet. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Coupenis NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Chair Couperus called for a recess at 8:56 P.M. The meeting resumed at 9:03 P.M. 3.2 LANDS OF`QHEN; 2210 Old Page Mill, File #184-15-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Developme�rlt.permit for landscape screening for a new two (2 %ory residence approved at the December 5, 2013 Planning Commission meet CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (Staff-G. FernarIez). Chair Couperus opened the P LIC HEARING. Assistant Planner Genevieve Fernandez prese ed the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Ken Masuda, General Contractor d landscape •esigner, answered questions posed by the Commission. Seeing no one else wishin: to speak, Chair Couperus 1 sed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussi. ensued. �. 5 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 6,2015 ATTACHMENT 4 Pathway Committee Meeting Date:September 28, 2015 File#: 40 14- .2 SD Applicant Name: Vidya and Srinivas Hanabe Property Address: 26691 Moody Road Recommendation: nIn-Lieu Fee n Construct Type II B Pathway Notes/comments: ■ Dedicate pathway easement Notes/comments: Owners to dedicate a 10' pathway easement for the segment of native path that runs across the narrow part of the property from Moody Road up to the Artemis Ginzton path AND grant an easement conferring public access over Moody Court, if such access does not already exist. n Restore existing pathway Notes/comments: Other Notes/comments: Owner to work with Town staff to pursue an encroachment permit from Santa Clara County to allow for construction of a IIB path within the 10' road right-of-way belonging to the County. The IIB path should extend from the foot of the native path on Moody Road to Moody Court. • Silo MR16 . . SS1020B Series-NIRTSngle • Wall Mount . . SS1020A Series MR16 Dual . . 35W MR1.6 12V / 120V .. • . � Silo MR16 Single • Fixture . • Dual:120V 35W MR16 GU10i Single:120V 35W MR16 GU10.or 12V 35W MR16 GU5.3 4W' ri-3"��.r3Y2"-1 Transformer included(12V only) `moi ti • ADA5Ye" • Wall mount,up or down position SS10206 Series •• UL/CUL Listed for wet location Oos 120V 35W MR16 SS1020B-LV•Series Housing • 12V 35W MR16 • • Diecast and extruded aluminum housing - 5"h x 4Y2"w x 3Y2"p Finish • Satin Aluminum,Bronze,White Silo M R16 DUaI II • 43?H r 3Y2" r _1 614" SS1020A Series _ _ - 120V 2-35W MR16 Il . • 63/4"h x 4Y2"w x 3Y2"p • FIXTURE DESCRIPTION FINISH ❑ SS1020A-SA Dual 120V 35W MR16 Satin Aluminum ' • 0 SS1020A-BZ Dual 120V 35W MR16 Bronze . ❑ SS1020A-WT . Dual 120V 35W MR16 White pSS1020B-SA Single 120V 35W MR16 Satin Aluminum .• SS1020B-BZ Single 120V 35W MR16 Bronze O SS.1020B-WT .>Single 120V 35W MR16 White • • ❑ SS1020B-LV-SA . Single 12V 35W MR16 Satin Aluminum 0 SS1020B-LV-BZ Single 12V 35W MR16 .Bronze 0..SS1020B-LV-WT Single 12V 35W MR16 White Project Fixture Type Location . Contact- • Phone • CREATIVE® MSYREMS LIGHTING • A Division of Troy-CSL Lighting,Inc. 14508 Nelson Avenue City of Industry CA 91744 Tel:626.336.4511 Fax:626.330.4266 www.csIlighting.com SS1020_V1.0 COPYRIGHT 02012 TROY-CSL LIGHTING,INC. ATTACHIV % 26691 MOODY ROAD VARIANCE SEP 18 2015 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS To Los Altos Hills Planning Staff& Planning Commissioners, Based on the comments expressed by the planning commissioners at the August 6th Planning Commission Hearing we recognized that the primary concern standing in the way of support for the project pertained to the proximity of the proposed residence to Moody Road. With that concern in mind the following changes were incorporated into the plans for the proposed Hanabe residence at 26691 Moody Road. Building setbacks: The proposed building's setback from the Moody Road street easement has been increased to 18' at the living room location as well as for the second floor portion of the residence above the garage. However the corner of the garage, which is constructed at a 45 degree angle relative to the road is still at 13'-7". It was not feasible to increase the garage setback without impacting the setbacks at the creek and adjoining neighbors properties which have remained the same 16'-0 & 14'-0" respectively. Moving the garage would have impacted the ability to create a viable driveway and off street parking. The portion of the garage that is between 18' and 13'7" from the road easement is a relatively small area of 9 sq.ft. of structure. Creek Riparian corridor: In response to Planning Commissioners concerns regarding reduction of riparian corridor to accommodate the proposed residence, the property owner has agreed to designate the remainder of the property on the opposite side of the creek as a scenic easement. Building Mass & impact: The offsetting of the upper floor wall above the garage back 3'-0" and adding a single story roof wrapping around it above the garage, softens the two story mass of the home. This change, combined with the increased setback to the living room, results in a less prominent structure. We respectively submit these revisions for your consideration. Sincerely, Walter Chapman