HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-21 City Council (10)TO:
PaR}
C ty a ager’s Rep r
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 21, 2003 CMR:224:03
706 AND 708 LOS TRANCOS ROAD [02-D-13; 02-V-07]: REQUEST
BY CLARE MALONE PRICtL~RD OF STOECKER & NORTHWAY
ARCHITECTS, INC. ON BEHALF OF MR. & MRS. IRVING
GROUSBECK FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 706 LOS TRANCOS
ROAD. ZONE DISTRICT: OS.
690 LOS TRANCOS ROAD [02-D-16]: REQUEST BY CLARE
MALONE PRICHARD OF STOECKER & NORTHWAY
ARCHITECTS, INC. ON BEHALF OF MR. & MRS. IRVING
GROUSBECK FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW OF AN EXISTING FREE-STANDING FENCE THAT LIES
WITHIN A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. ZONE DISTRICT: OS.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City
Council approve the Site and Design Review applications, to include a room addition, a
new pad for relocation of existing mechanical equipment, removal of a masonry
fireplace, the upper portion of the driveway to remain as concrete, two existing free-
standing fences, and a lot line adjustment to increase site area, and approve the Variance
applications, to include the transference of allowable impervious surface area from Lot 5
(708 Los Trancos Road) to Lot 4 (706 Los Trancos Road) and an existing 8-foot high
fence to remain as constructed, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in
the Record of Land Use Approval (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
Requested approval of the project scope, as indicated above, involves three contiguous
properties owned by the Grousbecks: 690, 706, and 708 Los Trancos Road. The existing
CMR:224:03 Page 1 of 3
driveway (i.e., the upper portion), dog house and adjacent concrete pad, and two existing
fences have been incorporated into the project applications to resolve their legality (see
Attachment B for a more detailed project description, site history, and discussion of the
various project elements).
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC reviewed this project at its meeting on February 12, 2003 and voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the Site and Design Review and Variance
applications to the City Council (see Attachment C). This recommendation included one
modified (Condition No. 11) and one new condition of approval (Condition No. 14),
which have been incorporated into the Record of Land Use Approval (Attachment A):
11.A Certificate of Compliance for the lot line adjustment shall be filed and recorded
together with transfer deeds. The Certificate of Compliance shall reference the
new impervious area allowances for both affected properties (i.e., Lots 4 and 5), as
shall the deeds recorded as a condition of approval of the Certificate of
Compliance, so that it appears upon a Chain of Title for each parcel.
14.The Fire Department shall review and approve the type and location of all existing
ground-mounted tanks and mechanical equipment.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Given the scope of this project, there is no economic impact to the City’s General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Record of the City Council Land Use Approval
Attachment B:Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated
February 12, 2003
Attachment C: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment D: Project Plan Set (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT
HEAD REVIEW:
Director oi Planning and Community Environment
CMR:?.24:03 Page 2 of 3
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Emily Harrison
Assistant City Manager
Clare Malone Prichard, Stoecker & Northway Architects Incorporated, 437 Lytton
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sherry Williamson, AIA, 240 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941
Mr. and Mrs. Irving Grousbeck, 706 Los Trancos Road, Palo Alto, CA 94028
CMR:224:03 Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
APPROVAL NO. 2003-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 690,706 AND 708 LOS
TRANCOS:VARIANCE 02--V-07 (MODIFYING VARIANCE
86-V-22) AND SITE AND DESIGN REVIEWS 02-D-13 AND
02-D-16 (IRVING GROUSBECK,APPLICANT)
At its meeting of April , 2003, the Counci! of the
City of Pa!o Alto approved a Variance and two Site and Design
Reviews for modifications to residential properties at 690, 706,
and 708 Los Trancos Road in the City’s-Open Space Districn ("the
Properties"), making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION !. Background. The City Counci! of the City of
Pa!o A!to ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Stoecker and Northway, on behalf of Hr. And Hrs.
irving Grousbeck, property owners, have requested the City’s
approva! for previously constructed fences, driveway and other
paving, and a dog house on the Properties, as we!! as the future
addition at 706 Los Trancos of a new room of approximately 4@0
square feet, and a new mechanical equipment pad ("the Project.")
B. in order to carry out the Project, applicants need to
increase the permitted impermeable area at 706 Los Trancos, which
they propose to do through a !ot line adjustment transferring land
from 708 Los Trancos to 706 Los Trancos. Because Variance 86-V-22
assigns specific square footage to each parcel in Tract No. 7025,
modification of that variance is also required.
C. Following Staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the Project and recommended
approval on February 12, 2003. The Planning and Transportation
Co.~.issions recommendations are contained in CMR:~:03 and the
attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that it is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under
Guideline Section 15301, minor alterations of existing facilities.
000302 s.~ 0091213
708 Los Trancos.
S.~CTION 3. Variance Findings for 706 and
i. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved in that:
a. with regard to impervious coverage, the Hewlett
Subdivision uniquely in the Open Space District assigns specific
im_mervious coverage limits to each lot, regardless of size.
b. With regard to the existing cyclone fence, the
Properties abut a common area parcel designated for open space
uses. Under P~C 16..24.050, residential properties that abut
public open space properties may construct a fence to a maximum
height of eight feet. Although the common area parce! is not
public property, it does function in a similar manner, as common
open space for residents of the subdivision. Allowing the fence to
remain in its present !ocation at its constructed he_gh~ (i.e.,
feet) would provide the same treatment for this open space as for
others in the district. !n addition, the majority of the fence
lies within the building envelope where structures would be al!owed
at a height taller than eight feet (P~C 18.71.130). The fence has
been mlaced within the front half of the property, which is the
most ~ccessible and developable portion of the site.
2. The granting to the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or up_necessary
hardship in that:
a. In regard to the transference of al!owable
impervious surface area, no new hardship finding is required for an
amendment to the existing variance.
b. In regard to the existing cyc!one fence, The
granting of the request will provide appropriate security for the
main residence, considering the property is large in acreage and
abuts a common area parce! designated for open space within the
subdivision.
3. The granting of the application will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
7~detrimental to the public hea_~h, safety, and general welfare, or
convenience in that:
a. in regard to the transference of allowable
impervious surface area, The total allowable coverage wil! remain
unchanged for the entire subdivision, and permitted deve!opment is
subject to design review and control by the Plar~_ing Commission and
City Council. The tota! amount of allowable im_mervious surface for
000302 syn 0091213
2
,_~Oc 5Lot 4 (706 Los ~rancos Road) and T ~-
will not change.
Los Trancos Road) combined
b.in regard to the existing cyclone fence, the
fence is well screened from Los Trancos Road and adjacent
properties. It serves to provide a sense of security for the
residents, given the site is large in acreage, and it wil! not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
SECTION 4. Variance Granted. Variance No. 86-V-22 is
modified to permit an additional 1,732 square ~ee~ of impervious
area to be built on Lot 4 (706 Los Trancos Road), and to reduce the
permitted impervious area on Lot 5 (708 Los Trancos Road) by the
same amount, 1,732 s_quare feet.
SECTION 5. Site and Design Review Findings
i. The project will be constructed and operated in amanner that wil! be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with
existing or ootentia! uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The
’ with the existing structure and doesproject prooosal is compatmb!e The siting of
not detract from the natural character of the site.
this addition and other proposed improvements would result in no
negative im_oacts on neighboring properties.
2. The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the
desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research or
educationa! activities, or other authorized occupations, in the
same or adjacent area. The project will maintain desirability of
investment in the area. The proposed design and size of the
addition to the residence and related improvements are generally
consistent with the existing residences on Los Tr~ncos Road, and
the construction of al! improvements wil! be governed by the
regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building
Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high
quality of deve!opment.
3. Sound principles of environmenta! design and
eco!ogical balance will be observed in the construction of the
project. The proposed design of the addition wil! follow existing
site topography. The existing mechanica! equipment wil! be
relocated an appropriate distance from the residence and the public
right-of-way and wil! be clear of al! flammable vegetation per fire
code standards.
4. The project is in accord with the Palo Alto
Com_mrehensive Plan. The project proposal com_mlies with the
mo!icies of the Land Use and Community Design and Natural
] ~ ~ the Comprehensive Plan. The projectEnvironment e_emen~s o_ _
000302 syn 0091213
proposal meets the Open Space Deve!opment Criteria and the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding deve!opment in designated open
space areas.
SECTION 6. Site and Design Apmrova! Granted. Site and
Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Hunicipal Codes Section 18.82.070, subject to the conditions of
approva! in Section 8 of this Record.
SECTION 7. Plan Approva!..
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Sherry
Wi!liamson titled "Proposed Addition for Hr. And Mrs. Grousbeck",
consisting of 9 pages, dated October 25, 2002, revised January 8,
2003, and received January 13, 2003, except as modified to
incorporate these conditions of approval. A copy of these plans is
on file in the Department of Planning and Community Deve!opment.
These conditions of approval shal! be printed on the cover sheet of
the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 8. Cond_~1ons of Approval...
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
i. Approval of the Variance and Site and Design
applications are limited to the fol!owing scope of work: an
addition to the main residence for an exercise room off the master
bedroom; a new equipment pad to replace .the existing for the
re!ocation of the existing mechanical equipment (i.e., two propane
tanks, back-up generator, satellite dish, and three AC condenser
units); removal of a masonry fireplace in the guest bedroom;
al!owance for the upper portion of the driveway to remain concrete;
the existing dog house and concrete pad to remain as constructed;
~ ’n increased site areaapprova! of the existing free-s~andi g fences;
through a !or line adjustment; and the transfer of al!owable
impervious surface area from Lot 5 (708 Los Trancos Road) to Lot 4
(706 Los Trancos Road).
2. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
13, 2003,subs~ann al conformance with plans submitted on January
except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the
Planning Commission and/or City Counci!. All conditions of
approva! shal! be printed on the cover sheet of the plan
setsubmitted with the Building Permit application.
000302 s>m 0091213
3. Per approva! of the requested Variance, the maximum
im_mervious area allowable on Lot 4 (706 Los Trancos Road) shal! be
14,847 square feet and on Lot 5 (708 Los Trancos Road) shal! be
13 300 square feet. The Impervious Site Area Calculations, as’site plan and plan!nQ_caced in E~hibit A, shall be mrinted on the
set submitted with the Building Permit application. Impervious
Area Calculation Worksheets for each parcel shal! be submitted to
the Public Works Engineering Division for review and compliance
with standards for the !ot line adjustment.
4. The approved building materials and color scheme, as
indicated on the color board on file with the Planning Division,
shal! be shown on the building permit drawings for the addition to
the residence. ~ny retaining wall(s) constructed for the new
equipment pad should be made of natural materials and delineated on
the site plan.
5. The two Oak trees identified on the site plan shall be
protected per the arborist report submitted on August 8, 2001 and
the City of Pa!o Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) . All
recommendations shal! be implemented, including mandatory monthly
inspections. The pertinent sections of these documents shall be
printed on the building permit plan submittal. The Inspection
Schedule, Section 2.30 of the TTM, shal! be printed on plans for
building permit submitta!. Adherence to al! pre-construction
requirements of Section 2.15 A-E of the TTM shal! be required.
6. Any proposed exterior lighting shal! be shown on the
final construction drawings and sha!l be subject to the review and
approva! of the Planning Division. Al! light fixtures shal! be
minima! in size directed downward and shielded to prevent glare’’lands.~rom ref!ec~!-g onto surrounding mromerties and open smace
7. Al! new glass windows and doors shall be made of a
non-reflective materia!.
8. All construction activities shall be performed in
compliance with the City Noise Ordinance (P.<MC 9.10) and be limited
to the fol!owing hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Honday through
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to .6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and no construction on
Sundays and holidays.
9. If during grading and construction activities, any
~r ’ shallarcheologica! or human remains are encountered, cons~_uct~on
cease and a qualified archaeo!ogist shall ~s-~ the site to address
the find. The Santa Clara County Medica! Examiner’s office shal!
be notified to mrov{de promer direction on how to proceed. If anyNative American resources are encountered during construction,
Native P~ericanconsc_ucc!on shal! cease immediately until a
descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of
5
000302 svn 0091213
the State of California, is able to evaluate the site, make- further
recommendat!on and begin involvement in mitigation planning
Department of Public Works
Public Works Engineering Division
Prior to Submitta! for Building Permit:
i0. The applicant is required to submit an application for
a Certificate of Compliance, in order to adjust the !or line
between the two parcels.
Prior to issuance of Building Permit:
i!. A Certificate of Compliance for the !ot line
adjustment shall be filed and recorded together with transfer
deeds. The Certificate of Compliance shall reference the new
impervious area allowances for both affected properties (i.e., Lots
4 and 5), as shal! the deeds recorded as a condition of approva! of
the Certificate of Compliance, so that it appears upon a Chain of
Title for each parce!.
12. The proposed deve!opment wil! result in a change in
the impervious area of both properties (i.e., Lots 4 and 5). The
applicant shall provide a completed impervious Area Calculation
Worksheet for each parce!. The submitted worksheets must be
accompanied by a marked site drawing that identifies the permeable
and impermeable areas of each parcel and appropriate area
consistent with the entries made on the worksheets.
summation~._This subm_unal must be completed to the satisfaction of the nub!ic
Works Engineering Division prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Compliance.
13. A Haster Work Schedule shall be submitted to the
Public Works Engineering Division. The schedule shal! identify the
sequence and duration of major project activities, including
~r permanent erosion contro! and Stormwater Pollutionuempora y and -~’ n Also the wet season during each yearPreven~o Plan measures. ,
~ ’ ethe site is to be acu~v shall be identified, and monthly updates
shal! be provided during the active period of the permit.
14. The Fire Department shal! review and approve the type
and !ocation of al! existing ground-mounted tanks and mechanical
equipment.
During Construction:
15. To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shal! be
watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operation
000302 s>m 0091213
along or across any public or private property shal! be removed
immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances
ions either within or outoriginating from the conz_actor s operat ,
of the right-of-way, shall be controlled at the contractor’s
expense.
16. No storage of construction materials is permitted in
the street without prior approval of the Public Works Engineering
Division.
17.The developer shall require his/her contractor to
incormorate best management practices (BMPs) for storm water
-~epollution prevention in al! construction operations, in con_ormanc
with the Santa Clara valley Non-point Source Pollution Control
Program. The inspection Services Division shal! monitor BMPs with
respect to the deve!oper’s construction activities on private
property, and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs with
respect to the developer’s construction activities on public
property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(i.e., soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or
other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federa! Clean
Water Act).
18. No wastewater, including but not limited to equipment-
cleaning washwater, vehicle washwater, cooling water, air
conditioner condensate, and f!oor cleaning washwater, shal! be
discharged to the storm drain system, the street, or gutter.
Prior to Occupancy:
19. The Public Works inspector shall sign off on the
building permit prior to the finalization of the permit.
Construction im_mrovements that must be completed prior to this
sign-off include: al! on-site grading and storm drain improvements
and all post-construction storm water pollution contro! measures.
SECTION 9. Term of Approva!.
i. Variance. If the Variance granted is not used within
one year of the date of counci! approva!, it shal! become nul! and
void, pursuant to by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.90.080(c)
2. Site and Design Approva!. in the event actua!
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approva!, the approva! shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Hunicipa! Code
Section 18.82.080.
000302 syn 00912!3
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FO~:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AKD DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those pTans nrepared by Sherry Wi!!iamson titled "Proposed Addition
for Hr. And Hrs. Grousbeck", cons~_sc!ng of 9 pages, dated October
25 2002, revised January 8, 20@3, and received January 13, 2@03.
000302 syn 0091213
8
EXHIBIT A
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS
LOT 4 (706 LOS TRANCOS ROAD) and LOT 5 (708 LOS TRANCOS ROAD)
Lot Area (acres)
Lot Area (s.f.)
Maximum Impervious Surface Area Allowable (s.f.)
Impervious Surface Area for Building and Accessories (s.f.)
i lmpervious Surface Area for Driveway (s.f.)
i lmpervious Surface Area for Dog House (s.f.)
Impervious Surface Area for Concrete Pad
Total Actual Impervious Surface Area (s.f.)
4.08
177,811
13,115
13.114
1,218
40
. 14,471
5.13
223,462
15,032
13,300
13,300
Increased Lot Area per Lot Line Adjustment (s.f.)
Decreased Lot Area per Lot Line Adjustment (s.f.)
Lot Area (acres)
Lot Area (s.f.)
Maximum Impervious Surface Area Allowable (s.f.)
Existing Impervious Surface Area (s.f.)
Requested Impervious Surface Area for Addition (s.f.)
Total Actual Impervious Surface Area (s.f.)
25,330
4.66
203,141
14,847
14,471
292
14,763
9.21
401,273
26,414
1,218
40
99
25,330
4.55
198,132
13,300
13,300 27, 771
292
13,300
9.21
401,273
Note: si = square feet.
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
PLA.N-NrKNG & TP,_A_NSPORTATION C01V~<flS SION
Chris Magnusson DEP.a~RTMENT: Planning and Community
Planner Environment
DATE:February 12. _00.~
SUB3-ECT:706 and 708 Los Trancos Road [02-D-13: 02-V-071.: Request by Clare
Malone Prichard of Stoecker & Northw-ay Architects, Inc.-on behalf of Mr.
& Mrs. Irving Grousbeck for consideration of Site and Design Review and
Variances for improvements to the existing single-family residence at 706
Los Trancos Road. The Site and Design Review includes the following: a
room addition, a new pad for relocation of existing mechanical equipment,
removal of a masonry fireplace, the upper portion of the driveway to
remain as concrete, two existing free-standing fences, and a !ot line
adjustment to increase site area. The Variance requests are for the
following: the transference of allowable impervious surface area from Lot
5 (708 Los Trancos Road) to Lot 4 (706 Los Trancos Road) and an
existing 8-foot high fence to remain as constructed. Envirormaental
Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. Zone District: OS.
690 Los Trancos Road [02-D-16]: Request by Clare Malone Prichard of
Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc. on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Irving
Grousbeck for consideration of Site and Design Review of an existing
free-standing fence that lies within a portion of the property.
Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. Zone
District: OS.
RECOI~MENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning & Transportation Conmaission (Commission) recommend
approval of the Site and Design Review and Variance applications to the City Council, based
upon findings (Attachments E and F) and subject to the attached recommended Conditions of
Approval (Attachment A).
BACKGROUNrD
Site Information
The project site encompasses three adjacent properties in the Palo Alto Foothills: a vacant lot
(Lot 3,690 Los Trm~cos Road) and two developed lots (Lot 4, 706 Los Trancos Road and Lot 5,
708 Los Trancos Road). All three lots are owned by the Grousbecks.
Lot 4 is a 4.08-acre parcel (177,811 square feet) within Tract 7025/Hewlett Subdivision, a ten-lot
residential subdivision situated between the Arastradero Preserve to the north and the Foothills
Park to the south. Los Trancos Road is accessible off of Alpine Road in San Marco Counb7 and
bisects into a cul-de-sac at the site’s location. This cul-de-sac is shared by only three properties:
Lot 4, the adjacent Lot 5, and Lot 9 (750 Los Trancos Road), which lies across the cul-de-sac
from the project sites. Lots 4 and 5 contain existing single-family residences, and Lots 3 and 9
are both vacant and accessed from Los Trancos Road instead of the cul-de-sac.
The following table (Table 1) provides Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations on the
main residence property (706 Los Trancos Road) (see Attactmaent B) and the properties thit are
adj ac ent:
Location
Main
Residence
South
East
\\rest
Existing Uses Comprehensive Plan
706 Los Trancos (Lot 4),
Single-Family Residence
750 Los Trancos (Lot 9),
Vacant
708 Los Trancos (Lot 5),
Single-Family Residence
690 Los Trancos (Lot 3),
Vacant
Common Open-Space
[North Area @rivatc Property)
Open Space/Contro!led
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Zoning
OS Open Space
District
OS Open Space
District
OS Open Space
District
OS Open Space
District
OS Open-Space
District
Proie~
The project entails the following: an addition to the main residence for an exercise room offthe
master bedroom (399 square feet); a new concrete equipment pad (323 square feet) to replace the
existing pad (429 square feet) for the relocation of the existing mechanical equipment (i.e., two
propane tanks, back-up generator, satellite dish, and three AC condenser units); removal of a
City of Palo Alto
mason~r f~replace in the g~est bedroom; increase in the size of Lot 4 (706 Los Trances Road) by
a lot line adjustment; and the transfer of allowable in, pervious surface .area from Lot 5 (708 Los
Trances Road) to Lot 4 (706 Los Trances Road). Review of an existing driveway (i.e., the upper
portion), a dog house (40 square feet) and adjacent concrete pad (99 square feet), and the two
existing fences, all constructed without City approval, have been included under the project
description to resolve their legality (see Summary of Significant Issues).
Proiect I~istorv
Tract No. 7025 was approved in 1980 and recorded in 1981, before the current version of the OS
District regulations (PAMC 18.71.080) were adopted. In this instance, the development approval
for the subdivision provided equal allocation of impervious area (in square feet) for each
buildabl~ lot and a shared tennis court. In 1986, the City Zoning Administrator approved
variance No. 86-V-22, altering the ori~nal development approval and allocating a specific
number of square feet of impervious area to each lot. Variance approval condition No. 3
indicates the following: Impervious coverage figures presented in Condition No. I are maximum
allowable, subject to site and design review and approval of further development projects. In
view of this provision, any change in allocation of impervious area to any lot must be approved
t!~rough an amendment of the existing variance. Because of the need for a variance, Site and
Desig-n review cannot be processed administratively and must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and approved by the City Council (PAMC 18.82.060).
DISCUSSION
Variance Findings and Conditions
The applicants’ seek to transfer enough allowable impervious surface area to accommodate the
new addition, a portion of their driveway, and the existing .doghouse and concrete pad (see
Attachment C). The total transferred to Lot 4 (706 Los Trances Road) at 1,732 s.f. is the unused
allowable impervious surface area on Lot 5 (708 Los Trances Road). Considering there is no
overal! increase to impervious surface area between lots mad no change or further effect upon the
original findings of the 1986 Variance approval (No. 86-V-22), the same Variance findings can
be made for this request. The applicable portions of those findings are listed below, as slightly
modified to encompass the current review of the-application request. In addition, reference to
the over-height cyclone fence’s compliance with the required findings for approval (PAMC
18.90.050) has been included. AI! required findings for both project components can be made,
as indicated below:
lT~ere are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
properO~ involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, including but
not limited to the presence of historic buildings or structures subject to preservation
requirements under the Pale Alto Re~ster.
In regard to the transference of allowable impervious surface area: The Hewlett Subdivision
assigns specific impervious coverage limits to each lot, regardless of size.
In re~_ard to the existing cyclone fence: The project site abuts a common area parcel
desianated for open space. Under P_~Q’vIC 16.24.050, residential properties that abut public
City of Pale Alto Page
property may construct a fence to a maximum heist of eight feet. Although the common
area parcel is not public property, it does function in a similar manner, as common open
space for residents of the subdivision. Given this particular circumstance, no ~eater impact
would occur by allowing the fence to remain in its present location at its constructed heist
(i.e., 8 feet) than would be allowed by the ordinance provision. In addition, the majority of
the fence lies within the building envelope where structures would be allowed at a height
taller than eight feet (PA_MC 18.71.13 0). The fence has been placed within the front half of
the property, which is the most accessible and developable portion of the site.
~ze g-anting to the application is necessaTy for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessa73, hardship.
Ia~ regard to the transference of allowable impervious surface area, no new hardship finding is
required for an amendment to the existing variance.
In regard to the existing cyclone fence: The ganting of the request will provide added
security for the main residence, considering the property is large .in acreage and abuts a
common area parcel desig-nated for open space within the subdivision.
The ~-anting of the application will not be injurious to property 07" impro~,ements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general ~,elfare, or
convenience.
In regard to the transference of allowable impervious surface area: The total allowable
coverage wili remain unchanged for the entire subdivi[ion, and permitted development is
subj oct to desi~ma review and control by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
total amount of allowable impervious surface area will remain unchanged between Lot 4
(706 Los Trancos Road) and Lot 5 (Los Tr.ancos Road).
In regard to the existing cyclone fence: The fenceis wee screened from Los Trancos Road
and adjacent properties. It serves to provide a sense of security for the residents, Wen the
site is large in acreage, and it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
Site and Desi~ Review Findings
The required findings (PAiVIC 18.82.055) can be made for the project (i.e., both applications)
and are listed as follows:
~e project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious,
and compatible ~ith existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The project proposal will be compatible with the existing structure and does not detract from
the natural character of the site. The siting of this addition and other proposed improvements
would result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring properties.
City of Palo Alto
Page 4
~e project is desigT~ed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or the
conduct of businesso research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in
the same or adjacent area.
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the
proposed design and size of the addition to the residence and related improvements are
genera!ly consistent with the existing residences on Los Trancos Road, and the construction
of a!! improvements will be governed by the regnlations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the
Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a higJa quality of
development.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecolo~cal bala~zce will be observed in
construction of the project.
The proposed desig-n of the addition will follow existing site topo~aphy. The existing
mechanical eqnipment will be relocated an appropriate distance fi-om the residence mad the
public ri~at-of-way and will be clear of all flammable vegetation per fire code standards.
The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Desi~m~ and
the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal meets
the Open Space Development Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding
development in designated open space areas.
Driveway
Following the construction of the residence in 1988, the surface of the upper portion of the
driveway (1,2! 8 square feet) was altered from gravel to concrete, thereby increasing the
impervious site area by !;217 square feet over the maximum permitted (13,115 square feet).
Although no building or encroachment permit was required for such an improvement, both a
Variance and Site and Design Review approval would have been required to allow the additional
coverage, since Site and Design Review covers all exterior improvements (PAMC Section
18.71.040) and a Variance is needed to increase the origfi_na!ly all_ocated impervious surface area.
In order to resolve this situation, the 1,217 s.f. of paved driveway has been accounted for in the
transference of impervious surface area from Lot 5 (708 Los Trancos Road) to Lot 4 (706 Los
Trancos Road) (see calculations in Attachment C). The applicant requests the driveway be
allowed to remain as-is. A copy of a letter indicating this request has been included as
Attachment D. The applicant, however, does agree to re-surface the upper portion of the
driveway from concrete to interlocking permeable pavers or an equivalent surface treatment, if
the Variance could not be obtained. The lower portion of the driveway shall remain concrete as
it was approved at the time of construction of the residence.
Freestandin~ Fences
The existing free-standing cyclone fence (i.e., wire with metal posts), that lies completely wit]:~
the bounds of Lot 4 (706 Los Trancos Road), and the free-standing wood fence (i.e., wood post
and rail With welded wire mesh), that lies partly within the front and side yard areas of Lot 4
(706 Los Trancos Road) and partly within the front, side, and interior (i.e., building envelope) of
Lot 3 (690 Los Trancos Road), were both constructed after the residence was built and were not
reviewed through the required Site and Design review process. Their descriptions are included
Page 5
City of Palo Alio
in the project proposal at this time in order to resolve this situation. The cyclone fence was
constructed to 8 feet in height, one foot over the maximum allowable and therefore requires
Variance approva! to the fence ordinance if it is to remain (PAMC 16.24.020[b]). The free-
standing wood fence, at approximately 5’-10" high and lying within the bounds of both Lot 4
and Lot 5. conforms to all provisions of the fence ordinance, because it has been located more
than 16 f£et from thefront property line (PAMC 16.24.020[b][1]).
Lot Line Adiustment
A Lot Line Adjustment application has been submitted to the Public Works Department and is
pending final determination of this project proposal (see Attachment G). The proposal involves
the transfer of 25,330 square feet from Lot 5 to Lot 4, which would allow the proposed addition
to the residence to maintain the required 30-foot building side yard setback. There would be a
net gain in the size of Lot 4 (706 Los Trancos Road) from 4.08 to 4.66 acres, and the adjacent
property (i.e., Lot 5,708 Los Trancos Road) would decrease in size from 5.13to 4.55 acres.
This lot line adjustment allows compliance with all building setbacks and in conjunction with
Variance approval, the appropriate transfer of impervious surface area to account for all
proposed and existing site improvements.
Landscapinz
No tree removal is proposed nor required to construct the room addition and new equipment pad.
Trin~r~ing of the tree canopies and removal of flammable vegetation to no less than 10 feet of the
new mechanical equipment pad will be required per fire code standards. Project construction
will occur per the requirements outlined in the arborist report submitted by the applicant and the
condiiions imposed by the Cib~;s Managing Arborist.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The project proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, both with respect to
the Open Space/Controlled Development land use category and its adherence to the following
policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element:
Policy L-l: The Comp~:ehensive Plan encourages the preservation of undeveloped land west of
the Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-
intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. The project site is
located southwest of the Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard, within the Open
Space/Controlled Development land use category. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the project site is Single Family Residential and one residence is permitted.
Given the ratio of impervious surface area to open space on both Lot 4 and Lot 5, the project
proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain the scale and character of the City.
Avoid land uses that are ovem,~helming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The project
proposal will be compatible with the existing structure and does not detract from the natura!
character of the site. The siting of this minor addition and other proposed improvements would
result in no negative impact(s) to neighboring properties. The addition to the residence is in
City of Palo Alto
keeping with the existing scale of the building.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the project site is located within an
Archaeological Resource Area of Low Sensitivity. However, Palo Alto is known to contain
widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a
variety of artifacts. Therefore, cessation of all Fading and construction activities is required, if
any archaeolo~cal or human remains are encountered. At that time, retention of a qualified
archaeolo~st to address the fred in the field, notification of the Santa Clara Count%, Medical
Examiner’s office, and if native American remains are discovered, evaluation of the finds by a
Native American descendent shall be required. The Native American descendent, appointed by
the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, would provide
implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Open Space Development Criteria
The project proposal also conforms to the policies of the Natural Environment Element, and in
particular, the Open Space Development Criteria of Policy N-7. A description of how the project
meets the pertinent criteria (i.e., Criterion Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9) is listed below:
The development should not be visually intrusive j~’om public roadways and public
parklands..As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden j~’om view. The
existing residence, at the end of a cul-de-sac, is minimally visible from Los Trancos Road,
and the proposed addition and site inaprovements will be located approximately 150 feet
from where it intersects with the cul-de-sac. The existing free-standing wood fence, that lies
within the bounds of Lots 3 and 4 (690 and 706 Los Trancos Road), conforms to all
regqalations of the fence ordinance (PAMC 16.24) and has been constructed of materials that
are compatible withthe surrounding environment. The existing cyclone fence is well
screened from Los Trancos Road, as well as the existing dog house and concrete pad.
Considering Lot 4 abuts a common area parcel designated for open space within the
subdivision, the distance (i.e., approximately 1,000 ft.) from the main residence to the nearest
parldands (i.e., the Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park) and the dense foliage on site
limit its visibility from the north.
Site and structure desig~ should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of
neighboring properties. The site contains ample mature vegetation that assists in screening
the existing residence from adjacent properties. The area of the addition and site
improvements would be located at least 150 feet from the existing single-family residence on
Lot 5 (708 Los Trancos Road) to the east. All other adjacent properties are vacant at this
time.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topo~’aphy. YuiIding lines should
follow the lines of the ten’ain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance.
The addition will be located in the area on which the existing concrete equipment pad lies,
taking advantage of the already-flat Found. Minimal Fading will occur in order to provide
the new equipment pad, with very low (i.e., one to two foot in height) retaining wall(s)
constructed if necessary.
City of Palo Alto
Page 7
Cut is encouraged when it is necessa73.’ for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topo~’aphy. _Fill is generally discouraged and should
never be distributed within the dripIines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize
the need for grading. Minimal gading will occur in order to provide the new equipment pad,
with very low (i.e., one to two foot in heiglat) retaining wal!(s) constructed if necessary.
Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. New building
materials, including wood siding, soffits, and trim, and new colors, consisting of three shades
of gray, are proposed to match those of the existing residence. Cedar shake roofing,
approvable by the Fire Department and the Building Inspection Division, will be installed to
match the existing. Any retaining wall(s) constructed for the new equipment pad should be
made of natural materials. The room addition is compatible withthe materials and colors of
the existing residence, as indicated on the color board that is on file with the Plam~g
Division. The overall project scope does not affect the compatibility and harmony of the
existing use (i.e., single-family residence) and its relation to other existing uses on adjacent
properties or within the surrounding area.
Zonin~ Ordinance Compliance
The project proposal, allowing for the variances and the lot line adjusmaent, is ha compliance
with the development regulations of the OS District (PANIC 18.71), the Site and Design Review
Combining District regulations (PAMC 18.82), the Variance findings and conditions (PAMC
18.90.050), and the provisions of the fence ordinance (PA2’,~C 16.24).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of the Cormaaission hearing for tNs project proposal was provided by publication of
the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a hearing notice card.
TI~’IELIN~
If the Commission recommends approval or approval with conditions, the project applications
will be forwarded to the City Council for final action, as Architectural Review Board approval is
not required for single-family residences.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project proposal (i.e., both applications) is categorically exempt fiom environmental review
per California Environmental Quality Act Section 15301: Minor alteration of existing private
structures.
ATTA CHMENTS/EXI-IIBITS
Attachment A. Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment B.
Attachinent C.
Attachment D.
_Attachment E.
Attachment F.
Attachment G.
Location Map
Impervious Surface Area Calculations %
Letter Regarding Existing Driveway
Variance Findings and Conditions for Approval
Site and Desigm Review Findings for .Approval
Lot Line Adjustment Plan
City of Palo Alto
Attachment H.Project Plan Sets (Conmfissioners Only)
COURTESY COPIES
Clare Malone Prichard, Stoecker and Northway Architects laacorporated,
437 L.5~on Avenue, Palo ,~dto, CA 94301
Sherry Williarnson, ALA, 240 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941
I~@. and Mrs. Ir~,ing Grousbeck, 706 Los Trancos P,.oad, Palo Alto, CA 94028
PR£P.C_RED BY:Ct~s .Magnusson, Planner
R_EVIEWED BY::Q~y French, MCP, Manager of Current Plm~fing
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HE.C_D APPROVAL:Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
P~!o
Attachment B
Location Map
Th s map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Grote, Lisa
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachment D
Grousbeck, Irving [grousbeck_irv@gsb.stanford.edu]
Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:57 PM
’lisa.g rote@cityofpaloalto.org’
Dear Ms. Grote:
Thank you for your help in processing our application. I would like to
apologize for not indicating the excess impervious surface existing at our
residence in the application documents. We did not wish to create
difficulties for the planning staff. It was our intention to rectify the
problem by transferring enough impervious surface from the adjoining
property to eliminate the non-conforming condition and also allow for the
proposed addition to our house.
I am very willing to eliminate the 1,217 square feet of excess impervious
surface at our existing residence by removing driveway concrete and
replacing it with approved permeable materials. In this scenario, our
application would be modified to request a transfer of only 292 square feet
of impervious surface from 708 to 706 Los Trancos. Road.
I respectfully request, however, that the original transfer request of 1,509
square feet be allowed so that our hard surface driveway can be retained for
basketball and for grandchild tricycle riding. It is the only flat area
for such uses at our 706 address. The total limit of allowed impervious
surface for 708 and 706 Los Trancos Road will be the same regardless of how
much transfer is allowed, and therefore we believe there is no environmental
or off-site visual impact if the requested transfer is allowed.
We also wish to apologize for not requesting site and design review for our
new fence, as we were unaware of that requirement. I understand that such
review will become a part of the existing application.
Thank you again for your valued assistance in this matter. Please let me
know if I can be of assistance with any questions or concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Irving Grousbeck
Attachment G
Attachment C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transpolv;ation Commission
FebruaO, 12, 2003
Verbatim Minutes
DRAFT EXCERPT
~TEr~; B USIBTESS.
Public Hea~gngs:
706 Los Trancos Road*: 706 and 708 Los Trancos Road [02-D-13; 02-V-07]:
Request by Clare Malone Prichard of Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc. on
behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Irving Grousbeck for consideration of Site and Design
Review and Variances for improvements to an existing single-family residence.
The Site and Design Review includes the following: a room addition, a new pad
for relocation of existing mechanical equipment, removal of a masonry fireplace,
the upper portion of the driveway to remain as concrete, two existing free-
standing fences, and a lot line adjustment to increase site area. The Variance
requests are for the following: the transference of allowable impervious surface
area from Lot 5 (708 Los Trancos Road) to Lot 4 (706 Los Trancos Road) and an
existing 8-foot high fence to remain as constructed. Environmental Assessment:
Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act per Section 15301. Zone District: OS. Staff Report WebLink -
http://www.citv.palo-alto.ca.us/citva~enda/~ublish!plannin~-transportation-
meetin~s/1541.pdf
Ms. Lisa Grote. Chief Plannins Official: Thank you very much Chair Bialson and
Commissioners. The applications in front of you tonight do include two site and design
applications as well as two variance applications. The first site and desig-n application is
for a review and recommendation on a small addition to an existing house at 706 Los
Trancos Road. That is what is called Lot 4 on your site plans in your packets. That
would include a small addition to the existing house a new concrete pad for relocating
mechanical equipment and it would also accommodate previously completed site
improvements that did not have a site and desig-n approval. Those included some minor
paving of the upper portion of the driveway and also minor accessory building, which is a
doghouse. So that site and desig-n would include a recommendation on those existing
improvements.
The second site and design application is for what is called Lot 3 on your site plans and
that is at 690 Los Trancos Road. That is for an existing fence that was constructed
recently.
The first variance application is for the height of the existing fence that is part of the site
and design on Lot 4, which is 706 Los Trancos Road. Then the second variance
application is for is for a transference of impervious site coverage from Lot 5, which is
708 Los Trancos Road, onto Lot 4, which is again 706 Los Trancos Road. That variance
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
application review and recommendation is required because the original lot impervious
site square footages, which were approved as part of the Hewlett subdivision in 1980
were done through the variance process. That preceded our existing OS site regulations.
So in order for the Hewlett subdivision to approve ten lots With less than ten acres and
then assig-n square footages of impervious coverage to them we needed to process a
variance. So in order to change those impervious square footages we need to do a
corresponding variance. Also as part of that Hewlett subdivision there was a requirement
for permanently dedicated open area. It is not public open space but it is undevelopable,
permanently open area as part of that subdivision which touches most of those lots. As
part of a lot line adjustment, which isn’t subject to the Planning Commission or City
Council review, but as part of a lot line adjustment which the applicant has also applied
for a little bit over 25,000 square feet would be taken from Lot 5 and added to Lot 4. In
order to transfer impervious coverage to change those original allocations the variance is
required. That would transfer the impervious coverage from Lot 5 to Lot 4. That would
be a little bit over 1,700 square feet. About 290 square feet of that would be used to
accommodate the proposed small addition and new concrete pad for the mechanical
equipment. Most of the remainder with the exception of about 83 square feet would be
used to accommodate the impervious coverage that was completed as part of paving the
upper part of the driveway and then also constructing the doghouse in another little
concrete pad on the site.
We are recommending approval of the variance, which would allow that transference of
impervious coverage. We are recommending approval of the variance for the one-foot
increased fence height because the fence on Lot 4 is eight feet rather than seven feet. We
are recommending approval of the site and design for the fence on Lot 3. Then we are
recommending approval of the site and desig-n on Lot 4 which again is the small addition
and concrete pad because it is consistent with the existing house, the colors and materials
are compatible with the open space district and there isn’t a negative impact from any of
those elements on surrounding property owners. So with that we will conclude the Staff
Report. I would like to introduce Chris Mag-n~usson who wrote the Staff Report and has
been the project planner. We are here to answer questions.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any Commission questions prior to the applicant? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Lisa, I thought one of the other purposes of adjusting the lot line
was to allow for the required setback, a 30-foot setback. The amount of space that was
allocated for impervious for each lot was that based on a percent of the lot size or was it
an absolute number?
Ms. Grote: It was an absolute number. There doesn’t appear to be a formula that was
used to derive that number to arrive at that number. I should have mentioned that this
will not change either the overall total square size for both lots. Both lots now are a little
over nine acres if you added them together. They will remain just a bit over nine acres it
is just that Lot 4 becomes slightly bigger and Lot 5 become slightly smaller. Also the
amount of impervious coverage remains the same it is just slightly more on Lot 4 than on
Lot 5 but the total of about 28,000 square feet remains the same. Also in answer to your
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
d
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
first question yes, the lot line adjustment, which is done through a certificate of
compliance process, was also to accommodate and to make sure that the setback was
maintained.
Commissioner Packer: So the lot line adjustment really has nothing to do with the
impervious coverage issue.
Ms. Grote: That is true except that it changes the lot area. That is true.
Ms. Wvnne Furth. Senior Assistant City Attorney: In most parts of the Open Space
District if you change the lot line you change the impervious surface allowance. Because
the Hewlett tract preceded those rules just changing the lot line won’t do it you also have
to amend the variance. So in most areas in the Open Space District this would be a
simpl.e matter of a lot line adjustment because it is in the Hewlett tract it has to come
through you for a modification of that variance which assigned specific square footages
to every single lot.
Commissioner Bellomo: Just one clarification for Chris or Lisa. The setbacks to
mechanical equipment, is there a specific? Can I get clarity on that?
Ms. Grote: The mechanical.
Commissioner Bellomo: I am sure the applicant can shed some light on it. I just want to
get a general understanding of that.
Ms. Grote: What the plans are showing is that the room addition would maintain the 30-
foot setback and the mechanical equipment would have a 10-foot setback from the site
property line. The applicant may want to address that in a little more detail.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay, that is where it seems like it encroaches inside even the
10-foot line if I look at the drawings. It is not clear.
Ms. Grote: I believe it is showing right on it but I can see what you are referring to. I
believe it is 10 feet on that side setback.
Commissioner Bellomo: Is that a required setback to mechanical equipment is my
question.
Ms. Grote: That is an acceptable location for mechanical equipment.
Commissioner Bellomo: Acceptable?
Ms. Grote: Yes, it is.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Bialson: Any, other questions from the Commission at this point? Why, don’t we
hear from the applicant? The applicant will have 15 minutes to speak initially,.
Mr. Bob Stoecker. Stoecker & Northwav Architects: Good evening. Here with me
tonight are John Northway and Clare Malone of Stoecker & Northway and Sherri
Williamson, architect. Sherri is primarily, responsible for the addition and remodel to the
house and Stoecker & Northway is helping Mr. Grousbeck with the variance application
lot line adjustment.
We fully, support the Staff’s finding and recommendations. It is a very’ thorough report. I
don’t think it really makes sense for us to make a presentation but we are happy, to
answer any, questions or concerns you might have at this time.
Chair Bialson: Do you want to ask your question, Joe?
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes. Is establishing the equipment and the surrounding walls of
that mechanical equipment is there any, enclosure to the mechanical equipment? What is
},our understanding of the distance between that mechanical equipment and the property
line?
Mr. Stoecker: I can have Sherri Williamson respond to that. That is not the work that we
did but I believe that it is our understanding and Staff’s agreement that equipment is
allowed to occur where it is shown on the plan. I asked Sherri that before I stepped up
here and I think we are in compliance with the setbacks for that kind of thing.
Commissioner Bellomo: Does it enclose?
Mr. Stoecker: It does have a screen around it.
Ms. Sherri Williamson. Architect: Regarding the enclosure we have actually reviewed
the plans with the Fire Inspector. They in fact don’t allow a wood screen as is currently
installed around the existing equipment due to fire consideration. That would be a
flammable material. In fact there is a 10-foot clearance required to clear the vegetation
from the mechanical equipment itself and the propane tanks. So currently that 10-foot
space that is indicated on the plan is to allow for clearance of the vegetation on that
property. So the 10-foot setback is indicated specifically on that plan so that that area can
be cleared of vegetation to maintain that required clearance around the equipment.
Commissioner Bellomo: So there is no enclosure around?
Ms. Williamson: There is no enclosure. In fact we were asked to remove the wood
enclosure that we were going to in a sense replicate the existing enclosure at the new
location.
Commissioner Bellomo: So you are screening it with landscaping.
Page 4
1 Ms. Williamson: It will be a landscaping issue but then the landscaping has to be kept a
2 distance of 10 feet from the equipment in order to meet the fire requirements.
3
4 Commissioner Bellomo: So is it a concern that there is a 10-foot setback? There.is no
5 existing fence because that is the relocated property line at this time. Will there be a
6 proposed fence?
7
8 Ms. Williamson: Correct. That is something that we have discussed and that the owners
9 are more than happy and willing to actually place a fence along the property line there
10 and to screen it with some sort of vining material or vegetation.
11
12 Commissioner Bellomo: What is the largest piece of equipment that would be placed
13 there?
14
15 Ms. Williamson: I believe it would be the propane tanks, which I would have to check
16 the dimensions of those but my recollection of standing in the field they are probably at
17 the most four feet tall.
18
19 Comm_issioner Bellomo: Is there a backup generator?
20
21 Ms. Williamson: There is a backnap generator as well, which does not stand as tall as the
22 propane tanks again per my recollection of standing there. It is the existing equipment
23 that is being relocated.
24
25 Commissioner Bellomo: What services the backup generator? Is there gas?
26
27 Ms. Williamson: I believe it is the gas, yes.
28
29 Commissioner Bellomo: So you have propane tanks and a gas tank?
30
31 Ms. Williamson: I should double-check that.
~9
33 Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you.
34
35 Ms. Williamson: Thank you.
36
37 Commissioner Packer: I have a question. I don’t mean to put you on the spot with this
38 but how strongly does your client feel about the driveway? There was some discussion in
39 the letters and correspondence about making it a per~,ious surface, which would eliminate
40 the need for the aspect of the variance that deals with the transfer of the impervious
41 surface.
42
43 ~@. Stoecker: The letter to Staff is part of the packet and I think he tries to address that
44 there. It is a large lot but curiously enough we did the original house design that was
45 basically the role we played and only came back because of the addition that we was
46 proposing here. So we weren’t involved in his decision to fence and pave the driveway
Page 5
1 several years ago. In the desig-n process we found that this house was really constricted.
2 There is geote~hnical point where you can’t go any, closer to the bank. It is actually
3 tested and we built the house as close to the bank toward the Arastra Preserve as we
4 could under the oak trees. The other direction is actually constrained by a sewer
5 easement that runs right across the center of his property on the front portion and then the
6 setbacks on the sides. The house actually touches the setbacks in two places, the
7 geotechnical constraint and the sewer easement. So it is actually boxed in completely,.
8 As a result of that he doesn’t really have any other portion of his property that is flat
9 except for that one spot. Normally you would have the road or a front yard or something
10 like that if you wanted to develop a place for youngsters to ride tricycles or play
11 basketball. So I believe his motivation there is he simply he couldn’t find another place
12 to do it and he would certainly, appreciate being allowed to keep that in a paved surface
13 for those uses in the future but he understands the concerns you might have.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Com_m_issioner Holman: I am not sure if this is a question for you or for Staff. Could the
front fence setback be confirmed at the required 16 feet?
Ms. Grote: We can confirm that. We do have a survey that was submitted as part of the
lot line adjustment, part of the Certificate of Compliance, which verifies where the
property line is which is where we would then measure the setback from. It indicates that
the fence is not in the front or side setbacks but we can confirm that certainly.
Commissioner Holman: Do you need us to disclose our conversations and site visits?
Ms. Furth: Before you open the public hearing, yes.
Chair Bialson: Why don’t you.
Commissioner Holman: I did a site visit and also had a phone conversation with John
Northway.
Mr. Stoecker: Ms. Holman, just a little bit more information on the location of the fence.
There were some accurate field markers found on the backside of the curb where they
should be for indicating property line and measurements were made from those, where
they occurred to the fence to get an accurate picture of where it is located.
Commissioner Holman: So the back side of the curb is the property line?
Mr. Stoecker: I think in most cases it is or at least the markers that we found that
indicated property line were correctly placed. I can’t speak directly to that because the
owner contracted to have that work done, that location, but it is very close.
Commissioner Griffin: I did take a look at the property this afternoon from the street,
Los Trancos Woods Drive, I think was the name of the street. I have had no
conversations with the applicant.
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Bialson: I have had a conversation with John Northway.
Commissioner Cassel: I drove up to the site on Sunday and just looked at it from the
street. From wherever I was driving I was trying to look at it.
Commissioner Padker: I also looked at the site from the street and peeked into the front
yard. That is as far as I could see.
Commissioner Bellomo: I am familiar with the area.
Chair Bialson: Other questions of the applicant? Do you want to make any sort of
statement?
Mr. Stoecker: No.
Chair Bialson: Okay, ~eat. We appreciate it. Do we have an?, speaker cards for this
item? All right then let’s come back to the Commissioners. Does anyone want to jump
in first? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: First off I wanted to really thank Staff because when they took
the application in there was a lot of checking to make sure that everything else was in
compliance before proceeding with the application. I think you are to be congatulated
on that and bringing everything into compliance, It is a good job and I appreciate that.
The only comment I would have is after having visited the site the front and side fence is
quite extensive and the design from my perspective would be compatible with the area
but until the wood ages because of the sig-nificant span of it I would like to suggest that
the wood portion of the fence be stained. It is quite an impact until it does age. That is
really my only comment.
Commissioner Bellomo: I would just add that I would be concerned with a stain if it
doesn’t allow the wood to age naturally,. That would be my concern. It takes about a
year for redwood to age into that gray patina. So I would just be concerned with
suggesting stain.
Chair Bialson: I would like to speak to the motion rather than getting into some of the
design issues here. We hear you and your concern as well. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t have any concerns about the fence. I do have concern
about the issue of the pervious versus the imper~,ious area. I understand that as far as the
whole subdivision is concerned we are not chanNng anything. In order to make findings
for a variance there are certain findings that have to be made about it being a difficult site
to work with and I just don’t find that with regard to the driveway. It seems to me that if
it was replaced with pervious pavers it would allow the adjoining site which may have a
different owner in the future to do any remodeling or additions. Right now it is limited.
It could never have any additional impervious square footage on the site that is having its
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.~D
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
impervious area transferred from. I just don’t know if that is worth the minor
inconvenience of having a driveway with pervious paving stones as opposed to cement.
Certainly that cul-de-sac is a place where kids could ride tricycles safely. I just didn’t see
it as a major concern. So I am not real excited about the impervious and pervious issue.
The other aspects of the variances with the fences I don’t have a problem with especially
since I couldn’t see the cyclone fence from the street so I guess it is not an issue. Those
are my thoughts about it.
MOTION
Commissioner Cassel: I want to move the Staff Report. That will get that on the agenda.
Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Griffin: I will second.
Commissioner Cassel: I couldn’t see the construction site from the street. I couldn’t see
the fence from the street over on the one side, the eight-foot high fence. The amount of
impeiwious surface would remain the same no matter which place it is placed. If we take
the impervious surface off the driveway it will allow people to build space someplace
else. So one way or another you get a certain amount of impervious surface. So I didn’t
find that an issue and I can make the findings.
Commissioner Griffin: I agree with those comments. I thought that the fences are
sufficiently similar to the existing ordinance provisions. I thought that the upper
driveway variance or nonconforming area of 1,200 square feet was accounted for in the
transference of the impervious surface area from Lot 5 and the driveway variance should
be permitted as it represents less than ten percent of the total 13,000 square feet of the
impe~,ious site area.
Chair Bialson: I would like to offer a friendly amendment. It goes to the issue of how
owners often times become unaware of the ~equirements that we impose upon either their
lot or the entire subdivision. While we have a condition in this matter, I think it is
Condition 11, where a Certificate of Compliance gets recorded along with the deeds I
would like if possible, maybe the attorney can help me out on this, come up with
something that we can expressly state on the deed. Quite often when people buy pieces
of property they get what are called preliminary title reports, which say there is a
Certificate of Compliance, but do not completely identify, all the terms of that Certificate
of Compliance. All I am trying to accomplish is some better notice to whoever may
acquire that property that now will have less impervious surface.
Ms. Furth: You are right that people often ig-nore the references to Certificates of
Compliance when they, are looking at their title. They do have to record deeds out and
Page 8
1
2
3
4
7
9
io
ii
12
13
14
16
17
19
2O
21
22
2~
24
26
27
2g
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
46
back to effectuate this transfer. We could require that that information be placed on the
deeds as well and then it will be in the chain of title.
Chair Bialson: Thank you, Wynne. Would the maker and the seconder?
Commissioner Bellomo: One other note. I would like another friendly amendment is
¯ that Staff look carefully at the equipment, the amount of equipment being placed and the
tanks and the fuel that would be stored in proximity to the property line as well as just a
general organizational plan that spells out the equipment and tanks. There seems to be a
notion that there might be a gas tank in that area as well.
Chair Bialson: Okay Joe, let’s deal with the first amendment. Would the maker and
seconder be amenable to that amendment?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes.
Commissioner Griffin: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Fine. Now, Joe I understand you are proposing a second friendly
amendment and that would be that Staff look.
Commissioner Bellomo: That there be a layout given back to Staff so it clarifies the
equipment and tank being placed at the mechanical pad.
Chair Bialson: Is that something that would come back to you and would you be
reviewing that, Chris?
Ms. Furth: That would be a condition prior to issuance of building permit which would
require the Staff to check the mechanical equipment again to be assure that it meets
relevant safety standards.
Chair Bialson: Is that what you are asking, Joe?
Commissioner Bellomo: I guess who reviews tanks being placed for auxiliary
equipment, I am sure the Fire Department.
Ms. Grote: That would be the Fire Department.
Commissioner Bellomo: Have a clear understanding of that equipment.
Ms. Grote: We do routinely route our plans through the Fire Department at this stage and
at building permit.
Chair Bialson: So Joe, do you still want to propose the amendment or is this a matter of
course?
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Grote: It is a matter of course that we do ask for the layout and they do look at the
clearances and the), look at the materials that are stored in the equipment and will be used
as part of the equipment.
Chair Bialson: Joe, do you want to propose the amendment?
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes that Staff and Fire Department would look at all locations
of equipment and tanks prior to issuance of building permits.
Ms. Furth: I wrote down as 14 that the Fire Department shall review and approve the
location and nature of the mechanical equipment and fuel tanks.
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Would the maker and seconder accept that amendment as well?
Commissioner Casseh Yes, although I think it is done routinely. That’s fine.
Commissioner Griffin: Yes.
Chair Bialson: That is accepted. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Staff could maybe answer a question for me. K I wanted to
approach maybe some other means of which to speed up the aging process of this fence
and maybe Board Member Bellomo has a suggestion for that other than the stain, would
that be a separate motion? It is a part of the site and design but it is not a part of - would
that be a separate motion or an amendment to the motion?
Ms. Furth: It is the conditions of approval that you are going thi’ough right now so it is
part of this.
Commissioner Holman: Then I would suggest as a friendly, amendment to the motion
that Staff with the applicant explore some means of speeding up the aging process of the
wood on the front and side fence because of the expanse of it.
Commissioner Cassel: I won’t accept that. I think that I will accept Joe’s comments that
it takes a year.to age. This is up in an area where no one is seeing it except the immediate
neighbors. K it is going to age properly in a year that is fine with me.
Chair.Bialson: The seconder concurs with the maker?
Commissioner Griffin: Yes.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Chair Bialson: Okay, so the amendment is rejected. Let’s vote on the motion then.
MOTION PASSED
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say nay. That passes six to zero
with Pat Burr not present..Thank you very much and thank you applicant.
Page 11