HomeMy WebLinkAboutLoukianoff SDR for SF Residence AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 11, 2004
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 03-040, Loukianoff Site Development Review
for a Single-Family Residence on an existing lot (Lot 1) at 11299 Rolling
Hills Drive
(Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner)C~
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Approving a Site Development Review;
Project plans;
Letter from Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist, dated January 12,
2004;
Letter from HortScience, Dated February 2, 2004, peer review of
Joseph McNeil's report;
Heritage Tree Ordinance;
Previously Approved Plans for home on Lot 1; and
Letter from Applicant Alexander Loukianoff.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Open public hearing;
Receive Staff presentation and public testimony;
Question Staff, Applicant and the public;
Close public hearing; and
Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Site Development
Review, subject to conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a Site Development Review for a new single-family home on an existing lot (Lot 1) at 11299
Rolling Hills Drive, created by Tract Map 5073. The single-family residence is proposed to be 2,954
square feet in size with a garage that is 587 square feet in size.
BACKGROUND:
Hat_field Development Approval:
On August 12, 1985, the City Council approved PA 85-035.3 (Resolution 82-85), Hatfield Development
Corporation, Inc. Tract Maps 5072, 5073 and 5074. Lots 1 and 7 - 12 of Block 1 of Tract Map 5073 were
not built upon when the rest of the homes were built in 1985. Lot 1 is the location of the subject property.
City Council Resolution 82-85 set forth the conditions of approval for the three tract maps. Conditions 4
and 12 of that resolution require that a Site Development Review be processed for the development of
these lots.
The proposed project is located on an existing legal lot of record which was created in conformity with the
following regulations in effect at the time: (1) the Single Family Residential General Plan Designation; (2)
the R-1 Zoning District; (3) the Hatfield Planned Development (Ordinance 80-85); (4) the Subdivision
Title (Title 9) of Dublin Municipal Code; and (5) the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California.
COPIES TO:
PA File
Applicant
Mailing list
iTEMNO. ,(~,~'~
Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Development (PA 00-009):
On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain
Development (PA 00-009) Site Development Review (SDR), approving the design and location for single
family homes on 7 lots (Lot Numbers: 1, and 7-12). The Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project was
appealed tO City Council on December 21, 2000. The appeal alleged conflicts with the following: (1)
Heritage Tree Ordinance, (2) the Wildfire Management Plan, (3) the Zoning Ordinance, and (4) the
Hatfield Development Approval. On January 16, 2001, the City Council heard the appeal of the SDR and
directed the applicant to redesign the project to minimize impacts to the heritage trees on site. On
February 20, 2001, the City Council approved the redesigned Brittany Lane/Black Mountain project,
upheld the decision of the Planning Commission, and required some additional conditions of project
approval.
The home on Lot 1 that was approved by the City Council as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain
Development (PA 00-009) was 3,400 square feet of living space and had a 640 square foot garage (see
Attachment 6 for copies of the previously approved site plan and floor plans). The previously approved
residence had the following setbacks from property lines: front 28 feet; side 17 feet; side 57.5 feet; and
rear 43 feet. In addition, the approved residence on Lot 1 was shown with a 5-foot setback to the existing
Valley Oak, Tree No. 353 (as described by the Black Mountain Heritage Tree Protection Plan).
Lot 1 is a "flag" lot that is 21,328 square feet in size. Access to the lot is provided via a fee title strip of
land extending to Rolling Hills Drive. The eastern one-third portion of the lot is relatively flat, while the
remaining two-thirds of the lot steeply drops off with a 30-50% slope. The southern portion of the lot
contains an existing Common Area Storm Drain Easement that extends across the entire southern portion
of the property. The Easement was granted to the Silvergate Highlands Owners Association by the
original developer. Based upon a field review by the Public Works Staff, the existing Easement does not
contain any pipes or other structures to convey storm water.
The site plan approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review showed the
distance between drip-line of Tree No. 353, located on the northern portion of the property and the
Easement on the southern portion of the property, to be 68 feet.
In April 2002, during the review of the grading plan for the seven lots, Staff determined that the approved
location of residence on Lot 1 conflicted with Tree No. 353. Specifically, the location of the tree was
between 12 feet and 20 feet beyond the location shown on the site plan the City Council approved as part
of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review.
In March of 2003, the Developer of Brittany Lane/Black Mountain transferred interest to Lot 1 to
Alexander Loukianoff.
Tree Location
As a result of the information provided by the new Applicant's designer, the distance between the
Easement and the drip line of Tree No. 353 is approximately 47 feet. This limited distance significantly
constrains the lot. In order to contend with this limited dimension, the Applicant is proposing the
residence to encroach into the tree canopy, thereby necessitating trimming of the tree.
2
ANALYSIS:
Pro/ect Design:
The proposed residence is well designed and sited. The 2,954 square foot home would complement the
architectural quality of the surrounding neighborhood. The design elements are shown in colored
elevations available at the Planning Commission Meeting and are on file at the Community Development
Department. The residence is sited on the lot to minimize grading and impacts to views. A hip roof has
been incorporated into the design to minimize impacts to views. The home will be obscured by the home
located in front of the subject property. Landscaping plans reviewed by Staff will have adequate
quantities and qualities of trees and shrubs. The project is well designed, well sited and, as conditioned, is
consistent with the required findings contained within the Site Development Review Chapter of the
Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.104.070).
Tree Trimming
The Applicant is proposing the residence encroach into the drip line of Tree No. 353 between 4 and 5 feet
for the pop out of the kitchen (on the northern elevation, see Attachment 2) and 7 feet for the lower level
deck (pictures of the proposed trimming can been seen on page 2 and 3 of Attachment 3). The
Applicant's Arborist, Joseph McNeil, has reviewed the proposed trimming of Tree No. 353. Mr. McNeil
determined that the proposed encroachment from the residence is within the capacity of the tree to
tolerate. The conclusions reached by Mr. McNeil were then peer-reviewed by Michael Santos of
HortScience, the same firm that prepared the original Tree Protection Plan for Brittany Lane/Black
Mountain Site Development Review. After reviewing the plans and Mr. McNeil's report, Mr. Santos
concurred with consulting arborist's conclusions.
The Tree Protection Plan approved as part of the Brittany Lane/Black Mountain SDR called for the
residence to be setback 5 feet from any existing Heritage Tree drip line. The consulting arborist, Mr.
McNeil, states that the largest impact to Tree No. 353 would result from the pruning necessary to maintain
a 5-foot setback from the residence (see page 3 and 4 of Attachment 3). To lessen the impact of the
encroachment of the residence into the drip line of Tree No. 353, the Applicant is proposing to remove as
little foliage as possible of the tree and amend the Tree Protection Plan to reduce the 5-foot setback, to the
minimum necessary to accommodate the residence. The consulting arborist recommends reducing this
setback in order to limit the limit the amount of foliage removal. To limit the impacts to the tree as a
result of pruning and placing the tree closer than 5 feet, the arborist recommends seven specific
mitigations: (1) install tree fencing; (2) place mulch around the roots: (3) provide supplemental irrigation
during the dry season; (4) limit landscaping around the trees; (5) ensure no drainage is directed towards
the tree; (6) ensure proper material disposal during construction; and (7) ensure all pruning is done by a
Certified Arborist.
Staff has reviewed the site plan, the accompanying letter from the consulting arborist and the peer review
of the consulting arborist report. Staff concurs with the proposed limited encroachment of the residence
into the canopy of Tree No. 353 and resulting trimming for the following reasons: (I) the proposed
trimming would be consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance because the trimming would be done in
conformance with standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture; (2) the lot is
significantly constrained with a limited width, due to the storm drain easement in the south and the
location of the drip line of Tree No 353 to the north; (3) the trimming is the minimum necessary to
accommodate a residence that is significantly smaller in size than was previously approved by the Brittany
Lane/Black Mountain Site Development Review; and (4) the trimming of the tree, with the adherence to
the recommended mitigations, is within the capacity of the tree to tolerate.
3
Conformity of Pro/ect with City Council Resolution 82 - 85:
The City Council Resolution 82-85, an SDR approval, set forth conditions of approval, which established
requirements to be fulfilled prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the conditions of
approval established development standards for the custom lots (Lot Numbers: 1, and 7-12, including the
subject property). The conditions that specifically apply to this project are listed below with statements
regarding project conformity:
Condition 3. This condition establishes the development regulations for this development. The
regulations are:
Front yard setback is 20-feet.
Side yard setback is 5-feet minimum and 15-feet aggregate.
Rear yard setback is 20-feet
Lots are subject to guidelines of the R-1 zoning district in respect to development criteria such as
lot coverage, allowable uses, parking requirements, and definition of terms.
The project, as proposed will have the following setbacks from property lines: front property line, 20 feet,
where 20 feet is the minimum; side property line; side property line 17 feet, where 5 feet is the minimum;
side property line, 48 feet, where 5 feet is the minimum; and rear property line property line, 55 feet,
where 20 feet is the minimum. The project, as proposed, would have a lot coverage of 10.8%, where 35%
is the maximum. The proposed residence complies with all requirements contained with condition 3 and
with the requirements of the R-1 zoning district.
Condition 4. Site grading aggregating in excess of fifty cubic shall not occur until a Site Development
Review (SDR) application is processed according to Section 8.95.0 (now section 8.104) of the Zoning
Ordinance (Site Development Review). Site grading from this project will exceed fifty cubic yards and
therefore a Site Development Review is required.
Condition 6. "The height of custom or modified homes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet as
measured perpendicularly from natural grade. Skirt heights screening undeveloped, non-living space
for custom or modified homes (measured from natural grade to finished floor elevations) shall not
exceed a maximum of nine 9 feet. Deviation and/or refinement of these standards may be considered
as part of the Site Development Review process covering these lots."
Height Limit. This condition stipulated the height limit and the methodology for measuring
height for the customs lots within the development. The height limit was not to exceed 25 feet
and the methodology for measuring height was, (a parallel line) measured 25-feet
perpendicular from natural grade (see Figure 1 for illustration).
Section i#ustrating perpendicular measurement of height limit
Figure 1.
4
Skirt Height. This condition applies a maximum skirt height of 9 feet as measured from natural
grade. A skirt is the area below the lowest living floor, which is utilized for support of a structure.
Staff reviewed the project plans and determined that the residence is in conformance with the both the
height limit and skirt height limit as defined by Condition 6.
Condition 16. This Condition requires that project grading performed within 25-feet of the drip line of
existing onsite or offsite trees shall be addressed by a horticultural report and the recommendations and
findings of that report incorporated into the grading and improvement plans of this project.
A recommended condition of approval would require that the applicant/developer guarantee the protection
of the Heritage Trees on the subject property through placement of a cash bond or other security deposit in
the amount of equal to the valuation of the trees as determined by the City's selected arborist (See page 5
of Attachment 5, Dublin Municipal Code § 5.60.100.). The cash bond or other security shall be retained
for a reasonable period of time following the occupancy of the residence, not to exceed one year. The
cash bond or security is to be released upon satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that
the Heritage Trees have not been endangered. The cash bond or security deposit shall be forfeited as a
civil penalty for any unauthorized removal or destruction of a Heritage Tree.
A recommended condition of approval would require a statement to be prepared and recorded on the title
of the subject property, with the Alameda County Recorders Office, which states that Heritage Trees are
located on the subject property and a Tree Protection Plan has been prepared and any damage to the trees
will result in penalties as required by the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance.
As a result of conditions established as part of the Tree Protection Plan and the subsequent mitigations
recommended by the consulting arborist (Mr. McNeil) incorporated into the conditions of approval and
the additional conditions of approval ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, the long-term protection of
the Heritage Trees, Staff finds the proposed project is consistent with Condition 16 and the Heritage Tree
Ordinance.
Condition 19. This condition requires the developer to confer with the local postal authorities to
determine the type of mail receptacles necessary. A condition of approval of this SDR will address this
issue. Staff finds this project consistent with Condition 19.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The environmental impacts of this project were addressed under the Negative Declaration prepared for the
PA 85-035 Hatfield Development Corporation Planned Development Rezone, Annexation and Site
Development Review of which the subject lots were a part. The Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City
of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
CONCLUSION:
The project is in conformity with the Dublin General Plan, City Council Resolution 82-85, the Zoning
Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Ordinance. The home is well sited and designed. Impacts to views will
be minimized.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open public hearing, receive Staff presentation and public testimony, question Staff, Applicant and the
public, close public hearing and adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Site Development
Review, subject to the conditions listed.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
Alexander Loukianoff
12 Kirk Court
Alamo, CA 94507
LOCATION/ASSESSORS
PARCEL NUMBER:
11299 Rolling Hills Drive
941-2775-030
EXISTING ZONING:
R-1
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residemial
6