Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 2, 2006 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CHIMNEY TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE SETBACK; LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER; 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE; 9104-OS-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 2005) FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner -pf APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director �C. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission Approve the requested Conditional Development Permit and Variance, subject to the recommended conditions and findings of approval in Attachments 1, 2, and 3. BACKGROUND This application for a Conditional Development Permit for a new residence and setback variances was continued from the Planning Commission hearing on September 8, 2005 at the request of the applicant. The applicant had originally proposed to construct a new two-story residence with an attached garage that encroaches up to 10' within the east and west property line setbacks. When the Commission reviewed the project on September 8, 2005, they had indicated that findings could not be made to approve the building setback variance. (See minutes from the September 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, Attachment 7) On December 9, 2005, the applicant submitted revised plans for the project. Per the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant redesigned the new residence to comply with the setback requirements. However, due to the small available building area on this lot, a 2' x 2.5' fireplace chimney (2' x 11.5' at the base) will encroach up to 2' into the side yard setback and would require a variance. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 0.491 acres Net Lot Area: 0.491 acres Average Slope: 6.3% Lot Unit Factor: 0.491 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofDigiovarrni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 2 of 10 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sq. ft) Maximum Existing Existing Existing Proposed Remaining Total with Permit without Permit Development 7,010 13,166* 5,835 7,331 7,010 0 Floor 4,910 3,692* 1,976 1,716 4,360 550 • Includes Development and Floor Areas installed without permits by previous owner Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Development Permit for a 4,360 sq. ft. two-story residence with an attached garage. The first floor of the new residence has 2,945 sq. ft. of floor area and contains a living room, family room, dining room, kitchen, one bedroom, two bathrooms, and a four -car garage. The second floor has 1,415 sq. ft. of living area and includes three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and an office. Proposed exterior materials include painted stucco, wood windows, and mission tile roof. The proposed project meets the height, floor area and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 27' and the overall building height is 29'. Per section 10-1.505.b.2 of the Municipal Code, roof eaves are allowed to extend up to 4 feet into any front, side, or rear yard where the options for siting of structures are substantially constrained by existing natural features of the lot (e.g. steep slopes, unusual lot configuration or lot size). Because the building site is long and narrow, the roof eaves of the house will extend approximately one foot into the side yard setback. Although the house has been designed to fit within the allowable building area, an exterior chimney covering approximately 19.5 sq. ft. of development area on the north side of the house will extend into the setback and requires a variance. Front (South) Elevation Side (West) Elevation I��IIIIIIIIIII 111111 III li��ll 1 iJ Front (South) Elevation Side (West) Elevation Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive Febmary 2, 2006 Page 3 of 10 Variance The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 2' x 2.5' fireplace chimney (2' x 11.5' at the base) to encroach up to two (2) feet in the side yard setback. In order to approve the Variance, the Planning Commission must find there are exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances on the lot that create a practical hardship for the applicant to comply with the provisions of the Code. Due to the small lot size and the required setbacks, the building area for this property is limited to 47'W x 130'L. The applicant had redesigned the house, siting the north and south walls of the two-story home at exactly 30' from the property lines. However, in order to place the chimney 30' from the property line, the entire north side of the house will have to step back from the side property line by an additional two feet, placing an unnecessary hardship on the property owners. Furthermore, the intent of setbacks is to provide a buffer area between developed residential properties and streets. Allowing a chimney to encroach 2' within the setbacks would not substantially reduce the open space area between properties and degrade the rural appearance of the neighborhood. If the Commission decides to approve the variance request, findings for approval should be cited. (Attachment 3) If the Commission decides to deny the variance request, staff should be directed to prepare findings for denial and make the appropriate revisions to the conditions of approval. Driveway & Puking The existing circular driveway will be removed and replaced with a new 14' wide driveway. All four required parking spaces with standard dimensions of 10' x 20' each are provided in the garage. Outdoor Li tine The applicant is proposing sixteen (16) exterior lights on the new residence. The proposed light fixtures have frosted glass cover to minimize glare and ensure that the source of the lighting is not directly visible from off-site. Trees & Landscauina The existing landscaping on the property consists of various trees and shrubs lining the east and west property lines. No heritage oak tree was identified on the property. The rest of the site is sparsely planted with several trees and ornamental plantings around the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 4 of 10 house. One 8" tree will be removed as part of this site development proposal. All existing perimeter landscaping will be preserved. A landscape screening plan will be required after final framing of the proposed residence and all landscaping required for screening or erosion control will have to be planted prior to final inspection. (Condition #2) Grading and Drainage The project involves minimal grading (less than 50 cubic yards) which will be exported from the site. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department is requiring the construction of a standard access driveway. Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends a pathways in -lieu fee. The Environmental Design Committee has commented that mitigation will be required between the homes. In addition, the pool equipment will have to be enclosed. Neighbor Comments The neighbor at 12401 Hilltop Drive has submitted a letter of support for the project. (Attachment 9) CEOA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Findings for approval of the Conditional Development Permit 3. Findings for approval of the Variance 4. Site Map 5. Worksheet #2 6. Planning Commission Staff report and attachments, September 8, 2005 7. Minutes from the September 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 5 of 10 8. Planning Commission Staff report and attachment, October 13, 2005 9. Letter from neighbor at 12401 Hilltop Drive dated December 26, 2005 10. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevation, section, roof, and lighting plans cc: Fiona Sander and Joe Digiovanni 12380 Hilltop Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanai and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 6 of 10 ATTACFIMENT1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER, 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE File # 104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR A. 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 and prior to the time of the pre - rough framing inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the applicant shall submit a landscape screening and erosion control plan for review by the Site Development Committee. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. Particular attention shall be paid to landscaping that will help break up the view of the house from the adjacent properties with the reduced setbacks. 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. 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 are to 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 of the inspection. 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. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofDigiovaani and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 7 of 10 5. Prior to requesting the foundation 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 are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence 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 Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection. 6. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection. 7. The decomposed granite paths along the edge of the driveway shall not exceed 4'. 8. The existing pool equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise mitigation and screening. 9. Air conditioning units (if utilized) shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines. 10. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved plans. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 8 of 10 11. Fire retardant roofing (Class A or alternate if approved by the Building Official) is required for all new construction. 12. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 13. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 14. All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 15. Two sets of a final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The final grading and drainage plans shall show a backflow prevention device for the sewer lateral since the fmish floor elevation is lower than the upstream sanitary sewer manhole's rim elevation. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the grading and drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans prior to final inspection 16. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall fust be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 17. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofDigiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 9 of 10 18. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. 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. 19. 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 Hilltop Drive 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 most be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 20. 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 ofplana for building plan check 21. 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. 22. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. A copy of a permit from the City of Los Altos shall be required to be submitted to the Town prior to submittal ofplans for building plan check Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 10 of 10 23. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $46.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 24. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. CONDITION NUMBERS 15, 18, 19, 20, 22 AND 23 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 23 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after February 25, 2006, provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 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 Conditional Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until February 2, 2007). 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 yews. ATTACHMENT 2 RECONDAENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER, 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE File # 104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including ag structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, wags and fences and other such features as may be require by this chapter. The new two-story residence on this .49 acre parcel has been designed to fit within the floor area, development area, building height limits, and site topography. Four required parking spaces are provided and located outside the setbacks. However, due to the small size of the lot, a chimney on the north side of the house will encroach up to 2' within the side yard setback and require a variance. 2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the sue, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to remove all un -permitted structures installed by the previous owner and reduce the excessive development area to below the MDA. The existing single story home currently encroaching in the north and south property line setbacks by up to 10' will be replaced by a new two-story residence that complies with the Town's setback requirements except for a chimney on the north side of the house. The increased building setback will provide additional open space between the homes and is compatible with the rural character of the site and the neighborhood. 3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land farms. No existing trees and shrubs are proposed to be removed except for one 8" tree located within the building site. A landscape screening plan required under Condition #2 will ensure that existing trees and shrubs will be supplemented by new landscaping to adequately screen the new residence, soften its visual impact, and preserve the rural character of the site. There will be minimal grading because the site is essentially flat. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and polices set forth in the Site Development Ordinance. The proposed residence is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development Ordinance except for a chimney that covers approximately 19.5 square feet of development area encroaching into the side yard setback by up to 2' which requires a variance. ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CHIMNEY ENCROACHMENT IN THE SIDE SETBACK LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER, 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE File # 104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR Because of exceptional and 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 variance request is to locate a 2' x 2.5' chimney (2' x 11.5' at the base) covering 19.5 sq. ft. of development area within the side yard setback. Due to the substandard lot size and the required setbacks, the width of the building site is 47', substantially less than the width of most one acre properties. The applicant has designed the footprint of the new residence to comply with the required setbacks. However, in order to place the chimney 30' from the property line, the entire north side of the house will have to step back from the side property line by an additional two feet, placing an unnecesary hardship on the property owners. 2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The granting of the variance would serve the intent and purpose of the Zoning ordinance because the applicant is substantially reducing the existing nonconformity, on the property. The building setbacks will increase from the existing 20' to 30' to be in compliance with Code requirements. The applicant will not be granted special privileges not currently enjoyed by other surrounding property owners because the two foot setback reduction is for a minor accessory feature (fireplace chimney) and a number of surrounding properties currently have existing legal nonconforming structures encroaching within the setbacks. 3. 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 granting of this variance does not appear to be materially detrimental or injurious to other property owners. The encroachment of a 2' x 2.5' chimney (2' x Variance Findings Lands of DiGiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive February 2, 2006 Page 2 of 2 11.5' at the base) will not substantially increase the bulk of the new residence and will not result in negative visual impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of properly. The granting of the variance will not allow a use or activity that is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. The use of a chimney on a single-family home is consistent with the residential zoning designation of the property. ATTACHMENT M� VN31V00VW 31 y Ell sv d a ..i ---r... sus>• � � � INI P'�• "' 1i n � m, A QI a o " *10-____ e SI nm a. O_ L & _______.--r-.___➢ter ___ 2Q� J vo-sor-1-.9----_.__-.r_ _ i bI AIP Il "sl a� A,m_'YQ dOl'l IH D a Y x M Q ri a � Q � U W F v0) C v, y mN c= c W) O 0 10 V_ � 6 O N V c J ATTACHMENT M� VN31V00VW 31 y Ell sv d a ..i ---r... sus>• � � � INI P'�• "' 1i n � m, A QI a o " *10-____ e SI nm a. O_ L & _______.--r-.___➢ter ___ 2Q� J vo-sor-1-.9----_.__-.r_ _ i bI AIP Il "sl a� A,m_'YQ dOl'l IH RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT - WONT 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941zM� $O 5 WORKSHEET #'L TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Fio,a r -Toe_ PROPERTY ADDRESS 123 ao H', 11 fio p prl ve- CALCULATEDBY F"ona DATE 9 pec OS 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. House and Garage (from Pan 3. A.) B. Decking C. Driveway and Parking (Measured.1W along centerline) D. Patios and Walkways E. Tennis Court R Pool and Decking G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) H. Any other coverage TOTALS Existing Proposed Total (AdditionstrMcdons) 2(033 +y3b0/-2(033 3 �O p 0 o/0 0 C yGgg +1335,'_yggg 1335 34b9 �3cy/-34tD9 �-�!'24� 01 0/0 10 1-1 IOS9 c�-1o59 O o C/o O (31(D (n —(vi S0 7014 F+ Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings Existing Proposed Total (AddirionsMeletions) (D a3 +19.5 2(033 1935 p +I41S/O 1 H I S C +1010/0 1016 a. Ist Floor 1 o S 9 b. 2nd Floor o c. Attic and Basement o TOTALS 3 9 2 Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet #1) o/-losq O 0/0 O o/0 O + (a(o$ _ �3(10 4910 sg{+ � TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY "\` " DATE 25-o L Rev. 320/02 Page 1 of I Town of Los Altos Hills ATTACHMENT TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 8, 2005 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE HOUSE AND PARKING TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS; LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER; 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE; #104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner, APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director C.G. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Deny the requested Conditional Development Permit and variance based on the findings in Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVE Offer the applicant the option to continue the project and return with a house plan that conforms to the Town's setback requirements. The subject property is a .49 acre parcel located on the south side of Hilltop Drive. The lot was created as part of the Hillhaven subdivision in 1930, prior to the Town's incorporation in 1956. The property is nearly flat with an average slope of 6.3% and a LUF of 0.491. Because the existing single -story house was constructed in 1953, prior to the establishment of the Town's zoning and site development guidelines, it is legal nonconforming and encroaches up to 10' in the north and south property line setbacks. On April 4, 1974, the Planning Commission approved a variance for a swimming pool to encroach 15' into the side and rear yard setbacks. A search of Town records indicates that except for the house, the circular driveway, and the swimming pool, all other existing structures on the property including an addition to the main house, a guest house, detached garage, pool cabana, and other hardscape improvements appear to have been installed by the previous owner without benefit of Town approval. The applicant is proposing to remove all the existing development on the property except for the legal nonconforming swimming pool and construct a new two-story residence with Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 2 of 7 an attached garage. The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow the new residence and parking areas to encroach within the front and both side yard setbacks. As required by Section 10-1.1104 of the Zoning Code, this application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. A Conditional Development Permit is required any time a proposed project is located on a property with a Lot Unit Factor (LUF) of 0.50 or less. Pursuant to Section 10-1.1107(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission, in reviewing a Conditional Development Permit application, determines whether the proposed development meet the objectives and standards of the Town. The evaluation of the Conditional Development Permit should include consideration of the size and design of the project with respect to the size, shape and topography of the site. CDP lots are not automatically entitled to MDA and MFA numbers and may be subject to conditions that include reductions to the allowable MDA and MFA. (LAHMC 10-1.1107(3).b) In addition, the Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate the proposal including building siting, floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. The evaluation of the proposed variance should include many of the same items, concurrently evaluating the physical site conditions which result in an undue hardship on the property. Recommended findings for the Conditional Development Permit and Variance are included in this staff report. (Attachments #1 and #2) DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 0.491 acres Net Lot Area: 0.491 acres Average Slope: 6.3% Lot Unit Factor. 0.491 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Existing Existing Existing Proposed Remaining Total with Permit without Permit Development 7,010 13,166* 5,835 7,331 7,004 6 Floor 4,910 3,692* 1,976 1,716 4,647 263 * Includes Development and Floor Areas installed without permits by previous owner Staff Report to the Planning Lommission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 3 of 7 Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Development Permit and variance for a 4,647 sq. ft. two-story residence with an attached garage. The new residence will be located within the approximate footprint of the existing house. The first floor of the new residence has 3,675 sq. ft. of floor area and contains a foyer, living room, family room, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a two -car garage. The second floor has 972 sq. ft. of living area and includes two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and an office. Proposed exterior materials include painted stucco, wood windows, and mission file roof. Solar panels will be installed on the roof as an energy saving measure for the home. The proposed building meets the height, floor area and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The maximum building height on a vertical plane and the overall building height is 27'. The upper floor will be located a minimum of 40' from the front and 30' from the side property lines. However, 1,251 sq. ft. of floor area on the lower floor will encroach within the east and west setbacks by up to 10'. Driveway & Parking The existing circular driveway will be removed and replaced with a new 14' wide driveway. All proposed parking spaces have standard dimensions of 10' x 20'. Two of the four required parking spaces are provided in the garage. Two additional outdoor parking spaces are located in front of the new house and encroach up to 26' in the front and side yard setbacks. Variances The applicant is requesting a variance to allow portions of the garage, kitchen, family room, and bedrooms to encroach up to 10 feet in east and west (side) setbacks. In addition, a variance is required for two outdoor parking spaces in the north and west (front and side) setbacks. Staff has reviewed the proposal and does not find substantial evidence to support the necessary findings to recommend approval of the variance. Building Setback Variance: Strict application of the setback requirements would not deprive the applicant from constructing a 4,647 sq. ft. new residence on the property. Not being granted the privilege to build a new home within the setbacks would not constitute denial of reasonable use of the property because it is possible to design the new residence to meet the minimum setback requirements. The applicant already enjoys the benefit of a Town approved variance allowing the swimming pool in the setback which further increases the available building area outside the setbacks to accommodate the additional floor area of the new residence. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 4 of 7 In the past, variances have not been granted when grounds for an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances (Finding #1) is solely based on substandard lot area. Most recently, on January 27, 2005, the Planning Commission denied a variance request for building setbacks on a CDP lot by finding that a substandard lot is not necessarily a hardship and approving the setback variance would set a precedent. (Lands of Eshghi and Doroodian, #168-04-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR, 1/27/05) A comparison of the two lots indicates that they are similar in size, shape, and topography. Lot Size 0.491 ac. 0.455 ac. Average Slope 6.3% 3.8% LUF 0.491 0.455 Lot Dimensions 107' x 200' 122' x 145' Building Area Outside Setbacks 47'x 130'/ 6,110 sq. £t. 52' x 85' / 4,420 sq. ft. MFA 4,910 sq. ft. 4,550 sq. ft. MDA 7,010 sq. ft. 6,647 sq. ft. Proposed FA 4,647 sq. ft. 4,323 sq. ft. Proposed DA 7,004 sq. ft. 6,400 sq. ft. FA in Setbaek 1,251 sq. ft. (prop.) 0 sq. ft. (approved 4/14/05) DA in Setback 2,061 sq. ft. (existing and prop.) 582 sq. ft. (approved 4/14/05) Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 5 of 7 Except for the size and dimensions of the lot, no exceptional circumstances or conditions are present at the subject site which do not apply generally to other properties in the neighborhood. The subject parcel is a flat, rectangular shaped, substandard sized lot. There are a total of five (5) CDP lots within the subdivision along Hilltop Drive that has similar lot dimensions and characteristics. None has unique characteristics or topographic features such as steep slopes, unusual lot shape, or creeks which present development constraints that necessitate a variance. In addition, at least seventy (70) CDP lots constrained by substandard lot size (0.5 acre or less) are located within the Town. —SYMME 4 wx S 1` e iS % . c Nr p' Pro bite s� 4•••" �d: e Q- Similar properties along Hilltop Drive Granting a variance for building setback on a flat, rectangular lot with no other topographic constraints would set a precedent and opens the possibility of future requests to allow reduced structure setbacks based solely on substandard lot sizes. Parking Setback Variance: Variances for surface parking areas on CDP lots have been granted by the Commission in the past (Lands of Unlu, #224-04-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-CDP, 3/10/05; Lands of Eshghi and Domodian, #168-04-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR, 4/14/05). While a setback for surface parking areas may be warranted in this case, it is recommended that the surface parking area be located a minimum of 5' from the property line to allow for adequate landscape screening between the properties. Neiehbor Comments The applicant has submitted a letter signed by owners of thirteen (13) neighboring properties supporting the project. (Attachment 8) The neighbor across the street at 12401 Hilltop Drive has also submitted a letter of support. (Attachment 9) Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 6 of 7 As discussed above, staff was not able to determine that an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance is applicable to this property. Furthermore, it should be noted that approval of this variance would set a precedent for utilizing substandard lot size or width as grounds for satisfying the finding for undue hardship in granting setback reductions. Therefore, staff is not able to make the required Findings for approving the project as proposed and recommends denial of the Conditional Development Permit and variance. Draft Findings of approval for the Conditional Development Permit and variance provided by the applicant is included as Attachments 5 and 6. Outdoor Lighting The applicants are proposing twelve (12) exterior lights on the new residence. The proposed light fixtures have frosted glass cover to minimize glare and ensure that the source of the lighting is not directly visible from off-site. Trees & Landscaping The existing landscaping on the property consists of various trees and shrubs lining the east and west property lines. No heritage oak tree was identified on the property. The rest of the site is sparsely planted with several trees and ornamental plantings around the house. One 8" tree will be removed as part of this site development proposal. All existing perimeter landscaping will be preserved and the owner has indicated that at least six new fruit trees will be planted on the east and west side of the new residence to help mitigate the view of the structure from neighbors' views. Grading and Drainage The project involves minimal grading (less than 50 cubic yards) which will be exported from the site. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department is requiring the construction of a standard 14' wide access driveway. Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends a pathways in -lieu fee Staff Report to the Planning Conunission Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 7 of 7 The Environmental Design Committee has commented that mitigation will be required between the homes. In addition, the pool equipment will have to be enclosed. CEOA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines L Findings for denial of the Variance 2. Findings for denial of the Conditional Development Permit 3. Site Map 4. Worksheet #2 5. Findings for approval of the Variance prepared by the applicant dated August 12, 2005 6. Findings for approval of the Conditional Development Pemilt prepared by the applicant dated August 12, 2005 7. Recommended project conditions if variance is approved 8. Letter and signatures of neighbors within 500' of property dated May 3, 2005 9. Letter from neighbors at 12401 Hilltop Drive dated August 22, 2005 10. Recommendations from Environmental Design Committee dated June 15, 2005 11. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated June 9, 2005 12. Recommendations from Pathways Committee dated June 27, 2005 13. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevation, section, roof, and lighting plans cc: Fiona Sander and Joe Digiovanni 12380 Hilltop Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW BUILDING ENCROACHMENT IN THE SIDE SETBACKS LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER, 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE File # 104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR Because of exceptional and 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 strict application of the Zoning Code does not preclude the applicant from constructing a new residence on this property. There is adequate space on the property to construct the new residence entirely outside the required setbacks. In fact, the applicant already enjoys the benefit of a Town approved variance that allows the pool to encroach within the side and rear setback thus further increasing the available building area for the house outside the setbacks. Therefore, the property owners are not deprived of privileges for the reasonable use of the land because it is possible to construct a new residence of the same square footage on the property which would comply with the Town's setback requirements. In addition, this property is not unique in that four (4) other properties with similar size and characteristics are located in the immediate vicinity within the neighborhood and at least seventy (70) CDP lots constrained by substandard lot size are located within the Town. 2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The granting of the variance would allow the applicant to enjoy a special privilege not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. All residential parcels in Town are subject to the same Zoning and Site Development standards, including restrictions regarding development in setbacks. Granting of this variance would allow the applicant to enjoy the benefit of constructing their house in a setback area, a special privilege that other surrounding property owner do not have. 3. 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. Variance Findings Lands of DiGiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 2 of 2 The granting of a variance will be in conflict with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code to maintain adequate open space between properties and to preserve the Town's rural appearance. Furthermore, the granting of a variance for building setback on a flat, rectangular lot with no other topographic constraints would set a precedent and opens the possibility of future requests to allow reduced setbacks based solely on substandard lot sizes. 4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of property. The granting of the variance would authorize a use in a setback area that is not expressly authorized by the Town's Zoning Code. The intent of setbacks is to provide a buffer area between developed residential properties and streets. Allowable structure types are limited to 6' fences and minor ornamental garden structures less than 6' tall. Locating the home within the setbacks would reduce the open space area between properties and is not consistent with the low-density residential zoning designation of the property and surrounding properties. ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER, 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE File # 104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development including all structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences and other such features as may be require by this chapter. The new residence has been designed to comply with the floor area, development area, and building height limits. However, portions of the new residence and proposed outdoor parking spaces are located in the setback and require a variance. 2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to remove all un -permitted structures installed by the previous owner and reduce the excessive development area to below the MDA. However, the new residence has been designed to encroach 10' within the required setbacks. The reduced setback will lessen the open space between the homes and affect the rural character of the site and the neighborhood. 3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms. There is minimal vegetation on the property except for a few trees and some perimeter shrubs along the east and west property lines. There will be minimal grading because the site is essentially flat. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and polices set forth in the Site Development Ordinance. The proposed new residence does not meet the setback requirements established in the Town's Zoning and Site Development Code and staff is unable to make the required findings to allow the variance. ATTACHMENT 3 M y �3ag M XM� --- VN3lVaSVW ,n— _,w,-'3Atl m = i, m • Go. �PY� - o ti nl M 11 a 09 9t A a _ J J - m y I$ oI d N e ----- - - I .m114x„ NI O i J Y N K. NI LLeepp I i6LY5� .-ySEP -� _ Jp w1 N _ S e = -p _ "cord NI NI n bl SII '�t'— dO1llIH a D O x co CO)a N L [L a 0) ;; 0 C7 W U) c ui a. RC a r LO0 0 1O V_ 0 O N 'O c J ATTACHMENT 3 M y �3ag M XM� --- VN3lVaSVW ,n— _,w,-'3Atl m = i, m • Go. �PY� - o ti nl M 11 a 09 9t A a _ J J - m y I$ oI d N e ----- - - I .m114x„ NI O i J Y N K. NI LLeepp I i6LY5� .-ySEP -� _ Jp w1 N _ S e = -p _ "cord NI NI n bl SII '�t'— dO1llIH a TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ATTACHMENT Al PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road •Los Altos tills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160 WORKSHEET #2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Fio,a r 5oa flig iOvannl PROPERTY ADDRESS 12380 H.11 -Von Dr1ve- CALCULATED BY F�onA D;31,ovo�n DATE 12 Auto 0S 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. House and Garage (from Pan 3. A.) Decking Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) Patios and Walkways Tennis Court Pool and Decking Existing Proposed Total (AMido nlDeletimu) 2(033 +4 btil/—Z(033 46`4-7 O O/C) O YgBR 34 b9 0 ton Accessory Buildings (from Pan B) 1059 Any other coverage O TOTALS t 3 1 bto +1200/-4988 1200 + IV0/-3Vb9 14 U o/o O O/0 10 (-1 O/-I0S9 0 0/0 0 - (o l b 2 i 00 c4 c. Attic and Basement Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 7 O I O sq + 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (SQUAREFOOTAGE) TOTALS 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FoOTAGE) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attie and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Ploor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement Existing Existing 2 433 0 O 0 1OS9 0 0 TOTALS 3692 Maximum floor Area Allowed - MPA (from Worksheet #1) Proposed Total Proposed Total (Additiom ledons) +214bt�2b33 2(o ro 1 +912 /O 9-7 2- 0/0/-10-S9 -IOS9 0 0/0 0 0/0 0 +4$¢9s'S tiia4� 49)O sqf+ TOWN USE ONLY I CHP.CI(ED BY I DATE 771 Rev. 32402 Page I of 1 Town of los Altos IOUs "'CEIVED VARIANCE FINDINGS AUG 2 4 ATTACH 6' TOWN Of LOS ALTOS HILLS 1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications: a. Narrow Allowable Footprint: The extraordinary circumstances of our property relate mostly to its size: it is a''/2 acre parcel, while 29 of the 31 properties within a 50011 radius are I acre or more. Our 107ft frontage, combined with 30ft side setbacks, leaves only 4711 in width for our front elevation; essentially constraining us into building an unsightly 2 story "shcebox". Other [larger] properties are less constrained in their allowable development footprints and can enjoy more freedom in designing their home. So strict application of the ordinance would constrain us into building a less than desirable structure for those living inside, and it would also not be consistent with the adjoining home styles on Hilltop Drive and generally the rest of the homes in rural Los Altos Hills. So in not granting us the Variance, we would be deprived of design privileges other [larger -sized] nearby properties under identical zoning classifications already enjoy. b. Equivalent Neighbor Setbacks: The parcels immediately adjoining our property, 12370 & 12390 Hilltop Drive, are very similar to ours in both size and shape, and both the homes on each already encroach on their respective side setbacks as well: the home at 12370 Hilltop Dr enjoys a -10ft setback (much more than the 30ft required setback or the 20ft setbacks we are asking far), and the home at 12390 Hilltop Dr enjoys a -2011 setback. Therefore, in not granting us this Variance, we would be deprived of side setback privileges other identically -sized properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications already enjoy. c. Inflexible Boundaries: Since the parcel adjoining ours to the North, 12390 Hilltop Dr, is located on the comer of Hilltop Dr & Hillview Dr, they have the option of facing the house front to Hillview Dr. This affords this similarly sized property the option of more pleasing front elevation design. Since our property boundaries cannot accommodate this desiga flexibility, we are deprived of design option privileges other identically -sized properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications already enjoy. d. Tree Preservation: Since the property was developed in the 1950's, most of it already bas very mature landscaping: 12 large &small trees (ranging from 4in to 44in in diameter), many bushes, plants and flowers. The proposed development takes this natural state into account by erecting the structure such that a minimum of the existing landscaping is altered. A structure not requiring a side setback variance and built not to alter existing landscaping - specifically such that the 2 backyard trees and the 1 front yard tree (see Pictures 1, 2 & 3) are not be destroyed - would necessitate an awkwardly -shaped home at both the back & front elevations. Therefore, the desire to minimize disruption to the existing topography deprives our property of available footprint privileges others in the area can enjoy. 2. That upon granting of the Variance, the Latent & purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property corners: a. The intent of the ordinance is to permit reasonable development of land while preserving the natural scenic character of the town, protecting the natural amenities and providing for the safety, benefit and welfare of its citizens by establishing minimum standards and requirements. Our proposed development would remain true to the rural residential character of the community by not compromising: 1) land grading, 2) drainage & erosion control, 3) siting of buildings, 4) planting of landscaping, 5) installation of driveways, 6) preservation ofridgelines, 7) Master Path Plan implementation and 8) outdoor lighting. Therefore, since our proposed development actually supports & even enhances these same principles, granting of the Variance to us would still serve the intent & purpose of the ordinance. b. As already staled above, granting of the Variance would not allow us to enjoy any privileges not already enjoyed by the properties in the vicinity that me either larger in size or even the same in size: those larger properties already enjoy the freedom to design a home with a pleasing footprint (from both outside & inside perspectives), and those smaller in size (the two directly adjacent properties) already each enjoy side setbacks ofat least the same as our request or even more. Moreover, these neighboring properties could 12380 Hilltop Drive Page I of 2 VARIANCE FINDINGS 12 Aug 05 enjoy more design freedom in general: ie changing front elevation direction, or having a less constrained footprint due to less on-site mature landscaping. 3. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or was within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. a. The existing structure has been encroachiag to the side setbacks by the exact amount we are proposing for over 50 years now, in fact, the home was built to these side setbacks in 1953, prior to the town's 1956 incorporation date. Since the public welfare has not been damaged during this time, and since the property, improvements or uses within the vicinity have not been injured as a result of this encroachment during this time as well, it is reasonable to assert that granting of the Variance for this same encroachment would not be injurious in the future as well. b. Chanting of this variance will allow the home to be designed such that the 2°a floor has no side -facing windows — on either side. This will not only not be detrimental to public welfare, it will enhance it by providing substantial neighbor privacy. 4. That the Variance will not allow awe or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance: The Zoning ordinance was adopted to protect and guide the growth and expansion of the Town in an orderly manner true to the rural residential character of the community. Granting of this Variance will not only not allow us a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by this ordinance, it will actually better allow us to keep our proposed development more consistent with the spirit of the ordinance: to slay true to the rural residential character of the Los Altos Hills community. Picture 3 —Backyard Tree #2 12380 Hilltop Drwe Page 2 of 2 'IECEIVED CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AUG 2 4 WnACHMc 1 /„ TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS �l' 1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls & fences and other such features as may be required by this chapter. Based on the topography (.49 LUF) and size (21408sgft) of our property, we have a MFA of 4910sgft and a MDA of 7010sgft; our proposed home has a FA of 4647sgft and a DA of 7004sgft — within both of these limits. At a max peak height of 2711, am home complies with the 27ft roof maximum height limit. We have provided not only 2 covered and 2 uncovered parking spaced as required, we have provided 2 additional covered spaces. Most all of the already present mature landscaping and trees (11 of 12) will remain and even be augmented with more vegetation. We are else over -complying with both the front and rear setback guidelines: 1) our 1" floor is 50ft from the front property line, and our 2v° floor is 7611 from the front property line (40ft is required), and 2) our 1° floor is 72ft from the rear property line, and our 20° floor is 103ft from the rear property line (30ft is required). Note: our 2" floor is 30ft from the side property lines (30ft is required). 2. The size & design of the proposed structures cream a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. 94% of the surrounding neighborhood (defined by a 50011 radius) are lAc parcels or greater, and the homes are appropriately larger in size. The majority of the homes have 2 stories, and many have been remodeled or even rebuilt. Our proposed home would be well within the range of homes just described in terms of both size and height, if not even more modest. Therefore, the size & design of our proposed development would create that proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape & topography of our site as well as in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation & tree removal, excessive & unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms. The rural character of the site in terms of vegetation and tree removal has not only been preserved by our proposed development, it will be substantially enhanced relative to the development currently occupying the site: 686sgft ofnon-permitted & non -conforming FA, and 6162sgft of non -permitted DA will be removed. This area will then be populated with trees and vegetation. Also, I1 of the 12 mature trees on the property will be retained, and at least 6 fruit -bearing trees will be planted new. As much of the general existing backyard and front yard vegetation will be retained in the proposed development as well. There will be no excessive grading or alteration of natural land forms, in fact, our proposed development will not alter any of the existing land formations already in place as the site plan clearly shows our desire to essentially stay within the footprint of the existing structure. Therefore, the rural character of the site will be preserved by not only minimizing, but by eliminating excessive & =sightly grading and alteration of land forms. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all the regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development Ordinance. Our proposed development substantially complies with all the regulations & policies act forth in the Site Development Ordinance, as well as with the purpose of the Ordinance itself. to permit reasonable development of land while preserving the natural scenic character of the town, protecting the natural amenities, and providing for the safety, benefit and welfare of its citizens. Our proposed development accomplishes this by. 1) minimizing property disruption by remitting much of the existing footprint so that I I of the 12 mature trees, especially the 3 within the a0owable development footprint, on the property are retained, and almost no new grading is required, 2) enhancing water drainage & combating street erosion by removal of 47% of hard-wape and installation of swale system dissipating the water on-site 30ft from property line, 12380 hilltop Drive Pagel oft CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 12 Aug 05 3) maintaining consistency with the existing homes in the area by creating a pleasing front elevation (vs a possible'shoebox' structure), 4) reducing setback -specific area 'bulk' by removal of 83% of development area (excluding floor area) in the setback, and removal of 35% of floor area in the setback, 5) reducing overall floor area'bulk' by eliminating all extraneous structures (all located in side & rear setbacks): cottage, front shed, rear shed, barbecue/bar & gazebo, 6) exhibiting appropriate sensitivity to a sub -standard lot by requesting no more than the allowed MFA, MDA, front setback, rear setback or height limits, 7) positively offsetting the side setback request by proposing a 5011 front setback (vs the allowed 40ft) and a 72ft rear setback (vs the allowed 30ft), 8) increasing the existing 'effective' side setback from 16.5ft to 20ft by removing the supported 3.5 ft eaves currently protruding into the 20ft side setbacks, 9) removing unsightly street/driveway parking of vehicles by creating 4 covered parking spaces via a 4 -car garage & 2 uncovered spaces, 10) providing a 76% reduction in driveway area by replacing the existing 4988sgft driveway with a 1200sgft driveway, 11) enhancing landscaping by planting at least 6 new frail trees m neighbor privacy screening 12) incorporating clean energy principles by inclusion of solar power, and 13) demonstrating environmental consciousness by using salvaged clay roof tiles typically lasting a lifetime. This proposed development is clearly reasonable for the site, preserves the rural character of the surrounding neighborhood, protects the natural amenities and provides safety & benefit for those living within the structure as well as those living outside of it. Due m constrained nature of our site (narrow in overall width and small in overall size), we ask only for a side setback variance of no more than what the existing structure already occupies: 20ft. 12380 Hilltop Drive Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 7 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER, 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE File # 104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR A. 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 and prior to the time of the pre - rough framing inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the applicant shall submit a landscape screening and erosion control plan for review by the Site Development Committee. Particular attention shall he given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. Particular attention shall be paid to landscaping that will help break up the view of the house from the adjacent properties with the reduced setbacks. 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. 3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of 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 are to 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 of the inspection. 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. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 2 of 5 Prior to requesting the foundation 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 are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence 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 Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection. 6. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest pan of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection. 7. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved plans. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 8. Fire retardant roofing (Class A or alternate if approved by the Building Official) is required for all new construction. 9. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 10. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 3 of 5 11. All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 12. Two sets of a final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The final grading and drainage plans must show a back flow prevention device for the sewer lateral since the finish floor elevation is lower than the upstream sanitary sewer manhole's rim elevation. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the grading and drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans prior to final inspection. 13. 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 (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 14. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 15. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. 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. Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 4 of 5 16. 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 Hilltop Drive 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 he placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. A copy of a permit from the City of Los Altos shall be required to be submitted to the Town prior to submittal of plans for building plan check 20. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $46.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 21. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Lands of Digiovanni and Sander 12380 Hilltop Drive September 8, 2005 Page 5 of 5 CONDITION NUMBERS 12, 15, 16, 17 AND 20 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 23 days of the date of this notice. The building pemdt cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after October 1, 2005, provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 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 September 8, 2006). 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. 3 May 05 Dear Planning Commission, RECEIVED ATTACHIVIEKj �4 2005 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS We, the neighbors within a 500ft radius of the Digiovanni Property at 12380 Hilltop Drive, hereby state our support of the design proposed for that property. The Digiovanni's have showed us their plans for a—4,700sgft house requiring—7,OOOsgft of development area and a 20ft 1� floor side setback variance on their substandard lot. We appreciate their efforts in creating the design as outlined in the 'Site Development Summary', and we welcome their desire to minimize the impact their proposed development would have on the privacy of their 2 next door neighbors. We understand that the neighboring property to the South also already enjoys a 20ft side setback, and that the neighboring property to the North enjoys a 1Dft side setback We also understand that the Digiovanni property has had 20ft side setbacks since the early 1950's — prior even to the incorporation of Los Altos Hills as a town — and since these setbacks have not been an issue during the last 50yrs, we don't anticipate an issue going forward. The Digiovanni's are long-time LA/LAH residents (56 combined years), with one of them even having spent several years growing up on this very street. They are active in the community and have much of their family still in the area. We therefore believe them to truly have the spirit of our town in the vision of their home. Finally, we believe that strict adherence to the setback ordinances for this particular substandard property would necessitate a bulky structure completely inconsistent with the rural Los Altos Hills character; not to mention a structure especially unpleasing to the neighborhood `eye'. So as their neighbors, not only do we support the Digiovanni plans for site development of their property, we prefer it. Therefore, we hope the Planning Commission approves the site development plans for 12380 Hilltop Drive as proposed by the Digiovanni's. Sincerely, tAc nc6 hAbors witinn a SOOltradus o,C1238OHilltop Drivc ƒ ! ? / * © � ƒ ! � � \ �� ` ~ � � ~ / \ . � ® / � � \ / \ % \ ° \ � � ` \ � \� � f § \ J � % � � � - e 3 $ d / q 6 % \ ` T % � % a \ % a $ � � / . � � � � � } . ; . . .� �� � \ / � � � __= n;; e n a m m; n m m; August 22, 2005 Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Freemont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Re: 12380 Hilltop Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA Proposed Development of Digiovanni and Sander ATTACHMENT q AUG 2 v �oa7 We have lived at in Los Altos Hills since 1969. We live directly across the street and will be the most impacted by the proposed project at 12380 Hilltop Drive. We have had the opportunity to meet with Joe Digiovanni and Fiona Sander to review and discuss their development plans. We wish to express to the Planning Commission our strong support for their proposed project, including their necessary request for a variance. They are removing all of the structures currently residing in the side setback, thereby improving the front elevation view. They are removing all of the developed area in excess of the MDA, so drainage will be enhanced (an issue on our street). The front of the house is placed farther from the front property line than required, making the side setback variance request reasonable. They are not asking for more than what is already there, so the overall project impact will be minimal. We believe their proposed project is consistent with the existing homes in the area, and will improve our neighborhood. We also appreciate their efforts to incorporate neighbor input and gather support. Sincerely, -- (VV--) a-elt'de,� SfttvD 8 C-iD A,vNl ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE A��J t� J_S . �� NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION Applicant's Name: 5a" o(e,/ g. G i D V G vt N I Address: 1238'0 4-titI tiP D14� Reviewed by: N"t,# . WD i N . P&rf Date: X96 Ilt )oS Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building site. Recommended protection during construction.) Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All grading at least 10' from property line?) Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a need for removal of invasive species?) Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation (height, color, landscape).) I I_ Other Comments: VITMO . ye nJ P -T ( n S tv Le en Sed rvt 'Ix Jr kN e'"✓ti &'o CODUSEC. UFC Appendix III -A UFC 902.2.4.1 FIR. DEPARTMENT ¢tae SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (lax) a amJw.scctd.org SHEET PIAN NEWEW HUMBER OS 1641 ELM PE""n NUMBER ATTACHMENT CONrROLNUMBER FILENUMBER 104-OS-ZP-SD-VAR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS NO.1 REQUIREMENT of site plan for a proposed 988 square foot additon to an existing 3,692 foot single family residence with an attached garage. of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and 1pply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be A as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with . model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make ion to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable ;tion permits. d Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1750 gpm at 20 psi residual a. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire (s) which are spaced at the required spacing. naratus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway aved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. Installations shall conform to Fire tent Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. RECEIVED JUN 16 2005 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS RILLS CM PLRIE SPECS NEW NMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE NPrJIc Mam DATE PNCE LAH ❑, E3 11 E3 11FIONA DIGIOVANNI 6/9/2005 1 1 uF SELJFLOOR ARFA _ LOAO DESCNIPDON BY 1 Residential Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATIOII SFR- DIGIOVANNI 112380 Hilltop Dr Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Las Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mogan Hlil, and Saratoga ATTACHMENT f �- LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAY COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes, June 27, 2005 Meeting was called to order at 6:10 by Chairman Chris Vargas. Members present: Ann Duwe, Anna Bn=,ell, Nick Dunckel, Nancy Ginzton, Mike Kamangar, Ginger Summit, Chris Vargas, Jolon Wagner. Members absent: Nancy Ewald, Dubose Montgomery, Bob Stutz Ad Hoc committee reps: Carol Gotheb, Les Ernest Agenda modified to allow for items of attendees to be heard first. 2. A. Recommendations on properties: i. 27161 Moody Rd. Committee reviewed prior recommendation at request of owner. Confirmed original recommendation that owner pay pathway in -lieu' fee based on entire frontage of property along Moody Rd. ii. 13241 Burke Rd. Clarification of recommendation made at prior meeting. IIB path to be installed along W. Sunset. No path required on Burke Rd., since path already exists on opposite side of Burke. iii. 13686 Page Mill (lands of Kim) a) install IIB path along foot of bank (below Page Mill Rd), joining access to Page Mill roadside paths at western edge of property. b) Request right-of-way easement if necessary to allow for path in this location. (Note: Chris will talk with staff to determine status of plans in Page Mill improvements, to insure pathway allowances are included in any work to be done) iv. 13198 La Cresta Dr Qands of Chan and Hua) Concern about where property actually is, since driveway access from La Cresta is ambiguous. Owner described flag -lot driveway easement from LaCresta, with property actually bounded by Nina Place on eastern boundary. Committee determined any future path on Nina Place should be located on opposite side of road. Therefore, recommendation is to accept pathway in -lieu fee. If property actually extends into Nina Place, request easement access along Nina Place, but no path required. v. 12139 Foothill Lane. This property discussed at earlier meeting vi. 12390 Hilltop Drive (lands of Picetti). Pathway along Hilltop should be on opposite side of road. Easement and IIB path required along Hillview Road. vii. 12380 Hilltop Drive (lands of Sander & Giovanni) Pathway along Hilltop should be on opposite side of road. Therefore, accept pathway in -lieu fee for this property. viii. 12670 Corte Madera (lands of Arora). Accept pathway in -lieu fee. 2. B. Master Pathway Plan Recommendations (requested by council) i. 13115 Maple Leaf Court to Via Feliz. Residents Mendez (13115 Maple Leaf Ct. and new owners of 13114 Maple Leaf Ct) present. A pathway joining Elena and Via Feliz had been recommended by Pathway Committee, starting along the south boundary of 13115 Maple Leaf Ct. When owner Mendez developed property, Planning Commission approved a fence along Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 7 Approved 10/13/05 Commissioner Carey questioned staff regarding the subdivision requirements that have not been followed. Planning Director Cahill stated staff could review the subdivision conditions of approval. Normally this is the responsibility of the subdivider, Mr. LeFevre, in this case. The subsequent property owners are not saddled with subdivision conditions on top of all of the conditions already on the property (house and landscaping). Staff can look into it and report back to the Commission. Regarding the slope on the property, he noted that the property already has conservation easements on it, so there was no need for additional open space easements. He further discussed the concern regarding the vineyard in a conservation easement indicated staff had researched it and it is specifically allowed in the agreement. Regarding drainage, staff noted this was just a landscape screening plan. The grading and drainage was approved as a part of the new residence. Staff could have the engineers review it however there is an approved plan. Commissioner Carey felt that the site and the house were breathtaking. He felt it was reasonable to request two more trees (olive trees). Chairman Cottrell agreed with his fellow Commissioners in that the landscaping plan is well done. He also felt two more olive trees would solve the neighbors concerns. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kerns and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve a request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening and lighting plan for the 9,618 square foot residence and accessory buildings approved by the Planning Commission in September, 2002, Lands of Perrell, 26300 Silent Hills Lane, with the following additions/changes to the recommended conditions of approval: Condition #3, $5,000 landscape deposit increased to $25,000 landscape deposit; and add two additional trees (olive) located at the two middle red squares shown on the diagram provided by Mr. Cleary. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Collins, Carey, Clow & Kerns NOES: None This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI & SANDER, 12380 Hilltop Drive (104-05-ZP- SD-VAR-CDP); A request for a Conditional Development Permit for a 4,647 square foot two-story new residence (maximum height 27' feet), and a variance to allow the house to encroach up to 10' in the side yard setbacks, and to allow surface parking to encroach up to 26' in the front and side yard setbacks. The lot area is 0.49 acre and an existing legal -nonconforming swimming pool encroaches up to 17.5' in the side and rear yard setbacks (staff - Debbie Pedro). Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/13/05 September 8, 2005 Page 5 Staff introduced this item by reviewing the staff report noting that the applicants are seeking approval of a variance to allow the new residence and parking areas to encroach within the front and both side yard setbacks (1,251 square feet of floor area on the lower floor will encroach within the east and west setbacks by up to 10 feet with two additional outdoor parking spaces located in front of the new house and encroach up to 26 feet in the front and side yard setbacks.). She referred to the Lands of Eshgi/Doorodian on Fremont Road which was denied by the Planning Commission in January 2005 for a similar variance request for building setbacks. The applicants returned to the Commission with a redesign of the home that was completely outside of the setbacks and was approved in April, 2005. This was also a Conditional Development Permit lot. Another recent CDP lot was the Lands of Unlu on Deerfield Drive. In this case, the applicant proposed a two story house that was designed entirely outside of the setback. In both of these cases, the applicants were granted a variance for surface puking to he located in the setback. The Hilltop Drive property is not unique in this neighborhood because there are four other lots with similar size, shape and topography. Granting a variance for a building setback on a flat, rectangular lot with no other topography constraints such as creeks, oak tree coverage or steep slope would set a precedent and open the possibility of future requests for building setbacks based solely on substandard lot size. She further noted the receipt of e-mails after the public notice was issued; one for and one against the project. Copies were provided to the Commission for review. For clarification, she noted that portions of the main house were constructed with permits. Commissioner Collins felt the staff report was excellent and it would be a good guide for future planners. Disclosures: Chairman Cottrell had met with the applicants months ago, looked at the plans and did not disclose how he might vote; Commissioner Clow had met with the applicants on the site; Commissioner Carey had spoken to the applicants by phone; Commissioner Kerns had also met with the applicants months ago; Commissioner Collins visited the site. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Fiona Sander, applicant, introduced herself and Joe Digiovanni. She indicated they had sent 32 letters out to the neighborhood regarding this proposal with 13 positive responses with 22 supporting signatures. The input received was used to revise their plans. Also, the front, rear and both side neighbors support their project. She reviewed their substandard lot indicating that the left and right neighboring properties are the same size. She reviewed the benefits of the proposed development as follows: minimal construction impact; improve drainage; MDA brought into conformance; improved neighbor privacy; incorporate solar energy; and the design is consistent with the neighborhood. The neighbor privacy points are: no second floor side facing windows; second story placed out of side setbacks; first floor 50 feet from front property line; first floor 72 feet from the rear property line; the existing landscape screening preserved and new landscape screening created; and the rear and side setback bulk has been reduced. She continued by discussing the variance findings including the following: conforming envelope requires either awkward footprint or removal of at least three mature trees; inability to reorient the property for improved front elevation; narrow substandard lots Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/13/05 September 8, 2005 Page 6 create design challenges that larger lots do not face; and conformance necessitates a structure aesthetically unpleasing and uncharacteristic of neighborhood. She touched on the similarities and differences of their site and the Lands of Eshgi/Doorodian. She concluded by stating a variance should be reviewed on an individual basis. They understand that a constrained lot does not necessitate a hardship; they are just asking for what is already there and has been there for 50 years. Scott Fors, grew up at 12401 Hilltop Drive directly across from this property. H read the letter that was included in the staff report (attachment 9) from his mother who was unable to be at the meeting voicing strong support of the project. Bob Cole, felt he was clearly the most effected and impacted neighbor living directly next door. He was delighted to see the proposed changes to this property voicing support and requesting approval. Richard Fimmel, Hilltop Drive, voiced support of this project. Bob Lattes, property owner directly behind the proposed site, felt this proposal will be an improvement to the site by retaining one of the trees which provides screening from this residence and by removing all of the outer buildings which are very close to the property line which impacts his property. Finally, removing the concrete from the back yard will have a wonderfully positive effect (noise issue). He voiced support of this project and asked that it be approved now. Tom Hogan, 12435 Hilltop Drive, previously reviewed the plans carefully voicing support which will be a major improvement to the neighborhood. Mike, property owner at Hillview and Hilltop Drives, voiced support of the proposed project. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, voiced objection to the proposal. The MDA/MFA does not fit on these substandard lots and is actually more coverage than would be allowed on a one acre flat parcel CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Carey felt the applicants have worked well with their neighbors. He felt there were obvious benefits to the neighborhood. However, the overriding concern is that there is not a hardship that necessitates a variance. The Commission has been very clear on this as they need to demonstrate some type of hardship to allow a variance to encroach into the setbacks on substandard lots or otherwise. Granting a variance runs the risk of not only everyone wanting one on substandard lots but there would not be much reason not to approve a variance on a standard lot. The reason the variance is asked for here is that the design of the house is not what is preferred if the house is to sit within the building envelope. This is not enough of a hardship to grant a variance. The Commission needs to be consistent in the application of the ordinances. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/13/05 September 8, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Kerns has never seen a project with such neighborhood support. The applicants have done a very good job working with the neighbors. He voiced support of the application. This is actually the kind of house that is ideal with the second story set back from the first story. They have done amazing things in terms of removing things in the setback already, and reducing the development area to be conforming. What they are proposing to do is to encroach less into the setback than what already exists. Their design saves as many trees on the property as possible. Comparing this to the Eshgi property is not quite the same. He supports this project and did not feel this would set a precedent because it is a constrained lot. Commissioner Collins concurred with Commissioner Carey. She could not support this project as a substandard lot does not create a hardship and would create a precedent. This is similar to the Eshgi property and they should be consistent. She felt the applicants could design a house that fits outside of the setbacks. She had researched State code regarding variances and in every case neighborhood opposition or support has no bearing on a variance. She could find no reason to support this project based on neighborhood support. Commissioner Clow agreed. This is a compelling case but they need to adhere to policies. The applicants have done an outstanding job with this presentation. He was sure that a new proposal will be more attractive than this one, perhaps a house that is smaller and will fit within the guidelines. This is not an unusual situation and he cannot support this application. Chairman Cottrell agreed. If this was approved, there are four other lots who will be asking for the same thing. He wondered how much the applicants tried to fit a different design within the setback lines. He did not feel that the model presented is representative of good architectural design on a small lot. He could not support this project and would like to see a redesign that fits within the setbacks. Brief discussion ensured regarding the options of denial or a continuance. Mr. Digiovanni indicated that this is a hard decision for them since they have been working on the design for some time and they were guided not to remodel. They would like a continuance and most likely go down the path of just a remodel. After further discussion, the applicants requested a continuance to the October 1P Planning Commission meeting to allow them time to decide what direction to take (continuance or denial). The appeal process was also discussed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Clow, at the applicants request, continued the request for a new residence and variances to allow the house and parking to encroach into the front and side setbacks; Lands of Digiovanni and Sander, 12380 Hilltop Drive, to the October 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Collins, Clow & Carey NOES: Commissioner Kerns ATTACHMENT g TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 13, 2005 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE HOUSE AND PARKING TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS; LANDS OF DIGIOVANNI AND SANDER; 12380 HILLTOP DRIVE; #104-05-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 2005) FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner pT. APPROVED BY: Cut Cahill, Planning DirectorCC That the Planning Commission: Continue this item to a date uncertain but not later than the first Planning Commission meeting in April 2006. BACKGROUND This application for a Conditional Development Permit for a new residence and setback variances was continued from the Planning Commission hearing from September 8, 2005 until October 13, 2005 at the request of the applicant. The continuance was requested by the applicant after a majority of the Commission indicated that the variance for building setback could not be approved. Draft minutes from the September 8, 2005 meeting are included in the packet. (Item 7.1) On October 5, 2005, the applicant submitted an email to staff requesting additional time to consider their options and to continue the project to an indefinite date. (Attachment 1) The project will be re -noticed when it is ready to be rescheduled for a public hearing. 1. Email from applicant dated October 5, 2005 cc: Fiona Sander and Joe Digiovanni 12380 Hilltop Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Page 1 of 1 Debra Pedro From: Fiona Sander[ Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 1:44 PM To: Debra Pedro Cc: Subject: indefinite continuance request for 12360 Hilltop Drive Hi Debbie, Per our phone conversation a few minutes ago, here is an e-mail requesting an indefinite continuance for our project. I wish I could give you a better timeframe, but at this point I have no idea. We may sell the property, remodel it or redesign it completely. - Fiona 10/6/2005 ATTACHMENT 9 5,I -A PJ JAN December 26, 2005 TO;u17 nr LCA$ A!T^5 Pi'!!$ Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Freemont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Re: 12380 Hilltop Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA Proposed Development of Digiovanni and Sander We have lived at in Los Altos Hills since 1969. We live directly across the street and will be the most impacted by the proposed project at 12380 Hilltop Drive. We have seen the revised development plans Joe Digiovanni and Fiona Sander have for their property. We wish to express to the Planning Commission our strong support for their proposed project, including their small request for a side setback variance for the fireplace footprint and driveway. They are removing all of the structures currently residing in the side setback, not encroaching into the front setback, facing the garage doors to the side of the house and conforming to the side setback requirements, thereby greatly improving the front elevation view. They are removing all of the developed area in excess of the MDA, so drainage will be enhanced (an issue on our street). This revised plan is now essentially conforming to every planning requirement, and we support it. We believe their proposed project is consistent with the existing homes in the area, and will improve our neighborhood. We also appreciate their efforts to incorporate neighbor input and gather support. Sincerely, Lance Fors