Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 6, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS AND A SETBACK VARIANCE; LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH; 25541 FREMONT ROAD; FILE#297-15-ZP-SD-VAR FROM: Genevieve Fernandez, Assistant Planner r1 T APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1) Approve the project as proposed; or 2) Approve the project with modified conditions; or 3) Continue the applications to,a date certain,with direction tothe applicant and staff on desired plan changes. BACKGROUND The subject property is a .28 acre parcel located on the south side of Fremont Road near Edith Avenue. The existing two story residence was approved by the Planning Commission on November 26, 1986. As part of that approval, a maximum development area (MDA) of 5,000 square feet and maximum floor area(MFA)of 3,500 square feet were established for the property. The 1986 staff reports, minutes and conditions of approval are Attachments 7 through 11. The -1.986_project was modified based on conditions of approval and the actual constructed floor area is 3,016 square feet. The existing development area of 5,312 square feet is nonconforming. The applicant is proposing to remove some hardscape and two sheds for a net loss of 129 square feet of development area. Removal of these improvements will also reduce the amount of encroachment into the setback and reduce the degree of nonconformity. The subject Conditional Development Permit (CDP) and Variance applications were considered by the Planning Commission on.December 3, 2015. The Commission continued the matter and directed the applicant to reduce the amount of floor area being proposed. Three Commissioners were supportive of eliminating the rear addition entirely. The Commission also discussed limiting the balcony enclosures to the existing building footprint and not allowing any additional floor area beyond the established footprint. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 2 of 9 CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-1.1007 of the Zoning Ordinance, this application for an addition has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval.A Conditional Development Permit is required since the proposed project is located on a property with a lot unit factor(LUF) of 0.50 or less. Pursuant to Section 10-1.1007 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, in reviewing a Conditional Development Permit application the Planning Commission determines whether the proposed development meets the standards of the Town by considering evidence in support of the findings for approval (Attachment 1). Pursuant to Section 10-1.1007 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance, in reviewing a Variance application the Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed development meets the standards of the Town by considering evidence in support of the findings for approval (Attachment 2). DISCUSSION Site Data: Net Lot Area: .280 acres Average Slope: 6.2% Lot Unit Factor: .280 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sq.ft.) Maximum Maximum per current granted in Existing Proposed Increase Remaining code 1986 Development 4,900 5,000 5,312 4,964 -129 36 Floor 2,800 3,500 3,016 3,367 351 133 Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Development Permit and setback variance to add 351 square feet to the existing residence. The proposed floor area is inclusive of the following: • 62 square foot addition to the front entry • 203 square foot addition to the rear of the house,including enclosure of an existing balcony • 41 square foot addition to the east side of the house(enclosure of balcony) • 45 square foot addition to the west side of the house (enclosure of balcony) As previously mentioned, two sheds would be removed from the property. The square footage of the sheds are not included in the floor area calculations. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 3 of 9 Variance Request The variance request is for an addition and trellis that would encroach three feet into the front setback. Attachment 6 is the owner's justification for the requested variance. Draft variance findings prepared by staff are included in Attachment 2. In evaluating the variance findings, the Planning Commission should consider the fact that the applicant is working with an existing residence and is within the granted maximum floor area and development area approved by the Town in 1986. In addition,the applicant is removing a portion of the driveway and two sheds located in the setback which will reduce the development area and the amount of nonconforming development within setbacks. Outdoor Lighting No new outdoor lighting is proposed. Condition#8 requires any new lighting needs to be reviewed by the Planning Department for compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Policy. Trees & Landscaping A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new additions (Condition#2). Any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a landscape maintenance deposit to ensure viability of plantings will be collected prior to final inspection(Condition#3). Drainage Because the applicant is not increasing the impervious area, no drainage is proposed or required with this project. Grading No grading is proposed with this application. Committee Review The Environmental Design and Protection Committee did not have any recommendations (see Attachment 4). CEQA STATUS The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301(e) which allows for an addition of up to 50% or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 4 of 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditional Development Permit Findings 2. Recommended Variance Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4.. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee, dated August 21, 2015 5. Revised Worksheet#2 6. Applicant's variance findings 7. October 8, 1986 Staff Report to the Planning Commission 8. October 8, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes 9. November 26, 1986 Staff Report to the Planning Commission 10.November 26, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes 11. November 26, 1986 Conditions of Approval 12. Development plans Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH, 25541 FREMONT ROAD File#297-15-ZP-SD-VAR 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 and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter. The proposed addition on the .28 acre parcel has been designed to fit within the maximum floor area and maximum development area as granted be a previous variance. The front addition is one story design that will blend with its surroundings and with neighboring homes. The rear addition is located behind the existing home where it will not be highly visible. Removal of two existing sheds and a portion of hardscape in the side setback will improve the non-conforming state of the property. 2. The size and design of the proposed structurescreate 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 neighborhood consists of a mix of one and two story homes. The proposed addition is compliant with Town standards and is harmonious in appearance with the surrounding residences. The additions will not present a visual impact to surrounding homes. 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. No significant trees and shrubs will be impacted by the development. A landscape screening plan will ensure that existing trees and shrubs will be supplemented by new landscaping as needed to adequately screen the residence, reduce the visual impact, and preserve the rural character of the site. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. The proposed addition is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development Ordinance with the exception of the request for a variance to allow the front addition to encroach into the front setback Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 2 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH, 25541 FREMONT ROAD File#297-15-ZP-SD-VAR 1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property,including size, shape,topography,location or surroundings,the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The existing residence is located on a substandard lot of.28 net acres which is substantially less than the one acre minimum in Town. The applicant is also working with existing development on the site. The proposed additions will result in a small encroachment with roughly 29 square feet offloor area and a trellis that extends one foot into the front setback The residence with the proposed additions will be consistent with development on surrounding properties. 2. That upon the granting of the variance,the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The setback variance for the addition is needed to provide a move usable front entry. The approval of the setback variance results in a design that is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and livable home with a more functional floor plan. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property,improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. The development of the property will not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties as the proposed development does not exceed the maximum floor area or development area granted by a Conditional Development Permit in 1986. The front addition to the house is single story and is heavily screened from Fremont Road and the rear addition is located behind the existing home where it will not be highly visible. 4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property. The variance request is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zoning district. Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 3 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH; 25541 FREMONT ROAD File#297-15-ZP-SD-VAR PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection,the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new additions from surrounding properties and streets.All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 3. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 4. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak 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. 5. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that"the location of the new additions and roof eaves matches the setbacks as shown on the Site Development plan". The elevation of the additions shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new additions 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 final inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 8 of 9 6. All hardscape and floor area proposed to be removed as shown on the site plan shall be removed prior to final inspection. 7. No new fences are proposed. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 8. No new exterior lighting is proposed.There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 9. Any, and all, changes to the approved Site Plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium(October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 10. Final grading and drainage shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final approval. 11. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 12. 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 shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check 13. 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 ofplans for building plan check The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust,noise,and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Fremont Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 14. The property owner shall dedicate additional right of way easement to create a 30' wide half- width public right of way to the Town over Fremont Road. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road January 6,2016 Page 9 of 9 CONDITION 12, 13 and 14 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 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 the appeal period 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 January 6, 2017) 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. ( cLA-Lc,21 ) -/ • ATTACHMENT 4 RECEIVED ENVIROMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMlTTAE i2n Application For: MINN OF LOS ALTOS 1.11115 42- Applicant Name: /7 Address Reviewed by fa„,-/ )-ü -e6- Date: 7•-2/- /5- COMMENTS Site Impact -P D evy 1, :VI 45 4Th i3 110-vis ef iLighting Ce-N1 2n4 Ai (A52,2- ?C4' 17 vv=1-- 1-. ,-Put.4.4„%otsj-) uvi kJ° Noise cj— - 6_ vie-e04 Creeks Drainage Easements Existing Vegitation Mitigation wlw: Volunteer-LAH 4/6/15 ATTACHMENT 5 ' n TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road•Los Altos Hills,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 `17G I otkp�� �'� S o to SO vi C PROPERTY ADDRESS 2 5-5-1-/ -Fy c,r- rte`,. CALCULATED BY A L>'u c.! DATE 12 - 22. - 1 DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing Proposed DA Credit Total A. House and Garage(from part 2.A) 1(a.3 -350' °l 35-67,Z B. Decking C. Driveway and Parking 18?-7 w 8(.-(0 -220 D. Patios and Walkways E. Tennis Court F. Pool and Pool Decking • G. Accessory Building(from part 2.B) H. Solar Panels(ground mounted) I. Any Other Coverage Total 312-•1 • 413, 8`7 Roof Mounted Solar Bonus — (LAHMC Section 10-1.502) 0 Yes No_ SF Maximum Development Area-MDA(from worksheet#1) 5000.oo Maximum Development Area w/Solar Credit 2 FLOOR AREA Existing Proposed Total A. HOUSE AND GARAGE a.Firstoo Max • 7 i oq,-7 J �I • , b. Second Floor /274-•'CoA- 15 1 •g c.Attic d. Basement e. Garage ZfoO 2,40 f.Area over 17' B. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS a. First Floor b. Second Floor c. Attic d.Basement _ Total 3o1(0 ., 0 33i'i .�— Maximum Floor Area-MFA (from worksheet#1) 66) TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY DATE ATTACHMENT 6 Variance i Page 4 FINDINGS Itl The findings for a Variance are as follows: 11, 1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable tOI 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 byl'other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications: Existing hallway is extremely tight at 3.1 ft and it's the only entrance to the house. When the door is swung open no 2 people can enter/exit at the same time. Very hard to manage with 3 kids, shopping bags, guests enter and exit oneby one. When a child runs through the entrance door, she bungs herself against the staircase Wall. 2. That upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privilege not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners: The resulting entrance hall will be of a modest size comparable to,the next door house. It's a modest encroachment (3 ft) into the front secluded 40ft front yard. The front yard is isolated by mature vegetation hence the variance should not impact neighbors' privacy. The encroachment is minimal comparing to the next door neighbors':encroachment into the front setback. ;l 3. That-granting:the,.Variance will notbe 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 variance for the entrance hall will not be detrimental to the public or the property itself/neighboring properties. Proposed redesigned front;elevation will enhance the overall look and feel of the house. Resulting house (English cottage style with protruding entrance, trellis, balanced windows) should improve aesthetics of the house itself and the street. t 4. That the"Variance will,not allow,a use or,activity which wis not expressly;authorized by, the ZoningOrdinance: The variance will-not interfere with the Zoning Ordinance Addendum: : _ ____ - — ATTACHMENT 7 Jr 28379 FREMONT ROAO ;LOS ALTOS HILL':l3ALtFORNIA 94022 ,l`!?4,_tiy ,,a 941.7222 0 \' 1r lii' ; Ocf ober 2, 1986 0, California Yh Planning Commission. Meeting of October 8, 1986 ..' d21"1, '' LANDS. OF EASTERBROOKS, FJI.t:: 4VAR .R-86 25A1 .W Fremont Road. Public;: Hearing to consider variance to encroach into the front yard setback' by 10 feet, to encroach ..nto the decliring height envelope, and to exceed .the Maximum De' elopment Area (MDA1 . for the lot . .. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the vari- ance request to. encroachinto the front setback and declining height envelope, but denythe variance to exceed the: MDA for the lot . The:-e recommendations are basedon findings as supported in this staff report. , BACKGROUND: . The applicant applied for zoning and sitedevelopment permit to construct' a new residence' on.February 3, 1986. The previous residencwas destroyed by fire in 1985. The application was determined incomplete, and additional information required, +n- cluding.,evidence on the: adequacy of the septic drainfield and permits for flood control measures since the lot was flooded in February of 1986.. Once the application was determined complete, it appeared to conform with the zoning ordinance in effect at that time with one exception. The applicant was informed that a variance would be required to intrude into the front setback shoulc' the. Site: Development Committee require additional road right- •.f-way. The SDC was likely to make this requirement , al- though it 'is not consistent with tr lir policy on dedications. Currert policy is not to require the right-of-way in cases where it will make an already substandard lot more substandard. How- ever, based on the City Engineers ' strong recommendation on the need for sufficient right-of-way along the S--Curve section of. Fremont Road, it was most likely that the right-of-way would be required. The applicant therefore applied for a variance on. August 18, 1986. While the variance was being processed, the City Council adopted the new zoning ordinance, Ozdinance 305, wh.;ch requires that lots with less than .5 Tot Unit Factor receive a Conditional Developme,.t Permit . It 'will therefore be necessary forthe ap- plicant to apply fez a CDP and Site Development Permit or. a seperate agenda. Furthermore, under Ordinance 305, the 'Project A f4 ,`n O.c21 40 410 Page 2 Lands of .Sasterbreoks October 2, .1986 will also exceed the Mpg• fox the int, therefore the variance re- quest is expanded f.or, the originel request: The property and prcleci are described as follows: Gross Area .358 acres Net Area .305 acres with right-of-way dedication Average slope 5 .8% Lot Unit Factor MD; 5,000 sq.ft . unless reduced through CDP MFA 4,.000 sq.ft. unless reduced through COP Proposed DA 5,511 sq..ft. Proposed F., 3,732 sq.ft. FlNDENGS: Staff has determined that the required findings of section 10- 1.1107 ate supported with the following evidence for the request to intrude into the setback and height envelope: 1. The lot is exceptionally small and therefore the setback requirements of the Towe' s zoning ordinance are a more sig- nificant constraint than for other lots in the zoning dis- trict. Additionally, the intrusion is due to the need for additional right-of-way. 2. Due to the small size of the lot and the need for addi- tional right-of-way, the building envelope for the lot is severely constrained. 3. The applicant desires to build a new residence utilizing the majority of the buildable area on this substandard sized lot. Further setback will make the design more difficult. 4 . The variance to encroach into the .E ont setback will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements. 5. Ther use proposed is expressly authorized by the Town's zoning ordiannce. 6. The design of the new residence will be reviewed for confcr"ance with the site development ordinance, aid will require a Conditional Development Permit. These reviews will assure that the final approval complies with the intent a.,1 purpose of the General Plan. 411 Page 3 Lands of Easterbrooks October 2, 1986 The variance to exceed MDA is not supportable with sufficient evidence, since each property in the zoning district has an MAA based on it's slope and net area, and this lot will be granted minimum maximums unless the Planning Commission determines that these allowances should be further lowered in their CDP review. ATTACj1MENTS: Attached for your review please find: 1. Site plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. File correspondence; 3. Variance application; 4. Comments from reviewing agencies. Respectfully submitted, .,/(4, _./44' 67, /9k Nancy Maddox Lytle Town Planner lissioner ATTACHMENT 8 2 Lit 'ado "obtrusive" .MSECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers , seconded by Kn, and passedurian mously to approve the minutes •f October 86 es amended . C, RS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 15 , '86: Kaufman reported the City Count; approved an Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for Lands of Sea , f; the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for .Lands of Handel was removed from Agenda by Applicant; discussed drainag: concern (Chown ) on Saddle Mbuntain Estates; De Anza Prot - rties (Vidovich) has requested General Plan Amendment/P' -Zoning and Annexation of the Neary Quarry, noting there' u no public presentation, item has been set for fee schedule this agenda , Ms . Lytle presented Council with outline procedur -s for this application . Approved encroachment permit for Ea wick property; granted a change in filing fees for possiblevariance for Mr. Sturm for a fence; heard presentation for . ands Of Lee, Saddle Mountain (Senwarz) by Alan Lambert with • -pard to height limitations, noting this ppplicatioh will be :orwarded to Site Development Committee for review and report =o City Council; Jarvis restoration plan was reviewed by Site development Committee and referred to City Council , City 4un,cil required 30 days. to complete restoration. city Council =dopted plan for administration of nuisance complaints.., will be holding interviews for 2 open seat-s on Planning '.commission as well as seat on City Council on November 3rd at :OOp.m. , appc'_._tments will be made at the regular meeting of Ne ember 5th. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 , 2 and 3, LANDS OF EASTE_RBROOKS, #CDP 2-86, #VAR 8-46, 25541 Fremont Road , Request -for Approval of Conditional Development Permit, Variance and- Site Development Permit for New Residence Ms . Lytle referred to Staff Reports dated October 2, 1986 16, 1986, informing' Commission the applicant is required to obtain a. Conditional Development Permit on the subject lot as the lot unit factor is .305, referring the Municipal Code Section 10-1 . 1107 (c) of necessary findings required to be made by the Commission. Ms . Lytle informed Commissin the ' Conditional Development Permit may be conditioned to include further reduction in the Maximum Development Area and ffaximum • Floor Area for the lot. With regard to the proposed variance to allow encroachment into the front yard setback by 10 feet, to encroach into the declining height envelope , and to exceed the allowed Makimu ' Development Area for the lot, staff reco1;?ends that the Commission approve the variance request 411) 3 to encroach into the front yard setback and deaL.iaing height envelope , but to deny the variance to exceed the MDA for the lot, noting these recommendations are based on findings supported in Staff Report dated October 2, 1986 . With regard to the Site Development Permit , Ms . Lytle indicated if the Commission were to decide to grant the site development permit for the subject application , that any conditions recommended by the City Engineer and Town Geologist shall be included as conditiors of approval , also noting the standard conditions requiring a landscape plan and reoommendation of fire retardant roofing should also be included . The Public Hearing was then opened . Mr . William Easterbrooks . Owner , informed Commission since the last public hearing he has redesigned the driveway to use turf block, as suggested , noting the development area to his calculations reduce from 5,516 sq.ft. to 4 , 900 sQ.£t. , thereby making a variance to exceed the development area no longer necessary. Mr. Eastebrooks informed commission he also after the last public hearing spoke with adjacent neighbors regarding locating the residence ten feet back more on the lot, informing Commission that neighbors would not be in favor of the change . Mr . Easterbrooks asked Commission to approve his conditional development permit and site development permit as he has done everything he could to meet ordinances and make, the proposed residencce aesthetically pleasing , informing all neighbors have reviewed the proposal and have signed his variance request (with the exception of Mr . Miller, who has concerns over drainage problems in this area) . Mr. Easterbrooks informed Commission he has already received permit from Town and Water District to install a new culvert through the property. The Public Bearing was then closed . Ms. Lytle informed Commission on the process of counting turf block towards development area, noting it is based upon the manufacturer's specifications as to what percentage is counted . Mr. Enright informed Commission they should be aware of high maintenance responsibility with the use of turf block, due to settlement , etc . , noting at a later date if the applicant becomes dissatisfied with the turf block, he would not be able to improve as nis development area on the lot would have already been used . Mr . Enright also informed commission of the necessity of requiring additional road right-of-way on this lot , if the commission is to decide to approve the site development permit this should be made a condition of approval . Commissioners expressed concern over the size of the proposed structure ;n relation to the lot , indicating they would not be able meet the required findings to approve a variance with ,. • ---rte - - - - - -- - - - - - — •F7--- .' • 4 this submittal . Crommissionerq also indicated uthe..:need :.to" 'bbtain additional road right-of-way - on this property when' the = site devefopmen;t permit could be approved. Chairman Struthers suggested that Mr . Easterbrooks re-design the structure to meet the historic nature of the era the house and neighboring houses were constructed , and to be sensitive to the area voting the property is at the entrance to the Town , the closeness of the roadway, and height should be carefully considered , as well as landscape mitigation of the proposed structure. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman , seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to Deny; Without Prejudice the Lands of Easterbrooks, File #VAR 8-46, as the subject lot is small and would not result in practical difficulties and as the proposed variance involves impingement of structure at the entrance to the Town , that it would be detrimental to property and improvements in' the vicinity , noting the proposed structure is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter of the Municipal Code and General Plan. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carico and passedturnani:mou_"s1y_to 'continue;';the ''Lands of. Easterbrooks , :+Conditional" Development Permit,- File t/CDP 2-86, `to-'all:ow the applicant to re-design the proposed structure to be in conformance with zoning ordinances . MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carico arc \,assed unanimously 'to con t?.nue the Lands `of? EasterbrooksI, Site Development Permit , to allow the applicant to re-design the proposed structure to be in conformance with zoning ordinances. Mr. Easterbrooks expressed concern to the Commission, that he has tried to meet the guidelines, ordinances, and previously did try to design a house. that would fit in the era ; indicating the re-designs are expensive to keep going back to the architect. Commissioner Kaufman informed Mr . Easterbrooks that he did not object tc a two story residence on this lot , c:just concerned �o`-$ver the size Or tithe. houses; on .such a,.;.small _ .ot at:,` t?he entrance_ t_o__tne.-T owri-s" Commissioner"-ca rico indicated , she Lis not concerned over the style of the residence , justL'of the. site of the es`ide�ew. on this size,:;::lot ,-' suggesting that the �`esideneE could be shifted- aro'untl-so that it would not be as much of an impact on such a busy street and the entrance to the Town . Ms . Lytle informed Mr. Easterbrooks of the procedure for appealir.g the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. —z: 9 �r 0[-•A-r-2 5ho c: d T— a3-t>f--� {•�� ' V.t. .l 10 . _ ,_ , -- - .-'-= - _ -. -- :--.:• .� _-- — •• - — tt,,..n.; r:l t,, -.. ,.t ,- .� -„, .� ATTACHMENT 9 t 7 — .,.. Z 379 FRWONT nOAD. LOS ALTOS HILLS. CALIFORNIA it4OZ i w�s�rw.wsw�w '-' w +i-7i22 i. November 20, 1986 0California,, N^ I' Planning Commission meeting of November 26, 19 cd . Jaeaa° LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS FILE #CDP 2-86 25541 Fremont Road AIM 175-23-022 ,Public Hearing to consider a request for Conditional Development_ Permit to construct a .new residence on a lot with a Lot_Unit:_Fac for of .29; (after_road.. right-of-way4 d_edreation):Y DISCUSSION: This application was previously considered.tby the Planning Com- mission on October 22, 1986, in :conjunction with a request for variance to intrude into the front setback, once right-of-way is dedicated. At that meeting the Planning Commission adopted a mo- tion to deny the variance based on findings that any residence on this lot should observe the required minimum setback, so as not to intrude into the viewshed of one of the Town's most travelled • corridors and entryways. The Commission recommended that --:the :ap. plicantf redes1.gn^ the,resj.dence w thin -the 'requ red;;set � �: , _....,.. -s � �F >.__, of ��. .. ,... 'backs and height envelope requirements, and that the size. of the" proposal .:ShOurl'd be 'reduced as necessary :to meet these equ re -- 'Rents: The applicant has fulfilled this recommendation andieduced. the=' s zeof the osa`1 by approximate y- 500 sq.lift The property , and proposed project can now be described as foflows: Gross Area 3(35' acres: `:f Net Area 29, acres' ;=-6 LUF 0----;=-6?-:b v 'MDA 5000 sq„f t. or as reduced by CDP process MFA 4000 sq„ft. or as reduced by CDP process Proposed DA 4998 sq.ft. Proposed FA 3274 sq.ft. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ' Prior to granting the permit for proposed residence, the Commis- sion must mak the necessary findings of Section 10-1.1107 (c) , attached. The CDP may be conditioned to include a further reduc- tion in the Maximum Development Area and Maximum Floor Area for qhs lot. ATTACHMENTS: • Attached please find plans and minutes,of the previous action. , a,esspectfulaylJ4subm't ed, % t,,,, -Qom'..'.. ' `// - • 4,..,„,;y.a c1 - 'Nancy Maddox Lytle, Town Planner . v7 . . - ` ”" . ” i:-t :4 sed. .,a .fi • - seo • • - ATTACHMENT 10 P1anninq Conm-ission Minutes -- tigyerftv 26 01926 -Page,Seven Mr. Rainey indicated they then will agree to c Ituance of the subdivision and will provide commission wit urther noise readings for all of the lots. Ms . Lytle indicated Commission shoul, rrequest continuance to the next meeting, as well as an extension taallow for time for the City Council review at their meeting of Janu r 7th. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Carico and passed by the following ro, call vote to continue the Lands of Currie, Tentative Map, File iT10 46, to the December 10th meeting which allows the applicant to suubbm further noise level readings on each lot, taken morning and evEntog wring peak traffic hours. ROLL CALL: • AYES: Commiss i5er Carico, Eml .ng, Kaufman, Pa'tmore, Stutz, and Chairman Strut'.'rs NOES: Co1�.f ssicner Yanez ABSTALN: ,-`Done Comp-- ssioner Carien excused herself from meeting as she was not feeling . 2. LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS, FILE OCDP 2-86, 25541 Fremont Road , Reouest for Approval of Conditional Development Permit ;and 3. LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS, 25541 Fremont Road , Request for Approval of Site Development Permit for New Residence Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Reports dated October 16th and November 20th informing Commission this application was previously considered by the Commission on October 22nd, in conjunction with a request for variance to intruce into the front setback, once right-of-way is dedicated , noting at that meeting Commission adopted a motion to deny the variance based on findings that any residence on this lot should observe the required minimum setback, and Commission recommended that the applicant re-design the residence within the required setbacks and height envelope requirements, noting that the applicant has fulfilled this recommendation and reduced the size of the proposal by approximately 500 sq.ft.. Nfs. Lytle indicated that prior to granting the permit for proposed residence, the Commission must make the necessary findings of Section 10-1 . 1107 (c) , and noted that the CDP may be conditioned to include a further reduction in the Maximum Development Area and Floor Area for the lot. Ms., Lytle also informed Commission should the Commission decide to grant approval of the Site Development Permit that it include conditions as recommended by the City Engineer, and Town Geologist;, additionally standard conditions with regard to landscape and fire r.etartdant roofing.. Commissioner Patmore questioned recommendation J2 of Mr. Cottot's report, with regard to timing of appli.atons, etc., and why this is not required to be connected to se wet'? M . Lytle ihdieated that action .should be taken on both applications this evening, and that the applicant should not have to spend time and money on this •review pronsed by Cotton unless he receives approval from the Town , Ms. Lytle also indicated that a variance is no longer required as part of this applicatio.r process. Mr. Enright /!/- -- _ - • - j,' -- I i Planning arninission Minutes - '�• - •-, 26., 1986 Page Eight indicated Mr. Cotton's recommendation (#2) is regarding fill materials and flood plain , noting it is not necessary for Commission to have this report prior to site development permit issuance, and indicating that the sower to this lot is not available without costly expenditure by the applicant and is not a requirement of the County Health Department, also explaining what flood proofing techniques are . The Public Hearing was then opened . Mr. William Easterbrooks, Owner, with regard to flood problems, Mr. Easterbrooks informed Commission he has received approval for a tributary underground which will remove the property from the 100 year flood zone, further noting the Town of Los Altos Hills also has some work to do under the roadwsy. Mr. Easterbrooks indicated that he has met all requirements of the previous meeting and hope the Commission will favorably approve his applications . Mr. Enright informed Commission the pipes under Fremont Road as it turns out are adequate and is not a 36" pipe except at the catch basin , noting under the roadway it is a 4x24 concrete culvert , referring to recommended condition #6. Mr, Cal Rossi, 13867 Robleda Roaa , informed Commission he resides behind this property and has no objections to the present proposal . The Public Hearing was then closed . MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, ,seconded by Emling and passed by the following roll call vote to 'aopr,ove-' the Conditional Development. Permit based on the proposal meeting the required findings of Municipal Code Section 10-1 . 1107 (c) (i-iv) ; and that the Maximum Development Area Allowed be 5,000 sq.ft. ana Maximum Floor Area Allowed be 3,500 sq.ft. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Emling , Kaufman, Patmore , Stutz and Chairman Struthers NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Yanez Mr. Enright referred to Conditions of Approval recommended in Staff Memo dated October 3 , 1986, noting X11 , be prior to issuance of Building Permit; #2, remain as is; #3 , be prior to issuance of Building Permit; #4, be deleted; #5, remain as is; #6, remain as is; #7 remain as is; #8 Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Development Committee prior to final inspection. ; and #9, Cotton recommendations in memo of. March 10, 1986 be included, and "should" be "shall" . MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Yanez, seconded by Emling and passed unanimously to approve the Site Development Permit fOr the Lands of Easterbrooks, 255i41 Fremont Road, foto new residence subject to conditions of approval as recommended by the City Engineer in his memo of October 3, 1985, adn as amended by Mr. Enright at the hearing; and including Landscape Plan requirement, Fire Retardant Roofing; and Town Geologist recommendations (noted as "shall") . ' - , --- ,l - - i'1 ♦Y ... - • _— i` A /. ATTACHMENT 11 20371 frtilMONT ROAD. LOS ALTOII HILL!, CALIFORNIA 114022 'y ij.,;_,;•�� `' �q (410e41.7222 °• a.1)l".k f1;:ifiill • California gyred u'`i November 26, 1986 T2s Mr. William Easterbrooks P.O. Box 60635 Sunnyvale , California 94088-0635 Subject: 25541 Fremont Road , Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit for New Residence Dear Mr. Easterbrooks; The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills at their regular meeting on November 26, 1986 voted to fap'provAyour Conditional Development Permit as it meets the required findings of Municipal Code Section 10-1 . 1107 (c) , with a condition that the Maximum Allowed Development Area bet5 0004sg4 f1;4_ and the Maximum Allowed Floor Area be _ 5;00:_sq= ft _l The Commission approved the Site Development Permit for new residence with the following conditions; 1. Applicant shall 001e_ate�right of way' W the satisfaction of the City Engineer C3 r'from, nt-oilfri ) , prior to issuance of- Building Permit. 2. Storm drain pipes shall be installed prior to commencement of any construction for the new residence. 3. Applicant shall enter into an agreement to connect to sewer in the event of a failure of the septic system, prior to issuance: of Building Permit. The agreement is to be to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Agreement preparation costs shall be paid for by the applicant. 4. Drainage from the residence must be mitigated to the satisfacion of the City Engineer. 5. Applicant shall extend the proposed 33" pipes to the existing catch basin in Fremont Road. Outlet shown on the plans appears to create an unsafe condition due to the loca'1.ion of the driveway. 6. House construction shall utilize floodproofing techniques for it's lower floor area. 7. Landscape Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Site Development Committee prior to the final inz pecLion of residence. 8. Stream Flow Analysis. -- The applicant 's tiydi'ologic` i lll�IJ!�1/�LiiyfiY .11izAA visurll_r Y.��.+- 1-1.(1��.. �1Y1,..!'.!!- utr'�:F>'1i�49�r1� d+i, _ -• - - --- =i - - - -- - _ W777' - AZ - ----- -- ' . - - 00 6 i • the stream which flows through the property. If it is determined that the two 33" diameter culverts cannot adequately discharge stream flow associated with a 100 year flood, then alternative mitigation measures should be presented to ensure the long-term safety of the proposed building site. Once the 100-year flood stream flow analysis is completed , a letter report shall be prepared and submitted along with supporting calculations for review and approval by the Town Engineer and Geologist prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Geotechnical Plan Review - Once the adequacy of the proposed stream culverts are demonstrated and approved by the Town, the applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve the geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e . , site preparation and grading , site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations end retaining walls) to ensure his recommendations have been incorporated . The results of these reviews shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of Building Permit. 10. Geotechnical Field Inspection -- The geotechnical consultant, shell inspect; test (as needed) , and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspeet !ons shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurfeee drainage improvements, and excavations for inundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of concrete and steel. The results of these inspections and the as-built colWitions of the project shall be described by the geotechnicyl consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to final project approval. Your Site Development Permit is valid one ( 1 ) year from the date of issu an^.e. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, 1XMullins lan.ting Technician /lam