Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 10, 2016 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS, A FLOOR AREA VARIANCE, AND A SETBACK VARIANCE; LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH; 25541 FREMONT ROAD; FILE #297-15-ZP-SD- VAR r/ FROM: Genevieve Fernandez, Assistant Planner APPROVED: Suzanne Avila,AICP, Planning Director SA RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Make the Conditional Development Permit(CDP) findings in Attachment 1, the Variance findings in Attachment 2 and approve the project as proposed, subject to the conditions in Attachment 3. Alternatively, the Commission may approve the project with modified conditions. BACKGROUND The subject property is a .3 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 Conditional Development Permit 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 1986 project was modified based on conditions of approval and the actual constructed project resulted in 3,016 square feet of floor area and 5,706 square feet of development area. The applicant is proposing to remove a portion of hardscape and two sheds for a net reduction 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. On December 3, 2015 the subject Conditional Development Permit (CDP) and Variance applications were considered by the Planning Commission. 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. On January 6, 2016 the Planning Commission again considered the project. The applicant had not made any revisions to the plans. Staff included requested supplemental documents from the original house approval and the applicant presented additional information regarding the history of the property. The Commission continued the matter and requested that the addition does not extend beyond the established building footprint.Three Commissioners supported the motion.The Commission also determined that a floor area variance would be required to be granted in order to approve the project. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road March 10,2016 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 property has 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: .30 acres Average Slope: 6.2% Lot Unit Factor: .30 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sq.ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 5,146 5,706 5,023 -683 123 Floor 3,046 3,016 3,281* 265 -235 *Exceeds Maximum, requires variance Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Development Permit,floor area variance and setback variance to add 265 square feet to the existing residence. The proposed floor area is inclusive of the following: • 62 square foot addition to the front entry • 102 square foot addition to the rear of the house(enclosure of balcony) • 14 window seat(extending beyond the building footprint) • 44 square foot addition to the east side of the house(enclosure of balcony) • 43 square foot addition to the west side of the house(enclosure of balcony) Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road March 10,2016 Page 3 of 9 Variance Request The setback variance request is for an addition and trellis that would encroach three feet into the front setback. The floor area variance would also permit the project to exceed the floor area maximum by 235 square feet.Draft variance findings prepared by staff are included in Attachment 2. Attachment 6 is the owner's justification for the requested variance. 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 The project is not increasing the impervious area on the property, therefore no changes to the existing drainage system are proposed nor required. 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 March 10,2016 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 dated January 19, 2016 6. Applicant's variance findings dated January 19, 2016 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. December 3, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes 13. January 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes 14. Letter of Support from neighbors 15. Development plans Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 25541 Fremont Road March 10,2016 Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE 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 .3 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. The side additions include enclosing existing balconies and will not result in an increase of the building foot print. 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 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 neighborhood consists of a mix of one and two story homes. The proposed additions are 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 additions are 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 and to exceed the Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 2 25541 Fremont Road March 10,2016 Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FOR A SETBACK ENCROACHMENT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA 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.3 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 approximately 29 square feet of floor area and a trellis that extends one foot into the front setback The additions are otherwise within the established building footprint. The residence with the proposed additions will be consistent with development on surrounding properties. Due to drainage pipes running under the house, the property is not able to add additional basement square footage that would not count towards floor area and development area. 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. The additional floor area is not increasing the building footprint, except for 14 square feet for the window seat. 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. The side additions are to enclose existing balconies and will not increase the building footprint. 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 March 10,2016 Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE 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 Depaituuent prior to requesting a final inspection. 6. All hardscape and floor area proposed to be removed as shown on the site plan shall be removed prior to final inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road March 10,2016 Page 8 of 9 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 of plans 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 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 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 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 25541 Fremont Road March 10,2016 Page 9 of 9 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. /k)---c-k...s-N:a.A.-Lc_c2_ ATTACHMENT 4 R EE1VED��p� ENVIROMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE i 3ii,5 Application For: •__7 _,;,,,, &-dd,___i,,,,L,r_7 f/ I _ vvIV yr LVoi—j5 hi 6 vf'1�1 / -/-ce 1 •.Y , cr- cz-6-e �L?i�4J Applicant Name: J� ._.-;.��,,r � r� . Address ,Q 5-se/ G'c% 1-4-;w-6 ,-r21"- 1 . Reviewed by 1a / 1'- ' :)' e_,, Com,,. Date: F.,2/- /s COlk�MFNTS Site Impact e e . ) 0 11 e.,,,,, .ki45 -1-f;c`3 5 e- vie,/ '- �4 L-c(,c."(e.✓ - (Is- i fighting c�� h J �w.,i± �?�CC4' !i3 �- �� ca-,,..1- 1,,,,,/-`Z_ 5,1r (4") . V-C ;\v1"cC d --f-.,.e._ ell S 1-. ca Nil c (51). Noise c--1—--h—e_ c,-4_,L. vi t Le;. cj.,e_z,I Creeks Drainage Easements Existing Vegitation Mitigation wiw: Volunteer-LAH 4/6/15 ATTACHMENT 5 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road•Los Altos Hills,California 9=022-(650)941-7222•FAX(650)941-3160 WORKSHEET2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN LN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME .TE1,/y P 0 YA KO V t /L-Y/9 SA85 0 V/C N PROPERTY ADDRESS Z554/ ERE/ 2O.VT ROAD • CALCULATED BY .7-EFA".e&y 11A,eVEA f A/nNo#' L EV y j DATE .TAN. /9, 20/G 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing Proposed DA Credit Total A. House and Garage(from part 2.A) 30/6 2404-•5. (r 5Z$6 B. Decking. 0 C. Driveway and Parking 2044 —/G7 —2 a.0 '- /.377 D. Patios and Walkways 532 —532 — ZZ D E. -^-t^%'e^^-c f 41 f 4-•¢ V 44 S F. _' Pk.to a__b-:..3 7 3 0 f 3 0 PAT/O G. Accessory Building t'. ...rte:.e.;_;) /03 —/03 0 SNE,OS H. Solar Panels (ground mounted) 0 I. Any Other Coverage CH I M Ne`I' 41 11 Total 570(o -4-(3 5 —Z20 5 022•5 Roof Mounted Solar Bonus (LAHMC Section 10-1.502) yes No_ SF Maximum Development Area-MDA(from worksheet#1) 5/4G Maximum Development Area w/Solar Credit 2. FLOOR AREA Existing Proposed Total A. HOUSE AND GARAGE a_First Floor 30/6 746 0.3 3076. b. Second Floor Z011.2- 91 : - 1 •d H•Z c.Attic 0 d.Basement 0 e. Garage 0 f.Area over 17' 0 B. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS a.First Floor 0 b. Second Floor 0 c.Attic 0 d.Basement 4) Total 30/6 /264.5 3280--5 Maximum Floor Area-MTA(from worksheet#1) 3 0•¢6 • TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY j •-•ir / / I DATE 1— 2 7-/6 1 • • ATTACHMENT 6 Variance Page4 JAN 192016 FINDINGS TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS The findings for a Variance are as follows: 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: 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 one by one. When a child runs through the entrance door, she bungs herself against the staircase wall. The floor area variance is within the limits of granted MFA and consists of the above new entrance hall and the enclosed existing balconies.The balconies pose safety risks for the young children as well as privacy intrusion for the neighboring houses. 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 privileges 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. Floor area variance is minimal and is within the limits of granted MFA as well as very close to the newly updated MFA of 3046 s.f.The resulting MDA will be LESS than the newly updated MDA of 5146 s.f. 3. That granting the 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 variances for the entrance hall and floor area 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 as well as provide more privacy for the neighboring houses (because of balconies enclosure). 4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance: The variances will not interfere with the Zoning Ordinance rte--— -a•- - ----- -- - - —• - - • • .. -.-,'t• b.. ., V --• . . -..Pt• A. ATTACHMENT 7 .burr . -:•-A...i•l 'Ai'r.4:s,- �� ' `moi. -';r.. 's 20379 FREMONT-RO 5 ALTOS MILL' '7.ALIFORNIA 94022 7 7% t ! i •Oct ober• 2, 1986 ?, Caa 4` Planning Commission. Meeting of October 6 , 1966 v• ,cd ' Janto. LAi4DS OF EAS'rERT3BOOKS FTL.F ¥VAR 8-86 A: #175-.23-022. . . . . . .25_,41 .W.. Fremont, .Road . Public, Ilearing to consider variance to encroach into the front yard setback by 10 feet , to encroach .:nto the declining height envelope, and to exceed the Maximum Development Area (NDA, for the lot . STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: . Staff recommends_ that the Planning Commission approve the vari- ance request to encroach into the front setback and declining height envelope, but deny the variance to exceed the MDA for the lot . The:-e recommendations are based on findings as supported in this staff report. • BACKGROUND: . The applicant applied for zoning and site development permit to construct a new residence on February 3, 1986. The previous residenc,.+ was destroyed by fire in 1985. The application was determined incomplete, and additional information required, in- cluding evidence on the adequacy of the septic drainfapld 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 reguz.red to intrude into the front setback shoule the Site Development Committee require additional road right- r.f-c;ay. The SDC was likely to make this requirement , al.-- though it is not consistent with tP it policy. on dedications'.. Currer.t :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 .9-Curve section of • Fremont Road, i:t was most likely that the right-of-way would 'be required. The applicant therefore applied :for a vartanc.e on August 18, 1986 . While the variance was. being processed, the City Council adopted the new' zoning ordinance, Ordinance 305, wh.;ch requires that Tots with less than .5 lot Unit Factor receive a Conditional ' Develapme,..t Permit . It will therefore 'be necessary for the an- plicant to apply fDr a CDP and Site Development Permit or. a seperate agenda.. Furthermore, under Ordinance .305, the aroject o'a 441) b . Page 2 Lands of a s t erbrc•oks October 2, .1986 will also exceed the MDi fox the lot, therefore the variance re- quest is expanded .fror the original request: The property and project are deocribed as follows: Gross Area a _358 acres Net Area . .305 acres with right-of-way dedication Average slope 5 .8% Lot Unit Factor :305. , MDA 5,000 sq.ft. unless reduced through CDP MFA 4,.000 sq.ft. unless reduced through CDP Proposed DA -Proposed FA •3,732 sq.ft. FINDINGS: Staff has determined that the required findings of section 10- 1.1107 0-1.1 07 ate supported with the following evidence for the request to intrude into the setback and height envelope: i. The lot is exceptionally small and therefore the setback recuirements of the Town' s zoning ordinance are a more sig- nificant constraint than for other lots in the zoning die- 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 boild 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 front setback will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or, improvements. 5. The use proposed is expressly authorized by the Town's zoning ordiannce. 6.. The design of the naw residence will be reviewed for confornance with the site development ordinance, and will require a Conditional Development Permit. These reviews will assure that the final approval complies with the intent aol purpose of the General Plan. • 46 Page 3 Lands of Easterbrooks October 2, 1986 The variance to exceed MDA isnot supportable with sufficient evidence, since each property in the zoning district has an MDA based on it's slope and net area, and this lot wi]1 be granted minimum maximums unless the Planning Commission determines that these allowances should be further lowered in their CDP review. ATTACBMENTS: Attached fox your review p)ease find: 1. Site plan, floor plans and: e]evations. 2. File correspondence; 3. Variance application; 4. Comments frpm reviewing agencies.. Respectfully submitted, Nancy a ox y e Town Planner j •---po_ www 10 1 qipt. s 1 i ATTACHMENT 8 2 ,Obtrusive'" . MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED; Moved by Struthers , seconded by Kaufman , and passed upanimously to approve the minutes f October 8, 1986 as amended . C. REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, ,1'986.: Commissioner Kaufman reported the City Ciune approved an Appeal of Conditional. Use Permit for Lands of Sea IF; the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for .Lands of Hand _ey was removed from Agenda by App.Ligent; :discussed drainag concern (Chown ) on Saddle. Mountain Estate ; De. Anza Pro 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 9'n this agenda , ''Ms . Lytle presented Council with outline preeedur s for this application . Approved encroachment permit for Ea wick property; granted a change in filing fees for possible arianee for Mr . Sturm for a fence; heard presentation for ands Of Lee, Saddle Mountain (Scnwarz) by Alan Lambert with egard to height limitations, noting this applicatioh will be orwarded to Site Development Committee for review and report o City Council; Jarvis restoration plan was reviewed by Site evelopment Committee and referred to City Council , Cityun.cil required 30 days to complete restoration. City Council doffed plan for administration of nuisance complaints• will be holding interviews for 2 open seats On Planning •ommission as well as seat on City Council on November 3rd at :00p.m. , appc'_,_tments will be made at the regular meeting of N ember 5th. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 ,. 2 and 3, LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS, #CDP 2-86, .iVAR 8-46, 25511 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 Cominissin 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 eneraachinent into the front yard setback by 10 feet, to encroach into the declining height envelope , and to exceed th4 allowed Maximum Development Area for the lot,, staff recd„w.ends: that the Commission approve the variance request 3 to encroach into the front yard setback and decl.iaing height envelope , but to deny the variance to exceed the MDA fo'r 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. recommendation of fire retardant roofing should also be included . The Public Hearing was then opened . Mr. William Easterbrooks , Owner , informed Commission since the last public h?acing 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 so.ft. , thereby making a variance to exceed the development area no longer necessary. Mr. Eastabrooks 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 residencee 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 later District to install a new culvert through the property. The Public Hearing 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 thenecessity 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 I. this submittal . C'�m§missioner� alsb�in`d�fcated `the' needs to rowbLain =a'dditi snal.. road r°ight-of-way on {this'4pr-operty when`'the site deveiopmen;t.,p'ermit` eoulgd= be•approved,. Chairman Struthers- suggested—that Mr .. Easterbro`ok's re--des'igt f the stt acture to meet the historic nature of the era the house and neighboring houses were constructed , and to be sansitive to the area noting 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 D:g ny Without Prejudice the Lands of Easterbrooks, File t�VAR 8=8'6, 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.spass}ed4 anxtnbusl;Vtoiecontinue, the Lands of ; tEas,t;er;b ooks,- Cnndit blia] Development Permit, File trCDP 2-86, to"-allow the applicant to re-design the proposed structure to be in conformance with zoning ordinances . MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carloo arc passed uman�mously to conti nue,v the„Lands. o€ lEasterbrooks ;Site Deve'lap,ne;nt Permz_t;, 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, andpreviously 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 , Tjust , a koliZ A0. oT`v,er the szzeE o'f e be .oiuch a ;smIra° ate t to en::tr 64. c.e...teo�tne.�a1 own thCommourssionAern sCai-'ico indicated she is not concernea over the style of the residence , jks,tof:7the;' seize soft.h �det res 'en�....tn. sou, size Lott suggesting that the residence could be shifted arnd 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 app.ealir.g the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council . -4. L-A-fi1-1 S_Cr• A CC QL.A_,-2-7-1.6 i—Sh-e•rtcrn tz—f o-a-d T R—tpa £-o-r—Qrpp-r•ov-a-1—o-f— _t; til �, f - Jr, ATTACHMENT 9 • 1 -1.t' �11 ��. i r 4 • civ: 1. .►.• 4• , .1. .i• �' , --. 4LR:r1. -sssys.vssww w- -- 2.15374 FRL'A1ONT(ROAD. LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIt'O12NIA U40Z� • .nr•,-ter; ~Z o+�.7Z22 November 20, 1986 °� Iti lel '' lrl. ^: i .1 • .°, California N Planning Commission meeting of November 26, 19:, °d . .,, 1, � LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS FILE #CDP 2-85 25541 Fremont Road APN 17.5-23.022 Public Hearing to consider a request for Conditional Development^ Permit to construct, a new residence on a lot with a Lot=tn-itA aer-- t qi WIXEter road_:r ghtow'di dlediaatxon)J DISCUSSION: This application was Rret�� ousl>y,,c�onsidezed by the Planning Com- mission on October 22.', 1986, in :penjunction 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 viawshed of one of the Town's most travelled ' corridors and entryways. The Commis on eecommendedthat the a - 'p 'ican"desI4.40e residence,,within-the equirod set, acks and 4 eigit envelope requirements, andithat-3the size ;of "the� oposa7 �..shoul`d be reduced as necessary._bAn'e t Ott e_se re_.qui e 1 dents: The applicant 1-1e18fulfil led this recommendation afidTkedUdeTli7sP sore:oaf tt'e p posa:Yl by pprgx3 ►atel 5003,'sq: Lty' The property and proposed project can now be described as follows: Gross Area x:,30,5 acres`•,, Net Area29=,acresi LUF " 53 v NDA 5000 sq,:ft. or as reduced by CDP process , MFA 4000 sq„ft. or as reduced by CDP process Proposed DA 4998 sq.ft. Proposed FA 3274 aq.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 Itha lot. ATTACHMENTS: Attached please find plans and minutes,of the previous action. , es ectfuld subm't• ed, sr ,_ ,, .� :La— ' :.^ vrr. �r•d•' - ?Nancy Maddox Lytle, Town Planner ,. , • fl ATTACHMENT 10 Planiunq Cartmissipn Minutes ._ NQyembex 20.1926 Page Seven Hr.. Rainey indicated they then will agree to c "'tiruanoe of the subdivision and will provide commission wit o' farther noise readings for all of the. lots. Ms.: Lytle indicated Commission shoul,�rrequest continuance to the. next meeting, as well as an extension. t mallow for time for the City Council review at their meeting of Januarr7th. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Carieo and' passed by the following ros cal]: vote to continue the L?nds of Currie, Tentative Map, File #10146, to the December 10th meeting which allows the applicant to sub4A further noise level readings on each lot, taken morning and evgr.tn� wring peak traffic hours. ROLL CALL: • i5 AYES: Commisser Carieo, Emling, Kaufman, Patmore, Stutz, and Chairman Strut• rs ' NOES: Con ,:-ssicner Yanez ABSTAY.N: :'Jone Comp ssioner Carlon excused herself from meeting as she was notfeeling 2. LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS, FILE //CDP 2-86, 25541 Fremont Road , Reouest for Approval of Conditional Development Permit ;and 3. LANDS OF EASTERB3OOY.S, 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 requestfor variance to intrude into the front setback, °nee 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 §et'oaok, and Commission reeommerzded 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..' :tris. 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 Maxifu'm 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 conditiont as recommended by the City Engineer, and Town Geologist, additionally standard conditions with regard to landscape and fire r.etartdant roofing.. Coznmi'ssioner Patmore questioned recommendation ,02 of Mr. Cottons s : report, with regard to timing of .applicatons, etc., and why this is not required. to be connected to Sewer? Nis. Lytle indicated that action .thou1d be taken on both applications this evehiztg, and that the applicant should not have to spend time and money on this •rev.ew prof^sed by Cotton unless he receives approval from the Town , Ms. Lytle also indicated that .a' variance is no longer required as part of this application process. Mr.. Enright • Planning Ca mission.Minutes - •- , 26., 1986 .„ Page Eight indicated Mr. Cotton's recommendation (112) 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 expenditureby 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 roadway. Mr. Easterbr'ooks indicated that he has met all requirements ofthe previous meeting and hope the Commission will favorably approve his applications . Mr. Enright informed Commission the pipes under Fremont Road as i; turns ._ out are adequateand is not a 36" pipe except at the catch basin, noting under the roadway it is a 4x4 concrete culvert , referring to recommended condition #t.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 j prov`.e°'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 #1 , be prior to issuance of: Building Permit; 112, remain as is; #3, be prior to issuance of Building Permit; 04, be deleted; #5, remain as is; #6, remain as is; 117 remain as is; .118 Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Stte 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, 25541 Fremont Road , fol new residence subject to conditions. of approval as recommended by the. City Engineer in his memo of October 3 , 198S, adn as amended by Mr. Enright at the hearing; and including Landscape Plan requirement, Fire Retardant Roofing; 'and Town Geologist recommendations (noted as "shall") . A ATTACHMENT 11 .� 10173 !'KitHONT ROAD. LO* AL70i1 H11.1.11. CALIFORNIA 114O22 '�,•;^:+•+' r. tl !41.222, °. 1 b41i 1.r� a dla California .4 November 26, 1986 ?'ed . Jaau�0i . Mr. William Easterbrooks P.O. Box 6.0635 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 a,pkproYeyour 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 be 5,0;00 s=q f tr and the Maximum Allowed Floor Area : be t3,55OVsq ' 'te 1 The Commission approved the Site Development Permit for new residence with the following conditions; 1 . Applicant shall ed.teate right .�0-T sway eta the satisfaction of the City Engineer (X30< 1'rome�n4ter1in1it� 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 sa.tisfaoion 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 locw5.ior, of the driveway. 5. 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 in.'peel:Lon of residence . 5. Stream Flow Analysis. - The applicant 's hydirologie` _ gt,M8451I Nllir �1.krA etUut"ge_n Y IN 1_�;ll, .. X1.+),..5'11: • ti-3:fat�5:�51,� C1� - •• r • the stream which flows through the property. If it is determinedthat 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 and 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 consu].tar.t shall inspect; test (as needed) , and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to : Site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurfete drainage improvements, and exqavations for i wrdations and retaining walls prior to the placement of concrete and steel. The results of these inspections and the es-built coiWi t ions of the project shall : be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to final project approval. Four: Sive Development Permit is valid one ( 1.) year from the date of issuan^.e. If you have mly questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, r lancing Technician Ram ATTAcptIMENy Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday,December 03, 2015, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 L ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Comm':sioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus Staff: Suzanne Avila,Planning Director; Genevieve Fe ..ndez, Assistant Planner; Jaime McAvoy,Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3A CONSIDERATION OF AN INITIAL UDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MA ,DERO CREEK RESTORATION. AND ' '`'}' BANK STABILIZATION PROJE Pa;e Mill Road File#426-15-MISC Staff- R. Chiu/T. Tseng). Ex Parte Disclosures: Com ei issioner Mandle said she spoke with Kjell Karlsson. There were no other disclores. Planning Director Su •nne Avila presented the staff report. :' Senior Engineer�. na_iT sen'g_and.Director Avila answered questions posed by the Commission. Chair Coup rus opened the.PUBLIC HEARING. Seeing o one wishing to speak, Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Co. .. ission discussion ensued. , , - MOTION MADE AND SECONDED:"Commissioner Tankha moved to forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the Initial Study and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for stabilization and restoration of 330 feet of 1 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 3,2015 pprovcd January 6,2016 Matadero Creek to reduce erosion and undercutting of thecreek channel, and consider installing vegetation that appears in the,na'ture of the existing vegetation with a more natural look and feel. The motif was seconded by Commissioner Abraham. AYES: Commissioner' Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Coup�erus NOES: ]ot'one ABSENT: None AB STA : None MO,YON CARRIED 5-0. 3.2 LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH; 25541 Fremont Road, File #297-15-ZP- SD-VAR; A request for a Conditional Development Permit for additions totaling 329 square feet and a variance to allow an addition within the front setback_ CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 (e) (Staff-G. Fernandez). Ex Parte Disclosures: Each Commissioner said they had spoken with the applicants. Assistant Planner Genevieve Fernandez presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Applicant Jenny Polyakov spoke on behalf of her project and answered questions posed by the Commission. Seeing no one else wishing to speak Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Mandle said she was torn on this.project as it was currently over the current Maximum Floor Area (MFA) standards, and while she was philosophically opposed to this size project on this size property, the additional floor area requested was largely within the footprint of the existing building. Commissioner Abraham said that he was skeptical about the floor area numbers the staff report stated were granted by the Planning Commission in 1986 and whether there was logic behind them. He then said that the development rules have 2 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 3,2015 Approved January 6,2016 changed and this proposal was over the allowable area. And while he agreed that certain changes were apparent, he asked how the Commission would justify denying another applicant a similar request if they grant this. Commissioner Tankha said that she was also torn over the project because it was more MFA than anything that was been granted over the last year, but that there was some merit in the argument that the existing addition sits in the foot print of the existing home.And while the impact on neighbors is minimal, she asked if this type of project falls under the exceptions that the Commission can approve. She then said that she would like to consider granting the variance. Commissioner Partridge said that he too was torn on how to proceed with this project. He said that he was not too concerned with changing parts of the roof line, but the look that the homeowner was going for in the front would make it more visible from the street, and therefore more bulky. He said he was sympathetic to the request to make the entry way bigger, but had trouble supporting the argument for increasing the floor area in the back simply because the neighbors would not see it. He did not feel that was the right case to make. Chair Couperus said that he did not think extending the hallway was a huge issue and he was ok with approving it. He saw enclosing the balconies as more problematic, and agreed that the notion that neighbors were unable to see the additions was not grounds for granting the variance. Commissioner Tankha asked the applicant if they were agreeable to just closing up the balconies, and not adding the square footage outside the footprint. Ms. Polyakov said that the added square footage was necessary for a functional floor plan,but would accept what the Commission was willing to grant her. Commissioners Mandle and Abraham suggested not allowing the balcony enclosure. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Partridge moved to continue the application with the request to reconfigure the house without the rear addition, but to allow the two side balconies to be enclosed, and allowing the front entry way to be expanded and encroach into the setback. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner .Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Chair Couperus NOES: Commissioner Tankha ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 3 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 3,2015 Approved January 6,2016 MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Director Avila requested the item be moved to a,date certain. The Commission agreed to continue the item to the January 7, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. 3.3 LANDS OF PICHAI; 25857 Westwind Way, File#338-15-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 9,717 square foot two-story residence with an 840 square foot garage and 3,651 square foot basement (maximum height 24'6") and a swimming pool. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 153.03(a) (Staff-S.Avila). Commissioners Partridge said that he had spoken with neighbor Nader Mousavi. Commissioner Tankha said that she spoke with the applicant, neighbor Nader Mousavi, and another neighbor whose name she could not recall. Commissioner Mandle and Chair Couperus said that they had also spoken with Mr. Mousavi, and neighbor Bob Garner. Commissioner Tankha recused herself as she has a personal relationship with the applicant. Director Avila presented the staff report. Commission asked question of staff. Anjali Pichai, applicant, greeted the Commission and introduced her architect. Robert Swatt, Swatt/Miers, spoke on behalf of the project and answered questions posed by the Commission. Phoebe Wong-Oliveros, Swatt/Miers, answered questions about the trees. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Nader Mousavi, Los Altos Hills, neighbor, said the presentation relieved his initial concerns, but he will not know if all of his concerns have been addressed until installation. Bob Garner,Los Altos Hills, neighbor, said he had similar concerns to that of Mr. Mousavi, and that screening would be important for the neighbors with this project. Mr. Swatt made a closing statement. Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. 4 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 3,2015 ATTACHMENT 13 Minutes of a Special Meeting Town of Los.Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 06,2016,.7:00 P.M. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills;CA 94022 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus Staff: Suzanne Avila, Planning Director; Genevieve Fernandez, Assistant Planner; Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner; Jaime McAvoy, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH 25541 Fremont Road, File# 297-15-ZP- SD-VAR; A request for a Conditional Development Permit for additions totaling 329 square feet and a variance to allow an addition within the front yard setback. CEQA review: Categorical exemption per section 15301 (e) (Staff-G. Fernandez). CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 3, 2015. Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioners Mandle, Partridge, Tankha, and Chair Couperus all said that they had spoken with the applicants. Assistant Planner Genevieve Fernandez presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Applicant Ilya Sabsovich spoke on behalf of his application, and why he chose not to make any changes to his original plan. Commission asked questions of the applicant. Commission asked clarifying questions of staff. Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6,2016 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Abraham said that a Conditional Development Permit(CDP) is not granted indefinitely, and that the intensity of this development was not in alignment with the ordinance changes that the Commission proposed to the City Council. Commissioner Mandle said that the document history was understandably confusing but Town ordinances do change over time. It was made clear by the Commission that the applicant was to reduce their proposed floor area, but she would be willing to accept the plans, which are in excess of any Maximum Floor Area (MFA) that could be calculated from the area of this lot. She said she was willing to consider a variance for the MFA as it was not harmful to the community, was supported by the neighbors, and largely in the footprint of the existing house, which was already overbuilt. Commissioner Tankha said that she understood CDPs to only be applicable to the application it was tied to, and once development was complete it expires. As such, the Commission is not bound by anything that was previously granted. She said she would be willing to agree to enclose the balcony due to the safety issue, but not the additional floor area as the property was currently maxed out. She later suggested granting additional floor area, but less than the applicant was requiring. Commissioner Partridge said that he was disappointed to see exactly the same plans returned to them after the Commission gave specific directions, as well as accommodating by granting the entry way expansion and side balcony enclosures. He agreed that the balconies were a safety issue, but a balcony does not have to be enclosed to add a window for ventilation. He would prefer the applicant adhere to the Commission's previous direction, and said that he could not support this application as presented. Chair Couperus said that he saw this presentation, not as the applicant defying the Planning Commission, but returning with more information to make a stronger case for his request. While the increased floor area seemed to be a bigger topic than the bulk of the house, he felt that the footprint was more important. He has mentioned before that floor area and/or ratio does not always affect the three-dimensional aspect of a property, and that was true in this case. He said that he was inclined to grant with a variance as it would have little visual impact on the house, and would make it more livable for the applicants. Commissioner Abraham said that the Commission appeared to all be in agreement that a variance was required,meaning this item would have to be continued again as a variance was not noticed. Staff agreed. 2 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6,2016 Architect Amnon Levy addressed the Commission and acknowledged that he understood their discussion about the direction of the project. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Tankha moved that the Commission ask the applicant to come back with a revised plan where they flex the 62 square foot addition to the front entry way, 41 feet to the east side to enclose the balcony and 45 feet to the west side to enclose the other balcony, and enclosing the rear balcony, staying in the foot print of the house and omitting the increased floor area that was requested. Additionally, the applicant should apply or a variance, at which the Planning Commission will hear the request for the subject property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. AYES: Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Partridge ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 3-2. 32 LANDS OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (APPLICANT: AT&T); 26379 Fremont Road, File# 257-15-ZP-SD-CUP; A request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify an existing/previously approved wireless communications facility by replacing existing antennas and adding additional equipment to the top of an existing 69 foot monopine, relocating existing emergency communications antennas to the 52 foot level, relocating existing AT&T GSM antennas to a new mount at the 48 foot level, and adding and replacing equipment within an existing shelter near the base of the monopine for AT&T Mobile; CEQA review: Categorical exemption per Section 15301(b). (Staff-S. Padovan). Ex Parte Disclosures: There were no ex parte disclosures. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staf r port. Commission asked questions of staff. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLI ' AR1NG. Tim Page, Crown Castle,re a esenting AT&T, spoke on behalf of the application. Seeing no one else ishing to speak Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commissio, discussion ensued. 3 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6,2016 'LEMENT ATTACHMENT 14 . t_ Distributed: 11606 To the planning department Los Altos Hills To Whom It May Concern: We don't object enclosing and around 2 f. expansion of the master balcony (within setback lines) in 25541 W. Fremont Rd. property. Name • CAA, oLt T. TiAVie, ( Niq Address 4 0 5 AL.-r"dS f/ (42-5 Signature Date To the planning department Los Altos Hills To Whom It May Concern: We don't object enclosing and around 2 f. expansion of the master balcony (within setback lines) in 25541 W. Fremont Rd. property. Name itr(t.,21/4 V Syr Address 460 . -/cP/t2aed, Signature Date 2 't 1 " P ; ♦•r r.c▪ sa r, `ry--0 -.. :, �t i; aT' A,�S i,▪ t'.'N uW, f RZ-�y -� �'� � °� ,;',..:.4,,F..1• S. 1t M - y(n' Y k .� t 3 1 �,-tF 1I,,---'ll'4-x�+ ,M a' t p t : tr hi. iat t }iy `oi -y,.,i -4,,,,,i t.tie�I'•�h,0,,,yr -,--s 7}�• F 6\ Y `sil s, Y-xi *. , r. r , ,V.fi }4 f J' +tY. R`4 f ,..,%: ,.f!';., a,, t'"1� V' Y\ ,:4, ryL.7f S'' ` ...t;•,y ya -Ai ) y ,! 5 Jai t .r K.a `iYnt J Pf��}ytr� f� r-i ,( 51 q i.' '`r 'S, r, 4 4Y .T'I< f0 .. y' �}vti,-.T1',-1-,14.,..::'L: ,K'JA, {, .� f""S \'S R„,; .P :g/^ Y„ y r9.- <t `: ' L S 1z a ▪-. g + �47 ' .) ~ } L' 1 z JI- {0,4 7 Z.4� . ,t e..7t 1 rt :..T r S -t4 . L t{''"4si rk {k , t-\r� n.S.t,n� t` tS, N.Ak .tib b f L ) Yl :':;. 9•';qY YFq.. '� 14 t . tr}• ,t 1Jf R4 47,41.flY- , iM>';'''.4,4'.1;.....5 Ys _C A.``i r•.. a7 r P h is ki. au'+ .r.,,` ! r �,;,, a,. A •4"�ti of , `t 1y`, mA 4; ifi 7". " rt r' ,c .-,... ,:ri: . J.yg :r. 17i r i.s`T Y r • a .▪ Y:'r 7 t P + .e.l ur "i.. "+'i •'3r� t:i> 1 .iS41 fi ,.::i +,': ^, f` ' .. .7P /: {'C, `3. rt; &. •i �' -'.a A ( 4 .L2sr •. � fY+S tk i+i' 1 < [.ri�' rrr S4 i .�fxL t, t. \S�b�+� t5 !-,•;>•.-'.:,.:.,-,..:.,: -.V.,'.,To Ute p1 anutn� r e t fi R '� C t r sa �vr i`t t, t t_ L t f ,}'s y t C,.c, �)kggj -.4.F astir tR.,y ,• f if 4 rt, ,' �t.Wle.{'} to ' 4'YCri1•+'I r . '1.1.5' .x' `•4•PPS ". I A T l,, 1 5 P cs f i,Yyt/ t+ �tiaarYt�v ', 4 t 4g• F j �cajl�Cy 2 i Los Alto's r1ii1.5 � .. e'f',:,'%tf r,, f t�4 ,, if, ,tis. ,M s. w ., 4..0.,,,...&T,..• „,„..4.,..,-,,,,,^ li . r , n1, ri s r _ e...er t`�333y___ 'v, `_- \`s.- �,i r Vi-VO.1 Y iLA i++ "ti '�'r t 'E .P�,.. ••• ,42,5;i' tlEF � '7� t s Y,-ref , u r �▪ b.pra . � •;u r ,P',..,F,, ,,,,,..{1 t . '+#`"4 ! %1141 :.r .?+t C,^ .ii t b,-t y..�4t+'4 (� Whom y 'yV/, /� /'� ' ;r r�, rt �4 } ;4::;z 1 y, � ,:r' ry '4{zr'f"4n.�,a t�`r ` Fa”, ` .K °,4fa`_t S r r ~o Mt hom I� May entire! li#>`' Jf 9 P, f n %i-4+v''t�' K'T .s t''(�)'C"y� S.T�"7 •.;•.;1,.,.4,1ek �y'y r: A S :kiii ' ..ro' + ,6 :15t. t ,-.9,,,k yt.t- i.•p{�. w3• 174„.- } ; J 1,7 .v.�. 1.2 i. i :Fi P? �, r..ai , �.t ;' \#Ile f ,}' i -i t ,7 •4,.ttt.F e 'V r,I.. s'a Eb vot '' ";4`. ',;j(:,,-",r,,wve µPQ'• i �i '� ' ! Pq :::: •r. 1 K!` ^l,'°i,.}rt i r 4.`a`L, i e i s ; i5 , ,' r s + .� k�•YA r F51 �A 5 t A''� 1-i r h r {r �nC! .1 k- •a l n Kl 'Pyr 1 g,; t W1,1,[� ,'•••:. ..:,,,k-::.,.4!.1f,4=.,..:11-:.ir, x:b , t Pt, r ,''P-'"' h, •,•,,,. 7 ;fy �.�kr{�,P g f b .: k f 1 F t,' P Mr' x t t*i + N: 4 .+` a.;�I./.i:' ti s h <., , �.' �.., .�k.ur n,r i rf'�y. °.r'.▪ ,�t;sr't vcd ti'.�sx.�+, ft ra]�� . .t S �' {I ty,t i'f 1 1,_ -..„.•;---.,,-,,,-,,,,,,,..4;,.,-,-,e.,,,.,,'R4K„s ��� {i �Y .- to i!r;; i aatSN- J j _l h Yt fix`T tent-los�xa az �lncl f. �xpans�on o �he4 �` �� Y � k We �c��7 t ah�c c g A �iy, .;;{ •. n ��stez balcoii wi•tha c lc Iles) in X554 W Fremon c �F ;.3 '?V.1 its 1,Pytl�� T P - 12� 'f• Y .;,,z.' PO H8 :(-43`Y q 4 r tx.P1 "& 62' 'h�} K.R a • is ++ `k't' }+ t lS d:... t , r ,t4 x, ,41 f b` Y a " �' i'a t'' : �� •}��} ����l`` �'Np 2[ t ,,vtf ��hV�, �i��rN f�*1����e �- ..-i"i'`rte i��e.�s '''.144, jd{a�r��L'tt�-� {�.- -'a+tl�E. l 1 J h tIt�*,i *r !4; a;. 1444'4 � ) .g'i P..r..t:',� +a- a5.' " 't' _ %,� � i3t "� k Oat r AG att`!,x <}�' tt, + •p 7 .f a nikP'"h. a. ',t, " �, 3 �' 2�x~. 3 ✓sY'�.! S!r k .£' Yb*yy t 4 T.,...,,,,,6:-.0_,N.,. ,t. y¢rf f?r�� � w i) � ,i, t b tt X e it'. ` r µda ds '¢ Y .r M+J`�'^•vt vx�. '�Xitf r fil" - �.[�geir Sti�" 7�"Kt ���^ t - r'. ' r ,r r' +r fa'4'';• �+J f L 44 ,j { nc 4'a`; e r bot y }'ir t' -..'-'(:•:- 1 7 A�. f +� f-��r"'�f 2' r�:�� �'ri� �4r. 'r.��• A3:. :4'3.. r s, �f.. �2.. �A.,., -MT,���t �. J p�'"'+. '�^r't',:r �( !. ,7 P3 t, -s+ a' t 4, t l� i+ a r J i 4 'SJ•� 3 1r' y' i;- .r "1V a � S '_ t. s "�a.1040.r t�,i6. , „ g'`siA �{ .t a '' i ✓s Y �-„ T �s�s i S � s a �_AS "_�� 71 u�.Jr��i�trJs}t �'" tr 't1�K_e 'P�ef �4`� t;r t rn�\ .,w � � �S---t, ! M y}•� K,,,, [3`t :4; 2 1 . r'�4i t s '' �,, 4.'e 1 ri� 'ia `- •�.51sw?: iKt' ?�• P ig t i ' t u r`.: r� J. _::/�''. 1 itrF, 1 "}� *.�;t r t .-6 v,..;dt mac1 i... `t i " >2, t▪ 1 , t, ! ✓�t �. ;1 t ?i t �� - L t4r r Fa r l• ig�` r y .--4-:,:i6,-..:-;;,:....,;:„-:,-.4.1,,- - s r yJ' 7' + ,- - t lf,ti`.s A,z ki Ki fy"1,-��1 A. �r. -`, c +> 4 r.�ry�ti k-.- FY',r ,Itii4y'S5� }..'4T''� � i( � k4'"3•�t' �*N1t t�P�qq t5 �3s. h 'My7'r� �ht/SIfY r Y a,S yi�Y 's ,�j >� dr ' tr#'S.?rt ,s .01,-. '''''''''''-'4:1-f)'‘..4.1: : ^'t 4:17;/r 1 .� „z 4-.441 - `��, �rt z* k' s• t sj �ti L � r u-^ ` ' ��I ('.S 5 , YR i �,,$ e t'�' : ,'ai t t' wt x,ia t kf, .:‘'47.1..--44.14-.4411 s� +��� 'rAr Y:ti ! ,Fal t'rpr.,, f \. r+l, , �' 1 ''- 'tti sr _$ At.T;11417,4, +, lav t, r r Y • r w1 t',�`�'t4* - " a t £,,.. r ki . Tt s a xti is._ p,4" • i �� ,le h mac- ,�5. f�,: ry,. v - r tti '4.,. aR ,a ;,: ..,...,•4'..,c f X � Y ___, 1 is y'"'C!,'...'IF ar Y t \ .; i P � t ;'' Ok 4,4 r'1 1 TO.0, / 'r i 17 r iY7(� (/,,, / c' ,2_2___...,,,,,:„.1.,A. • L e w 4, r ,, v , ` -1 { . • pmt'tY f`_ ; ..-..,• .- -� ..;',44 Y' ,v a•",r2`+ r t Y° fir F. p ',„40 '; 1 0� 1 Y d ° -.';i "f s;:,r rb -! 414.1 1 t !..z 'Y t t ' t '' 4 I Q } + - wr wa ;„-,:-.3;'4,4•4„4A,••1,;,- .,e, .3-.-' .1 v .. Y t --,421'71?-0-r:•\'11:.sl .,�G i'. y.r n4-::„, se4::�. § 'i"{ .: fi1t�Y�'iia, 1 . t.:,'L . P�1. .a .e . T. -_,. k .. ..} ,. .4 .`,..:tit Vt?R. �1 '.1- c.r. s++,Z*n}r "K "`i3. '.LtR7itehrnaes,"+.ss.:.ava.,,...ata+r'x.,raara+.;� ra'»,. ,.,a, .,..,w _ is i : e �t''Y n 4 , 17ftl+ ^wF+v �.�r*T l C,o t �,'r 7..- y :. t 2U' yr ! xd' }y#tc.:., {'-'It 7 1 - \ s 7 1F'-m is9 105,t 1 7'O -,+ ''* 3 -,,,,*'•d ,62 r x. • P - r 2 ti<:,f:4' t:.. o- , -..'\Y vH .i t t rr l P00: ,c l' t < a.:t r,9.+ '{*n .c a s "t M tri 'lx., .,r l"':a u e\ T, s b4 rtA. ..q.-` r;6,3.4; �Pa-, :ii fi `,.j �^1 , • 4,f, '',-.1.s ._o riF�,y, �C' 1j}r1N.'s{ ti 7 4,;,�. ,!i, •.t' f > "%''' r'{ .- ,� w i ''"_` !' ,'...-,..i -, '1%4'1. vJ 1 :.,ai 1 tlt' ,i.„.•ut >M r r .ate , '� '>j.,i tY" ., �ryy :•P SSt . } x `� C f A i'1 ! tae A \: f ri1% d h {,, A' A f ti it,-,4- .Smit N rY z;°�, Q ✓«yt,J t'k.itR_ i 'i,{ t.-•'� :4 7 s r .`a,V, . yt §'?fit +rl,lS�S`n '.$} -4:df iiri,r .T'r�Vii' S rF�f,fti �'"rs•',.9• 'tai .a,&ct, r� - f,,. � .�,d P, � r�: ^r�is'� r sx. rmatt c�. °��?� ��.'v ��� dt;F+�i 7 kii,�,.f1�,�°; F' �'t�"�i•." ta�.r,1.v•.'t' .r P4t fa r�a .; 'i t�list s ti .4 xt f .t, H�75-4t. - 4 j, {..'✓ u yak�N1:Y ,, � i2,}.,..'.ste a,,zy4� , i - s,:f ..r ;a`rx° a e . -.4-44,,. =u r ',t' � ein. • . s 4,74,, ' s,� - ^ 5 . '�ki-L * ;.r ' _ b� 4,- O i : cM 4 r"i' 0y .frr' t .: Y tt', s '!� ,1'�i 'L:. 7•^ :,„;, ..,',--•; r w V' f 4-E 1..t,, pp 4 �Yy� 5.3-• r s �- d � r � �,,8i�' �'�ate® . 'r .��� ����aw-�+ryl�^ %'t?`r�!`��r4��45.4?,' 'T' s�r` ��r� � `�� ':��� '� 'a�!'�'� �' F��t Cds�•F Y �3 h PH mr-7-44-4 `' "i+• �� ! �F"r'l. r 4 J1 `f .-. rV,• ♦ 4 .: 1 f '� O' s- ',-ariIk it: Sr 6 f �. ' P = yr j )31• of ltl �J• ♦,'"( V71' a.,4 }5 , . 'F f '1,1,, t f ! x a?` a-.P ' �6• r;,.,•;-6., i �. 'a" , Pt s 2 ° -r'. P :"1',.= '�°7' .' .;�- c K .et '"� so..4410,, �. t* a'� _'�`rr�t5}:;.`.�� �. atC s��+' � ��`�+";sr�t `'t`t.�3n �t„� \•:� i �, , �:v -''e" '�'f '" ,3'a, w . �'9 �#r:.;^ di ts: t ^ '!`:- l t;,'' 4r 7 r- i�T 4 *, , P � � r� {. t\Y-.�tA� � h4��.i;,,7 k '16144::-Iii, Fd.Pfy� {,t� "� .r� `�M1"t' TF�� '+,--'1,7:4**:,:. ati° 1�.4a .t f � i �:\� ,{•. '-' * 3'.rr 7.1 -:Y t:- J2 s4�t;01, , ,' 6�a. 7'P' N t s,x,. y 0, *. 01 1 a :? t�;i0.,: >�J 1 `, ' k c1 �St i ,srF. w'ti:ht O-, 5L. < f •Ys„y ,' 741 c •fR r xt„,a,,, . .' 1 'ib` n `t P'd 2C' A f*� p!„ \ st ev dh 7eiv.r vFk-.ver \��trl,t e �, . •.” 7 x ;i: ,,�dy5 t -s3v:t. Pit . 4 '4 : rsrk41` i-6' i 7'v.:e 1imov s PS`-t !,-.Amwort,'. yt as �" w v, , \t r + + t ` 1 m mt`.. 4�4,."-,1 y ., 45 1 ( .. z 0 l+Si' .l<w Fr� '',.. ,',6,. r 1'' .4. P t e'tr + 'Y :. 4,,p 5 'µ ''�ti i,,2, i f 09 f . �1 + f f„ a P �i ❑ + , --'-'1.'-W41,01' �. m� � � i� tF t 5 � > �� ` � ti �r p' .Y-.1',.�� ��.• ��b �` �y,�s���;�� kto r�-�kt�+ s� ' 'Y rVt`'.,11:1,.. rt „r .,1,W ,�t-,,,,'t�..: ..-rJ l , 4+,x''1 2 "tk,'. , t ,t �,,'42. :< � ri 3' k r, 1 i i.",r rt a k S L R t �.' ,YY��i izdw � � !b• � �P� 'n,� rkY }_ .- 0 u a t i ! 'S i �t} h i -, ,j; R Ft s ''33�� 'f,'.•1 r.e.+<f � '��$a, '1 � u13' db TMt.• A.-.4.,.. . Ps ;u� 'kHl� i V.Y-t'.'- t � t 'k` y I ”J""'"2S 3 is -�` §?s . 6 . V,;,:f_.;.7.- *i (a ,4 c Gilds a i., 1r4,.�r�r . - t•`5),' '�C e t ,. t ..: v,,,r,� . ��� i'i.�r C +. iy t3�in q 1" n N' ,� 4a �t:ti� s ::, r -01,0,,,,444, r �.^�.MS�. fit,, ai{,i � `,, i ,x r ss 1 < tv„� Y-a 4,, >w t r�r 01 t,fa# fr .VtFA sF;` �ta*r ,,}s - �A �-.. �"i9v�T^��� r �xT:�r.�,t'yF' .� ��� p• t_. �”{��{rr'*� 1 ����a s�f.F;� �},j"•�� ,f t' h�y�q c tY� r` • � .'qF.i ��tC Y�n�{ ct :'o Y �N 1.-t.Ib S .. 2� Y�•� I J� 4 Y �i'. r ,ty e l ��t�s�{� i 1 ..k �j r ''Far'•• �r i IP,�Y�? H�� h: '�` : ' 4 '' �{t��, t i aka k' k� r s k to f ;i f�- ,-'Y ' 4 t c A ;!�v�,}f� � � �Px'?r •t • �r` ra o '�Y :�At4 h*� H"fe�x"�S � s '' `?t �' ,4 �k"P'a t`rnt`4'rrti>. y�+ J. �� f��51, � �.Lr �y 4� 'xtrrr,., �&f� ��? �• -�.h � t f :a: Pii i'iw,A44"w,kt� t'..it.,. f rr}, ,"„-4 .. -I.•.,- yr ;.t '` � -S e,,y�•t iJ . qn \ ,y ti r' '71L� r� s 3• < 34o4 r.r , -- VIPV:,;Ira, iP i 'y�ast er .t-,y ',t �` k N'{t�ir. • ,' ' '-.:It-� J a , ,�5r ti ,fik.,451, l;L a 7 , Y \ nrl'.7-4:-,,,-- rC h t i i i. 0 ,--l7 24+ y'. �' ,'.' srf'i` .r... .eft^ t•, .�1 P 'g.•x;1e. •v ..-4. .;.S.e..3': ,.,4srF:�A'$;z�-re(r'Sk C'::.c�- a" .Ax'i!t. m,s'VrS •S. t> +A,t#3 n x r.