Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 4, 2007 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 1,036 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND REMODEL. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT SETBACK AND A VARIANCE TO THE 27 FOOT VERTICAL HEIGHT LIMIT. LANDS OF RAMBERG; 27355 SHERLOCK ROAD; (74-07-ZP-SD-GD-VAR). FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the proposed addition and setback variance subject to the recommended conditions (attachment 1) and findings for approval (attachment 2A) And; Deny the proposed height variance citing the recommended findings for denial (attachment 2B). ALTERNATIVE: Continue the project to a future Planning Commission hearing and direct the applicant to redesign the project to comply with Town standards. BACKGROUND The subject property is located at the dead end of Sherlock Road as approached from Moody Road. The four sided property has a net size of 1.14 acres. There is an existing multi-level residence on the property that was constructed in two phases. The original two-story 840 square foot cottage was built in 1925. In 1982, the Planning Commission approved a front setback and height variance for a three-story 1,800 square foot addition. 1925 Cottage (left) with 1982 attached addition (right) 3.1 Planning Corsanission Lands ofAamberg October 4, 2007 Page 2 The Commission cited the topography and proximity of the existing residence to the private road as justification for the variance. The average site slope is 33.4% and the property is forested with over 50 oak (many heritage) and bay trees. Accessory buildings on site include two sheds and a small horse stable. The existing three-story residence does not have a garage. The proposal requires Planning Commission review per Section 10-1.1104 (Variances) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission must make affirmative findings in order to approve a variance per Section 10-1.1107(b). Findings for approval of the setback variance and findings for denial of the height variance are included in this report for the Commission's review (attachments 2A & 2B). The applicant has provided findings for approval of the variances (Attachment 5). DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.19 acres Net Lot Area: 1.14 acres Average Slope: 33.4% Lot Unit Factor: 0.548 Floor Area and Development Area: Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left Development 7,500 6,996 5,952 1,044 504 Floor 5,000 4,104 3,068 1,036 896 Site and Architecture The contemporary design of the proposed addition and remodel utilizes most of the developable square footage for the site. The design incorporates a partial basement with 150 square feet that is exempt from the floor area total (Section 10-1.208). The proposed basement/ 1" floor level includes: a new two car garage, remodeled play room, bathroom, and utility room. The proposed main/2"d floor level includes: a new kitchen, new dinning room, new entry and half bath, existing living room, and existing den. The proposed 3rd floor includes: a remodeled master suite, two new bedrooms, new laundry room, and new bathroom. ' Planning Conunission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 3 The exterior materials include stucco, metal shingles with a metal roof The new roof was designed with a pitch that is optimal for future solar panel installation, although solar panels are not proposed at this time. The proposed residence complies with floor area and development area standards per Title 10 of the Municipal Code. The proposed residence encroaches within the front setback by 26 feet and will require a setback variance. The proposed maximum building height is 31.5 feet on a vertical plane and will require a height variance. Driveway & Parkin -legal nonconformine The existing driveway would be modified to provide access to the new garage on the basement/lst floor. The modification would include a new four foot retaining wall on the south side of the modified driveway. A secondary driveway on site provides access to the legal non -conforming (setback) outdoor parking spaces. The existing parking design was approved with the 1982 addition/remodel. The proposed two -car garage brings the site into conformance by providing two covered puking spaces with the existing outdoor parking spaces. Outdoor LightinE Outdoor lighting is shown on the elevation plans (sheets A-3.10 and A-3.11). Standard lighting is requested, with 2 per double door exit, 1 light per single door exit, and building perimeter lighting. The standard lighting condition (#4) for outdoor lighting, requires that fixtures be downshielded or have frosted/etched globes. The applicant will submit landscape lighting details with the required landscape screening plan. Accessory Buildings There are three existing accessory buildings on site, two sheds and a small horse stable. One shed and the horse stable were not constructed with the benefit of permits and are required to be removed or permitted prior to final inspection of the remodel/addition (Condition 10). Trees & Landscauin¢ The site is vegetated with over 50 mature oak and bay trees. None of the trees are proposed for removal. The applicant has provided an arborist report, which summarizes that no trees will be negatively affected because the building footprint is not altered near existing trees. The report recommends fencing around two oak trees in proximity to the driveway. (Condition 12) Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 4 Variances In evaluating a variance, the Planning Commission must determine if there are exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances on the lot that create a hardship for the applicant to comply with the typical standards. The existing residence and front patio were constructed within the front setback and exceed height standards (existing residence is 33 feet tall). The Planning Commission approved both the height and setback variances citing topography and the location of existing structures as justification in 1982. Setback- The existing building sits at 9'9" from the front property line at it nearest point. The applicant is proposing to reduce the encroachment and site the addition 14 feet from the front property line. The site is extremely limited by the natural topography with an average slope of 33.4% and the inherent building pad location within the front setback. The building area of the property (area not in setbacks) includes slopes of 40-50%. Also the existing septic system was designed in the building area of the site. Height- The vertical height of the existing residence is 33 feet. The applicant proposes to increase the nonconformity by requesting a height variance to accommodate a third floor addition and a 31'6" vertical height. The lot is not burdened with unusual characteristics that justify an increase in building height nor is there a precedent for this type of approval in the recent past. The building pad has been graded flat so there is not a difficulty with the topography or grading in the building line area of the proposed height variance. A vertical height of 31'6" can be allowed per Section 10-1.504(a) if building setbacks are increased to 60 feet for the front and 45 feet for the sides and rem. With the proposed project, the building encroaches 65% into the required setback and would be 15% taller than the height standard. The proposal is the inverse of an existing Town standard. Alternatives exist to expand the residence in other areas of the site, particularly to the east, that could conceivably comply with Town standards and not interfere with the septic system. Further, the structural height limit of 27 feet (Section 10-1.504) generally does not allow three story designs. The above mentioned code section was discussed with the property owner in the pre -application phase of the project. The applicant has prepared findings for approval for Planning Commission consideration (attachment 7). If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the height variance request, the applicant's findings of approval should be cited. Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 5 Gradine & Drainane The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of approval as specified in Attachment 1. Drainage is designed to tie to the existing system, whish flows away from the house and driveway in a series of storm drain pipes that lead to three existing underground drains on the downhill side of the existing retaining wall. The Engineering Department will review the final grading and drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Geotechnical Review The Town's geotechnical consultant (Cotton and Shires Associates) concurs with the project geotechnical consultant's recommendations and have recommended standard geotechnical conditions (attachment 1). The project geotechnical consultant will need to comment on the foundation and structural design and provide a letter at the prior to final inspection that their recommendations were incorporated into the construction. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has no required conditions of approval. Committee Review The proposal includes a net addition of less than 900 square feet, below the threshold for Pathway Committee review. The Environmental Design Committee commented that the home was built before current zoning regulations and the only neighbor that will be affected is 27360 Sherlock Road. (Attachment 4) The Open Space Committee recommends an Open Space Easement on the property between the 430 elevation and the 450 elevation, which includes an area of the site that exceeds 30% slope and contains many heritage oak trees. The property owner met with staff and a member of the Open Space Committee to discuss the recommendation and does not agree with the recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA) The proposed single family residential addition and remodel is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15301(e). Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2A. Recommended findings for approval of the setback variance 2B. Recommended findings for denial of the height variance 3. Letter from Cotton, Shires and Associates, May 8, 2007 4. Environmental Design & Protection Committee comments, April 26, 2007 5. Project description and variance findings of approval prepared by the applicant, received March 22, 2007 6. Proposed development plans (Commission only) Attachment 7 Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 7 RECOMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION REMODEL LANDS OF RAMEERG, 27355 SHERLOCK ROAD File 474-07-ZP-SD-GD-VAR PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required landscaping shall be first reviewed by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. The property owner shall grant an Open Space Easement to the Town within the property boundaries between the 430' and 450' elevation as shown on the property survey. No structures are permitted and no grading or fill shall be permitted. Native vegetation may be planted within the easement but no irrigation or sprinkler systems are pemiltted. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance ofplans for building permit. 3. After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -rough framing inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, a public hearing is required for the landscape screening and erosion control plan. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the bulk of the residence and preserving the existing screening. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit 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. 5. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have white/frostedletched glass enclosures or be shielded light fixtures. Seeded or bent glass is not acceptable. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except as shown on the approved plan. The applicant shall provide the Town with a lighting detail or manufacturer's specification on the fixtures to be used, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All lighting must comply with the Town's Lighting Policy prior to final inspection. 6. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 8 residence and roof eaves are at or beyond that shown on the approved plans relative to the property lines." The elevation of the residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the residence matches the elevation and location shown on the approved plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection. 7. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 8. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines. 9. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction. 10. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 11. All non -permitted accessory buildings shall be removed or legalized prior to final inspection. 12. Prior to Building Plan submittal, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip line or as noted on the approved plans. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior issuance of Building Permit. 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. Tree fencing requirements: A. Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees. B. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a minimum height of five feet (5') above grade. C. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than 10 -foot spacing. D. Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction periods. E. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees at any time. F. No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved. 13. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodma), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 7007 Page 9 located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 14. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to acceptance of plans for buildingplan check. 15. Geotechnical Field Insoection - The geotechnical consultant 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 subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) inspection. 16. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 17. 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. 18. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 10 appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 19. The property owner shall inforn the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check. 20. 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 Sherlock Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and puking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 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. CONDITION NUMBERS 5, 14, 18, 19, AND 20 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until October 4, 2008). 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. Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 11 ATTACHMENT 2A RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1,036 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK BY 26 FEET LANDS OF RAMBERG — 27355 SHERLOCK ROAD Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property ofprivileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; The lot is encumbered by topography and the existing structure placement. Requiring the home to comply with setback standards would necessitate excessive grading for the building pad and extended driveway and would site the building in an area with a slope greater than 30%. The Town's Planning Commission previously granted approval of a setback variance in 1982 and the site has been designed around the existing building pad. Further, the proposal includes a reduction of the existing encroachment by five (5) feet and reducing existing non -conformity on the property. 2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The intent of the setback requirements is to provide an undeveloped space between neighbors for noise, privacy, and aesthetic purposes. The requested setback variance on this property has little effect on the above three issues due to the location at the end of Sherlock Road. Granting of a variance does not set a precedent because this site is unique with regard to location, topography, and the inherent building location 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. The granting of the setback variance will not adversely impact any neighbor because the proposed addition will be further from the property than the existing building and views from nearby properties are well screened. 4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel ofproperty. Residential buildings and patios are permitted uses in the R -A (Residential Agricultural) zoning district. Planning Commission Lands of Ramberg October 4, 2007 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 2B RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION WITH A VERTICAL BUILDING HEIGHT OF 31.5 FEET I/IN61Y9]yt7:Ri7`7ZeIIt3ic�Y.Y.Y.IcJ�R7 K41masy Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; The lot is not burdened with unusual characteristics that justify an increase in building height nor is there a precedent for this type of approval in the recent past. The building pad has been graded flat so there is not a difficulty with the topography or grading in the area of the proposed height variance. Alternatives exist to expand the building in other areas of the site, particularly to the east, that could comply with Town standards. The structural height limit of 27 feet (Section 10-1.504) generally does not allow three story designs. Denial of the height variance does not deprive the owner any privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surroundingproperty owners. The intent of the height requirements is to limit the visible bulk of buildings for privacy and aesthetic purposes. An increased building height, particularly to allow a three-story building, compromises the intent of the 27 foot height limit. The granting of a variance for this project would be a grant of special privilege and create a new precedent for allowing three-story structures. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. The granting of this variance would not pose a foreseeable threat to the public welfare or injurious to properties within the same zoning district. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel ofproperty. Residential buildings are a permitted use in the R -A (Residential Agricultural) zoning district. Attachment 3 / COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS May 8, 2007 L0147 TO: Brian Froelich RECEIVED Planning Department TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MAY 0 9 2001 26379 Fremont Road .. Los Altos Hills, California 94022 TOWN OF IAS ALTOS HILLS SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Ramberg, Proposed Addition and Remodel H74-07-ZP-SD-GD-VAR 27355 Sherlock Road At your request, we have completed a geologic and geotechnical review of the subject application using: Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by United Soil Engineering, Inc., dated April 2006; and • Architectural Plans (13 sheets, various scale), prepared by Elevation Architects, dated February 12, 2007.. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent maps from our office files and completed a recent site inspection. DISCUSSION Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the applicant proposes to demolish the western portions of the existing residence and construct a new three-story addition, deck, and supporting structures in the same location. We understand the addition will be built over an existing fill slope, and supported on a pier and grade beam foundation system. We understand that the County Environmental Health Department has reviewed septic system issues and approved of the project utilizing the existing septic leachfield. The project site is generally characterized by a natural and graded north -facing hillside. Natural slopes are generally moderately steep (20 to 50 percent inclination). The residence is located on a pad cut. into the hill with fill placed along the northern side of the residence. Drainage at the site is characterized by sheetflow to, the north. Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 950.30-7215 (406) 354-5542 • Fax (MG) 3541852 e-mail: loegamm@cottoruhires.m www.cottonshires.com Central California Office 84171)ogWo Road S. Andreas, CA95249-9640 (209) 7364252 • F. uN) 7' 1212 ,mail: cotfortshue~scbandrnt Brian Froelich May 8, 2007 Page 2 L0147 The Town Geologic Map indicates that the site is underlain, at depth, by greenstone bedrock materials of the Franciscan Complex (highly consolidated, red - brown to green, altered basaltic volcanic rock). Based on one completed site exploratory boring, the Project Geotechnical Consultant determined that up to 4 feet of surficial soil material (i.e., artificial fill and colluvium) overlies hard gravelly sandy day (apparent weathered bedrock). Bedrock exposures were observed at the southeastern portion of the site during our visit, and consisted of highly weathered orange -yellow-brown Franciscan sandstone. The subject property is located approximately 0.64 km southwest of the potentially active Berrocal fault and 1.55 km south of the Monta Vista fault. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed addition construction is constrained by potentially expansive earth materials, an existing shallow fill prism, the close proximity of steep slopes, and anticipated very strong seismic ground shaking. Based on our review of the referenced Soil Report, it appears that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has investigated site earth material conditions and recommended satisfactory geotechnical design criteria for identified site constraints. We do not have geotechnical objections to the basic proposed site development layout. We recommend that the following conditions be attached to the building permit application. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documentation for building permit plan -check. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian Froelich May 8, 2007 Page 3 L0147 LIMITATIONS This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:JA:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT ��yre Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 `. David T. Schrier Associate Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. V t ���� Attachment 4 Environmental Design and Protection Committee New Residence/Remodel Evaluation c, Applicant (� Date Name G— Address c/ :�; s-� 2 ( O ct<- P � . Reviewed by: Site impact/lighting/noise: Grading: c t3� r� L R CA e s gym, n n Existing vegetation: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 5 MAR 2 2 2007 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Variance request for 27355 Sherlock Road Owners: Anna Brunzell & Eric Ramberg Contents: Summary Sheet............................................................. Page 2 Description of Site ......................................................... Page 3 Description of Existing Structure ........................................ Page 4 Description of Neighborhood (precedent) ............................... Page 5 Specific items from LAH Ordinance used in design ................. Page 5 Description of Proposed Remodel ....................................... Page 6 Findings for Variance .......................................................Page 9 -1- Summary -Sherlock Road is a private road, running along the ridgeline to the North of Moody Road, largely parallel to Moody Road Sherlock connects to Moody Road directly (to the North/ West, just above the hairpin turns) and via Moody Court to the South/East (across from Hidden Villa). -27355 Sherlock is the "last" house among those that access Moody Road via the Sherlock/Moody intersection to the North/West. Houses numbered 27261 and below access Moody road via Moody Court to the South/East. -27355 Sherlock Road is a 1.2 acre lot (-1.1 acre net) -Average slope = 33.4% -Lot Unit Factor = 0.548 -MDA = 7500 square feet -MFA = 5000 square feet -The existing (non conforming) 3 bedroom/3 bath house is 2640 habitable square feet, no garage, with all parking spaces between the setback line and the road right of way. -The remodeled 3 bedroom/3.5 bath house will be 2981 habitable square feet + 695 square feet of garage/utility space (total 3676 square feet). The structure consists of an original cabin (built circa 1920), a small additional room built circa 1950, and a major addition built (with permits) in the 1980's. The 1920 and 1950 sections are in poor condition. The house straddles the 40' setback line, with the 1920/1950 (existing, non -conforming) section situated largely within the setback. We hope to remodel the 1920/1950 section, retaining a similar footprint to the existing structure. After having incorporated the guidelines of the LAH General Plan, the Site Development Ordinance, and the Land Use Element, and having evaluated all possible design options, we have arrived at the solution described in this document The proposed remodel will minimi �P impact to the site (e.g. grading, cut and fill), minimi>e the incursion into wildlife/undeveloped areas, minimize the footprint of the structure and parking areas, and not require the removal of native trees such as the California Live Oak, Bay, and Toyon frees that cover the property. Additionally, the plan will optimize the use of solar energy, both in the context of passive solar heating and active solar (e.g. photovoltaic or thermal) energy harvesting. It moves the "encroaching edge" of the house farther from the road by 50%, and minimizes views toward neighbors. -2- Description of Site The following figure shows the site. Sherlock Road essentially follows a ridgeline. Because of the steep slopes to the North and South, most of the houses on Sherlock are situated close to the mad proper, ours is similar. As is the case with many of our neighbors, the flattest part of our lot is located immediately adjacent to the road; `W' on this diagram is downhill from the road. Note that the southwest comer of the existing structure is 9'9" from the 12.5' right of way line at the edge of Sherlock Road. -3- Description of the Existing Structure The two following photographs show the existing house from the South and West (i.e. standing on Sherlock Road). View of house from South (standing on Sherlock Road) showing section to be remodeled. -4- The existing structure consists of three levels: a "basement" level, a "ground floor" level and a "second floor" level. Because the house is sited on a hillside, the "basement" level does not meet the LAE requirements for being defined as a basement per se (it is a "walk out" basement, approximately 50% below grade level). This level is referred to as "bottom floor" in this document, with the other levels being referred to as "ground floor" and "second floor" or "second story". Description of Neighborhood (Precedent) Sherlock Road is a private road, divided into two parts. Sites numbered 27355 and higher access Moody Road to the North/West (with mailboxes on Sherlock Road/Sherlock Court intersection). Sites numbered 27261 (next door to 27355) and below access Moody Court to the South/East (with mailboxes at the intersection of Moody Court/Moody Road). Between 27261 and 27355, Sherlock is an unpaved "fire road" type of road. There is very little traffic past 27355 Sherlock. Many of the houses have been built within the setback line, typically because Sherlock Road follows the ridgeline, which is the often the only flat area. Houses at 26950 Moody Court (driveway on Sherlock), 27070 Sherlock, 27181 Sherlock, 27223 Sherlock, 27261 Sherlock, 27360 Sherlock, 27640 Sherlock, and 27760 Sherlock encroach in the setback 5 - Specific Items from LAH Ordinance/Documentation used in design We have incorporated all guidelines from LAH documentation into the design of our remodel. These include: Land Use Element 103.1: -Uses of land should maintain the rural atmosphere, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation and create the maximum compatibility ofdevelopment with the natural environment through site design, architecture and landscaping. Land Use Element 104.1 and 104.2 (Objectives): -To maintain the rural atmosphere associated with established residential areas of the community and to ensure a similar atmosphere in future residential developments. -To assure that all residential development occurs in a manner minimizing disturbance to natural terrain, vegetation and wildlife and maximizing preservation of natural beauty and open space. Site Development Ordinance 10-2.702. Siting -The location of buildings and structures shall be selected so as to minimize run-offfrom the site, the volume of off' -site drainage created the destruction or alteration of natural vegetation, and the impairment ofscenic viewsfrom offthe site. -The location all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures. -Opportunities for passive solar energy shall be considered in the siting of buildings Description of Proposed Remodel We have evaluated several options for improving our home, including "repairing" the existing (non conforming) 1920's section within its existing envelope, or demolishing the existing 1920's section and adding to the house outside of the setback limitations (i.e. to the East). Repairing the existing (non conforming) 1920's section would require development to the East of the house (to add living areas and/or a garage). While this might not change the envelope of the existing, non -conforming section, it would greatly increase the footprint and "sprawl" of the house into what is currently a native hillside. !S� In that LAH guidelines encourage garages, we have attempted to incorporate both a garage and living space without commensurate destruction of the natural area to the East. As shown in the photographs, demolition of the 1920's section would result in a very tall remaining structure, having 34' high walls, still partially located within the setback, requiring even greater development to the East. These options would all result in expansion of the home to the East. As shown on the survey, this "solution" is problematic for several reasons. The hillside is steeper, there are many large native trees, and the solar exposure is worse. As shown on the Survey, expansion of the home to the North (downhill) is not possible, due to the retaining wall, septic system, and constraints on maximum (low point to high point) house height. Our proposed solution is to rebuild (in essentially the same footprint) the 1920/1950 section, but to add a story. We are asking for a variance to increase the envelope of the existing, non -conforming structure. By adding a story, the three bedrooms will be grouped together on the top floor, and the current "basement level" living area will be converted to garage space. The following figure compares the footprints of the existing and proposed structures: Existing (left) and proposed (right) footprints. The dotted line in the proposed (R) drawing also shows the existing footprint The proposed remodel essentially fits within the existing footprint As shown in the figure above, the "encroachment" of the house into the setback is actually improved by 50%. While the existing structure is only 9'9" from the Sherlock right of way line, the remodeled structure will be 14' from the setback line. Admittedly, this is a modest improvement, but demonstrates that we are trying our best to follow the intention of the ordinance. Additionally, this change lets us add screening landscaping to 7- Ex Zvi Pr iv the West (as shown above), which serves to block the low angle, late afternoon sun and screen views into the neighbor's property to the west. As shown in the figure below, our proposed remodel does not increase the overall height of the house. The maximum height of the remodeled section (31' 8') will be lower than the height of the unmodified part of the house (34' 3"). We have attempted to follow the spirit of the ordinance by shifting the structure as far as possible out of the setback. However, we are constrained to the North by the retaining wall and the requirement that we retain an access path for heavy equipment to reach the septic system. We are constrained to the East by the steep slope, large trees, and our desire to minimi vr the destruction of native vegetation. Our proposed solution will result in virtually no: -Disturbance to site, including grading, filling, and changes to topography -Destruction of native vegetation -Disruption of wildlife passages Additionally, the footprint of the remodeled house will be no larger than the current house. This format minimizes environmental impact and energy consumption. 8- Our proposed remodel keeps the house where the site has already been developed; we are not encroaching in any direction on undeveloped area Additionally, this area (the western side of the structure) is the only flat area, and is the only area with easy access to the road (i.e. is a good area for garage space). Additionally, our proposed remodel makes best use of the solar exposure of the site. Passive solar energy is used by taking advantage of the Southwestern exposure of the area within the setback Areas of the house to the East are more "downhill" from the ridgeline, and are thus shaded by the tall trees. By building a second story as shown in the proposed remodel, we also move the roofline above the shade line of the surrounding trees. The current structure is shaded by the surrounding trees and the existing 2nd story section for much of the day, and thus cannot be used for solar photovoltaic energy harvesting (which requires unshaded area). By raising the roofline to a second story level, unshaded solar exposure can be used for electricity generation. Another way to consider this remodel is that we are creating two garaged parking places in the setback, but removing two uncovered parking places from the setback The existing structure is 2,640 square feet, with no garage, and all parking spaces are within the setback. The proposed plan results in 2,981 habitable square feet, plus 695 square feet of garage & utility space, for a total 3,676 square feet. Findings: 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 ofprivileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning class cations. Our home is an existing, non-confomilng structure..wbile we are petitioning to increase the envelope of the non -conforming area, it is a modest increase to a modest home, making it much more usable by a family. Sherlock Road follows a ridgeline down from Moody Road to Moody Court. in that the ridgeline is the generally the flattest area, most houses are built close to Sherlock mad- OA ad OA Houses at 26950 Moody Court (driveway on Sherlock), 27070 Sherlock, 27181 Sherlock, 27223 Sherlock, 27261 Sherlock, 27360 Sherlock, 27640 Sherlock, and 27760 Sherlock encroach in the setback. La As shown on the topographic survey, 27355 is a sloping lot. Building in areas outside the setback would result in the destruction of native vegetation (including oak and bay trees), significant cutting and grading, and otherwise significant disruption to the site. Per 10-2.702, we have sited our remodel in the only part of the site that minimizes runoff and destruction of vegetation. 1.b We have tried to follow the intent of the ordinance (minimizing view of the house, minimizing encroachment into setback, minimizinv view into neighbor's property) by moving the remodeled structure away from the road as far as possible. However, we are constrained by the retaining wall (to the North) and the requirement of 8+ feet of space for heavy equipment to access the septic system. We are adding a story to this section to i) minimize the footprint of the house and destruction of natural area, ii) minimize grading/fill, iii) maintain rural atmosphere by minimizing house size, and iv) access unshaded sunlight for optimal use of solar energy. Lc Effective passive solar energy conservation requires utilization of the south/west exposure for passive heating during the winter months. The proposed remodel conserves energy by utilizing passive solar conservation. The overhanging eaves to the South shade the structure during the summer months, but bring in low -angled sunlight in the winter. l.d The incorporation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels is inhibited on this site by the large number of tall native trees surrounding the house. Rather than cutting down trees to prevent shading of PV panels, we propose a two story remodel, which would allow placement of solar PV panels on the rooftop above the shade boundaries of the adjacent trees. Putting solar panels on the rooftop also minimizes their viewability by neighbors and passers-by. 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. 2.a Granting the Variance will result in a 3 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom, 3676 square foot house, having a two car garage and 2981 square feet of habitable living space. In terms of net addition, we are adding 341 square feet of habitable living space. This remodel does not particularly enhance any specific properties of the house. Rather, it i) rebuilds a decrepit section, ii) creates a compact, functional, family -friendly layout, iii) adds a garage, and iv) minimizes environmental impact (both in building and operation). 3. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to thepublic welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. 10- As shown on the plan, the footprint in the setback (of the remodeled structure) will be approximately the same size as the footprint of the existing house. Adding a story to the existing non -conforming section will not increase the overall height of the house. The maximum height of the remodeled section (31'8") will be lower than the maximum height of the existing (untouched) structure (34' 3"). As viewed from Sherlock road, the house may appear somewhat larger. However, this section of Sherlock road essentially serves our house only. Sites numbered below 27355 Sherlock access their houses via Moody Court, we are essentially sited at the "end" of Sherlock Road. There is an unpaved fire road path connecting 27355 to 27261, but there is minimal vehicular use of Sherlock Road otherthan people traveling to 27355. Few people pass by our house. In that the existing structure is already located within the setback, the public's view of the house will remain largely unchanged (except the change from a dilapidated single story cabin to a new two-story structure). The site is not easily visible from areas surrounding. It is the opposite of a "highly visible lot" We will use appropriate landscaping to mask views of the road and neighbor's property as much as possible. 4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. We will continue to use the structure as a single family house. The change in habitable square footage (2640 to 298 1) is not large, nor is the overall size of the house. The basic format of the remodel does not change the nature of the house. Weare replacing a section having 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, kitchen and dining areas with a section having 2 (smaller) bedrooms, 1.5 bath, kitchen and dining areas. The main change is in the functionality/efficiency of the house. The current structure has a single bedroom on several different floors, and the only bathroom on the common (ground) floor is also the bathroom for a guest bedroom. The remodeled structure will have all the bedrooms on the top floor, with guests on the ground floor using a powder room. Additionally, adding a garage to a house that doesn't have a garage follows LAH guidelines. Finally, the garage addition allows removal of parking places located within the setback area -11-