HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 25, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, POOL AND
SPORT COURT; AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW GRADING WITHIN 10 FEET
OF A PROPERTY LINE; LANDS OF PRIME HOME DEVELOPMENT (LOT
8B); 12129 OAK PARK COURT;#116-97-ZP-SD-GD.
FROM: Suzanne Davis, Planner SD
APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
Make the findings as required by Section 10-1.1107(2) Of the Zoning Ordinance for the
granting of a variance, and approve the site development permit, subject to the
recommended conditions in Attachment 1
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission considered this application on September 10, 1997, and
continued the matter to allow the applicant to revise plans in response to the direction of the
Commission. These items are discussed in the Site & Architecture section of this report.
Revised plans have now been submitted which address the concerns of the Commission.
The Stonebrook Architectural Committee has reviewed the revised plans and has
approved the project(see Attachment 3). The letter from J. Lohr Properties indicates that
the changes to the plans satisfactorily address the previously stated concerns about the
exterior materials, the garage entries facing the street and the second floor not being
stepped back.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 2.63 acres
Average Slope: 17.8%
Lot Unit Factor: 2.19
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left
Development 26,444 13,302 -0- +13,302 +13,142
Floor 12,286 6,455 -0- 6,455 +5,831
Site and Architecture
The applicant is requesting approval of a new residence with two attached two car garages,
and a swimming pool. The sport court shown on the original plans has been eliminated.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about a number of elements on the first set of
plans and requested that the house be redesigned. Staff believes that the revisions are all
.14
Planning Commission
February 25, 1998.
Lands of Prime Home Dev.(lot 8b)
Page 2
positive changes and that the direction given by Commission has been complied with.
The following comments were made by the Commission at the September 10, 1997
meeting (staff response follows each item in italics):
• The garage entries should not face the street.
The garage doors were previously angled and were facing toward Oak Park Court.
The current plan has two two-car garages proposed which will face each other, and are
not facing the street.
• The entirely stucco exterior needs to be broken up.
Stone accent has been added along the base of the house, around the front entry, and.on
the chimneys to break up the stucco. The previous terra cotta tile roofing has been
changed to a flat tile.
• The second story should be nested/two story vertical elements need to be broken up.
A previous two-story element at the front right side of the house has been changed to
one-story. This is most evident on the front (west) and side (south) elevations. The
original plans will be available at the meeting for reference, or can be viewed at the
Planning Department prior to the meeting. The two-story walls on the rear elevation
which was the greatest concern have been broken by a roof line and arcade. There is
only one short section of wall that is two-stories high. Banding and window reveals
will provide shadowing and help break up a vertical appearance. Also, this wall is set
backfrom the arcade and would not stand out.
• The proposed wing walls and carriage lanterns are of concern, particularly given their
proximity to the street.
These features have been eliminated from the plan. There are two three foot high rock
walls (about two feet long) at the motor court that will appear as an extension of the
stone siding along the base of the house. Exterior light fixtures will be required to be
down shielded or to have translucent glass so that the light source is not visible from off
the site (see condition #7).
• The front entry should be lowered.
The height of the front entry has been reduced from 161/_ to 14'1_feet. The Commission
has typically required front entries to be 15 feet or less. The proposed entry height
complies with this standard
Grading
Proposed grading with the original plan was 225 cubic yards of cut and 165 cubic yards of
fill, plus an additional 700 cubic yards to be imported to fill an area across the site that was
previously over excavated. Grading volumes with the current proposal are 175 cubic yards
of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill. The corrective grading of 700 cubic yards of fill remains
the same.
Planning Commission
February 25, 1998.
Lands of Prime Home Dev.(lot 8b)
Page 3
Variance
The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 10-2.407 of the Site Development
Ordinance to allow grading to be done within 10 feet of the westerly property line to restore
the topography to its original appearance prior to the over excavation. To approve a
variance, the Commission must make findings relative to the unusual physical constraints
applicable to the property, impacts on neighboring properties and the public, and that the
applicant is not receiving a special privilege by granting of the variance. In the
recommended findings (Attachment 2), staff suggests that corrective grading to return the
contours to the grades approved with the subdivision justify the variance, and would not
constitute a special privilege for the applicants. Recommended variance findings are
included in Attachment 2.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Recommended findings for the granting of a variance
3. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1997(three pages)
4. Letter from J.Lohr Properties,received February 19, 1998 (one page)
5. Revised Worksheet#2
6. Development plans: site,floor and roof plans, elevations and sections(six sheets)
cc: Pak Chan
Prime Home Development.
P. O. Box 387
Cupertino, CA 95014
Von Haws
2067 Colusa Avenue
San Jose, CA 95130
Warren Whaley
Whaley&Associates
220 State Street, Suite 10
Los Altos, CA 940
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE & POOL
LANDS OF PRIME HOME DEVELOPMENT- 12129 OAK PARK COURT (LOT 8B)
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by
the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending upon the
scope of the changes.
2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed at a the Site Development Hearing. Particular
attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the
view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All
landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as
determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final
inspection, unless the Planning Director finds that unusual circumstances,
such as weather or site conditions, require that planting be delayed. In
those instances, a deposit of an amount equal to the cost of landscape
materials and installation,to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall
be submitted to the Town. Landscaping shall in any event be installed not
later than six months after final inspection, or the deposit will be forfeited.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit), equal to the
cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening
purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer), but
not to exceed $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 installation. The deposit will
be released at that time if the plantings remain viable.
4. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in
conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a light
reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have a light
reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim area should be minimized,
particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings, and trellises.
A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable
structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior
to final inspection.
6. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new construction.
7. Exterior lighting shall be limited to one fixture per exit, except for the
garage and front entry. Any decorative fixtures shall be down shielded or
shall have translucent glass, and any security lighting shall be on motion
detectors and shall be shielded fixtures. Any lighting on the second story
shall be down shielded fixtures. Any changes to the approved outdoor
lighting plan requires approval by the Planning Department prior to
installation. Lighting specifications (cut sheets) shall be submitted for
Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. Lighting shall be low level, low wattage, shall not encroach or
reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be
Planning Commission
February 25, 199.8
Lands of Prime Home Dev. (lot 8b)
Page 5
visible from off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except
for two driveway or entry lights unless it can be demonstrated that it is
needed for safety.
8. At the time of foundation inspection for the house, the location, and
elevation of the new residence shall be certified in writing by a registered
civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location
and elevation shown on the approved site development plan. At the time of
framing,the height of the structure shall be similarly certified as being at the
height shown on the approved site development plan. The driveway, pool
and sport court locations shall also be certified at time of installation.
9. The construction of the house shall be such that the interior noise levels do
not exceed 45 dB ldn. Noise measurements performed by a noise consultant
(chosen by the applicant and approved by the Town) verifying that this has
been accomplished shall be submitted to the Town for approval, prior to
final inspection.
10. Standard swimming pool requirements:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineering Inspector.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation and the
enclosure shall be screened with landscaping. The equipment enclosure
shall not encroach into any building setbacks.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
11. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
August 12, 1997,the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Site drainage shall be further evaluated, and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town Engineering Department,prior to acceptance
of plans for building plan check.
b. The project geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project and summarize the results of their
plan review in a letter to be submitted to the Town, prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
c. The project geotechnical consultant, shall describe the results of
inspections and as-built conditions of the project in a letter to be
submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to final
inspection.
For further details on the above requirements, please reference the letter
from Cotton, Shires&Associates dated August 12, 1997.
Planning Commission
February 25, 1998
Lands of Prime Home Dev.(lot 8b) •
Page 6
12. 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. A final grading and drainage plan that has been stamped
and signed by a registered civil engineer shall be required to be approved
by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the
Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be
submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage
improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in
accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection
13. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall-be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved
by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during
the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval
from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any
property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access.
14. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground.
15. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply
with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to
grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway
shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be
protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil
disturbed shall be protected for erosion controlduring the rainy season and
shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
16. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted
by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The
grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust,
noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Oak Park Court, Oak
Knoll Circle and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials;
placement of sanitary facilities; clean-up area; 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 Los Altos Garbage Company for the
debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is
allowed within the Town limits.
17. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair
any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private
driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and
release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs
of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance
of plans for building plan check
Planning Commission
February 25, 1998
Lands of Prime Home Dev.(lot 8b)
Page 7
18. The driveway shall be fully constructed and shall be roughened where the
pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final
inspection.
19. The property owner shall connect to public sanitary sewer prior to final
inspection. A copy of a permit from the City of Los Altos shall be
submitted to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check
20. A 15 foot wide storm drain access easement shall be granted over the
existing storm drain maintenance road. The property owner shall provide
legal description and plat exhibits prepared by a licensed land surveyor
and the grant 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
21. The existing Type IIB path along the frontage of the property shall be
restored and the driveway shall be roughened where it crosses the path. The
work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department,
prior to final inspection.
22. The pathway connection from the existing paved road on the adjacent lot to
the east to the easement along the rear (northerly) property line shall be
designed and staked in the field for review by the Engineering Department.
If deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, additional pathway
easement shall be granted for the embankment or to allow the path to
meander or switchback to keep the grade as close to 10% as is feasible. If
the existing easement needs to be larger, a legal description and plat
prepared by a licensed land surveyor shall be submitted, and the applicant
shall return the signed, notarized document to the Town, prior to acceptance
of plans for building plan check.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
23. The driveway shall be a minimum of 14 feet wide with a vertical clearance
of 13'/2 feet, shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds),and shall have an all weather surface.
24. The property address shall be placed so that it is clearly visible and legible
from Oak Park Court. The address numbers shall contrast with the
background color and shall be a minimum of four inches high.
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 4, 7, 11 a and b, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 AND 22 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE
CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR
PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Planning Commission
February 25, 1998
Lands of Prime Home Dev. (lot 8b)
Page 8
Properties residing within the Los Altos School District boundaries must pay School
District fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The
applicant must take a copy of Worksheet#2 to the elementary and highschool district
offices,pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
September 10, 1998). 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.
I TAC.;H
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97
September 10, 1997
Page 2
Commissioner Schreiner asked whether the basement door near the garage could be elimi .ted
and what the width of the door would be? Mr. Maston stated that it was not their ent to
remove the door and that the width would be three feet for the door and four feet fort•- corridor.
Commissioner Jinkerson wanted to make sure that the basement confo to the Uniform
Building Code.
Mr. Williams commented that it appears to be the minimum required, •it that the front window
well may be able to be reduced, and asked if the large pines trees •ehind the pool were to be
removed?
Mr. Maston stated that some of the trees were not in goo• ealth and may need to be removed.
Commissioner Stutz commented that it should be cl-•1 which trees are to be removed. Mr. -
Maston stated that the trees propose for removal are •oted on the plans.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Schreiner commended . e applicants on listening so intently, and that a few
changes can make a big difference.
Commissioner Gottlieb said at she liked the plan changes and the architect did a nice job
setting the house back.
MOTION SECOND.' D AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner (seconded by
Commissioner Ji erson) to approve the application with an addition to condition#1 stating that
the applicant s :t 1 work with staff to reduce the size of the window wells as much as possible.
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, Schreiner& Jinkerson
NOES• None
's approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period.
3.2 LANDS OF CHAN, 12129 Oak Park Court (lot 8b) (111-97-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and sport court, and a
Variance to allow grading within 10 feet of a property line.
Commissioner Schreiner asked if other property owners are advised to discuss their project with
the Lohrs?
Ms. Davis stated that yes they are. Because J. Lohr Properties is the Architectural Committee for
the subdivision, other applicants are required to present their plans for review by Jerry & Steve
Lohr.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97
September 10, 1997
Page3
•
Ervin Haws, 2027 Colusa Way, San Jose, the project designer, commented on the variance to
correct a grading problem that occurred on the lot and on the adjacent lot 8a, before the applicant
purchased it. He usually tries to avoid variances.
Discussion on the grading took place and staff clarified that the plan does not show grading
beyond the subject lot and the variance has been presented to the Commission for this lot only as
a result.
Commissioner Jinkerson commented that this is one of the worst lots in terms of noise. He noted
that the outdoor areas have been located between the house and the sound fence, and the noise
will bounce off the walls of the house. A court yard would provide a better buffer and that the
house design could be used to provide a better outdoor area.
Mr. Haws stated that the house has been located as far from the freeway as possible.
Commissioner Jinkerson asked whether the proposed outdoor lights are acceptable?
Staff noted that any lights visible from off the site would be required to be down shielded or to
have white or other translucent glass. The pillar lights would be required to be down shielded
fixtures.
Commissioner Schreiner expressed concern about the comments made by the Lohrs and asked if
some other material such as stone be used to break up the stucco.
Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the front entry is two-stories and that the Commission usually
tries to bring the height down on high entries.
Commissioner Schreiner asked if the front door is wood from top to bottom?
Mr. Haws stated that the door would have glass above.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cheng would like to see more detailing added to break up the two-story vertical
elements.
Commissioner Jinkerson stated that the Commission has required Jerry Lohr to make changes on
projects. His comments on this application are well taken. The second floor should be nested in
and the house should be redesigned.
Commissioner Stutz was disappointed with the site plan. It is difficult to read and interpret. It
was difficult to relate the floor plans to one another and to the site plan. There is sharp grading
betweEn the house and the sport court, the wing walls shown on sheet 2 are not on the site plan
and walkways are not shown except to the front of the house from the driveway. She asked how
high the wing walls and the carriage lights on top would be, why were no step lights shown, and
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97
September 10, 1997
Page 4
how would one get from the terrace to the parking area? She would not vote in favor of the wing
walls. She also commented that the freeway fence would not hide the house and that the rear
elevation is very up and down.
Commissioner Schreiner stated that the sport court could be relocated if the house were shifted
and the garages could be moved so they would not face the street. She was concerned about an
all stucco exterior two-story vertical elements and the garages facing the street.
Commissioner Gottlieb stated that the house could be better designed to make the outdoor areas
more usable. She would like the front entry reduced and the garage doors should not face the
street.
Mr. Williams commented that the walkways and hardscape are not required to be shown on the
floor plans. The site plan is most appropriate to show this. He noted that the condition on
lighting which requires changes to the plan. Step lights are usually reviewed with the landscape
plan, and the lights on the wing walls and pillars should be down shielded.
Commissioner Stutz stated that she did not mention the stucco issue earlier, and that if the
applicant comes in with another house, she would like to see something different. Also, the front
entry should be lowered.
Commissioner Schreiner asked the applicant if changes could be made? Mr. Haws stated yes,
but their concern is getting the house built this year and they would prefer to work with staff to
make changes.
Commissioner Jinkerson asked if the applicant would like to have the application continued so
he can come back with a redesign, or would he like to have the Commission vote on it tonight?
Mr. Haws indicated a willingness to redesign.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson (seconded by
Commissioner Schreiner)to continue the application for redesign as discussed.
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Schreiner& Jinkerson
NOES: None.
3.3 LANDS OF LIU, 25861 Estacada Way (152-97-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR • • equest for a Site
Development and Conditional Development Permits fo - 'nor addition, and Variance
to exceed the allowable development and floo -a and to encroach into the rear and side
yard setbacks.
Mr. Williams discussed t._ 'oor and development area numbers, and noted that even though
there was not an • •act on neighbors the numbers are high relative to the size of the lot. The
condition. .evelopment permit process should take into account the characteristics of the lot.
- .ted that the Thomas project on the corner of DeBell & Estacada that has a net lot area and
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE
TO GRADE WITHIN 10 FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE
LANDS OF PRIME HOME DEVELOPMENT (LOT 8B)
12129 OAK PARK COURT
Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstancesapplicable 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 proposed grading will restore the site to the grades that were.approved with
the McCulloch Subdivision, and will correct an area where the site was previously
over excavated. The granting of the variance will also allow the property owner
to develop the property in a similar manner to development on other properties in
the neighborhood, and in conformance with the Town's grading policy.
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 and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served because the
grading to be done within ten feet of the property line will be confined to a small
area. The remainder of the grading for the project will not encroach into the 10
foot area along property lines. The granting of the variance would not provide the
owners of the property with any special privileges or allow installation of
improvements that are not enjoyed by other residents in the area.
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 proposed project meets or has been conditioned to meet all other applicable
Town codes and policies. Grading within 10 feet of the property line will allow
for better continuity on the site, would restore the contours so that grades look
more natural, and will not adversely affect any other properties. The proposed
plan is sensitive to the character of the land, the surroundings and the Town's
codes and policies.
4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of property.
The proposed single family residence and related uses will be similar to those on
other properties in the neighborhood, and are permitted uses in the R-A zoning
district. The restoration grading would not authorize any uses which are not
allowed in the R-A zone.
P l I -N MENT y..
wt'
-rte
Properties,Inc. 2021 The Alameda Suite 145 • San Jose,California 95126 •FAX (408)(408) 984-984-33552075
RECEIVED
FEB 1 9 1998
February 19, 1998 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Mrs. Suzanne Davis -
Assistant Planning Director
•
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Suzanne,
We have reviewed the revised architectural plans (dated December 15, 1997) and grading
and drainage plan(dated January 14, 1998). for 12129 Oak Park Court, Lot 8B of the
Stonebrook subdivision. We feel that the plans substantially address the concerns that we
noted in our letter to you dated September 4, 1997. Therefore, we approve the plans.
Yours sincerely,
Steven W. Lohr
Vice President, Construction
I
f `. • / \ { AC-H 1`f e KIT
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26379 Fremont Road•Los Altos Hills,California 94022•(415)941-7222•FAX(415)941-3160
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Jf me, {4o me- rvi r�t'
.. .. . • 12(2_9 Oak- Pa -. CO rf— C l o-}- e
CALCULATED BY V on N-avt) / Waorre- W el DALE eao , I
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage (from Part 2.A.) G455 E GG
B. Decking
C. Driveway and Parking • 25 110 2 S
(Measured 100'along centerline)
D. Patios and Walkways 25 19 251 n
E. Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking j rigI "1 150
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) •
1
H. Any other coverage
TOTALS .-e-- 13 3O2., l 3 30Z
Maximum Development Area Allowed-MDA (from Worksheet#1) �-
2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor 3339
b. 2nd Floor , O [ (3`{O
c. Attic and Basement
d. Garages 504 <<< n�, 1�l1 G
B. Accessory Buildings efl•
2
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS C:44
Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet#1) 12) 2.26G
1
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY 5U.-Lax-me- [DATE '11 le'
Revised 2/26/96