HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.6 Town of Los Altos Hills May 13, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITION OF
1,143 SQUARE FEET ABOVE GARAGE, AND A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; HOOPER LANE
(LANDS OF GOLUKHOV); FILE#72-97-ZP-SD-VAR.
FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Direc�
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested variance and site development permit, subject to the
conditions of approval outlined in Attachment 1 and with reference to the findings
described in Attachment 2.
2. Approve the project as above, but require added architectural treatment to break
up the front of the second floor addition, or that all or a portion of the addition be
stepped back at least five (5) feet from the wall of the garage below.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is 1.86 acres in size, and is located on Hooper Lane,, which isa private
road. A record of survey (RS-37-M3) was filed for the lot in July of 1952. A 30 foot
private road easement (half-width) exists along the frontage of the site, with a 40-foot
radius cul-de-sac easement at its terminus. The road serves one property beyond the
Golukhov site.
A single story home and decking.exists on the property, and the surrounding lots are all
developed with single family residences. The property is heavily covered with trees,
mostly oaks, so that it is not highly visible to neighbors. The existing house sits on a
relatively level area, with steep slopes over the remainder of the lot.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
According to Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, all _new second story
additions are to be reviewed by. the Planning Commission. Generally, the sections of the
Zoning'and Site Development Codes utilized,to evaluate site development permits include
floor and development area limitations, grading, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking
requirements.
A variance is requested to allow the encroachment of the addition into the required front
setback area. In order to grant a variance, Section 10-1.1107(2)(b) of the Zoning.Code
requires the Planning Commission to make four findings in support of the action, as
outlined in Attachment 2. If the Commission cannot make any one or more of the findings,
the variance must be denied.
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 2
DISCUSSION •
Net Lot Area: 1.47 acres
Avg. Slope: 25.6%
L.U.F. 0.982
Floor Area and Development Area:
Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Remaining
Development Area 8,028 7,857 6,077 1,780 +171
Floor Area 4,998 4,887 3,744 1,143 +111
The applicant proposes to add an 1,143 square foot second floor addition over the
existing garage and guest bedroom and cantilevered in the rear to the extent of the
retaining wall behind the garage. A variance is also requested, as the existing garage and
• lower level area encroach about 15 feet into the 40 foot front setback, so that the addition
above would as well. A small open "summer kitchen" (BBQ area) and additional wood
decking are also proposed separate from the residence. The applicant has also requested
(although noted as "optional" on the plans) an increase in the roof height over the dining
and living room areas to increase the openness of those rooms.
Site and Architecture
The proposed second story (1,143 square feet) would cover the garage and guest room,
amounting to approximately 35 percent of the first floor. The maximum height of the house
on a vertical plane would be 27 feet above the finished grade, although the roof heights
would range from 13 feet at the northwestern end of the house to 20 feet for the increased
roof above the living and dining rooms to 27 feet at the master bedroom addition. The
applicant has worked with staff to reduce the extent of the addition to assure that the
roofline does not extend beyond the retaining wall at the rear (which would exceed the
height limitation). The roofline in the front of the addition would overhang the walls about
4 feet, similar to the existing roof,which would provide some relief from the vertical walls.
Staff initially suggested to the applicant the possibility of"nesting" the second floor back
about 5 feet from garage facade, but the applicant responded that the reduction would
impair the usefulness of the stairs and the room sizes proposed, and has already reduced the
extent of the rear of the addition to comply with the height requirements. Staff notes that
the addition at the front would only be visible to one neighbor driving by, and to no one
from their residence. If the Commission feels it is necessary to break up this facade,
however, condition#1 could be modified to allow the applicant to work with staff, so that
only a portion of the addition is set back, or such that architectural details could be added to
break up the wall plane.
The site is not very visible to surrounding properties (all developed) due to the extensive
tree cover to the rear, and due to the limited access to Hooper Lane in front of the house.
Story poles have been placed on the site to outline the proposed plans for the
Commissioners' review. Staff notes, however, that the poles do not extend to the
cantilevered portion of the second story at the rear, as the applicant would have had a
difficult time placing 27 foot high poles on top of the retaining wall, with the limited area
available. The cantilever would carry the roofline out about 6-8 feet beyond the existing
garage and guest room at the rear.
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 3
The proposed- project would substantially change the residence to a more modern
architectural style, with stucco siding and various geometric window shapes. Most of the
roof will remain flat or slightly sloped with built-up roofing.
The "summer house" is proposed as an open structure on a concrete slab, with a height of
about 10'6" and a metal roof. While the structure is small and well -screened, if the
Commission is concerned about the metal roofing,a different material could be required.
Landscaping and Trees
As previously discussed, there is extensive tree cover, especially oaks, at the side and rear
of the property. Two small oaks are proposed to be removed at the rear in the vicinity of
the cantilevered addition, and a 30-inch oak in the deck near the corner of the dining room
is proposed to be removed as well. This tree has had most of the lower branches removed
over previous years, and the remaining upper canopy hangs low over the existing roofline,
presenting a safety hazard. The applicant's arborist indicates (Attachment 8)that the tree is
structurally unsound and a safety problem, and the Environmental Design Committee noted
the same in its comments. It is unlikely that additional screening will be necessary, but
staff has included a condition of approval (#2) allowing staff to require added landscaping
prior to final inspection.
Li tin
Two skylights (one 16 sq. ft., one 18 sq. ft.) are proposed on the plans. Standard language
is included in the proposed conditions (#7) to require skylights to reduce emitted light and
prohibiting lighting within skylight wells. No lighting is proposed on the floor plans, but
the standard lighting condition (#6) requires that any proposed lighting fixtures be
downshielded and must be submitted for approval by staff prior to submittal of building
plans. -
Parking and Driveway
As discussed previously, Hooper Lane is a private road, and provides access to just one lot
beyond the Golukhov residence. As noted on the site plan, the edge of pavement for the
cul-de-sac actually extends beyond the right-of-way into the'subject lot and the neighboring
property. The existing site provides for three parking spaces, two in the garage and one
within the paved setback area of the cul-de-sac. Additional parking'at the site is readily
accommodated within the cul-de-sac, but is technically on the neighbor's property or in
right-of-way. A fourth parking space on the subject site would probably require widening
the pavement on the north side of the driveway, near the entry walkway, which appears to
staff to be overly disruptive. There is no new parking or driveway proposed.
The Fire Department has indicated that the plans are acceptable as far as access is concerned
and has only required that appropriate vegetation clearance be maintained. The
Engineering Department has included a condition (#15) that the private road easement on
this property be offered for public dedication,although it would not be accepted at this time.
Grading and Drainage
Virtually no grading is required for the site, other than a small amount of fill for the
"summer kitchen". The proposed drainage for the site would discharge collected runoff
through an energy dissipater to a drainage swale southeast of the residence. The
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 4
Engineering Department will review a final drainage and grading plan prior to submittal of
building plans and will inspect final drainage and grading prior to final inspection.
The Engineering Department has included a condition (#19) that all of the site below the
455 foot contour elevation be dedicated as a conservation easement to encompass slopes
over 30%, significant oak trees, and the natural drainage swale.
The applicant proposes to extend sewer service from Magdalena Ave. and Hooper Lane
(Lands of Hu) to the site, which will allow several other nearby property owners to connect
to the sewer system. The Engineering Department has included a condition of approval
(#17) requiring that the final sewer system design be approved by staff prior to acceptance
of plans for building plan check.
Pathway
The Pathways Committee has requested (Attachment 7) that a 30-foot wide off-road
pathway easement be provided along the southern boundary of the property, and that a 5-
foot wide native pathway be constructed within the easement (not to exceed 15% grade).
This path would connect Hooper Lane to the existing Frampton Road-Fernhill Drive off-
road pathway. According to Section 10-2.606 of the Site Development Code,the Town may
require a pathway dedication where a development proposes in excess of 900 square feet of
"habitable" floor area, where the path is shown on the Pathways Master Plan, and with
guidelines suggesting that the path: 1) generally be located along the property boundary, 2)
be located to connect to existing or future pathway easements at the boundary; and 3) not
be located on terrain that cannot be safely traversed by pedestrians or equestrians. While
this pathway easement would appear to meet all three criteria, the connection is not
presently shown on the Master Pathways Plan.
Staff has not, therefore, included a condition requiring the dedication and pathway
construction. However, the Commission may inform the applicant of the Town's desire to
connect to the existing pathway, and allow him the opportunity to volunteer dedication to
the Town.
Variance
Section 10-1.505 of the Zoning Code requires a 40-foot front yard setback for all structures.
As the applicant proposes a second-story addition which encroaches(approximately 15 feet)
into the setback, a variance is required. The applicant has indicated(Attachment 9)that the
need for the variance stems from the nonconforming location of the existing house and the
private road right-of-way,which impacts this property more than others.
In order to approve a variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings, as
required by the Zoning Code: 1) that there are circumstances unique to this property which
make compliance with the Code impractical; 2) that the intent of the Code is met and that
approval would not comprise a special privilege for the applicant; 3) that there would be
no adverse impacts on neighboring properties; and 4) that the use is consistent with the
Zoning Code.
Attachment 2 (Exhibit "B") outlines staff's proposed findings for approval of the variance
request. In particular, the site is highly constrained by the location of the existing house,
the private road right-of-way on the front side, and steep slopes (in excess of 30%) and
extensive mature trees to the rear. Any substantial first floor addition would be precluded
by those constraints. The intent of the Code appears to be met, as there is substantial space
between the structure and neighboring properties, as well as from the road, and as the
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 5
existing structure is already encroaching into the setback.
The existing screening and the limited access to the private road will minimize any potential
impacts on other properties or the public, and the use (residential addition) is clearly
consistent with the single family residential use of the property. In summary, the second
story addition appears to minimize disturbance to the site without creating adverse visual
impacts from offsite.
Staff and Committee Comments
The Fire Department has requested (Attachment 5) that the address be clearly labeled, that
the vertical and horizontal clearances of the driveway be maintained, and that brush be
cleared around the house and decks for fire protection. Fire flow appears to be adequate for
this size residence and access is available from the street and cul-de-sac.
The Town's geotechnical consultant has reviewed the proposed plans and supporting
geotechnical reports and has approved the construction, subject to conditions of approval,
including clarification of design criteria and standard plan review and inspection letters. The
geotechnical conditions are included as condition#9 in Attachment 1 and provide reference
to Cotton, Shires&Associates' letter dated June 2, 1997(Attachment 4).
The Environmental Design Committee (Attachment 6) commented that proposed tree
removal was acceptable,that significant mature screening exists and that there should not be
impacts on neighbors' views. The Committee suggested that a conservation easement be
required, which has been included as condition of approval, and that the concrete decking
for the"summer kitchen"be a permeable wood deck to reduce impact on the oak trees. The
applicant's arborist has determined that the slab will not impact the nearby 24" oak (the 8"
oak is to be removed) and that the wood deck should be built on piers, which is proposed.
If the, Commission desires, condition #1 could be modified to more specifically require
piers for the decking.
The Pathways Committee request is discussed above.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Conditions of Approval
2. Proposed Variance Findings
3. Worksheet#2
4. June 2, 1997 Letter from Cotton, Shires &Associates
5. May 20, 1997 Letter from Santa Clara County Fire Department
6. May 16, 1997 Recommendation from Environmental Design Committee
7. May 27, 1997 Recommendation from Pathways Committee
8. April 23, 1997 Letter from Herb Fong,Certified Arborist
9. Applicant's Variance Findings
10. Plans
cc: Mr. Albert Golukhov Mr. David Blum
11195 Hooper Lane Blum Construction
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 1174 Fisher Ave.
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A MAJOR ADDITION AND VARIANCE
LANDS OF GOLUKHOV-11195 HOOPER LANE
FILE#72-97-ZP-SD-GD-VAR
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Any modifications to the approved plans requires,prior approval of the Planning
Director or Planning Commission depending upon the scope of the changes.
2. Prior to final inspection of the residence, the Planning Director may require
additional landscape screening to mitigate the visual impact of the project from
offsite properties. If required, 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 6 months after final inspection, or the
deposit will be forfeited.
3. If landscape screening is required, 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$5,000.00, 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.
5. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new construction.
6. Any additional outdoor lighting requires approval by the Planning Department prior
to installation. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, and shall not encroach
or reflect on adjacent properties. The source of the lighting shall not be visible from
off the site. Light fixtures must be approved by the Planning Department prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. No lighting may be placed within
setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights, unless determined to be necessary
for safety.
7. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light No lighting •
may be placed within skylight wells.
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 7
8. At the time of framing inspection,the height of the structure shall be certified by a
registered civil engineer as being at the height shown on the approved .site
development plan.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
9. As recommended by Cotton, Shires, &Associates in their letter dated June 2, 1997,
the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Supplemental geotechnical design criteria related to seismic ground
accelerations and any seismic hazards related to the_nearby trace of the
Monte Vista fault shall be provided for review and approval by the Town's
geotechnical consultant prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check
. b. Clarification of geotechnical design criteria related to the pier foundation, as
specified in the Cotton, Shires, & Associates letter, shall be provided for
review and approval by the Town's geotechnical consultant prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check
c. 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
d. 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 refer to the letter from Cotton,
Shires, &Associates dated June 2, 1997.
10. , 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 between November 1 and 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.
11. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground.
12. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval
'by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply'With all appropriate
requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked
during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All
areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion
control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
13. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submittedby the
property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 8
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 Hooper Lane 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 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.
14. 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
15. The property owner shall irrevocably dedicate the portion of Hooper Lane which
is a part of this property as public right of way to the Town. The property owner
shall provide legal description and plat exhibits prepared by a licensed land
surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication
document, including 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 The dedication shall not be accepted by the Town at this time.
16. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior
to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required to be issued by the
Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. A copy of a permit from the
City of Los Altos shall also be required to be submitted to the Town prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check
17. A sewer plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer for the extension of the
sewer main up Hooper Lane shall be required to be approved by the City Engineer
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check An as-built mylar shall be
required to be submitted to the Town prior to final project approval.
18. 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 shall be submitted for approval 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.
19.. The property owner shall grant a conservation easement to the Town over the
portion of the property shown on the site plan below the 455' contour to
encompass the existing slopes that equal or exceed a 30% grade, the significant
stands of oak trees, and the natural drainage swale. The property owner shall
•
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 9
provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land
surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document,
including 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
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
20. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings to
be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said
numbers shall contrast with their background and be a minimum of 4 inches in
height.. Numbering must be in place prior to final inspection.
21. r The driveway to the residence shall have a minimum width of fourteen feet.Vertical
clearance for the driveway and for Hooper Lane shall be a minimum of thirteen feet
six inches. Both dimensions shall be maintained. The driveway shall be designed
and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and
shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
22. The property shall comply .with requirements of Appendix II-A of the Uniform
Fire Code to maintain vegetative clearance around the house. Natural grasses
adjacent to the residence and along the roadway shall be removed to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department.
Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning
Department and Engineering Department at least two weeks prior to final building
inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 4, 6, 9a, b, and c, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,AND 19 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.
All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or
the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building
permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos
School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts. .
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
May 13, 1999). 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.
Lands of Golukhov: May 13, 1998
Page 10
ATTACHMENT 2 .•
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION TO
ENCROACH WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK
LANDS OF GOLUKHOV- 11195 HOOPER LANE
FILE#72-97-ZP-SD-GD-VAR
Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification;
The applicant's property is unusual in that the existing structure is non-
conforming, and conforming locations for building on the site are substantially
limited by slopes in excess of 30% and by a large number of mature oak and bay
trees. Strict application of the ordinance provisions regarding setbacks would
prohibit all but very minor additions to the structure, whereas the proposed
development could be accommodated substantially within the existing footprint.
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 purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served because the
visibility and impacts of the increased development will be negligible, as the
second floor addition would only be visible from the road, which is used by only
one other property owner. The proposed encroachments would be no closer to
front property line than the encroachments of the existing residence. The property
owner will not be granted special privileges as other surrounding properties are
not similarly constrained by the combination of the private road right-of-way and
slopes and mature trees.
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 variances would not negatively impact any neighboring -
properties, as the additions will have a negligible impact visually, and will not
encroach closer to the property lines than the existing residence. No significant
vegetation will be removed, and virtually no grading will be required.
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 additions will be consistent with the current residential use of the
property and surrounding properties.
•1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS -
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26379 Fremont Road • Los Albs Hilt,.California 91022 • (415)941/7222 • FAX(415)941-3160
WORKSHEET#2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WTTH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME G e 1 u k
PROPERTY ADDRESS 11195 Hoofer Lane.
CALCULATED BY 41‘ DATE p o / Zo /q 7
L DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage (from Part 2 A.) 31d4 5 m43 q3 8 8
B. Decking 71 7 3415' 1 A:1
C. Driveway and Parking
(Measured 100'along centerline) 513 0 51.3 •
D. Patios and Walkways SIM 912
E. Tennis Court 0 G 0
F. Pool and Decking 16o p . 160
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) 0 0 0
H. Any other coverage 0 p 0
TOTALS 6 017 17110 "7 SS'•7 •
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 9 0 R
2. FL• •R AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing - Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor 3 73 a 3a-3
b. 2nd Floor O /l 41(.3 11 a
c Attic and Basement p Da
d. Garage 417) 0 '171
B. ' Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor 0 d O
b. 2nd Floor 0 . a O
c. Attic and Basement p p 0
TOTALS 3-7 5141 //' , 'AM ,
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) . . 41992
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY [DANE
re
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. • ;,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
June 2, 1997
L3207
TO: Suzanne Davis
Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Review •
RE: Golukhov, Addition •
File#72-97-ZP-SD-GD-VAR
11195 Hooper Lane
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical review of the subject
application using:
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by United Soil
Engineering, Inc., dated April 29, 1997;
• Floor Plans, Elevations and Sections (4 sheets, 4-scale) prepared by
Roaten Hinson Associates,undated; and
• Site Plan (1 sheet, 20-scale) prepared by TS Nowack, dated April 1997. •
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent documents from our office files and
completed a recent site inspection.
•
DISCUSSION
Based on our review of the referenced plans, it is our understanding that the
applicant proposes to construct a second-floor addition above the existing garage. A
portion of the proposed addition would cantilever beyond the rear of the garage. A new
foundation system is proposed for the garage in order to support the addition. The
applicant also proposes to remodel the living area adjacent to the garage which would
entail raising the roofline to the level of the second-floor addition.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is generally characterized by gentle to very steep (12 to 74
percent inclination) north- to east-facing hillside topography. Previous grading
associated with construction of the existing residence has resulted in an apparent
combination cut and fill pad. Drainage is characterized by sheet flow to the north and
east which is partially intercepted by a northward-draining swale located near the
eastern property boundary.
According to the Geotechnical Map of Los Altos Hills, the property is underlain,
at depth,by bedrock materials of the Franciscan assemblage. Colluvial materials overlie
the bedrock in the swales located east and northwest of the existing residence. A
mapped trace of the potentially active Monta Vista fault is located approximately 250
feet east of the property.
Northern California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 5245 Avenida Encinas • Suite A
I,us Gatos,CA 95030 Carlsbad,CA 92008
(408)354-5542 • Fax(408)354-1852 (619)931-2700 • Fax(619)931-1020
c-nriil:Inst;T+esagrn.crnn c-mail:earincsageo.cnm
•
• Suzanne Davis June 2, 1997
Page 2 L3207
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on our review of the referenced Geotechnical Investigation (report), it
appears that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has provided a general characterization •
of the soil conditions in the vicinity of the.proposed development. However, several
aspects of the foundation design recommendations require clarification, and the seismic
setting requires characterization. We concur with the Project Geotechnical Consultant
that the proposed addition is feasible with utilization of appropriate engineering design
measures. We recommend that the following items be satisfactorily completed prior to
issuance of permits for site construction: -
1. Supplemental Geotechnical Design Criteria - The Project
Geotechnical Consultant shall provide anticipated peak and
repeatable seismic ground accelerations associated with large
earthquakes on nearby faults for consideration during structural
design of the proposed addition. In addition, the consultant shall
address any seismic hazards related to the nearby trace of the
Monta Vista fault.
2. Clarification of Geotechnical Design Criteria -Several aspects of
the geotechnical design recommendations provided in the
referenced report do not appear to be consistent with standard of
care for construction in this type of hillside environment. The
Project Geotechnical Consultant shall provide justification for the
following recommendations, or provide revisions thereof:
• An end bearing, 12-inch diameter pier foundation system has
been recommended to support the proposed addition. In
order for piers to be effectively end bearing, the bottom of the
pier holes must be free of any loose material. In our opinion,
thorough cleaning of the bottom of 12-inch diameter pier holes
is not realistic. Furthermore, the proposed addition would be
partially supported by piers constructed in a very steep (74
percent inclination) hillside. In our opinion, 12-inch diameter
piers do not provide sufficient space for the reinforcing bars
which would be required for piers in this environment. A
minimum 16-inch diameter pier would be required for
consistency with the local standards of practice for end-
bearing design.
• The foundation piers required in this hillside setting should be
designed to resist lateral pressures. Lateral creep forces need
to be provided.
• The recommended minimum depth of embedment_for the
foundation piers should be clarified. The minimum pier depth
as recommended is "5 feet into the competent soil and 2 feet
into bedrock." This recommendation should be revised to
include a minimum depth of total embedment, and a
minimum depth of embedment into bedrock.
•
COTTON,SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Suzanne Davis June 2, 1997
Page 3 L3207
•
• The recommended design end-bearing capacity of 8,000 p.s.f.
requires clarification. Laboratory testing results should he
provided to substantiate this recommendation or a different
recommendation should be made (e.g., UBC values).
•
The results of items 1 and 2 shall be submitted to the Town for
review by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of
permits for the proposed construction.
3. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) .
to ensure that his 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 and approval prior to issuance.of building
permits.
•
LIMITATIONS
This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town in
its 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.
•
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
William Schulz
Staff Engineering Geologist
Patrick . Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
POS:BS:st
COTTON. SHIRES Sr ASSOCIATES. INC.
~ (c' 6-- , °6. FIRE
" DEPARTMENT
FIR 1) SANTA CLAR.A, COUNTY
'EST.1947,' 14700 Winchester Blvd.,Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818
COUflTESYBSERVICE (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378.9342 (fax)
May 20, 1997
Suzanne Davis, Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills •
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
RE: File #72-97-ZP-SD-GD-VAR
Lands of Golukhov
11195 Hooper Lane
Second Story Addition
Dear Suzanne:
The Fire Department has completed its review of the above mentioned project.
Notes and conditions for approval are attached.
My office can be reached at (408) 378-4010 for clarification of items listed.
Sincerely,
Daniel Dunlap
District Chief
A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos. Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill. and Saratoga
fes ..
CONTROL NUMBER
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 9 7- 1 13 5
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
This plan review is for the addition of approximately 1,100 square feet to an
already existing 3,629 square foot single-story, single family residence. Access is
from Hooper Lane, a nonconforming private street.
Project Planner is Suzanne Davis.
UFC 1 Access Dimensions: The fire apparatus access to the residence shall have a
902.2.2.1 minimum width of fourteen feet. Vertical clearance shall be a minimum of
thirteen feet six inches. Both dimesnsions shall be maintained. Trimming of
existing brush and shrubs will accomplish the desired minimums.
UFC 2 Property shall comply with the requirements of Appendix II-A. Natural grasses
App. adjacent to the residence and along the roadway shall be removed. A copy of
II-A the Appendix is attached for reference.
Sect. 16
UFC 10 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
901.4.4 new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with
their background and be a minimum of four inches in height.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
0 0 0 0 0 Roaten Hinson 5/20/97 1 of 1
SEC./FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Construction Dunlap, Dan
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR 11195 Hooper Ln
I 1 a 1 11 1 ` Gv + 6
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION `' .. I 9 I;I-i'
Applicant's Name: • .f= `eG c /, -G11 1------- •
i 1
e/--1- �^
:'-..°4-1r----
Address: i (6-.7 1).Y
Reviewed by: C-.0/x,3 <'-7—c€ Date: r-76'.- ? 2
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building
site. Recommended protection during construction.)
gZ,.^, �-- tl /1. - 7. . ,,-.i (g, e' z?i 7/ s
A/tar /1-,'K --kf-- . _
,t-t Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
,,��ti%..--11",--
/y grading at least 10' from property line?)
Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient
space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a
need for removal of invasive species?)
Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscape).) -
/� .9 /--7/f-•"7,11.26_ / 2-2— I>,
---,
4.1 (-)4 ' — crl---1 .
Other Comments: 7° �� ��i^�� l �, ��
��� ia2 Rt(( 0. d Ce �a
F'1TE I-c.H-w‘F- T -7
2
corner of the property measuring 50 feet 11240 Magdalena Road; Lands of Hu:
in the North-South direction and 100 Restore II-B path along Magdalena.
feet in the East-West direction. 4/28/97 3/24/97
13961 Fremont Pines Lane; Lands of 28625 Matadero Creek Court Lands of
Ware&Cates: Construct II-B path along Groff&Taylor Construct a native path
Fremont Pines Lane. 3/24/97 in a 10 foot easement along the
25311 Fremont Road; Lands of boundary with 28620 Matadero Creek
Fitzpatrick: Construct II-B path along Court so as to connect the cul-de-sac to
Fremont Road. 5/27/97 the existing path on the lower portion of
26170 Fremont Road:Lands of property. Restore the latter path.
4/28/97
Zatparvar: Construct II-B path along
Fremont Road. 9/22/97 28500 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of
26242 Fremont Road; Lands of Yam= Rutner Restore II-B path along Matadero
No request. 7/28/97 Creek Lane. 7/28/97
25528 Hidden Springs Court; Lands of 28510 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of
Taylor No request. 4/28/97 J Restore II-B path along Matadero
Creek Lane and the asphalt path above
11411195 Hooper Lane;Lands of Goluknov: Page Mill Road. 2/24/97
Construct a native path from Hooper 12205 Menalto Drive; Lands of Godinho:
Lane to the existing path from Frampton No request. 6/23/97
a ta• Court within a 30 foot pathway
easement with the pathway slope not 12631 Miraloma Way; Lands of Breetwor.
exceeding 15%. 5/27/97 Restore II-B path along Summerhill and
construct II-B path along Miraloma with
4400 Kingsley Way;Lands of Clevenger:
the drainage ditch between the path and
Construct II-B paths along Altadena
Drive and Kingsley Way. 3/24/97 the road. 2/24/97
13001 La Cresta; Lands of Hsiaa No 27371 Moody Road;Lands of Rocchetti&
t
request. 2/24/97 Herdeli Construct path along Moody
Road on the property side of the ditch
25309 La Loma; Lands of Loughmiller and acquire a road and pathway
Construct a native path in a 10.foot easement as needed to encompass the
easement along the southern boundary path. 7/28/97
of the property from the water tank 26075 Newbridge Drive; Lands of
access road to the southwest corner of Critchfield: Restore II-B paths along La
the property. Provide pathway easement Paloma and Newbridge. 5/27/97
over the access road. 5/27/97 amended
6/23/97 24021 Oak Knoll Circle;Lands of J.Lohr
13870 La Paloma Road; Lands of HiProperties: No request. 2/24/97
Restore II-B path along La Paloma. 24036 Oak Knoll Circle;Lands of J.Lohr
6/23/97 Properties: Restore II-B path along Oak
13935 La°.Paloma Road; Lands of Knoll Circle. 1/9/97
Silvestri: Construct II-B path along La 24044 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of Lohr
Paloma. '7/28/97 Restore II-B path along Oak Knoll Circle.
25703 Lomita Linda Court Lands of 4/28/97
Stitt Construct II-B path along 24052 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of Lohr.
Ravensbury Avenue that deals with the Restore II-B path along Oak Knoll Circle.
drainage problems there. 3/24/97 5/27/97
10705 Magdalena Road; Lands of Urbach: 12113 Oak Park Court Lands of Lohr.
No request. 6/23/97 Restore II-B path along Oak Park Court.
6/23/97
•
Ps— i .�
•
Herb Fong
Certified Arborist
• Western Chapter ISA
Lie. #148
315 Bonair Siding •
Stanford, Calif. 94305
415-725=3175
1/33/37 * •
Mr. Dave Blum
1175 Fisher Ave.
Morgan all, Calif. 95037
Re: Lands of Golukhov
11195 Hooper Ln
Los Altos Hills, Ca.
Dear Mr. Blum,
At your request I inspected and reviewed the trees at the Hooper site that are to be
impacted by construction. This report is sectioned into two groups of trees. Those
impacted by the remodel of the main home and those impacted by the summer kitchen.
Trees impacted by the Main Home.
One of the 12" oak§ is really a Bay tree, Umbellularia californica. The other 12 and 14
inch oaks are Coastal Live Oaks• All three trees are sound and without serious structural
problems.
Thereis a 30 inch Coastal Live Oak tree in the deck next to the home addition. This tree
is not a structurally sound tree. It has had several large branches removed in the past
and shows some decay. One large limb hangs over the house and removal may be
needed for fire safety concerns. If this limb is removed there is questionable value in the
• •remaining tree since this tree's value has already been minimized by past severe pruning.
•
..• •..� .•-. . `+�r .r-.+iii i i. .rn. in it I..1 \I RJ
�. I , ) }-loo
PSI-Prc ' T �l
i % �:; ( < %— RECEIVED
FINDINGS MAY 0 5 1997
The findings fora Variance are as follows: TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed.by other properties in the vicinity and
under identical zoning
classifications:
CE) H)U ? I1/VI17 j,'nl(:1:�
",e^ ,J)1; V1
" � Ja.i.si R-i
Wcr-( ..i./� ,p117i1j:!t To •
(.9 5 Teii :,t'-!.1.s �!1�L� ?-01J I ti< <j 44_,-) .•�(7�—C�, f�' �j �.
. •
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:
e-
1,4 v J rl I Lrj- -1 1?ice` ( .sr) I — 5 t/! (%i 1-,') I"f L T S •=,(4)
N n r,�.r.. r ]ii r ' J /4)')ilio a F12 r,1 'cYg`r; 6S .
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:
>.,I. /-0 r,")1") o.i.; F�b •
t5I4- I';*() \I 6"\i, e„, orz • 11u (LA 1 •\_r(1.-75 f c i•
Y)c, h} )17.7,
•
•
4. That.the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly
Authorized.by the.Zoning Ordinance:
Vt5 .r..,tl: oL J_n `;Tat'' 1-,) 01,) ) '`LVo\A/1%;•17 j'/ Z.7N11\) tj
t, ( fur h.
•
-S- .
Variance Application`tiifonnation Packet • • Rev. 8/1/94