Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.5 M1 Town of Los Altos Hills July 8, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA, AND TO ENCROACH INTO SIDE SETBACK; LANDS OF LAMBERT; 24700 OLIVE TREE COURT; File#79-96-ZP-SD-GD-VAR. FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Dire RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Deny the requested Variances and Site Development Permit, citing the findings outlined in Exhibit"A" (Attachment 1); OR 2. Approve the Variances for setbacks and height and the Site Development Permit, but deny the Variance for floor area, citing the findings outlined in Exhibit "B" (Attachment 2), and subject to the conditions of approval outlined in Exhibit "C" (Attachment 3), requiring certain modifications to the design. BACKGROUND The subject property is located at the end of a narrow joint driveway from Olive Tree Court, at the southwest boundary of the Town limits) Access to the property is available through a 24-foot wide ingress/egress easement through the neighboring lot at 24704 Olive Tree Court. The parcel comprises Lot 24 of Tract 2958, recorded on May 2, 1961. Adjacent properties are generally single family residences, other than to the south, which is open space land owned by the MidPeninsula Open Space District. Public utility easements bound the perimeter of the property on all sides, and a 20 foot wide driveway and public utility easement exists along the north property line, providing access to several lots from Olive Tree Court. A previous residence on the lot was destroyed by fire on March 3, 1995. The property is currently vacant, other than the remains of the fire (the lower level of the house and foundation). The present application was initially submitted in June of 1996. For more than two years, the applicant has discussed various Code interpretations with staff, including those related to nonconforming structures, height, and floor area. In February of 1997, the City Council considered and confirmed staff's interpretation of the Code that variances would be required for height and setbacks given that the proposed design and footprint differed from the original layout. The project has been dormant for some time since, other than meetings of staff with the applicant's attorneys. Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 2 CODE REQUIREMENTS According to Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, all new residences are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Generally, the sections of the Zoning and Site Development Codes utilized to evaluate new homes include floor and development area limitations, grading,height, setbacks,visibility, landscaping and parking requirements. Variances are required to exceed allowable height(Section 10-1.504 of the Zoning Code), and to encroach into required setbacks (Section 10-1.505), and to exceed allowable floor area (Section 10-1.503). Variances are reviewed pursuant to Section 10-1.1101 of the Zoning Code. In order to approve a variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings, as outlined in attachments 1 and 2. Inability to make any of the findings would result in denial of the variance. Non-Conforming Structures Provisions Section 10-1.401 (Non-conforming structures) of the Zoning Code outlines the parameters for remodeling or rebuilding structures which previously did not comply with the Zoning Code. The provision (subsection a) allows for the rebuilding of projects damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake, etc., so long as the resultant structure does not increase the nonconformity or change the use. A second key element of the non- conforming structures section of the Code is that a property owner has a time limit of two years after the damage to submit a site development permit application to rebuild (subsection e). The applicant's attorney contends that, if the proposed project is not approved, the original home will be rebuilt on the site. However, no application to rebuild the original structure was received within that two year period. Therefore, staff, including the City Attorney, has determined that such a submittal could not be entertained or approved at this date, and the only application before the Commission under the non- conforming structure provisions is the current one. It is also important to note that, while the floor area of the original structure is calculated under Code provisions to be 4,660 square feet (compared to 4,000 square feet maximum allowed by formula), the actual usable floor area of that structure was only 3,200 square feet, including a two car garage. The difference is that there was considerable area of the original structure which was underfloor area enclosed on at least three sides and in excess of 7 feet in height which the Town would now count as floor area. The present proposal accommodates the 4,660 square feet as usable living area by expanding the footprint (and interior volume) of the residence, and by proposing a carport (which staff counts as floor area) in lieu of a garage. DISCUSSION Site Data: Net Lot Area: 1.53 acres Average Slope: 40.2% Lot Unit Factor: 0.54 f , Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 3 Floor Area and Development Area and Building Coverage: Area Maximum Proposed Existing** Increase Left Development Area* 10,207 10, 178 10,207 - 0 - + 29 Floor Area* 4,660 4,660 4,660 - 0 - + 0 * "grandfathered"figures calculated from plans of original structure and hardscape areas; allowable limits by Code calculations would be MDA of 5,000 sf and MFA of 4,000 sf. **original structure destroyed by fire. Site and Architecture The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a new two story residence with an attached carport at the lower level. The neighboring properties within the area are a mix of one and two story residences. The proposed design would cantilever over the steep slope at the downhill side of the building, and would be set on piers at varying heights (maximum of 44 feet) above the existing grade below. Staff understands that the exterior materials proposed for the residence are wood siding and some stone with substantial glass window area and a simulated wood roof (the original residence was white stucco), although the materials are not indicated on the plans. The residence would be situated in approximately the location of the previous residence, but the footprint would be expanded by about 15 feet in the downhill direction and about 5-8 feet into the south setback, adjacent to the open space. The design includes two levels of roof, with the downhill level being about 2 feet higher than the uphill roofline, contrary to the Town's Design Guidelines which recommend stepping the roofline with the slope of the land. Staff has repeatedly advised the applicant to lower the downhill section roofline to be 2 feet lower than the uphill section, which would then also lower the maximum height of the structure by about 4 feet. Setting the house on piers is also contrary to the Design Guidelines, although the original house had an extensive foundation wall which created a similar three story appearance. Height and Visibility The maximum height of the house on a vertical plane would be 44 feet at the most downhill portion of the structure, with roof heights ranging from 14 feet at the immediate front of the house to 44 feet at the rear. The height of the residence from the lowest to highest point would also be 44 feet. The house is highly visible as it sits on an exposed knoll overlooking the open space, and is seen by numerous neighboring properties and is prominent from Olive Tree Lane and Court. Story poles have been erected on the site outlining the new residence for the Commissioners' review, although staff notes that the extension of the poles at the downhill end appears not to go out as far as the plans show (15 feet), and that the piers would be anchored all the way to the ground below. This was probably not feasible for the story poles, given the steep slopes below, but is indicative to staff of the problems of extending the structure farther over the slope. The original structure was 44'6"high, and sat a little higher on the lot, so that the roofline was about 4 feet higher than the proposed residence. • Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 4 Floor Area While the proposed floor area of the enclosed portions of the structure complies with the 4,660 square foot limitation of the original structure, the applicant also proposes a carport on the lower level, which staff counts as additional floor area. The carport totals approximately 500 square feet, and would be enclosed by the residence on two sides and by the natural grade on the west side. The Town Code does not define carports or indicate how they are to be counted, but past practice indicates that enclosure on three sides and a roof comprise floor area. The structure certainly adds to the bulk of the residence, contrary to the intent of the Town's- floor area limitations. Also, the Commission has frequently had concerns that approval of such carports as development area invites future requests for variances to convert them into garages. There are no other enclosed parking spaces proposed. Staff has therefore required a variance request to accommodate the additional floor area for the carport. Staff has repeatedly suggested to the applicant that the house be reduced by 500 square feet, that the carport be relocated as a garage on the upper level near where the original garage was situated, and that the 500 square feet be deleted from the most downhill extent of the structure, minimizing the cantilever and the height above grade. Setbacks The original structure extended about 5 feet into the south setback for a distance of about 8 feet. The proposed structure would extend about 8 feet into the same setback for a distance of about 50 feet, and the eaves would extend about 12 feet into the setback for that entire side of the residence. In 1995, staff discussed with the owner the potential for a setback variance to locate more of the structure to the south, given the slope and instability constraints to the north and east and the fact that the south boundary was open space. Staff suggested that if the structure was pulled back from the slope to avoid the area of instability, there would likely be justification for some setback variance. The applicant's proposal, however, extends the structure about 15 feet eastward over the area requiring corrective grading, and requests encroachment into the setback. Staff has repeatedly requested that the applicant limit the building footprint extension over the slope in order for staff to support the setback variance. Lighting and Landscaping Skylights are not indicated on the plans (there is no roof plan), but condition #8 would require that lighting not be placed beneath light wells and that skylights reduce emitted light. Outdoor lighting is also not shown, but staff has included the standard condition (#6) for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures generally be downshielded and that all locations and fixtures be approved by the Planning Department. The site currently contains numerous trees on the hillside below the property, although they are not generally of a size to provide screening of the house. About two years ago, the applicant planted hundreds of redwood trees lower on the site, but they similarly have not grown to substantial heights, and the site has not been well maintained. Landscape screening near the residence will be important for screening from adjacent residences and from Olive Tree Court and Lane. Condition#4 would require a landscape plan review at a site development hearing upon framing of the house. Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 5 Parking, Driveway, and Turnaround Two of the four required parking spaces for the residence are proposed to be located within the carport. The other two spaces would be located to the south of the residence in the existing paved area adjacent in the setback. As these spaces pre-existed with the original house, no setback variance is necessary. The existing driveway is only about 11 feet wide for most of its length and the driveway grade ranges from about 5% to 20%, with an average slope of 16%. The Engineering Department and Fire Department have requested a driveway width of 14 feet minimum, but recognize that meeting that standard may be impractical. Staff has suggested several times that Planning, Engineering and Fire personnel meet with the applicant and his engineer on the site to determine a reasonable level of upgrading for the driveway, but the applicant has not chosen to schedule such a meeting. In the absence of such an agreement, Condition #14 would require that the driveway be improved to a 14 foot wide surface and a maximum 15% grade, but again staff is willing to discuss alternative designs, such as turnouts, to better accommodate vehicles, especially for emergency purposes. The Engineering Department has noted that the backup area for the carport is insufficient and that vehicles leaving these spaces would likely have to back all the way down the driveway to the street, due to the confined turnaround area and the sharp uphill backup turn maneuver which would be required to back into the driveway to turn around. Staff has advised the applicant that the carport (or garage) should be relocated to the original garage position on the upper level, allowing for easy ingress and egress. The Fire Department has commented (attachment 7) that the "hammerhead" configuration at the end of the driveway on the site provides for adequate fire turnaround. Grading and Drainage The plans indicate that the proposed project would include 50 cubic yards of cut to accommodate the carport below the main level, and corrective grading (mostly compacted fill) to address two localized landslide features, as recommended by the geotechnical consultant and the Town geologist. The cut for the carport appears to be a maximum of about 6 feet in depth. The project would not comply with the Town's grading policy relative to limiting the lowest finished floor to a maximum of three feet above natural grade, as the proposed lower level floor would sit about 12-15 feet above grade (cantilevered). While this design is contrary to the Town's Design Guidelines and grading policy, staff believes that the rebuilding of a fire damaged structure may justify some deviation, as the original structure had foundation walls of similar height. Staff has suggested, however, reducing the amount of the cantilever by pulling the cantilever back closer to the downhill extent of the original structure, or at least 5-10 feet in that direction. This would have the benefits of 1) reducing square footage to comply with the MFA limitation; 2) reducing the maximum height of the structure; 3) minimizing the difference of the finished floor above natural grade; and 4) limiting the amount of the structure built into the unstable slope below. Drainage would be accommodated by collection and discharge to natural drainage some distance down the slope below the building site. The Engineering Department has _ r Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 6 recommended a revised drainage plan be submitted for approval, including dispersal of the outlet points, with care regarding discharge proximity to oak trees and the septic leach field. The Engineering Department would review the drainage improvements prior to final inspection. The project is proposed to include an upgraded septic tank and drain field. While the septic system facilities are shown on the site plan, there is not a file copy of approval from the Health Department. A condition has been included (#22) requiring that a permit from the Health Department be approved prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Variances Variances have been requested from three Code provisions: 1) Section 10-1.503 (Floor Area) of the Zoning Code, as the project would exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 500 square feet (for the carport); 2) Section 10-1.504 (Height) of the Zoning Code, as the project would exceed the allowable 27 foot (vertical) and 35 foot (highest to lowest) height limitations, as 44 feet is proposed; and 3) Section 10-1.505 (Setback lines) of the Zoning Code, as the project would extend up to 8 feet into the side yard setback, beyond that of the original structure. - 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. There are some unique circumstances attendant to this lot, such as the previous structure being destroyed by fire, the steep slopes and vegetation lower on the lot constraining the building site, the limited access, and the proximity to open space lands. These constraints, however, do not preclude the applicant from complying with the Town's regulations, or at least minimizing the extent of the variances proposed. Staff has prepared findings for denial of the variances (Attachment 1) which emphasize that the applicant could limit the extent of building to the original house pad, which would provide for reasonable replacement of the original structure while minimizing the extent of the variances. The findings also indicate that the project as proposed would be contrary to the intent and purposes of the Town's Codes and Design Guidelines, in particular those relating to minimizing mass and bulk and visibility, and providing for safe ingress and egress. The applicant would therefore be accorded a special privilege if granted the variances, when other applicants are required to comply with those provisions. Staff also believes, however, that it would be possible to approve the project, including the variances for height and setbacks (but not for floor area), subject to the conditions outlined in Attachment 3. These conditions include reducing the floor area to comply with the MFA, relocating the carport to the upper level, reducing the height of the lower level roofline by at least 4 feet, and addressing all of the technical issues such as driveway width and grades, drainage design, and septic system approval, prior to submittal of plans for building plan check. If the Commission decides to approve the project accordingly, staff has prepared findings (Attachment 2) to support the approval, except for the floor area variance. The findings indicate that the modifications required would assure that the extent of the variances is • Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 7 similar to that which existed for the original structure and that the project would generally be consistent with the intent and purposes of the Town's ordinances and guidelines. A final alternative for the Commission would be to recognize the unique nature of this project and forward the application to the.Council for review, without recommendation. Town Geologist Review The proposed development has been reviewed by the Town Geotechnical Consultant, who has recommended approval with conditions (condition #9), including addressing some remaining concerns regarding the foundation design and slope stabilization measures. These concerns and a plan review letter must be addressed prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The review letter from Cotton Shires & Associates, dated August 14, 1996, is attached. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires that the applicant install fire sprinklers to the residence to meet the required fire flow duration requirements (condition#26), and may need to make additional improvements, such las fire hydrants, as well (condition #28). The Department also requests modifications t'o the driveway to increase the width to 14 feet and to assure that the driveway grade meets fire standards. The Department indicates that the fire turnaround as proposed is acceptable. The Fire Department's conditions of approval are included in Attachment 3. Committee Recommendations The Pathways Committee and Environmental Deign Committee apparently did not provide written responses when this project was first reviewed. In conversation with the Pathways Committee chair, however, it appears that no pathways request is needed. A condition (#12) has been included to require payment of a pathway in-lieu fee, prior to submittal for building permit. The Environmental Design Committee will berepresented at the Commission meeting. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit"A": Findings for Denial 2. Exhibit"B": Findings for Approval 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Section 10-1.401 of the Zoning Code (Nonconforming Structures) 5. May 8, 1998 Letter and Findings from Applicant's Attorney 6. MFA/MDA Calculations by Applicant 7. Fire Department letter, dated April 10, 1997 8. Letter from Cotton, Shires &Assoc., dated August 14, 1996 9. Development plans (5 pages). cc: Winston and Elaine Lambert Steven D. Pahl, Esq. 10295 Kenbar 160 W. Santa Clara St. Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Fourteenth Floor San Jose, CA 95113-1700 Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA, AND TO ENCROACH WITHIN SIDE YARD SETBACK LANDS OF LAMBERT -24700 OLIVE TREE COURT FILE#79-96-ZP-SD-Gb-VAR Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography,i 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; There is an existing building pad for a new residence, as existed for the previous residence. Construction within the confines of that pad and to the south would readily accommodate a residence similar to those on other properties and similar to the original residence, and would thus not deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others, while substantially minimizing the extent of the variances required. 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 would not be served by granting the variances, because the structure: 1) would be designed contrary to the Town's Design Guidelines as the roofline would step up as the slope steps down; 2) would appear more massive on a highly visible site, contrary to the purposes of the Zoning and Site Development codes and the Design Guidelines, and 3) would encompass more of the site than the original structure, creating more land disturbance in a highly visible location. Lo 'veering the roofline of the lower level and reducing its cantilever above the slope would reduce the extent of the variance for height and would reduce the bulk and massing of the structure on a highly visible site. Relocating the carport (or a garage) to the upper level would allow the lower level to used for living area and would provide for a safer access to and from the site. Eliminating the setback encroachment would minimize the bulk of the structure and would allow for more of �a buffer from the open space lands. Approval of the variances would grant the property owner special privileges as no other properties, even for replacement of fire or earthquake damaged homes, have received approval for such extensive deviations from Code requirements. 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 have a negative impact visually, permitting a bulkier design on a highly visible knoll adjacent to open space lands. Additionally, the allowance of the floor area variance for the carport would result in an unsafe access to the carport and may result in more vehicles being parked along the driveway or in the common roadway easement from Olive Tree Court, to the detriment of neighbors and emergency vehicle access. Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 9 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 variances would be consistent with the residential use of the property and surrounding properties, as the project would result in a single residence with associated parking. Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 10 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND TO ENCROACH WITHIN SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA LANDS OF LAMBERT - 24700 OLIVE TREE COURT FILE#79-96-ZP-SD-GD-VAR 1. 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 i 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 original structure was burned, and the building pad is limited with a steep slope below and to the north of the pad, and open space lands to the south. The strict application of the Code provisions would not allow a similar size house to be rebuilt on the site, as the combination of setbacks and height would confine the structure to a highly restricted building footprint. The denial of the floor area variance, however, would still permit a similar sized structure and would minimize the mass and bulk of the proposed home. 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 if the conditions of approval are imposed to lower the roofline and deny the floor area variance, reducing the footprint and height of the structure. The effect of these modifications would be to minimize the bulk and mass of the structure, and to reduce the extent of the height variance. the property owner will not then be granted special privileges as the resultant home would be similar in size and height to the original structure. 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 size and height will be similar to the original home on the site, the design would be more attractive, and the setback encroachment would be on the open space side of the property. The relocation of the carport/garage to the upper level will assure that safe maneuvering'is available for cars to enter and exit the site, and would minimize the potential for parking on the street or in the driveway. Very little land disturbance would be required for the project as modified by the conditions as approval. Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 11 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 variances would be consistent with the residential use of the property and surrounding properties, as the project would result in a single residence with associated parking. Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND TO ENCROACH WITHIN SIDE YARD SETBACK LANDS OF LAMBERT, 24700 OLIVE TREE COURT FILE#79-96-ZP-SD-GD- VAR A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The plans shall be revised to: 1) relocate the carport/garage to the upper level, with adequate backup space for maneuvering; 2) delete square footage equivalent to the carport area (approximately 500 square feet) from the house, by reducing the extent of the cantilevered area of the structure by at least 10 feet; 3) lower the downhill roofline such that it is at least two feet lower than the upper level roofline; and 4) increase the width of the driveway as directed byihe Fire Department and Engineering Department and/or add turnouts to provide improved access to and from the site. The revised plans and a revised worksheet #2 shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check Any further modifications to the approved plans requires prior approval of the Planning Director or 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 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 (including the redwood trees which have already been planted and any additional screening required by the Town) 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 Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 13 minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, garage 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. Specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape plan. Lighting fixtures shall generally be downlights. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. Any security lighting shall be limited in number and directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or louvers is suggested. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source or lighting should not be directly visible from off site. No lighting may be placed within the setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry lights, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 7. Prior to commencement of any grading on the site, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fence must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. 8. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 9. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence, and prior to final inspection, 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 inspection for the new residence, the height shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan. 10. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated August 14, 1996, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Plans illustrating details of proposed design measures to stabilize slopes immediately east of the residence should be prepared. Proposed foundation design plans should be prepared including details of new foundation members and illustrating portions of the existing foundation to be reused. The proposed details and plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town's geotechnical consultant prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 14 b. The project structural engineer should clarify whether supplemental underpinning measures are needed along the downslope (eastern) perimeter of the existing residence. The consultant should also verify that the condition of any existing foundation members to be reused have been inspected at the subject property, and have been found to be structurally adequate for reuse. The recommendations of the engineer shall be provided for review and approval by the Town's geotechnical consultant prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. c. 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 and driveway) to ensure that his 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 for review and approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. - d. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspeicts 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 prior to 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 (as built)project approval. For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates dated August 14, 1996. 11. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the development area (10,207 square feet) and floor area (4,660 square feet) established for the property by this approval is the maximum level of development currently allowed by the Town. The Planning Department will prepare the statement and the signed, notarized document shall be returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 12. A pathway fee of$7.00 per linear foot of the northerly frontage of the lot (181 feet) shall be paid to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 13. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. Where the drainage is required to be piped, it shall be divided and released at multiple locations to reduce the concentration of flow. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. • Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 15 The proposed energy dissipater shown to release on a 60% slope is not approved. A final grading and drainage plan which is stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted for approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The plan shall include the estimated grading quantities for the project (i.e.; cut and/or fill, net import/export) and shall include drainage details for the proposed energy dissipaters. The-plan shall also show the proposed leach field and expansion leach field. 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. 14. A final driveway plan which is stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted which shows the entire driveway from the proposed new residence to Olive Tree Court. The plan shall include topography for the area within the driveway easement and shall show the entire width of the existing driveway_in addition to all significant trees and existing improvements in the vicinity of the driveway. The driveway shall be widened to 14' wide where it is currently less than 14' wide, or to a lesser width where acceptable to the Engineering and Fire Departments. If the existing driveway grade is greater than 15% in any areas, the project engineer shall evaluate alternate designs which would reduce the grade to a maximum of 15%. The final driveway design and plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 15. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan and to the approved driveway 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. 16. If any portion of the existing driveway..for this property is not located within the existing driveway easement on the neighboring property, either the driveway shall be relocated so that it is entirely within the existing easement or an additional driveway easement shall be obtained from the neighboring property owner(s) prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 17. All new and existing public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 18. 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 Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 16 disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 19. 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 prio l 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 Olive Tree Court and surrounding I 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. 20. 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 21. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,prior to final ins ection. 22. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The septic field design shall be reviewed by and a review letter shall be submitted by the project geotechnical consultant prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 23. Conditions of the Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final inspection. A final letter shall be submitted from the project geotechnical consultant certifying that all recommendations were met when the leach field was installed. 24. The property owner shall grant a conservation easement to the Town over all areas on the property where the slopes are 30% or greater. The conservation easement should also encompass the existing drainage swale and significant stands of oak tree . The limits of the conservation easement shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Director. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant documents. The grant documents, 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: 25. Prior to final inspection, 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 with a 3/8 inch stroke. Planning Commission: Lands of Lambert July 22, 1998 Page 17 26. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall install a fire sprinklering system to assure that adequate flow is available to the residence. The design of the fire sprinklering system shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 27. The driveway from the common private road easement to the new residence shall be widened and/or turnouts shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Engineering Department,prior to final inspection. Fire apparatus access and turnaround shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with approved Fire Department requirements. In addition, the driveway shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department prior to start of construction. 28. One private on-site fire hydrant shall be installed at a location to be determined by the Fire Department, or other measures may be provided to satisfy the Department regarding adequate fire flow. The hydrant shall be installed and approved by the Fire Department prior to final inspection. The design and location of the hydrant shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 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 1, 4, 6, 10a, b, and c, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 AND 28 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 July 22, 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. § 10-1.3I0 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-1.401 application for a zoning permi • I be accompanied by a fee, the.{:: ount of which shall be establis- by a resolution of the City Co ,* A zoning permit, not not be issued for any building.; ,r. cture or use which would vio„ the provisions of the zoning law e Town. Neither a building p it not a site development permi all be issued until a zoning p- it has been obtained. (d) Trailer coaches intended to b= used as temporary residences d g construction or substantial rem. ing of a primary dwelling. • 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 198- • 2, Ord. 334, eff. July 20, 1990) Article 4. Nonconforming Uses and Structures Sec. 10-1.401. Nonconforming structures. (a) Damaged or destroyed.structures. The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction, repairing, or rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure which has been damaged or destroyed by natural disaster, including but not limited to earthquake, fire and flood, so long as the reconstruction, repair o-rebuilding does not result in an increase in the nonconformity or change of use that existed prior to the damage or reconstruction. (b) Less than substantially rebuilt structures. The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction, repairing, or rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure which will be voluntarily altered such that not more than fifty (50%) percent of the nonconforming portion of the structure's floor area and not more than fifty (50%) percent of the noncon- forming exterior walls are rebuilt, either as a single project or cumulatively over time, so long as the reconstruction, repair or rebuilding does not result in an increase in the nonconformity or change of use that existed prior to the reconstruction. The structure dimensions, square footage and use prior to demolition must be submitted Ito and verified by the Planning Director at the time of issuance of a demolition permit or site development permit, whichever occurs first. (c) Substantially rebuilt structures.The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction, repairing, or rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure which will be voluntarily altered such that more than fifty (50%) percent of the nonconforming portion of the structure's floor area or more than fifty (50%) percent of the nonconforming, exterior ss wails are rebuilt, subject to the limitations outlined in subsection (b), the Planning, Commission finds that: 1) the structure could be relocated (Los Altos Hills 10-15-97) 1025 § 10-1.401 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-1.401 �_ elsewhere on the site, accommodating the same square footage and develop- - § 10-1.401 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-1.403 adverse visual or privacy impacts on neighbors or the general public; and 6) the addition would be consistent with floor area and development area Iimitations of the Zoning Code. (h) Legal nonconforming structure: For the purposes of this section, a legal nonconforming structure is one which was legally permitted at the time it was constructed, or Iegally permitted by an approved variance but which does not comply with one (1) or more of the Town's current Zoning Code provisions. (i) Increase in nonconformity.An increase in nonconformity will occur when any nonconforming structure or portion thereof is altered to increase the footprint, volume or height, or to further exceed maximum development area or floor area, or to increase the extent of encroachment into a setback or to propose an encroachment or excess development area in a different location than previously existed. 0) Change of use. A change of use means conversion of a non- habitable structure (such as garages, carports, barns/stables, or storage) to residential uses (main residence, secondary dwelling, pool house, etc.), or the conversion of an outdoor use area (walkway, patio) to a more intensive use (swimming pool, tennis court). Change of use is only relevant to setback nonconformities. Change lof use to a less intensive use may be permitted by the Planning Director. (k) Variances. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit a property owner from seeking, or the Planning Commission and City Council from granting, a variance pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Zoning Code. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 344, eff. May 17, 1991; § 1, Ord. 345, eff. April 17, 1991; § 1, Ord. 387, eff. August 1, 1997) Sec. 10-1.402.. R:. " conforming uses: C► nuation. A nonco , ing use may not be cr;-ged, enlarged, or altered, shall the ► "ding structure, or premi ._'' upon which such use is loc. be enl. • •, reconstructed, or struc : ly altered unless such use anged a use permitted by the pr.,, ions of this chapter. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. Oct• 3, 1986) , Sec. 10-1.403. •onconforming uses: Co -rsion to conforming uses. Whe .ny building or land which has b,. n used other than in conformi- (Los Altos Hills 10-15-97) 1025-2 p w' 1�q�+ • • PAHL & GOSSELIN M-) i i LE �C' STEPHEN D.PAHL I SAN FRANCISCO OFFI A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAI ION 221 MAIN STREET THOMAS M.GOSSELIN - FENN C.HORTON.III ATTORNEYS AT LAW it `�1t:F.h.4Fh?:-('(:' r�:�r,�[ CATHERINE S.ROBERTSON I 60 WEST SANTA CLARA STREET SAN FRANCISCS.GAth) Of4NW 64705,S HAROLD C.WRIGHT (415)356-8300 JEFFREY M.SULENSKI FOURTEENTH FLOOR TELECOPIER(415)356-0319 LISA N.WALLY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-1700 KENNETH L.KANN JONATHAN K.LEVY (408)286-5100 MARY ELLEN GORMLEY - SARAHANN SHAPIRO TELECOPIER(408) 286-5722 SUSAN HAHM WALKER E-MAIL ADDRESS: MAILOPAHL-GOSSELIN.COM KAREN M.KUBALA MATTHEW J.RUGGLES p MICHAEL J.VARTAIN May 8, 1998 SPECIAL COUNSEL Curtis S. Williams Planning Director TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 - - Re: Site Development Permit for New Variance 24700 Olive Tree Court Your File No. 79-96-ZP-SD-GD-VAR. Dear Curtis: i appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on Tuesday, May 5 With regard to the above-referenced matter. As you can understand, Mr. and Mrs. Lambert have endured a most gut-wrenching task of first having their home burn to the ground and thereafter attempting to rebuild within the Town Ordinances When the structure that they acquired in 1987 was so beyond the scope of the Town Codes that such a dwelling would most likely never have even been considered by the present Town Planners and CocZncil. It has taken us a period of nearly two years of redesigns, reorganization and discussions to reach the stage in which this correspondence is drafted. I appreciate your efforts in attempting to make this process proceed from this point forward as smoothly as possible. With regard to the administrative matters we discussed, I have requested that Larick Alan Hill, Inc. submit to you ten conceptual site plans with a revised worksheet for MFA/MDA calculations reflecting the total size of the development set forth in the plans. In addition, Mr. Lambert will increase the deposit to complete the site development permit. I appreciate your courtesy in agreeing to waive specific fees for the variance request set forth below. I understand that the prior MFA/MDA worksheet is still correct and on that basis, the prior submission should suffice. PAHL 8c GOSSELIN Curtis S. Williams May 8, 1998 Page 2 The remainder of this correspondence constitutes a further request for specific variances as discussed at our meeting on May 5, as well as my request for site approval concerning the proposed structure designed by Larick Alan Hill, Inc. The Town Ordinance (10-1.1107(2)) defines a variance as an exemption to the law or standard granted to resolve a difficulty or inequity (not of the applicant's own making) which may result from exceptional circumstances of a property. California case law has described a variance as being a special circumstance created by a situation where strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning el&.:sifications. Stated in another way, a variance must flow from the circumstances of the property and not of the owner. Zakessian v. City of Sausalito, 28 Cal. App. 3d 794 (1972). In addition, a-variance granted may only be subject to conditions that ensure that it does not constitute a grant of special privileges. It is only intended to bring property up to parity with other properties in the vicinity or similar zoning classifications. Broadway, Laguna, et al. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 66 Cal. App. 2d 767 (1967). In the present situation, the home that existed prior to the fire was built in 1973 and met the then Town requirements, even though it has a building site of thirty, forty or more percent slope. Notwithstanding that fact, it was in excess of forty-seven feet high, constituted approximately four stories,, was within current setback requirements and was built on property that some might successfully argue is essentially "unbuildable." In order to achieve a more harmonious design, a request is herewith made for a variance to the current existing Town- imposed setback requirements and height requirements. The basis for this request is twofold: it is clear under Town practices and policies that Mr. and Mrs. Lambert could rebuild the exact same structure in the exact same location with the exact same nonconformities which everyone who has reviewed the project would unanimously agree would be both unattractive and undesirable.- As an alternative, my clients have expended LCI1J of thousands of dollars in design and review processes to fashion a new dwelling more closely aligned with the Town of Los Altos Hills' planning process including the use of "prairie style" homes and meets the criteria set forth in the Guidelines for Residential Design and Land Use approved by the Town of Los Altos Hills Town Council in February 1994. This design envisions that the structure will slightly stretch beyond the footprint of the old structure and will occupy areas within the property setback not previously occupied by the previous structure. In mitigation to these additional "footprint" encroachments, the height of the home being proposed moves from a four story, six level house with a fourteen foot pony wall to a two story, prairie style structure. While the floor area and development area are relatively similar (both the floor area and development area are slightly less in the proposed new structure), the sense of openness and compatibility with the land and steep slopes make this design much more desirable. The PAHL & GOSSELIN Curtis S. Williams May 8, 1998 Page 3 basis for the height and setback variances is that the previous structure is entitled to be rebuilt, but because of the intervening destructive fire and redesign of the property, the proposed structure is clearly significantly more within the Towns Guidelines and Ordinances and does not provide any significant special privileges to the Lamberts. A variance is only intended to bring a property up to parity with other properties in the vicinity and zoning conditions providing that the granting of such a variance will support an intent of the governing body to comply with the purpose and intent of comprehensive zoning ordinances and the general plan. Cow Hollow Improvement Club v. Board of Permit Appeals, 245 Cal. App. 2d 160 (1966). The redesign of the proposed new structure by the Larnberts clearly meets that criteria and on that basis, we believe that the findings set forth above are sufficient w grant a variance to the Lamberts both for height and setback intrusion. In addition, forty-seven of the Lamberts' neighbors agree with that conclusion and have signed apetition requesting that the Town approve the new design in lieu of the rebuilding of the old structure which all agree was both poor and intrusive upon the landscape. We also discussed during our meeting of May 5, whether or not the carport as proposed requires a variance. As planned, the carport is bound on two sides by interior walls of the home and on the third side by the hillside. Mr. and Mrs. Lambert have agreed that the hillside and structure would be graded sufficiently to create a light well on the third side of the carport to both ensure its non-enclosure and to provide a sense of openness and light into the carport. The planning process included an effort by the Lamberts to "snuggle" the home into the hillside so as to reduce the massing of the home out from the hillside. This is consistent with the Guidelines for Residential Design and Land Use supplied by the Town and specifically at pages 14, 23 and 27. Stated in another way, Mr. and Mrs. Lambert could design the house three or four feet away from the hillside, leaving two sides of the carport completely open to level dirt which would increase the bulk of the project rather than attempting to "fit" the house into the hillside and utilizing a portion ofnthe7� hillside as a partial pony wall for of the sides" of the rtthat basis, we do.not believe that die Town one �ai.•�Ji::i%� carport.�. On tS•uL�vc�:i.. Ordinance requires a variance for the carport, but if it continues to be your belief that a variance is necessary because one of the "sides" of the carport is hillside dirt, protected by a partial retaining wall, then an additional variance request would be made. The necessary fmding would be that because of the unusual situation present (namely the destruction of Mr. and Mrs. Lambert's home by fire, a condition not of their own making), the application of the Town of Los Altos Hills Ordinances requiring that two sides of a carport be open is not well served in that the Lamberts are attempting to meet the Guidelines for Residential Design and Land Use by siting the home into the hillside and utilizing a portion of the hillside as a boundary for their carport. As such, the carport in this instance should not be counted as a garage and therefore floor area in the calculations of this project. PAHL & GOSSELIN Curtis S. Williams May 8, 1998 Page 4 I look forward to the opportunity to have this matter come before the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission, hopefully on June 24. It is our hope that the new and clearly more desirable structure can be sited on this property and that the Lamberts will not be required to reconstruct the exact home lost to fire several years ago. I believe that This correspondence also speaks for Mr. and Mrs. Lambert's neighbors in wishing that this design, which respects the land and the slope thereof, can meet the requirements for findings of a variance by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,- - PAHL & GOSSELIN A Professional Corporation IF Stephen D. Pahl SDP:tm cc: Larick Alan Hill, Inc. Client 2231\001\980647.1[r -t t�_ti- . T 6 - - Existing Floor Area Section. 10-1.401 allows houses destroyed by fire to use the higher of their previous floor area or the allowable MFA (Maximum Floor Area). If the lot had been vacant ready for new construction the MFA for this lot would be_4,000 sq. ft., calculated by Section 10-1.503 (c). The previous floor area was 4,660 sq. ft., therefore the allowed MFA for the proposed design is 4,660 sc. . ft. This square footage was calculated by actualmeasurements of the remaining foundation_ and original floor plans of the destroyed house. Section 10-1.223 sets forth the rules by which floor area is calculated. Any area where the ceiling is more than 17 feet overhead; the portion of the floor that exceeds 17 feet will be counted twice. Crawl space is considered floor area where its height exceeds 7 feet. To determine the area on first floor where the ceiling exceeded 17 feet, we used the plans. To calculate the areas in the crawl space that exceeded 7 feet, we simply measured down from bottom of floor to the dirt below. Measurements are explained as follows; however if.there are any questions, please call (415) 949-1320 or (415) 949-0856 and we will be pleased to explain. UPPER FLOOR - Outside Dimensions: 62 ft-6 1/2 inches x 36 ft. 2 inches (measurements from outside walls) = 2,262 sq ft. Fireplace 4 ft. 2 inches x 7 feet = 29.17 sq.ft. Stairs (stairs are only counted for one floor) 3 feet x 10.5 feet = (31.5 sq.ft) LOWER FLOOR Outside Dimensions: 34 feet 2 inches x 36 feet 2 inches (from measurements) = 1,236 sq.ft. Fireplace 4 ft. 2 inches x 7 feet = 29.17 sq.ft. Sauna 4.25 feet x 9.5 feet (Measurements) = 40.38 sq.ft. CRAWL SPACE There were three areas of crawl spaces exceeding 7 feet in height and due to uneven ground they had.unusual shapes. All three were graphed on graph paper, rectangles within the spaces were identified and calculated where possible and the remaining squares were counted to yield the total square footage. A scale of one foot per square was used to make each square one sq. ft. .Calculations are.on the attached graphs. Lowest level 493.6 sq. ft. Under kitchen 85.4 sq.ft. Under upstairs bedrooms 224.6 sq.ft. Garage (above 17 feet) 291.0 sq.ft. TOTAL FLOOR AREA (MFA) = 4,660 sq. ft. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA Due to the lot's slope, the Maximum Development Area (MDA) calculation produces a square footage below the minimum allowance of 5,000 sq. ft.. (Section 10- 1.502) which makes the MDA calculation meaningless. The Town however allows homes destroyed by fire to be rebuilt retaining the original MDA that existed before the fire. Therefore, measurements of the original MDA were prepared using the original plans and measurements of the remains of the burned house. The MDA measurements begin with the MFA of 4,660 sq. ft. and then add all square footage that was allowed for Decks, Driveways (first 100 feet of driveway), and parking areas of the original design. DECKS Upstairs east 36 ft. 5 inches x 8 ft. 5 inches = 306.5 sq.'ft. Downstairs east 36 ft. 5 inches x 8 ft. 291.3 sq. ft. Stairs east (outside) 3 ft. 5 in. x 8 ft. = 27.3 sq. ft. Concrete pad at bottom stairs 5 ft. x 7 ft. = 35.0 sq. ft. - minus area covered by stairs 2 ft. x 3 ft. 5 in. = 6.8 sq. ft. Deck and Stairs by Front Door Deck 6 ft. 1 1/2 in. x 29 ft. 2 in. = 178.6 sq.ft. Stairs 4 ft. 3 in. x 10 ft. 2 in. = 43.2 sq. ft. Concrete pad 4 ft. x 3 ft. 6 in. = 14.0 sq. ft. Kitchen Doorway, Deck and Stairs Deck 4 ft. 9 1/2 inches x 16 ft. 4 in. = 78.3 sq. ft. Concrete pad 4 ft. 2 in x 2 ft. 8 in. = 11.1 sq. ft. Stairs 6 ft. 1 in. x 4 ft. 4 in. = 26.4 sq. ft. Total Decks and Stairs: 1,018.5 sq. ft. Driveway & Parking Area: Driveway (first 100 feet) average width 10 ft. 10 in.x 100 ft. = 1,083.3 sq. ft. Plus extra width as driveway adjoins parking area = 64.6 sq. ft. Parking Area (Northwest) 4 spaces 10 x 20 with 15 foot Backing = 1,200 sq. ft. (Southwest) 62 ft. 8 inches x 32 ft.+ 8 ft. x 22 ft. = 2,181 sq. ft. Total Driveway and Parking Area = 4,528.9 sq. ft. TOTAL MDA = 10,207.4 sq. ft. • Floor Area New Design These areas were calculated from the plans which required many calculations. Dimensions were taken from outside wall to outside wall. Upper Floor: 3,075.98 sq. ft. Lower Floor: 1,584.02 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 4,660 sq. ft. Area New DesignDevelopment Floor Area 4,660 Upper Deck 1,166.82 Lower Deck 570.31 Driveway (identicle to original) 1,147.90 Parking Area 2,633. Total Development Area 10,178.03 • ' GZ,ARA ,o� ' FIRE DEPARTMENT �'\c.cr� ,ys `FIRE ' .c SANTA CLAVA COUNTY J c .4,0P--•=4,9,;--;-:: /\ 14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 COURTESY (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) April 10, 1997 Curtis Williams, Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 RE: File #79-96-ZP-SD-GD Lands of Lambert 24700 Olive Tree Court New Residence Dear Curtis: This review is the result of a resubmitted topographic map for the above mentioned parcel. The Fire Department review includes the following. The portion of driveway shown meets Fire Department standards of having a grade not greater than 17 percent. A portion of the drieway, however, appears not to be shown and since this is part of the access to this residence, the road slope and width needs to be provided. 1996 UFC, Section 902.2.2.6 The driveway shows two horizontal width measurements. One being 10' 8" and the second being 10' 3". The Fire Department standards for a driveway that serves a single residence shall have a minimum width of 14 feet and a vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches. The proposed measurements of 10' 3" and 10' 8" is not approved. 1996 UFC, Section 902 The proposed fire apparatus turnaround does meet Fire Department standards. The size of the new residence is approximately 4, 660 square feet. The required fire flow is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi. residual. The closest hydrant does not provide for this amount of flow. An exception in the code allows for a.fifty (50) percent reduction in the required fire flow when the residence is protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. However, the required flow should not be less than 1, 000 GPM at 20 psi. residual. The closest hydrant does not meet this required flow. 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 My office can be reached at (408) 378-4010 for clarification of items listed. Sincerely, Daniel Dunlap District Chief CITY OF LOS ALTOS All FIRE DEPARTENT .gf �0, °�, 10 Almond Avenue ,siren_ ` Los Altos, California 94022-2201 ; •+5- •-• . 9E QV Tel: (415) 948-2404 '\ Fax: (415) 949-2692 Koio May 9, 1996 Suzanne Davis, Planner - Town of Los Altos Hills - 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 RE: File#79-96-ZP-SD-GD Lands of Lambert 24700 Olive Tree Court New residence Dear Suzanne: Notes to Applicant: The access to this residence serves only one residence, is measured to be approximately 300 plus feet from the public access to the first portion of the building for Fire Department access. The access to this residence shall meet all provisions of Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code relating to Fire Department Access excluding the width requirement which shall be maintained at 14 feet. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. 1994 UFC, Section 902.2.2.1 - - Note: This vertical clearance shall be maintained. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (45,000 pounds), and shall be provided a surface'so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 1994 UFC, Section 902.2.2.2 • Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. 1994 UFC, Section 902.2.2.4 The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed 17% grade. 1994 UFC, Section 902.2.2.6 Serving the City of Los Altos and the Los Altos County Fire Protection District. RESPONSIVE-INNOVATIVE-'CONCERNED Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. 1994 UFC, Section 901.4.4 An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings are constructed. Water supply is allowed to consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, water mains, or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. In setting the requirements for fire flow, we are guided by Appendix III-A. 1994 UFC, Section 903 The minimum fire flow duration requirements for one-and two-family dwellings having a fire area which does not exceed 3,600 square feet shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than that specified in Table A-III-A-1. EXCEPTION: A reduction in required fire flow of 50 percent, as approved by the chief, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. 1994 UFC, Appendix III-A, Section 5 The Fire Area for this project is approximately 4,000 square feet. The minimum required fire flow for a dwelling of this size requires a fire flow of 1750 gallons per minute. Fire Department records indicate the closest hydrant to this property has a flow at 18 psi residual of 710 gallons per minute. The closest hydrant does not meet the required flow for this residence. Cut or uncut weeds, grass, vines and other vegetation shall be removed at this time as it presents a fire hazard. All vegetation that could become a fire hazard shall be removed during construction process and after completion. 1994 UFC, Section 1103.2.4 Note: Appendix II-A requirements shall be followed. A copy is attached. The Fire Department can be reached at (415) 948-2404 ext.2 for clarification of items listed. Sincerely, Daniel Dunlap Fire Marshal •-•. r-irrc er D I C.17•l..) -,amu �.,- .�.,,_ .- eEOTEC LAICAL CONSUL:3 s Ps'r-neittvrn' t'.TT % William Cotton 330 Village Lane \1Los Gatos, California 95030 and Associates (408) 354-5542 • • .• j August 14, 1996 ''FILE ,: .I� L1067C • TO: Suzanne Davis --/-6, Y. Planner TOWN OP LOS ALTOS HILLS Fgom• "'"riL------- 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Review RE: Lambert Residence 24700 Olive Tree Court - We have completed a preliminary geotechnical review of proposed construction using Geotechnical Investigation (report) . prepared by Upp Geotechnology, dated July 26, 1996; . • Topographic Map (with Proposed House Footprint) prepared by Rick Skierka, dated February 1996 and revised March 5, 1996; and • Floor Plans and Building Sections (4 seets, 4-scale) prepared by Larick Alan Hill, dated April 18, 1996. in addition,we have reviewed pertinent documents from our office ales. DISCUSSION • • The applicant proposes to build a new residence to replace the existing residence damaged by fire. The proposed new house has approximately the same location of the previous residence, but extends approximately 15 to 20 feet further downslope (east) than the previous structure. in our previous review report (dated May 16, 1996), we recommended that geotechnical reconstruction evaluations be complete prior to geotechnical approval of site reconstruction plans. CO. • ). . . e t •MM74. • ' • : •i •N . The Project Geotechnical Consultant has adequately addressed the issues of our previous review report. The consultant has presented geotechnical design criteria for foundat'ons to support proposed expansions beyond the footprint of the previous residence,and concluded that the existing house foundation appears generally adequate to be re.'sed during reconstruction. The consultant has recommended that a structural design engineer evaluate the need for additional uriiderpinning piers along the current downslope (eastern) perimeter of the residence (between Pits 1 and 2 as illustrated in the referenced report). In addition, stabilization of the erosional landslide scar below the residence has been recommended by a comb nation of low terrace walls and engineered fill. ,.r„1 :,ry . GNVlanMMMPNTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Suzanne Davis August 14, 1996 • Page 2 L1067C Basedon the project information that we have received to date,we agree that the proposed construction.,appears feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Considering the ridge crest setting of the proposed residence site, it is possible that future seismic shaking may be focused/amplified at the house site by the local topography. The applicant should be aware that the intent of the Uniform Building.Code (UBC) is to safeguard against major collapse and loss of life, but not to maintain functions or provide for easy repair. Methods of design beyond minimum UBC criteria are available to reduce damages and the applicant should consider discussion of supplemental design measures with the Project Structural Engineer. The condition of any existing foundation members (to be reused for reconstruction) should be specifically inspected by the Project Structural Engineer. . t'rior to issuance of the actual building or grading permits for reconstruction,we recommend that the following items 1,2 and 3 be satisfactorily addressed: 1. $ugplemental pevelopment Plans - Plans illustrating details of proposed design measures to stabilize slopes immediately east of the residence should be prepared. Proposed foundation design plans should be prepared including details of new foundation members and illustrating portionsof the existing_founda.tion to be • reused. 2. ,Structural Evaluations - The Project Structural Engineer should clarify whether supplemental underpinning measures are needed along the downslope (eastern) perimeter of the existing residence. The consultant should also verify that the condition of any existing foundation members to be reused have been inspected at the subject property,and have been found to be structurally adequate for reuse. Appropriate documentation to address the above tow items should be submitted to the Town for review by the.Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits for building or grading. 3. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all..gebtechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and-grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that his 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 for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Geotechnical Field Inspection-The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should indude,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. William Cotton and Associates RF'k by •7( 67. 17 •iCJO-JJ"`. • • August 14, 1996 Suzanne Davis L1067C Page 3 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(as-built) project approval. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT • Ted Sayre Senior Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 Patrick O. Shires Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 770 POS:TS:rb • William Cotton and Associates JV I ; o 1998 Da vid.MacKenzie, Post Office Box 777 Los Altos, California 94023 Telephones Office: (415)941-2662 Home: (415) 949-4991 ,July 14 , 1998 Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills . 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills , California 94022 RE : Lands of Lambert Permit Correct me if I ' m wrong but _I believe the house requested for approval will be the home to a single couple without children . If that ' s the case , the size requested seems somewhat larger than necessary to satisfy the needs and comforts of the occupants . No , the size and variances requested are wanted simply to obtain maximum profits on an investment when the house is up for sale . This mercenary approach to one ' s home has resulted in an increasing number of over-sized and charmless"mansions" to dot the landscape of a town than once prided itself on rural charms . I ' m afraid the Town of Los Altos Hills is rapidly becoming the conspicuous consumption capital of America . Sincerely , Davi MacKenzie 24618 Olive Tree Lane Los Altos Hills