HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13.!
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS April 14, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE
ENCROACHMENT OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AND DOOR LANDINGS;
LANDS OF ESHGHI AND DOROODIAN; 13530 FREMONT ROAD; FILE #168-04-
ZP-SD-GD-CDP-VAR
FROM: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner
044
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION that the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variance
subject to the recommended conditions of approval and findings included as Attachments 1,
2 and 3.
This request for a Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variance
was continued from the January 27, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, where neighbors
voiced their concems regarding the size of the house relative to the small, comer lot and
traffic safety issues related to the proposed driveway on Burke Road and visibility at the
comer of Fremont and Burke Roads. The proposed residence met maximum height, floor and
development area standards. However, the proposed house would have required a variance to
allow portions of the house and two required parking spaces to encroach up to 16 feet into the
front, side and rear yards.
The Planning Commission acknowledged that it was a difficult lot but did not find sufficient
grounds to support the requested variance. The Commission recommended that the applicant
redesign the house to minimize setback encroachments and to relocate the driveway to
Fremont Road.
DISCUSSION OF REVISED PLANS
In response to the Planning Commission's direction, the project has been redesigned to
include the following changes:
• Floor area of the house has been reduced by 218 sq.ft. (from a total of 4,541 to 4,323
sq.ft.) as shown in the comparison below.
• The pool has been eliminated and development area has been reduced by 228 sq. ft.
(from a total of 6,628 to 6,400 sq.ft.)
Planning Commission
tends of 8shghi
April 14, 2005
Page 2 of I
The house has been reconfigured so it is located almost completely behind setback
lines. The only features that encroach into setback areas are 2 required parking spaces
and landings for 4 French doors on the west side of the house, 2 doors on the north
side, and the front entrance on the south side of the house. (See sketch of updated
landings in Attachment 8.)
• The driveway has been relocated from Burke Road to Fremont Road
Comparison of Floor Area and Development Area (in square feet)
Area Maximum Original Revised Existing
Development Area 6,647 6,628 6,400 3,333
Floor Area 4,547 4,541 4,323 1,808
Site and Architecture
The redesigned residence meets the Town's height, floor area and development area
requirements. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 27 feet and the overall
height of the building from the lowest point to the highest point is 32.5 feet. More compact
than the original design, the revised residence is located almost entirely behind setback lines,
with minimal encroachments for 2 required parking spaces and 7 door landings. No floor area
encroaches into the setback areas.
The eaves of the roof extend approximately one foot into front, side and rear yards. However,
Sec. 10-1.505 of the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to approve an
exception for eaves to extend up to 4 feet into any front, side, or rear yard where the options
for siting of structures are substantially constrained by factors such as the size of the lot, as in
this case.
The traditional style of the redesigned residence is similar to the original proposal, with the
same materials including cement stucco walls, natural slate roof, wood doors and windows,
and copper gutters and downspouts.
Driveway & Parkin¢
In response to concerns about traffic safety, the driveway has been moved from its original
location on Burke Road to Fremont Road, where the existing driveway is located. The garage
at the south end of the house provides two standard parking spaces. Two additional parking
spaces are located southeast of the garage. Due to the small size of the lot, the additional
parking spaces are within the side and rear yard setbacks. The revised site plan (Sheet A1.0)
calls for two additional trees to be planted as a buffer or screen between the parking area and
the neighbor's property to the east.
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
Apn114,2005
Page 3 of I 1
Grading and Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the revised grading and drainage plans and
concluded that they are generally in conformance with the Town's grading policy and
drainage requirements. Several minor issues must still be addressed, however, and Condition
#13 requires that final grading and drainage plans be submitted and approved prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
SUMMARY
In response to the Planning Commission's comments, the applicants have redesigned the
proposed residence to minimize setback encroachments and to relocate the driveway to
Fremont Road. The house and parking area will be screened by existing trees and shrubs as
well as new landscaping required under Condition #2.
Staff recommends approval of the requested Site Development Permit, Conditional
Development Permit and Setback Variance based on the attached findings and subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
AT7ACHMl3NTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Recommended Findings for Approval for Conditional Development Permit
3. Recommended Findings for Approval of Setback Variance
4. Planning Commission staff report dated January 27, 2005
5. Planning Commission minutes of meeting on January 27, 2005
6. Revised Worksheet#2
7. Supplemental materials submitted by applicant including letter from architect dated March
28, 2005; invitation to neighborhood meeting on March 25, 2005; supporting petition
signed by 14 households; letter of support from Barbara Goodrich dated March 18, 2005;
and cutsheets for exterior lighting fixtures
8. Sketches showing landings and paved path
9. Revised development plans
cc: Kamyar Eshghi and Nazila Doroodian Farm Essalat, Architect
P.O. Box 296
Planning Conunission
Lands of Eshghi
April 14, 2005
Page 4 of I 1
WWRITWOU-Iffnal
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR NEW RESIDENCE
LANDS OF ESHGHL AND DOROODIAN, 13530 FREMONT ROAD
File #244-03-ZP-SD-VAR
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. No modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed
and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the
scope of the changes.
2. After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -rough framing
inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the applicant shall submit a
landscape screening and erosion control plan for review by the Planning Commission.
Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to screen the
view of the residence from surrounding properties and maintain privacy between
neighbors. All landscaping required for screening purposes and erosion control (as
determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection and
occupancy of the new residence.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit) in the amount of $5,000
shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation.
The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable.
4. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip
line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior issuance
of Building Permit. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three
days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of
construction.
Tree fencing requirements:
1. Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees.
2. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a minimum
height of five feet (5') above grade.
3. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into
the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than 10 -foot spacing.
4. Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction periods.
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
April 14, 2005
Page 5 of 11
5. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines
of these trees at any time.
6. No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved.
5. 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 of each building shall be similarly
certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan.
6. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved site plans. No additional
lighting may be placed within setbacks. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage,
shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall
not be visible from off the site. The glass on the proposed light fixtures shall have
frosted or opaque covers. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the
Planning Department prior to installation.
7. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
8. Skylights (if any) shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or
colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
9. Any additional fencing or gates, other than those shown on the approved plans, shall
require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
10. No cooking facilities shall be installed in the entertainment room, which shall not be
used as a secondary living unit.
11. The maximum height of the house, including the rotunda, shall be 27 feet as measured
from the building pad to the highest part of the structure directly above, excepting
appurtenances as per Sec. 10-1.504 (c) of the Municipal Code.
12. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the property owners must pay School District
fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as
applicable. The property owners 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.
L ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
13. Two sets of a final grading and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
April 14, 2005
Page 6 of I1
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 grading and drainage improvements were installed as shown on
the approved plans prior to final inspection.
14. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted
as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town
Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium
(November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No
grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the
construction of the driveway access.
15. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground
16. 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 of each building
shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site
Development plan.
17. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
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.
18. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The gradingfconstruction
operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular
and pedestrian traffic safety on Burke Road, Fremont Road, and surrounding
roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking
for construction vehicles, clean-up area, 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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
April 14, 2005
Page 7 of 11
19. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and
public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy
permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of
the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check.
20. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where
the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final
inspection.
21. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to
final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public
Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to
submittal of plans for building permit plan check
22. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' -wide strip to make a 30' half -width public
right of way to the Town over Fremont Road and Burke Road. The property owner
shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil
engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication
document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be
signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to
submittal of plans for building plan check.
23. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $46.00 per linear foot of the average
width of the property prior to submittal ofplans for building plan check.
24. The property owner shall provide an automatic residential fire sprinkler system
approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department throughout all portions of the
new residence. Three copies of plans prepared by a State of California licensed fire
protection contractor shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by
the Fire Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the
sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final
inspection.
25. The property address shall be placed on the main residence so that it is clearly visible
and legible from the street or road fronting the property. The address numbers shall
be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with the background color.
Planning Commission
lands of Eshghi
April 14, 2005
Page 8 of 11
CONDITIONS 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 AND 24 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. CONDITIONS 4 and 12 SHALL BE COMPLETED
AND SIGNED OFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 23 days of the date of the
Planning Commission's action. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building
Department after May 7, 2005 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of
approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection must be scheduled with the Planning
and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.
NOTE: The Site Development Permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
April 14, 2006). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work
on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years.
Planning Commission
[ands of Eshghl
April 16, 2005
Page 9 of I1
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE
LANDS OF ESHGHI AND DOROODIAN, 13530 FREMONT ROAD
File #244-03-ZP-SD-VAR
1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape, and topography to
accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards,
open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls, and fences, and other such features as may be
required by this chapter.
The property is currently developed with a single -story house, which will be replaced
with a new two-story house. The floor area and development area of the proposed house
are consistent with the MFA and MDA allowed for the site and the proposed house
meets the height requirements of the Town. Due to the small size of the lot and its
comer location, two required parking spaces and seven door landings will encroach in
the setback areas. Otherwise, the house complies with the Town's setback requirements.
The proposed house is located in an older neighborhood with substandard lots and
several nonconforming structures, including the existing house on the subject parcel,
which does not meet setback requirements.
2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and
harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape, and topography of the site and in
relation to the surrounding neighborhood.
The new residence is designed to harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. The
second story portion of the house is barely visible from the street because it is tucked
into the attic, under the mantle of the roof. At the north end of the house closest to
neighbors, the profile of the house is lower and there are no windows at the second floor
in order to protect the neighbor's privacy. Existing trees and shrubs will partially screen
the proposed residence; additional landscape screening will be required to soften the
visual impact of the new residence and blend with the surrounding neighborhood.
3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing
vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alternation of natural
land forms.
The proposed residence will be constructed on concrete slab and conventional crawl
space, and will not have a basement, which will minimize grading and alteration of
natural land forms on the basically flat lot. A number of fruit trees and shrubs will be
removed to accommodate the new development. However, the largest existing trees,
including an Acacia and a Eucalyptus at the front and a Redwood at the rear, will be
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
Apd114,2005
Page 10 of 11
allowed to remain. A landscape screening plan required under Condition #2 will ensure
that existing trees and shrubs will be supplemented by new landscaping to adequately
screen the new residence, soften its visual impact, and preserve and enhance the rural
character of the site.
4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in
the Site Development Ordinance.
Due to the constraints of the substandard lot size and comer location, a variance in
setback requirements is required to accommodate two required parking spaces and seven
landings in the setback areas. The proposed development meets the Town's height and
square footage requirements (MFA and MDA) and complies with all other regulations
and policies set forth in the Site Development Ordinance.
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
April 14, 2005
Page 11 of 1I
ATTACHMENT 3
FINDINGS FOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR NEW RESIDENCE
LANDS OF ESHGHI AND DOROODIAN, 13530 FREMONT ROAD
File #244-03-ZP-SD-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 is found to deprive such property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification;
Because of its small size and comer location, the buildable area of the subject property is
extremely limited. After dedication of a 10 -foot strip of right-of-way along the front and
side, the size of the lot is reduced to just .3965 acre. As a result, two required parking
spaces and seven door landings encroach into the setback areas, in the same way the
existing house and parking area have encroached into the setback areas. The strict
application of setback requirements would deprive the owners of privileges enjoyed by
the previous owner and by other properties in the vicinity.
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 purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served because the proposed
development will harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood and will not infringe on
the neighbors' privacy. The encroachment of the parking spaces and landings into the
setback areas is necessary to accommodate the proposed development on the unusually
small comer lot. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege because
other owners have been granted variances under similar circumstances.
3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within
the same zoning district.
The granting of the setback variance will not adversely impact any neighbors because the
parking spaces, landings and pathway will be separated from neighbors by landscaping
and screened from their view.
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 new residence and parking area are uses that are consistent with the
residential zoning designation of the property and surrounding properties.
ATTACHMENT y
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
January 27, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE HOUSE
TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND
TWO REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT AND
SIDE YARD SETBACKS; LANDS OF ESHGHI AND DOROODIAN; 13530
FREMONT ROAD; FILE #168-04-ZP-SD-GD-CDP-VAR
FROM: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner -/
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director
that the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the Conditional Development Permit,Site Development Permit and Variance
subject to the recommended conditions of approval and findings that are included as
Attachments #1, #2 and #3.
MMX4J'1fiRZfl1leJ
The subject property is a fairly flat, substandard parcel located at the northeast comer of the
intersection of Fremont and Burke Roads. There is an existing single -story house with an
attached garage on the property. The existing house encroaches into the front, side and rear
yard setbacks with benefit of Town permits. The applicant is proposing to demolish the
existing house and construct a new two-story residence with an attached garage and a pool.
Part of the proposed residence will be located in the footprint of the existing, legal
nonconfomilng house. Surrounding properties include a mix of one- and two-story houses.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Ordinance, this application for a
new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Considerations include grading, drainage, building siting, pathways, landscape screening and
outdoor lighting. Zoning Code review encompasses compliance with floor and development
area requirements, setbacks, height and parking.
Section 10-1.1107(3) of the Zoning Ordinance states that for a substandard lot with a Lot Unit
Factor less that .50, a Conditional Development Permit (CDP) is required, and outlines four
findings required to be made by the Commission in order to approve such a request. The
evaluation of the Conditional Development Permit should include consideration of the size
and design of the project with respect to the size, shape and topography of the site.
Recommended findings for the proposed CDP are attached as Attachment #2.
Planning Commission
L.& of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 2 of 16
Section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four findings which must be made to
support a Variance from the Zoning Code, in this case to allow encroachment of the house
into the front, side and rear yard setbacks and to allow two required parking spaces within the
front and side setbacks. Recommended findings for the proposed Variance are attached as
Attachment #3.
DISCUSSION
Site Data: Note: The applicant is required to dedicate
Gross Lot Area: .3965 acre a 10 -foot -wide strip of right-of-way along
Net Lot Area: .4547 acre both street frontages, leaving a gross lot
Average Slope: 3.8% area of .3965 acre. For the purpose of
Lot Unit Factor: 0.4547 calculating the Lot Unit Factor CUT), the
net lot area includes the unpaved portion of
the dedicated area, which increases the net
lot area to .4547 acres.
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left
Development 6,647 6,628 3,333 3,295 19
Floor 4,547 4,541 1,808 2,733 6
Site and Architecture
The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit, Conditional Development
Permit and Variance for a 4,547 -sq. -ft. two-story residence with an attached garage and a
pool. Constrained by a small comer lot, the proposed house is sited in approximately the
same location as the existing legal, nonconforming structure. The first floor of the new
residence has 3,231 sq. ft. of floor area and contains an entry, living room, family room,
dining room, kitchen, office, guest bedroom, entertainment room, and a two -car garage. The
second floor has 1,310 sq. ft. of floor area and includes three bedrooms, two bathrooms and
laundry facilities. The proposed residence meets the height, floor area and development area
requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills
Municipal Code. The maximum building height on a vertical plane and the maximum height
of the building from the lowest point to the highest point is 27 feet.
Proposed materials on the traditional style house include integral color cement stucco exterior,
wood French casement windows, cedar shutters, natural slate roof, and copper gutters and
downspouts. Colors include neutral, taupe -colored walls and trim.
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 3 of 16
Drivewav & Parkin
Access to the property is currently provided via an existing driveway on Fremont Road. The
applicant is proposing to construct a new driveway on Burke Road, which initially concerned
staff because the new driveway is located closer to the intersection and could create a safety
hazard. To improve the access, staff required a turnout pocket for northbound cars making a
right turn into the driveway. The turnout will allow vehicles to move off the road before
slowing to turning speed and will also improve the sight distance of vehicles exiting the
driveway. The proposed driveway has been reviewed and approved by an outside traffic
consultant. (See attached letter from Smith Engineering & Management included as
Attachment #8.) Although the driveway access has been endorsed by the traffic consultant,
staff foresees that the turnout may be used for parking and has included Condition #11 to
provide that it be kept free and clear and available at all times for its intended use as a
deceleration lane.
The garage at the north end of the house provides two standard parking spaces. Two
additional parking spaces are located just north of the garage. Due to the small size of the lot,
the additional parking spaces are within the front and side yard setbacks.
Outdoor Lighting
Seven exterior wall lights are proposed around the house and manufacturer's specifications of
the lighting fixtures are attached to the plans. Staff has included Condition #6 requiring the
light fixtures to be down shielded, low wattage, and the glass covers frosted or opaque so that
the source of the lighting is not directly visible from off-site.
Trees & Landscaping
There are numerous trees and shrubs on and around the property. Several fruit trees will be
removed, including orange; apple, fig and plum trees; two bottlebrush shrubs; and a
pyracantha. There are no oaks on the property. The location and type of trees to be removed
are detailed on the site plan (Sheet ALO). To ensure that all significant trees will be protected
throughout the construction period, staff has included Condition #4 requiring that the trees
within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for protection. In addition, the applicant is
proposing to remove approximately 923 sq. ft. of asphalt driveway south of the existing house
and restore the area with landscaping.
A landscape screening plan will be required after final framing of the proposed residence
(Condition #2). Furthermore, any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will
be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance deposit to ensure
viability of plantings will be collected prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission
[ands ofEshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 4 of 16
Geotechnical Review
Geotechnical review was not required for this project because the site is basically flat with
only 3.8% slope.
Grading and Drainage
Total proposed grading quantities include 800 cubic yards of cut (for the foundation and pool)
and 3 cubic yards of 611 (mainly at the entrance). The Engineering Department has reviewed
the proposed grading and concluded that it is in conformance with the Town's grading policy
and recommends Conditions of Approval that have been included in Attachment #1.
Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the
Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design
complies with Town requirements.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department inspected the property and determined that the flow
capacity of the nearest water mains and fire hydrant will not be adequate for a home of the
proposed size and the applicant will be required to provide a fire sprinkler system throughout
all portions of the building to meet the Fire Department's requirements. (Conditions of
Approval #25 and #26)
Committee Review
The Pathways Committee recommends a pathway in -lieu fee, which is included as Condition
#24.
The Environmental Design Committee requests that a landscape screening plan be required,
which is included as Condition #2. Other comments include a request that a tall Redwood
tree not be removed (the tree will remain) and an observation the pool encroached in the
setback area (the location of the pool has been adjusted so that it complies with setback
requirements).
Conditional Development Permit
A Conditional Development Permit (CDP) is required when a proposed project is located on a
property with a Lot Unit Factor of 0.50 or less. The Planning Commission must make four
specific findings to determine that the proposed development is appropriate, based on the
design, for the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The CDP provides an additional level
of review for development on very small lots or lots with steep terrain or other constraints.
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 5 of 16
As stated in the recommended findings in Attachment #2, the site for the proposed
development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity
of development. The property is currently developed with a single-family home, which will
be replaced with a new two-story house in approximately the same location. Due to the small
size of the lot and its corner location, both the existing and new residences encroach into the
front, side and rear setbacks. In addition, two required parking spaces for the new residence
will encroach in the front and side setbacks. The floor area and development area of the
proposed home are consistent with the MFA and MDA allowed for the site and the proposed
design meets the height requirements of the Town.
The new residence is designed to harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. The size of
the house is minimized by use of an L-shaped form that steps down in height at both ends.
The second story portion of the house is hardly visible from Fremont because it is tucked into
the attic, under the mantle of the roof. At the two ends of the house closest to neighbors, the
profile is lower and there are no windows at the second floor in order to protect the neighbor's
privacy. Existing trees and shrubs will partially screen the proposed residence; additional
landscape screening will be required to further soften the visual impact of the new residence
and pool and blend with the neighborhood.
The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing
vegetation and tree removal, as well as excessive grading. The proposed residence will be
located on the existing building pad, which will minimize grading and alteration of natural
land forms. A number of fruit trees and shrubs will be removed to accommodate the new
development. However, the largest existing trees, including an Acacia and a Eucalyptus at the
front, and a Redwood at the rear, will be allowed to remain. The existing driveway on
Fremont Road will be removed and the area will be replanted with natural vegetation. A
landscape screening plan required under Condition #2 will ensure that existing trees and
shrubs will be supplemented by new landscaping to adequately screen the new residence,
soften its visual impact, and enhance the rural character of the site.
The proposed development meets the Town's height and square footage requirements (MFA
and MDA). Due to the difficulty of the substandard lot size and comer location, a Variance in
setback requirements is required to allow the house to encroach into the front, side and rear
yard setbacks and to allow two required parking spaces within the front and side setback.
Setback and Puking Variance
Located in the footprint of the existing house, the proposed new residence encroaches up to 12
feet into the front yard setback along Burke Road; up to 16 feet into the side yard setback
along Fremont Road; and up to 12 feet into the rear yard setback. In addition, two required
parking spaces are located within the front and side yard setbacks.
In order to approve the Variance, the Planning Commission must find there are exceptional or
extraordinary physical circumstances on the lot that create a practical hardship for the
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 6 of 16
applicant to comply with the provisions of the Code. In this case, the corner location and
unusually small size of the .45 -acre lot makes it very difficult to accommodate the allowable
floor area and development area without encroaching into the setbacks. The size of the
substandard lot has been reduced even further by the required dedication of a 10 -foot strip of
right-of-way along both street frontages. Because of the lot's small size, the existing house
encroaches into the front, side and rear setbacks, in the same way the proposed new residence
also will encroach into the setbacks. The proposed residence is in an older neighborhood with
substandard lots and several existing nonconforming structures that encroach in setbacks.
The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served because the proposed
development will harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood and will not infringe on the
neighbors' privacy. The encroachment of the residence and parking area into the setback is
necessary to accommodate the proposed development on the unusually small corner lot. The
variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege because other owners have been granted
variances under similar circumstances.
The granting of the setback and parking variance will not adversely impact any neighbors
because the areas of encroachment are not immediately adjacent to neighbors or are buffered by
existing landscaping. More specifically, the encroachments into the front and side setbacks will
not affect the closest neighbors, who are across Burke and Fremont Roads at a considerable
distance. Similarly, the encroachments will not affect the general public traveling along those
streets because the house will be located a safe distance from the edge of pavement (at least 24
feet) and sight distance for drivers will not be impaired. The encroachment of the house into the
rear setback will be buffered by existing mature trees and shrubs and will not be injurious to the
neighbors, whose residence is well setback from the property line. The encroachment of the
parking area into the side setback will not affect the neighbor to the north because it will be
screened with landscaping and separated from the neighbor's residence by a cottage that faces
away from the parking area.
Recommended findings for approval of the Variance in front, side and rear yard setbacks are
attached as Attachment #3.
CEOA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines
Planning Commission
[ands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 7 of lfi
ATTACBMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Recommended Findings for Approval for Conditional Development Permit
3. Recommended Findings for Approval of Setback and Parking Variance
4. Site Map
5. Worksheets #1 and #2
6. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated August 24, 2004
7. Recommendations from Environmental Design Committee dated August 16, 2004
8. Letter from Smith Engineering & Management dated October 14, 2004
9. Development plans
cc: Karryar Eshghi and Nazila Doroodian Farm Essalat, Architect
P.O. Box 296
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshglu
laouary 27, 2005
Page 8 of 16
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL AND
VARIANCE TO ALLOW HOUSE TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS
AND TO ALLOW TWO REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
WITHIN THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS
LANDS OF ESHGHI AND DOROODIAN, 13530 FREMONT ROAD
File #244-03-ZP-SD-VAR
FIESSFUMIUMVIL 1 ' .: 31 L11
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope of the changes.
2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control plan shall be
reviewed by the Site Development Committee. Particular attention shall be given to
plantings that 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.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit) in the amount of $5,000
shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation.
The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable.
4. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, including an existing
Redwood tree east of the proposed residence, 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. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained
throughout the entire construction period.
5. 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
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 9 of 16
location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan. At the time of
framing inspection for the new residence, the height of each building shall be similarly
certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan.
6. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved site plans. No additional
lighting may be placed within setbacks. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage,
shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall
not be visible from off the site. The glass on the proposed light fixtures shall have
frosted or opaque covers. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the
Planning Department prior to installation.
7. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
8. Skylights (if any) shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or
colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
9. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning
Department prior to installation.
10. No cooking facilities shall be installed in the entertainment room, which shall not be
used as a secondary living unit.
11. The driveway turnout shall not be used for parking but shall be kept free and clear and
available at all times for its intended use as a deceleration lane for vehicles turning
right into the driveway.
12. 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.
B. ENGWEERING DEPARTMENT:
13. Peak discharge at 13530 Fremont Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 168-
04, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the
property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the
predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the data and peak
discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak
discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate
for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to
reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghl
January 27, 2005
Page 10 of 16
documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (4 plan copies) shall be
submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. Prior to final inspection, a letter shall
be submitted from the project engineer stating that the detention storage design
improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with
their recommendations.
14. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted
as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town
Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium
(November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No
grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the
construction of the driveway access.
15. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground
16. 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 of each building
shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site
Development plan.
17. The location and elevation of the pool 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 prior to final inspection.
18. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
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.
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
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction
operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular
and pedestrian traffic safety on Burke Road, Fremont Road, and surrounding
roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking
Planning Commission
[ands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 11 of 16
for construction vehicles, clean-up area, 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 release of occupancy
permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of
the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
21. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where
the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final
inspection.
22. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to
final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public
Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to
submittal of plans for building permit plan check
23. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' -wide strip to make a 30' half -width public
right of way to the Town over Fremont Road and Burke Road. The property owner
shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil
engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication
document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be
signed and notarized by the property owner and retumed to the Town prior to
submittal of plans for building plan check
24. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $45.00 per linear foot of the average
width of the property prior to submittal of plans for building plan check.
25. The property owner shall provide an automatic residential fire sprinkler system
approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department throughout all portions of the
new residence. Three copies of plans prepared by a State of California licensed fire
protection contractor shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by
the Fire Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building pian check, and the
sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final
inspection.
Planning Cownission
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 12 of 16
26. The property address shall be placed on the main residence so that it is clearly visible
and legible from the street or road fronting the property. The address numbers shall
be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with the background color.
CONDITIONS 17, 18,19, 21, 22, 23 AND 24 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. CONDITION 12 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND
SIGNED OFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 23 days of the date of the
Planning Commission's action. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period
has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after
February 19, 2005, provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection must be scheduled with the Planning
and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.
NOTE. The Site Development Permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
January 27, 2006). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and
work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years.
Planning Comnussion
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 13 of 16
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL
LANDS OF ESHGHI AND DOROODIAN, 13530 FREMONT ROAD
File #244-03-ZP-SD-VAR
1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape, and topography to
accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards,
open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls, and fences, and other such features as may be
required by this chapter.
The property is currently developed with a single-family home, which will be replaced
with a new two-story house in approximately the same location. Due to the small size of
the lot and its comer location, both the existing and new residences encroach into the
front, side and rear setbacks. In addition, two required parking spaces for the new
residence will encroach in the front and side setbacks. The floor area and development
area of the proposed home are consistent with the MFA and MDA allowed for the site
and the proposed design meets the height requirements of the Town. The proposed
house is located in an older neighborhood with substandard lots and several
nonconforming structures.
2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and
harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape, and topography of the site and in
relation to the surrounding neighborhood.
The new residence is designed to harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. The
size of the house is minimized by use of an Lrshaped form that steps down at both ends.
The second story portion of the house is barely visible from Fremont because it is tucked
into the attic, under the mantle of the roof. At the two ends of the house closest to
neighbors, the profile of the house is lower and there are no windows at the second floor
in order to protect the neighbor's privacy. Existing trees and shrubs will partially screen
the proposed residence; additional landscape screening will be required to soften the
visual impact of the new residence and pool and blend with the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing
vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alternation of natural
land forms.
The proposed residence will be located on the existing building pad, which will
minimize grading and alteration of natural land forms on the basically flat lot. A
number of fruit trees and shrubs will be removed to accommodate the new development.
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 14 of 16
However, the largest existing trees, including an Acacia and a Eucalyptus at the front
and a Redwood at the rear, will be allowed to remain. The existing driveway on
Fremont Road will be removed and the area will be replanted with natural vegetation. A
landscape screening plan required under Condition #2 will ensure that existing trees and
shrubs will be supplemented by new landscaping to adequately screen the new residence,
soften its visual impact, and preserve and enhance the rural character of the site.
4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in
the Site Development Ordinance.
Due to the difficulty of the substandard lot size and comer location, a Variance in
setback requirements is required to allow the house to encroach into the front, side and
rear yard setbacks and to allow two required parking spaces within the front and side
setback. The proposed development meets the Town's height and square footage
requirements (MPA and MDA) and complies with all other regulations and policies set
forth in the Site Development Ordinance.
Planning Comntission
Lands of &hghi
January 27, 2005
Page 15 of 16
ATTACHMENT 3
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AND PARKING
FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL
LANDS OF ESHGHI AND DOROODIAN, 13530 FREMONT ROAD
File #244-03-ZP-SD-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 is found to deprive such property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification;
Because of its small size and comer location, the buildable area of the subject property is
extremely limited. After dedication of a 10 -foot strip of right-of-way along the front and
side, the size of the lot is reduced to just .3965 acre. As a result, the proposed residence
and parking area encroach into the setback, in the same way the existing house and
parking area have encroached into the setback. The strict application of setback
requirements would deprive the owners of privileges enjoyed by the previous owner and
by other properties in the vicinity.
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 purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served because the proposed
development will harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood and will not infringe on
the neighbors' privacy. The encroachment of the residence and parking area into the
setback is necessary to accommodate the proposed development on the unusually small
comer lot. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege because other
owners have been granted variances under similar circumstances.
3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within
the same zoning district.
The granting of the setback and parking variance will not adversely impact any
neighbors because the areas of encroachment are not immediately adjacent to neighbors
or are buffered by existing landscaping. More specifically, the encroachments into the
front and side setbacks will not affect the closest neighbors, who are across Burke and
Fremont Roads at a considerable distance, nor will they affect the general public
traveling along those streets. Although the new residence will encroach into the front
and side setbacks, it will be located a safe distance from the edge of pavement (at least
Planning Commission
Lands of Eshghi
January 27, 2005
Page 16 of 16
24 feet) and sight distance for drivers will not be impaired. The encroachment of the
house into the rear setback will be buffered by existing mature trees and shrubs and will
not be injurious to the neighbors, whose residence is well setback from the property line.
The encroachment of the parking area into the side setback will not affect the neighbor to
the north because it will be screened with landscaping and separated from the residence
by a cottage that faces away from the parking area.
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 new residence, pool and parking area are uses that are consistent with the
residential zoning designation of the property and surrounding properties.
N' 9 of the TOWN LOS ALTOS
BLOCK N° 40
)NH of LOS ALTOS
/ /3 giel
�`-
�- z ,h
V� /4
M
175 2�
ATTACHMENT y
Y
W
Q
U 1
oil
m
a
0
1
Cunpliea ..:m<i '
El N,t- Ron Year iWl-iG:<
29
/5
/
i
,ac "Er
l
b
30
0
°
O
M
175 2�
ATTACHMENT y
Y
W
Q
U 1
oil
m
a
0
1
Cunpliea ..:m<i '
El N,t- Ron Year iWl-iG:<
29
/
,ac "Er
l
b
30
0
28 3
27
"ET i
94C.NEr
,ay^
441
2
25 26
M
175 2�
ATTACHMENT y
Y
W
Q
U 1
oil
m
a
0
1
Cunpliea ..:m<i '
El N,t- Ron Year iWl-iG:<
s
N
N
O
ti
w
O
0A
G
a
U
G
O
O
V
Op
C
2
�,
ai
U
N
z
�.
a
F
e
w
..
0
�.
s
w
w
0
«a
i
A
a
c
0
E
L
w
0
M
h
M
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941.3160
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WORKSHEET #1
ATTACHMENT 5
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR
MAXANM DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE
A. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An)
Convert inches to feet (multiply by map scale) _ (L) _ 7¢9, w
feet
B. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
S = (0.0023) (I) (L)
I = contour interval
L =total length of
An = net acreage of
An
in feet
I
contours in feet
lot nearest .001
S = (0.0023) ( I ) (igq.5p5 = 38
( 00 nearest 0.1%
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTO OF
LUF = (An)(1 - [0.02143(S - 10)11 = 0. neatest .001
} If the average slope is less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area.
} If the LUF is equal to or less than 0.50, you will need a Conditional Development Permit.
Make an appointment with the Planning Director for further information.
PEv, 7116101 Page I of 2
WORKSHEET #1
(continued)
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA)
A. for S equal to or less than 10% � 47 X 5 L� s 41 6+7 4 Z, 10
MDA = (LUF) (15,000) _ (P. &4
7 4 ✓ square feet*
B. for S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MDA = (LUF) [15,000 - 375(S - 10)] =
C. for S equal to or greater than 30%
MDA = (LUF) (7,500) =
square feet*
square feet*
* If the MDA is less than 7,500 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50), use 7,500 square feet for
your MDA
4. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MEA)
A. for S equal to or less than 10% C� _
MFA = (LUF) (6,000) _ 1 Lj' O square feet**
B. for S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MFA = (LUF) [6,000 - 50(S - 10)] =
C. for S equal to or greater than 30%
MFA = (LUF) (5,000) =
square feet**
square feet**
** If the MFA is less than 5,000 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50) use 5,000 square feet for
your MFA.
NOTE: The MDA and MFA are maximums allowed by the Town Municipal Code. The City Council or the
Planning Commission may further limit development area or floor area due to site specific constraints
or site visibility (see "Site Development Policy Statement').
TOWN USE ONLY ICHECKEDBY JDATE
REV. 7/16101 Page 2 of 2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26379 Fremont Road • Los Alms ffills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION
?ROPERTY OWNER'S NAME t1it i M;LS, F -5H614 1
?ROPERTYADDRESS 13530 O oA
'ALCULATED BY EssAI.Ar- H eKMA —AFL DATE 1U.111.U14
1.
DEVELOPMENT AREA
Existing
Proposed
Total
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
(Addirions/Deleuons)
A.
House and Garage (from Part 3. A.)
� . BOA.O
+ ZI ?3a O
4.64 J. O ✓
B.
Decking
C.
Driveway and Parking
(Measured 100' along centerline)
9z3. o
+ 371.0
f.294.0 ✓
D.
Patios and Walkways
(002.0
(-434.0)
16 9.0
E.
Tennis Court
F.
Pool and Decking
('0960
G.
Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
H.
Any other coverage
TOTALS
3� 333.0
3� 295. o
MDA
Worksheet
#1)
Maximum Development Area Allowed -
(from
2.
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Existing
Proposed
Total
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
TOTALS
�tS'j.�j,0
501..0
Z,057-0 ✓
3.
FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing
Proposed
Total
'--40be,
(e✓Yt�✓C.eI%
(Additions/Deletions)
A.
House and Garage
a. 1st Floor
1p44&.00
2.%i1.0 '
b. 2nd Floor
Ii 31 0.0
1 [ 310 .0
c. Attic and Basement
d. Garage
3(02..0
460,0
B.
Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS
2-733.0✓
1. 908.0
Worksheet #1)
Maximum
Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKEDBY DATE /O_,22,0
Rei,. 3120/02 Page 1 of 1 Town of Los Altos Hills
Jul 22 U4 ll:S2e Clrments 6 Assocites
65U 962-9081
p.2
Goss -2_A
INSTRUMENT SETUP
Instrument point: 1 500.D00
500.000
no cor
Backsight point: 4 563.301
383.386
Backsight Bearing: N 61°30120.4" W
Distance: 132.69
Remarks:
TYPE FROM TO DIRECTION DISTANCE NORTHING
__________ ____________
EASTING
____________
______ _____ _____ ________________
IRV 1 2 S 31°20'00.0^ W
200.00 329.169
395.997
INV 2 3 N 22.58'00.0• W
163.19 479.423
332.321
TRAV 3 4 N 31°20'00.0^ E
98.90 563.899
383.750
Closure
-Closing line: S 61°12113.3^ E
132.65 from 4 to 1
Latitude (N): -63.90
Perimeter:
462.09
Departure (E): 116.25
Error of Closure:
1:3
Area: 19805.70 Square
feet 0.4547 Acres
Area and Perimeter have been reset.
46 4-7
4� s�
�r°"Ooo FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • uunv.sccfd.org
CODVSEC. I SHEET
upC
Appendix
IIIA
UFC
303.2
JFC
102.2.4.1
ATTACHMENT 1a
PUN RENEW NUMBER 04 McEEVED
BLDG PERMM NUMBER AUG 3 12004
CDMROL NUMBER TI1VdId Op I OS AI TOC HII I C
RLE NUMBER 168-04-ZP-SD-VAR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
REWIREMEM
of a proposed 5,275 square foot single family residence with an attached
I Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and
water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
construction permits.
2 Required Fire Flow- The fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure. The required fire flow is not* available from area water mains and fire
hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing.
(*)-Insufficient flow from area hydrants.
3 Required Fire Flow Option (Sin Family Dwellings) Provide an approved
fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. The fire sprinkler
system supply valving shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail &
Specifications SP -6 (See attached). Noted on plans -thank you.
4 Emergency Gate/Acces Gate Requirements Gate installations shall conform with
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not
obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or
driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to
installation. Noted on plans -thank you.
LAH ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ ESSALAT HEKMA ARCHITECTS 8/24/2(04 -1-
SELhLOOR <RFA LOAD DESCRIPNON a,—
BY
Residential Development Hok son Wayne
SFR- ESHGHI L13530 n Fremont Rd
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central 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
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.s,,cf l.org
PLANBEVIEWNUMBEB 04 2023
BLDG PEBMM NUMBER
COIRBOLNUMBEB
F NUMBER 168-04-ZP-SD-VAR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
.OF/SEC. $NEEr NO. 1 REpIWEMENr
C 5 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
.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. Noted on plans -thank you.
Clly PLANS SPECS NEW flMOL <B
OCCUPANCY
CONST. TYPE
APWI...—
DinE
PAGE
,AH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
ESSALAT HEKMA ARCHH'ECTS
8/24/2004
2 GF 2
ECJFLOofl
ARFA
LOAD
OESCPITION
BY
Residential Development
Hokanson, Wayne
VAMEOFPRWE(n
LOCATION
SFR- ESHGHI
13530 Fremont Rd
i
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Sewing Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cianswaa, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
W G2� . I— w4f" c U67ttV V(fVV
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE ATTACHMENT''
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION RECrtgyE®
Applicant's Name: T-341qqI r 'fie208-ZlR-A/ AUG 162004
Address:
13� 30 F�. EYt61J l�C R7aF0i'a' i Q C [--;; F;itfS
P-�r, �I h Date: `{1. L
Reviewed by: _e_Im l
Existing Trees:
(Comment on size, Type, condition, location with respect to building
site. Recommended pSotection during construction.)
IA)h:At4t Cqg Is?��
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
�
,P(ti.,
�.�onc o
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:
✓ d -N
(View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscapb).) I �_
iT
Other Comments:( 1 'v✓� M wl sl`"M'�� �r °f0 '7(7fTM[� ,(,,
a ✓J �je�jtnil/JL �vb��+-�2� Fwt� 1✓W'LZ•ilwy�.l� t"`'1
0"
�-N
fe„ro✓esd
(Comment on size, Type, condition, location with respect to building
site. Recommended pSotection during construction.)
IA)h:At4t Cqg Is?��
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
�
,P(ti.,
�.�onc o
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:
✓ d -N
(View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscapb).) I �_
iT
Other Comments:( 1 'v✓� M wl sl`"M'�� �r °f0 '7(7fTM[� ,(,,
a ✓J �je�jtnil/JL �vb��+-�2� Fwt� 1✓W'LZ•ilwy�.l� t"`'1
0"
6
ATTACHMENT 8
SMITH ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
RECEIVED
October 14, 2004 OCT 2 6 2004
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Leslie Hopper/ City Engineer
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Subject: Site Plan for 13530 Fremont Road
Dear Ms. Hopper,
At the request of the applicant, I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed
reconstruction of the single family residence at 13530 Fremont Road in the Town of Los
Altos Hills with respect to the operational and safety characteristics of the proposed
driveway. I am a registered Civil and Traffic Engineer in California and am qualified to
perform this review. My resume is attached.
My review in this matter included both a review of the site plans and a personal on-site
inspection that included driving all possible approaches to the proposed driveway. In
summary, I believe that the operational characteristics of the driveway and its
intersection with Burke Road will be satisfactory and justify the Town approving this
aspect of the site plan. Details of my review are as follows.
The subject property at 13530 Fremont Road is at the northeast comer of the
intersection of the intersection of Fremont Road with Burke Road. The subject driveway
would access Burke Road as close as feasible to the north limits of the subject property
(as far away from the intersection of Burke with Fremont as possible).
The posted limit is 25 mph on both Fremont Road and Burke Road.
All approaches to the intersection of Fremont Road with Burke Road are stop controlled.
The approach of Deerfield Road, which intersects Fremont Road just west of the
intersection with Burke is also stop controlled. The stop control at the intersection
should result in a condition where any responsibly operated vehicle approaching the
proposed from any of the approaches that first pass through the intersection of Burke
and Fremont would be traveling at well below 25 miles per hour when the driver has a
clear line of sight to any vehicle entering or leaving the subject driveway, including the
vehicles that would have the most restricted sight line, those turning north onto Burke
from Fremont westbound.
TRAFFIC • TRANSPORTATION • MANAGEMENT
In the current version of the site plan, the near (west) edge of driveway intersects Burke
approximately 75 feet from the north edge of the traveled way on Fremont (or a
distance of 96 feet measured on a centerfine to centerline basis).
The proposed site plan provides a turnout pocket for right turns into the driveway. The
pocket is approximately 52.25 feet long by 9.62 feet wide. The tum out will allow
vehicles turning right into the driveway to move off of the traveled way before slowing to
turning speed and will create a safety zone that will enhance the sight distance of to and
from vehicles exiting the proposed driveway.
The internal layout of the driveway on the site is such that it allows and encourages
vehicles exiting the site to tum around so that they can exit moving forward rather than
backing out, thus also enhancing the sight line characteristics of the driveway
intersection.
The proposed hedge and fence line along Burke is set back approximately 21 feet from
the near edge of the traveled way on Burke.
No features of vertical alignment restrict sight distance with respect to vehicles traveling
at or moderately above the speed limit.
The above combination of features and conditions should provide for reasonable
operating conditions for entry and exit movements to and from the driveway with respect
to vehicles affected by the driveway's proximity to the Fremont -Burke intersection. The
driveway's characteristics would be normal with respect to operations involving vehicle
traffic approaching southbound on Burke Road.
Conclusion
I believe that the proposed driveway would have operational safety characteristics such
that it can reasonably be approved by the Town of Los Altos. In making this statement,
it must be observed that no amount of prudent design can preclude traffic accidents that
are caused by inattentive, negligent and hazardous driving behaviors.
We trust the foregoing will provide necessary input for the Town's consideration of this
matter. If there are questions regarding this analysis, I can be reached at the address
and telephone number indicated on this letterhead or by e-mail at dantsmithj@aol.com.
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Mana
gement
A C lifomia Co ra'
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.
President
a:0 No. 0938 a:h
c Exp. 3016%1 a
Planning Commission Minutes
January 27, 2005
Page 10
Approved 2/24/05
ATTACHMENT
3.3 LANDS OF ESHGHI & DOROODIAN, 13530 Fremont Road (168-04-ZP-SD-
CDP-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit and a Conditional
Development Permit for a 4,541 square foot new residence (maximum height 27
feet) and pool, and a variance to allow the house to encroach up to 12 feet in the
front and rear yard setbacks and up to 16 feet in the side yard setback, and to
allow parking to encroach in the side and front yard setbacks (staff -Leslie
Hopper).
Commissioner Carey stepped down from the hearing due to the proximity of his residence to the
project site.
Staff introduced this item by detailing the staff report, in particular, the request for a Conditional
Development Permit and variance to allow the house to encroach into the front, side and rear
yard setbacks and side yard setbacks as well as the. With the assistance of power point
presentation, she discussed the encroachments as well as the proposed new driveway coming off
of Burke Road. This is a difficult site for several reasons: (1) located at the intersection of
Fremont Road and Burke Road; (2) substandard lot; and (3) requirement of a dedication of a 10
foot strip along Fremont Road and Burke Road which further reduces the size of the lot making
it very difficult to accommodate the allowable floor and development area numbers while
staying behind the setback lines without encroachment. As a result, staff felt there were
reasonable grounds to form a basis for granting a variance but at the same time realizing there
possibility may be very real impacts. The site is highly visible and the story poles have created
much attention. She further discussed the findings for the CDP as well as the findings for the
variance request.
Commissioner Collins questioned the statement under Variance Findings #1, "The strict
application of setback requirements would deprive the owners of privileges enjoyed by the
previous owner and by other properties in the vicinity" which was answered by the Planning
Director.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Farro Essalat, project architect, felt staff had covered most of the points. He discussed the
previous options at the start of the project and impacts on the adjacent neighbor, before settling
on the proposed design. He felt the design fit into the neighborhood. While they were Vying to
accommodate the needs of the owners they were also very conscious of what the building would
look like on the comer. They wanted a building that was not a bulking building but more
picturesque and would blend in with other houses in the neighborhood. This is the path taken in
the design of the project. One item brought up in a letter from a neighbor was creating a blind
corner as far as traffic was concerned which he addressed. To improve the access, staff required
a turnout pocket for northbound cars making a right tum into the driveway. Also, a traffic
engineer was asked to review the plan and they believed that the operational characteristics of
the driveway and its intersection with Burke Road would be satisfactory and justify the Town
approving this aspect of the site plan. Letters of concern from neighbors was discussed.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
January 27, 2005
Page 11
Commissioner Clow was surprised that they had the impression they could have 10-15 foot
setback variance on three sides of the property. This seems to be completely unprecedented.
Mr. Essalat stated it was not an impression. They worked with the former planner regarding the
difficulties, trying to work with the site with the two 10 foot dedications required and the fact
that it reduced the footprint. The former planner mentioned that part of the City ordinance would
allow them to rebuild on the existing footprint of the house. He stated that staff has been looking
at the project for a year. He further discussed the encroachments.
Ginger Summit, Lenox Way, neighbor for 40 years, was shocked with the house proposal. After
listening to the previous application, one issue that was brought up was that the applicants have
followed the letter of the law meaning he has built a house within the numbers available but the
house was still too big for the property. The same argument can be applied onto this property.
When the easements and restrictions applied by the City are taken out, it reduces it farther so you
have a very constraint lot. The owners and architect knew this and those were the conditions
which they bought the lot. They chose to go ahead with numbers that she thought were
excessive for this particular location. It is a great house and location. She was concerned with
the "deadly" comer with five stop signs with cars that hardly stop. So you have a extraordinarily
corner compounding it with the driveway that is coming out. There was some talk about a
deceleration lane. As a pathway committee member she was very concerned as this produces a
very dangerous situation. Also, extensive landscaping to screen the bulk of the house will create
a blind corner.
Larry Russell, Lenox Way, neighbor for 28 years, provided some history of the area. He was
happy that the property is being developed. However, the front setback has been moved from
Fremont Road to Burke Road which he felt was a matter of convenience as the setback
encroachment would have been more like 16 feet. Also, he felt they were designing the house
around the pool and making the encroachment into the setbacks as a matter of convenience to
have a pool. He noted the safety issue mentioned by Ginger. He felt if the house could be
switched around so the entry was off Fremont Road it would be ideal. He did not have an issue
with the house design if the landscaping and screening was right but he felt it would be very
obtrusive if you do not put a row of Italian Cypress around two comers.
Bart Carey, Deerfield Road, neighbor, agreed with the comments regarding how nice the style of
the house will be and the value of developing in this neighborhood. Lary and Ginger have gone
over the major concerns. The letter signed by many of the neighbors outlines the concerns of the
neighborhood. The neighborhood has a number of constrained lots therefore the neighbors in
this area are more sympathetic of the difficulties of developing a constraint lot. There is
opposition to the development, not because it is not a nice house but because of the degree of the
setback variance request, in par,t because it appears a pool has been given preference to the floor
area in terms of better maintaining the house within ordinances. He did agree that moving the
driveway onto Burke Road is not a good idea and it would be better on Fremont Road (safety
issue). As indicated in the letter from the neighbors, they are exhibiting some flexibility, not
telling the applicants that they cannot have any but saying a 5 foot variance would be acceptable
not the 16 feet being proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
January 27, 2005
Page 12
Stephanie Munoz, Robleda Road, felt the house was too big on a substandard lot. They have the
right to have a small house on a small lot. She further discussed the daylight plain. They are
going from a small back yard to a smaller back yard. The house is too big. Applicants should
not ask for further concessions from the Town and try to make their dreams fit within their lot.
Rich Beyer, Fremont Road, expressed two concerns: (1) the driveway on Burke Road is
exceptionally dangerous; and (2) large house on the site requiring variances. Larry Russell asked
him to stay on Burke Road. If the driveway is built on Fremont Road, there is a storm drain over
which this driveway many have to be built which could pose its own set of issues.
Sandy Humphries, Fremont Road, thought you could not increase a non conformity(special
privilege). The zoning is one acre minimum lots so not to have a huge dense population in town.
Yes, this is a small lot and a flat lot. If approved, you will be allowing them to build more square
footage on this small flat lot then would be allowed on a one acre lot.
Scott, Deerfield Road, located on one of the five comers of this intersection. He felt the house
was beautiful. He just moved into the neighborhood six months ago. One of the things that
attracted him to Los Altos Hills was the balance between nature and houses. If the variance is
allowed from the setback, he will see a lot of this house. He suggested a smaller variance from
the setback, allow more vegetation so the people coming down Deerfield Road would see less
house. He felt the intersection was dangerous. If there would be a way to tum around inside and
not backing out on the road would be a referable solution.
Barbara, 13625 Hill Way, felt the house was beautiful. She noted that she shared a backyard
fence with this project and sees the second story very clearly from her house asking to expedite
the landscaping plans which would be very helpful to her.
Farm Essalat, project architect, discussed the design of the house, using the existing footprint
and dropping the sides, making it more picturesque. The pool was not a consideration in
designing the plan. What was a consideration was the impact on the other two neighbors.
Commissioner Kerns noted that there was concern with the driveway coming off of Burke Road.
He asked if the whole house could he flipped so you would not have a driveway coming off
Burke Road. It also might help them with trying to push the house back, away from the
setbacks.
Mr. Essalt felt this would require a complete re -design of the house.
Kam Eshghi, applicant, stated when buying the property, their objective was to build a home that
fits in nicely within the neighborhood, not something very modem. There are many
nonconforming lots in the area. Barbara's home has the exact same lot shape with a two story
home, nonconforming. He hoped there would be some consideration given to the fact that this is
a substandard lot and obviously there is precedent for a variance for other homes also on
substandard lots. Regarding visibility on the corner, they are actually improving the visibility.
Regarding landscaping, they will make sure they will not add any obstruction. As they designed
the home, their primary concern was their immediate neighbors. They prefer to have a small
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
January 27, 2005
Page 13
back yard so the "L" shape house helps. Because it is a small lot, they want to be considerate of
their two immediate neighbors. He felt the architect did a great job on the design to protect the
neighbor's privacy. He further discussed the driveway onto Burke Road stating across the street
there are four homes with driveways onto Burke Road. A traffic engineer has reviewed the
design and they have added the pocket for deceleration. He discussed the size of the house
noting they are meeting all the City requirements regarding the size of the house. They me
asking for a variance, given the constraints and the fact that it is a substandard lot. Given that all
the substandard neighbors are also nonconforming, this is a reasonable request. Also, the section
over the footprint is not a two story portion.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Collins stated that a request for a variance requires a hardship. A substandard lot
is not necessarily a hardship. It is what it is. You build within the constraints of that lot. She
did not feel that they have proven a hardship for the variances, at least to the extent of the
request. The pool is a self created hardship. She felt it would be possible to have a house that fit
within the constraints of the lot without the pool. She could not support the project.
Commissioner Cottrell had concerns with setting precedent. If they grant these variances on this
size house on this lot, it would not be long before the rest of the lots would be requesting the
same variances requesting to be treated the same as this applicant. This is not what they want to
see in this neighborhood. It is true that they meet the MDA/MFA requirements but ever effort
has been made to make this project as large as possible. He felt the house was too large for the
lot. He did not see any reason to grant variances on three sides of the property. He felt they
could either rotate the design, sacrifice some of the pool, or something to make it fit without this
number of variances. He could not support the project.
Commissioner Clow referred to the comments from the neighbors emphasizing the reason for
having setbacks is so when viewing a home from the road you have a rural appearance. There
may only be a dozen homes in Los Altos Hills where the setback ordinance is as important as
with this house. It is right on a major intersection. It would be desirable to have the setbacks as
stated in the ordinances. This house will be right up against the road. They will see a conflict in
the future where they will want to do landscape mitigation and if they put a bunch of trees there,
they will be blocking sight lines going around the corner. There are reasons for setbacks. He
was very concerned with setting a precedent. He felt the house needs to be smaller. He cannot
support the variance findings.
Chairman Kerns liked the style of the house (good job with nesting the second story). However,
he was also concerned with setting a precedent. He was also concerned with the driveway so
close to that intersection after speaking to some of the neighbors. He would prefer keeping the
driveway off of Fremont Road but keeping it close to the present location with a 40 foot setback
on Fremont Road, not Burke Road. He would be supportive of a small variance encroachment
into the setback (5 to 6 feet) which is similar to what some of the neighbors have recommended
but not up to the 16 feet, as proposed. He would suggest a continuance for a re -design where
they use a minor image of the design, moving the driveway off of Fremont Road and try to
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/24/05
January 27, 2005
Page 14
conform the house more to the setback lines so they would have no more than a 5 to 6 foot
encroachment perhaps on two sides but not on the back side.
Commissioner Collins would not support any encroachment due to setting a precedent.
The applicants requested a continuance for a re -design.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: The request by the applicants for a continuance for a re -design,
Lands of Eshghi & Doroodian, 13530 Fremont Road. This item will be re -noticed for a future
date.
3.4 LANDS OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (Cingular Wireless), 26379 Fremont Road
(173 -04 -CUP -IS -ND); Site Development Permit and Conditional Use P=it to
allow a wireless communications facility consisting of three (3) antennas mounted
inside a 50' tall flagpole and associated ground equipment at Town Hall. (staff -
Debbie Pedro).
The applicant provided a written request to be continued to a future date. It was noted that the
applicant will hold a second informational community meeting with the neighbors prior to
scheduling a public hearing.
3.5 LANDS OF BLACKMAN, 13815 Barton Court (220-04-ZP-SD-GD); A request
for a Site Development Permit for a 5,459 square foot two story new residence
with a 1,844 square foot basement (maximum height 24'10" feet), secondary
dwelling unit, and pool (staff -Debbie Pedro).
Staff introduced this item by reviewing the staff report indicating a recommendation to approve
the Site Development Permit for a new residence and secondary dwelling unit and deny the
request for a grading exception for the swimming pool and yard area. She discussed the existing
conditions stating in 1975, the site was graded with up to 5 feet fill and up to 7 feet of cut to
create a building pad to accommodate the existing home. Staff pointed out that the applicant is
correct stating that the cut currently purposing in the rear yard is approximately 5 %: feet in most
of the areas and 9 %n feet close to where the retaining wall is located. However, it should be
noted that the proposed cut is occurring in an area that has previously been excavated with 7 feet
of cut. The accumulative grading on this site is approximately 12 '/z feet at its maximum. She
referred to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Zoning Code and Grading Policy. To
help clarify the amount of cut the applicant is proposing for his second yard, staff prepared a
grading cross section that shows the natural pre -development condition (pre 1975), the current
grade on the site including the cut and fill that created the building pad for the existing home,
and the proposed grade which is 5 '/x feet in most of the area, up to 9 '/2 feet in the area close to
the retaining wall. She noted that the Planning Commission has the authority to grant an
exception to the grading limits. In closing, she noted the receipt of a letter from an adjoining
neighbor voicing support of the project.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT �
26319 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-:i 160 -4/-T OS
WORKSHEET #2 ATTACHMENT([
E: CISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AWA
• TrreN TN WTT VnTn! APPI TrATTAN
PROPERTY OWNEF'S NAME MC. �.r3y- .8/J5�,- ESfila�{l
PROPERTY ADDRE iS -r-�AA� p�Q
CALCULATED BY 6$.Cki- DATE W7
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA
(SQUARE F )OTAGE)
A. House and C arage (from Part 3. A-)
B. Decking
C. Driveway ar d Parking
(Measured 10C along centerline)
D. Patios and Walkways
E. Tennis Cour:
F. Pool and De:king
G. Accessory E uildings (from Part B)
H. Anv other coverage
Existing
Proposed
(Additions0cledons)
0
9�. o
/eo2.�
Zg9. D
Total
12210.0
TOTALS 2 333.0 3 &70
Maximum Develcpment Area Allowed- MDA (from Worksheet#1) C,�o
2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing
(SQUF RE FOOTAGE)
TOTALS / 57—S. O
3. FLOOR ARIA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
A. House and Ga age
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. _ Attic and Basement
d. Garage
B. Accessory Bu: Wings
a. I st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
Existing
Proposed
Proposed
(Addidons/Delerions)
TOTALS /� &CA.0
k Maximum Floor. \rea Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet 01)
Total
077.0 {
Total
y; 44s.o
_A 43z -o
Zr5/S.O ,3
.1547• D
1.
TOWN USE 01(LY CHECKED BY DATE ..-1
R., 380/02 Page I of 1 'Lown of Los Altos HiOs
e -d V22284EDS9 saoa;Iyo�y aew>Ie11-yetess3 e9tttt SO Bo jjU
ATTACHMENT 7
APR 0
12005
C,% n
Dale: 3.28.2005 ^-.5
Planning Department
City of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: 13530 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills
Dear Members of the Planning Commission
As you will remember the new house at the above address was not accepted at its first
review and was sent back for redesign to address two concerns, namely the request for a
number of variances in trying to use the footprint of the existing house and relocation of
the driveway from the exisfing on Fremont to a new one Burke. In order to address these
concerns, the project has had to be completely reworked, in the process sacrificing some
qualitative and quantitative aspects of the design, but in general maintaining the
appearance of the house which was thought to be attractive. The plans of the house
proper before you show a more consolidated footprint that now completely falls within
the set back lines and does not require any variances, other than the two onsite parking
stalls. The driveway per the request of the commission and the neighbors has been
relocated to existing location on Burke.
In the overall architectural design of the house again the second story of the house has
been tucked into the attic under the mantle of the roof with only a hint of it on the street
sides. The exterior materials of the house remain as before, cement stucco for walls,
natural slate for the roof, wood doors and windows and painted wrought iron for the rails,
all consistent with the style of the home and intended to enhance its traditional look.
On Thursday, March 31,2005, over thirty neighbors, including those who had written to
the City voicing concern over the location of the driveway, were invited to a meeting to
see the new proposals. All ten who attended, plus four adjacent neighbors approved of the
changes and signed a letter to that effect that is enclosed.
We hope that these changes and the positive feed back from the neighbors clears the way
for the approval of this project and look forward to moving ahead with its realization.
Yours truly;,[
Farro Essalat AIA
Eshghi Family
P.O. Box 296
Los Altos, CA 94023-0296
March 25, 2005
Dear Neighbor,
We'd like to invite you to review our new plans for our proposed home at the comer of Burke
Rd. and Fremont Rd., at 13530 Fremont Rd.
What: Neighborhood Meeting to review revised plans for new home
When: 6:00-7:OOpm on Thursday, March 31, 2005
Where: 13530 Fremont Rd., Los Altos Hills
It's been eight months now since we held our first neighborhood meeting to review the original
plans for our new home. As you may know, that plan was not approved by the Planning
Commission. Our architect has now redesigned the layout to address the concerns raised by
neighbors and Commissioners:
• We have fitted the house completely within setbacks
• We have moved the driveway to Fremont Road
In the process of making the above changes we had to eliminate the pool and accept other
compromises in the interior space. Still, we feel that the new design fits our needs well, while
addressing the neighborhood's concerns and maintaining the attractive look of the original plan
We hope you can join us at the above meeting time to review the revised plans. If you cannot
attend this neighborhood meeting, please contact us so we can schedule a more convenient time
to meet with you individually.
We are very excited about building our home and joining the neighborhood. And we look
forward to seeing you soon.
Best regards,
Kam & Nazila Eshghi
Kam Eshghi Dr. Nazila Doroodian
Pam 1
To the members of the planning Commission, Los Altos Hills
We have reviewed the Eshghi Family's new plans for the proposed home at
the corner of Burke Rd. and Fremont Rd., at 13530 Fremont Rd. The
revisions they've made address all our previous concerns. We fully
support this project and would like to see the Planning Commission
approve it. Thank you.
DI
q; :
li�ck5e a
Pas 3
'
BARBARA J. GOODRICH
Match 18, 2005
Mr. Kamyar Eshghi and
Dr. Nazda Domodian
Atherton Square 1, Suite 280
Mc Farm Essalst, AIA
RE: 13530 Fremont Road
Dear Kam and Farro:
Thinks for meeting with me today and giving me a preview of the revised house plans I
particularly appreciate the fact that, in redesigning the house to meet the Planning
Commissions concerns, you maintained the lower roof line at the put of the home that's
closest to mine. You can count on my support as the plans work their way through the
Planning Dept- and Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
THE $ 61 SERIES
86111
Genie house
Wut. la.
Number
Width
Height
Ext.
Bulbs/Max Watts
WALLS
86111
8"
17"
W
1460
86121
10"
22.5"
7"
20160
86131
12"
27'
8"
2460
86141
14.5"
31.5"
9'
3C/60
BRACKETS
86112
8"
20.5"
10"
2460
86122
10"
27"
12.5'
20160
86132
12"
32.5"
15"
3c/60
86142
14.5"
38°
17.5"
30160
POSTS
86113
8"
20"
-
1m/60
86123
10"
25.5"
-
2c/60
86133
12"
30'
-
30/60
86143
14.5"
34.5"
-
30160
CHAINS
86114
8"
17"
-
2c/60
86124
10"
22.5"
-
20160
86134
12"
27"
-
30160
86144
14.5"
31.5"
-
3c/60
FINISHES AVAILABLE: Antique Brass (AB),
Antique Copper (AC), Chemical Rust (CR), Dark Brass (DS),
Dark Copper (DC), Raw Copper (RC), or Verdi Green (VG)
GLASS AVAILABLE: Clear, Seedy, Water Glass, or White
ase
Genie House
West, Inc.
P() hu, '-1-! 9
I
N011
°.3011 \\`cv. ,tihc nnou
PI....
H
v
I
U
O
77
E - d
Qw
b3ZZBVEOS9 spoapcyoJy ¢ewa�ary-peiess3
o° ATTACH NTQ
z
Q
J
z
4
b'd i,222"EOS9 s4001tyoJy 3ewMaH-lejess3