HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 '3. 3
Town of Los Altos Hills January 14, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENCE, SECOND UNIT,
POOL HOUSE AND POOL, AND A MODIFICATION TO THE TENTATIVE
MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Tract 7187); LANDS OF RUTNER;
28500 MATADERO CREEK LANE; File#151-97-ZP-SD-GD-AMEND.
FROM: Susan Manca,Planner Syn.
APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams,Planning Direct
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission EITHER:
1. Recommend approval of the requested Site Development Permit and the
modification to the subdivision conditions of approval, subject to the attached
conditions of approval; OR
2. Direct the applicant to redesign the house to reduce the height of the cut proposed
adjacent to the garage and follow more closely with the natural slope, returning to
the Planning Commission for further review.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the northwest side of the Matadero Creek Lane and
Matadero Creek Court intersection. The parcel was created with a 20 lot subdivision
(Tract 7187) that was recorded in 1981. The property is currently vacant. There is an
open space easement along the east portion of the lot, a conservation easement located in
the southwest corner, and a landscape easement to .the south of the conservation
easement.
The Matadero Creek Subdivision included many conditions of approval which limited
development below that allowed by the Municipal Code. The MDA was calculated
specifically for each lot based on the amount of area which was free of easements. In
addition, a maximum building coverage and a maximum elevation of the building were
set for each lot. Unlike other subdivisions in the Town, the Matadero Creek Subdivision
required that the buildings be sited in the building site circle as shown on the Tentative
Map. Amendments to the conditions in later years allowed for additional development
area on specific lots.
In 1996 the City Council approved the owner's application to modify the conditions of
approval of the Matadero Creek subdivision to relocate the access of the property from
the south side of the lot to the east side, as is shown on the plans. At that time, only the
location of the access was reviewed.
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 2
CODE REQUIREMENTS
According to Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, all new residences are to
be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Generally, the sections of the Zoning and Site
Development Codes utilized to evaluate new homes include floor and development area
limitations, grading, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. In addition to
the Zoning and Site Development Codes, the conditions of approval of the subdivision
require that Building Coverage be reviewed as well as compatibility of size and
architectural design with the existing houses within the subdivision. The conditions of
the subdivision created an architectural review board which has reviewed and approved
the design of the proposed residence, including the proposed map amendment to modify
allowable development area.
Section 9-1.1210 of the Subdivision Code allows for Final Map Amendments if the City
Council fords that there are changes in circumstances which no longer make any or all of
the conditions of the map appropriate and that the modifications do not impose additional
burdens on the property owner. Amendments to a final map must be reviewed through
the same process set out for the approval of tentative maps.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 4.40 acres
Average Slope: 16:6%
Lot Unit Factor: 3.78
Floor Area and Development Area and Building Coverage:
Max. Prop. Exist. lncrs. Remaining
Development Area
(Town Code) 47,345 34,362
12,983 0 12,983
(MC)* 9,340 0
Floor Area
(Town Code) 21,433
8,825 0 8,825 12,607
(MC)* 21,433
Building Coverage**
(MC)* 4,110 5,140 0 5,140 0
Maximum Elevation
(MC)* 555 5441/2
*Limits established by Matadero Creek subdivision approval.
**Limited to 44%of MDA;would be 5,713 square feet if amendment to MDA is approved.
Site and Architecture
The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a new two story
residence with a basement. The neighboring properties within the subdivision are a
combination of larger two story and one story residences.
The maximum height of the house on a vertical plane would be 25'A feet, although the
roof heights range from 17 to 251/4 feet at different areas of the house. The height of the
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 3
residence from the lowest to highest point would be 28 feet, as the house is located in an
area of approximately 20 percent slope and the roof line somewhat steps down with the
slope. Story poles have been erected on the site outlining the new residence for the
Commissioners' review.
The exterior materials proposed for the residence are stucco with a concrete tile roof and
led.gestone veneer accents. The residence would be visible from residences along Page
Mill Road. The applicant has designed the residence lower on the hill and has designed
the finished floor cut a maximum of 10 feet into the hill to lower the overall elevation of
the new residence. In addition, there are a number of architectural features, including the
varying rooflines, bay windows, second story balconies and the number of indented areas
of the proposed new residence, which would help to reduce the appearance of bulk of the
house.
Second Unit
The second unit is attached to the main house, at the southeast of the proposed garages,
with its own entrance. The unit is proposed to be 418 square feet with an interior
stairway to the basement. The unit would include a kitchen, living area and a complete
bathroom.
Pool House
The pool house is proposed to be located at the same elevation as the pool. A retaining
wall is designed into the rear of the building, as it is cut into the hill. The finished floor is
proposed to be cut a maximum of 4 feet and the fill is limited to 2 feet, meeting the
Town's grading policy. The maximum height of the building is 131/2 feet, and the
roofline matches that of the main house. The unit includes a bar, living area and a
complete bathroom. Condition #7 requires that the applicant file a deed restriction with
the Town stating that the pool house will not be utilized as a second unit.
Outdoor Lighting
Two skylights are proposed along the rear roof of the new residence. Outdoor lighting
has been shown on sheet 1 of the plans. Lighting appears to be minimal, with one light at
each exit. Staff has included the standard condition (#10) for outdoor lighting, requiring
that fixtures be downshielded and that all locations be approved by the Planning
Department.
Parking, Driveway, and Turnaround
All of the four required parking spaces for the residence would be located within the
garages with a fifth space for the second unit located to the east of the residence, along
the driveway. The plans show that the garages are each 2 feet too narrow to meet the
code requirement for a 2 car garage. Condition #1 requires that the garage spaces be
reconfigured so that both garages have a minimum of 20 foot widths. Subsequently, the
proposed development area would need to be increased by approximately 80 square feet.
All of the required parking spaces are proposed out of the setbacks and have adequate
backup area for the spaces.No retaining walls are proposed for the new driveway.
Due to the long driveway proposed, the Fire Department has required a turnaround on
site. The applicant has designed the turnaround to work with the required turnaround for
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 4
the garage space, with an additional area to be constructed of grasscells, which would be
counted at 10 percent of the coverage toward the MDA (see worksheet#2).
Grading
The plans indicate that the proposed project would include 3,450 cubic yards of cut and
335 cubic yards of fill. The cut and fill heights, as well as the combined total heights, are
generally consistent with the Town's guidelines for grading limitations for the proposed
development on the property except in the nanny unit next to the garage. Specifically, the
finished floor at the southeast corner of the residence is proposed to be 10 feet below
natural grade, whereas the grading policy limits cut for the main residence to 8 feet
maximum. The applicant has indicated that the reason that the development has been cut
further into the hillside than the guidelines suggest is to obtain a low elevation to
maintain views from across Page Mill Road.
The majority of the house is at the same finished floor elevation of 520 feet. The Town
advised the applicant to raise the northeast section of the house to better follow the
natural contours of the lot. The applicant indicated that the front had been designed at the
same level to allow adequate drainage around the north side of the residence and to lower
the house to minimize view impact, which was a primary concern of the Architectural
Committee. The southwest portion of the residence has been stepped down 2 feet to
follow the contours and to meet the grading policy, with a maximum fill of 3 feet.
Basement
The applicant has included a 1,883 square foot basement with the residence which would
not count towards the floor or development area. The basement is designed to be under
natural grade except at the west side, where it is up to 21/2 feet above natural grade. The
applicant proposes to backfill along this section to ensure that no portion of the basement
wall would be exposed.
The exterior stairwell from the basement appears to be larger than the minimum building
code requirements, therefore staff has included a condition that the plans be revised to
reduce the size of the landing at the exit of the basement(see condition#1).
Trees
The driveway is to be located in the vicinity of a 12 inch oak tree. The driveway at this
area is on grade, therefore the tree would not be disturbed during construction. Condition
#6 requires that the dripline of the oak tree be fenced prior to construction to insure that
the tree will not be negatively impacted.
Modification of the conditions of approval
The applicant is requesting a modification to the conditions of the tentative map for the
subdivision, specifically requesting an increase in the allowable development area for the
lot. The conditions currently limit the development area to 9,340 square feet, although
the development area per the Town's ordinances would be 47,345 square feet. The
difference in the MDA numbers is due to the area of the lot (about 3.1 acres) which is in
open space and conservation easements, which was deducted from the Matadero Creek
calculation. The applicant requests 3,643 square feet more area than is allowed per the
conditions. The architectural review board for Matadero Creek has reviewed the plans
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 5
and has indicated support of the whole project, inclusive of modifying the condition of
the tentative map for the increased development area allowed for the lot.
The maximum allowable building coverage is not included as a conditionof approval of
the subdivision, although it is defined as 44% of the development area within the
CC&Rs. The increase in the allowable development area would consequently increase
the allowable building coverage from 4110 to 5,713 square feet. The proposed building
coverage is 5,140 square feet, well within the allowable coverage if the development area
is increased for the lot.
In order to approve a map amendment, the Commission must make findings similar to
those made for the subdivision (see Attachment 2 for findings). The Architectural
Committee and staff concur that Lot 7 is considerably more constrained by easements
than other properties in the subdivision, and that the design has not infringed on the areas
of the easement or their intent to maintain open space on the site. Modifications to the
allowable limitations on other lots in the subdivision have been approved by he City
Council in the past.
Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board
The Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board has reviewed the plans and the
proposed modifications to the conditions of approval of the tentative map. The Board has
indicated their support with individual members signing plans and/or letters. The Board
indicates that the modifications are supported only because the residence has been
designed in such a way as to minimize impact on the neighbors.
Other Staff and Committee Recommendations
The proposed development has been reviewed by the Town Geotechnical Consultant and
there are some minor concerns regarding the construction design of the residence. The
construction drawings are required to be reviewed by the applicant's geotechnical
consultant with a letter of compliance for review by the Town's Geotechnical Consultant
prior to issuance of building permits to assure that the concerns are mitigated. The
changes to the proposed construction would not alter the location and height of the
proposed residence. Additional information has been forwarded to the Town's
Consultant for review.
The Pathways Committee has requested that the IIb pathway along Matadero Creek Lane
be restored, and condition#22 requires such restoration prior to final building inspection.
The Environmental Design Committee notes that the residence will be highly visible
from across the valley and that the color should match the Town's colorboard, as required
in Condition#4. Condition#2 emphasizes the need to plant screening along the west of
the development to decrease visibility from across Page Mill Road and Matadero Creek
Lane. In addition, the Committee emphasizes that mowing in the open space and
conservation easements is preferable to discing, as discing encourages the growth of star
thistle.
The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires that the applicant install fire sprinklers
to the residenceto meet the required fire flow duration requirements. In addition, the
driveway must meet access and turnaround requirements for emergency vehicles, as
indicated on the plans. The applicant must also provide one private fire hydrant on the
site,with the location approved by the Fire Department.
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner '
Page 6
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommended conditions of approval;
2. Recommended findings for the final map amendment;
3. Worksheet#2;
4. Fire Department letter, dated August 30, 1997;
5. Letter from Cotton, Shires &Assoc., dated September 9, 1997;
6. Recommendation from Pathways Committee, dated August 28, 1997;
7. Recommendation from Environmental Design Committee, dated August 18, 1997;
8. Letter from Bob and Peggy Rutner, dated November 26, 1997;
9. Letter from Bob and Peggy Rutner, dated November 17, 1997;
10. Development plans (5 pages).
cc: Bob and Peggy Rutner Larry Bridgeman Pong Ng
10632 Magdalena Ave. 4546 El Camino Real#A-14 404 Saratoga Ave.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Los Altos, CA 94022 Santa Clara, CA95050
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner ,
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
LANDS OF RUTNER, 28500 MATADERO CREEK LANE
FILE#151-97-ZP-SD-GD-AMEND
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The basement exiting and window wells shall be the minimum required by
the Uniform Building Code. Any further modifications to the approved
plans requires prior approval of the Planning Director or Planning
Commission depending upon the scope of the changes.
2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development Hearing. Particular attention
shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of
the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. Special
attention shall be given to planting along the west of the new development
to screen the residence and outdoor areas from the homes across Page Mill
Road. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion
control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to
final inspection, unless the Planning Director finds that unusual
circumstances, such as weather or site conditions, require that planting be
delayed. In those instances, a deposit of an amount equal to the cost of
landscape materials and installation, to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director, shall be submitted to the Town. Landscaping shall in any event
be installed not later than six months after final inspection, or the deposit
will be forfeited.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit), equal to the
cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening
purposes (including the redwood trees which have already been planted
and any additional screening required by the Town) or for erosion control
(as determined by the City Engineer), but not to exceed $5,000.00, shall be
posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after
installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings
remain viable.
4. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in
conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a
light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have
a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim area should be
minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings,
and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the
approved color(s) prior to final inspection.
5. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new construction.
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
• Lands of Rutner
Page 8
6. Specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape plan.
Lighting fixtures shall generally be downlights. Exceptions may be
permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures
would not be visible from off site. Any security lighting shall be limited
in number and directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding
with shrouds or louvers is suggested. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall
not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source or lighting
should not be directly visible from off site. No lighting may be placed
within the setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry lights, except where
determined to be necessary for safety.
7. Prior to commencement of any grading on the site, all significant trees, in
particular the oak tree located adjacent to the driveway, are to be fenced at
the drip line. The.fencing shall be of a material and structure to clearly
delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees
to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall
call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection.
The fence must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage
of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of
these trees.
8. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
9. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
September 9, 1997,the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. The applicant's geotechnical consultant and civil engineer shall
redesign the drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the Town Geotechnical consultant. The revised plans and
documentation shall be submitted to the Town for review and
approval by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check;
b. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve
all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e. site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of
the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check.
c. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The
inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations prior to placement
of steel and concrete.
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 9
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the
project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as
built)project approval.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter
from Cotton, Shires &Associates dated September 9, 1997.
10. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the development area
(12,983 square feet) established for the property under this permit is at the
maximum level of development currently allowed by the Town. The
Planning Department will prepare the statement and the signed, notarized
document shall be returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check.
11. A property restriction shall be recorded stating that the pool house cannot
be used as a living unit. The Planning Department will prepare the
statement and the signed, notarized document shall be returned to the
Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
12. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-
site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation
and screening.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
13. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing
flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the
Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be
submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage
improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in
accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection.
14. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium between November 1 and April 1
except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take
place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the
construction of the driveway access.
15. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed
underground.
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 10
16. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and cabana, and
prior to final inspection, the locations and elevations of the new residence
and cabana shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved locations and elevations
shown on the approved Site Development plan. 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. At
the time of framing inspection for the new residence and cabana, the
height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the height
shown on the approved Site Development plan
17. 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 grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic
issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on
Matadero Creek Lane and Matadero Creek Court and surrounding
roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary
facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and parking for construction
personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for
collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the
Los Altos Garbage Company :for the debris box, since they have a
franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town
limits.
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
shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the
roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building
plancheck.
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 public sanitary sewer
prior to final inspection. If it is determined that any construction is
required to be done in the public right of way, an encroachment permit
shall be required to be obtained from the Public Works Department prior
to commencement of construction of the sewer lateral.
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 11
22. The IIB pathway along Matadero Creek Lane shall be required to be
rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final
inspection.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
23. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting
the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and be a
minimum of 4 inches with a 3/8 inch stroke.
24. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall install a fire sprinklering
system to assure that adequate flow is available to the residence. The
design of the fire sprinidering system shall be reviewed and approved by
the fire department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
25. Fire apparatus access and turnaround shall be constructed and maintained
in accordance to approved Fire Department requirements. In addition, the
driveway shall be installed to the satisfaction of the fire department prior
to start of construction.
26. One private on-site fire hydrant shall be installed at a location to be
determined by the Fire Department. The hydrant shall be installed an
approved by the Fire Department prior to final inspection. The design and
location of the hydrant shall be reviewed and approved by the fire
department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning
Department and Engineering Department at least two weeks prior to final building
inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 24 AND 26 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE
CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS
FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or
the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building
permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos
School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
January 14, 1999). All required building permits must be obtained within that
year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced
within one year and completed within two years.
•
Planning Commission
January 14, 1998
Lands of Rutner .
Page 12
ATTACHMENT 2
FINDINGS FOR THE FINAL MAP AMENDMENT
TRACT 7187
LANDS OF RUTNER, 28500 MATADERO CREEK LANE
FILE#138-96-FM-AMEND
1. The residence specifically designed for Lot #7 is designed under the limitations
given for elevation of the structures and all Town codes and has been designed
with minimal impact to neighbors, therefore the development area can be
increased.
2. The modification does not impose any additional burden on the present fee
owners of the properties. There is not any effect on the sizes of the lots, the
locations or extents of the streets and roads, or the Town's Maximum Floor Areas
and Maximum Development Areas allowed for the properties.
3. The modification does not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property
reflected on the recorded map. While the modification includes the increase of
development area within the subdivision conditions, the proposed development
area would meet Code requirements.
4. The modification is consistent with the Town's General Plan in that the General
Plan does not have specific restrictions regarding the development area for lots.
5. The area affected by the change in the development area limitation is minimal and
will not impact neighboring properties.
6. The proposed modification will not cause public health problems, or
environmental damage, including injury to fish or wildlife and their habitats since
the properties will still be required to meet the provisions of the Town's Code
which address these issues.
7. The proposed modification will not adversely affect any existing easements
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, the affected
properties.
•
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS I-i.II.,I..S
PLANNING DEPARTMEN'1
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Ilills, California 94022 • (415)941-7222 • FAX (415) 941.3160
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTYTSWN}.;R'S NAME - - - - -- - -- _
IskOf'k t'I'Y AL)L)RISS` -- - , -- ---- -- -
�AL('i7I,A'rEIs13Y ..-_ �_Q�` ( cO
1. I)EVELOI'MENT AREA (sQuARE FOOI'A(;e)
Existing Proposed 'Total
(Additions or I)cletions)
A. I louse and Garage (from Part 2.A.)
B. Decking ----------- �--'�'L t- ------------------
C. Driveway and Parking - -
(Measured 100'along centerline)
D. Patios and Walkways t
E. "Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part 13) --- ---- - cNi - - --_
Any oilier coverage I D%-Rrcfwvtauuu -_-..-_---.-- 1 10
AI.,S �
_ - t a �3 -- - -
Maximus) Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet 1/I)
2. FLOOR AIWA (sQ(JARF Frrn(;I:)
Nxisling Ptcrlursed 'f'nf,il
•
(Additions or Deletions)
A. I louse and Garage azo
a. 1st Floor 3 r~O�2-
b. 2nd Floor ----.--_-__--
c. Attic and 1.3asetnettt
d. Garage -t
B. Accessory Buildings - - - -).10:25-
a. 1st Floor 59
1). 2nd Floor
c:. Attic and Basement
TOTALS
Maxin)un) Floor Area Allowed - (front Worksheet ill ) 1 21 L133.. 121,433
�_--I()WISTISEZSNi,Y I7'TTI?C.'KE')
YY)0_, rY211A4CLUIAC.NC%0L-Pg--
RDTv�Y
R rvis J 2/2h/90 —
Art"..
°e, FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIREDA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTROL NUMBER
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818
estrisa�• BLDG PERMIT NUMBER
Co R,ES 2.SERVICE (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax)
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97- 1983
FILE NUMBER 151 -97-ZP-S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
Site review for proposed new 8,965 square foot single family residence with a
1,025 attached garage and 398 square foot cabana.
UFC 1. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 2,750 GPM at 20 psi
Appendix
II-A residual pressure for two hours. The required fire flow is not available from
area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing.
UFC 2 Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in
Appendix
LIIA buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems but, can be no less
Section 5 than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 1500 GPM at 20 psi.
residual pressure. This flow shall be taken from any two fire hydrants, on or
near the site so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet.
UFC 3. Required Access to Water Supply (Hydrants): Portions of the structure(s) are
903.2 greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway
containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR provide an
approved residential fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the
building.
UFC 4. Required Fire Flow Option (Single Family Dwellings): Provide required fire
903.2
flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet OR Provide an
approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. The
fire sprinkler system shall conform to National Fire Protection Association
Standard #13D, 1994 Edition, and local ordinance requirements.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
❑ 0 0 0 0 GIULIANI & KULL INC 07/30/97 1 of 2
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Hokanson,Wayne
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
LANDS OF RUTNER 28500 Matadero Creek Ln
A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
��pL 19 A ° FIRE DEPARTMENT
ems._ /0°.64,
�T1N � SANTA CLARA COUNTY�]•■�• CONTROL NUMBER
'EST.i947•`• 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER
COURTESY 83ER cE (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax)
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97- 1983
FILE NUMBER 151-97-ZP-S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
2 5. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway
90
902.2.2 with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 14
feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius
of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations
shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
UFC 6. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn-around Required: Provide an
902.2.2.4 approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire
Department Standard,Details and Specifications D-1.
2 7. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open gates shall not
90
902.2.4.1
obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If
provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall
conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1.
NOTE: Applies if applicant intends on installing a gated access point. See
attachment.
3 8. Private Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 1 private on-site fire hydrant(s) at
90
903.2
location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant
spacing shall be 500 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500
GPM at 20 psi residual pressure.
901.3
9. Timing of Required Roadway/Driveway Installations: Required roadway/driveway
installations shall be in place, inspected, and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start
of construction.Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction
site until installations are completed as stated above. Clearance for building permits also may be
held until installations are completed.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
0 0 0 0 0 GIULIANI & KULL INC 07/30/97 2 Q f 2
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Hokanson,Wayne
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
LANDS OF RUTNER 28500 Matadero Creek Ln
A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,Los Gatos,Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill,and Saratoga
ALCOTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
rill
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
September 9, 1997
L3357A
RECEIVED
TO: Debbie Pollan
SEP 1 1 1997
Planner TOM OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review
RE: Rutner,New Residence,Cabana and Pool
151-97-ZP-SD-GD
28500 Matadero Creek Lane
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the
proposed project design using:
• Geotechnical Feasibility Review (letter) prepared by Nielsen
Geotechnical, dated July 12, 1997;
• Site Development Plan (1 sheet, 20-scale) prepared by Giuliani 8:
Kull, revised August 13, 1997; and
• Floor Plans and Elevations (4 sheets), no preparer indicated,
dated August 9, 1997.
In addition,we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files
(TMI-81 Matadero Creek Subdivision) and completed a recent site inspection.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to construct a residence with basement, cabana, and
swimming pool in the southern half of the subject property. In our previous review
report (dated August 4, 1997), we evaluated a site development plan that included
1,580 cubic yards of proposed fill placement. Proposed site grading currently includes
3,560 cubic yards of cut and 335 cubic yards of fill.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Proposed site development is constrained by possibly thick, potentially
expansive soils, strong to violent anticipated seismic ground shaking and possible
seasonal shallow groundwater conditions. We have discussed the revised site
development plan with the Project Geotechnical Consultant and are in general
concurrence with the consultant that the proposed site layout and development plan is
geotechnically feasible. However, the final design of drainage discharge systems should
reflect consideration of the depth and engineering properties of site soils (to be
determined during the upcoming site specific soil and foundation investigation). In
general, we favor conveying concentrated site drainage directly to existing storm drain
Northern California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 5245 Avenida Encinas • Suite A
Los Gatos,CA 95030-7218 Carlsbad,CA 92008-4374
(408)354-5542 • Fax(408)354-1852 (760)931-2700 • Fax(760)931-1020
e-mail:losg@csageo.com e-mail:carl@csageo.com
Debbie Pollart September 9, 1997
Page 2 L3357A
systems rather than dispersing water into shallow trenches as currently depicted. We
note that some portions of the drainage outfall trenches are located relatively close to
the existing cut slope above Matadero Creek Lane resulting in the potential for surfacing
of seepage or slope instability.
With the above understanding, we recommend geotechnical approval of the
proposed site development plan. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should address
issues of appropriate site drainage design and develop recommended project design
parameters during the upcoming geotechnical investigation. The resulting report should
be reviewed and approved by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to preparation of
detailed project construction plans, or submittal for building permits.
This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town in
its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the
documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and
conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of
the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either
expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
rtwal
Patrick O. Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
POS:TS:rb
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECEIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMVIITTEE AUG 1 8 1997
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION
• ., - - TOWN 0r LOS ALTS HILLS
Applicant's Name: ....[L 4
Address: _ ill z
Reviewed by: Date:
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building
site. Recommended protection during construction.)
--ljead/NV, giltrza 0-61A}
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
i1/ , i. l///:(A. 1 '" / - : • J , ,
c/ e? s 11 WZ,V e f J 'Jr ' ./
/ I-160/� ,�'/�<,( �5 % lit/ ,-Creeks and drain ge: •ould a conservation easement be reco i en.ed. 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?)
/ . /17hg-6/t/W.4( / • A/Gd,
I L
1 p,17,/, at.Q.67/(__ idpfc)
• Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscape).) -
1:7__,/k),42i/d{/ Z eg404/0 40A
0 Y. /i0/,
Other Comments: !
•
2
corner of the property measuring 50 feet 11240 Magdalena Road;Lands of Hu:
in the North-South direction and 100 Restore II-B path along Magdalena.
feet in the East-West direction. 4/28/97 3/24/97
13961 Fremont Pines Lane; Lands of 28625 Matadero Creek Court; Lands of
Ware & Cates: Construct II-B path along Groff & Taylor: Construct a native path
Fremont Pines Lane. 3/24/97 in a 10 foot easement along the
25311 Fremont Road; Lands of boundary with 28620 Matadero Creek
Fitzpatrick: Construct 11-B path along the existingurt so as to p path onct the the lowerde-sac to
po tion of
Fremont Road. 5/27/97
property. Restore the latter path.
26170 Fremont Road: Lands of 4/28/97
Zatparvar: Construct II-B path along
Fremont Road. 9/22/97 28500 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of
Rutner: Restore II-B path along Matadero
26242 Fremont Road; Lands of Yanez: Creek Lane. 7/28/97
No request. 7/28/97
28510 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of
25528 Hidden Springs Court;lands of Jain: Restore II-B path along Matadero
Taylor: No request. 4/28/97 Creek Lane and the asphalt path above
11195 Hooper Lane; Lands of Goluknov: Page Mill Road. 2/24/97
Construct a native path from Hooper 12205 Menalto Drive; Lands of Godinho:
Lane to the existing path from Frampton No request. 6/23/97
Court within a 30 foot pathway
easement with the pathway slope not 12631 Miraloma Way; Lands of Breetwor:
exceeding 15%. 5/27/97 Restore II-B path along Summerhill and
construct II-B path along Miraloma with
14400 Kingsley Way; Lands of Clevenger: the drainage ditch between the path and
Construct II-B paths along Altadena the road. 2/24/97
Drive and Kingsley Way. 3/24/97 27371 Moody Road; Lands of Rocchetti &
13001 La Cresta; Lands of Hsiao: No Herdell: Construct II-B path along Moody
request. 2/24/97 Road on the property side of the ditch
25309 La Loma; Lands of Loughmiller: and acquire a road and pathway
Construct a native path in a 10 foot easement as needed to encompass the
easement along the southern boundary path. 7/28/97
of the property from the water tank 26075 Newbridge Drive; Lands of
access road to the southwest corner of Critchfield: Restore 11-B paths along La
the property. Provide pathway easement Paloma and Newbridge. 5/27/97
over the access road. 5/27/97 amended
6/23/97 24021 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of J.Lohr
Properties: No request. 2/24/97
13870 La Paloma Road; Lands of Hill:
Restore II-B path along La Paloma. 24036 Oak Knoll Circle;Lands of J.Lohr
6/23/97 Properties: Restore II-B path along Oak
Knoll Circle. 1/9/97 •
13935 La Paloma Road; Lands of
Silvestri: Construct II-B path along La 22440404 Oakre
P Knohll Circle;
along l ;0ak lands Knoll LCircle.
ohr:Paloma. 7/28/97 Rest4/28/97
25703 Lomita Linda Court; Lands of
Stitt: Construct li-B path along 24052 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of Lohr:
Ravensbury Avenue that deals with the Restore 11-B path along Oak Knoll Circle.
drainage problems there. 3/24/97 5/27/97 -
10705 Magdalena Road; Lands of Urbach: 12s o33 Oakre B pr h rk ou; Oak s of Court.
hr:
No request. 6/23/97 6/23/97
NOV.26.1997 12:13PM CITATION HOMES NO.581 P.2/2
November 26, 1997
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
California, California 94022
Attn. Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director
Re: Lot 7 Matadero Creek Subdivision,Development Area
Dear Curtis;
Peryour discussions with Mr.Larry Bridgman on 11-26-97,we are writing to request that
you modify the condition of approval#7B for the Matadero Creek Subdivision to allow a
development area of 12,973 square feet for Lot 7.
As you know, we have met with the Matadero Creek Architectural Committee on this
subject and they approve of this requested modification.
We believe that we now have a complete site development application package and
would like to request that we be placed on the Planning Commission hearing agenda on
January 14, 1998. In the mean time, if you have any questions, or need additional
information,please call Pong Ng at(408)985-6048 and we will respond immediately.
Thanks for your help•in this matter.
Sincerely,
C%t� �-t-70 Ay die 's' ���!r gmrN
Bob and Peggy Ruttier
cc: Mr. Chun Pong Ng
Mr.Larry Bridgman
11/18/1397 17:22 941-1035 M.MILLS tSNLthMAN PA.iE 01
Robert&Peggy Ruttier
10632 Magdalena Lane
Lot Altos Hills,CA 94024
•
Nov ober 17, 1997
•Residences
Matadero Creek Subdivision
• LOS Altos Hilts, CA
Res Rattner Residence(Lot 7).Design Approval
Dear Neighbors:
•
• Since we bought the lot some eighteen months ago,we longed for the day we would move
into our new home. For the last nine months,we have worked very hard to pursue this
dream. I am happy to say that we are close,but we need your help to enhance our
chances of an approval by the Town.
From the beginning, we have worked closely with the Matadero Creek Architectural
Committee. Following their advice,we spent nine months relocating our driveway
approech from the south side of the lot to the west side to improve auto aafety. When we
started our project,we worked closely with the Town's planning staffto make sure we
meet all the design requirements and their instructions.
Alter designing the project, we submitted the plans for the committee's review, Their ia-
16-97 letter to us ended with this parageph: "Finally,the Committee realizes and
appreciates the amount of time and energy being expended by all parties related to Lot 7,
and hopes all parties cart come to an objective, fair, and friendly agreement among
neighbors.' We have since met with the committee representatives on 11-11-97,and
together again with the Town's Planning Department on 11-12-97. The committee and
the Town both agreed that we can proceed with our planning application with the current
design, At the same time,we will seek the neighbors' full support for our project as
.designed.
•
The issues at hand are complex and revolve around interpretations of floor areas
according to the Metadero Creek CC&R and the Town's Ordinance 305. One fact that is
not disputed is that we have a nice design that the architectural committee and the Town
both appreciate. The house it well hidden,low profile, and fulfills all the criteria the
architectural committee has prescribed. Attachment 1 describes all the considerations put
into the design and the reasons why the architectural committee finds the design desirable.
11/18/1397 17:22 941-1635 MCMILLS SRIDLNP'N ri-rut �JG
As*Ducted to before,the issues at hand have to do with how floor areas are counted and
how the requirements of the Matadero Creek CC&R and the Town's Ordinance 335 are
met. Attachment 2 details the accounting of the proposed floor and development areas.
While we believe we have met all the requirements, different interpretations on how areas
are counted can lead to different conclusions. During the 11-12-97 meeting between
ourselves, the Town and the architectural committee, the solution agreed to by all parties
is that we would seek a lot-specific resolution that will allow us to build the house as
designed on lot 7,using the proposed floor areas regardless of how they are counted.
This is not a novel approach for the Matadero Creek Subdivision. In fact,various lots
have had their approved floor and development areas modified by similar resolutions. In
addition,a lot.specific resolution does not change the CC&R and the interpretations oi'the
rules for other lots in the subdivision.
The architectural committee members present at the meeting approved of the resolution.
If the rest of the neighbors approve our request,the Town's staff can officially support
our project as currently designed.. While the following point is not discussed during our
meeting, to farther demonstrate our sincerity that this is the only resolution we will ever
seek,we wilt record a deed restriction on our lot stating that the approved floor and
development areas are all that is specifically allowed for lot 7. Neither we, or any figure
owners,can expand on these approved numbers,
We sincerely hope that you can help us secure OUT planning approval by signing your
endorsement on this letter, We will be pleased to meet with you in person to discuss our
project and show you the home that you will be approving. Thanks again and we hope to
be pert of the Matadero Creek neighborhood soon.
Sincerely,
Robert it Peggy Kutner Approved, Date
• 11/19/1597 17:22 541-1035 MMCMILLS 13R1 'Gf N 1-,AGE �]3
ATTACHMENT 1
We have a large,young seemly,and have always wanted a large lot which will give our
children a lot of land to play.We need a high bedroom count for our five children, and
that c&le kr a larger house. Lot 7 is more than 4.4 acres,and is perfect for our situation.
We feel that if there is a lot in Matadero Creek suited for a larger home, tot 7 would be
that lot.
Lot 7 is unique in that it is surround by streets on three sides. Lot 6 is contiguous to our
north,but there is some 250 feet of easement open space between us. Where our house is
proposed,we are at least 300 feet away from any of our neighbor's house. In addition,
our house is located on the lower portion of the lot, and as evidenced by the story poles
that are in place,the house is relatively hidden tom most surrounding homes. We realize
that the original vision of the Matadero Creek subdivision was to maximize open space
between neighbors and locate the homes where the natural fall of the land can mitigate
their visibility. We believe we have designed towards those goals.
The letter from the Matadero Creek Architectural Committee dated 10-16-97 contains the
following comments on the good design elements of our proposed project:
• The building circle to be located where we have proposed.
• The sight lines to be based on the story poles currer_tly in place.
• No grading beyond ten feet from house walls.
• The proposed hone is not visible from the home on lot 6.
• Use planthrg to mitigate the driveway,use turf block driveway of dark color,
• Rouse color scheme not to have beige with red or pink tones, use dark color roof of
Synthetic slate.
• Driveway access to be away from home on lot 18.
• All dirt removed from excavation to be relocated on the property no higher than the
556 toot contour.
We are in Lull cormpiiance with the above comments form the committee.
The design objective is to bury the eastern and southern sides of the garages and portions
of the secondary stair into the hillside to create the appearance of a ore-story structure
from Matadero Creek Lane. The remaining two-story facade Is oriented towards the east
end Page Mill Road,however, as the cars come up the bill, the natural slope shields the
BM story from view. This also allows us to sink the house into the hill and lower the
avaxll height and bulk of the visible structure. In fact,the maximum roof elevation of our
proposed home is elevation 544'4',whereas Matadero Creek CC&R allows us a
invtlintum roof elevation of 555'. We are more than 10 feet below the maximum allowed.
The neighbors across Page Mill Road to the east have reviewed our plans and viewed the
story pole locations,and are pleased with our design and stricture placement as we
preserved their views of the ridge and the bay beyond.
11/19/1997 17:22 941-1035 MCMILLS BRIDGMAN FACIE 04
ATTACHMENT 2
RUINER RESIDENCE
Maximum Building Area Compliance
Ordinance 305 Compliance
Maximum roar Area(MPA) : Allowable 2121;206 square feet.
Proposed Floor Area:
First poor living area=3,682 square feet.
Second Floor Living Area..3,400 square feet.
Total living area,-7,082 square feet.
Cabana area 398 square flaet.
Gam and shop area= 1,025 square feet.
Proposed actual floor area=8,505 square feet.
Double-counted area (ceiling over 17 feet)-320 square feet.
Total proposed floor area-8,525 square feet, <21,206 square feet.
Remaining-12,361 square fleet. (58.4%of allowable)
Uncounted basement area- 1.883 square feet.
Maaximum Development area(MDA): Allowable=46,547 square feet
Proposed floor area-8,823 square feet
Pool,decks,walk, driveway.parking-4,048 square feet
Total proposed development areas 12,873 square feet<46,547 square feet,
Remaining 33,674 square feet. (72.3% of allowable)
Mstedero Creek CC&R Compliance
Building Coverage: Allowable-4,110 square feet.
Proposed floor Area:
First floor living area=3,682 square feet.
Cabana area-398 square feet.
Garage and shop area m1,025 square feet.
Second floor balcony 60 square feet
Total building coverage A.5,1.65 square feet.
Overage area IK 5,165 square feet-4,110 square feet m 1,055 square feet.
Total credit area allowed=2,000 square feet.
Credit area used in second floor(area over 10' from grade)=674 square feet
Credit area available for first floor-2,000-674 -1,326 square feet.
1,326 square feet}1,055 square feet. Remaining-271 sq.ft.
Development Areal Allowable i■9,340 square feet
Building coverage=5,165 square feet
Pool,decks,walk, driveway,parking a 4,048 square feet
total development area=9,213 square feet<9,340 square feet,
Remaining•127 square feet.
The Town's Planning staff concurred with the above computation.
e 11J +'='^"^'• • •"'• •
The Matadero Creek Architectural Committee maintained that all second floor area
he counted towards development area. Under this the worst-case scenario, the
development area is ea follows:
Fust floor living area=3,682 square feet.
Second Floor Living Area=3,400 square feet.
Total living am=7,082 square feet.
Second floor balcony=60 square feet
Cabana area a 399 square feet,
earns and shop area- 1.025 square feet.
Total proposed floor area=8,565 square feet,
Pool, decks,walk,driveway,parking=4,048 square feet
Total proposed development area=12,973 square feet X9,349 square feet allowed.
SUMMARY and RESOLUTION
As you can see,the proposed project floor and development areas are far below the
Ordinance 305 allowable areas which is the standard all other projects in the Town must
meet. Where we are over the limit is in the development area when we abide by the
interpretations of the Matadero Creek Architectural Committee.
In order to facilitate the planning approval of our project, the Town's Planning Staff, the
Matadero Creek Architectural Committee and ourselves agree that we would seek
approval, from the Town and the Metadero Creek Subdivision residences by resolution, to
allow us to build a home en lot 7 with the following areas .
First floor living area-3,682 square feet.
Second Floor Living Area=3,400 square feet.
Second floor balcony=60 square feet
Cabana erne.398 square feet.
Geroge and shop area= 1,023 square feet.
Pool,decks,walk,driveway, parking=4,048 square feet
We feel that these numbers are reasonable given the size of the lot,the need of our family,
and the design of the home. Since we meet ail the area requirements of Ordinance 305,
we are not seeking a variance. The Matadero Creek Architectural Committee approves of
our request. The Town's staff has indicated if the residences of the Matadera Creek
Subdivision endorse this resolution, they would support our application for approval of a
Site development permit. These building and development areas are specific to lot 7 only.
Furthermore,we agree to record a deed restriction on our property such that in the future,
neither ourselves,or any future owners, can expand on these approved numbers. We
sincerely hope that you will support our project es proposed,
L4-44C-d kid/4- 2-4-a AMA) .
,