HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 10, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR AN ADDITION;LANDS
OF CONRADSON/WILKER, 13020 CUMBRA VISTA COURT.
FROM: Susan Manca,Planner ,,,P11(.)
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission
Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Variance subject to the
attached conditions of.approval.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission and City Council approved a similar project(on
another property) to this proposal in July-of 1992. The applicant proposed to
build a carport,walkway,deck, and floor area beneath the existing upper floor,
which required a Variance, as the project exceeded the MDA and MFA. The
construction of the carport resolved a safety issue caused by a steep driveway
and limited parking and turn around area on the site. The under floor area
which was being converted into floor area did not change the appearance of the
house,as the area was already enclosed in this situation. The previous reports
are attached for more information(Attachment#6).
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 1.037 acres
Average Slope: 33.8%
Lot Unit Factor: .51
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Remaining
Devel. 5,000 7,932 7,015 917 0
Floor 4,000 3,848 3,180 668 +152
Planning Commission `
May 10, 1991
Lands of Conradson
Page 2
The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for the conversion
of unfinished area below the existing residence, and a variance to exceed the
MDA for the lot. The house is located approximately 300 feet from the Monte
Vista Fault and the existing structure has inadequate support in the event of an
earthquake. The structural upgrade to reinforce the house includes enclosing the
area below the house, as described in the letter from the applicants' architect,
dated February 20, 1995 (see Attachment#4).
'The under floor area,which is currently enclosed with redwood trellis siding,
will be convrted to a combination of crawl space and living area by enclosing
the area. Th under floor area is divided into 9 sections by the piers of the
house,as shown on Sheet 5 of the submitted plans. The applicant proposes to
improve 4 of the sections into a workshop. One section,the mechanical room,is
currently improved and counted as floor area. Four of the sections along the
southeast portion are to be enclosed as crawl space only (with a floor to ceiling
height of under 7 feet). This area does not count as floor area or development
area. The applicant did include the crawl space as development area on Sheet 5
of the plans. This sheet has been redlined to subtract the crawl space from the
calculation shown on the plans.
The proposed floor area of 3,848 square feet is under the MFA of 4,000 square
feet for the lot. The proposed development area on the lot is 7,932 square feet,
exceeding the maximum by 2,932 square feet. The existing development area of
7,015 square feet already exceeds the maximum for the lot by 2,015 square feet.
Since the proposed project exceeds the MDA for the lot,Condition#7 has been
added requiring a recorded restriction on the property.
A new deck and staircase is proposed along the southeast side of the house to
obtain exterior access to the lower area. There is no interior access proposed to
the proposed workshop and storage space. The new decking and staircase result
in 249.5 squa a feet of development area.
The existing residence is primarily a one-story structure with a partial second
floor. The hol se is a single story as seen from Cumbra Vista with a stepped area
down the hillside in the rear of the house. The lower portion of the house
already has tij a appearance of development area by being enclosed by the
redwood lattce. Therefore,the conversion to solid walls would appear to have
minimal impact on the appearance of development on the lot. The proposed
height of the house on a vertical plane is 24 feet. The proposed height of the
house from the lowest point to the highest point is 30 feet.
The existing esidence has a two car garage located out of the 30 foot setback.
Two additional parking spaces area located in the setbacks. There is a
turnaround area located within the side setback. The design of the parking and
' Planning Commission
May 10, 1995
Lands of Conradson
Page 3
turnaround areas are only slightly greater than the Engineering Department's
required widths for adequate turnaround.
Exterior materials for the addition will consist of plywood siding,tinted to match
the existing redwood siding. The proposed enclosure is not visible from any of
the immediate neighbors. The house is visible from Highway 280,but is heavily
screened.
The existing landscaping on the site includes a number of mature trees and
shrubs. There is 1 Oak tree with a 40 foot dripline that is located near the area of
the house to be retrofitted. A letter has been submitted by the applicant's arborist
stating that the project will not have a detrimental effect on the Oak tree (see
Attachment 5). The project should not affect the mature landscaping on the site.
The applicant requests a Variance for the additional development area that
would be calculated with the endosure of the under floor area. The property
indudes decking which is the only outdoor living area available for the lot. The
new development area proposed for the lot is in the form of new floor area
created from the structural upgrade of the house and access to the newly created
areas. -
The Town Geologist,William Cotton and Associates,has reviewed the plans and
geotechnical report for the enclosure and has recommended approval of the
project with conditions. Additional information will be required at the time of
building plan check to ensure that the structural support added to the house will
suffice for seismic retrofitting.
The Pathways Committee has no recommendations for the property.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community
may have.
Planning Commission • ,
May 10, 1995
Lands of Conradson
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Variance findings;
2. Recomme#ded conditions of approval;
3. Letter from William Cotton&Associates dated February 14, 1995;
4. Letter frons Borlik and Young;
5. Letter from Michael P. Young,Arborist;
6. Staff Report to Planning Commission,May 27, 1992,Staff Report to City
Council,June 17, 1992,and Staff Report to City Council,July 1. 1992;
7. Worksheet,#2;
8. Development plans.
cc.
Mr. Scott Conradson and Julie Wilker
13020 cumbra Vista
Los Altos Hills,CA 94022
Young nd Borlik
261 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto,CA 94301
• Planning Commission
May 10, 1995
Lands of Conradson
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
LANDS OF CONRADSON-CUMBRA VISTA
VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
subject property,specifically the inferior structural support for the existing
residence combined with the proximity of the Monte Vista Fault and the
steep slope. Requirements for structural upgrade will result in enclosing
of the present under house area. There is limited outdoor area for the
applicants use and no existing development area that could be practically
removed if a usable driveway and parking area are to remain. The seismic
retrofit will make the house safer and better able to withstand a major
earthquake. It will also create a usable space (where the proposed
improvements would be made)within the existing building footprint and
without increasing the building mass. The MFA will be within the
allowable limits while the development area will exceed the allowable
MDA by 2,932 square feet.
2. Upon granting of the variance,the intent and purpose of the applicable
sections of the Zoning Code will be served and the recipient of the
variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other
surrounding property owners. The need to structurally reinforce the
building sets forth health and safety requirements resulting in the
enclosure of currently existing under floor area. The proposed expansion
will allow the applicants to have a storage area and workshop similar to
that which many other residents in the Town have.
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 since a two
story structure with decking is similar to other homes in Los Altos Hills
and in the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed improvements will
not be visible to neighbors and the house will not appear any larger than it
is at present.
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 since the property is zoned for single family residential
development with outdoor uses and living area such as the proposed.
Planning Commission
May 10, 1995
Lands of Conradson
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCU
LANDS OF CONRADSON, 13020 CUMBRA VISTA
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Any modifications to the approved plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town Planner or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope of the changes.
2. All conditions recommended by William Cotton & Associates'
report dated February 14, 1995, are conditions of this permit. A
letter of compliance prepared by the geotechnical consultant
(regarding the construction plans) shall be submitted to the Town
rior to issuance of a building permit.
3. dditional landscaping may be required. Staff will visit the site
rior to final building inspection to determine if any plantings will
be needed to screen the new addition or to restore areas disturbed
by grading or construction.
4. Any new outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning
Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check . Any
ladditional landscape lighting shall be approved with the landscape
planting plan by the Site Development Committee.
5. Faint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff
conformance with the Town's adopted color board or to match
the existing residence. Color samples shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval prior to painting and prior to
final building inspection. The additions shall be painted prior to final
building inspection.
6. '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 Cumbra Vista,Elena and surrounding
roadways;storage of construction materials;clean-up area (see
Engineering Department for specifications) placement of sanitary
facilities;parking for construction vehicles; and parking for
Planning Commission
May 10, 1995
Lands of Conradson
Page 7
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.
7. 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,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.
8. Prior to beginning any grading operation or construction, all
significant trees are to be fenced,at the dripline. The fencing shall
be of a material and structure to dearly delineate the dripline.
Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior
to commencement of grading. The fence must remain throughout
the course of construction. No storage of equipment,vehicles or
debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees.
9. A deed restriction shall be recorded which states that the 7,932
square feet of development area (MDA) approved under this
permit is dose to the maximum level of development currently
allowed by the Town, and that any further expansion must be
approved by the Town. The deed restriction will be prepared by •
the Planning Department,and the signed,notarized document shall
be returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check.
10. Prior to beginning any grading operation or construction,all
significant trees are to be fenced at the dripline. The fencing shall
be of a material and structure to dearly delineate the dripline.
Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior
to commencement of grading. The fence must remain throughout
the course of construction. No storage of equipment,vehicles or
debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees.
Planning Commission •
May 10, 1995
Lands of Conradson
Page 8
B. ENG EERING DEPARTMENT:
11. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must
be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid
oncentration of the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be
esigned to maintain the existing flow patterns. A drainage plan
detailing the dissipaters that will be constructed where the drain
pipes daylight shall be submitted to and approved by the
Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
heck. 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 approval.
12. .�1ny, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan
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 driveway access to the site.
13. All new public utility services shall be undergrounded.
14. a on completion of construction, a final inspection shall- be set
P P P
with the Planning Department and Engineering Department at least
two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 4,6, 7,9 AND 11 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND •
SIGNED OFFS BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER
PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK
BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Properties residing within the Los Altos School District boundaries
must ply School District fees before receiving their building permit
from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2
to boththe elementary and high school district offices, pay the
appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. •
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval
date (until May 10, 1996). 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.
Cotn
330 Village Lane -.-3--':„ William Cot vn Los Gatos, California 95030
and Associates (408) 354-5542
March 17, 1995
L3015
RRCFIVRD
MAR 2 0 1985
To
TO: Susan Manca �NQi LOS4J0S
Planner HILLS
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Review
RE: Conradson Addition
13020 Cumbra Vista Court
#22-95-ZP-SD-GS-VAR
At your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical review of the
subject applications using:
• Geotechnical Engineering Study for the Proposed New House
Foundation (report) prepared by Amir Rangchi Associates, dated
December 12, 1944; and
• Structural Retrofit and Workshop Architectural Plans (7 sheets,
various scales) prepared by Young and Borlik, dated February 20,
1995.
In addition,we have reviewed pertinent technical maps from our office files and
completed a recent site reconnaissance. We have also been in recent communication
with the project architect to clarify proposed new foundation design.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced plans indicates that the applicant proposes to
construct a new workshop and storage area (approximately 958 square feet)beneath the
existing main floor of the residence. Existing site grades suggest that little excavation
will be required beneath the residence to establish the desired workshop floor-level •
elevation. Based on our discussion with the project architect and recommendations of
the project geotechnical consultant, we understand that reinforced concrete piers and
grade beams will be installed between the wood poles that support the existing
residence. It is also our understanding that the proposed addition will not increase the
occupancy capacity of the residence.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
Susan Manca March 17, 1995
Paget L3015
SITE CONDITIONS
The existing house vicinity and proposed construction area are generally
characterized by moderately steep to steep (14 to20 degree inclination) northeast-facing
hillside topography. It appears that only a minor volume of artificial fill exists near the
downhslope side of the existing driveway and that the residence has been constructed
largely over natural (undisturbed by grading) slopes. Drainage is characterized by sheet
flow to the northeast.
The Town Geologic Map indicates that the subject property is underlain, at
depth,by bedrollck materials of the Santa Clara Formation. The materials encountered in
exploratory borings completed by the project geotechnical consultant are consistent with
this bedrock type. The mapped trace of the potentially active Monta Vista fault is
located approximately 300 feet southwest of the residence. This thrust fault juxtaposes
bedrock materials of the Franciscan complex (to the southwest) against bedrock of the
Santa Clara formation (to the northeast).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The close proximity of the potentially active Monta Vista fault is not noted in the
referenced geotechnical report and consequently may not have been considered during
preparation of recommended geotechnical design criteria. The project geotechnical
consultant should review the Town Geologic Map, provide estimates of anticipated
peak and repeatable seismic ground accelerations and modify (as deemed necessary)
project geotechnical design criteria. Anticipated site seismic accelerations should be
considered during project structural design and all structural aspects of the final
building plan should be certified by a registered civil or structural engineer. We
recommend that the following items be satisfactorily addressed prior to issuance of
building permits:
1. Seismic Evaluation - The project geotechnical consultant shall
characterize the site's seismic setting and provide estimates of
anticipated site peak and repeatable ground accelerations.
Acceleration estimates should reflect consideration of the close
proximity of the Monta Vista fault and significant acceleration data
collected since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Previously
recommended geotechnical design criteria should be modified as
deehed necessary.
Results of these evaluations should be submitted to the Town for
review by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Project Structural Design - Site accelerations estimated by the
project geotechnical consultant should be considered during the
structural design of the project. All structural aspects of the final
building plans should be certified by a registered civil or structural
engineer.
3. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
William Cotton and Associates
Y i•1
Susan Manca March 17, 1995
Page 3 L3015
improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure
that his recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
4. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project construction. The inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface
and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for
foundations and any retaining walls prior to the placement of steel
and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the
project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final project
approval.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Senior Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
Patrick O. Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
POS:TS:rb
William Cotton and Associates
YOUNG AND BORLIK
�fi • , , . i ARCHITECTURE
/' CONSTRUCTION
i�w L'l.' itd�
• ,, •,if
AN
. 261 HAMILTON AVENUE
W axe PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SUITE 218 '
" )Sa,: pul*mow +� TELEPHONE: FAX
s"'°'� � 1 _t, (415) 688-1950 (415) 323-1112
February 20, 1995
Los Altos Hills Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Staff and
Members of the Planning Commission
This letter accompanies a variance request submitted on behalf of
Mr. Scott Conradson and Ms. Julie Wilker (the owners) . The
request is Ilio allow the use of new underfloor space created by
proposed new foundation and shearwall upgrades. The existing
residence is approximately thirty to thirty-five years in age, on
a hillside with an average slope of 33 .8%
The residence is a pole house created by imbedding wood poles
into earth, and supporting a house above. Over time, the wood
begins to decay and compromise the structure. Some evidence of
decay is currently visible. Inspectors have suggested a life
expectancy for such a structure to be in the neighborhood of
fifty years. The age of the home, in combination with the less
stringent building codes of thirty-five years ago make a good
case for seismic retrofitting. In the interest of safety, and
with the goad of insuring the investment they have made in their
home, the owners would like to install a new structural system
below the existing residence. By necessity, the new structural,
walls will be placed below the existing exterior walls, giving
lateral support. Thus, the new space will be completely beneath
the footprint of the existing residence. It will not be used as
living area. The height of the existing home will not be
changed, and the overall character of the site is unaffected.
Because of the method used for calculation, the new enclosed
space would increase both the Floor Area and Development Area on
the site. Although the residence contains a modest 3 ,180.3
square feet of living area and garage, the existing driveway and
decking contribute significantly to the 7,014 .8 s.f. of existing
development area on the site. Due to the 33 .8% slope of the
property, the development area is currently limited to 5,000 s.f.
thus restricting proposed construction below the existing home.
1
•
The existing residence is built basically parallel to the natural
contours of the site. This creates a condition where the uphill
side of the home is connected to the pole structure at a point
very near grade, while the downhill side of the home is twelve to
fifteen feet above the hill. In an extreme ground movement, the
tendency is for the downhill side to sway more severely than the
uphill. This creates a twisting effect where larger movements at
the tallest poles increase the likelyhood of failure at the
downhill side. This type of failure was prevalent in homes of
similar construction during the recent Southern California
earthquakes. The best way to correct the structure is to brace
against differential movement.
It is our understanding that the new foundations and shearwalls
themselves would be allowed by the ordinances. This would create
a completely enclosed space below the existing house. The
construction of a floor within those walls, although having no
impact on the appearance of the home, would technically increase
the floor area. It is not our intent to add bedrooms or baths to
the home, or to increase the living capacity of the property. It
is our desire to be allowed to erect a floor within exterior
walls, and utilize space which would otherwise be wasted. This
is also more desireable from a structural standpoint because the
addition of a horizontal shear diaphram (a continuous floor) will
compound the benefits derived from the new walls.
Because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject
property including: the. type of construction used for the home,
the slope of the site, the height and existing configuration of
the home above grade, the siting and design of the existing
structure and the presence of existing exterior decks which
reduce allowable area on the site, the strict application of the
zoning ordinance would deny the property owners of priviledges
that are enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the
same zoning district. These priviledges include the ability to
use existing undeveloped volumes within the existing house,. and
reasonable access to useable exterior spaces.
Upon granting of this variance, the intent andpurpose of the
ordinace will still be served. The recipient is not granted
special priviledges not enjoyed by other surrounding property
owners because the new floor area will not add to the actual size
of the home. The new space is entirely below the existing house
and the appearance of the residence remains unchanged. It is an
unusual circumstance that the granting of a. variance actually
allows structural improvements that may otherwise be denied. The
ability to upgrade and improve the earthquake resisting elements
of a home is a priviledge which should not be denied. The use of
existing undeveloped underfloor areas is common, and similar
projects have been approved within this zoning district.
2
The. granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements
or uses within the immediate vicinity. In fact, the proposed
structure wil21
d greatly reduce the likleyhood of structural
failure, thus improving public welfare, and reducing risk to
persons and property. Granting of this variance will allow a
greater level of safety for the subject property. An existing
leach field serving the subject property will also be upgraded to
a level acceptable to the County Health Department. The project
as a whole wi].il improve the structural safety and sanitation at
the subject property with little or no change to the character of
the site or the neighborhood. .
The variance ill not allow a use or activity which is not
authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. The existing single family
use will not c ange. The new area will not create an additional
load on the site because the living area will not change. The
new enclosed space will be used by the owners as hobby space for
uses like gardening, model building, storage of recreational and
camping equipment, woodworking, and the like. All of these uses
compliment a home and can normally be found in residential
buildings in tie same zoning district.
A similar project was approved by the Commission at 13641 Paseo
del Roble in 1992. Similar findings were made for the property
at that time. The new space was allowed to slightly exceed the
existing footprint and bedrooms were added to the home. As was
the case for that project, we have been careful to match existing
materials and design.
The work will be performed at the rear of the house, so there
will be no effct on the views from the street or from adjacent
properties. The existing underfloor area is already wrapped with
a wood trellis so there will be no change to the percieved bulk
or massing of the home, even from the rear. Allowing the use of
the newly enclbsed space will help ensure that the site is not
cluttered with gardening tools, household items, etc.
It is worth noting that there are more than 1,600 s.f. of
exterior decks at the site. These decks were built before the
current limits on Development Area came into effect. Although it
would be feasi le to consider the removal of these decks in order
to justify the floor space that is added below the home, such
deck removal would completely deny the owners of their ability to
enjoy reasonable access to useable exterior spaces. Useable
yards or decking, and access to exterior spaces are priviledges
not denied other properties in the vicinity. Furthermore, the
removal of the existing exterior decking would detract from the
character and design of the existing home, making the rear walls
appear flatter taller, and less appealing overall.
3
The site has been reviewed by Amir Rangchi Associates
Geotechnical Engineering Consultants for purposes of establishing
feasibility and design criteria. Copies of the report are
included with this submittal. Test borings and structural
engineering values are noted in the report. Furthermore, a JCP
report dated January, 1994 shows the property in a zone of high
geologic hazard and further illustrates the prudence of seismic
upgrades.
The owners are very concerned with preserving existing trees on
the site, so the property has also been reviewed by Michael P.
Young, ISA Horticultural Consultant. A letter from Mr. Young is
included. He indicates measures of protection for the existing
trees and states the opinion that they will not be detrimentally
affected by the construction. Again, we point out that the new
construction is directly below the existing house and should have
little impact overall.
In closing, we feel that reasonable findings can be made to allow
this variance. The proposed project improves the safety,
sanitation, aesthetics and liveability of the home, without
adding size to the house or increasing the living capacity of the
site. It is requested to allow a complimentary and beneficial
use within an existing older home which was not designed to
current codes or living styles. The new floor area is completely
within the existing buildings massing envelope. The project will
be performed in conjuction with needed structural and county
health department improvements. Thank you for taking the time to
study and consider our request.
Sincerely,
40, ,
St en R. Borlik, Architect
4
r a r nR
' -4 ".sy , 4* M1 {�r , ^ r i y • �� SF'ai.'. 'ti• }o +. ,
•
• Attn. City of Los Altos Hills
Re. Wilker Zesidence
13020 Cumbra V
• ista Ct.Los Altos Hills, CA: 94022
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writingin regards to the proposed construction project at the
Wilker resi ence, and the project's effect upon the trees..,On
September.`7, 19941 was called out to inspect the healthand
vitality of all trees on the property at the request of the home
owners. My attention was lead to the two trees that would be
affected by the proposed construction. The first tree (A) is a large
Quercus douglasii , the second tree (B) is a maturing Quercus
agrifolia.
•
My unders ding is that the construction would consist of trenching
down four feet in depth at a distance of approximately ten to twelve
feet from the tree trunks. At present there are no other significant
inhibitors to full root development for either tree: The home owners
are also taking steps to increase the vitality of the two trees. Both ,
trees will have,their root crowns excavated as a precaution against
root rot, an the canopy's of the trees will be sprayed and protected
against leaf eating insects.
Considering all of the above factors it is my, professional opinion that
neither tree (A) nor tree (B) will be detrimentally effected by the.
proposed construction.
•
If you have y further questions feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Yipung, ISA WC # 3
.1. •, .... _ .. _ .._ .._.....» a,..._�....•mew t-,..r. {s.. s i.;......,iftn_
•
•
,, ., ..I 3•TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 27, 1992
afl Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION, ``'
CARPORT, WALKWAY, AND DECK; AND VARIANCE TO
EXCEED MEA AND MDA, LANDS OF I-IARSLEM/C LASQUIN,
13641 Paseo del Roble
FROM: Linda S. Niles, 'Town Planner A .
• RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Variance subject
to the attached findings and conditions of approval.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 2.02 'acres
Average Slope: 34.3'4
Lot Unit Factor: ..97
,,
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Max. Prop. Exist. 'Hers. Left
•
Floor 4,850 5,640. 5,162 478 -790
Devel. 7,275 1 1 , 148 9,534 1,614 -3.873
The Site Development Permit and Variance are requested. on a
property that was constructed prior to the new formula for
determining floor area and development area allowed on a sate. The
property has an existing house on the site that is one story oa the
high side of the lot and appears to be two stories on the down side of
the lot. Actually, at present the under floor area on the down side of
the lot is not used as living area. 'l'he wood siding exterior walls of
the house have been extended down to the existing grade in order to
hide the under floor area. The applicant is proposing to grade out •
the under floor area in order to accomodate m odate three bedrooms, a ;,`
study and a recreation room under the existing living floor. At ,
•
•
}
,;. _ �., , , , ,,: , .� _. .. ,: �r ;� .� :;= ; <....� `. . . �-. .�..>,:� ,-.•. ,��;;; 'gam. , •.,.,.N.:r
r - . ,
t w '<
Planning Comnti..m • -`
May 27, m1092
Lands of Harslet»/C'lasquin
Page 2 ;
•
present the h use has 4 bedrooms on the main floor and no living
area under the main floor. The applicant is proposing to increase the
number of bedrooms to 5 total. The additional living area that is •
proposed in, the current under floor space will be accomplished •
within the existing building footprint, except for a small arca of
approximately 134 sq. ft. which is currently an indented alcove area
on the existing house.
The applicant is proposing to add a carport to the property to
accommodate another parking space outside the steeply sloped
driveway at the east side and below the existing dwelling. The
• existing garage can accommodate two cars: an additional space can be .
accommodated in the existing driveway extension at the same level
as the garage: and the fourth space will he accommodated in the
newt} proposed carport.
A walkway and deck is proposed at the rear of the house at the new
lower level. acid a small deck and extension into the alcove area is
proposed at the main level.
The desire of the property owner is to make the addition look as
much like the existing dwelling as possible. All exterior materials
will match, and only a minor area is being added outside the existing •
building footprint in the indented alcove area at the back (lower
side) of the house. It will be apparent to the neighbors that the
exterior materials are new, however, the exterior appearance of the
•r
home will be relatively the same with some windows and doors
added at the lower level along with the walkway and., deck. r:
Existing veget.uion on the site will not be disturbed and will screen
much of the new living area.
•
The City Engineer has reviewed the project and is requesting that the
property owner submit a soils report from a geotechnical engineer
making recomnendations based on the original soils report for the
project. If no previous report can be found, the applicant shall •
submit a full geotechnical report from a geotechnical engineer for
review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits on the
site. �.
..,",viwa.., ..,ww.:,mm�ra ..".r...,._.•..._. ,. ,. <._.. ... _, ,»_ ..', . .G �stt i 5...
_.. .r:ffiu•.+.•, � •+s-,« ..+.,, .t• K. ... s. ..._, .x"A?" .., ,Y+"L. t" .1 i.-� p;.. r ..+-rti;x
-S. "y. I .t.. .'rl .ry x•.4';1s s • .t1:•s 'tt rrt•f11f�:`:/rstSf'sJ. .1 } g4A1 l
e.
•r► •. a ,••
ti /Nf ��(!'
•
t. f 'p 1i�
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 1, 1992
Staff Report to the City Council •
'r
RE:. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION,
CARPORT, WALKWAY, AND DECK; AND VARIANCE TO
EXCEED MFA AND MDA, LANDS OF HARSLEM/CLASZLIN,
13641 Paseo del Roble
FROM: Linda S. Niles, Town Planner ( 6 '
RECOMMENDATION That the City Council:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Variance as
submitted subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval.
DISCUSSION
The City Council reviewed this application at their meeting of June
17, 1992, closed the public hearing, and expressed the Council's
intent to approve the Variance application with a request that the `'
staff come back with a statement offindings for the Council's review. •
k'
The Council had discussed that they may riot be opposed to the
request to exceed the MDA since the proposed carport would resolve
current safety problems caused by the steep driveway and limited
parking and turn around area on site. However, the Council had
questions regarding granting a variance to exceed the MFA for the
lot. The Council requested that staff return with modifications to the.
findings addressing the exceptional circumstances relating to the
required structural integrity of the building; addressing the
percentage of the existing floor area that is currently undeveloped -
under floor area and not usable living area; and referencing that the
proposed addition may help to make the existing structure less
obtrusive. <i
The following revised findings are submitted for your review:
•
VARIANCE EVALUATION AND FINDINGS:
1 . Because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject F'
site, being the average slope of the lot which is over 34%; the z•
necessary siting of the existing house at the top of a steep slope and
• l
•'�'�:4tn •,!`�1:' •
• i est:�aiyYp� � '• �il,. • •�L'1:���
, i tlt r ll,t ! 1 Y }fll t '7'
,i i,
} t t ,l 1• t tr',G t! k:'<< l'. �y� r t,p ifA , rY :1 ( {•
�I:.. o ':• s .. �', ...' ts t tr5' 1' • �� '... •s .t, e � � :•t" • s" tt. .. , {e'
® ® ti
A U- r)
6 5 . ,
TOWN OF 4, ALTOS HILLS JUNE 17, 1992
taff Re ort to tie CityCouncil
S ➢ —
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION, : .
CARPORT, WALKWAY, AND DECK; AND VARIANCE TO ,
EXCEED MFA AND MDA, LANDS OF IIARSLEM/CLASQUIN,
13641 Paseo del Roble
FROM: Linda S. Niles, Town Planner - .
RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: .. `'t
.
r,
I. Approve he requested Site Development Permit and Variance a�
Pp 4 ,,
submitted subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. ,
DISCUSSION •
c"% E; ,-
The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their meeting of May ' - . ,, '.
27, 1992. and forwarded the application to the City Council with a ,
denial, however,- with the request that the Council also review the .,
project to see if they could state adequate findings to approve the .
project. `` •
.'
Lorraine Clasquin and Eric Harslem submitted a letter explaining the - i . '
Planning Commission discussion very well and submitting a '= ` '`:;'f:,•"
statement of finIdings for the Council to consider. •,(
The Planning Commission did not feel that they could find that there
were unique .circumstances that would allow them to grant the
variance to exceed MFA. The Commission was supportive of the
request to exceed MDA, however, because of-the current safety '!
problems caused by the steep driveway and limited parking and ,;F•s
turn around a ea. E.
It is the staff's recommendation that the findings can be made to . -,,.
grant both variances. Those findings arc submitted for your review ,,7,
below. The Planning Commission staff report is attached which • . ;.
includes the detailed discussion of the project. "
VARIANCE EVALUATION ANI) FINDINGS; +`-.•,
Be cause Lf exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject ;;`'
I . c p
site, being the average slope of over 34%; the- faer the-tt�� was
_ _.....rb.+;:r.. _ .. ..,. .0 . ». _<.::n9^.,.... ,,.s.,.... ,.;....::. .., -..,-.r.... -,.i,.'ta.'m.,,......... -. „eG_.ir _...,... ..•e;.�.. w'a..._ i !"...'l .r f. rti
•
� h t'';'•••..''• •••:-,•••,..•:•;,,•);.. r•,,,,,.� .'ri 'QnY1#!,�� rfiy1n{il�)'r4v.•
.i ;�' . .
L� ,1 X11: . •
�.;y�fr,°:� •�:
' City Council
July 1, 1992
Lands of Harslem/Clasquin. • `
Page 2 1d1.• .
•
steep windy driveway in order to keep development out of the over • '
30% sloped portion of the site; the fact that the existing floor area •
that is currently already counted on the project is 5162 sq. ft. of
• which 1616 sq. ft., or over 30%, is undeveloped .dirt area located
under the existing usable living area which is 2970 sq. ft., the strict
application of the zoning standards would deny the subject property
privileges that are enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in
the same zoning district. Those privileges would be the ability to use _J
as living area the existing undeveloped dirt area under the house
that is' currently counted as floor area and amounts to over 30% of •
the existing floor area; the privilege to adequately design the project
to accommodate the 4 parking spaces required per single family lot
and an adequate safe turn around area on the property; and the `'
ability to utilize a design for the addition that has been reviewed by
UPP Geotechnology as an appropriate design to meet engineering
standards for the addition and. bring the existing house up to current 'r
engineering standards. This design improves the stability and
structural integrity of the existing house. It is important for health
and safety reasons that the house meet current seismic standards,
especially considering its location.
•
2. Upon granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the
applicable sections of the Municipal Code will still be served and the
I;.
recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not
enjoyed by other surrounding property owners because the
additional square footage is almost totally within the existing
building footprint utilizing the current living floor and the unused
under floor area that is currently counted as floor area and adding
only 450 sq. ft. of additional floor area, 386 sq, ft. of which is located
in adjacent unused under floor area and 64 sq. ft. of which is where
existing decks and architectural features are currently. The
additional carport, turn around area, walkways and deck are similar
uses as are found on other properties in the same zone and vicinity
and are not a special privilege not enjoyed by surrounding property
owners.
3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental �.
to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or
uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning
district, since the addition will be constructed so as to match the
•
am{
•
:!'•,;?
tr r.{.' K{ th�Ta�1r
•
. • r. ' ).0;.‘;, C
'•6 ,, !�S•'d � 1t{ /�'l ,,� +C•),, ; ! �i ' + `'�
S , l•!' r v} f !•. r i eY j�„ •d,.... .r, r.. 1.� Il •S� F
p.
•f .tn. 5• � .!': .1 .. r .,rdr7 , ,;ld,.. ,.+, 'I , I•'• .. '' �... ..
0.:,_. -,••• 4,nsi--
s.•• r, ',.4.4.5.:•-•.44:1;11:;-:•"m E . w.t....i v,!t 11.,., i:rn'.;lr�i,,,,Iv., f„ftt„i',,14 1`.4Y t IN l}t
+'!c1 ,A Flu,. . tr � �Jv -",•%
f•%t.t.
t.;-'
t'tiii • iis9��%r!m: � i. �( +.rr`i5 - : a!,.^ Lt rf�.,fip tNCAc )•^of;1 +ii) rt � i�blt; { e ( 5 � +,' ``�� , J2i , I11• P. ! ; : . 11 1!,,,.: 1^!1', ;).Ori .e.,.:,,,,,....:,.,....,;; ',,,,., .1:1J 7lJF';11:14j'iw1 i4�i �!{ 1rt + h
11
dir. I .!, ; r. 'r ' :'i:;i7,It.,.IS2.y '211,"14.2/d{kJr� iNIniJVi n1tIP t41t'i
`; M :(.,,Ipt:fir,yqi4:1. thtN�. sje.
• • ,City Council F ':: jI ,:� .� '°°.•• rJuly 1, 1992
•Lands of rsl-I
I a em/Clasquin
Page 3 ' ,
existing dwelling and only a small square footage will extend beyond ' ,,
the existing building envelope. The design proposed will increase the ,f.
structural integrity of the existing home, as stated in the letter dated
June 11, 1992 and submitted by UPP Geotechnology, Inc. for the
record. Given en its location, it is important for health and safety
. reasons that the home meet current seismic standards. Additionally, ''
the proposeId addition will replace the present bare wood siding on ;
the lower north side of the project with windows and a door to match
the design of the existing main living floor which will result in the t
addition of facade plane activity, depth and detail that will soften ;'2;
and lessen the obtrusive appearance of the existing blank wall.
4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not
expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the
parcel of property, since the proposed use is a single family -f
residential Use and the subject site is zoned for single family =.
residential development.
a.
Corrected: '
Site Data:
',f(
y
Net Lot Area: 2.02 acres
Average Slope: 34.3% .
Lot Unit Factor: ..97 ;',
ti
1.
Floor Area and Development Area:
I
Area Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Left `,
Floor 4,850 5,640 5,162 450 -762 ,i,,
Devel. 7,275 11 ,148 9,534 1,614 -3,873
SY
i,
1;
20
2 •
y'
•
d
E:
• ' i' ' . x.1. .t: -`41'n. A 11 .
2 2
I. 1;t''4"2',;`.1:t'4 .rr ti33t,1-..-e,`.4 ;,V,. ,.\!.;: . a.A1:.'''ti e to hitlr.1:. `(''•'. 0.i1.,'S+l•I..r :1%S 1''t r'. .(+:9 ' •• - •,‘;'•••;` 1 . .(.,
.. i .":.. ..x.... a v.. „
••:•)4,1,41:••-
� ,
;.!.„i• `•t6.,:::-i N. r (' ' fKa ..4t.telyIlv, ',S ,13,1 ,,� Z1•,,e � s ,,^; ; � ' •' i tf � a }. }
f, :j. t •
�� J5 ,v . "i' • City Council •
i .>:;j ryt � Y ? 1y,tc a,,;
'
July 1, 1992 iP 7),1• ;
.;lll,1f�rI .tit•Its.
':
Lands of Harslem/Clasquin :I''' ''°'`','�'''',1,, • `,,!:
Page 4 •.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
;lu
LANDS OF IIARSLEM/CLASQUIN, 13641 PASEO DEL ROBLE
1. The site drainage must be designed to meet the goal of reducing the rate •, ‘,
of run off associated with the proposed development. A grading and .,'
drainage plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and ".•,/..
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. ,✓4.
2. Fire retardant roofing is recommended for the addition.
e
3. Paint color shall match the existing or alternatives (non-reflective s(
earthtones) shall be chosen by the applicant in conformance with the ';'
Town's adopted color board.
i-,
'
4. Prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits a landscape '•
planting plan must be submitted to and approved by the Site „.`.,,,,;•
Development Committee. If a tree 6” in diameter or larger was removed
to accommodate construction or if a tree is damaged or destroyed during
construction, it may be required to be replaced. The replaced tree shall be ;`
equal in size to the removed or damaged tree up to a maximum 24" box 'r
size tree. The Committee may require a bond, a landscape maintenance 'i,
agreement, or other security to assure that the approved landscape is
planted and maintained. .`:'-i,;
l:VP'w
5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees are to be ,
fenced at the dripline. The fencing shall be of a material and structure to •,••,
writ.
clearly delineate the dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and
.�+,ail
the •trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The fence must , ,;
remain throughout the course of construction. No'storage of equipment, :,C
vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees. 1.,Y)
t.i.
6. If a survey of the property has not been submitted with the application it `'` t'
.,tff.:
shall be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. The location of ,.. `
the foundation is to be re-certified in writing by a registered Civil •t==�
Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor after the foundation has been poured '? :
as being in the approved location and elevation established by this `.it`,�
permit. 's
R
re T
7. Skylights shall be constructed to reduce emitted light. '-•; t'
11'.''I,+.
•—.
.40
nJ`vrf 111'..... , .•t ', 11 V'•'•. . , tj.t
IVVI'' 1L: ,'1• t..1.�1 I' `' •i•�. : •
t. �*;. l'i:.. . V\it+• +n��N*Ndi r1loi,,.n;:,• ,„ ) ,
".',4::„•:)..,.•',..•
R } t� t ;:'' + 1 ,' t!"r qSi .jt3?,�1''�.ih!!�� c.Mir'!'f,�Ci. ii ' ,••11 f
,r$.';•i,7r,i *'•:•, r ,t ') r, >i' g a ;)�In: <t;/ i } sgfi;14,••.!:.!,:'s+ tx,3:�us' v . •J.iti,i,�+ xu', J•r`}t'r't'�• �r itia i+ i'I 'r! ,• l
• r a 15r•"4+ e. ..,4,. r, • '':"+} jM.' � .y fr ;;4-4,114, : Y�.Srff LS,gJy', �,°' riti
• r ,1: / Yhv''-'41",!:0;$
S'>`nr—y° r✓9 --.. t Y,N�S J ;.�r t,�. 1� S ,J ..1 Y %I,/f' 1 r,c ' 4;.r r S \..i:r. r t� ? •fr ,j-.
? .:i';::'���r} t.l .J. .�1 Cir;:•A1''S1..5J r !P; Ir •• p;;cit`S ?/ S oS•,r1,'A' /}:r'.'' (�•1'1 ,4' <,h. ,r �R
, r r ( r al-.c•;vii., .�.. :,�,...1' ,t...r.f,4. ��,',• fir. }1yt��,a„ r.�' �� ..;4r .�S? h+: ifpv
4 g • }:d• i ti t k {V r } L, � ' / ^ r J•'+} t
`i',?` 41:�:' a' '/' ! y •r;? •:, yo! !•,? lir li.r,
YY i 44. •'��'•T:.^,•f�:�:�1,
N.' ' City Council '''''' '''1`°'' `jr '
i1;t, rN.
July 1, 1992 4,, ,{
Lands of Harslem/Clasquin
Page 4
•
Staff recommends that the Council review the findings submitted and
approve the Variance as submitted. Staff is available to answer any
questions that the Council or community may have.
ATTACIIMENTS:
•
I . - Recommended conditions of approval
3. - Statement dated June 24, 1992 from Lorraine Clasquin which
includes written findings, a chart of existing and proposed MFA sq.
footages, a diagram showing a cross section of the proposed addition
and referencing the location of the retaining wall needed to
accomplish the required structural integrity for the structure, and ti
letter dated June 11, 1992 from UPP Geotechnology, Inc.
cc: Eric Harslem and Lorraine Clasquin
13641 Paseo del Roble •
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Greg Ybarra •
1640 Fairorchard Ave
San Jose, CA 95125
•
3•
•, . • • �'•. ,Y1F�' dt ;
`i7. 'tiS`• °i %:a ,, , , Gui ?<1',` wr+' {:^r: ,�a .
�.r Zi � `t .w, ;';• .i:S r, . .r'i: �•.ror.',q�•::t�•s�:{f � qi�)t'{�� ��9# s�i
•
1 - SI _ ,-.4.•••:.,k.,: r .n�:::.' ti,- 1.•: ‘'...',,,,,,..V...";'f:y?; r';''....':-...,,f"-'' ,,^ r Y+^r• t'. 1 .r
Stl'711 Af •" Jp •," :•') Pr.,. 1 tlw -)r 1 e iri. 4�j Y Z'l,?l! 1 dG.t '*1. 1„1, r 11�I. .�i.� I •�: iti 'tiS..kl'L A>
r.� 4 lv ,ti 'U r,Sr,i��,tt {'. �'a �'4� }� �3i��1,� i� �*�4a�,p{(, '�fl�;�yy � r`;�`y ,,,l�,�r,'� � 4��' 1R l �t`,� 1r� i.,9�,,.' r�?�y ,�(r
� .,k A;lj l';q" ''tfi'ilr�r.ZCff:l' t�.'0,k;1;i! '0, '7::Sy?t �If .)0 `i;?.W..1 � 11 r�r:.,4.k.yi ,+ „!' 'l "'tf ,i 9l 4. To t ;1. .,,......„:,:, ..1.„,,i ‘,4
';�r,r hl' '' Its' ,,,
6R�} ,3,.tl, o�.i.,1.1;1.:1,0(0lIt •�}�l r•', .rtri I t°k> >,:`�."�. I;,of.l 1'} �tj I .r` r {e )1 t twirl r"�tj,`'1il
1',1 1 lw,,.
.. t '1' .tr,F ra., . ii, .' 'fi;.•..;'• 'lr, r ,1 ` ti` j'r,,' j1 14'd / t, y r4.. 1, C`•.. ,>•.,,,. II y.•F Y.'it} 1V1 ! 111• 'i, ' ,S•' '• ter'' 1•,l 1,1 "' .1�, (. ,t kt J: u ^ 1 I. .Ir.i'} 1•!t, .1 b •U i..1.•,. • �ryt+ d'�t' t.f, rqi ."1t 1 ��' . t � ' Irni,tiK.Ji,.,r;' 'S., 1.;�'d:f�1•`l.,t'a�5.1:rlr c, �, �.C. '�,1. li", (�r�,. .,i� h`.I'. i4. �.. •'1lt•��1�`.,;i �{'•�;�t�. 1t! ` � I�IJJ,rNt ,.hr Ali fir,:i;J:S,(' . ., rr'.
,i'.'sr !•:••:.• •t, ,:.;..• t: •./. !/. V;.!,!i:•.!).!•••:1-',°)! 11 rl, NIt•l;lag::.' ik fly:fl-t^r ttA�,t :.S' .1.n
.,<.111. �'r`. ,Ir „,Yr ,��!%t'"''!; ' ' ,..Sj :,•'•,1(+, 1 fir}l,.rl .. 1
,.. 'Cit :Council •;,. �
July .1 .1992` .,. • • ::#:.
ti
Lands of Harslem/Clasquin Al
Page 5 0
i• 8. 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, public and private roadways prior to final inspection
and release of occupancy permits.
...i .9. The property owner shall submit a soils report from a geotechnical
1, engineer making recommendations based on the original soils report for
the project. If no previous report can be found, the applicant shall submit
cii:
Vs',
a full geotechnical report from a geotechnical engineer for review and
A,.:
approval prior to issuance of any building permits on the site.
:,
,s•
.
c.
rj<
ft
t'!r'
h
y
°fid.
µY,
l
'
IK.'
•
:cr`
r.
40.31 \
qtr:.'
i .
'Y•,.,r,ri?'� .,i'a
.'i' moi.,•
• i ''i
t ,y,;: :,', %jam
}� `: r,•t��+�!i. ;�. ''�. '.Y. fi I' ;I' '.i'.'• r.�., p. :!� 1:',r ' '�r)t:i S' r•',..,'...,9'1,.6$k. k• ',:
r�ayy, ^:}} Pr: :S?4' 'qr(; .S. ''1i'i':tl" '�(S'r•at s `' L, "•,%..i(7�• V ;i,: .'�'i:::•$`1,-.,t,'1,"?:,�`i t,• h. 1111}. v i. i11 '1n � .4tT r `r y' 'f'c F
ti•R�, ! -1.1:!i:�. • •'. :.r }4 r,.....;rti'f iV1,11%•,..,:.t'1;,114';� rlj:• 1.1^, ':,1.4,17:1 t...ri Yfj'tt F•rr, r0•.;, fit' 1,.'S4 .,..i l�ti,` i .+ ' � 'Y 14 i''''
i v n 1 d; �`' 1 1 k '�t1; +t ., }�yrt r `r.alp,`,., � ,5 Xr }t"f_ r r t �' ~��5 t .},t
,,1}I',..••'} ! tip• •:,i'; .• J,6r r1.1 I, r .,,;•{t ,� / •l' �rri 11,j 40d•'1V314,k•• u1.1:'� r COr.f Aoeir 1 4'! 'h't1`: \ "'xit, ( . . .i'1f i'''...
'. ., ai���,:,.i�, �Z„r�1..1,j"y� r. :WI,S 0,..i.ln ( t.. �f, f`i.,IS,�ti " k. 1, i,i 1 . •1 ::'.,.' .l'l;..! =tfn, . �iS'('S ,. 4. t X41.i.1'•
tr,. , 1 Ir� l�'+. ,r-t�1 Yr�1{5,11 •?�y ��tiify lGilrFM f'4�.ti�}�1.7..�}�,1'1Z 1•.!�r11'�r'!1.: V .1'•AY1,. :. r.•afl r,.t lt,� 111 v 11 f' `:-; r�M1.i W1�51 , .
A ''r r Lv S>• 1. 4 .. 'r•. ` ,'1 — : 'F'r. t.�_r. r �,
,,,,y;..iii VV1m 01' ii.DS AL.,JS HILLS kw
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos I lilts,California 94022 • (415)941-7222 • FAX (415) 941-3160 • • -
. , PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTIN AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
•.TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME GDW ' s 7SbIJ
PROPERTY ADDRESS 1302.0 GUMra.- 'VISTA , LOS ALTOS I-IILLs
CALCULATED BY CoTEtVE e7ORL.IK. DATE / ("i'ert
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total .
(Additions
.or�Deletions) 4�.
A. House and Garage (from Part B) '�.It?O.� c am.l '1°8 `}',I •4
B. Decking"�'I(P. 1-3 41.0-l• 11.D 110°1-r72"lci- r7 I192C21.0
C. Driveway and Parking
(Measured 100' along centerline) 21233.v -- X 1233. 0
D. Patios and Walkways
E. Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
H. Any other coverage
TOTALS 1104, 'i?2 * I t ,21- 7,93'
X0111
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) Fj1000
2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor 902.0 (eleF2-O .. 110-0
b. 2nd Floor 1910-122. . 101t7.S
c. Attic and Basement
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS 1211 i70.. 494g2.t� �at�J�(�7.-12
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) 4 000
i TOWN USE ONLY C,Iin'KI D BY ,j9_,
,,nn AA PIT n�i"Al 2 DATE WY Q 1
Revised 12/1)9/')I LOP MAC HD/OItICINALS/PLIIIIIt C/Worksheeet M2