HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 ITEM 3.3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 5, 2015
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR A NEW 3,511 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 1,398 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT ON A
.359 ACRE LOT AND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW
FOR TWO REQUIRED UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES IN THE SIDE
YARD SETBACK, VEHICLE BACK-UP AREA WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE
PROPERTY LINE, ROOF EAVES ENCROACHING UP TO ONE FOOT
INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, A CHIMNEY ENCROACHING ONE
FOOT INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A REAR PATIO
ENCROACHING FOUR FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK;
LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT, LLC; 25608 DEERFIELD DRIVE;
FILE#233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR.
FROM: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner z:v
APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances subject
to the findings for a Conditional Development Permit and Variances included in Attachments 1
and 2 and the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2014, a Certificate of Compliance was recorded establishing two legal parcels
on the lands formerly identified as 13531 Burke Road (see Attachment 4 - the subject parcel
is identified as APN 175-26-043 on Exhibit "C"). One parcel is at the corner of Burke and
Deerfield and the other is an interior lot directly abutting the corner lot and fronting on
Deerfield Drive. The nonconforming lots were created before the Town was incorporated and
are not part of a recorded subdivision. The lots are nonconforming because they are less than
one acre in area. The applicant owns both parcels and intends to develop two new residences.
The subject parcel, the interior lot, would be developed first and the second parcel will be
developed at a future date. Sheet A1.2 in the plan set shows the proposed site layout for both
properties.
Parcel Merger Requirements
Section 9-1.310 of the Municipal Code states the following:
"If one of two or more contiguous parcels or units of land in the City owned by the
same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel or lot size to permit its
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 2
use or development under the zoning law of the City or this chapter or any other
provision of the Municipal Code or any uncodified ordinance of the City, and at least
one of such contiguous parcels or units is not developed with a building for which a
permit has been issued by the City or which was built prior to the time such permits
were required by the City, then such parcels shall be merged for the purpose of the
Subdivision Map Act of the State, and specifically Section 66424.2 of the Government
Code of California. "
The State Subdivision Map Act has since been amended and Section 66424.2 no longer exists.
State laws governing parcel mergers are now under Article 1.5 of the Map Act and the criteria
for merging nonconforming parcels are listed specifically under Section 66451.11 (see
Attachment 5). Under the new law, the Town must adopt a parcel merger ordinance which
implements the procedures listed in Section 66451.11 and the parcels must meet a specific list
of requirements before the Town can deem the parcels merged.
The Town currently does not have an adopted parcel merger ordinance complying with Section
66451.11 nor do the parcels in question meet the parcel merger requirements in that section.
Therefore, Section 9-1.310 is not applicable to this project. An update of the Town's
subdivision ordinance is recommended to bring the Municipal Code into compliance with state
law.
Subject Property
The subject property is the interior lot located on the south side of Deerfield Drive
approximately 120 feet from the intersection of Fremont Road, Burke Road and Deerfield
Drive. The parcel is a substandard, .373 acre lot(.359 net acres) that is generally rectangular
in shape and is largely undeveloped(net acreage is the gross lot area minus the paved area for
Deerfield Drive within the 20-foot right-of-way easement). The subject lot and the adjacent
corner lot were originally developed with one dwelling and there is a stable that straddles the
property line between the subject lot and the corner parcel. The stable will be removed in
conjunction with the development of the property. There are no other structures on-site. The
property has a gentle east to west slope with the lowest point being the drainage swale along
the westerly property line. Vegetation consists of three conifer trees at the back corner of the
lot, brambles along the drainage channel, and small oaks, an acacia tree and shrubs along the
street frontage. Deerfield Drive is a public roadway with a 40 foot right-of-way. There is a 20
foot roadway easement across the front of the parcel.
On January 13,2015,the owners and their architect met with staff and several Deerfield Drive
residents to discuss the resident's concerns with regard to building intensity, merging of the
lots, setbacks,driveway locations, construction access and code enforcement problems related
to the tenants on the corner lot. These issues are analyzed further in the Discussion section of
the report under"Comments from Surrounding Residents".
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 3
PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is requesting Conditional Development and Site Development Permits to
construct a 3,511 square foot,two-story dwelling with an attached two-car garage and a 1,398
square foot basement on a parcel with a Lot Unit Factor of.359. All new development on a
property with a Lot Unit Factor of .5 or less requires the approval of a Conditional
Development Permit. The proposed dwelling is within the maximum 27 foot height limit,the
maximum floor area and the maximum development area requirements. However, the
applicant is also requesting the following variances from the required 30 foot side and rear
yard setback regulations: -
1) Allow two of the four required parking spaces to be placed in the side yard setback
along the easterly property line;
2) Allow the vehicle back-up area for the garage within 10 feet of the property line;
3) Allow for roof eaves to encroach up to one foot into both side yard setbacks;
4) Allow the chimney to encroach one foot into the side yard setback on the west side of
the dwelling;
5) Allow the rear patio to encroach four feet into the rear yard setback(approximately 35
square feet in area).
The following table is a summary of the requested floor area and development area and the
maximums allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area: .373 acres
Net Lot Area: .359 acres (excludes paved area within Deerfield Drive
roadway easement)
Average Slope: 6.65%
Lot Unit Factor: .359
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Remaining
(sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.)
Development 5,690 5,689 0 5,689 1
Floor 3,590 3,511 0 3,511 79
Basement(exempt) (1,398)
Total area of dwelling with - 4,909
basement and garage
The owner/developer has stated that their goal is to produce a dwelling that utilizes sustainable
construction practices and is in scale with existing homes on Deerfield Drive.
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC -
February 5,2015
Page 4
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The following code sections are applicable to the project:
- Section 10-1.502(c) — Calculation of maximum development area allowed and
requirement for a Conditional Development Permit.
- Section 10-1.503(c)—Calculation of maximum floor area allowed and requirement for
a Conditional Development Permit.
- Section 10-1.505(a) and (c) — Side and rear yard setback requirements for structures
and hardscape.
- Section 10-1.1003 —Variance Procedure
- Section 10-1.1004-Conditional Development Permit Procedure
- Section 10-1.1007(2)—Variance Approval Conditions
- Section 10-1.1007(3)—Conditional Development Permit Approval Conditions
- Section 10-2.407—Grading not permitted within 10 feet of a property line
- Section 10-2.1102(h)—Driveway located within 10 feet of the property line
DISCUSSION
Site Design and Architecture
The proposed project consists of a new two-story residence with a basementandattached two-
car garage. The dwelling faces north(towards Deerfield Drive) and incorporates dormer style
windows on the upper front elevation, a covered front entry porch, decorative wood trim
around and below the windows, and wood siding on the exterior. The architect has placed the
garage at the side of the house to create a more visually appealing front entry and street
elevation. The design also incorporates multiple wall setbacks and roof eaves on each side and
between floors to reduce the two-story mass of the building. The proposed building walls and
basement light wells are located at the setback lines resulting in eaves and a chimney that
encroach up to one foot into the side yard setbacks. There is no building encroachment into
the front or rear yard setbacks. The finished floor elevation of the first floor is approximately
two to five feet above Deerfield Drive. The property will be graded to create a building pad,
driveway, parking area and rear yard area. Excavation for the basement will result in a net
export of approximately 780 cubic yards of material.
Driveway&Parking
The proposal includes a new driveway access off Deerfield Drive that is approximately 50 feet
from an existing driveway that provides access to the corner lot. The driveway consists of
cement pavers, is 14 feet wide, and incorporates two (2) surface parking spaces perpendicular
to the two-car garage. There are two additional parking spaces in the attached garage for a
total of four parking spaces, which meets Zoning code requirements for a new residence. A
variance is required for the open parking spaces within the 30 foot side yard setback and the
back-up area that encroaches to within 4 feet of the side property line (10 feet is required).
Although the size and shape of the building envelope would allow for a conforming four car
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 5
garage or a combination of a garage/carport facing Deerfield to be built, the designer has
chosen a garage on the side to present a more visually appealing street elevation and toreduce
the amount of paving in the front yard which is more in character with the rural residential
area. A fire truck turnaround was not a requirement of the project because all areas of the
e
house are within 150 feet of the street.
Outdoor Lighting
Outdoor lighting is shown on the building elevations and consists of two lights in the front
entry, wall mounted lighting on either side of the garage door, and wall lights at the doors
facing the rear yard. No exterior lighting is shown facing the property to the west. Proposed
lighting complies with the Outdoor Lighting Policy.. Standard lighting Condition #11,
regarding outdoor lighting, requires that fixtures.be down lights, shielded and/or have
frosted/etched globes. Applicants are required to ,submit outdoor landscape lighting details
with the landscape screening plan once the structure is framed.
Grading&Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the civil engineering plans and has determined that
a variance is required for the garage back-up area which is within 10 feet of the property line.
The site grading and cut are primarily for the basement excavation,driveway and parking areas.
The grading quantities include:
• 800 cubic yards of cut
• 20 cubic yards of fill
• 780 cubic yards export
The drainage design directs water into area drains and swales and conveys the water to a
detention basin consisting of two large diameter pipes installed below grade and located in the
front yard to convey water away from the adjacent property and towards the drainage channel.
The volume to be stored is based on the amount of rain water from a 10-year storm event, 1-
hour duration over the proposed two dimensional impervious surfaces. Overflow would meter
out to an energy dissipater/bubbler and flow to the drainage ditch after the storm event has
passed. In addition, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that the property is not within a
flood hazard area.
Geotechnical Review
The applicant has provided a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil
Engineering dated January 2014. The investigation found that the soils have low expansive
qualities and that the site is suitable for the proposed dwelling. Specific grading and foundation
design recommendations have been included in the report and will be included in the
conditions of approval for the project that will also include follow up documentation and
review of the construction documents by the project geologist(Conditions 18, 19, and 20).
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 6
Trees &Landscaping
p g
The property has several, small non-native and native trees and shrub species along with
grasses that cover a majority of the property. No trees are planned for removal although the
new driveway will impact an existing oak in the roadway easement. Staff recommends that
the driveway be moved approximately five feet to the west to minimize impacts to the root
system of the oak (Condition#17). This will likely result in the removal of the acacia which
is an invasive species and should be removed regardless. The owner has not submitted a
preliminary landscaping plan but is aware that; the neighboring property is requesting
substantial landscape screening along the drainage swale. Condition#3 includes a requirement
for landscape screening along the westerly property line and a requirement that the final
landscape screening for the dwelling be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
at a noticed public hearing.
Green Building Ordinance
The applicant submitted a GreenPoint checklist in compliance with the Town's Green Building
Ordinance. The new dwelling is designed to achieve a point total of 56.5 which exceeds the
minimum of 50 points in the GreenPoint Rated certification program.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has required that the building
be equipped with fire sprinklers. The property is not located within the Wildland-Urban
Interface Fire Area.
Sanitation
The new residence will connect to the existing sewer line that serves Deerfield Drive. A sewer
reimburse fee will need to be paid prior to connection. No additional easements are required.
Justification for Variances and Findings
In order to approve a Variance, the Planning Commission must make the following four
findings:
1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the
strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in' the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification;
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 7
2. That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable
sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be
granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners;
3. That 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;
4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.
A project with a substandard lot size and a Lot Unit Factor(LUF)of.5 or less would generally
qualify as meeting the criteria in Findings #1 and #2 based on the fact that the lot area is
substantially less than the one acre minimum. Therefore,the imposition of the same setbacks
and zoning standards does deprive the property owner of certain privileges, including a more
restrictive building envelope, reduced patio and outdoor recreation areas, and design
restrictions.
The applicant submitted a letter dated January 15, 2015 in support of the variances requested
(Attachment 6). The primary justification stated for the setback variances is the fact that the
required yard setback encompasses a much larger portion of a substandard lot than a standard
one acre lot. Figure 1.2 on page 4 of the letter shows that on a standard one acre lot, the
setbacks encompass 53% of the total lot area whereas on the subject parcel, the setbacks
encompass 81%of the property. This places a substantial limitation on the size of the building
footprint, especially given that the four required parking spaces must also be included,within
the building envelope. In'addition, a design that'places all four parking spaces within the
building envelope would result in a large portion of the ground floor being used for parking
which substantially alters the architectural design of the building and the useable floor area on
that main floor level.
In order to properly evaluate the proposed project and to gain a perspective on previous
variance approvals in the immediate surrounding area, staff reviewed the Town's records for
variances on properties along Deerfield Drive and on several substandard properties along
Burke and Fremont Roads. A map showing the location of these properties is included as
Attachment 7. The following table provides a summary of those findings:
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 8
pP
Properties Approved with a Variance
Address Net Lot Existing or New, Variance Granted
Size/LUF Residence
13621 Burke N/A Existing 1962 — Guest Cottage in side yard
setback
13631 Burke .453 acres New 1994—Parking in side yard setback and
.453 LUF increase in MFA
25561 Deerfield .4 acres New 1988 — Allow for a 20 foot side yard
.4 LUF setback for dwelling
25620 Deerfield .44 acres Existing/Room 1983 — Expansion over maximum
.37 LUF Addition allowed building coverage and 4 foot
encroachment into side yard
25700 Deerfield .43 acres Existing/Room 2001 — Exceed maximum MFA and
.31 LUF Addition MDA
25701 Deerfield .381 acres New 2005—Parking in the side yard setback
.33 LUF
25731 Deerfield .478 acres Existing/Room ' 1994 — Exceed maximum MFA and
.43 LUF Addition MDA
13530 Fremont N/A New 2005—Parking in the side yard setback
Proposed Project
25608 Deerfield .359 acres New Request for parking and back-up area
.359 LUF in side yard setback; request for roof
eaves and chimney in side yard, patio
in rear yard
Of the 12 properties on Deerfield Drive, five have been granted some type of variance over the
past 30 years. With regard to variances granted on new dwellings in the area, the two most
recent occurred in 2005, for parking in the side yard setback. It is possible to construct a
dwelling with required parking on the subject site without the need for any variance. However,
staff supports a setback variance for the required parking, the back-up area and the rear patio
due to the substantial reduction in the development area that results from the strict application
of the 30 foot side and rear yard setbacks on the .359 acre lot. In addition,the proposed project
with the parking and back-up area encroachments results in a design that is more architecturally
compatible with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the garage and parking along the easterly
portion of the lot should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding residents because the
improvements abut property owned by the applicant and any new structure on that abutting lot
will be designed to address that impact.
Staff does not support the one foot encroachment for the chimney or the roof eaves. A variance
for the roof eaves is a de facto increase in the maximum floor area for this type of architectural
roof style. The Town code already has a built-in exception for substandard lots allowing for
increased development. For example, if the two lots had not been legally split,the MFA on
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 9
the combined lot would only be 5,000 square feet instead of the 7,060 square feet that is
currently allowed when the MFA figures on the two lots are combined (3,590 sq.ft. on 25608
Deerfield Drive and 3,470 sq.ft. on 25520 Deerfield Drive). Staff believes that with some
minimal design changes, the chimney can be accommodated within the building envelope and
the building walls can be moved in one foot to accommodate the eaves. If the amount of floor
area proposed is necessary to make the project more economically feasible, then an
architectural design featuring a structure with little or no roof eave should be considered.
Therefore, a variance for roof eaves should require further justification beyond a substandard
lot size(e.g.: steep topography, excessive easements, etc.).
Regarding the last two findings, Finding #3 can be met because the development of the
property will not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties as the parking and
back-up encroachments can be screened by landscaping and will not be significantly visible to
existing residents. Finding#4 can also be met because the variance is not for a use or activity
that is not permitted in the zone district.
Findings for Conditional Development Permit
The Planning Commission must make the following four findings to approve a Conditional
Development Permit(CDP):
1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to
accommodate the proposed intensity of development,including all structures,yards,
open spaces,parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may
be required by this chapter.
2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and
harmonious appearance in relation to the size,shape and topography of the site and
in relation to the surrounding neighborhood;
3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing
vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of
natural land forms.
4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth
in the Site Development ordinance.
The Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes that were originally
built in the 1940s and have either been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are
typically larger than the previous home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre
in size with an LUF of.5 or lower. As shown in the table above, five of the properties have
received CDP and Variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks and/or
increases in MFA and MDA. Therefore,the proposed request for a new dwelling that does not
exceed the MFA or MDA and meets all other development standards with the exception of
setbacks for parking, back-up and a rear patio is compatible with the existing development
pattern in the area. In addition, no significant trees or vegetation are impacted by the
development and there is adequate remaining area'on the property to provide screening from
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 10
the street and surrounding properties. The applicant has submitted a letter dated January 15,
2015 that provides additional support of the Conditional Development Permit findings
(Attachment 8).
Comments from Surrounding Residents
As of the writing of the staff report, the Town has received six letters from surrounding
property owners, four of which live on Deerfield Drive (Attachments 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
The following is a summary of the concerns stated by the residents in the letters and at the
meeting on January 13, 2015:
1) Build one dwelling on the merged lots. Several residents have stated that the
construction of one house on the two lots owned by the applicant would be a more
compatible design with the neighborhood and more in keeping with the rural character
of the area. They believe that the proposed floor area is excessive in comparison to the
other dwellings in the neighborhood.
2) The new dwelling should not be granted a variance for roof eaves in the setback.
The amount of floor area proposed is excessive and the structure should meet all
required setbacks.
3) Drainage issues on property and in the roadway. The property has poor drainage
and there is standing water in front of the property on the street after a heavy rain.
4) Building design is oversized for the lot and neighborhood and does not meet the
Fast Track Guide for New Residences. The proposed dwelling is larger than the
existing homes on the street and the front façade does not incorporate wall setbacks to
break up the mass and bulk.
5) The location of driveways should take into account existing driveways on
Deerfield. A resident across the street from the subject lot is concerned about multiple
driveways on Deerfield Drive in close proximity to the intersection at Fremont/Burke
Roads. Their request is that the corner lot utilize an existing driveway on Burke Road
for access and construction traffic.
6) Limit or avoid construction traffic on Deerfield Drive. Deerfield Drive is a narrow
roadway and construction vehicles will cause traffic problems. All construction traffic
should access the site from an existing driveway on Burke Road.
7) Provide substantial landscape screening between properties. Provide dense
landscape screening along the westerly property line and along the street frontage.
8) On-going code enforcement issues on the two properties. Concerns were raised
about a trailer on the corner lot being used as permanent housing, trash, and parked
cars.
Planning Commission
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
February 5,2015
Page 11
Staff has addressed most of these issues in the staff report and has included conditions of
approval that require landscape screening,the relocation of the driveway on Deerfield, and the
requirement that all construction access be provided from Burke Road through the corner lot.
Regarding code enforcement issues, staff has contacted the owners about these issues and they
are in the process of removing debris and potentially removing the tenants.
Town Committee's Review
The Pathways Committee recommended that the applicant pay a pathway in-lieu fee.
(Condition#28).
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee provided general comments that the lot
cannot support the proposed dwelling and that the lots should be merged.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA)
The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a) — construction of a new single
family residence where public services are available in a residential zone.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Conditional Development Permit Findings
2. Variance Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Recorded Certificates of Compliance
5. State Map Act Section 66451.11
6. Letter from Applicant on Variance Application dated revised January 15, 2015
7. Map of Variance Approvals in the Surrounding,Neighborhood
8. Letter from Applicant on Conditional Development Permit dated revised January 15, 2015
9. Letter from Alice and Doug Rimer dated January 27, 2015
10. Letter from Barbara Goodrich dated January 27, 2015
11. E-mail from Judy and Stewart Krakauer dated January 26, 2015
12. E-mail from Scott Akiyama dated January 23, 2015
13. E-mail from Ray Strimaitis dated January 22, 2015
14. Letter from Helen and Virgil Gualtieri
15. Proposed Plans—Planning Commission only
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC, 25608 Deerfield Drive
File#233-14-ZP;-SD-CDP-VAR
1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to
accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures,yards, open
spaces,parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be
required by this chapter.
The subject property is relatively flat with direct access to a public road. The entire
structure is located within the building envelope, is within the maximum floor area,
development area and height regulations, and does not encroach into the required yard
setbacks. The applicant has requested a variance to allow required parking and the
garage back-up area in the side yard setback and for a portion of the rear patio to
encroach into the rear yard setback. These variances have been approved by the
Planning Commission based on findings that the property is a legal substandard parcel
and that the design of the garage and parking at the side of the dwelling provide an
improved design over a front facing garage and that the design is more harmonious with
the typical development in the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and
harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in
relation to the surrounding neighborhood
The Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes that were
originally built in the 1940s and have either been remodeled or replaced with new
dwellings that are typically larger than the previous home. A majority of the properties
are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower and five of these properties
have received CDP and Variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks
and/or increases in their MFA and MDA... Therefore, the proposed request for a new
dwelling that does not exceed the MFA, or MDA and meets all other development
standards with the exception of setbacks for parking, back-up and a rear patio is
compatible with the existing development pattern in the area and consistent with previous
approvals for properties in the neighborhood.
3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing
vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural
land forms.
No significant trees and shrubs are impacted by the development of the parcel as grading
will be minimal and all oaks along the roadway will be preserved A landscape
screening plan will ensure that existing trees and shrubs will be supplemented by new
landscaping to adequately screen the residence, blend the visual impact, and preserve the
rural character of the site.
4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in
the Site Development ordinance.
The proposed residence is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the
Site Development Ordinance with the exception of the request for a variance to allow the
back-up area for the garage to encroach to within four feet of the property line. This
variance has been approved by the Planning Commission based on findings that the
property is a legal substandard parcel and that the design of the garage and parking at
the side of the dwelling provide an improved design over a front facing garage and that
the design is more harmonious with the typical development in the surrounding
neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST
LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC, 25608 Deerfield Drive
File#233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR
1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings,the strict
application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The proposed dwelling is located on a nonconforming lot of.359 net acres which is
substantially less than the one acre minimum in Town. Therefore, the imposition of the
same setbacks and zoning standards that apply to a one acre lot deprives the property
owner of certain privileges, resulting in a more restrictive building envelope, reduced
patio and outdoor recreation areas, and design restrictions. The required yard setbacks
encompass 81% of the subject property whereas they only encompass 53% of a typical
one acre parcel. This places a substantial limitation on the size of the building footprint,
especially when the four required parking spaces must also be included within the
building envelope. In addition, a design that places all four parking spaces within the
building envelope would result in a large portion of the ground floor being used for
parking which substantially alters the architectural design of the building and the
useable floor area on that main floor level.
2. That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections
of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special
privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners.
The setback variances for the required parking, the back-up area and the rear patio are
due to the substantial reduction in the development area that results from the strict
application of the 30 foot side and rear yard setbacks on the .359 acre lot. The approval
of the setback variances results in a design that is more architecturally compatible with
the neighborhood.
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and
within the same zoning district.
The development of the property will not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding
properties as the proposed development does not exceed the maximum floor area or
development area standards, adequate access to a public road is available, and the
parking and back-up encroachments can be screened by landscaping and will not be
highly visible to existing residents. In addition, the garage and parking along the
easterly portion of the lot should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding residents
because the improvements abut property owned by the applicant and any new structure
on that abutting lot will be designed to address that impact.
4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.
The variance request is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zoning
district.
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED SECONDARY UNIT
LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC, 25608 Deerfield Drive
File# 233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed
and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope
of the changes.
2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum
(E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E.
viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property located within 150' of any structures or roadways
shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees
shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance
of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey
is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree.
3. After completion of rough framing and/or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final
inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for
review by the Planning Commission. The application for landscape screening and erosion
control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit and plans shall be reviewed
at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to
break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. Emphasis
shall be placed on dense screen plantings along the westerly property line outside of the
drainage swale and between the open parking spaces and back-up area along the easterly
property line. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as
determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new
residence. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient
landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final
inspection.An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance
shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the
plantings remain viable.
5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees,particularly any oak trees, are
to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) 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 fencing must remain throughout the course of
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
25608 Deerfield Drive
February 5,2015
Page 2 of 6
construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip
lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the
entire construction period.
6. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall certify in writing and state that"the location of the new residence and roof eaves are a
minimum of 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines."
The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the
elevation of the finished first floor of the new residence matches the elevation and location
shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed
letter(s)to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final inspection.
7. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
shall certify in writing and state that"the height of the new residence complies with the 27'-
0"maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom
of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part
of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall
be similarly certified in writing and state that"all points of the building (including chimneys
and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based, measured from
the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the
building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The
applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to
requesting a final inspection.
8. Exterior finish colors of all buildings shall have a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and roof
materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less,per manufacturer specifications. All
color samples 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.
9. No fencing is approved with this application. Any new fencing or gates shall require review
and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
10. All hardscape and structures proposed to be removed/relocated shall be done prior to
issuance of building permits. In addition, all garbage and debris shall be removed from the
subject property and the corner lot and any outstanding code enforcement issues resolved
prior to issuance of building permits.
11. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the plans. Exterior light fixtures shall have frosted
glass, be down lights or utilize fully shielded fixtures. Any additional outdoor lighting shall
require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. No lighting
may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights.
12. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or
colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
25608 Deerfield Drive
February 5,2015
Page 3 of 6
13. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
14. At time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the
following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance:
a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that
the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The checklist shall be
completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the
front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes
or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure
to be used to attain the required points.
b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that
the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45)points or LEED certification.
The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and
shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall
include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the
green building measure to be used to attain the required points.
15. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide
documentation verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint
Rated or LEED® certification.
16. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the
Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable,prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both
elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and
provide the Town with a copy of the receipts.
17. The proposed driveway location shall be moved approximately five feet further west to avoid
the drip line of the existing oak tree in the roadway easement.
18. All construction access to the site shall be provided through the adjacent corner lot and shall
utilize the existing driveway on Burke Road.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
19. Peak discharge at 25608 Deerfield Drive, as a result of Site Development Permit 233-14,
shall not exceed the existing pre-development peak discharge value of the property.
Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak
discharge to the pre-development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic
model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post
development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10-year return period storm and
provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre-
development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
25608 Deerfield Drive
February 5,2015
Page 4 of 6
copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
20. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the
energy dissipators, and completion of the grading activities and state that items have been
installed and constructed per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared
and submitted to the Town prior to final inspection.
21. 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 (October 15 to April 15) 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 and the back-up area for the
garage.
22. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant
should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application
process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months.
23. Two copies of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements
of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100
feet of the driveway and any construction access driveway through the corner lot 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.
24. 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 Hillview Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement
of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for
construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection
of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc.
for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed
within the Town limits.
25. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused
by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private
roadways,prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the
Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
25608 Deerfield Drive
February 5,2015
Page 5 of 6
26. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed prior to final inspection. The
maximum driveway width shall be 14 feet within the yard setbacks.
27. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final
inspection. A sewer hookup permit and a sewer reimbursement fee shall be required by the
Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. An
encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way
prior to of start work.
28. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of$53.00 per linear foot of the average width of
the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
29. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department shall be installed in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a
sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700
Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be
inspected and approved by the Fire Department,prior to final inspection and occupancy of the
new residence.
30. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a
position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property.
Numbers shall contrast with their background.
31. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and
the Standard Detail and Specification SI-7.
32. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination cause by fire protection water
supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors to contact the water
purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that
purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water based fire
protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage.
CONDITION NUMBERS 8, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND
SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN
CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of the Planning
Commission decision. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed.
The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after March 2, 2015
provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check.
Lands of KDCI Development LLC
25608 Deerfield Drive
February 5,2015
Page 6 of 6
Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these
Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California
Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period
in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day
period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from
later challenging such exactions.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the
Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until February
5, 2016). 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.
DOCUMENT: 22542575 (
ATTACHMENT 4
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: II II 111 1111 II
Taxes. . .
op
Town of Los Altos Hills AMT I PAI D 40.00
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: REGINA ALCOMENDRAS RDE # 026
City Clerk SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER 3/13/2014
Town of Los Altos Hills Recorded at the request of 8:00 AM
26379 Fremont Rd. Old Republic Title Company
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
aril-VXSTS
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
(Sec.66499.35.California Government Code)
Owner: Affected Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
KDCI Development LLC,a California Limited Liability Parcel No. 1 APN: 175-26-044
Company Parcel No. 2 APN: 175-26-043
400 Reed Street,Suite 185
Santa Clara,CA 95050
This certificate is being issued for two(2) distinct parcels: Parcel 1:APN 175-26-044,and Parcel 2:APN 175-26-043.
{Government Code Section:66499.35(f)(2)}
This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local
ordinances enacted pursuant thereto.The parcels described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further
compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the
parcels may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval. {Government Code
Section:66499.35(f)(1)(E)}
I,Cyrus Kianpour,Acting City Surveyor for the Town of Los Altos Hills,do find,declare,and certify that the parcel
comprised of APN 175-26-044,also described in Exhibit"A"and shown in Exhibit"B",and parcel comprised of APN
175-26-043,also described in Exhibit"C" and shown in Exhibit"D",are in conformance with Section 66499.35 of the
California Government Code and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The documents necessary to
accomplish the Certificate of Compliance are attached hereto,and consist of the following named documents:
1) This Certificate
2) Exhibit"A"—Legal description, Parcel No. 1
3) Exhibit"B"— Plat to Accompany Legal Description, Parcel No. 1
4) Exhibit"C"—Legal description, Parcel,No. 2
5) Exhibit"D"—Plat to Accompany Legal Description, Parcel No. 2
z:<z:
This Certificate together with the legal descriptions and plats included herewith constitute the Certificate of
Compliance approved by the Town of Los Altos Hills in compliance with Section 66499.35 of the California
Government Code. ac S
�,
, te �55s -.9 •
744'-OPk
3— 7 - Zabel- Alt /:O Ci 4e,
Date of Approval Cyru Kiian v ou Acting City Surveyor i a
No.7515
Land Surveyor `' o.7515
* �
License Expire : 12-31-15 cP Exp.P2_3I�S
ATTEST:44 7 ' ,9£ %.C`'
City Clerk �� QJh
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Santa Clara )
On March 7 , 2014 before me, Deborah L. Padovan, Notary Public
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared Cyrus Kianpour
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the.person(#whose name(s)cis/acu
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hely executed the same in
his/hv.ilthelt authorized capacity(l'e's), and that by hisPieltMtcsignature09 on the instrument the
person( )c or the entity upon behalf of which the person( acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
rh"1"6"1"4".161111
DEBORAH L.PADOVAN
Commission#1929787
WITNESS my hand and official seal. Sl>t_•_, Notary Public-California I
\ .-rv/ Sonoma County_
Comm.Ex res r 19.2015
/ A /
(Seal)
Signature ( )
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
THE LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC
APN: 175-26-044
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE IN THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING ALL OF PARCEL NO. 1 AS DESCRIBED IN
THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 11,2013 AS DOCUMENT NO:22468983,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A 1" IRON PIPE LOCATED AT THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL NO. 1, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NO.
2 AS DESCRIBED IN SAID GRANT DEED;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 1 AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL NO. 2 NORTH 30°52'00"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 131.82 FEET TO A 1"IRON PIPE
AT THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO. 1, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING
ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DEERFIELD DRIVE(40' WIDE);
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 1 AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF DEERFIELD DRIVE SOUTH 77°52'00"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 120.97 FEET TO
A 1"IRON PIPE AT THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO. 1, SAID CORNER
ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BURKE ROAD;
THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 1 AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF BURKE ROAD SOUTH 30°52'00"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 131.82 FEET TO A 3/4"
IRON PIPE AT THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO. 1;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL NO. 1 NORTH 77°52'00"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 120.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 15,102 SQUARE FEET,MORE OR LESS.
AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"MADE A PART HEREOF.
END OF DESCRIPTION to L
PREPARED BY OR UNDER ,430 r ♦ et♦
THE SUPERVISION OF: '' '�
In al
NIL 71133
- 71 12-01r14
GRE s` '.BRAZE DATE �o� at r,,`4
�,`°IGOTURES16"�"
G:\Correspondence\2013 jobs\2130924\Legal\Legal Parcel-1 Page 1 of 2
DEERFIELD DRIVE (40') BASIS OF BEARINGS •
FOUND 3/4" o — — _ THE BEARING S30'52'00"W OF THE WEST
OPEN IRON PIPE LINE OF BURKE ROAD, ESTABLISHED BY
—— _ (BENT) N30'52'00"E EXISTING MONUMENTS, AS DESCRIBED IN
_
21.12' N THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED AS
- S7T52'00"Ei1)_ 120.97' 1 -. DOCUMENT NO. 19260253, SANTA CLARA
0COUNTY RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASIS
SEE DETAIL� i OF ALL BEARINGS SHOWN UPON THIS PLAT.
FOUND 1" OPEN FOUND 1" OPEN
IRON PIPE IRON PIPE REFERENCES
d 2o'
, 4' ;,N/-\"
� ,� (1) DOCUMENT NO.
a t �' LANDS OF 4 22468983
O° �'' / KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLCM
aO N PARCEL NO. 1 '- .^_ A7 °du
DOC. 22468983 �`Y4420.00' MGI' ,00,
J APN: 175-26-044 4j o' cv ,�
,CDaQ o0 15,102 SQ.FT.± ,C�, - , o cv
8 a 0.35 ACRES± o 0.74'
.,
0
_ _ LEGEND aV 41V. II 3 0� —,kf
•o BOUNDARY /No R
.hcv/ PROPERTY LINE �'/ry DETAIL BI°
��. a-
t?i
EASEMENT LINE / NO SCALEo`
041.4
11/_. . POINT OF BEGINNING co '� 7J; .; * *F
FOUND 1" OPEN IRON FOUND 3/4 2�. 0 15 30 60 Na Pi 3)
PIPE OPEN IRON PIPE
N7T52'00"W 1 120.97'(1) / °�, `>�� `! ?�
LANDS Old HaIRASINHAa SCALE: 1" = 30' c.�� �°` 'J`"
DOCS. 14192616 / sioNA TURES°
EXHIBIT "B"
.4 LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC. PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL
CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS DESCRIPTION FOR THE LANDS
BAY AREA REGION SACRAMENTO REGION OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC
2495 INDUSTRIAL PKWY WEST 3017 DOUGLAS BLVD, 1300
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
(P) (510) 887-4086 (P) (916)966-1338 � ♦�♦
(F) (510) 887-3019 (F) (916)797-7363 SANTA CLARA COUNTY
WWW.LEABRAZE.COM APN: 175-26-044 PAGE 2 OF 2 JOB #2130924
DRAWN BY: MH FEBRUARY 2014
EXHIBIT "C"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
THE LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC
APN:175-26-043
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE IN THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING ALL OF PARCEL NO. 2 AS DESCRIBED IN
THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 11,2013 AS DOCUMENT NO. 22468983,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A 1" IRON PIPE LOCATED AT THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL NO. 2, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NO.
1 AS DESCRIBED IN SAID GRANT DEED;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 2 NORTH 77°52'00" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 107.00 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO.2;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 2 NORTH 30°52'00" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 167.55 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO. 2,
SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF DEERFIELD DRIVE(40'WIDE);
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 2 AND SAID CENTERLINE OF
DEERFIELD DRIVE SOUTH 70°10'00"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 103.24 FEET TO A 3/4"IRON PIPE
AT THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO.2;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 2
SOUTH 30°52'00"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 152.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 16,238 SQUARE FEET,MORE OR LESS.
AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"D"MADE A PART HEREOF.
END OF DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY OR UNDER `p LAgp
THE SUPERVISION OF: a—dOb
a- F• •`
?6 ,•`
w73
- .2.7-/y/
No. NM
111Cp.114M4
GREG'Y F :RAZE r ATE O
-7Cit ‘.0'‘
' –42NATURESt`"
G:\Correspondence\2013 jobs\2130924\Legal\Legal Parcel-2 Page 1 of 2
57070 ooEE R LD DRQ ,
BASIS OF BEARINGS 34.25, ��) 103.24, (40'�
THE BEARING S70'10 00 E OF THE 20 M ( )
CENTERLINE OF DEERFIELD DRIVE, co. 68.99' C) —
ESTABLISHED BY EXISTING MONUMENTS, __
to FOUND 3/4"
AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT I ——— __ o OPEN IRON
DEED RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. ___FOUND 3/4" — — PIPE (BENT)
19260253, SANTA CLARA COUNTY — c,
RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF � OPEN IRON PIPE 21.12' PIPE
ALL BEARINGS SHOWN UPON THIS PLAT. 8)\--/
20.00' TO PIPE
o / RIGHT—OF—WAY --•
REFERENCES / (2 MAPS 38) FOUND 1" OPEN
oco ' IRON PIPE
(1) DOCUMENT NO. O 44# QIZ ,'3 t LANDS OF KDCI /^
22468983 a0 ( DEVELOPMENT LLC /
PARCEL NO. 2 N LANDS OF aDCO
Jg ° i� DOC. 22468983 *`� DEVELOPMENT LLC
�� 16,238GROSSSQ.FT.t AREA N PARCEL X100. 11
,c) 0.37 ACRES± . •�^ DOC. 22468983
NET AREA 43
0 ,��/ 14,173 SQ.FT.± .. 0 15 30 60
�. ' �� f 6a6."" = 0.33 ACRES± . IIa /o
M 4 9It o / SCALE: 1" = 30'
LEGEND
No. — — BOUNDARY POINT OF BEGINNING
Exp.12-81-14 ,� PROPERTY LINE FOUND 1" OPEN IRON
o�'c�,��¢ ��'�`?,� /1( EASEMENT LINE / PIPE
44 Si° It ~J LANDS OF F o L EM - N77'52'00"W(1) 107.00'(1) (LG°QMD� OO nMA��I��f>utlaGl[t�l
2 .276 DOCS. tweeze
D06. 9479 596
EXHIBIT "D"
.4. LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC. PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL
CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS DESCRIPTION.. FOR THE LANDS
B495AY AREA
USiRRIAL EGIONPWEST SA 7RAMENTO REGIO/300 OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
(P) (510) 887-4086 (P) (916)966-1338
(F) (510) 887-3019 (F) (916)797-7363 SANTA CLARA COUNTY
WWW.LEABRAZE.COM APN: 175-26-043 PAGE 2 OF 2 JOB #2130924
DRAWN BY: MH FEBRUARY 2014
(b) This article shall provide the sole and exclusive a. ATTACHMENT 5
merger of contiguous parcels. On and after Januar_
by local agencies only in accordance with the authority and procee,&"-prescribed
by this article. This exclusive authority does not, however +tio �gate or limit the
+ "
authority of a local agency or a subdivider with respc -e following procedures
within this division:
(1) Lot line adjustments.
(2) Amendment or correctioirt.oe,`'" incl or parcel•map.
(3) Reversions to acne'
(4) Exclusio
(5) - ive,parcel,or final maps which create fewer parcels.
[Amended,Chapter 727,Statutes of 1986]
66451.11. Requirements for parcel merger
A local agency may, by ordinance which conforms to and implements the procedures
prescribed by this article, provide for the merger of a parcel or unit with a contiguous
parcel or unit held by the same owner if any one of the contiguous parcels or units held
by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel size, under the
zoning ordinance of the local agency applicable to the parcels or units of land and if all
of the following requirements are satisfied: -
(a) At least one of the affected parcels is undeveloped by any structure for which a
building permit was issued or for which a building permit was not required at the
time of construction,or is developed only with an accessory structure or accessory •
structures,or is developed with a single structure,other than an accessory structure,
that is also partially sited on a contiguous parcel or unit.
(b) With respect to any affected parcel,one or more of the following conditions exists:
(1) Comprises less than 5,000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of
merger.
(2) Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at
the time of its creation.
•
(3) Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water
supply.
(4) Does not meet slope stability standards. •
(5) Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment
access and maneuverability.
(6) Its development would create health or safety hazards.
(7) Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable specific
plan,other than minimum lot size or density standards.
The ordinance may establish the standards specified in paragraphs (3) to (7),
inclusive,which shall be applicable to parcels to be merged.
This subdivision shall not apply if one of the following conditions exist:
(A) On or before'July 1, 1981, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units
of land is enforceably restricted open-space land pursuant to a contract,
agreement, scenic restriction. or open-space easement. as defined and set
forth in Section 42I of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(B) On July 1, 1981. one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is
timberland as defined in subdivision (1) of Section 51104, or is land
devoted to an agricultural use as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
51201.
(C) On July 1. 1981. one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is
located within 2.000 feet of the site on which an existing commercial
mineral resource extraction use is being made, whether or not the
extraction is being made pursuant to a use permit issued by the local
agency.
(D) On July I, 1981,one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is
located within 2.000 feet of a future commercial mineral extraction site as
shown on a plan for which a use permit or other permit authorizing
commercial mineral resource extraction has been issued by the local
agency.
(E) Within the coastal zone, as defined in Section 30103 of the Public
Resources Code, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land
has, prior to July 1, 1981, been identified or designated as being of
insufficient size to support residential development and where the
identification or designation.has either (i) been included in the land use
plan portion of a local coastal program prepared and adopted pursuant to
the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 of the Public Resources
Code),or(ii) prior to the adoption of a land use plan.been made by formal
action of the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the provisions of
the California Coastal Act of 1976 in a coastal development permit
decision or in an approved land use plan work program or an approved
issue identification on which the preparation of a land use plan pursuant to •
the provisions of the California Coastal Act is based.
For purposes of paragraphs (C) and (D) of this subdivision, "mineral resource
extraction" means gas, oil, hydrocarbon. gravel, or sand extraction, geothermal
wells,or other similar commercial mining activity.
(c) The owner of the affected parcels has been notified of the merger proposal pursuant
to Section 66451.13, and is afforded the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to
Section 66451.14.
For purposes of this section, when determining whether contiguous parcels are held by
the same owner.ownership shall be determined as of the date that notice of intention to
determine status is recorded.
[Amended.Chapter 162.Statutes of 1995]
66451.12. Effective date of mergers
A merger of parcels becomes effective when the local agency causes to be filed for
record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located, a notice of
merger specifying the names of the record owners and particularly describing the real
property.
[Amended.Chapter 102.Statutes of 1984]
ATTACHMENT 6
r -'4•'. , YOUNG AND BORLIK
- ': co,- .,._,-;.,- . ARCHITECTS, INCORPORATED
' -::Aa 1,;----, 480 LYTTON AVE,SUITE 8
r -�;,_ ;3 „„+"` .1 PALO ALTO,CA 94301
L.
, , TELEPHONE FAX WEB
`'' ..t' ,:.':6 , (650)688-1950 (650)323-1112 www.YBarchitects.com
Oct. 31,2014
revised Jan. 15, 201/s
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Division
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills,CA 94022
Attn: Steve Padovan, Suzanne Avila
Re: Variance Application
Project Description and Findings
25608 Deerfield Drive (APN: 175-26-043)
•
The purpose of this letter is to address the findings for the Variances associated with our application for a
new single family residence at the above address. These variance requests are submitted in tandem with
our Conditional Use Permit application. Our proposal is for a new single family residence of 3,511 sf,
(with basement below) on this 15,655 sf parcel. Upon careful consideration of the property and review of
possible options, and based on guidance and feedback from Planning staff and neighbors,we are pleased
to present this project for review.
In order for a reasonable design to go forward for this property and for this project to be successful,we
are asking for the following variances to be approved for this proposal:
A. To allow the required uncovered parking spaces to be situated in the side yard setback area. Also
related to parking,to allow the paving for the required 26 foot backup distance from the side
facing garage to encroach as close as 4 feet from the property line.
B. To allow the eave overhangs of this residence to encroach between 8 to 12 inches past the side
building setback line
C. To allow a rear patio on-grade to encroach into the rear yard setback area.
D. To allow the Living room fireplace to encroach into the side building setback by 12 inches.
E. Approval to allow grading within 10 feet of the property boundary,to correct conditions due to
the previous use of the lot in tandem with the adjacent lot.
Development of this property is also consistent with the General Plan Goal III to ensure that all local
housing needs and the Town's fair share of the regional housing needs are met. Towards this Goal,
Program#5 looks to continue to facilitate and expedite the development of new residential and the
rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing residential units. To support this position,this proposed
project is an in-fill opportunity to increase housing on vacant or under-utilized parcels within the Town
limits.
As noted in our findings for the Conditional Use Permit, our proposed design will comply with all other
Zoning requirements. Specifically, the proposal meets the MDA limit for the site,is below the MFA limit
for the home,provides all required on-site parking spaces, and complies with the height limit. We feel
that our overall design for this home and site,with meeting the above zoning requirements, and with the
allowance granted within the above variances,would result in a successful project. The following
findings are presented in support of our variance requests.
Re:Variances for=Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043)
Oct.31,2014
Finding 1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is
found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classifications;
The primary characteristic which limits this property's potential is its size. The site is relatively
level,rectangular,buildable, and suited for a single family residence as we have proposed.
However,net parcel size is 15,656 sf, and after allowing for the roadway dedication across the
Deerfield frontage,that area reduces down to 14,173 sf. A survey of neighboring parcels in the
surrounding area reveals an average lot acreage of 0.89 acre(38,764 sf.). This subject property
was legally created with a parcel size of 0.359 acre which is far below average(less than half).
The parcel map for this area helps illustrate the disparity in sizes, shown in Figure 1.1.
The same required building setback standards will apply, even though this property is well below
the average lot size throughout Los Altos Hills. To compare impact due to lot widths,the side
yard setbacks for any property in the Town.are 30 feet. In an example of a typical sized lot of
about an acre anywhere else in the Town(which may be 200 feet wide),the 30 feet setback
portions on each side of the property represent only about 30%of the lot width. For our subject
lot(which is 101 feet wide),the same 30 foot setbacks on each side represent about 59%of the
lot.
This disproportionate result of the zoning requirements is a significant limitation on this legally
created property, as a direct result of the parcel size. In an additional example to compare the
potential area for development,we consider the envelope available within the required building
setbacks of 40 feet and 30 feet. This development envelope is where the house,the uncovered
parking,patios,pools, and other elements that accompany a home are all required to fit. On a
typical acre lot elsewhere in the Town(assuming 200 feet by 215 feet dimensions),the
development envelope available within these setbacks would represent about 47%(20,300 sf)of
the parcel. For our subject lot(approximately 101 feet by 132 feet),after adjusting for the
roadway dedication,the development envelope available within these setbacks equals only 19%
(2,787 sf).This comparison is shown in Figure 1.2. Based on this factor we ask for variance
item A(uncovered parking location),item B (eaves), item C(rear patio), and item D (fireplace).
In seeking to design a reasonable home that is proportionate to the site,the area taken up by
parking leaves an inadequate amount of space left over for a home that would be anywhere close
to theallowable home size per MFA. This proposed project will provide all four required on-site
parking spaces per zoning(two covered,plus two more uncovered). Per zoning, all four of these
spaces must be located inside the development envelope within the site setbacks. However, given
the small lot size and resulting available development envelope,the two-car garage(400 sf)plus
the two uncovered parking spaces(400 sf)together would account for 30%of the area available
for the footprint of the home. To allow for the design of a home that is not unreasonably
dominated by the parking solution,we ask for the allowance to locate the uncovered parking
spaces in the side yard setback(item A).
•
Pg.2
•
• o
CO OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR • SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA BOOK PACE N
TO
zs 175 26
xCI
• I o
(D I TRACT N=.4306 ��, TRACT Na 3E39 R4S585//9 R.O.$6oa T
Z I 1 sr Mt, m 3mc mm nraa zm1 aIt*\
._.7 0cp 1. 6 _ S %
ig \ co
A 24 K x 39 11 �0 p•, at2,11L0y» v WI/' ti aL EA_
i ,521,ISSII 1 Q O•
L r--- "nw- "7-r777.;—.
rs..1%•, tyro,DEERFIELD o rsrw DRI1/E ""' —___ on.
G
, 1 ,,,,iii;is........ ,. ozil
•
us
j/� 6, COMP i
43 as A
-,cEs., ) '?.e•.�- �+a� ' a"'.,P'.` •OT,Grf..S��.'' . ,Ek`t'I,Zp :'.'' •cLieZ°°AK: r 1/i 7'I.i.: i�l,.d ��� \' 'e.®i Irce coil
r. �` - onus II
rr�m
40' D0.CO {{ �Q •
3•• •a.a: man 1Q MAT ,•
Cil
'b i_ 1, (t'�eF ovalog6 c a + N a
J3 . 1 ws.
La
m' •1 1 I o m
ti. ` az 4/ 0 s y .L o°
L e 1 !if I.
, m2
\ +S-4O'—__-R/M 111.11 J I 1 _ _ L�---- 7._—____—,7"
rsni BURKE � LANE----- CDOr3nr /---30• —_; �_ --{f�p/IV�*�L `i1[_—____—__ —iBala.�' ---- —n.siar.w naaew ---.- nreoew»n J19- % C'
CD
• .i/i 3I �S
o \
1� 36 e.: • - .1 _ 8 w Y � .....,,,•/.4.-1—
.:
� 5'
V ui. - _ �' LMR. /IIa Mn 17341 Irr.41d
Hal 001W
I. ' O . Vias fOrzt°C'I 363 LI l'€)
O b • .
A , M aal LM t It I lit 44 na1. YOM N0
434.)1 LAWRENCE E.ROWE-ASSESSOR
Wastrel i4Ip Iv eenlmml papmn I p
ti •` • DERMODY TRACT 28 Effect/ow ardor 327.
LOT IO OF U.B M.TAAFFE SUB,of LOT 4- TAAFFE PARTIN
N'
CO
'Ci
(I0
L,.) .
Re:Variances for=Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043)
Oct.31,2014
r••_•.-•._.._••_••_•._.._••-1
�.•.'
i I ••-
• I
i i i Ii
I 1
IBUILDABLE I
I2-18"1
ENVELOPE•5F
10490 J I
BU
I IL ABLE ENVELOPE: 20,900 SF(41%)i
I I L
L J
IPROJECT PARCEL:
• 14,1155F •�
LACRE PARCEL: 45,000 5F•(200'x 2159 -• ••J 1�•
A Typical Acre lot in Los Altos Hills 25608 Deerfield Drive
Figure 1.2 depicting a relative size comparison between the subject parcel versus an average size parcel.
Because of the limitation on the available building envelope,we are asking for a variance to
allow the roof eaves to encroach 8 inches on the second floor,and 12 inches on the first floor,
into the side yard setbacks(item B). In spite of best efforts,the proposed home design is not able
achieve the allowable floor area limit set for the property. Multiple factors contribute to this,
including the limited area available within the development envelope,the parallelogram shape,
allowances to fit basement lightwells, and prioritizing a harmonious balance between the mass of
the second floor above the ground floor. A different approach to massing might help achieve the
maximum allowable floor area limit,but the result would be a two story block where the second
story is about the same size as the first story:..Theresult would have undesirable massing,
character and definition.. It would not be an appealing designas is the intent of satisfying Finding
#2:of the Conditional Development Permit standards.
Minor variances can be approved at the staff level for encroachments up.to 2 feet into any side
setback of less than 150 sf. In this case, only our gable end eaves extend up to 8 inches into the
side setbacks, and first floor side eaves up to 12",and do not embody any square feet. If
analyzed,the amount of eave that projects into the side setbacks is equivalentto approximately 60
sf. • The fireplace as designed also projects about 1 foot and embodies only about 4 sf(item D).
An alternative to allowing the variance for the eaves would include eliminating the eaves
altogether.A lack of eaves would result in a clumsy design product,and not do the proper justice
for its presence among the Deerfield streetscape. For a Colonial inspired home as is proposed to
be successful,it deserves to have the accentuated eave forms as is characteristic of this style.
Alternatively,reducing the house size to accommodate eaves would also take a toll on the ability.,
• to design a functional floor plan with feature and amenity that is enjoyed by other homes in the
area: The home is already constrained below the allowable MFA limit,and further reductions
reduce the feasibility of the house.
pg.4
Re:Variances for 1111.Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043)
Oct.31,2014
Finding 2. That upon granting of the Variance, the,intent of the purpose of the ordinance will still be
served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other
surrounding property owners;
The underlying intent of this application is to ask for the same right to build a single family
residence that is proportionate to the site,and that all other residential properties within the Town
also enjoy. On most properties throughout the Town,there is sufficient space on the site to allow
the maximum house size to be built, surrounded by various hardscape and amenities builtup to
the maximum development area, and all proportionate to the site. Due to the limited lot size of
this property and the zoning requirements,there is a significant impediment posed to achieving.
the same level of house size and development area,even in the scale proportionate to the site,
unless the above variances can be granted.
Uncovered off street parking in the setbacks is a common condition found elsewhere in the Town,
to address limitations unique to individual sites. The location of these two proposed uncovered
parking spaces would not be an anomaly to the immediate area or elsewhere within the Town.
Deerfield Drive contains several properties that are similar in size to this subject property. In a
few instances, approval was granted for the uncovered parking in the side or front yards.
There would be little or no possibility of any usable backyard patio space to fit adjacent to the
home unless a variance is approved for the rear patio encroachment in this application(item C).
This is an amenity which is integral to any home in the Town. The large lots and rural character
which embody Los Altos Hills, and which are,enforced through zoning to preserve the natural
environment, also make ideal conditions for enjoying the outdoors around your home at the
individual level. It would be extremely challenging for outdoor family enjoyment to occur
without even a modest outdoor patio space, such as what we've proposed as a minimum amenity
to thissinglefamily home.
Finding 3. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or.
injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and:within the same
zoning.district;
In spite of the small dimensions of this parcel,all of the structural development will still be
limited to the center portion of the lot,as is consistent with Town-wide development. This will
maintain the large buffer of open space between adjacent residences which is the intent of the
zoning ordinance and a key characteristic of the rural feel of the Town. Also,by designing a
home that is proportionate in size and scale to the property, it won't create the perception that a
structure that is too large for its property is being inappropriately placed at this-location. Only
non-structural elements will encroach into the setback area(with the exception of the fireplace):
With regard to the directly adjacent neighbor at the corner, any negative impacts will be
comparable and mutually mitigated. Presently there is an old residence with multiple structures
in poor condition. The proposed driveway and parking will sit adjacent to the current detached
garage and parking off Deerfield,where additional non-conforming structures are located within
the side setback. As part of a future application review, a proposed new home is designed for this
adjacent corner parcel, also by our firm. The configuration of this proposed residencewould also
include a comparable arrangement. Regarding the spaces for the uncovered parking in the side
setback area on this project,the space for uncovered parking next door is proposed to be located
pg. 5
Re:Variances for Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043)
Oct.31,2014
just opposite the common property boundary so the impacts are also mutual and mitigated. The
same intentional design solution applies to the orientation of the garage door opening and the
backup distance of the driveway. Carefully placed tree screening staggering on each side of the
shared fence line will ensure mutual screening of any cars parked in these areas. An alternative
solution could orient the garage door to face the street rather than the side yard. The side facing
orientation results in a more appealing design,where the pedestrian scale of the porch is featured,
rather than being dominated by the two-car garage door which would be half the facade. More
significant,the increase in pavement area needed across the frontage would be dramatic,with
roughly 40 foot width by 26 foot depthof paved driveway across the front of the house and the
adjacent uncovered parking spaces. This inefficient use of hardscape would easily result in the
project exceeding the MDA limit, and would be counter to the Town's Development Area Policy
which intends to both preserve the rural and natural features and minimize storm runoff and
erosion.
•
Finding 4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the
Zoning Ordinance;
The purpose of the proposed development is to create a new single family residence of a quality
and amenity that is comparable to its surrounding community. The proposal does not seek to
exceed the allowable limits for floor area or development area for this site. The proposal does not
seek to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces it is required to provide, a requirement which
keeps street parking to its bare minimum throughout the Town. The proposal does not rely on
massive grading or land disturbance to place the structure on the site. Without the approval of the
above variance items,the strict application of the zoning would not allow for a reasonable home
to be designed without significant compromise to its size, amenity, and quality.
As stated,development of this property is also consistent with the General Plan Goal III position
on in-fill housing opportunities on vacant or under-utilized parcels,to ensure local housing needs
are met. We feel the proposed design in this application is a carefully planned use of this site,is,
modest and functional,in proportion to the parcel and neighboring context,and represents a
reasonable development solution for this property.
While this project is being considered alongside a future proposed,residence on the directly adjacent
corner lot with similar circumstances and considerations,we ask that this proposed residence be reviewed
and considered under its own qualities and merits as a thoughtful and appropriate use for this property.
Overall,we feel both proposals are complimentary to each other and the surrounding neighborhood, and
will be a great addition to the community of Los Altos Hills.
Thank you for your time and consideration in review of this project.
Since '
o
Daniel S.Rhoads
Young and Borlik Architects,Inc.
pg. 6
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITH
APPROVED VARIANCESATTACHMENT 7
t 13838
40 it . :*
26786 26740 13826 I��_®_0-1 T-�;
01
Shoup Park
26746
792 25141 13651 n
26750
/1.3730 (Los Altos)
13850
o
3641 y .1[1
13472 _573 25711 . � 25099 �j# 13620
25V011352 . ,
. D_ > 25621 1-7----.--, I! ,:/
25740 25710 'r �: „ D r56 13613, _ 13590
?57C '�,C_� f ,,1362 '� ; .
/ 620 e ,:
25610 :,t_v _
25621 6fl 3°30
e
13571
r
�
si. ' 2552 I 1
�'f
BURK '`° '`25611 ,.' .� -
25551 *, . 13561 :,..
LN 13505 r .' 50 0 t.
3460 25600 - .:1/ '
25620 'r 13515 $ 13440 r "
13470 ® 13420 • , ,, t, ,, ;
25619 4;7 )
1?, {
.. > 13503
13430 . ':,,.
25630 ._.T;". ,. :'.
_ - •-, 426065 - `�; A` f:.
N
25601 25591 ~ � -._ 126045?o • :
25541 l �,T. .:. ;13390 �-
1I ,; : '13350 . ': edwood Grove
�"�"r" : : . 4 26000 •
� ��" q .26020 ' , (Los Altos)
\
ci
13151 : • 0 13354 13331 ':
!U 13330
13221 q '
3209
sp 13241 13300 132 LEGEND
.
13211 .i g ..
207 13310 13212 ,j .. * PROJECT SITE
;'� .
4
13150 13204 1
�; <mAo�� , - PROPERTIES WITH
)1 . ., e ~.h '•' VARIANCE APPROVALS
13200 13210
A;"I As,
ATTACHMENT 8
.-� " ,. YOUNG AND BORLIK
`' Vit..-;! ARCHITECTS, INCORPORATED
. rj a 480 LYTTON AVE,SUITE 8
"' PALO ALTO,CA 94301
d` t �
. _ ;...., TELEPHONE FAX WEB
l:. " . (650)688-1950 (650)323-1112 www.YBarchitects.com
Oct. 31,2014
revised Jan. 15,201A-5
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Division
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Attn: Steve Padovan, Suzanne Avila
Re: Conditional Development Permit(CDP),
Project Description and Findings
25608 Deerfield Drive (APN: 175-26-043)
The purpose of this letter is to address the Conditional Development Permit application for a new single
family residence at the above address. We are additionally applying for associated variance approvals in
tandem with this application. Upon careful consideration of the property, and based on feedback and
guidance from Planning staff,we are pleased to present this project for review.
Introduction:
Our proposal is for a new 3,511 sf single family residence(3,590 sf MFA allowable),with a 1,400 sf
basement. The proposed home is situated on a relatively level lot(6% avg. slope)with a Lot Unit Factor
(LUF) of 0.359. The design for the home is inspired by a Colonial farmhouse style architecture. The roof
lines are steeper to present more of the roofing material, with second floor eaves dropped down to reduce
the second floor plate height appearance and accentuate the dormer elements that present on the front
elevation. Finish materials will include painted horizontal siding, double hung windows, and accentuated
cornice,corner, and window moulding details,with composition shingle roofing.
Findings:
A Conditional Development Pennit is required for projects such as this where the Lot Unit Factor(LUF)
of the parcel is 0.50 or less. In this review,we respectfully ask if the Planning Commission can determine
that our proposed single family residence is appropriate for this site,based on the quality of our design
and how it fits this particular site and surrounding neighborhood. For this conclusion to be made,the
following findings need to be made and accepted as part of the approval. These findings are in support of
the carefully presented plans and elevations for this design which accompany this application.
1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size shape, and topography to accommodate
the proposed intensity of development,including all structures,yards, open spaces,parking,
landscaping, walls, and fences, and other such features as may be required by this chapter;
The existing site is relatively level (-6%slope), generally rectangular in shape,and suited for a
single family residence as we have proposed. The construction will not involve significant
Re:CDP form Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043)
Oct.31,2014 -
grading or topography alterations. The parcel,size is somewhat smaller than the local average,
and well below the stated Town policy of minimum one acre parcels. However it is not a lone
occurrence in the Town. Specifically,most of Deerfield Drive contains lots of similar size, and
most are less than a half-acre and 0.50 LUF so would necessitate a CDP and potentially variances
for future redevelopment.
The proposed floor area for the structure is also being limited accordingly to keep the home size
proportionate to the property dimensions. The small lot size will eliminate options for large
outdoor features such as pools or tennis courts to be a part of this project. However,the project
will provide all the required off-street parking spaces,meet the standards for driveway widths and
clearances,meet the height limit for the structure,provide ample outdoor yards and spaces, and
will not exceed the MFA and MDA limits set in the zoning ordinance.
2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity, and harmonious
appearance in relation to the size,shape, and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding
neighborhood;
The proposed residence is 3,565 sf,which represents about 23%as a ratio of floor area to the site
area. In a comparison example, on a half-acre lot(21,780 sf)of same slope(less than 10%),for
which the LUF would be 0.50 or greater,the allowable home size would be 5,000 sf based on the
exception for minimum MFA and not require a CDP. On this half-acre site,this 5,000 sf home
would represent about 23%as a ratio,which is an identical proportion to our proposed project.
The proposed home size is also in-line with other newly constructed home development in the
immediate area,with lots of similar scale. A.cursory review of neighboring homes along
Deerfield Drive shows a range of about 2,500 sf to 4,000 sf. This proposed home is in the middle
of that range. Despite beinglimited on floor area to below the Town allowed 5,000 sf minimum
MFA,the project will invest in the additional expense and logistics to build a basement. The
additional square footage will bring the totalhome closer to this typical 5,000 sf house size,but
this additional square footage willbe completely below grade so that the outward appearance of
above ground volume stays.minimized.
The driveway access has been placed to avoid the removal of the oaks along Deerfield. The side
facing garage accentuates the architectural style by featuring the architectural elements and
minimizing the view of the large garage door opening. It is also the most efficient solution with
the least amount of impervious paved surface to serve the garage and the uncovered parking
spaces. The location of the uncovered parking'spaces and the backup distance will however
require a variance approval to achieve this design. Other properties around the Town and in the
immediate area have taken this approach as a solution to providing the off street parking where
lot constraints prevented.otherwise. To mitigate the impact, continuous tree screening vegetation
will be planted along the common property line to the right.
The proposed finished floor elevation of the residence is set to involve minimal grading to
achieve the building pad,the driveway and parking, and the patio space. A balance of small
amounts of cut and fill will be employed to keep the profile down lower, as is the intent of the
zoning ordinances. The finished floor elevation also allows for the basement to be completely
subterranean as defined in the ordinance.
Pg.2
Re:CDP for 1.Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043)
Oct.31,2014
Overall,the feel of a smaller scale home will be consistent with the smaller size of the lot. In
general,this part of the Town is a transition area between the higher density of adjacent Los Altos
and the heart of Los Altos Hills. Many homes in this area are of similar smaller scale and.
appearance, compared to lots deeper within the Town. This reinforces a gradual and graceful
transition experience when driving up Burke Road deeper into the Town.
The farmhouse style of the home,with lowered second floor eave line and dormer roof elements,
minimizes the appearance of the second story to visually reduce the overall impression of size.
The texture of the wood siding can feel less"heavy"than other materials(such as a comparable
stucco fmish). We feel this home will be a nice presence near that corner,which is a nexus of
several streets connecting into the greater Town-wide neighborhoods, and be a thoughtful
contribution to the streetscape of Deerfield Drive.
1111-1—r I
I 111 Ji ! Luun
I
} _I '�� _ i 11LLQ �,I IL,111, ! �! P4 4.1 '
I I _— I _I I1 I I III
I i � — ( J If Il ll
JIII_ - I ► I — - il_J _ ILL _
1
A
/I�I r
1 k�� 1I ice,
'r
:� •■•
_.u
e, ■
_ — -
Figure 2.1the proposed front elevation of the residence.
3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as muchas feasible by minimizing vegetation.
and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading, and alteration of natural forms;
As much of the existing site character as possible will be preserved with this project. Overall
grading will be minimized. Minor amounts of gradingwill allow modest outdoor patio and yard
spaces. All of the large specimen trees will be retained. And aside from some selective removals
for driveway connections,most of the trees along the Deerfield Drive frontage will be retained,
many of them oaks, also for consistency in presence along the street frontage
Since this parcel has been used together with the neighboring property as one contiguous
residence,the project will necessitate minor grading within the 10.feet on either side of the
property line. With structures and improvements that straddle across the.common property line,
this action will correct this current non-compliant situation and create grading/drainage
pg. 3
Re:CDP for®Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043)
Oct.31,2014
configurations that comply with the Town standards. A variance approval will be required for
this work.
4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site
Development Ordinance;
The proposed development complies with MDA and MFA limits calculated for this lot. The
project provides all required parking,meets the height limit, and contains the entire structural
footprint(including lightwells)within the setbacks. The exception to the setback conformance
will be the variance items for elements which don't have a vertical presence. This will include
the short eave overhangs,the rear patio on grade, and uncovered parking. The eaveoverhangs
will be limited to 6 inch to12 inch projections,primarily on the side elevations. The outdoor
patio only represents the flat surface material on grade outside the rear doors,and is modest in
size(only 12 feet deep). Though it will necessitate a variance to fit the uncovered parking spaces
due to the limited lot area,the correct number will be provided, and only embody a paved surface
area that will be mutually screened between both neighbors,and with a mutual relationship with
the uncovered parking spaces and driveway of the home next door.
Summary:
We feel this proposal is a high quality design, and the best use of the property, and will be a suitable
addition to the neighborhood. While this project is being considered with a future proposed residence on
the directly adjacent lot with similar circumstances and considerations,we ask that this proposed
residence be reviewed and considered under its own qualities and merits asa thoughtful and appropriate
use for this property.
Thank you for.your.time and consideration in review of this project.
Since
Daniel S.Rhoads
Young and Borlik Architects,Inc.
pg.4
LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC; 25608 Deerfield Drive:. ATTACHMENT 9
My husband and I are the homeowners of 25620 Deerfield Drive, who have lived in our home for
8 years. We are writing you to respectfully request that you NOT grant the requested variances
to the proposed project(s). We believe there are no special circumstances or hardships that
support variances for either or both projects.
Background Chronology
Initially, two residences were being proposed by the developer: 25520 Deerfield Drive and
25608 Deerfield Drive. These lots of .347 and .359 acres, respectively, are the smallest lots on
the street. I viewed the proposals for the development with my neighbor, Judy Krakauer (25610
Deerfield Drive) on August 14, 2014. We both had significant concerns about the requested
variances and suggested to Steve Padovan that the variances and complexity of the project
could be easily solved by merging the lots and building one house. We communicated this both
verbally and in writing to Steve, who said he would pass our concerns along to the developer.
Merging of the lots was also recommended by the Environmental Design Committee.
On December 22, 2014, I received an email from Steve Padovan to inform me that the
developer had now rescinded the proposal for 22520 Deerfield Drive but planned to go forward
with the proposal for 25608 Deerfield Drive.
On December 31, 2014, Ray Strimaitis, owner of 25561 Deerfield Drive, and I met with Suzanne
Avila to discuss the proposal for 22520 Deerfield. We again suggested that the two lots be
merged to create one home without the need for variances. We expressed concern about the
length of construction for two lots at separate times and the significant inconveniences it creates
for the neighborhood.
On January 13, 2015 a group of seven concerned neighbors met with the developers, Mr. and
Mrs. Kalbali, Daniel Rhodes (architect), and Steve Padovan. We reiterated our request for
merging the lots, and in the event that the developer insisted on building two houses we
suggested: 1) constructing a shared driveway for both houses, 2) building both houses at the
same time to mitigate the construction time and congestion on our narrow street (Deerfield
Drive) with only one access, and 3) using the existing driveway on Burke Road for construction
parking and entrance. Mr. Kalbali refused to entertain any of our suggestions or address the
underlying concerns.
Discussion of Proposed Variances
Small Lot Size—
• The requested variances are all associated with setbacks resulting from the maximization of
structure size on each of the two lots. The applicant's primary argument to support the need
for variances is the small size of the lot(s) compared to the other lots in the neighborhood.
This argument is based on the developer's decision not to merge the two small lots which
would eliminate the need for variances altogether. This argument is contrary to the city code
that states "The purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships,
not of the applicant's own making." By not merging the lots the applicant is making his own
problem. We believe applicant has withdrawn the application for the other lot (25520
Deerfield Drive) in an effort to support their arguments for variances based on the small lot
size by ensuring that this will be viewed as a standalone project. This new twist of
developing only the inner lot now adds further insult to the neighborhood by extending the
time frame for construction of the two lots over a multiple year period. Since the applicant
refers repeatedly to the adjacent property, and to the grading and demolition that will occur
on the adjacent property, both proposals should be evaluated together. This would result in
less staff time, less construction time, and significantly less impact on the neighborhood.
• The application shows a building envelope of 2,787 square feet. Subtracting areas
earmarked for uncovered parking (400 sf), driveway backup area (520 sf), fire place (4 sf),
eaves (60 sf) and a small patio (50 sf) would result in a building envelope of 1,757 sf, which
would be doubled to approximately 3,514 square feet with addition of a second story. By
adding the planned basement (1,397 sf) the living space is increased to approximately 4,911
square feet. This would be a very reasonable sized home, larger than all but one of the
homes on the street, without requiring any special exceptions or variances, including the
special treatment of the eaves. 60 square feet of the eaves encroach as a result of
maximizing the size of the structures, an issue created solely by the applicant. Granting the
eave variance would constitute a grant of special privilege.
Fair Share Housing —
• The applicant argues that maintaining the two lots assists with the Los Altos Hills regional fair
share housing requirements. This statement would be supported if the applicant was to build
two modest homes that met all the code requirements. Two brand new homes of a smaller
size could be a unique opportunity in the community for first time buyers or existing residents
looking to down size. Unfortunately, the applicant is proposing to maximize the size of the
home(s), thus creating the need for variance.
Similar Privileges —
• The applicant argues that the small lot size deprives them of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity, however no specific privileges in comparison to the neighbors are
identified.
Structure Design —
• The proposed structure size is 3566 square feet with the basement being 1,397 square feet
which brings the total to almost 5000 square feet, significantly exceeding the average
structure size on Deerfield Drive of 3062 square feet and almost double the median structure
size of 2707 square feet.
• The overall design of the proposed house is unattractive. The LAH Guidelines Page 4
Number 6 states "On a visible lot, both the good and bad points for the design of a home
tend to show up more obviously than on a more secluded lot. Therefore, it is important when
planning a home on an exposed lot, to observe this guidebook more rigorously". Pages 19,
21, and 22 of the Guidebook provide examples of mitigating bulk and mass as compared to
the current proposal.
o Goal Ill —A.1 Increasing setback may help to mitigate mass and bulk.
o Goal IV— B.1 Plan for adequate outdoor living when planning your total MDA.
o Goal IV- B.3 Plan for the required four off street parking places.
• There is a pattern of inconsistent, missing and misleading information in the Building Plan:
o On the Certificate of Conformance "Exhibit D", the eastern property line is inconsistent
with that of the topographic map. This is a discrepancy that needs to be clarified.
o On the garage floor plan of the proposal, the oval window details on first floor is not
shown. This also needs to be clarified. The first floor rear elevation mud room
window is also not shown.
o There is no Arborist Report in the file.
o There is no History Report in the file.
o We are unable to find evidence that there has been any consideration of the tributary
on the western side of the property, which leads directly into Adobe Creek. This
tributary has a created flooding problems in the past.
o Even though the project has been reduced to one house the project plans still show
the second house. The applicant further references the second home in their
argument of the variance finding number#3, that the parking on the property line will
be mutually mitigated by the parking in the same location on the adjacent lot. As a
standalone project all references to the other project should be removed from the
plans and references. There are also inconsistencies as to what actual entitlements
are being applied for. The applicant is requesting a grading variance not consistent
with the city notice.
Conclusion
We appreciate your valuable time and hope that we have clearly articulated the valid issues and
concerns we have in regard to the proposed project. There are no special circumstances or
hardships that support granting of variances for one or both projects. Granting of the variances
constitutes a grant of special privilege that is inconsistent with the community. Granting of the
variances for this project and allowing simultaneous grading and demolition to be performed on
the adjacent property is in violation of the town code. We are concerned with the inconsistencies
in the proposed plan and the lack of an Arborist report or History report; we expect that these
issues would have to be clarified by the town prior to approval to ensure that high quality
structures of design consistent with the guidelines will be built in our neighborhood to
complement the existing homes. Therefore, we respectfully request the planning commission
not to grant the requested variances for the uncovered parking, eave overhangs, rear patio
encroachment, fireplace encroachment, and grading variance within 10 feet of the property
boundary and reject this proposal.
Sincerely, <
Alice and Doug Rimer
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR - SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
Ps1s 2s
•
TRACT F4 4306 TRACT t.75239 '20_5561/fa Rase:Meal I
• mw 7 urs. / A • ... v,., ] L `0,a
1
OWIALA 1 {OO ALL 1 o.6ci AA• o,p14 O.gtb pa. caw. T \,� 25
LOT 1 LOT z - f °,c'' �c D
•
1 I ¢ s .L o v
1 3 2. - n
O C ? J
ptv o.c;a AC. .. _ rca., urc24 n a . o.w �OI1 4 lf`:R:�— .so�OEERFIELD uen rsns eT:r DR:
Kr.. CS/J
f • 1t rstw/�/ 2 7 2 .2 . At g _ w At. I
YL
T- � �f141,.....
0441SAC: ohb?'IAC. / a40ac If�OSZVJc. / '-1‘...'
LOOKll4 /,? wia n+ Ao ei -"m•a r z_.. mer
jJl7 41 L72D/C. Li4AL 0.452 AC.PR 14t K / 8.1,'L3
CD
j JS I dl > C. A U)
a kl
of 7g `—s ri o0 0
1.,_40'__,q/N., I _ ____-a* ___-. - :::. OURI: rrAr . LANE^^__� asi m1 CA
_7 v1` Y.v-30. Lt-. - _ ..•r. -. _ -—_ __ _,_. s. E. 73
1 �_.-.� aoi.Ao..`. oiswsa.-` ix.s`www LO3 K. 097 k_ [DACI lin AC MOT K. 0.907 AC. WM K a9A AC.NCT, fal
2. CD
36 S • 24 .ice "y A 1 2 N / �5� QuA 9 .c..
0 alas.: OAIRT A4 28
•
CC, SI \-./ \g
• 'C'•r we
.n ILO 1 ,wv car. f _121,0 I ISL. [ rcua / C•rLO=rcp65�Y-•SILS0(}.
t ppm`
. DEIIMODY TRACT I Z8) • T" r L s•'®" 4 A m0., s
!c r.
LOT IC OF ,a P.I.
.TAAE SbB.of LOT 4• TAAFFE PART ��../J//'�� r� �A
Y
Attachment 2 — Deerfield Dr. Structure Summary
Lot Size Structure Size Structure:Lot
Parcel No Name Address (acre) (square ft) Ratio (sf)
1 Akiyama 25531 Deerfield 0.540 1700 0.072
2 Strimaitis 25561 Deerfield 0.390 3478 0.205
3 Carey 25621 Deerfield 0.923 6287 0.156
4 Su 25701 Deerfield 0.419 3924 0.215
5 Zoroufy 25711 Deerfield 0.552 2071 0.086
6 Maupile25731 Deerfield 0.478 2772 0.133 _
7 Duggal 25740 Deerfield 0.641 2168 0.078
8 Smith 25710 Deerfield 0.487 2282 0.108
9 Lai 25700 Deerfield 0.487 3669 0.173
10 Rimer 25620 Deerfield 0.526 2625 0.115
11 Krakauer 25610 Deerfield 0.828 2702 0.075
3566 (+ 1398
12 Proposed _ 25608 Deerfield 0.359 sf Basement) 0.228
3463 (+ 1400
13 Future Proposed 1353 Burke 0.347 sf Basement) 0.229
Avg L t sii (acre) = ,w 01570
Median Loot sizes e526
AvgiSt acture s) l_ F
g ( fl � �X3062
Mahan Structure.(sem timiKowazi
1, ; r„ . ,tea F-x
• If
Avg �p _ , f,
Structure:Lot Rsatio4A0.129
M dean Vx.rtt _:_ Zy **'a
Str icturse:Lot Ratio$ .0.,115° _
rJ i it c,'� ..e" F`�'.^�5` "PK• 'K '
Attachment 3 — Fast Track Guide Excerpts
Goal III: Design Your House to Minimize the Appearance of
Bulk
A. The appearance of bulk and mass should be minimized when designing a new
residence. Techniques include: greater setbacks for visual separation, avoidance of
large massing, implementation of architectural details, use of texture and color,
varied rooflines, and landscaping screening. Siting can mitigate bulk. Whenever
possible, place the house on the lot so that it is framed by the land or existing
vegetation.
1. 'ncreasina setbae s Etay capi mit;a ate mass aid ainSstruetures
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-2.702
NEW RESIDENCE _
LOS ALTOS HILLS,'CA LIFOR\IA �'!' - - ^-'�•.. ��L..�!
�iiri$I!7 v' t'
4. i to
j t!ts
lEin
v.ovosrn rnorvr E�vanox -E..+ S;'woe�_V j �yyl M+ l: ` ,Vt•t
Proposed Structure Guideline
B. Architectural details can mitigate size and bulk.
1. Lon a er Ed?eaves ® a rakes DK@ encoura a ed shade.
Municipal Code Section 10-2.702 (c)
Goal IV: Design for Your Needs, the Needs of the Town and
Those of Your Neighbors
B. Design for livability
1. PI-an for adeaelate outdoor livi'na when al'annina 'our total develoo'me t area. Cluster
structures to maximize open space.
2. Make landscaping an integral part of your site plan. Existing mature landscaping should be
maintained and integrated with new landscape screening.
3. Plan for the reoulred four off-street oarkina soaves and adeonate space for the fire truck
•urnarouna.
BARBARA J . GOODRIJ ACHMENT 10
January 27, 2015
Mr. Steve Padovan
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Lands of KDCI DVELOPMENT LLC
25608 Deerfield Drive
File #233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR
Dear Steve:
Thanks for walking me through the Deerfield plans last week, as well as giving me a
tutuorial on the self-serve computer system.
I've been a Los Altos Hills resident for almost eleven years, and I've experienced new
homes being built on both lots adjacent to mine. Our "substandard" lots can make
compliance with LAH requirements a challenge, and I appreciate that you make every
effort to evaluate each proposal on its merits.
I'm concerned, however,when a single project requires so many variances. It sets a
free-for-all precedent that makes future enforcement very difficult to defend. It's
within the applicant's rights to choose not to merge the lots, but it's not reasonable to
then request multiple variances to accommodate that decision.
There's a tipping point when too many variances are required. When so many
requirements can't be met,it makes more sense to adjust the project rather than Los
Altos Hills' standards.
Very truly yours,
104414'd—
cc:
Planning Commission
13625 HILL WAY • LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA • 94022
PHONE: 650-941-1882 • FAX: 650-941-8764 • EMAIL: BGOOD94028@AOL.COM
ATTACHMENT 11
Steve Padovan
From: judystewk <judystewk@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2015 11:39 AM
To: Steve Padovan
Cc: Alice; Raystr@yahoo.com; Scott Akiyama; Bart Carey; Douglas R Smith; Monica Richter-
Maupile
Subject: Proposed development on Deerfield Drive
Dear Steve,
My husband and I attended the helpful meeting you arranged on January 13, 2015 to review the development
plan of the two properties at the corner of Deerfield and Burke. The developer and many neighbors were
present.
As a reminder, our property is on Deerfield Drive adjacent to the property under development. We are
concerned that the developer is planning to build two excessively large homes on two excessively small lots,
thereby diminishing the semi-rural character of the neighborhood.
In response to that meeting and a prior meeting I attended with you on August 22, 2014, we would like to
present the following concerns.
Issues that relate specifically to our property:
1. Screening: We are requesting tall plantings between our two properties on the side of our adjoining fence. We
would like this plan to be put into writing before building.
Windows: The size and number of windows facing our property needs to be reviewed. The current plan
compromises our privacy.
House paint: The proposed reflectivity value is too high. A darker color would allow the house to blend into the
neighborhood better.
Variance request re. eaves. We do not favor this. The developer has the option of downsizing.
Issues that relate to the neighborhood:
Driveways: The two driveways on Deerfield as planned are untenable for the neighbors immediately across the
street.One driveway should be positioned on Burke.
The added disruption in terms of noise and trucks, caused by building the two proposed houses at separate
times.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Judy and Stewart Krakauer
1
ATTACHMENT 12
Steve Padovan
From: Scott Akiyama <scott.akiyama@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday,January 23, 2015 12:55 AM
To: Steve Padovan
Cc: Ray Strimaitis;Alice Rimer; Bart Carey; Monica Richter-Maupile;Judystewk; Douglas R.
Smith; Vita Strimaitis; Thierry Maupile (tmaupile)
Subject: Re: Burke & Deerfield Development
Hi Steve,
I also attended the meeting on Jan 13th, 2015, to review the development plan with the developer and Deerfield
residents.
First off, thank you for supporting the meeting so that Deerfield residents and LAH staff could meet with the
developer in a single meeting. Per your request, I'm sending you a summary of my safety concern in a written
format. I'm also adding an additional concern I've come to better understand since our meeting. These points
echo Ray's concerns.
Safety
I live across the street from the two development properties and the plans include two `active' driveways on
Deerfield Drive. These two driveways are in close proximity to each other as well as one being directly across
the street from my driveway. This design greatly increases the likelihood of a collision, unnecessarily, between
vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists and thus is an un-safe design. The driveway of the corner property would be
directly across from my driveway and yet another collision path my family has to address each day as our
drivers back out of the driveway. This adds another complication to the existing 5-way intersection next to our
house which has limited visibility to incoming vehicles.
It would be better if the corner property maintained the existing driveway on Burke. I do realize that the corner
property is not currently being reviewed by the planning commission, but many of the Deerfield residents feel
that both of these properties should be reviewed together to fully assess impacts like this one.
Housing Density
This was addressed in the Jan 13th meeting but I did not comment at that time. But now that I see the story
sticks up for the inner property as well as the driveway markers, I'm getting a much clearer view of how two
homes on these properties is going to dramatically change the housing density near my home. Since the
driveways are directly in front of my property, when I look out the front of my home, I will get a full view of
two driveways and two two-story homes. It will be difficult to add screening on their property due to the fact
that I will be looking straight up their driveways. Plus the amount of hardscape/parking located between the two
1
(back to back alongthe property line) will most likelyafford me a rather unobstructed view of both
properties p p Y
properties (not desirable BTW).
Due to density concerns, it is preferable that a single home be built on the combined properties. Barring that,
then a design that does not locate the hardscape/parking for both properties back-to-back allowing more
vegetation to be planted between the two homes.. This is an argument for a single home on the combined
property and reviewing both designs together rather than a staggered format.
Thanks,
Scott Akiyama
gn Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Steve Padovan<SPadovancar losaltoshills.ca.gov> wr• e:
' Hello . • ,
�r
The e-mail will be inclu.-.,,, in the staff report and as an attachmeo
Steve Padovan
IConsultant Planner
I Town of Los Altos Hills
ph (650) 947-2509
{
I
From: Ray Strimaitis,tr- ailto:raystr@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, J,`uary 22, 2015 10:49 AM
To: Steve Padp0 an
Cc: Alice R.f, er; Scott Akiyama; Bart Carey; Monica Richter-Maupile; Judystewk; Douglas '. Smith; Vita
Strimai s, Thierry Maupile (tmaupile)
Sub; Fw: Burke & Deerfield Development
Steve,
2
ATTACHMENT 13
Steve Padovan
From: Ray Strimaitis <raystr@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday,January 22, 2015 10:49 AM
To: Steve Padovan
Cc: Alice Rimer; Scott Akiyama; Bart Carey; Monica Richter-Maupile;Judystewk; Douglas R.
Smith;Vita Strimaitis;Thierry Maupile (tmaupile)
Subject: Fw: Burke & Deerfield Development
Steve,
I am forwarding the email I sent to you in September. I ask that you make sure that it(along with this email) are
included in the file that will be made available to the Planning Commission. As I mentioned during our recent
meeting with you, the developers, and Deerfield Drive neighbors at the town hall -my concerns include:
- Increased density created by two homes on adjacent sub-standard lots. I would urge you and the Planning
Commission to review the effect of the two proposed developments "holistically"—not just one project now, one
project later;
- Congestion and safety concerns of having the driveway of the proposed corner house at Deerfield Drive. As one
neighbor reminded at the meeting, the corner house is at a five way intersection and those of us living on Deerfield
Drive already experience occasional traffic confusion by cars competing to clear that intersection;
- Time in building two homes in sequence. While the developers believe a single home can be built in 12 months—all
objective data and anecdotal experiences we've seen suggest much longer. As proposed, we could be facing a
multi-year development along with ancillary noise, disruption, inconveniences throughout the duration of that time.
I've included a few of our neighbors on copy—as they may wish to express similar or independent concerns.
Best regards,
Ray Strimaitis
Forwarded Message
From: Ray Strimaitis <raystr@yahoo.com>
To: SPadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Cc: "rimera@mac.com" <rimera@mac.com>; bcarey <bcarey@careyvision.com>; AngelaC.Akiyama@wellsfargo.com;
angela.lai@gmail.com; David (RWC) Gray <DGray@colliersparrish.com>; Vita Strimaitis <vitastrim@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:10 AM
Subject: Burke & Deerfield Development
Steve —Thanks for taking the time to review the plans for the proposed development at the corner of
Burke and Deerfield. Based on our discussion, I understand that there is a proposal to:
- Develop two homes on the adjacent properties, each at approximately 3,500 sq. ft. MFA.
You also informed that:
- Current LAH guidelines allow for 2,500 sq. ft. MFA for each property, without the need for granting
a variance for either.
Accordingly, the additional 1,000 sq. ft. (approximate) MFA for each property requires variances. It is
my understanding that a variance may be granted "because of exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances". Based on our conversation and visual inspection of the properties —there does not
1
appear to be anything that is either exceptional or extraordinary about these two properties that
warrant granting variances..
As you and I reviewed the proposed plans, we also observed that each of the.homes:
- Face Deerfield,
- Position driveways, in close proximity to one another,
- Call for further encroachments into property setbacks.
It is also my understanding that each developed property may-need to pay for a sewer connection —
to reimburse those residents who funded the extension of the sewers to'Deerfield Drive.
Reviewing the Land Use document, along with other information available on the Los Altos Hills web
site, I've noted the following:
GOAL
Maintain the semi-rural character of the community while providing for residential uses, open space,
and the minimum public and private facilities and services needed to serve residents on a continuing
basis.
Policy 1.1 Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi-rural atmosphere of the community,
minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the
maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and
landscaping.
The proposed plans calling for generous variances are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the
Town's Land Use guidelines. Viewed objectively:
- Developing two homes (total exceeding 7,000 sq: ft. MFA for both) on a combined lot that is less
than 3/ acre would disrupt the "semi-rural character of the community";
- Added congestion, traffic and parking challenges would result. Two single-family residents
necessarily result in a disproportionate amount of congestion, traffic and parking challenges — not
only during construction, but also after development. Trailers, cars, tents and boats are frequently
parked/stored at the subject properties with the current tenants. One could reasonably conclude that
this could be even worse with two, separate new homes.
Meanwhile, recognizing that progress and development is inevitable, you and I discussed the
alternative of developing one, single house on the combined properties. The advantages of that
proposition include:
- Greater available building "envelope" — based ononly one set of building setbacks
- Conformance with LAH Land Use guidelines in keeping with the existing semi-rural character of
the community
- Single sewer connection fee (versus two connection fees)
While I can't speak for all neighbors and property owners in the area, I suspect there would be a
willingness to support reasonable variances for-a single development project on the combined
properties.
Thanks again for taking thetime to meet and consider the above as you continue the review of the
proposed development and options at the property.
Best regards,
2
ATTACHMENT 14
Helen and Virgil Gualtieri
13613 Burke Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
TO: Planning Commission
r:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2015
RESPONSE: 25608 Deerfield Drive FILE#233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR.
.In response to the letter we received regarding a neighboring property 25608 Deerfield Drive.We
are not against variances as sometimes they are needed. However,to get a building permitted in
1977 we had to give 20 feet along Fremont Road as well as 20 feet along Burke Road totaling 1/3 of
an acre. Our buildable land left was a pie-shaped 1/3 acre.We requested variances and they were
denied.Our setbacks are the same as a full acre on our small lot.
In this case we are against the request for five variances,as there is enough buildable space for the
4,909 square foot home.This is a small lot with a big home.
Other builders were denied variances in our area.To grant variances will set a precedent for all
'Owriers and spec contractors'in the future.Furthermore,there will be unhappy neighbors as we
wish-We would have been granted one variance.
h� rt
Helen and Virgil Gualtieri
{
y1i