The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.3 Supplement SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM#70.3 Distributed: 7.1M/(5 From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:56 PM To: Jaime McAvoy; Steve Padovan Subject: Fwd: Response to Staff Report/Deerfield Drive Attachments: Staff Report Response.pdf; ATT00001.htm Jaime, Please post the attached. Thanks, • Suzanne Begin forwarded message: From: Alice Rimer<4bigfoot@sbcglobal.net> Date: February 2, 2015 at 21:54:00 PST To: <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>, <SPadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc: Susan<jsmandle@hotmail.com>, <jitze@couperus.org>, Kavita Tankha <kavitat@comcast.net>, <jima.pc@gmail.com>, <richard.partridge@comcast.net> Subject: Response to Staff Report/Deerfield Drive Suzanne and Steve, Thank you for sending us the Staff Report for the Deerfield Drive proposal. We are attaching our comments and concerns and appreciate you taking the time to review. We have also sent our comments to the members of the Planning Commission. Regards, Alice and Doug Rimer 1 • ;.3 Comparison Table Properties Approved with a Variance Address Net Lot MFA/MDA Dwelling Floor Existing or New Variance Granted Size/LUF (sq.ft.) Area (sq.ft.) Residence 13621 Burke .453 acres 3,723/6,621 3,723 New 1994 — Parking in side yard setback .453 LUF (2,718/6,795) and increase in MFA 13631 Burke .51 acres N/A N/A Existing 1962 — Guest Cottage in side yard setback 25561 Deerfield .4 acres 4,000/6,000 3,924 New/Replacement 1988 — Allow for a 20 foot side yard .4 LUF setback for dwelling 25620 Deerfield .44 acres 2,000 lot coverage 2,640 Existing/Room 1983 — Expansion over maximum .37 LUF 4,460 development Addition allowed building coverage and 4 foot area encroachment into side yard 25700 Deerfield .43 acres 1,682/3,342 3,920 Existing/Room 2001 — Exceed maximum MFA and .31 LUF (2,480/4,580) Addition MDA 25701 Deerfield .381 acres 3,300/5,400 3,267 New 2005—Parking in the side yard setback .33LUF 25731 Deerfield .478 acres 2,470/5,628 3,062 Existing/Room 1994 — Exceed maximum MFA and .43 LUF Addition MDA 13530 Fremont .40 acres 4,547/6,647 4,323 New 2005 —Parking in the side yard setback Proposed Project 25608 Deerfield .359 acres 3,590/5,690 3,511 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 This is a response to the Staff Report dated February 5, 2015 LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT, LLC. The requested variances are all associated with setbacks resulting from the maximization of structure size on a substandard (.356 acre) lot. 1. The applicant has requested a variance for four parking spaces in a side yard setback and a variance for grading within 10 feet of a property line. However, the Staff Report is confusing as to what variances the applicant is requesting. • On Page 3, the Staff Report states the applicant is requesting a variance for two of the four parking spaces and does not address the grading variance. • On Page 4 the Staff Report states "The property will be graded to create a building pad, driveway, parking area and rear yard area". Since the Staff Report identifies Sectionl0- 2.407 (Grading not permitted within 10 feet of a property line) as being applicable to the project, it would appear that a variance for grading within 10 feet of the property line should apply to this, in addition to a variance for the four parking spaces in a required setback and a variance for the back-up area that encroaches to within 4 feet of the side property line where 10 feet is required. 2. On Page 4 under SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE, the report fails to state how the project is consistent with the General Plan policies and Design Guidelines. The report simply describes the design. 3. On Page 5 under GRADING AND DRAINAGE, the Engineering Department states that a variance is required for the garage backup area, but fails to discuss flood issues identified by the neighbors in the attached letters 4. On Page 6 under TREES AND LANDSCAPING, without a specific landscape or screening plan, the Planning Commission cannot address the concerns of the neighbor(See Attachment 11). 5. On Page 9 the Staff Report states "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 eave should be considered". This statement is contrary to Land Use practice that does not allow economics to be a reason for a variance or poor design. 6. On Page 11 the Staff Report states that Staff has addressed most of the concerns from surrounding residents. In fact, the Staff Report fails to address most concerns and only appears to address #6 and#7. Of particular concern is the drainage issue. 7. CDP finding Number One (Attachment 1) is not consistent with the variances being requested or discussed in the Staff Report. The main finding is that improved design is more harmonious with the typical development. This finding does not discuss how this project is harmonious or what it would look like if it was smaller and met all code requirements. 8. CDP finding Number 2 does not discuss the design or appearance of the house. 9. CDP finding Number 3 cannot be evaluated without a landscape plan. 10.Variance finding Number 1 (Attachment 2) does not specify what privileges the applicant is deprived of by meeting the zoning requirements. Staff also arrives at the conclusion that a design conforming to code requirements would necessarily impact useable floor area on the main floor level without considering any alternative layouts. 11.Variance finding Number 2 (Attachment 2) states that the approval of the setback variances will result in a design more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. In fact, the setback variances will allow the home on the smallest lot to be larger than the vast majority of the homes on Deerfield Drive. 12.Variance finding Number 3 (Attachment 2) states that the variance does not allow the development to exceed allowable floor area. The height, setback, floor area, and building area codes are designed to work together, not individually, tocreate a project that is consistent with the Town codes. By allowing variances for setbacks, the town is allowing the project to be developed in excess of neighboring homes and not proportionately consistent with the small lot it is situated on. The findings once again bring up the neighboring lot which the Town has no current development plans for and should not be included in this project unless the applicant is willing to place very specific deed restrictions on the adjacent lot based on the development of the proposed lot. 13.Condition Number 8 should not be a condition but part of the Planning Commission review prior to approval. See Attachment 11. 14.Condition Number 18 should be subject to the aforementioned Deed restriction. 15.Condition Number 21 would appear to support the need for the grading variance. Z SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM#'3 3 Distributed:,2/5115 From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 2:56 PM To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Steve Padovan Subject: FW: 25608 Deerfield Dr. Jaime, Please make copies for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Suzanne From: Bart Carey[mailto:bcarey@careyvision.com] Sent:Thursday, February 05, 2015 2:07 PM To:jsmandle@hotmail.com;Jitze Couperus; kavitat@comcast.net;jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Cc:Steve Padovan; Suzanne Avila Subject: 25608 Deerfield Dr. Dear LAH Planning Commissioners, I am a neighbor of the above proposed development on Deerfield Dr, living on the same street for 17 years. Now proposed for development as a 0.36 acre parcel,this lot has used as part of a combined 0.72 acre parcel (13531 Burke Rd.) for over 60 years. 13531 Burke was formerly owned by one of the founding families of LAH, and is near one of the main entrances to our town. The larger neighborhood is a mix of conforming and non-conforming parcels, with several parcels developed prior to the incorporation of LAH. The new owners have presented plans to develop the parcels separately, with 25608 Deerfield planned for initial development. I am aware of the challenges of developing on a non-conforming lot,with a more limited building envelope. Recognizing these challenges, it is of interest and pertinence to the current application that LAH adopted a new ordinance in 2001 re-defining the MFA and MDA allowed on non-confirming parcels, increasing MFA by over 30% for parcels under 0.5 acre. This ordinance change was in part a response to frequent variance requests on non-conforming lots. It should also be noted that with current ordinance 25608 Deerfield already enjoys a considerable advantage in regard to MFA/acre compared to conforming lots in Town. If the MFA ratio for this parcel (3590 sf/0.359 LUF)was applied to a flat acre parcel, that acre parcel would be allowed an MFA of 10,000 sf(rather than the 6000 sf maximum, nearly a 67%bonus). A comparable development bonus will also apply to the upcoming parcel 25520 Deerfield, all contrary to the desired housing density in LAH and skewing the housing density in this neighborhood. Please also note that all the parcels in this neighborhood that previously received a variance for increased MFA/MDA(mentioned on page 8 of the staff report)were developed prior to the ordinance change in 2001. There is no precedent for granting such variances with the new ordinance. In 2005, a request to increase the building area into the setbacks was denied for 13530 Fremont. Please consider the following points: 1. These parcels should be developed as a single lot, with a single home. Development as a single 0.72 acre parcel is more consistent with development throughout LAH,the long history of this combined parcel, and with the desired housing density in this neighborhood. This might allow up to a 5000 sf MFA home, maybe even up to 10,000 sf total if a basement is placed under a single story home. i Larger outdoor living spaces would be possible, consistent with our rural character. Likely no variances would be necessary for parking or other development. Instead, we are faced with request for 5 variances for 25608 Deerfield, and likely a similar number of requests for the second parcel. The impact on the neighborhood would be minimized with the development of one updated home, as also recommended by the LAH Environmental Design and Protection Committee. I would urge the PC to take into account the large development bonus granted to these two small parcels, in regard to the high impact on our neighborhood. In the long run, there may not be a way to force use of these parcels for one home, but I would urge you to take a step back and allow time to explore ways to encourage or compel development as one parcel. Staying this proposal for further study would be an appropriate action, given the impact of the proposed development. The applicants indicated in a meeting with neighbors that developing one home would be more economically advantageous for them, and this is certainly the preference of the neighborhood. More time is needed for formal study of this possibility, or this historic opportunity to combine these parcels will be lost. I am confident there is a win-win solution here in building one home--but it will take leadership and direction from the PC to further explore this possibility. 2. If development is to proceed as two parcels, I would support the variance requests for parking and back-up area within the setbacks, so these may be moved more to the side of the parcel. As staff points out, there is also the opportunity in this regard to look ahead to development on the corner parcel owned by the same applicants to design a project on that parcel that will be minimally impacted by this parking variance. It is appropriate for the PC to look ahead in making recommendations for future development on the adjacent parcel. 3. I do not support variance requests for encroachment of roof eaves or chimney. I agree with the language in the staff report that the granting of these variances would amount a de facto increase in MFA. There is no hardship or surprise regarding MFA allowed on this parcel, and as above the opposite is true as this parcel receives a bonus per acre compared to most other parcels in LAH. Further, deciding to proceed with two homes maximizes the negative impact. There seems no justification to grant further bonus floor area on this or the adjacent parcel. Further, as noted above,there is no precedent for granting increased MFA and MDA under the current ordinance (which was not clear from the staff report). Granting these variances for encroachment of the structure into the setbacks would become a new, undesirable precedent. 4. Landscape screening deposit should be increased. Landscape screening will be a vital issue in mitigating the mass of the development proposed on these small parcels. This becomes even more important if any variances are approved for encroachment into the setbacks. A landscape screening deposit of$5000 is not adequate, given the extra importance of landscape screening in this case. 5. Construction access should be via the driveway off Burke Rd through the adjacent parcel. I believe the applicants are agreeable to this request. Deerfield Dr. is a small, narrow cul-de-sac, which would not easily accommodate construction traffic at its entrance (which is already a 5 way intersection). 6. It is important to consider future development at 25520 Deerfield, while considering the current proposal. More specifically, if 2 parcels are to be developed, the house on the corner lot should face Burke Rd, so further housing mass and traffic are not directed toward Deerfield Dr. The current driveway off Burke Rd. should be retained for this parcel. If the PC is to approve new development on Deerfield (especially if encroachments are granted into setbacks),the PC should make clear these recommendations for the next parcel. Thank you for your hard work on the LAH Planning Commission, and your consideration of my comments. 2 Bart Carey 3