The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.1 ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS April 22, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 3,214 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 1,251 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT ON A .359 NET ACRE LOT AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW TWO REQUIRED UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A VEHICLE BACK-UP AREA AND ASSOCIATED GRADING WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE;LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT, LLC; 25608 DEERFIELD DRIVE; FILE #233-14-ZP-SD- CDP-VAR. FROM: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director ( . 54 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Conduct a hearing on the proposed project,consider all evidence and testimony,and take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances subject to the findings included in Attachments 1 and 2 and the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3; 2. Deny the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances and direct staff to prepare findings of denial. BACKGROUND On March 7, 2014, the Town's Consulting Surveyor, Cyrus Kianpour, approved a Certificate of Compliance which was recorded on March 13, 2014 recognizing two legal parcels of.37 and .35 acres on lands identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 175-26-043 and 175-26- 044 (see Attachment 4 - the subject parcel is identified on Exhibit"C" of the document). The certificate confirms that the parcels comply with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. Further, the certificate states: "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." The Town Attorney has stated that based on his review of the State Subdivision Map Act and on the information provided by the Consulting Surveyor, the two lots are legal parcels and that the owner has the right to develop each lot without merging the parcels. On February 5, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the original project for a new 3,511 square foot, two-story dwelling with variances for encroachments into the side and rear 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC April 22,2015 Page 2 setbacks for roof eaves,a chimney,required parking,back-up area and a rear patio. Additional background information and details on the original proposal are included in the February 5, 2015 Planning Commission staff report(Attachment 5). The Planning Commission discussed the issues and determined that the requested number of variances was excessive. Concerns were also raised about the lack of neighborhood support, the desire of the neighbors to have the lots merged to limit development to one house, and whether or not the proposed structure was compatible with homes on surrounding properties. The applicant stated that the design could be modified to eliminate the need for variances on the roof eaves and the chimney and requested guidance from the Planning Commission on potential design changes. The Planning Commission,upon further discussion,was split on the issue of suggesting design changes and eventually voted 4-1 to deny the application (see Attachment 6 for minutes of the February 5, 2015 meeting). The applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission decision and the proposal was scheduled for a special City Council meeting on March 31, 2015. Prior to the hearing, the applicant submitted a substantial redesign of the home which eliminated the variances for the building and rear patio, reduced the size and height of the dwelling, and modified the site plan based on comments received at the February 5th Planning Commission meeting. At the March 31, 2015 City Council hearing, concerns were raised that the project design and scope had changed considerably from the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Council determined that the Planning Commission is the legislative body more experienced with reviewing these types of projects and that the Commission should have an opportunity to review the revised project. The Council voted 5-0 to remand the project back to the Planning Commission and requested that the matter be heard as soon as possible. DISCUSSION Revised Project Design The applicant has chosen to redesign the new dwelling to eliminate the variances for the roof eaves, chimney and rear patio area. This has resulted in the following revised project data: Area Maximum Previous Revised Change Remaining Areas (sq.ft.) Design Design (sq.ft.) available under (sq.ft.) (sgft.) Revised Plan (sq.ft.) Development 5,690 5,689 5,412 -277 278 Floor 3,590 3,511 3,214 -297 376 Basement (exempt) (1,398) (1,251) -147 Total area of dwelling with basement and garage 4,909 4,465 -444 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC April 22,2015 Page 3 The following is a list of changes from the original design to the revised project: ✓ The floor area of the home has been reduced by 297 square feet (approximately 8.5%) and the basement by an additional 147 square feet; ✓ The side walls have been moved in an additional 1'- 4" from the side property line so that the eave and gutter do not encroach into the side yard setbacks; ✓ The second floor front wall has been set back 5 feet behind the first floor roof cave line; ✓ The overall roofline has been changed to a hip roof design instead of primarily gables; ✓ The overall height of the structure has been reduced by approx. one foot through reduced plate heights; ✓ The exterior finish material has been changed from horizontal siding to wood shingles; ✓ The rear patio encroachment in the rear setback area has been eliminated; ✓ A schematic tree screening plan has been provided on the site plan; ✓ The driveway at the street frontage has been shifted approximately 5 feet to the right, to increase the distance from the existing oak tree and provide additional landscape screening from the street and avoid aligning the new driveway with a driveway across the street; ✓ The vehicle backup encroachment into the side yard has been reduced from six(6)feet to four feet, eight inches (4'-8"). The redesign retains the required parking in the side yard setback and the vehicle back-up area closer than within ten feet to the property line. The revised site plan and elevations are included in Attachment 7. Parcel Merger Issue In order to address concerns raised at the previous Planning Commission hearing, staff consulted with the City Attorney regarding the validity of the Town's Merger Ordinance and whether or not the Town can require the parcels be merged under the State Subdivision Map Act. On the first issue,the Attorney's office has determined that the Town's Merger Ordinance does not conform to or implement the procedures outlined in Section 66451.11 of the Subdivision Map Act (see Attachment 8). Furthermore, the Municipal Code cites a state code section that has been repealed. Under the preemption doctrine, local laws that are in conflict with state laws are void. Therefore, since the Town's Merger Ordinance does not conform to the merger requirements in the Map Act, the Merger Ordinance is void and cannot be enforced. Regarding the second issue, under Section 66451.11, a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the merger of contiguous parcels held by the same owner if the parcels meet two basic criteria and one or more of seven listed conditions. In the attorney's opinion,the parcels are not eligible for merger because based on the current facts, it appears that the parcels likely do not satisfy any of the seven conditions listed. Therefore, even if the Town developed a merger ordinance in accordance with the Map Act, the parcels in question would not be eligible. 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC April 22,2015 Page 4 Neighborhood Compatibility In order to evaluate the proposed project and its compatibility with surrounding residences, staff reviewed the Town's records for variances on properties along Deerfield Drive and on several substandard properties along Burke and Fremont Roads. The LUF and dwelling size figures were obtained either from official building plans on file with the Town or from the County Assessor. A map showing the location of these properties is included as Attachment 9. The following table provides a summary of those findings: Table 1 - Surrounding Properties with Approved Variances Address Net Lot Existing or Overall Size of Variance Granted Size/LUF New Dwelling incl. Residence garage 13621 .453 acres New 2,988 sq.ft. 1994—Parking in side yard Burke .453 LUF setback and increase in MFA 13631 N/A Existing/ 1,567 sq.ft. 1962 — Guest Cottage in Burke Addition side yard setback 25561 .4 acres New 3,917 sq.ft. 1988 — Allow for a 20 foot Deerfield .4 LUF side yard setback for dwelling 25620 .44 acres Existing/Room 3,271 sq.ft. 1983 — Expansion over Deerfield .37 LUF Addition maximum allowed building coverage and 4 foot encroachment into side yard 25700 .43 acres Existing/Room 3,920 sq.ft. 2001 — Exceed maximum Deerfield .31 LUF Addition MFA and MDA 25701 .381 acres New 3,267 sq.ft. 2005 — Parking in the side Deerfield .33 LUF yard setback 25731 .478 acres Existing/Room 3,172 sq.ft. 1994 — Exceed maximum Deerfield .43 LUF Addition MFA and MDA 13530 .397 acres New 4,365 sq.ft. 2005 — Parking in the side Fremont .397 LUF yard setback Revised Project 25608 .359 acres New 3,214 sq.ft. Request for parking and Deerfield .359 LUF back-up area in side yard setback Of the twelve 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 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC April 22,2015 Page 5 recent occurred in 2005,for required 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,the Planning Commission could find that a setback variance for the required parking and back-up area is justified due to the substantial reduction in the development area that results from the strict application of the 30 foot side and rear yard setbacks and the requirement for a 20 foot roadway easement on the .359 acre lot. In addition,the proposed project with the parking and back-up area encroachments does result in a design that would appear to be more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood (based on a visual inspection of the homes on the street)and could be screened more easily from the street than a garage that directly faces Deerfield Drive. Furthermore, the Planning Commission could find that the garage and parking along the easterly portion of the lot will 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. With regard to the size of the proposed residence, staff has reviewed the building permit records and County Assessor data (in the cases where no building permit records were available) for all the homes along Deerfield Drive. Based on this data, staff found that the average home size on Deerfield Drive(including garage but not basement area)is 3,310 square feet, which is approximately 100 square feet larger than the proposed dwelling. In addition, two properties with a LUF less than the subject property have homes with greater floor area (25700 and 25701 Deerfield). Conditional Development Permit and Variance Findings To approve a Conditional Development Permit (CDP), the following four findings must be made: 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 following table summarizes information on CDP permits that have been approved in the last ten years. Ten of the sixteen prior approvals included a variance request. 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC April 22,2015 Page 6 Table 2 - Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004 Address Date Net Lot Type of Overall Variance Granted? Approved Size/LUF Project Dwelling incl. garage 10435 July 2004 .766 acres Addition 3,411 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking Berkshire .482 LUF spaces in setback 13341 August .981 acres New 4,468 sq.ft. No variance Wildcrest 2004 .455 LUF residence 25701 March .381 acres New 3,267 sq.ft. Variance for parking in the Deerfield 2005/ .33 LUF Residence/ side yard setback February Pool 2014 13303 August 1.817 acres Addition 3,570 sq.ft. Variance for 2 reduced size Wildcrest 2005 .369 LUF garage spaces and to exceed MDA 12380 February .491 acres New 4,360 sq.ft. Variance for chimney in Hilltop 2006 .491 LUF residence and setback pool 12390 June 2006 .498 acres New 4,980 sq.ft. Variance for 1 parking Hilltop .498 LUF residence space, bay windows and chimney in setback 24624 March .482 acres Major 4,060 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking Summerhill 2007 .425 LUF remodel spaces and trash enclosure resulting in in setback new residence 25875 June 2007 .461 acres Major 4,100 sq.ft. Variance for 2 reduced size Estacada .449 LUF addition parking spaces in setback 14555 September .462 acres Addition and 4,542 sq.ft. Variance for 1 parking De Bell 2008 .455 acres remodel space in setback 13310 November .79 acres New 3,950 sq.ft. No variance East Sunset 2009 .4 LUF residence 27361 February .4275 acres New 3,644 sq.ft. No variance Moody 2011 .4275 LUF residence 13500 June 2011 .4275 acres Sunroom 3,462 sq.ft. No variance Fremont .4275 LUF 27911 June 2014 1.007 acres Addition 4,144 sq.ft. No variance Via Ventana .456 LUF 27299 November 1.239 acres Addition 3,899 sq.ft. Variance for 20 foot side Byrne Park 2014 .40 LUF yard setback for addition 14696 November .471 acres Addition 4,343 sq.ft. Variance for up to 12 foot Manuella 2014 .453 LUF encroachment into side yard setback for addition 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC April 22,2015 Page 7 To approve a Variance, the following four findings must be made: 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; 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. CONCLUSION In summary,the Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes that were originally built in the 1940s,the majority of which have been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are larger than the previous home. Nine of the thirteen properties(70%)are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower and five of the properties have received CDP and Variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks, parking in the setback, and/or increases in MFA and MDA. The proposed request for a new residence is below the maximum floor area and development area, is similar in size to surrounding homes, and meets all other development standards with the exception of setbacks for parking and vehicle back-up. In evaluating the variance findings,the Planning Commission should consider the fact that the lot area is substantially less than the one acre minimum and the imposition of the same setbacks and zoning standards result in a substantial reduction in the property's buildable area, reduced patio and outdoor recreation areas, and limitations on the siting of the dwelling and parking areas. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the writing of the staff report, the Town has not received any additional correspondence from residents in the Deerfield Drive neighborhood. Copies of previously received public correspondence is included in Attachment 10. 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC April 22,2015 Page 8 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 of Approval 2. Variance Findings of Approval 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Recorded Certificate of Compliance 5. February 5, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report without attachments 6. Excerpt of Minutes from February 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 7. Revised Plan Set dated "Received March 20, 2015" and stamped "REVISION" (Copies for Planning Commission Only) 8. California State Government Code Sections 66451.10—66451.24 9. Map of Variance Approvals in the Surrounding Neighborhood 10. Correspondence received from the Applicant and Public on the original and revised project, in chronological order 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 below 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. 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, the majority of which have been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are larger than the previous home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.S 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 and vehicle back-up 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, reduce 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 five feet, four inches 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 substandard 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, including a substantial reduction in the property's buildable area, reduced patio and outdoor recreation areas, and limitations on the siting of the dwelling and parking areas. 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 and vehicle back-up area are due to the substantial reduction in the development area that results from the strict application of the 30 foot side yard setbacks to 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 CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A NEW RESIDENCE 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 April 22,2015 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, chimney, 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 April 22,2015 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 site design,building design and floor plan shall comply with the preliminary plans dated "Received March 20, 2015". 18. The proposed driveway location shall avoid the drip line of the existing oak tree in the roadway easement. 19. All construction access to the site shall be provided through the adjacent corner lot and shall utilize the existing driveway on Burke Road. Construction fencing along Deerfield Drive shall have no gates or openings to allow vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No construction parking is permitted along Deerfield Drive. 20. The project is subject to the Town's Construction Time Limit Ordinance (Chapter 10, Title VIII of the Municipal Code). The maximum time for completion of the new residence shall be 36 months from the date of Building Permit issuance. Failure to complete the project in the allotted time may result in substantial penalties and fees. Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive April 22,2015 Page 4 of 6 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 21. 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 copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive April 22,2015 Page 5 of 6 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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: 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and the Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. 34. 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. Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive April 22,2015 Page 6 of 6 CONDITION NUMBERS 8, 16, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 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 May 14, 2015 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 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 April 22, 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 Ii I I L RECORDING REQUESTED BY: I I I taxes. _ . Town of Los Altos Hills Copies. . ANT PAID 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 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 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. --7°114441V-7-Cs' 3_ 7 — II . fir c, ' ct' , Date of Approval Cyru Kian.aou !Acting City Surveyor I ° No. 7515 Land Sury-yor 'Jo.7515 / / License Expire : 12-31-151 Exp.12-3/-13- N. ATTEST: 1`� ✓ 9TH _ssV ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Santa Clara ) On March 7 , 2 014before 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 persons whose name(s)cis/aces subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heXst tr%sj executed the same in his/I-AY/Mr authorized capacity( €A), and that by his/f MrsignatureM on the instrument the person( )c or the entity upon behalf of which the person(6Tacted, 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. r4,4 4.4,4 4.-p-4.,—,--, (,a.C.-.•1 .0.•.�+ DEBORAH L.PADOVAN K. t Commission 1929787 WITNESS my hand and official seal. ='-:tea Notary Public-California z zfi`l Sonoma County `n_ m ciarr Et fires r 19.2m 0 Signature ' / (Seal) 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 N 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 PONT 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 UNE 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 UNE, 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. CONTANING 15,102 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"MADE A PART HEREOF. END OF DESCRIPTION 4o LAND PREPARED BY OR UNDER �4�� G9�, F• e THE SUPERVISION OF: v � �� p / FIa St ilt1.3 a- • 7/2-/ � ibcp.42-0}-S4 V. GRE IL . BRAZE DATE 0�P�� `J�`�4 -1z s/CNATURES\�0\• G:\Correspondence\2013 jobs 12I30924\Legal\Legal Parcel-I 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 o EXISTING MONUMENTS, AS DESCRIBED IN 21.12' N THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED AS ` - - S77'52'00"E(1)_ 120.97'(1) -. DOCUMENT NO. 19260253, SANTA CLARA SEE DETAIL- � a 7COUNTY RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF ALL BEARINGS SHOWN UPON THIS PLAT. FOUND 1" OPEN FOUND 1" OPEN __/ IRON PIPE IRON PIPE REFERENCES d2p. ^` (1) DOCUMENT NO. a / "j • 22468983 0 � °.)/ LANDS OF - /rn 47 / • ( Q. 0 co ICD CI DEVELOPMENT LLC M a 0 N PARCEL NO. 1 .^ & N./ o V W i� �. DOC. 22468983 cN i:' 20.00' �-,q' o• dcz, APN: 175-26-044 4 q ± N �,`` , . Q. o 15,102 SQ.FT.± �' -- — o cv 0 4 -� 0.35 ACRES �' 0.74' _ .� o `' o LEGEND s o �,�� o - - BOUNDARY .7' o i oN/ PROPERTY LINE / 1, DETAIL � o €--�«, / EASEMENT LINE /o / t NO SCALE '..17-77-7.4.0,. 4, 6RY G9 POINT OF BEGINNING c' �� ®9�� 1" OPEN IRON FOUND 3/4" 2p' ' 9 7-FOUND PIPE OPEN IRON PIPE 0 15 30 60 Ma MS N77'52'00"W(1) 120.97'(1) ��: � ',' �,..:: ; <: o,0, �.fjg " k. LANDS OF GvIG^aG�3laSOtl�IG1N1 SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 (40 . CF S, . \IO, 00©. 1479259 cHA •ES EXHIBIT "B" LA LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC. PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS DESCRIPTION FOR THE LANDS DAY AREA REGION SACRAMENTO REGION OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC 2495 INDUSTRIAL PKWY HEST 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 N 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 PONT ALSO BEING THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NO. 1 AS DESCRIBED N 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 CENTERLNE 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 ip LAND THE SUPERVISION OF: o�a� F• el. ,�` vth� P� .27"-/Y 713123 12-etui GRE F :RAZE R ATE �' ORT NATURES G\Correspondence\2013 jobs\2 I 30924\Legal\Legal Parcel-2 Page 1 of 2 BASIS OF BEARINGS S7O 1O DEE 1TIELD DRIVE 40 THE BEARING S70'10'00"E OF THE / ,,,`n 34.25 � � 103.24'(1 9' a 9 • 68. CENTERLINE OF DEERFIELD DRIVE, ry ESTABLISHED BY EXISTING MONUMENTS, _ _ —— �`n �� FOUND 3/4" AS DESCRIBED IN 1T-IAT CERTAIN GRANT j —— __ �0' OPEN IRON _ DEED RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. PIPE (BENT) 19260253, SANTA CLARA COUNTY FOUND 3/4" — — RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF OPEN IRON PIPE 21.12' PIPE ALL BEARINGS SHOWN UPON THIS PLAT. ; rn� 20.00 TO PIPE / RIGHT—OF—WAY REFERENCES / (2 MAPS 38) FOUND 1" OPEN `.,° o IRON PIPE (1) DOCUMENT NO. O a a 10 LANDS OF KDCI /`n 22468983 g) /� C-) g (o DEVELOPMENT LLC Ni- o PARCEL NO. 2 � LQ(r�D� Ooh aDC�O DOC. 22468983 DCDMLLOo 2204F�T LLC ,!------3, ,,,9 o �• GROSS AREA /c\i pG^aG�3C�CL ®.�� 16,238 SQ.FT.fDOo(�. 1��4U��9��N/ 0.37 ACRES±�( NET AREA�,o / 14,173 SQ.FT.± 0 15 30 60 ` 7 0L_ _ _ __ 0.33 ACRESf � ,-,. d+11 t� �• t4 G,9� /� • `'r �' / SCALE: 1" = 30' .' 5'. LEGEND No. 7623 `'LBOUNDARYPOINT OF BEGINNING tea- +- PROPERTY LINE;t FOUND 1 OPEN IRON a4, �" ��:k• E EASEMENT LINEPIPE �° . — o Mn lQf�3G;1�0�'t1G;IGa�nJz 5j� �fi LlaG`J�DS OGS L3LI C 107.00 (1) LAtN�I M O� 1 DOC.C. 16966156 DOo C. 947 2296 EXHIBIT "D" Z...,, 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 NEST 3017 DOUGLAS BLVD, 1300 HAYWARD, CAUFORNIA 94545 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 LOS ALTOS HILTS, CALIFORNIA (P) (510) 887-4086 (P) (916)966-1338 CLARA(510) 887-3019 (F) (916)797-7363 SANTA CLARA COUN1 1 WWW.LEABRAZE.COM APN: 175-26-043 PAGE 2 OF 2 JOB #2130924,, DRAWN BY: MH FEBRUARY 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 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 N THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, VEHICLE BACK-UP AREA WITHN 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 APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director cSi 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 (sglt.) (s7f•) (sqf.) (sq ft) (sgft•) 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 basement and attached 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 to reduce 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 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 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 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 setforth 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(CEOA) 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 6 Approved March 5.2101' Partrid a Commissioner Tankha Chair Man NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: CARRIED 5-0. 3.3 LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC; 25608 Deerfield Drive: File#233-14- ZP-SD-CDP-VAR; A 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 .36 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 (Maximum height 27'). CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (Staff-S. Padovan). Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioner Partridge and Chair Mandle said that they had spoken with neighbor Alice Rimer. Commissioner Couperus said that he had spoken with both Doug and Alice Rimer. Commissioner Tankha said that she had spoken with neighbors Alice Rimer,Scott Akiyama and Ray Strimaitis. Chair Mandle opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Dan Rhodes, Young and Borlik, architect, spoke on behalf of the project and the findings for the variances being requested by the applicant. Bart Carey, Los Altos Hills, stated his support for combining the two parcels into one, which would have less of an impact on the neighborhood. Doug Rimer, Los Altos Hills, requested a lot merger, and suggested a continuance so all neighbor concerns could be heard. Ray Strimaitis, Los Altos Hills,expressed concern with the density this would add to the neighborhood. Scott Akiyama, Los Altos Hills, expressed concern over possible traffic issues that an extra driveway and screening would cause on Deerfield Drive. 4 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 5,2015 arputi\ci Judy Krakauer, Los Altos Hills, expressed concern with the future landscaping plans as the design was bulky, and requested that the landscape screening deposit be increased to 25,000 or more. Mr. Rhodes gave a closing statement. Oskar Kabali, applicant, gave a closing statement, and said that he was not open to merging the lots. Chair Mandle closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Abraham said he did not see any neighborhood support, and that he could not support certain findings for the variances. Commissioner Partridge said that this application does not compliment the General Plan's concept of larger lots and a more rural nature. Commissioner Couperus stated that this application pushed the limits of variances too much, and he could not support them. Commissioner Tankha said she would like to see the house stepped to reduce bulk, and that she could support some of the variances, but did not see justification in others. Chair Mandle said that she saw these as two developable lots, and the applicant has the right to do so, but she could only support the variance to allow for the vehicle back up area. She then suggested offering guidance to the applicant to allow them to make modifications and then return with a more compliant proposal. Commissioner Abraham said that the applicant had enough guidance to be compliant with the Town's planning and building codes. Commissioner Couperus stated that he wanted the plans to be more compliant, not necessarily completely compliant. Commissioner Abraham agreed. Commissioner Tankha said that she did not want to dismiss the house all together, and that they should evaluate the intent behind the variances, as some can be beneficial to the property. Commissioner Partridge stated that even if the applicant removed all the variances the house would still fail to compliment the neighborhood. 5 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 5,2015 Approved March 5.2015 Commissioner Couperus said that the Planning Commission did not want to micro-manage, but provide designers and architects with "maximum flexibility" as long as the final product is justifiable. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Abraham moved to deny the request for the Conditional Development and Site Development permits and variances for Lands of KDCI Development LLC, 25608 Deerfield Drive. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Partridge. AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha NOES: Chair Mandle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 4-1. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4_1 Housing Element Update Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the Commission with an i. fate on the Housing Element. Planning Director Suzanne Avila suggested a second meetin' ' larch to further discuss this item. The Commission requested staff propos- .ssible meeting dates. A date was not decided at this time. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 10730 Mora Drive - Possible Stud S-• on Director Avila suggested to Commission that it may be beneficial to have a study session to provide • ection for these applications, given the nature of the development and the cerns of the neighbors. 6. REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Plan.' c Commission Re.resentative for Januar 15 -Commissioner Cou serus ommissioner Couperus presented a report on this meeting. 6 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 5,2015 CA Codes (gov:66451.10-66451.24) ATTACHMENT 8 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66451.10-66451.24 66451.10. (a) Notwithstanding Section 66424, except as is otherwise provided for in this article, two or more contiguous parcels or units of land which have been created under the provisions of this division, or any prior law regulating the division of land, or a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, or which were not subject to those provisions at the time of their creation, shall not be deemed merged by virtue of the fact that the contiguous parcels or units are held by the same owner, and no further proceeding under the provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto shall be required for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing of the contiguous parcels or units, or any of them. (b) This article shall provide the sole and exclusive authority for local agency initiated merger of contiguous parcels. On and after January 1, 1984, parcels may be merged by local agencies only in accordance with the authority and procedures prescribed by this article. This exclusive authority does not, however, abrogate or limit the authority of a local agency or a subdivider with respect to the following procedures within this division: (1) Lot line adjustments. (2) Amendment or correction of a final or parcel map. (3) Reversions to acreage. (4) Exclusions. (5) Tentative, parcel, or final maps which create fewer parcels. 66451.11. 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. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=uov&Qrouo=66001-67000&file=6... x/25/7ft CA Codes (gov:66451.1O-66451.24) Page 2 of 7 (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 421 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 (f) 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 1, 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. 66451. 12. 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 httn•//wivw leainfn ra oflvIro - inldjCnl2v(`ndp7QP!`ti n=(7ll,Rirtrn,tr,=1iinn1_fi-InnnP,f 1.-=4 '2/1C I\1C CA Codes (gov:66451.10-66451.24) Page 3 of 7 property. 66451. 13. Prior to recording a notice of merger, the local agency shall cause to be mailed by certified mail to the then current record owner of the property a notice of intention to determine status, notifying the owner that the affected parcels may be merged pursuant to standards specified in the merger ordinance, and advising the owner of the opportunity to request a hearing on determination of status and to present evidence at the hearing that the property does not meet the criteria for merger. The notice of intention to determine status shall be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located on the date that notice is mailed to the property owner. 66451 . 14 . At any time within 30 days after recording of the notice of intention to determine status, the owner of the affected property may file with the local agency a request for a hearing on determination of status. 66451 . 15. Upon receiving a request for a hearing on determination of status from the owner of the affected property pursuant to Section 66451. 14, the local agency shall fix a time, date, and place for a hearing to be conducted by the legislative body or an advisory agency, and shall notify the property owner of that time, date, and place for the hearing by certified mail. The hearing shall be conducted not more than 60 days following the local agency's receipt of the property owner's request for the hearing, but may be postponed or continued with the mutual consent of the local agency and the property owner. 66451. 16. At the hearing, the property owner shall be given the opportunity to present any evidence that the affected property does not meet the standards for merger specified in the merger ordinance. At the conclusion of the hearing, the local agency shall make a determination that the affected parcels are to be merged or are not to be merged and shall so notify the owner of its determination. If the merger ordinance so provides, a determination of nonmerger may be made whether or not the affected property meets the standards for merger specified in Section 66451 . 11. A determination of merger shall be recorded within 30 days after conclusion of the hearing, as provided for in Section 66451. 12. 66451. 17. If, within the 30-day period specified in Section 66451. 14, the owner does not file a request for a hearing in accordance with Section 66451. 16, the local agency may, at any time thereafter, make a determination that the affected parcels are to be merged or are not to be merged. A determination of merger shall be recorded as provided for in Section 66451 . 12 no later than 90 days following the mailing of notice required by Section 66451. 13. 66451 . 18. If, in accordance with Section 66451. 16 or 66451. 17, the htto://www.leainfo.ca.Eov/cgi-bin/disnlavcode?section—onvkorrn,n=66Mt-�7nnn,e,f;lp=A CA Codes (gov:66451.10-66451.24) Page 4 of 7 local agency determines that the subject property shall not be merged, it shall cause to be recorded in the manner specified in Section 66451. 12 a release of the notice of intention to determine status, recorded pursuant to Section 66451 . 13, and shall mail a clearance letter to the then current owner of record. 66451. 19. (a) Except as provided in Sections 66451. 195, 66451. 301, and 66451.302, a city or county shall no later than January 1, 1986, record a notice of merger for any parcel merged prior to January 1, 1984 . After January 1, 1986, no parcel merged prior to January 1, 1984, shall be considered merged unless a notice of merger has been recorded prior to January 1, 1986. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 66451. 12 to 66451. 18, inclusive, a city or county having a merger ordinance in existence on January 1, 1984, may, until July 1, 1984, continue to effect the merger of parcels pursuant to that ordinance, unless the parcels would be deemed not to have merged pursuant to the criteria specified in Section 66451.30. The local agency shall record a notice of merger for any parcels merged pursuant to that ordinance. (c) At least 30 days prior to recording a notice of merger pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) , the local agency shall advise the owner of the affected parcels, in writing, of the intention to record the notice and specify a time, date, and place at which the owner may present evidence to the legislative body or advisory agency as to why the notice should not be recorded. (d) The failure of a local agency to comply with the requirements of this article for the merger of contiguous parcels or units of land held in common ownership shall render void and ineffective any resulting merger or recorded notice of merger and no further proceedings under the provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto shall be required for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing of those contiguous parcels or units, or any of them, until such time as the parcels or units of land have been lawfully merged by subsequent proceedings initiated by the local agency which meet the requirements of this article. (e) The failure of a local agency to comply with the requirements of any prior law establishing requirements for the merger of contiguous parcels or units of land held in common ownership, shall render voidable any resulting merger or recorded notice of merger. From and after the date the local agency determines that its actions did not comply with the prior law, or a court enters a judgment declaring that the actions of the agency did not comply with the prior law, no further proceedings under the provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto shall be required for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing of such contiguous parcels or units, or any of them, until such time as the parcels or units of land have been lawfully merged by subsequent proceedings initiated by the local agency which meet the requirements of this article. 66451. 195. (a) Counties more than 20, 000 square miles in size shall have until January 1, 1990, to record a notice of merger for parcels of 4, 000 square feet or less prior to the time of merger, which were merged prior to January 1, 1984, and for those parcels no parcel merged prior to January 1, 1984, shall be considered merged unless the notice of merger has been recorded prior to January 1, 1990. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=66001-67000&file=6... 3/25/7015 CA Codes (gov:66451.10-66451.24) Page 5 of 7 Counties recording notices of merger pursuant to this subdivision shall comply with the notice requirements of Section 66451. 19. (b) This section shall not be applicable to any parcels or units which meet the criteria of subdivision (a) but which were transferred, or for which the owner has applied for a building permit, during the period between January 1, 1986, and the effective date of this section. 66451.20. Prior to amending a merger ordinance which was in existence on January 1, 1984, in order to bring it into compliance with Section 66451. 11, the legislative body of the local agency shall adopt a resolution of intention and the clerk of the legislative body shall cause notice of the adoption of the resolution to be published in the manner prescribed by Section 6061. The publication shall have been completed not less than 30 days prior to adoption of the amended ordinance. 66451.21 . Prior to the adoption of a merger ordinance in conformance with Section 66451. 11, by a city or county not having a merger ordinance on January 1, 1984, the legislative body shall adopt a resolution of intention to adopt a merger ordinance and fix a time and place for a public hearing on the proposed ordinance, which shall be conducted not less than 30 nor more than 60 days after adoption of the resolution. The clerk of the legislative body shall cause a notice of the hearing to be published in the manner prescribed by Section 6061. Publication shall have been completed at least seven days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall: (a) Contain the text of the resolution. (b) State the time and place of the hearing. (c) State that at the hearing all interested persons will be heard. 66451.22. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that: (1) The agricultural area of Napa County has become extremely important over the last 25 years as a premier winegrape growing region of worldwide importance and should thereby be protected from parcelization. (2) The county has determined that because of the land's extraordinary agricultural value as a winegrape production area and the fact that the county's tourism industry entrusts its significant economic interests to its agricultural and open-space lands, the highest and best use for the agricultural land in the Napa Valley is for agricultural production. (3) The full potential build-out of parcels not previously recognized in Napa County's agricultural preserve and watershed areas could devastate the wine industry of California and Napa County. (4) To adequately protect the value and productivity of the county' s agricultural lands, Napa County needs relief from the Subdivision Map Act's implied preemption of local ordinances that may require merger of parcels that do not meet current zoning and design and improvement standards as well as the provisions that recognize parcels created prior to, or before, the current Subdivision Map Act. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the County of Napa may adopt ordinances to require, as a condition of the issuance of http://www.leeinfo.ca.Eov/cei-bin/disnlavcode?section=onvRrorni,,,=��nn1-S7nnn,�r,IP—ic c CA Codes (gov:66451.10-66451.24) Page 6 of 7 any permit or the grant of any approval necessary to develop any real property which includes in whole or in part an undeveloped substandard parcel, that the undeveloped substandard parcel be merged into any other parcel or parcels that are contiguous to it and were held in common ownership on or after the effective date of this act, whether or not the contiguous parcels are a part of the development application, except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (d) and (e) . (c) For purposes of this section, "undeveloped substandard parcel" means a parcel or parcels that qualify as undeveloped pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66451. 11, are located in areas designated as Agricultural Resource (AR) or Agricultural, Watershed, and Open Space (AWOS) on the General Plan Map of Napa County and are inconsistent with the parcel size established by the general plan and any applicable specific plan. (d) Any ordinance adopted by the County of Napa pursuant to subdivision (b) shall exempt the following: (1) Undeveloped substandard parcels for which a conditional or unconditional certificate of compliance has been issued pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 66499.35, so long as the application for the certificate of compliance, together with the documentation required by the County of Napa on or before August 1, 1997, to commence the processing of an application, is filed on or before the effective date of this act; provided that this exemption shall not be applicable to conditional certificates of compliance, whenever issued, if the parcels involved were created on or after January 1, 1997, in a manner not in compliance with this division or local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. (2) Substandard parcels created by the recordation of a final or parcel map approved by the County of Napa on or after December 29, 1955. (3) Substandard parcels lawfully created by the recordation of a record of survey prior to February 27, 1969. (4) Notwithstanding Section 1093 of the Civil Code, property that in the most recently recorded deed, mortgage, patent, deed of trust, contract of sale, or other instrument of conveyance or security document, described by means of a consolidated legal description, whether or not such legal description is comprised of one or more previously existing legal descriptions, provided the owner of same prior to filing an application for development records a document merging any underlying parcel lines that may exist. (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (b) , the Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa shall not require merger or condition or deny the issuance of any permit or the grant of any approval necessary to develop any real property in a manner that would constitute a taking of the landowner's property in violation of the United States and California Constitutions. (f) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of the County of Napa, pursuant to the provisions of Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 66451. 10) and Article 1.7 (commencing with Section 66451.30) , to merge any parcels of land in the unincorporated area of that county, including, but not limited to, any parcels eligible for the exemption as described in subdivision (d) of Section 66451.22. 66451.23. Prior to adopting any ordinance authorized by Section 66451.22, the legislative body of the County of Napa shall conduct at least one public meeting at which local officials shall allow public htta://www.leeinfo.ca.aov/cQi-bin/disalavcode?section=gov&groan=66001-67000&file=6 ;/9Snn1 S CA Codes (gov:66451.10-66451.24) Page 7 of 7 testimony regarding the proposed ordinance in addition to the noticed public hearing at which the legislative body proposes to enact the ordinance. 66451.24 . (a) Nothing in this article prohibits a landowner, local agency, or renewable energy corporation authorized to conduct business in this state from seeking financial assistance from eligible state funding sources to defray either of the following costs: (1) The costs of merging parcels, including, but not limited to, escrow costs, on private or public lands pursuant to this article. (2) The costs of establishing or administering a joint powers authority established or authorized to merge parcels on private or public lands, including, but not limited to, all eligible costs, for the purpose of siting renewable energy facilities. (b) This section does not authorize the use of state funds for the acquisition of real property for which a parcel merger will be initiated. httn://wwtiv.leginfo.ca.gov/cei-bin/disnlavcnde?section=anvkarn„n=(;Anninnn,,FlP=A -therm,c SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITH APPROVED VARIANCES ATTACHMENT 9 • 13838 II 26786 *is26740 13826 5, C ® �p to: n o Shoup Park ,92 26746 25141 0 13651 0 26750 13850 11 It 13730 (Los Altos) 11 O 13472 25731 25711 25099 Q 13631 A 3641 25701 9 �� 13620 a 25621 �� 13621 , • !1‘' 25740 25710 d m alit, D ,5561 k` 13613 1 13590 25700 "_. 4 C 42'at. ` ' / 13625- ". - , . N 25621 25620 25610 C, - �'� •3530 ' "t•f• • . •. -- BURK: 25611 / $ . -- 25551 4 13561 Liv. 13505 ii 50. .4i, 3460 562 25600 0 13440 - 13470 1 $ 13420 25619 •:, SO?, .' 13503 25630 13430 4, * 26065 ♦ 4 25601 2559125541 Q �4 _ C'T 6045 �� 13390 • 13350 0 = Redwood Grove r. rm�oeaa:• G 26000 Altos)At 26020 1333 (Los rif 13151 A 13351 13331 !!F 13330 13221 4 3209 13241 13300 LEGEND O s`��Q��aems oo 13211 PROJECT SITE 3207 13310 13212 13150 13204 p p p 1 0.1 it: 012° sl PROPERTIES WITH ,1 4 e\, VARIANCE APPROVALS • 13200 13210 ATTACHMENT 10 Steve Padovan From: judystewk <judystewk@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:41 AM To: Steve Padovan Subject: proposed development at Deerfield Drive and Burke Dear Steve, -. I would like to share some thoughts in relation to our meeting on August 14, 2014. As a reminder, our property is on Deerfield Drive, adjacent to the property under development. We are concerned that the developer is trying to put two excessively large houses on two excessively small lots, thereby diminishing the rural character of this neighborhood. There are four items on the proposed development that my husband and I would like you to consider: 1.Screening: We suggest tall plantings between our two properties in front of the new owner's side of our adjoining fence. 2. Windows: The size and number of windows facing our property needs to be reviewed. The current plan compromises privacy. 3. House paint: The proposed reflectivity value is marginal. We would prefer a darker color. 4. Variance request re the eaves: We do not favor this. I would appreciate it if you could provide these comments to the owner. I want to thank you for the time and interest you gave me on the 14th. Judith Krakauer c.c. Susan Mandlel Planning Commission Chairperson Jitze Couperus Kavita Tankha James Abraham Richard Partridge 1 Suzanne Avila From: Alice <4bigfoot@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday,January 05, 2015 9:21 AM To: Suzanne Avila; Steve Padovan;jsmandle@hotmail.com, jitze@couperus.org,kavitat@comcast.net,jima.pc@gmail.com, richard.partridge@comcast.net;jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Cc: Bart Carey Subject: Planning Commission February Meeting To all members, Hello. My name is Alice Rimer and my husband, Doug, and I live on Deerfield Drive. We have exchanged emails and had meetings with Suzanne Avila and Steve Padovan from the Planning Department regarding the proposed development of the two small lots located at the corner of Deerfield Drive and Burke. We were told that before the meeting we could speak to the commissioners. We believe that this would be an opportunity for you to understand our thoughts and the issues that will occur if you approve this project as is. Below is our contact information: Alice and Doug Rimer 25620 Deerfield Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 650 947-0156 4bigfoot@sbcglobal.net Thank you your time. Alice Rimer Sent from my iPad 1 Allowable Proposed MDA MFA MDA MFA 25520 Deerfield 6,070* 3,470 5,555 3,463 25608 Deerfield 6,190* 3,590 5,585 3,566 *includes 500 sq.ft. bonus for rood mounted solar YOUNG AND BORLIK ARCHITECTS, INCORPORATED ! • }y�; - ' 480 LYTTON AVE,SUITE 8 r• ' PALO ALTO,CA 94301 ,,f,' .M TELEPHONE FAX WEB , (650)688-1950 (650)323-1112 www.YBarchitects.com Oct. 31,2014 revised Jan. 15, 201/5 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 the allowable 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 oPv ril W < _ Iv 0 OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA =• OROOK PACE N OD 2s 175 26 p I t0 TRACT!11 4506 1e., TRACT 1M 3139 R� /� RO.S6OM?J SZ IIIM T•- 1.1M / .1a _ rr a. .1.1r YN O GMT K! 1 LOO ACt 2S Io ,o 1 o.4s2 At. oM9 ea�t3 AC. G»K:. OM' .e� C.0 ,. Loc I 1 LOT E .. $. 'pw I Z'41 it / A . .• `I" $ I 3 k CD I 1 3 . 0.476 AC. 2 00.i w.„ O Cl $, 24 K .22 �1 .� nn, v nn, MAY n AIM nJ., O I 11 :_.- t-..-,..;;;;.....-- AAA�. fJ,••DEERFIELJ nJa DRIVE .av _� =. JJ I.O MTJp .�. 1 l .t MI, ) CD ...... b 4 tti r /�/ /�-�,, `Gk 1 d 1Q IL ots�w ..",44 Ae• ,/ a O �: rvw ,. / ,.,,� 45 34 -v -btlnne / o.64l we a 4481 At. al sl ac0.151'AG. /o.sie Ac_ A.- MT �., LNIAE DA J ...., I� � s.•T 1 it. IJ • I/r P 1.7[6 K. 210.13 , ,• p� b • 1.14 K. A ••T 0.1152 AC.CR LOI K. IVU a . iiI 21 j / �j O i I s•Z t—*O— —R/M— --A./ ---. ---• ma, SURKE LANE----- sr/ g ,1 [f ••• ,^__—a.• Ica! al . •LR. - • -- Q. . . 1 ,••J•f....w ,irp...ww :ww,•.w.,r I.00 Y. IM[AL 10K. • /1.0[11 K. 0.11O!AC. 0.11OT K. 1.00 K G••ACNE, •-T 7i I f/ CD T CM? \ I / ' / b� 11 IYIT •n.a %S• .. A1r I 4_____,...t, Y 0.N K. apl0l7 AG O• Cd rxn.... 28 I —a z IL 8/ x ,00' b • Z \ - II..T u.. A NM w I 1,.•• .11,111 10.11 LANK/CC L STEW-ASSESSOR I c .mg r mermI mem.. Caroled 327. ti \ DERMODY TRACT 2E E nr T..!131211` y LOT IO OF M. a M.TAAFFE SUE.of LOT 4 • TAAFFE PART.N N' CO b CP lnl Re:Variances for=Deerfield Drive(APN 175-26-043) Oct.31,2014 I I r 1 I I .•• i I I I I ( I I I • I19u1LDABLE I 1 N V L O I I I In9510 J BUILDABLE ENVELOPE: 20,300 SF(4195)) I I L --••• f : L II IPROJECT PARCEL: • • 14,113 5F • l—I 'ACRE PARCEL: 43,000 SF .(200'.x 215') _ _ I •. ' 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. The result would have undesirable massing, character and definition. It would not be an appealing design as 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 equivalent to 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 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 built up 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 this single family 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 residence would 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 depth of 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. SinceAA Daniel S.Rhoads Young and Borlik Architects,Inc. pg. 6 YOUNG AND BORLIK z ', , -;,, ARCHITECTS, INCORPORATED ` 480 LYTTON AVE,SUITE 8 r•' � PALO ALTO,CA 94301 rTELEPHONE FAX WEB (650)688-1950 (650)323-1112 www.YBarchitects.com Oct. 31,2014 revised Jan. 15, 20 L'S 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 Permit 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 for 11111 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 being limited 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 total home closer to this typical 5,000 sf house size, but this additional square footage will be 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-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 finish). 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. iI 111 l I -� , t- Figure 2.1 the proposed front elevation of the residence. 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 forms; As much of the existing site character as possible will be preserved with this project. Overall grading will be minimized. Minor amounts of grading will 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 all 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 eave overhangs will be limited to 6 inch tol2 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 as a thoughtful and appropriate use for this property. Thank you for your time and consideration in review of this project. Since j 7-2e _.> Daniel S. Rhoads Young and Borlik Architects, Inc. pg.4 LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC; 25608 Deerfield Drive: 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 III —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, Ock:_„... ...,,_ R -- ,f44,44......,. Alice and Doug Rimer CTFICE Or C O O N?♦ ---- 5 A N'A CLARA C O U N T T, CALIFORNIA I- SOCK � AX �I s1 1 175 26 ll TRACT+r:A_:s , TRACT Na 3239 R415.1,149 RRS6C4/25 Q„TAC. I .x`. •"^-1---- -- ] .1 0.552 k. to!HR A= o.SiS ..,, II. ` 25 16T 1 ( B i AC. t aaaa` ,I ., ,�c` > a CD I y 1 e 1E a II I S0 1 2 n !t1 >; IN 0..73 PC. F•” , L I o k A. I 'p t ,,,P,- 24,µ -s'- -r: 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 Maupile 25731 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 vg Lot size (acre)r0.570 Median Lot size 0.526 Project Lot size 0.359 Avg Structure (sf) 3062 Median Structure (sf) 2702 Proposed Structure sf 3566 Avg Structure:Lot Ratio 0.129 Median Structure:Lot Ratio 0.115 Proposed Structure:Lot Ratio 0.228 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. Increasing the setbacks may help mitigate mass and bulk of structures. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-2.702 • NEW RESIDENL LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALII OI\IA if DO - !! L'LT3 fr. 4 ae *.l `Y 1 -7÷ Visra Proposed Structure Guideline B. Architectural details can mitigate size and bulk. 1. Longer roof eaves and rakes are encouraged for 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. Plan for adequate outdoor living when planning your total development 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 required four (4) off-street parking spaces and adequate space for the fire truck turnaround. 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 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 th.e 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 3/4 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 on only 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 the time to meet and consider the above as you continue the review of the proposed development and options at the property. Best regards, 2 Steve Padovan From: Scott Akiyama <scottakiyama@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 properties (back to back along the property line) will most likely afford me a rather unobstructed view of both 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 g Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Steve Padovan <SPadovanlosaltoshills.ca.gov> wr' e: Hello ' • , The e-mail will be inclu. • in the staff report and as an attachme.r:' J . • Steve Padovan Consultant Planner Town of Los Altos Hills ph (650) 947-2509 From: Ray Strimaiti ailto:raystr@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday,J. uary 22, 2015 10:49 AM To: Steve Pad' -an Cc: Alice R' er; Scott Akiyama; Bart Carey; Monica Richter-Maupile; Judystewk; Dougla ._'. Smith; Vita Strimai Thierry Maupile (tmaupile) Sub'- : Fw: Burke & Deerfield Development Steve, 2 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 BARBARA J . GOODRICH 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, / /(, �IA�477 Cert,_ �G cc: Planning Commission 13625 HILL WAY • LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA • 94022 PHONE: 650-941-1882 • FAX: 650-941-8764 • EMAIL: BGOOD94028@AOL.COM Steve Padovan From: Douglas R Smith <drsmith17@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:17 PM To: Steve Padovan Subject: Re: Burke & Deerfield Development Steve, I live at 25710 Deerfield Dr and I attended the meeting on Jan 13th, 2015, to review the development plan with the developer and other Deerfield residents. I concur with the notes that my neighbors have sent to you. My main concern is the density issue. The two properties have been treated as one since before the town was incorporated. Both are substandard in size and if combined would still be substandard. Is there no precedent to prevent treating them as separate properties, to be about the smallest in town? If not, then there is the issue of variances. Since this is purely a business proposition, I see no reason to grant variances to the developers. The overall effect would be two large houses that appear oversize for their lots, and not in conformance with town guidelines for rural character and tasteful screening of homes from one another. I moved from Mtn View to Los Altos Hills to get away from the effect that the developers propose to put on us. Would you please include this note in the file that will be made available to the Planning Commission. Thank you for your efforts, Doug Smith Douglas R Smith 25710 Deerfield Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 drsmith17@gmail.com On Jan 23, 2015, at 11:10, Steve Padovan <SPadovan(i4losaltoshills.ca.gov> wrote: Thank you Scott for the e-mail. I will include this in the report and the packet. 1 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 Section10- 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, to create 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. • Helen and Virgil Gualtieri 13613 Burke Road Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 TO: Planning Commission 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 owners and spec contractors'in the future.Furthermore,there will be unhappy neighbors as we wish we would have been granted one variance. Helen and Virgil Gualtieri Mayor Courtenay C. Corrigan Dear Mayor Corrigan, Thank you for listening to our concerns. And thank you to the Staff at the Planning and Building Department. We are writing to you in regards to the pending APPEAL hearing on March 31, 2015,for 25608 Deerfield Drive,formerly 13531 Burke Road. We have been homeowners on Deerfield Drive for 8 years and chose to live in Los Altos Hills for rural character. We did a lot of research including viewing the Los Altos Hills Guidelines before we chose to purchase our home. We are hoping that you will uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Conditional Development Permit on the 0.369 acre lot. We believe the Findings for the Conditional Development Permit were not met. Specifically, "The site for the proposed development is adequate in size,shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of the development, including all structure, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter". The developer has revised his plans and eliminated 300 square feet of the project and eliminated the variances for the eaves,fireplace, and patio. The result is a house without a patio or outdoor living space. Also, in the revision,the developer is asking for an increase in the garage backup area into the setback which requires a variance. The garage could have been pushed further into the house. Again,this is an attempt to increase square footage of the structure. We are concerned with the bulk and mass of this project. After all,this intersection represents one of the Gateways to Los Altos Hills. Also,in the Condition of Approval for a Conditional Development permit"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". This proposed development does not create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance. This development is on the smallest lot in the neighborhood and will be larger than most homes on Deerfield who have larger lots. ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Municipal Code 10-1.503 states "The City Council AND Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce floor area where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include, but are not limited to,the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or HIGH SITE VISIBILTY." This is clearly a High Site Visibility intersection which many of the residents use to enter our town. "The Site Development Authority may approve floor area of up to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for any lot without requiring a variance, so long as the findings for a CDP are made." Due to the small lot size, a home proposed at the smaller square feet would be an improved design that is more harmonious with the typical development. The Planning Commission hearing discussion on Feb. 5, 2015 was all about the variances and the neighbor's concerns and request that the parcels be merged. The Planning Commission was not able to discuss mitigating the safety, design, and landscaping needs of this project. We feel that that should have been done. Further, despite the developers' claims that he wishes to work with the neighbors, we still have not received any revised plans as promised by Steve Padovan. Many residents leave town at this time of year, and I suspect, given past promises by the developer,that this was just a stall tactic. Also,the developer's tactic of having known tenants who have at times intimidated the all residents. No one uses this tactic if they are planning to live in this neighborhood. We believe that these projects are motivated by profit versus our property values. We believe in a right to profit, but this should not have a negative impact on our neighborhood now or in the future. Respectfully, Alice and Doug Rimer 25620 Deerfield Drive Steve Padovan From: Bart Carey <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. 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 1 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. Bart Carey 2 March 23, 2015 RE: 25608 Deerfield Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA Permit for File#233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR SUBJ: City Council Public Hearing Lands of KDCI Development LLC Dear Neighbor, We are writing to you with regards to our new residence project located at 25608 Deerfield Drive in Los Altos Hills. We've been weighing our options&working with the various parties to make most or all of the changes suggested by our neighbors. As you may know, we're not able to merge this lot with the one next door(& build a larger house). That option is not available to us for several reasons but most notably, our family may decide to live in one of the homes. A bullet point summary of the differences between what was presented at the Planning Commission hearing and what we currently have is included below for your convenience: 1. Reduction in the footprint of the first&second floors &basement to reduce overall size of the home. 2. Reduction of 1'-4"off each side so that a 12"eave plus 4"gutter will fit within the side setback lines. 3. Setback of the second floor front wall behind the first floor wall, with the addition of a porch across the front, for the effective setback of the second story to 5 feet behind the first floor roof eave line. 4. Change the overall roof plan to be predominantly hipped roofs (&thus eliminating taller gable ends). 5. Reduction in overall height of the structure by approx. one foot(by reducing 6"of ceiling height from both first& second floors). 6. Change exterior finish material from horizontal siding to shingles, with a reduced LRV color(TBD). 7. Remove rear patio encroachment from the rear setback area. 8. Depict a schematic tree screening plan on the site plan. 9. Shift the driveway at the street frontage approximately 5 feet to the right, to increase distance from the existing oak, with the removal of the acacia tree. 10. Decrease in the backup distance encroachment into the side yard, from 6'-0 feet down to 4'-8" (where 10 feet is required). In addition, we plan on doing whatever is within our power to assist with the following: 1. Any tenant-related issues at corner lot off Burke &Deerfield 2. Future construction noise 3. Utilize access off Burke(versus Deerfield) during construction. We greatly appreciate your feedback & any support you might be able to provide for our project. Respectfully, Oskar Kalbali Gina Jackman-Kalbali Tel: 408-691-0386 Attachment: Revised New Single Family Residence Plans dated March 2015 Suzanne Avila From: Enrique J. Klein <ejklein64@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:36 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan Cc: Steven Mattas; Suzanne Avila; Carl Cahill Subject: Building Permit Application for new construction on 25608 Deerfield Drive by KDCI Development To Mayor Corrigan, City Council of Los Altos Hills. Dear Mayor Corrigan: We are now witnessing an attempt by Commercial Developer Kalbali to have the City Council of Los Altos Hills to review an appeal to the denial of his application through the Planning Commission for a building permit on new construction [denied on March 9th, 2015]. This, makes the project ineligible to building in Los Altos Hills under the current application. I understand that Commercial Developer Kalbali has now submitted a revised set of plans to better conform to the CDP rules for permitting on grossly substandard lots. I also understand that the Los Altos Hills City Council has a number of options for dealing with Commercial Developer Kalbali's appeal, including granting approval. What I fail to understand is how the City Council can be asked to reverse the denial of the Original Application by the Planning Commission, now using as a basis a Modified Application that may have been reviewed by the Planning Department but not by the Planning Commission. In my mind, this represents a disenfranchisement of the authority vested in the Planning Commission by the City Council. I see no reason to grant Commercial Developer Kalbali special treatment that others in the Town have no recourse to. I urge the City Council to remand this revised application directly to the Planning Department, to be dealt with as a new application. Best Regards, Enrique J. ?(&in 10710 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 Phone/Fax 650-559-7477 1 Steve Padovan From: Steve Padovan Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:29 AM To: Steve Padovan Subject: FW: Building Permit Application: 25608 Deerfield Drive From: Ray Strimaitis <raystr(a�yahoo.com> To: "cccorrigan(a�losaltoshills.ca.gov" <cccorrigan(a losaltoshills.ca.gov>; "john.harpootlian(a�gmail.com" <john.harpootlianqmail.com>; "findrichlarsen( gmail.com" <findrichlarsenPgmail.com>; "jradford2011(a�yahoo.com" <jradford2011(.�yahoo.com>; "gcwaldeck a(�losaltoshills.ca.gov" <gcwaldeck(a losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc: "jsmandlehotmail.com" <jsmandle(a�hotmail.com>; "jitzecouperus.orq" <iitzecouperus.org>; "kavitat(a�comcast.net" <kavitat(c�comcast.net>; "jima.pc(a�gmail.com" <jima.pc(�gmail.com>; "richard.partridge(c�comcast.net" <richard.partridge(c�comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:22 PM Subject: Building Permit Application: 25608 Deerfield Drive Dear Mayor Corrigan and Council members, My wife and I are residents of Los Altos Hills and live on Deerfield Drive. During your meeting on March 31st, you will be considering an appeal to a Conditional Development Permit for a proposed development for 25608 Deerfield Drive that was denied by the Planning Commission. In denying that submittal, the Planning Commission expressed concerns over a number of objective and subjective criteria. Those concerns included the number of variances being sought, the "bulk" in the proposed plan and the fact that the proposed plan did not result in a structure consistent with the "semi-rural character" called for in our town's building guidelines. Careful consideration is particularly warranted in this case—as the proposed development is for a substandard (approximately 1/3 acre) lot. Although framed as an "appeal"—the plans you will be reviewing on March 31St is, in fact, a request to approve a new/modified design. The plan that was reviewed and denied by the Planning Commission has changed. Accordingly, the Planning Commission is best equipped to address these sorts of assessments and judgment calls. These are among the Planning Commission's primary functions. Approving modified plans via an appeal by the town Council would only encourage other applicant's to "forum shop" in future instances and circumvent the town's own Planning Commission. For the above reasons, we respectfully request that you remand the developer's appeal/submittal to the Planning Commission for further review. Respectfully, Ray & Vita Strimaitis 25561 Deerfield Drive Steve Padovan From: Doug Rimer <drimer@sharpfluidics.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:10 PM To: Steve Padovan Cc: rimera@me.com Subject: Letter to CC regarding Kalbali Appeal To: Los Altos Hills City Council Regarding: Commercial Developer Kalbali appeal, Planning Commission rejection of Deerfield Dr CDP Dear Council Member, As a Deerfield Dr. resident I stand to be adversely affected by commercial developer Oskar Kalbali's planned development project if approved without additional mitigation to size and bulk beyond the most recent modifications. As the corner of Burke and Deerfield is a gateway to Los Altos Hills, the proportionally massive structures that he intends to build will be an eyesore, and can materially affect my property values. Mr. Kalbali has the right to construct a structure with a minimum of 2500 sf, but does not have the right to any more than that. His initial plan prior to rejection of his application by the Planning Commission was for absolute maximum square footage,strictly for profit,flying in the face of all appeals by neighbors to merge the lots or reduce the size to more reasonable proportions to the small lot sizes. He has now made the minimum concessions to concerns from the entire neighborhood in hopes that the Council will approve his revised plan without remanding to the Planning Commission for adequate review. Contrary to what we have been told, revised plans have not been provided for neighbors' review. I urge you to remand back to the Planning Commission so that the development process can work as intended, and neighbors'concerns can be fairly considered. I also think it is important that you understand the background of the situation from a LAH neighbor since he purchased the parcel. Since purchasing the parcel he has been completely unresponsive to any and all neighbors' concerns regarding his development plans. He has further been very inconsiderate by leasing the Ruth McMahon's house to tenants that have been a blight on the neighborhood. We brought to Mrs. Kalbali's attention in September that her tenants were growing approximately 40 marijuana plants on the property, and that the pasture was being used as a storage yard for multiple trailers, boats, cars, and jet skis. She responded that she was powerless to take any responsibility for this situation. Our neighbors who abut the property were very upset when we informed them we intended to call the sheriff because they were afraid of retribution by the tenants. As we have to live with our neighbors long after the tenants are gone,we were respectful of their pleas not to inform the sheriff. The tenants have been a neighborhood nuisance, partying and making noise until early in the morning, generator running all night (providing power to the person living in the trailer), doing doughnuts in the pasture with their cars when it rained, letting their pit bull run loose to wander around the neighborhood. I hope you get the picture—consistently rowdy behavior in what was a quiet,semi-rural street. Not the type of consideration one would expect from a future neighbor as Mr. Kalbali claims to be. I wonder if he made a similar claim regarding his active development project on a now subdivided lot near Los Altos Hills Country Club? Thank you for your time and consideration. Doug Rimer 25620 Deerfield Dr. 1 ROBERT J.LANZONE LAW OFFICES JEAN B.SAVAREE AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & LANZONE MICHAEL AARONSON(1910-1998) GREGORY J.RUBENS (CKERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KENNETH M. (1926-SON (1926.2000) KAI RUESS 1001 LAUREL STREET,SUITE A MELVIN E.COHN CAMAS J.STEINMETZ SAN CARLOS,CALIFORNIA 94070 (1917-2014) KIMBERLY L.CHU PHONE: 650-593-3117 FAX:650-453-3911 CAMAS J.STEINMETZ,Ext.225 www.adcl.com Email: cstelnmetz@adcI.com March 26, 2015 Mayor Corrigan and Members of the Town Council The Town of Los Altos Hills, 23679 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 cccorriganCa�losaltoshills,ca.gov john.harpootlian(a gmail.com findrichlarsen@gmail.com jradford2011(cr�yahoo.com gcwaldeck a(�losaltoshills.ca.gov Re: 25608 Deerfield Drive, Los Altos Hills --Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variance Requests Dear Mayor Corrigan and Members of the Town Council: This law firm represents certain neighbors of 25608 Deerfield Drive in the Town of Los Altos Hills, one of two adjacent substandard and nonconforming parcels that were both formerly identified as 13531 Burke Road. On my clients' behalf, and for the reasons articulated by the Planning Commission and by my clients in their written submissions and oral testimony at the Planning Commission hearing, we respectfully urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variance Requests to construct a single family home on this 0.369 acre lot (the "Project") which is one-third the size of the minimum required one- acre parcel size. In the alternative, because we understand that many changes have been made to the Project since it was denied by the Planning Commission, we urge you to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for its consideration of these changes pursuant to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 10-1.1007(3) (governing conditional development permits), 10-2.301(c) (governing site development permits), 10-1.1007(2) (governing variances), and 10-1.1009 (governing appeals). Each of these Municipal Code Sections are attached hereto as Exhibits A— D respectively. March 26, 2015 Page 2 As clearly stated in the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission has final permitting authority over issuance of the Project's Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances. Section 10-1.1007(3)(a) (attached hereto as Exhibit A) which governs Conditional Development Permits states that "[0] n substandard lots, due to the difficulty of accommodating development which meets the objectives and standards of the Town, any lot which has a lot unit factor of .50 or less shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission." Because the Project in question is proposed on a lot with a unit factor of .369, it therefore requires a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission. Section 10-2.301(c) (attached hereto as Exhibit B) which governs Site Development Permits provides that "[t]he Planning Commission shall review and act on site development applications for..[t]he construction of a principal residence." Section 10-1.1007(2) (attached hereto as Exhibit C) which governs variances provides that "the Planning Commission shall act as the permitting body for all variance applications involving...Maximum Development Area... Maximum Floor Area... Setbacks... Height.. [and] All other variance applications not specified above..." Municipal Code Section 10-1.1009 (attached hereto as Exhibit D), which governs appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission, does not grant the City Council "de novo" review of the appealed Planning Commission decision. Therefore, any information not submitted to and considered by the Planning Commission, including any proposed changes,to the Project, should be excluded from the City Council's review of the appeal. Alternatively, the Council could remand the changes back to the Planning Commission for its consideration pursuant to its permitting authority granted in the above referenced Municipal Code Sections. Accordingly, if the Council chooses not to deny the appeal outright, we respectfully request that the Council remand the revised application back to the Planning Commission for its consideration. Finally, please note that my clients strongly support the request made in my letter dated March 20, 2015 on behalf of my Mora Drive clients, that you impose an urgency moratorium on development of lots less than one-half acre in size— including 25608 Deerfield Drive -- until the Town has reviewed and adopted measures to minimize the impact of developing such severely substandard lots, including adopting a revised merger ordinance that complies with the California Subdivision Map Act. Many thanks for your consideration. Ver truly yours, • Camas J. Steinmetz March 26, 2015 Page 3 CJS: Copy to: Carl Cahill, Town Manager Steve Mattas, Town Attorney Suzanne Avila, Community Development Director Deborah Padovan, City Clerk EXHIBIT A 3/25/2015 10-1.1007(3)Conditional development permits—Approval—Condition. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Up Previous Next 010in Search Print No Ironies Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Charter 1 ZONING Article 10. Appeals, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Development Permits and Amendments 10-1.10070)_Conditional development permits—Approval—Condition. (a) On substandard lots, due to the difficulty of accommodating development which meets the objectives and standards of the Town, any lot which has a lot unit factor of.50 or less shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission. In addition, any lot significantly constrained by a human habitation setback for geologic hazard areas or a nonhuman habitation setback for noise shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission, unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the lot is not significantly constrained by such setback or zone. Prior to the granting of any permit, the Planning Commission must find that: (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. (b) Every Conditional Development Permit granted may be subject to such conditions as are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the findings above. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, reduction in Maximum Development Area allowed, reduction in Maximum Floor Area allowed, installation of landscaping, and resisting of structures. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 6, Ord. 314, eff. November 6, 1987; § 1, Ord. 337, eff September 14, 1990; Ord. 338, eff September 19, 1990; § 1, Ord. 341, eff. January 4, 1991) View the mobile version, http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshllls/vlew.php?topic=10-1-10.10 1_1007 3&frames=on 1/1 EXHIBIT B 3/25/2015 10-2.301 Permits. t.U�s Altos triads Municipal Code up Previous Next Main Search Print Melo Frames Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Chapter 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT Article 3. Permits Required 10-2.301 Permits. No person shall commence or perform any activity described in subsection(a), (b), or (c) of this section without first obtaining a site development permit. A separate site development permit shall be required for each site on which any action(s) covered by this chapter is (are) to be undertaken. (a) Administrative Review. The Planning Director or designee shall review and act on site development applications for the following activities without the necessity of notice and a hearing, provided that the Planning Director may deem it appropriate to conduct a noticed hearing pursuant to subsection(b) of this section for any of the items listed in this subsection(a): (1) The construction or placement of any spa, solar panel, or dish antenna in excess of three (3)feet in height, or thirty(30) square feet in development area; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding two (2) feet but less than four (4) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding two(2) feet but less than six (6) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding fifty (50) cubic yards, but less than two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of one thousand (1,000) square feet, but less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. (3) The construction of any structure, or any addition to a structure, which equals or exceeds six(6) feet in height but is less than nineteen (19) feet in height, or is less than two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet, provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story, the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c) of this section; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of development area, but are less than three thousand (3,000) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one hundred fifty(150) square feet of floor area, but are less than nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area; (6) The enlargement of an existing private vehicular access or driveway which does not result in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (7) The construction or installation of any dish antenna less than twelve (12) feet in diameter; (8) The construction, placement or installation of any structure supporting photovoltaic power generation facilities that is less than six(6) feet in height and less than nine hundred (900) square feet in development area; (9) The construction, placement or installation of photovoltaic power generation facilities on an existing structure that are less than eighteen (18) inches higher than the existing structure; (10) The construction of a secondary dwelling unit. http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshiils/view.php?topic=10-2-3-10_2 301&frames=on 1/3 3/25/2015 10-2.301 Permits. (b) Administrative Review With Notice and Hearing. The Planning Director shall, after notice and public hearing pursuant to Section 10-2.1305(b), review and act on site development applications for the following activities: (1) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding four (4) feet but less than ten(10) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface; (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding six(6) feet but less than thirteen (13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface; (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding two hundred fifty(250) cubic yards, but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards; (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of three thousand (3,000) square feet, but less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed two hundred fifty(250) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen (19) feet, but are less than five hundred (500) square feet of floor area in excess of nineteen(19) feet in height, provided that where a second story is to be added to a structure which presently does not include a second story, the site development review shall be processed pursuant to subsection(c) of this section; (3) Construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet of development area, but are less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of development area; (4) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed nine hundred(900) square feet of floor area, but are less than one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of floor area; (5) The construction of a private vehicular access or driveway which results in a new or relocated access point to a public or private road; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna equal to or greater than forty(40) feet in height but less than sixty-three (63) feet in height; (7) The construction or installation of any dish antenna equal to or greater than twelve (12) feet in diameter; (8) The construction of any tennis court, sports court, or swimming pool; (9) Landscape plans when required by Planning Commission action; or (10) Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed hearing conducted by the Planning Director. (c) Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall review and act on site development applications for the following activities: (1) The construction of a principal residence; (2) Grading: (i) For fills equal to or exceeding ten(10) feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface, (ii) For excavations equal to or exceeding thirteen(13) feet in vertical depth, at their highest point measured from the natural ground surface, (iii) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding one thousand (1,000) cubic yards, http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshiI Is/vi ew.php?topic=10-2-3-10_2_301&frames=on 2/3 3/25/2015 10-2.301 Permits. (iv) For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding an area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet, (v) For tennis court grading where the maximum cut plus the maximum fill depths would exceed eight(8) feet; (3) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed five hundred(500) square feet of floor area with a height in excess of nineteen(19) feet, or construction of any second story addition to a structure which does not presently include a second story; (4) The construction of any structure or combination of structures which equal or exceed seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of development area; (5) The construction of any structure, combination of structures, or additions to structures which equal or exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of floor area; (6) The construction or installation of any antenna equal to or greater than sixty-three (63) feet in height; (7) Any other proposal which exceeds the thresholds set out in subsections (a) and (b); or (8) Any other proposal referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director. (d) Exceptions. A site development permit shall not be required for the following: (1) Any activity which is below the thresholds prescribed in Section 10-2.301(a); (2) Excavations below the finished grade for septic tanks and drain fields, tanks, vaults, tunnels, equipment basements, cellars, or footings of buildings or other structures for which a building permit has been issued by the Town; (3) The excavation or removal of vegetation in a public utility easement by public utility companies for the purpose of installing underground utilities; (4) Routine maintenance of roads and driveways; (5) Improvements constructed pursuant to improvement plans approved by the Town as required by approval of a tentative subdivision map; (6) Emergency work required by the City Engineer to mitigate or avoid a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. (§ 3, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 325, eff August 3, 1988; § 1, Ord. 346, eff July 19, 1992; § 4, Ord. 384, eff. October 18, 1996; § 4, Ord. 446, eff. June 11, 2006; § 1, Ord. 514, eff. March 26, 2009) View the mobile version. http://qcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/vieN.php?topic=10-2-3-10 2 301&frames=on 3f3 EXHIBIT C 3/25/2015 10-1.1007(2)Variances—Approval—Conditions. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print filo Frames Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1 ZONING Article 10. Appeals, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Development Permits and Amendments 10-1.1007(2) Variances—Approval—Conditions. The Staff Committee comprised of the Zoning Administrator and City Manager or designee (herein called the "Staff Committee") and Planning Commission are empowered to grant variances from the requirements of this title. The Staff Committee or Planning Commission shall act as the authority to grant variances as specified in subsections (d) and (e) below. (a) Purpose. The purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography, location, or other physical site conditions, or the use or development of property in the immediate vicinity. In this context, personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not practical difficulties or hardships justifying a variance. In some cases, the location of existing structures may result in a practical difficulty or hardship. (b) Findings. The Staff Committee or Planning Commission may grant the requested variance in whole or in part only if, from the application or the facts presented at the public hearing, it can affirmatively find that all of the following four (4) requirements have been met: (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; (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. (c) Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity within the same zoning district. (d) The Staff Committee shall act as the permitting body for all applications involving the following: (1) Maximum Development Area (MDA). Requests to exceed MDA by five hundred (500) square feet or less; (2) Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Requests to exceed MFA by one hundred fifty (150) square feet or less; (3) Setbacks. Requests for encroachments into any setback of two(2) feet or less and measuring one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area or less; (4) Fences and Walls. Requests to locate fences on the roadway side of the "reference line" defined in Section 10-1.504(d)(1). (e) The Planning Commission shall act as the permitting body for all variance applications involving the http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshiIls/view.php?topic=10.1-10-10_1_1007_2&frames=on 1/2 3/25/2015 10-1.1007(2)Variances—Approval—Conditions. following: (1) Maximum Development Area (MDA). Requests to exceed MDA by more than two hundred fifty(250) square feet; (2) Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Requests to exceed MFA by more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet; (3) Setbacks. Requests for encroachment into any setback of more than two (2) feet and measuring less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area; (4) Height. All requests for height envelope encroachments, to exceed maximum height of twenty- seven(27) feet and/or to exceed special height limitation of thirty-five (35) feet; (5) Others. All other variance applications not specified above, and any applications referred to the Planning Commission by the Zoning Administrator. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 5, Ord. 314, eff. November 6, 1987; § 3, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988) View the mobile version, httpi/qcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=101-1010_1_1007 2&frames=on 2/2 EXHIBIT D 3/25/2015 10-1.1009 Appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission and Staff Committee. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code UP Previous Next ain Search Print No Frames Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1 ZONING Article 10. Appeals, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Development Permits and Amendments 10-1.1009 Appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission and Staff Committee. Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Staff Committee to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten(10) days of the decision. A nonrefundable filing fee and a deposit for services shall accompany each appeal, except that any member of the Council or any two(2) members of the Planning Commission may file such an appeal without payment of a fee. Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty-three (23) days of the decision. A nonrefundable filing fee and a deposit for services shall accompany each appeal, except that any Councilmember may file an appeal without payment of a fee. The Council or Planning Commission, whichever is applicable, shall hold a public hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-1.1005. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 312, eff. June 5, 1987; § 8, Ord. 314, eff. November 6, 1987; § 3, Ord. 339, eff. November 3, 1990; § 2, Ord. 348, eff. August 16, 1992; § 4, Ord. 372, eff August 19, 1994; § 1, Ord. 404, eff. December 4, 1999) View the mobile version. http://gcode.us/codes/IosaltoshiIIs/view.php?topic=10-1-10-10_1_10090am es=on 1/1 Suzanne Avila From: Ray Strimaitis <raystr@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:11 AM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Gary C. Waldeck Cc: jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net;jima.pc@gmail.com; Kavita Tankha;jitze@couperus.org; Suzanne Avila; Deborah Padovan Subject: Fw: Building Permit Application: 25608 Deerfield Drive Attachments: photo 1.JPG; photo 2.JPG; photo 3.JPG Dear Mayor Corrigan and Council members, As no doubt you are aware, a number of concerned neighbors on Deerfield Drive and other residents in Los Altos Hills are urging you to impose a moratorium on approving developments on substandard lots. My wife and I join those neighbors and residents and hereby ask that you impose a moratorium on approving developments on substandard lots. As elected stewards of our town's interests we ask that you ensure that the consequences of excessive development of substandard lots are carefully considered. I have expressed my concern about increased density. I am attaching several photos taken just this morning at the property you will be considering on appeal that illustrate that concern. These photos are of three of the vehicles parked at the subject property. In the event that a second development is approved on Deerfield Drive— congestion, density and overall character of the neighborhood will be adversely affected. Best Regard, Ray & Vita Strimaitis Sent from my iPad 1 Steve Padovan From: Bart Carey <bcarey@careyvision.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:07 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan; John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;John Radford; Gary C. Waldeck Cc: Steve Padovan; Suzanne Avila; Susan Mandle; Jitze Couperus; Richard Partridge; Kavita Tankha Subject: Deerfield Dr. Dear Mayor Corrigan and LAH City Council, Thank you for your consideration of the development application by Lands of KDCI Development, LLC at 25608 Deerfield Dr. I am not able to attend the City Council meeting on 3/31, and wanted to add my comments here by e-mail. I have lived on Deerfield Dr. for 17 years. As you know, in this area there are several "sub-standard" parcels less than the usual 1 acre. 25608 Deerfield is one of these parcels, which has remained undeveloped for more than 60 years, used as one parcel with 13531 Burke Rd. during this time. Even as a combined parcel of approximately 3/4 acres,this area would be considered sub-standard,though closer to the goals of the LAH General Plan, and more consistent with the past character, usage, and capacity of Deerfield Dr. The neighbors on Deerfield Dr. have consistently requested that KDCI merge these parcels for one house, but the applicant has refused. Please note that some information in the staff report for this meeting and the recent PC meeting could be misleading. More specifically, in 2001 LAH changed ordinances related to development on sub-standard parcels, and the development area on parcels of less than 0.5 acres was increased by approximately 30%. (If these same ratios were applied to a standard 1 acre parcel, the MFA on a standard lot in LAH would be approximately 10,000 sf, rather than 6000 sf.) Even though the staff reports note variances on various properties in the neighborhood, it is of interest that no variances have been granted in this area for MFA or MDA increase, or structure encroachment into setbacks, since the ordinance changes in 2001. Development Moratorium Though I am not familiar with the specific details of a pending development proposal on Mora Dr,there appear to be some important similarities. As I understand, some Mora Dr. neighbors have made a formal request of the City Council to impose an urgent development moratorium on lots under 0.5 acres, in part so the Town may update its parcel merger ordinance, which is significantly outdated. This group's attorney has outlined the legal justification for a moratorium. There is no doubt that merger of 25608 Deerfield and 13531 Burke would be the best outcome for Deerfield Dr., the wider neighborhood, and all of LAH. While it is unclear to me whether LAH or state ordinances might ultimately force merger of these parcels, I support this request for a moratorium, so LAH at least has a proper merger ordinance to consider before these parcels are irreversibly over-developed. Application Back to Planning Commission You have likely reviewed the transcripts of the Planning Commission hearing regarding 25608 Deerfield Dr. The PC rejected the application with various variance requests, and expressed several concerns, including in regard to the bulk of the proposed structure on the lot and in the neighborhood. I believe the commissioners assumed in rejecting the application they would eventually have the opportunity to consider a revised proposal-- it would have been better in this regard for the PC to continue the project to another hearing. Instead, we are now faced with a modified proposal on "appeal" to the CC, rather than back where a modified proposal should belong, with the Planning Commission. This concerns me as a neighbor, Town resident, and former Planning Commissioner. 1 To their credit, KDCI has done a nice job of responding to concerns from the PC meeting in their revised proposal. However, the order of business in this case could set a negative precedent in regard to the planning process in LAH, and in the minds of neighbors in this case who could feel unfairly treated by skipping a step in the process. As you know, part of the job of the PC (and the CC) is to look beyond the numbers, and to consider elements of this application such as compatibility, bulk, safety, and mitigating measures such as landscape screening, driveway placement, etc. And on this project, if the parcels are not to be merged, we should look ahead to future development on the adjoining parcel at 13531 Burke. No doubt this adjoining parcel will be impacted by the current proposal, and more importantly the neighborhood will be doubly impacted, likely within a short time frame, by development on both parcels. It is properly the role of the PC to consider all these issues and make recommendation to the CC. In rejecting the application, the PC did not deliberate on many important issues regarding development in this location, and impacted neighbors now do not have the benefit of PC deliberations or conditions in providing feedback to the CC. It makes sense to take an appeal of a rejected, unmodified application from the PC to.the CC. But, as much as KDCI deserves credit for the plan changes, and as much as I would like to avoid 2 further public hearings on this proposal, it also makes sense to send a modified application back to the PC for proper deliberation. For future applicants, the incentive could become "rolling the dice" with the PC, asking for maximum square footage or variances, knowing that a rejection only means a quick appeal to the CC with a more reasonable proposal. The PC should not become a test or warm-up to the CC meeting, and neighbors should be able to give input to both the PC and the CC regarding the same proposal. This proposal should go back to the Planning Commission. Conditions of Approval As you know from above, I would recommend that the City Council take two actions related to this application: 1. Place a moratorium on development of parcels less than 0.5 acres, and at the same time formally start the process to update LAN's parcel merger ordinance. 2. Remand this application to the Planning Commission. This application is challenged to meet the requirements for a Conditional Development Permit(as pointed out by the PC). Nonetheless, if you are inclined to approve, please understand there should be important Conditions of Approval: 1. All construction access off Burke Rd via the existing driveway. To their credit, I believe the applicants have agreed to this condition, which should be formalized. 2. Fencing placed along Deerfield to eliminate vehicle access, and also to shield neighbors from construction activity. 3. Driveway placement on Deerfield that will minimize disruption and maximize safety for neighbors--per feedback of impacted residents. 4. Look ahead to future development at 13531 Burke Rd. I don't know whether the CC could impose a condition on 25608 Deerfield regarding future development at 13531 Burke, but at the least the CC should recommend that a future house on 13531 be oriented toward Burke Rd, retaining the current driveway access off Burke. There would be too much impact on Deerfield Dr, and at the Deerfield-Fremont-Burke intersection, to add another driveway off Deerfield. Deerfield Dr. is a narrow cul de sac at a 5 way intersection at the central entrance to our Town. The results of this application will literally and figuratively be highly visible, and could have lasting impact on the planning process in LAH. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Best regards, Bart Carey 2