Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 ITEM 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 25, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 3,000 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 1,625 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 43 APPROVED: Suzanne Avila,AICP, Planning Director Got 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; or 2. Deny the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances and direct staff to prepare findings of denial. BACKGROUND On February 5, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied a proposal for a 3,511 square foot residence with variances for encroachments into the side and rear setbacks for roof eaves, a chimney, required parking, back-up area and a rear patio. The applicant subsequently appealed the project to the City Council. Prior to the City Council meeting, the applicant submitted a substantial redesign of the home which eliminated all the variances for the dwelling and rear patio, reduced the size and height of the dwelling, and modified the site plan based on comments received at the February 5`i' Planning Commission meeting. At the March 31, 2015 hearing, the City Council expressed concern that the project design and scope had changed considerably from the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission and voted 5-0 to remand the project back to the Planning Commission. On May 7, 2015 the Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal for a 3,214 square foot, two-story single family dwelling with a 1,251 square foot basement and variances for 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC June 25,2015 Page 2 encroachments into the side yard setback for two of the four required parking spaces and the garage back-up area. At the meeting, staff explained that the average floor area of the existing dwellings on Deerfield Drive is approximately 3,260 square feet (excluding basements) which is slightly more than the revised project's floor area. In addition, the applicant eliminated all variances for the structure and reconfigured the roof line to reduce the mass. The Commission discussed the revised design and two Commissioners raised concerns with the size of the new dwelling relative to the size of the property. The discussion centered on utilizing a floor area/lot area ratio to determine whether or not the dwelling was compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Using the floor area/lot area metric, the proposed project had a ratio of .206 which was greater than the average ratio for the Deerfield neighborhood (.149). However, this raised additional concerns with other Commissioners because the Town had previously not used floor area/lot area ratios as a determining factor in whether or not to approve a Conditional Development Permit. After substantial discussion on the issue, the Commission was generally supportive of the two parking spaces and back-up area in the side yard setback as it provides for an improved architectural design and streetscape and a compromise was reached by three Commissioners to reduce the floor area to 3,000 square feet (resulting in a floor area/lot area ratio of .192). The Commission voted 3-2 to continue the project and have the applicant return with new plans showing a maximum floor area of 3,000 square feet. The other two Commissioners were satisfied with the changes that had been made and did not agree with a reduction in the floor area to 3,000 square feet. Additional background information and details on the original and the first revised proposal are included in the February 5, 2015 Planning Commission staff report(Attachment 4), the March 31, 2015 City Council staff report (Attachment 5), the May 7, 2015 Planning Commission staff report(Attachment 6), and the draft minutes of the May 7th meeting (Attachment 7). DISCUSSION Second Revised Project Design Based on the Planning Commission decision, the applicant has redesigned the dwelling to eliminate the variances for the roof eaves, chimney and rear patio area and reduced the total floor area to 3,000 square feet. This has resulted in the following revised project data: Area Maximum Original First Second Change Remaining (sq.ft.) Design Revised Revised from Areas available (sq.ft.) Design Design original under Revised (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sgft.) Plan (sq.ft.) Development 5,690 5,689 5,412 5,280 -409 410 Floor 3,590 3,511 3,214 3,000 -511 590 Basement(exempt) (1,398) (1,251) (1,625) 227 N/A Total area of dwelling with basement and garage 4,909 4,465 4,625 -284 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC June 25,2015 Page 3 The following is a list of changes from the original design to the current revised project: ✓ The floor area of the home has been reduced by 511 square feet(approximately 14.5%); ✓ The development area has reduced by 409 square feet(approximately 7.2%); ✓ 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 basement has been increased by 227 square feet by expanding it under the garage; ✓ The ground floor front wall has been set back an additional 10 inches from the street with the overall length of the building reduced by 1 foot 6 inches; ✓ The second floor front wall has been set back 2 feet behind the first floor wall line and the other walls have been moved inward up to a foot on the sides and rear; ✓ The 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 which increases the distance from the existing oak tree, allows for additional landscape screening from the street, and avoids 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 a vehicle back-up area for the garage that is less than ten feet to the property line. CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-1.1007 of the Zoning Ordinance, this application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. A Conditional Development Permit (CDP) is required since the proposed project is located on a property with a lot unit factor(LUF) of 0.50 or less. Pursuant to Section 10-1.1007 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance, in reviewing a Conditional Development Permit application the Planning Commission determines whether the proposed development meets the standards of the Town by considering evidence in support of the Findings of Approval. In order to evaluate the proposed project and its compatibility with surrounding residences, staff reviewed the Town's records for variances and existing development on properties in the immediate area(Attachment 8) and reviewed past CDP approvals (Attachment 9) throughout the town. The LUF and dwelling size figures were obtained either from official building plans on file with the Town or from the County Assessor. Staff has prepared the CDP findings (Attachment 1) for this property as follows: 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC June 25,2015 Page 4 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 setbacks. The applicant has requested a variance to allow required parking and the garage back-up area within the side yard setback These variances have been approved by the Planning Commission based on findings that the property is a legal substandard parcel, the building envelope has been further reduced by the requirement of an easement for additional right-of- way, and 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 residences on substandard lots with the majority of homes having been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are larger than the original home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower and five of these properties have received CDP and variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks and/or increases in their MFA and MDA. The 3,000 square feet of floor area and 5,280 square feet of development area are below the averages for the homes on Deerfield Drive and although the floor area/lot area ratio of.192 is greater than the average on the block, it is not excessive when compared to homes on similar sized lots. 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. 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC June 25,2015 Page 5 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. CONCLUSION In summary, the Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story residences on substandard lots with the majority of homes having been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are larger than the original 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 well below the maximum floor area and development area allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, is below the average floor area and development area of homes in the Deerfield neighborhood, is similar in floor area 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 (Attachment 2), 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. In addition, the building envelope has been further reduced by the requirement of a 20 foot easement for additional public right-of-way. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Town has received no additional public comments regarding the current revised project. 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. 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC June 25,2015 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditional Development Permit Findings of Approval 2. Variance Findings of Approval 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. February 5, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report without Attachments 5. March 31, 2015 City Council Staff Report without Attachments 6. May 7, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report without Attachments 7. Excerpt of Minutes from May 7, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting 8. Summary Table of Development in the Deerfield Neighborhood 9. List of CDP Approvals in Los Altos Hills since 2004 10. Reduced 11x17 Plan Set of Revised Project Plans (for Planning Commission only) ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC, 25608 Deerfield Drive File#233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR 1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces,parking, landscaping,walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter. The subject property is relatively flat with direct access to a public road. The entire structure is located within the building envelope, is below the maximum floor area, development area and height regulations, and does not encroach into the required setbacks. The applicant has requested a variance to allow required parking and the garage back-up area within the side yard setback. These variances have been approved by the Planning Commission based on findings that the property is a legal substandard parcel, the building envelope has been further reduced by the requirement of an easement for additional right-of-way, and 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 residences on substandard lots with the majority of homes having been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are larger than the original home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower and five of these properties have received CDP and variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks and/or increases in their MFA and MDA. The 3,000 square feet of floor area and 5,280 square feet of development area are below the averages for the homes on Deerfield Drive and although the floor area/lot area ratio of.192 is greater than the average on the block, it is not excessive when compared to homes on similar sized lots. 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, blend the visual impact, and preserve the rural character of the site. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. The proposed residence is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development Ordinance with the exception of the request for a variance to allow the back-up area for the garage to encroach to within four feet of the property line. This variance has been approved by the Planning Commission based on findings that the property is a legal substandard parcel and that the design of the garage and parking at the side of the dwelling provide an improved design over a front facing garage and that the design is more harmonious with the typical development in the surrounding neighborhood ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT LLC, 25608 Deerfield Drive File#233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR 1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The proposed dwelling is located on a 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 Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive June 25,2015 Page 2 of 6 inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of 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. Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive June 25,2015 Page 3 of 6 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. 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 May 22, 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. Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive June 25,2015 Page 4 of 6 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. 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. Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive June 25,2015 Page 5 of 6 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 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. Lands of KDCI Development LLC 25608 Deerfield Drive June 25,2015 Page 6 of 6 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. 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 July 15, 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 June 25, 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. ATTACHMENT 4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 5, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 3,511 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 1,398 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT ON A .359 ACRE LOT AND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW FOR TWO REQUIRED UNCOVERED PARKING SPACES IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, VEHICLE BACK-UP AREA WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE, ROOF EAVES ENCROACHING UP TO ONE FOOT INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, A CHIMNEY ENCROACHING ONE FOOT INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A REAR PATIO ENCROACHING FOUR FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK; LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT, LLC; 25608 DEERFIELD DRIVE; FILE#233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR. FROM: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances subject to the findings for a Conditional Development Permit and Variances included in Attachments 1 and 2 and the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2014, a Certificate of Compliance was recorded establishing two legal parcels on the lands formerly identified as 13531 Burke Road (see Attachment 4 - the subject parcel is identified as APN 175-26-043 on Exhibit "C"). One parcel is at the corner of Burke and Deerfield and the other is an interior lot directly abutting the corner lot and fronting on Deerfield Drive. The nonconforming lots were created before the Town was incorporated and are not part of a recorded subdivision. The lots are nonconforming because they are less than one acre in area. The applicant owns both parcels and intends to develop two new residences. The subject parcel, the interior lot, would be developed first and the second parcel will be developed at a future date. Sheet A1.2 in the plan set shows the proposed site layout for both properties. Parcel Merger Requirements Section 9-1.310 of the Municipal Code states the following: "If one of two or more contiguous parcels or units of land in the City owned by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel or lot size to permit Planning Commission Lands of KDCI Development LLC February 5,2015 Page 2 its 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 (sgft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sgft.) (sq.ft.) Development 5,690 5,689 0 5,689 1 Floor 3,590 3,511 0 3,511 79 Basement (exempt) (1,398) Total area of dwelling with 4,909 basement and garage The owner/developer has stated that their goal is to produce a dwelling that utilizes sustainable construction practices and is in scale with existing homes on Deerfield Drive. Planning Commission Lands of KDCI Development LLC February 5,2015 Page 4 CODE REQUIREMENTS The following code sections are applicable to the project: - Section 10-1.502(c) — Calculation of maximum development area allowed and requirement for a Conditional Development Permit. - Section 10-1.503(c) — Calculation of maximum floor area allowed and requirement for a Conditional Development Permit. - Section 10-1.505(a) and (c) — Side and rear yard setback requirements for structures and hardscape. - Section 10-1.1003 —Variance Procedure - Section 10-1.1004—Conditional Development Permit Procedure - Section 10-1.1007(2)—Variance Approval Conditions - Section 10-1.1007(3)—Conditional Development Permit Approval Conditions - Section 10-2.407—Grading not permitted within 10 feet of a property line - Section 10-2.1102(h)—Driveway located within 10 feet of the property line DISCUSSION Site Design and Architecture The proposed project consists of a new two-story residence with a basement and attached two-car garage. The dwelling faces north (towards Deerfield Drive) and incorporates dormer style windowson 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 Planning Commission Lands of KDCI Development LLC February 5,2015 Page 5 conforming four car 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 .453 LUF and 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 .33 LUF setback 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 Planning Commission Lands of KDCI Development LLC February 5,2015 Page 9 allowing for increased development. For example, if the two lots had not been legally split, the MFA on the combined lot would only be 5,000 square feet instead of the 7,060 square feet that is currently allowed when the MFA figures on the two lots are combined (3,590 sq.ft. on 25608 Deerfield Drive and 3,470 sq.ft. on 25520 Deerfield Drive). Staff believes that with some minimal design changes, the chimney can be accommodated within the building envelope and the building walls can be moved in one foot to accommodate the eaves. If the amount of floor area proposed is necessary to make the project more economically feasible, then an architectural design featuring a structure with little or no roof eave should be considered. Therefore, a variance for roof eaves should require further justification beyond a substandard lot size (e.g.: steep topography, excessive easements, etc.). Regarding the last two findings, Finding #3 can be met because the development of the property will not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties as the parking and back-up encroachments can be screened by landscaping and will not be significantly visible to existing residents. Finding #4 can also be met because the variance is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zone district. Findings for Conditional Development Permit The Planning Commission must make the following four findings to approve a Conditional Development Permit (CDP): 1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures,yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter. 2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood; 3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. The Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes that were originally built in the 1940s and have either been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are typically larger than the previous home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower. As shown in the table above, five of the properties have received CDP and Variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks and/or increases in MFA and MDA. Therefore, the proposed request for a new dwelling that does not exceed the MFA or MDA and meets all other development standards with the exception of setbacks for parking, back-up and a rear patio is compatible with the existing development pattern in the area. In addition, no significant trees or vegetation are impacted Planning Commission Lands of KDCI Development LLC February 5,2015 Page 10 by the development and there is adequate remaining area on the property to provide screening from 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. Planning Commission Lands of KDCI Development LLC February 5,2015 • Page 11 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. Staff has addressed most of these issues in the staff report and has included conditions of approval that require landscape screening, the relocation of the driveway on Deerfield, and the requirement that all construction access be provided from Burke Road through the corner lot. Regarding code enforcement issues, staff has contacted the owners about these issues and they are in the process of removing debris and potentially removing the tenants. Town Committee's Review The Pathways Committee recommended that the applicant pay a pathway in-lieu fee. (Condition#28). The Environmental Design and Protection Committee provided general comments that the lot cannot support the proposed dwelling and that the lots should be merged. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a) — construction of a new single family residence where public services are available in a residential zone. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditional Development Permit Findings 2. Variance Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Recorded Certificates of Compliance 5. State Map Act Section 66451.11 6. Letter from Applicant on Variance Application dated revised January 15, 2015 7. Map of Variance Approvals in the Surrounding Neighborhood 8. Letter from Applicant on Conditional Development Permit dated revised January 15, 2015 9. Letter from Alice and Doug Rimer dated January 27, 2015 10. Letter from Barbara Goodrich dated January 27, 2015 11. E-mail from Judy and Stewart Krakauer dated January 26, 2015 12. E-mail from Scott Akiyama dated January 23, 2015 13. E-mail from Ray Strimaitis dated January 22, 2015 14. Letter from Helen and Virgil Gualtieri 15. Proposed Plans—Planning Commission only ATTACHMENT 5 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 31, 2015 Staff Report to the City Council SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF 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 .359 ACRE LOT AND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS; LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT, LLC; 25608 DEERFIELD DRIVE; FILE #233-14-ZP-SD- CDP-VAR. FROM: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director APPROVED: Carl Cahill, City Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Conduct a hearing on the appeal, consider all evidence and testimony, and take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal and approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances, as originally submitted to the Planning Commission; 2. Uphold the appeal and approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances for parking and vehicle back-up area in the side yard setback, as revised 3. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision; or 4. Remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission for their review. Further, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution of findings consistent with the City Council's determination. 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). One parcel is at the corner of Burke and Deerfield (former address of 13531 Burke Road) and the other is an interior lot directly abutting the corner lot and fronting on Deerfield Drive. 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 Appeal to City Council Lands of KDCI Development LLC March 31,2015 Page 2 or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto." The applicant owns both properties, however, the current proposal is to develop only the interior lot at this time. On February 5, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project for a new 3,511 square foot, two-story dwelling with variances to allow encroachments into the side and rear 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 with attachments (Attachment 5). Staff's initial recommendation was to approve the project as conditioned with variances only for the parking, back-up area and the rear patio. At the hearing, the Commission heard from six surrounding residents on Deerfield Drive and received e-mails and letters from other residents. Their concerns centered on the bulk and mass of the proposed dwelling, the number of variances requested, driveway access, and visual impacts. In addition, several residents stated that the two lots should be merged as the existing parcels are substantially below the one-acre minimum required for new parcels and that developing the lots individually results in a development density that is not compatible with the neighborhood. 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 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. The minutes of the meeting are included in Attachment 6 and the plan set reviewed by the Commission is included as Attachment 7. On February 13, 2015, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission denial to the City Council. DISCUSSION Revised Project Design Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, 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: Appeal to City Council Lands of KDCI Development LLC March 31,2015 Page 3 Area Maximum Previous Revised Change Remaining Areas (sq.ft.) Design Design (sq.ft.) under Revised (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) 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 The redesign retains the parking in the side yard setback and encroachment of the vehicle back-up area within 10 feet of the property line, although the distance from the property line has increased from four (4) feet to five feet four inches (5'4). The maximum building height has been reduced by one foot, the second floor has been set back on the front elevation, exterior materials were changed from siding to shingles, and the driveway location was shifted to provide additional landscape screening from the street and avoid aligning the new driveway with a driveway across the street. The revised site plan and elevations are included in Attachment 8 which also includes a proposed schematic landscape plan (see Sheet A1.1 in the revised plan set). Parcel Merger Issue The Planning Commission report included a discussion on the lot merger requirements in the Town's Municipal Code. In order to address concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing, staff consulted with the City Attorney regarding the validity of the Town's Merger Ordinance and whether or not the parcels can 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 9). 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, it is unlikely that the parcels are eligible for merger because 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. Appeal to City Council Lands of KDCI Development LLC March 31,2015 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. A map showing the location of these properties is included as Attachment 10. The following table provides a summary of those findings: 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; 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 Appeal to City Council Lands of KDCI Development LLC March 31,2015 Page 5 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, the City Council could find that a setback variance for the required parking and back-up area is necessary 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 the City Council could find is more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and could be screened from the street. Furthermore, the Council 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 structure, the previous table includes the lot sizes, Lot Unit Factor and the total square footage of the structure including the garage (basements were excluded). Based on the data collected from the actual building plans, the proposed dwelling is within the range of home sizes in the surrounding area with the average floor area of the Deerfield Drive homes on the list being 3,509 square feet, approximately 300 square feet less than the proposed dwelling on the subject lot. 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. 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 Appeal to City Council Lands of KDCI Development LLC March 31,2015 Page 6 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. 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, 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. The City Council could find that the proposed development has: (1) adequate area to provide screening, and (2) is compatible with the existing development pattern in the area. In evaluating the variance findings #1 and #2, the City Council could 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 could deprive 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. Furthermore, the City Council could find that the development of the property would not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties because the parking and back-up encroachments can be screened by landscaping and will not be significantly visible to existing residents. In evaluating variance finding #4, the City Council could determine that the finding is met because the requested variance is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zone district. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the writing of the staff report, the Town has received several e-mails from residents in the Deerfield Drive neighborhood related to the existing sewer agreement (which includes Appeal to City Council Lands of KDCI Development LLC March 31,2015 Page 7 the subject lot) and there have been requests to view the revised plans. Copies of letters and e-mails are included under Attachment 11. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this project. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a) — construction of a new single family residence where public services are available in a residential zone. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditional Development Permit Findings 2. Variance Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. February 5, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments 5. Recorded Certificate of Compliance 6. Excerpt of Minutes from February 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 7. Original Plan Set provided to the Planning Commission for February 5, 2015 hearing 8. Revised Plan Set dated "Received March 20, 2015" and stamped "REVISION" 9. California State Government Code Sections 66451.10—66451.24 10. Map of Variance Approvals in the Surrounding Neighborhood 11. Correspondence from the Public Report Prepared by: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner ATTACHMENT 6 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 7, 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 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; or 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 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 setbacks for roof eaves, a chimney, required parking, back-up area and a rear patio. Additional 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC May 7,2015 Page 2 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.) (sq.ft.) 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 May 7,2015 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 eave 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 a vehicle back-up area for the garage that is less than 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 May 7,2015 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 side Burke Addition yard setback 25561 .4 acres New 3,917 sq.ft. 1988 — Allow for a 20 foot side Deerfield .4 LUF 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 MFA Deerfield .31 LUF Addition and MDA 25701 .381 acres New 3,267 sq.ft. 2005 — Parking in the side yard Deerfield .33 LUF setback 25731 .478 acres Existing/Room 3,172 sq.ft. 1994 — Exceed maximum MFA Deerfield .43 LUF Addition and MDA 13530 .397 acres New 4,365 sq.ft. 2005 — Parking in the side yard Fremont .397 LUF setback Revised Project 25608 .359 acres New 3,214 sq.ft. Request for parking and back- Deerfield .359 LUF 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 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 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC May 7,2015 Page 5 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 May 7,2015 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 setback and 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 4,542 sq.ft. Variance for 1 parking De Bell 2008 .455 acres and 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 May 7,2015 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 (Attachment 1), 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 The Town has received additional public comments regarding the revised project from the adjacent Deerfield residents. Copies of all previously received public correspondence on the project is included in Attachment 10 in chronological order with the most recent correspondence at the end. 25608 Deerfield Drive Lands of KDCI Development LLC May 7,2015 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 from oldest to most recent DRAFT ATTACHMENT 7 Commissioner Tankha said that the project was an upgrade and be would an asset to the neighborhood. She did have concerns with the front setbacks, and would li - to see them retained, but was pleasantly surprised with what could be done on ;ch a constrained lot. Commissioner Abraham said that he agreed with Commissioner Partridg that this was too much of a variance and was not consistent with the Gene,c'`' Plan. He suggested the applicant return with a more compliant design. Chair Mandle agreed that the proposal needed work. She su., ested the applicant push the addition back to the nine feet from the property line. Commissioner Couperus added that if the Town co,5f. rained the applicant too much, they would be perfectly within their rights to c.i e back with a proposal with the height maximum, which may be even less desire for the neighborhood. Erik Garfinkel, contractor, spoke to the appl'c:tion and answered questions posed by the Commission. MOTION MADE AND SECOND 1 : Commissioner Tankha moved to continue the item, and allow the ap,,D'icant to return to the Planning Commission with a design that is no less than 9 feet from the east property line, with the added condition that the patio also be `o less than 9 feet from the east property line and that the applicant not further ��:uce the non-conforming setbacks. The motion was seconded by Commissione j,' ouperus. AYES: <<'ommissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Mandle NOES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Partridge ABSEN , None AB AIN: None OTION CARRIED 3-2. 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 3,214 square foot, two-story single-family dwelling with a 1,251 square foot basement on a .36 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 (Maximum height of structure is under 27'). CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (Staff-S. Padovan). 3 Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 7,2015 I RAFT Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioners Couperus, Tankha and Chair Mandle said they had spoken with neighbor Bart Carey. There were no other ex parte disclosures. Chair Mandle opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Applicant Gina Jackman, spoke on behalf of her application and answered questions posed by the Commission. Architect Dan Rhoads, Young and Borlik, spoke on behalf of the project, described the changes that were made to the design, and answered questions posed by the Commission. Doug Rimer, Los Altos Hills, expressed concern that the structure is still too large, and that whatever is decided will be reflected in the second lot. Marilyn McCain, Los Altos Hills, expressed concern that this development would cause a fire hazard as the street is already too small for fire trucks. Staff confirmed that the street currently met fire codes. Stephanie Menosa, Los Altos Hills, stated that the house did not align with the feel of Los Altos Hills. Mr. Rhoads gave a closing statement. Chair Mandle closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Partridge stated that the changes made were positive, and while they were significant, they still were not at the expected level. He then said that the percentage of lot coverage still exceeded that of the rest of the neighborhood, and wanted to see it reduced. Commissioner Abraham agreed that the applicant had made some positive changes, but they were still asking for too large a home given the lot size and feel of the neighborhood. He further agreed that this lot did not meet the requirements for a conditional development permit. Commissioner Couperus asked for clarification between obtaining a variance and a conditional development permit. Mr. Padovan and Assistant City Attorney Lindsay P. D'Andrea clarified that granting a variance allowed an applicant to deviate from the code to become compliant for the requested conditional development permit. Commissioner Couperus later said that the applicant had taken the direction that was given and applied it accordingly. 4 Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 7,2015 wa, R it FT Commissioner Tankha felt that the requested variances were agreeable and complimentary to the neighborhood, but expressed concern that the structure may still be too bulky. Chair Mandle said that the applicant had done an excellent job applying the comments made by the commissioners and the neighbors in the last planning commission meeting, and had no issue allowing a variance for the project. Commission discussion continued. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Abraham moved to ask the applicant to return with new plans utilizing the MFA of 3000 sq ft. approx. 850 sq. ft. above what would be calculated as the average of the neighboring homes; Second, the applicant will retain the side entrance and drive for the garage as proposed as it is a plus for the neighborhood, and will comply with the required setbacks, except for the driveway approach to the garage, and develop a landscape screening plan for the front property line. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Partridge. AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha NOES: Commissioner Couperus, Chair Mandle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Chair Mandle called for a 5 minute recess at 9:31 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:36 P.M. 3A LOS ALTOS HILLS GENERAL PLAN ULATION & SCENIC ROADWAYS UPDATE: FILE # 79-12-MI CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 7, 2014). CEQA review: Negative ,„r vvclaration (staff-Nicole Horvitz/Steve Padovan) Continued from the , A,'� 19, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Chair Mandle ope the PUBLIC HEARING. Assistan anner Nicole Horvitz presented the staff report. -mg no one wishing to speak Chair Mandle closed the PUBLIC HEARING. 5 Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 7,2015 • ATTACHMENT 8 Development on Surrounding Properties in the Deerfield Neighborhoocr Address Net Lot Existing or MFA/ Floor Dwelling Area incl. Developed Area Variance Granted Size/LUF New MDA Area/ garage Residence Lot Area (w/o basement) 13621 Burke .453 acres New 3,723 .151 2,988 sq.ft. 6,621 sq.ft. 1994 — Parking in side yard .453 LUF 6,621 80% of MFA (nonconforming) setback and increase in MFA 100% of MDA 13631 Burke N/A Existing/ N/A NA 1,567 sq.ft. N/A 1962—Guest Cottage in side Addition yard setback 25520 Deerfield .347 acres Existing 3,470 .146 2,205 sq.ft. 5,660 sq.ft. Application submitted for .347 LUF 5,570 64% of MFA 102% of MDA new 3,387 sq.ft. dwelling 25531 Deerfield .54 acres Existing 5,000 .099 2,324 sq.ft. N/A None .54 LUF Residence 7,500 25561 Deerfield .4 acres New 4,000 .225 3,917 sq.ft. 5,979 sq.ft. 1988 — Allow for a 20 foot .4 LUF 6,000 98% of MFA 100% of MDA side yard setback for dwelling 25610 Deerfield .828 acres Existing N/A .094 3,404 sq.ft. N/A None Residence 25620 Deerfield .44 acres Existing/Room 2,000 Lot .171 3,271 sq.ft. 4,800 sq.ft. 1983 — Expansion over .37 LUF Addition coverage 2,640 sq.ft. of (nonconforming) maximum allowed building 4,460 Lot Coverage 132% of 108% of MDA coverage and 4 foot Development total encroachment into side yard Area 25621 Deerfield .88 acres New 5,000 .118 4,524 sq.ft. 9,318 sq.ft. None .75 LUF 9,429 90% of MFA 99% of MDA 25700 Deerfield .43 acres Existing/Room 1,682/2,480 .209 3,920 sq.ft. 5,919 sq.ft. 2001 — Exceed maximum .31 LUF Addition revised 158% of MFA (nonconforming) MFA and MDA 3,342/4,580 129% of MDA revised 25701 Deerfield .381 acres New 3,300 .197 3,267 sq.ft. 5,356 sq.ft. 2005 — Parking in the side .33 LUF 5,400 99% of MFA 99% of MDA yard setback 25710 Deerfield .487 acres Existing N/A .139 2,954 sq.ft. N/A None 25711 Deerfield .495 acres Existing/ 4,510 .141 3,036 sq.ft. 7,039 Application Submitted to .451 LUF Addition 6,610 67% of MFA (nonconforming) increase floor area by 1,400 106% of MDA sq.ft. 25731 Deerfield .478 acres Existing/Room 3,400 .152 3,172 sq.ft. 6,167 sq.ft. 1994 — Exceed maximum .43 LUF Addition 6,500 93% of MFA 95% of MDA MFA and MDA Development on Surrounding Properties in the Deerfield Neighborhood - Page 2 Address Net Lot Existing or MFA/ Floor Dwelling Area incl. Developed Area Variance Granted Size/LUF New MDA Area/ garage Residence Lot Area (w/o basement) 25740 Deerfield .641 acres Existing 3,129 .094 2,620 sq.ft. N/A None .55 LUF 6,971 84% of MFA 13530 Fremont .397 acres New 4,547 .252 4,365 sq.ft. 6,400 sq.ft. 2005 — Parking in the side .397 LUF 6,647 96% of MFA 96% of MDA yard setback Revised Project 25608 Deerfield .359 acres New 3,590 .192 3,000 sq.ft. 5,280 sq.ft. Request for parking and .359 LUF 5,690 84% of MFA 93% of MDA back-up area in side yard setback Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004 ATTACHMENT 9 Address Date Net Lot Type of MFA/ Dwelling Developed Area Variance Granted? Approved Size/LUF Project MDA Area incl. garage 10435 July 2004 .766 acres Addition 4,820 3,411 sq.ft. 7,876 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces in Berkshire .482 LUF 6,920 71% of MFA (nonconforming) setback 114% of MDA 13341 August .981 acres New 4,550 4,468 sq.ft. 6,621 sq.ft. No variance Wildcrest 2004 .455 LUF residence 6,650 98% of MFA 99% of MDA 25701 March .381 acres New 3,300 3,267 sq.ft. 5,356 sq.ft. Variance for parking in the side Deerfield 2005/ .33 LUF Residence/ 5,400 99% of MFA 99% of MDA yard setback February Pool 2014 13303 August 1.817 Addition 3,690 3,570 sq.ft. 6,896 sq.ft. Variance for 2 reduced size Wildcrest 2005 acres 5,790 97% of MFA (nonconforming) garage spaces and to exceed .369 LUF 119% of MDA MDA 12380 February .491 acres New 4,910 4,360 sq.ft. 7,010 sq.ft. Variance for chimney in setback Hilltop 2006 .491 LUF residence 7,010 89% of MFA 100% of MDA and pool 12390 June 2006 .498 acres New 4,980 4,978 sq.ft. 7,080 sq.ft. Variance for 1 parking space, bay Hilltop .498 LUF residence 7,080 100% of MFA 100% of MDA windows and chimney in setback 24624 March 2007 .482 acres Major 4,250 4,060 sq.ft. 7,576 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces and Summerhill .425 LUF remodel 6,350 95% of MFA (nonconforming) trash enclosure in setback resulting in 119% of MDA new residence 25875 June 2007 .461 acres Major 4,490 4,100 sq.ft. 6,399 sq.ft. Variance for 2 reduced size Estacada .449 LUF addition 6,590 91% of MFA 97% of MDA parking spaces in setback 14555 September .462 acres Addition and 4,550 4,542 sq.ft. 5,582 sq.ft. Variance for 1 parking space in De Bell 2008 .455 acres remodel 6,650 100% of MFA 84% of MDA setback 13310 November .79 acres New 3,973 3,950 sq.ft. 6,008 sq.ft. No variance East Sunset 2009 .4 LUF residence 6,073 99% of MFA 99% of MDA 27361 February .4275 New 4,830 3,450 sq.ft. 6,927 sq.ft. No variance Moody 2011 acres residence 6,930 71% of MFA 100% of MDA .4275 LUF Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004 — Page 2 Address Date Net Lot Type of MFA/ Dwelling Developed Area Variance Granted? Approved Size/LUF Project MDA Area incl. garage 13500 June 2011 .4275 Sunroom 4,275 3,462 sq.ft. 5,222 sq.ft. No variance Fremont acres 6,375 81% of MFA 82% of MDA .4275 LUF 27911 June 2014 1.007 Addition 4,560 4,144 sq.ft. 9,647 sq.ft. No variance Via acres 6,660 91% of MFA (nonconforming) Ventana .456 LUF 145% of MDA 27299 November 1.239 Addition 4,000 3,899 sq.ft. 6,539 sq.ft. Variance to allow for 20 foot side Byrne Park 2014 acres 6,600 97% of MFA 99% of MDA yard setback for addition .40 LUF 14696 November .471 acres Addition 4,530 4,343 sq.ft. 6,469 sq.ft. Variance for up to 12 foot Manuella 2014 .453 LUF 6,630 96% of MFA 97% of MDA encroachment into side yard setback for addition