Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21RESOLUTION 09-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS DENYING A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 10758 MORA DRIVE WHEREAS, The Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Conditional Development Permit (CDP19-0002), a Site Development Permit (SD19-0020) and Variance requests (VAR19- 0006) from Forrest Linebarger ("Applicant") for the construction of a new 2,254 square -foot, two- story single-family residence with a 1,493 square -foot basement and attached garage and variances for 20 -foot side yard setbacks for the building, 10 -foot side ,yard setbacks for uncovered parking, and 13 -foot side yard setbacks for decks, hardscape and basement lightwells at 10758 Mora Drive ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Project on December 19, 2019 and October 1, 2020 and considered all written documentation and public comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the Project on October 1, 2020, and voted 5-0 to continue the item to November 5, 2020 to allow staff to prepare findings of denial; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt the resolution denying the Project; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2020, the Applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Applicant agreed to schedule the appeal hearing on January 21, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on January 21, 2021, considered all written documentation and public comments, and directed Town staff to prepare findings of denial with respect to the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council voted to deny the Applicant's appeal and the Project and adopted the findings of denial at its meeting on February 18, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby DENIES the Conditional Development Permit (CDP 19-0002), Site Development Permit (SD19-0020) and Variance requests (VAR19-0006), without prejudice, subject to the findings in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. Resolution 09-21 Page I The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Tankha, Tyson, Mok, Schmidt, Swan NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BY: ATTEST: 611,a&Pe5�,L Deborah Padovan, City Clerk Kavita Tanlcha, Mayor Resolution 09-21 Page 2 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS With regard to the Conditional Development Permit CDP19-0002 and Site Development Permit SD 19-0020) to allow for a new 2,254 square -foot two-story single-family residence with a 1,493 square -foot basement and attached g_arage and variances for 20 -foot side yard setbacks for the building, 10 -foot side yard setbacks for uncovered parking, and 13 -foot side yard setbacks for decks, hardscape and basement lig_htwells at 10758 Mora Drive: Pursuant to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-1.1007(3), the City Council cannot grant a CDP for a substandard lot unless the City Council can affirmatively find that each of the requirements in section 10-1.1007(3)(a)(1) - (4) are met. In addition, the Municipal Code provides that each CDP granted may be subject to such conditions as are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the findings contained under section 10- 1.1007(3)(a)(1) - (4). Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, reduction in Maximum Development Area allowed, reduction in Maximum Floor Area allowed, installation of landscaping, and resisting of structures. Based on the Applicant's proposed project design, the City Council cannot make the findings contained in section 10-1.1007(3) as described below and makes findings in support of denial of the CDP as follows. The City Council notes that the Applicant has submitted a concurrent application to construct an accessory dwelling unit on the subject parcel, and these findings relate only to the proposed primary residence seeking a CDP and SDP before the Council. a. 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 a narrow, substandard lot (which are those less than one acre in area under Town zoning regulations) with a. Lot Unit Factor (LUF) of less than 0.5, which results in limitations on the maximum amount of floor area and development area. The LUF is the value obtained using a formula involving the net lot area, the average slope of the property and a constant. This value is used in determining the allowable development and floor areas on a property. A LUF of over 1.0 is required for any newly created parcel. Existing legally created lots with a LUF greater than 0.5 do not require a CDP, while any lot with a LUF of 0.5 or less is required to obtain such a permit. Among existing substandard lots, every property that is 0.5 acres or less will have a LUF of 0.5 or less. Substandard lots greater than 0.5 acres, with an average slope greater than 10%, may also have a LUF of 0.5 or less. Standard lots (1 acre or greater in size) with very steep and greater than average slope, in particular those with an average slope greater than 50%, may also have a LUF of 0.5 or less. In calculating the Maximum Development Area (MDA) and the Maximum Floor Area (MFA) under Municipal Code sections 10-1.502 and 10- 1.503, substandard lots with a lower LUF have less allowable MFA and MDA, resulting in a smaller buildable area as compared to lots with a LUF greater than 0.5. In addition, substandard lots subject to a CDP may have their MDA restricted below 7,500 square feet and MFAs below 5,000 square feet as a condition of the permit. Resolution 09-21 Page 3 With these substandard characteristics, the subject property has a LUF of approximately 0.26 and a limited building envelope that does not support the construction of the proposed residence, garage or required on-site parking unless variances are approved by the Town. The subject lot is 0.398 acres and uniquely narrow with a width of 62.5 feet, 280 feet deep and drops down to a drainage at the rear property line. The property slopes downward from west to east and has an average slope of approximately 26%. The lot's narrow width and the Town's 30 -foot side yard setback requirement under its Zoning Code significantly restricts the development area on the lot to a thin strip land of approximately two and one- half (2.5) feet in width. The subject property's allowable MDA is 4,740 square feet and allowable MFA is 2,640 square feet. The proposed project would occupy approximately 98% of the MDA (at 4,655 sq. ft.) and approximately 85% of the MFA (at 2,254 sq. ft.), with the total floor area (including the living area, garage and basement) being 3,747 square feet. The size and shape of the site is not adequate for the proposed level of development contemplated by the applicant's project. The proposed project would contain nearly 3,750 square feet of total floor area (with only approximately 435 sq. ft. of reduction from the Planning Commission's consideration of the prior project submittal in 2019) and would continue to propose 20 -foot side yard setbacks for the residence on both sides of the property as well as 10 and 13 foot setbacks for parking, decks, hardscape, and basement lightwells, resulting in overdevelopment of the subject lot and a residence that's excessive in size. The encroachments into the setbacks sought for the proposed development are also excessive for the subject lot as it intrudes 10 feet into the Town's 30 -foot side yard setback standards on both sides of the lot for the structure and up to 20 feet on both sides of the lot for parking and other components of the project and thus is excessive for the narrow building area that is situated particularly and uniquely on this lot. Thus, the proposed project would significantly alter the distance between homes and would be incompatible with the Town's natural extensive open space and semi -rural characteristics, all of which are intended to be preserved by the Town's 30 -foot side yard setbacks and development requirements for substandard lots with steeper than average slopes. Additionally, when comparing with surrounding developments and similarly sized lots, the subject site does not support the proposed project. The size and shape of the site is not adequate for the proposed level of development within a neighborhood context where existing primary residences are sited on lots typically twice as wide without the particular characteristics of this subject parcel, with a higher LUF, and are not as densely developed as what is proposed on the subject property. In December 2019, the Planning Commission provided direction to limit the size of the proposed home to 2,500 square feet of total living area given the surrounding neighborhood context and previous CDP approvals on similarly sized lots. Testimony and public comments provided at the January 21, 2021 City Council hearing demonstrate that the lots neighboring the subject site and proposed project are generally larger and not similarly sized. Further, it appears that there are several homes in the Mora Drive neighborhood that are around 2,500 square feet in size or smaller and with a two -car garage. There is no indication that a parcel of similar size, topography, shape, and constraints was permitted to accommodate a new construction of the scale that is proposed by the applicant. Section 10-1.1007(3)(b) specifically authorizes the City Council to grant and subject a CDP to any conditions that are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general Resolution 09-21 Page 4 welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the findings contained under section 10- 1.1007(3). Such conditions include, but are not limited to, "reduction in Maximum Development Area (MDA) allowed, reduction in Maximum Floor Area (MFA) allowed, installation of landscaping, and resisting of structures." The proposed residence nearly exhausts the allowable MDA and MFA, and in light of the uniquely narrow size, shape, topography and a low LUF of approximately 0.26, a reduction of MDA and MFA and other features that are excessive in proportion for the subject parcel would be warranted. Alternate design options, as described in the project staff reports, Planning Commission and City Council comments during public hearings, and in the findings for denial of the variance request for 10758 Mora Drive, are available but were not utilized. For instance, the Planning Commission's 2019 recommendation of limiting the total living area to 2,500 square feet would serve to reduce the size of the residence and the encroachments into the Town's 30 -foot standard side yard setback. Another alternative could be eliminating the second -story roof deck, increasing the setback of the second -story level from the side property line, and reducing or removing the basement lightwells, thereby reducing the setback encroachments currently requested. However, the applicant did not utilize such alternate designs or other options, and instead continued to request a 10 -foot encroachment for the building into the side yard setbacks and between 17 to 20 - foot encroachments for accessory features into the side yard setbacks. It can be concluded that the proposed development is not properly balanced and suited for the unique size and topography of the subject lot and the existing surrounding neighborhood. There are no facts that would preclude the applicant from proposing an alternate design that would correct such imbalance and denying the current proposed project would not prevent the applicant from submitting a revised application to address the issues raised here. Thus, the City Council is unable to make the finding contained in section 10-1.1007(3)(a)(1). b. 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 size and design of the proposed residence does not create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residence is a large, two-story structure located on a narrow lot that would encroach up to 10 feet into the required 30 - foot side yard setbacks on both sides. In comparison to the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed floor area and footprint of the residence are excessive given the narrow lot width and substandard lot area which are particular and unique to this parcel, leading to a proposed development intensity that is out of proportion with the underlying parcel and lacking in balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed in Finding 1(a) above, the record demonstrates that the lots neighboring the subject site and proposed project are significantly larger and not similarly sized. A design that reduces the overall building height and footprint and increases articulation and wall relief to reduce the amount of building volume in the side yard setbacks is necessary for the new residence to establish compatibility with surrounding residential development. Similarly, the deviations from the Town's setback standards that would be required to construct the proposed project on the 0.398 -acre subject property are inconsistent with the Resolution 09-21 Page 5 development pattern on similarly sized, substandard lots in the Town. At the January 21, 2021 City Council meeting, Town staff presented data regarding properties that were granted CDPs and setback variances. This data, presented as Attachment 16 to the January 21, 2021 City Council staff report, sampled properties that received such approvals since 2004 as reflected in the Town's digital permit tracking system and electronic records management system. As shown in that attachment, since at least 2004, the Town has not approved a new residential structure requiring a CDP with the same significant amount of encroachment into the 30 -foot setback standards for the building on a substandard, narrow, undeveloped property. In reviewing this record of CDP approvals, newly constructed homes on substandard lots with a LUF less than 0.50 have not required variances for the residence to encroach into the front or side yard setbacks. Variances for these new constructions since at least 2004 have only been requested and granted for accessory features such as parking, bay windows, chimneys, and trash enclosures. Likewise, since at least 2004, the Town has only granted setback variances on substandard lots with an LUF of 0.5 or less for residential structures to encroach into the setbacks where such structure is an addition to an existing residence. Virtually all previous development proposals have a higher LUF—and hence more allowable development area—than the subject property. The subject lot has a LUF of approximately 0.26, whereas other such substandard lots with variances for parking and other development features possess LUFs closer to 0.5 and mostly in the 0.4-0.45 range when compared to the subject lot. During the January 21, 2021 City Council hearing, the applicant pointed to the single -story residence at 25531 Fremont Road as an example where variances were granted in 2015 for an 18 -foot encroachment into the side yard setbacks (a 12 -foot side yard setback variance was granted to deviate from the Town's 30 -foot side yard setback standard) for an addition to the residence and parking on a similarly substandard lot (0.273 acres and 0.273 LUF) as the subject property. The applicant also pointed to two properties at 25608 Deerfield Drive (a 0.359 acre lot) and 13531 Burke Road (a 0.347 acre lot) as examples of similarly sized lots that were allowed to construct residences that were larger than the proposed home at 10758 Mora Drive. The applicant further stated that no houses built in the last 60 years on lots 0.5 acres and under has a smaller floor area than the proposed home. However, these examples raised by the applicant are distinguishable from the proposed project at 10758 Mora Drive. The property at 25531 Fremont Road is distinguishable in that the Fremont Road property already contained an existing, single -story residence and detached garage with nonconforming front yard and side yard setbacks, and variances were granted for a single -story addition to that residence. The encroachments for the single -story addition to the Fremont Road residence are 18 feet on either side of that property and were less than the existing home's encroachment into the southeasterly side yard setback (21 feet) and similar to the existing detached garage encroachment into the northwesterly side yard setback (15 feet). In both cases, the approved variances for the Fremont Road addition were smaller than what is proposed for parking and lightwells on the two-story 10758 Mora Drive residence. Likewise, the properties at Deerfield Drive and Burke Road are also distinguishable as both lots have a higher LUF (0.359 and 0.347 respectively) and thus a greater amount of developable area, and neither of the two homes constructed required any variance for the building. In comparison, the proposed two-story home at 10758 Mora Drive would encroach 10 feet into the 30 -foot side yard setbacks and its parking spaces and basement lightwells would encroach between 17 and 20 feet into the side yard setbacks. Although the applicant raised several examples of lots less than 0.5 acres that are Resolution 09-21 Page 6 constructed with larger homes than the current project, there is no showing of how those lots compare to the uniquely constrained, substandard characteristics of the subject parcel. On the contrary, and as noted above, there are no examples within the last 16 years of an approved CDP for a new residence on a narrow, vacant, previously undeveloped, substandard lot with a similar number of variance requests. The habitable area of the proposed residence is larger than a number of homes within the immediate neighborhood area despite the proposed lot being smaller and more uniquely shaped than those neighboring properties. To illustrate, a search on the real estate marketplace website Zillow demonstrates that there are eleven homes within a half -mile radius of the subject site that are around 2,500 square feet or less. Examples include a 2,454 sq. ft. home at 10730 Mora Drive (the lot between 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive); a 2,166 sq. ft. home at 10776 Mora Drive; and a 2,393 sq. ft. home at 11120 Mora Drive. Some residences in this immediate area were even smaller; for instance, the home at 10977 Terry Way is 1,553 sq. ft., the home at 10990 Terry Way is 1,298 sq. ft., and the home at 11060 Mora Drive is 1,810 sq. ft. None of these lots are similarly constrained as the subject property. It follows that the design of the proposed residence is not in proper balance, unity and harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and in proportion to the LUF, size, shape and topography of the site. There is nothing precluding the applicant to submit an alternate design or another revised application based on these examples to address neighborhood compatibility and correct the development imbalance given the unique constraints presented on the subject property. Thus, the City Council is unable to make the finding contained in section 10-1.1007(3)(a)(2). 2. With regard to the Variance (VAR19-0006) to allow for variances for a 20 -foot side yard building setback along the north and south sides of the property, 10 -foot side yard setbacks for uncovered parking, and a 13 -foot side yard setback for decks, hardscape and basement lightwells on a 0.398 acre lot at 10758 Mora Drive: Pursuant to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-1.1007(2)(b), the City Council may only grant a variance if it can make affinnative findings that all of the requirements listed in section 10-1.1007(2)(b)(1) - (4) have been met. However, based on the Applicant's proposed project design, the City Council cannot make the findings contained in Section 10-1.007(2)(b) and makes findings in support of denial of the Variance. The City Council notes that the Applicant has submitted a concurrent application to construct an accessory dwelling unit on the subject parcel, and these findings relate only to the proposed primary home seeking variances before the Council. a. 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 development is to be situated on a narrow, 0.398 -acre lot, which is 62.5 feet wide with a LUF of only approximately 0.26. If the requested variances were granted, the proposed residence would encroach into the standard side -yard setbacks by 10 feet on both sides of the property, and the parking, decks, hardscape and basement lightwells would encroach by over half (between 17 and 20 feet) of the 30 -foot standard of the side property lines. The subject lot is a unique and substandard parcel due to its small size and narrow Resolution 09-21 Page 7 width. Building on the subject lot requires the Applicant to design the proposed residence by factoring in the lot's special conditions. Granting the requested variances would not be limited to address a deprivation of privileges resulting from the strict application of the Zoning Code; rather, it would grant additional privileges to this lot that is not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The proposed project would contain nearly 3,750 square feet of total floor area (with only approximately 435 sq. ft. of reduction from the Planning Commission's consideration of the prior project submittal in 2019) and would propose a 20 -foot side yard setback for the residence on the both sides of the property as well as 10 -foot setbacks for parking, and 13 foot setbacks for decks, hardscape, and basement lightwells, resulting in overdevelopment of the subject lot and a residence that's excessive in size. By encroaching into the Town's 30 -foot setback standards, the proposed home and building features seek to drastically alter the distance between homes and would be incompatible with the Town's natural extensive open space and semi -rural characteristics, all of which are intended to be preserved by the Town's 30 -foot side yard setbacks and development requirements for substandard lots with steeper than average slopes. The scope of the requested variance is excessive comparing to those granted to other properties in the Town that are of similar size and constraints in the same zoning classification. There are no other examples in the record where the Town has approved a new structure with the same significant amount of encroachment into the 30 -foot setback standards on a substandard, narrow, vacant lot since at least 2004. Although the applicant cited to the properties at 26691 Moody Road and 26811 Moody Court as examples of properties in Los Altos Hills that were granted larger side yard setback variances and are located closer to property lines than would be permitted by current Town regulations, both homes are located outside the Mora Drive neighborhood, and both lots have a LUF greater than 0.5 (0.514 and 1.0, respectively) and are substantially larger (0.528 and 1 acres, respectively) than the subject property. Further, both residences are replacements for existing non -conforming structures originally constructed before the parcels were incorporated into the Town and under Santa Clara County regulations, which allowed for lesser setbacks for residences and accessory structures. In contrast, the Town has never granted side yard setback variances for a new construction on a vacant, undeveloped lot that are of the scale requested by the applicant. Likewise, the habitable area of the proposed residence is also larger than a number of homes within the immediate neighborhood area even though the proposed lot is smaller and more uniquely constrained than those neighboring properties. To illustrate, a search on the real estate marketplace website Zillow demonstrates that there are eleven homes within a half -mile radius of the subject site with around 2,500 square feet of living area or less. Examples include a 2,454 sq. ft. home at 10730 Mora Drive (the lot between 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive); a 2,166 sq. ft, home at 10776 Mora Drive; and a 2,393 sq. ft. home at 11120 Mora Drive. Some residences in this immediate area were even smaller; for instance, the home at 10977 Terry Way is 1,553 sq. ft., the home at 10990 Terry Way is 1,298 sq. ft., and the home at 11060 Mora Drive is 1,810 sq. ft. None of these lots are similarly constrained as the subject property. In contrast, the proposed home at 10758 Mora Drive would occupy approximately 98% of the MDA and 85% of the MFA, and is excessive given the uniquely narrow size, shape, topography of the lot. There are no facts to support Resolution 09-21 Page 8 that applying the Zoning standards would constitute a deprivation of privileges that other properties enjoy. Evidence in the record before the Council, including the staff report and presentation at the January 21, 2021 hearing, supports the conclusion that the applicant was made aware of alternate design options, including reducing the size of the proposed home when considering the proportion of the residence to the uniquely narrow and irregularly shaped lot, but elected. not to utilize alternatives to reduce the size of the project and scope of requested variances. For instance, the Planning Commission's 2019 recommendation of limiting the total living area to 2,500 square feet would serve to reduce the size of the residence and the encroachments into the Town's 30 -foot standard side yard setback. Another alternative could be eliminating the second -story roof deck, increasing the setback of the second -story level from the property line, and reducing or removing the basement lightwells, thereby reducing the setback encroachments currently requested. However, the applicant did not utilize those options or other alternatives, and instead continues to request a 10 -foot encroachment for the building into the side yard setbacks and between 17 and 20 -foot encroachments for other development features. Moreover, the applicant did previously have site control over the adjacent parcel (10730 Mora Drive) and could have reconfigured or merged the lots to create lots that would have provided for greater opportunity to satisfy side yard setbacks but opted not to do so. Thus, the City Council is unable to make the finding contained in section 10-1.1007(2)(b)(1). b. 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 o f the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. The variance request floes not serve the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the zoning code and would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. Section 10-1.1007(2)(a) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code provides that "the purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography, location, or other physical site conditions." Although the subject lot is narrow and with significantly limited developable area, the design of the proposed residence has not been reasonably adjusted to the constraints of this property. In addition, the requested setback encroachments are larger than any setback variance the Town has granted for at least the past 16 years for a new residence on a vacant, undeveloped lot and the proposed residence nearly exhausts the allowable maximum floor and developable areas. As such, the proposed home and setback encroachments are not consistent with the semi -rural character of Los Altos Hills. The proposed home is too large for the substandard lot of irregular size, shape and topography which are unique and particular to this parcel, which only has a LUF of approximately 0.26. Evidence in reviewing other Town properties that had been granted a variance since at least 2004 supports the conclusion that granting the requested variances would allow the applicant to receive a special privilege not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners and owners of similarly situated lots. Most of the properties that were granted a variance since at least 2004 contained homes with existing non -conforming setbacks. In nearly all cases, the variances granted for the new residence were equal to or less than the existing setback encroachments. As shown in Attachment 16 to the January 21, 2021 City Council staff report, since at least 2004, the Town has not approved variances for a new residential Resolution 09-21 Page 9 structure with the same significant amount of building encroachment into the 30 -foot setback standards on a substandard, narrow, vacant lot with an LUF of 0.5 or less. In reviewing the record of variance approvals since at least 2004, newly constructed homes on substandard lots with a LUF less than 0.50 have not required variances for the residence to encroach into the front or side yard setbacks. Variances for these new constructions since at least 2004 have only been requested and granted for accessory features such as parking, bay windows, chimneys, and trash enclosures. Likewise, since at least 2004, the Town has only granted variances on lots with a LUF of 0.5 or less for residential structures to encroach into the setbacks where such structure is an addition to an existing residence. Virtually all previous development proposals have a higher LUF— and hence more allowable development area— than the subject property. The subject lot has a LUF of approximately 0.26, whereas other such substandard lots with variances for parking and other development features possess LUFs closer to 0.5 and mostly in the 0.4-0.45 range when compared to the subject lot. The applicant has not cited an example that compares similarly sized, substandard lots with similar shape and LUF constraints to demonstrate that granting a variance would not award him a special privilege. During the January 21, 2021 City Council hearing, the applicant pointed to the single -story residence at 25531 Fremont Road as an example where variances were granted in 2015 for an 18 -foot encroachment into the side yard setbacks s (a 12 -foot side yard setback variance was granted to deviate from the Town's 30 -foot side yard setback standard) for an addition to the residence and parking on a similarly substandard lot (0.273 acres and 0.273 LUF) as the subject property. The applicant also pointed to two properties at 25608 Deerfield Drive (a 0.359 acre lot) and 13531 Burke Road (a 0.347 acre lot) as examples of similarly sized lots that were allowed to construct residences that were larger than the proposed home at 10758 Mora Drive. The applicant further stated that no houses built in the last 60 years on lots 0.5 acres and under has a smaller floor area than the proposed home. However, these examples raised by the applicant are distinguishable from the proposed project at 10758 Mora Drive. The property at 25531 Fremont Road is distinguishable in that the Fremont Road property already contained an existing, single -story residence and detached garage with nonconforming front yard and side yard setbacks, and variances were granted for a single -story addition to that residence. The encroachments for the single -story addition to the Fremont Road residence are 18 feet on either side of that property and were less than the existing home's encroachment into the southeasterly side yard setback (21 feet) and similar to the existing detached garage encroachment into the northwesterly side yard setback (15 feet). In both cases, the approved variances for the Fremont Road addition were smaller than what is proposed for parking and lightwells on the two-story 10758 Mora Drive residence. Likewise, the properties at Deerfield Drive and Burke Road are also distinguishable as both lots have a higher LUF (0.359 and 0.347 respectively) and thus a greater amount of developable area, and neither of the two homes constructed required any variance for the building. In comparison, the proposed two-story home at 10758 Mora Drive would encroach 10 feet into the 30 -foot side yard setbacks and its parking spaces and basement lightwells would encroach between 17 and 20 feet into the side yard setbacks. As noted above, there are no examples within the last 16 years of an approved new residence on a narrow, vacant, previously undeveloped, substandard lot with a similar number of variance requests. Resolution 09-21 Page 10 The habitable area of the proposed residence is larger than a number of homes within the immediate neighborhood area despite the proposed lot being smaller and more uniquely shaped than those neighboring properties. To illustrate, a search on the real estate marketplace website Zillow demonstrates that there are eleven homes within a half -mile radius of the subject site that are around 2,500 square feet of living area or less. Examples include a 2,454 sq. ft. home at 10730 Mora Drive (the lot between 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive); a 2,166 sq. ft. home at 10776 Mora Drive; and a 2,393 sq. ft. home at 11120 Mora Drive, and some residences in this immediate area were even smaller. It follows that the design of the proposed residence is not in proper balance, unity and harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and in proportion to the LUF, size, shape and topography of the site. Thus, granting the requested variances would constitute a special privilege to the property because the totality of the proposed setback encroachments for hardscape and building volume significantly exceed what is enjoyed by surrounding property owners and the level of building volume encroachment could be reduced while still allowing for a reasonably sized residence on the property when taking into account the unique size and topographical characteristics of this parcel. Substandard lots that are comparable in size and LUF have not enjoyed a privilege of constructing a new residence with the same amount of significant encroachments into the Town's standard setback requirements and creating significant impacts on the distance between homes, visual aesthetics and semi -rural community character. Thus, the City Council is unable to make the finding contained in section 10- 1.1007(2)(b)(2). c. 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 granting of such variances for the proposed residence will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding properties in the immediate vicinity within the R -A zoning district. The development is proposed to be within 20 feet of the property line of the adjacent lots on either side and is not designed in a way that is compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The 1,582 square -foot footprint of the proposed home would stretch 74 feet deep on the 62.5 -foot wide property (average width) and the two-story design would result in potential visual impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated through landscape screening. For instance, the proposed development would include second -floor roof decks and basement lightwells that would encroach into the required setbacks. The short distance of the second story construction and decks from the property line would create visual impacts and intrude into the space intended to separate neighboring properties and preserve the Town's semi -rural characteristics. The neighborhood in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project also contains a mixture of residential structures with varying setback distances and separation between the main residential buildings of adjacent properties, as well as frequent demonstrated articulation, all of which lessens the visual impact of the structures on the neighboring properties. Those design features were tailored to the conditions of each particular lot to reduce neighborhood impact and preserve character of the surrounding community. Whereas here, the proposed project falls short to accommodate the unique constraints of the substandard lot and requires further design alterations in order to lessen the impact of the development on the neighboring properties as well as the existing character of the neighborhood. For instance, Resolution 09-21 Page 11 visual impacts to the neighborhood can be reduced by setting the house further back from the road (by increasing the front yard setback) so that the building is offset from the residence on 10730 Mora Drive (the lot between 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive), thereby allowing for significant landscape screening in the front half of the lot and also reducing the potential for a row house effect. The applicant is not precluded from utilizing these alternate designs or other options and could file a revised application to address these issues. Granting the requested setback variances would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and neighboring properties for these reasons. Thus, the City Council is unable to make the finding contained in section 10- 1.1007(2)(b)(3). 3691238.4 Resolution 09-21 Page 12