HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.2Y�;L
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 22, 2004
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS AND REMODEL AND
A VARIANCE FOR REQUIRED PARKING TO ENCROACH INTO THE 40 -FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK; LANDS OF JESSEN; 10435 BERKSHIRE DRIVE; FILE
#46-03-ZP-CDP-GD-VAR.
FROM: Angelica Herrera Olivera, Assistant Planner
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director C.Q.
That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Conditional Development Permit and Variance subject to the attached
conditions of approval and findings.
As required by Section 10-1.1104 of the Town's Municipal Code, this application for a
Conditional Development Permit has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review
and approval. A Conditional Development Permit is required any time a proposed project is
located on a property with a Lot Unit Factor of 0.50 or less. Pursuant to Section 10-1.1107(3) of
the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission, in reviewing a Conditional Development
Permit application, considers evidence in support of the four necessary findings (Attachment 7).
The applicant's architect has prepared Conditional Development Permit findings for the
proposed additions and remodel in Attachment 2 for the Commission's review.
The review criteria for a Conditional Development Permit are generally the same as those for any
Site Development Permit. The review encompasses compliance with floor and development area
limitations, height, setbacks, and parking requirements as well as, grading, drainage, building
siting, landscape screening, and outdoor lighting.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to encroach 13 feet in the front yard setback for two
(2) required parking spaces. As provided for in the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission shall
act as the permitting body for all applications involving requests for encroachment into any
setback by more than two (2') feet. Section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four
findings that must be made to support a variance from the Zoning Code (Attachment 8). The
applicant's architect has prepared findings for the proposed variance in Attachment 3 for the
Commission's review.
This particular property was one of the 53 unincorporated lots recently annexed into the Town in
December of 2002. The existing residence, swimming pool, and accessory structures on the lot
are the result of development pursuant to the County's zoning and setback regulations, which are
less stringent that the Town's ordinances.
punning Commission
M35 aakshire Drive
July 22, 2004
page 2 of 9
DISCUSSION
The subject property is located on the north side of Berkshire Drive off of Loyola Drive near
Ravensbury Avenue on the southwest side of the Town. The 0.76 -acre parcel is bounded by
three other private properties to the north, east, and west. There is an existing single -story,
ranch -style house and attached garage structure on the property which sits on a pad cut in the
hillside parallel to the street. The property contains several large-sized oaks on the northern
portion of the lot and extensive existing vegetation along the east and western property
boundaries, as well as, along Berkshire Drive.
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
0.823 acres
Net Lot Area:
0.764 acres
Average Slope:
27.3%
Lot Unit Factor:
0.482
Floor Area and
Development Area:
Area
Maximum Proposed
Existing Increase
Left
Development
6,920 7,876
8,103 -227
0
Floor
4,820 3,411
2,461 +950
+1,409
Site and Architecture
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Development permit for a single -story addition
to the existing two -car garage, dining and living room areas, as well as an exterior remodel to the
existing residence. A new front porch and a 265 square foot deck at the northern side of the
existing residence are proposed (see Sheet A-1.1). portions of the existing legal nonconforming
development on the property will be removed and replanted in order to accommodate the
additional square footage (see Sheet MDA -1). The proposed floor area accounts for 70.7 percent
of the total maximum floor area allowed for the property.
The existing residence's wood siding will be replaced with a new stucco exterior and a stone
veneer will be added to the proposed front porch. The roof structure above the existing garage,
dining, and living room areas will also be replaced and increased in height. The unobtrusive
character of the existing residence and proposed additions did not warrant requiring the exterior
and roof material color and reflectivity restrictions.
Height and Visibility
The roofline of the existing residence is situated at least 7 feet below the existing elevation along
Berkshire Drive (see Sheet A-1.3). The addition to the existing garage will require the
replacement of an existing wood retaining wall with a new concrete retaining wall to support an
additional cut into the hillside. Cutting into the hillside will minimize the visibility of the new
addition from the street.
Planning Commission
2]6]3 Lupine Road
July 22, 2004
Page 3 d9
The maximum height of the proposed additions with the new roof structure reaches a maximum
of 20 feet, measured from the existing grade. Story poles have been erected on the site outlining
the proposed new additions for the Commissioners' review.
Lighting and landscaping
Four new skylights are proposed on the existing residence and new additions (see Sheet A-5.0).
The proposed exterior lighting will not
be visible from surrounding streets or
properties as shown on Sheet A-3.0. No
additional lighting is proposed within
the required setbacks.
owns the lot to the north of the subject property,
canopies facing the proposed additions. Most
construction of the proposed additions.
As seen in the photo on the left, taken
from the driveway entrance at Berkshire
Drive, the visibility of the proposed
additions will be screened with the
existing vegetation. The photo also
demonstrates the dense brush and tree
canopy along the eastern and western
sides of the property. The applicant
which also has very dense vegetation and tree
existing vegetation will not be affected by
An arborist report was prepared to provide tree preservation guidelines for two existing oak trees
near the proposed addition at the north side of the residence. Condition of approval #2 requires
that all trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for protection and preservation.
Driveway and Parking
As seen in the photo to the tight, the new proposed garage addition will most likely not be seen
from the street or surrounding
properties. The Zoning Ordinance
requires at least four on-site
parking spaces, which will be
provided in the proposed three -car
garage and one single uncovered
parking space located within the
required 40 -foot front yard
setback (see Sheet A-1.1). Other
than the existing driveway access
and two required parking spaces,
no other pavement is proposed
within setbacks. The proposed
19anaiag Commission
10435 Berkshire pnve
July 22, 2004
Page 4 of 9
location of the garage addition and fourth required parking space within the setback require a
variance from Code Section 10-1.505.
Grading and Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of
approval as specified in Attachment 1. All proposed grading on the site conforms to the Town's
grading policy, with the exception of the proposed replacement of an existing 5'-4" tall wood
retaining wall with a new concrete retaining wall of the same height. The proposed grading
quantity for the project is relatively small with only 16 cubic yards of cut and export.
The proposed drainage for the site involves sheet flow away from the existing residence and new
additions in a northern direction, utilizing one existing and two new energy dissipators. Two
dissipators are located within 30 feet of the east and west property lines. The final drainage will
be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to final inspection.
Committee Review
The Pathways Committee has requested that the applicant pay a pathway impact fee of $45.00
per lineal foot of average width of the property or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, prior to
acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
The Environmental Design Committee recommended that all trees, especially oak trees, be
fenced at the dripline and protected during construction.
Conditional Development PemJit
In reviewing a Conditional Development Permit application, the Planning Commission
determines whether the proposed level of development is appropriate, based on the design and
how it fits the site and the surrounding neighborhood.
The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape, and topography to
accommodate the proposed intensity of development. In fact, the topography of the lot allows for
all of the proposed development to be unobtrusive and virtually unseen from surrounding
properties and streets.
The size and design of the proposed additions and remodel create a proper balance and
harmonious appearance in relation to the site and the surrounding neighborhood. As stated
earlier, the proposed floor area accounts for 70.7 percent of the total maximum floor area allowed
for the property. The continuous single-story fagade will receive minor alteration to the exterior
and roof structure that will blend into the surrounding vegetation.
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 grade. By
maintaining the existing driveway and siting the additions over existing paved patios, the
disruption to existing vegetation will be minimal.
Pluuviug Commissiou
10635 Berkshire Dave
July 22, 20M
N,5 of9
The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site
Development Ordinance. The project is in compliance with the allowable floor area for the lot
and is proposing a reduction to the legal nonconforming development area on the property. The
proposed additions are well below the height limitations.
Variance
The applicant is proposing to locate two of the 4 required parking spaces within the 40 -foot front
yard setback. The lot's topography and size greatly constrain siting options for the third and
fourth parking spaces. Siting is also constrained to the west by the presence of large oak trees
which the applicants would like to preserve. The applicant's architect describes in detail the
alternative locations that were explored in Attachment 3.
The purpose of setbacks is to mitigate bulk and height of proposed structures, give neighboring
property owners a reasonable measure of natural light and privacy and to preserve and enhance
the natural beauty of the community. Allowing the garage addition and fourth puking space to
encroach within the 40 -foot front yard setback will not infringe upon the privacy or views of
adjacent property owners.
SUMMARY
The proposed additions and remodel has been designed to comply with the Town's ordinances
and policies, as well as with the findings associated with a Conditional Development Permit.
The Planning Commission has granted variances for setback encroachment for required parking,
such as in the Lands of Inglin (27855 Moody Road). On that particular lot, a variance was
approved to allow a parking area to encroach 28 feet into the setback. Similarly to this proposed
application, there was no other practical area to locate the required parking.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have.
1. Recommended conditions of approval;
2. Findings for the Conditional Development Permit, prepared by the applicant's architect, Noel
Cross (2 pages);
3. Findings for the Variance, prepared by the applicant's architect, Noel Cross (3 pages);
4. Worksheets #1 and #2 (5 pages);
5. Environmental Design & Protection Committee evaluation, received April 14, 2003 (1 page);
6. Pathway Committee recommendation, date received May 19, 2003 (1 page);
7. Code Section 10-1.1107(3) regarding Conditional Development Permits (2 pages);
8. Code Section 10-1.1107(2) regarding Variances (3 pages);
9. Development plans
cc: David and Karen Jessen Noel Cross, Architect
10435 Berkshire Drive 307 Orchard City Drive, Ste. 107
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Campbell, CA 95008
Plxuning Commission
10435 Berkshire Drive
July 22, 2004
Page 6 of 9
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS AND REMODEL AND A VARIANCE FOR REOUIRED
PARKING TO ENCROACH INTO THE 40 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
LANDS OF JESSEN; 10435 BERKSHIRE DRIVE
File #46-03-ZP-CDP-GD-VAR
A. 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. Prior to receiving a Building Permit, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip line.
Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior issuance of
Building Permit. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in
advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of
construction.
Tree fencing requirements:
1. Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees.
2. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a minimum
height of five feet (S) above grade.
3. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into
the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than 10 -foot spacing.
4. Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction periods.
5. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines
of these trees at any time.
6. No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved.
3. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department prior to installation. Lighting fixtures shall generally be shielded downlights.
Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the
source of lighting should not be directly visible from off the site. No lighting may be
placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights.
4. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
5. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
Plavving Cosumissiov
10435 Berkshire Drive
July 22, 2004
Page 7 rf 9
6. If demolition is required, clearance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permit.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
7. Peak discharge at 10435 Berkshire Drive, as a result of Site Development Permit 46-03,
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. Prior to final inspection, a letter shall be
submitted from the project engineer stating that the detention storage design
improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with
their recommendations.
8. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall first be reviewed
and approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during
the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line.
9. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground.
10. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of construction plans by
the Building Department. 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. 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.
11. 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 shall provide the Town with photographs
of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of
construction plans by the Building Department.
12. 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 construction plans by the Building Department. The
gradinglconstruction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust,
noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Berkshire Drive and surrounding
roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for
construction vehicles; 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 Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a
franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
Planning Commission
10435 nerksh Drive
July 22, 2004
Pnge 8 of 9
13. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to
final inspection. A copy of a permit from the City of Los Altos shall be required to be
submitted to the Town prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building
Department.
14. The applicant shall pay a pathway impact fee of $45.00 per linear foot of average per
lineal foot of average width of the property or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, prior to
acceptance of construction plans by the Building Department.
15. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated April 2, 2003, the
applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Geotechnical Plan Review — The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall
review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and final
grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements
and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval prior to acceptance of construction plans by the
Building Department.
b. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited
to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to
the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall verify that fill
materials placed on sloping ground are properly keyed and benched into
supportive materials, as necessary.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall
be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted
to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from
Cotton, Shires & Associates dated April 2, 2003.
C. BUDDING DEPARTMENT:
16. All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the
Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building permit
from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to school district
Flaming Commission
10435 Berkshire Drive
July 22, 2004
Page 9 of 9
offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos School District), pay
the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the
Planning and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to final building inspection
approval.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until July 22,
2005). 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.
6ARC ATTACHMENT)—
March"•'°03.' NOEL F. C1 0H ITECT AIA
Los Altos. Hills Planning Commission '
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94.022
RE: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Jessen Addition
10435 Berkshire Drive
Los Aitos Hills, CA 94024
Dear Commission Members, - -
The home was originally built in the early 1950's, and has been added on to as recently as
1989 with building permits from the County of Santa Clara. This property has been recently
annexed into'the Town from the -County, along with numerous other properties in the
immediate vicinity.
A Conditional Development Permit is required any time a proposed project is located on a
property with a Lot Unit Factor (LUF) of less than o.50. Based on the topography of the
property, this property has a LUF of o.482. We are requesting the approval of modest single
story additions to the existing single story home (at far below the allowable MFA), and with
minimal changes to existing grades, contours, trees, and vegetation of the existing site..
As with the variance process, it is comforting to know that the Town has created a process
that takes into account the special nature of these steeper and smaller lots, so that reasonable
development can still occur based on it's individual merits, and therefore property rights and
property values can be preserved in a sensible way.
FINDINGS
1. That 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, pa(king, landscaping, walls, and fences, and other such features as may be
required by this chapter.
In general, the proposed additions and alterations are smaller in size; shorter in height,
and less bulky that the allowable maximums set for by the Zoning Ordinance. At a
proposed MFA of 3,411 sq. ft., the project falls well under the conditionally allowable
MFA of 4,82o sq. ft. Additionally, we are reducing the overall MDA from an existing,
grandfathered total of 8,103 sqft. to less than 7,900 sq. ft., and reducing the total
impervious paved surface area by over 1;10o sq. ft. in the process. The majority of the
additions are located to the rear (down hill) side of the house, out of the view of the
immediate neighbors and neighborhood in general. The maximum proposed height of
the roof structure is more than 9 feet below the maximum allowable height of 27 feet,
grading has been kept to an absolute minimum, and the existing driveway, parking, site
contours, retaining walls, fences,pool, vegetation, and trees all have been left as is.
2. The size and design of the proposed structurescreate 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 immediate neighborhood can be characterized generally as a rural hillside
community, populated with predominately ranch style and traditional style homes of
moderate to large sizes. The proposed project is clearly modest in size, height, and
'bulk, and blends in very well with the existing architectural character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and may very well be one of the smaller homes in the
neighborhood. See item number one above for more information in this regard.
3. The rival 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.
By keeping the existing drivewayand parking areas intact, we have kept grading and
disruption of the natural terrain and vegetation to an absolute minimum. No grading
is being proposed at the new additions at the rear (down hill) side of the property,
and the new additions for the most part are being built over existing paved patios and
walkways, so disruption of the existing vegetation will be minimal.
(continued next page)
3070Khard City Drive, .107 Campbell, CA 95008-2948 408.871.760o fax 408.871.7634 www.nfcarchitect.com
Jessen Residence
March it, 2003
Page z of z
4. The proposed development is In compliance with all regulations and policies set forth In
the Site Development Ordinance.
Please review the drawings and MDA calculations, which show compliance with. the
Town's Zoning Regulations. The following is a goal by goal review of the Town of Los
Altos Hills Design Guidelines.
Goal 1: Retain and enhance the open natural atmosphere of Los Altos Hills.
The proposed single story additions involve negligible changes to the existing terrain
and contours, preserve the existing natural vegetation, mature trees, and open space by
keeping the existing driveway, and does not propose to change or add any fencing.
The majority of the proposed single story additions will be on the rear (down hill) side
of the existing house, and therefore will not be visible from the street and surrounding
neighborhood - clearly the most unobtrusive solution possible. The one story garage
addition is tucked deep into the existing hillside with a ridge height 3 feet below the
street level. The additions add less than z feet to the existing height of the house, do
not block any views, and require minimal grading.
Goal III: Design your house ro minimize the aopearance of bulk.
The proposed single story additions will increase the ridge line height by less than a feet
at most. This proposed ridge line will also be z feet below the level of the street paving
at Berkshire Drive. Roof pitches have been designed to match the existing (approx. 4:12),
thereby blending in with the existing architectural forms,. and minimizing the
appearance of bulk. _
Goal IV: Design for your needs. the needs of the Town, and those of your neighbors.
The proposed garage addition is the safest design (will have a Class A roof), and is the
most neighbor -friendly design possible, keeping thegarageand parking areas as they are.
The project proposes to keep the swimming pool and deck areas to the rear as is for the
most part, thereby minimizing disruption to the existing site.
Conclusion
After working closely with the Town's Planning staff for the past several months on this
project, we feel strongly that the project as proposed meets with the purpose, spirit, and
intent of the Site Development Ordinance, as well as with the Town's Design Guidelines.
we respectfully request that the Planning Commission carefully review the drawings,.
documentation, and photographs, visit the site, make positive findings as outlined above, and
grant approval of the Conditional Development Permit for the proposed additions and
alterations, as requested. ,
Thank you. If youtaye.4.ny question or need for further clarification please call me.
Sincerely,
Noel F. Cro
Architect A.I.A.
lc: David and Karen Jessen
March 11; 2oo3
Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION IN FRONT SETBACK
Jessen Residence
10435 Berkshire Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ATTACHMENT 3
NOEL F. CROSS
IMF ARCHITECT AIA
Dear Planning Commission Members, _
The home was originally built in the early 195o's, and has been added on to as recently as
1989 with building petmits from the. County of Santa Clara. The existing carport and
surrounding wood retaining wall weie existing when the Jessen's bought the property in
August of 1988, and there were no disclosures by the sellers at that time that any
improvements were built without permits. This property has been recently annexed into the
Town from the County of Santa Clara along with several others in the immediate vicinity.
In this memo/request we want to direct your attention in particular to the part of the
proposed design which requires a Variance - a new third car garage addition to the existing
two car garage, both with a maximum roof height of 13 feet above the existing driveway
grade, which grade is a full 16 feet below the street level above.
It is at times like this when I greatly appreciate the drafters of the Los Altos Hills Site
Development Ordinance for having the foresight to know that situations like this one could
arise, and for including this Variance process which gracefully allows exceptions such as this
to be approved as a matter of course.It is comforting to know that the Town has a process
that takesinto account the special nature of unusual pre-existing conditions, so that sensible
and logical development can still occur and property rights. can be preserved in a fair and
reasonable way. Please review our discourse on the required findings below.
FINDINGS
1. Because of the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject
propperty, Including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict
ppllcatbn of the ordinance Is found to. deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under den=on classifications.
Given the moderately steep downhill slope of the property from the street, the existing -
concrete driveway is correspondingly steep and winding in order to safely negotiate the
16' drop from the street above to the existing parking area and garage below. The
original placement of the house is close to the street (the existing garage is currently at
the 4o' front setback line), and therefore there are no other possible alternatives for
adding this third car garage, other than as proposed at the uphill (South) side of the
existing garage. A strict application of the front setback in this case would unfairly
penalize this property by precluding the owners from enjoying a three car garage, based
solely on the placement of the existing house and garage, and the natural topography.
We looked at several possibilities and alternative locations for this third car garage:
a. At atlon of Ea1d tIpg a2.n r droom Suitt,
Besides having to tear out the recently remodeled master bedroom suite (a plan
requiring dubious financial prudence and creating numerous floor plan layout
challenges), this location would have required a side yardsetbackvariance in a much
.more visible and more obtrusive location. Additionally, the required back up space,
turning radius, and driveway slope are simply not physically possible for a garage in
this location, making actual vehicular access' impossible and impractical.
b: At a Location Blow The E ktina Mager Bedroom Suite:
The existing master bedroom wall is only 14' from the right (East) side property line,
and the existing pool is directly below the master bedroom, making this location for
a garage equally infeasible, if not Impossible by the LA Hills Zoning Ordinance.
Again, a variance would be required for this option as well, but which is much less
appealing, as it would cause much more grading, be noisier during it's use, and
overall be much more obtrusive to the neighborhood than the proposed solution.
(continued next page) -
307 Orchard City Drive, x107 Campbell, CA 95008-2946 408 871 7600 fax 408 871-76o4 www.nfcarchitecLcom
Jessen Residence
March n; 2003
Page 2 of 3
r. At a Locabon Below the Existing House to the West Side:
We looked at the possibility of adding a second driveway that would wind around
the left (southwest) side of the house to a new attached garage below the house.
This solution caused the new driveway slope to be in excess of 2o96 for much of it's
i+o' length, greatly exceeding the maximum MDA, and most notably would cause a
massive amount of grading and disruption of the natural hillside, endangering the
health of several mature trees (including twobeautiful oaks), and wipe out a
substantial amount of lush natural vegetation. Clearly, this option is in violation of
the intent and purpose of the. Zoning Ordinance, as it would BSI be preserving and
enhancing the rural character and natural terrain of the property and neighborhood.
Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance requires four total off street parking spaces. The
current house has a two car enclosed garage, an open carport; and one additional
uncovered parking space. We are simply maintaining this current parking arrangement, ,
but enclosing the unsightly carport with a more architecturally pleasing enclosed - -
garage.
a That upon granting of the Variance, the Intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be
served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed
by other surrounding property owners.
The following is a goal by goal review df the Town's Design Guidelines.
Goal 1• Retain and enhance the open natural atmosphere of Los Altos Hills.
The proposed garage addition involves negligible changes to the existing terrain and
contours, preserves the existing natural vegetation, mature trees, and open space by
using the existing driveway, and does not propose to change or add any fencing.
The proposed garage addition will be barely visible from the street and surrounding
neighborhood, and is clearly the most unobtrusive solution possible. The one story
garage addition is tucked deep into the existing hillside with a maximum ridge height as
full 3 feet below the street level. The garage addition does not block any views, and
requires minimal grading. For all.intents and purposes we are merely replacing the
existing (failing) wood retaining wall with a new concrete retaining wall.
Goal III, Design Your bout to minlmlzP the aopearance of bulk
The proposed garage addition will be barely visible from the street and is tucked deep
into the existing hillside with a ridge height 3 feet below the street level. The existing
low pitch gable roof at the existing garage will be, extended over the new addition.
The proposed garage addition is the safest design (will have a. Class A root), and is tM
most neighbor friendly design possible, keeping the garage and parking areas as is; as
well as keeping the pool and deck areas to the rear, thereby minimizing disruption.
Numerous other properties in the immediate vicinity have three car garages, and the
granting of this Variance will allow this property a three car garage, yet without any
detrimental effects to the neighborhood character whatsoever.
That grantingg the Varlance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
Injurious to Me property, Improvements, or uses within the Immediate vicinity and within
the same zoning district,
The existing carport, which we are proposing to replace with an enclosed garage, is -
barely visible from the street above (reference the enclosed photos). The elevation of
the new (and existing) garage roof ridge is actually 3' lower than the existing paving
level at Berkshire Drive. This severe drop off in elevation, combined with the
generous amounts of existing vegetation between the street and the garage, almost
completely obscure the existing garage and new third car garage addition from the
view of passersby and neighbors. Therefore, the granting of the variance will have a
no negative effect on the public welfare, and we believe it will be a net positive effect.
as the owners will be able to park their vehicles and store their belongings out of
sight in an enclosed structure, rather than in an open carport.
(continued next page)
Jessen Residence
March 10, 1003
Page 3 of 3
4. That the variance will not allow as use or activity which is not expressly authorized by
the Zoning Ordinance.
The variance will allow a third car to be parked inside an enclosed garage. This does
not violate any provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. The current unenclosed carport
space I!
i only 9 feet wide, and the new garage parking space is over ie feet wide,
which is the required width -specified in the Zoning Ordinance. .
Conclusion
we are convinced that projects with pre-existing conditions such as this are exactly what the
creators of the Variance process had in mind, such that the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance could be preserved and enhanced without the granting of any special privilege.
We respectfully request that the Commission carefully review the drawings, documentation,
and photographs,'visit the site,.make positive findings as outlined above, and grant a
Variance approval of the proposed additions and alterations as requested.
Thank you..Ify hav any question or. need for further clarification please call me
Sincerely, �(-�j�,�
Noel F, CrMS
Architect A.I.A.
cc: David and Karen lessen
LLEMENTS & ASSOCIATES FAX NO. : 650 962-9081
May. 13 2002 09:39RM P1
ATTACHMENT
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
% 26379 Frcmont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160
PLANNING DEPAEMMENT
WORKSHEET 91
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE. LOT UNIT FACTOR
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN W I l H Y 0Ux er i L"CA uv�.
- UV'O AND �C.ARFN JcSSC�J
. /OV35 EQKSfpw D,?,vc — U?GfQ P.dRCEG "t.V��'Y/5'/eJG NWJSL
JF?P CrnEMsY $ 2002
1, CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE
A. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An)
.. . . (INCHES)
(INCHES)
t — ner acreage o
(INCHES)
in feet
(INCHES).
lot nearest.007
S.6
ell
/ 6.$
f 7,0
dL
8.5
%0
/L G
G F•0
80
2.6
LS/
9S
6.7
95/ 76
7B
2.5
42
''z
a6 G.S
2-
7G
.9
5.2-
6;.9
6;1 9
i0 .0
f,0
QC F.5
8.2
70
O
TOTAL 2z71
Convert inches to feet (multiply by map scale) = (L) _
B. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
y, yZ feet
S = (0.0023) (I) (L)
F --contour mterva
t — ner acreage o
in feet
==,,g,
lot nearest.007
AM
S = (0.0023) ( 2 ) ( iSYZ) n
0706 - 27.E neazes[0.1%
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
LUF = (An)[ I - [0.02143(S - 10)]} = 0.-1.-2- nearest .001
If the avcrage slope is less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area. .
} If the LUF is equal to or less than 0.50, you will need a Conditional Development Permit. �—
Make an appointment with the Planning Director for further information.
R}:vs�N9v Page 1 of 2
WORKSHEET #1
(continued)
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA
(MDA)
A. for S equal to or less than 10%
MDA = (LUF) (15,000) =
square feet*
B. for S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MDA = (LUF) [15,000 - 375(S - 10)] _
9/LD
square feet*
C. for S equal to or greater than 30%
MDA = (LUF) (7,500) =
square feet*
* If the MDA is less than 5,000 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50),
use 5,000 square feet for your MDA
4. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
A. for S equal to or less than 10%
MFA = (LUF) (6,000) =
square feet**
B. for S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MFA = (LUF) [6,000 - 50(S - 10)] _
+&20
_4_
square feet**
C. for S equal to or greater than 30%
MFA = (LUF) (5,000) =
square feet**
** If the MFA is less than 4,000 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50) use 4,000 square feet for
your MFA.
NOTE: The MDA and MFA are maximums allowed by the Town Municipal Code. The City Council or the
Planning Commission may further limit development area or floor area due to site specific constraints
or site visibility (see "Site Development Policy Statement').
UV 816M Page 2 of 2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPT
26379 Fremont Road - Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 - (650) 941-7122 - FAX (650) 941-3160
WORKSHEET #2
EMSIING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (Mdirioro/oelenonB)
(SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage (from ren 3.A.)
mbr dvk ponore rmnovN
B. Decking
C.Driveway (meanued t9a'il�mg mmtasm
w.lka/patioomx remossa
D. Patios & Walkways
E. Sport Court
F. Pool & DeckingG. Accessory Buildings (6om Part 3.B.)
co
H. Otherverage(wuaw
s®pd> pond)
TOTALS
2,380.97
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPWGTION
PROPERTY OWNERS NAME
David W. Jessen and Karin L Lessen
' FERTY ADDRESS
I0435 Berkshire Drive, Los Alms Mils,G 94024
ALCULATED BY
Nod F.Cmss Arehitert AIA DATE March 11, 2003
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (Mdirioro/oelenonB)
(SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage (from ren 3.A.)
mbr dvk ponore rmnovN
B. Decking
C.Driveway (meanued t9a'il�mg mmtasm
w.lka/patioomx remossa
D. Patios & Walkways
E. Sport Court
F. Pool & DeckingG. Accessory Buildings (6om Part 3.B.)
co
H. Otherverage(wuaw
s®pd> pond)
TOTALS
2,380.97
950.30
3,33127
175.62
(50.75)
265.00
389.87
2,283.00
0.00
2,283.00
%1.13
(779.13)
201.00
383.00
710.00
(710.00)
0.00
1,371.75
0.00
1,371.75
80.00
0.00
80.00
140.50
(103.00)
37.50
8,102.97
(226.58)
7,876.39
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (imm wodraheet rn F 8,102.97 6,920.00
TOTALS
yeadfim d CUP.
2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Existing
Proposed
Total
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
950.30
3,411.27
TOTALS
5,722.001
(1,126.13)1
4,595.87
7. FLOOR AREA (S7 A F Foorw )
Existing
Proposed
Total
(Additimvs/Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor
1,674.37
917.10
2,591.47
b. 2nd Noor
0.00
0.00
0.00
c Carport
193.40
-193.40
0.00
d. Garage
513.201
226.601
739.80
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor (greenhouse)
80.00
0.00
80.00
b. 2ndFloor
0.00
0.00
0.00
c. Attic and Basement
0.00
0.00
Maximtmt Flom Area Allowed-MFA(from Worksheet#1L 4,820.00 cop.
roWNUSEONLY JC CKEDBY JDAM
Page t of l Town of Los Altos M.
0.00
2,460.97
950.30
3,411.27
Maximtmt Flom Area Allowed-MFA(from Worksheet#1L 4,820.00 cop.
roWNUSEONLY JC CKEDBY JDAM
Page t of l Town of Los Altos M.
'l,
SQUARE FOOTAGE MDA SUMMARY
Al Houseand Garage
s[wcnlm
am len h v
-o.µ x
-9.67 x
am(Lf.)
Manor BR Suite
A
17µ x
1915 =
5x7.84
Bedroorns/batis
B
x4.]5 x
11.33
den/offlceaddHlon
Living Room/Enti,
<
16.x5 x
36.83 =
598.49
Kitchen
D
x4.83 x
m.66 =
x6469
Flreplate
4.08 x
E
0.42 x
7.p0
194
existing main
IMn,
aro w
1,67437
uas x
rz.5o
¢78.13
nook bay addition
L
Garage
Ux5.66
x
20.00 =
513.x0
Carp rt
V
9.6) x
xo.00 =
103.40
edini garage/carport
floor aro wbmtal
75.47
706.6o
mmove(e) fireplace
remove (e)carport
E
V
-o.µ x
-9.67 x
7.00 =
-194
existing floor area m be removed subtotal
=
~9634
cbsetadditlon
F
500 x
8.00
40..9
den/offlceaddHlon
G
13.50 x
600
8,00
great room addition
H
13.50 x
4.08 -
55.08
great room addition
I
4.08 x
a..4 -
8,p
great room addition
1
17.18 x
1150
x2975
kitchen/nookaddltion
K
uas x
rz.5o
¢78.13
nook bay addition
L
353 x
8.83 =
31.17
kitchen addition
M
1553 x
fps -
x7.18
kitchen addition
N
7.08 x
10.66
75.47
sitting/bath addition
0
18.M x
400 =
7X3
Garage Addition 0 1 1133 x w.00 x16.60
proposed garage addition to flopramawbmtal - aab bo
net house end gareeew I 3d3ta7
,wood Decking
stmcwrt
area
len N
width CfQ
artaC.f.)
(e)wood decking
B1
5.00
x 6.1 =
31.25
1.00-
B1
&SO
x 4.33 =
36.81
7.00
83
7.75
x 5.00
3875
Co
84
6..5x
17s =
17.19
16.x5 x
85
5.50
x 8.75 =
48.13
7.50
B6
voo
x io =
3.5-
. o(e)
(e)de&Jmsubtoul
C10
16.00 x
7.00 =
!a&
remove(,) wd.dak
37
13.00 =
plan =
-16.00
remove (e) wd. deck
B6
3300
3.50
-350
remove (e) wd. deck
81
-5 00
615
-31.x5
ew wood!
wood! d
68
see
x Inn =
x6500
netI
309.87
0nveway Cf
18.33 x
28.00 -
N3.x4
Ca
1.00 x
s.o0 -
5.00
C3
7.00
1.00-
7.00
Cq
x.00 x
3.50 -
7.00
CS
17.5o x
35.00 -
61x.5.
Co
40o x
iso -
1o..
C7
16.x5 x
m.00 -
PS. -
Cs
9.So x
7.50
71.25
C9
vo. x
1.50 =
1.50
C10
16.00 x
7.00 =
C',
Z50 x
13.00 =
Moo
16a.50
C12
6.00 x
S.So =
3300
C13
10.50 x
1.00 =
147.00
Cao
i00 x
10.00
m.00
G5
10.00 x
x400
.4 oo
to be
rrrw
(Vow, -q- Otta
F L49 15 AA% lb
#:eF/' mer'/
hoot walk
Da
300 x
40.00 =
120.00
turn at walk
D3
>.00 x
S.00
3500
sHe yard walk
D4
3.00 x
30.00
90.00
front covered porch
D5
Aoo x
+6.00
64.00
rear brick patio
D)
1&. S x
33.50
54438
kitchen stoop
as
3.So x
+75 =
613
rear brick pato
D9
3.50 x
6.a5 =
¢v88
walk to pool
D10
400 x700
=
28.00
rear walk
Dn
v5o x
1soo =
1800
turn at walk
D12
t.5a x
3.00 =
4.50
front walk
D+
-3.00 x
5.50 =
-16.5o
front covered porch
DS
-4.00 x
+6.00 =
-64.00
walk behind garage
D6
-42.00 x
1.50
-63.00
rear brick patio
D7
-1615 x
3350
-544.38
kitchen stoop
D8
-3.10 x
175 -
-6.13
rear brick patio
D9
-3.50 x
6.as
3.00 x9.00
walk to pool
D10
-4.op s
7.00
-28.o0
walk
Dt+
-+.So z
12.00 =
-18.00
turr
n at walk
Dn
-+.So x
3.00 =
-450
rea r walk
D1
-+. o x
e. o 2
-aa.
() Ikwaystobe oved subtotal
Ha
-TN13
new front porch
D14
x
plan
79.00
walk by
-+950
plan -
-3.00 x
newlyaddedwalkways/patios
-+9.50
subtotal
H7
aol.eo
4.00 =
-16.00
stairs and pond to be removed
subtotal
net wailkynyi
blastatl
38300
nsport Court
net stabs a pool dKitmbtpbl
3730
porcc urc
E
see
plan
120.90
(e)sport court fo be removed
=
TO.00
Fa
3550
len m t.wwm
37x75
F3
+o.wx
4.00
40.00
F4
750 x10.00
75*00los k
FS
1400 x
+1.50 -
+61.oO
F6
4.00 x
+a.00 -
48.00 towal
F7
21.50 x
x1.00
473.00
F8
1.So x
8.00 -
1200
F9
3.00 x9.00
greenhouse
27.00
F+o
7.. x
10.00 -
70.00 talo
QGremhd+se
greenhouse G+ 1 e.00 x 10.00 114.00
Ce) 9nxnhousefa rHIWn 80.00
1Slairs et Pool & pond
strul
am
len m t.wwm
M
area S.T.
stairs at pool deck
H+
3.o s x
10.00 -
30.00
Ha
3.00 x
6.00 =
18.00
H3
3.00 x
6.5o =
1915.
H4
3.00 x
6.5o -
+9.So
stairs W
His
3.00 x
9.00 -
z7 -so
greenhouse
H6
3.00 x
350 -
10.50
tad
H7
4.00 x
4.00 -
+6.00
min at pool deck & pond
subsistal
140.30
stairs tube
H1
-3.00 x
+0.00 =
-30.00
removed
Ha
-3.00 rc
6.00 =
-18.00
H3
-3.00 x
6.So =
-+950
H4
-3.00 x
6.So
-+9.50
pond removes
H7
-q.00 rc
4.00 =
-16.00
stairs and pond to be removed
subtotal
�o3.00
net stabs a pool dKitmbtpbl
3730
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE ATTACHMENT'
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION
Applicant's Name: J. S S e✓' V\-
Address:
LAddress:
Reviewed by: J ' ^ Date:
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building
site. Recommended protection during construction.)
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient
space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a
need for removal of invasive species?)
Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscape).) -
Other Comments:' Cc��iLL21 ,
v z
ATTACHMENT
SYS : L)eo IN, I)Fwlei
MINUTES OF PATHWAY COMMITTEE MEETING on May 19, 2003
Attendees: Dubose Montgomery, Bob Statz, Jorge Fernandes, Fred Fallah, Ginger Summit, Mike
Kamangar, Dick Cassam, Chris Vargas (late), Charlene Gears (late)
Absent Nancy Ewald
DuBose Montgomery reported that Ken Olcott had resigned from the committee.
Meeting called to order at 6:05 PM
Minutes of Apr 28's meeting: CG MIC. Approved unanimously.
Next Pathway Meeting Monday Jane 23" at 6:OOpm, walks at 8:30am on Saturday June 21"
,. a : ltat Sx
Pathway Maintenance and Construction Projects —Budget Priorities for 2003-2004 —C. Vargas (Mintze
Chang)
Mintze Cheng submitted a table with various pathways prioritized with associated costs. Discussion
ensued. Chris V. submitted a four page list of ideas for prioritizing spending pathway budget. Proposal
is to get good data Mintze states that Edgerton pipe extension, Conception at Purissima, and Burnt on
Viscaino will total approximately $40,000 and that if approved by Council that these costs will come
from the 2002-2003 budget. Our committee needs to prioritize a list of pathway projects for the
$250,000 budget expected for 2003-2004. Safety, ease of use, connectivity, privacy were all discussed
as priorities when considering projects. Chris V. is keeping a spreadsheet of project ideas. Mintze will
report back in about two weeks on her very rough estimates on each project's costs. Mmtze will
circulate the estimate to help committee members prepare to make decisions at our June meeting.
Council Member Dean W- stated that the committee should receive from the Ad Hoc Master Pathway
Committee a revised map sometime this summer and prepare to set up a process to review and propose
a new Pathway Master Plan Map.
Recommaadation on pro tabled our las[ month - kn4+lOn-=6d'rt+ :.;.
t i usstonr,r.-Eo l'ro$'. "� c�oBle' . (CV IF passed unanimously)
Bicycle Advisory- Our requested paths for fumre proposals to County agencies when matching funds
are available are: (MIK CO passed unanimously)
As an Off- Road Trail-Magdelana to El Monte (just west of 280, although easements must be
obtained from sewer property)
As a Paved Bike Route- Along Edith to Fremont Road and on to Amstradero Road
NEW BUSINESS:
Recommendations on properties seen on Saturday:
Soma, 12040 Moody Springs Court, new residence. After discussion, propose to collect impact fee( JF
CV passed unanimously)
Review of basics of governance of committee. Chris Vargas asked how the rules are made and followed
through. The process of electing officers in July was discussed as well as ideas for additional objectives of
the committee.
PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None
ADJOURNMENT AI 9:00 PM.
ATTACHMENT
LOS ALTOS HILLS
§ 10-1.1107(2) MUNICIPAL CODE §10-1-1107(3) f
(2) Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Requests to exceed A
by one hundred fifty (150) square feet or less;
(3) Setbacks. Requests for encroachment into
setback of
o (2') feet or less and measuring one hundred fifty (15 square feet of
fl ea or less;
(4) Fences and Walls. Requests incline fences on the
roadway st f the "reference line" defined in don 10-1.504 (dxl).
(e) Planning Commission all acllow
t as the permitting
body for all varier applications inv ing the foing:
(I) Max m Develo ent Area (MDA). Requests to
exceed MDA by more t two ndred fifty (250) square feet;
(2) Maximum or Area (MFA). Requests to exceed
MFA by more than one It dre fifty (150) square feet;
(3) Serbac . Reques for encroachment into any
setback of more th two (2) feet measuring less than one
hundred fifty(150 quare feet of floor at
(4) eighl. All requests for het t envelope encroach-
ments, to ex ed maximum height of twenty -s n (27) feet and/or
to exceed ecial height limitation of thirty-five (3 eet;
(5) Others. All other variance applicatio of specified
abov and any applications referred to the planning Commit ' n by the
Zo g Administrator.
1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986, § 5, Ord. 314, eff. Novembe
1987; § 3, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988)
Sec. 10-1.1107(3). Conditional development permits: Approval;
condition.
(a) On substandard lots, due to the difficulty of accom-
modating development which meets the objectives and standards of
the Town, any lot which has a Lot Unit Factor of .50 or less shall
require a conditional development permit from the Planning
Commission. In addition, any lot significantly constrained by a
human habitation setback for geologic hazard areas or a non-
human habitation setback for noise shall require a conditional
development permit from the Planning Commission, unless the
Zoning Administrator finds that the lot is not significantly
constrained by such setback or zone. Prior to the granting of any
permit, the Planning Commission must find that:
(1) The site for the proposed development is adequate
in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed
intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open
1042 (Los Altos Hills 4-17-91)
§ 10-1.1107(3)LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE §10-1.1109
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 neigh-
borhood;
(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 forts.
(4) The proposed development is in compliance with all
regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance.
(b) Every Conditional Development Permit granted may be subject
to such conditions as are deemed necessary to protect the public health,
safety and general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the
findings above. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to,
reduction in Maximum Development Area allowed, reduction in Maximum
Floor Area allowed, installation of landscaping, and resisting of structures.
(§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 6, Ord. 314, eff. November 6,1987;
§ 1, Ord. 337, eff. September 14, 1990; Ord. 338, eff. September 19, 1990;
§ 1, Ord. 341, eff. January 4, 1991)
Sec. 10-1.1108. Effective dates of actions of the Planning
Commission.
Actions of the Planning Commission with regard to variances, condi-
tional development permits and appeals form administrative officials shall
become final on the twenty-third day following the action, unless an appeal
is filed in accordance with Section 10-1.1109 or Section 10-1.1110.
Actions of the Staff Committee with regard to variances shall become
final on the eleventh day following the action unless an appeal is filed in
accordance with Section 10-1.1109.
(§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 13, 1986; § 7, Ord. 314, eff. November 6,
1987; § 1, Ord. 348, eff. August 16, 1992; § 3, Ord. 372, eff. August 19,
1994)
Sec. 10-1.1109. Appeals from decisions of the Planning
Commission and Staff Committee.
Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Staff Committee to
the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the City
Clerk within ten (10) days of the decision. A nonrefundable filing fee and
—" 1042-1 (Los Altos Hills 1-6-00)
ATTACHMENT 8
§ 10-1.1107(1)LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE§ 10-1.1107(2)
10-1.1107(1). Conditional use permits: Approval;
conditions.
Co itional use permits maybe granted only when facts are establi d
which su rt the findings required by the provisions of this sect
(a) Fi 'ngs. Conditional use permits shall be granted the City
Council only n it is found that:
(1) The prop ed use or facility is properly locate n relation to the
community as a who land uses, and transportation nd service facilities
in the vicinity;
(2) The site for the p sed use is ad bate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed use d all yards pen spaces, walls and fences,
parking, loading, landscaping, an such erfeatures as may be required
by this chapter or, will be needed sure that the proposed use will be
reasonably compatible with land us n ally permitted in the surrounding
area;
(3) The site for the posed use be served by streets and
highways of adequate wi and pavement to the quantity and kind
of traffic generated by e proposed use; and
(4) The prop d use will not adversely affect abutting property
or the permitted e thereof.
(b) Con 'ions. Every conditional use permit granted be subject
to such con tions as are deemed necessary to protect the pu 'c health,
safety an general welfare and secure the objectives of the Gen 1 Plan
and th' chapter.
(§ 1 rd. 305, eff. October 3, 1986, § 4, Ord. 314, eff. November 6, 19
§ , Ord. 372, eff. August 19, 1994)
Sec. 10-1.1107(2). Variances: Approval; conditions.
The Staff Committee comprised of the Zoning Administrator and City
Manager or designee (herein called the "Staff Committee") and Planning
Commission are empowered to grant variances from
LOS ALTOS HILLS
§ 10-1.1107(2) MUNICIPAL CODE § I0-1.1107(2)
the requirements of this Title. The Staff Committee or Planning
Commission shall act as the authority to grant variances as
specified in Subsections (d) and (e) below.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the variance is to resolve
practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own
making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape,
topography, location or other physical site conditions, or the use
or development of property in the immediate vicinity. In this
context, personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective
profits and neighboring violations are not practical difficulties or
hardships justifying a variance. In some cases, the location of
existing structures may result in a practical difficulty or hardship.
(b) Findings. The Staff Committee or Planning Commis-
sion may grant the requested variance in whole or in part only if,
from the application or the facts presented at the public hearing,
it can affirmatively find that all of the following four (4)
requirements have been met:
(1) That, because of exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification;
(2) That upon the granting of the variance, the intent
and purpose of the applicable sections of this Title will still be
served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special
privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners;
(3) That the granting of such variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and
within the same zoning district;
(4) That the variance will not authorize a use or
activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning
district regulations governing the parcel of property.
(c) Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions
as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity within the same
zoning district.
(d) The Staff Committee shall act as the permitting body for all
applications involving the following:
(1) Maximum Development Area (MDA). Requests to
exceed MDA by five hundred (500) square feet or less;
1041 (L4,Ahos Hills9-20-19)
LOS ALTOS HILLS
§ 10-1.1107(2) MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-1-1107(3)
(2) Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Requests to exceed MFA
by one hundred fifty (150) square feet or less;
(3) Setbacks. Requests for encroachment into any setback of
two (2) feet or less and measuring one hundred fifty (150) square feet of
floor area or less;
(4) Fences and Walls. Requests to locate fences on the
roadway side of the "reference line" defined in Section 10-1.504 (d)(1).
(e) The Planning Commission shall act as the permitting
body for all variance applications involving the following:
(I) Maximum Development Area (MDA). Requests to
exceed MDA by more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet;
(2) Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Requests to exceed
MFA by more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet;
(3) Setbacks. Requests for encroachment into any
setback of more than two (2) feel and measuring less than one
hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area.
(4) Height. All requests for height envelope encroach-
ments, to exceed maximum height of twenty-seven (27) feet and/or
to exceed special height limitation of thirty-five (35) feet;
(5) Others. All other variance applications not specified
above, and any applications referred to the Planning Commission
Zoning Administrator, by the
(§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986, § 5, Ord. 314, eff. November 6,
1987; § 3, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988)
-ec. 10-1.1107(3). Conditional development permits: Approval;
condition.
On substandard lots, due to the difficulty o ccom-
modating lopment which meets the objectives an andards of
the Town, any which has a Lot Unit Facto
require a conditi develo men[ .50 or less shall
P Per from the Planning
Commission. In additi any lot s [cantly constrained by a
human habitation setback ogic hazard areas or a non-
human habitation setback se shall require a conditional
development permit fr the Plan Commission, unless the
Zoning Administr finds that the is not significantly
constrained by ch setback or zone. Prior t e granting of any
permit, the nning Commission must find that:
(1) The site for the proposed development adequate
in ze, shape and topography to accommodate the p osed
ntensity of development, including all structures, yards, o
1042 (Los All., Hill, 4-17-91)