TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 11, 2018 Staff Report to the Planning Commission

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 11, 2018 Staff Report to the Planning Commission"

Russell Fisher
5 years ago
Views:

1 ITEM #3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: FROM: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR A NEW 2,831 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH 3,246 SQUARE FEET OF BASEMENT AREA ON TWO LEVELS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACKS OF TWELVE (12) AND FIFTEEN (15) FEET, UNCOVERED PARKING IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND DECK, HARDSCAPE AND BASEMENT LIGHTWELLS IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON A.374 ACRE LOT; LANDS OF LINEBARGER; MORA DRIVE; FILE # ZP-SD-GD-CDP-VAR Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner <t:::f APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning DirectorS \- RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Review the plans and information provided in the staff report, take public comment, and provide direction to staff and the applicant related to the setback variances, building design, and compatibility of the structures to the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. Continue the project to a specific hearing date in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the residence, as necessary. BACKGROUND Subject Property Mora Drive (originally identified as Mora Drive, Lot 1) is located on the east side of Mora Drive south ofsunhills Drive near the end of the road. The acre interior lot is a vacant, substandard property and a Conditional Development Permit (CDP) is required for any development on the parcel because the Lot Unit Factor (LUF) is less than The lotis 68 feet wide at the street and narrows to 59 feet at the rear property line. Based on the Town's 30 foot side yard setback requirement, the building envelope is a narrow triangular area no greater than eight feet in width at the front yard setback and narrowing to a point approximately 40 feet from the rear property line. The property in bounded on the north, east and west by existing residences and on the south by a private road that provides access to the homes in a subdivision behind the property. The property slopes downward from west to east, getting steeper as it approaches the rear property line and has an average slope of approximately 20%. There are several large pine trees and other non-native trees on the upper portion of the property and an oak tree on the lower slopes. In addition, there

2 Page2 is a dense row of oaks just outside the southerly property line. A fault hazard zone was identified on the geotechnical report along Mora Drive outside of the proposed development area. Lot History In 1932, Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch was recorded which created approximately 40 lots ranging in size from about one half acre to one and one half acres. In the 1940s, the property owners of the original Lots 1 and 3 split off portions of their properties by deed to create the three parcels currently identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers , 061 and 062. These properties, (half of Lot 1, Lot 2 and half of Lot 3) were acquired by the current property owner, Forrest Linebarger, in 2006 and then annexed into the Town of Los Altos Hills in In January 2016, Mr. Linebarger sold the middle parcel (Lot 2- which retained the Mora Drive address) to Richard Minton. This action reduced the potential to adjust the lot lines between the three parcels or to merge the lots to create more conforming parcels as the two vacant parcels (Lot 1 and 3) are now separated by a lot under different ownership. Project Submittal On December 17, 2014, an application was submitted for a new single-family residence on the subject parcel. A series of incomplete letters were provided to the applicant, the final being sent on November 6, In the letter, staff outlined the General Plan inconsistencies with the project and suggested several design options to make the project more compatible with the Town's regulations. Additionally, staff recommended that the applicant meet with neighbors and staff to discuss the outstanding issues and that a study session with the Planning Commission was being scheduled. Planning Commission Actions On February 4, 2016, the Planning Commission held a publicly-noticed study session to discuss the development potential on the two remaining Mora Drive properties and for clarification on the calculation of basement area. Mr. Linebarger presented his projects and public comments were received. The Commission agreed with staff's interpretation on the calculation ofbasement area and what constitutes the basement perimeter. With regard to the proposed development on the substandard lots, the Commissioners stated that the project needs to be reviewed using the Town's regulations, not the County zoning regulations, that the proposed development seems excessive, and that all variance requests need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Chair Couperus added that the Town's setback requirements provide a visual separation between lots and that more of the development should be below ground where the visual impact is lessened (minutes are included as Attachment 1 ). On June 2, 2016 the project was formally reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. After a thorough discussion of the issues surrounding the history of the project, existing development in the immediate area and consistency of the proposed design with the Town's General Plan, the Commission denied the project on a 5-0 vote based on the findings provided by

3 Page3 staff and as modified by the Commission (see Attachment 2 for Planning Commission minutes). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council on June 14, City Council Action The City Council heard the appeal on August 25, At the meeting, Mr. Linebarger presented a revised project intended to address the Planning Commission's comments and concerns. After public comment and discussion of the issue, the Council unanimously determined, with concurrence of the applicant, to refer the application including the revised plans back to the Planning Commission for further public hearing and consideration. The Council did not make any recommendations on the alternative proposal submitted by the applicant adding that if the applicant chooses to submit an alternative design, then the project needs to go back to the Planning Commission for further review and public comment. The minutes of the August 25, 2016 City Council meeting are included as Attachment 3. Additional background, project information and discussion is available in the June 2, 2016 Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 4) and August 25, 2016 City Council staff report (see Attachment 5). Certificate of Compliance The applicant submitted an application for a Certificate of Compliance on the subject property in February The Acting City Surveyor, Anne-Sophie Truong with CSG Associates, reviewed the documentation provided by the owner and determined that the parcel is in conformance with Section of the California Government Code and with local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The City Council reviewed the approved the Certificate of Compliance on August 17, 2017 and the certificate was recorded on September 26,2017 (see Attachment 6). The recordation of the certificate means that the parcel may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local subdivision ordinance and that development of the parcel may proceed. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting Conditional Development and Site Development Permits to construct a 2,831 square foot, two-story dwelling with 3,246 square feet of basement area on two lower levels. The proposed dwelling is below the Town's 27-foot maximum height limit and within the maximum floor area (MFA) calculated for the lot (basement floor area is exempt). The applicant is also requesting a 500 square foot development area bonus for the installation of rooftop photovoltaic panels (solar panels) because the application for the residence was submitted before July 2016 (the code section permitting the development area bonus expired at the end of July 2016). In addition, the applicant is requesting the following variances from the Town's required 40-foot front yard and 30-foot side yard setback regulations:

4 Page4 1. Allow for a twelve (12) foot building (to the roof eave) side yard setback along the south property line; 2. Allow for a 15 foot building (to the roof eave) side yard setback along the north property line; 3. Allow two required open parking spaces in the side yard setbacks that are ten (10) feet from the property lines; 4. Allow one open parking space to encroach into the front yard setback; 5. Allow for basement lightwells within the side yard setbacks to within twelve (12) feet of the south property line and within 29 feet of the north property line; 6. Allow for patios and decks to encroach into the side yard setbacks; The following table is a summary of the requested floor and development area and the maximums allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Site Data: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: Average Slope: Lot Unit Factor:.374 acres.374 acres 20.46%.291 Area Development (includes 500 foot solar bonus) (Original2016 Project) Floor (Original2016 Project) Basement (exempt) (Original 2016 Pro.iect) Maximum (sq.ft.) 5,510 2,910 Total area of dwelling with basement and garage (Original 2016 Project) Proposed Existing Increase Remaining (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) 5, , (5,111) (5,111) (399) 2, , (2,696) (2,696) (214) 3,246 0 (2,677) 6,076 (5,373) The owner/applicant has stated that the project would utilize sustainable construction practices, would have zero net energy use, would include a gray water system and living roof, and would provide for a wildlife corridor within an open space easement granted over the seasonal drainage at the rear of the property. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following code sections are applicable to the project: Section Calculation of maximum development area allowed and requirement for a Conditional Development Permit.

5 Page 5 Section Calculation of maximum floor area allowed and requirement for a Conditional Development Permit Section Side and rear yard setback requirements for structures and hardscape Section Off-street parking for residential uses Section Variance Procedure Section Conditional Development Permit Procedure Section (2) - Variance Approval Conditions Section (3)- Conditional Development Permit Approval Conditions Section Permits required Section Building siting DISCUSSION The lot's narrow width and the Town's applicable 30-foot side yard setback requirement would allow for a maximum development area width of only eight feet which then narrows to zero feet between the front and rear setbacks. Thus, it would be difficult to develop a residence without seeking a variance for reduced side setbacks. The surrounding neighborhood contains buildings with varying setback distances, and there are residences, detached garages and other accessory buildings located closer to property lines than would be permitted by Town regulations. Based on these existing circumstances, the applicant has chosen to pursue the variance requests while modifying the structures to be more consistent with the Town's zoning codes. The applicant has made several substantive changes to the design of the residence based on feedback from staff and comments received at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. These design changes are as follows: All retaining walls, the driveway, the open parking space, and all hardscape within ten (1 0) feet of the property line have been removed; Retaining walls for the basement floors have been incorporated into the structure; The garage has been relocated from the side of the home to the front, which eliminated the grading within 10 feet of the property line and is more consistent with the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood; The overall mass of the structure has been reduced by stepping the structure down the hill, lowering the majority of the roofline approximately four feet and through increased articulation on the side elevations. The structure has been moved approximately three feet further from Mora Drive and the building pad lowered to reduce the visual impact from the street; The driveway has been narrowed and curved to allow for increased front yard landscaping to further screen the structure; and The setback for the structure on the south property line was increased by two feet. Staff has included the applicant's responses to the Variance Findings and Conditional Development Findings and a Variance Comparison Chart (see Attachment 7). In addition, the

6 Page 6 legality of the lot has been resolved through the Town's approval of a Certificate of Compliance which was recorded in September The current design does address a number of concerns related to building massing, compatibility with surrounding structures and adequate space for landscape screening. However, there are outstanding design issues that were raised at the hearings that have not been adequately addressed. Floor Area and Setbacks The Planning Commission expressed interest in seeing increased side yard setbacks, a reduced building footprint, and a reduction in the total building area (basement and Town counted floor area) for the residence. The side yard setback on the south side has been increased by two feet from the previous design. However, the overall footprint has increased from 2,323 square feet to 2,3 51 square feet, the floor area has increased from 2,696 square feet to 2,831 square feet and the total building area increased from 5,373 square feet to 6,076 square feet. These increases are within the maximum amounts permitted, however, they are not in line with the Planning Commission's previous directions. Furthermore, the building setback along the north property line decreased from 18 feet to 15 feet. As stated in the June 2016 Planning Commission report (Attachment 4), the Mora Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes developed under the County of Santa Clara zoning code regulations which require 20 foot side yard setbacks. These County regulations also allow for variations in setbacks for accessory buildings and reduced setbacks depending on the lot width and depth. Many of the homes are aligned parallel to the street with a long front elevation and a narrow side yard profile, with side yard setbacks generally between 20 and 30 feet when measured from the street edge. However, there are three residences on Mora Drive in close proximity to the subject property with attached garages that appear to be less than 20 feet from the side property line. Two of these lots have dwellings placed at an angle to the side lot line and the comers of the main structure are closer to the property line than the whole structure. In addition, staff found two detached garages that appear to be less than 10 feet from the property line. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the modifications proposed by the applicant and the existing characteristics of the neighborhood to determine an appropriate setback requirement for the new residence. In addition, the amount of floor area and total building area should be considered when determining whether or not the proposed development is out of scale with the neighborhood and/or out of proportion with the amount of development that should be permitted on a substandard acre lot. The proposed twelve (12) foot side yard setback for the structure along the south property line abuts a parcel with a driveway and open space beyond. There is a row of existing oak trees along this property line that can be protected and preserved and additional landscape screening can be added to screen the new structure from the driveway and open space preserve. Therefore, staff recommends that any increase in building setbacks be applied to the north side as there is an existing residence on that adjoining lot. Staff also recommends that all pathways within ten (10) feet of the property line and unnecessary retaining walls in the side yard be removed so as not to impact the placement of landscape screening on the sides of the residence.

7 Lands of Linebarger- l 0728 Mora Drive Page 7 Building Footprints on Comparable Lots The applicant is requesting a house with a total building area of 6,076 square feet including the basements and garage and a building footprint of2,351 square feet. The subject property is acres and the relative size of the home should reflect this fact. A recently constructed home at Deerfield Drive on a.359 acre lot was approved with a total floor area of 4,601 square feet and the home at Burke Road (.347 acres) has a total floor area of 4,625 square feet. Furthermore, the footprint on each of these homes is at or under 1,800 square feet. Staff suggests that other design options be incorporated into the project that would increase the side yard setback on the north side and reduce the building footprint. For example, additional articulation could be achieved through the use of a courtyard, use of recessed patios and/or decks, or stepping back portions of the main floor level. Another option would be for the applicant to request a variance from a different section of the code to make the project more compatible with the neighborhood, such as the use of a bunker under a courtyard with a light well, which would be less visually imposing than the proposed structure as long as the bunker and light well are well screened and the structures are not within ten (10) feet of the property line. Driveway & Parking With regard to the applicant's request to place open parking within the front and side setbacks, tandem parking could be considered on the south side of the property which would allow more landscape screening adjacent to the north side of the garage. Previous Conditional Development Permit (CDP) and Variance Approvals Based on the Town's records, the Planning Commission has approved 21 CDP permits since 2004, five of which did not require any variances. A list of the previously approved CDPs with and without a variance is included in Attachment 8. The Commission recently approved variances for reduced side yard setbacks (12 feet) for a remodel/addition to an existing residence on a.273 acre parcel at Fremont Road and for front and rear yard setback variances (approximately 14 feet) for a replacement dwelling on a net acre lot at Moody Road (Non-CDP lot). In both cases, the properties had an existing residence with established setback encroachments and the new structures/additions did not increase the degree of nonconformity. PUBLIC COMMENT The Town has received multiple public comments related to this proposed project over the past three years, including a petition signed by more than 95 residents opposing any development on the lot. Several residents have also retained an attorney, whose most recent comment on the justification for a variance is included in Attachment 9. In summary, the attorney states that the "hardship" finding required for a variance cannot be met if the hardship is self-induced (the applicant sold off the middle lot thereby eliminating the potential to merge the lots or do a lot line adjustment to make the lots more conforming). Additional public comments are included in Attachment 10.

8 Page 8 Town Committee's Review The Pathways Committee recommended that the applicant construct a Type 2B path with a separation barrier from the road. This requirement would be included as a condition of approval should the project be approved. The Open Space Committee recommended that all trees be shown on the property, that the old electric fencing be removed, and that the open space easement be enlarged at the rear of the property to encompass the seasonal drainage and the oak tree. Any modification to the easement can be shown on the revised plans. The Environmental Design and Protection Committee reviewed the revised project in March 2017 and is recommending that the open space easement be enlarged to encompass the oak tree on the lower slope, that any fencing be placed outside the easement, that landscaping be placed between the subject lot and Mora Drive, and that the electric fence and Monterey pine be removed. Conditions can be added requiring the removal of the fence and tree should the project be approved. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a)- construction of a new single family residence where public services are available in a residential zone. ATTACHMENTS 1. Excerpt of Minutes of the February 4, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Excerpt of Minutes of the June 2, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Excerpt of Minutes of the August 25, 2016 City Council Meeting 4. Planning Commission StaffReport dated June 2, City Council StaffReport dated August 25, Recorded Certificate of Compliance 7. Letter from Applicant on Variance and Conditional Development Permit Findings 8. List of Conditional Development Permit Approvals With and Without a Variance 9. from Resident's Attorney dated December 22, Additional Public Comments 11. Large set of Plans (for Planning Commission only)

Conduct a hearing on the appeal, consider all evidence and testimony, and take one of the following actions:

Conduct a hearing on the appeal, consider all evidence and testimony, and take one of the following actions: AGENDA ITEM #4.A TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Staff Report to the City Council SUBJECT: FROM: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 3,511