HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 • 3• `/
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 14, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL AND
VARIANCE TO ALLOW GRADING OVER A PROPERTY LINE; LANDS OF
WYTHE &VITU; 13826 MOON LANE (PARCEL 2); FILE#46-96-ZP-SD-GD.
r-,
FROM: Suzanne Davis, Planner
APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Dire
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Make the findings as required by section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance
for the granting of a variance and approve the site development permit for the new
residence and pool, subject to the recommended conditions; OR
2. Make the findings as required by section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance
for the granting of a variance and direct the applicants to make design changes to
the house and/or pool area, working with staff to achieve the requested plan
revisions, subject to the recommended conditions, modifying condition #1
accordingly; OR
3. Continue the application to February 11, 1998 and direct the applicants to
redesign the residence to eliminate or reduce the basement and/or upper floor
level and bring the project as close as possible to the Town's Grading Policy.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission considered plans for new residences for parcel 2 (subject
property) and parcel 3 (adjacent lot) on April 23, 1997. After discussion and public input,
the Commission continued the applications for redesign. The Commission then
continued the applications from April 30 to May 14, 1997, since there had not been
enough time to review new plans prior to the meeting. On May 14, following discussion
and further testimony from neighbors, the Commission voted 4-0 to deny the site
development permit. The Commission stated concerns about the size and height of the
proposed homes, the lack of stepping elements down the hill, exterior materials, volume
of grading and the height and number of retaining walls. Attachments 6 and 7 are the
minutes from the Planning Commission meetings where discussion took place.
The Commission's decision was appealed by Mayor Casey. The City Council considered
the applications on June 4, 1997, and directed the applicants to redesign. There was not a
consensus on particular changes that should occur, although the Council did state that the
homes should better fit the sites (see Council minutes, Attachment 5). Some Council
members suggested that as part of this project, Moon Lane should be widened from Page
Mill Road to the joint driveway that will provide access to the sites.
The subject property was created as part of a three lot subdivision (Lands of Vucinich -
Parcel Map 679-M-41-44) that was approved by the City Council on December 7, 1994.
The final map was recorded in July 1996. The property is located on the north side of
Moon Lane, a private road off the east side of Page Mill Road. This lot and the adjacent
lot to the east are vacant. All other surrounding properties are developed with single
family homes. The subdivision was purchased by the applicants,who have completed the
Planning Commission
January 8,1998
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 2
required improvements and are proposing to develop the two vacant parcels. The City
Council will be discussing acceptance of the subdivision improvements on January 7,
1998. Staff will report on the outcome of this discussion at the meeting.
Several development restrictions were placed on this lot(parcel 2) and the adjacent parcel
3 as conditions of the subdivision. The condition states that development shall be
designed to minimize disturbance to the natural topography, and that the houses shall be
stepped down or set into the sites. In addition, the residence may not exceed the 370 foot
contour line in elevation. The restriction also states that the maximum floor and
development areas may not be able to be achieved (due to topographic constraints and
conservation easements on the two lots). There is also a single access to parcels 2 and 3
from Moon Lane as required by the subdivision conditions. A separate staff report has
been prepared for the redesigned residence proposed for parcel 3.
Two letters have been received from concerned neighbors (see Attachments 8 and 9).
Neighbors are concerned about the size and height of the houses, and the compatibility of
the proposed designs relative to other homes on Moon Lane. The neighbors believe that
the changes that have been made are not substantial and are suggesting reductions in the
size and height of the houses along with changes to the exterior materials. There are also
concerns about the amount of grading that is proposed, the impact to Moon Lane from
heavy trucks hauling off the excess material from the sites, and the number and heights of
retaining walls.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Ordinance, this application for
a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and
approval. Criteria for review from the Site Development Ordinance include grading,
drainage, building siting, pathways, landscape screening and outdoor lighting. Zoning
Code review encompasses compliance with floor and development area requirements,
setbacks, height and parking. The granting of a variance requires four findings to be
made, pursuant to Section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Site Data
Gross Lot Area: 1.51 acres
Net Lot Area: 1.40 acres
Average Slope: 21.6%
Lot Unit Factor: 1.05
Floor and Development Area
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left
Development 11,183 9,362 -0- +9,362 +1,821
Floor 5,691 4,950* -0- +4,950 +741
*excludes 850 square foot basement that is completely underground
Planning Commission
January 8,1998
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 3
Site and Architecture
The applicants are requesting approval of a site development permit to construct a new
4,300 square foot stepped one-story residence with an attached 650 square foot three-car
garage and an 850 square foot basement. A small swimming pool and spa are also
proposed. The building now steps down the slope and the second story has been
eliminated. The house size (including garage) was reduced from 5,570 to 4,950 square
feet. Although a basement has been added, it is not counted as floor or development area
since it underground, and does not affect the above ground bulk and mass of the structure.
The total development area has decreased from 10,177 to 9,362 square feet.
Proposed exterior materials include stucco siding, stone trim and concrete tile roofing.
The Design Guidelines state that a mixture of materials can create interest and detail, and
that wood and stone can help soften the appearance of stucco and blend it with the natural
setting. The house has been stepped in three sections. The highest floor level would be
51/2 feet above the middle level with the main'living area another 51/2 feet below. The
garage is stepped 11/2 feet down from the middle level. In addition to the stepping
elements and a mix of exterior materials, architectural detailing, varied roof lines and
wall planes have been proposed to break up the massing of the building.
The maximum height of the new residence would be 241/2 feet from the finished grade,
and 26 feet as measured from the lowest to highest point. The roof line generally steps
with the hillside, although it could probably be reduced at the peaks if the Commission so
desires. No skylights are proposed. The house would not be above the 370 foot elevation
as required by the subdivision conditions.
A portion of a walkway on the west side of the house would extend into the side setback.
Provided that the walkway does not exceed four feet in width, it may encroach into the
setback. The pool equipment enclosure is not shown, but it would not be allowed within
the setbacks, or within any easements.
The Design Guidelines recommends reserving some floor and development area for
future projects. There would be 741 square feet of the floor area and more than 1,800
square feet of development area remaining under this proposal. However, it is unlikely
that all of the remaining development area could be used due to the steep slope behind the
house and the conservation easement over the lower portion of the site.
Driveway and Parking
The garage entry has been oriented away from the street as recommended by the Design
Guidelines. The garage entries for this property and parcel 3 would face each other so
that neither resident would be impacted. There is adequate space between the two backup
areas for a landscape buffer. The two parcels will have a shared driveway as required by
the subdivision conditions. The driveway will come up along the common property line
between parcels 2 and 3. A reciprocal driveway easement will be required since the
driveway will be partially on both properties until it splits to the separate garages, and
part of the common driveway will serve as backup. The three spaces in the garage and
one uncovered space meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement for four on-site parking
spaces.
A portion of the garage backup area encroaches into the side setback. The pavement
would be about 18 feet from the property line. The shared driveway and the relatively
narrow lot width make it difficult not to place some of the pavement within the setback.
Planning Commission
January 8,1998
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 4
d
The driveway design has not changed from the previous submittal and there were not any
concerns stated about this design at the Commission or Council hearings.
At the June 4, 1997 City Council meeting there was discussion about the width of Moon
Lane. Several Council members stated that the road should be widened and improved to
facilitate emergency access and to meet minimum Fire and Engineering Department
standards. Staff is recommending that the applicants widen Moon Lane from Page Mill
Road to the shared driveway to parcels 2 and 3 to a minimum of 14 feet plus turnouts.
The road widening would exclude the existing bridge crossing. The road would also
received an asphalt overlay. Condition #21 requires the road improvements to be
approved and completed prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Trees & Landscaping
There are no trees or substantial landscaping on the property. Landscape screening will
be an important element of the project. Conceptual planting has been shown on sheet 2
of the development plans. The landscape plan will be reviewed at a site development
hearing once the house is framed (see condition #2). This will allow for noticing of the
neighbors, and better evaluation of where screening is needed. The Environmental
Design& Protection Committee previously commented that the Incense Cedars on Moon
Lane should be saved. These trees are located on parcel 3, and are intended to be saved.
The Committee also recommended riparian planting in the conservation easement. This
provision is included in condition #2. The Committee also commented on the need for
tall trees on the sides of the house, and the importance of exterior colors. Evergreen trees,
such as redwoods and oaks, was suggested for screening. The standard color condition
has been included, requiring compliance with the Town's adopted color board. As noted
in the Design Guidelines, darker or, natural colors blend with surroundings, and roof
colors should be darker with a variety of shades.
Lighting
Proposed exterior lighting locations have been shown on the floor plans. Lighting has
been limited to one fixture per exit. Staff is aware that neighbors are concerned about
exterior lighting, and will review the lighting specifications prior to acceptance of plans
for building plan check (condition #8). Landscape lighting will be reviewed with the
landscape plan. No skylights are proposed, but if the applicants decide to add any, no
lights would be allowed within the skylight wells, and the glass would not be allowed to
be clear in order to reduce emitted light.
Grading &Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary grading and drainage plan,
and has recommended conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Proposed
grading is 2,113 cubic yards of cut and 326 cubic yards of fill. Most of the grading is
being done to set the house into the hillside and for geotechnical stability of the slope
above. The basement element also adds to the excavation. Grading for the driveway
would cross the common property line between parcels 2 and 3. Because the shared
driveway is a required element, this is not considered a variance. Proposed grading
across the property line behind the proposed residences on parcels 2 and 3 does require a
variance. •
Planning Commission
January 8,1998
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 5
There are some areas where the proposed residence and pool do not meet the Town's
grading policy. These areas are as follows (grading policy maximum is in parenthesis):
• The main level finished floor is four feet above the natural grade (three feet)
• Maximum fill for the pool and patio area would be four feet(three feet)
• Cut for the house is up to 91/2 feet(eight feet, excluding basement)
• Cut for the patio behind the house is up to nine feet(eight feet)
• Retaining walls along the westerly side of the house up to five feet and behind the
house up to seven feet(three to four feet)
Due to the steepness of the site, it is unlikely that the grading policy's recommended
limits can be met to the letter. However, staff is concerned that the total amount and
extent of excavation is very substantial, particularly where cuts of up to 18'/ feet are
proposed for the basement. There is a 15'/2 foot difference between the finished floor of
the upper level (337.0) and the basement pad below (321.5). Staff discussed bringing the
house "out of the ground" more to minimize cut, but this would result in greater visibility
of the house from off the site. The most direct means of reducing grading would be to
eliminate the basement or reduce it substantially. If the basement is entirely under either
the middle or upper floor levels rather than straddling both levels the 15'/2 foot floor to
floor difference would be reduced. A less direct approach would be to eliminate the
upper (third) level of floor area and reposition the basement below the proposed middle
level only, with a maximum cut of about 13 feet.
The other deviations from the grading policy are relatively minor. The pool and patio in
front of the house could possibly be lowered and the patio at the rear (331.0 level) needs
to be raised to assure that the basement below the upper floor is not exposed. These
changes could be incorporated into condition#1 if the Commission desires.
Drainage is shown to be partially piped and partially sheet flow, with water being
directed around the house, down the slope towards the swale that runs through the
property below Moon Lane. Water from the upper slope and the back of the house would
be collected by a series of catch basins, with a pipe daylighting into the improved swale
along Moon Lane. An energy dissipater may be necessary at the pipe outlet to slow the
water and help prevent erosion. The existing swale was engineered to handle the
drainage from the proposed project. A final site grading and drainage plan will be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department, prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The final drainage and grading will be inspected by the Engineering
Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection.
The property will be connected to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection.
Variance
To grant a variance the Planning Commission must make four findings, as required by
Section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. The most important of these findings
requires specification of unusual or unique characteristics of the property that support
exceptions to the provisions of the Code. In this case, the grading and re-contouring that
is proposed to set the two houses into the hillside would create a hump between the two
lots if the grading were not carried through between the two properties. The slope would
look more natural if the grading is allowed. None of the neighbors should be adversely
impacted since the grading would be done between the two home sites, and would not be
close to any neighboring homes. Attachment 2 outlines the recommended findings for
the proposed variances. If the Commission cannot make one or more of the findings, the
variances should be denied.
Planning Commission
January 14,1998
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 6
Geotechnical Review
The Town geotechnical consultant, Cotton, Shires & Associates, has reviewed the revised
plans and geotechnical report (see Attachment 4). Condition #12 includes the
recommendations of the Town Geologist.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department requested that an on-site hydrant or a residential
fire sprinkler system be provided since portions of the house would be greater than 150
feet from the existing hydrant. The Fire Department also requested that the property
address be placed in a location that is clearly visible from the street and that the driveway
meet minimum standards for fire access (see Attachment 3). The Fire Department
recommendations have been included with the conditions of approval.
Committee Review
The Pathways Committee has no request for the property. Pathway improvements were
part of the subdivision, and a pathway fee is not required. The Environmental Design &
Protection Committee comments were discussed in the landscape and lighting sections of
this report.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Recommended findings for the granting of a variance
3. Comments from Santa Clara County Fire Department, dated December 5, 1997
(two pages)
4. Letter from Cotton, Shires &Associates, dated January 7, 1998 (three pages)
5. City Council Minutes of June 4, 1997 (three pages)
6. Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1997 (three pages)
7. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1997 (three pages)
8. Letter from Tim, Valerie & Ramona Chown, received January 7, 1998 (two pages
with attachments)
9. Letter from David& Sally Ewald, received January 7, 1998 (one page)
10. Worksheet#2
11. Development plans: site, floor & roof plans, building sections, and elevations and
conceptual landscape plan(three sheets)
cc: Evan Wythe & Janet Vitu
13826 Page Mill Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Susan Roberts
Giuliani & Kull
20431 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 230
Cupertino, CA 95014
Glenn Cahoon
G & G Design
445 S. San Antonio Road, Suite 103
Los Altos, CA 94022
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE, POOL & SPA
LANDS OF WYTHE&VITU- 13826 MOON LANE(PARCEL 2)
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The basement exiting and window wells shall be the minimum required by
the Uniform Building Code, and the entire basement shall be below the
adjacent finished grade. Plans demonstrating conformance shall be
submitted for approval by the Planning Department,prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check Any changes or modifications to the
approved plans shall be approved by the Planning Director or the Planning
Commission, depending upon the scope of the changes.
2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed by the Site Development Committee.
Consideration shall be given to views from neighbors homes, and use of
evergreen, native species such as oaks and redwoods is recommended.
Planting within the storm drain and conservation easements shall be
native, riparian species. All landscaping required for screening purposes
or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be
installed prior to final inspection, unless the Planning Director finds that
unusual circumstances, such as weather or site conditions, require that
planting be delayed. In those instances, a deposit of an amount equal to
the cost of landscape materials and installation, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director, shall be submitted to the Town. Landscaping shall in
any event be installed not later than six months after final inspection, or
the deposit will be forfeited.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit), equal to the
cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening
purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer), but
not to exceed $5,000.00, shall be posted prior to final inspection. An
inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and
maintenance shall be made two years after installation. 'The deposit will
be released at that time if the plantings remain viable.
4. If any equipment will be accessing the site in the vicinity of the juniper
tree near Moon Lane, the tree shall be fenced at the dripline prior to
commencement of any grading or construction. The fencing shall be of a
material and structure to clearly delineate the dripline. Town staff must
inspect the fencing prior to issuance of any building permits. The fencing
must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of
equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of
fenced trees.
5. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new construction.
6. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in
conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a
light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have
a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim area should be
Recommended Conditions
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 8
minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings,
and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the
approved color(s)prior to final inspection.
7. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted
light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells
8. Lighting specifications for outdoor lighting fixtures on the house shall be
submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans
for building plan check. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage,
shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the
lighting shall not be visible from off the site. No lighting may be placed
within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights. Any light fixtures
that are visible from the roadways shall be down shielded fixtures or shall
have opaque glass. Any other outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the
landscape plan at a Site Development Hearing.
9. At the time of foundation inspection(s), the location, and elevation of the
new residence shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved locations and elevations
shown on the approved site development plan. At the time of framing, the
height of the structure shall be similarly certified as being at the height
shown on the approved site development plan. The hardscape, driveway
and pool locations shall also be certified at time of installation.
10. Standard swimming pool requirements:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineering Inspector.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation, and
the enclosure shall be screened with landscaping. The equipment
enclosure shall not encroach into any setbacks.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
11. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
January 7, 1998,the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. The project geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project including minimum pier
reinforcement, and shall summarize the results of their plan review
in a letter to be submitted to the Town, prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check.
b. The project geotechnical consultant shall describe the results of
inspections and as-built conditions of the project in a letter to be
submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to final
inspection.
Recommended Conditions
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 9
For further details on the above requirements, please reference the letter
from Cotton, Shires &Associates dated January 7, 1998.
12. A final site grading and drainage plan shall be approved by the
Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering
Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be
submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage
improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in
accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection.
13. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium (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 except to allow for the construction of the
driveway access and where a variance has been approved.
14. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed
underground.
15. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply
with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to
grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway
shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be
protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil •
disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and
shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
16. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be
submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City
Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check The grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic
issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on
Moon Lane 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.
17. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection.
18. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair
any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private
driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and
release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs
Recommended Conditions
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 10
of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways, prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check
19. The property owner shall obtain an additional driveway easement from the
property owner of Parcel 3, and shall submit a copy of the recorded
document to the Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. The driveway shall be fully constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer,prior to final inspection.
20. The property shall be connected to the public sanitary sewer, prior to final
inspection.
21. Moon Lane shall be widened to a minimum of 14 feet with turnouts
provided, from Page Mill Road to the shared driveway to the project site,
exclusive of the bridge crossing. Lower Moon lane shall have an asphalt
overlay from the access driveway to Page Mill Road. The design shall be
approved by the City Engineer and Santa Clara County Fire Department
and the work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
22. The property address shall be placed so that it is clearly visible and legible
from Moon Lane. Numbers shall contrast with the background and shall
be a minimum of four inches high.
23. The driveway shall be a minimum of 14 feet wide and shall have an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches. The driveway shall
have an all weather surface that is designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and the gradient shall not
exceed 17%.
24. The driveway shown on the site development plan in combination with the
driveway for parcel 3 is adequate for turning around emergency vehicles.
Any changes to the driveway design(s) shall first be approved by the Santa
Clara County Fire Department and the Town Engineering and Planning
Departments.
25. Unless otherwise determined by the Santa Clara County Fire Department,
an automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Fire
Department shall be included in the new residence. The details of the
sprinkler system shall be included with construction plans. The plans shall
be stamped and signed by the Fire Department and submitted to the Town,
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the sprinklers
shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final
inspection. The applicant may propose alternate means of achieving an
acceptable water supply instead of fire sprinklers, such as installation of an
on-site fire hydrant, subject to the approval of the Fire Department.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set
with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building
inspection approval.
Recommended Conditions
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 11
CONDITION NUMBERS 1, 6, 8, lla b, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 AND 25 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR
PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPT.
Properties residing within the Los Altos or Palo Alto School District boundaries
must pay School District fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos
Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to the school district
office(s), pay the appropriate fees, and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
January 14, 1999). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and
work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years:
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
GRADING WITHIN 10 FEET OF AND ACROSS A PROPERTY LINE
LANDS OF WYTHE&VITU- 13826 MOON LANE (PARCEL 2)
1. Because of exceptional and 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 property has a relatively steep slope, and the location of the new residence is
established by the minimum building setbacks, the requirements that the 370 foot
elevation not be exceeded and that the house be stepped or set into the slope, and
the presence of a conservation easement. The two lots are being developed
concurrently, and a common driveway was required along the joint property line.
Also, the grading behind the houses has been designed to address geotechnical
concerns on slope stabilization. These constraints require a large amount of
grading to be done, and if the grading over the property line were not allowed, an
unnatural cut hill would be created between the two properties,which would be an
undesirable topographic feature. The granting of the variance will allow the
property owners to have a more natural slope similar to that on other properties in
the surrounding neighborhood. A strict application of the zoning standards would
deprive the subject property of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and in the same zoning district(more natural grading).
2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable
sections of the Zoning 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 intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served because the
grading to be done across the property line will be confined to a relatively small
area between parcels 2 and 3, which will be developed concurrently. The
remainder of the grading for the project will not encroach into the 10 foot area
along property lines. The site is unusual in that there are strict conditions placed
on the property by,the subdivision approval. The granting of the variance would
not provide the owners of the property with any special privileges or allow
installation of improvements that are not enjoyed by other residents in the area.
3. 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 house will be constructed to meet all imposed development restrictions and
will be set into the hillside, and the project meets or has been conditioned to meet
all other applicable Town codes and policies. Grading across the property line
will allow a more natural topographic transition between parcels 2 and 3, and will
not adversely affect any neighboring properties. The proposed plan is sensitive to
the character of the land,the surroundings and the Town's codes and policies.
Recommended Variance Findings
Lands of Wythe&Vitu(Parcel 2)
Page 13
4. 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.
The proposed single family residence is a permitted use in the R-A zoning district,
and grading between this property and the adjacent parcel 3 would not allow a use
or activity that is prohibited in the zoning district.
A TTA C -CK1T 3
°ARA _�� FIRE DEPARTMENT
'� '�a! SANTA A CLARA COUNTY CONTROL NUMBER
` F7 REl;
1,0, 111"- 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 BLDG PERMrr NUMBER
COURTESY 6SERVICE (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) q p
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97-31 8 9
FILE NUMBER 46-96-ZP-SD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
Review of site and architectural plans for a new 4300 square foot single family
residence with a 650 square foot attached garage. This project is located within
the hazardous fire area.
The planner for this project is Ms. Suzanne Davis.
UPC 1. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 2000 GPM at 20 psi
Appendix residual pressure. The required fire flow IS available from area water mains
III and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing.
UFC 2. Required Access to Water Supply (Hydrants): Portions of the structure(s) are
903.2 greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway
containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR provide an
approved residential fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the
building.
IJFC 3. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway
902.2.2
with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 14
feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius
of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations
shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
UFC 4. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn-around Required: Provide an
902.2.2.4
approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
LAH 0 0 0 0 0 G&G DESIGN 12/05/97 1 OF 2
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Hokanson,Wayne
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR 13826 Page Mill Rd
A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill,and Saratoga
ARA
°& FIRE DEPARTMENT
LFIRElI SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY OUNTY CONTROL NUMBER
e
•
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos; CA 95030-1818 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER
COURTESY&SERVICE
(408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax) 97-3189
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 46-96-ZP-SD
NUMBER Ac-9C-ZP-SD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT -
UFC 5. . Bridges (Driveways): The bridge shall be designed for a live load of 40,000
902.2.2.5 pounds as stated in Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1
and in accordance with Article 90 of the Fire Code.
6. At time of building permit submittal, reflect access to Page Mill Road to also
include any recorded easements permitting access across any other properties (if
any).
UFC 7. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
901.4.4
new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with
their background and be a minimum of four inches in height.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
LAH 00000 G&G DESIGN 12/05/97 2 OF 2
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Hokanson,Wayne
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR 13826 Page Mill Rd
A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
JAIL-07-98 16:•24 FROM:COTTON SHlitE.b AbbU(: 1U:410t1.ib41tlb:4 YAlat 1/.i
ATTICIA0e, l c4
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
January 7,1998
L3176A -
•
TO: 1; : Suzanne Davis
Planner
; TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills;California 94022 -41
} •
SUBJCT- Supplemental Geotechnical Review
RE Lands of Wythe/Vitu,New Residence
' File 446-96-ZP SD-GD •
Moon Lane(Parcel 2)
•
At your request,we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review
of application for site development using:
Revised Site Development Plan(1 sheet,20-scale)prepared .
by Giuliani and Kull,dated December 26,1997;and •
• Improvement Plans Review (letter) prepared by Earth
Systems Consultants,dated November 18,1997-
.
•
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence and
driveway on the subject property. Proposed site grading includes 2,113 cubic
yards of excavation and 326 cubic yards of fill placement. In our previous review
memorandum(dated April 8,1997)regarding the suited property;we evaluated
.a previous site development plan dated June 14, 1996. We concurred with the
Project' Geotechnical Consultant that the proposed site development was
geologically feasible.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
We do not have geotechnical objections to the basic, currently proposed
site development concept. However, we note that the latest development plan
Northern California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 5245 Avenida Encnnas•Suite A
Los Gatos,CA 95030-7218 Carlsbad,CA 92008-4374
(408)354-5542 •Fax(408)354-1852 (760)931-2700 •Fax(760)931.1020
e-mail:losg@csageo.com e-mail:carl@csageo.com
JAM-07-S8 16:24 FROM:COTTON SHIRES ASSOC ID:4063541652 PAGE 2/3
Suzanne Davis January 7,1998 •
Page 2; L3176A
has apparently not been formally reviewed by the Project Geotechnical
Consultant. In addition, it is not clear where concrete swales are to be
implemented in the project design_ As a minimum,we assume a concrete swale
(V-ditch)is to be constructed along the upslope side of retaining walls behind the
residence. The current drainage plan also does not indicate how water collected
by concrete swales will be conveyed to an appropriate discharge point, or how
surface flow, which is intercepted along the upslope side of the two joining
driveways,is to be properly controlled. We understand that final site drainage
improvements are to be designed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
We recommend geotechnical approval of permits for project construction
with the following conditions:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review-The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the final project construction plans and
•
supporting structural calculations (i.e., site preparation
4 and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for retaining walls,foundations and driveway)
to ensure that his recommendations have been properly
i . incorporated. The consultant shall verify that steel
reinforcement for foundation piers and grade beams meet
minimum geotechnical criteria to address site soil
conditions.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by
the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
Town Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance
of building permits_
Geotecl pjJ Field Inspection - The 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 inspect site
• excavations to verify anticipated subsurface conditions and
observe the drilling of foundation piers to confirm
satisfactory embedment into supporting materials_
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions
of the project shall be described by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer
for review prior to final(as-built)project approval.
This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the
Town in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to
review.of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the
property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally
COTTON,SI-IIRES& ASSOCIATES,INC_
JAU-07-96 16: 25 FROM:COTTON 61-iiktb 11.1,410t7J=41==4 CHUG J/J
• Suzanne Davis January 7,1998
Page 3 L3176A
accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is •
in lied of all other warranties,either expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTT'ON, SHIRES AN])ASSOCIATES,INC
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
,31,
?Ainck-0
Patrick 0.Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
POS:TSrb
COTTON, SHIRES&ASSOCIATES,INC.
AT T.PC,r±iV KT S
9. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS
10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Les Earnest, 12769 Dianne Drive,noted that next -• e Town's area code was going to be
changed. Since everyone would be changin: - -it stationery, etc.,he recommended that the name
of the Town be changed. He thou: ' as much too confusing having such a similar name to
Los Altos. In addition the e should have its own post office.
Bob Owen : • tos, concurred that the similarity of names was often confusing. But he
su.:- ed Los Altos change their name.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 Request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Rose,
25810 Vinedo Lane
Dauber stated that she was pleased to get the revised plans for this project. By moving the house
the goal of saving the trees would be accomplished.
Bob Owen, representing the applicants, noted that they concurred with the proposed conditions
of approval for this project.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson and passed
unanimously to approve the request for a site development permit for a new residence, Lands of
Rose, 25810 Vinedo Lane.
11.2 Review of a Conditional Use Permit for operation of a country club,Lands
of Fremont Hills Country Club, 12889 Viscaino Place
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend condition#11 to state that no additional outdoor public
address system is permitted.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson and passed by
the following roll call vote to approve the revised conditions of approval for the Fremont Hills
Country Club use permit, as modified by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1997 and
amended by Council on June 4, 1997, with review required in two and one half years.
11.3 Request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and a variance
to allow grading across a property line, Lands of Wythe &Vitu, 13824 Moon
Lane, Lot#3
11.4 Request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and a pool and a
variance to allow grading across a property line, Lands of Wythe &Vitu,
13824 Moon Lane, Lot#2
Casey stated that she appealed the denial of these applications by the Planning Commission
because this was a difficult application which had been through three Planning Commission
public hearings. She hoped that the Council could make a determination on these projects.
June 4, 1997
Regular City Council Meeting
5
Janet Vitu, applicant, noted that they had lowered the homes to lessen the impact; had addressed
grading; had stepped the homes into the hillside;had changed the exerior of the homes; and were
going to use wood rather than a tile roof. She further commented that they had complied with
the restrictions of the subdivision agreement and were actually proposing smaller homes than
were being built elsewhere in Town. She noted that the homes would be well screened in a few
years. On the road issue,they were willing to do additional repairs. Ms. Vitu concluded her
comments by noting that they had provided improved services to the neighborhood including
water, gas and improved storm drainage.
Glenn Cahoon, applicant's designer, addressed three main issues including grading, floor area
and amount of visibility. By way of overhead transparencies he proceeded to show how each of
these issues had been resolved.
John Germino, representing Mr. and Mrs. Handley, stated that his clients were 45 year residents
of the Town and they had some real concerns about the condition of Moon Lane._In light of the
additional traffic which would result from these homes,they were asking for road improvements
(specifically a two lane road with cut outs)to be completed before construction began.
The following,residents addressed the Council in opposition to the Wythe/Vitu projects: David
Ewald, 13830 Page Mill Road; Valerie,Ramona and Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road; Dot
Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive;Nancy Bavor, 13816 Page Mill Road; Leslie Geddes,
26355 Calle del Sol; and Mrs. Eric Bredo, 13820 Page Mill Road. They stated that the Moon
Lane neighborhood was rural and these proposed homes did not fit into the neighborhood. The
residents supported the Town's Design Guidelines and Site Development Policy and did not
agree that the proposed large homes conformed to these guidelines. They further commented
that they liked the country uniformity of Moon Lane and not the proposed pretentious homes.
Dr. Evan Wythe, applicant, stated that they were not professional developers but had complied
with the conditions of the subdivision. He noted that it was difficult to screen these homes
because they were in an open area but they were working on a solution. He also commented they
they were not only working on developing the two lots but were also planning to live in the
neighborhood as well.
Siegel commented that the subdivider had made a lot of effort on two difficult lots. However,he
believed these homes were too large for the neighborhood and the owners had been advised that
the maximim floor and development areas may not be allowed. Siegel suggested that these
houses go back to the Planning Commission for redesign with the direction to the owners that
they be reduced in size. To give the owners clear direction, Siegel suggested a specific number
such as 4,000 square foot maximum floor area on each lot. Johnson noted that the proposed
houses were large for the Moon Lane area but not for the Town in general. He further
commented that there really were not any other options for locations of the houses but that they
would eventually be screened. While it would change the neighborhood to a certain extent, such
changes did happen. Furthermore,the developer had made several improvements to the
neighborhood including storm drain,water and gas lines. Dauber commented on the road issue
and noted that this was a private road and the residents should get together to resolve their
improvement issues. Regarding the proposed houses, she did not think they fit in the area. The
shape of the homes should fit the shape of the land. The better the homes fit into the land the
less important the size of the homes. She suggested simplifying the homes,making them more
horizontal. Dauber also commented on the large amount of blacktop basically positioned in the
June 4, 1997
Regular City Council Meeting
6
cneter of the hillside. She suggested this be redesigned. Hubbard noted that this was a sensitive
area and the developer had not met the spirit of the conditions of the subdivision. He believed the
architect for this project could work to fit the homes better on the lots.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Hubbard to direct the
applicants to redesign the residences for Lots 2 and 3,Lands of Wythe/Vitu, 13824 Moon Lane.
11.5 Request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel of
an existing residence, Lands of Wu& Chen, 26998 Beaver Lane
Casey stated that she appealed this decision of the Planning Commission because she ••ught the
condition requiring the owners to step the bedroom wing by at least three feet was .
unnecessary hardship for the applicants. This remodel was not seen by the neighb• s and the
applicants had elderly visitors which would find the step difficult.
Robert Aviles, applicant's designer, explained the remodel project and the f. t that it was not
visible to the neighbors and there had been no comments from the neighb• s. He asked that
condition#1 stating that the south bedroom wing (foundation and roof • e) be lowered by a
minimum of three feet be deleted.
Johnson stated that this was a totally landscaped property and he 'ould support the request due to
the unique nature of the site. Casey concurred with Johnson . • further noted that this was not a
natural grade and could be one level. Dauber referred to the "own's grading policy. This project
already had multiple levels and this condition posed no h. •ship on the applicant. Hubbard
concurred with Dauber and noted that there was a large ►ee which could very possibly be
removed as it was not healthy. If this was the case, • project could be seen by the neighbors.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Move. •y Siegel, seconded by Dauber and passed by
the following roll call vote to uphold the Plann• g Commission's approval of the site
development permit for an addition and rem.•el for Lands of Wu& Chen, 26998 Beaver Lane,
subject to the approved conditions of appr. al including the provision to step the bedroom wing
by at least three feet.
AYES: Mayor Hubbard and Co cilmembers Dauber and Siegel
NOES: Mayor Pro Tern Casey . d Councilmember Johnson
11.6 Request for a Site •evelopment Permit for a new residence, Lands of
Addison, 27863 :lack Mountain Road
Casey stated that she .d appealed this application because of her concerns about grading and
drainage.
Mr. Addison, a►•licant, addressed the issue of the visibility of his project. He referred to the line
of evergreen ees along the ridgeline and further commented that his project did not impact the
neighbors, :secifically the Burnells. He did not think it.was logical to require him to dig a hole
to build a house. Mr. Addison also stated that he did not believe drainage was an issue.
Ro:= Burnell, 27911 Black Mountain, distributed pictures of the impact of this project on his
he e. He commented that a compromise had been reached at the Planning Commission hearing
n this project and he believed those conditions of approval should be upheld.
June 4, 1997
• Regular City Council Meeting
7
TAci--wie KIT 6
Minutes of a Regular Meeting - Approved 5/28/97
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 14, 1997, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
cc: Cassettes ( 3 )#9-97
1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. '$ e Council Chambers at
Town Hall.
Present: Chairman Doran, Commissioners eng, Schreiner, Finn (arrived at 6:58 p.m.),
Gottlieb, Stutz& Jinkerson
Staff: Curtis Willi..•- , Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne
Davi ' anner; Lath Lonberger, Planning Secretary
2. 'RESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR-none
3 PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 LANDS OF WYTHE&VITU, 13824 Moon Lane (lot 3) (Page Mill Road) (46-
96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence,
and variance to allow grading across a property line.
3.2 LANDS OF WYTHE &VITU, 13826 Moon Lane (lot 2) (Page Mill Road) (47-
96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence,
pool and spa, and variance to allow grading across a property line.
Commissioner Schreiner stepped down from the public hearing due to the proximity of her
residence to the proposed projects. Chairman Doran stepped down from the public hearing due
to missing the previous two meetings.
This item was introduced by the Planning Director, commenting on the previous public hearing,
asking for non repetitive information.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/28/97
May 14, 1997
Page 2
Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, applicant's representative, discussed the changes to the
exterior elevations of the proposed houses on lots 2 and 3. Further discussion related to the
following: driveways approved with the subdivision; lining up the structures on lots 2 and 3 to
create less bulk; roofing materials (wood shake) and colors for both houses;the use of wood,
brick, and stone with a mix of stucco on lot 3; and stucco siding with brick trim for lot 2.
Ramona Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, quoted the Design Guidelines regarding projects limited
to less than the ordinances allow. She requested the projects be reduced in size and in height to
conform more to the neighborhood, and requiring further exterior changes.
John Germino, attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Handley residing at 13818 Page Mill Road.
He stated they expressed concerns regarding ingress/egress, and the existing paved width of
Moon Lane. Moon Lane is a private street owned by Mr. Moon who's whereabouts are
unknown. He requested the road be brought up to Town standards by widening the road to a 20
foot minimum so that two way traffic can be accommodated, although he did not know who
would pay for the improvements.
Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, was interested in building houses which were consistent
with the neighborhood. He noted the steep hillside and the visibility of the lots. He did not feel
it was appropriate to maximize the properties, asking for justification if the projects were
approved. -
Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, felt the projects as designed will impact the
neighborhood. She discussed Design Guidelines, the subdivision conditions of approval
(minimum disturbance to the topography and the excessive proposed combined total of.4500
cubic yards of cut), and lot 3 using all available development area with paving in the setbacks.
She asked for less grading, the heights to be lowered, and stepped up the slope. There are only a
few rural areas left in town.
Valerie Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, discussed colors, elevations (appearance), the view from
her property, requesting the houses be wood siding, not stucco. She provided a photo board
showing the area with the proposed houses set into the pictures. She requested a smaller
footprint, reduced heights, and extensive landscaping. The Site Development Policy was quoted,
in particular 1) do what is best for the site, 2) sensitive to the neighborhood, and 3) opportunity
to reduce the maximum numbers. She noted color as well as landscaping were very important.
She asked that the Design Guidelines are applied and enforced.
Annika Bredo, 13820 Page Mill Road, requested smaller, wooden houses to fit into the
neighborhood.
Bob Owen stated there was no problem proposing more trees. However trees can be planted on
both sides of a property line.
•
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/28/97
May 14, 1997
Page 3
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Commissioner Cheng would like to see the houses lowered in height. She also felt the Handley's
concern regarding the road width was more related to the subdivision and not with these
applications. Mr. Owen responded he does not want to drop the pads any lower, however he
could change the roof pitch to lower the height 1-1 %2 feet. Commissioner Stutz suggested on lot
2 to replace the stucco with wood siding. On lot 3, she was concerned with the patio on the right
side of the house and the grading associated with it. Also on lot 3, there was not much outdoor
area and too many walls in the back. Commissioner Jinkerson supports the Design Guidelines
relating to not using the maximum numbers allowed. He felt the projects should be reduced
1000 to 1100 square feet. He would not say both houses have to be wooden as this is subject to
the taste of the individual. He would like to see smaller houses, lowered, fitting into the land.
Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the subdivision conditions of approval and the roof line not
stepping down with the topography. If it was, the retaining walls would not be necessary. She
also stated two homes built at similar elevations could appear to be one continuous structure
when viewed from off site. Commissioner Cheng felt grading over the property line was
necessary and Commissioner Stutz felt there was no problem grading for the driveway although
it would be more attractive if the houses were not on the"same plain (one set back approximately
20 feet).
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson and seconded by
Commissioner Gottlieb to deny the request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence,
and variance to allow grading across a property line, Lands of Wythe & Vitu, lot 3, and to deny
the request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa, and variance to
allow grading across a property line, Lands of Wythe &Vitu, lot 2.
AYES: Vice-Chair Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng & Jinkerson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Finn
3.3 LANDS OF ZHU &XU, 12580 Miraloma Way (194-96-ZP-SD-GD); A req er
for a Site Development Permit for a new residence (continued from.-Januarary 22,
1997).
Commissioner Cheng stepped down from the public_hearing due to the proximity of her
residence to the proposed project. Commissioner-Stutz has listened to the tapes of the previous
January 22, 1997 meeting. Commissioner"Gottlieb was outside the area allowed to be able to
hear and vote on the proposed project. Letters from Roger Cruickshank and Tina Darmohray &
Charles Marker were received and provided for review. The Planning Director verified that the
story poles reflected he accurate change in height(pad and finished floor lowered two feet).
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
AT-rAci iUlEQ-t-
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/14/97
April 23, 1997
Page 4
AYES: Vice-Chair Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz, Schreiner, Che s_, 'ri erson &
Finn
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Doran
This . .: .. is subject to a 21 day appeal period.
3.3 LANDS OF WYTHE&VITU, 13824 Moon Lane (lot 3) (Page
Mill Road) (46-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development
Permit for a new residence.
3.4 LANDS OF WYTHE&VITU, 13826 Moon Lane (lot 2) (Page
Mill Road) (47-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development
Permit for a new residence,pool and spa.
Commissioner Schreiner stepped down from the public hearing due to the proximity of
her residence to the proposed projects.
Ms. Davis introduced the following two items, noting notice of the site development
requests was previously mailed, setting a hearing for April 23`d. While discussion will be
held tonight, final action on the projects will not be taken at least until the April 30th
meeting since the variance to allow grading across a property line was not included with
the earlier notice. It was agreed to hear both site development requests together.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, project representative, commented on
the site which has been vacant for a number of years. He acknowledged the concerns
expressed by some of the neighbors regarding the size of the development, colors, etc.
He proposed to change the exterior of the house on lot 3 to wood and stone instead of
stucco. He discussed the slope, following contours, the two story portions of the houses,
digging the houses into the site, lining them for an appearance of one house rather than
two, neighbors looking over the houses, the use of earthtone colors to fit into the
neighborhood, and landscaping to help with screening. Also, no skylights are being
proposed since most neighbors are higher than the project site. When asked if they could
change the roofline on lot 2, he responded the change would create more bulk. Also, the
eaves will be 12-18 inches. Mr. Owen also provided signed documents from six
neighbors who do not oppose the projects. He will provide a rendering of the new design
for lot 3 for the next meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/14/97
April23, 1997
Page 5
Valerie Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, previously provided the staff with a letter
outlining concerns. She referred to the Site Development Policy Statement and the
Town's Guidelines for Residential Design and Land Use, quoting excerpts from both.
The four goals set forth in the guidelines directly address her concerns: retaining and
enhancing the open natural atmosphere of Los Altos Hills; designing a home to fit the site
and be unobtrusive in the neighborhood; minimize the appearance of bulk; and design for
applicant's, the Town's, and neighbor's needs. She asked the Commission to consider
the following: reduction of MDA/MFA; one story, low profile or horizontal design;
reduction in height; choice of exterior materials (darker colors) and roof colors (non-
reflective); compatible design for Moon Lane; landscaping; and rock facades on the
concrete bridges and visible walls.
Dru Anderson, 27820 Saddle Court, voiced appreciation for Mr. Owen's efforts in
discussing the projects with the neighbors. She referenced her letter (copy in staff
report). She emphasized the importance of landscaping, choice of colors, especially the
roof, lighting and working together to achieve houses which will blend into the hillside
with the use of brown colors rather than grays. Landscaping should be significant enough
in size and groupings and native looking to help blend the homes as rapidly as possible
into the environment.
Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, reiterated concerns previously mentioned. He
commented on the low visibility of the existing houses in the area asking for the
justification for the proposed houses not fitting into his environment.
Ramona Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, was impressed with the development of the
Design Guidelines. The houses being proposed for Moon Lane are not only the largest
houses but the largest on the smallest, steepest lots on the road. She would like the
Commission to uphold the Design Guidelines.
Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, applauded the heroic efforts of the
residents on Moon Lane and the surrounding area to try to preserve something that is
rapidly disappearing in this Town. She discussed the uniqueness of Moon Lane and the
topography which dictates smaller, more informal type homes with a road which cannot
be widened much more than 20 feet. She was pleased with the change of material for lot
3 although lot 2 is an imposing stucco structure. She was concerned with both houses
facing the road having a facade of 30-31 feet (as the grade goes down, the houses appear
to be going up). She felt the tone of the street will be determined by these two houses on
these visible lots . Also of concern was the retaining wall at the pool area on lot 2 noting.
the pool will have three retaining walls.
Annika Bredo, 13820 Page Mill Road, asked that the structures fit into the neighborhood
and the designs adhere to the Design Guidelines. She prefers to see both houses wood
and one story.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/14/97
April23, 1997
Page 6
Ray Rooker, 12819 Viscaino Road, friend and Realtor who sold the land to the
applicants, commented on the following; putting stone facing on concrete bridges would
increase the look, suggesting staining the concrete; the narrow site; public will be above
so they will not see massiveness; the houses will not be noticed as the existing larger
houses constructed on the ridge line will dominate the aesthetics of the valley. He also
felt the roof material and color would be equally as important as the siding materials as
this would be the predominant view.
David Ewald, 13830 Page Mill Road, noted he will be looking up at these projects. He
realized the applicants have a right to develop and would encouraged retaining the rural
flavor of the area(possibly one story structures).
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the house on lot 2 could be stepped for a lower profile.
Also,the pool design fights with the land. She suggested possibly a lap pool. She would
like to see a lower profile with a mixture of wood and stucco with a less formal cottage
style facade to blend in more with the surrounding area. Mr. Owen stated he will take
neighbors and Commission comments into consideration.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded
by Commissioner Jinkerson to continue the request for Site Development Permits for lots
2 and 3 to April 30th to allow proper noticing of the, variance request, and for a full
Commission, discussing any new information prior to a vote.
AYES: Vice-Chair Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz, Schreiner, Finn, Jinkerson, &
Cheng
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Doran
Brief break at 9:30 p.m.
4. OLD BUSINESS
4.1 AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS ! .401 AND 10-1.505 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE RE ••'+l ING: 1) Non-conforming Structures;
and 2) Pavement i :etbacks; and Proposed Negative Declaration
(continued fro • arch 26, 1997).
Commissioner -.1 disclosed he had listened to the tape from the previous meeting
regardi•: i is matter. The Planning Director noted changes made to the proposed
• •finance as directed at the previous meeting.
Ac l-tM�N► DECEIVED
JAN 0 1 1998
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
January 7, 1998
Re: proposed houses on lots 2 &.3 —Lands of Wythe-Vitu
Dear Planning Commission,
The revised plans for lots 2 &3 (Lands of Wythe-Vitu) fail to reflect many of the
recommendations made by the Town Council (6/4/97), the Town Planner(7/16/97 &
11/18/97), or the Town Engineer(compare11/18/97 with 12/31/97 & 12/3/97). Our
concerns regarding the compatibility of these spec houses with the existing,rural
atmosphere of Moon Lane remain the same as in our letters of 9/28/96 and 4/15/97
(enclosed) with a few additional concerns.
On such steeply sloped, highly visible lots, the Site Development Policy states that
maximums (MFA, MDA, etc.)may not necessarily be granted. To build such large,
elaborate houses with basements is non-conforming to the Town's policies in the
following ways:
1) Not compatible: These houses are not compatible with the rural flavor of the
neighborhood. New houses are to fit into the existing neighborhood and not to force
it to be drastically changed.
a) Too big: The proposed houses would be the biggest houses (4,950 &4,900)on
the smallest, steepest, most exposed lots on Moon Lane. The footprints are too
big. The houses need to be smaller.
*Despite the decreased MFA (from 5,570 to 4,950 on lot 2 & from 5,587 to 4,900
on lot 3), by having habitable basements both house have actually increased the
living space (lot 2 to 5,800 & lot 3 to 5,850)to greater than that of the denied
plans(&the MFA if basements counted).
b) Too high: These houses are too high for a one-story(which is what they are being
called). Lot 3 has a 24' element. (The reduction from 26' to 24' was obtained by
slicing off a very small portion of one of the higher roof lines; only about 3% of
the roof area. This has little or no impact on making the houses look lower or less
bulky. (compare old &revised plans) They need to have the high elements
lowered. (see 7/16/97, 11/18/97& 12/3/97 notes&memos)
c) Need to step into the hill better: (see notes 7/16/97)This could be helped by
addressing item b.
d) Too fancy/formal: The proposed houseshavemany different kinds of materials
being used;they are random looking and not compatible with the neighborhood.
Lot 2 has stucco, stone, wide trim work, &tile "shake"roofs. Lot 3 has stone,
painted wood, stucco, brick, wide trim work, &tile "shake"roof All current
houses on Moon Lane are primarily wood and much simpler in design.
2) Do not conform to grading policies: (compare memos 11/18/97 & 12/31/97) The
revised plans seem to have ignored many of the non-conforming grading policy issues
or made minor changes. On lot 2, of the 7 areas where the old plans didn't meet the
Town's grading policy, only 2 were revised some. On lot 3, only 3 of the 5 items were
changed minimally. On both lots,the excessive cuts for the basements were not changed.
This is a prime example of making the land conform to the house, rather than the house
conform to the land.
Basements & retaining walls:. The amount of cut and export resulting from these
plans is extreme: lot 2: cut-2,113 c.y., export- 1,787 c.y. & lot 3: cut- 2,910 c.y.,
export- 2,885 c.y.) To have such large houses stepped into the hill (as required by the
Town), already requires a lot of cut, fill& export. The configuration of these lots does
not lend itself to basements(see memo from Suzanne Davis 11/18/97) which would
require the amounts of cut, &export to be greatly increased. In addition, these houses
require too many retaining walls that are too high. We do not feel that cuts of this
magnitude &export of this much material should be allowed. How will cuts of 18.5' &
20.5' affect the stability of the hill?
3) Pools & decks: With the increased footprint, can the MDAs handle pools and decks
proposed?? (notes 7/16/97)
Thank you for reviewing these concerns along with those of the attached letters.
Sincerely,
,-()avocceykerit),/u
The Chowns
Enclosed: Letters from 9/26/96 & 4/15/97
Cc: Planning Staff
Town Council
Town Manager
Wythe-V itu
Neighbors: Bavor, Ewald, Bredo, Handley, Anderson
April 15, 1997 APR 1 8 199/
Town of Los Altos Hills Has
Planning Commission and.City Council
Re: Lands of Wythe-house/lot plans for lots 2 and 3
Commissioners and Council Members,
As you review the house/landscape'plans'for the Lands of Wythe (sites 2 and 3), we ask
that you will be diligent in applying the guidelines you set forth in the new Site
Development Policy Statement (re-adopted Feb.19, 1997) and the Town's "Guidelines for
Residential Design&Land Use". (Excerpts from the guidelines, that address our
concerns, are attached.)
Applicable excerpts from the Site Development Policy:
"The City Council and the Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter
standards to reduce floor area, development area, and/or height, or to increase setbacks,
where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the
ordinances and Development Guidelines are complied with. Some examples include. . .
shape or natural features of the lot, . . .or high site visibility."
The policy continues: "The town will assure by means of landscape requirements, siting,
grading limitations, choice of exterior materials or colors and outdoor lighting, limiting
size and/or height, increasing setbacks, and the possible requirement for one-story
homes or homes of low profile or horizontal design- that buildings and other
development are as unobtrusive as possible when viewed from off-site and that impacts
on neighboring residents are minimized."
"The town will make every effort to see that the buildings do not dominate the natural
landscape". . .And finally, "the town will take into consideration impacts of a project on
neighbors."
The "Guidelines for Residential Design and Land Use" develop and make
recommendations as to how to implement the policy. (The following quoted phrases were
taken from this document.) The essence of the guidelines appears to be the maintenance of
a "quiet, country environment" where "most well-established properties fit into the
immediate environment and harmoniouslyblend with the overall neighborhood." It states
that along with the privilege of building comes the "obligation to the rest of the
community to preserve the existing natural beauty of the environment, respecting, as far as
possible, the concerns of your neighbors, and the residents of the Town as a whole." This
suggests the importance and responsibility of the person building a new house to design
one that fits into and maintains the'flavor' of the neighborhood in which it is being built.
This would appear to be especially true when the houses in question are spec houses
(which these are).
The guidelines "are intended to set the framework for appropriate design. . .However, to
deviate from the guidelines there must be adequate justification." They speak of looking
for a lot that will "harmonize" with the style of house you plan to build and if you have a
lot to "be sure to design a home appropriate for it." Furthermore, it is "important when
planning a home on an exposed lot to observe the guidelines more rigorously."
A meeting with neighbors is suggested to address any concerns. We did meet with the
builder, Bob Owen, and expressed strong concerns about the size, style and materials
proposed. The houses he is proposing are incongruous with our established neighborhood
-like building'Fantasy Land' houses in a'Frontier Land' neighborhood.
The four goals set forth in the guidelines directly address our concerns:
I. "Retain and enhance the open natural atmosphere of Los Altos Hills"
(ie. "The surrounding natural environment must dominate the visual
character of your lot.")
II. "Design your home to fit the site and be unobtrusive in the neighborhood."
(ie. "Design for compatibility with established neighborhood.")
III. "Design your house to minimize the appearance of bulk."
(ie. "Exterior material and colors should blend your house into its
surroundings.")
IV. "Design for your needs, the needs of the Town and those of your neighbors."
(ie. "Respect your neighbor's privacy and views.)
The lots in question are highly visible (no natural screening), steeply sloped and long&
narrow. They constitute a significant portion of our view as we are adjacent to and above
the lots being developed. Two 5,500+ square foot houses cannot help but "dominate the
natural landscape", be obtrusive and have a high visual impact on the neighbors. We
realize that the owners have the right to build big houses, and we believe it is your job to
apply your guidelines to help the houses be as unobtrusive as possible and compatible with
the "flavor" of Moon Lane. (Please, see attached letter dated 9/28/96.) We urge you to
carefully balance the rights of the builder's with those of the established neighbors.
Therefore, we would like you to consider the following:
1) reducing the MFA and MDA below the maximum allowed
2) requiring a one-story or low profile or horizontal design
3) reducing the maximum height (Even though the proposal is under maximum, it is very
imposing from the front.)
4) recommending exterior materials that are more in keeping with Moon Lane (wood
siding, stone accents, shake roofs, etc. rather than stucco)
5) requiring darker exterior colors (preferably browns)to reduce reflectivity and help the
houses blend in (See the Anderson's letter re: their comments on house color-we
agree.)
6) requiring dark colored, low reflective/sheen roofs (we will see a lot of roof)
7) limiting windows and lighting that will create glare problems for neighbors (ie. the
kitchen nook windows on the eastern exposure of the house on lot 3)
8) requiring designs that are more compatible with the rustic, country feeling of Moon
Lane(The house on lot 2 seems especially out of place; it is very fancy with
columns, arches, ornate fascias along the roof line, stucco exterior, etc. See the •
Anderson's letter re: their comments on the style-we agree.)
9) requiring landscaping that will immediately mitigate the size and bulk of the house and
will screen and soften the houses in the near future (The proposed landscaping is
inadequate and will need to be reviewed once the houses are framed.) and will not
block the view of the neighbors or break the ridgeline. The height potential of trees
planted along the upper property line needs to be considered. (See the Anderson's
letter re: planting suggestions-we agree.)
10) recommending rock facades on the concrete bridges and visible walls
We agree with the concerns and comments in the Anderson's letter(included in this
packet).
Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns and carefully consider the impact of
these houses on Moon Lane. Please, help us preserve and protect the unique, rural
atmosphere of our road.
Sincerely,
(-77?5-; c ' Th
Tim& Valerie Chown and Ramona Chown
13 822 Page Mill Rd.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
The following excerpts are quoted from the "Town of LOS ALTOS HILLS
Guidelines for Residential Design & Land Use"; dated 1994 with additions dating
6/21/95 & 6/12/96). Please, be diligent in applying them as you consider the two spec
homes being built by Bob Owen on lots 2 & 3 of Lands of Wythe.
"Los Altos Hills is a rural town in which the residents forgo the convenience of proximity
to shopping, theaters, and restaurants in return for living in a quiet, country environment.
. . . Most well-established properties fit into the immediate environment and harmoniously
blend with the overall neighborhood."
"The Town's zoning ordinances and General Plan require that every effort be made to
preserve the Town's open, natural atmosphere and rustic appearance. Thus, a newcomer
who buys an undeveloped lot with the intent of building an entirely new home is faced
with a special challenge, and a resident who wishes to remodel an existing residence must
be careful to see that these requirements are met."
"Bear in mind that in exercising the privilege of building or remodeling your dream home
in Los Altos Hills, you have an far as, obligation to the rest of the community to preserve
the existing natural beauty of the neighbors, and the residents of the Town as a whole
environment, respecting as possible, the concerns of your."
Things to Bear in Mind:
1. "The guidelines have been developed to be consistent with the Town ordinances,
policies, and regulations." . . .
2. These guidelines are intended to set the framework for appropriate design, but not
inhibit creativity in design or problem solving. However, to deviate from the guidelines
there must be adequate justification."
3. "Every lot is unique.". . .
4. If you have not yet purchase a home site, and have a particular style of house in mind,
you should look for a lot with which your chosen style will harmonize. If you have
already acquired a lot, be sure to design a home appropriate for it."
5. "On a highly visible lot, both the good and the bad points of the design of a home tend
to show up more obviously than on a secluded lot. It is therefore important when
planning a home on an exposed lot to observe the guidelines more rigorously."
7. "In addition to the required public notice, it makes for good relations with your future
neighbors if you meet with them beforehand, and find out any special concerns they may
have about a new home next to them.". . .
8. "Determine the opportunities and constraints which your lot offers before you plan
your house, your landscaping, and the site improvements. To ignore these opportunities
and constraints is to invite development of an inappropriate site plan."
"GOAL I: RETAIN AND ENHANCE-THE OPEN NATURAL ATMOSPHERE
OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
"Integrate your design and its landscape with the surrounding environment and
terrain. Retain the rural countryside feeling and the openness of the Town's setting. The
surrounding natural environment must dominate the visual character of your lot."
"A. Design should be compatible with the terrain."
"1. Make site design compatible with the terrain and blend it into the
surroundings."
"B. Natural features of the land and significant existing vegetation should be
preserved. Select compatible plant materials."
"E. Fences and entrances should create an open feeling and blend into the
landscape."
"2. Entry columns, gates and porticos are discouraged. . ."
"GOAL II: DESIGN YOUR HOME TO FIT THE SITE AND BE
UNOBTRUSIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD."
The character of the site and the neighborhood should determine the design of the
structures and their placement on the lot. Ultimately, the landscaping will be the
finishing touch that will blend the home with its surroundings."
"A. Fit the design of the house to the character of the site."
"B. Design for compatibility with the established neighborhood."
"1. In a neighborhood of predominantly one story dwellings, one story or
modified two story structures are encouraged."
"2. Compatibility with a neighborhood occurs when homes retain their
individuality without dominating."
"D. Landscape to blend the house into its surroundings.",
"1. Landscape should be used to soften all off-site views of all structures."
•
"GOAL III: DESIGN YOUR HOUSE TO MINIMIZE THE APPEARANCE OF
BULK."
"The appearance of bulk and mass should be minimized when designing your
house.". . .
"C. Exterior materials and colors should blend your house into its
surroundings."
"1. Utilize colors which occur naturally in the landscape of your site.
Darker or natural colors blend with surroundings. Roof areas should
be a dark if possible and have a variety of shades of that color."
"2. A mixture of materials can create interest and detail. Wood and stone
can help to soften the appearance of stucco and blend it with the
natural setting."
"D. Building to less than maximum height can decrease perception of bulk."
•
"2. A low horizontal structure minimizes the appearances of bulk."
"GOAL IV: DESIGN FOR YOUR NEEDS, THE NEEDS OF'1HJ TOWN AND
THOSE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS"
"Your design should be safe,functional and.neighborly."
"B. Design for livability."
"5. It is wise to reserve some floor and development area for possible
future development. . .lifestyles and needs may change."
"C. Design to be neighbor-friendly."
"1. Respect your neighbor's privacy and views. . .Landscape to minimize
obstructing off-site views."
"3. Place exterior lights carefully to prevent light from shining into
neighboring houses."
September 28, 1996
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
re: Lands of Wythe
We, the long-time residents of Moon Lane, are concerned about the possible implications of the
development on our road. Moon Lane is not a new subdivision but a unique, private road in Los
Altos Hills, where the rural atmosphere has been maintained by unobtrusive, low, wooden houses
on multi-acre properties. it is our desire that the new houses to be built will not diminish the
rustic charm of the area.
Since Los Altos Hills prides itself on its rural atmosphere, we want to encourage the planning
department, committees, commission, and council to be particularly aware of the need to
minimize the size and visual impact of these additional houses and make them compatible with the
existing Moon Lane homes. Among our concerns are the design, height and square footage of the
houses, how they conform to the terrain, the kind of building materials to be used and the exterior
color. Furthermore, it is important to limit the amount of impervious surface surrounding each
new house so as not to further strain the fragile drainage system.
We support the right of property owners to develop their property even though we would prefer
it remain open space. However, it is the responsibility of the Town to require the development to
maintain the flavor of the area in which it is being built.
Please, help us preserve and protect the unique, rural atmosphere of Moon Lane.
Sincerely,
6)),;& Zrn 4600-15rl
cc: Town Manager
Planning Department
Environmental Design and Protection Committee
Planning Commission
Town Council
Evan Wythe and Janet Vitu
Bob Owen
ATT ACH Pk L Lo-- o
RECEIVED
JAN - 7 1998
The Ewalds TO NN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
13830 Page Mill RD
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
January 7, 1998
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission and
Town Council
Re: Lands Of Wythe &Vitu
Town Planning Commission Members and
Town Council Members,
A few months ago the Town Planning Commission and the Town Council
denied the applicants their request for the plans that were submitted for
their Lots 2 & 3 partly because they did not conform with the Town's Site
Development Policy Statement.
The plans before you show very little change in size and bulk and feel. In
some respect they are both larger than before with the addition of a
livable basement in each structure and a pool on Lot 3.
If these two homes are approved, any where near the size and bulk and
look proposed, and you will soon have to make a similar decision for the
home that will be proposed for Lot #1 down the line, you will forever have
changed the nature of this neighborhood.
These are difficult steep lots with a great deal of exposure. We believe that
much smaller homes of about 3500 to 4000 square feet with much more
wood texture on the exterior be built on these lots.
S. -a1:4-re 44,J/i
David and Sally E al
t
AT1 A C -t ISE YJ i IC
•
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26379 Fre ont Road•Los Alts Hills,California 94022•(415)941-7222•FAX(415)941-3160
`- ��`/[sd WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
•TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME I . I�LI„ . k I !I L, ,
PROPERTY ADDRESS 13E2_6 M oon L a rl e- CParce-1 2.)
CALCULATED BY G G ,Des 1 DATE / -
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage(from Part 2.A.) �1 J�.� 44c 631
B. Decking
C. Driveway and Parking •
(Measured 100'along centerline) 2..D?J2 2,03Z-
D. Patios and Walkways 55b 5)
E. Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking ( b 30 ( E5 30
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
•
H. Any other coverage
TOTALS -g- 93G2- G2 _
i r
Maximum Development Area Allowed-MDA (from Worksheet#1) < I I l3 J
2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor 4 3 DD
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement CeK.mp) C 555-) ( s )
d. Garage C5D 6S-0
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS (-19tJ-)
Maximum Floor Area Allowed- MFA (from Worksheet#1) `Ge
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY U17 QI'l.VIE. I.)a V IS DATE (Jan • '? I Jib,
Revised 2/26/96