HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 3 . 1
Town Of Los Altos Hills July 22, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: REQUEST FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW
RESIDENCE; VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING STRUCTURES TO
ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE SETBACK; AND A REQUEST FOR A
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT; LANDS OF KORMAN; 26157
ALTADENA DRIVE; FILE#76-98ZP-SD-GD-VAR-LLA
FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Dire%3
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Variance, citing the findings
outlined in Attachment 2, and recommend approval of the requested Lot Line
Adjustment, subject to the attached conditions of approval (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND
On July 8, 1998, the Planning Commission discussed this proposal and continued the
item to allow the applicant to address several concerns: 1) moving the residence to the
west and/or rotating the residence and/or breaking up the wall to minimize visibility of
the west wall of the structure to neighbors and provide more room for landscape
screening; 2) adjusting the lot line to better accommodate a shift in the house; 3)
modifications to the heights of the portico and the chimney; 4) the size of the skylight;
5) the stone wall connecting the two properties; and 6) assuring that upon subdivision
or sale of parcel A, the house is made conforming.
The applicant has made a number of changes to the plans, including a revised lot line
adjustment, to respond to the Commission's concerns (see attached letters from architect
and applicant). The applicant has also provided an aerial photograph (attached) to better
indicate the distance between the proposed house and neighboring residences.
DISCUSSION
Revised plans, including the lot line adjustment, accompany the staff report. A final
grading and drainage plan, reflecting the revised site layout, is required as part of the
conditions of approval. The issues of concern to I the Commission are addressed as
follows:
Lot Line Adjustment
The lot line adjustment has been revised to provide for greater lot width, allowing the
house to.be shifted while maintaining at least a 30 foot setback from the existing home.
The lot sizes were not changed, so that the allowable development on each lot would
remain the same.
Positioning of House
The revised lot line adjustment has allowed the applicant to shift the proposed home site
to the east by 15 to 20 feet, away from the neighbors. The house was rotated only
slightly, but the distance to the closest residence (the Jeffery's) would be 175 feet, as
shown on the aerial photo. The increased setback should readily provide extensive room
for landscape screening along the west elevation.
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 2
Please note that the story poles have not been changed. To visualize the new
location, the western edge of the residence would be moved to approximately where
the second line of story poles is presently.
Height of Portico and Chimney
The Commission discussed the height of the portico and chimney, although no specific
direction was given regarding the portico. This feature is only proposed at 16 feet above
the ground level, with a 3 foot high deck railing above on two sides and a similar height
parapet wall on the front. The minimum height of the portico would need to be 13'6" for
Fire Department clearance and probably at least 24" for the roof above, so that there is
very little room for reducing the height. As the portico faces only the open space at
Esther Clark Park, staff concurs with the architect that no changes are needed.
The applicant has reduced the height of the chimney by one foot, from 27 feet to 26 feet.
The architect has indicated to staff that the chimney is very important to provide an
additional "vertical" element to the horizontal structure, and is reluctant to reduce the
height further. Staff concurs, particularly since there is only one chimney proposed,
whereas on other projects there are frequently at least two or three chimneys.
Skylight
The architect's letter states that the skylight has been reduced to 33 feet (in length). The
plans appear, however, to be unchanged from the initial plans (36.5 feet) and it is unclear
whether a 3.5 foot reduction is proposed or if the architect is simply excluding the beams
which break up the skylight area. The architect's letter also notes that the skylight is
recessed between other walls and will not be visible at the exterior. It appears from the
plans that the skylight would be located 3-5 feet lower than the adjacent walls on either
side of the skylight. The conditions of approval require that the skylight reduce emitted
light and that no lighting be placed directly below the skylight.
Stone Wall
The applicant has made two small adjustments to the proposed stone wall from the
residence to the adjoining parcel A. First, the length of the wall has been reduced by 12
feet, primarily due to the shifting of the house to the east (the wall actually extends a few
feet further into parcel A than previously). Second, the first step down from the house
has been reduced to about 8.5 feet from 10 feet in the initial proposal, and then to 3 feet
for the remainder. Staff notes, however,that the wall is not permitted by Code to exceed
6 feet in height within the setback, and has added to condition#1 a requirement to reduce
any wall height within the setback to 6 feet or less, in compliance with the Zoning Code.
Parcel A Condition Re: Sale or Subdivision
Staff has prepared condition of approval #10 to require that, upon the sale or subdivision
of parcel A, the residence on that parcel must be made conforming to the Town's setback
requirements. This could be accomplished by either: 1) modifying or demolishing the
existing structure and relocating it at least 30 feet from the ingress/egress easement; or 2)
providing an alternative access easement through parcel A to parcel B. Staff has studied
the plan and is comfortable that, if parcel A were split, such an easement could be located
along the common property line and then along either the east or west side of parcel B to
the garage. While it is highly unlikely that this would be a desirable solution for future
owners, the agreement would preserve all reasonably available planning options.
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 3
Staff has been advised by the City Attorney that the Planning Commission may not
condition the variance or site development permit on the preparation of a subdivision
map, but may require the legal agreement outlined in condition #10 or take other
appropriate action to assure that reasonable future subdivision options are not precluded.
Pathway Along Kingsley Way
As discussed at the last meeting, a 40 foot pathway and utility easement exists over
what was Lowell Lane along the western boundary of the current parcel A (except for the
northerly 150 feet to Esther Clark Park). At that meeting, it was reported that as a
condition of abandoning the pathway easement, the City Council required the applicant to
construct a Ilb pathway on the opposite (east) side of Kingsley Way and to provide an
easement and connection to Esther Clark Park. Staff has since determined that the
Council did not specify on which side of the street the path should be constructed, but left
that for the City Manager to determine. The City Manager has determined that the path
should be on the east side of Kingsley, to avoid the need to cross the Korman driveway,
which will become even wider with this proposal. The path would then enter the park at
the end of Kingsley Way. Based on this direction', the applicant has already (in June)
cleared about half of the distance from the Clevenger property for the pathway, and
graded probably a third of the distance.
The Pathways Committee has recommended locating the pathway on the west side
(Korman property) of Kingsley, to avoid impacts to some vegetation on the east side.
Staff believes, however, that the vegetation is a m'%nor obstacle, primarily brush which
can be readily trimmed without removal. Either side of the road is certainly feasible, but
staff continues to recommend staying on the east side to provide continuity and as the
work on that side has already begun.
Abandonment of Lowell Lane
There appeared to be some confusion at the last meeting regarding the abandonment of
Lowell Lane. Lowell Lane was abandoned for road purposes in 1966 (the first 150 feet
south of Esther Clark Park) and 1988 (the remainder south to Altadena). All that has
existed since 1988 is the pathway and utility easement for all except the northerly 150
feet, approximately half of the western property boundary of parcel B. There is not and
has not since 1988 been any potential to use Lowell Lane as a road to this site. And the
recent abandonment of the pathway easement has no effect on the density or allowable
intensity of development on either parcel A or parceli B.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the proposed project is a low-profile residence which does an
exemplary job of preserving the open space characteristics of this site, and that condition
#10 is adequate to protect the Town and property owner interests in the event of future
subdivision. With the setback modifications proposed to further assure adequate room
for landscape mitigation screening, staff recommends approval of the site development
permit and variance.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have.
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Proposed Findings for Approval of Variance
3. Letter from Architect, dated July 14, 1998
4. Letter from Applicant, dated July 14, 1998
5. Letter from Applicant re: pathway, dated July 16, 1998
6. Aerial photograph
7. Revised development plans
cc: Josh and Shioban Korman
2615.7 Altadena Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Stan Field
3631 Evergreen
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE, VARIANCE.,
AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
FILE#76-98-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-LLA
LANDS OF KORMAN - 26157 ALTADENA DRIVE
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The plans shall be revised to indicate that the height of the stone wall
complies with the Zoning Code within the setback (6 feet or less
depending on the distance from the property line). Any other 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 fmal framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development hearing. Particular attention
shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of
the new residence from Kingsley Way and surrounding properties,
particularly to the west and south. Materials and colors and screening for
the proposed wall shall also be considered at the meeting. 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
fmal 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, shall be posted,prior to final inspection. An
inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and
maintenance shall.be made two year after installation. The deposit will
be released at that time if the plantings remain viable.
4. Fire retardant roofing is required for the residence.
5. 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
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 submittal of plans for building plan
check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the
approved color(s)prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 6
6. At the time of foundation inspection for the house, the location and
elevation of the structure shall be certified in writing by a registered civil
engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location and
elevation 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
and driveway locations shall also be certified at time of installation.
7. Specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Lighting shall generally be limited to one light fixture at each exit, with
two permitted at the entry and on the garage, unless additional lighting is
determined to be necessary for safety purposes. Any additional outdoor
lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape plan. Lighting fixtures shall
generally be downlights. Exceptions may be permitted in limited
locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible
from off site. Any security lighting shall be limited in number and
directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or
louvers is suggested. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or
reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting should not be
directly visible from off site. No lighting may be placed within the
setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry lights, except where determined to
be necessary for safety.
8. Prior to commencement of any grading on the site, all significant trees are
to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and
structure to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the
fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to issuance of building or
demolition permits. The property owner shall call for said inspection at
least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain
throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles,
or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees.
9. Skylights shall be designed to reduce emitted light and no lighting shall be
placed in skylight wells.
• - - - - 2:: .. All
- --• _ _ . - -- _- - •_ . -._ - by this approval is the maximum
level of development currently allowed by the Town. The Planning
plan check. - •
10. A property restriction agreement shall be recorded against both
parcels stating that if either parcel is sold to someone outside of the
immediate family or if parcel A is subdivided, then the driveway
access and/or the house on parcel A shall be modified such that any
and all structures on parcel A shall conform with setback
requirements. The City Attorney shall prepare the agreement, and
the property owner shall return the signed, notarized document to the
Town,prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
11. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
May 19, 1998, the applicant shall comply with the following:
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 7
a. The existing boreholes are about 50 to 100 feet from the center of
the proposed new residence. The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall determine whether more exploratory boreholes are
required to accurately characterize the proposed building site. Any
necessary supplemental site investigation should be completed and
geotechnical design parameters modified as appropriate, and
submitted for review by the Town Geologist prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check.
b. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve
all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e. site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of
the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant
in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and
approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
c. 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 placement of steel and concrete.
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) inspection.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter
from Cotton, Shires &Associates dated May 19, 1998.
12. The site addresses for both properties shall be changed to Kingsley Way
addresses, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and the Fire
Department,prior to final inspection.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
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 pepartment. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium between November 1 and 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. �
14. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing
flow patterns. A final grading and drainage plan that has been stamped
and signed by a registered civil engineer shall be required to be submitted
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check Final drainage and
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 8
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.
15. All new and existing public utility services serving this property shall be
placed underground.
16. 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.
17. 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
Kingsley Way 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.
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
shall provide the Town with photographs..of the existing conditions of the
roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check
19. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer,prior to final inspection.
20. A Certificate of Compliance shall be issued by the Town for the lot line
adjustment. The property owner shall submit legal description and plat
exhibits prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor
for the boundaries of each of the properties. The required exhibits shall be
submitted and approved by the Town prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check
21. The property owner shall connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to
final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be issued by the Public
Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 9
prior to submittal of plans for building plan check. Connection fees shall
be collected with the building permit fees.
22. A type IIb pathway shall be constructed by the property owner and shall
be located along the easterly side of Kingsley Way. The pathway shall
connect to the existing type IIb pathway located at 14400 Kingsley Way.
and shall cross Kingsley Way at the northerly end to connect to the
entrance to Esther Clark Park. A 4' wide drainage channel shall also be
constructed along the easterly side of Kingsley Way between the edge of
pavement and the new pathway, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The pathway and drainage improvements shall be approved by the
Engineering Department prior to final inspection.
23. The property owner shall grant a pathway easement to the Town over the
pathway connection between Kingsley Way and Esther Clark Park. The
exact dimensions of the pathway easement shall be approved by the
Engineering Department. The property owner shall provide legal
description and plat exhibits prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document.
The grant document, including approved exhibits, shall be signed and
notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to
acceptance of the plans for building plan check.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
24. 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 the 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
installed 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 in lieu of fire
sprinklers, subject to the approval of the Fire Department.
25. 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 (45,000 pounds).
26. Any changes to the driveway and turnaround design shall first be approved
by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and the Town Engineering and
Planning departments.
27. The approved property addresses shall be placed so that they are plainly
visible and legible from Kingsley Way. The numbers shall contrast with
their background and be a minimum of four inches high.
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.
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 10
CONDITION NUMBERS 1, 5, 7, 10, lla and b, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 AND 24
SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or
the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building
permit from Los Altos Hills. The.applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both the elementary and high school district offices in the Los
Altos School District), 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
July 22, 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.
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 11
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION TO ENCROACH WITHIN SIDE YARD SETBACK
LANDS OF KORMAN -26157 ALTADENA DRIVE
FILE#76-98-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-LLA
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 applicant's property is unusual in that the subject lot does not have street
access and an existing structure and driveway exist on the intervening lot.
Construction of a new access in a conforming location would be much more
visible and obtrusive than using the existing access to connect the rear lot to
Kingsley Way. The strict application of the Code provisions would preclude the
applicant from preserving open space area on the two lots and from utilizing a
joint driveway, as exist on numerous other lots in Town. A condition of
approval has been added to require that, in the event of future sale or
subdivision of parcel A, the house on that lot must be made conforming by
modifying either the structure or the driveway access.
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 purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will be served because the
visibility and impacts of the driveway will be negligible, as most of the driveway
already exists and the new driveway portion would be screened from offsite view
by the proposed home. Special privileges would not be granted as the driveway
alignment would impact the applicant only while preserving open areas visible to
other neighbors. A conditionof approval has been added to require that, in
the event of future sale or subdivision of parcel A, the house on that lot must
be made conforming by modifying either the structure or the driveway
access.
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 granting of the variances would not negatively impact any neighboring
properties, as the driveway would be shielded by the existing and proposed home,
and would be adjacent to (but not highly visible from) an open space preserve.
No significant vegetation will be removed, and virtually no grading will be
required for the new driveway.
Planning Commission: July 22, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 12
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 driveway will be consistent with the proposed residential use of the
property and existing uses of surrounding properties.
RECEIVED
AUL E 4998
TOWN UFS oS�lTps
Stan Field /Qs
as s o c I a t e s
14 July, 1998
3631 evergreen dr
Palo alto
Ca l i f o r ni a
94303
•
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
•
As the architect/representative of the Kormans we have made the following changes to the
proposal which you reviewed on July 8. These changes are intended to take into consideration the
suggestions and concerns of planning commissioners and neighbors.
I. Siting Revisions
1. Movement of proposed house.
The house has been moved away from the western boundary so that the south west corner
is now 45 feet from the property line and the northwest corner is now 50 feet from the
property line.
2. Rotation of the house
The house has been rotated in a clockwise direction to further distance the house from the
neighboring properties on Snell Lane. •
3. Lot Line Adjustment .-
The Eastern property line has been adjusted to have the house conform and allow for the
required 30 foot setback.
II. Design Revisions
1. Stone Wall
The stone fence has been reduced in length by 12 feet
The initial step down from the house has been reduced by 1 foot 4 inches
2. Chimneys
The chimneys have been reduced in height by 1 foot
3. Skylight
The skylight has been reduced to 33 feet. The skylight is sunken and invisible from
the exterior. No lighting will be placed within the skylight well.
tel 6 5 0 4 6 2 - 9 5 5 4 fax 6 5 0 4 9 3 - 3 4 0 5
e mail stanfieldi ®earthlink.net
4. Domes
The domes (to be made of stucco) will be flattened to"bulges"with the maximum height at
the top of each bulge to be 3 feet.
If you have any questions before the next meeting on 22 July,please do not hesitate to call me at
650.462.9554
Sincerely,
Cgfit/L \_ .
Stan Field Associates
RECEIVED
JUL 161998
July 14, 1998 TOWNOFLos ALTO
SHILLS
Dear Planning Commissioners:
At the last public meeting of the Planning Commission on July 8 the majority of our
neighbors spoke in support of our proposal to build a new residence on Kingsley
Way. You also heard from a few of our neighbors on Snell Lane who voiced concern
about the project. Specifically they had concerns about the siting of the house on the
westerly setback line and also about the "design" of the-house.
Although we are well within our rights as property owners in Los Altos Hills (and
have the support of the planning and engineering departments of the town), a good
relationship with our neighbors is important to is. We have lived on this property
for over 25 years and are raising the next generation here. This low lying land has
great meaning for us.
Accordingly, we have spent many hours in the last week with our architect and
engineer to try and change the positioning of the house to take into account
Planning Commissioners' and neighbors' wishes. The attached letter from Stan
Field Associates details the changes we've made. Briefly the house has been moved
east and rotated so that there is now 45'-50' from the property line to the western
edge of the house. We have also addressed the design concerns and have softened
the domes, reduced in height and length the wall (stone fence) on the easterly side
of the property, reduced the size of the skylight, and lowered the chimneys. We
have adjusted the lot line to accomodate the shift and rotation of the house to its
new location.
We are enclosing an aerial photograph clearly detailing'the lot lines and the current
sitings of the surrounding properties in the Kingsley valley and Snell Lane. Of note
are the distances from the various neighboring properties to the proposed house (all
measurement distances are to the nearest point and plotted by Lea and Sung
Engineering)
Proposed house to :
1. Existing residence 65 feet
2. Lao property 190 feet
3. Glazebrook property 220 feet
4. Jeffrey Property 175 feet
•
Regarding the variance for the driveway, the entire neighborhood is unanimous in
the appropriateness of the exisitng driveway. We would be happy to sign a
document that ensures upon sale of the existing residence out of the family, that the
existing driveway on Lot A would be required to be made conforming. Although
there are many access points to the proposed site and garage from Kingsley through
Lot A as well as south of Lot A, there is no circumstance in which a driveway
through this property would be desireable to anyone. The blue heron and the
families of rabbits who currently reside there would probably agree as well.
We have dilligently acted upon the concerns of Planning Commissioners and our
neighbors. The Jeffrey, Glazebrook and Lao families have been provided with a copy.
of the revised plan and lot line change for the house. We hope that you will be able
to approve our site developement, lot line adjustment and variance request on July
22.
Sincerely,, f
\ 4 /
Jos and Siobhan Korman
RECEIVED
July 16, 1998 J U L 6 1998
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
To: Planning Commissioners
From : Josh and Siobhan Korman t-
Re:
Pathway on Kingsley
There seems to be a question about the proposed location of the Type IIB pathway on Kingsley.
The City Council addressed this issue several months ago and it was our understanding from
• them that the pathway should continue on the eastern side of Kingsley in continuity with the
existing Type IIB pathway on the Clevenger property. T was present at the meeting and was
instructed by the engineering department afterward to construct the pathway on the eastern side
of the road. The weather was quite uncooperative but we did begin the grading process in early
June and half the path is already graded. The pathway committee recommendation is for
construction of the pathway on the western side of the road because of their concern for some
vegetation that will need to be cleared on the eastern side of the road. I have reviewed the area
with engineering and they also feel that it is more appropriate on the eastern side of the road. I
have also examined the vegetation with a tree expert and the vegetation that needs to be removed
will not include the main stalks of the bushes but just a few branches. In addition, I have already
discussed this with the neighbor on Rancho Manuella wlio has no objections to it(of note,the
vegetation is in the town's right of way and not on his property). We have already graded half
the pathway on the eastern side of Kingsley. We hope to complete the entire type IIB path within
the next couple of months. _
",,,M, TCATT nWIC T7 9:rTtcz029 117d TT:ZT 86/91/L0