HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.5 96
TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS ! August 9, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: LOT MERGER AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS
LANDS OF MICKO
#76-95-TM
FROM: Curtis Williams,Planning Dire��
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed lot merger and
requested exceptions, subject to the conditions of approval outlined in Exhibit
"A" (attached), andciting the findings outlined in Exhibit "B" (Conditional
Exceptions).
BACKGROUND
On December 19, 1990, the City Council denied .a proposed lot merger and
exceptions for a similar lot consolidation at this location. However, in that case
the applicant only proposed to combine ten substandard lots,'creating a parcel
which would have remained less than orie acre in size (0.77 acre). Also, the ten
lots were not contiguous, creating an awlward ownership pattern. The Council
minutes of that meeting are attached (Attachment 4).
Since that time, the applicant has attempted to consolidate enough lots to create a
minimum one acre parcel, consistent with zoning requirements for lot size. He
currently either owns or has options to ,purchase all of the lots, and the other
three owners are co-applicants in the request (applications attached). If
approved, a condition of approval will require common ownership of all 14 lots
prior to approval of the final map.
84 of these substandard lots along Kingsley..Way and Lowell.Lane were created
in 1913. Many of them have since been assembled into larger parcels, including
the property directly across Kingsley, which. was originally comprised of 14 such
lots, prior to their merger in 1981. If this merger is approved, only 15 of the
original lots will remain unmerged.
SUBDIVISION AND ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Lot mergers in Los Altos Hills are considered as subdivisions, and as such are
governed by Chapter 9-1 of the Municipal Code. All lots created by subdivision
must be consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes,
unless a conditional exception is granted per Section 9-1.1501 of the Subdivision
Code. The Commission's purview on the proposed merger is to recommend
1
Planning Commission: Au ust 9, 1995 ,
Lot Merger: Lands of Mick
Page 2
approval, approval with onditions, or denial of the map and the requested
exceptions, for consideratio and final action by the City Council.
In order to approve a subivision, the Commission and Council must find that
the proposed subdivisio , together with provisions for its design and
improvement, is consisten with the General Plan and its elements (Section 9-
1.515(e)). Additionally, hat Code section specifies findings, at least one of
which must be made if the Commission wishes to deny a subdivision
(Attachment 3). In order t approve a conditional exception to the subdivision
ordinance, the Commissio and Council must determine that undue hardship
may result from the stric compliance with Code provisions, and that the
exception would not be ontrary to the public interest (Section 9-1.1501).
Findings must be made w ich indicate the special circumstances applicable to
the property and that the exception will cause no undue hardship to any other
landowner (see Attachment 2 for recommended findings, if approved).
In the 1990 consideration of a similar lot merger for; these properties, the City
Attorney outlined the Co mission and Council's 'authority to consider lot
mergers and conditional e ceptions (Attachment 8).1 Most of that discussion,
however, dealt with the cr ation of a lot less than one acre in size, which is no
longer the case with this req est.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The proposed project woul ; combine 14 legally existing lots, each of which is 30'
by 112' in size, into one parc 1 of 1.09 acre. No utility improvements are planned
until a home is proposed fo construction, but a small amount of right-of-way is
proposed for dedication at he corner of Altadena Drive and Kingsley Way, to
provide an adequate turn adius. The applicant has not proposed a house
design, but has shown auilding outline on the plans, consistent with the
Town's development limitat ons and setbacks, for illusitrative purposes.
The pertinent lot size, sl pe, lot unit factor, and development/floor area
applicable to this parcel are s follows:
Lot Size:
Gross: 1 09 acre
Net: 1 09 acre
Avg. Slope: 4 3%
LUF: 1 09
MDA: 1 ,350 sq. ft.
MFA: ,540 sq. ft.
•
•
Planning Commission: August 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Micko
Page 3
While the proposed parcel complies with the minimum one acre lot size and lot
unit factor requirements, the applicant requests the following exceptions to the
Subdivision Ordinance:
a) 160 Foot Building Circle(Section 9-1.603(a)): The Code requires a 160 foot
diameter circle to be available within the boundaries of the lot; the
exception is required as the proposed lot width would only be 112 feet;
b) 350 Foot Lot Circle (Section 9-1.603(c)): The Code also requires a 350 foot
diameter circle be circumscribedaround one acre of the proposed lot;
again, the width of the parcel is not sufficient to accommodate one acre
within a 350 foot diameter circle and an exception is required; and
c) 60 Foot Right-of-Way Dedication (Section 9-1.703(a)): The Code requires
all public and private streets to have 60 feet of right-of-way; both
Kingsley Way and Altadena Drive are, according to Town records, private
streets with 40 feet of existing right-of-way and no further dedications are
proposed.
Site Description
The project site comprises 1.09 acres of and with a slope of 4.3%. The land is
currently vacant and has little mature vegetation. Surrounding parcels to the
north and east are developed with residences with access from Altadena Drive or
Rancho Manuella Lane. The area to the south of Altadena Drive is fully
developed with residences, and the area to the west across Kingsley is also
residential, with a small potential for future development. A sanitary sewer
easement lies immediately adjacent to theeasterly property line. Access to the
property is from Manuella Road to Altadena Drive to Kingsley Way.
Issues '
Staff has identified the following issues for discussion relativeto the proposed lot
merger:
1. Exceptions to Building and Lot Circles - Although the parcel complies
with the Town's one acre standard lot. size and lot unit factor
requirements, the proposed lot,does not meet the 'Subdivision Code
criteria for outlining a 160 foot dimeter building circle within the lot and
a 350 foot diameter lot circle around at least one acre of area of the lot.
Staff feels that a special circumstance does exist for this property, in that
the parcel is a merger of smaller lots, which only have a width of 112 feet,
making the building and lot circle requirements impractical, and
otherwise rendering the site unbuildable. Compliance with those Code
provisions would require combining these lots with" already existing
developed parcels to the east. The applicant has demonstrated (see aerial
Planning Commission: Au•ust 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Mic o 1
Page 4
photo) that the built ing circle for the proposed parcel, if extended off the
property, would not conflict with existing similar building circles on
adjacent properties. An adequate building site has been outlined on the
tentati'e map and f ture construction will be subject to the Town's zoning
and site developme t provisions and review process. '
2. Street Right-of-Way - Both Altadena Drive and Kingsley Way are private
streets with 40 feet •f existing right-of-way, according to Town records
(the public dedicat on in 1913 was not accpted). While the Town's
Subdivision Code g:nerally requires 60 feet of right-of-way, the Council's
right-of-way policy, adopted in 1989 (Attachment 5), requires that such a
subdivision on a local street dedicate only a Half-width equivalent to the
dedication that now -xists for the majority of the lots on the street (but not
less than 20 feet). I this case, only 40 feet of right-of-way exists for the
remaining lots on both streets, so the existing right-of-way would be
consistent with Town policy. Also, the property directly across Kingsley
Way merged 14 par els into one in 1981, and'no additional right-of-way
was required. The ity Engineer has requested, and the applicant has
provided, some ad itional right-of-way at the intersection of the two
roads, to comply wit turn radius requirements.
3. Pathways - The Path ays Committee has recommended the construction
of a II-13 path adjace t to Altadena Drive and Kingsley Way. A condition
of approval require that the pathway be installed in conjunction with
final map approval. 1 he Commission may consider whether the condition
should await constru tion of a residence on the lot.
4. . :Timin• of Im.rovem-nts - The conditions of approval include a number of
improvements whic must be made prior to development of the site.
While tkie language o the condition requires the improvements be in place
prior tcfinal map r:cordation, the Commission may wish to allow the
applicant to defer the improvements to the site development stage, after a
residence is approve• for the site. I
The Town Geologist has no expressed any concerns regarding the project. The
Los Altos Fire Department has requested that the adjacent roadways be
upgraded to Town standar s. Staff has added a condition requiring roadway
paving of at least 20 feet in idth, again prior to final map approval, but which
could be deferred until the t'me of future home constr ction.
California Environmental Q ality Act (CEQA)
Staff has determined that the proposed lot merger is categorically exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as Class 5
exemptions include "minor changes to land use limitations", and include such
projects as lot line adjustmerts and lot mergers. . l
Planning Commission: August 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Micko .
Page 5
CONCLUSION
The proposed lot merger would create a conforming size lot out of 14 existing,
legal but non-conforming lots and:would reduce by half the remaining number
of such lots in the immediate area. Exceptions to.. subdivision provisions
regarding building circle and lot circle requirements'appear to be justified in that
there is no practical way to combine the lots and achieve those standards, while
there is sufficient separation from adjacent properties and there are adequate
development controls in place to avoid adverse impacts on neighbors.
Exceptionto the 60 foot road right-of-way requirement;would be consistent with
Council right-of-way policy, as-the remainder of the length of the two affected
streets have only 40 feet of right-of-way.
•
The Commission should determine whether conditions of approval requiring
improvements to roads, utilities, and pathways should be accomplished prior to
final map approval or deferred until site development.
Staff is available to respond to questions from the Commission and the
community.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. . . Exhibit A: Conditions of.Approval. .
2. Exhibit B: Findings for.Approval,for Conditional Exceptions
3. Findings for Denial of Subdivisions (Sec. 9-1.515(e))
4. 1990 Minutes of Town Council Meeting
5. 1989 City Council Right-of-Way Policy (Minutes)
6. Pathways Committee Report ' -
7. Fire District Report
8. 1990 Memorandum from City Attorney
9. Worksheet#1
10.. Applications
/pcmicko.rep
Fianning Commission: Aug st 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Micko
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
EXHIBIT "A"
CO DITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOT MI RGER- LANDS OF MICKO
#76-95-TM
Land and Easement Dedicati a n
1. The Final Map shall .rovide for the requested easements to all utility
companies, including out not limited to: Pacific Bell, Pacific Gas & Electric
Company and cable tel evision.
2. Vehicular access for th- project site shall be restricted from Altadena Drive
and shall be accompli.hed as part of the Final Map to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
3. The applicant shall gr.nt public utility easements to the Town of Los Altos
Hills where needed ithin the subdivision for utility construction and
maintenance to the sa i'sfaction of the City Engineer. The dedications shall
be accomplished as part of the Final Map to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
4. The applkcant shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the Town of
Los Altos Hills public ight of way at the intersection of Kingsley Way and
Altadena Drive to pi ovide a minimum 30' radius as shown on the
Tentative Map. The d-dication shall be accomplished as part of the Final
Map to the satisfactio of the City Engineer.
Improvements
5. The applicant shall prepare improvement plans to be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. The
improvements shall, a a minimum,include:
a. widening of th r adjacent roadways (Altadena Drive and Kingsley
Way) to a mi imum of 20 feet in width for the length of the
property;
b. construction of a II-B pathway along Altadena Drive and Kingsley
Way for the len,.th of the property;
c. drainage impro ements;
d. connection to t e public water system;
e. connection to t e public sanitary sewer system; and
f. undergroundin• of utilities.
Planning Commission: August 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Micko
Page 7
6. All improvements must also be reviewed andapproved by the
appropriate public utility or agency, and all fees must be paid to the Town
and other approving agencies prior to approval of the final map. The
improvements must be installed or constructed to the satisfaction of the
City.Engineer prior to recordationof the map, unless appropriate legal
restriction and bonding is provided to defer improvements until future
development of the site. Such an agreement shall be prepared by the City
Attorney and must be signed by', the property owner(s), notarized, and
submitted to the Town for recording prior to final map approval.
Planning and Zoning
7. Prior to approval of the final map, the owner shall demonstrate to the
Planning Director's satisfaction that all of the property is under common
ownership.
8. Payment of Park and Recreation fees and all other applicable fees shall be
required prior to recordation of the Final Map.
9. A Kingsley Way address shall be assigned and approved by the Town for
the project site as required by the Los Altos Fire Department and in
accordance with the Town's policies.
10. All subdivision conditions of approval and subdivision improvements
shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of any site development permits.
Geotechnical
11. The following recommendations of.the Town Geologist are to be made
conditions of approval of the tentative map:
a. Geotechnical Plan Review 7 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
roadways) 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 City
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
b. Geotechnical Field Inspection -The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of
project construction. The inspections should include,but not
Planning Commission: Au ust 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Mick
Page 8
necessarily be imited to: site preparation and grading, site surface
and subsurfac drainage improvements, and excavations for
foundations a d retaining walls prior to Ithe 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 letter and submitted to the City Engineer prior to
final project inspection.
•
Planning Commission: August 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Micko
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBIT"B"
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ,
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS . . .. . -
LOT MERGER-LANDS OF MICKO
#76-95-TM
Section 9-1.1501:
No conditional exception shall be recommended for Council approval unless
the Planning Commission finds that:
1. 160 Foot Building Circle and 350 Foot Lot Circle Exceptions
(A) There are special circumstances or, conditions affecting such property so
that the strict application of th'e provisions of this chapter would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and
The property is -unusual in that the parcel, would consolidate 14
substandard parcels, which areeach only 112 feet in length. Although in
excess of 1 acre in size and in excess of 1.0 LUF, the parcel would only be
112 feet wide, and could not accommodate a 160 foot radius circle within
the parcel, or a 350-foot circle around the parcel. Strict application of
those provisions would preclude any development of this property. No
other configurations are available to enlarge the parcel width, as the
properties to the east are already developed lots, and Kingsley Way lies
immediately to the west.
(B) By granting the conditional exception applied for, any other landowner
shall not be deprived of the reasonable use of his land nor be subjected
to undue burdens or hardships or be deprived of any material use or
enjoyment of his property.
Approval of the exceptions would not cause undue hardships on adjacent
properties, as there is adequate separation from adjacent residences, and
review of future site development would require mitigation of the impacts
of a new residence on adjoining properties. Approval of the exceptions
would not deprive any property owner of reasonable use of his/her land.
Planning Commission: Au;ust 9, 1995
Lot Merger: Lands of Mick.
Page 10
2. 60-Foot Right-of-W.y Exception
(A) Therea special ci icumstances or conditions affecting such property so
that the strict app ication of the' provisions of this chapter would
deprive the applica t of the reasonable use of his land; and
The existing roads .round this property contain only 40 feet of right-of-
way, ani d are deade d streets with few lots beyond this parcel. Previous
approvals in the are. have not required additional right-of-way and the.40
foot width is consistent with the City.Council,s right-of-way policy. Also,
dedicaion of additi. al right-of-way might result in a parcel less than one
net acrein size.
(B) By granting the con•itional exception applied for, any other landowner
shall not be deprive• of the reasonable use of his land nor be subjected
to undue burdens •r hardships or be deprived of any material use or
enjoyment of his property.
Approval of the exc-ption will still allow adequate access to properties
using Altadena Dri e and Kingsley Way. Milnor improvements will be
required to the road ays and additional right lof-way will be dedicated at
the corner to provid:"for an adequate future turn radius.
•
FINDINGS FOR SUBDIVISION DENIAL
SECTION 9-1.515(E):
1. THAT THE PROPOSED MAP,IS NOT CONSISTENT
WITH THE APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN AND
SPECIFIC PLANS;
2. THAT THE DESIGN OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS NOT CONSISTENT
WITH THE APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN AND
SPECIFIC PLANS;
3. THAT THE SITE IS NOT PHYSICALLY SUITABLE
FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT;
4. THAT THE:DESIGN OF.THE SUBDIVISION OR THE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE LIKELY TO
CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
DAMAGE OR SUBSTANTIALLY AND AVOIDABLY
INJURE FISH OR WILDLIFE OR THEIR HABITAT;
5. THAT THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION OR THE
TYPE OF•IMPROVEMENTS ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE
SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS;
6. THAT THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION OR THE
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS WILL CONFLICT WITH
EASEMENTS, ACQUIRED:BY THE PUBLIC AT
LARGE, FOR ACCESS THROUGH OR USE OF,
- PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.
;`, i . •n ' r ``Y i .-, ;'js. • .• .,. x.14 . ',
C Y
especially at night and w ad disrupted mail service,f• i e last ten days. Mr. '''
Sims recommended bu ' g the drainage pipe and r• : uating the project.
Council agreed t• ' this iss • would be ages•
for the January 8th mee with !
, the Roads an• • ainage Co mittee being as •• for their Input. Casey asked
why the n hors were not notified of su projects being done by Town. A
similar ' ation had been t e tree pl. • g on Altamont. -
.Mr Reed, 1077'9 Magdal•na,s •d that as a result of this oject his property
•uld experience a lot mor• dr • age.
6. j'UBLIC HEARINGS ;
6.1 Rectiest for ap• • al of a negative declaration and tentative map
for 'a lot consolid,tion subdivision, Lands of Micko, Kingsley Avenue . -
The Plarg
nin Director' staff report dated 12/19/90 noted that this was a request
to assemble ten .11 existing lots into one kit of less than one acre. The C
. original lots were created in 1913 and the land was flat. The Planning • '"
. Commission reco• . •nded denial of this request based on their inability •
to make the finds gs for the necessary"conditional exceptions.
. .w
Mr. Micko, applicant, ,ddressed the Council concerning his proposed project. ,..
;
He noted that he ad been a resident of the'Town from 1974 to 1987 and he 4
. - was a strong sup• •rter of the one-acre minimum zoning. Mr. Micko • p'
commented on e maximum development areas of the lots, the building i.
site circles, the v'•w corridors and an incentive plan by deed restriction for
any present or fu • owners regarding development and the purchase of1'
additional lots. . r. Micko believed it was a good project and comments . S
from both agend and staff had been favorable. He asked Council to •
grant the conditi•nal exceptions but if they had any questions or needed v'.
more inforrnatio , he encouraged them to continue this item and visit
the site themsely-s. Mr. Micko also noted that the property was in escrow ,t
pending approv of the lot consolidation.
Mr. Albert Henley, 26 31 Taaffe Road, stated his belief this.consolidation could A.
x
be granted. Theystem allowed for special circumstances. He commented ,.,
on the reasons hind the incorporation of the Town and believed he
understood wha •these were as he was an original founder of the Town. ,
The purpose of i corporation was not to keep people out who really
wanted to live i the Town but rather to retain local rules rather than
being regulated y the County. Mr. Henley commented that Mr. Micko
had presented a ood plan to the Council; he had worked within the Code
and he had earn d the Council's support. This was a unique situation. `.
December 19, 1990
• C i� Cord•..: ..7.
5
all 0 . :
Fink,26157 Altadena Drive, urged Council to
reject
Plan land was an
. Mr. conAarsolidation
Fin ,
consolidation proposal astt1°,�� sue was compliance with the Code of ,
abuse of discretionary power. it was•not in
the Town. He listed four objections lie had to the pRaze roject: t x14; a
conformance with the findings of.the de la
conditional exception should be excepKonerhhadl riotbnegen established.
omniission
denied this request; and the hardship too
26160 Rancho Manuella, noted that he had moved to the
Mr. William Nelson, p iter of its rural.nature
Town twelve years ago and was a supporter
al as it provided for the development of P:
against the Micko proposal P ; • r;:
substandard lots.
26140 Rancho Manuella,asked about secondary
,Mr. Lincoln Westcott, that they were not a past of the application as
dwellings and was advised :,
the property was less than one acre.
•' Johnson stated that the intent of this applicationlot./ If as to take this were grantedit wouldral
substandard lots and create a substandard'appealed the Council to protect the
•.1:,:f,.:, - be the end of one-acre zoning. He rural •. - :,
Caseyalso uphelId the one-acre zoning but shend the lieved
this one-acre zoning.
this application was in line with the zoning ordinance e= moons .
atmosphere of the Town. Casey further supported
the applicant. She
ro sed by pp
imposed on the size of the homes as proposed A. .t.
d this
pr
believed the system allowed for special.circumstancesrd noted t was not a • ,
precedent setting but rather a unique situation i.
philosophical question. Wasit better to consolidate two smaller sub-• -,
P ..
standard lots into a larger sub-standard eosma ler lots?�Tryon stat df she •:r,,.:r
development was possible on each of the ,
was impressed with Mr. Micko's presentation sense approach ey did not
comments: She too believed in a common :.
recall ever creating a lot less than one acre. She could not look at the ,,
individual but rather than the land and could not vote fa or blysfor the `,-
indi i
creation of a lot less than one acre• Siegel concurred
comments. .. _,
MOTION SECONDED.AND CARRIED: Moved by'Casey,seconded by Siegel
and passedin for[.ands of unanimously to
approve the negative environmental � �.
declaration
seconded by Tryon .w;
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel. K
and assed unanimously to deny the conditional
of Micko,exceptionsiand
Way.therefore
p
the lot consolidation tentative map for _-f
December 19, 1990
{
6j
Y ! .� • .=, A A t u 4 j 1 }A s
,,,,,:d. •
j i f d 7`' ? r i ii'i i (i k. .,'f,..1':.,.,S • `. t 4 �, '01 ', 7. . : 'i,et:, t,'i
• 4�il4,. ' +'•.+ 4r.( � t . � �..� } •
'!Y 1..'I r, J1� t Fti t� }I 1. 1 A .t:04 ,
' A''f IJ'l •Jt..✓ jt X�iJJ;'�e� ;1 a,� }C1,�, 4',
•'f ,r' } •0 ''' t l .''Z! ' -'' P. :.`.. 4: f' fi .' • 4.• •'`=;''
'
' V. Y S t ,•�P ..•t r••','''i Irl 5.'l� � � .�+j 11Y� �t�i"1+ N i.�1. •S i5r 9f t
ARIN continued s
y PUBLIC HE '''r
A ,.ti *''' • w. Siegel. seconds. van Ta en,
MOTION S" t D AND CARR ED$. Novo y
t°'.;,;�•t `�„, to 890 ':: , '
•rs, ; .and pass by the follow ng rol all vote to adopt solution 0-89� ^.;;
.f La of Julie Eshner, al subj
*� �,, - approv g tentative map
'',f�,4 4 Gond ons of approval a r- •amended by the P1 . ing':Comm ion.
•
,n k11' -` �
•. 4.,'::,W.1(7,..-. ,. -Ss Mayor Johnson an• ouncilmembers Sieg and van T len
M•• ••• •OESs Mayor ro' Tem C' y. and Councilmembe Tryoni t�
;n•.' G. OtD BUSINFSS: `t '
h
r: 1. Report and •Recommenda ion on. Road Right-of=way• Policy .
't them he report dated 2/15/89 from the Acting City •? '
- � Council had before � ,`•-�
Manager which included tie recommendation that Council adopt the r +
policy statement. include'. in. the report which was modified by the
Planning Commission at . t `
' eir meeting on February 8th. The report also 4 ., ',
included the recomrnendaton that the Council adopt 'as, a policy exhibit • ` 'SIJ A
the Town Mao labeled 'Ma1or Roads' . ..:::',71,- -4',''';k•
Marc . Kaufman, Chairman - Plarming. CommisxonathedfewestreeoSale 1
behind, their ecommendat' uns. He also commented- and had ew stridable
' such as Moon Lane,:-which .had a' 40 right of weY f.
lots at the e d. ,:_-_.,,i, .
MOTION SECONDED ANO CARR ED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by van Tamelemc• F;,. .
and passed unanimously t' 2%15/89hstaffirepor�ttwitht .ed outlined the folloaingin �',
the Acting City Manager1,x
change: 14 should read a- fol,lows: ' ''A subdivision Of land, a new .y
residence on n existing lot or a major .remrrd1el on an• existing lot
that fronts on an existi, g local street or shiort cul-de-sac shall ;_ •.,
dedicate •a half-street eual , to the-dedication' that; now.-exists for the !'•, :,
' majority of the lots on the street,. In no event shall .the dedicated
right-of-way
width be less than a 20. foot half .street. ' Y;}:
_ b sy
MOTION 'SECONiED AND CAR•'IED: Moved by Siegel,. seconded by van Tamelen � .
and passed unanimously. to adopt the Town Hap labeled 'Major Roads' as _ '
a policy. exhibit with t e following additions: Chapin and Burke will x.43'.
be added as jor Gonne-tors. • •
v> •,
it was noted that the C ty Attorney would prepare the -appropriate
statement. Presently-the report and :t,•,,.
ordinances to reflect t is policy .?w
the map were on file -at:Town Ball..
ssioner Edward nq's elle ;,,,':
2, possib ensure of • lanning se Voting Policy
viol on of the Tow 's
C ssioner Emling h• - equested that this tter be con ued to the
rch 1, 1989 Coup W etipg. - A.
. 0 . , . . ,.• . . • -
'yy' -b- 2/15/89 ,r
ASR,*, t'� ,•,N t ,,,,�•� r' . { ~ • f�•r, '• s
I ,..� . nlM'.. .j
•
, 'YI• .UA -
W
Town of Los Altos Hills
• 7/25/95
To: ,Planning Commission & Staff eV/ 0
From: Les Earnest, Pathways Committee Chair S Z$ 5
Subject: Pathway requests
27979 Baker Lane; Lands of Rouse: Acquire pathway easements along the
northwest side of the property as follows: a 10 foot easement along the
westernmost edge of the property next to Baker Lane and along the
adjacent property boundary that runs approximately northeastward;.a-.20
foot easement adjacent to the next boundary segment inapproximately a
north by northwest direction, a 10 foot easement along the next
boundary segment heading northeastward, ending at the northernmost
corner of the property. Also Acquire pathway easement over Baker Lane.
13073 Cumbre Vista; Lands of Wu: Restore asphalt path along La
Barranca as needed.
12080 Green Hills Court; Lands of Powers: Restore 11-B path along Green
Hills Court, including a path around 'the mailbox. Remove small pine
trees growing in and immediately adjacent to the path.
...� Krngsley '4 `'ag arc Mr% i inion Csmstruct 1I-B path along
Altaden'a Drive ana ingsiey Way.
24990 La Loma Drive; Lands of McNees: Construct 11-B path along La
Loma. Acquire a 10 foot easement along the West edge of the property
and 20 foot easement along the South edge of the property. These.
easements will permit a future path to be constructed just North of the
creek, given that the creek and a steep slope are along the South edge of
the property.
13940 La Paloma Road; Reed Subdivision: Construct a 11-B path along La
Paloma.
12101 Oak Park Court; Lands of Lohr: Restore I1-B path along Oak Park
Court as needed. Construct a Il-B path along Stonebrook Drive.
27435 Natoma Road; Lands of Geers: Restore path with fines along
Natoma and clear to 5 foot width as needed.
13850 Paseo del Roble; Lands of Mathiason: Construct a 11-B path around
the corner of Paseo del Roble and Page
Road,
m bacfollows.
k the branches on
small tree near the power pole on the corner.
the sides away from the roads, then construct a path adjacent to Page
Mill Road beginning about 45 feet from the corner and going between the
power pole and a large oak tree there, then around the small tree to a
point on Paseo del Roble that is directly across the street from the
•
pedestrian bridge.
Note: where construction or upgrading of paths to the It-B standard is
recommended, this is to include irrigation at least 5 feet away from path
and a non-slip surface on
any
n lieu crossing
sbe collected whererivewas. Where here is possible�
request" we recommend that
4FCF4/
CITY OF LOS ALTOSro '�6/` ZS FO
MEMORANAUM �NOC/08 49,95.
6,%148
TO: Curtis Williams, Pla ning Director DATE: July 21, 1995
FROM: Dan Dunlap, Fire M.rshal
SUBJECT: Micko Subdivision 176-95-TM
The Fire Departmen has reviewed 'he above tentative subdivision and place the following
condition:
1) Improve Kingsley Avenue a d Altadena Drive to meet Town standards adjacent to the
property.
-
9npun (3; paaaafgns eq sou puet sty ;o esn etgguoseas •
eq; ;0 pantsdep eq ;ou tigys seunopuct sayao Aug
) • 'so; p9Ttdde uot;deoxe tguot4tpuo0 ey; butvugsb Ag (q)
pug :putt stq ;o esn 2/442202202 eq; Jo ;ueTtddv
;fq eq; •ATsdep ptnow, se;dggo seta ;o suotstnosd eqq Jo
not;QOttdde q,tsgs eqq ;gq; os Agsedoid. gone but40e;Je
. suot;Tpuoo 20 seoug;smnOsTo moods Gig esegs ' (g) . -
1 .' :lett; puno; sT ;T Seaton (ttouno0 eq; Aq •
;' .. .,, penosdda so] tgnosdde tTOuno3 So; pepuemmooe2 sq ttegs uot;deOxa
teuot4TPuo0 ou 'uoT4TPPg .II •TOStet-6 uoT;oeS «euros;e.sq;
Atgggosd. suoT4Tpuo0 0T;;22; uo ;oe;;e eq; pug 'puvt. eq;
Jo esn pesodosd eq; ;o esn;2u vq; 'eess sq; ;o esn pugt But;stxe
• '''' ' eq;N septsuoo ;snm ';tes4T tTOuno3 eq; pug 'tTouno3 eq; o; .
not;gpuemmo0es g• buma uegw 'uotssTumoo butuu2td eq; 'uot;deoxe .
tguot;tpuoo g so; sbutput; Buppru LII •TOST•T-6 uot4oes
`k. N•s;sere;ut oTtgnd st14 o; Asg24u00 eq lou ptnow not;deoxe
k uv pug 'se;dego stq; 30 suotstnosd eqq tt;TA 90utd
etuto0 ;pts;s eq; .
mc.; ;tnses Am dTgspsgtt supura uegw eougutP.O uoT$TATPqnS eq;•
.,.7.*
`._'f ;o suotstnosd eqq o; suot;deOxi tguot;tpuoo ;ugsb 0; tTOunop et4
swottg Attg7tiTaeds eouVuTP20 uoTsTATPc lS eq; 30 ST etoT t
r..•. •e0ugutpso u0tstntpgnS
est;ue eta ;0 ;xe;uom eq; uT pe92 eq ;snm uot;oes stgq 'reneAoq
'' • :9202 WO eq wags Ps;esa0 Q;ot ;o gess lot 20 teosed mnmtutm
et4 4gq4 se;g;s ost2 P09eT;6. uat;:eg ' (epo0 tgdTOTunit sttTH
so;tY son eq4 30 6 et4TZ) e0FauTP20 -uotstntpgns mil i0 1,0961-6
UOT;O•S Aq PsuTuse;ep buTeq se pa/Tubes:gess got unuTutm pq4 .
0; see;es uot40es sTgL et0S7-0T uoT4oeS 'gimp tgdt0Tun( sttTH
+•. . sO;ty Coq ',eras euo 20 lee; esvnbs 09S'£t sT pe;gOot` 022 9teo32d
=:. ' eq; esegw ems eta so; gets teased mnmtuTm atm 'atom( noA sY
,•.4,•. 022 sbutput; sedosd etil JT 'e0uvutpso uotstntpgns eta 0; ;ugnssnd
tTOuno3 weoy eta Aq psAosddg eq Alm rebsem g gone •grog ue
uuq4 soot st gvq; t.Osed g o4ufste02ed ttgms t22ene9 ;0 295292 2
,••- .�' ;,n:; • enordde o; A;tsog;ng eta sgg m6/ eg4 =newt poxes ent;q.nox
.,, .,,' , a0-XL-06-£8L - o�(OTH ;o spm/ sax
i •
l •
• 066T '9 segme;deg. . :sZKa
. - .Aeu.xo;;Y A;TOn�'uJ\1VotS Apuvs :Nona
. so;oesta 6utuu2t4 'uostmer uuq :ox
•
tL
wnamvuoi w
. W,... I •J . 1111 • • \ „ I
r .._ .
"''� ' ,✓ 4
Jamison
Memorandum to Ann
x,,,,1141‘. •
September 6, 1990
Page 2 m ,1,‘ •• . i"
•
or bs dsPriwsd of any material use ,
•
1501
burdens or hardships gsction 9..l •
Or enjoyment of his property. h.�s,.aivision land
vision'of'lnrd'•inclldes• b b th by. minion of
The ser parcels and the division' of land
larger
Therefore,htr st P if`•it'makes•thS propi bf dividing a.
the Town, create a lot, nlar
1:::.\
sailer parcels, that `is less than-7
•
:i• \ section 9r1.1�cmbining T'
•
parcel or by 4.
acre.
fiat •. ��'•
•' ' . �� 1
.. • n \' a
. . .
G •
.''... .:.. . ' . : ' . ' • . . . 1 :.::.
• Oki
. y
*MAMA,%1`SSSaSM.MSO
,4C • • 4
•N
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS•HILLS '
r'
26379 Fremont Road .• Los Altos Hills,California 94022 • (415)941-7222 • FAX (415) 941-3160
PLANNING D PARTMENT
WORKS EET #1 •
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA.
-TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •`
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME coR.IC F Jr4n,)T 74t
PROPERTY ADDRESS 1Llt iCasL.E1/ A-ve , Lo5 Aet.:'rDS , Lo rS _.1 11-
CALCULATED
4CALCULATED BY JL- V tcl.-to N.,E PATE - s}23}y 5
1. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE •
A. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An) -
CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR • LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH' CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
200 1-1-,C0
202 I2, 3
2.04 1o.2
2.0 Co '7, ,
20€ 4.G
21C 1.4
•
TOTAL GO.-
•
Convert inches to feet (multiply by map scale) _ '(L) = ' I c 14 feet
B. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
S = (0.0023),(I) (L) I = contour interval L= total length of An = net acreage
A n in feet contours in feet ,. 'of lot
S = (0.0023) ( . 2. ) 0014 ) =
. ( I :09 ) . 3 .. 470 . `.nearest 0.1%
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF) .
LUF = (An){1 - [0.02143(S - 10)]} = 1 . 09
C> If the average slope is less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area.
C> If the LUF is equal to or less•than 0.50, you will need a Conditional' Development Permit.
Make an appointment with the Town Planner for further information.
' Page l of 2
REVISED 12/09/93 LRL: MAC HD/ORIGINALS/PLANNING/Worksheet 81
•
•
p r, ' WORKSHEET #1
CONTINUED
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA)
A. for S equal to o less than 10%
MDA = (LUF) ( 5,000) = Cl ,oq , C 1-, cD ) :�. ! Co i 350 square feet*
B. ' for S greater tit n 10% and less than30% •
MDA = (LUF) [1[5,000 -375(S- 10)] = square feet*
C. for S equal to or greater than 30% .
MDA = (LUF) (7,500) = square feet*
* If the MDA is less than 5,000 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50),
use 5,000 square feet for your MDA
4. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
A. for S equal 'to or less than 10%
MFA = (LUF) (6,000) = ( i .0q_) CC_-,000 ) = co 5 40 square feet**
B. for S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MFA = (LUF) [6,000-50(S - 10)] = . • square feet**
C. for S equal to or greater than 30%
MFA = (LUF) (5,000) = square feet**
** If the MFA is less than 4,000 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50)`
use 4,000 square f et for your MFA
1
I TOWN USE ONLY , CHECKED BY , DATE 1
Page 2 of 2
REVISED 12/09/93 LRL: MAC HD/ORIGINALS/PLANNING/Worksheet#1
• 4u.VVN OF LOS.ALTOS
26379 Fremont Road • Los:Altos Hills,California 94022 • (415)941-7222 • FAX (415)941-3160
PLANNING *.DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR PROJECT REVIEW
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: •• Please print or type ••
Street Address
Kingsley Avenue et . AItadena five
Assessor's Parcel Number(S)" Please Check One: Sewer X •
Septic
Lot(s)Number Tract or Parcel MapNumber..,
1 ±hrough Ly to Block 1 . Los Ali-os Villa Tract
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Ntw Residence,etc.
Subdivision ( Lot consot'idation )
3. PROPERTY OWNER:
Name of Legal Owner
Eric au,c4 Tone+ Micko , et at . (S�e. A.1,51-171 (ed w(-l-enta-tive map)
. .
Mailing Address � =- _ Zip..
2203 Af p e View Drive , Rescue , CA 95672
Home Phone Work Phone.-. --
( 9 / 6 676 - 9523 ( ? I6 ) 92 2 673 /
Agent's Name Phone
( >
Mailing Address Zip
4. FEES AND DEPOSITS:
Planner will complete this.section. Fees and deposits,payable to the Town of Los Altos Hills,are required
to process all Planning applications. r _ • •1, _
Fee Deposit
Real Estate Review:
Geologist:
Zoning:
Site Development: Receipt#•
. �a�� File#. -- -
5. SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) OR AGENT:. .
Please note Agent requires letter of authorization from owner
I,.the undersigned owner.or authorized agent of the property described above, hereby make an
application for the purposes set forth above in accordance with the provisions of the City
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct and to the best of my
knowledge and ief.
Signature /4, f Date. ...... . ,
i a y 3i / 99 'S
Revised 11/.19/91, Lo); MAC HD/ORIGINALS/PLANNING/Planning Application
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS _
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills,California 94022 • (415)941-7222 • FAX (415)941-3160
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
• 9
APPLICATION FOR PROJECT REVIEW
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: - •• Please print or type •••
Street AddressI , .
Kin9sl:ey , Wcty . g�Al deny (D -ve . ... . . .
Lot(s)Number Tract or Parcel Map Number Please Check One! Sewer _ jam-
Blockl vs Vi I!ct MaC-?- Septic
Assessor's Parcel Number Gross Acreage I o-f-s i-I q Net Acreage lo-F;c 1.1'+f
1,09 Acre . I . 1,01i)cr�
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: - -
New Residence,etc.
Lof CDtins ( ialafi ori i:yo÷o sinyre. 1,-0�9 A cr'e .p.rce(
3.- PROPERTY OWNER: .
Name,of Legal Owner -
Mailing Address Zip
iLJ`= L4v /'/(5--cl.1:-C% /3X/7-7 L /'-`/i= R/Lii7: ---.-7 4,:-- --'('—
Home Phone Work.Phone
( 7)= ) 423 . . :-; ( )
Agent's Name Phone
( )
Mailing Address Zip
4: :FEES AND DEPOSITS:. .,
Planner will comple[te this section. Fees and deposits, payable to the Town of Los Altos Hills, are required
to process all Planning applications.
Fee Deposit
Real Estate Review: ..
Geologist: . .
Zoning: --.
Site Developme t: - - - Receipt # '
ile#
-- Date:
5. SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) OR AGENT: : '
Please note Agent requires letter of authorization from r'owner . _.. - .
I, the undersigned owner or authorized agent of the property' described above, hereby make an
application for the purposes set forth above in accordance) with the provisions of the City
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct and to the best of my
knowledge and belief._ ..
SignatyreDate_
,I;/--,/,---
/ _ c�� L/ ,/ Jt..r 2 1967c
Revised 8/8/94 LRL: MAC HD/oIZICINALS/PLANNING/Planning Application
• TOWN OF LO ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills,California.94022 • (415) 941-7222 • FAX (415).941-3160
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR PROJECT REVIEW
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: . - •.• Please print or type •
Street Address
ktn sIey.. Way
... 2- Altaolecct ' Drive,
'�
Lot(s)Number Tractor Parcel,Map Number Please Check One: Sewer V
.-
q I�-( , Block 2 , Los 41-Ifos
V i l l u 7i-r.I c-i- Septic
Assessor's Parcel Number Gross Acreage lots 1-1'( Net Acreage lots 1-14-
1 't - 21 - ops
1.01 Acre t,09" Ac_re -
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
New Residence, etc.
Lot. Consolidatioh i fvsIn le .i .0 l L}cre parcel
3: PROPERTY OWNER: ,
' Name of Legal Owner
Mailing±ddress - ( Zip
• I fyc° 2
J S. `�{a itis r C`w't ..�--(c'.�. .
Home Phone Work Phone
Agent's Name Phone
Mailing Address . Zip
4.: FEES AND DEPOSITS: ' .. ,
Planner will complete this section. Fees and deposits, payable to the Town of Los Altos Hills, are required
to process all Planning applications. _.
Fee Deposit
Real Estate Review: l
Geologist:
.. Zoning:__.
Site Development: . .. Receipt#
File#
Date:
5. SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) OR AGENT:
Please note Agent requires letter of authorization from-owner ,
I, the undersigned owner or.authorized agent of the property.described,,above, hereby make ari
application:for the purposes set forth above' in accordance with the; provisions of the City
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct and to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Signature ,
Date ,.. _ -.
1 (6
Revised 8/8/94 ' ' LRL: MAC HD/ORIGINALS/PLANNING-/Planning Application
n TO OF LOS ALTOS HILLS -
R� ,...• 6379 Fremont Road •• Los Al os Hills,California 94022,•• (41115)941-7222 •• FAX (415)941-3160
I. 05 LANNING DEPARTMENT
AVGAPPLIC . TION.FOR PROJECTREVIEW
NOF�pS�•�pSN11.1.S
�p� 1.' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: •• Please print or type ••
Street Address -
KingsIay ay 86 A-(-(-uc.(ev,u Drr. ve .
Lot(s)Number Tract or Parcel Map Number - Please Check One: Sewer (,-----
1
/1 , 4 , L Bto.ck 1) .L• , �t-tQ's Vrtlo. T-Uc.f Septic _
Assessor's Parcel Number Gross Acreage Lots i-vi Net Acreage Lo+.. 1-L•i
.175-2L - b6.4 j -) - a08 1 ,0G1 acre .1.07 Ae2-re,
-
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
New Residence,etc.
-cd- Coo5ol1Ctcvtr n. (1)`1-0 5- (69( e ii. . 09 Acre per-c0(
3. PROPERTY O , NER:
Name of Legal Owner �
-/-6S/Ilita ( . O r`d S)00\10n rnii
(0ZHoMailing Address Zip
Tum -S - a (AO bar;eh CA- q9 0(02—
Home
me Phone I Work Phone
( 41 ( ) 20r._ 0 • ( )
Agent's Name - Phone
( )
Mailing Address - Zip
4.. FEES AND DEPOSITS:
Planner will complete this section. Fees and deposits, payable to the Town of Los Altos Hills, are required
to process all Plaff
ing application..
Fe• Deposit
Real Estate Review:
Geologilst: '
Zoning:
Site Development: -Receipt #
I
(File#
_ Date:
5. SIGNATURE qF OWNER(SI OR AGENT: .
Please note Agent requires letter of authorization from owner,. ,
I,-the_undersign• owner or aut orized agent of the propertP described above, hereby make an
application fort e purposes se 'forth above in,accordance with the provisions of the City
Ordinances, and ereby certify t at the '5formation given,is true and correct and to the best of my
knowl:la,d b� ief. • _
J �� Date
Si atur:, - `, - ,,,,k. . , 1 9'�
Revised 8/8/94'.... ' . LRL: .11 C HD/ORIGIN LS/PLAINININt/Planning Application
Eric and Janet. Micko
2203 Alpine View Drive
Rescue, CA 95672
May 3, 1995
STATEMENT OF APPLICANTS
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ;.(FOR LOT CONSOLIDATION)
Description of Application:
We propose to create a new 1 .09 acre parcel of land for a single
family residence. The parcel would be made up of lots 1 through 14
in blockone of the Los Altos Villa Tract. The proposed boundaries
are shown on the tentative map filed herewith.
If our ` application is approved, it will trigger contracts among
landownersforland -trading :onthe west side of Kingsley Avenue.
Such trading will clearthe way for consolidation of virtually all
of the remaining tiny lots from the original tract.
Approval of the proposed parcelfor a single- family residence will
require two conditional exceptions to town ordinances:
1 . . Section 9-1 .603 (a) : Inscribed 160 foot circle.
2 . Section 9-1 .703 (a) : 60 foot road right-of-way.
Regarding the inscribed. 160 foot circle:
Development objectives will bemet even with narrow parcel. -. .
The 112 foot width of the proposed parcel cannot accommodate the
required 160 foot inscribed circle. Some objectives of the circle
rule are to encourage reasonable lot shapes and gracious spacing of
homes. In the' site: study submitted, with :the tentative map,, the
completion of the tentative .map' s partial 160 foot circle is shown
among' 160 foot circles surrounding the nearby residences.. It -is
readily apparent that the completed circle is not-.closer .to other
circles than 'is normal for other homesite-defining circles i,n _the
neighborhood. In- addition, the homesite proposed by the partial
circle has been situated .with . the nearby .neighbors' window, patio
and balcony views in mind. Thus, notwithstanding the narrow width
of the proposedparcel , z .new home ,on the proposed site would be
situated in a manner consistent with Town development objectives.
Regarding ihe 60 foot road right-of-way:
Forty foot street is consistent with neighborhood.
The 60. foot r_ght-of-wa required by Town 9d inance makes sense for
areas of new developme t where it can be applied uniformly. The
neighborhoods surroundi g the proposed parcel have been developed
for many yea=s. Near y every long cul-die-sac in the immediate
neighborhood is only 40 `'feet wide, as has been Kingsley Avenue
since its dedication in 1913. Even given the four acre parcel on
the west side of Kingsl:y Avenue, a maximum of 7 homes will ever be
served by Kingsley Ave ue. Eight nearby cul-de-sacs, forty feet
wide, serve between 8 a d 18 homes.
A wider Altadena Drive ould cause sub-acre lots.
In order toeach Kingsley Avenue, a shot section of Altadena
Drive must be traversed. Altadena Drive is also forty feet wide.
Naturally, i would ma e little sense to widen Kingsley Avenue
without: a similar wid .ning =•of Altadena Drive . However, three
parcels of exact 1 .00 .cre area border on Altadena Drive, one to
the north and two to th- south. To widen the street would require
creation of t ree parcels of less than one acre net area.
Street dedica ion from .arcel would strain building envelope.
With a required forty loot front : setback and a thirty foot rear
setback (assuming house frontage on Kingsley Avenue) , the east-west
dimension of the buildi g envelope for the proposed parcel would be
only 42 feet, out of w ich not even building eves are allowed to
protrude. Dedicationot additional land: to Kingsley Avenue would
create an even narrowe building envelope, constituting an undue
hardship to property ow ers, especially in view of the abundance of
forty footwide streets in the neighborhood. .
Effective combined cul-d--sac (Kingsley/Altadena) fits neighborhood
It is quite apparent th. t Lowell Avenue (dedicated but unimproved)
is no longer needed. --.D 'vision of the last .Local multi-acre parcel
will yield`•-2 - 3 new lots, all easily served by Kingsley Avenue.
Thus, the future will •ring abandonment of Lowell Avenue and the
section of Altadena Dri e west of Kingsley Avenue. Then, as now,
the area will continue to be served by,, thelcombined cul-de-sac
consisting of Kingsley Avenue and the stretch of Altadena Drive
necessary to reach it. At build-out, the, combined cul-de-sac will
serve `at most 10 to 11 homes, providing service comparable to eight
nearby cul-d -sacs of ' orty foot ._width. These eight represent
nearly all of the cul-d --sacs in the immediate neighborhood.
(A comparison chart of hese streets is shown on the next page . )
r
COMPARISON OF 40 FOOT CUL-DE-SACS NEAR PROPOSED PARCEL
Street Name Number of Homes
Snell Lane18
Alexander Lane/Sholes Court 15
Manuela Court (30 feet wide) 11
Altadena Drive/Kingsley Avenue 10 to 11
Donelson Place/Catherine Court 10
Aric Lane 9
Alicante Lane 8
Torello Lane -8
Rancho Manuella Lane 8
The list clearly shows that retention of the originally dedicated
forty foot Altadena/Kingsley rights-of-way would be entirely
consistent with many precedents in the immediate neighborhood.
General considerations support a forty foot street width.
In view of the foregoing, there s ems to be no compelling reason to
make Kingsley Avenue or Altadena Drive 60 feet wide. Viewed from
a more general perspective, a right-of-way of 40 feet still
provides 24 feet for vehicular ingress/egress, plus 10 feet for
equestrian passage, all while a utility company crew is working in
a 6 foot wide trench. Also, planning principles aside, the current
residents have been quite satisfied with the rural look of the
current 12 foot paved road. In a quiet dell, already developed,
it makes little sense to make a cul-de-sac as wide as major streets _
in the area such as Manuella Road, La Paloma Road and Fremont Road.
In Conclusion:
The proposed parcel will make an excellent site for a residence.
Approval of the parcel will finalize land development in the area
bordered by Kingsley Avenue , A4adena Drive, Manuella Road and
Rancho Manuella Lane. In addition, property ownership on the west .
side of Kingsley Avenue will be Simplified, preparing the way for . , .
the eventual- completion of development in Ehat area. This project
is an excellent opportunity to facilitate the graceful retirement
of the remaining 0 .77 acre lots oaf the Los Altos Villa Tract.
-- Eric and Janet Micko
Town Planning Commisioner August 3, 1995
Town of Los Altos Hills RECEIVED
Los Altos Hills, California
. : AUG - 41995
Subj: Consolidation of 14 Kingsley lots (30' x 112' each)
re: "Lands of Micko" 0Wti OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
I am writing this letter in opposition to the request to consolidate the Kingsley lots.1 - 14.
These lots, though constituting over an acre would form a parcel which is unusually long
and narrow and which would not meet standard town requirements for construction. The
requirement that a circle of 160 feet be a able to fit inside the property is in place to
prevent just such lots from being formed and built upon. Any house built onthis lot would
not only violate existing restrictions but would necessarily be of unusual size and shape for
the area due to setback requirements. Furthermore, it would appear in direct view from
my property removing the open view presently in existence.
In addition, construction on these lots would significantly impact the open country feeling
of the area which is why many of us chose to live here. While I would not reasonably
object to such an impact if the lot met normal requirements, the fact that it does not makes
a significant difference. It is not the place of the town to grant exceptions which facilitate
the profit making ventures or other objectives of outsiders at the expense of its existing
residents. I purchased my property in 1991 with the knowledge and understanding that
even if those lots were consolidated, development could not occur due to the 160 foot
circle restriction. I should not be subjected to negative financial and lifestyle impacts
arbitrarily which construction on these consolidated lots would result in.
It can also be demonstated that the motivation of Mr. Micko might be to acquire this land
in order to attempt to sell it at a higher price to surrounding land owners, effectively
holding them hostage to the prospect of detrimental development. The town should not
grant an exemption which places it in such an unwitting position of duplicity and liability.
No one other than Mr. Micko has invested substantial money into these lots. Further, for
these lots to have a value anywhere close to the inflated $25,000 to $35,000 currently
being offered for them requires the town to violate its own construction standards. On the
other hand, denying this request causes no significant loss to existing individual parcel
owners most of whom own lots which were purchased for less than $5000. It just prevents
unreasonable profiteering at the expense of myself and other surrounding homeowners.
Mr. Micko's investment has been clearly speculative and could be easily recovered
through sales to surrounding homeowners.
While the request in front of you may be only to consolidate the lots and not a formal
request for a construction exemption at this time, it is obvious that the only reason to do
this would be to subsequently request such anl,exemption for construction. The lot line
consolidation request should be denied so that I and other surrounding homeowners do
•
not have to confront this thre.t repeatedly looking forward and to avoid the pending
uncertainty which would driv down surrounding property values. . .
I appreciate your fair conside,ation of this request.
Sincerely,
a C2-7(
Erik Cleage
26140 Rancho Manuella Lan=
Los Altos Hills, Calif. 94022
(415) 941-0340 (home)
(408) 894-7123 (office)