Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 Supplement L SUPPLEMENT AGENDA ITEM# ZJ Jaime McAvoy Distributed: J/5 /16 To: Steve Padovan Subject: RE: Proposed Development: Deerfield Drive to be considered at 5/7 PC meeting From: Ray Strimaitis [mailto:raystr@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 9:46 AM To: Susan Mandle; Jitze Couperus; Kavita Tankha; 1ima.Dc(agmail.com; Richard Partridge Cc: Steve Padovan; Suzanne Avila Subject: Proposed Development: Deerfield Drive to be considered at 5/7 PC meeting Dear LAH Planning Commissioners, I am unable to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. However, I wanted to share certain comments and concerns with respect to the development application for Lands of KDCI Development LLC, 25608 Deerfield Drive. As you may recall, this application has previously been considered by the Planning Commission and appealed to the town council. As expressed at both the PC and CC meetings, I am concerned about the increased density that the proposed development will create—particularly when considered with the adjacent property on the corner of Burke & Deerfield. I join with other neighbors on Deerfield who believe it is to the detriment of the neighborhood and all of LAH that the applicants have refused to merge these 2 small parcels for development of one home. Splitting these lots is not consistent with the LAH General Plan. Given that I cannot attend the meeting to express ongoing concerns, I offer the following for you to consider. While I understand that many of these concerns have been or will be enumerated by other neighbors, I include mine for the sake of completeness and to underscore the fact these concerns are not only those of a single neighbor. In the event that you do make the findings necessary for a Conditional Development Permit, I would urge you to consider the following: 1. Consider whether the overall design of the proposed development is consistent with the "semi rural"character of the neighborhood. This is obviously a concern that has been discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting and the applicant has made efforts to mitigate the concerns by reducing the"bulk" in their initial proposed design. Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of subjectivity that necessarily needs to be made when making such a determination. I urge the Planning Commission to use its discretion in making such determination. 2. I support the variance requests for parking and back up in the setbacks. These variances benefit this parcel and the neighborhood. 3. Deerfield Dr. is at a busy 5-way intersection near the entrance to LAH. It is important that all construction access is from the existing driveway via 13531 Burke Rd. As I understand, KDCI agrees with this suggestion, and this should be one of the conditions of approval. 4. As a further condition of approval, temporary fencing should be installed along Deerfield Drive to prevent construction access and to shield neighbors. 5. This proposed home on a very constrained lot will create a heavy visual impact. Landscape screening will be especially important in this case. Landscape maintenance deposit should be increased to at least$10,000, and the PC should make specific recommendations for adequate landscape screening now, or in a future meeting. 6. Certainly we will soon see a development application for 13531 Burke Rd. It is important for the PC to look ahead to development on this parcel. Even if conditions of approval cannot be placed now on 13531 Burke, the PC should make recommendations in the record, which may be considered with this future application. More specifically, this intersection and Deerfield Dr. cannot support the increased congestion and intrusion of 2 new homes facing Deerfield. It is important that the future home at 13531 faces Burke Rd, also with preservation of the existing driveway off Burke. As another neighbor and former member of LAH Planning Commission has pointed out previously, some information in the staff report remains misleading. More specifically, in 2001 LAH changed ordinances related to development on sub-standard parcels, and the development area on parcels of less than 0.5 acres was increased 1 r. a by approximately 30%. (If these same ratios were applied to a standard 1 acre parcel, the MFA on a standard lot in LAH would be approximately 10,000 sf, rather than 6000 sf.) Even though the staff reports note variances on various properties in the neighborhood, it is of interest that no variances have been granted in this area for MFA or MDA increase, or structure encroachment into setbacks, since the ordinance changes in 2001. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Ray Strimaitis 2 SUPPLEMENT AGENDA ITEM# ,7"3,3 BERLINER o COHEN Distributed )r --„ ATTORNEYS AT LAW J ANDREW L.FABER KEVIN F.KELLEY THOMAS P.MURPHY SANDRA G.SEPULVEDA RALPH J.SWANSON MARK MAKIEWICZ THOMAS D.MORELL JENNIFER Y.LEUNG PEGGY L SPRINGGAY JEFFREY S.KAUFMAN TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD SETH J.COHEN ERIC D.TETRAULT JOSEPH E.DWORAK JOLIE HOUSTON ELEVENTH FLOOR EILEEN P.KENNEDY MAZARINA.VAKHARIA SAMUEL L.FARB BRIAN L.SHELLER - LAURA PALAZZOLO TYLER A.SHEWEY ALAN J.PINNER JOHN F.DOMINGUE SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 KARA L.ARGUELLO VIVIAN F.WANG LINDA A.CALLON HARRY A.LOPEZ ANDREW J.GIORGIANNI H.SHINNY LIU JAMES P.CASHMAN CHARLES W.VOLPE TELEPHONE:(408)286-5800 KIMBERLY G.FLORES SARA L.POLLOCK STEVEN J.CASAD MICHAEL VIOLANTI FACSIMILE:(408)998-5388 MATTHEW TAYLOR BEAU C.CORREIA NANCY J.JOHNSON CHRISTINE IL LONG DAWN C.SWEATT MARY E.LOUDEN JEROLD A.REITON AARON M.VALENTIKATHLEEN F.SHERMAN JACQUES F.BARITOT JONATHAN D.WOLF CHRISTIAN E.PICONE www.berliner.com MICHAEL J.CHENG STEPHEN C.SCORDELIS KATHLEEN K.SIPLE SUSAN E.BISHOP Branch Offices Merced,CA• Modesto,CA RETIRED OF COUNSEL SAMUEL J.COHEN SANFORD A.BERLINER MICHAEL B.IJAMS ROBERT W.HUMPHREYS STEVEN L.HALLGRIMSON NANCY L.BRANDT HUGH L.ISOLA FRANK R.UBHAUS THOMAS ARMSTRONG ROBERT L.CHORTEK EIUC WONG LESLIE ICALIM McHUGH April 21, 2015 EIVED Town of Los Altos Hills APR 2015 Planning Division 26379 Fremont Road TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Los Altos,Hills, CA 94022 , • . •• = • Attn: Suzanne Avila - Re: File#233-14ZP-SD-CDP-VAR(Conditional Development Permit(CDP), Site Development Permit and Variance Requests—25608 Deerfield Drive. Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This letter is written on behalf of KDCI Development,owners of property at 25608 Deerfield Drive.The purpose of this letter is to request that the Planning Commission review the revised plans on their merits. The plans have been revised to address the Planning Commission comments to the greatest extent possible regarding the proposed variances and the design of the house as.depicted in the development plan set for the property. As you are aware, the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variance permit were denied by the Planning Commission in February,2015 and our client appealed the decision to the Town Council. Our client made the revisions to the house design in attempting to address the concerns expressed during the Planning Commission hearing regarding the variances and design issues. (See Minutes of Planning Commission on February 5, 2015). The Town Council considered the appeal on May 31, 2015. A letter was submitted to the Town Council on March 28, 2015 by Camas J. Steinmetz, of Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone, attorneys for "certain neighbors of 25608 Deerfield Dr'.” Mr. Steinmetz argued that the revised development plans should be excluded from the appeal and that any such changes should be remanded to the Planning • • I We have reason to believe that"certain neighbors"is in fact only one single neighbor. 4821-6383-2611v1 DUNG0120815003 Town of Los Altos Hills April 21, 2015 Commission for action on the entitlement permits. Mr. Steinmetz primary purpose and argument in the letter, however, is that any and all plans (regardless of compliance) should be denied and the owner of the property and adjacent lot should be forced to combine the two lots as one. This, however,was not before the Town Council (nor before the Planning Commission now) and cannot be done as a matter of law. The Town Council remanded the item back to the Planning Commission to consider the proposed revisions to the original development plans for the property. KDCI Development has undertaken great steps to comply with the Planning Commission's comments. The plan set revisions have resulted in the elimination of the original (1) one-foot roof eave encroachments into the side setbacks,(2)a one-foot chimney encroachment into the side yard on the west side of the dwelling, and (3) a four-foot rear patio encroachment into the rear yard setback.Therefore,the variance request is now only to allow,two of the required parking spaces to be located in the side yard setback and that the vehicle back-up area may be allowed to encroach within 10 feet of the easterly property line. As the Planning Commission will see, this variance actually improves aesthetics from the street view, which should be considered in allowing for this variance.In addition,The maximum building height has been reduced by one foot,the second floor has been set back on the front elevation, the roof plan has been revised, exterior materials were changed from siding to shingles, and the driveway location has shifted to provide additional landscape screening from the street and avoid aligning the new driveway with a driveway across the street. The revised plan set also includes a proposed schematic landscape plan (See Sheet A1.1). Finally,the revisions have resulted in a reduction of 444 sq.ft. of floor area.(See City Council Staff Report—March 31, 2015). Regarding the issue of the substandard size of the lot,Mr. Steinmetz requested(on behalf of his clients)that the Town Council impose an urgency moratorium on development of lots with less than one acre in area,and that it adopt a revised merger ordinance that complies with the Subdivision Map Act to require merger of properties of less than one acre. The Town Council did not give any direction to staff on such a moratorium for development on substandard lots and this is not an agenda item for the Planning Commission to consider. Accordingly, the Planning Commission is encouraged to follow the law as it is now,which means building can proceed on the lot,despite the size, because there exists a recorded Certificate of Compliance and the lot is not part of a recorded subdivision. Please refer to the February 5,2015 Staff Report to Planning Commission and Staff Report to Town Council on March 31,2015,wherein the Town staff explained how the subject property is one of two parcels with an approved and recorded Certificate of Compliance.This means that,while the parcels are nonconforming in size because they are less than one acre,they are two legal lots because they were found to have been created before the Town was incorporated and are not part of a recorded subdivision. The Certificate of Compliance was issued by the Town of Los Altos Hills in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act(Government Code Section:66499.35(f)(1)(E).The Staff Report also explained that the Town's Merger Ordinance,which requires the merger of substandard abutting lots owned by the same owner, no longer is valid as it no longer conforms to the current Subdivision Map Act (Section 66451.11). The Town currently does not have an adopted parcel merger ordinance complying with Section 6645].11,nor would the parcels in question likely meet the specific list of requirements of the Subdivision Map Act before the Town can deem the parcels 4821-6383-2611v1 -2- DUNG0120815003 Town of Los Altos Hills April 21, 2015 merged. Therefore, the subject property is a legally developable lot as is, and the question of the substandard size of the lot is not before the Planning Commission. The only issue before the Planning Commission is the consideration of the proposed revised plans for the construction of a home at 25608 Deerfield Drive. In conclusion, the owners have taken into consideration comments received during the hearing process and have revised the house plans to the greatest extent possible to address these comments, including the elimination of most variances and a reduction in size and bulk of the structure. Therefore, we request that the Planning Commission consider the revised plans for the project, and make findings for approval of the Conditional Development Permit (CDP), Site Development Permit and Variance Requests for the revised plans. Respectfully, BERLINER COHE C WN C WEATT Email:"da n.sweatt@berliner.com DCS: cc: Oskar Kalbali, KDCI Development Gina Jackman, Kal Design Group Steve Mattas, Town Attorney 4821-6383-2611v1 _3_ DUNG0120815003