HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 3 -/
TOWN OF LOS .ALTOS HILLS March 11, 2004
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN AND A
REQUEST FOR PERMIT MODIFICATION; LANDS OF MEHTA; 14293 SADDLE
MOUNTAIN DRIVE; FILE#15-04-ZP-SD-PM.
FROM: Angelica Herrera Olivera,Assistant Planner
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the landscape screening plan subject to
attached conditions AND deny the requested permit modification, finding that the request is
inconsistent with conditions#1 and#7 of Site Development Permit 291-01.
BACKGROUND
On February 27th, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed a Site Development Permit for a
1,015 square foot second story addition and a 997 square foot attached secondary dwelling unit
on the subject property. An adjacent neighbor(Mr. and Mrs. Chan) voiced concern regarding the
potential impact of the proposed second story addition in regards to their privacy and view. The
project was appealed to the City Council and approved on April 17th, 2003 (Meeting minutes in
Attachment 3). As a condition of project approval, the City Council required all windows facing
the Chan's property to have privacy glass and be located directly below the roofline and 6 feet
from the finish floor (Attachment 2). In addition, the installation of skylights was prohibited on
any portion of roof facing the Chan's property.
DISCUSSION—Landscape Screening Plan
Condition of approval #4 requires that the applicant submit a landscape screening and erosion
control plan for review by the Planning Commission subsequent to framing the additions.
Attachment 5 includes photos taken by the applicant's landscape architect of the Chan's existing
landscape. The locations from where the photos were taken are identified on the first sheet of the
landscape plans (Attachment 8).
The Environmental Design Committee conducted a site visit and reviewed the plans. The
Committee's comments (Attachment 7) recommend requiring additional landscape mitigation
next to the new garage addition. Staff concurs with the Committee and has recommended in
condition of approval#1 that one (1) additional evergreen tree be required next to the new garage
addition. In addition, a landscape maintenance deposit of$10,000.00 will be required to ensure
that the new landscape screening remain viable in two (2)years.,
Planning Commission
' Lands of Mehta
March 11,2004
Page 2 of 5
. ,
Photo #1 shows the front fagade of the second story addition from the Chan's driveway. Photo
#2 shows the southeast view of the second story addition and fourth car garage addition. The 1-
foot tall windows are seen in both pictures.
Permit Modification Request
The applicant now proposes to modify the window openings on the second story to accommodate
an additional 6' x 3'6" fixed opaque window to be located only 1'/2 feet from the finish floor. In
addition a "solar lens" skylight is proposed on a roofline facing the Chan's residence (see Sheets
2 and 3 of the plans). The applicant feels that the approved 1 foot tall windows (located 6 feet
from the finish floor) give the front facade of the building an impression of a "prison-like
structure," and have a"negative effect on the architecture of the building (Attachment 6)."
However, the request to modify the second story windows and roofline facing the Chan's
property cannot be approved because the proposed modifications do not comply with conditions
#1 and#7 of the City Council's approval of Site Development Permit 291-01.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval for the Landscape Screening Plan;
2. Original Conditions of Approval,Lands of Mehta;
3. April 17`h, 2003 City Council Meeting Minutes;
4. February 27`h, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes;
5. Letter and Photos received January 22nd, 2004 from Alyson Flynn, the applicant's Landscape
Architect;
6. Letter received January 22nd, 2004 from Sharad Mehta and Lorin Nelson, the applicant's
Architect;
7. Environmental Design &Protection Committee evaluation,received March 1, 2004;
8. Landscape Screening and Development plans
Planning Commission
Lands of Mehta
March 11,2004
Page 3 of 5
cc: Sharad and Jyotsna Mehta Lorin Nelson
14293 Saddle Mountain Drive 247 Clarke Avenue
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Livermore, CA 94550
Stephen and Amy Chan
14295 Saddle Mountain Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Planning Commission
Lands of Mehta
March 11,2004
Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A
LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN
LANDS OF MEHTA, 14293 SADDLE MOUNTAIN DRIVE
File#15-04-ZP-SD-PM
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The applicant shall install one (1) additional evergreen tree, of similar size to
other proposed trees on the plan, next to the garage addition. The required
landscape screening and erosion control (as determined by the Engineering
Department) prior to final inspection of the additions. No other modifications
to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved
by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of
the changes.
2. A landscape maintenance deposit of $10,000.00 (cashiers check) shall be posted
prior to final inspection of the additions. An inspection of the landscape to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two (2) years after
installation. The deposit will be released after two (2) years if the plantings remain
viable.
3. No additional outdoor lighting is approved. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be
reviewed with the landscape screening and erosion control plan. Lighting fixtures
shall be shielded downlights. 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 the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
4. Any revisions or additions to the previously approved grading and drainage plan
shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be
reviewed by the Engineering Department and approved prior to commencement of
this project. The approved plan shall be stamped and signed by the project engineer
and shall supersede the previously approved drainage plan.
5. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Mehta
March 11,2004
Page 5 of 5
6. If any trees or large shrubs are proposed to be planted within the right of way or
public utility easements, a letter shall be required to be submitted which has been
stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer verifying that the proposed
plantings, when mature, will not conflict with any existing public utilities that are
located either underground or overhead and will not negatively impact the available
sight distance for traffic on the adjacent roadways or block existing pathways or
roadways. The letter shall be required to be submitted to the Engineering
Department prior to final project approval and prior to commencement of planting.
7. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be
protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to
final inspection of the additions.
8. All irrigation systems must be located at least five feet from the Town's pathways
and outside of the public right of way and public utility easements. The Town staff
shall inspect the site and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department prior to final inspection of the additions.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until March
11, 2005). 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.
IOSALTOS HIILS
x ;} ATTACHMENT 2-�
i
CALIFORNIA
April 21,2003
Mr. and Mrs. Mehta
14293 Saddle Mountain Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: File#291-01-ZP-SD-GD
14293 Saddle Mountain Drive
Major Addition
Dear Mr. and Mrs.Mehta:
Your request for a Site Development Permit for the above referenced project was approved at the
City Council meeting April 17, 2003. Please note the following conditions which apply to this
approval:
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The applicant shall install obscure glass on all windows located on the second
story to provide privacy for adjacent neighbors and shall submit a sample
and manufacture specifications of the glass to'the Planning Department for
review and approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All
windows shall be located at an elevation equal to 6' high or greater from the
finish floor of the second story. The applicant shall submit three (3) complete
sets of revised plans for review and approval by the Planning Department prig to
submittal of plans for building plan check. No other modifications to the
approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by
the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the
changes.
2. The applicant shall remove all clear-glass fixtures on the property and replace
them with frosted-glass or shielded light fixtures. Any lighting currently located
within the setbacks or located on adjacent properties shall be removed All
lighting shall be removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department prior to the acceptance of plans for building plan check.
3. The applicant shall remove the asphalt curb and all plantings from the neighbor's
property and rebuild the asphalt curb and reduce the driveway paving to match the
approved configuration shown on the revised plans of February 1987 and install
plantings according to the landscape screening plan approved on December 8,
26379 Fremont Road 1987 to the satisfaction of the Planning Department prior to the acceptance of
Los Altos Hills plans for building plan check.
California 94022
650 / 941 -7222
Fax 650/941=3160
Mr. and Mrs. Mehta
April 21, 2003
Page 2
4. Subsequent to final framing of the second story, a plant screening and erosion
control plan, including any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The applicant shall make every effort to work with
adjacent neighbors on developing the landscape plan. Particular attention shall be
given to plantings that will be adequate to provide privacy to adjacent neighbors
and break up the view of the second story from surrounding properties and streets.
Staff recommends that one third of proposed plantings be drought tolerant
plantings. All plantings required for screening purposes and erosion control (as
determined by the Planning Department and City Engineer) must be installed
prior to final inspection.
5. Prior to beginning any grading operation or demolition, all significant trees are to
be fenced at the drip line. The 6-foot chain link fencing shall clearly delineate the
drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior
to approval of any demolition or grading permit. The property owner shall
call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The
fence must remain throughout the course of construction and the construction
crew shall pay special attention to the care of the existing trees. No storage of
equipment, vehicles, or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of the fenced
trees.
6. A landscape maintenance deposit of$5,000.00 (cashiers check) shall be posted prior
to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment
and maintenance shall be made two (2) years after installation. The deposit will be
released after two (2)years if the plantings remain viable.
7. No skylights are approved. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new
construction.
8. A Site Development Code Compliance deposit in the amount of $20,000.00
(cashiers check) shall be submitted and posted prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The Site Development Code Compliance deposit shall be
returned upon completion of the project conditions of approval and compliance to
the Zoning and Site Development Code to the satisfaction of the Planning,
Engineering,and Building Departments.
9. No additional outdoor lighting is approved. The applicant shall submit
manufacture specifications for all obscure-glass exterior lighting for the main and
secondary residences for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. Any additional outdoor lighting shall
be reviewed with the landscape screening and erosion control plan. Lighting
fixtures shall be shielded downlights. 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 the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except
for two driveway or entry lights,except where determined to be necessary for safety.
W. and Mrs. Mehta
April 21, 2003
Page 3
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
10. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff and must direct water runoff away from Lupine Road. The proposed
drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Two copies of
the final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the
Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and
any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior
to final inspection. A letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating
that the drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans
and in accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection.
11. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the
Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place. during the grading
moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except
construction of the driveway to allow for the y access.
12. Any new public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground.
13. The location and elevation of the additions and the secondary dwelling unit shall
be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as
being at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved Site
Development plan and all roof eaves to be at least 30 feet from any property line
prior to final inspection.
14. Two copies of 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. 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�o final inspection.
15. Two copies of a grading, construction operation, and traffic control 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 Saddle Mountain Drive and
surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary
facilities; parking for all and any construction vehicles on-site; clean-up area; and
parking for construction personnel. The construction operation plan shall note
Mr. and Mrs. Mehta
April 21, 2003
Page 4
that at no time shall the emergency fire road/access easement be blocked or
be utilized for parking or storage of materials. 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 Emits.
16. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways,private driveways,
and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of
occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing
conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for
buildingplan check.
17. As recommended by Cotton, Shires &Associates in their report dated January 18,
2002, the applicant shall comply with,the following:
a. Geotechnical UiDdate—Based on review of proposed site development plans,
the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall complete any necessary,
supplemental site investigation appropriate for preparation of project
geotechnical design parameters. Geotechnical design recommendations shall
be updated considering collected site data, current prevailing standards of
professional practice and evaluation of foundation compatibility issues.
Current Uniform Building Code seismic design parameters shall be prepared.
The updated geotechnical design recommendations shall be submitted to the
Town for review and approval by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to
submittal of documents for building permit plan-check.
b. Geotechnical Plan Review—The project geotechnical consultant shall review
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the -final development plans (i.e., site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters
for foundations and pavement) to ensure that their 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 issuance of grading or building permits.
c. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant shall inspect,
test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited
to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations prior to the placement of steel
and concrete.
N1r. and Mrs.Mehta
April 21,2003
Page 5
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 flnal (granting o occupancy) project
approval.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from
Cotton, Shires &Associates dated January 18, 2002.
D. BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
18. 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
offices in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the
Town with a copy of their receipts.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection sham be required to be set with the
Planning and Engineering Departments at least two weekss prior to final building inspection
approval.
CONDMON NUMBERS 1, 2, 3, 8,% 10, 14, 15, 16, AND 17a SHALL BE COMPLETED,
REVIEWED, AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY
ENGNEER PRIOR TO ACCEP'T'ANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN
CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until April
17, 2004). 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.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Carl Cahill
Planning Director
cc: Lorin Nelson, 247 Clarke Avenue, Livermore,CA 94550
Angelica Herrera
ATTACHMEN.3
ayor Fenwick suggeste ite ncluding situation of Adobe Creek, sewer tonne ions,
a exation policy,parkin ages added to Los Alto owntown hotel, and a eatre.
Coun dmember Cheng me a general discussio lib "es included
10. P ENTAT S FROM T FLOOR
Nancy Coup , 13680 Page Mill Roa , ' ed the Council th se al activities will
be held at W ind Barn, including the h Day Celebratio n Apri , and the Los
Altos Hil Pat ays Run and W o May 10. S noted that here is . a
citizens/ idents up formed to ess the oblem of dobe Creek an e Edith
Park a. The gro 's intent to seek a t t put forth a project is
env' entally sensiti
emy Kelem, 26323 Espe a Drive, asked the C ci approve a scho at would
ithin walking distan to ere he lives.
11. LIC HE GS
11.1 1 of the Plannin2 ssion's ADDroval o ite Develo ment
.t for a Landsca a ScrYkning Project,• Lands A LeuX, 27168 Mood
0 235-02-ZP-SD .
Debbie dro, Assist t Planner, ported that a Pla g Commission re 'ewed the
propos on February and roved the proj ith conditions. The pro ct w
appe ed to the City Coun ' review because of cerns that the proposed pl ' gs
on a slopes north of the way are not adeq e. applicants originally p osed
gro cover as an ero ' n c trol measure n the Se, but submitted revised
landsca plan to rev etate the rea wi additional ntings. Staff lieves the
additiona lantings ' help achieve co stent and natural oking slo
Sylvia Leong, icant, explained th e rchitect tried to re-e sh a native habitat
on the prope
MOTI SECONDED ASSED: Motion by rr econded by Wa awsky,and
pass unanimously to u d the Planning Co ssion's approval o the site
d elopment permit subject to a plan revisions ated April 8, 2003, an vised
onditions of approval.
11.2 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of a Site Development
Permit for a 1,425 Square Foot Addition (maximum height 25.6 feet), and a
997 Square Foot Secondary Dwelling Unit (maximum height 17.6 feet;
Lands of Mehta, 14293 Saddle Mountain Drive(29 1-0 1-ZP-SD-GD).
8 City Council Meeting Agenda
April 17,2003
Mayor Fenwick left the meeting due to a conflict.
Planning Director Carl Cahill reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the
project on February 27 and approved the project subject to changes to the conditions of
approval. The project was appealed in part due to a question about setback of the home
and the addition.
Vice Mayor Cheng indicated she appealed the project because Code Section 10-1.505
indicated that the 40-foot setback should be the setback where the property is closest and
most intrusive to the neighbor. She felt the second story should be required to have a 40-
foot setback.
Councilmember Kerr said the question was whether the grandfathered second story was
allowed to stay.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Sharad Mehta, applicant, explained that his house was built in 1988 and is currently the
smallest house in the neighborhood. The second story consists of 1,000 square feet, with
smaller, higher, obscure windows that will not look out at the neighbor's property, and
there are no skylights facing the neighbors.
Loren Nelson, Project Engineer, provided history on the plans for the original project.
Steven Chan, 14295 Saddle Mountain Drive, stated his concerns about the second story
addition which would face his living spaces. He requested the 40-foot setback be from
the access easement, the garage addition be 40-feet away from the property line, and that
there be no addition over the garage. Changes to the conditions were requested: (1)
bathroom window be obscure; (3) that the applicant go back to the plan that was
approved in 1987 and plant trees and shrubs to reflect 15 years of growth; (6) higher
amount of landscape deposit be required to make sure the plantings are sustainable; (7)
no skylights facing his property; and (15) all vehicular be confined only to the access
easement of the emergency road.
Dot Shriner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, said she was on the Planning Commission
when Mr. Chan brought in his plans for his home and there were concerns raised by the
neighbors. The Chan's plans were in compliance with the Code but, in order to please the
neighbors, the Chan's made many changes. She felt the second story could be
accommodated elsewhere on the property.
Carol Gottleib, 24290 Summerhill, reiterated there was much opposition to the Chan's
house, and the Chan's went to great lengths to appease the neighbors. She suggested the
second story might be shifted to the other side of the house.
Amy Chan, 14295 Saddle Mountain Drive, referred to a Planning Commission staff
report, dated 9/14/94, which mentioned that staff found no documentation of any
9 City Council Meeting Agenda
April 17,2003
architectural controls placed on the subdivision; there were no conditions of approval on
the subdivision that related to the number of stories.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Warshawsky agreed there was a privacy issue and asked that the
something be done to the second story bathroom window.
Councilmember O'Malley said what Mr. Mehta was doing is within the code, and the
second story should be allowed where it is planned. The bathroom window should be 6
feet, with obscure glass.
Cahill recommended the addition of a condition for a Code Compliance Deposit of
$20,000 for plan check, which would be released at the time of final inspection.
Council discussed landscaping issues related to the fact that landscaping was not
completed when the Mehta's house was built. A suggestion was made that planting be
added on Mr. Chan's property that faces the Mehta house.
City Attorney Steve Mattas said Council might wish to direct what it would like to see on
the Mehta property and then allow that if the Planning Commission approves an
alternative which is acceptable to Mr. Mehta and Mr. Chan, that would be acceptable to
the Council.
Mr. Mehta agreed with the condition for Code Compliance Deposit.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Kerr, seconded by O'Malley and
passed by the following roll call vote to uphold the Planning Commission's motion to
approve the proposed site development permit for an addition and secondary dwelling
unit,with conditions of approval as attached to the February 27, 2003, Planning
Commission staff report, with the following conditions: (1) Code Compliance Deposit of
$20,000 to be refunded on final inspection; (2)All windows facing Chan's property to
have privacy glass and be 6 feet high; (3)No skylights on roof facing Chan property; and
(4)Applicant to work with Chan's to come up with landscape plan including possibility
of planting landscape on Chan's property.
AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Cheng, Councilmembers Kerr, O'Malley and Warshawsky
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Mayor Fenwick
12. CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING
LITIGATION: Government Code Section 54956.9(a): Cgmpbell and Ligeti v. Town of
Los Altos Hills
10 City Council Meeting Agenda
April 17,2003
ATTACHMENT
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/13/03
February 27, 2003
Page 5
MO ION SECO AND PASSEMotion by Commissioner Clow and seco y
Co sinner rns to approve the Site�Dec!v ent Permit for landscape scree ' , Lands of
Leung, 2 Moody Court, with the fol g ad ' /changes to the co ' ons of approval:
(1) retain wall along the d ' ay shall have a lig Qectivi ue of 50 or less. )
T proposed redbu ees to east of the circular courtyar hown on the planti an
8), shall be replaced by redwood trees. (3) Two addi al redw trees sha e planted
north of the circular ard, hown on the appr plans. (4) Han ' ants shall be
installed along t eft of the drivewa .tigate view impact of the re g (5) The
bar lopes of the driveway shall be r tated with groundcov
A Chairman Vitu, Co issioners Wong, s low
NOES: e
ABSENT: Co er Cottrell
The applicant in agreemen 'th the c ges as long as they are fea o be determined
by staff).
s item is subject to a 23 day a peal period.
3.4 LANDS OF MEHTA, 14293 Saddle Mountain Drive (291-01-ZP-SD-GD); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a 1,452 square foot addition (maximum
height 25.6 feet), and a 997 square foot secondary dwelling unit(maximum height
17.6 feet). (staff-Angelica Herrera)
Staff introduced this item by stating although the application does meet all of the Zoning and Site
Development.ordinances, it had substantial neighbor opposition regarding views and privacy
which has been addressed in conditions #1, #2, and #3. There was also a concern from a
neighbor regarding storm water runoff which the applicant has partially addressed by adding
three additional drains on the south side of the main house as well as consulting that neighbor in
the landscape screening plan review.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Sharad Mehta, 14293 Saddle Mountain Drive, applicant, noted he had built his house in 1988,
requesting a two story home but only received approval for a one story structure at that time.
Now his needs have increased. He is only requesting an additional 2,000 square feet; 1,000
square feet on the second story, and 1,000 square feet single story on the back. He provided a
document with signatures from neighbors in support of his project. He also noted that he has
made adjustments to the plan according to neighbors' requests. . He is 'not proposing any
additional exterior lighting. He will maintain privacy. Regarding the Chan's, their house is two
story which is above his house. Regarding his existing driveway, he had to open it up to
accommodate the garage truck and emergency vehicles. He further noted that they will be
complying with the request for, obscure glass on the northeasterly side of the second story and
replace the clear glass fixtures with frosted glass or shielded light fixtures. He would like to
keep the asphalt curb and all plantings in the circular area,just removing the lights.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/13/03
February 27, 2003
Page 6
Lorin Nelson, 247 Clarke Avenue, Livermore, project architect, provided a planter profile to the
Commission to help mitigate some of the neighbors views. He discussed the Chan's concerns
regarding the garage addition with the 25 foot unidentified tree species. The Chan's would have
a filtered view. He further discussed the windows requesting not to eliminate them but to make
them smaller(need for ventilation, light, and to break up the wall).
June Dean, 27677 Lupine Road, discussed the major water runoff which has never been
addressed properly when the house was built. At her own expense, she had to install a huge
swale. She would like to make sure any additional water runoff is handled correctly. Also, the
second story addition and deck will look down on two of her bedrooms and pool area. Mr.
Mehta has assured her that he would handle any drainage/water problems. It was staff s opinion
that Mr. Metha has addressed her concerns (condition#10).
Mr. Chan, 14295 Saddle Mountain Drive, addressed the following: view impact and
obstructions; invasion of privacy; light pollution; and construction traffic and parking. He had
met with Mr. Mehta on several occasions to discuss their concerns. He felt Mr. Mehta
consistently disregards property line and building codes. He further discussed his application
process during his site development process and his design going through extensive
modifications to address issues raised by the Mehta's. He asked that the 4`h garage area be
eliminated as well as the second story additions. He suggested an area farther away where
landscape screening is possible without blocking his views. Additions facing his private living
areas at close distance are unacceptable. He also asked that the planter be cut back to the
property line, the exterior light fixtures currently placed on his property be remove, and for the
removal of structures that are in the setback areas, if against code. He provided photos of the
area which addressed privacy and headlight issues.
Amy Chan, 14295 Saddle Mountain Drive, stated when they built their house in 1994, they had
to make many changes to the plan to satisfy Mr. Mehta. They even moved the house back 17
feet. Now, when they met with Mr. Mehta regarding their concerns, nothing has been addressed.
She requested the elimination of the second story (privacy issues) and the removal of the planter
area in the driveway makes it appear to be a circular driveway.
Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, stated she was on the Planning Commission
during the time the Chan's applied for a site development permit. The Chan's were requested to
make many changes to their project and they even made more changes after approval to
accommodate Mr. Mehta. She addressed the setback issue, noting the 30 foot setback was
grandfathered and with the new expansion, the setback should revert back to 40 feet (must
adhere to current rules). Portions of the second story are not 40 feet from the road. Therefore,
the Mehta's should request a variance or it should not be allowed.
Carol Gottlieb 24290 Summerhill Avenue was also a Planning Commissioner at the time of the
> g
Chan project and many changes were made to keep the house lower and to maintain views. She
did not feel it was fair now for the Mehta's to impact the neighbors. She also questioned the
parking space for the secondary unit.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/13/03
February 27, 2003
Page 7
Kim Tam, 14297 Saddle Mountain Drive, stated this is a neighborhood of two story homes. He
was in support of the Mehta project.
Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, making suggested the questionable
g g
windows higher to address privacy issues. Also, a high hedging works well for preventing lights
from a vehicle. She further discussed the planting of redwood trees in a triangle which helps
them grow faster. Also, English Oak trees grow tall and narrow.
Mr. Chan further discussed Mr. Meht's history of disregard to code.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Vitu asked for clarification regarding setbacks on this property. Discussion ensued.
RE-OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
Lorin Nelson, architect, stated when the original grading and drainage plan was prepared, they
had followed the rules regarding setbacks. The 40 feet was taken from the terminus of Saddle
Mountain Drive. Reference was made to Attachment 3.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
It was clarified that staff did not know of any problems with the septic system and the applicant
received approval from the Santa Clara County Health Department.
Commissioner Kerns felt this was a difficult application. He would like to see the Mehta's do
more for the Chan's. However, they are within code so it would be hard to deny the second
story. Staff has done a good job regarding mitigating conditions. He liked Sandy's suggestion
regarding higher windows for privacy issues. The landscape plan could return to the
Commission for review. Commissioner Clow felt the setback issue had been addressed. The
Chan and Mehta residences are close to the same height and both are two story. He felt the
project was within Town ordinances. He could support the project. He asked that the curb, per
staff recommendation, be removed. Commissioner Wong also agreed with the suggestion to
modify the windows. Chairman Vitu was sympathetic with the Chan's but both have two stories.
There are privacy issues which staff has addressed in the conditions of approval. The Chans had
expressed to her the desire to have the pavement in the ingress/egress restored to gravel although
she was not sure anyone was allowed to upgrade in that area. The Planning Director indicated
that both property owners would have to agree on the change. Referring to the conditions of
approval, she asked how they can assure these conditions are met which was answered by the
Planning Director noting the corrections to the previously approved plans would need to be
corrected prior to submittal for building plan check. Also, the unshielded lighting is a public
nuisance per Town code and would also need to be corrected.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/13/03
February 27, 2003
Page 8
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kerns and seconded by
Commissioner Wong to approve the Site Development Permit for an addition, and a secondary
dwelling unit, Lands of Mehta, 14293 Saddle Mountain Drive, with the following
addition/changes to the conditions of approval: (1) The landscape plan shall return to the
PlanningCommission for review and approval. 2 e
Th applicant shall install obscure lass on
PP ( ) PP g
all windows located on the northeasterly side of the second story. All windows, with the
exception of the one window at the bathroom, shall be located directly below the roof eave on
the northeasterly side of the second story. (3) The site drainage associated with the proposed
development.must be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff and must direct water runoff away from Lupine Road.
AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Clow, Wong&Kerns
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell
This item is subject to a 23 day appeal period.
3.5 LANDS %A�IGAN, 41 Robleda Road (192-02-ZP- D); A request
for a Sitnt Permi d review of an Initial Study a itigate
Negativ eclaration for replaceme of isting driveway and bridge. -
lea Herrera)
Chairman itu and ssioner Kern isclosed that ' ce they rece' a political
contri on from the app i is in exc of $250, they were le to a on the project.
Sine Commissioner Cottrell wa b t, they did not have a quorum fo ting purposes.
MOTION SECONDED ASS • Motion by Co ' ioner Clow a seconded by
ommission Kerns to co ue the applic 'on to the ne lanning Commission etin on
M 13, 2003.
AYES: irman Vita, Commissioners s, ng& Clow
NOES: one
ABSEN Co ssioner Cottrell
3.6 LANDS AS , 27830 Elena Road (Lot C) -02-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A
request for a Development Permit for a , 04 sq e foot new residence
(maximum gh feet), and a variance t xceed the 27 t height maxi
as meas u d from th evious existin atural grade determin at the ' e of
Tent a ' e Map approval. ff-An ca Herrera)
Staff introduc this item by reviewing di ' #1 of the Site Develop t Permi or the
gradingsta ' g "t lacement of fil Parcel ceeds the Town's imum allowab fill
differen ' of 3 feet d that t eight of any prop o structure wi 1 be measured from
prev' s existing grade s determined at the time of t ve map approval".
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
E
y
Al son Flynn &Associates JAN 2 2 2004
y
Landscape Architect
4444 Rock Island Drive
Antioch, CA 94509
Lic.No. 3074
(925) 706-8870 or(408)274-4114
Shahrad Mehta
14293 Saddle Mountain Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
December 10, 2003
Dear Mr. Mehta,
I have enclosed the photos that I took at your site on November 16, 2003.
I have numbered the pictures and the enclosed drawing in the approximate location where each
picture was taken. The photos show your neighbor's existing trees and the relationship of their
home and windows.
The trees are mostly Oak trees. In photo #6, the center tree is a Chinese pistache and the
trees on the right side are Camphor trees. Since you said that the Oaks were planted
approximately two years ago and have grown significantly since then, I feel these trees would
more than adequately provide privacy and break up the view of your second story in the near
future.
Should you be required to plant additional trees, I have recommended Camphor trees
since these will tie into your neighbors planting palette and they are evergreen and deer resistant.
Should you have any questions or need further advice,please contact me.
Sincerely,
Ld-u- JJT-
Alyson Flynn
Enclosures: 3 copies - 6 photos
3 copies - landscape plan
y ..�`'`".,t as Y - l � i�{+ dt `�,C l ,C,"! �`? �y. +�., 'F„F/i+..a.•' fwr�w�.
•= 1 J'� 4-�r + ai:J•,ilk L. S Y �+'.^j F �"y ,+rL h J
A. it *{ •-; r'- � {t��c i „� .y„. 1< ..�, G<r -..,- L �• _ ...9 r "'s '6 ��}}tt Y�
'�. �'i.,.. (•y ,,/��ryt 4`q.L� S �gL � gi t,tir J. �„ f � !`J.. '••.�,� t9..
t �t
T4s:r !l:e �'� �'sh 3r,.,e^'cw.,'��` �dt � ta: •!`,,;. '".�"� ,=- 1..;�=M��"'''""'�� - ��*� �t'., y Sr.} �, .p.• � a,i _ `M1..tir' a >y.'' K. t"ta e•..
+Ti. e.:,,�.{..}?�. :�tf, a ..c,'2-rcr r__..,.. '��t`"is:�,3��� X4'w'� gig`- •r�..��7� �x;_� x .; � ,�.,, :,t ':� r;j:�°.. '"i"-, -� 3r sa my;i-. .,,.;�ti 'x v'r'•x 3+'i
,ct,. 1•ii;:T. .} 3yt,':-+i- f.;+.;;s.�r i_l` -t: -�,.�.r a.�.r<. ::'� :}h� :� ^r..' f� ;t*,.":� � r ,5• ,r'�. ,,k..':' �� ss„'q�ti1 •.r-v ff.
f•,�r f" �. r1 mar'., •��� �1 '�Z M� "> �s'•+'T• r<5.'^t. } �:;'i7k""`
e
.z. -ice .._,,, z r t+-- _ .e r� iti''��'"' .F �"t t r.f":'*77�� r +�.;'[ .s 'Rhe c..:st3 a..e�S`,'�ut•}} -`,�' r � „�;'a.. •� ,T.;;
`'+`• ` .1. 'r� tJ- t .:.-'r~". x tf eT"yy.y5 � .^ Jy ._.,y_ •h,; 4. .. ti, i + s:��.°. *•Y!i.�4.:w a« A"G:' iii
t+. ..x'• ., � ••'.1�• <vt 't .t ?+. ,{, :'c- ?1. ,wr-..f R..+, `��r, s i`+"„�Y '�-„",.(' }��.fgr. s}f..+ ..`,r*-a7. `�, « zk.;,r
1 �,..��.. ..9•; , . '.r ^.. r .re- fi ,�.:w .� , ,.=":tiror •+t. .e.p.r
V $- '. ��s.zr=y�a N^ ..:. ? .3--•err.-�' .� ..,,°�v, � `s ; �1. (” r� s. .�
a• �' '..c w. '' ek i i�X 6r>J'_`.. •.L � r
s .a 3^F
Ye.:� is:PY.'.��,�. ',.:. ,r•.•=�,s.•..•»• +r-Y,,,;,.g, '3 -, "' lsr�v`r,,,f 3r•-��"� '--a•'-w•�`' w••r t.wsy' w•(.�.f��.( hy*TMy"`�v+
_��. ��, � ... ....+: '*""�'^'f.'-.J'^��.',...c v'w� (� :S�� 4�v 4 �4Yiy+Ca�� �N ap �h[i5• �',!t�E3� iS� �d E'i e
�° � � 1 +s:E-.c; {1,'{c`---+.•'S'�:aK• � „�`�t fir
�,ij9 t 4, �?+.� _;n 'rt: c+ i,. .,`�-u.+y�rss�a"2��".�''••v�E+:?,�,��'i-;•+�'�� �1�'/^�`,a1`y'S�r����»fr�z w `._ - _ �.t�a�� �t�,..,
-..�C $ 4+c^r".'. ,..y'�-` �v.•��r--�r,�X,.y,.`. '}i r ���is ,� "k,:T� �r' t'�, oxr�-�c�i� ¢� `�1 - t t��,c1�. ��,�,.
^ tc., t.' f � �� t"(.}„•,�..:� � ,�,�y {`�vu4�-'Fy f �• sa��k,� �yc �'�+r: <N• +�` t"'�;� �"�"`��-.4" �.ir"
.�{�"r:• r it _sr{ � w:'`"-+��� _� <t.•, '�'s.5 k z'S' l?� - -�' r iri� � i:' - } °"�..:�n?�,6•,�' `q;
� a*i^ L f r !r t�G.� - � "'�¢-tom wx t � ��z� t. w .��+�•,{'r.. �tiiw ,r,n �-,T SS
-4Vtil. .z.•� '" �,latr; .,t om,„, •c. �'�",+ `. ^• t. k - '•}a :t. }:
n. v� zu- t c k 3 x x'
"yam.� y ,..-'•+ -: y •..>ll ..M. i55, ```v' `� +
h �r n +t• "f'-� :J•" rVs'
N-v--„� �--'' '._`',r_"" � `wr".c' '�'9`.:w''"`'°''_",.. '^ s.• - �'l."" ` s,.:'t 4t '�M�- �¢r'••-y�.i�`-'�'� �,� 2�.',y.'�-7' tx�i,�-�.�;��,.�yc*�ua:;
- "� '�;£'y'.w�., � _�r �..�: T„``--�- i r r""i .w_ >+5�';-fir`"x - '",3..,c.F.. ,,,.,7 C ;:�.�—;�. ,,",.§1 �•.y,.- v' w•.i"fz''^% rr '•„5..,+- 7^..rva:a^;Ky. i��`�lr��;t,-t(
7a' ,i -ne:..,2E'u�_ G� �"J ,. •ai ., r:. ••g6 ,.. 4 .a,ref...z.. s}'.^.
r' '�i� a'���ns ox�.+�.v.�r,. .�: � t,' ""' +`t i+>��A,s# .�Lt�x,as�•r,:,..x:�_'. ..+..g`„PazE�l. J,d� „�„• =zr:-.�. .•3.a.a,: _ u���>s''3''.f>c•.... .����.Ae
Jan-07-04 10:06 NELSC DEVELOPMENT 925-E 84755TTA^��A���,1
Ir'''►►Vv 11Vw'' iiVV!!
JAN 2 2 2004
Deft 1-5.04
To.. Anpd *Herrera
Frans: Slam A6"
14293 Saddle hGoutaih Drive
Los Altos WHs..C&94W2
Phone 6®8.947-�12
Fac 253A61-09i1
tmail srarsdlo�a t
Re: Remodel and Aaldilim to Mehb Rhee
14293 Saddle Mernhur Drive,Los Altos MM4 Ce
Rei: M f91-01-ZP-SD-CD
DearAvEdMaRnwra
Frani of the recreation Loam ever the emoting parage is in the
progr+as. About 90%of the frating k completed. Three whdow
opeui■p(I foot deep),►.loco viewed f vat the heat side of a
buildin&look hely sorrow in dept),. Front appearance of
the baling gim an impression of*prison Wee structure. It has
a negadve eft on the arca 'I i In,s of a buildfa& Same thing is
true for two windiwa is the bed room aver the garage.
We,therefore,propose a fzed widow underneath I feet deep
wh low writ►o adabscrre glass shiker to mw you have
approved. Tics wW premve the privacy of neighbors and at the
now the it vro enhance the appearanw& It is requested t4
mkw and approve at year earliest so that the hunift as be
hod. Skesebes showing the red lined changes are enclosed.
If you Lave any questiosu,phase call at 660.9474612.
C,oa►c G, +ciy
LorinNebw Shmd MAft
T��� 9290W valmS 1960T00091T XVA L►:YT ►001 10/tO
ATTi4CHM ~_
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE
LANDSCAPEYHARDSCAPE EVALUATION MAR - 1 2Q04
Applicant's Name: M F—N-r-A TOWN OF LOS ALTOS RES
Address: 3 ri Je.
Reviewed by: Date:
Mitigation needed:
Visibility from off site: from distance (directions), from nearby
neighbors (directions) (include need for screening for privacy).
Noise: from pump/pool , air conditioner , sport court
Lights: from fixtures , automobile headlights
Fence materials: color , open/solid Erosion control
Other:
Planting Plan Evaluation: (Circle required trees and shrubs on plan)
Are species appropriate: Deciduous?
Future height (view, solar, drive/path blockage)
Fire hazard
Hardiness/frost
Drought tolerance
Meet mitigation needs
- dw
�Y
4e�eks a d drains e: Isthere a onservation ea ent? j
Are there sufficient protections in place?
Will fences impact wildlife migration?
Invasive species should not be planted near a waterway.
Other: Are there obstructions to pathways, including future growth of plants?
Are all noise mitigations in place?
No co tru on in road right-of-way.
// :, j01