HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.5 �= J
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Apri18, 2004
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
ADDITION, SECOND UNIT, AND POOL; LANDS OF CHOU; 12951 CORTEZ
LANE; #45-04-ZP-SD.
FROM: Debbie Pedro, Associate Planner•�Q .
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director C.C.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the height increase of the structure and prohibit the access and use of the
roof for deck purposes; OR
2. Deny the requested Site Development Permit Modification (comply with original
approved plans); OR
3. Approve the requested Site Development Permit Modification, subject to the
recommended conditions in Attachment 1 except for Condition#2.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at the corner of Cortez Lane and Altamont Road.
Surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the north and west,
a single-family home across Cortez Lane to the east, and Byrne Preserve across Altamont
Road to the south.
At a public hearing on September 16, 2003, the Planning Director approved a Site
Development Permit to construct a 650 sq. ft. addition, 626 sq. ft. second unit, and an 800
sq. ft. swimming pool on the property. At that time, no complaints have been received
from the public. On October 22, 2003, a building permit was approved for the addition.
(BP# 12726)
On January 12, 2004, the adjacent neighbor at 12971 Cortez Lane contacted staff to
complain that the addition appears taller than what the story poles had shown back in
September 2003. In addition, the roof deck looks directly over their pool and office/study
area, raising serious concerns about privacy and view impacts.
it
Staff Re
ort to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 2 of 10
On January 27, 2004, staff inspected the property and contacted the applicants about the
complaints. The applicant verified that the as-built6structure did not conform with the
approved plans. Revised plans were submitted to the Planning and Building Department
for review. At the same time, the property owner met with the neighbor in order to
attempt resolution of privacy concerns.
7v j
S
View from office/study of 12971 Cortez Lane (Dunckel's residence) looking
at the west elevation of the addition.
On March 10, 2004, the applicant submitted a permit modification request for the as-built
changes to the project as well as some additional"Modifications to the design. The
modifications are as follow:
1. Reduce the amount of excavation by 59 cubic yards at the pool and add 89 cubic
yards of fill (up to 18") in the front and rear yard. (Partially completed)
2. Reduce the size of the roof deck by 304 sq. ft.. (Completed)
3. Increase the plate height of the 2nd story by 1'6" with a total structural height
increase from 21.2' to 23.7' (includes 3' high roof deck railing). (Completed)
4. Add a 13 sq.ft.nook and an angled roof skylight to an existing bedroom. (Proposed)
5. Modify the location and size of windows and doors on the east, west, and south
elevations. (Completed)
6. Shorten the 2nd story deck and trellis on the east elevation by 2'. (Proposed)
7. Extend the f story deck on the south elevation by 3'6"and add a trellis over the deck.(Proposed)
8. Relocate stairs along the east elevation. (Proposed)
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 3 of 10
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Condition #1 of the Site Development Permit approval states that "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."
The height of the as-built structure measured from the building pad to the top of the roof
railing is 2.5' higher than what was originally approved. Furthermore, the Town has
received numerous height related complaints from neighbors regarding this project
(Attachments#4-8). Therefore, the Planning Director determined that the unauthorized and
proposed modifications warrant the review by the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area: 1.005 acres
Net Lot Area: 0.816 acres
Average Slope: 7.1%
Lot Unit Factor: 0.816
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area (sq.ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining
Development 12,240 12,032 11,956 (76) 284
Floor 5,000 4,937 4,950 13 50
Addition
The design of the angled roof addition with the inset skylight matches the roof form on
the existing building and is designed to accommodate future solar panels. Requirements
to reduce light emission from skylights are included. (Condition#10)
Section 10-1.504 of the Zoning Code allows a maximum building height of 27'. The
proposed request to increase the structural height of the addition from 21.2' to 23.7'
complies with the Town's height requirements. The maximum proposed building height
at the angled roof addition is 25' which also complies with the Town's 27' height limit.
The proposed building from the lowest point to the highest point (including chimneys and
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 4 of 10
appurtenances) is 33'. Section 10-1.504.a.6 of the Zoning Code allows a maximum
overall building height of 35'.
However, height requirements established in the Zoning Code are maximum standards
and pursuant to Section 10-1.504.i of the Code, the Planning Commission may reduce the
height of a proposed structure where site specific constraints, such as site visibility,
dictate further limitations.
Roof Deck
There are no specific provisions in the Town's Zoning Code with regard to roof decks.
Because of the added height, a larger area of the addition, including the roof deck, is
visible from off-site.
Trees &Landscaping
Although the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan showing five trees to
be planted along the west property line, the proposed plantings do not provide adequate
screening to reduce the visibility of the structure from surrounding properties and streets.
Additional plantings should be required along the south and east property lines to mitigate
view impacts from Altamont Road, Westwind Barn, and the neighbor across the street at
12910 Cortez Lane.
Condition #2 requires a landscape screening plan to be submitted after final framing of
the proposed addition. The landscape screening plan will be subject to a public hearing.
Furthermore, any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will be required to
be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance deposit to ensure viability of
plantings will be collected prior to final inspection.
Grading and Drainage
Grading quantities include a
reduction of 59 cubic yards of A
excavation at the pool and the
addition of 89 cubic yards of fill
for the' pool deck and front yard.
The front yard was trenched for
new septic lines as required by the
Santa Clara Valley Health
Department. The applicant is
requesting that soil from the
Grading in the front yard
. Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 5 of 10
trenching operation be placed over the northeastern portion of the front yard (up to 18 of
fill). The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and determined that it
meets the Town's grading policy.
Drainage patterns in the front yard area will remain unchanged where water currently
sheet flows to the east and onto Cortez Lane. The proposed fill will help reduce the
quantity and velocity of the runoff by allowing water to dissipate into the ground onsite.
Staff recommends condition #18 requiring the fill in the front yard to be properly graded
to 90% compaction and planted to prevent erosion.
Conclusion
Modifications to the approved plans were made without benefit of prior Town review and
approval in violation of the original project condition #1. Neighbors concerned with the
privacy and view impacts have expressed their objections to these unauthorized
modifications. Since the structure has already been built, one option would be to allow
the increased height but prohibit the use of the roof for deck purposes (Recommendation
1). The Commission can decide to approve all, part, or none of the permit modification
requests, and direct staff to revise the conditions of approval as necessary.
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Site Map
3. Worksheet#2
4. Letter from Robert and Marilyn Byers, 12997 Cortez Lane, dated March 27, 2004
5. Email from Bob Sumbs, 12970 Cortez Lane, dated March 27, 2004
6. Letter from Nicholas and Donna Dunckel, 12971 Cortez Lane, dated March 28, 2004
7. Letter from Jon Craig and Linda Raggi, 12910 Cortez Lane, dated March 30, 2004
8. Email from Mark and Roseann Burhenne, 12977 Cortez Lane, dated March 30, 2004
9. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor and elevation plans
cc: Timothy and Sue Chou Ian Earnest
12951 Cortez Lane 27766 Stirrup Way
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 6 of 10
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED ADDITION, SECOND UNIT, ROOF DECK AND POOL
LANDS OF CHOU, 12951 CORTEZ LANE
File#45-04-SD
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. 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 height increase is approved. However, the second story roof shall
not be used for a deck and no railing shall be allowed on the roof. No
access to the roof is permitted other than roofing maintenance as
authorized by the Building Department.
3. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed by the Site Development Committee. Particular
attention shall be given to plantings that will be adequate to break up the
view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All
landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as
determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final
inspection.
4. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit) in the amount
of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the
landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be
made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that
time if the plantings remain viable.
5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees are to be
fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure
(chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the
fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. 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. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 7 of 10
within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be
fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period.
6. No lighting shall be allowed on the roof deck except for safety
illumination per Building Code requirements.
7. No accessory structures or fixtures, including any patio furniture,
shall be placed on the roof deck.
8. The location and elevation of the guesthouse, pool, and pool deck shall be
certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved
Site Development plan prior to final inspection.
9. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the site plans. The proposed
exterior wall lights shall have an opaque or semi-transparent glass cover
where the source of the light is not visible. No lighting may be placed
within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional
outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to
installation.
10. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
11. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted
or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within
skylight wells.
12. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the
Planning Department prior to installation.
13. The existing shed located within the west property line setback must be
relocated to a minimum of 40' from the front and 30' from the side or rear
property lines prior to final inspection.
14. The existing shed adjacent to the detached garage shall be removed prior
to final inspection.
15. The two existing decks located along the west property line must be
removed prior to final inspection.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 8 of 10
16. Portions of the existing driveway as shown on the approved site plan shall
be removed prior to final inspection.
17. 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.
18. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise
mitigation and screening.
19. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official:
a. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure
(fence) that meets the requirements of Section 115923 of the
California State Health and Safety Code.
b. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover.
c. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors
providing direct access to the pool.
d. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool
shall be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with a
release mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
20. The site drainage associated with ,the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow wherever the
to avoid concentration of the
runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing
flow patterns. 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 final letter shall
be submitted from the project engineer stating that the site drainage was
constructed in conformance with the approved plans and recommendations
prior to final inspection.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 9 of 10
21. The fill at the front of the property shall have 90% compaction and
shall be planted to prevent erosion prior to final inspection.
22. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan 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.
23. Any new public utility services serving this property shall be placed
underground.
24. 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 to final
inspection.
25. 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 building plan check.
26. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be
submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City
Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck
traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic
safety on Cortez Lane and surrounding roadways; storage of construction
materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction
vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash
dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris.
Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the
debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler
is allowed within the Town limits.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Chou
12951 Cortez Lane
April 8,2004
Page 10 of 10
27. A permit is required from the Santa Clara County Environmental Health
Department for the abandonment of system. A leach field and the
proposed new leach field line. The applicant must submit an approved
septic leach field from the Santa Clara County Environmental Health
Department to the Town prior to acceptance of building plans check.
CONDITION NUMBERS 23, 24, 25 AND 26 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND
SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER
PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK
BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 23 days of the date of this
notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The
applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after May 1, 2004,
provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with
the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection
approval.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
April 8, 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.
LANDS OF CHOU
12951 Cortez Lane-# 45-04-ZP-SD
OFFICE OF COUNTY A 8 9 E 9 8 0 R �
II SANTA C L A R A COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
r - 28 82 AI n a
'� I� f•1SI T6'� 'f46'�--171'66'��+���`
.ice > 27 ZmAc.>b
x
Ac
♦ Ma n8 HIL(;i ROADr,U
42
7 7491 Ac JI 1S4 Ac W-7 4;IOft
6, I a 17937 Ac % r Sf 'k j i
;Xaa 4,0
r r-nlok� c �! dp r .}, °br,{p � S1a 9i o fgpisks 04
\ r♦r� �' i s Op /! �`•}�, A 4 IOIE0Z3Aa � 1
.l „ a 4y 8 I-.y�� LOW A4!
T � A.
�� s .9, a 107R�e2♦' 1 . !IY O�
e_ 2 r'k•+i '•'�4+. u r gq f ♦ aµa► IH I
�r artL 4il�i�rlTs rr�.y
4
7RACr _ !€ •
MATaDERo ala U qb iawAt dX '�� n
12951 Cortez Lane
��&Ar1114M APN: 182-19-031 AUG 0 6 7001 m
TAAFFE PAATlT14N,LOT 2 1 PART at l 071 l,
uxRME E.STYE-AS'9pi0R
cakuw m,p Ar®mnnt p ipm add
meq' 00*3f U%w R&T iLd%is Jul
� iflialhs Rdl riv 9000-II00E
TOWN of LOS ALTOS HILLS ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WORKSHEET#2
EXISTING&PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA&FLOOR AREA
PROPERTY OWNERS: Sue&Tim Chou
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 12951 Cortez Lane,Los Altos Hills
CALCULATED BY: Ian Earnest DATE: 3/31/04
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (Square Footage)
Proposed—
Existing
roposedExisting (Add'ns or Total
Deletions)
A. House& Garage(from Part 2.A.) *,-73-6- 13 ",74-9- 4-r-1 6$''�
B. Decking 2,232 (89) 2,143
C. Driveway&Parking 2,250 - 2,250
D. Patios&Walkways 214 - 214
E. Tennis Court - - -
F. Pool&Decking 2,354 - 2,354
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part 2.B.) t 6 Z 453- - '154-
H. Any other coverage 0c-LO
-
`� Totals 76 X8-63 q
Maximum Development Area Allowed-MDA(from Worksheet#1) 12,240
2. FLOOR AREA (square Footage)
Proposed
Existing (Add'ns or Total
Deletions)
A. House& Garage
a. lstFloor z���ik�Z� PRFous��, ��� 3,426 13
b. 2nd Floor W �" , - -
c. Attic&basement G �'� �` 650 - 650
d. Garage 660 - 660 ✓
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor 5"O-Ps - tia2 �O ��,2 - l 2 } ✓
b. 2nd Floor - -
c. Basement (below grade on 3 sides) - - -
Totals 13 c-q Ss .
Maximum Floor Area Allowed-MFA(from Worksheet#1) 5,000
TOWN USE ONLYCHECKED BY ' (,&— JDATE 3 3 1/0 4-
STATEMENT OF ROBERT AND MARILYN BYERS
REGARDING CHOU PROJECT ATTACHMENT
12951 CORTEZ LANE,LAH `
We reside at 12997 Cortez Lane and are neighbors of Tim and Sue Chou. We moved
into our neighborhood more than 15 years ago. We chose Los Altos Hills and our particular
neighborhood for its rural setting and predominantly low profile, ranch-style contemporary
homes.
We are writing this statement to voice our concerns and issues with the proposed addition
to the Chou property at 12951 Cortez Lane. Those concerns and issues follow:
1. The placement of the story poles, in conjunction with the first permit application, was a gross
misrepresentation of the height of the addition structure. Had they been placed at the current
height of the structure, we would have objected before the project moved forward.
2. The story poles that are in place at the present time, in conjunction with revised plans, are
even higher than the original placement. Our concern is that the construction, including a
roof deck and railing, will be above 27 feet in building height. It is our understanding that:
"No structure may exceed 27 feet in building height from natural grade or an overall
height of 35 feet as measured from the lowest point visible to the highest point of the
structure." [Town of Los Altos Hills Draft Housing Element, Constraints To and
Opportunities for Housing Development, page 28.1
3. Given the misrepresentation of the story poles, we have some concerns as to the accuracy of
structure dimensions, ground elevations, maximum development area, and maximum floor
area, as provided by the revised plans. The accuracy of the plans particularly needs to be
ensured because of the high percentage of MDA and MFA being utilized by the proposed
addition.
4. The addition structure is a violation of town goals for the preservation of ridgelines and
hilltops; in particular, the roof deck has a negative visual impact from Byrne Preserve and
from Altamont Road. As stated in town documents, it is the town's policy to ensure that
"residential development and rehabilitation within the Town's planning area preserves the
natural environmental qualities which significantly contribute to the rural, open atmosphere
of the Town. These include the hills, the ridgeline and the views, the natural water courses
and native trees." [Town of Los Altos Hills Draft Housing Element, Appendix C— 1988
Housing Element Implementation January 7, 1998,page 56.1
5. Before the Chou project, the neighbors on Cortez Lane made efforts to maintain the rural
character and aesthetics of our ridgetop homes. We do not believe that the Chous have made
similar efforts, nor do we believe that the Town has enforced stated objectives in Town
documents.
6. We have some concerns as to the changes in the grading (a couple feet higher) in the front
yard of the Chou property, adjacent to the private road Cortez Lane. The grading changes
were made without a permit, when the septic lines were moved from the backyard to the
front yard. The issue is whether the higher grading will cause excessive runoff onto the
private road. It is one of the Town's programs to require "storm water drainage and erosion
control systems to be designed to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, existing water
drainage patterns and to protect existing downstream homesites." [Town of Los Altos Hills
Draft Housing Element, Appendix C— 1988 Housing Element Implementation January 7,
1998, page 57.]
1
It is our hope that the city will review our objections and ensure that the Chou addition does not
visually impact, negatively, the ridgelines and hilltops on Cortez Lane, prior to any further
approvals.
Thank you for reviewing our objections,
Marilyn Stewart Byers
Robert K. Byers, Jr.
Dated: March 27, 2004
2
Page 1 of 1
Debbie Pedro ATTACHMENT
From: bob [
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 4:30 PM
To: dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Subject: Lands of Chou addition 12951 Cortez Lane (45-04-SD)
Dear Ms. Pedro:
The following are my concerns regarding the addition requested by the Lands of Chou:
1. The new plans exceed the limits as originally requested and the Box that they have added sticks out like a sore thumb
against the ridge line as viewed from Alatamonte road. In Addition their house stands at the entrance of all the lots on
Cortez and this addioion looks more like a boxcar than a building.
2. They have added 3 feet of dirt in their yard which directly drains onto my property without any plan that I have seen as
to stopping the dirt from flowing durning the rainy season. I have already experienced a brown flow from their property
during the heavy rains in February.
3..The new addition with the added deck on the top and the fence around it should be considered a third story which I do
not want to see in our neighborhood.
4. They have made the addition look like a boxcar and is too visible from our road. It does not fit the rural enviroment we
have enjoyed where we live. It also seems to have too many windows in the structure.
5. They can put the solar panels they want on the roofs they already have which are not as visible from the street,without
adding a big slanted roof to the already ugly structure.
This is not what they displayed when they first submitted their plans and I feel I have been deceived by them as to what
type of strucre they were really planning to build.
Please express my concerns to the planning committee. Has anyone actually looked at what they are doing on site?
Thank you,
Robert Sumbs
3/30/2004
Nicholas &Donna Dunckel ATTACHMENT (�
Los Altos, CA 94022
March 28,2004
Debbie Pedro
Town of Los Altos Hills
Los Altos Hills, CA
Re: Addition to Chou Residence
12951 Cortez Lane
Los Altos Hills
Dear Ms. Pedro:
We are writing to express our concerns about the extension to the Chou's house next
door. What the Chous presented to us last fall as.a mother-in-law quarters above a
basement has tamed into a two-story development with a third story deck that overlooks
our pool area, patio, family room, master bedroom, and lawn areas. We have addressed
our concerns privately to the Chous in a number of meetings,phone conversations, and e-
mails without resolution.
The Chou's recently revised plans make the existing addition an even greater misfit in our
area and an even greater intrusion into our privacy. We detail these issues below.
However, first we point out a number of technical errors in their submitted plans that we
believe require correction. The large number of errors suggest a general lack of accuracy
in the application.
a) The elevation above sea level is wrong in all the plans. The correct
elevation for both our houses is approximately 700 feet above sea level, as
may be verified by looking at the original plans for the Chous house,at the
plans for our house, or by checking with a handheld GPS. (If the Chous
really want to build at 480 feet above sea level,we would have no objection
since we would never see it).
b) The plans dated 1/16/04 show a line at the 27 foot level above the terrain.
The plans dated 2/4/04 show the same line,but it has moved upwards with
respect to the deck by nearly 4 feet. What happened? Surely the ground did
not move.
c) The Chou's house has numerous large windows whose areas are not recorded
accurately in the Certificate of Compliance. The latter shows that the total
fenestration on the North side of the original house is 136 sq ft. The actual
area is approximately 227 square feet,-as indicated on,the original house
plans, as measured from photographs, and from estimates. We are
concerned thatwindow areas on other sides of the house are similarly in
error. The consequence is that not all the windows and skylights proposed
for the,addition may be permitted if the correct window areas were
employed.
d) The floor plan calculations indicate that the floor area of the originalhouse
0use
is 2783 square feet, which the addition increases to within 2 square feet of
the maximum allowed. However,these calculations omit the second floor
nook added soon after the house was built. Similarly the calculations for the
addition omit the second floor sleeping "nook" identified on plans for the
West Elevation dated 2/4/04. The Certificate of Compliance says that the
floor area of the original house is 2934 square feet. My calculation of the
area of the first floor of the house from the plans indicate that the floor area
is 2956 sq ft.; the addition of the two second floor nooks would add roughly
another 60 sq. ft. each. Combined,these omissions mean that the mandated
maximum floor area is exceeded by roughly 290 square feet.
e) The Landscape Plan:made available,at the Town is virtually illegible. It
looks as if a large plan had been reduced to 8.5" x 11" and.then faxed. The .
landscaping is important to us and we and our neighbors would like to see
what is being planned.
f) The only legible part of the Landscape Plan is that two 20 ft. trees have been
transplanted and others of unknown size are planned for mitigation on the
West side of the Chou's development Please note that the largest of the two
trees shown as transplanted already appears to be dead- The plan still shows
at least one of the transplanted trees in their original location,but they
shouldn't be counted as.being in both places at the same time.
g) The notation that the Chou's garage lies within the 30 foot setback from
Cortez Lane that appeared on a previous drawing has disappeared in the
recent drawings. It should be reinstated for.the sake of accuracy and
completeness.
The addition that has already been built by the Chous is a highly visible cube completely
out of fitting not only with the rest of their house but also with the neighborhood. It is
highly visible in Byrne Park, from which it stands out prominently above the other homes
on the hillside. The proposed deck and the solar panel will further aggravate its
appearance and further spoil the views for the numerous hikers in Byrne Park. We cite
the following detailed objections.
1) The Town should not permit the height extension, as it amounts to permitting a third
story. 'As proposed,the roof-top deck,with umbrellas on it,will exceed the 27 foot
height limit Since it overlooks our pool area, our patio, our bedrooms, our living
room, and our lawn area, it is also a serious intrusion into our privacy. We
2
recommend that the'Planning Commission not permit use of this intrusive third-floor
observation deck, and that the stairs to it be removed to insure the deck does not get
used for recreation.
2) In its proposed location above the addition,the solar array is an unattractive extension
to the addition. The original Chou residence has a large roof facing in a southerly
direction that is very appropriate for a solar array. We suggest that the Town require
them to move the solar array to this original roof as it would have little or no impact
on its performance yet would greatly reduce its visual impact.
3) As stated in the Town's Municipal Code Section 10-2.702(b)(1), "::.-height
restrictions may be required on hilltops,ridgelines, and highly visible lots." The
Chows addition, which is basically a cube approximately 25' wide x 26' long x 25'
high, stands out as an imposing and intrusive structure on the ridgeline. It is not in
fitting with the houses surrounding it, and the extensions mentioned above will make
it still more obvious. For this reason,we encourage the Planning Commission not to
permit gpy development above the existing flat roof.
4) The Chous have offered to remediate the intrusion of their development by importing
large trees. While we appreciate this gesture,we are unconvinced of its effectiveness.
The largest of two transplanted trees appears to have died within a month of being
transplanted. Will other trees suffer the same fate? Will the trees cover the
development within our lifetimes? Will they reduce the illumination from the
proposed skylight? Will they do anything with the noise of rooftop recreation?
Section 10-2.701 of the Town's Municipal Code states that the purpose of Building Siting
is "to insure that the site,location and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when
viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the
natural landscape;that ridgelines and hilltops are preserved". The Chou's construction
violates each of these goals, and the proposed addition further violates it.
In summary,we recommend the following actions:
i) Correct the numerous errors in the application and allow the neighbors
access to have the new measurements verified by their own
professionals;
ii) Disallow the recreational use of the 3rd floor deck and remove the
existing railing and the access stairs to it;
iii) Mitigate the effect of the solar array by moving it to the main roof of the
house;
iv) Require that not only the new outdoor lights and skylights meet the
Town's current requirements,but that the pre-existing outdoor lights and
skylights also meet them.
v) Replace the dead transplanted tree and add others to mitigate the visual
effects of the existing addition.
vi) To prevent the proposed skylight from illuminating our house,re-orient
it so that the nighttime light from it goes straight up.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Nicholas and Donna Dunckel
Phone: (
e-mail:
P.S. When the Planning Commissioners visit the site, we encourage them to come to our
house(the next house towards Black Mountain from the Chous) and, whether we are
home or not,to observe the Chous development from our patio.
4
r
+
4/ y tS4 � . 91
+}j ixA,
5i;�. x�at z111;.r i Tfxt.' V
Ji - o-r t+. it ,s, zNmry k } h�" 'P
r pF f,t1
aj t "'s1 �ir�• •_ � + 4+ n, r� i.,A'�;}� �I�' 4l' { � k .1 i I i+�ifp f a rHµ,� fR.F�h ii.�+ '� �f �,x,
I,, �t �tti G
.fp � .��,� +zea d
"� t
WAS
Sup ,g x �; � �, t � �. �
+ Si t4 S �' Sk, - fis'sn
3 �L�yj.�.�c I
`. fl
! 4 •'rry�` —s ,..b i � ^t ��Y�.? � ,t�4,�..;W++v'2 :,�•r. � •i s,;. � .t t�'•t ii;,k'341t �'.�rj•�,+$•i '{• ,y
s c§'Mv�L a.Fts"i'"u.,}b:u_"�.^:�.u�: ,�sxe�r .Lra�+e� �?�'Ais. �'� E � �sr+i3' sVFm�. �'�.��'"T,, Fe •�A. u�, i i• 6
4f b k 4 i •'us 3 .aih`q ;.s'�C¢
7��if.JW,�z mKas""w.b�}.y'.inv�t�zlt��•^Eac,"�t.`t�°dta�U, tb4.�.dVit',�.t4,X'.-.�i�-•_`',.t-7��','"iF��' „,s„_�S. 4' Y s t p-.r kry s.,,t�y-:t ::n}i,:.;:-'�i{' „F'` Rf iw;`t,�;'itlrt=�r.'''i tj. � x
,t
-!i,}i'>•,<,.;r.,��.fr.i.t�”."4�'F.f�t-'+`, tt{;y n^'''`, 28^'dnt,atE" tr�u`r`�,+;:.c'i^Jtn'rt7., + !��i
�S +
.,1t
-16A
t� : � •�}� t�,1 i� i .r.j.,,y , "� E ,r I�X.a 452.�c".,,_ f� .`C:�#}. i i�T k�{ ,.5�k},;� i"v j�,, f y�;
�.. '=S.e r��'a' 4'i r>,,; s ,'t'!` •,'• 1! t4 � r' , r � '¢ ��t i ,y x�.r }} }.13 -,R�� 4 ` ,+,
�' a+. _ .°'r."``' �;s'�`'i,. "t '`�_�`r?,.�f�'+y Fp i'- •+ � f Ri•{ }} yi. �,. 4 �`��+ � �, a.}{(jss 4J '�,� � ,j � -
�.,,� fi� il,. C✓� '}��,k � t r f r`} q;1f,
t,4� t o-ii �`,` �� �, t i"'',s,�!.^, -� `� �,� .:a �j '�?`��°a?+ t "� ;�� +��:.��t ��•,�. �-fi,`',
f:,itft .i ° ti.ri -}'tM � �� .•r.,� '�. � +,Sjy .k4 p. ;��: � qy�t _:�Yti � •, Y�L �:,�� � ��� r��.l.� �, it':zn�
'�+�t � ''•'¢.,{:t' , t.,`{• .t t r. ' L +-' ��?.��,4��rc',5:} '` � � ��'`�` � *;.4 S�}tS i �t?� .1utY ��{.�Fr ;�l .,t. 1 �t lj � _
`j. `?aj. ,..o `� r �+si 4��ai ?, +i ;wti`-x,,•,9; :•�"z{,.p4 •rte t't;}61.�` r,. �'k�iy++.;�.+e`.'',,.��tf. �' •} 4S� _+�':3.
{3r
.:�`"#. v �,.i.' 4.3 ��`��'•• i.,.,�.4'•u't,,s!, tj :!r .��` `prr;,g.4�. � 'kcL�,�i-;e;.� 1j�j
wm S't•fmx i..�fi �"t�
,e�J"��t � ,:���� �93r i �'� 1l,." �. 4 .. + � SF-w. � + yrv,4t 3 � .� � �1 � .�t ` f:�,{•i
y Y�"i`t •Snk} T T�' �t ,.st f •+�~ 4 � S,t£�,�,i�s-, i ��+�.�� a �� S, � i'..^ir � �yt;, '� :.�� t
x �- �� �� � '� .!. .{'• �,,. 1. f+.9{!^k,+,_a�^,-•' i'iir: �,7� ',,�,. ri.:. l,, s - �-�., sv/ r�
•:M". �'��r. '.sc � f' ti4.'i"' ; ,,, iN ,u ,-� w :" ..s, `� ,y.{� F„ �" w., S,;L k.:
u,> a;"' ., .t ., �- •�.., ty ,,.•.3t.e' ,,4 •e4' r'-=t q� �'t ,,y tt� �a'a ;S '� ', h, :fit >'>,g- ' ," i e
:as��'��'.+`*�� 'it- r .l.,. � -- 4 -r�4>'"'�;P,C::Y i�•tfi. �;. ;wk.R �'�'� 4� a ,C` .n 9 ,1 �. � ,� t ,F.: {,,, ? .�
q --r+ ?. ✓�' R 1a,' i1t+� )+r i S ~i. u`'t ra 1{., .to.�,}, i ""t:.
` '"+S. ,� � ..... �- ^-'•, .l•1. r`x'' '.i. {-['S. -x.lj:,i' �w'�1 � ,?;@ ..4 .4itC f f� :.4 ('t�f"= �t'4^#' ;.�.i, ir< .I..S... f�`<ir•. rni. Hv`. - 1
�.. ,.x �'+. .?7`ia.r, k. rt t� - '�.' ,y_J:.t+, yp{ �- .FT,,j�. rt,�,•:.v."�' �.. ,L -'Y ,s [ �+ r ��s 't � �
.ax. ,,.y a� `.sw, ,t~ "'♦!�� '1 :a�A++xt} yS� il.. � -I,: !L'` wj. i! _ .3' S-. k :,7g �+,�xh•�.xr �r,• �'j .q '� 44 ��
,x. ::�. 4€ f.$.Jc't1f.,. ,� hr nr. =s:". :a }}44 i .,, s � ,'�.`�"..A•1 af,.rF 1'" '.
M
;i'. k ,:t ri.� +�• o•'�L. r ..}'}� 'ii;rill -..�' .4 jL. t:� -+. K�7 - a2. � �'
µ-. j i .. i .i � K �'.t tr�..,s�t: 4+�a'',',. ,..,n. t{� '+ (>F•v��,iha I'7 'p 4.., r t' .�,rvK z ka t. ``���- {- e .
�..,:�: � t , ..•�-,: e' ,. `�:r:: ,.�.` y.rc tl�" .i#p,,, � '.,, �r,s 7 ";s.M �,,tS u, ,;�xu- � m- „a+i.v..' gym. ;++.. .,4,�� � 4
',r._ i J'sr •) L ,,..x.'�•'J's ,� iz,<N,, ';a t.,•..� .,ms's, .,'+ Y�"J•, t`..a •�`.�.� t �- �+� e •� ,.,,. �:
��., ,!•'� o-34 f u°'r �+'.��:e.b .�':,rv�_ �. y't ',��.Y"�. 'h t ;�. `t'�,!.{ a A 3'hr,',i 1�. .f�,+-r�`"
ryt. ss +; � i r.. :'r' S4-i;ti..•:}1 `1�.Y n=`4, �k, � Vii.,. ':fx rt - "1,; _,s
} ,l.•... ,i, ,,:,.t" 1
'yit`E.�k'+•�'�"�,r�id�tq.,t,,:-+t 1_�P•4.L{,:.+'',�„w'.i.••t',=•-.;t.k.�t•n,.,.:iF:-.�-;.k':,".�r`�'t, .y �,YiWtflC.r-.,o�ti�',...>...b.d-.r^:cr�a
. "'..�;A'l��"d,,+.,{-"s4✓�X,�,`�.wFqea.+,.r';r.t+,._,+a,�,A�.r�Y�+,•�.>5`f,<`5`k:.�1..s:..._x:'�.i;.�'�Nk-}•h":,'�*�'i.a•�r:.-:C4�-.,evt}`T.�Y.�,.�._.-_�..y•M¢,.;'yvr°,„+".'�3i.y,:r,.,.,:l.a;.,�r_'l(�.�'�j�� �`a..,�.JF,�eu�>u}r<.�a s.. �h::k:�r,I,x''�t�..4''. gj,,�:.j.v�S.„.�ixat.°,•.,.;';k1 s'FSS:, 3�t•r'C...'1,t,�gn}jr�w.'t°,,�, ..s�'t.�i1+..+.yi1�,',nys.F.s..�yii.u�v:�.N:.'”'�,�.f�'i-S!c pp
`•'wt�'ti r4Y:,."•��",:r>
_
�
`
-
5r�r�, .r �, "�;,S��mY?5 s iF,fit"'4� '�'���{ ;:. ,4�' .a hA �x � `�,�*�c ++�r• t'r _ t. F ;4 �i�'. � a. L
h�s' +
t"eit
va
} � t -'$Fn r,?Y t, f„�{ku, ale,• ;c!° yd?:°` �'G ') : J�'' ,�p4,p{t.ti 4 �4
,�y.1W 4�,�If��G��. £ p, �'�`�L+�,,r�o�+JFi �� �'. - Nr 1 h.ry V+'. fi�^✓Z�...�N � 4? i��l' .��)a
Size of windows on North side of Chou's house
From Original House Plans
Size of Window Number of Windows Area in sq in Area in sq ft
Slanted windows at top 7060 3 12600 88
Slanted windows at top 5060 2 6000 42
Kitchen window. 2 x 6 ft 1 12
Measured from photos or estimated
Pantry door 24 x 60 in 1 1440 10
Dining room windows 70 x 77 in 1 5391 37
next to front door 18 x 70 in 1 1260 9
Second-story nook 70 x 60 in 1. 4200 29
227
ATTR
SENT 7
March 30, 2004
To: Debbie Pedro
Town of Los Altos Hills
Los Altos Hills, Ca
From: Jon Craig and Linda Raggi
Los Altos Hills, Ca
Re: Addition to Chou Residence
12951 Cortez Lane
Los Altos Hills, Ca
Dear Ms. Pedro:
As neighbors on Cortez Lane, we are concerned about the in-process developmentsat the
Chou residence. The concern is about loss of privacy and stems from the height of flie new
addition and roof'iop deck. The preliminary plans and the first set of story poles both defined the
height of the neW`addition as about the same height as the existing bedroom wing. Currently, the
height of the addition is 3 feet higher than the existing bedroom wing. The additional height has
caused us great concern because the roof is doubling as a recreational deck and solar panel
platform. The addition, deck and solar panel platform can now be seen from many points on our
property including living space and bedrooms. The additional height has significantly affected
the visibility of the structure and therefore negatively affected our privacy.
Another concern is about appearance. The addition has a commercial look and seems
inappropriate for ridgeline. A three story tower, external staircase, roof top deck and roof top
utilities seem out"of place when observing the addition up close from Cortez Lane and near by
pathways. It also seems out of place when observing the addition from Byrne Park and Westwind
Barn.
Our third;concern involves errors and inconsistencies, which seem to be'complicating the
process. The plans for the addition seem to be changing with great fluidity, while work continues
on the structure. The elevation for the project is several hundred feet in error. A staircase within
the existing structure that seems to lead to a second story, with no second story detailed on the
floor plan. The 27-foot maximum limit line drawn on the plan seems to arbitrarily.move as the
plans are updated,Unfortunately, these errors and inconsistencies have made it difficult to
conceptualize the'final structure.
We would like to make the following recommendations in hoping to move the project
along in a way that supports Town of Los Altos Hills, the Chous and also the neighbors on and
around Cortez Lane.
1
Recommendations:
Remove errors and inconsistencies.
1. Recommend a review of all elevations. All site elevations to be re-surveyed or checked for
accuracy,including the height of the addition, the height of the proposed changes, the 27-foot
max line and all other critical elevations.
2. Recommend a review of all key floor plan dimensions and account for the missing second
story.
Mitigate the commercial look of the addition.
1. Recommend a visit by all appropriate city personnel to observe the addition from Cortez
Lane and nearby paths. Also view the addition from Westwind Barn and Byrne Park.
2. Recommend enclosing the existing external staircase.
3. Recommend moving the proposed solar collectors to the existing slanted roof or conceal
them in a low profile implementation on the new flat roof.
4. Recommend the development of a landscape plan that mitigates the view of the structure
from Cortez Lane and pathways as well as Westwind Barn and Byrne Park.
Ensure privacy to the neighboring homes.
1. Recommend the disapproval of the request for Site Development Permit modification as
specified. Permit the roof top deck to be built at the previously permitted railing height of
21.5 feet. Mitigate commercial look as much as possible.
OR
2. Recommend the disapproval of the request for Site Development Permit modification as
specified. Permit the taller addition, as built. Abandon the roof top deck and move the solar
panels to the new roof in a"low profile implementation", not to exceed 21.5 feet. This
recommendation would maintain the currently approved 21.5 foot maximum, help mitigate
the commercial appearance, allow a taller as built addition while protecting the privacy of the
neighbors.
Rationale
The current permit allows for a deck with railing to be built at 21.5 feet which places the floor of
the roof top deck:at an elevation of 21.5—3 (railing)= 18.5 feet
The maximum height for the site is 27 feet. Leaving 27-18.5= 8.5 feet of clearance between the
deck floor and the maximum height for the site. 8.5 feet is a minimum amount of clearance
required to allow`the deck to be used without breaking through the 27-foot max. Umbrellas, sun
shades, arbors, upper end fireplacelbarbecue vents and other recreational equipment are typically
taller than 8.5 feet.
2
The Site Development Permit modification places the deck railing at 24 feet which puts the as
built deck floor at 24-3=21 feet. This allows only 6 feet of clearance between the roof deck floor
and the 27-foot max. It is virtually impossible to use the roof top deck without breaking the 27-
foot plane. Adults, umbrellas, sunshades will routinely reside above the 27 foot max.
Based on both qualitative and well as quantitative rationale, we recommend the disapproval of
the request for Site Development Permit modification.
Many Regards,
Jon Craig and Linda Raggi.
3
ATrACHMENT '8
Debbie Pedro
From: Mark Burhenne D.D.S. [
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:54 AM
d edro@losaltoshills.ca. ov
To: P 9
Subject: Chou remodel
Hi Debbie:
I just wanted to send you my input on the Chou remodel. They are
wonderful neighbors despite their poor taste in architecture. That
"tower" that they are building blocks my view of Byrne park from my
driveway, which is sad for us, but inherently should not be a valid
complaint on my part. After all, it is their property. However, I am
concerned that the tower is taller than the original story boarding
indicated, that it has facility for foot traffic on top of the tower,
and that it is an eyesore in the neighborhood. In addition, the new
story boarding that has been recently placed indicates a.ridiculous
placement of the planned solar panel. Now the eyesore will be compounded
by the tacking on of these solar panels. Solar panels look very
commercial or industrial, and they should be as invisible as possible
Why not use their existing roof for the solar panels? The angle and
position are ideal, and the panels will be completely hidden. Also, the
grading of soil in front of their property looks fine, as long as it is
contained by a retaining wall to prevent that soil from running out into
the street. It is disconcerting that all of the Chou's neighbors are
upset by their addition. However, it is not surprising that we are all
complaining about the same things. It's a horrible plan that they have,
and it's going to effect the resale value of all of our homes!
Mark and Roseann Burhenne
1