HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 L
Town Of Los Altos Hills July 8, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: REQUEST FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW
RESIDENCE; VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING STRUCTURES TO
ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE SETBACK; AND A REQUEST FOR A
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT; LANDS OF KORMAN; 26157
ALTADENA DRIVE; FILE#76-98 4ZP-SD-GD-VAR-LLA
FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Direct
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Variance, citing the findings
outlined in Attachment 2, and recommend approval of the requested Lot Line
Adjustment, subject to the attached conditions of approval (Attachment 1); OR
2. Approve the requests, modifying condition#1 to require the house to be moved to
the east and north and/or reorienting the garage to provide more room for
landscape screening.
BACKGROUND
The subject property currently comprises two lots which total 3.69 acres in gross area.
The lots were initially established as dozens of small"picnic" lots as part of the Los Altos
Villa Tract in 1913. At a later date Lowell Lane was vacated to establish and the two
existing parcels reflect mergers of the smaller lots. The applicant proposes to adjust the
lot line between the parcels to create a conforming lot (parcel B) for the parcel upon
which the new residence will be constructed.
The lot currently contains a residence and detached garage and has driveway access from
Kingsley Way, although the address is from Altadena Drive (condition #12 requires that
the addresses for both lots be changed to Kingsley Way). The existing residence would
be part of parcel A and the existing driveway would be used for access to parcel B,
including a 25-foot wide access easement through parcel A. A 10-foot wide sewer
easement and 10-foot wide storm drain easement bound the western property line of
parcel B (note: these are not shown on the site plan).
The site is very flat, with an average slope of only 3.9%. Vegetation on the site is
relatively sparse, with a few eucalyptus trees between the two lots, and a few pine trees
between the proposed parcel B and the lot to the west (Lao). Surrounding properties
include Palo Alto's Esther Clark Park (open space) to the north, single family residences
to the east and west, and vacant land to the south, also owned by the applicant.
A 40 foot pathway and utility easement exists over what was Lowell Lane along the
western boundary of the current parcel A (except for the northerly 150 feet). Earlier this
year, the applicant requested abandonment of the easement in exchange for construction
of a pathway along the right-of-way of Kingsley Way. The City Council agreed to
initiate the vacation process, but required that the applicant construct the pathway on the
opposite (east) side of Kingsley, to line up with thei path across the Clevenger property,
and dedicate any additional easement necessary to connect to Esther Clark park. Staff
has included conditions requiring construction of'the pathway and dedication of the
easement consistent with the Council's direction.
Planning Commission: July 8,:1998
Lands of Korman
Page 2
CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Ordinance, this application for
a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and
approval. Criteria for review pursuant to the Site Development. Code include grading,
drainage, building siting, landscaping, pathways, and outdoor lighting, as well as the
provisions of the Zoning Code, such as setbacks, parking, height, and maximum
development and floor area.
Review authority for lot line adjustments is limited to that outlined in Section 66412(d) of
the State's Subdivision Map Act, which states that:
"A local agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination
of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment
will conform to local zoning and building ordinances. A local agency
shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line
adjustment except to conform to local zoning and, building
ordinances..."
The Town's Codes do not address lot line adjustments, but the standard Town process
includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and.Council consideration as
a Consent Calendar item. After approval, the lot line adjustment is effectuated by the
recordation of a certificate of compliance.
In order to grant a variance, Section 10-1.1107(2)(b) of the Zoning Code requires the
Planning Commission to make four findings in support of the action, as outlined in
Attachment-2. If the Commissioncannot make any one or more of the findings, the
variance must be denied.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting approval 'of a site development permit for a new partial two-
story residence, with an attached two car,garage. The project would also involve the
widening and extensionof the existing driveway through the existing lot to service this
lot, and ;a wall and walkway linking the two properties. The existing residence will
remain occupied by the applicants' mother.
Pertinent site 'and project statistics for Parcel B (the subject parcel to be developed) -
include the following:
Site.Data:
Gross Lot Area: 1.10 acre '
Net Lot Area: 1.10 acre
Average Slope: 3.9%
Lot Unit Factor: 1.10
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Max. Prop. ' • Exist. Incrs. Left
Devel. . 16,500 .14,722 - 0 - 14,722 • +1,778
Floor 6,400 6,400 - 0 - 6,400 - • - 0 -
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 3
As the floor area is proposed to be developed to the maximum level allowed, a condition
is included (#10) to require that a disclosure statement be recorded to document this
situation. Sufficient development area remains to allow for future outdoor activity areas.
Site and Architecture
The residence is proposed to be of a unique design (perhaps most typical of Middle
Eastern architecture) which utilizes several levels of rooflines and wall planes and a
combination of curving elements to break up the structure. Most of the residence (5,892
square feet, including the garage) is proposed to be single story with two very small
second story elements totaling 508 square feet (approximately 8.6% of the first-floor and
garage).
Exterior materials would consist of stucco with extensive use of stone veneer on the north
(front) and south (rear) elevations, with stucco also for the proposed domes. A
membrane roofing is proposed, other than for the domes and for the patios over the
portico, which would be stone pavers. Exterior colors have not yet been chosen, but staff
will review proposed colors for conformance with the Town's adopted color board, prior
to the submittal of plans for building plan check.
A fairly large area of skylights is proposed over the gallery, but would be recessed
between the roofs for the entryway and the main living area. The standard condition of
approval (#9) has been included to require that any skylights be designed to reduce
emitted light and that no lighting be placed in skylight wells.
Visibility and Height
The project site is highly visible from surrounding properties, including Esther Clark
Park, as it sits in an open valley with little significant screening. Other homes, however,
are generally well separated from the proposed residence, and area is available on the lot
to provide substantial screening. Homes in the general vicinity include single and two-
story structures, including a new wood-sided two story structure on Kingsley Way.
The maximum height of the structure would be 25.5 feet above existing grade, although
this height occurs only at the top of the second story dome above the entry. Heights for
most of the residence range from 12 to 16 to 20.5 feet above grade, and up to 22 feet at
the top of some of the stucco domes. A portico at the entry is proposed at approximately
16 feet in height, with a roof deck and railing above.
The house would be centrally located on the site, although the wall of the west wing
would run parallel to the rear property line right at the 30 foot setback. There is only
about 10 feet of area to add landscape screening trees between the house and the public
utility easements along the western property line, however. There is even less area
between the paved area and the lot line due to backup area, but there are some existing
trees in that area. The house probably could be shifted 5-10 feet to the east, if desired, to
provide some additional space for landscape screening.
The architect has attempted to mitigate the size of the structure by maintaining a single
story profile for most of the residence, by breaking the residence into several distinct
elements, by the use of stone on much of the front and rear elevations, and by the use of
curved domes and arches throughout.
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 4
Driveway & Parking
The driveway is shown on the site plan to be 14 feet wide and would utilize the existing
access point from Kingsley Way to the existing residence. In order to use this driveway,
an access easement (25 feet in width) is provided, lessening the net area for parcel A
accordingly. Additionally, using the existing driveway requires a variance to permit the
existing residence to be located within the required setback, which would now be taken
from the access easement, rather than from the property line. At its closest point, the
house would be only 7.6 feet away from the access easement (30 feet is required by the
Code).
Most of the driveway on parcel B would be located outside of the required setbacks, but
the garage backup area would encroach about 5-10 feet into the rear setback. The Fire
turnaround area would also be located within the north side setback, but would utilize
turfblock to reduce the hard surface appearance. The garage would be situated to face
the west, away from Kingsley Way, consistent with the Design Guidelines (but then
facing some of the neighboring properties). If desired by the Commission, the paved
area in the setback and exposure of the garage could be reduced further by either: 1)
shifting the paving 5-10 feet to the east and/or 10-15 feet to the north (into the setback
adjacent to the park); and/or 2) reorienting the garage to face north, so that the backup
utilizes the turnaround in front of the house and screen plantings can be installed on the
west side of the garage.
Four parking spaces would be provided, two in the attached garage, and two open spaces
to the northeast of the house. Additional parking would probably be available in front of
the house, in the portico area. No retaining walls would be needed for the driveway and
turnaround areas and no trees would be impacted.
Trees and Landscaping
As previously indicated, there are only a few mature trees on the site, mostly eucalyptus
and pines, and they would not generally be affected by the project. There is an apparent
need to add screening along the south and west sides of the property to shield views of
the project from neighbors and from Kingsley Way. Condition #2 requires that
landscaping be considered at a site development hearing after framing of the residence.
Wall and Walkway
A stone wall and walkway is proposed to link the existing residence to the new residence
and parcel B. The height of the wall is to be limited to 3 feet for most of its distance, but
would then step up in increments to a maximum height of 10 feet for the last 20 feet or
so. The walkway would be 3.5 feet in width and would be made of concrete pavers.
Staff has included in condition #2 that the materials for the wall and walkway be
considered at the landscape site development hearing.
Lighting
Lighting on the buildings is not indicated on the plans. Staff has included wording in
condition #7 that lighting be limited to one light per exit, with two lights permitted at the
garage and at the entry. Staff notes that this would have the effect of prohibiting lighting
on the west side of the residence, facing the neighbors. Lighting specifications would
need to be submitted to staff for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check, and lighting must be directed downward and shielded, so that the light source is
•
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 5
not visible from offsite. Landscape lighting would be reviewed in conjunction with the
landscape plan at a site development hearing.
Grading and Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans,and has recommended conditions of
approval as specified in Attachment 1. The project proposes very little grading, as the
site is very flat. Total proposed cut would be 480 cubic yards, to lower the house
slightly into the site, and 200 cubic yards of fill on the downhill side of the house to
elevate the floor for drainage purposes. The proposed grading is generally consistent
with the Town's grading policy, and the finished floor of the residence is not proposed to
be located more than 3 feet above existing grade.
Drainage for the site is proposed to be discharged as sheet flow to the south and west to
the existing natural drainage channels. The standard conditions of approval require that
the Engineering Department review and approve the final drainage plan prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check, and that any deficiencies be corrected prior
to final inspection.
The project proposes to connect to sanitary sewer, with a new connection for the
residence on parcel A as well.
Variance
A variance is requested to Section 10-1.505 (Setback lines) of the Zoning Code, which
requires that no structure be located within 30 feet of an access easement. In this case,
by using the existing driveway, the access easement created around the driveway would
result in the existing residence encroaching to within 7.6 feet of the easement. The
applicant has indicated (Attachment 8) that the need for the variance stems from the
location of the existing house and driveway, and the limited impacts on neighbors.
In order to approve a variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings, as
required by the Zoning Code: 1) that there are circumstances unique to this property
which make compliance with the Code impractical; 2) that the intent of the Code is met
and that approval would not comprise a special privilege for the applicant; 3) that there
would be no adverse impacts on neighboring properties; and 4) that the use is consistent
with the Zoning Code.
Attachment 2 outlines staff's proposed findings for approval of the variance request. In
particular, the subject site is currently without access to a roadway. Because the site is
very flat and visible, access which complies with the Code would have to disturb a wide
area across the open field. The intent of the Code appears to be met, as there would be
no impact to neighbors since the driveway would be adjacent to and set below the open
space preserve. The proposed driveway location would have substantially less impact,
however, on neighboring properties, than to cut a new driveway across the undisturbed
field. The use is clearly consistent with the single family residential use of the property.
If the Commission is uncomfortable with the potential for a future owner of the existing
house to be impacted,perhaps an agreement (similar to the Mendez property on Frampton
Court or the Krause property on Westwind Way) could be structured, setting forth an
alternate access easement to be developed prior to sale to another party.
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 6
Lot Line Adjustment
A lot line adjustment exhibit is shown on the first page of the plans, outlining the existing
lot boundaries and the proposed parcel configuration. As indicated, the resultant lot
configuration will comply with Zoning Code requirements for building circles, lot size,
LUF, MDA, and MFA.
The lot line adjustment will be finalized with the recordation of a certificate of
compliance by the Town. Condition #20 requires the applicant to submit a property
description and plat exhibit to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. -
Other Staff and Committee Comments
The Town Geologist has found the project to be feasible, and recommends approval
subject to standard plan review and field inspection conditions, as per the attached May
19, 1998 letter from Cotton, Shires and Associates (Attachment 3).
The Los Altos Fire Protection District (LAFPD) has requested several conditions be
included (see Attachment 1), including the installation of a sprinkler system in the
residence, maintenance of the required 14 foot driveway width and clearance to allow
access by fire equipment, and an address which is clearly visible from the street.
LAFPD's recommended conditions are attached (Attachment 4).
The Pathways Committee has requested that an easement be dedicated and a type IIb
pathway be constructed from Esther Clark Park on the west side of Kingsley Way to a
point 20 feet beyond where the path begins on the other side of the street (Attachment 5).
The City Council, however, has already directed that the pathway should be constructed
on the opposite side of Kingsley, and an easement dedicated as needed to make the
connection to the park. The pathway conditions of approval are included as conditions
#22 and 23.
The Environmental Design Committee has noted (Attachment 6) that mitigation
screening is needed on the south side of the house, and that lighting and noise may impact
neighbors. The Committee will review landscape and lighting plans at a later site
development hearing.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have.
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Proposed Findings for Approval of Variance
3. Letter from Cotton, Shires and Associates, dated May 19, 1998
4. Letter from Santa Clara County Fire Department, dated May 13, 1998
5. Pathways Committee Memo of May 21, 1998
6. Environmental Design Committee Memo of June 8, 1998
7. Worksheet#2
8. Applicant's Variance Statement
9. Worksheets for Lot Line Adjustment
10. Letter from Architect for Owner at 26590 Snell Lane
11. Development plans: lot line adjustment, engineer's site plan, architect's site plan,
perspective, floor plans, roof plan, elevations, and sections (7 sheets);
cc: Josh and Shioban Korman
26157 Altadena Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Stan Field
3631 Evergreen
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE, VARIANCE.,
AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
FILE#76-98-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-LLA
LANDS OF KORMAN - 26157 ALTADENA DRIVE
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by -
the Planning Director or the Planning Commission; depending upon the
scope of the changes.
2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development hearing. Particular attention
shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of
the new residence from Kingsley Way and surrounding properties,
particularly to the west and south. Materials and colors and screening for
the proposed wall shall also be considered at the meeting. All landscaping
required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by
the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection, unless the
Planning Director finds that unusual circumstances, such as weather or site
conditions, require that planting be delayed. In those instances, a deposit
of an amount equal to the cost of landscape materials and installation, to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be submitted to the Town.
Landscaping shall in any event be installed not later than six months after
final inspection, or the deposit will be forfeited.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit), equal to the
cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening
purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer), but
not to exceed $5,000, shall be posted prior to final inspection. An
inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and
maintenance shall be made two year's after installation. The deposit will
be released at that time if the plantings remain viable.
4. Fire retardant roofing isrequiredfor the residence.
5. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in
conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a
light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have
a light reflectivity value of 40 or I less. White trim area should be
minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings,
and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval prior to submittal of plans for building plan
check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the
approved color(s) prior to final inspection.
6. At the time of foundation inspection for the house, the location and
elevation of the structure shall be certified in writing by a registered civil
engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location and
elevation shown on the approved site development plan. At the time of
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 9
framing, the height of the structure shall be similarly certified as being at
the height shown on the approved site development plan. The hardscape
and driveway locations shall also be certified-at time of installation.
7. Specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Lighting shall generally be limited to one light fixture at each exit, with
two permitted at the entry and on the garage, unless additional lighting is
determined to be necessary for safety purposes. Any additional outdoor
lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape plan. Lighting fixtures shall
generally be downlights. Exceptions may be permitted in limited
locations (entry,-garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible
from off site. Any security lighting shall be limited in number and
directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or
louvers is suggested. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or
reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting should not be
directly visible from off site. No lighting may be placed within the
setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry lights, except where determined to
be necessary for safety.
8. Prior to commencement of any grading on the site, all significant trees are
to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and
structure to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the
fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to issuance of building or
demolition permits. The property owner shall call for said inspection at
least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain
throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles,
or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees.
9. Skylights shall be designed to reduce emitted light and no lighting shall be
placed in skylight wells.
10. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the floor area (6,400
square feet) proposed for the property by this approval is the maximum
level of development currently allowed by the Town. The Planning
Department will prepare the statement and the signed, notarized document
shall be returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check.
11. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
May 19, 1998, the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. The existing boreholes are about 50 to 100 feet from the center of
the proposed new residence. The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall determine whether more exploratory boreholes are
required to accurately characterize the proposed building site. Any
necessary supplemental site investigation should be completed and
geotechnical design parameters modified as appropriate, and
submitted for review by the Town Geologist prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check
b. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve
all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e. site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman •
Page 10
parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of
the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant
in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and
approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
c. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The
inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls
prior to placement of steel and;concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the
project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as
built) inspection.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter
from Cotton, Shires &Associates dated May 19, 1998.
12. The site addresses for both properties shall be changed to Kingsley Way
addresses, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and the Fire
Department,prior to final inspection.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
13. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium between November 1 and April 1
except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take
place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the
construction of the driveway access.
14. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing
flow patterns. A final grading and drainage plan that has been stamped
and signed by a registered civil engineer shall be required to be submitted
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final drainage and
grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any
deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department
prior to final inspection. A letter shall be submitted from the project
engineer stating that the drainage improvements were installed as shown
on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations prior
to final inspection.
15. All new and existing public utility services serving this property shall be
placed underground.
16. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 11
with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to
grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway
shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be
protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil
disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and
shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
17. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be
submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City
Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. The grading/construction plan shall address truck traffic
issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on
Kingsley Way and surrounding roadways; storage of construction
materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction
vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash
dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris.
Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the
debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler
is allowed within the Town limits.
18. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair
any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private
driveways, and public and private roadways,prior to final inspection and
shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the
roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check.
19. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer,prior to final inspection.
20. A Certificate of Compliance shall be issued by the Town for the lot line
adjustment. The property owner shall submit legal description and plat
exhibits prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor
for the boundaries of each of the properties. The required exhibits shall be
submitted and approved by the Town prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check
21. The property owner shall connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to
final inspection. 'An encroachment permit shall be issued by the Public
Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way
prior to submittal of plans for building plan check. Connection fees shall
be collected with the building permit fees.
22. A type IIb pathway shall be constructed by the property owner and shall
be located along the easterly side of Kingsley Way. The pathway shall
connect to the existing type IIb pathway located at 14400 Kingsley Way
and shall cross Kingsley Way at the northerly end to connect to the
entrance to Esther Clark Park. A 4' wide drainage channel shall also be
constructed,along the easterly side of Kingsley Way between the edge of
pavement and the new pathway, to the satisfaction of the City.Engineer.
The pathway and drainage improvements shall be approved by the
Engineering Department prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998 '
Lands of Korman
Page 12
23. The property owner shall grant a pathway easement to the Town over the
pathway connection between Kingsley Way and Esther Clark Park. The
exact dimensions of the pathwayeasement shall be approved by the
Engineering Department. The property owner shall provide legal
description and plat exhibits prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document.
The grant document, including approved exhibits, shall be signed and
notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to
acceptance of the plans for building plan check.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT -
24. Unless otherwise determined by the Santa Clara County Fire Department,
an automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Fire
Department.shall be included in the new residence. The details of the
sprinkler system shall be included wi h the construction plans. The plans
shall be stamped and signed by the Fire Department and submitted to the
Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the
installed sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire
Department, prior to final inspection. The applicant may propose
alternate,means of achieving an acceptable water supply in lieu of fire
sprinklers, subject to the approval of the Fire Department.
25. The driveway shall be a minimum of 14 feet wide and shall have an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches. The driveway shall
have an all weather surface that is designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus (45,000 pounds).
26. Any changes to the driveway and turnaround design shall first be approved
by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and the Town Engineering and
Planning departments.
27. The approved property addresses shall be placed so that they are plainly
visible and legible from Kingsley Way. The numbers shall contrast with
their background and be a minimum of four inches high.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspectionshall be required to be set with
the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection
approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 5, 7, 10, lla and b, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 AND 24
SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK.BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or
the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building
permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both the elementary and high school district offices in the Los
Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of
their receipts.
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998
Lands of Korman
Page 13
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
July 8, 1999). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work
on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years.
•
Planning Commission: July 8, 1998 I
Lands of Korman
Page 14
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION TO ENCROACH WITHIN SIDE YARD SETBACK
LANDS OF KORMAN-26157 ALTADENA DRIVE
FILE#76-98-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-LLA
1. Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this Title is found to
deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification;
The applicant's property is unusual in that the subject lot does not have street
access and an existing structure and driveway exist on the intervening lot.
Construction of a new access in a conforming location would be much more
visible and obtrusive than using the existing access to connect the rear lot to
Kingsley Way. The strict application of the Code provisions would preclude the
applicant from preserving open space area on the two lots and from utilizing a
joint driveway, as exist on numerous other lots in Town.
' 2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable
sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the
variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other
surrounding property owners;
The intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will be served because the
visibility and impacts of the driveway will be negligible, as most of the driveway
already exists and the new driveway portion would be screened from offsite view
by the proposed home. Special privileges would not be granted as the driveway
alignment would impact theapplicant only while preserving open areas visible to
other neighbors.
3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the
immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district;
The granting of the variances would not negatively impact any neighboring
properties, as the driveway would be shielded by the existing and proposed home,
and would be adjacent to (but not highly visible from) an open space preserve.
No significant vegetation will be removed) and virtually no grading will be
required for the new driveway.
4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel
of property.
The proposed driveway will be consistent with the proposed residential use of the
property and existing uses of surrounding properties.
Amt-t-kw ,NT 3
rim COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY 2 9 1958
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
Ira;: LS
May 19, 1998
L3058
TO: Curtis S. Williams
Planning Director
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills,California 94022
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Review
RE: Lands of Korman,New Residence
#76-98-ZP-SD-GD-VAR
26157 Altadena Drive
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical review of the permit
applications for project construction using:
• "Soil Report" by Nielsen Geotechnical Incorporated, dated July 1,
1998
• Site Development Plan by Lea and Sung Engineering Inc., dated
4/22/98
• Architectural Plans by Stan Field Associates, dated 4/20/98
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files and completed a recent site inspection.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to construct a newt residence adjacent to an existing
house on the subject property. The site plan indicates the construction of a new
residence, while the geotechnical report shows an addition to the existing residence.
The three exploratory borings performed by Nielsen 'Geotechnical are located east of the
proposed new residence. Our review addresses the geotechnical feasibility of the project
development plan and the adequacy of submitted geotechnical design criteria. We
understand that any potential site flood hazards must be addressed to the satisfaction of
the Town Engineer.
Northern California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 5245 Avenida Encinas • Suite A
Los Gatos,CA 95030-7218 Carlsbad,CA 92008-4374
(408)354-5542 • Fax(408)354-1852 (760)931-2700 • Fax(760)931-1020
.,_mail IncuC[�,cavN,i mm e-mail:Carl tt csageo.COnl
Curtis S. Williams May 19, 1998 •
Page 2 L3138
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed building site is characterized by gentle (4 percent inclination),
west-facing natural slopes. Surficial soils consist of potentially expansive silty to sandy
clay. The building site is underlain by mapped alluvium, which is in turn underlain by
bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation. Weathered siltstone and claystone was
encountered in exploratory borings completed by Nielson Geotechnical. Drainage in the
vicinity of the building site is characterized by sheet flow to the west, to an inlet drain in
a shallow swale.
The Town Map of Potential Geotechnical Hazard Areas indicates the
southwestern corner of the subject property is within Zone B, which is an area
designated as land subject to 100-year storm flood inundation.
The mapped traces of the potentially active Berrocal, Altamont and Monta Vista
faults are 2, 1.9, and 1.1 miles southwest, respectively, from the subject property. The
active San Andreas fault is located 4.3 miles southwest of the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed residence construction appears to be primarily constrained by
potentially expansive earth materials, and the potential for strong seismic ground
motion from earthquake on any one of the several nearby mapped fault traces. The
Project Geotechnical Consultant has prepared specific design recommendations to
address expansive earth materials and seismic ground motion. We concur that
construction of the new residence is geotechnically feasible and we do not object to the
submitted site development plan from a geotechnical standpoint. We recommend that
the Town Engineer consider the need for determination of the 100-year flood plain for
the swale on the southwestern side of the subject property.
Prior to issuance of permits for construction, the Project Geotechnical Consultant
should review all geotechnical aspects of building plans. The consultant should consider
the potential need for supplemental exploratory borings located closer to the site of the
proposed residence. Consequently,we recommend geotechnical approval of permits for
project construction with the following conditions:
1. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation - The existing
boreholes are about 50 to 100 feet from the center of the proposed
new residence. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall
determine whether more exploratory boreholes are required to
accurately characterize the proposed building site. Any necessary
supplemental site investigation should be completed and
geotechnical design parameters modified as appropriate.
2. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements,'design parameters for foundations and
driveway) to ensure that his recommendations have been
properly incorporated.
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Curtis S. Williams May 19, 1998
Page 3 L3138
The results of the supplemental geotechnical evaluations and plan review should
be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits:
3. 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 and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel
and concrete.
The results of these inspections and he as-built conditions of the
project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as-
built) project approval.
This review has been performed to provide,technical advice to assist the Town
in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the
documents previously identified,.and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and
conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of
the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either
expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
•
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
,tzt.
Patrick O. Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
•
POS:TS:CW
•
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
•06/30/98 12:47 1j'408 378 9342 CFPD Vim- t -w -r
e ° ,, °°t. FIRE DEPARTMENT
l� z431 'A SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CONTROL NUMBER
E.rr.isr
w 14700 Winchester Blvd.,Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 BLDG PERYrr HANDER
COURTESY&sQRVIC ." (408) 378-4010(phone)• (408)378-9342(fax) .9 8-118 5
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER
FILE NUMBER 76-98-ZP-SD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS •
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
Review of proposed new 5,892 square foot single family residence with garage.
The planner for this project is Mr. Curtis Williams.
•
1 Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access
and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall apply to
the Building Department for applicable construction permits.
UFc 2 Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 2000 GPM at 20 psi
IpA residual pressure. The required fire flow is not available from area water mains
and fire hydrant(s)°which are spaced at the required spacing. (Fire hydrants too
far from site).
ITEC 3 Required Fire Flow Option (Single Family Dwellings): Provide required fire
°s.z flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet OR Provide an
approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. The
fire sprinkler system shall conform to National Fire Protection Association
Standard #13D, 1994 Edition, and local ordinance requirements.
IJFC 4 Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway
S02.2.2 with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 14
feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 orches, minimum circulating turning radius
of 36 feet outside.and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations
shall conform to Fire Department_Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
-DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
LAH 0 0 0 0 0 LEA&SUNG ENGINEERING INC 05/13/98 1 OF 2
-3ECJFLOOR AREA'. LOAD DESCRIPTION - BY -
Residential Development Hokanson,Wayne
-NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR 26157 Altadena Dr
A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos,Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill,and Saratoga
06/30/98 12:48 '(]'4U8 S78 yi4L LTTE two
coe, FIRE DEPARTMENT
44.
11 1; I NUR
� SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTROL MBE
EST.19E7• 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 Bum PERMITNUMBEA
COURTESY&SERVICE! (408)378-4010(phone) •(408)378-9342 (fax)
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 98- 118 rJ'
FLENUMMI 76-98-ZP-SD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
:ODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
5 Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn-around Required: Provide an
9°202'2'2'4 approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a-minimum -
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. (Turn-around noted on
sheet 1. At time of building permit submittal, please provide detail sheet from
turf-block manufacturer reflecting load bearing capability to handle 40,000 lbs.).
56 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
40101'4;2 new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with
their background and be a minimum of four inches in height.
•
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
LAH 0 0 0 0
LEA &SUNG ENGINEERING INC 05/13/98- 2 of 2
❑
SEC/FLOOR- AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Hokanson,Wayne
- NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR 26157 Altadena Dr
A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of
Campbell,Cupertino, Los Altos,Los Altos Hills,Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill,and Saratoga
Town of.Los Altos Hills r.: -; �:�j
5/21/98
114,4/ ,2 • 3
Toc Planning Commission Sc Staff 12010 Elsie Way; Lands4.Murthy &
From: Les Earnest, Pathways Srinatb: Restore II-B patIraPaQ ALTOS HILLS
Committee Chair Concepcion Road. 3/23/98
Subject 1998 Pathway 25935 Estacada Way; Lands of Lee No
recommendations request. 2/23/98
25461 Fremont Road; Lands of
This is a cumulative listing of all i
pathway recommendations for 1998, in Zatparvar Restore II-B path along
alphabetical order by street and number, Fremont and construct II-B path along
with the effective date at the end of Robleda. 5/21/98
each item. In cases where a 25518.Hidden Springs Lane; Lands of
recommendation for a given address has 'Bower: Restore II-B path along
been revised, two dates are shown butAltamont; reconstruct II-B path along
only the final recommendation is.listed. eastern boundary. 2/23/98
Where construction or upgrading of 24004 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of
paths to the II-B.standard is Gormam Restore II-B path along Oak
recommended, it is to include irrigation Knoll Circle; construct a II-B path along
at least 5 feet away from path and a Stonlebrook from Oak Knoll Circle to a
non-slip surface on any crossing point opposite the beginning of the II-B
driveways. Where there is"no request" path on the West side of Stonebrook and
the Committee recommends that in lieu from that point construct a native path
fees be collected where possible. at tl e toe of the slope along Stonebrook
Recommendations to the existing native path
leading to Juan Prado Mesa Preserve.
12025 Adobe Creek Lodge Road; Lands of 1/26/98
Chang: Construct II-B path along Adobe 11030 Magdalena Avenue; Lands of
Creek Lodge Road separated from the Allison:iNo request. 4/27/98
road by 5 feet. Construct II-B path in a
20 foot easement adjacent to Moody 14470 Manuella; Lands of Kwon. :
Road at the toe of the slope. 1/26/98 Construct II-B path along Manuella.
26131 Altadena Drive; Lands of Ewald: 3/2 /9 8
Acquire pathway easement and 12580 Miraloma Way; Lands of Harari:
construct a II-B path parallel to No request. 1/26/98
Altadena. 4/27/98 11471-Page Mill Road; Lands of Wilson:
26157 Altadena Drive; Lands of Korman: Provide sufficient easement along Page
Require easement along Kingsley Way. Mill Road to encompass at least 10 feet
and construct a II-B path from the from the top of the bank and construct a
entrance to Esther Clark Park to a point native path along this route; construct
20 feet beyond where the path begins .an off-road native path on the South
on the other side of Kingsley. 5/21/98side "of Buena Vista Drive beginning
12238 Via Arline; Lands of Robinson &
about 50 feet from Page Mill Road and
Ikeda: No request. 1/26/98 ending adjacent to Buena Vista at the
East boundary of the property and
12246 Via Arline;Lands of Godby: No .. provide a pathway easement at least 10
request. 3/23/98 feet wide that encompasses this route.
14470 De Bell Road; Lands of Wong; No 1/26%98
request. 1/26/98 11972 Rhus Ridge Road; Lands of Malek:
27760 Edgerton Road; Lands of No request. 1/26/98.
Birnbaum: Construct II-B path along 13474 Robleda Road; Lands of Danvers
Edgerton. 5/21/98 . ' No request. 3/23/98
A17 c.ti-YY ,ni i-
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION JUN - 8 1998
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Applicant's Name:
Address: CO� lti-% ;�! 2y5/v
Reviewed by: /�� y✓� �. Date: 6/F/9?
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to-building
site. Recommended protection during construction.)
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient
space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a
need for removal of invasive species?)
V_iX0-:(A3G60i(
Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscape).)•
-
' -(0,7G >4(/ -/i ('- , C-��W��-/%l/ i �'
Other Comments: �% '� . 7//Z' L6 �� �_
4127? � cP )%
•
Pfrrikt.
•
•
..
•
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS BILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26379 Fremont Road•Los Altos Hills,Califonaia 94022•(415)941-7222•FAX(415)941-3160
WORKSECEET #2
. -
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR ARA
•TURN IN WITH YOUR APPIJICATION •
•
(111#1,14 Oa"
(43 IS
' IL
CAW Br DA th
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
•
A. House and Garage (from Part 2.A.) +00
B. Decking g 1
C. Driveway and Parking
(Measured 100'along centerline) • Se o
D. Patios and Walkways / q1-3
E. Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Buildings(from Part B)
H. Any other coverage
TOTALS /4122- • /44,7Z 2.
Maximum Development Area Allowed-MDA(from Worksheet#1) /6,500
•
•
2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
• Existing Proposed Total
• (Additions or Deletions)
• A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor 58qa
b. 2nd Floor g
c. Attic and Basement
d. Garage (5-oo
B. Accessory Buildings
• a. 1st Floor
b: 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS 0 o
Maximum Floor Area Allowed-MFA(from Worksheet#1) G44-00
•
Revised 2/26/96
f—r c.H-mT
RECEIVED
Stan Field A .0 2 3 19.
as S o i a t a s TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
. 3631 evergreen dr.
p a l o alto
ca ito r n i a
94303
Variance Statement - •
This Variance is required due to the need for an Access Driveway to the
back Lot. In theory; two alternatives are possible:
a) From Kingsley, at the northern end of the existing Lot;
b) From Kingsley, at the southern end of the existing Lot, then
North,.alongside the western.boundary and entering the back .•
Lot-in an extremely unfavorable location. . This alternative
• was discarded as being much less desirable because of the
impact on the neighboring properties.
The proposed Extension of the existing Driveway is easily achievable and
the Variance required, we feel; is justified.
• The Main House is 19.5' from the Driveway and the Detached Garage is 9' from
the Driveway. Due to the topography, the existing Driveway alignment is in the
optimum location. • -
04-20-98
tel 650 462 • 9-554 lax 650 4-93 . 3405 •
e mail stanlieldl @earthlink. net
FINDINGS
The findings for a Variance are as follows:
1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
under identical zoning classifications:
Location deprives the property of access.
2. That upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the
ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be
granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property
owners:
Will not affect the property in any way.
3. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within
the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district:
Will not change the situation. Driveway exists.
4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly
authorized by the Zoning Ordinance:
No change of use or activity.
-5-
Variance Application Information Packet Rev. 8/1/94
RIM(H-vvvak q
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.;
ENGINEERS
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET#1
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT'AREA (MDA), AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
'ROPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan Korman .
'ROPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena
CALCULATED BY jcl DATE June 17, 1998
.EFERENCE MAP: Korman - Parcel A before LLA JOB#- 98025.0
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE .
A. NET AREA (An) 2.73 ACRES B. CONTOUR INTERVAL (I) 1.0 FT.
C. DRAWING SCALE 1" = 20'
D. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An) •
CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
192 200 25.6 208 13.1 216
193 201 31.2 209 9.8 217
194 V 202 41.0 ` 210 7.5 218
195 4.5 203 18.0 211 6.1 219
196 9.0 204 24.5 212 4.5 220
197 9.2 205 23.5 213 3.0 221 •
198 V .15.5 206 21.2. , 214 1.8 222
199 18.0 207 16.0 . 215 0.9 223
TOTAL 303.9
CONVERT I 6077.1 FT.
E. AVERAG:
S=. (0.0023) (1.0 FT) (6077 FT) = 5.1%
(2.73)
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF) �
>>•l�
LUF = (An){ 1-[0.02143(S-10)]} = 2.73 ;!...4-7.4i7
. ! NO.31878 '1:
12-31.00 l
.3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA) .:1VI r.A7
•MDA= 40950 SQUARE FEET
4. CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA) •
MFA= . 16380 SQUARE FEET .
OWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY: . DATE:
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS,HILLS
1
LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.;
•
�:�\'IL 57dfa�LFFA.F • i Awl 'rfi%:;
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET#2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
PROPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan Korman
PROPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena -
CALCULATED.BY jcl DATE June 17, 1998
REFERENCE MAP: Korman - Parcel A before LLA JOB# 98025
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage (From Part B) 4480 4480
B. Decking
C. Driveway 2514 ! 2514
(measured 100'along centerline)
D. Patios and Walkways 1900 1900
E. Tennis Court 0
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Building (From Part B)
H. Any other coverage
Totals 8893 0 8893
Maximum Development Area Allowed- MDA (from worksheet #1) 40950 Sq. Ft.
2. Floor Area
Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor 4480 4480
b. 2nd Floor �pAQFE jO
c. Attic and Basement kT;FFREY C. y'
B. Accessory Buildings N0 ?� •'� x
a. 1st Floor 12-g1-00
72-31-00
b. 2nd Floor v� Civic
c. Attic and Basement ,14`
'��'
• Totals 4480 0 .4481 .
Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from worksheet#1) p 16380 Sq. Ft.
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY: DATE:
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LEA E. SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.
CIVIL ENG VEERS - L44,1,7.1 9'_IavEYO=4,
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET #1
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA), AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
tOPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan Korman
ZOPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena
LLCULATED BY _ jcl DATE June 17, 1998
EFERENCE MAP: Korman —Parcel B before LLA JOB# 98025.0
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE
A. NET AREA (An) 0.96 ACRES B. CONTOUR INTERVAL (I) 1.0 FT.
C. DRAWING SCALE 1" = 20'
D. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An)
CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
192 1.5 200 3.1 208 216
193 9.5 201 209 217
194 9.9 202 210 218
195 12.0 203 211 219
196 17.0 204 212 220
197 16.3 205 213 221
198 15.3 206 214 222
199 10.4 207 215 223
TOTAL 95.0
CONVERT I 1900.0 FT.
E. AVERAG:
S= (0.0023) (1.0 FT) (1900 FT) = 4.6%
(0.96)
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF) ^IVt-
+..31878
LUF = (An){1-[0.02143(S-10)]} = 0.96 _
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA)
MDA= 14400 SQUARE FEET
4. CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
MFA= 5760 SQUARE FEET
)WN USE ONLY CHECKED BY: DATE:
•
TOWN OF.LOS ALTOS HILLS
LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.
C:VIL ENJr:LNFFFtS LANG
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET#2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
PROPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan.Korman
PROPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena
CALCULATED BY . jcl . DATE June 17, 1998.
REFERENCE MAP: Korman - Parcel B before LLA JOB# 98025
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) •
Existing _ Proposed Total
A. House and Garage (From Part B) 0
B. Decking
C. Driveway 0
(measured 100'along centerline)
D. Patios and Walkways 0
E. Tennis Court ' . 0
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Building(From Part B) -
H. Any other coverage
Totals 0 , ' 0 ' 0
Maximum Development Area Allowed-MDA (from worksheet#1) 14400 Sq. Ft. I
2. Floor Area
Existing. Proposed Total
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor0 , 1ROFESS/p
b. 2nd Floor . . `�Q`�Fc• EY
c. Attic. and Basement
7u,
f
NO 31878 i
EX
B. Accessory Buildings ' 12-31-00 y,
a. 1st Floor- - L 417
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
Totals - 0 0 0
Maximum Floor Area Allowed-MFA (from worksheet#1) . I 5760 Sq. Ft..
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED..BY: I DATE:
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LEA& SUNG ENGINEERING, INC..
(7VIl. E.NGINEE RS - _..N SJYVcY(1 i.•
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET #1
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA), AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
ROPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan Korman
RQPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena
ALCULATED BY jc1 DATE June 17, 1998
EFERENCE MAP: Korman - Parcel A after LLA JOB# 98025.0
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE ,
A. NET AREA (An) . 2.59 ACRES B. CONTOUR INTERVAL (I) 1.0 FT.
C. DRAWING SCALE 1" = 20'
D. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT (An)
CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
202 40.8 210 .7,7 218
195. 4.5 . 203 27.0 211 6.3 219
196 10.0 204 23.7 212 4.5 220
197 12.3 205 22.3 213 3.0 221
198 17.8 - 206 20.8 214 2.0 222 ,
199 18.6 207 15.0 215 0.9 223 .
200 19.9 208 13.0 216 224
201 31.1 209 9.8 217 225
TOTAL . 311.0
•
CONVERT I 6220.0 FT.
E. AVERAG:
S= (0.0023) (1.0 FT) (6220 FT) = 5.5% Q ROF
(2.59) ��\F?REYQ /k, '\.
.2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF) ' No. 31878 z '.
� •EXP 12-3/ ��
LUF = (An){1-[0.02143(5-10)]} = 2.59 , \u.\ _ -10 * ,'
•�Oh-CA1-icr) \ ?Y
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA) .--
MDA= 38850 SQUARE FEET
4. CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
MFA= 15540 SQUARE FEET
'OWN USE ONLY [CHECKED BY: I DATE:
•
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LEA S. SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.
C::VIL Ft•Jf;INFFP.ti i ANfll SC Yfli't=.
CALCULATIONS"BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
PROPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan Korman
PROPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena
CALCULATED BY jcl - DATE June 17, 1998
REFERENCE MAP: Korman -Parcel A after LLA JOB# 98025
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage(From Part B) 4480 4480
B. Decking
C. Driveway 2514 2514
(measured 100'along centerline)
D. Patios and Walkways ." 1900 1900
E. Tennis Court 0
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Building (From Part B)
H. Any other coverage
Totals 8893 0 8893
Maximum Development Area Allowed -MDA (from worksheet#1) 138850 Sq. Ft.
2. Floor Area
•
Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage
a: 1st Floor 4480 4480
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement s
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor .. ;___
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement to- 4
Totals 4480 0 :0
Maximum Floor Area Allowed-MFA (from worksheet#1) 1 15540 Sq. Ft.
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY: DATE:
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS'.i
LEA& SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.
L"iVIL. ENC?:NEERS - LANZ: ,:.J V. rn
' - CALCULATIONS BY LEA& SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET#1
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE; LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF) .
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA(MDA), AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
'ROPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan Korman
'ROPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena
:ALCULATED BY - jcl ,DATE . June 17, 1998
EEFERENCE MAP: Korman -Parcel B after LLA ' JOB# 98025.0
. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE
A. NET AREA (An) 1.10 ACRES B. CONTOUR INTERVAL (I) 1.0 FT.
' C. DRAWING SCALE 1" = 20'
D. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT(An)
CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
199 10.3 207 215
192 1.5 200 8.8 208 216
193 9.5 _ 201 209 217
194 10.3 202 210 218
I 195 12.0 203 211 219
196 16.3 - 204 212 220
197 13.6 205 . . 213 221
198 11.9 206 214 222.
TOTAL 94.2
CONVERT INCHES TO FEET (MULTIPLY BY MAP SCALE) = (L) = 1884.0 FT.
E. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
S= (0.0023) (1.0 FT) (1884 FT) `= 3.9% -
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF) • •�4;4`REY - , `� �'.,.
LUF = (An){1-[0:02143(S-10)]} = F.10 NO. 31878 T
_-_ ° '7-31-c a) *)
,_ f
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA) `Fr,;:
MDA= 16500 SQUARE FEET
4. CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
•MFA= 6600 SQUARE FEET
OWN USE ONLY [CHECKED BY: DATE: .
•
TOWN.OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
1ALLEA & SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.
C•VIL Etlr:1,!F=LIS A.i.Jr1 S.1; rr
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & SUNG ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET#2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
PROPERTY OWNER(S) Josh and Siobhan Korman
PROPERTY ADDRESS 26157 Altadena
CALCULATED BY jcl DATE June 17, 1998
REFERENCE MAP: Korman - Parcel B after LLA JOB# . 98025
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
A. House'and Garage (From Part B) 5917 5917
B. Decking
C. Driveway 7340 7340
(measured 100'along centerline)
D. Patios and Walkways 1330 1330
E. Tennis Court .
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory-Building (From Part B)
H. Any other coverage
Totals 0 14586 14586
Maximum Development Area Allowed-MDA (from worksheet.#1) 16500 Sq. Ft.
2. Floor Area
Existing Proposed Total
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor - 5917 5917 ,;?i‘OFESS/0k>
b. 2nd Floor C
c. Attic and Basement
'10.31878
B. Accessory Buildings 12-31-00
,
a_ 1st Floor ,
b. 2nd Floor
CAO,
c. Attic and Basement
Totals • 0 5917 5917
Maximum Floor Area Allowed-MFA-(from worksheet#1) 1_1600 Sq. Ft.
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY: DATE:
DUXBURY ARCHITECTS f r't PI o
July 1, 1998
JUL .-
!Ov`i
Curtis Williams
Planning Director, Town of Los Altos Hills 7.1'�
26379 Fremont Avenue
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Site Development Permit for Lands of Korman
Dear Curtis,
Duxbury Architects is the architect for Brooke and Stefanie Jeffrey, who own
the property partially shared by the Korman west property line. We are
planning to design a new house for the Jeffreys, to start construction Spring,
1999. The Jeffreys have asked Duxbury Architects to review the plans and the
story pole locations, and to comment on the Korman proposal.
Duxbury Architects
In reviewing the plans, there "seems" to be a discrepancy between the
subdivision site plan and the location of the adjacent property lines on the
Korman documents. The Jeffrey survey by Clements and Associates shows a
different location of lands of Lao, Glazebrook and Jeffrey. We also show a ten
foot wide PUE running along the west property line on the Korman property. ' Ara
We have not started the design of the Jeffrey house, however it seems likely
we will be attempting to site the house towards the north end of the property
to take advantage of the southern exposure both for the interior and the
exterior spaces. This would place the Jeffrey house and the Korman house 382A First Street
closer than applied by the Jeffrey lot configuration. It is because of this early
planning consideration that I would like the planning commission to
consider the following:
1. We would like the architect to consider moving the Korman house west so Los Altos
that the corner of the house touches the eastern setback line, creating a greater
setback back from the west property line. This seems appropriate because the
ten foot wide PUE will limit the amount of landscape screening between the
two houses. This seems like an appropriate location for landscape screening,
not only to separate the two houses but to scale down the stucco wall. California 94022
2. We would like the architect to consider shifting the house towards the
northern property line, closer to Esther Clark Park. The house currently has
approximately an average 90 foot setback line from Esther Clark Park. Since
the park is not developed it seems appropriate that the house could move T 650 917 3840
F 850 917 3848
north, opening up a greater southern yard for both the Jeffreys and the
Kormans.
3. We take no exception to the design or the massing of the Korman house.
Since the house does not have roof material to. help scale down the stucco
walls, we suggest a natural native planting to mitigate these walls at the west
property line.
We would like the Kormans and the Jeffreys to work on a landscape screen
between the two properties, using both deciduous and coniferous native
plantings. I believe an equal amount of plantings can occur on both
properties, and the additional setback will make this process easier and more
fair, and will create a more natural grove separating these homes.
It is my understanding that the Kormans and the Jeffreys have had talks, and
both sides are amenable to working out a landscape proposal. I will leave
these recommendations •and thoughts in the hands of the planning
commission and the staff for consideration. I will not be able to attend the
planning commission meeting because I will be on vacation. Brooke or
Stefanie Jeffrey plan to attend the meeting, however they are both doctors and
their schedules may not permit them to attend.
I have enclosed Option 1, a copy of the Jeffrey Survey, and Option 2 for the.
planning commission consideration.
Very truly yours,
D bury Architects
Peter H. Duxb y, AIA, NCARB
11 11 4
11
l'+ - 11
•
(E)\C*-- oc.pTio N
pP.0p050 n
i -Al
- 1
T-1- 61k.'/
L--------- r
IA ® to
tv PUS ----7 —
ammEN=Wilm•••••71.MMIIMIM\ 0
..........-7
li=4
Col-A2SeiRce. i.. JEFF&X oFT1oN Ilk I
•
--� _ p fl
N
ic.. )-,- F
IA 0
I R
' .
%z_
' / , ,___, '\\ -r- -
i \ 11 IL
u_
u3
/ \ ,
/ 7
IF V°
n I ' •• v2 FL '1
0
A ‘g 1 ,
-
ii---4 ,
44
O o
r o
[P tr°
)✓ I