The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 01PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Building Official 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 06/13/18 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: JUNE 8, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT IN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATIONS HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031. PROJECT LOCATION: 223 MASSOL AVENUE. APPELLANT: TYLER ATKINSON, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: VLADIMIR KANEVSKY. CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECISION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND AN ADDITION TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (HS-18-018); AND AN APPEAL OF AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECISION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN ADDITION TO A RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LESS THAN 450 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET (HS-18-031) ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE ALMOND GROVE HISTORIC DISTRICT ZONED R1-D:LHP. APN 510-16-020. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to approve the applications, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: Single-Family Residential Downtown with a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay (R-1D:LHP) Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan and Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 8,730 square feet (gross) 6,975 square feet (net) ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 2 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM Surrounding Area: CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing Facilities; and Section 15331: Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. FINDINGS: As required, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, this project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15301: Existing facilities; and Section 15331: Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW: As required by Section 29.80.290 of the Town Code for granting approval of minor historic projects. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten (10) days. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the west side of Massol Avenue (Exhibit 1) and is developed with a two-story, single-family residence (with an attic) and a detached garage. The gross lot area is 8,730 square feet with an average slope of 15.5 percent. When adjusted for slope, the net lot area is 6,975 square feet. The immediate neighborhood has one-, two-, and three-story residences. On December 12, 2017, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) recommended approval to the Director of Community Development of a Minor Residential Development application (MR-17-018) for a previously proposed project. On February 7, 2018, the Notice of Pending Approval for the Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning North Residential Medium Density Residential R-M:5-12:LHP South Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D:LHP East Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D:LHP West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8 PAGE 3 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM application was mailed to surrounding property owners and tenants as required by the Town Code. Objections to the pending approval were received from a neighbor on February 20, 2018 (Exhibit 11). In response to the objections a revised proposal was submitted. The applicant proposes exterior alterations and an addition to the main residence (HS-18-018) and construction of an addition to the detached garage (HS-18-031). At its April 25, 2018 hearing, the HPC approved the proposed projects (Exhibits 4 through 7). The applicant withdrew the Minor Residential Development application for the previously proposed project on May 15, 2018 (Exhibit 12). The current applications are being reviewed by the Planning Commission because the decisions of the HPC have been appealed (Exhibit 8). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A.Minor Development in an Historic District Approval of a Minor Development in an Historic District application is required for additions to an existing second story of less than 100 square feet that are visible from the street in the immediate neighborhood, and for exterior alterations to a residence within an historic district. Approval of a Minor Development in an Historic District application is also required for additions to residential accessory structures that are visible from the street. B.Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject site is located on the west side of Massol Avenue (Exhibit 1). The surrounding properties are one-, two-, and three-story residences, with a mix of architectural styles. C.Zoning Compliance The property is zoned R-1D:LHP, where a single-family residence is permitted. The proposed project is in compliance with parking, setback, height, floor area, and accessory building coverage regulations. DISCUSSION: A.Minor Development in an Historic District Analysis Main Residence (HS-18-018) Application HS-18-018 has a reduced scope compared to the previously proposed project (MR- 17-018). Correspondence from the applicant (Exhibit 10) indicates that this revised plan is an PAGE 4 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM effort to accomplish their goals for the residence while addressing the objections received from the neighbor. The revisions include reducing the size and height of the addition and eliminating windows from the dormer on the south elevation, facing the objecting neighbor’s property. Unlike the previously proposed project, the size of the revised proposal does not require approval of a Minor Residential Development application; however, because the property is located in an historic district, the revised proposal does require approval of a Minor Development in an Historic District application. The proposal includes exterior modifications to the residence and a 99-square foot addition to the existing attic. The addition would be accomplished by increasing the roof pitch and introducing dormers on either side of the roof ridge. Windows would be located on the north facing dormer only. In addition, the applicant proposes to change window and door locations and sizes on the front, side, and rear elevations. Two bay elements would be eliminated, while new box bays would be introduced to the side elevations. An original window on the front elevation would be replaced in kind to match the existing window, and a new front porch with a standing-seam metal roof would be introduced. The HPC reviewed this application on March 28, 2018 and continued the item to allow the applicant time to address design recommendations and communicate further with the neighbor. The HPC considered and approved a revised project on April 25, 2018 (Exhibits 4 and 6), with the following conditions: 1.Add three non-functional vents to the dormer on the south elevation; and 2.Include three windows on the dormer on the north elevation. The applicant incorporated these revisions into the approved project plans that are attached to this Staff Report (Exhibit 16). Detached Garage (HS-18-031) Application HS-18-031 proposes an addition of 350 square feet to an existing, nonconforming 255-square foot detached garage that is visible from the street. The existing garage is located east of the residence, partially extending over the property line. The proposed addition would be constructed on the east and north elevations of the existing garage. The southern portion of the addition would be located along the property line, extending the nonconforming setback of the existing building, as allowed under Section 29.10.245 of the Town Code. The proposed project would include 350 square feet of additional garage area, a new exterior stairway covered with an awning providing access to the residence, and a new deck area above the garage. All windows and exterior materials are proposed to match those on the existing garage. The HPC reviewed and approved this application on April 25, 2018 (Exhibits 5 and 7), with the following conditions: 1.Revise the garage roof to a hip roof with a pitch matching that of the main residence; 2.Provide full details of the proposed railing; and PAGE 5 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM 3.Match the awning covering the stairway to the approved standing seam metal roof on the porch of the residence. The applicant incorporated these revisions into the approved project plans attached to this Staff Report (Exhibit 17). B.Design and Compatibility On April 25, 2018, the HPC evaluated and approved the applications, finding that the applications complied with the Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) and meet the following applicable standards of review per Section 29.80.290 of the Town Code: In evaluating applications, the deciding body shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. Applications shall not be granted unless: 1.On landmark sites, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the landmark (and, where specified in the designating ordinance for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features) nor adversely affect the character of historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site. This standard is not applicable as the property is not a designated landmark site. 2.In historic districts, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the application, nor adversely affect its relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the character, or the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. This HPC found that the applications met this standard. 3.For pre-1941 structures, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the application. This HPC found that the applications met this standard. PAGE 6 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM C.Neighborhood Compatibility The existing residence is 2,064 square feet with 120 square feet of below-grade square footage and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.24. The proposed residence would be 2,207 square feet with 205 square feet of below-grade square footage and an FAR of 0.25. Pursuant to Town Code, the maximum livable square footage for the lot is 2,331 square feet. Floor Area Summary - Residence Floor Existing Above- grade Addition Above- grade Existing – Below- grade Addition – Below-grade Demo Total (gross) First 810 11 120 85 0 1,026 Second 1,030 48 0 0 -15 1,063 Attic 224 99 0 0 0 323 Total 2,064 158 120 85 -15 2,412 Below-grade square footage, not countable toward floor area 205 Total Countable Floor Area 2,207 Floor Area Summary - Garage Existing Addition Total Garage 255 350 605 Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate area range in size from 944 square feet to 3,279 square feet. The FARs for the residences range from 0.14 to 0.44. PAGE 7 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM The following Neighborhood Analysis Table reflects the conditions of the immediate neighborhood: Neighborhood Compatibility Address Zoning House SF Garage SF Total SF Gross Site SF House FAR Garage FAR No. of Stories 215 Massol R-1D:LHP 944 253 1,197 5,300 0.18 0.048 1 216 Glen Ridge R-1D:LHP 2,427 441 2,868 9,964 0.24 0.044 2 219 Massol R-1D:LHP 1,942 240 2,182 5,300 0.37 0.045 2 225 Massol RM:5-12:LHP 2,428 0 2,428 9,506 0.26 0.000 3 229 Massol RM:5-12:LHP 3,279 0 3,279 7,500 0.44 0.000 2 218 Massol R-1D:LHP 1,801 0 1,801 7,100 0.25 0.000 1 220 Massol R-1D:LHP 1,742 0 1,742 7,050 0.25 0.000 1 224 Massol R-1D:LHP 1,759 396 2,155 7,100 0.25 0.056 1 228 Massol R-1D:LHP 2,964 440 3,404 8,094 0.37 0.054 2 w/ attic 232 Massol R-1D:LHP 2,119 366 2,485 8,276 0.26 0.044 1 223 Massol (E) R-1D:LHP 2,064 255 2,319 8,730 0.24 0.029 2 w/ attic 223 Massol (P) R-1D:LHP 2,207 605 2,812 8,730 0.25 0.064 2 w/ attic In terms of livable square footage, the proposed residence would be the fifth largest in the immediate neighborhood; and in terms of house FAR, the proposed residence would be the seventh largest. In terms of number of stories, the proposed residence would be a two-story residence with an attic. The proposed attic addition would be constructed within the roof above the second story. The existing main residence is two stories with an attic. Portions of the lower story are below- grade square footage. The grade drops along the exterior (west to east) of the residence daylighting the lower story. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing grade along the exterior of the building, while increasing the roof pitch and introducing dormers to the existing attic area. The attic area would become habitable and count as a story above portions of the lower stories that are above-grade square footage. Aside from the properties located within the hillside overlay, there is no limitation on the number of stories for a main residence. Height in the R-1D zone is regulated by the Town Code and is limited to 30 feet. The proposed residence includes a maximum height of 28 feet. D.Environmental Review The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing Facilities; and Section 15331: Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. PAGE 8 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM E.Historic Preservation Committee As detailed above, the HPC held public hearings to consider the applications: HS-18-018 (residence) was considered on March 28, 2018 and April 25, 2018; and HS-18-031 (garage) was considered on April 25, 2018. Agendas for both meetings were posted in at least three public places within the Town and on the Town’s website on the Friday prior to the meeting. Section 29.20.485 of the Town Code (Administrative procedure for minor historic projects) does not require that public hearing notices be sent to surrounding property owners and tenants. The appellant attended the meetings and presented their concerns with the proposed projects related to privacy, massing, neighborhood compatibility, and procedures related to noticing and outreach by the applicant. Additionally, the appellant submitted written concerns to staff regarding the proposal for the residence (Exhibits 13 and 14). These concerns were included with the HPC Staff Reports. At the April 25, 2018 hearing, the HPC considered the required standards of review, finding that the proposed work would not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property, nor adversely affect its relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the character, or the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The HPC also found both applications to be consistent with the RDG. Based on these determinations, the HPC approved both applications, subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibits 6 and 7). F. Appeal On May 7, 2018, the decisions of the HPC were appealed to the Planning Commission by Tyler Atkinson, Esquire, on behalf of James McManis and Sara Wigh, owners of the 216 Glen Ridge Avenue property (Exhibit 8). The applicant submitted a written response to this appeal, which is included as Exhibit 9. The reasons for the appeal are summarized below, along with staff’s responses in italic font. 1.They have yet to see any amended plans embodying the promised changes (28-foot elevation and faux window treatment). Nor have any new story poles demonstrating the 28-foot elevation and other modified dimensions been erected. The HPC approved both applications with conditions of approval requiring revisions of the plans to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Additional review by the HPC is not required. The applicant incorporated these revisions into the final plans (Exhibits 16 and 17). PAGE 9 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM Story poles are not required for Minor Development in an Historic District applications for HPC consideration. The applicant has indicated to staff that, as a courtesy, story poles were installed prior to the April 25, 2018 HPC hearing, reflecting the revised plans for the residence. Certification of these story poles was not required. However, as required, story poles were erected for Planning Commission consideration of the appeal and certified on May 23, 2018. 2. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) has not seen the revised plans for either the promised changes or the modifications to the garage. Please recall the previous addition of a rear balcony that was not approved or even reviewed by the HPC, and but for the opposition of my clients filed February 20, 2018, would never have come to its attention. The HPC approved both applications with conditions of approval requiring revisions of the plans to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Additional review by the HPC is not required. The applicant incorporated revisions into the final plans (Exhibits 16 and 17). As noted above, a previous Minor Residential Development application (MR-17-018) was recommended for approval to the Director of Community Development by the HPC on December 13, 2017. On May 15, 2018, the applicant withdrew the previous application (Exhibit 12), and it is not the subject of this appeal. The current application (HS-18-018) does not include a balcony. 3. The applicants have not advised what they intend to do about the portion of the garage that encroaches on my clients’ property. The project plans indicate that the portion of the existing nonconforming building encroaching on the neighboring property would remain. The proposed addition would be located on the applicant’s property, constructed on the east and north elevations of the existing garage. The eastern portion of the addition would be located along the property line, extending the nonconforming setback of the existing building, as allowed under Section 29.10.245 of the Town Code. 4. So far as we know, the applicants continue to refuse to allow our consultant to inspect the premises and verify the plans heretofore submitted to the Town. Verification is especially important with respect to the agreed upon 28-foot elevation and understandable given the history of what might be described as indifference to the Town’s recommendations and requirements, e. g. proof of neighborhood outreach, etc. PAGE 10 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM Private property owners are not required to allow public access to their property. The proposed plans include a maximum height of 28 feet, which will be verified during the Town’s Building inspection process. Regarding outreach to neighbors by the applicant, staff recommended that the applicant contact neighbors to present their proposed projects and receive feedback. Involving neighbors during the planning process is strongly encouraged by the Residential Design Guidelines (page 5); however, it is a recommendation that would not justify delay of an application and is not required. 5.You have advised Manuel Carvajal of this office that ‘[t]he HPC’s decision is subject to a 10- day appeal period, in this case expiring Monday, May 11, 2018, at 5:00 PM.’ We respectfully disagree. The appeal period should not commence until the HPC has reviewed the promised modified plans. In addition, affected neighbors should be informed of the HPC actions of April 25. Notice was previously sent to neighbors at 220, 224, 228, 219, and 225 Massol, 219, 220, 229, and 235 Glen Ridge, as well as my clients. Although some of these neighbors were present at the April 25 hearing, not all of them were. In our opinion, the appeal period cannot commence as a matter of law until the Town has sent proper notice of the final reviewed and HPC-approved plans to all of the neighbors. On April 25, 2018, the HPC approved both Minor Development in an Historic District applications with conditions of approval requiring revisions of the plans to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Additional review by the HPC is not required. Pursuant to Section 29.20.258 of the Town Code, any interested person may appeal any HPC determination to the Planning Commission. Section 29.20.260 indicates that the appellant must file a written notice of appeal with the Planning Director not more than ten (10) days after the decision is rendered by the HPC. Section 29.20.485 of the Town Code (Administrative procedure for minor historic projects) does not require Notices of Pending Approval by the HPC be sent to surrounding property owners and tenants. 6.Finally, the Town issued a building permit to the applicants on January 12, 2018, limited to ‘foundation repair.’ The inspection history of this permit shows that the applicant and his contractor has cancelled a number of inspections, or reported that the property was ‘not ready’ for inspection. In addition, it appears that has been considerable work done on the property that exceeds the scope of the permit, i.e. work unrelated to ‘repair’ of the foundation. Please advise whether you will address this issue, or we should bring it to the attention of another department at the Town. Although not directly related to the application before the HPC, these events raise additional questions about the credibility of the project. The inspection history of a separate building permit is not the subject of this appeal. A building permit for foundation repair was issued on January 12, 2018. The scope of this PAGE 11 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM permit was the replacement of the existing foundation and attaching the existing building to the new foundation. Adherence to the approved plans is verified through the Town’s Building inspection process. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice of the Planning Commission hearing was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. No public comments have been received as of the writing of this report. CONCLUSION: A. Conclusion Both applications for Minor Development in an Historic District were reviewed and approved by the HPC on April 25, 2018. In its decisions, the HPC considered the compatibility of the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials, and color, and any other pertinent factors with the neighborhood and Almond Grove Historic District and the RDG. The application for the modifications to the residence includes several modifications to the original Minor Residential Development application (MR-17-018) in an effort to address the concerns of the appellant. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to deny the appeal, upholding the decision of the HPC: 1. Find that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: New Existing Facilities (Exhibit 2); and Section 15331: Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. 2. Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2); and 3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.80.290 of the Town Code for granting approval of a Minor Development in an Historic District application (Exhibit 2); and 4. Approve Minor Development in an Historic District applications HS-18-018 and HS-18-031 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and development plans attached as Exhibits 16 and 17. PAGE 12 OF 12 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE/HS-18-018 AND HS-18-031 JUNE 8, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\2018 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\6-13-18\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx 6/8/2018 10:35 AM C.Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1.Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; 2.Deny the appeal and approve the applications with additional and/or modified conditions; 3.Grant the appeal and remand the applications to the HPC with direction for revisions; or 4.Grant the appeal and deny the applications. The Planning Commission may act independently on each application. EXHIBITS: 1.Location Map 2.Required Findings and Considerations (one page) 3.Recommended Conditions of Approval (two pages) 4.Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report, HS-18-018 (residence), April 25, 2018 (three pages) 5.Historic Preservation Committee Staff Report, HS-18-031 (garage), April 25, 2018 (two pages) 6.Historic Preservation Committee Action Letter, HS-18-018 (residence), April 25, 2018 (one page) 7.Historic Preservation Committee Action Letter, HS-18-031 (garage), April 25, 2018 (one page) 8.Appeal of Historic Preservation Committee, received May 7, 2018 (three pages) 9.Applicant’s response to appeal, received May 15, 2018 (two pages) 10.Letter of Justification from Sandra Paim, Architect, dated March 16, 2018 (one page) 11.Objection to Minor Residential Development application MR-17-018, dated February 20, 2018 (29 pages) 12.Request to withdraw Minor Residential Development application MR-17-018, received May 15, 2018 (one page) 13.McManis Letter for HS dated March 13, 2018 (one page) 14.McManis Letter for HS dated April 12, 2018 (five pages) 15.Public comment received by 11:00 a.m., June 8, 2018 16.Development Plans HS-18-018 (residence), received May 15, 2018 (nine sheets) 17.Development Plans HS-18-031 (garage), received May 25, 2018 (four sheets) Distribution: Vladimir Kanevsky, 223 Massol Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tyler Atkinson, Esq., 50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 MAS S O L A V TAI T A V BA C H M A N A V AP R I C O T L N GLE N R I D G E A V NICH O L S O N A V BEL M O N T A V ELLEN W O O D A V BA C H M A N C T AL M E N D R A A V 223 Massol Avenue 0 0.250.125 Miles ° Almond GroveHistoric District EXHIBIT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2018\Massol Avenue, 223 - PC Findings.docx PLANNING COMMISSION – June 13, 2018 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 223 MASSOL AVENUE Minor Residential Development in an Historic District Applications HS-18-018 and HS- 18-031 Consider an appeal of an Historic Preservation Committee decision approving a request for exterior alterations to a non-contributing single-family residence (HS-18-018); and an appeal of an Historic Preservation Committee decision approving a request for an addition to a residential accessory structure less than 450 square feet which is visible from the street (HS-18-031) on property located in the Almond Grove Historic District zoned R1-D:LHP. APN 510-16-020. APPELLANT: Tyler Atkinson, Esq. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Vladimir Kanevsky FINDINGS Required Finding for CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing Facilities; and Section 15331: Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines: ■The project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. STANDARDS OF REVIEW: As required by Section 29.80.290 of the Town Code for evaluation of applications for Minor Development in an Historic District: ■In evaluating applications, the deciding body shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. Applications shall not be granted unless: 1.On landmark sites, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the landmark (and, where specified in the designating ordinance for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features) nor adversely affect the character of historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site. EXHIBIT 2 N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2018\Massol Avenue, 223 - PC Findings.docx This standard is not applicable as the property is not a designated landmark site. 2.In historic districts, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the application, nor adversely affect its relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the character, or the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. This Planning Commission finds that the applications meet this standard. 3.For pre-1941 structures, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the application. This Planning Commission finds that the applications meet this standard. PLANNING COMMISSION – June 13, 2018 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 223 MASSOL AVENUE Minor Residential Development in an Historic District Applications HS-18-018 and HS-18-031 Consider an appeal of an Historic Preservation Committee decision approving a request for exterior alterations to a non-contributing single-family residence (HS- 18-018); and an appeal of an Historic Preservation Committee decision approving a request for an addition to a residential accessory structure less than 450 square feet which is visible from the street (HS-18-031) on property located in the Almond Grove Historic District zoned R1-D:LHP. APN 510-16-020. APPELLANT: Tyler Atkinson, Esq. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Vladimir Kanevsky TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. DEMOLITION: This project must comply with the Town’s Demolition Ordinance. 4. DEMOLITION AFFIDAVIT: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a demolition affidavit must be submitted and signed by the property owner, project architect, project engineer and contractor. 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. 6. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 7. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 8. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. EXHIBIT 3 9. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties. 10. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard must be landscaped. 11. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the requirements of the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. Submittal of a Landscape Documentation Package pursuant to WELO is required prior to issuance of a building permit. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. A completed WELO Certificate of Completion is required prior to final inspection/certificate of occupancy. 12. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 13. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 14. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2018\Massol Avenue, 223 - PC COA.docx PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Associate Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 04/25/2018 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: APRIL 19, 2018 TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATION HS-18-018. PROJECT LOCATION: 223 MASSOL AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: VLADIMIR KANEVSKY. REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO A NONCONTRIBUTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE ALMOND GROVE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED R1-D:LHP. APN 510-16-020. RECOMMENDATION: Consider the proposed project and request for approval. BACKGROUND: A.Property Details 1.Date primary structure was built: 1908 2.Town of Los Gatos Preliminary Historic Status Code: None 3.Does property have an LHP Overlay? Yes 4.Is structure in a historic district? Yes, Almond Grove 5.If yes, is it a contributor? No 6.Findings required? No 7.Considerations required? Yes B.Comments An application for a Minor Residential Development in an Historic District application (HS-18-018) has been submitted for the proposed addition to and modification of the residence, submitted on March 14, 2018. EXHIBIT 4 PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE APRIL 19, 2018 N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2018\Massol 223 (residence) - 04-25-18.docx 6/7/2018 11:33 AM BACKGROUND (Continued): On March 28, 2018, the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed a proposal for exterior modifications to the residence and a 99-square foot addition to the attic floor. The HPC reviewed the proposal and continued the item with the following direction: •Revise the top of each dormer to be at least six inches lower than the main roof ridge; and •Revise the new windows to be consistent with the architectural style. The applicant has submitted revised plans showing that the top of the proposed dormers have been lowered to six inches below the main roof ridge (Exhibit 4, Sheet A- 3). The applicant also revised the windows to include new double-hung windows and casement windows. The proposed casement windows would include a center muntin to be compatible with the double-hung window’s meeting rail. All windows would include sill and trim detail to match the existing window details (Exhibit 4, Sheets A-3 through A-5). As was previously proposed, the addition would be accomplished by increasing the roof pitch and introducing dormers on either side of the roof ridge. Windows would be located on the north facing dormer only. In addition, the applicant proposes to change window and door locations and sizes on the side and rear elevations. An existing angled bay on the north elevation of the cellar floor would be removed. On the first floor, an existing box bay on the south elevation would be removed and a new box bay added toward the rear of this elevation. A new box bay would be added to the north elevation and an existing angled bay would be reconfigured, becoming a box bay. This design treatment would be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 4.10, which recommends bay windows and changes in roof slopes as methods for reducing the scale of an addition to an historic structure. The applicant also proposes to modify the fenestration of the front elevation, relocating the front door and revising window locations and sizes. An original window would be replaced in kind to match the existing window, and a new front porch with a standing- seam metal roof would be introduced. The proposal for minor exterior changes for a property within an historic district is required to be considered by the Historic Preservation Committee at a public meeting prior to submittal of Building permits. PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE APRIL 19, 2018 N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2018\Massol 223 (residence) - 04-25-18.docx 6/7/2018 11:33 AM DISCUSSION: A.Considerations – related to the request for approval of a Minor Residential Development on a noncontributing single-family residence in the Almond Grove Historic District. In evaluating applications, the deciding body shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. Applications shall not be granted unless: 1.In historic districts, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the application, nor adversely affect its relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the character, or the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. B.Town Policy That the work proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. Attachments: Previously received with March 28, 2018 Staff Report: 1.Objection to Minor Residential Application M-17-018, dated March 13, 2018. 2.Development Plans, received March 15, 2018 Received with this Staff Report: 3.Letter from Tyler Atkinson, an attorney representing Sara Wigh and Jim McManis (216 Massol Avenue), dated April 12, 2018 4.Revised Development Plans, received March 30, 2018 Distribution: cc: Sandra Paim, P.O. Box 2136, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Vladimir Kanevsky, 20 Sharon Court, Menlo Park, CA 94025 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Associate Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 04/25/2018 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: APRIL 20, 2018 TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATION HS-18-031. PROJECT LOCATION: 223 MASSOL AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: VLADIMIR KANEVSKY. REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITION TO A RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LESS THAN 450 SQUARE FEET OR LESS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET IN THE ALMOND GROVE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED R1-D:LHP. APN 510-16-020. RECOMMENDATION: Consider the proposed project and request for approval. BACKGROUND: A.Property Details 1.Date primary structure was built: 1908 2.Date primary structure was built: Unknown 3.Town of Los Gatos Preliminary Historic Status Code: None 4.Does property have an LHP Overlay? Yes 5.Is structure in a historic district? Yes, Almond Grove 6.If yes, is it a contributor? No 7.Findings required? No 8.Considerations required? Yes B.Comments An application for a Minor Residential Development in an Historic District (HS-18-031) was submitted on April 17, 2018, for a proposed addition of 350 square feet to an existing garage visible from the street. EXHIBIT 5 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 223 MASSOL AVENUE APRIL 20, 2018 N:\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\HPC Sheets\2018\Massol 223 (garage) - 04-25-18.docx 6/7/2018 11:34 AM The applicant proposes to construct additions to an existing, nonconforming 255 square-foot detached garage. The existing garage is located on the north side of the property (project north), partially extending over the property line. The proposed addition would be constructed on the west and north elevations of the existing garage. The western portion of the addition would be located along the property line, extending the nonconforming setback of the existing building, which is allowed under Section 29.10.245 of the Town Code. The proposed project would include 350 square feet of additional garage area, a new exterior stairway providing access to the main residence, a new deck area above the garage, and a guardrail. A proposed awning over the new stairway is also shown on the project plans (Sheet A3.1, Detail 4). This awning is listed as “optional” and is not reflected on the south elevation (Sheet A3.1, Detail 1). All windows and exterior materials are proposed to match those on the existing garage. DISCUSSION: A. Considerations – related to the request for approval of a Minor Residential Development on a noncontributing single-family residence in the Almond Grove Historic District. In evaluating applications, the deciding body shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. Applications shall not be granted unless: 1. In historic districts, the proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the application, nor adversely affect its relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the character, or the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. B. Town Policy That the work proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. Exhibits: 1. Development Plans, received April 19, 2018 Distribution: cc: Vladimir Kanevsky, 20 Sharon Court, Menlo Park, CA 94025 May 1, 2018 Sandra Pa i m P.O. Box 2136 Los Gatos, CA 95031 ToWN OF Los GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (408) 354-6874 Fax (408) 354-7593 RE: 223 Massol Avenue Minor Development in a Historic District Application HS-18-018 CMc CBNTER 110 E. MAIN STRBBT Los GATOS, CA 95030 Requesting approval for exterior alterations to a non-contributing single-family residence in the Almond Grove historic district on property zoned Rl-D:LHP. APN 510- 16-020. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Vladimir Kanevsky PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin Continued from 3/28/201.8 On April 25, 2018, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee approved the request with the following conditions, as reflected on the plans marked up by the HPC and submitted into the record: To the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development: 1. Add three non-functi onal vents to the dormer on the south elevati on; and 2 . Include three windows on the dormer on the north elevation. If you have any questions, I can be contacted by phon e at (408) 354-6823 or by email at smullin@losgatosca.gov. Sincere ly, A ssociate Plann er Cc: Vladimir Kanevsky, 20 Sharon Court, Menlo Park, CA 94025 N:\DE V\HISTORJC PRESERVATION\Action Lette rs\2018\Massol 223 r:es 4-25-18.docx INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887 0 EXHIBIT 6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank May l, 2018 Sandra Paim P.O . Box 2136 Los Gatos, CA 95031 . ,. ToWN OF Los GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (408) 354-6874 Fax (408) 354-7S93 RE: 223 Massol. Avenue Minor Development in a Historic District Application HS-18-031 r· CMcCBNTBR 110 E. MAIN STRHBT Los GATOS, CA 95030 Requesting approval for an addition to a residential accessory structure less than 450 squa"re feet or less visible from the street in the Almond Grove historic district on property zoned R1-D:LHP. APN 510-16-020. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Vladimir Kanevsky PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin On April 25, 2018, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee approved the request with the following conditions: To the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development: 1. Revise the garage roof to a hip roof with a pitch matching that of the main residence; 2. Provide full details .of the proposed railing; and 3 . Match the roof of the awning covering the staifway to the approved standing seam metal roof on the porch of the residence. If you have any questions, I can be contacted by phone at (408) 354-6823 or by email at smullin@losgatosca.gov. Sincerely, Associate Planner Cc: Vladimir Kanevsky, 20 Sharon Court, Menlo Park, CA 94025 N;\DEV\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\Action Letters\2018\Massol 223 garage 4-25-18 .docx lNcoRPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887 EXHIBIT 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1'-' PLEASE TYPE or PRINT NEATl! TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTiiNltt00F LOS GATOS 110 E. Main Street ""C[[Rf( ·1 EPARTHENT Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF llfl 11AY -1 P 2: 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITIEE as follows: DATE OF DECISION: 04/25/2018 PROJECT/APPLICATION: HS-18-018 and HS-18-031 LOCATION: 223 Massol Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 LIST REASONS WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED: Refer to attached Jetter dated May 7, 2018, from Tyler Atkinson, Esq., on behalf of James McManis and Sara WJgh, owners of 216 Glen Ridge Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030. (Jf more space is needed, attach additional sheets.) IMPORTANT: 1. Appeal must be filed not more than ten (10) days after the decision is rendered by the Historic Preservation Committee. If the tenth (lath) day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then the appeal may be filed on the workday immediately following the tenth (lot") day, usually a Monday. 2. The appeal shall be set for the first regular meeting of the Planning Commission which the business of the planning commission will permit, more than five (5) after the date ofthe filing of the appeal. The Planning Commission may hear the matter a new and render a new decision in the matter. 3. You will be notified, in writing, of the appeal date. 4. Contact the project planner to determine what material is required to be submitted for the public hearing. PRINT NAME: Tyler Atkinson, Esq. DATE: 05/07/2018 50 est San Fernando Street, 10th Floor ADDRESS: an Jose, CA 95113 PHONE: (408) 279-8700 EMAIL: TAtkinson@mcmanislaw.com ****************************************************************************** OFFICE USE ONLY DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: COMMISSION ACTION: ! .. _______________ _ 2 .. _______________ _ 3 •. _______________ _ DATE: ___ _ DATE:---- DATE: ---- No Appeal Fee for the decision by the Historic Preservation Committee. Please note: The information contained in this application is considered part of the public record. Therefore, it will appear in both the public record file for the site address, which is available upon request, and on the permitting system on the official Town of Los Gatos website at www.losgatosca.gov. N:\DEV\FORMS\Pla nning\2018-19 Forms\Appeal -HPC.docx 5/02/2018 EXHIBIT 8 May 7, 2018 VIA HAND DELIVERY Se.an Mullin, AICP Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Civic Center 11 O E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Re: 223 Massol Avenue Dear Mr. Mullin: My clients appreciate the progress that has been made on this project, especially the agreement of the applicants at the Historic Preservation Committee meeting on April 25, 2018, to limit the height of the proposed structure to 28 feet, and to finish the 3rd story addition facing the Trantham House with a faux window treatment. The Historic Preservation Committee, the Town staff, and the applicants and their arcbitecl are to bacommeodedjnJbis regard_ Ihat said, m~ clients oootioue to bave concerns about the proposed development, as follows: 1. They have yet to see any amended plans embodying the promised changes (28 foot elevation and faux window treatment). Nor have any new story poles demonstrating the 28-foot elevation and other modified dimensions been erected. 2. The Historic Preservation Conunittee (HPC) has not :seen the revised plans for either the promised changes or the modifications to the garage. Please recall the previous addition of a rear balcony that was not approved or even reviewed by the HPC, and but for the opposition of my clients filed February 20, 2018, would never have come to its attention. 3. The applicants have not advised what they intend to do about the portion of the garage that encroaches on my clients' property. 4. So far as we know, the applicants continue to refuse to allow our consultant to inspect the premises and verify the plans heretofore submitted to the Town. Verification is especially important with respect to the agreed 28-foot Teleµhone 408.279.8700 mcmanislaw.com Fairmont Plaz;i. ·10th Floor , 50 W. San Ferna1~uo Street. San Jose. Californ;.a 951 13 • Associate Planner May 7, 2018 Page 2 elevation, and understandable given the history of what might be described as indifference to the Town's recommendations and requirements, e.g. proof of neighborhood outreach, etc. You have advised Manuel Carvajal of this office that "[t]he HPC's decision is subject to a 10-day appeal period, in this case expiring Monday, May 11, 2018, at 5:00 PM." We respectfully disagree. The appeal period should not commence until the HPC has reviewed the promised modified plans. In addition, affected neighbors should be informed of the HPC actions of April 25. Notice was previously sent to neighbors at 220, 224, 228, 219, and 225 Massei, and 219, 220, 229, and 235 Glen Ridge, as well as my clients. Although some of the affected nelghbors were present at the April 25 meeting, riot all of them were. In our opinion, the a·ppeal period cannot commence as a matter of law until the Town has sent proper notice of the final reviewed and HPC-approved plans to all of the neighbors. Nevertheless, to protect the record and the rights of my clients, we are lodging this letter of appeal raising the above concerns and the various other ones set forth in previous submissions to the Town, starting with the letter from Mr. McManis dated February 20, 2018, and including my comments in previous HPC sessions. Finally, the Town issued a building pennit to the applicants on January 12, 2018, limited to "foundation repair." The inspection history of this permit shows that the applicant and his contractor have cancelled a number of inspections, or reported that the property was "not ready" for inspection. In addition, it appears there has been considerable work done on the property that exceeds the scope of the permit, i. e. work unrelated to "repair" of the foundation. Please advise whether you will address this issue, or we should bring it to the attention of another department at the Town. Although not directly related to the application before the HPC, these events raise additional questions about the credibility of the project. Thank you. Very truly yours, McMANIS FAULKNER TA:svn ----- This Page Intentionally Left Blank RECEIVED MAY li 2018 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION May 15, 2018 This email is our response to the appeal letter filed by Tyler Atkinson on May 7th, on behalf of Jim and Sara McManis. As mentioned in my original reply1 it seems that these items are either inaccurate, were NOT required as part of the HPC or building submittal process and/or more so, do not have anything to do with the design of the property. I question how these items qualify as valid, reasonable grounds for appeal, that in this case, triggered the stopping/delay of my project by at least another 2 months. This ordeal has cost me almost a hundred-thousand dollars in carrying costs, plan/drawing revisions, construction delays1 etc ... not to mention the emotional toll on my family. My hope is that an outcome of this painful experience, is perhaps a more prescriptive and deliberate process from the Town to remedy appeals that don't qualify or meet 1'appeal11 standards,and hopefully prevent other families from having to live thru this experience in the future. I listed the McManis' concerns with my comments addressing each below: 1. They have yet to see any amended plans embodying the promised changes (28 ft elevation and faux window treatment). Nor-have any oew story poles demonstrating the 28ft elevation and other modified dimensions been erected. VK: Distribution of amended plans was not required and not an action from the HPC meeting. Furthermore, the plans showing 28ft buildi_ng height have been submitted to planning on 3/16 and have been available for review in both public records and both March and April HPC meetings. The faux vents are to be reviewed with planning at submittal as directed by the HPC. The comment about the story poles is completely false and deliberately misleading. First, the 28ft story poles have been installed on March 15, ahead of the March HPC meeting, as matter of courtesy to my neighbors, in effort to let the McManis1 see what the new height and provide their thoughts prior to the HPC mtg. We did this, even though story poles are NOT required for the new plans. As a matter of record, we did not get a note of appreciation or even a response. 2. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) has not seen the revised plans for either promised changes or modifications to the garage. Please recall the previous addition of a rear balcony that was not approved or even reviewed by the HPC1 and but for the opposition by my clients filed Feb 20, 2018, would never have come to its attention. VK: The HPC specifically voted on and directed us NOT to submit new revised plans and to work with planning department to add or 11 cloud" proposed changes to the garage when submitting for the building permit. EXHIBIT 9 3. The applicants have not advised what they intent to do about the portion of the garage that encroaches on my clients property. VK: We are following the direction and guidance set in current zoning and building codes provided by the planning department that apply to existing, non conforming structures ... to preserve a 60 -100 year old structure. We did not built it there, the garage has been there for "'100 years. Our plans to update the building comply with all current codes. Other than revising the roof pitch/type as suggested by the HPC and submitting plans with 11 bubbles11 to reflect changes, no further action was requested nor required. 4. So far as we know, the applicants continue to refuse to allow our consultants to inspect the premises and verify plans heretofore submitted to the town. Verification is especially important with respect to the agreed 28ft elevation, and understandable the history of what might be described as indifference to the Town's recommendations and requirements, e.g. proof of neighborhood outreach, etc ... VK: A general and arbitrary request for an inspection was made on April 11th but after multiple attempts to find out what specifically they were concerned with and wanted to inspect, we received no answer. See attached thread as evidence and reference. From the Town's standpoint, a private property owner is under no obligation to allow public access to their property at any time, whether under application or under construction. More so, we have been working with the experts at the HPC, Planning and Building Departments for almost one year to ensure our home is built to all current design, codes and building requirements. The implication made by Tyler for an outside inspection is that the guidance given by HPC, Planning and Building teams is inaccurate a~d needs to be vetted and validated. To stress the point one more time, we have made many attempts throughout this process starting prior to Feb 6th 2018 to meet, discuss, and hear back from the McManis' on all aspects of their concerns about the project. To date we have yet to get a response on any of proposed changes, modifications, efforts, etc ... including a request for an inspection. See attached email thread for additional history. Please let me know if this works or if more is needed. Best, Vladimir Kanevsky 408 892-2680 ~----· To Whom It May Concem, Office of Sandra Paim Architect Sandra Paim AIA MGBP P.O. Box 2136 Los Gatos, CA 95031 (408) 315-1403 sandra@sandrapaim.com www.sandrapaim.com Please accept our development proposal for 223 Masso! Avenue, Los Gatos. We are requesting approval of a different project as a response to neighbor concem and have submitted drawings to Sean Mullin for direction and distribution to the Historic Preservation Committee. PROJECT: Roof height lowered (previous design from 30' to 28') Change main roof pitch (existing from 7:12 to 9:12) Reduce attic square footage to be added (previous design from 271.35 SF to 99 SF) Increase rear setback et attic addition (previous design from 27'-6" to 37'-6· +/-) Remove (previous design) rear balcony at attic Remove (previous design) attic windows on left elevation (south): adding two small skylites Add cantilevered bay under existing eave at first floor breakfast nook (left elevation - south) Add cantilevered bays under existing eave at first floor floor living room and (previous design) dining room (right elevation -north) (Previous design) Remove two existing angled bay windows (right elevation -north) and remove cantilevered bay (left elevation -south) (Previous design) Modify and upgrade exterior openings including entry (Previous design} Add. porch roof Thank you for your consideration. Sandra Paim Architect RECEIVED MAR 16 2018 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT 10 This Page Intentionally Left Blank .1 ,r-· .. February 20, 2018 HAND DELIVERED Sean Mullin, AICP Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Civic Center 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RECEIVED FEB 2 0 2018 TOWN OF LOS GA TOS p~IVI SION Re: 223 Massol Avenue (MR-17-018, Assessor Parcel No. 510-16-020) Dear Mr. Mullin: Sara Wigh and I oppose the application and proposal described in your letter dated February 7, 2018, and referenced above. Our residence is the historic Trantham House at 216 Glen Ridge Avenue, which is the property adjoining 223 Masso! Avenue and the parcel principally affected by this proposed development. Please see Exhibits 1 and 2. We are opposed to this project for the following reasons, among others: The posted notice at the site is titled, ·"Minor Residential Modification Application." Please see Exhibit 3. The planned constructio_n is hardly minor. Please see E~hibit 4 . It does not qualify for "minor residential development" treatment. In trying to satisfy the ordinance, the applicant has characterized the work as an "addition greater than 100 sq. ft. to existing second story." Please see Exhibit 5. It is not an addition to a seeona-story~it is-a-brand new 3!'d-story-:-Please-see Exhibit 6 . The application must be denied for this reason alone. Further evidence that the project involves the construction of a third story, as opposed to a minor modification of the "attic," is the 3rd floor plan itself, euphemistically described as "proposed attic floor." Please see Exhibit 7. The new floor measures approximately 30 x 15 feet, and takes up over 450 square feet of floor space. It includes a stairway, a bedroom, a bathroom , and a "playroom ." Why are we so concerned about this proposed development? Several reasons, among others: the 3rc1 floor's five (5) windows overlooking the Trantham House mcm anlslaw.com EXHIBIT 11 Sean Mullin, AICP February 20, 2018 Page2 gardens, as well as our Kftchen and dining room; the elevation of the roof line (increased from its present 26 feet to a proposed 30 feet, or more); and the size and mass of the new floor. Please see Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11. Situated on the 5-foot setback from our property, the enlarged structure with its additional floor would tower over our property and would be highly invasive of our privacy. Please see Exhibit 12. In addition, the application cannot be granted since the proposed work "adversely affects its relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with [the property's] surroundings, including neighboring structures," and it "adversely affects the character, and the historical, architectural and aesthetic interest and value of the [Almond Grove Historic District]." We have described the adverse effect of the proposed addition on our home. In terms of the neighborhood, we do not need another oversized house on Massei Avenue. Finally, the Town "strongly recommends that applicants for any development proposal make contact with surrounding neighbors to determine their concerns prior to submittal of the development application." This did not happen. In fairness to the applicant, I unqerstand you sent me an email while I was in trial reporting that the owner of 223 Masso.I "welcomes [my] phone call." Although 1 am willing to discuss this situation with the applicant at a mutually agreeable time and place, I do not think his expressed willingness to take my call is exactly what the Town had in mind when it "strongly recommended" that applicants ,"make contact" with the neighbors. I appreciate your consideration of our opposition to this proposal. By way of information, I do not expect my trial to finish soon, and then Sara and I will be out of the country until mid-April. Thank you. Very truly yours, ' . ADDENDUM -February 20, 2018 Opposition to MR .. 17-018 223 Massol Avenue, APN 510-16-020 On February 19, 2018, Presidents Day, the applicant, Vladimir Kanevsky, met Sara Wigh by happenstance in the vicinity of 223 Masso! Avenue. After a brief conversation, she invited Mr. Kanevsky to view his project from the back porch of Trantham House. I .arrived while they were doing so . I was not present for the entire conversation, but the following is the gist of Mr. Kanevsky's comments, either made directly to me or reported by Sara after he left: Importantly, Mr. Kanevsky said he was willing to remove the windows from the "Proposed Left Side Elevation -Southn and lower the overall height of the house. He went on to say he would ask his architect to prepare revised plans showing those changes . He claimed the present plans were the result of requirements the Town had imposed on h i m. When Sara asked to see the original plans, Mr. Kanevsky started to bring them up on his phone, and then said he could not find them or they weren't there. I thanked Mr. Kanevsky for his willingness to consider our concerns , and said we looked forward to seeing the revised plans addressing them. I explained however, as a result of the Town's letter of February 7, 2018 , we had until February 20, 2018, to lodge any opposition to the present plans, and we had no choice but to do so . Mr. Kanevsky was worried our opposition would delay approval of his project. As politely as I could , l pointed out that may be why the Town "strongly recommends that applicants ... make contact with ·surrounding neighbors to determine their concerns prior to submittal of the development application." I said I would withhold our opposition if the Town gave us an extension in writing of the February 201h deadline. Sara and I are submitting this opposition in order to preserve our right to object to the 223 Massol project. We are nevertheless willing to withdraw our objection, if the revised plans address our concerns, as stated in the opposition submitted herewith. Thank you. mes McManis Sara Wigh a mcmanlslaw.com -' . -~ ' . ( EXHIBIT 1 . ' ORDINANCE 2165 ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING ORDINANCE N0.1919 RELATING TO ZONE CHANGE NO. 86 (.ALMOND GROVE H1S'l'OlUC DISTRICT) The Town Cmmcil of the Town of Los Gatos does hereby ordain: SECTION I The district delineated on the attached map is hereby designated historically and culturally Significant as the Almond Gro ve Historic District HD-80-lA. SECTION TI The district is designated to be historicaUy, architecturally, or aesthetically significant for the reasons Hsted below: A. Property: Almond Grove District. Boundaries: Bean to the south, Glen Ridge Avenue to the west, to.but not including the lots facing Sanrtoga Avenue to the North, and to but not including the lots facing North Santa Cruz Avenue to the east (see map Exhioit A). B. Historic designation no.: HD-80-lA C. Description of·designati.on: District D. Description of characteristics which justify the designation: Historical: The Almond Grove addition was the first and largest subdivision after the incorporation of the Town of Los Gato~. Of approximately 40 acres, the historic tract was the last land, formerly a11_a1mond orchard as its name suggests, of 162~ acres bought in 1865 by John Mason from Edward Auzerais, an important landowner in Santa c_Iara County after whom Auzerais Street in San Jose and Auzerais Court in Los Gatos was named. The purchasers and developers of Almond" Grove were four very important ?gures of Los Gatos history and honored by street names still used in the area. They were Alphonse Eli Wilder, banker; Augustine Nicholson, capitalist; Magnus Tait, farmer and miner; and John Bean, orchardist. ' . Many important contributors to the development of the Town lived in the Almond Grove area. L.B. Hamilton, secretary of the Odd Fellows and director of the 1889 Los Gatos Cemetery Association, built his own house at 139 Wilder (whlch is still owned and occupied by his daughter). In addition, he also did extensive carpentry Work for Mrs. Winchester of the famous Winchester House in San Jose. The house at 115 Wilder was owned by Clarence Lydon, nephew of town pioneer John Lyndon. E.N. Davis1 head trustee (mayor) on the board of trustees, 18980-1902, lived at 131 Tait. The Magnus Tait home is 231 Tait. 129 Tait was the home of E.E. Place and birthplace of George Place, owner of Place Mortuary housed in the Coggeshall Mansion (a Town historic landmark now the site of the Chart House). 328 Bachman is the "Massol'' house. Fenilen Massol was Los Gatos mayor, 1894- 97. 354 Bachman was the home of George McMurty, who as a youth helped haul stones to build Forbes Mill Annex and later became the first treasurer of incorporated Los Gatos, a post he held for over 40 years. 216 Glen Ridge was the home ofW.H.B. Trantham. who in 1885 becan.te the first owner of the Los Gatos News after its founder temporarily r etiroo.. Trantham owner th e News (later the Mail~News) until 197 6. The Mail-News remained in existence until 1953. 200 Glen Ridge was at one time the home of Raymond J. Fisher, educator, after whom Fisher school is named. John Bean started a b1.1siness right in Almond Grove that evolved into a local family dynasty's multi-national corporation, Food Macltlnery Corporation. Plagued by San Jose scale on his orchard trees, he developed an improved chemical spray pump, a significant development in an era oftrem1mdous fruit growing in Santa Clara Valley. Bean gave his son-in-law, David C.· Crununey, a share in the business. Historical evidence indicated that Crummey lived in tbe house on the comer of Bean and Santa Crnz Avenues, 212 Bean A venue, until the business prospered and he built the elaborate mansion at 33 Glen Ridge Avenue. D.C.'s son. John Crummey, further improved the pump and expanded the Almond Grove headquartered business. (In Horatio Algier tradition, he enterprisingly rode a bicycle up and down the Sacramento Valley and lined up enough order to keep the company in business for years.) Under Crummey, the Bean Spray Pump Company became F.M.C. (still retaining a division entitled Bean . . ' . '. ·I I I I .... Spray Pump Company). Under John Crummey's son-in-law, Paul Davies, F.M.C. became an international corporation, and a member of his family still serves on the board of directors. Architectural: The predominance of Viotarian arch itecture, inclcding informal Wood frame cottages and impressive homes, intennixed with bungalow-style cottages Colonial Revival and Mission Revival homes buih somewhat later reflect the history and development of the district Individual architectural distinction is · not the important factor in an histori~ di.strict but the neighborhood entity crea.tcd . The Ahnond Orove area is unique in that of the 78 pre--1895 bO"Uses buil~ here, 64 or about 82% still grace the streets. In addition, 22 houses built between 1895 and 1908, 31 houses built between 1908 and 1916 and another30houses built between 1917 and 1930 still exist. The 1989 earthquake significantly damaged two houses built prior to the 1900's and one built in the 1920's which were demolished. A total of 180 structures now line the streets within the boundaries of the district, 147 or 82% of those structures were built by 1930. The streetscapes remain basioally ,mcliaoged. Lending the district a special old-time feeling, that fur many symbolize old Los GatOB and represents an important part of the Town's heritage. ~ources: Robert E. Leo, supported by Sanborn maps, Town of Los Gatos and Santa Clara County tax records; and Histozy of Los Gatos by George Bn1ntz. E. Listed below are Town features recommended for preservation. Review by the Historic Preservation Committee is required for any changes to these features . 1. Roads are concrete and should be repaired to maintain appearance as of the year 1976. 2. Date stamp in concrete sidewalks. I.. . -~ EXHIBIT 2 \., .. ,.- 15 •. '• . , : ' ~"1.'l':<'.1.J.!• ,, ., ~·15·,t-,i- 16 -~·-.. .-...J ••• .~ .. ~., R--\cO •. tr"?· .. ,. '\ · . .,, 155 145 ·,, .. ......... ,_ 211 .... --... ~~ ........... 207 . .. .... ...... .. ........... . 20~ 399 .... '"""--.... 245 ....... ....... ....... 208 ,· ....... ~ '-' 200 ....... ,: ; . •' ' a.27 .f .. .. " ~-..... "~ .. "' . , 231 ... 316 ~ .. .... ..... .. t·· .: .:..! · .... ·' .. /' 3115 .-' , -~. ,, ·, 311 ,, ..... 328 ... ..... • .. •' .. I ""·" ~-~-· 320 ~· J~i .• f ' .,: .. " , ~ 3lJ5 •' < ,• 311 ,· . '· 240 .300 ...... .I .. ' ···... 307 ..... '·, 7.31 .. 2:2 .. 5 .. , ...... , .. , .. -."! ........ . ..... 221 · .. ..~ ... .. ~ ~~ ··,..,.~ 223 .. . ,.,. 21~··· '"t.· .. ~ .. 2C',t' .., V:.. .... "'·· 2JO ·.,, •, . ··-.... · .............. , Z'15 -.. .. , .•. 222 •· .. , -... ";-, '· .... ./' ..... ~ .. ~ ..... 213 ,., . ...... "" ...... .... .,. 218 ·~ · .. ~ . ., L. : EXHIBIT 3 -------:-.. -- · IVTinor Re~,,at(Modlf 1~1£i"'".i~~~c.at1a1 MR;f1 .. 01B Reque~kirq approval for minor residenti~ devel~ent ·or+~1 nai-ccxrlribut.1~ ,it1Clle--famil4 home tn the ~mood urfJJe H1$f"1l1Miict ;,l .. on proper~ zoned RH7tHP APN 010-16-020. /Applicant~ Name: Sandra Palm Architect f elephaie Number: 40B--,l~~l40? f rx mere information abrut tni5 proJectJ plea5e cCKltact Uie f (Mir. of ~05 aatm Planni~ Oivi5ion at 110 ~. Main 5freet, ~o, uatos, ( 408) ?JC;4-6B12. Plan, f.at1 be viewed at tne same addre55 between B:00 a.m . and 1:00 p.m. Monda4 aid fr1da4 . ~ _, ....... · ... , .. ( EXHIBIT 4 .r .. , . \ ' ~ '. .. . . . ,./ .. "' .. : ~ .. \ \ L.... : ·-· • I 1 EXHIBIT 5 .,. : : APPiICATION FOa MINOR RESiDENTIAL DEVBL.OPMENT WWW?' • . TOWN OF LOS GATOS .. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Clvlc Center 110 E Marn Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Phone; (408} 354-6874 • FAX: (408) 354-7593 1. z. ± , .. '_ 4. s. 6. -,. DO APPLICANT REQUE$Tt <9s- N8* second' Story Addition §11 ~dltJo.n:,reatef' than 100-sq.ft to eidsttngsecond story ' 7-o~ ~u~n of a portion.oh single or twn-ftlmlly dweUJnc wtth 1-nonconform1111 setbidc -, ~r, str&Wture,emedlhi,4SO sq .ft .. · TOWN·GFLQS GATOS ~ion tnsidft/ror van:t-setbactcs fot an-,CGf950ry. structure ~NM 01VJ$10N s,oit court U,hth,g . APN -~ [,0--1 (,-()Z_O PROPER'IY OWl\iER: Name vi.AP'IMIP. ~v~ -£".f007912 -Mo Address -W · .$-\1AJ<Q:fJ · ct)l{(C, atv µ Jail.O ~~~ State C..A Zip ... ~(;gs Email -\/.. i. ·4 ~ ..-.-e 6) _ c ~m. ca.$+ . "1L:t I_ ffeteby cerriJy thtit toffl ·'the owl'ie"r of ret:brd o ·. ·· iliftt,lifflY d~fn ilo,c 11 and that I approve of me OdlOtt reqlle5red .. - SlllitA1VR.E OJ PROPe!ffV OWNIIR Name Address City C$ ct~·os : State -• CA: - ~mall • rgt/ttfitt-jPtll/n0/4 (b);f:,t,1ll1/, CC,t,17 , hereby centfy under~ of pe~f.l! that ;II p/1ca ~mo~· ond,plat15 ~u,_ond correct. SIGNATURE 0, APPLICANT \\ ':i:-.~ . . t,,, '.I . Date ITEM$ RECEIVED: ___ Envelopes .. :· . ..,__ _ __ Set(t) of plans __ ._11111111111 Ult (Owners-&. Occ..apan1'1 i;,' PLl>ERMIT PLTRACK PLANAP "' If Site t&-focatecf. --lthtn Route 85 ~dy Plan Area f10%) .. ~ If !It& 1s located Within North 40 Stud)' Plan Area · _ ' . . '• "'PLRTE8S .. -TOT!4't. TOTAL $ The lflformatian contained 111 thl$-applicatlon Is £OnSldered p.n ohhe. pub1i<' r«;r:ord. Thenlfote, K wm appear lo both the publJc record file for the ,ne addrl!$li, which,, available upon request. encl on the 1:1etrt11ttln1 system on~ offldallowr, of Lc,1 Gatoi website at www.!qsgtpsc1.11oy . ] . . EXHIBIT 6 ,;- '-............__......__.......__..--........... ----------.---. I .AH I> A A P./MM RllidCllliol 'r Conimffllllll lf"ll!Glla1l JIA ... IIM i.on.. asrr. JJUW: . •• 11$•1~ """""""'- t ::J i ~ <? " I ~=.:.._:,,.·--•9'1ffl 1~11,wtlllAl'JOIIJ- ,~~---.. :,. u ~11,"'7 'f' 1 . 111:a""''IOt ... et.Pl t<, CI.O i ii II I - ~ ~ l I:::: ~-•J ~- _., Hl lfl UK I U H II a.,.r. j -:"-. -~'C,o.G ----~----1·5 .... ._.:_ 1---t ~ Ii ,_ L7' -'.CJ L •• ·----=.w.-. 1--1 n.-.- sur, A-, ______________________________________ ___,, • .!illl ,-· : ' I . I ( EXHIBIT 7 .. :u·.,. f clY'j l -;.11·~-1 tW-!' I r--- I I l I I I f l I I Is !, I t .. I .. I ";i I I I I I I I L_l r--' I I i I I I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I r-J I L-, I I I I f I I I I I I i .. L "1 --1, I L . ; r-- I;, !1 < .. ,.. PROPOSf DIS~: r,.- EXHIBIT 8 ----- Bl ~I ! 11 B B B r-------, I I I ' ! I ~ I I Is_ l ______ ~J f \. ~ > P.1!'1..\'.l'C:: l,111l!PO: I ; ' .. ---. . .. ····-""" . -.... ·• .. . . l EXHIBIT 9 ... ~ .· ---·--··-· .. ·-.... _ --·· { EXHIBIT 10 . . . . I,.'.. I I ( I EXHIBIT 11 L ; •. ··: ., EXHIBIT 12 ---------------------~ I I \ ~\ \ ' \ I I \ ";'j I :-\ .- APN 510-16-021 ·:~.~:: .. ,:.::.. ..... ,. .. _ . ·-:::,.._ ·:- ".'.':"-- ·-· 'h·-- \ \ -... -· ...... --==--- ;.;"' ·.~. \ I I \ Af'T'I 510-16-026 \- I \ I \ 1 I \ I I \ .. ·: ... _ ·""'."', -• ·-.. ., ·::.":...:~:;... -~ fl ~-.'i:"' .,.. \ .. , ...... _:-· "'""'-·-:-· .. ~~'"""'-.:_ _________ ...:._ ___________ ..:._ ______ ''"'f--;11;,.o:;,.~zaiii"o.,ii.-·ww.:..,,;9;:,._;;;o,,ii'·----.....:.-----:------------'-----"---------~ ~"1 I I \ I I \ Al'"N e-io-,e~01111 \ I I \ I I ___ _;· \ r--------------------------------------------1 \ b[Gl;:tjQ & ~QB~VIATIONS PUBLIC SER ... CI, UllUTY rM7'tdrNT 'IIU/11 JIWHY r4·w.wou fl tllllll ARF.A D~NN flF.Hr.HMARK llllltMJMt fl\1'.JR,\NT: £lOSIWG INI_Fl .ll'INI I' Iii 'IP.UU't 1p•i,1 "illot<'IN(.i 1.1111,, ~ I ~~'rolCAL m:us SHOWtl QN IJ.II~ l:l.fll/£Y ARr. UMl!m TO fliOSf "1.IRF'Ar"J' flfll5 Vil.~IRl..f 115 (Jr lHf OJI Jf. CF DtlS .UN\of'f .MIil '1lf1-I AV/I.ti ..\rur Ht'· :-Jim OJ\IA ill~!';lJ.Rl"AI.I tlJfJl,·r-11 •m. u~1 11or III J1nwn ... :~~' .... 1u1·~11,11,1 BASIS OF BEARINGS 1fUVJf[ if;,7 £11vuo11ua1uI a3vJ SJlfJ, Sean Mullin From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Sean, Vladimir Kanevsky <vladimir.kanevsky@gmail.com> Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:07 AM Sean Mullin; Sally Zarnowitz Requesting withdrawal of the Minor Residential Development application MR-17-018. This is email is our official request for the withdrawal of the Minor Residential Development application MR-17- 018. We are doing this and proceeding with the small plans in effort to accommodate the privacy ans building height complaints filled by Jim and Sara McManis. Best,· Vladimir Kanevsky 408 892-2680 EXHIBIT 12 This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 13, 2018 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY Los Gatos Historical Preservation Committee 11 O East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 223 Massei Avenue Application No. MR-17-018 Dear Members of the Historical Preservation Committee: RECEIVED MAR 13 '2018 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION This office represents James McManis and Sara Wigh regarding the pending application for constructing a 3rd floor at 223 Massol Avenue, No. MR-17-018. We understand the HPC will consider certain aspects of this application at its regularly scheduled meeting on March 28, 2018. Because Mr. and Mrs. McManis are traveling overseas and unable to attend the meeting, we are submitting their opposition to the application, previously filed with the Town on February 20, 2018, and we respectfully request the HPC consider the points made therein. A member of this office will attend the meeting and request an opportunity to make brief remarks as well. Thank you. Very truly yours, McMANIS FAULKNER TA:MBC Enclosure McManis C;':::::. Telerhone 408.~79.8700 l mcmanlslaw.com Fairmont Plaza, 10th Floor, 50 W. San Fern<>ndo Street, Sar, Jose, California 95113 EXHIBIT 13 This Page Intentionally Left Blank April 12, 2018 VIA HAND DELIVERY Historic Preservation Committee Town of Los Gatos Civic Center 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Re: 223 Massei Avenue (MR-17-018, Assessor Parcel No. 510-16-020) Dear Committee Members: My clients, Sara Wigh and Jim McManis, submit the following comments. to the "03/30/2018 REVISED Plans for 223 Massei Avenue:" Mr. McManis and Ms. Wigh are encouraged by the elimination of the 3rd story windows on the Proposed Left Side Elevation -South, and the removal of the balcony on the back side of the structure. They also appreciate the reduction in square footage of the Jrd floor, noting however that it is not 322.65 square feet as claimed, but rather 352 square feet (or more) as clearly shown on Sheet A-2.2. They are still concerned about the size and mass of the new floor, and they question its "relationship, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with [the property's] surroundings, including neighboring structures," and its effect on the "character, and the historical, architectural and aesthetic interest and value of the [Almond Grove Historic District]." Those questions may however be best left to the informed discretion of the Historic Preservation Committee. If the Committee does approve the current set of plans, my clients reserve the right to supplement their opposition after the story poles are put up again. · There are some serious credibility issues with this application: 1. lhe applicant sent Ms. Wigh and Mr. McManis an angry email with a number of misleading statements, which I was required to address. Please see enclosed email and my response. Teiephone 408.279.8700 I mcmanislaw.com Fairmont Plaza, 1 O:h Fioor, 50 \/( San Fe,-na'ldC Str~et. San .Jose, California 95113 EXHIBIT 14 ( Historic Preservation Committee April 12, 2018 Page 2 · 2. The applicant's architect was asked to submit a summary of his neighborhood outreach efforts, including neighbors contacted, date contacted, and response. We requested applicant provide us with a copy of the summary. To date, we have not received one. 3. After the Committee reviewed the initial plans, the applicant added a balcony to the back of the house without permission. But for the challenge to his application, this unapproved change would have been incorporated into the structure, a serious· violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Historic District ordinance. 4. The square footage of the additional floor is uncertain. See above. Is it 322 feet? 352 feet? Or something else? In short, the Committee should proceed with caution in evaluating this application. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, McMANIS FAULKNER TA:svn Enclosure cc: Vladimir Kanevsky April 11, 2018 VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL Vladimir Kanevsky 20 Sharon Court Menlo Park, CA 94025 Re: 223 Massol Avenue Dear Mr. Kanevsky: As you know, I represent Jim McManis and Sara Wigh regarding your development application for the above-described. property. I write in reply to your email to Mr. McManis and Ms. Wigh of Saturday, April 7, 2018, at 2:57 PM (copy enclosed). In the future, please direct any communications in this matter to me, not my clients. Normally, I would not dignify your accusations with a response, but since you have tried to prejudice my clients in the eyes of the Town by copying three members of the Community Development Department, I have no choice but to address some of your unfounded statements. You assert that Mr. McManis and Ms. Wigh were "on vacation" and indifferent to your concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth. From February 25th to April 6th, except for two brief intervals, they were traveling for business and professional reasons in Europe, New York, and Beijing, not ·on vacation." The suggestion that they should set aside longstanding obligations to address your project is misplaced. I remind you again of the policy of .the Town which "recommends that applicants for any developrfient proposal make contact with surrounding neighbors to determine their concerns prior to submittal of the development application." This did not happen. Regarding your duty to contact neighbors before submitting an application, Sean Mullin asked your ·architect as. long ago as February eth for a •isummary of your [neighborhood outreach] efforts ... , including_ neighbors contacted, date contacted, and response." To date, we have seen no such summary. If on·e exists, please send me a copy. Telephone 408.279.8700 I mcmanlslaw.com . Fairmont Plaza, 10th F~oor, 50 W. San Fernando Street, San .lose, California 95113 Vladimir Kanevsky Apri I 11 , 201 8 Page2 Perhaps your most unfortunate accusation is the statement that the reasonable concerns of my clients have affected "the quality of life for [your] family" and that "[t]his experience has left [your] wife and family truly traumatized." If those claims are true, and not the usual plea that is made far too frequently by development applicants, I suggest with respect you accept responsibility for your situation, instead of blaming your neighbors. Jim and Sara purchased the Trantham House in 1984 and painstakingly restored it over a 4-year period. It is cited as a contributing residence in the Town's ordinance relating to the Almond Grove Historic District. Ordinance 2165. They treasure this property,. as does the Town. They are not going to be bullied and rushed into "approving" your project by emails such as yours of April 7th. ·I suggest you would be well advised to address the concerns raised by the Historic Preservation Committee, rather than lashing out at your neighbors. Thank you. Very truly yours, McMANIS FAULKNER TA:svn Enclosure cc: Town of Los Gatos, Community Development Department McManisTaulkner • - Carvajal, Manuel From; Sent: To: Cc: Subject; Jim/Sara, ( Vladimir Kanevsky <vladimir.kanevsky@gmail.com> Saturday, April 7, 2018 2:57 PM · Carvajal, Manuel McManis, James; Sandra Paim; Sean Mullin; Wigh, Sara; Joel Paulson; Sally Zarnowitz; William Fisher; cristianepdernelo@gmatl.com Re: FW: 223 Massei . . . It would not have taken much to review the drawings and have a conversation prior to you leaving, especially knowing that leaving on vacation without a resolution. would delay my house by at least several months. Maybe a bit naive, but I expected more from my neighbors. It is apparent that you're not bothered by or h~ve any consideration for the emotional and financial stress this delay has put on my family. I am truly disheartened. Regardless, I have heard your complaints and as someone with the right intentions, took them to heart and have made many serious concessions in an effort to address all of them. My willingness to address your concerns have come at a huge iI;l.cremental financial burden, both in terms of the time delay and development of revised structural/architectural drawings. These alternate plans will also result in material impact on my property values and even more important, to the quality of life for my family. I made the proposals anyway because I was genuinely concerned about impacting your quality of life. By doing so, I have seemingly put your family's well being ahead ofmy own. This experience has left my wife and family truly traumatized. You on the other hand, have not even taken the time to respond or even meet to discuss my proposals/changes even to my multiple requests to discuss them. You have now had over 2 months with at least 3 weeks before you left on vacation. Technology being what it is, I imagine you have access to email and phones· .even while on vacation. In the spirit of being good neighbors, I ask you to keep all this in mind and give me a call anytime or provide comments via email. I hope to hear from you by 12pm PT on Tues, 10/11/18. Vladimir . 408 892-2680 On Thu, Marl, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Carvajal, Manuel <mcarvajal@mcmanislaw:com> wrote: Dear Mr. Kanevsky: r a_m the personal assistant to Mr. and Mrs. McManis, and I am familiar with this matter. As you may-re~all from their opposition to your applicatlon, they are traveling, and they are not.expected to return until April 10th_ I am certain they will be available to discuss your case with you when they return. 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 8, 2018 NONE EXHIBIT 15 EXHIBIT 16 EXHIBIT 17