08-18-15 Minutes - DRCTOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874
, ____________________________________ , '---·------
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR AUGUST 18, 2015 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET , LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA . _________ , ________ _
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chair Machado.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present:
Jennifer Savage, Senior Planne r
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner
Doug Harding, Fire Department
Michael Machado, Building Official
Mark Glendinning, Building Inspector
Mike Weisz, Associate Civil Engineer
Fletcher Parsons, Contract Town Civil Engineer
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1: 15925 Quail Hill Road
Architecture and Site Application S-14-027
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to
construct a new single-family residence on property zoned HR-1. APN 527-02-
007.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Kevin Hwang and Sabrina Dong
PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley
(Continuedfrom 712112015 and 811112015)
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
Sabrina Dong, Applicant, presented a Deed of Trust from Prist Republic title Company
descripting the ingress and egress easement and added that a real estate attorney is of the
opinion that she has a prescriptive easement.
4. Members of the public were present:
Brad Krouskup asked if they could continue to do more research. He stated that he and Dana
Krouskup are not opposed to the applicants developing their property. They are opposed to the
current proposal and want to offer positive not negative input. John Livingstone's letter lists
their issues of concern. He said their primary issue is the project's impact on their house . He
stated that an easement exists with no defined width. He said that access from Drysdale Drive
would be preferred. He would like to present some options.
DRC Minutes
August 18,2015
Page 2
Marni Mos eley, Associate Planner, stated that the Development Review Committee (DRC)
hearing is to take comments on a proposed project. It would not be appropriate for the DRC to
review plans that are not part of a proposed project. She added that when they met in May,
staff suggested they put their concerns in writing and no comments were received.
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney, stated that the Town does not represent any individual interest
but simply reviews and proposals for compliance with the Town Code Standards.
John Livingstone, Consultant, presented a response letter to Mami Moseley, in response to his
first letter of concerns. He is most concerned about the Fire Department conditions. He also
questioned the lack ofBuilding permit for the secondary unit and the safe condition ofthe unit.
Marni Moseley state that when the secondary unit permit was approved in 1986, a safety
inspection was performed.
Sabrina Dong stated that she was also concerned about the safety of the unit and had two
separate structural engineers assess the structural integrity of the unit and that they both
independently concluded that the unit is structurally sound.
Dana Krouskup commented that she is most concerned about construction traffic access .
Brad Krouskup added that he feels that the proposal is not consistent with the Hillside Specific
Plan.
Marni Mos el ey read Condition of Approval No. 46, which addresses the emergency access
easement.
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Marni Mose ley moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations :
FINDINGS
Required f"mding for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 : New Construction or Conversion ofSmall
Structures.
Required f"mdings for demolition:
As required by Section 29 .1 0 .09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family
residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house will be replaced.
2. The structure has no historic significance.
DRC Minutes
August 18 , 2015
Page 3
3 . The property owner does not desire to maintain the s tructure due to it s current
condition; and
4 . The economic utility of the structure is limited due to its condition.
Required Compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines .
Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the site is developed as a single
family residence on an existing parcel. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria
included in the plan.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of applications:
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture
and site application were all made in reviewing this project.
7. Doug Harding seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8. Appeal rights were cited.
ITEM2: 17061 Wild Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-055
Requesting approval to demolish a single-family residence , remove larg e protected
trees , and construct a new singl e-family residence with reduced setbacks on a non-
conforming property zoned R-1 :20. APN 424-30-087.
PROPERTY OWNER: Wild Way LLC
APPLICANT: Tony Jeans
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage
1. Chair Ma chado opened the public hearing.
2 . Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
Tony J eans first went to the Planning Commission requesting a reduced front setback of 25
feet. The Planning Commission wanted him to hold to the required 30 feet setback. He
redesigned the house to move it back, reduced the footprint in order to save trees , reta ined the
architectural style but reduced the mass by lowering the plate lines a little. He worked with the
neighbor to address her concerns and offered the option of providing a gate in the common
fence due to tight access conditions.
DRC Minutes
August 18 , 20 15
Page4
As a result of these modifications, the Planning Division was able to place the application on
the Development Review Committee agenda and the proposal was now in compliance with the
Town Code and the Residential Design Guidelines.
4. Members of the public were not present:
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Doug Harding moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations:
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 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
Required finding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
• As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single-family
residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family re sidence will be replaced.
2. The existing structures have no architectural or historical significance, and are in poor
condition.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures a s they exist; and
4 . The economic utility of the structures was not considered.
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for s ingle-family homes not
in hillside residential areas .
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
Required considerations in review of requests for reduced setbacks on non-conforming lots:
• As required by Section 29.10.265 of the Town Code, it is determined that the reduced side
setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood.
DRC Minutes
August 18 ,20 15
Page 5
7. Mark Glendinning seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8. Appeal rights were cited.
ITEM 3: 202 LuRay Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-15-024
Requesting approval of a technical demolition of an ex isting s ingle-family
resi dence and construction of a new single-family r esidence on property zoned R-
1: 10. APN 523 -24-034.
PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph Calvey
APPLICANT : Jessica Av iles
PROJECT PLANNER : Jocelyn Puga
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
4. Members of the public were not present:
Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshal, clarified that s ince the addition resulted in a hous e le ss
than 3600 square feet , fire sprinklers were not required.
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Mike We isz mo ved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with th e
following findings and considerations:
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
• The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the ad opted Guidelines for the Implementati on
of the California Environmental Quality Act , Section 15303: New Construction or Con versi o n of
Small Structures.
Required finding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
• As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demo liti on of a sing le-fami ly
res idence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as th e s ingl e-famil y residence will be replaced .
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance.
3. The property owner does n ot des ire to maintain the structure a s it exists; and
4. While the majority of the structure will be maintained, the sco pe of the proposed rem odel
requires removal of more than 50 % of the existing wall area; which will result in a techni cal
demolition.
DRC Minutes
August 18,2015
Page 6
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes not
in hillside residential areas.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
7 . Doug Harding seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8 . Appeal rights were cited.
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11 :00 a .m . The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review
Committee is the following Tuesday.
~-~LJ.}:rVs:rh~&.aAt ~~~
Michael Machado, Building Official
N:\DEV \DRC\Min 20 15\8-1 8-15.doc