06-14-16 Minutes - DRCTOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6874
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JUNE 14,2016 HELD IN TH E TOWN COUNCIL
C HAMB ERS , CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GAT OS, CALIFORNiA.
The meeting was called to order at I 0:05 a .m . by Chair Machado.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present:
Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager
Je nnifer Armer, Ass ociate Planner
Erin Walt ers , Associate Planner
Jo ce ly n Puga, Assistant Planner
Doug Harding, Fire Department
Mi chael Machado, Building Official
Mike Weisz , Associate Civil Engineer
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1: 14311 Mulberry Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-15-022
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to
construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1 :8 . APN 409-15-
038.
PROPERTY OWNER: Kwangho Lee (Pres ent)
APPLICANT: Robin McCarthy
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Armer
1. Chair Ma chado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
4. Members of the public were not present.
5. Public hearing closed.
6 . J ennife r Armer 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 .
DRC Minutes
June 14 , 2016
Page2
Required findings 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.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure due to its current
condition; and
4. The economic utility of the structure is limited due to its potential condition.
Required Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines:
The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes .
CON SID ERA TIONS
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.
ITEM 2: 104 Alta Heights Court
Architecture and Site Application S-15-079
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to
construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 532-29-
044 .
PROPERTY OWNER: Rajiv Parihar & Swati Shah
APPLICANT: Stuart M. Alderman (Present)
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Armer
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2 . Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced .
4. Members of the public were present.
• Gerri and Bud Dandurand
Requested landscaped screening of the car back-up area and garage.
5. Public hearing closed.
6 . Doug Harding moved to approve the application subject to the conditions including the
addition oflandscaped screening; presented with the following find ings and considerations:
DRC Minutes
June 14 ,20 16
Page 3
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 findings for demolition:
As required by Section 29.1 0.09030( e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a s ingle family
residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house will be replaced .
2. The structure has no hi storic significance.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure due to its current
condition; and
4. The economic utility of the structure is limited due to its potential condition.
Required Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines:
The proj ect is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for s ingle-family hom es.
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. Jennifer Armer seconded , motion passed unanimously.
8 . Appeal rights were cited.
ITEM3: 206 Forrester Road
Architecture and Site Application S-16-021
Requesting approval of a grading permit to install a new retaining wall and patio
area on property zoned HR-1. APN 537-29-001.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Douglas Chan (Present)
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
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.
DRC Minutes
June 14 ,2016
Page4
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Mike Weisz moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations:
FINDINGS
Required findings for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 1530; Existing Facilities.
Compliance with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for site
elements in the Hillside Area as the 420-square foot impervious patio and associated stairs meet the
maximum graded cut and fill criteria. The project grades to the minimum amount necessary, and
includes retaining walls less than five feet in height matching the site's existing retaining walls.
There will be no removal of existing trees or vegetation as a result of the project.
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 with associated site elements on an existing parcel. The proposal is consistent with
the development criteria included in the plan.
CONSIDERATIONS:
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.
ITEM 4 : 138 Wood Road
Subdivision Application M-16-001
Requesting approval for a lot line adjustment between two lots for properties zoned
HR-5 . APN 510-47-027 and 043.
PROPERTY OWNER! APPLICANT: RADE Properties, LLC
CONTACT PERSON: David Propach (Present)
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Puga
I . Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
DRCMinutes
June 14 ,201 6
Page 5
3. Applicant was introduced.
4 . Members of the public were present.
• Ester Grant
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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15305: Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations .
Required Finding for State Subdivision Map Act:
The Development Review Committee has determined that none of the findings for denial specified in
Section 664 74 o f the State Subdivision Map Act can be made.
664 74. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a
p ar ce l map for whic h a te ntative map wa s not required, if it ma kes any of th e f o llowing
findings:
(a) That th e proposed map is not c onsistent with applicable gene ral and specific plans
as sp ecified in Secti o n 65451 .
(b) That th e design or impro vem ent of the proposed subdivis i on is not consis te nt w ith
applicable g en eral and specific plans.
(c) That th e site is not physically suitable for th e typ e of de velopme nt.
(d) That th e s ite is no t physi cally s uitable for th e proposed de ns ity of d ev elopm ent.
(e) Th a t the d esig n of th e s ubdiv ision or th e proposed improve m ents are likely to cause
s ubs tan tia l e nvironme ntal damage or s ubs tantially a nd a voida bly injure fis h or
wildlife or th eir ha bitat.
(f) That th e d esign of th e s ubdivision or typ e of improve m ents is likely to cause serious
public h ealth problem s .
(g) Th at the desig n of th e s ubdivision or th e typ e of improve m ents w ill conflic t with
e asem ents, acquired by the public at large, f or access throug h or use of, property
w ithin the proposed subdiv ision. In this connection , th e g overning body may
DRC Minutes
June 14 ,2016
Page6
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be
provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired
by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at
large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
7. Mike Weisz seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8. Appeal rights were cited.
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at I 0:43a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review
Committee is the following Tuesday.
~AAJ~~~ Micllae) Machado, Building Official
N :\DEY\DRC\Min 2016\6-14-16 Mins.doc