06-14-06 Minutes - GPCTOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, JUNE 14, 2006 HELD IN TH E TO WN COU NCIL
CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Th e m ee ti ng wa s c al le d t o o rd er at 5:00 p.m. by Chair Jane Ogle.
ATTENDANCE
Members present: Jane Ogle, Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Tom O’Donnell, Phil
Micciche, Marcia Jensen
Members absent: Margaret Smith, Barry Waitte
Staff present: Bud Lortz, Community Development Director; Randy Tsuda, Assistant Community
Development Director; Sandy Baily, Associate Planner; and Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ITEM 1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Bud Lortz introduced the first draft of the Residential Design Guidelines and noted the following
items for discussion:
•Ne ed fo r a gl os sa ry.
•Further discussion about frontage and street improvements.
•General Plan Policy regarding demolishing a house and replacing it with a house of
similar size.
•Designing driveways along fence lines and ribbon strip driveways.
•When is a second story appropriate?
•View protection.
•Are cellars still acceptable or an intensification issue?
•Town/County interface.
•Neighborhood support of a project vs. Town issues.
Committee members were asked to turn in editing comments separately and to bring up issues at the
meeti ng.
Baily gave further background regarding the development of the first draft and the status of the work
needed to draft the historic section of the guidelines.
Larry Cannon stated he is still working on the Neighborhood Workbook and encouraged Committee
members to review the draft and make comments.
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of June 14, 2006
Page 2 of 4
General Comments:
Micciche and Spector felt it is a good document.
Bourgeois made the observation that pages 8 & 9 are all photographs and suggested a text lead-in
to the photos. The question arose as to how far the document should address landscaping?
Reference was made to the Master Tree Plan that the Parks Commission has developed.
Pirzynski questioned the formatting of the sidebars and clarification on whether or not the
photographs were good or bad examples.
O’Donnell agreed with all comments that had been made.
Jensen also agreed with all comments made and had some hesitation regarding the photographs.
Concern was expressed if an applicant said their house looked like one of the pictures in the
document. More clarification should be provided with the photographs.
Ogle commented that the content is good.
Lortz stated the document is written as a positive document focusing on what should be done as
opposed to what is not wanted. The cover sheet will be a collage since the Town is eclectic.
Review of Introduction Section
Micciche - Page 11: For a corner parcel, show an example which faces the other street.
Pirzynski - Graphics for neighborhood identification may not do justice to the concept. The
Committee discussed keeping it small and maybe expand during the review process if applicable.
The use of the sidebar was recommended to further define a neighborhood. For easier reading, look
at basic principles with bullets to address anomalies.
Spector - Last paragraph comment regarding “substantial weight” reinforces comments made.
Remove “substantial” and expand sentence.
Pirzynski - Pa ge 5 : Qu est io ned how wil l gu id eli nes be a ppl ica bl e to bui ld in g pe rmi ts . Lo rtz
responded that we need to further refine properties with a slope of 10% or greater to ensure the
hillside standards and residential guidelines interface adequately with each other.
Cannon asked for feedback on the Community Expectations section of the introduction on page 10.
The fifth bullet needs to be refined.
Jensen reiterated the concern about how far should landscaping be addressed? Structural features
(i.e., landscaped retaining walls, etc.) are important to address. Discussion ensued regarding
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of June 14, 2006
Page 3 of 4
planning application requirements, building permits and zoning ordinance requirements. Concern
was expr essed about micro -managi ng land scapi ng. Archi tectu re wil l driv e some of the lands capin g.
Use it as a recommendation/guideline, not an enforcement requirement.
Neighborhood Patterns Section
Page 13 - Questioned sidebar comment regarding “Santa Cruz Avenue Corridor”. Under “Basic
Design Principles” clarification is required for the difference between adjacent and immediate
neighborhood.
Page 15, Section 2.2.3 - The sentence regarding the fences is not clear. Discussed different fence
alternatives for corner lots. Further discussion required.
Garage patte rns - Q uesti oned h ow com patib ilit y would wo rk for a neighb orhoo d that has la rge
garages with wide driveways. Discussed ways to keep it compatible but soften appearance.
Circular driveways - More work will be done on this section. There may be exceptions where
circular driveways may be appropriate within the front setback.
Page 20 - Questioned how much light/sky a neighbor is entitled? Suggested being more explicit
regarding view sheds not being a “right.” Language should include working with neighbors to
resolve issues.
Building Design Section
Page 23, 3.3.2 - Second sentence in first bullet needs to be revised. Discussed intensity with the use
of ce ll ar s (Ce ll ar Po li cy). C on se ns us of Co mm it te e i s t o r e-lo ok at Ce ll ar Po li cy.
Page 21 - The heading in the footer is misleading. This is not the message the Town wants to
emphasize.
Page 24 - Questioned if juliet balconies should be encouraged. Look at providing more information
on this as a design issue or provide a different photograph.
Page 23 - May be the place to discuss when a second story addition is appropriate.
Page 25 - Photographs do not all indicate if they are good or bad examples. This comment applies
throughout the document. Bottom photograph needs a description.
Page 26 - Bottom photograph was questioned. A different example may be better.
Page 27 - Recommend using a different top photograph.
Page 33 - The material change section is confusing. Suggested using the phrase “wrap material color
changes”. Discussed composition roofs. Recommended that more photographs be provided.
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of June 14, 2006
Page 4 of 4
Page 32 - Questioned what is the test used for determining whether or not material substitutes are
acceptable and how this would work.
Page 34, 3.10.1 - fourth bullet - describe “shape.”
Page 35 - Expand discussion on privacy and solar.
Solar Panels - Comments are recommended, not required. State does not allow jurisdictions to
regulate aesthetics of solar panels. Jurisdictions can only review health and safety issues.
Exterior lighting needs to include discussion of up-lighting of trees and architectural detail ing.
Include lamp posts.
Lortz stated the next step is to revise the draft. Separate items will be brought back to the Committee.
Public Comment
Ray Davis quest ioned the st atus o f the N orth 4 0 and q uesti oned t he pro cess o f the R eside ntial Design
Guidelines. Bud Lortz responded. Davis registered his unhappiness that he has to pay for copies of
the document under discussion. Difficult to provide comments without documents.
ITEM 2 POSSIBLE CANCELLAT ION OF JULY ME ETINGS
There was consensus to cancel July meetings.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Phil Micciche made a motion to approve the minutes of March 8, 2006. The motion was seconded
by Tom O’Donnell and passed unanimously.
Phil Micciche made a motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 2006. The motion was seconded
by Barbara Spector with the correction that Bud Lortz was no t at t hat me eting.
ITEM 4 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. by Jane Ogle. The next meeting of the General Plan
Committee is tentatively scheduled for August 9, 2006.
Pr ep ar ed By:
_____________________________
Sandy Baily, Associate Planner
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\GeneralPlan\GPC\2006minutes\GPC-6-14-06.wpd