01-25-06 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, JANUARY 25, 2006 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm by Chair Jane Ogle.
ATTENDANCE
Members present: Jane Ogle, Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Tom O’Donnell,
Phil Micciche, Barry Waitte, & Marcia Jensen
Members absent: Margaret Smith
Staff present: Bud Lortz, Community Development Director; Sandy Baily, Associate Planner;
and Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ITEM 1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Larry Cannon summarized the Loma Alta tour and stated how difficult it was to define a
neighborhood. As a result, a “How to Read Your Neighborhood” workbook was drafted.
Cannon questioned the Committee members about the workbook.
Barbara Spector stated she liked the workbook. It was very helpful. Neighborhood
compatibility is the prime factor. For the neighborhood studied, San Mateo Avenue, the
one-story look was the prominent feature. She noted that she understands that neighborhood.
Tom O’Donnell commented that the workbook was very helpful, but there will still be an issue in
certain areas of Town regarding what defines a neighborhood. In these types of neighborhoods,
scale is important to consider no matter what the design is like. The exercise did not help to
define the neighborhood however, the workbook will definitely help design the house. Quality of
materials is important.
Marcia Jensen stated the workbook was helpful to identify issues in the neighborhood which
could have easily been missed by someone. She suggested changing the organization of the
evaluation sheet so it was easier to work off of one sheet for each parcel. The neighborhood is
simple in form and massing and is predominately one story. Porches and entryways were also
interesting. The workbook took some time to fill out. There is a cohesiveness between
properties with use of landscape walls.
Larry Cannon commented the workbook may want to address these items.
Phil Micciche reported about using this workbook for his street where there is no compatibility,
yet it is a cute street.
Joe Pirzynski stated it was a good exercise. A neighborhood can be completely compatible but
have no design. The issue is how to define each neighborhood; can you tell when you’re leaving
one neighborhood and going into another based on house designs? It has nothing to do with
proximity, it has to do with time of construction. Neighborhoods are defined by common
architecture and time of development. Another characteristic of good development is the
neighbors and what they do with their property which may be different than other neighbor’s
perception of the neighborhood. Some neighborhoods are eclectic, they may not be common in
architecture, but in quality. In more complex neighborhoods (i.e., Loma Alta), more time needs
to be spent in these neighborhoods to develop a successful project. The workbook is good to be
used in these eclectic neighborhoods. Organization of workbook is complex. Start with looking
at the houses immediately next to it and across the street.
Barry Waitte was not able to do the assignment. He is still struggling with the compatibility
issue. He looked at his neighborhood where nothing is compatible and likes it that way.
John Bourgeois thought the workbook was good but it was time consuming. He thought he
could come to the same conclusion without being so detailed with the workbook. Landscaping
was lacking in the workbook.
Jane Ogle had a hard time with the workbook. She indicated it was too detail oriented. The
issues are architectural excellence in design. Other details were not important. She raised
concern that a house right around the corner was very large and not compatible with the test
neighborhood. Questioned where the neighborhood really was.
Joe Pirzynski discussed when the hotel was proposed on Villa Avenue and that someone raised a
comment that it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. The neighborhood, however,
was in decline. The question to consider for new developments is, has it evolved in a way where
it is better than what it was before?
Marcia Jensen raised the question, should we be saying that the new development needs to be
complimentary, not compatible?
Joe Pirzynski recommended going to the County pocket at Blossom Hill Manor. It use to be a
cute county neighborhood, which has totally changed. The whole neighborhood is being
changed. It is a good example of evolution versus revolution.
Larry Cannon questioned the Committee as to how they felt about formal architecture being
introduced in an informal neighborhood. The Committee responded that it would depend, and
it’s back to, is it complimentary to the neighborhood?
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of January 25, 2006
Page 3 of 4
Bud Lortz discussed defining a neighborhood. Glossary needs to define compatibility in words
easier to understand. The cover sheet on the workbook should state that it is an exercise for
Town staff to work with the applicant in developing a design. It needs to be clear that the
workbook is not to limit architectural style. The document should provide reference materials
(i.e., a Field Guide to American Homes) which has numerous architectural styles and details to
consider. The need is to guide applicants so they do not create a “sore thumb” in the
neighborhood.
Barry Waitte stated, as discussed earlier in the process, it’s easier to define what we don’t want,
not what we want. Mr. Lortz commented that it needs to be positive so if we can define what we
don’t want, we can turn the words around to say what we do want. Through the use of proper
words and diagrams, we can get our point across of what we want.
The Committee discussed the following items addressed in the workbook:
Garages
Consensus that garages are a major issue (i.e., placement, size, etc.).
Neighborhood Patterns
Would depend on the neighborhood. More useful in historical neighborhoods.
Architectural Styles
Useful in determining style for neighborhood.
Forms and Massing
Letter of justification is useful to discuss the evolution of a project regarding the street
presence. Entries are important to tie neighboring houses together. Forces applicant to think
about the exterior of the house as opposed to designing the exterior to meet the owner’s
desires for what happens in the interior.
Two-Story Homes
Most conflicts occur with second-story additions where interior upstairs are designed which
do not take the architecture of the house into account, or the size of the lot, and the
neighborhood. Applicants try to jam everything into the second floor where they believe the
space is needed. The applicant expects that this needed space justifies getting an approval.
Windows and Roofs
General Plan Committee
Regular Meeting of January 25, 2006
Page 4 of 4
Very important issue. Applicants tend to not consider how proposed windows are
compatible to the existing windows. Typically, these elements don’t need to be compatible
with the neighborhood. Back to quality of design.
Mass and scale is critical. Architecture of home needs to be compatible within itself. Design of
home (aside from mass and scale) needs to compliment the neighborhood.
The Committee discussed the test parcel and what home designs presented would be compatible
for the site. The Committee then discussed what community expectations are and what basic
design principals were important. It was recommended that each Committee member rank these
items and return to staff in a couple of weeks.
Viewsheds are important to consider, even though views are not protected.
ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Barry Waitte moved to approve the minutes of September 14, 2005 and October 26, 2005 as
submitted. The motion was seconded by Phil Micciche and passed with three abstentions
(Pirzynski, Spector and Jensen).
ITEM 3 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. by Jane Ogle. The next meeting of the General Plan
Committee is tentatively scheduled for February 22, 2006.
Prepared By:
___________________________
Sandy Baily, Associate Planner
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\GeneralPlan\GPC\2006minutes\GPC-1-25-06.wpd