The URL can be used to link to this page

Addendum with Exhibits 12 and 13.16500 Marchmont Dr PREPARED BY: Suray Nathan Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 01/08/2025 ITEM NO: 5 ADDENDUM DATE: January 7, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Construct a New Single-Family Residence with Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks on a Nonconforming Vacant Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 16500 Marchmont Drive. APN 532-08-017. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owners: Ahmad Shamsoddini, Elham Eshraghi, and Mehrdad Alipour. Applicant: Tony Jeans. Project Planner: Suray Nathan. REMARKS: Exhibit 13 includes additional justification for the reduced front and side yard setbacks. Exhibit 14 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 3, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 7, 2025. EXHIBITS: Previously Received with the January 3, 2025, Staff Report: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Letter of Justification 5. Color and Materials Board 6. Consulting Architect’s Report 7. Applicant’s Response to the Consulting Architect's Report 8. Consulting Arborist’s Report 9. Letter of Justification for reduced setbacks 10. Applicant’s neighborhood outreach efforts 11. Development Plan PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 16500 Marchmont Drive/S-24-021 DATE: January 7, 2025 Received with this Addendum Report: 12. Additional Justification for reduced front and side yard setback exception 13. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 3, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 7, 2025 T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823 Town of Los Gatos 110E Main St, Los Gatos CA 95030 Attn: Planning Commission January 4th, 2025 16705 Hilow Road Some Useful Thoughts Commissioners: I am writing this letter to indicate the dilemma that the owner faced in submitting this application for a new home and why we chose the path we did. As you read the correspondence for this project you will see that it is the second half of an SB-9 application where the lot was first split. The original home is being remodeled and the owner will live there with his family. This vacant lot is being developed by his partner and we followed Los Gatos’ SB-9 design rules of creating 2 units on the ensuing land, one being the size of an ADU. In order to meet all the objective design criteria for an SB-9 project, we had to abide by the front setback (25 ft) for the R1:8 zoning district – even though this is a 5,116 sq ft lot. But we were able to incorporate some of the design criteria we liked such as a standing seam metal roof and a second floor front-facing bonus room and drew up the plans. I was then able to chat to and visit with some immediate neighbors to discuss the SB-9 process. It was when I visited with Todd & Kristin Harris (159 Cardinal to the north), and was able to see the orientation of their rear yard entertainment area, that I realized that our design would have a greater impact on their lifestyle than I would normally like. I asked Todd & Kristen if they would like me to try to lower the profile and perhaps move the house further forward on the property instead. They said “yes”. So I discussed this with the owner and we decided to eliminate the second story bonus room, lower the house profile and align the front setback of the house with the two neighboring properties (159 Cardinal to the left and 16500 Marchmont – now 16701 Hilow – to the right). That would mean that we would be facing an A&S process because of the front setbacks, rather than SB-9. I would point out that this decision was not taken lightly as it has cost the owner a 5-month delay and an additional $60,000. But here we are now and we hope you will follow our reasoning. We have taken a more lengthy and costly approach, as our first choice, because we feel that we can be better neighbors that way and create a more compatible streetscape with the alignment of the homes along Hilow/Cardinal. Our second choice, if we fail to convince you that we have taken the right path, will be to go back to our SB-9 proposal and submit the original design – with the house set back an additional 9 ft to comply with the 25ft front setback. I have attached a comparison of the SB-9 and A&S approaches for you to review. EXHIBIT 12 I will list here some of the benefits and disadvantages of the 2 approaches so that we can discuss them at the hearing (if you want) on Wednesday. SB-9 Benefits (for homeowner) • Quicker and less costly • More flexibility in house design and choices (can use a standing seam metal roof) • Second-story front-facing bonus room over garage in original design SB-9 Disadvantages • Objective design criteria must be followed (no reduced front setback option) A&S Benfits (for Town) • Town gets full review (Staff, Consultants, Neighbors, etc) • Minor deviations can be requested/considered. • Town will get a new curb, gutter and street widening across property frontage A&S Disadvantages • A very slow and expensive process for all concerned The staff report has acknowledged that the reduced side setbacks are justified based on similar homes in the neighborhood and the narrow lot. Sheets SC1.0 and SC1.1 consider Neighborhood Compatibility in terms of Front Setbacks as well. We believe that this home is compatible with the neighborhood with the following discussion. At the corner property at Hilow and Marchmont, 16701 Hilow (new address) faces Hilow and not Marchmont. It still has technical frontage on Marchmont, but its front entry is on Hilow, and that is where its mailbox will be after the remodel in process – the Hilow setback is 15 ft. In terms of “neighborhood compatibility” – do you consider the streetscape – in which 159 Cardinal (garage at 12’), 16705 Hilow (16’ proposed) and 16701 Hilow (15’) have similar setbacks facing Hilow. OR are you forced to rely on the technical ‘front of the property’ on file in the Town and create a streetscape that will look bizarre to a passer-by walking along the street? I think that you have flexibility here. Additionally, further along Hilow (past Topping Way), you get to the only other part of “Hilow” which has “street frontage” houses. In this block, most of the houses have reduced front setbacks varying from as little as 8ft (16530) up to close to 20ft (16453, 16425, 16466,16456 & 16422), before you get to some that obey the 25’ front setback rule. We respectfully ask you to seriously consider the streetscape of Hilow Road, the wishes of the neighbors, the beneficial street widening and the gamble the owner has taken with time and money to reach a workable compromise for all when you deliberate on this matter. Please approve this project. The findings are there for you to give the neighborhood a happy new year. Thank you Tony Jeans Property LineProperty LineProperty LineProperty LineHilow - Curb___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |//25Ft _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| | | | | SB-9 Application ___ SB-9 Profile(Part 2-story) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | | | A&S Application // // _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ |||///18Ft 7Ft Roadway _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _||//20Ft _ _ _6Ft // (1-story) SB-9 Profile ______(Part 2-story) A&S Applicationreduces impact onneighbor to Left A&S Applicationreduces impacton neighbors toWest (Rear) - - 6Ft - -- - 6Ft - -//// A&S Application requestsmodified front yard setbackto align with house to rightfor a compatibe streetscape. Note: it will still be 25Ft fromthe physical street at Hilow. COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS FOR SB-9 AND A&S SUBMISSION OPTIONS A&S APPLICATION IN BLACK SB-9 ALTERNATIVE IN RED Support for 16705 Hilow (new address) Hello Town of LG I wanted to record my voice of support for the proposed solution at 16705 Hilow. Keeping single story is very important for the neighborhood and setback makes sense to me. Please record my support for the proposed solution that Tony is recommending. Homeowners EXHIBIT 13 This Page Intentionally Left Blank