16 Staff Report - 310 Santa Rosa DriveDATE:
TO:
FROM:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
April 26,2005
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCll.,
DEBRA J.FIGONE,TOWN MANAGE~
MEETING DATE:05/02/05
ITEM NO.16
SUBJECT:CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLEFAMll.,YRESIDENCE THAT EXCEEDS
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2 1/2.APN 527-
55-036.ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-05-17.PROPERTY
LOCATION:310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE.PROPERTY
OWNER/APPELLANT:JOHN VERSGROVE.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2.Close the public hearing.
3.Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal for Architecture and Site
Application S-05-17 (Motion required).
4.Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution.
If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or
modified:
1.The Council needs to find one or more of the following:
(1)where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
or
(2)the new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that
was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission;or
(3)an issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to
modify or address,but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
PREPARED BY:
(Continued to Page 2)
BUDLORT~M
DIRECTOR OF C6~NITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by:~.s:::s Assistant Town Manager ~Attorney __Clerk'--------"Finance----\l-Community Development -Revised:4/26/05 10:50 am
Reformatted:5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 310 SANTA ROSA DRNE
April 26,2005
2.If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning
Commission is new information as defined in Subsection (2)above,it is the Town's policy
that the application be returned to the Commission for review in light of the new information
unless the new information has a minimal effect on the application.
3..If the appeal is granted,the Council should:A)make the required findings and
considerations in Attachment 1;B)determine that the project is substantially consistent with
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines;C)determine that the criteria for
allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area have been met for this project;D)
approve the application subject to the conditions in Attachment 2 and as shown on the
development plans in Attachment 10.
4.Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting approval to add 1,233 square feet (26 sq.ft.on the first floor and 1,207
sq.ft.on the second floor)to an existing 6,447 square foot home with an 836 square foot garage for
a total floor area of 8,516 square feet (including garage).The existing home exceeds the 6,000
square foot maximum contained in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G)
by 883 square feet (including 436 square feet from the garage).The current proposal would exceed
the 6,000 square foot maximum contained in the HDS&G by 2,116 square feet (including 436 square
feet from the garage).The proposal also includes changing the exterior materials from board and
batten wood siding/stone to stucco and the roof from composition shingle to concrete tile.
Attachments 6 through 10 provide additional general information and background for the proposed
project.
Generally,the proposed addition will convert the existing attic space to second floor area,which
includes expanding the existing roof line towards the existing courtyard (See Attachment 10,Sheet
A 3.2,Section A).The existing maximum height of the home will remain unchanged at 25'.The
proposal will not impact existing trees and will not require any grading.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Commission considered this application on February 9,2005.The application was continued
to the March 23,2005 meeting with the following direction:
1.The proposed second story addition must stay within the existing building envelope with
some allowance to meet fire and building code requirements.The Commission stated that
minimal,architecturally appropriate design elements may be considered but only if it is
determined that the design elements do not add to the mass and bulk of the structure;and
2.Colors,materials,and fencing must be consistent with the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines.
PAGE 3
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 310 SANTA ROSA DRNE
April 26,2005
On March 23,2005,the Commission considered revised plans (Attachment 10)and unanimously
denied the project.The Commission did not believe that the applicant had met the direction outlined
above because the proposed second story addition was not kept within the existing building envelope
and the proposed second story windows exceeded the minimum required by the Uniform Building
Code to meet natural light,ventilation,and egress requirements.
A verbatim transcript of the March 23,2005 Commission meeting is included as Attachment 5.A
verbatim transcript of the February 9,2005 Commission meeting has not been provided;however,
Council members interested in listening to the FTR recording of this meeting may contact staff to
obtain a copy of the FTR recording.
APPEAL:
On April 1,2005,John Versgrove,the property owner,appealed the Commission's denial of the
proposed project.The appellant believes that the Commission erred or abused its discretion.The
appellant's reasoning for appealing the Commission's decision is provided in Attachment 3.
The appellant has prepared additional information in response to some of the Commission's
concerns and issues (Attachment 4,Page 3)which include reducing the deck area and providing
information regarding the minimum window requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has summarized the main issues for the Council's consideration and discussion as follows:
House Size
The proposal will include a floor areaof8,116 square feet,exclusive of400 square feet of garage
area as set forth in the HDS&G.The floor area exceeds the maximum allowable floor area of
6,000 square feet.The existing house and garage currently exceed the FAR by 883 square feet.
As stated in the HDS&G,achieving the maximumfloor area is not guaranteed due to individual
site constraints.The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than
designing to the FAR.The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square
footage is not a goal.Greater weight will be given to issues including but not limited to height,
building mass and scale,visual impacts,grading and compatibility.
Pursuant to the HDS&G,"the Town Councilor Planning Commission may approve residential
projects greater than the maximum allowed floor area (but it is not guaranteed)when all of the
following apply":
1.The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWNCOUNCa
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 310 SANTA ROSA DRNE
April 26,2005
2.There will be no significant impacts on protected trees,wildlife habitat or movement
corridors.
3.Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR
or an accessory building will be minimized.
4.All standards and applicable guidelines are being met.
5.Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer methods.
The compliance margin must be at least 10.0.
6.The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV)installation.
7.A minimum of 25%of hardscape material is permeable (certain types of interlocking
pavers,grasscrete,pervious concrete,etc.).
8.A significant cellar element is included in the design,unless it conflicts with other
standards.
9.There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
It appears that all of the above items will be met with the current proposal except item 8 listed
above.The existing home and proposed project do not include a cellar element.Please see
Attachment 6,Exhibits C and D,for the applicant's responses to the criteria listed above.Items
5 and 6 listed above are required as Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2,Conditions 5 and 6)
Neighborhood Compatibility
No single architectural style is present in the surrounding neighborhood.The neighborhood
contains a variety of architectural styles and house sizes.However,staff is concerned about
neighborhood compatibility given that the proposed floor area of the home,isapproximately 680
square feet larger than other homes in the immediate area.Exhibit G of Attachment 6 has been
revised to reflectthe current proposal (Attachment 8).Attachment 8 is a house size comparison
that was prepared for the Council's information.The concern about neighborhood compatibility
is primarily related to the floor area of the home,not the mass and scale of the home.This is
because the exterior changes are not significantly increasing the mass and scale of the home.
Exterior Materials
In hillside areas,the Commission and Council have expressed concern with architectural styles
that utilize stucco siding and tile roofing.Although the building form will not dramatically
change,the applicant is proposing to replace the existing exterior materials of board and batten
wood siding and stone exterior materials with stucco.The existing composition shingle roofwill
also be replaced with concrete tile.The applicant has been made aware of the issue and believes
that the proposed design and exterior materials are compatible with other homes in the
immediate area and are an improvement.
A color and material board will be available at the Public Hearing.The concrete tile roof is
intended to be gray.Accent materials include stucco columns,wood railing and trellis,and wood
PAGES
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 310 SANTA ROSA DRNE
April 26,2005
casing around windows to match existing.A Deed Restriction relating to exterior colors is
included as a proposed condition of approval should the Council grant the appeal.Currently
there is no regulation of color for many of the existing homes in this area because they were built
before the current color/reflectivity regulation was adopted.As future applications of homes in
the Santa Rosa Subdivision are processed by the Town,staff will seek to impose the
color/reflectivity regulation.
Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines
The proposed project will comply with most of the HDS&G,given the fact that the proposed
project:
•will minimally increase the existing footprint;and
•will not significantly impact privacy of the adjacent properties;and
•will not be visible from any established viewing platforms;and
•will not impact any existing trees;and
•will not require any grading.
However,staff has determined that the following aspect of the project does not comply with the
HDS&G:
•the house and garage exceed the allowable floor area limit.
Additionally,the Council should discuss the following items as they relate to the proposed
project and the HDS&G:
•design of the addition to minimize bulk and mass as required by Section V.F of the
HDS&G;and
•architectural style of the house (See Exterior Materials section above).
General Plan Conformance
The HDS&G that were adopted by the Council were determined to be consistent with the
General Plan.Therefore,projects substantially consistent with the HDS&Gwould,by reference,
be consistent with the·General Plan.As a result,if the Council determines that the criteria for
allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area have been met for this project,then it
could be determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that this is the first of many projects that will raise the issues identified in this report
given the fact that there are numerous existing homes that exceed 6,000 square feet in the hillside
PAGE 6
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 310 SANTA ROSA DRNE
April 26,2005
area and homeowners may come forward to request additional floor area.It is recognized that
Council will consider this application and future applications of a similar nature on a case-by-case
basis.Staff will consider the comments offered during this hearing as general direction for review
of future projects of a similar nature,but would not set precedent.
The Council should consider and discuss the following issues:
•Determine if the applicable sections of the criteria set forth in the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area have
been met;and
•Determine if the proposed increased floor area is appropriate;and
•Determine if the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of square
footage,bulk,and mass;and
•Determine if the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of
architectural style and exterior materials.
Should the Council be inclined to grant this appeal,the Council should:
•Make the required findings and considerations in Attachment 1;and
•Determine that the project is substantially consistent with the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines;and
•Determine that the criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area have
been met for this project;and
•Approve the application subject to the conditions in Attachment 2 and as shown on the
development plans in Attachment 10.
Council may address any remaining concerns through additional conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Is a project as defined under CEQA but is Categorically Exempt 15301 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
1.Findings and Considerations from the Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting of
February 9,2005
2.Recommended Conditions of Approval (Revised)
3.Appeal from appellant (2 pages),received April 1,2005
PAGE 7
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 310 SANTA ROSA DRNE
April 26,2005
4.Additional information from the appellant (3 pages)received April 13,2005
5.Verbatim transcript from the Approved Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March
23,2005
6.Report from the Director of Community Development to the Planning Commission,dated
February 3,2005 for the meeting of February 9,2005 (Development Plans not included)
7.Report from the Director of Community Development to the Planning Commission,dated March
15,2005 for the meeting of March 23,2005 (Development Plans not included)
8.Revised house size comparison chart prepared by staff
9.Development Plans (Exhibit I)from the Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting of
February 9,2005,received December 8,2004
10.Development Plans (Exhibit K)from the Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting of
March 23,2005,received March 9,2005
Distribution:
John Versgrove,310 Santa Rosa Drive,Los Gatos,CA 95032
TDS Architects,2060 Clarmar Way,San Jose,CA 95128,Attn:Brian Mah
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2005\310SantaRosa.wpd
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
Consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a requestto construct
a second story addition to a single family residence that will result in a home that exceeds the
Floor Area Ratio on property zoned HR-2112.APN 527-55-036.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT:John Versgrove
FINDINGS
•The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
•As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications:
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including,but not limited to,the
following:
(1)Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion.The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets;the layout ofthe site with
respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances,exits,
drives,and walkways;the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic
congestion;the location,arrangement,and dimension of truck loading and unloading
facilities;the circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development,and the
surfacing,lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
A.Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical
intersections shall be analyzed,and a determination made on the following
matters:
1.The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to
accommodate existing traffic;
2.Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet
occupied;and
3.Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed
project one (1)year after occupancy.
B.The deciding body shall review the application for traffic
roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1)of the following
determinations:
Page 1 of 4
Attachment 1
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
1.The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing
the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2.The project will impact a roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)causing
the roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)to exceed their available
capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (l)b.1.may
proceed.Any project receiving Town determination subsection
(1)b.2.must be modified or denied if the deciding body determines
that the impact is unacceptable.In determining the acceptability of a
traffic impact,the deciding body shall consider if the project's
benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined
by specific sections from the general plan and any applicable specific
plan.
(2)Considerations relating to outdoor advertising.The number,location, color,size,
height,lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in
relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with
adjacent development.Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to
distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos
Boulevard.
(3)Considerations relating to landscaping.The location,height,and materials of walls,
fences,hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or
to conceal storage areas,utility installations,parking lots or unsightly development;
the planting of ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion;and the
unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees.Emphasize the use of planter boxes
with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere to the central business district.
Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director of Parks,Forestry and
Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special criteria,including climatic
conditions,maintenance,year-round versus seasonal color change (blossom,summer
foliage,autumn color),special branching effects and other considerations.
(4)Considerations relating to site layout.The orientation and location of buildings and
open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of
the neighborhood;and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent
development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g.
downtown,Los Gatos Boulevard,etc.).Buildings should maximize preservation of
solar access.In the downtown,mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz
Avenue with existing and new parking facilities shall be encouraged,and shall
Page 2 of 4
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems.
(5)Considerations relating to drainage.The effect of the site development plan on the
adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
(6)Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and
structures.The effect of the height,width,shape and exterior construction and design
of buildings and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character
of the neighborhood
and purposes of the zone in which they are situated,and the purposes of architecture
and site approval.Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale,
massing,materials,color,texture,reflectivity,openings and other details.
(7)Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture.Streets,walkways,and
building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of
the Town.Street furniture and equipment,such as lamp standards,traffic signals,fire
hydrants,street signs,telephones,mail boxes,refuse receptacles,bus shelters,
drinking fountains,planters,kiosks,flag poles and other elements of the street
environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the.
Town image.
(8)Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons.The adequacy of
the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically
disabled persons.Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total
valuation of alterations,structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value
established by resolution of the Town Council,shall require the building to be
modified to meet the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California
Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.In addition to retail,personal
services and health care services are not allowable uses on nonaccessible floors in
new nonresidential buildings.Any change of use to retail,health care,or personal
service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify
the building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those
requirements.This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the
enactment of this chapter.All new residential developments shall comply with the
Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons
established by resolution.
(9)Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility.
A hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500)feet to
any residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public
or private school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18).An
Page 3 of 4
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report,which may
be focused through the initial study process.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\310SantaRosa.wpd
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
Consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a request to construct
a second story addition to a single family residence that will result in a home that exceeds the
Floor Area Ratio on property zoned HR-21/2.APN 527-55-036.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT:John Versgrove
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF C01\1l\1UNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(Planning Section)
1.APPROVAL EXPIRATION:Zoning approval will expire two years from the approval date
pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code,unless the application is vested.
2.APPROVAL:This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the approved plans received March 9,
2005.Any minor changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the
Director of Community Development other changes will be approved by the Planning
Commission,depending on the scope of the change(s).
3.DEED RESTRICTION:Prior to the issuance of a building permit,a deed restriction shall be
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires all exterior
paint colors to be maintained in conformance with the Town's Hillside Development Standards.
4.OUTDOOR LIGHTING:If any outdoor lighting is proposed,an outdoor lighting plan shall be
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
All outdoor lighting shall be down-lighting and shall be as minimal and unobtrusive as possible.
Exterior lighting shall only be used for pedestrian safety and security.There shall be no up-
lighting of landscaping or the home.
5.TITLE 24:Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer
methods.The compliance margin must be at least 10.0.
6.PHOTOVOLTAIC:The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV)installation.
7.WINDOWS.Windows shall be low reflectivity glass that also limits nighttime light emanation.
Tinted glass is preferred.Second story windows shall be sized to the minimum required by the
Uniform Building Code to meet natural light, ventilation,and egress.
8.EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS:The approved wall and column color is Kelly Moore
Highland Grass (LRV 29),trim and railings Kelly Moore Defense (LRV 9),roof will be gray
concrete tile.
(Building Section)
9.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required for demolition of existing and the
construction of the new single family residence.Separate building permits are required for site
retaining walls,water tanks,and swimming pools;separate electrical,mechanical,and plumbing
permits shall be required as necessary.
10.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the
cover sheet of the construction plans.
11.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans,maximum size 24"x 36."
Attachment 2
310 Santa Rosa Drive /S-05-0 17
Page 2
12.FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS:A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land
surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.This
certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report;
and,the building pad elevation,on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared
according to approved plans.Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a
licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items:
a.Building pad elevation
b.Finish floor elevation
c.Foundation corner locations
13.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-IR and
MF-IR must be blue-lined on the plans.
14.TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS:New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase IT
approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905.Tree limbs shall be cut within lO-feet of
chimneys.
15.HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE:This project requires a Class A roofing assembly.
16.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701,the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the
Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.The Town Special
Inspection form must be completely filled-out,signed by all requested parties and be blue-
lined on the construction plans.Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov.
17.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second
page.The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of
$2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
18.PLANS:The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed
architect or engineer.(Business and Professionals Code Section 5538)
19.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing
a building permit:
a.Community Development:Joel Paulson at 354-6879
b.Engineering Department:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
c.Parks &Public Works Department:(408)399-5777
d.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-4010
e.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407
f.Local School District:(Contact the Town Building Service Counter for the
appropriate school district and to obtain the school form.)
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
(Engineering Division)
20.GENERAL.All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications.All work shall conform to the
applicable Town ordinances.The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day.Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm
310 Santa Rosa Drive /S-05-017
Page 3
drainage facilities.The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not
be allowed unless a special permit is issued.The developer's representative in charge shall be
at the job site during all working hours.Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according
to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's
expense.
21.ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction
Encroachment Permit.All work over $5,000 will require construction security.
22.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24)hours before starting an work pertaining to on-
site drainage facilities,grading or paving,and all work in the Town's right-of-way.Failure to
do so will result in rejection ow work that went on without inspection.
23.EROSION CONTROL.Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and provided
within the Building Permit submittal.A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of
an area and stabilizinglbuilding on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season.Interim
erosion control measures,to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final
landscaping shall be included.Interim erosion control method shall include,but are not limited
to:silt fences,fiber rolls (with locations and details),erosion control blankets,Town standard
seeding specification,filter berms,check dams,retention basins,etc.Provide erosion control
measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months.The grading,
drainage,erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures
contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order 01-024 of the amended Santa Clara
County NPDES Permit.
24.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle
weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed on the portion of a street which
abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§
15.40.070).
25.SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.It is the responsibility of contractor and home
owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily
basis.Mud,silt,concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's
storm drains.
26.RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of
developer's operations.Improvements such as,but not limited to:curbs,gutters,sidewalks,
driveways,signs,pavements,raised pavement markers,thermoplastic pavement markings,etc.
shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition.
Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering
Construction Inspector,and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions.
Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the
start of construction to verify existing conditions.
27.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,weekdays and 9:00
a.m.to 7:00 p.m.weekends and holidays,construction,alteration or repair activities shall be
allowed.No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five
(85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.If the device is located within a structure on the property,the
310 Santa Rosa Drive /S-05-017
Page 4
measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25)feet from the device as
possible.The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five
(85)dBA.
TO TEE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTJ\1ENT:
28.REQUIRED FIRE FLOW:The required fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure.An automatic sprinklersystem will be installed,the fire flow has been reduced by 75%
establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure.The adjusted
fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s)which are spaced at the required
spacing.
29.AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED:New homes located within the
hazardous fire area,shall be protected throughout by an approved,automatic fire sprinkler
system,hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)Standard #13d.
30.REQUIRED ACCESS TO WATER SUPPLY (HYDRANTS):Portions of the structure(s)are
greater than 150 feet from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants.Provide
an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building.
N:\DEV\CONDITNS\2004 and before\31OSantaRosa.wpd
APPEAL OF PLANNING CO
FILING FEES
$262.00 Residential
$1047.00 per Commercial,Multi-
family or Tentative Map Appeal
._..-,..Town of LOIS,..l.;;~~CJ-;:::;:";;..::",~t;;.:;;;,D::;.;;"C~)::;-<t_'l-;j"i;;z:::"fTl'[(...~,
Clerk Depa ent 0 .11 rn \.~'0
110 E.Main 51.,Los os CA 95030 f(.
APR - 1 2005 \fJ-
ISSION DECISION
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
I,the undersigned,do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows:(PLEASE YPE QR.£R~nt1fi:T
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:M.~c..H ':<.3,200$.~.
PROJECT I APPLICATION NO:·(5 -os -11 /1tt9Jf ~~~
ADDRESS LOCATION:310 J'fmTA-(.20:5A DR..I .API(_"',
Pursuant to the Town Code,the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission lci~ifJU)~mosl~t8 if t
Council finds that one of three (3)reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3).1\§m~§{;'Therefor,•
~SpeCify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal:1i:1>1l?1'p.U~:
~The Planning Commission ~rred or abused its discretion because -'-__
SGG-ArTAcH~SUH H.A-te....y
__________________________________;OR
2,There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision.which is
________________________(please attach the new information if possible):OR
3.The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the foHowing policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council:----------------
IF MORE SPACE IS N"EEDED,PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
I.Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes.
2.Appeal must be filed within ten (10)calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required tiling fee.
Deadline is 5:00 p.m.on the 10th day following the decision.If the 10th day is a Saturday.Sunday,or Town holiday,then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10th day,usually a Monday.
3.The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
4.An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code,as applicable,which is different from other appeals.
5.Once filed,the appeal will be heard by the Town CounciL
6.If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information,the applicatIon willf!.lsually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reco.nside~ation...~~j
PRINT NAME,2Cl1/..u LlF:i2.S.MoU'L SIGNATURE,4 ~
DATE,3i;:wJ?S ADDRESS:~~.I<os.-f:'.
PHONE:70rF·3.s-cf:-':::;-3J3 .Z;;~;;7-OLf.Y/i9.iZ;3~
***OFFICIAL USE ONLY ***
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:\')"\Q,i.A ,~).:)(\:0,..J ~._,..
Pending Planning Department Confirmation
DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION:120v ~I b,;::;'·}OO....:;>
"'
N:\CLK\FORMS\Planning Commission Appeal.wpd Rev:12-20-04
CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT:Date:._-----
TO APPLICANT &APPELLANT BY:
DATE OF PUBLICATION:(!..:..p.-:~'i-:;;;Z r'\r,.r<-:;-
Attachment 3
John Versgrove
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Appeal to Town Council
5-05-17
April 1st,2005
The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion in three ways:
1.One of the reasons given for rejecting the proposal was that it was not
compatible with the existing architecture.We have been led to understand
that it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make this
determination.Fees were paid by the applicant;and the Consulting Architect
undertook a formal review of the plans for the proposed project and
determined that it is both compatible and appropriate in terms of architecture.
This should not have been a part of the decision process.
2.The Hillside Guidelines provides for an 'Exception to FAR'only if the applicant
can demonstrate that a set of criteria is met with the project design.The
majority of the criteria are objective,and Planning Dept.staff has determined
that these criteria have either been met,or are not applicable.In the initial
Planning Commission submission,the Planning Director determined that the
criteria for granting an Exception had been satisfied.
The Hillside Guidelines states that meeting the Exception criteria does not
guarantee approval;so we addressed the only subjective criterion that remained
(9):There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
In the resubmission,the applicant rigorously reworked the proposal to ensure
that the proposal not only had 'No Significant Impact',but demonstrated
objectively that there would in fact be a 'Positive Impact'by the reduction of
visible mass.This is a unique property ['V'shaped house]which permits this.
It is our contention in this appeal that the Planning Commission should be
required to approve this project because it is more compliant with the Hillside
Guidelines in terms of Visible Mass [the only subjective criterion]than the
structure that is presently there.If this project is not granted an Exception,
then there is No Discretion,and there is no Exception in the Hillside Guidelines,
which was not the intention of the Town Council in approving an Exception rule.
3.The Planning Commission denied this project primarily so as not to "set a
precedent and open the floodgates of applicants wishing to exceed the FAR".
That is not a reasonable basis for denial.Each project should be considered on
its individual merit,and the creation of 'precedent'is secondary.
April 13 th ,2005
TOWN COUNCIL APPEAL LETTER
(5-05-17)
Versgrove Residence Remodel
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Subject:
T own of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Attn:Town Council
Dear Mr Mayor and Council Members:
For our meeting with the Planning Commission,the architect determined that it would
not realistically be possible to use skylights to meet all of the code requirements for
egress,light and ventilation;which are the primary criteria for "habitable space".
Accordingly the focus was placed on the overall REDUCTION in visible mass of the
attic conversion.
At the meeting we were asked what the minimum code requirements were to UBC;and
we were unable to answer "on the spot".
We have since analyzed this information in detail and in this appeal we have proposed
a minor modification to the plans that will cause the plans to meet these "Minimum USC
Requirements"criteria.
We have also addressed two additional discussion items considered by the Planning
Commissioners at the meeting.The relate to the size of the proposed balcony,which
we will reduce;and the installation of photovoltaics as an energy saving benefit.
Accordingly we request that the Town Council consider the granting of the appeal with
the addition of the following conditions:
1.That the proposed glazing for the conversion be as presented in this appeal.
2.That the second level balcony be reduced as shown in the revised plan.
3.That Photovoltaic solar panels be required as a condition of approval.
We hop:;£etohavthe opportunity to discuss this prior to the Council Meeting.
Yours trul
:~)~::::::>-::..---:.=----
By:Tony Jeans
For:John Versgrove
Attachment 4
Minimum Requirements to Meet Code:
UBC places code minimum requirements on Light,Ventilation and Egress for habitable living space.
The Planning Commission asked the architect to provide a solution that met the bare minimum code
requirements for the attic conversion.The owner and architect determined that the addition of 21
skylights,plus direct emergency egress to the outside from each room was impractical,as well as
being in direct conflict with the Hillside Guidelines recommendations for minimal use of skylights.
The provision of sufficient light is the limiting factor,rather than ventilation &emergency egress.
The following calculations suggest pOSSible solutions,using skylights,windows and French doors.
The conclusion is that a combination of French doors and windows is the best (code)choice.
Type:GlaZing Options Considered:SF Light SF Vent.Egress
Skylight:Velux 106 Bronze anodized operable skylight 4.74 2.71 No
Window:Pella 2953 Wood CaSement window 7.30 8.10 Yes
French Door:Pella 3'682 Wood inswing French door 10.40 18.00 Yes
Location /Size Code ReqUirement Possible Solution
Room Sq.Ft.Light Ventilation Egress Skylights Windows Doors
Bedroom A 495 49.5 24.8 Yes 10.44 (11)6.78 (7)4.76 (5)
Bathroom A 107 --No
Closet A 70 --No
Gallery 218 21.8 10.9 Yes 4.60 (5)2.99 (3)2.10 (3)
Bedroom B 217 21.7 10.9 Yes 4.58 (5)2.97 (3)2.09 (3).
Bathroom B 50 --No
Closet B 50 --No
Total:1,207 93.0 46.6 21 13 11
Best (Code)Solution:
The solution that meets code,with the smallest possible sq ft overage is outlined below.
This proposal suggest that a combination of windows and French doors are most appropriate.
This solution is shown in elevation form for the interior courtyard bedroom walls.
Room Light Rqt:Proposed Solution Light Total Overage
Bedroom A 49.5 Double French Doors 20.80 }50.00 0.50
2 Pairs of windows 29.20
Gallery 21.8 Triple sash window 21.90 21.90 0.10
Bedroom B 21.7 Triple sash window 21.90 21.90 0.20
)
INTERIOR ELEVATION (WEST)
............"'..,,,..,.
"....."•'",..t''I "..":Ii "'II " " " " " "..".." "..
•.-:•••,11 )1
•••••:I i ••••••·'"
.........'1'"11•••••••••••••••••-,j•••••41••••••IlI ,","••":':.lolr------
..."It "II ""..".III "'"".."..•.."..
.:.:.:.:.•:.:BEDROOM B:':'::.:::BATHROOM B..................
SOUTH ELEVATION
SKYLIGHT TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
_.......:3-PELLA 2953 WOOD CASEMENT WINDOWS
.2-PELLA 2953 WOOD.CASEMENT WINDOWS
.\_~:2~P'ELLA 3682 WOOD FRENCH DOORS
\.3~PELLA 2953 WOOD CASEMENT WINDOWS
REDUCED GLAZING FOR MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS'
A P PEA RAN C E S,
2
3
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Los Gatos Planning
commissioners:
Director Of Community
Development:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Phil Micciche,Chair
Michael Burke
Michael Kane
Tom O'Donnell
Lee Quintana
Joanne Talesfore
Morris Trevithick
Bud N.Lortz
Orry Korb
Vicki L.Blandin
5500 Van Fleet Avenue
Richmond CA 94804
(510)526-6049
3
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PRO C E E DIN G S,
CHAIR MICCICHE:We will move on to the continued
pUblic hearing of 310 Santa Rosa Drive,Architecture and
Site Application S-05-l7.Is the applicant here?
TONY JEANS:Yes,I am.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay.
TONY JEANS:My name is Tony Jeans.I'm
representing the applicant today and I'd better tell you a
little bit why.I was asked by a friend to come in and see
if I could help John and his architect pull something
together that was more appropriate based on the Hillside
Guidelines and the direction that you gave the applicant
last time.
That's the Vision Statement from the Town of Los
Gatos Hillside Guidelines.Commissioner Quintana will be
very familiar with that because she was on the committee.I
attended a lot of those meetings and I hope helped to
contribute towards the Hillside Guidelines.
The first thing that we discovered when I got
together with the homeowner and his architect was that it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
2
was not possible to explicitly do exactly what you asked
for,which was contain everything within the existing
roofline.So what we tried to do,the three of us when we
got our heads together,was how can we reduce the visible
3
This will reduce the visible mass.It will also remove 400
square feet of the FAR square footage,the area that is
greater than 5'when you have more than 7'6 H rooflines.
There's a small portion on the top of the
5 mass of this building?So from here on I want to try to
explain what we tried to achieve,which we hope is better
than doing nothing at all.
Firstly,it says in the Hillside Guidelines,
building,which increases the mass,but this page in
essence nets out at almost no change to visible mass when
you look at the two elevations together.
The next page shows you the same;the other two
"Large houses are discouraged,because they are more
10
visible.H We want to say that this one will not be more
11
visible with the addition.~They cover more land area.H
12
10
11
12
elevations,and you have a slight decrease in visible mass
when you look at the cross-sectional area of roof removed
and roof added.The net result is a visible mass reduction
13 We're not increasing the land area.~There's no increase in 13 of 57 square feet when you net all of these together.
14 impervious coverage,and they potentially can consume 14 So I hope that everyone understands what we're
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
greater resources,H and we'd like to explain that this
should not,and I'd like to make a suggestion later.
You all received this packet.I just wanted to
make sure that everyone understands the intent here.We're
trying to show that what we're doing nets out at a net
decrease in visible mass.We're removing certain portions
of the building,we're adding new portions of the building,
and when you look at the four elevations,for example,if
you look at the east elevation at the top,there is a large
roof element that is being totally "removed from the plan.
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trying to show.We're trying to show that with the addition
that we have done,there is a net reduction.Now in order
to achieve that we removed all the dormers,we removed
skylights,which create reflection in the valley,and every
possible element that was not in the inner courtyard area
of the house.
You are allowed,with the permission of the Town
Council,to exceed maximum floor area.There's a set of
criteria.I believe that these have to be held very
rigidly.I believe that in all of these elements this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
4
design meets every criteria with the exception of a cellar
where you can't excavate out under that existing building,
and it wouldn't benefit anything to do so.I think if you
approve this you should look carefully at Item #5 and
require that the applicant have a margin of Title 24.That
should 10%;that's a misprint in the guidelines.
Having discussed this with the owner,but Item
j~6,the house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic.In
2
3
5
but what I see you're doing is you're removing a large
sloped roof and you're replacing that with a vertical wall
and a smaller roof,is that correct?
TONY JEANS:That's correct,and that's the roof
that I'm proposing that you require him to put
photovoltaics on.
COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay,thank you.
TONY JEANS:That roof is not visible from any
the creation of this roof element on the interior courtyard
10
11
12
13
you are creating an ideal roof that faces south at a
wonderful angle for photovoltaics.I think you should
require him not only to pre-connect for it,but to put
10
11
12
13
viewing point,other than a deer in the Santa Cruz
Mountains.That's what I'm saying:When you make that
change,it does not change the profile of the house from
the south.
14 photovoltaic into the house as a condition.14 CHAIR MICCICHE:Are you satisfied,Mike?
15 CHAIR MICCICHE:Could you wrap up?15 COMMISSIONER BURKE:I may come back for some
16 TONY JEANS:It will not be visible from 16 clarification on that.So that's not visible as you climb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anywhere,and I think it would be a contribution that would
offset the size of the house and be beneficial in the use
of natural resources.Thank you.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Any questions at this time from
the Commission?Commissioner Burke.
COMMISSIONER BURKE:Mr.Jeans,I want to make
Sure I'm reading these plans correctly.A3.1,existing
versus proposed south elevations.Correct me if I'm wrong,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Shannon on the way to Santa Rosa Drive?That house is
fairly prominent.
TONY JEANS:As you turn into Santa Rosa Drive,
you see a small clip on the very far corner,and you do see
a small portion of roof netting that is barely visible.The
entire bulk of this addition though,90%of that is not
visible.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
6
5
10
11
COMMISSIONER BURKE:It's your suggestion that we
require photovoltaics on this roof.Have you done a
calculation as to how big that roof is and how many square
feet of photovoltaics could we get,and have you done any
calculation on what its output would be?
TONY JEANS:I looked at it being able to supply
three-quarters of the requirements of that house if it's
used reasonably.It couldn't supply a hundred percent of
the use,but that's a very good start.
COMMISSIONER BURKE:Three-quarters is great.
2
5
6
10
11
CHAIR MICCICHE:Anybody like to speak on this
subject?At this point I do not have any cards on it.So if
you'd still like to speak on this matter,please give me a
card and come up to the podium.Seeing none,I think I'll
ask the applicant to come back and see if we have any
questions from the commission'now.Commissioner Burke.
COMMISSIONER BURKE:I'm going to follow up on my
last question.Does the applicant agree to your
photovoltaic requirement?
TONY JEANS:Yes,the applicant does.
12 Thank you.12 COMMISSIONER BURKE:Thank you.
13 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Talesfore?13 CHAIR MICCICHE:I was the one that more or less
14
15
16
17
18
19
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:No.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Morris?
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:No.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Michael?Tom?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:No.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Quintana?
14 gave the direction that I wanted to keep the existing
15 envelope,because it appeared to me there was sufficient
16 square footage under that existing envelope to be able to
17 add what you chose to add.Could you elaborate on why you
18 had to get a way from that?I know you said you couldn't do
19 it,but I'd like to hear why you couldn't do it.
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:No.
CHAIR MICCICHE:I'll call for public,and then
we'll bring you back up.
TONY JEANS:Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
7
20
21
22
23
24
25
TONY JEANS:The calculations were done by the
architect,but I believe that above the base plate there
are 2,332 square feet.However,900-and-something of that
are vaulted ceilings and higher ceilings,leaving an area
that you would not approve in today's guidelines of about
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
8
1,450-odd square feet.The numbers are in the letter.Of
that,400-and-change is being removed.when we eliminate
that lower prominent roof element.The remaining areas are
noncontiguous,and if you're looking at 7'or 8'ceiling
plate lines,they result in rooms that are approximately
nine or ten feet wide and 40-something feet long.So it
becomes impractical.
CHAIR MICCICHE:You said the area is
is what he'd like to look at.At the moment all his main
rooms face the interior courtyard.
It's a very poorly designed house,and we'd like
you to let him move forward with a better design.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.We're.going to start
down at that end.Do you have any questions at this time?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yes.Previously the
applicant had stated that it was necessary to do this to
vaulted ceilings,if you look at the discontinuity between
10
11
12
noncontiguous?
TONY JEANS:Well noncontiguous if you look at
10
11
12
meet fire code,and the motion was to continue it with the
I think direction,if I'm not misquoting,that you stay
within the envelope if possible,meeting the minimum
14
15
16
one portion of the house and another,yes.
However,we are using a major portion of that
area,and just popping up that interior dormer to create
enough head clearance.Actually in the area that we're
13
14
15
16
requirements for the fire code.I asked Staff what the
minimum requirements were,and I'd like you to explain how
this meets the minimum requirements rather than is more
than the minimum requirements necessary.
17 asking for,I think he's going down to a 6'plate,so 17 TONY JEANS:I'm going to answer it a little
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you've got a 6'wall height in some of the rooms in order
to achieve this.He's actually taken out about 300 or 400
square feet from this last application and removed a
bedroom,but it still gives him his master suite that views
the hills,and it still enables him to reconfigure the
house to take advantage of the Santa Cruz Mountains,which
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
differently,because obviously in my presentation it wasn't
clear enough.When we realized we could not meet your
request explicitly of staying under the existing roof,we
looked at an alternative that we felt would be a benefit
rather than a detriment,i.e.a reduction in visible mass
with this remodel addition.And as such,in order to get
sufficient headroom-I mean he's only putting 8'ceilings
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
upstairs-in order to get sufficient headroom for the 1,100
square feet that being placed up there,much of which is
part of that inside the roof area,we were not able to stay
within the roof,but just,went out into the interior
courtyard in such a way that none of it is visible and now
you have no visible addition that can be seen from any
vantage point.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Let me rephrase my
question.My question was,according to the information I
was given by staff,doors are not required by fire,the
deck is not required by fire,and the minimum required by
fire is a 5.7'operable window.Looking at your plans,this
greatly exceeds those things.
TONY JEANS:You also have to have a certain
amount of ventilation,you have to have a certain amount of
light,all of those are requirements.
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TONY JEANS:It exceeds the minimum that is
needed for fire,it complies with ventilation,it complies
what egress,it complies with light.It does exceed that,
but only in the interior courtyard.There is no protrusion
on any of the three visible elevations of this house.So it
does exceed it,but in an invisible way,and that is what
we tried to achieve.We tried to give you a benefit by a
net reduction in visible mass,which I believe the Staff
Report recognizes that we did,even though it did not meet
your exact direction.The architect realizes he could not
create anything for John with the exact direction,so we
tried to improve on it,and that was how we responded,and
that is this presentation.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Could you also explain
your comment about the views of the Santa Cruz Mountains,
because my observation in going out there and looking
18 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I asked that question of 18 around from the courtyard area is that every single aspect
19 Staff and I told that the ventilation requirementswas were
20 the same as the fire requirements.
21
TONY JEANS:That is incorrect.
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:SO my question is how
does this meet the minimums of those requirements.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of that courtyard has the opportunity to have,and does
have,magnificent views across the valley.
TONY JEANS:The courtyard does,but the lower
roof totally blocks any view from the south left side of
the house.So by removing that roof we're able to create a
view there.The views of the existing family room and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
12
kitchen,which is where you spend a big portion of your
time,have no view across the valley.So he's trying to do
is reconfigure the house to achieve that.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:That part of the
reconfiguration does not involve changing the envelope of
the building.
TONY JEANS:It does if he does not want to lose
bedrooms.
2
3
5
saying this is too big,but there's a possibility to deal
with that,and you've basically said,"I can't deal with
what you've told me,but I've got a great idea to do
something else,"and I guess what I'm a little worried
about is I don't think we all want to spend a lot of time
negotiating these Hillside Guidelines,because everYbody
has a good story.I think the Hillside Guidelines are
fairly clear that the square footage is very,very
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:
10
11
12
later.Thank you.
CHAIR MICCICHE:
I'll comment on that
Commissioner O'Donnell.
10
11
12
important.
So I guess what I'm trOUbled with is on the one
hand I wrestle with what you've done,and I think it is
13 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I'll try to phrase this 13 very intelligent.But then I come back to the question of
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as a question.My recollection is that when we last heard
this there was a general feeling of just turning it down.
But it was pointed out to us by one of our members I think
that there was this available space in the roof,and I
though the Commission then kind of bent over backwards to
try to say well even though maybe it's bigger than we would
normally like,it shouldn't have any net impact because
you're going to use what's already there.
Now I don't quarrel at all with the intelligence
you've brought to bear on this.The only question I have is
where we're coming from?In other words,we started by
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
why are we here?We gave you what we thought was an out,
you've told us the out doesn't work,but you have a new
thing which is not an out and I think tries to get beyond
the language of the guidelines,at least all of the
language and you've even said that,and says but this is
reasonable.I guess what we'll have to decide for ourselves
is how free we feel to take every single case and say yes
we have the guidelines,we have the standards,but we're
going to exceed them every time somebody makes a nice
argument,which you really have made a nice argument.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
14
3
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
So do you have any comments on that so I can mull
that over while everYbody else is talking,because
eventually when we close the public hearing we're going to
have to deal with this?
TONY JEANS:Right.I'll try.I think the thing
that you have to wrestle with is whether or not this is
going to be a precedent that opens the floodgates and now
allOl.s millions of houses to come to this Commission and
require exceptions.
There is a house that was built here that is a U-
shaped house.If this were not a U-shaped house,this
argument that we are making and this attempt at a redesign
that we're making would not be possible,because you could
not reduce mass.It is unfortunate in its original approval
that a U-shaped house was permitted,because they're
massive.You are creating bulk in creating aU-shaped
house.
Now,that said,that was done before the Hillside
2
3
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
something,require the homeowner to put in photovaltaics,
which I think would be very beneficial in this particular
situation because nothing will be visible,and it will not
open the floodgates because you are doing it solely because
we are reducing mass;we're taking it from one part of the
building,putting it to another with a net reduction in
mass,and it's being done only because creation of long.9',
10'wide by 40'rooms doesn't work.
That's all I can offer you.I don't want to open
the floodgates.I'm a Los Gatos resident and I believe in
the beauty of the hillsides too,and I will not design
homes that I think are inappropriate.Having said that,I
will look for solutions for homeowners who are in a
difficult situation with nonconforming houses where I think
it is appropriate,and I stepped in here at the last minute
to try and help out,and I think this is a reasonable
approach and I hope that some of you can see it that way.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Kane.
20 Guidelines came into effect,and by focusing everything
20 COMMISSIONER KANE:I agree"it's a difficult
21
22
23
24
25
into this interior courtyard,and by making something that
is not visible from any viewing point,from any home,from
any neighbor,and barely visible as you turn into Santa
Rose,we have an opportunity I think for you to approve
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
15
21
22
23
24
25
house,and I hope you agree that our responsibility is very
difficult and I am concerned with the precedent.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Excuse me.Do we have a question
here,because we can have our comments after the questions?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
16
COMMISSIONER KANE:Comments,no questions.
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:I have a question.When
articulation of this front lower section where it says,
"Existing Grade,H on 3.1 that you're looking at,to let's
3 I look at the drawing A3.1,you say existing south
elevation and then proposed south elevation.I noticed that
say the rear upper elevation,it must be in the order of
100'.It's a very significant distance,and what I would
this is where you've reduced the bulk of that roof form on
top of that lower level.But I don't see any windows coming
out from that family room onto that deck,or would there be
any family room deck extension there?
5 state is that that is a house that is stepped back up the
hill rather than a three-story elevation,especially as it
is not visible from anywhere as such.
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:Well it certainly
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:Right-hand end of the
10
11
12
13
TONY JEANS:
the house?
house.
You mean on the right-hand end of 10
11
12
13
becomes visible when you look at it from the south
elevation.
TONY JEANS:If a bird were flying there,or a
deer on the hills across there,it would be visible as
14 TONY JEANS:As I said,didn't design this.There 14 such.If however you were down on any vantage point looking
15 should be windows there or doors coming out.15 back up at it,you would never see that third element
16
17
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:My question here is
that it so happens to my way of looking at this,by taking
16 because it's set so far back it's behind the existing land
form,so it is not visible.
18 the roof off,which was really part of the original design,
18 COMMISSIONER KANE:All right,thank you.
19 a sloping broad roof going to the top of the ridge,you've
19 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Talesfore.
consistent with hillside development standards and
application was continued and we were asking you to
reconsider the "colors,materials,and fencing that must be
20
21
22
23
24
25
actually made this look more like a three-story house,and
I wondered if you have any comment on that?
TONY JEANS:Well there are windows and doors
there now,that's point *1 on the left-hand side.That
said,if you were to look at a plan of this,the
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:In our report the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item *1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
17
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item *1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
18
guidelines."Can you please expand on that,and have you
met those?
2
TONY JEANS:I think there's some white fencing
that I think should be toned down.That's my looking at the
TONY JEANS:I'm not sure.I believe that that is house.Is that what you mean,the lattice and fencing?
probably best answered by Bud or Randy.However,it is a
requirement.I do not believe-and perhaps Bud or Randy
could answer this-I do not believe when this subdivision
was created that the deed restriction for reflectivity and
color in the hillsides existed.I believe that it has been
5
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Both.
TONY JEANS:I think that if that were not white,
it would be a lot better.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:What about the roof?
What material is the roof?
15 project in the draft conditions,we have as a condition of
10
11
12
13
14
brought into place since then and certainly that would be a
requirement for a deed restriction on this property,in my
understanding,as to how that would be done,so I'm going
to ask Randy or Bud that one.
RANDY TSUDA:Should the Commission approve the
TONY JEANS:I think the existing roof is cement
10
tile.
11
12 RANDY TSUDA:It's a gray concrete tile.
13 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So it would be matched?
14 TONY JEANS:It's currently composition.It would
15 be cement tile.
16 approval required the deed restriction that requires 16 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.
17 compliance with the LRV 30 restriction,and also specified 17 CHAIR MICCICHE:I have one question.Again going
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the colors that would be approved,and these were colors
submitted by the applicant.
TONY JEANS:So I guess the answer is yes they
were submitted and do meet 30 reflectivity?
RANDY TSUDA:Right.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And how about the
fencing as well?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
19
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back to the original comment that I made.Can you add the
appropriate space you would like under the existing
envelope?
TONY JEANS:No.
CHAIR MICCICHE:You can't is what you're saying?
TONY JEANS:No,so I'm told by the architect and
I tend to agree with that.My review of that was that it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
20
2
10
11
12
13
14
was virtually impossible and still provide rooms that we
acknowledge are rooms.So yes,you cannot do it.The only
way to do it is to remove everything on the outside and
focus to the inside and try to make it invisible,which is
what we've tried to do.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay,thank you.Commissioner
Quintana.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:At any time was
consideration given to moving the bedrooms that are on the
main level down to the lower level which has a large living
area down there,since you are creating a large living area
upstairs where the bedrooms are,in other words swapping
the spaces?
2
3
5
10
11
13
14
CHAIR MICCICHE:Are there any other questions?
Seeing none then,I'm going to close the public hearing and
turn it over to the Commission for comments,a motion,or
questions of Staff.I'll start with you,Commissioner
Burke.
COMMISSIONER BURKE:Listening to the tape I
really thought this project was going down to denial until
pretty much the last minute,and all of a sudden there was
a solution offered,or at least a suggestion offered.
But I don't think that suggestion was followed.
It was a creative suggestion that's been made here.I'm
torn.I'm thrilled with the concept of supplying three-
quarters of this house's energy by photovoltaic,but I also
15 TONY JEANS:I believe there are bedrooms down 15 know that the Commission made a recommendation.Pretty much
16 there,at least one,already.16 the only way they could approve it was if the applicant did
17 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:There's one bedroom and a something and it doesn't seem like they were able to do it.
18 large living area,or I think it's even called a living
18 So just my thoughts for right now.
19 room on the plans.
19 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Talesfore.
20
21
22
23
24
25
TONY JEANS:I think that was intended to be a
child's game room or a teenager's rumpus room when the
house was originally designed.I think the intention is to
leave it that way.
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I don't have anything.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Trevithick.
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:My thought here is that
it would seem as if we're trying to recognize the unity of
the building itself as it was before.There was a certain
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
21
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
22
beauty about the balance of that building,and I think
something has been lost by the modifications to the design.2
there weren't that many possibilities there and I think we
gave the only possibility we could have given in good
3
5
It seems to be more like a three-story building now than it
ever was before,and while you may be able to gather the
right amount of square foot area for the applicant,I'm not
sure the end result would be as happy as it was in the
original building.So I'll just leave it like that for the
moment.Do you have any comments on that?Not just FAR,but
5
6
conscience.I think that if we deal with these problems
truly on a case-by-case basis such that we tend to ignore
the import of the guidelines,we're going to get in a world
of trouble.
And as much as I am very sympathetic with the
situation and very impressed with the effort that's gone in
the bulk et cetera of the building.It looks more like a
10
11
12
three-story now.
TONY JEANS:Well no,your comment is well taken.
10
11
12
to do a good job,and I think they have,my problem is that
that isn't my problem.We gave them one way out,they told
us it doesn't work,I thank them very much,and I'm afraid
13 By adding rooms in the attic area,I can understand how you 13 that I can't find a way around this.
14 would see it as a three-story elevation,and that is 14 CHAIR MICCICHE:Do you have anything to add to
15 problematic.15 that,Commissioner Quintana?
16 COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:Thank you.16 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yeah,I do.I agree with
17 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Kane.all the comments and I especially agree with Commissioner
18 COMMISSIONER KANE:Nothing.18 Trevithick's comments about destroying the integrity of the
19 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner O'Donnell.
19 design.It would appear that they could still have ample
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:My comment is that I
think Mike is correct.It almost did go down and we tried
to throw out a life preserver,and we've been told that the
life preserver doesn't fit,but we have a new and different
life preserver.I guess the problem I have with that is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
23
20
21
22
23
24
25
windows out of the new family room without having the deck
behind it.
The other point I would like to make is that by
shortening the roofline in the attic area,making that
third floor,and then bringing out a quite large deck,over
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
24
600 square feet,well beyond the area where the original
roof was,that that actually adds to the maSS of the house
So if there are no other comments I'll call the
question.All in favor?All against?(Unanimously in
3
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
rather than subtracting from it.
So my tendency is to say that out directions were
not met and that there are further opportunities for the
applicant to provide the bedrooms that they want by
rearranging their space.
Also it's a little bit like the argument of if a
tree falls in the forest and you don't see it,did it make
any noise.If we don't see the mass,is the mass not there?
CHAIR MICCICHE:Is that it?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yeah.I'll make a motion.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I move to deny
10
11
12
13
14
15
favor.)
ORRY KORB:Appeal rights.Anyone dissatisfied
with the decision of the Planning Commission can appeal the
decision to the Town Council.The appeal must be filed
within ten days.It must be filed in the Clerk's office
upstairs.There is a fee for filing an appeal.
16 Architecture and Site Application S-05-17.16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR MICCICHE:Do I have a second?
MALE:I second that.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Any comments?I have one.I
asked the question;I want to make sure the answer is what
it was.I asked if there was any way to put onto the
existing envelope and I got a negative answer.So that
being the case,there will be no need to send it back,so I
will agree with the motion myself.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
25
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/23/2005
Item #1,310 Santa Rosa Drive
26
REPORT TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
Date:-=-F..:::..eb=ru=ar"-'y'-'3=,c...::2"-"0'-"'0..:::..5_
For Agenda Of:February 9,2005
Agenda Item:-=2:.....-_
The Planning Commission
The Director of Community Development
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
Requesting approval to construct a second story addition to a single
family residence that will result in a horne that exceeds the Floor Area
Ratio on property zoned HR-2 1/2.APN 527-55-036.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:John Versgrove
FINDINGS:The Project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the
State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
CONSIDERATIONS:As required by Section 29.20.150 ofthe Town Code for Architecture and
Site applications.
ACTION:The decision ofthe Planning Commission is final unless appealed within
ten days.
EXHIBITS:A.Required Findings and Considerations
B.Proposed Conditions of Approval
C..Letter of Justification (2 Pages),dated September 22,2004
D.Letter of Justification (3 Pages),dated November 2,2004
E.Evolution Letter,dated October 25,2004
F.Architectural Peer Review,dated December 22,2004
G.House size comparison
H.Project data sheet
1.Development Plans received December 8 ~2004 (7 sheets)
A.BACKGROUND:
The subject 1.4 acre property is located at 310 Santa Rosa Drive.The lot is currently developed with
an existing 6,447 square foot single-story horne and an 836 square foot garage.The existing horne
exceeds the 6,000 square foot maximum contained in the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines (HDS&G)by 883 square feet.
Staff has advised the applicant that since the existing horne exceeds the 6,000 square foot maximum
illustrated in the HDS&G,receiving approval for their proposal to add an additional 1,544 square
feet (26.25 sq.ft.first floor and 1518 sq.ft.second floor)would be challenging and will require that
the Commission make findings to grant an exception to the maximum house size.Staff's advice to
Attachment 6
The Planning Commission -Page 2
310 Santa Rosa Drive/S-05-17
February 9,2005
the applicant was based on the recent actions taken by the Commission and Council regarding homes
that proposed to exceed 6,000 square feet.In this case the applicant believes that the project meets
the criteria to allow an exception to maximum floor area as outlined in the HDS&G.Additionally,
the applicant believes that this addition will minimally increase the visible mass of the existing
structure and their proposal will have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Prior to filing the current Architecture &Site application,staff met with the project architect and
applicant several times to discuss conceptual plans and issues.The only modification that resulted
from staff's interactions with the project applicant and propelty owner is that a roof over the outdoor
terrace has been replaced with an open trellis.
The applicant's letters include additional details regarding the project and their justification for the
current proposal (Exhibit C and D).
The project was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect (Exhibit F).
B.REMARKS:
Architecture and Site
The applicant is requesting approval to add 1,544 square feet to the existing 6,447 square foot home
with an 836 square foot garage for a total floor area of 8,827 square feet (including garage).The
proposal also includes changing the exterior materials from board and batten wood siding and stone
to stucco and the roof from composition shingle to concrete tile.The project data sheet (Exhibit H)
provides additional general information about the proposed project.
Generally,the proposed addition will convert the existing attic space to second floor area,expand
the roof line towards the existing courtyard (See Exhibit I,Sheet A 3.2,Section A),and add 3
dormers.The existing maximum height of the home will remain unchanged at 25'.It should also
be noted that no existing trees will be affected and no grading will be required for this proposal.
C.DISCUSSION:
Staff has summarized the main issues for the Commission's consideration and discussion as follows:
House Size
The proposal will include a floor area of 8,427 square feet,exclusive of 400 square feet of garage
area as set forth in the HDS&G.The floor area significantly exceeds the maximum allowable
floor area of 6,000 square feet.It should be noted that the existing house and garage currently
exceed the FAR by 883 square feet.
The Planning Commission -Page 3
310 Santa Rosa Drive/S-05-17
February 9,2005
As stated in the HDS&G,achieving the maximum floor area is not guaranteed due to individual
site constraints.The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than
designing to the FAR.The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square footage
is not a goal.Greater weight will be given to issues including but not limited to height,building
mass and scale,visual impacts,grading and compatibility.
Pursuant to the HDS&G,"the Town Councilor Planning Commission may approve residential
projects greater than the maximum allowed floor area (but it is not guaranteed)when all of the
following apply":
1.The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms.
2.There will be no significant impacts on protected trees,wildlife habitat or movement
corridors.
3.Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR
or an accessory building will be minimized.
4.All standards and applicable guidelines are being met.
5.Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer methods.
Thecompliance margin must be at least 10.0.
6.The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV)installation.
7.A minimum of 25%of hardscape material is permeable (certain types of interlocking
pavers,grasscrete,pervious concrete,etc.).
8.A significant cellar element is included in the design,unless it conflicts with other
standards.
9.There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
It appears that all of the above items will be met with the current proposal except item 8 listed
above.The existing home and proposed project do not include a cellar element.Please see
Exhibit C and D for the applicant's responses to the criteria listed above.Items 5 and 6 listed
above are required as Conditions of Approval (Exhibit E,Conditions 5 and 6)
Neighborhood Compatibility
No single architectural style is present in the surrounding neighborhood.The neighborhood
contains a variety of architectural styles and house sizes.However,staff is concerned about
neighborhood compatibility given that the proposed size of the home,is approximately 1,000
square feet larger than other homes in the immediate area.Exhibit G is a house size comparison
that was prepared for the Commission's information.
Exterior Materials
In hillside areas,the Commission has expressed concern with architectural styles that utilize
stucco siding and tile roofing.Although the architectural style of the house will not dramatically
The Planning Commission -Page 4
310 Santa Rosa Drive/S-05-17
February 9,2005
change,the applicant is proposing to replace the existing board and batten wood siding and stone
exterior materials with stucco and the existing composition shingle roof with concrete tile.The
applicant has been made aware of the issue and believes that the proposed design and exterior
materials are compatible with other homes in the immediate area.
A color and material sheet will be available at the Public Hearing.The concrete tile roof is
intended to be gray.Accent materials include stucco columns,wood railing and trellis,and wood
casing around windows to match existing.It should be noted that a Deed Restriction relating to
exterior colors is included as a proposed condition of approval should the Commission approve
the application.Currently there is no regulation of color for many of the existing homes in this
area.This will be further addressed as future applications at other sites are processed by the
Town.
Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines
The proposed project will comply with most of the HDS&G,given the fact that the proposed
project:
•will minimally increase the existing footprint;and
•will not significantly impact privacy of the adjacent properties;and
•will not be visible from any established viewing platforms;and
•will not impact any existing trees;and
•will not require any grading.
However,staff has determined that the following aspect of the project does not comply with the
HDS&G:
•the house and garage exceed the allowable floor area limit.
Additionally,the Commission should discuss the following items as they relate to the proposed
project and the HDS&G:
•design ofthe addition to minimize bulk and mass as required by Section V.F of the HDS&G;
and
•architectural style of the house (See Exterior Materials section above).
General Plan Conformance
The HDS&G that were adopted by the Town Council were determined to be consistent with the
General Plan.Therefore,projects substantially consistent with the HDS&G would,by reference,
be consistent with the General Plan.As a result,if the Commission determines that the criteria
for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area should be allowed for this project,then
it could be determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan.
The Planning Commission -Page 5
310 Santa Rosa Drive/S-05-17
February 9,2005
D.CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that this is the first of many projects that will raise the issues identified in this report
given the fact that there are numerous existing homes that exceed 6,000 square feet in the hillside
area.Staff understands that the Commission will consider this application and future applications
of a similar nature on a case by case basis.Staff will consider the comments offered during this
hearing as general direction for review of future projects of a similar nature.
The Planning Commission should consider and discuss the following issues:
•Determine if the criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area have been
met;and
•Determine if the proposed square footage is appropriate;and
•Determine if the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of square
footage,bulk,and mass;and
•Determine if the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of
architectural style and exterior materials.
E.RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning Commission is satisfied with the current proposal,it should:
1.Review the project based on the considerations as set forth in Section 29.20.150 of the Town
Code for Architecture and Site applications (Exhibit A);and
2.Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt,pursuant to Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit A);and
3.Approve the Architecture and Site application subject to the conditions in Exhibit B and as
shown on the development plans (Exhibit 1).
If the Commission determines that changes are required to the proposed application,it should do one
of the following:
1.Approve the proposed application with additional conditions;or
2.Refer the application back to staff for further work as directed;or
3.Deny the application.
If the application is denied,the Commission should make findings for the denial.The Commission's
comments on key issues will be helpful to the Town Council if an appeal is filed.
The Planning Commission -Page 6
310 Santa Rosa Drive/S-05-l7
Febmary 9,2005
Prepared by:Joel Paulson,Associate Planner
BNL:JP:
cc:John Versgrove,310 Santa Rosa Drive,Los Gatos,CA 95032
TDS Architects,2060 Clarmar Way,San Jose,CA 95128,Attn:Brian Mah
N:\DEV\REPORTS\2005\31 OSantaRosa.wpd
310 Santa Rosa Drive
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
Requesting approval to construct a second story addition to a single family residence that will
result in a home that ex.ceeds the Floor Area Ratio on property zoned HR-2 1/2.APN 527-55-
036.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:John Versgrove
FINDINGS
•The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
•As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications:
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including,but not limited to,the
following:
(1)Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion.The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets;the layout of the site with·
respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances,exits,
drives,and walkways;the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic
congestion;the location,arrangement,and dimension of truck loading and unloading
facilities;the circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development,and the
surfacing,lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
A.Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical
intersections shall be analyzed,and a determination made on the following
matters:
1.The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to
accommodate existing traffic;
2.Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet
occupied;and
3.Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed
project one (1)year after occupancy.
B.The deciding body shall review the application for traffic
roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1)of the following
determinations:
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
1.The project will not impact any roadways and/orintersections causing
the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2.The project will impact a roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)causing
the roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)to exceed their available
capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (l)b.1.may
proceed.Any project receiving Town determination subsection
(1)b.2.must be modified or denied if the deciding body determines
that the impact is unacceptable.In determining the acceptability of a
traffic impact,the deciding body shall consider if the project's
benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined
by specific sections from the general plan and any applicable specific
plan.
(2)Considerations relating to outdoor advertising.The number,location,color,size,
height,lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in
relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with
adjacent development.Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to
distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos
Boulevard.
(3)Considerations relating to landscaping.The location,height,and materials of walls,
fences,hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or
to conceal storage areas,utility installations,parking lots or unsightly development;
the planting of ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion;and the
unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees.Emphasize the use of planter boxes
with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere to the central business distlict.
Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director of Parks,Forestry and
Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special cliteria,including climatic
conditions,maintenance,year-round versus seasonal color change (blossom,summer
foliage,autumn color),special branching effects and other considerations.
(4)Considerations relating to site layout.The orientation and location of buildings and
open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of
the neighborhood;and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent
development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g.
downtown,Los Gatos Boulevard,etc.).Buildings should maximize preservation of
solar access.In the downtown,mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz
Avenue with existing and new parking facilities shall be encouraged,and shall
Page 2 of 4
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application 8-05-17
include such clime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems.
(5)Considerations relating to drainage.The effect of the site development plan on the
adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
(6)Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and
structures.The effect of the height,width,shape and extelior construction and design
of buildings and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character
of the neighborhood
and purposes of the zone in which they are situated,and the purposes of architecture
and site approval.Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale,
massing,matelials,color,texture,reflectivity,openings and other details.
(7)Considerations relating to lighting and street fumiture.Streets,walkways,and
building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of
the Town.Street furniture and equipment,such as lamp standards,traffic signals,fire
hydrants,street signs,telephones,mail boxes,refuse receptacles,bus shelters,
dlinking fountains,planters,kiosks,flag poles and other elements of the street
environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the
Town image.
(8)Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons.The adequacy of
the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically
disabled persons.Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total
valuation of alterations,structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value
established by resolution of the Town Council,shall require the building to be
modified to meet the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California
Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.In addition to retail,personal
services and health care services are not allowable uses on nonaccessible floors in
new nonresidential buildings.Any change of use to retail,health care,or personal
service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify
the building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those
requirements.This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence plior to the
enactment of this chapter.All new residential developments shall comply with the
Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons
established by resolution.
(9)Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility.
A hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500)feet to
any residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public
or private school primalily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18).An
Page 3 of 4
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-OS-17
application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report,which may
be focused through the initial study process.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\310SantaRosa.wpd
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
Requesting approval to construct a second story addition to a single family residence that will
result in a home that exceeds the Floor Area Ratio on property zoned HR-21/2.APN 527-55-
036.
PROPERTY OWNER!APPLICANT:John Versgrove
TO THE SATISF ACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(Planning Section)
1.APPROVAL EXPIRATION:Zoning approval will expire two years from the approval date
pursuant to Section 29.20.320 ofthe Town Code,unless the application is vested.
2.APPROVAL:This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the approved plans received December
8,2004.Any minor changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by
the Director of Community Development other changes will be approved by the Planning
Commission,depending on the scope of the change(s).
3.DEED RESTRICTION:Prior to the issuance of a building pennit,a deed restriction shall be
recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires all exterior
paint colors to be maintained in conformance with the Town's Hillside Development Standards.
4.OUTDOOR LIGHTING:If any outdoor lighting is proposed,an outdoor lighting plan shall be
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance ofBuilding Permits.
All outdoor lighting shall be down-lighting and shall be as minimal and unobtrusive as possible.
Exterior lighting shall only be used for pedestrian safety and security.There shall be no up-
lighting of landscaping or the home.
5.TITLE 24:Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer
methods.The compliance margin must be at least 10.0.
6.PHOTOVOLTAIC:The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV)installation.
7.WINDOWS.Windows shall be low reflectivity glass that also limits nighttime light emanation.
Tinted glass is preferred.
8.EXTERIORMATERIALSANDCOLORS:TheapprovedwallandcolumncolorisKellyMoore
Highland Grass (LRV 29),trim and railings Kelly Moore Defense (LRV 9),roof will be gray
concrete tile.
(Building Section)
9.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building pennit shall be required for demolition of existing and the
construction ofthe new single family residence.Separate building permits are required for site
retaining walls,water tanks,and swimming pools;separate electrical,mechanical,and plumbing
permits shall be required as necessary.
10.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions ofApproval must be blue-lined in full on the
cover sheet ofthe construction plans.
11.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans,maximum size 24"x 36."
12.FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS:A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land
EXHIBIT B
310 Santa Rosa Drive /S-05-0 17
Page 2
surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.This
certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report;
and,the building pad elevation,on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared
according to approved plans.Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a
licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items:
a.Building pad elevation
b.Finish floor elevation
c.Foundation comer locations
13.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance fOnTIS CF-1R and
MF-1R must be blue-lined on the plans.
14.TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS:New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II
approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905.Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet of
chimneys.
15.HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE:This project requires a Class A roofing assembly.
16.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701,the
architect or engineer ofrecord shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the
Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.The Town Special
Inspection form must be completely fIlled-out,signed by all requested parties and be blue-
lined on the construction plans.Special Inspection fonns are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.1osgatosca.gov.
17.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second
page.The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of
$2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
18.PLANS:The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed
architect or engineer.(Business and Professionals Code Section 5538)
19.APPROVALS REQUIRED:Theprojecttequires the following agencies approval before issuing
a building pennit:
a.Community Development:Joel Paulson at 354-6879
b.Engineering Depmiment:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
c.Parks &Public Works Department:(408)399-5777
d.Santa Clara County Fire Deparnnent:(408)378-4010
e.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407
f.Local School District:(Contact the Town Building Service Counter for the
appropriate school district and to obtain the school foml.)
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
(Engineering Division)
20.GENERAL.All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications.All work shall confonn to the
applicable Town ordinances.The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day.Dirt and debris shall not be washed into stonn
drainage facilities.The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not
310 Santa Rosa Drive /S-05-0 17
Page 3
be allowed unless a special pennit is issued.The developer's representative in charge shall be
at the job site during all working hours.Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according
to this condition may result in the Town perfonning the required maintenance at the developer's
expense.
21.ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction
Encroachment Pennit.All work over $5,000 will require construction security.
22.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24)hours before starting an work pertaining to on-
site drainage facilities,grading or paving,and all work in the Town's right-of-way.Failure to
do so will result in rejection ow work that went on without inspection.
23.EROSION CONTROL.Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and provided
within the Building Permit submittal.A maximum oftwo weeks is allowed between clearing of
an area and stabilizingibuilding on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season.Interim
erosion control measures,to be carried out during construction and before installation ofthe final
landscaping shall be included.Interim erosion control method shall include,but are not limited
to:silt fences,fiber rolls (with locations and details),erosion control blankets,Town standard
seeding specification,filter berms,check dams,retention basins,etc.Provide erosion control
measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months.The grading,
drainage,erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures
contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order 01-024 ofthe amended Santa Clara
County NPDES Permit.
24.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gros svehicle
weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed on theportion of a street which
abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§
15.40.070).
25.SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.It is the responsibility ofcontractor and home
owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily
basis.Mud,silt,concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's
storm drains.
26.RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of
developer's operations.Improvements such as,but not limited to:curbs,gutters,sidewalks,
driveways,signs,pavements,raised pavement markers,thennoplastic pavement markings,etc.
shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition.
Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering
Construction Inspector,and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions.
Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the
start of construction to verify existing conditions.
27.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,weekdays and 9:00
a.m.to 7:00 p.m.weekends and holidays,construction,alteration or repair activities shall be
allowed.No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five
(85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.If the device is located within a structure on the property,the
measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25)feet from the device as
310 Santa Rosa Drive /S-05-0 17
Page 4
possible.The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five
(85)dBA.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
28.REQUIRED FIRE FLOW:The required fire flow for this project is 2,250 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure.An automatic sprinkler system will be installed,the fire flow has been reduced by 75%
establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure.The adjusted
fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s)which are spaced at the required
spacmg.
29.AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED:New homes located within the
hazardous fire area,shall be protected throughout by an approved,automatic fire sprinlder
system,hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)Standard #13d.
30.REQUIRED ACCESS TO WATER SUPPLY (HYDRANTS):Portions ofthe structure(s)are
greater than 150 feet from the centerline ofthe roadway containing public fire hydrants.Provide
an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building.
N:\DEV\CONDITNS\310SantaRosa.wpd
September 22,2004
T own of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Attention:
Subject:
Dear Joel:
Joel Paulson
Planner
Versgrove Residence Remodel/Addition
JUSTIFICATION LETTER
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
R,ECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2004
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
This letter of justification is prepared for the approval of remodel/addition project
of the residence on 310 Santa Rosa Dr.The total addition will be 1,518 sq.ft.
There will be no addition to building floor coverage,but only adding square
footage.
This remodel/addition intends to utilize the open space in the existing attic and
maximize the view from the house with minimal impact on the neighboring
homes.The value of the house will be enhanced by capturing the tremendous
view of the canyon enjoyed from the public areas in the house,instead of the
bedrooms.
This will be achieved by relocating the bedrooms in the attic space above the
kitchen,living and dining room.Utilizing the attic space will eliminate adding
second floor roof height and,therefore,minimize the mass of the new areas and
not affect the overall height.
There are small two dormer enhancements at the front elevation on Santa Rosa
Drive and one dormer to the east.Most of the work is interior and majority of the
exterior work is concentrated in the existing south courtyard facing the canyon.
The view from the neighbors from the south and across the canyon and from
Shannon Road is limited.The only clear vantage to the house is from the large
"estate".It is important to note that this view also demonstrates the numerous
surrounding homes adjacent to our project.We feel visual impact is extremely
low.
We recognize the fact that we exceed the current limit for allowable square
footage.However,we believe we have satisfied the exceptions in the hillside
ordinance and we also have minimized any exterior improvements as stated
above.
EXHIBIT C
The following is a summary of the exceptions that have been satisfied:
1.The development will not be visible from any established viewing
platforms.
2.There is no impact on protected trees,wildlife,habitat or movement
corridors.
3.There is no grading to accommodate the building area that exceeds the
allowed FAR.
4.All standards and applicable guidelines are being met.There is no
increase in height.
5.Compliance to Title 24 energy Efficiency Standards are shown using
computer methods.The compliance margin must be at least 10.0.We
will use the computer method.
6.The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic installation.Although
the house already exists,the project will provide new passive and solar
energy solutions,and any new glazing will be energy efficient.
7.A minimum of 25%of hardscape material is permeable.Not applicable.
8.A significant cellar element is included in the design.Not applicable.
9.There is no significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
Should you have any questions,please contact me or TDS Architects,408-977.:;
9141.
Very truly yours,
&Lv~hn versgrove~
10 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
cc:TDS Architects
November 2,2004
T own of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95032 Tcd Ci I D 8S i 9 n Sol u li 0 n s
Attention:
Subject:
Dear Joel:
Joel Paulson
Planner
Versgrove Residence Remodel/Addition
JUSTIFICATION LETTER
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
The subject project proposes to be sensitive to the General Plan,Hillside Specific'
Plan,and Hillside Design Guidelines.
Since our project is an interior remodel with minimal exterior improvements,we
'believe thatthe design presented maintains the existing natural space character
of the hillside,preserves the natural environment and minimizes the visual quality
of the hillsides.
The existing house was built in the mid eighties,prior to adoption of the hillside
guidelines.Already we acknowledge the existing house exceeds the allowable
FAR with adjusted slope,and we are requesting in increase in floor area.
However,we believe the proposed project does address the issues of visibility,
mass,sensitivity to the hillside,and environment.According the Section IV,Item
C "Exceptions to Maximum Floor Area"we believe we conform and will comply
with the exceptions.
The design approach affords an increase in floor area by utilizing existing attic
space and proposed dormers and shed roof modifications.The majority of the
work is isolated to the existing courtyard facing south to the canyon.There is no
outward expansion or increased building footprint increase except toward the
existing courtyard.Removal of exterior walls is less than 15%of the overall
building perimeter.
VVe believe (see photo on drawing)that from a very narrow vantage point
horizontal to our project,and with a discriminating view can our project be visible.
The only clear vantage to the house is from the large "estate".There is virtually no
line of site from Shannon Road.This solution mitigates any visual impact to -
surrounding neighbors.Furthermore,our proposed project mass is offset by the
removal a previous trellis in the courtyard (see photo).We feel this is net loss in
mass.An existing roof mass at the southernmost end of the house will be
reduced and replaced with a/rooftop terrace and trellis.We feel that this is a zero
net increase in mass.The project proposes roof infill while maintaining existing
roof ridgeline.
~(.I r (00 I •,!r··r,r,./'>'/',)0'";,",:'rY",,,!'\I\0y"')1 1;+'::./i )•.J';;-'''.,V ..../,...,("J .........1,'.-1,J ....~•.,"......"'-"....
EXHIBIT D
310 Santa Rosa
Justification Letter
Page 2
TDS 24045
.November 2,2004
Our project is also not visible from the view platforms outlined in the hillside
guidelines.The existing house steps down the hillside.Our proposed project
does not change the character of the existing house,but instea,d enhances its
character by providing additional architectural interest.
In terms of Fire Safety,we plan to replace the existing board and batten siding
with a medium stucco finish and fire resistive cement tile roofing.This will afford
greater fire protection to our property and the neighboring properties.We will
also provide Automatic Fire Sprinklers
New exterior colors with an earth tone scheme has been selected to blend into
the surrounding vegetation.
The following is a summary of the exceptions that will be satisfied:
Ref (Section IV ,Item C)
1.The development is not visible from any established viewing platforms.
2.There is no impact on protected trees,wildlife,habitat or movement
corridors.(The proposed work is in the existing courtyard or interior.
Existing landscape to remain)
3.There is no grading to accommodate the building area that exceeds the
allowed FAR.
4.All standards and applicable guidelines are being met.There is no
increase in height.(we exceed the Max allowable floor area,however we
are requesting a variance)
5.Compliance to Title 24 energy Efficiency Standards are shown using
computer methods.The compliance margin must be at least 10.0.We
will use the computer method.(the house will be reinsulated)
6.The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic installation.Although
the house already exists,the project will provide new passive and solar
energy solutions,and any new glazing will be energy efficient.
7.A minimum of 25%of hardscape material is permeable.The existing
driveway and turn around are interlocking pavers.See Site plan.
8.A significant cellar element is included in the design.Not applicable since
the house is already existing.
9.There is no significant visual impact to neighboring properties .
.J Llstification letLer-Rev 1.doc
c
~"r,.-',/'.
310 Santa Rosa
Justification Letter
Page 3
TDS 24045
November 2,2004
We would like to again emphasize that this is a REMODEL project.The house is
existing.Although the square footage proposed exceeds the guidelines,we feel
there will be very little perceived affect on the exterior elevations (bulk and
mass).We respectfully request approval of our project.
Should you have any questions,please contact me or TDS Architects,408-977-
9141.
Very truly yours,
/,\!
\.'j{.d;~1/Vtf'/tI'VL
ij/i
(/John Versgrove,Homeowner
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
cc:TDS Architects
Justification letter-Rev I.cloc
Cjc~]rn::;.r
October 25,2004
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Attention:
Subject:
Dear Joel:
Joel Paulson
Planner
Versgrove Residence Remodel/Addition
EVOLUTION LETTER
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
My house was purchased in October,2003.I bought the house because of the location,
the view and its potential value based upon the surrounding neighborhood.The existing
house was not exactly what I desired and was in need of many major repairs (roof,all
windows and doors,termite,sub-floor rotting,mould,etc.,etc.).However,the house I
felt still had/has great potential.
After living in the house for the first three months,I discovered just how bad the roof
was.Further discovery indicated extensive water damage to both walls and sub-flooring
area.Further inspection revealed potential framing issues with respect to roof repairs or
replacing composition shingles with a cement tile material.Additional repairs are
needed to replace leaking/sagging wood windows and to replace the wood siding of the
house with a stucco material.
I hired an architect in the Spring of 2004 to come up with some systematic design
changes taking into account all of the afore-mentioned interior and exterior problem and
to redesign the interior of the house to take advantage of the large attic spaces above
the kitchen,living room,and family room areas and to reinforce the roof in order to
support cement tile.
In August of 2004,I hired TDS Architects to refine the previous Architect's design and
prepare a Planning Submittal for the Town of Los Gatos.I am sensitive to my neighbors
in that I am limiting a large majority of the proposed work to the rear interior courtyard of
the house,which is not visible to any surrounding neighbors within a quarter to a half
mile radius of the house.Upon initial review by the Town of Los Gatos Technical
Review Staff,I have removed the roof from the covered terrace projecting from the rear
of the house and eliminated the bay window in the courtyard which was the only areas
that were an increase to the overall mass of the roof.
Should you have any questions,please contact me or TDS Architects,408-977-9141.
Very ~IY yours,
;
.t1kh t&vr;wu-e-
'.John Versgrovq1Homeowner
cc:TDS Architects
EXHIBIT E
December 22,2004
Mr.Joel Paulson
Community Development Department
Town ofLos Gatos
110 E.Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos,CA 95031
RE:310 Santa Rosa Drive
Dear Joel:
ARCf-liTECTUHE PLANNING UH.BAN DESIGN
RECEJ\/EO
DEC 2 '7 '/004
TOWN Of LOS Gl·\..\OS
PLANNING DIVISION
I visited the site today,and reviewed the design drawings that you forwarded.It seems a shame to
change such a classically simple design.However,the proposed changes are skillfully done,and as far as
I can see,will have minimal impact to the surrounding area or to views from below.I have no recommen-
dations for changes.
Joel,please let me know if you have any questions,or if there are specific issues of concern that I did
not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
CZf~Of~
Larry L.Cannon AlA AI CP
President
TEL:415.33l.3795 FAX:415.331.3797 180 HARBOR DRIVE .SUITE 219.EXHIBIT F
N.DEVIJOEL\PLANNINGI31 OSantaRosaHouseSlZe.wpd
,"i!~PN''i.I,)..A'''·....)i!'lIollseSiZe .}G~rag~SiZ~::Lot.•··SiZe •.·•··jF:.A..R..',........,..•...'.'.'.'.
527-55-003 100 Auzerais Ct.6,634 sq.ft.780 sq.ft..92 ae..175
527-55-004 104 Auzerais Ct.6,013 sq.ft.768 sq.ft..96 ae..153
527-55-007 101 Auzerais Ct.5,073 sq.ft.850 sq.ft..96 ae..132
527-55-008 100 Madera Ct.5,952 sq.ft.864 sq.ft..97 ae..152
527-55-009 104 Madera Ct.3,224 sq.ft.576 sq.ft..92 ae..085
527-55-024 321 Santa Rosa Dr.6,706 sq.ft.869 sq.ft.1.09 ae..151
527-55-025 331 Santa Rosa Dr.6,998 sq.ft.886 sq.ft..92 ae..187
527-55-026 311 Santa Rosa Dr.5,810 sq.ft.710 sq.ft.1.27 ae..111
527-55-027 301 Santa Rosa Dr.5,283 sq.ft.600 sq.ft.1 ae..126
527-55-035 300 Santa Rosa Dr.6,934 sq.ft.819 sq.ft.1.19 ae..142
527-55-037 320 Santa Rosa Dr.5,291 sq.ft.888 sq.ft.1.75 ae..076
527-55-038 141 Alta Tierra Ct.6,676 sq.ft.792 sq.ft.1.32 ae..123
527-55-043 400 Santa Rosa Dr.4,628 sq.ft.736 sq.ft.1.15 ae..099
527-55-044 410 Santa Rosa Dr.5,241 sq.ft.794 sq.ft.2.13 ae..061
527-55-045 420 Santa Rosa Dr.5,644 sq.ft.1,004 sq.ft..99 ae..145
537-31-001 180 Sierra Azule 6,090 sq.ft.960 sq.ft.2.44 ae..063
537-31-002 160 SierraAzule 5,777 sq.ft.792 sq.ft.1.13 ae..125
537-31-003 150 Sierra Azule 6,253 sq.ft.949 sq.ft.1.14 ae..137
537-31-006 165 Sierra Azule 4,574 sq.ft.838 sq.ft.1 ae..115
537-31-007 155 Sierra Azule 5,194 sq.ft.817 sq.ft.1.01 ae..128
537-31-008 145 Sierra Azule 5,590 sq.ft.859 sq.ft.1.11 ae..125
537-31-009 135 Sierra Azule 5,320 sq.ft.751 sq.ft.1.19 ae..109
537-31-010 125 Sierra Azule 5,951 sq.ft.744 sq.ft.1.20 ae..120
537-31-011 115 Sierra Azule 5,378 sq.ft.769 sq.ft.1.27 ae..104
537-31-022 130 Sierra Azu1e 4,788 sq.ft.833 sq.ft.1.26 ae..095
537-31-023 120 Sierra Azule 5,870 sq.ft.941 sq.ft.1.24 ae..119
Existing 310 Santa Rosa Dr.6,447 sq.ft.836 sq.ft.1.4 ac..113
Proposed Project 310 Santa Rosa Dr.7,991 sq.ft.836 sq.ft.1.4 ac..138
.\
EXRIBIT G
J
Land use
Lot size (sq.ft.)
•square feet
•acres
Exterior materials:
•siding
•trim
•roofing
Building floor area:
•first floor
•second floor
•HOUSE TOTAL
•garage
Setbacks (ft.):
•front
-rear
-side
-side street
Maximum height (ft.)
Building coverage (%)
Parking
•property owner
•guest
Tree Removals
'30 1 '~f,,1 30 feet minimum_(.I
'r (';Tif J 'r rlLi--I 25 feet minimum
2e);'20/20 feet minimum
NA rJA 20 feet minimum
r '-i '±25·i.--o 25 feet maximum2S.~,[);<:'&7-\-/2...S
fz.i/o i 2 C/D
3 :3 2 spaces minimum
LJ-q~4 spaces minimum
(VA /\)/1
*maximum height may be reduced to 18 feet for buildings that extend above a significant ridgeline.
N :\DEV\l OELIFORMSISFRprojecldoloI-ffi-l.wpd
EXHIBIT H
REPORT TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
Date:---"'M==ar=c=h-=:.1=5,,--,2:;..:0:....=0..=.5_
For Agenda Of:March 23,2005
Agenda Item:1:....,.._
The Planning Commission
The Director of Community Development
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-05-17
Requesting approval to construct a second story addition to a single
family residence that will result in a home that exceeds the Floor Area
Ratio on property zoned HR-2 112.APN 527-55-036.
PROPERTY OWNER!APPLICANT:John Versgrove
I
J
FINDINGS:The Project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the
State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
CONSIDERATIONS:As required by Section 29.20.150 ofthe Town Code for Architecture and
Site applications.
ACTION:The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within
ten days.
EXHIBITS:A-I.Previously Submitted
J.Letter of Justification (6 pages),dated February 25,2005
K.Development Plans (7 sheets)received March 9,2005
A.BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission considered this application on February 9,2005.The application was
continued to the March 23,2005 meeting with the following direction:
1.,The proposed second story addition must stay within the existing building envelope with
some allowance to meet fire and building code requirements.Minimal,architecturally
.appropriate,design elements will be considered but if it is determined that the design
elements add to the mass and bulk of the structure they may not be approved;and
2.Colors,materials,and fencing must be consistent with the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines.
B.DISCUSSION:
The applicant resubmitted revised plans on March 2,2005 (Exhibit K).The applicant has also
provided a letter describing the reasoning for the modifications that they have made and their
approach to addressing the Commission's direction (Exhibit J).The proposed modifications include:
Attachment 7
The Planning Commission -Page 2
310 Santa Rosa Drive/S-05-17
March 23,2005
•Two proposed dormers on front elevation have been removed;
•Proposed dormer on the left elevation has been removed;
•Proposed trellis above lower floor has been removed;
•331 square feet of the proposed second story addition has been removed;
•One bedroom in the proposed second story addition has been removed;and
•Height of proposed second story addition was reduced by approximately one foot;and
•Skylight has been removed;and
•Native drought tolerant species are to be planted in front of the lattice under the existing
decks.
C.CONCLUSION:
Staff acknowledges that the applicant has attempted to present a design that would meet the direction
of the Commission.After a detailed review,staff has determined that the proposal is inconsistent
with the Commission's direction given that there is still a considerable addition outside of the
existing building envelope (i.e.238 square feet of roof area will be added).However,the applicant
proposes to remove 295 square feet of existing roof area and a skylight to compensate for the added
roof area.It should be noted that the applicant does not consider the proposed roof modification on
the South Elevation an increase of visible mass (See page 5 of Exhibit J).Staff acknowledges that
the current proposal,with the proposed increase outside the existing building envelope,will have
minimal impacts on adjacent properties and will have minimal visual impacts from 9ff-site locations.
The Planning Commission should consider and discuss the following issues:
•Determine if the Commission's direction has been met;and
•Determine if the applicable sections of the criteria set forth in the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area have
been met;and
•Determine if the proposed increased floor area is appropriate;and
•Determine if the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of floor area,
bulk,and mass;and
•Determine if the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of
architectural style and exterior materials.
D.RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning Commission is satisfied with the current proposal,it should:
1.Determine that the project is consistent with the applicable sections of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines (Sec.N.C.)and meets the considerations as set
forth in Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications (Exhibit
A);and
The Planning Commission -Page 3
310 Santa Rosa Drive/S-05-17
March 23,2005
2.Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt,pursuant to Section 15301 of the
California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit A);and
3.Approve the Architecture and Site application subject to the conditions in Exhibit B and as
shown on the development plans (Exhibit K).
If the Commission determines thatchanges are required to the proposed application,it should do one
of the following:
1.Approve the proposed application with additional conditions;or
2.Refer the application back to staff for further work as directed;or
3.Deny the application.
If the application is denied,the Commission should make findings for the denial.The Commission's
comments on key issues will be helpful to the Town Council if an appeal is filed.
ommunity Development
Prepared by:Joel Paulson,Associate Planner
BNL:JP:mdc
cc:John Versgrove,310 Santa Rosa Drive,Los Gatos,CA 95032
TDS Architects,2060 Clarmar Way,San Jose,CA 95128,Attn:Brian Mah
N:\DEV\REPORTS\2005\31 OSantaRosa2.wpd
February 25,2005
T own of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Attn:Joel Paulson,Planner
Subject:
Dear Joel:
Versgrove Residence Remodel
310 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos,CA 95032
PLANNING COMMISSION RESUBMIITAL LEITER
Our Focus:since the Planning Commission Meeting has been in four distinct areas.
• A detailed review of the Commissioners'comments and discussion items.
•Calculation of the existing Attic Space and an analysis of that space for use in the
remodel.[2,332 gross;1,452 net that would be counted against FAR square footage]
::"
• A radical evaluation of the remodel to reduce mass in any relocation of space.
• A sanity check to ensure that our redesign still complies with all exception criteria
Our Solution:for this resubmission draws on the lessons that we have learned in this
exercise,and presents a redesign that addresses the issues raised creatively and
effectively.Notably;we have:
•Reduced the Visible Mass of the structure from its current size
•Removed all dormers from front,right and left elevations
•Eliminated the ridge skylight from north and south elevations
•Reduced the square footage of the upper (attic)level by 331 square feet and are
now requesting only 1,161 SF habitable space at 8.:ceiling sand 72 SF with reduced
ceiling height;rather than 1,544 SF previously requested.
•Eliminated one bedroom from the second floor addition
Our Resubmission:for the Planning Commission hearing comprises:
• A redesign that incorporates all possible mass reduction techniques
• A detailed Mass Analysis showing a net decrease of 57 square ft of Visible Mass
I hope to present this information to you at the Commission Hearing and discuss it further.
()zrUI Y
tlJOhnv~~
EXHIBIT J
FOCUS SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2/9/05 [DETAILS]
REVIEW OF COMMISSIONERS'COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
We spent a great deal of time reviewing the tape of the Commission Meeting 2/9/05 and
listened to the individual comments of the Commissioners in great detail.
•The use of existing 'under roof'attic space for the remodel was seriously considered,
and is addressed in the next section,but was ultimately discarded.
•As the Commissioners discussed in great detail what constituted mass [down to the
possible classification of a skylight's protrusion above the roof plane as an 'increase
in mass']we felt that we could not justify the retention of the north and east facing
dormers in any remodel that we proposed.We considered,and rejected,the use of
skylights because of egress;and inverted dormers because of the impact on the
existing architecture,and waterproofing considerations at the rooms below.
•As a corollary,we hope that the removal of the triple skylight at the east-west ridge
line will be seen as a reduction in mass on both the north and south elevations,from
where it is potentially visible;although we have difficulty in attributing any specific
'mass value'to it.
•In analyzing the Commissioners'comments,we researched the Hillside Guidelines
further,and determined that the use of skylights is also discouraged so as to prevent
the sun from causing glare;as such glazing cannot be shielded easily.
•It is our intent in this remodel to repair many of the defects and deficiencies,such as
the damaged south facing trellis [and planting new drought tolerant plants below it],
but there are so many that we have not specified them in detail on the plans.If the
Commission wishes to condition the Approval of our remodel to include any of these
specifically,then we will accept such conditions.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING ATTIC SPACE
The existing attic and vaulted room space comprises 2,332 square feet.Of this,
approximately 1,452 could be considered as potentially creating mass,being taller than 5'
where the attic space is at least 7'6"tall.Due to the differing roof ridge heights and interior
vaulting,these areas are not contiguous.Access to each of these spaces would involve
individual stair cases.
Because of this reason,it was not possible to design a remodel,achieving habitable space
and complying with fire and egress code requirements,while remaining purely under the
eXisting roof profile.
EVALUATION OF THE REMODEL IN TERMS OF MASS REDUCTION
The original internal home lay-out was not well conceived and the project goal of re-
distributing the rooms within the existing house envelope to enjoy the views of the Los
Gatos Hillsides remains.After careful consideration of the existing attic space and the
Commissioners'comments,however,we determined that it would be necessary to radically
re-evaluate the design so as not to add visible mass.We looked at the remodel critically to
see how this could be achieved.
So as to quantify the addition and removal of elements of the building in the remodel,we
have calculated the cross sectional area in square feet [SF]of each element to determine its
impact on Visible Mass.
• ,The removal of the lower south facing roof in our original submission did not reduce
mass,because we were adding a significant trellis element in the design.We have
eliminated this.This roof removal now substantially reduces the mass from both
east and west elevations.[Visible Mass Reduction =-147.5 SF]
•This enabled us to eliminate three dormers that contributed significantly to the
increase in visible mass in our first sUbmission.One or more of these dormers were
visible from all elevations except the south.[Visible Mass Reduction =-89.75 SF on
each of 3 elevations for a total of -269 SF]
•The elimination of the ridge skylight from north and south elevations reduces mass,
but not in any really quantifiable way,maybe a couple of feet.[Visible Mass
Reduction =-2SF -ignored for this computation]
•The roof element incorporated into the remodel,with no overall increase in height,
added negligible visible mass as viewed fro(1l most directions [+33SF,north and
south;+49.5SF,right].At the left elevation +122.5SF is added in one location,while -
147.5 is removed in another for a net decrease Visible Mass Reduction -25SF).
•As seen in the accompanying VISIBLE MASS TABLE and ACCOMPANYING
ELEVATIONS,this revised submission results in a NET DECREASE IN VISIBLE
MASS of -57SF.
SANITY CHECK
After the redesign we re-evaluated the proposal against the Exception Criteria again,to
ensure that we still complied:
•Development is not visible from the viewing platforms.
•There is no impact on trees
•There is no grading
•Standards are all met,or if not met -such as overall height <35'[which is 41 '7"J-
then this project does not exacerbate the situation.
•Compliance to Title 24 energy standards can be a condition of the project.
•The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic installation and can be
conditioned·as such.
•Interlocking pavers have been used in the driveway;project complies.
•We are dealing with existing visible mass.This is not applicable.
•There is no visual impact on neighboring properties.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the Commissioners'concerns carefully and have comprehensively
redesigned our remodel to Reduce Visible Mass,scaling back our request to achieve this.
VISIBLE MASS TABLE
ELEVATION ,INCREASE DECREASE TOTAL
::""
NORTH [Front]+33 SKylight +33
EAST [Left Side]+122.5 -147.5 -25
SOUTH [Rear]+33 Skylight +33
.WEST [Right Side]+49.5 -147.5 -98-
TOTAL:+238 -295.0 -57
NET OVERALL MASS ·REDUCTION 57 SQ.FT.+ 2 SKYLIGHTS
ROOF ADDED
Mass Increase [+122.5 SF]
ROOF REMOVED --\
Mass Decrease [-147.5 SF].
I ~
'--------L ~.
ROOF ADDED"'''"''
Mass Increase [+33 SF]
EAST ELEVA nON (Left Side)
Net Mass Change [-35 SF ]
DORMER ELIMINA TED
[From Original Submission]
Mass Not Added [89.75SF]
D.oRMER ELIMINA TED
[From Original Submission]
Mass Not Added [89.75SF]
II·:·
-!--,..
SKYLIGHT.P~MOVED
Hillside Guidelines Benefit
NORTH ELEVA nON (Front)
Net Mass Change [+33 SF]
ROOF ADDED
Mass Increase [+49.5 SF ]
ROOF REMOVED
Mass Decrease [-147.5 SF ]
SOUTH ELEVATION (Rear)
Net Mass Change [+33 SF ]
ROOF ADDED
Mass Increase [+33 SF]
--,?".DORMER ELIMINATED
r'~[From Original Submission]
I Mass Not Added [,89.75SF]
-=-=£~~~~~'-ROOF REMOVED
No Visible Mass Change
This Elevation
o [IJ
._-ROOF MODIFIED
No Visible Mass Chang'e
-,
'-_.:.;.-';"---~----.-.
SKYLIGHT REMOVED
Hillside Guidelines Benefit
WEST ELEVA nON (Right Side)
Net Mass Change [-98 SF ]
UJ
lillm"%Wii;I!>i)1 Rm$:l~:~;C0il;F .•.i.·;.>i.1
1;";'<.i ,·L IF .·oo.:'i.l.l~.
APN Address House Size Garage Size Lot Size F.A.R.
527-55-003 100 Auzerais Ct.6,634 sq.ft.780 sq.ft..92 ac..175
527-55-004 104 Auzerais Ct.6,013 sq.ft.768 sq.ft..96 ac..153
527-55-007 101 Auzerais Ct.5,073 sq.ft.850 sq.ft..96 ac..132
527-55-008 100 Madera Ct.5,952 sq.ft.864 sq.ft..97 ac..152
527-55-009 104 Madera Ct.3,224 sq.ft.576 sq.ft..92 ac..085
527-55-024 321 Santa Rosa Dr.6,706 sq.ft.869 sq.ft.1.09 ac..151
527-55-025 331 Santa Rosa Dr.6,998 sq.ft.886 sq.ft..92 ac..187
527-55-026 311 Santa Rosa Dr.5,810 sq.ft.710 sq.ft.1.27 ac..111
527-55-027 301 Santa Rosa Dr.5,283 sq.ft.600 sq.ft.1 ac..126
527-55-035 300 Santa Rosa Dr.6,934 sq.ft.819 sq.ft.1.19 ac..142
527-55-037 320 Santa Rosa Dr.5,291 sq.ft.888 sq.ft.1.75 ac..076
527-55-038 141 Alta Tierra Ct.6,676 sq.ft.792 sq.ft.1.32 ac..123
527-55-043 400 Santa Rosa Dr.4,628 sq.ft.736 sq.ft.1.15 ac..099
527-55-044 410 Santa Rosa Dr.5,241 sq.ft.794 sq.ft.2.13 ac..061
527-55-045 420 Santa Rosa Dr.5,644 sq.ft.1,004 sq.ft..99 ac..145
537-31-001 180 Sierra Azule 6,090 sq.ft.960 sq.ft.2.44 ac..063
537-31-002 160 Sierra Azule 5,777 sq.ft.792 sq.ft.1.13 ac..125
537-31-003 150 Sierra Azule 6,253 sq.ft.949 sq.ft.1.14 ac..137
537-31-006 165 Sierra Azule 4,574 sq.ft.838 sq.ft.1 ac..115
537-31-007 155 Sierra Azule 5,194 sq.ft.817 sq.ft.1.01 ac..128
537-31-008 145 Sierra Azule 5,590 sq.ft.859 sq.ft.1.11 ac..125
537-31-009 135 Sierra Azule 5,320 sq.ft.751 sq.ft.1.19 ac..109
537-31-010 125 Sierra Azule 5,951 sq.ft.744 sq.ft.1.20 ac..120
537-31-011 115 Sierra Azule 5,378 sq.ft.769 sq.ft.1.27 ac..104
537-31-022 130 Sierra Azule 4,788 sq.ft.833 sq.ft.1.26 ac..095
537-31-023 120 Sierra Azule 5,870 sq.ft.941 sq.ft.1.24 ac..119
Existing·310 Santa Rosa Dr.6,447 sq.ft.836 sq.ft.1.4 ac..113
Proposed Project 310 Santa Rosa Dr.7,680 sq.ft.836 sq.ft.1.4 ac..133
N:\DEVIJOELIPLANNINGI310SantnRosaHouseSlZe2.wpd
Attachment 8
~';;;;;;:JG z:g;;&
>
~
+-'-~Q)
I )J
' /L
Q),,eno
-:J
0-11
ARCHITECTS,INC.
total design solutions
\.l!:;/PfWHi u.ee oer.......DPUIH QllUat
...u 16 eHc»l1OlC41E6~~
,,
! '
.....
CVR
---I&&ED FCRe:tTT~"",/Dolf'LIIMG OEI'T.CGtnIll&_
Of'
~
~i A$N:>1W
;'ft5li&OfUiQ
2~'lI-
iMlW
!,-~
COVER SHEET
Attachment 9
""OMI.T.OTU,,'f'I.A".'''.
i"T.'UOIll •••,...
i--
i
I
I
i
310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I
LOS GATOS,CA \
95032 I
I
toeOa..NWr.W!.WAY &Nt.a:JeE,~"
~m-1i4t P/IX o4Oe-wr-QU4
CITY PLANNING
i
i........
JOHN VERSGROVE
RESIDENCE .
REMODEL!ADDITION
;!
i
~=::===~====I
j
j
:MVID
=
~
""""...
--
--
".~
...,
w
~,
'u
~
....
""
~
up,,~....lt.
~
~
~;;~
:;;~
~3t.OOOoq.~
~:JZ..c.Il,~~__•
2625 5GlFI'.
~I&5GlFI'•
(66<!l 5GlFI')
(6~5GlFI')
f=.AR.•.23
i'l.OOR AI'l:A RATIO.~ti.k~FT.
51e&5GlFT.
~5GlFI'.
(836 5GlFI')
~36 5GlFT.
(6e'!l5GlFl')
~,
=
~25 5GlFI'•
61M3 5GlFI'.
~s.
IM2'5GlFI'.
~$~20.~IX3$._
1OSlUC11Cl(Cf NET 5!TE._,~
3~
RB:?!J<IIQ!C'NET SIn;al 5LOf'!>!:j LOTS
F AVERK.E :lla(..F£FCS\T OF lET LOT AI'l:A TO BE
LOT 5l.OFl;15 DEtXlC1ID -_FUJ5 3$FOFl EACIlI"
W.e!-30$,OF5LOPE~=
JoIIl~
3II/lSAllrA I'lO$A DR
Lo&GATo&.CA $032
5i!l~~·5656
TD5 .AR:Il11ECT5
W60 Cl.AR1AR lJ!Ay
5kl JOSE,CA 95QB
-ltlB-~"-~1-41
FAX~·~"-~
6RI-'1l HAl-!
~..,..
CLIEIlT
~,"
','..:.~.
,',"7i~~~,,.>,,,::,:.,",1
.l AA::flITECT
CGUlTT CODE5 .aND ORDtlANcE5o
(HCUDm AN'r .aND ALL APFlICA6I..E
LCCAL.5TATE,FeDERAl.l.AIlI5.aND
I'SUATIalSl
cO.Nrr c:otJE$,
CALFCRlfA 6UIl.Dm CODE (~
CALFCRlfA l1EClWlICAL CODE (CI1C.1ffi
CALFCRlfA f'l..\I'eIl:;o CODE (a=c:.'m1 '
NATlCli<\L a.EclRIC CODE CI£CJm6
CALFCRlfA RI'l:CODE (CFCJ
lH.E55 Ol!a'llISE 5TAlED,IT IS I:IlEWED miT ll£
~CODE5 .aND I'SUATI0N5 ~TO ll£LATE5T
EOITIal Of'.~t{FOFl:e alll£DATE OF ll£
CCtlrRACT:
EXJSlm COtDl1ONS
ALL ~TIalI'l:LATIG TO EXl5TN::;CalS1IJCT1al
IS GMN At;!lEm ll£llE5T N'QR1ATIal AYAlLAel.E.
ll£CC>lTAACr0f'.5IlAI..I.\'ERlFY ALL EXl5Tm
CQlDm0N5,D~•.aND !lUILDIII:>DA1U15 AT ll£
JOe 61lE.AN'r DISCREI'.oNcIE5 i<EClJI_MCOFtCATIal
TO T1-E CalSTPlJCTICll DClCl.t&lTS 5WLl.BE I'l:f'ORTED
TO T1-E AA::flITECT M1EDIATELY.No MCOFtCATI0N5
5WLl.6E MADE 61'Tl£~0f'.1l.I1llaJT
~A1.f'F1Q1ll£A!'CH11ECT.
ALL ll.l::l!'K TO !lE IN.6CCCl'OANcE urnl ~
At;5TAlED IN ll£FOLLOIIIN:i COOE5.
CODES
2.ALL DIt13'l5ICtl5 .oRE T~~F.o.5.1K.E55
01I-El'lllSE 00lED.
l ~DNEN5~5IlAI..I.T"*E ~
0'0£R 5CALED DNEN5~.DO tcr 5CAI..E
Df<'lIlI(;6.
j.
.!
IlBUIlll>U.
EXl5T1GIlll>U.
CCtlC!<ETE
I'1;'rAl.
eRIcK
HA5ONR'f •PIAl
SOIL
""",,"TYr'I!
8"l'teoL toteAtE&'MATttB1 ~Ie
lOeE~Q{ne:M.1.rrlOm:::vtQ(
'.",.""",
.matTOlJ5nrtiCN""'-"""'''''"''''''''''IH>OIlTYr'l!
txXlPtNAA<.IIlEf'£RTODOClR~
'CAl cv.eF£~tofCA.tm.ArCt1YE LEJf'
ATI"'Aft.a:~
~~~lioruatGlllt.u-EM
J.......I&$OLH 1()fC.,llE$o.atE tIItJaW
1l'll.eect1G1<~
~a.J;vA11Ct{.AeO"weDAnt1l"01<t'
1m-"""""IW.\.TYr'I!'
@--
~
@
tn8'lSOfItat~aevAtta4N.t'eE1t
D!'Al'ti UQlE a.E(,I,llQ(III DfWH Cftuef
AYI6s.tV(~1E'&6Al"E~
~~
Wr4 """'~
~l5t"OT~EUv...TJc:t(t{1"UH.
~Gmue~
tx\,,",AL~
Ef
~
I!I !I I ~-ELEVATfCN
..;;,;},j';,l
l!!'l,ill'l pI!"illil d
~
W/ij/ij/M..,.
k·:;,.;··,.:·.··,;:··~·';:1..,.
!~
1
2
0-
o
II)
I")o
II)
oo
0J
-~~r--
,.,/....----
~---o
L>
(J
II)
~o
~
C'I
/'
D::::>
U
o
[l
:r:::
/'woo
W
D::::
W
:5o
0-
/'
/'
01
$:
u
/'
(fJ
o
u
/'oo
Lf)
,~
o
~
C'I
/'o
,D,-----P~
'':'''1
/'
::1
IIiUA04 I
\
'A1.0
--
--
.....OKIT.OTU ...
PLAIUUMe.
'.T ••'o •••_•••
i A5tl:>ta>
;..._~-
2-!DG"'''''''''
ere.filii %i $*
total d ••lgn solution.
I.
\---
\CITY PLANNING ,\
ARCHITECTS,INC.
.:,
i REFERNECE
I SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN
118T FLOOR DEMO PLAN
I
i';;HN VERSGROVE I
!RE$IDENCE I
:REMODEL!ADDITION I
1 •I1310SANTAROSADRIVEIILOSGATOS.CA I
i 95032
He $5 !i 6&?Wi 1'5"
10Ml_
DEMO I~FIX'TlJRES
DEMO ai)DOOR
I
DEMO IE>IIJINDOJJ
It8:I DI:l1O IE?COLlMI
(J ,
I
NOTES I
I '
NO EXISm:;T1<EE5 OYER 4'IN DIN1.1lJILL 6E
REI1OVEO AS A RESULT a'THIS PROJECT .AND THE
FROF05EDDMLOFI1ENT lULL NOT ENCROACH
WITHIN DRlPU:-lE Cf ;\NY EXISm:;TREES_'
\
2.NO NEllI ~AL f'l..ANTS lULL 6E NtFl::lDUCED
M>PART a'THIS FROJECT.
"
3.NO NEllI ~~WALLS lULL 6E cal5TF!lJClED.
4.f'lmOYOLTAIC P.6I-a.S WILL BE INSTALLED AND NEllI
~WILL BE DOJ6Li:PANED.
S.EXTERIOR Ul<\l.L DI:l1OLITION CALCULATION
IE)NET Ul<\l.L AREA IEXCLUDES D90RI WIHDOJJ
OFEN~)i 35431 SF
FROF05EDiNET Ul<\l.L REI10YAL •10.4 SF
(A)Si/)1V MAX ALLOlJAElLE CONTNJ0U5 WALL AREA
((E)NET AIf:A X ~J •mlh SF
FINAL ce:tll'W<::lJ5 WALl AREA.3412ll SF
UI-llCH IS GREATER TH,<!N Si/)1V,THEREFORE CK
LEGEI\m
'I
I=DEMO lEi WALL
f\
IIIlIIIIIlCII
~Jf--~.:....:.S~T-D-E-M-O-FL-O-:.O-R-P-L-A-N--~__SCAlE:V8"-1-O"
I
I
Rk========Ji:>i
r----':"------------------,""/1"0("'------(I
"",/1 I I''''...,/'iii
'''',,':1 :
'..,'.I I I
'\,I I IYlr------l.I
I "',II...t:"\1","
!"'",:,,,',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCALE:1f16"a1-0",
I1'FOf<l1ATION 5IlOJN WM>TAKEN FM1 D~PREPARED BY RA'Tt1CI-ID ROCKER.AlA,4112~~.
PL,.!N 5I-lOUN IlA5 NOT BEEN VERIFIED OR CI'.ECKED BY A ClYIL m:i1NEER.
REFERENCE SITE PLAN I ROOF PLAN
"'<-',L-f-t-IEJ PAVED DRlYEWAY
lNO Cl-lAHGEJ
I
Ii,
I
I
fi~
I
i I
!.)--IEJ5IDEYAADSET
,I BACK-NO ~.6I-I::iE~i"
;,".
.-
I I .
I
------!
IEJ REAR 'I'AAD SET
BACK-NO~.6I-I::iE
,...-----(E)PAYl:D ~
(NO~,
,...----(E)RETAINIKa WALL
(NO Cl-lAHGEJ !
--..:...----.:-.--
-'
IEJ SIDE 'I'AAD SET \
BACK-NO CI-IAHGE
IEJ STONE UJALI:JIlA=:r__\L..__-7-_---=::::::::=~=7~
(NO Cl-lAHGEJ \
IEJLAND~\
NOT 5IlOJN \~
(EJPAYl:D
DRl't9JJAY
(NO Cl-lAHGEJ -----'-----T-:-<
\
i
\
\
\
IE)L-\5TAI~~~\
(NOql.6I-I::iEJ~
\'\/r;""i'H;',;-,'--n77'777777.F
\IN!TRELLIS\
\'
\
VEJROCf
\
\
\'
'IEJ PAYl:D PATIO
(NO~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~-----------[_(E)FRop.llNE
\----
\'..-----------~
\
_,-'REARyARo -----~
\---
\.-----
\;----
\
<C
../
Ul
o
U
'/'oo
LD...q-
o
...q
C'J
/"ooo'---../~
C'J
/'
6
Q.
I
/w
C)
o
W
0:::
W
So
Q.
/
/
Ll)oo
/-~,C"!
(~"/r-----
~
o
>
~
/-\-+--'
,I Q)
\,/""""'"'")
"-
,;Q)
(J)
o
(--l
,
i
II'
.I,
!
A2.0....
PROPOSED 1ST &
2ND FLOOR PLAN
\-m.__-.r~
;2,,*,-
I~
io.-.n.
a ?*riB
~i-=_=_.---------t
i
""OMIT.OT"."•
..LA.UCl ••
'.T."'OA •••,••
ARCHITECTS,INC.
1:01:"d ••lgn aolu1:lons
i I1310SANTAROSADRIVEl
i LOS GATOS,CA 1
i 95032 1;l
I
I
I
1 CITY PLANNING I
I
I....
I JOHN VERSGROVEIRESIDENCE'iIREMODELIADDITIONl
.l
l.
I
I~
r!!
(E)ik!:lI'-2'
61'-6'
I PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN2
......'--+....,..'W"--.OIlIUII...
(E)i3-4'-I'
,"
~-----
A •
-..J A3.2
(E)il€ll'-2'
I---il--LCILER LEVEl FlXf LINE
\
(E)il€ll'-2'
LCILER LEvEl DECK.LINE
I
I
I
I
I
I
~:
I
,--1
•
-MLYIlOtII
\I PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN1
lII'"\\~\
\
-01
5
--0
o
(\J«
L.()
...q-
o...q-
0J
./'o
0J
I«
./'(n
1";,
o
L.()
oo
0J
'",['..
-,.)~
/-~
o
CL
I
/''wo
ci
W
a:
W:so
0...
;/
/'
o
u
./'o
,0
L()
...q-
o...q-
N
./'o
",0")0'
'--...q-
N
./'
'".1
4W &t '"1%kdi **
II.
I
I
I
\
I
'WA
-I
A3.0
hWA'
---
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
f*M i,f@.ill
~M:IlIlUiAStlOla>
!2-"";""il
\--
r--=,-jl6'a<
11ll\TW.
-'"--
total design solutions
JOOl)Cl.AfIINft WA.y UH .lOtI!.e.trUICftM MIN
"'~1141 PAX:<4Oe-OT1.....u4 .
ARCHITECTS,INC.
J,"OMITaOTUfil.
.LA ••,IC_
'ftTtlftla"..
I JOHN VERSGROVE
I RESIDENCE 0IREMODEL!ADDITION 0
1
,I
I 310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE \!LOS GATOS,CA i
,95032 I
\
iCITY PLANNtoIG ·1
I
~-~-----11
i
(EiGRADE
MAX.RIDGE Hr.
l30UTH ON SAtO'A ROSA ORNE
o VIEW LOOKING @ FRONT ELEVATION
MAX.RIDGE liT.
CASIN:i •
WINDCIIJ5·HATCH eEi
REFlACE eEi uo.BAneNs
••REFLACE WI (IV 5TUCCb.
om>.ALL Al<CUID WOOD 0
CA51tl:>TO REMAIN.
~WALL TO BE REI"fOVa)
WEST ELEVATION (COURTYARD)
SCALE:1/8"-1-0"
(IV UlOOD COL·
PAINiED -----I
(EJ Fl.R.Leva.
TERRACE LEVa.
(IV CCtlCRETE TILE
FlXf.TYP.
(Ei ROCf LINE TO BE
REI1O\o1:D ----~
rEi MAX.RIDGE Hr.
(IV DOFtIER --~
~20.,I---:E=-A-;;-;-;:S=-T~E==-I:=-:E==-V_ATIO-'-'--_N _L.:.J SCALE:1/8"-1-0"
iN)CCl'lCRETE TILE.
TYP.
1111INORTH B.EVATIONSCALE:1/8"-1-0".
..
01"")
o
-:2
0...
o
0...::t
'/woo
W
0::::
W:so
0...
/
/
-OJ
5
u
1'-;«
LO
~o
~
0J
/o
01")
I«
/
U)
o
u
/"oo
LO
~o..q
0J
/o
\0.10
~..q
o 0J
/0
"C)
;0
A3.1
....-
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
i2~
1.....-..
[«llU
I>6tlOTED
kiM?&¥#&fa ¥¥
total design solutions
ICITY PLANNING
..ROMn.aTVIU . -
PL".'UIl.
'_T ••tO •••••••
AR·CHITECTS,INC.
,I
:\:'310 SANTA ROSA oRtVE I
LOS GATOS.CA . \
i 95032 i
j iI'
!
\
,I
I !
I \i=-=-=---------+j
\
i·
\
j.
,""*'*
JOHN VERSGROVE
!RESIDENcE
i REMODEL!ADDITION
.t:::'::::::::=::=======1
OLD ROOF LINE
,-----+--(El r<ocf ElE'r'cw
(Hl IllOOD TRELLIS,
FAINTED
--+_-nl
8---(El ~WEY TO eE
RELOCATED
~--........
(El SKYLIGJ.lT TO eE
FS10vED
.EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION .8//%1.ro eE DCMa-Im:D
2 I~~-~-:-----~=-.SCALE:1Ia--f-0"~UI.o!LL TO eE REI1OVEO
VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST (FROM SHANNON &SANTA ROSA)
VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM ACROSS VALLEY (FROM LARGE ESTATE)
>
'<j-
-I-'
G)
~
\L0-
G)
,!(J)
0
......J
CL
I
,/'w
-(.:J
0
W
0::::w
5
0
CL
,/'
,/'
-2
CL
r----
0
OJ
n
0
L.O
0
0
,N,."---~
-~'-;:---
1:'
0
-IJ1
5:v
......-:-
n«
L.O
'<j-
b
'<j-
N
,/'
n
I«
,/'
en
0
U
,/'
0
0
Ln
'<j-
0
'<j-
N
,/'
0
PD
'---.--'::t
.~
,/'
G
iiiw
A3.2
---
¥#AM
I 2-.u2dog
!
:-
lJ6'C<l.
il:ll\1'a
I~
total design solutlona
AIiOMIT.OTIlIIlt.
PLA ••Clle
'111"'.""0111 ••••••
=1
\.I
I CITY PLANNING
SECTIONS
ARCHITECTS,INC.
1I
I
\
\I·
I
,.1.
1310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I
!LOS GATOS,eft..i
195032 i
I I
.\
!JOHN VERSGROVE
I RESIDENCE
I REMODEL!ADDITION
CEIL~
(E)GR.lEYEL
(N)2ND lEYEL
(E)FINISH FL.Ul.
(E)MAX.RIDGE HT.
(H)2ND lEYEL
CEIL~
w ./(E)Fl.ATE HEIGHT
(E)FINISH FL.Ul.
(EiGR.
(EJ Fl.ATE HEIGHT
•(E)MAX.RIDGE Hr.
w
.w
r----RELOCATED
CHIl'N:Y
r---(E)ROC!'SLOPE
RELOCATED
CHlf1'IE"(
ROC!'TO
REl10VED
OO~TETILEROC!'.TYP.RELOCATED
CHIH'!EY
\'I SECTION··B ~MODIFICATICfl TO ROCl'(
I
3 -8CAU~~~~------~-----~==/=(:/:{{~'~/>D=.:D~ITIC«=TO:..:L~IY1H::>=5f'=ACE=--_
.•SCALE:1fS"Jlf-O"
II 21'r1SKE~.[CE:TI017i~N;f.:ijAi--~--------=~://::/::~:/:/~~=D~~=:~~~=-~=Li~~ROC!'=5f'::O==-_
.SCALE:1fS"Jlf-O"
•MAx.RIDGE HT.
CL
I
/'w
'0o.w
0::::
W
So
CL
/'
;/"
.2
CL
.~
L()
01
5:
u
0J
1'0
<C
Ll)
..q-
o
..q-
0J
/'
0.1
1'0.I
<C
/'
(/l
o
U
/'oo
Ll)
..q-
°..q-
.~
/'o
_0
,t2
~~-0.1
/'
Ll)oo
N
~..!'--
-~'/).,--
/0
wwQ4A"
---,I
I~~A4.0 I
\
i CITY PLANNING
1oo1oal d ....lgn ..olu1olon..
...Il.OtUTKOT.",.
.LA...t ....
..,T••fO"......
PHOTOS
~-----I
·1
1
!
i~IIJOHNVERSGROVEI
IRES~ENCE \
i REMODEL/ADDITION !
.I
ARCHITECTS,INC.
.1
SOUTH ELEVATION (PARTIAL)
FAMIL Y ROOM &LOWER FLOOR
SOUTH'ELEVATION (COURTYARD)
GARAGE.(RIGHT,SDE),
FRONT ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION (LEFT SIDE)
0...
I
;/
w
C)
ow
~w
So
0-
,/'
,/'
-2
0-
,~
n
o
N
n
'0
LOo
"0
,~
~'\r----.
I,,-
0'
-OJ
3:
:u
~.«
LO'
~o
~
N
,/'
,0
~
I«
,/'
Ul
o
U
,/'
oo
Lll
~o
-.;;j'
N
/"oo
h)-;-
--""J"
N'
/"
-I-'
Q)
/\J
f )!.-
\Q)
'if)
,,0
-.J
1
l
i
i
I
I·
I
I
CVR....
Attachment 9
---1e&.ED FGR etrr f'I.Atltl:;M2~
PUH*ti CEPT.cetf'ENf&~i
III25/olU
ASll:7lCO
Z~5CVR4og
2_
COVER SHEET
CITY PLANNING
ASicR
~
=-j
~Ml1I
jOl'lMlft
,
I ar
\'--
I
I
I
j
--------l
.!
310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I
LOS GATOS,CA II'
95032 I
I
:toeo a.JrAWI WAY lINt .IOeI'.0AI...P0fH0\0IJtII
"**V77-1'Mt PAX 0408-Q17-Q:W4
"ftOMf.TaOTU".."A ••I".
U1TC'UO"•••••"
total design .olutlons
ARCHITECTS,INC.
!"'fI)
ii-_
.........
JOHN,VERSGROVE
RESIDENCE .
,REMODEL!ADDITION
".,
,,~
~
""....
"'"..,
........
--
".,........,--
AISow..bklAoor~
M21~.
J5.1.4.25~.
6f>&3~.
2625~.
&I&~.
(660~)
(64(,SQfT)
51e&SQfT.
U~~.
(e36~)
436 SQfT.
(600~)
I +LOJER lEVa
2 •LOleR lEVa
v
521-5&~
~/>C (6lI~5GF1')
u.,
'u,.,
~.
~.
DA,.,n.
~
,.,,.,
~
~
~,
iU
iU
",
,.,
x:;
--~
23,'1&4~.
6D~5Q.FT.
-23JtM SClEt
51)""5Q.FT.
..."'l),!IQO,q.,lt.
"I'llill,OOloq.lt.
~~
~~
~~
..",n,oaoll:l.1t.
...trO"p;l:I,q,fL
~
....U,GQCIoq.,fL
,.lI.Ilil,OllQ-t.fL
..."''n,DDCI_fL
"'ll>l6,CIOIl~fL
...trVpro,q,fL
~::,llOO....1t.
~~
~~
~~
~~""It.__~
1~-t-R:.-.:l1css
..",U,Doooq.,/t.
~"OVER 2f2).~1 X 5".5~
REtl\ICTtctl CF NET &lTE.~+~
5~
!<EDIIClfql C'NET 5!JE C!i &.of>!!:!:j l0!5
F AVEfW;E THe(..I"El'aI\T G'lET Lor Al<EA TO 6E
LOT &.Of£1&,DEDUc1ED -~FlU&5"FOR EAcH 10;
WJf)1 -30"i CE eLOPE oveR_
<W15TFLG>(lR,
<W2NO FLOOl~
<WTRELLI5ED ~
<W 2NO Fl.OOl~DEcK,
.i;
"
~~
310 SIlNrA f'lCl5A DR,
LOS GlATOS,CA 'il5032
510..J,W-56!6
TD&AACIlITECTS
W60 CI.AI'l1AR 1Il4l'
&;.IN JoSE.CA ~U&
04t>e-~1T-~141
EAXo4t>e-~1T-~
IlRI.aNHAH
~V'
ClIEllT
~wt,.
,!Ai'l::HtTECT
CCUlTY CODES ,IN[)ORDW/ol::E5o
(tlClJ[)N5 .oNr ,o\K)AlL APFLICA9LE
Loc.oL.&TATE,FEDERAL lAIltl ,o\K)
~T1ctl51
"Ill WOFK TO eE IN ACO::R>ANcE urnl ~
~STATED II{TIE FOllClllll::.CODE&.
cCuIrr c:ooes,
EXlSlm COtUT1ONS
CALIF<lf1NIA 1lIJIlDN5 CODE (CIlC:m&
CALIF<lf1NIA~CODE(~
CALIF<lf1NIA F'!Jl'eItI:i CODE (~,
NAl1ctlAL B..ECTF!lC CODE ~
CALIF<lf1NIA FIRE CODE (c:fC)
lH.E55 cmaouSE STATED,IT 15 tllEIVeD mAT M;
~CODE&,IN[)~T1ctl5Fil3'l'R TO M;LA1E&T
EDITIctl OR ~tl f'Ol;l::C ctl M;DATE CE M;
CQITR.lCT;
CODES
"Ill tFOf'l1ATJctlI'S.ATNi TO EX1&TNi Cctl6~
15 G1.,g{~eEN5 M;!lE&T IH'<:>R1ATlctl AVAllAllLE.
M;~&!l.'l.L'<a<lE'r"lll EXlSTIIl:i
caomctl5,Df'EH5lctl5,,o\K)rlUILDIIl:i DAT1J1&AT M;
.lOa &Ire..oNr DI6CllEP.aNClES REClJI_MODiFlCATlctl
TO M;Cctl6T!'lJ:;l1ctl DOClI"EIlT5 &!l.'l.L eE REPORTED
TO M;Ai'l::HtTECT tt1EDIAlELl'.No MODACATIctl5
6IlAl.L 6E MADE Ill'M;CctltR.'CTOR 1U1HOUT
Al'f'IOOVAL FPa1 M;AACIlllECT.
2.AlL DI'el&lctl&ARE T.ol<EN FPa1 E.o.s.l.N.EOO
cmaouSE HOlED.
l ~DNEtl5~&!l.'l.L TAKE ~
oveR &C.6LED DNEtl5Ictl5.DO NOT 5C.6LE
~.
310 SANTA ROSA DR,
LOS GATOS,CA.95032
JOHN VERSGROVE
RESIDENCE REMODELI
ADDITION
i
~.
.!
EX1STmuw..L
HSlJuw..L
------~----------------------------,-------------~-------------,
.'iPRO.ECT '.i DRAWN3 HlEX.. I PfnECT DATA .i
~1 AACIlITEClIlRAL I AFt{,
1 CVR ~IlI£E1'I lEI LOT 5l~
I A-I.(>i'l3'E~$ITE FI.ANI RO<:l'FI.ANI 1 lEI OOIlDID ocaJp.oNe;y~,R
15T FLOOR DB10 FI.A/I
1 A-21~f'l'OFOeED 1ST •ltO F\.OQR FI.A/I 1 (EI TYl"E G'Cctl5T!<L1cTlQN,
I,A-3Jf)Ex!SlIOR ElEVATlON$I (EI FIRE 5f'f<I~-TO eE PI'lOYIDEP
A-3J Ex!SlIOR ElEVATIal$•EXISTm f'IlOTOSI·A-52 eECT~1 lEI lU"eER Cl'STeRlE&.
I A-J,Jf)ADDI11GN.4L f'IlOTOS 1 f'ROf'OeED titUs q M0RIE5
I I EXl51W 5<:xJJFf FOQ!K£
I I W~~
LOJER~I I WGAAA:>E ,I
I I GAR ~.(~.55 4l!l0 5QF1'),
i (EJ DECK.:I
1 1 (E)5Q.FT.T;'.AL
I I f'ROf'OeEO tt-JJ/~FOQ!K£
I 1
1 I
I I
I 1 <W 5Q.FT.toi.AL
1 I E!.OOR ABEAMIlQ
1 'I TOTAL FLOOR Al<EA,
I PRO.ECT DESCRPTION I EAR,C.Al..Cl!!.ATlctl
M;f'IOOJECT Cctl616T5 G'f<S1ODEllll:i M;ATTIC FLOCR AREA15f'ACE Alb RELOCJ.TIIl:i EXlSTN5 6EDROCI15.Alb 1 ~flOOR AREA RATIO.LOT Al<EA
I"RO'<1DE OUTDOOR TE!Ol<ACE •eALcaf(i
1 •I t'lOOR AREA RATIO.~{i~lI<6sJIFT.L -~----J ~~.n
I I IGEN:RAL NOTES !,VICNTY MAP HTS 1 I
I 1
1 I
I 1
I 1 A~LOreLOPE.23"<eA5EDctlWTOPOHAPiI~~~)
ACCE5&DOOR
Slffl.l'AIR
Dil'fUSER
RE1U'N AIR
Dil'fUSER
El4IAlJ5T AIR
DtmIeER
Ia'ARLTER
LIGlIr FIXlURE
LIGlIr FIXlURE
o LIGlIrFlXlURE
o CE1l1ll:i11Cl.ll1ED EXIT elGll
10t~'l'!~:;'~~CE~~
10t~~~~D~~~
G)5!'EAI'ER
®et1CKE DETECTOR
N'S J.EAo
tl&LATlCN-RI<iID
tl&LATJctl·ElATT
ACClJ5nc TILE ORP,I/EL
F1.'l1l.t'OD
~Cl<
caQ8E
Gl'r1'6ll11lOA1'D
~.FI.A/I
SlWA1ORTAA!FI.A5TER
HErAL
50lL
~TTP!!
S"rtec:t.H:>fC.o\TE&1IU.T RB1.e>te4elCtEJ 1&
TOeEe:em::PB,)Q1"M!1IlAU.rr~$QHQ(
t:lOCIRl1AAC.IlEfERTO DOOR~
"CAl CIJ.El;t;~tofC.A1E&ACtt'rE 1£M'
ATf'~a=~
DftAIlHi ~~-lioruutOltuec
A ...i&el-QH fC:>k::Aa &.oltE PIWHi}
'"""MotE
I15'!PtTOlJ&TIti~
M"eC"lll"""~
,"""TTP!!
1lAU.eect1<>l~
~IiUvAT1a(.AeO'rE tM:ntf I"Ot(f
§-_1llLlTTP!!
®-
~
@
\E::!I ~ua:E oer.Al.l6i:lPu1H~U&l
A .....Mo&«::llHN:>iCA.TE&04"E~
~
~
~~ue~
fX\,,",Al.~
~~EXrENoPt~""T'IaCfCt'eBt
DPtAUt:i:Uf3'IlE B.&....T1Qi 1&DIUIH Cftuec
A ....I65aN~tE&~~
.xm.~
InnI ""'"III'eER
~&f'"OT6fUDee..EY'A,l'le:ttI{~
~,,:y I
E·..·..·;-,,-•.,..,J.l·,.l
DltIlIlIIIIIIIII
~
~:::,:;',;;;,,~~(E~ACoGREGATE eA5E
t '.
~
1\/\/\1\/\/\/\11
k·~··,·,,·;·.··,;:~·::1
I!!m!!£Tiwmwml
PJ(_':;.•'~:~:-''
W/#/~
~,..•..
I
I I
I I _G'6D,~.~~••.
.I I RED\ICED LOT Al<EA •,,',:",,_""",."~I'I I:....~>!i,.,:,:":"'.~.i~~.:::..:}·~.I I MAX.Al..~GROS6 R..OCR ~.6f)0t)sarro
i .....-.:1~~.~L..·
~~_~I MAilMUMAtLO~r:iOSSl'LOORAREA
,PRO.ECT DIRECTORY ll~"'-'I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
1 I
I
'Hctilt_.~rar~__"-""1
.I lForbt:l:~'nd:Iot_ot"""'INn:JJ.OODI'qlIIte.r..t,.lhcmlD!mumlJ"lll'Jl\occ'_sMlI;'I bcG,OOO:IqUafIlrtd.tri=u~iI~IIy~PloMlroiCc1n'onlkslDn"~1'l'Ith:.I 1UbscldJa,qcl,~JflI:ID/IMII:lntIml\Qor_}.
~~TIONS - --_.------- ---L ----- -------_L ---------------J ---_.--------T --1_'~-=~~=-1OQ:~-=.~=---J
i .""<n''''..'''''CJ __bt:ft G .'.COPYRIGffi'AlL"""'''''''''''~''''1'UtIO ,~:rER"'~.M..T ~a.¥4 ==-P!J\~~Ff ~AUKT ~~..:mGa~n£T~J re-CHI =~~~~.!=~.C:O~~NE!~.aun CAee"e(t'QlC1f.Clt:llCtCM CIt{E)f"JtlSt::MJON!J GALV,IrHZE 6ALV.IC1I«''.If KA.t\IfJL MT ~I"£ft&a1AlEH:::H~6AKl'MfeeKat e&!..b-......J If I ~JtoIEfllE~n;o.!VCt.\'B)AW~.......T ,&eo ~TlPlal a C1t)IC:Y,IrflD Ql ~txt.~Gl.&Ie.N::1l'HCQ(I'JlI.olCf Me'~aaEX.lE ec:I-l ...........""'"'"tv IIA.~It:~~Ui!EOI•.rtOHce::t+ECt'ICt{lrn{nE:=rre:c::tt:R;TE In C4tQ.1~ce D yP ,r.L.AZ:H::;GLZ lQ"'tW«IW K M:JT'T06C4.£Kt'&~1P£.I,TED ~eet.ECr eEL ~te1'"UA.~IEA,~1M I 6f'ECf'tB)~.H::::t£~elJO.ft:£M,~
AT ~=Q.6 ~~=::::t ~~"""on-~1e LAM ~Cie5C )tOOkJLtldRft ~NOI"CU::;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~caG8\lIE ~~0t1 ft!ET PT ~JOlt LAvATc:p:r LAV ~aKrEft 0::IUOll&I't tlJ:ItGGI"..IM U =~T«i U1'4 tv I roRJHT'~uu.~unarrnElMt1Et{
CkUT OCT PO.tU t:leJL ~Pte 1oEAoT1ti,wm.A.tlCK WA:::LIGUr LT ~e::t'1'"~ItS'Pl TC vnt::UT IlotJ ~Gf1tl6~naEf'I.JtI6AFe~PHS{Pt.ooIt Jl'f azAt::Ur co DCUi Cf{~""'_~~•U<~~CD ~~~eo T1'r'tCAt.T'rI-o:x:o 10 1 M::1'TO~~.awc:.m.~CCf'EDt(.atrr
i ~eM ~1WEft ~=~~~GUt6 ~.~~~t'(~';)======-"lQ(:;e=~~~I'Q(•=:'~~~·TO eE I
i.DONlO eo e:e::tf"OllO"CCtP'~cw I'l.A.TE5Jft I'D ~""I-ICfllI t1AXtU1 t1A.X"lIeJIH If:',:n:a.f'It.~~Hot!OUr:::t«TNo l't)I ~,itOo::.tee(Ta-TO&~I{'M!::==eETe.AO:.~eat:l'lEIE CQ/C ~fOlI(I'.A.H tft(fl.OO!t PUt ~1U.Ta't wu ~t-e::W ~-l"It.1tlrCMra-Il4T lUI'a~:u Y'kco.t tm.Dr ~~~II'SIeE~1l6E.~~i~~T.u-AXRt:i Nt ~=-E ==~~C".ti ~~=~'=::~::=~:a nD6 I ~.~~~~;
•~~El.EGlItlC E.!C 1'\I'lE~.PE tct.u::E N::l.t1MU1 t\t(rt..I.JE l"L ~1.E.&OEft fIlL kC'ta4 fCI.ft&Q:&fU ~~1'Pl:::t1N<'re:ut1Jll3'6H:il~at:U~!
L - ---- ---- - - - - - - - - - - -~~~_~~__~_~~__~_=-~__~_~~~.R_~~
r'AOOm:clUW.sYM3Ot..s---
~=-,f5J
~CZJ =~IVICGliTI:lJOU5 &.0I:l<N::I IClI
-IZI
[6J
~oo
!~'1
LO
:2:
0-
o
LOoo
0J
-<:-',-.f'""".,-
o
'b..
:r
/"woo
W
0:::::
W
:5o
0-
/"
,.,.-/
CJ'l
S
v
I")
o
I->
()
L()
"<to
"<t
C"J
/"
0:::::>
U
/"eno
u
/"oo
L()
"<to
"<t
C"J
/"o"v,b"---'~
C"J
/"
>
~
o
-I-'
\Q)
I J
/L
Q)
.,(n
o
~
4!i
,l
I
!
II:
i;
~,
\
A2.0
--
PROPOSED 1ST &
2ND FLOOR PLAN
r~.;~
i-.~
-1
CITY PLANNING
1i,-;::_=_:=----------t
"fl:O"IT.OTU.".
"LAII"f"_
IflT.,uoa •••,_..
ARCHITECTS,INC.
I 310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I
i LOS GATOS,CA 1
195032 '
I......
I JOHN VERSGROVE
I RESIDENCE .i
i REMODEL!ADDITION I
.\
1.
!.
(E)1101'·2'
611-6'6'·3'
2 'I PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE:VS"-f-O"
~.6DDlTla-IAllMNG SPACE.ISle SGlFT:
~.6DD1T1ONAL DECK.646 SGlFT.
-1.1..'.
lOll:R lEvel DECK lINE
(E)ll€ll'-2'
1---II--lOll:R LEvel f'lXf lINE
\
(E)11€ll'-2'
(E)134'·1'
I
III
I
....J
.'1
~.-----
A .
-----t=-:==-i__._-i-_--.J A3.2
l3«'-10
\~-------I PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN1
\
"0
Cl
I
/
'W
C)
d
W
0::::
W
3:o
Cl
;/'
/
o
-0'
5:
u
o
0J«
LO
.~o
.~
GJ
/o
0,J
I«
/
U)
o
U
/o
.0
LO
~o
'<j-
01
/oo
10,------/'<j-
0,J
/
f'j .
o
LO
oo
GJ
~
.f'--
._')~
\
I
..,.I
A3.0
---
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
i--
310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I
LOS GATOS,CA \
95032
AfIIOMIT.OTU".
PLA ••'••
UIT.''llOa ..
1000 a...NIrMft WAY aMI ~<W.JICfN\MtM
...~-1'Mt P/IX <401-077-8'K4 .
\
!CITY PLANNtlG ·1
I
total design solutions
ARCHITECTS,INC.
\~HN VERSGROVE II
i RESIDENCE
i REMODEL/ADDITION I
t::============~1 .I
i·I
MAX.RIDGE I-IT.
SOUTH ON SAt(TA ROSA DFIVE
VIEW LOOKING @ FRONT ELEVATION
I
!(EJGRADE
MAX.RIDGE HT.
[JI
F<EFLACE (EJ uP.BATTENs
,4 flEFLACE UVCW STUCCO,
.1IP.AlL ARCUlD WOOD .
CASN:>TO REMAIN.
N~~~*~~~~~!-~~~~~:~\~ADDrno<
~UltU TO BE f<El1OYf:D
CW CCNCRETE TILE
f/lXf,1IP.
CW DOi<ttER ---,..
(EJ RJOCf LINE TO BE
f<El1OYf:D -----,
(EJ MAX.RIDGE I-IT,
I 3 I,WEST ELEVATION (COURTYARD)
.~SCAlE:1/8"-1-0"
I 2 ·1'i--:;E=A,,-;-;;S;;;-T-:;-;:E~I::=-:;E=-=-V_ATIO~N _
.,SCALE:1/8"-1-0"
r 1 :1·i--:;NO~·:-:-::R=--TH=-;;EL:-,=E=--V_A_T_IO_N _
~,SCALE:1/8"W1'-0"
CW CCl-lCR!:iE TILE,
TYP.
,,
>..q-
-l-'
Q)
~
~
Q)
(I)
0
-.J
el-
I
'/w
0
0
W
0::
W
S
0
0-
/
/
:2
0-
eD
C"i..
CD
.1")
0
LD
0
0
0.J
~
"\1'--
!.~1"-...
0
-01
5:
-0
/"')«
LD
~
0
~
C"i
/
0
I")
I«
/
(/)
0
u
/
0
0
tD
~
0
-.;j-
C"i
/
0
0
:0',,-:-_/..q-
C"i
/
"0
AJlOHn_OTUIU
"t.A.'U ••
UIT.II.0f!••"."
total d ....lgn solutlons
AR'CHITECTS,INC.
I·!(EJGRADE
r----l--(EJ ROCf WClolD
INJ WOOD T1<aLl&,
PAlNfED
&1IJCCO FIHISH --'----'./
L..-_--DECK ENCLo&UI<S TO Ell:
OF I'lCNCCt16USTiElLE
HAlERW.&.TT?----
--+--.<H
--------
r-r-:-"-7'-.7"-----.---~,.....(EJ ROCf TO Ell:REMOVED '
0-
I
/"
'WC)o
'W
0::::
W
So
0-
/"
/"
I
i
I
II '
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
'riM
!
I'
II
j
,I
I
A3.1
AiM ttH
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
12~
!~~.........-a-...--..!2_
i-I ~
lDo\n;
j~
~--
iCITY PLANNING
I~HN VERSGROVE I'
i RESIDENce I
\REMODEL!ADDITION \,I
---------\
\'310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I
1 LOS GATOS.CA 'i
i 95032 I
SCALE:'V~-O"'
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION,EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATlON,'8//%1 TO BE DEMOLISHED21~~----~=-.SCALE:'V~-O",~I1J.6I..L TO BE REMOVED
VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST (FROM SHANNON &SANTA ROSA)
VIEW LOOKING NORTH'FROM ACROSS VALLEY (FROM LARGE ESTATE)
LI)oo
N
~,
.~
/~
o
n
I«
/"
(/l
o
U
/"aa
L[)
-.;j-
a
-.;j-
N
/'"oa
D'\.
~'''''J"
,~
/"
~\
I
\
.....I
=~I
iiii g
A3.2
-'A$.<:R
I~
A"OMIT.OTV".
PLAlltll,,41
.ffT."IOIl •••,."
-
1
I'ClTY PLANNING,
{
total d.slgn solution.
SECTIONS
I,
).
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
\..1 .
\310 SANTA RO~A DRIVE I!LOS GATOS,CA I
i 95032 I
l
ARCHITECTS,INC.
!JOHN VERSGROVE
!RESIDENCE
!REMODEL!ADDITION
I
i
CEILING
(ElGR.LEVa
(ll)2ND LEvl:L
(EJ F1N15Il Ft.LN.
(EJ FLATt:HEIGHt
(NJ 2ND FLR.LEVa
(EJ MAx.RIDGE Hr.
(ll)2NDLEVa
CEILING
(EJ F1N15Il Ft.LN.
(ElGR.
(EJ FLATE HEIGHt
,(EJ MAx.RIDGE Hr.
-.1..
~---FaOCAiED
CH/l"toIEy
(EJ~SLOFE
FaOCATED
CHIt1'lEY
~MODlFlCATlal TO~4
V///£/!AODIT1CN TO L1Y11'l:i SF',l,CE
(E)
(NJ~Tt:TILE
~.TYF.
I,SECTION B
~SCAlE:1Is--r-0'"
I .,1SECTION A ~MODFICATlal TO~(
I
l
2 .-sc.·ALEn~~·F---....:-~v=~/=/=/=~,:/=-;!DD~ITI~al~TO~L~IY1fl:i=SF'=,l,CE~_
,,SCALE:1Is--r-0'"
•HAx.RIDGE HT.
Cl.
I
/w
'0o
W
0:::
W
5o
Cl.
/./
OJ
5
u
0J .
I")«Ln
'¢
o
'¢
.':'J
../
0J
I").
I«
../
(J)
o
u
../oo
Ln
'¢
a
"<j-
0J
../oa
-::,).w-.~~
../
Lnoo
0J
~.r---
-~\--
)0
---,I
IIf--~----i'A4 0 I
1 ..';,'\
iKW&!,ostlOlED
\
ICITY PLANNING
ARCHITECTS,INC.
A"O"IT.OTU".
PL"••1"_
IlIT••fO"••••••
PHOTOS
IOeQ ~WAY aM ~CALJIiClfIroM.8lrB
.-oe-.l77--eMt PAX ~877~t144
total d ....lgn ..olutlon..
!
!.l
il
I......IIJOHNVERSGROVEI
1RESIDENCE I
j REMODEL/ADDITION !
l'Ii',I
1310 SANT~ROSA DRIVE \
!LOS GATOS,CA i
195032 I
I
I
j I&elED 1'ORarr~om~
I'UIf'tl(;DEFT,~,_
Ii--'-------I
SOUTH ELEVATION (PARTIAL)
FAMILY ROOM &LOWER FLOOR
SOUTH'ELEVATION (COURTYARD)
GARAGE,(RIGHT,SDE),
FRONT ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION (LEFT SIDE)
CL
I
/w
C)
ow
~w:so
CL
/"
/"
LOoo
,~
~'\~
\1'-
,-~
o
-
OJs
:u
,~
<t,
LO
~o
~
N
/"
,0
~
I
<t
/"en
o
u
/"oo
L()
~o
~
0J
/"oo
;~
_../~
0J '
/"
-:::2:
CL
N"n
o
N
no
ARCHITECTS,INC.
1:01:....design solutlo"s
0-
2 +LCXlER Leva
527·5S-4)%
IA />C (6<ll,~5Gl'1"J
I +LCllER Leva '
JN5UlATlal-BATT
JN5UlATlGtl-filGlD
G'Tl'6U1 !5OA"Ot.-····..•roo:·:..r·(.·~1
kJ<XXXXkXk3tRA~
11/\/\/\/\/)/\11
'.
IDeO Cl.MtlW'l.WAY UN ~0AlP0fNA.8lS1IllI
~P'AX.-ae-I17-1M4
AIIIG"'TKOTU,U.(,....JIl.'II.
un.luo"..
i'-to ~Mft 1
;I6O(S)fORClTY ~~I;f'L'IMt;DEPT.~_;==Cdt'e<!&D2fB1t1>!i CGtta(t'&{STNFJ 3It1:WJ5 I
:I
1
1,2335aFT.{bl
(·3111
6/!RJ3 5aFT.(al
S)16 5GlFT.
265aFT.
I)ltI15aFT.(·1
(6~5aFTJ (.)
(6-46 5aFTJ
5f5&SGlFT.
12"SGlFT.
(&36 5aFTJ
0436 5GlFT.
(~5aFTJ
lEI 1ST FLClOf',
lEI LCllER LE'ta.
(EI6ARAGE '
(EJ GAA.5QFT.CLES$<100 SGlFTJ ,
lElDEa<:,
NEllJ UIAI.L
EXISTJIl:i;UIAI.L
METAl.
eRla<:
~·fVN
\;.(".~.;.:,,::...~:A CCIlCI<ETE
G I \ I 1 I I \~.ElEVATlCIl
r)777;;;;;}AW/##/M
.".
I .·.·0 ,
I..".
'\S/.-~U.£flE t!Et'Aa.1&~CRJI.&(
A.-':'1&OHOIH tClC4.tE&M'E ORAIRW
.=~IJcwj A:>:>1_.r-0f"0t'GfUDe!L!VAtJa(J{f'l,fH
®-f ~LIE_
tI\OfTAll._
COVER SHEET
I
\
I
--j
r
\
\
\
310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE i
LOS GATOS,CA
95032'
!CITY PLANNING
......
JOHN VERSGROVE
RESIDENCE
REMODEL!ADDITION
I"
D~
"'"
"'"...
----
--AIlow.1Ibk nocw kui'
...,....
,..,,..,
~2
=
'";;;
"";;;
--~..'
;;;,.,.~I:J~
~"I',ooo"",1t.
,,1I>~,ooo..;.1l..
~l~
~
~
~
IIplaM,OOCIJoC,It.
~~.
lIlI1au,«lllq.1t.
fMtf:.ot~
lfCI"'U,!»ClJll,It.
;;;;:~:i;;;~
~s,lXlQ""1t.
~~
....vpaJ>q.1t.
I'LOOR.AREARAno.~FT.I
fAR-0.21&
II.,O'»No!t...U...
....>a,llOI:oa.lt.
~
L1ptaJCI,DOlloq.lt,
~
~
32,o:n ...It....s_.
.TA:BLEZ
MAXIM'UM Au,oWED GROSS 'FLOOR.AREA.
(31i OVER 2""1 X 3'1._
!'S:lUCTICIl 0.'lET mE.3(l:\;.~_.
'St.#<'';Q .,"
"'7~~'.
~~
3IZI &.'NTA R:l5A DF!,
=~;;."~32
TOO AACIl!TEC1&
206<2>Cl..Af'l1AR Ul6....
5.o!N JOSE.CA $I2ll
_~77·~
FAX_m·~
B!lIAlfHAH
""....-
CWER
AA::IiTECT
\"
CCINlY CODE5 AND 0I'01IWlCe5"
l1NCUIDlIt>/lIlY AND ALl AFPllC.A6l.E i
I..OCAI..STATE,FE>ERAI.LAIII5 AND ;'
I'EGllATlCll51
CCINlY CODfS,
c:.Al.lFOFNlA 6UIl.D1It>CODE (~
c:.Al.lFOFNlA t1EaI.'NlCAI.CODE (a1Cm'!
c:.Al.lFOFNlA I'I.lt'elII:i CODE (C!"Cm1
NA1TQlAI.E!..ECTRlC CODE ~
~FIRE CODE (CFCI
\N..E$$~STATED,IT 15 IN1EIOED TIlAT n.E
AeO\'E CODE5 AND I'EGllATICll5 FS'ER TO nE LAlE5T
EDrnCll OR F<lM5lCllIN F<:if;l:E CIl nE DAlE WTl-IE
CONl1<ACT.
ALlIll:lFK TO !IE IN .Acce:IlOAHCE umI ~
A5 STAleD IN n.E FOl.I.O!llltS CODES.
CODES
EXIS"I"m COtDT1ONS
L ~DI!1Bl5lCll5 el.fAI.I.T~i"I'£CEDENCE
OYER SCALED DIl'ENSICll5.DO Ii:lT 5CAl.E
Cf1AIllNG5.
GeERAL NOTES
Au.1If'Cl'I1ATlCIl RELATIIt>TO EXaTllt>CCll51\1CT1CN
i 15 G!YS'l A5 !lEIIt>THE !lEST ~TICIl AVAILAeLE.
i.nE CONl1<ACTOReMLL VERIFl'ALl EXl5T11t>
CCI'l?rnCll5,DiMENelCll5,AND elILDlIt>DA7\t15 AT TIE
JOel Sl7E./lIlY DI6GREP~~l10DlFlCATICIl
TO Tl-IE CCll5TFllCliCl{DOCU1ENT&eilALL IlE I'S"Of<lED
TO Tl-IE AA::IiTECT It't'EDlAlEL....NO l1ODlFlCATICll5
6IlALl ee I1IIDE B'"TIE CONl1<ACTOR Ill7IlOOT
~AI.FRQ1 TIE AA::IiTECT.
l 2.ALlD~ARETJlI<:EN~F.o.5.lN..E55
• .C7!Ia'lllSE 1lOlED.
l.<iMl<tl1'I!
S't'teGl.toICAtm mAr t1'81 DI"eI!KCtB)m
10 ee;t=anara)Q{lit!:C4U.If lIS 8j.Q,H Q(
~t1AFK.Rft:R TO ~eae:xt.E.
'"tA1(US1O:E~IOICo4lE&AClX'\£~
AT"~~~
~OftEXTEFlSORs..evJ.tlCH~
~~B.&AlJCt(l6Df'AGH.QtBe(
A.·-=I&8aHNX:ATe"'E~
1:E1''''''''~TOlJ&lJt:i-Q{
6oltEDlti.FOIt~
""""'tl1'I!
""-I.e<ctlG><_
~~ee::rtaf.I6~Qllt.1Je(
A.-'='I&$fCQt.J«:)SC.A.TE&$,AtE ~
~EL.EvAnctl~D.4.Vfr"Cllfl'
@-_1llAU.Tl1'f'
@--
~
@
tf
~
~
1
L
I·
!.
2_
;~
ASICR
;Dllta
~
""....CVR--,ASIlOJa)
2~-ISCV1td"1l-----
Attachment 10
@4
m
A1.0
--
&
REFERNECE
i SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN
i1ST FLOOR DEMO PLAN
ARCHITECTS,INC.
CITY PLANNING
tot.1 d .....lgn aolutlona
AJtoHtT.OTUIl.
PLAlIlllllNe
UITa"IO"•••'_111
~ea-t15eIal !
~r&TAI!')_I
i
1_-
t============1
:.......I
!JOHN VERSGROVE 1
!RESIDENCE
i REMODEL!ADDITION I
!i
!I
!-------===i
1310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE II
!LOS GATOS,CA
'95032 I
I
I
;
.!
=DEMO IE)WALL
f\DEMO IE)DOOR
__DEMO IE)IJJlNDCW
t8I DEMOIE)COLLffi :--2=
(J DEMO IE)FlXTlJRES :-AS.<:!<
.'--,
~"--I'ih
I,i;
J ~e __~
~i
\
~--~;:
I
L NO exlS'l1NCiJ TREES ~4"IN DI,6/1.UIlLL ElE REMOVED AS A RESULT
Cf 'MS PROJECT AND TIlE F'ROF05ED DE'<1:LOF'MEHT uw.NOT
ENCROACH UJlT1.IIN DRIPLINE Cf ANY EXJ5 'l1NCiJ TRl:ES.
2.NO NBU ~AL PLANTS u.lLL BE INTRODUCED AS PART Cf THIS
PROJECT.
~.NO NBU RETAINING WALLS WILL BE CCHSTRUCTED.
4.PHOTOYOLTAIC PANaS WILL SE INSTALLED AND NBU IJJlNDCW5 WILL
SE DOJ6LE PtoNED.
S.EXTERIOR WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATION
IE)NET WALL AREA IEXCLUDES DOOF'/IL!NDCW ~)-*43.2 ef
F'ROF05ED NET WALL REMOVAL -10.<1 ef
IAi &0'0 MAX ALLOJIA8l.E CONmI.IO.J&WALL AREA liE)NET AREA X
~)-m16ef
FINAL CONrnJOU$WALL AREA-~12.&SF
UJ1ICIl IS Gl'£ATER THAN ~,TIlEREFORE CK
3 I ~o~_~A.OOR PlAN
NOTES
e __
EXTERIOR PERIl1ETER WALL DEMOLI1ION
========~::.
r-------'1ST FLOOR DEMO &EXISTING PLAN
1
2 1llCALE:_-0"
I
I
I
I LCIlER LE'<1:L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
§I
I~~<D.I~
i~
I
I
I
SCALE:1f16"wif-0'"
!l'f'OI;tlAnON 5HCIlN WAS TAKEN FRCt1 DRAUJlN(;5 FREPARED BY RA'111OND ROOKER.AIA,4~2~~.
PLAN 5HCIlN ~AS NOT SEEN VERIFIED OR CHECKED BY A ClYiL ~
REFERENCE SITE PLAN I ROOF PLAN
---
1
ffi:MDE NATIVE
I DROJGI-lT TOLERANT
IPLANT ~CIES IN FRCm
Cf DECK LAmce
I
I
/"rIE)SIDEYARDSET
i I BACK-NO CH~
!Io
I I
I
------
IE)REAR:YARD SET
BACK·NO~
----._------------I
---
,------IE)PAVl:D TERRACE
INO~r IE)RETAINING WALL !
INO~):
I
j
~~~,
~+---HI--IE)F<OCf HA55
REDUCED
\
\
\<E)F<OCf
\
\
\\
\
\
\
IE)L,_-\STAI~~ING 'INO~)~
\
\
\
\
\
\.r
\
\
\
\
\
\
\c---------.:-.[__IE)ffi::lF.LlNE .
\----\..
\__-'REAR YARD
\\-------
\\--
\
...,..\,
i
-i
M2A04 '
""""I
9&
A2.0
%*¥%4&&74
I l~"'.a.g,
AIIlGHIT_aTV".
Pl."••,••
IlCT •••.otl ••....
PROPOSED 1ST &
2ND FLOOR Pl.AN
I'CITY PLANNING
_...-...
ARCHITECTS,INC.
i 310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE
I LOS GATOS,CA
195032
1:otal de••lgn ao.lutlona
.......,
I JOHN VERSGROVE
[RESIDENCE
1 REMODEL!ADDITION;
;
iiii£t .&i _
____________L ,
(E}t~.2"
2 I,PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN
"SCALE:118"'-1'-0"
~,6oomaw..l1YII't:;$FACI:.1,207 5GlFT.
~ADDlTlCtIAl..DECK.646 5GlFT.
,--1--'---'
I
I
I-I--
I
I
I
I
(E)t~'.(
.._..-
lOlLER level DECK lINE
I
(xj I~$----
43._-..I
t----I\--lOlER lEvEl FlXf lINE
---;....H~-------
\
(E}t~·2·
L~i liJOOODECK'J --r----F;-2~n,1f ~:~'FI:------,I--~-~!---!
'I I ...I I Ii'I .;
><,.
.0[Q1~P=R:_;_;O=_P_=_=:O~S:=-:;ED=__1S-T-FL-O-O-R-PLAN---'------
SCALE:118"'-1'-0-
INTEI<lOR HODIFlCATlCl'l5 ctll.Y.
~ADDmaw..l1YII't:;$FACI:.262~5GlFT.
~ADDmCW>J..OFEH AIR TERRACE .641 5GlFT.
\
MAX.RIDc.E lit.
.....-J
I~EJGRADE
ARCHITECTS,INC.
total design solutions
""OMIT.OTVIII •
•L"""I".
UIT.'UO"••••••
-~".I
I&8lB>FOR arr f'UlM'!<'"".<04 I
~Depl.~~i
1
!CITY PLANNING
.i
I
\......\IJ·OHN VERSGROVE I
i RESIDENCE i
!REMODBJADDITION I
;JI310SANTAROSADRIVEI
!LOS GATOS,.CA I
i 95032 !
1
1
\
I
\
~~c:e:tta«'&l1ltaltJ!J!
~ea-t156I<>l !
t==COlt9lT&==(S:=TNf='====-=!
I
I
SOUtH ON SANTA ROSA DRIVE
VIEW LOOKING @ FRONT ELEVATION
ffi:)f'05ED ADQmON
OR ROC!'HODIFlCATlot1
a:o m
Ie)FLR.l.EVEl.
1ERRACE l.EVEl.
(e)ROC!'LINE TO
ee~.----__
)MAX.RIDc.E lit.
i-'
I 2 I EAST .ELEVATION .
•SCALE:1/8"-1-0"
I 11 I;.NORTH ELEVATIONL...:..J SCALE:1/8"-1-0"
i---
\A3.0 I
--,---,~,-
AS.l::R
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
\LIXlD CA5~AT
tLni'IDOllI&-HATCH (e)
J
t:~~:~%~:~~~:~:~~~~0.~1 ~1Fl~Tl~ON OR
~\Il6l.l.TO ee I"Ei"16veD !fAM R¥¥kk¥¥
....I
!
AIlOMIT.OTU"•
..LA.MCIf.
ueT.'UOIl ••_e ••
ISe<ED FORai'(~""""4 I
~DEPT.cctM3(f'5 M2Je.4!
~a:t'M6OlCIl ce:t1"eI1&"'1l3I<lS I=~-II
1
total design solutions
ARCHITECTS,INC.
ROOF CHANGES-NO
INCREASE It MASS
r-----j--(E)ROC!'EEYCl'lD
L---'DECK~TOEE
Cf~TIBlE
MA1ERIAL&.TrP.---
hi
A3.1
i Rb
......-
$4
I
I
\
I I
I Iii=_=_==--'--------+
-..!A6t1:>lEO
;--~-'2~-j~~~~~
I
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
i
I
--------j
i I
i 310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I
I LOS GATOS,CA 1
\95032 I '
!.
l~VERSGROVE IIRESIDENCE
'\REMODEU ADDITION
I
.l
\CITY PLANNING
.-------~~p~SOUlH ElEVATION
VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST (FROM SHANNON &SANTA ROSA)
VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM ACROSS VALLEY (FROM LARGE ESTATE)
1;-I----;;EX~IS;;;_rnG_::_==__=_===_S-O-UT-H-E-1E_V_A_Tl_O_N """"""",~=:=0=j;--~~El1OLlSHEDORl..:.J SCALE:1Is--f-0"m888!UIAL.l.TO BE ~
1>,.'
F<l:LOCATED
~
MAX.RIDGE Hr.
(lV~TEnLEROCf.T'l'P.
ARCHITECTS,INC.
[
-II
!
-!tJ2ll31t15!
-\Iom""1
~,.
''''GIUT.OTU''.
1"1.4."''1_
lIlfTU"OIll •••,••
1oo1oal .design solu1olons
)
'WEST ELEV ATION
SCALE:1Ia--r-0"1---I
L
!.
JOHN VERSGROVE .;I
RESIDENCE I
REMODEL!ADDITION l
1·
---_------i~I
i·310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE i
I LOS GATOS.CA !
195032 \
!
002NJ)LEva
(E)FlNI51HL LN.
(E)GR.LEva
(E)PLATE HElGIlT
(EJ MAX.RIDGE Hr.
,----F<l:LOCATED
CHIt1'Er.
,---(E)ROCf'5I..OFE
I 2Irl~iCEOOJCE:TIONtllrea--r~_:C:F-----:-----------fW:}j=/=/=u=./=/=-~_.D_~_~_~_~.::.~_O.::.ROCf'::'Sf'~k=-_
!CITY PLANNING
!
:
A3.201'....
~tbfeD ........
2~2dog
,.-
i~
',-
JSIa>.
SECTIONS
1--t
002NJ)LEva
rE)FINISH R...LN.
EJGR.LEYEL
(EJ PLATE J.lEIGHT
(E)MAX.RIDGE Hr.
HODIFlCAnCN TO ROCf •
t>DPmCN TO LMl'6 Sf'ilCEISEctioNB
SCAlE:1Ia--r-0"3---
ARCHITECTS,INC.
total .deslgn solutions
FRONT ELEVAnON (LEFT SIDE)
FRONT ELEVAnoN
AftO"fTlo,TIllIt.
pl.",nu ...
un·."(OR •••1••
;-..~arr~::I
~DEPT.~L<lJl>4 I~CGt1UOIG1lI ~tnfl>lth
~CGt1UOIG1lI .r
!canKT&(!TAR')3It1.WI5 I
\
1""*'*.!
I JOHN VERSGROVE 1
\RESIDENCE i1.!
\REMODEUADDITION I
-------!,I
\310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE I!LOS GATOS,CA \
'-95032 -
I
I
\
\
PHOTOS
j----
,
i .=;a---------t
--
ICITY PLANNING
1
SOUTH ELEVATION (pARTIAL)
FAMLY ROOM &LOWER FLOOR
SOUTH ELEVATION (COURTYARD)
GARAGE (RlGHT-SIDE)