The URL can be used to link to this page

17 Staff Report - 16750 Farley Road( DATE: TO: FROM: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT December 7,2005 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DEBRA J.FIGONE,TOWN MANAGER MEETING DATE:12/19/05 ITEM NO.,1 SUBJECT:CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A SECOND STORY ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED R-l:8.ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-05-063 PROPERTY LOCATION:16750 FARLEY ROAD.PROPERTY OWNER:MELISSA AND GLEN WAGNER APPLICANT:E.DAVID BRITT APPELLANT:WILLIAM R.SHELLOOE 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 approve Architecture and Site Application S-05-063. 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 ofdiscretion on the part ofthe Planning Commission; or (2)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) ~~f~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by:Q-:"S Assistant Town Manager Q\L-Attorney __Clerk Finance __Community Development Revised:12/8/05 10:59 am Reformatted:5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 16750 FARLEY ROAD December 8,2005 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.Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to add 511 square feet to the existing first floor of a single family home and a 1,071 square foot second story addition.The total living area of the proposed residence is 2,548 square feet.The proposed maximum height is 25 feet.Due to the non- conforming width of the lot,the applicant is requesting a reduced setback of 4 feet onthe western side of the property.Due to the non-conforming size of the lot and a dispute over access rights to the existing two car garage at the rear of the property,the project does not meet the off-street parking requirement for a single family home.The Planning Commission made the required findings in Section 29.1O.150(h)to exempt this project from the off street parking space requirements. BACKGROUND: Property Dispute The Town abandoned a portion of Augustine Way in 2003.As part of this process,the Town gave Quit Claim deeds to the adjacent property owners,one of which was the subject site.This type of deed would relinquish any remaining property interest held by the Town,if any such interest existed. After this process was completed,it was discovered that this portion of Augustine Way was not owned by the Town.Currently,legal rights to this piece of the abandoned portion of Augustine Way are under dispute between the applicant and the appellant.The portion of Augustine Way is shown on the development plans and noted as lot area under dispute (Attachment 9,Sheet A-1).Without settling ownership to the portion of Augustine Way that is under dispute,the owners of the subject property do not have access to the existing garage at the rear of their property and the existing parking pad at the front of their property. Evolution of Project The applicant originally submitted this proj ect as a Minor Residential application.ANotice of futent to Approve the application was sent to adjacent neighbors on March 9,2005.The Town received a letter of concern from the property owners at 16472 Farley Road,the adj oining property to the east. Staff held a meeting with the project applicant and neighbor to discuss the proposed proj ect in detail and possible solutions to mitigate the massing and privacy concerns.During the meeting,several adjustments to the proposed structure were discussed:architectural modifications to the proposed second story,alteration of the placement and size of new windows,reorientation of the proposed structure on the lot,lowering the height of the proposed building,and installation of landscaping to PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 16750 FARLEY ROAD December 13,2005 mitigate the massing of the proposed structure.Both parties could not come to a resolution and the applicant requested that the item be heard before the Planning Commission. On June 8,the Planning Commission granted a continuance ofthis project to allow the applicant additional time to work on a redesign of the proposed second story addition to mitigate neighbor privacy and massing concerns.The Planning Commission directed the applicant to consider a one and a half story design to reduce the overall mass and scale ofthe proposed structure and reduce the daylight and view impacts to the abutting neighbor to the east.The lot is nonconforming due to its size and width;therefore,the Commission directed the applicant to consider proposing a reduced setback on the western portion ofthe property in order to move the second floor mass away from the easterly neighbor. Significant revisions were made to the eastern,western,and southern elevations.The front elevation did not substantially change.The maximum ridge height ofthe structure has been lowered from 26' to 25'. As directed by the Planning Commission,the applicant proposed a 4 foot reduced side setback to shift the mass away from the easterly property line.The second floor mass along the eastern elevation was significantly stepped back from the first floor.With the first proposal,a 16 foot long area near the middle ofthe second story addition was recessed back by four feet.·The revised plans show a 44 foot long portion of the second floor that is setback seven feet.With the revised design most of the eastern elevation is a one and a half story design with small windows facing east (Attachment 9,Sheet A-3). The applicant and the appellant did not meet prior to the second public hearing on October 26,2005. Staff met separately with the appellant to discuss the revised plans and answer questions. Neighborhood Compatibility The revised structure is consistent with size of homes in the immediate neighborhood which range in size from 966 square feet (FAR .04)to 2,861 square feet (FAR .31).The homes in the immediate neighborhood are a mix of one and two story homes. PLANNING COMMISSION: On October 26,the Planning Commission approved the revised project on a 4-3 vote.The Planning Commission discussed the overall mass and scale of the revised second story addition.No additional conditions were added to the approval.In approving this application,the Planning Commission determined that the architecture,mass and scale,lot coverage,setbacks,FAR of the proposed proj ect,and parking exemption was compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the Residential Development Standards. PAGE 4 MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~ SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 16750 FARLEY ROAD December 8,2005 APPEAL: On November 7,2005,Bill Shellooe,the neighbor to the east,appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project.The appellant states that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because it failed to duly consider the massing impacts of the project and compliance with the Town's residential design guidelines.Please refer to the notice of appeal (Attachment 1) and the verbatim transcripts of the Planning Commission hearings (Attachment 4). Town's General Plan One of the goals of the General Plan is to preserve and enhance the Town's character through exceptional community design.Staff believes that the following sections from the General Plan are the most pertinent to this application. Policy L.P.3.5 This community design element policy "assures that the type and intensity of land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood." Policy L.P.4.3 "Maintain the character and identity of existing neighborhoods.New construction,remodels,and additions shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood." Policy L.I.4.3.To maintain neighborhood character "The deciding body shall use F.A.R. and adopted residential design guidelines to maintain existing neighborhood character." CONCLUSION: Planning Commission determined that the addition to the second story was compatible with the scale and architecture of the surrounding neighborhood.Should the Town Council be inclined to deny this appeal,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.Notice of Appeal (l page)and letter from appellant (7 pages),received on November 7,2005 2.Follow-up letter from owner (3 pages),received on December 8,2005 3.Letter from applicant (3 pages),received on December 8,2005 4.Verbatim meeting minutes from the June 8,2005 and October 26,2005 Planning Commission Hearings (38 pages) PAGE 5 MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~ SUBJECT:APPEAL OF 16750 FARLEY ROAD December 8,2005 5.Required Findings and Considerations (4 pages) 6.Recommended Conditions of Approval (4 pages) 7.Report to the Planning Commission from the Development Review Committee dated October 26,2005 (55 pages,including complete report from June 8,2005 with original development plans) 8.Desk Item 1 dated June 8,2005 (7pages),Report to the Planning Commission from the Development Review Committee dated July 13,2005 (2 pages),Report to the Planning Commission from the Development Review Committee dated August 24,2005 (2 pages) 9.Final Development Plans dated October 5,2005 (8 pages,marked Exhibit T from October 26, 2005 Report to Planning Commission) Distribution: Bill Shellooe,16742 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95032 Glen &Melissa Wagner,16750 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95032 David Britt,108 N.Santa Cruz Avenue,Los Gatos,CA,95030 N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2005\16750Farley Road.wpd DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: i., j \ I I i i 'i I --; I /J{./-_7 "',.:~,.~...,.......l..,:~.r-l ,~I.-:-..~~;~--,l/+'~,-..-1 )..1,"..."1.......I!:L..:.....!:;'"*\\-=-,===========~4.~::::="-='¥'"....'ll.~.lOV 7~'r!0'::;/);t'L_-,;i :: FILING FEES ~v v T i Town ofLos G tpS Cc2.Pt,i:i f (ri'1 ~)J .$27200 R 'd t'I \IY':;'·;.'!;i'\;(~;'~~\';:'··::~jJffice of the Tow lerk ~ltlV !"J -I 7r'ot~,.eSl en Ia c ..··,..'.--.......1 _.:..1 '"'1 /. $1089.00 per Commercial,Multi-c...f----··---·..TI0 E.Main St.,Los Ga os CA 95030"/'0 family or Tentative Map Appeal .-'.rOWN CF LOS (";,:\i '_::: APPEAL OF PLANNING COlVIl'tIISSWlNiIHS~1S~._._-. I,the uridersigned,do hereby appeal a decision ofthe Planning Commission as follows:(pLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NEATLY) DATE OF PLANNrnG COM:l\1ISSION DECISION:OC.:..to h.-<..r ",?-~"I 'L.,DOS PROJECT /APPLICATION NO:S'-oS'-()6 .3 ADDRESS LOCATION:1&750 Fa,r Ce y &t Ltz:;5 ba k-rs C A Cf9;3x Pursuant to the To\Vll Code,the To\Vll Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matters if the Council finds that one of three (3)reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3)Council members.Therefore, please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal: 1.The Planning Commission erred or abu~ed its discretion because __.........:?::...._C-__e-_.__G_.t-_~-..:..·d(__.J·__lu~c....::/---- ____________-----------------'--------=---------~;OR 2.There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision,which is .-'5 eZ e::t.fV<.C'h.~d ________________________(please attach the new information ifpossible):OR 3.The Planning CoIIJ.ill,ission .did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town Council:,'--~_ IF'MORE SPACE IS NEEDED,PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS. IMPORTANT: 1..Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes.A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing. 2.Appeal must be filed within ten (10)calendar days ofPlanning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee. Deadline is 5:00 p.m.on the lOth day following the decision.Ifthe lOth day is a Saturday,Sunday,or Town holiday,then it may be filed on the workday immediately following the ~Oth 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 ofZone application or a subdivision map only must be tried within the time limitspecified in the Zoping-or Subdivision Code,as applicable,which is different from other appeals.. 5.Once :filed,the,appeal will be heard by the To\Vll Council. 6.If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt ofnew information,the application will usually be returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.. PRINT NAME:{)J~'Ll14kA R:5Ae·{(()l)~SIGNATURE:LJ-J b.~J 1£~ DAm·I t 7Jf!!ADDRESS,l (,,1 q ;?Gule V kJ· PHONE:tjO_2__~Lit;IZ Ll)~J'&.4-h,::>CA CCSt?X, .***OFFICIAL USE ONLY ***" 12/;t/tlS-CONF~TIONLETIERSENT:Date:,_r . Pendi~g Planning Departm nt Confirmation TO APPLICANT &APPELLANT BY: DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION:/2 1J 6-'DATE OF PUBLICATION:II /30/0.5- ) N:\DEV\FORMS\Planning\Planning Commission Appeal.wpd -July 1,2005 Attachment 1 Background At the June 8th Planning Commission Meeting, We voiced our objection that the proposed 25 feet high,59 feet wide two-story structure that adjoins the entire length of our house and is less than 16 feet away completely blocks the view of the sky and gives a dark,oppressive feeling to all three of the bedrooms in our home. (See Appendix 2,photos taken from bedroom windows for the June 8th meeting.) We also pointed out how the project violates several of the Violations of the Town of Los Gatos Residential Development Standards For All Single Family Dwellings.(See Appendix 1). The result of that meeting was that the Planning Commission voted for a continuance and directed the applicants to alter the design of their construction to reduce the view and daylight impacts to us,the next-door neighbor to the east. At the October 26th Planning Commission Meeting, We voiced the fact as indicated by the new story poles in place at 16750 Farley Rd.,the modified design produced no effect on the view from these bedroom windows and the dark,oppressive feeling in every bedroom and still violates several Town of Los Gatos Building Standards.(See Appendix 3,photos taken of new story poles from bedroom windows for the October 26th meeting.) The result of that meeting was that the Planning Commission narrowly voted (4-3)in favor of granting the building permit. Appeal to the Town Council 1.The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because I.a.The Community Development Staff Report indicated that the changes made to the plans were consistent with the instructions given by the Planning Commission on June 8th.This conclusion ofthe Staff Report is based largely on "Mass Study"of the redesigned structure submitted by the applicants indicating that sky is revealed above the structure to a standing viewer looking out of our bedroom windows.This "Mass Study"either is significantly in error or is an attempt to mislead the Planning Commission and the Community Development Department for 2 reasons.(See Diagram I "Mass Study"prepared by the applicant.). •As you can plainly see from the photos in Appendix 2,no sky is revealed to a standing viewer of average height even right up against the windows,in direct contrast to the situation depicted in the "Mass Study". •Given the north-westerly orientation of the house,the sun never appears even near the location and height depicted in the "Mass Study"diagram at any time of year. Error #1:The Planning Commission's understanding of the problem via the Staff Report's is based on a "Mass Study"that significantly misrepresents the applicant's compliance with the directions given by the Planning Commission on June 8th. l.b It is not possible to fully appreciate the impact of darkness and oppressiveness that the proposed structure has on the experience of each of our bedrooms without coming to our home and looking out of these windows for oneself.Although the Planning Commissioners and the Community Development Staff were invited to view the situation first-hand,only two Commissioners and one member of Staff (an Assistant Planner)actually did so.Both Commissioners who actually viewed the story poles from our bedroom windows voted against the permit.Moreover,during the time between June 8th and October 26th,neither the applicants nor their architect took 5 minutes to view the project from our windows. Error #2:The Planning Commission and the Community Development Department did not perform adequate"due diligence"to accurately determine the applicant's compliance with the directive of the Planning Commission on June 8th. I.c The Staff Report indicated that the revised plan is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines.However,during the October 26th meeting,the Assistant Director of Community Development said that the applicant does not need to comply since these are only guidelines. Error #3:The Planning Commission and the Community Development Department seem to have ignored the Town's Guidelines for Residential Design when approving "this construction. 2.There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision,which is On page 1 of the Staff Report,there are short sections describing the Findings and Considerations for the project.The next section is a table of contents for the Exhibits in which items A - M are labeled "Previously Submitted."Sections N is labeled "Required Findings"and most of the remaining sections are lapeled to indicate that they are new information. Based on the labeling of the table of contents of the Exhibits in the document,I looked for the Staffs findings on this issue under N,Required Findings.I also read exhibits 0 and Q through T.Since in those sections there are not really any explicit statements on whether or not the applicant complied,"my presentation did not directly address the Staffs findings. Indeed,during the October 26th meeting,the Vice-Chair asked me directly to point out what is erroneous in the Staff Report,and I could not answer that directly because I never saw the Staffs findings on this issue because the table of contents of Exhibits was mislabeled. The error which misled me away from the Staffs explicit statements on this key issue is due to the fact that,as I learned after the meeting,these findings are found in Exhibits A -B, which are labeled "Previously Submitted"in the table of contents of Exhibits.Given the size of the package,I did not see that it was necessary to read what I thought I had already read in preparation for the June 8th meeting.Had I read those Exhibits A and B before the meeting and discovered that the Staff erroneously concluded that the applicant had complied,my presentation would have been built on directly refuting that finding and I would have been able to answer the Vice-Chair directly as to which parts of the Report are in error.This approach would likely have changed the close 4 to 3 vote approving the building permit even though the applicant's redesign did not change the impact on view and darkness at all.. Appendix 1 Violations of the Town of Los Gatos Residential Development Standards For All Single Family Dwellings The size and closeness of the elevation impairs the use,enjoyment and value of our neighboring private property (LA.1,LA.4 and ILASl).The differing scale and mass of the two houses and their close proximity creates an unharmonious and incompatible structural relationship and is inconsistent with any two-story homes adjacent to single story homes in the neighborhood (ILA.5.3 and 11.8).In general,this project also compromises the unique sense of openness that the Town's Development Standards strives to preserve (LA.2), especially in the Farley Road neighborhood.(See Appendix 1:Detailed Opposition for further explanation of violations.) co "1 1-" .-+ .-+-... :0 ~ (1) ~. {)1 ~ o 'OJ {)1 ()1 f\.) CD f\.) -..,j C/) (l) "'0, f\.) OJ, o ()1 -0 Q) en (l) CD--. CD Figure 1-View from west-facing window, south bedroom. Figure 3 -View from west-facing window,master bathroom. Figure 2 -View from west-facing Wiildow,middle bedroom. Figure 4 -View from west-facing window,master (nolth)bedroom. Figure 5 -Closeness ofback-to-back walls spanning nearly length of entire house (93%) Figure 1 -View from west-facing window, south bedroom. Figure 3 -View from west-facing window,master bathroom. Figure 2 -View from west-facing window,middle bedroom. Figure 4 -View from west-facing window,master (north)bedroom. Figure 5 -Closeness of back-to-back walls spanning nearly length of entire house (93%) Town Council Town of Los Gatos 110 E.Main St. Los Gatos,CA 95031 This letter is in response to Mr.Bill Shellooe's written Appeal ofPlanning Commission Decision to approve our 2nd story addition on October 26,2005.I have followed the same format as Mr.Shellooe to make it easy to read and compare. 1.The Appellant believes the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because: The Appellant makes the wrongful assumption that the staff report was based on the "mass study".When in fact,the staff based it on all the materials provided and site visits. The mass study was simply a diagram ofthe amount of mass removed from the east side of the home.The staff report and recommendations were not based on the mass study, but on all the materials provided and site visits.Staff visited the home ofthe Appellant, Mr.Shellooe,and was fully aware ofthe view from his windows prior to filing their report and recommendations.Mr.Shellooe's concern about the accuracy ofthe mass study was addressed byus in the Oct.26,meeting.In the meeting I clearly say,"The mass study was purely just to show the difference from the old design and the new design."I go on to say that "The sun is shown on the shadow study and this is not supposed to be representative ofwhere the sun sets." Staff and Planning Commission were fully aware that the mass study was only to depict the change in the mass of the structure.At no time did anyone ever use the mass study to dispute Mr.Shellooe's argument regarding his sky view or to the correct orientation of the sun. The Appellant misinterprets the Planning Commissions directives on June 8th and misunderstands what is needed for the Planning Commission and the Community Development Department to perform adequate "due diligence"in their determination of compliance. Staff visited the home of the Appellant,Mr.Shellooe,on Oct.12,2005,to review the story poles after meeting with him Oct.7,2005,to address his concerns with the revis~d plans.Their determination was that "the changes made to the plans are consistent with the direction that was given by the Planning Commission on June 8,2005."And that they believed "the revisions will reduce the mass and scale of the overall project and provide less of a view impact to the concerned neighbor to the east ofthe subject site." Attachment 2 The directives from the Planning Commission,given in their motion on June 8th ,were "to allow redesign based upon the input the Commission has given here,and that would be for Staff to work with the architect and the applicant to come up with what 1'm going to call a 0'lot line design,and you can interpret that the way it should be interpreted....in order to reduce the mass and scale,to reduce the loss of daylight and views of the . neighbor to the east and hopefully come in with a story-and -a-half design." ,but have the benefits of a story-and-a-half design as far as the mass and scale and views."It was clear to see on the plans that the mass and scale;or "oppressiveness",had been greatly reduced by moving 3/4 ofthe second story wall and all of the first story wall addition 23 ft from the Shellooe home,hiding the second story portion in the roof as a story-and-a- half design,per the Commissions request.From the shadow study it can also be seen that the redesign reduces the loss of daylight and does not "darken"the Shellooe home at any time of the year.Stepping the masS back 23 ft from the Shellooe home and lowering and angling the roof so that the ridge line is pulled much further back,also reduces the loss of view and light in that the eye can see further then it could in the original design and lets more skylight in. The Planning Commissions June 8th directives clearly state that we should "reduce"the mass and scale and "reduce"the loss of daylight and views in the redesign.It does not say that we have to "eliminate"the mass and scale and "eliminate"the loss of daylight and views,because then a second story would not be possible.Mr.Shellooe is correct in that his issues with our addition have not been eliminated by the redesign but,as per the Commissions directives,they have been "reduced",and in our opinion,reduced greatly. This reduction can surely be seen on the plans and no one needs to view the story poles from Mr.Shellooe's windows to realize that these design changes "reduce"the mass and scale and loss of light and view,but do not eliminate it. The Appellant wrongfully assumes that the Planning Commission and the Community Development Department ignored the Town's "Guidelines for Residential Design". The Appellant,Mr.Shellooe,states that,during the Oct.26th meeting,Mr.Randy Tsuda, Assistant Director of Community Development,said of the "Guidelines for Residential Design","the applicant does not need to comply since these are only guidelines."What Mr.Tsuda actually said in response to Mr.Shellooe's statement that the Town's Residential Guidelines had been violated was,"What he's cited is standards that are contained in the Residential Development Standards.These are not hard and fast setbacks for example,but these are statements of principle,and our conclusion is that number one,the applicant has revised the project according to the Commission's direction and that two,they do meet the requirements for the Town's Development Standards." The town interprets these standards as a neutral party.Of course the Applicant and the Appellant are going to interpret the statlqf!.rds in the way that best defends their side. E~,;: That is why we have the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to interpret the standards neutrally. 2.The Appellant provides no new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision The Appellant,Mr.Shellooe,bases this part of his appeal on the grounds that he thinks the table of contents of Exhibits on the first page of the Staff Report was mislabeled.He says,"I looked for the Staff's findings on this issue under N,Required Findings."He goes on to say that after the Oct.26th meeting,he learned that the "Staff findings"are found in Exhibits A-B ofthe report from the June 8th meeting.However,Exhibit A is clearly Required Findings and Considerations that the Planning Commission has to make in order to approve the project,not the "Staff's findings".And,Exhibit B are,boiler plate,Recommended Conditions ofApproval for the Applicant to meet once approved. Mr.Shellooe says that "during the October 26th meeting,the Vice-Chair asked (him) directly to point out what was erroneous in the Staff Report".He says that he was unable to answer the Vice-Chair directly because he hadn't read the "mislabeled""Staff Findings"in Exhibits A-B.First off,the Vice-Chair never asked that question.What Commissioner Micciche actually asked ofMr.Shellooe was "Have you read the Staff Report that came out on this?"Mr.Shellooe then said that he had read most of it but that he would need his memory refreshed.Commissioner Micciche responds,"Under Recommendation it states that the Staff finds that the revised plans with the recommended conditions for approval are consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines.In your letter you've indicated that there's a violation here.Have you talked to Staff about the difference of opinion here?"When Mr.Shellooe responds that he had not talked to staff about those violations,Commissioner Micciche asks the Assistant Director of Community Development to comment on whether he views any violations. Never does the Vice-Chair ask Mr.Shellooe to "point out what is erroneous in the Staff Report".He only asks about Mr.Shellooe's perceived violations of the Residential Design Guidelines. Whether Mr.Shellooe is meaning to refer to the Recommendation by Staff,which was read out loud by Commissioner Micciche and found on page 3 of the Staff Report,or the Required Findings and Considerations for the Planning Commission to make in Exhibit A,or the Recommended Conditions ofApproval for the Applicant to comply too in Exhibit B,none of these are new information or hidden "Staff Findings"that were "mislabeled"in the table of contents ofExhibits. The above are the reasons why we feel the Appeal is not valid.We hope that you will dismiss the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions decision. Sincerely, Melissa &Glen Wagner Sent By:Britt/Rowe;510 655 2927;Dec-8-05 1 :07PMj Page 2 DriMo. PhQn~4nf!.354.6224 Fax 408.354.6514 December 8,2005 Town of Los Gatos 110 E.Main Street Los Gatos,CA 95030 RE:16750 Farley Rd.,Los Gatos Dear Council Members; 108 N.SiUlta Cruz Ave. Leis Gatos.CA 95030 USA RECEIVED DEC -B 2GG5 ANN OF LOS GATOSi~L,A.NN1NG DIVISiON I am writing this lett~r 0.11 behalf of my clients,Gl,nn and Melissa Wagner.I arrl the desi gner of their proposed second story addition 1 cated at 16750 Farley Road.We have worked together tor 18 months and have achieve ,what I know is the best design solution fur <:IIl addition to their residence.The design,app ved by the Planning Commission,was a collaborative effort between my clicnt,p'lannin Staff,the Planning Commission and myself The first second story design incorporated·many 'fthe design techniques recommended in the Town Design Guidelines.It was also modi ted and improved further with lhe help of Planning Staff.When presented to the PI ..Commission,additional recommendations by the Commissioners where h ard and incorporated into the design. The second story addition approved has the least pact of any solutions we have proposed.It is a very sensitive addition,especial y as viewed from the eastern neighbor. We have achieved this by designing most 'of the s eond fioor over the western side ofthe residence.This gives a '~one and a haIr'story fee to the eastern side of the house.Other solutions that we have tried include portiOns of fl t roofs at the top of the house,and an "An frame design with the second iloor iTlCorpor ted into a steep pitched roof.Both solutions have more impact on the eastern.neigh or than what we propose. Larry Cannon,the Town's consulting architect,i •his letter dated October 20,2005,states that our efforts to reduce second story mass as di ·ceted by the Planning Commission is significant.In that letter,Mr.Cannon does ment on an alternative design solution,but upon analyzing this solution we d.etermined such:a design would have more visual impact than what is proposed.Melissa Wagner has con.cted Mr.CannQn~and he agrees that the alternative solution would add mass to th~easter y side of the residence.Attached is a diagram of our analysis that shows both solutiol1 and the impact of each to the eastern neighbor. Attachment 3 Sent By:Britt/Rowe;510 655 2927;Dec-8-05 1 :08PM;Page 3/4 In my 15 years of designing residences in the To of Los Gatos~rarely I have had the opportunity to work with clients as cooperative as .Jlenn and Melissa Wagner.They have spent a significant amounl of time and effoct to ge their project designed and approved. They have been receptive 10 all design solutions d recommendations from Town Staff, Planning Commission,Consulting Architect,nei :bors~and myself.This has allowed for me to look.at all design options,and I know it is b·far the most superior solution for an addition,single or second story,to this very diffie it property. -.:t:;-.,'"--,'"...'""---'.. Q) OJ (1Ja. bvdtl tn,fPr'1V1 WI t.h ~ec.o"Jd f!opr H'l CO rpo ra.ted lJ1tCJ rop f LOo, o:J, () Q) D '--::-::--=---~~-F--~~~~-,-~--,-. " .W ••••"----•••WOo ••t-.~. .---'-'----~.~:.:...:.--...:.:~-..:.:-.--..-.-~~~~_..---~~~---------I-- (\J ill (\J LO LO «J o .,.- LO .~ Q) ~oa:-.. f-J f-J..-1 l:-eo 1 4 5 Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: A P PEA RAN C E S: Phil Micciche,Chair Michael Burke Michael Kane Lee Quintana Morris Trevithick 1 2 4 5 PRO C E E DIN G S: CHAIR MICCICHE:We have two desk items tonight; 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Assistant Director of Community Development: Town Attorney: Transcribed by: Randy Tsuda Orry Korb vicki L.Blandin 5500 Van Fleet Avenue Richmond CA 94804 (510)526-6049 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there's one on each hearing.We'll take the time prior to the hearing to spend some time reading them and move on.We have no request for continuances and nothing on the consent calendar. So I'm going to open up the first public hearing, 16750 Farley Road,Architecture and Site Application S-05- 063,property owners Glen and Melissa wagner,and the applicant is David Britt.Is the applicant here? CHAIR MICCICHE:Before we start though,I'd like to get some comments from Randy. RANDY TSUDA:This item before you tonight is an architectural and site approval for a 1,560 square foot single-family home addition,including a new second floor. It's an addition to an existing 987 square foot home. The project was originally filed as a minor residential application,and the Town Code does allow the director of community development to approve minor residential applications if there is no objection filed from the neighborhood.In this case the adjoining property owner did file a letter of opposition;therefore this application LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 1 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 2 l has been referred to the Planning Commission for 2 consideration. The lot abuts a portion of the former Augustine 1 addition when you evaluate the project based on the original 2 property boundaries.The lot is nonconforming due to lot 3 width and the size of the lot,so there is limited 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 Way.This area is located along the property's westerly boundary.The Town abandoned this portion of Augustine Way in 2003,and currently the ownership of this portion of the property is under dispute. We're asking the Planning Commission tonight to consider this application based on the property's original boundaries without the disputed portion of Augustine Way. The adjoining neighbor in his letter of opposition cited impacts of the proposed addition to his views of the sky,interfering with the light through his adjoining windows,and was dissatisfied with the design of the second story wall,which directly abuts his home. Staff did convene a meeting of the applicant and the adjoining neighbor,and during this meeting the applicant offered up some changes,some compromises to the project,including stepping back the second story,doing some modifications to the roofline of the home to reduce the height of the house,and also proposed some landscaping. 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 16 17 18 19 20 flexibility here. So one of the two key issues before the Planning Commission tonight is a consistency of the proposed addition with the Residential Development Standards given the issues raised by the adjoining property owner. And then the second issue is the issue of off- street parking.At this point the applicant is not proposing any off-street parking spaces due to the disputed property. The Town Code does allow the Planning Commission to grant an exception from these parking requirements based on a couple of findings,one of which the addition is necessary to provide adequate floor area,or living area;and then secondly,the lot does not have adequate area to provide the off-street parking. As the Chair mentioned,there are two desk items before you:two letters in support of the application as well as an updated letter from the neighbor in opposition to the project. 2l After consideration the adjoining property owner found that 22 these were not acceptable. 21 22 CHAIR MICCICHE:We have a question. COMMISSIONER BURKE:What is the allowed FAR?Do 23 24 25 Given the limited width of the lot,and Staff evaluated the project,there seems to be very little flexibility in the location of the mass and location of the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 3 23 24 25 we·know?Can you give me the approximate percentage that would be allowed?I noticed if I look at the chart,the addition seems to make it the highest FAR in the immediate LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 4 2 know? COMMISSIONER BURKE:We're right under the FAR 19 that strange appendage off the back,yeah. RANDY TSUDA:Well it all depends on the lot sizes No,if you were to grant a variance RANDY TSUDA:Correct. RANDY TSUDA: COMMISSIONER BURKE:But it wouldn't necessarily COMMISSIONER BURKE:Right,but can they get to RANDY TSUDA:At this point they're proposing that the pad not be there. be covered up? COMMISSIONER BURKE:I'm not asking the question right.They're not losing any off-street parking as a result that now? of this application? RANDY TSUDA:They're using it.It does cross the disputed portion of the property. COMMISSIONER BURKE:I could not tell by the story poles,will the pad be covered up by the addition? 7 6 8 4 5 RANDY TSUDA:They currently have a pad in the 2 front and they have an existing garage at the back of the 3 parcel. 24 23 16 22 15 21 11 18 could grant a variance.The application has been noticed for to allow the pad to remain,there is room for one off-street parking space.That would be in the front setback area,and the code requires that any off-street parking be outside of 17 the front setback area.But it is conceivable the Commission 12 10 14 13 19 a variance and a variance has not been applied for,so that 20 would have to be re-noticed to reflect a variance. But that lot would be allowed That is correct,but we are Correct. This proposal is I think 1/100. COMMISSIONER BURKE: RANDY TSUDA: COMMISSIONER BURKE:And the final question is COMMISSIONER BURKE: RANDY TSUDA: RANDY TSUDA:You're just under the FAR. COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay.Now this is the RANDY TSUDA:We're counting the entire area of what as far as the percentage? lot.But I know flag lots we treat a little differently in that we don't count the panhandle portion towards the FAR. limit? counting the entire area of this lot towards its FAR? opposite of a flag lot.I mean this is definitely not a flag street parking places because of this,is that correct? 5 4 and you have varying lot sizes. neighborhood.What's the max for that neighborhood,do you 24 14 16 13 15 23 22 11 17 10 18 the lot,not including the Augustine Way portion,including 20 12 21 there's nothing in this application that is making the off- street parking issue any worse?They're not losing off- 25 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 5 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 6 1 CHAIR MICCICHE:It's as is.Thank you.Any other 1 reason for the Commission not to decide the application 2 questions for Randy?Michael.2 based on the facts presented to you today.This issue need 3 COMMISSIONER KANE:Specific to this case,can you not be resolved in order for you to do so. 4 tell me what is meant by calling this property 4 COMMISSIONER KANE:Okay,I understand that,and I and doesn't meet the minimum lot width.The minimum lot size 5 6 7 nonconforming? RANDY TSUDA:It doesn't meet the minimum lot size 5 6 7 was thinking if the owner in this case did not fair well in court,they would lose use of their garage.Wouldn't that affect the parking? 10 11 12 13 14 is 8,000 square feet and in this area and it is below that. COMMISSIONER KANE:Okay,and this case was before the DRC? RANDY TSUDA:No,under a minor residential application.The way the process works is that the director has the ability to approve these,unless there is a letter of opposition.If there is a letter of opposition,then it goes to the Planning Commission. 8 10 12 13 14 RANDY TSUDA:Well that's the reason we are asking you to consider this project based on the original property boundaries,and that is the reason why the applicants are requesting the exception from the parking standards.So in other words,in case the courts decide,or somebody decides, that they do not have rights to the Augustine Way portion, then there is already been a waiver granted by this Planning Commission to waive the two off-street parking space 15 16 COMMISSIONER KANE: not the DRC? So it was before the director,15 16 requirement. COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you. 17 RANDY TSUDA:Correct.17 CHAIR MICCICHE:Any other questions of Staff? 18 COMMISSIONER KANE:What I'm looking at is if 18 Seeing none,I will call the applicant up. 19 anybody has taken any action that would imply that it's 20 21 22 appropriate to even decide this issue prior to the settlement of the legal issue?I'm seeking your advise on that.It seems like we have the cart before the house, 19 20 21 22 GLEN WAGNER:Good evening.I am Glen Wagner,the owner along with my wife Melissa,of the proposed project at 16750 Farley Road.We're also joined up here tonight with our architect,David Britt. because one could affect the other.23 24 ORRY KORB:The property without the disputed area 23 24 I'd like to first start by thanking the Commission members tonight for their attention and consideration to our 25 is sufficient to consider the application,so there's no LOS GATOS .PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 7 25 project.I've lived in Los Gatos for half my life,which LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 8 afford at the time.It was our dream to upgrade the small 1 includes the past ten years of my married life.My wife and I have always loved living in Los Gatos and this community. We were very excited back in 1999 to go and 4 purchase our first home here,which is the property on Farley Road.At the time of the purchase we recognized the house was very small,under 1,000 square feet,and in need of repair in multiple areas,but it's all that we could 1 the only way to provide an adequately sized house for our We are not unreasonable people and from the very We made many compromises from the very start for the benefit of possible objections.We started by hiring a had approved plans for a two-story,and multiple other two- the minimum setback requirements.Our expectations are addressing possible sensitivities that surrounded us,even start of our planning and design phase moved forward, story home next to them.Since the only possible way for us to expand was by going up,we attempted to address as many story homes exist within our neighborhood that are built at to 26';stepped down second story wall plates to create a neighbors currently have two-story homes,the previous owner clearly within the confines of our lot,local regulations, and the character of our neighborhood. sensitivities as possible to our home's design. very talented architect,David Britt,to design a home within the challenging space of our lot.We followed a design which implemented the following concessions:we reduced structure height down 4'from the maximum allowable if it meant deviating from our own preferred design ideas. We learned through the previous gatherings that our next- door ne·ighbors facing southeast from us did not want a two- 8 6 7 2 family on our lot is to do a second story addition. The concept of a two-story home in our 4 neighborhood is not unrealistic.Three of my closest 5 9 25 24 17 16 13 15 10 14 18 23 19 11 20 12 21 22 property. home and increase the square footage to provide adequate It is my feeling that most people moving into our neighborhood both in the past and present have the desire to improve their properties and expand the size of their When preparing to move forward with our expansion we were immediately confronted with the limiting options the map right here and you can see the area.Quite simply, every house in our area started as small as ours and have after exhausting any and all possible options we realized space for raising a family.We visualized our dream frqm the very start as we bought the house from a woman who had at the time approved plans for a second story addition at this dwellings when such limiting living conditions exist as with our small one bedroom home.I realize this because almost grown into much larger homes today. regarding our structure's available footprint.Our lot is narrow and has an irregular L shape,which is depicted by 13 12 14 11 15 16 10 17 20 18 19 21 24 25 22 23 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 9 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 10 1 decreased exterior presence of the structure;by designing 1 just notified of its submittal at 4:30 this afternoon.It is 2 in the opposition's continuing attempt to try to commingle a 3 pending land dispute and its undecided judicial settlement 4 with our construction application.The disputed piece of 2 in smaller elevated windows on the second story addition to address privacy issues;designing the rear of the house not 4 to extend beyond the boundaries of the neighbor's existing rear facing walls;by stepping back a portion of the second story exterior,therefore breaking up the presence of a 5 6 property has no ultimate relevance to our project and its content regarding such dispute should be unattached from our 7 8 solid wall running the entire length of the house;and we also offered to install various plantings to provide a more 7 8 application.Thank you. MELISSA WAGNER:If I can just address the area 10 11 12 natural boundary around the side yard view of the house. With this design we gained support of the vast majority of our neighborhood peers and the Planning Department by their intent to approve our project as we created a wonderful,tasteful home plan that will truly be an asset to our neighborhood. 9 10 11 12 13 under dispute once more,I wanted to point out to you guys that it is unbuildable;this whole piece here is unbuildable.It's got easements on it,so whether we were to wait after the dispute was settled or not,we would still only have this footprint for building.If this was settled in our favor and it was our land,we'd get eight more feet, but that's not sufficient enough to change the design.14 Our next-door neighbors opposing our project are not satisfied with our accommodating efforts,even after 14 15 DAVID BRITT:My name is David Britt,108 North 17 16 18 to answer any questions the Commission might have regarding 19 the project,the design,and (inaudible). 21 yOU'd like to highlight though? meeting with them recently at the Planning Department,and that's why we're here tonight.No realistic solutions have 18 been made by them to amicably satisfy our building 19 requirements,so we're here today to ask you for your 20 support in our approval of our project,which will allow us 21 to move on with our lives and our right to improve our 22 property. 16 17 20 22 Santa Cruz Avenue,Los Gatos,and the designer of the project.(Timer sounds.)I guess I'll wrap it up.I'm here CHAIR MICCICHE:Are there any specific points DAVID BRITT:Well yeah,there are a couple of 23 24 25 Now one last thing before I hand the remaining time over to our architect.It is in respect to the Desk Item K,which I believe is with your packet tonight.We were 24 25 things. CHAIR MICCICHE:Would you do that,please? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 11 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 12 17 basement on this site because of access issues.We had 18 actually proposed a small basement and they said we had to 19 take it out. 18 lower the roof? DAVID BRITT:We would net probably about a foot- DAVID BRITT:Sure,I can.One of the things that COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And how much would that COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Thank you.Could you be a pitch. we can do is move the entire master bedroom building wall- the right-hand side of the property. The other thing that we could do is we can that's the area at the rear of the house-four feet towardS as a fireplace has to do.We are willing to eliminate that. The other thing was slightly lowering the roof was a concern.It projects up past the ridgeline of course, the applicant,the neighbor,and the staff? eliminate the fireplace chase,because the fireplace chase little more specific about the things that your applicant was willing to do based on the meeting that was held between start with you. 4 6 9 7 5 1 CHAIR MICCICHE,Okay,thank you.Any other 2 questions of the applicant?Commissioner Quintana,we'll 10 19 11 15 16 14 13 17 12 DAVID BRITT:Sure.The meeting that we had with Also it's interesting,we can't do a basement on the next-door neighbor was interesting in the sense that there were a couple of things that we talked about that we could do to mitigate their concern of the view and the privacy:lowering the height of the building,moving second story building walls further away from them,and we're can't be made because of the shape of the lot. property setback lines,which we can't do because the property is too narrow.So those types of design changes this property like a lot of one-story houses in Los Gatos have basements.The Building Department says we can't do a forward.Can't do that;we're at front setback.Doing a one- and-a-half story design with dormer windows on the side willing to do that. Also there were a couple of things that he talked about as far as design changes,such as pulling the house 5 10 11 13 12 14 15 16 CHAIR MICCICHE:The proposal that you made to the are you back to your original design. neighbor,have they been incorporated into this design or CHAIR MICCICHE: the wall plate on the second floor to 6',which a 6'wall plate,the wall height inside the room is 2'lower than a The design of the building,if I can talk a little bit about the design of the building,is inherently sensitive to the side setback lines.We've actually lowered 24 25 23 21 20 and-a-half. 22 They have not been incorporated? No. They have not been incorporated. DAVID BRITT: DAVID BRITT: 24 25 20 23 21 22 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 14 13 1 normal second story wall plate,and that helps to of course 1 MELISSA WAGNER:This is the addition,and then 2 reduce the mass of the building,and that happens to 50%of the building in front. 2 the master bedroom is positioned up here.What we propose is CHAIR MICCICHE:Could you speak into the 4 3 taking this and moving it this way so that this roof element is here rather than there. 5 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:When you say move the master bedroom wall 4'back,that whole section is an 4 addition.Could that whole section be moved further to the 6 microphone? second floor,pushing that 4',over so that lower roof DAVID BRITT:We did not propose doing that, element continues all the way towards the back.I think what you're asking me is whether that family room below can move with it. Mmm-hmm (Yes). Oh,I'm sorry.MELISSA WAGNER: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: DAVID BRITT:No,I'll go ahead.So what Melissa was pointing out is you can see the master bedroom on the 7 13 12 14 11 10 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I was looking at it from a west? plate,which is at the back of the house,we have a'roof below it,a roof element that breaks up that vertical mass. DAVID BRITT:What we proposed doing is that second story portion of the building at the back of the house be pushed 4'back,allowing that roof that you see, that stepped roof,to come all the way across the back of the house.And so basically wherever we've got a taller wall 7 13 14 12 10 11 17 right here where that pole is. 15 16 17 better,more articulation than getting the whole addition further from the neighbor. DAVID BRITT:So you were asking about moving the 15 16 although ... MELISSA WAGNER:This is the property line,this 18 entire building?18 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Speak into the microphone, 19 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yeah.19 please. 20 21 DAVID BRITT:Let me look at the plans. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Not the entire building, 20 21 DAVID BRITT:That's okay. MELISSA WAGNER:Go ahead. 22 just the addition. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Rear addition. 23 24 25 DAVID BRITT:The addition. 22 23 24 25 DAVID BRITT:Okay.So that entire addition, you're 'talking about moving that over,the whole thing? MELISSA WAGNER:What we're saying is that the setback is right here where this pole is,only 3',so really LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/6/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 15 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/6/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 16 MELISSA WAGNER:No,I don't believe it is,and DAVID BRITT:We could probably do that.It's CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay. DAVID BRITT:I'm pretty confident. COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:Is that a sufficient COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:I just have a question. If you did a thing like that,for what reason would you be doing it,other than to satisfy the neighbor? MELISSA WAGNER:Just to satisfy the neighbor. DAVID BRITT:Yeah. happy with that and obviously that's why they noticed this project to be approved.And so yeah,to go back to your question,I think we could make that work. was more compatible with the neighborhood.They were very CHAIR MICCICHE:commissioner Kane,do you have any questions?Morris? satisfied them.Obviously we've been working very closely with Staff on this project,mitigating their concerns with the design.We kind of redesigned the front elevation so it 1 5 6 8 4 23 mean they're not as large as these to be noted on the front of where that addition is going on the property.I 2 actually not a bad suggestion and it's something we could probably work,and if we work with Staff on it so it 11 10 22 also I don't believe it would satisfy the neighbor.And plus I'd like to point out that there are very large trees in 20 reason for keeping the building as an integral part itself? 19 24 18 13 15 14 17 12 25 21 ·16 Okay,what you're saying Thank you. Something like that,on Oh,is it 4'? We would lose the whole ...because I'm sorry,I was wrong. Yeah,I mean we would be open. MELISSA WAGNER: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay,I'm confused.How MELISSA WAGNER: MELISSA WAGNER: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: MELISSA WAGNER: MELISSA WAGNER:And then put the porch on the COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: DAVID BRITT:Yes. MELISSA WAGNER:Something like that? DAVID BRITT:It's a possibility,just shifting 3'? is that you can't move it without losing part of the porch? it's only 3'right here to that.We'd only be able to move it 3'.From this wall to this post is 3'. room can you move the second story 4'but the lower story only You know,it's not very small,it's like a standard family the back or something. 5 there is no room to move it that way.This line right here 2 is the property line.So to move it that direction,there's no room for it,and the family room is already very small. 4 7 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 that. 19 11 12 20 other side,is that what you're suggesting? DAVID BRITT:Something like that.21 25 22 24 23 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 17 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 18 1 topographic map,but there are trees there that cover that 1 DAVID BRITT:I think the design itself inherently 2 whole addition.So it's not anything that's going to make an 2 already is considerate of its B'setback where I've got a 4 impact on that part. CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay,thank you.Commissioner good portion of that second story building wall stepped back 4 from that B'setback.And then where it isn't set back,the Burke. COMMISSIONER BURKE:I assume you read the letter 5 6 wallplate is lowered to something that's much lower than a two-story building.With the 6'wall there,that's ...If DAVID BRITT:Yes. from our consulting architect? adjacent home. COMMISSIONER BURKE:One concern that he had that COMMISSIONER BURKE:But there is realistically no DAVID BRITT:Yeah,it then becomes the shape of with this design? way you could reduce the length of the two-story element this raftered in a plane up,you wouldn't have habitable space on your second floor. 7 8 9 10 11 Yes.MELISSA WAGNER: jumped out to me was the two-story height so close to the 7 10 11 MELISSA WAGNER:Would you like me to address 13 14 that? COMMISSIONER BURKE:This is a question to the 13 14 the lot issue. COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay,second question.This is hypothetical,but it's one of the things.Assuming the 15 architect.If that was an issue in the Planning Commission's 15 issue over the disputed land was over yesterday,and while 16 17 mind,what could you do to address that,even if it meant reducing some square footage?If we decided that was an 16 17 you had easements in that land you didn't necessary have now a setback to deal with,you could build right up to the edge 18 issue,how would you address that?18 of the easement,how would your design change to accommodate 19 DAVID BRITT:Well,I think we've talked about one 19 the neighbor if that was the case? 20 way,and it think it's a considerable change,moving the 21 entire addition off the back of the house 4'away from the 20 21 MELISSA WAGNER:This design would have been different in that we'd have a much larger FAR,because our setback line.Then you have a 12'setback as opposed to an22 23 24 B'. COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay. 22 23 24 area,we'd have a quarter acre versus 7,BOO square feet,so our home design would have been larger and in a different design;it wouldn't be this house.So I can't really address 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/B/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 19 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/B/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 20 18 house over 8'. 2 different design. how that would change this design,because it would be a MELISSA WAGNER:Absolutely. Well,that's an interesting RANDY TSUDA:Three feet. COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay.Being that this lot, RANDY TSUDA:Three feet,but it's the minimum MELISSA WAGNER:It's been used for 50 years to COMMISSIONER BURKE:Three feet into setbacks? CHAIR MICCICHE: COMMISSIONER BURKE:We could recommend RANDY TSUDA:Our understanding is it wasn't a policy is. one of the requirements for a variance is the unique nature What is the reason,that they cannot have a basement in this flat out prohibition,that there were some issues regarding the access and accessibility out of the basement that had COMMISSIONER BURKE:Yes,a question of Staff,or a couple of questions of Staff.One is the basement issue. necessary to meet the building code,and that's what the house? under the design as proposed it did not meet UBC. point,Michael.We ought to pursue that more.Do you have a question of Staff on that? not been resolved,so it was not that it could not be done, (inaudible). 5 4 6 7 1 2 access that area. 16 13 14 17 20 15 10 25 22 COMMISSIONER BURKE:But if I remember correctly the light wells and the access are allowed to protrude into 18 setbacks and things like that? 21 12 23 24 11 okay,thank you very much. At minimum you would just move the COMMISSIONER BURKE: MELISSA WAGNER:Well we can't do that. DAVID BRITT: DAVID BRITT:Right. COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay.And assuming you did MELISSA WAGNER:If we had a 0'setback,I would COMMISSIONER BURKE:Let me re-ask the question. COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay. design to address the issue that the consulting architect has about that vertical wall? no additional area to work with.How would you change the envision putting three of the bedrooms downstairs.We looked at a design that did that if this land wasn't an issue,and we'd only have two bedrooms upstairs doing the style that the neighbor requested with the dormers,so it would be much less of an impact on the second floor.There would only be two bedrooms upstairs and one bathroom with a roof like this.It would look like a one-story with a couple of dormers. Say you had a variance that gave you a 0'setback.You had access your rear garage? have access on that strip of land,you'd still be able to 4 5 14 24 13 15 16 17 10 11 25 19 12 23 20 22 21 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 21 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 22 ~of a piece of property,and if I look at this lot,it's one 2 of the most unique,challenging lots and if there was ever a ~Planning Commission.Then we would renotice it and convene 2 the hearing in July. call for a variance this might be one.MELISSA WAGNER:If I may add one thing.This 4 neighbor right here,who is actually sitting right here 5 tonight,she has a 0'setback only a couple houses down from 6 ours,on this side. 7 COMMISSIONER BURKE:I'm going to ask is that 5 7 ~o Do you see any ramifications,especially if it made a better project?Could you see any negative ramifications of a variance here to allow them to build closer to what used to be Augustine Way,regardless how this-because apparently there are easements on it so it can't be built no matter-what would be the downsides?I know we'd have to renotice.Any thoughts on that? RANDY TSUDA:You'd need to renotice.You wouldn't 8 10 something that-and I'll ask the other neighbors-is that something you would be interested in if that settled this issue? MELISSA WAGNER:If that settled this issue.I If that settled the issue,we would be for it. could you make a better project with that? mean we have a new baby;we want to move on with our lives. 11 12 ~3 14 be able to go all the way up to the former property line in case it was decided that that property was not under the control of the Wagners.Under fire code and building code we would look at it from a worse case scenario that that became 11 ~2 ~3 14 COMMISSIONER BURKE:And I'll ask the architect, 15 the de facto property line,so we need to work around the 15 DAVID BRITT:Yeah,you'd have a wider building 16 ~7 building codes to make sure it still complied,so that would be the one area we'd need to take a look at. 16 17 envelope,and obviously a wider building envelope is going to get you a better design. ~8 COMMISSIONER BURKE:And could we grant a variance 19 without them actually applying for one if we felt it was 18 19 COMMISSIONER BURKE:Thank you. CHAIR MICCICHE:Is it relevant to what Mike's 20 needed for this project to go forward in a direct manner?20 talking about or do you have a separate issue? 2~RANDY TSUDA:That would be noticed as a variance.21 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I think it's relevant. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: 22 23 You'd want to check with the applicant to make sure that that would be acceptable to them,but you could indicate 22 23 CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay,then you go right ahead. Thank you.When you say a 24 25 that that's something that would be of interest to the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 23 24 25 better building design,would allowing a 0'setback enable you to address the issue of mass and scale and the two-story LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 24 1 walls on the other side of the property,or would it just MELISSA WAGNER:Yes. additional window. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:No. If I might,we were just going CHAIR MICCICHE:So we can ask for a redesign? RANDY TSUDA:Correct. RANDY TSUDA: CHAIR MICCICHE:The question is can you do this? DAVID BRITT:Yes. CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay,then I think this is through my favorite section of the zoning code,the Planning commission and satisfying the neighbor's concerns? nonconforming section,and there is a provision of the zone,including front,side,and rear yard requirements.So it would not need to be noticed as a variance,but you simply could do it through this process,the A&S process. something we should discuss and understand how we can go about getting this done. Is that fundamentally what you're telling me? COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:It was justa question of the possibility. Do you think you can do it to the satisfaction of the not that at all.5 7 1 sort of architectural projections off the side rake wall 2 with windows or something. CHAIR MICCICHE:Excuse me.I don't really want 4 this to turn into an architectural design meeting.This is 22 24 17 16 15 18 nonconforming section of the code that allows the Commission 21 19 without a variance,allows you to modify any rule of the 20 23 13 14 12 10 11 Let me show you what I envisionMELISSAWAGNER: would consist of a window here. DAVID BRITT:What we'd probably propose is a one- CHAIR MICCICHE:I don't like this at all. COMMISSIONER BURKE:Okay. MELISSA WAGNER:The sides would still look like a CHAIR MICCICHE:without extending it. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:This is just going to your enable a bigger building,and how would you go about it just would allow us to put a bedroom here and bedroom in the back like that with maybe a small dormer like this for an in general? DAVID BRITT:The FAR wouldn't change,so we eight extra feet?You could do that and you would have a zero lot line on your existing 8'setback,in other words, one-story next to our one-story neighbors.Our one-story neighbors would still look like the one-story,but up here couldn't do a bigger bUilding.Did I answer your question? much less massive looking house. This would be the front of the house,the door.The upstairs here,because we've already looked at.a design like this, 5 6 4 14 17 16 15 13 20 12 11 10 19 21 18 22 24 23 25 and-a-half story design basically where we would have some 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 26 1 CHAIR MICCICHE:That could bring it to the limit 1 DAVID BRITT:Yes. 2 of the property and hopefully a design that will tend toward a one-and-a-half story home. 2 MELISSA WAGNER:And I just want to also point out that my neighbor right here that I pointed out that has a 0' 4 setback,she just finished her addition to her home,and she4 5 6 RANDY TSUDA:Right.What I'd suggest,if after the close of the public hearing,if that's of interest to the Commission that you provide direction on how you would 5 6 would probably be a good one to ask questions to.They built it right up to there and there were no building problems 7 8 like it redesigned,we would work with the applicant and then bring it back. 7 with that. CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay,fine.Thank you. 10 II 12 13 14 CHAIR MICCICHE:All right,any other questions of the applicant?I take it the applicant is willing to do this and willing to come back with a redesign? DAVID BRITT:Yeah.I think there will be some challenges in the Building Department proposing a building that has no site setback.We'll still need to be probably 3' away from that property line,because if you're closer than 10 II 12 13 14 DAVID BRITT:Thanks. CHAIR MICCICHE:We have some speakers on this.I would note to the speakers since the tendency here,I believe the Planning Commission is going to send this back for redesign on the basis that we just heard,so if you're going to make comments you might want to relay them in that fashion.But you relay whatever you want;this is a public hearing.The first card I have is Jim Grabot .. street over from Farley.Actually after listening to this 15 16 17 3'to the property line,then the Building Department would want firewalls and all of these other crazy things.So again,it would be a challenge,but we can do it,and I 15 16 17 JIM GRABOT:I'm a neighbor on Frank Avenue,one 18 19 think we would ultimately have a more sensitive design for the next-door neighbors. 18 19 I've changed my whole thought process here and I applaud what I've just heard you go through here.So if you are 21 guarantee we're going to agree to it? CHAIR MICCICHE:You understand there's no 22 20 22 DAVID BRITT:Right. 20 willing to work with them and work on a redesign,you have 21 my full support on this project.And I think it's great that you're willing to work with a young couple in Los Gatos. 23 24 25 CHAIR MICCICHE:Although you're going to give it an attempt here to solve the issues that are in hand,is that correct? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 27 23 24 25 CHAIR MICCICHE:We have a question for you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 28 19 entire area,and understanding the unusual nature of the thing and supported the Wagners in this particular situation the risk of sounding like other citizens who shall go accommodating those on the basis of their growing family. I guess sort of the last point I'd like to make at neighborhood,getting community support for the project,and incur by doing a redesign after they've gone through this and we wouldn't be here today if that was the case. But all that being said,I applaud your efforts to nameless at these kinds of meetings,I was a little neighborhood and the like in looking at the nature of the process at substantial cost to themselves to try and accommodate the neighborhood with a plan they already have before you.Thank you. personally upset when I think the Town in effect reneged on their quit claim relative to the piece of property that's in question.I believe that the Town should have done the right And then finally I think that they had really done their best to accommodate the sensitivities of the I think the Wagners bought the property with the 2 reasonable expectation that they could do a second story 1 7 4 second story building permit issued,I believe. 6 5 8 structure,given that there had already been an approved 23 move this forward,and also to please be sensitive to the 19 Wagners and the cost that you're asking them to continue to 18 17 13 11 16 20 21 10 22 15 12 14 COMMISSIONER BURKE:Just curious,what was your think this is great. CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.The next card I have MICHAEL GORDY:Thank you.I'm the neighbor on the I think that the current structure is is from Mr.Michael Gordy. remodels aren't helping the younger ones.So that's why I other side of the Wagners,adjacent to the old Augustine Way,and my wife and I just prior to the discussions that of reasons. substantially out of character with the neighborhood. Los Gatos approximately 25 years.I've seen a lot of projects done here,and what I've noticed is some of the older residents in this town that already have had their you guys just had were in favor of this project for a couple There'S been substantial renovation done throughout this 1,800 to just under 3,000 square feet,although we don't piece that is frankly not in character with the property,I think that this property does stand out as a neighborhood.Our own house went from 1,200 square feet to 4 2 position before?I mean were-you pro?Did you think this was a good application or bad? JIM GRABOT:I was pro the project.I've lived in 1 5 6 7 13 15 10 14 17 16 11 18 12 23 21 20 22 24 have the property issues that these guys do.24 25 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 29 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 30 1 CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.Any questions of the 1 We probably would not have a problem with this 2 speaker?Seeing none,thank you very much.The next card I 4 have is from a Mr.George Cornwell. GEORGE CORNWELL:Good evening.I live at 15751 2 project if the two homes were adjoined in the way that rectangular homes typically are,which would be a one-story 4 next to a two-story would be typically something like that. 5 6 7 10 11 12 Augustine Avenue directly across the street from the Wagner's house.I've lived there for 17 years,and I too applaud your effort to let the Wagners change their design to make it work.I support their effort to put their money and their time and effort into improving their house. Currently I think their house is too tiny.It's on a convoluted lot.It has no character.I would like to see it changed to be an asset to the neighborhood,so I support their effort. s 10 11 12 The complication with this is,and why we're impacted differently than any of the other neighbors,is that we're adjacent to it and this is the situation that we're facing. So normally those setbacks would be side yard setbacks,16', no big deal because there's not a lot of visual impairment here. The problem is that although their house is 5' shorter than our house,all of the windows on this side are impacted,and as a matter of fact there is no view above,or more card here,a Mr.Bill Shellooe. BILL SHELLOOE:I have some visual aids here.So first of all thank you for taking the time to understand my opposition to the project.My name is Bill Shellooe and my 13 14 15 16 17 CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you very much.I have one 13 14 15 16 17 to the side,or anything else but structure in all three of the bedrooms in our house,and that's the problem. I really like the direction that you guys are going on the 0'setbacks.If this structure could be moved 8'and single story with dormers,I'm pretty sure we'd have 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wife's name is Patricia Patero and we are the next-door neighbors who are adjacent to the project. What I'd like to do in these three minutes is try to show you how our experience of our home would be compromised adversely by this particular project.And what I'll do is after that I'll quickly summarize by pointing out potentially some of the conflicts with your building code at the end of the presentation. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 31 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a deal.So just want to get that on the table. Anyway,as the project is right now,the complication is that we have as you saw up there a 26'high, 58'wide,two-story structure that adjoins the entire length of our house and is under 16'away.This has the effect basically like I said of blocking all the windows on the western wall and showing us nothing but structure.And the fact that this large structure is so close really does give LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 32 1 an oppressive feeling to the three bedrooms that are along 2 that west wall,and that's where the problem is. I see I have 30 seconds,so I'm going to put that up there.These are some photographs that are a little bit 1 probably two-and-a-half times the height of this wall this 2 far way staring right at them out of all three bedrooms,and that has the effect of reducing the potential market for the 4 home. difficult to see,but these are photographs taken from the three bedroom windows that are along the west wall,and then this bottom photograph shows the distance between the two houses.80 although it was a great effort by David,the architect,and the Wagners to officer to offset that master bedroom,it does not have an impact on the view out of the 10 windows. 11 So as I wrap up,I'm not the person to interpret 5 8 10 11 CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.Any questions of the speaker?Seeing none,thank you.I'll give you this one shot,Lee. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I just want to make sure I understood what you said about the zero lot line.Are you assuming that the whole house would be moved over? BILL SHELLOOE:Yes. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay,that's what I thought.Thank you.Then a follow-up question,may I? 12 13 your standards,but at the same time it seems to me in reviewing them that there are some incompatibilities between 12 13 CHAIR MICCICHE:Yes,go ahead. 14 this project,as planned,with your existing development 14 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Assuming that the existing 15 16 17 18 standards. In particularly,sites are not supposed to impair the use and enjoyment and the value of the adjoining neighbor's structure,and certainly the use of our windows 15 16 17 18 house was not moved further from your house,but only the additions to the first floor and the additions to the second floor were further from your house,would you still support that? 19 is impaired,the enjoyment of those rooms is impaired due,19 BILL SHELLOOE:It depends on how far,because the 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the overwhelming nature of the structure itself. And the value is impaired.On paper you'd think that the value of the adjoining homes when a nice home is built is certainly brought up on paper,but when a potential buyer steps inside that house and opens up the windows in any of the bedrooms,they find this massive structure that's LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 33 20 21 22 23 24 25 problem is,using this wall as an example,I mean imagine that you were looking out of your 6'x4'window here out of anyone of your bedrooms,what do you see?It's nice that the wall is differentiated and articulated,but it's still wall and roof.It's not (inaudible),so that's what sort of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 34 1 compromises my feeling of (inaudible)oppressed (inaudible) scale and mass of this adjoining wall. So I guess the answer to your question is it 1 every other two weeks and this same issue was brought up to 2 you just two weeks ago.You remember that?Fifty/fifty. 3 So I think you need to respond in an equitable and 4 depends how far and what's visible.So moving top stories 4 a just and a fair measure to the one man under our backward doesn't necessarily reveal any sky.That's one of CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.Okay,the applicant in my mind the key issue out ·very clearly.Second story additions proposed,no matter how far it's offset,is still CHAIR MICCICHE:Would you fill out a card after TINA CHAMBERS:I don't have a card. applicant can come up and rebut anything that's been stated democracy,the local version of it. CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you,Mr.Davis.The if they'd like to.Do we have another speaker?Do you have a card,please? you speak? 5 7 6 11 10 Thank you.COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: can come up and rebut anything?Do you have a card up here? RAY DAVIS:Well I think this gentleman here laid the problems. 7 11 10 12 13 14 going to be a tremendously negative mitigation of his view. And that'S your duty as a Planning Commission under the General Plan. TINA CHAMBERS:Hi,I'm Tina Chambers.I live at 16718 Farley Road,and my husband and I just recently remodeled our home,and we also have a 0'setback.We didn't 19 must go by.So there must be at least a SO/50 sharing of 17 18 16 17 The General Plan states that any second story addition,the view in question will be equitably shared. That's the spirit and the letter of the General Plan and that is your Bible.That's what you as a planning commission use it as 0',we used it as 4'for building the framers and all.Zero was just impossible to get that close to. We support Melissa and Glen.They have a young family.We have a young family.We had to do our remodel 19 because it was falling apart.So we just wanted to let you 21 20 know that we support them.20 that view as per the law in Los Gatos. I want to hear you folks give this man his just 21 CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.Are there any other 22 due under the law of Los Gatos.And most of these folks have 22 speakers on this issue?Seeing none,would you come up, a 0'setback.I didn't realize they didn't go up to that 0' 23 24 25 no idea what the law is of course,because they've never come down here except once in a lifetime.But you're here 23 24 25 please? MELISSA WAGNER:I didn't realize.I knew she had LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 35 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 36 setback;I thought they had.Being that realistically like 18 sky.Garbage cans.There's really no view to protect,plus 19 their shades are always down,so there is no view to RANDY TSUDA:It's not an access issue,it's a CHAIR MICCICHE:Go ahead. the setback is 3'to have openings. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:The discussion of how much footage you need adjacent to building a structure to actually have it happen,is that because of access issues or is it because if there's already a fence or a building there that it's impossible to construct unless you have more room? Because in this case there's no structure next to that lot line. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I'm going to ask this of Staff first,and then the applicant. further. able to relinquish that,then we could accommodate them much MELISSA WAGNER:Yes,unfortunately that's really all we can do.Unless the Shellooes were able to relinquish their interest in that land that does not even adjoin their property-their property being here,ours here-if they were building and fire code issue,and my understanding is that in order to have openings on the side you need a minimum of 3'of set back.If you have no openings then you can go to a true zero lot line configuration if you can work around the access issues of building it,but under normal situations 5 7 6 1 4 24 15 11 13 10 17 12 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay,so given that, 18 that's back,if I understand,to your original design?' 19 20 16 22 23 21 Okay,we have a question from won't work if even a foot is taken away,let alone 4'.so she said you have to be 4',then nOw I realize that we can that building won't let us go that far,up to a 0'setback, CHAIR MICCICHE: only go possibly 4'and that's not going to give us the little teensy bits of space that we need to make that plan that I had in my head work. The reason I am so marinated in the design is because I myself take design as an interest and I worked very closely with David designing the floor plan pretty much 80%myself,so I know,this floor plan in my head and it, that there is no view out their windows.It's our ugly one now addressing the 0'setback after hearing Tina's statement I'm concerned that what I was proposing might not work,most likely will not work,because it's only 4'. The other thing that I just wanted to state is protect.But also David states that that was a law that view be protected,but from what I learned from the last Planning protected.I'm finished. Commission meeting,it's actually a guideline that view be 5 6 10 15 13 11 story house with an ugly air conditioner sticking out the 17 side of it,and a decrepit roof,and there's a little bit of 24 16 20 12 22 21 23 25 Commissioner Quintana.25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 37 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 38 1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Are you willing to 1 MELISSA WAGNER:And attractive too. 2 relinquish or swap the area behind their yard?2 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I guess my next question MELISSA WAGNER:We paid a lot of money for this,is going to be of Staff. 4 and to move this garage would cost a lot of money since it moveable.It's at least a $65,000 garage as it is. but you'd have to stay back 3'. MELISSA WAGNER:I thought she went zero,but now I think one of the things that theDAVIDBRITT: but I'm making the assumption that you don't have openings CHAIR MICCICHE:Let's stay with the applicant right now.Any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER BURKE:The property line in question across the entire length,and so there will be a lot of places that even if the corner to be within 3',any areas with openings would be beyond 3'. MELISSA WAGNER:I don't understand the question. COMMISSIONER BURKE:You're putting rectangular boxes in a triangular shape,and so you're going to have points that are going to be at O'and you're going to have lines that are going to start at O'and then go to greater distances. is angled relative to-and this is going to go back to Staff- 6 4 8 5 7 13 10 11 16 15 12 14 18 first department would require is any area that projects 17 I'm going to go back to my Actually the structure would not be COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: DAVID BRITT: holds our main electrical panel.We never wanted to give it MELISSA WAGNER:We've looked at that option with them and it's just not a fair trade since this is already built on. up. nonbuildable property and from the county standards has no first question.When you originally indicated that you would be interested in looking at the zero lot line,you stated that you would probably not be able to go all the way up, value,and this is buildable property with value that we've 5 12 13 14 11 10 16 17 18 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 I'm learning that she didn't,and because of the reasons Randy had talked about. And the other thing is as he addressed openings on that side of the structure,that whole side of the structure would have to have openings in order to make it a good functional living space. 19 20 21 22 23 24 closer than 3'to that property line would be required as a firewall.So I don't think you could have little projections into that 3'section of a continuing wall without fire rating the entire wall and that fire rated wall can't have windows in it.So I think it would be very difficult.I think if we were to redesign this building we would run a 3' 25 DAVID BRITT:And attractive too.25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 39 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 40 envelope and not even try to get closer than 3'. 20 if we were allowed to push the house 3'closer to that line from the property line and design within that building MELISSA WAGNER:And also you'd have to understand 4 that our whole living space would face 3'away a firewalL Okay,if we're going to ask That's not an issue. I just wanted to make that clear. CHAIR MICCICHE: CHAIR MICCICHE: DAVID BRITT: CHAIR MICCICHE:It's there already. DAVID BRITT:Thank you. CHAIR MICCICHE:I'm going to close the public hearing and open it up to a motion,questions of Staff,or comments.Commissioner Quintana,you have a question of COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yes I do.My question is the buildability of the L-shaped part of.the lot given its hearing.Are there any more questions of the applicant? Seeing none,thank you. DAVID BRITT:Yeah,it's there already,so that's not going to change. mean there's no way around that. DAVID BRITT:I think any design proposal that would be presented to the Town would still include that existing first story building wall that already exists.I up and move it. questions of Staff we'll do that when we close the public Staff. 5 1 if we do so it enacts the Parks and Public Works Department 2 to require us to dedicate the first 10'of our property, then moving that front setback another 10',bringing us 4 further back into this weird triangle shape and not making the building possible again.So it's not possible to pick it 23 7 8 6 18 17 19 10 22 14 16 25 15 11 21 20 24 13 12 Not if it was 3'away from MELISSA WAGNER:Also the other issue though is:we COMMISSIONER BURKE: the property line,it wouldn't have to be a firewall. DAVID BRITT:Well no,when I say firewall,the' wall of the building itself would have to be fire rated. MELISSA WAGNER:Oh,I'm sorry.But whatever it was,it would face a fence 3'. RANDY TSUDA:What I would suggest is that when, we're talking about encroachments into that 3'setback, we're really getting into the depths of the building code: and that if the Commission is interested in exploring this is going to be an improvement and it's going to mitigate Mr. flexibility you would have with those building codes. DAVID BRITT:At minimum I think what would happen concept of moving that mass or the addition towards the west and provide that direction,we will work with the applicants and the architect and with our senior building inspector to property line,any distance away from the left-hand setback can't pick this structure up and move it three feet,because determine exactly what the requirements are and what Shellooe's concern. 5 10 17 13 15 14 16 18 11 23 19 12 25 22 21 24 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 42 ~width and given the FAR of the proposed buildings already. 2 Is there potential that that area could be build on if the 2 COMMISSIONER KANE:I'll second. CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay,we have a second to the 3 motion.Motion,comments? 4 5 6 7 ~o n 12 house already meets the maximum FAR? RANDY TSUDA:The house is basically at the maximum floor area,so there is no extra living area square footage available,so there would be no reason to place additional living area back on that L-shaped area. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Thank you. CHAIR MICCICHE:Yes,Mr.Burke. COMMISSIONER BURKE:I'd like to make a motion. CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay. COMMISSIONER BURKE:I've got to see how to word this motion,but I'd like to make a motion to continue 4 5 6 7 9 ~o 11 12 COMMISSIONER BURKE:And one thing I'd like to add and get the seconder to go along with it,is for Staff to work with the applicant on the possibility of a basement to hide some of the mass as well.They had expressed an interest in that.If that is doable,that would probably also help. CHAIR MICCICHE:Good input.Does the seconder accept that? COMMISSIONER KANE:Yes. CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay.Yes,Commissioner Quintana. 13 Architectural and Site Application S-05-03 to a date certain 13 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:That eliminates one thing, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 to allow redesign based upon the input the Commission has given here,and that would be for Staff to work with the architect and the applicant to come up with what I'm going to call a 0'lot line design,and you can interpret that the way it should be interpreted. And I'm saying that's to I b~lieve the west lot line,in order to reduce the mass and scale,to reduce the loss of daylight and views of the neighbor to the east,and hopefully come in a with a story-and-a-half design but without designing it here,but have the benefits of a story- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 because that was what I was going to suggest too.The other thing I was just going to mention is the question of fire safety and ope~ings in a wall that is closer than 3'. Just came back from a trip to New York where I stayed in a house where that situation was,and the people had replaced windows and were required to meet the new fire codes.In order to do that they couldn't use standard windows,but they were able to use a ceramic glass that met fire code.So just throwing that out as something to be looked at. 24 and-a-half design as far as the mass and scale and views.24 CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.Commissioner Burke. CHAIR MICCICHE:Do I have a second to the motion? 25 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/B/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 43 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/B/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 44 I make a motion that the date Okay.Someone make a motion to Yes,the 13 th is possible. Thank you,Commissioner Quintana. Anyone following the application,ORRY KORB: MELISSA WAGNER: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Second. CHAIR MICCICHE:All in favor?Let me comment. COMMISSIONER BURKE: CHAIR MICCICHE: CHAIR MICCICHE: the 13 th of July. there will be no further notice.The hearing is continued to CHAIR MICCICHE:Can we get a nod of the head from the applicant?Is the 13 th possible? continue this. RANDY TSUDA:The next available date would be July 13 th •Mr.Korb is not available at that time.The second meeting in July has been canceled,so it's either July 13 th or August lOth. Okay,I'm going to call the motion.All those in favor? Passes five-nothing.We need a date. 6 2 by doing that both would benefit.The neighbor would have a 3 better backyard and the applicant would have clear access to 4 parking. 7 8 1 those two sections by themselves appear to be buildable,and 19 10 15 18 16 14 17 certain for this be July 13 th . 23 11 21 meeting.Thank you. 13 12 20 Save your packets since this is a continuance for the next 25 22 24 I second. We're just going to continue it to ~ORRY KORB: COMMISSIONER KANE: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Along the same lines,I, COMMISSIONER KANE:It wouldn't be part of the CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay. COMMISSIONER BURKE:And one final portion of the motion of the amendment for the motion,but I would motion if the seconder agrees is that if all parties are encourage the owners to work as best as possible with the' neighbor.I did visit the sites;I did meet with both agreed with the motion at best or worst it comes back as a consent item and if there's any way to even bypass this if all parties agree,I would think that would expedite it. would encourage the applicant and the neighbors to further explore the possibility of a land swap since neither of Quintana. date uncertain. families.This question of view,we come down to semanticp on what is view.It's sky and it's light,and if that sk~ and light goes away,there's a great deal of darkness.Ib's 4 1 5 21 10 12 15 14 16 not hillside view provisions where there's an equitable 17 sharing.So what I'm adding to the discussion is to motivate 11 20 have a new house. CHAIR MICCICHE:So noted,Mike.Yes,Commissioner 18 the parties to work together.I think if it's possible for 19 the disagreeing neighbor to become agreeable,I think you!11 13 25 24 22 23 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road ,45 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 46 2 4 Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: A P PEA RAN C E S: phil Micciche,Chair John Bourgeois Michael Burke Michael Kane Tom O'Donnell Lee Quintana Joanne Talesfore 1 4 5 6 PRO C E E DIN G S: CHAIR BURKE:That takes us to continued pUblic hearings and Item #1 is 16750 Farley Road,Architecture and 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Assistant Director of community Development: Town Attorney: Transcribed by: Randy Tsuda Orry Korb vicki L.Blandin 5500 Van Fleet Avenue Richmond CA 94804 (510)526-6049 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Site Application S-05-063.Are the property owners,Mr.and Mrs.Wagner,or the applicant,David Britt,here to speak on this item?You have five minutes,and I do believe I will need speaker cards from whoever speaks.And I see one speaker card from the non-applicant,so if anybody else wishes to speak on this item,I will need speaker cards from them as well.You have five minutes,sir. GLEN WAGNER:Good evening,commissioners.My name is Glen Wagner and I'm also joined here tonight with my wife,Melissa,and our architect,David Britt.I'd like to thank you for allowing us to come back tonight with the redesign of our project.I'm going to turn the mike over to our architect shortly. I first wanted to instead make a statement for the record regarding the Appendix #2 of Mr.Shellooe and Mrs.Patero's letter to the Planning Commission submitted on october 18 th •We would like to state that the allegations LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 1 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 2 ~made against us in this document are untrue and will be ~very difficult site,and it's interesting looking at Mr. 3 4 5 7 added to the upcoming counter-suit against them for slander and defamation.These statements and ongoing litigation between the party and ourselves does not affect our project application and should not influence the Planning Commission's decision in any way. Now regarding the redesign,here's our architect, David Britt. 2 4 5 6 7 9 Cannon's letter,he had suggested possibly looking at doing like a steep pitched roof,putting the second story mass under a one-story type roof.We tried doing that early on in the project,and!can show you here,clearly it seemed like it might be a good solution,but in reality because of the narrowness of the lot it didn't work. We feel that our proposed design is far superior ~o DAVID BRITT:Good evening.My name is David 10 to any other solution really.I think we've really ttried ~2 ~4 Britt and I just wanted to thank the Commission for allowing us to come back.At the last public hearing on June 8 th we were given some direction to make design changes to the building,and frankly we're pretty excited about 12 13 our best to move that second story massing away from the easterly neighbor the best we could.So I think with that said I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding the redesign of this residence. ~5 those changes because with moving the house over a little ~6 bit we were able to significantly reduce the mass of the 15 16 CHAIR BURKE:Commissioner Bourgeois. COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Can I ask a question of 17 18 second story from the easterly neighbor. I'm here to answer any questions that you might 17 18 Staff first? CHAIR BURKE:Yes. ~9 have.I also wanted to discuss a couple of the design 19 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I have a question for 20 21 22 23 24 25 features.We've moved 65%of the second story over 7.5' away from the easterly neighbor and was able to reconfigure the plan so there is actually less second story now. Also we did a lot of work on kind of determining what would be the best way to arrange the mass for this LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 3 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Town Attorney.Could you please clarify for me how we are to treat the pending lawsuit?As a new commissioner it seems to me that there would be opportunity for better design,better planning,if we knew the fate of that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 4 CHAIR BURKE:Thank you.If there are no further 4 questions.Okay,so we'll c?ll you back up for rebuttal. 1 the massing of the house,but also create a plan that they 2 felt comfortable with. parcel.So please just clarify for me how we're to treat this case in light of that lawsuit. ORRY KORB:As though it doesn't exist.You have to consider the application on the merits as proposed.The sliver of property that's in dispute is not part of the 5 DAVID BRITT:Okay,thank you. CHAIR BURKE:How this works if people wish to COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Okay,thank you. consider the application on its own merits. application;it has no bearing on the application,so changes?Can you give me your feeling of other than the massing of the top story,with the exception of that,is the design better as well?I mean is it a better,more livable Good evening.I want to thank youBILLSHELLOOE: way that the project is currently designed. Just for the record as far as the Appendix Item #2 speak is you'll be given three minutes at this point and at the end the applicant will come back up to rebut.So the first speaker card I have,and I assume this is for Agenda Item #1,is Bill Shellooe.You have three minutes,sir. for taking the time again to understand my opposition to the is concerned,that particular letter was reviewed by our local attorney with Gallagher,Reedy &Jones,who is very familiar with the proceedings of the Planning Commission. 8 9 12 11 10 15 13 16 14 Certainly the plan is equivalent toDAVIDBRITT: home at this point? CHAIR BURKE:Any other questions of the applicant at this time?I'll ask you·one then.Back on June 8"I had asked a question,Could you make a better design with those 14 6 7 11 13 15 16 10 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the previous design.I think what we were able to do, basically without having an 8'setback on the westerly side \~e were able take a lot of that square footage and move it over there,especially on the second floor. I worked very closely with the Wagners,and quite frankly,the Wagners have been very cooperative in making the changes that have been asked of them and working with me to make significant changes to the design of the house.So with making those changes we were able to not only change 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think everyone is familiar with the issue as I presented it last time.The complication here is that we have a single-story home that is adjoined by a two-story home,not by the short edge of the rectangle if you will where homes are normally adjoined or configured like this, but along the long edge of the rectangle.The further complexity of that is that all three of our bedroom windows are along that long edge that is 16'away from that two- story structure. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 5 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 6 1 So on the 8'"the original concern was the 1 CHAIR BURKE:If yOU'd like to wrap up what you're 2 oppressive,closed in.and dark feeling that this two-story 2 saying,that would be great. structure presents to the view out of the western windows of 3 BILL SHELLOOE:Okay.So this is the view out of 4 those bedrooms,of all of the bedrooms.4 the windows of the new design,so you see that again you 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 So this is a view out of the bedroom windows of the original design.So we came to you with the concern that this effectively blocks out our view of the sky,not only above but also to the right and to the left,effectively sealing off these windows from experience. Now we appreciate that there's been some design changes,however those design changes were supposed to reflect ...I believe this is the mass study that the Wagners and their architect presented to the Planning Commission, and unfortunately this doesn't represent the reality of what the experience is from those bedrooms. First of all,the sun,given that there's a northwest orientation,and I see that you have a diagram 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 have a similar amount of darkness.This was taken about 3:30 in the afternoon a couple of days ago,which will be I guess 2:30 in the afternoon after daylight savings time is in effect. So you see that in effect there is not any change to the experience in those bedrooms.So I appreciate the fact that the top story has been moved back some,but when you look out of a window,the effect is 2-D;it's not 3-D. So to wrap up then,we also have the concern that with the new design with 4'here we have a situation that once the property in dispute is resolved there will be a six foot fence placed here,effectively sealing off this garage and really closing in this large two-story structure. 17 18 because your time is up. back up there that indicates where north is.The sun is 18 actually never in that position in the sky at any time of 17 CHAIR BURKE:I need you to wrap it up now, 22 21 gentleman?Mr.Micciche. 19 the year,and one could just as easily have taken this 20 diagram,drawn a circle,drawn a line above the old design 21 and convinced you of the same thing. (Timer sounds.) 19 20 22 BILL SHELLOOE:So I will wrap up. CHAIR BURKE:Are there any questions for the COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Have you read the Staff 23 24 25 BILL SHELLOOE:Can I have a minute or two?23 24 25 Report that came out on this? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 7 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 8 memory. BILL SHELLOOE:I did read most of it.You may Staff about the difference of opinion here? going to call it page three. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Thank you. BILL SHELLOOE:So I guess I would rebut that.I what kind of design would reveal sky above your house."That thought that the Commission was recommending last time to remedy the situation of the closed in feeling of the bedrooms,and I don't think that's been effectively remedied.Part of that complication,nobody from the team, get a guy on the roof with a tape measure,and we'll see project according to the Commission's direction and that two,they do meet the requirements of the Town's Development Standards. whether the architect or the Wagners,called me up,made an appointment,and said,nCan I look out your windows and I'll 7 1 is standards that are contained in the Residential 5 2 Development Standards.These are not hard and fast setbacks for example,but these are statements of principle,and our 4 conclusion is that number one,the applicant has revised the 15 13 16 14 12 10 11 I don't have it in front of me. I have not had the opportunity to BILL SHELLOOE: BILL SHELLOOE: COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Under Recommendation it COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Yeah,I'm going to as soon states that the Staff finds that the revised plans with the have to point me to the specific section there to refresh my Residential Design Guidelines.In your letter you've indicated that there's a violation here.Have you talked to talk to Staff.I mean there's so many issues that have been recommended conditions for approval are consistent with the as I find it.Since there isn't a page number on it I'm swirling around with this particular project,I kind of don't know where to focus my attention,and I understand 5 1 16 14 13 15 12 11 10 19 of the story in any other venue except here. 18 issues,so I've been kind of reluctant to bring up my side COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Could I ask Staff a been stated here,what your thoughts be on that? six of one and half a dozen of theBILLSHELLOOE: CHAIR BURKE:I'm the one that kind of spearheaded than the original design? never happened. other. 17 19 the request for a redesign back in June.Which design do you 22 18 24 21 20 like better,the original one or this one,knowing that this one doesn't solve the problem,but is it less of a problem 25 23 Yes,we did review Mr.Shellooe'sRANDYTSUDA: letter and the violations that he's cited.What he's cited that Staff has to be ruthlessly neutral on all of these these as violations of the Residential Guide.lines as has question then?Randy,could you comment on whether you view 17 21 24 20 25 22 23 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 9 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 10 CHAIR BURKE:Okay,thank you.Any other 1 COMMISSIONER KANE:Where I think he said 2 questions?Commissioner Kane. COMMISSIONER KANE:When the Commission last met 2 something to the effect of,"If they go any further than 3 this it's going to be a major redesign." 4 on the subject,we encouraged the parties to try to kind a 4 BILL SHELLOOE:Mmm-hmm,okay. 6 solution,and what we read tonight is perhaps more contentious than it was back in June,and April and JUly. 5 6 COMMISSIONER KANE:So you would be requesting a major redesign? 7 What in your mind is a reasonable remedy to your concern 7 BILL SHELLOOE:I'm not an architect,so.I don't 10 11 12 13 about the light and the view?I mean,you have your rights; they have their rights.What is it that would make you feel that your rights were protected? BILL SHELLOOE:I suppose what I had just said a second ago.I think what I had said on June 8'"was I would consider a minimum setback to the west since on paper I'm the legal owner of that property,if in the big picture 8 10 13 know what major is,but I know what my experience is according to the story poles that are on the roof now and that were on the roof then.So major or not,I don't know, but the same sensation of impaired use and enjoyment and value is what I'm experiencing from the bedrooms.I guess that's all I can say because it's the only area where I'm an expert.I don't know what major is. 14 there was sky revealed above the house and some room above COMMISSIONER KANE:Okay,thank you. 15 and below.15 BILL SHELLOOE:It doesn't seem too hard to get 18 measuring instrument it takes inside our bedrooms and come 16 17 So as I said just a couple of minutes ago,let's get the guys on the roof with a guy with whatever kind of 16 17 18 somebody on the roof with a tape measure and say,"This isn't a reasonable amount of light and sky." CHAIR BURKE:Commissioner Quintana,it looks like 19 you had a question. 21 you're having with the height of the roof or the fact that 19 up with a height that leaves some light.I'm not trying to 20 prevent anybody from building a more beautiful home;I'm 21 just trying to prevent our use,enjoyment and value from 20 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yes,I did.Is the problem 22 being impaired.22 the ridgeline is a continuous line rather than a gable 23 24 COMMISSIONER KANE: the Town Architect? Did you read the letter from 23 24 facing the direction of your house,which would then probably permit some skyline to be showing? 25 BILL SHELLOOE:I did. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 11 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 12 So this is the view out of the master bedroom.So 19 the line along the fence between your two houses,to soften 20 the two-story element would trees have any effect on you as 21 far as softening anything along? 2 pictures.I guess it's kind of a bit of both,because one of the things that's not shown ...well,I guess it is kind of shown here. Hi,my name is Melissa Wagner.MELISSA WAGNER, BILL SHELLOOE,Since 1994. CHAIR BURKE:Any further questions?Seeing none, bushes to seal off the west facing windows in all three COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Thank you. bedrooms. thank you very much,sir.I have n~further cards from any member of the audience,so I'm going to ask the applicant and/or their property owner to come up and rebut and answer questions. be representative of the where the sun sets. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:How long have you lived at the address? Thank you again for the opportunity tonight. I want to first address the new Council member's 7 8 4 .3 1 that's what we have now in three bedrooms and I'm willing to 2 knock that down to two,but I don't want either structure or 24 10 13 14 23 question about the extra property improving the project,and 17 I don't know if you've been made aware,but that extra 20' 12 11 18 has easements on it and it's not buildable,so it really 19 doesn't change the project,or could never. 16 21 about the mass study.The mass study was purely just to show 22 the difference from the old design and the new design.The sun is shown on the shadow study and this is not supposed to 15 20 Also I want to address Mr.Shellooe's concern I don't very well either.COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: BILL SHELLOOE,Let me just grab the most recent BILL SHELLOOE,Not really.As you can see from CHAIR BURKE:Commissioner Talesfore? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And so for the rest of there already is I think-and I don't know what a gable is- but this is high and then this is somewhat lower.So I guess concern is all bedrooms have the view of the sky removed from them.If two out of three were revealed,I'd probably be all right with that.Does that answer the question?I hope.so.Sorry I don't speak architect. what I'm saying is in the master bedroom there's only partial relief.Well,there isn't any relief because you can see the netting there,but if this was lower. I'd accept one room being knocked out of view;I guess if that's what your question was.So part of the the pictures it's the sense of spaciousness offered by the sky,the sense of light offered by the sky,and the sense of 1 14 13 18 24 17 15 16 12 10 11 22 23 25 being able for your eyes to go to someplace distant,and 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 13 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 14 1 Also I want to point out again that this is the 2 most sensitive design possible for a second story.He talks about somebody getting on the roof with a ruler.There's no 1 ago.The condition of the home was abysmal when we bought it 2 and we've made it livable with the hope of one day adding 3 on. 4 way to have a second story any lower,because we angled the 4 Today my husband,our son,and I all share the one 66 7 roof.This is an A-frame.What he requested is a one-and-a- half story design,which would be an A-frame with dormers coming out.Well,we even have gone more dramatic by 5 bedroom in our home.My son gets woken up at night from my husband's snoring,and I want to have another baby,but there's no room for the child we have,let alone the other 10 11 12 13 shifting that slant this way,bringing the ridgeline of the roof further away from him than it would be even in an A- frame design.So this new design has the least impact possible of a second story. We understood Mr.Shellooe's concerns,so we redesigned the addition and took a huge chunk of the mass away,and like the consulting architect said,65%of the 9 10 12 13 one.So this addition to our house is necessary and way overdue,and there's .no other way to do it than a second story and this is the least impactive second story possible. No family can live in this home the way it is.And if you've noticed through research on this project,even the previous owner who was a single woman had an approved plan for a second story addition. 14 mass from his side of the home.We have done just what Mr.14 CHAIR BURKE:Thank you.Questions of the 15 16 Shellooe asked by providing a one-and-a-half story design and we are sorry that the effect did not come out like he 17 envisioned.Like he said,he's not an architect so he 16 doesn't know how it's going to look.But we went through all 15 16 17 18 applicant?I have a question of the architect if I may,and this is a question you may know off the top of your head. DAVID BRITT:Hopefully I will. CHAIR BURKE:This is kind of one of these train 19 20 21 22 23 the extra expense and he envisioned something mOre happening,but we knew,it's a second story.There's no other way to put it,and because of the shape of our lot,a second story is necessary. We are not wealthy Los Gatos residents;we are a 19 20 21 22 23 goes east and west at different speeds.Given the height of the peak of your house and how far that is away from Mr. Shellooe's house,any idea the angle of view to the peak of the roof from his windows that he's concerned about?I mean like I said,this was tough. 24 25 working class blue-collar family and we bought this tiny little house by the skin of our teeth six and a half years 24 25 DAVID BRITT:Yeah. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 15 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 16 2 by the sun studies that you're not shadowing the house. So you've come up 2'from Exactly. Commissioner Quintana. Yeah,it's not a ranch type roof. CHAIR BURKE: COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Okay,thank you. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Two feet? COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Actually you just COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Yeah. DAVID BRITT: DAVID BRITT:Yes. DAVID BRITT: DAVID BRITT:That's just a very small 2'wall. CHAIR BURKE:What's the slope of that roof? .DAVID BRITT:I think it's either seven or eight- twelve. But the existing roof is seven-twelve as well. DAVID BRITT:That's a good comment and you have a the original slope? CHAIR BURKE:Seven or eight-twelve,so it's fairly steep. proposed roof on the first story.So that's just a comment, and that seems to be different than what you're saying. very good eye.But it might have been the way the story view from the house towards the proposed house.Looking at the story poles,one of the things I noticed was that it seemed like the existing roof slope was not as steep as the 2 8 4 5 7 6 1 15 24 commented on something I was going to ask.I should say that 18 I went out and did visit the site and also looked at the 12 17 23 14 16 10 19 25 20 21 13 11 22 Oh,this right here? CHAIR BURKE:I'm looking at that and I'm seeing DAVID BRITT: CHAIR BURKE:But that sun doesn't necessarily go DAVID BRITT:Correct. DAVID BRITT:That's a difficult question to Obviously there's an existing one-story house there now.That existing one-story house is basically to is something that we really haven't brought up before. look at a 45-degree angle when you're standing at the window that direction;you're not taking the shadow there.But I'm just curious if you can give us any idea,do you have to this point,so there's already roof planning up to some to see sky,35-degree? answer not being in the room,but I can say this,and this have to drop it. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:What is that delta from 4 6 5 1 7 10 14 13 25 11 12 17 15 point and then it drops back down.So if I was to sketch that on there,and the house is already doing this;this is 16 what exists.So it's difficuit to say how much lower we'd 19 the first slope up to the second slope that's new now? 20 DAVID BRITT:This dotted line? 21 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:No,the vertical. 22 DAVID BRITT:The vertical that's on the roof? 23 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:On the roof,the first 24 vertical. 18 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 17 tos GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 16 1 poles are erected.The roof slope is similar.The new roof 2 slope is not considerably steeper than the existing roof. Actually,Glen brought up an interesting point 4 too.The new house is wider than the old house,so the ridge 1 it would cause you to lose more of your backyard,which I 2 know is precious-is there any way you could perhaps move 3 some rooms?I mean can you do any more building toward the 4 back?And I know that's not optimum,believe me. 5 is going to go up.So in other words,if I was to revise 5 DAVID BRITT:It becomes difficult for two 7 10 11 12 this I would come in more like that.Sorry,I'm just kind of doing this off the cuff. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:If the first story before the setback to the second story,if that roofline were not as steep,would that provide longer vertical surface on the wall? DAVID BRITT:It would expose more of that wall, correct.That 2'section would go to something like 3'-4'. Also keep in mind that this wall height stays the same.This 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 reasons.One,we're dealing with that 24"diameter cedar tree,which those trees actually made it difficult to design a basement;the root systems were of a concern.So I think it would be difficult to try to get square footage back there. The other concern also is with the next-door neighbor.We were concerned about the building going beyond his one-story building to shade,because the ... COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Did you ask him? does not get any taller,because we're working off the 14 DAVID BRITT:Yeah,it was a concern.It was a 16 existing wall plate. CHAIR BURKE:Any further questions?Commissioner 15 16 concern. MELISSA WAGNER:If I can just interject,the 17 Talesfore. 18 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I was looking at your other thing too is my baby is only seven months old,and I 18 plan on having another baby,and I would rather have those 19 lot,and I know it's long and narrow and difficult,and I 20 see you have a porch with it looks like a tiled deck or 21 something. 19 babies on the same floor I'm on.I mean if any of you are 20 mothers you can probably understand that.I don't want them 21 on a separate floor than me.So even to put bedrooms down 22 DAVID BRITT:This is on the site plan?22 there would be impractical for us as a family. 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:It's on A-I,yes,site plan.I don't know,I'm just looking at this and I want to throw it out as something to look at.But is there any way- LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 19 23 24 25 Quintana. CHAIR BURKE:Any further questions?Commissioner LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 20 1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:The current design,how 1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:My pencil measure says 19 side yard,I mean to the front,where a car could park. 21 distance between the steps and the new parking pad. Flip the design? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And there's no other DAVID BRITT: CHAIR BURKE:Any further questions at this point? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Well,have the because we're at a 25'setback and then 24'where those DAVID BRITT:The staircase location in my mind creates the least impact. commissioner Talesfore. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:No,I'm just interested in the 25'from the stairs to the setback.Thank you. DAVID BRITT:Sorry about that. stairs start,so that's what? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I'm going to try again.I don't know,maybe you've thought about this.I'm looking at A-3 on your plans.Is there any way you could flip this design at all? 5 7 MELISSA WAGNER:Okay,so she's talking about the 4 steps of the mudroom to the front,so that's 24'plus 25', 2 it's about 25'. 24 18 20 obviously the staircase needs a taller ceiling. 21 14 22 place to put that staircase that wouldn't impact? 16 10 13 12 11 15 17 staircase ... 23 DAVID BRITT:The thing with the staircase would 19 actually make the building taller on that side,because We requested the non-conformingMELISSAWAGNER: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:No,I don't mean to the MELISSA WAGNER:You're looking at the old.You're COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:The front of the house. DAVID BRITT:Oh,I see what you're saying,the DAVID BRITT:Legally I think three,correct? oCOMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Without the disputed area. parking variance,but without the disputed area,if the disputed area wasn't part,we'd still have one legal parking space.But this disputed area has been part of our property always have. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And what is the distance used for 50 years.So we will continue to park where we between the steps on the west side and the setback of the for 50 years;it's been used as our front yard and our driveways,so we have no concern that a judge will at least give us easements to continue using it the way it's been many parking spaces would there be available onsite? house? talking about on the new. 5 13 11 15 14 10 12 16 24 18 22 DAVID BRITT:That's a required 3'landing,so 17 that would be 5'. 20 23 25 25 LOS GATOS pLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 21 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 22 1 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay,what creates the 1 phrase my question differently.When I look at the original 2 most impact for you then? 3 side of the house.When I looked at the revised plans that 4 area seems to be reduced and I'm not quite sure of the 2 plans there seems to be more area for a car to park on that DAVID BRITT:Are you referring to A-lor the length of the reduction. MELISSA WAGNER:And we didn't change the (inaudible). 7 6 5 MELISSA WAGNER:The side that the staircase is MELISSA WAGNER:Probably the bedroom.. DAVID BRITT:Yeah,the front bedroom. DAVID BRITT:What creates the most impact? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Mmm-hmm,on that second floor.S 7 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 located on is the opposite side. DAVID BRITT:Right. MELISSA WAGNER:That would totally cut off the side next to the Shellooes. DAVID BRITT:One thing we also haven't brought up is the fact that we've really paid attention to privacy on that side of the house.We've got small windows that are 10 11 12 13 14 floor plan itself? COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I'm referring to A-Ion the original plans and on the revised plans. DAVID BRITT:Let me go to the site plans.Oh yeah,the A-l on the old plans,we had noted a ... MELISSA WAGNER:Parking on the property under dispute. lS deep inset.The dormer windows that are now proposed are lS DAVID BRITT:Yeah,so that was removed.Actually That's why it looks that way,MELISSA WAGNER: that was removed quite some time ago.16 17 18 because that depicted parking on the property under dispute. deep inset,so even if you wanted to you couldn't stand and16 17 look through those windows and down onto a neighbor's 18 property.Just thought I'd add that in. 19 CHAIR BURKE:If the Commission is finished with 19 DAVID BRITT:Right. 21 hearing at this point. 20 questions of the applicant,I'm going to close the public 22 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I have one more question. 20 21 22 MELISSA WAGNER:Now we're not even putting that into the ... DAVID BRITT:We're not showing what ...Does that that there is space for one car onsite? 23 24 2S I'm trying to figure this out looking between the old plan and the new plan.How far back from the front setback is there an 8'setback from the side yard?Let me see if I can 23 24 2S make sense. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yes,but you're saying LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 23 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 24 _L 2 is space for one car. CHAIR BURKE:I'm going close the public hearing subsection C-1. DAVID BRITT:Yeah,on A-ion the new plans there In considering that Well it's given the proposed design.ORRY KORB: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Is that adequate area on the lot given the proposed design or adequate area on the ORRY KORB:The Commission can consider that. accommodate tandem parking versus just a one car? RANDY TSUDA:And there's actually two parts to that.One is that under the code you need to determine that exemption can the Commission consider whether the site would the addition is necessary to provide adequate floor area. That's one part.If you conclude that,then the second part is there is not adequate land area to provide the parking. Again the question as stated in the finding is whether there's adequate area on the lot.So if there's adequate area for a different parking configuration,then it may be difficult to make the finding. lot given a modified design? Yeah,you can suggest that they build a much smaller house and then there will be more than adequate parking,and that would make it difficult for you to make the finding,but if you feel that the house if properly designed,then you you're looking at the lot with that constriction. CHAIR BURKE:Commissioner Quintana. 6 9 2 required by the Town Code in order to approve an exemption from the otherwise mandatory parking requirements. 1 considering again is whether you can make the finding 18 20 17 23 13 16 10 22 14 24 15 19 25 11 12 21 Thank you.DAVID BRITT: ORRY KORB:As you know and just to clarify the Whether the disputed area has been used in the CHAIR BURKE:Before I open it up to the we are supposed to take under consideration here. statement made by the applicant,the applicant is not seeking a variance regarding parking requirements.They are made by Ms.Wagner regarding them parking their cars where they have always.I just want to clarify for the record what commission I'd like Mr.Korb to comment on the statement so thank you very much. and we can have questions of Staff,comments,and a motion, seeking an exemption from the required parking pursuant to with I assume in the litigation.How that issue is section 29.10.150,Subsection H of the Town Code,and the and it's on the last page I believe that the lot does not fact before you for you to consider,so what you should be applicable to this application,you can find it onZipit, finding that you're required to make in that regard that's past as parking is an argument that the parties will deal ultimately resolved is something we don't know.It is not a have adequate area to provide parking as required by 1 6 20 5 8 15 21 13 25 10 11 14 16 18 17 12 22 24 19 23 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 2625 1 There's two parts to that finding.The addition is necessary 2 to provide adequate floor area and there is not enough land RANDY TSUDA:Yes. CHAIR BURKE:Okay. I need to say that I visited the site and did CHAIR BURKE:Thank you.Any other questions of configuration. Without the story pole as the house exists today there was quite a bit of sky that could be seen.If I walked just a few feet from the window there was literally no sky to be visible,and a taller person would probably see it even less than I do because they'd have a different angle. Staff,or statements,or can I get a motion? visit the interior of the neighbors'house to see what the visibility was from the windows on the west side,and I found that if I walked immediately against the windows I could see a sliver of sky given the story pole 7 8 5 4 3 2 first. 1 that,but I'm going to check something in the Staff Report 13 10 15 ORRY KORB:Before you get a motion,does anybody else have anything to add to the record concerning having visited the site and made any other observations that are 18 relevant to your consideration of the application? 14 17 12 16 I'm going to push this a Mr.Tsuda,one of the questions,if The code reads,"For suitable livingRANDYTSUDA: COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: CHAIR BURKE: RANDY TSUDA:Right.It's fair to say practical back to that ...And we don't have to consider that?Well we can consider that that's inaccessible to motor vehicles? RANDY TSUDA:You may be able to stack cars there, but that may not be practical. CHAIR BURKE:Right,you mean you can't get them that you can't get a vehicle to. environment.II little bit.Adequate floor area for what? the Commission decides to make the findings,it has to be accessible land area I assume,because there is the area area. 6 4 7 5 13 14 12 15 10 17 18 16 19 parking space. 20 off-parcel,just to get an over an overall feel. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I drove past. CHAIR BURKE:Commissioner Quintana. So did I. Same here. That's sufficient,thank you. CHAIR BURKE:I visited the site,but kind of from COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: ORRY KORB: COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS: 24. 25 23 21 19 22 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Actually I have to make a statement and then I do have one more question regarding CHAIR BURKE:Okay,that's good.That's what I wanted.Now that I think we've beaten this thing pretty well,Commissioner Quintana. 25 24 20 23 21 22 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 27 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 28 19 side towards the front. lot,less so from the neighbor's side. I went onto the site is that most of the massing that has COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:One other observation when Do you find that the lot hasORRYKORB: COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I have found such. CHAIR BURKE:We have a motion and a second.All COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Second. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Do I have a second? ORRY KORB:Then it's sufficient. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'm going to make a those in favor?Wait.Oh,excuse me.Commissioner QUintana, I believe the applicant has followed the direction So I will make the finding that this project is category exempt pursuant to Section 15.301 of the State Exhibit N. meets the guidelines and has reduced the mass and scale of motion.I'm going to make a motion to approve Architecture given by the Planning Commission at the last meeting.I also believe that Staff has reviewed this and agrees that it Do I have to make any specific statement about the parking variation? believe that our architect concurs with that as well. the overall project for less of a view impact.And I also Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town and is required by Section 29.21.50 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site Applications and is referenced in and Site Application S-05-063. you wish to ask something? 4 5 6 7 1 24 23 19 18 insuffic~ent space to meet the general parking requirement? 25 13 20 17 16 10 12 22 15 21 11 14 Away from the Shellooe house. No the front setback remains the COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I mean the side front,the RANDY TSUDA: RANDY TSUDA: RANDY TSUDA:Actually it looks like more was CHAIR BURKE:Thank you.Commissioner Micciche. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Towards the west? But I did have a question of Staff because I'm COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And towards the front? design did increase the size of the first floor,and I'm west. west and it's nominally towards the west. RANDY TSUDA:And under the previous submittal reviewed the first floor was 1,381 square feet.The revised design is 1,497.There is additional floor area towards the assuming it was increased moving some of the area to the having trouble finding what I was referring to.The revised same. 6 been reduced is massing that's visible from the rear of the 15 18 24 16 13 11 17 10 25 21 added towards the back. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay,thank you. 20 14 12 22 23 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 29 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 30 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:No,I wish to make a 2 statement. CHAIR BURKE:Oh,that's right,please make th~ 1 the design they had done as best they could,but both 2 letters also indicate that a major change would be necessary to do better.He doesn't exclude the ability to make that 4 statement.4 major change. 5 6 7 10 12 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I'm not going to be supporting the motion for the following reasons: I do not believe that the revised design does meet the direction of the Commission.While the mass has been reduced 65%from the east side of the house,the visual mass still remains great on that side.It blocks out almost the entire view of light from that side of the house. In addition,looking at the neighborhood,I do not feel that the house is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood in that these are the only two houses on the street that have that small a side yard setback.Most of the other houses on the street have side yard setbacks of 15'- 20',giving considerably more room between the two houses. In addition,there are some houses on the street that are two-story,but all of those houses are on lots where there is greater side yard setbacks,and those houses also have gable sides facing the adjacent neighbors,which again gives greater view between the two properties. And I also think that this design creates a change in the mass and scale between the existing houses that isn't as apparent on the rest of the street.From reading Mr. Cannon's letters,both letters seem to indicate that given LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,16750 Farley Road 31 5 7 10 11 12 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And lastly,the question of the area being suitable for living.That's a very relative statement.I wouid venture to guess that there are many people in this room who have houses that are smaller than the house being proposed by this application and don't feel that their houses aren't suitable for living. So those are the reasons I'm going to vote against the motion. CHAIR BURKE:Okay,we'll try this again.All those favor of the motion?Those opposed. CHAIR BURKE:It carries four-three. ORRY KORB:Appeal rights.Anyone dissatisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission may appeal the decision to the Town Council.The appeal must be filed within ten days;it must be filed upstairs in the Clerk's Office on forms available in the Clerk's Office.There is a fee for filing an appeal. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/26/2005 Item #1,1675.0 Farley Road 32 REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval of a second story addition on property zoned R -1:8.APN 529-15- 097 PROPERTY OWNER:Glen and Melissa Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt FINDINGS •It has been determined that this 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. 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 ofthe 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.fucreased 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 roadwaylintersection capacity and make one (1)of the following determinations: 1.The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities. Attachment 5 2.The project will impact a roadway(s)andlor intersection(s)causing the roadway(s)andlor intersection(s)to exceed their available capacities. Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.l.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 ofoutdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation oftraffic 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 ofwalls,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 othersurfacing 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 ofParks,Forestry and Maintenance Services for thepurpose ofmeeting special criteria,including c1imaticconditions,: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 ofthe 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 include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems. (5)Considerations relating to drainage.The effect ofthe site development plan on the adequacy of storm and surface water drainage. (6)Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design o/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 ofthe zone in which they are situated,and the purposes ofarchitecture 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, flagpoles and other elements ofthe street environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image. (8)Considerations relating to accessfor physically disabled persons.The adequacy of the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptabilityfor physically disabled persons. Any improvements to a nomesidential 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 oftitle 24 ofthe 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 ofuse to retail,health care, or personal service on a nonaccessible floor in a nomesidential 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 ofthose requirements.This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment ofthis 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 application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report,which may be focused through the initial study process. •As required by Section 29.1 0.150(h)of the Town Code for exemptions on the number of off-street parking spaces required. (h)Exemptions.Compliance with subsection (c)(l)is not required if the deciding body makes the following findings: (1)The Historic Preservation Committee determines that the enforcement of subsection (g) will impact the historic character ofthe site andlor structures on the site;and (2)The addition is determined necessary to provide adequate floor area for a suitable living environment;and (3)The lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required by subsection (c)(l). This finding is not required if subsection (h)(1 )is made. lfthe deciding body makes the findings set forth in subsections (h)(l),(2)and (3)above, parking shall be provided to the maximum extent possible. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\16750 Farley Road.wpd CONDITIONS FOR: 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval of a second story addition on property zoned R-l:8.APN 529-15-097. PROPERTY OWNER:Glen and Melissa Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt . TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (Planning Division) 1.EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL:This approval application will expire two years from the date of approval unless it is used before expiration.Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 2.APPROVAL.This application shall be completed in accordance with all ofthe conditions ofapproval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans dated October 5,2005. Any minor changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 3.SALVAGING OF MATERIALS.At least ten days prior to the date of demolition,the developer shall provide to the Town a written notice and an advertisement published in a newspaper of general circulation,regarding the availability of materials for salvage, including the name and telephone number of a contact person.No salvaging of materials shall occur until a demolition permit has been approved by the Community Development Department. 4.RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the compa-ny(s)accepting these materials,noting type and weight of material,shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. 5.COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM.The applicant shall prepare and submit a memorandum with the building permit,detailing how each of these Conditions of Approval have or will be addressed. 6.STORY POLES.The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture &Site application. 7.TREES.3 mid-height trees approved by the Director of Community Development shall be installed in the front/side yard prior to building permit final. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 8.PERMITS REQUIRED:A buildingpermit shall be required for the second story addition and remodel of the existing single family residence.Separate permits are required for electrical,mechanical,and plumbing work as necessary. 9.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions ofApproval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. Attachment 6 10.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans,maximum size 24"x 36." 11.SOILS REPORT:A soils report,prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations,shall be submitted with the building permit application.This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics.ALTERNATE:Design the foundation for an allowable soils 1,000 psf design pressure.(Uniform Building Code Volume 2 -Section 1805) 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 comer locations 13.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF -1 R 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.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:When a special inspection is required byUBC 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.1osgatosca.gov. 16.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part ofthe 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. 17 .APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: d.Community Development:Rachel Bacola at 354-6802 e.Engineering Department:Fletcher ·Parsons at 395-3460 f.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-4010 g.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407 h.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) 18.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 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 righPof-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 19.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. 20.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24)hours before starting any 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 of work that went on without inspection. 21.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion ofa street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§15.40.070). 22.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through curb drains will be allowed. 23.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. 24.RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repair orreplace 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. 25.SANITARY SEWER LATERAL.Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line. 26.SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE.Drainage piping serving fixtures whichhave flood level rims less than twelve (12)inches (304.8 rom)above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve.Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve,unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec.6.50.025).The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwatervalve,as defined section 103(e)of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.50.010 ofthe Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition.Evidence ofWest Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 27.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of8:00 a.m.to 8:00p.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 anoiselevel exceeding eighty-five (85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.Ifthe 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 possible.The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85)dBA. 28.HAULING OF SOIL.Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m.and 9:00 a.m.and between 4:00 p.m.and 6:00 p.m.).Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise atraffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or ffthe project site.This may include,but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities,or providing additional traffic control.Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. N:\DEV\CONDITNS\2005\16750Farley Road.wpd REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date:__~__O=ct=0=be=r,-,1=9.>..,=20,,-,0=:..5 For Agenda Of:October 26,2005 Agenda Item:-"'l _ The Planning Commission The Development Review Committee 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval to construct a new second story on property zoned R-l:8.APN 529-15-097 PROPERTY OWNER:Melissa and Glen Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt DEEMED COMPLETE:May 17,2005 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION BY:November 17,2005 FINDINGS:-It has been determined that th~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 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site Applications -As required by Section 29.10.150(h)of the Town Code for exemptions on the number of off-street parking spaces required. EXHIBITS: A.DISCUSSION A.-M.Previously submitted. N.Required findings O.Conditions of Approval P.Previously Submitted Staff Reports (5 Pages),dated June 3,2005, 'r June 30,2005,August 17,2005. Q.Revised Project Description and Letter of Justification (1 Page), received October 18,2005 R.Review Letter from Cannon Design Group (2 Page),received October 18,2005 S.Follow-up letter from neighbor (7 Pages),received October 18,2005 T.Development Plans (9 Pages),received October 5,2005 1.Project Background At the meeting of June 8,2005,the Planning Commission granted a continuance of this application to allow the applicant additional time to work on a redesign of the proposed second story addition.The Planning Commission granted additional continuances on July 13 and August 24,2005. Attachment 7 The Planning Commission -Page 2 16750 Farley Road/S-05-064 October 26,2005 With the revised plans,the applicant is requesting approval to add 510.5 square feet to the existing first floor of a single family home and a 1,071 square foot second story addition.The total living area of the proposed residence is 2,548 square feet.The proposed maximum height is 25 feet.Due to the non-conforming size of the lot and legal access rights to the existing two car garage at the rear of the property the project does not meet the off-street parking requirement for a single family horne.Additional off street parking are not proposed with this application. As required by Town Code,an exemption for the number of off street parking spaces can be made as long as the deciding body can make the findings in section 29.10.150(h)(Exhibit A). Due to the non-conforming width of the lot,the applicant is requesting a reduced setback of 4 feet on the western side of the property. A revised project description and letter of justification from the applicant provides a summary of how the proposed revisions made to the plans meet the direction from Planning Commission on June 8,2005 (Exhibit Q). 2.Project Revisions The Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce the overall mass and scale of the proposed structure and reduce the daylight and view impacts to the abutting neighbor to the east. The Commission directed the applicant to consider shifting a portion of the proposed second story addition into a story and half design rather than a full two story structure to reduce massing of the eastern portion of the second story.The lot is considered nonconforming,due to its size and width;therefore,the Commission directed the applicant to consider proposing a reduced setback on the western portion of the property in order to move the second floor mass away from the e~sterly neighbor.The applicant is requesting a4 foot reduced setback in order to meet fire and building code requirements. Significant revisions were made to the eastern,western,and southern elevations.The front elevation did not substantially change.The maximum ridge height of the structure has been lowered from 26'to 25'. The second floor mass along the eastern elevation is now significantly stepped back from the first floor.With the first proposal,a 16 foot long area near the middle of the second story addition was recessed back by 4'.The revised plans show a 44 foot long portion of the second floor that is setback seven feet.With the revised design most of the eastern elevation is a one and half story design with small windows facing east. The applicant has provided a drawing to show how the mass of the revised proj ect compares with the original proposal (Sheet A6 of Exhibit T).The revised shadow study shows that there is less of an impact to the neighbors on the east during the winter season (Exhibit T). The Planning Commission -Page 3 16750 Farley RoadlS-05-064 October 26,2005 3.Property Dispute Since the first hearing on June 8,2005,legal rights to this piece of the abandoned portion of Augustine Way have not been settled between the applicant and the concerned neighbor.The portion of Augustine Way is shown on the development plans and noted as land under dispute (Exhibit T). /'-.•.. 4.Neighborhood Compatibility The revised structure is consistent with size of homes in the immediate neighborhood which range in size from 966 square feet (FAR .04)to 2,861 square feet (FAR .31).The homes in the immediate neighborhood are a mix of one and two story homes. 5.Neighbor Concern Staff met with the concerned neighbor on October 7,2005 to discuss the revised plans and answer questions about proposed changes to the second story.Staff met with the neighbor on site to review the story poles on October 12,2005.The concerned neighbor has submitted a detailed letter expressing his concerns with the revised project (Exhibit S). 6.Design Review The Town's Consulting Architect reviewed the revised proposed plan and agrees that the applicant has pulled back a significant amount of second floor mass (Exhibit R). B.RECOMMENDATION: Staff has determined that the changes made to the plans are consistent with the direction that was given by the Planning Commission on June 8,2005.Staff believes that the revisions will reduce the mass and scale of the overall project and provide less of a view impact to the concerned neighbor to the east of the subject site. Staff finds that the revised plans with the recommended conditions of approval are consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines.The Planning Commission should carefully consider any public input on this matter to determine if the neighbors that are directly affected by the proposed application raise compelling concerns or issues that should be addressed through additional conditions of approval. If the Commission finds merit with the proposal,it should: 1.Make the required findings (Exhibit N), 2.Approve the Architecture and Site application subject to conditions (Exhibit 0). The Planning Commission -Page 4 16750 Farley Road/S-05-064 October 26,2005 If the Commission has concerns with the application,it can: 1.Request that the applicant waive final date to take action and continue the matter to a date certain with specific directions,or 2.Deny the application. Bud N.Lortz,Director of Community Develo ent Prepared by:Rachel B.Peled,Assistant Planner BNL:RBP:mdc cc:Melissa and Glen Wagner,16750 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95031 Bill Shellooe and Patricia Bottero,16742 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95031 N:\DEV\REPORTS\2005\FarleyRd4.wpd REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S~05-063 Requesting approval ofa second story addition on property zoned R-1:8.APN 529-15- 097 PROPERTY OWNER:Glen and Melissa Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt FINDINGS •It has been determined that this project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 ofthe State Enviromnental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. CONSIDERATIONS •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 ofthe 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: 1.The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities. Exhibit N 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 ofoutdoor 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 ofwalls,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 othersurfacing 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 ofParks,Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose ofmeeting 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 ofthe buildings with adj acent development. Buildings should strengthen the form and image ofthe 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 include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems. (5)Considerations relating to drainage.The effect ofthe site development plan on the adequacy of storm and surface water drainage. (6)Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design ofbuildings 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 ofthe zone in which they are situated,and the purposes ofarchitecture 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 oftitle 24 ofthe 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 ofuse 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 ofthose requirements.This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment ofthis 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 application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report,which may be focused through the initial study process. •As required by Section 29.10.150(h)ofthe Town Code for exemptions on the number of off-street parking spaces required. (h)Exemptions.Compliance with subsection (c)(1)is not required if the deciding body makes the following findings: (1)The Historic Preservation Committee determines that the enforcement of subsection (g) will impact the historic character of the site and/or structures on the site;and (2)The addition is detennined necessary to provide adequate floor area for a suitable living environment;and (3)The lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required by subsection (c)(1). This finding is not required if subsection (h)(1)is made. lithe deciding body makes the findings set forth in subsections (h)(1),(2)and (3)above, parking shall be provided to the maximum extent possible. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\16750 Farley Road2.wpd DRAFT CONDITIONS FOR: 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval ofa second story addition on property zoned R-1:8.APN 529-15- 097. PROPERTY OWNER:Glen and Melissa Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (planning Division) 1.EXJ>IRATION OF APPROVAL:This approval application will expire two years from the date of approval unless it is used before expiration.Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 2.APPROVAL.This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions ofapproval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans dated October 5,2005. Any minor changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 3.SALVAGING OF MATERIALS.At least ten days prior to the date of demolition,the developer shall provide to the Town a written notice and an advertisement published in a newspaper of general circulation,regarding the availability of materials for salvage, including the name and telephone number of a contact person.No salvaging of materials shall occur until a demolition permit has been approved by the Community Development Department. 4.RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s)accepting these materials,noting type and weight of material,shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. 5.COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM.The applicant shall prepare and submit a memorandum with the building permit,detailing how each of these Conditions of Approval have or will be addressed. 6.STORY POLES.The story poles ori the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval ofthe Architecture &Site application. 7.TREES.3 mid-height trees approved by the Director of Community Development shall be installed in the front/side yard prior to building permit final. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 8.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required for the second story addition and remodel of the existing single family residence.Separate permits are required for electrical,mechanical,and plumbing work as necessary. Exhibit 0 9.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. 10.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans,maximum size 24"x 36." 11.SOILS REPORT:A soils report,prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations,shall be submitted with the building permit application.This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics.ALTERNATE:Design the foundation for an allowable soils 1,000 psf design pressure.(Uniform Building Code Volume 2 -Section 1805) 12.i 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 comer locations 13.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-lR 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.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.1osgatosca.gov. 16.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint SourcePollution Control Program shall be part ofthe 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. 17.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: d.Community Development:Rachel Bacola at 354-6802 e.Engineering Department:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460 f.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-4010 g.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407 h.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) 18.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 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. 19.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. 20.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notify the EngineeringInspector at least twenty-four (24)hours before starting any 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 of work that went on without inspection. 21.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§15.40.070). 22.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through curb drains will be allowed. 23.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. 24.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. 25.SANITARY SEWER LATERAL.Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line. 26.SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE.Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12)inches (304.8 mm)above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve.Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve,unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec.6.50.025).The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve,as defined section l03(e)of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.50.010 ofthe Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition.Evidence ofWest Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building pennit. 27.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of8:00 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 possible.The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85)dBA. 28.HAULING OF SOIL.Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m.and 9:00 a.m.and between 4:00 p.m.and 6:00 p.m.).Prior to the iSSUailce of a building pennit,the developer shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or ff the proj ect site.This may include,but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities,or providing additional traffic control.Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. N :\DEV\CONDITNS\2005\16750Farley Road.wpd REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date:~Ju~n~e::.....:3~,_=2~0~0:::..,5_ For Agenda Of:_---'J:..-'::u~n""_e-",,8.>....:,2=0,,-,,0=5_ Agenda Item:..21'--_ The Planning Commission The Development Review Committee 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval to construct a new second"story on property zoned R-l:8.APN 529-15-097 PROPERTY OWNER:Melissa and Glen Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt DEEMED COMPLETE:May 17,2005 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION BY:November 17,2005 FINDINGS:-As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site Applications -As required by Section 29.10.150(h)of the Town Code for exemptions on the number of off-street parking spaces required. CONSIDERATIONS:-It has been determined that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. . .,.".,',".;.:'.:~'--.. .,_,...A.Required Findings and Considerations (4 pages). B.Recommended Conditions of Approval(4 pages). C.Parcel Map(l page),generated by Staff. D.Letter of justification (3 pages),received April 26,2005. E.Letter of opposition from neighbor (3 pages including pictures), received March 17,2005 . ..F.Follow-up letter from neighbor (2 pages including diagram),received June 2,2005. G.Follow-up letter from applicant (2 pages including diagram),received June 3,2005. H.Project Review letter from Town Architect (l page),received December 27,2004. 1.Development Plans (9 pages),received May 20,2005. Exhibit P The Planning Commission -Page 2 16750 Farley Road/S-05-063 June 8,2005 A.DISCUSSION 1.Project Background The applicant is requesting approval to add 395 square feet to the existing first floor of a single family home and aI,167 square foot second story addition.The totalliving area of theproposed residence is 2,548 square feet.The proposed residence meets all the technical requirements including floor area ratio (FAR),lot coverage,height and setbacks.Due to the non-conforming size of the lot and legal access rights to the existing two car garage at the rear of the property the project does not meet the off-street parking requirement for a single family home.Additional off street parking are not proposed with this application.As required by Town Code,an exemption for the number of off street parking spaces can be made as long as the deciding body can make the findings in section 29.10.150(h)(Exhibit A). A project description and letter of justification from the applicant provides a summary of the proposed project and background information on the property (Exhibit D). The Director of Community Development has the authority to approve a minor residential application if the project complies with all Town development standards and the neighbors are not in opposition.Since a neighbor has filed a letter in opposition to the proposed project and the issues could not be resolved,the application has been referred to the Planning Commission. 2.Property Dispute - _..•.•'w...•..__._"._...~•..0 _. ...."'."':'.\~"':-;-~4_"-:~>~"'~,',:!a The Town abandoned"aportion'ufAugustineWay in 2003.As part ofthis process;theTowIF'" gave Quit Claim deeds to the adjacent property owners,one of which wasthe-subjedsite' (Exhibit C).This type of deed would relinquish any remaining property.interes!held py t!Je,.... Town,ifany suchinterest-existed>Afterthis'processwas completed,it was discovered-thatthis--'-'-_.-~~_. portion of Augustine Way was not owned by the Town.Currently,legal rightsto this piece of~ the abandoned portion of Augustine Way are now under dispute between the applicant and the concerned neighbor.The portion of Augustine Way is shown on the development plans and noted as land under dispute (ExhibitH).. 3.Neighborhood Compatibility'.'." The homes in the immediate neighborhood of the subject property range in size from 966 square feet (FAR .04)to 2,861 square feet (FAR .31).The homes in the immediate neighborh06d;ar~~'::":~;;:~-;";::"~'=;';""_-_' a mix of one and two story homes.The table on the following page is a summary of home sizes for the immediate neighborhood. The Planning Commission -Page 3 16750 Farley Road/S-05-063 June 8,2005 16728 Farley Road 529-15-024 10,240 1,344 0.13 1 16766 Farley Road 529-15-095 14,490 2,850 0.19 1 16780 Farley Road 529-15-002 26,847 1,675 0.07 2 16761 Farley Road 424-21-061 9,072 2,861 0.31 2 16751 Farley Road 424-21-040 73,568 1,448 1 16741 Farley Road 424-21-039 22,748 966 0.04 1 16731 Farley Road 424-21-060 8,334 1,926 0.23 1 16719 Farley Road 424-21-036 9,342 2,104 0.22 2 16725 Farley Road 424-21-059 13,615 2,045 0.15 1 4.Neighbor Concern A notice of intent to approve the application was sent to adjacent neighbors on March 9,2005. At that time,staff was in support of the proposal and intended to approve the project.The Town received a letter of concern from the property owners at 16472 Farley Road,the adjoining property to the east (Exhibit E and F).In summary,the neighbor states that the proposed second story addition and the overall massing of the proposed structure would impact their privacy. Staff held a meeting with the property owner,project applicant,and neighbor to discuss the proposed project in detail and possible·solutions-to"mitigate the massingissues-and-privacy- concerns.During the meeting,several adjustments to the proposed structure were discussed: .'.'...;_.:architectural modifications to the proposedsecoild story,alterations 9ftheplacement-and sizes- :.::::•.••·J_.~·_"..:i·-:::·:_,::,;:-;-.ofnew windows,.reofieritati6ri;ofilie~pr6p6s:ed~~triicfute;.oii.the·10t,ioweririgtb.e:'heign:fofthe,:;~:. ..."',-proposed building,and install'atioii 'of hind seaping:tSmitigate th~~massiiig;"oflli6pf6po~ed structure.Both parties could not comy~tQ..afip.cQ:I~?Qlu!~()nand !heapplic.£.Ul!requeste~that th~ item be heard before the PHmniilg CorriIriissiolb;~~{Si~~~;~~;;;;;;;::;;:';":~~~;:;:;;;;::~4:;;';:;::;;:;.;:;-~."':::::~":;:;;;:~:,'-:<:':;':~:~:::':~::':::::.:~:.,--. ·t·..; 6.Staff Analysis Staff was satisfied with the proposed project and the additional architectural modifications that were made to the front elevation during the design review process.Staff determined that a reasonable modification could be developed and applied to the proposed second story addition The Planning Commission -Page 4 16750 Farley Road/S-05-063 June 8,2005 to satisfy the raised privacy and massing concerns from the adjacent neighbor.However,both parties could not come to an agreeable solution.If the Commission finds that additional architectural modifications to reduce privacy and second story massing concerns are appropriate conditions may be added to this approval. B.RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the revised plans with the recommended conditions of approval are consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines.The Planning Commission should carefUlly consider any public input on this matter to determine if the neighbors that are directly affected by the propos~d application raise compelling concerns or issues that should be addressesed through additional conditions of approval. If the Commission finds merit with the proposal,it should: 1.Make the required findings (Exhibit A), 2.Approve the Atchitectureand Site application subject to conditions (Exhibit B). If the Commission has concerns with the application,it can: 1.Continue the matter to a date certain with specific directions,or 2.Deny the application. Prepared by:Rachel Bacola,AssistaritPlanner BNL:RB._•..•-.-._.<--._..~•.-.•"•._.•....'. .""";"':"'_'_'_""""~''''''",",''''''''''''_~:'''''_;-''~'~;'•...,~T!;H.':"'~"."•.,• ."~'--.~':'::'.~l:·'~::'''.in~,~_i;~."~;~·;';A~~~(~1.·;::~:'i.~.{.i:i-:j~'(:1 $i ~j:YI ~'';';~:'..~.-l,',i l-i ~.;.;:••_;:',:'. ...:..::::;·cc::Melis:sa anq~0Ien·:Wagne1"d6750:Farley·Road.,·Los Gatos,CA,95031 Bill Shellooe and Patricia Bottero,16742 Farley Road,Los Gatds,CA,95031 N:\DEV\REPORTS\2005\16750FarleyRD3wpd.wpd ':+"":";'''':.)...,_..•..:'0_:, REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval of a second story addition on property zoned R-1:8.APN 529-15- 097 PROPERTY OWNER:Glen and Melissa Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt FINDINGS •It has been determined that this 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 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 sit~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 ofthe development,and the surfacing,lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities. A.Anyproj ect or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections shall be analyzed,and a determination made on the follo!wing matters: 1. 2. 3. The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate existing traffic; Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied;and... 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)ofthe following determinations: 1.The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities. EXHIBIT A 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 (1)b.l.may proceed.Any proj ect 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 ofoutdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adj acent 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 ofwalls,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 ofParks,F orestryand Maintenance Services for the purpose ofmeeting 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 ofthe buildings with adj acent 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 include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems. (5)Considerations relating to drainage.The effect ofthe site development plan on the adequacy of storm and surface water drainage. (6)Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design ofbuildings 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe street environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image. (8)Considerations relating to access for physicallydisabled 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 oftitle 24 ofthe 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 ofuse 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 ofthose 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. '_"'''~'~"~'O''''''''"'""_-{9)'---.--.'Considerations 'relating"to':th-e·"looafion'oj.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 application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report,which may be focused through the initial study process. •As required by Section 29.10.150(h)ofthe Town Code for exemptions on the llUmber of '. off-street parking spaces required._i -._~__.:::,:~:;::::-;;::-:::::::;::'~ (h)Exemptions.Compliance with subsection (c)(1)is not required if the deciding body makes the following findings: (1)The Historic Preservation Committee determines that the enforcement of subsection (g) will impact the historic character ofthe site and/or structures on the site;and (2)The addition is detennined necessary to provide adequate floor area for a suitable living environment;and (3)The lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required by subsection (c)(l). This finding is not required if subsection (h)(l)is made. Ifthe deciding body makes the findings set forth in subsections (h)(l),(2)and (3)above, parking shall be provided to the maximum extent possible. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\16750 FarleyRoad.wpd DRAFT CONDITIONS FOR: 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval of a second story addition on property zoned R-1 :8.APN 529-15- 097. PROPERTY OWNER:Glen and Melissa Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (Planning Division) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL:This approval application will expire two years from the date of approval unless it is used before expiration.Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. APPROVAL.This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans dated April 27 ,2005. Any minor changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. SALVAGING OF MATERIALS.At least ten days prior to the date of demolition,the developer shall provide to the Town a written notice and an::advertisement published in a newspaper of general circulation,regarding the availability of materials for salvage, including the name and telephone number of a contact person.No salvaging of materials shall occur until a demolition permit hasbeen.approved by the Community Development Depirrtment. RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to--a company which will recycle the materials.-_.. Receipts from the company(s)accepting these materials,noting type and weight of material,shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. TREES.3 mid-height trees approved by the Director of Community Development shall be installed in the front/side yard prior to building permit final._ TO THESA-TISFACTJON OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 6.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required forthe second story addition and remodel of the existing single family residence.Separate permits are required for electrical,mechanical,and plumbing work as necessary. 7.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions ofApproval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. 8.SIZE OFPt;1\'NS':'"'Folif's"'etS'(5f"construction plans,maximum size 2411 x 36.11 9.SOILS REPORT:A soils report,prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendatiorts,shall be submitted with EXHIBIT B I ' the building permit application.This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics.ALTERNATE:Design the foundation for an allowable soils 1,000 psf design pressure.(Uniform Building Code Volume 2 -Section 1805) 10.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 reco!l1l11endations 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 11.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF -1 R and MF-1R must be blue-lined on the plans. 12.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. 13.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 Irispection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at wwW.1osgatosca.gov. 14.NONPOINTSOURCBpOLLUTION STANDARDS:The TOWl1standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution ControlProgram shall be part ofthe plan submittal as the second page.The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee ,oI$2,or"at·San·Jose-BluePrint.;.;;,.,...,.".;:;..,... 15.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before _:;r~:;'i,l~~I:~i~;~~i~f~~~!~~8Et~4~~~~~lli~~~:~Richifri~~~~i~::~~k=68'02"~-'~::""';~-'-- 'e.Engineering DejJartment:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460 f.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-4010 g.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407 . ,h~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) 16.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 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. 17.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. 18.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24)hours before starting any 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 of work that went on without inspection. 19.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§15.40.070). 20.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through curb drains will be allowed. 21.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. 22.RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repair orreplace 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. 23.SANITARY SEWER LATERAL.Sanitary sewer lateralsare~televised by West Valley SanitationDistrictand'-approved by the Town of Los'Gatos before they 'are used or reused. Install'a sanitary sewerlateral clean-out at the property line. 24.SANITARYSEWERBACKWATERVALVE.Drainagepiping~ervingfixtureswhichhave flood level rims less than twelve (12)inches (304.8 mm)above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or prIvate sewer system serving such drainage piping shallbe protected frombackflow of sewag~byinptallingana;pproved ,',""'" type backwater valve.Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the ,backwatervalve,unless'firstapproved by the Administrative (Sec:.6.5.0.02~)..Th(;Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from~"ii'"sew'er··overflow"'wliere-""·'''A'''.''''~--: the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve,as defined section 103(e)ofthe Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition.Evidence ofWest Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 25.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of8:00 a.m.to 8:00p.m.,weekdays and9:00 a.m.to 7 :00 p.m.weekends and holidays,construction,alteration or repair activities shall be allowed.No individual piece ofequipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.Ifthe device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as closeto 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. 26.HAULING OF SOIL.Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m.and 9:00 a.m.and between 4:00 p.m.and 6:00 p.m.).Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or ff the proj ect site.This may include,but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities,or providing additional traffic control.Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. N :\DEV\CONDITNS\2005\16750Farley Road.wpd ~:. Letter of Jq.stification: We bought our tirlY little one bedroom house 6 years ago with the dream of one day being able to add on.When we bought the property the owner had town approved plans for a 2nd story addition,She was single and her 2nd story plans covered the whole first story creating a large master bedroom upstairs.Those plans would not work for us because we planned to start a family.We knew the property's building footprint was tight because the seller disclosed that the existing front yard and parking pad extended past the property line and took up half the adjoining dirt road of Augustine.So even though this portion looked and operated as ours,we were unable to build on it or use it as part of the set back. She told us that at one time the neighbors were trying to get the town to vacate Augustine and that the adjoining properties would be able to move their lot lines to the center of the road.So,a year'after buying the house we were ready to add on and start a family but after talking with the neighbors we decided to put off our plans and help restart the road vacation initiative knowing this would give us better building options when it was resolved.After three years of hard work we were finally successful.The town vacated part of Augustine Road and deeded us the adjoining portion that our front yard and parking pad lie on. We,and the neighbors who adjoined the vacated portion of the road,hired a surveyor to identify our new property boundaries.The surveyor thought it was odd that the town had to deed us a portion of the road while the other parcels adjoining Augustine already had meets and bound descriptions starting from the center of the road.So after looking into it further he found that the portion of the road that the Town deeded to us may not have belonged to them.It turns out that our property used to be part of a larger parcel that was subdivided into two lots in the 1950's.This original parcel had meets and bounds that went to the center of the road,like the other adjoining parcels,but when they subdivided ....'-~~,_.~.,"""'i1:the new description was written from the sIde of the road.The surveyor found that our" next door neighbors,:Mr.&:Mrs.Shellooe,who own the other portion of the original lot that does not adjoin Augustine,may,by default,own this piece of road because it was left out of our description.In light of this new information we were advised to avoid any future problems by asking the Shellooes to quit claim deed to us this negligent piece of road.The Shellooes were surprised by the situation,having no idea that our front yard was part of the road and no idea that this part ofthe road,which does not adjoin them, could possibly be owned by them.This was about two years ago and to this day they have not deeded us the property because they say that there is nothing in it for them,even though we have offered them 5 times the settlement amount the county advised plus other conceSSlOns. ~:"-~,,,.....,.:.'"'-'-'~.'~'.':'-'.-. "c;'•., ."".""',: So,last year when we found out we were expecting our first child we decided to approach the Shellooes one more time to try and resolve the land dispute.We explained that we could no longer wait to add on to our home and that unless we could secure definite ownership of our existing front yard,the only building option we had was a 2 nd story addition.Even though the Shellooes did not want us to build a 2 nd story next to them they were still unwilling to give us the quit claim deed we needed.So,w~r:.;eA:i!iiiVf;iR right back to the very narrow building options we started with 6 years ago.Wit~~!EE:::# EXHIBIT D A~~~§z§§§ T§WI~§F b§§§ffF©§ ~l::A~!~I~§§!VI§I©N time to waste in our ever shrinking 1 bedroom home,we made an appointment with Sandy Bailey at the planning department to discuss our building options.Then we hired Britt Rowe Architecture to design a home accordingly.We explained to the Architect that the Shellooes did not want us to build a second story and would probably oppose our project unless we were very sensitive in its design.So together we designed a structure 4 feet under the max allowable height with 2nd story wall plates lowered to 6 feet.We made sure that the second story windows facing them would not pose any privacy issues by placing them high and making them only 2 ft.by 2 ft.in size.We also recessed the master bath back to give more articulation to that side of the structure.We made sure there were no shadow issues and hoped that these compromised design efforts would satisfy the neighbors.Unfortunately they did not and the SheHooes have opposed our project.Together with planning staffand our Architect we met with Mr.SheHooe to discuss further compromises to the structure.The suggestions were to lower the structure another foot in height,recess the second story wall plate of the master bedroom 4 feet, remove a ftrst story window,and plant trees and vines.In this meeting we agreed to all these suggestions brought forth by our Architect and the planning staff.Unfortunately Mr.SheHooe did not come forth with any possible suggestions of his own and did not fInd these compromises sufficient enough for him.So we are now askihg the planning. commission to resolve this matter for us.We have done all we can to make this addition as neighbor friendly as possible with our very limiting set backs. Our son was born in March and our dream of starting our family in our new home did not come to pass but we hope to be able to get this project started right away so that our family can expand past our one bedroom in the near future. .......-'. •~--".\.;..:,.;,;::-r-i-,._,.....,,......"":"~. \ \ Written description of proposed project: This project is a second story addition to an existing one bedroom single story home on a non-conforming lot.It is designed as a 2,548 sq.ft.cottage -style with a I1h.story look and dormers in the front.Most ofthe second story wall plates are dropped to 6 feet.The overall height is 26 feet.The second story windows facing the neighbors to the sides of the home are 2x2 and placed higher up to avoid privacy issues.The home will consists of a living room,family room,dining room,kitchen,4 bedrooms,3 bathrooms,utility room, and mudroom.The structure posses no significant shadow threats. iL•.. Town of Los Gatos .Community Development/Planning Department 110 E.Main St. Los Gatos,CA 95031 March 16,2005 Dear Mr.Lortz and Ms.Bacola, RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2005 TOWN OF LOS GATOS BUILDING DIVISION Thank you for your consideration of this feedback regarding the proposed construction project at 16750 Farley Road in Los Gatos.My name is Bill Shellooe and my wife's name is Patricia Bottero and our address is 16742 Farley Road,next door to the proposed project. This letter is to inform you that we oppose this project because the project's eastern 2-story wall would completely obstruct the view of the sky,and much of the light,that is available in from the west-facing widows in all three bedrooms and the master bathroom of our house (see Figures 1-5).Seeing nothing but a 2-story wall that runs the length of our house and is only 15 feet away from our windows gives an oppressive feeling to these bedrooms,as well as a sense of compromised privacy (see Figure 6).Although there are a couple of'2-story homes on our street,I believe that none of these have a 2-story wall that runs the length of the entire neighboring single story house. Also,the Town should be aware that the project's off-street parking and garage access as proposed are located on a portion of land whose ownership is in dispute (since January of 2004).According to the legal description of the two lots,16742 and 16750 Farley Road,we own the land on which the off-street parking and the garage access are located,not the neighbors.We have retained legal counsel and this property will be the subject of a quiet title action if we cannot resolve this matter with Mr.and Mrs.Wagner.The Town of Los Gatos erroneously quitclaimed this portion of our property to the Wagner's in March of 2003. Regarding our opposition of the 2-story addition,please examine the photos on pages 2 and 3.(The dark object at the top of the figures 1-5 is the eave of our roof), Thank you for your attention to this matter..Please contact us if you have any questions, Sincerely, Bill SheHooe tJR~ 408-358-9523 :;:::::;~:,.'''t;;:;,i::::~;:'~;:C;;;:f/;:;~bin@bayarea.net ·16742 Farley Road Los Gatos,CA 9503 Patricia Bottero If2r-·---·········,-~)~ EXHIBIT E L, Figure 1 •View from west-facing window, south bedroom. Figure 3 -View from west-facing window,master bathroom. Figure 2 -View from west-facing window,middle bedroom. Figure 4 -View from west-facing window,master (north)bedroom. Figure 5 -Sun position at 5:15pm,March 15th.Figure 6 -Closeness of "back-to-back"walls running length of house (and shadows). Figure 7 -Compatible styles existing today (16742 is on the left,16750 is on the right). JUN02 2005 4:10PM HP LAP'"'="RJET 3200 p.2 RiCE\VE\O r)nnfOfficeofCommunityDevelopmentJ,UN -2.LV'U' Town ofLos Gatos c r-I"TOS110E,Main St.TOWN OF LO~\,'UA Los Gatos,CA 95031 \pLANNING DIVI$ION June 2,2005 Thank you for your consideration of this additional feedback regarding the propose~onstructionproject at 16750 Farley Road in Los Gatos,My name is Bill Shellooe and my wife1s name is Patricia ottero and our address is 16742 Farley Road,next door to the proposed project.This letter is an addendum to our original our letter opposing this project to the Town Community Development Department on March 16,2005. ! AB that letter stated,our opposition to this project is based on 3 factors,outlined bel~w.Please refer to the diagram attached to this letter and the photos attached to the March 16th letter. 1.The 24 feet high,7S feet wide two-story wall that adjoins the entire length of our ause that is under 16 feet away is not consistent with any other adjoining homes on our street,completely blocks th view of the sky and gives an oppressive feeling to all three of the bedrooms in our home.Also,due to the Wagne 's L-shaped lot,the view from the other v.rindow in BRI (see diagram)is a 16 feet high garage. 2.Access to the driveway and garage is located on a portion of land that is included n the legal description of our property (16742 Farley Rd.),not the Wagners (16750 Farley Rd.)We have retained egal counsel and this property will be the subject of a forthcoming quiet title action.The Town of Los Gatos errone usly quitclaimed this portion of our property to the Wagners in March of 2003. 3,The project does not have any off-street parking which will add 3 cars parked on arley Road,compromising the neighborhood's appearance.I Additionally,we would like to make the Community Development Department awaTrof the following issues. Although the portion of land that is included in our property description would allow the Wllgners to build a house that is compatible with the area and would not compromise our experience of our ho e,they have been unwilling to offer an adequate price for aT trade land for this large (2800 square feet)portion of s Gatos property. During a meeting in April with the Community Development staff,the Wagners,thei,architect and me,I suggested 2 remedies that would allow the project to proceed without the Wagners having to ac triTe the additional portion of land.My first suggestion was to build a single story home and use donners in the atti for additional bedrooms.My second suggestion was to move the whole structure northwest toward Farley (and her away from our borne, exposing the sky). We ask the Community Development Department and the community to consider tbe negative precedent that this project as-proposed establishes for development in the Farley Road area:allowing fu e construction of oppressive two-story homes with minimum set-backs adjoining single-story homes not side-by-s de,but spanning the entire length of the neighboring home. Sj"~fP/1!~lclr~~ 16742 Farley Rd. Los Gatos,CA 95032 I \ £XHiBIT E JUN 02 2005 4:10PM HP LA .....cRJET 3200 p.3 Car Tent 12 ft.height Garage 16 ft.height iI "Remaining________'\ A ti'A------+___I-ugus ne ve.I •______m .....\._....., I I I I I I t, I I I 2800 s.f. (20ft.X 140ft.) Portion of Augustine Ave. Included iIi ~Legal I Description of I I 16742 Farley ·Rd. ouse~roposed 2 Story 26 ft.height 16750 ..':~FarleYRa:. r- BRI BR2 BR3 Master,-.--".",,'~''.-~: 16742 Farley Rd. Existing Single Story House ,-----rc==:JJ- ".,'I."j I I I L-----..L.C===:=Jt-[r--------~----,I'll 15.5-16 ft."l Key .."",,,"'.':: fE~c."'1',i',-!;·'''l:,0'~·'·.h>',;'l'"0"'''','. Fence Std.6 ft.height Window Farley Rd. Planning Commission Town ofLos Gatos 110 E.Main 8t. Los Gatos,CA 95031 RECEIVED JUN -i$:2005 TOWN OF LOS \(pl;\"if(§),$ PLANNIN.G DIV:tSl.QN June 2,2005 This letter is in regards to the letter fTom our neighbor Mr.Shellooe and his wife Ms.Bottero addressed to the Office of Community Development on June 2,2005.In this letter they state their 3 factors for opposing our 2nd story addition.Below we have written our rebuttal to these factors. In his 1st point,Mr.Shellooe has falsely stated that our addition will place a 24 ft high by 75 ft wide wall adjoining the entire length of their home.While their home may be 75 ft long,ours is currently only 45 ft.and our addition would make it only 58 Y2 ft.These dimensions are clearly stated on our plans.Also,the height of the wall plate is not 24ft as suggested by Mr.Shellooe, for the most part,it is only 16ft with a portion reaching a maximum of 18ft,while yet another portion only reaches 9 Y2 ft.As for the 16 feet that is already existing between our homes,we have evidence of other two story homes in our neighborhood that adjoin single story homes at the same setback as ours.This is not a new precedent,as suggested by Mr.Shellooe,because the side setbacks for our neighborhood are 8ft.As far as our existing 1 car garage that is viewed by their back bedroom,it is a detached structure that has nothing to do with our application for a 2 nd story addition. In his 2 nd point,Mr.Shellooe points out that our driveway and garage are accessed by the property under dispute~Mr.Shellooe keeps claiming to own this property even though it has always been used by us and we pay taxes on it.Whomever a judge decides owns this property in a future quite title action,we will still,by the very least,have ingress/egress rights on the property. The 3rd point Mr.Shellooe makes regarding no place for off-street parking is the result of us having a non-conforming lot and them claiming ownership ofthe disputed property.However, like stated above,we will continue to use our existing spaces via a 50 year old established ingress/egress right on the disputed property.And furthermore,if the disputed piece of property actually did affect our parking status it would do so whether or not we added on to our home. In their additional comments they suggest that we should buy a piece of property from them, which has not been established as theirs,in order to appease their concern over our 2nd story addition.Even ifthis property was clearly theirs,itis ridiculous tosuggesUhatwe :should"be__.,_::'._.='::':":'~:""'~:'::__.~_ ....required to buy additional property in order to add on to ourhome.. ..~.~.. In further comments he suggests 2 remedies,the first of which is a single'story with dormers, which would also be classified as a two story structure but won't work on our narrow lot configuration.The second suggestion is to move our structure past the 25ft front setback toward the street.This is clearly not possible for setback reasons and also not possible because of the two 60ft high established cedar trees in our front yard.Mr.Shellooe has been informed,more than once,by planning staff and our architect why these suggestions don't work,but he continues to bring them up as if they are possible compromises that we are unwilling to make. We ask the Planning Commission to recognize that we have compromised enough already and to help us move forward with the approval of our 2nd story addition. Sincerely, Glen &Melissa Wagner OUIJlrQ 1 I I I I I 2800 s.f. (20ft.x 140ft.) Portion of Augustine Ave. h Included in . Legal .Description of. I I 16742 Farley ~Rd. \/\/ ~\~()\-o:"c~'\"~~l\c ~c.\II...·i\'"'::J"~~J \~\..-;,(\';j jd;~('LC\\': ;\t""I::J.i(~~ ~~..J>,c.!\()'l\\':>.0 \L-.\(f e:(\J<\.'~. 1 I I I 16750 Farley Rd. Farley Rd. Master Bath BR2 BR1 Existing Single Story House cJu·(U...2)L co S-.- Sl'\.L\\.()()Q....\Y\~.?..'P L:C:'-«(~c...\-e..c\. r-----~~=====d-.'loI()~_16ft."1 Key ....',,,....;,..,::-;:;;-;-::--:,, ~,...... AI{CI-lJTECTlJRE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN December 23,2004 Ms.Rachel Bacola Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E.Main Street P.O.Box 949 Los Gatos,CA 95031 RECEI\fED DEC 2 7 2004 TOWN OF LOS GATGD:S PLANNING DIVISION RE:16750 Farley Road Dear Rachel: fXHIBIT H C7f~C7\~ Larry L.Cannon AIA AICP President I visited the site,and reviewed the design drawings that you forwarded.This house is well designed,and the neighborhood has enough axchitectural variety that I think the style,though more formal than many others in the area,would generally fit into the diversified mix. I do have a concern about the two story height so close to the adjacent one story house.While there are other two .story houses in the axea adjacent to one story structures,most of them have a bit more distance be- tween the two houses.As shown on the photo to the right,the space between the adjacent houses is small.I do not see andeasyway to modify the proposed design to m~ke thls·tsslle go a.way.At a minimum,I would sug- gest adding some additional mid-height landscaping at the frontinterface of the two structures to provide some visual buffering and aid in the height transition. -·~:~~~::~~~~r~::::~~:~~o:~e:.-:::·:-:~:e:~:~~:~U::v:f::;::~:~~~~::~:.._~~~~!~~~Nt:;~~r'~-;~:: ..~height differences .~-o /.... from Farley Road.Efforts should be made to reduce the driveway width ~between hou~es _~<./::: as much as possible.This is shown diagrammatically on the drawing to '-j :J '''!''~..~:~':".,~~(!\:::::~_ ·,,,·,··.......··.u.,":'.·.....the r~ght.It wo~d also be a good ~dea to pa~e the driveway and two.':~".j :i \'.';1'-'ir- parkmg places wIth a modular pavmg matenal.:.;\\, Rachel,please let me know if you have any questions,or if there :...._,,':'~.\_..\-,- 1'\\.1/1 \'),\''/'\ Sincerely,~_.,£<L/./'\_ CANNON DESIGN GROUP --I.++Y h..".0+o·\\\---t'l :.'-+---T Modify driveway to minimize front yard paving TEL:415.331.3795 FAX:415.331.3797 180 HARBOR DRIVE.SUITE 219,SAUSALITO.CA94965 .~~-::-.---.----•.---~--------.-.---_.•.....~r:••.•.•....•...~.__•.•••• .'.::,. nTIi.E SHEET/PROJE:CT INFO: ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN: -EXISTING /DEMO, FiR$T<S<SE:COND FLOOR f'kANS: ExrERIOR ELEVATIONS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS &ROOF PLAN: REVISIONS BY +./Il!d~.db lillil :•...... :·a :.,....: •••":'..-: .. I:'. .•.•,.I I.·'.n,..·....•n"._ .. ... ""'P'."' mn 11·11 mn. LWJ I."Ulll:.·mnl.l.mn 11lH ••11 uw Pront View ofResfdence.Re11;lodd 1,470 288 1,758 sq.ft (27%) 3,105 sq.ft.(40%) House: Detached Garage: Total: Allowable: 986.5 sq.ft. 529-15-097 RI-8 7.762(originnllot size)+2,803(seetion oflol under dispute) J..6::;::;than 2%(Oat) Glen and Melissa Wagner 16750 Farley Road Los Gatos,CA 9.5032 408.358.9181 Remodel/Second StOl)'Addition to an existing one story single family residence. E.'(istinl!:Proposed Minimwn Front;25'-0"25'_0"25'-0" LSide:8'-0"8'-0'8'·0" RSidc:10-0'8'-0"8'-0" Rear.48'-0"53'-6"20'-0" Scope ofWork: Owner/Site Address: ExiSting Square Footage: Note:Calculationr below are based on origitJallDf stze ami not lot area under dispute. Proposed Square Footage:Fitst Floor:1,381 sq.ft.' Second Floor:I ]67s9,fl.. Total:2,548 sq.ft (.3283) AUowable Square F.olage (FAR):2,549 sq.ft (.3284) BuildingBeigbt .26'~O"@tallestridgemeasuredfrom existing finish grade. Building Coverng~: APN: Zoning: Lot Area: Avg.Lot Slope: .Setbacks: General Project Infoi:O).ation SITE SURVEYiiv¢;LUDED IN SETBy OTHERS.- A-O A-l A·2 A·3 A.4· A·5 S:HADOW STUDIES:A.6 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVJ;:Y/STREETSCAPES:A'7. ~o· ...L .D..........., q). '"-='"'U ~ .-Y VidititYMap 117!:>q,l:o,: -blvd. 8 Malcbline Building Section I;)raWing Symbol Column Reference Grid Indicatoro r:oc~ition.Map 22.-:'22.-:' 7.The owncr/de\'elo~/cJient reserves the right to make alterations at the design during tbe coarse lhc conslruction as applicable.Any changC3 shall bc approved b}:.thc local planning dcpartlTlcnl8S applicable.All ch!lJ1ge;>.shaU be documented by a '\.Tilten "Change Order"and shall be approved by [he.owner/~e"eloper/clicnt. ... 3.Layout for new work is largely b&sed upon relationships to existing conditions. Any queslions regarding the intent related to .the,layotlt of the new work shall be brought lO .the attention 6fBrittiRowe priorto tllc·c'ol'lm1encemcl\t ofan)'work. The contractor shall notify BriltIRowc ofall discrepanciispnofltl"ll1e ..__.......~_ commencement of any work.·. 5.Civil,Soil~and Structural Engineer's specifications shall take precedence over thf: following ·archi"lecturnl specificalio~:,:.:._..._,_..'.,." 6.Brill/Rowe retains all rights and ownership of the "Planning Documents"and "Specifications".These documents may DOl be used in whole or in part on any otller.project wjthou~o..-pressed consent from Britt/Rowe 4.Preference shall be given to figured/written dimensions on the drawings over scaled measurements.The "Plans","General Notes",and "Specifications"are intended to agree anC!supplement one another.Anything iDdicaled infon one and nol the others,soall be executed as if in all.In cases ofdirect conflict.the most restrictive shall govern. 1._Britt/Rowe is-not responsible fOT the design,.coordination or implementation of any W()tk.perfonntd by cO~ltants,including,but not limited 10,structural engineering,soil engineering,civil engineering,landscape architecture,and/or TiiI.7 24 enginee;ring. 1..Ali work'done pursuant to ;hese·.d.raWings and specifications shall <:amply with all .cirdin'!1lces and r~guratio[ls'wh~ch apply to the work and shall in My case. conf01'l1110 lhe latesieditiouofthe "Unifoim Building Code"r.UBC)cum:ntly enforced,and all currenl clty,county,and state codes as applicable. ) ,,.::,:"" .'.':,"."'. ,,:' i i i . I '. ROADFARLEY -_.._._----..--_..._--_.-_.-------------"'~. '"".~q .. ('js."". ':';:;, -': .:,.- ":,.,, ....:. :..- .............. "'. ..... :.:..... ::." '.' "',,'22~-=-..~-_-=-.-=-.-_.~.---~----...--"'=::~'~~-,--'__----'~-'---'~~~.~~~~~~~~+~..~----........-..~~+..;~~~.:-;./. :,:' ..':., ..'.' ",' ...,.~._-------=-----_.---- ,:. .359.,,"607 LAWN 'l-~ d()~;"CEDAR ~~clL ~_ '1 1 L--1~~~-----------1 [[ 1 1 1 GAR.' l;!li2.JlL-\_---cf-_,,---;': :p~~' , 1 ', , 1 1 ':C 1 [IU', 1 I~',C\![,0'~E)HOUSE [,''':.:~- 1 1 :a :.!--:1 '~0'1"1 I , , 1 ,,0, , 1 ,:in I I \-..r r---:::~J N~, 1 t"fI'='..~bO.'n uJ 0 : 1 ------.-.':z~~I:~-:""-:-------i I \.~:l />----------i!~~'O....~, //[I~\\~~/1 1 :-Z~\.\I '~"\LAWN [:"~'"J:,~~'.;:I~'l,"~""-\\I I~\,,:~'OJ,\~0':J ::o~l..'0t~;',.r .I.,,p....I ~\.\..fb'T i-------~-:I \~i U ~~r~'r"."."·"·oo··_~_oo.w:....:~~\;,\~.'......~,[~~ ,.0 1 0 ~b I '.'.~,.~".\:.~b'·~b~""_---------l'·:.~;,\"O.\~ \.\,:,':,'CON::,LAWN\\~'~ "Ol"n R \0~..1 v "'-..1 GA .1 ,.\O' \1 l .."':l I ....1.",I''.'\~~__~!:-:-~~:-=::~~:~~~~=,__'_~_~~i~, _....-I ~'::~""":'~:'~;::;,7;~'_-'::""'~ ._.~~.....-''--"'-~:_~-----_••••.<;"-,•••• ------=---...;- iiEGENI):. .P.RO~ERT.Y ..LINE EXISTING...,;I.MJ:iROVEMENTS ',EXISTING "EDGE OF PAVEMENT 'FENCE'!tINE .---- SPOT ~LEVATI.ON •'3G 1.0T ..~.-" '.: -"". :::, " ~.', SHEEl / JOB NO. 20&¥-//0' )NO.'BY OATE REVISJOIJ BY DATE DATE://-1/...04 SCALE'HOR.r'-/0' 'DES 1GNED, DRA\Jth //z PROJ.Elwr.: -7 .7..-:./#a/Uj/.ff=( H~RRY -810.6 JCt'iA L.S.1,953 WESTFALL ENGINEERS,INC 14583 BJG B/1S1J.l \JAY.SAP-AiOGf-.C;"·9507·0 H06)867-0~4'! TOPOG'RAPHIC MAP'..' 16750 FARLEYROAp,.LOS GATOS,CA OF / .:.;< "';. ''';= BY :1 ..( -l .,j- Jl.\l CQJW-lJ tP\-,'0 ....:>J);c :':>:.'.,~."':. :..... •;..!.'•.,.,':.'.: '.,','..,:'. .5'..\:10...65 ':',. .~. h~r:Hi" ::.... M\(Y . '-.': .hole'no -tree'?. Me 'prupo?'eol 1;0 b.e 'removed at<7,ee.. '..!,. I""10",0" 0:2.'10 ..•20 bLd>iJima;dmk ...ii·------·-~~~:=-·::=.::::;~~:-:::~'.:;::,.;·.~:.·;.';.~;,::.I..,; .~',: '....,:.~- ·r .'.~ \.' :,.. ".. ·f." ';': '-,."..' ,.';' --2 I..\ ':..... .., ::...... \~ROAD.FARLEYg' ....'::-::':..':- '·c...~...-."._.__.__.•_~~._ dol~ed :l;re:a..-I·l\dlc1l-te.. loc~ttoi'\of i\.dd,tlQn!:le.flr...t.floor Ce)power pole (el ul\der:lrourid elec~nc 5erVlce----:"" (e)elec~n«m~er loc~tton C~)·· ..p,ark,n9'pad:. .l1'5'P;'r.o~~) ed9"of·pavement e f8-rle~roa.o{ te)sa'ii met.er \ocat,o·n ........ te)vnd;'r~rpunJ elec. ",ervlce from 9 arage i:u ;,ou",eo l.ppro~.) (;;'):~e1ephone I ell-ble 1'01"- (e)vnder1round 9....,line (a.ppro;<.) \~1 ,.:'~. ,.~;....;'.' ,,: :',:....... .•...,.... .•........ "~,..,.~::.', .'.;. •::".-••;.'=')<:-':';.~.-.~:.::.• ...... :-'..~~....:'.' t ••: .'.....' ~" ;\. ~.~~ .,.:: "" .... :~'~;;; ",'.~:.>'::.'..;~ .,,'I .~, -..r .) .:". .;.:: .":,' ....: !'~". ,,': ',' :,.i: ,,~I) .:t....''j :... ii.,'.:\' ;\.: ','".".: "":, .... .:.~:". :..,':: :'.-:;..... ".) KI ~ :i> I';""r r ~.1!:8 L ':1£rtJ .~.E.,Z ,..,....'0 "·9:>;b1,0,<:3!J>., .'''-;i, '.':. ",'. :r 0-."1' '"'"3 .",:.- ...... ...... "."'~'~".':~:n'I···'.'''':....::. ,:.,I--+---f---f---f-c--*,-,-:-:-I. "'......,~"~..' ..... .l;'..;',:' ".'~'. ."':'"" I~"O":, '.~' '.:~.-,~"-.- ..... DRITT·HOWE i·r.l~i~llllil riB#I'!':.:' nntl'owl1crl;hin th·all·drltWinl;5';rn'q; llpccificDtions.The cunlenlS o(I~~' .di-nwip,@:l'Dnd l;~ccinCllli()nli m;\y \. "IH hu tilled no ;\uy nlhcr project . willUlltt lhli'eKJlrel\scd,"",dUM con6enl nfBRTTT-ROWE :~.. -:"'.::' 'I. ! "-~ 'Ii:,a,: ,"w. ";:\," ;.,' .:. ," '.····'>*~:J;;'!~;iJ~b ",,~,;;~}~:::' ,0 <0. '(00 :~~. '!Irl l .".....','":';'~?~~"". WAGN,ER RESID,EN6'E~t.,'";>0,1..:.",[':'''',' ' ,':'~W50 Farley Rqad,,',L~'s'Gatos,California:i'l.i:. :..... .,.-.' ;ffi':"~",..,...: ::s""','t.',.:.':":..~". o o DRAWN: +:," @~N.I-_SH_"_EET_"_:_e_X_'I~_t_il1_9_'P_':l._.,I1_·'_~~''b--,~_~_e_II1_~_ilt-l'rJ"'"SCALE:noted .DATE:II:5.0+ ',':.;..... I:I ':', 'f !.. :;. 1+"0" ,. '20'.<;," 58~'.. ..:~~.';'~ff~~~t~:;·,.:~~~:~::?;:..':~;.. '.~,. .;"..~.!~'... :.:-: .:;".,. ",. ··.;1'1II .~" .'.:jJ...,~~!~' .:.·:"~ft.:;f'···~":;T,:'::::;:&ZI?~}~~%~~~W~~l~~~~.·t':,..ib ." .''~.. ,'''.. Ib~¥P~. :'." 2+"0" , 1. .;.:;. ,;',....,.,~:' .... '." . . ..~".. (. ~i ., ::.·I·· " :'.,:.. '..,."..,.~ ~RITT'RUWE rel;i",."'iig~:';'".'.:.•...',7.,'.7"~"n "'1': '.•...and owncr:;hiJl ttl all drll;VinE:,:.'a.~d Rliccifie:llinnu.The ~11l.itmls q(ilJe drnwin~6.:mdflp~ciftclltitlnSmil)': "til he IlRcd on nn)'othr.r projeGl ..::.'~:...• '.wi.tllf1lll1hl!.eKllressen.wrilir.h con5cnlu(BRlTT·nOWE .:.:~I :.•r---+-IP:-+-+~~-l '..'.....}..~ SR'·,(I. ...·.:1,.·.'...'l'I'i!ll~::\'.:.':'.+.:.,f.:~...:.;,:....·:.,.· I ··,hJUII··.<:·~·:..:'.:i·,·........-. .~..,..". ::ff.:w~~.j.I":~.~R:R~§itii:~(~E:..[il'IIT ....". i1!"!~.6750 FarleY'Rciad~'...:..J.'!!'ill '.',."".:JE;os Gatos,Cahfotll1Cl,!~,. "I': I 'i5)~".~...... ~·EB·<···:,. . .~.'.'..:'.';..::." ~...':. \11. o ·0 'T/-;:uen..,. ;21 o 0,'::u .'"0 ~. Z 0 ·$HEEr:flo;~I"I~n5 .>.SCALE:hDcecl VJ I-D-AT-E-:--II-,-S.-.0-.-4------,.,., DRAWN:. ./. /:/. ·REv1SIOJiiS BY. ..5.·l~.:(5.,df:>. .~ ..l J\ C "...",. 0- Il! (I) L +0;::"Cl IV q) .."..,III ""OJ "= t..,..,.,;e: :;).,..,~"'."t;;,,". :r;U .X tJ)tJ)Cl Cl - 0:- 5 ·10 Ya(zzN54(////0'J 0'1.' Jmi,......,..... .~:=eo . ".- -... .(e)flnl,,11 '3rade '.,'.:;..~...... (e)flnl;11 floor 1Yla.y.II\1Vrn ndqe h~~ W3.i1 plate e bedr~.I w·3.·iI 1:'1~t;"Cl..cotta.e "I '.:": '::' tel 1'ln,,,11 -floor (el flnr"h r",Je ~:".;...:.. .~..,'.:~.. :.'~:'.... "i., ..",,' ':,' ...', '.~'.'. mnll ••rrmllliIll:••UJ1Lmn.1.1.DIDII·'.,,·,~ LlliJ IIII Hill: "Go.ppe .rooTlnq- WI a.±e Ill.10 . cove ....ed e.ni:r-':I feat'vre-. rrm IIII mn ..WJJ ••11 Uill rrm ••11 mn llill 1111.Ulli .....-':~::..' ,........ .' wood panelled . WindoW <>hu"t",..." wood Iineel t.rlrll ---'----'--... wood .planter boxe;,~ cove movldlng e poxed eave;, S 10 '::..'..-:.. 01 .ka1~==~f:zzo1Z}P!Z2a7Zmll1l/1mJ!2IltaZllO! '.:~"..'.:,...... "~. \'. ....... ~~..,. . ....'.-..._-~-~-",'-'-'"'"'"~....,,_... .w:oll phl:e Q ;hl!"' ~. _t' ,~:"'" ,~:. .'..:. .·c,:.:'..·.' SiDE ELEVATION (WEST) o I 5"1"0 kzq::....Jjz;li'lin'!Z7I.:zzmi<ZI!~?i(~1r:WliId ":,";..' 1/+"'1'-0" ..;...:.}''', '--------..._.~...'-~"---"-'._----._--._...-..-._.~._~".-.-..------.------._--"'-'--'--._.._".--'---'._"'''--'-.''"--"-----_._--"".,..... .".:.:..~':,"',REVISIONS .BX I::·w 0.. Ii-.0 .: Cl 1.- '-c '!-~0.,.,'1J'"OJ '">....,\'l 'l!0 OJ 1::-..Zf-:5":.Ll ~w :.Ll -:(t;::r:u <C Vl (f;Cl C .'.:" .•.,.;•...... '.'....:.". •'.::•..... '.~.'...." '1 (41)'/,) ('52'1.) .....' ......" .. le)w.IJr.C:moi';;d·'···, ..~oJ~:L.__·:_.._..._._.':'__';'-'~':'" (oi)w.lI to.hl •371; .m..xlmvl1'\'nd .e:hel ""t . (e)1V.1f removed.' ~(720) {e)'Wall'to,t.'.'.~2o-. Tobl (el w~11 1,2..'?2- (e)w~11 rel\'lDVeq •(-5~7) (e)w:>lIto reWJ~ln':b~"j lton ·t1jvou!>)- .'ffill ;.'m"'[ill' ':."'.", .'.' ~:.''.(ffiIJ··.[ill] wood )wmd"W ,:>hvHer;,. --~---~---~------... p: left ;'.Ide (e)IVoll rem.vea. ~(2.21) lc)w.1I r<''''OYed •l4 0 ) (e]w.lI t.bl •21c1 (e)w..II-1:ohl ;.'lJoT ";h ..ded ~re:l. mdlc.-Le.w~ll 'rea?rel\'love<l mm Wall Demo Calculations ."\,,ti,J:ype c.1"""A .r"of '\>l1l1'\qleb front. :SiDE'ELEVA:rION"'(EAST)::' fireplace ch.."e \.tliP.) ,;;vere"l . por'vh roof covered p"rGhcoof . 1/4",\'-0" T1 ~I I I covered porc.h roof. 5 10 ~b==:::==·fk'l1/1liZd'Z'.r2'l1~ltiZ2I'l1·II~zmJ o I D ._..._._.....-L-¥~.j- I I I LiI . I I I I i I .i .II j D .. r~.oF "Iupe' •10'\1:;.. ~k.Jh9ht location (,,~p.) "oYered,. poroh roof ",', outline .of'\?u:,lomg . "YI·~II (elP). ;.... '." ;.. ,".:. .:.:.:.::~'.~:.....:...'",..". ... -.':: .",.~. ..:. ) "\ -,." ::':".,~ --:·~7·::-.'.7 ~-- ":".,..._,--',-'-.-.----'~~~:-:,;r:~--..,.-:--_.._------.-,---_._-.-----...._. ..,;.... .... ....:.- .... ".!.....".' :.'.1iE~IQNS·BY ;4 /nlpf .'Ji, '0) '<iJ "0 :>......+OJ 0 ~() 0 0..".'"'I '"'Ll ..t:.0 .1/)!: :~'.~ ":.- '.: ..~:-.':': ":.: 1/1,,"·J'·o" .:.':. ';ol~ralt:,~vM:.•:. .'l:;.",.JOne..!',}'.' c.lev·.~ ...... : . .501:.1'<ll-lrl:.ud-e·.' C'.noon "one if.. ~-- ( II ... /i· /~.•"h:,dON .Ime.:<l n~"nJvne 2.\'. ,j'.'.:'...' :) / \ 15" <>01.,:;.Itrtvd e C!"pm June.!l.\ s- '"\ \ '""'-.-":'. '-'.' .:~ "; Ju"-".NE SHADOW STUDY .','!"'.:'. ..•' ---'--'c¥~~=:Ll .:> appro)(,Iot:;.·tton of ~dJ're!>lqen~e-...-' :: ..... ,..,." -.::: :.... ) ~ :.'; "',.'...:',:. '..'..',':'~'.. ;',.>:." " ',' :" !,::",.~'". '6":---'-':''',..;., .,..... '.'. ~ "J"ht\< W ~0',",\::.c",,~:"',·,jt ,:~ o [T\ .~,. .::'j'::';'Wi-{i ;:oiJ11i [11:..,i UJ ()i ~,,,: [11 UJ: ".....,., "" \)-"I I-u""-0 ',;;!'I ' I C)- ~0 "lM ~~ ~+. g 0,i /1 i I)I ~L)-Ii; ...--.--.....cl--) ~.-I~;I.gt l 1f ":it.h DJ, j..)/N 1-I tSl-J~I-:-jl ,*I ..-:n ]> iti FI~I<=--I '-J .:..J cJI ~.f'\o ,-I',<j> 01 6... •..! UJ N -ll ;., -+ IJl ~t Z\~~crt;IS .~} <J'Gr:t! OJi0:~!gl (1)\ C' ;:0: .~f. +\5" sl;l~-J -.J'-J ~tP .5" o " d: "1"10-/6"-.l -J -..J -J .::t;'U1 +U1 ::J l: .,N .'1~ r--- ~' I"l -".~ ....... '"\:l' !' I' 'U -~ <l' 6' -I:;1- 6 :::-..,., ".'-",~"..--o.··.~o..~,..-_./r-..,11·' .~~.~.....~..,..·.tii.:>:.',.~.,.~...'.'11'\' ,.'.-,. .~'I'.. .' '.'.. . .':UflITT-HOWE-rf'.luinil all right~ unci (l'wTler~hifIIO '011 tlra .....iJlg~and !')lccifiCUlipnl'.,The cui,tr.nh.·ur lhe' dpn~·ings.an~~pcdriculilJm;ntny nul.hll used lIn 'lmv fllhr.r project~hl!llllllhl:e~Jlre;5cd,wriltcm' 'COl)Ilenll1r UIUTT-nOWF. .'~. VVAGNI;.RREs'jDENCE''.. ...16750Farley R.oad ·...Los ,Ga~os,California DRAWN:0/.SHErr:nelghor:ho'Ocl>-SCALE:noted ~DATE:11.15.0,,!- :' Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E.Main St. Los Gatos,CA 95030 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2005 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION October 17,2005 Pa At the June 8,2005,planning commission meeting,the commissioners requested that we redesign the addition to our home so that the 2nd story is placed further away from our easterly neighbor's home.The commissioners allowed a reduced setback on the westerly side of the property to make this redesign possible.We feel our architect,David Britt,has done an amazing job alleviating the mass and scale on the east side of our addition by creatively moving %of the second story wall plate 7 Yz feet back from our existing first story wall plate.This has enabled him to meet the easterly neighbors request for a 1 Yz story design with dormers.This was accomplished by adding square footage to our first story dining room so that the 2nd story master bath could be moved above it;also by moving our 1sl story family room and 2nd storymaster bedroom to the westerly side of the home;and finally,by moving and shrinking the 2nd story master closet,laundry area, and hall bath. We have had to sacrifice many assets of our first design such as a large enough master bedroom closet,walk-in shower,more attractive master bath design,spacious laundry area,hall bath with private lavatory,and a first story porch on the more utilized west side of our home.We feel these sacrifices,along with the variance on our westerly setback,have made it possible for us to meet the commissions request to provide our easterly neighbor with added light and sky view. Sincerely, Glen &Melissa Wagner 16750 Farley Rd. Los Gatos,CA 95032 Exhibit Q October 20,2005 Ms.,Rachel Peled Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E.Main Street P.O.Box 949 Los Gatos,CA 95031 RE:16750 Farley Road Dear Rachel: I reviewed the revisions to the plans and elevations which have been changed to address the direction from the Planning Commission to pull back the mass of the second floor addition in order to limit the impact on the adjacent neighbor.The change has been significant with approximately 65%of the two story wall length along the east side of the house pulled back a distance of about seven and a half feet.The change should reduce the visual mass ofthe house as viewed from the east.The extent ofthe changes is shown on the diagrams below and on the following page. lM~e ',;,"oh;jJ!iT!§!~!i;H;!IVg. been remo"",edito ,aJ dl'!!ipllh of apiproximaleay '7'ml?)" Revised Elevation East Elevation Exhibit R 16750 Farley Road Design Review Comments October 20,2005 Page 2 Tlhl:s i!limoutM IGif Itmtil iQil1T19 '~IIOlilJlbi!ie hills bif!Jl2ltlJ mm,")i~lilln:J_--a over ,ElPPwox iimf,lt,el1l'613,% of the !Thrn,s't ,ele'l.\'a~lloll1l wall IIE!>n!gth pIl'El'IliDfIJ'$9y 't ..."o :stmies in herght Rear Elevation I do not believe that further change to the plan will result in significantly different impacts.Probably only a major design change to incorporate the second floor more into the roofform would make a difference. That would require a change in the proposed architectural style ofthe house.An example of this approach is shown in the photo below. Rachel,please let me know if you have any questions,or ifthere are specific issues of concern that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP C7f~~ Larry L.Cannon AIA AICP President CANNON DESIGN GROUI'180 HARBOR DRIVJL SUiTE 219.SAUSALITO.G.o\949l'5 Planning Commission Office of Community Development Town of Los Gatos 110 E.Main St. Los Gatos,CA 95031 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2005 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION October 11,2005 Thank you for your consideration of this further feedback regarding the proposed construction project at 16750 Farley Road in Los Gatos.My name is Bill Shellooe and my wife's name is Patricia Bottero and our address is 16742 Farley Road,directly next door to the proposed project. Impact of the Modified Design At the June 8th,2005 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning Commission instructed the Wagners (owners of 16750 Farley Rd.)to modify the design to remedy the concerns we expressed regarding the view from the west windows in all three bedrooms of our house.Unfortunately,the modified design does not remedy these concerns.Based on the new story poles in place at 16750 Farley Rd.,the modified design produced no effect on the view from these bedroom windows and the dark,oppressive feeling in every bedroom and still violates several Town of Los Gatos Building Standards (see below). The "Mass Study"of the redesigned structure submitted by the Wagners indicating that sky is revealed above the structure to a standing viewer looking out of our bedroom windows either is significantly in error or is an attempt to mislead the Planning Commission and the Community Development Department for 2 reasons.(See Diagram 1 "Mass Study"prepared by the Wagners.) •No sky is revealed to a standing viewer of average height even right up against the windows.(See Diagram 3,the photos.) Given the north-westerly orientation of the house,the sun never appears even near the location and height depicted in the study's diagram at any time of year. Opposition to the Project As-Proposed Our opposition to this project as-proposed is based on 2 factors. 1.The 25 feet high,59 feet wide two-story structure that adjoins the entire length of our house and is less than 16 feet away completely blocks the view of the sky and gives a dark,oppressive feeling to all three of the bedrooms in our home.(Please refer to diagram 2 and diagram 3,the photos.) Violations of the Town of Los Gatos Residential Development Standards For All Single Family Dwellings The size and closeness ofthe elevation impairs the use,enjoyment and value of our neighboring private property (LA 1,LAA and ILA5.l).The differing scale and mass of the two houses and their close proximity creates an unharmonious and incompatible structural relationship and is inconsistent with any two-story homes adjacent to single story homes in the neighborhood (ILA.53 and ILB).In general,this project also compromises the unique sense of openness that the Town's Development Standards strives to preserve (LA2),especially in the Farley Road neighborhood.(See Appendix 1:Detailed Opposition for further explanation of violations.) 2.Access to the garage,driveway and off-street parking is located on a portion of land that is included in the legal description of our property (16742 Farley Rd.),not the Wagners (16750 Farley Rd.)and is the subject of a lawsuit.Once that suit is completed and a 6-foot fence is placed around it,the garage and off-street parking (except space for one car)will be completely inaccessible.Also,due to the below-standard 4-foot set-back to the northwest,the resulting structure will be an "eye-sore"in the Town:a "monster"2-story home closely fenced-into a narrow corridor of a lot with an 8-foot set-back on one side and a set-back that tapers down to Exhibit S 4-feet on the other side.(See Diagram 2,upper right corner.See Appendix 2:Status of Quiet Title Legal Action below for more information regarding the suit.) Use of this portion ofland for parking,ingress/egress and construction is trespassing and is a violation of the Town's Site Planning Standards (LBA). Our Request to the Planning Commission and the Community Development Department Although the non-standard lot size of the project could permit variances,we ask the Planning Commission and Community Development Department to realize that such variances damage the use,enjoyment and value ofthe adjoining home.We ask you to consider the violations of Town Building Standards and the unsightliness of the closely fenced-in 2-story structure with an inaccessible detached garage.We also ask you to consider the detrimental precedent thatthis project as-proposed establishes for development in the Farley Road community: allowing future construction of oppressiVe two-story homes with very large elevations using minimum side set- backs adjoining single-story homes nbt side-by-side,but spanning nearly the entire length of the neighboring home. If such a trend continues,it will not only impair the use,enjoyment and value of the adjoining homes,but also compromise the unique openness that the Town of Los Gatos Development Standards are trying to preserve. Any member ofthe Planning Commission or Community Development Department is welcome to call me to discuss these concerns or visit our house to see the adverse impact ofthis project as-proposed first-hand. Sincerely, Bill Shellooe 16742 Farley Rd. Los Gatos,CA 95032 (408)358-9523 VU====-:s:::::--- Patricia Bottero OJ., 1-".,rt rt-.. ::0 ~ (l) u. ()1 -'- o '()) ()1 ()l I\) CD I\) --.Ju. Cf'I (l) "0, I\) ()), o ()l .......,-,--L "lJ OJ (Q (l) CO-.. CO ,,~:\....-----:;.,---------------------------~-----' Diagram 2 2800 s.f. (20ft.x 140ft.) Portion of Augustine Ave. Included in Legal Description of 16742 Farley Rd. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ~4\ Ift.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I Oft-street parfing I I I I I I I 16750 Farley Rd. Proposed 2 Story House 25 ft.height Car Tent 9.5 ft.height Farley Rd. Garage 14.5 ft. I I Window (All clear glass) 8 ft. Key Fence (future) Std.6 ft.height r Bay BR 1 c-- '- BR2 '-Existing Single c-- Story Master House Bath L- 16742 [Farley Rd. BR3 Master [ I Bay I i Remaining \ \Augustine Ave.I---------------------------------------------------1-._._._.-._._._. _._.-._._._.i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix 1 Opposition Point 1 Detail 1.The 25 feet high,59 feet wide two-story structure that adjoins the entire length of our house and is under 16 feet away is not consistent with any other adjoining homes on our street,completely blocks the view of the sky and gives a dark,oppressive feeling to all three of the bedrooms in our home.(Please refer to diagram 2 and diagram 3,the photos.) i)Item 1 above significantly impairs the use,enjoyment and value of our neighboring private property and is therefore unsuitable for its location,violating the Town of Los Gatos General Site Development Standards for Single Family Homes (LAA and LA.2). The fact that all of the windows running the entire length of our house are completely blocked by this structure impairs our use.The crowded and oppressed feeling that a structure ofthis size and proximity gives to each bedroom impairs our enjoyment of our home.Although the value of our house may increase on paper with this project,the number of potential buyers who would buy the home after seeing it becomes very small,i.e.there are few,if any,home buyers in this price range who would actually make an offer on, and want to live in a home where all of the windows on one side are blocked by the neighboring two-story house that is just 16 feet away. ii)The massive design and elevation relative to the adjacent structure,our home,and its minimum side yard setback of 8 feet violates the Town of Los Gatos Building Design Development Standards for Single Family Homes specifying that "the design of the elevation facing an adjacent structure"be harmonious, compatible and "complement the adjacent structures and uses"(II.A.5.!). iii)The fact that this two-story elevation with minimum set-backs adjoins our single-story home not side- by-side,but spanning nearly the entire length of our neighboring home is not consistent with any adjacent structures in the existing neighborhood (ILA.5.3). (Normally the long sides of two rectangular houses would be adjoined to the rear of each other.As such, under the Town of Los Gatos RI:8 zoning,they would have a total of 40 feet of minimum rear separation, i.e.a 20-foot rear set-back on each lot.) iv)The overall height and mass of this two-story dwelling only 16 feet away from our neighboring single- story home does not maintain a consistent scale with our neighboring structure,violating the Town of Los Gatos Building Design Scale and Mass Standards for Single Family Homes (ILB) v)Additionally,the proximity of the two homes combined with the significant difference in scale and mass, compromises the Town's unique sense of openness (LA.2),especially in the Farley Road area. Appendix 2 Background and Status of Quiet Title Legal Action Although the portion ofland that is included in our property description and is the subject of the Quite Title lawsuit would allow the Wagners to build a house that is compatible with the area and would not impair our experience of our home,they have refused to offer an adequate price for or trade land for this large (2800 square feet)portion of Los Gatos property. This portion of property is now the subject of a Quiet Title lawsuit filed on June 3,2005. Unfortunately,on the advice of our attorneys,we reluctantly had to also name the Town of Los Gatos in addition to the Wagners in the lawsuit because of the Wagner's actions. The Town of Los Gatos erroneously quit claimed this portion of property to the Wagners instead of its legal owners,us,in March of2003.However,the Town's March 2004 letter to me it states that the "Town does not and has never claimed an interest in Augustine Avenue,"i.e.the property was not the Town's to give. Even though the Wagners were aware the Town's quit claim document did not grant them ownership,they have used it to misrepresent themselves as the owners of this property to various institutions including the County of Santa Clara Assessor's office in order to create an invalid new parcel description and APN that includes this portion of property. At the Wagners'request,I agreed to an expensive mediation on August 30th,2005.During the mediation,I proposed 3 different options that would allow the Wagners to acquire this portion of property,including a land-for-Iand trade as suggested by the Planning Commission at the July 8th meeting.The Wagners however made no offers oftheir own,and did not appear to mediate in good faith at all. As such,this lawsuit is ongoing. Diagram 3 Figure 1 -View from northwest-facing window,master (north)bedroom. Figure 2 -View from northwest-facing window,master bathroom. Figure 3 -View from northwest-facing window, middle bedroom. Figure 4 -View from 'I1.W·facing window,south bedroom. RJECE6VED :nrr'T 1 (\VL·'.fJj 2aQ5 TOWN or LOS r::: PLAi\J{\J"!'\]G 0 <.:JATOS "IVISION Figure 5 -Closeness of back-to-back walls spanning nearly length of entire house (93%) REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: EXHIBITS: REMARKS: Date:---=J::..:u=n=e...::8:..>..,=2.:::..00=5,,- F or Agenda Of:__-,J::...;:un=e--",8-,-,2=0,,-,0=..5 Agenda Item:,l"'---_ DESK ITEM The Planning Commission "The Director of Community Development 16750 Farley Road ' ,Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval to construct a new second story on property zoned R- 1:8.APN 529-15-097 PROPERTY OWNER:Melissa and Glen Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt DEEMED COMPLETE:May 17,2005 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION BY:November 17,2005 A.-I.Previously Submitted. J.Two letters from neighbors in support of the proposed proj ect (2 Pages),received,June 7,2005 K.Letter from neighbor in opposition ofthe proposed project (4 Pages including diagram)received June 8,2005. Attached are two letters Jromneighbors,onFaJ;"lYYKQadjl1~§HPQQ[I:,:.9£Jl!~:pJ::qp()sedp:r()ject, (Exhibit J).The.neighbprsjn..opposition o.f the .proj ecthave SubmittecLa folloW:''-up-lette:r to their',. two letters that were included in the staff report (Exhibit J). Prepared by:Rachel Bacola,Assistant Planner BNL:RB N:\DEV\REPORTS\2005\16750FarleyRD.desk.2.wpd Attachment 8 RECEIVED JUN 0 7 2005 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION June 7,2005 T own of Los Gatos Community Development/Planning Dept. 11 a E.Main St. Los Gatos,CA 95031, To Whom it May Concern: We are writing in support of Melissa and Glen Wagner's second story addition at 1 6750 Farley Road in Los Gatos.The ,Wagners are superb neighbors.,very caring and thoughtful.We would like nothing more than to see them remain in our neighborhood so that we can raise'our families together. In addition,we are pleased to see sensitive,non-ostentatious development in our Los Gatos'neighborhood.Not only does an updated home benefit all neighbors by increasing property values,but also in the beautification of our street. 'Plea.~,~,.b,~It:L~M"",Y'L'?i9.rr~[,§:,~,D.'}qy~'.':t~~2~,9~~,~~~:>!P_~~~1~,~~£DJ:;£~~1~TI.~2:~1,9~~sive" "'remodeLrrtieyc':fruly:':do":des'erve:tc;i'fufill,·theirdream'''oftraisirig"'tneirfamny on Farley Road. '\::;"i;";;;.;i"":';:,:"":':'f:,,,,:',<.Si rIC e rely, ;-~;~~~~!~~~~rKU4 ·R.iJd 4J) _...,-",_,~,__,.)irrL?Jld.Kim,Ratc\iff . 6793 Farley Road Los Gatos,Ca 95032 EXHIBIT J .k"3-ZDO.s- ,he-Tow;\.or [bS Gd1D.5 ?/.:a.,V\..~lA.j C('~MI5~J oV\- Re~W..:;lSt'\~r-lJcJd~+,;VI-~11..750 F8 r-1-ey Road T ~~w":j,+J~fPL~s /eiJ~10 :1110;.-t ih-e.LJ~~er1r-jJlb-K +0 retlAPtie1 avtJ .add.o~to ike-i.r ol\oe.b~J U-bO/4j.. hDr.{e ,,1 1675D fdri"1 foal fAe.!J.)~MIr&soal /j tt:>e'iGf a JA.d.f/A-oe,t'r holM..e--I-D 2>Uuxlesi .s L ie .J-1A.d i tJ 0 (.L.Ll aee 0 M #Lbda:ie.'ro~.s,'u.J a -fa Jv...,~it . :IS €.c.2tu.s ~(')r 11.iK,l {~I J 'D U.s 0 r fit t:.-'"I"/of 6}'Z,Q q~ JdJO~+l1....e..o 0 r-e..a.5CJVLt3ble d/~-eJrIL4-{JI~{ob" rbltJt.-.fa db ik.iJ i (;;.ID ~a-6~c.ou..d ::slott:.!!. Tkis.aJc{;-ttoJt LJottJJ he.IA ~€~f~0j w;l/L ike.,· (/lay-~4~of tiAe.J\.~:j A,1.or--h..ood as 1-/!...e,re 6ft'e, sGv.a¥;..1 01 h (!./r~+w D siol"!:r ILtJ #,1.R.,5 /l ear ,.".7A ~ ~~~0~~"'i~b~~'!l~~-~~~~~~~~·~Ls!~t..,~~~,~~£t'-i~~~Y;$j5jc'..,.,.,...,·1··..fo'.-,fIJi ..'lit -'C'--JIliI'-.-':-:.'.'j -'*'I.,....-....-"I-)jU.ilJ~:::'··-i:f·,-P --it.""J Y"'1IJ .~.)1)03..e."o/@.~..-"'.'-""'"".-...~.""..c."_.'._"b._.·.'.'_'~•.'.-_.'?:t:.:;::,~~..-_~,~,"',-",PPl,,~f")VIi l(;;e-'·-FPL~'-_."¥Y"17::1Ch0 "t·TI"""·r ·'f/·,·.·.q==?.:!L'Ci=~.;c--__':~",:-,- I·;;;J.d if/~~7"iJ~j/~ve tkGj·r-nw fu,fJ{'{.•ltJotd4 1J~~'~-""'"-'''."... I... \oh-L"rv...pt-p ve tM.eM1 fD ft~/I1.e04ho~kDtJ d.1A-4 at!IJw I +"-w.e 70 C-fJuJ'orfdlJ!.r f"dJ..se a fJ.~.Tilfr""l<.:J& I [).t-5 e C0 ""-~;s~I 0"-d 1'1 rt>J/,:J /of iLe.1JJ1JJt#'.:s' !fJj-Opo8i~lVED ~. / . :dUN 07 2.005 .,~c..e-re,~) i·7$4 /II I/o~f2I ,n J -~.."'.,..,"'"," .TOWN OF LOS GATOS /b 1Bof2J;-/~f/Ci:f. PLANNING DIVISION JUN 08 2005 10:58RM HP LA~~RJET 3200 p.2 RECEIVED Planning Commission JUN ()8 2005 Office of Community Development Town of Los Gatos TOWN OF LOS GATOS JI 110 E.Main St.'.PLANNING DIVISION Los Gatos,CA 95031 June 7,2005 Thank you for your consideration of this further feedback regarding fue proposed co ~ction project at 16750 Farley Road in Los Gatos.My name is Bill Shellooe /3l1d my wife's name is Patricia B ttero and our address is 16742 Farley Road,next door to the proposed project. Executive Summary Our opposition to this project as-proposed is based on 2 factors. 1.The 26 feet high,58 feet wide two-story structure that adjoins the entire Ie of our house and is under 16 feet away completely blocks the view of the sky and gives an oppressive feelin to all three ofthe bedrooms in our home.(please refer to attached (updated)diagram .an4 the photos attached to )ur March 16th letter iffurther clarification is needed.) land that is included in the leyRd.)(See attached Possible Violations ofthe Town of Los Gatos Resi filial Develo ment Standards Fo.All Sin le Famil Dwellin s The size and closeness ofthe adjoining elevation impairs the use,enjoyment and val e of our neighboring.private property (LA.i,I.AA and IT.A.S.1).The differing scale and mass of the two houses d tooir'close proximity creates an unhannonious and incompatible structural relationship and is inconsistent with an .two-story homes adjacent to single story homes in the neighborhood (IT.A.5.3 and IT.B).In general,this project a 0 compromises the unique sense of openness that the Town's Development Standards strives to preserve (I.A.2),especially.in the Farley Road neighborhood. 2.Access to the garage,driveway and off--street p~king is locate~on a portion legal description of our property (:1..6742 Farley Rd.),not the Wagners (16750 F diagram,upper right corner.) ;":::'~\i"lA~§,.pqp:tgQ~lf.property is now the'subject()fa g~~~tTitl~hl.wsllitfiled on June 3,2 05.Its use for parking, The Wagners have used a Quit Claim docum.entissued7 byThe·TownofLOs GatOs t,astheTownhas ..._.....'.'. acknowledged in 'WIiting,does not grant ownership,·torepresent themselves as the 0 mersofthis property to the County.of Santa Clara Assessor's office tooreate.ap.mv:alidn~'WA.PN that includes .s portion of property.As a result of the Quiet Title action,a lis pendens haS been>record6d on thIs parcel.This i valid parcel number (529-15- 097)is the parcel number for wbich this proj ect is prlJpo~;e(\.. .',,..:'.".",':.:/"':":.,"•..',..'',".......:,.,...'...,:·,:i:::":·c.cJ;::'3~~'7~T'CF:;;;J0'1d!<:~,"'.;;;;,::,:"::'~i5:~'~;:::::'"'!i!':'1';?s~[¥.?;:;;c"'~i.0..~~~:~':.";:"''''':!!''.~'i:.:?:~:':i;:~::.'.<'.:.. ..wi ~;~prop(i;i6d alt~rna:tiv~~:that wG~itfaIib\V}th~:W~gners'tQ pro~eedwith tbeirh me:'expansion including (significairt)modifications to the design and possiPly acqciiring our~2800 square foot portion ofproperty.None of these have 'been accepted by the Wagners.. . .~--,',.,. We 'ask the Planning Commission and the CommunitY DevelopmentD~;rt~ft6:oi1~~fiilii'detrimental precedent that tills projec~as-proposed estiblishes for deve16pment in the Farley Ro d conununity:allowing future construction of oppressive two-story homes with VeT)1 l?ige adja9eIl.t :el~vations:usin minimUJ;rlside set-backs .adj oining single-story homes not side"by-side,but spanning nearly the entire leilgtli"'"rt1ie-'iieiglib'oring home.If such a trend continues,it will not only impair the ~,enjoyment and value of the ad oining homes,but aiso compromise the unique openness that the Town oiLas Gatos Develciptp..ent Stmdar SaTe trying to preserve. 'EXHIB1IK JUfl 08 2005 lO:56AM HP LA~~RJET 3200 .....,, Detailed Opposition This letter is contains the following new inforJ;I1atlQn':'. 1)A re-statement of 2 points of oPPQsition to this"tJrojeet (in:bol,d below). 2)Citations of specific'pQSsible violations 'of the To~of Los Gatos Residential evelopment Standards For All Single Family Dwelllngs (section ~umbers in parenthe'ses below). 3)A brief background of the Quiet Title lawsuit affecting the APN for this proje t. 4)An updated diagram ofthe adjoining ]~ts and homes.'.' Our opposition to thisproj eot 'is based on 2 factors,out1in~~.b~low.Please refer to th update.d diagram attached to this letter. 1.The 26 feet high,58 feet wide twO-:story structure that'adj9ins tb.e entire lengt .of our house and is under 16 feet away is no~con~istent with'any other adjoi.niIig homes on 'our street,com lately blocks the view of the sky and gives an ()ppressive f~ling to all three of the 'bedrooms in:oUr hoine.{pI ase refer to the photos attached to our ~arch 16th let,ter.}.. i)Item 1 above significantly impairs the use~'enjoYm.ent and value of our nei hboring private property and is th~efore unsuitable for its location,violating the Town'of Los Gatos Gen Site Development Standards for Single FamilY Homes (.I.A.4 and lA.2). The'fact that all of the windows running the fm.trre length of our house are co letely blocked by this structw;e impairs our use.The crowded and oppressed f~e1ing that a structure of this.size and proximity gives to each bedroom impairs oUr enj<?y.tnent of our home.Although the val of our house may increase on paper with this project;the nu~ber ofpotentia.l buyers who would buy the heirne after seeing it becomes very srnall,Le.there are few>if any,borne buyers.in this·price range who wo 'd actually make an offer on, and want to live in a home where aU of tn.e·windows On one side are blocked y the neighboring two-story house that is just 16 fe~t away,. ..' 10.3 ii)The massive design of the elev-ation facing the adjacent structure,our hom,find its minimum.side yard setbacik of 8 feet violates the To'Wn of Los Gatos Building Design Develop t StandMds for Single Family-Homes specifying that "the de~~gn of the elevation facing an adjacent tructure ll .:be harmonious, .,·.;._c,iy"I;P9lnpat~Bl~;i_aria;~i.cOlnplemen,t-tP.~.?-.dj a.centStr);\ctures;and 'uses"(ILA.5.l). .....•.·c"";;'-c;:i~;'~·~:~a:t'.t~~';h~~~~sto~··e~~:t~~~,With~i~i~um set-backs adjoin~our singJe-story home not side- by-side,but spanning l1early the.entire length (,>f our neighbormg home i~not .onsistent with any adjacent stru.ctures:jn.the existing.neighbQrhood:(ILA,"S;,3..)..;Ci.....;..""."'-....;;._L""';....__..c'., •.-".'~~~''''_'''''''''''''''r-'-'....._"""""~'•.:..;-~;-':~.~--"-1'''~'''--'.-~.~~-'-"7:'-~'..;~:~~_t:'ioT:_;~~~r~~~'~\~":"';"~-;~.,.-~:~::-~~-=r.-,.....-'·,'".":":"'',-e-.:.~"~'-"<;"""-'~~.~''';:'~'';-<';'c"......_",,,,·,,.c..,,-.,=.,...~,,.,,....,·_-·,.._c_... ';:(Normally the long sides of two rectangUlar 40uses w0uld be·adjoined to the ear of each other.As such, ;-"F·;uhdertheT(jWhof~:.os·G~t()sRl:8:zPnmg;:lhey'Wbu.ldl:tave a total of40 feet fminimum rear separation.) ';'>-:\5;:Tv:):rhe'6vera1i?iieiglW~dma..as·O'f thistvvci~~furydW:elling only 16 feet away rom our neighboring single" " _..story-horti.e·ooesnotrhafutmrt'a,c6psistertt·scale withour'lleighboring structur )vi0lating the Town.ofLos Gatos Building De~ign_~.c;aI9 alld Ma§,B.~~~~rd~s for Single Family Homes (.B) .:.....~...:.•.j _.-. v)Additionaily,th'e pr~xil;ity of'ih~-twohomes:~oinbined '~vith the significa <;1ifference in scale and mass, compromises tbe Town's unique sense.of openness (LA.2);especially in the arley Road area, ".;:;,.,0I};.:'+f';'/').,';,!'~'~;r;:';Hs~<!ff1;;(;fl.~4;ur,k~~,;;,i1tr~+r~~;y?!tl(1k';c'[·"·I."..'...._-;,...:~.;~,~." -;.2.Access tOjtheg~rage;;driveW1iy.,:i;nI1\'6ff~S'tre'et'p~liliig·ls"ihcated on a portion 0 'land that is includ~in the "·Iegal deScription?()fjolir:i(ff(jp~ft~ri'6'742~Farley':t:td~),nottheWagners (16750 Fa ley Rd.)(See attached diagram,upper right cornei~5 .m_,~~...._...._,..'",.:". ..'. JUN 08 2005 1n.E:::CClMJ.v .......'...1II111 HP LA~~RJET 3200 <~:.,,~;.\,,{:::..:':>,'::,:,~:j,:.,':.\'.;,i···· ::.:.":,:" ); 10.4 The Wagners .have not had legal ingress/egress rights over this portion of pro erty since Augustine Avenue ceased to be a roadway when it was abandoned by the Town of Lo.s Gatos in December of 2002.This portion of property is now the 'subject of a Quiet Title'lawsuit"filed on June 3 2005.Its use for parking, ingress/egress and construction is trespassirig arid may be a Violation of the Jwn's Site Planning Standards (I.BA). Unfortunately,on the advice of our attorneys,we reluctantly had .to also nam ,the Town of Los Gatos in addition to the Wagners in the .lawsuit.." The Town of Los Gatos erroneously qillt claimed this portion of property to le Wagners instead of its legal owners,us;in March of2003.However,.the Towti's March 2004 letter to me 't states that the lITown does not and has never claimed an interest in Augustine Avenue,lI i.e.the property was not the Town's to give. Even though the Wagners were aware the Town's quit -claim 'docwnent did n t grant them ownership;they have used it to represent themselves ·as·the owners.of this.property to the Co ty of Santa Clara Assessor's office to create an invalid new parcel description an(l 'APN that includes this ort4>n of property.As aresult of the Quiet Title action,a lis pendens has heen recorded on this parcel.This nvalid parcel number is 529~ 15-097,the p~rce1 number fQr which this project is proposed.. Additionaily,we would like to reiterate and further explaiilthe.fonewing i~sues. Although the portion of land that is included in our property description would allow he Wagners to build a house that is compatible with the area and would·not impair our .experience of our home,th have been unwilling to offer an adequate price fOr or trade land for this large (2800 sqUare feet)portion of Los Gat s property. During a ~eeting in April with the Community D~velopm.ent staff,the Wagners,the'architect and me,I suggested 2 remedies that would allow the projecfto proceed without the Wagners having to ac uirethe additional portion of ....land.}4y·first-suggestion was,to oU11d;a :single·st0ry:nome-and\ili-et·dorrners in theatti for additional bedrooms.My second'suggestion was to move'the whole structure northwest toward'Farley (and:fur:t er .away from our home, .exposing the sky).While I Understand that these suggestions are not acceptable to the .agners,as we discussed at ....••.•"thatmeeting,lwantedto make you aware that I presentectaiteinatives that are,at leas,possibly acceptable to us...... ._...'"...:,...,......:'.:::;:,-"._.,.:,~.:.:.....:...,.,;..,....;.'.". '·'·'·'··";'W~::ask:th:e·Plliri:ri.ilig;ComriJissioriand th~CofuIrlliriitYI)evel<jpfuentDepartment to c nsider the detrimental precedent that this project as-pl'OpoSed establishes f<;>r development in the Far-ley Roa,conummity:.allowing future construction of Qppressive two-story homes with.very largf<adJacent ele,:,"ations using 'nimum side set-backs adjoining single~story homes not side-by-side,but spanning nearly the entire length 0 'the neighboring home.If "..c,.:"S1.lcha trend'contiriues;~·.it'Win not only impair"the use;enjoyment and yalue of the adj ining homes,but also ;j:,,+;';~i'~6fnPtb:nilsetlieiliiique'openness that the Town Of Los GatQsnev~loPnient Standards are trying to preserve....,"",'~.'....... ..._--~"'~.,•.,.....~-..."':''';' :.G7~.. o .,'..,.-,..~,._.,...;.,~,.,",,,,,,,,,:, JUN 08 2005 10:5?AM HP LAc~RJET 3200 ':"",'.. p.5 .'\Remaining _______________...;~;.,.,..:....~_:...____\Augustine Ave. ~~~~.~:~ight -:---~---\··----r··-···-' . 8 ft. Fence' Std.6 ft.height 1 I Bay 'BR 1 ..... BR2 Bay ·1 I Window (All clear glass) .15 ft. Farley Rd. , t I I . I 8 ft.\ Off-street parkin~~ ~ REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date:~Ju~n~e::...:3:::..::0=,=2=00=5 For Agenda Of:__-,,-,Ju=1.J-y....::1:.:::;3.>-,=20,,-,0=.5 Agenda Item:--'l"'--_ The Planning Commission The Director of Community Development 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval to construct a new second story on property zoned R-1:8.APN 529-15-097 PROPERTY OWNER:Melissa and Glen Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt DEEMED COMPLETE:May 17,2005 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION BY:November 17,2005 EXHIBITS: DISCUSSION A.-I. J. Previously submitted. Letter from owners requesting their item be continued to the meeting of August 24,2005 (1 page),received June 20,2005. The owner requests that the Commission continue this item to the meeting of August 24,2005. Additional time is needed in order for the owner and applicant to develop a redesign of the proposed second-story addition based on the Commission's direction from the meeting on June 8,2005. Revised drawings depicting changes to the proposed second story addition and firstfloorhavenoc···..·----- been completed and submitted to the Planning Department for review . .If there is anyone at the Planning Commission meeting who would like to address the Co:rnrrlission...on this matter,they should be afforded the opportunity to do so.-··---·---·'--.__,'C•••.....,••. Community Development J Prepared by:Rachel Bacola,Assistant Planner BNL:RB' .' cc:Melissa and Glen Wagner,16750 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95031 Bill Shellooe and Patricia Bottero,16742 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95031 N:\DEV\REPORTS\2005\]6750FarleyRD.cont.wpd Planning Commission T own of Los Gatos 110 E.Main St. Los Gatos,CA 95030 June 20,2005 At the June 8,2005,Planning Commission meeting our request for approval of a second story addition at 16750 Farley Rd.was continued to its meeting of July 13,2005.We would like to request that the matter be continued to the August 24,2005,meeting so that we may have more time to contemplate the design changes requested. Sincerely, Glen &Melissa Wagner 16750 Farley Rd. Los Gatos,CA 95032 .-."'~----'-··~"""'--.-·-·-7-····"""--·---······_-'=-::-·_- Exhibit J REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date:~A=u:.l;lg=us=t'_"1'_"_7_'_',2=0"",,0=5 For Agenda Of:August 24,2005 Agenda Item:1=--_ The Planning Commission The Director of Community Development 16750 Farley Road Architecture and Site Application S-05-063 Requesting approval to construct a new second story on property zoned R-1:8.APN 529-15-097 PROPERTY OWNER:Melissa and Glen Wagner APPLICANT:David Britt DEEMED COMPLETE:May 17,2005 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION BY:November 17,2005 EXHIBITS: DISCUSSION A.-J. K. Previously submitted. Letter from owners requesting item be continued to the meeting of October 26,2005 (1 page),received August 11,2005. The ownerrequests that the Commission continue this item to the meeting of October 26,2005.The Commission granted a continuance for this item on July 13,2005 to the agenda of August 24,2005. Additional time is needed in order for the owner and applicant to develop a redesign of the proposed .second-story addition based on theCommission's direction from the meeting on June 8,2005. :~::::C::;::,;£D~0:ii'2,0;:ReVisid!Cirawil1gs·have1J.otbe"en:completed'and :submitted to the .Planning DepartmentforTeview."""';;"0",:',,'".. ...The'o'wner and applicant have been notified that the last Planning Commission agenda for final action to be taken on this item is November 9,2005,unless the deadline is waived by the applicant. If there is anyone at the Planning Commission meeting who would like to address the Commission ",'c"'~'~':,on this matter,they should be afforded the opportunity to do so. Bud N.Lortz,Director of Community Development Prepared by:Rachel Bacola,Assistant Planner BNL:RB:mdc cc:Melissa and Glen Wagner,16750 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95032 Bill Shellooe and Patricia Bottero,16742 Farley Road,Los Gatos,CA,95032 N:\DEV\REPORTS\2005\16750FarleyCont2wpd.wpd Aug 11,2005 Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E.Main St. Los Gatos,CA 95030 At the June 8,2005,Planning Commission meeting our request for approval of a second story addition at 16750 Farley Rd.was continued and extended to its meeting of Aug.24,2005.We regret that we have been unable to come up with a new design that meets our needs and we request that the matter be continued to the Oct.26,2005,meeting. Sincerely, ·.fl·,';'''- Glen &Melissa Wagner 16750 Farley Rd. Los Gatos,CA 95032 ,RE CEn";t:=,~,;,.. .I V'J:::~~t·· ,AUG 1 1 2005 TOWN OF LOS GATO PLANNING DIVISIONS Exhibit K ••••••••••••••:.:.:.; •.-.-.. I:...:.•......,: ."'."-:..:...-I:-.' .., "•~ (-40)zzl ,,?OO 2.3"t 55~~H· 4Z1 6ecoYld fleer 'j t j "~ :~,'\ Civil,Soil,and Strucrural Engineer's specifioations shall take precedence over lhe following architectural specifiC2.tions. Layout for new work is largely based upon relationships 10 existing conditions. Any questions regarding the intent related to the layout of the new work shall be brought to the attention ofBrittlRowe prior~o the commencement ofany work. The Contractor sball notify BrittIRowe of aU discrepancies prior to the commenCement ofany work. Preference shall be given to figured/writte1l dimensions on the drawings over scaled m~asurements.The "Plans"',"GenemI.Notes'"and "Specifications"are intended to agree and supplement one another.Anything indicated inion one and not [he others,shall be executed as ifin alt ..in cases ofdirecl conflict,the most reStrictive shall govern. All work done pursuant to these drawings and specifications shall e<ornply with all ordinances and regulations which apply to the work and shall in any'case conform to the latest edition ofthe "Unifonu Building Code"(UBC)currently enforced,and all current city~county~and state codes as applicable. BrittJRowe is not responsib[e for the design,coordination or implementation of any work perfonned by consultants~including,but not limired to,stroctur:al engineering, soil engineering,civil engineering.landscape architecture..and/or Title 24 engineering. BrirtlRowe retains all rights and ownership ofthe "Planning Documents"and "Specifications".These documents may not be used in whole or in part:on any other project without expressed consent from BrittlRowe The ownerlde....eloper/client Teser\'es the right to make alterations at the design during tbe coarse the construction as applicable.Any changes shall be approved by the local planning deparbnenr as applicable.AU changes shall be documented by a written "Change Order"and shall be appToved by lhe o-·.vner/deve]operlclient. 2. 1. 3. 6. 4. 5. 7. w 0 - Z .•..~w.co '"d .,.., 0 .-; ttl 6-0m~~ ·w >,ce ~U0::H rj)ttl -"","J:I..<00::-l-' 0 ttl W 11)(jr--.. Z '"(/} r-i 0 C>;....:l g Attachment 9 ,.->;., .'-'-"" '.J ~~·x ·u (f)U) RECr=IVED OCT 05 2005 TOWN OF LaS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION BrittlRowe David Britt 108 N.Santa Cruz Ave. Los Gatos,CA 95030 408.354.6224 Building Designer: Site Suncvor: WestfaJi Engineers 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga,CA 95070 408.867.0244 PROJECT CONSULTANTS:-(.-. ·LOCATION MAP: ·0 COLUMI,IGRIDII'lDlCAtbR' .W..$U1LOING SEc110N SyMBOL. 0"+·MATC.H$JELlJNE EB-'- PETAIL BEFERENCE.SYMBOL A.:·.,1.·,.·W ill.~ ,.ARCID:-rE:CTURAL DRAWING SYlVIBOLS: 2,549 sq.fl (.3284) 2,548 'q.ft.(.3283) 1,627 sq.ft. 288 sq.ft. 1,915 sq.ft.(25%) 3,105 sq.ft.(40%) 1,497 sq.ft. L071 sq.ft. Total: Allo\'\'able: 25t.,.0"@taLIest ridge me~red from existing finish grade. House: Detacl1ed Garage: Existing Proposed Minimum Front:28~·O'~2S t -O"25'-0" L Side:8'-0'~8"-0"S'-O" R Side:10'-0"4'-0"O'~O"* ReaT:38'-6"53'-0"20'~O" ...per plan"ing commission recommendation 986.5 Glen and Melissa Wagner 16750.Fadey Rei. Los Gatos~CA 95032 408358.9181 529·15-097 RI-8 7.762(originallot size)+2,S03{section of lot under dispute) Less than 2%(flat) Remodel and second story addition to an existing one story single family residence. Building Coverage: Setback..: Boilding Height Tot:ll~ Proposed Square Footage-(FAR):First Floor. Second Floor. Allowable Square Footage (FAR):StnlCture(s): APN: Zoning: Lot Area: A1!g.Lot Slope: Note:Calculations belaw are based on original lot size and n01 lot area under dispute.. Owner/Site Address: Existing SquareFootage (FAR): Scope ofWork: ':. 'I" .'~. ....'.""-:." TiTLE SHEET/PRO~~CT INFO:..A..()· ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN:A-1 ExISTING /DEMO A-2 FIRST &SECOND FLOOR PLANS:A-3 ~ERIORELEVATIONS:A-4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS &ROOF PLAN:...,A-5 .- SHADOW STUDIES:. .A-6 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY/STREETSCAPES:A-7 INCLUDED IN SETBy OTHERS: ',C"',' IiI U Zw co 'lj .,.... C I:::co ;.;..;-0 0 (f)~!l W »co ,ElU0::-.ciico i-Li 0It..... 0 CIiwl:Q l? Z '0 Cfl rl 0 C),....J :~ ••-'-.-..;..~ •.••••I.•".,.,.I.'. hote'no -t ree_ !l-re pro po;ed to be ·rerYloVed !l I: ""te. .J;j oti .... In "0..¢: c E I I I Cel IIIII-ier met.er'l· \OC."!:lorJ onqll1:>1 -_properl:~[lne t-yp·) i --(e)",'1'1 redwood1 fence line (typ.) ! i I coYtcre1:e.Ia.nd lrl h ~nd <>tep"(typ.) -----------(e)fence Itn~i llyr') Ce)p!lrJ<.lJ1q p:>d _._---- LOT AREA UNt:>E.~ tJl~pvTe: ...... (,~11Pl~~~~C~_)_d_~-!-\-.-\--\\-~tti J o .n-,~ '""U')(') f, I I I I (e)power pole {eJ u>,4er<:JrOllnd elec.i:rtc '5ef':itl-ce~ Ce)electnc.Illeter \oc.g.l:lon e.4 9 e.0 f p!l-velnentef!l-i·re~road (e)telephone I c9-ble pole- do<l:ed ;l.re-a.lndlC'.>l:e" \0<.9-tlO>'of ad,{,tlOl'l!>e.flr"t.floor da"h Illle lndle-Ill,," loe-II-l:ton of "econa ?-ton;~ddl!:lon (e)ul'Id"r':Jround elev, ",,,rVIc.e from ,p.raqe -to bou~e (~ppro~.) 8'FARLEY ROAD north 02.16 26 bJ:::d'zmmmziazJ "2 -0{~\..J 0.-"UI "....!::0 .p..t: t-'"Z ~~'"~~~i::::;r:U lfJ (fJ 0 0 '~-""'-"-"--- ....-," .3 tr(\> Cl- ~. o·. 3 15'·6" 4'·3"a'..·o" 2"\"0" 4'·3" /~....~4r 1. 24"0"5'-0"14'·"," ," C). ._. 'TIl_. ::0U>-I. 'TI'5 ~:I '"0>Z 4+"0" ._.... 1+'·.0 " --_.-----" 5'.~"5 1"0" 24"0" 5''/''0''--------- .IT I ~ J>rr r (T1 ; ;2:~C', (T1I+~b"',,;:~z: ~~0 r,- ~ ..J)FJ -l>~II.~~ <11 (j') ·iL .,tr:l tr'-< ••'~~.•:~".-. ::~:~.':.. . ::•I---+---+--I---+-..,..,lf--'---j uniTT-HOWE r~luilll;~II righlJ; 111111 (Iwnerllhi,i 10 all th."awings and ~llccifj~aljons.The ctllltf!.lIlJ>flf the. dl'awin~s lind liPtll:ificllliullS Inn)' llu(Lc used til!<Ill)'o!hel"!irojer:l wilhulIl thl!.c"'Jlre~lied.wl"illfm . CIH1!iCllt IIrnnl'l"I:'HOWE WAGNER RESIDENCE, 16750 Farley Road Los Gatos,California DRAWN: @ SHEET:f'(oot""pl:/t1s,..?':•.,I-S_CA_Lf_~:_/1o._t_"cI ----'l V"DATE:9.SO.05' '---( \ o U1 ~-. CJ,0 I )<0 l-o I I - !5:-rr. (' <0 :r g-===":l CD r;:0 <0 D n il\mlJ~Ilgg/Cl"----,II>LIT['VII :T a..-"'":s "'"II t::! N ....,II \J1. 6=~0.. 3 ~:;; I o.S>~-~---------------- '"."I 11 I rr "0 ;;1.'os IIcc ._-.-~----"'--'-~_._.-----"-.------------._---..---._------.-._-_._-------~~--------_._--~-_._._-- ]I ~ ;po rr r ~~[Tl ":£~fTl..~z ffi IS'·","(bt_o"~ri-a1~'·OII Cl 3 ~"44"6"<::;1(1)., 0..:i ,--,,-'~ i I.--I I ! I, I @~N r_Sf_Il_'E_T_:_e_XI?_t_,n_9_p_l_a_n_i._b_<l._~_e_lI1_en_t-j ,.......-SCALE:not~d DATE:11,5.0+ DRAWN: WAGNER RESIDENCE 16750 Farley Road Los Gatos,California BHI1i'·HOWE rctuillh'all rightj; and ownership 10 all drawings and };pccificlilions.ThecUlllr.hts or the drawing.s lind npr:cificutiuns may nol he Ilsed on an)'otlu:r project wilhmtl the exprcfuien,written consent fir BRITT-ROWE •~:~I:'".-:~:... , ::.t---+-+--+-t-:-+::::--i , ) , )")REVISIONS BY .'~-"'~'--.'-'_..,_~._-_.~._-'----_.-.........~_.~.........._._._.__._~........._.----_._.'---~,.._.._~.--~'-"._... "-- i ••••••••••-"..-. .'........•'...;'. wall p.hl:e eCOUl>1er e19'• '".:-' ......_'"f U) -0 =[----.,...::!:l!=~~-r-'l--;'.'\'+1>1,,,,10 +Ioor " 111..11 p\..te c 1",1.r., .Ivood Wlovldln<;j/ Clld"ln~l-l:~p.) _~Jate -l.~p~cla=-!>-·.. A !>hln~le roo.fln::J lI1a-L~nlJ.1 ~ wood plifnter ~ox ----"'WlD01:.h flYlI<>h ",tv~w 11/8-11 ~ldlYlg.~~ colvlVln",I woo,;\6lwtter,;\ -----'!>·bme Vel'leer l\I:Jdn"oot ""a-II place C flr",t.fl. ,J) c ~ ;-J '":> ~ Q} In1..<;) \)0:;:.QI ci Q}....,11\.-.J \)'"V s:rr t;""..;2: ....l ~~~-<S;:~u 0 t=r: tr.P o I.5 10 1-"~"t=====FallwlI//)d 11I111 pl,,!:e ""'.bdrm. ~-9.'<xi . i . .'.::-- <;) flm",I1+I."..In~ w~i1 plate......, :~- 1B3IEB FRONT ELEVATION (NORTH) I..... 01 5 10 ~FZIIVllu@dtmJ o l 5 1"0 bf:........._~y:z1217li.IV7li.I1Zl2lmiZlVtiZlV4~j .....-.-___._-_-----_.~,..-..~. ...'-~'~--'--"~--'._-._.... ) REvlSIOl'lS.BY ~11l-te ..t~f'e.cfw.,A r""f ~hln~le~ •••••...".'~.."." f:.•~........."·.•••..:'.-.:'.·.. ....,- .;tone Veneer' waltl!>c.ot: wood trlm/ c.a~l"q,;, / \18311 '. ~~. -!----- ..i ro "V °EroH.o 0." ~~... ~ca .:B U .,. H ..... ro {/Jo:'~~.. o rott2CJ \..D CJ)",' r-i o·~ .'i '"u 0 E<v'0 ---l,; 0 0 IIIL0---'u ',,;..<:i...,'"~0 QJ I:rr I....z: t;;»J ~:2 w ~u t;:c:: V){/J 0 c ...-.,"......•.: 1/4":"-0": 1;2.'71- t 5'l~)l4\\"/.) "'?J"l ('52"/.) 0 ..1 5 10'. 1,.].l_h;w7J?I2i/IHr!JIld~/////mll??t.. ! i i ie)",.,1 t-ot>1 ..=32.0 i (e)1\,.,1 re",oved J 1 =1.?2O) (~)w.r!-\:010:>1 I =37f> i Ie)w~lr rell'lMea !'(12-) To\~1 (e)VJall (e')W;i.ll rewlDved (e)\\1 ..11 to rell131Vl = liold:ljvov!>) o left.",de (el wm4"w orenln9~lt~p.) ....._~----_.._-~--_...._--_.._-----.._...~.1 _ I I,., (e)w.1I removed •(.2-21) (e)w.11 tohl ,2~1 (e)w..11 reMoved ,(4 0 ) le)w~11 -lobi •.ZJD 7- ......-_..:._"-'-'-. <!>h~ded ~re:. mdlcoi:e,Wl>lI '-re~?rell'tove,;J re~r front. 1/17.",1'-0" .. Wall Demo Calculations . .-_._.~_.-.------:--_._._..".----. [/4",·,'-0" o I 5 10 !mi====:::::I'g{i/llli;rVI1Wl rOOf '!>Iop~: \\:12. ..: ".' .··'.R~·--··'--·'-"-"',.....o.OF PLAN , ))REVISIONS BY . .10.10.os"elJ,. _e illll!1 •••·... •••·....... .:."",-....~::.:'..It .. ••••'.·t:'.'•...:'.'.. ·... ....... 1/[10",['-0" I I MASS STUDY @ CENTEkLlNE OF Two HOUSES 1/60"'1 ~o" (VIEW FROM REAR) ,., e1ev. plan 501"r ..Iid:.ude. e.noon Jun"1.1 <>01a..a.[~lbde l1.'HIVl JU",,"2.1 N r= ..<:>hadow It"e (!."lll.m .June1.1 / 'Sh~dow lme.e noon . Ju~e 2.1 . \ \ 15' s \ 'bolar alt.ltude (!."pm jU""2.1 C-\ JUNE SHADOW STU'oY 'bhadow Ime / (!~PIl1 Ju~e 2/~ 1/''''''['-0 \ \ elev. ( .,olar a.1t.I1:vde (!-'g.r<J dec :2.1- \ "'ol~r.~Ibl:vde . C nool1 dec 2.1 I /''Ool~r a.1l:rl:.vde I c '?pm deC:2.1 \" ,-~_---.._._-. ,DEC.SHADOW STUrJ'(": .:. ..';.f.'..';~ .".A~~::·:·t::·~'..~,.~.. }- ..)'j:..... ;.".' ·.i· • t•••• -,en .-I.. ;;0.1Tt- 1Tt.1 -Ii U>j 01>:"Oi ITt'U>; ..~ \"1 'Fl' ~ D fll _._- .....'"<P ....I I 1 \) !I _-u . \J [) ;;: Cl ... 1- .1" l!" + =i r1 D:f :~ (j\ '0 .Q JTl ,I ).i !I -;). ~..( -J Q ..-J I ~~;; ;'! -IJ1-j I)3- I[YI ..±f- \ I ~;;::-~---;;::--~I~cr cr $'.-IS'.. -l ...--.l ...-J -l -l -l ......-J 0- :i ~-I>-lli cr <1>G"<l1 '"'"~!?;---0 cr 0 -I'"<S''"(l>IS' ;;=="=,.,.,tr ==,"..i> '"7Jl>~0..) -n» ill t!' IT ~., (b t!' <l1 Cl -ll -l ;.. -I>- \}l lli I".... ~l-I-l-I~I~I-I~1- z: ITt!,..; G'li XiCD; 0\~\ 0:01 ~.~l 0:·1.1 z:enlc: ;:0;<i H-T---t-'r--t--+-+-H---I--I--.I ITt! '"<l'~! ;"~ -I>-"-(p'---~------~-I---_-\~ns.~-" ~ IT I i i)l I~ [JJ cr-J 0-cr ... -l '"o '"o u U r . [I 5 U' 6' -J 1i ,'\ 6" :::,. t>', ~~..o6i.•.~~.•:'"I-:.::::....~ .•." I I I I II ~I GRITT'HOWE re1tliml all rights and o....ner~hiIt Itl lIlI drnwin"gs and l>pCcificntinns ..The.CII1,lIt'.nli'i of the r.Jrawingg andl'ip"t:ificlIiiuns may iml hI!used illi an)'Qlhc'r Ilrojecl wilh~nl'tljl!c~l'rt!sscd.wrillf'n r.Otll>CIII of URITT'ROWF. .WAGNER R:ESID:ENCE! ·16750 F'a~l~y R~a,d '." LosGatbs/~alifon'Jja DRAWN:0...'SHEET:h€I'!)hor-h<!ocJ ~.SCALE:notedi"""""".-1 -...)DATE:If.is.o'!- /" 'I ~_ ..__..•.---.>-'--------_.._------ ---_._-------_.~_._----_.----- FARLEY ROAD ---------- ..c.-i ..< 07 ~ PROPERTY L~. EXISTlijG ;r11PROY£MEN'r.~. EXISTING EDGE ,OF PAVEMENT } FENCE r,.nm .---_-- SPOT ELEVATION ··,.~'I.07 ': "..,,-'.;..<_:. NO.BY DATE REVISION BY DATE DATE,//-1/-04 SCALE,HOR.f'-/O- VERT. OESIONED, DRAVN://.a PROJ.ENGR: BY, DATE: WESTFALL ENGINEERS,INC 14563 BIG BAS1N \JAY.SARATOGA.CA 95070 {4D6)e5~-0244 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP . . . 16750 FARLEY ROAD,LOS GATOS,CA JOB NO. 2/JM-//8 SHEE1 / OF / / ..:.......