09 Staff Report - 15350 Winchester BoulevardDATE:
TO:
FROM:
>
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:3/20/06
ITEM NO.9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 9,2006
~.MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL ~.
DEBRA J.FJGONE,TOWN MANAGER ~
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING A MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO
ADD ONE ADDITIONAL LOT AS PERMITTED BY THE APPROVED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,APPROVAL OF THE SUBDNISION FOR
THE ADDITIONAL LOT,APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE NEW LOT AND APPROVAL TO INSTALL
A TEMPORARY SALES TRAILERIMODEL HOME OFFICE FOR
PROPERTY ZONED RM:5-12:PD.APNS 424-29-024 THROUGH 026
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-06-2,SUBDNISION
APPLICATION M-06-2,ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S-
06-12 PROPERTY LOCATION:15350 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
PROPERTYOWNERJAPPLICANT:SANTACLARADEVELOPMENTCO.
APPELLANT:STEPHANIE CARROLL
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Open and hold the public hearing.
2.Close the public hearing.
3.Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planned Development Application PD-
06-2,Subdivision Application M-06-2 and Architecture and Site Application S-06-12 and deny
the appeal.
4.Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution.
(Continued to Page 2)
PREPARED BY:BUDN.LORTZ~
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by:;'0 Assistant Town Manager ----'l!'i'.J,J..-Town Attorney __Clerk Finance
n __Community Development Revised:3/9/06 3:25 pm
Reformatted:5/30/02
Page 2
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20,2006
If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or
modified:
1.The Council needs to find one or more of the following:
(1)where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;or
(2)the new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was
not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission;or
(3)an issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to
modify or address,but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
2.Ifthe predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision ofthePlanning 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.
BACKGROUND
On April 4,2005,Town Council adopted Ordinance No.2141 (Exhibit A of Attachment 7)for a
Planned Development (PD)at the subject site (Villa Felice).This PD allows the following uses:
•Demolition of the existing one story duplex,detached garage and shed.
•Demolition of the Villa Felice restaurant including administrative offices and support
services and the motel.
•Construction of28 market rate single family residences and five Below Market Price (BMP)
units.One additional unit maybe permitted if the applicant and the adjacent Villa Felice
Townhouse development agree to eliminate the existing parking easement.The addition of
this unit will require a minor amendment to the Planned Development and Architecture and
Site approval,both of which may be approved by the Development Review Committee
(DRC).
On July 19,2005,the DRC approved the tentative map for the subdivision and the architecture and
site applications for the 28 market units and five BMP units.The existing buildings have been
demolished and subdivision improvements are under construction.Building permits have been filed
for the units.
The applicant and the adjacent Villa Felice Townhouses have reached an agreement to eliminate the
existing parking easement (Exhibit C ofAttachment 7).Therefore,the applicant filed applications
for the additional unit as permitted by the approved PD.The applicant had met with the neighbors
prior to submittal and had thoughtthat all issues of concern had been met.The DRC considered this
matter on December 6,2005 where several neighbors raised concerns regarding the visual impacts
of the proposed house (Exhibit D of Attachment 7).These concerns were raised based on the
installation of the story poles which made the scope ofthe project more clear to the neighbors.The
Page 3
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20,2006
applicant met with the neighbors in an attempt to mitigate their concerns.The following changes
have been made to the plans subsequent to the DRC review (Exhibit B of Attachment 7):
•Grade Change -The grade of the proposed lot has been lowered 1.3'.This will result in a
grade differential of approximately three feet between the adjacent Villa Felice town houses
and Villa Felice as opposed to the existing four feet.
•Single Story Elements -Two single story elements have been lowered by utilizing a gable
roof.
•Deck Removal -The second story deck has been eliminated
•Windows -All of the second story windows along the Villa Felice town house western
property line are clerestory with the exception of two windows in a secondary bedroom which
are 55 feet from the property line.Clerestory windows were required for several of the
approved units to mitigate privacy concerns.
Since one of the neighbors was opposed to a new residence and some of the neighbors expressed an
interest in a one story structure,it appeared that the neighbors'concerns could not be completely
mitigated;therefore,the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
1.Application Request
Planned Development -The applicant is requesting approval to amend the approved PD to
add one additional lot and residential unit for a total of 29 market rate single family residences
and five BMP units on 5.91 acres.The additional unit will not trigger an increase in the
number of required BMP units.The approved density of the development for the subject site
is 4.7 units per acre (excluding the BMP units).The proposed density is 4.9 (excluding the
BMP units).The site is bounded by condominiums to the south,condominiums and single
family residences to the west and north and Vasona Lake County Park to the east.As stated
above,the approved PD allowed one additional unit if the adjacent Villa Felice Townhouse
development agreed to eliminate the existing parking easement.The applications are
consistent with the approved PD.Pursuant to the approved PD,this request is a minor
amendment and was not required to be forwarded to Town Council.
Subdivision -The proposed lot will contain 7,000 square feet.The approved lots range in
size from 2,152 square feet to 6,915 square feet.The minimum lot size required for the
underlying zone is 8,000 square feet.
Architecture and Site -The applicant is requesting approval of plans to construct a 2,248
square foot two story single family residence with a 445 square foot attached garage.The
approved market rate units range in size from 2,165 to 2,943 square feet.The maximum
height of the proposed residence is 22 feet two inches.The heights for the approved two story
units range from 23.5 to 25 feet.The subject house has been designed with a lower height in
an attempt to mitigate neighbor concerns.Exterior materials will consist of plaster and stone
siding,wood and copper trim and a clay tile roof.
Page 4
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20,2006
The floor plan,architectural style,colors and materials of the proposed house are similar to an
approved house plan,but have been modified slightly in an attempt to mitigate neighbor
concerns as discussed above.During the PD process,staff and the Town's Consulting
Architect concluded that the proposed house designs were good,the houses relate well to each
other and the proposed siting and landscaping produce a good environment.The proposed
setbacks are consistent with the approved setbacks for the other parcels.
Sales Trailer and Model Homes -The applicant is also requesting approval of a sales trailer
with guest parking in the existing parking easement area,adjacent to the proposed lot and to
allow two of the approved units to be used as model homes (Lots 30 and 31)through the
proposed PD and Architecture and Site applications.The trailer is proposed to be removed
once the model homes are completed.Since a pad for the trailer is existing,is near the
entrance of the development and is outside the area of construction,it is the most logical and
safe location for the trailer.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission considered this matter on January 25,2006.The Commission
unanimously approved the request for the sales trailer and model homes with an added condition that
the sales trailer be set back as far as possible from the west property line to mitigate neighbor
concerns.The Commission approved the other requests on a five to two vote.The Commission
understood that they were not bound by the agreement made between the applicant and the neighbors
to sell the easement to allow an additional house.The Commission also agreed that it is difficult to
visualize aproject without the story poles.However,since the neighbors were following the project,
accepted money to sell the easement to construct a new house,and understoodthat the house would
be two stories,a majority of the Commission felt that this was compelling evidence to approve the
applications.
APPEAL
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was received on February 6,2006 (Attachment
1).The basis for the appeal is summarized as follows:
•There was a difference between the story poles for lot 33 and the story poles for lot 34 (subject
application)and when the poles were erected in relationship to the decisions and agreeme'nts
made.
•The specific information the neighbors had regarding the size of the 34th home prior to agreeing
to the sale of the easement.
•The wording within the agreement to sell the easement and the neighbor's interpretation,
including what was verbally committed by the applicant in the "spirit of cooperation"and the
desire to arrive at a "win/win"situation.
•The ambiguity still surrounding the setbacks,height,grading,drainage,landscaping etc.,as it
pertains to the proposed 34th home.
•The impact of the proposed 34th home on the neighbors and what they see as a reasonable
solution.
PageS
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20,2006
STAFF NOTE
Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action on this matter,the applicant has considered
additional changes to their plans in an attempt to further mitigate neighbor concerns.The applicant
is now proposing to move the house two feet further from the neighbors property line (Attachment
10).This modification will require the property line between Lot 33 and 34 to be shifted two feet
to the east which will result in a reduction of the side yard setback for Lot 33.Staff has reviewed
conceptual plans of this modification and has no issue with these changes.The story poles reflect
this proposal.The Planning Commission has approved the applications and the changes proposed
were not required and are offered by the applicant to try to further mitigate neighbor concerns.
If Council concurs with this modification,the following should be done.
1.Add a statement to Section II of the Ordinance Amendment as Item 7 (Attachment 3):
Modification to the approved Horizontal Control Plan of Ordinance 2141,to allow a
reduction of the side setback for Lot 33 to accommodate a property line shift between Lots
33 and 34.
2.Add the following condition to the Subdivision Application (Attachment 4):
PROPERTY LINE MODIFICATION.The property line maybe shifted between Lots 33 and
34 to accommodate the relocation of the proposed house on Lot 34.
3.Add the following condition to the Architecture and Site Application (Attachment 5):
SETBACK.The side setback from the west property line shall be a minimum of 12 feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
A Mitigated N egative Declaration has been previously made for the approved Planned Development
for this site.It has been determined that this project will not have additional environmental impacts
and an addendum to the Mitigation Declaration was prepared.
FISCAL IMPACT:None
Attachments:
1.Appeal filed on February 6,2006.
2.Required findings and considerations.
3.Ordinance 2141 Amendment.
4.Conditions of approval for the Subdivision Application
5.Conditions of approval for the Architecture and Site Application.
6.Action minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of January 25,2006.
Page 6
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20,2006
7.Report to the Planning Commission from the Development Review Committee dated January
19,2006 for the meeting of January 25,2006 (Exhibits I,J,K and M deleted and incorporated
as Attachments 2,3,4 and 5 of this report).
8.Desk item report to the Planning Commission dated January 25,2006 for the meeting of January
35,2006.
9.Photographs submitted at the Planning Commission hearing (six pages).
10.Packet from Santa Clara Development (seven sheets),received March 14,2006.
Distribution:
Santa Clara Development Co,2185 The Alameda,San Jose,CA 95126
Stephanie Carroll,15300 Winchester Blvd,#3,Los Gatos,CA 95030
BNL:SLB:mdc
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2006\15350winchester.wpd
.Ir ",FILIN G FEES
[
''$272.00 Residenth~l
$1089.00 per Commercial,Multi-
family or Tentative Map Appeal
Town of Los Gatos fl}t;Ci-tEv "
Office of the TO~lel:Jt;:il 7 ,-:~
110 E.Main St.,L08 1J'8 cA.9S1130'··'::'I
APPEAL OF PLANNING CO MISSI6N Dft~§ION '
Attachment 1
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I,the undersigned,do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows:(PLEASE T E OR"":P-:RIINT.;NBATtY)T-',::,:'
DATE OF PLANNmG COMMlSS[QN DECISION:~~dO [)Go
PROJECT /APPLICATION NO:-.\J ~~_~_;1
ADDRESS LOCATION:--\¥~\f)D·\J..\'J'p e,\o aDA Db;~~,.;350 "r r U...:."r
Pursuant to the Town Code,the Town Council may onl~grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matterSi{t'-$e
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:D Th'Planning Commission m,d 0''bus,d its dis",tibn bocau"~0 R /C.Jd::,"'-Ch.o £
;OR---------~-------------------'------:---------
2.There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision,which is
_______________________-,--(please attach the new information if possible):OR
3.The Planning Commission did not have discretiori 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.
IlYlPORTANT:
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 of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee.
Deadline is5:00 p.m.on the loth day following the decision.If the ,loth day is a Saturday,Sunday,or Town holiday,then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the lOth day,usually a Monday.
3.The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)\
4.An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code,as applicable,which is different from other appeals.
5.Once filed,the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6.'If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information,the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for recons~deration.,..\,~-~
PRINTNAME:S1fvnCf(\\-e.C-(\~~0\\SIGNATURE~~~(..0 'A,el Q Q
DATE:~\..l1 ~D,l,~"'O "?),o,.Deyp ADDRESS:\5 'bDD \1)\fV),..O~'>,'2:)Lud
PHONE:~?\?\-OD 5 '5 "---~~)-yD I Cis:O\~C\
***OFFICIAL USE ONLY ***
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:.~3/d--e(0 ~CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT:Date:_
Pending Planning Department Confirmation TO APPLICANT &APPELLANT BY:!
DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION:2f6 ;f/6 DATE OF PUBLICATION:_2/.2,:3-,-/-,=-'J,--,"_"",,-;~~_
N:\DEV\FORMS\Planning\Pbll11'illg COIllJ11issiol AJlJl~aI.WPd -July 1,2005
1
1
We feel the Planning Commission erred in their decision based on several issues we
would like to have the opportunity to clarify and correct with the Town Council.During
the Planning Commission Hearing there was a great deal of focus on the agreement
between the Villa Felice Homeowners Association and Santa Clara Development'
Company to sell our rights to an easement,the intent of that agreement and what
information we (the VFHOA)had prior to signing that agreement regarding the specifics
of the proposed home on lot 34..
It was apparent that after several residents had addressed the commission and the time
came to vote that there was confusion as well as misinformation about what we had
agreed to and how much information we had about the final plans prior to signing the
agreement.This discussion about what we thought might be built seemed to outweigh
ili .the actual plan of the 34 home..
It was also not clear that all of the commissioners had visited the site to understand the'
impact to our homes and community.As we have learned it is very different to look at
schematics and architectural renderings than to experience the impact of the story poles.
Some specific reasonsJor our appeal we would like the opportunity to discuss at a Town
Council Meeting are:
The difference between the story poles for lot 33 and the story poles for lot 34 and
when they were erected in relation to decisions and agreements made.
What specific information we had regarding the size of the 34th home prior to
agreeing to sell the easement.
The wording within the agreement to sell the easement and our interpretation
including what was verbally committed by Santa Clara Development in the "spirit
of cooperation"and the desire to arrive at a "win/win"situation.
The ambiguity still surrounding setbacks,height,grading,drainage,landscaping
etc.as it pertains to the proposed 34th home.
The impact of the proposed 34th home on oill homeowners,and what we see as a
reasonable resolution.
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
15350 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Development Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Applications S-06-12
Requesting approval of a minor Planned Development amendment to add one additional lot
as permitted by the approved Planned Development,approval of the subdivision for the.
additional lot,approval to construct a single family residence on the new lot and approval to
install a temporary sales trailer/model home office for property zoned RM:5-12:PD.APNS
424-29-024 through 026
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:Santa Clara Development Co.
FINDINGS
• A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been previously made for the approved Planned
Development for this site.It has been determined that this project will not have
additional environmental impacts and an addendum to the Mitigation Declaration was
prepared.
•To deny the Subdivision Application
1.That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans
as specified by Section 65451;or
2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans;or
3.That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;or
4.That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development;or
5.That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat;or
6.That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems;or
7.That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will conflict with
easements,iicquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,property
with the proposed subdivision.
CONSIDERATIONS
As required by Section 29.20.150 ofthe Town Code for Architecture and Site
applications.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\villafelice.amend.wpd Page 1 of 1
Attachment 2
Sec.29.20.150.Considerations in review of 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 ofthe 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
oftruck 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
proj ect 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 proj ect will not impact anyroadways and/or intersections causing
the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2.The project will impact a roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)causing
the roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)to exceed their available
capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (l)b.1.may
proceed.Any project receiving Town determination subsection
(l)b.2.must be modified or denied ifthe 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
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\villafelice.amend.wpd Page 2 of 1
plan.
(2)Considerations relating to outdoor advertising.The number,location,color,size,
height,lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in
relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with
adjacent development.Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to
distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos
Boulevard.
(3)Considerations relating to landscaping.The location,height,and materials 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 ofexisting healthy trees.Emphasize the use ofplanter boxes
with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere to the central business district.
Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director of Parks,Forestry and
Maintenance Services for the purpose 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 ofbuildings and
open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics ofthe site and the character of
the neighborhood;and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent
development.Buildings should strengthen the form and image 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 of the site development plan on the
adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
(6)Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and
structures.The effect ofthe height,width,shape and exterior construction and design
ofbuildings and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character
of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated,and the
purposes of architecture and site approval.Consistency and compatibility shall be
encouraged in scale,massing,materials,color,texture,reflectivity,openings and
other details.
(7)Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture.Streets,walkways,and
building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of
the Town.Street furniture and equipment,such as lamp standards,traffic signals,fire
hydrants,street signs,telephones,mail boxes,refuse receptacles,bus shelters,
drinking fountains,planters,kiosks,flag poles and other elements of the street
environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the
I
J
!I
I
]
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\villafelice.amend.wpd Page 3 of 1
Town image.
(8)Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons.The adequacy of
the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically
disabled persons.Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total
valuation of alterations,structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value
established by resolution of the Town Council,shall require the building to be
modified to meet the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California
Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.In addition to retail,personal
services and health care services are not allowable uses on nonaccessible floors in
new nonresidential buildings.Any change of use to retail,health care,or personal
service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility
requirements oftitle 24 ofthe California Administrative Code and shall not qualify
the building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those
requirements.This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the
enactment of this chapter.All new residential developments shall comply with the
Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons
established by resolution.
(9)Considerations relating to the location ofa 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.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\villafelice.amend.wpd
ORDINANCE 2141AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO.2141 RELATING TO A REVISION TO THE SITE PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE
AN ADDITIONAL UNIT AS PERMITTED BY ORDINANCE 2141,AND A SALES
TRAILERJMODEL HOME OFFICE AT 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD.
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The site plan and authorization of uses are hereby amended to reflect an additional unit as
permitted by Performance Standard #21 of Planned Development Ordinance 2141 and a sales
trailer/model home office.
SECTION II
The PD (Planned Development Overlay)zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the
following construction and use of improvements:
1.Demolition of the existing one story duplex,detached garage and shed.
2.Demolition of the Villa Felice restaurant including administrative offices and support
services and the motel.
3.Construction of 29 market rate single family residences and five Below Market Price units.
4.Landscaping,streets,parking,open space and other site improvements shown and required
on the Official Development Plan.
l
I
)
5.
6.
A sales trailer and/or model home offices.
All other residential uses and improvements listed in Ordinance No.1396 for the existing
Villa Felice Townhouse development are still valid.
Attachment 3
I
)
7.Ordinance No 2141 is still valid in conjunction with the amendments made by this ordinance.
8.Uses pennitted are those specified in the underlyingRM (Multiple Family Residential)zone
by Sections 29.40.610 (pennitted Uses)and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses)of the Zoning
Ordinance,as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance,or as they
may be amended in the future,subject to any restrictions or other requirements specified
elsewhere in this ordinance including,but not limited to,the Official Development Plan.
However,no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this
Ordinance,or by Conditional Use Pennit.
SECTION III
The attached Exhibit A (Development Plans),are part of the Official Development Plan of
Ordinance 2141.
SECTION IV
This Amendment was approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
Town of Los Gatos on January 25,2006.
N:\DEV\ORDS\villafelice.amend.l.wpd
()
C-l Parcel Map Exhibit
C-2 Conceptual Site Plan
C-2A Horizontal Control Plan
C-2B Horizontal Control Plan
(detail)
C-3 Preliminary Grading Plan
C-4 Conceptual Stormdrain Plan
C-5 Easement Exhibit
I.\2-.010
(J
i...•••.•.,;;.;"..•...•••.
:,;','.'.':;':'5 '<"".~"
i!.
..
,I,
",.._,...,-..-...'..,....,..,"
RECEIVED
JAN 1 8 Z006
A-I Conceptual Floor Plans
A-2 Conceptual Elevations
L-l Layout Plan
L-2 Planting Plan
E-l Model Home &Sales Trailer
Location Exhibit
.,..;....•...:..,"',.,'"'..~.':'i ..~;!":;';,:~i
..
;!(~;.};~j§;-r#1!:it.!r::;1.Jff.fu:l£4'JP.11;
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
'?D-Dle r ~
fY\-Ol£~?-
5 ~Dl.P~I'd-
u
o
Exhibit A
LOCATION MAP
N.T.s.
Common Lots
Ingress/Egress Easement
Electrical Transformer Easement
Landscape,and P.U.E.Easements
Ik:;~:~~gjl
I T I
IF!H7ji5]}1PrivateRightofWay
(Bersano Lane)
Project Boundary
Lot Line
Easements
Existing Building
LEGEND
Q Any existing sanitary sewer lateral proposed to be reused must be televised by
West Volley Sanitation District and approved by the Town 'before reuse.A sanitary
lateral clean-out sholl be insi.olled at the property line.if one does not already
exist within two (2)feet of tne properly line.Any trenching with the dripline of
all trees sholl be hand dug and so noted on the plans.All utilities serving the
site shall be underground.
\':)Street lights will be installed :>er the requirements of the Town of Los Gatos.
Director of Public Works.
lIlI Project frontage on Winchester Boulevard will be improved as required by the Town
Los Gatos Director of Public Worles.
t)The Ingress &Egress and Emergency Access Easement 18'Wide (I&E.EAE &
PIEE)as shown upon that certain Parcel Mop recorded April 5th,1982 in Book
49B of Maps at Pages 23 and 24.Santo Claro County and that certain Parcel
Mop recorded December 23rd,2002 in Book 756 of Mops at Pages 54 and 55.
Santo Clara County.and which eosements lie within the boundary of herein mop
but Which easements are not shown hereon,are now abandoned pursuant to
Government Section 66499.20 1/2.
•Sidewalks to be located within a pedestrian access easement.
o Prior to project final inspection.the general contractor sholl ensure that on
approved ('Blue Dot')fire hydrant location identifier hos been placed in the
roadway.as directed by the fire depadmenL
o Installations of required fire service(s)and fire hydrant(s)sholl be tested and
accepted by the fire department prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk
combustible materials.Building permit issuance may be withheld until required
installations ore completed,tested.and accepted.
III If any portion of the structure{s)are greater than 150 feet of travel distance
from the centerline of the rood way containing public fire hydrants.on approved
residential fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building will be
required.
o Required access roods.up through first lift of asphalt,shaH be installed and
accepted by the Fire Deportment prior to the start of construction.Bulk
combustible materials sholl not be delivered to the site until installation is
complete.During construction,emergency access roods shall be maintained clear
and unimpeded.Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until
installations are completed.
o Approved numbers or addresses sholl be placed on oU new and existing buildings
in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or rood
fronting the property.Numbers shall contrast with their background.
"Roof rainwater leaders are to be discharged onto energy dissipaters (splash
blocks).which are designed to spread out the rain water so that it enters
londs:cape areas as sheet flow.Runoff from the site should not be collected into
o pipe system.concentrated and discharged down slope.Control off-site
drainage.flowing to the site similarly.No improvements sholl obstruct or divert
runoff to the detriment of on adjacent,down stream or down slope property.
Retaining walls sholl include provisions for drainage.
II>Finol grading plans sholl include a complete erosion control pion.Interim erosion
control measures to be carried out during construction and before installation of
the final landscaping sholl be inclUded.Interim erosion control methods should
include silt fences or strow bole dikes (with locotion and details)and the town
standard seeding specification.
U Side-yard easement is approximately 10'·ond may vary due to architectural
elements.
ROBSON HOMES LLC.
2185 THE ALAMEDA,SAN JOSE.CA 95126
SANTA CLARA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
2185 THE ALAMEDA
SAN JOSE,CA 95126
VILLA FELICE II
HMH, IN CORPORA TED
1570 OAKLAND ROAD,SUITE 2DD
SAN JOSE.CA 95131
(4D8)487-2200
DANNY RAYMOND,RCE #26616
15350 WINCHESTER BOULEVARO
RM:5-12 PD
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (5-12 DulAC
COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM:5-12:PD)
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
424-29-024,025.026
SHALL CONFORM TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS STANDARDS
±.30 ACRES (GROSS)
±O.O ACRES
±.30 NET ACRES
4
GENERAL NOTES:
o Provide public fire hydront(s)at location(s)to be determined by the Fire
Department and Son Jose Water Company.Hydrant sholl hove a minimum single
flow of 1.000 GPM at 20psi residual,with spacing not to exceed 500 feeL Prior
to applying for building permit,provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants
serving the site.
D Lot I and B ore common lots.
l:il OWNERS:
•ENGINEER:
•SUBDIVlDER
III PROJECT NAME:
•STREET LOCATION:
.,EXISTING ZONING:
•EXISTING GP DESIGNATION:
III EXISTING USE:
•PROPOSED USE:
•WATER SUPPLY:
•SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
•ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
•STREET TREES:
•TOTAL SITE AREA:
..PROPOSED DEDICATION:
•NET SITE AREA:
lit PROPOSED LOTS:
~)
DESCRIPTION:Resubdivision of lots 33,B,and H of tract 9736 into 2 residential lots with residual open
space (lots I &B).
,_i"
20 0Jerc"",:mI
GRAPHIC·SCALE
10 20 40;.!;80
I
Pro ject Address:
15350 Winchester Blvd.
Los Gatos.CA 95030
&NTA QARA
DEVELOPMENT
AiiaffJliiJlcofRCJ!JSonCommunroes
2185 The Alameda
Son Jose.CA 95126
408.345.1767
"/
/
I
,
;
i
!,,
,I 3263EX-PMap.dwg
/!";'!
;//'-I............"J
SCALE
'NORTH
,SHEET#:
CJ
C-1
.DATE:January 12,2006
SCALE:1n =20'
SCALE:1"=60'
I
I
/
I
I
----II
!
PARCEL MAP
EXHIBIT
•
PROPOSED PARCEL DIVISION EXISTING LOT LAYOUT
C-2
1"=40'
CJ
January 12,2006
3263spphase2.dwg
~~
2185 The Alameda
San Jose,CA 95126
408.345.1767
&NTA QARA
Dc:VELOPMENT
An.affJiolo ofROb$Dll Communities
Pro jeet Address:
15350 Winchester Blvd.
Los Gatos,CA 95030
SHEET#:
DATE:
'NORTH
;SCALE
•
160
I
/
\-.-
\
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 40 8,0,!I
i
...If
'/
Project Information
Impervious Surface Calculations
Existina Imoervious Surface ±207 443 Sauare Feet
(oercentage of area)81%
Prooosed Imoeivious Surface +146 115 Sauare Feet
(oercentaae of area)57%
I
Ooen Space Calculations
Open Space Area Total ±108 614 Sauare Feet
i
Common Ooen 80ace Area +56217 Sauare Feet
Private 00en Space Area +52 397 Sauare Feet
Total Percentaae of Ooen Soace 42%
/
~~~~~=+----------I
I
/
,I
,I
I
/
I
I
I
I
,I
/
/
,I
/
/
I
I
/
I IV
""""""~"'"""""~~~!=.:.:::::J~---------------_--.JI
!;i 40 0
i I...~,",,"IiOiiL!!..
\
(Eldstlng Length ~;~~.~:l~to\.e Ropltn:ed),
/
!
Project Information
Site Area
Gross Area 5.91 Acres
Gross Floor Area Total +92,803 SQuare feet
Livable Gross First Floor Area ±41,109 SQuare Feet
Livable Gross Second Floor Area ±34,791 Square Feet
Garage Gross Floor Area +13,851 Sauare Feet
Cellar Gross Floor Area ±3,052 Square Feet
Floor Area Ratio 0.35
Lot Area Coverage 21%
Parkina Soaces TOTAL 122 Soaces (23 Visitor ParkinQ)
36 Aoron ParkinQ Spaces 63 GaraQe Spaces
.',
General Information
SETBACKS:(minimum)
Front Setback:10'
Side Setback (interior):3'
Side Setback (corner):5'
Rear Setback 5'
DRIVEWAYS:
Drive LenQths;12'or less and 18'or areater
Drive Widths;8'or oreater
AREA CALCULATIONS;
Private Street ±44 027 souare feet
Sidewalks/Paths ±8 182 SQuare feet
ParkinQ Areas ±8 445 sduare feet
/
/
!
/
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S
,/J ,f
./.I
/,/! /
/
,./I ,I;/:J
i /i I
/
/.///)-.-,-..171'--r,,--L-r-------r--l,·--··----jl----..
//../.'I I I
f ;'.///:/I I J I
/
Ar ea of propo'~ed c~il'nge /i/,/I _.1-I i I
,/~"""/.!,I r l I r--,I 1---1 6
f ,.'.•.•.J '.""/"''.,..,/'-----~I__J -.----~J .",_"'!....."'--\~'"I ~-i /
/~/J.;:,I bcS//#
~
t 'J
T
o
n
(In Feet)
1 inch =40 feet
•
•
CONCEPTUAL SITE
PLAN
pjl.
I
"SIDEWALK
ACCESS
EASEMENT S-'r
l.ANDSCAPE
AREAiRAlJtLEDVlAY(201
From Property LIne to PrcpertyLine
,·-a"
LANDSCAPE
AREA P/L
It
lttf-8·2~::"',~=_;1 _"_t_!
26'-2·PU8UC
UnLlTlES
EAS£MENT
26'Private Street Section
Detail C-C
NTS
<\0'PUBUC
UTlUnES
EAS£l.(ENT
40'Private Street Section
Detail B-B
NTS
rrom Low SIOM Well 10 low Stone WeU
lR"VElEO WkY (201
20'R!W
30'Private Street Section
Detail A-A
NTS
Rf"
WI u"
I
s'5'
Special Paving Surface
Low Stone Wall
Fence Line
Center Line
Project Boundary
Lot Line
I~I
--------
LEGEND
C-2A
CJ
2185 The Alameda
Son Jose,CA 95126
408.345,1767
HORIZONTAL
CONTROL
PLAN
&NTA QARA
DEVELOPMENT
An (Jffilisle ofROb!ron Communilics
Pro ject Address:
15350 Winchester Blvd,
Los Gatos,CA 95030
DATE:January 12,2006
'·1'=40'
.,3263HCphase2
[NORTH
;,
!
FIRST FLOOR
(,~ododJ
I
I
/
FLOOR LAYOUT
GRAPHIC LEGEND
Proposed Dwelling Units
34 Dwelling Units
I
I
/
/
I
i
i
I
I
I
..,...-.-----V
I
!
\.
\
\
New Twelve Foot Wan
±2D6 Fect ...
tExistlng Length of 12'Wall to b\Replaced)
GENERAL NOTES:
•LOT LINES AND RIGHT OF WfW ARE COINCIDENTAL AND ARE
SHOWN PARALLEL FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
•SIDEYARD EASEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATELY 3.5'AND VARY
DUE TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
Project Boundary
Lot Line
Sideyard Easment
Center Line
/
/
:',/I
!/i
,/I "
.../{'/
//I /
./L -';-l-----,-L.-'T ·-I---Ll--·-·-r·~:------i-------,,, I I I I I '
/,/"/'I:,I' / .;I I
/"//[1 ,I
,!/l I 1 I
./'I I I!!l ....i-~-'l i I·---~I .--.L-,-",,,,/''--./. I 1 I j !!;I~!.~~..~._.J L.--.L_.__.J L--j .~l-
------------------------~~'~~~~~~~~~
LEGEND
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
,Ii
,
.I
I
/
./
/
!
/
LOCATION MAP
N.T.s.
-/
/
,~(,
L
T
o
Proposed Project Area
(See detail on C.2B)•
C-2B
CJ
•
l'=10"
2185 The Alameda
San Jose,CA 95126
408.345.1767
HORIZONTAL
CONTROL
PLAN
&NTA QARA
Dt:VELOPMENT
AiisffJ1i:JlcofRobson CcmmlJl'lllies
Pro jed Address:
15350 Winchester Blvd.
Los Gatos,CA 95030
SCALE:
3263HCphase2
DATE:January 12,2006
SHEET#:
NORTH
IIIIIl
FLOOR LAYOUT
GRAPHIC LEGEND
Proposed Dwelling Units
34 Total Units
LOT LINES AND RIGHT OF WAY ARE COINCIDENTAL AND ARE
SHOWN PARALLEL FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
GENERAL NOTES:
Project Boundary
Lot Line
Sideyard Easment
Center Line
LEGEND
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
\)
'--
o
I
January 12,2006
C-3
1"=20'
2185 The Alameda
Son Jose,CA 95126
408.345.1767
PRELIMINARY
GRADING PLAN
•~':::~:::~
$A.NTA Q.ARA
DEVELOPMENT
AnaffiJ/;J/o ofRDbWn Communities
Pro ject Address:
15350 Winchester BIVt
Los Gatos,CA 95030
-SCALE:
SHEET#:
DATE:
:·NORTH
•
o
@
-0
N
1'/""-",,,..,..
TO BE CONST.
TRACT BOUNO/,RY LINE
CENlEl\UNE
LOT UNE.
PUBUC UllllTY EASEMENT
RIGHT OF WAY
CURB AND GOnER
SIDEWALK
STAtlDARD HooOED INLET
flRE HYDRANTS
ELECTROUER
WATER LINE
RECYCLED WATER LINE
WATER SERVICE &MET£R
WATER VALVE
SANITARY SEWER
SANITARY SEWER LATERAL &CLEAN OUT
STORM S[\I,,£R
SANITARY llANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE
O1RECnON OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
KEY TO CHANGES
STREET MONUMENT
CUT/FlLl LINE
OVERLAND RELEASE
RETAINING WAll
DESCRIPTION
n
/
-0
&NTA QARA
Dc:VELOPMENT
ArIal:.liol~ofRDbsafl CiJmmlJ(lil~s
Pro ject Address:
15350 Winchester Blvd.
Los Gatos,CA 95030
ill
Water Shed Area
Area Without Treatment
In Street
Project Boundary
Lot Line
Under Drain
12X12"Santa Rosa
Precast Drain Inlet
(Traffic Rated)
I 40'
I
TRA'iELEO WAY (24')
NOTE:'
.Underdrain lines are to be offset 3 feet
from tHe house foundations.
o Clean Out (typical)
- - ----,-@------Storm Drain (100 yr.capacity)
A Clean Out (typical)
--UD--·--UD--
----i------
LEGEND
9"3'51:3'9"[:J 24'
FIRST
FLOOR
JA'/~~S Ss~tg AND DRIVEWAY SWALE ~--40'Private Street Section
NOT TO SCALE
ENLARGEMENT
/'
/'
/
/
TYPICAL SIDE YARD SWALE
SEE-BASED SIZING CALCULATlDNS-
INDlVlDUAL LOT SIDE YARD SWALES ABOVE
FIRST
FLOOR
1.RJuulfIJdcrmi"a!ion:
Use the Ralional Jv1elhod Q=CIA 10 solve for Q.given a rainfall irrtensity of 0.1 S4 inchesfhour,
",here Q =Flow(cubic feetlsecond),C =Runotr Coefficient.I =Rainfalllntensity (inche&!hour),
and A=Totnl Site Area (acres).
9.JllinilllwnS'lrrJeLengtlt =Velocity xDetention Time (Using Urban RunoffQu:1lityI\1anageIt'eot
Manual Guidelines -p.195),asswre detention titre of?minutes (420 seconds)=.15 ftlsec.x 420
seconds =63.0 feet
5.A1allning~'i Jl Vallie:0.20 (routinely-m;:moo grass~lined channels)
7.Use Mm,ni,wJ!o·Equation Q =.1.49/n x IfIl x sa xA to de:JenuilZe mininDlmswalc holtom uidlJt
(b),where Q =F1oll~n =Afanning~v It,R =Hydraulic Radius (=Alfb+2y]for recJongular
ehtuuzds),mul)'=RowDepth
MinimumSmtleBottomWidth=4.5 in.<.38 ft.)
8.F7uw VeJocity=RJUloff/Cross-sed;OIwiArea=QI A=.OO9cfS/(O.17 fl x.38ft)=O.15LVscc.
4.Vegdlltic1nHdglzt:Assume smile deplh of2 inches (0.17 feet)
Q=ClA=.50x.175 in/hrxO.l08 ac=.OO9 ers
10.Suule Size (SIt1:face area)=min S\\.Gle length x min.s\\ale bottom v.idth
~6311,.38ft.
~23.9sf
Ii Cross-scctioual Slwpe if Swale:TJ'pical swale cross-section is pllrabolic or Irnpezclidal in
shope.2";ncl,(0.17ftJ flo",dqnl,allows a redonguJar c:r(J!,.:~-sedio,tal ap]1raxinfilnol1.
l.engt":~
Bol1om Width:45 inchesl.38 (eCI)
7btaJA''ea:23.9 squarefeer
Ilfinin:t.m RequiredSwale Dimensions
ProposedSJI'ale DimensiOlIS
I.elWt":~
8ol1oln Width:24 inches a/fEll
701al Area:J.]6sqllare@1
Suule sWng etdadoJiolls per fluK'hydraulic design mdhod conJaitretl ill Prmision C3 of NPDE5
Permit No.C4S029718 -rainfaIJpmaJlcet!by a rain ~'f!Ilt equal to aJ least fwo tinter the 8f'pe1'Ct!1dile
hourl)'raillfall intensif)'for the applicahlearca,based em Iti\1oricaJ records ofltollrly rainfall deptTL)
Giwrr Drainage Area (A,~Average Lot Size)=0.108 nco
RnnoffCocfficient (C)=0.50 (roof",ea only -50%orlot)
Rainfall Intensity en =O.175 irvhr
Avcrd!.'eSlopc=1%
'Manning's n =0.20
Flm,,"'&scd Sizing~1culetions -Individnal Lol Si~Yard Swa!es
2.Sltu/eJ.ol1gittuJilUu Slope:1%or 0.01
J.figetaJionCOI.'f7':Assumcgrass-linedswale
Step 9 Siu!d",llMP
BVPvdlnre =rnin~roreclioofuct(l'xL!1itbasinstmlge\'01l111Ex~area
=1.87x.48 in x46,562Wx(1 ff/12in)
=3,482.8ft'
Step3 D!tmlil",Mm,Am.lIJ1ltetip1taJim.
=26.0 in
StepS D!tmliJtemil.gngeL'Ol'Tr!diOllfactor
=26.0 in I 13.9 in
=1.87
Step 8 D!tm.iJli!,mit bosinstomgejirRlIstdJrJauves ("/oinpmiol<mess Ill:StiJ!lope)
=.48in
Step 1 frt"",il'"JX!Tfl!1d Inpe1VltxLl1I!!"'iqfd",tlmiI1l1li"area
Asstnre 00"10 (el1tirestrret ROW)
D=8.8 inx25(gra\\ll v::Jid"""",cll1l1E)
~22iri
Step IOfrtemine MmnollT1'I!IId1 Depl/1(I!),awolilffa4gTfmilrJid.lpt1t.'t!
D=(V)i(L)x(W).
=(3,482.8 ft')I (2,370 ft)x(20 ft)
=(3,482,8lt)/(4,740fl')
=.73ft
=88 in
Step 1 lJetemiJretImiJ1l1Ii"tur!llftlTd:eBMP
Tc/llI fr.Iinage Area to I3lvP
~46,562W
Step 4 It1eJrlifY mil.J11ge c10selt /0 tIte site
SmJa;e AiIpCrt Mo\P"'"=13.9 in
Step 7 frtt'17.i,,,,tlWTOgf!siopefordte tlroinogetur'il
=.01cr1%
Step 6 IdentifY npr!St!11I1J//Ioesoil typef{){"tlmir.ogearea
Assu!re di\Y loom
Yol..,.,.1lasfd WingOJlm!ations-GJrbS'MlWfI1'l1d1
Qtrl>SlmJellreJdlsW'W CII1alloJimlSper,riJOll!I!)rInmJii:tlc;igt'"I!1IIfldwt1liJted InItmision C3 '!J
tlle NI'DES l'f!mit(tlle wlm1r1qftu1l1l1ol n01l!!fretpliredtoaclieve 8O%orl11J1r!cophut!,tieJemitteil
ill ot:J:tJTt!aI1t:llitl.tile 111!/11Qt/%g)'seJ fartJ.ill ~D qf /1",ColiftlTllia Stom.1UI£r Bes1
Mrn:Jge:n~1ttu:ticer Han:lhoo!,fl993f,"';'fflocal roiIfoll didP).
Gi,m 5.91-acre (2:>7,439.6 W)single-furrilydf!aclI<rl suIxli,isioo
46,562 Wof!"'oostrefl,side\\lliks &dri",,"'.l'(~areato BlvPJ
2,370 liOOl1 refl ofaJIb Sl\1l!e'1reoch,n:in 2 It ,";de
@CONCIlEl£S:)EWA.U<
@tIAl\V£Cl'W:ICORtmnrnlctlllPACTlllSlJDCllAOC
@l..DWSTONl:lIAlL
@StJltETlllC£!NPAAK'ol'AT,
f'i\.cxwa<EltIlAlllllll'lH(2l14RIIWlCOtlllNlIOUSA.T"''''~@lRA~tlEDWU(r.o;...covrn'("f$ADJ
0~CRrn:P"'o{llS
G)Z'Dffi's,o,NOLnnlHCEED
@'rI1'lCAL,f,1aJJlBSE£CM.ENC:II£EJlSPlNlS
G)a:OlO.nI.tFlLTEA rAllRIC
0""PERfOR.lTIDFVCPlI'EmmrAlllllCSOCK
(!)tmltlAGEROO<
(!)/l(!'lD?ANSl'o'tntLPERa:OltOtIr.l:Al.JlO'ORT
LOCATION MAP
N.T.s.
STREETAND DRIVEWAY SWALE
SEE VOLUME -BASED SIZING CALCULATIONS
CURB SIVALE/T!RENCH ABOVE
n,/
3263SDPphase2
C-4
•
•
2185 The Alameda
Son Jose.CA 95126
408.345.1767
SCALE 1"=40'
CONCEPTUAL
STORM DRAIN
PLAN
SHEET#:
NORTH
C'DATE:January 12,2006
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Lot Line
Sideyard Easment
Center Line
GENERAL NOTES:
•LOT LINES AND RIGHT OF WAY ARE COINCIDENTAL AND ARE
SHOWN PARALLEL FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
PATE:January 12,2006
C-5
1"-20'
2185 The Alameda
San Jose,CA 95126
408.345.1767
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT
•
SA.NTA QARA
DEVELOPMENT
-Ail Drru/tJfOofRobsDn CommlJIli/ioS
Pro jed Address:
15350 Winchester Blvd.
Los Gatos,CA 95030
3263HCphase2
,NORTH
.scale
;SHEET#:
o
~
{1)
~
03~2
01.122006
l?HEET #:A-I
O:ATE':
NORTH
S-P-AL.E:
.P'ROJECT II:
TA QARA
LOPMENT~:~
2185-l)jeAlarileda,Suite 150
'San Jose,CN95126
,4tlB.:S45.t767
1 )
if.,i
..i~-l .1 ..
-ji I;;.l
:!It-jiii-
I;i,·i··----·-~·----,---.t,
i I
!I
}1
i I
101-l-iref ,J
I :
I I
i I i,'I ....._~.._....~.~_"'"
>I !
j 15"-'"0-;SHr !23~"13'1J!----------.-.---+-...--.("---.~-.-....--~-~---.-.~.--.-...----j!
I
I
44'-0-'~~----:-',."~~:-jT'::1!_~:_::_::'-::~,;'~~]~~~-~~-~!!{.'~.~_"~-.-.'".~~~~,~:~~~'~JI',"~,!,'
~'_H'"_._,_•••-if.
--;-·-,-----f'------_.'----1,-,['------"-------'.I --_...--.---,---.-------..I ;i i
iIiI I~I I I;",Zl i ,~i
-j j j I
i [!Ir---'--~--'-._.-·t,,·~·-_··~·_·~·-·,-·"l
!
FlQ&T
i
~,!
,
1--..---IIE=i~iI:=.3lII
I;i
-,j.-
'1IiBriiIE:5i1ii~......_..__....i,L ,
L __._
f··----------···--:ii----------..
jl "'l'
,i
if
fl---~~--
~Ti:;
I!..j;;
l:..l:=.._::::=-=-_::_~;----.._..
QOOfPLAN
3.5 12 ~OOF PITCH TmlCAL
o
CONCEPTUAL
FLOOR PLANS
PLAN 2 -LOrr 34
...
\
.J
First floor:i 1'201 sf.
Second Floor:1070 sf
Total Area :2271 sf.
MqLarand,vasquez·&Pilrtnars .lnt'l.
if
jl
A .~.~.__._~"A _.••_.•,.,_,,-jL'_'__""H''-'-_'~'N_'_~'__'~'••_'_.'~~~._._'_~·,·.·e..>
RIGHT E.LEVATION REAR ELEVATION
CONCEPTUAL
ELW1\.TIA.N&
PLAN 2B -LOT ~
01.12.2006
1/4"=1'4)'
N'ORTH
14'
DATE:
-S,CALE:
S<\NTA QARA
DEVELOPMENTAriliftif:ltl:iiJfROfjiiJn.~
2-165 The Alameda,Suit.150
'San Jose,C'A'!l5126
408:345:1767
',-SHEET If:li-2
o
LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
MqLarand,Vasquez &Partners Int'\.
n
EXISTING WAlI!.L/-,'--,i~-;-'~___
TO REMAIN,"
WA\iL TYPE I
WAtdiWclI '
TO J,EPLACE
EXISl1NG,'
WALL
TYPE 3
,"
',1
"
~~
12'WALL
EXIS~~,GWALL ;TO BE REPLAC
,;",'
+I
:..t·'
.....
"'/
SPEC-tAL PAYING -I ,.','"
TYP!;2''1',/,";)
,'/
,f,l"
,/'
/,
/':
Project Address:
15350 Wmchester Blvd.
Los Gatos,CA 95030
SANTA CLARA
DEVELOPMENT
AnSttrusffJOfRi:ib3nCCtnmvnJJ103
2185 The Al""'eda
San]oscl CA 95126
408,345.1767
14 NOVEMBER 2005
LEGEND
SCALE:1"=4O'-Q'
L1~OO
LAYOUT PLAN
SHEET#:
NORTH
i:r:;J POLE LIGHT -16 FEETI~
,I ~I POLE LIGHT -12 FEET
~BOLLARD LIGHT
'I L-I STEPPING STONES
'~FRONT YARD
GAllE &FENCE
I [A]i EMERGENCY ACCESS GAllE
E3 BACK YARD FENCE
f------j VIEW FENCE
Ej VIALL TYPE 1 -ENTRY
6 VIALL TYPE 2
~LOW STONE &SEAT WALL
E:j VIALL TYPE 3
PROPOSED TREES
SEE PLANllNG PLAN
SHEET L2,00
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
SEE PLANllNG PLAN
SHEET L2,00
SPECIAL PAVING TYPE 2
COBBLE GUTTER
SPECIAL PAVING TYPE 1
CONCREllE PAVING
MULCH
PLANTING AREA -SHRUBS
GRoUNoCOVERS &PERENNIALS
LAWN
~
C2J
II II
1':,:;;:>1
0°
o
@ (:,~)
00
@ 0
2185 The Ahmeda
S",Jose,CA 95126
408.345,1767·
SCALE:l'=4C!.(I'
14 NOVEMBER 2005
L2..00
PLANTING PLAN
NORTH
Project Address:
15350 Winchester Blvd.
Los Gatos,CA 95030
.·SHEET#:
""I.
FRONT YARD FLOI'ImNG 1REES
CHOICE OF:
ARBUlUS 'MARINA'
CllRUS
CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM
JACARANDA ACU~FOUA
MALUS 'ROllINSDN'
SCHIIlUS MIllE
SCHIIlUS TEREEINTHEFOUUS
PINUS PlIlEA
ARBUlUS 'MARINA'
PINUS CANARIEN9S
LAGERSlROEMIA IIIOICA 'CATAWBA'
LAGERSlROEMIA INDICA 'POWHATAN'
QUERCUS SUBER
OlEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HIll'
EXISTING lREES TO REMAIN
o
o CUPRESSUS SEMPER~RENS
NOTES:
1.ALOIlG THE SOUTHERIl PROPERTY BOUNDARY,(15)36"BOX
TREES AND (5)48"-14"BOX TREES SHALL BE PLANTED IN
THE BACKYARDS Of LOTS 1-12.SPEOES I>S NOTED ON THE
PLANTING PLAN.
~'I.,.,
oo
0)
@
o
LEGEND
..;.
0"SPACltlCjRELlAllKS
lOll.9-D.C.
I Gil.PER PlAN
1 GIL ur O.c.FlAm 9-O.c.
I Gil.12-O.c.
IGIL IB-D.C.
1 GAl.2+-D.C.
PlUGS 9-nc.
D-POTS 12"D.C.
IGIL 38-D.C.
D-POTS 12"O.C.
1 Gil.20r D.C.
I GIl.24--D.C.
1 GIL 24-"D.C.
lOll.2+-D.C.FlAm 18"D.C.
S OAl.PER PLAN
5 GAL PER PlAN
5 GAL PER PlAN
5 CAL PERPLAtl
S GAl.PER PlAN
5 GAL PER Putl
lGIL PER PLAt!
5 GAL PER PlAl<
S GAl.PER PlMI
5 GAL PER PlAN
SAIl IXEGO RED BOUGAlNWl.£A
VIOLET TRULlFET VIllE
MRGREEN Cl.EMATIS
a.OOO-IlED TRUIlPET 'ANE
OlEEPiNG VINE
H.'.PPY Y111NOERER
BOSTON IV'(
cUl,(BNG ROSE
POTATOW1E
Cl·lItIESE'tlSTERIA
BI...ONOE SEDGE
BEAReERRY COTONEASTER
TUFTEDHAJRmASS
ORNMENTALSTRAWBERRY
STElLA·O'ORO-·010.'iLlLY
ENGUSH OWARF'LA\'ENOER
fRENal I:A\'ENDER
lRlH.US
CAlIIm
FOUNTMN CRASS
CQd},Ol GERANJULI
ROSEMARY
ROSEMARY
ROSEMARY
STAR ,JASUlllE
OWMFPE:Rl'MIIKLE
FlCUSPUl.lU
HARilENBERGA VlOLACEA 'HAFPY 'UAIlDERfR'
PNma!OCISSUS lRICUSFIOATA
ROSAIoM..TJF1.ORA 'CEOUE8RutltS'
SOLAIlUIl JAsNII!WES
Yl5TERJA SII£tlSlS 'COO<E'S sPEWJ.:
HDl£ROCAWS 'STEllA D'ORo'
LAVANDULAANGUSTIrOUA _'MUNST£AD'
LAVMIDUl...A DENTAT~-1NTER!dEDIA 'PROVEtlCE'
MUHl£NBERGlA .CAPI!.WUS
NEF'ETA FAASSEllII
PENIIlSETUI.l ALCPEClJROIDES
PElAA{jQtIlUJ,l HORIDRlIU
RO$IARJNUS:Ol1lCWJjS 'HUtI1JNGTON CARPEl'
ROSlAARlNus orncwus 'CCWllmroOO INGRMI'
RQSl,IARlNUS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
lRAc\£'OSPERL\UM JASlJINOIDES
VINCA MINoR
~NES
BaJSAtl
a.y CAL
ClE AR"
0I5euc
Fie PULl
HAR HAP
PMlRI
ROS C(C
SOL JAS
"'"coo
KEY BOlANlCAL tlA\.IE
GROutlO
CAReaucor-coR
DES BRO
rnA'OII
HOlSTE
LAVM\Jtl
LAV PRO
LtUHCAP
NEP F'M
PEL HDR
PEU AlO
'OS HUN
ROS COl
ROS lUS
TRA ,JAS
VlNIl.lN
PLANT LIST
.....:"--
':i
PLAN \l!EW BLACK RUBBER TIRE TIES,PLANT LIST
3/B"X 3/4"X LENGTH 1<EY BOTANll:AL flMlE COIlMON .......0"SPAClNC/IIDIARKS
REQUIRED mEES
ARB LIAR ARBUlUS 'UARlNA'UARlNA STRAWilERRY TREE 15CM.STPWARO
cUtlAv a1R1lS ""'VAL OJW..'G:15 GAL.STANDARD
-TREE STAKES -TO BE C!t\PHA CRATAEGUS F'HJ>ENOPYRlJM WMiHINGJON .HAWTHoRN 15 GAL STNt>ARD
SPECIFIED cuP SOl ClJ:PR£SSUS .SElI.PER\<1RENS ITAU.tH CYPRESS 150M.S)"N<JAllO
JACAC'lJ JACARAND"'A~lJFouA JACARAtlDA 15 CAL ST~ARD
LAC CAW ·CATAYiB....IJWIE),I'lRR.t 15 GAL STotNDAAD
SPREADER BOARD -TO LAG pow 'POWHATAN'CRAPE ),I'lRTl£1SG~STmDARD
),IN.ROB ROBINSON alABAPPlE 15 CAL STANlARD
BE SPECIFIED OlE ElJR HOJ:OLl\£TREE 'SWAN HtLL'lS,GM.STAlf)ARD
PlNeAll CAtlARYJSWID PNE J5~BOXj.4S"BOX STiM)ARD
PIN PIN PINUS PJI£A Sla£"PiNE J5~BOX Sr,«)~D
-INSTALL 24"LINEAR ROOT BARRIER,OOE SJB QUERCUS SOBER CORK OAl(J5-BOX STm>ARD
BY DEEP RDOT,VoNEN CURBING,SCH Met SCI:IINVS ",(liE cAUFOWUA PEP?ffi 15 CAL/SO·BOX STN{)ARD
SCH lER SCH!NUS 1EREBIHTHEFOUUS BRiJJum PEPPER 15 GAL STmJARD
PAVING,WALILS AND BUILDING
FOUNDATIONS ARE WITHIN fiVE SHRUBS
FEET OF TREES.ABE EDW ABEUA x.GRMIOlFlORA 'EDWARD OOJCHER'a.OSS'f JOO.IA 5GIL 3D"o.e.
01£VEe DlETES V(CETA fOR"mIQ.ITULY 5 GIL JO-o.c.
PIT TOO P1TTOSPaUJI.I TOBRIA 1.100<ORANG[5 GIL 4-2-O.c.
RHA SPR RHAPHIOlEPlS lNOlCA 'SPRlNG1IM£'iNDIA HAW1HORII 5 Gil.35-a.c.
FINISH GRADE Rfl'UI!ll RHAPHIOlEPlS UMBB.L,ATA M!tlOO lEDCO HAYffilORN 5 GIL 36-0.C.
PHD lEN PHORNIUItl lalAX tlEWZ£AlAIID Fl.Al(5GIL PER PlJJI
Pl.U AUR PU./WAGO AURlCUl..ATA CAPE PLOIl9AGO 5 GIl.42-a.c.
)'OS SSP ROSA SSP.'QSE5 5 GIl.24-D.C.
SAR RUS SARCOCOCCA RUSClFClJA FJlACRAtIT SARCOCOCCA 5 Gil.30·0.C.
PLANT PIT,SEE
HEDG!S
NOTE:BU'SJl BUXUS SEMPER\\'ENS EJIGUstl BOXWOOO 5GIL lS-o.C.
TREES SHOULD BE STAKED ESCFRA ESCJU.OtllA EXOJi£tlSlS 'FRM>ESI'mACES ESCmDIUA 5 Gil.30"a.c.
ILE YOU IlEX VOUITOR1A.·IIAN...•OWAAF YA\)POIl HOllY 5GIL 3D-o.c.
PERPENDICULAR TO PREVAIUNG lKlJAP UGU~U JAPOtllCllll FRI'IET 5 GIL 36--0,C.
VnND DIRECTION."""COIl
N.YRTUSCWIMiIS CR££K UYiHlE 5 GN.24-D.C.
0SIl AU'OSIUJHlfJS FRACRN'lS N.lRMffiCUS lJIl.'JlGE OSUAHMJS 5GIL PER PlM
oSt.!SAtI OS\IAlIiH'JS X.FOOlUNEl·5m.JJS£'FJlII.GW{T lEI.OUVE 5 GlJ.;PER PlJJI
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SUBDIVISION
15350 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Development Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Applications S-06-12
Requesting approval of a minor Planned Development amendment to add one additional lot
as permitted by the approved Planned Development,approval of the subdivision for the
additional lot,approval to construct a single family residence on the new lot and approval to
install a temporary sales trailer/model home office for property zoned RM:5-12:PD.APNS
424-29-024 through 026
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:Santa Clara Development Co.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
(Engineering Division)
1.PARCEL MAP.A parcel map shall be recorded.Two copies of the parcel map shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks &Public Works Department for review
and approval.Submittal shall include closure calculations,title reports and appropriate fee.
The map shall be recorded before permits for the 34th residential unit are issued.
N:\DEV\CONDITNS\2006\villafelice.tm.amend.wpds
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE
15350 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Development Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Applications S-06-12
Requesting approval of a minor Planned Development amendment to add one additional lot
as permitted by the approved Planned Development,approval of the subdivision for the
additional lot,approval to construct a single family residence on the new lot and approval to
install a temporary sales trailer/model home office for property zoned RM:5-12:PD.APNS
424-29-024 through 026
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:Santa Clara Development Co.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(planning Division)
1.APPROVAL:This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions
of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved.Any
changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of
Community Development,Development Review Committee or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope ofthe change(s).
2.EXPIRATION:Zoning approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code,unless the approval has been vested.
3.HOUSE SIZE.No additional square footage shall be permitted.
4.EXTERIOR COLORS.The exterior colors shall match the colors approved during the
Planned Development process.Any deviation from these colors shall be approved by the
Director of Community Development.The CC&R's shall include this requirement as
outlined in a condition by the Engineering Division.
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.SALES TRAILER.The trailer shall be removed from the site upon completion ofthe model
homes.The trailer shall be set back as far as possible from the west property line.
7.MODEL HOME OFFICES.The office(s)shall be removed from the house prior to final
occupancy.
(Building Division)
8.*CULTURAL RESOURCES.In the event that archaeological traces are encountered,all
construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted,the Community
Development Director will be notified,and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the
Page 1 of 3
Attachment 5
find and make appropriate recommendations.
9.*REMAINS.If human remains are discovered,the Santa Clara County Coroner will be
notified.The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American.If
the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority,he will notify the
Native American Heritage Commission,who will attempt to identify descendants of the
deceased Native Americans.
10.*REP ORT .Ifthe Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not
a significant resource,work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary
archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted.
Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will
follow the protocol set forth in Appendix K ofthe CEQA Guidelines.Ifthe site is found to
be a significant archaeological site,a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to
the Community Development Director for consideration and approval,in conformance with
the protocol set forth in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
11.*FINAL REPORT.A final report will be prepared when a find is determined to be a
significant archaeological site,and/or when Native American remains are found on the site.
The final report will include background information on the completed work,a description
and list of identified resources,the disposition and curation of these resources,any testing,
other recovered information,and conclusions.
12.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit is required for the new house.Separate building
permits are required for site retaining walls;separate electrical,mechanical,and plumbing
permits shall be required as necessary.
13.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions ofApproval for the Architecture and Site
applications must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans.
14.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans,maximum size 24"x 36."
15.STREET NAMES &HOUSE NUMBERS:The developer shall submit requests for new
street names and/or house numbers from the Office of the Town clerk prior to the building
permit application process.
16.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)
17.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
18.RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS:The residences shall be designed
with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61:
a.Wooden backing (2"x 8"minimum)shall be provided in all bathroom walls,at
Page 2 of 3
water closets,showers and bathtubs located 34 inches from the floor to the center of
the backing,suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b.All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on the accessible floor.
c.Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x 5'leve1landing,
no more than I inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-
inch clearance.
d.Door buzzer,bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
19.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-lR
and MF-lR must be blue-lined on the plans.
20.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.
21.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.
22.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.
23.PLANS:The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed
architect or engineer.(Business and Professionals Code Section 5538)
24.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before
issuing a building permit:
a.Community Development:Sandy Baily at 354-6873
b.Engineering Department:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
c.Parks &Public Works Department:(408)399-5777
d.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-4010
e.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407
f.Local School District:(Contact the Town Building Service Counter for the
appropriate school district and to obtain the school form.)
g.Bay Area Air Quality Management District:(415)771-6000
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
(Parks Division)
25.NEW TREES.Newly planted trees shall be double-staked,using rubber tree ties and shall
be planted prior final occupancy.
26.GENERAL.All existing trees shown to remain on the plan are specific subjects of approval
of this plan and must remain on site.
*Required as mitigation measures
N:\DEV\CONDITNS\2006\villafelice.a&s.amend.tc.wpd
Page 3 of 3
1
4
5
Los'Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
A P PEA RA N C E S:
Phil Micciche,Chair
John Bourgeois
Michael Kane
Tom O'Donnell
Lee Quintana
Steve Rice
Joanne Talesfore
].
2
4
5
6
PRO C E E DIN G S:
CHAIR MICCICHE:There are no requests for
continuances and there's nothing on the'consent calendar,
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
(510)526-6049
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so we can move right to the first new public hearing,which
is 15350 Winchester Boulevard,Planned Development
Application PD-06-02,Subdivision Application M-06-02,
Architecture and Site Application S-06-12.
As I did last week,I'm going to have Randy speak
on the matter first and then if we have any questions of
Staff we could ask them now as well,okay?
RANDY TSUDA:As the Chair stated,this is a
minor amendment to the Planned Development for the Villa
Felice project.The project was originally approved by the
Town Council April 4 th of last year and it includes 33 units
on a 5.9-acre site.
One of the stipulations in the Planned
Development states that one additional unit may be approved,
by the Planning Commission for a current parking lot site,
and that the unit can be approved if an agreement is
reached between the developer and the adjoining Villa
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
2
-_.__.~-~~-~..~.-_._~-----~--~---'-'.'~--_.""'_."._-~~~~~-
~
2
4
5
6
7
~o
11
~2
13
14
~5
16
~7
~8
~9
20
2~
22
23
24
25
Felice Homeowners Association in order to eliminate that
parking easement.
The Planned Development stipulated that would
require a minor amendment to the Planned Development and
Architectural and Site Approval by the DRC.In this case
the DRC held a public hearing in December on the item.
Seven citizens expressed concern regarding the application
and DRC forwarded this to the Planning Commission for a
public hearing and for a final decision.The Applicants
expressed concern primarily about the visual impacts and
the height of the proposed unit.
In response to the concerns expressed to DRC the
Applicant did make some changes to the proposal.They
reduced the grade of the site from 4'to 3'above the grade
of the adjoining townhouse project.They eliminated the
second floor deck,and they also changed some of the roof
design of the first floor elements to reduce the apparent
height.
The proposed unit is located 34'from the Villa
Felice townhouse project and 10'from the property line at
its closest location.The developer is also proposing that
eleven 36"box trees be planted along that property line to
try and screen the visual impacts.
~
2
4
5
6
7
~o
11
~2
~3
~4
~5
16
~7
~8
~9
20
2~
22
23
24
25
Behind you are the photographs that were
referenced in the Staff Report that delineate the view from
the townhouse project.As you can see,the view,given the
grade differentials between the two sites is prominent and
is quite visible.As we noted in the Staff Report,it would
be visible and prominent regardless of whether it is a two-
story or a one-story design.
So the key issues for the Commission to consider
tonight is to evaluate that visual impact,determine if it
is substantial and significant,and consider what
mitigation measures,if any,should be required to address
that impact.
And then the second part of the application is
the approval on the sales trailer and the model home
locations.These are two discreet items.You can approve
one and deny the other.You can take two entirely separate
directions and decisions on those two items.I can answer
any questions.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Any questions of Staff?John.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:In the previously
approved PD,how many of the approved homes were one-story?
RANDY TSUDA:One.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Out of 32?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
4
,-._",,----,_.---------------------
was brought up to us,did the DRC state any standard that
they felt governed by?In other words,when they say they
may do that it isn't clear to me.lt says you may do that if
this occurs and this occurs.I read "mayll to mean you have
CHAIR MICCICHE:Excuse me,I was a little
confused on that was well.I read it to mean that if
agreement was reached they could build another horne there.
So the DRC did not give specific direction on the
degree to which it need to be mitigated.Rather they
accepted the Applicant's statement that they wished to look
at ways to address those items.The DRC's specific action
was that between the hearing date and the Planning
commission date that would give the Applicant time to study
the design and look at ways to address those issues.
RANDY TSUDA:What the DRC did was consider the
input from the seven residents that testified at the
meeting.Most of the comments revolved around the same
issues of visibility and the height of the units.
The Applicant at the time stated they wanted to
look at ways to address those concerns.So at that point the
DRC did not give specific direction in terms of the degree
to which they should be mitigated,and as you stated,
there's no specific direction like that contained in the PD
ordinance,nor in any other applicable codes.
to make other showings.What did the DRC look for,or did
you get that far?
4
8
6
1
5
19
20
22
13
16
18
25
10
15
21
14
12
24
23
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Thank you.
RANDY TSUDA:Thirty-three.
CHAIR MICCICHE:
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Right.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Which is separate.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Right.Okay.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So the approval of any of
these are not dependent on each other?We don't have to
When the DRC considered it,other than the fact
that because there was a strong opposition and therefore it
RANDY TSUDA:To approve the house you need to
approve all three of those applications.Then there is the
approval on the mobile horne and sales trailer.
approve one?Is any approval dependent on another approval?
RANDY TSUDA:You have the set of actions required
to approve the unit,which is the amendment to the PD.the
Subdivision and the A&S application.
6
5
7
4
2
1
25
15
17
16
13
12
10
22
20
18
24
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I have a question of
Staff.The language that was used originally was that they
may do that.It's quoted among other places in the letter of
January 10'"from Santa Clara Development.It says one
additional unit may be permitted if the applicant and the
adjacent Villa Felice townhome development agree to
eliminate the existing parking easement.And then it says
23 the DRC can consider that.
19
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
6
Let me take the word "may"out.Once they reached agreement,1 I'm here tonight to talk to you about our plan to
2 the way I read that I thought it meant they could build a
home there.I also have the question if the home that is
4 going to be built there is an issue with the neighbors?
"may."It's not "shall,"so it's not a firm requirement.
3 allow for a temporary sales trailer and two model homes.
2 add one additional home to the Villa Felice development and
We received our approval for the Planned
Development zoning for 33 homes in April 2005,and the
conditions of approval allowed for one additional home if we
5
4
6
The way it's worded in the PD,it'sRANDYTSUDA:5
7
It's discretionary.7 were able to eliminate a parking easement with the
8
CHAIR MICCICHE:But even if there was an association next door,the Villa Felice Townhome
9
agreement we could still deny building a home there?Association.For reference,the parking easement is this
10
RANDY TSUDA:Right.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Well it says,"May be
10
area right here and the Association is located around the
site.
11
12
13
permitted"too.It doesn't say they may build the home.
RANDY TSUDA:Right.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:It says it may be
11
12
13
We worked extensively with the Association and
concluded our agreement in June 2005.During our discussions
we were upfront with the Association about our intention to
14 permitted,which I took to mean that whoever that would be,14 place an additional two-story home in the area of the
15
17
16
18
15
16
17
parking easement and provided them a plan,which included
the proposed home.
Additionally,this Planning Commission and the
18 Town Council were shown this plan for the 34'"home when our
19 project was approved back in 2005.This exhibit,which
either the DRC or us,could grant them the necessary
permission,as opposed to your reading.I was curious about
that too,because you could look at it either way.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Any other questions of Staff?If
19 not,I'll give the Applicant his five minu~es.Would you
20 state your name for the record,please?
21 RICK KNAUF:Hi,my name is Rick Knauf.I'm with
20 depicts the additional home,was taken from our previous
21 presentation from last year.It shows the extra home here.
22
23
24
25
Santa Clara Development Company.Thank you for the
description of our project.Good evening members of the
Planning Commission and Town Staff.
22
23
24
25
We met with the Development Review Committee in
December to present our plans,and at that meeting some of
the adjacent neighbors had some concerns about the
additional home.The primary concerns were the massing of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
7 8
4
the home and the loss of privacy.We've responded since then
to their concerns by lowering the grade of the lot and
modifying the architecture of the home.
In looking at this exhibit,the blue dash lines
J.here.The single-store elements provide a good transition
2 for the adjacent properties.
From a site standpoint the minimum distance from
4 the proposed home to the property line is 10',which is back
S show the height of the home in specific elements,as 5 here.To the second story the minimum distance is 21',
6
J.O
H
J.2
J.3
14
J.S
J.6
17
J.8
19
20
2J.
22
23
24
2S
originally shown to the Development Review Committee.Our
new plan effects several changes.
We lowered the pad elevation of the home by 1.3'.
You can see the old height here,and then it's been lowered.
We removed the deck on the second floor,which was
in this location,and replaced it with a gable roof,which
has been lowered.Additionally,this single-story element
has a gable roof and we've lowered that as well.The
reduction in both of these significantly lowers the mass of
the house.
The second story windows up in this area are clear
story windows where the bottom of the window is at 6'and
goes up,so they're above eye level to secure the privacy
for the neighbors next door.We've removed these two windows
back here as unnecessary,again for the privacy issue.In
the front of the home there are two typical windows that
remain.Those are approximately 55'from the property line
and 75'from the adjacent home.
In looking at the next exhibit,we selected this
plan initially due to the shaded single-story elements,
which are closest to the neighbors,these two elements right
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
9
J.O
H
J.2
13
14
lS
J.6
J.7
J.8
19
20
2J.
22
23
24
2S
which is back in this area.The average single-story
distance away from the property line is about 20',and the
average distance to the second floor is 33',along the edge
here.
In addition,we have got designs to plant 11
fruitless olive trees along the edge,which will be 36"box
trees,and when planted will be 8'to 9'high.
Now I'd like to discuss our temporary sales
trailer and the two model homes.We selected this area for
the sales trailer since it is near the front of the site,
adjacent to some parking,and provides a safe location clear
of the construction of the homes,which will be taking place
back here.
The trailer has been placed to minimize the impact
on the neighbors and respect their privacy.The trailer is
15'from the property line,does not have any windows on
that edge,and will be at grade level all the way down as
far as possible,again for,privacy standards.The height of
the trailer is about 9',the same height as these trees that
will be planted.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
10
1 Additionally,the trailer will be temporary and
2 should be there approximately six months.As soon as the
model homes are done we're going to move the sales office
In closing,we've worked diligently with the
into one of them and remove the trailer from the site.
neighbors by lowering the pad elevation of the home,commissioner O'Donnell.
That's fine for now.Thanks.STEVE RICE:
CHAIR MICCICHE:
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Have you seen the
Our market rate homes range from approximately 1,900 feet up
to about 3,000.
that we subsequently put up had the orange netting in the
photographs that are on the wall behind me?
RICK KNAUF:Yes,I have.We actually put two sets
of story poles up.Some got blown down in the winter storm
over Christmas.Those were the first ones put up.The ones
1 RICK KNAUF:Correct.
2 STEVE RICE:How many square feet is that?
3 RICK KNAUF:That's approximately 640 square feet.
4 STEVE RICE:And the home you want to put here is?
5 RICK KNAUF:This is 2,200 square feet roughly.
6
9
14
12
11
13
10
DO we have any questions of theCHAIRMICCICHE:
typical in the Town of Los Gatos.
Thank you and I'm available for questions.
removing the second floor deck,and modifying the second
story windows to secure the neighbors'privacy.This
proposed home compliments both developments and has setbacks
neighbors and been clear as to our intentions from the
start,including the addition of the 34'"home.In the spirit
of cooperation we've r~sponded to the concerns of the
9
5
7
6
8
14
12
11
13
10
16 STEVE RICE:A couple questions.First of all,the
17 trees that you want to put on that fence line,was that
18 discussed as well with the neighboring homeowner
19 association?
20 RICK KNAUF:They are aware that they're going to 20 correct?
19 olive trees that reach a height of about 9',is that
15 Applicant at this time?Commissioner Rice.
15
16
17
18
same spot and then had the green netting below it to reflect
the changes that we've made since the Development Review
Committee meeting.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Well you're talking about
21 be put in.That was part of our original plan as well.
22
23
24
25
STEVE RICE:You have one single-story home in the
rest of the project,correct?
RICK KNAUF:Yes.
STEVE RICE:And that's a BMP unit?
21
22
23
24
25
RICK KNAUF:Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:And how high is the green
netting on the same basis?In other words,you measured 9'
from ground level.If you measured it from the same ground
level,what's the elevation of the green netting?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
11
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
12
1 we had an idea that we wanted to build a house there.
2 Whether it was going to be possible or not,we didn't know.
1 RICK KNAUF:Are you talking about the top ridge
2 of the home?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Yes.
RICK KNAUF:'J;wenty-two feet,two inches is the
5 top of the house.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:All right.Thank you.
3
4
5
6
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So that was always your
intent?
CHAIR MICCICHE:Yeah,they got it approved.
RICK KNAUF:Yes.
STEVE RICE:Can I ask clarification real quick?
STEVE RICE:You said 9'is when they're planted,
7
CHAIR MICCICHE:Go ahead.
7
8
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And you talked to the
neighbors,you said,about that,or the Homeowners
Association?
10
11
12
13
14
or 9'at full-grown?
RICK KNAUF:Nine feet when they're planted.We've
actually already purchased the trees.
STEVE RICE:How tall do they get?
RICK KNAUF:My understanding is they get about
20'to 25'high.
10
11
12
13
14
RICK KNAUF:The neighbors are part of the
Townhouse Association.We've had extensive conversations
with them since March 2004,just about the development
itself as well as more recently this specific lot.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And are you.speaking
about the neighbors directly adjacent to this area that
15 STEVE RICE:That's what I thought.Thank you.15 we're talking about?
16 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Talesfore,you've
17 been shaking your hand there for a while.
16
17
RICK KNAUF:Yes.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:That's all for now.Thank
18 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Thank you.You may wonder 18 you.
19 why I'm asking this question,but why do you want to add 19 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Quintana,do you
20 this one more house?I mean I can imagine what the answer 20 have a question?
21 is,but I still would like to hear.
Approximately 10.5'.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:How high is the single-
RICK KNAUF:
23
21
24
22 story element?What's the height of the single-story
element?
RICK KNAUF:When we looked at the development
initially it had a parking easement on it,and we started
discussions with the neighbors early on to see if that was
23
24
22
25
something that could be eliminated.And so from the outset 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
13
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
14
--------'------------------"'-'---"
1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:That's including the 1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.Same question for
2 gabled roof?2 the ones to the south.
RICK KNAUF:Yeah,that's the gable roof.It does 3 RICK KNAUF:From the property line or from the
Any more questions?Commissioner
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:From the home-to-home.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Thank you.
CHAIR MICCICHE:
RICK KNAUF:So like 50'to 70'.
Talesfore.
8
7
6
5
4 home or homes?
photos were taken,what was the height?
RICK KNAUF:Hang on,let's put up the elevation
again.The gable roof here has been dropped to about 2.5'.
This represents where the deck was going to be,and then we
5
4 not include the chimney that's in the one portion of it.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And at the time that these
8
7
RICK KNAUF:Yes.
rest of it is as it was approved.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Can you show that to me?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Can you refresh my memory
again?Do you have the original map that was approved?
This shows the 34"lot also,but theRICKKNAUF:
11
14
13
10
12
what the distance is between the building plain on the north
townhouses?
side of the property to the building plain of the
replaced it with a lower gable roof.That gable roof lowers
approximately between l'and 3'on the edges.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Also,could you tell me
14
11-
13
12
10
15 RICK KNAUF:Yes.The minimum setback along here
15 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And refresh my memory.
16 for these houses is about 22',so they're 22'back from the
17 property line,on a minimum basis.
16
17
Without the lot that was a parking lot,correct?
RICK KNAUF:Correct.
18 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Actually that wasn't my 18 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And how many parking
19 question.I meant the townhouses to the north.Those.19 places were there?
20 RICK KNAUF:Up here?
21 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Right.
22 RICK KNAUF:I'm sorry.Over here?
23 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:No,the ones to the north.
RICK KNAUF:Okay.Hang oni we may have a plan we
24
can measure.I don't know that off the top of my head.
25
20
21
22
23
24
25
RICK KNAUF:There were 19 spaces.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And that was for the
visitors,correct?
RICK KNAUF:Correct.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:That's what I thought.
Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
15
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
16
11
2
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Bourgeois.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:So in this development
RICK KNAUF:Yes,we were planning to plant these
2 trees along the parking lot.
you have one singe-story home and it's a BMP unit,and it
4 looks like the BMP units,some of them are paired,is that
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:The same olive trees that
4 you already purchased?
at 15 gallon,and since then they've become 36"boxed trees.
Yes,at the time they were specedoutRICKKNAUF:5
6Yes,we have two pairs and then theRICKKNAUF:
correct?5
wash then.I mean that was already going to be there.
RICK KNAUF:We had planned on trees there
7
one single.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Okay,and the single-
story is in one of the paired ones,or is it the single one?
7
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay,so that's sort of a
10
11
12
13
14
RICK KNAUF:No,the single-story is a single-
family dwelling.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:And was there a reason
that that single-story BMP had to be located in that lot?
Was there an overriding concern of another neighbor group
that that had to be one story or can you flip-flop those?
10
11
12
13
14
initially.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay.Thank you.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Rice.
STEVE RICE:In keeping with the architectural
style that you've got going on the other 33 lots,since you
do have one single-story,how large of a single-story home
15 RICK KNAUF:We had two pairs and then we wanted 15 could you put on that lot comfortably?
16 to add an extra unit for community benefit,which is a 16 RICK KNAUF:I don't know the answer to that
17
18
19
20
driving force to have one extra BMP.I don't think it was an
imperative factor.Can we flip it?I'm not sure if the
parties ...Peggy,do you want to flip that house?I don't
think that would probably go over.
17
18
19
20
question.I think when we originally started looking at what
house to put here we specifically looked at what house we
thought would fit best in trying to respect the neighbors'
distances with these single-story elements and try and set
22
21 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Okay.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:To continue with my other
21 back the second story as far as possible.
STEVE RICE:I understand that,but you've got-at
23
24
question then with the parking lot.Were you planning on
planting trees along that parking lot as well?I can't
23
24
least in my mind-a couple of issues,one of which being that
grade differential that exacerbates the problem.I'm just
25
remember.25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
17
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
18
2 interrupt?I don't mind questions of the Applicant,but let
1 curious if you ever looked at putting a single story on
2 there or not,and I think I'm getting answer of no.
1 CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Kane,may I
RICK KNAUF,No,we never looked at putting a
single story on there.Our height again is 22'2"roughly.
me make one statement.They evidentially signed an agreement
4 so they could build a house there with those people.So I'm
STEVE RICE:Okay.Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KANE:The townhouse #5 that we've
The neighboring properties next door are 23'to 25'.
referred to as being the one most severely impacted by this
I too would not be happyCOMMISSIONERO'DONNELL:
COMMISSIONER KANE:I did.How would you feel if
CHAIR MICCICHE:I'm not sure that's an evidence
O'Donnell.
if I looked at that wall.On the other hand,if I understand
question,and it's very subjective.So at this point why
don't we get specific questions out if we can?Commissioner
not sure we should put ourselves in the shoes of the
neighbors at this point.But if you have question,by all
means ask it.
you were the owner of #5?
8
7
5
14
11
13
10
12
Let me ask a question.What's the
Yes,we have.
CHAIR MICCICHE:
RICK KNAUF:
lot,have you been in there?Have you been inside the home,
out by the spa,the Jacuzzi,walked that backyard?
square footage of that lot?
RICK KNAUF:Approximately 7,000 square feet.
CHAIR MICCICHE,Commissioner Kane.
5
9
7
6
10
14
13
11
12
15 COMMISSIONER KANE:I'll tell you what I'm
15 you correctly,whether I look at the wall or I don't look at
16
RICK KNAUF:Well I think with the lower,it is
the wall,it sounds like I'm going to look at olive trees to16
19
17 a height of 20'to 25',and I'm kind of wondering whether
18 I'll be able to see the house behind the olive trees.
struggling with.It's not a fine point of law per se,but
17 what if you owned that unit?How would you feel tonight if
19 house?I'd be devastated.I live a house right now that was
18 you left here we having approved the construction of this
20 once on a quiet street.The other side of the street is
21 turning into 7,000 houses.So maybe I'm being caught up in
22 my own situation,but my empathy is substantial for the 22 going to be a pretty good screen along there.
20 down to about 3'roughly below our grade,and once you put
21 up olive trees that are going to go above the wall,there'S
density from a visual standpoint.
What is the measurementCOMMISSIONERO'DONNELL:
from tree trunk to tree trunk?I'm trying to figure out
23
25
24studies.
owners of #4 and #5 in particular.I've even seen the shadow
23
25
24
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
19
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
20
I ------.-------_.,._--._---_.--,,------~------------------------------------
1 RICK KNAUF,Let me tell you that in just a 1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:SO the olive trees when
2 second.
CHAIR MICCICHE:What's the difference?If the
2 they're mature will have a canopy that extends over into the
adjacent yards about 10',is that correct?
4 neighbors signed an agreement,they give it up.I mean what
Quintana.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:And the estimated canopy
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I think I just missed part COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I think this question has
CHAIR MICCICHE,Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And these are slow-growing
RICK KNAUF,That sounds reasonable.
RICK KNAUF:Roughly.Probably not that far,
because they're going to be planted on our side of the wall,
been asked,but I want to be really,really clear on it.I'm
wrestling with this thing too.You've been asked about a
but plus or minus.
trees that will take,under optimum conditions from my
figures of growing 18"a year,approximately nine to ten
years optimum.
6
4
5
7
10
14
11
13
12
My question was about the
They're roughly 20'on center,20'RICK KNAUF,
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
are we doing?
from tree to tree.
of my answer.Your question was?
of these olive trees at full grown?
RICK KNAUF:Apprpximately 20'.
CHAIR MICCICHE,Any other questions?Commissioner
5
7
6
8
10
13
14
11
12
Okay,that's part of my question.The backyards of the
townhouses are about what,10'deep?
RICK KNAUF:No,they're 22'to the building face,19 you would not consider a single-story house there?
15
16
17
18
19
canopy.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Was 20'when full grown?
15
16
17
18
single-story house.Obviously there are some of us perhaps
that feel that a single-story house might be easier to deal
with,and I think you have told us that you have not
considered a single-story house there.Does that answer mean
RICK KNAUF:At this point we have got a plan that
the second story,and an average of roughly 20'to the
expectation.
single-story elements that run along there,and we think
that that solution generally speaking is a reasonable
23
22
25
20
24
21 we feel has got appropriate setbacks,an average of 33'to
The property line.RICK KNAUF:
property line?
23
25
22
20 roughly 22'to 24'.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:From the townhouse to the
24
21
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
21
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
22
.-,------------....•~.~.._.....----...
1 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:And the answer to my 1 height of this I think you've said is 22'and some inches.
2 question is?
RICK KNAUF:We're'comfortable with the house
2 The height of a single-story would be?
RICK KNAUF:I'm going to say around 17'.I mean
a single-story house?That was the question.
4 we've got there.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
out here,and when we got into the design of this property
we wanted to keep these homes down.So this is a pretty low
5
4 it can be lower,but it's typical.A 22'two-story home is
about as low as we've ever built.The allowed height is 30'
7
6
So you would not consider
No.RICK KNAUF:
5
CHAIR MICCICHE:Question,Randy.What is the
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Thank you.8
9
two-story home.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.Commissioner
CHAIR MICCICHE:Eight feet?So if they put a
our smallest lot size zone,the side setback is 8'.
required setback of that property again?
RANDY TSUDA:If it was a conventional Rl-8 zone,
single-family home there the house could be 8'from the
property line?The single-story element is
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:As a follow-up to that.
RICK KNAUF:
approximately 10.5".
two-story home that you are proposing,what's the height of
that?
So the single-story element that is now presently on your
Talesfore.
13
10
14
15
11
12
It could be as close as 8'.In thisRANDYTSUDA:15
10
14
11
13
12
16 case it's 10'.
16 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:High?
17 17 RICK KNAUF:To the peak,yes.
19 if they went single-story?
18 CHAIR MICCICHE:So it would move from 21'to 8'18
19
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Thank you.
CHAIR MICCICHE:If anyone wishes to speak on this
21 10'.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Oh,10'?I'm sorry,10'.
RANDY TSUDA:The current single-story setback is
with that,maybe I can ask Staff or I can ask you.The Thank you.RICK KNAUF:
24
23
20 item I'm going to be calling the public up in a moment.You
21 have to fill out one of these cards and pass it in to either
22 end.At the present time I only have one card.We will call
you back for rebuttal,Mr.Knauf.Well just to follow-upCOMMISSIONERO'DONNELL:
24
23
20
22
25 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
23
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
24
CHAIR MICCICHE:So if you intend to speak,please
2 give a card up to me.The only card I have at this point is
Citizen Ray.
1 project without considering the whole project again in its
2 entirety,which is what you do with a PUD.That's the Object
of a PUD,when you throw out all the standards.
RAY DAVIS:Well I'm going to speak in the public
help you.We'll start his time again.
CHAIR MICCICHE:
4
5
6
7
interest.
RAY DAVIS:
The cards are behind that.Let me
I'm going to wait until I have his
4
5
7
8
Now I've given this lecture to Citizen Kane
before,and I'm going to do it again.I don't see how after
you've given approval of this and it's gone through an
appeal process,you sUddenly reopen the density question
without discussing every damn issue in the project.You
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attention.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay.
RAY DAVIS:I'm going to try to get his vote.
Almost impossible,but I'm going to try.
I remember the original discussion.Zero setback
lots,20'wide street,no parking on the street.The issue
was if somebody had some guests over and there were more
than two cars,where were they going to park?And I've been
in and out of this type of development all my life.It's
always a sweat to find the place to park at night if there
isn't suitable parking.And I understand now they've dropped
out the-what I considered at the time-the suitable parking
for the 33 homes.
And incidentally,this is a PUD,which means the
parking standards were all thrown out for the standard
zoning RM5-l2.That's the standard zoning.They're all
thrown out.There is no protection.And so your ass now at
the end of the day,shall we say,to add another lot to the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
25
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
haven't done that.
And I think the issue that cries out for your
jurisdiction is the issue of parking.If they dropped 17
parking stalls and all they got left at the end of the
project are the driveways,which hold two cars,and no
parking on the street,I say you have not just a difficult
problem from planning,but an idiotic problem.
These people don't care.They're developers.The
dollar bill is all they care about.You know that.You're
here to take care of the public interest,the livability,
the fact that once it's developed it's a development forever
in Los Gatos.You need to have the quality of life and the
thrust of all the public documents as your main charge,and
not the economic needs of the developer,and that's all he's
talking about.Economic needs.He wants to make another
buck,and it's going to set,if nothing else if you approve
it,a tremendous precedent for the next guy who says after
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
26
1 it's all said and done I want one more.One more is a
2 million bucks.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Mr.Davis,sit down.
1 can then take a look at this and see what the actual impact
2 is from standing in the backyard.And so I'd like to be able
to share that with you if possible.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Sit down.
RAY DAVIS:Yavol!
Yavol!
4
5
6
RAY DAVIS:
RANDY TSUDA:The way the agreement was structured
4
5
6
7
CHAIR MICCICHE:Bring it over here.
PETER LILIJEGREN:Now I'll say that I'm a
relatively new total owner in this property.I own part of
it in the June timeframe,but I could say I did not vote for
CHAIR MICCICHE:I think I read in the report,
RANDY TSUDA:It meets the traffic requirements
does this meet all the traffic and parking requirements?
of the spaces,we still have a surplus of 20.
consideration of another building back there,that there was
nobody in the association who voted who had thought that
there was going to be a two-story property on this site with
this kind of large aesthetic impact.If you were to poll the
people who are in units #1 through #5,I think they would
all uniformly say that that is a correct statement on my
part.
the approval of the selling of the easement.I cannot speak
from the point of view of this being absolute fact yes or
no,but what I can understand to be the case is that when
the Homeowners Association did vote to allow for
8
17
11
10
15
13
14
12
16
For the project,okay.EverybodyCHAIRMICCICHE:
and we still have an excess of 20 parking spaces for the
project.
is that parking lot provided guest parking for the
townhouses during the daylight hours.With the elimination
clear on that?I have one other card on this hearing,and
that is Peter Lilijegren and he's from unit #5 of the
14
11
13
10
17
15
12
16
18 townhouses.18 My concern as the owner of it,and as Michael was
20 ever been to a city council meeting,so if I'm not too
19 PETER LILIJEGREN:This is the first time I've 19 saying,that I have a privacy issue;I have a lighting
20 issue;I have an economic issue.I do use this unit as a
21
22
23
24
25
formal,I don't know parliamentary procedures too well,
please excuse me for a little of my lack of experience.
What I have done is I've taken some more recent
photographs of the backyard with the new story poles and
with the new colorations of the green nettings here,so you
21
22
23
24
25
rental property right now and it will affect my rents.
I think if I was to look at the totality of the
economic impact of the current proposal,I can say that the
current one-is better than the previous.The previous one
was absolutely horrible.There was the ability from the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
27
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
28
1 first story balcony to actually,if you wanted,throw
2 cigarette butts,beer cans,.into the Jacuzzis in the back of
4
1
4
the back units.It was that invasive:
Now I could say that they've made some
PETER LILIJEGREN:I owned part of it,but I
2 didn't own the full amount,and I was not privy to enough
3 details to be able to intelligently make a vote.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Do you know if the previous owner
PETER LILIJEGREN:Was not.
was a part of the vote?
other issues here,just for clarification,any comments,
people in terms of saying where it is,but I can say my
Other units are more impacted
Was not part of the vote.
Was not part of the vote?
PETER LILIJEGREN:
PETER LILIJEGREN:
CHAIR MICCICHE:
by the sales trailer than I am.It's a problem for a few
problems,pro or con,on the sales trailer and/or the model
homes?
CHAIR MICCICHE:That's interesting.Okay.Any
other questions at this time?Go ahead.
STEVE RICE:Since there are actually a couple of
specific concern is the long-term impact of that particular
5
7
17
10
15
13
14
11
16
12
I think that in totality that the adverse market
PETER LILIJEGREN:I believe there are,yes.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Maybe we'll get other speakers up
improvements,but I'm not convinced that you could not see
CHAIR MICCICHE:Excuse me.Is there anyone here
do you know of that did vote for that?Are they in the
it.
audience,do you know?
down into the units from the windows that are being
proposed.And the lighting impact of this,besides an
aesthetic impact,is clearly significant.
impact on units #1 through #5 exceeds any monies that were
provided to the Homeowners Association for the selling of
those easement rights.Bad economic deal.I didn't vote for
8
7
17
13
14
16
11
15
10
12
18 here then.You were not part of that vote then?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And you weren't because
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Do you happen to know
what was paid for the easement?
22
25
21 clearly make the backyard there dark all the time.
STEVE RICE:Thank you.
24
23
18 building and I don't think it will really be mitigated by
19 putting up the trees.If you do that also it will take some
20 time,and it will also,if you think about it,it will
CHAIR MICCICHE:Or at the time that the group
PETER LILIJEGREN:Yes,I was not part of that
you didn't own it at the time?
24
25
20 vote.
22 sold the parking lot?
PETER LILIJEGREN:That's correct.
21
23
19
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
29
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
30
1 PETER LILIJEGREN:I believe it's $300,000.1 We did know that they wanted to put a dwelling on
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:And the money went where?that when we sold it,and originally they didn't know if it
PETER LILIJEGREN:It's with the Homeowners 3 was a one-or two-story,and as we got closer to closing the
4
5
Association.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
the Homeowners Association?
And you're a member of
4
5
6
deal they did say they wanted to put a two-story.But if you
talk to all the owners,especially #1 through #4-#5 was not
participating for some reason-when we looked at the picture,
out.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Has anybody offered to
there would also be a tax effect,which we're having to sort
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:So how do you benefit
from the $300,000?
PETER LILIJEGREN:Not determined.And with that
You had another question I can try to answer,the
I don't know how else to say it,pure ignorance,it didn't
look bad when you looked at it on paper.And it wasn't until
the story poles went up that we went oh my God.So it was as
simple as that.I don't know if that's too simple,but we
really didn't understand the impact of a two-story until we
saw the story poles,and that's why we all ideally would
like to see a single-story there.
8
7
10
13
11
12
Member of the HomeownersPETERLILIJEGREN:
Association.
8
7
10
13
11
12
give the money back if they don't build the building there.14
15 PETER LILIJEGREN:I'm not aware of any offer like
14
15
$300,000.We are low in our reserves,so that money after we
pay taxes was to fill our reserves and do some repaving and
16 that.
16 some other things around the association,so that's why
CHAIR MICCICHE:That's where I was heading.Any
17
18
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Thank you.homeowners have not physically gotten money.It's going into
18 the Association for property improvements.
20 differently than you see with the story poles,you did agree
21 though that there was going to be a two-story home built
19 other questions at this point?Thank you.I have no other
20 speaker cards.Are there any other speakers?Adele Guerzon,
21 go ahead.
19 CHAIR MICCICHE:Other than perceiving it
the Villa Felice Homeowners Association.
I'm unit #2.I'll just try to shed some light on the vote of
answer that.For myself personally,I knew they were going
to put a dwelling there,and towards the end they did say
I've got to be careful how IADELEGUERZON:
there?22
24
25
23
Adele Guerzon,Villa Felice,andADELEGUERZON:
24
22
23
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
31
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
32
1 single-story.But again,I personally did not digest what 1 ADELE GUERZON:Yes.
3 those photographs from your house?
2 that really meant until I saw the story poles.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay.Commissioner Quintana.No,
2 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And how do you relate to
4 she meant two-story.4 ADELE GUERZON:Nowhere near as bad.I can see the
5 ADELE GUERZON:Oh,sorry.That was a Freudian 5 second story from my backyard,from my top bedroom.Our
slip.6 living areas in the Villa Felice townhomes are all in the
7
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I know hindsight is hard,
7
back.Our living rooms,our dining rooms,and three of us
8
but if you had seen the story poles while the negotiation
8
have bedrooms upstairs.So from all of the complexes-I
was going on do you think you would you have voted?haven't been in unit #l-but you can clearly see the two-
10
ADELE GUERZON:Absolutely not.That never would
have passed.In fact,if I knew then what I know now,it
10
story unit.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And what are you feelings
11
never would have passed.
11
about the trailer,because it looks like you might be quite
12
CHAIR MICCICHE:I don't know if you heard the
12
impacted?
13 speaker originally,but I think he said that it's 22'feet 13 ADELE GUERZON:Yes,very mUCh.Well of course I'd
now,and if they went to single-family it would be 17'.14
15 ADELE GUERZON:Well,they told me 16',but what's
14
15
love to see that trailer somewhere else on the property,but
if that's not feasible I did want to see it as least 25'
20 difference?
18 the speaker;so let me stay there for a moment.So you've
19 got a 5'differential that you feel would make a big
17
16 from the wall.The trees will help.I thought the trees
would be about 15'high,but 9'or 10'help.You know,we
18 just don't know how long they're going to be there.We were
19 originally told it could be 12 months.And in the paperwork
20 I looked at,they said they were actually not going to
Again,we heard 17'tonight fromCHAIRMICCICHE:
one foot?16
17
21 ADELE GUERZON:Absolutely.Well especially again,21 remove it until the uoccupancy of the last unit"I think,
22
23
I'm unit #2,the least impacted,or not as impacted,but
even for #4 and #5.I've been in those backyards.
22
23
quote unquote.I went to the office to see what they had in
there.
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Have you seen the
photographs that we were provided with tonight?
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Would anything make it
better for you?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
33
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
34
~_~~~L-...L-_
2 because our living area is in the back,and we all use our
1
1 ADELE GUERZON:If it was not behind us.I mean When you're looking at a plan and you're looking
2 down on top of it and you're looking at houses,it's very
4
5
6
7
6
backyards.Stephanie in unit #3 is actually getting ready to
redo her backyard.You know,we spend a lot of time out
there.We have large yards for townhomes.And just the
thought of business being done literally within spitting
distance isn't very attractive,especially during the summer
months when you're outside.So ideally I would like to see
that not there.But if it does have to be there,the further
4
5
6
6
different than when you're looking at it face to face,as
well as really not having a lot of information about what
the dimensions would be.So as part of our discussions
throughout this,that was not a fine point of detail that we
went into as far as what the dimensions of the homes would
be.
There was talk;maybe it would be a single-story,
homes?
away from the wall the better.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And what about the model
ADELE GUERZON:Model homes I have no issues with.
maybe a two-story.We assumed that it would probably end
being a two-story.So it wasn't a matter of bait and switch,
we thought there wasn't going to be anything there,because
why would they really be wanting the easement and the rights
to build there in the first place?
11
13
12
10
Time of showing them orCOMMISSIONERTALESFORE:
11
13
10
12
anything like that?Being open on the weekends?14
15 ADELE GUERZON:No.Not at all.
14
15
But I think it is important to understand we did
not go into the details of the dimensions of the homes.
16 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:All right.Thank you.16 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And why was it you didn't
17 CHAIR MICCICHE:Any other questions?Thank you.17 go into the details?They weren't available?
16 18STEPHANIECARROLL:Stephanie Carroll.I reside in
19 unit #3.So in regard to the question about how much we were
STEPHANIE CARROLL:A lot of things were changing
19 and it was just ...
20 aware of as far as building a dwelling there,and just to 20 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So bas·ically you were
21 reinforce what Adele spoke of,we were aware that was 21 presented with,"We're going to build a structure?"
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:
22
23
24
obviously the whole point in wanting to purchase the
easement,and that was a question of whether or not they
would be able to build there.So we knew that there was
22
23
24
STEPHANIE CARROLL:
intention,yes.
Urn-hum.That was the
A two-story structure?
25
intention to build there.25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
35
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
36
1 STEPHANIE CARROLL:Yeah,but there was also at 1 is not a matter of they're not cooperating.They have come
2 one point discussion of whether it was single or two-story.
But there was an awareness,yes.
2 out and looked to see what the impact is to us.
But from the original one,yes,I would have very
CHAIR MICCICHE:Was the final agreement though
5
4
5 based on a two-story structure?That's what I thought we
4 much felt the impact of this shade and the foreboding kind
of structure.Now it's more of a privacy kind of eye to eye.
heard from the other townhome.
STEPHANIE CARROLL:Honestly,I don't know that it
6
7
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So do you think there's
more work to be done?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
was that explicit.But yeah,I think that that was probably
what was going to happen,but I don't think it was an
explicit agreement.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So from your perspective
in your backyard,how would you describe this proposed
structure?
STEPHANIE CARROLL:I think as other people have
stated,moving from #5 to #1 you have decreasing.The issue
that I would have is that I do have a window that faces out
at an angle that the windows would be eye to eye with,and
so the issue would be privacy.Not so much of the shade and
that overbearing feeling that is felt in units #5 and #4
where you feel like there's something on top of you.It's
more of a privacy issue.There was a concern originally with
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
STEPHANIE CARROLL:Yeah,I think there could be
addressing about wit~the windows.
CHAIR MICCICHE:But what specifically do you
think could be?
STEPHANIE CARROLL:Obviously a different
elevation as far as the stories and stuff.But I think the
windows and the way those face.They can look at those.
And then you had in addition the question of the
sales trailer.I think one of the things why obviously it's
more important than the discussion of the home is that I
believe the sales trailer is going to be temporary.I'd
heard six months was the newest projection and then it would
move.So getting some finalization and a little bit better
clarity around that would make us feel more comfortable too.
22 22 that the bottom of those windows were 6'up?
21 the density and whole impact.
But I do want to say I do feel that Santa Clara
21 CHAIR MICCICHE:Did you hear the Applicant say
23 Development has heard our concerns and they've come out and 23 STEPHANIE CARROLL:Mmm-hmmm.
24
25
they've talked with us and they've worked with us,so this 24
25
there?
CHAIR MICCICHE:So what's your privacy concern
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
37
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
38
-----------------~-------------------
1 STEPHANIE CARROLL:Well,depending on how the 1 I'd like to just read from our agreement what
2 trees impacted,they would be looking ...2 specifically we agreed to with the Association when we
3
4
CHAIR MICCICHE:
in the window can't see.
No,but they're saying the person
4
finalized the agreement for the parking easement.It says,
"In the event Buyer closes escrow,then Buyer intends to
5
6 me.
STEPHANIE CARROLL:Oh,not the windows that face 5
6
develop and construct a house on a portion of the original
parking easement area referred to in Recital D above,that
7
CHAIR MICCICHE:Oh,okay.All right.
7 is adjacent to the parking area referred to in the CC&R
CHAIR MICCICHE:Two windows that are set back
more,you're saying?
It's just the ones in the back closer to #5 and #4.
STEPHANIE CARROLL:That are regular type windows.
amendment.And such house shall be architecturally
compatible with the other houses contemplated to be
constructed by Buyer on the purchased property.The
and construct such house as described in the immediately
preceding sentence and has no objection to the same.The
Homeowners Association acknowledges Buyers right to develop
12
11
8
10
There's different windows.STEPHANIE CARROLL:
CHAIR MICCICHE:I wasn't sure which ones you
10
11
8
12
13 were.Any other questions?Seeing none,thank you very much.13 Homeowners Association on behalf of itself and its members
14 I have no other cards and I see none coming forward,so I'm 14 agrees not to object to or oppose the development or
going to have the Applicant back up for rebuttal.15
16 RICK KNAUF:I'd like to address a few things.I'm
15
16
construction of such house as described above."That's right
out of our agreement.
17
18
kind of trying to take a step back to when we first started
the conversations with the Association.
17
18
I think what that means is we've really tried to
be forthcoming from the start with the Association as to
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In December of 2004 we were starting to kind of
get close from a theoretical standpoint on our agreement,
and we were specifically asked to put together a plan that
showed the 34'"lot,and that plan is the same house plan
that we have today,same shading on the single-story
elements,same non-shading on the two-story elements.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what our plans were,how tall a house it was going to be,
how large it was,specifically where it was going to be
located.As so we have continued to try to work in good
faith to try to address some of the more recent concerns,
which have been privacy and massing.
I would say additionally as far as not really
understanding how high the house was going to be,in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,i5350 Winchester Blvd.
39 40
4
1 agreement now based on the objections,rather than put up
2 with this?
RICK KNAUF:No. No.
____L--'--~
1 initial development there were story poles placed on Lot #33
2 right next to this lot,back in 2005.So there was some
indication as to how high the house would be if it was
similar to the one that was next door to it.4 CHAIR MICCICHE:Okay.You still prefer to build a
5
6
Further,to address the Rl-8 guidelines,this
house with a 10'setback on the side yard,the minimum from
5
6
home then?
RICK KNAUF:Yes.
7
understanding in the guidelines is B',and that can be first CHAIR MICCICHE;Okay.Thank you.Commissioner
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
and second story.There is no required further setback for
the second story.We've got a 10'setback on the first
story,a 21'minimum setback on the second story,and the
averages far exceed that.These setbacks are actually very
similar to the ones the adjacent townhomes have.
So we think that the conditions that exist have
been generous.We've continued to try to address the privacy
issues with regard to moving the windows and modifying the
single-story elements and lowering the house.
Briefly just to address the parking,because that
was brought up,the requirement out there is three spaces
per unit,which is 102 spaces.We currently have 3.7 spaces
per unit,which is 122 spaces with the revised plans.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE:I'd like to know what's at
stake,whether Staff could make an estimate,or the
Applicant.What's the delta?What's the different between
marketing the one-story and marketing the two-story?I want
to know what's at stake?
RANDY TSUDA:I couldn't give you a guess.
RICK KNAUF:Can I just address that I mentioned
we've been trying to deal with all these issues up front.
We've got some principles.We go out,we try to do what we
say we're going to do.We'd like to follow through on what
we've asked for and was agreed to initially up front.And
we've continued to try to make improvements and address the
21 odd question here,but based on the objections that seem to 21
20 CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.I'm going to ask an 20 concerns of privacy and mass.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Kane.
22 be coming now that were agreed upon not to have in this 22 COMMISSIONER KANE:My question is not answered.
23
24
25
agreement that I think you just read,if they had the
$300,000 and didn't spend it,would you reverse your
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
41
23
24
25
Is it a don't know or you feel it's irrelevant?I feel it's
irrelevant,that if it's of serious impact,well that shades
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
42
1 the issue a little bit.I'm wondering what we're going to do
2 if we say yes or no from a financial standpoint.
MARK ROBSON:Commissioner Kane,you're looking at
4 me so I think I'll answer the question.
1 Plan hearings,having all kinds of things to make it very
clear what we are intending to do all the way along and all
the changes that we made in this project along the way.And
4 we've got nine plans for 33 houses and gosh knows how many
5 CHAIR MICCICHE:Could you state your name?5 elevations we have.We might have 18 elevations.
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MARK ROBSON:My name is Mark Robson and I
represent Santa Clara Development Company.
When you look at other neighborhoods in Los Gatos,
the setbacks between houses,backyard-to-backyard,are less
than what we're proposing here on a two-story element.And
so at some level there's a fairness issue here.I mean why
as a property owner should we have less rights in terms of
the use of that property than you would find in any other
neighborhood in town?This is not an unusual situation from
anRl standard,two-story-to-two-story in a backyard;you'd
have 40',windowpane-to-windowpane.We've got 75',
windowpane-to-windowpane,on the second story.It's much
greater than you'd have in a standard Rl-8 subdivision,and
I think that that's important to know.I think what we have
is reasonable.
Will there be a loss in revenue?Of course there
will be a loss in revenue.Do I know how much?No way.
We've developed at least nine plans for 33 lots,
and this comes after a long,long process of carefully
working with the neighborhood.Many of you on this planning
commission remember having study sessions,having General
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
43
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You've got a tremendous amount of variety,and to
ask us to do a single-story home here.If it were no home or
a single-story horne,what's my answer?Well what do you
think my answer is?My question back to you though is what's
fair to us when you look at a standard neighborhood'and what
the expectation is with respect to setback?
And when you look at privacy,and forget about who
knew what at the beginning.I think we were very,very
clear.You had 33 houses.You had one single-story home;the
rest of them were two stories.And that was very clear and
we spent a lot of time with lots of study sessions and lots
of meetings with the neighborhood and we were very clear
from day one what we were planning to build out here.And
all the homes that surround us I might want to add are all
two stories'.None of those homes are single-story,none of
them.They're all two stories.
And this comes after a long process that we tried
to be as careful as we could along the way to make it as
clear as we could.We didn't have an agreement.Back in
March and April when this carne before you we didn't have the
property in a position where we could make it part of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
44
1 original application legally because we didn't control it.
2 So all we could do was work as carefully as we could with
1 CHAIR MICCICHE:I think you've answered the
2 question,Mr.Robson.Are there any other questions?
3 Commissioner Rice.
4 STEVE RICE:You said the story poles were up on
5 Lot #33.When did those go up roughly?
STEVE RICE:Were they still up when you were in
When the project was approved,bothMARKROBSON:
at the Planning Commission and at the Council.
negotiations with the Homeowners Association for what is now
7
8
6
9
we can buy this property,this is what we want to do.
Staff and say this is our intention.If we're successful and
But all that aside,you still wind up going back
to your question.What is the expectation of these
neighbors?When they go home tonight,somebody's going to be
disappointed one way or the other,and I think because of·
privacy and mass,and I think that we've got a plan that
5
4
6
7
10
11
12
13
from a typical standpoint of what you see around town I
think is better than what you would typically see in terms
of the setback.When you look at an Rl-8 standard,this is
better and I think that you've got to keep that in mind.
We've eliminated the windows.I mean they're clear
10
11
12
13
Lot #34?
MARK ROBSON:Yeah,the negotiations date back to
2003,and as Mr.Knauf mentioned,they picked up their pace
December 2004,and the approval was April 2005.
STEVE RICE:So the story poles were up on #33
15
16
14
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner O'Donnell.
Yes.
Thank you.
MARK ROBSON:
STEVE RICE:
while you were negotiating for #34?
15
14
17
16
story windows.They add light but they're not going to
affect privacy.You've got a single-story element that,as
Mr.Knauf said,is 10.5'tall.It is low.I mean these are
17 relatively low heights and we've made substantial changes to
18 our plans along the way.18 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:The agreement Mr.Knauf
19 So when you wind up looking at me,what is the 19 was reading from,that's with the Homeowners Association?
20 impact?There's an impact.There's no way for me to tell.20 MARK ROBSON:Yes.
21 We've got to develop a whole new plan,and I think that this 21 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:And so it's signed my
22 is after a long process to trying to be fair and reasonable 22 officers of the Association?
23 along the way.23 MARK ROBSON:It was signed by the officers,and
24 24 we had a lot of meetings with the Association to walk
25 25
through what we were doing.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
45 46
-----------'-----------------_..,-------------------'--_._----------
11COMMISSIONERO'DONNELL:Let me just ask you a
couple of questions.Who are the two people who signed?What
MARK ROBSON,Let me get it,please.Hold on.We
2 just have the Staff Report.We don't have a copy of the
4
did they own?Okay,so there's one,and I think that was
unit #2.4
agreement,SO I don't recall.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:So we don't know what's in
MARK ROBSON,Fourteen.
Homeowners Association?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I'm just trying to
recall,other than Stephanie Carroll who spoke.
Okay,because what was
MARK ROBSON:Correct.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
there fit the best.
we wanted to put on that lot depending on what fit the best,
there?
and as Mr.Knauf said,he thought that the plan that we had
architecturally compatible."
MARK ROBSON:With all the other houses,because
at the time we wanted the flexibility to put whatever plan
read to us simply said "and such house shall be
5
7
8
6
13
10
11
12
Yeah.Adele,did you sign?Peggy?
Commissioner O'Donnell,I don't
MARK ROBSON:
MARK ROBSON:
CHAIR MICCICHE:Excuse me;we've got to direct
things through the podium here.
understand.As somebody has pointed out,I am a lawyer and
I'm stuck with'that.But how many homes are there in the
7
5
13
10
11
12
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:And it's your
understanding they voted on this and at least by a majority
that when you looked at the neighborhood and all the
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:A one-story house could be
architecturally compatible as well,is that not correct?
I think what we're trying to say isMARKROBSON:16
17
14
15
Yes.MARK ROBSON:
approved this?
17
16
14
15
18 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:And at the time this 18 exhibits were two-story houses,we were trying to tell them
19 that we were planning a two-story house there.19 agreement was executed,was the Homeowners Association
20 represented by counsel?20 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.It doesn't
MARK ROBSON:Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Thank you.
Could you explain what Recital D contained?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I'm back to the agreement.COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you for your answer.
It's very helpful,and I know there's been a duration that's
question?23
22
24
25
21 specifically say that.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Mr.Kane,you had another
Commissioner Quintana.CHAIR MICCICHE:
24
23
25
21
22
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION'1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 winchester Blvd.
47
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
48
---_...<._---.«._._-_.-------------------------------
1 substantial,and there's been a lot meetings and study
2 sessions.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Any other questions at this time?
2 Commissioner Quintana.
I walked the property back in March or April and 3 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:The orientation of the
4 saw the houses on the crest line and we moved them back 3',4 outdoors on this house is towards the west,is that correct?
5 and I saw #34;I was overwhelmed by that.We had great 5 MARK ROBSON:It's to the north and to the west.
6 discussions on intensity and density.I'd never seen #33
before and that's what I'm asking you to appreciate.I mean
6
7 north.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:But predominantly to the
backyard area here and also along here,but you also have a
dining room here and a living room here and a courtyard in
courtyard along here,so effectively it is a backyard-to-
backyard orientation if you will,because you've got a
8
9
10
n
#34.What was the one that was up,#35?
MARK ROBSON:No.We have 33.We're asking for a
34t.h ..
COMMISSIONER KANE:So #33 was up?
MARK ROBSON:Yes.
8
9
10
n
MARK ROBSON:Well it's both.You've got a
12
13
COMMISSIONER KANE:That's what we talked about on
mass and density.I'd never seen #34 before,and when I did
12
13
between,and so we're expecting there to be some outdoor
activities right here.
14 see it for the first time it was overwhelming.So that's the 14 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay,I think you just
15
16
17
18
19
nature of my concern.It's not to say that you haven't been
cooperative and that it's been a long process,and I do
appreciate that and your answer.It's just I'd never 'seen
#34 before and now I'm wondering what to do about that
because that's new to me.
15
16
17
18
19
said exactly the way I'm looking at it.It is a backyard
orientation and as opposed to the 10'setback is for a side
yard,not the actual living yard where you do most of your
work.So essentially this is a backyard-to-backyard
orientation,but it doesn't have the same setbacks as if it
20 MARK ROBSON:It was in the Staff Report as an 20 were a single-family house back to back.
22
21 exhibit.I mean your staff did have that in there in the
discussion.
21
22
MARK ROBSON:But wouldn't you agree that the two-
story element-to-two-story element here,it's 75'?This is
23
24
25
answer.
COMMISSIONER KANE:Again,thank you for your 23
24
25
where the two-story element starts right here,and this is
where theirs is right here,so it's got a wide ...
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
49
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
50
~.~...~._l.--.~---,--_
2 Report says that from building to building it's 34'.
MARK ROBSON:That's from our single-story.The
11COMMISSIONERQUINTANA:I'm sorry,our Staff COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I visited the site today
2 from both your Villa Felice site and also the backyard of
#5,and I would like to ask you,I'm hearing all the setback
4 gray is a single story here and here.4 number of feet and everything,and yet can you answer me
that building ...I'm not sure about that,so I'm not going
to say.But previously when I asked what the building-to-
building on the south and north are,that was 75'.That
wasn't to second .story,that was just building-to-building.
MARK ROBSON:Right,because we've got single-
story elements along here,and so I think that's one of the
alternatives that you guys are talking about is why not a
5
6
7
8
10
11
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And I think it also says 5
6
7
8
10
11
that when I'm standing in the backyard of #5,even though I
see the single-story unit and that doesn't bother me so
much,I'm still overwhelmed by what I'm seeing.It almost
looks like I'm standing two arm lengths away from
everything.I can't quite,even though you say it's 75',it
looks a lot closer.Could you answer that for me?Why would
that be?
MARK ROBSON:I don't know.We've taken it off the
12
single story?And that's one of the arguments that we're
12
plans.I think the distances are accurate.That's from
you're lessening that,but maybe by 10'.
building-to-building,and so when you step into the backyard13
14
15
trying to make,that you've got a huge ...most of the portion
of this building that's closest to these neighbors is
single-story along here.
13
14
15 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay,so I think you
16 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I think the issue-and this 16 answered the question.
18 here,from these windows.This portion of the windows are
19 the clear story windows,so those are slightly closer,but
17 really should come in the comment period-but since you keep
18 talking about single-story-to-single-story and two-story and
19 setbacks compatible with usual Rl zoning-I think the issue
17 MARK ROBSON:Okay,well the 75'is from right
20 is the visual impact,and that's the issue that has to be 20 it's,I don't know,50'.
21 addressed.21 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:It's quite a wall that
22 CHAIR MICCICHE:Is that a statement now or a 22 I'm seeing.Anyway,I have another question for you,and
23
24
question or what?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:That was a statement.
23
24
that is the trailer.Is that for sales only,or will you
have security in there?
25
CHAIR MICCICHE:All right.Any other .questions?
25
MARK ROBSON:Sales only.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
51
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
52
_~~~...L ....~-l-_
1 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And the hours?I didn't 1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And we can make separate
2 see it.2 motions?
MARK ROBSON:I don't know that we've stated the CHAIR MICCICHE:That's what I understand.
4 hours yet.Typically it's 10:00 to 5:00 weekends,noon to 4 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I think I more or less
5
6
5:00 weekdays.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Thank you.6
heard pretty much consensus as far as the trailer and the
model homes go.
7
CHAIR MICCICHE:I think I'll close the public
7
CHAIR MICCICHE:Would you like to ask for a
hearing and open this up to the commissioners.Thank you.
Commissioners,we can either have comments,questions of
consensus?You can ask for it before a motion if you like.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I'm going to make a
10
11
12
Staff,or a motion.
STEVE RICE:Question of Staff.Do we handle this
as three separate motions with the house itself,the model
homes and the sales trailer?Is it three issues to us,or is
10
11
12
motion.
CHAIR MICCICHE:All right,make a motion.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I move to approve the
sales trailer and the model homes with these additional
13 it all one?Or is it oui choice of how to handle it?13 conditions.Give me a minute.I'm trying to find my notes
19 Staff.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Well my question is are we
handle it,but given that I think there's some confusion on
some of the issues,maybe you should consider looking at
them individually and taking care of the easy ones first.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Comments,motion,or questions of 18 final occupancy of the final dwelling.We heard from the
19 Applicant I believe that the trailer will be removed after
20 the model homes are built,so I would like to change that
that I wrote during the meeting and that piece of paper
seems to be hiding.Okay,I'm going to do this from rote
because I can't find the conditions.But the condition
indicates that the sales trailer will be moved after the
14
15
16
17
It really is your choice of how toORRYKORB:14
16
15
17
18
20
22
21 going to do it issue by issue,in which case I will save my
question on the right issue.
21 condition.
22 ORRY KORB:So that would be a modification to
23 CHAIR MICCICHE:Our attorney has responded that 23 Condition six of Exhibit K?
we should handle this issue by issue and try to do the easy 24 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yes.That that be changed
25
ones first.
25
to read,"The trailer shall be removed upon the completion
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
53 54
1 of the model homes."In addition I'd like to add that the 1 the developer that it appears that the Commission is bound
2 trailer be set back as far as possible from the wall to the
4
adjacent property.That's all I can remember right now.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Do we have a second?4
by that agreement to approve an additional unit.
CHAIR MICCICHE:No,nobody said that.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay,so the fact that
include reference to the findings contained in Exhibit I.
motion at this point?
RANDY TSUDA:Before you vote on that,also
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:
discussion or decision on the land use issues involved.
...should not affect our
Irrelevant.CHAIR MICCICHE:
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
there'S this agreement between the developer and the
Homeowners Association ...
8
7
6
5Isecond.
Do we have any comments on theCHAIRMICCICHE:
5
7
8
6
10
11
12
13
Those are the considerations for the Site and Architecture
application.
CHAIR MICCICHE:So done.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:SO done.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Any comments or other questions
10
11
12
13
CHAIR MICCICHE:I think that's apparent.We
didn't sign the agreement.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yeah,I'm not asking the
question of you,I'm asking it of Staff.
CHAIR MICCICHE:I answered you.
14 on the motion at this point?Seeing none I'll call the
14 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Yes,you did.
approval of an amendment to the Planned Development,which
15
16
motion.All in favor?Against?It moves 7-0.We can start
discussion on the house item.Any comments first or
15
16
RANDY TSUDA:The application still requires
1717
18
questions of Staff?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Question of Staff.
is a legislative action and is a change to the zoning and it
18 requires the approval of the subdivision application and
19
20
CHAIR MICCICHE:Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:The Conditional Use
19 still requires approval of an Architecture and Site
20 application.
22
21 Permits says that once there is an agreement that the
Planning Commission may approve another unit.My question
21
22
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Second question.Is the
Planning Commission making a recommendation on this?
Commission.
approvable by DRC and this case referred to the Planning
23
24
25
has to do with statements that have been made that since
there's already an agreement made between the homeowners and
23
24
25
RANDY TSUDA:Minor amendments to PDs are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
55
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
56
•••m..~._••••_•••••_._.•••_••_••_
make a motion.Commissioner O'Donnell.
2 would someone like to make a motion?So Tom has decided to
1
2
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Questions of Staff?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:We were just given sort
1 CHAIR MICCICHE:Any other comments,questions?Or
4 of an either/or,which I don't think is the choice here.I 4 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I would move to approve
5 think we can take into consideration the agreement;we are 5 the proposal and make the required findings and
6 not bound by the agreement.6 considerations as set forth in Exhibit I.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Right.7 The approval would include the approval of
8
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I think when one sees ordinance 2141,amendment to amend PD,that's Exhibit M;
10
11
12
13
14
story poles we could take into consideration that it's very
hard to imagine what something is going to look like until
you see the story poles.And I do take that into
consideration.I take that very seriously ..On the other
hand,it is not binding there either.In other words you can
say,"Gosh,that doesn't look very good but I'm going to
vote in favor of it."
10
12
13
14
approve the subdivision application subject to conditions
which are Exhibit J;approve the Architecture and Site
application subject to conditions Exhibit K.
And I think somewhere in this line we probably
should say that CEQA has been satisfied and we do recite in
the findings on Exhibit I that a mitigated negative
declaration has previously been made,and since this was
15 What I find to be more persuasive than not is when 15 contemplated as possible at that time,the mitigated
16
17
somebody who has followed this project as long as this group
has followed it,then accepts $300,000 and signs an
16
17
negative declaration should apply here.
So I think those having been incorporated we have
18 agreement and are represented by counsel,and this is a 18 a complete motion,and that's my motion.
22
20 second?
STEVE RICE:I'll second.
CHAIR MICCICHE:It sounds complete.Do I have a
All right.We have a motion and aCHAIRMICCICHE:
19
22
21
19 project where only one house is single-story,and both women
20 who have talked tonight said they knew that it was going to
21 be two stories before they closed on the deal,and then they
looked at the story poles,I think you can weigh that.
23 So I think it is not to say we cannot consider the 23 second.Comments?Commissioner Talesfore.I'll start here
24 agreement.My view is we're just not bound by that 24 and I'll come down the line.
25
agreement.That's my comment.
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
57
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
58
--~-------------'------------------------------
1 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I will not be supporting 1 CHAIR MICCICHE:We have your comment.Commission
the motion.I think as a Planning Commissioner and as a 2 Kane.
4
5
7
Commission it's our role that we have to look closely once
again at this.This is a maybe;it's not a given.And I have
to look and see if there's a compelling reason for this
house and what would that be,and it has to be compelling on
both sides of the issues.
4
5
COMMISSIONER KANE:-Well as I said earlier,it's
very difficult to put myself in the position of the owner of
#5 and the impact that it would have on me,and the question
of land use law,the density,the intensity.It's good to
not make up your mind until you come to these hearings
8
Planned developments originally are designed to
range development in a better way for the site so that it
because I was persuaded one way when I made this site,and
as I said I hadn't seen the poles before.But as
10
11
12
doesn't increase any density and it can solve a-lot of other
problems.I remember wrangling with this density issue the
first time around with this,with Villa Felice,and I
thought we did a really fairly good job,and now we have one
10
11
12
Commissioner O'Donnell and Commissioner Rice point out in
their questioning,there has been a great deal of due
process and people did know what they were doing when they
did it and they were represented.
13
more house.
13 CHAIR MICCICHE:Is that it?
COMMISSIONER KANE:No,I'm looking for guidance
from Staff.
14
15
16
Quite frankly,I understand when people say,"Well
I looked at the story poles but I didn't quite understand
that."It takes time.Not everybody is very visual and you
14
15
16 CHAIR MICCICHE:For what,a comment?
17
18 field again,Counselor?I'm going to vote on this thing and
19 I want to express why it is I'm going to vote the way I
can't fill in the spaces sometimes.But going out there
18 today and seeing that,I just really feel that there's not a
19 compelling reason to have a two-story structure when it can
17 COMMISSIONER KANE:No.Am I going off into left
CHAIR MICCICHE:I think you have.
COMMISSIONER KANE:I think I just did,so I'll
leave it there.When Orry starts shaking his head I get
21
20 vote.
22
23anotherBMPunit,perhaps I would consider that,and with
20 be in my mind compromised with a one-story.What I heard is
21 that the neighbors wouldn't object to a one-story.
Unless it was a huge community benefit,such as22
23
24 maybe an additional setback,it would be the only way I 24
nervous.
25
could possibly look at this.
25
CHAIR MICCICHE:Commissioner Quintana.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
59
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
60
1 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I think this is a land use 1 I do believe that the developer has tried to address the
2 issue and it's our responsibility to analyze projects within
3 that context.
2 privacy issues with the types of windows and that type of
thing.
4
6
7
10
11
12
So I think this is a huge visual impact,less than
the original,but still a huge visual impact to two units
and somewhat of a lesser impact to the remaining three units
#1 through #5.I'm not sure that reducing it to one story at
17'or 18'is going to reduce that visual impact and that
feeling of having a building looming over you.
So in addition,my rough calculations on the
distances between the houses is somewhat different.I came
up with 40'building-to-building on the first story,
compared to 75'for most of the other homes on the north and
4
5
7
10
11
12
I did not have the history of voting on anything
dealing with this project before,but I think if you look at
it as a whole this drops in there nicely.I came in tonight
with the thought that-because having been out there-it is
big,and you've done something to reduce it,but it's still
a big wall there.But if while we're voting on that whole
project am I going to make you drop that one roofline by
what maybe 5'or 4'?I don't think so.I think it fits in.I
think it's appropriate,and what I've heard tonight
persuades me that the Homeowner's Association next door knew
13 south.what was going on.
14 So I'm not going to vote for this.In addition,it CHAIR MICCICHE:I think I will call the motion
15 doesn't meet the setbacks.15 since I've had comments from all.All in favor?All against?
17 have are just to correct my own thinking.I believed when we
21 Tom's motion at this point.Commissioner Rice.
18 passed this PD the first time we were passing 34,subject to
19 an agreement coming along.We knew it.We saw the zoning
20 there before that,so we knew it ahead.So I'm in support of
17
16 CHAIR MICCICHE:Two nos,five yays.Passes 5-2.
ORRY KORB:And anyone dissatisfied with the
18 decision of the Planning Commission can appeal the decision
19 to the Town Council.The appeal must be filed within ten
20 days.It must be filed upstairs in the Clerk's office.There
21 is a fee for filing an appeal.
CHAIR MICCICHE:Thank you.The only comments I16
22 STEVE RICE:A couple of things that haven't been 22
23 mentioned in this set of comments.23
24 First of all,I think that the tree screen is 24
25
going to give far more shadow impact than the house itself.
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/25/2006
Item #1,15350 Winchester Blvd.
61 62
REPORT TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
FINDINGS:
CONSIDERATIONS:
ACTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT:
EXHIBITS:
Date:-..:!...J~an~u~ar:=...y~19~,-=2~0.::<..06~
For Agenda Of:January 25,2006
.Agenda Item:--,-:1'--_
The Planning Commission
The Development Review Committee
15350 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Development Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Applications S-06-12
Requesting approval of a minor Planned Development amendment to add
one·additional lot as permitted by the approved Planned Development,
approval of the subdivision for the additional lot,approval to construct
a single family residence on the new lot and approval to install a
temporary sales trailer/model home office for property zoned RM:5-
12:PD.APNS 424-29-024 through 026
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:Santa Clara Development Co.
DEEMED COMPLETE:January 18,2006 (Based on submittal date of
revised plans)
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:July 18,2006
As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and
Site applications.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within
ten days.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been previously made for the
approved Planned Development for this site.It has been determined that
this project will not have additional environmental impacts and an
addendum to the Mitigation Declaration was prepared.
A.Ordinance No.2141 (Exhibit B not included).
B.Letter of Justification (two pages)received January 18,2006.
C.Excerpts for relinquishment of parking easement (pages 11 and 14).
D.DRC minute excerpts from the meeting of December 6,2005.
E.Letter from Adele Guerzon (one page)received November 30,2005.
F.Letter from Robert Peter Liljegren (one page)received December 1,
2005.
G.Letter from Sydney and PeggyLevin (one page)received December
6,2005.
H.Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Attachment 7
The Planning Commission -Page 2
15350 Winchester BlvdIPD-06~02,M-06-02,S-06-12
January 25,2006
1.Required findings and considerations.
J.Recommended conditions of approval for the Subdivision
Application.
K.Recommended conditions of approval for the Architecture and Site
Application.
L.Shadow Study.
M.Ordinance 2141 Amendment (including development plans)
received January 18,2006.
A.BACKGROUND
On April 4,2005,Town Council adopted Ordinance No.2141 (Exhibit A)for a Planned
Development (PD)at the subject site (Villa Felice).This PD allows the following uses:
•Demolition of the existing one story duplex,detached garage and shed.
•Demolition of the Villa Felice restaurant including administrative offices and support
services and the motel.
•Construction of 28 market rate single family residences and five Below Market Price
(BMP)units.One additional unit may be permitted if the applicant and the adjacent
Villa Felice Townhouse development agree to eliminate the existing parking easement.
The addition of this unit will require a minor amendment to the Planned Development
and Architecture and Site approval,both of which may be approved by the DRC.
On July 19,2005,the DRCapprovedthe tentative map for the subdivision and the architecture and
site applications for the 28 market units and five BMP units.The existing buildings have been
demolished and subdivision improvements are under construction.Building permits have been filed
for the units.
An agreement has been reached between the applicant and the adjacent Villa Felice Townhouse
development to eliminate the existing parking easement (Exhibit C).Therefore,the applicant filed
applications for the additional unit as permitted by the approved PD.The applicant had met with
the neighbors prior to submittal and had thought that all issues of concern had been met.The DRC
considered this matter on December 6,2005 where several neighbors raised concerns regarding the
visual impacts of the proposed house (Exhibit D).These concerns were raised based on the
installation of the story poles which made the scope of the project more clear to the neighbors.It
appeared that the neighbors concerns could not be completely mitigated;therefore,the matter has
been referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Please note,for security and safety reasons,the development is gated and locked.To make
arrangements to visit the site,please cOntact applicant,Rick Knauf at 345-1767 (work)or761-5188
(cell).
The Planning Commission -Page 3
15350 Winchester Blvd/PD-06-02,M-06-02,8-06-12
January 25,2006
B.REMARKS -ADDITIONAL UNIT
1.Application Request
Planned Development -The applicant is requesting approval to amend the approved PD to
add one additional lot and residential unit for a total of 29 market rate single family
residences and five BMP units on 5.91 acres.The additional unit will not trigger an increase
in the number of required BMP units.The approved density of the development for the
subject site is 4.7 units per acre (excluding the BMP units).The proposed density is 4.9
(excluding the BMP units).The site is bounded by condominiums to the south,
condominiums and single family residences to the west and north and Vasona Lake County
Park to the east.As stated above,the approved PD allowed one additional unit if the
adjacent Villa Felice Townhouse development agreed to eliminate the existing parking
easement.The applications are consistent with the approved PD.Pursuant to the approved
PD,this request is a minor amendment and is not required to be forwarded to Town Council.
Subdivision -The proposed lot will contain 8,070 square feet.The approved lots range in
size from 2,152 square feet to 6,915 square feet.The minimum lot size required for the
underlying zone is 8,000 square feet.
Architecture and Site -The applicant is requesting approval of plans to construct a 2,248
square foot two story single family residence with a 445 square foot attached garage.The
approved market rate units range in size from 2,165 to 2,943 square feet.The maximum
height of the proposed residence is 22 feet two inches.Theheights for the approved two
story units range from 23.5 to 25 feet.The subject house has been designed with a lower
height in an attempt to mitigate neighbor concerns.Exterior materials will consist of plaster
and stone siding,wood and copper trim and a clay tile roof.
The floor plan,architectural style,colors and materials of the proposed house are similar to
an approved house plan,but have been modified slightly in an attempt to mitigate neighbor
concerns as discussed further in this report.During the PD process,staff and the Town's
Consulting Architect concluded that the proposed house designs were good,the houses relate
well to each other and the proposed siting and landscaping produce a good environment.The
proposed setbacks are consistent with the approved setbacks for the other parcels.
2.Traffic
The traffic generated from the approved PD and this proposal is less than the traffic credit
that is assigned to the property,based on the previous uses as set forth in the Town's Traffic
Impact Policy.
The Planning Commission -Page 4
15350 Winchester BlvdIPD-06-02,M-06-02,S-06-12
January 25,2006
3.Parking
The required parking for this site with the additional unit is 102 parking spaces,at a ratio of
three spaces per unit.The applicant is proposing a total of 122 spaces at a ratio of 3.7 spaces
per unit.
The existing Villa Felice town homes have a parking easement for 19 existing parking spaces
and a turnaround along the western property line of the subject properties for guest parking
during daylight hours.These spaces are not required parking for the town homes ..As stated
earlier in this report,an agreement has been reached between the applicant and th(f adjacent
Villa Felice Townhouse development to eliminate the existing parking easement.The
applicant proposes to utilize a major portion of this area to add an additional lot and house.
Eight parking spaces will remain in this area.
4.Grading
Aside from the grading required to lower the building pad as a mitigation to reduce the visual
impact,no additional grading will be required for this project since the area of construction
is currently improved with a level parking lot.
5.Trees
No additional trees will be impacted as a result of this project.As part of the approved PD,
the applicant will plant 11 -36 inch box Europeah Olive trees along the property line
adjacent to the existing Villa Felice town home development for screening purposes.
6.Environmental Assessment
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been previously made for the approved Planned
Development for this site.The subject application was referred to the Town's Environmental
Consultant to determine whether or not the work proposed required additional environmental
review.It has been determined that this project will not have additional enviropmental
impacts and an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared (Exhibit H).
7.Neighborhood Concerns
The grade of the adj acent Villa Felice town houses is approximately four feet lower than the
existing grade at Villa Felice.The approved PD for the Villa Felice town houses indicate
that the required and proposed rear setback for these units is 24 feet.The,Town has received
three letters of concerns from adjacent neighbors (Exhibits E,F and G).The major concerns
expressed by the neighbors deal with loss of privacy and light.Photographs of the story
poles were also submitted by an adjacent neighbor,who is closest to the proposed house,to
illustrate the privacy impacts into his yard and home.There is approximately a 34 foot
distance between this neighbor's house and the proposed house.This neighbor will be
impacted with a one or two story home.The photographs do not copy clearly,so theywill
be provided at the hearing.
The Planning Commission -Page 5
15350 Winchester BlvdIPD-06-02,M-06-02,S-06-12
January 25,2006
The applicant has met with the neighbors in an attempt to mitigate their concerns.The
following changes have been made to the plans subsequent to the DRC review (Exhibit B):
•Grade Change -The grade of the proposed lot has been lowered 1.3'.This will result in
a grade differential of approximately three feet between the adjacent Villa Felice town
houses and Villa Felice as opposed to the existing four feet.
•Single Story Elements -Two single story elements have been lowered by utilizing a gable
roof.
• Deck Removal -The second story deck has been eliminated
•Windows -All of the second story windows along the Villa Felice town house western
property line are clerestory with the exception of two windows in a secondary bedroom
which are 55 feet from the property line.Clerestory windows were required for several of
the approved units to mitigate privacy concerns.
Since one of the neighbors was opposed to a new residence and some of the neighbors
expressed an interest in a one story structure,it is questionable if these changes will mitigate
neighbor concerns.The story poles reflect the original and current proposal.The orange
netting shows the original proposal and the green netting represents the modifications
discussed above.
8.Sales Trailer and Model Homes
The applicant is also requesting approval to allow two of the approved units to be used as
model homes (Lots 30 and 31)and that a sales trailer with guest parking be permitted in the
existing parking easement area,adjacent to the proposed lot.Since this pad is existing,is near
the entrance of the development and is outside the area of construction,it is the most logical
and safe location for the trailer.The applicant is analyzing options on where to locate the
trailer within this pad area and how to reduce the height of the trailer to reduce visual impacts
to the adjacent neighbors,while meeting all building code/ADA requirements.The applicant
will discuss their findings on this matter at the hearing.Conditions have been included that
require the model homes to be converted to residential units prior to occupancy and that the
sales trailer be removed from the site prior to occupancy of the last unit.
C.RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposal,they should:
1.Make the required findings and considerations (Exhibit 1).
2.Approve Ordinance 2141 Amendment to amend the PD (Exhibit M).
3.Approve the Subdivision Application subject to conditions (Exhibit J).
4.Approve the Architecture and Site Application subject to conditions (Exhibit K).
If the Commission has·concerns with the applications,they can:
1.Continue the matter to a date certain with specific directions.
The Planning Commission -Page 6
15350 Winchester Blvd/PD-06-02,M-06-02,8-06-12
January 25,2006
2.Approve the request for a sales trailer and model homes and deny the request for an
additional lot and unit.
3.Deny the entire request.
~~~~-
Bud N.Lortz,Director of Community Development
Prepared by:Sandy L.Baily,Associate Planner
BNL:SLB:mdc
cc:Santa Clara Development Co,2185 The Alameda,San Jose,CA 95126
N:\DEV\REPORTS\2006\villafelice.wpd
."\
;
15350 Winchester Blvd.
\'
.,
ORDINANCE 2141
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO.1396 AND ORDINANCE NO.2092 RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE SITE AND AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP FROM R-l:8:PD TO RM:5-12 PD FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD.
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning at 15350
Winchester Blvd as shown on the map which is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and is part of this
Ordinance from R-l :8:PD (Single Family Residential,minimum lot size 8,000 square feet,Planned
Development)to RM:5-12 PD (Multiple Family Residential,5 to 12 dwelling units per acre,Planned
Development).
SECTION II
The PD (Planned Development Overlay)zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following
construction and use of improvements:
1.Demolition of the existing one story duplex,detached garage and shed.
2.Demolition of the Villa Felice restaurant including administrative offices and support
services and the motel.
3.Construction of 28 market rate single family residences and five Below Market Price units.
4.Landscaping,streets,parking,open space and other site improvements shown and required
on the Official Development Plan.
5.All other residential uses and improvements listed in Ordinance No.1396 for the existing
Villa Felice Townhouse development are still valid.
6.Uses permitted arethose specified in the underlying RM (Multiple Family Residential)zone
by Sections 29.40.610 (Permitted Uses)and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses)of the Zoning
Ordinance,as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance,or as they
may be amended in the future,subject to any restrictions or other requirements specified
elsewhere in this ordinance including,but not limited to,the Official Development Plan.
Page 1 of 13
Exhibit A
I
I
I
However,no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this
Ordinance,or by Conditional Use Permit.
SECTION III
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All provisions of the Town Code apply,except when the Official Development Plan specifically
shows otherwise.
SECTION IV
Architecture and Site Approval is required before the demolition ofthe duplex and construction work
for the new dwelling units,whether or not a permit is required for the work and before any permit for
construction is issued.Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130
of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION V
The attached Exhibit A (Map)and Exhibit B (Development Plans),are part of the Official
Development Plan.The following must be complied with before issuance of any grading,demolition or
construction permits:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(Planning Division)
1.·ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED.The Official Development Plans and this
ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity ofdevelopment.The Official Development Plans
are conceptual in nature such that minor deviations may be approved through the Architecture ancl
Site approval process if necessary to achieve architectural excellence.These deviations may include
finished floor elevations,minor grade changes,increase of separation between houses,plate height
reductions and other design features which reduce the intensity of the development without
impacting the quality of the life for the future residents.The Development Review Committee may
be the deciding body of.the Architecture and Site applications.
2.SETBACKS.The minimum setbacks permitted are documented on tal"proved Horizontal Control
Plan attached as Exhibit B.
3.HOUSE SIZES.No additional square footage shall be permitted for any of the units.
4.TRE"E REMOVAL PERMIT.A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a
Building,Grading or Encroachment Permit.
5.RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass and aluminum materials generated from the demolished
Page 2 of 13
structures 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.
6.TENTATIVE MAP.The Development Review Committee may be the deciding body of the
tentative map.
7.*EXISTING MASONRY WALL.Existing masonry walls along project boundaries should be
maintained at all times during construction to protect all adjacent residents from construction noise.
The existing masonry wall along the northern project boundary that is proposed to be replaced either,
1)should be retained until the noisier phases of project construction are complete (ie:grading,
paving,houseframing,etc)or 2)should be replaced at the commencement of project construction,
prior to project grading activities.
8.FENCES.All fencing and walls shall be reviewed during the Architecture and Site approval
process.
9.*CONSULTING ARBORTST.All recommendations identified in the Arborist Report and prepared
by Arbor Resources,dated December 17,2004,and any other supplemental report(s)by the Arborist
in relationship to this project,shall be implemented and incorporated during the Architecture and
Site approval process and in the final building plans.The applicant shall continue to work with the
consultant regarding the grade changes around existing trees prior to Architecture and Site approval.
10.FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN.The Town's Consulting Arborist shan review the final plans during
the Architecture and Site approval process.At that time,the arborist shall determine the required
tree protection measures and the proposed tree removal mitigation which shall be incorporated in
the final building plans.
11.ADDITIONAL TREES.To mitigate the removal of the Monterey Pine trees along the southern
property boundary,15 -36 inch box trees and five 48 to 86 inch box trees shall be planted in the
backyards of Lots 1 through 12.Twelve additional 36 inch box trees shall be planted along the
northern property line.The applicant shall work with the adjacent homeowner associations to
determine the tree specie(s).These trees shall be included in the final landscape plan.
12.GENERAL.All existing trees shown to remain on the plan and newly planted trees are specific
subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on site.
13.NEW TREES.The new trees to be planted shall be double-staked,using rubber tree ties and shall
be planted prior to occupancy.
14.*RAPTORS.If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January,the
project applicant shall be required to conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors by a
qualified ornithologist in order to ensure that no raptor nests will be disturbed during project
construction.This survey will be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of
construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April)and no
more than 30 days prior to the initiation ofthese activities during the late part ofthe breeding season
(May through August).During this survey,the ornithologist will inspect all trees in and immediately
adjacent to the impact areas for raptor nests.If an active raptar nest is found close enough to the
construction area to be disturbed by these activities,the ornithologist,in consultation with CDFG,
will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest.
15.NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN.A neighborhood identification sign is permitted and shall be reviewed
during the Architecture and Site approval process.
16.SHARED DRIVEWAYS.Small scale residential no driveway parking signs shall be installed where
there are shared driveways.These signs and placement will be reviewed during the Architecture and
Site approval process and shall be installed prior to -final occupancy of those units.
Page 3 of 13
(Building Division)
17.BM?UNITS.The developer shall work with the Director of Community Services during the
Architecture and Site approval process to make the required arrangements for the BMP units.The
8MP units must receive approved building permits prior to the issuance ofthe building permit for
the 28 th market rate unit.The BMP contract shall be completed prior to issuance of a building
permit.
18.DEED RESTRiCTION.Prior to issuance of a building permit,a deed restriction shall be recorded
by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's office,stating that the required BMP units
must be sold as a below market priced unit pursuant to the Town's BMP regulations.
19.SOLAR.During the Architecture and Site approval process,all new residences,to the extent
feasible,shall be designed to take full advantage of passive solar opportunities.
20.WINDOWS.All second story windows with a north orientation along the northern property line
(lots 17 through 21),shall be recessed high clerestory windows.All first and second story windows
along a side elevation which immediately abuts a yard of a neighboring property,shall be recessed
high clerestory windows or frosted to allow for privacy.These windows shall be further reviewed
during the Architecture and Site approval process.
21.ADDITIONAL UNIT.One additional unit may be permitted ifthe applicant and the adjacent Villa
Felice Townhouse development agree to eliminate the existing parking easement.The addition of
this unit will require a minor amendment to the Planned Development and Architecture and Site
approval,both of which may be approved by the Development Review Committee.Additional
environmental review may be required for this unit.
22.GATE CONNECTIONS.During the Architecture and Site process,the applicant shall explore the
possibility ofproviding gate connections to the northern and southern neighborhoods.The applicant
shall meet with and receive input frorn.these neighborhoods regarding the connections.
23.HOUSE SIZES.No additional square footage shall be permitted for any of the units except for
cellars if approved during the initial Architecture and Site approval process.
24.PARKING.During the Tentative MaplArchitecture and Site process,the applicant shall explore the
possibility of adding "pocket"visitor parking spaces.These spaces shall not impact the proposed
ambiance of the main roadway the ambiance of a living unit nor shall it impact pedestrian
circulation.
*CULTURAL RESOURCES. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered,all
construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted,the Community Development
Director will be notified,and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the 'find and make
appropriate recommendations.
*REMAINS.If human remains are discovered,the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified.
The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American.If the Coroner
determines that the remains are not"subject to his authority,he will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission,who will attempt to identify descendants ofthe deceased Native Americans.
*REPORT.If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a
significant resource,work will resume only after the submittal ofa preliminary archaeological report
and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted.Provisions for identifying
descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in
Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines.If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site,a
mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for
27.
26.
25,
Page 4 of 13
consideration and approval,in conformance with the protocol set forth in Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
28.*FINAL REPORT.A final report will be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant
archaeological site,and/or when Native American remains are found on the site.The final report
will include background information on the completed work,a description and list of identified
resources,the disposition and curation ofthese resources,any testing,other recovered information,
and conclusions.
29.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required for demolition of existing structures
and the construction ofthe new residences.Separate building permits are required for site retaining
walls;separate electrical,mechanical,and plumbing permits sha1l be required as necessary.
30.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions of Approval.for the Architecture and Site
applications must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet ofthe construction plans.
31.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans,maximum size 24"x 36."
32.DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS:Obtain aBuilding Department Application and a Bay Area Air
Quality Management Application from the Building Service Counter.Once the demolition form has
been completed and all signatures obtained,return the completed form to the Building Service
Counter with the J#Certificate,three (3)sets of site plans to include all existing structures,existing
utility service lines such as water,sewer,and PG&E.No demolition work shall be done without first
obtaining a permit from the Town.
33.*GREASE TRAP.The abandoned grease trap and affected surrounding soils shall be removed as
part of the demolition process.
34.*LEAD-BASED PAINT.Lead-based paint should be handled in compliance with federal and state
OSHA requirements as described in the lead survey report.
35.STREET NAMES &HOUSE NUMBERS:The developer shall submit requests for new street
names and/or house numbers from the Office of the Town clerk prior to the building permit
application process.
36.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)
37.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 rorthe following items:
a.Building pad elevation
b.Finish floor elevation
c.Foundation comer locations
38.RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS:The residences shall be designed with
adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61:
a.Wooden backing (2"x 8"minimum)shall be provided in all bathroom walls,at
water closets,showers and bathtubs located 34 inches from the floor to the center of
the backing,suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b.All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on the accessible floor.
Page 5 of 13
c.Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x 5'level landing,
no more than I inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-
inch clearance.
d.Door buzzer,bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
39.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-1 Rand
MF-1 R must be blue-lined on the plans.
40.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.
41.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:When a special inspection is required by DBC 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 ofthe building pelmit.The Town Special Inspection
form must be completely filled-out,signed by all requested parties and be blue-lined on the
construction plans.Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service
Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov..
42.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page.
The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of$2 br at San
Jose Blue Print.
43.PLANS:The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision ofa licensed architect
or engineer.(Business and Professionals Code Section 5538)
44.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing
a building permit:
a.Community Development:Saridy Baily at 354-6873
b.Engineering Department:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
c.Parks &Public Works Department:(408)399-5777
d.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-4010
e.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407
£Local School District:(Contact the Town Building Service Counter for the
appropriate school district and to obtain the school form.)
g.Bay Area Air Quality Management District:(415)771-6000 .
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
(Engineering Division)
45.
46.
NPDES MAINTENANCE COVENANT.The homeowner's assoclatIOn shall enter into a
maintenance covenant with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration device.The
covenant will specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the homeowner's
association and will specify maintenance reporting requirements.The covenant shall be recorded
prior to release ofthe first occupancy permit..
ABOVE GROUND UTILITY LAYOUT.The applicant shall submit a 75-percent progress printing
to the Town for review of above ground utilities including backtlow prevention devices,fire
department connections,gas and water meters,off-street valve boxes,hydrants,site lighting,
electrical/communication/cable boxes,transformers,and mail boxes.Above ground utilities shall
be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of the
grading perm it.
Page 6 or 13
47.JOINT TRENCH PLANS.Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to
issuance ofthe grading permit.
48.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SECURITY.The applicant shall supply suitabIe securities for all public
improvements that are a part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of
100%(performance)and 100%(labor and material)prior to recordation ofthe final map.Applicant
shan provide two (2)copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
49.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The following improvements shall be installed by the developer.
Plans for those improvements shan be prepared by a California registered civil engineer,reviewed
and approved by the Town,and guaranteed by contract,Faithful Performance Security and Labor &
Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of a map.The
improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town prior to release of the final three
Certificates of Occupancy.
a.Winchester Boulevard Sidewalk.The pedestrian travel path at the project entrance
shall be modified to comply with ADA cross-slope requirements.This may require
realignment of the public sidewalk as well.
b.Private Fire Service.The FDC and valve boxes associated with the private fire
service shall be removed under the demolition permit.The curved portion ofwalk in
the vicinity ofthe valve boxes shall be removed and replaced in a straight alignment
prior to acceptance of the public improvements.
50.GRADING PERMIT.A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage.The grading
permit application (with grading plans)shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks &
Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue.The grading plans shall include final
grading,drainage,retaining wa1l10cation,driveway,utilities and interim erosion contml.Grading
plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas.Unless
)specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works,the grading pennit will be issued
concurrently with the building permit.The grading permit is for work outside the building
footprint(s).A separate building permit,issued by the Building Department on E.Main Street is
needed for grading within the building footprint.
51.PRECONSTRUCTlON MEETING.Prior to issuance of a grading or demolition permit or the
commencement of any site work,the general contractor shall:
a.Along with the project applicant,attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval,working hours,site
.maintenance and other construction matters;
b.Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the proj ect conditions of
approval,and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and
understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the proj ect conditions
of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.
52.RETAINING WALLS.A building permit,issued by the Building Department at 110 E.MainStreet,
may be required for site retaining walls.Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering
Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process.
53.SOILS REPORT.One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit
application.The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading,
drainage,pavement design,retaining wall design and erosion control.The reports shall be signed
and "wet stamped"by the engineer or geologist,in conformance with Section 6735 ofthe California
Business and Professions Code.
Page 7 of 13
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
SOILS REVIEW.Prior to issuance of any permit,the applicant's soils engineer shall review the
final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations,ret~inihg walls,site grading,
and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments.The
applicant's soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by
signing tile plans.
SOILS.ENGINEER coNSTRUCTION OBSERVATION.During construction,all excavations and
grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or
bqcktill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level
geotechnical report,and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the
report,if necessary.The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented
in an "as-built"letterlreport prepared by the applicants soils engineer and submitted to the Town
before final release of any occupancy permit is granted.
*GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.The geotechnical recommendations presented in the
report titled "Geotechnical Report,Villa FeJice Residential,15350 Winchester Blvd,Los Gatos,CA"
shall be incorporated into the final design.
FINAL MAP.A final map shall be recorded.Two copies of the final map shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division ofthe Parks &Public Works Department for review and approval.Submittal
shall include closure calculations,title reports and appropriate fee.The map shall be recorded before
grading or building permits are issued.
FINAL CC&R'S.Final CC&R's shall be approved by the Town Attorney prior to recordation of
the final map.The CC&R's shall include provisions for road improvements,vehicle parking
enforcement procedures and the use and restrictions for the side yard easements.
EXISTING EASEMENTS.Existing easements shall be abandoned concurrehtly with recordation
of the final map.
PRIVATE EASEMENTS.Agreements detailing rights,limitations,and responsibilities ofinvol ved
parties shal~accompany each private easement.The easements and associated agreements shall be
recorded simultaneously with the final map.
UTILITY CaMPANY REVIEW.Letters from the electric,telephone,cable,and trash companies
indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall be provided prior to
recordation of the final map.
DEMOLITION.Existing buildings shall be demolished prior to recordation of the final map.
PRlVATE EASEMENTS.Agreements detailing rights,limitations,and responsibilities ofinvolved
parties shall accompany each private easement.The easements and associated agreements shall be
recdrded simultaneously with the final map.
SIDEWALKJCURB IN-LIEU FEE.A curb and sidewalk in-lieu fee of$13,275 shall be paid prior
to Map recordation.This fee is based on 295-feet of 4.5-footwide sidewalk at $1 O/SF in accordance
with Town policy and as specified in the Town FY2004-05 Comprehensive Fee Schedule.This
measurement corresponds to the University Avenue property frontage.
PRIVATE SIDEWALK.The on-site private sidewalk shall be connected to the public sidewalk on
Winchester Boulevard.
PUBLIC SIDEWALK.The public sidewalk in the vicinity oftlle project entrance shall be modified
to comply with ADA cross-slope requirements.
DESIGN CHANGES.The applicant's registered engineer shall notify the Town Engineer,in writing,
at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed work and the design indicated
on the plans.Any proposed changes shall be subject to the approval ofthe Town before altered work
is started.Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final "as-built"drawings.
Page g of 1~
68.INSURANCE.One million dollars ($1,000,000)ofliability insurance ho lding the Town harmless
shall be provided in a format acceptable to the Town Attorney before recordation of the map.
69.PLAN CHECK FEES.Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to submittal ofplans
to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
70.INSPECTION FEES.Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any
Permit or recordation ofthe Final Map..
71.TREE REMOV AL.Copies ofall necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to issuance
of a demolition permit.
72.GENERAL.All public improvements shall be madeaccording 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 ofthe 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 pennit
is issued.The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours.
Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town
performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
73.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.
74.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.
75.SURVEYING CONTROLS.Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed
surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying,for the following items:
a.Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations
j b.Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
76.NEIGHBOR ACCESS.Access to neighboring properties shall be maintained at all times during
construction.
77.EROSION CONTROL.Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to
the Engineering Division of the Parks &Public Works Department.A Notice ofIntent (NOl)and
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one acre.A maximum of
two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is
allowed during the rainy season.Interim erosion control measures,to be carried out during
construction and before installation of the final landscaping shall be included.Interim erosion
control method shall include,but are not limited to:silt fences,fiber rolls (with locations and
details),erosion control blankets,Town standard seeding specification,filter berms,check dams,
retention basins,etc.Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water
quality during winter months.The grading,drainage,erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in
compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order
01-024 of the amended Santa Clara County NPDES Permit.
78.DUST CONTROL.Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing constmction activities so that pavi'ng
and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading,and by landscaping
disturbed soils as soon as possible.Further,water trucks shall be present and in use at the
construction site.All portions ofthe site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as de;emed
necessary by the Town,or a minimum of three times daily,or apply (non-toxic)soil stabilizers on
Page 9 of 13
79.
80.
81.
82.
84.
85.
all unpaved access roads,parking areas,and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure
proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project.W~tering on public streets shall not
occur.Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the
Town Engineer,or at least once a day.Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall
take place between the hours of 8 a.m.and 5 p.m.and shall include at least one late-afternoon
watering to.minimize the effects of blowing dust.All public streets soiled or littered due to this
construction ?-ctivity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the
satisfaction of the Town.Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds
(instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 MPH.All trucks hauling soil,sand,or other loose debris shall be
covered.
*DUST CONTROL (SITES >4 ACRES).The following measures shall be implemented at
construction sites greater than four acres in area:
a.Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive tor ten days or more).
b.Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply (non-toxic)soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt,sand,etc.)
c.Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
d.Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.<
e.Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN.The appl!cant shall submit a construction management
plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan,Traffic Control Plan,Project
Schedule,site security fencing;employee parking,construction staging area,construction trailer,and
proposed outhouse locations.
CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle
weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed to pari<.on the portion of a street
which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§
15.40.070).
SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through curb drains
will be allowed.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PREVENTION.Stormwater treatment measures shall be
certified in accordance with C3 requirements.On-site drainage systems shall include filtration
devices such as a bio-swales,sediment basins and/or permeable pavement.Infiltration trenches shall
be provided along the private street system.Filtration systems shall satisfy C.3 numeric sizing
criteria.
STORM DRAINAGE.Private storm drain systems shall be designed to accommodate the lO-yr
peak stann runoff within the pipe,and the 100-yr peak within the street (between curbs).One-foot
minimum freeboard shall be provided between the I OO-yr water surface elevation and the adjacent
finished floor elevation.The overland release path between the new private street (near Lot 16)and
University A venue shall be "hardened"to accommodate the 1DO-year event.As an alternative to
"hardening"the surface,gallery inlets and underground pipe capable ofaccommodating the 1DO-year
event may be provided.Surface drainage at Lots 12 through 16 shall be directed towards the new
street and away from the top ofslope.The overland release path and "hardened)'surface and surface
drainage for Lots 12 through 16 shall be evaluated as part of the Architecture and Site review.
SILT AND MUD [N 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.
Page 10 of J:)
.~..~::...:.
Mud,silt,concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm
drains.
86.UTILITIES.The developer shall install all utility services,including telephone,electric power and
all other communications lines underground,as required by-Town Code §27 .50.0I5(b).All new
utility services shall be placed underground.Underground conduit shall be provided for cable
television service..
87.RESTORATION OF PUBLlC IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repairorreplace 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 orreplaced 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 ofconstruction to verify existing conditions.
88.FENCING.Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall comply with Town Code
Section §23.l0.080.
89.AS-BUILT PLANS.After completion of the construction of all work,the original plans shall have
all changes (change orders and field changes)clearly marked.The "as-built"plans shall·again be
signed and "wet-stamped"by the civil engineer who prepared the plans,attesting to the changes.The
original "as-built"plans shall be review and approved the Engineering Inspector.A Mylar and
AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built"plans shall be provided to the Town before the Faithful
Performance Security or final Occupancy Permit is released.The AutoCAD file shall include only
the following information and shall conform to the layer naming convention:a)Building Outline,
Layer:BLDG-OUTLINE;b)Driveway,Layer:DRlVEWAY;c)Retaining Wall,Layer:
RETAINING WALL;d)Swimming Pool,Layer:SWIMMING-POOL;e)Tennis Court,Layer:
TENNIS-COURT;f)Property Line,Layer:PROPERTY-LINE;g)Contours,Layer:
NEWCONTOUR.All as-built digital files must be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's
survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher.
90.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.
91.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.
92.*HAULlNG 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.).Priorto 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
t10w under periods when soil is hauled on orffthe 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.
93.SITE LIGHT1NG.Site lighting on the Planned Development drawings is conceptuaL Site lighting
shall be reviewed during Architecture and Site review.Fixture details,mounting heights,and site
Page 11 of 13
photo metrics should be included for review in the Architecture and Site application package.
94.PERMIT SEQUENCING.Flexibility in the sequencing of permits as specified in these conditions
will be allowed subject to the approval of both the Director of Community Development and the
Dii'ector of Parks and Public Works.A bond will be required for the demolition work if demolition
is allowed to occur subsequent to map recordation.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTACLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
95.PUBLIC FIRE HYD RANTS.Public fire hydrant(s)shall be provi~ed at location(s)to be determined
by the Fire Department and the SanJose Water Company.Hydrant(s)shall have a minimum single
flow of 1,OOOGPM at 20 psi residual,with spacing not to exceed 500 feet.Prior to applying for a
building permit,the applicant shall provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants serving the site.
To prevent building permit delays,the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company
ASAP.,
96.HYDRANT LOCATION IDENTIFIER.Priorto project final inspection,the general contractor shall
ensure that an approved ("Blue Dot")fire'hydrant location identifierhas been placed in the roadway,
as directed by the.Fire Dep:;trtment.
97.TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY HYDRANTS.Installations ofrequired fire setvice(s)
and fire hydrant(s)shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department,prior to the start of framing
or delivery of bulk combustible materials.Building permit issuance may be withheld until required
iJlstallatic)11s are completed,tested and accepted.
98.FIRE ACCESS ROADS.The applicant shall provide access roadways with a paved all weather
surfac,e,a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet,vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches,minimum
circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside,and a maximum slope of 15%.
Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-I.
99.FIRE LANE MARKINGS.The applicant shall provide marking for all roadways within the project.
Markings shall be per fire department specifications.Installations shall also conform to Local
Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6.
100.TIMING OF ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS ..Required access roads,up through first lift of
asphalt,shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction.
Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until i~stallation is complete.During
construction,emergency access roads shan be maintained clear and unimpeded unless alternative
solutions are approved by the Fire Department. Prior to issuance ofa building permit,the developer
shall contact the Fire Department to discuss their plan,f6r maintaining the emergency acCess road
during construction.Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are
completed.
101.PREMISES IDENTIFICATION.Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible arid legible fi'om the street or road
fronting the property.Numbers shall contrast with their background.
*Required as Mitigation Measures
SECTION VI
Tn the event that any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid,the invalid pmt or pmts shall be
severed t1'om the remaining portions \-vhich shall remain in full force and effect.
Page 12 0 ['13
SECTION VII
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting ofthe Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos
on March 21,2005,and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a
meeting of the Town Council ofthe Town of Los Gatos on April 4,2005 and takes effect 30 days after it
is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Steve Glickman,Diane McNutt,Joe Pirzynski,Mayor Mike Wasserman
Barbara Spector
None
None
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
I
!-;
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
Page]3 of 13
"'1
I
\
--'"
/l::7FJjJ;ii--:r-----.-1
.'.'.;'.,..,/...../(·"~~i ../~l1
j'I.;ig I~""J I<.~i'.4i 1
~I
O'io I
.'.I,/./....I
...............1
R
15350 Winchester Blvd.
.'~
.:.:.;""
:"~t "
':::
.:;
Application No.PD-oJi-5 Change of zoning map
amending the Town Zoni;ng Qrdinance .
..~;~(n[e ;(JliFange 'fFan1 J3;~k;;~<:1fyo~>~··:'::!··;t@·.f%~:,~:-.~JI.~:\!.~!t)Jf..;:L 'il"
'1'"·~EJ~>~J~~::;~~~J,Jf:;~/.~~:I~ii~~;}g~·--...,;....;.L~~~.,~.:t::.J()~~~=;;:;;;;;;~;;IJ&!I .~".
'.'fQ<rWQi'ded'by Planning Commission date
Mr.Bud Lortz
,Director of Community Development
T own of Los Gatos
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos,CA
Re:Villa Felice Project -15350 Los Gatos Boulevard,Los Gatos
Dear Mr.Lortz:
RE"C"it.E""~'\./ill'"''''''M '",{""..,..i',':"j '.I *=~.,~.~~k",LJT
JAN 1 8 2006
TOWhJ OF LOS Gf'.TOS
PLAf\JhlII\JG DIV1SI0IIJ
The purpose of this letter is to request a minor amendment to the approved PO Zoning
and Architectural and Site approval for the Villa Felice Development to add one
additional residential home and allow for a temporary sales trailer.The number of
dwelling units for this project would increase from 33 to 34 and the density would remain
within the approved density of 5-12 units per acre range.The density for the property
Increases from 5.58 to 5.75 units per acre.
Background
Town Ordinance 2141 amended the PO Zoning for this property to RM:5-12PD and
specifically addresses the potential addition of a unit in article 21 "Additional Unit".The
ordinance states:"One additional unit may be permitted if the applicant and the adjacent
Villa Felice Townhome development agree to eliminate the existing parking easement.
.The addition of this unit will require a minor amendment to the Planned Development
and Architecture and Site approval,both of which may be approved by the Development
Review Committee.Additional environmental review may be required for this unit."
We concluded our Agreement with the Villa Felice Townhome Association to eliminate
the parking easement (western portion of site),and recorded a quitclaim deed and
Amendment to the CC&R's on'July 25,2005.This Agreement included our intention to
develop and construct a house on a portion of the parking easement area;the house is
to be compatible with other houses we are constructing on the property.
In December 2004,the Association requested to see a plan for the 34th lot;we showed
them the proposed plan and they approved the same.The plan we have submitted to
the Town is for the same home in the same location as was shown to the Association.,
We met with the Development Review Committee on December 6,2005 to present our
'plans,and at that meeting,the adjacent homeowners from the Villa Felice Townhome
Association voiced concerns over the design and layout of the additional home.The
primary concerns were:
The two-story home
The loss of privacy
,Response to the concerns
Since the December DRC meeting,we have adjusted the design of the home in an effort
to alleviate the concerns posed by members of the Villa Felice Townhome Association.
2185 The Alameda,Suite 150
Tel (408)345-1767
•San Jose,California 95126-1109
Fax (408)345-1768
Exhibit B
\.
f
To lower the home,we modified the grading plan and lowered the pad elevation 1.3 feet.
It should also be noted that the height of this home is 22 %feet,which is low for a two-
story home.
We have made several modifications to the elevation of the home facing the Association
residents (left elevation)to address concerns over the potential loss of privacy:'
The deck on the second floor has been removed.
All ofthe second story windows are clerestory windows with the exception of two
windows in a secondary bedroom which are 55 feet from the property line,a
generous condition in Los Gatos.
Both single story elements have been lowered utilizing a gable roof.
There are additional details of our plan that provide a buffer between the new
development and the neighboring townhomes:
11 fruitless olive trees (36"box trees)will be planted along the western property line.
The Association has approved the species.
The minimum distance from the proposed home to the western property line is 10
feet,and this portion of the home is a one-story element.The minimum distance to
any second story element is 21 feet.
The story poles have been modified to reflect the changes described above.The orange
netting shows the original conditions and the green netting represents our modifications
as ..outlined in this letter.As the site is currently gated and locked,please call rne at
(408)345-1767 (cell #is (408)761-5188)prior to your visit so I can make sure you have
the proper access to view the story poles.
In closing,we have acted in good faith about our intentions from the start (going back to
December 2004).In the spirit of cooperation we have lowered the pad elevation of the
home,removed the deck and modified several windows to address the neighbors
concerns.Please consider this in your review'of this application.
Sincerely,
Santa Clara Development Company
Ri~Y~l5
(a)In -the event Buyer closes'escrow imder the Bersano Sale.Agreements
described above and under this Agreement,then Buyer intends to develop.and construct 'a house
on a portion of the original Parking Easement area referred to in Recital D above that is.adj acent
to the Parking Area referred to.in the CC&R AmeJ;ldment (and such ho~se shall be.architecturally
compatible with.the other houses.Gontemplated to be constructed by Buyer on the Purchase .
Property).The Homeowners Association acknowledge~Buyer's right to.develop and construct
such house as described in the iIIlJ,llediately preceding sentence and has.no objection t~the same.
The Homeowners.AssoCiation,on behalf of itself and its members~agrees not to.object to or
oppose.the 'development or construction of such house as described above .
.(b)Principals and affiliates of Buyer are real estate brokers or salespersons
licensed in the.State of Arizona..
ARTICLE 8
.NOTICES
All notices cailed for pursuant to these instructions shall be given'in writing by personal
delivery,or by facsimile (With copy of such notice'sent not later than'the next'day by mail 'or
overnight private courtier in accord.ance with the provisions herein)or by overnj.ght mail ·or
overnight private coUrier.Facsimile notices shall be deemed received on the day sent if sent prior
.to 6:00 p.m.Pacific.Time or if sent after 6:00.p.m.Pac~fic.Time,then deemed.received on the next
day.Overnight mail or couriered notices shall be deemed received the.day following deposit into
the U.S.mail or delivery to the.private courier..Mailed or couriered notices shall be addressed'as .
set forth below,.but either party may change .its address by giving written notice thereof to the other .
in accordance with the provisions of this.ArtiCle.. .
To Homeowners Association:Villa Felice Homeowners.Association
c/o Angius &Terry
1990..N ..California Blvd.,Suite 950
P.O ..Box 8077
Walnut Creek,CA 94590
AttrI,:Daniel Angius..
Facsimile No.:(925).939.-9934
.To.Buyer:
With a copy to:
\SLF\64 7734.5
04270.5-i 39i 5005
.Santa Clara Development Company .
2185.The Alameda
San Jose,CA .95126 .
Attn:.Mark Robson
Facsimile No.:(408).761-5188
Berliner Cohen
lO AJmadem Boulevard,11 th Floor
San Jose,CA95113
Attn:SarnFarb,Esq .
.Facsimile No.:(408)998-5388
-11-Exhibit C
BUYER:
Dated:0"~'n.12.(,2005 ROBSON HOMES,LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:Robson Properties,Inc.,
a California corporatiol).
Its:Managing Member
By:
Name:MarkE.Robson
Its:President
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION:
Dated:%,L.l.llMo....lJ~'d..~__:,2005
:!
VILLA FELICE HOMEOWNERS,ASSOCIATION,
a California nonprofit mutual.:Qt?nefit corporation
By:\';~1,,<>'.",(_,~
Name:S:::f;:l"%'~\e.C'f*:£f Q \\
Its:EtA,n:&;::,t '
p.;;'1'.<~lo'k4!
N N'li.',&:SfN fXt::rJ.-{•
-------.(is;~c rer2.f'vt •
The undersigned hereby accepts and agrees to follow the escr<iw instmctions,contained in this
Agreement.,
I
I
J I
J!
,t '
i
\~,>I
FlRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY
By:
Name:
Its:,
\SLA647734.5 -
042705-13915005 -14-
RE C E ~\t'Ii"::..,"",a .'~.f~U ~/It:~~
NOV 1 2005
TOWN OF LOS GJi.TOS
PLANNH\lG DIVISIOlo,J
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 2:15350 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Development Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Applications S-06-12
Requesting approval to amend a Planned Development from 33 residential lots to 34
residential lots,approval of the subdivision for the extra lot and approval to construct a
single famil y residence on the new lot and to install a temporary s ales trailer/model home
office for property zoned RM:5-12:PD.APNS 424-29-024 through 026
PROPERTY OWNERJAPPLICANT:Santa Clara Development Co.
1.Chair Baily opened the public hearing.
2.Staff gave report on proposed project.
.3.Applicant was introduced.
4.Members of the public were present:
Peggy Levine,Unit #15,expressed concern for her neighbors.
Adele Guerzor,Unit #2,stated that story poles emphasized the impact which would reduce her
privacy.She would favor a single story.
Barbara Summers,Unit #1,expressed concern for her neighbors.
Leonard Ataide,property management company representing Unit #3,expressed concern over
the height of the building.
Christine Kuhn,Unit #14, expressed concern for neighbors.
Peter Liljegren,Unit #5,believes he's most impacted.He provided photos.Loss of privacy and·
light are his biggest issues.He is also concerned with the loss of property values.A cellar was
recommended instead of a second floor.
Mary Bogatellos,Unit #26,on the south side of the development,expressed concern regarding
loss of parking and wanted to make sure the applicant was aware that townhouse developments
always seem to struggle with parking demands.
The applicant responded that they are willing to get rid of the deck and eliminate windows.They
may be able to clip the roof and possibly drop one foot.They may also be able to drop the plate
of the dining room.However,they prefer to keep the second floor.
5.Public hearing closed.
6.Ghiossi moved to forward the matter to the Planning Commission.
7.Parsons seconded;motion passed unanimously.
Exhibit D
November 27,2005
RE:Proposed Planned Development Changes At 15350 Winchester Blvd
Town Of Los Gatos
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E.Main St
Los Gatos,CA 95031
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
TOWN OF LOS GJ>,TOS
PLANNiI"-lG DIViSION
Santa Clara Development Co.'s proposal to add a two story home behind Villa Felice Units #4 and #5
(15300 Winchester Blvd)is a bad plan.The addition of a two story home is a gross invasion of privacy
for units #4 and #5 but also my residence at Villa Felice Unit #2.This proposed home with balcony can
be seen from my liVing/dining room,2nd bedroom and my backyard.The story poles helped clarify the
impact of this poor proposal.
I respectively ask that the request to add a two story home in that specific location be rejected.I would
suggest that a one story home is more appropriate for that particular location.
Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.I have received the public notice to review this
subject on December 6th @ 9:00 AM.I will plan to attend the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Adele Guerzon
Villa Felice Homeowner,Unit #2
(408)354-9920
ALG
cc:Santa Clara Development Co.
Villa Felice HOA Board of Directors
Villa Felice Homeowners,Units 1-5
Jones and Forrest,Inc.
Exhibit E
November 30,2005
RE:Proposed Request to Amend Planned Development From 33 Residential Lots to 34
Residential Lots at 15350 Winchester Blvd.
TOVVIl of Los Gatos
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 East Main Street,
Los Gatos,CA 95031
i ~.
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,I J)0,lf l /oPV
.A
V v/
Santa Clara Development Corporation's proposal to add a two story home behind Villa
Felice Units #5 and #4 (15300 Winchester Blvd.)is a bad proposal.The addition of a two
story unit and the precise placement of that balconied Unit on the Easement -only 10
feet from our boundary wall:adversely impacts lighting,privacy,esthetics and near &
long term property values of Units #5 through #1 in total dollar amounts far greater than
$300,000.The greatest damage would be to Unit #5,then Unit #4 then #3,#2 and #l.
While two story drawings indicate a damaging impact,the story-poles clarifies this threat
of turning our environment into something comparable to a high density low rent student
ghetto..
I respectively ask that the Planning Commissionreject the requested amendment to
increase approved residential lots from 33 to 34.Open space is a better use of this land.
My initial suggestion:reject all requests to increase lot density until:a)a specific
building is architected and 'foot printed'to the ground (a general example:a small single
story with a living basement),b)any specific building and site plan must be unanimously
approved by Units #5,#4,#3,#2,and #1 and c)any City approval to increase lot size is
rescinded if Santa Clara Development Corporation later revises building and site plans
that were approved by Units #5,#4,#3,#2 and #1.
Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.I have received the public notice to
review this subject on December 6th at 9:00 AM.I plan to attend the public hearing.Do
your best to schedule it early on your calendar,as I have work obligations later in the
morning.
cc:Santa Clara Development Corporation
Villa Felice BOA Board of Directors
Villa Felice Homeowners,Units #1-5
Jones and Forrest,Inc.
Sincerely,
"[,.,1--j)f J,.)'.f,/'}6""'''''''''",,-,.f
Robert Peter Liljegren,cell:650346 3267
Villa Felice Bomeovvner,Unit #5I
J
Exhibit F
@".,oo-""I I..,....-.....;
Sydney &Peggy Levin
15300 Winchester Blvd.,#15
Los Gatos,CA 95030
408-395-6738
December 1,2005
-,
Re:Proposed Planned Development Changes at 15350 Winchester Blvd.
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
Thank you for the story poles showing the height of the proposed two-story building at
15350 Winchester Blvd.,Los Gatos.They helped clarify the height and the obtrusiveness
of the proposed building.We would like to register our particular concern for the owners
of Units 2 through 5 (parallel to Winchester Blvd.)and our complaint as owners of Unit
#15.
The construction of a two-story home at this new lot site is a gross invasion of privacy
for Units 2 -5 because the second story provides views into their living rooms,bedrooms
and patios.A one-story building would be more appropriate.
The Planning Commission has expressed former concern with "intensity and density"of
this project at planning commission meetings.Please view personally the story poles for
this two-story proposed structure to appreciate the intensity and the impact this building
will have on the neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.We plan to attend the meeting in response to
your notice of public hearing on December 6 at 9 a.m.
Sincerely,
Sydney and Peggy Levin
Villa Felice Residences,Unit 15
408-395-6738
Cc:Santa Clara Development
Villa Felice Homeowners
Jones &Forrest
Exhibit G
Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Villa Felice Project
Planned Development Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Application S-06-12
The Town of Los Gatos adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the Villa Felice
residential development project on March 21,2005.The adopted MND and its supporting Initial
Study (IS)provide the environmental analyses for the project as required under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The MND and IS also specify required mitigation measures
that ensure the project's impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels during and after
completion of the project.
Subsequent to the approval of the proposed project,the project applicant prepared a revised
project plan that incorporates certain changes into the project design.Under CEQA,the lead
agency,the Town of Los Gatos,must make a determination regarding the potential environmental
impacts resulting from such changes.CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 provide
direction and guidance for the further evaluation of the project.Under certain circumstances,a
subsequent EIR or negative declaration will need to be prepared for the proposed project (Section
15162).Alternatively,Section 15164(b)states:
"An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration
have occurred."
The revised Villa Felice project proposes to develop 34 residential units rather than the 33 units
originally specified by project design.The additional residential unit would be developed on a
portion of the site that would have been developed with one residence and proposed parking (Lot
33).The additional residential unit would be consistent with the design plans for the previously
proposed 33 units.The revised project design would reduce parking by 11 spaces;however,the
revised project plans would still conform to the Town's parking requirements.
A review of the proposed project revisions was conducted in order to determine whether the
revisions constituted substantial changes that will require major revisions to the MND.Under
Section 15162 of CEQA,major revisions of a negative declaration are required if such substantial
changes result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.The review of the revised project indicated that the
addition of one residential unit would not constitute a substantial change in the project and that
the development of the additional residence would not involve new significant environmental
effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Consequently,the preparation of an addendum to the MND is appropriate for the revised project.
In order to address the project revisions,the adopted MND and IS were revised to account for the
addition of one residential unit.The revised MND and IS are attached.No new significant
environmental effects were identified during this review.The significant environmental effects
identified under the adopted MND would not substantially increase in severity as a result of the
1 Exhibit H
project revisions.The review identified potential environmental effects for aesthetics and parking.
The environmental impact resulting from the addition of one residential unit to the proposed
project was determined to be consistent with the impacts previously identified for the project;
these environmental effects would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by the adopted
mitigation measures.No new mitigation measures would be watranfed for the revised project
design.
2
Summer Solstice (Jun.'21)WmterSolstice (Dec.21)
1\<12
01·10-2006
[)II
Preliminary
8hadow
&ludy
~,~
~;..'"
SANTACU\RA
DEVELOPMENT-,1'-!i-¥~'Ii~l.~ll,:Oi.~'!:1ete~.u.,.
'2165 The .'Jnmc<ln.~t".'1,0
~1I\J,,5¢.c:,\9)126
KIS.'>!;.I7f,/
NORTH
PROJECT #:
SHEET #:
SCALE,
DATE:
15J5
43.65
16.85
-41-'20
D
9:00 AM
Altitude:
Azimuth:
3:00PM
Altitude:
Azimuth:
12:00 PM
Altitude:'29 .30
;Azirnllth:1.67
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNli\lG DIVISIOI\l
""'<""~Latiliide:37.'245
LODgitude:121.972 W
TIme Zone:Pacilic Standard Time
3:00 PM
AlUtude:6'2.1
Azimuth:-675
1'2:00 PM
Altitude:'69.6
Azimuth:5'2.2
9:00AM
.Altitude:35.4
)Azimuth:94.'2
)
REPORT TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
Date:-----"J-'="an""'u""'a""'ry.,.L....::2""-5"-',2",-,0,,-,,0,-,=6,----
For Agenda Of:January 25,2006
Agenda Item:--'1"-_
DESK ITEM
The Planning Commission
The Director of Community Development
15350 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Deve10prrient Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Applications S-06-12
Requesting approval ofa minor Planned Development amendment to add
one additiona110t as permitted by the approved Planned Development,
approval of the subdivision for the additiona110t,approval to construct
a single family residence on the new lot and approval to install a
temporary sales trailer/model home office for property zoned RM:5-
12:PD.APNS 424-29-024 through 026
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:Santa Clara Development Co.
EXHIBITS:
REMARKS
A-M:
N.
Previously Submitted
Letter from Sydney and Peggy Levin (one page)received
January 25,2006.
Subsequent to the review of the Development Review Committee,the applicant modified the lot
configuration to provide more common area and less area for the proposed lot.Therefore,the
currently proposed size of the lot is 7,000 square feet,not 8,070 square feet as noted in the report.
concern regarding the new house (Exhibit N).
Bud N.Lortz,D rector ofCommumty f:Jeveropment
Prepared by:Sandy L.Baily,Associate Planner
BNL:SLB:mdc
N :\DEV\REPORTS\2006\villafelice.dsk.wpd
Attachment 8
Sydney &Peggy Levin
15300 Winchester Blvd.,#15
Los Gatos,CA 95030
408-395-6738
January 21,2006
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95030
R·It=~~~VED•'lb"fu,•."~J lJbmn m ..'.
JAI~2 G 2006
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
~l/\NNING DIVISION
Re:Proposed Planned Development Changes at 15350 Winchester Blvd.
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
We have viewed the new story poles showing the height of the proposed two-story
building at 15350 Winchester Blvd.,Los Gatos.We would like to register our particular
concern for the owners of Units 2 through 5 (parallel to Winchester Blvd.)and our
complaint as owners of Unit #15.
The construction of a two-story home,even with the most recent proposed changes,at
this new lot site is a gross invasion of privacy for Units 2 -5.The second story shuts out
light to those lots and creates extreme density and intensity to the properties.Desirable .
views from the windows and patios,especially from Units 5 and 4,are grossly
compromised and property values are decreased.A one-story building would be more
appropriate.
The Planning Commission has expressed former concern with "intensity and density"of
this project at planning commission meetings.Please view personally the story poles for
this two-story proposed structure to appreciate the undesirable impact this building will
have on the neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.We plan to attend the meeting in response to
your notice of public hearing on January 25 at 7 p.m..
Sincerely,
4gJ"\-l~
Sydney and Peggy Levin
Villa Felice Residences,Unit 15
408-395-6738
Cc:Santa Clara Development
Villa Felice Homeowners
Exhibit N
<5uxrnttteJ
n'tebr-o
GL+PC
'/rJ6jL~
Attachment 9
I
SANTA CLARA
DEVELOPMENT
An affiliate of Robson Communities
.March 14,2006
Mayor and Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E.Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95030
RE:Villa Felice -Additional Home
Dear Mayor and Town Council:
MAR 1 Lj 2006
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLAN[\jii\JG DIVISION
On January 25,2006 The Town's Planning Commission granted Santa Clara
Development Company approval to construct an additional home in our Villa Felice
project on an easement area previously purchased from the neighboring Villa Felice
Townhome Association.The approval was subsequently appealed by the Villa Felice
Townhome Association due to their concerns regarding privacy and the massing of the
two-story elements of the proposed home.The purpose of this letter is to request that
the Town Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval for the additional home.
The Association actively participated in the entitlement process for this project and the
negotiations for the purchase/sale of the easement;they were fully aware of our
.intentions for the additional home.This being said,we have spent considerable time
and resources to modify our plans to address their concerns.The design of the home we
are submitting for approval today provides for privacy to the neighbors and is of a mass
and scale appropriate for this neighborhood.
The original Conditions of Approval for the Villa Felice project allowed for one additional
home if the parking easement on the western portion of our site was eliminated through
an agreement with the adjacent Villa Felice Townhome Association.We signed an
agreement with the Association in June 2005 to purchase the easement.In July 2005,
we paid the Association $300,000 and closed escrow on the property.
During the process of negotiations to purchase the easement from the Association,
Santa Clara Development Company was up front with the Association about our
intentions to construct an additional two-story home on the easement area.
In December 2004,we met with the Association and its board to present a Letter of
Intent to purchase the easement.At the same meeting,we presented a plan,which
showed the proposed new home in the easement area -an identical plan was
submitted to the Town in August 2005 with our application for the 34th lot.(See
Exhibits A and B,letter and site plan dated December 2004)
In January 2005,story poles representing the two-story massing of the homes in our
project were placed throughout the site.In a specific effort to demonstrate to the
Association what the additional home would look like,story-poles were placed on Lot
33,the lot immediately adjacent to the easement we were negotiating to purchase.
2185 The Alameda,Suite 150
Tel (408)345-1767
•San Jose,California 95126-1109
Fax (408)345-1768 Attachment 10
With legal representation,the Association signed the Agreement,which includes
specific language in paragraph 7:2(a)addressing this issue:"Buyer intends to
develop and construct a house on a portion of the original Parking Easement area
referred to in Recital D above that is adjacent to the Parking Area referred to in the
CC&R Amendment (and such house shall be architecturally compatible with the
other houses contemplated to be constructed by Buyer on the Purchase Property).
The Homeowner's Association acknowledges Buyer's right to develop and construct
such house as described in the immediately preceding sentence and has no
objection to the same.The homeowner's Association,on behalf of itself and its
members,agrees not to object to or oppose the development or construction of such
a house as described above."(See Exhibit C,complete paragraph)
Although the Association sold us the property with an agreement not to object to our
proposed home,the Association voiced concerns over privacy and the massing of the
home,ultimately filing an appeal.We have continued to modify our plans to design a
home that fUlly addresses these concerns.
The neighbors'concerns are in reference to the second story elements of the home
along the western property line.To secure the neighbor's privacy in this area,all second
story windows facing the adjacent homes are designed as clerestory windows or frosted
glass (See Exhibit D,elevations).Additionally,the minimum second story setback from
the neighboring property line is 24 feet.This exceeds the 20-foot setback requirement of
a typical R-1:8 Los Gatos neighborhood.The minimum distance from the neighbors'
homes to the second story of the proposed home is approximately 45 feet (See Exhibit
E,siteplan).
For the reasons outlined above,Santa Clara Development Company respectfully
requests that the Council uphold the Planning Commissions approval to construct the
additional home.Please note that the story poles on lot 34 have recently been re-
constructed to show the changes made to our plans since the Planning Commission
meeting -the home has been moved 3 feet further away from the western property line
and two full size windows on the left elevation have been replaced with clerestory
windows with a sill of 6 feet (See exhibits D and E).As the site is secure,please contact
me at (408)345-1767 or (408)761-5127 so we can open up the gate for you to access
the property.
Sincerely,
Santa Clara 2::-~nt Com pan
~7 ../,
Mark Robson
;.
(.~.
~.',
~SANTA CLARA.~.Q!i~2~~lj~T
December 16,2004
Board dDirectors and Prop~rty Owners
Villa Felice'HomeoWners Association
15300 Winchester Boulevard
Los Gatos,CA 95030 .
RE:Parking Easement
EXH!B!T A
Dear Board of Directors and Property Owners:
.Thank you for meeting with us today to review our interest in the Parking Easement located on
the Villa Felice Lodge property next door.
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL -March 16,2004
•$100,000 p~dd to the HOA to remove the easement from the property.
III No future visitor parking rights on the Villa Felice Lodge property.
III Subsequently we were asked to provide a site plan including the easement area and
.the plan included 2-J homes in the easement area.
•Clean-up some CC&R issues including entry easement,sign easement that the Lodge
property has on the ROA property,etc.
REVISED PROPOSAL -December 16,2004
e $300,000 paid to the HOA to remove the easement from the property.
III ROA members will be allowed to utilize the approximate 8 spaces in the front of our
project under the same timeframes as the existing easement (visitors only during
daytime honis).
•Revised site plan includes 1 home in the easement area.
III We will replace 2 sections ofthe wall that are damaged and our project.will maintain
the wall.
a Clean-up the CC&R issues.
This letter is intended to be a non-binding proposal until a complete and detailed Agreement is
signed by both parties.Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,.
Santa Clara Devell9lJlner:rteompany--
Mark Robson
President
2185 The Alameda,Suite 150
Tel (408)345-1767
G San Jose,California 95126-1109
Fax (408)345-1768
..,EXHIBIT C
(a)Authority.The person(s)executing this Agreement on behalf of the
Homeowners .Association are authorized to bind the Homeowners Association and the
Homeowners.Association is authorized and empowered to perform its obligati()ns hereunder.
..
(b)Organization and Authority.The Homeowners Association has the full right
and authority and has obtained any and all consents required to enter into this Agreement,to
consummate or cause to.be consummated the sale of the Parking Easement and the other
tnmsactions .described herein,and to execute,acknowledge and deliver the Homeowners
Association Quitclaim Deed and the CC&R Amendment.This Agreement and all of the
documents to be delivered by the Homeowners.Association at or prior to the Closing hereunder
have been and will be·authorized and properly executed and will constitute.the valid and binding
obligations ofthe Homeowners Association,enforceable in accordance with their term.s.
(c).Ownership of Parking Easement.The Homeowners Association is the sole
owner of the.Parking Easement (and the rights underBection 2.12 of the CC&Rs.appurtenant to
Parcel 1 identified on the 1982 Map)and,other than the owner of the.underlying fee title.to
Parcel 4 upon.which the Parking Easement is situated,no third party or parties.hold an interest in
such Parking Easement (or the ri~ts under Section 212.of the CC&Rs appurtenant to Parcell
identified on the 1982 Map).
(d)Requisite Vote ofLot Owners.The Homeowners Association has
.obtained the.requisite number of votes from the owners of the.fourteen (14)lots identified on the
1982 Tract Map.(as required under the CC&Rs)to enter into ·this.Agreement and to.perform the
covenants,-agreements.and obligations of the Homeowners.Associ~tidn described herein..This
Agreement,.the Homeowners Association Qui~claim Deed and the CC&R Amendment have been
approved by the requisite number of owners ofthe fourteen (14)lotsidentified.on the.1982 Tract
Map (as.required by the CC&Rs)and such requisite number of owners of such lots have
approved the execution and recordation of the Homeowners Association Quitclaim Deed and
CC&R Amendment..
(e)."Foreign Person".The Homeowners Association is not a "foreign person'"
within the meaning of Section 1445(f)(3).of the futemal Revenue.Code,as amended (the "Code"),
and the Homeowners Association will furnish to Buyer,prior to the Closing,an affidavit
confirming the same.
Buyer hereby discloses to the Homeowners Association theDisclosure.
The.representations and warranties of the Homeowners.Association set forth in
Sections 7.1(a)-(e)above.shall survive.the Close.of Escrow hereunder...All obligations and
liabilities.of the parties under this Agreement shall survive.the.Close.of Escrow.and shall not
merge into the.Homeowners Association Quitclaim Deed referred-to in Section 5.1(a)above.
-I-·7.2
~following:
\SLF\647734.5
042705-13915005 -10-
·ITIIE···.'."T."T.~"·.:'.'.'.'I"·.···"'.-I·.(..,~--+:.
,f!!·
QIGIIT ELEVATION QEAR ELEVATION
CONCEPTUAl,
ELEVA'1'Ji\N£
PLAN 2B -1,01'34
SlNTA QARA
Q';;{fJ,,2PMg!:iT
2185 rt>e "la:nw.&Id/l 1SO
SenJo:;a.C".~126
~i)6.3"5.1161
(\)
.::.""::.::"c:.:":....'._~.L
SHEET l.A-
McLaral1d,Vasquez &Partners Int'l:
Ie I,'
m><:::I:
OJ
-I
o
FRONT ELEVATIONLEFTELEVATION
March 10,2006
Scale:1"-20'
Drown:
Checked:
NlIlIe:3263EX01.DWG ENGINEERS
EXHIBIT E
San Jose
(408)487·220.0
Gilroy
(408)848-0707
www.hmiHtnglneera.com
l7
LOT 33
.',:x.~''''''~~\.,,.....•'';\.
.~,:;Y '\(,)\
,l
L..--.i....."'$'~-"''''.....'''.....",.,.I ;,.....__"".....""',....."..,..,~_..,"'''''''''_....''''.,,=::,::
\\J..F'"r-'<_---11
\..........S:.
"\.,."rP
,.../'"
Lot 34
House Location Exhibit