2010081806 - Attachment 15~~~~~
T.H.I.S.
DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT RUC C 2 ~:. ~
Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 T01NN CF LOS GA`fOS
Fax: 408.354.1823 Tel: 408.354.1863 PLANNWG DiVI~ION
i~-v~-c'i3
110 E. Main Street '' _ ~~7 -~'~3
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn: Town Counci I
July 30th, 2010
15928 Union Avenue Subsivision.
M-08-13, ND-09-02
Mme Mayor and Councilmembers:
You are fully aware of the 2.5 year history of this project, so I will not subject you to
a complete recap.
The last time this came before you, the Planning Commission had denied the subdivision
7-0 based on State Subdivision Map Act findings (c), (d), primarily because of the
pseudo "flag-lot" approach that I had taken in its design. Even though my reason was to
separate the houses from the neighboring homes -this was not deemed an adequate
reason to justify the unusual lot layout.
When you deliberated on the matter, you agreed that the design was rather contrived
and suggested that finding (b) might better represent the reason for denial. However,
we suggested that we could eliminate the "flag-lot" design approach in a manner not
previously discussed with the Planning Commission so you returned the matter in a 5-0
vote for redesign and reconsideration.
Some specific directions accompanied that vote:
Panorama Way should be considered the primary "neighborhood" and that less
weight should be given to Leewood Ct.
The "rhythm" of the existing lots on Panorama does not necessarily mandate an
orthogonal layout round the Cul-de-Sac.
Planning Commissioners should explicitly identify "reasons" for denial findings.
At the most recent Planning Commission hearing we presented both a new subdivision
design and the A&S design for two of the 3 houses. This was based on earlier requests
from neighbors who had complained that they wanted to see a more complete picture.
Unfortunately only 5 Commissioners were present and we were denied 3-2, but this was
a significant improvement over our original 7-0 denial one year earlier.
ATTACI[MEENT 15
SUBDIVISION DENIAL
Reasons for denial were based on State Subdivision Map Act findings (b) and (d). We
have nppealed because we believe that the Commission erred:
(d) "The site is not Physically Suitable for the DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT"
33,466 net lot size / 3 parcels = 11,155 square ft average size.
In an R1-8000 zoning district on a flat lot, parcels > 8,000 ft are ok.
In a simply Mathematical rule this design is Fully Compliant. Planning
staff has repeatedly informed the Commission of this.
The only articulated reason for disapproving density was given as "the lot
may be too narrow". This is not a density issue. The resulting Pnrcels
created comply with ALL town ordinances in this matter.
(b) "The DESIGN OR IMPROVEMENTS of the Proposed Subdivision is
inconsistent with the General Plan"
• "Design" of the subdivision was not a given reason for denial.
• "Improvements" were the given reason for Denial.
Unfortunately "Improvements of a Subdivision" relate to: Public street,
Cul-de-Snc, Sidewalk, Curb and gutter, Storm drains, Lighting, Screen
trees, Public utilities, easements, etc. Not the design of the Houses.
The discussion in the hearing related to the appropriateness of the design of the house
on Parcel 2, which is not a Subdivision Improvement. The A&S hearing for n particular
house is the time to address the house. The subdivision design and improvements were
never questioned in this proposal as they hnd been in the last proposal.
See Attachment for Options Considered:
We removed the issue of "Possible Flag Lot" from the table, which was our ORIGINAL
3 LOT APPLICATION, and we also considered an ORTHOGONAL CONFIGURATION,
which we rejected because of the boxy home designs that would result.
The Subdivision Design we selected gave us 2 "Variations on a Theme" TM1 and TM2.
We would prefer TM2, which gives better yards for the homes, but are otherwise
identical.
There were no valid reasons for denial of the subdivision and we ask you to
overturn their decision and approve the subdivision as requested.
ARCHITECTURE & SITE DENIAL
With Subdivision denial, A$S denial for the demolition of the existing home and the
approval of the 2 new homes was automatic.
Demolition of the Existing Home:
We ask you to approve the A&5 application for demolition of the existing home (which
is required]. We would ask you to address Construction Traffic access to the site from
either Panorama or Union and give direction.
A&S Approval for Parcel 3:
There were no objections to the design of the home on Parcel 3 at the Planning
Commission hearing and we would ask you to approve it in overturning the Commission's
Denial of this project.
A&S Approval for Parcel 2:
We would ask you to approve the home on Parcel 2:
• This house has been strategically placed so as not to directly block views and
light to the two homes to the north (Mangano & Lynott].
• It has been designed to respect neighbors' privacy.
• It is significantly under the FAR for the lot.
• It is compatible with neighboring FARs.
• It is 200 square ft smaller than the house on Parcel 3.
• It has been designed to Reduce Massing in a variety of ways. [See attachment]
• It is a 2 story home flanked by 2 story homes on Leewood & Mangano's house
and at under 24' is shorter than the adjacent home on Cambrian at 24'6".
• It has been reviewed and approved by the Town Consulting Architect.
It is important to note that n Series of Compromises [See attachment) has been made
by the Owner in getting to where we are now. None has been made by the neighbors.
We ask you to approve this fully compliant project and allow it to proceed.
I look forward to discussing this in more detail at the Town Council hearing,
Thank you,
Tony Jeans for T,H.I.S. Design
Cc Jeff Grant
1
1
ORIGINAL 3 LOT APPLICATION
1
- :S'
6' 6
t~~~~
f
1
1
• Meets Zoning Guidelines
• Shared Driveway
• Separation f rom (N) Prop Line
• Neighbors keep "Views to Hills"
Rejected by Commission and Counci I
• Neighborhood Compatibility
ORTHOGONAL CONFIGURATION
• Meets Zoning Guidelines
• Follows Panorama Alignment
Rejected by Developer
• Blocks Neighbor "Views to Hills"
• Lots 2&3 narrower than desired
• Creates "boxy" house designs
- tr --~
6' knee at popeny Ilne
New Screen Treys
12' Rdwd
[TM2 ]: 3 LOT APPLICATION
• Meets Zoning Guidelines
• Aligns homes round Cul-de-Sac
• Separation f rom (N) Homes
• Neighbors keep "Views to Hills"
Preferred Configuration
• More Desirable Yards than TM1
• Greater Panorama Frontage
[TM1J: 3 LOT APPLICATION
• Meets Zoning Guidelines
• Identical House Placement
Alternate Configuration
• Conventional "Pie" shaped lots
New Screen Tree!
- 17 RAW
AREAS OF COMPROMISE
Subdivision Design
1 Number of Lots
2 Cul de Sac design
3 Tree screening
4 Tree Screening
5 Tree saved
6 Drainage
7 Construction Access
8 PL Fence
9 Initial Study
10 Original 3 Lot proposal
11 Adjusted rear PL
12 Made Parcel 2 Smallest
House Design #1
Developer wanted 4, neighbors wanted 2
Sidewalk added to original proposal
Redwoods for Martinez -neighbor on Union/Leewood
Other suggestions by developer - no neighbor input
Chinese Elm to be saved =suggested by Martinez
Worked hard with Town &Buessing on problems
Panorama vs Union [Undecided]
Mangano &Lynott requested 7' fence. OK.
Requested by PC for modified Cul de Sac design
Flag-type design gets better neighbor house separation
Benefits Lynott to guarantee no building in her viewshed.
Forces a smaller house next to neighbors.
1 Single Story At request of Lynott, Buessing, Martinez
2 Garage Placement At request of Lynott for privacy
3 Build Round Chinese Elm At request of Lynott, Martinez to retain beneficial canopy
4 Retain tree #10 Live Oak At request of Lynott for privacy screen
House Design #2
1 Reduced Height
2 Smaller than #3
3 Reduced Mass
4 Under FAR
5 Placement
6 Screen Trees
House Design #3
1 Reduced Height
2 Under FAR
Under 24ft is 20% under allowed limit
200 sq ft smaller than #3
Mass Reduction Strategies used to mimize massing
Under FAR
Placed between neighbor homes for privacy, views & light.
Significant screening proposed at PL
24' 6 -some as neighbor/Cambrian, less than Leewood
Under FAR
Mass REDUCrtoN sTRaTEGIEs
• Boston/Dutch Gable
Secondary Profile 160.8 Feet 2
Primary Profile 919.3 Feet 2
pnn~i~n 1d77 R Fnnt 2
• Stepped Back Dormers
• Roof Slopes Away f rom Property Lines
• Roof Hips Away from Street
• Heavy Articulation
• Smaller 2nd Story 'Footprint'
• Maximize Visibility Lines
10'~
7' Fence at PL
Proposed Parcel #2
PROFILE MASS:
Maximize ' Uisibility Lines'
Boston/Dutch Gable
Stepped Back Dormers
~r-- Slope Roof Away from PL
• Primary Profile 919.3 sf
• Primary + Secondary 1080.1 sf
Mangano Residence
PROFILE MASS
• Primary Profile 1477.8 sf