The URL can be used to link to this page

2011013101 - 15928 Union AvenueMEETING DATE: 01/31/11 ITEM NO. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 20, 2011 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER _Ai — SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-09-33. PROPERTY LOCATION: 15928 UNION AVENUE, PARCEL 2. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'CONNOR LLC. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: TONY JEANS. CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. RECOMMENDATION: After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that the Town Council: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Architecture and Site application S-09- 33 (motion required) and 2. Adopt the resolution denying the appeal (Attachment 1) (motion required). ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively the Council may: • Determine that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified and find one or more of the following: a. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or b. 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 c. 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. If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission is new information as defined in Subsection (b) 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. PREPARED BY: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: ' i' Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 1/20/11 2:16 PM PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE / FILE #S-09-33. January 20, 2010 • Remand the Architecture and Site application to the Planning Commission with specific direction (motion required); or • Grant the appeal using the findings and conditions included with the resolution (Attachment 2) and approve the application. Conditions of approval (Attachment 3) may be modified as appropriate (motion required). BACKGROUND: On June 9, 2010, the Planning Commission considered a request to demolish a single-family residence, to subdivide a .93 acre property into three lots, and to construct two new residences. The Commission denied all applications, citing concerns about inconsistency with the neighborhood, density, intensity of land use, and the suitability of the proposed development for the site. The applicant appealed the Commission's decision on June 10, 2010. On August 16, 2010, the Town Council considered the appeal and approved the demolition of the existing residence, three -lot subdivision, and new home for Parcel 3. The Architecture and Site (A&S) application for the new home on Parcel 2 was remanded to the Planning Commission. Council directed the applicant to reduce the mass, lower the height, and to increase the side -yard setback to at least 9%2 feet (see Exhibit 6 to Attachment 6). On December 8, 2010, the Planning Commission considered revised plans for the proposed residence. The Commission was unable to define which surrounding homes define the neighborhood and unanimously denied the application. The Commission requested that the Council determine if the proposed residence is compatible with the neighborhood, that the neighborhood be defined, and that a determination be made as to whether the size of the home is appropriate given the direction to reduce the massing (refer to Attachment 5). DISCUSSION: A. Project Summary The project site is located at the south end of Panorama Way; the subject parcel will front on a cul- de-sac that will be constructed with approved subdivision improvements. A 3,400 square foot two- story residence has been approved on Parcel 3, the lot that abuts the project site on the south side. Adjacent properties to the north and east are developed with single family homes. An application has not yet been filed for development of Parcel 1, the abutting property to the west. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,039 square foot two-story home with a 632 square foot attached garage. The size of the house was 3,054 square feet with the original proposal, and the garage size was 682 square feet. The house will meet the minimum required setbacks with the north side setback increased to 10 feet (Council requested a minimum of 91/2 feet). Refer to the Planning Commission report for additional information on the proposed project (Attachment 6). PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE / FILE #S-09-33. January 20, 2010 B. Planning Commission On December 8, 2010, the Planning Commission considered the A&S application. Following public testimony where several neighbors spoke on the matter, the Commission had an extended discussion before voting unanimously to deny the application. The Commission cited concerns about the size of the proposed residence and the difficulty in determining whether it is compatible with the neighborhood. Several Commissioners felt that the neighborhood is not well defined and were conflicted on which surrounding homes should be considered relevant to evaluation of the proposed residence. Several Commissioners questioned whether the maximum height of the house should be required to strictly comply with the Council's direction to lower the height by at least two feet. A small area of the roof extends above 21 feet 11 inches, the maximum height with the two foot reduction. The main ridge has been lowered three feet from the original plans reviewed with the subdivision. Staff believes that the applicant is meeting the intent of the directive to lower the height by two feet. The Commission also expressed concern as to whether the reduction of mass is appropriate given that the overall size of the house is only slightly smaller than the house that was not approved by the Council. The Commission recommended that if the application is approved, the second floor balcony be relocated so that it does not impact the neighbor at 15910 Union Avenue. The applicant has included a revised plan showing the balcony shifted from the rear to the front elevation. C. Appeal The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in finding that the proposed residence is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment 4 is the applicant's appeal statement and a supplemental letter that further explains why he believes the appeal should be granted and the project approved. The applicant has included a revised design for the second floor that moves the balcony from the rear to the side of the house. The size of the second floor increases from 709 to 755 square feet with the alternative design. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the subdivision. The MND and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved by the Town Council on August 16, 2010. No further environmental analysis is required for the subject application. CONCLUSION: The size of the proposed residence is within the allowable FAR for the property. The Council should determine if the proposed plans comply with the direction provided to the applicant on August 16, 2010. Pages 3 and 4 of the December 8, 2010, staff report (Attachment 6) include analysis of the Council directives. If the Council decides that the height is not fully compliant, the following condition should be added and staff will work with the applicant to revise the plans: HEIGHT. The rnaximum height of the house shall be reduced so that the highest point does not exceed 21 feet 11 inches. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE / FILE #S-09-33. January 20, 2010 The Council may use the findings for approval (Exhibit A to Attachment 2) to grant the appeal and approve the project. If it is determined that the project does not comply with Council direction, staff recommends that the matter be remanded to the Planning Commission for further refinement of the plans. If Council decides to remand the matter, it is recommended that specific direction be provided to assist the Commission in evaluating new plans. Draft resolutions have been prepared for denial of and granting of the appeal (see Attachments 1 and 2). The Planning Commission requested that the Council provide direction on which surrounding homes define the neighborhood and the issue of mass versus square footage for reference when the new residence on Parcel 1 is considered. The Commission also recommended that if the project is approved, the balcony be relocated so that it does not impact the resident at 15910 Union Avenue. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution for denial of the appeal and applications (3 pages) 2. Draft Resolution for granting appeal and approving applications (4 pages) 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (5 pages) 4. Applicant's Appeal Statement and letter (3 pages) 5. December 8, 2010, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (58 transcribed pages) 6. December 8, 2010, Planning Commission Report with Exhibits 1-10 7. Development plans (11 sheets), received on November 8, 2010 Distribution: Jeff Grant, 39 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S Design, P.O. Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 WRR:SD:ct N:\DEV\TC REPORTS \2011\Union 15928-013111.doc RESOLUTION 2011- RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN: 527-42-008 ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-09-33 PROPERTY LOCATION: 15928 UNION AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'CONNOR, LLC APPLICANT/APPELLENT: TONY JEANS WHEREAS: A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on January 31. 2011, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law. B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Planning Commission Report dated December 8, 2010, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. The applicant proposed to construct a new two-story single-family residence on one of three approved lots on property zoned R-1:8. The property is currently vacant with an approved residence for Parcel 3 and development of Parcel 1 to be considered in the future under a separate application. Properties adjacent to the subdivided property are all developed with single-family homes. D. The Planning Commission considered the applications on December 8, 2010, and voted to deny the Architecture and Site application based on findings that the plans for the proposed residence did not fully comply with the Town Council's direction, and that it was unclear what properties should be included for purposes of comparing size, height and massing Attachment 1 of the proposed home relative to the neighborhood. E. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred in its decision in finding that the proposed residence is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and that the plans did not comply with the Council's direction. F. Council determined that the decision of the Planning Commission was correct. G. Council incorporates the findings of the Planning Commission made on December 8, 2010 in the form of verbatim minutes (Attachment 5 to the January 31, 2011 Council Report). RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 is denied. 2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. or such shorter time as required by State and Federal Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California on the 31 st day of January, 2011 by the following vote. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\RESOS\Union 15928Pc12-denyappeal.rtf THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION 2011- RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8 APN: 527-42-008 ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-09-33 PROPERTY LOCATION: 15928 UNION AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'CONNOR, LLC APPLICANT/APPELLENT: TONY JEANS WHEREAS: A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on January 31, 2011, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law. B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Planning Commission Report dated December 8, 2010, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. The applicant proposed to construct a new two-story single-family home on a property zoned R-1:8. The parcel was created as part of a three -lot subdivision approved by the Town Council on August 16, 2010. Surrounding properties are all developed with single-family homes with the exception of Parcel 1 of the same subdivision which is currently vacant, to be developed with a new residence in the future. D. The Planning Commission considered the application on December 8, 2010, and voted to deny the Architecture and Site application based on concerns about neighborhood compatibility and a lack of consensus as to whether the plans complied with the Council's direction. Attachment 2 E. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred in its decision in finding that the proposed residence is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and that the plans did not comply with the Council's direction. F. Council has determined that the Planning Commission erred in its decision in that the proposed residence is compliant with the Council's direction to reduce the mass, lower the height and increase the north side setback. G. Council incorporates the findings for approval attached as Exhibit A. RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site application S-09-33 is hereby granted, subject to the conditions in Attaclunent 3 to the January 31, 2011 Council Report: 2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California on the 31st day of January 2011, by the following vote. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS. LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\RESOS\Union 15928PcI2-grantappeal.rtf THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TOWN COUNCIL — JANUARY 31, 2011 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 15928 Union Avenue — Parcel 2 Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel created by a three -lot subdivision on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design FINDINGS: Required finding for CEQA: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the subdivision. The MND and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved by the Town Council on August 16, 2010. No further environmental analysis is required for the subject Architecture and Site application. Required Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines: The project was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect and is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. CONSIDERATIONS: Required considerations in review of applications: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. The massing and height were reduced as directed by the Town Council and the north side yard setback was increased to 10 feet. N:1DEV FINDINGSl2010WNION 15928-PCL2DOC Exhibit A THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TOWN COUNCIL — JANUARY 31, 2011 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 15928 Union Avenue — Parcel 2 Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel created by a three - lot subdivision on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design 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 by the Town Council on January 31, 2011, and noted as received by the Town on November 8, 2010. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the Planning Commission or Town Council depending on the scope of the change(s). 2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of the approval pursuant to Section 29.20.335 of the Town Code, unless the approval is used prior to expiration. 3. TOWN INDEMNITY. Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 4. TENTATIVE MAP. All conditions of approval for Tentative Map M-08-13 remain in full force and effect unless modified by the conditions herein. 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. House exterior and landscape lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. The outdoor lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check. Any changes to the lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. 6. GREEN BUILDING. The house shall be designed to achieve compliance with GreenPoint Rated Standards for green building certification. The GreenPoint checklist shall be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional. 7. ARCHITECTURE. The use of stone on exterior elevations shall be consistent with requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines. The plans shall be refined based on the recommendations of the Town's Consulting Architect as part of the building plan check process. 8. FENCING. The existing fencing along the north property line shall be retained during construction. If the fence is removed for construction access, it shall be replaced with a wood fence that is consistent with existing fencing on adjacent properties following completion of grading and/or subdivision improvements. If a fence higher than six feet is agreed on by all affected property owners, a fence height exception may be granted. Page 1 of 4 Attachment 3 9. NEW TREES. Two trees shall be planted on the property at 15910 Union Avenue, prior to issuance of the first building permit for a new home. On -site replacement and screening trees shall be planted prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits. Minimum tree size is 24-inch box. 10. TREE STAKING. All newly planted trees shall be double -staked using rubber tree ties. Building Division 11. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit is required for the new single family residence. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical and plumbing work as necessary. 12. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 13. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A compliance memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 14. 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 (California Building Chapter 18). 15. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor may be required to be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report; and, the building pad elevation, on -site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining Walls 16. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wooded backing (2-inch x 8-inch 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. c. Primary entrance shall a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more than 1-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance 17. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: Califomia Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF- 1R, MF-1R, and WS-5R must be blue -lined on the plans. Page 2 of 4 18. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 19. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs within 10 feet of chimneys shall be cut. 20. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC 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 at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 21. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program sheet (or 24x36 Clean Bay sheet) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee. 22. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development - Planning Division: Suzanne Davis (408) 354-6875 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: John Gaylord (408) 395-3460 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 23. PAD CERTIFICATION. A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 24. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the new residence and garage, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. A State of California (C- 16) Fire Protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for approval, prior to beginning their work. Page 3 of 4 25. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED. An access road with a paved all weather surface, minimum unobstructed width of 20 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% shall be provided. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. 26. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from Panorama Way. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background. NADE V\CONDITNS\20 I O\Union 15928-A&S-Pc l2. doc Page 4 of 4 TOWN COUNCIL — JANUARY 31, 2011 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 15928 Union Avenue — Parcel 2 Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel created by a three -lot subdivision on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design FINDINGS: Required finding for CEQA: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the subdivision. The MND and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved by the Town Council on August 16, 2010. No further environmental analysis is required for the subject Architecture and Site application. Required Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines: The project was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect and is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. CONSIDERATIONS: Required considerations in review of applications: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. The massing and height were reduced as directed by the Town Council and the north side yard setback was increased to 10 feet. N:\DEVIFINDlNGS.20IO UNION15928-PCL2.DOC THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FILING FEES S321.00 Residential $1,288.00 per Commercial, Multi- family or Teutaiivt Map Appeal Town of Lcf,. Office of the Town 110 E. Main St., Los Gat APPEAL OF PLANNING COM. I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follgtw�s: (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NE LY) DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: ��'r� Oa_ �ll pJL v o nQp PROJECT/APPLICATION NO:)"<-7, -1c-P--b/-P6osM't'P-e ADDRESS LOCATION: Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matters if the Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Council members. Therefore, please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal: 1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because 1 T "Pb-`i' iz-Yeta- T 1J coutOcA ,Aittot,3 1.Q fkA `(,L cam= -ri-te,rtc cs c - _4ctt(or\) i-i[-TTRC 4 PCB ,((4-K Dt (ci 77) Wf-fiAi .9ri i ck irk I`i�C qt g-t `l. ; OR 2. There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is (please attach the new information if possible): OR 3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town Council: IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS, IMPORTANT: I . Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes. A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing. 2. Appe-al .rust be fled with.;- ten (10) calendar da., of Pro g C_ ... r Dn _ nied required filing ..�: �::_::.:.:__ _.. _._ ..._"" :__. �. � S' _: _ .. ..a :a:.:: �:: ��_u.:.,:u�.. bythe re`1"Ir.. : ri' fee. Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the I0a' day following the decision. If the 1d" day, is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it may be filed on the workday immediately following the lei' day, usually a Monday. 3. The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No. 1967) 4. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed wit yin the time limit specified in the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals. 5. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council, 6. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application ilk' Bally be returned to the Nanning Commission for reconsideration. 1 C PRINT NAME: t SIGNATURE: _ DATE: « /1 C-) ADDRESS: )7.0o-? LDS i Cb$, PHONE: [!.,(.c 3 S — ($ eiv-, *** OFFICIAL USE ONLY *** DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: P h 1�01 \ frhki11/6\631FIRMATION LETTER SENT: Date: Pending Planning Department Confirmation TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY: DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION: DATE OF PUBLICATION: N.tnliV1FORMSMmningl2t09-10 FonnsuAppce Cammiscioa.wpd 711/200 Attachment 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Attn: Planning Commission T.H.I.S-. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Fcx: 408.354.1823 Tel: 408.354.1863 Panorama Way at 15928 Union Ave Parcel #2: A&5: 5-09-33 Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers RECEIVED JAN.12ZU11 IaNN_OEL9S GATOS PLANNING DIVISION January 10th, 2011 In our submission to the Planning Commission for Parcel 2 we were mindful of your direction as to how to proceed with a stated goal to reduce the impact on the neighbors to the north [Lynott/Mangano]: 1. Reduce the Mass 2. Lower the Height [by 2 feet] 3. Increase the Side yard Setback from 8ft to 9.5ft We totally redesigned the house to achieve this goal and feel that we exceeded the objective of your direction by a significant margin. We expected the Planning Commission to make a determination based on that same direction. However, after a split vote, the Planning Commission has bounced the ball back to you at the Town Council to address the concept of "what constitutes a neighborhood", rather than address the technical aspects of whether we had satisfied your directive to us. We respectfully suggest that was not your intent for this particular application and submit that the Planning Commission has "Erred" in failing to judge the application on its merits when it had the necessary information to do so. It might be that the Planning Commission is asking you to make a "Policy Decision" as to how to interpret the concept of "neighborhood", in an area that was developed 40 - 50 years ago in the light of the desire for owners to upgrade their homes and bring them into the new century. I, however, think that should be a separate subject entirely. I have attached some thoughts for your consideration. Sincerely, Tony Jeans Specific Action We Took to Respond to Town Council Direction Increase in Setback: We were directed to increase the setback along the north property line from 8ft to 9.5ft. We were able, in the redesign to increase it to loft allowing even more separation. Decrease in House Height: We were directed to reduce the height from our original 24ft to 22ft. By redesigning the house we reduced the house height to 21ft for the entire 50ft closest to the neighbors to the north, with a small portion of roof at 22ft 2.5" at a distance of over 50ft from the neighbors to the north. At the Planning Commission meeting Stephanie Lynott stated that this additional 2.5" was not a concern to her. We did however, offer to the Planning Commission that we change this. In our submission to you we have included this further reduction in height for your possible inclusion as a condition of approval. Decrease in Mass: We decided to completely redesign the home and have moved all bedrooms except the Master from the second floor to the ground floor. The second floor was previously 1,679 sq ft and is now only 748 sq ft. In this way we have redistributed the massing of the home to make the overall profile similar to that of a single story as viewed by the neighbors to the north. At the Planning Commission meeting Stephanie Lynott voiced her concern about to proximity of the Master Bedroom balcony [70ft away], which she felt was too intrusive. We offered to the Planning Commission that we move this balcony to the south elevation. In our submission to you we have included this revision at the second story for your possible inclusion as a condition of approval. We strongly feel that we can demonstrate that we satisfied your direction with the action taken in the redesign of this house and with the additional offerings made to the Planning Commission on December 8th Z H 0 0 a Our next item is CHAIR BOURGEOIS: N Union Avenue -Parcel Application requesting approval to construct a single - subdivision on a property zoned R-1:8. Can we get a Staff istory on this project. As the Commission may recall, it's several previous Commission looked at the last time F ubdivisions. h demolition of an at .0 Y m 0 0 m a+ 0 11 G 0 make some changes which was lower the height by at was directed to N N 1.1 v Y1 .D 1� m 4• O N en c 0. m •-. N .1 Y 1A N N N N N N 4 •.1 0 4 - •.1 U .CC m U U 0 > 4 N 0 0 0 G.d is 0 0 m 000000 C CA 14>I 0 0 O m 17 0 W m 0 m• l -.4i O U 7 C 4 U -1 C .G 1E L. 0 4 O .0 0 0 10 0 h U E E E Wendie R. Rooney a u .i 01 C 0 7 0 1 C• • 0 N coU .i 4 a m w 4-) G 0 G m 0 m 0 ++ 4 E 42w 00. m m aJ 0 C7 •N U .t Em E Im•1 > O O -4m .7 U 4 4 Judith Propp Town Attorney: Transcribed by: O O N N CO .i U N 4 .-t . O. ZI O 7 Cr) G amen H `,> Ea E O U O g Z H Z m Z 4rn a a, a., .1 ifl ,0 r m 01 O N 1D 01 O Attachment 5 One adjacent neighbor on Panorama Way is not able I do have his correspondence to be here and he did request attached to the Staff in attendance. It the item continued since he couldn't be just wanted to point that out to H 44 is stated in there, was a request. the Planning Commission that that .-I m •.a w C •.4 >, 0 0 >- 0 O ro 0 C u N u 0 u 00 m 0) C O C) 0 y r-' 0) 0) G a)4 O' m 1.) A .0 v) u .0 >. Ol t) 0 +) 4 u m O CU) lT G m C O 7 .0 U 4 w W 0) .+ O C •-I 0) > m m Hi N d C .0 -4 b, O) .,0 'a O •.� .0 0 u •-I m a) 0) 7 :-1 O C 4 .0 0) 0) N G C 0) 0l Ol el' +� 0 4 0 m 4 v 0 3 O) 6., 0) 0. O+ O 010+ 01 •'I m > 4) 0 O C -.I 0) U 0 C > >, •-i .0 .0 a) 0) -'I ri .-I m 0) 6) •• 0) > 7 m .0 m bi O .0 as os .-1 0) •-CI ro d O WU' H N N m 4 .G _ _ C _ 3 4.4 0 u) m C O 0 +) 0E) a) H m 0) E m Jam-) C 0 G C i) > t) U: N Y 3 0 W .00 0 .0 O . M O > C I-1 H 0 m U .0 --i o 0 0 44 0) a 13 -'I 0) t) 0 ri 0) U L+ U --i m C 0 1) 0) m 4 0) 0 0 Cr, m 4 '0 m .0 -1 W 3 4) C w •'~O 0 'a u .0 m m --i w --I 0) 7 4 .0 C aOal 4 i) .0 0 C 44 rt 1) m U' 'O U) Y C but then they gave some very specific direction, as far as addressing neighborhood compatibility? Was CV N N N CV 0 1) 0 G m C' •:.) N E 0 0) to at least increase the side setback on the north side of the residence. 9.5', and to reduce the massing but most new design. The house size is relatively similar, floor area is now on the first story with a smaller 4 0> .0 • C 0 '0 0) E 0 U there is a little, teeny piece of is shown on the elevations, in compliance with what Council directed, v) >, 0 '-I O t.4 'O .0 O N • - 1 i) --I 0) M U G N 4 L 0) w m a) S i U m O QI 0) 3 0 4 0 M m 0-'. a) 0) m 'O a 0 W RI 0 N 0) )J ..) 0) as a 7 s) 0) '0 0 3 00 N .0 > C --1 00) 0 0) .0 C 4 0 0) ) ' m --i 0) .0 4 a) 0 . r-) > HI 0) H u 4 --I w 0) 0) .0 O 0 O 0) .0 X 0 0) O 0) O. 44 u m --I .0 u U +) 0) i) -0 has the discretion on thing n the project, W 0 the need for landscape screening, the properties and/or to to keep the fence between for installation of utilities or subdivision C 3 0 '0 E 0 U improvements or other construction. N r. v CO o' 2 ti '� ti N N N N N on Leawood Court. We felt the property on Cambrian View, particular property. 01 .-1 F u correlation to for Staff? Commissioner Talesfore. • u 4 .0 u A a.f ..1 3 4 C 4 m U C O 0 m 'i M 0 c 0 U m L aA •0 C 4 m m m .1 4 m bf h 0' 3 4 4 .ci T ''0 00 W m Ni .i 01 •C •.1 w 0 4.1 0 41 +1 E A 4 0• 41 x 0 01 C m T C 7 •.+ m m 0 3 0 3 •.i 4 '0 m aA1 3 1 .°.0 o•1 4.)0 .0 m ]mi E speaking of massing, was it in reference to it massing of 01 4 3 4 O w 0 0 4 4 forms of What were they really referring to, or were There wasn't any discussLon about SUZANNE DAVIS: 4 0 0 44 'O 0 O 0 m 0) first floor versus the ch and mass of the x .i 7 .0 0 the overall sort 4 3 0 .A w 0 the floor area, bringing most has been a C 3 0 0 m A +i 1.1 4 ..1 H 0 4 0. C relatively similar in size. COMMISSION .•. N 1"1 V 01 .0 h 0 011 O N l•f V N A 0 N 01 a. 01 .- . N N N N N N m u .50 0 x a, H 0 03 4 specifically. house, they didn't talk about size the general C 0 4 4 +i 4i m 4 0 w N m A 0 on o 0, 4.) m 0 '0 C e A 4-1 house was sort 1 X 4, m 00 4.4 0) 4 as +1 T C i1 4 .0 '0 o 4 A a And then a follow up to that is a.1 M i1 4 a m and not just Panorama Way. +i 0 4.3 4.1 c m 0) m C 0) 'O 4 T 4 m H 'O C C 0 .. r. _. 3 a C 4 4 3 m b m L w 0 4 m .0 CHAIR BOURGEOIS: talk about neighborhood compatibility, 4 o m A c m + 4 C 00 C M X 0 H W C •00 4 m T 3 0) 4 C -1.) •.i w I 4.) m 0. 7 01 T N •.i m 01 4 a LI r1 0 +4 .0 C 0 '0 r 0, 01 •.1 m m in the Staff w M the lot pattern, 4 two houses 4 E 4 0 4 3 0 w m m a 4) 0 0 n -4 J-1 ON 0 N \ HI U m Dr N 4 0 0 1-14 i- .i 0 '0 �' 4 .-1 0 N 3 0 3 £ Q where you can look it doesn't line up a y" O 6) A U 0 0 4 Z 0 H aa m co Z N st 3.3 >, 4.3 Na w H a .i .•mi U L°1 Cl) m 0 M 4 T SI m m y 0 H 44 v a w E 0.1 C +i 01 v m 01 O1 7 -.I 0 4 .0 immediately to the ,... N .1 V YI .O h m Q. 2 N 40 2 7, N , 01 V 1(1 N N N 04 N m this time? c a a) h 0 O E. 4 2 4 0 W 'O 4 a U a > w a 0 a H C.7 Tony Jeans, 120 Millrich Drive, Los TONY JEANS: 4-) In the garage size, that is the allowable garage 0n J C J ..i 0 O x G 4) E H of a 0) 7 J a J 0 4) 0) a) E 4 A O 0) •A 3 >, • .I G J N .Y a m ( 4 %O •.I O a) 0' L 0) C a «4 0 C 03 the actual garage size is 7 E 0) a •'-I tt> ,c H 40 0) a) O ,--t op4 0) O o) i) -'O A 0) a t A 0) 4 '0 0 a ..-I 0)• > u 0 3 ), 0) 0) J 0 A 0 J x •Ni • '' 0 0 .00 a 0 m A J 0) 0r 'o Aa a w a 1) these are the G as the street you have the one that Suzanne was yo ha This is Mangano's house on the right. This is down Panorama Way, Court. Across the other side of houses on Panorama and 0 O -.I J a o Q. U 'y -( N a m a) N N r1 A G 2 I O all H 7 „{ U) G • ar O E 13 O 0 • O 4.) 2 D G t.) co 2 N 4 2 < 01 a En y 00'') < E 4.3 J U 0) t O H H 3 f7 0) N .0 J v G a N n v vi .0 r CO 0S N. ON+ n r N N + m r N N •..ti / N N N N x G a A F CHAIR BOURGEOIS: 4 a U a) J C 0 J 0 a u 4 W J N a) N G 0 e1Cal C a C E 0 4-, J .0 Q• 0 0 4 .0 indicating the addresses and the on page four, which house is the last one and it's house sizes, the proposed the Staff Report indicating house I was just wondering if that was a typo? C • J 0 .0 .-I +) as b 0) 3 'O C a 0) 0) W H It is 3,039 square feet. SUZANNE DAVIS: 3,089 square 0) a G a a the original and the Applicant, so w a s) En the consulting architect and the square footage changed a 0) •.i v 0' a 0 0 0. a) 4 7 P m paragraph under Architecture and Site on page three where "The Applicant is proposing to construct a 3,089 • 0) 0) a 4 01 a J 7 0) J O' a) •.I 01 w that's wrong? foot house," m 0 r1 0) J H COMMISSIONER JENSEN: O ▪ N N c -) ma) U N ~ a 00 H rn C ol H > E .0 O G U 0 a9 C 2 H 2 2 a Ln Cu .� .3 0 r1 • E C� 0) J (n H 0 a ▪ N m p .n 10 r 0: a O - N m e in 40 r m Q. c ▪ Y1 N N NNN N is above 22', so we felt: that as the Town Council had allowed us to go in excess of 22' on the further portions away from northern properties that that would be you were asking us to meet w H instance. appropriate believe the way we would attempt H the letter of the law, because we're only exceeding it by Y 0 T1 0 Y think if you H I really don't to do that, but house. Mr. Mangano still 4 W O O N • Y T .0 a+ o Y 0 n Y .i n H a .-I O 4 .-1 Y • - '0 O 1.4 .0 44 n a .G 0 0 .i 4) A 0 U A O ▪ C a) 4,C O 4., n O a Z 10 Y .0 W • Y U H •O 410 o) a 7 C Y a N .. 40 •.4 •.i • 0) ▪ •O > a)> .4 n a x a 0 n 7 O 4 4) 4 01 0 0 M 0 a '0 a 0' 3 _ .0 3 Ci' limit we could do this direction. Obviously this one the house there. And if you have b one, you can come back to it. a F 0 0 I'm going to show you one other slide, and that is this is what we originally proposed for you, and it has b C a Mangano's house on the right left. This is what we're proposing with O .0 Y submission, so this is the new house, this was the one that O O ▪ N CO H U N 4 H a a z1 O 4) Fi a0 0) a1 H > E E O G U O C U'-C ZZ OD H Zen hda a H O 1• ") 4 E U' O Y 0 H a 0 .a .� N CI V eft a0 r 01 0, O N tt)^ .. r- a0 .OO .+ N C1 a ia1 i N N N N N N I think I'm going to address massing and what show you the site plan. U a a is over here, Stephanie Y in a 4 4) n ‘4. m 0 F H H 3 n 4 4) 0 0 a a >, 3 C a a 3 E 3 n 14• 44 O E •.C4 0 4 C .0 'OO 14 4) > • Y > O 0 3 -a+ 4.) s is over here. This is the new residence that we're C Y clarify the point is move as much of the massing away tried to do 0 .0 0 Y 4) > 4 a O ., C .4 >, H O H 3 a 7 O U HI .0 a O 3 4) :. 0m A 0 > 0 0 . 47 a N O 41 'O N Y 01 C H N i •0 W H Y Y a) Y O 4 >, a C O 41 N 44.1 4 O E. .00 4) 0 m -a a H c 4-1 4 0 0 O N • •.-1 U .G • C O. .-1 C Y ..a > 4 .1 7 a 01 ail '00 a41 • 3 0 -.Gi U 4) .0 0 0 as C. .0 W 4 4 7 3 44 -4 .0 E 7 Y •.i W A E c small ridge; that little area to make the house that we were asked it's in excess of 50' away C a that is it, felt that by (inaudible) down as the close roof close area, 3 4) C O 01 ••i G G - Y > 4) n -.4 .H `0 N a .0 > E • >4 a 0 4 Y O a 41 41 4 0 4) U 3 4) 4) O 8 C C • W a 0 0 4 > .00 0 0 Y C 4 • a a C 7 A 14 M 0 a 1, 01 0 0/ a 0 U O n what we felt the Town Council was asking us to do. the house that was a 3 O .0 F in height. This section here N N H N N Mangano's house is 0 1-1 O N CD \ H • O N 4 Ha O 41 H 0) C 41 0 Z d O C 0.0 4, C H Z a WI aH 0• 17 E. E U' ' Y 0 a .a N C1 O N CO r CO A 2 N e.f ▪ 1n V N line, so that it's actually a foot shorter than Mangano's that we'd achieve more than the letter of the law, a) a) 0 0 and in doing that, that m .1 a) s N W 0 achieve the spirit is the way or the other, I will work with Engineering to reduce we've done a to do, and I on the right-hand side. 4.- 0) a) t1 .0 1N i1 C 0 3 O 4 a .0 0 0 3 Y 4) .a 0 0) .0 Y '0 a) N .-I an as .1 N P a) a) 'CI W >, m a) .0 -•4 a) 0 •..I at a) 'O 0 .Cm 0 0 g. 0 0 a) a 0 --I 0 3 4) 0) In 3 :) .0 0 to E w I just wanted Staff for additional grading. r• ).1 0 w TONY JEANS: We already have the plate height y .1 which is very low headroom, and from 7' flat area in the a 2/1 slope until it reaches a I would prefer not to grading 3" we've tried I would prefer to do it by grading, which would C• U a! J4 a) a) 0) 0 0 .0 1) .0 w 0 a) N a) 0.0 3 0 interior plate, e-1 O N N CO a! 0 N 11 .-1 N W (I) 0 C Q 0 0 U' C Z z Z Z N N Q m .] n m � 0) Q 4" E. aC E Oa) Ca HI 0 COMMISSION e N .0 4 0 01 0 n .-. n 4.. n T O N N N N N N N time with, and the one that we were we came before you last asked to reduce the you can see of the roof to try to we've reduced the left, of these homes on allow people to have less impact on all I'm sure we're going to have some questions for you. Does COMMISSIONER your new design. I differ with you that the Council you to lower the height if you could, the resolution that the Council did pass, let's see, L N it says, "The height shall be after "Resolved," that's not a request, lowered by at complied with the mandate? design a house look at the spirit I was trying the section of the of what they were asking, house that is above the height limit. There it is. from the side. But .1 ni of 0 .0 if we could reduce this not JJ 10 .0 50' away from the property 1 cn v over here to a distance at O O - N N -4 W a) NJ U N Si r-I W a z1 O a) 0 10 C t!7 a) £ • Q O CO U C Z Z CO Q Ol .7v') a.+ 0J) O cn E. ro• ar L N H O .7 n N I•1 O UI 10 4' a7 0, O .-. N 1•'1 Q 01 10 I' CO 01 N ▪ N N N N me jump in for a second. I Y O CHAIR BOURGEOIS: that elevation. SUZANNE DAVIS: v 4 a the height from the building pad to the highest point, so grade it down, 0 O the lower point. re going to measure the height from absolute height isn't CHAIR BOURGEOIS: it's just a relative height? 43 U 4) 4 4 O U SUZANNE DAVIS: CHAIR BOURGEOIS: Commissioner O'Donnell. follow up question to COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: It is not a discretionary term. On the other hand, given soft approval, H notwithstanding what the word shall means, this could satisfy = N ,.I -a H c x a 0 o+ m - a m 33 4) .0 .0 0 iJ >, q pO, 3 0 4 N E 3 E seems to have to say that nevertheless is my FI v A A are wrong because we're ignoring the H whether Staff and word shall? O H O N N 1) CO• y U NtCI LI a 2 O H U1 C H > E O 0 U O Z C H Z 00 Q�a N o-7 v1 Oa H .a N 4) V h co t 0 01 O N P1 N 0 [^ 0 01 O N m nr1f1 NNN m 4 — 4 01 O. TONY JEANS: H bedroom? Is it a bathroom? the above, but not the it an attic? have a section H • C a C a 0 .0 +r u .-I 3 .i 0) 0 m 4) v) C 0) X W .-I Y 1) L) H 0 0 H '00 • U L 4 you have thal:. the back. sheet at he 7' line, that what we're talking about? line of... 0 master bathroom. 0 0) TONY JEANS: h m C T 00 -Ci 4) M q h E .0 U y I would do it by grading and not height to less low height. O_ O N N \ -I CO 1.) • U N 4 ,i . a O d H V) C (0 H > E a E O C U O C U' C 2 Z c7 am ol W I-1 0 Om E. • E U G) 4) H 0 ▪ 1.1 v N 0 N CO Q1 ^ 2 .{.1-' ti ID ^ 0 01 O r N 1n VP N N N N N N N Tony has represented this to both to the Planning of trying to retain my privacy, Commission and Town Council retain some type of a view from my patio area, 3 0 •0 4) the house, W 0 4 4) 4 0 0 which is closer than the has been put out in directly down into my yard. It looks x x O 0 back end of my house, my bedrooms, bathrooms, everything, W 0 0 0 u C 0 4) 4) 4 0. 4) 4 4) m 4) .0 0 ro .0 u A v 4) IJ u E H 4) d O > H o T • £ tr) C • N 4f 3 4 Y 4) 4 1 • > L C m 4) .0 L 4 0 W 4 0 0 0 T H .4 U m 0 4 4 T d t u 4f 0 0 O far in trying to 0 4) •0 4) 1.1 0 4) 4) 4) 4 0. 0 4) 4) .0 4) .0 W 0 .0 0 4) -0 .0 a+ Lot ]. might line up eventually, which is three of the biggest house of all I 4) 4 0 W u m .1 ,14 a 0 supposed to the other thing. e it's also impede on my privacy, not only did 0 N farther, and that to have had. that I wa And several feet away. outside my bedroom and bathroom, t .0 0 4) 0 0 C -1 O O N W 4) 0 N 4 .•1 4S 0 - a Z I H 4) H 0 fn 0 H > O 0 U O -i O C Z D H Z .1 Z N am Cn a In a .+ O el C • E ( -, N rnH 0 a .[1 b f- @ O. . .-. .r b f'• @ `Ps. O N en a'@ .-. .y .. N N N N N N la 4) 0 0 Hi O U 0 0 4) 0 0 U could be adopted by this O'Donnell. C a U no further 4) a) m H of the Applicant while he's up here? questions at this time. We're going to receive public d X O 4 b 0 0 O -.4 44 O r) T E k. W C V4 '0 • H 401 .07 '.C-1 O Li4A 0 4-' 1V .M 0 4) 4) 3.) f• O O 4 L > C .0 - L > G 4) _ C E a .0 a o > > O O A O T 4 3 0 O 0 •.4 _ 14 0 E 0) O 4) 44 0 C 1.4 4 0 .0 4) u ..4 O 0, 11 •.i - O u al • u 00 4) •' C O > a a)rn E 4 .0 0 N - O H 4.1 O >•, i X • H .-1 4) V 0 • .14 H 4) W 0 •Od 0 . 4) 0 0. 4) •' 4) m v p F N 0 C O 00 .w-) ...40 1) T Z •0 3 E HI O E Z .0 •.▪ 0L. / 0• .0 T. a00.) W m • b Z > 1) C C 1i I -,a 3 C. S Q .�C > 00 3 0 X • m Z • ¢ 41 u 0 3 .0 TV C E0 -• v 0 N N 0 m H • u 'O -I D W• -'i al ..• 0) 0 £ OH 1Y VC i O 1C > 4) OM O 4 44 m '" Li 14 v CI O. 0 A W N .0 C 4 ...4 >, -.I H a) 1J 47 A h F r yard. If you look it has extended into extends even more so into my right here you can see how much more my yard, and two things have happened with this. N 0 O N W .-) m 4) U 0414 Hal 00 v U) C H > x U 00 -.1 2 C Zm a01 a.' 0 ri 0 C9 a0) OH a N 1.1 f .)I ID r- m ON O CO T 0 ▪ N .n the Commission exactly which elevation you'll be looking al 4, This is the original STEPHANIE LYNOTT: that has is this back 7. 47 1 the corridor view. W O 01 0 O 1-1 i.) Q7vJ x 41 4) H O C 15 d H .i E a H a w E 3 -4 0) 0 0 4Fi c 0. ° 4444 ae of m -.1 o 4 m a ,° c� 4) H • 14 0>,M 41 t 7 0 • E >. .4) N W 41 ▪ O ▪ 47 0 Ja 41 C t W +� O 7 J4-, 47 F N O H CN 0 N ▪ m 44 41 - 44 7 C) 41 ▪ W to help you out. There are about the know what your feeling or is there any other alternative 0' 0 .0 4, a c 4 O 3 •0 c •.4 3 4) N U .0 0 O There are going to be windows to put in a balcony to 4, .0 there, I mean 4) O N .0 new design, and it h h O > 4 0 4- COMM tha we hear you and 0. 0 4) • O W 4-) 4) .) C C) C 4s •.c 3 a, .0 J.) a the deck. You can have windows there, but PLANNING COMMISSION W N en rN•1 H N 4) O N V N m G1 O ti H .a 74 ) .y ti .1 N C1sr ttl N N N N N N H to requests that were made. am requesting that fencing be put H 1 w CU .0 0 4) C 3 retain some kind of deliveries and everything else going on. the screening trees be put in at M 3 4i 4) E •.i 41 > u O >, c E a ▪ E O 144 O W H them growing. As going on, because you've got have other houses. is blocked, 44 SS 0 o .0 • >' y 3 .- ° m 00 7 7 )4 01 0C) - (;1 3 >, O •.0 4 '(3 7 .0 H J.I .H-1 4) 0 - 4 14 4J 4) 4) a)C • D9 O 0 C7 41 -.1 7 >, 41 L .0 04,4 0 • 0 • 01-1 E 4) 4) 4 0 0 0 4) 0 CO 47 4▪ 1 .O-i u ea 4, L C. '4 4, 3 0 u I would be content with I'm asking that in order to and 1 My views are totally gone. If I could just have ounce of privacy left, d 4r .-▪ i Commissioner Talesfore. N M e 14; b r 0 44 O .N4 .. .-, w. n ., ▪ N N VP 41 N N N N T 44 4 Y o ▪ m 4 t) A ca yard, which E The back part of 0 3 O 0' 0 L in there. like redwoods put parallel to Lot put screen trees even know how they're A 0 0 H and the existing between the garage wall a walkway through 4) .0 O u It's ripped. The only thing I can do is to try to •0 0) 0. 0 O 4 N 4 4) 0 0 4 m 0 U a O T Y C 4 A F Per the discussion that we've U O a ca 3 O No. I've given up on the C O a) 4 O 0 Y 4 a. 4 ▪ O L A u E w 4 u) 0 44 > 4 0) -.a 0 4 0 0' ,0 0 > 7 > -4 .-1 0) 0) 0 4 13 4 0) .0 O T H A 4 through the screen trees and bushes. CHAIR BOURGEOIS: VICE -CHAIR aving about the height, as a neighbor that will be ly impacted, three inches, does it make an.impact for n I just want one little thing, and that would be family room, and bedrooms. It's totally 0 C W 0) 0 CT a.+ 4 .0 u 4 4 4 0 4 0. T 0 0 T 0 4 4 o. C 4 J.) 4 0 4 0 0 m 0 V C . -1 •0 4 ading because all that is there right now is the height of the C . .- T. T. O n .r N N • N N N N N N at least the deck would not encourage people to come out 43 0 0) 44 44 O U 0) 0 0 4 4 4 4 3 and more private the Cannon Design Group came to my yard to see what was going on from my side and my perspective. d 4 0 CT C 0 CT feeling that you want some kind of tree So is your or balcony or window treatment? Y 0 0 H went in. That's quite an atrocity there on Those were screen trees that You're looking at still tiny; they haven't N r•. a m n r m a o N C N V P m G 0 N N N N N ▪ N pushed it my way even more. What little corridor I had w 0 N rt N Y H 7 w -r-N -i it's too much to ask. openness, I don't STEPHANIE LYNOTT: you very much for CHAIR BOURGEOIS: Mitchell. have is Geoff off Mitchell, your time. The next speaker I a! 3 0 -i m T Y 4 Q) 0. 0 4 0 Y 44 .0 3 T) 0 N C C )4 4) +i 3 C .') Y a 0) O O. >. -11 GEOFF MITCHELL: the development there, trying to make 0' C +i Y Y w C ro 0 N W C 4 a 0 a+ m 0 0 4) 3 m b 4 I that was the decision that 0 E 0 what size think I've been battling this for about two - H hate to say battling; it's not my )-1 and -a -half years. does seem to be .m C T. A »c Cr .0 x C) Y C > ti +1 H .0 a) 4 Y Y 4) 0 H •.i W .O C Y i .i Y intention to be battling something, but H an inappropriate use of the property. going out there, think what really matters is appreciate. there, which been out you've all Tom Mangano's home 0 -4 O N N \ -4 CO N U N 4 in a Z ) 0H 0 c0 0 N) G) > £a 0 C U O .H Z0) H CO Z N cC 01 •0 m • 0 c0 E eC E 0 m CO H 0 N N .. N N o N )0 h m 0) 0 '. N ,, N b 0- m 0) O N 01 N NNNNN this other one the height E) va) L > 0 .a 0 .0 fit in to Y .i N environment; they're making it work with just like this house in the middle that has been a) a) Z F plopped down. Most of us have just one neighbor on each side. I'm getting two neighbors. Then when I think about all the site development going on with all of to be the 1, which that Y 00 over again to 4 biggest of N Y .1 0 c C .'r C O +i CO 7 'i 0) 04 L H • C C 4 d U 0 0 U CO 4.1 Fi I would like I'm not saying don't disappointing. like the Council to see appropriate development, this over quick vote, because 11 a) 0' 0) Y m '-t not to just make a C to -'1 W O 3 C C .CC Y Y 0 N E Y m E 0 a) 4 0 w 0 0 0 0 C m .00 T Y 3 O 0 x N O N N m W U N Cr .-1 N a Z ) O CO 1-1 0) C Fi Ma 0 0 U 0 U C Z H Zm 2 N a.7 n cn O m E C9 N cn 0 a .. N 01 f V) .O f^ m a1 p '. N of P Y1 .G th m A p ..1 N 04 N N N N and the right scale and the right the right orientation 44 L L aJ Ot I look at these 414, 4 01 0 a 01 0 E a not really a pie shape; it's not a cul de sac. w into place; 'I understand it's 'O 0 01 J-1 E C 0 m 0 3 m w >, O .i H 'O N C O -.i 4-I .) 0 N H 0 4) 0 E 0) • 4.1 0 0, O 4 'O —4 w O) L 44 3 N 01 0 L 0 3 L to M N a 0 m 0 CI, •0 rn 4.3 • Ol 9 C C 4 m iT 0) a•) O 01 C 4 •.i a 0 a m .0 0 Grant's efforts to great guy. .-I 3 C 44 0 he can develop, he 0 that the e a great deal a.) Hi E O) 0. A O Hi •.I O 01 0 4, O A 0) E O HI 0) 0 HI 0 x 0).0 as 3 U0 0 0 4 a.) L 1• .0 C 00 .,i .0 0 C .00 >+ C CD a —I 0 0 )4 3 Hsi M0) 0 L .i ai m a m a c as L u reasonable scale. Thank you. 4 0 w 0) beers with him; he seemed like a O) m L b c m 0 P this is something that I and our neighbors will pay the bring it down CHAIR BOURGEOIS: ve any questions of the speaker? All right, seeing none, you very much. i have one last card, and that x C N L Ory Buesing. H live at 15892 Union Avenue; my house is next door to 0 H 0 N N CD 0) 0 U N 4 1 . a • I 0 O 0 H C) Cr) p H Ea O • 0 U O 0 0 Z O H Z 00 Z am aLs') a.i O ai O a) Y 0 H 2 .-. .Ni 2 .y r m o -. N N Y1 N N N N N the Craftsman architecture is the one that stands out L 3 -i 0-4 as being somewhat different; foot size. in the 1,500-17,000 square and this body have Hi M 0 C 0 .) U Both the Town historically O T Union Avenue, of "the neighborhood" is Panorama Way and I find the look at the property and I think when you ai Hi 4.; L a 0 U 0 look at the homes that are presented documents so I'm kind of w w 0 0) u C w -.t 0 0 O. O) 4..1 D 0 0 t1 '0 d .i a' 01C1401 07 0 H 41 LJ .0 4 JJ C 0 Y 00 1~0 W 04)) C 3 H▪ �•i a) O) •.i C u 0 O 4 C L 4 —4 •-i 'O H 0 01 00 ••-i 0) .CN 11 44 00 0 .0 .0 O) 4 '0 0 01 10.1 .0 T 0 3 a.1 4 10 ii A N a E H there and you physically Avenue and the homes that are on Panorama Way — address, Panorama Way —that should be what is considered as far as fitting into the gone through lawyers and These Town Codes I think are specifically to integrity of an existing neighborhood. 0 a� Council chose when you look at 0 .i o N N \ H-I CO 0) � U N 4 10 a Z i O 0 H 0 C) C H > H E a E U 0 U O U C Z H Z 00 HL N a is .7 u1 a Hi m - 0i1 E. E O 0 L 0 M O a C1 N iy c N b r OJ Q. r CI a O .+ N 1.1 Vl n .+ .-� N N N N N massing. This is the back area that Stephanie is concerned 4) 4 0 E 0) -.i C 4) 0 U A •0 4) C 4) 4) A m 3 .0 41 01 > ai C - 4 J' A here. The whole J.' 0 A large trees If you plant massive. She has lost trees on here. So 4) 4) 0 0) u the Cannon drawings you can a) as as we continue to look 41 0 a 01 C .1 .•i 0 0 41 0) a) •.I .0 0 Ea ).1 01 0) Z 0 C 43 % a) 4) 0) C 4-1 O 0 01 0) 01 >. U 4) 4) C 43 E 4) .0 O -Oa -1-1-4-1 4O) 4 U 43 -.a -- oa 4) O) 7 0. 0 4 •0 u 01 C v0) b' W 4) 41 0) W 0 .i 0) 0 3 00) 0 4) 0 '0 14 •.I 0 4 0 >. 4) E W U 01 >. s) 0) a 0 0' .'6 p a 0O > AO C II-40 O E ea Z 01 >. 4-1 Q '�0 44t, ...4C -.I 4 N 0) y 4) 43 0) 4.0 0) C HE 0) 4' 0) N 01 04) as 44 u > t C C Sa U 4) 0 4) .Hi O. 43 Hi 4.1 41 0 •.4 1.1 w 4) 3 '00 C. A A 0) 0 H this group, it's very real when I It's not deceptive; 0) 0 0 .04 L U 4) 'O m .0 w O 4) 0 0 0) ..1 N 4 4) .0 The other thing on I look at green build, and Council was to present this to this shows the C a 1 truction shed and all that. e, and you can see what she n _0 0 .0 is going to be up against. big problem 4) with regard to traffic and the staging on Union Avenue .+ N an C 01 N N CO 0' O H. N .1cc 0 b (� N ti O N N .• YI N NNNN Stephanie's home, the second house north of the property on to as "mass." Her Ms. Davis had referred H 0 0) 4) N t 4) 0 3 Z 50) 4) N >. HI 14 Hi 01 N 0 H4) '. W 0. N 3 M C43 0 4 O .0 4 4 O. 4-) o) 4 HI a' m m > 0 JO-1 -,O4 a 0 440 o C o 0 w ea .0C 0 .0 0, .0 a) 0' aA' •04 C9 E 0) 01 G NI i J' t) 0 a) C Csi .0 H 4 H a) .4 C {1, 4s '-.4.-, w w 41 C 4 L a' .44 41 0) O 0) •0 CO 0) w O J-' •.I 41 •a 0 U 3 N '0 a C M 0) 0 43 L 41 .-1 s) C T) C O N 0) 0 0 a C .4 4) 7 a •-1 • 4 a .-I W 44 O 0) co .1 -.1 A . ea U O N -1 > U ..4 .,1 0. Z I >. 0) H 'O 44 'O N 4 L 4 4) 'as 0) 4) 4) 0 0) m 0 C 0 4 .0 m 0) 4 N 0) ;1 41 H .7. OC E V .0 U C G 0) O W 4 4) 4) C a) 4) '5 )"i > 0 0 J' 4 4) 0 .o 4' N H 4) ••-i H ate' .C£ a u 0 �6 C 4 41 O' .-01 �') 4) .0 is 0) a 0 00 U C 0 7 U .0 E . 7 •.Ni M4) 4I 01 3 C �N N C O U' •C 'O £ :, m 0 0) C .0 D a) .0 'O 4) 4 Z D CD as o 0) 44 a m .0 c 00m> a) (NI 0. a a' y N y N U 0 •O 4 the size, t 47 •p • 4) .a it {Epp 44 RI N Z •.iE. a O m 0-1C 4) 4 N d 44 la C O �. 44 0) w >e �.U' W 0 4I -.i E 0 0 4) C .i O Q) 4) 41 4 C .0 a' 0) 4 > O a1 44 0 w -.i .0 O' 0 a.' 0 44 0) 4) 4I 0) 'O W 0 C aJ y1 a) Z "4 C O H a H L '0 w 41 C 'O H O U a) N H M 1) u 4) a C a) C 0) 0) .0 4t 01 4) 0 0 4) 0 0 •.1 a3 a3 HI a) .0 0 0 4 4, a m 4 4-14 0 0 c 0 'v 0. et 0) 4) 0) 'a o a 0 '6 C a '00 w 0 e 44) 0 a, 3 0) 4 N 0) a) 0 EE C 4) .t A 01 0) U 4 4 4 U U E -4 a O N U 0 m 0 -.i a) O 0) 0 ea m .-1 •.I C 0 N a-1 0 0) 01 '0 N 0) '0 a 4 4) U a 4) C 0 O 4) .-I 4l 41 .0 a 4) -.I .-i C O' -.1 0 0 4 0) 3 'O 44 •re 4 0) U 43 0) V a/ 4 j. O. t 1 .. N to .0 C1 .0 i- 0 0 0 N en 41 .-. aO .. N a1 sr1f1 �' '. .. . N N N N N N the master bedroom suite. There is a balcony. It's In .-1 07 E 10 3 0 1 _ii .0 4.) C a! 0 N 1, o ro ..00 a •0 n 4 first designed actually 70-80' away. However, when I H here to change this elevation. me move it around elevation is particularly important; 0 w H i and Suzanne doesn't see a I certainly would eliminate the balcony that would as 3 ro rn C •A H O 0 >, 4i m a C •.i I W 0 H 4) O 4 40 0 4 .0 .0 3 .0 . HI 0 4C 0. •ai 00 a4-) 0 W 0 a HI have no problem with work, but I would prefer not to. make that u when they're asked to build 5.97-pitch roof or whatever build it be. They get it right, back around three inches. If some of you are, .i 3 H 4 4) a 0 0 4i 0 a 4 .4) 0 1 4 4) u i.1 4) a x 0 E 0 a 0 0 4) 4 d C pO 6/12-pitch roof rather than ri 0 3 u 4) v 3 3 3 4) 3 3 01 t Lastly, this is massing. originally, and what you didn't like was the dormers that COMMISSION CO N O .y 2 2 .y r '4 N N N N N question to Staff on the where we live. So perhaps a you very much. Do we have All right, I see no 4.3 M 4-1 O a x ro u 0 i C a 3 3 4) 0 a 1) -1 GO,7 OHI 0 T 0 0 E . 0 a iV a w .44 .0 0 - C M 1, >+ U = C N C .14 C H +i HI 01 0) > .0 C a E. O 7 •.-1 r1 M C 4) ti v co -4) 0 10 T N C u 4 0) C , E ti m a c the public wishes to speak, now is I'll try to deal quickly with this. much separation as possible. I think 01 a 0 4) >. W NO 10i Cr, 1. 0O N 0) 0 C G) Nas >. 1,0' 4 O .0 3 T E C U F E. a -4-1 n 0 .0 N 0 N W O i) +1 4) C W 0 a 4 3 .•0.1 4) -.i -.-I .0 0) m 0 a 0 w a 4 0 0 v 4) ro 1) 0) 0 4) v 4 0 0 > T 4 0 4 that pink line, t f concerned about that, along 4 4) >. 4) would give a double protection so she can't 41 L over her fence and then see traffic. There would be two fences, one immediately adjacent to staging. That's just a address them. Here is the balcony off the master bedroom. 0 ri N N CO 0 0 N 4 '1 ro G z1 o0 u~)C w 4) I-1 > Ea O 0 U O .i U' C 4 N ZN da N a (1 01 a HI 0 1n a E taw 1) 0rn H a r- N N 1.1 c N 10 f^ CO N 1•1 •1fl N NNNN doesn't like to look at and cars coming down the street. Mr. Grant has to put a storm drain out to Union that will 41 deep as it comes down here. It may take be about suggested to little while for that happen, because if 1 0 O 4 W away, up fence so we can do it than waiting until •0 4) J-1 C as planted, and Stephanie can she wants. I believe that has been made a again, I would like you to check with O J) m 4) A � v) H 401i e • o° a) N IT c A a-) C HI 0O .0 4) 'O 41 01 3 4) .0i 0. U 4OA 4 PG 0 u 4) 3 are proposing screening down N c vs 3 that Stephanie will I'm suggesting Myrica Californica or 4) 41 4) .0 1n the year before they're that grows be the best screen certainly where the house is, 4) t to follow up on that, CHAIR BOURGEOIS: room for planting versus any access that's concerns about needed along that corridor? n N I.1 Y Y) 10 i� O 01 2 ^ ^ '1 ...1 •1 .-t .y �y O •� N ^ N N N N N N second story .•4 41 4) 41 everything further away from C 3 0 E. believe we have achieved what the H situation and Council asked us to questions of the Applicant while we have him 4) C 41 04 C 41 1) your suggestion about the the fencing and the somewhere in the report I think it is now a condition, but as Y 0 C 0 .H to it. We also agreed b 4) 4) 41 v 41 4) 4) d 0 .0 .-4 m 3 Z 'O 45 A _. r� .0 7 4) Iti A h +4 .0 01 9 '0 3 01 +) 4 7 - O U +▪ 1 ▪ O O 3 O m 0 E A a3+ a W • C ' r. U 0 O+ ai y .1) C C 0 4) m Hi 0 O 4 Q 4) 0 4) 4) U H .•1 O) V•1 C OC ..1 ) N 4 'G 0. 0 4 .0 3 a .0 0 L C) >>4 00 a°) -1 o things that she Commissioner Sayoc. VICE -CHAIR SAYOC: Mr. Jeans, you heard Ms. concerns. I appreciate mentioned 0 is blocking her view of 0\ N .+ N .•1 P ul b 41 O N 1., N ^ ^ N NNNNN saw Staff nod, but could you VICE -CHAIR SAYOC: 01 t 0) )..) 01 a) u 4 q 1) t u a 0 0) •.i C 0 O 0) .d 0) y 4 ..1 U V- T) 0) W 14 C.)C .0 of a) C ▪ 0) ..1 as 0. on cal as ai as 7 ▪ 0) 4 ✓ C of Condition 9 does require that the two trees on Stephanie Lynott's property be planted at the landscape The remainder of construction. front. When a 0 H a O a) 0 ..0 .1.) a1 L a >, -O) C -.C1 3 a) 1) 7 O 4 -.-1 .Q a 0 0 --1 '0 4, 11 u a m C w m C HI o c s a - a) -.1 w N m O 11 i 0 U C 0 P. a) i) w 7 9 N , m C U 3 0 0 0 a 0C °°) .0 U -.1 a m 41 w 0 0) RI C.)O 0 44.) +i 0 O b -.Cl 1 )7HI .i i 0) 1.1 01 0) y a) •0 y a) a --) 1) 4 'O a 4 v u 0) C a C 0 .1 C 0) N 4 7 o C -.i 0 0) LL+ 7 0 4) 1) U 0 4 0 .0 0 r1 0) 0 .i 0 0) m >, 0. U 1) 0 P. .0 3 0 T) run over by d L u needs to be required to be done up trees on the construction, so trees on her side to be other plants to be done and then the finaled. That could be modified if you house is done differently. to see it The condition on fencing states that the fencing line should be retained, and if it north property u C 01 L L m C O A 01 4 C O -.i U u C 0 U 4 0 w 0 b a) 0 0 be replaced when they're 0 u 4) LC houses if they W L before they start constructing it down for any reason. At this point it would be a 6' .a O N N \ •i co 0) \ U N 4 .i 0) Ca O w H Cr)rn H > E Q O 0 ..) C9 C zo H aco a 04 ▪ HI O r1 E. C7 01 v 0 H a .-. N ).1 P V7 b 0- O1 O .y .-. .r .,•� r•. r+ .r m .. N N NN• N▪ N You can get large y O A a< as 4 -4 0' 3 a) O 4 T) '0 44 -1 •.4 O • 1) 3 0 W T) O 14 C U a) 3 C E 4 o 0 C .� w 4 .a 14 " 7 44 U 0 H % to U u 0r 4 0) .0 11 -i A L 0) /• t TONY JEANS: you're not pathway would be 3'. from an 8' setback, constraining it. I think moving which was our last Stephanie's so whatever we can do to make it not look house itself, would be the native Any other questions? 0 c E. portion of the hearing. • N H 01 3 •--4 .41 H C Q. 0) 4) g 0 C 01 7 • U 1) O r• ) • C ▪ 01 01 -.1 t ,C .-i 01 0' A •.1 > >, 4 0. as x a 7 O X a) y.•I Id • Q0)' N 0 1' +) 0 I would hope that you would be able back for a redesign you absolutely can. that way if think it's more a very tall hedge like an or a Myrica Californica hough TONY JEANS: 0) t • C d m C m .0 x 00 4 .i t a L 01 ro m 4 0) 01 a t 0 L N C O 4 HI 4) a 0) • 0) 0 3 3o Lot 2 is back to us again. We have an Architecture and E -14.1 U N 4 .--1 '0 a, 2 O a) H v) C N 0) H > E u 0 M 4-) N 1.1 P N b N CO 01 0 rn N m .-. N b f� .+ 0, NNNN• N• N to reduce the bulking and massing, but the architect 0 N really essentially not do much to the square footage. Member McNutt talked about square u 7 .0 07 was talking X u1 think that they did bring it down, they N profile down, the second story is substantially 0) t t 0 m 0 U E r A 0. C.0 40 .-4 1) -1 -.-+ .0 .0 'C m 0. O1 .-1 0 E 0 -.CI 0) C >1 >, 0 .-1 0 d) 0) >, .0 .-1 .0 0 E 1) .0 L a) 0 -4 1) 0, 1.1 A 0) •.i F 1.1 E en 'O cr Nf ..1 En 0 C a) 7 7 O 0 U A 41 0) 0) E 40 u 111 0 0 -1ef • 4 44 C. N es 4 .0 0 '+' CO u 40 00 O' E. rNI m .i .1 01 m CO 4 4-1.,Cj Y 11 2 1 0) 0 v) U C P1 0 E E H 0, 1.1 .. ..�1 E RC 0) C C V 0 0 a) 0 fAtl Z U 0C 0 '0 0 2 D N .61 0 0 A 01 m 4 0 a a 0) 4 0 3 into that, h 11 0) Y - N Z m 0 -1 -4 O f1 Z rn 0 m O a.n 01 w 1' x wee 0 0 O 0 O M 44 0 H a E c04 .°1 u o1 E ¢en y 0 ~ ti o x a 4 N Z square fo interrela c P ¢1 V N Q) 04 2 C .. n ... N O .. N 01 c N .. .. .'1 N N N N N N wood fence. We would be looking for it to match what's out O'Donnell. Town Council those who were present for the 0) 0 4 1.1 0) 0) 0 .i 01 O 0 N 4 0 0) C .0 F+ y) N O1 O 001 01 101 >, N 4 y01 e01 M U m 4 N c 3 .CC 4 0) E 7:_ 3 4, 01 •.1 m E O 0 'O C 0 -i -4 A a ° m b1 0 .°-1 o 00) +) 3 CO N 0 0 t) W 0) JJ 0) 1.) .4 U43 C 0 >> C C1 u 1�0 3 4 C.,O 1) .0 0) a1 0) .-1 0) 0) elO+ .1 0) E a 0 -_i 3 0 0) }.1 0 4 N 0 J G 4 -i G. 0) -,1 O N a1 3 .'-1 0. 4 0 1�) .mac 40 c E 7 c'0 as�6i 0) 0 M 1-1 .0 0 0 O N 0{ 3 %4 0) >1 - J� >1 0 M O .i 0) M 0) 4) >1 3 40 �0) 00 N 3 0 0) 'O 4 1-1 C 0 0) 1A.1 a .) 4 0aa 003 •7 0 > W 0 0 H W C C C.).) C 0 0 01 01 .0 C wes ..4 , -.( 01 4 -1 0) 01 -e1 0 01 CU m 14 00 00 C 11 N a) 0 +04 0, E C E CO 03 03 A 0. 1")'0 ;as c the Council was not as concerned with the square 0 go .0 F 1.) they were with the massing and the footage of the house as 7 A 0 a ca N CO 00) 0 N 4 as 07 0) E 4 O C V 0 .,1 C 2 CO a� en OM 4 E (7 0 1-1 a M M .. N C N 10 r 0 CO C N 40 .l1 „m. 0' O .. N 1•1 O N N N N N N N COt the house. schematic outline of And this application BOURGEOIS: for the bulk of before us actually lowers the height •0 0 0 14 4 0 .0 H -01 • 4) C C 4) rn E C 0 '0 U 4 m . 0 0' O 4) 4 • 4.1 4) C H 41 C) C 4) 4) C E a) Z E h W 0 U 4 4) 0 o h HI .-1 a .•1 4) 41 4) O Z .0 4 O U H 3, 0 N Z U 01 0 0 1, 4) 4) 4)4a) 4)0 4) 'O 4 >. O rt a .0 ..1 U 4, 41 41 C. E 'O 4 d 4) .0 0 m 0 1C4 44 0 3 ,4., 0 4 decision which was 4) 41 W 0 0 0 '0 0 0 -I .0 ++ 0 .0 .0 .0 7 01 •d 4 C 0 '1 4) 1 .0 4) 4, 4) 4 .0 a, 14 a) 4) L 0 U .-4 0 0 U 0 0. 4) L J.1 41 U 4) and that is compatible with 4, /. 4) 01 01 O 0 C COMMI the Town Council the Town. This body made a turned by the Town Council and we have a resolution, so subdivision consisting of two approximately foot lots would be less compatible compared with that. Regardless of what this body decided originally, now 4) CO t` CO C) 2 .� N2 N 01 O N 1•qatN N N N N N N 0) well. It says on the redesign for Parcel 2," and Exhibit 6, "The with, but are we left with 2' that's what we were presented 4) 4 4) 4 4 a O 4 O. 0. 4s 01 41 3 L m .0 4, 0 114 0 0 .4 M 0 0 +1 y U 4) 4 y r• a O) H •.4 0 O No, you could require a further SUZANNE DAVIS: 2', and that's 4-) 4 fh 0) 4) 4) '-I a, A Right. And if I bout 2', it's my understanding too, • 4) IT 10 N O 0 44 41 0 4 i 4) 4) 4) 4 1J 4 U C1 44 4.1 0 43 0 >. 0) footage affects massing, N 47 U 17 00 •N a 0 .0 .0 14 01 .. 4) u IT V 0. O .0 01 4 0 0 .4 7 4 0 4 O) N 4) 4) 0 0 4) •'1 '0 01 01 0) M AI `u 0 3 .0 .0 7 E 14 '-1 0 0 0 0 U 0 41 4) 41 C 0 O 4) 4 0. u C 41 U -4 0. LL 4) x 3 E 0 4 W 4) 4, 4 C 01 •.4 4 0 that would lower the height by Square footage affects COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: massing. Thank you. just to be clear, what's v C CHAIR BOURGEOIS: us was not what was presented to Council as that 2' reduction? .+ N m c Y`. 10 r- = N 0 .. 'N. .1'1-' ' 'N N T E 0 03 something that didn't comply with the mandate, that's okay, because the next Y m Y rn 0 T m problem is in this, and so I have a problem endorsing Y 4, E Commissioner Talesfore. Y w! 0w 0 m v Ol H .0 '0 Y C m 3 0,1 A m 7 .0 O W 4 Y Y CC Um al m _0) m A Y 0 0 •0 H etired lawyer M 0 m think the issue here the issue here is size, X 0 .0 Y H that's okay. That's gay C O 3,400 square feet; we've got two Y m •0 o) .0 0 o Y .0 44 0,3 H Oa. C Y 0 m H m A a) M m Y 34 01 '0 0) x 0) 3 m c 0' 0 'CI C0 0 d Li EO AC•.CI 7 O .0 0)O' 4 m S, •.Ci un W as U U m 0 0 m Y 0 JA.) E .0 N 4.1 4 N >. 3 .Oi bulk. I wish life were as easily solved for the sake The Town Attorney says, about being a lawyer, you're never right and u lots coming down the pike. The critical issue was what is the neighborhood, which the Town Council was not persuaded the moment is do we Y m by or troubled by. So my only issue O N N 0 .•) m 0) U N e-1 m 01 Z I 00 H 7 MCC O H> E it 00 00 00 +i Z 7 H Z m Z N a o+ a .4 n1 ,1 O OM E. c�0) CO Y 0 H a CO N M < .fl .O h m O. O N M 7•+ 0, m "' •"� •'� �" •+ ^ ^ n N N NNNN we have three lots. So the only thing we can do is do 0 CO 4 0 0A 3 0 0 from that. Commissioner O'Donnell, 0 0 0 0 .i H being a good lawyer like myself and the Town Attorney, we 3 O C X Of 3", well, big deal, 01 Y 0 •,-.1 and had a blank slate Applicant had a shall, less, and yet went ahead and E 0 .1 A 0 4 CL, T E 0 N T Y as 7 a! A 0 • H U W U 0 N Y 3 C 3 0 E u 07 E Om N 4 0 Y C O W m x 34 m 0) Y •-+ O Y d 0) a) 0 .0 Y as Y m as 0 .0 3 42 as 4 Y 0a) E •.p1 w N o L Y Y 0 N !0 901 N 3 44 0 34 •O 0 O. 4 01 able to create something 0) 4 0) 3 7 r- 42 e M A Y 7 0) A a; as O 7 C C m en .en M •1 C 34 .0 T m O .0 7 4 ; O 0 O N Y >. a) O b. Y Y N Pi CO 0 C O C N C 0) \ U +i 0' m N 4 a 3~ U r C O 3 Y O' E 0+ 0 al C 0) C a) 4) .-1 H 7 X W Y O C •'1 0 H Y 0 'O m E a 6 E Y 0 0 L N H 0) OU O O .-4U U ••i H m 3 7 m 7 • Z 0 Y '0 0 i" It's not so much ial C 34 O O Z co N 0 m .0 Y m IA ill m YCA 9 T Y U L H A W i••) O M E. 0 U m sU! 3 •ma aU N E Y 0 H 0 7 L e ; a 0 • Y 7 N 0 T m X U Y .-I 0) 7 m b '0 0 7 442 E '00 3 0 N >. 3 0/ 01 N 0 that was 2' t h think the'spirit was thus and such. Well, H so my problem is with level T 0) 4 O. is C 4 U C O U ignored n N M < N b h m at O ^ n n ^ 2 O N M < N •'� N N N NNN not the issue. I mean it is the issue, but 2', it's really I'm really disappointed in that. it wasn't accomplished and So that's what I C • 4) 4) C 4) 7 4 4 0 0 4 U BOURGEOIS: H a 0 U H 44 O .0 3 0 4 4) 0 0 • 0 41 4) 0 4) 0 4) .0 4) 4 • 3 )7 0 H •O N 41 U 4) 4) C A 0 E. 4 T 4) C 0 44 14 O 3 4 O • H 4) 3 0 ) 4) 0' 4) T 7 H O 0. 4) 0) E 40 m 4) E m E 4) C 0 N .0 0' .4., o O A •d 01 1-) H 0 ro 0 +.' 4.' m 3 L 4) • �0 0) N O '0 `` 3 a-) 4) 0, 0) 14 0 CO H 4) 4) CO 0) AG C L 4) 4) 44 4 4 C 01 7 0 4) 14 H 0 ro v 4) 0, ro 4) o ro .0 7 .0 0 .0 '0 L .� 0 T 3 4.) .0 +.' .0 44 ro u 0) .0 1:1 > in my comment to just address I thought that 4) .0 T C 4-, ro '0 0) H) 4a 'O 0 •0 --1 T 4) 'O -C N L 4) t s so I'm not impaling myself on .44 0 N C - 0 O a .i al U 0 4 that as the al C 4) 0▪ ) IC .0 one indication of'that. U 0 ro 4 4) -C 0 4, 0) .1 E E 0 U • 0 '0 ro a.) .0 3 E ca just using what Commissioner Talesfore did, the Applicant came 0) 4) .0 k ro BOURGEOIS: your hand up. b .0 7 is a question that I'm 0) .0 VICE -CHAIR SAYOC: going to pose to my fellow Commissioners as well as Staff. m 0 al believe at Watching the Town Council deliberate, 0 O N CO IV \.IV U N 4 -4 ro 0 Z 1 O 4) H U) C 01 CU H > E 4 s U 0 2 D Z0) Z aan 0..1 Oet r') E. f9 N 4 0 H a a• ▪ b r m Q, O .. .. .. .. .. m N N m o N N N N N N take into 7 W that does not do something again has already done? Do we consideration what the Town Council back up to the Council E H J 0 A in 4 41 41 O > T 4) 0 7 0) 4 '0 4 O H 0 O 3 .ti 4) 7 4) 'O 4 O L C 4 .0 +) 01 0) N 0 a) '0 0 C 3 • C 0) al as T 4) > 0, 4) U .i 4) 4) C 4) 4) E 0) L N 4) 01 41 O▪ . ,-1 go through the drill thinking about? and they're going to that's 0 44 C 0 al u) 3 not one of COMMISSIONER a.) 41 ro 41 0) ro 0 I'm going to hang on the at least 2'. Knowing the neighbors that have been consistent situation with O 4 O So whether it's shall the sensitivity that I'm really concerned what it is, .. N m v 4) •D )'- CO Cr '- - 4) V N 0) Crt o .. N m N to put more properties in the U said, because they including those on neighborhood compatibility to me not to be an immaterial Leewood Court, which to judge size. m 4 E abutting Parcel 3. The chart isn't meant to be definitive d a+ the size comparison is show you houses surrounding the one on Union area. Clearly v U 4 ra , 0 O A G7 O 0 U N 0 O C a A) E a 4 0 C a a c O different A., 0 a7 0 a the neighborhood and there has been opinions and N c n N , 1 V ,fl b I- m 64 C h 4, P Y1 w h m m O .. N 1 c N• N N N N was. I mean I do know for a fact that Councilman Rice as well as Councilwoman Spector defined Union Avenue and remember though Panorama Way as the neighborhood. I'm hoping someone they even defined neighborhood, m x G7 4 N aJ a1 c v ai 7C N d .0 u 0 u C 07 , 40 C CI H a 3 0 .0 >, U N as m a rn u 0 G7 2 44 O, C a U 0 01 C HI .,4 0 O. 0 U C 0 U a 0 'U •.i a BOURGEOIS: is the same as COMMISSIONER JENSEN: Councilpeople those two SO others did not, COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: The way I would that would be that if the other three didn't say 4.1 47 C they were probably in agreement. b, C L T C • 0 O u 9 necessarily a safe n N R < YI ,0 M. 0 01 0 N-. ti y 0 r-. T C v questions? Commissioner Erekson. all the houses on this would have come in smaller than the that are being proposed, but what I would have hoped 0 3 Y The direction that we got from isn't really i.mportant. what we would need to make our decision on, Council is I'm not clear what the direction from the Council is to judge whether this is a reasonable sized house, and the to the point of thing would be true about when we get Thank you. Commissioner N w .0 O +-+ Y 0) O ••i ri C a) 0 U 0) )4, W 0) 4 I agree with the definition of 0) 4 0 0) 0 O -C E H .0 C Y o •.a 3 ca a O 7 U 4 Y a 0) C .I 0) C45 3 C a .-I C a •.I .0 Y 44 E O 0) 0) 0 0 0 .4 .0 .-I .-I 0) 4) 4 4) Q) .0 0 .-i C 3 Y .0 a) 0 .0 O 4.) 4 a g) U O 0) 14 0 Gam, O 3 0 C 42 N .0 0) struggles with it quite as much. When you look 3 0) 0 HI 4 Y 10 co E ri .0 a) .i O 3 X '0 Y 0) a a C I.. .m . -0 -.•.a o O •.i T a+ 0 O a) a 0) that have been made, small, and we would say we're CHAIR BOURGEOIS: COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: just said. One of the things I years on the the decisions t rted pretty Y 0) 0 .n E 1-+ drove through the neighborhood today and you have to go O Y through (inaudible) Way .y N N P N Vl h W T 0 .-i .. ., 0. O ▪ N •1 ▪ N r+ N N N N N N Avenue house, Stephanie Lynott's house, the Mitchell's 0) across the street, Mr. Mangano's house, which then ultimately whatever 0 C Q) then Parcel abutting, and goes on Parcel 1. )• 0 O m 0) 1.4 4 0) 0 0 .a 0) a) O U O CHAIR BOURGEOIS: concern is about that. of neighborhood compatibility, and the Council and they did that in 0) 01 0 L Panorama and Union 0 Y 0) 0) 0 .-i U 0) 0) 0) Y .0 .0 Y W T Y 0) 0) N • 4.) E • C Y • 0) C Y .0 •.I 4 Y 0 .0 9 .0 a) C fa la Y .0 Y at 4) 0) E 0) 0) o o N 0 m O � N 0 O � � O •O 4 .0 • i .W a 0) Y .) .0 0) Y 0 C T1 C a) T) 0 Y C a1 O 4 •.I 0) as 0) 0 7 4 a '0 •K a) N 0 .-1 Y 0 a) > Y •.l u •.t .4 .0 •.0I a) o A Y 0 ))-1 i O Q) 0 a W40 w y .,{ U 3 E Y • X C 0) 4 C Y .0 • 4 N d 0 .00 .0 • .0 0' u c a 4 0 0 L Y Y q E U a 0 0 4 .0 Y C Y O OU 3 4 0) a 4) Y at 0) a) 0) •n .0 a) a .0 O. .0 • 3 .0 .0 .0 4'0 a 4-1 context 3,400 square foot drawing a conclusion that it was compatible the neighborhood t t C O neighborhood differently, just be honest about that, hope would have been, O 0 N CN \.� m 0) • U N 4 ri a) a I 00 t+ 00 to C H 9 O • 0 •0 Z Z m Z N Q O) a n a.+ v) O r) • E C1y cn 0 a .+ N .•1 P YI V h D7 A O Ni N N N N ▪ • V1 N N it as a bad reflection on the Applicant. So that's that. Thank you, Commissioner CHAIR BOURGEOIS: right, I'll weight in. For me this boils down to neighborhood compatibility, and one thing I'm troubled with when we start to try to define —t u 4 a0 0 your feet or in your car, here, and v .0 a+ t C >. 4) 0 7 as o w E 01 C •a 0 4 •1 u w 0 0 1. •4 0 3 m —_i a'C4 0 4 .0 4 •..1 a1 4 O Y m 4 o N • M 3 as 4 G) 4 G) L •0 4 .4x +� C •.W O N O 17 4 4 c a 4 01 3 v 4 3 >, U C •,-1 X o. C O _G o 3 0 R r+a) 0 0 d u 3 •CP C 4-1U V O. C W O' C II.0 0 4 7 0 3 3 •••4 0 Gam) 0 C 3 a e) 0 y E. Y •0 T. C that a neighborhood is where over here and this neighborhood over designing the Residential Design Guidelines we n t was clear enough, and where you drive and how you experience it as and so to me I really have trouble defining Way personally. 4 E 4 4 0 C 4 a de sac —as anything but • .i 01 4 U 0 4 .0 m M Council approved But then how do we resolve the fact that U a 4 a) v •0 7 U y 4 .0 a' the end of N 4 4 En 0 this 3,400 square foot That's precisely what I'm struggling with. 0 O ry N .-0 m v U N 4 N a) 0 0 C N 0 0 co O m V)r. F 0-1 0 E L O 4/1 H PLANNING COMMISSION N Pf C elf b h O O O r•. O .. N P1 O �LI ^ + N N N N N N a T. N v C u 0 C a) k 4 G) r • N N N 7 O .0 0 0 a+ 0 3 a' a 4 '0 m C 0' 0) m v of v it's not determinative. you approve a 3,400 square foot My reading is 3,000 square feet. So we can go through C 4 i+ 0) 0) .0 4, 0 y H 0 a) ,C 4 4) 3 E 0 w 4 i w 4 4 117, CD .0 0 07:1 v C .) d 4 o .o J-' 3 say look, we might not have done that, but Council yet laid it down? So I'm struggling with that. 4 the Council I mean I think what both I'm not disagreeing with of 4) m C O' w F) M i a 0 .0 m )Oi v 0 0 M m m 0 far as the sC m d .0 u C the answer to that was the design worked in with 3" above, •0 C 4 better that way. Now reasonable minds can differ, m u 4 a+ G) 0 0 v a. mandate from I wouldn't personally cast shall means x C .ti a a.f O 03 0 O N • .i m C4 U N 1..1 .i 4 a m 0 M 0 0 H H Ea U 00 t� C Z H Z 6, Lc-) a.1 m 0)n E. 00 a.f O H a 4.) P N O1 c 4 O 01 0 .4 N P1 ! 01 b r O S O N N NNNNNN c 0 a) that there is no avenue, this application, to acquire any more or different m m O ° 1, a direction from a) T L 9..1 t, a 1) H ..i „. 0 .-1 m 1) >. •N t •.4 A u aJ C .0 m .m a) .0 a) 3 m H m •., C Cr, U C O TS a) O .a C •a 4) ) Q. C _ai a) 0 t L -.1 C 1) a) O7 G7 m 3 • 007 1 D > ••C+ t) O� 7 W 0) O m m • I 14 . N 1) O EE O. .Cm C.)>, N 1) al O U 7 V 00 1, E m •.Ei m O+ +°+ 0 C U 0) 0 U u •.i C C 0 �07 0. 5)) 'm0 C 00 5) E ..4Q L m •-+ O t 7 at a) U1Ai 4) m O O C G x a) E s, 3 m ,.a m C w w a) ° m •., u 1) ° v v C 3 O. C' a) +.) m 0 m c c E O .., •.) m •a u m o > 1, 1) al 7 3o 0 .00 •-1 4) -.4 E. 'O •d a) 3 a) a) 4) h C. L 1°.) b 0 y ✓ aa)i ,a ° +) a) 0 m .� u W >, •.1 HI 114 0 C u 4-111 a) va -4 0 m v m 1°', 0 0) Q 0 1, 0• a) U t •n m a) 3 o a N 0 O0O. 03 . -.4 -4 1°, 0 0 C m 1, >m •° 3 O, a) a) within out discretion to do what we think DIT a the h t 0 those that night. You can always approve the project with additional conditions, at which time any party would have O O N .4 m a) O N 4, .-1 O, O7 H '.. £ Q U CO ZZ Co H Z N 0Co7 m 0 Ol W a) O a CO .-. N N Q V1 .0 r m 0) IV rn.f1 N N N N N The bulk and mass of the house is better from the vantage points that were certain vantage points, other vantage points gotten longer and broader, so it just depends it's actually address whether or not 0 4.4 on which elevation you look I sense that we're all the bulk and mass has changed. really struggling with this and I hope someone has a a) 01 m m Sa Talesfore. E H Counc 07 u .00 4 u O 0 •.i N U 'Cl A C .-1 a) C YCO A 00 � C m .0 w 3 Y 7 a) H m 3 m ,.) 0 ••g1 m •.1 C 0' a) C t, m a) C m 0 approved or not approved what 0 N .c 01 7 m .a e .c 0' 7 0 L N that we're well hink that my point. I think a motion? w 0 0' C C C 01 a) .0 m A 4) 4.) 03 .0 O. 0 E .0 m ° a 0 0 m a1 .0 0 m 0 U O .0 .0 1-4 0 4, Y H CO 0 O 97 0 01 O COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: at a motion or do we have more discussion? 5- O O N N .•1 co 4) U N 1-I N CO Z O a) H 0 Cr) C V) a) '> O C U CR C ZZ Z CO am n e O en O E en H 0 a N r1 v 1/1 1p r m 0' 0 i .. N-. .. .. Ni am. ri m P. .-� N I'1 N N N N N 0 al U 0 0 U So that would be the motion. uggestions? w 0 0 U 0 Y I just want VICE -CHAIR motion is there discussion about the 3"? 4 O 0 al 4 a) 0 • 1) U 0 4 4 0 0 a 0 a) a 4 m x 0 a as o s COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, Any oth VICE -CHAIR SAYOC: CHAIR BOURGEOIS: En a1 also not important m 0 1.1 O u 'O 0 u 0 0 ao) r+ the motion, 9 0 as O 1) r1 41 m C 0 0 0 O 4 0 0 Em E O U C• 0 O 0 a) 1) 0 0 1) 4 0 O. 0 0 0 1) 0 as a a) .0 .0 Y 1-1 •0 C 0 0 O 0 a) the motion, and I ask me to amend request that Commissioner Sayoc wants w 0 0 Y 1) 0 0 ro N would do that. So the motion amended or not. 0 ri O N N .-1 m a) U N 4 r+ 0 1 o a, )n C Y/) a) H 7 Ea U 00 C7 0 Z Z m Z N a- 0i ^1 0 O M E. 4) 1) N O a .. N t1 V N b t` m 01 0 .y ^ .. .y , ^ 0 ^ N ^ ^ N N N N N N the option of appealing it to Town Council and asking for clarification. mechanism that allows Council and then send decide the matter. COMMISSIONER second, but I'll almost be surprised if I want to we should condition suggested by Mr. '0 >, m 0 w O O 4 .-13 -..4 as C .0 M C 0 a) U i) 1) 14 .-1 0 as A u D .0C 1) .0 0 'O 1) 11 0 a) C a o E s) 0 E a) ,C -.) 0 C 1) E 3 0 HI 043 4 F HI •4 M a) .0 a] 0. 4 01 i) 43 C E '00 3 41 '00. 0 0 O a 4 C an M .4 .1 .i 0 0 C En 0 u 0 0 H. 0 W 1) a0) .0 00 .0 ate) E H ++ 0 H1 h .0 0 1) 14 the approval of '0 C 0 the things the motion, and one of I'll just say that motion, O+ 0 9 0 aJ O C 0 a) E •.i w h forth in Exhibit 2, and namely are as set reviewed by the Town consulting project was C 0 *.i a) m 0 architect and is in compliance with the Residential and as required by Section 29.21.50 of the Town Guidelines, the Architecture and the considerations in review of 11 0 a) 0\ us N m 0 U +-1 O. a 13 u 0 •4 U N ie b r as m 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ N N N N N Commissioner Bourgeois' opinion about what defines neighborhood. CHAIR BOURGEOIS: Thank you for that. Talesfore. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: The only other comment i keep referring to want to make is that some the Council approved, that the size of it the house that O V) H 44 0 0 T any objection. That might be true, but located and why, and • 0 O . -a) 4 0) v .0 a1 .i 4 0 a C 4 9 4 4) 4 O CT 0 u b1 C a 0 Fi 0' 14 Q 0 01 CO 5 E > W y C.) H W 01 C 0+ .0 07 C 0 ..1 •.i 4.) 0 31 0) 4) -4 •-4 4 41 0 it •.-1 C 1-1 01 C C y E 4) EO� W V �EE n in 4 t 0 E c00i a41 0 U V E t 1J 3 Sayoc, and Bourgeois else like to venture a second eD consider where that house tells me why it didn't meet with any objection. a Jensen, Talesfore, So would someone Commissioner Sayoc. VICE -CHAIR ambiguity on my part on what exactly neighborhood compatibility is. view that by approving the three -lot subdivision and PLANNING COMMISSION .. N 1•f a .A v t� m 01 .+ .. .-. .. :2 N 0 04 N N N N N as I think a little bit through the issues. if you'd like. All to vote on it yet. folks aren't ready The reason I seconded the to the punch by Commissioner the material issue and balcony is a reasonable accommodation to be I would believe that as they develop the the trees as quickly as they they would do have any basis don't really H 1-) 4 .0 it L4 0 .0 m m 4 'O C 7 U LL 0 4 0) C 7 U E 0 0) 1.4 14 0, C. 44 U 0 G) 3 COMMISSIONER EREKSON: because I was beat C O 0 to make exactly the same motion, because it does to me that the 3" isn't really can; I would hope that the direction, while not explicit 4 X.. JJ T O . •.1 t1 C 'C1 '0 0 C given that size that they're proposing is okay, approved a house that's larger than it on a similar size C 4 0' C d C▪ P 0) 11 0) 3 0) 3 J-1 4 .0 1) b0 7 0 0 O U 1.) 1 O O H 0 4 w 0) Cl. 40i a other direction than that, although I would conclude with N en C III V) h m A O Ni ... .n Nn 00 .. N N N N N N that still this is paper and pen that we're talking about Y a) U 0 in en •01 - C C 4 -' C F a) 0' e .0 U01 D e .0 C C H h U S 4 a) C -0-0 +1 a) .0 o) J.1 MEE O U you. Additional comments? c the motion, 41 4 0 0. 0. 01 4 H COMMISSIONER JENSEN: 1.) and assuming that quest of Council I think would echo Commissioner Sayoc's at we're clearly struggling with what we believe to be, a: 4 4.3 E rJ ar .1 4 3 0 :1 a) ,43 i 44 0, > m e 0' N 4Ei C 0 0 +� +i U a) when and 4 '0 a) 4, c i 0 >, as •.1 •.i a) C 07 C ea 1 N O C.) al '00 U 4 >, a) '0 0 .1 e .0 n1 3 a) Y m C U 0 of 4 4 3, 4 +i U O Y .'1 4 •-i 41 0 -O -H 0 0' 0. 0 " 00 -.i .0 W HI M -1 2 e, 2 0. a) a) 43 v 0 -44 0 4 0 as 0 .0 41 HC 0 D a 3 taal Y C 0 4-3 u a a) 0 11, N N . '0 A 4 '00N 0 -.-1 .0 •.•1 3 0. 9 E m as Om ) C 4.1 a) C 00 m 0 0 00 .CC N C .0 .0 4 1-1 41 C 3 as 0 3 C N a1 as different I would hope of direction. That would have 1 0' 7 .0 0 0 m a) 43 E a) 4 a 4 0 'tl m tJ m .4 4 4 a) 0 C 0) 4.3 4) size? Those would be the questions that they would give us direction on, because we know we're a third house as well, so we might as well a) 0, 0 a1 0, e 0 0' m 1.1 C a) 0 U C a) Y 0 e .0 •.I 1 C a) 4 0 m .41 M 0 what the Council have a good idea of BOURGEOIS: Commissioner Erekson. 0 .•' o N CO a) \ U N 4 .i a) a ar 0 C 3 0 0 CO N 0 E 6-) N N PLANNING COMMISSION N 1.' V al b '- CO a, 0 In ti C. .r N .•' P t') .+ .. n .. NNNNNN the size that is considered direction that there must have been a reason for C 4 N 0 a) didn't approve They want a reduction of mass. Size, mass, 0 C a1 C C •, Hi in my mind, not appropriate reduction a) c y m E rather just 'O C as .-4 a H' C O as •.I 41 a) 0' '0 1) •a 43 4 e6 4 - J] 4+ >, a) c -.1 •I m O. E - 1' m .0-, �1 .i N 'tl O. 0 a) C a) C a) u .i .0 E 4 0 E 0 C 4-1 C ...1 4) and all ambiguity would be Application S-09-33 the mass reduction and by Town Council, that the suggestion to know which elevation as something that it: seems like s d m that it has not met is appealed to move the balcony, that be included 1.1 7 .0 • 0 0 0 E 3, E a) 11 C Y 0 m 0 y a) a) 4 0' m an 4 a) C 0 a) O U same time if it does go to Council that as c 1.1 would hope at the Council would take into consideration the lingering 0 0 N csi \ .-1 Co a) U N 4 'i 4) a oaa) H y 0 CO a) Ea 0 e U 0 C� C Z D 2 m .4 N 4 O, a u, mH V) E. 0 0 1.' N) H 0 n N l.' V h b n m m M .a1. M b NCO ^ o n N '.f P .() N N N p Design Guidelines says is you walk the neighborhood, and as I walk down that street and I look at one-story homes that are other exceptions, I understand the teens, going from when we have 1,500, C O 2,300 is the largest o E H 0 0 Cr, 4 W 0, ri O T CO a 7 s -+ o 5 H a n n sl)el ' N 4 ri 0 1d 4 01 o x 0 .0 CLI 0 sas m 0 the way it is my definition of 0 -O T O) W 7 4 0 0 W 0) 0 a) C a) d O1 4) 0) H HI )-1 r-I l) i) 3 m 0 C 01 0) C) W ..1 >s )-1 0) 4 CD CA 7 O) 4 0 N i .0 44 a) U N +�) 0) 3 .0 C U Panorama Way, and if you do should be in the vicinityof 2,000 totally inconsistent with N .0 L C) 0. 0 .0 little bit, neighborhood is believe that h wo and what we're doing. So I would might wrestle with that for us a N 7 ro 0 d also have to question are we locked into a get to make 0) 3 0 the neighborhood bigger 30 or 40 or 50 years after we built the neighborhood? O ri 0 N N CO0 0) U N 4 H a Z I O O H 0) C U) H i E ast E O 0 U O 00 Z C Z M ZO Z as aH d1 0 ri RG E C7 3 L y H 0 m N ., 0- 01 0, O N-� `.2 N ti N Al VI N N N N v N .� .� N the motion a question? N 0) N 0) rr Cu CHAIR BOURGEOIS: COMMISSIONER size or both? 4 O turn on mass compatibility, two are related. To me, N .0 E VICE -CHAIR SAYOC: that help? Follow up question, then. 0 O m 1) W m W 0 0 a size dictates mass. COMMISSIONER seconder would COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Because this house 'O .0 0 0) v 0) 0 0 C M 0 4 0 to judge why this isn't enough. So Q' T 01 3 .0 3 a) 3 W O C 01 v u O 0) 4 C 4) N n C .0 0 0) E IrC 0) > E 0 3 0 o 0 .0 .--i L s iv 4 O 4 4 4-' 4 G1 0) N 0' C C 7 m 770' -4 u 4. E '0 0 E isn't enough, so what i a i b N C C- a) s 5, 3'0 0 7 C •n C) VICE -CHAIR SAYOC: that can 0) T •'I '-1 -1 0 V .44 O1 0 0 .0 Council if 0 N sC O+ 0 0 4 .0 0) be addressed when it appealed, but the way I O rl O N 01 ri CO Q) 0 N 4 e-1 CO a Z O d) H U) C N C) H > G E O U O U' Zo H Z CO ZN a� - n. ri 0ri 4 E c� O H N v N V f` CO 0, O N 1'1 N N N N N N compatibility. I think it's a critical issue, as U 0) 0 3 0 0 o 14 0 a) c 0 41 m 4.4 0) 3 would have get at the heart of the matter, but I approving is >. 0) a) a .0 E 0) .44 4 • 0 O 0 4-4.a 44 T a IO .1 •., 4 0 m c H a) 00 J .l m 0 0. • 4 - H a 43 W .°` o. -4 . C 1 4 Na L 0 v1 .i -.-1 •0 •l a 0 3 C 1-10 a) .N Ip E > a C d HI H 01 a •.i •..1 03 v . 04 o () 4 0) _ O. ,1 4+ 0 •.I 01 A 0. 3 Q) 4 0 O) 0 0) .0 E 0 43 > E 00i A E a 0) ..1 F rn 4+ tS H C 0 H 0Hi •- .a . a ,4 0. w O 0 0 H a A C m A W r) O T E. c ^, a..2• a) Q 'Cl 0(4) •33 Hi 0..) '0 01 C U 4; 0) 0 O C 4) 0 .-I Oa a) U 0 :1 ..1 0) .-i 01 •0 0 E 3 k 8 3 C 34 W A 4+ b' a U E. E. 0 the damentally just feel it is not. So with that 0 upstairs in Thank you very much. CHAIR BOURGEOIS: O N © 0) \ 0 N 4 .-1 a G 0 ) 1 H 7 0 04) C H Za U 0 z 2 m 2 N Ca H m . EHi 6 W U) H 0 o '1 .+ N I.) c 41 .0 r m C1 0 . N H ^ In m .a0 .� N n1 4R ^ ^ + N N N N N N m .0 1-• and I don't know and that's 0 M 0) 0 0 0 0) 4.) 41 m w > 0) 0) 4 3 41 a 4 0) 3 it's going to be. That's not u 0) .0 .0 3 +) 0 O So thank Commissioner some guidance from the Council on that CHAIR BOURGEOIS: Thank you. just a follow up to COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: is I agree with what Commissioner O'Donnell is o) C 0 0 .1 0) c M the street that is closest to them, different them that are on a totally the struggle is with this to consider these unique neighborhoods and how they location in relationship 4 O A .0 0) c d 0 0 4.3 0) 4 +0) ) .0 •.i O• w 0) 0 0 U 41 w 0) .0 0) 0 0 al 4 H 0 U +1 L .0 C L 4 00. y 0 4 I think that's really where Panorama Way and to its N add my quick two cents. I'm going the Commissioners who C O 0) w H 000 0 (1) 0 u 0 1-1 A k •-1 C 4-1 0) 0.0 .4 U 0 E aai w z Q)Z co 2 N .4 °' X a a V) O C .ti rFy E 0 UO) C N 0 O H the continents agree with H the motion. One of the also indicated they would '0 G ,1 0 O N y N 0 ` 0 A co U Cr) N H tC 0) O' to E ti a .•. N I.f C N V 04 0 C. 4. 2 ^ 01 .1 .. N C .+ N en cr N ^ '� ^ N N N N N N THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: December 8, 2010 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: CONTACT: APPLICATION SUMMARY: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner sdavis@losgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 15928 Union Avenue (end of Panorama Way) Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design 217 O'Connor LLC Tony Jeans ITEM NO: 3 Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. DEEMED COMPLETE: November 8, 2010 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: May 16, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Soft approval PROJECT DATA: CEQA: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Applicable Plans & Standards: Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: Low Density Residential R-1:8 State Subdivision Map Act Subdi-vision & Zoning Ordinances General Plan 10,087 sq. ft. Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Single Family Low Density R-1:8 East Single Family Low Density R-1:10 South Single Family Low Density R-1:10 West Single Family Low Density R-1:8 An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the subdivision. No further environmental analysis is required for the Architecture and Site application. Attachment 6 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 15928 Union Avenue/S-09-33 December 8, 2010 FINDINGS: ■ That the proposed project is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. EXHIBITS: 1. Location map 2. Required findings and considerations 3. Recommended conditions of approval (4 pages) 4. Project data sheet 5. August 16, 2010, Town Council minutes (9 pages) 6. Council Resolution 2010-087 (6 pages) 7. Consulting Architect's report (5 pages), received November 12, 2010 8. Applicant's letter (2 pages), received November 16, 2010 9. Email correspondence from Stephanie Lynott (4 pages), received October 25 and November 29, 2010 10. Email correspondence and letter from Thomas Mangano, (3 pages) received October 25 and November 29, 2010 11. Development plans (11 sheets), received November 8, 2010 BACKGROUND: On June 9, 2010, the Planning Commission considered a request to demolish a single-family residence, to subdivide a .93 acre property into three lots, and to construct two new residences. The Commission denied all applications, citing concerns about inconsistency with the neighborhood, density, intensity of land use, and the suitability of the proposed development for the site. The applicant appealed the Commission's decision on June 10, 2010. On August 16, 2010, the Town Council considered the appeal and approved the demolition of the existing residence, three -lot subdivision and new home for Parcel 3. The Architecture and Site application for the new home on Parcel 2 home was remanded to the Commission. Council directed the applicant to reduce the mass, lower the height, and to increase the side -yard setback to at least 91/2 feet (see Exhibit 5). Plans for the new residence on Parcel 1 will be considered under a separate Architecture and Site application that has not yet been submitted. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 15928 Union Avenue/S-09-33 December 8, 2010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located at 15928 Union Avenue, on the east side of the street, just north of Leewood Court. Parcel 2 will be accessed from Panorama Way, off a cul-de-sac that will be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements. Surrounding properties are all developed with single-family homes. Homes to the south (Leewood Court), east (Cambrian View), and across the street to the west (Union Avenue and Lasuen Court) are two -stories. Homes to the north on Union Avenue and Panorama Way are one-story. Existing home sizes range from 1,753 to 3,705 square feet. B. Architecture and Site Approval Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of a new single-family residence. C. Zoning Compliance The proposed residence and garage are within the allowable floor area for the property and are compliant with setbacks, building coverage, and height requirements. A single- family residence is a permitted use in the R-1 zone. ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,039 square foot two-story home with a 632 square foot attached garage. The size of the house was 3,054 square feet with the original proposal, and the garage size was 682 square feet. The house will meet the minimum required setbacks with the north side setback increased from 8 to 10 feet (Council requested a minimum of 9'/2 feet). General project data is included in Exhibit 4. The maximum height of the house will be 22 feet 2 inches (previously 23 feet 11 inches). During public testimony at the August 16, 2010, Council meeting the applicant showed a conceptual plan that would reduce the overall height of the house by two feet. The Council resolution (Exhibit 6) includes the requirement to reduce the height by at least two feet. The applicant has redistributed much of the square footage from the second to first floor, and with the roof pitch, only a small area of the roof will exceed 21 feet 11 inches (see sheet A4 of the development plans). While only a small area of the roof is higher than 22 feet, the proposed height does not strictly comply with the Council directive to reduce the overall height by two feet. The Commission should discuss this Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 15928 Union Avenue/S-09-33 December 8, 2010 minor deviation and determine if it substantially complies with the Council direction given the reduced massing and small area of the roof that will extend above the 21 feet 11 inch height limitation. Staff believes that the applicant is meeting the intent of the directive to lower the height by two feet. If required to be lowered, the roof peak would be flattened which would not be as aesthetically pleasing or consistent with the architectural design. The Consulting Architect visited the site and reviewed the proposed home designs and initially made several recommendations for changes to the design (see Exhibit 7). The applicant worked collaboratively with staff and the Consulting Architect to refine the design of the house. The Consulting Architect recommends that the use of stone be further addressed for consistency on all elevations. Condition #7 requires the applicant to work with staff and the Consulting Architect to revise the elevations during the building plan check process. Story -poles have been placed on the site for the proposed home on Parcel 2. The poles for the home on Parcel 3 were removed following Council approval of the Architecture and Site application for that lot. Several neighbors requested that the poles be reinstalled to show the relationship between the two new homes. The applicant has re -installed poles for the end of the Parcel 3 house closest to Parcel 2 for comparative purposes. B. Neighborhood Compatibility The following table shows house floor area, FAR, and garage size for properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Data was obtained from County records and does not include cellars. Address Lot Size House size House FAR Garage 112 Panorama Way 7,942 2,311 29.0 430 115 Panorama Way 8,018 1,589 19.8 487 110 Panorama Way 8,668 1,924 22.1 470 111 Panorama Way 8,668 1,568 18.0 484 118 Cambrian View 20,909 3,705 17.7 560 15910 Union Avenue 18,450 1,753 9.5 714 101 Leewood Court 9,583 3,128 32.6 560 103 Leewood Court 9,583 3,086 32.2 632 105 Leewood Court 10,019 3,131 31.2 560 107 Leewood Court 12,197 3,164 25.9 632 15928 Union Parcel 3 11,390 3,404 29.9 935 15928 Union Parcel 2 10,087 3,039 30.1 865 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 15928 Union Avenue/S-09-33 December 8, 2010 C. Green Building The project was reviewed using the Build It Green standards adopted by the Town Council on June 2, 2008. Preliminary checklists completed by the applicant show the house will exceed the minimum number of points (50) needed to achieve green building certification with a score of 109 (Parcel 2). Condition #6 requires the project to be certified as green using the GreenPoint checklist. D. CEQA Determination An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the subdivision. The MND and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved by the Town Council on August 16, 2010. No further environmental analysis is required for the subject Architecture and Site application. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the original property that the subject parcel is part of. Two adjacent neighbors have provided comments on the proposed plan as follows (refer to Exhibits 9 and 10): • The story -poles for the home on Parcel 3 should be reinstalled to show the relationship between the homes to be built on Parcels 2 and 3. • Fencing along the north property line should match the existing fences at 15910 Union Avenue and Panorama Way, and should be installed at the start of construction. • Landscape screening is highly desirable along the north property line. Planting should be done at the start of construction, inclusive of two trees the applicant offered to plant on the adjacent property at 15910 Union Avenue. • The construction staging area is immediately adjacent to the resident at 15910 Union Avenue; consideration should be given to reducing construction hours on weekends. • The size and height of the proposed house is not compatible with neighboring homes. Condition #9 requires two 24-inch box trees to be planted on the property at 15910 Union Avenue prior to issuance of building permits for the new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. Condition #8 requires the existing fencing along the north property line to be retained, or if removed for construction of subdivision improvements, to be replaced with a new fence following demolition of the existing house and completion of grading and utility installation. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 15928 Union Avenue/S-09-33 December 8, 2010 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The applicant has redesigned the house as directed by the Town Council. While the overall massing has been reduced, the size of the house is about the same (reduced from 3,054 to 3,039 square feet). Staff has recommended soft approval due to the size of the house and pending the Planning Commission's determination on the maximum height. If the Commission would like to see a reduction in the height of the house to strictly comply with Council direction, the following condition can be added and staff will work with the applicant to revise the plans accordingly: HEIGHT The maximum height of the house shall be reduced so that the highest point does not exceed 21 feet 11 inches. If the Commission determines that additional changes are warranted, conditions may be added or the application can be continued to a date certain and the applicant directed to make desired plan changes. B. Recommendation The Planning Commission should take the following actions to approve the Architecture and Site and Subdivision application: 1. Make the required findings and considerations (see Exhibit 2); 2. Approve Architecture and Site application S-09-33, subject to the conditions in Exhibit 3. Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, AICP Senior Planner WRR:SD:ct Approved by: Wendie R. Rooney Director of Community Development cc: Jeff Grant, 39 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S Design, P.O. Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS \2010\Union 15928-Pc 12-120810.doc 15928 Union Avenue LYNN 0 LIOSsoRvUE'Y 0 w < • _1 u—DBWNINtu OAKS tr( I of LPSSOM IL_A wf BLOSSOM—H1 11 F >, z LASUEN CT 1 tE 0 ANNE WAY '6x KD cc— Q -I 4 I AS F i LIKES stif T\ C?I EXHIBIT 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 8, 2010 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 15928 Union Avenue — Parcel 2 Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel created by a three -lot subdivision on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design FINDINGS: Required finding for CEQA: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the subdivision. The MND and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved by the Town Council on August 16, 2010. No further environmental analysis is required for the subject Architecture and Site application. Required Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines: The project was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect and is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. CONSIDERATIONS: Required considerations in review of applications: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture �i review r av and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. The massing and height were reduced as directed by the Town Council and the north side yard setback was increased to 10 feet. N:\DEVIFTNDINGS12010\UNION I5928-PCL2.DOC EXHIBIT 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PLANNING COMMISSION — DECEMBER 8, 2010 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 15928 Union Avenue — Parcel 2 Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel created by a three - lot subdivision on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design 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 by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2010, and noted as received by the Town on September 8, 2010. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the Planning Commission or Town Council depending on the scope of the change(s). 2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of the approval pursuant to Section 29.20.335 of the Town Code, unless the approval is used prior to expiration. 3. TOWN INDEMNITY. Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 4. TENTATIVE MAP. All conditions of approval for Tentative Map M-09-13 remain in full force and effect unless modified by the conditions herein. 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. House exterior and landscape lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. The outdoor lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check. Any changes to the lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. 6. GREEN BUILDING. The house shall be designed to achieve compliance with GreenPoint Rated Standards for green building certification. The GreenPoint checklist shall be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional. 7. ARCHITECTURE. The use of stone on exterior elevations shall be consistent with requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines. The plans shall be refined based on the recommendations of the Town's Consulting Architect as part of the building plan check process. 8. FENCING. The existing fencing along the north property line shall be retained during construction. If the fence is removed for construction access, it shall be replaced with a wood fence that is consistent with existing fencing on adjacent properties following completion of grading and/or subdivision improvements. If a fence higher than six feet is agreed on by all affected property owners, a fence height exception may be granted. Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 3 9. NEW TREES. Two trees shall be planted on the property at 15910 Union Avenue, prior to issuance of the first building permit for a new home. On -site replacement and screening trees shall be planted prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits. Minimum tree size is 24-inch box. 10. TREE STAKING. All newly planted trees shall be double -staked using rubber tree ties. Building Division 11. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit is required for the new single family residence. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical and plumbing work as necessary. 12. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 13. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A compliance memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 14. 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 (California Building Chapter 18). 15. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor may be required to be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report; and, the building pad elevation, on -site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining Walls 16. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wooded backing (2-inch x 8-inch 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. c. Primary entrance shall a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more than 1-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance 17. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF- 1R, MF-1R, and WS-5R must be blue -lined on the plans. Page 2 of 4 18. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 19. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs within 10 feet of chimneys shall be cut. 20. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC 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 at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 21. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program sheet (or 24x36 Clean Bay sheet) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee. 22. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development - Planning Division: Suzanne Davis (408) 354-6875 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: John Gaylord (408) 395-3460 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 23. PAD CERTIFICATION. A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 24. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the new residence and garage, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. A State of California (C- 16) Fire Protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for approval, prior to beginning their work. ` Page 3 of 4 25. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED. An access road with a paved all weather surface, minimum unobstructed width of 20 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% shall be provided. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. 26. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from Panorama Way. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background. N:1D EVICONDITNS120101Union 15928-A&S-Pc 12.doc Page 4 of 4 404 --- (9 8 UN1Ow AV-, E -- L lit = G EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRED/ PERMITTED Zoning district R-1:8 same - Land use vacant single family residence - General Plan Designation low density residential same - Lot size (sq. ft.) 10,087 same 8,000 sq. ft. minimum Exterior materials: • siding - stucco, stone - • trim - stone, limestone - • windows - wood clad - • roofing - composition slate - Building floor area: • first floor - 2,330 - • second floor - 709 • cellar - • total house size - 3,039 3,120 sq. ft. maximum • garage - 690 865 sq. ft. maximum Setbacks (ft.): • front - 64' 25 feet minimum • rear - 20' 20 feet minimum • side - 10' 8 feet minimum • side - 8' 8 feet minimum Maximum height (ft.) - 22'3" 30 feet maximum Building coverage (%) - 29% 40% maximum Floor Area Ratio (%) • house - 3,039 3,120 sq. ft. maximum • garage - 690 865 sq. ft. maximum Parking - 4 two spaces minimum Tree Removals - included with TM canopy replacement Sewer or septic sewer same - N:1DEV\SUZANNE•DRCIPROJECTSIUNION 159281UNION15928•PCL2DATA.DOC Exhibit 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Consent Items - Continued TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4. Approve Council/Agency minutes of August 2, 2010 5. PPW Job No. 09-06-Los Gatos Library Project 411-821-25 a. Authorize Town Manager to execute an agreement h Sheri Simons regarding production, purchase and installation o a work of art for the new Los Gatos Library in an amount not to exceed 18,736 b. Authorize Town Manager to execute se •nd amendment to an agreement with Noll & Tam architects in an amo t not to exceed $40,650 for design and coordination of donor -related gnage and gift opportunity renderings MOTION: Motion by Vi - Mayor Joe Pirzynski to approve Consent Items #1-5. Second- o by Council Member Steve Rice. VOTE: Mo ion passed unanimously. VERBAL COM NICATIONS Mr. Khan • anked the community for its support of the U.S. Census information gathering and congratulated the Town for its participation rate of 77%. /t;iosed Verbal Communications PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to demolish a single-family residence, to subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots and to construct two new residences on properly zoned R-1:8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 527-42- 008 Architecture & Site Application S-08- 30, S-09-33 & S-09-34; Subdivision Application M-08-13 Negative Declaration ND-09-02 Property Location:15928 Union Avenue Property Owner: 217 O'Connor LLC. Applicant: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design Page 3 r cHiBiT 5 Public Hearings Item #6 — Continued Staff Report made by Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner. Council Comments • Questioned if the current home would need to be demolished prior to the recording of the map. • Questioned the overlap with the Architecture and Site application and the Sub - Division Map Act application. Questioned if the neighbors had met about the drainage issues. Ms. Davis • Clarified that typically the structures would be removed before the final map is recorded, but the applicants have requested to retain the structure beyond the recordation of the final map. • Clarified that the Town's engineering staff did meet with the neighbors and that the neighbors did have some concerns about additional drainage issues and runoff from the proposed homes. Staff felt that the drainage plan could meet the goal of no additional runoff. Mr. Martello • Clarified that critical to tonight's hearing is whether the map goes forward as proposed with a three lot sub -division. If it does not go forward then the Architecture and Site becomes unimportant at this time because it would require redesign. • Clarified that if the Council does decide on a three lot sub -division then Council can decide the Architecture and Site or give direction to staff and the applicant and then refer it back to Development Review Committee or Planning Commission. Open Public Hearing Mr. Jeans, Applicant • Clarified that drainage issues will be less than they currently are at the site and surrounding area. • Commented that the density for the lots is consistent with the regulations in the Subdivision Map Act. • Commented that the Planning Commission when denying the application was discussing issues that would happen after the Architecture and Site process and therefore erred in their decision. • Commented about configurations of homes in neighboring cul-de-sacs. • Commented about the gradual change in house size from the older homes, the newer homes, and the proposed homes in the neighborhood. • Commented about the destruction plan for the existing home and the construction traffic plan once the home is demolished. Page 4 Public Hearing Item #6 — Continued Council Comments • Requested clarification on Planning Commission's decision to deny the application. • Questioned the differential in grade between the proposed homes and Mr. Mangano's home. • Questioned why Mr. Jeans chose the square footage proposed for the homes. • Questioned why Mr. Jeans chose the cottage style home for one of the proposed plans verses the craftsman style home. • Questioned if the roof line on parcel #2 could be reduced to reduce the height of the home. • Questioned if the home on parcel #2 could be moved down and away from the adjacent homes. • Questioned if massing could be considered and does that mean that an approval of the map could have a condition related to massing. Mr. Jeans • Clarified that the Planning Commission had concerns with the massing of the proposed home on parcel #2. • Commented that the Planning Commission started discussing the massing issues and that is why they denied the subdivision. • Commented that there were no elements brought up about the subdivision improvements, but they denied it based on the massing that parcel #2 added to the project. • Clarified that the difference in height between the two homes is about one foot. • Commented that he was trying to keep the smaller homes closest to Mr. Mangano and Ms. Lynott. • Clarified that he felt that he could get mass without the visibility if he went with the cottage design for the proposed home. • Clarified that they have proposed a two foot reduction for the home on parcel #2. • Commented that the reduction could be done without changing the architectural plan of the home. • Commented that he could move the homes a bit and keep the 9 ' foot setback. Page 5 Public Hearing Item #6 - Continued Mr. Martello • Clarified that Council is charged with approval of a subdivision. • Commented that historically the Town has looked at the project first and then the maps come later, nevertheless, when looking at the design of the development permits, the Council no doubt is thinking of how big of a home and where would it go, and therefore, concerned about the potential size of homes and if the usable lot area is within the discussion of the design of the subdivision. • Clarified that when approving the project, even if Council does not get to Architecture and Site, Council could put limits on where the envelope for the house could be and how it should be massed and Council could give direction along those lines and the direction would become conditions. Mr. Schwartz • Expressed concerns about the project and feels that the proposed three lot subdivision does not fit on the site. • Commented that the CEQA study is not adequate. • Requested that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Council Comments • Questioned if Mr. Schwartz was concerned about the massing of the proposed home or the number of lots. • Questioned if the Architecture and Site application as it currently exists has to be encompassed in the environmental review. Mr. Schwartz • Clarified that his concerns are the lots and the configuration of the proposed homes. • Expressed concerns that the property is too narrow for the three proposed • Commented that he would be more receptive to three single story homes at that site. Mr. Martello • Clarified that this project went forward previously without Architecture and Site, and then Architecture and Site was added to provide a better representation for what the houses would look like, essentially to fill out a shape. • Commented that we agreed with Mr. Schwartz that you cannot separate a project out if you have environmental impacts however, since the outside building envelope had been considered as part of CEQA, adding Architecture and Site did not trigger a further CEQA analysis. Page 6 Public Hearing Item #6 - Continued Ms. Lynott • Expressed concerns about mass and density of the proposed homes and requested that the homes be single story to retain the view of the hills. • Commented that the homes are massive from her home and from Mr. Mangano's home. Mr. Jafari • Expressed concerns about the mass and density of the proposed homes and that the homes do not fit with the neighborhood. Mr. Esche • Expressed concerns about the intensity of the homes and that the three lot subdivision would go against the Town's Land Use Goals and the Town's General Plan. • Commented that the homes in the neighborhood are ranch style homes and the proposed craft style homes are large and massive. • Commented that drainage is an ongoing problem for the area. Council Comments • Requested clarification on the styles of the homes in the neighborhoods and if Mr. Esches feels that a one story home would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Esches • Commented that he would like to see homes that are consistent and would fit with the scale and height of other homes in the neighborhood. • Commented that the ideal proposed subdivision would have two homes with one on the Union Avenue side and one located on Panoramic Way. • Commented that there would be a huge impact to the neighborhood with three proposed large homes. Mr. Mangano • Commented that he feels that the proposed subdivision is non -conforming and is not compatible with the neighborhood. • Commented against the proposed project and that the mass is overbearing on his home and on the neighborhood. Mr. Cabral • Expressed concerns about the mass and density of the projects built in other neighborhoods and feels that the developer has done a great job designing the homes for this project. • Commented that the project will bring construction work to the area. Page 7 Public Hearing Item #6 — Continued Mr. Jeans • Confirmed that the proposed reduction to the height is just a bit over two feet. • Commented that the proposals that have been put before Council meet all of the guidelines of the Town. • Commented that Mr. Mangano's home is a craftsman home and blends with the proposed homes. • Commented that many homes in the area are larger than the proposed homes for this project. • Commented that all drainage would be deverted underground to Union Avenue. Council Comments • Questioned if the two foot height reduction was agreed to by the applicant. • Questioned what design would be appropriate to accomplish the 91 foot setback by Ms. Lynotts house. Council Discussions • Questioned, for the record, if Mr. Jeans was offering to include the two foot height reduction and would move the home on parcel #2 southwest still allowing a 91h foot setback. Mr. Jeans • Confirmed that they were offering to include the two foot height reduction as part of the proposed project and that he would include the 9 Y foot setback. Closed Public Hearing Mr. Martello • Clarified that the appeal is based on the Planning Commission's belief that the proposed project does not meet the Town's density standards and that they mostly likely meant intensity. • Clarified that there is ample evidence in Council's packet from the professional staff's point of view that the proposed project does meet all Town standards and the goals of the General Plan. Page 8 Public Hearing Item #6 — Continued Council Discussions • Commented that the general design is consistent with other cul-de-sac designs. • Commented on supporting proposed design TM2 rather than TM1. • Commented that the average lot size is comparable to other lot sizes in the neighborhood. • Commented that there is no basis to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. • Commented that they denied the subdivision application based on Sections (b) and (d) and five out of five Planning Commission Members felt that the subdivision did not comply with Section (b) of the Subdivision Map Act. • Commented that three out of five Planning Commissioners felt that Section (d) of the Subdivision Map Act was not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. • Expressed concerns about the sizes of the homes. • Suggested sending the Architecture and Site application back to Planning Commission with direction to bring the height of the homes down. • Questioned the impacts to the neighborhood. • Commented that the height will have an immediate impact to Mr. Mangano's and Ms. Lynott's property. • Questioned how the massing affects the neighbors on Panoramic Way. • Commented that parcel two has more mass than the proposed home on parcel three. • Question if it would be an improvement if there was a one story home. Page 9 Public Hearing Item #6 — Continued MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman to grant the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Subdivision Application M-08-13 and Architecture and Site Application S-08-33 and S-09-334 subject to the following additional conditions and findings: A. Additional Conditions: 1. Applicant shall re -design the structure on lot #2 to reduce the mass consistent with Council direction. 2. The structure on lot #2 shall be set back at least 91/2 feet from the property line. 3. To include the two foot height reduction offered by the applicant. B. Additional Findings: 1. The Council finds that a three lot subdivision on the subject parcel is compatible with the neighborhood and that a two lot subdivision which would consist of two 15,000 square foot lots would be less compatible when compared with the size of the neighboring lots. 2. That the project is well designed to fit in with existing development and the three lots proposed produces one additional housing opportunity for the community. Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski. Council Discussions • Commented that the appropriate conclusion is that the Planning Commission did err for the reasons stated by Mr. Martello, and there were no findings given and the decision did not validate the discussion. • Questioned if Council would be really denying the application or is Council approving the application with conditions to some portion of redesign with parcel #2. • Suggested that trucks and construction be staged at the property line farthest from the neighbors. • Expressed concerns about height massing and the impact to the neighbors. • Expressed concerns about the height of parcel #2 Mr. Larson • Explained that the proposed plans have not been submitted for parcel #1 and the Architecture and Site applications include parcel #2 and parcel #3. • Commented that the demolition and parcel #3 could be approved tonight. Page 10 Public Hearing Item #6 — Continued Mr. Martello • Clarified that Council would be approving the application for Architecture and Site for parcel #3 and remanding parcel #2 back to the Planning Commission. VOTE: Motion passed 4/1. Council Member Barbara Spector voted no. Mayor Diane McNutt called for a recess at 8:07 p.m. Meeting resumed at 8:17 p.m. 7. Draft Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report on the Draft Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Update (Continued from 8/2/10) Staff report made by Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development and •oel Paulson, Associate Planner. Open Public Hearing Ms. Reagan • Commented about the dog friendly nature of the communit .nd would like to see stronger language to secure off leash dog times at spec! ' parks. Mr. Mangano • Commented that the vision for Los Gatos inclu•'s views of the hills and by eliminating Policy CD-15.8, which relates to •'scouraging development on or near the hillsides, it eliminates part of the visio Ms. Quintana • Commented that there are m-fy changes to the General Plan and there needs to be an opportunity for the •• •lic and Council to review the final document prior to adoption. Mr. Larson • Clarified that - the end of the General Plan deliberations, Council will be presented th the option to give staff direction to publish the changes, or to bring it back . • d further review the final draft document before it goes to print. Council • omments • ommented that Council is eager to read the revised document with all the changes that have been made and the next steps would be discussed at the Special meeting on August 18, 2010. Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION 2010-087 RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO SUBDIVIDE A .93 ACRE PROPERTY INTO THREE LOTS AND TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8 APN: 527-42-008 TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION: M-08-13 ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS: S-08-30; S-09-33 & S-09-34 NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ND-09-02 PROPERTY LOCATION: 15928 UNION AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'CONNOR, LLC APPLICANT/APPELLENT: TONY JEANS WHEREAS: A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on August 16, 2010, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law. B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report dated August 5, 2010, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. The applicant proposed to demolish a one-story single-family residence, to subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots, and to construct new two-story single-family homes on two of the proposed lots on property zoned R-1:8 located on the east side of Union Avenue, just north of Leewood Court. The property is currently developed with a 1,010 square foot one- story residence with attached garage. Adjacent properties are all developed with single-family homes. D. The Planning Commission considered the applications on June 9, 2010, and voted to deny the Subdivision application based on findings that the proposed subdivision is not EIBIT 6 consistent with the goals of the General Plan, the site is not suitable for the proposed development, and that the site is not suitable for the proposed density. The Commission also determined that the proposed parcel configurations and resulting building envelopes and proposed house sizes are not consistent or compatible with the existing lot pattern and development in the immediate and most affected neighborhood (Panorama Way and Union Avenue). The Architecture and Site applications were a defacto denial as they could not be processed without approval of the subdivision. E. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred in its decision in finding that the subdivision application is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and in finding that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and/or type of development. G. Council has determined that the Planning Commission erred in its decision in that the site is physically suitable for the proposed density and the project is consistent with the General Plan. H. Council incorporates the findings for approval attached as Exhibits A and B. RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Subdivision application M-08-13 and Architectural and Site applications S-08-30, S-09-33 and S-09-34 is hereby granted subject to the following additional conditions and findings: (a) Additional conditions: (i) The applicant shall redesign the new residence for Parcel 2 to reduce the mass consistent with Council direction. The height shall be lowered by at least two feet and the north side setback shall be a minimum of 91/4 feet. Following review of the revised plans by staff, the Planning Commission shall be the deciding body for Architecture and Site application S-09-33. (ii) The Construction Management Plan shall include provisions for on -site parking and primary access from Union Avenue as shown on the site plan displayed by the applicant at the public hearing. (b) Additional findings: (i) The Council finds that a three -lot subdivision of the subject parcel is compatible with the neighborhood and that a subdivision consisting of two approximately 16,000 square foot lots would be Iess compatible when compared with the size of neighboring lots. (ii) That the project is well designed to fit in with the existing development and the three -lot proposal produces two additional housing opportunities for the community. • 2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California on the 16th day of August 2010, by the following vote. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Joe Pirzynski, Steve Rice, Mike Wasserman, Mayor Diane McNutt NAYS: Barbara Spector ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: No /have MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CL KADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA By c .i V ii lei lX Ii�1k i Date 409- 14. TOWN COUNCIL — AUGUST 16, 2010 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision Application M-08-13 Architecture and Site Application S-08-30 Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family residence and to subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots on property zoned R-1 :8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design FINDINGS: Demolition of a single family residence: o As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house will be replaced and two additional homes will be built. 2.. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance. 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it exists; and 4. The economic utility of the structure is poor and would not be cost effective to repair and remodel. State Subdivision Map Act: ■ None of the following findings for denial specified in Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act can be made. a. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. b. The design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or. substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. E The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. a. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use' of, property within the proposed subdivision. �• DEV FINDINGS YXYi•CNIONI5921-r).L• DOG EXHIBIT A TOWN COUNCIL — AUGUS _ _'6, 2010 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 15928 Union Avenue — Parcels 2 and 3 Architecture and Site Applications S-09-33 & S-09-34 Requesting approval to construct two new single-family residences on vacant parcels created by a three -lot subdivision on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design FINDINGS: Required finding for CEQA: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the Tentative Map. No further environmental analysis is required for the individual site development. Required Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines: The project was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect and is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. CONSIDERATIONS: Required considerations in review of applications: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture and site application were all made -in reviewing this project. N: DEV'FINDINGSZOIOKN1GN159:3-A35.00C EXHIBIT B DG ANNON DESIGN ROUP November 9, 2010 Ms. Suzanne Davis Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 15928 Union Ave - Lots 2 Dear Suzanne: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN In their review of this project, the Town Council accepted the design for the house on Lot 3 of this three -lot subdivi- sion, but sent the Parcel 2 design back for revisions. Specifically, the asked that a revised design be prepared with the following changes: 1. Applicant shall re -design the structure on lot #2 to reduce the mass consistent with Council direction. 2. The structure on lot #2 shall be set back at least 9 1/2 feet from the property line. 3. To include the two foot height reduction offered by the applicant. I have been working with staff and the applicant over the past two months to meet the above criteria, meet the appli- cant's objectives, and produce a design of high quality. This letter compares the original and revised designs and offers final recommendations. Neighborhood Context To provide context for the review, the air photo and site photos from the original review are repeated below. The site is part of larger parcel with frontages on Union Avenue and Panorama Way. This specific parcel will be located on a new cul-de-sac at the end of Panorama Way. The site is bordered on all sides by existing single family homes, some older Ranch Style homes and others newer, and larger homes. Photos of the site and surrounding neighborhood are shown below. TEL 4153313795 180 HARBOR DRIVE FAX: 415331.3797 EMAIL: (dgplanno pacbell.net SUITE 219 SAUSALITO . CA 94965 View from site looking east View from site looking northwest View of adjacent house from Parcel #2 Other houses on east side of Panorama Way 15928 Union Avenue Lots 2 & 3 Design Review Comments November 9,2010 Page 2 View from site looking south View from Panorama Way looking across site View from Panorama Way of adjacent house shown to the left Closest house across Panorama Way CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE . SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 15928 Union Avenue Lots 2 & 3 Design Review Comments November 9,2010 Page 3 Issues and Concerns The applicant has redesigned the house to include more of the floor area on the Gist level with less on the second. Further, the second floor mass has been shifted away from the existing neighboring homes, and substantially buried in the roof form. From the front and north sides of the house, it would appear much more as a one-story house than the original design. The comparison of the original and revised floor plans and elevations are shown below. Note that the original drawings are the ones that I reviewed in March, and may vary slightly from the final ones reviewed by the Plan- ning Commission and Town Council. ORIGINAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN ORIGINAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN ORIGINAL FRONT ELEVATION REVISED FRONT ELEVATION REVISED SECOND FLOOR PLAN • REVISED FIRST FLOOR PLAN aanit;aarn; •a"ocaeae •u11;u•x;u.M oMa tirr CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE . SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO. CA 94965 15928 Union Avenue Lots 2 & 3 • Design Review Comments November 9,2010 Page 4 ORIGINAL RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REVISED RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ORIGINAL LEFT SIDE ELEVATION REVISED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE . SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 ORIGINAL REAR ELEVATION ■U 11 En II 11 V II al se REVISED REAR ELEVATION Recommendations I feel quite comfortable with the revised design. It has sub- stantially less visual mass than the original design, and its overall design quality is, in my judgement, better, and more compatible with both the neighborhood and the home ap- proved on the adjacent Parcel 3. I have only one remaining concern which is similar to an issue that I raised in the original design review back in March. It relates to the use of stone in a very limited man- ner on the front elevation and chimneys. The Residential Design Guidelines call for carrying wall materials and other details around all four sides of a structure (Guideline 3.2.2 - third bullet point), and specifically stares "...Avoid sick and rear elevations that are miarkedfr dijjerent from the front demotion." " I particularly find the use of stone on the front elevation troublesome where it appears as an applique on the garage which does not have a logical termination point on the right side elevation. My recommendation would be to increase the use of stone and integrate it into the other facades of the house. Aker - natively, the stone could be eliminated on the front elevation. Its use on the chimneys and columns bases, as shown in the photo to the right, would still be traditional and acceptable. Suzanne, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP 15928 Union Avenue Lots 2 & 3 Design Review Comments November 9,2010 Page 5 C7r Lam- Cannon AICP CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE . SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 • u i.H.f.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Fax: 408.354.1823 Tel: 408.354.1863 RECEIVED NOV 16 2010 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Attn: Planning Commission Subdivision at 15928 Union Avenue. Architecture & Site Design for Parcel 2 Commissioners: TOWN OF LUS iATOS PLANNING DIVISION November 14`h, 2010 This resubmission is designed to satisfy the concerns of both the Planning Commission and the Town Council as it relates to Parcel 2 [closest to the neighbors to the North]. Approvals to bate: The Town Council approved the subdivision design in its 'Modified Pie' format. This created 3 parcels all exceeding the minimum allowable lot size of 8,000 ft as follows: • Parcel 1 - fronting Union Avenue 12,000 sf +/- • Parcel 2 - the northernmost parcel on Panorama Way 10,000 sf +/- • Parcel 3 - the parcel closest to Leewood Ct .11,400 sf +/- They also approved the demolition of the existing house on the property and the design of a house at Parcel 3 [closest to Leewood Ct] as follows: • House Size • Height 3,242 sq ft [1,690 sf on main floor, 1,542 sf upstairs] 24'6" They agreed with the Planning Commission that the proposed house for Parcel 2 was more proposed massive than it needed to be and recommended that it be moved further from the northern property line [from 8ft to 9 ft]; and that it be reduced in height by approximately 2 ft. Parcel 2 proposal: The redesign of the Parcel 2 house has exceeded these goals by cutting the size of the second story in half to fewer than 800 sq ft, increasing the north property line setback to 10 ft and reducing the primary ridgeline to under 21 ft [30 ft away from the north property line] and the highest ridge to approximately 22'6 ft [over 50 ft from the north property line]. This house is proposed as the smallest of the 3 homes in this subdivision and has been designed to appear as a single story home to the neighboring homes to the north and from the Cul-de-Sac. Proposed house at Parcel 2; • House Size • Height 3,039 sq ft [2,330 sf on main floor, 709sf upstairs] Note that there is also 55 sf ceiling under 7ft 21' and 22'6 at the 2 ridges EXHIBIT 8 Driveway, Grading & Drainage: The Grading and Drainage Plan for the Subdivision intend that Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 will drain toward Panorama, with Parcel 1 drainage connecting to the Storm Drain system on Union Ave. This has been approved with the subdivision plan. For this parcel, the driveway will receive a curb at the northern edge to encourage surface runoff to flow directly to Panorama Way and to help improve the poor drainage conditions on the Mangano property. Dissipaters and splash - blocks will be used. Trees: No trees are impacted by this proposal, but screening trees are proposed at the cul-de-sac and as buffers between homes. Fences and Landscaping: Property line fences are planned along the north Property Line and will be of the height and design of the common Mangano/Lynott fence. Drought tolerant tree plantings for screening and native drought tolerant vegetation will be incorporated into the final landscaping. Agreements with Neighbors: Although not a part of this Parcel 2 proposal, discussions have occurred with neighbors in a number of areas and the Developer has indicated a willingness to accommodate them where possible. I have listed them here for completeness: • A permanent fence will be placed along the north property line as soon as grading is complete. [Mangano and Lynott]. Construction fencing will complete this to the street. • Primary access to the project will be from Union Ave rather than Panorama Way. • Tree screening will be installed as soon as nearby underground work is complete. • The large Chinese Elm on Parcel 1 will be retained in the design of a house on Union. • The design of the house on Union Ave will be a single story. Please call me at -354-1833 if you have any questions. Your T.H.I.S. Design & Development per: A. T. Jeans 15928 Union Ave CONFIDENTIAL T.H.I.5. besign Suzanne Davis From: Stephanie Lynott <slynott@stmaryslg.org> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:03 PM To: Suzanne Davis Subject: Fwd: 15928 Union Avenue Begin forwarded message: From: Stephanie Lynott <slynott@stmarvslg.org> Date: October 25, 2010 1:01:26 PM PDT To: Suzanne Davis <sdavislosgatosca.gov> Subject: 15928 Union Avenue Suzanne, I am writing to you and also asking you to forward this email to the Planning Commissioners and any other persons or groups who work for the town and are involved with the development at 15928 Union Ave. As you are well aware, the Town Council approved a three lot development for 15928 Union Ave., stating that the Planning Commission had erred in its decision. Save Barbara Spector, who is ruled by policy and consistency, I say it was the Town Council who erred in their decision. I also feel they were negligent in approving the design of the Lot 3 house without setting it in context with Lot 2 design. The same can be said for Lot 1 not being represented in conjunction with Lot 2. It is also quite ironic that the most controversial house/lot, Lot 2, is also the biggest in design. Even in its second stage of design, Lot 2 house did not decrease in square footage, designer still "going for as much to get as much", money that is. My views are still heavily impacted, although I do bend over less while in the house if I want to see the sky, as opposed to bending over half way to see the sky with the first design. Being that I live on the half acre adjacent to this property and am directly impacted by Lots 1 and 2, I have a few requests to make prior to any final decisions being made. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS I AM MAKING SOME REQUESTS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO THE FINAL DECISION MAKING: REASONS: 1. the staging area is directly outside my two bedrooms, the bathroom, and patio area, straight shot, eye level view. All traffic, parking, and deliveries will be made there, along with a trailer where business will be handled. 2. my views, privacy, and lighting are heavily impacted from both inside and outside of my house 3. after Lots 2 and 3 are developed, the process will begin all over again when Lot 1 begins to be developed, this time directly outside my bathroom and two bedrooms losing all views, seeing only stucco and roof, no matter the size of the house. This will cause this development to go for years to come. I will also guarantee that all parking will then be put from the staging area onto Union Ave. directly across the street from my i IBIT 9 bedroom, living room and dining room. For the reasons above, which I am far from happy with, I request that the following items be taken into consideration and acted upon, all of which Tony Jeans has said would be done but upon Town Council approval, he seemed to have forgotten Hence, I find it necessary to have things in writing where there needs to be accountability. I REQUEST THE FOLLOWING: 1. That the fencing, matching the height and design between Tom Mangano's yard and mine, be installed by the developer immediately going the full length of the property. This will allow me some sort of privacy as my world is turned upside down for some years. 2. That all screen trees be planted at the beginning of the project so that they get established as soon as possible and growing for the spring 3. That the two trees that Tony Jeans said he would purchase and plant on my side of the fence also be planted at the onset of this project 4. That weekend hours of work be limited. Since this project will go on for some time I feel it is only fair to have a couple of days a week for some peace and quiet and be able to sit in my yard and have a conversation that can be heard. In our area you can hear a cat meow houses away. I can't imagine what it will be like with tractors, bull dozers, back-up signals, deliveries , employee parking etc. are all going on next door and directly outside my bedroom windows, yard and bathroom. Considering all of the losses I will have to endure over the next few years and other permanent losses, I feel these requests are simple. Thank you for any considerations you may have regarding this situation, Stephanie Lynott 15910 Union Avenue 2 Suzanne Davis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stephanie Lynott <slynott@stmaryslg.org> Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:41 PM Suzanne Davis Planning Fwd: 15928 Union Commission letter RECEIVED NOV 29 2010 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Suzanne, I was in to see the new design last week for Lot 2. Suffice to say, I find it disappointing and disillusioning. The overall square footage is the about the same, I see no big difference in the impact of the size. The main difference to me is the deck off the second story of the back of the house which directly overlooks my patio backyard, bedroom, dining porch, and family room. This was not in the original design. I am forwarding the below emails to the the Planning Commission. Thank you, Stephanie Lynott Begin forwarded message: From: Stephanie Lynott <slynott(c�stmaryslg.orq> Date: November 28, 2010 9:29:51 PM PST To: "Thomas.mangano" <hunthunterverizon.net> Cc: "'Suzanne Davis"' <sdavis@losgatosca.gov>, "'Ory Buesing"' <obuesinq(gmail.com>, 'Geoff Mitchell"' <gsm(a mac.com>, "'panoramaway'" <panoramaway(c�googlegroups.com>, 'Thomas Mangano"' <thomas.manganoverizon.net> Cubject: Re: 15928 I Inion Commission letter Tom, i have no problem on what the height of the fence is on your property line, especially since you have somewhat of "view", call it what you may. Since the views are literally GONE from the 1/2 acre I live on due Lots 1 and 2, I need to go for privacy. I see no reason why the higher fence can't begin where my property line begins and yours ends. Trust me, there are no personal concerns being put my way regarding neighborhood common sense concerns. I lose on all fronts, including having the staging area next door with deliveries, tractors, bulldozers, parking, traffic, business trailer etc. and then have the whole process start over with the completion of Lots 2&3. This "new design" intrudes on my privacy due to a deck on the backside of the lot 2 house which now oversees my patio,backyard, bedroom, dining porch and family room. I am not happy about that at all. All along, Tony has represented his concern in design related to my privacy. He has said this to both Town Council and Planning Commission that all went out the door, along with many other things he said, prior to approval. i To add to this, Tony has informed me that the design of Lot 1 will be the biggest of the 3 designs. How these designs are accepted one at a time, without seeing the impact of the whole 3 lot configuration is absolutely beyond me. Good luck on your thesis, Stephanie On Nov 28, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Thomas.mangano wrote: Suzanne.... No PDFs, no 16 pages, just a simple letter to the point, for the pending hearing. I am asking that you and commission, require that an alternative smaller homes be explored at the commission review level, for the current 3000+ sq. ft. home is too BIG! A few other things: 1) I'm sure a request for proposal for postponement will fall on deaf ears, but I am requesting one. I will not be able to attend the hearing due to school requirements for my master thesis presentation. In the event a postponement is not granted, I will ask that Geoff be also allow my time to read a letter by me for the record, and the immediate hearing impact. 2) No partial P3 story polls were constructed as of this writing, although you indicated they had agreed to a P3 partial re -construction. 3) I have conditions that were detailed in my last commission hearing. I still stand on those conditionsas part of any approval. One specific there, has been no resolution on my side fence height. I do not want a full seven foot fence the whole length of my south fence. 4) I would ask that as part of the approval, that a strict good neighbor policy for person and property is required. I have specific concerns that this developer has let some of the neighbor common sense concerns become personal, when concerns were made solely for the benefit of the neighborhood current and future residents. Tom Mangano 2 Suzanne Davis From: Thomas Mangano <mangano.thomas@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:19 AM To: Suzanne Davis Cc: Stephanie Lynott; Ory Buesing; Geoff Mitchell; thomas.mangano Subject: 15928: P2 Design on steroids Suzanne: I talked to the Stephanie last night over the fence as she was touring the story polls next door. She tells me that the p2 hering is now pushed back to 12/10 or something like that. I take from that there still must be design issues being worked through. Let me give you my input at this point. In a a nut shell, P2 is just too big and too high, because of the lot layout and the associated siting of the home. The home is using articulation to maximize its square feet at the detriment of everything else a home is usually evaluated on. So articluation is being used as a steroid of this design and it is a bad look for the future owner and neighbors! The developer will argue that P2 meets FAR and height requirements and is compatible with the surrounding, but this home needs to have a smaller FAR and lower height, for P2 house is not normally sited and must NOT be evaluated as a normally placed and sited home. It is still to big and to high when you put it into actual context with the future p3, p 1 and our existing homes. Given that this house is going to be placed to block the "40 foot view corridor" of the north lots, this home really needs to be home that is a lot closer to 2400 sq feet and 18 ft high then the approximately 3100 sq. ft and 22/23 ft height that is being proposed. Tony will argue my home is almost 22 high, but my house is NOT in the view corridor, and is in total placement context to all the homes around it!. THIS P2 HOME IS NOT. The developer can't have it both ways, odd placement and a big high house!. Given the home's placement with the council approving the map, good development would say using the argument of "compatible" for both the proposed home's FARS and height for the justification of the proposed design for P2 is not in this case good neighborhood development. tom mangano i EXHIBIT 10 Suzanne Davis From: Thomas.mangano <hunthunter@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:00 PM To: Suzanne Davis Cc: 'Ory Buesing'; slynott@stmaryslg.org; 'Geoff Mitchell'; 'Thomas Mangano'; 'panoramaway' Subject: FW: 15928 Union Commission letter (with letter) RECEIVED Attachments: P C 12 7r.doc NOV 2 Letter attached this time TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION From: Thomas.mangano [mailto:hunthunter` verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:57 PM To: 'Suzanne Davis' Cc: 'Ory Buesing'; 'slynott@stmaryslg,org'; 'Geoff Mitchell'; 'panoramaway'; 'Thomas Mangano' Subject: 15928 Union Commission letter Suzanne.... No PDFs, no 16 pages, just a simple letter to the point, for the pending hearing. I am asking that you and commission, require that an alternative smaller homes be explored at the commission review level, for the current 3000+ sq. ft. home is too BIG! A few other things: 1) I'm sure a request for proposal for postponement will fall on deaf ears, but I am requesting one. I will not be able to attend the hearing due to school requirements for my master thesis presentation. In the event a postponement is not granted, I will ask that Geoff be also allow my time to read a letter by me for the record, and the immediate hearing impact. 2) No partial P3 story polls were constructed as of this writing, although you indicated they had agreed to a P3 partial re -construction. 3) I have conditions that were detailed in my last commission hearing. I still stand on those conditions as part of any approval. One specific there, has been no resolution on my side fence height. I do not want a full seven foot fence the whole length of my south fence. 4) I would ask that as part of the approval, that a strict good neighbor policy for person and property is required. I have specific concerns that this developer has let some of the neighbor common sense concerns become personal, when concerns were made solely for the benefit of the neighborhood current and future residents. Tom Mangano 1 RECEIVED NOV 29 ZOiO TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Subject: 15928 Union, Parcel 2, (Date: December the 7th or 8th) Attention: Suzanne Davis and Planning Commissioners November 29, 2010 As various 15928 Union proposals have come before the Commission, you have professionally fulfilled your obligation and denied all the previous proposals. I commend and thank you for your dedication, and understanding of the Town's General Plan and building guidelines. Unfortunately, the current council has let other criteria bias its interpretation of the general plan, and because of that we have another application for a P2 home that is too BIG and does not conform to the neighborhood and town's guide lines. As your body correctly noted in your last hearing, this development map has a "density" and "intensity" issue with the 3-lot configuration, but given that the council has approved the 3-lot configuration, I would ask that you not approve this proposed BIG house for P2. Field conditions sometimes need to override compatible FARs and house heights numbers. This site is a poster child of such a condition. In this case — because of the geometry and the adjacent parcel 2 not only to my house and Stephanie's house behind me but also to the future parcel 3 and parcel 1 homeowners — this proposed house for parcel 2 is just too BIG, massive and intrusive, for the site. The answer to this P2 site is not another BIG 3000+ sq. ft. house; that only magnifies the major deficiency of the 3-lot map the council has granted. The applicant is claiming to have resolved the deficiencies by making the house two feet shorter and moving it two feet to the south. I believe your expertise will tell you that this problem is bigger than what two feet can solve, for it's also a FAR issue. The proposed structure — whose orange story poles are looming like some kind of hideously huge circus tent outside my kitchen window — is far too BIG a house for the P2 setting. I know you will se,- the curb appeal issues of the home's predominant garage -front profile, the 70g% hidden front entrance (hidden by the p3 side fence), and over use of articulation to gerrymander the house to the site, and the needless "smoke stacks" of a bygone era (look past the trees that were strategically placed to hide them in the renderings). I will not be able to attend the next hearing meeting, but — after you view the story poles and this application package for P2 — I believe you will come to the same the conclusions I did. The parcel 2 home as proposed is simply too BIG and massive. I would ask that you require the applicant to propose a smaller home that confirms better to the neighborhood and the Los Gatos build guide lines, prior to denying this application so that we make sure to look at more reasonable alternatives prior to any future appeal. Thomas Mangano 112 Panorama Way • Los Gatos, CA 95032 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK