Loading...
9 - Cont'dSOLAR(SHADOW) STUDY ON 16161 SHORT ROAD -REDUCED HEIGHT RESULTANT SHADOW DEC21 09.00 ✓ n I I 1 rg, 1 r' Li } 1-&I Lc r-3N0 < 1 Nm 1 - ID a— �— D ti FJ L Tree Line 15 Rl 'auk Dz voI J This Page Intentionally Left Blank '- U - - -�f i6161:SHORTR, -, F'ROJEC( DATA s "--` e.. .; � — Y^• rvi "'^ •-• --. .. -..— a R..... _- :� y'��``_fv�_.Cd�l�. EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRED/ PERMITTED Zoning di<Jfrict R-1:20 same - Land use 91 single family residence same - General PI in Designation low density residential same - i Lof size (sxi, ft.) 23 ,9Y; same 20,000 sq. ft. minimum 1. Exterior mliterials: • siding 1:1t,cco 3IILLCO • trim 1 woos, aSEo • windowy l+yrov - u-ao - • roofing Con,?. Sn(06Le. tuy-Ill( - Building fh..'1ior area: • first flooF• e 53 2, j35 • 2 - 2$1D i • _towel- levelct 1,372. 2, - • cellar 7' 95 exempt from floor area • garage i. 072 . 7g0.€8 1,160 sq. ft. maximum Setbacks (t i.): • front I 115 , 5 ' L1' 30 feet minimum • rear f ' -'1 4- /6' - 10 25 feet minimum • side 13' + 1', r 15 feet minimum • side 2 /-15` + 115' 15 feet minimum Maximum h34ight (ft.) 1 4) + 2.6' ± - 30 feet maximum Building c erage (%) 7.-3 % ,. H. $% 40% maximum Floor Area hallo (%) 1 • house • a. 6.64 3(5i1.1 r 1rt. % G 4,752 sq. ft. maximum • garage ; 3 i ti Yo' 77•cn.`, c? 7.2'-4 1,160 sq. ft. maximum - Parking 4- two spaces minimum Tree Removals - canopy replacement Sewer or se)tic `j c 0 cit- s Etc) E j2 - N:\DE\\M,rtu\. &S I6(61 S-onli,jdao_DOC EXHIBIT 10 This Page Intentionally Left Blank `iir TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT / Meeting Date: June 22, 2011 PREPARED BY: Marni F. Moseley, Associate Planner, AICP mmoseley(@,losgatosca.gov APPLICATION NO.: Architecture and Site Application S-11-001 LOCATION: ITEM NO: 4 DESK ITEM 16161 Short Road ( West side of Short Road, accessed from a driveway approximately 350 ft. south of Old Blossom Hill Road) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: John and Elvie Scott CONTACT PERSON: Benjamin Guilardi APPLICATION SUMMARY: EXHIBITS: REMARKS: Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family residence and to construct a new single family residence on property zoned R-1:20. APN 523-09-029. 1-11. Previously Submitted 12. Letter from applicant, received June 16, 2011 (one page) 13. Letter from Beth Jendricks, received June 20, 2011 (two pages) 14. Letter from Kirsten Powell, received June 22, 2011 (four pages) 15. Letter from 16171 Short Rd, received June 22, 2011 (two pages) 16. Additional information from applicant, received June 22, 2011 (five pages) 17. Landscaping plans, received June 21, 2011 (two pages) Staff received additional letters of opposition after the distribution of the staff report. In addition, the applicant has submitted additional letters and information to support the proposed design to assist in their presentation of the application. Please note that while the applicant's civil engineer references the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the property is not in the hillside and is not subject to those standards. It has come to the Town's attention that the plans routed with the staff report were missing the landscaping plans (Exhibit 17). It has also come to staffs attention that there is an error on page five of the staff report. The neighborhood analysis chart lists 16207 Short Road as a single story residence, while the residence is actually two stories. ATTACiiMEN! T 2 Planning Commission Desk Item - Page 2 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 June 22, 2011 Prepared by: Marni F. Moseley, AICP Associate Planner WRR:MM:cgt N\DEVIPC REPORTS12011116161 Short-desk.doc A13prov Wendie L. Rooney Director of Community Development �, � e 0D-3 by: June 13th,2011 Reference Letter : Greg Shean to Town of Los Gatos dated June8,2011 Dear Concerned Los Gatos Residents, RECEIVIED JUN 1®2Q11 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION This salutation includes us also, which fact escapes some of our erstwhile neighbors. They seem to forget that we also have rights. This is the USA ,and a republic for which it stands. It is important to note that we have diligently attempted to follow the Town's guidelines, and that we have made major modifications to attempt to improve privacy, and lack of bulk as expressed by some of our neighbors. The Town's own architect has strongly supported the design. In order to listen to them, we have met , or attempted to meet most of them over a period of eight months. We have hadmore than 19_meetingswith one of theneighborsAwho harLsome issues) and more than 10 meetings with another who basically had minor problems. We have brought others pies ,to be neighborly and set up visits with everyone who wrote a letter of concern. We have responded to the Town to every letter which has been written. As a result we have made major revisions to our design to help privacy, vigorously cut down trees, and forcefully trimmed others which would as a result improve the views that our neighbors wish to have improved. This, of course, has zero to do with design. We have gone "above and beyond in our drainage design" according to one of the two civil engineers we have employed in the task of making sure that our neighbors have no issues ,such as they had previously with the property. Our business interests normally deal a lot with people and we are well versed in the art of give and take, but when a person such as Mr. Shean demands we do something in writing, which will forever affect our property it is a no go... Actually his request of not building a two story on the small existing building is against Los Gatos Town code for development and so the point is moot. He was clearly unaware of this ruling.. He was quite politely told that the forum to express his dissatisfaction was the Town Planning Council meeting. I told him that if he continued in this manner, not listening to what I had to say, he demanded that we should not be allowed to build a two story house. I asked him to be nice, and civil if not, I regrettably would hang up on him. After repeating it three times I did that. The action that he wanted us to take is supported by the Town code does not allow to build a 2 story guest house and so he will get his wish, and it is a non issue Sincerely, Elvie Scott EXHIBIT 12 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Beth Jendricks 119 Hernandez Avenue Los Gatos, CA June 19, 2011 RE: 16161 Short Road Development Plan To the Planning Staff and Commission: RECEIVED JUN 2 G 2011 TOWN OF LOS GA T OS PLANNING DIVISION Regarding the development of the lot at 16161 Short Road, I feel compelled to contact you after living next door to 45 Walnut Avenue Los Gatos during its development by the owners, John and Elvie Scott and Benjamin Guiliardi. We were told by John Scott prior to the demolition and new build of 45 Walnut Avenue that he and his wife wanted a smaller home to move into, that they had grandchildren, implied they were down -sizing, etc... My husband was pretty certain that it was not true but was said to make us feel supportive of the project. We did not care either way as everyone has a constitutional right to use his or her property, but it was weird to be lied to right in the beginning. These are some of the issues we had personal involvement with: 1) The construction was done in the cheapest way possible. The 70-year old poorly constructed foundation remained in place. 2) The workmen came from Watsonville in very dirty, beat -up cars. They ate lunch straight from cans of pinto beans that were left on site. John Scott could often be heard yelling at the workers. 3) John Scott greatly underestimated the cost of building on the permit so as to reduce the building fees. This is cheating and denies Los Gatos its revenue. 4) There was music played loudly which the workers did turn off at my request. Several times I had to go over at 9 and 10 pm and ask the workers to stop making noise. For two Saturdays we had to endure a small backhoe moving dirt from 7am to 8pm. The foreman pretty much disappeared after the shell was built. 5) They painted our fence the color of their choice. We put the fence in on our property 10 years ago and it now has a 3.5 inch bow in the middle onto their property so they used that against us. 6) They put in a curb that was not surveyed to the street (done to their advantage to take more city property) and that did not line up with our curb which was surveyed prior to installation. I had to get the town involved to move it. EXHIBIT 13 There were other issues but l am trying to convey the nature of this development team; that they are exploitive and trying to make the most profit possible. I think the neighbors around them will suffer, as we did, and that does not seem in the spirit of Los Gatos where developers are favored over owners. Sincerely yours, 3 Beth Jendricks LOGAN & POWELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Robert J. Logan, Of Counsel 16450 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 110 • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Telephone (408) 402-9542 RECEIVED rjUN 22 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION • Fax (408) 402.8441 • E-mail: info@loganpowell.com June 22, 2011 Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: S-11-0Q1- 16161 Short Road Dear Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commissioners: This office represents Bob and Lois Mallison (collectively referred to as the "Mallisons"). The Mallisons reside at 120 Mary Way, the property located to the west of the proposed project and most impacted by the height, width and mass of this project. The project as proposed is a 3,511 square foot residence with a 781 square foot garage on an unusually narrow flag lot. The property is approximately 300 feet long but only 70 feet wide. The property is sandwiched between 3 properties on Short Road and 4 properties on Mary Way. As designed, the side yards of the lot will abut the backyards of the properties on Short Road and Mary Way. Due to this unusual configuration, the project has significant visual and privacy impacts on the surrounding neighbors that should not be ignored. THIS PROJECT AS DESIGNED IS CONTRARY TO THE TOWN'S RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES ("GUIDELINES") AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. The purpose of the Guidelines is to "ensure that development is compatible with its surrounding neighborhood." This project fails to comply with the Guidelines in several ways. One overarching principle of the Guidelines is that "Homes will be designed with respect for the views, privacy and solar access of the neighbors." Guidelines 1.4. As is easily seen on the pictures attached hereto as Exhibit A, there was absolutely no respect given to the Mallisons' views of the foothills, privacy or solar access. The Mallisons' view from their backyard and decks will be dominated by the proposed project. This will significantly Maliison/Corr/PC-ttr6.22.11 EXHIBIT 14 Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission RE: S-11-001- 16161 Short Road June 22, 2011 Page 2 of 4 reduce their privacy and solar access and it almost completely eliminate their view of the foothills. See Exhibit A. The view from the Mallisons' upper deck and bedrooms will be dominated by the second story of this structure which will be located only 15 feet from the property line. The two-story portion of the project is not articulated and will appear as a mass of concrete overlooking the Mallisons' backyard and 4 bedrooms. This impact is only exacerbated by the grade differential of the properties (the Mallison property is approximately 4 feet lower that the project site). When standing on the Mallisons' deck or in their bedrooms, the imposing structure will be looming over the Mallisons and adversely impact their property. Contrary to staffs assertion, the reduction of the structure's height by only 18 inches and the raising of the sill heights of the windows overlooking the Mattison property to 5 feet will not eliminate the adverse visual impacts. Due to the orientation of the respective lots, the proposed project's side yard abuts the Mallisons' backyard. The Mallisons are squeezed in by the 3 side yards which surround their property. This orientation creates privacy and intrusion impacts that would not be as extreme with a typical development pattern (i.e side yard adjacent to side yard or rear yard abutting rear yard). There have been no attempts to mitigate these adverse visual impacts. Guidelines 2.5.2 specifically requires applicants to design with sensitivity to adjacent neighbors. "Existing views are not protected as a right. Never -the - less, additions to existing homes and new houses should be planned with an awareness of the impacts which they will have on the views, sky exposure, sun access and privacy of neighbors." Guidelines 2.5.2. This project was not planned with an awareness of the impacts it would have on the Mallisons. In fact, the applicant appears to have ignored the impacts on the Mallisons. The Mary Way neighbors were not contacted about the house design until after it had been completed. This project also fails to comply with the Guidelines regarding sun access. Guidelines Section 3.11.1 provides "Locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to living spaces and actively used outdoor areas on adjacent homes? The structure was allegedly located with the highest point adjacent to the Mattison home to comply with the Town's requirements. But in doing so, the applicant failed to address the grade differential between the properties and the impact this project would have on the sun access on the Mallisons' downstairs living area and backyard. Although there are Cypress trees•on the Mattison property adjacent to the proposed project, the height of this structure far exceeds the Cypress trees See Exhibit A. That height will block the sun to the Mallisons' kitchen, family room and dining room for approximately 1.5-2 hours per day. The backyard will be impacted for an even longer period of time each day. The living Mallison/Corr/PC-Itr6.22.11 Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission RE: S-11-001- 16161 Short Road June 22, 2011 Page 3 of 4 areas of the Mallisons' home were designed to incorporate as much light as possible and include approximately 450 feet of windows and glass doors. The Mallisons have lived in this home for 40 years and are intimately familiar with the light patterns. Significant light will be lost if this project is constructed as proposed. Residential Design Guidelines 3.11.2 addresses privacy intrusions on adjacent residents. It provides 'Windows should be places to minimize views into the living spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes. Where possible, second floor windows that might intrude on adjacent property should have sill heights above eye level or have frosted or textured glass to reduce visual impacts." Two windows in the master bedroom face directly into the Mallisons' 4 bedrooms. Because of the orientation of the lot, those windows are only 15 feet from the property line. The windows have been slightly modified per the request of the consulting architect but that modification does not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. The windows as currently proposed are located 5 feet from the finished floor and are not frosted or textured glass. At 5 feet, everyone but small children can look directly into the Mallisons' bedrooms. Contrary to staff's assertion, this will not "remove potential privacy concerns along the walls closest to the neighbors" THE PROJECT SHOULD BE REDESIGNED AS A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES. The applicant argues that the home cannot be built as a single story home because of "increased impervious coverage which would eliminate area to be used for a pool and outdoor enjoyment." That loss is only caused by the desire to build a very large home on a very narrow lot. If the house size was reduced, there would be more outdoor area. This lot is uniquely shaped and uniquely located and therefore, may not be able to accommodate all of the desires of the owners. The project should be designed to fit the lot and the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant's desire for a pool and outdoor space should not be at the expense of the privacy and well being of the Mallisons. The project site is surrounded by single story homes on Short Road. Three of the 4 adjacent properties on Mary Way are two-story homes; however, they are much more modest in character and follow a traditional development pattern on much smaller lots. Due to the narrowness of the project site and the proposed orientation of the lot, a two-story structure is inappropriate and incompatible. The one story design would fall within the standards of the existing neighborhood as several homes surrounding the site are single story as shown on the photographs attached hereto as Exhibit B. A single story design, rather Mallison/CorrJPC-Itr6.22.11 Honorable Chairperson and Planning Commission RE: S-11-001- 16161 Short Road June 22,2011 Page 4 of 4 than the proposed two-story design, will promote neighborhood values and standards as it will reduce the significant impacts the proposed project will have ,on the neighborhood. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the project as proposed should not be approved. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, /3-1'12---e Kirsten M. Powell KMP:sq cc: client enclosures Mallison/Corr/PC-kr8.22.11 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E.Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Planning Department, Ms. Mami Moseley Planning Commission, Ms. Marcia Jensen Re: 16161 Short Rd To All Concerned Parties, RECEIVED 'JUN222u11 TOWN OF LOS GA T Of PLANNING DIVISION June 21, 2011 In reviewing the online agenda for the public hearing of 16161 Short Rd we noticed that our letters sent via email were omitted. I have attached copies of those correspondences because this project impacts us directly. Easement: Regarding the easement which crosses our property, in our letter on 4/4/2011, we stated that we did not have an agreement yet in place. Since then, the plans have changed showing the driveway going through our fences. Again, the parties are close to signing a new easement agreement that, once recorded, will move the easement slightly to the north of where the driveway currently is located, but moving our fences to allow access, as illustrated on plans received by the City on 1/14/11, is not an acceptable option. Setbacks: In response to email sent 4/4/11 regarding setbacks. Ms.Moseley had stated that the town would not "require them to meet setbacks that are inconsistent with the requirements of Town Code". Our point here is that: • The new setbacks were created when Staff allowed the architect to reorient the "front" door, while the driveway and all surrounding streets remain unchanged. R-1:20 properties on Short Rd have front doorsfacing East and a minimum frontage width of 100'. With the new reorientation, the proposed property at 16161 Short Rd will have a front door facing North and will not meet the minimum frontage width of 100'. This seems to be inconsistent with the neighborhood as well as Town Code. • Staff should not dismiss our concerns solely because we have a large back yard. Our extended living space at our cabana is only 12'from the shared back fence and the new reduced setback affects our privacy directly. Landscaping: • We have diligently fertilized and cared for our trees on our property to create an illusion of privacy. However with the increased mass of the new two story structure on 16161 Short Rd. that privacy is compromised. We strongly feel this issue can be remedied by simply adding 3-5 mature Camphor trees to screen the new mass ofthe two story house. • Please do not dismiss our concerns simply because we already have some mature trees on our property. We would like to maintain our privacy in the house, yard and at our cabana located near the back property line. • The attached drawing (exhibit A) basically illustrates how much the mass will increase. • Landscape plans were not available at the Planning Department on 6/21/11, but we eventually viewed a small PDF file on the computer and it appears the builders are not adding any new trees on our side that will act as a privacy screen. • In the letter of justification received by the City on 1/1/11 the applicant wrote, "there could be...the addition of some taller trees for screening for the neighbors". We would Love to see it! • Mr. Moseley's email on 6/21/11 commented that shrubs would need to be removed in order to accommodate our request, as long as the scrubs removed are not on our property we do not have an issue with their removal. Thank you for your consideration, John and Raquel Voris 16171 Short Rd. EXHIBIT 15 Cc ,A- A A e - C;e7 t - „ e At- 0.4n-512;lititweNtaarf,'7- -11 - _ t ' '"ri • " k 41 Litt o Ji Why a 2 story design. • Majority of homes in the neighborhood-60% are 2 stories. • All neighboring homes enjoy a reasonable size functional back yard in a natural setting. • Massive Redwoods located on northern side divide the site. The only location for the new home in the southern portion where existing home is. • Narrow physical nature of the lot a dictating a design criteria -Considering a functional special flow. A long and linear plan leads to dysfunctional plan. No room for back yard and pool. • A one story design will extend views of the subject to 3 additional properties located on 124, 128 Mary and 16207 Short Road. • Minimizing the size and mass of the structure by putting only 1/3 of the total sf. at upper level. • Minimizing the foot print. Increasing the natural and rural setting consistent with the neighborhood. • Minimizing the impervious coverage and planning a functional drainage system that would take care of the drainage within the site as preferred by the Town and public policy not to tax the public storm sewer system. • According to the engineers a one story design will create a drainage problem that cannot be taken care of within the site and will have to connect to public storm drain system. • A 1 story design would lead to a home closer to max FAR due to increased hallways (an inefficient plan) and required exterior exposure for light and fire escape. • A one story design will also increase the amount of cut and fill and destroying the existing outdoor natural setting. • Due to Scott's family allergies the living and sleeping areas of the home cannot be below grade. Living and sleeping quarters are unacceptable in a basement for most families. Recreational areas such as home theater, wine cellar ideal for the same are not included in this project. EXHIBIT 16 June 21, 2011 Job No. 11-231 , CIVIL ,NGIN�EpI\G Marni Moseley, Associate Planner Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Single Story Inadequacies Lands of Scott -16161 Short Road, Los Gatos Architectural and Site Review Application S-11-001 Dear Marni: The subject parcel is adjacent to four other oversized 24,000 SF lots within the R1-20,000 zone district. This district serves as a transition from the large HR lots east of Short Road to the 8,000 SF lots on Mary Way. From the attached aerial photo it can be seen that these adjoining lots, which front on Short Road each have a substantial rear yards averaging about 8,000 SF. Were the subject site restricted to a single story residence, the impact to recover the second floor footage of 1,372-SF would require coverage of another 1,800 SF. The efficiency of the second story is lost due to the need to create additional hallways and "windowed" walls. Consequently the rear yard is reduced to an area of less that 2,000 SF which is grossly inadequate on a lot of 24,000 SF. The single story residence design also triggers the following negative results: 1) It is inconsistent with LEED standards for minimization of building footprints by using two stories; 2) The increase in impervious coverage on the lot from 28% to 35% is an unacceptable increase which makes the presently designed stoiinwater system impossible. 3) It conflicts with the Town Hillside Standards and Guidelines section below: IV. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY A. Maximum Allowable Development Mari Moseley, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos June 21, 2011 Page 2 of 2 The Town of Los Gatos controls the amount of development that is allowed by limiting density and intensity of development - the minimum land area required for each house - and by limiting the maximum floor area of each house. In Los Gatos, limiting the floor area or size of a house is important for several reasons: • Large houses cover more land area, therefore requiring more disruption of the natural landscape and ecosystems. • Large houses create more impervious surface area, which can increase runo f and cause drainage, landslide, and flooding problems. It is our professional opinion that the two story design is more consistent with sensitive infill design and Town policies. Sincerely, TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E. Principal Engineer This Page Intentionally Left Blank