Loading...
9 -Attachment 3TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: August 24, 2011 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO.: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CONTACT PERSON: APPLICATION SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DATA: CEQA: FINDINGS: Marni F. Moseley, Associate Planner, AICP mmoseley(a,losgatosca. gov Architecture and Site Application S-11-001 ITEM NO: 1 16161 Short Road (West side of Short Road, accessed from a driveway approximately 350 ft. south of Old Blossom Hill Road) John and Elvie Scott Benjamin Guilardi 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. DEEMED COMPLETE: June 6, 2011 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: December 6, 2011 Soft Approval subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (0-5d.u./ac.) Zoning Designation: R-1:20 - Single Family Residential Applicable Plans & Standards: Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 23,935 square feet Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:20 East Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:20 South Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:8 West Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:8 The project is Categorically Exempt according to Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. • As required by Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town that this project is Categorically Exempt. • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence. ATTACHMENT 3 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 August 24, 2011 CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. EXHIBITS: 1-11. Previously Submitted (in the Staff Report of June 22, 2011) 12-17. Previously Submitted (in the Desk Item Report of June 22, 2011) 18. Excerpt of Summary minutes from June 22, 2011 Planning Commission (four pages) 19. Excerpt of Summary minutes from July 13, 2011 Planning Commission (one page) 20. Letters from applicant (nine pages) 21. Letters from Gregg Kerlin (two pages) 22. Revised Development Plans, received August 9, 2011 (11 pages) BACKGROUND: The proposed project was considered by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2011. The Planning Commission continued the item with the direction to reduce the visual impact of the proposed residence on the adjacent neighbors (Exhibit 18). The applicant has submitted a detailed response and revised plans to address the Commission's direction (Exhibits 20 and 22). The applicant has installed revised story poles to reflect the proposed changes. ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site The applicant has made the following revisions to address the visibility concerns discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of June 22: Reduced the height of the residence: The applicant has further reduced the height of the proposed residence from 26.43 feet to 25.71 feet. Raised second story window height: The applicant has raised the windows on the west elevation to a minimum of 6 feet from fmished floor; further reducing visibility concerns from the second story to the adjacent neighbor's residence or yard area. Reduced- the size of the second story: The applicant modified the design of the proposed second story. The revisions reduce the size of the second story by 149 sq. ft., and reduce the width along the west elevation from 48 feet to 33.5 feet. In addition the second story has been Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 August 24, 2011 set back from the west property line an additional two feet, which will provide nearly 60 feet of separation between the existing residence at 120 Mary Way and the proposed second story. Increased View Corridor for 120 Mary Way: The revisions to the second story provide for a 33% increase in the view corridor for the residence at 120 Mary Way compared to the previous proposal; please see Exhibit 20, and sheet 1 of Exhibit 22. B. CEOA Determination The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town because this is a single family residence. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Staff received two letters from Mr. Gregg Kerlin (Exhibit 19) regarding the application and proposed revisions. Based on the potential impacts of a larger single story residence, he is in support of the revised two story design. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The direction from the Planning Commission on June 22, 2011, was for the applicant to reduce the visual impact on the adjacent residences. The applicant has reduced the size of the residence, particularly the second floor; reduced the height of the residence; increased the sill height of the second story windows along the west elevation; and increased the setback of the second story along the west side of the property. The combination of these changes help reduce the visual impact on the adjacent residence at 120 Mary Way, as discussed at the public hearing, while not impacting additional adjacent residences, or the drainage of the site. B. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application and take the following actions: 1. Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 2); and 2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence (Exhibit 2); and 3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 August 24, 2011 4. Determine that the project is in compliance with the Single and Two Family Residential Design Guidelines; and 5. Approve the Architecture & Site Application S-11-001 subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit 3) and the revised development plans (Exhibit 20). Prepared by: Mami F. Moseley, AICP Associate Planner Approved by Wendie L. Rooney Director of Community Development WRR:MM:cgt cc: John and Elvie Scott, 13587 Saraview Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 N:\DE V \PC REPORTS\2011 \I6161 Short-2.doc 4. 16161 Short Road. Architecture and Site Application S-11-001. 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. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: John and Elvie Scott. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley. Chair Marico Sayoc opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Asked if the property at 16131 Short Road has to remain as a secondary unit. • Asked if the codes would allow this unit to become a'two-story unit. Associate Planner Marni Moseley • Confirmed that there is no ability for this property to be subdivided into two properties. The secondary unit was existing when it was annexed into the Town. • Commented that the codes would not allow it to become a two-story unit. Chair Marico Sayoc called for a break at 8:28 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. Chris Spaulding, Applicant (Architect), gave a presentation on the proposed project. Terry Szewczyk, Civil Engineer, addressed the drainage issues. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Asked why a two-story house is the best solution as opposed to going underground. Chris Spaulding • Commented that they do not have a cellar because the rooms are not the types that would go in a cellar. Normally, the primary living areas and bedrooms are above ground. • Commented that the footprint of the house gets a lot larger if it becomes one-story, it only reduces the height by six feet, and it messes up the backyard and the drainage design. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Asked about the design of the storm drainage. • Asked about the fire truck turnaround. • Asked which property the easement is located on. • Asked if the person who created the lot granted the easement. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Asked if a one-story house would meet the 150-foot Fire Department requirement. Terry Szewczyk • Commented that the drain was designed for a 10-year event. A more severe storm would result in some standing water on the property but it would be contained behind the berm. A Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 June 22, 2011 Exhibit 18 25-year storm would be the limit where the system would break down. It is fail safe in that there is a bit of storage above the surface because of the berm. Chris Spaulding • Commented that the Fire Department requires a 23-foot interior radius for a turnaround and it has to be within 150 feet of the back of the house. The house cannot be moved without removing the trees. • Commented that the 150-foot requirement could be met with a one-story house, but it would be close. • Commented that the easement is owned by an adjacent property owner. • Commented that he did not know who granted the easement. Karen Mallison • Commented that she has lived in Los Gatos for 40 years and lived at 120 Mary Way as a child. • Commented that a two-story house would impact the privacy of her parents' home. • Asked that this project be kept to a one-story house. Lois Mallison • Commented that she has lived at 120 Mary Way for 40 years. • Commented that the owners talked to only one neighbor regarding the easement. • Commented that this house sits directly behind her house and it is not realistic. It totally blocks her view of the foothills. • Commented that they want a one-story house on that lot. • Presented a shadow map affecting her house. Robert Mallison • Commented that he has lived at 120 Mary Way for 40 years and his two concerns are loss of privacy and loss of view. • Commented that the house will look directly into their home. Their property is five feet below the proposed property. • Commented that their view is obstructed by 85 percent. • Commented that none of the surrounding neighbors are in support of the second story. • Commented that some the statements made by the Planning staff were inaccurate. Denise Dandurand • Commented that she lives on Albert Court and lived at 120 Mary Way for 21 years. • Commented that she is concerned about the loss of privacy for her parents' home. • Asked that the Commission consider a compromise that will make the adjacent homeowners happy as well as the developer. Chris Spaulding • Commented that the second story windows will be at 5 foot 6 inches in the master bedroom and bathroom and will not create privacy issues. • Commented that the neighbor's cypress trees will block most of the house. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 June 22, 2011 • Commented that the Mallison's house gets a shadow on the far corner of the house for 45 minutes at the worst time of year. • Commented that the biggest issue is the blockage of the views. There are still vistas to either side of the house. Chair Marico Sayoc closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that this is a difficult lot. One way to mitigate the impact is to build a one-story house. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Commented that Mr. Spaulding explained why a two-story house makes sense here. The applicant has tried to do everything possible to accommodate the neighbors' concerns and she believes the design is reasonable. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Commented that sites like this are difficult. The design is reasonable for most lots but asked if this is too much house for this lot. Commissioner Jane Ogle • Commented that the square footage is well within the FAR (Floor Area Ratio), but it does not work for this lot. It may need to be a smaller house. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he agrees with Commissioner Bourgeois, but this is a problem lot and all the rules that are typically applied do not apply. He believes a smaller, one-story house would be more appropriate. Chair Marico Sayoc • Commented that she agrees with all comments and appreciates the applicant's design. • Commented that she is confident with the privacy issue. • Commented that she is concerned about the size of the house and that there is more work that can be done. The worst thing would be to impact the drainage issues. The drainage solution must be maintained with shrinking the house size. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Commented he agrees with the applicant's comments about not going below grade, but that it may be necessary to maintain the square footage. Motion by Commissioner John Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Charles Erekson to continue Architecture and Site Application S-11-001 to August 24, 2011, for redesign to reduce the visual impact of the house on the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 June 22, 2011 Motion carried 5-1 with Vice Chair Marcia Jensen dissenting and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore absent. 5. 140 S. Santa Cruz Avenue. Conditional Use Permit U-10-016. Requesting approval to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit for the Tollhouse Hotel to permit live entertainment in the outdoor courtyard on property zoned C-2. APN 510-45-064 and 065. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: The Tollhouse Hotel. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley. Chair Marico Sayoc opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. Commissioner John Bourgeois • Asked about the history of complaints. Associate Planner Marni Moseley • Commented that the only faunal complaints on file regarding noise were related to the disposal of bottles at late hours and buses idling. The complaints were mitigated by the Toll House. There were no noise complaints on file prior to noticing the neighbors of this public hearing. Planning Manager Sandy Baily • Commented that the neighbors will also be able to respond to why the Town has not received any complaints. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Asked if the notice for the hearing was deficient. • Asked what the legal basis is for someone who is in breach of a CUP to continue to be in breach until there is a hearing as long as they file an application. Associate Planner Marni Moseley • Commented that the notice for tonight's hearing was not deficient. Staff prepared a notification list for the applicant over one year ago for a neighborhood meeting prior to the application to understand neighbors' concerns and four site addresses were left off of that list. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that it has generally been the policy and practice of the Town to allow for the breach of a CUP to continue until the hearing once an application is filed, absent an immediate health and safety violation. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen • Asked if the complaints regarding drunken patrons were related to the Toll House. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 June 22, 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011 Vice Chair Marcia Jensen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Marcia Jensen, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Charles Erekson, and Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell. Absent: Chair Marico Sayoc, Commissioner Jane Ogle, and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore. Others: Town Attorney Judith Propp, Planning Manager Sandy Baily, Senior Planner Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner Jennifer Savage, and Recording Secretary Linda Rowlett. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Vice Chair Marcia Jensen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2011 Lois Mallison • Commented that the minutes did not reflect all of her comments [on 16161 Short Road (Item 4)] and requested that the minutes be amended to include two additional issues: 1) If the house is built on its proposed location, her house will have three side lot setbacks and that the proposed house is too close without a backyard setback; and 2) the proposed house is 15 feet from the property line, 64 feet wide, and 20 feet tall, which is taller than the sound walls along Highway 17. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner John Bourgeois to approve the meeting minutes of June 22, 2011, with the addition of Lois Mallison's comments. Motion carried 4-0 with Chair Marico Sayoc, Commissioner Jane Ogle and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore absent. Note: In reviewing the minutes of June 22, it was evident that these two items were not included in the original testimony. Therefore, the minutes will not be amended. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 July 13, 2011 Exhibit 19 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 7-25-2011 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission RE: 16161 short Road, Los Gatos RECEIVED AUG 052011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Ladies and gentlemen, The proposal for planning and design of our home came before you on June 22, 2011. In that meeting you decided to continue the matter based on the public forum and your findings. We wish to respond and document the following: The only public forum opposition was presented by four members of the Maisons family. We claim that their representations are in error as presented: 1. Privacy concerns. We have raised the only 2 second story windows, on their side to be 6 feet above floor level . A 6foot 6 inch person, at a height of 17 feet 3!nches looking at a 16-17 feet cypress hedge, 20 feet away could not invade privacy. There are no views below site lines from our home to Malison's. 2. Views and shadows. There are no views from the first level of Malison home by their own choice. They have surrounded themselves by a (recently cut from 16 to 14 feet) ,solid and continuous wall of Cypress trees at the boundary fences of their property between us(and in fact one of their other neighbors) Additional trees include a 26 feet high tree with a canopy of approx. 40 ft wide. The trunk is probably 15 feet from our fence and 10 feet from 120/116 fence. It covers our entire 2- story except the first 8 feet of the 2 story from the south. We have also revised the 2nd story plan and opened what they represent as their view corridor by an additional 33%. We also increased the second story set back to 20 ft from 15 feet and reduced the height of home by another 8 inches. Our architect has shown there is No shadow from the sun, on 120 Mary Way, even on January2121. It is very obvious that Mallisons care about their privacy and seclusion by growing and maintaining a barrier of landscaping on both floors. The idea of our 2- story home, or any two story home according to them, does violate their sensibilities and psychological self interest (even though they own a larger one). A 2-story home as proposed and revised does not violate their views or privacy. Please note Malison's residence is a 2-story, 3,395 sf versus our revised 3,329 sf. Also the Mailison 2nd floor is 1,779 sf versus our revised design of 1,223 sf (they are 45%!! Larger). The Mallison's lot size is 7,992 sf versus our lot size of 23,935- equal to 3 times the size, but our proposed residence is smaller than 120 Mary Way, please tell us where the equitability is in this!! Our proposed house is also one the smallest two stories on Short Road. 3. The Mallisons also claimed that the property elevation is 5 ft below our proposed new home. Facts verified as per our civil engineer is that the elevation difference is 12 to 18 inches not 5 feet. 4. Lois Malison also claimed that we only spoke to one neighbor. This is not true. We have talked to, or met with every neighbor willing to express concerns and acted to take care of their concerns where possible. This has included drainage design, pruning back trees ,eliminating brush (to improve views) proposed planting of trees for further privacy, altering and changing the design for privacy, negotiating driveway easements which would enhance the neighbor's property, restoring fences and gates to correct boundary lines with some neighbors, who have expressed a desire to do this. Exhibit 20 The planning commission members discussed our project briefly, some not at all, and the majority opinion quickly collapsed into Commissioner O'Donnell comments. 1. The site is difficult lot (this we know, our architect did a good job and the corroborating City architect . confirmed the same). One way to mitigate the impact is to build a one —story home. He went on to conclude "The applicants knew what they were getting into when they purchased this site". As to what we thought we were buying in August of 2010 is an exceptional property bounded mostly in the R- 1:20 zone. At 23,935 sf it is one of the largest parcels in R-20 zone and approximately three times the size the neighboring properties located on Mary Way. It offers great privacy from, and to the neighbors by the virtue of existing natural landscape and massive redwood trees. The property is also located in the end ofa private drive which enjoys significant privacy from Short Road traffic. Actually Mary way is closer. The obfuscation of flag lot, no flag lot has no bearing on the validity of the lot. We also observed that 60% of the neighboring homes, surrounding the lot were two story residences. As the physical shape and nature of any site dictates, prudent architectural design and planning determines the solution that accomplishes a composition for the enjoyment living and proper fit and balance with neighboring properties. We hired the best we knew, Chris Spaulding Architect (who has designed many houses in Los Gatos) and together with his analysis and designs, In this case we found a 2-story home to be the most appropriate and fitting for this specific site and its natural shape and properties. We also hired the best engineer Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E to insure proper drainage who also recommended a 2-story design in order to reduce impervious coverage and accomplish proper drainage design. These decisions were made not only to fall within the Town's guidelines but also within the general guidelines for maximum best use of the site. Given the extensive package submitted that explained the proposed project. Including the exhausting and supportive review by the Town of Los Gatos planning staff and blessing reviews of the expert Town's consulting Architect we expected a more in depth and thoughtful discussion without pronouncements . We feel that given the heavy load for Planning Commission that evening, and perhaps along with a daunting extensive documentation package perhaps most the commissioners may not have had the time to review the package. Our 2-story design in size, bulk and height does not violate what is the norm in the neighborhood. As a matter of fact comparing our design size, bulk, and FAR we are a great deal (by 30%) below most of the properties on the neighboring properties especially the R-8000 properties and the Mallison's residence. Please note we have spent the past 12 months of our time, investment and expense in this economy to plan and build our new home, and to try to correct boundary fences with some neighbors. We urge you to please spend the time and care to review our proposal and all the concessions we have made to date to satisfy the neighbors' concerns. We are certain that you will find our proposal reasonable and considerably within the standards allowed by the Town ordinances and our neighboring properties. It will enhance the value of neighboring properties ,not take away from them. Sincerely, John and Elvie Scott Benjamin Guilardi From: Sent: ;To: Subject: Attachments: Chris Spaulding(cspaulding.architect@gmail.com] Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:27 AM Benjamin Guilardi Fw: 16161 Short Road SHORT RD SITE COMPARISON.pdf From: Chris Spaulding Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:44 PM To: 'Marni Moseley' Cc: Jscott390aol.com Subject: 16161 Short Road TOWN OF V. PLANNING uP I GATOS �+v1JfUN Hi Marni, We have revised the design for 16161 Short Road in an attempt to address the issues brought before the Planning Commission. The primary complaints came from the Mallisons, who live at 120 Mary Way. Their concerns are views, privacy and sunlight. The Planning Commissioners also expressed concern about overall size and compatibility. My clients had me prepare a couple of one-story options, which they seriously considered. In the end, they decided to stay with a two-story home, as the one-story options just don't meet their needs and desires. Therefore, I have re -worked the house to reduce the impacts on 120 Mary Way (which also reduce the impacts on 116 Mary Way, but to a lesser extent). Views; - We have reduced the width of the 2nd floor when viewed from Mary Way from 48' wide to 33'-6" wide, a 30% reduction. This expands the view corridor for 120 Mary Way from 20 degrees to 30 degrees, a 50% expansion (see attached graphic). Their views can further be expanded by eliminating the pine trees on the south side of the view corridor, if that is what they and their neighbors prefer. Privacy; - We have raised the window sills on the only two west -facing 2nd floor windows to 6' in the master bedroom and 5'- 6" high in the toilet room. If this is still not enough to satisfy the Mallisons, then the glazing in these windows could also be transluscent. Sunlight; With the reduction of width in the 2nd floor, along with an 8 %" reduction in height and an increase of 2' in the 2nd floor setback, the shadows cast by the new residence no longer fall on the Mallison's residence, even at 9 am on December 21 s`. Incidentally, we figured that the Mallison residence is 4.5' lower than the proposed house. This is an estimation, as we do not have survey data of the Mallison site. Size; The revised design has been reduced in size, bulk and height. The 2nd floor has been reduced 149.3 square feet (an 11% reduction) to 1222.9 square feet. Overall, the house has been reduced by 182.5 square feet (a 5% reduction) to 3328.9 square feet. The overall height has been reduced by 8'/s" The 2nd floor has also been made more compact so as to lessen the appearance of bulk (and to increase the view access as noted above). Compatibility; - The revised house is smaller than the Mallison's, which is 3395 square feet overall versus our revised design of 3328.9 square feet. Also, the Mallison's 2nd floor is 1779 square feet, versus our revised design of 1222.9 square feet. We have increased the 2nd floor side setback to 20' which is equal to the required rear setback in the R-1-8 zone district. This setback matches the requirements for homes on Mary Way. The proposed FAR is much smaller than what is theoretically allowed for the lot — equal to the FAR for a lot of 11,000 square feet versus the actual lot size of 23,935 (which has an allowable FAR of 4751 square feet) The proposed house is 30% smaller than the maximum allowed. Also note that the lot size of 16161 Short Road is 3 times the size of the lot size of 120 Mary Way, but the proposed house is smaller than the house at 120 Mary Way. Finally, the revised design allows the drainage plan to remain as previously designed, so the drainage impacts on the neighbors can still be reduced. We hope that these changes together make a fair compromise between the concerns of the neighbors and the needs of my clients. Thank you, - Chris Chris Spaulding, Architect 801 Camelia Street, Suite E Berkeley, CA 94710 Voice 510-527-5997 Fax 510-527-5999 chris@csarchitect.net 2 ------------ r-' --------------------- — — — O 1 \`4 0 1 ----------------- -------------- r-' 1 1 � L o6 - 1 00 _J m o m m------------------ 1 / l� ,e Pp \' J (J) COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS AND REVISED DESIGN RECEIVED. t,+.' 1 10 2011 Greg Kerlin Aug9,2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I am in receipt of your letter to Marni Moseley of June22 which she received at 11PM, no less. You must have been anxious to get your thoughts down on paper. As usual your comments are balanced and thought through. I do not agree with all your sentiments, but I feel you try and develop a reasoned approach in your exposition. I would encourage you, however to meet face to face to discuss these thoughts, as my wife and I have attempted to do with you previously. If you do not want to do that please review our new design, which will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 24. If you do not want to sit in front of the committee and have new revelations for you, I suggest you meet with our architect. We will provide you with a set of drawings, on the new smaller ,improved design, and he is willing to discuss how this design would significantly help with your concerns, now extended beyond drainage. I think you are correct to be concerned about a single story, even if it is smaller, because it would in all likelihood come a lot more into your view ,while the new design actually moves two story walls 14 feet further away from you. We have increased sill heights to 6 feet above floor level on the second level, which should in anyone's mind achieve privacy. No matter what the size of a single story it will definitely move a lot more into your space. In other words for you personally ,Chris new design is smaller and moves any two story feature 14 feet directly away from you. The other concern with a single story is that all bets are off with the current drainage scheme, since it would add a relatively% more impervious coverage, and reduce that amount of ground to soak up water, so that in effect keeping water on site may be impractical, and as you probably know the City wants it that way. You also know that everything is driven into the South corner of our lot, which is the closest to your property. To attempt on -site drainage under these conditions would not allow a 10 or 20 year flood safety factor. Hopefully your comments about the existing dwellings are tongue in cheek, their design is over 60 years old..,the world moves on. If you wish call, or e-mail Chris cspaulding.architect@gmail.com .It would be much better to review your thoughts with him prior to the meeting. If changes are required it would be better to try and resolve them now. John Scott 408-656-8987 RECEIVE© Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Re: 16161 Short Road Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Auri 1 Z011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION The purpose of this letter is to tell you a little bit about me and my husband and why we want to build a family home on Short Road. I feel a strong connection to Los Gatos as it's been my home for almost 40 years. As a girl growing up in Santa Clara I always dreamed of my children going to Los Gatos High School. All three of my kids attended LGHS in the eighties and were very active in the community. My daughter even received a Chamber of Commerce Academic Scholarship for college. They had jobs downtown at places like Steamer's (back when it was in Old Town) and working for Bud and Nancy at Chrislows. I've seen Los Gatos grow from a little family town to a popular, hip place to be seen. In all of our travels, I've never seen a place like it. It's special and I am glad to be a part of it and proud to have raised my kids here. My children are grown now with families of their own. They love to come back "home" often to visit us and their childhood friends, especially for all the holidays. They stay with us and because we are such a big family we need a big enough home to accommodate everyone. An above foundation two story home is suitable for our family's needs (my daughter and some grandchildren have asthma and basements aren't good for that). My husband and I are very professional and upstanding people. I've been a respected realtor in Los Gatos for over 30 years and have worked with countless families helping them buy homes in the area. My reputation in the business is as a knowledgeable, professional, kind and successful agent. I know the laws of real estate and certainly abide by them. In building this house, we have every intention of accommodating the neighbors and their concerns as they arise, as we have been doing in the planning phase. Best regards, Mrs. Elvie Scott Review of a single story design on 16161 Short Road August 15, 2011 To: The Los Gatos Town Planning Commission Review. RECEIVE AUG 1'2 11 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION The subject lot is narrow, and long, giving quite an architectural challenge, which we claim our architect has met with a two story design. A view also supported by the Town's peer architectural review. This is not a new site .It has been here in this shape long before Mary Way. It has had two homes for 60+ years. Both single story, and at this time are quite frankly totally run down and dilapidated. If left unaltered they would continue to reduce in value and drag down the values of neighboring properties. Our plan would be to clean up the guest cottage, maintain it as a single story, and to replace the main home to a much improved structure. The Planning Commission at the last meeting requested us to design a smaller house, which we have done with a two story design, aimed at reducing issues the neighbor has raised. The dialog in the meeting led us to also revisit the notion of a single story. Underground basement rooms do not work for us as we have asthmatics in our family. Site Review There are basically four major redwoods, on the site or .Three of these are over 80 feet tall, with two of their trunks having a circumference of forty eight inches, wonderful specimens. These naturally, by their mass divide the site into two parts. One part from the entrance gate to the North occupies 7,500 square feet, the rest of the property from the gate to the South, occupying 16,000 sq. ft. We feel that the best solution for the remaining half of the site is a two story. We have completed three different designs to date, trying to satisfy (a) the city planning department,(b) addressing neighbors' issues(c)Planning Commission call for reduced size. The Planning Commission discussion also led us to review the notion of a single story to see if this may solve issues and lead to a smaller house with similar features. Two different single story schematics were completed by Chris Spaulding Architect. We found the following facts and concluded the following: • It causes undue NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, compared with a two story design. In fact it would transform and ruin the rural attractiveness of this parkland setting by introducing an excess of concrete and asphalt. Including the entrance road into the property, there would be almost 12,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage on a 25,000 sq. ft. piece of land. The single story would require more heat in the summer and cooling in the summer because of enhanced roof area —all of which are going against the design for a GREEN house, which is part of the City's design criteria. • A single story caused an additional 1230 sq. ft. in addition to the 2070 sq. ft. already in a the single story. It will ADD about 200 sq. ft. of additional corridors to get from place to place, and about 400 additional square feet of pathways around the house. This additional 600 square feet, on top of 1230 sq. ft. [1830 sq. ft.) would cause the impervious sq.ft on this part of property to go from 28% to 48%. This is an unacceptable burden on the drainage plan. Please note we are required to adhere to the Town's Engineering department to allow adequate amount permeable soil to help dispose of all of drainage on site. Removing 1830 sq. ft. of earth and adding 1830 feet of impervious coverage makes it impossible to accomplish the Towns requirement. This would be also an unacceptable situation for neighbors who have expressed concern due to their suffering from drainage conditions that have existed over the years of its past history. • A single story also led to a design with long and linear hallways to reach each and every room. A dysfunctional plan with no indoor outdoor relationship and 2,500 sq. ft. left for back yard and no room for pool. This is only 40% of the space enjoyed by neighbors of equivalent property size. This is an unacceptable result for almost 24,000 sq. ft. property • A one story design did also extend into views of 3 additional properties located on 124, 128 Mary and 16207 Short Road. • A single story design is also inconsistent with LEED standards for minimization of building footprints by using two stories. Other key drivers to a design • Because of the Fire Marshal's edict, there must be a valid turnaround (hammerhead) at the entrance near the driveway. This occupies 2,600 square feet, and sets the only positioning possible for any new building 2 or 1 story, moving it to the southerly portion of the property. This obviously has positive economic impact to the neighborhood by reducing fire hazards for the entire neighborhood. This, of course also dictates the location the garage ,which is a single story. In conclusion the design of a single story property on this lot creates more problems than it solves. It would not help with neighbor's issues as solving one would create new problems for two more. A single story design INCREASES the floor area for equivalent functions. Our new two story design with reduced square feet of 3300 is much below FAR allowed and entirely in keeping with the existing composition of the neighborhood including the two story houses in Mary. John and Elvie Scott This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Gregg Kerlin <kerlin@comcast.net> ent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:01 PM fo: Marni Moseley; cspaulding.architect@gmail.com Subject: Commission Continuance - 16161 Short Rd - Amended Position from 124 Mary Way Ms Moseley Los Gatos Planning Department Chris Spaulding Archtitect I am pleased with the Planning Commission decision to revert the designer of 16161 Short Road to consider the special constraints imposed by this R1:20 lot, which really permits an R1:8 type structure to some extent. I was in the audience and felt our requirements for drainage were met by the civil engineer. I thank everyone for listening to these concerns. I felt the architects did attempt to meet the constraints under their mission to build a house of a specific size. I fully support the concerns of the Mallison's and other families directly impacted by the two story structure. The meeting afforded me, for the first time, to see what would happen to our 124 property if 16161 Short Road became a single story home with the same square footage. While the concern expressed was 'less of a back •rd', the architect did acknowledge that the single dwelling would have the same privacy and view issues for 24 and 128 Mary Way. In fact, from a "windows looking in" perspective, it would be even worse than the 118 and 120 Mary Way conditions. You can imagine how pleased I was that one commissioner pointed out the obvious: for the flag lot with its issues, the idea of a square footage home, single or two story, should be less than the currently planned size, unless you want to go underground. I can imagine how unattractive the latter might be. What is my point: I would prefer not to be standing before the Planning Commission in August, complaining about the very same issues that the Mallison family faced tonight. While I accept that a single story building will intrude on our property more than a two story building {which still looked large from 124 Mary Way incidentally}, I request that any design and building square footage expectation take our privacy into account as well. We have been in our home for roughly 32 years. All of Mary Way is bounded by very long term residents. So if the intention of building 16161 Short Road has a speculative nature behind its sizing, then I feel our community is receiving an unreasonable treatment at the hands of one property owner. This is speculation on my part. Therefore, please encourage the Scott's to consider a square footage home that overall respects the constraints of this odd property's characteristics. The original housing, while old and not well -kept, did know its boundary conditions, at least from the Mary Way viewpoint. Respectfully, iegg and Carolyn Kerlin 124 Mary Way 1 Exhibit 21 9 August 2011 Dear Mr. Scott, Thank you for your note. Yes, I wrote immediately after the meeting to emphasize the point that the options clarified in the public meeting were rather clear. Chris Spaulding was copied so that he could potentially understand that we shared his own assessment of the impact of a single story design relative to the targeted building size. I try to contain my concerns to that which directly affects our situation. Naturally, I am pleased that the house does not extend behind 124 Mary Way. I would assume that the framing structure on the property has or will be modified to show the home space planned with respect to the new height configurations. Naturally we are sympathetic with our adjacent neighbors if they feel impacted adversely, but I expect they will assess the changes now proposed and evaluate if their privacy and open space views are reasonably preserved. The old home certainly was old, yes, but it had a low -profile as well, and that was the point. So I will leave the assessment to our neighbors; the dynamic is beyond pure privacy I believe. Regards, Gregg Kerlin 124 Mary Way Los Gatos RECEIVED AUG 1 0 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION