Attachment 05FILING FEES Town of Los Gatos Office of the Town Clerk $381.00 (PLAPPEAL) Residential
$1,533.00 (PLAPPEAL), per
Commercial Multi-family or
Tentative Map Appeal
110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 9503Q // O �
APPEAL OF PLANNING CO MIS I� IS N
TRANSCRIPTION $500 (PL TRANS)
PROJECT/ APPLICATION NO:
ADDRESS LOCATION:
I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decisio
follows: (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NEATLY) DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION -�=-���..(4,tl't">....-,,.-f-5" -I 'i-002
as
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 exists in the appeal:
The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because _{_S_e_�_e:t_H_Q_c_4_l'_e(�} _________ _ 1.
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 AITACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
1.Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes. A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing.
2.Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee.Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the 10 1h day following the decision. If the 10 1h day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10 1h day, usually a Monday.
3.The Town Clerk will set the hearing within 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No. 1967).
4.An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals.
5.Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.6.If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.
PRINT NAME: p Of Yi°C k }-/ ti( "1 Cir
DATE: J v/.7 )0 ) }...OJ f
PHONE: '-/ O'i-6?�-714 8
tflwr� SIGNATURE: _______________ _
ADDRESS: JSq21 l?oc4iM r-f'r,'QCe
l-o s 6� I� 5�tJ-� CO-.'\ l"i:) C\l1'\l\�*** OFFICIAL USE ONLY***
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Pending Planning Department Confirmation
DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION: ______ _
N·\OE\/\FORMS\Pl,i,nning\2017-lB Forms\Apptal • PC.doc
RECEIVED CONFIRMATION LEITER SENT: DaterOWN OF LOS GATOS
TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY:
DATE OF PUBLICATION: AUG - 3 2018
CLERK DEPAR'HfENT
ATTACHMENT 5
We would like to appeal the decision by the Town Commission. Here are some of the reasons we feel warrant
this appeal.
1) During the questioning part of the meeting, I was asked by two different Commissioners if I would be willing
to make changes to the roof design, and both times I said that we would be willing to make
changes. However, the Commissioners never discussed amongst themselves the possibility of allowing us to
make any changes. Instead, a motion was made to deny the application, and it was voted upon.
2) Our house is very similar to one of the houses in the immediate neighborhood. The Commission seemed to
not give this fact very much weight because that house happens to be on County land instead of Town
land . However, there are examples of houses on County land counting towards the neighborhood context .
3) In Appendix A of the Town's Residential Design Guidelines, it states that while a new residential project will
likely have its greatest impact on the existing homes nearby, "a broader neighborhood context may be
appropriate in some situations". I made a case during my presentation that more weight than usual should be
given to the extended neighborhood because it is a secluded area with only one access point. However, it
seems that the Commission focused exclusively on the immediate neighborhood and gave no weight at all to
the extended neighborhood, which has a great amount of architectural diversity, including a Mid Century
Modern house with flat roofs. Additionally, one of our immediate neighbors (15930 Rochin Terrace) used the
extended neighborhood as a justification for an extensive remodel they made on their house to obtain the
largest immediate neighborhood FAR at .323.
4) The Commission pointed to the fact that there are no examples of Contemporary houses in the Town's
Residential Design Guidelines, seeming to imply that Contemporary houses are not permitted or do not
exist. The fact that the Residential Design Guidelines have not been updated in a decade means that it does
not take into consideration the current revival of the Contemporary style. Also, there are many examples of
Contemporary and Mid Century Modern houses in the Town .
5) The Commission had concerns about the compatibility of a standing seam metal roof. We feel that the
Commissioners were comparing the look of a standing seam metal roof to the look of a shingle roof with no
solar panels attached . However, since all new construction houses in California must have solar panels
beginning in 2020, the correct comparison should be between a shingle roof with affixed solar panels to either
a Solar Roof (such has a Tesla solar roof) or to a standing seam metal roof which has been designed specifically
to integrate well with solar panels. Additionally, the recommendation of the Town 's Consulting Architect that
the shed roof orientation be changed to face northeast would not allow us to have solar panels.
6) During the meeting, the Commission never asked the planning staff assigned to the project any questions,
including the reasons why they approved the design and supported the project.
Sincerely,
Patrick Hancir and Monica Zaucha
15921 Rochin Terrace, Los Gatos