Loading...
Rochin Terrace - PHancirTown of Los Gatos Council Meeting September 4, 2018 APN 523-25-009 15921 Rochin Terrace Applicants: Monica Zaucha and Patrick Hancir Architect: Davide Giannella, Acadia Architecture (Los Gatos) Builder: Zicovich Builders (Los Gatos) Project Planner: Sean Mullin 1 Neighborhood 2 Neighborhood Houses 3 Neighborhood Houses 4 Neighborhood Houses 5 Neighborhood Houses 6 Neighborhood Houses 7 Neighborhood Houses 8 Neighborhood Houses 9 Neighborhood Houses 10 Neighborhood Houses 11 Neighborhood Houses 15902 Rochin Terrace is a Contemporary home in the Immediate Neighborhood which is currently under construction 12 Precedent 16560 Shannon was reviewed by Council on Jan 8, 2014 Commission had denied it based on neighborhood compatibility Council Member Pirzynski gave the direction that houses on County land count for neighborhood compatibility. He said that the focus should be on the compatibility of the neighborhood as a whole. Council Member McNutt said that the Commission was too focused on the 225 chart instead of the intent of the guideline. Mayor Leonardis said that it does not matter if a house is in the County or the Town and that the Commission needs to consider the whole definition of the neighborhood. Council upheld the appeal and approved the design 13 Precedent 16362 Hilow was twice reviewed by Council (Sep. 20, 2016 & Dec. 20, 2016) Commission denied the design twice based on neighborhood compatibility In the 1st Council review Council Member Rennie asked Staff about the 225, and Mr. Paulson said to use the surrounding area as well as the 225. Council Member Sayoc said that it is not correct to ignore a house in the immediate neighborhood because it is on County land. “It’s there, and you include it in the determination of what your neighborhood is.” Council Member Jensen said that “there is no 225 rule.” In the 2nd Council review Council Member Sayoc said that there is no plan for neighborhoods that have a checkerboard of Town and County houses. She said that you have to go with what makes sense in these particular neighborhoods, not just the 225. Council Member Jensen said that there is no such thing as a 225 rule and that the Commission erred by basing its decision on something that is not actually a rule. During the 2nd review, Council granted the appeal and approved the design conditional on some minor changes. 14 Precedent 16386 Hilow Road was reviewed by Commission on November 9, 2017 DRC approved but neighbor appealed based on neighborhood compatibility Only 2 homes in the 225 were 2-story, including 16362 Hilow Commission asked Staff for guidance concerning Council’s 16362 Hilow decision Mr. Paulson said that “The 225 isn’t the be all, end all. So you have to look at the broader context of the neighborhood.” Regarding the Council’s ruling on the 225 during the 16362 Hilow review, Commission Chair O’Donnell said: “The people who set the guidelines are the Council.” “If the Council wants to get rid of those rules, they can do it implicitly, which is what they’ve just done, or they can do it explicitly… It doesn’t have to be explicit if there is enough implicit.” Commissioner Hudes says in reference to the Council’s ruling on the 225: “In my mind, it has been settled.” Commission denies the neighbor’s appeal and approves the design conditional on a very minor change (building height reduced by 1’) 15 Precedent 16666 Topping Way was reviewed by Commission on December 13, 2017 Commissioner Hudes asked Staff: “To what degree do we consider County properties when dealing with mixed County/Town neighborhoods for the purpose of neighborhood compatibility?” Mr. Paulson referenced Council’s 16362 Hilow decision and said that houses on County land are part of the 225 and should be counted for neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Hudes later states that County property should not be disregarded for the neighborhood compatibility of the 225. 16 15921 Rochin Terrace Commission Meeting Commissioner Badame said: “Please explain how your home is compatible with the immediate, and not extended, neighborhood?” Commissioner Hudes said: “Talk about the neighborhood compatibility with emphasis primarily on the immediate neighborhood.” Commissioner Birch said that the design is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Hanssen said that the Guidelines specify using the immediate neighborhood and that the design is different than anything in the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner O’Donnell said that he doesn’t find the design compatible with the immediate neighborhood. He then says: “And as we all know, that is what we are supposed to consider – the immediate neighborhood and not the larger neighborhood.” 17 15921 Rochin Terrace Commission Meeting Commissioner Hudes asked Staff: “How are we to consider County properties when we are evaluating neighborhood compatibility?” Mr. Mullin said 15902 Rochin Terrace is “in the immediate neighborhood and should be considered in the decision” Commission Chair Kane said that the Contemporary house in the immediate neighborhood (15902 Rochin Terrace) is an aberration because it is on County property. Commissioner Hanssen said: “I wouldn’t count the County house, because we don’t have jurisdiction. So we can’t use that as a barometer of where the neighborhood could be going.” Commissioners Janoff and Hanssen both asked if we would be amenable to making changes to the roof design, and I said that we would be. However, the Commission never discussed this further amongst themselves. Commissioner O’Donnell made a motion to deny the application based on “knowing the definition of the immediate neighborhood.” 18 Appeal Justification We feel that the following precedents have been made quite clear: The extended neighborhood, and not just the immediate neighborhood, should be used when evaluating neighborhood compatibility Houses on County land count as part of the immediate neighborhood and should be used when evaluating neighborhood compatibility In their 16386 Hilow review, the Commission acknowledged that the precedents had been set by the Council. However, in our case, the Commission ignored these precedents. They based their decision exclusively on the immediate neighborhood and discounted the Contemporary house in the immediate neighborhood because it is on County land. For these reasons, we feel that the Commission erred and abused its discretion, because its decision was based on false premises. 19 Home Design We opted for a combination of functionality and appearance in the design, with a strong emphasis on being environmentally friendly. The house is neither the biggest FAR nor the biggest square footage in the immediate neighborhood. There are no issues with any of the technical/objective measures, such as mass, scaling, height, setbacks, etc. Low profile of the house preserves views of the scenery and minimizes shadows Water conservation via drought tolerant plants, drip irrigation, and grey water tanks Energy efficient radiant ceiling heating and cooling system Solar Roof made by Forward Labs Standing seam metal roof is very environmentally friendly, will not catch on fire, is extremely strong, and can withstand very high winds Shed roof slopes away from the street to minimize visual impact 20 Home Design Forward Labs solar roofs - standing seam metal roofs with integrated solar panels 21 Home Design Low profile roofs minimize the height of the house. Using shed roofs saves 5’ of height compared to traditional roofs. Reduces the mass and scaling Preserves the views of the neighborhood Improves sightlines and the amount of natural light of the next-door neighbors Using a traditional roof shape would force half of the roof surface to face North. Since solar panels do not function when facing North, the house would be less energy efficient than it would be with shed roofs facing South. 22 Home Design 23 Home Design 24 Home Design 25 Home Design 26 Conclusion Two clear precedents have been established Extended neighborhood, and not just the immediate neighborhood, should be used in determining neighborhood compatibility Houses on County land are part of the immediate neighborhood and should be used in determining neighborhood compatibility In their 16386 Hilow review, the Commission acknowledged that these precedents had been set by the Council. However, in our case, the Commission ignored these precedents Based its decision exclusively on the immediate neighborhood Discounted the Contemporary house in the immediate neighborhood because it is on County land We meet all technical/objective standards. The only issue is a subjective one. Shed roof shape reduces mass/scaling, preserves views, allows for more active solar panels, and improves sightlines and the amount of natural light for the next-door neighbors. Extended Neighborhood is a checkboard of County/Town land and has no plan Neighborhood is eclectic and features many styles: Spanish, Mediterranean, Tudor, Bungalow, Cottage, Craftsman, Ranch, Mid Century Modern, and Contemporary Mid Century Modern and Contemporary houses feature shed roofs We did an extensive amount of Community Outreach and overall the response was very positive 27