Loading...
30 Roberts Rd and 6 Forrest Ave - Staff Report and Exhibits 16-21 PREPARED BY: SALLY ZARNOWITZ, AIA, LEED AP Planning Manager Reviewed by: Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 06/14/2017 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: JUNE 9, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-070; SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-16-009. PROJECT LOCATION: 30 ROBERTS ROAD, 6 FORREST AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: TANNKA, LLC. APPLICANT: GARY KING. REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH ONE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING WITH THREE UNITS AND ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, CONSTRUCT ONE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING WITH FOUR UNITS, AND MERGE TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED R-M:5-12. APN 529-10-002 and -003. DEEMED COMPLETE: FEBRUARY 18, 2017 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: AUGUST 18, 2017 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission considered the applications on March 22, 2017, and continued the matter to May 24, 2017. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to:  Meet with the neighbors to address privacy concerns;  Address the massing;  Reduce the overhangs and integrate the third story under the roof;  Design the facades to better express the homes as distinctly individual units;  Reduce the scale of the multi-family development with smaller units; and  Incorporate a guest parking space for each unit. On May 24, 2017, the project was continued to June 14, 2017, to allow additional time for revisions and review by the Town’s Architectural Consultant. PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: 30 ROBERTS ROAD, 6 FORREST AVENUE/S-16-070; M-16-009 DATE: June 9, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Roberts Rd 30 06.14.17_snz(2).docx 6/9/2017 12:01 PM DISCUSSION: The applicant has met with the neighbors, submitted revised development plans (Exhibit 21), and submitted a revised letter of justification (Exhibit 17) in response to the comments received from the public and the Commissioners at the meeting on March 22, 2017. The changes reflected in the revised plans are outlined below:  Landscaping has been added on the north property line to address privacy concerns of the neighbors behind the project;  The square footage has been reduced by 1,030 square feet, from approximately 19,080 square feet to 18,050 square feet;  The third story has been removed;  The maximum height has been reduced by one foot seven inches, from 34 feet - 11 inches to 33 feet - four inches;  The deep overhangs have been eliminated at the rear façade. The front facade has been redesigned to incorporate individually articulated bays, shed roof forms, balconies, and entries for each unit;  Unit 1 has been reduced from 3,140 square feet to 2,852 square feet, Unit 2 and Unit 3 have been reduced from 2,727 to 2,650, and Unit 4 has been reduced from 3,159 to 2,893; and  The project has incorporated an additional guest parking space for a total of 12 parking spaces. The Town’s Architectural Consultant reviewed the revised plans and provided recommendations in a report dated June 5, 2017 (Exhibit 18). The report notes that the structure has been reduced from three stories to two stories, and recommends the ceiling heights be reduced to be more compatible with the scale of the neighborhood. While the revised project has added a green screen and reduced the Kalwall elements at the stairs, the report recommends resolving the Kalwall elements with glass and solid panels. The report also requested clarification on whether a gate is proposed for the underground garage. Finally, t he report recommends considering subtle color differences for each of the units to give them more individual identity. The applicant submitted a response to the Consulting Architect’s Report on June 9, 2017 (Exhibit 19). PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments have been received as of the writing of this report. PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: 30 ROBERTS ROAD, 6 FORREST AVENUE/S-16-070; M-16-009 DATE: June 9, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Roberts Rd 30 06.14.17_snz(2).docx 6/9/2017 12:01 PM CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The applicant has met with the neighbors and submitted revised development plans to address the Planning Commission’s direction. Should the Planning Commission determine that the project revisions meet the direction provided at the March 22, 2017 meeting, the Commission can take the actions below to approve the Architecture and Site and Subdivision applications. B. Recommendation If the Planning Commission determines that the revised project meets the direction provided at the March 22, 2017 meeting and finds merit with the proposed project, it can approve the applications by taking the following actions: 1. Find the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15305 for reversion to acreage and Section 15303 for construction of a multi-family development with six or fewer units (Exhibit 16); 2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.40.635 of the Zoning Ordinance for the specific density for a building site in a RM zone (Exhibit 16); 3. Make the required finding as required by Policy HOU-8.1 of the Housing Element for new housing developments of three units or more (Exhibit 16); 4. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure (Exhibit 16); 5. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 16); 6. Determine that none of the findings required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act to deny the subdivision application can be made (Exhibit 16); 7. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-070 and Subdivision Application M-16- 009 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and revised development plans attached as Exhibit 21. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Approve the applications with additional and/or modified conditions; 2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 3. Deny the applications. PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: 30 ROBERTS ROAD, 6 FORREST AVENUE/S-16-070; M-16-009 DATE: June 9, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Roberts Rd 30 06.14.17_snz(2).docx 6/9/2017 12:01 PM EXHIBITS: Previously received with March 22, 2017 Staff Report 1. Location Map (one page) 2. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (16 pages) 4. Project Description and Letter of Justification, received January 11, 2017 (two pages) 5. Color & Materials Exhibits, received March 13, 2017 (one page) 6. Consulting Architect Report, received January 4, 2017 (four pages) 7. Consulting Arborist Report, received January 12, 2017 (36 pages) 8. February 10, 2016 CDAC Meeting Minutes (3 pages) 9. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect Report, received March 13, 2017 (four pages) 10. Applicant’s Response to the Consulting Arborist Report, received March 8, 2017 (one page) 11. Public Comment received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 16, 2017 12. Development Plans (27 pages) Previously received with March 22, 2017 Desk Item Report: 13. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday, March 16, 2017 and 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, March 22, 2017 Previously received with May 24, 2017 Staff Report: 14. Communication from the applicant, received May 12, 2017 15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, March 16, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 19, 2017 Received with this Staff Report: 16. Revised Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 17. Applicant’s revised letter of justification (two pages) 18. Consulting Architect Report, dated June 5, 2017 (six pages) 19. Applicant’s response to the Consulting Architect’s Report, received June 9, 2017 20. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 19, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 9, 2017 21. Revised Development Plans, dated May 24, 2017 (25 pages) Distribution: Gary King, 579 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 Tom Sloan, Metro Design Group, 1475 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 208, Campbell, CA 95008 PLANNING COMMISSION -June 14, 2017 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 30 Roberts Road and 6 Forest Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-16-070 Subdivision Application M-16-009 Requesting approval to demolish one multi-family dwelling with three units and one single~family dwelling, construct one multi-family dwelling with four units, and merge two lots into one lot on property zoned R-M:S-12. APN 529-10-002 and -003. PROPERTY OWNER: Tannka, LLC APPLICANT: Gary King FINDINGS Requ i red finding for CEQA: • The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction and Section 15305: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Required finding for density In an RM Zon e: • As required by Section 29 .40 .635 of the Zoning Ordinance for the specific density for a building site in a RM zone . 1. Will be adequately accommodated by streets serving the development either in their ex i sting configuration or a configuration which is intended to be created in the immediate future and that the development will not overburden existing streets or other public improvements such that the provision of public. services to the general areas will not be Impaired. 2. That the architectural design of the development, the site planning therefor, and the characteristics of the lot, including its shape, area, topography, vegetation and existing structure will be such that adjacent properties will not be adversely affected . 3. That individual dwelling units will be serviced by light, air, off-street parking, open space, privacy and other such amenities which are normally incident to well- designed residential development. Required findings by Housing Element Policy HOU-8.1 : • The proposed development is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and add r esses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing El eme nt. EXHIBIT 1 6 Required findings for the issuance of a demolition permit requiring Architecture and Site approval: • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) ofthe Town Code: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be replaced with two single-family residences; and the proposed residential use will be consistent with the zoning designation of Single-Family Residential and the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. 2. The existing structures were constructed prior to 1941 and have no historica l significance. 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist. 4. The economic utility of the structures was considered. Required findings to deny a Subdivision application: • As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made: None of the findings could be made to deny the application. Instead, the Planning Commission makes the following affirmative findings: a. That the proposed map is consistent with all elements of the General Plan . b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with all elements of the General Plan . c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development e. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat f. That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision and 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 . CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in review of Arch itecture & Site 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\FINDINGS\2017\Robe rts30.DOCX Los Gatos Creekside Estates 30 Roberts Road & 6 Forrest Avenue Application -S-16-070 & M-16·009 The Planning Commission directed the following plan changes be made to the project: • Address the massing; • Reduce and Integrate the Third Story under the roof overhangs; • Design the facades to better express the homes as distinctly individual units; • Reduce the scale of the multi-family development with smaller units; and • Incorporate a guest parking space for each unit • The massing of the proposed 4 residential units is modified in the following ways to address massing of the building: 1. The original building massing utilized a flat roof that was constructed up the allowable maximum height above grade (35 ft.). This resulted in a unified building profile that fused 4 units into a singular, rectangular mass. Whereas the building is constructed on a singular, underground podium and considered to be a single building / multi-family dwelling, the objective was to revised the project and break-up the massing is such a way that each of the four individual dwellings would be distinctive from each other. This objective was achieved in the new design using a cadence of sloping roof lines that define the individual dwellings. These roof lines modulate the up and down and reduced the overall roof height from the previous design by as much as 7 feet. 2. The original building design proposed 3 stories . The proposed design eliminated the upper floor with the current project having 2 stories or living space. 3. The primary fa~ade facing Roberts Road deploys several architectural elements that help reduce the massing and visual bulk. These elements include breaking up wall elements into smalle r scale elements (less than 10 ft. wide) rather than large wall planes; using large roof overhang elements fo cast shadows on the facades that help break wall planes in tone and colo r; and deploying a variation of roof elements on different levels; small wall planes are designed to modulated in and out. • Rather than change the style of the building and place the Third Story under a pitched roof with dormer windows and low interior walls that limit the practicability of the interior space, the third floor level was eliminated altogether. Whereas the previous design utilized a smaller second and third floor areas to increase the interior celling height, the plate heights did increased to provide the open feeling sought by the owners and are also common in the adjacent townhomes located along the eastern property line. EXHIBIT 1 '2' • Each of the facades facing Roberts Road are unique while providing a sense of continuity within the overall project. Subtle differences in the architectural building materials and treatment of windows, balconies, and siding were deployed throughout to better express each residence as an individual unit. The massing and rooflines as previously discussed greatly differentiate each of the four residences. • One of the key objectives of this project was to provide a distinctive housing type that satisfied a more exclusive family with luxurious palate and require sustainable amenities. Whereas the floor area was reduced and the third story eliminated, it was suggested that the typical townhouse units have floor area up to 2,100 square feet. These units now have been reduced to a comfortable average between 2,600 and 2,800 square feet. • The Parking has been re-designed to provide a tot.al of 3 parking spaces per dwelling unit. One additional Guest Parking st.all was added to the previous design for a total of 4 guest parking stalls. The project is now fully compliant. Respectfully submitted, +~ Tom Sloan AIA Principle Architect JuneS,2017 Ms. Sally Zamowitz Planning Manager Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 30 Roberti Road j 6 Forest Avenue Dear Sally: ARCHITI!CI'L'RE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the new drawings that were submitted following our meeting with the applicant. My comments and recom- mendations are as follows: Neighbmhood Context The site is a comer lot located within an older Los Gatos neighborhood. Most homes are small one-story structures but there are a few newer two-story homes and multifamily complexes. Photographs of the immediately surrounding context are shown on the following page 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA . 94939 EXHIBIT 1 8 TEL: 415.331.3795 COGPLAN@PACBELLNET 30 RobcrtS Road I 6 ForrcstAvcnue Design Review Comments June 5, 2017 Page 2 House to the immediate left on Forrest Avenue Nearby multifamily homes across Roberts Roil.d Nearby multifamily complex on Roberts Koaa CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA . 9493 9 Issues and Concerns 30 Roberts Road I 6 ForrestAvenuc Design Review Comments Junc5,2017 Pagc3 The 4-unit complex has been reduced from three stories to two stories in height, and a much greater emphasis has been given to .individual unit identity. Those are very positive chan~s -see comparison below of the previous and cw:~ent designs. Previous Design Current Design There are, however, still a few significant concerns as follows: 1. While the structure ha'& been :reduced from three stories to two stories in height, ve:ry .little bulk has been :removed, leaving it still out of sympathy with this smalle:r scale ncighbo:rhood -sec sti:cetscape and eleva- tion illusti:ations below. While the previous design had 9 foot ceiling heights on all levels, the :revised design has a 12 foot ceiling height on the fi:rst floor and a 10 foot plus ceiling height on the second fl.oo:r. CANNON DESIGN GROUP ......USDl&LERIMEl'f .........,,_ Roberts Road Streetscape ~~·-&;r~ . it:.it:·~~ .. r-Prevl~us froflle "':~ "" ~~-.. _,.~;:~~;~fl A Current ~:~---· -:j·:, Profile '~ ... :. ~=="''-"'i Forrest Avenue Streetscape --..... 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 Structure has been reduced from 3-storles to 2-stories but not much bulk has been removed 30 Roberts Road I 6 ForrestAvcnuc Design Review Comments June 5, 2017 Page 4 Tall Kalwall will be a night time light intrusion on the neighborhood See photo examples 2. The two story tall proposed Kalwall element at the stairs on the east and west elevation will likely be a night time light spill intrusion on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The illustrations below show some examples of Kalwall used in residential structures. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 LARKSPUR , CA . 94939 30 RoberQ Road ! 6 ForrestAvcnll" Design Review Comments June 5, 2017 Page 5 3. Any plans for garage security at the auto entry and the stairway at the west side of the structure are missing from the drawings. 4. Thcu: is some variation in the front facade treatments to give individual identity to each Wlit, but the differences are small. Recommendations 1. Reduce the first floor ceiling height from 12 to 10 feet and the second Boor ceiling height from 10 to 9 feet. Should staff be concerned about the height as shown below; the ceiling heights could be further lowered to 9 feet and 8 feet respectively. Nou that becaHSe of the sloping sitkwalk along the Roberts Road frontage atrd the jlat podiNm top of tlM belo111 grade parking /8,,,~ the stnld1m ha; additional height at its eastern edgt, 2. Resolve the stairwell exterior on the east and west elevations with regular glass and solid panels (wood or metal). 3. Clarify plans for garage security. If gates or doors are to be used, staff should request photo examples from the applicant. 4. Consider some subtle color differences for each of the four units to give them more individual identity -see one example in the photo on the following page. CANNON DESIGN GROUP Reduce first floor height by 2 feet 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 ( ~~ r . . "" i 1 b~'i "~t ~.:·~, ii ..... :-+~---~··· .. : .. 30 Robem Road I 6 ForrestAvenuc Design Review Comments June 5, 201 7 Page 6 Reduce second floor height by 1 foot Resolve stalrwell with regular glass and solid panels Sally, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not addtess. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP 0~~ Larry L. Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCL E . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 Response to lune 5, 2017 Letter from Cannon Design Group. Issues and Concerns: 1. Whereas the previous design had a flat roof and was constructed to the maximum allowable height, the new design eliminates bulk by removing the entire 3n1 floor level and eliminating the double storied height ceilings. In lieu of these 20 foot tall, double-height ceiling areas in the previous design, the main floor ceiling height ls 12 foot tall. · The current design uses a series of sloping roof designs to break up the massing into smaller elements to give the project a pedestrian & residential scale. The fac;ade area facing Roberts Road in original building was calculated to be 3,306 square feet of area. The proposed area is reduced to 2,794 square feet {15% reduction. Similarly, reducing a 6'-0" foot tall person by 15% results in a person 5'-1" tall. The area of the fac;ade facing the rear property line has been reduced by 20%. 2. The amount of Kalwall used for providing energy free daylighting was reduced in half from the previous design. Mr. cannon stated that there" will likely be a night time light spill intrusion on the adjacent residential neighborhood'. Kalwall panels will work like shoji screens to diminish and soften the light quality leaving the building at night. The light will be further reduced as these areas are covered with a "Green-screen" and evergreen vines of Star Jasmine to dramatically reduce the light. 3. There are no plans for gating off the parking garage. 4. The variations in the street facing fac;ade range from 5 feet to 7 feet in depth are ample to provide a fac;ade with well-designed articulation. Recommendations 1. Whereas the neighborhood has some older single story cottages, the current zoning is trending toward higher density, multi-family projects. The assertion that this project is not sympathetic with the mostly smaller scaled residences represents a point of view that challenges the objectives of the base zoning district. This would not be comparing like for like. Creating a stepped "post tension" podium is not practicable. Stepping the podium requires a conventional slab, many more columns and an excavation 2 feet deeper than what is proposed. 2. Regular glazing and window units emit much more light than Kalwall panels whereas Kalwall panels screen and diminish light emission levels. Recommending clear glass in lieu of the screening effects of Kalwall is a misunderstanding of the technology and makes no sense. 3. There are no plans for gating off the parking garage . 4. We will provide subtle color tone differences for the Stucx::o Plaster walls throughout the project to provide individual identity to each of the dwelling units. EXHIBIT 1 9 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 19, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 9, 2017 NONE EXHIBIT 20 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TIIH I I I I .•· r I I I I I I I I Ii I I I I I 11 : l c 348' g ~-'"' . L lNOICATES2C-C •2¢..c"ClfAA • 11.EQUlllEC PAJl(U«; OIJl"CN'SlOHS 348.36' V, ....__ ___________ _ +------ ~l I----+-- tr t----.V- ------,'"?1 / -~-·' « iwo "'.'"'"' -''' -.J [ '-348'.6" 9 ~ ~ 348.36' 2 % SLO PE 348.58'-,. 348.36' r.c _ _lG._s;.;: 4 '.t .... JF.S.= 349'-o"i ] e r '\... 345,75· 349.00" \. 348.90' ~ ELEVATO R ~ ··· .... ) 349 .00'-,j ./349.0~ ,...._...,. ' --'I'--' ' ~O, CAR GARA~E ) , ' ~ ~ VAfillACa' """ 2 % SLOPE ·~ \ 1r:74,• ID1·7 l I I I I I IL348.0l' I I '-----'I llr 348.01' ... I I T - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I --j--- 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.49 % SLOPE I . ... I I I I I I 347.26' _J 347.27' - :;J -- 12 347.10'- 347.10'- ... '"' f "' f ~ ).) I A 346.9"_7 L'«>ICJ.Tll 20-C • ~·O C1.1AA ___J • • ll:EQUJltCD f'All<IHC CIMlHSIOJOS ~ ~--------I --, --ft:..-=+-=tl -t--j -I' I j i!'.1 ~ .,. II--!- f.----+-- ll--+-- re-,----------- ---,: 7 I ' ' ' ' ' ' -----: I rq-- 1 ', I ~ , ~:;:' I , -'' I , -TwO CAR GARAGE 4 ' ' , 1 -1 .......... '1 .... I I I I I I, I ; f\_ 346.50 1346.50 j )l'!.ot lll 1-c· I JF.S.= 347'-o"I I I ~ I w ; [l CY s 1348.43' J ~r ~ I I I 349.00" I _I ', I ' ~- ' 'WJ O CAR GARAG E 3---I I ', ---I I -', I , , : I ''I , I I l.._ __ - ----- W-----:--~------+-T_ ----------'~l /"'M ~ 1 It! -- - - ----- L f.S .= 349'·3 " 350.08 I : 350.08" I J --______ "'~'~ ' -----: /•M•H I r··-------r · ---I 1-'--~ 1 I I I I '---- '---- L -1-J..- >·]' L '·lC ..,,.. l/349.25 """'''"" .. »« """' ~ · ltEQUllt[D Pf.11..(:HG O!HlNSIOHS > ~ -- 17.CI" I w ... ,g :[ Ill ~~ "' ... .J, --t- , ,.,, I TiV-6 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I : I ..j_ _ _:__ I ' 1 ~ 1 c ./349.25' ~- ,,~ I rr::J l I IHOtCATU ;xr.c-._ n-o CLCAA I • a (QVJ1t£0 PA.lt<iNC Ol~~'SlOHS ,_..--.) , ~ '>.•n '·' -~ ~ ~ ! II 11 11 : i I 1111 I Ill> M ET R 0 DESIGN G R 0 UP A A:CHITlCTUl'tlE • PLANNING· INl El'tlO '" 1'47S S IASCOM °'VE SVIT'f 20I CAMPIB.1. CA tSCCI («!•>1 71-1011 ,.._ C40tlt71·to n h •• --- The llt•M , dt.s tfld du'911 oro t"-' dr'M¥1fl0 .at1 ttw: ~petty ol tllt. dai;ncr,...,ltiluildylDrlM (Ol"Crkt ......... Mltm1 lleUW'd, 111wNlllt1r.,.p,il\,r.r _,.,..,.,.,... forwflchttwv-l'IOtw'tltnded w tlf'IM.tl O.W'l'ittfll pttmti•91'111f M(l1!:00£SIGN GROUP.@ PROJECT NAME LOS GATOS CREEKSI DE ESTATES 30 ROBERTS ROA D & 6 FORREST AVEN UE LOS GATOS, CA 95 032 REVI SIONS PARKIN G PLAN DATE : 05-24-17 SCALE : 1/4" = 1·-0· DRAWN BY : TS CHECKED BY : TS ARCH ITECT : TOM SLOAN PROJECT NO : 16616 SHEET NUMBER A-3.0 E ~ 2 s \ •; ~I " ~ ~ I I I I I I l5•1C'" BEDRO OM 2 fil-6" 29-0' J ill 24'-S 2~n .:.l ' ··~:,, 11"-l' 1 • ~ D !Tl BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 ~ ll I ._.___ ~ I ll .c; I I I I I I I I BEDR,OOM 3 2'4-S "" 1-6°'• rr4= BEDROO M 2 ~ X<) .1 1.J> _15....:10.:1~ II' D "' ~ BEDROOM 3 I BED ROOM 2 ,.__._ rri I I I I I .. , : l n-0 :;:::=::::::;;;;;::::;\I 0 0 1 BATH2 s ~ ~~~gQ~. /: ,.... / I Jr I ~ wm " ~/ ! I ';~/ w"' " ~ ~ CLOSET _../ "-.., j i .. / "· .. ., CLOSET ~ I '/ ~ ' ·~' ': ··... I 9 ' I I l ;=1 :: I ~ I D 0 o 0 ! ~ J _ _ _ ___ --""'~·-·:,~[] ~~·~-· __ _ _ _ """'' [J _ ... L-____ ~·-.,l~~ __ fi n ,_~ · ~ : ~.._.,,~ ____ I D BATH [} 0 BtH D 0 BATH : --·-- --...+ - ~ ~ I I I I BALCONY 0 BALCONY 0 i 0 BALCONY 0 ~ALCONY 50 SQ. FT. <O SQ FT I 50 SQ. FT. 0 . . ll~~ I t-2 • HO 1·~ 1A-•''} ...... IJ'} ]:J,/ • -101 .• Jl_-1t·• ,...,. 2''' _l4 -S ...... 1,, _l":.11 '"' IC I I I I I ~ U -1c 'iJ..2 ;,r: •-s 1A-11o'I 24 -5 29-0 ~ TI H ,_,~ L 2 -r ~ ~ IA MET R 0 D ES IGN GR 0 U P ARClflECTURE.· ~LANNING· INTERIOIH 1~75 SIASCOt'i AV£ SUITE lOt CAHPl[U,, CA ISCCI (Cl)l71-1011~ <«111111-1on1 ... -."""19~.c.om The lll•nt, duo• .-Id da9"101\ '""' dr...,ift9 1rt:ltlcpropcttycfttle detqit:r,ch'1Hd solety for tM cantrKt..li'IMlt tlYl notbr~ Wl..wl'iolt•r"',att,tDt-rpurpow fefwhct'llt'C't~f'IOt......, wdieul i:r. wnltotfl pemltll!Of'I ..t MrntO OESKON Gii.DUS>. @ PROJECT NAME LOS GATOS CREEKSIDE ESTATES 30 ROBE RT S ROAD & 6 FORREST AVENUE LO S GATOS, CA 9503 2 REVISIONS SECOND FLOOR PLAN DATE : 05-24-17 SCALE 1/4 " ; l'-0" DRAWN BY: TS CHECKED BY : T S ARCH ITECT : TOM SLOAN PROJECT NO : 16616 SHEET NUMBER A-3.2 flt\ M ET R 0 DESIGN GR 0 U P ARCHITEClUltE·l"lAJoNINO• INTt:IUO~S 1"7S s BASCOM AVE svnt zoe CAMP!EU.. Ui9SOOI (401)Ul·lll71phoM (4Ql)l71-1Cl721•~ -.~lfCNtttb.com Thc"""'-«•W~ .. .,.tt. dtMwwwg-.h.poe~.r ttw. ~,diomed ...,,., lM cnntnd~~l N1t MU1t:d, 11'1 whole tr 11'1 Pll'l. fo r arl'j' flUr'POK f0< wl'ldl tky wen: not lnlcrdtd w.thi>ullhcwnttfJIP9f'l'l•UIOn of Mrno DESIGN Gf!OLJP. © PROJECT NAME LOS GATOS CREEKSIDE ESTATES 11.DICATES lS VERTICAL O!STAr .. cE ['-'" "'"'"- -------------------------------------------------~------------------------- 30 ROBERTS ROAD & 6 FORREST AVENUE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 REVISIONS 382'·10" r ~I 11 TOf> PLATE ----e-___ I .-------L _ --~o:a~~E • 382'-0" ' i I I BALCON~ I I MASTER BEDROOM HALL BEDROOM 2 ! I I .. l I n SECOND FLOOR SUBFLOOR -0----I I • 372'-0" I : I ~ "'"" . I ·1 SINGLE FAMILY ~I _INDICATES 4' vERllCAl CISTAN::f ~ F'lO~ THf EXISTI"-G GRADE § I ATTACHED HOME ~I 4 ~ <; ENTRY ENTRY HALL KITCHEN DINING AREA FAMILY ROOM ~ I PORCH I . I ---- I FIRST FLOOR SUBFlOOR ---+----1-'------- ----. • 3S8-6" -r I ~1~ ~-~ ROBERTS ........ -l ___ ,.._ ..,, ... -.-r-,..'T· ~ -~"''' ~ . -.;.-· ~ . "."-;:"' :. .. -...,_ .... _,. ~ _·,~~ ROAD ., __ . --_,..'Y"-~--I ------------------1-----------------------J ------" TWO CAR GARAGE 3 BOTTOM Of SLOPED II CONCRETE SL.A&. ~OE.R 'J PROPOSED SECTIONS CELLAR EX15nM~ G'V-DE ELEVATION ·TVP. ~ r-349.25 111-:Jr SloPC ~ 1/349.00 10% Sl OPf TWO CAR GARAGE 4 ~ --~ ,, 1 % SLOPE 346'--9"-\ "\ ,, ... , .. , "-3•6.501 ' , .. g, OATE : 05-24·17 .. ~-·· __ ...., . ' " , / SCALE : 1/4" = l'-0" DRAWN BY : DZ CHECKED BY : TS ARCHITECT : TOM SLOAN PROJECT NO : 16616 I SECTION B-B ~ SCALE : 1/4" = 1'·0" r--, .. "·"" _I __ ...... --·~ .. • ! • . ; It . rn1r~ ... B' ... _, ... ~;. SHEET NUMBER A-6.1 ~ 2 x 2 BOX \JO/BOTTOM 0 RATE ----ir---/ OCK c2·rn DIAM) I FOR~ ;... NO. I BY I DATE DRAIN ROC K~ t ~ BUBBLE UP ENERGY DISSIPATDR / •"•cc A 1•0,,.BOTH wus ~·-~ =./ _]_ --- \ '\..: .-a. 2 •• DRIVEWAY SECTION ;•"PCC ~ ' -~ ! l ---l J \ ' \ SIDEWALK SECTION\: .-c"" / l•L[ r ,-pee L_ I PATIO SECTION \_ 4·c1.? .t.B REVISION BY I DATE I DATE • MAY 2017 r---t-r--;---------------------1--+--il SCALE• ~~T I ' =10' I I I I I I I ~~~~~~ii.o' K~c I ~~~~~R EL CYMBAL. RCE 3 •534 PROJ. E:NGR• JC GRATE EL 3 49.00 A '"'" "" dffi A.!,,_AR~ 3 48 .00 d PUMP ON 347.50 ~ 30•x30• PRE-CAST CONC. BOX I LI fh.~ 11 I PU MP Off 345.50 SUBMERSIBLE ---1 SUMP PUMP ~ I INV -'45.25 4 STORM DRA I N SUMP WITH PUMP s_....,. r.," rnl r .. --::::-;:- ·~/WIW-­. __ __, -f_ ~~:. #'i-.. ~ .. -S.0-.,._ ~ \.. .. ' TRENCH DRAIN WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 14583 BIG BASIN WAY , SARATOGA. CA 95070 (408>867-0244 DETAILS LOS GATOS CREEKSIDE ESTATES 30 RO BERTS ROAD & 6 roRREST AVENUE LOS GATOS , CAL!rORNIA JOB Ntl 2016-008 SHEET CJ or 3