Loading...
16666 Topping Wy - Staff Report and Exhibits 1-16PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP ASSOCIATE PLANNER Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 12/13/2017 ITEM NO: 4 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-17-011. PROJECT LOCATION: 16666 TOPPING WAY. PROPERTY OWNER: ARTHUR LIN. APPLICANT: DENNIS NORTON. REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN 532-09-018. DEEMED COMPLETE: NOVEMBER 10, 2017 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: MAY 10, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: Denial PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: R-1:8 – Single-Family Residential, 8,000-square foot lot minimum Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 14,526 square feet Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8: Prezone South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8: Prezone East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8: Prezone West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8 PAGE 2 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which includes demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone. FINDINGS:  The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.  As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures.  As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. CONSIDERATIONS:  As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: The project site is located within an approximately 90-acre County pocket on the south side of Topping Way between Englewood Avenue and Hilow Road (Exhibit 1). The 14,526-square foot lot is currently developed with a one-story 1,384-square foot single-family residence with a 560-square foot carport. Two recently annexed properties are immediately adjacent to the subject property to the west and southwest. The remaining adjacent properties are within the County (Exhibit 6). The proposed project meets the Santa Clara County requirements to petition annexation into the Town and meets a Town criterion for annexation by sharing a property line with an existing Town boundary. The applicant petitioned the Town for annexation and the Council recently approved the request to annex the subject property into the Town (AN-17-004). PAGE 3 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM The project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission for the following reasons: Size and Bulk:  The proposed square footage would be the largest in the immediate neighborhood; and  Concerns related to Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) Section 1.6 – How to Read Your Neighborhood: Relate a structure’s size and bulk to those in the immediate neighborhood. Garage Design:  Concerns related to RDG Section 2.4.2: Minimize the impact of garage doors on the streetscape; Section 3.4.1: Limit Prominence of garages; Section 3.4.2: Minimize the visual impact of larger garages. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Architecture and Site Application The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new 3,907-square foot single-family residence, 902-square foot attached garage, and 394- square feet of below grade square footage. Specifically, the residence would consist of a 2,568-square foot first floor and a 1,339-square foot second floor. The maximum height of the proposed house would be 26 feet, 10 inches. The project proposes a painted stucco exterior with a stone wainscot; wood windows and trim; and composition roof. Story poles have been placed on the site to aid in the review of the project. The poles and netting have been in place since October 27, 2017. B. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is located on the south side of Topping Way between Englewood Avenue and Hilow Road (Exhibit 1). Surrounding properties are developed with single- family residences. C. Zoning Compliance The proposed project complies with the FAR, height, and structure coverage limitations. The proposed project complies with setback requirements and three parking spaces would be provided on-site, where two spaces are required. The zoning permits a single-family residence. PAGE 4 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM DISCUSSION: A. Floor Area Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 1,228 square feet to 3,751 square feet. The house FARs range from 0.12 to 0.28. The proposed residence would be 3,907 square feet with an FAR of 0.27. Pursuant to Town Code, the maximum allowable square footage for the 14,526 square-foot lot is 3,977 square feet with a maximum allowable FAR of 0.27. The immediate neighborhood analysis provided in the table below reflects the current conditions. Address Zoning House SF Garage SF Total SF Site SF House FAR Stories 16700 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 2,735 567 3,302 11,388 0.24 1 16678 Topping R-1:8 3,238 619 3,857 11,770 0.28 1 16650 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 2,225 264 2,489 10,001 0.22 1 16636 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 1,564 560 2,124 10,275 0.15 1 16677 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 1,983 445 2,428 10,496 0.19 1 16665 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 3,751 612 4,363 13,974 0.27 2 16647 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 1,760 400 2,160 10,504 0.17 1 16625 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 1,872 995 2,867 10,050 0.19 1 16611 Topping R-1:8 Prezone 1,228 440 1,668 10,050 0.12 1 16666 Topping (E) R-1:8 Prezone 1,384 560 1,944 14,526 0.10 1 16666 Topping (P) R-1:8 3,907 902 4,809 14,526 0.27 2 The RDG specify that residential development shall be similar in size and bulk to the immediate neighborhood. The Guidelines also specify that consideration will be given to the existing FARs, residential square footages, and lot sizes in the neighborhood. The project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission because the proposed square footage would be the largest in the immediate neighborhood and because of; concerns related to conformance with the RDG regarding size and bulk, and garage design. The proposed size and bulk of the two-story residence is larger than most of the houses in the immediate neighborhood. The subject property is the largest in the immediate neighborhood by 552 square feet. The proposed residence would be 156 square feet larger than the largest residence in the immediate neighborhood. The applicant has provided a Letter of Justification for the proposed residence (Exhibit 5). B. Architectural Considerations The Town’s Architectural Consultant reviewed the project to provide recommendations related to architecture and neighborhood compatibility (Exhibit 7). The Consulting Architect commented that the project site is within an established neighborhood of one- and two- PAGE 5 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM story homes. The consultant recommended changes in order to bring the project into compliance with the Town’s RDG. The RDG emphasize neighborhood compatibility “with the recognition that some change is inevitable, may be an improvement to the existing structures and/or neighborhood, and may be desired by the neighborhood.” The applicant has provided a written response to the Architectural Consultant’s report (Exhibit 8). A summary of the Architectural Consultant’s recommendations and an analysis of the applicant’s response is included below. Garage Design Limit the garage to two car widths and subordinate the trellis at th e garage to the main entry porch. The applicant has provided a Letter of Justification for the proposed three -car garage (Exhibit 9), citing that other homes in the neighborhood have three -car garages including the house immediately to the west. The applicant indicates that this is the largest lot in the neighborhood and that it is not uncommon for a residence to need a third garage bay to accommodate storage of vehicles. Additionally, in response to the Architectural Consultant’s concern, the applicant revised the site plan by offsetting the face of the third garage bay by four feet and by reducing the width of the driveway at the street from 28.5 to 18 feet. While this would not be the only residence in the immediate neighborhood with a three -car garage façade, three-car garages are not common along Topping Way (Exhibit 10). Trellises can be incorporated to help soften the appearance of a garage and reduce the visual impact of a street-facing garage. The applicant revised the proposed trellis at the garage by setting it back three feet from the porch trellis; however, staff feels that the third garage bay, associated roof overhang, and trellis are not adequately set back and differentiated from the main front elevation of the house. The result is a wide house and increased massing that is not consistent with the neighborhood. The proposed garage does not comply with the following sections of the RDG:  Section 2.4.2: Minimize the impact of garage doors on the streetscape;  Section 3.4.1: Limit prominence of garages; and  Section 3.4.2: Minimize the visual impact of larger garages. PAGE 6 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM Materials Eliminate the stone base and columns unless they are carried uniformly around all sides of the house. Sections 3.2.2 and 3.8.4 of the RDG provide guidance for including secondary wall materials on the exterior of a residence. Included is ensuring that material changes are made at inside corners rather than outside corners. The applicant revised the plans to extend the wainscot on the west elevation to the proposed fence line 13 feet to the south; however, the wainscot would still terminate at the outside corner of the study to the north. While this wainscot is the only place where stone would be used as siding on the residence, the material would be consistently used to clad the columns supporting the trellises on the north and south elevations, increasing the consistent use of materials on all elevations of the house. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the project, the Commission may consider requiring the stone wainscot to change at the inside corner of the bath and study. Use traditional round or square wood porch and terrace columns with bases, caps, and a wood beam. Use a traditional wood railing at the porch edges. The Consulting Architect recommended more traditional forms and materials for the columns supporting the trellises, especially with the stone material not continuing to all elevations of the house. The applicant revised the solid porch railing from stone to wrought iron. The proposal includes square columns clad with stone to match the proposed wainscot. The use of the stone cladding on the columns is consistent with the revised wainscot and the materials would be included on three of the four elevat ions. Utilize modular stone pavers for the driveway. The applicant proposes a textured concrete driveway, accented with smooth concrete bands. The proposed driveway materials would reduce the visual impact of the driveway from the street, adding visual interest to the site and complying with Section 2.4.5 of the RDG. Provide more information on the proposed window types and materials. In response to this request, the applicant provided details of the proposed windows (Exhibit 11). The proposal includes wood and wood-clad windows and doors with painted wood PAGE 7 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM trim. The proposed materials are recommended and consistent with Section 3.7.4 of the RDG. For the trellis over the rear terrace, utilize columns, bases and caps similar to the front porch. The proposed trellis over the rear terrace is consistent with that proposed at the front, including steel posts clad with stone, steel beams clad with rough sawn cedar, and four- by six-inch cedar rafters. The proposed materials and scale of the trellises would be consistent with the RDG and complementary to the residence. Height Lower the floor-to-ceiling heights on both the first and second floors. In response to this recommendation, the applicant lowered the ceiling heights by six- inches on the first floor (from ten feet, six inches to ten feet) and one-foot on the second story (from 10 feet to nine feet) to better relate the size and bulk of the home to those in the immediate neighborhood. C. Privacy Several neighbors have expressed concerns related to the privacy impacts on neighboring living and yard spaces from the proposed second-story windows on the south and east elevations (Exhibit 12). On the south elevation, three windows would be in the second-floor master bedroom and one in the master bathroom. The east elevation also includes a window in the master bathroom. The master bedroom windows would be approximately 45-inches wide by 54-inches tall, with sill heights of approximately 36-inches above finished floor. The master bathroom windows would be approximately 44-inches wide by 44-inches tall, with sill heights of approximately 48-inches above finished floor. The table below provides a summary of the approximate distances between the proposed windows and neighboring property lines (yards). Elevation Neighboring Address Distance to Property Line South (rear) 16667 Marchmont 42 feet South (rear) 16685 Marchmont 41 feet East (side) 16650 Topping 37 feet Section 3.11.2 of the RDG recommends that homes be designed to minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences, living spaces, and yard spaces. This section of the RDG PAGE 8 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM recommends design solutions such as locating sill heights above eye level or utilizing frosted or textured glass to reduce visual exposure. While this may be an option for some of the windows, the bedroom will require a window meeting the emergency egress requirements of the California Residential Code. Additional recommendations include utilizing landscape screening to mitigate privacy intrusions. The proposed Landscape Plan includes six new trees in the rear yard. The trees range in height from four- to 25 feet at maturity. When fully grown, their locations may provide some screening to the rear, as would existing trees on neighboring properties, but significant portions of the rear property line would remain unscreened. Several neighbors along Marchmont Drive have submitted comment letters expressing concerns related to privacy (Exhibit 12). The applicant has provided a response to the privacy concerns in Exhibit 13. Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the project, the Commission may consider requiring design changes to the proposed second-story window style or location and/or additional landscape screening to reduce the potential privacy concerns of neighboring properties. D. Tree Impacts The applicant proposes removal of four existing trees on the property. The trees range in size from four- to ten-inches. The Town Arborist visited the site to inspect the trees and evaluate potential impacts from the proposed construction. The Town Arborist indicated that the trees proposed for removal are not high-quality trees and the required finding under Section 29.10.0992(10) of the Town Code could be made as their removal and replacement would enhance the Town’s urban forest. According to the tree replacement standards of the Town Code for residential lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, a total of eight 24-inch box trees would be required to be planted on site to replace the trees being removed. The project Landscape Plans show that ten, 15-gallon trees are proposed to be planted on the site, which would not meet the replacement standards of the Town Code. The Arborist also indicated that standard tree protection measures would be acceptable for this project. Staff has included a condition for any approval that required tree replacement (eight 24-inch box trees) meet the standards of Section 29.10.0985 of the Town Code and that the project comply with the tree protection requirements of the Town Code. E. Environmental Review The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which includes demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone. PAGE 9 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM PUBLIC COMMENTS: The applicant has informed staff that they met with the majority of the adjacent neighbors on March 28, 2017. Feedback from this meeting is included as Exhibit 14. Prior to sending out the Town written notice for the project, staff received written comments from several neighbors on Marchmont Drive (Exhibit 12). The applicant was provided these comments and submitted a response to the comments (Exhibit 13). Written notice of the public hearing for the project was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property on December 1, 2017. All public correspondence received before 11:00 A.M. on December 8, 2017 is included as Exhibit 15. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The proposed project would allow the applicant to construct a new single-family residence. As proposed the project would create a 3,907-square foot residence with a 902-square foot garage, and 394 square feet of below grade square footage. As discussed in this report, the size and bulk, and garage design of the project do not comply with the Town’s RDG and are not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. B. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the Architecture and Site application based on concerns related to size and bulk, neighborhood compatibility, and garage design as discussed in this report. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1.Approve the application by taking the following actions: a.Find that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Exhibit 2); b.Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2); c.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 2); and d.Approve Architecture and Site Application S-17-011 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and development plans attached as Exhibit 6; or PAGE 10 OF 10 SUBJECT: 16666 TOPPING WAY/S-17-011 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Topping Way 16666 - PC - 12-13-17.docx 12/8/2017 8:44 AM 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction. EXHIBITS: 1. Location map (one page) 2. Required Findings and Considerations (one pages) 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (ten pages) 4. Project Data Sheet (one page) 5. Project Description and Letter of Justification, received March 21, 2017 (1 pages) 6. Surrounding Neighborhood map (one page) 7. Consulting Architect Report, received April 19, 2017 (six pages) 8. Applicant’s response to Consulting Architect Report, received June 21, 2017 (four pages) 9. Letter of Justification for three-car garage, received September 22, 2017 (one page) 10. Garages within Surrounding Neighborhood map (one page) 11. Color and materials exhibits (eleven page) 12. Marchmont Drive neighbor comment letters (six pages) 13. Applicant’s response to Marchmont Drive neighbor comment letters, received November 1, 2017 (one page) 14. Neighbor feedback letters collected at applicant’s outreach meeting (seven pages) 15. Public comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 1, 2017 16. Development Plans, received November 7, 2017 (20 pages) Distribution: Dennis Norton Design, 712 #C Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010 Arthur Lin, 4100 Moorepark Avenue, Suite 205, San Jose, CA 95117 16666 Topping Way 0 0.125 --------==============::::J Miles 0.0625 ! .J ; J 0 I EXHIBIT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION -December 13, 2017 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 16666 Topping Way Architecture and Site Application S-17-011 Requesting approval for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence on a property zoned R-1:8. APN 523-09-018. PROPERTY OWNER: Arthur Lin APPLICANT: Dennis Norton Required finding for CEQA: FINDINGS • The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Required finding for the demolition of a single-family residence: • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single -family residence will be replaced . 2. The existing structures have no architectural or historical significance, and are in poor condition. 3. The property owner does not desire to mainta in the structures as they exist; and 4. The economic utility of the structures was not considered . Required cOmpliance with the Residential Design Guidelines: • The project is In compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes not in hillside residential areas. CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications: • As required by Section 29.20.150 ofthe Town Code, the considerat i ons in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2017\TOPPING 16666 -A&S FINDINGS.DOCX EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 16666 Topping Way-PROJECT DATA EXlmNG CONDITIONS PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRED/ ALLOWED Zoning District R-1 :8 Pre-zone R-1:8 -- Land Use I Single-family residential Single-family residential I -- General Plan Designation Low-density Residential Low-density Residential - Lot Size (sq. ft.) 14,526 14,526 8,000 Exterior Materials Siding Stucco Stucco/stone -- Trim Wood Wood -- Windows Wood Wood -- Roofing comp Comp - Building Roar Area (sq. ft.} First Floor (sq. ft.) 1,384 2,568 -- Second Floor (sq. ft.) 0 1,339 -- Garage (sq. ft.) 560 902 -- Setbacks (ft} Front 25 38.17 25 Rear 48 41.17 20 Side 8& 19 8 & 10.25 8 Maximum Height (ft) 26.83 30 Building Coverage {%) 33.6% 40%maximum Floor Area Ratio (%} Hause +Accessory{%) 10% 26.9% 27.4% Garage(%) 3.9% 6.21% 7.3% Parking 3 Parking Spaces 2 Parking Spaces Tree Removal -3 -- Sewer or Septic Sewer Sewer -- EXltIBIT 4 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 3-20-2017 16666 Topping Way Los Gatos Letter of justification ( The following letter is our justification for a proposal to build a new 3,921 square foot single family residence, three car garage and a basement. The existing house was build in the early 1950's and is showing it age. Construction methods will not meet todays Engineering, Energy, or Green building standards. It cannot be rebuilt to meet these standards, without a total rebuild. This is the ·1argest lot in neighborhood with the largest front frontage along Topping Way. We propose a two story residence to keep lot coverage to a minimum. We have intentionally stepped the house back on second story on the East and West to minimize or eliminate any shading to take place. Homes to North and South are over 60 feet from this structure and are both two story structures. Window locations on second level have been controlled to retained privacy to neighboring residents. This is an excellent project and will fit well to the existing neighborhood. Architecturally this design takes us to the 1930-1940's Frank Lloyd Wright. Thank You for your consideration Dennis Norton EXHIBIT 5 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 16700 llARCHMONT DR c:J Town Boundary Town Parcels D County Parcels 16470 ENGLEWOOD AV 16647 TOPPING WY 11171 TOPPING WY 11U8 TOPPING WY R-1 :8 16885 MARCHMONT DR 18884 llARCHllONT DR 11• llARCHllONT DR 16650 TOPPING WY 16666 Topping Way Surrounding Neighborhood 16636 TOPPING WY .EXHIBIT .o .... .-:~~==:::::iw ............. 1 8~0 ==========:::::iVOFeet 11822 TOPPINGWY N W E 6+ s This Page Intentionally Left Blank April 19, 2017 lV..x. Sea..• Mullin Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 16666 Topping Way Dear Sean: ARCHITEcruRE PLANNTNG URBAN DESIGN RECEIVED APR 1.g 2017 TO'Mll OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the site context. My coniments and recommendations are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located in an established neighborhood of one and two-stoty homes. I have previously reviewed six other nearby houses in this neighborhood. Photographs of the site and surrounding context arc shown on the following page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING C IRC LE SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR CA . 94939 EXIDBIT 7 TEL: 415.331 .3795 COGPLAN@PACBEll.NET House to the immC'diate-left 1r w House acroS$ Topping Way Nearby House to the left CANNON DESIGN GROUP fiouse to th£' immediate right Nearby House to the right 16666Topping Way Design Review Comments April 19, 2017 Page 2 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 ISSUES AND CONCERNS 16666 Topping Way Design Review Comments April 19, 201 7 Page 3 1. Thei:e arc a variety of garage locations and sizes in this neighborhood, but three car wide garages are not common. The duce car garage would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 2.4.2. 2.4.2 Minfmiu dM iwap.n of prage tloon n dH nnmcape • Limit the use of 3 car wide garages tQ loClltions that arr not visible from ~strut or adjo ining houses. • In neighborhoods whnr 2 CllT wide garages arr common, a tandem garau may be considered for a third garage space. 2. The height and width of the proposed house is gcncmlly larger than other homes in the immediate neighbo rhood. One reason for the height differential is the proposed 10'-6" fus t floor Boor-to-ceiling height and the 10'-0 " sec- ond d o OJ:: floor-to-ceiling height. . . i+l-i----__., Height and width much greater than Immediate neighbors 3. The limited use of stone is not consistent with R.csidcntial Design Guideline 3.2.2 w hich calls for the use o f special materials and details on all sides of the house. The termination of the stone at an o utside corner of the right side elevation is also not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.8.4. Trellis treatment at soffit is very awkward and not consistent with the architectural atyle Stone-wrapped metal columns The limited extent of stone Is not consistent is not consistent with the with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.2 architectural style CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199. LARKSPUR CA 94939 16666 Topping Way Design Review Comments April 19, 2017 Pagc4 4. The proposed trellis treatment at the front porch soffit is very awkwa!d and is not consistent with this architectural style. And, the stone-wraped columns is not consistent with the architectural style. 5. The three-car width of the garage and the large trellis in front of it draws more attention to the garage than would be desirable. 6. The short overhang on the left side elev:i.tion is smaller than the other overhangs. 7. The drawings do not provide adequate information regarding the type and materials proposed for the windows to allow a judgment as to their suitability. 8. The driveway to serve the three-car garage is shown as the full width of the garage which is not consist ent with Residential Design Guideline 2.4.5. 2.4.5 Mitigate the inlpact of driveways on the 1truae11pe • Limit the lllidth of C1IT'b ct1t1 lo the minillmm iiz.t tu1d1d to accm the FtJgt. This llliU "'"" the 1111101111t of patling in the front ietbatk, amJ pn.rtr11t on-itrut parking spaas. • Utilize 111ot"'1ar paving 111atma/s or petial pattmu or whn to brrale up j>aPtd drimwJ.Y artaJ in front sttb«les. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Limit the garage to two car widths and subordinate the trellis at the garage to the main entry porch. !ii L •• ~ t Subordinate the trellis at the garage to the main entry porch CANNO N D ESIGN GROUP r~---· 1~ Miii 700 LARK SPUR LANDING C IRC LE SU ITE 199 LA RKS PU R CA . 94939 16666 Topping Way Design Review Comments April 19, 2017 Page 5 2 . Eliminate the stone base and columns unless they Ate carried uniformly around all sides of the house 3 . Strongly consider lowering the floor-to-ceiling heights on both the fust and second floors. 4 . Use tmditional round or square wood porch and terrace columns with bases, caps and a wood beam. 5. Use a tr.ulitiona.l wood railing at the porch edgcS. 7 . Subordinate the trellis at the garage to the main catty porch -sec two photo examples bcl~ •••• 8. Strongly consider utilizing modular stone pavcrs for the driveway. 9. Provide staff with mo:re information on the proposed c==========::::=~=====i window types and materials. • Sliding windows should be discoumged. • Wmdows should have tnditional trim with projecting sills -see example to the right. Applicant's proposed 2" x 6" window trim seems too heavy. • Divided lites are shown. That should be consistent for all windows, and either true or simulated ~­ sional divided lites should be used. Flat pop-in strips would not be accepmble. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 16666 Topping Way Design Review Comments April 19, 2017 Page G 10.For the trellis over the rear terrace, utilize columns, bases and caps_ similar to the front porch. The trellis shown on the applicant's drawings were much too delica te Limit garage width ·----................. .. ·········1 I Utilize columns, bases and caps similar to front porch Scan, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon CANNO N DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LA NDING C IRCLE SU ITE 19 9 LA RKSPUR . CA . 94939 4-25-2017 City of Los Gatos Community Development Department Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group RECEIVED JUN 21 2017 ·TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Re:. 16666 Topping Way, Evaluation of Site and Proposed structure. The neighborhood is unique in the City for there are only two houses that are in the City limi~s on this street. This proposed house and the adjacent house to the right of this home. The rest of the street are in the County and are subject to the County's standards until potentially annexed. Very difficult to determine what the style or pattern of design for the neighborhood .is and will be in the future, for all houses on the street are set to County of Santa Clara standards. I will attempt to address the issues raised by Mr. Cannon in his review of April 19, 2017. 1) Issue of height and mass. Yes we can reduce mass by lowering ceiling heights to 10'0 on lower level and 9' -0" on upper level. We will do that. 2) Three car garage issue. This is the largest lot on the street by 4000 square foot and the largest front footage on the street. The only other house on the street in the City limits; the house next door, has a 3 car garage fronting the street. We propose a three car garage . We can offset the one door if it needs relief to front elevation. 3) Size and mass of structure. There are two story structure to the front and rear of this lot of comparable square footage. 4) The limited us of stone is not consistent with Design Guidelines I Not sure what does this means? There is extensive use of stone on front and of structure in back. Yes we can wrap stone around corners up to front side yard gates. S) The trellis in front of the garage actually softens the garage doors as shown in the attached detail seen in Mr. Cannons report. The Trellis's as proposed EXHIBIT .9 are anything but light. Stone columns to 9 foot, 6x12 beams and 4x6 runners at 2'-0" on center will certainly have mass. 6) Traditional Architecture -Frank Lloydd Wright used this style of architecture on many ·of his designs thn.i the 20's,30's and 40's. Corner widows, wide window trims, stone columns, arbors, this is a traditional architecture. 7) Windows and door will all be Jeld-Win casement with true grid. With vynal Exterior and wood interiors. No sliders. 8) The comment on eve width on left front of structure. This eve is the same length, but is over a wing wall. 9) Stone pavers on Drive way. Prefer to refer to my Landscape Architects suggestion. In closing, I am humbled by a process where I can have an Architects Peer review on my designs. In 30 years in this business and in the over 500 homes that I designed I have never had a peer review. I appreciate his input, but you should not have someone designing homes, only reviewing for design conformity and neighborhood compatibility. Remember, all the wonderful older homes that exist in your community of Los Gatos, that we all love, all if not most were designed with no peer review. They were designed with the open pallet and builders imagination. Lets keep that creativity. Thank You Dennis Norton, Designer . ~ ~ . ... .. ... l:· •• bttps:l.'.ww.w ,googfo.c0b:iimaps/dirll65 l l + !Qpping+ Way,:+ i.:.os+G ~tqs. +CA +95032/16666+' l:65ll Tqpping Way, Los Gat,os, CA 95032 to 16722 M(l.rchmont Dr, Lo s Girtos, CA 95~>32 ... . : . ·. ·. . .. · · .. ·. .. . ·" ... . : .. ·· . . .·. . . 1 ofl (.. . ' .. ,r-. t. "':''f',. --: /j ~i :-. . ... .., ... ~ J .. ·1? ~· .... 1-651 1 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA-95032 to 16722 MarchmontDr, Los Gatos, CA · Walk 0.4 m il e, .8 min 95032 ~-­~· .:.-~ ·-~ ._..,.~;·'.)I~,.. • -~ .~ .~ • _x.. "' 'i-) ... ,, ~~· ,.., J:' 3 ~?Y (t, 1~,..: I~ ''1.-'.,. ~IJ M666 Toppill(i ~ii!'.~. 1<>5.:16~ OAvenue (> "' '!'-: •, . ·l' !·~ . ;· •• ., •• o 16o8S.~llft:hrnont l>r•.Ye 4 /6D , ..... ,, ·l"· ct>-.. ~ ,j.··: .;r t 8min 9Jll :'Riie· "' . .• ':!> ~22 Mwdtmorrt o.we-$ ., 4, 1./-o ¥ l"ol!.1.·<:h::.:.>rtt ,_.,. ·~ :,, ... 11 .. ~:,1-, ~ h t"'.',,,,.,. (¥\ . ..-• ......., .. , ~),· .... ···~ · ... ,,,./.~ P. • I>· .ct ... ~t' ·°t. I:.",(" () 0 • . "} ~-t :rr11rr;:1t1t lk ~ r".'. ., -~ -~ ,,.. @ ~6!>11 Toppi11g Way -· ~ f.· J.:,Pir1g ;, . tr .. · ~ ~ .g :::i:: M;;r.-i· .>o~I; Mep data !C>2Q17 Google United States 1 oo ft L. • · . '7 /-,.1 11'7 SHY> A • • • • • • ., ·J -... Address APN lot size house s ize Year . Garage Story a · .16511 ToppingWay ·tos Gatos, CA95032 532-09~002 . l;0480 4;095 2011J2012 · 601 ' . 2 .r2" i . 16536 Englewood Ave .las Gatos, CA 95032 532-09-046. ··9~79 4,181 . 1949 I 2010 · 548 . 2 (3. · '16685 Marc;hrfttlf:ltl'l{Los Gatos, CA 95:1032 532~09-0.43 ·. -14420 4~160 .. ... 1948/ 2006 ;·: 630 . ... 2 ·~ . · ·16722 Marc~mont. Dr . Los · Gatos, ~A 95032 532-08-003 '<12215 4;404 .. 2006/ 2006 .>" 0806 . -2 .. ,. 9-22-2017 Sean Mullin, Planner City of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Lo s Gatos, _Ca . 95030 Re : 16666 Topping Way, New construction Justification for new 3 car garage Dear Sean, RECE!VEO SEP 2 2 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION The following letter addresses the design of a new single family residence with a three car garage. It should be noted that this neighborhood is in the County of Santa Clara and is in the process of slowly being annexed to the city of Los Gatos. In other words this neighborhood has never been under any design consideration by the City of Los Gatos. This neighborhood has many residences with 3 car garages. Very common, and not out of context with the neighborhood. The house next door has a three car garage and was built about 2 years ago. The proposed home has the largest lot In the neighborhood and with the proposed site plan offers the residence a large outdoor area. It is not ur.1common today for a home to need a third garage, with the amount of "toys" that should be kept inside and out of sight. We have designed the third garage to step back from the two car garage to lessen the visual impact on the front of the house. We feel that this house justifies the design of a three car garage, as is prevalent in this neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Dennis Norton Denni s Norton Design 712 Capitola Avenue, Capitola EXHIBIT 9 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2 . Garage Spaces CP Carport c::J Town Boundary Town Parcels l __ J County Parcels 16666 Topping Way Garages within Surrounding Neighborhood 2 2 -' . -' ·~ '~. I '() ' N .EXHIBIT 1 0 W+E 220 ~ ~~ s a~---11c0::=:::::5 ......... lllllliC========:::i This Page Intentionally Left Blank . \ {g (p (p.l:> ... \ D?~lt'-1~ ~~ ,----y IXBIB~ 1 .1 Custom Sea.-ch f g+ » in Home Stone Products Project Gallery Resources Locator About Us Con ' PRAIRIE ~TONE Installation Specifications At www.CORONADO.com product .specific:ations c:an be downloaded in CSI furmat. Choices Specific to Prairie Stone Standard Colors: Concrete, Grey Granite, Mocha Granite or Any Custom Color Grout Joint Width: Standard 'h" to~" Average Grout Joint,~" to l" Grout Joint or Drystatked Grouting Options: Deep Raked, Drystacked, Full Brushed, Full Smooth To oled or Rough Brushed Grout Joint Color: Natural Grey, Natural Off-White or Complementary Color AcceHoria: Complementary Tiles, Wall Caps, Post Caps and more. (S cc Accessories section of binder) Special Installation Notes Pattern: Do not install stones vertically. Blend the stones on the wall from several d ifferent boxes to ensure proper color and size variation. Profile consists of 60% 3-%" H stones and 4 0 % 1 %" H stones. See catalog photos for recommended installation pattern. Chalk Lina: Should be used by inst~ler to ensure a straight and level pattun. ·Scaling: Not required. However, if installed on an exterior exposed to excessive water from runoff or improper drainage, we suggest the product he sealed in that particular area to protect it from staining or spaJling d uring free ze-thaw cycles . Freeze-Thaw: When installing stone in a freeze-thaw environment, extra care sho uld be taken to ensure a full coverage of mortar on the back of each stone, which will prevent water pooling behind the stone after it's been installed. Installation Info: Download Coronado's latest installation instructions at www.coronado.com for information on mortar and installation recommendations. · Prortle Properties Size: Stone sizes are I~" and 3%'' in height and up to 24" in length (nominal). Thickness: 1 W' {nominal) Weight: 7 to 10 lbs. per square foot. Packaging: Available in big boxes or Dura-Paks. When purchasing Prairie Stone, coverage is based on installation with a lfi' joint at the back of the stone. Deep Raked 3/8" Deep Raked 3/8 • ...... -.... .,. f'• '"; ... <!. ~· '.~~~~ .. ~j- ,·. /, Sean Mullin From: Sent: To: Subject: • COMPANY • NEWSROOM o Press Releases o Events o SMedia Center Media Inquiries tall : 1.503.274.7006 Email : JELD-WEN@cmdagency.com Sean ( Dennis Norton <DNortonDes igns@msn.com> Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:22 PM Sean Mullin Topping Way This· is the Sitellne Series that we will use at 16666 Topping Vynal exterior with wood interiors Thank You Dennis JELD-WEN's Siteline® wood & clad-wood window and patio doors Offer Affordability & Enhanced Performance NEWS SHARE RESOURCES: See our Online Press Kit from IBS 2015: 1 ob ode Suggested Post/tweet: High performance engineering meets enri ched designs in @JELDWEN's new Siteline Wood Windows, which debut in April. Introducing JELD-WEN's latest, ENERGY STAR-qualified Siteline Wood and Patio Door lines @ IBS. link: http://jeld-wen.com Image asset: Additional Quote: "We've tested everything from air, water, and structural elements to forced entry to ensure that this is a high performing product offering," -Bob Merrill, Executive VP of Sales and Marketing . . ..... .......... '' . . . ..... , ..... ····-··· . ·~ '" ........... _ ...... ·-. . , .... , . _., -·· ........ ~ ... ·--· ·•··· .... . ... ., ....... ''. .. ...... .•. .. ... .. CHARLOTTE, N.C. -JELD-WEN's new Siteline• Wood and Clad-Wood Window and Pat io Door line combines the latest in h igh performance engineering with architecturally enriched designs. Available in April 2015, Siteline ls JELD-WEN 's new mid-tier wood window and door line, featuring a complete offering of affordable window and door styles with enhanced performance features. The Sitellne line-up includes larger window sizes (updated heights and widths), improved ther mal performance and more styles at a budget-friendly price point. 2 JELD-WEN's Siteline® Wood Double-Hung Wmdows -----_,, -----:-._.i,,,,.._ .... ~--· .....,..--.-.,.-.----- Unveiled at the International Builders' Sho~ (iBs), Siteline ~ood and clad-wood window and Patio doors meet 2016 ENERGY STAR• 6 requirements. This latest ENERGY STAR revision includes updated energy efficiency criteria for residential windows and doors effective January 2015. · A major advantage of Siteline wood windows and dooiS is that they come standard with pine Auralast• wood, manufactured with JELD-WEN's proprietary water-based wood protection process that delivers virtually 100 percent surface-to-core protection and a lifetime Limited Warranty* against wood decay and termite damage. For full warranty details please visit www.jeld-wen.com. The new JELD-WEN• Siteline wood and clad-wood window and patio door line offers strong options for remodeling, new construction and light commercial, with products that are available In a wide variety of styles, ranging from traditional to contemporary. Innovative 'perjomance features All JELD-WEN Sitellne wood and clad-wood windows and patio doors come standard wlth LoE-366 glass, which helps to block harmful infrared rays and Neat• Glass, which harnesses the sun's UV rays to loosen dirt from the glass, allowing rainwater to naturally clean the surface. Other glass options available include a wide variety of textures, patterns or colors designed for added privacy or a unique look. 3 JELD-WEN's Siteline Wood Casement Windows Efficiency also is enhanced on the double-hung window through a reinforced sill design, which features composite interior chamber construction for added strength and durability. The casement features a deeper sash backset construction, while the extruded sash and frame maximize reliability providing outstanding energy advantages. "We've tested everything from air, water, and structural elements to forced entry to ensure that this is a high performing product offering. The improved styles and overall aesthetics include new clean sightlines as well as architecturally focused details and options," said Bob Merrill, Executive VP of Sales and Marketing. Siteline Wood and Clad-Wood window and patio ·door style options JELD-WEN Siteline Wood windows are available in nine interior finishes, and 22 exterior cladding colors. In addition to the seven existing hardware finishes, a new black hardware finish is available. Interior wood species include Auralast• pine, alder and Douglas fir. Available window styles include casement with updated architectural styling, a push-out option, awning, and double- hung with concealed jamb liner. JELD-WEN offers options such as simulated divided lites and three different segment top styles. Siteline wood patio doors also come in many configurations. Designs such as swinging patio doors add beauty and functionality to the home, fit with a wide variety of architectural styles and are available in hundreds of configurations. • 0 0 0 0 , • ' . iomeowners can ~lect from unique options such as European-inspired operable, venting sidelites, which allow fresh air in without opening the entire door. Also made standard with pine Auralast• wood, Siteline• patio door options include 22 exterior clad colors, seven anodized exterior clad options and nine interiorfinish choices. The new Siteline• folding door system is a floor-mounted application and an affordable solution when homeowners are looking to truly bring the outside in. The system can be a great solution for renovation projects or new 'construction. • For fuft warranty details please visit www.jekl-wen.com. About JELD-WEN JELD-WEN -a leading global manufacturer of windows, doors, and treated composite trim and panels -operates 90 faciltties in more than 18 countries with $3.S billion In revenues; half of which comes from outside the Un ited States. The company provides products that enhance the beauty and functionality of homes an d commercial buildings. JELO-WEN 's full breadth of products has earned numerous awards and endorsements for dependability, innovation and excellence. With a strong commitment to sustainability, JELD-WEN is a recogn ized leader in manufacturing energy efficient products -providing solutions that deliver exceptional value for builders, architects and homeowners around the world. JELD-WEN has been an ENERGY STAR • Partner since 1998. For rQOre information about JELD-WEN, or to find a dealer, visit www.jeld-wen.com or call 800-877-9482. PRODUCTS Window s Exterior Do0rs Interior Doors Patio Doors SUPP ORT & TOOLS 5 This Page Intentionally Left Blank r ·, Community Development Departent 110 E. Main Street Los Gatas, CA 95032 Mr. Mullin: November 1, 2017 RECEIVED NOV 6 -2ot7 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVIS;ON I am writing f n regards to the proposed development on 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032. As a neighbor living in the neighborhood for many years, I strongly oppose the housing project or:-Topping Way as it is currently proposed for several important reasons. First, it is completely out of character for the location and surrounding houses. Second, its size fs unreasonable and unnecessary. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a complete invasion of privacy for those living on adjacent lots. It will aggressi vely intrude onto the neighbors' private yards. This destroys their quality Of life. There are many reasons people come to live in our neighborhood. First and foremost are the peaceful streets, friendly atmosphere and ability have your own private home life without reaching out your window to touch your neighbor's house. Many nfNI developments in Los Gatos have been created where "monster houses" are being built which completely sacrifice yards and privacy. Our neighborhood is different. Yes, bigger houses are being built, but these have taken into consideration other houses and nefghbors tn the area as well as the adjacent lots. This proposed development has not done so. As it is proposed, a house of 4,«>0 square feet of living space plus a 900 sq foot garage which is over 27 feet in height seems unreaso.,.,ble given the houses on either side and in the nearby lots. Yet, most importantly, this house will completely destroy any privacy that the houses behind it once had. A house wfth a complete wall of windows in the rear located on the second story will look directly f nto the lots behind it. ·There is no way for the neighbors in the rear to protect themselves. A st.orm drain easement exists behind the proposed development lot, . preventing any visual barrier, such as large trees, from being planted. Therefore, the neighbors in the rear of this development are losing their peaceful, private backyards. Their homes are being invaded and their quality of life obliterated. They purchased homes i n this neighborhood expecting to enjoy the calm, quaint atmosphere. No one deserves to have this stolen from them simply because of someone else's greed. In dosing, I ask you, what is our vision for Los Gatos? Are we going to become a community of oversized houses which invade each other's privacy and have no respect for those here before us, simply for the extra dollar? Are we going to Let developers devour every ounce of privacy that we once had? Or are we going to be a community of people who respect each other and work together for the mutual happiness of everyone? I propose the latter as that fs the only decent way to lfve. Wf th Respect, ' 11 I ,)-c ~ vv~~ Erin Wentzten U 16634 Marchmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 EXHIBIT 1 2 \ \ ' \, \ (' Sean Mullin Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos · 110 E Main St Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Sean, RECEIVED . ., Nov· 03 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISlON I'd like to thank you for taking time to meet with my wife and I to review the development plans for the property at 16666 Topping Way. The property sits behind ours, which is located at 16667 Marchmont Drive and so we will be impacted directly by the development of the property. I am writing today to document the concerns that my wife and I share regarding the property. Ultimately, our issues with the development plan boil down to two over-arching concerns, the impact on our quality of life and the potential depreciation in the value of our property. While I understand the appeal of upgrading the Topping property, I believe it can and should be done in·a way that does not negatively impact the neighboring properties. With that as context, I have detailed our specific concerns below. The structure that currently sits at 16666 Topping is a single story residence that lies approximately 60 feet back from the rear property line. The proposed structure is a significantly larger two-story residence that sits only 40 feet from the property line in the back of the property (which borders mine). The back of the house has a lower floor that is virtually a wall of windows (and glass doors) and an upper floor with several large windows that would have a direct and unobstructed view into my backyard and my house. The patio of the house extends very near to the property line. And, the structure has a garage door that opens into the backyard. The proposed structure at 16666 Topping is far too large for the parcel. While it is true that it abides with the required easements, the structure is recessed far further into the property than any other structures in the area. All of the homes (particularly two story homes) along Marchmont and Topping have significantly more yard space than the planned structure. It will be an eye sore for those of us who border the property in the rear. In addition, the windows ori the first and second floors in the rear of the structure will make it near impossible for us to have any privacy (particularly in combination with the proximity of the house to the property line). The second floor would have a completely unobstructed view of our badcyard and a direct view into the rear of our home. And AGAIN, given the proximity of the structure to the property line, I am very concerned about the loss of privacy that would result. October 30, 2017 Sean Mullin r-·. Community OeveJopment Department Town of Los Gatos 110 .E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mr. Mullin: ('· I'm sitting in my bedroom, gazing out the window at a backdrop of orange mesh, wondering how it is possible that a house will soon replace the serene and private badtyaid that I love~ Ovt!r the last week and a half, I've sat Jn. front of every window gazlns Into the backyard -from my bedroom windows, my bathroom wtndoW$, my kitchen and breakfast Windows, my famHy room windows, and even my office windows -yet that same orange mesh glares riaht back at me. It's tall; it's Imposing; and worst of all, it's ubiquitous. rve written one letter already, before the stort poles were erected, but after a very emotional last week and a half. I feel compelled to write another. As described In my prfor letter, I bouaht mv house not Ions ago In larae part for Its private and serene backyard. The view from the back of the house Into the yard along with the exceptional neighborhood were the key selling features for me. Indeed. the yard is so · beautlful and private that the downstalr5 rear windows don't even have window coverlnss. The proposed house at 16666 Topping Is wrane. It's oversized, Imposing and unfair. It's larger than any other house on the block, and far larger than the average house on the street. I am a proponent for buJldlns beautlful homes, but it needs to be done In a reasonable, thoughtful and considerate manner. We are a community. and to give to one resident to the slsnlflcant detriment of other residents should not be allowed. The owner of 16666 Topping is not a part of this community. This is evident because even after several letters have been sent to the Town expressing frustration about the proposed development, to this day, we still have not been approached by the owner of this property looking fpr a collaborative resolution. As such, I urge the Town to tum down this proposal. I've seen many very beautlful and expensive luxury homes built 01 single story. In fad, many luxury homeowners prefer single story homes as they are easier to navipte. If extra square footage Is desired, a large basement can be added without creating an imposing structure. In this way, the new house would satisfy everyone•s desires. I am urgq the development committee to do right by its residents. Please don't allow constructk>n of a house that would chanse the charm and character of Los Gatos. It is this character and charm that make It so sp.cial. Sincerely, The property owner at 16685 Marchmont Dri\.'.e RECEIVED OCl 3 1 Z.017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION October 3, 2017 Sean Mullin Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mr. Mullin: ( RECEIVED OCT 04 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DMStON I C!m writing to express my concern about the new construction recently proposed for 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos CA 95032. I have reviewed the plans for the house, and the house, if built as designed, will result in a significant invasion of our privacy and create a potential safety hazard. Further, the house is .abnormally large, unreasonable, and Is out of character for the area. We recently purchased the house directly behind the one at 16666 Topping Way. We began looking for a house after being notified by our landlord that he had decided to move into our nearly e!ght year Los Gatos rental. We spent over a year looking for a new home, and following a long and painful search, we finally found the house at 16685 Marchmont Way. We fell in love with it immediately; it is in a great location, it is part of a quiet neighborhood, and most of all, it has a private and peaceful lot. Eager to get settled, we pulled together our life's savings and made the purchase. Finally, after abruptly having to move and living in turmoil, our family had found a home, and our long and painful journey coul_d come to a close. Only three months after our move, however, we were dismayed to learn of the recent proposal to demolish the one story house on 16666 Topping Way in order to build the largest home ever constructed in the area. The proposed construction includes nearly 4,400 square feet of living space plus a 900 square foot garage, _equaling 5,300 square feet in total, and is proposed to be 27 feet in height. Even worse, the excessive two story structure is proposed to indude a wall of windows on the second story of the rear side of the house -windows that will provide a completely unobstructed view directly into our backyard and into our home. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that, due to a storm drain easement that e>dsts between our lot and the Topping lot, no permanent structures or large trees can be placed between the two houses to serve as a shield. Consequently, anyone living in the Topping house or anyone visiting the house can see everything in our yard and in the rear of our house. They can watch us. They can watch our children. Anyone inside the Topping house will have a completely unrestricted view of us using our pool (which will be installed before the Topping house construction has been completed), and we will be showcased for all to see. No longer will we be able to enjoy the privacy and peacefulness of our house and our yard. Instead we will become spectacles in our own home. This type of development is a complete and blatant of invasion of our privacy -a fundamental and basic right to which we are entitled. Even more so, allowing unfettered views into our yard creates a potential safety issue for my family as we will literally have no control over who can observe us at any tim~. As opposed to relaxing in our home and in our yard, we will now have to live with the overriding fear of someone watching over us. Avoiding this type of situation is the exact reason we had purchased our house In the first place. Furthermore, if I were to still looking for a house and were considering purchasing the Topping home, I r likewise wouldn't want someone in the yard behind me to be able to look right into my bedroom and watch me. Thus, to allow such an invasion of privacy on both sides is completely unrea~nable and inappropriate. In addition to the flagrant invasion of our privacy and the creation of a potential safety hazard, the combination of the excessively large house that has been designed at 16666 Topping and the unique limitations of storm drain easement creates another problem, that of a massive and Imposing structure looming over us without any shield. What Is now a peaceful and Idyllic yard will become overshadowed by an enormous house overlooking us. And due to the easement, there will b~ no way to screen any of th~ 36 foot long, 17 foot tall massive second story rear wall. None of the foliage or plantings included.in the Topping house design include any trees or plants to break up the ominous structure in the rear. The tallest shrub proposed in the plans for the rear portion of the yard located between the two houses may grow to six feet tall at best. This means that we will forever have to live in the shadows of this massive structure, and it will perpetually encumber and loom over our yard. One of the primary benefits of Los Gatos is its peaceful and beautiful environment. Los Gatos is coveted and highly regarded by many because of its serene landscape and houses tucked into quiet, verdant foothills. Los Gatans generally steer clear of postage stamp sized lots with oversized and overbearing houses staring down on one another. This is one of the unique characteristics that sets Los Gatos a~rt from other areas and perpetuates its mystique. In the current situation, the owner at Topping Way has designed a home that is exactly the type of home that Los ~atos tries to avoid. It Is the largest home in the area. As mentioned above, the house square footage is approximately 4,400 square feet (including a 477 square foot basement). In addition, the house includes another 900 square foot garage, which Is large enough to accommodate four cars, plus still allow for parting spaces in the driveway. In total, this translates into construction of a bullding that is nearly 5,300 square feet. Topping is a friendly, welcoming street. Over half of the neighboring homes to the Topping house are under ~,500 square feet of living space. Larger, remodeled homes on the street generally range up to 3,000 square feet of living space, with the rare exception of a few larger homes. Even still, these larger homes are few and far between, and even the larger homes on the street are often single story. In fact, according to Town records, of the nine neighboring homes located near the Topping house, all but on~ are slnsle story. This translates into a quiet, unpretentious street that helps make the area so appealing to others. The house proposed by Mr. Lin will not fit into this street. The house at 16666 Topping will be much wider and larger than most houses on the street, causing the surrounding houses to look stunted, undersized and inadequate by comparison. Furthermore, the decor chosen for the home will not flt into the architectural character of the street, causing the home to stand out even more. We would like to see a house that is much more In line in size and character with the surrounding houses . Ultimately, we will need to live with the house that will be built. Mr. Un does not live, nor does he have intentions of living, in this neighborhood. This house is purely an investment for him, and he doesn't have the incentive to create a home that adds to the character. and charm of the neighborhood in which we live. His focus Is only to make as much money as possible, hence the proposal for the largest amount of square footage possible. If Mr. Lin had been concerned about the neighbors, he woukl have heeded the Town's recommendation of reaching out to adjacent residents to discuss his plans. By doing so, he could have ensured a fitting and appropriate house for the area that would have met everyone's needs. We are sorely disappointed with Mr. Lin's approach to the development of the house on Topping. He's designed an oversized house that is larger than any other house in the neighborhood with no regard for the neighbors or the neighborhood. And these are neighbors that already have to deal with the added hassle of the noise, intrusion, and disruption that comes with construction for an extended period of time, at a time when we already have to deal with the disruption caused by the house under construction on Marchmont (kitty corner to the Topping house). Most importantly, however, we object to a house being built that will provide complete and unfettered views.into our personal and private lives. We do not want to be spectacles in our own home. We do not want to worry about who is watching us, and whether they create a safety concern for us and for our children. Furthermore, we believe that proposing a design that includes a large, looming structure with daunting walls without any cover or interrupted view is unreasonable and should not be permitted. Most two story homes in the area have the benefit of having trees or other cover that separate them from other houses. However, the storm drain easement significantly limits this ability, and the house that was designed at Topping Way inappropriately does not take this limitation into consideration. We respectfully request that you re-evaluate the house proposed for 16666 Topping Way. We would like to work together to build a house that works for everyone. Sincerely, 11-1-2017 Sean Mullin Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos Re: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos Dear Sean, RECEIVED NOV-' O 1 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION The following letter is a response to a recent letters to you from the new property owner at 16685 Marchmont Way, Los Gatos. This is a home directly behind our proposed new home at 16666 Topping Way. Unfortunately the owner at 16685 is new to the ne i ghborhood and was not living in neighborhood when we did our neighborhood meet and greet. We did have a meet and greet at the Lot and was well attended by neighboring residents, who showed unanimous support for the project as proposed. We did make some modifications to the plan as proposed by surrounding residents. We are sorry that the new neighbor to the rear was not living at this home when meeting took place. Below is a Size comparison of homes at 16666 Topping and 16685 Marchmont Drive. By county regulations the basement is not counted in house size for it is below ground and not contributing to the size of the house. Let us compare the size of the two houses. 16666 Topping Way 3,907 Square foot Living 16685 Marchmont Drive 4,160 Square foot Living 16666 Topping Way 14,526 Lot size 16685 Marchmont Drive 14,420 Lot size It is clear from this that the neighboring house at 16685 Marchmont is a larger home on a slightly smaller lot. The Marchmont home is also a two story home as is the proposed for 16666 Topping Res idence. They both have upper story windows with at least 50 foot between the structures. We are unclear about the privacy Issue to a swimming pool that does not exist. Nor could it possibly be approved in a water shortage area. We are sorry that the owner of the Marchmont home feels dispositioned by our new proposed home, but we are not asking for anything more than that he already enjoys. Thank You Arthur Lin, (Owner at 16666 Topping Way) EXHIBIT 1 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ,. 16666 Topping Way Los Gatos 3-28-2017 Thank you neighbors in participating in our presentation of a proposed two story single family residence at 16666 Topping Way. At this presentation we are sharing our proposed floor plan, site plan, survey, elevations, roof plan,. street scape and elevations. Please feel free to comment on this project. All submitted forms shall be submitted to the Planning Staff and Planning Commission at the City of Los Gatos. A date for a Public Hearing with the Planning Commission on this project has not been set yet. Pleases leave you contact information if you would like to be contacted prior to the hearing. Name eY--1·c.. I Address /~78 .7?jip Ly ~ Contact C" f/P fl S°'t'/---; '2-D iJJ" EXHIBIT 1 4 16666 Topping Way Los Gatos 3-28-2017 Thank you neighbors In participating in our presentation of a proposed two story single family residence at 16666 Topping Way. At this presentation we are sharing our proposed floor plan, site plan, survey, elevations, roof plan, street scape and elevations. Please feel free to comment on this project. All submitted forms shall be submitted to the Planning Staff and Planning Commission at the Oty of Los Gatos. A date for a Public Hearing with the Planning Commission on this project has not been set yet. Pleases leave you contact information if you would like to be contacted prior to the hearing. Name \-<'c:an~ (\, ~rfx'.:3 1 ) Address \ b~S--0 l6 ff \h~ w°i Contact lfoY--SOL/-{ ;('-( l 16666 Topping Way Los Gatos 3-28-2017 Thank you neighbors in participating in our presentation of a proposed two story slngie family residence at 16666 Topping Way. At this presentation we are sharing our proposed floor plan, site plan, survey, elevations, roof plan, street scape and elevations. Please feel free to comment on this project. All submitted forms shall be submitted to the Planning Staff and Planning Commission at the City of i.os Gatos. A date for a Public Hearing with the Planning Commission on this project has not been set yet. Pleases leave you contact information if you would like to be contacted prior to the hearing. Name Krrs Ow~Uan'/ Address I ~ ll l4. U inf p 1 h j LJ:t ,. ( 16666 Topping Way Los Gatos I t 3-28-2017 Thank you neighbors in participating in our presentation of a proposed two story single family residence at 16666 Topping Way~ At this presentation we are sharing our proposed floor plan, site plan, survey, elevations, roof plan, street scape and elevations. Please feel free to comment on this projec:t. All submitted forms shall be submitted to the Planning Staff and Planning Commission at the City of Los Gatos. A date for a Public Hearing with the Planning Commission on this project has not been set yet. Pleases leave you contact information if you would like to be contacted prior to the hearing. Comments: ·Please see attached comments Name Peter and Kathy Duxbury I Eric and Bobjn Koch -16678 Togpjng Way Address 16700 Topping Way •• !..._, .. ,, Contact Peter@duxaoc com 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos Hi Dennis, Thank you for sharing the plans of the Lin Residence at 16666 Topping Way with the neighborhood. Below are my comments. The west neighbor, Eric Koch at 16678 Topping Way, Is out of town and I am sharing concerns we discussed. 1. The general design, massing, orientation, detaifing and location on the site are good. 2. The idea of using a daylight plane with a smaller second story and hipped roots is appropriate for the two adjacent. single-story, hipped roof structures. Eric's house is a recently built single-story, hipped roof house. 3. I think the materials look good; however, we would like to suggest the stucco color be on the darker side, say a reflectance of less than 50%. 4. Thank you for listening to us about privacy and revising the second-story windows, which you have addressed in the current plans. 5. The landscape plan looks like it is well thought out, but I would like to offer some tree screening suggestions that are neighborhood and community friendly, please see attachment. a. You mentioned that the existing mature street tree in the front yard was to remain; however, the location is not obvious on the landscape plan. I believe this existing tree should remain. b. I would suggest planting some mature screen trees on the southwest corner of the property. First of all, a new, tall two-story house is just beginning construction behind Eric's house on Marchmont. Tree screening would be beneficial for all properties. At least (3) non- deciduous screen tre~s would be helpful on your west property line, not only to screen the second-story of 16666 Topping from Eric's backyard, but also to protect your i>roperty from the late afternoon summer sun. My house is to the west of Eric's house and has the same orientation. Having lived there for 30 years, I think these coniferous/evergreen screen trees In this corner would be beneficial to all of the adjacent properties and help re-establish some mature trees that have been removed in recent developments. ( c. We would also like to encourage you to use directional down lights that are shrouded in the trellises and the overhangs, as opposed to wall-. mounted sconce type fixtures. This would help the privacy and maintain the rural feeling of the neighborhood. Very Truly Yours, Peter Duxbury 16700 Topping Way Los Gatos z£oss v~ ·soivE> soi AVM E>Nldd0.19999~ 30N3CIS3~ Nil ~~ _ _ . • v. . • ~ • ~ R 1 a • ~ ~ • ' • • ~ ~-_ _ UI I This Page Intentionally Left Blank PUBLIC COMMENT Public comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 8, 2017 NONE EXHIBIT 15 This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 16 POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE PAVERSLAWNTOPPING WAYLAWN18" HIGH LANDSCAPE PLANTER WALL18" LANDSCAPE PLANTER WALLWITH BENCH SEATINGLARGE PLANTCONTAINERSBERM30" HIGH EARTH BERMSMALL COBBLE (TYPICAL)LARGE COBBLE (TYPICAL)LANDSCAPE BOULDER (TYPICAL)TEXTURED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYSMOOTH FINISHCONCRETE BANDMEXICAN BEACH PEBBLE BETWEEN PAVERSPORTABLEPROPANE BBQGRILLNORTH18" HIGH LANDSCAPE PLANTER WALL3" SCH. 40 SLEEVE UNDERPAVING (TYP.)3" SCH. 40 SLEEVE UNDERPAVING (TYP.)PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)LANDSCAPE BOULDER(TYPICAL)LIN RESIDENCE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 16666 TOPPING WAYCHECKDATEDRAWNSCALEJC/MAMA1/8" = 1' - 0"REVISIONSL-1.OHARDSCAPE PLAN(Exp 7/31/18)MICHAEL A.ARNONENo. 3347LASTTAEFOCANECIL AD ES L NDSCAFI IRON ITECTHPEARCkMichael Arnone Landscape Architect - 2017SHEET 1 OF 34.13.2017JOB NO.SHEET201713CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. Contractor shall notify Underground Service Alert (USA) at 811 to verify the location anddepth of all existing utilities prior to any demolition, trenching or excavation.2. Contractor shall take care not to damage in any way, any existing elements to remain.Such damage is the responsibility of the contractor and shall be replaced or repaired tomatch the original at no additional cost to the owner.3. All dimensions and elevations shall be verified in the field and chalked, flagged or stringlined prior to any construction. If any discrepancies occur, notify Landscape Architectimmediately before proceeding.4. Contractor shall place 3" diameter sleeves (chases) under all paving crossings as shownon plan to be used for drip irrigation lines, irrigation laterals or low voltage lighting cable.5. The boulders shall be Sonoma Fieldstone or as selected by owner.6. Concrete shall be Davis Color #5237 Sandstone or as selected by owner. The concretefield shall be finished with a Seamless Skin SANDED SLATE Stone Texture. The concretebands in driveway shall be smooth finish. Contractor shall pour a 2' x 2' sample of color andfinish to be approved by owner two weeks prior to concrete pour.7. The retaining wall shall be poured in place concrete with a smooth finish cap at the seatwall. Color shall be Davis Color #5237 Sandstone or as selected by owner8. Back yard patio shall be Calstone Permeable Mission paving stone in "Grey CharcoalTan" color in Herringbone pattern. TOPPING WAYNORTHPLANT SCHEDULELIN RESIDENCE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 16666 TOPPING WAYCHECKDATEDRAWNSCALEJC/MAMA1/8" = 1' - 0"REVISIONSL-2.OPLANTING PLAN(Exp 7/31/18)MICHAEL A.ARNONENo. 3347LASTTAEFOCANECIL AD ES L NDSCAFI IRON ITECTHPEARCkMichael Arnone Landscape Architect - 2017SHEET 2 OF 34.13.2017JOB NO.SHEET201713 LIN RESIDENCE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 16666 TOPPING WAYCHECKDATEDRAWNSCALEJC/MAMAAS NOTEDREVISIONSL-2.1PLANTING NOTES (Exp 7/31/18)MICHAEL A.ARNONENo. 3347LASTTAEFOCANECIL AD ES L NDSCAFI IRON ITECTHPEARCkMichael Arnone Landscape Architect - 2017SHEET 3 OF 34.13.2017JOB NO.SHEET201713TREE DOUBLE STAKE PLANTINGSHRUB AREAS.PLANTING ATSTAKING DETAILPLANT PIT DETAILTURF AREAS.PLANTING AT1SHRUB - MODIFIED SOILSECTION VIEW© 2VINE - MODIFIED SOIL©3GROUNDCOVERPLANSECTION VIEW© 41. All existing trees, shrubs and ground covers to remain shall be protected. Any damage causedby Contractor's work shall be repaired or replaced at the Contractor's expense and be approvedby the Landscape Architect.2. If topsoil is intact, spread 2-4 inches of compost over surface of soil and incorporate into top12-24 inches of planting area. If topsoil has been scraped and stored, mix one cubic yard ofcompost to 3-5 cubic yards of topsoil before re-spreading.3. After amending soil, grade all areas smooth with no localized depressions exceeding .5 inch.All areas shall surface drain with 1.5 percent minimum slope away from all buildings, paving orother structures.4. Quantities are for aiding in bidding only. Contractor shall verify all quantities.5. Contractor shall lay out plant material as per plan and receive approval fromLandscapeArchitect prior to installation.6. No plants shall be planted with root balls or new pits in a dry condition.7. Plant all plants as per planting details in square pits with sides and bottoms thoroughlyscarified. Do not amend backfill mix beyond initial topsoil amending unless noted.8. All newly planted material shall be watered by deep soaking within 3 hours of planting.9. All planting areas shall receive 2 to 3 inches of shredded fir bark top dressing (mulch).10. Contractor shall be responsible for irrigating all new plant material until the entire project asbeen approved and accepted by Owner.11. Thirty days after planting Contractor shall restake and straighten all trees as necessary to beapproved by Landscape Architect.12. Contractor shall install a 'Treks' or equal 6 inch edge along the edges of the new turf areas.PLANTING NOTES+ DETAILS 6/16/17 10:16 AM DENNIS NORTON712 CAPITOLA DR #CCAPITOLA, CA 95010(831) 818-0335SOLAR STUDIESTOPPING STREET RESIDENCE4000 PORTOLA DRIVE SANTA CRUZ CA 9506217.010 DSAi A-1 01 05/09/17 These Drawings are Instruments of Service issued for a one-time, single use by the Owner. The entire contents of these Drawings are Copyright © 2017 by Daniel Silvernail of DANIEL SILVERNAIL ARCHITECT, INC. Architect retains all right and title. No part may be reproduced in any fashion or medium without the express written permission of the Architect.REGULATORY REVIEWUNKNOWN501 Mission St Suite #2 Santa Cruz CA 95060 831.462.9138Daniel Silvernail Architect, Inc.6/8/17 6/16/17 1 2 C-24335 DANIEL MATTHEW SILVERNAIL RENEWALDATE 6-30-2017LICENSED CE TIHCRA TST A TEOF C INROFILA AN SOLAR STUDY JUNE 21ST 9AM SOLAR STUDY JUNE 21ST 12PM SOLAR STUDY JUNE 21ST 3PM SOLAR STUDY DEC 21ST 9AM SOLAR STUDY DEC 21ST 12PM SOLAR STUDY DEC 21ST 3PM Height and number of stories of adjacent structures: • 1-S • 9 FT