Item 3 - Exhibits 8-10Nove mbe r 1 3, 201 3
M s. S u zanne Av ila
C omm unity D eve lopme nt Departme nt
T own of Los Garos
110 E. Main Street
Los G a tos, C A 9 5 0 3 1
RE: 339-341 BeUa Vista Avenue
D ear Suzanne :
ARC HITECTURE PLANNI NG
I reviewe d the drawings, and vis ited the s ite. M y c omments and recommendations fo llo w.
Neighborhood Context
U RBAN DE SIGN
The s i te is w id e but s h allow, very steeply slo p ed , a nd o n e o f the few homes in the ar ea located o n t h e w es t s id e of Be ll a
Vista' Avenue . Homes across Be lla Vista are a mix o f one and two s tories d es igned in traditiona l styl es . Traditionally
d esigne d multifamily u n its are located at the b ase of the sit e , and a re l argely buffe r ed fro m this s ite by h e avy h illside l a n d -
s caping. P h o ros o f the s it e and surrounding n e ig hborho od a re sh own on t h e following p age.
The site with the proposed structure shown
700 LAR KSPUR LAN D IN G C IRC LE . SU ITE 199 . LA RK SPU R . CA . 94939
EXHIBIT 8
TEL : 4 15.3 3 1 .3795
CI>GI'LAI'.@PACBlll.Nll
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
March 21 , 2016
Marni Mosley
Town of Los Gatos
Dan and Deborah Ross
188 Villa Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Community Development Department
110 E. Main St r eet
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE : 341 Bella Vista Avenue
Written Project Description and Letter of Justification.
HISTORY :
RECEIVED
MAR 2 5 2016
TOWN OF Lo·s GATOS
PLANNING DIV ISION
My name is Dan Ross . I have been a resident of Los Gatos for 16 years and currentl y live on Villa Ave.
My family and I are wanting to build a home on Bella Vista in which to move. We have been working
on this home approval process for more than 10 years .
There are currently two legal and buildable lots on Bella Vista Avenue, 339 and 341 Bella Vista
Avenue. Both lots have been deemed by the Town to be legal and buildable from a legal, technical,
geotechnical, policy and architectural perspective. In 2011, we applied for approval of two single
family homes, one on each of the two lots. Sitting on 5,000 +/-sf lots each, the homes consisted of
approximate 1838/1803 sf with 481/399 sf cellar and 441 sf garage, using the foundation area
underneath the home and garage as living space, as permitted by Town Code . The total square
footage of the previous proposed homes combined was 3641 sf plus 880 cellar= 4521 sf. total.
Although the previ ous application was recommended for approval by Town Planning Staff and Town
Engineering based on similar homes in the neighborhood with zero lot lines, exceptions/variances to
driveway length, setbacks, height, medium density, multifamily and condo/apartment zon i ng. The
previous application was denied primarily based on:
1) Exceeding FAR , when accounting for 60% reduction of net site area required per Hillside
Design Guidelines. We did reduce the square footage of the homes at our second Planning
Commission meeting, utilizing the foundation ar ea under the home and ga r age as living space .
With allowable FAR of 800 +/-sf, the intention was to have an 800 sf+/-main level living area,
and utilize the lower foundation/basement/cellar area as living space . The foundation was
necessary, as stilts are not allowed by the Town.
2) As both front and rear setback exceptions were required, the proposed homes were deemed
too large for site . The Planning Commission requested "significant reduction" of the size of
the homes. There was a need for a driveway length variance. The driveway length did meet
the Town requi r ement, when accounting for the distance from the property line to edge of
EXHIBIT 11
pavement. When accounting for front and rear public easements, there was not a need for a
front/rear setback exception or driveway variance.
3) There was concern regarding the location of the driveway for the northerly house, relating to
limited visibility along the slight curve on that portion of Bella Vista Avenue. Although lower
in height than existing trees, there was concern this northerly house would tower over
adjacent townhomes.
4) Planning Commissioners stated the Spanish and Craftsman style homes weren't "designed for
the hill, we should pick an architectural style that is designed to the hill."
5) Planning Commission and neighbors stated one house would be more appropriate, the
architectural style should be designed to the hill, there should not be a need for front and rear
setback exceptions, and there should not be a need for a driveway variance.
NEW APPLICATION AND REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In direct response to neighborhood, Planning Commission and Town Council direction we are
proposing a lot merger to create one legal, conforming lot of 10,155 sf with one home vs . two homes,
and complying with all Town Codes. The application includes a main level of 1,278 sf and a lower
countable level of 185 sf for a total of 1,463 sf. The cellar of 1,179 sf which is permitted and
encouraged by Town Code and is not counted in the sf to calculate FAR. The upper, lower area and
cellar= 2,638 sf total. The Planning Commission, and Commissioner O'Donnell specifically, requested
a significant reduction in sf. This new plan is reduced by 1883 sf or 42%, compared to the previous
two home application. With one compliant driveway and one garage, vs two driveways and two
garages.
1) Complies with All Town Zoning Codes. The house has been designed to and meets the Town
of Los Gatos Zoning Code and Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. The plan is
compliant and meets FAR, height, front set back (per section 29 .40.060), side set back and rear
set back regulations. With 10,155 sf lot, 14% FAR and 13.4% lot coverage, we do not require
nor are we requesting ANY Variances.
2) Addresses Privacy. Locating the house to the south reduces interface with adjacent
townhouses, and allows the use of existing mature trees to screen the one townhouse to the
west. We were able to achieve greater than the required 20' rear setback, with rear setbacks
of 23'4" at the north corner and 36'4" at the south corner. This also allows us to locate the
driveway in a safer location, away from the curve on Bella Vista Avenue, and meet the 15%
max driveway slope requirement. Per HDS&G compliance checklist, page 4, section B: the
outdoor activity areas have been moved away from neighbor quiet areas/bedrooms, second
story windows have been minimized and oriented away from neighbors, the one small deck at
back of home is less than 6' (per checklist) and intended to block downward views from inside
the home, landscaping is used to screen views to neighbors, existing vegetation will remain.
Section G1g states "screen noise sources: parking, outdoor activity." The garage will block
sound and light from vehicles. The patios to the south near highway 9 are oriented away from
the neighbors. Page 4, section E: Three story elevations are prohibited. The house itself is not
three stories. The garage is angled so one corner at the rear, at 4' 9", is visible. This minimizes
the appearance of three story elevation. A garage is not required, we would prefer it for
sound, light and appearance (storage of garage related items) benefits.
3) Retains More Trees on Site. All existing trees to the north will remain. The two trees in the
building footprint require removal and are allowed to be removed in specific conformance to
Town Code Town Code: Section 29.10.0990 (9) and 29.10.0955 which allows removal of trees
within the building envelope -"Significant impact on a property from a tree means an
unreasonable interference with normal and intended use of the property." The legal, normal
and intended use of the property is in accordance with the Town General Plan and Zoning of
R1-8, single family residential. While the Town consulting arborist has identified trees 10, 11,
16 and 21 to be removed, we seek to protect and work around these trees, with the intention
of maintaining the wooded nature of the site and providing as much mature screening as
possible relating to neighbors. The Town Arborist report states: "Most of the trees are not in
good condition when evaluated individually because they have grown in crowded, shaded
conditions for many years." We will work with Town Arborist and neighbors to plant
additional trees, per landscape plan and Town Code, that provide the right amount of
screening without too much shade. The neighbors were against us creating more shade. This
plan will not create more shade.
4) Designed to Planning Commission and Council Direction . Planning Commissioners commented
that the home should be "designed to the hill". The proposed design is common for hillside
sites, in los Gatos and other communities. Please see the plans for examples and inventory
within our Town of many other similar structures. Exterior finish materials will include
natural wood, warm tones, non-reflective materials and shielded exterior down lights. The
house will sit below Bella Vista Avenue.
5) LRDA: For the purposes of the least Restrictive Development Area , the home is sited in the
most appropriate area within the building envelope, in the area furthest from the neighboring
properties. Given the site and slope greater than 300!6, the home is in the least impactful
location.
COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES :
1) House is not visible from Viewing Platforms.
2) House sits lower than existing tree heights, and won't block views of the los Gatos hillsides or
create new shade pattern.
3) Drainage plan to meet Town codes, per civil plan .
4) Natural wood exterior finish will blend with natural environment. Earth tone roof.
5) Existing mature trees will screen impact to adjacent townhome neighbor. Additional
trees/shrubs to be added, as appropriate, per Town Code. The existing trees to the north and
south of the home will remain . The olive tree between our home and Maggi Court home will
remain. After meeting with neighbors on Bella Vista, we agree to plant trees that will screen
power lines . The oak tree near the power pole will remain.
6) Original topography will be maintained.
7) Window type and location sensitive to privacy.
8) Overhang is modest, building is stepped with slope.
9) We are using below grade rooms.
10) We are using horizontal and vertical building components.
11) Minimalist style minimizes bulk, mass and volume of home.
12) No perimeter fencing proposed, unless needed for privacy.
13) House has been moved furthest from adjacent properties.
14) Natural features will be preserved on 86.6% of the lot. {13.4% lot coverage).
15) The home/submittal should "protect and preserve viewsheds and the ridge lines of the
mountains." This home will be lower in height than the existing trees, follows the contour of
the hill and is set down slope from the street. It is not on a ridgeline. As stated on Page 7 of
the HDS&G : D. Applicability and Approval Process : The Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines apply to the areas shown on the Hillside Area Map. The map includes all areas
with HR and RC zoning, and some lots with R-1 zoning. The R-11ots are included because of
the presence of a hillside environment and/or steep slopes. The subject parcel appears to be
included in the HDS&G due to slope, not due to being in the hills of Los Gatos. See Hillside
Area Map. This parcel is not in the mountains, not on a ridgeline. It is in an urban setting, in
the middle of Town, immediately adjacent to Highway 9/Los Gatos Saratoga Road, a motel,
medium density attached townhomes, as well as single and multi-family and condominium
homes. You can see/hear Highway 17 and Highway 9/Los Gatos Saratoga Road from this
setting. The proposed home will not be seen from Town designated Viewing Platforms or
Valley Floor.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY:
1) The neighborhood on Bella Vista Avenue is made up of one and two story single family
detached homes, duplexes, houses with back yard cottages/apartments and condominiums
on flag lots. The proposed lot is the largest lot on the west side of Bella Vista and one of the
largest lots on the street. The townhomes on Maggi Court immediately adjacent to the
proposed home are medium density residential, 3 stories in height and 35' tall. They are
attached to each other and/or 7' apart, with 1650 sf living area and 550 sf garages on 1307 sf
lots. The FAR= 126%, not counting the garage. Each also has attached third story exterior
patios/decks. Maggi Court townhomes have reduced setbacks and driveway variances. The
Maggi Court project was built on land zoned R-1:8, single family homes on 8000 sf lots. The
Maggi Court project received an exception or variance to be rezoned for medium density, 35 '
tall town homes, along with 126% FAR.
2) Our proposed home complies with the Town's Zoning Code and requires no General Plan
Amendment, no Zoning Code Amendment, no Planned Development Zoning and no Variances.
a. The proposed home has only a 14.6% FAR. The home has been designed to have
minimal lot coverage of only 13.4% on 10,155 sf lot.
b. The home meets the Town's height requirements and will sit below Bella Vista
Avenue. The height at the rear north corner of the house is 22' 1" and 17' 6" at the
south rear corner.
c. The application meets the Town' setback requirements. The rear setback is 23' 4" at
the north corner and 36' 4" at the south corner. Side setback also comply with the
Town's Zoning Code. The path/easement at north side of home creates more distance
from townhomes.
d. The home is designed to minimize the need to use the rear yard and side yard to the
north for decking and outside entertaining, to minimize the impact on the townhome
neighbors.
e. It appears to be the largest lot, and the driveway appears to be the longest driveway
on the west/down slope side of Bella Vista . The two on-street parking spaces on Bella
Vista Avenue will remain, which will help with neighborhood parking.
3) The high quality, minimalist style minimizes impact on neighbors. This style is in response to
Planning Commission request to design a home style that fits the hill.
4) The Town's Consulting Architect supports the design and archi tecture.
5) See Sheet A.l.l for neighborhood compatibility data.
PRIVACY :
1) The house has been placed on the part of the lot that is furthest from the adjacent
townhomes. Existing mature trees and plants between our home and the townhome to the
west will remain. Fencing adjacent to the downstairs bedrooms will block views. Window
placement and planter boxes minimize direct views. The kitchen window has privacy "fins"
that block views to the right and left. The view from that window will be of our parcel and the
road between the townhomes. See landscape plan for landscape screening. See architectural
plans for sight line details, mass and scale, and distances between our home and neighbors.
Utilizing the exterior space that is part of the structure minimizes the need for more intrusive
decks and patios in the back yard and side yard to the north. The small deck on the roof of the
home has permanent planter boxes that block downward views. The view will be over the
olive tree and townhome rooftop. We are open to glass wall to screen sound. The Town's
Consulting Engineer has commented that as an extra measure of stability, the house
foundation should not retain the hill. The retaining wall at the front of the house and on the
south side of the house is in response to this request. Again, the resulting patio area is closest
to highway 9, minimizing the need for decking/patios at the back of house and north of house,
which would have a greater impact on townhome neighbors. This is an effort to push outdoor
activities as far away from neighbors as possible.
GARAGE DESIGN:
A garage is not required. We have designed the roof to be sloped from front to back, with the
rear wall of the garage lowered to 4' 9" +/-. This is intended to minimize the appearance of
height from the rear of the property. If the Town would like limit potential or perceived third
story dimension, one alternative is to eliminate the garage, which could expose garbage cans,
storage containers, bikes, garden tools, vehicles .... all the items people normally keep in their
garage. Also, the garage will serve as a noise and light buffer from vehicles in the driveway.
While the Town has previously approved similar garages for similar sites (52 Oak Hill) and it is
not our preference to remove the garage, and we don't think it makes sense, we are willing to
remove the garage if the Planning Commission desires.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT:
The mandatory Town construction management plan will be implemented. We currently live on Villa
Avenue, backing to Oak Hill. We watched the home at 52 Oak Hill get built, San Jose Water Company
site, Sister of the Holy Names site, Blue Bird lane, Town library and many others within the last few
years. As evidenced by 52 Oak Hill, which overlooks other homes, and Villa Avenue, projects like ours
have been approved and built during the time frame we have been working on our project, that were
also subject to the Hillside Development Standards Guidelines. That parcel is similar in size to ours,
appears to be steeper than our lot and the home was approved with rear facing covered patios, and a
third level garage with an additional parking space to the side of the garage. Our proposed home is
smaller than this, and we are not asking for the additional parking space. Oak Hill Road is sloped, and
narrower than Bella Vista Avenue . We will meet the Town requirements regarding construction
logistics.
COMMUNITY BENEFIT:
1) This home will not create more than five net new peak hour traffic trips. Therefore, the
Town's Community Benefit policy is not applicable.
CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBORS/NEIGHBOR CONCERNS:
1) We have notified neighbors of our plans in the past, have done so again and offered to meet
with any neighbor to review our plans. Pat Tillman/ Attorney stated he is the spokesperson
for the Maggi Court neighbors, and that the neighbors would NOT meet with me individually.
He stated that any communication should be through him. Neighbors Ms. Chin and Mr.
Straight did not disagree with that statement, and I have not heard from them. Each time I
have interacted with a neighbor I have expressed an openness and willingness to meet. None
have not contacted me. I recently left a message for Mr. Tillman, he did not return my call. In
the past, Mr. Tillman conducted a group meeting in his home (regarding the previous
submittal), where he put me in a folding chair against a wall and basically deposed me and my
wife for 90 minutes. It was not a two-way dialogue. There was at least one additional
Attorney in the room. In past attempts, neighbors have not responded to my letters, have
been unwilling to meet individually to address individual concerns, and group meetings have
been hostile toward me and my family. At hearings and in group meetings I have been
verbally attacked, badgered and threatened. For reference, please look at old letters on file
and previous Planning Commission meeting minutes.
2) I did receive a call from a neighbor who lives in the adjacent Maggi Court Homeowners
Association. This person won't speak publicly for fear of retribution, but stated : "We live in
town homes, our homes are connected and very close to neighbor units. Our patios and
balconies are connected, we share walls, we see into our neighbor's homes, patios, balconies.
We hear each other, we hear our neighbors air conditioning units and hear and feel the
vibration of our attached neighbor's garage door. We hear traffic from LG/Saratoga
Road/Hwy 9 and Hwy 17. This is an urban setting. Our neighbors on the other side of us are
apartments, condos and a motel. Passerby's can see into the units from Bella Vista Avenue.
Your home is further from us than we are from each other. Th i s notion that the neighbors
have the privilege of absolute privacy is flawed. Looking at the size of your home compared to
the size of your lot, and the size of our homes compared to our lots? Seeing what we got, and
what's going on around town, you should be building four townhomes! We had the right to
build our homes, and you should have the right to build your home."
3) Despite the above, I have always been respectful to my neighbors and the Town and the
proposed home takes into consideration the public comments made by neighbors, Town
Planning Commi ssion and Town Council. It is unfortunate that the original builder, previous
homeowners and/or Realtors did not disclose that there are two legal buildable lots adjacent
to some neighbors' homes. While some neighbors may want nothing to be built on these two
lots, the lots are legal and buildable and we have presented a thoughtful plan that complies
with Town Code, requires no Variances and directly responds to previous input. As we have
notified neighbors of our final plans, I hope they will take a respectful approach and recognize
that we have been responsive to specific issues raised previously.
SUMMARY:
The previous application was denied based on the request for significant reduction in sf, the need for
front and rear setback exceptions and a driveway length variance.
Response: The square footage has been reduced 42% and meets Town FAR requirements. The plan
meets the Town height, setback and driveway length requirements. The driveway has been oriented
to the straightest part of the road, with the most visibility.
I've worked in Los Gatos since 1989, my wife and I started our family here in 2000. Our friends from
the neighborhood, Van Meter School, Fisher Middle School, Los Gatos High School, Cornerstone,
Adventure Guides, and many others can see what has been built around this site. We ask that Town
leadership review the facts, remove the emotions and approve this compliant home as proposed.
While there may be some new decision makers on the Planning Commission and Town Council, we
want to be clear that this one lot, one home proposal is not the beginning of the process but the
compromise solution. While I am reserving the right and option to retain two lots for development if
this proposal is not approved, the proposed design addresses specific issues raised previously and we
request that the proposed home be approved as proposed.
Please review plans and don't hesitate contact us with any questions. Our design and technical team
is available as well.
Best regards,
Dan Ross
408-314-5626
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
RESOLUTION 2012-057
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS,
VARIANCE FOR DRVIVEWAY LENGTH AND TO CONSTRUCT TWO SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8
APNs: 529-23-015 AND 529-23-016
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-06-009
VARIANCE APPLICATION: V -11-001
ARCIDTECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S-06-046 AND S-06-064
PROPERTY LOCATION: 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: DAN ROSS AND JAKE PETERS
APPELLANT: DAN ROSS
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on April 2,
2012, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
WHEREAS, Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant
and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all
testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings
and the packet of material contained in the Planning Commission Reports dated October 12,
2011 and February 8, 2012, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this
application.
WHEREAS, the applicant proposed a lot line adjustment between two lawfully created,
non-conforming parcels (less than 8,000 square feet), a variance for reduced driveway lengths,
and to construct two new single-family homes on property zoned R-1:8. SutTounding properties
on Bella Vista Avenue are developed with single-family homes and the property below the site
on Maggi cow1 is developed with medium density townhomes.
EXHIB IT 1 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission last considered the applications on February 8,
2012, and voted to deny the Subdivision, Variance, and Architecture and Site applications based
on concerns about the proposed house size, bulk and mass at ·the rear, reduced setbacks and
pedestrian safety on Bella Vista.
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on
his belief that the Planning Commission erred in its decision in stating that the denial was based
on home sizes of 2,400 square feet, a variance for the rear yard setback (when such variance is
not being requested), a perceived safety concern with the driveways was not substantiated by
fact, and that project opposition was factored into the denial.
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Planning Commission did not err in its
decision in that the proposed residences do not comply with the allowable FAR for the
properties, the reduction in house size was not significant as requested by the Commission on
October 12, 2011, and the bulk and mass at the rear of the houses was not reduced.
NOW THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the appeals of the decision of the
Planning Commission on Subdivision application M-06-009, Variance application V-11-001 and
Architecture and Site applications S-06-046 and S-06-064 are hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the decision constitutes a final administrative
decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of
the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos . Any application for judicial relief from this decision
must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of
Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal Law.
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant may pay full time and materials up to
the cost of regular fees on any future application filed by the appellant for the project site.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California, held on the 2nd day o f April2012, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
A YES: Steven Leonardis, Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, and Mayor Steve Rice
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:~~·
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank