Item 2 - Exhibit 20 - Project summary by applicant1
101 Broadway
EXHIBIT 20
2
PROJECT SUMMARY, OCTOBER 26, 2020
As the photo below demonstrates, the current home is a fire stricken,
unsafe blight on the neighborhood and the Town at large. The HPC
rightfully approved of its demolition. Per county record, its area is
1296SF. No historic character can be found. Even prior to the fire, the
home was bastardized with unseemly additions and remodels - things
that should never be done to any house.
Exhibit A – The existing structure
3
This project is subject to not just one, or two, but to three of the
Town's controlling guidelines --
The HPC
The Residential Design Guidelines
and
The Hillside Design Guidelines
This design meets or exceeds the guidelines at all applicable points -
that is why Planning Staff had not one negative comment or concern.
The subject site is narrow, deep and sloping. The LRDA is located in
lower portion of the site – the proposed home is within the sites LRDA.
In turn, the building envelope is very narrow – Just 39 feet wide on a
Site of over 12,000sf.
Due to its slope, the FAR was reduced 31%, in turn reducing the
allowable floor area by 1100sf – from ~ 3550sf down to 2449.5sf.
The project home's size, mass and area fits compatibly with the other
homes and does not possess the largest FAR or Floor Area.
The Design Process
Historic
The project was deigned to be in keeping with the diverse fabric of the
historic neighborhood, be of historic character, and employ the use of
traditional materials and detail features.
4
Residential Design Guidelines
The design avoids a flat, imposing facade as currently exists. The lower
level is moved 5 feet further back than what is existing, the main level
is stepped back ~15' with the upper level stepped back even further,
respecting the slope of the hillside and creating well-articulated
massing. In addition, moving the house back provides safer back up
space, and a better rhythm to the streetscape.
Exhibit B Illustration
5
Hillside Guidelines
The home has been designed within the envelope of the site's LRDA..
Grading has been kept to a minimum.
The floor area of the home has been reduced accordingly per the
Town's slope reduction policy.
The site naturally slopes up from front to back and at the same time
from left to right. The design adheres to the guidelines meticulously as
it steps up with the slope not only from front to back, but also from
left to right. The upper level is setback 17 feet from the left side or
easterly property line.
Exhibit C
Pg . 21 Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, 3.A.6
East Elevation North Elevation
6
Shadow impacts
As can be seen in the Shadow Study, essentially no negative shadows
will be cast on 107's property, with the exception of 9am Dec 21 - and
even then, the house at 107 will rise above the shadow. By mid-
morning on Dec 21, the shadow will have passed. Even on that
particular day, 107's accessory unit casts a large shadow on its own
yard.
Exhibit D – Shadow Study 9:00am Dec. 21st
7
View Impacts
107's views from the 2nd story spaces have been preserved as
illustrated in the following diagrams
Exhibit E
8
Neighbor Privacy
From the design's inception, windows along the westerly side with 107
were thoughtfully kept to a minimum at both the Main and Upper
levels. It should be noted the upper level windows are private
bathroom and bedroom windows – non-public spaces.
Also, from the design's inception, the upper level windows along the
easterly side with 93 are setback 17 feet, 27 feet and 25 feet.
The 27 foot setbacked windows will not even be visible from 93. The
allowed setback for the district is 5 feet. These are not windows from
public spaces, but private bedroom and bathroom windows – non-
public spaces.
HPC
We approached the HPC as other business for their direction prior to
submitting the Arch and Site application. We followed their direction,
and moved forward accordingly. At the formal HPC hearing, the
Committee looked upon the design favorably and found it to fit well
within the character of the district – all they asked was to specify the
use of period style and profile wood siding, which we readily agreed
to.
The HPC approved the project unanimously.
9
DRC
The initial DRC meeting was continued to address concerns of 107 and
93 – their resultant modifications are summarized below.
93 – concerns and agreed to modifications
After the initial DRC meeting, the neighbor at 93 granted us
permission to access their property to gather As-Built topographical
data. We then worked with the neighbor at 93 and came to agreement
to move the bedroom terrace 5 feet further back from them - it is now
in line with the 17 foot setbacked windows. We also agreed to a
privacy screening fence just above the level of his roof eave. These
modifications have been incorporated into the design. The owner has
notified Planning Staff his privacy concerns have been addressed
adequately.
10
Exhibit E
11
107 – concerns and agreed to modifications
Over the course of several meetings with the neighbor of 107, we
agreed to modify the already minimal windows by eliminating one
bathroom window and reducing the bedroom window by 50% in
height - raising it higher above the floor. These window modifications
have been incorporated into the plans. It should be noted these
windows are not from public spaces – but are bathroom and bedroom
windows.
In addition, 107 had concerns regarding the height of the rear roof
ridge. There was agreement to lower it 6”, then as a result of the DRC
hearing, it was offered to lower the ridge by 2 feet.
Unfortunately, this was rejected.
Exhibit E
12
DRC Approval
Per the agreed to modifications above, the DRC approved the project
unanimously and with out hesitation. The motion to approve was a
very compelling, strong endorsement of the project's merits.
It should be noted that Staff had no concerns at anytime with the
character of design or its conformance with any of the three applicable
guidelines.
This is a thoughtful design with thorough consideration of the Town's
policy direction for good design.
We ask you, the Commission, to approve this home as designed and
modified per neighbor input and deemed worthy of approval by the
HPC at the their January 22 meeting and by Staff at the DRC hearing
of Sept 15.
Respectfully Submitted
Jay Plett Architect