Item 2 - Staff Report.101 Broadway
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/28/2020
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: October 23, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee Decision Approving
a Request for Demolition of an Existing Single-family Residence and
Construction of a New Single-family Residence Located in the Broadway
Historic District on Property Zoned R-1D:LHP Located at 101 Broadway.
APN 510-45-041. Architecture and Site Application S-20-003. Property
Owner: ZKJ LLC. Applicant: Jay Plett, Architect. Project Planner: Sean Mullin
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal of a Development Review Committee decision approving a request for
demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family
residence located in the Broadway Historic District on property zoned R-1D:LHP.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1D:LHP
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan and Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 0.28 acres (12,132 square feet)
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D:LHP
South Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D:LHP
East Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D:LHP
East Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D:LHP
PAGE 2 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
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.
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:
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 maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
▪ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations).
▪ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single -family
residences located in Historic Districts and not in hillside areas.
▪ The project is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines for properties outside of the hillside area with an average slope
exceeding 10 percent.
CONSIDERATIONS:
▪ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code , the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
PAGE 3 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the south side of Broadway, just west of Main Street in the
Broadway Historic District (Exhibit 1). The lot is approximately 12,132 square feet and is
developed with a two-story fire-damaged residence with an attached garage. The immediate
neighborhood contains one-story and two-story single-family and multi-family residential
buildings.
On February 28, 2020, the applicant submitted an Architecture and Site application for the
demolition of the existing fire-damaged structure and construction of a new 2,449.5-square
foot two-story residence with a 367-square foot attached garage. The project includes areas of
below-grade square footage on the lower level that would not count toward the size of the
residence.
The proposed project meets all technical requirements of the Town Code including parking,
height, floor area, and setbacks.
On May 27, 2020, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) reviewed the proposed project for
replacement of the non-contributing fire-damaged structure and found it to be compatible with
the Broadway Historic District in terms of style, massing, and scale. The HPC forwarded a
recommendation of approval of the proposed design with the condition that the new residence
utilize wood channel lap siding (Exhibit 4).
During review of the Architecture and Site application, the applicant revised the design of the
residence in response to the concerns of the adjacent neighbor by removing one second-story
window, reducing the size of another second-story window on the west elevation, and lowering
the roof by six inches above the master bedroom and bathroom.
On September 1, 2020, the Development Review Committee (DRC) considered approval of the
application and continued the hearing to allow the applicant to work with the neighbors to
address their concerns (Exhibit 5). Prior to this DRC hearing, staff forwarded public comments
received to the DRC members (Exhibit 6).
On September 15, 2020, the DRC considered the application noting that the applicant had
revised the project to address the neighbors’ concerns, as follows:
• Removing one second-story window on the west elevation;
• Reducing the size of a second-story window on the west elevation;
• Lowering the roof by six inches above the master bedroom and master bathroom ;
• Reducing the extent of the upper terrace patio by five feet to be farther away from the
property to the east; and
• Introducing a fence along the east property line, adjacent to the neighbor’s patio, with a
height 1.33 feet above the neighbor’s eave line for a length of not less than 40 feet.
PAGE 4 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
Prior to this hearing, staff forwarded additional public comments received after the previous
DRC hearing to the DRC members (Exhibit 7). The DRC made the required findings and
considerations and approved the Architecture and Site application for the revised project with
conditions of approval (Exhibit 8).
On September 18, 2020, the decision of the DRC was appealed to the Planning Commission by
the adjacent neighbor (appellant), due to concerns regarding privacy; compatibility; height,
mass, and views; story poles; spot elevations; and windows (Exhibit 9). The appellant
submitted additional letters detailing their concerns in support of the appea l included with
Exhibit 9.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located on the south side of Broadway in the Broadway Historic
District (Exhibit 1). The lot is 12,132 square feet and is developed with an approximately
1,296-square foot two-story fire-damaged residence with a 542-square foot attached
garage. The property slopes up approximately 70 feet from the front to the rear property
line and has an average slope of 23.2 percent. Properties located outside of the Hillside
Area with an average slope in excess of 10 percent are subject to the standards and
guidelines of the following sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
• Constraints Analysis and Site Selection (excluding visibility);
• Site Planning for Grading, Drainage, Driveways and Parking, and Geologic Safety; and
• Site Elements for Retaining Walls.
The immediate neighborhood contains one-story and two-story single-family and multi-
family residential buildings. Generally, this section of Broadway ascends from east to west,
with properties to the west sitting at a higher elevation than those to the east. Due to lot
configuration and topography, many residences in the immediate neighborhood are sited at
the front of the property toward Broadway.
B. Project Summary
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing fire-damaged residence and construction
of a two-story residence with an attached two-car garage. The project includes areas of
below-grade square footage on the lower level that would not count toward the size of the
residence.
PAGE 5 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (continued):
C. Zoning Compliance
A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1D:LHP zone. The proposed residence is in
compliance with the allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and on -site parking
requirements for the property. There is no maximum allowed building coverage, and HPC
design review is required for construction in the zone.
DISCUSSION:
A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing fire-damaged residence and construction
of a new 2,449.5-square foot two-story residence with a 367-square foot attached garage.
The project includes 410 square feet of living area and 428 square feet of garage area on
the lower level that would meet the definition of below-grade square footage and does not
count toward the size of the residence or garage. The proposed residence would be sited
towards the front of the 50-foot wide and 258-foot deep property, utilizing the area of
existing development and meeting the limitations of the Least Restrictive Development
Area (LRDA). The front setback of the proposed residence would increase from that of the
existing residence, with the proposed garage being approximately five feet deeper into the
site and the front entry being approximately 19 feet deeper into the site than the existing
residence. The rear of the proposed residence would extend approximately 20 feet beyond
the existing residence over the area of existing patios. The width of the proposed residence
is consistent with the existing residence at 38 feet, four inches. The maximum height of the
proposed residence is 28 feet, six inches, where a maximum of 30 feet is allowed.
The proposed project materials include channeled horizontal wood lap siding, smooth
plaster siding, aluminum clad wood divided lite windows and doors, a wood garage door,
wood columns and brackets, and a composition asphalt shingle roof. A color and materials
board are included with this staff report (Exhibit 10). The applicant has provided a Written
Description/Letter of Justification detailing the project (Exhibit 11).
B. Building Design
On May 27, 2020, the HPC reviewed the proposed project for replacement of a
noncontributing fire-damaged structure and found it to be compatible with the Broadway
Historic District in terms of style, massing, and scale. The HPC forwarded a
recommendation of approval with the condition that the new residence utilize channeled
wood lap siding (Exhibit 4). The HPC’s recommendation is reflected in the attached
approved project plans (Exhibit 19).
PAGE 6 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
Following the May 27, 2020 HPC hearing, the applicant revised the design to respond to the
privacy and view concerns of the uphill neighbor by removing one second-story window,
reducing the size of another second-story window on the west elevation, and lowering the
roof ridge by six inches above the master bedroom and bathroom. Additional revisions
were made by the applicant following the first DRC hearing to respond to the privacy
concerns of the downhill neighbor by reducing the extent of the upper terrace patio by five
feet to be farther away from the property to the east. Additionally, the applicant
introduced a fence along the east property line, adjacent to the downhill neighbor’s patio,
with a height 1.33 feet above the neighbor’s eave line for a length of not less than 40 feet.
C. Neighborhood Compatibility
The immediate neighborhood is made up of one-story and two-story single-family and
multi-family residential buildings. Generally, the properties in the immediate neighborhood
are narrow and sloped. Properties with average slopes in excess of 10 percent are required
to reduce their net lot size as slope increases to determine allowable FAR. Because the
average slopes of the properties in the immediate neighborhood are not known at this time,
the analysis of the immediate neighborhood has been accomplished using gross lot area
without reducing the lot size according to average slope. Additionally, in comparing the
proposed residence to those in the immediate neighborhood, staff limited this comparison
to other single-family residences. Based on Town and County records, the single-family
residences in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 1,296-square feet to 3,494-
square feet. The floor area ratios range from 0.107 to 0.458. The proposed residence
would be 2,450-square feet with a floor area ratio of 0.202. The table below reflects the
current conditions of the immediate neighborhood and the proposed residence:
Address Zoning Lot Size Use Residence Garage Total SF
Bldg
FAR
Garage
FAR
No. of
Stories
86 Broadway R-1D:LHP 5,440 SFR 2,493 324 2,817 0.458 0.060 1
98 Broadway R-1D:LHP 5,701 MF/APT 2,336 0 2,336 0.410 0.000 2
100 Broadway R-1D:LHP 13,080 MF/APT 3,608 0 3,608 0.276 0.000 2
352 W Main St R-1D:LHP 24,990 MF/APT 5,502 0 5,502 0.220 0.000 2
107 Broadway R-1D:LHP 11,300 SFR 1,496 360 1,856 0.132 0.032 2
93 Broadway R-1D:LHP 5,662 SFR 1,817 322 2,139 0.321 0.057 1
89 Broadway R-1D:LHP 6,419 SFR 1,270 200 1,470 0.198 0.031 1
115 Broadway R-1D:LHP 21,502 SFR 2,614 192 2,806 0.122 0.009 2
130 Broadway R-1D:LHP 12,672 SFR 3,494 432 3,926 0.276 0.034 2
101 Broadway R-1D:LHP 12,132 MF 1,296 0 1,296 0.107 0.000 1
101 Broadway R-1D:LHP 12,132 SFR 2,450 690 3,140 0.202 0.057 2
SFR – Single-family residence
MF/APT – Multi-family residence/residential building
PAGE 7 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
The proposed residence would be the fourth largest home in the immediate neighborhood
in terms of square footage and FAR based on gross lot size.
D. Tree Impacts
There are no trees located on the subject or neighboring properties with driplines within 30
feet of the project area. As there are no impacts to existing trees anticipated, an Arborist
Report was not prepared for this project and tree protection measures will not be required.
E. Development Review Committee
The DRC held a public hearing for the Architecture and Site application on September 1,
2020. Written public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. Several neighbors submitted email
correspondence and/or spoke on the item during the meeting. Written comments were
provided to the DRC members prior to the hearing (Exhibit 5). The DRC continued the item
to September 15, 2020 to allow the applicant to address neighbor concerns (Exhibit 6).
During the continuance, the applicant coordinated with the downhill neighbor to clarify the
elevation of the neighboring patio and devise a remedy to this neighbor’s concerns over
privacy. The applicant and neighbor agreed to reducing the size of the proposed upper
terrace to increase the distance between the terrace and the downhill property line by five
feet. Additionally, the parties agreed to the construction of a fence along the east property
line, no less than 40 feet long, with a top elevation 1.33 feet above the eave of the downhill
neighbor (Exhibit 12). These changes have been incorporated into the approved
development plans attached to this report (Exhibit 19).
The applicant also approached the uphill neighbor (appellant) to explore a remedy to their
concerns. The applicant offered to lower the roof an additional two feet. The applicant
reports that this offer was rejected by the uphill neighbor and continued with the previously
agreed-upon offer to lower the ridge height by six inches (Exhibit 13).
At the September 15, 2020 hearing, the DRC accepted the HPC’s recom mendation of
approval and found that the application was complete and in compliance with the Town
Code and Residential Design Guidelines. Several neighbors submitted email
correspondence and/or spoke on the item during the meeting. Written comments were
provided to the DRC members prior to the hearing (Exhibit 7). Based on the findings and
considerations, the DRC approved the revised project, subject to the recommended
conditions of approval (Exhibit 8).
PAGE 8 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
On September 18, 2020, the decision of the DRC was appealed to the Planning Commission
(Exhibit 9).
F. Appeal
On September 18, 2020, the decision of the DRC was appealed to the Planning Commission
by the uphill neighbor at 107 Broadway (Exhibit 9). In their October 12, 2020 letter, the
appellant cites concerns with the project regarding privacy; compatibility; height, mass, and
views; story poles; spot elevations; and windows. In addition to the appeal form, the
appellant provided the following in support of the appeal included with Exhibit 9:
• Citations from the Residential Design Guidelines;
• Pictures;
• Previously submitted emails from the appellant and other neighbors expressing
concerns with the project; and
• Letters written by the neighbor at 89 Broadway, received October 22, 2020.
The letter includes an introduction and a numbered list separating out reasons for the
appeal individually. The appellant’s letter includes citations from the Residential Design
Guidelines, pictures, and other correspondence to support their appeal. For the sake of
brevity, this report provides analysis on the reasons for their appeal, while omitting the
references to the Residential Design Guidelines, pictures, and other correspondence, which
may be referenced in Exhibit 9.
Introduction
“To explain further the reasons for our appeal of the decision of the DRC regarding 101
Broadway proposed plans and in order to attempt to reach a compromise for a new home, I
am listing some of the many items laid out in the Towns Design Guidelines that w e would
like to be seriously considered in order to protect our special Broadway Historical
neighborhood’s character with better privacy, compatibility, harmony, enhancement,
increased value and respect of the surrounding neighborhood and the nearby neighb ors.
While these house plans could fit nicely on a different type of lot, for this lot they are too
high, massive and generally out of proportion for the topography and the surrounding
neighborhood. This project must be reduced in scale and mass with bette r utilization of the
lower level and first floor and eliminate the second story in back. As it is now, all I will see is
a large wall blocking the sunlight, views, mother nature’s many pleasures along with no
privacy in my outdoor living area, plus so much more that has been available at 107
Broadway for over 100 years. It is part of the history and beauty of this property. I expected
a new home to be built that would enhance and keep within the scope and respect of the
PAGE 9 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
other surrounding homes and neighbors. Reducing the back to one story similar to what
others have done would help to create more privacy and reduce noise for the neighbors on
all sides including the future residents of the proposed home. This house rises above all. 93
Broadway is a good example of a house plan that is well fitted for the type of topography,
scale and respect for this neighborhood.
“Note: shadow study that was completed while it may be correct, does not provide for the
reality of the whole lot or neighboring lots. Our backyards do not get sun or very little year
around because of the mountain and trees to the South East and South. 107 Broadway does
not get sun from the West because of the home that sits above and the trees generally year
around. The East sun exposure is the only source of sun for 107 Broadway. I would like to
continue to have a garden. I have citrus trees that need sun and light to stay alive and to
produce fruit, along with many other reasons for sun exposure, like my mental and physical
health.
“While we are not considered part of the Hillside District, our lots are on a steep slope at
the base of the Los Gatos mountains. There are additional Hillside guidelines that should be
considered regarding, privacy, views, shadow effects, size, respect of neighbors and much
more.”
The specific reasons for the appeal are provided below, followed by analysis in italic font.
Privacy
1. “The balcony on this proposed home is regrettably not in the spirit of community or
respect. This 200 square foot balcony, situated on the left side of the house, is an abject
invasion of privacy of the neighbors. After cutting it down by 5 feet, it is still towering
over neighboring homes and remains 10 x 20 feet huge (!) on the second level.
Moreover, the noise that people on the side balcony will create, will carry down the
street! As it is, we are packed in so tightly, that I can hear conversations on both sides of
my neighboring homes – music and other daily commotions carry down the entire
block! This balcony is completely inappropriate and does not honor or CONSIDER in ANY
way the neighbors. Modifying the massing of the upper floor could easily be achieved
by altering the floor plan and eliminating the balcony. This would solve several of the
issues at hand. It would eliminate the noise impact, the privacy impact in general, and
preserve the feeling and character of surrounding homes.”
The terrace in question is located on the upper level adjacent to the master bedroom.
The terrace faces the east and south with views to the west and north obstructed by the
proposed residence. Privacy impacts were first expressed in August by Larry Brandhorst,
the owner of the adjacent downhill property to the east, prior to the DRC hearings of
PAGE 10 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
September 1 and September 15, 2020. Between these DRC hearings, the applicant and
their Civil Engineer worked with Mr. Brandhorst to develop a remedy to Mr. Brandhorst’s
concerns over privacy. The proposed remedy was to reduce the size of the terrace by five
feet and construct a fence along the east property line no less than 40 feet long with a
top height elevation 1.33 feet above Mr. Brandhorst’s eave line. Mr. Brandhorst agreed
to these measures in his letter to the Town of September 10, 2020 (Exhibit 12) and they
were added to the conditions of approval for the project. Following the DRC’s September
15, 2020 approval of the application, Mr. Brandhorst has not contacted the Town. The
approved development plans reflect the measures agreed upon by the applicant and Mr.
Brandhorst (Exhibit 19).
Noise is regulated through the Town’s Noise Ordinance, which is enforced on a
complaint basis through the Town’s Code Compliance Division and the Police
Department.
Compatibility
2. “The nature of the design of the 101 Broadway project does not honor the historic
design guidelines. It destroys the feel and original tone of this historic neighborhood. Its
towering nature and tall mass seem to diminish other Victorian homes – like mine,
which I have kept a one-story and 1200 square feet – with all original details – even
though I did a complete rebuild, including foundation. Moreover, it forces me (and
probably other neighboring homes) to seek opportunities to expand upward to block
the intrusion. In order to protect myself from encroaching neighbors, I will have to build
my own structure, wall, or wall of enormous trees, or second story, and whatever else I
can find to block noise and eyes from leering into my yard. This project is the beginning
of the end of our historic neighborhood – and it sets a precedent for continued
disregard.”
On May 27, 2020, the HPC reviewed the proposed project and found it to be compatible
with the Broadway Historic District in terms of style, massing, and scale. The HPC
forwarded a recommendation of approval with the condition that the new residence
utilize channeled horizontal wood lap siding (Exhibit 4).
The proposed residence would not be the largest home in the immediate neighborhood
in terms of floor area or FAR. The proposed residence would be the fourth largest
residence in the immediate neighborhood in terms of floor area and FAR. In terms of
number of stories, the proposed residence would be the fourth two-story residence in the
immediate neighborhood.
PAGE 11 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
Noise is regulated through the Town’s Noise Ordinance, which is enforced on a
complaint basis through the Town’s Code Compliance Division and the Police
Department.
While the subject property is a sloping lot, it is not located in the Hillside Area. The
property slopes up approximately 70 feet from the front to the rear and has an average
slope of 23.2 percent. Properties located outside of the Hillside Area with an average
slope in excess of 10 percent are subject to the standards and guidelines of the following
sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
• Constraints Analysis and Site Selection (excluding visibility);
• Site Planning for Grading, Drainage, Driveways and Parking, and Geologic Safety;
and
• Site Elements for Retaining Walls.
The applicant indicates that the residence was designed by stepping the development up
with the slope and setting each level back from the level below (Exhibit 11). The
residence is located within the LRDA, which is located on the front half of the property.
The project complies with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines.
Height, mass, and views
3. “There are several issues with the HEIGHT / MASS of this project, and this is especially
disrespectful given that the proposed house can easily be built lower. As it is now, the
design completely disregards the character and size of the neighboring homes, which
themselves have had to put bedrooms and windows in basements – below ground --
and were not allowed to build even one room on the second floor due to their historic
classification. (Mine, as well as Larry and DiAnne Brandhorst). Why is it necessary to
build the driveway 8 FEET above the street level as the Applicant has proposed?
“While it is true that the disputed house sits on a higher slope than the homes downhill
from it, it is not true that the negative impact needs to be this invasive. Rather than be
especially sensitive and respectful of this fact, the house has been intentionally built up
as high as possible, maximizing rather than minimizing its impact on the privacy and
well-being of neighbors. The recently added story poles, which were originally omitted,
create an even more intrusive and unaesthetic look that can be seen from all street
views, front and back alike.
“I seriously question the integrity of this project. The upper massing is way too much for
this location and very little has been done to minimize the impact on neighbors, or to
PAGE 12 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
ensure that the mass and height fit in with the general look of the surrounding
properties.”
The maximum height allowed for a residence in the R-1D zone is 30 feet. The proposed
residence has a maximum height of 28 feet, six inches. On May 27, 2020, the HPC
reviewed the proposed project and found it to be compatible with the Broadway Historic
District in terms of style, massing, and scale. The HPC forwarded a recommendation of
approval with the condition that the new residence utilize channeled horizontal wood lap
siding (Exhibit 4).
The applicant has made several revisions to the project to address the privacy concerns
of the neighbors, including:
• Removing one second-story window from the west elevation;
• Reducing the size of a second-story window on the west elevation;
• Lowering the roof by six inches above the master bedroom and master bathroom;
• Reducing the extent of the upper terrace patio by five feet to be farther away
from the property to the east; and
• Introducing a fence along a portion of the east property line, adjacent to the
neighbor’s patio, with a height 1.33 feet above the neighbor’s eave line for a
length of not less than 40 feet.
A shadow-study was submitted for the proposed project showing that shadows cast by
the proposed residence would impact portions of the appellant’s property; the greatest
extent of which would occur during the morning of the winter solstice (December 21).
Section 3.11.1 of the Residential Design Guidelines recommends minimizing shadows
cast on living spaces and actively used outdoor areas on adjacent homes. During the
extreme of the winter solstice, the proposed residence would cast shadows on portions
of the neighboring residence and outdoor patio area. These shadows would be present
for the morning portion of the day and would progressively dissipate through noon.
Regarding views, the Residential Design Guidelines state that homes should be designed
with respect for the views of their neighbors and acknowledges that views are not
protected by right. The 2020 General Plan states that new structures shall be designed to
respect views from surrounding properties while allowing all affected properties
reasonable access to views. The appellant has provided photos showing the view
impacts that the proposed house would have from their patio area at the base of their
two-story residence. The proposed residence is within the height limitations allowed by
the zone. Sheet A-1.1 shows the relationship of the proposed residence to those on the
uphill and downhill properties (Exhibit 19). The height of the proposed residence is
consistent with the neighboring properties.
PAGE 13 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
The proposed driveway would slope up approximately seven feet from Broadway
following the natural slope of the property. The driveway length would increase
approximately five feet from the existing length. As shown on Sheet C3 (Exhibit 19), the
proposed driveway slope would be consistent with the existing driveway.
Story poles
4. “Finally, the story poles on the front of the house were entirely omitted, and the
drawings submitted to the city relating to the story pole certificates were completely
wrong on the front portion of the house. BASED ON THIS FACT ALONE, THIS PROJECT
SHOULD BE REJECTED. At best this was a carless mistake, and at worst, it is intentionally
misleading. At this point, we really need an INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THESE PLANS.
After such “mistakes” how can we know what is really being proposed and what will go
up? This project is, once again, not being carried out in good faith.”
In accordance with Town policy, the applicant was required to erect story poles and
netting to adequately demonstrate the height, mass, and bulk of the project. The
existing residence presented some challenges to installing story poles and netting as it
was significantly damaged by a fire in 2017. The story pole plan allowed adequate
representation of the proposed residence while minimizing the risks associated with
working around a fire-damaged structure (Exhibit 14). The story pole plan included a
schematic outline of the existing residence and showed that the story poles for the front
portion of the proposed residence would be located within the volume of the existing
residence. Staff approved the story pole plan and the poles and netting were installed
and certified prior to noticing for the September 1, 2020 DRC hearing (Exhibit 15).
Prior to filing the appeal, the appellant voiced concerns over the accuracy of the installed
story poles. Staff revisited the pictures of the installed poles and found them to be
accurate according to the approved plan, as certified by the surveyor.
The DRC approved the project on September 15, 2020, and an appeal was filed on
September 18, 2020. While reviewing the appeal documents, the appellant contacted
staff to discuss continued concerns over the accuracy of the installed story poles. In
consultation with the appellant and through a site visit, staff was able to identify the
issue raised by the appellant. The applicant’s representation of the existing residence
was schematic and not accurate as to the height of the existing fire-damaged residence.
Staff coordinated with the applicant to address the issue, which involved installation of
additional poles, wiring, and a section of netting to represent the height of the roof ridge
at the front of the proposed residence (Exhibit 16). The additional poles were installed
and certified by a surveyor prior to public notice of the October 28, 2020 Planning
Commission meeting (Exhibit 17).
PAGE 14 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
Spot Elevations
5. “I would also like a review of the elevation numbers related to a cross section drawing
that was incorrect. Please see letters and illustrations submitted by Larry Brandhorst.
Does this mean that the house will stand even taller that the remaining story poles
indicate?”
The elevation numbers provided in the Development Plans were prepared by a licensed
Civil Engineer. Concerns over these elevation numbers were first expressed in August by
Larry Brandhorst, the owner of the adjacent downhill property. Between the DRC
hearings, the applicant and their Civil Engineer worked with Mr. Brandhorst to develop a
remedy to Mr. Brandhorst’s concerns over privacy. The parties came to an agreement
(Exhibit 12) and the agreed-upon changes were added to the conditions of approval for
the project. Since the DRC’s approval of the revised project, Mr. Brandhorst has not
contacted the Town. The approved development plans attached to this report reflect the
measures agreed upon by the applicant and Mr. Brandhorst (Exhibit 19).
The story poles have been certified by a licensed surveyor who indicated that they
accurately reflect the height and location of the proposed residence (Exhibits 14 through
17).
Windows
6. “Windows. I request that the many windows on the southeast side of the proposed
structure be addressed.”
The windows on the southeast side of the residence face the downhill neighbor’s
property. As indicated above, Mr. Brandhorst agreed to measures proposed by the
applicant to address concerns related to privacy (Exhibit 12). The approved development
plans attached to this report reflect the measures agreed upon by the applicant and Mr.
Brandhorst (Exhibit 19). Since the DRC’s approval of the revised project, Mr. Brandhorst
has not contacted the Town.
G. 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.
PAGE 15 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Prior to the September 1, 2020 DRC hearing, certified story poles and a project sign including
the date of the DRC hearing, contact information, and project description, were installed on the
site (Exhibits 14 and 15), and written notice of the DRC hearing was sent to neighboring
property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property . Staff forwarded public
comments to the DRC members prior to the September 1, and September 15, 2020 hearings.
These comments are included as Exhibits 5 and 7.
Following the appeal, revised certified story poles and a project sign including the date of the
Planning Commission hearing, contact information, and project description, were installed on
the site (Exhibits 16 and 17), and written notice of this Planning Commission hearing was sent
to neighboring property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property.
Additional public comment received after the September 15, 2020 DRC hearing is included as
(Exhibit 18).
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The proposed project was reviewed by the HPC who found the project compatible with the
Broadway Historic District in terms of style, mass, and scale and forwarded a
recommendation for approval. The project is in compliance with the Residential Design
Guidelines, applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and
Town Code.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to deny the
appeal, uphold the decision of the DRC, and approve the Architecture and Site application:
1. Find that the proposed 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);
2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for
the demolition of a single-family residence (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of
the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) (Exhibit 2);
4. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
5. Make the finding the project complies with the applicable standards and guidelines of
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for lots with an average slope over
10 percent outside of the hillside area (Exhibit 2);
PAGE 16 OF 16
SUBJECT: 101 Broadway/S-20-003
DATE: October 23, 2020
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2020\10-28-20\Item 2 - 101 Broadway\Staff Report.101 Broadway.docx
CONCLUSION (continued):
6. 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
7. Approve Architecture and Site application S-20-003 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and development plans attached as Exhibit 19.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Deny the appeal and approve the application with additional and/or modified
conditions;
3. Grant the appeal and remand the application to the DRC with direction for revisions; or
4. Grant the appeal and deny the Architecture and Site application.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. May 27, 2020 Historic Preservation Committee Action Letter
5. September 1, 2020 Development Review Committee public comments
6. September 1, 2020 Development Review Committee meeting minutes
7. September 15, 2020 Development Review Committee public comments
8. September 15, 2020 Development Review Committee meeting minutes
9. Appeal of Development Review Committee received September 18, 2020
10. Color and materials board
11. Project Description and Letter of Justification
12. Email correspondence between Larry Brandhorst and Jay Plett, September 10, 2020
13. Email correspondence between Karen Kurtz and Jay Plett, September 10, 2020
14. Story pole plan approved June 22, 2020
15. Story pole certification letter dated July 7, 2020
16. Story pole plan (revised) approved October 6, 2020
17. Story pole certification letter dated October 16, 2020
18. Public comments received between 5:01 p.m., Monday, September 14 and 11:00 a.m.,
Friday, October 23, 2020
19. Development Plans