Loading...
Item 2 - Exhibit 18 - Consulting Architect ReportNovember 13, 2018 Mr. Sean Mullin Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 248 Jared Lane Dear Sean: I reviewed the drawings, evaluated the site context and prepared a review letter on this project last May. My comments and recommendations on the revised design are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is a large hillside parcel with smaller parcels containing single family homes to the west and a larger parcel with an existing home located about 150 feet to the north. The parcel is heavily wooded as shown on the aerial photo below and the photographs of the site shown on the following page. EXHIBIT 18 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments November 13, 2018 Page 2 View down Jared Lane toward Vista Del Monte: Site to the right View up Jared Lane: Site to the left 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments November 13, 2018 Page 3 View to site from upper Jared Lane House immediately above the site: Entry on upper Jared Lane 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments November 13, 2018 Page 4 THE SITE AND DESIGN REVISIONS The amount of contiguous buildable area on this parcel is quite limited, and consists of two widely separated areas - one at the bottom southwest corner of the site and the other at the top center of the site at the north parcel boundary - see illustration below. The proposed house would be sited within the northern developable areas as shown on the aerial photo below. 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments November 13, 2018 Page 5 The proposed house reviewed in May of last year was noted as well designed with substantial articulation and well utilized ma- terials and details appropriate to the selected architectural style. The applicant had also designed with an objective of adhering largely to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Upper story wall setbacks, small cantilevers and material changes were used to break up most of the exterior walls. I had no recommendations for changes to that design based on the heavily wooded character of the site, the quality of the architectural design and the consistency with the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines. I did, however, note that the scale and design of the house was quite similar to the photo shown on page 37 of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines as a Don’t Do This example. When the Planning Commission reviewed the previous design, they asked the applicant to revise the design to be more sym- pathetic to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with special attention to the following: • Improved massing • The three-story facade on the west elevation adjacent to the garage • Design of the visible front entry staircase • Containment of the building footprint within the LRDA The applicant’s revised elevations are shown below. Proposed Left Side Elevation Proposed Rear Elevation Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Right Side Elevation 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments November 13, 2018 Page 6 ISSUES AND CONCERNS As noted above, my review of the previous design was positive based on the clear architectural style, substantial articula- tion and visual richness - see original diagram below. The revised design is, I believe, much less successful. Rather than having a visually interesting profile and articulated facade, the revision appears largely as a box with applied attachments. Some other specific issues include the following; • The bay window is not well integrated into the design. • The mansard tile roof is not characteristic of this architectural style. • The terrace railings do not appear to be appropriate to the architectural style. • The window frames, as drawn, look too narrow for this more formal architectural style. • The left side elevation has only changed slightly from the design which troubled the Planning Commission. PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments November 13, 2018 Page 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Increase the roof overhangs on the three main roof forms, and add corbels at the soffits. 2. Integrate the entry stair more into the overall building form to reduce its current added-on appearance. 3. Add balustrades which are consistent with the formal architectural style at the flat roofs and terraces. 4. Integrate the bay window with the balustrade and add supporting corbels and additional trim. 5. Use wider frames on all windows consistent with the formal architectural style. 6. Inset the window frames on all windows consistent with the formal architectural style. Examples of the entry stair approach are shown below. 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments November 13, 2018 Page 8 If staff and the Planning Commission are still concerned about the side elevation appearing as a three-story wall, my rec- ommendation would be to add stone the building base at the west end of the structure to visually separate the lower mass from the upper wall - see illustrations below. I believe that implementation of the recommendations above would greatly improve the proposed design. However, I would opine that the previous design would be visually superior if the other changes desired by the Planning Commis- sion could be incorporated to their satisfaction. The exterior entry stair approach recommended above could also be incorporated as shown in the elevation below. Sean, please let me know if you have any questions, or if you need me to do any further work on this project at this time. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon