Item 2 - Exhibit 27 - Consulting Architect ReportFebruary 19, 2019
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 two previous review letters on this project. I also have
watched the video of the Planning Commission’s last review of the project. I have retained the previous letter’s introduc-
tory material and photos for context. My comments and recommendations on the revised design follow that information
on page 5:
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 27
248 Jared Lane
Design Review Comments
February 19, 2019 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
February 19, 2019 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
February 19, 2019 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.
Note: This drawing shows the previous design, but is included to show the house location relative
to surrounding homes and vegetation.
248 Jared Lane
Design Review Comments
February 19, 2019 Page 5
CHANGES
The initial house design reviewed in May of last year was noted as well designed with substantial articulation and well uti-
lized materials 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. However, the Planning Commission asked for
a redesign to limit the structure to a footprint held within the site’s LRDA (Least Restrictive Development Area). The second
submittal, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission in January, resulted in a greatly compromised design without the
clear statement of architectural style, details and special design qualities of the original design. The Planning Commission ex-
pressed disappointment in the revised design, and gave the applicant a chance to return with a better design that more reflected
the architectural style and details of the original design while staying within the LRDA. Of special concern to the commission
was the structure’s size and mass. The plan and elevation illustrations below and on the following pages show floor plans and
the south and west elevations of the currently proposed design in the context of the previous submittal.
Proposed Rear Elevation
248 Jared Lane
Design Review Comments
February 19, 2019 Page 6
248 Jared Lane
Design Review Comments
February 19, 2019 Page 7
EVALUATION
The changes to the design from the last submission are substantial. While the house depth has remained the same, the
house width has decreased by approximately 10%. And the overall design has been markedly improved with fully sloped
tile roofs and a clearly distinguishable architectural style.
248 Jared Lane
Design Review Comments
February 19, 2019 Page 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
In my review, I did not address the issue of further floor area reductions which would require some agreement on
program changes. I looked primarily at the exterior design, and the commission’s direction to the applicant to return
with a refined design with the characteristics of their initial proposal. I believe that with the sloped tile roofs and refined
architectural style the building would meet that test. My recommendations are mainly regarding details to be consistent
with the architectural style.
1. Extend a sloped tile roof at the upper level Master
Bedroom balcony in lieu of the awkward trellis - see one
example to the right.
248 Jared Lane
Design Review Comments
February 19, 2019 Page 9
2. Add either exposed rafter tails/corbels or soffit moldings at the roof eaves. Examples of both are shown in the
photos below. Adjust window head heights as necessary.
3. Use substantial corbels to support the bay window - see one example below. Other shapes and materials are pos-
sible.
4. Deep set the doors at the Computer Room and elimi-
nate the awkward trellis - see photo example to the right.
248 Jared Lane
Design Review Comments
February 19, 2019 Page 10
5. Increase the width of the rectangular vertical windows, and inset all windows and doors from the outside face of
the wall - see photo example below.
6. Provide proper lintels over windows and doors set in stone - see arched example below.
7, Use decorative metal railings rather than standard vertical
element only - see one photo example O the right.
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