Staff Report.62 Ellenwood
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: 12/09/2020
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: December 2, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-family Residence,
Construction of a New Single-family Residence, Removal of a Large Protected
Tree, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned
R-1:12 Located at 62 Ellenwood Avenue. APN 510-20-068. Architecture and
Site Application S-20-008. Property Owners: Lisa and Case Swenson.
Applicant: Lisa Nichols, Arcanum Architecture, Inc. Project Planner: Sean
Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider approval of a request for demolition of an existing single-family residence,
construction of a new single-family residence, removal of a Large Protected Tree, and site
improvements requiring a Grading Permit on property zoned R-1:12 located at 62 Ellenwood
Avenue.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:12 (Residential, 12,000 square foot minimum)
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 32,733 square feet (0.75 acres)
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential* Single-family Residential,
2 D.U./Acre*
Open Space*
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:12
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:12
* - City of Monte Sereno
PAGE 2 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
FINDINGS:
▪ As required, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction.
▪ 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.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.0992 of the Town Code for removal of protected trees.
▪ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations).
▪ As required by Section 29.40.0320 of the Town Code for granting a Fence Height Exception.
▪ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family
residences not in hillside areas.
CONSIDERATIONS:
▪ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture
and Site application.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the northwest side of Ellenwood Avenue, approximately 425
feet from the intersection of Hernandez Avenue (Exhibit 1). The subject property is
approximately 0.75 acres (32,733 square feet) and developed with a 3,512-square-foot single-
family residence and a 718-square-foot detached garage.
PAGE 3 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is approximately 32,733 square feet, located on the northwest side of
Ellenwood Avenue and developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage
served by a circular driveway with two entrances off Ellenwood Avenue. Single-family
residential development surrounds the property. The existing developed building pad is
located approximately 100 feet from Ellenwood Avenue. From the building pad, the
property descends approximately 10 feet to the front property line and 25 feet to the rear
property line.
B. Project Summary
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing residence and detached garage, and
construction of a two-story residence with an attached three-car garage. The project
includes areas of below-grade square footage that would not count toward the size of the
residence. The project requires removal of a Large Protected Tree and site work requiring a
Grading Permit. The project also requires an exception to the maximum allowable fence
height for fencing located in the required front setback.
C. Zoning Compliance
A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1:12 zone. The proposed residence is in
compliance with the allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and on-site parking
requirements for the property.
DISCUSSION:
A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing single-family residence and detached
garage, and construction of a new 5,415-square foot two-story residence, an 897-square
foot attached garage, an 88-square foot pool pavilion with an attached covered patio, and a
swimming pool (Exhibit 14). The residence includes 2,596 square feet of below-grade
square footage that does not count toward the size of the residence. The proposed
residence would be sited in the middle of the property, utilizing the area of existing
development. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet, four inches,
where a maximum of 30 feet is allowed.
The proposed project materials include integral colored smooth plaster siding, stained cedar
tongue and groove vertical wood siding, split faced stone veneer siding, slate and standing
PAGE 4 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
seam metal roofs, metal clad wood divided lite windows, steel divided lite windows and
doors, wood garage doors, reclaimed solid wood lintels, stained cedar wood rafter tails and
columns, and painted steel trellis elements. A color and materials board is included with
this staff report (Exhibit 4). The applicant has provided a Project Description/Letter of
Justification summarizing the project (Exhibit 5).
B. Building Design
The applicant proposes construction of a two-story residence with an attached garage and a
pool pavilion with an attached covered patio. The proposed residence would utilize the
area of existing development in the center of the property. The residence would stretch
across the width of the property with single-story elements at the periphery and the two-
story mass at the center. The proposed attached garage would be located on the south side
of the property, canted toward the street. The detached pool pavilion is proposed behind
the residence in the southern portion of the rear yard. The p ool pavilion would be 88
square feet and 12 feet tall, with a flat roof, stone veneer siding, and other materials
consistent with the main residence. An attached covered patio area would project from the
north elevation of the pavilion.
The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed residence and noted that the
residence is well designed in a traditional style with substantial façade articulation,
variations in height, and high-quality materials (Exhibit 6). The Consulting Architect
discussed several issues related to the amount of paving, changes in roof form and siding
materials, scale of the trellis elements, and the front yard fencing. The Consulting Archit ect
made recommendations to address consistency of the project with the Residential Design
Guidelines. The applicant responded to the recommendations (Exhibit 7) and submitted
revised development plans to address each of the recommendations as follows:
• The substantial additional paving proposed to provide at least six additional parking
spaces seems out of character with the immediate neighborhood.
Recommendation: Remove some of the additional paving.
The paving for the parking stalls on the main driveway has changed from non-
pervious paving to pervious pavers to allow for infiltration of water onto the site.
Keeping additional parking onsite will allow the public/neighborhood to use the on -
street parking that will be provided.
• The change in roof form and wall materials on the second-floor south wing of the
house seems arbitrary, and an unwelcome change from the traditional forms and
simplicity of the house style.
PAGE 5 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
• Recommendation: Match the roof form and wall material of the other se cond floor
masses.
The roof forms are now hipped and vertical wood siding has been implemented for a
continuous material palette that softens the appearance of the home along the
north-south second floor mass.
• The metal trellis elements seem too small for the large cedar wood columns.
Recommendation: Consider adjusting the scale of the trellis and/or the columns.
The scale of the trellises has increased. The steel members were implemented to
create a contrast with the other exterior materials and match the doors and
windows.
• The proposed fencing along the Ellenwood Avenue edge has some stone features at
auto and pedestrian entries, but appears to be a uniform picket fence without
additional elements or buffer landscaping along the remainder of the edge as is
common on other nearby properties.
Recommendation: Revisit the design of the front property line wall - see nearby
neighboring examples below.
The front fence has been redesigned to break-up the uniformity of the picket by
creating patterning and offsetting the plans closer to the house which resembles
some of the patterning and visual variety from the existing homes. This also allows
for more planting in front of the house to help soften the space. A planting plan for
the front of the property especially along the Front Fence has been added to the
planting plan on Sheets L3.0-L3.2.
C. Neighborhood Compatibility
Section 29.40.075 (d) of the Town Code exempts any lot larger than 30,000 square feet
from the floor area ratio limitations. The Residential Design Guidelines indicates that lots
larger than 30,000 square feet are subject to the floor area limitations of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). The floor area limitations in the HDS&G
are inclusive of garages and accessory structures (except accessory dwelling units) and allow
an exemption of garage space up to 400 square feet.
The subject property is 32,733 square feet and the maximum allowable floor area for the
subject property is 6,000 square feet per the HDS&G. The table below reflects the current
conditions of the residences in the immediate area and the proposed project. The
PAGE 6 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
400-square foot garage exemption has been applied in the table below for lots larger than
30,000 square feet.
FAR Comparison - Neighborhood Analysis
Address Zoning
Residential
SF*
Garage
SF
Total
SF**
Lot Area
SF
Residential
FAR
No. of
Stories
203 Alexander Ave R-1:8 2,422 216 2,638 11,850 0.20 1
73 Ellenwood Ave R-1:8 1,601 360 1,961 6,388 0.25 1
69 Ellenwood Ave R-1:8 1,742 373 2,115 11,960 0.15 1
67 Ellenwood Ave R-1:8 1,941 390 2,331 9,100 0.21 1
65 Ellenwood Ave R-1:8 1,638 360 1,998 8,837 0.19 2
63 Ellenwood Ave R-1:8 3,341 683 4,024 11,100 0.30 2
61 Ellenwood Ave R-1:8 3,401 605 4,006 14,409 0.24 2
68 Ellenwood Ave R-1:12 3,296 240 3,536 16,000 0.21 2
66 Ellenwood Ave R-1:12 6,912 2,172 9,084 23,653 0.29 2
60 Ellenwood Ave R-1:12 4,569 894 5,463 63,249 0.07 3
62 Ellenwood Ave (E) R-1:12 3,512 318 3,830 32,733 0.11 2
62 Ellenwood Ave (P) R-1:12 5,503 497 6,000 32,733 0.17 2
* Residential square footage includes the residence and accessory structures, except garages.
** The total square footage numbers do not include below grade square footage.
The 11 properties in the immediate neighborhood are developed with one-, two-, and
three-story residences and include a mix of architectural styles. The property sizes within
the immediate neighborhood range from 0.15 to 1.45 acres, with generally smaller
properties located on the east side of Ellenwood Avenue. Based on Town and County
records, the square footage of the residences located in the immediate neighborhood range
from 1,601 square feet to 6,912 square feet. The FAR of the residences (including accessory
structures) in the immediate neighborhood range from 0.07 to 0.30. The applicant is
proposing a 5,415-square foot residence and an 88-square foot pool pavilion for a total of
5,503 square feet and a FAR of 0.17 on a 0.75-acre parcel. The proposed project would be
the second largest residence in terms of square footage and the ninth largest in terms of
FAR.
D. Site Design
The subject property is triangular shaped with the proposed development area located near
the center of the property. The applicant indicates that the proposed location of the
residence was, in part, responsive to informal guidance provided by Historic Preservation
Committee (HPC) members during consideration of a request to remove the property from
the Town’s Historic Resources Inventory (Exhibit 12). The proposed residence would stretch
across the center of the property with the garage on the southern end, canted toward the
PAGE 7 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
street. A new swimming pool, pool pavilion with an attached covered patio, patios, and
landscape areas would be located behind the proposed residence.
Access to the interior of the property and the attached garage would be provided by a
driveway taking access from the northeast corner of the property. The driveway would
traverse the site to the garage near the southern property line. A secondary driveway
would provide access from the southeast corner of the property to a parking area adjacent
to the garage. The front of the property would include parking areas, walkways, and
landscape areas.
E. Tree Impacts
The development plans were reviewed by the Town ’s Consulting Arborist who identified 16
protected trees within the project area (Exhibit 8). The project proposes removal of two
protected trees: a 41-inch diameter Douglas Fir and a 39.8-inch diameter Valley Oak. The
Valley Oak is considered a Large Protected Tree under the Town Code. The Consulting
Arborist evaluated the impacts of the project and provided recommendations for
preservation on the 14 trees to remain (Exhibit 8, pages 17-19). The applicant considered
the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist and revised the project as summarized in
Exhibit 9. If the project is approved, all required tree protection measures would be
implemented prior to construction and maintained for the duration of construction activity.
Planting of replacement trees and/or payment of in-lieu fees would be required prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy pursuant to Town Code. Arborist recommendations
for tree protection have been included in the Conditions of Approval to mitigate impacts to
protected trees (Exhibit 3).
The applicant proposes to construct the new residence in a similar location to the existing
residence. The expanded footprint of the proposed residence requires the removal of tree
#924, a 39.8-inch Valley Oak considered a Large Protected Tree by the Town Code. The
siting of the residence was, in part, responsive to informal guidance provided by the HPC
during consideration of a request to remove the existing residence from the Town’s Historic
Resources Inventory (Exhibit 12). The HPC recognized that the siting of the existing
residence on the property, with its deep setbacks and large front yard, is characteristic of
the neighborhood and opined that a new residence should preserve this characteristic.
F. Fence Height Exception
Existing fencing and gates within the required front setback include approximately 62-inch
tall metal picket fencing with 66-inch tall stone columns located along the front property
line, and approximately 72-inch tall vehicular gates with columns and wing walls at both
driveway entrances. The applicant proposes to remove the existing fencing and gates and
PAGE 8 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
install new 54-inch tall vertical wood picket fencing set into the property between three and
30 feet from the front property line. The wood fencing would run parallel to the property
line from the southeast corner of the property to the middle of the front property line. The
fence would then continue in sections parallel to the residence interrupted by stone-clad
walls oriented perpendicular to the fencing, allowing the fence sections to step forward
toward the front property line. A pedestrian gate would be located just north of the center
of the property and vehicular gates would be located at the main driveway entrance in the
northeast portion of the property and the secondary driveway in the southeast portion of
the property. The landscape plans show significant areas of planting on both sides of the
proposed front fencing.
Section 29.40.0315 (a)(3) of the Town Code limits the height of fences, walls, and gates to
three feet when located in a required front setback. Section 29.40.0320 allows the decid ing
body to grant exceptions to fence regulations to address a security concern or special
circumstances. The applicant has provided a Letter of Justification for the proposed Fence
Height Exception that cites a security concern for the property owner and pets (Exhibit 10).
The applicant indicates that the fence would be consistent with the neighborhood character
and details their efforts to design a fence that fits the neighborhood character and site by
including a large distance between the fence and the street, rustic design, and significant
landscaping. The proposed fence would be lower and sited deeper into the site than the
existing fence. Additionally, the west side of this portion of Ellenwood Avenue includes a
number of properties with approximately five-foot tall fencing sited at the front property
line.
G. Grading Permit
The project includes site improvements with grading quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards,
which requires approval of a Grading Permit. The majority of the grading would be located
in the front yard area, where grades would be adjusted to accommodate the new driveway
(Exhibit 14, Sheet C2.1). Slopes on either side of the driveway would be adjusted to appear
natural and avoid the need for retaining walls.
H. Neighbor Outreach
The applicant has submitted two letters documenting their efforts to coordinate with the
neighbors during the application process. The first letter dated August 18, 2020,
summarizes their initial outreach efforts to the immediate neighborhood (Exhibit 11). The
second letter, dated November 18, 2020, summarizes the reasons for siting the house in the
proposed location, the outreach efforts to the neighborhood, and installation of story poles
reflecting the initial design of the residence in anticipation of a Planning Commission
PAGE 9 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
hearing. After reviewing these story poles, the applicant and property owner agreed that
some revisions were needed and consulted with the neighbors and made design revisions.
In response to feedback received from the neighbors, the applicant has made the following
revisions:
• Replaced second-floor gable-end roofs with hip roofs and lowered the plate height by
six inches to reduce massing;
• Reduced roof slopes to lower ridge heights resulting in a reduction of 27 inches at the
highest ridge to reduce overall height and massing;
• Reduced the ridge height of the garage by 36 inches and eliminated a flue enclosure to
reduce impacts to the neighbor to the south; and
• Updated the color palate with darkened materials and additional wood elements to
provide more texture and break up the massing of the house.
Revised story poles and project signage were installed on the site by November 25, 2020, in
anticipation of the December 9, 2020 Planning Commission hearing.
CEQA Determination
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Story poles and project signage were installed on the site by November 25, 2020, in anticipation
of the December 9, 2020 Planning Commission hearing. Public comments received by 11:00
a.m., Friday, December 4, 2020, are included as Exhibit 13.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application for demolition
of an existing single-family residence and detached garage, construction of a new a single-
family residence, removal of a Large Protected Tree, and site improvements requiring a
Grading Permit. The project was reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Architect who
determined that it is well designed and compatible with the properties in the immediate
area in terms of style, mass, and scale. The project is in compliance with the Residential
Design Guidelines and consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation
for the property. The applicant requests a Fence Height Exception citing a security concern
as detailed above, otherwise the project is in compliance with the Town Code.
PAGE 10 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
CONCLUSION (continued):
B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning
Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should:
1. Make the finding 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 findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the
demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.0992 of the Town Code for the removal
of protected trees (Exhibit 2);
4. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of
the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) (Exhibit 2);
5. Make the finding that due security concerns a Fence Height Exception as allowed by
Section 29.40.0320 of the Town Code is appropriate (Exhibit 2);
6. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
7. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
8. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-20-008 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 14.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the application.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Color and materials board
5. Project Description and Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated May 19, 2020
7. Applicant’s response to the Consulting Architect’s Report, dated August 18, 2020
PAGE 11 OF 11
SUBJECT: 62 Ellenwood Avenue/S-20-008
DATE: December 2, 2020
8. Consulting Arborist’s Report, dated June 3, 2019
9. Applicant’s response to the Consulting Arborist’s Report , dated August 18, 2020
10. Fence Height Exception Letter of Justification, dated August 17, 2020
11. Applicant’s neighbor outreach efforts, dated August 18, 2020
12. Applicant’s neighbor outreach efforts, dated November 18, 2020
13. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 4, 2020
14. Development Plans, received November 20, 2020
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank