Item 02 - 5 Augusta Ct - Staff Report & Exhibits 9-11TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 12, 2015
PREPARED BY: J ocelyn G. Puga, Assistant P lanner
jpuga@los gato sca. go v
APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Appli cati on S-14-1 25
ITEM NO: 2
LOCATION: 5 Augusta Court (locate d on the north side of Augusta Court ,
which intersects with North Santa Cruz Avenue 230 feet north
o f Bl ossom Hill Road)
APPLICANT: Amy and Stefan Amaudo
PROPERTY OWNER: Donald P . Amaudo Trustee
CONTACT PERSON : CliffPetersen
APPLICATION SU MMARY: Requesting approval to construct a new second story add ition to
an existing single-family residence and m ake other
modifications with reduced setbacks , and exceed the m ax imum
allowable floor area on a non-conforming property zoned RM-
5: 12 . APN 529-11-006.
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DATA:
North
East
South
West
DEEMED COMPLETE: May 21,2015
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Novemb er 21 ,20 15
Deni al
General Plan D es ignation :
Zoning Designati on :
Medium Dens ity Resid ential
RM-5:1 2 -Multiple-Famil y
Residential , 8,000 square foot
l ot minimum
Applicable Pl ans & Standards: General Pl an ; Resi dential
Desi gn Guidelines;
Parce l Size: 5,824 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existin g Land Use General Plan Zoning
R esidential Medium Densi t y Residential RM-5: 12
Residential Medium Density Residential RM-5:12
Residential Medium Density Re sidential RM-5:12
Residenti a l Medium Density Residential RM-5: 12
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 2
5 Augusta Court/ S-14-125
August 12 , 2015
CEQA:
FINDINGS :
CONSIDERATIONS:
ACTION:
EXHIBITS:
BACKGROUND:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
• As required, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act, this project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15301 :
Existing Facilities.
• As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application .
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
appealed within ten days.
1-8. Previously received with the June 24,2015 Staff Report
9. Findings and Considerations
10. Applicant's Letter, received July 13 ,2015 (three pages)
11. Revised Development Plans, received July 21 , 2015 (two
sheets)
On June 24, 2015 , the Planning Commission considered plans for a new second story addition,
other modifications with reduced setbacks, and to exceed the maximum allowable floor area on
a non-conforming property. The Commission continued the matter to this agenda with the
following direction:
• Reduce the square footage of the single-family residence to be in compliance with the
maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the property.
• Incorporate the recommendations of the Town's Consulting Architect ; and
• Review the Residential Design Guidelines, specifically regarding blending two story
homes into smaller neighborhoods.
As a continued item, the project description on the agenda and this report remain the same as
the required notice. As discussed below, the project no longer includes reduced setbacks and no
longer exceeds the maximum allowable floor area.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
5 Augusta Court/ S-14-125
August 12,2015
ANALYSIS:
A. Architecture and Site
The applicant submitted a letter addressing the recommendations of the Town's
Architectural Consultant and the Planning Commission's direction (Exhibit I 0). Staffs
analysis of each recommendation is below in italic type.
Reduce the square footage of the single-family residence to be in compliance with
the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the property.
The applicant reduced th e second floor square footage by 39 square feet. Th e first
floor was reduced by three square feet. The total house size was reduced by 42
square feet. The revised project at 1,999 square feet complies with the maximum
allowable floor area for the prope rty which is 2, 000 square feet.
Th e applicant achieved the square footage reduction by eliminating the s to rage
room on the second.floor and reducing the size of the hospitality area by two square
feet. The hospitality area was also relocated to be more centralized on the eastern
side of th e second floor.
Incorporate the recommendations of the Consulting Arch itect.
1. Increase the porch roof slope to reduce second floor wall height;
The applicant has complied with this reco mm enda tion. The applicant r evised
the d esign of the front porch roof to have a steeper pitch to reduce the
exposed height of the second floor wall.
2. Move the seco nd floor further to the north from the front fac;ade to reduce the
second floor wall exposure;
The applicant chos e no t to make this modification due to construction
co mplications created by moving th e second floor back from th e first floor
and foundation below.
3. Mitigation of the two story fac;ade at the garage could be achieved by adding a
pot s helf or planter box above the garage door;
The applicant has co mplied with the intent of this reco mmendation. The
applicant revised the lo cation of the attached garage by moving it two feet
forward, no longer encroa ching into th e required rear setba ck. A sloping
roof was added above the garage to create a visual interest and tie the
garage roof in with the .front porch roof instead of adding a pot s he([ or
planter box.
Planning Commi ssion Staff Report -Page 4
5 Augusta Court/ S-14-125
August 12, 20 15
4. Add windows to the west fa<;:ade to improve its appearance;
The applicant has co mplied with the intent of this recommendation. The
applicant moved the lo ca tion of the garage door from th e north elevation to
the west elevation to alleviate the appearance of blank walls.
5. Simplify the roof and window design at the stairway on the rear elevation; and
The applicant chose not to make this modification to the rear elevation
because it would result in additional floor area.
6. Eliminate the bedroom over the garage.
The applicant chose not to make this recommendation due to their desire to
have two bedrooms on the second floor.
Review the Town of Los Gatos Residential Design Guidelines, specifically blending
two story homes into smaller neighborhoods.
1. Residential Design Guideline 2.3.1, Design two story houses in predominately
one story neighborhoods to blend with the smaller homes;
The applicant added a sloping roof above th e attached garage separating
the first and second floor fa9ade.
2. Residential Design Guidelines 2.3.3, Design home entries that are sympathetic
to others in the neighborhood; and
The applicant maintained the footprint of the existing front porch with a
modification to the roof pitch and added a sloping roof element above the
garage to maintain a consistent front roof line. Recessed front porches are a
common feature in the immediate neigh borhood.
3. Residential Design Guideline 3.3.2, Height and bulk at front and s ide setb acks.
The applicant has set back the location of th e second floor on the:
o South eleva tion : six feet from th e foyer wall and seven feet from the
living room wa ll below.
o West elevatio n: three f ee t from th e garage wall below.
o North eleva tio n: six feet from the first floor bedroom/de n wall and
seven feet from th e kitchen wall below.
o East elevation: nine feet from th e first floor bedroom wall and six
feet from the first .floor bedroom/den wall below.
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
The Neighborhood Analysis tabl e below reflect s current conditions (E -existing) of the
imme diate nei g hborho od and the app licant 's revi sed plans (N-new).
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5
5 Augusta Court/ S-14-125
August 12 ,20 15
Immediate Neighborhood Analyas
Address House SF Garage SF Lot Size SF
696 N. Santa Cruz Ave. 1,686 666 6,320
6 Augusta Court 702 216 6 ,072
3 Augusta Court 1,219 0 6,110
2 Augusta Court 858 361 6,016
1 Augusta Court 1,371 205 6,016
5 Augusta Court (E) 1,091 360 5,824
5 Augusta Court (N) 1,999 342 5,824
696 N. Santa Cruz Ave. 1,686 666 6,320
~
House FAR Stories
0 .27 2
0.12 1
0.20 1
0.14 1
0 .23 2
0.19 I
0.34 2
0.27 2
At 1 ,999 square feet, the residence would be the largest in the immediate neighborhood
in terms of square footage and FAR. The residence would be 313 square feet larger than
the 1 ,686 square foot residence at 696 N. Santa Cruz A venue. The Residential Design
Guidelines specify that residential development shall be similar in mass, bulk, and scale
to the immediate neighborhood. The guidelines also specify that consideration will be
given to the existing FAR's, residential square footages, and lot sizes in the
neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
At this time, the Town has not recei ved any written comments for the redesigned project.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Summary
The first and second floor of the proposed residence was reduced to comply with the
maximum allowable FAR for the property. The location of the attached garage has moved
forward two feet and is no longer encroaching into the required rear setback. The
applicant revised the pitch of the front porch roof, incorporated a s loping roof above the
attached garage, and added an additio nal door to the west elevation based on the
recommendations of the Consulting Architect. The revised proposal would create the
largest home in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage and FAR. The
Planning Commission should determine whether the plan revisions meet the direction
provided at the June 24, 20 15 meeting.
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 6
5 Augusta Court/ S-14-125
August 12,2015
B. Recommendation
Staff is still recommending denial of the Architecture and Site application because the
project would create the largest home in terms of square footage and FAR in the
immediate neighborhood.
Alternatively, if the Planning Commission finds merit with the revised project, it should:
1. Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15301
of the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 9);
and
2. Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines
(Exhibit 9); and
3 . Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town
Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 9); and
4. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-14-125 with the conditions
contained in Exhibit 3 and development plans attached as Exhibit 11 .
If the Commission has concerns with the proposed project, it can:
1. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
2. Continue to a date certain with specific direction to staff and the applicant.
Pr p ed by
Joe yn G. Puga
Assistant Planner
LRP:JGP:cg
Approved by:
Laurel R. Prevetti
Assistant Town Manager/Community
Development Director
cc: Amy and Stefan Arnaudo, 5 Augusta Court, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Cliff Petersen, 463 Woodley Place, Santa Rosa, CA 95409
Donald and Rose Arnaudo, 17843 Andrews Street, Monte Sereno, CA 95030
N :\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 15\Augusta5.2.docx
PLANNING COMMISSION -August 12 , 2015
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
5 Augusta Court
Architecture and Site Application S-14-125
Requesting approval to construct a new second story addition to an existing single-family
residence and make other modifications with reduced setbacks, and exceed the maximum
allowable floor area on a non-conforming property zoned RM-5:12. APN 529-11-006.
PROPERTY OWNER: Donald P. Arnaudo Trustee
APPLICANT: Cliff Petersen
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
• The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quali ty Act, Section 1530: Exi sting
Faci lities.
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for sing le-family homes
not in hillside residenti al areas.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the con siderations in review o f an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing thi s project.
N :\DEV\FI N DI N GS\2 0 15\A UGUSTA5.2.DOCX
EXHIBIT 9
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Dear Planning Commission:
We appreciate the recommendations made by all of you at the June 24th Planning Commission
meeting. We took your comments, worked with our architect, met with the planning staff and
made changes to our existing plans.
Below are comments made during the meeting and how each was addressed:
• Reduce the square footage to be in compliance with the FAR:
Response: The house is now within the FAR by 1 sf. We removed the 41 sq ft from the
storage space at on the second floor per Commissioner Talesfore's recommendation.
• Non-conforming rear set back: Was at 18ft and minimum requirement is 20ft.:
Response: There are now no intrusions into the rear yard setback. We meet the required 20
ft set back.
• Incorporate the Consulting Architect's recommendations;
1. Increase porch roof slope to reduce second floor waD height
Response: We elevated the front porch pitch of the roof to unify roof form to the
front bedroom. The change was made and added to the new set of drawings in
accordance with the town architects recommendation.
2. Move second floor toward the north and away from the front fa~ade
Response: The upper floor front elevation wall is located directly above the existing
wall and its foundation below. If we leave second floor where it is as shown on
drawings, it allows us to leverage the existing structural support of the 1 st floor since
this is a remodel. Moving this wall and the second floor plan arrangement back
would create expensive construction complications both at the front and rear areas
of the house.
3. Add a pot shelf or planter box above the garage door.
R esponse: We moved the front of the garage forward to create a mid-height "step
back" for the wall. The garage door is now 2 ft in front of window above which
mitigates the concern with the 2 story fac;ade to keep a consistent pitch line across
the house. (This recommendation came from the planning commission in an effort
to also minimize the visual mass)
4. Add windows to the west facade:
Response: We added a window and moved the garage door to that side.
5. Revise roof & Window design at the rear elevation:
Response: The "notch" in the rear second floor elevation is a result of lowering the
RECEIVErfeiling height over the stair to the extent possible thus allowing a reduction of the
lloor area by appro x. 24 sf. This is coincides with our overall attempt to minimize
JUL 1 3 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
'JEXHIBlT 1 0
square footage wherever possible to only have necessary square footage to stay
within FAR.
6. Eliminate bedroom over the garage:
Response: The bedroom over the garage as part of the residence plan is very
important to how we intend to utilize the upper floor and the rest of the house as our
family grows. This room is intended to be a child's room along with the other room
upstairs. By removing the room, it would leave 1 bedroom upstairs which would
hinder how we use that bedroom since we would want our kids to be on the same
floor not 2 separate floors.
• Incorporate methods for blending the two-story home in with the immediate neighborhood per the
Residential Design Guidelines; Even with compliance with the FAR, the home will still be the
largest square footage and FAR in the immediate neighborhood. What methods for blending the
two-story home in with the immediate neighborhood per the Residential Design Guidelines were
incorporated?
Response:
./ The front porch roof pitch has been revised to match existing for the rest of the
house .
./ To help with bulk and mass we considered the following in our design
o 2.3 .1 of the Residential Design Guidelines:
• Roof segments separating the first and second floor facades
• Porches with eave height similar to adjacent homes.
• Second floor area contained within the roof form .
• Deep recessed entries, porches and windows.
o 2 .3 .2 Avoid structures with height and bulk at front and side setback lines which
are significantly greater than those of the adjacent homes
o 2.3.4 in Residential Design Guidelines : The garage door is now 2ft in
front of window above which mitigates the concern with the 2 story
fa9ade to keep a consistent pitch line across the house. (This
recommendation came from the planning commission in an effort to also
minimize the visual mass)
o With regard to the "mass" element of your second story addition, careful
attention has been paid to set the upper floor back from the first floor below.
Except for a 6ft portion of the bedroom wall above the side yard area of the
garage, the entire perimeter of the second floor is set back from the first floor
wall line & covered front porch below by distances varying from 2 ft to 12 ft .
./ Aligned with guideline 2 .3 .3 in the Residential Design Guidelines-Designed home
entries that are sympathetic to others in the neighborhood: From a look and feel we are
keeping similar window, material and overall feel of the current structure. We left the
porch and entry the same to align with look of neighborhood .
./ Also took out 41 ft from the upper floor .
./ Our ridge is still 3.5 ft smaller than the house on the west side on N Santa Cruz as
measured from grade at your side property line
./ We currently are hidden on 2 sides by a 3 story apartment behind us and a 2 story
house on the street. Both the apartments and house on west side loom over into
our property and our private street. While sq footage wise our proposal is the
largest, mass wise we are not.
./ Our neighbor house (on N Santa Cruz size) is approximately 2,200 sf of which I , 727 sf
is house and 472 sf is garage as measured by our architect. Our project totals 2,333 sf
with I ,999 sf being house and 3 34 sf being garage. Our neighbor's structure looms over
our house and Augusta Ct as does the apartment project behind us . We mention the
apartments as they are visible from inside the cul-de-sac and two stories overlook our
backyard. These apartments currently and will continue to hide our house from the main
street. However, by building up , it will be nice to get privacy back in our street from
tenants in the apartment who are unknown to us .
./ We have a car tent between us and adjacent family rental which does distance the houses
making our recommended proposal not look as overpowering due to the additional
distance.
The new plans meet most of the concerns from the town. The design allows for us to remain in
the home that has held 3 generations of Amaudos. We made a choice to not return to the east
coast where Amy 's family currently resides because we saw a future in Los Gatos and all that it
could offer our new family. My husband has past memories in Los Gatos but we hope to
continue those memories into the far future.
We hope the changes made meet your concerns and you will consider approving our application.
Thanks,
Amy & Stefan Amaudo
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
--/1*" i
I
I :0·
·1 -~1 . I I .
I
I
J 0.
-~·-·---
Li]_~.
1 1
~ -----..:::: tll.o~
.~---, r-----"'
L__j L__j "'4:'"'
+ ~-(lt>I"'EHCE I ~·~1 · vi} ~li<d;L-,---,\s C . 1"-"'1,., 'T -<:;,<!>
\
" -~1"-----. -J ~ (~)&{f/'-0E ~ t_ ; :;:
'?(_p<7~f'; 1 ~ '
t.t=L---~-.I r 'lol l'-Y"~" fV"?LO Fi'TI -~t\zl-~ I \
\
w
I
[ I ~ -}\/I I ~ •'I v \ I
!I I i
I I 1' ~1 i:':""'"'u::F..Jia. \_, I
\
J,0"\'2-"'-!':
; 1 t I c,: "' ,_
~ '[_ ~ ~"1 .(C~ ',\\
-"-~ ~
--~ <r ~
"'-fl-, '"' 'Z:-!.t2'2-'·o· . ~ .• .. l,\1>. '
'ti4... ~ i_ :·J. "~rflA0 t> t I: I ~~A_ .~· .:·.·tJ
-~re ''V
I it"'<•l\' 'l' f+iGH ' ! :t~~ -GOt'Ci'-CV~ /ii_L~ I '-1 ~---4 -:tl:> r , .. )~----[~i: -~ <6/~,._,_,_, '2.'7'\"Y"-'e-L. 0 _, : ~--~~ ,'r IE<'> -oH "--?1 CMU!¥<-1-3. ..
r \
--~ I'-I w
I{ --.•:; "" I iz .. . ~ ....
-'-1----I L1 ~-~ ~I
.i__
lLl \_l
__j ~\ ....
<:)
'---z= t
lj
tL) d)
0 Q
_)
-l[)
~
8 ~
(J
:=J ~ <(_ ~)
2 :::>
c_')
:::>
({_ (__
-<(_ 00
'*'
I
(P4.oD 1 I z ~
~-<:,/'liN'-,h ~\ll ----'t-:5 I o><
~