19 Staff Report - 16370 Lilac Lane
DATE: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT July 21, 2004 MEETINGDATE: 8/02104 ITEM NO. 11 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL CONSIDER AN APPEAL· OF THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION ZONED R-18. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-04-4l PROPERTY LOCATION:16370 LILAC LANE. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
DEBBlE AND WESLEY WONG RECOMMENDATION: ./1. 2. 3. 4. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony. Close the public hearing. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny
Architecture and Site Application S-04-4l . Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution. If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's
decision should be reversed or modified: 1. The Council needs to find one or more of the following: (1). Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part ofthe Planning Commission;
or (2) The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or (3) An issue
or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision. (Continued to Page 2) PREPARED BY:
BUD N. LORTZ1)J/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: -Q_--Q--.v.rAssistant Town Manager ---4::s----'-_ttomey _._Clerk._---'Finance ('Community Development Revised: 7/21/04
12:25 pm Reformatted: 7/14/99
PAGE 2 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 16370 LILAC LANE July 27,2004 2. If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission
is new information as defined in Subsection (2) above, it is the Town's policy that the application be returned to the Commission for review in light ofthe new information unless the
new information has a minimal effect on the application. 3. If the appeal is granted, the Council should make the CEQA findings and zoning consideration in Attachment 3 for the approval
of an architectural and site permit and approve the application subject to the conditions in Attachment 4. In particular, Consideration #6 of Attachment 3 encourages
architecture, scale and massing of structures that are compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate PROJECT
SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to construct a 138 square foot first floor addition and and a 693 square foot second story addition to their single family residence located
at 16370 Lilac Lane. The existing home is 1696 square feet and the proposed addition will increase the home to 2527 square feet. Please see the report to the Planning Commission for
complete analysis of the proposed project (Attachment 5). PLANNING COMMISSION: On May 26, 2004, the Planriing Commission denied the project on a four-to-two vote. The Commission considered
neighborhood compatibilityand discussed the size and mass ofthe existing homes in the neighborhood. Initially, the vote was deadlocked three to three. The Commission felt that, in this
instance, the proposed second story addition is a policy issue that requires the Town Council's direction. In order to move the project forward to the Town Council, the Commission denied
the project so that the applicant could appeal the decision to Council. Please see complete verbatim minutes ofthe May 26,2004 Planning Commission hearing (Attachment 2). The Commission
struggled with the proposal of a second story addition for the proposed project. The architectural design of the addition was not the main source of concern, in fact some Commissioners
felt that the proposed addition was well designed, and compatible with the adjacent homes. However, several Commissioners felt that second story additions, in general, were not appropriate
for this neighborhood. It was agreed that the proposed second story addition, in this instance, is a policy issue for the Town Council to decide. Two policy issues will be addressed
below in the Discussion section: I) The definition ofthe neighborhood, specifically in areas adjacent to the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County and, 2) two-story homes and/or
additions in a predominately single story neighborhood. APPEAL: On June 4,2004, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial ofthe proposed project. The appellant disagrees
with the Planning Commission's definition ofthe neighborhood and asserts
PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 16370 LILAC LANE July 27,2004 that the definition of the neighborhood should include more than five single story houses on Lilac Ave.
The appellant points out that their neighborhood is a diverse neighborhood with a mix ofTown and County properties, which includes many two-story homes. If a larger neighborhood, is
considered, the appellant's home would not be the first in their neighborhood to have a second story The appellant states that within a one-block radius oftheir home, there are twelve
two-story homes, which represents 22 % of the homes within that one-block radius. Please see the notice of appeal , (Attachment 1) and additional analysis from appellant (Attachment
8). DISCUSSION: By denying this application, the Planning Commission enabled the applicant to appeal that decision so that the Council can consider two policy issues: definition ofneighborhood
and approval ofa two story home. The first policy question is definition of neighborhood, specifically in areas adjacent to the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. Ifthe Council
determines that the project site is located in a predominately single story neighborhood, then the second policy issue is whether twostory homes/additions are appropriate in a predominately
single story neighborhood. A. Definition ofNeighborhood The project site is located at 16370 Lilac Lane. As shown in the attached map (Attachment 7), the project site is within Town
limits, but in the vicinity of Santa Clara County's jurisdiction. Eight homes on Lilac Lane are within the Town's jurisdiction. The two-story and single-story homes are" indicated on
the attached map ofthe neighborhood. Staffhas identified three alternatives for the definition of"neighborhood." Ifthe Council determines that the "neighborhood"are the homes on Lilac
Lane that are within the Town's jurisdiction than the proposed two-story home would be the only two-story home in the neighborhood. If the Council determines that the "neighborhood"
is all the homes on Orange Blossom Dr. and Lilac Ln. (From Oleander Ave. and Dahlia Way), then there are five homes out oftwenty-five homes (20%) that are two-story. Finally, if the
Council determines that the "neighborhood" includes Cherrystone Dr. as part of the neighborhood, then'there are fourteen homes out of 54 homes (26%) that are two-story. B.Appropriateness
ofTwo-Story Home Once the area of the "neighborhood" is determined, the Council can decide whether the proposed two-story home is appropriate for that "neighborhood." The Community Design
Element of the Town's GeneralPlan articulates goals, policies and implementing strategies for residential design. In addition, the Town's Residential Development Standards contain specific
standards to guide the evaluation of two story additions and two-story dwellings. The Council should consider both the General Plan and the Residential Design Standards to determine
whether the proposed project is compatible with its neighborhood. The following are excerpts from both documents and the complete section is included as Attachments 9 and 10. If the
Council is inclined to approve the ',,__,,/appeal, the Council must make certain findings and considerations (Attachment 3). Consideration is #6 of Attachment 3 in particularly relevant
as it relates to the exterior architectural design of buildings.
PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 16370 LILAC LANE July 27, 2004 Town's General Plan -Community Design Element One of the goals in this element is to preserve and enhance
the Town's character through exceptional cOITlimmity design. Some of the general policies that pertain to the proposed two-story addition are: CD.P.1.1 Promote and protect the physical
and other distinctive qualities of residential neighborhoods. CD.P.1.S Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density CD.P.I.7 New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes shall be
designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area. CD.P.1.8 Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally
in the neighborhood. Town's Residential Development Standards One of the objectives of the development standards is to preserve and protect the architectural heritage and streetscapes
of the Town and to ensure provisions of light and air to the inhabitants of all single and two-family dwellings and provide a reasonable level of compatibility in the scale of structures.
To achieve this objective, the development standards state: Site Development The Planning CommissionJPlanning Director shall assess the project's overall effect and compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood. Does the size, height, style or color conflict with other structures in the neighborhood? Building Design -HarmonY/Compatibility The proposed project must
have a harmonious and compatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. The factors which contribute to the relationship include, but are not limited to the following: 1) an
appropriate design theme; 2) an appropriate sense of scale; 3) a compatible roof line; 4) colors, exterior materials and details Scale and Mass for Second Story Additions and Two-Story
Dwellings The Town has identified a trend towards the development of two-story houses and second story additions in the Los Gatos residential community. One of the unique traits of Los
Gatos is the variety of house sizes, shapes and designs especially in the R-l andR-l:D zones.
PAGES MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 16370 LILAC LANE July 27, 2004 While there are many creative second story designs, the Town is concerned that property owners and developers
are restricting their design alternatives to only second story. A continuation of this trend could jeopardize the character of our neighborhoods. To maintain a proportionate distribution
of single-story and two-story housing stock in Los Gatos, property owners.and designers are encouraged to strongly consider single story designs as viable development alternatives. If
a second-story design is chosen, the applicants shall be required to explain why a single-story design does not work. CONCLUSION: The Council's decision on this appeal will establish
an important policy direction for the Town: the definition of"neighborhood," particularly in areas adjoining the unincorporated areas ofSanta Clara County, and the appropriateness of
second story additions in areas of predominately, single story homes. Should Town Council be inclined to grant this appeal, Council may wish to address any remaining privacy concerns
through conditions of approval addressing landscape screening. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental,\ Guidelines
as adopted by the Town. FlSCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: , 1. Notice ofAppeal (three pages) received on June 4, 2004 2. Excerpts from the May 26,2004 Planning Commission Hearing (8 pages)
3. Required Findings and Considerations (3 pages) 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval (2 pages) 5. Report to the Planning Commission from the Development Review Committee dated Ma¥
12, 2004 (17 pages, minus development plans) 6. Desk Item 5 dated May 26,2004 (3 pages) 7. Map of the neighborhood (1 Page), generated by staff 8. Additional analysis from the appellant
(15 pages) 9. Town's General Plan: Community Design Element (4 pages) 10. Town's Residential Development Standards (7 pages) 11. Letter from neighbor received on July 26,2004 (1 page)
12. Development Plans received on April 28, 2004. (5 pages) Distribution: Debbie and Wesley Leong, 16370 Lilac Lane, Los Gatos,CA 95032 Wade Construction, 23930 Deerfield Rd., Los Gatos,
CA 95033 N:\DEVlJudie\projects\Lilac\appeal.wpd
FIJ..;ING FEES $250.00 Residential $1000 per Commercial, Multifamily or Tentative Map Appeal Office of Town Clerk 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030 APPEAL OF PL.6..NN!NG COMMISSION
DECISION RECEIVED I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows: (PLEASE TYPE OR FRINT NEATLY) DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
2.0 ,ltG '+ . .JUN 0 7 2004 PROJECT /APPLICATION NO: ft/] f?-. 61 -2.5 TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADDRESS LOCATION: _11t?z1t k Ik/:Z: U') It::7Q<; [8 DIVISION Pursuant to the Town
Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal ofa Planning Commission decision in most matters if the Council fuids that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a
vote of at least please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal: . 1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion
because -------tirt-+----:::::-:--------f1If-f1f+--2. There is new infonnation that was not reasonably available at the time ofthe Planning Coriunission decision. which is possible):
OR 1. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town '. Council: E?€ f\TT(-1 itPO :::'HpE\ IF MORE SPACE
IS NEEDED. PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS. IMPORTANT: 1. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee. Deadline
is 5:00 p.m. on the lOlb day following'the decision. If the lOth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it may be filed on the workday imMediately following the lOlb day, usually
a Monday. 2. The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days ofthe date ofthe Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No. 1967). 3. An appeal regarding a Change ofZone application
or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as. applicable. which is different from other appeals. 4. Once filed, the appeal
will 'be heard by the Town Council. 5. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt ofnew information. the usuaJly be returned to the Planning Commission
for reconsideration. /J>? tv . PRINT NAME: _1?ff/ajAH-4;,aA/tr SIGNATURE: t r \ DATE: 4('lco4 ADDRESS: IbLo PHONE: Z1)?
. *** OFFICIAL USE ONLY *** ··DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
cf2 I I CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT: Date: _ Pending TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY: DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION: DATE OF PUBLICATION: N:\Clk\FORMS\Planning
Commission Appeal.wpd Rev: 5120/02 ATTACHMENT 1
Members of the Los Gatos Town Council: We are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission with regards to the second story addition at 16370 Lilac Lane in the Blossom Manor Neighborhood.
After a deadlocked vote, the Planning Commission denied our application so that we could appeal this policy matter to the Town council. We understand that our·plans to add a second story
to our house placed the Commission in a difficult situation. From our viewpoint it seemed as' though the commission struggled with the interpretation of the general plan and with what
they felt the Manor should look like. We are hoping the membe"rs of the Town Council will weigh all of the information and decide on a direction that will accommodate both the general
plan of the town and the the Blossom Manor Neighborhood. The Manor dearly illustrates the diversity within neighborhoods that are a mix of Town and County properties.
Originally built in the 1950's as small ranch homes, the Manor has been steadily renovated to become a blend of both single and two story homes. Only 5 houses on Lilac Lane are currently
within town limits. Our street actually begins as Orange Blossom qnd turns into Lilac Lane (a 90 degree bend). On Orange Blossom 3 homes out of 6 (50%) are two story structures. All
are a minimum of 2000 square feet, with one being 2640 square feet. A minimum of 8 houses (53%) on our side of the street are at least 2000+ square feet due to minor renovation projects.
As you proceed down our side of Lilac Lane, the fourth house down from ours js a two story and across the street there is 1 home with a 2-story profile that is'approximately 2800 square
feet. Though our house would be the first of the 5 within town limits on Lilac to have a second story it would by no means set a precedent for our street or for our neighborhood. Cherrystone
Street directly behind us is within town limits and has 2 two-story homes of which both are 2500+ square feet and are directly adjacent to us. Beyond these two homes, Cherrystone has
15 homes which are 2 story representing approximately 40% of
the homes' on the block. Within a i-block of our"home, there are 12 \ story homes of which 6 are in the county and 6 are in the Town of Los Gatos. This represents
22% of the homes within the radius. The Planning Commission would like to limit the definition of our Neighborhood to the five single story on our side of Lilac Lane. This
is an arbitrary decision. There are no geographical, architeCtural or functional boundary lines dividing these five houses from the rest of the street or the streets adjoining us. All
of the houses are single-family homes; built around the same time, on a contiguous level street. The argument of "mass and scale" would not be applicable if more than five houses were
used to define" our neighborhood". Fifty years ago the makeup of the residents of the Manor and for that matter Los Gatos, was far different than today's family. These are no longer
considered "starter" homes. The value of the land and the prices of the homes have .' skyrocketed. Families must now optimize the space they have and for many of us that means adding
a second story. We feel this is an opportlinity for Los Gatos to . help reach a happy medium. Our architect has come up with a design that meets ourfamily's needs and maintains the feel
and charaCter of Los Gatos. The Town's own architect, Larry Canon, felt "the design was acceptable" as did members ofthe . ./Planning Commission. We tried very hard to create a home
that is the least . intrusive to our neighbors. Perhaps our home on Lilac dm bea model for homes in the Manor, a house that provides enough space for today's family but still fits in
with the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, . Wesley and Deborah , .
235 A P PEA RAN C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Jean Drexel, Chair Michael Burke Phil Micciche Tom O'Donnell Joanne Talesfore Morris Trevithick 2· PRO C E E DIN G S: CHAIR DREXEL:
All right, we'll resume our meeting with the next item on the agenda, which is 16370 Lilac Lane, Minor Residential Development Application MR-04-25. Ifanyone wishes to speak to this
item, I have some cards here and just bring them on up. All right; the applicant, if Y9U will just stale your name and address for the 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Director
OfCommunity Development: Transcribed by: Bud N. Lortz Vicki L. Blandin 5500 Van Fleet Avenue Richmond CA 94804 (510) 526-6049 ·9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record,
and you have live minutes to speak on your item. DEBBIE LEONG: Oh hi, my name is Debbie Leong and llive'at 16370 Lilac Lane and I'm here about a second story addition to our home. I'm
a litlle bit nervous right now; I've never done this. [s it okay to relinquish some of my time to my architect? I'd like him to come up here. CHAIR DREXEL: Absolutely, that's great.
DEBBIE LEONG: And if! fall over, my husband is going to prop me up right here. CHAIR DREXEL: That's all right. Do you want to start the timer over? I think we're spending a lot of introductory
time here, and we want to make sure we give you enough lime. DEBBIE LEONG: Okay. CHAIR DREXEL: There you go. Now your timer is on. DEBBIE LEONG: Some of this I'm going off my notes.
We live in the Blossom Manor area, and as you know, that's a mix of both Town and County homes in the area, and it's a blend of both single and second storied homes. We decided to do
a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5; 16370 Lilac Lane 2 ATTACHMENT 2
23 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 second story remodel because the options we have are moving, and unfortunately with the soaring prices in Los Gatos, that became a
non-option for us. But more important than that is that we love the neighborhood, we've been there fifteen years now. We were newlyweds when we got there, just the two of us, and now
we have three kids and they're all at the Blossom Hill Elementary School. We're very active within the sChool and in the community. I belong to various organizations and the art (inaudible)
and several sports and recreation. I coach and the whole bit. So we really are firmly entrenched in Los Gatos and would like to stay there, and the only way we can see doing that is
by remodeling our home. Currently in our house our three children are staying in one bedroom and they share the other one as a playroom. So what we would like to do is a good neighbor
addition to our house. It would be in the center portion, leaving the sides single-story, fourteen feet on both sides, and three feet from the back and the front. We thought this was
the best option for us because it would give us two bedrooms for our two boys and our daughter, and a Jack and Jill bathroom, and just a little study area for them. We thought it was
the least imposing on our neighbors. We didn't want to do one story, only because-I have pictures-but our backyard is quite shallow, and to bring it to the setback would essentially
leave us without a yard at all. And in front, though there aren't sidewalks, we have I guess the setback for the sidewalk, so we really couldn't expand that much in the front. We do
have a couple things I'd like to show you. The design here is from Mr. Cannon, the Larry Cannon Group, which we had gone through. He found our design LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004
Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just consistent with the neighborhood and acceptable for the neighborhood. He had a couple changes that
he made that our architect has incorporated into the plans. I do have a petition from quite a few ofmy neighbors. I can show you, there's about seventeen signljtures on it-it's pretty
fuzzy right now-that support our bid to remodel.CHAIR DREXEL: All right, when you're finished with that, you can just leave it up here if you will, or have a copy of it delivered tomorrow,
whatever you'd like to do. DEBBIE LEONG: Oh, I have four copies; I can give that to you. CHAIR DREXEL: Okay. DEBBIE LEONG: And this is just a map. All the gray homes, the parcels that
are gray, are the homes who have signed our petition in our neighborhood, and we're that kind of dotted white one. A couple things I wanted to bring up was on the report that Jennifer
submitted to you. There are a couple things that I thought she omitted that were very important. One is that our street, Lilac· Lane, is actually continuous of Orange Blossom; it's just
a ninety-degree bend in the street, and she failed to put down the homes on Orange Blossom, of which there are three two-story homes. I can show you. Actually the bottom one is the corner
home on Orange Blossom, and the top one the house three doors away from us, and the one under construction right here is four doors away from us, and the corner one would be five doors
away. This home here, this two-story, is on the other side of us, about three doors down. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane
,46 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We feel that what we're asking for is very modest. It would bring our house to about 2,550, I don't think extravagant for Los Gatos.
We tried very hard not to be an imposition or intrusion onto our neighbors by doing the center pop-up. So I think I'll retinquish my time to my architect now. Thank you. CHAIR DREXEL:
Great, thank you, DEBBIE LEONG: That's nerVe wracking. CHAIR DREXEL: You should be up here. This is nerve wracking. JACK WADE: Good evening. My name is Jack Wade, I'm with Wade Construction
in Los Gatos. We've worked in the Manor for probably over a period of twenty-five years, done a lot of projects there. Most of them have been in the County, a few in the City.This particular
house currently is a three bedroom, two bath, as she explained. A laundry is in the garage. It's got the smallest master bath in the State of California, and it's got the typical mix
of dining room, living room, kitchen, and a family area, with a small study. In our proposal that small study would be converted into a switchback, or a U-shaped stairway, going to the
second story. We're proposing 2,527 square feet, four bedrooms, three bath, with a laundry in the house and a small study upstairs also, along with two bedrooms. CHAIR DREXEL: Okay,
you know your time is up. (fyou could just wrap it up, that would be great. And then we're going to ask you questions. JACK WADE: Pardon? CHAIR DREXEL: If you could just wrap up your
presentation, because your time is up, and then we'll ask you questions. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 5 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 JACK WADE: Okay. How much time do I have to wrap it up? CHAIR DREXEL: Oh, how about a minute? JACK WADE: Okay. Looking at the comments by Staff, their findings were that-and the reason
we're here-that thcre isn't enough precedent for a second story in the area. I've prepared a little map; I'll put that up here for you. The blue arrow faces north. The blue lot is theirs.
The The argument seems to be what exactly was the neighborhood, and the Staff said well maybe just those areas in Los Gatos, and they wouldn't include the County lots. I don't think
that that is a correct interpretation. I took the liberty of looking in the dictionary, and it talked about community and territory, and the implication was a neighborhood is,a fairly
large and extensive area. I would think it would encompass at least a city block in each direction. I put a five hundred foot radius around the house, and in that you'll see that there
are twelve two-story homes, six in the County and six in Los Gatos, but more importantly, along Cherrystone Drive, I think there are thirty-five lots on Cherrystone from Cherry Blossom
Lane down to the end where it ties back in to Blossom Hill, and fifteen of those are two-story homes. It's the highest density of two-story homes in the entire area. They are in Los
Gatos, and that's about it. CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you very mLlch. We appreciate your presentation. JACK WADE: You're welcome. CHAIR DREXEL: Any questions at this time for the applican!')
No. Then we will let the public speak. (have a big pile of cards here. (fyou would like to sit LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 6
36 down for a moment, we will call you up for rebunal after this and for more questions. Eric Morley? ERIC MORLEY: Chair Drexel and Commission, my name is Eric Morely. I live at 16322
Lilac Lane with my wife and children. I was born and raised in Los Gatos; actually my mother was raised in Blossom Hill Manor. We live three doors down from the proposed minor addition.
I'm here tonight to express my support for the application. We live next to a two-story home. We My concerns are the obvious concerns. Blocking of the view from the living room; right
now it's an open sky view, and with the wall going in front of it, it would just exactly block our view. Secondly is really the privacy that it obviously kind of intrudes into the house.
The two windows that are proposed in terms of the bedrooms have a direct view 6 into our living room and dining room. And in terms of the shadow, I think th.ere is some concern. But
I have 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 have an approved, but not yet constructed, two-story
home behind us at our rear property line. We have a single-story home with a two-story profile directly across the street, and there are a number of both one-and two-story homes in a
mix in our neighborhood and along our street.We believe that a mix of one-and two-story homes adds character, adds interest, adds variety; and designed appropriately, which I believe
this home is both in terms ofthe design detail and the second-story addition, is consistent and compatible with our neighborhood. I would, urge your consideration and support for the
addition. Thank you. CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you very much. Next is Shervin Farhadi, and after that, Vadim Gulazian. SHERYIN FARHADI: Good evening. My name is Shervin Farhadi and I live
at 925 Chenystone Drive, and the house is exactly behind the property that's being proposed in terms of the second floor. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 seen their drawings;
I can definitely kind of go along with that. So typical concerns: view and privacy. So I was going to propose ifthere are any windows in terms of the bathroom on that side of the wall,
that that would be a concern of ours. If there's a possibility in terms ofa moonlight window of some kind, that would be helpful. And the second sugges.tion would be to minimize the
size of the windows and remove the seats that are being proposed inside the house, right beneath the windows. And that's my case. CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you. SHERVIN FARHADl: Thank you
very much. CHAIR DREXEL: Let's see, does anyone have any questions of Mr. Farhadi? Thank you very much. And the next is Vadim Gulazian. VADIM GULAZIAN: Good evening. First of all, when
I received this notification I was a Iinle bit surprised, because when the applicant, Debbie, came to our 24 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 7 24
house like three weeks before we received this, she explained to us what she would like 25 to do. We expressed concerns that our privacy was going to be a Iiule bit hun; instead of LOS
GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 8
5 skies we're going to see the house. And at the end she said, "Well actually it doesn't matter, because your opinion, it really doesn't matter." So for me at that point it was like
it's a done deal. This is why I started with the sentence that J was surprised when I received this notification. Another question about the signatures. So this is the house that is
going to be remodeled, and this is our house, and this is our neighbor's house. So you could see that these are two houses that are basically going to be affected by this house. Now
neighbors on this side and this side, well they're not basically affected at all by this So again, I really have concerns because our two bedrooms and one living room face the back yard,
so when this house will have the second story our privacy will be changed, and instead of skies, we're going to see building. And another point which I would like to make is building
a second story here creates precedent, so when our neighbors across the fence decide to build a second story, then basically it's very easy to say well the house here is a two story,
so we're going to raise a second story as well. CHAIR DREXEL: All right, well thank you very much for your 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 house, so J think the opinions
of these neighbors is very important, not these neighbors. This house, it's a two-story house, as I heard previously. It's kind of strange when the person has a two-story house and then
they say well, you going to build a two-story house also; I'm not going to like it. I don't think that it's a valuable question. Now houses, two-story houses, on Cherrystone Drive, mostly
the twostory houses are on this side. Next to this side it's Blossom Hill Road. So what we have here are mostly houses on this side that are one-story. Here it's two-story. There are
a couple two-story houses at the end of the street, which are not affecting anybody. So the argument that there are many two-story houses should be a little bit questionable. Now about
how this house could be remodeled. There are two different types of houses on Cherrystone and Lilac Lane, ones that are set back from the street, and the ones that are close to the street.
For example, our house is set back from the street. The same for this house; 16370. So in my ?pinion, it's possible to make it bigger,just to build it in front of the house. 10 11 12
13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 comments. Anyone have any questions? Thank you. We have Mr. William Walker next speaker, and after that we have Jack Wade. WILLIAM WALKER: Good evening
ladies and gentlemen. I am the neighbor of this proposed house, directly across the street. If anyone is impacted visually by virtue of a higher structure in front of me and between
our house and the mountains, it would this structure. I am here to support wholeheartedly this structure, The neighborhood, as everybody has stated, is very, very mixed, and you have
a house in the County next to a house in the City, next to a house in the County. That is the makeup of the entire neighborhood, And we're in the County, they're in the City, and they
don't get some of the County benefits, we don't get some of the City benefits. But there's one benefit that we all share, and that is to be good neighbors with each other, And my understanding
is a great preponderance of the people in the neighborhood have signed on to this project enthusiastically, And I had several other thoughts, but I would appreciate any questions 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 25 that anyone would have of me, because I didn't memorize this speech. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item
#5, 16370 Lilac Lane 10
3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR DREXEL: All right. Well thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much; we appreciate you coming out tonight.
All right, then we have Ben Barden. BEN BARDEN: Good evening, I'm Ben Barden. I'm at 16386 Lilac Lane. I'm the neighbor that as you face the house, I'm on the right-hand side of the
house. When Debbie brought the plans over to us, needless to say we were very interested in what they were doing. They showed us all the plans on the shadowing effects. I think if anybody's
affected, I think we're significantly affected, not in a negative way, but I think positively. I think the design of the house is very well thought out. I think they were very conscientious
about thinking about the neighborhood in general. When you drive through the Manor, you'll see a mix of two-story and onestory houses, and to say it's monolithic is far from the truth.
Do you have that map? There we go. Our house is to the right, here. When you're looking back here, there's a two-story house here, a two-story house here, a two-story house here, a two-story
house there. And you go down, isn't this a two-story house? FEMALE: Yes. BEN BARDEN: One right over here. When you look at Cherrystone, it's by no stretch single-story houses here. This
is two-story; this is two-story. So when you're saying that the neighborhood is one-story, it's really not true. So other than that, we wholeheartedly support the addition and support
them in what they're doing. We think they're very conscientious and they're great LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 neighbors. We've lived in the Manor since 1987, we've raised two boys in the manor, and Debbie and Wes have great kids, and I think they need the house. Thank you. CHAIR
DREXEL: Thank you. All right, Susan Barden. SUSAN BARDEN: Good evening and thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm Ben's wife, Sue Barden. We live right next door to Debbie and
Wes. We're here to show our support for their project. We think they've been extremely conscientious in everything they've done. And Wade Construction did a remodel for our home and
did an outstanding job. We feel they've been very considerate in showing us exactly how it's going to impact us, showing us the shadowing, as my husband, Ben, said. We feel that the
addition they've put on is very unobtrusive; it's not going to really affect privacy issues. The house right behind us was approved by the Town. We are incorporated into the Town. It
does affect us, it took away our view of the mountain, they have bedroom windows that look directly into our backyard, directly into our master bedroom; yet we felt that as good neighbors
this is the way we have to be. We have to live together, we have to support each other. So I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the families in the Manor, and also to recognize the
Leong family's contribution to the Town of Los Gatos. They're very active participants in sports and in community, and I hope that this is going to be successful for them, and thank
you very much for this opportunity to let me speak. CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you very much. Any questions? All right, anyone else like to speak to this issue? Oh, I'm sorry, Mauri Yamashiro.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 12
__.. _..L. 29 10 MAURI YAMASHIRO: My name is Mauri Yamashiro. I live at 15949 Orange Blossom Lane, and on this map, this one is me. So we live right at the bend and our house is situated
on the property in kind of an odd way, such that when I'm standing on my front porch, I look directly at the Leong's house and I've got the beautiful view of the mountains behind them.
I'm here in support of the Leongsfortheir second story addition. I don't think that their second story would obstruct my view of the mountains at all. They've got a beauliful tree in
front of their house that would probably be higher than their second story, and I don't think it would be an obstruction in the least. 2 10 DEBBIE LEONG: Vadim. r went to his house once
and I really apologize if you thought that I didn't think your opinion mattered, because it did, and that's why we had written a letter. Regardless if we were County or Town, we would
have done the same thing: written the letter, showed all our plans. We sent the letter out to lots of neighbors, just saying this is what we want to do. if you want to come·see it. by
all means. In fact, actually no one actively came to us, and I went Slumping the neighborhood to find them. One thing I do want to show is we wentup to our roof to just see, because
I was really worried about how we could impact Shervin's house and the house next 11 12 13 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Furthermore, I think that adding on to their house enhances the
value of not only their property, but the entire Manor as well. I've lived in the Manor for thirteen years, and I've seen the value of the houses triple in that time. It's a very family
friendly neighborhood. Neighbors know each other and support each other, and I think that we want to keep it that way; we want to do whatever we can to keep them in the neighborhood.
I just think il enhances the neighborhood and adds value to everything, so I support them.CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you very much. Sorry, I almost forgot you in my enthusiasm to move things
along. Would the the applicant like to come up and rebut? DEBBIE LEONG: First, before I start, I just wanted to say I've spoke to Shervin and his wife a couple of times and we've tried
to work out some of the issues. I'm sorry; I don't remember your name. VADIM GULAZIAN: Vadim Gulazian. 11 12 13 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 door. The bottom view is from Shervin's
home from my roof. This is his property here. As y.ou can tell, there are trees that are already kind of mitigating the privacy issue I think, and we would be more than happy, as I told
Shervin, to planltrees along our fence line for the privacy issue. We did talk about the windows in the back, and Jack has told Shervin that they would need to be of a certain size for
fire and safety rules; they couldn't be made smaller. We had talked about bathroom windows; I don't know if they're in the drawing. The Jack and Jill bathroom upstairs is in between
the two bedrooms, and the windows that we were contemplating putting up there were well above height level for an adult. They were just going to be for light, so they were up high, so
no one could see out of them. They were essentially for light, and I could talk to Shervin about that if that doesn't work. I have one other picture. This is the view from our.other
neighbors in 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 13 25 back. His house is behind the tree, the large oak tree there. When I talked 10 him, I LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 14
6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't think I conveyed that his opinion didn't matter, because it does. And I went up on my roof, and I wanted to see what the view
looked like. This is the view from his home. He has a shed of some sort underneath that oak tree on his property that would further mitigate the privacy issue, or the view. Where's that
other picture, Wes? We have one more picture. This is kind of the long view of our property. His would be over here, behind these trees. This is just another view of his view of our
home. This oak tree is again, I think, mitigating the privacy issue. JACK WADE: Ijust might quickly add that the building code requires certain size windows for egress. CHAIR DREXEL:
We know that. JACK WADE: There are also building code considerations for illumination and ventilation in bedrooms, so you could not service a sky window or a skylight; that will not
work, would not be acceptable, and we feel the windows we have included up there are well within the realm realm of reason. This house is set back thirty feet from that property. Those
houses are probably twenty-five feet away, so there would be between fifty-five and sixty feet from the windows, and I don't think, unless you've got binoculars and you're very noisy,
you're going to be looking into someone else's home, and you can't see in anyway. CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you very much. We may have questions for you, so stand there for a minute. Commissioners,
do you have any questions for our applicant? Oh yes, Joanne? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 15 35 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER
TALESFORE: Hi, I do. I needed a clarification. On page five, Exhibit F, ofthe reduced plans of your home drawings, there's a shadow study. JACK WADE: Yes, there is a shadow study. COMMISSIONER
TALESFORE: Okay, I had a question about that. JACK WADE: If you look at the shadow study, you'll see that except for the very front edge of those properties to the north, the shadows
increase just slightly. But because we're eliminating the gable ends, which are eight feet away from existing property lines, we're actually reducing the shadow in midday on the neighboring
properties. Fortunately, this house is oriented north and south, so most of the shadowing is of course in the client's own front yard, and there's no shadows to the back at all. COMMISSIONER
TALESFORE: No, there's a shadow to the left. Well ifI'm facing the house, it's to the left. And so you're aware of that, okay. But I had a question about the drawing itself. I'm seeing
a discrepancy above the peeked roof that's opposite the garage, the lillIe gable. JACK WADE: From the front of the house you mean? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: On the front of the house,
there is a lillie pony wall right above it, correct? CHAIR DREXEL: It's where the bathroom is, probably. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And it has two windows in it. JUDIE GULLI: I'll tell
you what she's talking about. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you, Judie. If you could help me out, I'd appreciate that. JACK WADE: Are you talking about up in here? LOS GATOS PLANNING
COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 16
5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right opposite. Go over to the left. CHAIR DREXEL: Look at Judie. Judie's got it right there for you. COMMISSIONER
TALESFORE: It appears in the drawings that there's a discrepancy of that pony wall above that gable, and Ijust wasn't sure which we were looking at, which is correct, and it has to do
with the shadow. I mean part of what we do as Commissioners is look at shadows. CHAIR DREXEL: So was the shadow study accurate, because was the drawing accurate? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:
Yes. JACK WADE: Those studies were drawn with such a small scale that they weren't intended to be precisely accurate. There's a couple of windows in that wall, and those windows look
into the staircase, and I guess proportionately I can see that it looks a little longer and little shallower than the actual wall there, but it has to do with the slope of the roof and
so forth. I think it's relatively accurate, but if you feel there's a discrepancy, I guess I'll acknowledge that. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Well, only because does it alter the shadow?
JACK WADE: No, I don't think that it does. If you look at the shadow study, I don't think it has, because it's too far inboard. With this good neighbor design, the edges of that roof
at twenty-eight feet away from the property line, set back fourteen feet from the walls of the house, and the setbacks between the house and the property line are eight feet on looking
at the front of the house to the house to the left, and actually 25 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 further than that on the other side, simply because that property line angles
and it gets wider toward the back. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Are you using the one then from Larry Cannon? JACK WADE: Pardon? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Should we be referring to the elevation?
CHAIR DREXEL: Not that one. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Not this one? CHAIR DREXEL: No. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, thank you. CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you very much; any other questions? I'm
going to to ask you one question. One-story houses are encouraged in town, and we have a design standard that says that, and it says that you need to state why you have not gone with
one story, and you have pretty much done that in your introduction, but I'm going to have you restate it nice and clear for the record. DEBBIE LEONG: Actually, we originally tried to
go with one story, but we didn't realize it was a setback for the sidewalks, because of the Los Galos town, because the Manor doesn't have sidewalks. So to push out, we wouldn't gain
the square footage that we needed, and we're below the FAR that's established by the Town, as it is even with the second story. I have a picture of our backyard too. It's quile shallow.
It's wide, but 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 17 25 shallow, and we thought that actually would be more of an intrusion on our neighbors, LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 18
because our entire structure would be another ten to twelve feet back, and with that we you'd have to bring light into. We'd have to do some sort of popup with clearstory glass 2 would
have had to put a whole new roof on a single-story structure, which I think would or something like that. Architecturally I don't think it would be palatable, but it's doable. 3 look
more massive than our popup in the center. And Jack had explained to Shervin that 3 CHAIR DREXEL: All right, I just wanted to ask the question. We're 5 if we did the one story, the roofline
would only be maybe two feet shorter, because it's such a bigger roof now than on the second story. And I think we would have had to forgo supposed to ask the question, and you've given
me a good answer; thank you very much. Ifno one else has any questions, I'm going to close the public hearing. Your time to one of the bedrooms if we just stayed on the single story,
because we couldn't bet the speak has ended, and now this matter comes just before the Commission here for square footage. comments and/or a motion. Does anyone have any comments? Mike?
CHAIR DREXEL: So you'd have trouble with the footprint fitting on COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'm just going to state a few thoughts here. 10 your lot properly? 10 I went to school at Blossom
Hill School and a good portion of my friends live in Blossom 11 DEBBIE LEONG: Yeah, and the house would be convoluted. 11 Hill Manor. We talk about a neighborhood in transition, and
every time I drive through 12 CHAIR DREXEL: Okay, I just had to ask the question. 12 there I get distressed by what I see going in there. I mean, that used to be a beautiful 13 JACK
WADE: I did contemplate doing that, and they rejected it because 13 suburban neighborhood, and it's changing. and as much as this an attractive looking 14 14 15 it used too much of the
front yard and too much of the back. We could go back almost ten feet beyond the existing houseline to the rear, shallowing up the backyard, and then house, I don't think I could support
this proposal on several reasons, some of them are 15 just I'll say my own personal life experiences. 17 18 16 A couple of things I at looked here in the Staff report where we talk about
neighborhood by better than five hundred square feet more than the next largest one in immediate neighborhood, this is going to be by far the largest house in the immediate neighborhood
compatibility. As far as the homes in Los Gatos jurisdiction for the 19 20 we could go almost'fourteen or fifteen feet forward. The garage projects out to the We could bring the whole
house out. and we could probably get real close to the SAR allowed by doing that. We're incidentally about a hundred feet under, setback line now. 16 17 18 19 20 21 because Staff told
us to be conservative and we kept it under that. The problem is it adds 21 Los Gatos, and almost as large as the largest one in the county in the area. It will be the 22 about thirty
feet to the depth of the house, and then when you put the roof on it you're up 22 only two-story home. I think as we take a smaller house and make it a bigger house and 23 there within
three feet of the height where we are now with the second story division, and 23 make it a bigger house, we're greatly changing what our housing stock is in Los Gatos. 24 it doesn't
function very well, because you have a big room locked in the middle that 24 The applicant made the comment they were thinking of moving, but they 25 25 looked at the prices in Los Gatos
and realized that wasn't what they wanted to do. Every LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 19 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac
Lane 20
.,,,,.,.1. 26 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time we take a 1,600 square foot house and tum it into a 2,500 square foot house, we make the town less affordable for people
to live in. Not to say that this house shouldn't be increased in size, modernized, all those things, but I just think that it is too much. Without even going into the concept of a second
story at this point, J think even though it's under the FAR, when I look at the other houses in the area, with the exception of county ones, to me it just doesn't make sense, but ['mjust
one Commissioner. CHAIR DREXEL: All right. I just wanted to say that as far as the cost of Ihe housing, it's primarily in Ihe land. I have a son and we've been looking at housing, and
teardown is $800,000 if you can get it. So I don't think that improving these houses really has much of an effect on housing stock, because the amount of the improvements is nothing
compared to the land cost. So that's my own opinion about that one little part of what you said, and [ will hold my comments until everyone else is finished with theirs. Does anyone
else have anything they want to talk about? Okay, first of alii want to say thanks to Bud for bringing this to us. He had two reasons. This is the first two-story application in a predominantly
one-story neighborhood. I realize that there are two-story houses around there, but when you stand in your yard all you see are one-story houses. DIRECTOR LORTZ: (Inaudible). CHAIR DREXEL:
Well, pretty much, and it would be the largest house in the neighborhood, so that's the other reason that we needed to see this. Either of those things are reason for it to come to the
Planning Commission. The first issue is the one that Mike raises. Should two-story houses be allowed in neighborhoods that are predominantly one-story? In order words, will two-LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 21 259 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 story houses eliminate one of the distinctive characteristics of one-story
neigllborhoods, which is discouraged in COP1.1 of the General 'Plan? That's the first issue. The second one, is the mass and scale of the proposed house appropriate so that it blends
with the rhythm and scale of the existing neighborhood, as required by COP. I.7 of the General Plan? In other words, does it look too big for the neighborhood? So let's look at the first
issue, the two-story element. The Town designed guidelines encourage single-story homes to remain. The applicant is asked to justify why she needs a second story, and she has stated
her reason. Is there room on the lot to make this a larger one-story house? If the house were to be reconfigured around all its setbacks, it would be a demolition. The General Plan discourages
demolitions. It would also have different setbacks than its neighbors, which would make illess compatible with them, So [don't think that enlarging this house as a one-story works. You'd
have to say no, you can't enlarge the house. [think that's the alternative. So as far far as the house size, it is the largest in the neighborhood. Some of that mass is hidden in the
design, and much of the mass is hidden in the roofline. The second story does not go wall to wall, but is stepped back from the exterior walls of the house. The style is simple like
other houses on the street, and the second story has been integrated into the lower story through its design with the gables. Lot coverage is consistent with other homes on the street.
Those are all things we're supposed 10 look at with our Town guidelines, and I have looked at all of Ihem. The Town architect did nol address whether it was compatible with the neighborhood
in terms of mass and scale in his report, so that's LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 22
238 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 something that I think is missing. Since it is the only two-story, I would conclude that the mass and scale is greater than that of the
neighbors and needs to be minimized. So I can make a motion here. I move to approve architecture and site S-04-4 subject to the conditions in Exhibit G, plus the following condition:
the Town architect shall evaluate the mass and scale of the second floor for compatibility, and working with the Director ofPlanning and the applicant, attempt to reduce its visual mass
through design changes and/or a reduction in upper story square footage if it is determined that its mass and scale is inappropriate. Also I would ask the applicant to work with the
architect to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning to resolve the reasonable privacy issues ofMr. Shervin Farhadi and Mr. Vadim Gulazian, including planning for screening trees.
That could be a possible solution. So those are things that I think might help this project. This project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 'of the State Environmental Guidelines.
The considerations in Section 20.920. ISO ofthe Town Code have been made. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'll second. CHAIR DREXEL: All right, we've got a second. Call the
question. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Wait, can we have a discussion? CHAIR DREXEL: Yeah, we can do that, we can discuss. 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 same
time, for beller or worse, it is this cute, darling little neighborhood and it has been for a lot of years, and soon it will almost be historic. But given that, what I wanted to know
is, and maybe this is to Staff, when the architect looks at compatibility and reduction, what exactly will he be working with as far that's concerned? DIRECTOR LORTZ: Well if there's
some ways to reduce the plate heights and perhaps the square footage on the second floor to reduce the mass, particularly parallel to the street, because that's how the mass becomes
significant. And just to let you know, when we already identify an issue, in an effort to try to conserve the amount of money that an applicant has to pay for the consulting architect,
we consciously ask
the architect to just focus on architecture, since we already identified mass and scale as an issue. But the motion goes to that issue, and I appreciate that approach. And so between
plate heights; the slope of the roof, and I'm concerned about the slope of the roof because we want it to match; and the square footage of the roof, those would be the issues that we'd
probably chase. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And the integration of the second floor? DIRECTOR LORTZ: Yes, absolutely, to the first floor. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So we don't look like we
have these boxes. DIRECTOR LORTZ: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I have a question. Because we have 25 no real specific standards or guidelines for this area, and this area was all
built at the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 23 24 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 24
23 10 ·11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. I guess I was looking for that esthetic tolerance of something to guide and direct you, and I think that
that's what we have to go for. I hope that we haven't set a precedent in voting in favor of this. DIRECTOR LORTZ: A couple of points on that. As you know, we're going to start on a new
set of residential design standards late this summer. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Oh, great. DIRECTOR LORTZ: And that is something that's funded already, and part of the 2004-2005 budget.
So this issue is going to come up very, very seriously through those standards, and the Commission will be participants in that. The other thing that makes this particular area challenging,
as well as the Englewood area, is that we have this interchange between the County area and the Town area, and what we're seeing is certainly the County allows second story additions
without any compatibility issues being addressed. We have an annexation that's pending, partially because neighbors are concerned about what the County allows. S6 there are a lot of
things that are changing, particularly in these County pockets. The one thing that the Town will be doing is looking at those County pockets to see if there's a way to annex them. Now
the Manor is a little bit different than the others, bec.ause the others are less than seventy-five acres and we could annex them without an election. The Manor is still larger than
seventy-five acres, so we're not going to be able to annex that area, even though there's a pending annexation 011 Oleander. So just to address your first question, standards are coming,
we're going to 3 10 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that discusses the relationship between the Town jurisdiction and the County, and second stories that might exist in the County
areas. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. Is there any way that the County would ever join into this discussion at all? I mean probably not, but I just thought I'd throw it out.DIRECTOR
LORTZ: We do work with them: They've toyed with the idea of adopting our standards as a mechanism to encourage pockets to annex, so there's no benefit to being in the County because
their regulations are a little looser, but that's a Staff issue for them. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. Okay, well thank you very much for clarifying that. DIRECTOR LORTZ: You bet.
CHAIR DREXEL: Morris? COMMISSIONER TREVlTHICK: (Inaudible) really in support of what you were saying, Mr. "Lortz. Tlie (inaudible) information earlier on in order to identify what is
the community, and it was a very interesting kind of analysis, because he didn't just include the (inaudible), he showed that within this larger area there were one-story arid two-story,
and so we are dealing with an area in transition, so this is something we're looking at as well. DIRECTOR LORTZ: Particularly when the County interfaces so much with the Town in this
area. CHAIR DREXEL: Tom? 25 be very seriously looking at that issue, and we may even have to have a section in there LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item *5, 16370 Lilac Lane
25 25 . LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 26
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I was just troubled by what Mike said. I drive through the neighborhood too, and of course I'm familiar with the neighborhood, COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Just to
tag on that, troubled is a good word, because I thought the same thing, we're going to be allowing this one and then the 35 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and there are
always good reasons to expand a house and I do think these people have done a nice job of trying to do it the most conscientious way. But what worries me is the neighborhood does have
a character, and there are lots of examples in San Jose of really nice older neighborhoods where they are now building blockbusters on each lot. And when you say yes to anyone, you have
to be very careful because you live with that the next time somebody says, "We aren't the biggest, because there's that big one right down there." So it's good that we're going to do
this study; unfortunately we've got to deal with this tonight without that study. But I guess I'm troubled because when you buy a house there is no guarantee that itwill grow with you,
and I can be sympathetic when you need more room, but Ijust wonder if we just allow the changing ofthese homes, not withstanding the good human values that are being pushed here, we
leave that legacy and we change the neighborhood. We say it's a neighborhood in transition and the statement becomes a promise, and every time we consent to one of these things, indeed
it is a neighborhood in transition because we are transitioning it. So notwiihstanding that I sound like I've made up my mind, I'm just deeply troubled by this and I'm just inviting
some other comments by my fellow Commissioners who have a lot more experience than I do on this. CHAIR DREXEL: Joanne? 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 next one, and it's
going to end up being a neighborhood that we somehow design from up here, and that bothers me. I know we're going to study and put standards and guidelines in, but how soon will that
happen? Before we have more more applications come to the forefront, I don't know, I'm really troubled. I mean 1don't know what's right or wrong here. I certainly understand that it's
hard to move out, people maybe need more space now to live in, and they are smaller homes. Some of the lots are larger and could accommodate expansion on a single level. This one doesn't
seem to be for what they need to accommodate the square footage. CHAIR DREXEL: I will say that with this particular application, I think I was pretty clear about why the second story
was okay, and that was because of the design and the upper story, all these reasons. So if somebody said I think I'll just smack a box on top of my house because it's cheap and Los Gatos
approves second stories, it would never happen. It would have to be well designed and they would have to have a reason not to build a first floor. That's the way I think we approached
this one tonight. So I think that we can't hold this applicant hostage while we develop standards, and I also think that we were careful about the motion so that we don't have to worry
about precedents, because we were careful about out motion and why this particular house was allowed. Mike? COMMISSIONER BURKE: A couple thoughts. I appreciate Tom agreeing with me.
The one flaw, Madame Chairperson, in your logic is that a single-25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 27 25 story option isn't viable because of the amount
of area it would cover. We're talking LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 28
3 about building one of the largest square footage houses in the area, and if you were to say to build that size house in single-story isn't practical, I'll definitely agree with you.
But do we need to be approving one of the largest houses in that area, period? CHAIR DREXEL: The thing to me is that it's not a huge house. It's a 2,500 square foot house, which is not
one of these big monster houses being squeezed onto a lot; it has good setbacks and whatnot. And the other thing is the architect very well may reduce the size of this house, because
we're sending it back to him to have the compatibility issue looked at. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I guess the question I always ask, I tend to listen to the majority of the neighbors in
the neighborhood, because it's their neighborhood, not ours. And I'm not sure there's anything wrong with homes becoming two-story homes in their neighborhood. They could look just as
nice; it could be a nice neighborhood with two-story homes in it as well. So I think it's very important to listen 6 to the existing neighbors around the area, and I think we found the
majority came here tonight finding no issue with that. CHAIR DREXEL: Tom? 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER BURKE: I know you're saying we're not setting a precedent,
but we're saying a 2,500 square foot house is appropriate for these lots in this neighborhood. CHAIR DREXEL: No we're not, because we don't know. It's going to the architect for a reduction
of mass and scale. COMMISSIONER BURKE: But ifhe does not reduce it in mass and scale, as Mr. O'Donnell says, by us stating that it's a neighborhood in transition, that is a promise that
this neighborhood is going to transition. CHAIR DREXEL: If you don't think this neighborhood is going to transition whether we say it's going to or not, I mean it's not going to be Colonial
Williamsburg. Things are going to keep changing. COMMISSIONER BURKE: I understand they're going to be changing, but I'm just wondering, are we aiding it to change too much too fast?
CHAIR CHAIR DREXEL: Yeah, and I guess I don't think we are. Phil? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me say that I don't think it's a question of merely
the neighbors. I think that weare here because we're supposed to have a view of our town, whether the neighbors think it's... Let me just finish. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Well Tom, I didn't
finish. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Oh, I thought you did finish. I'm sorry. COMMISS"iONER MICCICHE: No, no. But I'm saying that we've got to correct something. I'm saying yeah, my view
is that's what I was stating. My view is that a neighborhood can look very good if it's all two-story homes, COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm not quarrelling with you on this. think of one
neighborhood personally, because my wife's family initially had lived there, Camino Pablo in San Jose, lovely neighborhood. When you go around that neighborhood today though and see
how neighborhood has changed, it is not a charming neighborhood. It was a channing neighborhood. Now maybe it wasn't as comfortable to 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004
Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 29 25 live in because houses used to be smaller and now they're bigger. But from a neighbor, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane
30
23 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or from somebody who lives in the area, or somebody who just visits it, it's not nearly as attractive, so I'm just saying, as a Planning
Commissioner, when I look at this community, and I'm very impressed that these people are fine people and their neighbors totally support it and therefore it really gives me pause, but
ultimately we are the ones who are supposed to express an opinion of how we want our town, and I don't think we get off the hook by saying, "But all the neighbors thought it was fine,"
CHAIR DREXEL: Now I don't think anyone's saying that. I think you're absolutely right. The thing I wanted to throw into the pot at this point and stir a little bit is that if in the
neighborhoods that you're speaking about, I bet they do not have a body that scrutinizes additions the way we do, If we had control over the second story additions in Blossom Hill Manor,
there would not be so many scary ones, We have a much better way of dealing with additions and remodels than the County does, I mean you can drive down Englewood and there are some really
large, scary additions approved there, You can drive around Blossom Hill Manor. There are lots of these County pockets where if we pretend that there is going to be no change, these
people will never annex to Los Gatos, and in these County pockets we'll just have more and more ugly second story dwellings, COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All that may be correct. The difficulty
I have is it so mixes everything that it is hard to separate out what we're doing, If one wants to say that I believe that neighborhood will look just as well with a bunch more second
story houses, that's absolutely a valid point. I don't believe that, but that's only opinion; you get kind of subjective on those kinds of things, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004
Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 31 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think the question is, and the question that we will not only discuss tonight, but will study later, is are
there some areas that really ought to be single-story residences? And if the answer is no, there is no such thing, then you've answered the question, I tend to think if you have an historical
area, and this is historical in one sense, which is a single-story neighborhood, it tends to answer itself and a second story house becomes a much higher exception than merely saying
it's a good design as second stories go, all the neighbors kind of like it, and by George if we don't do it, we're not going to get an annexation, Now I find that to be unusual reasoning,
CHAIR DREXEL: Really? I think it's great. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: May I make a comment? CHAIR DREXEL: Sure, Phil, go for it. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: My only question I would ask Tom is
that when I saw the drawing of the five-hundred feet, I saw a number of two-story homes, COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yup, so did L COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I mean that's what I saw tonight.
So I'm saying it doesn't look like we're infringing on a totally single-story area at all, COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I just worry we're stampeding the twostory houses, COMMISSIONER TREVITHiCK:
I would support that view too. We're dealing with this on a case by case basis, and it looks at the present time, right now, that Ihis is a good solution to a problem, Rather than trying
to forecast what we think will be down the road in five years, I think we're being quite out of order. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION' 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 32
3 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR DREXEL: And the other thing is that if you had members of the Blossom Hill Manor community sitting on a board, deciding their own
guidelines, no matter how many people who live.in other areas like to drive through Blossom Hill Manor and see the single-story homes, the folks that live there would prefer to
the space they need. I think that that would be the conclusion of that committee that decided the standards for Blossom Hill. So maybe the rest of us should hold Blossom Hill Manor hostage,
bUll don't think that's fair. Mike? COMMISSIONER BURKE: One last comment, really for the audience here, but I think it's important. We take this very seriously what we do. No matter
what side we're going 10 vote on, we've really thought about it. And [ think that I respect everyone of my fellow Commissioners because their opinions are different than mine, and that's
what's so important. I hope howeverthis turns out, that everybody's happy because we've really really thought about it. So that's a comment for everybody. CHAIR DREXEL: Okay, Joanne?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So the last comment I would make is when you put a two-story element on a house you change the character of everything. around that CHAIR DREXEL: We know that.
You always do. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying it happens.. So how do you, or is th,:re a way to, preserve the scale of a singlestory neighborhood
like it is with a two-story addition? [mean how do you do that? When I'm in that neighborhood driving around, and it's always been that way, it's always LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION
5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 33 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 come off to me as a single-story neighborhood. It was a tract that was built specifically that
way. CHAIR DREXEL: Because they were building cheap homes and it was more expensive to grow up. That being set aside, there arc ways to bury a second story in the mass of the roof, and
if you do that, then you have 10 have a steep roof, which changes the character of Ihe neighborhood too, because all the roofs in that neighborhood have a low pitch. So with this particular
house, how do you do that? I have no idea. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Is that what we're hoping the architect will do? CHAIR DREXEL: We're hoping that the architect can reduce the mass
and scale of the house. so that's our hope. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And we want him to do that? CHAIR DREXEL: Yes, we do. All righl. so shall we take a vote? All right. I'm calling the
question. All those in favor, raise their hand, aye. All those opposed, nay. Okay, we are three to three, so what do we do? DIRECTOR LORTZ: You need a majority. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:
I'll tell you the best action. Since there's no majority, I make a motion to deny the application and bring it 10 the Town Council. C;HAJR DREXEL: That seems so cruel. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:
Well, we're notgoing to get anywherc. There's concept here that is totally foreign. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 34
256 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECTOR LORTZ: We could continue it until a full Commission is available, but that wouldn't happen, because Lee's out. COMMISSIONER
MICCICHE: That's not going to happen for two months, because I'll be out. DIRECTOR LORTZ: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: So that's why I'm making a motion to deny this application.
Does anyone second it? CHAIR DREXEL: No, not at the moment. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Then fine, I'll withdraw it then. CHAIR DREXEL: Okay. Morris? COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I was thinking,
the explanation you gave about ten minutes ago for why we can do it this way, namely the footprint is not effective if it was any bigger on this particular site, was quite logical and
I think it was coherent. If you'd perhaps state it again, we may get a majority. CHAIR DREXEL: You think? Okay. Mike? COMMISSIONER BURKE: How about a compromise motion? We send it back
to the architect for the requests and it comes back to us as a consent item? That way we're not approving it, but we are expressing our concerns. It will come back to us as a consent
item. This way we're not forcing the applicant to appeal. It comes back to us as a consent item, and we can do as we with that way. CHAIR DREXEL: What do you think, Tom? COMMISSIONER
O'DONNELL: Mike got me started on this, but if there is a fundamental issue, it is not can they make a two-story house look less like a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5,
16370 Lilac Lane 35 26 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two-story house. The question really is should there be an extraordinary reason for making a two-story house, and
if there is, let's make it a very nice looking two-story house. We're going to skirt that issue by one, sending it back to say do a better job on it, but keep it a two-story house; two,
we'll then put it on the Consent Calendar, suggesting to people we no longer have that issue, because if the Planning Director is satisfied that it's now once we assume it could be a
two-story house, a a darned good one, and we say now it's on the Consent Calendar. I will simply say I would vote against that, because I think the fundamental issue is not is it a nice
looking two-story house, it is why do we want a two-story house? CHAIR DREXEL: Okay. My reasoning for having a two-story house has to do with keeping the footprint small so that you
don't overpower the neighbors with the presence of a large one-story, close to the setbacks and infringing on the sidewalk, you'd have irregular setbacks in the front. You can't really
do a whole lot with the first story on a lot this size. The house is I think 1,600 square feet, and people these days do not lind that a significant size of house for children. I had
a 1,900 square foot house and added onto it, and I needed to; I had three kids. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We're not talking about that. If you say yes to everything you've said, that doesn't
therefore mean that every house in Los Gatos will have the same problem. CHAIR DREXEL: Right. COMMISSIONER ODONNELL: ODONNELL: Every house which is less than 2,500 square feel suffers
from being less than 2,500 square feet. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 36
56 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR DREXEL: Well yeah, and I think that's why we keep gelling remodeling requests, because people want larger houses. It's not a
giant house, it's 2,500 square feet. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So I'm not quarreling with you, we just havc a fundamental difference. I'm not trying to persuade you. CHAIR DREXEL: So you
don't think it's a compelling reason to enlarge a 1,600 square foot house? There is no compelling reason? COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There are all kinds of compelling reasons. It's a question
however of whether the planning of this town.wants to maintain single-story neighborhoods? If the answer is no, that is not what this town wants, great, but I think that is an issue
which we do not skirt by taking these other considerations. The fundamental issue is can we simply allow two-story houses as long as they look good, even though the neighborhood character
might be single-story? I'm not saying the answer should be no. I tend to think I'd like to keep some single story neighborhoods, but the answer may be don't, and if the majority of you
think that's the right answer, great, do it. CHAIR DREXEL: Mike? COMMISSIONER BURKE: The one thing I wanted to clarify to Mr. 0' Donnell, just because it might come forward on the Consent
Calendar doesn't mean there wouldn't be a hearing and we wouldn't have input. We have that option. It's the type of thing where it comes forward on the Consent Calendar and they did
a great job, we let it go right through. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2001 Item *5, 16370 Lilac Lane 37 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
I'd sure like to get some advice from the City Council. In order words, if we denied it and it was appealed and the City Council says hey we can do this... COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: lInaudible)
second my motion. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I will. I will second your motion, because I think we have a policy issue that we have a valid disagreement on, and perhaps we need some direction.
direction. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I think you're going to get it that way, because you're not going to get anylhing where we arc right now. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: But we will if we
use what we have 10 use actually, and this is where I've struggled all day. And so what we have to use right now is the General Plan, and compatibility, scale, and mass. And I think
that's what we have, and so that's the 1001 at the moment. And that's at Ihe momenl all we have 10 make a decision on, and that's all the Town Council will make a decision on, I would
think. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Excuse me; the motion addressed that. We asked for that, that the architect comment. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: ['mjusl commenting. I'mjust sort of telling
you I'm on both sides of this. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Joanne, what I'm saying though is within that one can say that there is no way to get the scale and Ihe mass consistent wilh a
neighborhood of single-story homes by building a wonderful two-story home. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Exactly. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 38
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And I'd still like some direction from the City Council. If the City Council says take each case on a basis, if it's a nice looking challenging for us is that
it is a second story, that it is in a neighborhood that is challenging to define what is the "neighborhood," because you have the juxtaposition 35 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 second story home, the neighbors don't care, that's fine with us, those are the guys that get elected, and I'll be glad to follow their direction. Well, maybe I won't be glad,
but I'll follow their direction. CHAIR DREXEL: Okay. Well I don't agree with you, Tom, but there you go. Do you have any brainstorms for resolving our conflict? DIRECTOR LORTZ: You can
also revote on your first motion. CHAIR DREXEL: You know what? Go ahead and speak, and then I think I'm going to ask for a revote on my first motion, ifanyone Ihinks they might have
changed their mind, because these are the tools that we have available to us today. I pity these people being held hostage by design standards that mayor may not be formed, or the Town
Council that won't be able to see this until September. It's just not fair. DIRECTOR LORTZ: Well the Council would hear it in August if that's any consolation, but it's not much. MALE:
Is June 21 51 (inaudible)? DIRECTOR LORTZ: June 21 st is a Council meeting. The only problem I have with that is whether the Mayor will allow something on that agenda, because of the
skatepark item. It's pretty likely that's going to be a pretty full meeting, but we can try, and certainly will. This is a challenging project. The reason ii'S in front of you is because
Staff wasn't able to approve it, or we would have. We approve projects all the time that 35 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 between the County and us, and there are some second
stories that have come up in the County, but the Town has been pretty solid. I'll give an example ofa neighborhood where the Town has held fast to it, and that's the Bel Gatos neighborhood.
Bel Gatos neighborhood, east side of lown, single-story ranch style homes, people have come in for second stories and they've been denied. And this one we just saw was one· of those
challenging ones, and we wanted to bring it before you. And so I can understand how there's a policy side ofthis question, which is where the denial goes to the Council and the Council
makes the policy decision, and that's how the Planning Commission and Staff get direction, which is a good thing. And then the Chair's motion I think was a good attempt at trying to
compromise, but I think you can't compromise putting a second story when maybe a second story shouldn't go there, and I think she was trying to get [0 the issue of mass .and scale, which
is a compelling issue, and I think we approve those on a regular basis to the satisfaction of the Director and the consulting architect. I think the core of this issue is should there
be a second story, and is there an option? Well yeah, cenainly there are options in terms of redesigning this as a single slory, but the applicant was unable to feel thaI that was the
lype of project that they wanted to pursue. So if there's another motion. 25 you don't see, single-family homes, not only new ones, but remodels. The thing that's LOS GATOS PLANNING
COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 39 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 40
2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,._..,__U ...__.•• COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: She would like to have a recall on the first motion. CHAIR DREXEL: . All right; Mike,
what's the scoop? COMMISSIONER BURKE: This is one further thought, and it was mentioned briefly, but to be fair to the applicant, one other option we have is to continue this to our
next meeting in two weeks when we'll have seven people. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: No, you won't. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Oh, we won't? Lee's out until about the 30''', and you're out. CHAIR
DREXEL: That's it. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay, I'm sorry. I was trying to think of how we could get this moving along. CHAIR DREXEL: Okay, just a shaking head, would anyone reconsider
their vote? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Ijust wanted to clarify something with Bud. You said that the applicants looked at a single story on this? DIRECTOR LORTZ: They mentioned this evening
that they explored a single story and that was not the (inaudible). COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: But they didn't actually work.. DIRECTOR LORTZ: No, there was no project that was submitted
to us. CHAIR DREXEL: All right, so Phil, make your molion. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I make a motion to deny. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: J'lI second
that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 41 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I have a second. CHAIR DREXEL: All
those in favor? All those opposed? Nay. DIRECTOR LORTZ: Four to two. And this is a final action of the Planning Commission. This is an appealable action. The item can be appealed to
the Town Council. Forms are available from the Clerk's office and an appeal would need to be filed within ten days. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Excuse me; I'd like to make a comment. DIRECTOR
LORTZ: Certainly, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'd like the Town Council to understand that I denied this solely based on the fact that we were stalemated and to leave it in
their hands. I think a good point Tom made is that maybe we'll gel direction on policy for the future ones, but to move this thing along I thought this was the best course of action.
CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BURKE: Mr. Lortz? I for one would like to make a comment for the record, and I think my fellow Commissioners would agree with me, that we would
request of the Mayor to put this on the soonest possible hearing so that people can know which way they need to go. I don't know how my other Commissioners feel about that.CHAIR
DREXEL: Yeah, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: He's already stated he's going to do that. He's going to try to put it on. CHAIR DREXEL: We request it. Thank you, Mike. LOS GATOS PLANNING
COMMISSION 5/26/2004 Item #5, 16370 Lilac Lane 42
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 1637D Lilac Lane Architecture and Site S-04-41 .Requesting approval to construct a second story addition on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 52313-027
PROPERTY OWNER: Debbie and Wesley Leong APPLICANT: Wade Construction FINDINGS • The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as
adopted by the Town. CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS \ ,! ./•(1) As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications: The deciding body
shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following: Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site development
plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and walkways; the
adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the circulation pattern within
the boundaries ofthe development, and the surfacing, lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities. A. Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways
and critical intersections shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following matters: 1. . The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate existing
traffic; 2. Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied; and 3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one (1) year after
occupancy. B. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1) of the following determinations: ATTACHMENT 3
1. The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities. 2. The project will impact a roadway(s)
and/or intersection(s) causing the roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available capacities. Any project receiving Town detennination subsection (l)b.l.may proceed. Any
project receiving Town detennination subsection (1)b.2. must be modified or denied if the deciding body detennines that the impact is unacceptable. In detennining the acceptability of
a traffic impact, the deciding body shall consider if the project's benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as detennined by specific sections from the general plan and
any applicable specific plan. (2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and
structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to distinguish special
areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard. (3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls, fences, hedges and
screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal storage areas, uti1jty installations, parking lots or unsightly development; the planting of ground cover or
other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use ofplanter boxes with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere
to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director ofParks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting 'special criteria, including
climatic conditions, maintenance, yearround versus seasonal color change (blossom, summer foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations. (4) Considerations
relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of the neighborhood; and
the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development. Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g. downtown, Los Gatos Boulevard, etc.).
Buildings should maximize preservation of solar access. In the downtown; mid.;.blockpedestrianarcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new parking facilities shall be encouraged,
and shall include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems. (5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design ofbuildings and structures. The effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings
and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and
site approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale, massing, materials, color, texture, reflectivity, openings and other details. (7) Considerations relating to
lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town. Street furniture and equipment, such
as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire hydrants, street signs, telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters, drinking fountains, planters, kiosks, flag poles and other
elements of the street environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image. ,, ) (8) Considerations relating to access for physically disabled
persons. The adequacy of the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons. Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the
total valuation of . alterations, structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution of the Town Council, shall requiTe the building to be modified to
meet the accessibility requirements oftitle 24 of the California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility. In addition to retail, personal services and health care services
are not allowable uses on nonaccessible floors in new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail,health care, or personal service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential
building shall require that floor to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall
not qualify the building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements. This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of
this chapter. All new residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution. (9)
Considerations relating to the location ofa hazardous waste managementfacility. A hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500) feet to any residentially
zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public or private school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18).' An application for such a facility will
require an environmental impact report, which may be focused through the initial study process.
PLANNING COMMISSION -MAY 26, 2004 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR: 16370 Lilac Lane Architecture and Site S-04-41 Requesting approval to construct a second story addition on property zoned
R-l :8. APN 52313-027 PROPERTY OWNER: Debbie and Wesler Leong APPLICANT: Wade Construction TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL
EXPIRATION. Zoning approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the application has been vested. 2. APPROVAL. This application
shall be completed in accordance with all ofthe conditions ofapproval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans dated April 28, 2004. Any minor changes or modifications
made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 3. EXTERIOR MATERIALS. All exterior materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with
the existing residence. , TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORIZS: Engineering Division 4. SIDEWALK IN-LIEU FEE. A sidewalk in-lieu fee of$3,420 shall be paid
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This fee is based on 76-feet of 4.5-foot wide sidewalk at $101LF in accordance with Town policy. 5. GENERAL. All public improvements
shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public
right-of-way shall be kept clear of alljob related dirt and debris at the end ofthe day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and
materials on the sidewalk and!or the street will . not be allowed lmless a special pennit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be atthejob site dUling all working
hours. Faihu'e to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 6. ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT. All work iIi. iIi. the public light-of-way will require a ConstructionEncroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 7. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.
The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting an work peltaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading
or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection ow work that went on without inspection. ATTACHMENT 4
8. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a maimfacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed on the portion of a street which
abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§ 15.40.070). 9. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. 10. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner to make sure that all dili tracked into the public right-of-way
is cleaned upon a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other constmction debris SHALLNOT be washed into the Town's stOlID drains. 11. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.0l5(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground.
Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. 12. . RESTORATION OF PUBLIC PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not
designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but notlimited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements,
raised pavement markers, thennoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal fo or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be
repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Constmction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through
with the Engineering Constmction Inspector before the start of constmction to verify existing conditions. 13. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley
Sanitation District·and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line. 14. CONSTRUCTIONNOISE. Between
the hours of8:00 a.m. to 8:00p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, constmction, alteration orrepair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece ofequipment
shall produce anoise level exceeq.ing eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. Ifthe device is located within a stmcture on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances
as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
Conditiol1s.wpd
REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: FINDINGS: Date: May 12, 2004 For Agenda Of..:....:__..:..:M..:..:a:o....v,-,2=6,,-,,--,=2=0,-,=0:....:4_ Agenda Item: -=5'----_ The Planning Commission The
Development Review Committee 16370 Lilac Lane Architecture and Site S-04-41 Requesting approvai to construct a second story addition on property zoned R-1:8. APN 523-13-027 PROPERTY
OWNER: Debbie and Wesley Leong APPLICANT: Wade Construction • As required by Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town that this project is Categorically
Exempt. CONSIDERATIONS: .•. As required by Section 29.20.150 ofthe Town Code for Architecture and Site applications. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed
within ten days. EXHIBITS: A. Required Findings and Considerations B. Conditions of Approval C. Project Data Sheet D. Letter of Justification E. Town's consulting architect letter dated
received January 16, 2004. F. Development Plans dated April 28, 2004 (five sheets) A. DISCUSSION: Architecture and Site The applicant requests approval to construct a 138 +/-square foot
first floor addition and a 693+-/square foot second story to their single family residence located at 16370 Lilac "Lane. The "existing home contains 1,696 +/-square feet and the proposed
additions will increase the home to 2,527 +/square feet. A. project data sheet is attached (Exhibit C) which provides a summary of the proposed project. Neighborhood Compatibility Staff
identified that there was an issue of compatibility with mass and scale since the neighborhood consists mostly of single story homes. Consequently, the consulting architect was directed
to focus on the proposed architectural style of the home. The consulting architect concluded that the proposed architecture is well designed and consistent with the architectural style
of the neighborhood. Please refer to Exhibit E. In addition to the compatibility of the proposal, the second story addition would ATTACBMENT 5
The Planning Commission -Page 2 16370 Lilac Lane/S-04-41 . May 26, 2004 cause the horne to be the largest in floor area in the neighborhood. The table below summarizes lot size, home
size, floor area ratio (FAR) and number of stories of homes in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel. Site Address Lot Size Building Sq FAR Number of Footage stories 15933 Lilac
8000 +/-1,610 .2012 2* 15949 Lilac 8181 +/-1,956 .2390 2* 15965 Lilac 10,400 +/-1,733 .1663 1 16400 Lilac 12,100 +/-1,488 .1229 1 16370 Lilac 8,044 +/-1,696+/-existing .2108 1 existing
(subject parcel) 831 +/-proposed .3141 2 proposed 16386 Lilac 8,800 +/-1,786 +/-.2029 1 16354 Lilac 8,000 +/-1,521 +/-.1901 1 16338 Lilac 8,000 +/-1,810 +/-.2262 1 16322 Lilac 8,000
+/-1,765 +/-.2206 1 16363 Lilac 8,160 +/-1,616 +/-.1980 1 16347 Lilac 8,160 +/-1,336 +/-.1637 1 16331 Lilac 8,160 +/-1,309 +/-.1601 1 16306 Lilac 8,000 +/-1,785 +/-.2231 2* 909 Cherrystone
8,100 +/-2,509 +/-.3097 2* 915 Cherrystone 8,000 2,611 +/-.3263 2* Square footage and lot size information obtained from MetroScan * indicates parcels within Santa Clara County's jurisdiction
Sheet 5 of the proposed development plan (Exhibit F) delineates the homes that are within the Town's jurisdiction and those that are regulated by Santa Clara County. This sheet also
illustrates that the single story homes are within Town limits and two story residences were constructed according to the County's rules and regulations. The applicant asserts that their
design proposal does not set a precedent for the neighborhood. The applicant further asserts that the mass and scale of the proposed home is compatible with the neighborhood. Finally,
the applicant asserts that regardless of whether the two story homes are within
The Planning Commission -Page 3 16370 Lilac Lane/S-04-41 May 26, 2004 Town boundaries, they still constitute the neighborhood. Please refer to the applicant's letter of justification
attached as Exhibit D. Architectural Peer Review The Town's Consulting Architect reviewed the proposal and the applicant has incorporated the suggested changes into the plans. Please
refer to Exhibit E. B. RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered this matter on May 11, 2004. If the Commission finds merit with the proposal, it should make
the required findings and considerations (Exhibit A) and approve the application subject to conditions (Exhibit B). If the Commission determines that changes are required to the plan,
the matter should be referred back to DRC for redesign or approve the project with additional conditions to address any issues of concern. Bud N. Lortz, o:ornmurrity Development
Director Prepared by: Jennifer Castillo,Planner BNL:JC:mdc cc: Deborah and Westley Leong, 16370 Lilac Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Wade Construction, 23930 Deerfield Rd., Los Gatos, CA
95033 ,.. _r. :-._....! _ r i! : : N:\DEV\Jennifer\PC\Lilac\Staff report.wpd ; ; i ; , , i ! (--;-01 r ! ; !
! : 'co __' Ii; 1 -ar·-. ---,--. i i . : . : ; ;RD f '6; !
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 16370 Lilac Lane Architecture and Site S-04-41 Requesting approval to construct a second story addition on property zoned R-1:8. APN 52313-027
PROPERTY OWNER: Debbie and Wesley Leong APPLICANT: Wade Construction FINDINGS -Theproject is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted
by the Town. CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS -As required by Section 29.20.150 ofthe Town Code for Architecture and Site applications: The deciding body shall consider all relevant
matter including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions
on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimensions ofvehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking
facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the circulation pattern within the boundaries of
development, and the surfacing, lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities. A. Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and
intersections shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following matters: 1. -The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate existing traffic; 2. Increased
traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied; and 3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one (1) year after occupancy. B. The deciding
body shall review the application for traffic roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1) of the following determinations: Exhibit A
I. The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities. 2. The project will impact a roadway(s)
and/or intersection(s) causing the roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available capacities. Any project receiving Town determination subsection (l)b.l. may proceed. Any
project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.2. must be modified or denied if the deciding body that the impact is unacceptable. In determining the acceptability
of a traffic impact, the deciding body shall consider if the project's benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections from the general plan
and any applicable specific plan. (2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs
and structures in relation to the creation oftraffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with with adj acent development. Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to distinguish
special areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard. (3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls, fences, hedges
and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal storage areas, utility installations,parking lots or unsightly development; the planting of ground cover
or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use ofplanter boxes with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere
to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director ofParks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special criteria, including
climatic conditions, maintenance, yearround versus seasonal color change (blossom, summer foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations. (4) Considerations
Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location ofbuildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character ofthe neighborhood;
and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development. Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g. downtown, Los Gatos Boulevard, etc.).
Buildings should maximize preservation of solar access. In the downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new parking facilities shall be encouraged,
and shall include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems. (5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design ofbuildings and structures. The effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings
and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and
site approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be.encouraged in scale, massing, materials, color, texture, reflectivity, openings and other details. (7) Considerations relating to
lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town. Street furniture and equipment, such
as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire hydrants, street signs, telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters, drinking fountains, planters, kiosks, flag poles and other
elements of the street environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image. (8) Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons.
The adequacy of the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons. Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total
valuation of alterations, structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution ofthe Town Council, shall require the building to be mpdified to meet the
accessibility requirements of title 24 ofthe California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility. In addition to retail, personal services and 'health care services are not
allowable uses on nonaccessible floors in new 'nonresidential buildings. Anychange of use to retail, health care, or ,personal service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential building
shall require that floor to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility requirements of title 24 ofthe California Administrative Code and shall not qualify
the building building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements. This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of this
chapter. All new residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution. (9) Considerations
relating to the location ofa hazardous waste managementfacility. A hazardous waste facility shall not belocatecl closer than five hundred (500) feet to any residentially zoned or used
property or any property then being used as a public or private school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18). An application for such a facility will require an
environmental impact report, which may be focused through the initial study process.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR: \ 16370 Lilac Lane Architecture and Site S-04-41 Requesting approval to construct a second story addition on property zoned R-1: 8. APN 52313-027 PROPERTY
OWNER: Debbie and Wesley Leong APPLICANT: Wade Construction TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (Planning Division) 1. APPROVAL EXPIRATION. Zoning approval
will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the application has been vested. 2. APPROVAL. This application shall be completed
in accordance with all of the conditions ofapproval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans dated April 28, 2004. Any minor changes or modifications made to the approved
plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 3. EXTERIOR MATERIALS. All exterior materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the existing residence.
'\ TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS: (Engineering Division) 4. 5. 6. 7. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job· related
dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing ofgoods and materials on the sidewalk and!or the street will not
be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way
according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way will require
a Construction
Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at
least twenty-four (24) hours before starting an work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result
in rejection ow work that went on without inspection. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer
qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: Exhibit B
1. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations 2. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 8. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb
drains will be allowed. 9. NO:t-rPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PREVENTION. On-site drainage systems shall include a fIltration device such as a bio-swale. 10. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
It is the responsibility of contractQr and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way. is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other constructiondebns
SHALLNOT be washed into the Town's storm drains . 11. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. 12. RESTORATION
OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements
such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways,signs, pavements, raised pavement inarkers,thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a
condition equal to or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall
comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions. 13. AS-BUILT PLANS. After completion of the construction of all work, the original plans shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearly marked. The"as-built"
plans shall again be signed and "wet-stamped" by the civil engineer who prepared the plans, attesting to the changes. The original "as-built" shall be review and approved the
Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and AutoCAD disk ofthe approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to the Town before the Faithful Performance Security or Occupancy Permit is released.
The AutoCAD file shall include oniy the following information and shall conform to the layer naming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVEWAY;
c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL; d) Swimming Pool, Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Terinis Court, 'Layer: TENNIS-COURT; f) Property Line, Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer:
NEWCONTOUR. All as-built digital files must be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network arid shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 14. SANITARY
SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitatio sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line. 15. CONSTRUCTIONNOISE. Between the hours of8:00 a.m.
to 8:00p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration orrepair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece ofequipment shall produce anoise
level exceeding eighty-five (85) dHA at twenty-five (25) feet. Ifthe device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five
(25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed n District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used
or reused. Install a eighty-five (85) dBA.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Building Division) , 16. PERMITS REQUIRED: Abuilding permit shall be required for an addition to a single family residence.
A separate building permit is required for site retaining walls; separate electrical/mechanical/plumbing permits shall be required as necessary. 17. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions
ofApproval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. 18. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 19. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS:
A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify
compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report; and, the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved
plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor
elevation c. Foundation corner locations 20. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-1R and MF-1Rmust be blue-lined on the plans. 21. SOILS REPORT:
A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with:. ' the building
permit application (2 "wet" stamped and signed copies). This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 22. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special
inspection is required byUBC Section 1701, theo.. architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted'" to the Building Official for approval
prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely lIned-out, signed by all requested parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans.
Special Inspection forms are available froD;l the Building Division Service Counter. 23. NONPOINT SOURCEPOLLUTIONSTANDARDS: TheTown standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program shall be part ofthe plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter. 24. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project
requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: d. Community Development: Jennifer Castillo at 354-6807 e. Engineering Department: Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
f. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 g. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 h. Local School District: (Contact theTown Building Service Counter for the appropriate
school district and to obtain the school form.) N:\DEWennifer\PC\Lilac\Lilac Conditionso\vpd
Zoning district Land use General Plan Designation Lot size (sq. ft.) Exterior materials: • siding • trim • windows • roofing Building floor area: • first floor • second floor • garage
EXISTING CONDITIONS· PROPOSED PROJECT single family residence \ ( : ". ' .. /> .... '.. <',.':-, .. REQUIREDI PERMITTED minimum ,. .,: < .. • cellar • basement • accessory
buildings Setbacks (ft.): • front • ·rear \ i\..\ C,,--f?(;).5 j minimum minimum • side &D ( dol) i minimum • side street Average slope (%) ------I \../o minimum Maximum height
(ft.) Building coverage (%) Floor Area Ratio (%) • house • garage Parking Tree Removals Sewer or septic N:IDEV\JudieITemplalesISFRdala-R-I-8.wpd cf 3D /maximum 40% maximum sq. ft. maximum
sq. ft. maximum two spaces minimum 3:1 replacement/15-gal. Exhibit C
Wesley and Deborah Leong 16370 Lilac Lane' Los Gatos, CA 95032 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission: January 12,2004 T01,VN OF LOS GATOS . !r.'JTV r,,::-lv.r:/
-.r I ..Jot-£.-i-.L./: We are writing this letter to you in regards to o:ur plans to remodel our house at 16370
Lilac Lane. When we first purchased the house it was large enough for the two of us, It has three bedrooms and is approximately 1700 square feet. Since then we have become a family of
five with two sons and a dailghter, We are literally bursting at the seams in our house. We chose Los Gatos due to its schools, quality of life, amenities and its friendly neighborhood
feel. Our children attend Blossom Hill Elementary School and most of their friends are in the area. Debbie spends quite a bit of time volunteering at the school and has gotten to know
many of the families and staff. Because of these factors, we are firmly entrenched in in the town and do not wish to move out of the area. With housing prices being what they are, we
decided the best solution for our family was to remodel our home. Since making that decision we have been working with Jack Wade on different options for enlarging our house. Expanding
forward would leave little front yard for our children to play in and place the house too close to the Camphor tree that highlights the yard. Our backyard is quite shallow so building
back was not a viable option. The addition of a good neighbor second story seems to address our family's needs the best and be the least imposing option on our neighbors. We have shown
both our neighbors preliminary sketches of the remodel and both families do not have any reservations to our building a second story. If you would like to contact them, we would be happy
to furnish their names to the commission. We also took into consideration the neighborhood. It is our observation that manyof the remodels in our area, particularly ongoing and recently
built projects, incorporate a second story. Clearly, Blossom Manor is a community in transition, . As you probably know much of the area known as Blossom Manor falls outside the town
limits of Los Gatos. We do not feel we are a community apart from our neighbors. The three houses on Lilac Lane that are in the Town of Los Gatos are all single story but there are three
two storied houses within a five house radius of us. Adding a second story on our house would not set a precedent for the rest of the street. In addition, there are two homes behind
us on Cherrystone Drive that have second stories and fall within the town limits of Los Gatos. We have worked within the rest of the guidelines. The plans would be within the setback
and the square footage limits put forth by the town and be the least disruptive to our neighbors. We would also be removing two wood burning fireplaces and adding a gas fireplace instead.
Weare hoping this letter and Mr. Wade's drawings convinces you that we have come up with a plan consistent with the vision of both our neighborhood and the town of Los Gatos. . Thank
you very much for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, 1iJrrr Wesley and Deborah Leong Exhibit D
March 15, 2004 Ms. Jennifer Castillo Community Development Department Town ofLos Gatos '110 E. Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 16370 Lilac Lane Dear Jennifer: I visited
the site and reviewed the drawings submitted. Generally, the design looks acceptable. Homes in the neighborhood are simple in form and similar to the existing house on this site. There
are a few other two story houses in the areas -most are also fairly simple in their design approach. I do have a few recommendations to simplify and improve the design balance of the
elevations. They are as follow: 1. Modify the roof form over the second floor Study/Office from a hip toa gable. This will relate the second floor better to the major first floor elements.
2. Increase the size of the shelf brackets under the window shelves. 3. Add a low wall to link the two major projeCting elements in the front of the house. 4. Simplify the second floor
windows on the rear elevation. Exhibit E
16370 Lilac Lane Design Review Comments March 15, 2004 Page 2 ...............t .. ............... ·ILi/lr.garsuppori link
masstifi Recommended ji-ont elevation changes Recommended rear elevation changes Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions or if there are other issues
which need to be addressed. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP President C.·\NNON DESIGN GRD'lJP 180 HARBORDRI'iI'R, SUITE 2l9. MUSA1lTO, CA94965
REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: EXHIBITS: REMARKS: Date: For Agenda Of: __ Agenda
Item: -----"5 _ DESK ITEM The Planning Commission The Director of Community Development 16370 Lilac Lane Minor Residential Development Application MR-04-25 Requesting approval to construct
a second story addition on property zoned R-1:8. APN 523-13-027 PROPERTY OWNER: Debbie and Wesley Leong APPLICANT: Wade Construction A-F. Previously Submitted G. Revised Conditions ofApproval
II /The Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B) of the original report were not correct. The revised , Conditions ofApproval (Exhibit G) contain additional conditions from the Parks and Public
Department. '" Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner BNL:SD:cb N:\DEV\REPORTS\16370lilac.dsk.wpd ATTACHMENT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION -MAY 26,2004 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR: 16370 Lilac Lane Architecture and Site S-04-41 Requesting approval to construct a second story addition on property zoned
R-l :8. APN 52313-027 PROPERTY OWNER: Debbie and Wesley Leong APPLICANT: Wade Construction . TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL
EXPIRATION. Zoning approval will expire two years fi'om the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 ofthe Town Code, unless the application has been vested. 2. APPROVAL. This application
shall be completed in accordance with all ofthe conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans dated April 28, 2004. Any minor changes or modifications
made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 3. EXTERIOR MATERIALS. All exterior materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with
the existing residence. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORIZS: Engineering Division 4. SIDEWALK IN-LIEU FEE. A sidewalk in-lieu fee of$3,420 shall be paid prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This fee is based on 76-feet of 4.5-foot wide sidewalk at $10/LF in accordance with Town policy. 5. GENERAL. All public improvements shall
be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall COnfOlTIl to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way
shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and matelials on
the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special pennit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working homs. Failure
to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 6. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work
in the public right-of-way will require a ConstructionEncroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 7. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his
representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-fom (24) hours before starting an work peliaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work
in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection ow work that went on without inspection. EXHIBIT G
8. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) 'pounds shall be allowed on the portion of a street which
abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§ 15.40.070). 9. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. 10. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way
is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm drains. 11. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines lmderground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground.
Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. 12. RESTORATION OFPUBLIC OFPUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair orreplace all existing improvements not
designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. hnprovements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements,
raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be
repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall COmply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through
with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify exjsting conditions. 13. SANlTARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before tItey ¥e used or reused. Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line. 14. CONSTRUCTIONNOISE.
Between the hours of8:00 a.m;. to 8:00p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece
ofequipment shall prOduce anoise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. .Ifthe device is located astructure on the property, the measurement shall
be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
. N:IDEVVennirerlPOLilaclLilac Condi'ions.wpd
/.............. I """" I ! ///////--./_-.. ! "" I//"---_.J . /Attachment 7 -'") __---J I ) I ::::; \ Janta cldra Courjty ro II I I \ I I I cq \ rwn of..c, res GarS
roo 0' '-..... l I I 964 Cherrystone Drive SF: 1,850 FAR: .18 16258 Lilac Lane SF: 1,686 FAR: .21 965 Cherrystone Dr. SF: 1,772 FAR: .22 16267 Lilac Lane SF: 1,638 FAR: .20 16274
Lilac Lane SF: 2,107 FAR: .26 955 Cherrystone Dr. SF: 1,735 FAR:.21 Neig.hborhood Analysis Map 16370 Lilac Lane ._--_..../16283 Lilac Lane SF: 1,872 FAR: .23 16290 Lilac Lane SF: 1,598
FAR: .20 /949 Cherrystone Dr. SF: 1,735 FAR: .21 948 Cherrystone Drive SF: 1,730 FAR: .17 ; I..--.._-i Ir-----............... -. /----.---.--.--.J II 945 Cherrystone Dr. SF: 2,112 FAR:
.26 16315 Lilac Lane 16299 Lilac Lane SF: 1,559 SF: 2,695 FAR: .19 FAR: .33 944 Cherrrystone Drive SF: 1,647 FAR: .16 940 Chenystone Drive SF: 2,193 FAR: .21 . \ 939 Cherrystone Dr.
SF: 1,735 FAR: .21 16331 Lilac Lane SF: 1,309 FAR: .16 935 Cherrystone Dr. SF: 1,532 FAR:.19 928 Cherrystone Drive SF: 1,850 FAR: .18 932 Cherrystone Drive SF: 2,010 FAR: .17 I /16354
Lilac Lane 16338 Lilac Lane SF: 1,521 SF: 1,810 FAR: .19 FAR: .23 929 Cherrystone Dr. SF: 1,735 FAR:.21 \ 16363 Lilac Lane \ 16347 Lilac Lane SF: 1,616 \ SF: 1,336 FAR: .20 FAR: .16
924 Cherrystone Drive SF: 1,642 FAR: .16 925 Cherrystone Dr. SF: 1,638 FAR: .20 16383 Lilac Lane SF: 1,646 FAR: .16 16380 Oleander Avenue SF: 1,733 FAR: .16 15930 Orange Blossom Lane
SF: 1,284 FAR: .16 C --l E'---l o(f) (f) o -OJ Q) Q) CC'O I.-o 912 Chenystone Drive SF: 1,772 FAR: .16 908 Cherrystone Drive SF: 1,930 FAR: .17 15919 Orange Blossom Lane SF: 1,585 FAR:
.20 108 Cheny Blossom Lane SF: 1,674 FAR: .21 ;------.r--__ "---1 ) Oleander Ave. ----------_. 116 Cherry Blossomj VACANT LOT Lane SF: 1,655 FAR: .20 N Count)' Line '., Two Story Homes
• Square footage and lot size information obtained from Metro Scan. ----_.-...........") ••__M _ --.-._-. 15965 Orange Blossom Lane SF: 1,733 ,./FAR: .17 ,"///,//V 16400 Lilac Lane
SF: 1,488 i----........... FAR: .12 --
Proposed Renovation Prcjeet 16370 Lilac Lane Los Gatos) Ca 95032 & Deborah Leong 8 . 1!-\l"h:VI -1\
June 7, 2004 Members of the Town Council of Los Gatos: Enclosed is additional information and photos which we hope you will find helpful when making your decision on our remodel plan
for 16370 Lilac Lane located in the Blossom Manor Neighborhood. -'Copies of letters sent to the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and the Appeal to the Town Council -'County
map of the Blossom Manor Neighborhood with 2 story homes highlighted -'Photos of 2 story homes within the neighborhood -'Photos of existing structure -'Photos of views from the rooftop
of our home -'Petition signed by residents of the Blossom Manor Neighborhood who support our bid for a second story addition To summarize our appeal: -Blossom Manor is a mixture of both
homes in the town and in the county of Santa Clara. Walking the neighborhood you would see a blend of of both single story and 2 story homes. We feel our project would blend in well
with the neighborhood. -Due to the soaring home prices in the area, moving is not an option for our family, optimizing the space we have is imperative. Clearly, Blossom Hill Manor is
in transition as families like ours choose to renovate instead of move. -Aside from this fact, and more importantly, we love this neighborhood. We have made lifelong friendships in the
Manor, as have our children, and are very involved at Blossom Hill Elementary School as well as several Los Gatos organizations. -Currently our children share one bedroom and use the
other for a playroom and study. A second story would add an additional bedroom, bathroom and small common area without sacrificing our front and limited backyard space. -The addition
of a good neighbor 2nd story we feel is the least intrusive on our neighbors and yet provides our family with much needed space. We feel our plans are quite modest for today's Los Gatos
home and would improve and enhance the value of of our home and that of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Clarifications: -The original planning report states that our renovated
home would be the largest in the neighborhood. If you review the table of square footage you will see that the 2 homes almost directly behind us on Cherrystone (within the town limits
are 2500-2600 square feet. Also the home on Orange Blossom (4 houses away from ours) currently being renovated will be 2640 square feet when finished. Four out of the seven homes next
to us are a minimum of 2000 square feet. -It appears as though the town has defined the 5 houses within the town limits on our block as our neighborhood. There are no geographical, physical,
functional or architectural boundaries that separate us from the rest of the Blossom Manor neighborhood. One would be hard pressed to single out homes in the county versus town. In every
other sense our neighborhood extends much farther than the 5 houses. These few houses were at one time part of the unincorporated Manor before being annexed into the town. Thank you
very much for your time and attention to our case. Your efforts and dedication to our town is both acknowledged and and greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Wesley and Debbie Leong
Members of the Los Gatos Town Council: We are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission with regards to the second story addition at 16370 Lilac Lane in the Blossom Manor Neighborhood.
After a deadlocked vote, the Planning Commission denied our application so that we could appeal this policy matter to the Town council. We understand that our plans to add a second story
to our house placed the Commission in a difficult situation. From our viewpoint it seemed as though the commission struggled with the interpretation of the general plan and with what
they felt the Manor should look like. We are hoping the members of the Town Council will weigh all of the information arid decide on a direction that will accommodate both the general
plan of the town and the residents of the Blossom Manor Neighborhood. The Manor clearly illustrates the diversity within neighborhoods that are a mix of Town and County properties. Originally
built in the 1950' s as small ranch homes, theManor has been steadily renovated to become a blend of both single and two story homes. Only 5 houses on Lilac Lane are currently within
town limits. Our street actually begins as Orange Blossom and turns into Lilac Lane (a 90 degree bend). On Orange Blossom 3 homes out of 6 (50%) are two story structures. All are a minimum
of 2000 square feet, with one being 2640 square feet. A minimum . of 8 houses (53%) on our side of the street are at least 2000+ square feet due to minor renovation projects. As you
proceed down our side of Lilac Lane, the fourth house down from ours is a two story and across the street there is 1 home with a 2-story profile that is approximately 2800 square feet.
Though our house would be the first of the 5 within town limits on Lilac to have a second story it would by no means set a precedent for our street or for our neighborhood. Cherrystone
Street directly behind us is within town limits and has 2 two-story homes of which both are 2500+ square feet and are directly adjacent to us. Beyond these two homes, Cherrystone has
has 15 homes which are 2 story representing approximately 40% of
the homes on the block. Within a I-block radius of our home, there are 12 twostory homes of which 6 are in the county and 6 are in the Town of Los Gatos. This represents 22% of the homes
within the radius. The Planning Commission would like to limit the definition of our Neighborhood to the five single story houses on our side of Lilac Lane. This is an arbitrary decision.
There are no geographical, architectural or functional boundary lines dividing these five houses from the rest of the street or the streets adjoining us. All of the houses are single-family
homes, built around the same time, on a contiguous level street. The argument of "mass and scale" would not be applicable if more than five houses were used to define" our neighborhood".
Fifty years ago the makeup of the residents of the Manor and for that matter Los Gatos, was far different than today' s family. These are no longer considered "starter" homes. The value
of the land and the prices of the homes have skyrocketed. Families must now optimize optimize the space they have and for many of us that means adding a second story. We feel this is
an opportunity for Los Gatos to help reach a happy medium. Our architect has come up with a design that meets our family's needs and maintains the feel and character of Los Gatos. The
Town's own architect, Larry Canon, felt "the design was acceptable" as did members of the Planning Commission. We tried very hard to create a home that is the least intrusive to our
neighbors. Perhaps our home on Lilac can be a model for homes in the Manor, a house that provides enough space for today's family but still fits in . with the character of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Wesley and Deborah Leong
January 12,2004 Wesley and Deborah Leong 16370 Lilac Lane Los Gatos, CA 95032 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission: We are writing this letter to you in regards to our plans to remodel
our house at 16370 Lilac Lane. When we first purchased the house it was large enough for the two of us. It has three bedrooms and is approximately 1700 square feet. Since then we have
become a family of five with two sons and a daughter. We are literally bursting at the seams in our house. We chose Los Gatos due to its schools, quality of life, amenities and its friendly
neighborhood feel. Our children attend Blossom Hill Elementary School and most of their friends are in the area. Debbie spends quite a bit of time
volunteering at the school and has gotten to know many of the families and staff. Because of these factors, we are firmly entrenched in the town and do not wish to move out of the area.
With housing prices being what they are, we decided the best solution for our family was to remodel our home. Since making that decision we have been working with Jack Wade on different
options for enlarging our house. Expanding forward would leave little front yard for our children to play in and place the house too close to the Camphor tree that highlights the yard.
Our backyard is quite shallow so building back was not a viable option. The addition of a good neighbor second story seems to address our family's needs the best and be the least imposing
option on our neighbors. We have shown both our neighbors preliminary sketches of the remodel and both families do not have any reservations to our building a second story. If you would
like to contact them, we would be happy to furnish their names to the commission. We also took into consideration the neighborhood. It is our observation that many of the remodels in
our area, particularly ongoing and recently built projects, incorporate a second story. Clearly, Blossom Manor is a community in transition, As you probably know much of the area known
as Blossom Manor falls outside the town town limits of Los Gatos. We do not feel we are a community apart from our neighbors. The three houses on Lilac Lane that are in the Town of Los
Gatos are all single story but there are three two storied houses within a five house radius of us. Adding a second story on our house would not set a precedent for the rest of the street.
In addition, there are two homes behind us on Cherrystone Drive that have second stories and fall within the town limits of Los Gatos. We have worked within the rest of the guidelines.
The plans would be within the setback and the square footage limits put forth by the town and be the least disruptive to our neighbors. We would also be removing two wood burning fireplaces
and adding a gas fireplace instead. Weare hoping this letter and Mr. Wade's drawings convinces you that we have come up with a plan consistent with the vision of both our neighborhood
and the town of Los Gatos. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Wesley and Deborah Leong
\ pi \ -'-\. :'!"f .r" \\ :. \ ' \\\\.\ \ J I ) f wzo ;::t; a>:: a:: wJ: o10' :5SH I g =,I 80 \\ I \1 I 10 :;4 ,,, ! ::----4l7!; I 418 ·t' I II31 « 10 1-::i I" I I <!.
I 0 ---l-4 d 2 T 7 !H9 ,$$ '" R.O,S 35 34 33 g. i'l. az "' ... y '" <t I ... 6.59 6> 7.6 /6J06 IG....9(J 00 80 30 gJ :2Q.
;li $ 414 415 4'3 416 00+ SQ 36 §. 'S6 21 g; 1 38 37 BLOSSOM ---.-- ----'\--MAP OF BLOSSOM MANOR NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSED PROJECT HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE 2 STORY HOMES-HIGHLIGHTED
IN YELLOW 2 STORY PROFILE wi PLANS TO GO UP-HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE
ORANGE BLOSSOM 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 15965 LILAC LANE 15949 15933 15919 15905 16354 LILAC LANE 16370 PROPOSED PROJECT 2 STORY 16386 16400 16290 16306 16322 16338 PHOTOS OF HOUSES ON
THE SAME CONTIGOUS STREET AS PROJECT
15949 ORANGE BLOSSOM-3 HOUSES AWAY FROM PROJECT 16306 LILAC LANE-4 HOUSES AWAY FROM PROJECT 15933 ORANGE BLOSSOM-4 HOUSES AWAY FROM PROJECT 15905 ORANGE BLOSSOM-5 HOUSES AWAY FROM PROJECT
2 STORY HOMES ON ORANGE BLOSSOM AND LILAC LANES
16267 LILAC LANE RECENT REMODEL: 1 STORY 16299 LILAC LANE 2 STORY PROFILE wi 2ND STORY PLANS 16210 LILAC LANE 2 STORY 16200 LILAC LANE 2 STORY 16251 LILAC LANE
FRONT VIEW -16370 LILAC LANE BACKYARD VIEW -16370 LILAC LANE VIEW FROM BACK FENCE SHARED WITH 925 CHERRYSTONE ! REAR VIEW -16370 LILAC LANE
VIEW FROM ROOFTOP -BACK NEIGHBOR 925 CHERRYSTONE VIEW FROM ROOFTOP -BACK NEIGHBOR 925 CHERRYSTONE VIEW FROM ROOFTOP -BACK NEIGHBOR 929 CHERRYSTONE
May 20, 2004 Town ofLos Gatos Planning Commission: This letter is in support ofthe Leong family who reside at 1637° Lilac Lane. We have reviewed their plans to remodel their home and
would like to lend our support to their bid to renovate. Wewholeheartedly agree with the following points: There are several 2 nd story homes in the neighborhood and therefore their
remodel would not set a precedent for the neighborhood. The Manor is clearly a neighborhood in transition. With the housing prices being what they are in the Valley, we foresee more
ofour neighbors looking towards renovating instead ofmoving, as a means to update their hOlTIes. After viewing their plans, we feel the remodel would be totally consistent with the
look and feel ofthe neighborhood. It is a partial second story providing the best of all possibilities, additional space for their family and the least imposition to surrounding neighbors.
Their addition would serve to enhance both the look and value of homes, including ours, in the Blossom Manor Neighborhood. Wesupport their bid to renovate their home. Thankyou
very lTIuch for your time and consideration.
April 15/2004 Planning Commission of Los Gatos: We have had the opportunity to view the renovation plans for the Leong family home on 16370 Lilac Lane. We support their plans to remodel
their home. Thank you. , /.:.. §-; <" ./I ' L) v C L7. C'A/c;(ji..J/L ,.'-:3" .,.... l)(i;-V( I I ( ( Address i r-.::2 .--, \ .\ \ \.0 -)
'-.\ U"C· I .., 1'/"1 ,,:)0:; / :5. /l' , . D{tl<--Dc-J Name f' C.
April 15/2004 Planning Commission of Los Gatos: We have had the opportunity to view the renovation plans for the Leong family home on 16370 Lilac Lane. We support their plans to remodel
their home. Thankyou. Name \".\ J \ uAddress
vVe have had the opportunity to view the renovation plans for the Leong home on 16370 Lilac Lane and demonstrate our support through the signing ofthis petition. Thankyou.
Q __
V,.,Te have had the opportunity to view the renovation plans for the Leong home on 16370 Lilac Lane and demonstrate our support through the signing ofthis petition. Thank you. Address
162\0 LN
..'1."--,, (FQ''''''''' .land UdE J:Uue I 10.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT iO.1 iNTRODUCTiON This' Community Design Element brings together the physical elements and design features
of Los Gatos thereby establishing a strong sense of place and local identity. The unique characteristics that define the Town are protected and encouraged in this element. Residential,
commercial and industrial design as well as landscaping, streetscape, focal points, boundaries and vistas are addressed. Historic buildings and structures tell the story of the Town's
past. Therefore, Historic Preservation is a significant aspect of the Community Design Element. 10.2 GOALS, POLICIES, IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES ISSUE: 1 Town residents seek high quality
design and construction in residential, commercial and industrial properties. CD.G.1.1 To preserve and enhance the Town's character through exceptional community design . General Policies:
CD.P.1.1 Promote and protect the physical and other distinctive qualities of residential neighborhoods. CD.P.1.2 Promote, enhance and protect the functionality and appearance ofthe Town's
commercial areas. CD.P.1.3 Encourage the preservation of the appearance and function of the industrial areas and the visible labor and products of labor that are evident.there. CD.P.1.4
Promote and protectviewsheds. CD.P.1.5Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density. CD.P.1.6 Establish community design guidelines that promote and protect the natural amenities in the
Town. CD.P.1.7 New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the
area. CD.P.1.8 Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood. CD.P.1.9 Building, landscape and hardscape materials shall be used that will reinforce
the sense of unity of a neighborhood and blend with the natural setting. ATTACHMENT 9 Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page CD-1
CO.P,1.10 Buildings, landscapes and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property. CO.P.1,11 New structures or remodels that will affect existing scenic views of neighbors
shall be designed so that all affected properties have equitable access to views. CO.P,1.12 New construction and remodels shall be encouraged to use energyand resource-efficient and
ecologically sound designs, technologies and building materials, as well as recycled materials to promote sustainabillty, (See Energy and Recycling sections of the Conservation Element)
CO.P.1 .13 Encourage the under grounding of utilities on new construction and substantial remodels. Detail Policies: CO.P.1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of lighting. CO.P.1.15 Utility
connections and meters shall be located as to be visually unobtrusive from the street. CO.P.1.16 Roofmounted mechanical--equipment"shall be screened and such screening shall be considered
as part of the structure for height limitations. CO.P.1.17 Landscaping and hardscaping shall harmonize with the existing neighborhood while meeting water conservation requirements. CO.P.1.18
Hardscape and formal landscape areas in hillsides shall be minimized. CO.P.1.19 Solid fencing over 3 feet high shall be designed to not isolate the structures from the street or shall
be set back and landscaped. CO.P.1.20 Multiple family residential developments shall include common open space suitable for group gathering, CD.P.1.21 All residential developments shall
include privately owned open space in proportion to the building size. CO.P.1.22 Minimize the number of driveway openings, or curb cuts, in new development. Los Gatos General Plan July,
2000 Page CO-2
CO.P.1.23 . Review properties next to community entry points when they are developed or redeveloped to reflect the gateway concept. CO.P .1.24 Plan street improvements such as curb cuts,
sidewalks, bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles, benches and trash containers as an integral part of a project to ensure safe movement of people and vehicles with the least possible
disruption to the streetscape. CO.P.1.25 Provide for safe pedestrian circulation in parking lots without unnecessarily eliminating parking spaces. . . CO.P.1.26 Promote visual continuity
through tree planting, consistent use of low shrubs and ground cover. CO.P.1.27 Encourage the use of landscaping (such as trees, large shrubs, trellised vines) to mitigate the effects
of building mass, lower noise and reduce heat generation. Implementing Strategies: CD.1.1.1 Design Review: Design standards shall be considered for every project. These standards shall
be periodically reviewed and updated. Staff reports shall include a design review that refers to but is not limited to the following: A. Building architecture (in keeping with the surrounding
neighborhood) B. Utilities C. LaIJdscaping D. Streets and sidewalks E. Signing F. Lighting G. Historical significance H. Disabled accessibility I. Siting I Orientation J. Materials and
color K. Functionality L. Energy efficiency Time Frame: . Responsible Party: Planning CD.1.1.2 Periodically inspect all commercial landscaping to ensure that approved
landscaping is maintained. Time Frame: On-going Responsible Party: Parks CD .1.1.3 Require careful review of all landscaping to insure that it is .aesthetically pleasing, lush and full,
compatible with its neighborhood and natural environment, and water conserving. Time Frame: On-going Responsible Party: Parks CD.I.1.4 Adopt design guidelines for landscaping; including
hardscape. Time Frame: 2001 -2002 Responsible Party: Parks Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page CD-3
.:. CD.1.1.5 An education and outreach program shall be used to inform neighborhoods, realtors, developers, architects, and designers about the
Town's design gUidelines and stahdards, including providing the relevant guidelines and standards as part of project application packages. Time Frarne: On-going Responsible Party: Planning
CD.1.1.6 Native plant species. Landscaping plans shall maximize the use of native and/or drought resistant plant materials. Time Frame: On-going Responsible Party: Parks CD.1.1.7 Trees.
Landscaping plans should maximize the use of trees for climate control, screening, shading (esp. parking lots) and aesthetics. Time Frame: On-going Responsible Party: Parks CD.1.1.8
Tree species. Encourage mixtures of tree species, both deciduous and evergreen, to screen projects, to add variety, to create a more ... nafuralenvir6rirrieri'fc:in'a to avoid future
probfems"of irisecfinfestation or other blights that might destroy the desired tree cover. Time Frame: On-going Responsible Party: Parks CD.1.1.9 Maintenance contracts. A five-year maintenance
contract to protect newly planted and existing trees shall be required as a condition of approval for all development applications except single family dwellings. Time Frame: On-going
Responsible Party: Parks CD.1.1.10 Consider amending Zoning Ordinance regarding fences adjacent to streets. Time Frame: 2002 -2003 Responsible Party: Planning Los Gatos General Plan
JUly, 2000 Page CO-4
TOWN OF LOS GATOS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN ALL ZONES EXCEPT THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ZONES INTENT
These development standards shall be used in conjtillction with the AJ:chitecture and Site Approval process as set forth in Section 29.20.140 et seq of the Town Code. The standards are
designed to compliment the regulations established in Article IV, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 4, Chapter 29 and Section 29.40.750 and 29.20.150 of the Town Code. The standards shall be used
by the Planning Commissionwhen considering applications for Architecture and Site Approval. The standards shall also be used by the Planning Director when reviewing plans to add a new
second story, second story additions exceeding 100 sq. ft. or the demolition of a portion of a building with a nonconforming setback, demolitions, replacement structures, and significant
remodels. OBJECTIVES To establish standards for use by the Planning Commission, Town Council, Planning Director and property owners that provide for the health, safety, welfare and environmental
quality ofresidential neighborhoods. To provide property owners with specific standards that may be used by architects and engineers to prepare plans .for consideration by the Town.
To preserve and protect the architectural heritage and streetscapes ofthe Town. To ensure provision of light and air to the inhabitants of all single family and two family dwellings
and provide a reasonable level of compatibility in the scale of structures. mSTORIC DESIGNATIONS Any project affecting a residence that is historically designated or is located in ahistoric
district must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee prior to Planning Commission consideration if review is required by the designating ordinance. The project shall be reviewed
for compliance with Article VIII, Division 3, Chapter 29 of the Town Code, the historic designation or historic district OTdinance and these standards. Adopted by resolution 1989-55,
55, Town Council 4/24/89 Amended by resolution 1991-118 Amended by resolution 1998-7, Town Council 1/20/981 ATTACHMENT 10
If a structure is considered to be a contributor to a historic district, any additions shall be appropriately plmmed so as to not adversely affect the architectural design or historic
integrity ofthe structure. CONDITION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE When an existing residence is proposed to be demolished, the condition ofthe structure will be taken into consideration. Town
records will be used to determine the condition ofthe structure whenever possible. In addition, a detailed rep01t shall be prepared by an architect, registered structural engineer, or
registered civil engineer under contract with the Town at the applicant's expense. The repOlt shall address all aspects of the structures physical condition (e.g., fOlmdation, plumbing,
electrical, etc.). DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I. SITE DEVELOPMENT A. GENERAL (1) The Planning Commission/Planning Director shall assess the project's overall effect and compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood. Does the size, height, style or color conflict with other structures in the neighborhood? The appearance of the residence should blend with the character
of the neighborhood and conform with the existing streetscape. (2) The design will be evaluated for its contribution to the Town's unique character and to the Town's beauty and opem1ess,
and on its suitability for its location. Stock building plans may not be acceptable, due to the lot configuration and topography. (3) Residential structures that have historic value
by virtue of architectural character and historic association shall be protected. For example, the design ofthe project must have respect for the style ofthe historic structure and the
surrounding neighborhood, especially its relationship to the pattern of existing development (streetscape). (4) The project should not impair -directly or by the possible total effect
of several new residences -the use, enjoyment, and value ofneighboring public and private property. (5) The location of driveways and parking areas shall be designed to avoid impacts
on adjacent properties and the natural environment. (6) The design ofthe proposed residence or addition should complement the site. For example, are interior spaces oriented to take
advantage ofoutward views, and are there usable outdoor play areas for children? Are natural topography and trees retained? 2
(7) . The design of a proposed addition shall complement the existing residence. B. SITE PLANNING (l) Site Design: Aproject should be designed to fit a site's natural conditions, rather
than alter the site to accommodate a stock building plan. Existing topography should be preserved. The Townwill consider proposals tomalce rninormodification to existing topography where
it contributes to good appearance or, where necessary, to correct unacceptable construction conditions (grading, drainage, etc.). Natural grade and vegetation should be retained to the
maximum extent practicable. Excessive cuts and fills must be avoided. Unretained cuts or fills will not be allowed. The site layout should take into consideration the project's effect
on adjacent properties and neighborhoods (e.g., views, privacy, setbacks, etc.). For residential projects which require zoning approval, if a slope is greater than 10%, then the net
lot area shall be reduced according to the following standard: Average lot slope 10.01 -20% 20.01 --30% Over 30% Percent ornet site area to be deducted 10% plus 2% for each 1% of slope
over 10% 30% plus 3% for each 1% of slope over 20% 60% The net site area afterthis deduction is calculated shall be used to calculate the FAR for the site. A perspective drawing showing
the project, hillside, and adjacent homes is required. The perspective drawing shall demonstrate the scale, mass and fit of the house with the existing slope. (2) Solar Orientation:
The project shall be designed to the maximum extent possible, for passive or natural heating and/or cooling. One example of passive or natural heating opportunities in the project design
is the design and orientation ofa residence in an east/west alignment for southern exposure. Another example is to design and orient the structure to take advantage of shade or prevailing
breezes. Existing trees should not be removed solely to provide solar access. (3) Shadow Effect: All applications shall, in addition to other required materials, provide a plan showing
all structures and other important features on adj acent properties and the winter/summer shadow lines at 9:00 a.m., noon and 3:00 p.m. that will result from the proposed project. The
plan shall also indicate height and number of stories of the adj acent structures. 3
(4) Easement/Dedications: Project plans shall show all existing easements and required dedications. Structures shall not be located across and shall not project into any existing or
proposed easements. The Engineering Department should be contacted by. the project applicant to determine if new dedications and/or easements are required. II. BUILDING DESIGN A. HARMONY/COMPATIBILIT
Y The proposed project must have a harmonious and compatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. The factors which contribute to the relationship include, but are not limited
to, the following: (1) an appropriate design theme; (2) an appropriate sense of scale; . (3) a compatible roofline; (4) colors, exterior materials and details; (5) lot coverage/setbacks
which complement adjacent structures and uses. In order for the Planning Commission/Planning Director to fully analyze factors 1) thl'Ough 3), all applications shall be accompanied by
a streetscape of the project vicinity both in elevation and plan view with the proposed structure superimposed. The plan view shall indicate the munber of stories and approximate height
ofthe surrounding structures. The streetscape shall include both sides of the street. All applications that require Planning Commission approval shall include photographs of the subject
site and neighboring properties on both sides of the street. Both the streetscape and the photographs shall include a sufficient number of homes to provide the Commission/Director with
a thorough impression of the neighborhood. Examples of items to be considered are: (l) the design of the elevation facing an adj acent structure as well as a public street; (2) accessory
structures, parking areas, decks, trash collection areas and other utilitarian areas should be located in a manner that is sensitive to adjacent structures; (3) compatibility of the
structure with the existing neighborhood. 4
B. SCALE AND MASS .Architectural features such as eave lines, roof forms, dormers, bays, chimneys, detailing, building facade articulation and footprint shall be effectively utilized
to maintain a scale consistent with neighboring structures. Large undifferentiated wall planes on the street elevation will not be allowed. (1) Second-Story Additions and Two-Story Dwellings.
TheTownhas identified a trend towards the development oftwo-story houses and second-story additions in the Los Gatos residential community. One of the unique traits ofLos Gatos is the
variety ofhouse sizes, shapes and designs especially in the R-l and R-l:D zones. 'Nbile there are many creative second-story designs, the Town is concerned that property owners and developers
are restricting their design alternatives to only second story. A continuation of this trend could jeopardize the character of our neighborhoods. To maintain a proportionate distribution
of single-story and two-story housing stock in Los Gatos, property owners and designers are encouraged to strongly consider single-story designs as viable development alternatives. If
a second-story design is chosen, the applicants shall be required to explain why a single-story design does not work. Many of our smaller houses on lots less than 5,000 square feet represent
the Town's affordable housing stock. Significant additions to these homes not only can overwhelm the site, it can diminish the affordability ofthe property without contributing positively
to the neighborhood streetscape. Second-story additions on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet may be inappropriate and may not be approved due to lot constraints, lack of open space
or on.,site parking, or due to mass and scale. Additionally, two-story designs that cast shadows on the yards of adjacent properties or infringe on a neighbor's privacy may not be approved.
(2) Demolitions, Replacement Structures, and Significant Remodels The Town is experiencing an increase in the number of applications for demolitions and large-scale remodels of existing
homes in many neighborhoods. In an effort to ensure that homes are not arbitrarily demolished and to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods, the Town has recently updated the
zoning regulations related to the process involved in demolitions. (See chapter 29 of the Town Code). Significfu"1.t remodeling of homes that will change the character of the neighborhood,
result in a dramatically altered streetscape, or bear no reflection on the original home will require extra scrutiny of design. 5
W11en a house is demolished pursuant to section 29.10.020 of the Town Code, the replacement structure shall be judged for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood based upon the
followitlg criteria: 1) Predominant architectural style of street/neighborhood 2) Lot size 3) Size of homes on the street on which the subject property is located 4) Neighborhood in
transition 5) Impact on site characteristics and surrounding homes, i.e., privacy, shadowing effect and existing vegetation C. EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS W11ere the exterior materials
are deemed to be an essential element of an existing home, the new materials should match those of the existing structure. Special consideration shall be given to the exterior materials
of historic structures to ensure that the proposed materials are characteristic ofthe architectural style and/or match those of the existing structure. All plans shall indicate the proposed
color scheme. Although the selection of exterior paint color(s) is a personal decision, the color(s) should be restrained --not harsh or garish --and should complement the streetscape.
D. BUILDING COMPONENTS Building components such as windows, doors, eaves and parapets should be arranged and detailed to create a united architectural composition appropriate to the
character ofthe neighborhood. E. ENERGY CONSERVATION A proj ect should be designed to minimize mechanical heating and cooling. Sunlight should be llsed for direct heating and illumination
whenever possible. Natural ventilation and shading should be used to cool the interior ofthe house. F. PRIVACY All new construction shall be designed to minimize views into the windows
of adjacent structures and outdoor recreation areas by carefully selecting the location of . windows or through the use of louvers or frosted glass. This design standard is not intended
to prohibit two-story structures. III. .LANDSCAPING/OPEN SPACE A. GENERAL Existing trees shall be preserved to the maximum extent po ssible in accordance with 6
Section 29:10.0965·ofthe Town Code. All proposed lands caping shall comply with the Town's Landscaping Policies for Applications for Zoning and Subdivision Approvals as set forth by
Resolution. B. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (1) General: Each one or two (2) bedroom dwelling shall provide a minimum of 500 square feet ofprivate open space. The open space shall be proportional
to the number ofbedrooms in the dwelling. For each additional bedroom in excess of tWo (2) bedrooms, the open space area shall be increased by 100 square feet. (Example: A four (4) bedroom
dwelling shall provide 700 square feet of open space area). The open space provided shall be exclusive of the required yard areas (except for the required rear yard). (2) Screening:
Screening of the patio and outdoor activity areas shall be reviewed for its compatibility with fencing and landscaping requirements. IV. MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS These development
standards are established as guidelines whichreflect current Townpolicy for community design. Inthe event a proj ect might be adversely affected by these standards, the applicant may
present a written request for modification through the ArchitectUre and Site Approval process. If the Planning Commission deems the requested modification worthy of favorable consideration,
the modification may be allowed provided that findings are made that such modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life of the proj
ect residents and of the surrounding neighborhood. If the modification is not allowed by the Planning Commission, the applicant may appeal to the Town Council. No modification ofthese
development standards may be considered without a public hearing. N:\DEV\STANDARDS\FrNAL Residential Dey Stnds. 7
:." '",;'t• t ... AI!.'v1IIat:aNe k-ilV· '.: .. . k: ....0. NO. TOWN OF LQS A PLANNING DI ISIC N 2:.....< :6
',j ' . f DF ..".....•..
.. . . IIi l-';' n AJ:,l::>SIf ! ! '--'1! ".: ... 1.'71-ul-.Jq-"Z (Zl) '-../:;;;-CAl
E. -\.'-_9>.," ..... .. ... . 6JE':'iR.A.u.) • %l.o. .. -" ----_.. ----& :C;=X.-\:'E.:R..LOS VVALL"1::lEM...c:>\-\
\(c\.,,) Ib-i-"",,-,",-·LT:. e<." w'<\LJ.,."S L.'
_ l-..le.-V .. -.. l-\-. ""C="'''''-'-1:..:(.. OF.'
. c"r \\ X I· I\. e,'-o" tl1 -J Q' () !,0(J fO iQ i
:!- , "'-:?'<<-c . . j _ ·I.1·
. l'-l:>'t' "FLoc:,'\R. . .. ---:- . -"""\bc-A.\..... I
:; I ., '.' ;:<,,$,;;;/";l I . ';- ;e,.1 X. . l!>l bJ;:><. ----J .. .
__ ... L( ."EL\'£. "h '£l:'J' :"!IZlJ.\'t S,,[1'>'
"';:.".:' X. .\ , (,,= \'-0' . .-.,......'"'....; ....;,........•;-': ...... .. "... .... .... . ,'.... -.·r,;"':.'::· .: .. •• .' "'''.;;
.,:••••, .':. '. _ • '"
fIIIII '. \ Ir-_. _. --.-. ':-0'" -'.". --•.... -'--l:r" -....-.-'-. /I J·...r··· 2
II .jI "I ·1I I I-_J j . (1)1 .. . '). 1 j . I . ... ,;. ..J: II II.. /
1----1---1 J.. .'. 1II III -H VII1 -•• _.-:--"'-" __._"... • • w ." • • • -.-,lpQ, -t=----.' __�
� ;;'- ------.-.--,.--_ . -.=:, .. ,...·-1·
"'CATI! -. \::-0-<\ <,,1'"08 NO• .
".. . '.: : ...;. ','., +#<.. :.:.-.. : ....... s ." acAl:lr REVItIION& . "-. ).( 3. .( J .:r; .:$....,+----- 2"=\00' .. "---jjL
S.C..C..bU . C!i«c'OS.' , @. ® .._..... __... . @, . ./@. p r: :'-: O. f/}. 1fI o E.. .. ....,..t---v -----,---;
;. J>f>:ilT,,:: eN .Cl.o,RPflIWl' l000tt.