14 Staff Report - 520 Santa Rosa Drive
DATE: TO: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT September 22, 2004 MEETING DATE: 10/4/04 ITEM NO. \ FROM: SUBJECT: TOWN MANAGER CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION DENYING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2K APN 527-56-010. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-04-055. PROPERTY LOCATION:
520 SANTA ROSA DRIVE PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: JOHN JAHAN AND MAC SABERI APPELLANT: MAc SABERI RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Close the public
hearing. 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny Architecture and Site Application S-04-055. 4. Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation ofthe 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 ofthe following: (1) Where there was error
or abuse ofdiscretion on the part ofthe Planning Commission; or (2) The new informationthatwas 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. PREPARED BY: .LO DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: AssistantTown Manager OiL.--Attorney __Clerk Finance Commumty Development Revised: 9/22/04 1:50 pm Refonnatted:
5/30102
PAGE 2 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 520 SANTA ROSA DR. September 22, 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. Remand the application to staffwith direction on changes to the project. Staffwill proceed with technical and peer
review of the project prior to public hearing before the Planning Commission. 4. Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation ofthe appropriate resolution. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant
is proposing a 7,193 square foot, two story home with a 928 square foot cellar (8,121 total square feet) and an 816 square foot garage. Pursuant to the HDS&G, any garage square footage
over 400 square feet counts against the main house. Therefore, 416 square feet of the garage is calculated as part of the house, bringing the total to 8,537 square feet. Based on the
HDSG Floor Area Ratio (FAR), this property could allow a maximum gross floor area of 6,000 square feet. However, achieving the maximum floor area is not guaranteed due to individual
site constraints. For a complete analysis ofthe project, please see the attached Planning Commission report dated August 11,2004 (Attachment 3) and development plans (Attachment 5).
PLANNING COMMISSION: On August 11,2004, the Planning Commission denied the application. The verbatim minutes from the August 11, 2004 Planning Commission hearing are attached (Attachment
2). The Planning Commission denied the proposal based on the following findings: 1. The house and overall development does not fit into the least restrictive development area as required
by Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) 2. Development is proposed on slopes of greater than 30 percent. 3. The house exceeds the size allowed by the FAR and the Planning
Commission cannot make the findings necessary to grant an exception to the HDS&G. 4. The project is in contradiction to Section V-F of the HDS&G, which requires designs that minimize
building bulk and mass. 5. The proj ect has continuous two-story wall planes and a 21-foot high entry feature. 6. The project is not responsive to site constraints, respectful of the
rural character of the hillside, and is not in harmony with the environment as required by Section V-A of the HDS&G. 7. The project is not consistent with General Plan Policies and Implementing
Strategies CD.P.2.4, CD.I.2.2, CD.P.2.2 and L.I.8.10 relating to reducing the mass and visibility. 8. The project height exceeds the 25-foot maximum height requirement, Section V-E of
the HDS&G. 9. Excessive grading is proposed, which is not consistent with Section ill-A of theHDS&G and General Plan Policy L.P.8A, which requires that grading be limited to the area
needed to place the main house on the property. 10. Neighborhood compatibility and size of the home is a con
cern.PAGE 3 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 520 SANTA ROSA DR. September 22, 2004 11. The proj ect is not appropriate for the site. It can not be redesigned to
be appropriate and should not be referred back to Staff for redesign. 12. The Planning Commission can not offer sufficient direction to address all the project's Issues. APPEAL: On August
20, 2004, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment 1). The applicant asserts that "The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because
the Planning Commission did not follow the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines which allows property owners to have more than 6000 square feet when they are in compliance with
all nine exceptions. " DISCUSSION: StaffReview Staff has worked closely with the applicant to explain the Town's development standards and guidelines. Staffs initial technical review
of the project identified numerous issues that would be consideredbythe Planning Commission. Please see the attached technical notes dated June 30, 2004 (Attachment 4) stating that the
project does not comply with Town standards. Since the proposal exceeds the maximum gross floor area (6000 square feet), nine exceptions must be met in order for the project to be approved.
Criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area is as follows: 1. The development will notbe visible from any of the established viewing platforms. 2. There will be
no significant impacts onprotected trees, wildlife habitat ormovement corridors. 3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or an accessory
building will be minimized. 4. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met. 5. Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer methods. The compliance
margin must be at least 10.0. 6. The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV) installation. 7. A minimum of25% ofhardscape material is permeable (certain types ofinterlocking
pavers, grasscrete, pervious concrete, etc.). 8. A significant cellar element is included in the design, unless it conflicts with other standards. 9. There will not be a significant
visual impact to neighboring properties. Items 4 and 9 are not met by the proposed design. Specifically, the proposed project does not meet the height, bulk/mass and architectural design
guidelines and standards. In addition, while the house will not be seeJ;1 from an established viewing platform, it will be widely visible from surrounding properties.
PAGE 4 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 520 SANTA ROSA DR. September 27,2004 Staff also met with the applicant in addition to the technical meeting to explain
the challenges that this project would face and how the project does not comply with Town standards. The applicant chose not to modify the proj ect to address the issues identified by
staff. Instead, the applicant chose to present the project to the Planning Commission and explain how they felt the project complied with the standards. Due to the number ofunresolved
issues with the current proposal, staffdecided to forward the matter to the Planning Commission prior to technical and peer reviews (including architect, arborist, geotechnical and environmental
evaluations). Staff took this approach in order to expedite the review process and to avoid burdening the applicant with the expense of technical and environmental reviews on a project.
Conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Environmental assessment for this project has not been conducted due to the number ofunresolved
issues with the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Notice ofAppeal (one page) received on August 20,2004 2. Verbatim meeting minutes from the August 11, 2004 Planning Commission
Hearing (12 pages) 3. Report to the Planning Commission from the Development Review Committee dated August 11,2004 (9 pages, minus development plans) 4. Technical Review dated June 30,
2004 (2 pages) 5. Development Plans received on July 30,2004 (13 pages) Distribution: Mac Saberi, 1095 Braham Ln. #205B, San Jose, CA 95136 N:\DEV\Judie\projects\Santa Rosa\appeal.wpd
,I .1 I AUG-20-2004 FRI 12:41 PM TOWN OF LOS {!iJ., rr==============:==ii1.oo\\fEO Tow. of Los4VU.cc:t'VL FILING FEES
RE Office 0 the Town Clerk . .,-(/$250.00 ResidcQ.tial I\IJG '3 110 E. Main sk., Los Gatos CA 95030 $1000 per Commercial, Multp T t . M A I. OS GAIOS '-l6=f=am=i=IY=O=T
OF PLANNI I G COMMISSION DECISION : : . attach the new
information'ifpossible): OR .CP""di"relioo to modifY or address the ibllOr"l' policy '" Wne that is vested the Town _J 3. 2.. I, the undersigned, do herl::by appeal a decision ofthe
Pl<mning Commission as follows: PLEASE TYPE DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: IJ Vt:;r ,} (; PROJECT! APPLICATION NO: .c::.:, .. D4-0 t;tr AUG 2 0 2004
LOCATION:. 2 p... /11,.t-J. ? . Pursuant to the Town. Code, the Town COlUlCil may may only grant an appeal ofa Planning Commission decis On in f Council finds that
one ofthree (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at three (3) COunncC:ill please specifY
how one ofthose reasons exist itt the appeal: \ 1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because 1"'iI-£ P!AJV,vINe..-CtN1/'fI &>;;/DIP /t/pL SUPJV 771£ ;..htl6,P£
4 . -ro 1-1414:" #D4E 7AI+ MiN ;?p q �
� Thoro is new infonnation1hatwas n:.reasonablY.vailahle at lb:time of!he Pl,rngCo_u'''' decision, wbiell is . I ;:1 lanning OFFlCI;L USE ONLy···· i DATE OF PUBLIC
HEARtNG; {)a Ji AOQf CONFIRMATI N SENT: Datc;,__ Pending Planning Department Confirmatioll TO APPLIeAN & APPELLANT BY: DATE TO SEND PUBLICATlON: DATEOFPU LlCATION: 4.
5, 2. 3. • IF MORESPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITlbNAL SHEETS. . . 1MfORTANT:' '. ·l J. .. Appealll'lust be filed within ten (10) calendar days ofPlanning Commission Det,sion
accompanied by the required filing fee. Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the 10111 day fottowing the decision. Ifthe lOLh day is a :>aturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it may be filed on
the workday immediately following the 10th day, usually a The Town Clerk will set the heari1'lg withing 56 days of the date ofthe Planning I ommissiQn Decision (Town Ordinance
No. 1967). An appeal regarding a Change ofZone application or a map only mu t be filed within the time limit specified in the Zoning or Subdivision Codu, as applicable,
which is different from other app also . Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council. lethe reason for granting art appeal is the receipt ofnew information, the
iOn will Commission for reconsideril-tion. : PR1NTNAME: SIGNA _ DATE:
S;'Zt2/(:;4 ADDRESS: ., 'AI -#'21:'6& PHONE: 4 C2c.. Of.A7-o/jUi N.\Clk\FORMS\Planning Commission Appeal.wpd Rev: 5/7.0/02 o Attacbment 1
Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: A P PEA RAN C E S: Jean Drexel, Chair Michael Burke Phil Micciche Tom O'Donnell Lee Quintana Joanne Talesfore Morris Trevithick 1 PRO C E E DIN G S:
CHAIR DREXEL: The next application is 520 Santa Rosa Drive. If the applicant would like to step forward, 7 Director Of Community Development: Town Attorney: Bud N. Lortz Orry Korb you
have five minutes to present your project. MAC SABERI: Good evening. My name is Mac Saberi, and I would present this project to you. After 10 11 12 13 Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
5500 Van Fleet Avenue Richmond CA 94804 (510) 526-6049 10 11 12 13 14 hearing what you had to say to the previous application, I want to start by saying that we are open to some suggestions
and recommendations. This project previously was reviewed and approved 15 16 15 in 1998. The plans and elevation basically are .the same as 16 was approved; however, we made some changes
based on the 17 17 new regulations on the hillside. We reduced the height to 16 19 20 22 23 24 24 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 1 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 comply with the new regulations; however, we increased the square footage of the house a little bit more by enlarging the kitchen, family room, and adding a guest bedroom
downstairs.We are requesting the Planning Commission to approve our proposed design based on nine exceptions that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive
2
has been given in the Hillside Design Guideline, and I would like to briefly go through all those nine items. Item Number One, "Development will not be visible 12 One is site planning,
the other one is development density, and the last one is architectural design. Let me start with site planning. The proposed from any established viewing platform." Our building is
4 site is located at the end of Santa Rosa Drive. This site located on the south side of Santa Rosa and will not be seen from any established viewing platform. Item Number Two, "There
will not be significant impact to the protected trees and wildlife." We just have 567 has an average slope of probably 32-percent; that makes it very challenging to design. Due to the
limited building area that exits on the site, we located the house on the flattest part of the site. The majority of the house would 10 one beautiful oak tree on the right side of the
building 10 be on the flat portion; just a small area would be over 11 and we would like to keep it, and we'll do everything 11 that 3D-percent average slope. We reduced the visual 12
13 possible during construction to save that tree. Item Number Three, "Any grading necessary to 12 13 impact by setting the structure into the existing grade and stepped the
foundation to follow the contours. 14 accommodate a building area that exceeds FAR or accessory 14 The second item is development density. The 15 building will be minimized." There will
not be any 15 proposed house is 7,193 square feet; that is 1,193 square 16 18 19 20 21 22 provision to do any accessory bUilding on this site, and we stepped down the house and the footprint
to follow the contour to minimize the grading. Item Number Four, "All standard applicable guidelines are to be met." I guess this is the most important item among those four items. We
believe that we 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 feet above the maximum allowed by the Hillside Standards, based on the lot size of 32,000; at least that was my understanding when I was reading
the Hillside Guild Lines. Our site is over three acres, almost 131,000 square feet, and is one of the largest sites in the Alta Vista tract. Our site coverage is just 3-percent, and
our FAR is less 23 24 25 are meeting all the requirements of the Hillside Guidelines, and I want to touch on the three topics here. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520
Santa Rosa Drive 3 than 6-percent. Those two, the site coverage and the F.l\.R, 23 is probably one of the lowest among all the houses in that 24 neighborhood. We ar.e the last undeveloped
lot out of 45-25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 4
plus homes in the Alta Vista tract that the City Council 1 CHAIR DREXEL: Does anyone have any questions of approved in the early 1980s. This house has less square 2 the applicant? Phil?
footage than newly permitted houses that are over 11,000 square feet, Let me talk about the architectural design. Our design is simple but elegant. We gave lots of thought to design
the structure to meet all the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Before we started 47 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I just wanted to help you correct something on the Hillside Standard.
On lot areas more than 32,000 square feet, which this is, on page 28 of the Hillside Standard? MAC SABERI: Yeah, 32,000. COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: It very specifically 10 11 designing,
we drove through the neighborhood and we noticed most of the houses in that sub-division have a roof that is 10 11 states the maximum gross for it shall be 6,000 square feet. So 32,000
and above, not just 32,000. 12 tile and stucco finished. Being on the hillside, for fire 12 MAC SABERI: That's probably where I misread it, 13 safety this is probably a good material
to be used; that's 14 why we chose to have stucco siding and a clay tile roof. 15 After a few meetings with the Staff, we reduced 16 the front elevation height to 23-feet when the Hillside
13 and I heard that with the previous applicant, that were her 14 intentions. 15 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: The other question I have 16 is on page four of the report. Do you agree with
the 17 Guideline allowed 25-feet. We introduced some balcony to 17 calculations that were made by Staff on the grading and IS reduce the mass on the front. Our north elevation will 18
drainage? 19 also be set back, the second story at the garage to break 19 MAC SABERI: I did not have the opportunity, 20 21 22 23 24 25 the roofline. Our south side reduced the visual
impact by setting the structure down, and stepped down the foundation to follow the existing contour. We minimized the threestory appearance on the south side; that's on the downhill
side. LOS GATOS COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 5 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably because if you take a look at the site, the site has a hump right on the
front, and we are trying to take that hump away, and maybe that numbers. I have not checked that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 6
2 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: So you haven't checked that yet? SABERI: I have not checked it. DREXEL, Mike? CHAIR BURKE: A couple questions for you. One is in your letter,
one of the justifications is that there was a house approved there a few years ago, but you've needed to increase it due to different requirements of the new 1247 MAC SABERI: The one
that is on the right of the street is a two-story, to the west of us. CHAIR BURKE: But it is set back a little bit more. There are some, but a lot of them present a single story. MAC
SABERI: That was the reason we pulled the house back further than what was originally proposed, to be further from the street. 10 owner. What were the requirements that caused you to
need 10 CHAIR BURKE: But did you look at putting a 11 to increase it in size, and why could you have not cut down 11 single story on the front and stepping it down the hill? 12 other
areas? 12 MAC SABERI: Basically, from the front elevation 13 SABERI: One of the items was enlarging the 13 we just used whatever was approved back in 1998. We used 14 kitchen.
The kitchen was very small on the original plan. 15 The other one was the family room was not large enough. 16 And last one, we added a guest bedroom downstairs. the same elevation
and basically the same floor plan. We 15 based our design on whatever was approved in 1998, and I 16 realize that we are not under 1998 regulations. 17 BURKE: I know the Alta
Vista area very 17 CHAIR BURKE: Thank you. 18 well. A lot of the houses up there present a single-story 18 CHAIR DREXEL: Joanne? 19 front to the street. I know the house immediately
to the 19 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: That was going to be my 20 21 22 23 24 25 east of you does that, and some of the houses on the other side of the road are down from the street. Did
you take that approach at all? Very few houses are two-story right on the street, as close to the street as your house is, on Santa Rosa Drive. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004
Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 7 20 22 23 24 25 question. So you understand that you didn't maybe have the understanding of what's here in the General Plan, and that Hillside Design
Standard? MAC SABERI: Absolutely, because the original house was much higher too. We lowered it; we made the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 8
1 second story as an eight-foot plate height to bring it 1 maximum house size is 6,000 square feet, and the applicant down. We changed the sloped to a minimum of five and 2 asked how
would a request for additional square footage be twelve to reduce the height. TALESFORE: Thank you. 4 treated in the past, and we said we had no precedent at
this point in time. DREXEL: Lee, did you have a question? 5 MAC SABERI: Then it was my mistake. CHAIR DREXEL: All right, thank you. Any other COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: My question
is why didn't 7 you listen to Staff when they were telling you how the Town 7 questions? All right, thank you very much. have one. interprets the Hillside Standards and Development Standards
and Guidelines? 10 MAC SABERI: Maybe that was my misunderstanding. 10 11 card from Alex Leupp for this item, so if you would like to speak, that would be lovely. ALEX LEUPP: Thank you
and good evening. My name 13 regulation was going to affect a house more than 6,000. is Alex Leupp; I'm the neighbor of the proposed project at 11 12 Let me explain. Because Staff was
not sure how the new 12 13 530 Santa Rosa Drive. I had a chance to look at the plans 14 CHAIR DREXEL: Oh, I think that they knew. I 14 prior to the meeting, and I came to the conclusion
when I 15 think they were very clear. 15 saw what was going to be built that it's going to be 16 MAC SABERI: I was my understanding that they 16 massive and invasive. 17 were not sure.
I said lets go to the front of the Planning 17 The reason I'm saying that is even though it's a 18 Commission and see, because this is basically the second 18 large lot of three acres,
most of the acreage is down slope 19 home that is in front of you based on the new regulations. 19 that you don't see. If you look at where the house is 20 21 22 23 24 25 Let me ask
Randy. I don't want to be unfair to Randy.or to Judy. DREXEL: Please, Randy, enlighten us. RANDY TSUDA: Staff's recollection of the conversation was that the Guidelines clearly
state that the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 built, it takes up the whole site of the entrance. So the whole building will
be taking up basically the lot size. It is two stories high. My house next door is about 45,000 square feet; it's a two-story, but it's only one story from the street, and it has a flat
roof, so it LOS GATOS pLANNING 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 10
makes whatever our neighbors see in terms of hillside very 1 CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you very much. Would anyone else from 2 unobtrusive, and you don't object to the view. I think to 2 the
public like to speak on this item? I don't have any build a two-story house there with 7,000 square feet, not other cards. Just tell us your name and then you can fill including the
garage and the basement, is just to big a project in my opinion, and I would ask you to consider this 45 your card out afterwards. SELFIA HALIM: Good evening, my name is Selfia 7 project
being discussed. Actually I'm glad that there's a and ,have a redesign of the project so it fits more into the neighborhood. Thank you. 7 Halim. am also a neighbor across the street
from the DREXEL: Thank you very much. Any plan that the lot is going to be developed, because this is Mike? square footage is your house, just for comparison? CHAIR BURKE:
Mr. Leupp, approximately how big a the last lot on Santa Rosa Drive. The applicant mentioned that the However, looking at the plan, I'm kind of and all across very wide. surprised that
it's so massive and big; it's two stories 10 11 12 . LEUPP: It's about 4,500 . questions? 10 12 11 13 CHAIR BURKE, Okay, thank you. 14 next door is also two-story. That is true,
but it's only a 15 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: One additional question. 15 very small portion that is two-story. The front door only 16 That's not counting the garage? 16 is two-story, but
the rest is behind and it's following the ALEX LEUPP: It's a four-car garage. ALEX LEUPP: Yes, about 800 square feet. ALEX LEUPP: That's not counting the garage. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:
So it's about 800 square So that's my comment. CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you. Any questions? Thank applicant to come up for rebuttal. street and down below from there. in speaking? Last chance.
All right, we will ask the Drive are; a reverse floor plan, just single-story from the you very much. Is anyone else from the pUblic interested 23 24 25 21 18 22 19 17, topography, and
that's how all of the houses on Santa Rosa 20 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And how big is the 17 18 19 garage? 20 21 22 feet? n24 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa
Rosa Drive 11 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 12 j
MAC SABERI: Regarding the house on the other 1 limit the visibility of homes that are built in the County 2 side, there is a picture of it, and you can see it is a full two-story home
that is on the right side. This house has the same elevation that was approved, and that's what are going by _ I understand the regulation changed, but we have not made any changes
to the front elevation and we just went with whatever was approved. I thought we had a good chance. 245 that are visible to our town, I think they would expect us to reciprocate, such
that houses are very visible to the people in the County that are built in the Town. So having said that, I think it's important that this house at least meet that 6,000 square foot
maximum design, but I don't even know if that is practical for neighborhood compatibility with that lot, and I don't think 10 CHAIR DREXEL: Thank you. Any questions for the 10 it's as
constrained as the previous applicant, and so maybe 11 applicant? I think that's it, we're going to close the 11 it's a 5,000 square foot house with a 400 square foot 12 public hearing
and make some comments here and have a vote. 12 garage or something along those lines, or bigger cellar, 13 Any comments? Mike? 13 but something stepped down. 14 BURKE: A
couple of thoughts. One is I 14 So my leaning would be to send this back for 15 think this house is too big for the lot, for several 16 reasons. As the neighbor stated, the lot is skinny
and 15 redesign, because I think the applicant is workable on this 16 and is willing to work, but that's just my thoughts. 17 deep, and this house does take most of the width. 17 CHAIR
DREXEL: Lee? IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This house is very visible to all the neighbors. It's also while not visible from one of the official viewing platforms, it is very visible from
the valley back there, and I know for a fact the County is very interested in our Hillside Design Standards; very interested. They're thinking that that may be something that they would
want to adopt, and I think if we would expect the County to maybe LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
I agree with most of your statements, but I believe that the redesign on this house is so substantial that it would be like having to review an entirely new project, and therefore I
would favor denying it. The applicant was given lots of advice by the Planning Staff, and for whatever reason chose to ignore it. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520
Santa Rosa Drive 14
2 The other thing I'd like to comment on is that the Standards and Guidelines do say that, referring to viewing platforms, other locations as deemed appropriate by 12 he wasn't very
familiar with the Hillside Design
Standards himself personally or the General Plan, I would be in favor of a denial on this. Maybe he needs to read that document the deciding body. I'm assuming that means that we could
4 and maybe listen to Staff, work with them more often. So 7 recommend that a viewing platform be established in that area. In addition, I'd like to comment on the fact that I believe
that this is a ridgeline, even though it isn't 57 that is basically my comment. I would not want to see it go back for redesign; I think it needs to start over, from the research that
he needs to do. DREXEL: Tom? 10 identified as such in our statement here. The ridgeline 10 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would be sympathetic 11 12 that was identified here came
out of the Blossom Hill Open Space Study and did not include the area that was already 11 12 to Mac's intentions, only because the Staff was (inaudible) when it comes to the larger than
6,000 feet (inaudible) and 13 developed, this ridge, Santa Rosa. If you look at the map, 14 it looks like it's almost a continuation of the ridge that 15 was mapped. So if it's denied,
I think I would like to see 13 I think the Guidelines are very clear (inaudible). I have 14 to admit (inaudible) if I were the applicant, I'd ask 15 myself how would I be better off?
Would I be better off 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 both of those things explored before they return with another application. I will also say that I think, again, Staff did a very good
staff report on this; I think they hit all the major points, except for the hillside that's highly visible and ridgeline. CHAIR DREXEL: Joanne? COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: My only comment
is that 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 starting fresh, or would I be better off going back, because I truly believe (inaudible) within the framework of what we talked about tonight (inaudible)
only because this whole thing is kind of new and it's obvious that (inaudible) and it seems clear to me that as (inaudible). CHAIR DREXEL: My only comment is that the applicant had every
opportunity to have the Guidelines explained to him. There are so many things wrong with this 25 based on the fact that it sounded like, from the applicant, LOS GATOS COMMISSION
8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 15 25 project. Exceeding a FAR, that's just one of a million LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 16
design problems that it has, and if the applicant failed to listen to Staff last time, I do not want to be sitting up here playing ping-pong with this project because the 12 beyond the
direction that we are normally able to give .with a decent project where we've gotten cooperation from the applicant. So that's why I do not agree with Tom or Mike 4 applicant doesn't
understand that most of these kinds of things are appropriately interpreted by Staff. We used to do this a lot; we used to have projects that would bounce back and forth, back and forth,
and there's a wear down effect. A person will have a lot 47 on this matter. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE, To tab onto that, that's why I made that comment that the direction we would have
to supply would be so substantial-how long does our meeting go? 10 of money in design and end up spending a whole lot of money 10 CHAIR DREXEL: Mike? 11 and getting a denial in the end.
I think it's better 11 CHAIR BURKE: I think even if we vote to deny, we 12 sometimes to just terminate the effort and let them start 12 ought to provide some direction. 13 fresh and
work through the problems with Staff, fully 14 expecting only to bring a project that Staff feels is 13 CHAIR DREXEL: I agree. CHAIR BURKE: That was one of the reasons I 15 suitable
to bring to this body. Otherwise, we will spend 16 lots and lots of time and lots and lots of this applicant's 15 wasn't thinking of sending this back here for a date 16 certain, but
I was thinking of sending it back for total 17 16 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 money arguing over the fine points of the project, considering what we've experienced thus far. The only thing
this applicant got right too was the zoning; everything else is wrong, and that's it. So it's going to be a new project; it's not a tweaking of a project. I could not give this applicant
enough guidance to fix this project. If I gave him everything I could think of, it wouldn't be everything, so I think it goes LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa
Rosa Drive 17 17 16 16 19 20 22 23 24 25 redesign with direction, and I can go either way, but I think that while this project was severely flawed, at least I felt comfortable giving
guidance of what, at least in my mind, was appropriate for there, because I think there are enough examples in that area of things you could build. But if everybody feels it's better
to deny and give guidance and let them start with a totally fresh piece of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 18
paper and they can take our guidance or not and corne back to us, that's fine too. DREXEL: Lee? 12 house; substantially set back the second story to reduce the appearance
of mass. In addition, because this is on a very visible COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I remembered. I guess 4 site, and you get to the edge of the LRDA and then it drops one of these comments
goes in the realm of guidance. I'll start with the first one, which isn't guidance so much. I 7 just wanted to point out one thing that was left out of the staff report that two of the
neighbors brought up tonight, 5 9 off significantly, I would highly recommend setting the house back some from the edge of the LRDA so it doesn't look like it's about to fall down the
hill. CHAIR DREXEL: phil? 10 was neighborhood compatibility, so we have to add that to 10 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: This is probably obvious, 11 12 13 14 our direction of looking at the
neighborhood design styles. In general, I'm going to say that I viewed this house as being essentially a large rectangle mass, and then added to it were the architectural elements to
visually 11 12 13 14 but I guess the best advice that I would give is listen to the planning staff this time, because the interpretation they have of the Hillside Standards is clearly
probably what we have, since we worked together to develop it, so I 15 reduce that mass, rather than looking at it from the 15 think they know what they're talking about. You're wasting
16 17 direction of how do we design this house to minimize the mass, and then once we've done that, add architectural 16 17 your time and money if you corne here in contrast to that,
in general. 18 elements to further minimize the visual impact of that 18 CHAIR DREXEL: Joanne? 19 mass. So that would be part of the direction I would be 19 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Just
one other thing. 20 21 22 23 24 25 looking for. Some of the things I think have already been mentioned: minimized two-story wall planes; large amount of one-story elements; reduce the
maximum length of the height of the roof, the maximum height allowed is most of the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You have
a raw piece of land, you have a staff that's ready and willing to work with you, you've got documents like I've said before, and if you understand that what we're trying to do is to
continue that ambiance of the hillsides and keeping with the neighborhood, not to disrupt the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 20
rhythm that's on that street, if you understand that and 1 most of these we've discussed, but I'm going to relate them you start over, as far as I'm concerned, I think we'll all 2 to
specific parts of the Hillside Standards. have a better project. The house and overall development does not fit ClLlUR DREXEL: Morris? 4 into the least restricted development area as
required by COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I'm sort of going along Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The plans with what has been said already. I think the design is are inaccurate
when they show development on slopes of less flawed, and to try and tinker with that and try and than thirty-percent. manipulate the design itself at this point is rather too Also the
project exceeds the size allowed by FAR elements here that are a little too excessive: size, It's fairer to the Staff, because I think there are enough on back and reconsider it again
and give a new application. and I cannot make the findings necessary to allow the The project is massive and a project to do that. please see the staff report on house contradiction
of 5F of the Hillside Development Standards size for the particulars. 13 10 12 11 much. It wouldn't be fair to ask the developer to take it 10 12 13 11 14 height, and so forth. 14 and
Guidelines. It has two-story high walls and a 21-foot 15 CHAIR DREXEL: All right, I'm going to move to 15 entry feature. It is not responsive to site constraints, 16 deny Architecture
and Site Application S-04-055. 16 respectful of the rural character of the hillsides, which 17 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I'll second. 17 are in harmony and visually blending with the environment
18 CHAIR DREXEL: The project fails to meet the 18 as required by 5A. General Plan CDP-24, CDI-22, CDP-22, 19 20 21 22 23 24 requirements of the General Plan and the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines as they have been developed and interpreted by the Town. I've got a second, so I'm going to list my laundry list of the most glaring shortcomings that I think
19 20 21 22 23 24 and LI-810 offer direction to reduce mass and visibility that have not been followed. Some of the structure exceeds the 25-foot maximum height requirement of 5-E by
three to five feet at the rear. If it's on a ridge, even greater height limits have been exceeded. 25 25 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 21 LOS
GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 22
Excessive grading is required by the project under three of the Hillside Development Standards, the development is to fit into the topography with minimum houses that have a single-story
front element there, that that ought to be while not a required recommendation, but something we ought to look at. 4 impacts to the site physically. Under the General Plan LP-And going
further, if I remember correctly, when 84, grading should be limited to the area needed to place the main house on the property. There are questions of neighborhood compatibility regarding
its size as well. The project is not appropriate the Leupp's house was built, in order to achieve the single-story front footage and stay away from the 7 (inaudible) slope, they actually
did grant him a slight variance on front setback, and so that may be an option 10 11 for the site, it cannot be redesigned to be appropriate, and for that reason it should not be referred
back to Staff 10 11 there to keep this farther within the least restrictive development area, as well as maintaining a single-story 12 for redesign. We could not possibly offer sufficient
12 So just a couple of thoughts. 13 direction to remedy all the problems this project has. CHAIR DREXEL: Any more comments? Mike? CHAIR DREXEL: other comments before we take 14
a vote? All those in favor? All those opposed. 15 CHAIR BURKE: Just a couple of comments I want to 15 Unanimous. 16 make. One is I think Lee sparked the memory, but if I stand on right
where that house is, it's a ridgeline, I 16 17 DIRECTOR LORTZ: Again, appeal rights, anyone dissatisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission 18 mean technically, because it
falls off toward Blossom Hill 18 may appeal the decision to the Town Council. The appeal 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Road and it falls off toward Shannon Road from there, so I have to believe
that technically that is a ridgeline there and Staff needs to look at that when this application comes back. The other thing I think is when we talk about neighborhood compatibility,
I really think that as many LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 must be filed within ten days; it must be filed upstairs in
the Clerk's Office. There is a fee for filing an appeal. I think it's $250 for residential appeals. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/11/2004 Item #2, 520 Santa Rosa Drive 24
REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: EXHll3rrs: Date: --:o.A=u::..:g;>.=u=s.=....t:::;.;5'1...:2=°:;....::0,-,-4_ For Agenda Of: August 11, 2004 Agenda Item: -----'=2"-----_ The Planning Commission
The Director of Community Development 520 Santa Rosa Drive Architecture and Site Application S-04-055 Requesting approval to construct a new· single family residence on property zoned
.. APN 527-56-010 PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: John Jahan & Mac Saberi A. .Considerations for the review of architecture and site applications (three pages) B. Site location map
C. Applicant's letter of justification, received on August 4, 2004 (three pages) D. Project data sheet, received August 4,2004 E. Development Plans received July 30, 2004 (11 sheets)
A. BACKGROUND: The subject property is a three acre parcel located on the south side of Santa Rosa Drive, near the easterly terminus of the road. Exhibit B shows the location of the
property. The property is unimproved and has an average slope of 32%. The majority of the lot has slopes greater than 30%, making it cballenging to develop. Staff determined that the
proposed projectis inconsistent with the General Plan and Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G). The applicant was advised that the plans need major revisions to comply
with theHDS&G and General Plan provisions. The applicant believes that the proposed plan complies with the HDS&G and does not wish to make the significant changes staff feels are necessary
to bring the plan into compliance with Town regulations, policies and standards. Staff has forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that direction
can be provided to the applicant for a redesign of the project or the Planning Commission may deny the application outright. Dueto the number ofunresolved issues with the current proposal,
staff decided to forward the matter to the Planning Commission prior to technical and peer reviews (including architect, arborist, geotechnical and environmental evaluations). Conditions
of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. If the applicant revises the plans after receiving direction from the Commission, the technical reviews, findings and conditions
of approval will be completed before the application is returned to the Commission for final action. Attachment 3
The Planning Commission -Page 3 520 Santa Rosa Drive/S-04-55 August 11, 2004 Items 4 and 8 are not met by the proposed design. In addition, while the house will not be seen from an established
viewing platform, it will be widely visible from surrounding properties. The Commission should discuss these issues and provide direction on the overall bulk and mass, the size of the
proposed home, and the overall development area. Architectural Style In general, the architectural design of the proposed home is not consistent with the goals and polices set forth
by the General Plan and HDSG. The Planning Commission has expressed concerns about designs that have two story elements, that are inherently massive and bulky, and are prominently visible
from·surrounding properties. The proposed home has several two story elements. The north elevation (front), has a 21 foot high entry feature with two octagonal, elements on either side
of the entry that do not have vertical relief. Some portions of this elevation are broken up with balustrades and roof lines, but the elevation, in general, accentuates the height and
mass of the home. The south (rear) and east (left) elevations are broken up with a roof line and the second floor is stepped back from the first. The west (right) elevation does not
have much vertical relief or articulation. The proposed home appears to be very prominent and the style of the home is inherently massive and bulky. The two-story elements, high entrances
and the formal balustrades tend to give the home a prominent character. In the front and rear elevations, the home spans approximately 120 feet. For the majority of that width, the height
of the home ranges from 22.5 feet to 25 feet. The sides are similar in mass, with the exception that the proposed heights range from 23 feet to 30 feet. The design objectives of the
HDS&G encourage architectural design that is: 1. in harmony and visually blends with the natural environment, 2. responsive to site constraints and opportunities, 3. compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors, and 4. respectful ofthe rural character ofthe hillsides. In addition to the above objectives, the project is in conflict with
include the following architectural criteria: Chapter V. F. standard 1. Buildings shall be designed to minimize bulk, mass and volume so as not to be prominently visible from a distance
or from surrounding properties. Chapter V.F. guideline 1. Keep building forms simple. Chapter V.F. guideline 2. Avoid architectural styles that are inherently viewed as massive and bulky.
The Planning Commission -Page 5 520 Santa Rosa Drive/S-04-55 August 11, 2004 L.I.8.1O CD.P.2.2 CD.P.2.4 CD.I.2.2 Hillside Design Standard: Houses shall be designed to step down the contours
rather than be designed for flat pads. Consideration shall be given to siting homes for privacy, livability, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and migration corridors,
adequate solar access and wind conditions. Siting should take advantage of scenic views but should not create significant ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, public places
or other properties. Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures up and down the hillside, a maximum of two stories shall
be visible from every elevation following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. Evaluate projects as to how the built environment naturally blends
into the surrounding landscape in areas such as scale, materials, hardscape, lights and landscape. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines The project is not in compliance with
the following provisions of the HDS&D: • Maximum allowed floor area (pages 29-30) • Overall amount of development (pages 12,27) • Maximum building height of 25 feet (page 35) • Architectural
design objectives (page 31) • Architectural criteria for minimizing bulk and mass (page 36-37) C. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should either refer this application back to
staff with specific direction to the applicant for desired plan changes, or deny the application. Ifthe Commission finds merit with the proposed development to the extent that it could
be approved through redesign, the Commission provide direction on the following issues: • house size • architectural style • bulk and mass • total development area
PLANNING COMMISSION-AUGUST11,2004 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 520 Santa Rosa Drive Architecture and Site Application S-04-055 Requesting approval to construct a new single
family residence on property zoned HR-2K APN 527-56-010. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: John Johan & Mac Saberi FINDINGS: None CONSIDERATIONS: Section 29.20.150. Considerations in review
of 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 ofthe 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. Anyproj ect or development
that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections shall be analyzed, and a detennination 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: 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. EXHIBIT A
267 Vista Del Monte Architecture and Site Application S-04-46 Page 3 of3 (7) Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and building lighting should
be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image ofthe 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, flagpoles and other elements ofthe 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 ofthe site developmentplan 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 require the building to be modified to meet the the accessibility requirements oftitle 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 innew nonresidential buildings. Anychange ofuse 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 ofthose requirements. This provision
does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment ofthis 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 of a hazardous waste management facility. 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. N:\DEVIFINDINGSI267VistaDeIMonte-A&S.
wpd
520 Santa Rosa DriveEXHIBIT B
ElIIlI T ES . 2845 Via Carmen, San Jose, CA, 95124 Tel: (408) 626-7265 Fax: (408) 626-8542 Date: July 31, 2004 Honorable members ofPlanning
Commission Town ofLos Gatos. RECEIVED AUG -4 2004 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Letter ofjustification for a single family residence on 520 Santa Rosa Dr. Town ofLos Gatos.
The present application is brought to your attention for your review and approval of a single family residence which has been previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission,
Town ofLos Gatos in 1988. Plans and elevations are basically the same as was approved, but in consideration ofnew Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, we had to substantially
reduce the height of the building as well as to respond to many other issues and concerns. In order to accommodate the requirements by the new owners, some areas ofthe residence such
as kitchen and family room have been enlarged and a guest room has been added to the ground floor plan. As a result we have now approximately a total of7100 square feet building. This
square footage is evidently more than the 6000 square feet allowed for lands larger than 32001 and above. We have a land as large as 1311331 (more than 3 acres) which is the largest
land in Santa Rosa Drive Neighborhood subdivision and will have the lowest FAR in entire neighborhood except for one house only. The Hillside Development Standard and Guidance provides
for some exceptions to the 6000 sq.ft.. maximum as explained in page 29 and 30 ofthe said document. We fortunately meet with all of those 9 items as explained in the following order:
1. The development will not be visible from any ofthe established viewing platforms. Our building looks at smaller houses which are located mainly on the north side ofthe valley far
away from the building and there is no established viewing platform which could have a visibility to our building. 2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife
habitat or movement corridors. EXHIBIT C
We sincerely hope that our effort to produce a neighborhood friendly architectural design would be favorably reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and as a result of your
approval, our new building could enhance the particular character ofthis neighborhood. We are also open to any constructive criticism and suggestions to accomplish as best as we can.
With best regards. Respectfully, Iraj Etessam, Ph D, AlA Principal Architect' Etessam Associates Architects
FROM :TOWN-OF-LOS-GATOS FAX NO. :4083547593 Aug. 03 2004 10:42AM P2 I 'III Zoning dIstrict HR-2Y:z same L,and use single family residence same .1iIIJi 20 feet minimum 25 feet minimum
20 feet minimum 30 feet minimum 6,000 sq. tt. maximum same , (; • .92 acres minimum • rear til side stretit • sid/) • 'front • total (excluding cellar) • cellar • second
floor • roofing. • first floor Setbacks (ft.): • siding Building floor area; !> windows • trim • acres . • squara fe&t ExterIor materials: General Plan Designation low density residential
Lot size Average slope (%) Maximum height (fL) BUilding coverage (%) Par/(lng garage spaces
uncovered spaces Sewer or septic 30 feet maximum no maximum four spaces minimum RECEIVED AUG -4 2004 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING D' EXHIBIT D
520 Santa Rosa Drive Architecture and Site Application S-04-055 Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence on property zoned HR-2 112. APN 527-56-010. PROPERTY OWNER!APPLICANT:
John Jahan and Mac Saberi PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS June 30, 2004 This application for Architecture & Site Approval is INCOMPLETE because ofthe deficiencies and/or concerns noted
below: DEFICIENCIES: 1. Please provide a Preliminary Title Report. 2. Provide the following information: a. All required yard setbacks. b. Existing and proposed grades. c. Preliminary
grading plan d. Location ofbuildings on adjacent parcels e. Shadow study f. Three site lines studies g. Total number ofparking spaces h. Average slope 1. Streetscape and FAR comparison
to homes in the neighborhood J. A detailed landscape plan list. See suggested plant list in the guidelines. 3. The proposed project does not meet Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
for the following reasons: a. The maximum allowable floor area is 6000 square feet feet unless the Planning Commission finds that the project meets all of the exceptions. Please justify
how the proposed project apply to the exceptions stated in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. b. The proposed project does not comply with the height requirements. c.
Bulk and Mass: Proposed project does not meet standards and guidelines set forth by this section. d. Architectural Elements: Proposed project does not meet standards and guidelines set
forth by this section. 4. The proposed project does not meet the following zoning ordinance regulations: a. Required Side Setback is 20 feet. b. Maximum height is 25 feet at any point
and 35 feet from the lowest point to the highest point. Attachment
4
COMMENTS: 1. This project will be referred to the consulting architect once all the technical issues are resolved. 2. This project will require an initial study for environmental issues.
Once all technical issues are resolved, the appropriate fees will be due. 3. The proposed project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. It is unlikely that staff will support
the project, as proposed, because it does not comply with Town standards. Furthermore, it will be challenging for the Planning Commission to find that the "exceptions to floor area"
apply to this project. N:\D?V\Judie\Templates\Tech Review Comments.doc