19 Desk Item - 980 Cherrystone Drivetow n o
iR~ !ps G A1~S
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
REMARKS :
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
January 16, 2007
MEETING DATE: 1/16/2007
ITEM NO: 19
DESK ITEM
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSIONER DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THAT EXCEEDS
THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8.
APN 523-12-039. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLCATION S-02-33
PROPERTY LOCATION: 980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE PROPERTY
OWNER/APPELLANT: JOAN HINKIN
The attached letters from the appellant (Attachment 9) and from David Schwartz (Attachment
10) were received after the report on this matter was finalized.
Attachments:
1-8. Previously submitted
9. Letter from the appellant, received January 11, 2007
10. Letter from David Scwartz, received January 16, 2006
11. Letter from Koichi and Hiroko Yamada received January 16, 2007
BNL:RT:JP
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
N:ADEV\CNCLRPTS\2007\980Cherr stoneDesk.doc
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development
RECEIVED
January 3,2007
JAN 11 2007
To Members of Los Gatos Town Council:
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
We are appealing the Planning Commission Denial because it was based BbANNING DIVISION
misinformation. Also, our neighbors were given the wrong information.
When we started this project, we described it to our inunediate neighbors. It was to be an
addition over the garage, and extended out back. Because of evergreen trees that are well
established, the addition would not change anyone's view. They seemed to understand
because of our large family we needed the extra room. Adult size children with dates and
mates cannot share rooms or bunkbeds. Also, a similar addition had already been done at
975 Cherrystone, and there was no objection to that project, or our proposed plans.
Apparently, the FAR has been changed since that time. As far as we know, this was an
arbitrary decision, with no input from the neighborhood. We have not been given a
reason for this change.
When we showed the finished plans to our immediate neighbors, they were very upset.
One neighbor suggested that we planned on opening a B&B, and convinced the other that
it would be a boarding house at least. This was, and will never be our plan. I do not think
they are aware that we have five bedrooms and two full baths upstairs now. What we
want to do is enlarge the rooms just enough to be able to put a queen size bed in the
room. It would also allow us to add one bedroom, and downstairs, enlarge the family
room so we can all gather there. We did change the plans, and reduced the addition by
almost 1000 square feet (by eliminating the extension over the garage and reducing the
extension to the back).
When we went before the Planning Commission, the architect was late in providing the-
redone plans. He sent the requested copies without our review. Also, the storypoles were
done off those plans. They were wrong. They have since been redone, and the storypoles
have been corrected.
We have sent a letter to all the neighbors (15) in the immediate neighborhood inviting
them to review the plans, and discuss any objections or concerns. As of this writing we
have had only positive feedback.
We are respectfully requesting you to overturn the Planning Commission decision, and
have them review the corrected plans. We thank you in advance for your time and
consideration.
incerely,
oan M Hinkin and Michael D.Hinkin
ATTACHMENT 9
David L. Schwartz
976 Cherrystone Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
January 15, 2007
Town Council, Town of Los Gatos
Architectural and Site application S-02-33 (980 Cherrystone)
The Architectural and Site application S-02-33 that has been submitted for your
consideration should be denied. First and foremost it is not in compliance with
the Los Gatos "Floor Area Ratio", FAR. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to
deny approval and I feel the Council should not override this vote. The FAR was
put into place to maintain the compatibility of all the homes in our neighborhood
area.
The plans that have been submitted appear to be a three (3) story structure with
a large basement. The height of the roof line and its large flat design does not
blend in with the homes that are in this area. This design would lead me to
believe that this attic area is intended to be finished into living space and thus
should be considered in the FAR calculation. Reference the 3 dormer windows
on the 3~d floor.
The plans originally shown to me by the applicant had ten (10) bedrooms and I
believe five and half (5.5) bathrooms. It has been reduced somewhat according
to the latest plan, but it is still has many rooms for the occupants. What could be
the reasons why these applicants would want or need all this space? My house
(976 Cherrystone Dr.) is right next door to the applicants. The street cleaner has
not been able to clean the last portion of our street gutter for many years
because of the vehicles that have been continuously parked in front of the
applicants house. Cherrystone Drive narrows into a one-way, right hand turn
only exit. There is NO parking allowed across the street (creek side) through too
Blossom Hill Road. If this plan is approved what would be the impact on parking
of vehicles in front of the structure?
What is the proposed plan, a remodel or a major demolition with a new home to
be constructed? Tearing down the vast majority of the current structure and then
digging a basement would be in my opinion a new home construction.
The proposed construction plans of this building will cast an eclipsing dark
shadow onto our house and into the backyard area.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter and I request that the Town
Council deny this appeal.
ATTACHMENT /
I regret that I am unable to attend the Town Council meeting, January 16, 2007,
as I had business out of town.
S* cerely,
David L. SchwaAz
Mid