19 Staff Report - 980 Cherrystone DriveSOWN OF MEETING DATE: 1/16/2007
ITEM NO:
19
tos'G~~os COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: January 11, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL -
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: 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
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Architecture & Site application S-02-33
(motion required).
4. Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution (no motion
required).
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) There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the 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 on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager
Clerk Administrator Finance \
Town Attorney
Community Development
7 I -T N
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
January 11, 2007
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 of the new information
unless the new information has a minimal effect on the application.
3. Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution.
If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be upheld,
Council should:
1. Uphold the decision of the Plarming Commission and deny Architecture and Site
Application 5-02-33.
2. Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution.
BACKGROUND:
Project Chronology
• April 15, 2002 - The applicant filed an application for a second story addition which
exceeded the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 789 square feet (s.f.).
■ May 1, 2002 - Project reviewed by staff.
■ February 24, 2003 - Applicant was sent an inactivity letter.
■ March 16, 2003 - Applicant contacted staff to inform them that she had to get a new
designer.
• March 16, 2005 - Project reviewed by staff.
• July 6, 2005 - Project reviewed by staff.
• October 12, 2005 - Project reviewed by staff.
• October 4, 2006 - Project reviewed by staff which exceeded the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by
685 s.f.
Staff has advised the applicant on numerous occasions that the plans are in need of major
revisions given that they were proposing to exceed the FAR by 685 s.f. The Consulting
Architect raised many concerns with the original proposal and stated the proposal's blocky, two
story massing and design formality were not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff has tried to work with the applicant to evolve the project to the point where it can be
approved or approved with conditions. While the applicant has reduced the overall house size
from that of the initial submittal, the project still significantly exceeds the FAR. The applicant
believes that the project has merit, that it is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood,
and initially did not wish to reduce the house size further.
Staff forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that
direction could be provided to the applicant for a significant redesign of the project or the
application could be denied. Peer reviews (arborist, architect) were done for the original design
(Exhibits B and C of Attachment 3), but not for the current or revised proposals. In the interest
MOMENT --`,a 7 ,i
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
January 11, 2007
of saving the applicant additional time and expense to completely analyze plans that may not be
appropriate, staff agendized this application for Commission consideration.
On November 8, 2006 the Commission considered the application and denied the applicant's
proposal.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant submitted revised plans on January 9, 2007. These plans have not been considered
by the Commission. The revised plans propose approval of a 3,426 square foot two story home
with a 417 s.f. garage and a 2,411 s.f. cellar. The revised proposal exceeds the allowable FAR
by 453 s.f. It should be noted that approximately 300 s.f. of the proposed cellar should be
eliminated because it extends beyond the first floor footprint and is inconsistent with the Town's
Cellar Policy. The maximum allowed floor area is 2,973 s.f. for the house and 836 s.f. for the
garage.
The following outlines the major differences between the plans reviewed by the Commission
versus the revised plans (Attachment 8):
• The total square footage was reduced by 232 s.f.;
• Square footage in excess of FAR reduced by 232 s.£;
• First floor square footage reduced by 112 s.£;
• Second floor square footage reduced by 120 s.£;
• Cellar square footage increased by 622 s.f. (approximately 322 s.f. after the portion
outside first floor footprint is removed);
• Height has been reduced by 4 feet and is proposed to be the same height as the existing
home.
The immediate neighborhood is comprised of a mixture of one-story and two-story homes.
Please refer to pictures of the neighborhood (Attachment 6). The following table compares the
proposed square footage and FAR of the proposed residence with other homes in the
neighborhood. The two homes have FARs that equivalent to or greater than the proposed home.
These two homes do not comply with the Town's current FAR requirement.
ri fir;!
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
January 11, 2007
Address
Number of
Stories
House
Garage
FAR
101
Cherrystone Ct
1
2,938
480
.37
108
Cherrystone Ct
1
2,018
480
.24
110
Cherrystone Ct
1
2,018
480
.29
112
Cherrystone Ct
2
2,447
450
.33
972
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,180
462
.27
976
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,350
480
.29
982
Cherrystone Dr
1
2,055
482
.24
977
Cherrystone Dr
2
3,447
660
.25
975
Cherrystone Dr
2
3,708
440
.44
973
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,180
462
.27
971
Cherrystone Dr
1
2,018
480
.25
969
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,350
480
.29
967
Cherrystone Dr
1
2,018
480
.25
980
Cherrystone Dr
2
3,426
417
.37
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission denied the application on November 8, 2006. The Commission
denied the appellant's previous proposal after determining the project was out of compliance
with the FAR to a point where extensive redesign would be necessary. The Commission also
stated that exceeding the FAR in addition to proposing a 1,789 square foot cellar was
inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan and Cellar Policy. The General Plan states
cellars should provide square footage in lieu of visible mass to reduce mass and square footage
above grade. It should also be noted that the appellant stated that they were not willing to reduce
the proposed square footage.
APPFAT.-
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was received on November 17, 2006
(Attachment 1). The basis for the appeal is that there is new information that was not reasonably
available at the time of the Planning Commission decision. The applicant stated that the plans
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
January 11, 2007
that were submitted by her architect were not accurate and she would submit revised plans. The
appellant submitted revised development plans on January 9, 2007.
CONCLUSION:
The Council recently considered an appeal of two single family homes on Placer Oaks. The
Council granted the appeal and approved the projects. In that case, the proposals were less than
the allowable FAR by approximately 200 to 300 s.f. In the subject application the proposed
home exceeds the allowable FAR by 453 s.f.
The Council should review the revised proposal and consider the issue of neighborhood
compatibility given the request to exceed the FAR by 453 s.f. (685 s.f. in the proposal the
Commission considered). If the Council finds the proposed home (Attachment 8) compatible
with the other homes in the neighborhood and believes it can make the findings required to
exceed the FAR, the Council should remand the project to the Commission to complete the
review of the proposed project. It is the Town's policy that the application be returned to the
Commission for review in light of new information unless the new information has a minimal
effect on the application. Further, staff has not undertaken technical review of the revised
proposal.
The required findings to exceed the FAR (Section 29.40.075 (c)) are:
(1) The design theme, sense of scale, exterior materials and details of the proposed
project are consistent with the provisions of:
a. Any applicable landmark and historic preservation overlay zone; and
b. Any applicable specific plan; and
c. The adopted residential development standards; and
(2) The lot coverage, setbacks and FAR of the proposed project is compatible with the
development on surrounding lots.
If the Council determines that the revised proposal is not appropriate then the appeal should be
denied.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
January 11, 2007
Attachments:
1. Appeal filed on October 20, 2006.
2. Verbatim minute excerpts from the Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 2006
(Submitted under separate cover).
3. Report to the Planning Commission dated November 2, 2006 for the meeting of November
8, 2006 (Exhibits D and E deleted and included as Attachments 7 and 6)
4. Desk item report to the Planning Commission dated November 8, 2006 for the meeting of
November 8, 2006.
5. Letter from Stephen N Reinhold submitted at the Planning Commission meeting, dated
November 8, 2006.
6. Photographs of homes in the area.
7. Development Plans (Submitted under separate cover).
8. Revised Development Plans, received January 9, 2007
Distribution:
Joan Hinkin, 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
BNL:RT:JP:mdc
FILING FEES
$277.00 Residential
$1,111.00 per Commercial, Multi-
family or Tentative Map Appeal
IOWti 01 .Los
Office of the To
I10 E. Main St., Los
APPEAL OF PLANNING
ierk
SFOW N
CLERK _EPARTNIEI\IT__ I
I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows: (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NEATLY), t
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
PROJECT / APPLICATION NO:
ADDRESS LOCATION: C",
Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matters if the
Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Council members. Therefore,
please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal:
The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because
OR
There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is
U i U 7 it L_ -r' 7 LPL f L it Lt`L>{r
"6" r
(please attach the new information if possible): OR
3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council:
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDI'T'IONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
I. Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes, A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing,
2. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee.
Deadline is 5:00 p.rii. on the 10`h day following the decision. If the 10'h day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 101h day, usually a Monday.
3. The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
4. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the tune limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals.
5. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.
PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:
DATE: ? ( ADDRESS: ~ U l 6-_: te,f?'V,-;7I) r! 1
PHONE, OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT: Date:
DATE TO SEND
uttt l9'V inning t= _t ,.anion Aiipea:.wi
ATTACHMENT 1
Pending Planning Department Confirmation TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY:
3 ,
PUBLICATION: DATE OF PUBLICATION: { '
ITEM #19
980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
ATTACHMENT #2 IS AVAILABLE FOR
REVIEW IN THE CLERK DEPARTMENT
Date: November 2 2006
For Agenda Of. November 8, 2006
Agenda Item: 3
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: The Director of Community Development
LOCATION: 980 Cherrystone Drive
Architecture and Site Application 5-02-33
Requesting approval to construct an addition which exceeds the allowable
Floor Area Ratio on property zoned R-1:8. APN 523-12-039.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Joan Hinkin
ACTION: Refer the application back to staff with direction or deny the application.
EXHIBITS: A. Applicant's Letter of Justification (1 page), dated August 30, 2005
B. Consulting Architect peer review, received November 16, 2005
C. Consulting Arborist peer review, dated December 14, 2005
D. Development Plans (16 pages), received September 1, 2006
E. Photos of homes in the area (4 Pages)
A. BACKGROUND:
Project Chronology
• April 15, 2002 - The applicant filed an application for a second story addition which
exceeded the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 789 square feet.
• May 1, 2002 - Project reviewed by staff.
• February 24, 2003 - Applicant was sent an inactivity letter.
• March 16, 2003 - Applicant contacted staff to inform them that she had to get a new
designer.
• March 16, 2005 - Project reviewed by staff.
• July 6, 2005 - Project reviewed by staff.
• October 12, 2005 - Project reviewed by staff.
• October 4, 2006 - Project reviewed by staff.
Staff has advised the applicant on numerous occasions that the plans are in need of major
revisions given that they are proposing to exceed the FAR by 685 square feet. Staff has tried to
work with the applicant to evolve the project to the point where it can be approved or approved
with conditions. While the applicant has reduced the overall house size from that of the initial
submittal, the project still significantly exceeds the FAR. The applicant believes that the project
has merit, that it is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood, and does not wish to
reduce the house size further.
ATTACHMNT 3
The Planning Commission - Page 2
980 Cherrystone Drive/S-02-33
November 8, 2006
Staff has forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that
direction can be provided to the applicant for a significant redesign of the project or the
application can be denied. The peer reviews (arborist, architect) were done for the original
design (Exhibits B and Q. In the interest of saving the applicant additional time and expense
to completely analyze plans that may not be appropriate, we recommended that the Commission
review the applicant's current proposal. Recommended conditions of approval have not been
prepared for the same reason. If the Commission decides to remand the project for significant
redesign additional review and conditions of approval will be completed before the application
is returned to the Commission for final action.
B. DISCUSSION:
House Size / Neighborhood Compatibility
The applicant is requesting approval for a technical demolition of a 2,794 s.f. two story home and
to construct anew single family home. The proposed two story home is 3,658 s.f. with a 417 s.f.
garage and a 1,789 square foot cellar. The maximum allowed floor area is 2,973 square feet for
the house and 836 square feet for the garage. The applicant's letter of justification (Exhibit A)
and development plans (Exhibit D) are attached.
The immediate neighborhood is comprised of a mixture of one-story and two-story homes.
Please refer to pictures of the neighborhood (Pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B). The following table
compares the proposed square footage of the proposed residence with other homes in the
neighborhood.
Address
Number of
Stories
House
Garage
FAR
101
Cherrystone Ct
1
2,938
480
.37
108
Cherrystone Ct
1
2,018
480
.24
110
Cherrystone Ct
1
2,018
480
.29
112
Cherrystone Ct
2
2,447
450
.33
972
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,180
462
.27
976
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,350
480
.29
982
Cherrystone Dr
1
2,055
482
.24
977
Cherrystone Dr
2
3,447
660
.25
975
Cherrystone Dr
2
3,708
440
.44
The Planning Commission - Page 3
980 Cherrystone Drive/S-02-33
November 8, 2006
973
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,180
462
.27
971
Cherrystone Dr
1
2,018
480
.25
969
Cherrystone Dr
2
2,350
480
.29
967
Cherrystone Dr
1
2,018
480
.25
Average
2,440
485
.29
980
Cherrystone Dr
2
3,658
417
.39
C. RECOMMENDATION:
1. If the Planning Commission finds the proposed home compatible with the other homes in the
neighborhood in terms of the square footage and believes that there are grounds to allow the
proposal to go forward as proposed, the Planning Commission should direct staff to complete
the review of the proposed project and subsequently return the project back to the
Commission for approval.
2. If the Commission determines that changes are required to the proposed application, it should
do one of the following:
a. Refer the application back to staff with direction; or
b. Deny the application.
The Commission may identify additional issues that have not been raised by staff. If the
Commission decides to deny the application the Commission's input on the key issues would be
helpful to the Council in the event an appeal is filed.
Zep by:
Joel Paulson, Associate Planner
RT:JP
cc: Joan Hinkin, 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
N: \DEV\REPORTS\2006\980Cherrystone.wpd
a~
Bud N. Lortz,
Director of Community Development
980 Cherrystone Drive
Ln.
Hill
R 1:
z
August 30,2005
To Town Council Members of Los Gatos.
Our home is in desperate need of major repairs; secondary to flooding
from lack of and/or improper drains. It is the lowest lot of the seven adjacent
properties. We were assured that the drain systerns were in place; both by the
Builder and the Town of Los Gatos. The drought hit when we moved in, and it
was a good ten years before we realized there was a problem. Consequently
the whole sub-flooring needs to be replaced. It would be less costly, and more
efficient to tear it all down, but then taxes would be prohibitive.
Our needs have also changed over the years. It is no longer feasible or acceptable
to put multiple children in bunks, sharing a room. As young adults, they object to
sharing with a sibling ( especially the married ones) . The home we have planned
has been a dream since the early eighties. General economics and the expense of
raising and educating our children have delayed the repairs til now; and, it appears
the rules have changed.
In my plans, the footprint of the house will be smaller, as we plan to eliminate one
deck. Otherwise, it is just the addition ( completion) of the second story. According to
the Planning Commission, this addition puts us over the FAR. When we bought this
property, and when the original plans were made, these restrictions were not in effect.
The home we have envisioned is classic in design, and will fit into Los Gatos very
well. I take exception to the current planners whims and tastes regarding roof lines
Etc. Currently it appears that ones roof need rival the Swiss Alps in the number
of peaks and valleys ( at best, a waste of space; at least, a waste of energy). We want
to install solar panels in the recessed roof (therefore not visible from the street, or to
our neighbors).To make solar panels economical , we need as much flat roof as
possible.
As there are several other homes in the area that appear just as large or larger; and as
our immediate neighbors do not object, we respectfully request your approval of our
Addition.
Sincerely,
Joan M. Hinkin
Exhibit A
T § W:
-1 7 NFIT
CDG
CANNON
DESIGN
GROUP
November 8, 2005
Mr. Joel Paulson
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 980 Cherrystone Drive
Dear Joel:
ARCmTI?CTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
RECEIVED
NO V 1 6 2005
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The neighborhood around the site is characterized by a mixture of one and two story homes. The two
story homes in the immediate area all seem to have one story garages or roof segments at the first floor line
that break up the mass of the structures. The overall character of the area is largely informal in terms of
the architectural styles and massing of the homes. Photographs of the area are shown below.
TEL: 415.331.3795 FAX: 415.331.3797 180 HARBOR DRIVE, SUITE 215 Exhibit B
Nearby neighborhood house
Note roof projection breaking up height of front facade
Existing house on the site
Neighbor two parcels to the right
Note one story garage and recessed entry
,'0 Cheerystone Drive
.sign Review Comments
November 8, 2005 Page 2
Atypical
issues and Concerns
1. The primary concern with this proposal is its blocky, two story massing and design formality which is
out of keeping with the immediate neighborhood.
2. The entry with formal columns and entablature are actually
very close to the surface of the front wall as shown on the entry
plan to the right, and does not assist in mitigating the large
two story mass of the structure as viewed from the street.
3. The drawings are a bit confusing regarding the exterior wall
materials. The overall approach as to where to use brick for
lower wall portions, brick for full height walls, and stucco is
unclear to me.
II II
II II
II '1 II
I fL~":L
Applied %
flat columns
4. It appears that the intent is to use double hung windows, but the drawings are not clear in this regard.
This is probably just a function of the drawing symbol used for the windows which does not show solid
rails where the upper and lower window sections meet.
5. I noted the intent to use a molding at the juncture of the wall and roof soffit. This is a good detail, and
should be retained.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSALITO. CA 94965
IFx
immediate neighborhood
One story house in the immediate neighborhood
'0 Cheerystone Drive
-,sign Review Comments
November 8, 2005 Page 3
Ut clear whether these
are double hung windows
Issues and Concerns
Recommendations
1. Add a projecting porch with wood columns across the entry and adjacent window. This would breakup
the two story wall, add some depth to the facade, and reflect the break up of two story walls in the
immediate neighborhood.
2. Extend the brick on the lower wall surface up to the second floor windowsills.
3. Carry the brick around all four sides of the house at this consistent level.
4. Use brick soldier courses at the top of first floor window heads and at the projecting belt course at the
top of the brick.
5. Use double hung windows with interior dividers between the small window panes that have some
visual depth (i.e., no snap in grids.)
Brick soldier course at
top of garage opening
Entry element is almost flush with the wall
~nrl Anne not mititnata tho tlein ctnrV hi ilk of thin ctruCturP
Double hung
windows
Brick soldier course at
top of brick
Brick soldier course at
window heads on first floor
Extend brick up wall to
second floor window sills
Extend shed roof porch element
over entry and adjacent window
Use round wood columns with bases and caps
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSALITO, CA 94965
_Ju
1 WV .7LVIY Ll1UL.1L ILJI III VUL WI VI IQIUL.LUI VV ILII LI M,
architecture and scale of the neighborhood
"0 Cheerystone Drive
sign Review Comments
November 8, 2005 Page 4
6. Should the applicant not wish to carry the brick at the second floor window sills around the entire
house, the alternative below could be considered. A consistent height brick wainscot with a brick
soldier course at its top would carry around the house at the first floor sill level, and stucco would
be used up to a projecting stucco belt course below the second floor sill level. This intermediate wall
plane would be painted a darker tone than the upper floor area.
Projecting molding at
top of garage opening
Double hung
windows
Stucco belt molding
at window sills
Stucco wall with darker
tone color than top
Brick soldier course at
top of brick
7. There is one other possible solution to the issues which would retain a gable form entry, but one that is
projected much further from the front wall plane as shown conceptually in the two photos on the
following page. This would be supplemented with a painted trellis element over the garage.
Double hung
windows
Brick soldier course at
top of brick
Brick soldier course at
window heads on first floor
Extend brick up wall to
Entry gable eave line
Carry consistently around
all sides of the structure
Alternative Approach with gable entry - Front Elevation
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219, SAUSALITO, CA 94965
r
i.
I~
JPT
over entry and adjacent window
Use round wood columns with bases and caps
Alternative Approach - Front Elevation
I IW111a VVCI !JC11 Q~jC FU11,11 C1C111CIIt5 UVCf Cfltfy
Use gable with round wood columns
with caps and bases over entry and
project more from wall face
1 0 Cheerystone Drive
:sign Review Comments
November 8, 2005 Page 5
Joel, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did
not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
(~5Ta_A-~6~2
Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP
President
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
180 HARBOR DRIVE, SUITE 219. SAUSALITO,CA94965
Projecting gable roof entry examples
T' . I ow"11,`
ARBOR RESOURCES
Professional Arboricultural Consulting c& Tree Care
A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE
PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL AT
980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Joan Hinkin
APN: 523-12-039
ARCHITECTURE & SITE APPLICATION S-02-033
Submitted to:
Joel Paulson
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Prepared by:
David L. Babby, RCA
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4001A
December 14, 2005
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources c@i comcast.net
Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763
Exhibit C
a„ &C
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist December 14, 2005
INTRODUCTION
I have been asked by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department to
review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodel to the
existing residence at 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos. This report presents my findings
and recommendations.
The plans reviewed for this report include Sheets A-2 thm A-13 by Memarie Associates,
Inc., dated 7/7104. The trees' numbers, locations and approximate canopy dimensions I are
presented on an attached copy of Sheet A-2 (Proposed Site Plan).
The trees selected for my review include those that are regulated by Town Ordinance and
in close proximity to the proposed new residence. Of these, eleven are not presented on
the site plan and include #2-6, 8-11, 14 and 17; please note their approximate locations
have been plotted on the attached map but should not be construed as being surveyed.
FINDINGS
Seventeen trees were inventoried for this report and include seven Junipers (#2-6, 9, 11);
two Deodar Cedars (#12, 15); two California Sycamores (#!3, 14); one Valley Oak (#1);
one Coast Live Oak (#7); one Incense Cedar (#8); one Sweetgum (#10); one White Alder
(#16); and one Willow (#17). Specific data compiled for each is presented on the attached
table.
Though outside the proposed building footprint, trees #5 thru 7 would, for all practical
purposes, be subject to removal and/or become predisposed to instability and decline due
to being located in such close proximity to the existing and proposed residence. Given their
current location, their less than desirable structural condition, and the high amount of large
trees growing on the property, I find their loss would be insignificant and conform to the
Town's Ordinance.
By implementation of the proposed design, tree #8 would be adversely impacted unless
alternative measures for digging the cellar were carefully employed to minimize root loss.
In doing so, I recominend soil nailing and shotcrete construction are used to avoid
overbuild beyond two feet from the proposed basement and light well walls where within
20 feet of the tree's trunk.
The canopy dimensions shown for trees identified on Sheet A-2 do not reflect their actual canopy sizes; a
more accurate depiction can be obtained by referring to the attached table and map.
Hinkin Property, 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
Page 1 of 4
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist December 14, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations presented below are based on my review of the proposed plans and
serve as guidelines for promoting the longevity and stability of trees #1-4 and 8-16, as well
as mitigating the loss of trees #5-7. Any or all recommendations are subject to revision if
the plans become revised.
Design Guidelines
1. To minimize root damage at acceptable levels, digging for the basement and lightwell
must utilize soil nailing and shoterete construction where within 20 feet of tree #8's
trunk.
2. The surveyed trunk locations and accurate canopy dimensions of all trees inventoried
for this report should be added to Sheet A-2.
3. Any new underground utilities and services should be situated outside from beneath the
trees' canopies. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted regarding
alternative installation methods.
4. The drainage design for the project, including downspouts, must not require water
being discharged beneath the canopies or towards the trunks of retained trees.
I recommend the future landscape (planting and irrigation) and underground utility
design are reviewed for tree impacts prior to implementation.
6. A copy of this report should be incorporated into the final set of project plans and titled
Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection Instructions).
7. Any unused, existing underground utilities, lines or pipes beneath the trees' canopies
should be abandoned and cut off at existing grade.
Section 29.10.0985 of the Tree Protection Ordinance shall be used for determining the
mitigation of trees approved for removal (this is anticipated to be trees #4, 5 and 6).
Tree replacements must be selected from the Town of Los Gatos list of recommended
trees (available by contacting the Planning Division) and shown on the proposed plans.
They must be planted prior to final inspection and, as necessary for support, be double-
staked with ribber tree ties. All forms of irrigation must be of a drip or soaker hose
system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve.
The following guidelines should be considered for incorporation into the landscape
design:
a. Any plant material installed beneath the canopies of the Oak, Cedars and
Sycamores should be drought-tolerant. I further recommend that plant material
comprises no more than 15- to 20-percent of the area beneath the trees' canopies.
b. Any trenching for irrigation, lighting or drainage should be designed beyond the
trees' canopies. If irrigation lines or electrical lines for lighting are designed inside
Hinhin Property, 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos
Town of Los Gatos Conununity Development Department
Page 2 of 4
10L_ -1 MR
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist December 14, 2005
this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to the trunks and
established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this is not
possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with
wood chips or other mulch.
c. Irrigation should not spray within five feet from the trees' trunks.
d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the
trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees.
e. Tilling beneath the canopies should be avoided, including for weed control.
f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should
be established on top of existing soil grade.
Protection Measures before and during Construction
10. Tree protective fencing must be installed precisely as shown on the attached snap and
established prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment
arriving on site. It shall be comprised of a five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on
eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground
and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain
undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction until final inspection.
11. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the
fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) as well as outside from unpaved areas
beneath the canopies of Ordinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried for this
report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition,
grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of
materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
12. The following shall be displayed on 8.5- by 11-inch signs (minimum) and attached to
the fencing every 50 feet on the side facing construction activities: "Warning - Tree
Protection Zone - this fence shall not be removed. Violators are subject to a penalty
according to Town Code 29.10.1025."
13. Prior to construction, a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (1/a- to %-inch in size)
should be manually spread over the leaf litter over the unpaved areas beneath the
canopies of trees #1 and 16.
14. Prior to digging the cellar, a three-and-a-half-foot deep trench shall be manually dug
using shovels just inside of where the cellar wall or light well will be built within 20
feet from tree #8's trunk and 15 feet from tree #16's trunk. All roots encountered
during the process should be cleanly severed at the tree side of the trench. The freshly
cut ends of roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be immediately
wrapped in a clear sandwich bag and tightly sealed with a rubber band or tape.
15. The removal of any handscape beneath the canopies of retained trees should be
manually performed (such as through using a jackhammer) to avoid excavating soil
and damaging roots during the process.
Hinkin Property, 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos
Town ofLos Gatos Community Development Department
Page 3 of 4
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist December 14, 2005
16. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually
perfonned using shovels. Roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly
severed on the tree side of any cut and immediately covered with soil. The freshly cut
ends of roots with diameters of two inches and greater should, prior to being covered,
be wrapped with a plastic sandwich bag that is tightly secured using a rubber band.
Any roots of two inches and greater in diameter found during trenching should remain
intact and tunneled beneath.
17. Each recommendation presented in the `Design Guidelines' that applies to the
construction aspect of this project shall be followed.
18. The pruning and removal of trees must be performed under the supervision of an ISA
Certified Arborist and according to ISA Standards. Information regarding Certified
Arborists in the area can be obtained at http://www.isa-arbor.com. Stumps of removed
trees or large shrubs should be ground below grade rather than pulled up using an
excavator.
19. Throughout construction during the months of April thru November, supplemental
water must be supplied every two to three weeks to trees #16 and 17. The application
rate should be 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter supplied using soaker
hoses placed on the soil surface at the mid- to outer-canopies.
20. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited
beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In
addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment
occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks (unless on the street).
21. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they
should be labeled for safe use near trees.
Attachments: Tree Inventory Table
Site Map (copy of Sheet A-2)
Hinkin Property, 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
Page 4 of 4
"MMM7 -7
j
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
G
~
°
ro
C
u
o
n
w
0
a
.`C •
o
~
'b v
O
U
I I
b 0.l
tl
U
-
:o N
0
C
w .
-Y 0
-y
G
411
V
lu
TREE
G b
c°
oo
CD `
~
>
°3 i
.
U y
o
o
NO.
TREE NAME
N C7.'r
, a1 n
x.-
Valley Oak
1 (Quercus lobata) 53.5 110 75% 50% Fair Moderate 4 -
Chinese Juniper
2 (Juni erus chinensis) ~5 10 100% 75% Good High 4 - X
3
Chinese Juniper
(Juniperus chinensis)
-8
15
100%
75%
Good
Hi h
4
-
X
4
Chinese Juniper
(Juniperus chinensis)
-5
10
100%
75%
Good
Moderate
3
-
X
a
i
5
Chinese Juniper
(Juni erus chinensis)
5.5
10
100%
50%
Good
Moderate
-
X
X
X
6
Chinese Juniper
(Juniperus chinensis)
5
10
100%
50%
Good
Moderate
-
X
X
X
'_-`.7
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
10
30
100%
50%
Good
Moderate
- X
8
Incense Cedar
(Calocedrus decurrens)
-22
35
100%
75% Good
High
2
-
X
X
}
.9
Chinese Juniper
(Juniperus chinensis)
-5
10
100%
50%
Good
Moderate
3
-
X
_ 10
American Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua)
7
15
100%
25%
Fair
Low
4
-
X
California Sycamore
17-13 (Platanus racemosa) 24.5 70 100% 75% Good High 4
California Sycamore
11-14 (Platanus racemosa) 23 65 100% 50% Good High 4 X
Site: 980 Cherrystone Drive, Los Gatos
'['repared far: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Rabby, RCA
December 14, 2005
Deodar Cedar
__.15 (Cedrus deodara) 14.5 25 100% 50% Good High 4
LL O G
r
- C= Z
zoo
/ m m
v ' 4 J ISi I
LU O
IL -
V` voi
r 20t d
oil!
rxa oca r4
I
Date: November 8 2006
For Agenda Of: November 8 2006
Agenda Item: 3
DESK ITEM
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: The Director of Community Development
LOCATION: 980 Cherrystone Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-02-33
Requesting approval to construct an addition which exceeds the allowable
Floor Area Ratio on property zoned R-1:8. APN 523-12-039.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Joan Hinkin
EXHIBITS: A-E. Previously Submitted
F. Letter from David Schwartz, received November 7, 2006
A. REMARKS :
The attached letter (Exhibit F) was received after the report on this matter was finalized.
epared by:
Joel Paulson, Associate Planner
RT:JP
N:\DEV\REPORTS\2006\9 80CherrystoneDesk.wpd
Approved by:
Bud N. Lortz,
Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENT 4
I
IVE
pw-r
David L. Schwartz
976 Cherrystone Drive NOV - 7 2006
Los Gatos, CA 95032
SOWN OF LOS GATOS
November 8, 2006 BUILDING DIVISION
Planning Commission, 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 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 3rd 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 too clean the last portion of our street gutter 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
Planning Commission deny this application.
EXhibit F
I regret that I was unable to attend the Planning Board Meeting, November 8,
2006, as I had business out of town.
Sincerely,
David L. Schwartz
Stephen N. Reinhold
972 Cherrystone Drive
Los Gatos, California 95032
(408) 356-4177
November 8, 2006
Planning Commission, Town of Los Gatos
I respectfully request that approval for the architectural and site application 5-02-33 (980
Cherrystone) be denied. Here are the reasons:
Our family moved into the neighborhood in 1996 specifically because of the character
and relatively homogeneous size of the houses there. We had seen the detrimental
impact of monster houses in our former neighborhood in Scotts Valley and did not want
to repeat that experience. We learned from our realtor that unlike the "county" areas in
Blossom Manor, the zoning within the town borders restricted the size of houses to
reasonable limits. If these plans are approved, we fear that it may embolden others to
attempt to build equally massive houses. As we learned in Scotts Valley, smaller homes
in the shadow or monster homes are difficult to sell.
2. The colossal height of the house will severely restrict our views of the Santa Cruz
Mountains, particularly in winter. It will also eliminate our ability to enjoy our back
yard in relative privacy. It simply towers over all of the adjoining houses.
3. The flat roof and dormer windows make it appear to be a three story house totally out of
character with the rest of the neighborhood. It seems obvious that the attic is intended to
be additional living space that should be included in the FAR. The full basement is
another exacerbating factor when considering the request to have the middle two floors
of the house exceed the FAR.
4. The combination of the enormous square footage of four floors of living space with the
intent to include as many separate bedrooms as possible give rise to questions about the
real purpose of this building. Even if it is only used to house friends and relatives, our
street will not support the parking requirements this level of occupancy implies.
The FAR limits exist for a reason. Many homes in our neighborhood have been
tastefully remodeled in recent years, and none to my knowledge has grossly exceeded
the FAR. I applaud the discipline the planning commission has demonstrated in
maintaining the quality of our neighborhood by approving rational plans and denying
unreasonable ones. I filly support our neighbors' right to remodel their home within the
FAR limits and neighborhood norms.
Sincerely,
Stephen N. Reinhold
ATTACHMENT 5
ITEM # 19
980 CHERRYSTONE DRIVE
Attachment #7 and #8 are
available for review in the
Clerk Department.