Loading...
10 - 321 W. Main Street0 MEETING DATE: 12/19/11 ITEM NO. j k � tos °GADS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: December 8, 2011 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLIC S -11 -063. PROPERTY LOCATION: 321 W. MAIN STREET . PROPERTY OWNER: EDWARD AND NICOLE REGINELLI APPLICANT: BRIAN ACED DE MATTEI CONSTRUCTION. APPELLANT: PAUL RUFANO FOR ROBERT BURSA CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED R- 1D:LHP. APN 510 -45 -002. RECOMMENDATION After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that: 1. The Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Architecture and Site application S -11 -063 (motion required). 2. Adopt resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve an Architecture and Site application on property zoned R- 1D:LHP (Attachment 6) (motion required). ALTERNATIVES Alternatively, the Council may: ® Determine that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified and find one or more of the following: PREPARED BY : !-54endie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance N: \DEV \TC REPORTS\2011 \wmainst.321 - appeal.doe Refonnatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 12/8/11 8:28 AM PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 321 W. MAIN ST /5 -11 -063. December 8, 2011 a. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or b. The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or c. 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; or • Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction (motion required); or • Grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission with specific direction (Exhibit 7) (motion required). BACKGROUND In 2004, a Minor Residential application for a new second story addition was approved at the subject site which is located in the Broadway Historic District. The application expired in 2006. On May 12, 2011, the applicant submitted a new Minor Residential application to construct a second story addition at the subject site. After two reviews by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) staff sent out notices of pending approval to all adjacent property owners and occupants. Staff received three letters of opposition from adjacent neighbors during the noticing period (Exhibit 7 of Attachment 1). Based on neighbor concerns, the applicant proposed a slight modification to the roofline at the rear of the residence, and landscape screening along the rear corners of the lot (Exhibit 10 of Attachment 1). Staff found that the proposed changes were in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and the direction previously provided to the applicant by the HPC. The applicant and property owners have attempted to work with the neighbors regarding minor architectural changes and landscape screening, but were unable to find an agreement that addressed all the neighbors' concerns and that all the neighbors could agree with (Exhibit 8 of Attachment 1). The property owner discussed several solutions regarding landscape screening options at the rear of the property but an agreeable solution could not be reached between the three rear neighbors, Although the applicant could mitigate some neighbor concerns regarding screening, the mitigation conflicted with other neighbors that did not want the same amount or location of screening, since it would block their views. As a result, the application was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. On October 26, 2011, the Planning Commission considered and approved the application without landscape screening (Attachments 4 and 5). The decision was appealed by a neighbor on November 7, 2011 (Attachment 3). DISCUSSION A. Project Summary The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 179 sq. ft. addition to the first floor and a 1,076 sq. ft. second story addition to the existing 1,041 sq. ft. single story residence. The applicant is also proposing to remove 44- sq. ft. from the existing 616 sq. ft. detached garage. The allowed and PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 321 W. MAIN ST /5 -11 -063. December 8, 2011 proposed FAR for the house is .33. The existing residence is approximately 18 feet in height, and the proposed addition would increase the maximum height to approximately 27 feet. See Attachment 1 (Planning Commission staff report of October 12, 2011) fora thorough description of the proposed project. B. Planning Commission The Planning Commission considered this application on October 26, 2011. A representative for both 80 and 86 Broadway spoke at the hearing. The representative read from a letter from the neighbor at 86 Broadway who was requesting that three Podocarpus trees be planted at the southwest corner of the site (Exhibit 12 of Attachment 2). The representative also read from a letter from the neighbor at 80 Broadway (Exhibit 11 of Attachment 2) which stated that the planting of a Podocarpus tree for their screening was unacceptable to them since the tree would not grow to a sufficient height. The Commission questioned the representative what landscape screening would be acceptable for the neighbor at 80 Broadway. The representative stated that his clients did not have a specific proposal but were willing to look at landscaping proposals. The neighbor directlybehind the subject site spoke at the hearing and requested that no landscape screening be planted. After listening and considering the public testimony, the Commission approved the application with the alternate development plan modifications (Exhibit 10 of Attachment 1) and the Commission required no landscape screening (Attachments 4 and 5). The Commission commented that the neighbor's would need to work out however they wanted the landscaping. C. Appeal The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on November 7, 2011 (Attachment 3). The basis for the appeal is that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in that the Commission made their decision on incomplete data. The appellant has stated that the decision was based on one Commissioner's comments who visited the site of the rear property owner who did not want landscape screening and that no Commissioners visited the site of the neighbors who wanted screening. Attachment 8 is a response from the applicant regarding the appeal. D. Staff Comment Staff supports the decision of the Planning Commission and concurs that the neighbors should work on their own in resolving the landscape screening since the neighbors have conflicting desires. Staff has deterinined that the proposed additions would conform to the Residential Design Guidelines and would provide a residence similar in size and mass to those in the immediate neighborhood and is supportive of the proposed addition. The report to the Planning Commission noted that staff is supportive of any landscape solution the deciding body finds appropriate. The applicant is also supportive of any reasonable landscape solution the deciding body finds appropriate. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 321 W. MAIN ST /S -11 -063. Deceinber 8, 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. CONCLUSION It is recommended that Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Conunission to approve the Architecture and Site application, and adopt the resolution in Attachment 6. If Town Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific findings as to how the Planning Commission erred must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 7). FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments Received under separate cover 1. Report to the Planning Commission for October 26, 2011, including all Exhibits 2. Desk Item for Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2011, including all Exhibits 3. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision received November 7, 2011 (three pages ) 4. Excerpt of Verbatim minutes from October 26, 2011, Planning Commission (12 pages) 5. Approved Conditions of Approval Received with this report 6. Resolution denying the appeal (two pages) 7. Resolution granting the appeal (two pages) 8. Letter and photos from Ed Reginelli, received November 29, 2011 (four pages) Distribution Edward and Nicole Reginelli, 20673 Marion Rd, Saratoga, CA 95070 Brian Aced, De Mattei Construction, 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126 Paul Tufano, c/o Pertria, Attn: Robert Burba, 100 Los Gatos - Saratoga Rd. #A, Los Gatos, CA 95032 WRR:SLB:ct N: \DEV \TC REPORTS \20114mainst.321 - appeal.doc B owe of TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT cos u�z�g Meeting Date: October 26, 2011 PREPARED BY: Marni F. Moseley, Associate Planner, AICP mmoseley(@,Iosgatosea.gov APPLICATION NO.: Architecture and Site Application S -11 -063 LOCATION: 321 W. Main Street (South side of Main Street at the intersection of Bayview Avenue) . APPLICANT: Brian Aced, De Mattei Construction PROPERTY OWNER: Edward and Nicole Reginelli CONTACT PERSON: Brian Aced APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to construct a second story addition to a single family residence on property zoned R- lD:LHP. APN 510 -45 -002 DEEMED COMPLETE: September 29, 2011 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: March 29, 2012 RECOMMENDATION: Soft approval PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: R- 1D:LHP, Single Family Residential Applicable Plans & Standards: Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 6,895 sq. ft. Surrounding Area: CEQA: _ North __ Existing Land Use Single and Multi- F amil y Gen Plan Medium Density Residential Zoning R -1D, RM- 5 E ast_ Singl F amily Med Densi Reside _ R- lD :L South Singl Family Medium Den sity Resi dential_ R- l D :L West I Single Family Medium Density Residential R- 1D:LHP Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. FINDINGS: ® As required by Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town that this project is Categorically Exempt. k l Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 321 W. Main St /S -11 -063 October 26, 2011 CONSIDERATIONS: ® As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications. a As required by Section 29.80.290 of the Town Code for applications within a Historic District. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. EXHIBITS: 1. - Location map 2. Required Findings and Considerations (one page) 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (five pages) 4. Project Data sheet (two pages) 5. Excerpt from Historic Preservation Committee Minutes, May 25, 2011 (three pages) 6. Excerpt from Historic Preservation Committee Minutes, June 22, 2011 (two pages) 7. Letters from neighbors (three pages) 8. Correspondence between applicant and neighbors (five pages) 9. Development Plans (seven pages) 10. Alternate Development Plan sheets (two pages) BACKGROUND The subject property is a 6,895 square foot interior lot zoned R- 1D:LHP and currently contains a 1,041 sq. ft. single, family residence with a 616 sq. ft, detached garage. In 2004, a Minor Residential application for a new second story addition was approved. The application expired in 2006. On May 12, 2011, the applicant submitted a new Minor Residential application to construct a second story addition at 321 W. Main Street. Aft er two reviews by the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) (Exhibits 5 and 6) staff sent out notices of pending approval to all adjacent neighbors. Staff received three letters of opposition from adjacent neighbors during the noticing period (Exhibit 7). The applicant and property owners have attempted to work with the neighbors regarding minor changes and landscape screening, but were unable to find an agreement that addressed all the neighbors' concerns and that all the neighbors could agree with (Exhibit 8). As a result the application is being forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 321 W. Main St/5 -11 -063 October 26, 2011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Location and Surrounding Nei &borhood The proposed project is located at the south end of the intersection of W. Main Street and Bayview Avenue. The property to the northwest is multifamily condominiums; all other adjacent properties are single family residential (Exhibit 1). B. Architecture and Site Approval The request to construct a new second story requires a Minor Residential application, which is a staff review process that includes noticing the immediately adjacent neighbors. Due to the comments submitted to staff and the applicant, the application is being forwarded to the Planning Commission as an Architecture and Site application and the noticing requirement has been expanded to a 300 ft. radius. C. Zoning Compliance The existing residence and detached garage have nonconforming setbacks along the east side of the property. The Town Code allows the extension of existing non - conforming setbacks. All other proposed setbacks conform to Town Code. The proposed project complies with the floor area ratio, height, and structure coverage limitations. The project also complies with parking requirements. The zoning permits a single family dwelling use. ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 179 sq. ft. addition to the first floor and a 1,076 sq. ft. second story addition to the existing 1,041 sq. ft. single story residence. The applicant is also proposing to remove 44 sq. ft. from the existing 616 sq, ft. detached garage. The allowed and proposed FAR's for the property are .33. The existing residence is approximately 18 feet in height, and the proposed addition would increase the maximum height to approximately 27 feet. While the residence is located within the Broadway Historic District, the house lacks many of the character traits of the original simplified Victorian style. The applicant is proposing to remodel the exterior to incorporate traditional craftsman style features and details as directed by the HPC (Exhibit 6), which is discussed further in this report. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 321 W. Main St/S -11 -063 October 26, 2011 B. Neighborhood Compatibility Existing homes in the neighborhood range in size from 768 to 3,404 square feet and FAR's range from .10 to .77 with parcel sizes ranging from 3,049 sq. ft. to 7,632 sq. ft. as shown in the following table. The applicant is proposing a residence with'a living floor area of 2,296 sq. ft. on a 6,895 sq, ft. lot. The proposal would not create the largest house or the largest FAR within the immediate neighborhood. Data was obtained from County and Town records. The FAR 's are rourided to the nearest - Pledge riote art " below does not distinguish cellar floor area if it exists. Address €32�F,W� E F F�frd,�, 310 W. Main House SF -,-MM, 2,331 Garage SF d ,r. i 4��4 0 Site SF iFt mm F� 7,500 FAR v+ 0.31 Stories "! ; �tla7f;1Y�'.y' } }.� .. 1 312 W. Main 3,404 525 4,400 0.77 2 300 W. Main 2,880 252 5,600 0.51 2 325 W. Main 768 0 7,632 0.10 1 315 W. Main 1,624 0 7,500 0.22 1 311 W. Main 1,512 0 7,500 0.20 1 333 W. Main 1,792 0 3,049 0.59 1 307 W. Main 2,185 343 4,992 0.44 2 305 W. Main 2,848 480 5,304 0.54 2 74 Broadwa 2,412 0 6,700 0.36 2 80 Broadway 1,997 0 6,750 0.30 2 84 Broadwa 1,355 480 6,750 0.20 1 86 Broadway 2,493 1 324 5,440 1 0.46 1 98 Broadway 2,336 0 1 5,490 1 0.43 2 C. Historic Preservation Committee The plans were reviewed by the HPC on May 25, and June 22, 2011 (Exhibits 5 and 6). The HPC determined that while the property resides within the Broadway Historic District, the residence lacks any of the original historic details and character. The applicant was directed to incorporate more traditional elements found within the district, such as increasing the second story front setback and providing a larger front porch. In addition, the applicant provided larger eaves and other detail changes consistent with a traditional craftsman style structure. On June 22, 2011, the HPC recommended approval of the application subject to several additional changes which have been incorporated into the final plans (Exhibit 7). Subsequent to the recommendation made by the HPC the applicant eliminated the proposed fireplace due to inadequate space along the driveway. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 321 W. Main St/S -1 1 -063 October 26, 2011 D. Tree Impacts No trees will be impacted by the development. E. CEOA Determination The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. PUBLIC COMMENT: During the noticing period for the Minor Residential application, staff received three letters from the adjacent neighbors with concerns regarding the addition (Exhibit 7). The concerns listed by the neighbors are: - Blocking views - The design of the rear elevation The applicant and property owner have attempted to work with the neighbors, but have been unable to provide a solution that meets the stated concerns. The rear elevation was changed to incorporate a gable dormer and has been reviewed by the adjacent neighbors. The property owner also discussed several solutions regarding landscape screening options at the rear of the property (Exhibit 8); an agreeable solution could not be reached between the property owner and the three rear neighbors regarding landscaping. Although the applicant could mitigate some neighbor concerns regarding screening, the mitigation conflicted with other neighbors that did not want the 'Same amount or location of screening since it would block their views. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A. Conclusion Staff has determined that the proposed additions would conform to the Residential Design Guidelines and would provide a residence similar in size and mass to those in the immediate neighborhood. 'The applicant has proposed a slight modification to the roofline at the rear of the residence, and landscape screening along the rear and /or rear corners of the property in an attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors. While the HPC has not reviewed the revisions to the rear elevation, staff finds the proposed to be in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and the direction previously provided to the applicant by the HPC. The applicant has continued to work and discuss options with the neighbors regarding screening, but has been unable to satisfy all neighbors with the same Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 321 W. Main St /S -11 -063 October 26, 2011 solution. Staff is supportive of the changes to the rear elevation (Exhibit 9), and any landscape solution the Planning Commission finds appropriate. B. Recommendation If the Commission finds merit with the proposal, they should take the following actions: 1. Find that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality -Act as- -adopted by the -Town (Exhibit 2); and - 2. Determine that the project is in conformance with the considerations for Architecture and Site applications as set forth in Section 29.20.150 of the Zoning. Ordinance (Exhibit 2); 3. Approve the Architecture and Site application subject to the conditions in Exhibit 3 and as shown in the development plans (Exhibit 8), with the modifications shown in the alternate sheets in Exhibit 9. Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Approve the application with additional or modified conditions of approval, or 2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction, or 3. Deny the application. Prepared by: Marni F. Moseley, AICP Associate Planner WRR :MM:ct (l � "k Approved by: endie R. Rooney Director of Community Development cc: Edward and Nicole Reginelli, 20673 Marion Rd, Saratoga, CA 95070 Brian Aced, De Maffei Construction, 1794 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2011 \321 W. Main.doc 321 W. Main Street EXHIBIT I This Page Intentionally Left Blank REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: October 26, 2011 321 W. Main Street Architecture and Site Application 5 -11 -063 Requesting approval of a second story addition to a single - family residence in the Broadway Historic district on property zoned R- 1D:LHP. APN 510 -45 -002. PROPERTY OWNER: Nicole & Ed Reginelli APPLICANT: Brian Aced, De Mattei Construction FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: ® The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications: n As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications the considerations were all made in reviewing this application. ® As required by Section 29.80.290 of the Town Code for applications within a Historic District. NADEVONDINGS\2011\321 W. Main.doc EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL October 26, 2011 321 W. Main Street Architecture and Site Application S -11 -063 Requesting approval of a second story addition to a single - family residence in the Broadway Historic district on property zoned R- 1D:LHP. APN 510 -45 -002. PROPERTY OWNER: Nicole & Ed Reginelli APPLICANT: Brian Aced, De Mattei Construction TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (Planning Section) 1. APPROVAL EXPIRATION: Zoning approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the application is vested. 2. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any minor changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development and other changes will be approved by the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the change(s). 3. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 4. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval. (Building Section) 5. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the alteration and addition to this existing single family residence. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary. 6. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 7. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36 ". 8. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. Or the foundation design can be engineered based on the minimum allowable soil bearing capacities stipulated in CBC Chapter 18, EXHtGff 3 Conditions of Approval 321 W. Main/ S -11 -063 Page 2of5 9. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A foundation certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and that the foundation has been prepared according to the approved plans. 10. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed at all new construction with adaptability features for single family residential buildings per Town Resolution 1994 -61: a. - Wooded .backing -(2 "- x ..8'.'..- minimum) .shall be -provided - in_.all. bathroom_walls, - -at- _water closets, showers, and bathtubs located 34- inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32- inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall a 36 -inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more than 1/2- inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18 -inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 11. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue- lined, i.e. directly printed onto a plan sheet. 12. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12- inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 13. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 -feet of Chimney. 14. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1701, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled -out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosea. og v/buildin 15. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (2406) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee or online at www.losgatosea.g . 16. NPDES -C.3 DATA FORM: A copy of the NPDES C.3 Data Form (updated based on the final construction drawings) must be blue -lined in full onto the plans. In the event that this data differs significantly from any Planning approvals, the Town may require recertification of the project's storm water treatment facilities prior to release of the Building Permit. Conditions of Approval 321 W. Main/ S -11 -063 ( Page 3 of 5 17. ADVISORY COMMENT: All new construction for this duplex must be designed and built in compliance with the new 2010 California Residential Code and the Mandatory Measures of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code. 18. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development — Planning Division: Mami Moseley (408) 354 -6802 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Trang Tu- Nguyen (408) 354 -5236 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378 -4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378 -2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS: (Engineering Division) 19. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right -of -way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and /or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right -of -way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 20. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right -of -way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 21. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty -four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on- site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right -of -way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection. 22. SIDEWALK CLOSURE. Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 23. PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 24. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map. 25. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. Applicant shall be required to improve the project's public frontage to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, curb ramps, traffic signal, street lighting (upgrade and /or repaint) etc. Conditions of Approval 321 W. Main/ S -11 -063 Page 4 of 5 26. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§ 15.40.070). 27. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled /signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING Flows to Bay" .NPDES required- _language. 28. NPDES, On -site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3 J of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and /or right of way. 29. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right -of -way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm drains. 30. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Constniction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk- through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 31. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean -out at the property line. 32. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and /or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec. 6.50.025). The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve, as defined section 103(e) of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition. Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. Conditions of Approval 321 W. Main/ S -11 -063 Page 5 of 5 33. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays; and 9 :00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty -five (85) dBA at twenty -five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty -five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty -five (85) dBA. 34. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of good's and /or materials on the sidewalk and /or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right -of -way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and /or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right -of -way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 35. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the additions as well as the existing residence, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work. 36. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from the road. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background. N:\DEV\CONDITNS\2011 \321 W. Main.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 4 Sig .v BRED'/ - � ' S Zoning district R- 1D:LHP same _ Land use Single family residence single family residence - General Plan Designation medium density residential same _ Lot size (sq. ft.) 6,895 same 5,000 sq. ft. min Exterior materials: ipj ? S it- WA N. � I' a O N 7 • siding 8" lap siding same _ • trim wood _ • windows Single pane wood Double pane wood - • roofing AC Comp same - Building floor area: y d `3� W��" kid 5' • first floor 1,041 1,220 _ • second floor 1,076 _ • cellar - _ - • garage 616 572 - Setbacks ft.: 'Y kC �� � ai a "'.b a'� 'f�, ��'� � r��1 � Z ,v` �-�' Y, n- �����• �;a� ' • front 10 10'6" 15 feet minimum • rear 83 79 20 feet minimum • side 4W 4 5 feet minimum • side 14 same 5 feet minimum Maximum height (ft.) 18 26)8" 30 feet maximum Building coverage (%) 25% 26% 40% maximum Floor Area Ratio a} ly v',, .73v mV>i 1.;F ! s- }z r r 1� `- � � a . .✓Fly` . , � .. Via. _i - i£a+v. t;: 4�Sn xh�O o house 1,041 2,296 2,310 sq. ft. max EXHIBIT 4 garage 616 572 655 sq. ft. max Parking 2 2 two spaces minimum Tree Removals - - canopy replacement Sewer or septic sewer same - TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354 -6872 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR MAY 25, 2011, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 110 E MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by Chair Charles Erekson. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Bob Cowan, Charles EreksOn, Kathryn Janoff, Len Pacheco Members Absent: Jane Ogle Staff Present: Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner; Marni Moseley, Associate Planner Others present: Jay Plett, • Gary Schloh, Ed Reginelli, Brian Aced, Bob Steuer, Amad Mohazab, John Pschenica, Dawn Simone VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bob Cowan made a motion to approve the minutes of January 21 and April 27, 2011 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Len Pacheco and passed unanimously. ITEM 2 461 UNIVERSITY AVENUE Gary SchIoh and Jay Plett, architects, were present for this item. Gary Schloh explained that the property is.adjacent to the Fiesta House site. The existing house has little exterior detailing. The house was built around 1910, but the effective year built is 1951. The siding is a non -wood product that is flush with the window and door frames. It appears that the rear third of the house has been modified. There are different styles of windows and the house has very little quality. The owner would like to demolish the house and build a new one in about the same location. Len Pacheco commented that there is some original siding on the rear. The house lacks architectural merit. He noticed termite damage, open seams and cracks, and the foundation looks to be in poor condition. XW8ff 5 Historic Preservation Committee May 25, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Kathy Janoff commented that there does not appear to be anything left of a 1910 structure. Bob Cowan commented that the house meshes well with the Fiesta House and the historical nature of the site. He would prefer to see an addition made at the rear, or a second story added. He did not see any drastic dry rot when he visited the site. He would like to see the scale of the building remain consistent with the neighborhood and Fiesta House. Jay Plett noted that there will be a large setback on the right side of the house due to the oak tree - - located on the adjacent property, and the driveway will remain on the left. Len Pacheco commented that unless the siding is removed, it is difficult to determine the extent of the dry rot. Bob Cowan recommended that staff consider the Fiesta House when evaluating a replacement structure, and that it be kept in context. Gary Schloh commented that there will be a comfortable look from house to house. The new design will be comparable to the existing and the Fiesta house. Len Pacheco clarified that a streetscape exhibit will be required. He noted the lack of distinguishing character for the existing house. The new house should fit into the streetscape and provide a sense of continuity. Bob Cowan requested that staff check with Historic Resources Inventory to verify that there is no historic significance related to significant events and persons. Bob Cowan made a motion to approve the request to remove the house from the Historic Resources Inventory, finding that it does not appear to have any historic significance and the building does not have any distinguishing character. He recommended that the replacement structure be compatible with the Fiesta House. The motion was seconded by Len Pacheco and passed unanimously. ITEM 3 321 W. MAIN STREET Ed Reginelli, owner, and Brian Aced, DeMattei Construction, were present for this item. Brian Aced commented that the intent is to work with the neighborhood and Residential Design Guidelines. A second story addition is proposed. Historic Preservation Committee May 25, 2011 Page 3 of 2 Len Pacheco commented that there is a list of items he has.-concerns about. He doesn't think the proposed addition is compatible with the existing house. The original house was likely different than what exists today. The addition is top heavy and has too many pop - outs. It is tricky to do an appropriate second story on a Victorian. Bob Cowan commented that the owners of a non- contributing structure such as this are encouraged to bring the building more in compliance with the historic district and neighborhood. He suggested shifting some of the floor area back. Kathy Janoff commented that the design is top heavy. She asked the reason for changing the approved 2094 design. Ed Reginelli said that they have had more children and need another bedroom. Len Pacheco commented that siding on the chimney is not allowed, and there are too many window styles. He would like to continue the item for further work. The style should be simplified. A Craftsman would have a large porch and simpler design. Bob Cowan commented that the goal is to add more character to the house and not have it be too boxy. 'The current window heights are eight feet and the attic has three -foot pony walls. Len Pacheco made a motion to continue the matter with the following direction: 1. The look and feel of the architecture should be compatible with the Broadway Historic District. 2. Consider moving the second floor back. 3. Reduce the footprint of the second floor if possible (reduce massing). 4. Avoid cantilevers on the second floor, other than a bay window. 5. Consider extending the footprint to the rear of the site. 6. Review the Broadway Historic District homes (character and style). The motion was seconded by Kathy Janoff and passed unanimously. ITEM 4 89 BROADWAY Bob Steuer was present for this item, representing the property owner. Bob Steuer commented that the main architectural elements are the 45 degree bay at the left front and the gable at the right front. Shed roof additions have been made to the front and rear of the house. This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354 -6872 ---------------------------------------------- SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE IUSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JUNE 22, 2011, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 110 E MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 4 :05 P.M. by Chair Charles Erekson. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Bob Cowan, Charles Erekson, Kathryn Janoff, Len Pacheco Members Absent: lane Ogle Staff Present: Joel Paulson, Senior Planner; Marni Moseley, Associate Planner; Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner; Todd Capurso, Director of Parks and Public Works Others present: Marlc DeMattei, Gary Schloh, Nicole Reginelli, Brian Aced, Mike . Wasserman, David Zicovich, Jackie Greenmeyer VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bob Cowan made a motion to approve the minutes of May 25, 2011 with slight revisions offered by Bob Cowan. The motion was seconded by Len Pacheco and passed unanimously. ITEM 2 321 W. MAIN STREET Nicole Reginelli, owner, Mark DeMattez and Brian Aced, contractors, were present for this item. Mark DeMattei and Brian Aced explained the changes that had been made since the BPC's previous review of the application. Kathy,Tanoff asked why building out over the garage was not feasible? Marni Moseley explained that it was not permitted by Town Code. Len Pacheco asked how much of the existing house is expanding and what is the house style? El HSIT 6 Historic Preservation Committee June 22, 2011 Page 2of6 He commented that the house has lost its historic context from the original style and is becoming Craftsmen. Mark DeMattei explained that he was trying to provide a design that was compatible with the neighborhood. Len Pacheco commented that this house and the house next door were built and remodeled at the same time: He cdmitierited that if this is- rnoving towards - a - Craftsmen it is not - quite - ere yet. He commented that it should have wider overhangs, lower roof pitch, only one style of window, brackets, deeper porch, belly band, gable ends, and siding that matches the existing eight inch wide siding. Bob Cowan commented that the front porch depth is inadequate. Len Pacheco commented that the front porch should be at least five or six feet deep. Bob Cowan commented that the back door should have some kind of cover above it. Len Pacheco made a motion to recommend approval of the request with the following recommendations: 1. Extend the roof overhangs. 2, Lower the roof pitch by at least six inches. 3. Incorporate a wider rock chimney. 4. The windows should all be double hung in single or paired configurations. 5, The brackets should be stronger, but in proportion. 6. The siding should match the existing eight inch wide siding. 7. The rear door on the rear elevation should have a bracketed overhang. g, The front porch depth should be extended as allowed by Town Code and could be covered or uncovered. The motion was seconded by Bob Cowan and passed unanimously. ITEM 3 68 BROADWAY Mike Wasserman, owner, and David Zicovich, contractor, were present for this item. Mlce Wasserman provided an overview of the proposed modification and provided justification for the request. August 18, 2011 Eric & Gloria Rollins 86 Broadway, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (415) 786 -7387 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Planning Division Attn: Marni F. Moseley Reference: 321 W. Main Street Parcel # 510 -45 -002 Objection to the second story addition Dear Ms. Moseley: RECEIVED AUU 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION We reside at 86 Broadway, and our backyard is diagonal from 321 Main St. We purchased our home several years ago, and one of the selling points is the nice view from the backyard. Right now, the view towards 321 Main St. and beyond is the only expansive view we have, as trees and neighbors have virtually blocked us in elsewhere. We object to the addition of a second story on 321 Main St. as we would be looking at the roof and second level of a house, as opposed as to the nice view we have now of the charming Victorian house across 321 Main, and onward. We understand it is the intent of the city to approve the addition (per letter from Town), In reviewing the plans for the house, we were wondering if maybe a more appealing option for the back wall/roof could be made, in light of the fact we'll be looking at it, whether we like it or not. The current design is plain and unattractive. Again, we would rather be looking out at an unobstructed view, but if a view - blocking structure is going to be put up, we would rather not be staring right at a flat wall. Something with more definition like a dutch gable, provided it's well done, would be much preferred. Thanks for your time and attention in reviewing our concerns. Please feel free to call or email with questions (415) 786 -7387, gloriachen216 @yahoo.com Sincerely, Gloria Rollins PXHISIT 7 1 84 gR DAD WA`( LOS <. ATOS, C.A 95030 AUG r '22 011 408- 354-330io' TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION August 18, 2011 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Planning Division Attn: Marni F. Moseley Reference: . 321 W. Main .Street - - .. -..... . . . . .. .... ... Parcel # 510-45 -002 For 40 years I have been able to gaze out my back windows and deck at a lovely Victorian and on down Bayview. Now it seems almost all of that view will be blocked. I know that the previous owner had applied for a second'story and didn't proceed with the project. I also know that the existing floor plan is not very workable for a family and is small. But I'm wondering why the addition couldn't push out the back of the house as a single story. There is plenty of room and in any case a single story is easier to live in. This is an historic district and I don't understand why this design was considered in the first place. My wife, Carol Ferro, and I are in opposition to this addition. Sincerely, Paul E. Biber (408) 354 -3306 Email: igaireinc @msn.com From: "REBECCA Bums Tufano" <rtufano @msn.com> 2 r 1 1 To: <Igaireinc@msn.com> AU �= Cc: <ptufano @msn.com> TOWN OF LOS G ATO i Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 8:01 AM PLANNING DIVISION ` ubject: Objection to Proposed Addition on Main St., Los Gatos 3 the Los Gatos Planning Commission, We are the owners of the property at 86 Broadway, and object to the current plans for an additional floor for the property on Main Street. We have been informed that the new proposal is even bigger than the prior one, and we object to this. Eighty Broadway sits at a T- intersection, directly facing Clifton Ave (a very steep and high hill). Both sides of 80 Broadway are only feet away from neighbors, so the back is really the only place where there is a bit of openness and privacy. We are concerned that having a high addition to the Main Street property will have a negative effect on 80 Broadway, making it feel boxed in, since this would effectively create a high structure in the remaining space. Paul Biber, our neighbor, has kindly offered to deliver this notice to you by your deadline of August 22, 5 p.m. since (because of our travel) we only found out abut it today (August 21). Sincerely, Rebecca and Paul Tufano owners of 80 Broadway 9/21/20 This Page Intentionally Left Blank RECE1VEU ------- Sf P 2;. 2011 84 Broadway Paul Biber and Carol Ferro TOWN OF I-OF, GATOS PLANNING DIVISION August 22, 2011 - Reginelli's informed by Town of Los Gatos that the residents at 84 Broadway, Paul Biber and Carol Ferro (the `Biber's "), have sent a formal opposition to their project. The Biber's did not oppose the Reginelli's project that was approved in 2004 (in which the Reginelli's did not move forward with due to personal reasons). The Biber's property location has a direct view of the Reginelli's proposed and existing property. August 22, 2011 — Reginelli's reached out to the Biber's via email and voice message. August 24, 2011 — Reginelli's followed up with another email and voice message to the Biber's. August 24, 2011 — Biber's contacted the Reginelli's and had a productive phone conversation. Both parties agreed to meet on Saturday August 27, 2011 at the Biber's house. August 27, 2011 — Met at the Biber's house to discuss the 2nd story addition project. The Biber's expressed concern over the project and the design of the rear roofline of the proposed house and asked us to consider some changes that would help minimize their concerns. Reginelli's agreed to address their concerns and committed to meet with their designers to come up with some different rear roofline options. August 29, 2011 — Reginelli's met with DeMattei design team and developed 3 different roof line options to present to the Biber's. August 29, 2011 — Reginelli's provided the 3 design options to the Biber's and asked for their opinion and preference concerning the design options. August 30, 2011 — Biber's contacted the Reginelli's with the roofline option they preferred. Reginelli's agreed with their suggestion. September 1, 2011- Biber's released their opposition to the project EXV4181T 8. 00 Broadway Paul and Rebecca Tufano August 22, 2011 - Reginelli's informed by Town of Los Gatos that the residents at 80 Broadway, Paul and Rebecca Tufano (the "Tufano's "), have sent a fo m al opposition to their project. The Tufano's opposed the Reginelli project in 2004 and agreed to release the opposition if the Reginelli's planted a tree to screen the Tufano's view. The Tufano's have an angle view of the Reginelli's proposed and existing property. August 22, 2001 — Reginelli's reached out to the Tufano's via email as the Tufano's reside in Paris, _France. - - - ...._._ _.._.._.. _..... - -._ _ -- .... __ _._....._..... _... _. ....__. _... -. . August 23, 2011 — Tufano's contacted the Reginelli's to arrange a teleconference meeting to take place on August 27, 2011. August 27, 2011 — Reginelli' and Tufano's met via a teleconference meeting to discuss project. Tufano's expressed their concerns over a tree screening design to block their view of the proposed structure (similar to 2004). The Reginelli's agreed to reach out to the other Broadway neighbors to address the issue and come up with a design solution. September 1, 2011 — Reginelli's provided the Tufano's via email with a drawing of the proposed change 1 to the rear roofline of the project as agreed to by the Biber's and informed the Tufano's that the Reginelli's have been in contact with all 3 Broadway neighbors concerning tree screening options. The Reginelli's agreed to put a tree in the left and right rear corner of their property to meet the screening requirement. September 2, 2011 — Tufano's informed Reginelli's via email that the Tufano's and Rollins have discussed via email a proposed landscape solution with the recommendation of mature (20 -30 feet) Italian Cyrus trees that would have to be placed across the entire rear property line of the Reginelli's property. Tufano's will not release objection to the project until the Reginelli's agree to "concrete specifications" and also disclosed that they are aware that the Biber's are opposed this solution (as it would completely block the Biber's view as they are directly located behind the Reginelli's) September 7, 2011 — Biber's reached out to the Broadway neighbors via email explaining their concerns over the row of mature Italian Cypress trees across the back of the Reginelli's property and how it would impact the Biber's view. The Tufano's responded back saying one tree in each corner would not meet their requirements. September 7, 2011 — Reginelli's responded to the Biber's concerns to all Broadway neighbors via email and proposed putting two trees in each corners to help alleviate the Tufano's and Rollins' concerns without completely blocking the Biber's view. The Reginelli's provided a drawing of the proposal and proposed a few different evergreen tree options. September 8, 2011 - Tufano's responded via email that the proposal is not sufficient as this solution does not block the entire view of the proposed house. September 9, 2011 —The Reginelli's requested to participate in the October Planning Commission Hearing in an effort to resolve Broadway neighbor's issues. The Reginelli's informed all Broadway neighbors via email of the hearing and conveyed their willingness to resolve the issues prior to the hearing date. September 12, 2011 - Mr. Tufano informed the Reginelli's that he had the opportunity to view the proposed project while traveling in the United States for business. The Tufano's and Reginelli's agreed to meet telephonically on September 14, 2011. September 14, 2011 — Tufano's and Reginelli's met via telephone. Tufano's conveyed that they would like to see a solution that would block the corner of their property as they have pool equipment in that specific corner and are not able to plant a tree of their own to block the view. Tufano's and Reginelli discussed the option of a tree in the corner of the properly located next to the Reginelli's, 325 W. Main St. Reginelli's agreed to discuss the issue with the neighbors located at 325 W. Main. St. September 17, 2011 — Reginelli's met with neighbors located at 325 W. Main St., Lou and Leona Del Prete( the "Del 'Prete's "). The Del Pretes were open to the idea as long as Tufano's addressed the current trees that are overgrowing onto their property and damaging the fence. The Del Prete's also suggested the Tufano's address the dead tree located on theTufano's property that is located in the same vicinity of the proposed tree. September 18, 2011 — Reginelli informed Tufano's of the Del Prete's concerns. Reginelli's also requested that they have the opportunity to view the Tufano's concerns from the Tufano's property. September 20, 2011 — Tufano's informed the Reginelli's that they would prefer not to have the Reginelli's access their property to get a view of the issue. Tufano's suggested the Reginelli's get a view from Google maps to develop a more comprehensive landscape solution. September 26, 2011 - The Reginelli's responded back to the Tufano's that the Reginelli's will advise designer. 86 Broadway Eric and Gloria Rollins August 22, 2011 - Reginelli's informed by Town of Los Gatos that the residents at 86 Broadway, Eric and Gloria Rollins (the "Rollins "), have sent a formal opposition to their project specifically around the rear roof line design. The Rollins' have an angle view of the Reginelli's proposed and existing property. August 22, 2011 — Reginelli's reached out to the Rollins' via email and voice message. August 24, 2011 — Reginelli's reached out to the Rollins' again via email and voice message. August 26, 2011 — Reginelli's reached out to the Rollins again via email and requested to meet. Reginelli's informed the Rollins' that they have set up meetings with the Tufano's and Biber's to discuss their project. August 26, 2011 — Rollins' responded back to Reginelli's via email that they are too busy to meet and the best form of communication would be email. The Rollins' also changed their opposition from a change to the roofline to "strongly objecting" to the project. August 30, 2011 — Rollins' responded to Reginelli's and Biber's via email that the Rollins' would like to have some trees planted to provide screening specifically mentioning the two back corners. Rollins' mention in the email that they are, open to not planting trees across the entire back property line as it would block the Biber's view. Rollins' suggest working with the Biber's for a solution. August 30, 2011 — Reginelli's responded to Rollins' via email and agree to replace the existing trees located in the corners of their lot to meet the Rollins' request. September 1, 2011— Rollins' informed the Reginelli's via email that a tree in each corner of the Reginelli's property would no longer be sufficient. Rollins' inform the Reginelli's that the only option that will work is planting "TALL trees" like Italian Cypresses across the entire back of the property. September 1, 2011 — Rollins' contacted Reginelli via email again requesting mature trees that would provide immediate screening. In addition, the Rollins' expressed concerns over noise levels during construction. The Rollins requested to know the days and hours the contractors would be working as they have children that take naps. The Rollins again strongly objected to the Reginelli's project stating that they will not release opposition unless the screening issue and construction noise levels are addressed. September 7, 2011 — The Biber's reached out to the Broadway neighbors via email explaining their concerns over the row of mature Italian Cypress trees across the back of the Reginelli's property and how it would impact the Biber's view. September 7, 2011 - The Rollins' responded to the Biber's email stating one tree in each corner would not meet their requirements. September 7, 2011 —The Reginelli's responded to all Broadway neighbors via email and proposed putting two trees in each corners to help alleviate the Tufano's and Rollins' concerns without completely blocking the Biber's view. The Reginelli's provided a drawing of the proposal and proposed a few different evergreen tree options. September 7, 2011 — The Rollins' agreed to the Reginelli's proposal of planting two trees on each comer of the Reginelli's property. September 8, 2011 — Rollins' inform the Reginelli's that "i was driving past your house this morning and the gardener was there; he let me sneak a quick peek from your backyard, i stand by what i said originally that we would need *some* trees for the screening of the property to be effective. unfortunately 1 or 2 trees won't work ". The Reginelli's were informed by the Biber's that they saw Gloria Rollins on the' Reginelli's property taking pictures. The Reginelli's confirmed the event with their gardener and were also informed that Gloria Rollins was standing on the railing of the Reginelli's back deck trying to get a view from the roofline. Gloria Rollins did not ask nor have permission to be on the Reginelli's property. The Reginelli's have concern for everyone's safety and do not want anyone without their permission entering onto their property and definitely do not want anyone climbing on their deck railing. If Gloria Rollins was to fall she could have been seriously injured. September 9, 2011 — The Reginelli's requested to participate in the October Planning Commission Hearing in an effort to resolve Broadway neighbor's issues. The Reginelli's informed all Broadway neighbors via email of the hearing and conveyed their willingness to resolve the issues prior to the hearing date. This Page Intentionally Left .Blank (.