Loading...
Attachment 06 and 07TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2 DESK ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: June 8, 2016 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO.: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ CONT ACT PERSON: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICATION SUMMARY: EXHIBITS: Erin Walters, Associate Planner ewalters@losgato sca.go v Architecture and Site Application S-14-056 18151 Overlook Road (Located on the north side of Overlook Road, west ofWissahickon Avenue) Urban West, LLC, Nicole King Ronald M . Tate Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, to construct a new single-family residence, and obtain a grading permit on property zoned R-1 : 8. APN 510-40-146. DEEMED COMPLETE: March 11 , 2016 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: September 11, 2016 Previously received with April 13, 2016 Staff Report: 1. Location Map 2. Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Project Data Sheet 5. Applicant's Letters of Justification, received August 14 , 2014 and February 17, 2016 6. Town's Consulting Arborist Report , received June 1, 2015 7 . Amended Town 's Consulting Arborist Report, received September 21, 2015 8. Original Development Plans (elevations only), received August 14 , 2014 and reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect 9. Town's Consulting Architect report, received April 29, 2015 10 . Amended Town's Consulting Architect Report, received August 20, 2015 11. Amended Town's Consulting Architect Report, received December 11, 2015 12. Email to Staff from Town 's Consulting Architect, received January 6, 2016 13. Applicant's Outreach Letter to Neighbors, received August 5 , 2015 14. Public Comments received by 11 :00 a.m. April 7, 2016 15. Colors and Materials, received January 6 , 2016 16. Development Plans, received March 11 , 2016 ATTACHMENT 6 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 of 2 18151 Overlook Road/S-14-056 June 8, 2016 REMARKS: Previously received with April 13, 2016 Desk Item: 17. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on April 8 , 2016 to 11 :00 a.m. on April 13, 2016 18. Applicant 's Letter, Proposed Landscape Screening Plan, and Photo Simulations of the Neighbor's View with Proposed Screening, received April 12, 2016 19. Applicant's email correspondence with Neighbors, received April 12, 2016 and April 13 , 2016 Previously received with May 25, 2016 Staff Report: No exhibits Received with June 8, 2016 Staff Report: 20. Letters from Applicant, received May 26, 2016 (three pages) and May 27 , 2016 (11 pages) 21. Email to Neighbor, received April 29, 2016 (one page) 22. Applicant's Arborist Report, received May 26, 2016 (five pages) 23. Landscape Privacy Screening Options, received May 26, 2016 (two pages) 24. Email from Neighbor, received May 25 , 2016 (three pages) 25. Photographs of Neighbor's View, received May 27 , 2016 (three pages) 26. Currently proposed Development Plans, received April 29, 2016 (12 pages) Received with thi s Desk Item Report: 27. Comment received from 11 :01 a.m. on June 2 , 2016 to 11 :00 a.m. on June 8 , 2016 The attached public comment (Exhibit 27) was received after di stribution of the staff report. Prepared by: Erin Walters Associate Planner JP:EW:cg pproved by: Joel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director N :\DE V\PC REPORT S\2 01 6\0 verl oo kRd 181 5 1_6-8-I 6. A&S Des k ltem.docx From: Rita Kelly [mailto:ritakellyl@comcast.net] sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 12:11 PM To: Erin M. Walters Cc: David Kelly Subject: Re: 18151 Overlook Road Los Gatos Kelly Letter Erin, This letter is in response to Mr. Tate's letter dated May 261h, 2016. RECE\VED . s--14 -0£?& JUN O 7 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION We would like to convey to the town and Mr. Tate that we were not trying to make him feel personally attacked. In fact, I enjoyed meeting Mr. Tate and found his life story to be admirable and interesting . Unfortunately, we have felt personally attacked ever since the two large trees were removed on the Overlook property and the story poles were erected destroying our privacy. We are very disappointed that we could not come to terms with Urban West but we are exhausted from this whole process. Based on the way it was handled by Urban West, there was no way for us to come to agreement and it seemed they were not really serious in trying to get the privacy trees put in our yard. This is demonstrated by the legal document that was given to us placing all the burden of doing the work and liability on us and Mr. Tate's continued advice that our best option was to let them put the privacy screen on the Overlook property . In addition, we felt they were using a hard line approach on us by demanding that we complete tasks based on a timeline they needed to meet. And they put additional pressure on us by stating that the Town of Los Gatos was requesting that we complete tasks by defined dates as demonstrated in a May 23rd email from Kelly Mozumber of Urban West where she wrote "The Town is requesting a response from you before Friday regarding this viewing of the proposed trees." We later found out The Town had not made such a request. In addition to the barrage of emails that we were re ce iving starting Monday night (May 23rd) and Tuesday morning, Urban West was calling us on our cell phones and even called our arborist insisting that we look at the tree s---most of the calls were before 9 AM on Tuesday the 23 rd. I was on the phone with my parents discussing my father's impending surgery and had just got my family off to school and I was trying to get prepared for a meeting that I had scheduled for 11 AM . It was very stressful and I felt like I was being a harassed. Still I was trying to make things work and I had just set a possible time with my arborist when I received Mr. Tate's email stating the following "These are the trees will be planting on our side of the fence in the event that you find them not to be acceptable. We have been very accommodating, understanding and patient to your requested privacy screening. However, every day of the delay of the Town approval of the new home is very costly. I need your approval or disapproval of the proposed trees by Thursday." It should also be noted that we were not given any notification on the week before that we needed to do this and in fact I had to inquire if their arborist had inspected the trees. (We were told he inspected them on Friday May 201h and we rece ived his report on the afternoon of Tuesday May 23rd attached to Mr. Tate's ultimatum email referenced above .) After I received this email, I decided it was futile to continue. The whole process has placed undo stress and work on us and it is not addressing the real problem that the house is too big. EXHIBIT 2 7 Mr. Tate was offended that I referred to the project as a "flip" and I apologize if I used the term improperly. He is rebuilding a house, that he does not intend to live in, for a profit. And please note that I am not opposed to him profiting from a rebuild or flip. I am opposed to him building a house that diminishes the value of my house by severely impacting my privacy and potentially changing the character of my neighborhood by setting the precedent that it is okay to build homes that tower over their neighbor's yards. In addition, he also states that it would be improbable that the new owners would remove the privacy trees and I would agree except that we just experienced such an improbable event when Urban West removed the two large privacy trees that once shielded our yard . Mr. Tate also mentioned that we signed a form letter saying we received the plans for the Overlook property. This is true and my husband called Lance Tate to discuss what the plans meant since they were printed on an 8 "x11 " sheet and were impossible to read. Lance left my husband with the impression that the new house was not going to be any taller than the existing structure and so we were very excited to have a new house behind us. It was not until the trees came down and the story poles went up that our excitement turned to disappointment and stress. We are opposed to the plans for this house and the impact it will have on us and our neighborhood. Thank you, Rita and David Kelly LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Mary Badame, Chair D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair Kendra Burch Melanie Hanssen Matthew Hudes Tom O’Donnell Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Joel Paulson Town Attorney: Robert Schultz Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337-1558 ATTACHMENT 7 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR BADAME: Item 2 is our public hearing that’s continued from May 25th of 2016, 18151 Overlook Road, Architecture and Site Application S-14-056, requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, construct a new single-family residence, and obtain a Grading Permit on property zoned R-1:8, APN 510-40-146. May I have a show of hands from Commissioners who have visited the site? Any disclosures from Commissioners? Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: When I visited the site at 9 Chestnut I had incidental communications, but did not discuss the project. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Thank you, Commissioner Hudes. I too had incidental contact with Rita Kelly yesterday while viewing the project from Chestnut Avenue. Ms. Walters, I understand you’re going to be providing the Staff Report this evening. ERIN WALTERS: Yes, good evening, Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission considered the proposed application on April 13th and concerns were raised at the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meeting that included height, building mass and privacy. The application was continued to May 25th in order for the Applicant to address two main points: lowering the building height, and addressing the rear neighbor’s privacy concerns. To address the Commission’s height concerns the Applicant has proposed lowering the finished floor by 6”; the proposed building height has been reduced from 27’3” to 27’9”. To address privacy concerns the Applicant has proposed lowering the second floor rear bedroom window by 8”. The two proposed changes would result in a reduction of the window height of 14”, as described in the Applicant’s architect’s letter in Exhibit 20. To further address privacy concerns the Applicant and the rear neighbor at 9 Chestnut have met and had communication to discuss the landscape screening along the rear fence. The Applicant has proposed to pay for the planting and maintenance of the screening trees to be planted along the rear neighbor’s fence, so that the neighbor could be in control of the privacy screening. The rear neighbor has provided a letter that’s found in Exhibit 24 describing concerns with the proposed legal ramifications of installing the trees on their LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property and communication with the Applicant. The rear neighbor continues to have concerns with the overall building height and mass, as well as privacy impacts to their property. The modified development plans include planting the screening trees on the subject property due to the current concerns expressed by the rear neighbor, and this Desk Item tonight is further correspondence from the rear neighbor. That concludes Staff’s presentation. I’m happy to answer questions. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Walters. Questions? Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: This may be a Denzel Washington question. Explain it to me like I’m a six year old. What is the significance of lowering a window? If I’m looking at a wall and there’s a window in it, and the window gets lower, that just makes it easier for me to look down. I know we’ve had occasions to raise the window up so that folks couldn’t… What’s the significance of lowering the window? ERIN WALTERS: The architect’s exhibit and letter shows that it’s just a decreased line of sight to the property in the rear. VICE CHAIR KANE: You’re not reaching Denzel Washington yet. I can look down if the window is lowered. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If it’s raised, then all I see is sky or the top of the roof. JOEL PAULSON: That is true. I think the Applicant’s architect can provide further justification, but the idea was to lower the window. You’re absolutely correct, however, depending on the height of that top sill— and I’m not sure if Ms. Walters knows that—you get to a position where it’s lowered, but you still, depending on the height of the height, will be able to see through there; it does inevitably (inaudible). VICE CHAIR KANE: A short person could see better if the window is lowered. JOEL PAULSON: Correct. VICE CHAIR KANE: I don’t understand it. JOEL PAULSON: True, yeah. VICE CHAIR KANE: I mean we’ve requested rectangular windows at an eye level to provide light, but it seemed to be so important, it’s over and over and over, we lowered the windows, and I don’t know what that improves. I have a second question, if I may? CHAIR BADAME: Yes, Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: So the windows have been lowered and that’s significant, I don't know why, and the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building has been lowered 6”, and Staff has for the second time recommended denial. Can I assume that in your view the 6” was not enough, or should I just say why are you still recommending denial? ERIN WALTERS: Staff feels that there still are privacy concerns between the two neighbors and that it’s not adequately addressed. VICE CHAIR KANE: Two neighbors. All right, thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Ms. Walters, does that mean that there are also mass and scale issues that are related to the privacy issue? Because I read the Staff Report and that’s how I interpreted it to be. ERIN WALTERS: Per the first Staff Report that was written, there were concerns regarding mass and scale, and those continue to be concerns. CHAIR BADAME: And I do have a question, if I may? I’ll get to you next. I’m looking at the neighborhood analysis on page 4 of the Staff Report dated April 13, 2016, and did that neighborhood analysis include the use of cellars in the immediate neighborhood? ERIN WALTERS: It did not. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BADAME: All right, that being said, does the existing home at 18151 Overlook have a cellar? ERIN WALTERS: The existing home does not. CHAIR BADAME: Okay. So that leads to my next question. I just want to confirm something. As I read this, the Applicant proposes a 2,326 square foot home, including a cellar of 819 square feet, for combined livable space of 3,145 square feet, almost double the existing home, is that correct? ERIN WALTERS: That is correct. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I also read it to say it wasn’t compatible with the neighbors. Is that also correct, in your view? ERIN WALTERS: In Staff’s view (nods head yes). COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a couple questions. First of all, at this moment in time I remember at the first hearing we had a number of neighbors speak, but I didn’t see anything in our packet. Are any other neighbors beyond the Kellys dialoguing relative to not finding this acceptable? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ERIN WALTERS: Since the last meeting we’ve only heard from the Kellys. CHAIR BADAME: Then can you remind me of the difference in the current height of the building and the proposed height minus the reduction of 6”? What is the total difference between the current height without any development and the current proposal? ERIN WALTERS: The existing height is 25’, and then the proposed with the modification is 27’9”, so it’s 2”9”. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: 2’9” more than that. Then my third question is I’m relatively new to the Commission from last year, but this can’t be the first time we’ve ever had an issue with privacy screening being a suggested solution for dealing with privacy, and so it seemed to me that looking at the Applicant’s comments, and we’ll hear more, and the neighbor, that putting some privacy screening in the back would be a solution, but there was some disagreement about how to accomplish it. So my question is—and maybe this is a legal question or maybe it’s just a precedent question—when we’ve had similar issues like this, would it be customary to plant on the other side of the fence, or would it be LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 customary for the applicant to take that on their side? That struck me as maybe a bit odd, but I don't know. ERIN WALTERS: Yes, we haven’t seen where an applicant has planted on the adjacent property. They’ve always planted on their property to address privacy through landscape screening. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And have we done that successfully over a period of time? I know there was a concern about pulling the trees out over some amount of time, and have we been able to secure that those stay in place? Do we write in a Condition of Approval? I don't know how you would do that with the transfer of ownership. JOEL PAULSON: We’ve had cases, and they are very few, but sometimes people do plant—to get back to your first question—on the adjacent property owner’s site, because they want to have the control over the trees, so that guarantees the control. At the last meeting the Applicant offered to do that. Apparently an agreement hasn’t been able to be worked out, so now they’re proposing to plant it on their property. Ultimately that will be that the house will inevitably be sold multiple times over its life, and so there will be landscaping, probably trimming, potentially tree removals, it’s really trying to address the screening. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There’s also existing screening on I believe the Kelly’s side as well; they have some material on the other side of their fence as well that has been trimmed, but there isn’t any 100% guarantee that what gets planted there is going to be there forever, if that’s the basis of your question. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So we don’t have a precedent for having set a Condition of Approval that would transfer ownership? JOEL PAULSON: The Condition of Approval will follow the project until it’s done. We see this more with privacy windows, because once the project is done and built, then that approval is vested and complete. We’ve had instances where a new owner has come in many years down the road, the same neighbor lives next door, there was a privacy concern when it originally was approved and frosted glass, for instance, was used. They looked to replace it without frosted glass, and so Staff works with the new property owner, informs them of the previous issues, and I’m not aware of any where we haven’t been able to compel them to use the frosted glass and maintain that, but that hasn’t really been tested all that far. I believe the Town Attorney may have some additional input on that. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think Joel adequately explained it, but we can put it in the Conditions of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Approval and it does go with the land, it goes to new owners. The problem is that sometimes if the vegetation or, as you mentioned, frosted glass, is taken out, it then goes into a code enforcement case, and we try to get voluntary compliance, and many times it’s maybe just a new owner that doesn’t know. But it is difficult from the standpoint that we are a very small agency and have a very small staff. We have one code enforcement officer and don’t even have an attorney assigned; I do it. Our number one priority is we have a code enforcement manual, but our priorities are basically health and safety issues, so in a case of this nature when you just had an uncooperative neighbor, it could take a while if we had to file suit and get an injunction requiring it. It would not be a high priority on a code enforcement level. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: Returning to the windows, we talked about the windows that were lowered. I want to talk about the other windows in the bathroom. It’s making an issue that these windows will be frosted. Every bathroom I’ve ever been in the windows open, by the shower LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 especially. What’s the point of frosting them if you can slide them open, as most bathrooms allow for ventilation? JOEL PAULSON: If you’d like to have windows that are inoperable, we would have to look at building code, because there are ventilation requirements. There also are varying types of windows. They could put casement windows in that have mechanisms that limit the amount of the window rolling out. So if you’re concerned about people in their bathroom having their windows open for the frosting component, then that could be added to the project. VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m not concerned about it; I’m just saying that the frosting is irrelevant. Whether they frost it or paint it, if it slides open, then the privacy issue is right there. That’s all. JOEL PAULSON: That’s a fair statement. VICE CHAIR KANE: I don’t want to get mesmerized by the frosting, because it doesn’t mean anything. CHAIR BADAME: And to the Town Attorney, trying to get an injunction for somebody who doesn’t cooperate, that means the property owner who feels their privacy is being invaded may have to suffer for years before we could get an injunction. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I wouldn’t say years, but like I said, it would not be a high priority from our standpoint. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We triage and deal with health and safety issues primarily, but I wouldn’t say it would be years. We would find a way to compel the property owner if in fact they were violating their CUP. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, I will open the public testimony portion of the hearing and allow the Applicant and their team ten minutes to address the Commission. I have a speaker card from Lance Tate. LANCE TATE: That’s correct. Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for your time again to revisit the subject and consider our project. When we left you last we had, at the suggestion of Commissioner Burch, looked at the possibility of moving the back of the house back. After consideration with my architect and with our civil engineer we came to the conclusion that that didn’t really provide the mitigation of the visual impact that the Kelly’s were looking for, so we did come up with the solution that we did, which is lowing the house 8” and the window 6”. Commissioner Kane, to answer your question, the window is I believe our ingress and egress window. Chris, is that our egress window? Yes. So we can’t raise that for safety issues. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The thinking that might be overlooked—and I might be biased here—is the Town Architect, Larry Cannon, determined that our house in mass, scale and size was actually compatible with the neighborhood. The 2,300 square feet above grade that we’re proposing is actually not even the largest house on the street; something to consider. As I said in my letter, we’re still open to planting the trees on the Kelly’s side of the property. We promised to work with them to a solution. We have a solution. What we’re stuck with are the logistics of executing on the solution. If there are any questions, I’m here. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Tate. Any questions? Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: In looking at the plan for the master bedroom on the second floor, there are small windows on the right side and there are large windows in the rear. Did you consider reconfiguring to either have small windows in the rear, or windows that are much higher and smaller, and increase substantially the size of the windows that are on the side? LANCE TATE: Because of the close proximity to our neighbors on our left and our right, we thought the visual impact would be mitigated best by putting the larger LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 egress windows on the back of the property where there’s a larger distance between the neighbor and our property. COMMISSIONER HUDES: What is that distance? CHRIS SPAULDING: Chris Spaulding, architect. The distance between the side neighbor or the rear neighbor? COMMISSIONER HUDES: Between the proposed house and the structure of the rear neighbor. CHRIS SPAULDING: From the rear of our house to the property line is 60’, and then to their house from the property line is another approximately 80’, so about 140’. Then from our upstairs windows to the neighbor on the right, which you’re suggesting putting large windows, is about 20’. COMMISSIONER HUDES: So what you’re saying is you would have more of a privacy issue by having the large windows on the side, because they would be 20’, and on the rear they’re 140’? CHRIS SPAULDING: Yeah, and also the neighbor on the right is down, so any windows that we had would actually look right down into their rooms. We don’t try to take somebody’s privacy and shove it on the neighbor that’s not here to defend themselves. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. I will now invite comments from members of the public. I have two speaker cards. I will call Rita Kelly to the podium. RITA KELLY: Hi, I’m Rita Kelly and I’m the neighbor behind the house with the privacy issue. And yes, unfortunately we were unable to come to agreement and we do not support the proposed plans, and I’d like to explain why. Urban West did modify the plans, reducing the overall height, as stated. However, the structure still towers over our back yard, and the windows, as you can see represented by the plywood, sit on top of the roof of the existing structure, so they can still see right into my yard, and this is actually sitting on my sofa in the family room. Regarding the privacy bushes, we thought, and probably naively so, that it would be relatively easy for us to let Urban West plant the trees on our side of the fence. We assumed that they would come up with a plan for us to approve and that we would give them permission to do the work after approving the trees that they planned to use. Instead, as I have described in my previous letters to the Town sent on May 25th and June 7th, it turned into a very LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 burdensome and stressful experience whereby we were given a legal document which made us responsible for the planting, execution, and assuming liability for the work, and put into an unpleasant situation of being badgered by them to complete tasks to meet deadlines required by the Town to have their project approved. And while Urban West has stated that it makes more sense to put these bushes on the Overlook property, and that it is improbable that anyone would remove the privacy bushes along the fence, it leaves us without any control of our privacy. And while it does seem improbable, we have just experienced such an improbable event when Urban West removed the two large trees from the Overlook site that once shielded our property. We have no idea who will live there or what they might do to the yard, as the property is being built to sell. In addition, Mr. Tate stated that we have resorted to hardline tactics and personal assaults, and I’m sorry if he feels personally attacked, because that’s never our intention. I have met Ron Tate, and I like him very much; I like Lance also. My husband and I are also self- made people who have worked for everything that we have and continue to work for everything we have, such as our home. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 However, our issue is that while Urban West says they have been considerate and accommodating, in our experience they have not been, and in fact they have been imposing and demanding, as demonstrated by the emails and calls that they have sent us insisting on completing tasks at their convenience. Therefore, we cannot support and do not want to be associated with a project that sets the precedent of degrading the character of our neighborhood by allowing a house to be built that is too large and imposing, thus diminishing the value of our home. We are trying to put a Band-Aid on a problem that needs to be fixed from the ground up. There has to be another house that can be built that they can sell that doesn’t cause these problems and future problems for us. The existing plan is always going to be too big, and leaves us exposed to the potential loss of privacy for the benefit of someone who is not going to live there or be our neighbor. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Kelly. Questions? Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You apparently did have some conversation about putting the trees up on your side of the property… RITA KELLY: Yes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: …and then they would be maintained for ten years, as I recall. RITA KELLY: That’s correct. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And then that broke down for the reasons you’ve described to us. Ultimately, we’re going to have to decide what we’re going to do, and one of the things we’ll be able to consider are conditions. So I would like to know how you would feel if one of the conditions were reasonable trees to your reasonable satisfaction? When I say trees, I mean growth that would be put on your property and maintained, as apparently agreed, or suggested. RITA KELLY: I don’t think it’s possible, because we’ve already tried to do that, and the terms that we were asked to agree to were unreasonable. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No, but I’m suggesting that at some point it will not be a voluntary thing on their part if we make a condition of it. All we would have to do is make the condition reasonably acceptable to you. So forget your bad past experience, I’m asking you, just hypothetical, because I don't know what we’re going to do, but if we could impose a condition that you felt was reasonable, and the timing was reasonable and all that, forget the bad past, would that help? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RITA KELLY: I can’t be expected to do the work, the planning, figure out how to do the walls that keeps the roots in, how to make sure they’re not liable, and then execute it all. That is not reasonable. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So you’re saying it really wasn’t their problem; you wouldn’t do it anyway? RITA KELLY: That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying they said that they would put them on our property, but then came back with a legal document asking us to do all the work and they would give us money and the plants to do it, but then we had to assume all kind of liabilities associated with that, and also figure out how to do the work, which is a whole nother like landscape project which I don’t have in my time budget right now. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: I want to clear up that one point, because I don’t understand. I read the letter from Mr. Tate and it seemed like, correct me if I’m wrong, they were going to finance the whole thing. In other words, just write a check and then you’d be able to do what you wanted. I didn’t pick up the liability in the second letter. I felt it was onerous that you got an email with all these terms and conditions and legal stuff, but the second letter was LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 okay, we give up on that, and we’ll pay for the trees and we’ll pay for the maintenance and the contract, and in fact if we overpay, you can keep the overpay. That’s the letter I’m referring to. RITA KELLY: That’s not how I understood it. VICE CHAIR KANE: I understand we’re emotional, but all you have to do is correct me. RITA KELLY: Well, that’s not how I understood it. Based on when I had my arborist out there, and their arborist was there, and I think, Kelly, you were there, it was I was told oh, you can ask this person to put in your root barrier wall, and I wasn’t given the impression that they planned to do any of the work or planning in terms of how to get it on my property. VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, this is a sticky wicket, so let’s pretend, as Commissioner O'Donnell said, that my reading of the letter, which may have been incorrect, and I haven’t asked him if he’s interested in it, but let’s make a deal. If they paid for it, just handed you the checks, and you could put up what you wanted, and the maintenance of that, it’s for ten years, I think I read that, and they’d approximate the expense, you’d get to keep the overage. In fact, you could put in twigs and keep all of the overages, as I read the letter, because they’re not LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be involved in how you manage the question. So if in fact my reading were correct, would that be of interest to you, that you get whatever you want and they’ll pay for it on a cost-plus basis? RITA KELLY: The thing is we’re not contractors, and what we understood the last time was that they were willing to come do the work and put it on our property. If you would have asked me last time are you willing to be paid off so you can do whatever you want with the money? I would say no, it’s not about money, it’s about my privacy; it’s about my home. And you can see, the size of this building is huge, and I can’t make it happen. I can’t do that right now. I do not have the time to do that right. It’s not what I do; it’s what they do. VICE CHAIR KANE: So if I had a question, then I think you’re telling me the answer is no, that would not be of interest to you. RITA KELLY: No, we’ve already been offered the money so that we can do all the work, and the problem is once we… And actually, we were trying to work with that option. We were trying to work with it, and then all of a sudden on Tuesday morning, I think it was the 23rd, because LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9:00am I had about six or seven calls telling me that I had to be down in Gilroy on Thursday to look at the trees or they’re going to plant them on their yard anyway if I didn’t like it. I don’t want to work with them, because it’s stressful. I can’t sleep. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner Burch has a question for you. COMMISSIONER BURCH: What if the burden of install was taken from you? Because I understand that that’s not something you really want to take on yourself. But what if in the desire to make this agreeable the Applicant said all right, he actually does know landscape contractors whom you could meet and interview, and then when you agreed on plants, what you thought would be acceptable, the applicants hire a landscape architect and installers would come and do this for you, including irrigation, including root barrier system that needs to be done. You have final approval on that; therefore really it’s not eating into our time. You have final approval on who is hired, the pricing of it. Then it’s on your property, which I understand does protect your ability to keep the trees and everything growing and protecting your privacy, yet the burden of install is not on you? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RITA KELLY: Well, that’s what I thought would happen in the beginning, but then we were told that the lawyers told them that they shouldn’t take on such liability. COMMISSIONER BURCH: But what we’re saying is we up here actually have the ability to write conditions into this that then have to be… Obviously I’m going to ask the Applicant when he comes back up if he would be agreeable to it, but if he is, we could have this written into the Condition of Approval, and that’s what will happen or they can’t get a permit. So I mean you have to understand that if they don’t meet the Conditions of Approval, they can’t move into the house, so they’re going to actively want to follow that condition. If he is amenable to that type of thing, would that we something you guys would be willing to… RITA KELLY: Based on the experience we’ve had so far, which has been unpleasant to say the least, I’m not very interested. I mean as creative as architects are and all the different possibilities of houses that could be built on that property, I don’t see why they can’t have a house that’s not as big, as imposing, designed so that we don’t have this problem at all, ever, and we don’t have to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have 15’ to 20’ trees just to cover up the windows, not even to cover up the top of the rest of the house. COMMISSIONER BURCH: So then just to clarify, we’re probably then—in your opinion, this is I’m asking your opinion—not going to find a compromise if there’s a second story on the house? RITA KELLY: Not if it’s that much taller. I mean you can’t really tell from the pictures, but if you come out to the property… COMMISSIONER BURCH: I’ve seen it. RITA KELLY: …you can see that it’s basically like a whole nother story on top of the property. CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions? All right, seeing none, thank you. RITA KELLY: Thanks. CHAIR BADAME: Next speaker is David Kelly. DAVID KELLY: My name is David Kelly; I live in 9 Chestnut Avenue also, and just to answer some of the comments. We were presented with terms associated with having the trees installed on our property, and those terms basically cited that all the liabilities associated with the work we had to forgive Tate Trust was who was in that agreement. I don't know how they can do the work without LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 having some kind of liability protection and this sort of thing and ask us to forgive them, so I don't know how you work it by having them do all the work to put the trees on our property, and that’s my basic statement. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane has a question for you. DAVID KELLY: Yes, go ahead. VICE CHAIR KANE: So the same question repeated, because you were giving us a lot of non-verbal communications before. DAVID KELLY: Right. VICE CHAIR KANE: What if we found a way to do that? I mean I read the email that you felt was, I don't know what your word was, something to the effect of overwhelming or intimidating. I had a similar reaction to it. DAVID KELLY: Yeah. VICE CHAIR KANE: But if possible, taking the emotion out of this, what if you could get whatever kind of trees you want on your property that they paid for? I don't know what the liabilities are, I don't know why there would be any, but if that was removed, is that a remedy for you? I’m not saying it’s a remedy for us. I want to know what LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you can live with without them having to necessarily redo the house. DAVID KELLY: I wouldn’t even know how to answer till I saw what the terms were that would require that, because we got into this last time, and then it became hey, it was a great idea, they would do whatever they could to put the trees in our yard, and we thought that was what was going to happen. Then when it got down to putting the trees in our yard it was all about the terms it would take to put it in, and it was all about we’ll just give you money so you go away. I don't know how you get around not having proper terms associated with putting the trees in, and I would have to see the details of that before I could say yes or no. VICE CHAIR KANE: So let me paraphrase what you just said. The first inning was just putting the trees in; it looked real good. The second inning was all the red tape, all the legal language, this and that. What if the second inning didn’t occur? What if you were paid for the expense of putting in those trees? Could you live with that? DAVID KELLY: Yeah, I don’t think we’re going to. VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions? Seeing none. All right, I will invite the Applicant back up to the podium. Mr. Tate, you have five minutes to address the Commission. LANCE TATE: I clearly can’t go on vacation anymore. My dad took over this process, and I apologize for any pain you guys have gone through with this. I love my dad to death. He’s 80 years old, and he really wasn’t that socially aware 30 years ago, so I think that might explain some of what’s going on. The liability of going on their property was the issue, so we would handle all the planning. I mean pretty much anything conceptually we would handle and pay for. The Kelly’s would have to hire the person installing the plants and then we would pay them to pay them, for lack of a better explanation, and we’re still open to that solution. Again, I don't know what happened the week I was gone; I’m sorry. No more vacations for me. So I mean, look, we’re open to that solution; we always have been. Like I said, I live here. I live at Benedict Lane in Los Gatos, plan on doing more developments in Los Gatos, born and raised here, so I don’t want someone unhappy with the final product that we put out. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Tate. Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think what I heard, and this is maybe a difference, you’ve now said they would hire the contractor. I think they’re saying they don’t want to hire a contractor; they want you, subject to their approval, to hire the contractor, come onto their property, and install it pursuant to the plans that they have approved. Is that not agreeable to you? LANCE TATE: The concern for us is the liability in hiring a contractor to do work on someone else’s property. That’s what the feedback was from our attorney. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You have to remember, they don’t want you to do what you’re doing, and they also don’t want to incur a liability because of what you’re doing. If one were to put trees there to ameliorate what you’re doing, they don’t want to have liability either. I can understand how you two sides can’t agree, but we’re going to be looking for either a solution or we’re going to have thumbs up or thumbs down. You’re adding a little more than 2’ to the height of the building, as I understand it, so we’re talking about a number of things, but obviously early on there was a solution to this problem. It’s fallen out of bed, and as LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 near as I can tell, they’re saying we’re sort of innocent bystanders, why should we enter into a contract? If your contractor, i.e. the people you use to put the trees in, screws up, that’s your liability, not theirs. Once they accept the trees, the trees are theirs, but until the job is done, the trees aren’t theirs, and so they’re saying they don’t want to sign a contract. And if you’re saying you don’t want to sign a contract, tell me that. LANCE TATE: I don’t think I can make that decision to make the determination here on my own. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, then for tonight’s purposes, you’re not willing to do that. LANCE TATE: Okay. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you. The public testimony portion of the hearing is now closed. Do Commissioners have any questions, comments, entertain a motion? Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’ll direct this to our Town Attorney. I realize some of the conditions we can impose, but if we get into the point of saying you, the Applicant, will enter into a contract to put the landscaping on the neighbor’s property, subject to their LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approval, and you have the liability because you’re the contracting party, and the beneficiary of the contract would be the property owner. We’ve heard both sides, and one side said we don’t want to do that. It doesn’t seem to me to be an unreasonable condition to say if you think landscaping is the solution, then install it. Is that a condition we can impose? ROBERT SCHULTZ: You can. The difficulty would be in a condition such that…and I think you’re assuming putting the trees on the neighboring property. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Correct. ROBERT SCHULTZ: The difficulty is what if the neighbor says, “You’re not coming on my property”? You still need consent to enter that property. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We can deal with that, too. ROBERT SCHULTZ: And in that case the condition would read that if the property owner fails to give consent or there cannot be a reaching of an agreement, then the default would be landscaping on the property of the development; that’s a possibility. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ROBERT SCHULTZ: So you’ve got to have that default in case of that situation, because yes, you certainly can as a condition require it on the neighbor’s property, but you need that default provision of in case it’s not worked out. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: One final thing. This should not be the most complex deal in the world, and yet it sounds like having heard from both parties we need somebody, like Staff, to say time out, this is… Meeting the condition imposed by the Planning Commission, or not, if they get bogged down in what they’re bogged down in now, then the only thing I can think of is what you suggested. Again, we would say our first choice is to put it on their property, second choice is to put it on the Applicant’s property, but one or the other is going to satisfy that condition; they could do that. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: I don't know what the appropriate analogy would be, but we could be going down a slippery slope of shrubs, and this issue may not be about the trees, it’s about the mass and scale of the house, and if we’ve got a massive scaled house, we’re trying to cover LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it with trees. I’m looking for input on the basic issue of why Staff denied this thing. It wasn’t because they put up a tree or they wouldn’t put up a tree, it’s because they were saying it was too big. As I look at the house, the one that’s there is half the size of the one that’s going to be there, and the house to the left and the house to right are one-stories. My question is, is that a compatible neighborhood design? Notwithstanding the angst that’s involved, let’s go back to is that house too big? CHAIR BADAME: I will chime in. I share those concerns. I see this as more than just a privacy issue, it’s related to mass and scale and neighborhood compatibility issues. I also have some concerns with the intent of the Cellar Policy being abused, because again, we’ve got a house that’s double the size, and now, even though we don’t count the square footage of the cellar, it is meant to hide visible mass in lieu of, but it makes it by far the largest house in the neighborhood. That being said, it adds to the mass and bulk. I can’t believe that we’re going to solve these privacy issues between the two neighbors, so I’m looking at the fact that I’m troubled by this, in putting in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Conditions of Approval to solve a privacy issue, when I think it is related more to mass, bulk and scale. Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: I wanted to add, and I hope it’s germane, but we have a number of letters from neighbors who point out that there’s a five-bedroom house with a one-car garage, and if you’ve been on Overlook, and I have, someone described it as a “raceway,” and from time to time it is, and the street is narrow. Help me with my concern about four additional cars potentially on the street with a one-car garage. It looks like the house is awfully big and the garage is awfully small, and I’m having issues with suitability regarding that. CHAIR BADAME: Any other Commissioners like to chime in? Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, unfortunately I agree with everybody, including me. I tend to think that it is too big, and if that’s the issue, then it solves all the problems; we just don’t approve it. If, on the other hand, we for some reason thought we would approve it, then the prior discussion I had I think would solve that problem. But you never get there. It turns out this house is too big. When I went to the house and looked at it, twice now I guess because it came before, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it really does impress me that it’s too big, so I guess maybe I’ve been trying to solve a problem without getting to the root of the other problem. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to comment that I agree with a lot of what was said. When we started the discussion tonight I was hopeful that there was a solution that would be amenable to both parties to do landscape screening to ameliorate the issues, but it doesn’t appear that that can happen no matter how we state the Conditions of Approval, so I think that brings out the bigger issue, which is the reason that the landscape screening is an issue, because of the bulk and mass of the house. Than, as Chair Badame pointed out, adding the Cellar Policy, even though we don’t count the square footage, if you consider the bulk and mass of the house, it does make it double its current size. So I too am troubled with this proposal, and I don’t think there’s a solution on the table right now that would ameliorate the concerns of the neighbors. CHAIR BADAME: That being said, I would be prepared to make a… Commissioner O'Donnell. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: One thing. If, for example, we turn this down tonight and they come back with something else and it it’s 2’ higher, it’s 1’ or 6” or whatever, that doesn’t deal with the issue, because if you put a window back there that’s 140’ from their house, you’re still going to have the same issue, as I understand it. So yes, we can deal with one of the issues, which is it is too big, but if they say well okay, it’s too big and now we have to build a smaller house, it’s hard for me to believe that we will not be facing a window problem in the back again. Maybe the solution is fine; let’s wait and see. CHAIR BADAME: I would say that the current footprint of the house doesn’t impose a window issue as it stands now. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That’s not where we are in the sense that what they’re asking us for is to change the way it stands now, and we’re saying you’re making it too big, and all I’m suggesting is you can change the house without making it too big, but that does not address the privacy issue if they change the configuration, but not the height, and they put a window back there. So that’s okay, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because I guess that’s a problem that may or may not occur downstream. CHAIR BADAME: All right, that being said, I would be prepared to make a motion, unless there is further discussion. Seeing none, I move to deny Architecture and Site Application S-14-056, 18151 Overlook Road, requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, to construct a new single-family residence, and obtain a Grading Permit on property zoned R-1:8, APN 510-40-146. I can make the required findings for CEQA; I can make the required finding for the demolition of the single- family residence, but I cannot make the required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines; the project is not similar in mass, bulk and scale of the immediate neighborhood; the privacy concerns of the neighborhood have been resolved; it does not meet the intent of the Cellar Policy; it does not meet the goals of our General Plan regarding land use, and that’s preserve and protect the existing small town character and quality of the life for the neighbors. The considerations were made in review of Architecture and Site Application as required by Section 29-10.150 of the Town Code. So I will look to see if I have a second. Commissioner Hanssen. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’ll second the motion. CHAIR BADAME: Discussion? Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: So the question is always where do we go from here, and without any specifics on height, weight, and size, so we set up new limits that somebody could hit. I would recommend, as we have in the past, that the Applicant work to understand the concerns of Staff and see if Staff can get on board with the redesign, and the silver lining on this is that you’ve certainly got an architect who can do that. There are at least two architecture legends in this room, and you’ve got one of them. I think a very fine house can be put on that property. Neighbors may not like it; life is hard. But if you comply with the Residential Design Guidelines and get support of Staff, I would think you have a house. So that would be my guidance on where we go from here. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: I go back to the Staff recommendation about denial based on height and mass, and I am very sympathetic with that, and I will be supporting the motion on that basis. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/8/2016 Item #2, 18151 Overlook Road 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 However, I do think that a house will be put onto that lot, and I do think there will be windows on the rear of that house, and so I am not supporting the motion based on privacy concerns, because I think those privacy concerns are resolvable with the distance, which is 140’ from the house, with proper screening, with proper design of windows. For me, I’m supporting the motion, but I am not weighing in on the privacy concerns, because I believe that they are resolvable when people work together on it. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Any further discussion? All right, I will call the question. All in favor? Passes unanimously. Mr. Paulson, are there appeal rights of the actions of the Commission on this item? JOEL PAULSON: There are appeal rights. Anyone who is not satisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission can appeal that decision to the Town Council. Forms are available in the Clerk’s Office. There is a fee for filing the appeal, and the appeal must be filed without ten days.