Loading...
2010081806 - Exhibit 11T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Fnx: 408.354.1823 Tel: 408.354.1863 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Attn: Planning Commission 3 Lot Subdivision at 15928 Union Ave And Z New Homes on Panorama Way. THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION May 20th, 2010 History of this Project. The developer initially requested a 4 lot subdivision at this location over 2 years ago and was denied. A subsequent application fora 3 lot subdivision was denied by the Planning Commission - primarily because the proposed lot configuration resembled too closely a'fing lot' on Panorama and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Town Council affirmed this denial and the project was remanded back to the Planning Commission for further deliberation based on o proposal by the developer to consider alternatives which would incorporate more conventional lot configurations for n cul-de-sac. The first Exhibit shows this "Original 3 Lot Application" which was rejected, together with nn "Orthogonal Configuration" for the 2 Panorama Lots. The latter we also considered briefly, but decided not to pursue, because we feel that there are better alternatives. It is included here for the Planning Commission to review some of the other options that we have analyzed in preparation for the proposed subdivision for this site. Subdivision Design. In light of the history of this project, we are now proposing n 3 Lot subdivision design that includes for Panorama a Cul-de-Sac that is entirely consistent with the termination of other 'dead-end' streets in Los Gatos, Based on a "pie" cul-de-sac configuration the 2 Lots proposed at Panorama radiate around the turnaround circle in a conventional manner. We have, however, included two variations for the commission to review: One is a Standard Pie [TM1] and the other is a Modified Pie [TM2]. WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF TM2, but have shown TM1 as it is more conventional and we would be prepared to accept it as an alternative. In both versions, the HOUSES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS and the FARs for both of the Ad~S applications have been reduced so as to be consistent with either of the lot configurations. In TM2, all that changes is the street frontage [Larger for Parcel 2], the rear yard [more useable for Parcel 3] and the rear Property Line [more considerate of neighbor views]. A third lot is still proposed at Union Ave, but we have no plans to build on this lot until the 2 lots nt Panorama are nearing completion. ffiIBIT 11 Union Ave Subdivision + A&S The second Exhibit shows both "TM2 -Preferred Configuration" and "TM1 -Alternate Configuration". The Plan Sheet C2 -Site Plan shows the same information without "Comments" In the design of this Subdivision we have been cognizant of the Subdivision Map Act: • There are no Zoning or General Plnn inconsistencies. • Lot sizes [in the 10,000 -11,000 sq ft range] are compatible with the neighboring lots. • Density allows 4 lots - we are asking for 3. • Site suitability is evident -with many options available for the subdivision layout. • The Initial Study has determined that there are no significant environmental impacts. Parcel 2 House Location: House placement on the site helped determine the overall design of the subdivision and the way the house was designed for the lot. It could be moved further east [closer to Mangano] or west [closer to Lynot] by modifying the Lot layout or the home itself. Its current placement provides a good balance -minimizing the impact on both properties and maximizing their viewsheds. This is a key reason that we are requesting approval of n modified Cul-de-Sac configuration. A second is so as not to Remove two existing oaks: [Trees #5 & #7from the Arborist Report]. Conditions [for discussionl that might Benefit Neighbors: In our dialogues with the neighbors we have found that that many have been reluctant to offer suggestions as to how we could improve the Subdivision Design from their individual perspectives. The Planning Commission may wish to incorporate some of these into the "Conditions of Approval" if they determine that they have merit. The developer is ok with them. • The removal of trees 13, 14, 15 should be mitigated by the planting of six (6) Myricn Californica 24" box trees along the northwest property line for screening purposes. Tree removal and replacement should occur concurrently with the installation of the storm drain to Union Ave. Tree #10 should be retained. [Benefits Lynot] • Six (6) Myrica Californica 24" box trees should be planted along the northeast property line for screening purposes. (Benefits Mangano] • The fence along the north property line should match the existing Mangano/Lynott fence in style and height [6ft with a lft lattice] subject to a Building Permit with a mutual written agreement between neighbors. [Benefits Lynot and Mangano] • Removal of trees 1, 2, 4 should be mitigated by planting six (6) Redwood 24" box trees along the southwest property line for screening purposes. Tree removal and replacement should occur concurrently with Union Ave street improvements. [Benefits Martinez] • Any house design proposed for Parcel 1 should attempt to retain the Chinese Elm [Tree #, 3] centrally located on the property. [Benefits Martinez, Lynot and Parcel 1 as Nell]. Grading & Drainage: Per discussions with Engineering Dept, it is intended that Parcel 3 and 1/2 of Parcel 2 will drain to Panorama, with Parcel 1 and 1/2 of Parcel 2 connecting to the Storm Drain system on Union Ave. Appropriate 'on site' retention has been proposed on the plans for the subdivision Off-haul from the street grading at this site is proposed so as not to elevate the house pads. The balance of the grading is minimal and will be left on site without changing the natural drainage pattern of the site. Dissipaters and splash-blocks will be used. 15928 Union Ave CONFIDENTIAL T.H.I.S. Design Union Ave Subdivision + Ad~S A&S APPLICATIONS -PARCELS 2&3 Neighborhood Compatibility: This is a neighborhood in transition, with no real predominant styling comprising older one story and newer single and two story homes. House sizes range from older 1,700 square ft homes to newer homes approaching 4,000 sq ft. The single story homes are older ranch style homes and newer craftsman and contemporary craftsman ~ Mediterranean homes; the two story homes are older ranch style with second story additions and newer homes with a contemporary French and mid-European styling incorporating both hipped ~ gabled roofs and even Dutch/Boston gables. Roof pitches vary from 5:12 to 12:12 and the heights of homes vary from 15ft in the older, smaller ranch style homes; to 21/24 ft in the newer single story homes; to 25 ft - 28 ft for the newer two story homes. Exterior materials vary from wood siding to stucco with stone veneer ns a complimentary material used at porches, entries, columns. Roofing materials also vary from composition shingle to concrete tile. Architecture, betailing and House Placement: We have worked with the Consulting Architect to ensure that the resulting designs are fully consistent with the Architectural Design Guidelines and are compatible with the neighborhood. Parcel 2 A Mediterranean -Cottage Style home is proposed for Parcel 2. This design was chosen because of its potential proximity to neighboring homes to the north and it gave us the most flexibility with articulation and massing [See discussion on Massing]. The exterior detailing incorporotes both stucco and stone for the exterior, but adds Limestone for sills and lintels. Parcel 3 A Craftsman design for Parcel 3 enables us to terminate the street with an elegant design, entirely consistent with the character of Los Gatos and fully compatible with the Mangano house to the north. It backs up to Leewood and provides a good visual transition for Panorama. MASS ~ BULK - A Discussion as it Relates to this Project 'Mass' [or 'Bulk' which is synonymous] is difficult to quantify. It is somewhat subjective, but there are proven techniques that can be used to reduce it. For Parcel 2 Mnss reduction strategies are importont because of neighbors to the north; for Parcel 3 less so - as it backs up to Leewood at a higher elevation. While still ensuring that Parcel 3 is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of Mnss, it is Parcel 2 that has been our primary focus in this respect. Height and Mass Both the Mangano house to the North [22ft in height] on Panorama and all the homes to the South on Leewood, elevated 6-8 ft above the site [from 24.5 to 27.5ft in height] are 2 story homes. The ad jncent home on Cambria is a single story, but is elevated 2 ft above the site and it is already 24.5 ft high. The foundation design proposes a 12" thick structural mat slab to remove the need for a crawl space under the house and keep height [and mass] to a minimum. Conclusion: 30ft in height is allowed, but we have kept Parcel 2 below 24ft. [Parcel 3 is 24'6"] 15928 Union Ave CONFIDENTIAL T.H.I.S. Design Union Ave Subdivision + A&S FAR and Mass The smaller the lot, the smaller the house - in order to keep the perceived Mass in proportion. The allowable FAR represents the maximum sq ft that is deemed reasonable. We have not used this as a Goal, but rather have proposed house sizes that are 230 sq ft under the FAR for Parcels 2 and 3 combined. The combined garages also are 440 sq ft below the FAR allowed. As a contrast the house on Panorama to the north (Mangano] is within 0.5 sq ft of Allowable FAR. With FARs between .30 and .31, both homes are well within the range of neighborhood FARs. Conclusion: By proposing homes significantly under the FAR we are reducing perceived Mass. Articulation and Mass By 'stepping back" the second story walls from the first story walls a significant reduction in visual Mass can be achieved. We have done this with the front elevation of Parcel 3. Indeed a shorter house will often look more Massive than a taller house if the second story walls continue up from the first floor. With Parcel 2 we have taken this one step further - by burying the second story walls within n 'hipped roof' and only having 'dormers' at the upper level. The 7:12 pitch roof for Parcel 2 with eaves at the first floor and one small north-facing dormer projects a minimum of shadowing to properties to the north - as can be seen on Plan Sheet C2 which also shows the shadow cast by the proposed fence at the Property Line. Shadows for the proposed screen trees have been omitted for clarity. Conclusion: Architectural Mass Reduction techniques have been employed to the maximum extent possible for Parcel 2. A Quantification of Mass The third Exhibit quantifies Mass comparatively between Parcel 2 and the house to the north on Panorama [Mangano Residence] by examining the 'Profile' of each house as an Object of Mass. The Mangano house, although slightly smaller in Sq Ft is 1.5 times more massive in Bulk. [919:1515 of Primary Profile or 1080:1515 including the Secondary Profile]. It identifies the "Mass Reduction Strategies" used in Parcel 2 to achieve this result. This is not used to denigrate the design of the Mangano residence - which I quite like -but rather to point out ways in which Mass Reduction Techniques hove been used effectively towards the goal of maintaining compatibility in terms of Mass and Bulk with other homes in the neighborhood. We urge the Planning Commission to approve this project on its merits, and to ask each of its detractors in what way it impacts them directly. We believe that it has little or no impact on anyone except Tom Mangano and Stephanie Lynot, and that even they will not be impacted significantly by the proposed subdivision design and house placement and design. Yours truly, T,H.I.S. Design & Development per: A. T. Jeans 15928 Union Ave CONFIDENTIAL T.H.I.S. Design From: Stephanie Lynott <slynott@stmaryslg.org> ~~~~1~~~ To: <planning@losgatosca.gov> CC: Suzanne Davis <sdavis@losgatosca.gov> Date: 4/29/2010 10:08 AM ~r~ ~ ~ Ll) li) Subject: 15928 and 15910 Union Avenue Tub'i!`J QF LJS G~;TCiS Dear Commissioners. PL,4~3^Jif`1~~ Gi'JISI~N As you know, the proposed development at 15928 Union is coming before you, once again. I find this disappointing as this project has been turned down twice by you, Planning, and the Town Council, only to return to you. The story poles are in place for Lots 2 and 3 and the impact of this development is immense from my side of the fence, 15910 Union Avenue. and way out of character for the neighborhood. Because of this, I would like to invite all of you on the Planning Commission to view this project from my of the fence prior to the May 12th meeting. Ideally, I would like to meet with personally at my residence to discuss the project and see its immense impact both inside and outside. You will see that entire views of mountains, trees and anything green, will be totally gone, replaced by fence and stucco. I am impacted at every angle in my backyard and from the entire backside of my house. I literally have to bend over to even see the sky from inside my house: family room, dining porch, bedroom, kitchen window and door. To the left of my patio area the views will be totally blocked as the Lot 2 house will extend the width of the yard. The back unit, attached to the garage, is also loosing all views to stucco and fence. If and when Lot 1 is developed, I will loose the entire view from the side of my house: bathroom, and both of my bedrooms. Again, all mountains, trees and green of any kind will be totally gone, with a fence and stucco wall/house, in its place. The views will also be blocked to the right of my patio area from Lot 1 as it will extend the width of the property. If you are willing and able to meet with me and want to make an appointment, my phone number is 402-9976 and you have my email address with this email. If you aren't able to, I would appreciate it if you would make sure to come see it for yourself, walking down the driveway to the back, viewing the project from all angles. As someone said at one of the Planning meetings. while referring to the flag lot configuration, it sounds like a duck and walks like duck, must be a duck. Well, it's still quacking and I hope that all of you still hear it! Thank you for any considerations, Stephanie Lynott 408-402-9976 EXHIBIT 12 Members of the Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, California, CA 95030 . ,. ~! J.•j ~:~ ~ ~ i ~ D I f:Jli''11~1 U~ i_:~S GA7G5 1VIy name is Stephanie Lynott and reside at 15910 Union Avenue, the half acre parallel to 15928 Union Ave. I am a native Los Gatos resident, my family living in Los Gatos for 65 years. I am submitting this letter in conjunction with Benny Pierce, native of Los Gatos over 65 years, owner of 15910 Union Ave. iVlany points have already been made by the Panorama/Union neighbors. Benny and I are in agreement with all points that have been made and Fully support them. ~Ve would like to make a few points and requests regarding the proposal to develop the acre lot adjacent to 15910 Union. ~Ve ask that you deny this application as not meeting the Town's General Plan and Development Intensity GLiidelines and sections B,C,and D of the California Subdivision Map Act. ~Ve ask that the proposed development be compatible with the existing neighborhood ,which would make this a two house, single story development. 3. This is a three lot proposal and in being so, no decision should made without seeing the impact of all three lots so as to see the entire impact of the proposed development. 4. The proposed two story development of Lot 2 has obliterated, not just interrupted, the entire view from the family room, dining porch, bedroom, kitchen window and door. From inside the house one has to literally bend over to even see the sly. What would be seen, if built as proposed, would be a giant stucco cube. 5. The views, lighting, and privacy from every angle of the backyard are impacted. 6.Lot one, even built as a one story, would totally remove the views from the bathroom and t~vo bedrooms, again, seeing only stucco and fence, bending to see the sky. 7.The intensity and the immensity of the proposed development impacts the views, the lighting, and the privacy of 15910 Union. Landscaping and plants would be impacted because of the shift in the lighting brought about by fences and building structures. Our hope is that you, The Planning Commission ,will continue to see this proposed development as incompatible to the neighborhood. An entire neighborhood should not be so incredibly impacted for the financial gain of a developer. Yes, there is the right to develop, that is not at question. The question is, what is compatible to the neighborhood? Thank you for your considerations and right choices, Stephanie Lynott and Benny Pierce f j ~~7~G t -=-_`~ ;• ---, `~ s~ ;~~ if i~: ''I ,;, :a1r ~ r .l,i ' ~';; it ~ ~ ,•;', i';~t:a N,"~` :~~ ~ ~R~ _~ list;:' ~ is ~1~~~ ., ,~ .e~ ~~„ , '•::i :~~: s'1.,• + ~ ;:i' '~ ~ I~ c t 1~3 ~~..1._ t . ~ ~ ,~~ .. t ~' r Ffi: #~.:r, `~ k i~1i~1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~`~ .~ fi