Loading...
Attachment 59 }N -ef TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3 1 u , PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner isavageClosaatosca,gov APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Application S -13 -049 LOCATION: 134 Loma Alta Avenue (approximately 840 feet southeast of Los Gatos Boulevard, between Cross Way and Redhead Lane) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER/ CONTACT PERSON: Donald J. Prolo, I1 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish a pre -1941 single - family residence and construct a new single - family residence on property zoned R -1:8. APN 532 -29 -033. EXHIBITS: 1 -8. Previously received with the October 9, 2013, Planning Commission Staff Report 9 -13. Previously received with the December 11, 2013, Planning Commission Staff Report 14. Public Comments received through 1:00 p.m., December 6, 2013 (17 pages) 15. Excerpts from November 28, 2012, January 23, 2013 and June 20, 2013 Historic Preservation Committee minutes (six pages total) REMARKS: The two attached written public comments (Exhibit 14) were received after the staff report was distributed. Exhibit 15 includes Historic Preservation Committee minutes for the three meetings where the subject property was discussed. repared by: proved by: Jennifer L. Savage, AICP Sa L: Baily, AT P Associate Planner Director of Community Development SLB:JS:ct ATTACHMENT 5 N: \DEV \PG REPORTS\2013\LomaAl [ a134 2 desk.docx This Page Intentionally Left Blank —s MLI December 10, 2013 Planning Commission of Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: RECEIVED DEC I I 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISIO;4 We again ask you to support the staff recommendation of denial for the Architecture and Site Application S- 13-049 for 134 Loma Alta Ave. The re- designed project did not meet the direction given by the Commission to the applicant, and continues to be incompatible with the immediate neighborhood in terms of scale, significant negative impacts on the adjacent neighbors, and inconsistency with Town of I.os Gatos Residential Design Guidelines. We are the adjacent property owners on the uphill side at 136 Loma Alta Avenue. Our one story house sits on a slope, and was remodeled about 15 years ago to add square footage by incorporating a basement with a water abatement system. Our 91- year -old home has been in the Logan family for over 50 years, and we sincerely appreciated Commissioner Talesfore's recognition at the Oct. 9 hearing that Loma Alta is one of our community's precious older neighborhoods near downtown that is specifically referenced in the town's design guidelines. We support the demolition of the existing structure, understand and accept that any new structure will result in some impact on the neighbors, and appreciate the adjustments that have been made to the design to create larger setbacks on the upper story. However, the floating master bedroom above the covered rear porch and the associated second floor balcony with French doors introduce unnecessary design elements that only add to the overall bulk and mass of the structure and create significant negative impacts on the adjacent neighbors in terms of privacy, solar seem, and sky views. We were expecting to see something more in keeping with Chris Spaulding's statement at the hearing on Oct. 9 that although the fast floor would need to go deeper into the lot, the second floor square footage could be reduced by moving the master bedroom to the fast floor. At our meeting on Oct. 23, we explained to Mr. Prolo and his family that the first story extending deeper into the lot would be an acceptable change and that it would serve to enhance his privacy in the rear garden area. Instead, the mass of the second floor now extends deeper into the lot, floating above an open patio, further occluding views from our rear deck (see photo), and most importantly, further reducing solar access to the neighbors at 132 Loma Alta In section I A, the Design Guidelines state that our community expects "Homes will be designed with respect for the views, privacy and solar access of their neighbors," and they "will respect the scale and character of their immediate neighborhoods." Section 2.3.6 of the Design Guidelines indicate very clearly that the second floor mass should be located "to minimize impacts on the streetscape and adjacent neighbors." They further go on to state, "In one story neighborhoods, place additions at grade level behind the existing house whenever possible. Place second story mass in locations appropriate to the height of adjacent homes." While we understand that existing views are not protected as a tight adding a new structure to the lot should be "designed with sensitivity to the adjacent neighbors," and as noted in Section 2.5.2, "Never -the -less; additions to existing homes and new houses should be planned with an awareness of the impacts which they will have on the EXHIBIT 14 of Attachment 5 views, sky exposure, sun access and privacy of neighbors." Mr. Prolo has a responsibility to propose a design that minimizes shadow impacts on adjacent properties. As directed in Section 3.11.1, he should "Locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to living spaces and actively used outdoor areas on adjacent homes." The proposed balcony with French doors will create a major privacy issue for all of the adjacent neighbors. Any person standing on the balcony will be able to see into the neighboring yards in all directions. These spaces include most of the usable private outdoor spaces in our yards (see photos). This is contrary to Section 3.11.1 as well, "Second floor balconies and decks should be used only when they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. This attractive design may be appropriate for many areas of town including the upper part of Loma Alta or Johnson Avenue; however, the scale and bulk does not relate to the immediate neighborhood as defined in the town design guidelines. And, the height differential between the proposed structure and 132 Loma Alta is unprecedented in the immediate neighborhood, which deserves the greatest attention and consideration. In Section 1.6, the Design Guidelines explain, "The greatest attention will be given to the immediate neighborhood where nearby home owners are most likely to be confronted with the new house or addition on a daily basis, and where other residents driving by are most likely to see the new structure in the context of the nearby homes." And, the General Design Principles definitively instruct, "Relate a structure's size and bulk to those in the immediate neighborhood. " (Highlighted wording is from the town's document). This is again referenced in Section 2. 1, "Residential development shall be similar in mass, bulk and scale to the immediate neighborhood. The residences at 123 and 161 Loma Alta Ave that Mr. Prolo sites as "similarly sized" to his proposed home are not in our immediate neighborhood as defined in the Design Guidelines. The adjacent homes and the majority of the houses in the immediate neighborhood are one story. According to Section 3.3.2, "Avoid eave lines and roof ridge lines that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses, [and] in neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of the floor area on the fast floor with less area on the second floor." Although two story houses do exist in the area, the topography and configuration of these lots are quite different — factors that cannot be ignored when considering issues of privacy, light, and compatibility. We respectfully request that the Commission approves staff's recommendation of denial for this application, and provides more specific direction to the applicant to submit a project that is compatible, respectful, and embraces the qualities that make this section of Loma Alta such a truly wonderful place to live. Thank you for your consideration, George and LezLi Logan 136 Loma Alta Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 geokgan cucomcast.n_et Exhibit A Photo Simulations of the views from our windows facing the proposed project. These simulations are intended to show building mass using the position of the story poles, and do not include any shadows or architectural details such as windows or lower roofareas. It should be noted that the story poles from the far side of the property are seen in some of the current view photos, and the near side roof line is above the top of the window. Taupe was used in the simulations to show mass. Photo Al - Current view of the Is a bedroom that we use as a room wz - armwateo weer of the project from the Dining Room near the front of our home. All but a small square of sky views are eliminated. 9 Photo A3 - Current view of the project from the Upper Pane or u narnrov'a w"wow. This Photo was se taken fairly close to the window_ Photo A4 - Simulated view of the project from the Upper Pane of the eatnroom window further demonstrates the loss of sky views. 4 Photo AS — Current our daughter at the the loss of all but a sliver of sky views. 5 Photo A7 - Current view of the project from our kitchen eating area, which is set back further from the project than the other windows. Photo AB - Simulated view of the project from our kitchen eating area through the stairwell windows. Exhibit B Photo Simulations of the views from our outdoor living spaces towards the proposed project. These simulations are intended to show building mass and the area containing the rear balcony using the position of the story poles, and do not include any shadows or architectural details such as windows or lower roof areas. Taupe was used in the simulations to show mass. Photo B1 — Current view of the re- designed project from our patio dining table in the back yard. Photo B2 — Simulated view of the previous version of the oroiect from our patio dining table in the back yard. The shaded grey area represents the area on the rear balcony.. Photo B3 — Simulated view of the redesigned project from our patio dining table in the back yard. Comparing to photo B2, it is clear that the latest design results in further loss of sky views while 7 still compromising privacy. Photo B4 — Current view of the Project from our rear deck lounge area, where we often sit and watch the sunset Photo B5 — Simulated view of the re- designed Protect and the rear balcony area from our rear dec lounge area where the view is now more occluded then the Previous design. This clearly Illustrates the loss of privacy In this well -used portion of our outdoor living space, Photo 66 — This view of the sunset was taken from our rear deck lounge area on Aug. 31 from LezLi's phone. Photo ST —View of the balcony area of the project from the sitting area in our herb garden. Photo BB — View of the balcony area from lawn toward the back of our backyard. This Page Intentionally Left Blank To: Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner isayage@losgatosca.goy From: Karen Evenden karen@evenden.com Cc: Chris Evenden chris@evenden.com Date: December 10, 20138, 2013 L EfC`[E.fVI D Re: Planned new residential construction at 134 Loma Alta Avenue DEC : 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLAN \lit(G ©iVISIOK! Dear Ms Savage, This memo is in response to the revised plans that Mr. Donald Prolo submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division on November 13, 2013. We live at 132 Loma Alta Avenue, which is next door, on the downhill side to Mr. Prolo. Following the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting we met with Mr. Prolo on October 23, 2013 when we discussed our concerns with him. It was agreed that he would share the revised plans with us when they became available. These revised plans were then shared with us on December 3, 2013, when Mr. Prolo came to our house with his consultant, Ms. Joanne Benjamin, to take us through the revisions. Mr. Prolo then emailed us the plans which he had taken us through so we could further review them on December S, and the accompanying shadow study on December B. Whilst we appreciate that the new plans are an improvement on his original submittal with regard to the impact on our home, we still believe that as they currently stand, the proposed house will still have a significant negative effect on the neighborhood and our home. Below details why we ask the Planning Commission to recommended denial of the proposed house at 134 Loma Alta Avenue as it currently stands. Solar Access The setbacks introduced in the revised plans and the slight decrease in roof height have made minimal improvement, but the shadows created still have a significant negative impact on our home. The shadow study provided by Mr. Prolo in his letter of November 13, 2013 show that at 9am on June 21 the shadow from his new proposed roof line will reach the bottom third of our windows (approximately), and that the difference at this time will not be considerably different to that of a single story home (Appendix A). However, this is the summer solstice when the sun is at its highest in the sky — i.e. it is a best case scenario. For every other day of the year, the shadow will reach higher and higher up the side of our house, with the difference between a single story and two story building increasing each day. This can be seen in the shadow study for December 21, where the shadow of the new proposed second story actually covers our house, including all windows and skylights on that side of the house. As winter approaches, sunlight becomes more of a premium, and the loss of solar access during these months will have a significant negative impact on our home. At certain times of the day, even in the winter, the rooms on this side of the light are flooded with light. However, with the second story you can see that most of this would be in its shadow (Appendix B). Mr. Prolo has suggested that a deeper single story would have a greater negative effect on our house vs a two - story house. We do not agree with this as it is the height of the two story that has the most significant negative impact. There is currently a single story garage deeper into this lot (which Mr. Prolo plans to tear down) that has minimal effect on the shadow, and a single story house would not be as close to the property line as this structure, especially toward the rear of the house where the current plans have the extended rear on the other side of the lot. In addition, as outlined in my letter of October 8, 2013, it is not just an issue of shadowing, but also access to sky as the sky reflects light back to the ground. The proposed building still has two stories for the length of the entire house, and although set back further with additional cutouts, the negative impact of a large mass towering over our home still prevails, which in turn decreases our access to the sky on that side of our home. 1 would estimate that our children's rooms in particular would lose at least half of their sky access making it impossible for them to do anything without introducing artificial light into their room at all times of the day. Section 3.11.1: Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties advocates "locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to living spaces....on adjacent homes ". By continuing to propose a two story building, where the second story is still the full length of the structure means that there is still a significant negative impact on solar access for our home as the second story continues to create a significant shadow over a large proportion of our home. Form and Mass Section 2.3.1: For neighborhoods dominated by one -story homes, an effort should be made to limit the house to one -story in height or to accommodate second floor space within the existing roof. If a two -story house is proposed in this type of neighborhood, the house shall be designed to blend with the smaller house. Although the two foot reduction in the roof line is a welcome improvement, the height of the structure still significantly dwarfs our house, an effect that is exaggerated due to the sloping topography of the street (we are downhill of 134 Loma Alta Avenue). This height differential is further impacted as the second story continues through from the front to the back of the structure. The immediate neighborhood of 134 is almost all single story homes, and those very few that have two stories are not adjacent, nor directly opposite. These two story structures are on the edge of the immediate neighborhood and, are on the other side of the street which backs up onto a hillside so the visual impact and privacy implications are completely different, or the second story is very small (perhaps one room), and often this section of the structure is built down into the slope minimizing the impact on the neighborhood. In addition, the two 2 -story houses quoted in Mr. Praia's letter (123 and 161 Loma Alta Avenue) are further away from us and not in the immediate neighborhood. Section 3.3.2: Height and bulk at front and side setbacks.... avoid eove lines and roof ridge lines that are substantially taller than the adjacent houses ... in neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of the floor area on the first floor with less area on the second floor. The exact comparative heights of 132 and 134 Loma Alta Avenue are not detailed on the plans, but as drawing A3 details (Appendix c), 134 Loma Alta is still significantly higher than our home, and this height continues along the sides of the structure to the rear of the house. The second floor has been reduced by only 68 square feet, and the second story still constitutes almost half (44%) of the main building's living space. This is the only area of the main structure that has been reduced, making the overall square foot reduction of the main building only 3%. In addition, a significant proportion of this second floor floats above a very substantial covered porch. The covered porch, avoids the square footage calculations, but adds considerable mass to the entire structure. If we add the square footage of the covered porch into the calculations, as it does essentially form part of the main building, then the overall reduction in square footage of the main building is only 1%, in part because the square footage of the covered porch in the revised plan actually increased (Appendix D). A recommendation would be to move second story square footage to this area which would reduce the overall bulk and massing of the second story, and retain Mr Prolo's desired square footage of the main living spaces as well as his large yard (something I understand he is keen to preserve). Privacy Section 3.11.2; Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences. The second floor balcony, although reduced, is still there and completely overlooks our yard, specifically an eating area which we use frequently (Appendix C). We have a small yard, and to have a large structure, with a balcony, in very close proximity looking directly over us will have a significant negative impact on the quality of our outdoor space (Appendix E). The introduction of the unnecessary privacy intrusion should be eliminated as it is inconsequential to the overall design. We met with Mr. Prato again on December 8 after we had had time to absorb all of the new information. At this time we explained that we appreciated that he had made some improvements vs. the original plans, but that we still had issues regarding solar access, the size of the second story and the privacy. We suggested some of the modifications outlined above. As Mr. Prato's consultant Ms. Benjamin has said, there is a "vision of preserving Los Gatos and keeping it a unique and wonderful place to live and work ". This is something we immediately felt when we moved to Los Gatos and we feel lucky to live here, especially so close to downtown. As we mentioned at the Planning Meeting on October 9, 2013, we enjoy living in a town that has worked so hard to preserve the essential qualities of its neighborhoods, each of them with their own distinctive characteristics, something that the Town has worked hard to achieve. We understand why the existing house at 134 Loma Alta is to be demolished and a new structure to replace it. However, we hope that the original look and character of the immediate neighborhood can be maintained. Unfortunately, we feel that the plans as they currently stand do not achieve this. For the reasons outlined above, we support the Staff's recommendation of denial of the plans as they currently stand and we hope that a resolution acceptable to all parties can be agreed upon soon. Many thanks for considering these comments, and please submit our concerns to the Planning Commission, Regards, Karen Evenden Appendix A ® e, b 5 z ^» �z .. . $! §V - - - -I — /- § � . wf { � | . � ------- - - - - -� Our daughter's bedroom on December 10, 2013 Picture taken same time as the photos above. It is hard to see because of the glare, but based on the story poles the sun would still reach her room if it were a single story, but would be in the shadow if it were a two story. Appendix C ems,; ,.,x.rIV e 8$aI PlIFS, I�1 Original Proposal I Revised Proposal Total square footage I 2,334.8 I 21249.1 minus accessory bathroom 53.6 35.6 Total square footage of main building 2,281.2 2,213.5 Square footage change of main building: 67,7 change of main building square footage: 2,97% Covered porch square footage 290.0 330.0 Total square footaage of main building including covered porch 2,571.2 2,543.5 Square footage change of main building + covered porch 27,7 % change of main building + covered porch square footage: 1.08% Appendix E Proposed balcony would overlook our dining area Historic Preservation Committee November 28, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Tony Jeans commented that his client is in the process of purchasing the property. The in atrocious condition and is falling apart. He does not believe it is a significant contribut Charles Erekson commented that when he visited the site he was afraid to l gainst a wall. Tom O'Donnell commented that the neighborhood is in tra�nwitb ore t wo -story homes being introduced. The house is in terrible condition and ' oes not appear to have any historical value. Tony Jeans commented that he detached garage at the rear. a two -story home in a Craftsman style with a Len Pacheco com ted that there has been a lot of work done on the house over the years. There area ber of different window types. There is not architectural merit to the existing stn ;t . The Committee is interested in the replacement structure. He is in favor of not saving 234 LOMA ALTA AVENUE Gary Schloh and Jay Plett were present for this item. Gary Schloh presented photos of the streetscape. An analysis of the structure has been prepared. There are problems with the framing and there is no steel in the foundation. Some of the windows have been replaced and there has been a lot of plaster patchwork Jay Plett commented that there is a lot of rot and there is moisture in the walls. The floor is uneven. Tom O'Donnell commented that the structural report states that more than 50% of the roof framing needs to be replaced. Len Pacheco commented that one of the things that the Committee needs to determine is if the house is representative of its time and period. Tom O'Donnell commented that he has always thought the house is charming and there appears to be historic value. The Committee would need to make findings to support the demolition based on the reports and information that is submitted. Len Pacheco commented that the house is a contributor in the sense that it is part of the Town's history and is representative of the period in which it was built. EXH BIT 15 of Attachment 5 Historic Preservation Committee November 28, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Charles Erekson commented that there have been cases where houses have been neglected and the Town needs to step in and require the structure to be rehabilitated. Tom O'Donnell commented that if facts are presented that are compelling, the Committee would take that into consideration. Len Pacheco commented that the Committee often refers the to Field Guide to American Houses. Tom O'Donnell commented that each property is considered individually. This house is charming. Charles Erekson commented that the goal is to preserve the different styles of architecture and there is not a particular number required to be preserved of a particular style. It was noted that the building smells inside and it is not seismically safe. Tom O'Donnell commented that the Committee is not saying the house cannot be demolished; however there is merit to saving the house, and as much of it that can be preserved should be. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm. The next regular meeting will be canceled as it falls during the holiday and furlough closure. A special meeting may be scheduled if action is needed on a formal application. Prepared by: Suzanne Avila, AICP Senior Planner N: OEV,HISTORIC PRESERVATIOMHPCminmcs9012NPCminmesl 4'SI2 doc Approved by: Charles Erekson Chair TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354 -6872 SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JANUARY 23, 2013, 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: Charles Erekson, Bob Cowan, Kathryn Janoff, Tom O'Do Len Pacheco Members Absent: None Staff Present: Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner Others present: Donald Prolo, Jr., Donald and Joanne VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Len Pacheco made a motion to approve a minutes of November 28 and December 19, 2012 as submitted. The motion was second y Kathryn Janoff and passed unanimously. ITEM 2 CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR Charles Ereksozz info d the Committee that he had appointed Kendra Burch to replace him as a Planning Commis 'on member of the Historic Preservation Committee. Tom O'Donnell will continuZthe and Planning Commission member. Bob Co motion to nominate Kathryn Janoff as Chair. The motion was seconded by Len P9 assed unanimously. of Vice -Chair was continued to the next ITEM 3 OTHER BUSINESS A. 134 LOMA ALTA AVENUE with the full Donald Prolo, Jr. and Donald and Joanne Prolo were present for this item. Len Pacheco commented that the new report is very thorough. There is some merit to preserving the house and detailed information is needed to support demolition. Historic Preservation Committee January 23, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Kathryn Janoff commented that this posed a dilemma for her since it is a representative architectural style and there is currently a lack of findings. She did some research and did not find anything indicating that persons with historic significance are associated with the site. Len Pacheco commented that in reviewing the material, there are a number of items that are significant, and over the years it may not have been maintained well. The condition of the frame, the presence of mold and dry rot concerns him. The condition of the house is not great. The Committee needs to weigh what will be replacing the house and if it complies with design guidelines. There are enough serious issues to warrant a demolition; however, he is very concerned about the replacement structure. He would like to see something that captures the character and context of what is in the neighborhood. Bob Cowan noted that the information the Town has on the property does not indicate any persons of historic significance. He concurred with Len Pacheco's comments on the structural integrity of the building. He would like to see the replacement structure maintain a similar architectural style. The Committee indicated a preference for Spanish- Eclectic, Spanish Colonial Revival or similar B. DICSUSSION OF 2013 WORK ITEMS Bob Cowan presented a list of projects for the Committee inclusive of the following: • Evaluation of requests for removal from Historic Resources Invento • Refinement of design guidelines for historic properties • Review of contributing and non - contributing buildings in oric zones • Preserving historical character of building design The Committee discussed revisions to alternative r ding materials: • Examples should be given. • Synthetic materials do not in the same manner as natural materials. • Need resolution on al ance of wood chimneys. Staff will discuss t appropriate process for the Committee to work on special projects and will report back. On demolition worksheet, it would be helpful to indicate what sources were checked to determine that there are no persons of historical significance associated with a site. TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354 -6872 — - --- --- ---- --- ------ --- ---- -- -- ----- --- - -- - °— --------------- ---- SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JUNE 20, 2013, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 E. MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M. by Chair Kathryn Janoff. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Bob Cowan, Kathryn Janoff, Tom O' ell Len Pacheco Members Absent: Kendra Burch Staff Present: Suzanne ' a, Senior Planner; Marni Moseley, Associate Planner Others present: onald Prolo, Joanne Prolo, Tricia Capri, Erick & Maggie Cattell COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1 134 LOMA ALTA AVENUE Donald Prolo Jr. and Joanne Prolo were present for this item. Kathryn Janoff commented that the Committee previously reviewed the proposed demolition and concurred with the recommendation. Bob Cowan clarified that the Building Official concurred with the structural report. Tom O'Donnell made a motion to recommend approval of the request to demolish the residence and to remove the property from the Historic Resources Inventory. Required findings were made. The motion was seconded by Bob Cowan and passed unanimously. Donald Prolo noted that he did some research and discovered that the house is not a Bellringer, it was never included on a Historic Homes tour and it was not included in the book `Los Gatos Observed' by Alistair Dallas. Kativyn Janoff commented that for the replacement house, the Committee indicated a preference for Spanish Eclectic or similar style, and the proposed architecture is a mix of styles and is not quite there. Len Pacheco commented that the detailing is important. The proposed design is corning across as a large box with some detail that does not quite make it. For example, there are two different styles of wrought iron. There is a large roof overhang that seems out of scale. The chimney is Historic Preservation Committee June 20, 2013 Page 2 of 4 narrow and should be beefier, as should the columns. The columns on the front porch are weak. The front entry needs more light. Kathryn Janoff commented that the detailing does not look Spanish. The arches could be rounded, and the molding and detailing at the steps looks Colonial. Torn O'Donnell commented that the Committee is not voting on the house plans; however, the comments should be taken into consideration. Bob Cowan commented that a rendering might read better. The Committee indicated that the building at 213 Bean Avenue as a good example of Spanish style architecture. Len Pacheco commented that there may be some good examples within the neighborhood and the details should fit within the context of the neighborhood. ITEM 3 255 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD Tricia Capri was present for this item. Tricia Capri commented that she is in the midst of a remodel and is trying Z not done properly. She is proposing to replace damaged redwood sidin more fire retardant, more cost efficient, and more environmenta friendly. The property is fenced on all sides and it would not be seen. Len Pacheco commented that hardie board has not in the past. Bob Cowan commenteZsiding is much more stable material than older redwood siding. Len Pacheco commen prepped and installed makes a difference. If done properly, it will last a product as recommended by the Residential Design Guidelines is available eal wood or composite wood is preferred. Bob Cowan co ented that it will be difficult to match hardie board to the existing redwood siding. It uld not pass the three foot test specified in the Residential Design Guidelines. Ki n Janoff commented that the proposed siding would not tie in properly at the corners. It is a question of whether it will be seen; it is a question of continuity of the materials and having