Item 2.Staff Report with Exhibits - 89 Alpine AveTOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 13, 2013
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner
jsavage@losgatosca.gov
APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Application S-13-003
ITEM NO: 2
LOCATION: 89 Alpine Avenue (northeast side of Alpine Avenue,
approximately 1,100 feet southeast of the E. Main Street/Alpine
Avenue intersection)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER/
CONTACT PERSON: Lou & Cheryl Ryan
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to construct a new second story for a single-
family residence on property zoned R-1:20. APN 529-38-050.
RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT DATA:
DEEMED COMPLETE: January 28, 2013
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: July 28, 2013
Approve, subject to conditions.
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation
Applicable Plans & Standards:
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
Low Density Residential, 0-5
dwelling units/acre
R-1:20 — Single -Family
Residential, 20,000 square foot
minimum lot size
General Plan; Residential Design
Guidelines
20,106 square feet
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North ; Single Family Low Density Residential R 1.20
East I Single Family Low Density Residential R 1:8
South Single Family Low Density Residential R 1 20
West Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:20
CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301
of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town
because the project consists of an addition to a single-family
residence.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
89 Alpine Avenue/5-13-003
February 13, 2013
FINDINGS: As required by Section 15301 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town that this project is
Categorically Exempt.
As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.
CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
appealed within ten days.
EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map
2. Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Applicant's Letters (12 pages), received January 24 to
January 30, 2013
5. Public Comments (nine pages), received December 7, 2012
to January 27, 2013
6. Development Plans (five sheets), received October 24, 2012
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project was originally submitted as a Minor Residential Development Application.
Pursuant to Town Code for Minor Residential Development applications, the Notice of Pending
Approval was sent to nearby property owners and residents. The Town received written
objections from two neighbors with concerns that could not be resolved at staff level (Exhibit 5).
Therefore, pursuant to Town Code, the application is coming before the Planning Commission,
at the applicant's expense.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The property is located at 89 Alpine Avenue on the northeast side of Alpine Avenue,
approximately 1,100 feet southeast of the E. Main Street/Alpine Avenue intersection.
The site slopes downward from Alpine Avenue to the back of the property. Surrounding
properties contain single-family residences.
B. Proposed Project
The applicant is proposing a new second story, first story addition, and remodeled front
porch. The proposed second story is 1,190 square feet; the proposed first story addition
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
89 Alpine Avenue/S-13-003
February 13, 2013
is 135 square feet. The residence would be a maximum height of 25 feet, 11 inches. The
additions would consist of horizontal wood siding and wood frame windows to match the
existing siding and windows. The new roof would be composition shingles. The
remodeled front porch consists of a new gable entry and new columns with real stone
veneer bases. Development plans are attached as Exhibit 6.
C. Zoning Compliance
The zoning permits a single-family dwelling use. The proposed project complies with the
floor area ratio, height, and structure coverage limitations. The project also complies
with parking requirements and the setbacks permitted by Town Code.
ANALYSIS:
A. Architecture and Neighborhood Compatibility
The neighborhood is a mix of one and two story homes. Staff determined that the
proposed two-story residence is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and
scale. The Town's Architectural Consultant did not review the project because staff
determined that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. The project
compiles with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the project:
Is designed to blend into the neighborhood;
Relates the structure's size and bulk to those in the immediate neighborhood;
Utilizes roof forms similar to those in the immediate neighborhood;
Uses quality materials that are consistent and compatible with the neighborhood;
Provides visual relief for two story walls with a belly band on the right side and
rear elevations and by setting the second story back from the first story on the left
side and front elevations; and,
Works with the traditional form of the architectural style including roof pitches,
materials, and design features.
B. Floor Area and Neighborhood Compatibility
Based on Town and County records, the surrounding residences range in size from 1,289
square feet to 4,329 square feet. The floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0.06 FAR to
0.33 FAR. The applicant is proposing a residence of 3,966 square feet on an 20,106
square foot parcel (0.20 FAR). The proposed residence is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood in terms of square footage and FAR. The Neighborhood Analysis table
below reflects current conditions.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4
89 Alpine Avenue/S-13-003
February 13, 2013
yuE
iN4NIFii
i4 f
aeigys1sj,.t,,W,rhood'Analbo rs'.
y fi_
ouse
Gra 3;:
tLtSizeSFtStorei i'4j o
eF-,
AR.. F 76 Alpine
3,065 568 20,500 1 0.15 98 Alpine
1,969 453 6,000 1 0.33 78 Alpine
3,660 588 22,200 1 0.16 106 Alpine
3,633 677 17,424 2 0.21 103 Alpine
1,412 252 22,517 1 0.06 79 Alpine
1,289 282 13,200 1 0.10 77 Alpine
2,106 550 13,158 1 0.16 95 Alpine
4,329 484 20,038 2 0.22 89 Alpine (
N) 3,966 463 20,106 2 0.20 The maximum
allowable floor area is 3,969 square feet for the residence. The applicant is proposing
a residence of 3,966 square feet on a 20,106 square foot parcel (0.20 FAR). The Residential
Design Guidelines specify that residential development shall be similar in mass,
bulk, and scale to the immediate neighborhood. In terms of square footage and FAR, the
proposed project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. C. Setbacks
and Neighborhood Compatibility The required
side setback for the R-1:20 zoning district is 15 feet. Both existing side setbacks are
non -conforming - the left side setback is 1'-0"; the right side setback is 4'- 3". Pursuant
to Town Code Sections 29.10.245 and 29.10.250, a structure with a non- conforming setback
may expand along the existing nonconforming setback provided that the structure
does not go closer to the property line. The portion of the structure that creates the
non -conforming setback must remain in order to permit the continuation of a non -conforming
setback. The footprint
of the existing structure is not parallel to the property lines (See Development Plans,
Exhibit 6, Sheet A-1 for visual clarification of existing setbacks). The front
of the house has a different side setback than the rear of the house. Specifically, the
side setbacks increase as you travel from the front of the structure to the rear of
the structure. For example, on the southeast side of the property, the front of the house is
4'-3" from the side property line; the rear of the house is 10'-0" from the side property line.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5
89 Alpine Avenue/S-13-003
February 13, 2013
The additions are proposed adjacent to the right side of the property and follow the
existing structure's varying setbacks. The additions would be setback 8'-2.5" from the
southeast side property line (right side elevation). The addition's 8'-2.5" setback is
greater than the existing 4'-3" right side setback; the addition does not go closer to the
property line than the existing building. In fact, the additions maintain a larger setback
than the 4'-3" non -conforming setback which by Town Code, the applicant could request
See Development Plans, Exhibit 6, Sheet A-1 for visual clarification of existing and
proposed setbacks). Therefore, the project complies with the setbacks permitted by Town
Code.
The applicant provided an analysis of their proposed project and the neighborhood
compatibility of the proposed setbacks (Exhibit 4).
D. Tree Impacts
The proposed project does not require any tree removal. The project will not require
construction equipment to access the rear of the property, and, therefore, would not create
the potential to damage the birch trees along the southeast property line. Tree protection
measures are incorporated as conditions of approval (Exhibit 3) to protect the existing
trees on the subject property and within the development area.
E. General Plan
The goals and policies of the 2020 General Plan applicable to this project include but are
not limited to:
Policy LU-6.8 — New construction, remodels, and additions shall be compatible and
blend with the existing neighborhood.
Policy CD-1.1 — Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in
the neighborhood.
Policy CD-1.2 — New structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be
designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and
natural features in the area.
Policy CD-1.4 — Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and
construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town's ambiance.
Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial
and/or residential neighborhoods.
Policy CD-6.1 — Reduce the visual impact of new construction and/or remodels on the
Town and its neighborhoods.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6
89 Alpine Avenue/5-13-003
February 13, 2013
F. CEOA Determination
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the State
Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town because the project consists of an
addition to a single-family residence.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The Town received six written comments (Exhibit 5) — two opposed to the project; four in
support. The neighbors opposed to the project are concerned that the addition will worsen an
existing non -conforming setback and that the story poles were incorrectly installed.
The applicant submitted letters explaining how they considered the neighbors' concerns
regarding the setbacks (Exhibit 4). The applicant and their architect met with the neighbor at 95
Alpine Avenue. They discussed options to address the neighbor's privacy concerns including
redesign of the second story side windows to be clearstory windows. The development plans
Exhibit 6) do not reflect the clearstory window revision; the deciding body could add a
condition to require clearstory windows on the second floor at the southeast side. The neighbor
believes that the additions should be required to comply with the R-1:20 15-foot side setback.
The applicant explains how the setbacks of the proposed addition are compatible with the
neighborhood (Exhibit 4). The architect explains the difficulty in designing a new second story
with a 15-foot side setback, both for the applicant's use of the additions and to the neighbor's
view (Exhibit 4).
Along the right side, the story poles were installed approximately two feet further away from the
property line than proposed. The story poles have been corrected to accurately reflect the
proposed additions.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Summary
The applicant designed the second story addition to be compatible with the neighborhood
including utilizing roof forms similar to those in the immediate neighborhood and
traditional roof pitches, materials, and design features of the architectural style.
Therefore, the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. In addition, the
proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass and scale, FAR,
and square footage. Finally, the project matches the existing structure's varying setbacks
and complies with setbacks permitted by Town Code.
i
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7
89 Alpine Avenue/S-13-003
February 13, 2013
Although staff has the authority to approve and supports the proposed project, the matter
has been referred to the Planning Commission, pursuant to Town Code, because the
Town received unresolved written objections.
B. Recommendation
Based on the summary above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application subject to the recommended conditions of approval. If the Planning
Commission concurs with staffs recommendation, it should:
1. Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15301 of
the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 2); and
2. Make the required finding as required by the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit
2); and
3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and
4. Approve Architecture & Site Application S-13-003 with conditions contained in
Exhibit 3.
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Approve the application with additional or modified conditions of approval; or
2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
3. Deny the application.
Pr ared by:
Jennifer L. Savage, ICP
Associate Planner
TC:JS:ct
E . 6Govedby:
Capurso
Acting Director of Community Development
cc: Lou & Cheryl Ryan, 7080 Wooded Lake Drive, San Jose, CA 95120
N:\DEVTC REPORTS\2013WIpine89.docx
89 Alpine
5
EXHPBTT 1
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
89 Alpine Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-13-003
Requesting approval to construct a new second story for a single-family residence on
property zoned R-1:20. APN 529-38-050.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Lou & Cheryl Ryan
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town in that the project consists of an addition of not more
than 2,500 square feet to an existing structure.
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes
not in hillside residential areas.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
N:\DE V \FINDING S\2013 W LPIN E89. DOCX
EXHIBIT 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — February 13, 2013
89 Alpine Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-13-003
Requesting approval to construct a new second story for a single-family residence on
property zoned R-1:20. APN 529-38-050.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Lou & Cheryl Ryan
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted as
received by the Town on October 24, 2012. Any changes or modifications to the approved
plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the Development Review
Committee, the Planning Commission, or Town Council, depending on the scope of the
changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights
shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. The
lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check.
4. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
5. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees
prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of
construction. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans.
6. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition
of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the
approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
Building Division
7. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the demolition of portions
of the existing single family residence and the construction of the new single family
residence alterations and additions. Separate permits are required for electrical,
mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary.
8. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on
the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of
Approval will be addressed.
EXHt131T 3
9. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24" x 36" and maximum
size 30" x 42".
10. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with
the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer
specializing in soils mechanics. As an alternate, the necessary foundation elements can be
designed by a licensed Civil Engineer to the minimum requirements of Chapter 4 of the
2010 California Residential Code.
11. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance
Forms must be blue -lined, i.e. directly printed onto a plan sheet.
12. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information
on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town
of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater
valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches
above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
13. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase
II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet
of Chimney.
14. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly.
15. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban
Interface Fire Area, however only new buildings must comply with Section R327 of the
2010 California Residential Code.
16. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704,
the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled -out and signed by all requested
parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
17. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (2406) shall be part of the plan
submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division
Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC (formerly known as San Jose Blue) for a fee or
online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
18. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development — Planning Division: Jennifer Savage (408) 399-5702
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Maziar Bozorginia (408)395-3460
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit
issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
19. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the
applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm
drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street
will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in
charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public
right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required
maintenance at the developer's expense.
20. APPROVAL. This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of
approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved
development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of
approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
21. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the applicant/developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited
to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), SBC, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be
submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to releasing of any permit.
22. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the
Town for existing and proposed improvements within the Town right of way. This
agreement shall include all private improvements in the right of way. The agreement must
be completed and accepted by the town attorney prior to the issuance of any permits.
23. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to
on -site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way.
Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection.
24. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement
markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the
original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the
direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24
Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering
Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
25. SITE SUPERVISION. The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the
job site at all times during construction
26. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE. Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the
sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works
hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner
may be required.
27. PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan
review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
28. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of
any Permit or recordation of the Final Map.
29. DESIGN CHANGES. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the
approval of the Town prior to altered work is started. The Applicant Project Engineer shall
notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least 72 hours in advance of all the proposed
changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final "as -built" plans.
30. PARKING. Any proposed parking restriction must be approved by The Town of Los
Gatos, Community Development Department.
31. TREE REMOVAL. Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
32. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT. All sewer connection and treatment plant
capacity fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a sewer connection permit — written
confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to permit issuance.
33. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
application for peer review. A deposit for report review along with a copy of the Report
and Plan will be required for this step The soils report shall include specific criteria and
standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and
erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or
geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions
Code.
34. GEOLOGY AND SOILS REVIEW. A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for
the project to determine the surface and sub -surface conditions at the site and to determine
the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide
recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls,
concrete slab -on -grade construction, excavation, drainage, on -site utility trenching and
pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into
project plans.
35. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's engineers shall prepare
and submit a design -level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by
the Town. The applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans
to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in
accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant's
soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing
the plans.
36. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design -level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in
the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction
observation and testing should be documented in an "as -built" letter/report prepared by the
applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy
permit is granted.
37. UTILITIES. The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television
service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from
any and all utility service providers. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply
approval for final alignment or design of these facilities.
38. SIDEWALK REPAIR. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. Sidewalk repair shall
match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard
Details. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction
Inspector during the construction phase of the project.
39. CURB AND GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New curb and
gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair
will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction
phase of the project.
40. AS -BUILT PLANS. An AutoCAD disk of the approved "as -built" plans shall be provided
to the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The AutoCAD file shall
include only the following information and shall conform to the layer naming convention:
a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVEWAY; c)
Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL; d) Swimming Pool, Layer: SWIMMING -
POOL; e) Tennis Court, Layer: TENNIS -COURT; f) Property Line, Layer: PROPERTY -
LINE; g) Contours, Layer: NEWCONTOUR. All as -built digital files must be on the same
coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD
version 2000 or higher.
41. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from
the Town Engineer.
42. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays; and
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on
the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet
from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall
not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
43. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District). Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused. Sanitary Sewer Clean -out is required for each property at the property line or
location specify by the Town.
44. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which
have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the
next upstream manhole and/or flusing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system
serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an
approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through
the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative. The Town shall not incur
any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the
property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the
Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional
operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a
backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
45. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's). The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and such measures are
implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for
all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or
operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction
activities) shall be placed at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the
construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop orders.
46. SITE DESIGN MEASURES. All projects must incorporate the following measures to the
maximum extent practicable:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas where feasible.
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces where feasible.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
47. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. All construction shall conform to the latest requirements
of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction
Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual of Standards for
Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance
and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the
Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
48. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected
to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING - Flows
to Bay" NPDES required language. On -site drainage systems for all projects shall include
one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.
These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from
impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to
be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and/or right of way.
49. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and
home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on
a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed
into the Town's storm drains.
50. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed
unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right-of-
way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and
debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and
materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is
issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working
hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in
the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
51. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system
shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two-
family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made
that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time
addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building
area. Note: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are
responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any
modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. Note: Covered porches,
patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of
California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a
completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and
approval prior to beginning their work.
52. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from
contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the
applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying
the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such
requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water -based fire protection
systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be
physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of
the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under
consideration will not be granted by the Fire Department until compliance with the
requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having
been met by the applicant(s).
53. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
new buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road
fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
54. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with
applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and Standard Detail and Specification SI-7.
N:\DE V\CONDITNS\2013\Alpine89.docx
0 •
January 5, 2013
Jennifer Savage
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Dear Planning Commission,
RECEIVED
JANI 2 4 2013
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
am writing in response to John Sullivan's objections to our, 89 Alpine Ave., design
proposal. We appreciate his favorable impression of our new home's front styling and
overall design. We put considerable thought into developing a classic look that made
the most of the existing structure, while introducing a design that would compliment
Alpine Ave. and Los Gatos's existing architectural styling. We hope we can resolve this,
move forward, and settle in as good neighbors in a beautiful neighborhood.
During our 6-month design process we made frequent visits to 89 Alpine Ave., which
allowed us to meet and discuss design with most of our surrounding neighbors, but we
never saw or heard from the John Sullivan household. We mentioned a design open
house to the neighbors we'd met, but they thought it unnecessary since all of the
surrounding homes have made fairly recent, significant updates and they thought
updating ours would be welcome by all. Upon submitting our plans to the planning
department, Jennifer Savage made recommendations, one of which was to present our
plans to the neighbors. Since we hadn't met John, we went to his door with the plans.
He was unavailable to meet with us, but we exchanged contact information with his wife,
Betty. They didn't contact us, but chose to view our plans at the planning department.
Through Jennifer Savage, we learned of John's concerns and after several calls we
connected with him. He'd come up with a design for our home that he wanted to
propose to us. Within days of John's request we paid for and scheduled a November
141h meeting with our architect, Chris Spaulding, to understand and view John's
concepts. Chris considered John Sullivan's plan and tried to understand and assess
ways that we could implement his 15' setback design (see sketch for his concept), while
maintaining our design's architectural integrity. Regrettably, John's idea was not
compatible with our design, which Chris tried to explain. John remained steadfast and
stated that he needed us to incorporate his design or he would fight us all the way.
Below are the main reasons that our designs are incompatible:
1. We would lose the front styling of our design. The design is based on
traditional homes similar to those on Glen Ellen and front symmetry is a key
component of that design. Additionally, it undermines the entire overall
appearance and design flow of our home and would require a complete redo.
2. If we were to extend further to the rear, it would eliminate the existing back
deck, which would then require us to push further to the rear of the property
to achieve any sort of outdoor living space at the main floor level. Since the
site starts to slope more steeply to the rear, the new deck will need to be on
stilts. This extension of the living areas and back deck towards the back of
the property will increase the privacy and view issues between our two
homes.
3. We would not only lose our home's desired living flow, but we would lose the
design elements that take advantage of the afternoon light exposure and
beautiful canyon views that drew us to this house in the first place.
EMBIT 4
i i
For more detailed meeting and design considerations, please see Chris Spaulding's
notes describing his architectural thoughts directly following our meeting with John
Sullivan).
The following is direct feedback regarding John's itemized concerns:
The setback -encroaching footprint- It is our understanding that in
keeping with R1:20 we can follow the existing footprint (setback)
of our home when the existing structure is non -conforming. We
have every intention of following the code and our design does so.
The only change to our footprint is the 3'6" expansion that moves
towards the back of the property, which John encourages. The
proposed design goes upwards along the existing downstairs wall,
maintaining our existing footprint on John's side. We do not have
a 15' setback with our neighbors on the opposite side. We share a
zero lot line with them and they are supportive of our design
proposal.
The existing habitable -space exterior wall moving closer — This
seems to be a new grievance of John's, but once again our design
remains within the existing footprint and does not move closer to
his property line.
Consideration for the effect of height — Even after we've
completed our addition, John Sullivan's house will be higher than
ours. We added an entire upstairs by raising our existing
roofline only 6'. Additionally, please see Chris Spaulding's notes,
which indicate that John's proposed design would noticeably
increase the actual surface area that each of us would see of the
others house, increasing privacy issues. Our proposed design is
far less intrusive, for both of us, than his proposal.
Please see letters supporting our design, written by neighbors at 78 Alpine Ave., 79
Alpine Ave., and 76 Alpine Ave.).
We appreciate that John Sullivan takes no joy in the long disruption; mounting costs,
time, and strain that this has caused and we hope to come to a reasonable conclusion at
the planning commission meeting. We also understand that change can be unsettling
for existing neighbors, which is why we trust that with Chris's thoughtful, knowledgeable
consideration of Los Gatos design criteria we have created a classic, simple design,
which will bring this one bedroom home up to the exemplary standards that the
surrounding homes in the neighborhood enjoy. We also believe that anyone that
purchased, and or will purchase, this house would make these necessary improvements
and I can't imagine a more reasonable, neighbor respecting design than what we have
proposed. We truly hope that we can put this behind us and begin the process of
making our home in our new neighborhood.
Thank you,
Lou and Cheryl Ryan
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:42:09 -0800
Subject: Ryan Residence, 89 Alpine Avenue
From: chrisC csarchitectnet To:
cryan11S(@hotmail.com Hi
Cheryl, I
have thought about the complaints your neighbor voiced at our meeting with him last night. He
expressed two issues; 1.
Privacy - he wanted us to remove the windows on the right -side elevation that face his house. When you
offered to change them to a high or clerestory window, he seemed to agree that would be okay, so I think
we should do so. 2.
Setback - he wants you to set back the 2nd floor addition to be 15' from the property line - or another 6-
T further than it is now designed. I asked him why, and he said it would make the 2nd floor addition less "
massive" from his property and also that the city made him keep his addition at a 15' setback. He
also said he did not oppose your having a second floor, as long as it was set back further and the windows
were removed (or, presumably, made to be high windows). I
think moving the second floor addition back as he suggests is not a good idea because it would destroy
the front symmetry of the design. I would have to completely re -design the addition to make the upper
floor narrower to keep a symmetrical front facade, and doing so will eliminate one of the things you
wanted - that both the upstairs common area and the master bath get the mountain view to the south.
I
think the existing design actually presents only a small additional mass when viewed from his property.
I also think that if we were to redesign the second floor to be setback IT, the addition necessarily
will have to extend further towards the rear to fit the areas removed to accommodate the greater
setback. This means that the 2nd story addition, while being 6-7further away, would actually appear much
wider(probably 10-12' wider - or about double the current size) when viewed from his property. In
other words, we would have to spend the time and money to do the redesign and you would have to
compromise your design goals, while the net result for your neighbor would at best be the same, but probably
worse than the existing design. Since your
neighbor seemed adamant about the 15' setback, I expect we will end up having to make this argument
to the Planning Commission. Chris Chris
Spaulding,
Architect 801 Camelia
Street, Suite E Berkeley, CA
94710 510-527-
5997 chris@csarchitect.net
January 5, 2013
Jennifer Savage
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Department
Dear Planning Commission,
RECEIVED
JAN 2 4 2013
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
This letter is to address the objection by Bruce Mitchell, at 98 Alpine Ave., of our
proposed 89 Alpine Avenue design project.
Because his letter emulates the concerns of
letter written in response to John's concerns
adequately addressed there.
Thank You,
Lou and Cheryl Ryan
John Sullivan's, I will refer you to the
All of Bruce's concerns should be
RECEIVE®
Photos and Details of Non -Conforming lots surrounding our home on Alpine. AN 3 0 2013
Hi Jennifer, TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
For months our adjacent neighbor (John Sullivan) contends our new addition does not
meet city building code for "property set back" and must be redesigned for this
reason. We believe our design clearly meets city standards for adding a second story
to our existing structure (according to the documents we've viewed) and we hope the
town will feel similarly. There are numerous examples of non -conforming homes
remodeled and original) throughout our neighborhood and the entire town of Los
Gatos. We have taken several photos, which we believe support our assumptions
regarding our plans. Please find the following:
Photos taken of homes on Alpine Avenue of both new and original construction, which
are non -conforming. I have also taken photos from our street to illustrate the modest
elevation changes to our home relative to 91 Alpine Avenue directly adjacent to us.
The description of the photos attached is below.
1) Non -conforming garage directly adjacent to 85 Alpine
2) Non -conforming garage directly adjacent to 95 Alpine
3) Alpine — non conforming garages and newer construction (past two - three years)
4) 98/88'Alpine - home on the left and garage on right are non -conforming
5) 75 Alpine — non -conforming lot and new construction
6) Street view photos of our home and neighbors
7) Backyard view of our home with story poles (objecting neighbor to the left)
8) Street view of our home with store poles clearly displayed (95 Alpine on right)
Also attached are street views of our home relative to our adjoining neighbors on our left
and right side are also attached to this email. Our neighbor on the left (street view)
supports our plan and design. The neighbor on the right does not. We believe this
perspective will help the town commissioners understand the size, girth and perspective
of the two homes once completed. One can see from our story poles the change in
height and girth of our home. Our proposal is modest when viewed in contrast to some
homes on the street and particularly to our objecting neighbor.
A photo was taken from our backyard with the goal of illustrating the final dimensions of
our home relative to our objecting neighbor (95 Alpine)
Jennifer, we have invested substantial time and expense to design a new home, which
we believe will bring our home to modern standards while complimenting the quality
design and architecture present throughout Alpine Avenue. We have had conversations
with neighbors who feel similarly about our design and proposal. We regret our design
is giving pause to our adjacent neighbor, but we hope to fairly resolve our differences
soon and get on with becoming part of the Alpine Avenue community.
Best Regards,
Lou and Cheryl Ryan
4ti
Ar
t yr-
ice a I. r" (
J,,
J .. a;' .•.s . , Gx y
o . w •a
Q k' I `
1' •` IV J . '.+#ri fad 'y7 ,A. t r.-
V . \
Vlr rJ •. ? . i GY 1 y,-T., +R li -1,, L p; „ +'
J ,
t• \ Ci ' -
j `
V '
r Air,- v S y Ti 4 . A
i .,
R:
w
r v Q
1
1.49
a ,
r W' i' ema1011.:
ell
v. 410
I .
l }
If r4o
1
4•l ;
sum
Y
I
4•'e'
Jtlli''llll
4.
sus .s.
I
Ad
4111111!
AP- - 0 Uri" OAT
Leer' J-O L
a&
December 7. 2012
Jennifer Savage, AICP
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Jennifer,
c<d. ?, 201Z
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I have reviewed the proposed plans for an addition at 89 Alpine Avenue, the house adjacent to
ours at 95 Alpine.
My initial impressions of the overall design and appearance were very favorable, and I continue
to like most of the design. The front styling is attractive and appears consistent with both
the existing house and the neighborhood. I noticed that the proposed design follows town
guidelines for 15' setbacks on the opposite side of the property adjacent to 79 Alpine, which is
consistent with R1:20 zoning. The proposed 2nd story addition also follows town guidelines
with respect to the street view, with the upper floor's street -facing exterior wall set back 5 feet
from the lower level's exterior wall. Additionally, the design of the new upper floor calls for the
side exterior wall being set back from the lower level's side exterior wall that is adjacent to us, at
least in the front, street -facing portion of the proposed design.
However, as I have discussed with you, I am concerned that the proposal calls for adding on
well inside the setback on the rear, eastern corner that is closest to our home. I do understand
that there is existing structure inside the setback, ranging from approximately 4 feet to 9 feet
from the property line. My concerns are:
1. the setback -encroaching footprint of the house would increase,
2. the existing habitable -space exterior wall is actually moving two feel closer to the
property line, worsening the encroachment, and
3. there should be some consideration for the effect of height inside the setbacks.
I believe this proposed development is inconsistent with zoning guidelines and with recent
development in the area, and that it would cause an unnecessary and avoidable reduction in our
privacy and property value. For these reasons I object to the proposed development.
I understand the challenges of developing on a narrow lot, as our lot is identical to 89 Alpine's
and we went through the town's development process for our 112 year old home about 10
years ago. At 75' wide with 15' setbacks there is still 45' of width to work with, however, and
at over 250' deep the lot offers ample room to expand to the rear. This is what neighboring
EXHIBIT 5
properties have done: expand towards the rear and step back any new living space from any
existing nonconforming setbacks. I urge the owners and the planning department to consider
this option, instead of working against the natural layout of the lot.
I am also concerned about the story poles. When I met with you last I pointed out that they
were placed incorrectly. You had not yet noticed that they were in the wrong place, but agreed
with me when I pointed out they they were placed in line with the existing side exterior wall, not
where the proposed new wall would be, 2 feet closer to the property line (and more infringing as
noted above). I appreciate that you agreed they are in the wrong place, and also appreciate
your notifying the owners about it, but was surprised to learn you considered the misplacement
not very important by your acceptance of the owners' preference to leave the story poles in their
incorrect position. Two days ago I received a voicemail from you saying that you had asked
the owners to put the poles in that correct position, so I appreciate that you reconsidered your
acceptance of the incorrect positioning after we spoke about it. You left me another voicemail a
few hours later saying they had been repositioned. However, they are still in the wrong place
today. I am puzzled as to why diligence on story pole placement is left to affected neighbors,
instead of applicants and the planning department. This incorrect placement misleads an
observer as to the true proposed setback encroachment, and is inconsistent with the Town's
objective of accurately informing its citizenry of pending development.
I understand that my objections are not welcome by the applicants, and it is regrettable that I
only recently became aware of the plans. I take no joy in causing a disruption or potential delay
to my new neighbors' move -in date. I am open to, and would look forward to, discussing with
you and any others the available options for going forward in a non -infringing manner.
Sincerely,
John and Betty Sullivan
95 Alpine Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95030
0
Bruce Mitchell
98 Alpine Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95030
mitchvaluegaol.com
408- 688-6137
408-540-4062 (Bruce -cell)
6 December 2012
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Department
Subject: 89 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos, proposed development
Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
CL- 2012
TOWN OF LOS GATOSPLANNINGDIVISION
I have reviewed the plans and observed the "sight poles" that have been provided for the
proposed addition at 89 Alpine Avenue. I have the following concerns:
1) The existing one story improvement encroaches on the required setback. The one story
existing improvement is, however, relatively small in mass as visible from Alpine Avenue
and neighboring properties. The proposed second story addition would increase the
encroachment on the required setback, and the resulting two-story encroachment is
significant, particularly for the neighboring property. Stepping back the proposed second
story addition to the required setback would reduce the mass of the proposed
improvement at the property line. There appears to be plenty of room to expand to the
rear if more living space is needed, as an alternative to increasing the setback
encroachment.
2) It appears that the story poles are incorrectly placed and do not reflect the actual,
larger, size and more intrusive configuration shown on the drawings provided for public
review. This conflict is potentially misleading as it does not convey the increased
infringement being proposed.
I recommend approval of a less intrusive design that is in line with our R1:20 zoning and
that would help maintain the integrity of the design review process.
Very truly yours,
3
Bruce Mitchell
0
January 15, 2013
RECEIVED
H'7 16 2013
Re: 89 Alpine Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Dear Commissioners: PLANNING DIVISION
We live directly next door to 89 Alpine Avenue and are writing this letter of
support for the proposed architectural plans.
We have seen the plans and although the change will impact us to a degree, we
can see that the property owners Lou and Cheryl Ryan, along with their architect
Chris Spaulding, have been very considerate to us as neighbors. As friends of
the previous owners, we have been inside 89 Alpine Avenue countless times. It
was built specifically for an elderly couple to spend their final years. In its current
state, it is a one -bedroom house with a separate basement apartment. Although
a lovely home, it was designed in a way that simply doesn't work for most people.
We were pleased that the Ryan's hired Chris Spaulding as their architect. We
used Chris for a recent addition on our own home and know personally that he
thinks carefully about every angle. We have lived at 79 Alpine Avenue for 15
years and share a zero lot line with 89 Alpine Avenue — it doesn't get any closer
than that. We appreciate the fact that the addition is concentrated at the front of
the home instead of coming toward the back of the property. Similar to many of
our neighbors, the front of our house is public and the rear is more private. We
appreciate that the Ryan's proposed addition is careful not to intrude on the more
private areas of our home.
On another note, we also find that the new exterior elevations and the addition of
the second story provide a more pleasing street view. Aside from a walkway on
the east side of the house, the current single story home on the site takes up the
entire width of the lot. However, with the addition of a second story, that effect
will be lessened by drawing the eye up, presenting a more balanced lookinghome. We like the new design.
We ask that you approve Lou and Cheryl Ryan's application and allow them to
move forward with their project.
Warm regards,
Dirk Franklin & Gwen Dawkins
79 Alpine Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
E
Lisa Roberts
78 Alpine Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
January 16, 2013
Via Email: jsavage@losgatosca.gov
Jennifer L. Savage, AICP
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 89 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos, CA
Dear Ms. Savage:
RECEIVED
AN 1 i 2013
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I am writing to express my family's support for the construction project as planned at 89 Alpine Avenue,
Los Gatos, California (the "Project").
We live at 78 Alpine Avenue. We have lived here for going on 25 years, since 1988. 1 am a long-term
resident of Los Gatos. I grew up here. My mother, recently widowed by the death of my father, still
lives in the family home in Los Gatos of, come February, 50 years. I formerly owned and resided in a
home on the West side of town. Los Gatos is our permanent home.
Our house is directly across the street from the Project. All our front windows face the Project. Our
view of the Project, including from our kitchen, living room, front yard, and upstairs, will be direct,
unobstructed, and constant. We have a keen interest in the size, height, and aesthetics of the Project.
Counting just the houses from the foot of Alpine to the two houses directly above our house and the
proposed Project, we have witnessed the construction, redevelopment, or remodeling of at least 14
properties. (Less construction has taken place in the last 25 years at the upper part of Alpine which is
why I have stopped my count at the two houses just mentioned.) Indeed, every single one of the nine
properties on our side of the street has been at least remodeled and many built anew or extensively
redeveloped. At least five of the 10 houses on the other side of the street have been similarly
redeveloped, rebuilt, or remodeled. Just in the perimeter of the Project, there has been considerable
construction activity, including two second -floor additions, two substantial back -extending remodels,
and another remodel.
The result, combined with the remaining houses at the upper end of Alpine, is a street that, in accord
with its long-time tradition, is made up of different vintages, styles, heights, and sizes. Some houses are
two-story or high enough to be. Others are single -story from the front expanding vastly at the rear.
Some are set high on the road, some low. Some are set somewhat close to the road, others farther
away. There are regular lots, flag lots, and other dimensioned lots. There are Victorian, Craftsman,
Spanish, Mediterranean, and other styles. The variations provide interest and beauty, and, due to the
taste, care, and skill of the homeowners, architects, and the town's oversight and permitting
committees, they do so without discord. The result is the continued life of Alpine as at least one of the
most beautiful streets in Los Gatos, not only in my opinion but as voiced to me by neighbors, friends,
and passersby. Even an appraiser appraising our home for a bank declared the street to be the best in
Los Gatos.
The Project's owners, Lou and Cheryl Ryan, invited us —even before erection of the story poles —to
review their plans, which we have done. We have also had ample opportunity to observe the proposed
height and bulk of the Project based on the story poles. We are tremendously pleased with —and
relieved by —the nature and scope of the proposed development.
We are particularly relieved about the proposed height. It is our understanding that the Project is well
within the various height and setback limits, and it appears that the Ryans and their architect have
already made compromises to ensure a modest outward appearance at the expense of interior size and
height. This is, of course, a choice far too seldomly made by prospective home builders.
We are also pleased about the style and design. This is somewhat of a personal issue. The Reverend
Roy Strasburger and his wife Pat, the prior owners, were not just our wonderful neighbors. Roy was
Rector ay my family's church, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church. He baptized and 17 years later buried my
younger sister. He presided over two marriages in our family. We were very happy when he and Pat
bought the subject property to build their home. He and Pat have long been and always will be strong
forces in our lives. We love their house as is, because we enjoy remembering them living there. But the
Ryans have built —or hope to build —a house that, in all honesty, will probably fit in even better
architecturally than the existing house.
The proposed home is stately, but not ostentatious. Its style is in perfect accord with the other houses
and appropriate for this historical district. It is higher than the existing house but not even as high as
several other Alpine homes. Moreover, the additional height is modest, and, in my mind, adds a needed
proportion.
The fact that the Ryans have presented such a relatively modest proposal is remarkable. The existing
home was not built to maximize its resale value but to suit the Strasburgers's precise desires and needs
in retirement. Its single -story, single -bedroom design would not meet the needs of most prospective
homeowners, with or without children or in or outside of retirement. A demand to expand this house is
virtually inevitable, and, indeed, the lot could properly accommodate a much larger house, with massive
ceilings, a very high roof, and much greater bulk. Purely by good fortune, we are not being presented
with a proposal of that nature.
We feel very lucky that the property was purchased by the Ryans and that they have exercised such
good judgment and restraint in terms of size, bulk, aesthetics, and historical and neighbor concerns. We
strongly support their Project.
Thank you for your consideration of our letter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
Lisa Roberts
Jennifer Savage • •
From: Paul Pickering <paul.pickeringlgcal@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 1:20 PM
To: Jennifer Savage
Subject: 89 Alpine Ave proposed addition
Hello Jennifer,
My wife Allison and I live at 76 Alpine Ave which is across the street and slightly down from 89 Alpine
Ave. We have recently met with Lou Ryan, the new home owner and reviewed the plans they have to expand
the house and add a second floor. After looking at the plans and the drawings, we were pleased to see they are
planning to improve the look of the house quite substantially. In our opinion, the proposed look is more in
keeping with the prevailing architecture on the street. The size of the house and the view from the street are
consistent with the other properties along Alpine and very similar to the rest of the neighborhood.
We are pleased to say that all aspects of their proposal would enhance the street and improve the integrity of
Alpine, one of the most desirable streets in Los Gatos in our opinion.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us through email or by phone at 408-354-3670
Sincerely,
Paul and Allison Pickering
76 Alpine Ave.
Los Gatos, CA
Jennifer Samee • •
From: clayjohnson <claycherij@yahoo.conn>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:27 PM
To: Jennifer Savage
Subject: 89 Alpine Road
Hi Jennifer,
We are writing to express our support for the proposed home addition at 89 Alpine Road. We live in the
neighborhood on South Kennedy and walk to town most weekends via Alpine. It is a beautiful street with manylovelyhomes.
The proposed design will enhance the home's character and complement the street. It reflects the style of manyLosGatoshomesandwilladdvaluetotheneighborhood.
We are personal friends of the new owners Lou and Cheryl Ryan. We believe they have made a good faith
effort to come up with a design that is sensitive to the surrounding homes.
Cheri and Clay Johnson
r
r
II
II
II
ALPINE AVENUE—
SOLAR SHADOW STUDY 1 "=20-0"
50IAR5HADOW TA81£
DATe TMe A-11-C Anrnum
1C 21 9AM I I 92
DEC 21 3 PM 19 92
MAR 21 9 AM EF SE
MAR 21 3 PM DO SB
JUN 21 9 AM
x21
rn
RIG[ 11.1
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT ADDRE55: 59 ALPINE AVENUE, L05 GAT05, CA
OWNFR: CHERYL RYAN
PROJECT DE5CRIPOON:
REMODEL 1,3477 50. F1. OF (E) -5TORY HOUSE
ADDING 134.E 50, FT, OF LIVING AREA Q 15T FUR.
E)BA5EMENT/ LOWER FLOOR TO REMAIN
ADDING 1,261 7 50- FT. NEW 2ND 5TORY
APN: 529-35-050
OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3N
CON5TRUCTION TYPE: V-B
LOT 51ZE- 20,109 - 50,17 - 0.461 G ACRFS
AVERAGE LOT ELOPE:.00229 % 2 % 1,8 O = 15.3 %
0.4616
5UOPE REDUCTION: 10 + 9 (2) = 25%
0.72 (20, 10G) = 14,47G 50. FT,
ALLOWABLE FAR: 0.35-1(14,476-5)-25 %D.2j= 0.274192
0.274192 % 14 47G = 3,969 50, ff.
BUILDING AREA EXI5TING ADDITION TOTAL
LOWER FLOOR 4G5 0 466
MAN FLOOR 2,1 73.5 134 ] 2.306.2
2ND FUR 0 1,109,5 1,159.8
TOTAL 2,641.5 1.324.5 3,96G
GARAGE 4G3 0 4G3
BUILDING COVERAGE:
ERUCTURAL 27712
COVERED PORCH 303.5
TOTAL 3,074.7
NO TREES AFFECTED BY TH15 PROJECT
NO GRADING PROP05ED FORT1I5 PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
wq
4 xnfi !
I PROJECT LOCATION
All2 4
x £ e$T T
ME,x: . P yg^ +FJ
duo R
93' PROP05PD zm
vlR soe sera.cA i
5nADe
INDICAJP9LbiORY6DITOxr-
pVERCD
PORCH LOUiION
SEWERAPR Q 0
eoeLP.
OG/P. DDC G,.
S. TEE.ry al, _ F
ALPINE AVENUE 4
SITE
PLAN I " = I G' - 0" Tn1515
NOT A 5URVET COMODR
CEDM TMN Or L05 GATO5 PRoros1D
OIUWINGSPRLI'
A0.NBV HRIS
SPAULDING oA
R C H IT E CTc 901
CAMF.LIA$-- $UITEE BENNET"'
CALB.N 1A .1W 510)
529-5"7 FAX(510) 521-54 I
RCVIAION6 I BY I PERMI)
SIN CONSTRUMIONECr
Q
04 24
2012 DIVISION
INUFF
Al
IEXHISIT
6
11
0
FRONT ELEVATION 1 /4"= 1 '-0"
REAR ELEVATIOP
95 ALPINE AVE
1 /4"= I
oxnwmcs eaanam er
CHRIS SPAULDWG
oA R C H IT E CTo
MCAME siS rr SU1117E
a ELLY CAL&00. 94710
o Uw
oz
AWWo
Q>d
WC/) u
0
Q°
zooo
a
o
a
MY
5TREET5CAPE LOOKING TOWARDS PROPOSED PROJECT No ScaleA3OEsSIIGCf
DRAWINGS PREPARED BY
EXISTING 15T FLOOR PLAN I /811= 1
1-0I'
F-
L- --
1 L---- i L--
1 a..2i 31
3•
L A
SECOND FLOOR PLAN REMODELED FIRST FLOOR PLAN mms"o
CHRIS SPAULDING
oA R
C H IT EC To
SGICAMCLIASIRE[L SDITEF.
n
f'AU1 BY CALIEo1Wu 9ano
10) 415991 FAX I5
10) 5275"9
I10-I9-i2 1 en I
I SIB
CONsrRUCTIONSIN
w
x
o Uw
oz
w
Q z 00 0
o
a
o
a
0
a
Q
A2
O 5 10 IS 20 25
2ND FLR PLAN I/811= 1'-0"
IMBERWR 6ETIxG RhALL AREA
INDICATES WALL AREA TO DE REIAOVM OR COVERED
TOTAL U15TING WALL AREA: 2,881,92 5F ±
TOTAL WALL AREA TO BE REMOVED: 209.9 SF ±
TOTAL WALL AREA TO REMAIN: 2,972.02 5F ± m 92.7 %
CONTIGUOUS WALL AREA:
WALL'ATHRU'F') + (WALL'V' THRU'2') - 2.077.I SF ± = 9 15T
FLR PLAN LEGEND 1 /811= 1 '-0" LAAAATo_
7, 21 RIGHT -
SIDE ELEVATION 3/1 G"= 1'-0" FRONT
ELEVATION 3/1 G11= 1'-0" REAR
ELEVATION 3/1 G"= 1'-0'I LEFT -
SIDE ELEVATION wuLnvs
To u—R,: s Its s,-I mLFT AREA IOROAON.P_.z51- r
DMWINGS
I'RLI'ARM 9Y CHRIS
SPAULDING o
A R C H I T E C T o IIIllJJMINARY
S. DIJ1GNN[
VIIiWSI?E PIANCIIIC'
RIL, P..,
SET CONSTRUCTIONSF,
T aw
C)
wU az
Q Q
w o w
p/
Q0 0I
w
Go zoo a
DAM
9.10_I2 SCALE'
AS NANlD DRAWN:
EUAW/IAID 100'.
RAAN S{
IGLT A5
OI?
5
RIGHT -SIDE ELEVATION
95 ALPINE AVE
STREETSCAPE LOOKING ACROSS PROPOSED PROJECT
LEFT -SIDE ELEVATION
75 ALPINE AVE
1 /411= 1
1-011
7G ALPINE AVE
1 /411= 1
1-011
R
I
I
No Scale)
DRAW GJNBJSARMBY
CHRIS SPAULDING
oA R
C H IT EC To
801 CAMEW SMEF7 BUffI;E
w
o Ur
oz Q
F.
A
Q> QQ
0
Az0"
o o
0
JOB AN
A4