Loading...
Item 2.Desk Item with Exhibit - 89 Alpine Aven TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM gas oa bs Meeting Date: February 13, 2013 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner jsavagc@losgatosea.gov APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Application S-13-003 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/ CONTACTPERSON: 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. EXHIBITS: 1-6. Previously received with the February 13, 2013 Staff Report 7. Public Comments (25 pages), received February 12 to 13, 2013 STAFF REMARKS: The Town received additional public comments (Exhibit 7). They consist of: Letters from nearby residents who state they encourage a 15-foot setback for new development and additions on conforming and non -conforming lots; The 95 Alpine property owner's response to the applicant's letter; and, The 95 Alpine property owner's comments regarding the staff report. Z VP e ared by: nnifer L. Savage, AICP Associate Planner TC:JS:ct odd proved by: Capurso Acting Director of Community Development cc: Lou & Cheryl Ryan, 7080 Wooded Lake Drive, San Jose, CA 95120 N:\DEV\PC REP0RTS\2013WIpine89_desk.docx Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: RECEIVE® FEB 13 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. 3 Name il l 0 1-4P, Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at is address EXHtSIT 7 Response to Exhibit 4: Letter Dated January 5, 2013 from applicant Lou and Cheryl Ryan RECEIVE® FEB 12 2013 Dear Planning Commission, TOWN OF LOS GATOS We do like the plans for the new home at 89 Alpine Avenue. Most of it looks greab. ANNING DIVISION However that last bit, just one corner, greatly affects our family. It is unfortunate that there has been no productive conversation about resolution. This matter would not be before the Commission if we could have accomplished one thing: Move a single proposed wall on the second story 5 feet back to the 15' 111:20 zoned setback. This change would require a realignment of about 200 sq. ft. on the new second story (out of a total proposed floor area of 3,966 sq. ft.). The desired square footage could still be achieved by expanding a foot or two more to the rear, where a new wall is already planned and there is over 200' of additional open land available. Expansion to the rear would also be consistent with recent development in the neighborhood, in contrast to the current proposal to push into neighboring setbacks. The change would be to the rear of the structure and would not affect the proposed 2n"-story dormer on the front of the home. We agree with my other neighbors that the front portion of the new house (including the section closest to us) is very well done. We all agree the new streetscape would be pleasant and consistent with the neighborhood. We are happy for our long-time neighbors that no one else is directly affected. The Ryan's letter of January Slh says they made frequent visits to 89 Alpine, but that they never saw or heard from the Sullivan household". I work from home most of the time and my wife is a full-time homemaker. Between the two of us and our three daughters there is almost always someone at home except for school and lesson drop-offs. We may be the easiest people on the street to contact. We didn't know the name of the new owners for more than 6 months. Of course we had no way to contact them, although typically those advocating a change are doing the outreach, not the other way around. To date, we have still never met Mr. Ryan. The Ryans' letter further states "upon submitting our plans to the planning department Jennifer Savage made recommendations, one of which was to present our plans to the neighbors". We did notice in the October 5, 2012 Planning document that the very first item under "Comments" states "We strongly encourage speaking with your neighbors aboutyour proposal.". It is worth noting that the word "strongly" is the only emphasized word in that document, which is consistent with the Town's policy of neighborhood involvement. Soon after receiving that letter the Ryans visited the neighborhood with plans in hand. The few neighbors they met with liked the plans. As noted above, most of it is considered by all of us as well done. Mrs. Ryan stopped by our home the weekend of October 2011, and met my wife. I was away for a funeral. My wife, home alone with my 3 daughters, did not go over the plans with her on the spot, but said that I would probably like to see them. She gave Mrs. Ryan my cell phone number. At this point there had been a single attempt by the Ryans to contact us and it was successful. Days later, curious but not having heard from the Ryans, I went to the Town to look at the plans. While there I mentioned to Planner Jennifer Savage my concerns. After our meeting she telephoned Mr. Ryan and again urged him to contact me. We spoke on the phone for the first time on Tuesday, Nov. 6th. During that singular phone call I mentioned my concerns, but also my high regard for architect Chris Spaulding. I suggested getting together in person to go over the plans, and we agreed to a meeting for the next day, November 7, 20121. Mr. Ryan said he could not attend, but Mr. Spaulding and Mrs. Ryan would meet me at 89 Alpine. The Ryans' letter suggests that I was to "come up with a design for our home that (I) would propose". I am neither an architect nor designer and I made no attempt to redesign the Ryans' home. I only suggested that we meet to try to come up with some ideas, as that is generally how it's done in Los Gatos. Mr. Spaulding has clesigned many homes on Alpine Avenue, going back at least 25 years ago. I consider him to be an excellent architect. As there is plenty of room to expand to the rear of the property, perhaps he could come up with something that works. Our meeting was brief. I said I was concerned about privacy and asked if they could set the back corner of the new 2nd story at 15' off the property line, matching the proposed front corner that also adjoins us. There was little productive discussion about our concerns. I pointed out that the new IVIBR windows peer into my wife and teenage daughters' showers, and Mr. Spaulding offered the possibility of using clerestory windows and/or obscured glass. I appreciate that, however the proposed plans today are unmodified from their October submission. Mrs. Ryan concluded our brief meeting by stating that she was meeting with me because the Town said she must do so, and now that she has done that she can move forward as planned. The January 5, 2013 letter lists 3 ways that "my design is incompatible with theirs". Although we never proposed a design, we would like to comment. 1. The Ryans state "the design is based on traditional homes similar to those on Glen Ellen". Where is this street/neighborhood? Regardless, I think the front styling of the design is attractive. It's worth noting that the front -right corner of the design, adjacent to me, places the new 2nd-story dormer almost 15' in from the property line, maintaining the existing ground floor roof t The Ryans' letter states that the meeting was on November 14, 2012, but it was actually a week earlier on November 7th. 0 placement and pitch. We think this is the correct way to do it: the existing non -conforming first -story setback stays where it is and the new 2nd-story is very close to 15' setback. 2. "Extend(ing) to the rear would eliminate the existing back deck.... and the new deck will need to be on stilts." The existing deck is 16' deep and is already supported by posts at the rear edge that range from 2' to 6' feet off the grade. The plans call for the entire rear wall of the house will be demolished and rebuilt 3'6" further back, which will also require demolition of existing deck to build a new foundation. The property does not start to fall off appreciably until considerably further back. There is ample room to have a deck with the square footage desired while maintaining the same height above grade. 3. "We would lose our home's desired living flow." We understand that some layout modifications may be needed. We also understand well, from the restoration and addition to our 1900 home, the challenges of developing on a relatively narrow lot that slopes down to the rear. However, there have been many remodels on Alpine that have achieved a design that works well with both neighboring homes and the natural constraints of the land, instead of attempting to work against them. Regarding the item "directfeedback regarding John's itemized concerns': 5'etback-encroaching footprint. We understand that code allows expansion on existing non -conforming footprints. The current plans call for expansion along the existing nonconforming setback to the rear. If this expansion was for the existing first -floor story only it might be workable, but expanding the footprint in all 3 dimensions (closer to the property line + extending further back + going straight up two stories) is not reasonable when alternatives exist. The neighbors on the opposite side, #79 Alpine, are of course delighted with the proposal. All of the new development is well away from them. Given that the Town appears ready to permit two-story straight -up homes on existing nonconforming setbacks, the owners of #79 could have been faced with 2 stories directly on their property line. They dodged a bullet on this and would be happy if it goes through. he existing habitable -space exterior wall moving closer. This is a puzzling and perhaps technical point. If you examine the photographs at the end of this letter (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) you can see 2 gable -ends with an attic vent in each. Most reasonable people would consider that the existing exterior wall. You also see a chimney in the photograph. Town code 29.40.070 "allows for chimneys and bay windows to extend beyond the wall of the reconstructed portion" of a nonconforming wall. This is what happened 20 years ago when the previous house was demolished. During that demolition the entire front part of the lot and building pad was excavated and lowered 2 feet. (The property used be at the same elevation as mine at 95 Alpine.) The nonconforming walls were permitted to be rebuilt where they once stood. A fireplace and chimney enclosure was added to the outside, and an exterior -access service panel was required next to it. Although this application suggests that this fireplace and its enclosure and exterior access panel are the existing exterior wall, I would like to point out this "wall" has several unusual elements: o It's 30" thick. Most single -story exterior walls are about 8". o It has a separate shed roof that is only half as high as the existing roof. o It does not provide any structural, framing, or load -bearing support to the house or roof. o The volume within it is unconditioned and is not included in the existing home's square footage. o The foundation underneath it is for the fireplace, and bears no house load. The claim that this fireplace enclosure area is the exterior wall is so confusing and unusual that it was not noticed by the Town Planning Department until we pointed it out 2 months ago. However the Staff report sent to the Commission still makes several errors regarding it. Additionally, when the Ryans hired a contractor to erect story poles he placed them where any reasonable person would: exactly in line with the existing exterior wall. They were in the wrong place for 10 of the last 12 weeks. We discovered just after they went up in November that the plans call for claiming the non-structural fireplace "bump -out" wall as the "new" existing exterior wall, which is 2 feet closer to the property line. 1 pointed out to Planning that if in fact they were attempting to make this the "new existing wall" the story poles were in wrong place and should be placed 2' closer to the property line so as to not mask the true intentions. The owners were notified about the incorrect placement but declined to correct them until recently. Consideration for the effect of height. We agree that our home at 95 Alpine will continue to have a higher ridgeline. It's the same ridgeline that has been there for 113 years. And we are delighted Mr. Spaulding was able to design a 2"d-story addition that raises the existing ridgeline by just 6'. It's fortunate the existing 1-story home had high -vaulted ceilings that minimizes this impact. However I am afraid my comment was misinterpreted. I was referring to the effect of height related to setbacks. A 3D real -world view where a neighbor's 26' tall wall that is 8' away feels bigger than a 19' wall that is 10' away. There are several letters of support on file from the neighbors at 76, 78, and 79 Alpine. When you are shown the front elevation there is little not to love. It really is a nice design. The letters of support are from the neighbors on the opposite side of the proposed expansion, who were not aware of the setback precedent that is under consideration. The several neighbors to the east of 89 Alpine have not been contacted. Lastly, the Ryans say they "understand that change can be unsettling for existing neighbors". Id We are not opposed to change. We have no issues with adding a 2nd-story. We have no issue with expanding the home to its maximum. We did, too. We think the vast majority of the design is well done. Fix that last corner, the 2nd-story closest to us and we are good to go. As we have heard often from Planning Commissioners, "Change happens." And as outgoing Chairman Marcia Jensen said in an October meeting, "Change is inevitable, as long as it is reasonable and fair change." We believe it is fair and reasonable that an existing nonconformity not be intensified when reasonable alternatives exist The very act of the Town defining zoning areas and their conformance attributes indicates a preference by the Town for conforming properties. Very many of the homes in Los Gatos are nonconforming though, especially in older neighborhoods. That should not be a license to do something that otherwise would not be allowed. Permitting this would inadvertently send a message to the market that a nonconforming house is more attractive for future development because standard rules do not apply. Thank you for reading, john and Betty Sullivan 95 Alpine Ave, Los Gatos Exhibit 1 This picture of the end gable shows the true existing exterior wall with its attic vent. The project proposes declaring the fireplace and chimney enclosure as the "new existing nonconforming wall'. This enclosure appurtenance has no structural value, is not load -bearing for the home or the roof, and has no usable or conditioned volume. None of its area is counted as square footage in the existing home. The interior wall on the other side of the gable end is a continuous uninterrupted plane throughout the entirety of the home. Exhibit 2 This picture shows the existing exterior wall with its attic vent and 2' eave. The lower portion shows the shed appurtenance that houses the fireplace and access door. This is the outside -access door in the fireplace enclosure. w w TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2 COMMENTS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PROVIDED BY JOHN & BETTY SULLIVAN, 95 Alpine Avenue Meeting Date: February 13, 2013 Architecture and Site Application S-13-003 89 Alpine Avenue Dear planning Commissioners, RECEIVE® FEB 12 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION There are two essential but different things for the Commission to consider about this project: 1. What constitutes an "existing wall"? 2. Should a modest existing setback infringement be intensified and aggravated when a reasonable alternative exists? The first point is probably a bit of a technical one, although very important. 1 contend that the project is proposing moving the existing setback 2' closer to the property line. On the second point, I do understand that the Town will allow reasonable expansion along an existing nonconfomting setback. I, and many neighbors, request that wherever possible, additional expansion occur within modem setbacks, particularly for new 2"d stories. Thank you. John Sullivan Now, on to my comments regarding the Staff Report. Selected areas of the staff report have been included in italics for reference and clarity. They precede my comments. ANALYSIS C. Setbacks and Neighborhood Comoatibilin, 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 nonconforming 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. COMMENT: The Town Code says "a structure may expand along the existing nonconforming setback". The intent is to allow the structure to expand horizontally, expanding the footprint. It does not make an allowance for adding a 2"d story at the same setback. The last sentence clarifies that this code section is for expanding the footprint, "The portion of the structure that creates the non -conforming setback must remain in order to permit the continuation of non -conforming setback". Obviously you could not add a 2"d story without the I" story remaining. I do not object to the existing first story continuing along its current setback. The footprint of the existing structure is not parallel to the property lines (See Development Plans, Exhibit 6, Sheet A-] fm- visual clarification of existing setbacks). The front of the house has a different side setback than the rear of the hoarse. Specifically, the side setbacks increase as you travel fi-on 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 W-0"front the side property line. COMMENT: This statement is only partly accurate. It's true that on the front corner of the house the setback is just 4'3". It travels rearward for about 15', at which point, due to not being parallel to the property line, its setback has grown a few inches to 4'6". At that point, though, the wall (and setback) takes a 90 degree left turn inward (and away from the property line) for several feet before making another 90 degree turn to continue to the rear another 15'. It then ends at the back corner, 10'-0" from the side property line, as noted. Although the side walls do not tun parallel to the property line, the amount of increased setback due to this is only about one foot over the entire 30' span. Most of the increased setback as you travel to the rear is due to the house making a turn to the center of the property before turning rearward again. This "jog" in the wall accounts for 4'-6" of the 5'-9" total difference between the front comer setback and the rear corner setback. The Staff report places the front and rear setbacks corners correctly, but gives the incorrect impression that there is a straight line between those corners. This is important. The additions are proposed adjacent to the right side of the property and follow the existing structure's varying setbacks. The additions world 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-] 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). COMMENT: In the previous section Staff reported and acknowledged that the rear corner setback is IW-0". However in the paragraph above it is noted that the new setback would be 8'2.5". This puts the new setback about 2' closer to the property line. Why is there this inconsistency? The answer is because this project is attempting to declare a fireplace and chimney enclosure appurtenance as the "new" existing wall. I would like to point out this wall" has several unusual elements: E o It does not provide any structural, framing, or load -bearing support to the house or roof. o It's over 30" thick. Most single -story exterior walls are about 6" or 8". o It has a separate shed roof that is only half as high as the existing roof. o The volume within it is unconditioned and is not included in the existing home's square footage. o The foundation underneath it is for the fireplace, and bears no house load. The claim that this fireplace enclosure area is the exterior wall is so confusing and unusual that it was not noticed by the Town Planning Department until I pointed it out months ago. Additionally, when the story poles went up the contractor placed them where any reasonable person would: exactly in line with the true existing exterior wall. They were in the wrong place for 10 weeks, and were just corrected 2 weeks ago. See the photos on Exhibit 1 for more clarification. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Town received sir 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 stoey side windows to be clearstory windows. The development plans (Exhibit 6) do not reflect the clearstory window revision, the deciding bodv 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 food side setback. COMMENT: I provided one of the letters opposing the project. Of the letters in favor, three were from relevant neighbors, the fourth from personal friends who live a mile or more away. The support letters received were from three Alpine Ave neighbors who live to the southwest. 1) The Franklins, at 79 Alpine, are relieved that the proposed development is well away from them. It could have been much worse for them. If the Town is prepared to permit 2nd-stories along existing nonconforming setbacks, the Franklins could have been looking at two stories straight up right on their property line. Instead, they are completely unaffected as all offending development is concentrated on the other side of the property. 2) The Rehons, directly across the street at 78 Alpine, are also unaffected directly by the setback encroachment. As I have stated before, the plan looks great from the front elevation. That was the only part of the plan they were shown. 3) The Pickerings, at 76 Alpine, are across the street and to the right. They also saw only the front elevation. They still support the project overall, but also now request that if possible the 15' side setback be required for the 2nd-story. A letter from Mr. Pickering expressing this desire is included. His letter is one of about 10 letters from Alpine residents expressing hope that the Commission requires 15' side setbacks for add -on development. The applicant explains how the setbacks of the proposed addition are compatible with the neighborhood (Exhibit 4). The architect explains the difficulty in designing anew second story wiah a 1 foot side setback, both for the applicant's use of the additions and to the neighbor's view (Exhibit 4). COMMENT: Please see my Response to the Letter Dated January 51h from applicant Lou and Cheryl Ryan. That 5-page letter addresses in detail their response and points out a number of factual errors. Regarding the comments from Architect Spaulding, he did suggest clerestory and/or obscured glass to help mitigate privacy concerns. I also appreciate his acknowledgement that I do not oppose having a second floor. My request is simply to keep the existing first floor where it is and try to set the new second story at 15' off the property line. I am not a designer, but I think this requires realigning less than 200 sq.ft. of 3,966 sq.ft. The plans already call for rebuilding the entire rear wall 3'6" to the rear. Just another 1 or 2 ft. to the rear would yield the maximum - allowable square footage that is desired. 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. COMMENT: I was the one who discovered that the story poles were placed incorrectly. I discovered just after they went up in November that the plans call for adopting the non-structural fireplace enclosure appurtenance as the "new" existing exterior wall, which is 2 feet closer to the property line. (See page 2 above.) I pointed out to Planning that if in fact they were attempting to make this the "new existing wall" the story poles were in the wrong place and should be placed 2' closer to the property line so as to not mask the true intentions. The owners were notified about the incorrect placement in late November but until recently declined to correct them. SUHIMRY AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Summary The applicant designed the second stow 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 stvle. 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. COMMENT: As I have said several times, most of this project looks great. I seek 2 things: to keep the first floor where it is now (extending it is fine), and to find a way to set the 2nd story back 15'. 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. COMMENT: I am concerned about the precedent of allowing this intensification of a nonconforming setback. There are at least ten immediate neighbors on Alpine that have expressed an interest in maintaining 15' side setbacks wherever possible. I believe it is possible in this case. Recent development to expand existing homes on the street has shown that it is entirely possible to do it down and to the rear of the property. There is no need to fight the natural layout of the lot and aggravate a modest nonconformity. As these reports indicate, there are many nonconforming setbacks on Alpine, and in fact throughout the older neighborhoods of Los Gatos. I urge the Planning Commission to protect these older neighborhoods by carefully considering requests for precedent -setting 2nd-stories within established setbacks. Granting an exception to add -on within setbacks should be considered only when other options have been exhausted. Doing otherwise could trigger a cascading effect, with one home after another adding on inside the setbacks. This hobbles the intent of zoning in the neighborhoods that represent the best of Los Gatos. The very act of the Town defining zoning areas and their conformance attributes indicates a preference by the Town for conforming properties. Many older homes are nonconforming, but that should not equate to a license to do something that otherwise would not be allowed. Permitting this project as is would send a terrible message to the market that a nonconforming house is more attractive for future development because standard rules do not apply. That is inconsistent with Planning and the Town's objectives. B. Recommendation Bared on the summary above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site application subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Allernatively, the Commission can: 1. Approve the application with additional or modified conditions of approval, or Continue the tnatter to a date certain ivith specific direction; or 3. Deny the application. COMMENT: My request is to approve the application with the following additional conditions: 1. Keep the existing 131 floor where it is, do not move it closer by claiming the fireplace enclosure appurtenance is the exterior wall. 2. Set the 2nd story no closer than 15' from the property line. OR Continue the matter with a recommendation for the applicants to work with and address the concerns of the neighborhood. Exhibit 1 This picture of the end gable shows the true existing exterior wall with its attic vent. The project proposes declaring the fireplace and chimney enclosure as the "new existing nonconforming wall". This enclosure appurtenance has no structural value, is not load -bearing for the home or the roof, and has no usable or conditioned volume. None of its area is counted as square footage in the existing home. The interior wall on the other side of the gable end is a continuous uninterrupted plane throughout the entirety of the hone. February '12, 2013 PEB 1 -013 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 E. Main Street PLANNING D11/131ON Los Gatos, CA 95030 PE: Item #2 for Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 2013 Dear Planners and Commissioners: Attached are nine (9) letters from residents of Alpine Ave who live near the proposed project at 89 Alpine Ave. These letters request that wherever possible, 15' side setbacks be required for add -on development. Thank you. ON Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Sig,, d ems/ Date Name Address , _ Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Signed Date Name 4*#r Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. ThankyQu`_` Signed L_ Date Name 7// Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: 1 live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Sig d lJ Date Name S- Address fG Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Signed Date Name 9b f9,P/)a- Address l a:S (r+ , C'_A— R (1 14S 72--cS,Def Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address G -j - cJ c.( c=3Lsir Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos. CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank Signed j Date Name Ub 3 Aj L ELNAUK Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address /) Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Signed ate WuA l(a aVl IA dI1i3II 1cs7 s Name Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Sign W d Date Name Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address 0 is Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Z /o / Signed Date W, / 9"+!iv 07V Name 2 Address z5 Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: RECEIVED FEB 13 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Name lie AP, O4 -LGL Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at Ois address r 3 0 Response to Exhibit 4: Letter Dated January 5, 2013 from applicant Lou and Cheryl Ryan RECEIVED FEB 12 2013 Dear Planning Commission, TOWN OF LOS GATOS We do like the plans for the new home at 89 Alpine Avenue. Most of it looks grePb. ANNING DIVISION However that last bit, just one corner, greatly affects our family. It is unfortunate that there has been no productive conversation about resolution. This matter would not be before the Commission if we could have accomplished one thing: Move a single proposed wall on the second story 5 feet back to the 15' R1:20 zoned setback. This change would require a realignment of about 200 sq. ft. on the new second story (out of a total proposed floor area of 3,966 sq. ft.). The desired square footage could still be achieved by expanding a foot or two more to the rear, where a new wall is already planned and there is over 200' of additional open land available. Expansion to the rear would also be consistent with recent development in the neighborhood, in contrast to the current proposal to push into neighboring setbacks. The change would be to the rear of the structure and would not affect the proposed 2°d-story dormer on the front of the home. We agree with my other neighbors that the front portion of the new house (including the section closest to us) is very well done. We all agree the new streetscape would be pleasant and consistent with the neighborhood. We are happy for our long-time neighbors that no one else is directly affected. The Ryan's letter of January Sth says they made frequent visits to 89 Alpine, but that they never saw or heard from the Sullivan household". I work from home most of the time and my wife is a full-time homemaker. Between the two of us and our three daughters there is almost always someone at home except for school and lesson drop-offs. We may be the easiest people on the street to contact. We didn't know the name of the new owners for more than 6 months. Of course we had no way to contact them, although typically those advocating a change are doing the outreach, not the other way around. To date, we have still never met Mr. Ryan. The Ryans' letter further states "upon submitting our plans to the planning department, Jennifer Savage made recommendations, one of which was to present our plans to the neighbors". We did notice in the October 5, 2012 Planning document that the very first item under "Comments" states "We strongly encourage speaking with your neighbors aboutyour proposal.". It is worth noting that the word "strongly" is the only emphasized word in that document, which is consistent with the Town's policy of neighborhood involvement. Soon after receiving that letter the Ryans visited the neighborhood with plans in hand. The few neighbors they met with liked the plans. As noted above, most of it is considered by all of us as well done. Mrs. Ryan stopped by our home the weekend of October 201h and met my wife. I was away for a funeral. My wife, home alone with my 3 daughters, did not go over the plans with her on the spot, but said that I would probably like to see them. She gave Mrs. Ryan my cell phone number. At this point there had been a single attempt by the Ryans to contact us and it was successful. Days later, curious but not having heard from the Ryans, I went to the Town to look at the plans. While there I mentioned to Planner Jennifer Savage my concerns. After our meeting she telephoned Mr. Ryan and again urged him to contact me. We spoke on the phone for the first time on Tuesday, Nov. 61h. During that singular phone call I mentioned my concerns, but also my high regard for architect Chris Spaulding. I suggested getting together in person to go over'the plans, and we agreed to a meeting for the next day, November 7, 20121. Mr. Ryan said he could not attend, but Mr. Spaulding and Mrs. Ryan would meet me at 89 Alpine. The Ryans' letter suggests that I was to "come up with a design for our home that (I) would propose". I am neither an architect nor designer and I made no attempt to redesign the Ryans' home. I only suggested that we meet to try to come up with some ideas, as that is generally how it's done in Los Gatos. Mr. Spaulding has designed many homes on Alpine Avenue, going back at least 25 years ago. I consider him to be an excellent architect. As there is plenty of room to expand to the rear of the property, perhaps he could come up with something that works. Our meeting was brief. I said I was concerned about privacy and asked if they could set the back corner of the new 2nd story at 15' off the property line, matching the proposed front corner that also adjoins us. There was little productive discussion about our concerns. I pointed out that the new MBR windows peer into my wife and teenage daughters' showers, and Mr. Spaulding offered the possibility of using clerestory windows and/or obscured glass. I appreciate that, however the proposed plans today are unmodified from their October submission. Mrs. Ryan concluded our brief meeting by stating that she was meeting with me because the Town said she must do so, and now that she has done that she can move forward as planned. The January 5, 2013 letter lists 3 ways that "my design is incompatible with theirs'. Although we never proposed a design, we would like to comment. 1. The Ryans state "the design is based on traditional homes similar to those on Glen Ellen". Where is this street/neighborhood? Regardless, I think the front styling of the design is attractive. It's worth noting that the front -right corner of the design, adjacent to me, places the new 2nd-story dormer almost 1 Tin from the property line, maintaining the existing ground floor roof 1 The Ryans' letter states that the meeting was on November 14, 2012, but it was actually a week earlier on November 7th. placement and pitch. We think this is the correct way to do it: the existing non -conforming first -story setback stays where it is and the new 2nd-story is very close to 15' setback. 2. "Extend(ing) to the rear would eliminate the existing back deck .... and the new deck will need to be on stilts." The existing deck is 16' deep and is already supported by posts at the rear edge that range from 2' to 6' feet off the grade. The plans call for the entire rear wall of the house will be demolished and rebuilt 3'6" further back, which will also require demolition of existing deck to build a new foundation. The property does not start to fall off appreciably until considerably further back. There is ample room to have a deck with the square footage desired while maintaining the same height above grade. 3. "We would lose our home's desired living flow." We understand that some layout modifications may be needed. We also understand well, from the restoration and addition to our 1900 home, the challenges of developing on a relatively narrow lot that slopes down to the rear. However, there have been many remodels on Alpine that have achieved a design that works well with both neighboring homes and the natural constraints of the land, instead of attempting to work against them. Regarding the item "direct feedback regarding John's itemized concerns': Setback -encroaching footprint. We understand that code allows expansion on existing non -conforming footprints. The current plans call for expansion along the existing nonconforming setback to the rear. If this expansion was for the existing first -floor story only it might be workable, but expanding the footprint in all 3 dimensions (closer to the property line + extending further back + going straight up two stories) is not reasonable when alternatives exist. The neighbors on the opposite side, #79 Alpine, are of course delighted with the proposal. All of the new development is well away from them. Given that the Town appears ready to permit two-story straight -up homes on existing nonconforming setbacks, the owners of #79 could have been faced with 2 stories directly on their property line. They dodged a bullet on this and would be happy if it goes through. The existing habitable -space exterior wall moving closer. This is a puzzling and perhaps technical point. If you examine the photographs at the end of this letter (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) you can see 2 gable -ends with an attic vent in each. Most reasonable people would consider that the existing exterior wall. You also see a chimney in the photograph. Town code 29.40.070 "allows for chimneys and bay windows to extend beyond the wall of the reconstructed portion" of a nonconforming wall. This is what happened 20 years ago when the previous house was demolished. During that demolition the entire front part of the lot and building pad was excavated and lowered 2 feet. (The property used be at the same elevation as mine at 95 Alpine.) The nonconforming walls were permitted to be rebuilt where they once stood. A fireplace and chimney enclosure was added to the outside, and an exterior -access service panel was required next to it. Although this application suggests that this fireplace and its enclosure and exterior access panel are the existing exterior wall, I would like to point out this "wall" has several unusual elements: o It's 30" thick. Most single -story exterior walls are about 8". o It has a separate shed roof that is only half as high as the existing roof. o It does not provide any structural, framing, or load -bearing support to the house or roof. o The volume within it is unconditioned and is not included in the existing home's square footage. o The foundation underneath it is for the fireplace, and bears no house load. The claim that this fireplace enclosure area is the exterior wall is so confusing and unusual that it was not noticed by the Town Planning Department until we pointed it out 2 months ago. However the Staff report sent to the Commission still makes several errors regarding it. Additionally, when the Ryans hired a contractor to erect story poles he placed them where any reasonable person would: exactly in line with the existing exterior wall. They were in the wrong place for 10 of the last 12 weeks. We discovered just after they went up in November that the plans call for claiming the non-structural fireplace "bump -out" wall as the "new" existing exterior wall, which is 2 feet closer to the property line. I pointed out to Planning that if in fact they were attempting to make this the "new existing wall" the story poles were in wrong place and should be placed 2' closer to the property line so as to not mask the true intentions. The owners were notified about the incorrect placement but declined to correct them until recently. Consideration for the effect of height. We agree that our home at 95 Alpine will continue to have a higher ridgeline. It's the same ridgeline that has been there for 113 years. And we are delighted Mr. Spaulding was able to design a 2n6-story addition that raises the existing ridgeline by just 6'. It's fortunate the existing 1-story home had high -vaulted ceilings that minimizes this impact. However I am afraid my comment was misinterpreted. I was referring to the effect of height related to setbacks. A 3D real -world view where a neighbor's 26' tall wall that is 8' away feels bigger than a 19' wall that is 10' away. There are several letters of support on file from the neighbors at 76, 78, and 79 Alpine. When you are shown the front elevation there is little not to love. It really is a nice design. The letters of support are from the neighbors on the opposite side of the proposed expansion, who were not aware of the setback precedent that is under consideration. The several neighbors to the east of 89 Alpine have not been contacted. Lastly, the Ryans say they "understand that change can be unsettling for existing neighbors". E L We are not opposed to change. We have no issues with adding a 2nd-story. We have no issue with expanding the home to its maximum. We did, too. We think the vast majority of the design is well done. Fix that last corner, the 2nd-story closest to us and we are good to go. As we have heard often from Planning Commissioners, "Change happens." And as outgoing Chairman Marcia Jensen said in an October meeting, "Change is inevitable, as long as it is reasonable and fair change." We believe it is fair and reasonable that an existing nonconformity not be intensified when reasonable alternatives exist. The very act of the Town defining zoning areas and their conformance attributes indicates a preference by the Town for conforming properties. Very many of the homes in Los Gatos are nonconforming though, especially in older neighborhoods. That should not be a license to do something that otherwise would not be allowed. Permitting this would inadvertently send a message to the market that a nonconforming house is more attractive for future development because standard rules do not apply. Thank you for reading, John and Betty Sullivan 95 Alpine Ave, Los Gatos Exhibit 1 This picture of the end gable shows the true existing exterior wall with its attic vent. The project proposes declaring the fireplace and chimney enclosure as the "new existing nonconforming wall'. This enclosure appurtenance has no structural value, is not load -bearing for the home or the roof, and has no usable or conditioned volume. None of its area is counted as square footage in the existing home. The interior wall on the other side of the gable end is a continuous uninterrupted plane throughout the entirety of the home. M Exhibit 2 This picture shows the existing exterior wall with its attic vent and 2' eave. The lower portion shows the shed appurtenance that houses the fireplace and access door. This is the outside -access door in the fireplace enclosure. TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2 COMMENTS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PROVIDED BY JOHN & BETTY SULLIVAN, 95 Alpine Avenue Meeting Date: February 13, 2013 Architecture and Site Application S-13-003 89 Alpine Avenue Dear Planning Commissioners, RECEIVED FEB 12 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION There are two essential but different things for the Commission to consider about this project: 1. What constitutes an "existing wall"? 2. Should a modest existing setback infringement be intensified and aggravated when a reasonable alternative exists? The first point is probably a bit of a technical one, although very important. I contend that the project is proposing moving the existing setback 2' closer to the property line. On the second point, I do understand that the Town will allow reasonable expansion along an existing nonconforming setback. 1, and many neighbors, request that wherever possible, additional expansion occur within modem setbacks, particularly for new 2"d stories. Thank you. John Sullivan Now, on to my comments regarding the Staff Report. Selected areas of the staff report have been included in italics for reference and clarity. They precede my comments. ANALYSIS 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 nonconforming 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. COMMENT: The Town Code says "a structure may expand along the existing nonconforming setback". The intent is to allow the structure to expand horizontally, expanding the footprint. It does not make an allowance for adding a 2"d story at the same setback. The last sentence clarifies that this code section is for expanding the footprint, "The portion of the structure that creates the non -conforming setback must remain in order to permit the continuation of a non -conforming setback". Obviously you could not add a 2"d story without the I" story remaining. I do not object to the existing first story continuing along its current setback. The footprint of the existing structure is not parallel to the property lines (See Development Plans Exhibit 6, Sheet A -] 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. COMMENT: This statement is only partly accurate. It's true that on the front corner of the house the setback is just 4'3". It travels rearward for about 15', at which point, due to not being parallel to the property line, its setback has grown a few inches to 4'6". At that point, though, the wall (and setback) takes a 90 degree left turn inward (and away from the property line) for several feet before making another 90 degree turn to continue to the rear another 15'. It then ends at the back comer, 10%0" from the side property line, as noted. Although the side walls do not run parallel to the property line, the amount of increased setback due to this is only about one foot over the entire 30' span. Most of the increased setback as you travel to the rear is due to the house making a turn to the center of the property before turning rearward again. This "jog" in the wall accounts for 4'-6" of the 5'-9" total difference between the front corner setback and the rear corner setback. The Staff report places the front and rear setbacks corners correctly, but gives the incorrect impression that there is a straight line between those corners. This is important. 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). COMMENT: In the previous section Staff reported and acknowledged that the rear corner setback is 10'-0". However in the paragraph above it is noted that the new setback would be 8'2.5". This puts the new setback about 2' closer to the property line. Why is there this inconsistency? The answer is because this project is attempting to declare a fireplace and chimney enclosure appurtenance as the "new" existing wall. I would like to point out this wall" has several unusual elements: o It does not provide any structural, framing, or load -bearing support to the house or roof. o It's over 30" thick. Most single -story exterior walls are about 6" or 8". o It has a separate shed roof that is only half as high as the existing roof. o The volume within it is unconditioned and is not included in the existing home's square footage. o The foundation underneath it is for the fireplace, and bears no house load. The claim that this fireplace enclosure area is the exterior wall is so confusing and unusual that it was not noticed by the Town Planning Department until I pointed it out months ago. Additionally, when the story poles went up the contractor placed them where any reasonable person would: exactly in line with the true existing exterior wall. They were in the wrong place for 10 weeks, and were just corrected 2 weeks ago. See the photos on Exhibit 1 for more clarification. 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 I5foot side setback. COMMENT: I provided one of the letters opposing the project. Of the letters in favor, three were from relevant neighbors, the fourth from personal friends who live a mile or more away. The support letters received were from three Alpine Ave neighbors who live to the southwest. 1) The Franklins, at 79 Alpine, are relieved that the proposed development is well away from them. It could have been much worse for them. If the Town is prepared to permit 2nd-stories along existing nonconforming setbacks, the Franklins could have been looking at two stories straight up right on their property line. Instead, they are completely unaffected as all offending development is concentrated on the other side of the property. 2) The Rehons, directly across the street at 78 Alpine, are also unaffected directly by the setback encroachment. As I have stated before, the plan looks great from the front elevation. That was the only part of the plan they were shown. 3) The Pickerings, at 76 Alpine, are across the street and to the right. They also saw only the front elevation. They still support the project overall, but also now request that if possible the 15' side setback be required for the 2nd-story. A letter from Mr. Pickering expressing this desire is included. His letter is one of about 10 letters from Alpine residents expressing hope that the Commission requires 15' side setbacks for add -on development. 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). COMMENT: Please see my Response to the Letter Dated January SI^ from applicant Lou and Cheryl Ryan. That 5-page letter addresses in detail their response and points out a number of factual errors. Regarding the comments from Architect Spaulding, he did suggest clerestory and/or obscured glass to help mitigate privacy concerns. I also appreciate his acknowledgement that I do not oppose having a second floor. My request is simply to keep the existing first floor where it is and try to set the new second story at 15' off the property line. I am not a designer, but think this requires realigning less than 200 sq.ft. of 3,966 sq.ft. The plans already call for rebuilding the entire rear wall 3'6" to the rear. Just another 1 or 2 ft. to the rear would yield the maximum - allowable square footage that is desired. Along the right side, the storypoles 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. COMMENT: I was the one who discovered that the story poles were placed incorrectly. I discovered just after they went up in November that the plans call for adopting the non- structural fireplace enclosure appurtenance as the "new' existing exterior wall, which is 2 feet closer to the property line. (See page 2 above.) I pointed out to Planning that if in fact they were attempting to make this the "new existing wall" the story poles were in the wrong place and should be placed 2' closer to the property line so as to not mask the true intentions. The owners were notified about the incorrect placement in late November but until recently declined to correct them. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION.' A. Summary The applicant designed the second story addition to be compatible with the neighborhood including utilizing roofforms similar to those in the immediate neighborhood and traditional roof 4 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. COMMENT: As I have said several times, most of this project looks great. I seek 2 things: to keep the first floor where it is now (extending it is fine), and to find a way to set the 2nd story back 15'. 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. COMMENT: I am concerned about the precedent of allowing this intensification of a nonconforming setback. There are at least ten immediate neighbors on Alpine that have expressed an interest in maintaining 1S' side setbacks wherever possible. I believe it is possible in this case. Recent development to expand existing homes on the street has shown that it is entirely possible to do it down and to the rear of the property. There is no need to fight the natural layout of the lot and aggravate a modest nonconformity. As these reports indicate, there are many nonconforming setbacks on Alpine, and in fact throughout the older neighborhoods of Los Gatos. I urge the Planning Commission to protect these older neighborhoods by carefully considering requests for precedent -setting 2nd-stories within established setbacks. Granting an exception to add -on within setbacks should be considered only when other options have been exhausted. Doing otherwise could trigger a cascading effect, with one home after another adding on inside the setbacks. This hobbles the intent of zoning in the neighborhoods that represent the best of Los Gatos. The very act of the Town defining zoning areas and their conformance attributes indicates a preference by the Town for conforming properties. Many older homes are nonconforming, but that should not equate to a license to do something that otherwise would not be allowed. Permitting this project as is would send a terrible message to the market that a nonconforming house is more attractive for future development because standard rules do not apply. That is inconsistent with Planning and the Town's objectives. B. Recommendation Based on the summary above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site application subject to the recommended conditions of approval. 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 speck direction; or 3. Deny the application. COMMENT: My request is to approve the application with the following additional conditions: 1. Keep the existing 1st floor where it is, do not move it closer by claiming the fireplace enclosure appurtenance is the exterior wall. 2. Set the 2nd story no closer than 15' from the property line. OR Continue the matter with a recommendation for the applicants to work with and address the concerns of the neighborhood. M Exhibit 1 This picture of the end gable shows the true existing exterior wall with its attic vent. The project proposes declaring the fireplace and chimney enclosure as the "new existing nonconforming wall". This enclosure appurtenance has no structural value, is not load -bearing for the home or the roof, and has no usable or conditioned volume. None of its area is counted as square footage in the existing home. The interior wall on the other side of the gable end is a continuous uninterrupted plane throughout the entirety of the home. 1 February 12, 2013 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVE® FEB 12 FO13 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION RE: Item #2 for Planning Commission Meeting February 13, 2013 Dear Planners and Commissioners: Attached are nine (9) letters from residents of Alpine Ave who live near the proposed project at 89 Alpine Ave. These letters request that wherever possible, 15' side setbacks be required for add -on development. Thank you. Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Sig pd Date a' \ A- . C Name sue— lt\ p, A L ci s o c Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this a dress Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Loy* 44w Signed Date Name Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address hSOA'sFI' loK Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Than, . 0 Signed Date t^ Name Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Sign d Date G/1 /1 \ A L1./ b"I Name 0S- &/ / f Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address 0 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos. CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Signed Date Name 9',q 7) c, Pi)G Address lids &W7-4, Cam— 9- 3 Q Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address Q J'-t— - U' CJiJ_XLSJriA Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank Signed v Date sV- Name lt3 A-LRN Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address /) Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Name L_ Lv 'AUK Address Atpt/us , Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this addressq/ r 6V0, u o Av2;- Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos. CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Sign d Date Name Address Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address 0 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department & Commissioners 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Planners and Commissioners: I live in Los Gatos in an R1-20 zone. Wherever possible, I encourage requiring 15' setbacks for new and add -on development for both conforming and nonconforming properties. Thank you. Signed Name z Address Z Date Los Gatos, CA 95030 years at this address