Loading...
07 Staff Report - 132 Teresita WayCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: November 25, 2009 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/07/09 ITEM NO: ri FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE WITH REDUCED SETBACKS, AND AN ABOVE GRADE POOL ON A SLOPE GREATER THAN 30% ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-1. APN 532-40-023. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-09-017. PROPERTY LOCATION: 132 TERESITA WAY. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: DAVE AND HEATHER MAGETTI. APPLICANT: DAN TOWNSEND. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Architecture and Site application S- 09-017 (motion required). 4. Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution (no motion required). If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified relative to the appeal: 1. The Council needs to find one or more of the following: (a) Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or (b) The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or (c) An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision. PREPARED BY: eVendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager / &%/Town Attorney V Community Development Clerk Administrator Finance N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2009\132 Tersita.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 132 TERESITA WAY December 7, 2009 2. If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission is new information as defined in Subsection (b) above, the application will be required to return to the Planning Commission for review. 3. If the appeal is granted, direction must be provided to staff The application is not complete and can not be approved as part of the appeal, it must be returned to the Planning Commission for further action (motion required). 4. Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution(s) (no motion required). BACKGROUND: The property is located on the east side of Teresita Way. It is accessed by way of a private easement on 136 Teresita Way. The property is nonconforming in that is does not meet the minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. It is surrounded by single family homes with parcels of similar size and topography. The applicant is proposing to demolish a 2,399 sq. ft. single story house with an attached 578 sq. ft. garage, and to construct a 3,368 sq. ft. house with a 620 sq. ft. attached garage and to encroach into the required setbacks. The applicant is also proposing to construct an approximately 600 sq. ft. above ground pool with substantial decking. Almost all of the new decking and the pool are in an area with slopes greater than 30%. As discussed in the staff report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3), the project does not comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG). The applicant chose not to make changes to the plans as requested by staff and requested proceeding to the Planning Commission to determine if the pool could be built as proposed. In the interest of saving the applicant time and expense, the technical and peer reviews (arborist, architect, geotechnical, and environmental evaluations) have not been completed, nor have staff and the Town consultants spent extended time analyzing the noncompliant plans. Recommended conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. Since the project is incomplete staff determined that story poles were not required at this time. However, the extent of the pool and decking has been marked with stakes by the property owner in order to more clearly show the extent of the development along the hillside. DISCUSSION: A. Project Summary The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing single family home, construct a new residence with reduced setbacks, and to construct an above grade pool and decking on a slope greater than 30%. Although a large portion of the house will be maintained, the work proposed classifies as a demolition pursuant to Town Code, since less than 50% of contiguous wall area will be maintained. The applicant is also requesting approval to PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 132 TERESITA WAY December 7, 2009 encroach into the required setbacks which is permitted pursuant to Town Code for nonconforming lots if it's determined to be compatible with the neighborhood. Please see Attachment 3 (the October 14, 2009, Planning Commission staff report) for additional information regarding the proposed project. B. Planning Commission The Planning Commission considered the Architecture and Site Application on October 14, 2009. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the application on the basis that the applicant did not provide compelling evidence to deviate from the HDSG. C. Appeal According to the applicant's appeal, Attachment 1, the Commission erred or abused its discretion. The applicant believes that staff misled both them and the Planning Commission in regards to the Commission's discretion with acting on the project. The applicant stated that they and the Commission were led to believe that the Commission's only authority in this case was to deny the project when conversely they could have approved it through granting exceptions to the HDSG. Therefore, based on their understanding that the Planning Commission did not have the discretion to grant exceptions to the HDSG, they were not fully prepared to defend their project and request for exceptions to the guidelines. During the hearing, planning staff and the Town Attorney clarified that the Planning Commission could make an exception to the HDSG if there was sufficient justification. However, the applicant feels that the Commission denied the project due to the lack of justification. The project is inconsistent with the following HDSG Sections: • Construction outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) (Section VI.E) • Architectural Elements (Section V.H) • Retaining Walls (Section IV.C) The HDSG Section IX.F (Exceptions) provides an exception to the standards only "after carefully considering the constraints of the site." The HDSG further states that "any deviation from the standards contained in this document shall include the rationale and evidence to support the deviation. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show that there are compelling reasons for granting the requested deviation." Staff continually advised the applicant to redesign their plans to be more consistent with the HDSG, Town Code and past Planning Commission and Town Council actions on similar applications. The applicant was further advised to provide justification to support their project as proposed for granting the exceptions and the reduction of setbacks for the nonconforming lot. However, based on several unchanged resubmittals, it became apparent that the applicant was unwilling to provide sufficient justification and to modify the plans, specifically the construction of the pool and decking outside the LRDA, to better conform to PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 132 TERESITA WAY December 7, 2009 the guidelines, Town Code and past actions. Staff informed the applicant that it would be unlikely that the Planning Commission would approve the design and that their best course of action was to proceed to the Town Council. Based on the applicant's desire to proceed to the Planning Commission, staff recommended that the technical studies and environmental analysis not be completed in order to expedite the review and to save the applicant money in the case that the application was denied. The Planning Commission could not find justification for making exceptions to the HDSG and therefore denied the Architecture and Site Application. CONCLUSION: The proposed application does not conform to the HDSG and there are no compelling reasons for granting the requested deviations from the HDSG. There is also no justification to reduce the required setbacks. The applicant is unwilling to make the necessary changes to comply with Town Ordinances, regulations and policies. It is recommended that the Town Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Architecture and Site Application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that the project is not exempt from CEQA. An initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared prior to final consideration of the project if the project proceeds. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: 1. Appeal filed on October 21, 2009 (two pages). 2. Required Findings and Considerations. 3. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of October 14, 2009. 4. Photos submitted by applicant at Planning Commission hearing October 14, 2009. 5. Excerpt of the Verbatim Planning Commission meeting minutes for October 14, 2009. Distribution: cc: Dave Magetti, 132 Teresita Way, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dan Townsend, 201 Monterey Ave, Suite G, Capitola, CA 95010 WR:MM:cgt N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2009\132 Teresita.doc FILING FEES $321.00 Residential $1,288.00 per Commercial, Multi- family or Tentative Map Appeal tE©E OW[ Town of Los Gar! iit1 rk pad ! r 110E.OfMaicenofSL,heLasTownGabsCA9 1 APPEAL OF PLANNING ING COMMISSI( I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows: (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NEATLY) DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: O4r7-09 /Zf r 2OO PROJECT / APPLICATION NO: ADDRESS LOCATION: S-o1-ol7 / 2 7r61e.Esr7-447 - Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matters if the Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Council members, Therefore, please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal: 1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because — OR There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is (please attach the new information if possible): OR 3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town Council• IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS. EYIPORTANT: 1. Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes. A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing. 2. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the.required filing fee. Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the 1Q`h day following the decision. If the 10'" day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10i° day, usually a Monday. 3. The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No. 1967) 4. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals. 5. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council. 6. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application will usually be returned to the Planning Commission�-for reconsideration. 14r1 PRINT NAME: 1 ��i 9 M rrC75__T � SIGNATURE: f„i«- - - (1 ;� t ,.n DATE: ( I Z �% ADDRESS: j S 'Z TE g.F i / TA G• (u�4 \ , PHONE: f&8 Eat3 3 760 *** OFFICIAL USE ONLY *.k* DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONFIRMATION LEI TLR SENT: Date: Pending Planning Department Confirmation TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY: DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION: DATE OF PUBLICATION: ti'DEYVORMsTtraiv.2O0}101krr sUpyul- Plancng Comnmlqn vµt 7/1/2009 £`d 9Z£6-6LI (6£8) puesUMol Iatueo Attachment 1 RE: 132 Teresita Way Appeal S09017 1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because Prior to the planning commission meeting we were informed by Mami Mosely, that our proposal to have a pool over 30% slope would be denied at the planning commission meeting. It was our understanding that our proposal would be heard by the planning commission and they would make a decision. We were told repeatedly by Ms. Mosely that no matter what our reasoning that the planning commission did not have the authority to approve this proposal, however, we would have to attend the meeting and pay the appropriate fees as a formality, and upon denial we could present our proposal to Town Council. During the planning commission meeting we were prepared to be denied and stated so. Unfortunately this was not the case, as the planning commission members asked the question, "Isn't it correct that we do not have the authority to approve their proposal?" In which the response from Ory Korb, City Attomey, to the planning commission was that they did have the authority to approve the proposal, Once the commission heard we were planning to get denied, the demeanor of the commissioners changed and the chair stated "I am sorry you feel that way," and quickly moved to denial. Had we known the planning commission had the authority to make an approval we would have better prepared our case for our proposal. Dave Maggetti, owner of 132 Teresita Way has witnessed large quantities of earth/ dirt being removed from a neighboring hillside property over the course of the summer of 2009 (DeSantis Project). Quantities far exceeding the amount of dirt that will be touched on 132 Teresita Way. Our proposal is requiring a minimal amount of dirt to be touched to place piers to support our tiered retaining walls. The architects and contractor (Owners) philosophy from the start of this protect has always been to create minimal impact to the environment by utilizing the entire existing structure, integrate green building/ design techniques and exemplify this philosophy at 132 Teresita Way. Vd 5Z£6-6LP (co)L puesuMol laluea eZ9: 6 t 60 6Z 100 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: December 7, 2009 132 Teresita Way Architecture and Site Application S-09-017 Requesting approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing single family home with a reduced side yard setback and above -ground pool on a nonconforming property zoned IIR-1. APN 532-40-023. PROPERTY OWNER: Dave and Heather Maggetti APPLICANT: Dan Townsend FINDINGS Required findings for demolition: As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained in that the house will be replaced. 2. The structure has no historic significance. 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure. 4. There is no economic utility to the structure. The structure does not meet the design criteria of the property owner. Required findings for reduced setbacks on non -conforming lots: As required by Section 29.10.265 (3) of the Town Code. The applicant has not provided staff with evidence that the proposed setback reductions are compatible with the immediate neighborhood, only that the reductions will not impact adjoining neighbors. CONSIDERATIONS Section 29.20.150 - 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. The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS&G: • Substantial development is proposed outside the LRDA • Total grading volume is significant and cut and fill criteria will be exceeded. • Large windows are discouraged in the 1IDSG due to light and reflectivity. • The proposed materials may not be appropriate for a hillside home. • Extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to construct the proposed pool and deck Attachment 2 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 14, 2009 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO.: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: CONTACT PERSON: APPLICATION SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DATA: ACTION: Marni F. Moseley, Assistant Planner MMoseley@losgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-09-017 ITEM NO: 2 132 Teresita Way (Located on the east side of Teresita Way, nine lots from Kennedy Road) Dan Townsend Dave Maggetti Dan Townsend Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family home, construct a new residence with reduced setbacks, and an above grade pool on a slope greater than 30% on property zoned HR-1. APN 532- 40-023 Deemed Complete: Not yet deemed complete Strong Denial General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Applicable Plans & Standards: Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: Hillside Residential Hillside Residential (HR-1) Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 38,997 square feet Existing Land Use General Plan North Residential East ? Residential South Residential West I Residential Zoning Hillside Residential HR --1 Hillside Residential 1 HR -- 2 1/2 Hillside Residential I HR — 1 Hillside Residential HR — 1 The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. Attachment 3 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 132 Teresita Way/S-09-017 October 14, 2009 CEQA: FINDINGS: It has been determined that the project is not exempt from CEQA. An initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared prior to final consideration of the project if the project proceeds. • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence. • As required by Section 29.10.265 (3) of the Town Code for reducing setbacks on a nonconforming lot. CONSIDERATIONS: • As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings and Considerations (1 page) 3. Letter of Justification (1 page) 4. Letters from neighbors, received July 7, 2009 (3 pages) 5. Photo simulations, received August 31, 2009 (3 pages) 6. Development Plans (6 pages), received September 3, 2009 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to demolish a 2,399 sq. ft. single story house with an attached 578 sq. ft. garage, and to construct a 3,368 sq. ft. house with a 620 sq. ft. attached garage. The applicant is also proposing to construct an approximately 600 sq. ft. above ground pool with substantial decking. Almost all of the new decking and the pool are in an area with slopes greater than 30%. The project description and letter of justification submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 3) accurately states the type of development proposed, but has not been updated to reflect the areas where the project is not in compliance with Town Codes and policies. BACKGROUND The property is located on the east side of Teresita Way. It is accessed by way of a private easement on 1-36 Teresita Way. The property is nonconforming in that is does not meet the minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. It is surrounded by single family homes with parcels of similar size and topography. Staff has forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that the project can be denied or direction can be provided to the applicant for a significant redesign. In the interest of saving the applicant time and expense, the technical and peer reviews (arborist, architect, geotechnical, and environmental evaluations) have not been completed, nor have staff and the Town consultants spent extended time to completely analyze the noncompliant plans. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 132 Teresita Way/S-09-017 October 14, 2009 Recommended conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. If a redesign is requested, technical reviews will be completed before the project is returned to the Commission for final action. ANALYSIS Staff has the following concerns in regards to the proposed house style and materials, location and size of the pool, and exceptions requested by the applicant. A. House The existing house is 2,399 sq. ft. with a 578 sq. ft. garage. The proposal is to construct a single story 3,368 sq. ft. house with a 620 sq. ft. garage in primarily the same location as the existing house. Staff has concerns about the proposed design of the house in regards to the style and materials, as well as the proposed reduction in setbacks. 1. Proposed Style and Materials The applicant is proposing a modern style house with Fiber Concrete Board (FCB) panels as the primary exterior material. The structure also incorporates large banks of windows along the most visible side of the house. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG) speak to this in section V.H. found on pages 40 and 41. Architectural elements: The use of large windows and glass doors should be kept to a minimum to reduce the daytime glare and nighttime lighting emanating from large glazed areas, and to increase heating and cooling efficiency. Of particular concern is glare that impacts neighboring properties and is visible from the valley floor. Materials and Colors: The contrast between manmade buildings and the environment shall be minimized. A buildings color and materials shall complement and lend with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding natural environment. Staff recommends the applicant reduce the amount of reflective surfaces, and choose colors and materials more appropriate to the hillside environment. 2. Reduced Setbacks The Town Code provides a process for applicants with nonconforming properties to apply for modifications to the requirements of the zone such as building setbacks. The Town Code (Sec 29.10.265(3)) states: Any rule of the zone including front, side, and rear yard requirements may be modified by the terms of the architecture and site Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 132 Teresita Way/S-09-017 October 14, 2009 approval so that the building and its use will be compatible with the neighborhood. No evidence has been provided to show the proposed reductions are consistent with other lots in the immediate neighborhood. The applicant justifies the exceptions in that impacts to the neighbors will be minimal The requested exceptions to the Town Code include: • Garage side wall encroaches two feet into the required 20 foot side setback. • Rear wall along the master bedroom encroaches approximately 18 inches into the required 25 foot rear setback. • Decking along the rear of the structure encroaches four feet into the required 25 foot rear setback Staff believes that with minor modifications to the proposed plans, exceptions would not be necessary. B. Pool and Decking LRDA Encroachment The applicant is proposing an above ground pool with decking that would be located almost entirely on slopes that exceed 30%. The HDSG Section VI.E (Pg. 48) contains the following standards in regards to pools. Accessory buildings, pools, and sport courts • Accessory buildings shall be integrated with the natural topography of the site and shall be compatible with other buildings by use of similar forms, colors, and materials. • Due to topographic constraints, not every lot will be able to accommodate a pool or sport court. Swimming pools and sport courts are prohibited on slopes greater than 30 percent. There is little area outside the existing house footprint where the slope is less than 30%. Development of a pool that complies with the HDSG may not be possible on this lot. A smaller pool located closer to the existing house and deck, may be possible, although it has not be analyzed. Retaining Walls The proposed pool requires large concrete retaining walls to be constructed as proposed. The HSDG Section IV.0 (pages 45 and 46) contains standards for retaining walls, they include the following: Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 132 Teresita Way/S-09-017 October 14, 2009 Retaining Walls • Retaining walls shall not be used to create large flat, yard areas. The limited use of retaining walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated that their use will substantially reduce the amount of grading. • Retaining walls should not be higher than five feet. Where an additional retained portion is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions (e.g. lot configuration, steep slope, or road design), the use of multiple -terraced, lower retaining structures is preferred. • Terraced retaining walls should be separated by at least three feet and include appropriate landscaping. • Retaining walls should blend with the natural topography, follow existing contours, and be curvilinear to the greatest extent possible. Retaining walls should not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a break, offset, or planting pocket to break up the long flat horizontal surface. • Landscaping should be provided adjacent to retaining walls and should include a combination of native trees and shrubs to screen the wall. Staff recommended that the applicant step the pool and decking down with the natural slope of the hillside. The property owner was unwilling to lower the pool and decking to comply with the HDSG because he would lose his view from these areas. Staff does not find the conditions on the lot to be unusual or extreme, and does not feel the size and amount of retaining walls proposed is justified. While the applicant has provided a terrace feature along the longest portion of the retaining wall, the sides are still 16 to 18 feet tall in some locations. While some landscaping is proposed along the terrace insets, no native trees or shrubs are proposed to help mitigate visibility of the walls. Grading Throughout the process staff requested that the applicant provide accurate grading numbers to show the proposed cut and fill for the project. The applicant and staff disagree on what materials should be included in grading calculations. Section 12.10.020 of the Town Code includes the following: Grading means any land excavation, or filling or combination thereof or the removal, plowing under or burial of vegetative ground cover. Fill means the deposit of soil, rock or other materials placed by man and includes the conditions resulting therefrom. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 132 Teresita Way/S-09-017 October 14, 2009 Staffs interpretation is that the proposed concrete to create the above ground pool and decking is fill. The applicant has yet to provide staff with an accurate calculation as to what that amount of fill will be. GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES The project appears to be in conflict with the following policies and implementing strategies from the General Plan: L.P.8.4 Emphasize preserving the natural land forms by minimizing grading. Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the property. L.I.8.10 Hillside Design Standard: Houses shall be designed to step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads. CD.P.2.3 Mass Grading in New Construction: Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided. CD.P.2.4 Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures up and down the hillside, a maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. CD.P.2.6 Hillside landscaping: Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the following goals in mind. A. Preservation and use of native/natural vegetation B. Following the natural topography C. Preservation of natural trees, vegetation CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Staff has informed the applicant throughout the review process of concerns regarding the pool, grading, and the overall site design. The applicant has chosen to proceed without a complete application in order to determine if the pool can be built as proposed. If the Commission finds merit with the proposed development to the extent that it could be approved through redesign, staff suggests direction be provided on the following issues: • Reduced setbacks • Proposed materials and design elements • Retaining walls • Development outside the LRDA • Grading Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 132 Teresita Way/S-09-017 October 14, 2009 The applicant is willing to consider recommendations on redesign of the house, but is not interested in proceeding with the project if the pool cannot be constructed as proposed. If the Commission decides to deny the application, concerns and key issues should be clearly defined to assist the Town Council in the event an appeal is filed. Prepared by: Marni F. Moseley Assistant Planner a ncl Approved by: endie 1 Roon Director of Community Development WRR:MFM:cgt cc: Dave Magetti, 132 Teresita Way, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dan Townsend, 201 Monterey Ave, Suite G, Capitola, CA 95010 N:\DEV\REPORTS\2009\ 132 Teresita.doc g'-bt° 132 Teresita Way Exhibit 1 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: October 11, 2009 132 Teresita Way Architecture and Site Application S-09-017 Requesting approval to demolish and reconstruct an existing single family home with a reduced side yard setback and above -ground pool on a nonconforming property zoned HR-1. APN 532-40-023. PROPERTY OWNER: Dave and Heather Maggetti APPLICANT: Dan Townsend FINDINGS Required findings for demolition: As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained in that the house will be replaced. 2. The structure has no historic significance. 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure. 4. There is no economic utility to the structure. The structure does not meet the design criteria of the property owner. Required findings for reduced setbacks on non -conforming lots: As required by Section 29.10.265 (3) of the Town Code. The applicant has not provided staff with evidence that the proposed setback reductions are compatible with the immediate neighborhood, only that the reductions will not impact adjoining neighbors. CONSIDERATIONS Section 29.20.150 - 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. The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS&G: • Substantial development is proposed outside the LRDA • Total grading volume is significant and cut and fill criteria will be exceeded. • Large windows are discouraged in the HDSG due to light and reflectivity. • The proposed materials may not be appropriate for a hillside home. • Extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to construct the proposed pool and deck EXHIBIT 2 Letter of Justification and Written description of Proposed Project 4.20.09 prepared by Dan Townsend of Fuse Architects inc. on behalf of the Owner Dave and Heather Maggetti. The proposed project is an addition and remodel to an existing 2,399 square foot single story home with a 578 square foot garage. The proposed design will remain single story and will add 969 square feet to the existing house for a total of 3,368 square feet. The existing garage will be expanded by 42 square feet. A pool will be added near the end of the existing deck. The proposed design will remain single story to minimize mass and appearance. The existing foundation and much of the framing will remain. Little to no cut/fill will take place at the location of the existing house. This design meets all planning requirements and will not require any variance. This home design utilizes passive solar techniques and green building standards. This design will utilize solar panels and solar cells. Tinted glass will be used to minimize heat gain. This home is design to be very energy efficient and will incorporate many green building techniques. Changes to the proposed pool. 5/14/09 • We have reduced the size of the pool • We have relocated the pool to be on 30% or less slope • We have reduced the size of the deck • The shape of the pool has been modified to follow the contours • The pool retaining wall and the north side has be modified into a series of stepped foundation walls "green wall" that meets the hillside ordinance. • We have supplied photos that prove that the pool development cannot be seen from any location outside of the property boundary. EXHIBIT 3 To whom it may concern; I am perfectly fine with the renovations and new pool the Maggetti's are proposing next door at 132 Teresita Way. 1 promote a land owners rights to build on their property with minimal restrictions. Pools and decks should most always be allowed. Sincerely, Scott Cooley June 08, 2009 To Whom it may concern: I am a neighbor of Mr. Maggetti , 1 live directly below him. I have seen his plans for an addition and new pool. I am perfectly fine with what he is proposing. Feel free to contact me on this matter. Sincerely, Zen Zc,1o,/� 2Y /2 gi c2 S/T�? �� Los Si CA 2 /Deo, June 6th, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: I have reviewed the plans for the proposed remodel and pool for the property located at 132 Teresita Way, Los Gatos CA. I am the immediate neighbor located at 136 Teresita Way, directly above the property in question. I am in full support of the plans as proposed. None of the proposed improvements will have a visible impact on my property or the surrounding hillside areas or other properties. The property will not be seen from Teresita Way, Kennedy Road, or anywhere in the valley looking up towards the hills. None of the proposed improvements will impact my property views. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me on my cell phone 408-813-3098. Regards, Steven Leonardis 136 Teresita Way Los Gatos, CA 95032