04 Desk Item - Stewart and Colette FahmyDate: May 9, 2006
For Agenda Of: May 10, 2006
Agenda Item: 4
DESK ITEM
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: The Director of Community Development
LOCATION: 107 Colorado Court
Architecture and Site Application S-06-022
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence on
property zoned HR-2 1/2. APN 527-56-033.
PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Stewart and Colette Fahmy
EXHIBITS: A-K. Previously Submitted.
L. Letter from Jack & Laurie Goldstein (3 pages) received
October 11, 2005.
M. E-mail from Phil & Donna Wright (1 page) received May 9,
2006.
A. DISCUSSION:
Letter from Jack & Laurie Goldstein
The letter from the neighbors at 109 Colorado Court address their concerns with the proposed
proj ect including home size, drainage, privacy, and tree removal. The letter is responding to the
original plans submitted September 28, 2005 (Exhibit L).
E-mail front Phil & Donna Wright
The neighbors at 119 Madera Ct. describe important design considerations for neighborhood
compatibility (Exhibit M).
Prepared b .
Vu-Bang Nguyen, Assistant Planner
BNL:RT:VBN
N:\DEV\Vu_Bang\Areli & Site\107 Colorado Ct\2006-05-09 Desk Item to PC.wpd
ATTACHMENT
Bud N. Lortz,
Director of Community Development
JACK and LAURIE GOLDSTEIN
109 Colorado Court (Mailing Address: P.O. Box 321180)
Los Gatos, California 95032
V
Planning Commission u I I 12005
Town of Los Gatos, California TOWN pF tos GATOs
110 E. Main Street - P.O. Box 949
Los' Gatos, CA 95031 PL ANMNG DIVISIOi
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing with respect to the proposed construction at 107 ;Colorado Court (next
door to.my property at 109 Colorado Court) by Mr. StewartFahrry of 331 Santa
Rosa Drive, Los Gatos. It is our understanding that Mr. Fahmy recently submitted
plans to construct a residence on this property. Approximately two months ago;,
Mr. Fahmy discussed his construction,plans with members of our local
homeowners association who invited other interested parties to attend. At that time,
he provided us with his proposed plans.
After reviewing the plans and trying unsuccessfully to get Mr. Fahmy to alter his
plans, we felt it important to bring our concerns about this construction to your
attention.
1. Mr. Fahmy proposes to build a house of. approximately 7790 square feet with a
main level of 4985 square feet on this property of 0.92 Acres (39750 square
feet). The property is pie shaped and has a very steep grade., The main level is
so large in relationship to the property that the plans call for it to be angled so "
that it fits on the lot. We believe l atthe town guidelines for such a property
limit the size of the house on a property which is so steeply sloped. We would
like Mr. Fahmy to adhere to the town regulations.
2. Second, but most importantly, we are concerned about drainage from his house
especially during construction since his property is so much higher than ours. In,
addition, the entire property is sloped toward our house. Because the proposed
construction is so large, the cement apron for its 4 car garage is situated right
next to our property. From the angle on the plans, it appears that the drainage
from the driveway will flood into our driveway and the lower level of our
house. If the main level was smaller and the size of the house was in keeping
with town regulations, the house could be moved parallel to and closer to the
Exhibit L
street where the grade is much flatter. This would result in less grading and
therefore less flooding concerns.
3. Because the house is at an angle, the back of the house faces our house and
decks and will interferes with our privacy.
4. The angle of the house is also an issue since the way it is situated on the
property threatens 5 or so California Live Oaks in addition to the several that
have to be removed to build the house. If these trees were removed we would
have even more potential for erosion and drainage problems. Again; if the
house were smaller, parallel with the street and closer to the street these oaks
would not be threatened.
Our suggestions to Mr. Fahmy were as follows.
First, we asked him to make the main level of the house smaller since the house is
too large for the property and indicated that, he should adhere to the town
regulations for a property with a slope this steep. Although there is a 101000
square foot house on the other side of the proposed property which is at 471 Santa
Rosa Drive and we were in support of this house being built, at the time of
construction, the then owners owned broth the lots at 471 Santa Rosa'and 107
Colorado and they planned to leave the second lot undeveloped Most of the
homes on Colorado Court and the rest of the Alta Vista Neighborhood are between
4000 - 6000 square feet. Second, we asked Mr. Fahmy to make the house parallel
and closer to the street so that it does not interfere with our drainage, protects the
oaks in back and will give us both more privacy.
We support Mr. Fahmy's right to build on the property in which he`has invested.
However, we believe that he should conform to the town regulations.
Sincere y,
v
i Jack nd L' curie Goldstein
X109, olorado Court (Mailing Address: P.O. Box 321180)
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Cc: Aaron Feigin, President, Alta Vista Homeowner's Association
I
Colorado Court Home Owners and Approximate Square Footage
108 Colorado Court
- Andresen
- 5,100 sq. ft.
109 Colorado Court
- Goldstein
- 4900 sq. ft
111 Colorado Court
- Mushet
- 4500 sq. ft
112 Colorado Court
- Plasket
- 5,000 sq. ft
114 Colorado Court
- Thompson':
- 4000 sq. ft
Page 1 of 1
Vu Nguyen - 107 Colorado Ct
From: "Donna Wright (donwrigh)" <donwrigh@cisco.com>
To: <vnguyen@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 05/08/2006 9:57:23 PM
Subject: 107 Colorado Ct
CC: <Laurjack5@aol.com>, <jglembocki@aol.com>
Dear Mr. Vu-Bang Nguyen:
/AY
We have chosen to live in Los Gatos for over twenty years. We have great respect for the work of the Planning
Committee
and for their diligence in keeping Los Gatos a desirable place to live, while also listening to homeowners requests.
We trust that you will make the right decision on this building issue, continuing to keep Los Gatos green and
also assure that homes are built that add, not detract from the character of the neighborhood and landscape.
We trust that you will review the flooriarea ratio and make sure that as many trees as possible are left intact
and that the structure is situated on the lot with adequate space around it, in keeping with our neighborhood.
Phil and Donna Wright
119 Madera Ct.
Los Gatos
file://C:\Documents and Settings\vnguyen\Local Settings'Temp\GW}00002.HTM
Exhibit M
05/09/2006
ti
Date: May 4, 2006
For Agenda Of: May 10, 2006
Agenda Item: 4
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: The Director of Community Development
LOCATION: 107 Colorado Court
Architecture and Site Application S-06-022
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence on property
zoned HR-2'/2. APN 527-56-033.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Stewart and Colette Fahmy
FINDINGS: None
CONSIDERATIONS: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture
and Site applications.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within
ten days.
ENVIRONMENTAL It has been determined that the project could have significant impacts on
ASSESSMENT: the environment. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration will be
prepared prior to final consideration of the project.
EXHIBITS: A.
Location map (one page)
B.
Considerations for the review of A&S applications (three pages)
C.
Letter from Dawn & David Andersen (one page), received October
14, 2005
D.
Letter from Vernon & Sherian Plaskett (one page), received October
19, 2005
E.
Letter from Jack & Laurie Goldstein (one page), received March 28,
2006
F.
Letters from Jerry S. Glembocki (two pages each), received October
17, 2005 and April 11, 2006
G.
Letter from Robert & Judith Kuechler (one page), received April 11,
2006
H.
Letter from Janet Mushet (two pages), received April 18, 2006
1.
Project data sheet (one page)
J.
Applicant's letter (two pages), received April 20, 2006
K.
Development plans (7 sheets), received April 12, 2006
ATTACHMENT
The Planning Commission - Page 2
107 Colorado Court/5-06-22
May 10, 2006
A. BACKGROUND:
Site Description
The subject property is located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of Santa Rosa
Drive (see Exhibit A). The are a number of large oak trees located within the proposed building site
and the majority of the lot has slopes greater than 30%, making it extremely challenging to develop.
Although the property is 40,075 square feet, the allowable floor area is 4,300 square feet due to the
applicable slope reduction.
Previous Approval
In 1997, the Development Review Committee approved plans for a new 5,923 square foot house
with a 909 square foot garage and a swimming pool. However, that application expired in 1999 and
is no longer valid. The approval was made prior to the adoption of the new General Plan in 2000 and
prior to the adoption of the new Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines
Chronology of f Project
9/28/2005 Architecture and Site application filed (staff met with the applicant on
several occasions prior to submittal).
10/12/2005 Staff Technical Review meeting. Many concerns were raised and many
technical deficiencies were identified.
10/20/2005 Meeting between applicant, architect and staff (including Randy Tsuda,
Assistant Community Development Director).
3/13/2006 Applicant submitted preliminary plan revisions in response to technical
review comments and staff concerns.
4/4/2006 Meeting between applicant, architect and staff (including Bud Lortz,
Community Development Director). Applicant was informed that staff
could not support the proposed project.
4/12/2006 Revised plans submitted for referral to Planning Commission.
4/18/2006 Development Review Committee meeting.
Status of Project
Staff has advised the applicant on numerous occasions that the plans are in need of major revisions
to comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G). Staff typically tries
to work with an applicant to evolve a project to the point where it can be approved or approved with
conditions. While the applicant has reduced the overall house size from that of the initial submittal,
the project remains significantly noncompliant with the HDS&G. The applicant believes that the
project has merit, that it is consistent with other homes within the Alta Vista subdivision, and does
not wish to reduce the house size further.
The Planning Commission - Page 3
107 Colorado Court/S-06-22
May 10, 2006
Staff has forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that
direction can be provided to the applicant for a significant redesign of the project or the application
can be denied. The technical and peer reviews (includes arborist, architect, geotechnical and
environmental evaluations) have not been completed in the interest of saving the applicant time and
expense and saving staff and Town consultants from expending significant time to completely
analyze plans that are significantly noncompliant with the HDS&G. Recommended conditions of
approval have not been prepared for the same reason. If the Commission decides to remand the
project for significant redesign, the technical reviews and evaluations and conditions of approval will
be completed before the application is returned to the Commission for final action.
B. REMARKS:
Exhibit I provides general project data. The applicant has also submitted a letter of justification (see
Exhibit J). Staff has summarized the main issues relative to the proposed project for the
Commission's consideration and discussion as follows:
House Size
The proposal is for a 5,775 square foot house with an attached 1,230 square foot garage. The total
floor area is 6,605 square feet excluding 400 square feet of the garage. In addition, there are 1,875
square feet of covered terraces and porches. The total floor area exceeds the maximum allowable
FAR of 4,400 square feet (4,800 square feet including the 400 square foot garage exemption).
Most of the property consists of slopes in excess of 30% and a new home cannot be built within the
least restrictive development area (LRDA) of the site. However, Staff believes the encroachment
outside the LRDA should be minimized as much as possible and that the size of house is too large
for the site. The proposed project is located predominantly on slopes in excess of 30%, impacting
most of the mature oaks trees and requiring a significant amount of grading and retaining walls.
The Planning Commission - Page 4
107 Colorado Court/S-06-22
May 10, 2006
The following table compares the proposed residence with other homes on Colorado Court.
Address
house
garage
total sq. ft.
lot size
FAR
471
Santa Rosa Drive
9,305
822
10,127
46,174
0.22
108
Colorado Court
5,542
822
6,370
41,818
0.15
109
Colorado Court
4,578
1,020
5,598
45,302
0.12
111
Colorado Court
4,798
1,008
5,806
88,427
0.07
112
Colorado Court
5,239
780
6,019
42,253
0.14
114
Colorado Court
3,896
611
4,507
50,030
0.09
average
5,560
844
6,405
-
0.13
107
Colorado Court
5,775
1,230
7,005
40,075
0.17
The house at 471 Santa Rosa is not representative of the average home size within the Alta Vista
subdivision and does not meet current hillside requirements. At the time the house was approved,
both the Commission and Town Council indicated that it would not be supportive of a future project
that is similar in size, scale and massing to this home. Even with this house included the applicant's
proposal exceeds the neighborhood average for house and garage size and FAR.
As stated in the HDS&G, achieving the maximum floor area is not guaranteed due to individual site
constraints. The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than designing to the
FAR. The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square footage 'is not a goal.
Greater weight will be given to issues including but not limited to height, building mass and scale,
visual impacts, grading and compatibility.
Criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area (pages 29 and 30 of the HDS&G)
is as follows:
1. The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms.
2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors.
3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or an
accessory building will be minimized.
4. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met.
The Planning Commission - Page 5
107 Colorado Court/5-06-22
May 10, 2006
5. Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer methods. The
compliance margin must be at least 10.0.
6. The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV) installation.
7. A minimum of 25% of hardscape material is permeable (certain types of interlocking pavers,
grasscrete, pervious concrete, etc.).
8. A significant cellar element is included in the design, unless it conflicts with other standards.
9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
The project does not comply with items 2, 3, 4 and 8. The Commission should discuss these issues
and provide direction on the overall bulk and mass, the size of the proposed home and the overall
development area.
Building Height
The proposed house is 30 feet eight-inches at the highest point. This exceeds the 30 foot height limit
established by the Zoning Ordinance and would require approval of a variance. The maximum height
allowed by the HDS&G is 25 feet, and any increase in height would require approval of an exception.
Swimming Pool
The proposed pool is located on a slope that exceeds 30% which is prohibited by the HDS&G. The
HDS&G also states that due to topographic constraints not every lot will be able to accommodate a
pool. The applicant should eliminate the pool.
Grading
Cuts in excess of the HDS&G grading criteria are required to construct the proposed house, driveway
and pool. The standards allow a maximum cut of eight feet, excluding cellars within the house
footprint, and a four foot maximum cut in all other areas. A cut of 15-feet is proposed in the
northwest house corner and a high stem wall is proposed. The driveway requires a 14-foot fill and
fill depths of up to 10 feet are proposed around the rear deck (three feet is allowed by the HDS&G).
The Planning Commission - Page 6
107 Colorado Court/S-06-22
May 10, 2006
Estimated grading volumes total 2,126 cubic yards (596 cubic yards of cut and 1,530 cubic yards of
fill). The grading break down is shown in the following table:
Grading Volumes
Area
Cut
Fill
driveway
0
443
house
134
222
pool
238
0
landscaping
(224)
865
total
596
1,530
Retaining Walls
The table on the following page shows that retaining walls have been limited to less than five feet;
however there are numerous walls needed to support the proposed design and the total length of the
walls is significant. Generally when a large number of retaining walls are needed, the development
is not appropriate for the site.
Retaining Walls
number of walls
wall height range (ft.)
total liner feet
front yard
6
2%2-5'
115'
driveway/garage
7
2-5'
155'
pool area
6
5'
775'
Drainage
Roof rainwater leaders will be required to be discharged onto energy dissipaters that are designed to
spread out the water so it enters landscaped areas as sheet flow. Runoff from the site should not be
collected into a pipe system, concentrated and discharged down slope as shown. Provisions for
drainage behind the retaining walls will also be required.
The Planning Commission - Page 7
107 Colorado Court/5-06-22
May 10, 2006
Trees
There are 16 Coast Live Oaks on the site that are concentrated on the front half of the property.
Eleven of the oak trees are proposed to be removed, and two others will be severely impacted by
construction. Three of the oaks can potentially be saved under the proposed plan. The Consulting
Arborist has not yet evaluated the plans to evaluate the feasibility of maintaining any of the existing
trees.
Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines
The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS&G:
• The house and driveway have not been sited within the LRDA.
• The overall square footage exceeds the maximum allowed and justification is not sufficient to
grant an exception.
• The height limitation is being exceeded by five feet.
• Amount of development is extensive (building area is extremely limited by site constraints); the
site may not be able to support the proposed pool.
• Tree removals are significant.
• Total grading volume is significant and cut and fill criteria has been exceeded.
• Extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to construct the proposed project.
General Plan Conformance
The project may 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.P.8.8 Existing specimen trees shall be preserved and protected as a part of any development
proposal.
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. Siting of the house
must consider natural topography.
The Planning Commission - Page 8
107 Colorado Court/S-06-22
May 10, 2006
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
D. Following the natural topography
E. Preservation of natural trees, vegetation
C. RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission should deny this application because a complete redesign is required for
the project to comply with the HDS&G. However, the Commission may refer this application back
to staff with specific direction to the applicant for desired plan changes. 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:
• house size
• house height
• overall development area
• pool/outdoor area
• grading
• retaining walls
• tree removals
The Commission may identify additional issues that have not been raised by staff. If the application
is continued, staff recommends that a hearing date not be specified as the length of time to complete
the technical and peer reviews cannot be determined at this time. The applicant will be charged for
the cost of the additional public notice.
If the Commission decides to deny the application, findings for denial should be made. The
Commission's input on the key issues would be helpful to the Council in the event an appeal is filed.
r-,1
The Planning Commission - Page 9
107 Colorado Court/5-06-22
May 10, 2006
yt1(,ff11x1 11~ j inf.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
Approved by: ~
Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development
BNL:SD:mdc
/V-1 ~ ~ 41e~ ~ ~
~I-j 00
Vu-Bang Nguyen, Assistant Planner
cc: Stewart & Colette Fahmy, 331 Santa Rosa Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Cherine Bassal Planning & Design, 4912 Bradford Place, Rocklin, CA 95765
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\PC\REPORTS\colorado 107\Colorado 107-A&S.wpd
107 Colorado Ct.
cT
/ Exhibit A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 10, 2006
REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
107 Colorado Court
Architecture and Site Application S-06-022
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence on property zoned HR-21/2. APN
527-56-033.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Stewart and Colette Fahmy
CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 29.20.150. Considerations in review of applications.
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the
following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with
respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits,
drives, and walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic
congestion; the location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading
facilities; the circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development, and the
surfacing, lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
a. Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical
intersections shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following
matters:
1. The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to
accommodate existing traffic;
2. Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet
occupied; and
3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed
project one (1) year after occupancy.
b. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic
roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1) of the following
determinations:
1. The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing
the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2. The project will impact a roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) causing
the roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available
capacities.
Exhibit B
107 Colorado Court
Architecture and Site Application S-06-22
Page 2 of 3
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.l. may
proceed. Any project receiving Town determination subsection
(1)b.2. must be modified or denied if the deciding body determines
that the impact is unacceptable. In determining the acceptability of a
traffic impact, the deciding body shall consider if the project's
benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined
by specific sections from the general plan and any applicable specific
plan.
(2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size,
height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in
relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with
adjacent development. Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to
distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos
Boulevard.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls,
fences, hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or
to conceal storage areas, utility installations, parking lots or unsightly development;
the planting of ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the
unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use of planter boxes
with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere to the central business district.
Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director of Parks, Forestry and
Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special criteria, including climatic
conditions, maintenance, year-round versus seasonal color change (blossom, summer
foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and
open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of
the neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent
development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g.
downtown, Los Gatos Boulevard, etc.). Buildings should maximize preservation of
solar access. In the downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz
Avenue with existing and new parking facilities shall be encouraged, and shall
include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems.
(5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the
adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
0
107 Colorado Court
Architecture and Site Application S-06-22
Page 3 of-3
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and
structures. The effect ofthe height, width, shape and exterior construction and design
of buildings and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character
of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the
purposes of architecture and site approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be
encouraged in scale, massing, materials, color, texture, reflectivity, openings and
other details.
(7) Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and
building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of
the Town. Street furniture and equipment, such as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire
hydrants, street signs, telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters,
drinking fountains, planters, kiosks, flag poles and other elements of the street
environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the
Town image.
(8) Considerations relating.to access for physically disabled persons. The adequacy of
the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically
disabled persons. Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total
valuation of alterations, structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value
established by resolution of the Town Council, shall require the building to be
modified to meet the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California
Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility. In addition to retail, personal
services and health care services are not allowable uses on non-accessible floors in
new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail, health care, or personal
service on a non-accessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify
the building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those
requirements. This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the
enactment of this chapter. All new residential developments shall comply with the
Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons
established by resolution.
(9) Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility.
A hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500) feet to
any residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public
or private school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18). An
application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report, which may
be focused through the initial study process.
N:\DEV\FINDINQSTolorado 107-pd
Z7, 11
- . i
t . 12, o
1
Exhibit C
RECEIVED
Vernon and Sherian Plaskett 0 C T 1
112 Colorado Court 9 2005
Los Gatos, CA 95032 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos, California.
110 E. Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Planning Commission,
This letter is in strong opposition to the proposed construction of a 7,790 square foot
house at 107 Colorado Court, across the street from my home at 112 Colorado Court.
We understand that the property owner, Mr. Fahmy, has stated that there are several other
houses on this street that are 7,000 square feet. This is not true. Our house was
originally planned to be 5,700 square feet, but the town rejected the plans as too large.
We revised our design and its final size was 5,091 square feet.
We trust the town will be consistent in its planning and not grant a special favor to Mr.
Fahmy.
Sincerely,
Pmn and Sherian Plaskett
Exhibit D
JACK and LAURIE GOLDSTEIN
109 Colorado Court (Mailing Address::P.O. Boa 321180)
Los Gatos, California 95032
Planning Commission E ~,cP r4 f ey
Town of Los Gatos, California
110 E. Main Street -P.O. Box 949_4R[juF
Los Gatos, CA 95031 Or GRTGS
March25, 2006 p { Cl`vlSiO(
Re: Proposed Construction at 107 Colorado Court
Dear Planning Commission,
We are writing for the second time with regard to the proposed construction at 107
Colorado Court (which is next to our property at 109 Colorado Court) by Mr. Stewart
Faluny of 3;31 Santa Rosa Drive, Los Gatos. Mr. Fahmy recently submitted revised plans
to construct a residence on this property and we have reviewed the plans that were
submitted to the Planning Commission.
In this regard, we believe that the proposed house is still too large for the size andslope
of the property. In fact, we believe that it is still about 1000 square feet larger than the
allowable size that would be in adherence with Los Gatos town regulations. We would'
like the town to require Mr. Fahmy to adhere to the regulations of the town.
In addition, the proposed house location is still at an angle to the street. The result is that
the rear of Mr. Fahmy's proposed house and proposed pool, etc. face directly to our
house, thereby infringing on our privacy. We would like Mr. Fahmy to turn the house so
that if is parallel to the street so that the side of his house faces the side of our house.
This would insure privacy for both of us.
Moreover,,the proposed location of the house and pool are such that the construction will
require the'removal of a cluster of 5 or more California Oaks behind the rear of the louse.
Ifthe house were situated parallel to the road and moved as close to the street as
allowable then the Oaks in question would be spared.
Lastly, we are still concerned about water run off from the proposed driveway towards
the lower level of our house and that the removal of the Oaks in question will also cause
erosion and drainage problems for us. If the house were smaller and in keeping with the
size allowable by the town the construction could be designed so that it eliriminates.the
problems discussed above.
We would appreciate' it if the town takes these issues into consideration when reviewing
Mr. Fahmy.'s proposed plans.
incere
Ja an Laurie Goldstein
1 9 Colorado Court
Exhibit E
00010r.77 IT- M
Jerry S. Glembocki
471 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
October 17, 2005
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos, California
110 E. Main Street -1D. O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
r%ECEIVED
OCT 24 200)
TOWN OF LOS GA.TOS
PLANNING DIVIS101`k
I am writing regarding the proposed construction at 107 Colorado Court (next door
to my own house at 471 Santa Rosa Drive) by Mr. Stewart Fahmy of 331 Santa
Rosa Drive, Los Gatos. It is our understanding that Mr. Fahmy recently submitted
plans to construct a residence on this property. Approximately two months ago,
Mr. Fahmy discussed his construction plans with members of our local
homeowners association who invited other interested parties to attend. At that time,
he provided us with his proposed plans.
We reviewed the plans and spent some significant time on the lot measuring out
the building height and footprint to get a clear idea of the proposed house's impact
on our view and privacy. We made several attempts to contact Mr. Fahmy with no
response whatsoever. We felt it important to bring our concerns about this
construction to your attention.
1. Mr. Fahmy proposes to build a house of approximately 7360 square feet with a
main level of 5160 square feet on this property of 0.92 Acres (39750 square
feet). The property is pie shaped and has a very steep grade. The main level is
so large in relationship to the property that the plans call for it to be angled so
that it fits on the lot. We believe that the town rules for such a property limit
the size of the main level on such a steep slope. We would like Mr. Fahmy to
adhere to the town regulations.
2. Our house sits along the very front of our lot. The way the proposed house sits
(with very high walls and set very far back into the lot), we will literally be
looking directly down at it from any vantage point in our backyard. Our newly
finished decking and infinity pool now looks out upon a beautiful, tree-filled
setting. With the proposed house, half of that view will be marred by the high
walls the proposed house. Many windows face directly into our yard. Because
of the way the house is positioned, they will look directly into our backyard.
Exhibit F
i
~~a
3. The angle of the house is also an issue since the way it is situated on the
property threatens an additional 5 or so California Live Oaks added to the
several that have to be removed to build the house. These California Live Oaks
are beautiful and add a significant amount of privacy between our neighbors
and us.
We made three suggestions to Mr. Fahmy:
First, we and our neighbors on the other side asked him to make the main level of
the house smaller since the house seemed too large for the property and indicated
that he should adhere to the town regulations for a property with a slope this steep.
Although our house is 10,000 square feet, the entire neighborhood was in support
of the previous owner building the house, since it does not obstruct any views or
infringe on privacy. Most of the homes on Colorado Court and the rest of the Alta
Vista Neighborhood are between 4000 - 6000 square feet. Second, we asked Mr.
Fahmy to make the house parallel to the street so that the back does not face our
neighbor's house but would face the ravine behind his property. If the main level
were smaller in size it would fit this way. Third, if it were turned parallel with the
street the back would be less likely to infringe on the 5 or so oaks that currently sit
on this portion of the property.
We support Mr. Fahmy's right to build on the property in which he has invested.
However, we believe that he should, at least, conform to the town regulations even
if he does not wish to adhere to suggestions of his neighbors-to-be. It is our
understanding that Mr. Fahmy is a professional real estate developer and deals with
matters of real estate and variances to the regulations as a matter of course. We
would appreciate it if you would also take into consideration the suggestions of the
other residents of this area who may not be as adept in dealing with these matters.
Sincerely,
Jerry 6lembocki
471 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Cc: Aaron Feigin, President, Alta Vista Homeowners
April 8, 2006
Jerry S. Glembocki
471 Santa Rosa Drive
Los Gatos, California 95032
Community Development Department
T own of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
RECEIVED
APR 1 1 2006
P.O. BOX 949 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Los Gatos, California 95031 PLANNING ~ivisioN
Regarding: # 107 Colorado Court, Project Proposal by Mr. Stewart Fahmey
I met with Mr. Vu-Bang Nguyen yesterday to review the above referenced
project plans. The property next to the project site is my home.
In reviewing the plans, there are several areas where the project oversteps
town code and guidelines. I purchased my home in Los Gatos about 18
months ago. Part of my decision was based on understanding the allowable
scope and details of a house that could be built next door. My concerns
were related to appearance, size, height and disruption to the hillside. I felt
that the Los Gatos Town code and guidelines adequately addressed my
concerns. I strongly urge the Development Department and Town Council
to hold the developer, Mr. Fahmey accountable to meeting all requirements
stipulated in the code and guidelines.
My meeting with Mr. Nguyen was very helpful in understanding the details
of the project and how they relate to my concerns. Outlined below are
specific issues that I'm concerned about:
1. Maximum Height - The proposed structure exceeds both the town
guideline for hillside development of 25 feet, and the town code of 30
feet maximum. A structure exceeding 25 feet in height will infringe
of views from neighbor's homes and degrade neighborhood
appearance.
2. Maximum Size & Area - The proposed size exceeds the guideline
stipulated by the development department by over 2000 square feet.
The town guideline for size is 4400 sq. ft. including garage, and the
proposal by Mr. Fahmey calls for over 6600 sq. ft. with garage. I
understand that there are larger homes in the neighborhood, but the lot
next door is unique in that it has a steep slope and limited frontage. A
house exceeding the town guideline for this lot will create a crowded
appearance in the neighborhood, require excessive grading and
disruption to the hillside and will infringe on the privacy of neighbors.
I urge the development department to strictly limit the size of this
project to conform with town guidelines for this site.
3. Excessive Grading & Disruption - The proposed plan calls for
construction that will span across a fairy steep slope. I'm very
concerned about the amount of grading that will be required for
building the house, landscaping and pool. With the steep slope, I'm
concerned about erosion and drainage issues.
4. Removal of Oak Trees - The plan calls for removal of a significant
number of California Live Oak trees that should be minimized.
Removing this many trees will alter the appearance of the hillside and
neighborhood in a negative way and potentially create drainage and
soil stability issues..
In conclusion, I'm asking the Community Development Department to
strictly require that this project conform to all town code and guidelines.
Thank You,
Jerry S. Glembocki
~ V 7
April 7, 2006
Vu Fang Nguyen, Asst. Planner
Community Development Department
110 F. Main Street
P. O. Box 949
Los Gatos, Ca. 95031
Re: Property located at 107 Colorado Ct., Los Gatos
Dear 'Mr, Nyguyen:
ECEIVE
APR 1 1 2006
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
It has come to our attention that Mr Stewart Fahmy of 331 Santa Rosa Dr.,
Los Gatos, has purchased the lot at 107 Colorado Ct., Los Gatos with the
intent of building a very large house and removing a number of oak trees on
the property.
We are very concerned that this house will be so oversized for that piece of
property on that slope that it will impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood
and require the removal of many oak trees which affects us all as neighbors.
There is no issue with his building a house on that lot but we feel he should
comply with the city rules and regulations as to appropriate size and remove
as few oak trees as possible just as the rest of us have had to do. A 4500 sq.
ft. house in that location should be the maximum size and the plans reworked
to remove as few oaks as possible.
We strongly! urge the City to hold Mr Fahmy accountable to City regulations
for his building project.
Thank you for taking this matter under consideration.
Robert P & Judith Kuechler
451 Santa Rosa Dr
Los Gatos, Ca, 95032
Exhibit G
April 15, 2006
Mr. Vu-Bang Nguyen
Community Development
Town of Los Gatos
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RECEIVED
APR 18 20011
(C)V'JN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Ref: Stewart Fahmy application for residential construction - 107 Colorado Court
Dear Mr. Nguyen:
We reside at 111 Colorado Court and would like, once again, to register our concerns
regarding the proposed dwelling on Lot 7 (107 Colorado Court).
We examined the revised preliminary building plans in the Community Development
offices last week and wish to make the following comments, in addition to those in our
October 7, 2005, letter.
From our study of the 2004 Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines, there are many
reasons why Planning should not approve this building application.
Under the terms of the HDSG, a development application is required to include a
constraints analysis [identifying] the most appropriate area or areas on a lot for locating
buildings given the existing constraints of the lot. This development may predate that
requirement. But due to the steep slope and dense old oak forestation of this particular
lot, we feel that it should be done for this particular site, if it has not as yet.
One of the primary reasons for having hillside guidelines is "preservation of the
irreplaceable natural environment of the mountains." We appreciate the fact that Los
Gatos has wisely developed such guidelines. We ask that you not approve an application
that flies in the face of the primary goals of the guidelines.
According to the guidelines, buildings are to be sited in a manner that "minimizes the
need for grading and preserves the natural features" of the site. This house design is so
wide it has to be positioned at an angle to the street. It appears to be so high in the back
that it takes a series of retaining walls to bring the pool area up to the back of the
house ...a total of 16.25 feet in height, in fact. In doing site planning, the HDSG states,
"the cut and fill criteria are intended to ensure that new construction retains the existing
landform of the site and follows the natural contours. This house design does not. It more
specifically states, "retaining walls shall not be used to create large, flat yard areas." This
design does just that. Further, swimming pools ...are prohibited on slopes greater that
30%." "Avoid patios formed by retaining walls that make buildings appear more
massive" and "step the building foundation with the natural slope." Having walked the
site, we don't believe this building plan complies with these guidelines.
Exhibit H
This application, although revised downward in square feet, still exceeds the guideline for
maximum allowable gross floor area for a lot with serious constraints. The footprint of
4345 sq. ft. is still much too large for the complexities of this lot, and considerably larger
that the footprints of other Colorado Court homes. It does not comply with the principal of
stepping a design down the hill; instead, it requires the removal of many significant old
oaks. These oaks cannot be replaced. Cultivated oaks bear no resemblance to old growth
oaks. When we built our home, we had to remove one scrubby 8" oak and replace it with
eight nursery oaks. While 15 years later they are healthy, they will never resemble oaks
that grow naturally on the hillsides. The plan specifies, "there will be no significant
impacts on protected trees." Many irreplaceable trees will certainly be impacted if the
planning commission allows this house to be built.
One of the principle features of the HDSG discussion regarding architectural design is that
it be neighbor friendly. "Protecting the privacy of neighboring homes is a high priority in
the siting and design of a new house.... Design standards should be followed to the
greatest extent feasible to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors." This house is not
"neighbor friendly." There is "a significant visual impact to neighboring properties."
The HDSG talks about "viewing platforms." While these are mostly in regard to views from
the valley floor, this principle should also apply to the "viewing platforms" of the
surrounding neighbors. Their green belt will disappear. This is contrary to hillside
development guidelines.
We urge Planning to firmly uphold the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines and deny
approval of this application.
We appreciate the courteous assistance that the Community Development Department
gives when issues such as this arise. Thank you for your consideration of the above..
Respectfully,
ay Mushet
Janet Mushet
111 Colorado Court
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-356-1728
CC: Bud Lortz
MININOMM,
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DATA
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
PROPOSED PROJECT
REQUIRED/
PERMITTED
Zoning district
HR-2'/s
same
-
Land use
vacant
single family residence
-
Lot size (sq. ft.)
• square feet
40,075
same
40,000 sq. ft. minimum
• acres
.92
same
.92 acre
Exterior materials:
• siding
-
Stucco finish & Stone
Veneer
-
• trim
-
Painted Pre-cast Concrete
& Foam Trims
-
• windows
-
Vinyl Double Pane
-
• roofing
-
Mission Style Roof Tiles
-
Building floor area:
• main level
-
41345
-
• lower level
-
1,430
-
• TOTAL house size
-
5,775
4,400 sq. ft. maximum
• garage
-
1,230 (830)
400 sq. ft. exemption
• TOTAL floor area
7,005
4,800 sq. ft. maximum
Setbacks (ft.):
• front
-
31'
30 feet minimum
• rear
-
69'
25 feet minimum
• side
-
20'
20 feet minimum
• side
-
45'
20 feet minimum
Maximum height (ft.)*
-
30'
25 feet maximum*
Building coverage
-
16%
no maximum
Parking
• covered
-
4
four spaces minimum
• uncovered
-
4+
in addition to garage
Tree Removals
-
11-13
canopy replacement
*maximum height may be reduced to 18 feet for highly visible locations or ridgeline lots
N:\D E V\S UZANN E\PC\REPORTS\colorado 107\Colorado 107data.wpd
Exhibit I
April 18, 2006
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos CA 95032
RE: 107 Colorado Court, Los Gatos
Dear Madam or Sir:
I am submitting this letter in support of my application for the above-referenced property.
My architect Cherine Bassal and I have worked closely with Community Development
Department staff over the years on an acceptable design. I believe we have, in good faith,
submitted a design consistent with the needs and requirements of the Town.
My property on 107 Colorado Court falls within the Alta Tiera neighborhood of Los Gatos. We
understand that the houses in the area average over 6,000 square feet. In light of the concerns of
staff, we have already agreed to change our original plan of a 7,390 square foot home, to a
design reflecting a 5,775 square foot home with a 830 square foot garage. This is squarely
within the norm for Alta Tiera neighborhood homes.
You will note that the home on one of our neighboring properties is well over 11,000 square feet,
while the other is approximately 6,000 square feet. It would be completely incongruous to
require that we further reduce our square footage. First, this would make our property wholly
inconsistent not only with the two adjoining homes, but also with the rest of the neighborhood.
Moreover, such a reduction would also result in the diminution of value of the other
neighborhood properties.
We understand that 107 Colorado Court is one of the remaining two unbuilt lots in the entire
Alta Tiera neighborhood. Unlike the application for the other unbuilt lot, which was recently
submitted and rejected, our application is consistent with the neighborhood. Our proposed
design falls squarely within the "Exceptions to maximum floor area" set forth in pp. 29-30 of the
Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, including but not limited to the
following:
1. The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms
2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement
corridors.
3. Any grading necessary will be minimized.
4. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met.
Exhibit J
5. Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency shall be accomplished using computer methods with
a margin of at least 10.0.
6. House will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV) installation.
7.25% of hardscape material shall be permeable. Hardscape / Landscape plan shall be presented
for review.
8. Due to the steep slope of the site, a cellar element could not be incorporated in the design
without having to push-down most of the house in the hill below street level.
9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
My architect Mr. Bassal can address with greater specificity any questions you may have
regarding the specifics of the design and why it falls within the prescribed exceptions.
We request your approval of the current plans submitted to build a home on 107 Colorado Court,
based on the above. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 666-0000, or Mr. Bassal at (916)
435-0605 should you have any questions on the above.
Very truly yours,
Stewart S. Fahmy
PLEASE NOTE:
Attachment 4: Exhibit K
is available for review in the Clerks Department