Loading...
Item 2 - CDAC 6-10-20 Minutes 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 08/12/2020 ITEM NO: 2 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 10, 2020 The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting via teleconference on June 10, 2020, at 4:30 p.m. This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and was conducted via Zoom. All committee members and staff participated from remote locations and all voting was conducted via roll call vote. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:30 PM ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mary Badame, Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett, Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen, Council Member Rob Rennie, and Council Member Marico Sayoc Absent: None. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) - None. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 15860-15894 Winchester Boulevard Conceptual Development Application CD-20-002 Requesting preliminary review for construction of an assisted living and memory care facility; or a multi-family dwelling in a mixed-use project on property zoned O. APNs: 529-11-13, 38, 39, and 40. Property Owner/Applicant: Green Valley Corp. d.b.a Swenson Builders Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. PAGE 2 OF 3 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2020 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Scanned Rpts\2020\08-12-20\6-10-20 Mins - DRAFT.docx Questions from committee members of Staff: • Is this site a proposed Opportunity Area in the current General Plan update? A: No, it is not an Opportunity Area in the Preferred Land Use Alternative recently adopted by the Town Council. • The car lifts would not count towards required parking for the units, is that correct? A: Correct. A Variance would need to be requested. • If 100 units were permitted, how many affordable units would be provided? A: 100 units would provide 20 BMP units. However, at a density of 20 units per acre, the maximum allowable number of units for the site is 26. • Memory care units do not count towards housing units or density, correct? A: Correct. Opened Public Comment. The applicant presented two concepts: Concept A for a memory care facility, or a less developed Concept B for a multi-family dwelling with 100 units in a mixed-use building. Dylan Parker - Commented that both proposals would be more impactful than the approved project for the site. The bulk and mass do not integrate well into the one- and two-story community. Critical data is missing, as are recommendations made at the community meeting in March. He asks that the Committee reject the proposals and encourage submittal of a project that conforms with Town policies and reflects community desires. Georgina Van Horn - She lives in a townhouse in the existing complex adjacent to the property, with a narrow driveway and landscape strip as separation. Privacy is very important. The townhouse complex is small, so style and design, as well as size and height need to be addressed. The project needs to fit into the neighborhood with trees and a nearby elementary school. Closed Public Comment. Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following questions and comments: • Concerns about the three-story height, and the straight wall on Winchester Boulevard. The massing could be shifted to the rear, away from the frontage and the townhouse complex. • Concerns about compatibility and privacy issues with the residential neighbors. PAGE 3 OF 3 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2020 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Scanned Rpts\2020\08-12-20\6-10-20 Mins - DRAFT.docx • 100 units would be a lot if the area is not designated an Opportunity Area in the General Plan. • Could be an issue with the view down the Shelburne side of the project with a tall building. • Several Committee members stated a preference for Concept A. • Architectural style would not be as important as functionality and saving trees. • Concerns about the coverage. • There is a senior housing shortage in Town. Memory care facility beds are not housing units and would not be subject to density standards. • The senior facility would also rely more on shuttles than cars, making Concept A less impactful from a traffic perspective than Concept B. • The senior facility approved on Blossom Hill Road will not be seen from the street, so that project presents less of a challenge for bulk and mass than this project. Work with the neighbors to address massing and privacy. • Mediterranean style architecture is soft and conducive to compatibility with the Town. OTHER BUSINESS - None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned by 5:30 p.m. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the June 10, 2020 meeting as approved by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. /s/Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager This Page Intentionally Left Blank