Loading...
27 Staff Report - North Forty Specific PlanMEETING DATE: 9/8/98 ITEM NO. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: September 2, 1998 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: CONSIDER PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF TOWN COUNCIL'S POLICY REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTH FORTY AREA PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: Consider Planning Commission request to clarify Town Council's policy regarding development in the North Forty area prior to the adoption of the North Forty Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: At the August 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting a project (DEV-98-002, 15089 Los Gatos Boulevard, a zone change application for a planned development) was heard by the Commission. With much of the discussion revolving around the future development of the area, the Commission moved to continue the application to the October 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to receive guidance from the Town Council. DISCUSSION The development of the "North Forty" area has been a topic of discussion for many years, however, the application listed above is the first major development application proposed for the area. In anticipation of applications for development, the Town has hired a consultant (RBF) to study the"North Forty" and develop a North Forty Specific Plan. The study is in process and the draft plan is anticipated to be completed in February of 1999. The Planning Commission is requesting guidance from the Town Council whether it should act on applications in the "North Forty" while the specific Plan is being prepared. The General Plan Committee recommended that a Specific Plan be prepared because it did not want piece meal development to thwart the Town's desire to have development occur in a cohesive well planned manner. If it is Council's desire that the Planning Commission withhold action on all applications, including rezonings, pending completion of the specific plan, then an Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance should be enacted. An Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance would prohibit any uses which may be in conflict with the contemplated Specific Plan until it is completed. An urgency measure requires a four -fifths vote of the Council as well as specific legislative findings. It may be difficult to make these findings. The Government Code reads: "(c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare." (Continued on Page 2) PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN PLANNING DIRECTOR 01—� Reviewed by: liV, Attorneyy Finance Revised: 9/2/98 8:48 am Reformatted: 10/23/95 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH FORTY AREA DEVELOPMENT POLICY September 3, 1998 If an Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance were adopted, it would be in effect for 45 days from its date of adoption. After 45 days, the legislative body can vote for an extension of 10 months and 15 days to extend it to a full year. The extension would again require a four -fifths vote for adoption. Only two extensions may be adopted. The Urgency Ordinance would put a hold on all development proposals in the "North Forty", excluding zone changes. The "Route 85 and Vasona Light Rail Element" of the General Plan lists as a guiding principle that "Major development projects shall be processed as Planned Developments." Planned Developments are zone changes, but a special category of zoning changes. Because planned developments are very specific as to uses and actual design of the site and buildings, they could be interpreted to be an "entitlement" as stated in the Government Code, and would therefore be governed by the Urgency Ordinance. If the Council does not want to adopt an urgency ordinance, then each application must be considered on its own merits. For zone change applications, the Town would consider each on its own merits and have complete discretion to approve or deny each application. No findings are required to deny a zone change, however, numerous findings are required to approve a zone change. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes of August 12, 1998. 2. Urgency Interim Ordinance, Gov. Code Sec. 65858 3. Letter from Bill Hirschman, received September 3, 1998. Distribution: Bill Hirschman, 1540 Parkmoor Ave., Suite D, San Jose, CA 95128 Planning Commission LEB:RB:sm N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\NOFORTY.REP i,os ("tos Planning Commission August 12, 1998 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS LOS GATOS BOULEVARD, 15089/DEV-98-002/ND-98-0003. (00.04) Requesting approval of a Planned Development Application to change the zone from R-1:8, CH, RM:5- 12 to CH PD to construct two commercial buildings. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration is recommended. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Bill Hirschman. (project formally submitted at 16321 Los Gatos Boulevard). The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter. Bill Hirschman, 1540 Parkmore Way, San Jose, gave an overview of the site, the location and relationship to other properties in the area and, how they had acquired the subject property. Mr. Hirschman explained that they had waited until the design standards for Los Gatos Blvd had been adopted before presenting the project and had worked with the sub -committee that was studying the North 40 area. He submitted letters from adjacent neighbors and presented detailed slides which showed 1) location of the property on Los Gatos Blvd; 2) neighboring buildings on Bennet Way and across the street; 3) the private road Bennet Way, which is part of the subject property, an easement, and not a dedicated right-of-way; 4) the height of building across the street which range between 29 feet and 31 feet; 5) the significant elevation differences that exist in the area which include an elevation change between 10 feet and 12 feet on the subject property; 6) the incorporation of the same type of design as exists in the area which is two stories in front and three stories on the back elevation. Mr. Hirschman stated that they had been challenged to be the "poster child" for development in this area and they have tried to stay very close to the Los Gatos Boulevard design criteria. He explained that the change in elevations had dictated the location of the proposed building and they felt it was inappropriate to bring the buildings closer to the street. Mr. Hirschman stated their proposal was for a retail/office use; explained the parking configuration; and, the flexibility they were trying to provide. He explained that parking in the rear, downhill, would not be conducive to retail shopping and they were providing a minimum amount of parking at the front of the buildings to ensure some kind of easy access for retail tenants. Mr. Hirschman explained that 66% of the parking would be behind the building or underneath the building on the south. He stated that they are proposing a road entrance rather than a driveway cut at Bennet Way and explained the design differences between their project and the Boulevard Plan. Mr. Hirschman explained that they anticipate the underground parking, or "tucked under" parking as described in the Boulevard Plan, being used by employees. He showed how the buildings were structured to be pleasing rather than flat surfaces and stated that the height of the proposed buildings would be between 20-29 feet on Los Gatos Boulevard with a peak of 35 feet on the back side of the north building. Mr. Hirschman referred to the orange netting they have put in place and stated that this clearly shows the height of the buildings which do not exceed the height of the existing trees in the area. He explained that setting the buildings back 75 feet removes the mass from the street and the back of the buildings will include lattices and windows to prevent blank walls. Mr. Hirschman stated that they have incorporated the design elements of the Boulevard Plan and gave detailed examples. He presented a photograph which showed that the project does not impact the view corridor because it is back 75 feet from the street. Mr. Hirschman explained the drainage and sewer access for the project and stated that the drainage would be directed toward the storm drain system on Los Gatos Blvd. and the drainage for the entire area would be improved because it now flows down Bennet Way. He stated that the building lot coverage for the site would be 13,809 square feet which is a net increase of 3,800 square feet from what currently exists. He stated that the neighbors and Mr. Yuki have no objections to the proposal and letters have been submitted regarding this. Mr. Hirschman reviewed the access points to the Yuki property, explained that he did not believe that Bennet Way would ever be a primary access to the Yuki property and, stated that all of the studies done in this area have concluded that commercial use is appropriate for the property and they have been careful to orient their parking for future development of the remaining parcels. He stated that the zone change is what the General Plan suggests. Mr. Hirschman summarized by reiterating that they have gone to a great deal of effort to incorporate the Boulevard Plan into their design plans, keep the residential character, and improve a blighted area. Mr. Hirschman feels the project will help to "jump start" other improvements in the area. 11 ATTACHMENT 1 Lc _ Gatos Plana ig Commission August 12, 1998 Chair Decker stated that she was having a difficult time because the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan is not yet defined and she feels it is premature to approve an application. Ms. Decker explained that CDAC has stated that if an application is filed for this area, the matter may be tabled until the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan is more fully defined. Ms. Decker is concerned that there is no determination as to where the streets are going to be and explained that this area needs to be a "gateway" to Los Gatos. Commissioner Pacheco referred to the Staff report and quoted that "it has been stated by the Town Council that no zone changes shall be approved until the North 40 specific plan has been completed". Mr. Pacheco feels this is very clear direction. Commissioner Bruno questioned if this statement was policy. Mr. Korb stated that the Council has taken no action to institute a moratorium on approving permits, zone changes, or any other development application in the North 40 area. Mr. Korb explained that the Commission has the normal discretion and is not required to refrain from taking action on this application. Commissioner Pirzynski stated that the sub -committee of the General Plan Committee had discussed this issue. Mr. Pirzynski explained that there is no specific plan proposed and there are parcels that are surfacing for future development. He stated that at the General Plan Committee meeting this evening, the Committee unanimously forwarded to the Planning Commission a request to go forward with a specific plan and to fast track this process. Mr. Pirzynski explained that there is language already in place which specifies the parameters for development in the area, prior to a specific plan being adopted, and this allows for evaluation of proposals. Mr. Pirzynski stated that the specific plan will be evaluated in a very short period of time. Scott Jaunich, 60 S. Market San Jose, Attomey for Mr. Hirschman stated that he had attended the General Plan Committee meeting this evening and clarified that the plan was to proceed "post haste" but that all uses were to be consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Pirzynski concurred and said it was also to be consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan. Commissioner Nachison questioned the required findings. Mr. Bowman explained that the application was a Planned Development and was more than just a zone change. Therefore the findings listed covered the specific areas set by the PD. Commissioner Nachison referred to Exhibit E and questioned what Mr. Hirschman considers to be a community benefit, for the in -fill policy, which are not related to the mitigation measures required for the project. Mr. Hirschman stated that tax revenue would be generated, road improvements would be made, the infra structure would be extended, and traffic improvements would be made. He stated that road and sewer improvements would not be mitigation measures. Commissioner Bruno stated that he is also concerned about the community benefit which usually includes things like linear parks, open space or lighting. Mr. Hirschman explained that the application for a PD was due to the Hwy 85- Vasona Light Rail element to the General Plan He explained that other improvements would include the landscaping and the "orchard concept" they are proposing. Mr. Hirschman stated that they have no room to provide a park but they were orienting the buildings so that if that concept came into play during the development of the rest of the area, it would be easy to provide parking some place else and consider a park. Dale Thompson, 16225 Camino Del Sol, stated that he has mixed feels about the project. He is concerned about traffic and doesn't know if he likes the idea of retail shops in the area. Mr. Thompson stated he was 12 Los Gatos Planning Commission August 12, 1998 pleased with the architecture. However, he does not want his quality of life to be affected and would like to see something that is not intrusive and will co -habitat with residential neighborhoods. Mr. Thompson referred to the medical buildings in the area and stated that they were good neighbors he is concerned about late night businesses being able to develop in the area, such as bars like Ottos. Mr. Thompson explained that professional and semi-professional buildings exist there now and, if this is expanded to retail or other high use, he would like to see a traffic study done for the entire area. Commissioner Morgan questioned the restrictions on late night businesses. Mr. Bowman explained that any business that operates past 11:00 p.m. or has a 24 hour operation must have a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that normal retail, which had regular hours, would not require a CUP. Scott Jaunich, Attorney for Mr. Hirschman explained that they have tried to establish a "gateway" project for this area as directed to do so. Mr. Jaunich stated that they have gone point -by -point through all of the design elements and he believes the project warrants the zone change and the PD designation requested. He requested that this matter not be continued and stated that they would like to take the concern, regarding a moratorium, direct to the Council if they are looking at a denial tonight. There was no one else in the audience to speak to this matter. Chair Decker closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Morgan questioned the direction from Council regarding the approval of zone changes prior to a specific plan being developed and the options available to the Commission. Mr. Bowman explained that the Commission either has to deny, recommend approval, or continue to a date certain. Mr. Bowman reiterated that the Council has never taken formal action, in the form of a Resolution or Ordinance, regarding this matter. Therefore the Council may look to the Commissions reasoning. Commissioner Nachison questioned the intention of the General Plan Committee. Commissioner Pirzynski explained that the Mayor made the motion regarding this matter and the Town Council will be aware that the General Plan Committee is moving forward in this area. Chair Decker stated that if the Commission considers this an exemplary PD project, then the zone change should be recommended. However, if this is a project that is premature for re zoning then the project needs to be denied. Ms. Decker stated that the third option is to continue the matter and ask for written direction from the Town Council. Ms. Decker feels the project is premature. Commissioner Bruno feels the applicant is on the general right track but needs to articulate a "community benefit". Mr. Bruno feels it is premature because he can not articulate a sufficient community benefit which has been required for other Planned Developments. Chair Decker explained that some of the problem with identifying community benefit stems from the fact that there is nothing in the area now and, there is no knowledge as to the impact development is going to have in the area. Commissioner Bruno explained that there are certain site improvements that could be made such as lighting. Commissioner Pacheco feels the application is premature and there is a planning issue at stake. Mr. Pacheco referred to the Charrette and stated that the focus had been retail and pedestrian oriented activities with high 13 Los .tos Planning Commission August 12, 1998 density housing behind. Mr. Pacheco feels this application will encourage further strip zoning that is vehicle oriented. Mr. Pacheco reiterated that this application is premature. Commissioner Pirzynski stated that the study of the North 40 has been in process for a very long time and, the result of the North 40 sub -committee was to request a specific plan from the Town Council which was to deal primarily with the infrastructure. Mr. Pirzynski explained that the sub -committee dealt with the reality that there would be property rights involved and, the issue is how to balance those rights with the ambiguous nature of what to approve in the area. Mr. Pirzynski explained that there was language discussed at the General Plan Committee meeting which included conformance to the General Plan and the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan, both having specific regulations and, there was a re -acknowledgement of the Council position that the area would be zoned Commercial and not Residential. Mr. Pirzynski stated that the study takes into account not only this area but also the area on the west side. He explained that the consensus of the General Plan Committee was that this issue has been too long in coming and the Town must move forward and therefore they were requesting that the Town Council "fast track" the matter. Mr. Pirzynski stated that a project, such as this application, was inevitable and relied on the willingness of the applicant to withhold initiation until the Plan was completed. Mr. Pirzynski reiterated that a proposal, such as this application, was inevitable and the result of the Town failing to complete a specific plan in a more efficient and effective manner. Motion by Chair Decker, seconded by Commissioner Nachison to deny 15089 Los Gatos Boulevard/DEV-98-002/ND-98-0003. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Decker stated that this issue needs to be placed in a policy arena and the issue needs to be addressed by the Town Council. Commissioner Nachison agrees that this matter needs to be addressed at a policy level. Commissioner Morgan stated that she hopes some direction will be given if the Council remands the matter to the Planning Commission. Ms. Morgan would also like the Council to reduce the size because she feels it is too massive but she is in favor of the design and thinks the project could be a role model. Conunissioner Bruno will not support the motion because he feels the project is on the right track and should be continued. Mr. Bruno feels there is sufficient time to receive a policy statement and direction from the Town Council. Mr. Bruno would like to see more development related to "community benefit" and "site". Commissioner Pacheco will not support the motion and would like to see the matter continued. Mr. Pacheco stated that he is not satisfied with the way the site has been treated and he feels there is too much mass. Mr. Pacheco reiterated that he is not happy with what has been presented. Commissioner Pirzynski will not support the motion and would like to see the matter continued. Mr. Pirzynski would like further opportunities to address the design issues even though he feels the applicant is going in the right direction. Mr. Pirzynski feels the developer is in a very difficult position because the policy for this area is not clear. Mr. Pirzynski stated that there is no moratorium on this area and he would not want any perception of one. Motion fails 3-3. Conunissioners Bruno, Pacheco, and Pirzynski voting no. Commissioner Jensen absent. Motion by Commissioner Bruno, seconded by Commissioner Pacheco to continue this matter to October 14,1998 in order to receive policy guidance from the Town Council and revision of the project plans. Motion to include: 1.4 Los os Planning Commission August 12, 1998 1. Applicants revision of the mass and site layout to exclude the appearance of a "strip mall". 2. A letter or meeting with the Town Council which will give guidance and, the intent of the Town Council, as development occurs in a modular fashion and, the type of uses the Council believes appropriate along Los Gatos Boulevard that extends as a frontage. 3. The applicant is to articulate and consider the "community benefit" of the Planned Development. 4. Request that the Town Council proceed and, expedite the process, of a specific plan for the North 40. Carried 4-2. Chair Decker and Commissioner Nachison voting no. Commissioner Jensen absent. Chair Decker declared a recess at 10:40 p.m. Meeting resumed at 10:55 p.m. Motion by Chair Decker, seconded by Commissioner Nachison to continue 55 Hernandez Avenue/HD-98-01 to August 26, 1998 because of the lateness of the evening and the length of tonight's agenda. Carried unanimously. Commissioner Jensen absent. UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 720/DEV-98-004/PRJ-98-060/ND-98-005. (00.05) Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zoning designation from LM to LM-PD and an Architecture and Site application to construct a research and development building. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration is recommended. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: BGC Properties LLC. The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter. Brian Conlisk, BGC Properties, LLC, 95 S. Market, Ste. 500, San Jose, presented a picture board which showed the existing site and the buildings and, gave an extensive overview of the project. Mr. Conlisk stated that the principal reason for the Planned Development request was to be consistent with the adjoining property. He explained that the project is a 24,000 square foot Research and Development facility similar to the adjoining property. Mr. Conlisk stated that the project would facilitate a high quality corporate base, would generate revenue for the Town, was a good in -fill project, and consistent with the neighborhood. He reviewed the site, the challenges they had encountered regarding the grade, the underground parking garage, the evaluation of the oak trees on site, and the proposed landscaping. Mr. Conlisk stated that they will be putting 24", 36" and 48" box oaks along the front of the property line and building as well as additional landscaping along all perimeters. Mr. Conlisk explained that their intent was to create an oak wood environment. He addressed the design features which included keeping a low profile, set back from University Avenue, and blending in with the landscape plan. Mr. Conlisk explained that the underground garage was the driving factor for the design of the project and a good amenity because one half of the parking for the project was now underground and hidden. He stated that there will now be less hardscape than exists currently on the site. Mr. Conlisk presented a rendering of the site which indicated the scope and set -backs which are consistent with the adjoining property. Chair Decker questioned the height. Mr. Conlisk stated that the height of the building was 35 feet which was the same as the adjoining project. He explained the grading they would be doing which may lower the height of the project. Mr. Conlisk explained that the story poles were difficult to erect because there was a structure and a tree in the way so there was no flexibility in the top story pole. Commissioner Pacheco stated that he had met with Mr. Conlisk and his Architect on site and he is concerned about the roof material and fmish. Mr. Pacheco would like to see a more textured roof and suggested that the building color be less reflective and nestle into the trees more comfortably. Mr. Pacheco explained that the non 15 § 65858. Interim ordinance; adoption or extension; expiration; subsequent ordinances (a) Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. That urgency measure shall require a four -fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any extension shall also require a four -fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted. (b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four -fifths vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four -fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. (c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. (d) Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. (e) When an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this section, covering the whole or a part of the same property, shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section. (f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), upon termination of a prior interim ordinance, the legislative body may adopt another interim ordinance pursuant to this section provided that the new interim ordinance is adopted to protect the public safety, health, and welfare from an event, occurrence, or set of circumstances different from the event, occurrence, or set of circumstances that led to the adoption of the prior interim ordinance. ATTACHMENT 2 MAXIM INVESTMENTS Real Estate Services September 2, 1998 Honorable Mayor Linda Lubeck Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED SEP 0 31998 TOWN OFLOS 04TOO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8y SCE OF THE SEP 31998 .4AYOR & TOWN COUNC'! RE: Town Council Consideration of "North Forty" land uses on September 8, 1998 Dear Linda: As a Iandholder in the "North Forty", I am concerned about the Town potentially impeding improvement of my property at 15089 Los Gatos Boulevard. I request that you consider my concerns before you give guidance to the Planning Commission about "North Forty" land use. On August 12, 1998 the Planning Commission considered our application for a Planned Development (PD) to construct two commercial buildings at 15089 Los Gatos Boulevard (DEV-98-02). The zone change requested will change four parcels to CH. Two of our six parcels are currently zoned CH. The report to the Planning Commission dated August 7, 1998 recommended approval of the PD. However, the Planning Commission continued the application to October 14, 1998 and requested Council to "give guidance and the intent of the Council as development occurs in a modular fashion and the type of uses the Council believes appropriate along Los Gatos Boulevard that extends as a frontage." We understand that the Commission's concern was partly due to a statement in the staff report that read "It has been stated by Town Council that no zone changes shall be approved until the North Forty Specific Plan has been completed." Prior to the staff report, we had no idea this notion existed. In all prior meetings with the "North Forty" subcommittee of the General Plan Committee and Town staff, we were told to wait for the adoption of the "Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards". After the Plan was adopted in December 1997, we designed the project consistent with the Plan and Design Standards. We were then encouraged by the Town to submit our PD application and set the "example" for improvement in the area. It is our deep concern that the Town has already spent at least eight years and per our estimate in excess of $200,000 in staff time and consultant fees to "study" the North Forty. We acknowledge two results of this time and effort: the "Route 85 and Vasona Light Rail Element" of the General Plan and the "Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards". These documents serve well as your current policies. 1540 Parkmoor Avenue Suite D San Jose, California 95128 408/938-6716 fax 408/938-6720 ATTACHMENT 3 Our property has 298 feet of Los Gatos Boulevard frontage. The Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards certainly pertain to our site and provide complete direction for the development of our property. We have taken great care in designing our project to meet the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards and to fit into future development of the remaining parcels if and when that takes place. Our proposal is complete and addresses storm drain and sewer infrastructure, internal circulation and parcel assembly. We expect that the North Forty Specific Plan will be required to outline policies and design standards consistent with those existing for the Boulevard, which we already meet. We waited for the adoption of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards and now have an outstanding project pending. We request that you would consider our PD application before prematurely making a general decision about zoning applications for the North Forty on September 8, 1998. Sincerely, William F. Hirschman President