Loading...
Attachment 6 - February 9, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Melanie Hanssen, Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Kylie Clark Kathryn Janoff Steve Raspe Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Joel Paulson Town Attorney: Robert Schultz Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (619) 541-3405 ATTACHMENT 6 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR HANSSEN: We can move on to the public hearing portion of the meeting and we will be going to Agenda Item #2, which is requesting approval for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence to exceed the floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side yard setbacks on a nonconforming property zoned R-1D. This is located at 118 Olive Street. APN 410-15-022. Architecture and Site Application S-21-013. Property owners Thomas and Meredith Reichert. Applicant: Jay Plett, Architect. Our project planner is Sean Mullin. This agenda item is a continuation from our January 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, however, I will still ask if there are any disclosures that any Commissioners need to make from the time that we had our last meeting? And are there any Commissioners that visited the site since the last meeting? All right, we have no disclosures, so we can move on to the Staff Report. Mr. Mullin, will you be giving a Staff Report? JENNIFER ARMER: I will be making the presentation on behalf of Mr. Mullin this evening. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The item before you, as was just stated, is a continuation of your discussion on January 12th. At that meeting the Planning Commission considered the application and directed the Applicant to continue neighbor outreach efforts and contact neighbors that expressed concerns, and provide a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence. In addition to the information that was provided, in response to these two items as Exhibits 14 and 15 for your Staff Report, a Desk Item was also provided today with revised three-dimensional rendering with dimensions, additional public comments, and the Applicant’s response to public comments. This concludes Staff’s presentation, but we would be happy to answer any questions. CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have questions for Staff at this time? Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair, and just one quick clarification. Nothing substantively has changed in the plans since we last discussed it, is that correct? JENNIFER ARMER: That’s correct. It really was just doing the additional outreach and providing the additional information rendering that was requested. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have questions for Staff? I had one quick question about the Desk Item, and that was we had a couple comments that came in and I was curious as to whether or not those commenters were part of the group that we asked the Applicant to address that hadn’t spoken previously on the item? JENNIFER ARMER: I’ve not gone back and compared the names, but I think we can ask that of the Applicant to let us know whether that those are people that they had previously reached out to. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, thank you. If no other Commissioners have questions, then I will move on to the Applicant, and the Applicant is able to address the Commission for up to five minutes. JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Plett, you can unmute yourself and begin your presentation. JAY PLETT: Good evening, Commission Members. Per the instruction that we received we submitted a three- dimensional diagram of the structure, and we submitted a Desk Item that depicts the various dimensions from property line that shows that this is not a flat façade of any kind that might have been conveyed through just a flat elevation. There is a lot of depth and back and forth on the façade of this house. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The change though that you spoke of, the balcony over the garage, that is shown removed in the three- dimensional depiction that you have as a Desk Item, so that shows a sloping shed roof over the garage in lieu of the balcony that was there. We also did conduct further outreach to the neighbors and they were able to walk around the property, invited onto the property, could view the story poles close up, and have the discussion with the owners of the property. I’ll turn it over to Thomas Reichert now to talk about the one specific neighbor. THOMAS REICHERT: I think the question was specific around the people who signed the current letter. I believe that there is only one person that signed it that did not show up, and that was 108 Olive. I had not talked about it here previously or to this point at all. Everyone else who signed it I believe participated in the previous one as well as showed up to the second open house to discuss the project. CHAIR HANSSEN: Are you finished with your comments? JAY PLETT: Yes. we’re open for questions. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Of course, and I will ask if the Commission has any questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. That was a very brief presentation, but I’m curious to know from the property owner what you included in your item; we have a summary of the outreach. Can you summarize the summary and let us know whether in your opinion you were able to assuage neighbors’ concerns? You made a change to the plans by moving the balcony. Can you just give us a quick update on whether you found this to be an action that moves your project along in the direction you had hoped? THOMAS REICHERT: That’s a great question, and I would say the overall takeaway was it was nice to meet the new neighbors, or as the new neighbors to meet everyone, so I think that was really a positive point in the participation. Everyone who came in that second session was someone who I had not met since moving in. Because it was during COVID we hadn’t met any of those neighbors and they had also not reached out to us as the new neighbors, so it was nice to have this happening to discuss that. Another point outside of that, more to your question was I think there was some clarity brought, because not everyone is familiar with reading plans, so LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when you see it just on 2-D paper. One of the specifics was people thought we were going for more build, higher build, more side build, more front build, and when they came and they looked and could see it and we could discuss it in person, the fact that we weren’t going for the maximum height, the fact that we weren’t going for full length, two-story, all the way across, those were points that we came to a little bit of clarity on. I think some of the issues with parking and the fact that we were asking for exemptions were points that no one changed their opinions on, but that became very clear on the sticking points that we didn’t necessarily agree with. CHAIR HANSSEN: So that answers your question, Commissioner Janoff. Do any other Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Continuing on that vein, I tried to summarize your summary, and is it correct that you had four neighbors who were unconditionally in favor of the application and one neutral? THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct. There are only two addresses within the 5+2+2 that are opposed. It’s the two neighbors I believe to the west, 120 and 122, which is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the vacant lot. All of the other neighbors were either neutral or supporting, that’s correct. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: And as to those who did not support, their concerns were primarily the variances and blocking views? THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct. I didn’t touch on the point that there was positive feedback on the fact that we were switching from the balcony to the roof. Again, didn’t dissuade the sticking points, but that was the whole point of common ground. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, that answers my questions. CHAIR HANSSEN: I had just a clarifying question. In the Desk Item today there was a couple of letters, and in the first one a person basically said, “I wanted to make sure that you knew that I was not in support of the project.” I didn’t have time to go and check to where it was relative to the last hearing. Had that person previously voiced their disapproval of the project? THOMAS REICHERT: Correct. I think you’re talking about Jim, the neighbor at 110 Olive? CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, they blocked out the address; that was part of the problem. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THOMAS REICHERT: Jim signed both letters, and each time after he signed the letter I asked him what his concern was, and both times he said that it was a combination of parking and the contractor selection. I don't pretend know what he signed with the letter, but to me, both times he said he’s fine with it as long as we are good with this parking situation and not using that contractor that worked on the project next door to him. CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. I think that cleared it up. I felt like you did a very thorough job of documenting all the interactions you had and reaching out to the people. I wanted to make sure there weren’t people coming out of the woodwork that we didn’t know about before. THOMAS REICHERT: There was one person who did not continue signing the letter; the person who owns 116 Olive refrained from resigning the newsletter. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, very good. I think that answers my question. Do any of the Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? We will have another chance after public comments, if we have any. We will move on to public comments, and this would be a time for any member of the public to speak about this item on the agenda. Do we have anyone that would like to speak on this item? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this item, please raise your hand. We will have the telephone number ending in 1501 speak first. SHELLI BAKER: Good evening, Planning Commission, this is Shelli Baker, owner of 120 Olive Street here again. As a reminder, our property is directly next-door on the west side of the proposed home to the left, and understandably the most effected. As noted at the last meeting, our expansive mountain view will be completely blocked and we will be looking out of our living room, kitchen, dining, and master bedroom windows at tall walls. These same areas will loose their incredible natural lighting, as will our entire back yard, as confirmed in the shadow study provided. Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about this. But, it gets even worse. The proposed exception of reducing the side setback from 5 feet to 3 feet is preposterous, especially when considering the stitch piering process taking place just that much closer to our 80 year old constructed home on a sloped lot with sump pumps underneath. Given the research we’ve done, the stitch piering process is going to shake the heck out of our home LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no matter what, but even more so if this reduced side setback exception is granted. Additionally, the elevation of the rear, exterior walk-out decking requires clarity, as it appears that the submitted architectural renderings don’t clearly depict the height. If I am guessing accurately, not only will our kitchen, dining, and back yard lack natural lighting, they will lack cherished privacy as well. We were not able to walk the property the evening that we visited. It was 5:30 Friday night, it was very cold, it became dark, and we had some interruptions as well that did prevent us from even going down the side yard into the back yard at all. Didn’t even come across the radar. If this proposed plan is approved as is it will be the beginning of the end for Olive Street as we know it. The narrowest street with the tiniest lots in Los Gatos, every cottage sale hereafter will be viewed as a tear-down, land value, and as they turn over, more overbuilt homes with exceptions galore, will prevail. That’s beginning the domino effect. I believe in hindsight the Town and Planning Commissioner will regret their hastiness in needlessly granting these types of exceptions to the rules that were set in place for valid reasons, but it will be too late and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those who have lived here and loved their homes will be the ones who have suffered. As with most, our homes are our livelihood. Planning Commissioners, we ask that you put yourselves in our shoes, in our homes, and try to feel the situation as it really is. Imagine if this were happening in your world on your street, or even next door to your home. The important decisions you make here regarding 118 Olive Street will set a new precedent and expectations for the future owners and/or builders on Olive Street. That’s what I have to say this evening. I could say more, but thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Baker? I don’t see any hands raised. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? JOEL PAULSON: Yes, the next speaker will be Bonnie Hurwitz. Bonnie, you can unmute yourself and then you can speak. BONNIE HURWITZ: Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I agree with a good deal of what Shelli said. A couple of areas of clarification. The gentleman that owns the property at 108 Olive is a surgeon and he’s often on call, so he’s unfortunately LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unable to attend these calls, but he did sign both letters, and I just want to make sure you know that it’s not for lack of interest in the topic that he’s not on the call. As for what Shelli said, I did attend the outreach meeting. We were not invited to walk the property, as she said. Initially it was very nice to meet the two owners of the property, Meredith and Thomas, but shortly after we convened there, yes, it was 5:30; yes, it started to get dark; yes, it become cold, but we also were interrupted by a neighbor that intervened and interrupted the conversation and didn’t allow a productive conversation to proceed, unfortunately, so that neighbor didn’t do any good service to the ensuing possibly productive communication that could have happened that evening. As a result, I have to admit it really was a bit of a waste of time, but on the other hand, neither was that neighbor told to please be quiet and take his viewpoint someplace else. I left there feeling that it was a decent attempt, but I got nothing really out of the meeting. Again, we weren’t asked to walk the property. When I looked at the meeting, the renderings that I saw originally, in my view and I’m not an architect, it looks like a tear-down to me. It does not look like any kind of addition being addressed there. They’re going to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just dismantle the entire property, and basically when I was asking questions about the garage and the property itself, the feeling I got when I walked away that evening was that they pretty much said we know what we want, and I get that, they know what they want, and they asked for what they wanted and nobody told them they couldn’t do it. There was no pushback. They asked for what they wanted and it was a bunch of checkmarks on a bunch of boxes, and check, check, check and off they went. So, that’s why they proceeded with the renderings that you guys are all seeing today. They asked for everything and nobody said no, so I agree with what Shelli has said. And by the way, on the prior call, my recollection was that one of the Commissioners, I don’t recall who, said this area was in transition. This area, if you ask some of the local owners, it’s not in transition and many of us have owned our properties for a long time and we intend to stay. I, for one, have owned my property for 18 years, and I bought it as a single person, and I intend to stay. Thank you very much. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much for your comments. I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Hurwitz. Vice Chair Barnett does. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR BARNETT: As I understand, there were two opportunities to meet with the owners, and I was wondering if you attended both of those or just the one where it got dark and cold and you weren’t asked to view the property? BONNIE HURWITZ: It was the second meeting and I had some personal medical thing to attend to on the prior call, so I wasn’t able to attend the first meeting, but I attended the second one when I felt better. If you need to know that, that’s the case and that’s the truth. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I understand that. Thank you. BONNIE HURWITZ: You know, the fact that it’s convenient for the neighbor, it’s not necessarily convenient for everybody else. CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you for your comments, and I think you answered Vice Chair Barnett’s question. Staff, is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item. I saw a couple hands. JOEL PAULSON: Yes. The next speaker will be Keith White. KEITH WHITE: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. When my wife and I owned 120 Olive Street about which Shelli Baker spoke earlier, when we were looking at LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 buying 120 Olive Street we spent a lot of time researching the neighborhood, looking into the neighborhood to see what was going on, and trying to imagine what changes we could expect going forward in the future. It was mostly made up of a lot of smaller homes, some remodels. Our house had been remodeled prior to us purchasing it. It’s a very narrow street, very quaint, and we thought this would be great for us for now, and the change we could see would be some amount of turnover, some amount of remodels. We went so far looking into it as to review the building codes and go down the Building Department and ask them what could be expected, what rules would be followed, and we were fairly much assured that the Town was a stickler for the rules and making sure that everybody follows them. And yet, here we are 20 years later, and it’s not just the neighborhood changing, it’s actually the house right next door, which we expected; but we didn’t expect that it wouldn’t follow all of the rules, and specifically the front and side setbacks are the ones that concern us most as those have the greatest impact on our property specifically, but also the floor area ratio being exceeded, because we expected it to be smaller homes would remain the norm. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, the rules as they were and the rules as they still are, just not being followed, doesn’t seem to be reasonable to me and I ask you why that’s not the case? Why not follow the rules? I don’t fault the new owners, who seem to be very nice and their architect has done a great job presenting a nice home, but it isn’t that much different to just follow the rules and this problem would go away. That’s my concern. Thank you very much for the time. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. Do any Commissioners have questions for Mr. White? I don’t see any hands raised, so thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? JOEL PAULSON: Yes, there is. The next speaker will be Darren Carroll. DARREN CARROLL: First thing, just quick clarification, both meetings I think were at the same time, at 5:30, so the getting dark and cold was the same thing. The other thing is we weren’t invited to walk around the house or anything of the sort. And thirdly, we were not privy to any additional information as we had assumed was part of the direction from the Planning Commission to provide additional LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 renderings. Nothing was offered. No full size plans, no renderings, no sketches, no nothing. Then I’ll read as quickly as I can here. Olive Street is a charming neighborhood with older, smaller homes on a very narrow street. Unfortunately, several of the characteristics that made this a nice neighborhood are also the character (inaudible). Parking is abysmal. Garages are often not used as intended and driveways are rarely used for more than one car, so ultimately the overflow turns into a game of musical chairs for the permitted parking on Olive Street. The losers end up on San Benito Avenue, and the residents of San Benito that are not allowed to park on Olive Street have no place to park. This is especially difficult for those of us that have family members that are aged, handicapped, or have health issues. Therefore, every effort should be made to lessen the impact of the situation by enforcing a full-length driveway that is not including the public right-of-way, and installing the car lift that is on the plans. The homes are very close together and the Applicant had a choice to remodel a cute home that allows setbacks consistent with that home and therefore the neighborhood, or to demolish the home and build in an LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entirely different direction. The Applicant has chosen the latter, yet proposes building a house that does not follow either of those criteria, and even requests several unnecessary variances. There are no inherent, compelling, or logical reasons why this needs to be. Incidentally, there has not been another home on Olive Street that was demolished and then built. Very slight modifications to the plan bring the home back in line with the rules and lessen the concerns many neighbors have without significantly changing the design or integrity. Simply moving the house 5 feet back from the property line and 2 feet to the east for the garage will alleviate neighborhood concerns as well as solve the problematic, sub-standard length driveway. As for the size of the house, a nonconforming lot is given the benefit of a higher floor area ratio than a conforming lot to compensate for its size. This home not only takes advantage of that, but it exceeds it by 308 square feet, or 23%. The building of a basement that did not count allowable coverage was originally implemented specifically to help nonconforming lots lessen the neighborhood impacts, not as an absolute or an addition to substantially passing allowable coverage, as this house proposes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There have been a few comments about the participants being nice people, having kids that play together, or about helping families as reasons why this house should be approved or given special treatment. These are all nice sentiments that truly have no bearing on the situation. Any form of favoritism should not weigh in or be a consideration any differently than if a decision was based on age, sex, race, or marital status, none of which are allowed. No one is telling these people that they can’t build a house. The point is they should build a house that follows the rules just like thousands of others in this town have adhered to, and hopefully with a little respect and consideration to the neighborhood and its concerned residents, we will all benefit. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Is that all of your comments? DARREN CARROLL: I hope so. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. It was very thorough. I just wanted to make sure you were done. DARREN CARROLL: The point being, if you’d allow me just one second here, that that meeting served no purpose. We had no suggestions for compromise or solution. It was interrupted. We were not allowed to discuss anything, and we were provided no additional information to help process the thoughts or make any determinations or LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 suggestions, or perhaps even consider the fact that some of us may have been wrong about something. There were no renderings, which is something that I believe was instructed by the Commission, and no mention of that. No full size plans, no survey, no color drawings, no walking around saying see, this is where it actually is. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we’ve gotten to your three minutes. DARREN CARROLL: I’ve made my point. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, and thank you for that. I’m going to ask if any Commissioners have questions for you, and it looks like Commissioner Janoff has a question. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Darren, can you please restate your address? DARREN CARROLL: I own the house at 546 San Benito Avenue, which technically shouldn’t be involved with this, because I’m not in that parking district, and 122 Olive Street. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Do any other Commissioners have questions for the speaker? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Is it your position that the setbacks for this proposed house must be in strict LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accordance with the code? I thought you might have said something to the contrary. DARREN CARROLL: I don’t understand why they can’t be, because it’s not going to change the integrity or the design of the house by meeting the code. It would follow the rules. If they want to remodel it, follow those rules. If they want to build new, follow those. I’m not opposed to either one; I just think there has to be consistency here, because I think that’s what the rules are for, first off. Second of all, the exact reasons that Shelli Baker and Bonnie Hurwitz mentioned, that once these people get five exceptions to the rules or variances the next guy comes down the road and says, “Well, I just need one more,” so pretty soon we’re going to… VICE CHAIR BARNETT: You’ve responded to my question. I appreciate that answer. DARREN CARROLL: Okay, thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Staff, is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item? JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Anyone else from the public that wishes to speak on this item, please raise your hand. I don’t see any other hands raised, Chair. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Then we will go back to the Applicant, and the Applicant has up to three minutes to respond to any of the comments that were just made. JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Plett, you can unmute yourself, and you have up to three minutes. THOMAS REICHERT: I just wanted to say thanks for everyone who commented from the public. I also wanted to point out that yes; we invited people to our home. Those were not the only two opportunities everyone had. We gave everyone our phone number, our email, and invited them to two times that worked for us. We didn’t receive any other form of communication other than the one time they all came together at once at the second meeting, so there was no other outreach. If they had felt that the information they needed wasn’t properly provided, they could have reached out to consume or gather than information. I also want to point out we didn’t necessarily have all the doors and gates open at the house, but also no one asked to walk to the back yard. They did walk to the side yard from the neighbor’s spot, some of them did. They were on our property looking at the flags. No one asked for the plans. We had them all in the house. We talked for more than an hour, and at not one point did someone ask to see them; I had them right inside the door. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I heard some of the public comments talking about variances. We’re not asking for any variances, we’re asking for two exceptions per the code that specifically allow us these types of exceptions for nonconforming lots. And we’re consistent with the neighborhood. I just wanted to point out one specific thing with Shelli and Keith’s home, which they talk about our setbacks and our two-story, and I just want to point out that they’re potentially the most impacted home, which I agree with, but their home has a 3 foot setback, it’s two-story, it’s front yard setback is less than 15 feet, and it doesn’t have a 20 foot driveway. We literally are proposing the same house as theirs, and with a compliant driveway. It’s basically the same. I know our previous documentation has been clear that there’s context to the neighborhood, and why the Planning Department recommended for approval, and why in the last meeting the Planning Commission mentioned it fits with the context, but we wanted more time to have the neighborly talks. I know we outlined all that, but I wanted to point out the house that they say is the most affected has all of the same exceptions that we’re requesting, every single one. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jay, I don't know if you want to point out anything else in the last minute? JAY PLETT: I would say that yes, Staff found the project worthy of approval, and that we are consistent with the patterns of the neighborhood. We’re even more compliant than most of the houses in the neighborhood when it comes to setbacks, and we are not the largest and we do not have the largest floor area. I would point you to look at sheet A-1.1 of the plans, and if you go to the second drawing down from the top, it’s Olive Street looking at the project, it’s the street elevation and you can see the house from San Benito, how tall it is and how things are falling down, and the house at 120 Olive and its height. CHAIR HANSSEN: Are you completed with your comments? JAY PLETT: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? This would be the last opportunity. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I actually have several questions. CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to step through some of the concerns that were raised from the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 speakers tonight. There was one regarding the destruction that construction would cause to the underlying soils perhaps. It would be my understanding that the architect and geotechnical planning for this would ensure that that destruction would not occur. Mr. Plett, can you respond to that? JAY PLETT: The basement will be constructed with stitch piers, which is a way of shoring straight down with the cut for the basement, so there will not be any slope instabilities that will be created with the method that will be used to construct the basement. And there has also been a soils report that we have produced ahead of time by a very reputable soils engineer, and the soil is very good, it’s very stable, it’s not loose, and it’s very conducive to the construction of a basement on a small site like that. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you. The next question has to do with the rear balcony, and I think we heard that the neighbors appreciated the removal of the front balcony. I don’t see a rear balcony on the elevation that you provided that would impact 120 Olive. If I read your plans it would appear that any second story visibility would be on the opposite side and rear of that house, is that correct? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THOMAS REICHERT: The rear deck, it’s just coming out of the sliding door on the ground floor. I think it’s just a nomenclature that’s it’s called a deck. It’s just where you walk off the back door. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So, it isn’t a second story balcony? THOMAS REICHERT: No, and that was also clarified in the first Planning meeting. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I thought so, but because since it came up again today I just wanted to further clarify. This is for either of you. Do I understand from reading the letter that you provided in the Desk Item that the house currently has the same setbacks as the proposed structure would have, did I read that correctly? THOMAS REICHERT: No, the current house, the two things that would change, it’s currently sited in the exact place as the new plan, except for two: the garage being a little wider to comply, and the front being extended for the streetscape. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Let me be clearer. Is the setback that borders 120 Olive currently 3 feet, or are you changing it from 5 feet to 3 feet with the garage? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THOMAS REICHERT: Five feet, and we’re changing it from 5 feet to 3 feet only for the first level of the home and garage. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just on the property side that borders 120 Olive. THOMAS REICHERT: On the first story next to the garage it gets 2 feet closer, but not on the second story. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m going to keep going. There was a recommendation that you move the house back and over. Can you do that and stay within all of the setbacks, or does that create an issue for the opposite side or the rear? THOMAS REICHERT: It does create one directly for the opposite side if there were no changes, and for the rear. I’m unclear what the rear setback is, but we are siting it to be at the exact same position out of respect for the back neighbor who talked to us at the beginning of the process and asked us not to have a house that overlooks their back yard, so that’s kind of the reasoning from early conversations off the planning process. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you so much. I appreciate your answers. CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Clark. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. This is kind of along the lines of Commissioner Janoff’s question, but it seemed to me that clearly there’s a lot of public concern about this, and a theme that came up was that they’re upset about exceeding the FAR and reducing the setbacks, and since it’s a demolition that would theoretically have been possible to do at the beginning, and I understand that you could leave the front setback and just have a smaller back yard, I wanted to ask why specifically you chose to change those and what kind of problems it would cause for you to conform? THOMAS REICHERT: Was your question why did we choose to go from a renovation to a new build? COMMISSIONER CLARK: The question is given that you’re doing a new build, why was it necessary to exceed the FAR and to reduce the setbacks? THOMAS REICHERT: It’s hard to answer that question specifically, and that’s why I gave the context in the Desk Item of the history of the development of the project. The entire project was developed as a remodel. As we went through the process we didn’t necessarily want to pay the prices and do the work to underground utilities, put in fire sprinklers, lift the house, and do all this stuff, so it became a discussion point with the Planning LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Department of like what if we were able to do a new project, what would be the things we’d have to do that we wouldn’t be required to do as a renovation? So, the design of the house as a renovation was completed and essentially approvable to come to the Planning Commission, but there were not changes from the design after we’d made those decisions. I hope that answers the question. MEREDITH REICHERT: I can add, I think the FAR has more to do with the lot size, and that’s consistent with other houses on Olive Street. So again, we just tried to make that consistent with the neighborhood so it wasn’t a big, mammoth house sitting in the middle, but a house that would work for our family but still fit with the neighborhood. And again, yes, the 3 foot setback on the side was because we started as a remodel, and now that we’re a new build I get that theoretically you could think like let’s change that, but to change that means either a noncompliant garage or shifting our house in a way that affects the setback on the other side, which doesn’t work, or we build a narrow house, but that doesn’t work for an actual livable kitchen, so it’s hard to come up with a successful solution on that one. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JAY PLETT: I’d also say on sheet A-1.1, if you look at the neighborhood plan, the lots are small so no matter what we do… If you look, there’s a 4-foot setback at 112 Olive, and 114 Olive is 10 feet. Across the street 133 Olive has a 7-foot front setback. We have a smaller setback at 131 Olive. 125 Olive has a 5-foot front setback, no driveway. What we have done is we’ve designed a house that is very much in the pattern of the neighborhood, and we are not asking for the greatest floor area, the greatest FAR, nor the smallest, shortest setback on a side, nor the smallest, shortest setback on the front. The house that we have designed falls right in the middle pattern of what the neighborhood is like. That’s why Staff found the project worthy of approval, because it fits in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, and may I ask one follow up on that? CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I remember from our previous meeting that the reason you reduced the front setback even though you had a large enough setback was you wanted to have a back yard area, and so would you consider maintaining the front setback and having a smaller back yard in order to appease some of the neighbors concerns? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEREDITH REICHERT: I think that shifts the problem then to our back neighbor. That was a little bit of the comment from Thomas to the previous question, that they had requested that we don’t come closer, as well as maintaining the space. If it meant we could build our house or not, we would go back and revisit that conversation with the back neighbor, absolutely, but we believe this still fits the neighborhood as it is. THOMAS REICHERT: And I think the back neighbor is similar to us. They have kids and they play back there, and we hear each other’s kids bouncing on the trampoline and singing back there. Potentially our windows would look over into their back yard, and I think that’s a valid concern similar to how we’re making concessions with 120 Olive to not have our patio in the front. It’s really hard to appease everyone that we’ve heard, there are a handful of neighbors, so I think Meredith’s point is of course if it only meant we can do it, I think there would be reason, but I don’t think pushing one person’s problem onto another was the approach that we were taking when we designed the house. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I actually hadn’t realized you had talked to the back neighbor, so that’s good clarification. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you get your questions answered, Commissioner Clark? COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to loop back regarding the setback on the garage side. As I recall, one of the drivers for that was to create a conforming garage to enable the cars to be parked in the garage or in the driveway—well, that doesn’t affect the setback—instead of being parked on the street. Could the Applicant please confirm that that was the motivation for widening the garage, so that you can alleviate some of the parking issues? THOMAS REICHERT: I would say I don’t know if it was the chicken or the egg, but as part of the Planning Department review before we even were up for Planning Commission, it all happened together, yes. And the 3-foot is only on the first floor. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I made a note that there are four homes in the immediate neighborhood that have larger FARs. Can you confirm that? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct. CHAIR HANSSEN: I just wanted to confirm along the lines of Vice Chair Barnett’s questioning. If I recall from the last hearing, you had documented that there were multiple other neighbors within the immediate neighborhood that had exceeded the floor area ratio, and also I thought that you had a chart with people that had similar side and front setbacks, is that correct? THOMAS REICHERT: That’s also correct. CHAIR HANSSEN: My recollection was that you had established that there was consistency with the neighborhood for the exceptions that you were asking for. THOMAS REICHERT: That’s also my understanding of the takeaway of the last meeting, yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have questions for the Applicant before I close the public hearing? I don’t see any hands raised, so I’m going to close the public hearing and ask if any Commissioners have questions for Staff, wish to comment on the application, or wish to make a motion? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I think that the Applicant did what we requested them to do, which would be to provide opportunities for more neighborhood outreach. They did make a couple of changes to the plans that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 enhanced the privacy for neighbors. That’s why I feel satisfied that the Applicant conducted their work to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Regarding the concerns of setback, this is an overly-constrained problem and any direction of improving the setbacks to meet Town Code will create a problem for another neighbor on one side or other or the back. Given that the setback of 3 feet is on the side, one story only, and it’s the garage side and it creates a conforming garage, I’m comfortable with approving that reduced setback. I also don’t have an issue with the floor area ratio. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Do any other Commissioners have questions for Staff or wish to comment on the application? Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Janoff that they did what we asked of them and definitely to our satisfaction. They gave extensive reports of the outreach that they did. But I did find some of the comments from neighbors concerning, and I think that it’s worth discussing some of the concerns that were brought up. Something that I was particularly struck by was the comment LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about the concern that if it becomes a precedent for cottage purchases to become tear-downs to build larger homes, that could start being a pattern that we see. And they did, they bought this property very recently, probably knowing that this was the plan, and it’s important to have this variety of homes and to have these cottages that stay cottages, so that people will be able to afford them. While I think that in this case they did their due diligence and I think they do have reasonable reasons to expand their property, I think it is something to keep in mind going forward. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I think that was very helpful. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you for bringing up the issue, Commissioner Clark, of whether or not this sets a precedent. I wanted to look back to our prior meeting when there was also discussion around does this set a precedent, and we hear a lot of complaints about oversized houses, reduced setbacks, and so forth. One thing that we didn’t mention at the last meeting regarding these questions, and yours tonight, is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to hear each application as a brand new, stand on its own merits, application. We specifically don’t apply the decisions that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we’ve made on houses in the same neighborhood. We look at each application on its own terms and it’s own merits. Every application in unique, and so the guidance that we’ve always been given and provided to each other is that we are looking at these de novo, that there isn’t a precedent to be set, and so I think that’s helpful going forward and that’s the way I see this particular application tonight, but it’s a good question and we should keep talking about it. CHAIR HANSSEN: I will also comment, because I was the one that made the motion to continue the item at our last meeting, if I recall. The Commission’s general feeling was that the plans were appropriate for the project and the neighborhood, and that the only issue was making sure that the neighbors had an opportunity to be heard. From my point of view I felt that the Applicant did a good job of reaching out to the neighbors. It’s really impossible for anyone to be in a situation where they could possibly know to address every concern of every single neighbor, but they did open up their property to talk to people, and I felt like they did an excellent job of documenting all the conversations that they had. I don’t know that anything has changed from where we were before, which was that this is relatively modest, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 given the size of the house growth for the family, and that it isn’t going to exceed any of the existing boundaries in the neighborhood, which is the floor area ratios of other properties that have exceeded, as well as the setbacks. From my perspective, I think the Applicant has done what we asked. As far as the renderings are concerned, one of the speakers did bring it up, maybe we could have but we did not ask the Applicant to produce renderings specifically for the neighborhood outreach. It was to help the Commission understand, and those are a matter of public record as well, so it’s not that no one could have seen them, but it wasn’t part of our direction that I recall that they had to produce those specifically for the neighborhood outreach. Do any other Commissioners have any comments that they’d like to make, or would any Commissioner like to make a motion? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have a comment and I’m prepared to make a motion. The comment is that I’m very sympathetic to the concerns regarding loss of view, but we’ve been told repeatedly by the Town Attorney that that’s not an imbedded legal right, and I don't know if the attorney is online LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here today so we could confirm that, but that’s been his legal advice on a number of matters to date. JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, Mr. Schultz is not able to join us, but I can confirm that Vice Chair Barnett’s statement is accurate. He has stated that repeatedly. CHAIR HANSSEN: Does that answer your question, Vice Chair Barnett? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Would anyone else want to comment on the application or make a motion? Vice Chair Barnett, you said you would be prepared to make a motion. Do you have other questions that you’d like answered? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: No, I’m prepared to proceed. Concerning 118 Olive Street, I move approval of the demolition of the existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence to exceed the floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side yard setbacks on nonconforming property zoned R-1D. APN 410-15- 022. Architecture and Site Application 5-21-013. Property owners Thomas and Meredith Reichert. In terms of the findings: One, I can make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303, New Construction. Two, I can make the findings as required by Section 29.10-0903(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of the existing structure. Three, I can make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code with the exception of the request to exceed the FAR standards for reduction of the front and side setbacks, and for an exemption from the parking requirement. Four, I can make the finding as required by Section 29.40-075(c) of the Town Code for granting approval of an exception to the FAR standards. Five, I can make the findings as required by Section 29.10-265, subparagraph 3, of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements. Six, I can make the finding as required by Section 29.10.150(h)(2) of the Town Code for reducing parking where it can be shown that the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required. Seven, I can make the finding as required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Eight, I can make the consideration as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site Application. Nine, I approve Architecture and Site Application S-21-003 with the condition contained in Exhibit 3 and development plans in Exhibit 11. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that very thorough motion. Do we have a second for Vice Chair Barnett’s motion? Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: I second the motion as presented. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Are there any Commissioners that wish to make any additional comments before I call the question? I don’t see any hands raised, so I will call the question. By roll call please vote yes, no, or abstain. Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022 Item #2, 118 Olive Street 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And I vote yes as well, so the motion passes 5-0. Director Paulson, are there appeal rights for this action by the Commission? JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair Hanssen. Anyone who is not satisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission could appeal that decision to the Town Council. Forms are available online and in the Clerk’s Office. There is a fee for filing the appeal. The appeal must be filed in ten days, and the deadline on the tenth day is 4:00p.m. for submittal. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Director Paulson.