Loading...
Item 3 - Desk Item with Exhibit 16.16620 Harwood Lot B PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 08/23/2023 ITEM NO: 3 DESK ITEM DATE: August 23, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee Decision to Approve Construction of a New Single-Family Residence for Lot B On Property Zoned R-1:10. Located at 16220 Harwood Road, Lot B. APN 567-18- 076. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction. Architecture and Site Application S-22-036. Property Owner: Majid Mohazzab. Applicant: Cherine Bassal. Appellant: Douglas McCracken. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman. REMARKS: Exhibit 16 includes additional information from the appellant. EXHIBITS: Previously received with the August 18, 2023, Staff Report: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Letter of Justification 5. Color and Material Board 6. Consulting Architect’s Report 7. Consulting Arborist’s Report 8. Neighbor’s Contacted 9. July 20, 2023, Development Review Committee meeting minutes 10. Appeal of Development Review Committee, July 20, 2023 11. Additional Appellant Information 12. Applicant’s Response to Appeal 13. Development Plans 14. Public Comments Received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 18, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 16220 Harwood Road, Lot B/S-22-036 DATE: August 23, 2023 Previously received with the August 22, 2023, Addendum Report: 15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, August 18, 2023, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 22, 2023 Received with this Desk Item Report: 16. Additional Information from the Appellant Town of Los Gatos RE: Response to the applicant from 8/14/23 for 16220 Harwood Rd 1.The applicant is correct that he dropped off early plans for the house in October 2022. It was less than a one minute exchange where he said he was required to deliver these to us and had us sign something saying we received them. We do not dispute this. However, we also would not say this was any type of conversation about the proposed development but rather the minimum interaction and communication as required by the process. As a result, we did not know that our concerns needed to be raised to the applicant directly. The community of neighbors had spoken during the course of the past 6-8 months on several occasions, as it was our understanding that the place to raise our concerns was at the DRC meeting. None of the neighboring lots understood that by the time it got to the DRC most of the work was already approved and that a decision was to be made that day. We all thought it was the beginning of what would be a few exchanges leading to a solution we were all comfortable with the final proposed development. While most of us would have preferred to see the lot remain a school (and we know there was an offer to lease or buy the land to keep it a school within the past year), we also do recognize the need for housing. But the neighbors did not feel like we were included in the process. We have not had a house built next to us before and did not understand the onus was on us to reach out directly to the person developing the land. The last time we had development in the community beyond a proposed remodel to an existing house was the addition and construction of Almond Blossom Ct, Sebastian Ct and Gemini Ct in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During that process, the developers had many interactions and meetings with the neighbors. And when a second story was proposed and eventually added at 16226 Harwood Rd, again – many meetings and revision to plans were made with the neighbors inputs. 2.Regarding comments made on NextDoor, people are allowed to voice their opinions. Nothing stated is inaccurate and we still that the development a 2500-2700 sqft home would be welcome on Parcel B. There are not many other 3000 sgft homes – and NO 3600+ sqft structures in the immediate area. The comments are not in correct or misleading and quite frankly are irrelevant to this process. The applicant could have reached out to discuss concerns – but chose not to. And when we talk about the Belwood/Belgatos neighborhood, we are not referring just to the homes immediately next to new homes but ones within a slightly larger zone (up to about 500 feet – and not going to into San Jose on the East side). Homes in this range are noted below: , with most being in the 2500 – 2700 sqft range and many single story homes Address Year built Square foot Important note: Comment 101 Almond Blossom Ct 1987 3358 borders Parcel B & C EXHIBIT 16 103 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 single story 2544 borders Parcel B & C notably left out of the applicants list provided to the town. We welcome a single story this size plus JADU. 105 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 2923 borders Parcel B Attended DRC and voiced concerns 100 Almond Blossom Ct 1987 2596 Views on hills to West effected by second story of house 102 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 single story 3227 They are bothered by this development since the town had previous denied their request to build a second story to their home – instead they expanded their ranch style home to fill the lot within the town guidelines we welcome a 3200 single story home on the lot 104 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 2932 106 Almond Blossom Ct 1979 3100 103 Almond Blossom Ln 1987 2756 Directly across the street from Parcel A Attended DRC and voiced concerns 105 Almond Blossom Ln 1987 2756 Directly across the street from Parcel B 189 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 Across from parcel A Recently sold – no one to make comment as new owners have not moved in 188 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 Across from parcel A 187 Belwood Gateway 1965 single 2850 186 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 185 Belwood Gateway 1967 2448 184 Belwood Gateway 1967 single 2468 183 Belwood Gateway 2008 2754 Most recent major remodel in the Belwood/Belgatos neighborhood 102 Belvale 1967 single 2224 103 Belvale 1967 2448 Attended DRC – has concerns 106 Belvale 1967 single 2144 107 Belvale 1967 2448 110 Belvale 1967 single 1916 100 Belvue Dr 1965 single 2104 101 Belvue Dr 1965 single 1430 104 Belvue Dr 1965 single 2120 105 Belvue Dr 1965 single 1744 100 Bacigalupi Dr 1968 single 1400 ~300 ft from Parcel A 101 Bacigalupi Dr 1968 single 2248 To our knowledge, none of these homes include additional JADU in their square footage and all but three remain smaller than 3100. Homes adding JADUs in the neighborhood –as is their right – are mostly adding second freestanding single story structures. 3. We have a better understanding on the California Law now regarding ADUs than we did a few weeks ago. We are not asking the applicant to not have an ADU at all. However, it is deceiving to continue to say a structure is 3100 sqft when in fact is will be over 3600 sqft once the JADU is permitted. And as the JADU is supporting the second story, the proposed house cannot be built without it without a complete home redesign. When directly asked why the applicants house feels so much bigger than our home and the surrounding homes, the applicant claimed he did not know. But the applicant did – because the story poles included the JADUs which add 500 sqft that is supporting the second story and pushing more of the structure upwards. It was not a very open, honest conversation with the community. Again, we recognize a JADU is the applicants right, but it is impact the overall size of the second story and raising the most concerns. 4. Regarding setbacks, we do not feel that the setbacks and balcony on your flag lot are in line with the towns Residential Guidelines as they pertain to the Belwood Belgatos neighborhood. 5. When the houses were built at 16224, 16226 and 16228 Harwood Rd, it was 40 years ago and Almond Blossom Ct and Sebastian Ct did not even exist. And when those Courts were added and built at the edge of the Belwood/Belgatos neighborhood, the design was approved based on the fact that there was NOT another house directly behind it which made its size and design possible. When those houses were to be added, there were several community meetings and neighbors felt included in the conversations about design, windows and trees to be planted to maximize privacy for all involved. 6. The applicants house on Parcel B is the only flag lot in the Belwood/Belgatos neighborhood that we can find. 16226 is not a flag lot. The driveway is a shared easement, with space taken out of each of the property lots of 16224 and 16228 overall buildable/usable total. The three houses also need to work together to maintain the shared driveway. This is VERY different from a private driveway to a single home. We would have liked to have seen the property at 16220 divided into a similar shared easement with the exit to the shared driveway onto Almond Blossom Lane. We would welcome this change to the lot. 7. The issue is not only related to visibility to adjacent property windows. Our family has lived here for 40 years with a certain level of privacy in both the home and the back yard. The close proximity of the front of the Lot B house to our properties will drastically change the privacy we expect. 8. X 102 Almond Blossom Ct is a 3200 sq foot single story home – we welcome a 3200 sq foot single story home on Parcel B. The owner of 105 Almond Blossom Ct ( ) is not at all happy with this development and attended the DRC to voice her concerns. (She cannot attend the planning commission meeting due to a previously planned vacation) 9. This is inaccurate. Only part of the proposed house is to the left – and this is because they needed to move it to the left due to the required setbacks from the neighbor at 16226 Harwood Rd. The window a the stairs is directly behind our property and is 25’ from the fence line, not 60’ as the applicant claims. The location of windows was not done as a design with our house specifically in mind. That said, based on the story poles Parcel B is directly behind all but the far two upper windows of 16224 Harwood Rd. And the upper portion of Parcel B not only impedes privacy (not just of our house but of the 6 neighboring houses) but also blocks all of the mountain views to the East for 16224, 16226 and 16228 Harwood Rd. 10. This is inaccurate. The applicant knows several members of the community attended the DRC meeting (which is very hard to do on a weekday at 10am). We have had conversations with the neighbors for months. As we shared the most property line with Parcel B, we agreed to be the person to represent their comments and concerns. We did not realize that the QUANTITY of voices was relevant. Upon learning this, we encouraged them to send in any comments via email to the planning commission so they understood that it was not just one concerned household but many. Again, the community thought the place to bring our concerns was to the DRC meeting to start a conversation – not that everything was already done and approved with a final decision to be taken at that meeting. And this does not even count the numerous walkers (Harwood is a very popular hill) who see us out front working in the yard and stop to ask us questions about the proposed development on the lot. Most people were shocked to see three homes being built there and commented on the large footprint they appeared to have – many sharing stories about how they will miss the school and the service it provided to the community, their kids and their grandkids. Others are concerned that this sets a precedent for the overdevelopment of other lots in the neighborhood in the future. 11.The residents at 16226 Harwood Rd are EXTREMELY concerned about privacy as the Parcel B balcony and master bedroom are aligned with their master bedroom and existing balcony, albeit slightly lower. (They are unable to attend the meeting due to work travel overseas) 12.Every plan we see has a different landscape and tree plan. Trees are being added and removed without any notification or revisions on the plan and are inconsistent from page to page. It is hard to tell what is actually proposed to be planted, and we welcome updates on this matter. 13.On this point, we simply noted to the DRC and planning council that people do not stop at this stop sign. Without Parcel A, people can see down Almond Blossom Dr better and proceed safer. In addition, the driveway into the school from Harwood Rd was always a one-way entrance, with traffic exiting on to Almond Blossom Ln. Now Parcel B is adding an active private driveway with limited visibility. (Remember what we said about the quantity of walkers on Harwood Rd). We simply wanted to point out this possible concerns to the planning committee who does not live here and see the activity on a daily basis. 14.We do not believe that we are asking the town to ignore their residential guidelines at all – we feel a few are specifically not being followed. For example, the 2nd story balcony could be ruled as not consistent with the Town’s Residential Design Guideline 3.11.2: Minimize privacy intrusion on adjacent residences. Second floor balconies and decks should be used only when they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. In addition, part of guidelines are the letter of the ‘guidelines’ vs. the sprit of the ‘guidelines’. Had the applicant had open exchanges/conversations with the adjacent neighbors as was recommended by the city planners, some of this could have been identified and mitigated at an early time. But not attempts were made, nor has any outreach occurred since the DRC. 15.While the architect reviews for design comments, we are unclear if the flag lot location of Parcel B was taken into consideration or Town’s Residential Design Guideline 3.11.2: Minimize privacy intrusion on adjacent residences would have been taken into account. Had the applicant included any of the neighbors in the lengthy planning process with architects and the city, we could have identified the areas that raised the most concerns and tried to work together to find compromises or solutions the immediate neighbors all agreed to. The applicant chose not to. This Page Intentionally Left Blank