Loading...
Minutes - 02-13-13 - PCPlanning Commission Minutes Page 1 February 13, 2013 DRAFT TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Charles Erekson, Vice Chair Margaret Smith, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Kendra Burch, and Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell. Absent: Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore. Others: Town Attorney Judith Propp, Acting Community Development Director Todd Capurso, Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Baily, Assistant Parks and Public Works Director Kevin Rohani, Principal Planner Joel Paulson, Senior Planner Suzanne Avila, Associate Planner Jennifer Savage, Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen, and Recording Secretary Linda Rowlett. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Vice Chair Margaret Smith. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2013 Motion by Vice Chair Margaret Smith and seconded by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell to approve meeting minutes of January 23, 2013. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore absent. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Suzanne Avila commented that there are copies of presentations that will be given by the applicants for Item #1 and for the Study Session along with some corrected data for the Study Session. Principal Planner Joel Paulson commented that there is also a desk item for Item #2. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 13, 2013 REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Preservation Committee -- Commissioner Kendra Burch reported that the committee met yesterday and approved an Architecture and Site Application for 115 N. Santa Cruz Avenue with comments. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 15310 Santella Court - (Highlands Lot #12) - Architecture and Site Application S-12- 073. Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence within a Planned Development (Highlands of Los Gatos) on property zoned HR-2½:PD. APN 527-09-021. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Davidon Homes. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila. Chair Charles Erekson opened the public hearing and confirmed that all Commissioners had visited the project site. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked what happens to the tree impact fee money noting that he would like to see the mitigation trees go on site within the development.  Asked if the planting palette for the transition zone is consistent with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that the tree impact fee money goes into a fund specifically for trees within the Town, typically street trees, in parks or medians. There are 66 acres and the trees can go anywhere within the development and that would be equivalent to paying the in lieu fee. There is a Streetscape Planting Plan and the numbers that are shown on the project's Landscape Plan are simply showing a balancing of trees.  Commented that the buyer will do the detailed landscape plans and they will be consistent with the HDS&G. There will be planting restrictions within certain zones. Jeff Thayer, Davidon Homes, introduced the development team. Vance Graham, Architect, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 13, 2013 David Weissman  Commented he wanted to thank several officials from Davidon for voluntarily working with him to strengthen the fencing and the tree protection aspects of the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) for the entire project.  Listed his recommendations for Lot 12: (1) Issue a setback variance so that the proposed house can be situated 15-20 feet from the road rather than the required 30 feet in order to save nine of the 12 trees. (2) Reduce the proposed 2,100 square foot cellar. (3) Eliminate the single car garage, per staff's earlier recommendation.  Asked why the Geotechnical Report associated with the original Highland application did not reflect the unstable areas in Lots 2, 5 and 13.  Asked about the monitoring of the Tree Protective Ordinance. Jeff Thayer  Commented that they have been talking with Mr. Weissman but some of the items mentioned have not been part of the discussions.  Commented that the setback should not be changed and that the house is well located.  Commented that the cellar is one way to give extra living space.  Commented that they have done tremendous rework on Lot 2 for stabilization of that lot.  Commented that the single car garage is an important element due to the constraints of the site. Parking for four cars is going to be desired for the people who will be moving up there. They are still below the 6,400 allowable top square footage with the HDS&G.  Commented that the site is fluid but they are doing their best to preserve the trees. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked why this is before the Planning Commission rather than being approved at staff level.  Asked why this house should exceed the square footage limits set forth in the HDS&G. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that staff cannot approve a house larger than 5,400 square feet, including the garage allowance, as part of the HDS&G.  Commented that 6,400 square feet is the allowable floor area for that property and the applicant is well under that number. Jeff Thayer  Commented that this lot is large enough to support the single car garage (in addition to the 3- car garage) and it is a valuable component for the demand and marketability of the house. It is a strong architectural element and creates a pleasing view.  Commented that these lots are expensive and every single house is a project within itself. Chair Charles Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 13, 2013 Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented he was originally concerned about the length of the home but now understands the need. He would like to see this project built out and understands the applicant's reasoning for what they want to do. He is in favor of the application. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked if staff has considered given a variance for the setback. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that a setback variance was not considered and that staff would not recommend a variance to an applicant except under unusual circumstances. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that very unique circumstances need to be found to justify a variance under State law. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Vice Chair Margaret Smith to approve Architecture and Site Application S-12-073 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 4, the applicable performance standards in PD Ordinance 2147 in Exhibit 2, and the development plans in Exhibit 10 of the staff report dated February 13, 2013. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated February 13, 2013. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that he is struggling with the application. He thinks the house is beautiful and blends in well, but he believes that the single car garage stands out and appears awkward. He will support the motion but would like to add a condition to find room to replace the replacement trees on the site at large in place of the in lieu fee. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he accepts Commissioner Bourgeois's condition but would like the option to allow for an in lieu fee for a portion of the trees, if necessary, at staff's discretion. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Agreed to the added condition. Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that he shares the concern about the fourth garage but will support the motion and amendment. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore absent. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 13, 2013 NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 89 Alpine Avenue - Architecture and Site Application S-13-003. Requesting approval to construct a new second story for a single-family residence on property zoned R-1:20. APN 529-38-050. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Lou & Cheryl Ryan. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage. Chair Charles Erekson opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage presented the staff report. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked for staff's comments on the chimney issue. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that on the first floor there is a shed roof and wall where the chimney is located. Above the shed roof, the chimney projects from the gable end wall. On the first story where the wall is at the same outer edge of the chimney, it is considered structure and is counted as an existing nonconforming setback. That distance projecting up along the new wall is where the second story is proposed and is the same distance. Lou Ryan, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Chris Spaulding, Architect, gave a presentation on the design of the project. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked about the neighbor's suggestion in the desk item about resolving the problem. Chris Spaulding  Commented that the neighbor suggested that he cut the one side off to 15 feet for about 650 square feet, but he cannot take it off just one side. Peter Rehon  Commented he has lived on the street for 25 years and strongly supports the application. He referred to his wife's letter of January 16 (Lisa Roberts). He believes it is a great design, is a modest addition and is in keeping with the neighborhood. The neighbors are what make Alpine Avenue a great street and he looks forward to the Ryan's joining the neighborhood.  Commented that his concern, if the Ryan's application is not approved, is that someone else may buy the property and propose a much more immodest and greater design which would be less positive for the neighborhood. John Sullivan  Commented that he lives on Alpine Avenue. He thinks it is a beautiful design but he has a problem with the one corner that is near his house. The key issue is whether a property with nonconforming setbacks should enjoy special privileges. Allowing the second story Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 13, 2013 expansion sends a message that nonconforming properties are more attractive for development in this town.  Commented that he is glad to see there will be clerestory windows.  Commented that the second issue is the fireplace. He is not opposed to the project but wishes there had been earlier discussions.  Commented that the project should be approved, but he wants the house set back 15 feet in that one corner recognizing the existing wall. Henry Richards  Commented that he lives across the street on Alpine Avenue. His only concern is the nonconformity and the regulation of the 15 foot setback. If this design is allowed to proceed, it may establish a precedent for allowing nonconforming properties. Chris Spaulding  Commented that the fireplace wall has cabinets on each side of the fireplace and is part of the conditioned area. He does not understand the issue with the wall. Thomas O'Donnell  Asked if there is an explanation as to why the far side of the chimney should be treated as an exterior wall. Chris Spaulding  Commented that the fireplace wall includes the chimney and the cabinets on the first floor and it extends up to meet the second story wall. Chair Charles Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that the two concerns are the wall and the nonconforming use.  Asked what the basis is for the Town's position. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that Town Code Sections 29.10.245 and 29.10.250 allow for a nonconforming setback to be continued either horizontally or vertically. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that he is sensitive to Mr. Sullivan's position but policy supports the application and he believes it will be a lovely addition to the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner John Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell to approve Architecture and Site Application S-13-003 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated February 13, 2013. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated February 13, 2013. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 13, 2013 Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Seconded the motion and confirmed that the second story windows on the right side will be clerestory windows. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that Alpine Avenue is a beautiful street with beautiful homes and neighbors and she believes that this design is beautiful and fitting with the neighborhood. Her only concern was the issue with the window treatment was she is pleased that it has been resolved. She will be supporting the motion. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore absent. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS - NONE NEW OTHER BUSINESS 3. Report from Director of Community Development a. Principal Planner Joel Paulson reported that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Albright Office Park was released on January 29. The Planning Commission will be having a public hearing on February 27 to receive comments. The public is invited to submit comments on the DEIR and those comments will be addressed in a Response to Comments document that will be part of the final EIR. Commissioner John Bourgeois confirmed that no action will be taken at the meeting on February 27. The purpose of the meeting is to receive public comment; staff will not be responding to comments. b. Principal Planner Joel Paulson reported that a Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for the North Forty was just distributed and there will be a scoping meeting on March 6. Comments will be accepted until March 15. c. Principal Planner Joel Paulson reported that a Notice of Preparation of a DEIR was also released for Hillbrook School. There will be not be a scoping meeting, but comments will be accepted until March 14. d. Principal Planner Joel Paulson reported that Town Council has had a number of hearings over the past couple of weeks regarding firearms. On February 11, Council directed staff to bring back a temporary moratorium on the sale of commercial firearms and ammunition so that Council can have some time to evaluate potential land use regulations for this type of use. 4. Commission Matters - None Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 13, 2013 ADJOURN TO STUDY SESSION Chair Charles Erekson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:12 p.m., called for a short recess and called the Study Session to order at 8:19 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner John Bourgeois commented that he lives within 500 feet of the proposed project and will be recusing himself. He left the meeting at 8:24 p.m. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) - NONE STUDY SESSION No formal action will be taken at this study session. 339 Bella Vista Avenue - Architecture and Site Application S-12-103, Variance Application V-12-001, Lot Line Adjustment Application M-12-008. Study session to consider the request of a lot line adjustment between two parcels, a variance for reduced driveway length, and to construct a single-family residence with a reduced front setback and an increase in FAR on property zoned R-1:8. APN 529-23-016. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Dan Ross. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila. 341 Bella Vista Avenue - Architecture and Site Application S-12-104, Variance Application V-12-001, Lot Line Adjustment Application M-12-008. Study session to consider a lot line adjustment between two parcels, a variance for reduced driveway length, and to construct a single-family residence with a reduced front setback and an increase in FAR on property zoned R-1:8. APN 529-23-015. PROPERTY OWNER: Jake Peters. APPLICANT: Dan Ross. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila. Chair Charles Erekson opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that the handout that she provided before the meeting has the correct numbers for 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue. Dan Ross, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Kendra Burch  Asked what steps have been taken to ensure the views to the back court have been blocked. Dan Ross  Commented that they have worked to block views of the townhomes below by putting a six- foot hard fence right at the deck. The upper level windows have a five-foot sill with 30-inch planting shelves. They have always had a concern for privacy issues. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 13, 2013  Commented that the houses are lower than the canopy shell of the trees that the neighbors are used to. Chair Charles Erekson  Asked about the variance for the driveway.  Asked about safety concerns around the driveway. Dan Ross  Commented that there is a public right of way rather than a sidewalk so the driveway needs to go from the end of the pavement to the garage to have room for two cars to park in the driveway.  Commented that they have angled the driveway and garage to improve access and visibility. Planning staff supports this idea.  Referred to the differences between the old and new plans. Jak VanNada  Commented that he lives on Euclid Avenue and commented that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) doubles what is allowable.  Referred to the HDS&G and commented that the project is too big for the property, the slope is too steep, and the development is unnatural.  Asked what the point is for having standards and guidelines if they are not followed. Erin Johnson  Commented that she lives on Maggi Court. She is opposed to the project and does not understand why Mr. Ross does not follow the rules. She does not believe Mr. Ross understands the meaning of significant.  Commented that it is very disappointing that they have to keep meeting on this issue. Mayte Corral  Commented that she lives on Maggi Court. She is extremely concerned because she walks to school on Bella Vista Avenue. The road is busy and dangerous and she cannot imagine two additional large homes being added to the existing traffic. William Schweickert  Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and asked the Commission to continue to enforce the guidelines and FARs.  Asked the Commission to abide by the guidelines and respect the size of the lot and the trees.  Commented that the Maggi Court homes have a wall to prevent the hillside from coming down. The hillside is eroding and he is concerned for the homes in the event of an earthquake. He would like a barrier or wall to protect the exposed hillside and to prevent erosion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 13, 2013 Sandy Decker  Commented that she lives on Glenridge and she cannot believe that this is coming back again. Fifteen years ago the build ability on these lots was nearly impossible and she believes the same problems still exist: the slope, the drainage, the visual impact, the ingress and egress, the driveway aprons, the setbacks, variances from setback, and floor area ratio.  Commented that staff is not requiring the applicant to comply with the rules to build on this lot without variances. Patrick Tillman  Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and believes that Mr. Ross does not want to follow the rules. The FAR variation is double or triple. They are trying to make a nonconforming property more valuable than a conforming property.  Commented that he previously submitted written objections to the previous staff reports. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is not correct in showing no impact on neighbors. The project is not compliant with the HDS&G as stated in the staff report.  Commented that the diagrams showed all the slopes at 30 percent. A 60 degree slope on any of the diagrams would result in a different opinion of the project. Vitaliy Stulski  Commented that he lives on Maggi Court. He is concerned about privacy, significantly exceeded FAR, environmental impact on neighbors, safety, traffic, and construction problems. The front of the property faces his bedroom and patio. There are also problems with light and noise.  Commented that landslides and drainage created by an earthquake are also hazards for the neighboring properties down the hill. Mary Badame  Commented that she lives on Maggi Court and is opposed to the project. The new application is more of the same. The FAR is inappropriate for the site and it is narrow and steeply sloped. The bulk and mass is not addressed. The cellar does not meet the intent of the cellar policy.  Commented that the related issues for the prior denial remain unchanged: bulk and mass, pedestrian safety, front setback, side setback, cut and fill, grading standards, lot line adjustment, and lack of neighborhood support. There is no reason to change the Town's original position. Debra Chin  Commented that she lives on Maggi Court. Referred to comments from prior Commission hearings regarding size and proximity to neighbors below. The new application does not address the concerns raised at the previous hearings.  Commented that the four feet of cut and fill poses a significant risk to the integrity and stability of the hillside.  Commented that the privacy issues have not been significantly addressed.  Commented that they are at 200 percent of the FAR. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 13, 2013  Asked that the Commission give the applicant clear direction to comply with the HDS&G and propose something that does not exceed the FAR or grossly impact the safety and privacy of the neighbors. Forrest Straight  Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and his concern is about the impact to the trees. At least two of the biggest trees will be removed for these homes. There is no way those trees should be torn down. Dan Ross  Commented that he would like to review all the issues. He has invited the neighbors to work with him on the issues but none of them have reached out to him. He most recently put a note under their doors a week ago and he has not heard from anyone.  Commented that the homes and townhomes on Maggi Court exceed the FAR.  Commented that the average slope for the buildable site is in the mid-30s.  Commented that the neighbors on Maggi Court do not currently have privacy. They hear noise from other neighbors and from Highway 9, and their balconies are next to each other.  Commented that they now meet the 20 foot setback on their property line and they have the width of the trail. They have met their goal of not asking for side and rear exceptions on setbacks. The front setback is typical for the street.  Commented that he would like to have a two-way dialog with the Commission to gain an understanding.  Asked how it would help to build an 800 square foot house with the bottom level open. There would be stilts. The five-foot window sill and 30-inch planters block the lower views. They are open to putting a seven-foot fence on the lower levels. The proposed homes are lower than the tree canopy that now exists.  Commented that the two trees that Mr. Straight referenced are not being removed and they will be augmented with additional trees. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked staff to explain the difference between square footage and footprint. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that FAR is the amount of floor area allowed and that is a ratio of floor area based on size of property. It is reduced based upon slope and that is why this property has such a penalty on FAR. All floor area is counted toward FAR except for a cellar element. There is a lot coverage number of 40 percent that is being met. The applicant is requesting for the total floor area to be exceeded. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he is troubled by tonight's process. Normally a study session is a give and take. The problem here is that the give and take predisposes that there will be some adjustments as opposed to more fundamental issues and he has fundamental issues. He understands the applicant's frustration but these are two very bad lots but he is unable to solve the applicant's problems. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 February 13, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that the applicant asked for a study session to get feedback from the Commission that is different from any of the previous hearings. It is possible that there may not be additional comments. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that the comments that he has made before are still applicable here. He appreciates what the applicant has done but these are almost unbuildable lots. There is a problem here that he cannot solve and the study session predisposes things that do not exist in this case. Dan Ross  Asked why he was not told that these are unbuildable lots during escrow. Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that the build ability of the lots is outside the scope of the Commission and is not something that it can address. Dan Ross  Commented that as a citizen of the Town, he should be able to go through the process in a fair way from the beginning. He feels that he has been getting mixed signals. In 2007, the Town's Consulting Architect advised him that the plans at that time fit into the neighborhood.  Asked what would be more compatible. They now meet the rear and side setbacks and they are better on the front than the majority of the homes on the street. Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that the Consulting Architect's comments provide an opinion on architectural style but do not take all of the issues into consideration. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he, as a Commissioner, has a distinct and separate responsibility from the staff and the consultants and does not believe that the Commission has given mixed signals to the applicant. He appreciates the amount of time and money the applicant has spent on this development.  Commented that he believes the applicant has a right to build on the property but this design does not work. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that she agrees that the applicant has a right to build on the property and that some of the driveway issues have been resolved since the last hearing.  Asked Mr. Ross if he has looked up at the property from the Maggi Court townhomes.  Commented that the neighbors' concerns need to be considered. Only one of the two homes fits into the hillside. The problem is with the neighbors below. She does not think that this meeting can get the result the applicant is looking for. Suggested that the applicant arrive at a solution with the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 February 13, 2013 Dan Ross  Commented that in 2008 he viewed the property from a fence on Maggi Court and there was also a neighborhood meeting.  Commented that it is in the neighbors' interest not to meet with him because they prefer that nothing is built on that site. Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that he believes that the same fundamental issues exist that were discussed at the previous hearing. Commissioner Kendra Burch  Commented that there is guidance provided in the HDS&G. The problem is the mass and scale as viewed from below.  Commented that the applicant needs to bring a design that meets all of the guidelines prior to another study session. Commented Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that it is not a requirement that the applicant reach an agreement with the neighbors. He does not believe that another study session is needed, but the starting point would be that the design meets all the guideline requirements. Dan Ross  Commented that the mass and scale of the townhomes and the homes on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue are vastly larger than their homes. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that the other homes are on flat lots. The applicant's property is up on a very steep building area. Jake Peters (Applicant's cousin)  Commented that he owns one of the lots. He is hearing that the direction is to merge the lots and build a single family home. That would eliminate the Heritage Oak tree. He does not know how to propose two lots and two houses and one house on two lots at the same time. That would be very expensive since only one proposal could be approved. Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that he also questioned whether this study session should have been held.  Commented that the Commission will be happy to take action on the application once the applicant has decided what they believe will work on the lots. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 February 13, 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 13, 2013 ___________________________________________ Charles Erekson, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Joel Paulson Principal Planner