Loading...
Minutes - 07-10-13 - PC Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 July 10, 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 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 Thomas O’Donnell and Commissioner Marico Sayoc. Absent: Commissioner Kendra Burch and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore Others: Principal Planner Joel Paulson, Senior Planner Suzanne Avila, Associate Planner Marni Moseley, and Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Vice Chair Smith APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2013 Motion by Vice Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bourgeois to approve meeting minutes of June 26, 2013. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Burch and Talesfore absent. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. A desk item for Agenda Item 3 was distributed this evening. REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 10, 2013 Specific Plan North 40 Advisory Committee Commissioner Bourgeois:  Reported that the Committee met on June 27, 2013, to continue discussion of the draft specific plan.  Commented that the bulk of the discussion was on the review of commercial square footage.  Commented there’s a very difficult balancing act between residential, office, and commercial uses.  Commented that the Committee wants to provide a viable Specific Plan while not impacting the commercial areas and Downtown Los Gatos.  Discussion also included the phasing of development and how to make sure that certain elements would be in place.  Discussion of the Specific Plan will continue at the next meeting. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 17265 Wedgewood Avenue. Architecture and Site Application S-12-094. Requesting approval to demolish a pre-1941 single-family residence and to construct a new residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 409-14-008. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Kamran Shafiei. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. Vice Chair Smith  Asked whether the recommendation by the arborist was incorporated. Marni Moseley confirmed that the recommendations were incorporated. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that the setbacks look really tight and the story poles did not appear set back by eight feet. Vice Chair Smith asked if the balconies on the back had been removed. Marni Moseley confirmed that the balconies on the back have been removed. Kamran Shafiei, Property Owner and Applicant, gave a brief presentation. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 10, 2013 Vice Chair Smith  Asked what the plans are for the existing separate structures on the back of the property. Kamran Shafiei  Commented they are demolishing all existing structures on the property. Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that he was concerned about the size of the proposal, in that it is substantially bigger than anything near it and does not fit in with the existing neighborhood.  That this structure may be hard to see because there are a lot of trees.  Commented he is surprised staff recommends it nonetheless. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that he shares Commissioner O’Donnell’s concerns.  Agreed that while it meets the codes, he’s having trouble having it pass the neighborhood compatibility test.  Asked staff if Browns Lane is an official street. Marni Moseley  Commented Browns Lane is private and there is an easement over those properties. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that there is another such street on the other side that seems to serve the same purpose but just goes without a name. There are houses down those streets or private ways.  Commented that this will be a big house. Marni Moseley  Commented that there is a unique lot configuration in that neighborhood.  Commented that there are no houses across the street for comparison purposes so staff did take a slightly broader approach on Wedgewood Avenue.  Commented that staff discussed the size and massing of the new residence with the Town’s architectural consultant. Principal Planner Joel Paulson  Commented the other lot, which is two parcels over, is a flag lot and different than the Browns Lane scenario. Marni Moseley  Commented that the whole configuration of this area was created while in the County and was later annexed into the Town. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 10, 2013 Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that typically the Town’s architectural consultant speaks to the design of a building, not necessarily compatibility of the size of the home.  Commented that while the architectural consultant thought the building was fine, he doesn’t recall any comments about how the building meets the Town’s guidelines in regards to neighborhood compatibility.  Commented that while there are no houses across the street, there are very small houses to the left and right. Joel Paulson  Commented that regardless of the interpretation of staff, the Planning Commission has the discretion to determine the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that in looking at this site, it seems this would be a good place for a basement and pushing some of this desired square footage underground.  Asked if that was ever discussed or were there drainage issues that would preclude a basement from happening on this site. Marni Moseley  Commented that a civil engineer was not brought in to this project until the very end.  Added that she does not know if that site drainage information is available at this time. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that these plans were confusing and not in a format that she found easy to follow. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked about the status of the pending application for the neighbor to the east on Wedgewood that will not be coming before the Planning Commission. Marni Moseley  Commented that application is pending. The applicant has been given corrections to make.  Commented that the applicant is waiting for the result of tonight’s meeting in order for them to better determine how they can proceed.  Commented that there are some difficulties with that neighboring site and that if it were to come before the Planning Commission, it would require some right-of-way dedications and create some setback issues for the existing structure that would not be triggered if it is left as a Minor Residential application.  Commented that these neighbors are weighing their options based on how tonight’s application proceeds. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked if the neighbor’s proposed square footage would be similar to this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 10, 2013 Marni Moseley  Commented it is within 100 square feet of tonight’s proposal. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that she shares the concerns of the other Commissioners regarding neighborhood compatibility.  Commented that to her this is rather difficult in that it is an area that has not been remodeled.  Added that normally she follows the guidelines but in this case, when both neighbors are so significantly smaller, she is having some difficulty following those guidelines and asking this applicant to stay consistent with those small square footages.  Commented that this request does not ask for any exceptions and it is within the allowed floor area ratio.  Commented that she is actually leaning towards an approval of this application. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that the neighborhood in all probability will undergo a lot of changes if the market stays the way it is.  Commented that the Town often inherits bad things from the County and unfortunately this may be one of them.  Commented that he would hate to set this home as the “floor” for all future applications.  Commented that this is a busy street with one lane in either direction, and with all the trees there, it’s going to be interesting coming in and going out of the property.  Commented that parking along the street is difficult.  Commented that he would not support this house and would rather send it back to have it reduced in size.  Commented that he is very sympathetic and feels the applicant should be allowed to build a bigger house, but he is also concerned about the size of this house. Chair Erekson  Commented that he shares those concerns and is conflicted.  Commented that there are no exceptions being sought here.  Commented that it seems like one might be able to achieve the square footage desired in another way including the potential of exploring inclusion of a basement in that location without making the home appear dramatically different from the rest of the immediate neighborhood. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that the arborist did raise the issue of drainage in her report regarding some of the trees in the front.  Asked if there could be a drainage issue preventing inclusion of a basement. Chair Erekson  Asked the Town’s Engineering staff to respond. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 10, 2013 Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia  Commented that generally there are no drainage issues in this area.  Added that they’ve not experienced any high levels of ground water for other applications in this neighborhood; however, they’ve also not yet reviewed a soils report for this particular project, but a grading permit would be required during the construction permit phase. Commissioner O’Donnell  Made a motion sending this proposal back to the applicant for revisions to explore the possibility of a basement to lower the visibility of the house.  Proposed continuing the item, allowing for a reasonable time to allow the applicant the opportunity to explore how best to reduce the bulk and mass visually and not necessarily to reduce the square footage of the home. Chair Erekson seconded the motion. Chair Erekson re-opened the public hearing and asked the applicant how long he might need to explore options so the Commission can continue this hearing to a date certain. Kamran Shafiei  Commented that it is hard to estimate how much time he needs.  Commented that he had previously considered a basement, but his family did not want to have a basement.  Commented that in effect they may not want to continue with this project and instead try to find another property. Chair Erekson asked staff for a recommendation. Joel Paulson  Suggested continuing to the meeting of August 28. Vice Chair Smith  Stated that she wanted to clarify for the record that the Planning Commission is not requiring inclusion of a basement but is suggesting a redesign to look at the bulk and mass of the proposed home.  Commented that it can be redesigned in many different ways to address compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner O’Donnell and seconded by Chair Erekson to continue Architecture and Site Application S-12-094 to August 28, 2013, for a redesign to reduce mass and scale. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 10, 2013 2. 24 Kimble Avenue - Architecture and Site Application S-13-042. Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to construct a new residence and to eliminate an existing second unit on property zoned R-1:20. APN 529-32-016. PROPERTY OWNERS: Kirk & Bette Cruikshank. APPLICANT: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila Chair Erekson opened the public hearing Senior Planner Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked staff if the existing second unit is currently rented. Suzanne Avila  Commented that it is not being rented right now and the owner does not intend to use it as a rental.  Commented she did not know what the previous property owners were doing with it.  Stated that the unit is approved as a second living unit so it could be rented. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked if this unit is counted as one of the Town’s affordable units. Suzanne Avila  Commented that at this point she does not know if it was ever counted.  Commented that the unit has been in existence long enough that it would not have been considered for the Town’s current housing cycle.  Added that she doesn’t believe the Town counted second units in previous housing cycles although now these units are being looked at more closely because they represent more affordable units. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked whether this second unit could still be counted in the future, even if it was not being rented.  Asked staff to confirm that this unit is not being counted in the current cycle. Suzanne Avila  Replied yes to both questions. Chair Erekson  Commented it seems that there have been revisions to the counting of the affordable housing units.  Asked if staff is sure this unit is not in the revised counts. Suzanne Avila  Replied that second units have been counted since 2009. This unit pre-dates that time. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 10, 2013 Joel Paulson  Commented this unit would have pre-dated the last two housing cycles.  Reported that second units were legalized in the 1980’s with the grandfathering in of a lot of second units. Kirk Cruikshank, Applicant and Property Owner, gave a brief presentation. Gary Kohlsaat, Project Architect, gave an overview of the project. Vice Chair Smith asked Gary Kohlsaat  If he knows the age of the second living unit and/or if he could even speculate on that.  If it would require a significant amount of work in order to retain this second living unit. Gary Kohlsaat  Replied this unit could be as much as 50 years old.  Agreed that it would require significant work. He added that it’s not worth saving for sure. He said he was surprised that previous renters had not complained about it. Vice Chair Smith  Commented she wanted to confirm the status of the second living unit. Gary Kohlsaat  Advised that they have structural reports that back all that up. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that he visited the property and that the only place one can really see this is when coming down the hill.  Asked about the need for grading and/or fill on site. Gary Kohlsaat  Replied that there would be very light grading but some improvement of the driveway that is currently steep.  Added that they had lifted up the house a bit to get it closer to Kimble.  Commented that they need to do very little grading and they are just creating a couple of terraces down below to create some entertaining areas outside. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that when the house is raised, it will become more visible when one is up above it.  Asked if there was a practical and easy way to deal with the driveway, other than to raise the house. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 10, 2013 Gary Kohlsaat  Commented that the only other way to do it would be to have the driveway and garage raised up, but not the house; however, it’s not acceptable to have a driveway two to three feet higher than your finished floor and come down to your house.  Added that would not be architecturally pleasing and not a good idea for grading and drainage.  Assured proposal would work, as they are under 20 percent on the uphill side and on the downhill side they flatten it out.  Commented that there is a large horseshoe driveway that they cut in half and used a friendlier turnaround parking area on site.  Commented that right now there is really no place to park on Kimble, which is why they proposed a parking space in front of the house in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked where they would park the construction workers. Gary Kohlsaat  Replied they would route the construction traffic the other way.  Commented after deconstructing and recycling of the existing structures, they’ll create a rough cut for that first driveway pad and have a much bigger area on the top of the hill for staging and materials. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented it didn’t appear that any concerns were raised by neighbors to staff. She asked Gary Kohlsaat if he had talked with the neighbors and if any issues were raised. Gary Kohlsaat  Said one neighbor is here this evening.  Advised that this home is not blocking any views from the neighbors across the street and the story poles demonstrate that.  Assured that everyone has been positive. Rudy Rucker, Resident on Kimble Avenue  Commented the plans look nice and the owner is making an effort not to make an impact.  Commented his one concern is the trees on this property not being cut down.  Commented another concern he had was the possibility of someone subdividing this lot and building another house, but that’s not likely to happen. Bryan Niswonger, Resident on Kimble Avenue  Commented he’s viewed the plans and thinks this proposal will be an asset to the eclectic mix of architectural styles and house sizes in the area and hopes the project will be approved.  Commented that when the second unit was being rented, it was a pain.  Commented that having on-site parking should eliminate congestion on that curve. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 10, 2013 Kirk Cruikshank  Commented his family loves trees and only six are being removed. Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Bourgeios  Asked for clarification that once this existing second unit is torn down it could not be replaced. Suzanne Avila  Commented that while this property is in the Hillside Area it is not zoned H-R (Hillside Residential), a zoning that does not permit second units. However, this property is zoned R- 1, which does allow second units. Motion by Commissioner O’Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Bourgeois to approve Architecture and Site Application S-13-042 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented it’s clear from data provided by staff that the housing stock would be maintained and the Town is adding new second units at a much faster rate than it is being asked to demolish them.  Commented that the owner does not have any desire to retain the structure, as it exists.  Commented that from a Hillside sensitivity standpoint, the footprint is being decreased on the hillside slope by pulling that building out.  Commented this is a well-designed project that is sensitive to the site. There are a lot of sensitive conditions here including traffic, habitat, creeks, and height restrictions. Chair Erekson  Agreed with Commissioner Bourgeois’ comments. Motion carried 5-0. Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. 3. 550 Hubbell Way - Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-005; Subdivision Application M-13-001; Architecture and Site Applications S-13-008 through S-13- 011. Requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of four condominiums on property zoned RM:12-20. APN 529-09-036. PROPERTY OWNER: 17230 Buena Vista Partners, LLC. APPLICANT: Gregory Howell. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila. Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 10, 2013 Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked for clarification on the term condominiums, since he’s heard this development referred to as condos.  Asked if that is because the plot is not being subdivided so the property itself will be communally owned, while the individual structures would be separately owned.  Asked for verification that is the only reason and that there is nothing in the Code that requires attached versus detached units here.  Asked if there was no problem using both terms for the same project, because the plans refers to them as single-family residences and at other times as townhouses. Suzanne Avila  Commented that they are considered to be condos both with an appearance of and operating as single-family residences. They will essentially be single-family homes that are being built as four independent units. They will look like single-family residences with two in front and two behind. There are air-space rights with these units.  Commented that these are not townhomes technically because they will not have subdivided owned lots with them. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked staff if there is a requirement for common open space in the condo definition. Suzanne Avila  Commented that the Town Code does suggest 100 square feet per unit for common area.  Commented staff addresses this in the report and felt each unit had adequate yard area so it might not be necessary to have common yard area, as was the case with two previous projects.  Commented that requiring common open space is something that could be required if the Planning Commission felt it was necessary to do so. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked if there was not a policy regarding the limitation of curb cuts.  Commented he had concerns regarding the four separate driveway entrances and asked if they could be consolidated. Suzanne Avila  Commented that two shared driveways would be more appropriate than four and staff did suggest shared driveways; however, the property owners preferred to keep them separate as they feel it would be less contentious among the future property owners if each had their own driveway.  Commented that they could not incorporate a private street with this project because that wouldn’t be permitted. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 10, 2013 Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that after viewing the story poles he’s concerned it will look monolithic since there are to be four separate units, all at the same height, bearing down on the street, and having four driveways.  Commented that it backs up onto something that is quite high.  Commented that these homes may not be “condos” because of legal footwork, but they’re really condos. To the people who live across the street or down the block, they are going to see four residences that are really imposing. Suzanne Avila  Commented that the consulting architect felt that, with the preponderance of apartment buildings and the higher density developments in this area, this proposal was appropriate.  Commented the units could be designed in a different manner if bulk and mass is of concern. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect, presented the project. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked the applicant if there would typically be an HOA (Homeowners’ Association) for a development such as this.  Asked if there is anything that the HOA would share in expenses, for example: landscaping.  Asked if as a condo, there is only air space granted, and what defines it.  Asked if the exterior of the building is commonly owned. Chris Spaulding  Commented the technically yes, there would be an HOA and added that there is no common ground with this project.  Commented the air space is defined. The Tentative Map actually defines the structures and the three-dimensional air space that encompasses the structure.  Commented the exterior of the building in not necessarily commonly owned. If this development consisted of just one shared building the answer would be yes, but when it is four separate buildings each owner can be made responsible for their own maintenance for their exterior as well interior structure.  Commented there is almost nothing that the HOA shares in expenses. There would be individual responsibility for landscaping, just like living in town. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked who actually owns the land in this situation. Suzanne Avila  Commented that it is a condominium so you buy your share and your share’s share is defined. Technically, all four owners own their quarter share or whatever their percentage is.  Stated that share includes the building, the exclusive use of the outside space that is within their fence, and their driveway. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 10, 2013 Vice Chair Smith  Commented that this is a very creative plan.  Commented that one issue Mr. Cannon (architectural consultant) raised is that the siting of the buildings at Towne Terrace managed to give some view to the buildings at the back.  Asked Chris Spaulding if he had thought about the issue Mr. Cannon (architectural consultant) raised regarding the siting of the buildings at Towne Terrace managing to give some view to the buildings at the back. She asked him to explain to the Commission why that is not possible, whether it is and, if so, why the owners have chosen not to do it. Chris Spaulding  Commented that the owner wanted to do that and they had looked into how possibly to do that, but the big difference between this property and that property was that property was narrower and they could not get four units onto it, but rather only three units.  Commented that if there are three units, there’s a front unit with two back units off set to either side of the front unit in order to make them all visible to the street.  Commented that with this property, unless they eliminated an entire unit there’s no way to really move the back units enough from side to side to make the rear units visible from the street.  Commented that if he were to move the front units over, he would have to shift the driveway, which wipes out another street parking space.  Commented that when it comes to the back buildings, he would have to push them apart to make the turning area let them access their garages, which once again pushes them back behind the front buildings.  Commented that whatever design used, the back buildings end up hidden behind the front ones.  Commented they are cognizant of trying to keep the curb cuts in such a way that they kept as much street parking as possible. For the front units the driveways are pushed to the sides leaving almost an 80-foot stretch of curb area without curb cuts. Dennis Moore, Resident on University Avenue  Commented his concern is the impact on street parking in that area.  Commented that four residents privately own Hubbell Way, which means the parking in front of their houses is their parking. That would basically reduce parking for other visitors.  Commented that another concern is adding perhaps 16 or more people to Hubbell.  Informed that when one comes out of Hubbell onto University, there is no stop sign there. Vice Chair Smith  Asked Dennis Moore if he is one of the owners of Hubbell Way. Is he responsible for the maintenance of that street as well. Dennis Moore  Replied, technically, yes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 10, 2013 Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked whether Hubbell is open all the time, since he’s seen planters blocking access to Hubbell from University from time to time.  Asked Dennis Moore how long he has lived on Hubbell Way. Dennis Moore  Commented that as far as he is aware Hubbell has always been left open.  Commented he has lived on Hubbell Way about 10 years. Elizabeth McCoy, Representative, Mira Loma Apartments  Commented that Mira Loma Apartments are right next door to this project site.  Commented her concern is street parking, since it’s a crowded street with many apartments.  Commented that the sound level from construction is another concern.  Commented that the Riviera Terrace, which abuts their property to the east, has started construction. A series of 40 to 50 feet high trees have been removed, leaving 11 bedrooms to view the parking lot that’s under construction and an ugly building on the right.  Commented her tenants have been through a lot this year with the graffiti (both pornographic and gang), cars being vandalized, and bicycles being stolen. Now they are being asked to put up with this new project, which includes weekend construction over the next year. Chris Spaulding  Commented the Town has a strict construction work hour schedule, which he doesn’t think allows working on Sunday.  Commented that if such work does occur after hours, neighbors can call the Building Department for assistance.  Commented Mira Loma’s tenants shouldn’t be impacted much, because the site is on the far side of the parking lot, away from the buildings, and not directly in view of the tenants. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked if the street is owned by the Town or not.  Asked Chris Spaulding if he had checked on the ownership of the street. Chris Spaulding  Commented he asked the surveyors about ingress and egress rights and was told this parcel has an easement for ingress and egress rights from the whole frontage of this parcel. He stated he assumed that meant it is a private drive.  Commented he does not know the legalities of it and has not seen the document. Vice Chair Smith  Referenced the draft conditions of approval, where condition 64 indicates construction is allowed between the hours of 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., on weekends and holidays; and from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays.  Asked if his clients would consider not having any construction occur on Sundays. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 July 10, 2013 Chris Spaulding  Commented that if his clients agreed, yes. Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked staff for the status of that street.  Commented on the condition of the street when making a right hand turn onto Hubbell from University and asked if the Town is taking care of the street. Maziar Bozorgina  Stated that this was originally a private street.  Added that when you come from Town Terrace, it has been dedicated and up to this property it is dedicated as a public street. However, past Hubbell and a portion of Hubbell itself will be dedicated in the future as part of the parcel map. Everything going toward University is still private at this time.  Commented the section where University and Hubbell meet is still private and the responsibility of the homeowners that still own it, but they are not taking care of it.  Commented staff can look into the care of the street, but it is the Town’s intention as these properties are redeveloped to take the right-of-way dedications.  Added that it is just that at this point it is not the Town’s responsibility to take care of this private street. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked if a privately owned street can be closed, since he distinctly remembers that road being closed for a period of time with access blocked by planters. He asked what happens if more homes are put in here and that access gets cut off. Joel Paulson  Commented he cannot confirm the planters but depending on if the subject property has ingress and egress rights to reach University via Hubbell Way, then that would become a civil issue to make them remove any barriers that prevent that. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked if anyone has seen the easement document everyone is referring to, who is the grantor, and whether this is long-standing easement that is benefitting not only the subject parcel but other properties as well. Maziar Bozorgina  Commented he has but it does not have a maintenance piece to it. It allows for ingress and egress purposes. Each property owner is a grantor and it is a long-standing easement that benefits several properties. The easement does not have maintenance provisions. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 July 10, 2013 Maziar Bozorginia responded to questions from Commissioner Sayoc  Commented the Town would obtain right-of-way of Hubbell in front of this property .  Commented the Town would only maintain in the frontage of the subject property, and not to the west of Town Terrace.  Commented Town received right-of-way with the Town Terrace project, but it is not yet continuous, even with this project’s dedication. There are still a few properties that are adjacent to University that will not have been dedicated.  Commented one way to secure dedication is when those properties are developed.  Commented since it is private property, there is not much staff can do from a Town perspective if people complain about access to Hubbell. It is a civil matter, given that there are ingress and egress easements for the benefit of the common properties. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked about the Subdivision Map and if it is subdividing this land. If not, why is the Commission considering Subdivision Map Act findings?  Commented for all intents and purposes, these are four single-family homes.  Commented they don’t have the appropriate land required by the General Plan per single- family home.  Asked how the finding can be made that this proposal is applicable to both the General and Specific Plans. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that this property cannot be subdivided because the minimum lot sizes required for these particular units would not be met.  Commented that a Tentative Map is being processed, as they need a Condominium Map that will be filed. As part of this project, the Planning Commission is approving a Tentative Map. After that, a Final Map is prepared and recorded.  Commented that the project falls within the density range in terms of the number of units per acre.  Commented that the Planning Commission has the discretion on the size of the units if it feels that the homes are too large.  Commented that the maximum number of units allowed on this site if the density was maxed out would be six.  Commented that they would, however, have to be sure the site could provide adequate on-site parking and provide the minimal required open space area for those units, but they could potentially have up to six units on this site. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Said that if the grantors have granted access to owners of property, why does the public have access? Or should we have accessed this private drive? Maziar Bozorginia  Commented that the immediate neighbors have ingress and egress access. It’s not access for everyone. He agreed that technically the way the easement is documented only those with rights should use this private street. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 July 10, 2013 Principal Planner Joel Paulson  Referenced Exhibit 1. He pointed out Town Terrace. It comes into Avery Lane. As one goes into Avery Lane, at some point it becomes Hubbell Way. Up to the subject property, where it is black on the exhibit, one can see there’s no real road right-of-way through those parcels except there’s this little leg in front of the applicant’s parcel that will also be dedicated and those other three properties, should they come forward to redevelop, those same legs would then get dedicated all the way out to University.  Concluded that these actions would then complete the right-of-way and public ownership of the street. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked who would be responsible for the island. Joel Paulson  Commented the island would be the Town’s responsibility. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented the Town might have to pave and be responsible for a portion of this road. Joel Paulson  Commented that is possible. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that he has never seen something quite like this.  Commented that it is clear that the condo development proposed here is not in the spirit of a condo.  Commented that it is simply a device to allow a density, bulk and size here in an island of property, which has no maintenance for getting in and out.  Commented that the Commission has to make certain findings on a number of things and he doesn’t see how it can do so.  Commented that unless you can make all of those findings of the Subdivision Map Act, you can’t approve the Tentative Map.  Commented that when Finding C states that the site is suitable for the type or density of the development, it is difficult to make that finding.  Commented that Finding 1 for the Conditional Use Permit states that the “proposed uses of the property are essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare.” Although the development of the property will provide new housing units, he questioned at what cost.  Commented that Finding 2 for the Conditional Use Permit states that, “the proposed use will not impair the integrity or character of the zone.”  Commented that he does not know why the Commission would approve a project now that has no street access nor does he know why the Town would want the bulk, mass, density and access issues present with this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 July 10, 2013 Chair Erekson  Commented that under the first requirement for density it reads, “The use will be adequately served by streets serving the development to its consisting configuration.”  Commented that it would be difficult to see how that is being accomplished. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that this is a transition lot going from single-family on one side to higher density developments on the other.  Commented that he is in favor of being creative in trying to make that transition a little more elegantly than just having an abrupt transition from one use to the next.  Commented that is why the property on Town Terrace got approved. The Commission saw it as a stepping-stone from single-family residential to the older block, multi-residential housing developments.  Commented that he is open to something creative here but this seems like they want single- family homes but our Codes won’t let us subdivide and provide the lot coverage for that type of unit. This is just a creative way to get around that.  Commented that this development doesn’t feel like a condo development. There’s no common open space. There’s no shared drive. There’s nothing shared. These are four single-family homes.  Commented that the whole point of zoning this area as high density is to create more affordable units.  Commented that by going with this type of development, the underlying goal of the zoning is not being achieved.  Commented that he shares Commissioner O’Donnell’s concerns about approving this request.  Commented that the question now becomes, does it get sent back or denied.  Commented that he’d like to hear from the other Commissioners on that. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that in this case it is that this street situation is such a big mystery that should first be solved.  Commented that he is not sure that the applicants could solve that mystery.  Commented that he has no objection sending this back for redesign.  Commented that with the types of problems the Commission has identified with this development, he doesn’t see them solved in a few months’ time.  Commented that he would not oppose a continuance by someone else but he personally might simply move to deny this. He will wait to see. Vice Chair Smith  Commented she prefers to continue rather than deny.  Commented she doesn’t see this simply as an applicant’s issue. The Town itself doesn’t seem to be clear about the street situation and we are imposing some of that ambiguity onto the applicant.  Commented that she would like to see this continued so that the applicant does address the issues that have been stated including bulk, mass, and driveway cuts. Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 July 10, 2013  Commented that she would also like to see the Town get a better handle on that street and figure out what’s happening with it.  Commented that she is also concerned about construction vehicles driving over that hump in the road. Motion by Vice Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Sayoc to continue Architecture and Site Application S-12-094 to September 11, 2013, with direction to address concerns on mass and scale, condo units, driveway access, and private street. Motion carried 5-0. NEW OTHER BUSINESS 4. Report from Director of Community Development Principal Planner Joel Paulson Reported the Development Review Committee approved two projects on July 9, 2013: 1) 111 Andre Court– Architecture and Site Application (S-13-030) for a single-story addition to an existing residence in an existing PD (Planned Development). 2) 331 Johnson Avenue – Architecture and Site Application (S-13-029). Construction of a single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. 5. Commission Matters - None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 10, 2013 ___________________________________________ Charles Erekson, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Joel Paulson, Principal Planner