Loading...
Minutes - 08-14-13 - PC Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 August 14, 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chair Charles Erekson, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Kendra Burch, Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell, Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore Vice Chair Margaret Smith Others: Planning Manager Joel Paulson and Associate Planner Jennifer Savage PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Commissioner Talesfore WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Specific Plan North 40 Advisory Committee Commissioner Sayoc  Reported that the North 40 Advisory Committee met on August 7, 2013, and reviewed both commercial and residential design, discussed neighborhood identity, circulation and streetscape. The next meeting is set for August 29, 2013, to finalize the plan. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) Commissioner Talesfore  Reported that CDAC met on August 14, 2013, and reviewed two items as follows: Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 14, 2013 o 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard. CD-13-002. This proposed 12-unit residential development was found to be too dense. CDAC believes commercial uses may be better for this location. o 233 Oak Meadow Drive. CD-13-003. Review of conceptual plans to demo an existing office building and construct six residential condominiums. This proposal was found to be problematic due to the location, circulation problems and environmental impacts due to proximity to the creek. CDAC found that losing office space for housing in that area may not be what is wanted and that smaller offices for incoming businesses may better serve the community. General Plan Committee (GPC) Commissioner Bourgeois:  Reported that the GPC met on August 14, 2013, and worked on the Town Council revisions to the draft AHOZ Design Guidelines and development criteria and provided one clarification and one revision.  Commented that the next GPC meeting on August 28, 2013, may be the final review of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone before it comes to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2013 Commissioner Talesfore  Commented for the record that although she was not at the July 10, 2013, meeting, she has reviewed the minutes. Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner O’Donnell to approve meeting minutes of July 10, 2013. Motion carried 6-0 with Vice Chair Smith absent. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR – NONE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 34 & 36 Ashler Avenue. Architecture and Site Application S-13-052. Requesting approval to eliminate an interior second dwelling unit in an existing single-family residence on property zoned R-1D. APN 410-14-044. PROPERTY OWNER: Mark & Melissa Ronaldson. APPLICANT: Wade Construction. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 14, 2013 Associate Planner Jennifer Savage presented the staff report. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked staff if this second unit is counted toward the affordable housing number. Jennifer Savage replied no. Mark Ronaldson, Property Owner, made himself available for questions. Motion by Commissioner Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Talesfore to approve Architecture and Site Application S-13-052, subject to the findings in Exhibit 2 and conditions in Exhibit 3, of the staff report dated August 14, 2013, with the added comment that the loss of this secondary unit does not reduce the Town’s number of affordable units. Motion carried 6-0. Planning Manager Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. 2. 277 Hershner Court. Architecture and Site Application S-13-019. Requesting approval to construct a new second-story for a single-family residence and to exceed the maximum allowable floor area on a property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-44-023. PROPERTY OWNER: Sara Seyedin. APPLICANT: Jeff Guinta. PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters Chair Erekson opened the public hearing Planning Manager Joel Paulson presented the staff report. Jeff Guinta, Project Applicant, introduced Sara Seyedin, Property Owner, and gave a presentation. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked the applicant to outline the efforts made in neighbor outreach and how the signatures from neighbors were secured.  Asked what conversations occurred with neighbors of this proposal, what the nature of concerns was, and if any changes were made to the plan after speaking to the neighbors. Sara Seyedin  Commented she secured the signatures and the only concerns raised were by the back neighbor. One neighbor was out of the country and she had no way to reach the new owners to the right.  Commented she lost some initial support when one neighbor spoke with others and one neighbor is neutral.  Commented that the concern was privacy and she has planted two redwood trees to help create privacy screening between the properties. She is willing to put trees in her neighbor’s yard at her cost. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 14, 2013  Commented they made revisions to the design upon learning of neighbor concerns by elevating the windows and reducing the square footage. Jeff Guinta  Commented that the third design eliminated a bathroom, moved a second bedroom and eliminated side windows and 137 square feet of floor area but those changes did not go over well with the Town’s Consulting Architect.  Commented that for the fourth design, they eliminated a bathroom but kept the windows tall.  Commented that the third and fourth designs were not presented to the neighbors. Mark Brodsky, Resident  Commented that he is a former Mayor of Monte Sereno and spoke in support of the project. Maureen Heberling, Resident  Commented that she’s been a resident for 44 years and has three large windows facing her backyard and that the condominiums behind her home have views into her home.  Commented that she is concerned for her neighbors’ privacy.  Commented that she originally signed off on this proposal, but changed her mind upon learning that the project exceeds allowable square footage.  Spoke in opposition to this project and asked that neighborhood concerns be heard. Wendy Marioni, Resident  Commented that she too originally signed the document without seeing the plans. She now realizes the loss of privacy she would face in her backyard. She provided a photograph taken from her backyard demonstrating per the story poles that she will see the entire second story.  Commented that even if trees are planted they could be cut down in the future. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked Ms. Marioni if she has any additional suggestions for mitigations. Wendy Marioni suggested that egress windows be placed at the front and that the home be sized to fall within the allowances. Premal Savla, Resident  Commented that he has lived in this area 15 years and in his current home for the last 2 years.  Commented that most houses in the area are single-story.  Commented that his home is directly behind this one and his concern is privacy and security.  Commented that another house in the neighborhood was constructed as a two-story but its egress windows were located at the front of the house. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked Mr. Savla his thoughts on the proposal for additional vegetation. Premal Savla  Commented that if the house were sold, the new owner could take those trees out. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 14, 2013 Commissioner Sayoc  Asked Mr. Savla whether he supports placing trees on his side. Premal Savla  Commented that he has just finished landscaping his yard.  Questioned just how many trees it might take on both properties to sufficiently screen this second story. Janette Barrios, Resident  Commented that she and her husband are the new neighbors adjacent to this property. Their home is a single story with its original floor plan.  Commented that they may not have purchased their home had they known of the plans for a second story next door.  Commented their concerns are noise from construction and privacy impacts from a second story. John Yeager, Resident  Commented that he has been in the neighborhood for one year living two-doors down.  Commented that he had signed the document acknowledging the project but not supporting it and has concerns about a cascading effect of two-story homes in this neighborhood.  Commented that the rear neighbor to this site has a pool and adding trees on his property would equate to more debris falling into that pool. Jeff Guinta  Commented that privacy tends to be an issue.  Commented that 20 feet is required for the rear setback, the first story setback is 26 feet, the second story 40 feet, and the side setbacks are 12 to 13 feet.  Commented that a solar study has demonstrated no impact on the adjacent neighbors.  Commented that the back windows, currently 8 x 2, could be raised higher to become clerestory windows.  Commented that a Deed Restriction could be recorded requiring the screening landscaping to be retained by future owners. Commissioner Burch  Asked Mr. Guinta if modifying the existing single-story home was considered rather than a two-story.  Asked if the applicants were aware of the petition in opposition to this proposal. Jeff Guinta  Commented that the inclusion of a family room was important to his client.  Commented that that particular area of the home would not be an appropriate placement for a master bedroom.  Commented that a two-story is appropriate and consistent with others in the neighborhood.  Commented that the petition is based on the second plan design. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 14, 2013 Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked Mr. Guinta for the sill height at the back and side windows. Jeff Guinta  Commented that they are 8 x 2, which is less than 60 inches from the floor.  Commented that those could be raised and other windows reduced. Commissioner Burch  Asked staff what the window egress requirements are per bedroom.  Asked staff if the Town’s Consulting Architect had seen the fourth submittal. Joel Paulson  Commented that they usually require one egress window per bedroom though he did not know the specific Building Code requirement as to size.  Commented that per his June 21, 2013, letter, Mr. Cannon’s comments were based on the fourth submittal. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that possible mitigations could include changes to window heights and sizes and/or to occlude windows.  Commented that this predominately single-story neighborhood is not designed for two-story homes and if the applicant is allowed to exceed allowable square footage and have a second story, others will expect to get that as well. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that she agrees with Commissioner O’Donnell.  Commented that extra square footage and the second story go hand in hand. She said that she is hesitant to exceed square footage and nothing has been presented to justify it other than their desire for extra room so she cannot make the required findings to support it.  Commented that she understands there are two-story homes in the neighborhood but not sure why those were allowed. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that she understands changes do happen in a neighborhood but the Town has guidelines and policies to be equitable. Those have to be applied and the square footage proposed here exceeds the policies.  Commented that the other challenge is the architecture and she disagrees with the Town’s Architect.  Commented that trees such as redwoods come with their own problems as they grow.  Commented that she is not in favor of granting this request. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that this is before the Commission for one reason, it exceeds floor area.  Commented that the neighbor concerns are 100 percent based upon privacy impacts. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 14, 2013  Commented that he could make most of the findings to grant the extra square footage.  Commented that per the Town Architect’s assessment, the project is compatible with the surrounding lots. It is not the highest FAR in the neighborhood, meets setbacks, and is under the height requirement.  Commented that the issues are privacy, design, and how to address neighbors’ privacy concerns. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that she agrees with Commissioner Bourgeois that this is a design challenge. Commissioner Burch  Commented that she agrees with Commissioner Sayoc.  Commented that each request is considered one by one and a convincing argument must be made to exceed requirements.  Commented that the applicant should re-evaluate and consider a redesign to a single-story.  Commented that she is not supportive at this time. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that the square footage seems to be driving the need for the second floor.  Commented that he could not make the findings.  Commented that he is empathetic with a family needing extra space but they knew what they were buying.  Commented that this could further change the character of the neighborhood and eventually it could become a two-story neighborhood.  Commented that he is not in favor as the proposed square footage and second story are not consistent with this neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner O’Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Talesfore to deny Architecture and Site Application S-13-019, as the findings in Exhibit 2 cannot be made as the second story is not consistent and there is no reason to exceed the allowable square footage. Chair Erekson  Asked what is the basis is for denying this. How is compatibility consistent with the required findings? Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that there are two reasons. One is that the second story is not compatible. The second is that there is no support to exceed the allowable floor area. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that there’s no information on how the other two-story homes were allowed nearby.  Commented that they could have been done years ago and/or for compelling reasons and it is hard to look at that without knowing why those two-stories were approved. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 14, 2013 Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that it is not important how they got there. What what is important is the character of the neighborhood with those two-story homes.  Commented that the Commission is not obliged to approve two-story homes to anyone who wants one. There are no facts to justify exceeding allowable floor area. Motion carried 4-2 with Chair Erekson and Commissioner Bourgeois voting against. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. NEW OTHER BUSINESS 3. Report from Director of Community Development Joel Paulson reported Development Review Committee met on July 30, 2013  16170 and 16200 Kennedy Road. DRC approved Subdivision Application M- 13-015, for a lot-line adjustment between two properties zoned HR-1.  381 Pennsylvania Avenue. DRC approved Architecture and Site Application S- 13-056 to allow the technical demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new house.  15657 Shade Lane (Lot 4). DRC approved Architectural and Site Application S-13-036 to allow the construction of a new home.  15920 – 16000 Los Gatos Boulevard. DRC approved Building Permit B13- 0514 to allow parking lot alterations at Cilker Orchards.  16212 Los Gatos Boulevard. DRC approved Building Permit B13-0521 to allow parking lot alterations for the Artisan Wine Depot Los Gatos. Development Review Committee met on August 6, 2013  16845 Hicks Road. DRC approved Architecture and Site Application S-13-053 for a grading permit to construct additional parking for an existing church. Development Review Committee met on August 13, 2013  17390 High Street. DRC approved a time extension for Architecture and Site Application S-13-065 to demolish an existing home and construct a new residence.  17431 Wedgewood Avenue. DRC approved Architecture and Site Application S-13-059 to demolish an existing home and construct a new residence. Town Council met on August 5, 2013  Conducted a Study Session on August 5, 2013, to discuss regulating leaf blowers and gave direction to staff. This matter will be brought back at a later date.  Introduced the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for 234-236 Los Gatos Boulevard, which the Planning Commission had recommended for approval.  Adopted a revised story pole policy. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 14, 2013 4. Commission Matters - None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 14, 2013 ___________________________________________ Charles Erekson, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Joel Paulson Planning Manager