Loading...
Minutes - 09-11-13 - PC Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 September 11, 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chair Charles Erekson, Vice Chair Margaret Smith, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore Commissioner Kendra Burch and Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell Others: Planning Manager Joel Paulson, Senior Planner Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner Erwin Ordoñez, Associate Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen, and Town Attorney Judith Propp PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Commissioner Sayoc MOMENT OF SILENCE Chair Erekson asked everyone to remain standing after the pledge of allegiance for a moment of silence to remember those lost on September 11, 2001. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 Motion by Commissioner Talesfore and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to approve meeting minutes of August 28, 2013. Motion carried 5-0. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Desk Item for Agenda Item #3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 11, 2013 REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS - NONE VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR – NONE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 550 Hubbell Way. Conditional Use Permit 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. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. Commissioner Talesfore  Asked staff’s general reaction in regards to roads and access. Suzanne Avila  Commented that the property has direct access from Hubbell Way and Avery Lane. A portion of Hubbell is private and will remain so. The Town does not have the ability to obtain that right-of-way unless the property owners were to do some development proposal.  Commented that the Commission had expressed concern about past occasions when planters had blocked off access to Hubbell Way. If something like that were to occur, it would be a civil matter between the residents with rights of access.  Commented that the property still has access from Avery Lane, which comes off Towne Terrace. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect, gave a brief presentation. Vice Chair Smith  Commented she does not see the screening between the second floor windows of this development and the adjacent Tamarack Apartments’ windows.  Commented that per the desk item frosted windows are proposed. Will they be used along the entire back?  Commented that there appears to be a landscaping issue, as she doesn’t see a plan for any kind of screening.  Asked Mr. Spaulding to walk the Commission through the landscape plan.  Asked if they had made any changes to the landscaping or design of the back buildings to address the concerns of the Tamarack Apartment dwellers. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 11, 2013  Commented that she understands that privacy impacts go both ways.  Asked Mr. Spaulding how he would have changed the mass or scale of this project had the Commission given him more clear direction. Chris Spaulding  Commented that the frosted windows are for the houses fronting on University to address the residents in the adjacent single-family residences that wanted to address privacy in their yard.  Commented that there is a landscape plan and the landscape architect is here this evening. There are trees being planted and a hedge.  Commented that making changes to address concerns of the apartment dwellers never came up. Nobody from Tamarack ever complained about a privacy issue. He said that they have proposed screening using both trees and hedges across the back.  Commented that Tamarack has two stories of apartments looking down on their site and he was more concerned about privacy impacts from the Tamarack apartments.  Commented that any changes he would have proposed would have been based on the guidance provided and it was not. Suzanne Avila  Commented that the landscape plan was not included within this current plan set but was included in the set distributed with the July 10, 2013, report. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that based on the minutes of the last hearing, she can see that specific direction is not really there but recalls that her concern specifically was the small lot sizes.  Commented that if the site were to be subdivided into four lots, the Town’s minimum lot size could not be met.  Commented that her concern is that the Commission is either reviewing these as single- family homes, where there is not the minimum lot size available, or as condos but designed as single lot sizes. There is not any common space because there are private yards and no shared driveways.  Commented that she is having trouble reviewing this based on the criteria. While she appreciates the creativeness the design team has put forth in terms of what today’s homebuyer wants, the review guidelines still must be considered.  Commented that if the project is looked at as single-family homes, they don’t have the minimum lot size. Findings needed for a subdivision map here cannot be made.  Asked Mr. Spaulding how he thinks the guidelines mesh with these two issues under the prototype they are presenting here. Chris Spaulding  Commented that Commissioner O’Donnell had implied at the last hearing that the project team had designed in such a way as to skirt the rules. That’s not the case.  Commented that this is not a single-family development. As a condo project, it is the same size, structures and lot coverage, meets all the rules of the zoning district, the density, and the goals of the General Plan. Instead of having it in one building, they are separating it into four separate building units. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 11, 2013  Commented that the Commission is hung up on the type of building. Instead of an apartment block divided into condos, they have separated the units so everyone has more of the feeling of a single-family home.  Commented that this is not an R-1-8 district. It’s similar to Planned Development projects in Town, which usually have smaller lots than the zone district would normally allow. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that this is not a Planned Development and the Commission must review this proposal using a different methodology.  Commented that these appear as single-family homes. Single house, single driveway, and single yard but they don’t have the lot sizes.  Asked Mr. Spaulding if they had considered reducing the project to three homes so they could meet the minimum lot size. Chris Spaulding  Commented that reducing the project to three units still wouldn’t meet the minimum lot size for the zoning district. This property cannot be subdivided into three parcels yet their proposal for four homes is achieving the goals of the zoning district. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that although Mr. Spaulding is calling these units condos, they are in fact detached condos.  Commented that as she understands the definition of a condo, it is the ownership and not the design.  Commented to Mr. Spaulding that the Commission can’t look at the design of the four houses at this point until he can establish that there is something shared about the ownership of the land.  Asked what the owners would share together. Chris Spaulding  Commented that is correct that these are detached condos.  Commented that this is a single parcel. A condo map is three-dimensional base that the four households own. It’s the same thing.  Commented that the only thing they share is the insurance and the overall ownership of the parcel as a whole. What they have is exclusive use and the purpose of that is that condo projects tend to be litigious developments. By separating it out so people don’t share things that they fight about, it reduces the potential for a lot of those problems. Russ Anbirbak  Commented that his home is on University, next to Houses 1 and 3 of this development.  Commented that he is concerned about privacy and is already next to the Tamarack Apartments with its many windows. These new homes include eight windows overlooking his property that will leave him blocked with lots of people able to look into his back yard resulting in literally no privacy at all. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 11, 2013  Commented that Chris Spaulding had offered to frost some of those windows and also wanted to move the bedroom window but he’s not sure if that bedroom window has been moved to the other side of the building or not.  Commented that he would love to see fewer homes and single-story rather than two-story homes. He said he understands it is their business and may not financially be feasible to reduce to three.  Commented that as long as there is some modification to the windows so he has a little privacy when in his backyard, that would be nice.  Commented that his other existing adjacent single-family neighboring residence also has windows facing his yard and his neighbor, Chris, has nicely agreed to plant some screening trees. Chris Wiley  Commented that she is concerned about this project as they already have houses that are not on legal lot sizes. The big yellow house next door is not on a legal lot size. They don’t own their driveway and they have no place to park.  Commented on concerns about future noise impacts from big trucks using Hubbell Way, a private street. Commercial trucks should not be going through there. Even garbage trucks don’t go through there. This is a riverbed edge and it shakes when trucks go over it. The Town doesn’t maintain or sweep that street.  Commented that she is concerned about the parking demand with this project. There will be four houses with a minimum of two cars each and owners will need guest parking as well. They can’t park on Hubbell. Questioned where their guests would park. Greg Howell, Project Applicant  Commented that this property is zoned for high density and whatever project is proposed for this site must take that into consideration. Four units is the minimum number per the zoning. You can only really do more legally and not less.  Commented that when they consider a property, they look at the neighborhood, talk with the neighbors, and look at what has recently been approved for this type of property.  Commented that a perfect project on Towne Terrace was recently approved by the Town Council that offered an indication of what the Town would approve on this type of property. Rather than reinvent the wheel, they looked at what was approved and applied that to their proposal for this property.  Commented that the “big box” apartment buildings in the area are ugly and they don’t want to build that. That’s wrong for the neighbors, the neighborhood and for Los Gatos.  Commented that they want to build something they can be proud of and that people want to live in, which is a detached structure. Buyers don’t want to live in attached structures.  Commented that they are taking a concept that has worked in Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Los Gatos and applied it to this property. He hopes the Planning Commission has the vision to see that too this evening.  Commented that if the Planning Commission can’t approve the project this evening, he asks for a denial so they can take it forward to the Town Council. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 11, 2013 Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that one issue she recalls with the development on Town Terrace and University is that it was providing economic opportunities to buy into Los Gatos.  Commented that it is correct this is a high-density zone and the Commission can’t skirt around that by doing single-family homes or changing the minimum requirements.  Asked Mr. Howell the price difference between a detached versus attached condo unit. She said she was told that there was not a real difference. Greg Howell  Commented those homes sold for $900,000.  Commented that condos sell for less depending on amenities. You pay for square footage and for lot size.  Commented that these units would provide the opportunity for new buyers to get into Los Gatos at a reasonable rate and still get a single detached home. It can be something they are proud of instead of being forced to buy an attached product. Their price point for these homes would be very similar but they will get something that is just theirs. It will be an entry-level product for Los Gatos.  Commented that homeowner’s association fees drive the price up significantly. You may pay a little more for this project but when you add high HOA fees imposed for other projects, it tends to even out. Chair Erekson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that he was sorry the applicant felt they didn’t get enough direction from the Planning Commission at the last hearing. The Commission makes an effort not to design the project from the dais. Commissioners chose their words carefully to allow the applicant enough information to get the gist of what the intentions are but also to allow the applicant to come back with something more creative that matches the spirit of the zone, which in this case is higher density and intended for attached units.  Commented that he is not personally attached to attached units and likes some of this creativity and diversity of the housing stock. However, this is a square peg in a round hole.  Commented that while the applicant has made modest changes since the last hearing, the Commission had pretty serious concerns about the density, the bulk and mass, as well as how to make the subdivision findings.  Commented that he agrees with staff on this and doesn’t think the Commission’s direction was given much serious consideration given the small changes made despite the extensive discussion that was held. Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Sayoc to deny Conditional Use Permit U-13-005; Subdivision Application M-13-001; and Architecture and Site Applications 2-13-008 through S-13-011. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 11, 2013 Vice Chair Smith  Commented that she had pushed at the last meeting for a continuance with a level of confidence that the Commission would see something different at this hearing and that did not happen.  Commented that she would concur with the motion and will vote to deny this. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that in reviewing the minutes of the last hearing, it is very clear what the Commission’s intent was.  Commented that she would have to disagree with the applicant and would also support this motion to deny. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Manager Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 15680 Gum Tree Lane. Architecture and Site Application S-13-057. Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned HR-2½. APN 527- 09-006. PROPERTY OWNER: Gum Tree Lane, LLC. APPLICANT: David Fox. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. David Fox, Applicant, gave a presentation. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that the design of the home is very attractive and meets the Hillside Guidelines.  Commented that the contouring of the house is very interesting and appreciated. It is a way to respect the nature of the lot.  Commented that although large, this house is not visible by the neighbors and shows respect for the property and nature that is there. Motion by Vice Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Bourgeois to approve Architectural and Site Application S-13-057 subject to the findings in Exhibit 2 and the conditions in Exhibit 3 and acknowledging the project’s compliance with the Hillside Development Guidelines, the Hillside Specific Plan and that the required environmental review was completed. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that this is a really big house, on a really big lot, in a neighborhood with really big houses. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 11, 2013  Commented that it was clearly designed with an eye on the Hillside Standards and Guidelines.  Commented that the Commission appreciates when an applicant pays attention to all of the details in that document. Chair Erekson  Commented that he agrees and congratulated the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Manager Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. 3. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code to incorporate revisions required to implement the State Certified Housing Element. PROJECT PLANNER: Erwin Ordoñez Chair Erekson opened the public hearing Senior Planner Erwin Ordoñez presented the staff report. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that as the Chair of the General Plan Committee he wanted to commend Mr. Ordoñez on patiently guiding the Committee through this update page-by-page and line-by- line.  Commented that he can reassure the other Planning Commission members that it was gone over quite thoroughly in those committee meetings. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that she was a member of the General Plan Committee and agreed that a very detailed review was done.  Asked about emergency shelters.  Commented that she knows the Town is only required to provide zoning and that only 11 homeless individuals have been identified within the Town jurisdiction with the last Census but she wonders whether there has ever been a time when the Town actually needed a shelter over the last several years. Erwin Ordoñez  Commented that per the two most recent census numbers, most of the individuals identified as homeless had some form of limited shelter.  Commented that the definition of homeless defines someone who does not have shelter for four consecutive nights. In other words, for the better part of the year, those individuals had some form of housing.  Commented that there is not a drastic need for a shelter. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 11, 2013 Vice Chair Smith  Asked if this would preclude a church in Town from having an emergency shelter.  Commented that she recalls a number of years ago the winter was very bitter and the churches in the area got together and formed a rotating shelter. Erwin Ordoñez  Commented that the obligation of the Town is to find a location within the jurisdiction that would allow an emergency shelter.  Commented that staff looked at the basic criteria after consulting with shelter providers/operators, and based on their standards and the hypothetical need in Los Gatos, determined that the C-M or Industrial Zones would likely be one of the better places to allow a shelter.  Commented that there are certain missions undertaken by churches as part of their religious duties that are protected. However, if a church were to establish a full-time shelter, it would need to locate within the C-M zone. This would not preclude any type of emergency situation. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that staff has provided a very thorough report and she appreciates all the work that Commissioners Bourgeois and Sayoc devoted to this process as well as Mr. Ordonez.  Asked for clarification on the definition of occupants operating as a single household unit. What are the current standards? Erwin Ordoñez  Commented that the current standard talks about being related by blood or marriage. However, there are all sorts of different household configurations and a nuclear family may not be the reality for all.  Commented that the definition created is the recognition that there are households forming that act as a family. That’s the definition that this attempts to put into place.  Commented that it is also a little bit safer because there have been challenges to definitions contained within zoning ordinances that require groups to be related by blood or marriage. Judith Propp, Town Attorney  Commented that there is a case from the 70’s where the Court determined that if you operate as a family, such as eating meals together, doing activities together, then the definition of being blood-related was not necessary in order for this group of individuals to operate as a family.  Commented that the State then took the language from that case and revised codes and adopted new definitions for the family to describe how people generally live together.  Commented that the Town is bound and required by the State law to change its definitions accordingly. The Town has been out of compliance for quite some time. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that the world has changed so much and she is glad the Town will be compliant and more liberal in its definition. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 11, 2013 Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that one required finding that must be made is that this has been considered as part of the 2020 Plan Update EIR. Erwin Ordoñez explained how the 2020 Plan Update EIR covers this amendment. Motion by Chair Erekson and seconded by Commissioner Bourgeois to forward a recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of Amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code to incorporate the revisions required to implement the State Certified Housing Element and find these amendments to be consistent with the General Plan and its sub-elements per Exhibit 1 of the staff report. Motion carried 5-0. NEW OTHER BUSINESS 4. Report from Director of Community Development Planning Manager Joel Paulson provided the following meeting updates: August 20, 2013 – DRC Meeting  15755 Poppy Lane. Approved the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new residence.  15630 Shady Lane (Lot 17). Approved the construction of another new home in the Shady Lane Subdivision.  88 Wissahickon Avenue. Approved the construction of a new single-family residence. August 27, 2013 – DRC Meeting  17191 Buena Vista Avenue. Approved a single-story addition and detached accessory structure.  16151 Short Road. Approved the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new residence. September 10, 2013 – DRC Meeting  17101 Los Robles Way. Approved a grading permit for a new deck and retaining walls.  90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard. Approved a subdivision application to re-subdivide and reconfigure 10 existing parcels into four parcels and three common areas. September 3, 2013 Town Council Meeting  Considered a policy regarding the public use of Town equipment. Council sent this item back to the Policy Committee to discuss possible revisions.  Adopted revised BMP scoring criteria. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 11, 2013 Commissioner Talesfore  Asked staff to for details on the modifications to the BMP. Erwin Ordoñez  Commented that the request made to the Committee was to consider preference for teachers. The General Plan Committee reviewed that recommendation and developed a teacher preference. However, staff also received a preference for first responders so the Town Council adopted a preference for first responders (police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and paramedics). Additionally, what started as public school teachers was broadened to include school employees and later to encompass both public and private schools in districts serving students from the Town of Los Gatos. There has always been that Town-serving component for the existing Below Market Price preference. 5. Commission Matters Chair Erekson  Commented that he has spoken with staff about the potential for adding additional special meetings to the calendar between now and the end of the year. Staff is trying to figure out how to schedule those before the end of the year, as there are a lot of pending items. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 11, 2013 ___________________________________________ Charles Erekson, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Joel Paulson Planning Manager