06 Staff Report - 506 University AvenueMEETING DATE:3/3/08
ITEM NO:to
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE:February 26,2008
TO:MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM:GREG LARSON,TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE eAPN 529-08-017)
PROPERTY OWNER:ARNERICH REVOCABLE TRUST
APPLICANT:DENNIS LOWERY,CAPITAL VENTURES
A.CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE TO ZONE A PARCEL
TO R-1D FROM RM:12-20 (ZONE CHANGE Z-07-001)
B.CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE GENERAL
PLAN TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (5-12 UNITS PER ACRE)
FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (12-20 UNITS PER ACRE)
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-07-002)
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony;
3.Close the public hearing;
4.Move to adopt a Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (Attaclunent 4)(motion
required);
5.Direct the Clerk to read the title of the Zone Change Ordinance (Attachment 5)(no motion
required);
6.Move to waive the reading of Zone Change Ordinance (Attachment 5)(motion required);
7.Move to introduce the Ordinance to effectuate Planned the zone change (Attachment 5)
(motion required);
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at the southeast corner of University Avenue and Towne Terrace.The
site is zoned RM-12:20,which is the same as the properties to the north and east.The properties
to the south and west are zoned R-1D.The subject property serves as a transition between the
two zoning districts.
PREPARED BY:
\
--)\I \
.~:)t~··L _
Bud N.Lortz
Director of Community Development
N:IDEVICNCLRPTS\20081506 University.TCrptl.doe
Reviewed by:Assistant Town Manager -\l-4L-Town Attorney __Clerk Administrator
___Finance __Community Development
PAGE 2
MA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
March 3,2008
The property is developed with a pre-1941 single family home,detached garage and a storage
building.The existing structures and site are legal non-conforming with respect to setbacks.In
2006,the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)reviewed a preliminary request to demolish the
home.The HPC felt the house was architecturally significant and appeared repairable.Based on
the information provided,the HPC indicated they would not support demolition of the home.
The applicant has submitted a proposal to refurbish the existing home and construct two new
single family homes.The subject lot is approximately 14,948 square feet,where 15,000 square
feet is needed for three conforming single family lots in the R -1 D zoning district.One of the lots
is proposed to be 4,683,which is less than the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size.The applicant
is proposing to rotate the historic home to place the front entrance on Towne Terrace.New
fencing would be provided along University Avenue.
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC)reviewed the proposal on May 9,
2007.The Committee supported the proposal.Committee members felt the change in the
General Plan and Zoning created a logical transition between the single family homes on
University Avenue and the multi-family development on Town Terrace.They also noted that
retaining the pre-1941 home created the necessity for the variance,which they also supported.
Several committee members requested input from the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)
regarding the reorientation of the pre-1941 home (Exhibit 8).
The HPC reviewed the project on August 15,2007.The Committee supported the applicant's
request to reorient the home and the proposal for fencing along University Avenue.
The GPC reviewed the project on September 26,2007.Committee member Bourgeois
commented that there is a lack of owner-occupied affordable housing and did not support
reducing the density on this site.Committee member O'Donnell was concerned about the loss of
an opportunity for relatively affordable housing.He also noted that the applicant has proceeded
in conformance with direction provided by CDAC and was reluctant to recommend a different
approach.While the variance for lot size requested by the applicant was not part of the GPC's
review,staff noted there were no special circumstances associated with lot configuration or
topography that are normally required to grant a variance.The Committee voted 5-1 (Bourgeois
opposed)to recommend approval of the General Plan and Zone Change (Exhibit 9).
DISCUSSION:
The application before the Council includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.The
Planning Commission has approved the associated variance and parcel map,subject to Town
Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.The Planning
Commission's action will be discussed in more detail in the next section.
The General Plan designation for the site is Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.The zoning
designation of the site is Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.To implement the project as
proposed requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.This property is the transition
PAGE 3
MA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
March 3,2008
between the single family and multi-family designations.All the properties along Town Terrace
are zoned RM 12 -20 dulac.
This site is one of the few areas in Town zoned for high density residential.The Town is
generally hesitant to reduce the density of sites because doing so could hinder the Town's ability
to meets its regional housing requirement.The Land Use and Housing Elements contain policies
that the Town should maintain its capacity to meet its housing needs as identified in the Housing
Element.Typically,that requires identifying a site to replace the housing opportunity being lost
due to the reduction in density.In this case,the impact may not be significant since the project
will only result in one less housing unit than could be developed under the existing zoning.
Planning staff and the Town Attorney did not support the variance requested by the applicant to
allow one of the proposed three lots to be less than the 5,000 square foot minimum.This lot
does not have the required 15,000 square feet necessary to create three conforming lots.If the
pre-1941 home was demolished,there would still not be sufficient lot area to create three
conforming lots.
Staff had recommended that the Planning Commission amend the General Plan and Zoning for
the corner lot to preserve the pre-1941 home and retain the existing General Plan and Zoning on
the remainder of the site.This approach eliminated the need for a variance.However,the
Commission preferred the applicant's proposal and recommends approval of the applicant's
request.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its meeting of January 23,2008.Several
residents of University Avenue spoke in support of the applicant's proposal.The Commission
voted 5-2 (Sayoc and Bourgeois opposed)to approve the variance and parcel map and to
recommend that the Town Council approve the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
The Commission included a condition of approval that requires the A&S applications for the
home to be approved by the Planning Commission.The applicant agreed that the new home
immediately adjacent to the pre-1941 home will be single story.Normally,new homes can be
approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC).The Commission wanted to review
the reorientation of the pre-1941 home and the design of the two new homes to make sure they
are compatible with the pre-1941 home being retained.Alternatively,the Council could direct
that the A&S applications be approved using the standard DRC process.
The Commissioners in support of the proposal felt the special circumstance for the variance is
that the area surrounding the subject lot is primarily single family and the lot is only 50 square
feet less than the 15,000 square feet necessary for three conforming lots.
The Commissioners opposed to the proposal felt the staff recommendation to retain the home
and amend the General Plan and Zoning for the remainder of the site was appropriate.This
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
March 3,2008
approach would allow a total of four multi-family units in addition to retaining the pre-1941
home.They could not make the findings for the variance and felt it was important to retain the
multi-family designation along Towne Terrace because this is one of the few high density areas
in Town that provides housing opportunities not generally found in the community.
Alternative
Staff recommends the following alternative to the applicant's proposal:
1.Retain lot one at the corner of University Avenue and Town Terrace as proposed by the
applicant.The parcel would be approximately 5,182 square feet and would include the
existing historic home.
2.Amend the General Plan designation for lot one from Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac
to Medium Density Residential 5 -12 dulac.
3.Change the Zoning designation from Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac to R-1D (Single
Family Residential Downtown).This matches the General Plan and Zoning for the parcels to
the south and west of the project site.
4.Retain the existing multi-family General Plan and Zoning designations on the remaining 9,766
square foot lot,which would allow a development of two to four units.
While the applicant prefers the proposed single family concept,they are receptive to staff's
recommended alternative if that is the Town's desire.Staff did note in the Planning Commission
report that this approach does require the removal of more trees than would be necessary for the
development of two new homes.
Should the Council prefer this concept,staff recommends that the application be continued and
that the Council direct the applicant to revise the application to be consistent with the
recommended development alternative.The revised application would be returned to the Council
for final approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change and a two-lot parcel map.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the applicant's request to amend the General
Plan and Zoning for the site.The Commission's approval of the variance and parcel map is
contingent upon the Town Council approving the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
Staff's recommendation is stated above.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
It has been determined that this project could not have a significant effect on the environment
and the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 1560 I).
FISCAL IMPACT:None.
PAGE 5
MA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
lWarch 3,2008
Attachments:
1.Location Map
2.Minutes from the January 23,2008 Planning Commission meeting (26 pages)
3.Staff Report for the January 23,2008 Planning Commission meeting (without attachments)
(8 pages)
4.Draft Resolution approving the General Plan (2 pages)
5.Draft Ordinance approving the zoning amendment (2 pages)
6.Letter of Justification (l page)
7.Letter to the Planning Commission received January 22,2008
8.Letter to the Planning Commission received January 23,2008
9.CDAC Minutes and Staff Report (without attachments)(5 pages)
10.GPC Minutes and Staff Report (without attachments)(7 pages)
11.Development Plans (2 pages)
BNL:CB:mdc
cc:Dennis Lowery,18122 Via Encantada,Monte Sereno,CA 95030
Sandra Paim,AlA,370 Village Lane,Los Gatos,Ca 95030
Julie Jaramillo,15589 Benedict Lane,Los Gatos,Ca 95032
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2008\506 University.TC.rptl.doc
506 University Avenue
ATTACHMENT 1
Los Gatos Planning
Conunissioners:
A P PEA RAN C E S:
Joanne Talesfore,Chair
John Bourgeois
Michael Kane
phil Micciche
Tom O'Donnell
Marico Sayoc
PRO C E E DIN G S:
CHAIR TALESFORE:So with that I will refer to our
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Assistant Director of
conununity Development:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Randy Tsuda
Orry Korb
vicki L.Blandin
(510)337-1558
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
continued public hearing of 506 University Avenue.It's a
General Plan Amendment GP-07-002,Zone Change Z-07-00l,
Subdivision Application M-07-l45,Variance Application V-
07-144,and conunissioners,you do have two Desk Items on
this application,and I think you can take a few minutes to
read those.Look up and let me know when you're finished.
Thank you.
(Pause as commissioners read Desk Items.)
CHAIR TALESFORE:All right,Commissioners.So
the application is asking for a request of approval to one,
amend the General Plan to Medium Density Residential (5-12
units per acre)from High Density Residential (12-20 units
per acre);two,to rezone a parcel to R-1D from R-M:12-20;
three,a tentative map to create three parcels;and four,a
variance to reduce the minimum lot size.APN number is 529-
08-017.The property owner is Arnerich Revocable Trust and
the applicant is Dennis Lowery,Capital Ventures.And this
~
~n;
N
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
continued from January 9 th ,if you remember,and Mr.Banks,
I think you have a presentation.
CURTIS BANKS:Yes,I do.Thank you,Chairperson
Talesfore and members of the Commission.This application
involves the redevelopment of the site at 506 University
Avenue,which is on the corner of University Avenue and
Towne Terrace.The property is currently developed with a
pre-194l single-family home and a detached garage and
storage building.Many of the existing structures on the
site are legal,non-conforming with respect to setbacks.
The applicant has submitted a proposal to
refurbish the existing home and construct two new single-
family homes.The applicant is proposing to rotate the pre-
1941 home to place the front entrance on Town Terrace.New
fencing would be provided along university Avenue.Those
applications are not before the Commission this evening;
those can be addressed at Staff level pending approval of
the applications.The Historic Preservation Committee has
reviewed the reorientation of the home and supports the
modification and fencing as proposed by the applicant.
One of the lots proposed is less than the 5,000
square foot minimum lot size required by the RD zoning
district.For this reason the applicant is requesting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval of a variance along with the General Plan
amendment,zone change,and subdivision map.
Justification for the variance is based on
retaining the pre-194l home.Variances from provisions of
the zoning code may only be granted upon the finding of
fact owing to special conditions or enforcement of
provisions that would result in undue hardship.The Town
has specific findings that are based on specific special
circumstances applicable to the property,such as the size,
shape,or topography,location,or surroundings where the
strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity under the identical zone.
Second,the granting of the variance cannot be
considered a grant of special privileges inconsistent with
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
The Town Attorney and Staff cannot recommend that
you make the findings necessary for the variance based on
the preservation of the existing home,the reasoning being
this site is less than 15,000 square feet,which is
necessary to create three conforming lots.If this home was
demolished or not on this site,this site would not have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
sufficient lot area to create the three conforming lots.As
such,we cannot recommend that the retention of the pre-
1941 home is sufficient justification for the variance.
This application has been reviewed by the General
Plan Committee and the GPC.The GPC reviewed it,did
recommend approval based on retention of the pre-194l home.
The General Plan Committee voted 5-1 also to approve the
project.I would note that the General Plan Committee is
focusing on the General Plan amendment and zone change,
although Staff did express the concerns regarding the
variance for the project.
Staff has included in the Staff Report an
alternative recommendation that would allow for retention
of the existing home;allow it to be rotated as proposed by
the applicant.Basically to summarize,Staff suggests that
the lot at the corner as proposed by the applicant go
forward and that the remainder of the lot remain with its
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
family and single-family zones.They're both 25'in the
front;they're both 20'in the rear,and under either
proposal Staff would be recommending as part of the
Architecture and Site approval either for the single-family
homes or multi-family dwellings,significant tree plantings
along the rear of the property to provide privacy
protection.
Tonight Staff is recommending that the Commission
deny the variance request and continue the remainder of the
General Plan,zone change,and subdivision map to be
amended as described in the alternative section of the
Staff Report,to again,retain the home at the corner with
one lot and leave the remainder of the lot as multi-family.
The applicant would then return with a revised tentative
map depicting that proposal,and could also provide SOme
conceptual plans to show you a multi-family project along
the back portion of the lot,a potential development
19
20
21
existing multi-family General Plan and zoning designation.
As such the home would be retained and the back portion,
which would be approximately 9,700 square feet,would allow
19 concept as well.pattern for that
20
So that concludes the Staff Report and I can take
21
any questions you may have at this time.
22
23
24
25
the development of two to four dwelling units.
I would also note that the setbacks in the RD in
the front and rear would be similar for both the multi-
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
5
22
23
24
25
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioners,do you have
questions?I see two hands.Commissioner Micciche and
commissioner Bourgeois.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
6
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Just help me on one
thing.If we were to go to four units besides the
historical unit,would that trigger a BMP requirement?
RANDY TSUDA:It would not.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Would not,okay.Thank
you.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Bourgeois.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I have a couple
the target number that the Town needs to provide in its
updated housing element.If we do any reductions in housing
potential in the Town we would simply need to come up with
additional sites on which we can replace that housing
allocation,and in this case we're talking the difference
of one or two units,not a substantial number.But I think
the cautionary note that Staff is providing is that we do
not have very many high-density housing sites in the Town.
13 Ifor our housing element and how that mayor may not apply
This is one of those areas that are already designated for
10
11
12
questions.One,the General Plan tells us we have to
maintain the housing stock to fulfill the housing element.
Could Staff maybe comment on the new numbers we received
10
11
12
13
high-density housing,and Staff's preference is that it
remains high-density housing.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Can I follow up,Madam
14 Ito this case?14 IChair?
15 RANDY TSUDA:Those numbers,the Regional Housing 15 CHAIR TALESFORE:Yes.
16 INeeds Allocation or the housing allocation that we've 16 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Does the housing element
17
18
received from the Association of Bay Area Governments is
currently in draft form and that number is roughly four
17
18
dictate or have any preference for the type of units?Low-
income?Senior?Does that in any way affect,or it's just
19 hundred and..
20 CURTIS BANKS:The number is roughly 630 units.
21
RANDY TSUDA:Six hundred and thirty units.The
22
current ABAG allocation that we have is roughly 450 units,
23
so it's gone up by 175 to 200 units.That allocation will
24
Ibe finalized we expect later on this year and that will be
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
7
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
straight units?
RANDY TSUDA:The housing element law requires
that we provide adequate sites to meet those housing
numbers.It also requires that we address the needs for
seniors,low-income,handicap units,a full range of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
8
housing opportunities in the Town,so all of that needs to
be addressed in the housing element.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Thank you.I have one
irregular L-shape lot around it,so our initial thought in
reviewing this is that the home would still be rotated.
CHAIR TALESFORE:So the reason we want to rotate
it is it would give more room to the other two lots?
more question,Madam Chair.CURTIS BANKS:I think initially the reason,my
CHAIR TALESFORE:Yes,go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:The rotation of the
thought on rotating it,and the applicant can certainly
propose other concepts,but I think the lot that would be
historic home,it was my understanding that that originated remaining,they would either have a very wide lot that the
because having three single-family homes,they wanted them depth of it may impact the development of the rear portion.
all facing Towne Terrace instead of having one facing 10
The lot pattern along University is 50'wide lots.This is a
10
11
12
University and two facing Towne Terrace.With the proposal
that Staff is putting forward where we only have the
11
12
little over 100'wide along University.So if you wanted to
retain the existing home you'd be cutting this front portion
roughly in half,so you'd have a portion along the corner
13 I single-family home on Lot #1,is the rotation still 13 and then this back area.
14 Inecessary and/or recommended?14 Now again,we can look at proposals that the
15 CURTIS BANKS:I would think the rotation would 15 applicant may have to do multi-family.What I've seen to
16 still be necessary and recommended just because of the lot 16 date it would still involve rotating the home,and again,I
17 pattern:the remainder of the lot allows for a rectangular 17 think it leaves a more viable,more developable parcel in
18 lot to be created behind Lot #1.I think you can look at the 18 the rear once you create the subdivision.
19
tentative map and see how that would be.The applicant,if 19 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.Commissioner
20
they came and had a proposal,they could certainly propose 20 ISayoc.
correctly?
more units by a certain time?Am I understanding that
housing allocation numbers,is it that we need to create 450
clarify for me and for others that may not understand,these
Mr.Tsuda,could you justCOMMISSIONERSAYOC:
22
21
24
25
23
pattern,creating a lot along here would leave kind of an
little difficult to determine that,but I think the lot
something keeping it in its present location.Just looking
wide lots.This one lot is approximately a little over a
hundred feet wide.We have a map on the screen.It may be a
at the lot and the lot pattern along University is about 50'
21
23
22
24
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
10
RANDY TSUDA:The Town doesn't necessarily need to significant,appeared repairable.Based on the information
create or produce the units.The first step is the Town provided,the Historic Preservation Committee indicated they
needs to document how it can accommodate in this case the would not support demo of the house.And then the Staff
650 units,so that would need to be 650 units that are above Report goes on to other matters.
and beyond our current maximum housing capacity.One gets invested in things when one works on them
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:And is that by a certain from the beginning,pride of authorship or just investment
time?in a given project.I was on the Historic Preservation
RANDY TSUDA:The planning timeframe for our next Committee in those days and we had two meetings on this
housing element is a seven-year window.It has a seven-year question.Not an en passant treatment either.Len Pacheco,
10
11
Cowan,received the architects design initially.There might
the chairperson,Kendra Burch,myself,Steve Rice,Bob
fellas wanted to knock the house down.We said no,you can't
do that,and what we could do is this,and we started to
have been a change in parties in there,but initially the
13
12
CURTIS BANKS:2007 to 2014.
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Okay.And then just for my
window from two thousand...
own information,that lot currently houses one house.How is
it that there's one house in a multi-use zone?
12
10
13
11
14 CURTIS BANKS:That's a pre-existing home.It was
14 talk about the fact that this was an entrance to Towne
15 built obviously pre-1941,so it's been there for quite some
15 Terrace,this was a transition property,that we're going
16 time.
16 from single homes to apartments,and we were looking at the
17 COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Okay,thank you.17 landscape on University as that hit the eye,a stream of
18 CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Kane.18 lone-story houses.We said we really have to preserve this
19 COMMISSIONER KANE:Mr.Banks,since you're 19 I corner.We didn't say it just this way,but what it was was
20 representing Staff on this I'll talk to you about it.I 20 a deal.We thought we could meet the intent of the Historic
21 don't know if you prepared the report or not.In the second 21 Preservation language,the General Plan,et cetera.
22 paragraph under Background,it says the property is pre-22 What we put out at the first meeting,I think it
23
24
25
1941,existing structures,et cetera,and then it says in
2006 the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed a
preliminary request to demolish.The HPC felt the house was
23
24
25
was at the first meeting,tentatively,but definitely that
was in August,definitely at the December 2006 meeting we
brought up the concept of one-one-two,and I thought that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
11
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
12
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
was so significant that I'm disappointed it's not in the
Staff Report.I didn't call to discuss it and I should have.
But the one-one-two meant that as we got into the transition
of the neighborhood the historic house would be preserved as
a one-story,the house next to it would be one-story,and
then the developer could put in a two-story as that
approached the two-story apartments,and the line of sight,
instead of being perhaps a sharp 45-degree,put the two-
story house next to the historic house,would be more of
maybe a 60-degree,it would be more of a 30-degree slope
from the original house on the corner to the second house to
the third house,which was two-stories.We did that at
length.I talked to Len Pacheco and Kendra Burch today and
said,'Am I thinking right?It's not in the minutes.Did we
really say one-one-two?"I remember I said it;I was looking
for confirmation.
And unit investment.When you work with the
applicant,you come up with what you think is a good idea
and it seems to have disappeared,and I think what happened?
Because I think that's a good idea.I'm open to listening to
multi-developments and housing requirements,but we had a
deal.And so in my listening as the case develops tonight,
if I'm going to have to move I'm going to have to come off
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
it was memorable,and I'm going to ask the architect who is
shaking her head-yes,I have validation-that we had a one-
one-two deal and it seems to have disappeared.I don't think
CDAC heard about.I don't think the General Plan heard about
it.I still think it's a good idea,and that's the direction
I want to move tonight,depending upon the rest of the
evidence that I hear.Are you aware of any of what I'm
talking about?
CURTIS BANKS:I wasn't aware of that.There was
discussion during the CDAC about how the single-family homes
might develop.That may have been the discussion.It would
still entail a variance if you were creating three lots and
the variances is where Staff is having the issues with the
finding.I understand the Historic Preservation Committee's
desire to retain the home and the Committee may support a
variance on here,but it's still this Body would have to
make the findings that are in the zoning code that a
variance is justified,and again,Staff cannot recommend
those findings on the basis of this lot is not 15,000 square
feet,which is what you need to create three conforming lots
under the proposed zoning designation.So irrespective of
the home being there,it's a lot that conforms to the Zoning
Code now,and in order to create three lots you would need
to make a finding for the variance.
not 15,000 square feet.I think it's 14,999.2 or something.
23
24
25
that original deal,because I thought that was a good idea,
one-one-two.I remember the simplicity of it is easy to
remember,thank goodness,or I wouldn't.But it made sense,
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER KANE:Yes,sir,I understand it'S
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
13
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
14
10
11
12
13
I mean it's very close.Fourteen thousand,nine hundred and
forty eight,so we're talking 50'to prevent the one-one-
two,which I think serves the neighborhood,and improves,
enhances,what is there and makes it even better.
The rotation we gave in to because the extra land
was needed to do the additional two units,or we never would
have moved that off of University because of its
presentation to the main thoroughfare.
But that's historical information that I think is
very important to the Commission,I hope it is,but didn't
make it to the minutes,and if there was a change in
personnel or assignment maybe that's why it's not here.
Staff was present at both of those other hearings in 2006.
So that's where I'll be coming from tonight.I wanted to
7
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you.
RANDY TSUDA:And one last point about the
findings.One of the things the Commission must find,and
this comes out of state law,is that the variance is not a
grant of a special privilege,that it's not a special
privilege that another similarly sized or similarly shaped
lot wouldn't have.So in this case I think if somebody asks
you as a Commission generically out of a 14,900 square foot
lot I need 15,000 square feet to qualify for three lots.Do
you think you would give me a variance?I think your first
reaction would be well that certainly sounds like something
extraordinary and that sounds like the granting of a
privilege.That's Staff's concern with the findings,hence
our recommendation.
14 share that with you.I thoughts we just overlooked it in the 14 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.Did you have
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
report.
CURTIS BANKS:No,I think that's beneficial
information for the rest of the Commission to hear.The
summary minutes we have from the meetings are just that.
Summary minutes don't go into the type of detail that you
explained,but again the main crux that Staff has with the
proposal as is is being able to make those variance findings
and whether it's 50 square feet or a small amount,the
Zoning Code and the findings for variances,which come from
the state,are very specific,and we're making our
recommendations based on those findings.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
15
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something you wanted to ask,Commissioner Kane?
COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you,Madam Chair.I was
focusing on the special circumstances and the fact that I
think the Mayor and the Vice-mayor supported that at the
General Plan.I wouldn't want to quote them,but there was a
lot of support from these other bodies that it was special
circumstances to save this house,and back in 2006 everybody
was trying to take it down,and it was a close call,because
they didn't like this,they didn't like that,they
architecture,this had been added on,and to get full
agreement on saving this house is why we supported the other
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
16
two houses also being built.I'm thinking,as did the mayor trying to comment on that I could get distracted,so I would
and those other committees,that that was sort of special ask if you have questions perhaps pose those to me.
circumstances to allow a 50'variance.Lord knows we do more First I want to start by thanking the Planning
than that in the hillsides and other special sacred areas,Commission for their time tonight.All of your activity is a
and this is only 50'to save that historical corner/quasi-
landmark.
great job and we appreciate the time that you invest into
it.I also want to thank the Staff,and especially Curtis
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.Commissioner Banks,who has worked very long on this;we've been working
Bourgeois.
since the first quarter of 2007 on this project,and some of
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I would just make one the comments earlier had talked about earlier submittals and
10
11
mayor were both not at that General Plan Committee meeting.
quick comment to clarify the record.The mayor and vice-
If I can just go back and go into a brief history.
that the house should be preserved and we've never
Early in 2007 when we first looked at the site it became
realization that the existing residence was something that
questioned or gone in another direction.And so with the
initial point when we looked at the site we began to realize
very clear to us that the site would need creativity in
deciding how it could be developed,and from the very
when we began to look at this project fresh.
I was not involved in those,but had become involved in 2007
15
11
10
17
14
18
13
16
12
that were not present that day,including the current mayor,
which was me,but there were three members of the committee
We had three members.There was only one dissenting vote,
so I just wanted to clarify the record.
13
14
15 COMMISSIONER KANE:Commissioner Kane I you may
16 have been referring to CDAC.
17 COMMISSIONER KANE:Yeah.
18 I CHAIR TALESFORE:Yeah.Memory is a great thing,
12
19 lisn't it?Okay,I'm going to open the public hearing now on 19 Iwould be a benefit to the community and to that corner and
20 1506 University,and would the applicant please come to the 20 Ito the neighborhood we very early on realized that we would
21 IPodium?Thank you.State your name.21 Ihave to look at the rest of the site and understand how it
22 ,could best be developed out.
22
23
24
25
DENNIS LOWERY:Thank you.Dennis Lowery.I'm the
applicant.I'll try to go fairly quickly.There was a lot of
great dialogue and I suppose if I get off track and start
23
24
25
The fact of the matter is if you do not rotate
this house you're left with sort of a fragmented piece of
land,and whether you develop it under multi-family or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
17
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
18
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether you develop it under single-family,you will have
difficulties.
And I think the question of density is an
appropriate question.It was appropriately raised in the
General Plan hearing of last year.If you look at the site
and you do not rotate it,the possibility of getting any
density beyond one or two homes,I'm not even sure if you
can get two residences in a multi-family scenario without
rotating that house,and most probably just one.
Additionally,by rotating the house we really
began to look at the site and tried to ask ourselves what
the urban pattern was and what were we benefiting by going
to a multi-family or a single-family?Commissioner Kane was
accurate in commenting on the fact that a one-one-two
scenario was discussed,perhaps earlier before we were
there,but in our meeting with the CDAC and the Historic
Preservation Committee those comments were added and were
welcomed on our part,and we had received them and had not
ever thought of anything different.In fact even last week
in talking with the neighbors we expressed that we looked at
two single-story,single-family units and one two-story,
which began to make a transition towards the very large
multi-tenant apartment complex as you move down Towne
Terrace.
But real quick,to continue on with the brief
history,we knew that we needed help and so we went to the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CDAC and did receive great help in that meeting,and
Commissioner Kane was also right to reference some of the
people that were attending that meeting.We received great
direction and support in that meeting.We went on to go to
the Historical Preservation Committee,and in that Committee
we received the guidance that we needed.There was great
direction,the one-one-two,and other things and
architectural elements.
I'm going to speed up just a little bit as I watch
the time.The project before you really is an accumulation
of the guidance we received from the Historical Preservation
Committee and the direction that we were able to gather from
the CDAC,and if it were under different circumstances we
would have most probably been in here in 2007,but the
question of density was raised in the General Plan meeting,
and when it was we've spent the last three months to try to
study what could be done.
I'm going to cut it short here because of my time.
But basically you almost have no increase in density in the
two scenarios,and in some ways we're talking semantics.We
want the density,and yet we have to pick one of the
regulations or another.I can tell you that there are other
lots in the neighborhood that are less than 5,000 square
feet.This would not be a special circumstance to have less
than a 5,000 square foot lot.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
20
Additionally I can tell you that without moving
it,the cost of moving this residence and restoring it,
which is appropriately going to be spent,could not be done
otherwise.
family homes is so much greater that it does not offset the
cost of the rotating the house?
DENNIS LOWERY:No,I wouldn't want to say it that
4 I way,and forgive me if it came out that way.What I'm saying
question.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Kane has a 5 is in a multi-family product you have smaller units.You
also have other infrastructure problems.You have additional
spent?
COMMISSIONER KANE:How much money is going to be
DENNIS LOWERY:To preserve the house you have to
parking that you need,and that additional parking you're
most probably going to build a podium product,because you
must have not only the parking for the structure,but also
move it,and in order to move it,you incur an expense.We
10
felt early on that's an appropriate expense.It's one that
11
ultimately whether we like it or not gets passed on to the
12
cost of the development.You can pass it on to the cost of
13
multi-family or you can pass it on to the cost of single-
10
11
12
13
additional parking.That ends up shrinking the units.As you
shrink these units the cost goes down,because it's a
smaller house;you expect to pay a little bit more for a
bigger house and a little bit less for a smaller house.So
when you begin to add the burden of moving and restoring a
14
15
16
17
18
19
family,but the fact of the matter is when you're done you
need to move that structure.If you take a multi-family unit
the cost is much harder for it to bear this type of expense
and most probably can't be done,and so for that reason I
think you should consider that as an appropriate finding for
allowing the variance to that unit.
14
15
16
17
18
19
house under these smaller units it becomes a bigger
percentage,or if you will,a greater burden.I can tell you
that the single-family has become an effective component,
and it's consistent,and it supports the urban pattern,and
it has the ability to support the restoration and rotation
of the house.I can tell you after long study the last four
20 CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.Do we have questions 20 Imonths and with the patience of Mr.Banks,we've worked on
21 lof this speaker,Commissioners?Yes,Commissioner Bourgeois.21 Imulti-family and we find ourselves consistently crunched on
22 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I just want to clarify 22 I space,crunched on removing more trees,crunched on trying
23
24
25
that last statement you made.So you're saying that the cost
of putting in a multi-unit complex as opposed to two single-
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
21
23
24
25
to find creative ways to make up parking,and in the end you
end up sort of selling yourself short and having to come
back to the same density,and if you're going to have the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
22
same density,then you say what would you rather have?And COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Okay,so you're saying
the last thing that I didn't mention would be that the
neighbors in the area have consistently stated that the
single-family product is really something that they felt was
it's not?
DAN SIEGEL:We've ruled that it's not.That
doesn't prohibit a commission or a council from deciding
more consistent with what they would want as a neighboring that it is.
product.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Micciche.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:My question is,have you
understood what we're trying to understand here right now?
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'm not sure how to phrase DENNIS LOWERY:I do,and to answer that,the fact
this,but I'll give it a shot here.I think what I've heard of the matter is that you can find that the restoration of
10
tonight is regardless of our feeling on which may be better,
which is more logical,the fact that it's very close to the
state regulation,is that what I heard?that tonight,and it were upheld by Town Council,it would
the fact that it's going to be done,and you could do that,
be approved and it would go forward.
and if you were to do that tonight,and you were to approve
situation,you can find that that is an adequate finding,
this historical structure does not create a privileged
14
11
13
10
12
It's both municipal and state.DAN SIEGEL:
that we can't make a finding for a variance.And that is a
15,000 square feet,et cetera,I think what I'm hearing is
14
11
13
12
15 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:So may I ask Staff a
15 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I guess I'm really
16 question in between this one?
16 confused.I think I'll search for other legal advice with my
17 CHAIR TALESFORE:For clarification,of course.17 I favorite commissioner,Mr.Tom O'Donnell.
18 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:That being the case then,18 CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner O'Donnell.
19 Ithe Town Council couldn't even override it?They'd have to 19 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I think,Commissioner
20 labide by the state regulation?20 IMicciche,you're omitting one fact,and that's the predicate
DAN SIEGEL:With any policy decision,this
Commission or the Council can make a policy choice.The
question is whether that's a supportable choice.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:facts decide whether we can make the finding.If we make the
finding we can do the variance.So we're going to listen to
us whether we can make the finding.We just have to on the
you can do the variance.It is not Staff's position to tell
23
25
24
21 lof this,that is to say if you can make the finding,then
22
That's what I'm asking.
And it's our position that it's not.DAN SIEGEL:
25
23
24
21
22
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
23
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
24
all this I assume,and then when we close the public hearing
we'll talk about it and see whether we can make that
to do.We're trying to provide you with the best information
that we have,and that information is that we don't believe
finding.But I don't think it's fair to say they've told us,
"You can't make the finding."I do not believe they told us
that the grounds are there to make the finding.However,as
Commissioner O'Donnell just said,that decision is up to
that,nor do I believe they could tell us.this Body to make.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:(Inaudible).COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Okay,thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Yeah,that's what I heard CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.And just as a
you to say,and I think they would deny that hopefully.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Do you want to clarify for us?
reminder that variance and subdivision applications are
final unless they're appealed and that the General Plan and
I have two cards in front of me and the first one is Lois
Do we have any other questions of the applicant at
this point?No,I don't think we do.Okay,thank you very
zone change are our recommendation to Town Council anyway.
Good evening,my name isLOISMORRISON-KEFFER:
Morrison-Keffer.
much.I will open the floor then to speakers on this issue.
15
14
13
10
12
11
Planning and Legal's conclusion that the grounds are not
DAN SIEGEL:Yes,what I tried to communicate,and
there to make the finding.But we don't sit to make those
findings,you do,followed up by the City Council to decide
whether you can make the findings or not.Just as Staff
maybe I didn't do it clearly enough,is Staff's,with
Thank you.
15
12
14
10
13
11
16
17
18
generally comes with recommendations concerning mass and
bulk and parking and other issues,Staff comes with a
recommendation here.That recommendation is what's been
16
17
18
Lois Morrison-Keffer and I live at 504 University Avenue,
which is the property adjacent to 506.I live there with my
husband and my l2-year-old boy.We bought our horne nine
19
20
presented to us to date.we do not believe it is sufficient,
as Mr.Banks has said,because the lot is not 15,000 square
19
20
years ago.In about three weeks is the anniversary date of
when we purchased the horne,so we have been neighbors of the
21 feet and you can't get three 5,000 square foot lots from 21 Arnerich family that entire time until Mr.Arnerich passed
22
23
24
25
less than 15,000 square feet.
It puts the Staff in somewhat of an awkward
position,because we sound like we are advocating one
position or another,and that's not what we are attempting
22
23
24
25
away in 2006.
We have a single-family horne.We have single-
family homes now on both sides of us,behind us,across the
street.It's a neighborhood with single-family homes.That
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
26
is what we bought into,that's what we expected we would
have the entire time we lived in Los Gatos.We were not made
aware when we bought the home that it was zoned for multiple
housing.There was no reason to believe that since there was
a single-family home.When we found out it was zoned for
multiple housing we were very concerned.
To make a long story short,we did meet with the
architect this summer,Sandra Paim,and she proposed the
one-one-two that Commissioner Kane was speaking of,and we
like that very much.We would like to see the home
10
preserved.Paul Arnerich and his wife were the original
11
owners of the house.He lived there the entire time until he
12
died.He was a police officer for the Town of Los Gatos and
13
he gave a lot to the community.We'd like to see his home
Having the three single-story homes really does
make the neighborhood more consistent with what it is now,
what it has been for many years.Putting multiple houses in
there for renting doesn't make a lot of sense to us.If you
look at the apartments that were built on the corner of
University and Route Nine,they're beautiful,they're on top
of offices,and I have never seen the for-rent sign come
down on those apartments.Behind us on Towne Terrace and
further down on University we have many,many apartment
buildings,and often there are vacancy signs up.
10
We would rather see single-family homes for sale
11
as Mr.Lowery is proposing so that people who want to stay,
12
who want to have a stable home situation for the
13
neighborhood,it would be more stable.
14 preserved.We think that's a nice tribute to him and to his 14 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you very much.Do we
15
16
17
family.
Rotating it and then putting another single-story
house next to it and then putting a two-story house next to
15
16
17
have questions of this speaker?I was by the house in
question today and you live next-door to it.There's a two-
story house.Is that the house you live in?
18 Ithat I think gives us more privacy than if we followed the
19 Iplan that the other folks over there are presenting.My
18
19
LOIS MORRISON-KEFFER:Yes.
CHAIR TALESFORE:You live in the two-story house,
20 lunderstanding is there would be detached garages up against
21 lour fence,so there would be a barrier.Where we now have
20 land then there's the driveway next-door to that.Or is that
21 ,another house?
22
23
one home next-door to us,we're going to have three houses
next door to us.That's going to increase the traffic,it's
22
23
LOIS MORRISON-KEFFER:
Arnerich family.
The driveway belongs to the
24
25
going to increase the noise,and privacy issues are going to
be more important.
24
25
CHAIR TALESFORE:
speaker card is Bill Boltz.
All right.Thank you.My next
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
27
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
28
10
11
12
13
BILL BOLTZ:My name is Mr.Boltz.I don't live
there,but I own 511 University,which is directly across
from the house that you're referring to.
I'd like to say that university has become very
pretty with all the houses that are being redone on that
street,and I think the presentation of that house,I see it
quite often during the day,is really well adjusted to
facing the front of University as opposed to being rotated.
I think that my view is I'd like to see university maintain
the quality of that street,and I think from my view looking
at the side of the house probably would not be as aesthetic
to me as looking at the front of the house.So that was
really what I'd like to say.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you very much.Do we
duties of Lortz and his group.The Town Code gives Lortz no
charge to recommend,period,end of story.His duty in these
public hearings is to investigate,investigate only,and
4 I report,and they have exceeded that and they make these
fallacious recommendations to you,which is an abuse by
these employees,and it is ugly.Ugly.So the duty under the
code and the state law is for you folks to adjudicate,take
the facts presented,make up your mind on what's right and
what's wrong.That's how the process works.No matter who
9
says differently,that's how it works.Excuse me.
10
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you very much.Do we
11
have any questions of the speaker?Yes,Commissioner
12
O'Donnell.
13
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Can we have the Town
14
15
have any questions of this speaker?Seeing none,thank you.
I was just going to look out there and say do I have any
14
15
Attorney respond to that?We're getting legal advice;I'd
like to know if it's correct.
16 other speaker cards,and I do.I have two more.Would you 16 DAN SIEGEL:I think the best way to answer that
17
18
please hand them to the clerk on the left of the podium?
Citizen Ray,I'll call you now.
17
18
question is to reiterate that the Planning Commission sits
as the body that makes the decision hearing information from
19 RAY DAVIS:Yes,speaking in the public interest.19 IStaff,from the applicant,from the public,and answers to
20
21
22
23
24
25
Excuse me,I have nothing to say to our Town shyster.
The thing that really concerns me about the
process here is the fact that the Staff has seen fit to make
a recommendation on this matter when I know,and I assume
you know,that that is an abuse of their power under the
Municipal Code and state law.I have researched 100%the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
29
20
21
22
23
24
25
questions that they may ask to any of those people.Staff
has no authority to make a decision on this,the
Commissioner does.Staff tries to bring the best information
to the Commission possible so that if the Commission makes a
decision,that decision can be supported at law and cannot
be overthrown if someone challenges it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
30
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I understand you to say
then that the Staff's comments here are within the ambit of
what they're allowed to do?
Certainly.To be clear,it's my belief from my
practice in this town and many other local municipalities
that Staff was doing exactly what it's charged to do,which
is to bring the best information possible to the Commission
and explain the bounds of the law and where the Commission's
discretion is and how expansive that may be on some issues
10
and how it's controlled on others.So there's certainly
11
nothing that I'm aware of or that's been brought to my
12
attention that Staff,on this issue this evening or any of
13
the others on the agenda,has overstepped their bounds.
anyway,we could make a decision independent of their
recommendation,is that correct?
DAN SIEGEL:Certainly.Not to be too flip about
this,there are plenty of times where commissions and
councils in this town and many others go l80-degrees
different from what Staff proposes.Staff is here to cull
and present the information.As the applicant stated,there
have been many meetings over almost a year with the
applicant.The Commission doesn't have the time or ability
to do that.Staff serves as the Commission's proxy,but the
10
commission remains the body that makes the decision.
11
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Thank you.
12
CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you very much.I have
13
another speaker.Ann-Marie Grigsby.
14 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Okay.14 ANN-MARIE GRIGSBY:My name is Ann-Marie Grigsby.
15
16 Micciche.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.Commissioner 15
16
I'd like to talk about the 506 university that we're talking
about tonight.I am actually a new owner of property that is
17 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Yeah,I'll ask the board 17 situated at the corner of Chester and university Avenue.
18 I simply...
19 RAY DAVIS:(Inaudible).
18 IThis is one of those renovated homes,and we moved recently
19 Iwith my family from the east side of San Jose to Los Gatos.
20 CHAIR TALESFORE:Excuse me,that's a warning.20 INeedless to say,and you probably hear it from my accent,I
21 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:(Inaudible).21 Icame from a very tight community when I was living in
22 CHAIR TALESFORE:I'm sorry.22 I France,and for me it has been a dream all along to live in
23 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:So then the Staff can 23 Los Gatos.That dream came true eight months ago when we
24
2S
recommend,because it could not influence our decision
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
31
24
25
actually purchased our home.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
32
As I'm hearing the Staff and everybody talking
about this issue,for me it is very important that we start
considering what people have to say about the choice they
make when they choose to live in a place,and what I mean by
that,substantially speaking,is in reality the choice we
made in purchasing this house at the corner of Chester and
university is precisely because of the feel of the
community,the proximity of the downtown of Los Gatos,this
incredible possibility of developing a neighborhood,and a
feel for single-family homes,and a really safe neighborhood
10
for my two teenagers was definitely the reasons why we moved
11
here.
12
When I heard about high-density buildings being
13
part of University Avenue I was flabbergasted.I thought all
CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you very much.Do we have
a question of the speaker?We do.Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you for talking to us
tonight.I understood what you said and depending upon what
I hear from my fellow commissioners,I tend to support what
you said.I wanted to clarify one thing you said.Did you
say that even in France all of the people want to live in
Los Gatos?
ANN-MARIE GRIGSBY:Yes.
COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you so much.That's so
10
French.
11
CHAIR TALESFORE:That's wonderful to hear.Thank
12
you.Do we have any other questions of the speaker?I don't
13
think so.Thank you very much for sharing tonight.Now with
14
15
16
along,perhaps like my neighbor,that university Avenue,at
least until Town Terrace,was for small family homes.So it
was (inaudible)made and the house that remains there,the
14
15
16
that,I don't have any more speaker cards from the pUblic,
so I will call up the applicant for any clarifications,
rebuttals,and any questions.
17
18 I that you would see this as a classic opportunity to support
1941 revival home that is there,needs to be protected in my
18 Iview and I really like the plan that talks about the one-
17 DENNIS LOWERY:Just a few brief items.I do ask
19 lone-two that I've never heard about before,which is let's
20 I conserve and let's look at the transition throughout the
19 I the preservation of a historic structure,and furthermore,I
20 Ido think that it is appropriate to make sure that we
21
22
23
24
25
street and let's look at a continuation of a single-family
home and a two-story home that would go eventually to
higher-density homes.I think this is the right plan and I'm
asking this commission to actually accept it and approve it.
Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
33
21
22
23
24
25
preserve the density everywhere we can,and I think that can
be done by you approving this project.
It's true,we might be one unit less than if we
abandoned single-family and pursued a multi-family
discipline.But in the end I think a single-family product,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
34
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the discussions that we've had tonight,and the
application that is before you,and the preservation of a
historic building,is appropriate grounds or finding to
allow a variance to keep these three units as a density.
I ask that consider the fact also that there are
other lots in the neighborhood that are less than 5,000
square feet.We're not creating something that's unusual;it
does exist.
If you do not support the project before you
tonight,then the problem that I think that we'll be faced
with is that we will go away and we will work up a multi-
family product,and when we come back,and if we're able to
eke out all the little components that are necessary to
conform to the standards,we're going to hear from the
neighbors,the people who live closest,the ones that are
contiguous and across the street,and we're going to hear
that that's not what they want.And so in some ways it's a
little bit of a conversation of semantics in that we can
supply three units,single-family residences,that continue
to support the urban pattern.
To respond to their earlier comment about rotating
the house,there was some very appropriate feedback from the
Historic Preservation Committee that approved some
amendments to the plans that allow the side of the house to
have a new element that emulates the existing frontage
elements,in other words,sort of a side porch.And so it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
35
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will in many,many ways look the same,although not exactly
the same,but have a frontage element to the side,and we
would love to make sure that that was satisfactory.
So I ask that you would find tonight to approve
the variance and you would approve the project,and in doing
so allow us to preserve the house and to allow the neighbors
to know that they can be heard and their voice counts in
communicating what they want to live next to.
CHAIR TALESFORE:I have a question for you.You
mentioned that you did meet with neighbors,and we heard
from four neighbors tonight,and you also met with neighbors
and how many and just generally their feeling if you could
spend 30 seconds on tha t,and thank you for doing tha t.
DENNIS LOWERY:Yes.I used the previous week,
mostly when it wasn't raining,and went door-to-door and
handed out some of the Staff Reports and some reduced copies
of the restoration plans that were the result of the HPC
meeting and the CDAC meetings,and the site plan,and anyone
who was home I was allowed as they had time to have
discussion.I spoke to about 13 different residences,and
not one of them said that they wanted multi-family.In fact,
they were consistent in saying that they didn't want single-
family,they felt it was appropriate,and that they actually
had strong feelings about it being anything but single-
family.Up to that point we were really open to hearing
whatever Staff wanted us to do and even your directions,and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
36
my problem will be this if you direct me to go back to
multi-family,I think that we create a little bit of a
disconnect,because I know what it will look like in that
next meeting when I come back.
CHAIR TALESFORE:You know what it will look like
as far as what the houses are going to look like or the
room?
DENNIS LOWERY:Actually I do know what they'll
look like.We've spent four months working up every
conceivable option.But what I meant by that,and forgive me
10
for not being more concise,is that I know that I'll be
11
contending with the neighbors not wanting to see that
12
approved and with them appealing to you not to approve a
13
multi-family product,and so my concern is that if we go
DENNIS LOWERY:Well I tried to be unbiased.I
went in both directions and as it got late I would always
stop,and so I would knock on doors.I did talk to single-
families.I sort of went both directions down University,
but I did not go very far into the multi-fa~ily,because the
tenants consistently began to say,"I'm just a tenant.I
don't own."I said,"That's okay.You live in Los Gatos.
Your opinion is still acceptable."But they thought single-
family made sense in some of the renters I spoke to,but for
that reason,it's true,I did not go down Towne Terrace into
10
that area.
11
CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you very much for doing
12
the ones you did do.Commissioner Sayoc.
13
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:As you're designing your
14
15
16
back to the drawing board for the possibility of one more
unit,have we really served our own community over creating
single-families,which I think do provide a lot in this
14
15
16
multi-family unit,are you making any distinctions between
for-sale or for-rent or are you designing it with both in
mind?
17 neighborhood as a gateway.17 DENNIS LOWERY:We have,just for your
18 CHAIR TALESFORE:All right,well thank you.I see 18 I information,designed multi-family.We spent a few months on
19 Itwo hands.The first one was Commissioner Bourgeois followed
20 Iby Commissioner Sayoc.
19 I that.We've designed single-family.We've tried duplexes.
20 IWe've really designed almost any conceivable product on
21
22
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I just wanted to follow-
up on that.When you say you spoke to neighbors,did you
21 Ihere.
22 My focus has been for-sale units,simply because
23
24
25
speak to the neighbors in the single-family homes or also in
the adjacent apartment complexes,and if you did,did you
speak to occupants or owners or both?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
37
23
24
25
when you get into a rental unit,it's very hard in the land
values in this valley,especially in Los Gatos,and the
construction costs,in the end to be able to rent something
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
38
that gives you more money than what you spent,and so for
that reason a for-sale product is most realistic,and
furthermore it allows people to sink roots into the
community,just like some of the comments we've heard
earlier.
So the single-families themselves,the designs are
not complete.What is before you tonight is the density and
the variance and the General Plan.We have to come back
before you,if you were to approve us,to get your approval
for the single-family designs.The existing residents,we
10
want to remain true to the architectural pedigree of the
11
house.That is more or less fixed.It has already been
12
reviewed by the Historical Preservation Committee and you
13
will not see much change to that unless somehow we're
looking residences to continue the pattern.A multi-family,
without discussing it,obviously involves probably a single
structure,and in fact I can tell you all the ones we
designed that got close to the density were single
structure,and the mass of a single structure,as you try to
compartmentalize it to multiple units is simply different
than the smaller massing and the spacing and the open space
that is derived from single-family residences.And that's
why early on we figured out that the single-family product
we thought was the right product.Without the knowledge of
10
talking to the neighbors and without the advantage of that
11
we felt that this conclusion would be arrived at,and so
12
that's why we ask tonight that you see the wisdom in
13
considering a single-family product over a single structure
14
15
16
17
directed to.Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Yes.And final question,when
talking with neighbors,I heard concerns about noise and
parking and traffic when it comes to multi-family
14
15
16
17
multi-family product.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Do we have any other questions
of this speaker?I don't see any,and we thank you for your
time.Okay,Commissioners,I'm going to close the public
18 I residences.Any other concerns that you heard that were
19 Ispecific why they wanted single-family versus those?
20 JAnything you could add to that list?
18 Ihearing and open it to you for discussion and more questions
19 lof Staff if you have them,and then hopefully for a motion.
20 ICommissioner Bourgeois.
21
22
23
24
25
DENNIS LOWERY:I don't have too much recollection
that they had a passionate perspective of why multi-family
is so different than single-family.I think it was in
general a basic statement that the University area is
single-family.You sort of expect these single-family
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
39
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I have some pretty strong
feelings on this so I'm going to go ahead and open up with
that.When I look at this property the two things that seem
most important to me are one,protecting an historic home
and protecting that continuity along university Avenue;and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
40
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the second thing that is really important is protecting the
zoning,protecting high density.
We have very few areas in town that are high
density,and if we look at our General Plan,we look at our
housing element,the first goal of our housing element says
to expand the housing opportunities for all economic
segments of the community to a variety of housing types and
sizes,including a mixture of ownership and rental
opportunities.I think if we switch this opportunity in
front of us to single-family homes,we are violating the
first goal of our housing element.So for those reasons I
think the Staff recommendation of accepting the zone and
General Plan change on Lot #1,and sending it back for the
rest of the lot,I think it hits the mark right on.
And one thing that hasn't been brought up is the
density.We may only be gaining the two units,but the
economic segment of our community that those units are
serving is vastly different,and I think that's very
important and I don't think that should be overlooked.
I'm going to go ahead and make a motion.I'm going
to move that the variance request be denied,because I think
whether you agree with me or not,I don't think we have the
grounds to grant the variance.To have three 5,000 square
foot lots you have to have 15,000 square feet and they don't
have it,so I don't see where we can make that variance.So
I recommend that we deny the variance request and that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
41
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
General Plan amendment and zone change be continued,and
that we direct the applicant to revise the proposal to
consist of a two-lot subdivision instead of a three-lot
subdivision,and that the General Plan amendment and zone
change would only apply to Lot #1.That's my motion.
CHAIR TALESFORE:We have a motion in front of us,
commissioners,from Commissioner Bourgeois.Do we have a
second on this?
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Actually I will be seconding
the motion,and I'd also like to share my thoughts on it.
I strongly,strongly believe in preserving the
home.I was on the Historic Preservation committee last year
with the group that met with you,and we looked into the
home and its preservation and we also looked at its
reorientation.And to the speaker that talked about
maintaining that continuity along University Avenue,that
was extremely important to us,but what we had in front of
us was an excellent design that the applicant has provided
that showed a side elevation that was able emulate the front
elevation so that as you're going down University Avenue it
does not break up that fa~ade,and so for that reason the
Historic Preservation committee felt that a reorientation
was acceptable.
I do not believe that we have the findings for a
variance;for that reason I'm seconding this motion.I do
like the alternative that Staff has provided in preserving
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
42
10
11
12
13
the house,retaining Lot #1,doing the General Plan and
zoning amendment on that,and then retaining the General
Plan designation as it currently is to provide I guess a
multi-family residential.
I understand there's a lot of discussion about
single-family versus multi-family,and there's a lot of
strong feelings about that.People have feelings one way or
the other,but given our housing allocations,which I take
very seriously,I feel that this is the best alternative
before us tonight.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioners,we do have a
motion and a second for that motion,and I see two hands up.
Commissioner O'Donnell and then Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I'm not going to be
Now speaking to Commissioner Bourgeois'position
and Commissioner Sayoc's position,I certainly agree with it
in principle.However I do think we're talking about
4 lessentially one house here,and people can say well one
house is one house,and you can also say,as Commissioner
Bourgeois said,we're talking about a different market.The
difficulty I have is I think we should pay some attention to
the neighbors,and I do think a single multiple-dwelling
unit and somewhat of a box is not a good addition to this
neighborhood.I do think ABAG presents some real problems
10
for us.We're not going to solve it tonight by one extra
11
unit,or two extra units.And therefore if we can make the
12
variance,and I personally think we can,then I think if we
13
do pay some attention to the people who live there,that to
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
supporting the motion.I believe we can make the finding.I
will grant you it is a close question,but the language is
because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size,shape,topography,location,and
surroundings,and I think this particular lot fits into its
size,its shape.It'S a difficult lot to satisfy the zoning
or what we're proposing to do.I do believe that it is so
close to the correct footage that in interpreting this
language one can perhaps be a little more liberal than one
otherwise would be you were it not that close.So putting
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
me in light of one,the 50'difference,two,the numbering
as we were talking about,if we were talking about five or
ten units,or some number,I don't know what it is,but this
is very,very close.
I think we have at least the latitude to do this.
I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying that my
position on that would prevail,but I have a clear
conscience in saying that I oppose the motion for those
reasons and I do think we could go to the other side.So
that's what I wanted to say.
24 those two things together,I think you can at least find the 24 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,and then Commissioner Kane
25
variance.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
43
25
followed by Commissioner Micciche.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
44
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER KANE:I'm going to echo most of
Commissioner O'Donnell's sentiments.We can do it,and if we
did do it the consequence comes down to like perhaps one
unit.The special circumstances allowing us to do it,the
first I see is a the fact that we're off by 50',that's
0.33%of what's needed that's missing.What's missing is
0.33%.That to me is almost a foolish consistency given all
the other corners that we cut from time to time for less
special circumstances.
Preserving that old house,I have an attachment to
the argument because I remember in August these parties
weren't there.The arChitect was,but there were other
people in there,and they had jackhammers and shovels,they
were ready to go,that house was gone,and we saved it.And
This is certainly a variance we can make and I don't think
we're saving a great deal with respect to the housing
requirements if we go in a different direction.
In other words,if we go in this direction we end
up with three single-family homes.They look fine,they're
restored,they're preserved,there's the transition.Whereas
if we go the other way we end up with a box to preserve a
housing number.I think the payoff is with the first
solution,not with the second.I can't help but hope that
that that's somehow persuasive.I don't know that it's going
10
to be,but I won't be supporting the motion as stated.
11
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Micciche.
12
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I would have given odds
13 that I was going to go with the Planning recommendations
14
15
16
17
18
we're not just saving it;we're also restoring it.It's
going to look better than ever when it's done.I'm sorry we
have to turn it,but I am convinced we have to turn it to
make the rest of the project work,otherwise I never would
have agreed to turn it.
14
15
16
17
18
before I heard the evidence tonight and before it became
clear that the special circumstances here are starting to
become overwhelming to me,so I'm not going to support the
motion as I've heard it,and part of the reason is is that
A&S isn't part of this,but I'm envisioning as issue is mass
19 Special circumstances,it's a transition project.19 land scale,neighborhood compatibility,all the things we
20
21
22
23
24
We go into the apartments in Town Terrace,they don't
exactly look like Bay View,but we transition into it by
having that old gem on the corner,presumably a fine house
next to it,and then another fine family house next to it,
and it slopes up,and then it blends with the apartments.I
20
21
22
23
24
always look at once the A&S hits us,and just looking ahead
I see that as an issue coming forth.I think,like
Commissioner O'Donnell,that we can find special
circumstances here to support the fact of going this way,so
I can't support the motion as stated.
25
don't think either we can ignore the neighborhood concerns.
25
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Bourgeois.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
45
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 university Avenue
46
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I'd like to make one circumstance being the saving of the house,because I don't
comment.First of all,you keep calling the multi-family think under the statute that's what we have a right to look
unit a box.Well we don't have design.I mean you can do a at.I'm looking at simply the physical environment of the
transition with a good design,so I think by saying we're lot,and to lay something out here,any way you look at this
going to have this nice one-one-two transition,it's going particular lot you come up short,and you come up 50'short,
to be beautiful,or we get a box,I think it's a fallacy and and I think it is because of the particular size and shape
I think that's a misrepresentation of what could happen in a of the lot,and when you look at that together with its
design phase at A&S.surroundings,which I tend to think are single-family,if
Second,I would like to hear what you guys think you weigh the size and shape of that lot and you balance it
11
10
it's a rectangle,and it's flat,and it's not 15,000 square
the overwhelming evidence for making the variance is.I mean
So without trying to convince you that that is
that neighborhood,i.e.there are lots less than 5,000
1,000',I think the strict application of the ordinance
would deprive this property of the privileges that are in
square feet.
against its surroundings,and again keeping 50'in mind,not
13
14
10
11
12
allows you to feel like you can make that variance.So if
feet,so I'm having trouble understanding what it is that
me,I'd appreciate that.
anyone of you could just explain that a little bit more to
14
13
12
15 CHAIR TALESFORE:Who would like to jump in here?
15 mathematically a correct position,I think we don't have to
16 And I would also like to hear if,Commissioner O'Donnell,16 do that.I think it is a defensible position;it is one that
17 you had a special circumstance that you're thinking of,if 17 I personally,just as you find your language persuasive,I
18 we could hear that.18 find that persuasive.
19 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I find it often a waste 19 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Thank you.That actually
20 lof time to persuade the maker of the motion why his motion 20 Iclarifies things for me.
21 lis not correct,and nevertheless I have great respect for
22 the maker of the motion and I certainly don't say you're
21
22
CHAIR TALESFORE:Does it?Thank you.I think I
will weigh in here right now.I honestly thought the
23
24
25
wrong in your feeling here.
What I'm thinking off when I say the special
circumstance,and I'm not thinking of the special
23
24
25
alternative that Staff was recommending,after reading this,
was well thought out,and I still do.However,listening to
the voice of the people today,and the 50',and realizing
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
47
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
48
that we could come up with a special circumstance has turned
me,and I think when I say the voice of the people I'm
talking about the voice of university,because first of all,
thank you to the applicant for really going door-to-door and
then,we have a motion on the floor.All in favor,say aye.
And opposed,nay.And motion dies two in favor and four
against.So Commissioners,we'll need another motion.
4 ICommissioner Kane.
serving the neighborhood;that information was valuable.But
to hear the people who live there say,"I live there.I want
to be surrounded by more people like me,"it says to me
community,and that is something that we're trying to
preserve and enhance in our town is community.
I thought the multi-unit sounded like a wonderful
10
idea,but in the end I'm probably going to not support the
11
motion,because it is one unit,and when we can have a
12
bigger voice for a community and maybe search for another
13
place for multi-unit and be creative with that,I will not
5
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER KANE:I want to make this a proper
motion,so maybe the Town Attorney can guide me through what
is essentially a new motion that's not in front of us in the
papers that one...
DAN SIEGEL:It is in the papers if you turn to
page...
COMMISSIONER KANE:Oh,that's going to make it
easier.
RANDY TSUDA;Page seven,if you look at the
second paragraph,we gave you the alternative.
14 be supporting the motion.I liked the idea though in the 14 COMMISSIONER KANE;Thank you.That we approve the
15
16
beginning.Commissioner Bourgeois.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Before you call the
15
16
variance and the sUbdivision applications subject to the
attached conditions in Exhibit #4.We make the required
17
18
question,just keep in mind,going from multi-unit to
single-family,you're always going to have these arguments.
17
18
findings and recommend that the Town Council approve the
General Plan amendment,determine that the zone change is
19 IGoing from something else to multi-high-density,it's not 19 Iconsistent with the General Plan,and recommend that the
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to happen in this Town.So as we chip away at this,
it's gone.I challenge anyone to find a place where we're
going to gain back high-density,so I'm just throwing that
out there as well,so just keep that in mind.
CHAIR TALESFORE:I appreciate that.Thank you.I
appreciate your passion for it.That being said,for us
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
49
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town Council approve the zone change,and back to point
number two,to approve the variance,because of the special
circumstances as stated by Commissioner O'Donnell and
myself.
I have one other piece that I'd like to offer to
this motion that I hope is acceptable.I'd also like to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
50
retain the A&S.I want to look at our finished product on the subdivision and the variance that you may approve
this one.When the house is turned and the other two houses tonight would be null and void,and I just want to make that
are designed I'd like that to come back to us,even if it's
on a consent calendar,Mr.Tsuda,to move it along,that we
is explicit,because in the motion that's not explicit,but
it is a condition that is not always in a set of conditions
look at it,we say it's okay,boom,it's gone.But I'd like that you approve.
to finish our work and tie the loop and seal the box,so I'd COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you.
like the A&S to come back here and have that be part of the CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,Commissioners,I don't
motion.Did I leave anything out?That's my motion.think we have any more discussion on this,do we?Okay,I'll
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'll second.call the motion then.All in favor,say aye.And opposed,
10
11
12
CHAIR TALESFORE:We have a motion to approve and
a second as well.Do we need to have that repeated,
commissioners?Mr.Tsuda,would you like to?
RANDY TSUDA:Would you like it repeated?
10
11
12
nay.So the motion carries four,and two opposed.That's
Commissioner Sayoc and Commissioner Bourgeois.Thank you
much and good luck.
CHAIR TALESFORE:I don't know.Commissioners,do
13 '13
14 you?No,they don't need it repeated.Okay.Yes,Mr.siegel.
14
15 DAN SIEGEL:Madam Chair,if I may?Just to make
15
16 it clear since this is a somewhere different situation than
16
17 usual.If you look at Exhibit #4,which are the conditions,17
18 and you look specifically at Condition #5,just so there are 18
19 no surprises,that condition is that the variance approval 19
20 and subdivision approval shall be deemed null and void 20
21 without approval of the General Plan amendment and zone 21
22 change,and the reason that language is there is because the 22
23
City Council,not this commission,has the power to do that,23
24
and as such,if the City Council were to choose not to 24
25
approve the General plan amendment or the zone change,then 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
51
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/23/2008
Item #1,506 University Avenue
52
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:January 23,2008
ITEM NO.:1
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSON:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
Curtis Banks,AICP
Project Planner
General Plan Amendment GP-07 -002
Zone Change Z-07 -001
Variance Application V-07 -144
Subdivision Application M-07-145
506 University Avenue (southeast corner of University Avenue and
Towne Terrace)
Dennis Lowery,Capital Ventures
Americh Revocable Trust
Dennis Lowery,Capital Ventures
(408)202-3029
Requesting approval to 1)amend the General Plan to Medium Density
Residential (5-12 units per acre)from High Density Residential (12-20
units per acre),2)rezone a parcel to R-1D from R-M:12-20,3)a
tentative map to create three parcels,4)a variance to reduce the
minimum lot size.APN 529-08-017
DEEMED COMPLETE:January 14,2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:July 14,2008 for the variance and
subdivision application.The General Plan amendment and zone
change applications are legislative acts and are not governed by the
Permit Streamlining Act.
RECOMMENDATION:Deny the variance and continue the General Plan amendment,zone
change and subdivision applications and modifY the proposal as detailed
in the staff report.
PROJECT DATA:General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Applicable Plans &Standards:
Parcel Size:sq.ft.
High Density Residential
R-M:12 20 units per acre
N/A
14,948 square feet
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
506 University Avenuel GP-07-002,Z-07-001,V-07-l44 and M-07-145
January 23,2008
Surrounding Area:
J.~~~.~!_i.~g.~and Use i G~El_~~_'..l!_P!'..lJ.?:___i ZgJ.?:i.J.?:K
....~gE!h ....I_M~!!i.:f_<:t_IP.:gy_...!:Eg4J!~_J.?:~i.!Y___-M
~~~\~J~illii.\~}~{r:y'::-.-.:~_-.:j:~:£:~]~~~Ey':j::~~Ib:-.-_
West I Sin Ie Family !Medium Densi I R-1D
CEQA:
FINDINGS:
ACTION:
EXHIBITS:
It has been determined that this project could not have a significant
effect on the environment,the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Section 15601).
Make the required findings as required by Section 29.20.170 of the
Town Code denying the variance
The variance and subdivision applications are final unless appealed.
The General Plan and zone change are a recommendation to Town
Council
1.Location Map
2.Required findings for denial (1 page)
3.Required findings for approval (2 pages)
4.Recommended conditions of approval for M-07-145 (8 pages)
5.Draft Resolution approving the General Plan (2 pages)
6.Draft Ordinance approving the zoning amendment (2 pages)
7.Letter of Justification (1 page)
8.CDAC Minutes and Staff Report (without attachments)(5
pages)
9.GPC Minutes and Staff Report (without attachments)(5 pages)
10.Development Plans (2 pages)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has submitted a proposal to refurbish the existing home and construct two new
single family homes.The project contains the following components:
1.A General Plan amendment from Multi-Family Residential (12 -20 dulac)to Medium
Density Residential (5 -12 dulac).
2.A zoning change from Multi-Family Residential (12 -20 dulac)to R-1D (Single Family
Residential Downtown).
3.A parcel map to create three lots.
4.A variance to allow one of the lots to be less than the 5,000 square feet as required in the
proposed R-1D zone.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
506 University Avenue/GP-07-002,Z-07-00l,V-07-l44 and M-07-l45
January 23,2008
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at the southeast corner of University Avenue and Towne Terrace.The
site is zoned RM-12:20,which are the same as the properties to the north and east.The properties
to the south and west are zoned R-lD.The subject property serves as a transition between the two
zoning districts.
The property is developed with a pre-l 941 single family home,detached garage and a storage
building.The existing structures and site are legal non-conforming with respect to setbacks.In
2006,the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)reviewed a preliminary request to demolish the
home.The HPC felt the house was architecturally significant and appeared repairable.Based on
the information provided,the HPC indicated they would not support demolition of the home.
The applicant has submitted a proposal to refurbish the existing home and construct two new
single family homes.One of the proposed lots is less than the 5,000 square foot minimum lot
size.The applicant is proposing to rotate the historic home to place the front entrance on Towne
Terrace.New fencing would be provided along University Avenue.The approvals required to
rotate the home can be approved at staff level and are not part of the request before the Planning
Commission.
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC)reviewed the proposal on May 9,
2007.The Committee supported the proposal.Committee members felt the change in the
General Plan and Zoning created a logical transition between the single family homes on
University Avenue and the multi-family development on Town Terrace.They also noted that
retaining the pre-194l home created the necessity for the variance,which they also supported.
Several committee members wanted input from the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)
regarding the reorientation of the pre-194l home (Exhibit 8).
The HPC reviewed the project on August 15,2007.The Committee supported the applicant's
request to reorient the home and their proposal for fencing along University Avenue.
The GPC reviewed the project on September 26,2007.Committee member Bourgeois
commented that there is a lack of owner-occupied affordable housing and did not support
reducing the density on this site.Committee member O'Donnell was concerned about the loss of
an opportunity for relatively affordable housing.He also noted that the applicant has proceeded
in conformance with direction provided by CDAC and was reluctant to recommend a different
approach.While the variance for lot size requested by the applicant was not part of the GPC's
review,staff noted there were no special circumstances associated with lot configuration or
topography that are normally required to grant a variance.The Committee voted 5-1 (Bourgeois
opposed)to recommend approval of the General Plan and Zone Change (Exhibit 9).
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4
506 University Avenuel GP-07-002,Z-07-001,V-07-144 and M-07-145
January 23,2008
ANALYSIS:
A.General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The General Plan designation for the site is Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.The
zoning designation of the site is Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.
To implement the project as proposed requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
This property is the transition between the single family and multi-family designations.All
the properties along Town Terrace are zoned RM 12 -20 dulac.However,as discussed in the
background section,there is a pre-1941 home on the site that the HPC has denied a previous
request to demolish.Given the desire to retain the home,development of the site requires
creativity .
This site is one of the few areas in Town zoned for high density residential.The Town is
generally hesitant to reduce the density of sites because doing so could hinder the Town's
ability to meets its regional housing requirement.The Land Use and Housing Elements
contain policies that the Town should maintain its capacity to meet its housing needs as
identified in the Housing Element.Typically,that requires identifying a site to replace the
housing opportunity being lost due to the reduction in density.In this case,the impact may
not be significant,since the project will only result in one less housing unit than could be
developed under the existing zoning.
As discussed below,staff does not support the variance application and as such cannot support
the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change as proposed.In the alternatives section,staff
discusses a proposal that would amend the General Plan and Zoning for the comer lot to
preserve the pre-1941 home and would retain the existing General Plan and Zoning on the
remainder of the site.However,should the Commission find merit with the applicant's
proposal,staff has included the necessary findings and conditions for approval.
B.Parcel Map and Variance
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot into three single-family parcels.The proposed
zoning for the site is R -1 D.Lots in this zone are required to be a minimum of 5,000 square
feet.To create three lots a total lot size of 15,000 square feet is necessary.The subject lot is
approximately 14,948 square feet.
As shown on the proposal site plan (Exhibit 10),lot one would be 5,182 square feet,lot two is
5,083 square feet and lot three is 4,683 square feet.Lot three requires a variance to be less
than 5,000 square-foot minimum as required in the R-1D zoning district.Lot one is larger to
provide conforming setbacks for the existing home.The existing lot would need to be
approximately 15,200 square feet to allow the lot to be subdivided without variances.
Variances from the provisions of the zoning code may be granted upon a finding of fact that,
owing to special conditions,enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would result in
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5
506 University Avenue/GP-07-002,Z-07-001,V-07-144 and M-07-145
January 23,2008
undue hardship.The Town Code states that the deciding body,on the basis of the evidence
submitted at the hearing,may grant a variance if it finds that:
1.Because of special circumstances applicable to the property,including size,shape,
topography,location or surroundings,the strict application of this ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zone;and
2.The granting of a variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
situated.
The applicant and CDAC members felt the preservation of the pre-1941 home justifies the
variance for the reduced lot size.However,the Town Attorney and planning staff cannot
recommend making the necessary variance findings based on preservation of the existing
home.The findings,which are mandated by the State,require special circumstances related
to the size,shape or topography of the site.This lot does not have the required 15,000 square
feet necessary to create three conforming lots.If the home was demolished,there would still
not be sufficient lot area to create three conforming lots.
The next section describes a development alternative that retains the pre-1941 home.
C.Alternative
Staff recommends the following alternative to the applicant's proposal:
1.Retain lot one at the corner of University Avenue and Town Terrace as proposed by the
applicant.The parcel would be approximately 5,182 square feet and would include the
existing historic home.
2.Amend the General Plan designation for lot one from Multi-Family Residential 12 -20
dulac to Medium Density Residential 5 -12 dulac.
3.Change the Zoning designation from Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac to R-1D
(Single Family Residential Downtown).This matches the General Plan and Zoning for
the parcels to the south and west of the project site.
4.Retain the existing multi-family General Plan and Zoning designations on the remaining
9,766 square foot lot,which would allow a development of two to four units.
The combined total number of units under this scenario is three to five units.Although this could
result in slightly less units than the existing zoning,it does retain the historic home.This proposal
more closely follows the existing General Plan and Zoning of parcels in the immediate area.One
impact of this proposal is it potentially requires the removal of more trees than would be necessary
for the development of two new homes.The consulting arborist has reviewed a conceptual plan
prepared by the applicant that retains the pre-1941 home and constructs four townhouse units
along Towne Terrace.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6
506 University Avenue!GP-07-002,Z-07-001,V-07-144 and M-07-145
January 23,2008
There are 24 trees that are of regulated status and exposed to potential impacts by developing the
subject site with multi-family project.The consulting architect concluded that four trees are
worthy of retention;they include a coast redwood and cedar tree along the front of the site,a cedar
tree in the middle of the site and a moderately-sized hackberry along the eastern edge ofthe site.
All other trees appear insignificant and!or have weakened conditions that qualify them as suitable
candidates for removal.Of those trees it appears that the cedar and in the front and the hackberry
along the eastern edge could preserved under this scenario.It is likely that the redwood in the
front of the site and cedar in the middle of the property would need to be removed.Replacement
trees would need to be provided to mitigate the loss of trees and also provide privacy screening for
the properties to the rear of the site.
Should the Commission prefer this concept,staff recommends that the variance be denied and the
application be continued and direct the applicant to revise the application to be consistent with the
recommended development alternative.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
A.Land Use Element:
1.L.P .1.8:In-fill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding
structures,and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the
area.
2.L.P.1.9:Preserve and protect historic structures including those that have been
designated or are contributors in existing historic districts.Use special care in
reviewing new buildings or remodels in the vicinity to address compatibility issues and
potential impacts.
3.L.P.3.5:Assure that the type and intensity ofland use shall be consistent with that of
the immediate neighborhood.
4.L.PA.2:New development should be a positive addition to the Town's environment
and does not detract from the nature and character of appropriate nearby established
development.
5.L.PA.3:Maintain the character and identity of existing neighbourhoods.New
construction remodels,and additions shall be compatible and blend with the existing
neighbourhood.
6.L.PA.5:The Town's should maintain its capacity to meet its housing needs as
identified in the Housing Element.
7.L.PA.6:The Town should preserve and protect historic structures and use special care
in reviewing new buildings or remodels in their vicinity to address compatibility issues
and potential impacts.
8.Policy L.I.4.11:Identify Alternative Sites to Meet Housing Needs:The Housing
Element assumes that sites designated medium and high density residential will be
developed at the upper end of the density range.Whenever the Town approves a
development at a lower density on one of these sites,one or more other sites should be
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7
506 University Avenue!GP-07-002,Z-07-001,V-07-144 and M-07-145
January 23,2008
identified to maintain the Town's capacity to meet its housing needs as identified in the
Housing Element,subject to neighborhood compatibility and mitigation of traffic
impacts.
9.CD.P.1.S:Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density.
10.CD.P.1.7:New structures,remodels,landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to
harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features
in the area.
11.CD.P .1.8 states building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the
neighborhood.
12.CD.P.3.4:Encourage the preservation and restoration of historic sites,and structures and
architecturally valuable structures.
13.CD.P.3.6:Renovations or remodels of historic structures shall be architecturally
consistent and compatible with the original structure.
B.Housing Element:
1.Policy H.P .1.1:Continue to designate sufficient residentially zoned land at appropriate
densities to provide adequate sites to meet Los Gatos'new construction need for 2002-
2007.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
It has been determined that this project could not possible have a significant effect on the
environment,the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15601).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the variance request be denied and the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change be continued and direct the applicant to revise the proposal to consist of a two lot
subdivision.The General Amendment and Zone Change would only apply to the corner parcel.
If the Planning Commission finds merit in recommending approval of the project as proposed,it
should:
1.Make the required findings as required by Section 29.20.170 of the Town Code for granting
variance (Exhibit 3);and
2.Approve the variance and subdivision applications subject to the attached condition
(Exhibit 4);and
3.Make the required findings and recommend that the Town Council approve the General Plan
Amendment (Exhibit 5);and
4.Determine that the Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and recommend that the
Town Council approve the Zone Change (Exhibit 6).
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8
506 University Avenue/GP-07-002,2-07-001,V-07-144 and M-07-145
January 23,2008
~&r
Prepared by:
Curtis Banks,AICP
Project Planner
N:\DEV\REPORTS\2008\S06 University .PC.rptl.doc
442J;
Bud N.Lortz,AICP
Director of Community Development
RESOLUTION NOo __
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATION TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (5-12 UNITS PER ACRE)
FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (12-20 UNITS PER ACRE)FOR
PROPERTY AT 506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
WHEREAS,pursuant to GovenU11ent Code Section 65353,the Town Council
conducted a public hearing for consideration of amendments to the General Plan on
,2008.
WHEREAS,during this hearing,the Town Council considered the General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation to Medium Density Residential (5-12
units per acre)from High Density Residential (12-20 units per acre).
RESOLVED,the Town Council finds that (a)the proposed General Plan
amendment is internally consistent with the existing goals and policies of the General
Plan and its corresponding elements and (b)that all proceedings have been conducted in
compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65350 et seq.
RESOLVED,the Town Council hereby changes the land use designation of the
General Plan as shown on Exhibit A to Medium Density Residential (5-12 units per acre)
from High Density Residential (12-20 units per acre).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos,California,held on the day of ,2008 by the
following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
SIGNED:
MA YOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
N\DEV\RESOS\506 University.GPAmendmenLdoc
ATTAClIEMNT 4
506 University Avenue
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No.GP-07-002 A.P .N.#_--=--5=..;29'-----=--07:..----=--0=....c17'---__
Change of the general plan map amending the Town General Plan.
From:High Density Residential (12-20 units per acre)
To:Medium Density Residential (5-12 units per acre)
Recommended by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Town Clerk Mayor
Date:
Reso:
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM R-M 12 -20 TO R-1D
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDAINS:
SECTION I
The Zoning Map of the Town is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A.
SECTION II
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos on,2008,and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los
Gatos at a meeting ofthe Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on,2008.This ordinance
takes effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
N:\OEV\OROS\S06 UNIVERSITY ZONECHANGEORD.DOC
ATTACHMENT j
506 University Avenue
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No.Z-07-001 A.P.N.#_-=-5=.c29=----=-07-,---=-0.=-17=---__
Change of the zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
x Zone Change
Prezoning From:R-M:12-20 To:R-1D
Recommended by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Town Clerk Mayor
Date:
Ord:
ATTACHMENT
CDAC APPLICATION
/'
April 18,2007
The project before you is proposed as a rezoning of the existing parcel.
The Parcel is currently zoned R-M (Multi-family residential zone)and is contiguous to
R-ID zoning (single family residential zone)and therefore we propose to rezone the
parcel to the R-ID zoning for the purpose of mapping the parcel to yield a total ofthI:ee
residential units.
The site currently supports one (1)single family residence,which was constructed
between 1930-1940 and is identified as a Mediterranean Revival.The project proposes
the restoration ofthe existing residence as well as the construction of two (2)new single
family residences.We propose that the development reorient the exiting residence to a
new frontage on Town Terrace.In doing so,this will correct the side yard legal non-
conforming status and support the mapping of the two additional lots which would also
frontage Town Terrace.The proposed layout submitted shows the above concept.
The concept plan is capable of ,conforming to the R-ID zoning with the exception that
one of the proposed lots (Lot 3)would require a variance,since its site area would be less
than 5000 sf.
We believe the reorienting and restoration of the existing single-family residence and
construction of two new single family residences,in lieu of a multifamily development
(duplex),will be a beneficial transition and a complement to carry the urban pattern along
University and around the comer to Town Terrace.
The new residences are proposed to be for-sale units.
We tha ou for your time and consideration.Your comments will assist our best
unders an ing of how we should proceed.
Pre d by:
Dennis Lowery
Capital Ventures
ATTACHMENT 6
Re:506 University Ave.,Los Gatos
To:+b Jet I Fl :JRi n !Ae
504 University Ave.
Los Gatos,CA 95032
January 21,2008
P!tfnn1':3 C0 mmtS510Yl ;1!JJ~ECErVED
JAN 1 i 2007
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
We,the Keffer family,have lived at 504 University Ave.,next door to 5(lt)6/1f(jt'ltfil~DIVISION
past 9 years (as of February,2008).When we bought the house in 1999,we were not
made aware that 506 was zoned for multiple housing.When we found this out later,we
were very concerned.We bought a single family house,surrounded by other single
family houses on all sides and across the street.We had no reason to suspect that the lots
were anything but zoned for single family homes.We really desire to keep the
neighborhood feel of single family homes on our block.
Shortly after finding out from the neighbors'daughter that 506 is zoned for multiple
housing,I called Budd Lortz at the Planning Commission and discussed my concerns.
This was probably in 1999 or 2000.I kept notes from that telephone call.Mr.Lortz
assured me at that time that the maximum number of units that the town of Los Gatos
would allow would be 2 or 3 units.He said because the 506 lot is a comer lot,the town
prefers low density,and that it would be desirable to move the entrance from University
to Town Terrace,for parking purposes.Needless to say,we are concerned about the
impact of quality of life imposed by having more than one house next door,as is the
current situation.
For these reasons,we strongly support Mr.Dennis Lowery's proposal to put 3 single
family homes on the lot,as opposed to higher density condos,duplexes,or apartments.
Higher density would increase traffic even more,would increase noise,and impact the
quality of life,as well as property values.Since there are already many apartments down
on Towne Terrace,and further down on University,and there are often vacancy signs,it
doesn't really appear that there is a need for more apartments,of duplexes,or condos.
We like that Mr.Lowery is buiding single family houses to sell,as that will attract the
types of families that desire long term stability and will make the neighborhood more
desirable to stay in.
We also like that the current plans include preserving Paul and Bernice Atnerich's
historical home.Paul was the original owner of the house,and he loved his home.He
was a police officer for the town of Los Gatos and contributed a great deal to the
community.It is fitting that his home be preserved as a tribute to him.
As this development is further planned,we do have concerns for our privacy,and
hope that the Planning Commission will take privacy needs for both lots into account as
they proceed.
ATTACHMENT 7
Thank you for ,yoUT time and consideration.
Sincerely,
drPiV 1110tweirL -lJ«fVl
Lois Morrison-Keffer,Ph.D.
~~a71fv
Thomas A.Keffer
~.~/}/.fij?c!J!tPA I'U(;(;~L
Jared Keffer
(Fisher t h grader)
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Re:General Plan Amendment GP-07-002
RE~i~~~
JAN 2 3 200'1·G
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
We live on University Avenue,one home away from the proposed development at 506 University Avenue.
We favor the development of the proposed single family homes,preservation of the existing home and the
granting of the proposed variance on this parcel.
We do not feel that multi-unit development on this property is appropriate or desirable for the character of
the neighborhood or the town.
This is why we feel the way we do:
1.The plans for single family homes as submitted to the town appear to be attractive in scale and design
and to generally conform with other designs recently approved and built in town.
2.As shown,the plans indicate an aesthetically pleasing visual transition from the other single family
homes in the area to the high density buildings further down Town Terrace.These new single family
residences would help to mitigate the more massive scale of the multi-unit development found on Town
Terrace and would be a positive addition to the character and appearance of the neighborhood and the
town.
3.The third single family home on the sub-minimum size lot appears to be scaled and placed on the lot in
such a way as to allow for similar setbacks and yard area as the other two homes and,even at two stories,
appears to be a complimentary to both the other two homes and to the existing structure to the east.
4.Granting the requested variance for a sub-minimum lot size for the third home seems like a positive
move relative to the opportunity to preserve the current home on the parcel and the need to allocate a
greater portion of the total lot to that preservation.
5.506 University Ave.has always been a single family home property as developed and inquiries with the
town in the past have elicited indications that this property would remain single family in fact,if not
zoning,to preserve the character of the adjacent single family neighborhoods on University Avenue.
6.Multi-unit development on this parcel,if allowed,will have additional negative impact on traffic,
parking and quality of life beyond the current negative impact that the existing adjacent multi-unit
development has on University Avenue residents.
Given the possible outcomes for this parcel,the proposed group of three single family homes seems a very
attractive opportunity for the town to have a positive impact on the stability and character of the town and
the neighborhood while promoting the preservation of the current structure on the parcel.
Please also give some consideration to the potential for a pedestrian crossing of University Avenue at Town
Terrace as part of this development effort,-if this is part of your purview.Such a crossing would be a
positive benefit to the new residents of the development as well as current Town Terrace residents and
could have a positive effect on the traffic attributes in this area.
Thank you,
The Iversen Family
500 University Avenue
ATTACHMENT B
15.Reduce the height.
16.Proposal seems driven by th automobil .
17.Could all parking be buried?
18.Roof lines of the condominium b ding should be broken up.
19.Raised entry for the town ho es is ,concern.
20.Provide a village feel for e site desig
21.Need to strike a balan between density and open space to address quality of life
issues.
22.Any future desij's for this site should return 0 CDAC and be the only item on the
agenda./
ITEM 2:506 University Avenue
Conceptual Development CD-07 -142
Requesting preliminary review to amend the general plan to Medium Density
Residential 5-12 units per acre)from High Density Residential (12-20 units per
acre),rezone a parcel to R-ID from R-M,and a tentative map to create three parcels.
The proposal would retain the existing pre-1941 unit and create two additional units.
APN 529-08-017.
PROPERTY OWNER:Anerich Revocable Trust
APPLICANT:Dennis Lowery,Capital Ventures
Comments:
1.Most committee members were supportive of the proposed General Plan and Zone
change.
2.Members supported the reorientation ofthe pre-1941 home to face Towne Terrace.
One member felt there was merit to the reorientation but wanted input from HPC.
3.It was suggested the design of the home immediately adjacent to the pre-1941 home
locate the second story away from the historic home.
4.It was suggested that the garages for the two new units be detached.
5.Some Committee members expressed concern regarding potential fencing along the
University Avenue frontage of the pre-1941 home.It was recommended that any
fencing be low and compatible with the design of the home.
6.The design of the new home should be compatible with each other,but not matching.
7.There was support for the variance based on retention of the pre-1941 home.
ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.The next regular meeting of the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday,June 13,
2007.
Prepared by:
Randy Tsuda,Assistant Director of Community Development
cc:Planning Commission Chair
N:\0 EY\CO AC\M JNUTES\2007\5-9-07cdacmin.doc
ATTACHMENT 9
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
Bud N.Lortz,Director of Community Development '&L'Arr
506 University Avenue
CDAC Meeting of May 9,2007
May 3,2007
Background
The project site is located at the corner of University Avenue and Towne Terrace.The site is
zoned RM-12:20,which is the same as the properties to the north and east.The properties to the
south and west are R-1D.The subject property serves as a transition between the two zoning
districts.
The property is developed with a pre-1941 single family home,detached garage and a storage
building.The existing structures and site are legal non-conforming with respect to setbacks and
density.In 2006,the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)reviewed a preliminary request to
demolish the home.The HPC felt the house was architecturally significant and appeared
repairable.Based on the information provided,the HPC indicated they would not support
demolition of the home.
Project Description
The applicant has submitted a proposal to refurbish the existing home and construct two new
single family homes.The project contains the following components:
•Reorient the existing residence toward Town Terrace.
• A parcel map to create two additional lots on Town Terrace
•Amend the General Plan to Medium Density Residential 5 -12 dulac from Multi-Family
Residential 12 -20 dulac.
•Amend the Zoning to R-1D (Single Family Residential Downtown)from Multi-Family
Residential 12 -20 dulac.
• A variance to allow one of the lots to be less than the 5,000 square feet as required in the
proposed R-1D zone.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and elevations for this proposal (Attachment
1).
General Plan and Zoning Designation
The General Plan designation for the site Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.The zoning
designation of the site is Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
May 9,2007
Page 2
Existing Conditions/Use
1.The site contains .34 acres (15,000 square feet).
2.The site is located on the east side of University Avenue at the comer of University Avenue
and Towne Terrace.
3.The site contains a single family home and two accessory structures.
Potential Issues
The following is a brief list of issues and topics for consideration by the CDAC to help frame the
discussion and to solicit input.
1.Land Use:
To implement the project as proposed by the applicant requires a General Plan amendment
and zone change.This site is one of the few areas in Town zoned for high density residential
and staffhas concerns about reducing areas designated for high density housing.Reducing the
density could hinder the Town's ability to meets its regional housing requirement.The Town
will receive its new housing allocation later this month.
Amending the General Plan and zoning of the site also raises issues regarding the transition
between the R-1D and RM districts.This property is the transition between the single family
and multi-family designations.All the properties along Town Terrace are zoned RM.
However,as discussed in the background section,there is a pre-1941 home on the site that the
HPC has denied a request to demolish.Given the desire to retain the home,development of
the site requires creativity.In addition to the applicant's proposal,staffhas developed some
alternatives for consideration.The alternatives are described below:
1.Maintain the existing zoning and develop a multi-family development that includes the
existing home.A condominium map could be filed allowing the units to be sold
individually.This option would provide a transition between single-family homes on
University Avenue and the multi-family projects on Towne Terrace.
2.Establish a 5,000 square-foot parcel at the comer of University Avenue and Town
Terrace,which would contain the existing historic home,and amend the General Plan and
zoning on this lot to single-family.The remaining 10,000 square-foot lot would retain
the existing multi-family General Plan and zoning designations,which would allow a
development oftwo to fout units.The combined total number of units under this
scenario are three to five units.Although this could result in slightly less units than the
existing zoning,it does retain a historic home while not significantly impacting the
Town's ability to meet its housing needs requirement.
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
May 9,2007
Page 3
2.Building Design/Lot Layout:
Staffhas identified several issues for consideration by the CDAC:
a.The proposed plan would introduce single-family homes onto Town Terrace,which is
developed with multi-family projects.Contextually,the scale and design of the project
would be significantly different than the existing development pattern in the
neighborhood.
•Does the proposal provide an appropriate transition to the multi-family neighborhood?
b.The applicant is proposing to rotate the historic home to place the front entrance on Towne
Terrace.Any modifications to the home require review and approval by the HPC.The
home currently fronts toward University Avenue as do the other homes on the street,
including the multi-family projects.Rotating the home changes the relationship of the
home to the rest of the street.Ifthe site is rezoned to R-lD,the setback along University
Avenue would be reduced to ten feet from 15 feet and would not be consistent with the
development pattern in the neighborhood.
•Is it appropriate to move the front of the home from University Avenue to Towne
Terrace?
c.One of the three lots proposed by the applicant is approximately 4,900 square feet and
would require a variance to be less than 5,000 square-foot minimum lot size required in
the R-ID zoning district.Special circumstances must exist in order to approve a variance.
This is a rectangular lot and staff does not find any unusual circumstances that would
justify a variance to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet.
•Is the proposed variance to reduce the minimum lot size of one of the three lots
appropriate?
4.Potential Impacts:
a.The potential loss of a high density housing site.
b.The scale and design of the project in relation to the existing development pattern in the
neighborhood.
c.Rotating the front of the home away from University Avenue to Towne Terrace.
d.Modification to a historic home.
5.General Plan Goals/Policies:
Land Use Element:
a.L.P .1.8:In-fill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding
structures,and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the
area.
b.L.P.1.9:Preserve and protect historic structures including those that have been
designated or are contributors in existing historic districts.Use special care in reviewing
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
May 9,2007
Page 4
new buildings or remodels in the vicinity to address compatibility issues and potential
impacts.
c.L.P .3.5:Assure that the type and intensity ofland use shall be consistent with that of the
immediate neighborhood.
d.L.PA.2:New development should be a positive addition to the Town's environment and
does not detract from the nature and character of appropriate nearby established
development.
e.L.PA.3:Maintain the character and identity of existing neighborhoods.New construction
remodels,and additions shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood.
f.L.PA.5:The Town's should maintain its capacity to meet its housing needs as identified
in the Housing Element.
g.L.PA.6:The Town should preserve and protect historic structures and use special care in
reviewing new buildings or remodels in their vicinity to address compatibility issues and
potential impacts.
h.Policy L.I.4.ll:Identify Alternative Sites to Meet Housing Needs:The Housing Element
assumes that sites designated medium and high density residential will be developed at the
upper end of the density range.Whenever the Town approves a development at a lower
density on one of these sites,one or more other sites should be identified to maintain the
Town's capacity to meet its housing needs as identified in the Housing Element,subject to
neighborhood compatibility and mitigation of traffic impacts.
1.CD.P.1.5:Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density.
J.CD.P.1.7:New structures,remodels,landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to
hmIDonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features
in the area.
k.CD.P .1.8 states building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the
neighborhood.
1.CD.P.3A:Encourage the preservation and restoration of historic sites,and structures and
architecturally valuable structures.
m.CD.P.3.6:Renovations or remodels of historic structures shall be architecturally
consistent and compatible with the original structure.
Housing Element:
a,Policy H.P .1.1:Continue to designate sufficient residentially zoned land at appropriate
densities to provide adequate sites to meet Los Gatos'new construction need for 2002-
2007.
Attachments:
1,Letter of Justification
2,Zoning Map
3,Project Plans
cc:Dennis Lowery,Capital Ventures,18122 Via Encantada,Los Gatos,CA 95030
Arnerich Revocable Trust,506 University Avenue,Los Gatos,CA 95030
N:\DEV\Curtis B\Reports\CDAC\2007\506 University Avenue.CDAC.rpt2.doe
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street,Los Gatos,CA 95030 (408)354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS SEPTEMBER 26,2007 HELD IN THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CIVIC CENTER,110 EAST MAIN STREET,LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Chair Jane Ogle.
ATTENDANCE
Members present:Joe Pirzynski,John Bourgeois,Tom 0 Donnell,Marcia Jensen,Jane Ogle
and Joanne Talesfore
Members absent:Barbara Cardillo,Barbara Spector and Margaret Smith
Staff present:Bud Lortz,Community Development Director;Randy Tsuda,Assistant
Community Development Director;Curtis Banks,Project Planner and Sandy Baily,Associate
Planner.
ITEM!506 UNIVERSITY A VENUE
The applicant described the proposal.Talesfore commented that the proposal had been reviewed
by CDAC and HPC.Both groups supported the applicant's concept and were pleased that the
pre-1941 home was being saved.Commissioner Bourgeois asked ifthe applicant considered a
multi-family project behind the existing home.The applicant discussed the options that had been
considered and why three single family lots were proposed.
Lortz commented that while the variance for lot size requested by the applicant is not part of the
review to be considered by the Committee,that there are no special circumstances associated
with lot configuration or topography and staff cannot recommend the necessary findings to
support the variance.
Bourgeois commented that there is a lack of owner occupied low income housing and did not
like reducing the density on this site.0 'Donnell was not concerned about the loss of one unit
that could occur if a single family development is approved instead of a higher density project,
but is concerned about the loss of the opportunity of a relatively affordable housing oppOliunity.
He also noted that the applicant has proceeded in conformance with direction provided by CDAC
and was reluctant to recommend a different approach.
Pirzynski expressed his support of the proposal.
Jenson moved and Pirzynski seconded to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change.Support is based on the project resulting in one less housing unit than allowed
by the existing General Plan and Zoning,the applicant retaining the existing pre-1941 home,and
ATTACHMENT 10
General Plan Committee Minutes
September 26,2007
Page 2 of3
the scale and design of the proposed units providing a logical transition from the single family
homes along University Avenue to the multi-family developments along Towne Terrance.
Motion passed 5-1 (Bourgeois opposed).
ITEM 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Lortz gave an overview.
Applicability
The Committee accepted the wording prepared by staff for sloping lots outside of the Hillside
Area.
Ogle expressed concern that the wording had a legalistic tone and she didn't want this carried
over in the rest of the document.
Definition of Neighborhood
The Committee accepted the paragraph insert prepared by staff with the change of the word
"improved"to "altered"or "remodeled".
The Committee agreed that consideration should also be given to houses located to the rear.
Cellars
The Committee concurred that the sentence recommended by staff should be inserted in the
document.The Committee agreed that the cellar information would be lost in the bullets of the
text and should be kept where it is in the document and added to the sidebar.
Sustainability
Lortz stated that this issue will be dealt with further during the General Plan update process.
Pirzynski discussed the pros and cons of governing green building.Stated that the market is
taking the lead on green building and sustainability.Was hesitant to impose a regulatory
approach.Felt that the Town should promote green building,not mandate it.The product will
need to be compatible with the structure,which will force companies to develop better products
in the future.
Bourgeois felt this was true for big developers.However,in the interim,the average homeowner
will need incentives to build green.
ITEM 1
,\\\~JL~.(AND U M~"-.!~~1~~':Z,M E M 0 RI\J
\..
to'S"1JtitCo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Purpose
General Plan Committee
\2,~L-
Bud N.Lortz,Director of Community Development
506 University Avenue
General Plan Amendment GP-07-002
Zone Change Z-07 -001
Variance Application V-07 -144
Subdivision Application M-07-145
Architecture and Site Application S-07 -186
Requesting approval to 1)amend the General Plan to Medium Density Residential
(5-12 units per acre)from High Density Residential (12-20 units per acre),2)
rezone a parcel to R-1D from R-M:12-20,3)a tentative n1.ap to create three
parcels,4)a variance to reduce the minimum lot size,and 5)relocate a pre-1941
single family residence on the parcel.APN 529-08-017
PROPERTY OWNER:Arnerich Revocable Trust
APPLICANT:Dennis Lowery,Capital Ventures
September 20,2007
This proj ect is before the GPC because the proposal includes a request to amend the general plan
and zoning for the site.The GPC provides a recommendation regarding the proposed General
Plan amendment and rezoning.For informational purposes,staff has included a discussion of the
variance,site and architectural application and parcel map associated with the project,however,
no GPC action on these applications is necessary.
Background
The project site is located at the corner of University Avenue and Towne Terrace.The site is
zoned RM-12:20,which is the same as the properties to the north and east.The properties to the
south and west are R-ID.The subject property serves as a transition between the two zoning
districts.
The property is developed with a pre-1941 single family home,detached garage and a storage
building.The existing structures and site are legal non-conforming with respect to setbacks and
density.In 2006,the Historic Preservation Committee (EPC)reviewed a preliminary request to
demolish the home.The EPC felt the house was architecturally significant and appeared
repairable.Based on the information provided,the EPC indicated they wouJdnot support
demol iti on of the home.
General Plan Committee
September 26 2007
Page 2
Project Description
The applicant has submitted a proposal to refurbish the existing home and construct two new
single family homes.The project contains the following components:
•Reorient the existing residence toward Town Terrace.
• A parcel map to create two additional lots on Town Terrace
•Amend the General Plan from Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac to Medium Density
Residential 5 -12 dulac.
•Amend the Zoning from Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac to R-1D (Single Family
Residential Downtown).
• A variance to allow one of the lots to be less than the 5,000 square feet as required in the
proposed R-1D zone.
General Plan and Zoning Designation
The General Plan designation for the site Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.The zoning
designation of the site is Multi-Family Residential 12 -20 dulac.
Existing ConditionslUse
1.The site contains .34 acres (15,000 square feet).
2.The site is located on the east side of University Avenue at the comer of University Avenue
and Towne Terrace.
3.The site contains a single family home and two accessory structures.
CDAC
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC)reviewed the proposal at their
meeting of May 9,2007.The Committee supported the proposal.Committee members felt the
change in the general plan and zoning created a logical transition between the single family homes
on University Avenue and the multi-family development on Town Terrace.They also noted that
retaining the pre-1941 home created the necessity for the variance,which they also supported.
Several committee members wanted input from the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)
regarding the reorientation of the pre-1941 home.
Historic Preservation Committee
The HPC reviewed the project at their meeting of August 15,2007.The Committee supported the
applicant's request to reorient the home and their proposal for fencing along University A venue.
Potential Issues
The following is a brief list of issues and topics for consideration by the GPC to help frame the
discussion and to solicit input.
General Plan Committee
September 26 2007
Page 3
1.Land Use:
To implement the project as proposed by the applicant requires a General Plan amendment
and zone change.This property is the transition between the single family and multi-family
designations.All the properties along Town Terrace are zoned RM 12 -20 dulac.However,
as discussed in the background section,there is a pre-1941 home on the site that the HPC has
denied a request to demolish.Given the desire to retain the home,development of the site
requires creativity.
This site is one of the few areas in Town zoned for high density residential.The Town is
generally hesitant to reduce the density of sites because doing so could hinder the Town's
ability to meets its regional housing requirement.The Land Use and Housing Elements
contain policies that the Town should maintain its capacity to meet its housing needs as
identified in the Housing Element.Typically,that requires identifying a site to replace the
housing opportunity being lost due to the reduction in density.In this case,the impact may
not be significant,since the project will only result in one less housing unit than could be
developed under the existing zoning.
2.Building Design/Lot Layout:
The applicant is proposing to rotate the historic home to place the front entrance on Towne
Terrace.The home currently fronts toward University Avenue as do the other homes on the
sh-eet,including the multi-family projects.Any modifications to the home require review and
approval by the HPC.If the site is rezoned to R-lD,the setback along University Avenue
would be reduced to ten feet from 15 feet.The HPC has reviewed the proposal and has
recommended approval to rotate the home and construction of a wall along the University
Avenue frontage.
One of the three lots proposed by the applicant is approximately 4,800 square feet and would
require a variance to be less than 5,000 square-foot minimum lot size required in the R-ID
zoning district.The reduced lot size is necessary to provide conforming setbacks for the
existing home and there is not sufficient lot area to provide three conforming lots.Variances
from the provisions of the zoning code may be granted upon a finding of fact that,owing to
special conditions,enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would result in undue
hardship.The deciding body,on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing,may grant
a variance if it finds that:
a.Because of special circumstances applicable to the property,including size,shape,
topography,location or surroundings,the strict application of this ordinance deprives such
property ofprivileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zone;and
b.The granting of a variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
situated.
CDA C members felt the preservation of the pre-1941 home justifies tIle variance for the
reduced lot size.
General Plan Committee
September 26 2007
Page 4
reduced lot size.
3.Potential Impacts:
a.The potential loss of a high density housing site.
b.The scale and design of the project in relation to the existing development pattern in the
neighborhood.
c.Rotating the front of the home away from University Avenue to Towne Terrace.
d.Modification to a historic home.
4.General Plan Goals/Policies:
Land Use Element:
a.L.P.l.8:In-fill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding
structures,and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the
area.
b.L.P.l.9:Preserve and protect historic structures including those that have been
designated or are contributors in existing historic districts.Use special care in reviewing
new buildings or remodels in the vicinity to address compatibility issues and potential
impacts.
c.L.P.3.5:Assure that the type and intensity ofland use shall be consistent with that of the
immediate neighborhood.
d.L.PA.2:New development should be a positive addition to the Town's environment and
does not detract from the nature and character of appropriate nearby established
development.
e.L.PA.3:Maintain the character and identity of existing neighborhoods.New construction
remodels,and additions shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood.
f.L.PA.5:The Town's should maintain its capacity to meet its housing needs as identified
in the Housing Element.
g.L.PA.6:The Town should preserve and protect historic structures and use special care in
reviewing new buildings or remodels in their vicinity to address compatibility issues and
potential impacts.
h.Policy L.I.4.11:Identify Alternative Sites to Meet Housing Needs:The Housing Element
assumes that sites designated medium and high density residential will be developed at the
upper end of the density range.Whenever the Town approves a development at a lower
density on one of these sites,one or more other sites should be identified to maintain the
Town's capacity to meet its housing needs as identified in the Housing Element,subject to
neighborhood compatibility and mitigation of traffic impacts.
1.CD.P.1.5:Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density.
J.CD.P.1.7:New structures,remodels,landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to
harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features
in the area.
k.CD.P.l.8 states building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the
General Plan Committee
September 26 2007
Page 5
neighborhood.
1.CD.P.3.4:Encourage the preservation and restoration of historic sites,and structures and
architecturally valuable structures.
111.CD.P.3.6:Renovations or remodels of historic stnictures shall be architecturally
consistent and compatible with the original structure.
I-lousing Element:
a.Policy H.P .1.1:Continue to designate sufficient residentially zoned land at appropriate
densities to provide adequate sites to meet Los Gatos'new construction need for 2002-
2007.
Attachments:
1.Letter of Justification
2.Minutes from the CDAC meeting of May 9,2007
3.Proj ect Plans
cc:Dennis Lowery,Capital Venhlres,18122 Via Encantada,Los Gatos,CA 95030
Arnerich Revocable Trust,506 University Avenue,Los Gatos,CA 95030
N :\DEV\Curtis B\Reports\506 University Avenue.GPC.rptl.doc
./'
r-....
..:0
C,,)I
~
'"~i i ;M
i5 ~U~W~~~~E
VICINITY MAP
NTS
LOT4LOT3
\
I
I
TWIN OAKS TRACT I
I
I
'\\
J
APPROXIMATE (2)STORY HOUSE
\--,1 C$'~j'(Y"!f!iU~'"trw L rm£N:.;:'~~'""\/I~£c;;;.;;J/PHONf:-TrP 8LOGOR"~/CON,1m:I .~'\~JI r -----
.!lift 'i j r!!:££~II I~
"'-,J1O,1'!l:1 '9 Cf)"'~-"---"""1k-[~.~---':I I~~.~<
..CARA'"('I I~Cl ...
"""MCNr
l
!\.I i~~~\"'~J.,~I ~'~,
1\,""~~,~,---,310<00 -I.:1)(f :d_....J/iI'-_._.~,,'.',..."i"I~...~--,.I ~r,.\~..t1.::Il 7"'~0..@10 ~L...~~1.2 TRfr '".'1:...-(~-O"MULII 'lRUNK .~1lI \...'-<'c.;
I l~J I'~
)I "'I'I I (W.~\,~""""m££.~!1J I .....".~I"I W,,;;,['}~~I
J ".~191 .W'OI I '>lfll.1t SHtO ,I Ic:.;1l,'"I ~"<MK '('..t
'0''w'LOT 1 ,,~,T .~~"c:J>LOT 3 ~..
fi;182SQ FT)I "'b1k?s~P;r.)'·A!.M,,"0,L·(4B83 SQ.n),i L
(0 "'AC)I'l:',~AC)I"F (0107 AC)'\- - -,/1 \I .~~..-~~$~dr.'\~~~-l-=~~,,-_.h-d-=·:r~-·=-:'~oo,,·~~t:a~:7---
/--1:0'1:-1 --I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IJ"i;':11:\\r~:~
~
III
I
I
I
!!
l!
~I~
~
I"g
PRE DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL INFORMATION
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:529-08-017
ADDRESS OF PROJECT:
(E)ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
SIZE Of LOT;
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:
506 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
LOS GATOS,CA 95032
RM:5-20 MULTI fAMILY RESIDENC£
.-,
14,948 SQ.fT.NET
4.8%
UTILITY PROVIDERS
COMCAST CABLE
P.G.&:E.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
VERIZON TELEPHONE
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
BENCHMARK
BENCHMARK 10:BM1009
MARK TYPE:BRASS DiSC
ORGANIZATION:SCWiO
ELEVATlON(29):367,87
S1££lROO(Jl-4S6);AT~UNIVERSlTYA\lt:NUE:AT
lNTERSECllOO or UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND HueeEt
WAY,311 rm 'f.EST fROM FlflE HYDRANT,26 fEET
SOUTH FROM lHE CE:NTEIl or M WAY,22 fEET EAST
Of THE COffE/IUNE OF THE AVENUE,7 fEET SOUTH fROM
unul'f POl£NtJMflEA 2x..ACCESS TO THIS POINT IS
lHROUGli A II INCH lOGO C"",.CITY Of tos GIlTO$.
~
~
~
~
i~.~
a~
~~~~.
~~
~MM
~.~~~~~;~
~§§
ill
'""'"
"'"V8"-I'.Q'
"""JJ\
'"....our,
A-I
a "'"
7§'W
"'"I,~
~
1.118 Sf
<.0"~....
~
~
1~~c:1~~=ugg~~"""'"""""
fWMm~1 ~~
f;XlStW:i5mr:ru:::e
i?Z.L".ZZJ ,""W","",,,,,,
""':>1'.!::lZZ.S1'.
"""",,,,.,
rll15l'l'I..OI::e l,~S1',I,~S1'.
5l!COW1'l.Oai:05>r,0501,
~,I(.1.4l1BSI'.I,"!'ISf.
""""""",..
",rOla
aNreRt-lI'-EOI'51l1eef
"''''''''''
...
~
VICINI1Y Mfl'
~~aN17
O\\t-e.R';QN!'.'(;f ""'0I1IM11QN
""""'''''""-"'"
ltl!'fEYlOUS ~m.tario:sU
~'.6705f(ttZ,ew.'.llW.~,PIl:lVt,WXJ".)JC
I 2,~OS1'(Ii5f.~fml).ot'1JC JlIIVIIlqol.Mo
L.Of'21.9T!SJ'(ttZ,ew.'.rara:tO"lOx 1.<1000.000,00Ilt1l:5lOO
rro'OSWLOf'''1.66IS1'(ttse:.c..o.tl'G'R>O>lJC ~::'=
MVAllON
BlIWINCi &51W DAfA
~
"""""
N..t:'lNC:i~A5 (1'OJ«)t ..~NOI'm..)
=:~I=:~:
~.""'cmM"ON
~LlSl:,SN:U.rM\l..Yfe~
~U5e,SN:Ur!W'l-yl/t~
JM!l/NZ~:1Q"/l,:u;nM~,5Ifl!,
165e55C4!:'S,.N.tJ!l..~,!o29-oe<Jl1
{1!)~PeSlaVlllONoIeM:'-20HU-l1rM9..Yel!~tU
1H:zot.Il15~
~~~l I ~~::~:
"'""==I~~
5Hl:1:f INI?l:X
!cO"""""""'"fM n:NrAfI\IE WP
M ~O!t.P:5tfe&WGfI'\..!N,f'Ul.~&5Ire
PMA Vk:INtlYMN',,o\N'}~rIl'RX
k2 fXI$TJt.k:iF~f1_0ortfVN(L.orl)
A-"Pm'~prIR9f'Fl..OGf1:al.'¥Sff.'eNrI'\.fN$(wrJ)
}M e~~xn:JaOI<:fW!VAfION5(\"o(I)
kfJ ~osePeM~El.lWA1'1ONS (L.or I)
A-6 ~~5eCflONS(LOl'I)
k71'ti?(0501'eXl~CC»VtTION
~
@
PIUlCf~,ll,tJflh:4.~;:JtoHt5rm:6If.NZ!Wffl2.m.oc~oc~1£tH9lUl:X:Il5mtl.wr~ON~JWIX1rNW
~./CltlIlt.llCftraoco.l'I..It5Im!'t\IU'~NWJU'lUF'Cmlot,Q!5f~~,reN~HfilaAYfUl!l'.U'~l Q!HOIIt.Cf
5WU~lIJ.I,t;~
'..'WIrmCf~ll'eN(llQfl'\\4t.5/W:5!7I¥W(,W5.l rn 5fN1:6,lUOfI\tl(qPefIOW~ffN4Y.lf5WU:i{rIlflft:N'I'\..k:},ro.D
~
EDGE
,
PROP05Wj51ff &ROOf PlAN
!
~1ii!~~~M~P
GN1I-f1U'iXm'HC 9.XVtYUf
~~-CM..~
!7~v.eWllVa~
!YWJ::l'2.CA9!7IZi .("lQIJ)"l8-1~
P~O'l01-()]-G7
---'-
N73'27'OO"W
177.5"9'
-~
G,
3".,61
'1~a~P&g~
~
iii
,)14 ,011
o
).11\__--~----+-
1,•.11
~
"'C
>-i .~':::'!I ;~"";,~-r-~u".""{,/\II,.."~V)!<!~'-"-I·'·\""'-I~c;::Cf.11),110 ~~I J @\&~I
15 ~~•I ~'J ~iRt.t.1(1.o'l I!)§.'~-__,T___.1:':I.~..~~,~{'?'j'~0 ~",.n\,4&l~.1"'t.
___'>I ~I'~i~~~r ~
"'j"'O""E..E,.)1 et."6 0 ~IQ,)2
,0.~.__~)69.·~
iJrl"'P