The URL can be used to link to this page

2010050306 - Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Staff Report°~"" °'~. TOE OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 5 .. .,. PLAIiIl~II~1G C®IVIIVIISSI®1`t STAFF REP®RT tos•~A.~°s li!Ieeting Date: ~I®verraber 18, 2009 PREPARED BY: Sandy L. Baily, AICP Acting Assistant Community Development Director sbaily@losgatosca. gov APPLICATION NO.: Ordinance No.2081 and 2122 General Plan Amendment GP-07-001 Planned Development PD-07-142 Negative Declaration ND-07-143 LOCATION: 517 and 615 Blossom Hill Road and Placer Oaks Road for the rescinding application request. Placer Oaks Road for the new application request. APPLICANT: Cupertino Development Corporation PROPERTY OWNERS: Greenleaf Associates LLC, Dunn Properties, LP, Cupertino Development Corporation APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to rescind Planned Development Ordinances 2081 and 2122 to construct 49 apartment units. APNS: 529-16- 042, 026, 073, 529-14-012 and 067. Requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:S-12:PD to R-1;8: PD to construct nine single family houses. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 529-16-073, 529-14-012 and 067. DEEMED COMPLETE: September 5, 2009 FINAL .DATE TO TAKE ACTION: General Plan and rezoning _. . applications are considered to be legislative acts grid are therefore not governed by the Permit Streamlining Act. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Provide a recommendation for a strong approval to Town Council regarding rescinding Planned Development Ordinances 2081 and 2122. ~. ... ~ Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 Placer Oalcs Road/PD-07-142 November 18, 2009 2. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the proposed General Plan. Amendment and zone change. 3. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. PROTECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: RM:S-12:PD Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan Parcel Size of the Placer Oaks Project: 3.06 acres Surrounding. Area of the Placer Oaks Project: ~ .................~ Existm .Land Use .... g......_.. General Plan Zonin g_..... ,...... North Family 5 mgl e Low Density ~ R -1 ~ g _ ... .............. East .... .... .... ............. ......................._., .... ... Smgl'e Family ...Multi....Family............................1 . .... ...__............. II Low Density ~ ....Medium...Density.... ~ .................._..................... ..._ . .. . R-1:~ .._R~.~.S..'_1_~._.... . . . _ . .. .. . South Multi-Family ~ ~ Medium Density .. . . . . RM:S- 12:PD , West , , Highway 17 (NA ` . NA CEQA: It has been determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the enviromnent and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. FINDINGS: ® All General Plan Amendments must be internally consistent with the General Plan and its elements. The findings should specifically address. the question of density as it relates to the present Land Use and Housing Elements. ® The Planning Commission must make a finding that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan if their recommendation is for approval. ® As required by the Town's Infill Policy ^ As required by -thee Town's Traffic Impact Policy for a community benefit. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 November 18, 2009 ACTION: 1. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding rescinding Planned Development Ordinances 2081 and 2122. 2. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change. 3. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and. Mitigation Monitoring Plan. EXHIBITS: 1 - 16. Previously Submitted New Submittals: 17. Excerpt of summary minutes for the meeting of September 23, 2009 18. Letter from Rodger Griffin, (three pages) received November 10, 2009 19. Development Plans (19 Sheets), received November 10, 2009 BACKGROUND: On September 23, 2009, the Planning Commission considered these applications. The Commission accepted public testimony and, following discussion, continued the matter to the meeting of October 28, 2009, with the following directions: ® Provide for relocation of the road. ® Provide architectural diversity. ® Look at traffic calming measures. ® Provide photo simulation of soundwall. ® Provide an alternative with a BMP unit constructed on site. _. At its meeting of October ?8, 2009, the Planning Commission continued this matter, at the applicant's request, with no discussion, to the meeting of November 18, 2009. Plam~ing Commission Staff Report -Page 4 Placer Oalcs Road/PD-07-142 November 18; 2009 ANALYSIS A. Response to Planning Connnission Direction The following is the applicant's response to the Planning Commission's direction. Road Relocation The applicant has realigned the roadway at the Placer Oaks Road frontage,. which results in the Oalc tree being removed. Mitigation will be required for this tree removal. The following performance standard is recommended: ADDITIONAL TREE MITIGATION. The applicant shall mitigate the Oak tree removed to accommodate the roadway realignment at the Placer Oaks Road frontage pursuant to Town Code requirements. If the Commission determines that the nine lot proposal should be recommended for approval, the following. performance standard is recommended since the original plans have not been revised to reflect this change: ROAD REALIGNMENT -The roadway which enters and exits the development at Placer Oaks Road shall be realigned during the subdivision application process to reduce the glare from vehicles exiting the development. 2. Architectural Diversity Due to the uncertainty of what direction the Commission will take regarding this application and the different alternatives proposed, the applicant is proposing to refine the architecture during the Architecture and Site approval process. Planned Development applications only require conceptual elevations. Applicants have been providing precise architectural plans to expedite the Architecture. and Site application process through the Development Review Committee. The following performance standard needs to be modified as follows: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. The Official Development Plans and this ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity of development. The Official Development Plans are conceptual in nature such that minor deviations may be approved through the Architecture and Site approval process if necessary to achieve architectural excellence. T~° n°<•°'°rr,°r+ r~ ~ .,+•„ ~s Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 November 18, 2009 3. Look at Traffic Calming Measures The Town has worked with the Placer Oaks neighborhood in 2004 regarding traffic calming measures. In terms of traffic calming, the Placer Oaks neighborhood extends all the way to Lark Avenue due to street configurations and cuts through traffic. Following are the measures that have been previously implemented for the neighborhood in 2005. ® Installed a "no right turn 4 pm to 7 pm" sign for eastbound Lark Avenue to Highland Oaks Drive. ® Installed a 3-way stop at Highland Oaks Drive/Oak Park Drive. ® Installed two speed humps on Benedict Lane. ® Installed one speed hump on Garden Lane. ® Installed a traffic circle at Chirco Drive/Benedict Lane. ® Installed a raised intersection at Placer Oaks Drive/Oak Rim Way. ® Painted white edge lines for Izorah from Placer Oaks Drive to Frank Avenue, Flintridge Drive and Chirco Drive from Flintridge Drive to Corinne Drive. The applicant has stated that as a Community Benefit, they will. contribute $15,000.00 for Traffic Calming. If the Commission determines that additional traffic calming measures should be researched, the following performance standard is recommended. As noted in the following performance standard, if the traffic calming for the Placer Oaks neighborhood is not submitted or does not pass Town criteria, the payment will be reallocated to the next prioritized traffic calming project. At this time, the next prioritized Traffic Calming project is in the Vista del Monte neighborhood. TRAFFIC CALMING CONTRIBUTION. The applicant has offered a contribution of $15,000.00 to the Town for Neighborhood Traffic Calming as a community benefit. These funds shall remain earmarked for the Placer Oaks neighborhood for a minimum period of two (2) years. In the event that the neighborhood fails to submit a Neighborhood Petition within the two (2) year period or fails to pass the criteria required as defined by the Town Traffic Calming Policy then the payment shall be reallocated to the next prioritized project in the Town Traffic Calming priority list. This payment shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. Staff Note: The following traffic performance standard was erroneously not included in the draft PD ordinance. If the project is recommended for approval, this standard will need to be included: INTERSECTION IMPACT FEES. The developer shall pay a fair share toward the future intersection improvement at Larlc Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard. The -fee amount is estimated at $942.00. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 Places: Oalcs Road/PD-07-142 November 18, 2009 4. Provide Photo Simulation of Soundwall The applicant has commented that the wall is shown on the streetscape (Sheet A-6 of Exhibit 19). The applicant will provide an enlarged illustration at the hearing. The applicant has revised the plans to step the soundwall to break the continuous length of the wall. If the Commission determines that the nine lot proposal should be recommended for approval, the following. performance standard is recommended since the original plans have not been revised to reflect this change: SOUNDWALL. The soundwall shall. be stepped to break the continuous length of the wall during the Architecture and Site approval process. S. Provide an Alternative with a BMP Unit The applicant has provided two alternative plans to add a BMP unit with a one car garage to the project site, which will bring the development to a total often units. The Town's Environmental Consultant has determined that the additional unit and the changes in the lot layout do not impact the findings in the recommended Mitigated. Negative Declaration and no modification to the document is required. Both alternatives are conceptual in terms of architecture, which is consistent with the PD application process pursuant to Town Code. Both alternatives allow the option to relocate an historic house to the site. In December, the Planning Commission will have preliminary discussion regarding the proposed. Town library. If the library project is approved, an historic house will require relocation. The applicant has offered to relocate the house to their site. Two other persons have also expressed an interest in relocating the house. If the library project is approved,. Architecture and Site approval will be required to relocate the house and the Historic Preservation Committee will need to provide input in. the relocation. Since the library application is still pending and it is questionable what the final options will. be for relocating the house, the issue of the house relocation is not up for discussion for this project. The Commission could, however, provide preliminary direction to staff and Council on this matter to help in the decision making process of relocating the -house. The Commission will have an -opportunity to review the Architecture and Site application for all the units if the PD is approved, which may or may not include the relocated house. Alternative A (SheetA-la of Exhibit 19) -The lots will range in size from 5,214 to 19,444 square feet. House sizes will range from 980 to 3,135 square feet. The plans indicate that a total of 4S parking spaces will be provided. However, staff believes the Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 November 18, 2009 on street parking data was miscounted and there is actually 47 parking spaces provided for the development. Staff has the following comments regarding this alternative: ® The BMP unit is proposed to be sited facing the terminus of the proposed roadway which has a parking area. The unit will be impacted by vehicle headlights and by vehicles parking directly in front of the unit. ® Lot 8's frontage has been reduced to 15 feet and is now considered a flag lot. Flag lots are typically discouraged. ® An easement for the West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) may be impacted by the proposed garage and driveway for the BMP unit. Sign off from the District is required prior to the PD being approved. ® If the historic house is not relocated to the site, the BMP unit should be a two story structure to be consistent with the development. ® The noise consultant will need to update their analysis for this alternative and taking into account that the BMP unit maybe one or two stories. Alternative B (SheetA-Ib ®fExhabrt 19) -Based on staff comments noted above, the applicant has recently submitted: another alternative for the Commission to consider. Lot sizes ware not provided. House sizes are the same as Alternative A. A total of 45 parking spaces would be provided. Staff prefers this alternative over the other alternative, in that the BMP unit is more incorporated within the development and the driveway to the garage is located away from the WVSD easement. Staff has the following corrunents regarding this alterative: ® The following plans will need to be provided, conceptual tentative map indicating lot sizes, utility and grading, sections and streetscape. ® Lot 8's frontage has been reduced to 20 feet and is .now considered a flag lot. Flag lots are typically discouraged. ® If the historic house is not relocated to the site, the BMP unit .should be a two story structure to be consistent with the development. ® The noise consultant will need to update their analysis for this alternative and taking into account that the BMP unit may be one or two stories. CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The Commission should carefully consider whether the proposed project (and its alternatives) is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed General Plan amendment would convert the general land use designation to what previously existed prior to the PD. The proposal is also compatible with the existing land use in the Placer Oaks neighborhood. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8 Placer Oalcs Road/PD-07-142 November 18, 2009 Since access to the site is only available from Placer Oaks Road, a low density development as opposed to a medium density development, it would be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan in regards to maintaining the character and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. The proposed density of 2.94 units per acre is compatible with the neighborhood (BMP units are not counted towards the density). Although a traffic study was not required, as discussed in the previous report, an extensive traffic analysis was conducted based on past neighborhood concerns associated with traffic. The analysis concluded that the trip increase was statistically insignificant and that none of the surrounding roadway segments would experience a noticeable increase in traffic with the addition of the proposed project. Therefore, the traffic generated with this proposal will not impact the neighborhood. Staff believes the Commission should also carefully consider the following. issues when formulating a recommendation to Town Council. These issues relate to the consistency of the General Plan discussed above: Neighborhood Compatibility Community Benefit B. Recommendation If the Commission determines that the original nine lot application is the best option,. the Commission should talcs the following actions: 1. Recommend that the Town Council rescind Ordinances No.2081 and 2122; 2. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the General Plan amendment (Exhibit 14); 3. Find that the Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 7); 4. As required by the Town's Traffic Policy for community benefit. (Exhibit 7); 5. Forward a recommendation for approval of the following to the Town Council: a. Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 5) b. Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 6) c. Planned Development application (Exhibit 15), incorporating the recommended performance standards noted earlier in this report. If the Commission determines that the ten lot proposal is the best option, the Commission should detennirie which ten lot alternative has merit. The Commission should then continue the matter to the meeting of January 13, 2010, to allow staff time to adequately review the plans and prepare a draft PD Ordinance applicable to the recommended alternative. The Commission should also direct the applicant to finalize the plans and provide the written documentation requested by staff from WVSD and the noise consultant. Planning Commission Staff Report a Page 9 _ __ _ ___Placer_~2aks._Road/PD-97-1.42...__.. __ ___ November 18, .2009 ll ~ , ~~1~~1 i ..P. ar d by: Sandy L. Baily, CP Acting Assistant Community Director Development WRR: SLB: Approved by: Wendie R. Rooney Director of Community Development cc: Greenleaf Associates LLC, 2971 Gordon Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dunn Properties, Lp, 301 Alta Loma Lane, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Cupertino Development Corporation, 1307 So. Mary, Suite 120, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Rodger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, Inc., 405 Alberto Way, Suite #C, Los Gatos, CA 95032 N:\DEV\REPORTS\2009\placeroaks.2. doc Page 6 of 16 __Asked if staff will look at the final landscaping plan in relation to theS&G and if staff can fiell the applicant what they are able to do. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis --Commented that final landscaping plans are compared to the S&G and that typically staff would not talcs exception to existing flat areas being develops ,but if there are concerns about hardscape she can work with the applicant, and they do not ant to see ornamental planting more than 30 feet away from the house. Vice Chair John Bourgeois --Commented that his concerns cannot be want to remand it and see it again. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis --Commented that the Commission come back as a separate item on the by amending the motion, and that he would prove the project and require that the landscape plan t Calendar. Mice Chair John Bourgeois said t t would satisfy him. Commissioner Philip 1VIiccich asked what kind of delay that would represent Associate Planner Suzann avis --Commented that it woul not represent a delay because if application is approved, applicant can go ahead with worlc' g drawings and submit for a building permit once 10-day appeal period has expired. Commissioner C rles Erel~son _-Amended the tion to include that the landscape plan would be brought back to the Planning Commission as Consent Calendar item to ensure consistency with the HDS&G. Commissi~er Philip ~Iicciche commented, as seconder of the motion, he agreed with the carried 5-0 with Commissioner 1Vlarcia Jensen excused and Chair Thomas O'Donnell Attorney Orry Korb recited appeal rights. 3. 5.1.7 and 61.5 Blossom Hill Road and Placer Oaks 12oadn Ordinance No.2081. and 2122. Requesting approval to rescind. Plamled Development Ordinances 2081 anti. 212.2 to _. _ -- construct 49 apartment units to allow the project described below on tla.e Placer C)aks site only. APNS: 529-16-042, 026, 073, 529-1.4-012 and 067. I'1ZOP:ERrCY-OWNERS: Greenleaf' Associates LL,C, Dunn Properties, Lp, Cupertino Development Corporation. APPLICANT: Cupertino Development Corporation. Placer Oaks Ronde General Plan Amendi~nent GP-07-001, Planned. Development PD-07- 142;Negative Declaration ND-07-143. Requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change tl~e land use designation from. Medium Density Residential to l.aotiv EgHIBIT 17 http://losgatos. granicus. com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 /10/2009 Page 7 of 16 . Density Residential and approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:S-12:P1:) to R-1.:8: PI) to construct nine single faxxai.ly 1-~ol~scs. No significant environment~il i:tnpacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a. Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended:. APNS 529-16-073, 529-14-012 and 067. PR~]'ER':CY OWNIR/APPI.,ICAN'l:`: Cupertino Developz>7.ent Corporation. PI:.,ANNER.: Sandy Badly, Acting Assistant Community Development Director. Staff Report Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exlub tt. 4 I~xhibit S Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit ~ Exhibit 9 '.Exhibit 1 U Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 1 S Exhibit B of Exhibit 1 S Acting. Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Baily presented the staff report and referenced Desk Item #3. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell confirmed that all Commissioners had walked the site. Commission Questionso --Aslced for confirmation that applicant was asking for a new PD (Planned Development) and for http://losgatos.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=S41 11 /10/2009 Page 8 of 16 the current PD to be rescinded. _-Aslced if FARs (Floor Area Ratios) can be exceeded in PDs. --Asked if there are special findings required in rescinding an ordinance. __Asked if there is a special size for a residential project where the Town would aslc for a PD and if the requested zoning will revert back to what it was before the previous PD. __Aslced about access onto Placer Oaks Road and if it was the original access to this property. --Aslced about potential accesses to the property. --Asked if the property with office buildings has plans to change zoning to residential. --Asked if A&S (Architecture and Site) would be approved at the DRC (Development Review Committee) .level. Acting Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Bally, answered Commission Questions: --Confirmed that applicant is asking for a new PD and to have the current PDs rescinded. --Commented that PDs create their own development and have their own rules which could allow exceeding the FARs. --Commented that rescinding an ordinance does not require a special finding, only a recommendation. --Commented they have done PDs for residential in the past and this project cannot conform to Town standards due to the road access to the site. The requested zone change would revert back to the previous underlying zone. __Cotninented she believed the original access onto Placer Oalcs Road was an old fire road designed for fire access only. --Commented there are only two possible accesses to the site: one .going through 517 and 615 Blossom Hill Road and the other from Placer Oaks Road at the old Higgins and Root site. __Commented she is not aware of any plans to change the office building site to residential. --Commented that since the plans are very complete there is a recommendation that the DRC be the deciding body on A&S so any comments should be provided now. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell opened the public .hearing. Rodger Griffin, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project and commented that they were here tonight specifically because they no longer have access from Blossom Hill Road, Commission Questions: --Aslced about applicant's comment about being here because they now only have access through Placer Oaks Road rather than because of a softening in the apartment market. --Asked why applicant believed that 15 units would not be compatible with the neighborhood. --Asked for further description of the soundwall. --Regarding access when you walk down the fire road, asked what the plan is to widen that road. --Asked about headlights shining into neighbor's property and if the Oak tree was the reason preventing them from moving the access. --Asked if applicant had explored other areas of access. __Aslced if soundwall height would differ for single-story homes and two-story homes. --Aslced about mitigating to acceptable noise levels. __Asked about the noise level on the second story with the windows closed. __Aslced if the rumble noise from trucks had been taken into consideration. --Asked if sound absorbent panels had been considered for the soundwalls. http://losgatos. granicus. com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 / 10/2009 Page 9 of 16 Rodger Griffin, Applicant, answered Commission Questions: --Applicant stated that the apartment market was a consideration when they asked for. a continuation of their A&S application, but subsequently the new owners Have declined to provide the same access rights up to Blossom Hill Road that was worked out the previous owner. The housing market has changed significantly and rentals have actually risen. --Commented that traffic was a major consideration in determining that 15 units would not be compatible and also that it would involve smaller lots and intrusion into the hillside area. --Commented the soundwall is a 20 foot combination of berm and concrete built out of lopsided panels that can be stained a wood tone. It is 20 feet from the lowest grade and there is a declining element as it moves along Highway 17. It is not 20 feet from the pad of the homes, it is 20 feet from the roadway surface which is below much of their property. --Commented the road is currently about 12 feet and the Town standard is 22 feet, so they plan to add 10 feet to the roadway. --Commented the access was originally more aligned with Franlc Avenue, but the Town Arborist wanted them to move the access to prevent impacting the Oak tree. --Commented that when 18 units were put in at the bottom of the Errico property, the Town required dual access and there was an emergency only access that was granted from the property owner at the time, not for public access. Jeff Pack, Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., answered Commission Questions: --Commented the soundwall height would be the same for single-story or two-story homes. It was designed to mitigate for the ground floor elevation. __Commented the General Plan uses a standard of 55 dBA which is nearly impossible to meet, so Pack recommended a design criterion of 65 dBA which is livable. It is recommended that highly sound rated windows on the second floor be kept closed to keep the sound out. --Commented the noise level on the second story with the windows closed would be 45 dBA. __Commented the sound level data included a wide range of frequencies over a long period of time averaged over a 24-hour period with a 10 dBA penalty for noise at night. All types of motor vehicles would have been captured in this data. --Commented a few manufacturers make sound absorbent soundwalls but that does not change the. amount of sound reduction you get traveling past the soundwall, it only minimizes sound. deflection going off in the other direction, possibly on the other side of the freeway. Particular noise sensitive uses may be for a hospital, recording. studio, or other uses where sound levels have to be very low. Lew Bowman --Commented the original project looked okay because Blossom Hill Road was going to be used rather than Placer Oaks Road, Placer Oaks Road would probably need a speed bump with a stop sign and a sign specifying resident access. Thomas Augello --Commented it is a 90 degree. turn at Placer Oalcs Road and then another 90 degree turn at Franlc Avenue. It is currently a raceway and they need some signs and a speed bump. --Aslced if the Town has considered that potential neighbors moving into those homes might sue the Town for approving the project with these noise levels. --Commented that a walkway down that hill would be a challenge. http://losgatos.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 /10/2009 Page 10 of 16 Marc Blekeney --Commented he and several other neighbors have very young children and a big concern is volume of traffic on Placer Oaks Road and its impact, as well as construction and maintenance traffic. Speed and traffic on the road is a concern. Also concerned with right of way and access to property because there is no light controlled intersection for homes to get to major streets. __Commented that the noise level is very .loud, especially in the mornings, and he is concerned about the reflective sound at Vasona Park. li~dort Sherin --Commented he wants the roadway moved 25 feet towards Franlc Avenue to lessen the impact of headlights into his house and to create more of an intersection and split traffic left and right instead of all coming down Placer Oaks Road. --Commented the reason for not shifting the roadway is due to the Oalc tree which is leaning at a 45 degree angle and it may not even survive much longer. --Commented he would like some assurance that there is no plan to develop the undeveloped parcel at the bottom of the hill which would result in more traffic. --Commented the parking down below the steep path is inadequate and that he wants the road level with Placer Oaks Road. Vice Chair John Bourgeois asked 1VIr. Sherin about the proposed structures in his yard to mitigate headlight impacts. li~Ior4 ..Sherin __Commented the yard structures are only a partial solution and do not add much. The structures would still be necessary if the road were realigned and he would like the road aligned with Frank Avenue instead of all the traffic going down Placer Oaks Road. stay Davis __Aslced what Cupertino Development is doing down here in Los Gatos and that these homes will be inundated with cement plant dust from Cupertino. --Commented that staff's recommendation for approval before any public testimony is an insult to the Red, White and Blue and he cannot believe the staff did not find any CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) issues due to the noise. -_Commented that traffic backs up on Highway 17 down to Camden Avenue during summer with cars heading toward the beach and all that exhaust will go directly into these homes. --Commented that he believes this is scrap real estate and that a cemetery is the best use for this land. Rodger Griffin --Commented_ they are open to exploring traffic and speed attenuation but they have no legal _ . access to the roadway that ascends up the hill, or any access across the property intervening. Their only access point that touches any public roadway is at Placer Oaks Road at the entrance to the project. __Commented they did the 18-unit apartment project, and those buildings are effective in reducing sound noise. They also created a courtyard on the uphill side for these units where it is quiet and they do not hear freeway noise. That is why they are doing courtyard style homes. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore http://losgatos, granicus.corn/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 /10/2009 Page 11 of 16 ., --Aslced if Lot 3 is snug against the freeway for a purpose. --Aslced about aesthetics of the soundwall and if they are putting in alcoves. Rodger Griffin --Commented that Lot 3 was purposely done for the recessed courtyard on the other side of the home. The soundwall is approximately 10 feet away from the freeway. __Commented they explored alcoves along the sidewall on the previous project, but it is tighter on the roadway that comes down on this project. They could certainly do some offsetting, but it would affect the planting. The soundwall material is easy to present with offsetting to give a rhythm effect moving down the freeway. The existing planting is very dense. Vice Chair John Bourgeois __Asked how they addressed comments by the CDAC (Conceptual Development Advisory Committee). Rodger Griffin --Commented they presented a plan with nine units to the CDAC that had a flag lot at the end of the roadway without a turnaround. They also had BMP (Below Market Price) units in there, but the CDAC did not want them included because they are looking for monies to fund the staffing for the BMP program. --Commented his client has built BMPs in residential projects and usually exceeded the requirement. Vice Chair John Bourgeois --Commented he would like. further discussion with the Commission regarding the BMP issue because the General Plan Committee currently has a strong consensus to have BMP units built. --Asked 1VIre Griffin if they would be willing to put the BMP back into the project. Rodger Griffin --Commented putting in a BMP would be asignificant change from the present site plan and may increase FARs. --Commented materials on homes. will be stucco in a Spanish style similar to the condominiums on Terreno de Flores Lane. Coinanissioner ~Iarico Sayoc -_Aslced how many BMPs would have been required with nine homes. -_Aslced about the Community Benefit. --Aslced. about the extra ventilation due to closed windows and energy consumption. __Asked about reduced lot areas and reduced setbacks. _. _ _ Rodger Griffin --Commented that one BMP would have been required. --Commented that the Community Benefit is that they are exceeding the environmental requirement standards for the energy consumption of the homes in the construction, they have worked to preserve the hillside areas for the visual benefit to the Town, are lessening the traffic compared to the current zoning, and replacing an aging sewer line that runs across the property. --Commented that not all rooms are affected by the requirement to keep the windows closed. Other forms of ventilation are available besides air conditioning. http://losgatos.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 /10/2009 Page 12 of 16 __Commented they are actually requesting a reduction in density. There are a variety of lot sizes and the setbacks will be at angles to the streets rather than being square to the roadway. None of the reduced setbacks will be closest to the wall. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Commented the parcel is very difficult with limited access, and asked how a property owner was expected to gain access to their property. --Commented that it appears the only access to the property is from the fire access road. Rodger Griffin --Commented the parcel was purchased when they were able to work with the adjacent owners. The property is not landlocked, but the roadway is at the limits of the slope and moving through the trees. --Commented the road was never designated a fire access road until they went through the process of creating the last PD for the apartments. At that time, it was designated as a fire access only for about six months until the project was complete, and it does not currently exist as a fire access only road. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Aslced for additional information on parking in reference to the CDAC minutes of September 13, 2006. Rodger Griffin __Commented there are four spaces available at each home with two in the garage and two on the driveway, with ten additional parking spaces on the street throughout the project. Chair Thomas O'Donnell closed the public hearing Chair John Bourgeois __Aslced Commissioners who were serving on the CDAC at the time about their th.ouglzts of the in-lieu fee for the BMP units rather than the actual units. Acting Assistant Director of Community Development Sandy Baily --Commented she did not remember the specifics from the CDAC. Chair Thomas O'Donnell ®-Commented this property does not have good public access and is not in favor of BMP units. Ideally this property should be developed into multiple dwellings with access other than through Placer Oaks Road. The nine houses do not present a traffic issue according to the traffic study, but this location does not appear to be a good location for expensive homes due to the noise. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore __Commented she has a hard time with quality of life in these homes due to noise, as well as a soundwall of 20 feet which changes the existing scenic character of the Town. She would have lilted to have seen a digital inset (photo simulation) of the soundwall. Commissioner Philip 1Vlicciche --Asked for clarification on whether or not something can be built there per Town Codes. http://losgatos. granicus. com/MinutesV iewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 /10/2009 Page 13 of 16 Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Commented that something should probably be built there,. but that does not mean they have to approve it; however, there needs to be a legal basis for the denial of a project. Commissioner Marico Sayoc --Commented she is wondering if they should rescind the original PD, what is lacking with the Town's housing allocation numbers, and if this would affect what will be needed in the future for rental housing. --Commented that if this project does move along, she is not quite satisfied with the Community Benefit. --Commented she understands the factors put into the homes, but nine more households of traffic is a significant amount of traffic and she would like to see the Community Benefit tied. into traffic mitigation to benefit the affected neighborhood. --Commented she would like to see an alternative solution for a BMP unit on-site. Commissioner Charles Erekson __Commented he shares the concern about the Community Benefit not being particularly strong azid would prefer it be inherent in the nature of the project. --Commented he does not understand why there would be a rationale to not put a BMP on-site in the development. __Commented he shares the concern about access but does not see a good solution to the current access issue. Vice Chair John Bourgeois --Commented that he feels it is fundamentally wrong to build a house where owners are told not to open their windows, but a proj ect was already approved for that site. The determination now is whether the mitigation measures taken are adequate and acceptable. __Commented he has a strong preference to put a BMP unit on-site. --Commented he would be in favor of removing the Oalc tree to accommodate the road. entry. --Commented he has concerns about architecture of all the houses looking the same in height and materials. Acting 1-lssistant Director of Community Development Sandy Baily --Commented that the site is not landlocked because it is accessible from Placer Oalcs Road. --Commented the soundwall ranges in height from 9-15 feet on berms ranging from 18 inches to 8 feet, so total height including the berm maxes out at 20 feet. __Commented, regarding quality of life, that the previous project approved had 49 units; this has nine units, and the soundwall was approved at the last project. __Commented that in terms of the Town's housing numbers, th_e rescession of the PD ordinance will not affect the numbers because the new Housiag Elemeat does not include these parcels ri the count. They are looking at different sites to meet the Town's housing requirements. --Commented. she believed this neighborhood has gone through some traffic calming meetings with the Town Engineer, but if not, they could go through that process. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Aslced for clarification on Ms. Baily's comment that 49 units had been previously approved, and now it is a plus to have only nine units. http://losgatos. granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 /10/2009 Page 14 of 16 Acting Assistant Director of Community Development Sandy Baily --Commented it was not a plus, but rather a quality of life issue. Chair Thomas ®'Donnell --Commented that access is different for the rune units than what was proposed for the 49 units, and he believes the Commission has to decide what kind of access is needed and what their limitations are. __Commented they definitely need to take care of the house across the street. Toavn Attorney ®rry Korb ®-Commented this is a PD rezoning application, the decision is a legislative one, the Commission is not obligated to approve it, and it is not one that is consistent with the existing zoning. The Commission has a wide degree of discretion in reviewing and considering the problems associated with the application. __Commented that this is a lot that can be developed but there is clearly going to be noise. --Commented that Staff's recommendation saw some benefit in reducing density on site and the proposal works. --Commented the current PD does not work because access is no longer available. Chair Thomas ®'Donnell __Commented that one good thing is that the property can be developed with nine homes with access. The question is if this is the best use of this property. Commissioner Philip IVIicciche --Aslced if this project were denied, if the existing project has an alternative access since they no longer have the original access. Town Attorney ®rry Korb --Commented the PD approval must have been dependent on the access that was approved with it. The PD is still valid but it cannot be realized if there are access problems. The PD is just an overlay on the existing zoning, and the underlying zoning does allow other uses. It would be possible to do some kind of development consistent with the existing zoning without a new PD. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Asked if the soundwall would also be reduced if the houses were reduced in height. __Aslced if monument entries are allowed in Town. Acting Assistant Director of Community Devclopmcnt Sandy Baily --Commented that the soundwall would not be lowered. ~-Commented that the Town discourages gates, but developments have had monurnenf entries. Town Attorney ®rry Korb --Commented there is an affordable housing project that was constructed on Miles Avenue adjacent to Highway 17 and there was a lot of discussion at the Commission level regarding a concern about noise, but that project was approved based on the principle that people have a choice on where they want to live. http://losgatos.granicus.com/MinutesV iewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11 /10/2009 Page 1 S of 16 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Commented she was hoping there was a more aesthetic treatment to the soundwall and hopes this can be addressed in any motion that is made, as well as the bulk and mass of the buildings. Commissioner Philip IV)<icciche __Summarized the issues that need to be addressed if the project were approved to be that the access should be moved over, that there should be four or five distinctly different models, that there should be speed bumps in the road to safeguard for speeding, that the soundwall could be painted, and that the BMP issue should be addressed. Vice Chair John Bourgeois __Commented they also want to see some photo simulation on what the wall will look like from Highway 17. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Confirmed the five items that the Commission raised as concerns on the proposed project and commented he would lilts to get some indication from the Commission if they would approve the project if the applicant mitigated all the concerns raised. Acting Assistant Director of Community Development Sandy Baily __Commented that the Town Arborist has said that if the Oak tree is moved,. it will be so impacted that it will probably need to be removed and would require mitigation for the tree. __Commented the Commission could forward the application with recommendations to Town Council and ask to see the Architecture and Site application for the houses to see the relocation of the road, the architecture, the traffic calming measures, the wall simulation, and the BMP options, if BMP is approved. Commissioner Charles Ercl;son --Commented he does not find any basis to deny development of the property, but would provide mitigation measures as conditions of developing the property. Commissioncr Philip 1VIiccichc --Aslced if it would require smaller lots if the BMP unit was added. __Aslced. what exactly is being asked of the applicant. --Asked staff when a BMP is required. Chair Thomas O'Donncll. --Commented that they would lilts to see a BMP unit, but need to see how it would be built before a decision is made. Acting Assistant Director of Community Development Sandy Baily --Commented that. five units or more require a BMP unit, so nine units would require one BMP. Commissioner Charles Erekson --Commented there is a reasonable basis on which to recommend the proposed PD with conditions. Town Attorney Orry Korb http;//losgatos.granicus.tom/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11/10/2009 Page 16 of 16 __Confirmed that the Commission wants to see an alternative layout with a BMP unit and see how it works. Motion by Coininissioner Philip IVlieciche and seconded by Vice Chair John bourgeois to continue Ordinance No.2081 and 2122, General Plan Amendment GP-07-001, Planned Development PD-07-142, and Negative Declaration ND-07-143 to October 28, 2009, with the following conditions: (1) Provide for relocation of the road (2) Provide architectural diversity (3) Look at traffic calming measures (4) Provide photo simulation of soundwall (S) Provide an alternative with a BMP unit Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner 1VIarcia Jensen excused. Town Attorney ®rry Korb reported that there will be no other official notice of the hearing date, and if it is not ready at that time, it will be continued to a later date. S -- 4. Report fro Director of Community Development -- None Cominissior~ Nl~tters -- Nonc TOWN O.~ LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION ednesday, September 23, 2009 Thomas O'Donnell APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: Sandy Baily Acting Assistant Director of Community Development http://losgatos.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=541 11/10/2009 /~ovember 1®, 2®®9 NOV 1 0 2009 ~VVN OF t..nS GATOS Community ®evelopment ®ept. ..-.=~~Ir~;,~~~,. ~Ivl~~..,~ Town of Los Gatos 11® East Main,~`treet Los Gatos, C~, 95050 .1°ubject: P® Rez®ning & Gener®I PI®n Ch®nge PI®cer ®®ks R®ad (~PAYp 52916®75) `T®: `Town Planning C®rnrriission ®ear Chairperson ~ Planning commission ..Members; URBAN DESIGN & PLANNING ~s per your direction to us at the ®ctober 21St meeting we have prepared two alternate site studies each with an inclusive PSMP residence. We are proposing to relocate the exiting historic home on Fiesta Way onto this site in order to clear the library site and allow commencing with the net library facility. The Fiesta home is reflected in both ~Iternate site Mans along with a new home of compatible architecture. ~LTER/Y~TE ~,: ® Main site entry is realigned to reduce .headlight glare into neighbors home ® Lot 9 ®Reduced in size and new Victorian design .proposed ®Lot #1®®~dded lot to accommodate relocated Fiesta home as a IaMP ®®etached garages at both lots #9 & #10 ® Lot #10 ®®riveway utilizes easement for WV,~°I? to service existing sewer ® Curves have been removed from end of roadway to increase yards & minimize paved area ®,/°oundwall ®Wall is now stepped along the landscaped berm ~~ G®t~ DESIGN GROUP, INC, service by Design 2545-'09.11.10-PC response 405 Alberto Nay Suite C Los Gatos, CA 95032 408,358.3707 fax; 356.1969 paragondg@megapathdsl.net MEMBER A.1.8.D. MEMBER B.I.A. E~HIBTT 18 ~,LTERN~,TE P~: ® Main. site entry is realigned to reduce headlight glare into neighbors home ® Lot #9 -~ Modified to allow for new Victorian along~/'oundwall ® Lot #10 - added lot to accommodate relocated Fiesta home as a PIMP located away from the soundwall ® Curves have Been removed from end of roadway to increase yards & minimize paved area ®foundwall -° ~/all is now stepped along the landscaped berm Main. site entry is realigned to reduce headlight glare into neighbors home ® foundwall ®Wall is now stepped along the landscaped berm ®In-Lieu. fee as allowed in the PIMP ordinance ~ recommended by CDC COMMU/YITY PSE/YEFIT: Providing a placement for the historic Fiesta Way home offers the preservation and continued use of this home while providing a clear site in order to move the new library forward. In order to provide a new location with other related structures we have replaeed the larger home previously proposed on lot#9 with a smaller home of historic design. ,/°hould the concepfi of moving the Fiesta home to this site be accepted, our Client is also open to revising the architecture of the other homes to be more compatible and create a cohesive community while saving an historic structure. The Planning Commission can review this redesign during the ~d,/' process. ~s an additional benefit and after conferring with the Town Traffic Engineer, Jessie Pu, we propose to construct the proposed traffic mitigation for "Vista ®el Monte" with a budget of $15K. ~ basic. Community P~enefit of this project continues to be the voluntary reduction from 15 units, the minimum required under the zoning to 9 market rate homes. The ±50% reduction in trip generation is a real and measurable benefit to our surrounding. neighbors ~e~ice by Design 2545-'09.11.10-PC response ~s requested at the Oct. 21St hearing, the soundwall at the freeway frontage is now stepped along the germ and is to be setback from the Property line to allow for greater landscaping. The existing trees between the waq and freeway are to remain and new trees added to the mix and to fill the existing voids. ~ Photo°simulation of texture or Pattern on the wall will be Presented during the Planning Commission Presentation. With this submission we have demonstrated our desire to accommodate the concerns expressed by the Planning commission and resPeetfully request your recommendation for approval of this Proposed new community. f~ll3® Preside Cc/ K, Kolker service by Design 2545-'09.11.10-PC response