Loading...
15975 Union Ave - Desk Item & Exhibit 20TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 9, 2016 PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters, Associate Planner ewal ters @ los gatosca. gov APPLICATION NO: Subdivision Application M-15-001 ITEM NO: 4 DESK ITEM Architecture and Site Applications S-15-009 through S-15-0 11 LOCATION : 15975 Union Avenue (located at the northwest corner of Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road) APPLICANT/ CONTACT PERSON: Gary Kolhsaat PROPERTY OWNER: Betchart Union Ave Joint Venture Partnership APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees on property zoned R-1: 10. APN 523-42-017. EXHIBITS: 1-14. Previously received with January 27 , 2016 Staff Report 15. Previously received with January 27, 2016 Desk Item 16-19. Previously received with March 9, 2016 Staff Report REMARKS: Received with this Desk Item Report: 20. Comments received from 11 :01 a .m. on March 4 , 2016 to II :00 a.m. on March 9 , 2016 The attached email was received after distribution of the staff report. {~ Prepared by: Erin Walters Associate Planner JP:EW:cg N:\DE V\PC REPORTS\20 16\Uni on 159 75 -cont -DESK.3 -9-16 .d o cx Ap roved by: J9 el Paulson, AICP Community Development Director / This Page Intentionally Left Blank RECEIVED Comments on Union A venue Subdivision Item 4 MAR 09 2016 To the Planning Commi ss ion From Lee Quintana Agenda Item 4 2/9/2015 Planning Commission Please consider the following: TOWN OF LO S GATOS PLANNING DIVISION (\A-\ '7-00 \ 7-,s -~.?q -l hv~~\ 5-\? {)1\ The staff report for the March 9th Planning Commission meeting addresses various technical issues. However, it does not adequately address the primary issue of whether a three lot subdivision, as proposed, is consistent with the zoning code and/or the requirements of the state's Subdivision Map Act. Conclusion: Based on the information and discussion below 1. The finding(s) required to deny the proposed can be made, therefore the proposed subdivision should be denied. 1. Given the site is too small to include a street or alley for access, given access is only possible from Union Avenue, given the location of the proposed access from Union Avenue a two lot subdivision with one flag lot may be the only option for a subdivision unless the applicant applies for a variance or an amendment to the zoning code. The discussion below of the 1/27/05 Staff Report to the Planning Commission supports these conclusion. Staff Report for the 1/27/15 Planning Commission Meeting . D. Zoning Compliance (page 4) 1. "The proposed subdivision application complies with the minimum lot frontage , depth, and size requirements . The proposed Architecture and Site Application comply with the height, structure coverage limitations, setback requirements and required parking is being provided on site . The zoning permits three lots and a single family residence on each lot" COMMENTS : See comments under Analysis: A. Subdivision ANALYSIS: A. Subdivision (page 4) 1. :The applicant is proposing three lots that meet the minimum lot dimensions ... required by Town Code. COMMENT: While this statement is correct there are other elements of the proposed subdivision that may not allow for a three lot subdivision. 1. "Town Code Section 29 .1 0.087, Lot frontage , requires all lots to have frontage . Lot frontage is defined Town Code Section 29.10.020 as the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other than a site line of a comer lot. Lots 2 and 3 have frontage along Blossom Hill Road . This satisfies the lot frontage definition because the opportunity for access from Blossom Hill Road exists. Access from Lot 2 and 3 is provided from Union because Union Avenue has a lower traffic volume than Blossom Hill Road ." (page 4) COMMENTS: • See Sec. 29.10.20 in Notes below for complete definition of Lot, frontage • Blossom Hill Road not longer meets the definition for lot, frontage as the required dedications and design for required subdivision improvements including the revised drainage design no longer allows access off Blossom Hill Road. This information was not available to CDAC. • Union Avenue is, therefore, no longer the preferred access point. Union Ave . is the only frontage that meets the code's definition for lot, frontage. • The Zoning code provides three exceptions from the frontage requirements : 1 )Corridor Lots, (Sec. 29.10 .085 and GP Policy LU-4 .5), 1. Condominiums (the corridor strip is deducted to determine minimum lot size . (Sec. 29 .10 .085) 1. corridorPianned developments. (Sec. 29.10.087) EXHIBIT 2 0 • I was not able to find and reference in the Town Code or General Plan that would qualify the use of easements for a shared driveway as an exception to required lot frontage. • I believe, as currently proposed, the project would require either a variance or require a change to the Zoning Code (see last item under Notes) 1. "The proposed subdivision lot sizes are comparable to other lot sizes in the surrounding subdivisions" (page 5). COMMENT: This may be accurate, however this may not be an apples to apples comparison. It is not clear that this would be the case if the shared driveway were not counted as part of the lot. 1 . "Neighbors asked if the project could be a two-lot, flag lot subdivision. While the applicant could request two lots, instead of three, the proposed three-lot subdivision complies with applicable policies, regulations and guidelines. Additionally, the General Plan discourages corridor lots (also know as flag lots) but allows the subdivider to demonstrate a corrodor lot meets certain provisions (See General Plan Policy LU-4 .5)" COMMENT: It is not possible to introduce a street {See Sec. 29 .10.06702 and Sec. 29.10.06703 in Notes. A flag lot may be the only way to provide for a subdivision of this property. 1 . "The shared driveway would exit onto Union Avenue. At the August 13, 2014 CDAC meeting, site access off of Union Avenue was preferred for the subject site {Exhibit 4). Access from Union Avenue is preferred over Blossom ill Road because the traffic volumes on Union are lower then those on Blossom Hill Road ." COMMENT: As stated under Comments for item 2 above, given the required subdivision improvements along Blossom Hill Road would not allow access from Blossom Hill Road. 1. "Staff also included an option for an eight foot tall fence , where it does not interfere with traffic visibility ." but does not define how interference with traffic visibility is defined. NOTES : Sec. 29.1 0 .020. -Definitions: Lot, frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other than the side line of a comer lot. On a comer lot either property line on a street may be determined to be the frontage . Lot, corridor means a lot with access to a street by means of a strip of land having less frontage or width than required for the parcel by this chapter Sec. 29.10.085. -Corridor lots. The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more tan three hundred {300) feet long nor less than twenty {20) feet wide. The area of a corridor may not be applied toward satisfying the minimum lot area requirement. A corridor may not serve more than one (1) lot. Lot frontage for a corridor lot is an exception to the lot frontage requirement in all zones. GP Policy LU-4.5. -Discourage corridor lots. Corridor lots shall only be allowed if the use of a corridor lot decreases the amount of public street required for a subdivision, contributes to the surround neighborhood, and is in context with the existing scale and established character of the neighborhood. The subdivider shall also demonstrate that the use of a corridor lot benefits surrounding properties. Sec. 29.10.06702.-Subdivision Design, standards-Streets. The design of a subdivision shall comply with the following street and highway standards as determined by the advisory agency: 1 . Highways and major streets .... 2. Collector streets ..... . 3 . Minor streets ..... 4 . One way streets .. . 5. Turning circles ... . Sec. 29.10 .06703.-Subdivision Design standards.-Design standards and Sec.24.50.020 Alleys shall have a right-of-way width of not less than thirty (30) feet and roadway width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet. Sec. 29.10.06705.-Off-Street parking on narrow streets and Sec. 24.50.030. On streets in subdivisions where parking of automobiles is prohibited along either or both sides of the normal roadway , parking bays may be required at convenient locations or intervals outside the normal traffic lanes. Sec. 29.10.06717.-Culverts, storm drains and drainage structures. Culverts, storm drains, and drainage structures shall be constructed in, under, or a long streets, alley and highways in a subdivision ...... Sec. 29.10.06726. -Lot Standards -Design, area and width . All lots created pursuant to tis chapter must conform to the rules of chapter 29 of this Code. Sec. 29.10.085 -Corridor lots . The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more tan three hundred (300) feet long nor less than twenty (20) feet wide. The area of a corridor may not be applied toward satisfyingthe minimum lot area reqire ment. A corridor may not serve more than one (1) lot. Lot frontage for a corridor lot is an exception to the Jot frontage requirement in all zones. Sec. 29.10.087.-Lot frontage . All lots shall have frontage, except those lots created for a condominium development, or under a planned development application. The minimum dimension of the frontage shall be as required by the zone in which the property is located, or where there is no minimum, as determined by the planning director. Sec. 29.40.075. -Floor area ratio . a. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to assist in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is co mpatible with the surrounding neighborhood . The FAR is a nominal limit, not a goal, and shall be used in conjunction with residential development standards adopted by resolution. b. The FAR app lies to those lots developed or proposed to be developed with a single-or two-family dwelling in a ll residential zone (except the RC and HR zones. 6647 3.5 . No lo ca l agency shall approve a te nta tive map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not requi red, unl ess the leg islative body fi nds that the proposed s ubdi vision , together with the provisions for its des ign and improvement, is consistent with the gene ra l plan required by Article 5 (comm encing with Section 65300) of C hapter 3 of Di visi on I, or any s pecifi c plan adopted purs uant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Divi sion I . A proposed subdivis ion shall be con siste nt with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has offi c ially adopted s uch a plan and th e proposed s ubdi vision or land use is compatible with th e objecti ves, polici es, general land uses, a nd programs s pecified in s uch a pl an. 66474 . A legis la ti ve body of a city or county sha ll den y approva l of a tentative map, or a p arcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it ma kes any of the foll owi ng findin gs: (a) That the proposed ma p is not consistent with appli cabl e general and s pecific plans as specifi ed in Section 65451 . (b) That the des ign or improvement of the proposed s ubdiv ision is n ot con sistent with appli cable general and s pecific pl ans. i. That the site is not physically suitable fo r the type of d evelopment. (d) That the site is not ph ys icall y suitable for the proposed den sity of deve lopment. (e) That the design of the subdivis ion or th e proposed improvem e nt s are likely to cause s ub stant ia l environmental damage or s ubstantially and avoid abl y injure fi sh or wildl ife or their habitat. (f) That the des ign of th e subdiv ision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious publi c health problems. (g) That the design of the s ubdivision or th e type of improvements will conflic t with easeme nts, acquired by the public at large, for access through o r use of, property within the proposed subdivi sion . In this conn ection, the governing body may approve a map if it find s that alternate easeme nts, for access or for use, will be provided , and that these wi ll be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by th e public. Thi s sub section sh a ll appl y onl y to easements of r ecord or to easements established by judgment of a co urt of competent jurisdi ction and no authority i s hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large h as acquired easements for access through or use of pro perty within the propo sed s ubdi v ision. Sec. 24.20.020.-Compliance with a pplicable o rdin a nces. (a) Appli cation s fo r a ppro val o f te nt ative map , in clud in g the maps th e mse lves, shall no t be accepted fo r filing or be deemed to have been fil ed unl ess s uch appl ications ful ly co mpl y with the p rov ision s of th is chapt er. (b) If the design of a proposed subd ivision or th e intended use of th e land included in a proposed s ubd iv ision does not comply with all rul es of the a pplicable zone , th e tentative s ubdivi sion m ap sha ll not be accepted for fi ling or be deemed to have been tiled unless th e s ubdivid e r concurrently prosecutes proceedings unde r chapter 29 of this Cod e to c hange the zone or to obtain a va ri ance from the provisions thereof, a nd th e ch ange or varia nce wo uld , if granted, a ll ow the subdivision or in tended use. (c) The tim e period during whi ch acti on by the adv isory agency upon a tentative map is required does not begin until the map can be and is accepte d for filing pursuant to the provisions of th is secti on.