Loading...
Item 1 - Draft Mins 06.22.16DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 22, 2016 The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, June 22, 2016, at 7:00 pm. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chair Badame called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mary Badame, Vice Chair D. Michael Kane, Commissioner Kendra Burch, Commissioner Charles Erekson, Commissioner Melanie Hanssen, Commissioner Matthew Hudes, and Commissioner Tom O’Donnell Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Burch led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Desk Item for Item 7. REQUESTED CONTINUANCES None. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Preservation Committee Vice Chair Kane - The 6/22/16 HPC meeting considered one matter: - 325 West Main Street VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes – June 8, 2016 MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Erekson to approve adoption of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Chair Badame. VOTE: Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 649 University Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-16-022 APNs 529-10-085 and -139 Property Owner: Fox Creek Fund, LLC Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat Project Planner: Dorian Pradon Requesting approval for exterior modifications to a commercial building on property zoned LM. Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Chair Badame opened the public hearing. Dorian Pradon, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Gary Kohlsaat - Commented that the project is an exterior renovation with a style that is representative of the immediate industrial area and the warehouse use, but with lots of windows and retail and office space oriented to the street to liven up the sidewalk. No square footage would be added. The design is in the spirit of doing 360-degree architecture. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Kohlsaat. Commission members asked questions of staff. Mark Mander - Commented that the plans look fine, but he is concerned about parking and the fact that the space is being converted into warehouse. He doesn’t believe the plan’s additional two parking spaces with roll-up doors will be utilized, but that people will park on Industrial Way or University. He was concerned there would be more property conversion in the future. Gary Kohlsaat - Commented that the two new parking spaces are one for handicapped one for employees. Their project is within the guidelines, and they are not seeking further conversions, nor would they be able to do so unless they put parking underneath or on top of this building. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Kohlsaat. Commission members asked questions of staff. Chair Badame closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Erekson to approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-022 subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016. Seconded by Commissioner Burch. VOTE: Motion passed 7-0. Community Development Director Joel Paulson cited the appeal rights. 3. 252 Prince Street Architecture and Site Application S-15-069 APN 407-32-005 Property Owner/Application: Michael Y. Wu Project Planner: Jocelyn Puga Requesting approval for a technical demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. Chair Badame opened the public hearing. Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked questions of staff. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Steve Lippert - Commented that both side and rear neighbors do not object to the proposal. The neighbors that do object are concerned with view blockage, not square footage or design. The neighborhood is predominantly ranch, but ranch houses leak thermal heat compared to two-story houses. Mr. Wu wants to build a sustainable house that is so well insulated that very little energy would be required to heat it. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Lippert. Michael Wu - Commented that the Town’s consulting architect had nine specific suggestions regarding the design. He incorporated four to five of them and has submitted explanations for why certain items are not in compliance. He altered his design concept to comply with the consulting architect’s suggestion. The only minimum item that cannot be achieved is the solar panel on the garage roof. That is the only space left after converting all the roof shade to accommodate his suggestion. Sharad Sharma - Commented that he and the other neighbors are not concerned just about the view, but they oppose the idea of two stories because of the privacy issue. They have less issue with the materials and energy efficiency, but the design would change the way the street looks today, having only four two-story homes out of 30. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Sharma. Julie Rygaard - Commented that she lives directly across the street from the subject site. She and her husband are concerned regarding the nonconformity of the plan, the two-story design that would block their views, that a two-story home would start a trend in their neighborhood until they would be surrounded by two-story homes. The neighbor behind the subject site that did not object has recently put his home up for sale and cannot be considered an interested party. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Rygaard. Evelyn Neely - Commented that she is one of the neighbors with a two-story home. Most of the two-story homes in the neighborhood are at the top of a slope and don’t disturb the views of their neighbors. Her objection to the project is the story poles completely blocked their view of the hills, which would impact their home value. The home does not conform to other homes in the neighborhood. Stuart Scurti - Commented that he lives directly across the street from the subject site. He and his wife are concerned about the size and mass of the property and the location of the solar panels. The architectural style is the biggest issue; it does not fit the property into the neighborhood. Steve Lippert - Commented that they will be planting street trees in front of the property, so even if the applicant were to build a one-story house, the view would still be street trees. If the applicant were to build a one-story house with a ridgeline equal to that of the new one-story house next door, that ridgeline would block the view of the East Bay hills. Michael Wu - Commented that he has a flooding problem that has caused uneven foundation settlement. If he raised the finished floor, it would be higher than the current roofline and would not be acceptable to the neighbors. Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Commission members asked questions of Mr. Wu and Mr. Lippert. Chair Badame closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner O’Donnell to deny Architecture and Site Application S-15-069 based on the comparison to the residences in the immediate area as defined by the Planning Commission, and the proposed bulk, mass and scale of the two-story residence. Seconded by Commissioner Erekson. VOTE: Motion passed 7-0. Community Development Director Joel Paulson cited the appeal rights. 4. 52 Oak Grove Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-16-041 APN 529-30-025 Property Owner: Bob and Eleanor Tullis Applicant: Jennifer Kretschmer Project Planner: Jennifer Armer Requesting approval to construct a new second story addition on an existing single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. Chair Badame opened the public hearing. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked questions of staff. Eleanor Tullis - Commented that they need more space for their growing family, space for extended family to visit, and office space. If they had built forward on the ground floor, it would have impacted their neighbors much more. If they had built backwards it would have taken away their deck. They designed the home to mitigate privacy issues with the neighbors, with no second story windows looking onto neighbors, no shadowing impact, and trying to comply with all the guidelines. Jennifer Kretschmer - Commented that she is the architect for the project. The property is on the end of a cul de sac and completely surrounded by massive oak trees that would dwarf any home in the neighborhood. Setting the house back and going up to two stories keeps the house away from the view of the other side of the cul de sac. The neighborhood has an eclectic style, with some of the single-story homes almost having more volume than their two-story home, because of the attached garages. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Kretschmer and Mrs. Tullis. Bob Tullis - Commented that they have the third largest lot in the neighborhood, and there are two other homes that have larger FARs then they do. As they developed their plans, they took into account staying within the FAR and being significantly lower than is allowed. Chair Badame closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Commission members discussed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner O’Donnell to approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-041 subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016. Seconded by Commissioner Hanssen. Commission members discussed the matter. VOTE: Motion passed 7-0. Community Development Director Joel Paulson cited the appeal rights. 5. 26 Oak Hill Way Architecture and Site Application S-16-032 APN 529-34-053 Property Owner: Alexander Peysakhovich Applicant: Holly and Richard Hartman: Homtec Project Planner: Jennifer Armer Requesting approval to construct a new second story addition on an existing single-family residence, encroach into the required rear setback, and exceed the maximum allowed floor area on a non-conforming property zoned R-1:D. Chair Badame opened the public hearing. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked questions of staff. Rick Hartman - Commented that he is the architect for the project. The way the site is situated, the front looks like the back and the back looks like the front. They considered flipping the setbacks, but at the back of the house the entire wall is violating the setback. The applicant will push that wall back to meet the setback and lessen the violation, but they need to leave the front door there, or the stairs wouldn’t work. They are trying to give the home some presence on the front and make it better looking. Lana Peysakhovich - Commented that they need more space after having children. The addition would meet their needs, bring their 90-year old property more into conformance with the codes, and would fit well into the neighborhood. The next door neighbors approve of the project. The house would be modest in size but still give them the room they need. Rick Hartman - Commented that the amount of square footage that they are over the FAR is kind of the difference of the slope reduction. If it weren’t for the slope reduction, they would just about meet FAR. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Hartman. Chair Badame closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burch to approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-032 subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016. Seconded by Vice Chair Kane. VOTE: Motion passed 7-0. Community Development Director Joel Paulson cited the appeal rights. 6. 14595 Clearview Drive Architecture and Site Application S-15-070 APN 409-31-001 Property Owner: Maxine Leider Trust Applicant: La Rinconada Country Club Project Planner: Marni Moseley Requesting approval to construct a 546 square foot private instruction accessory building on property zoned RC. Chair Badame opened the public hearing. Commissioner Hudes indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the public hearing for Item 6, as he owns property in proximity to the subject site. Marni Moseley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked questions of staff. Stan Prolo - Commented that he is the assistant GM at the country club. The teaching facility would only be used for individual instruction, with no group activities taking place. They met with the two most impacted neighbors and have implemented mitigation measures such as landscaping and screening, and will continue to work with them in the future, should issues arise. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Prolo. Chair Badame closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner O’Donnell to approve Architecture and Site Application S-15-070 subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016 and the development plans attached as Exhibit 10. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated June 22, 2016. Seconded by Commissioner Burch. VOTE: Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Erekson opposing. Community Development Director Joel Paulson cited the appeal rights. 7. 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-12-1003 APN 529-23-015 and -016. Property Owner: Jake Peters and Dan Ross Applicant: Dan Ross Page 7 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Project Planner: Marni Moseley Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned R-1:8. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from 5/25/2016. Chair Badame indicated that she would recuse herself from participation in the public hearing for Item 7, as the subject site is within 500 feet of her residence. Commissioner Hudes returned to the hearing. Vice Chair Kane opened the public hearing. Marni Moseley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked questions of staff. Barton Hechtman - Commented that per Commission direction the Ross’s invited the neighbors to meet and discuss the project. New plan revisions further reduce height, bulk, mass and square footage of the home. The driveway was reconfigured to allow for on-site turnaround and to have a wider mouth. Four layers of landscaping would act as screening. The north roof deck is now a green roof and inaccessible to people. Deep shelves and planters eliminate downward views from the driveway. The patio has been relocated to the north end to address privacy issues. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Hechtman and owner/applicant Dan Ross. Commission members asked questions of staff. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Ross. Nicholas Williamson - Commented that there are still significant issues with the project stemming from the size of the house. The lower floor is all living area, not a cellar, and should be included in the FAR, which would push the house well beyond the FAR limit. The design of the building has a lot of dead space and bulk and mass issues, and turning the dead space into livable space does not solve the issue, it just creates privacy issues on top of bulk and mass issues. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Williamson. Ken Lown - Commented that he agreed with Mr. Williamson that the crux of the differences between the neighbors and Mr. Ross is the size of the building. The building is enormous, and the cellar does not accomplish the spirit of the Hillside Guidelines, because it does not hide bulk and mass from the neighboring homes. Patrick Tillman - Commented that his April 4, 2010 letter provided a list of items not in compliance: privacy, cut and fill, FAR, three stories, height bulk and mass, and neighborhood compatibility. The applicant has addressed none of them. There has been no compelling reason given to offset or to sidestep a standard, as required by the Hillside Standards. The lower floor cannot be defined as a cellar, because it has three open sides. Commission members asked questions of staff. Natalia Stulskaya Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 - Commented that she met with the builder to look at the proposed changes, but the changes are insignificant. The structure is still oversized for the lot and significantly affects the privacy of adjacent properties because of its size. Over the past ten years residents of the neighborhood have repeatedly asked the applicant to construct a house that fits the size of the lot, takes the steepness of the hill into account, and doesn’t violate privacy. Having a massive house with 48% bonus space marked as a cellar is not appropriate. Commission m embers asked questions of Ms. Stulskaya. Rob Dinapoli - Commented that he lives across the street from the subject site. In the last few years the community has come together in unanimous opposition to this proposed development due to its size and mass. Having the mass and size of the development, and then allowing the living space on the entire bottom floor to be considered cellar should not be allowed. Traffic is also still an issue with neighbors. Dr. Tim Coughlin - Commented that he met with the applicant. With respect to the cellar issue, unless the Town gets more clarification on the issue, if this application goes through it will become a precedent for other developments of this kind. The FAR impacts not just the environment, but also how many people will be in the house, and thus how many vehicles. Shannon Susick - Commented that she has submitted a formal request that the Town review definitions that are being addressed, review what the DRC is allowed to approve and deny and what should be sent to the Planning Commission, and to consider creating a Town land preservation fund for contentious parcels such as this. The removal of the Heritage oak trees would set a precedent for removing the rest of the grove. For the applicant to simply say that the misuse of the cellar and FAR is within the Town guidelines is not sufficient. Lee Quintana - Commented that the first speaker got the issue right: the issue is the building. The landscaping is secondary. The main issue is the mass and scale in relation to its parcel size and its constraints, and neighborhood compatibility. This is not a numbers game or fixing the problems caused by the development plan with landscaping. The main focus should be on the mass and scale and whether it is consistent with the General Plan, cellars in lieu of visible space, the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Guidelines. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Quintana. Mary Ann Lown - Commented that the neighbors had wished to receive the plans before their meeting with the applicant, but did not receive them. The applicant missed several deadlines he had promised for delivering the plans. By the time the plans became available online the neighbors decided to decline a meeting with the applicant. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Lown. Janet Carmona - Commented that the applicant continues to compare his application to Maggi Court townhomes, but the project’s living space of 2,720 square feet is almost double the space of a single Maggi Court townhome. The proposed home’s modern architecture does not relate to any of the homes in the neighborhood. Any viable landscaping would take decades to take effect. She is on the Landscaping Committee for Maggi Court and can attest that the soils there are not conducive for plant growth. Landscaping is not a viable option to mitigate the mass, bulk and scale of this application. Page 9 of 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2016 Barton Hechtman - Commented that the new model is designed to show a three-dimensional perspective of the scale of the house in relation to the neighborhood and the existing and proposed vegetation. Vegetation screening is very important, but when speaking of mass and scale, it is really visible mass and scale. The windows have been raised in the portions of the house that have a straight view to the townhomes. The project complies with all the rules and does not require a variance. The only home that would satisfy the downhill neighbors is a home that is unrealistically small. Vice Chair Kane closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. Commission members discussed the matter. Commission members asked questions of staff. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burch to deny Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 and Subdivision Application M-12-008 on the basis of neighborhood incompatibility, and bulk and mass issues. Seconded by Commissioner O’Donnell. Commission members discussed the matter. VOTE: Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Erekson abstaining. Community Development Director Joel Paulson cited the appeal rights. NEW OTHER BUSINESS 8. Report from Community Development Director, Joel Paulson • Town Council met 6/21/16; granted appeal and approved architecture and site for 126 Clover Way; granted appeal and approved conditional use permit with added conditions for SoulCycle; adopted an Entertainment Policy. 9. Commission Matters • None. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:52 pm. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 22, 2016 ___________________________________________ Mary Badame, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Joel Paulson Community Development Director