Draft Mins 02.08.12Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 February 8, 2012
DRAFT
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ACTION MINUTES
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
110 E. MAIN STREET
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012
Chair Marcia Jensen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Marcia Jensen, Vice Chair Charles Erekson, Commissioner Thomas
O'Donnell, Commissioner Marico Sayoc, Commissioner Margaret Smith, and
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore.
Absent: Commissioner John Bourgeois
Others: Town Attorney Judith Propp, Planning Manager Sandy Baily, Senior Planner
Suzanne Davis, Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen, and Recording
Secretary Linda Rowlett.
Planning Manager Sandy Baily noted that Commissioner Bourgeois has an excused absence
and must recuse himself from Item #1 since he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Chair Marcia Jensen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2012
Motion by Commissioner Marico Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to
approve meeting minutes of January 25, 2012.
Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner John Bourgeois excused.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Marcia Jensen noted that there was a desk item for Item #1.
REQUESTED CONTINUANCES -- NONE
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 8, 2012
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS -- NONE
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE)
Heather Dal Cielo
Commented that she lives on Marchmont Drive and that she is opposed to the proposed
expansion of Hillbrook School.
Commented that the recent meeting between the head of the school and the neighborhood did
not allow for an open discussion and the expansion appeared to be a done deal.
Commented that her concerns are for the safety of the children in the community and the
traffic.
Planning Manager Sandy Baily
Commented that Hillbrook filed its application last week and has just started the planning
process. No date has been set for a hearing on this item.
CONSENT CALENDAR -- NONE
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Marcia Jensen commented that she is required to recuse herself from Item #1 because
she lives within 500 feet of the proposed project. She turned the meeting over to Vice Chair
Charles Erekson and left the meeting.
1. 339 &341 Bella Vista Avenue. Architecture and Site Applications S-06-46 and S-06-64,
Subdivision Application M-06-09, Variance Application V-11-001, Mitigated Negative
Declarations ND-08-02 and ND-08-03. Requesting approval of a lot line adjustment, a
variance to allow reduced driveway length, and to construct two new single family
residences with reduced setbacks that exceed the allowable Floor Area Ratio on property
zoned R-1:8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this
project and Mitigated Negative Declarations are recommended. APN 529-23-015 and 016.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Jake Peters and Dan Ross. PROJECT PLANNER:
Suzanne Davis.(Continued from 10/12/11 and 1/11/12 PC Meetings)
Vice Chair Charles Erekson opened the public hearing and confirmed that the Commissioners
had visited the property.
Senior Planner Suzanne Davis presented the staff report.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc
Asked for clarification on the FAR (Floor Area Ratio).
Asked about the lot line adjustment.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 8, 2012
Senior Planner Suzanne Davis
Commented that there are provisions in the Town Code for exceeding the FAR and there are
findings to apply those provisions to this project. She read the applicable section of the
Town Code for considering a FAR increase.
Commented that the two lots are nonconforming and there is nothing in the Subdivision Map
Act that states they cannot be made a different size.
Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell
Asked how much of the driveway is not on the applicant's property.
Senior Planner Suzanne Davis
Commented that about one fourth of the driveway is on the property and the remainder is in
the right-of-way. Typically 18 feet is preferred to be on the site but in this case if the
driveway is pushed farther down the hill, it would require more grading and higher
walls bringing the massing closer to the townhomes below. It is also impractical to have too
steep a driveway for maneuverability.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore
Asked if the garage is mandated.
Senior Planner Suzanne Davis
Commented that Town Code requires two parking spaces but it does not require a garage or a
carport.
Dan Ross, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc
Asked about FAR reduction and why he believes it meets the direction of the last meeting.
Dan Ross
Commented that he hopes the Commission sees the difference in dimensioning between the
old and new plans. The original plan at 339 Bella Vista Avenue was narrowed by eight feet
and reduced by 400 square feet. They took it upon themselves to make that reduction.
Commented that the footprint on the main level is 900 square feet on the main level and a
garage pad. They looked at the best way to utilize the space underneath while still blocking
the views to the neighbors and provide for a livable home.
Commented that in the planning stages, Town staff made the point that the applicant has the
ability to create a home that is livable by today’s standards for a family and at no point did
the Town advise them otherwise. He believes that this concern should have occurred at the
beginning rather than at this point. The information he gets from the Planning Department is
vastly different from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell
Commented that the Planning Commission does not always agree with staff and the Town
Council does not always agree with the Planning Commission. However, the Planning
Commission did advise that it wanted significant reductions at the last meeting. It appears
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 8, 2012
that the applicant ignored that direction because he voluntarily made a reduction in the
beginning.
Dan Ross
Commented that they are having a hard time defining significant and still making a home
size that is livable. They do not know where they would take further reductions from at this
point.
Ian Macrae
Commented that he lives on Bella Vista Avenue and is mystified that the applicant is that far
off from what the rules of the Town are and the guidance given by the Planning Department
staff.
Commented that in his experience with the Planning Department staff, he was advised that
maximum FAR is not assured or guaranteed and believes that staff is consistent in telling all
applicants what the rules are.
Asked the Commission to remain consistent with the rules that exist.
Forrest Straight
Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and that he is looking at the equivalent of a six
story building from his patio.
Commented that he is surprised that the Town has not calculated the square footage which is
different from what is noted on the plans and is larger by 100-200 square feet.
Commented that the rules say the house should be 700 square feet and he believes that it
should be 700 square feet and not require the cutting down of a dozen established Oak trees.
Commissioner Margaret Smith
Asked Mr. Straight what year he bought his townhouse and if there was a discussion on
what would be built behind him.
Forrest Straight
Commented that he bought his townhouse about eight or nine years ago and he was advised
that a previous plan for the property was denied and that is why he bought his house.
Tim Coughlin
Commented that he lives on Bella Vista Avenue directly across from the subject property and
that he does not like to see 145 Bella Vista Avenue used as a precedent.
Commented that he had expectations in 1975 when he moved in that the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) would protect them from large
development of that property.
Commented that he did look at the plans and he received an invitation to talk to the developer
but did not see the point since there was no significant reduction in size.
Pat Tillman
Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and referenced the letters that he submitted.
Referenced the nine conditions in the HDS&G that must be met for exceeding the FAR.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 8, 2012
Commented that the government code makes reference to the local rules in moving a lot line
and the local rules say no.
Commented that there is an 18-foot wide swatch of land that gets wider going south
that starts off as 80 percent of the proposed front yard and driveway of 339 Bella Vista
Avenue and drops down to 50 percent of the front yard. Most of the front yard is on Town
property.
Asked if applicant is being given Town property.
Commented that the staff report is a lot of narrative that masks a lot of baseline facts that
were not provided.
Mary Ann Lown
Commented that she lives on Maggi Court and that they selected their home because of
location and privacy. She was never told that anything could be built on that parcel.
Commented that privacy is a concern for everyone living in the area and no one supports this
development.
Commented that she attended the meetings with Mr. Ross and asked him to stay within the
guidelines.
Asked the Commission to deny the application.
William Schweickert
Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and he is opposed to the revised drawings,
specifically square footage and the size.
Commented that he does not understand why there are so many variances. He does not
believe that the property is fit for development.
Commented that the Town has become overdeveloped creating a lack of parking, homes built
close together and an oversaturation of infrastructure.
Commented that the quality of life is being diminished.
Commented that he believes the project is about money and the residents will have to deal
with the problems caused by this development.
Asked the Commission to preserve the quality of life in Los Gatos.
Lee Quintana
Commented that she lives on Palm Avenue and she believes that some of the information
provided by the applicant is misleading. She does not believe the issue with the driveway is
whether or not it is safer with vegetation trimmed back but rather if it meets the Town’s site
distance guidelines for safe backing out of a driveway.
Commented that the staff report stated that exceptions have been granted to other sites on
Bella Vista Avenue but no specific examples were given.
Commented that since there is no land on the site with a slope less than 30 percent, there is a
compelling argument that there should be no exception for the FAR because it is too steep.
Commented that the Town code says that a single family home is permitted on a
nonconforming lot if an Architecture and Site (A&S) application is approved, but the lot may
be unbuildable.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 8, 2012
Ken Lown
Commented that he lives on Maggi Court. Most of his issues have been raised but he is
surprised that one of the solutions to the safety concern of the driveway is for Bella Vista
Avenue to accommodate.
Vitaliy Stulski
Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and he does not understand the applicant’s
justifications for exceptions or his comparisons. The project is a difficult site to build.
Commented that the project will impact his privacy.
Commented that this house will face major storms and earthquakes and urged the
Commission to enforce the Town’s guidelines to the letter.
Mary Badame
Commented that she lives on Maggi Court and stated that the staff report is inaccurate
regarding project data. The parcel sizes are incorrect for the addresses.
Commented that Town code does not allocate FAR based on definition of a livable home by
today’s standards. Within a one-half mile radius of Bella Vista Avenue, there are 23 homes
with less than 1,000 square feet on the east side of the street. These homes are not
substandard.
Commented that the staff report indicates a five-foot front setback for 339 Bella Vista
Avenue which is a violation of Town code.
Commented that staff should provide specific information on the size of front, side and rear
setbacks on the west side.
Commented that there are unique impacts associated with this development and this project
should be denied.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore
Asked where Ms. Badame lives and what her impact is.
Mary Badame
Commented that she will be looking at a prison and she will be impacted by lack of privacy,
lack of sunlight, noise and night illumination.
Erin Johnson
Commented that she lives on Maggi Court and believes that the applicant continues to be
defiant of the General Plan, the neighborhood and the instruction given at the last
Commission meeting.
Commented that laws are important and should be applied on a consistent basis.
Asked that the Commission deny the project.
Debra Chin
Commented that she lives on Maggi Court directly downhill from the proposed development
and that most of her comments relate to the letter of justification that was presented in
December.
Commented that the rules and guidelines should apply here.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 8, 2012
Commented that Maggi Court neighbors do not expect complete privacy but the answer is
not to construct two huge homes that are 30 feet away with a direct line of sight into their
bedrooms.
Commented that fairness should be applied to the community in adherence to the HDS&G.
Commented that there has only been a five percent reduction in the square footage.
Commented that this project is a detriment to the community and asked the Commission to
deny the application.
Curtis Leigh
Commented that he has lived on Maggi Court since 2004 and is directly below the
development. He is a commercial developer and he has never seen anything like this with all
of the variances.
Commented that a five percent change in square footage is not a significant change.
Commented that he wants to make sure that the project stays within the guidelines.
Commissioner Margaret Smith
Asked Mr. Leigh if he questioned what would be built on that site when he bought his
property.
Curtis Leigh
Commented that he did his research and was aware that in 2004 an application had been
denied for appropriate reasons. He looked into what could be built on that site and 700
square feet would be appropriate and he would not have a problem with that.
Town Attorney Judith Propp
Commented that in response to Commissioner Sayoc’s earlier question, Exhibit 13 of
Exhibit 18 submitted by Mr. Tillman is the Lot Line Adjustment Guide written by staff to
give guidelines to applicants and relates specifically back to the Town Subdivision Ordinance
24.10.030 on Boundary Changes. It is clear in that the boundary change will not create any
new lack of conformity or increase the degree of nonconformity with an ordinance or a
statute. There is also code section 24.10.040 on Modifications that is completely
discretionary for the reviewing body that if it finds that the land included in this boundary
change is of such size or shape affected by such topographical locations or conditions is
devoted to such use that it is impossible or impracticable in the particular use for the
subdivision to conform to a regulation contained in this chapter, then it is at the reviewing
body’s discretion, based on findings similar to the findings in the packet for a variance, to
consider the nonconforming and making it more nonconforming. Staff is not necessarily
recommending it but that is where this section comes from.
Planning Manager Sandy Baily
Commented that in terms of the allowable square footage in the FAR, the R-1 zoning
requirements are more restrictive than the HDS&G. In using the HDS&G, the
applicant would be permitted to construct two homes up to 3,800 square feet and there would
be no exceptions to the FAR required.
Clarified that the Town is not giving the applicant any property.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 8, 2012
Dan Ross
Asked where these speakers were when the townhomes were built. They got the benefit from
their zone changes, variances and exceptions.
Commented that, as for privacy, it is possible to see into the townhomes when standing on
Highway 9 or Bella Vista Avenue.
Commented that the existing trees already create shade into their townhomes and are taller
than what he proposes to build.
Commented that the average slope is in the 30’s.
Commented that they are asking for one variance and are not breaking any laws.
Commented that this plan has had two reductions in size from their original plan, they
modeled it after 145 Bella Vista Avenue which was approved by the Town, they received a
soft approval in October from the Planning Commission, and they have received supportive
recommendations by the peer review and the Town’s consulting architect and other
consultants.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore
Asked Mr. Ross for clarification on receiving soft approval from the Planning Commission
in October.
Dan Ross
Commented that he meant the Planning Department.
Commissioner Margaret Smith
Asked Mr. Ross if he knew that the previous owner’s application had been denied and asked
if he had considered building just one house.
Dan Ross
Commented that he was aware of the previous denial.
Commented that during the escrow period, staff felt that one house was a bad idea and
preferred two smaller homes that would be more proportionate with the neighborhood. He
does not believe that his proposal is obnoxious. It is a 900 square foot footprint. The
question is what you do with the areas below that. It can be dead space or it can be used to
create a livable, modern home. He is not ignoring the Commission’s request to significantly
reduce the mass, but in leaving the lower area empty, the neighbors would be looking at
structural support and he would be left with a 900 square foot house.
Vice Chair Charles Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the
Commission for deliberations.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc
Asked for clarification on the calculation of height for the homes using the HDS&G.
Asked about the change in roof line for the garage.
Asked what the structure element would look like if the cellar was removed.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 8, 2012
Senior Planner Suzanne Davis
Commented that 25 feet is a sectional height and cannot be exceeded. The 35-foot height is
the differential from the low to the high points when you have stepping elements. Part of the
home is cellar and that height would be measured from the finished grade to the high point.
Commented that the three-story elevation is a subjective element and the applicant can be
asked not to do that.
Commented that the structural element would have to be strong enough to hold up a house.
The house would need to be redesigned rather than be built on stilts.
Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell
Commented that the Commission asked for a substantial reduction in size and mass of the
house. He believes the applicant ignored the direction for his own reasons. Nothing has
changed from the last meeting and the Commission does not need to redesign the house.
Commented that if the applicant is unwilling to do what the Commission has asked, then the
Commission should deny the application, as they would have done at the last meeting.
Commented that if the A&S Application is not going to be approved, the Subdivision
Application and Variance Application should also be denied.
Asked for staff's recommendation on the Mitigated Negative Declarations.
Commented that he does not see a smaller house being unlivable.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore
Commented that she is disappointed that the direction given in October was not followed.
Building to FAR is never a guarantee. She cannot understand the applicant’s definition for
livability.
Commented that the houses are very well designed, but not for these lots.
Commented that staff's comparison that seven of the 10 homes on Bella Vista Avenue had
shorter than 18-foot driveways does not justify the variance because of the location of the
driveways as they appear today on the blind curve.
Commented that she will not support the applications.
Commissioner Margaret Smith
Commented that her concerns are the same as last time: mass of the buildings and safety
issues. Another consideration is that the neighbors are not in support of the proposed
project. She will not be supporting the applications.
Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell
Asked if they should adopt a Negative Declaration if they do not know what the project is
going to be.
Town Attorney Judith Propp
Commented that staff's recommendation is that the applications should stand together.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 8, 2012
Commissioner Marico Sayoc
Commented that this has been a long process for the applicant and that he may have been
unclear with information that was provided. The information contained in the Town’s
documents spell out what is requested from an applicant before they move on with a project.
Motion by Commissioner Marico Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell
to disallow Mitigated Negative Declarations ND-08-02 and ND-08-03 for the purpose of not
bifurcating the applications, to deny Subdivision Application M-06-09 based on the Lot Line
Adjustment Guide that states if lots are currently nonconforming as to size, they cannot become
more nonconforming (Exhibit 13 of Exhibit 18), to deny Variance Application V-11-001 due to
the lack of justification for the rear setback, and deny Architecture and Site Applications S-06-46
and S-06-64 on the basis of the Floor Area Ratio not being met and that the bulk and mass was
not significantly reduced.
Commissioner Charles Erekson
Asked for clarification if the Variance Application was for driveway lengths rather than
setbacks.
Planning Manager Sandy Baily
Commented that the Variance Application is for the driveway length. The rear setback
would just be a deviation to modify the setback.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc
Clarified that the setbacks were deviations and the reason for denial of the Variance
Application for the driveway is the information that has been supported by what is contained
in the record as well as staff reports and what has been testified to in regards to traffic and
safety and nothing has been brought forward to substantiate that the information was
incorrect.
Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell
Commented that he is seconding the motion but made a suggestion that part of the reason for
the denial of the driveway is that since the house is being denied, there is nothing before
them factually about a variance for a driveway.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc
Agreed to Commission O'Donnell's clarification to the motion.
Motion carried 5-0 with Chair Marcia Jensen and Commissioner John Bourgeois excused.
Planning Manager Sandy Baily recited appeal rights.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS -- NONE
CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS -- NONE
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 8, 2012
NEW OTHER BUSINESS (Heard out of order.)
2. Report from Director of Community Development -- None
3. Commission Matters -- None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
___________________________________________
Charles Erekson, Vice Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST:
_____________________________
Sandy L. Baily
Planning Manager