09 Staff Report - 15350 Winchester Boulevard (2)MEETING DATE: 3/20/06
N pF ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
!ps GAZES
DATE: March 9, 2006
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL I
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING A MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO
ADD ONE ADDITIONAL LOT AS PERMITTED BY THE APPROVED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION FOR
THE ADDITIONAL LOT, APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE NEW LOT AND APPROVAL TO INSTALL
A TEMPORARY SALES TRAILER/MODEL HOME OFFICE FOR
PROPERTY ZONED RM:5-12:PD. APNS 424-29-024 THROUGH 026
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-06-2, SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION M-06-2, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S-
06-12 PROPERTY LOCATION: 15350 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: SANTA CLARA DEVELOPMENT CO.
APPELLANT: STEPHANIE CARROLL
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open and hold the public hearing.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planned Development Application PD-
06-2, Subdivision Application M-06-2 and Architecture and Site Application S-06-12 and deny
the appeal.
4. Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution.
(Continued to Page 2)
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ F4A
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: 5 Assistant Town Manager
Community Development
Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Revised: 3/9/06 3:25 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
Page 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20, 2006
If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or
modified:
1. The Council needs to find one or more of the following:
(1) where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
(2) the new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was
not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
(3) an issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to
modify or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
2. If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission
is new information as defined in Subsection (2) above, it is the Town's policy that the application
be returned to the Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new
information has a minimal effect on the application.
3. Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution.
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2005, Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 2141 (Exhibit A of Attachment 7) for a
Planned Development (PD) at the subject site (Villa Felice). This PD allows the following uses:
Demolition of the existing one story duplex, detached garage and shed.
Demolition of the Villa Felice restaurant including administrative offices and support
services and the motel.
Construction of 28 market rate single family residences and five Below Market Price (BMP)
units. One additional unit may be permitted if the applicant and the adjacent Villa Felice
Townhouse development agree to eliminate the existing parking easement. The addition of
this unit will require a minor amendment to the Planned Development and Architecture and
Site approval, both of which may be approved by the Development Review Committee
(DRC).
On July 19, 2005, the DRC approved the tentative map for the subdivision and the architecture and
site applications for the 28 market units and five BMP units. The existing buildings have been
demolished and subdivision improvements are under construction. Building permits have been filed
for the units.
The applicant and the adjacent Villa Felice Townhouses have reached an agreement to eliminate the
existing parking easement (Exhibit C of Attachment 7). Therefore, the applicant filed applications
for the additional unit as permitted by the approved PD. The applicant had met with the neighbors
prior to submittal and had thought that all issues of concern had been met. The DRC considered this
matter on December 6, 2005 where several neighbors raised concerns regarding the visual impacts
of the proposed house (Exhibit D of Attachment 7). These concerns were raised based on the
installation of the story poles which made the scope of the project more clear to the neighbors. The
Page 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20, 2006
applicant met with the neighbors in an attempt to mitigate their concerns. The following changes
have been made to the plans subsequent to the DRC review (Exhibit B of Attachment 7):
• Grade Change - The grade of the proposed lot has been lowered 1.3'. This will result in a
grade differential of approximately three feet between the adjacent Villa Felice town houses
and Villa Felice as opposed to the existing four feet.
• Single Story Elements - Two single story elements have been lowered by utilizing a gable
roof.
• Deck Removal - The second story deck has been eliminated
• Windows - All of the second story windows along the Villa Felice town house western
property line are clerestory with the exception of two windows in a secondary bedroom which
are 55 feet from the property line. Clerestory windows were required for several of the
approved units to mitigate privacy concerns.
Since one of the neighbors was opposed to a new residence and some of the neighbors expressed an
interest in a one story structure, it appeared that the neighbors' concerns could not be completely
mitigated; therefore, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
1. Application Request
Planned Development - The applicant is requesting approval to amend the approved PD to
add one additional lot and residential unit for a total of 29 market rate single family residences
and five BMP units on 5.91 acres. The additional unit will not trigger an increase in the
number of required BMP units. The approved density of the development for the subject site
is 4.7 units per acre (excluding the BMP units). The proposed density is 4.9 (excluding the
BMP units). The site is bounded by condominiums to the south, condominiums and single
family residences to the west and north and Vasona Lake County Park to the east. As stated
above, the approved PD allowed one additional unit if the adjacent Villa Felice Townhouse
development agreed to eliminate the existing parking easement. The applications are
consistent with the approved PD. Pursuant to the approved PD, this request is a minor
amendment and was not required to be forwarded to Town Council.
Subdivision - The proposed lot will contain 7,000 square feet. The approved lots range in
size from 2,152 square feet to 6,915 square feet. The minimum lot size required for the
underlying zone is 8,000 square feet.
Architecture and Site - The applicant is requesting approval of plans to construct a 2,248
square foot two story single family residence with a 445 square foot attached garage. The
approved market rate units range in size from 2,165 to 2,943 square feet. The maximum
height of the proposed residence is 22 feet two inches. The heights for the approved two story
units range from 23.5 to 25 feet. The subject house has been designed with a lower height in
an attempt to mitigate neighbor concerns. Exterior materials will consist of plaster and stone
siding, wood and copper trim and a clay tile roof.
Page 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20, 2006
The floor plan, architectural style, colors and materials of the proposed house are similar to an
approved house plan, but have been modified slightly in an attempt to mitigate neighbor
concerns as discussed above. During the PD process, staff and the Town's Consulting
Architect concluded that the proposed house designs were good, the houses relate well to each
other and the proposed siting and landscaping produce a good environment. The proposed
setbacks are consistent with the approved setbacks for the other parcels.
Sales Trailer and Model Homes - The applicant is also requesting approval of a sales trailer
with guest parking in the existing parking easement area, adjacent to the proposed lot and to
allow two of the approved units to be used as model homes (Lots 30 and 31) through the
proposed PD and Architecture and Site applications. The trailer is proposed to be removed
once the model homes are completed. Since a pad for the trailer is existing, is near the
entrance of the development and is outside the area of construction, it is the most logical and
safe location for the trailer.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission considered this matter on January 25, 2006. The Commission
unanimously approved the request for the sales trailer and model homes with an added condition that
the sales trailer be set back as far as possible from the west property line to mitigate neighbor
concerns. The Commission approved the other requests on a five to two vote. The Commission
understood that they were not bound by the agreement made between the applicant and the neighbors
to sell the easement to allow an additional house. The Commission also agreed that it is difficult to
visualize a project without the story poles. However, since the neighbors were following the project,
accepted money to sell the easement to construct a new house, and understood that the house would
be two stories, a majority of the Commission felt that this was compelling evidence to approve the
applications.
APPEAL
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was received on February 6, 2006 (Attachment
1). The basis for the appeal is summarized as follows:
• There was a difference between the story poles for lot 33 and the story poles for lot 34 (subject
application) and when the poles were erected in relationship to the decisions and agreements
made.
• The specific information the neighbors had regarding the size of the 34th home prior to agreeing
to the sale of the easement.
• The wording within the agreement to sell the easement and the neighbor's interpretation,
including what was verbally committed by the applicant in the "spirit of cooperation" and the
desire to arrive at a "win/win" situation.
• The ambiguity still surrounding the setbacks, height, grading, drainage, landscaping etc., as it
pertains to the proposed 34th home.
• The impact of the proposed 34th home on the neighbors and what they see as a reasonable
solution.
Page 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL,
SUBJECT: APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20, 2006
STAFF NOTE
Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action on this matter, the applicant has considered
additional changes to their plans in an attempt to further mitigate neighbor concerns. The applicant
is now proposing to move the house two feet further from the neighbors property line (Attachment
10). This modification will require the property line between Lot 33 and 34 to be shifted two feet
to the east which will result in a reduction of the side yard setback for Lot 33. Staff has reviewed
conceptual plans of this modification and has no issue with these changes. The story poles reflect
this proposal. The Planning Commission has approved the applications and the changes proposed
were not required and are offered by the applicant to try to further mitigate neighbor concerns.
If Council concurs with this modification, the following should be done.
1. Add a statement to Section ll of the Ordinance Amendment as Item 7 (Attachment 3):
Modification to the approved Horizontal Control Plan of Ordinance 2141, to allow a
reduction of the side setback for Lot 33 to accommodate a property line shift between Lots
33 and 34.
2. Add the following condition to the Subdivision Application (Attachment 4):
PROPERTY LINE MODIFICATION. The property line maybe shifted between Lots 33 and
34 to accommodate the relocation of the proposed house on Lot 34.
3. Add the following condition to the Architecture and Site Application (Attachment 5):
SETBACK. The side setback from the west property line shall be a minimum of 12 feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been previously made for the approved Planned Development
for this site. It has been determined that this project will not have additional environmental impacts
and an addendum to the Mitigation Declaration was prepared.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments:
1. Appeal filed on February 6, 2006.
2. Required findings and considerations.
3. Ordinance 2141 Amendment.
4. Conditions of approval for the Subdivision Application
5. Conditions of approval for the Architecture and Site Application.
6. Action minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2006.
Page 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL 15350 WINCHESTER BLVD
March 20, 2006
7. Report to the Planning Commission from the Development Review Committee dated January
19, 2006 for the meeting of January 25, 2006 (Exhibits I, J, K and M deleted and incorporated
as Attachments 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this report).
8. Desk item report to the Planning Commission dated January 25, 2006 for the meeting of January
35, 2006.
9. Photographs submitted at the Planning Commission hearing (six pages).
10. Packet from Santa Clara Development (seven sheets), received March 14, 2006.
Distribution:
Santa Clara Development Co, 2185 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126
Stephanie Carroll, 15300 Winchester Blvd, #3, Los Gatos, CA 95030
BNL:SLB:mdc
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2006\15350winchester.wpd
FILING FEES
$272.00 Residentiai
$1089.00 per Commercial, Multi7
family or Tentative Map Appeal
Town of Los Gatos
Office of the T
110 E. Main St., Los
APPEAL OF PLANNING CO
I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows: (PLEASE TVE
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:
PROJECT / APPLICATION NO: Q
ADDRESS LOCATION:
Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matten/. if"se
Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Council members. Therefore,
please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal:
1. ' The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because ; D a~ , r 9~, o
OR
There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is
(please attach the new information if possible): OR
The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council:
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
1. Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes. A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing.
2. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee.
Deadline is.5:00 p.m. on the 10`b day following the decision. If the 10`b day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the I O'h day, usually a Monday.
3. The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
4. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals.
5. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration. '1 A y
PRINT NAME:(~j ~ SIGNATURE: D
DATE: ADDRESS:
PHONE:
' OFFICIAL / USE ONLY
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ear".` CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT: Da
Pending Planning Department Confirmation
DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION: ,4 //p f}J%
v:\DEV\FDRMS\Plannin-.IPlnnnine Commission Appeal.wpd -July I, 2005
TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY: ;
DATE OF PUBLICATION: _ J J_s
Attachment 1
r, ~ C-
95.030
ISSIG N &RION
O11~,? 1IIT: NEATLY)P.
J
We feel the Planning Commission erred in their decision based on several issues we
would like to have the opportunity to clarify and correct with the Town Council. During
the Planning Commission Hearing there was a great deal of focus on the agreement
between the Villa Felice Homeowners Association and Santa Clara Development
Company to sell our rights to an easement, the intent of that agreement and what
information we (the VFHOA) had prior to signing that agreement regarding the specifics
of the proposed home on lot 34.
It was apparent that after several residents had addressed the commission and the time
came to vote that there was confusion as well as misinformation about what we had
agreed to and how much information we had about the final plans prior to signing the
agreement. This discussion about what we thought might be built seemed to outweigh
the actual plan of the 34th home.
It was also not clear that all of the commissioners had visited the site to understand the
impact to our homes and community. As we have learned it is very different to look at
schematics and architectural renderings than to experience the impact of the story poles.
Some specific reasons -for our appeal we would like the opportunity to discuss at a Town
Council Meeting are:
The difference between the story poles for lot 33 and the story poles for lot 34 and
when they were erected in relation to decisions and agreements made.
What specific information we had regarding the size of the 34"' home prior to
agreeing to sell the easement.
The wording within the agreement to sell the easement and our interpretation
including what was verbally committed by Santa Clara Development in the "spirit
of cooperation" and the desire to arrive at a "win/win" situation.
The ambiguity still surrounding setbacks, height, grading, drainage, landscaping
etc. as it pertains to the proposed 34th home.
The impact of the proposed 34th home on our homeowners, and what we see as a
reasonable resolution.
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
15350 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Development Application PD-06-2
Subdivision Application M-06-2
Architecture and Site Applications S-06-12
Requesting approval of a minor Planned Development amendment to add one additional lot
as permitted by the approved Planned Development, approval of the subdivision for the.
additional lot, approval to construct a single family residence on the new lot and approval to
install a temporary sales trailer/model home office for property zoned RM:5-12:PD. APNS
424-29-024 through 026
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Santa Clara Development Co.
FINDINGS
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been previously made for the approved Planned
Development for this site. It has been determined that this project will not have
additional environmental impacts and an addendum to the Mitigation Declaration was
prepared.
To deny the Subdivision Application
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans
as specified by Section 65451; or
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans; or
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; or
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; or
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat; or
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems; or
7. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
with the proposed subdivision.
CONSIDERATIONS
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site
applications.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\villafelice.amend.wpd Page 1 of 1
Attachment 2
Sec. 29.20.150. Considerations in review of applications.
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the
following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with
respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits,
drives, and walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic
congestion; the location, arrangement, and dimension
oftruck loading and unloading facilities; the circulation pattern within the boundaries
of the development, and the surfacing, lighting and handicapped accessibility of off-
street parking facilities.
a. Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical
intersections shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following
matters:
1. The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to
accommodate existing traffic;
2. Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet
occupied; and
3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed
project one (1) year after occupancy.
b. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic
roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1) of the following
determinations:
The project will not impact anyroadways and/or intersections causing
the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2. The project will impact a roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) causing
the roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available
capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.l. may
proceed. Any project receiving Town determination subsection
(1)b.2. must be modified or denied if the deciding body determines
that the impact is unacceptable. In determining the acceptability of a
traffic impact, the deciding body shall consider if the project's
benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined
by specific sections from the general plan and any applicable specific
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\villafelice.amend.wpd Page 2 of 1
plan.
(2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size,
height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in
relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with
adjacent development. Specialized lighting and sign systems may be used to
distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as the downtown area and Los Gatos
Boulevard.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls,
fences, hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or
to conceal storage areas, utility installations, parking lots or unsightly development;
the planting of ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the
unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use ofplanter boxes
with seasonal flowers to add color and atmosphere to the central business district.
Trees and plants shall be approved by the Director of Parks, Forestry and
Maintenance Services for the purpose ofineeting special criteria, including climatic
conditions, maintenance, year-round versus seasonal color change (blossom, summer
foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and
open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of
the neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent
development. Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood
(e.g. downtown, Los Gatos Boulevard, etc.). Buildings should maximize preservation
of solar access. In the downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz
Avenue with existing and new parking facilities shall be encouraged, and shall
include such crime prevention elements as good sight lines and lighting systems.
(5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the
adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and
structures. The effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design
of buildings and structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character
of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the
purposes of architecture and site approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be
encouraged in scale, massing, materials, color, texture, reflectivity, openings and
other details.
(7) Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and
building lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of
the Town. Street furniture and equipment, such as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire
hydrants, street signs, telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters,
drinking fountains, planters, kiosks, flag poles and other elements of the street
environment should be designated and selected so as to strengthen and reinforce the
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\villafelice.amend.wpd Page 3 of 1
Town image.
(8) Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons. The adequacy of
the site development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically
disabled persons. Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total
valuation of alterations, structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value
established by resolution of the Town Council, shall require the building to be
modified to meet the accessibility requirements of title 24 of the California
Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility. In addition to retail, personal
services and health care services are not allowable uses on nonaccessible floors in
new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail, health care, or personal
service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify
the building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those
requirements. This provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the
enactment of this chapter. All new residential developments shall comply with the
Town's adaptability and accessibility requirements for physically disabled persons
established by resolution.
(9) Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility.
A hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500) feet to
any residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public
or private school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18). An
application for such a facility will require an environmental impact report, which may
be focused through the initial study process.
NADEV\FINDI NGS\viIIafelice.amend.wpd