11 Staff Report - 17005 and 17017 Roberts Road~pW N Of
t~
!OS G AtOS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
September 7, 2006
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 9/18/06
ITEM NO.
1\
DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
V
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM RM:5-12 TO
RM:5-12PD FOR A SEVEN LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND
APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A 3-
UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING BUILT PRIOR TO 1941. NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.
APNS 529-16-021 AND 045. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
PD-05-1, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-05-15, NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ND-05-03. PROPERTY LOCATION: 17005 AND 17017
ROBERTS ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER: KHURRAM IQBAL
APPLICANT: LOUIE LEU ARCHITECTS
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Accept report in the form of meeting minutes from the Planning Commission regarding a
Planned Development at 17007 and 17015 Roberts Road (Attachment 4).
2. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony;
3. Close the public hearing;
Alternative A:
If Council decides to approve the proposed project, the following actions are required (additional
conditions may be added to the Planned Development Ordinance):
1. Make the Negative Declaration (Exhibit L of Attachment 7);
2. Make the required findings (Attachment 1);
3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 3);
4. Move to waive the reading of the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 2);
5. Direct the Clerk to read the title of the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 2);
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager
Community Development
iey Clerk Finance
Revised: 9/7/06 4:01 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
6. Introduce the Ordinance to effectuate Planned Development Application PD-05-1
(Attachment 2).
Alternative B:
If the Council decides that changes should be made to the proposed project, it may:
1. Remand the project to the Planning Commission with direction about the required changes;
or
2. Continue the project to a date certain and provide specific direction to the applicant about the
required changes:-- - - - - - - - - - - -
Alternative C:
If the Council decides that the current zoning designation should not be changed, Council should
deny the Planned Development Application PD-05-1.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has provided a letter (Exhibit D of Attachment 7) that outlines the background for
these properties. Staff has included the following highlights for the Council:
• September 27, 2000 - Planning Commission denied application for four detached
condominiums at 17017 Roberts Road. This project did not include both parcels that are
included in the proposed project.
• November 6, 2000 - Town Council denies appeal of Planning Commission denial and
remands project back to staff.
• January 23, 2003 - Staff determined application was abandoned.
• November 12, 2003 - Conceptual Development Advisory Committee considered
preliminary plans to demolish a pre-1941 three unit apartment building and subdivide the
lot for five townhomes at 17005 Roberts Road. This project did not include both parcels
that are included in the proposed project.
• December 30, 2003 - Current applicant purchased 17017 Roberts Road.
• February 11, 2004 - Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) considered
preliminary plans to demolish a single-family residence and a pre-1941 three unit
apartment building and build 8 detached single family units on 17005 and 17017 Roberts
Road.
• April 5, 2004 - Current applicant purchased 17005 Roberts Road.
• September 15, 2004 - Current application submittal for 17005 and 17017 Roberts Road.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
DISCUSSION:
1. Project Summary
The applicant is requesting adoption of a PD which would include:
1. Approval of a zone change from RM:5-12 to RM:5-12PD for a project containing seven
units; and
- - - - - - - ----2. ---Architecture and-Site-approval to-demolish one si-ngle-family .r-esidence_and_a-three-unit
apartment building built prior to 1941.
These approvals would allow for development of seven single-family residences (Bella
Vasona). The 1.1 acre site (.99 acre net) is currently comprised of two parcels. The
applicant proposes to subdivide the merged parcels into seven single family lots and one
common lot.
Architecture and Site - The site currently contains one single family residence and one
three-unit apartment building built prior to 1941.
The proposed single family homes will consist of seven two story market rate units (three
different models) ranging in size from 1,808 to 1,986 square feet above grade. Each of the
units will also include a cellar ranging in size from 797 to 870 square feet. Staff has included
a performance standard that no additional square footage will be permitted for any of the
units. The lots will range in size from 3,882 to 7,358 square feet. The two story houses will
range in height from approximately 26 to 28 feet.
Although conceptual building elevations are required as part of a PD, the applicant has
provided detailed architectural plans. A performance standard of the PD is that the
Architecture and Site and Subdivision approval is required if the PD is approved. The full
300 foot public hearing notice would be provided for these applications.
Setbacks - The Site Plan (Sheet A-1 of Attachment 12) contains the proposed setbacks.
These are the minimum setbacks that will be permitted if the PD is approved. As part of the
proposed PD, the applicant is proposing to reduce the typical RM:5-12 setbacks as follows:
• The side setbacks of eight feet to a minimum of seven feet;
• The side setbacks abutting a street of twenty feet to a minimum of five feet six inches
(adjacent to the private street) and eighteen feet six inches (adjacent to Blossom Hill
Road);
• The front setbacks from 25 feet to a minimum of eighteen feet; and
• The rear setbacks from 20 feet to a minimum of fourteen feet.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
Lot Width - As part of the proposed PD, the applicant is proposing to reduce the typical
RM:5-12 lot width from sixty feet to fifty feet.
Lot Area - The minimum lot size is also proposed to be reduced from 8,000 square feet to a
minimum of 3,882 square feet.
Fencing - As part of the proposed PD, the applicant is proposing to increase the allowed
fence height from six feet to seven feet. Most of the fencing will be six feet high, with the
exception of the fence on the property line shared with the adjacent auto dealership which
- - - - - - - will- be- eight feet, -as -allowed by Town Code and--along --Blossom- Hill Road- where --the_
applicant is required to increase the fence height to seven feet to mitigate noise impacts from
Blossom Hill Road.
Density - The proposed density of the development for the subject site is 7.1 units per net
acre / 6.4 units per gross acre. The proposed density is consistent with the Medium Density
range of 5-12 dwelling units per acre.
BMP - The project is subject to the current BMP requirements. Pursuant to Town Code, one
BMP unit is required or an in-lieu fee may be paid. The applicant has chosen to pay the in-
lieu fee (6% of the building permit valuation for the project) for this proposal.
2. Planning Commission
The Commission considered the proposed project on May 10, 2006 and continued the
applications to July 12, 2006 and directed the applicant to redesign the project with the following
comments:
1. Consider a development plan that mirrors the configuration of the Serra Court project to
provide more open space between Blossom Hill Road and the proposed housing units;
2. Reduce or eliminate the sound walls adjacent to Blossom Hill Road;
3. Reduce the number of proposed exceptions;
4. Consider reducing the density and intensity of the proposed project;
5. Consider providing access to the rear yards of the adjacent condominium development;
6. Guest parking spaces should be contained in the common area;
7. Common areas should be delineated on the plans;
8. Re-evaluate the proposed Community Benefit.
On July 12, 2006, the Commission held a public hearing to review three modified site plans for
the subject applications. See Attachment 8 for discussion regarding the three modified site plans.
The Commission continued the applications to a date uncertain and directed the applicant to
explore a reduction in density to address the following issues:
1. Privacy concerns of the adjoining condominiums;
2. Development of a community-friendly site plan;
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
3. Access to the rear yards of the condominiums;
4. Safety of the driveway location;
5. Reduction or elimination of the sound wall; and
6. Elimination of any units arranged in a back-to-back manner.
The applicant submitted a letter (Exhibit S of Attachment 9) outlining their position and
requested that the Commission reconsider Option C (Sheet A-3 of Attachment 11) and
recommend approval of this option to the Town Council. The Commission considered this
matter on August 23, 2006 and recommended:
• Denial of the Planned Development to Town Council for the fourteen reasons outlined
above (See Attachment 4 for verbatim minutes of each Commission meeting).
3. Staff Comments
Traffic/Access
A traffic study was prepared by the Town's Consulting Traffic Engineer. The proposed
project will generate 67 trips per day, including five AM peak hour trips and seven PM peak
hour trips. When traffic levels already generated by the existing residential uses are taken
into account, the proposed project will result in a net increase of 37 trips per day, with three
morning peak hour trips and four afternoon peak hour trips.
The traffic study raised a concern regarding queuing on the north bound Roberts Road
approach to Blossom Hill Road. To address this concern, the traffic study requires the
installation of a right-turn lane on the Roberts Road north bound approach to Blossom Hill
Road so that a shared left turn-through lane and exclusive right-turn lane are provided
(Condition #42.of Exhibit B of Attachment 7). Another concern raised by the traffic study is
pedestrian access. To address this concern the traffic study requires a new, continuous
sidewalk on the east side of Roberts Road adjacent to the project frontage (Condition #43 of
Exhibit B of Attachment 7).
Primary access to the site is proposed from Roberts Road. The homes will be accessed from
an internal private street that will connect with Roberts Road at the south end and Blossom
Hill Road at the north end. Access from Blossom Hill Road will be restricted to emergency
access vehicles only due to the limited sight distance on Blossom Hill Road and to avoid
potential use of the private street by cut-through traffic.
The south end of proposed Bella Vasona Drive will intersect with Roberts Road
approximately 90 feet east of the Roberts Road/Blossom Hill Road intersection. The traffic
report identifies the potential for traffic conflicts during Fisher Middle Schools peak traffic
periods. To address this concern signs will be installed prohibiting left turns to and from
Bella Vasona Drive during Fisher Middle School's peak periods (Condition #44 of Exhibit B
of Attachment 7).
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
Parkin
The required parking for the seven units is twenty one parking spaces, at a ratio of three
spaces per unit. A total of thirty five spaces will be provided at a ratio of five spaces per unit.
Fourteen of these spaces are located in garages, fourteen spaces are in driveway aprons, and
seven visitor spaces (one on each lot) are located adjacent to the proposed roadway.
Gradin
The proposal will require an estimated 1,915 cubic yards of cut and 630 cubic yards of fill for
a total of 2,545 cubic yards. Approximately 1,285 cubic yards of soil will be exported. A
review of the Town's hazard maps indicates that the project site has a low potential for fault
rupture, negligible slope stability hazard, moderate potential for seismic shaking, moderate
shrink-swell potential, very low potential for liquefaction, slight erosion hazard, and no
debris flow hazards. The Town's Fault Map indicates that the site is not located near any
mapped faults. A geotechnical investigation was performed for the site and is discussed in
the Geology and Soils section of the Initial Study (Exhibit L of Attachment 7). The results of
the investigation determined that the site's surface and subsurface conditions are suitable for
the proposed development if its recommendations are incorporated into the design and
construction of the project. Condition #40 of Exhibit B of Attachment 7 requires that the
recommendations in the geotechnical investigation be incorporated to minimize the potential
impacts resulting from the identified geotechnical constraints. The Parks and Public Works
Department determined that a peer review of this study was not required since there are no
known geologic issues within the area and that the topography was not changing
substantially.
Trees/Landscaping
The applicant's arborist reports (Exhibit F of Attachment 7) were peer reviewed by the
Town's consulting arborist (Exhibit G of Attachment 7). There are a total of 44 trees on the
subject site, 6 street trees on Blossom Hill Road, and 3 trees on adjacent properties to the east
of the proposed project. A total of 22 trees on the subject site are proposed to be removed.
Originally, the applicant was proposing to remove trees #28-30 but decided to retain them at
the request of the adjacent neighbors. Additional review will be completed during the
Architecture and Site process to ensure the retention of these trees (Condition #9 of Exhibit B
of Attachment 7). The applicant is also proposing to replace 5 of the 6 existing street trees to
the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Public Works (Condition #10 of Exhibit B of
Attachment 7). The sixth street tree will not be replaced because it is in the middle of the
proposed emergency access at Blossom Hill Road. Additionally, three existing trees will be
relocated. The applicant has provided a Landscape Plan showing proposed landscaping
improvements for the proposed project (Sheet L-2 of Exhibit N of Attachment 7). The
proposed tree removals are consistent with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance given that
tree removals are necessary for reasonable development of the existing site.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
Open Space
There is no common open space area for the proposed development. The applicant feels that
the following factors ensure sufficient opportunities for outdoor recreation:
• The proposed project will include 900-1,800 square feet of private open space for each
parcel;
• All of the lots will have private rear and side yards; and
- - - - - - - - The- project is-in -close-proximity-to--the--Los- Gatos -Creek Trail,- Vasona P.ark,_and Oak_
Meadow Park.
Neighborhood Compatibility
There are existing multi-family residences abutting the eastern project boundary, the Los
Gatos Oaks Apartments to the west across Blossom Hill Road, single-family residences
(Serra Court) to the south across Roberts Road, Fisher Middle School across Roberts Road to
the south (just east of Serra Court), and an auto dealership abutting the northern project
boundary.
The proposed density of the development for the subject site is 7.1 units per net acre / 6.4
units per gross acre. The proposed density is consistent with the Medium Density range of 5-
12 dwelling units per acre. The density of the development is compatible with the
surrounding multi-family and single-family developments. The multi-family residential
development to the east has a density of 9.89 units per acre, the single-family residences
(Serra Court) to the south across Roberts Road has a density of 5.3 units per acre, and the
approved Canyon Oaks/Los Gatos Oaks development (615 Blossom Hill Road) to the west is
approved to have a density of 10.4 units per acres for the new units and 11.9 units per acre
for the existing units.
Consulting Architect
The Town's Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed plans (Exhibit E of Attachment 7).
The applicant has incorporated the Consulting Architect's recommendations. One comment
the Consulting Architect had concerned proposed windows in close proximity to the edge of
wall planes. The applicant will provide comments regarding this issue at the public hearing.
Neighborhood Concern
One outstanding issue with the adjacent multi-family development is that three of the
property owners currently utilize the subject property to gain access to Roberts Road for yard
waste removal. There is no easement or formal agreement for the use of the applicant's
property for this purpose. Although this is a civil matter, staff has met with the applicant and
a representative of the adjacent properties and discussed several options, but no agreement
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
has been reached. Ultimately, this is a civil issue which should be worked out by the affected
property owners.
Community Benefit
The proposed project will generate more than five peak hour trips. The Town's Traffic
Impact Policy requires projects that generate more than five peak hour trips to demonstrate
that the benefits of the project outweigh the impact of increased traffic. The foiiowing items
are the proposed community benefits for the proposed project:
• A $15,000 contribution to the Blossom Hill sidewalk project (which is the remainder of
the sidewalk project that does not currently have a funding source); and
• A contribution of $5,000 for sidewalk improvements which would be comparable to the
previous community benefit offering for construction of 75 lineal feet of sidewalk which
was previously proposed, but is currently being completed by the Town; and
• A new street light at the southeast leg of the Blossom Hill road/Roberts Road
intersection.
The Town has two policies applicable to this project's community benefits, the Traffic
Impact Policy and the Community Benefit Policy. The Traffic Impact Policy requires the
applicant to demonstrate that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts of increased
traffic. The Community Benefit Policy states that community benefits do not include items
which are normally required by law or as a condition of approval for the project. The
Community Benefit Policy contains examples of potential community benefits. Examples of
community benefit offerings from recent applicants include contributions for sidewalk
improvements on Blossom Hill Road between Oak Meadow Drive and University Avenue.
Engineering is currently working on preliminary design concept and is identifying funding
sources for this sidewalk section. This would be an ideal project for the applicant to offer to
contribute towards for community benefit.
The Council should consider whether the proposed community benefits of the project
outweigh the impact of increased traffic and are consistent with the Town's policies.
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
On February 11, 2004, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC)
considered preliminary plans to demolish a single-family residence and a pre-1941 three unit
apartment building and build 8 detached single family units at the subject site. The
Committee identified numerous concerns and comments about the proposal (Exhibit H of
Attachment 7). The applicant has responded to CDAC's comments in Exhibit I of
Attachment 7.
PAGE 9
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
Historic Preservation Committee
On May 4, 2005, the Historic Preservation Committee considered the demolition of a pre-
1941 three unit apartment building and recommended approval of the demolition (Exhibit J
of Attachment 7).
Environmental Site Assessment
An Initial Study was prepared for this project (Exhibit L of Attachment 7). The areas of
- - - - - mitigation- are-as follows: - -
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Noise
• Transportation/Traffic
The only response to the Initial Study came from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
who stated they would like an upgraded bus pad. VTA provided this standard
recommendation in an attempt to reduce the wear and tear on the Town roadway caused by
buses starting and stopping. The Town Engineering Department does not wish to have a bus
pad constructed at this location. The Town is responsible for roadway maintenance and the
decision to upgrade a bus pad lies with the Town.
The VTA proposed bus pad would consist of a 55-foot by 8-foot concrete pad constructed
with one edge aligned with the existing face of curb. Blossom Hill Road was overlaid more
than 10-years ago and there is no discernable deterioration in the asphalt at the bus stop and
the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact bus ridership, the Town does not
want an upgraded bus pad constructed in this location. In addition, the Town Engineering
Department estimates that the bus pad upgrade would increase roadway maintenance costs.
Staff has not included this request as a Condition of Approval.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the project is generally consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
The Commission reviewed the requested proposal and determined that the density and intensity
were not appropriate even thought the proposed density is on the lower end of the allowable
density range (5-12 du/acre). The intensity is also similar to or less than other PD projects that
have been approved. The proposed project is not requesting exceptions to Zoning requirements
that are inconsistent with other similar PD projects that have been approved. Additionally, the
proposed project is not unusually dense or intense when compared to other approved PD
applications for similar projects. The following represents density and FAR ranges for other PD
PAGE 10
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
applications:
VILLA :
FEIICE
VASUNA -X
RANCH
BO T
LANE
SERRA
COURT
BELLA
VASONA
Density (du/gross acre)
Excluding BMP's
4.7
7.8
5.9
5.3
6.4
1 1,,,]: B MI
Incluuiiig BMA s
c F,
~
. ,
4-7
2
6
.
Ex BMP's and slope/riparian area
5.5
7.8
12.0
5.3
6.4
Inc BMP's and ex slope/riparian area
6.5
8.6
13.7
5.3
6.4
Overall FAR*
Gross site sq ft
.30
.32
.17
.28
.28
Net site sq ft
.39
.40
.23
.28
.31
Net and excluding slope/riparian area
.50
.40
.33
.28
.31
*Excludes garages and cellars
Note: Bella Vasona is the proposed project.
The Commission was challenged by this project, just as they have been challenged with similar
projects in the past, because there are no specific design standards for small lot detached single
family projects. The same or similar issues have been raised by the Commission in the past on
these types of projects which the Council ultimately approved. Given the Commission's ongoing
concern regarding the design of small lot single family projects, staff recommends that the Town
develop design standards in the near future in an effort to assist property owners, the
Commission, and the Council in designing and reviewing these types of projects.
The Council should review the proposal and determine if the proposed project (Attachment 12)
or one of the other 3 alternatives (Attachment 11) are appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
1. Required Findings.
2. Draft Planned Development Ordinance. (Submitted under separate cover. Available at the
Clerk's Office and Community Development Department).
3. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Submitted under separate cover. Available at the Clerks Office
and Community Development Department).
PAGE 11
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 13, 2006
4. Excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes of May 10, July 12, and August 23, 2006
(Submitted under separate cover. Available at the Clerk's Office and Community
Development Department).
5. Report to the Planning Commission, dated April 20, 2006 for the meeting of April 26, 2006
(Submitted under separate cover. Available at the Clerk's Office and Community
Development Department).
6. Desk Item Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 10, 2006 for the meeting of May
1v, 2006 (Submitted under separate cover. Available at the Clerk's ce and Cor,~munity
Development Department).
__.7. Report-to the Planning Commission, dated May 4,.2006, for the meeting of May. l_0, 2006
(Exhibit K deleted and incorporated as Attachment 3 of this report, Exhibit M deleted and
incorporated as Attachment 2 of this report, Exhibit N deleted and incorporated as
Attachment 9 of this report) (Submitted under separate cover. Available at the Clerks Office
and Community Development Department).
8. Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 6, 2006, for the meeting of July 12, 2006
(Exhibit R deleted and incorporated as Attachment 11 of this report) (Submitted under
separate cover. Available at the Clerk's Office and Community Development Department).
9. Report to the Planning Commission, dated August 17, 2006, for the meeting of August 23,
2006 (Exhibit R deleted and incorporated as Attachment 11 of this report) (Submitted under
separate cover. Available at the Clerks Office and Community Development Department).
10. Letter from the applicant requesting a hearing, received August 24, 2006.
11. Alternative Site Plans. (Submitted under separate cover. Available at the Clerk's Office and
Community Development Department).
12. Development Plans_ (Submitted under separate cover. Available at the Clerks Office and
Community Development Department).
Distribution:
Louie Leu Architect, 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue #210, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Khurram Iqbal, 1100 N. First Street, Suite E, San Jose, CA 95112
BNL:JP:
n:\dev\cnchpts\2006\bellavasona. doe
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR
17005 and 17017 Roberts Road
Planned Development Application PD-05-01
Architecture and Site Application S-05-015
Negative Declaration ND-05-03
Requesting approval of a zone change from RM:5-12 to RM:5-12:PD for a seven lot
residential subdivision and approval to demolish a single family residence and a 3-unit
apartment building built prior to 1941. No significant environmental impacts have been
identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended.
APN 529-16-021 and 045.
PROPERTY OWNER: Khurram Iqbal
APPLICANT: Donna and Louie Leu
FINDINGS
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030 (c) and (e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a
historic 3-unit apartment building:
(c) Demolition of historic structures. A demolition permit for a historic structure may
only be approved if.
(1) The structure poses an imminent safety hazard; or
(2) The structure is determined not to have any special historical, architectural
or aesthetic interest or value.
(e) In architecture and site approval proceedings, the deciding body shall consider:
(1) Maintaining the Town's housing stock.
(2) Preservation of historically or architecturally significant buildings or
structures.
(3) Property owner's desire or capacity to maintain the structure.
(4) Economic utility of the building or structure.
■ As required by the Town's Traffic Impact Policy.
(1) The benefits of the project to the Town outweigh the impact of increased traffic.
■ The Town Council must make a finding that the zone change is consistent with the General
Plan.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\ 17005 & 17017Roberts.wpd
Attachment 1
LOUIE LEU
ARCHITECT, Inc.
24 August 2006
Mr. Joel Paulson
Town of Los Gatos, Community Development, Civic Center
110 E. Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Location of Job: 17005 & 17017 Roberts Road, Los Gatos
PD-05-01, S-05-015, ND-05-03
Dear Mr. Paulson,
This is to request a hearing before the Town Council for the above referenced Bella Vasona project located
at Roberts Road.
Please let us know when we may be placed on the agenda for such a meeting.
Sincerely,
LOUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc.
Louie Len, AIA
Cc: Eden Homes, LLC (Khurram Iqbal)
Laura Worthington-Forbes
236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 210
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel. (408) 399-2222
Fax (408) 399-2223
www.louleleuarch.com
A.ttacbment 10