05 Staff Report - 17005 and 17017 Roberts RoadN o,MEETING DATE: 10/02/06
ITEM NO:
tosa~os COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 28, 2006
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONE 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 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);
6. Introduce the Ordinance to effectuate Planned Development Application PD-05-1
(Attachment 2);
7. Refer to Town Attorney for the jaratj
of h a opriate resolution.
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ,-
Director of Community Deve opm nt
Reviewed by:Y'~ Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance mmunity Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 28, 2006
Alternative B:
If the Council decides that further changes should be made to the proposed project prior to
approval, 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 and refer the matter to the Town Attorney
for the preparation of the appropriate resolution.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 2006, the Council reviewed the proposed project and continued the matter to
the October 2, 2006 Council meeting to allow the applicant to:
1. Address the issue of rear yard access with the abutting neighbors; and
2. Consider design improvements to the proposed site plan based on comments from
Councilmembers.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has provided a letter (Attachment 13) that outlines the steps that have been taken
since the Council hearing. The letter provides information on the number of units and
consideration of a BMP unit. The applicant has provided two alternative site plans and
renderings for the Council's consideration (see Attachments 13 and 14).
Option D:
This is the applicant's preferred site plan. The following changes have been incorporated since
the Council meeting:
1. The rear yard access for the abutting neighbors has been resolved (See Attachment 13).
The applicant will transfer a three foot wide strip of land to the adjoining townhouse
owners to provide access to their rear yards.
2. The private road area has been reduced;
3. Two guest spaces have been relocated which allows:
a. More private open space between Lots 3-6;
b. Increased side setbacks for Lots 3-5 of eight feet; and
c. A 20 foot rear setback for Lot 6.
s
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 17005 & 17017 ROBERTS ROAD
September 28, 2006
In response to a question from a Councilmember, staff calculated the amount of private open
space area proposed in this project. The Town's Residential Development Standards establish a
standard of 600 square feet of open space for three bedroom single family homes. This
alternative provides between 800 and 1400 square feet of private open space.
Option E:
The applicant explored the option of reorienting the units on Lots 1 and 2 to face towards the
south. The applicant states that this option increases the length of the sound wall adjacent to
Blossom Hill Road and places the wall closer to the street. The Council should note that the
"Project Description" included on the Option E site plan is incorrect.
CONCLUSION:
The Council should review the information and alternative site plans and determine if the
proposed project (Attachment 12) or one of the other two alternatives (Attachment 14) 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:
1-12. Previously Submitted
13. Letter and information provided by the applicant (Attachment 2 and 3 removed and
included as Attachment 14 of this report), received September 26, 2006 (10 Pages)
14. Alternative Site Plans (Options D and E), received September 26, 2006 (2 Pages)
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:Adev\cnclrpts\2006\bellavasona.doc
LOUIE LEU
September 25, 2006
Mr. Joel Paulson and Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos, Community Development, Civic Center
110 E. Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
ARCHITECT, Inc.
Location of Job: 17005 & 17017 Roberts Road, Los Gatos, PD-05-01, 5-05-015, ND-05-03
Dear Mr. Paulson and Members of the Town Council:
We have carefully considered the comments of the Town Council on September 18, 2006. The
main issues to which we have responded are as follows:
1) The issue of rear yard access to the neighboring Victoriana town home units 2, 3 and 4.
2) The number of dwelling units.
3) Design improvements to the 7-unit site plan layout.
Rear Yard Access
The issue of rear yard access has been resolved, and the Victoriana homeowners now support the
project. A proposal was presented by the property owner, Khurram Iqbal, and has been accepted
by the three owners of the Victoriana town home units 2, 3 & 4.
The proposal would transfer Ownership of a strip of land, 3 feet wide by 105 feet in length, to the
three owners for access to their rear yards. An equitable division of the cost of fencing and other
improvements, title transfer and escrow costs has also been agreed upon. A copy of the proposal
is attached for your information. (Exhibit `A')
Number of Dwelling Units
Though the majority of Council members did not express a concern with the number of dwelling
units proposed, we wanted to take this opportunity to respond to Council members Pirzynski and
Spector's comments regarding the viability of a design for six or less units.
When Eden Homes initiated this process, prior attempts to develop the two separate parcels had
failed. Subsequently, the CDAC recommended that when the second parcel became available on
the market, that Eden homes purchase it, thereby creating an opportunity to comprehensively plan
the two dilapidated and awkwardly shaped parcels into one quality development. CDAC's
request to take ownership of the two parcels required Eden Homes to purchase the second parcel
when the market was at a premium with the intent that by doing so, they could achieve excellence
in design.
This approach is complex and required considerable financial risk, a substantial upfront
investment, and the need (due to having to merge the two parcels) to re-initiate the planning,
Page I of 3
Letter to Joel Paulson and Town Council
September 25; 2006
236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 210
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel. (408) 399-2222
Fax (408) 399-2223
www.louieleuarch.com
ATTACH SENT 13
~~,y„
7
LOUIE LEU
ARCHITECT, Inc.
design, engineering, environmental and entitlement process from scratch- Due to the site's two
major frontages, it's orientation and relationship to commercial and residential uses, it is a
challenging site to plan and design. It has taken substantial thought, consideration, and creativity.
We understood that this approach would take additional time, investment, and collaboration with
the Planning staff, but had hoped, given that we were taking the advice of the CDAC and
investing significant time and resources on the front end, that we could achieve at minimum, 9
dwelling units. This was our original goal.
After nearly 2 1/2 years of working closely with staff, we have heeded their comments and
concerns and revised the plans to reduce the number of units from our original design of 9 units,
to 7 units. When considering the zoning of RM5-12 density, 7 units is at the lower end of this
range, and the F.A.R. is also at the low end of the range when compared to similar housing
developments approved within the past ten years. Taking this into account with the Town's
housing needs as identified in the General Plan's Housing Element, 7 units is appropriate. This
has been the number we have been working with now for the last two years. Given the
significant upfront financial investment Eden homes has made in this effort, any fewer units
would result in the need to put the property back on the market.
In addition, we had carefully considered the concept of dedicating one unit to a BMR unit.
However, with only 7 dwelling units, this would represent more than 14% of our proposed
development, and would result in a project that does not "pencil out". Serra Court with 7 units
also does not have any BMR units. In developments where there are more units, the cost of units
dedicated to BMR can be absorbed more equitably throughout the balance of the project.
Design Improvements to the 7-unit Site Plan layout
We have met again with the Planning staff, Public Works Department, and Fire Department to
discuss the Council's comments about the design layout, to review the requirements and to
explore opportunities to improve on the current 7-unit design. We were able to make some
revisions which we feel are improvements to the modified Option "C", which we have labeled as
Option "D" to avoid confusion. In summary, the revisions are as follows:
1. The Fire Department would allow shortening of one leg of the hammerhead turnaround,
between lots 5 and 6, since there is an emergency egress to Blossom Hill Road.
2. This would decrease the amount of private roadway, and thereby decreasing the total
impervious site coverage.
3. The reduction of the private road provides the opportunity of relocating two of the guest
parking spaces to the common open space near Blossom Hill Road, which then provides
more private space between units 3, 4, 5, and 6.
4. Units 3, 4, 5, and 6 are re-spaced to provide 8-foot side yard setbacks between units 3, 4
and 5, and a 20-foot rear yard setback for unit 6, thus eliminating previously proposed
deviations from the RM5-12 guidelines in six locations.
Page 2 of 3
Letter to Joel Paulson and Town Council
Septeniher 2.5; 2006
236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 210
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel. (408) 399-2222
Fax (408) 399-2223
www.louieleuarch.com
LOUIE LEU
ARCHITECT, Inc.
In addition, we did explore the possibility of turning units I and 2 such that the fronts of the units
faced the private drive, as suggested by Council member Spector. This is shown in the plan
labeled Option "E". We do not like this option however, as the rear yards are subject to more
sound exposure from Blossom Hill Road, and the sound wall/fence would be approximately 90
feet in length, instead of 45 feet in the modified Option "C" or Option "D". It would also be
located much closer to Blossom Hill Road, and to the existing mature pines trees. This would
eliminate any possibility to install a two foot berm with a 6 foot fence. Instead, there would have
to be an 8-foot sound wall/fence. We also considered just turning the units and leaving the yards
as they were, but this would create side yards for the units instead of back yards and eliminate the
appearance of front elevations and "eyes on the street" on the Blossom Hill Road side. For these
reasons, the original orientation of Units I and 2, with the rear yards facing each other and the
reduced length and height of the sound walUfence is the better option.
We have included 3d simulated views showing the difference between the orientation of the units
and fence locations of Option "C/D" and Option "E". To illustrate how the fence might appear,
we have also included literature on precast concrete fences that have a more natural wood
appearance, which is similar to what we are proposing.
In conclusion, we hope we have sufficiently responded to Town Council's concerns and
incorporated design changes that make this an even better project. We look forward to the
opportunity to respond to any additional questions at the next Council meeting, and respectfully
ask for Town Council's consideration and approval of this project with the revisions and
improvements as illustrated in Site Plan Option "D".
Sincerely OUIE LEU ARCHITECT, Inc
Louie u, AIA
Attachments:
1) Proposal for Rear Yard Access, Exhibit `A'
2) Option "D" Site Plan
3) Option "E" Site Plan
4) 3d views showing orientation and fence location options
5) Literature representing appearance of precast concrete fence
Cc: Eden Homes, LLC
Laura Worthington-Forbes
Page 3 of 3
Letter to Joel Paulson and Town Council
September 25. 2006
236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 210
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel. (408) 399-2222
Fax (408) 399-2223
www.louieleuarch. com
September 24, 2006
Exhibit "A"
Proposal
This proposal is between the owner of 17005 Roberts Rd, Los Gatos, CA Khurram lqbal
and Home Owners of 16979 Roberts, Rd Los Gatos, CA Unit Number 2, 3 and 4.
I Khurram lqbal offer to transfer the ownership of Three feet by 105 feet of my property
located at 17005 Roberts Rd, Los Gatos for sum of NINE Thousand Dollars (9,000 USD)
to the Homeowners of 16979 Roberts, Rd Los Gatos, CA Unit Number 2, 3 and 4. (See
attached drawing). This 3 by 105 feet of strip shown in the attached drawing will be used
for the access from the back yard of the condominium number 2, 3 and 4. In addition,
responsibilities of both the parties for this improvement are described in the table below.
Improvements
Responsibility
Fence at New property line
Khurram lqbal
Fence inside Condominiums
Victoriana Homeowners
Improvement of pathway
Including gates and locks
Victoriana Homeowners
Lot line adjustment expense
Including survey
Khurram lqbal
Title Transfer including Escrow cost
50% Khurram lqbal
50% Victoriana Homeowners
This offer is contingent upon Approval of Town Council for Bella Vasona project on
October 2nd 2006. By signing this proposal both parties agree to this concept and will be
obligated to bind into the legal contract that will be prepared by legal attorney upon
acceptance of this proposal and approval of Bella Vasona Project.
Khurram lqbal
Seller
17005 Roberts Rd
Los Gatos CA 95032
John Shepardson
Buyer
16979 Roberts Rd
Unit # 4
Ling Shan
Buyer
16979 Roberts Rd
Unit # 3
Sally Wedd
Buyer
16979 Roberts Rd
Unit # 2
NOTE: This proposal is made in a good faith effort to accommodate Town council
concern about the rear yard access and does not establish any presence of
prescriptive easement or any legal responsibility of Khurram Iqbal to provide this
access. Proposal is valid for 30 days from September 24, 2006.
i
'Ail
1 sj
~K t >
.Cff 4 ~ l
_ „ rt
e t~5
a
it ui x
r 3~y~G'
n
~l
Y
i
r ;t
~,y
LF Yj w
t
1, fA
~l4
I t
! ~ ->z
~
r
x,z"F
i o
t Y C (t 5t ~ l
1
~ r
Ir
ru *17.k~
~y
l
~(G
~ 11 ~ rYC
s36
F
I
i'
-
,f
r 73nt~v.~ 4x
H
Sy
LIZ ,
41
r5 -
6
~ f.
E r D A 4 R C' AD tr-EE, 7E
Cedarcrete@ precast concrete fences delivers the visual app,,:al of a vertical "board on boars
wood fence pattern combined with the expected feature of permanence. With the deep over
of the panels created by a tongue and groove joint, complete privacy and security is ensure(
Click on any image to view a full page versic,n:
T
"Pity
Y ar
p
s
~A
`L Lae a -
CW
I - I ontact I Specs I
Q 2004 DESIGNER CONCRETE FENCES ~ 41 ; , _
0,1 d
are r'wstered trail, wrks ui
~~i
f"77
Vb~ ~ ~ 1 1i 7
-44
3. 3 r.
W
W $ E: W .fig >m0 Paz pb9 a
~ ~A 3pI>f ~4 X25 ~ mCL1 ~ w0 d.%eG
4
~l
9
<
~
Sm
~
s<
G
Z4
Z~
glm
Owt
O
C
W
Zm
°
»
0
FM
o
~
Em w
~~w
+ p
O
sK
q
a
t
3<a
a
oy
D
<oz<
a~tm
E
m
<i
o
S
d
t
2
<a
>ozo
w
a
amp
I
p
a;aS
gna
m H
a
z
ra
o
a
a
°~xx°
a
°75~i~c
o r
"
s$ '
V
'
S
4.2
m
~
oeS..
.o oQ 3~r
.
E' g<..
-
:
M
a
4
X03
PH
fom°s.
b,y
R~&
~
R
Rd
jk *2R
4 his.
R
8
fi
R b
R 1 R RR.
a
~
~
p
a
y
S ~
~@ S
X
3 4
4'
9
u
.
9 9
.
Ve
A
z
0
0
z
a
a
Fw- I
~ I
Z
Ha
w ~ 9 ff ~
J ~ R
Ipb
~ k ~ ~
x
~
s
°zl
~
~
a ~
!F~
~
zw
i
C'P3
W $,~o o` a-s
?
~
tw0 ~5
~}G~v,1 ~
yo
a Fq^
n
i
o ~
b~
i
All
` xa~ a x z8
O kS
~ K W O"d`ar ° z m ~F
R `O<S~y ~ < OM
Piz m i
F zFomm z o>-^a
m
r- ~md
w < F
3p8
I w °,''a Z.:9 1 '~s ~n u
U
~ 5~ ~ rr C F 3 zw m ~Z mm~
6 ~
#
~
~ Babb a b-=; ~
~ k <
C
R R~ a~ Y A
-
3
U
p
i
49.~3~~k
p
~
~
eee
asaasax
>
§.s
3
9
C R s` a a s
a8
a
$§3
3
n8
•,1` L~ti. ~~~R ~ y iii i~d i O
X
i
e
t v a
m sl ~ ~ ~
ti f ~
Ile