15 Desk Item - 16961 Placer Oaks RoadtpW N OF
~os~A~os COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 18, 2006
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 12/18/2006
ITEM NO:
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
GRANT AN APPEAL DENYING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT) ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8 AND DEMOLITION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
RESIDENCE ON EACH OF THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS. APN 529-14-
059. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-06-01, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE
APPLICATION S-06-016 (LOT #1), ARCHITECTURE AND SITE
APPLICATION S-06-017 (LOT #2) PROPERTY LOCATION: 16961 PLACER
OAKS ROAD PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: HOWELL & MCNEIL
DEVELOPMENT LLC.
REMARKS:
Attached are revised findings and considerations for the project (Attachment 12) and a letter
from the Town's Consulting Architect (Attachment 13). Also attached are emails received after
the staff report was distributed (Attachments 14).
Attachments:
1.-11. Previously submitted
12. Revised findings and considerations.
13. Letter from Cannon Design Group (three pages) received January 17, 2006.
14. Emails from residents opposed to the project.
BNL:RT:mdc
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2006\16961 Placer Oaks Rd4desk.doc
PREPARED BY
BUD N. LORTZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: 1ssistant Town Manager Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development
WIN
16961 Placer Oaks Rd
Subdivision Application M-06-01
Architecture and Site Application S-06-016 (lot #1)
Architecture and Site Application S-06-017 (lot #2)
Requesting approval of a two lot subdivision (lot line adjustment) on property zoned R-1:8
and approval to demolish a single family residence and to construct a new residence on
each of the newly created lots. APN 529-14-059.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Howell & McNeil Development LLC
FINDINGS
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15303 & 15315 of the State
Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030 of the Town Code for Demolition applications:
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 Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site
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
of truck 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:
ATTACHMENT 12
16961 Placer Oaks Rd.
Subdivision Application M-06-01
Architecture and Site Application 5-06-016 (lot #1)
Architecture and Site Application 5-06-017 (lot #2)
Page 2
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
detenninations:
1. The project will not impact any roadways 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.1. 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 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 of planter boxes with seasonal flowers to add color and
atmosphere to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by
W;
16961 Placer Oaks Rd.
Subdivision Application M-06-01
Architecture and Site Application S-06-016 (lot #1)
Architecture and Site Application 5-06-017 (lot #2)
Page 3
the Director of Parks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of
meeting 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 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
IW
16961 Placer Oaks Rd.
Subdivision Application M-06-01
Architecture and Site Application S-06-016 (lot #1)
Architecture and Site Application S-06-017 (lot #2)
Page 4
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 non-
accessible floors in new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail,
health care, or personal service on a non-accessible 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.
FOR DENIAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
1. That the proposed snap 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.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\16961 Placer Oaks Rd.doc
WSt7
CDG ARciirriicTUxF. PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
CANNON
DESIGN
GROUP
January 12, 2006 _
7
Mr., Vu-Bang Nguyen N
Community Development Department 1 Y
~fNl'v
Town of Los Gatos l f
110 E. Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 16961 Placer Oaks Road
Dear Vu:
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The neighborhood is one of mostly one story ranch style homes, but at least one house across Placer
Oaks Road is two stories tall. Roofs are a mix of gable and hip forms, and wall materials contain both
stucco and wood. The site itself has relatively dense landscaping at the front of the property between the
entry and exit of a circular driveway. There are also some large trees on the site. In its current setting, the
existing house on the street exerts very little presence on the street.
Photographs of the site and area around this site are shown below.
tl y
t
th r
1 L ~:I
i
Project site
A f
to right
TEL: 415.331.3795 FAX: 415.331.3797
180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. ATTACHMENT 13
16961 Placer Oaks Road
Design Review Comments
January 12, 2006 Page 2
Yom`°_
=x
r s~
C
`
'
Y
FC
_
,
I
OnP stay house on north side of Placer Oaks Rd.
F
Issues and Concerns
1. The two houses are mirror image designs, but look substantially different because of the use of Hardie
shingle siding on one and stucco on the other. Windows, window openings, and details are also differ-
ent, and consistent with their respective architectural styles. Both structures are very well designed,
with good proportions, visual balance and details. The overall mass is broken down well with the second
floor set back from the first floor on all sides. These features, given the landscaping on the site, should
assist the two story structures to fit into the neighborhood.
There are only two issues to note.
2. The column at the outside corner of the entry on Lot 2 appears too slender to relate well to the generally
solid character of this architectural style and the stucco wall material. This is apparent on both the
front and left side elevations.
3. I am a little uncomfortable with the curved clay tile roof given the lack of any other roofing of this type
near the site. A flat the could be used instead, and might relate better to the existing roofing in the
neighborhood. However, the design is very well done, and would be enhanced by the curved tiles which
are consistent with the architectural style. My inclination would be to go ahead with the roofing pro-
posed, but either approach would be acceptable.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSALITO. CA 94965
One story house on south side of Placer Oaks Rd.
One story house on south side of Placer Oaks Rd.
Two story house on south side of Placer Oaks Rd.
16961 Placer Oaks Road
Design Review Comments
January 12, 2006 Page 3
t -
lit
JLIL
Corner column
is too small
Front Elevation Comments
Recommendations
1. Increase the size of the entry column for the house on Lot 2.
L4
I-
Ii I1,
Increase width
of column
Front Elevation Recommend6
0
Left Side Elevation Recommendations Increase width
of column
Vu, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did
not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon At IA AICP
President
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSALITO. CA 94965
l'
~i~l
Page 1 of 1
Patsy Garcia - in regard to property development at 16961 Placer Oaks Road
From: "Robert Clark" <robert.a.clark@gmail.com>
To: <council@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/15/2006 1:52:14 PM
Subject: in regard to property development at 16961 Placer Oaks Road
Hi, I will not be able to attend the Town Council Meeting on Monday, Dec. 18 at 7:00pm, but I my concerns
about the Developer plans for the property located at16961 Placer Oaks need to be heard.
I have been a homeowner/resident of Los Gatos since 1994. I moved here because of the trees and small town
feel. I also appreciate that Los Gatos Planning Commission has managed to control "urban sprawl" thus far. The
proposal by the developer to remove several mature trees and to build 2 oversize homes at 16961 Placer Oaks
would be detrimental to the neighborhood and the town of Los Gatos.
Please stand by your earlier explicit direction to the developer, to build smaller homes that adhere to the Town
guidelines for the size and bulk for homes that are appropriate for our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Clark
16781 Leroy Ave.
,PENEf
nC 2006
TOVVN O% LOS G/-\TOS
PLP.NNI\'G 01\/1SION
file://C:ADocuments and Settings\pgarcia\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM ATTACHMENT 14
Patsy Garcia - Prop. Dev. @ 16961 Placer Oaks Rd Page 1 I
From: "Scott Lockard" <scottlockard 1 @hotmail.com>
To: <council@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/15/2006 8:58:59 AM
Subject: Prop. Dev. @ 16961 Placer Oaks Rd.
To the Town Council, Los Gatos, CA
Regarding the proposed development of the property at 16961 Placer Oaks Rd
I have learned that there is a plan to develop two houses on the site and
that the proposal includes the resurfacing of the lot to raise the level and
to remove multiple large, mature trees (11). 1 would like to voice my
concern on both counts based on the aesthetic values of our community. I
looked into buying a home in Los Gatos a few years ago because of a few key
attributes. 1. Good schools 2. A well developed sense of "community" 3.
Older construction homes 4. Mature trees. As a fairly new resident of
Frank Avenue, I found all of these attributes and my family has been
enjoying them.
There has been a lot of remodelling and upgrades of homes in the last year -
I expected this in a neighborhood of older homes, but it has be done in a
way to maintain the character of the community. Trees have been maintained,
sight lines have been managed and taken into account when planning and, to
my knowledge, there have been no major complaints or issues with any of
these recent changes to the neighborhood.
I feel that the neighborhood will begin to lose many attractive attributes
if the proposed changes to the Placer Oaks Rd. property are allowed.
Regards,
Scott Lockard
16806 Frank Ave.
Los Gatos, CA
(408) 356-0320
Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in Holiday
cash from MSN today!
http://www.msnholidaychaIlenge.com/index.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us
CC: <rgreene@grdi.com>
RECEIVED
DEC 1 8 2006
~OWP! OF LOS GATOS
Patsy Garcia - in regard to p
From:
To:
Date:
Subject
Dear Council,
development at 16961 Placer Oaks Road
"Damon Kvamme" <dkvamme@gmail.com>
<council@losgatosca.gov>
12/17/2006 4:05:03 PM
in regard to property development at 16961 Placer Oaks Road
We are writing about the property at 16990 Placer Oaks. Please uphold
the unanimous decision that the Planning Commissioners already made in
November. The reason for their denial of the developer's plans is
sound. The neighborhood is unique and should not be ruined by a
developers desire to maximize financial return on a particular lot. We
believe that as the residential buildings reach to the fence line it
diminishes the family atmosphere of our area. These huge structures
block views and sun making backyard leisure less attractive. While we
don't directly live near this property, there are other lots on our
street a couple blocks away where such a change could take place if
the precedent is set here.
Thank you,
Damon and Margaret Kvamme
16816 Frank Ave.
TOWN C - AT(-,
PLANNING I= 'VIS101'
W i
Page 1 of 1
Patsy Garcia - Re: Property development at 16961 Placer Oaks Rd.
From: <MKHorton@aol.com>
To: <council@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/1712006 9:47:14 AM
Subject: Re: Property development at 16961 Placer Oaks Rd.
CC: <rgreene@grdi.com>
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in regards to the residential property located at 16961 Placer Oaks Rd. This property has sat vacant for
some time. We have seen the enormous large orange netting structure when we take our walks and were somewhat
amazed that permission had been granted for such a large home in our quaint tree studded neighborhood.
It has just been recently brought to our attention that one enormous home was not going to be built on the property but,
two enormous homes. These homes would not only totally take over this beautiful tree studded property but, would
also loom over others that have lived in our neighborhood for years.
We reside at 16800 Frank Ave and we are opposed to the current plan for property development at 16961 Placer Oaks
Rd. There is absolutely no reason that these developers should be granted permission to come into our neighborhood
and build not one but, two huge homes that do not currently "fit" our quiet quaint neighborhood that they do not plan to
live in. They are only hoping to make millions in profits for themselves.
We ask that you stand your ground and not give into money hungry developers that feel money is more important than
"Quality of Life".
Sincerely,
Matt and Michelle Horton
N
z
I-t1Uu,
TOVVN OF- LOS UNT'O"
PLANNING DIVISION
file://C:ADocuments and Settings\pgarciaTocal Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/18/2006