2011030712 - Attachment 6 - 381 Pennsylvania AvenueTOWN OF LOS GATOS
1"-- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
��S GptOS Meeting Date: January 26, 2011
PREPARED BY: Marni F. Moseley, AICP, Associate Planner
mmoseley(2clos atosca.gov
APPLICATION NO.: Subdivision Application M -10 -007
ITEM NO: 1
DESK ITEM
LOCATION: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue (Southeast corner of Pennsylvania
Avenue at Wissahickon Avenue)
APPLICANT: Chris Spaulding, AIA
PROPERTY OWNER: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue, LLC
CONTACT PERSON: Gregory Howell
APPELLANT: Matthew Haberkorn
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review
Committee approving a two -lot subdivision on property zoned R-
1:8. APN 510 -41 -057
EXHIBITS: 1 -19. Previously received
20. Letters from two neighbors (two pages)
21. Emails between Lee Quintana and Town Staff, received
January 24 and 25, 2011 (two pages)
REMARKS
Additional correspondence received after the distribution of the packet is included.
d \ •'�
Prepared by:
Marni F. Moseley, AICP
Associate Planner
Approved by:
-die R. Rooney
Director of Community Development
WRR:MM:cgt
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2011\381 Pennsylvania -desk item -2.doc
ATTACHMENT 6
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
January 24, 2011 DECEIVED
JAN 2 4 2011
Strothers TOWN OF LOS GATOS
7 Walnut Ave PLANNING DIVISION
Los Gatos, Cal. 95030
Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main St.
P.O. Box 949 _
Los Gatos, Cal. 95030
Subject: Written appeal to rescind the Planning Commission's
Decision to approve the subdivision at 381 Pennsylvania
Ave., Los Gatos, Cal. 95030.
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We live directly across the street from the said location in question. Our property has
been in our family for approximately 64 years. Our immediate family has been here for
38 years. We have seen many improvements and changes in our neighborhood.
Regarding the Town General Plan/Land Use Planning/Docurnents -DRC- Preliminary
Town Municipal Codes, we believe that there are some discrepancies between these
written requirements. When it pertains to the uniqueness of this type of property, and
location, inconsistencies do appear regarding the areas of historical significance and
natural habitats for animals and birds. This property does have a historical and open
space value in the immediate area. The structures are pre 1900. The open space, dictated
by the canyon to the rear of the property, is a habitat for native birds and animals for
centuries. This habitat will be jeopardized. The historical value of this property goes
- ;v ML, out question.
We are asking that this approval be rescinded.
Sing rely,
Robin and Buz Strothers
EXHIBIT 20
January 25, 2011
To: Members of the Planning Commission
RECEIVED
Re: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue
JAN 2 5 2011
Commissioners,
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I am adamantly opposed to the proposal to divide the property at 381 Pennsylvania
Avenue. This property is of historical significance to the neighborhood and town. It
does have an official historical designation which must be respected. By allowing the
proposal to proceed, the commission will be ignoring the character of the
neighborhood.
I owned the adjoining residence at 371 Pennsylvania Avenue for twenty -five years. I
know that construction on the rear of the property at 381 will irreparably diminish the
value of and enjoyment of the the property at 371. 1 also know that the former owners
of the property at 381, the Mansons, would be outraged at this proposal to destroy the
serenity of the neighborhood.
The establishment of an additional building lot will have a significant negative impact
on the residence at 371 Pennsylvania Avenue as well as the entire neighborhood.
I urge you to support the appellant in this matter and retain the property at 381 as a
single historical residence.
Respectfully,
Susan Kankel
99 Reservoir Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Marni Moseley
From: Marni Moseley
.Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 20119:47 AM
To: 'Lee Quintana'
Subject: RE: 381 Pennsylvania
Lee,
The property is not in a historic district, only the house is considered historic in regards to its age. The land has no
historic designation. A historic report is not required in that no changes are proposed to the historic house as part of
the subdivision In addition, only subdivisions with a Landmark Historic - PreservationOverlay(LHP)
designation would be reviewed by the HPC.
The required setback along a street for new development within the R -1:8 zoning designation is: 15 feet. The existing
house has a non - conforming side along a street setback of 10.8'. This will not be changed with the subdivision, and is
permitted to be maintained per Division 5, of article 1, Chapter 29 of the Town Code.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Lee Quintana [mailto:leeandpaul @earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 20117:24 AM
To: Marni Moseley
Subject: Re: 381 Pennsylvania
Marni F. Moseley,
Thanks for your prompt reply - even though I addressed my first e -mail to Joel by mistake. I must have been looking at
the Staff Report for Ditto's Lane.
I have three additional questions or clarifications:
1) At what point in the process will an Historic Report be required?
2) When will 381 Pennsylvania be referred to the Historic Preservation Committee?
3) What minimum setback does the Town Code require for yards abutting a street?
Please include my e -mails and your answers to them as a Desk Item to the Planning Commission.
Thank you,
Lee Quintana
5 Palm Avenue
Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
On Jan 25, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Marni Moseley wrote:
> tee,
> 1) Yes the existing guest cottage /2nd unit does have a second unit permit; it was approved on 2/1/86. The unit was
approved with 1 additional parking space which while not verified on the permit I believe was located in one of the
;accessory structures along Wissahickon.
EXHIBIT 21
> 2) The existing garage on Pennsylvania was modified to its existing condition in 1996. From the approved plans it
appears that the two car garage was a modification to an existing non - conforming single car garage, of which an
expansion would be permitted subject to section 29.10.245 of the Town Code.
> 3) The old General Plan referred to limiting cub cuts and driveway openings in new development. The 2020 General
Plan does not include this policy, nor is the driveway located on a new development. From the general sense a new
driveway opening generally requires a curb cut. In this case the existing property does not have a driveway or a curb
cut, and the new driveway would not require a curb cut in that there are no curbs along this section of Pennsylvania.
The new driveway would help to define access to the front entry, and provide a separate driveway for the second unit,
which is strongly encouraged and often required for second units.
> 4) The proposed tentative map was prepared by a licensed surveyor who has verified on the plans and in writing that
the location of the old Laurel Ave is accurate. Staff has also verified based on the recorded maps and documents that
the tentative map accurately shows the location of the land associated with the vacating of Laurel Ave in 1981, as well as
the easement that runs within it.
> Sincerely,
> Marni F. Moseley, AICP
> Associate Planner
> (408) 354 -6802
> www.losgatosca.gov
> - - - -- Original Message -----
> From: Lee Quintana [mailto:leeandpaul @earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 20118 :07 AM
> To: Joel Paulson
> Subject: 381 Pennsylvania
> Joel,
> I have a few questions regarding 381 Pennsylvania.
> Is the existing cottage currently have a Second Unit Permit?
> If so: 1) when was the permit issued and did it require designated parking on site?
> If parking was required, where was it located?
> What was the permitting process for the existing garage?
> Was an Application for Variance for the front yard setback filed and approved?
> In terms of the intent of limiting curb cuts and driveway openings what is the functional difference between the two?
> When was the last time this lot was surveyed by a professional to accurately determine the parcel lines and the
location of the Laurel Ave. easement?
> Thanks,
> Lee
>