The URL can be used to link to this page

1 - North 40 Specific Plan Update�4WN OF MEETING DATE: 12/5/11 ITEM NO: CONSENT �as'cAco� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: November 21, 2011 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS ® The North 40 Advisory Committee met on Thursday, November 3, 2011. Discussion topics included optional approaches for a Specific Plan, land use, and building height. NEXT STEPS s A Joint Town Council - Planning Study Session will be held on January 9, 2012, in the Town Council Chambers. Proposed topics include specific plan land uses and building heights. Attachments 1. November 3, 2011, Advisory Committee Agenda Packet 2. November 3, 2011, Advisory Committee Presentation 3. North 40 Advisory Committee Minutes from November 3, 2011 WRR:JP:ah �Cu PREPARED BY : Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance N:\DEV \TC REPORTS\ 2011 \NOSP- MonthlyRpt.12- 5- 11.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 11/21/11 2:01 PM This Page Intentionally Left Blank AGENDA TOWN OF LOS GATOS NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2011 6:00 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M. TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY 110 E. MAIN STREET (408) 354 -6874 Verbal Communications (three minute time limit) Introductions /Purpose of Meeting 2. Discussion of Specific Plan — Optional Approaches Discussion of Uses (Revised list of uses and ranges) 4. Discussion of Specific Plan Building Heights Next Steps DISTRIBUTION North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee Town Council, Planning Commission Los Gatos Library Greg Larson, Town Manager Pamela Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager Wendie Rooney, Community Dev, Dir. Sandy Baily, Planning Manager Joel Paulson, Senior Planner Todd Capurso, Dir., Parks & Public Works Kevin Rohani, Asst. Dir., Parks & Public Works Scott Seaman, Chief of Police Regina Falkner, Deputy Town Manager Debbie Rudd, Jami Williams - RRM Design Don Capobres, Whitney Sylvester - Grosvenor The Town of Los Gatos has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1094.6, litigation challenging a decision of the Council must be brought within 90 days after the decision is announced unless a shorter time limit is require by state or federal law. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Suzanne Davis at (408) 354- 6875. Notification 48 hours before the meeting will enable the Town to snake reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR Section 35, 102-35.104). Writings related to an item on this meeting agenda distributed to members of the committee within 72 hours of the meeting are available for public review at the front desk of the Community Development Department between the hours of 8 a.m. -1 p.m., Monday through Friday, and the Town Clerk's Office and Town Library during regular business hours, at 110 E. Main Street. Copies of desk items distributed to members of the committee at the meeting are available for view in the Town Council Chambers Lobby, N:\DEV\North 40 \N40AC\N40AC Agendas\N40AC110311.doc ATTAcM 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East.Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354 -6872 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NORTH 40 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2011, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 E. MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- The meeting was called to order at 6:60 P.M. by Mayor Joe Pirzynski. ATTENDANCE Advisory Committee members: Joe Pirzynski, .Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Barbara Cardillo, Todd Jarvis, Dan Ross, Gordon Yamate, Marcia Jensen, Marico Sayoc, Jim Foley, Tim Lundell, Deborah Weinstein, Matthew Hudes AC members absent: Perry Hirari Town Staff: Wendie Rooney, Community Development Director; Sandy Baily, Planning Manager; Joel Paulson, Senior Planner; Jessica von Borck, Economic Vitality Manager Town Consultants: Debbie Rudd and Jami Williams, RRM Design Group Project Team: Glenn Wood and Julianne Donohoe, BAR Architects; David Janes, SGPA; Don Capobres, and Whitney Sylvester, Grosvenor; Ashley Langworthy, SWA Public: Lee Quintana Wendie Rooney outlined the expectations for the meeting. Debbie Rudd explained the purpose of the meeting and showed where we are in the specific plan process. RESULTS OF AUGUST 4, 2011, ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING: Debbie Rudd presented the results of the August 4, 2011, Advisory Committee meeting site planning exercise and a revised conceptual site plan. COMMENTS: Todd Jarvis asked how many units were on the south side. Dan Ross asked about impacts to the Los Gatos School Districts. Joe Pirzynski asked if the revised site plan has the maximum number of residential units reviewed in the General Plan. North 40 Advisory Committee September 22, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Matthew Hudes asked what the percentages of each use were. Jim Foley commented that level of detail is not currently available but that the Specific Plan could have unit number limits and percentage and /or square footage limits for each commercial use. Barbara Spector stated that Page 2 of the AC #4 Summary is not consistent with her recollection of AC #4 because nice /upscale retail might compete with Downtown and it doesn't include neighborhood serving retail. Matthew Hudes commented that there was too. much retail and the BAE report doesn't address the potential impacts to Downtown businesses. Dan Ross asked about establishing a list of retail types. Marico Sayoc commented that this feels like a stand alone development that doesn't transition to the adjacent neighborhoods and she believes it should. She asked if .the residential location was set and if the EIR will consider alternatives that have uses in different locations. She also commented that traffic is a concern. Don Capobres commented on the different types and sizes of retail uses. Barbara Cardillo commented that she wants a performing arts center as a destination not a shopping destination. She also commented that creating a new neighborhood with retail that serves it with an innovation center, hotel and entertainment is more appropriate and that a Nordstrom or Nieman Marcus type use is not something she would want to see. Jim Foley commented about retail size relationships and their correlation with each other. Dan Ross commented that the retail leakages identified in the BAE report are needed. Tim Lundell commented that this could bring in other shoppers that don't currently shop in Downtown. Gordon Yamate commented that we may be asking for something that won't succeed and asked for examples of Downtown versus new outlying shopping areas. Marcia Jensen asked about what planning documents other communities have and commented that this will always compete with Downtown but the Specific Plan should include standards that discourage the uses we don't want while still providing some flexibility. North 40 Advisory Committee September 22, 2011 Page 3 of 7 John Bourgeois stated that the use and size of retail should be regulated to target the sales tax leakage tenants. He understands there needs to be flexibility but asked how that would work for size and asked about further discretionary review for uses. Don Capobres commented that there needs to be flexibility and he understands that there will be limitations and understands that big box is not desired. Jim Foley expressed concerns with trying to regulate the type of retail and stated that maybe Conditional Use Permits could be required for certain uses. Barbara Spector spoke about the different terms for describing different retail users and that she didn't think an 80,000 square foot use was appropriate, but that 4,000 to 40,000 may be more appropriate. Joe Pirzynski asked if the parking structures were adequate to park the proposed uses. John Bourgeois commented that planning by committee can work or it can water down a project and that he believes the revised conceptual site plan is better than the previous version. Todd Jarvis asked about successful projects of today and commented about the need for an overall comprehensive vision for the Specific Plan. Deborah Weinstein commented that she likes the idea of the Market Hall but is concerned about access to the site. Matthew Hudes expressed concern about the linkage of retail on this site and retail Downtown. Tim Lundell commented on uses that will impact the Downtown. Joe Pirzynski stated that competition needs to be addressed. The Downtown is a destination for a great experience and he is not sure the N. 40 will detract from Downtown. He also asked when does a major shopping area compete with a vibrant Downtown. Todd Jarvis stated that he wants to see the net impact to the Downtown. Barbara Spector commented that many people outside the Downtown area don't use the Downtown very often and could potentially use this area. Joe Pirzynski commented that many people north and east of Blossom Hill Road go to San Jose. He stated that we need to maintain Downtown vibrancy but this site could serve people north and east of this site. He commented that this is a much better plan than the last one and he liked the paseos and Market Hall and is okay with the transition North 40 Advisory Committee September 22, 2011 Page 4 of 7 area. He commented that maybe the parking should be along the freeway and that he wants to see the type of residential. Barbara Cardillo asked if there are enough access points. Matthew Hudes commented that he would like to see the percentage of each use. Marcia Jensen expressed concern with the residential being mostly on the south end. Todd Jarvis expressed concern about the density of the residential. John Bourgeois stated that the multi -story apartments at the corner of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard was a concern. Deborah Weinstein expressed concern with access through the residential to the office and other commercial uses. Marico Sayoc expressed concern with the residential on the south side of the site, the multi -story apartments on the corner of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard, and traffic hot spots for the entertainment, restaurant and other uses. USES: Debbie Rudd presented a list of uses with square footage ranges for discussion. COMMENTS: Joe Pirzynski asked which uses agree with the Market Study. Jim Foley stated that the square footage for office seems low and that a conference center may be dead weight. Barbara Spector stated that the office square footage seems low and that a conference center should be part of a hotel use and should accommodate 200 -250 people. Marico Sayoc asked if we were prioritizing uses and what synergy for the Innovation Center is best. Marcia Jensen asked if the Specific Plan can prioritize uses. Joe Pirzynski stated that an overlay of the economic information would help prioritize uses. Barbara Spector stated concern with the low end, smaller square footage, of the in -line retail. North 40 Advisory Committee September 22, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Todd Jarvis expressed concern with the category that has a 125,000 square foot cap and the traffic impacts from 750 residential units. Barbara Spector stated that she was okay with a 40,000 square foot cap. Marcia Jensen stated that the destination anchor retail category should be eliminated. Joe Pirzynski stated that the category should not be eliminated, but the square footage cap needs to be reduced. HEIGHT: Debbie Rudd presented a building height diagram and photos for discussion. COMMENTS: Marcia Jensen asked if the height limits in the Zoning Code have to be followed. Todd Jarvis asked what the height of the first floor retail was. Deborah Weinstein stated that the trees need to be accurately depicted on the plans. Marico Sayoc stated that to maintain the orchard feel the building heights should be lower and that the orchard feel would be destroyed with large buildings. Barbara Spector stated that height is a concern but that a taller boutique hotel may be okay. The height on Lark Avenue and at the corner of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard is a concern. Barbara Cardillo stated that 55' is too tall except for the hotel. The multi - family height is a concern and the multi - family should be no more than three stories, but not 55'. Jim Foley stated that he is okay with the heights except for the multi- family on Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. He asked if the multi- family and townhomes could be flipped. He stated that a setback exhibit would be helpful and the 2 -3 story zone should be wrapped to include the Lark Avenue frontage. John Bourgeois stated that the zone along Lark Avenue was too high, an internal area of 3 -4 stories may be appropriate but not the mixed use panhandle area that extends to the Highway 17 frontage. He stated that views from Highway 17 will need to be addressed. Joe Pirzynski asked why is four stories necessary, does the hotel have to be that tall or could the floor plate be larger so the height can be reduced, should multi- family be along Lark at all. He stated that he agreed with John Bourgeois's comment on the panhandle, North 40 Advisory Committee September 22, 2011 Page 6 of 7 that maybe three stories is not appropriate along Lark Avenue, justification will need to be provided for anything over three stories, mixed use building could be lowered if underground parking of 2 levels was proposed, and that internal views are also important. Barbara Spector stated that height is more important to her than the number of stories. Dan Ross asked what the height and square footage of Santana Row was. Jim Foley commented that he was okay with the height for the hotel and office and that additional renderings should be provided. Marcia Jensen commented that the viewshed from Highway 17 and internally will need to be reviewed. Joe Pirzynski stated that a viewshed analysis needs to be prepared from Highway 17 and internally and suggested north and south views from the two retail buildings near the mixed -use building. He also suggested relocating the office and hotel. Marico Sayoc stated that none of the residential buildings should be four stories. Jim Foley stated that four stories was okay for the hotel, office, and mixed use buildings and that all other residential should be 2 -3 stories. Marcia Jensen stated that four stories for the office and hotel may potentially be acceptable but not for any of the other buildings. .Barbara Cardillo stated that nothing should be over three stories. Barbara Spector commented that she may consider four stories for the hotel and Innovation Center, but that nothing else should be over three stories. John Bourgeois stated that he would consider 4 -5 stories for hotel, the 1 -2 story band should continue along Lark Avenue, 2 -3 stories for all residential, 4 stories for the office and mixed use, and 2 -3 stories on the Highway 17 frontage. Deborah Weinstein stated that she would consider four stories for the office and hotel, agreed with John Bourgeois' comment on the Lark Avenue band, no multi - family residential over three stories, and three stories for the mixed use building. Marico Sayoc stated that the maximum height along Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard should be 35' and that she may consider four stories for the hotel and office if they are in the interior of the site. North 40 Advisory Committee September 22, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Todd Jarvis stated that the maximum height along Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard should be 35', that he may consider four stories for the hotel and office, and the residential should not be 55'. Joe Pirzynski stated that he agreed with John Bourgeois' comment on the Lark Avenue band, there should not be three or four stories on Lark Avenue, he may consider more than three stories depending on the architecture, three stories is okay for the residential but there should also be some two story residential, and four story buildings would require an exception and justification will need to be provided. Matthew Dudes stated that the maximum height for residential should be two stories, the mixed use could be up to four stories, the hotel could be 4 -5 stories, and the office could be up to four stories. Gordon Yamate stated that he agreed with John Bourgeois' comments. Dan Ross stated that he agreed with John Bourgeois' comments, Joe Pirzynski's comment regarding articulation, and that he would consider a hotel that is 4 -5 stories with an imaginative and unique design. Tim Lundell stated that he agreed with John Bourgeois' comments. PUBLIC COMMENT: Lee Quintana commented that it seems like we are working backwards without any analysis, that discussions on height are to early because we need to have the viewshed analysis done, where is the parking for the residential, the largest segment of open space is facing the freeway, the conceptual site plan doesn't draw you into the site, the hotel should be moved, the site plan is constrained, will the layout of the building shapes work, the parking garage is too big, the hotel deduction with residential, and there needs to be a minimum square footage of certain goods. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. The next Advisory Committee meeting has not been scheduled. Prepared by: Joel Paulson, AICP Senior Planner Th is Page Intentionally Left Blank I •' t I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT To: North 40 Advisory Committee From: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Subject: Transmittal of Specific Plan Primer and North 40 Specific Plan Alternative Approaches Date: October 27, 2011 Attached are two documents that we recommend you review before the November 3, 2011, North 40 Advisory Committee Meeting. The first document, entitled "Specific Plan Primer," is an excerpt from A Planner's Guide to Specific Plans, a paper prepared by the State of California Office of Planning and Research. It provides a good foundation on the use of specific plans, attributes and disadvantages, and a summary of the statutory requirements. The second document is entitled "North 40 Specific Plan Alternative Approaches," and outlines various approaches the Town can use in developing the North 40 Specific Plan. Please note that although the document outlines three approaches, there are many forms between the two bookends (High Level of Detail) and (General Level of Detail). Staff recommends the Medium Level of Detail approach since this type of plan would provide a good degree of specificity for both the Town and the future developer of the property, as well as maintain the Town's authority over subsequent development review (Architecture and Site, Conditional Use Permits, and subdivisions) when projects are submitted. These approaches will be discussed at the November 3, 2011, Advisory Committee meeting. Please feel free to contact Joel Paulson or me if you have any questions. See you next Thursday! Attachments 1. Specific Plan Primer 2. North 40 Specific Plan Alternative Approaches N:\ DEV\ Wendie\ Correspondence\Memorandums\North 40AC 11 -3 -11 Meeting.doc This Page Intentionally Left Plank Specific Plan Primer (Excerpts from the A Planner's Guide To Specific Plans) A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location and intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision. A specific plan may encompass a very large area or as small as a single acre. A specific plan may be developed in response to a single policy issue, or to address each applicable policy of the general plan. It may also diverge from the issues contained in the general plan into other subjects viewed by the community as being of relevance. To an extent, the range of issues that is contained in a specific plan is left to the discretion of the decision - making body. However, all specific plans, whether prepared by a general law city or county, must comply with Sections 65450 - 65457 of the Government Code. These provisions require that a specific plan be consistent with the adopted general plan of the jurisdiction within which it is located. In turn, all subsequent subdivision and development, all public works projects and zoning regulations must be consistent with the specific plan. The initiation of the specific plan process may be motivated by any number of factors including development issues or the efforts of private property owners, elected officials, citizen groups, or the local planning agency. As with a general plan, the authority for adoption of the specific plan is vested with the local legislative body. The adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act similar to adoption of a general plan or zoning ordinance. Specific Plan Attributes & Disadvantages A thorough specific plan can enable communities to effectively implement selected long term general plan objectives in a short time frame. The enabling statutes are flexible, allowing public agencies to create standards for the development of a wide range of projects or solutions to any type of land use issues. The plan may present the land use and design regulations which guide the development of a particular area or incorporate land use and zoning regulations, infrastructure plans, and development approval processes for the development for subsequent projects. The plan may be organized into a concise set of development policies and include land use regulations, a capital improvement program, or financing program within a single document. Policies of the general plan which are specific to financing infrastructure improvements and extensions, or cost recovery programs may be implemented by matching land uses with supporting public facilities. This is done to assist engineering departments and developers avoid ATTACHMM 1 ineffective or undersized streets, sewers, water lines, and other necessary improvements. In addition, it may directly impose exactions in association with the general plan's capital improvement policies. The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the general public, as well as residents located within planning areas, to assist in the planning of their particular communities. Public involvement helps define the community's vision of future growth and development. Future development proposals may benefit from the foundation created by the specific plan. For example, a Program EIR adopted to fulfill the plan's CEQA`obligation may streamline the processing of subsequent discretionary projects by obviating the need for additional environmental documentation. The specific plan represents a good tool for developing a community "sense of place." A creative and innovative specific plan may bridge -the -gap between monotonous urban development and a livable neighborhood. The specific plan also has disadvantages. These include the time, cost, and obligation of staff resources. To be effective, the plan requires the collection and analysis of significant amounts of detailed data. Since most planning agencies do not have the staff to commit to the preparation process, most plans include the involvement and cost of outside consultants. Similarly, the incorporation of the plan into the day to day planning processes may require the commitment of additional staff time, particularly when the plan establishes regulations which are only applicable to the area affected by the plan. The adoption of a specific plan does not vest development by statute, but its entitlements may be defined by development agreements and vesting tentative maps. Specific plans themselves are dynamic documents and may be subject to change. There are no assurances to residents and project proponents that the plan will not be subject to future revisions. Statutory Requirements Section 65451 of the Government Code mandates that a specific plan contain: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. Ibis Page Intentionally Left Blank North 40 Specific Plan Alternative Approaches Specific Plan (SP) Elements: A. Introduction, background, and relationship to Town documents B. Vision C. Land use D. Development standards E. Circulation /Mobility F. Infrastructure and public facilities G. Implementation H. Administration The degree of detail for each of these elements can differ in a specific plan depending on the desired level of specificity. Additional elements /sections such as design guidelines, sustainability concepts, conceptual site plans, and landscaping can also add specificity to the SP document. Below we have outlined three ways to approach a SP: (1) with a high level of detail and less subsequent project review; (2) with a medium level of detail with greater subsequent project review or (3) with a general level of detail and substantial subsequent project review. Our recommendation is to draft a SP with a "medium level" of detail that clearly outlines the vision, goals, and process for future development submittals (e.g., what types of projects will require Planning Commission and /or Council approval). The following outlines each of these approaches and includes the key advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Specific Plan with High Level of Detail (similarto a planned development [PDj) Includes the elements listed under standard Specific Plan above, as well as: A. Vision • Vision description, illustrations, images B. Land uses: • Ranges of number of residential units • Ranges of square footages per use • Height maximums (can customize per district, per use, per location) C. Detailed site plan • Street design and locations • Building footprints • Landscaping plan D. Architectural building elevations E. Development standards (heights, setbacks, percentage of open space, etc.) ATTACHMENT 2 1 Advantages • Comprehensively planned (more assurance that the vision and "sense of place" will be implemented). • Town and Council know what to expect. • The Planning Commission and Council that conceived the plan would implement the plan consistent with the intended vision. • A developer knows what to expect. • Studies the impacts through the EIR process, may not need additional environmental analysis for each future application. • The technical analysis thoroughly analyzes the ultimate development project; consequently, the Town knows in advance the development project's potential impacts and necessary mitigation. • Allows for a detailed phasing plan. Disadvantages • Need a developer to control all /most land. • Difficult to finance (a lot of time and budget for architecture before zoning is approved). • More time intensive at the SP development process. • Requires a SP amendment each time buildings change; however, the SP can include various levels of review that correspond to the level of changes, e.g., a minor SP amendment (DRC or Planning Commission review) and a major SP amendment with Planning Commission and Town Council review. 2 Specific Plan with Medium Level of Detail Includes the elements listed under standard Specific Plan above, as well as: A. Vision • Vision description, illustrations, images B. Land uses: • Ranges of number of residential units • Ranges of square footages per use • Height maximums (can customize per district, per use, per location) C. Development standards (can customize per district, per use, per location) D. Architectural design guidelines E. Conceptual street designs and locations Advantages • Comprehensively planned (more assurance that the vision and "sense of place" will be implemented). • Gives Town and Council control for important aspects such as height and density. • Gives future landowners and developers a defined framework for applications. • Not too detailed, so does not have to be amended for each small building change. • Studies the impacts through the EIR process and may not need additional environmental analysis for each future application. • Provides architecture guidance and heights parameters but allows for future review with development submittals. Disadvantages • More time intensive at the SP development process. Need to set development parameters now (height, setbacks, commercial square footage, density, number of residential units). • May require a SP amendment each time buildings change; however, the SP can include various levels of review that correspond to the level of changes, e.g., a minor SP amendment (DRC or Planning Commission review) and a major SP amendment with Planning Commission and Town Council review. 3 Soecific Plan with General Level of Detail Including: A. Goals and policies B. Vision statement C. Land use map D. Land use (max units and square footages allowed) E. General design standards and guidelines Advantages • Faster and less expensive. • Defers significant Town Council and community dialogues on the SP to future phases of development or project application. Disadvantages • Piecemeal development may occur. • Will require separate Planned Development applications for each subsequent phase of development. • Difficult to create "sense of place" due to piecemeal approach. • May need to do supplemental environmental analysis on future development. • Less teeth /control in the document (less assurance of end results). • Less clarity for the Town Council and Community at the front end. • Less clarity for future developers. • Due to the minimal amount of SP detail, full potential impacts (and required mitigation ) may not be known until each development phase is proposed. • Limited ability to control phasing. N: \DEV \Wendle\ Correspondence \Memorandums \Specific Plan Alternative Approaches,docx 10 11/21/2011 ® Welcome /Expectations i Specific Plan — Optional Approaches Revised Land Use Summary Building Heights / Next Steps k ATTACMIENT 2 11/21/2011 Specific Plan Elements: -------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction, background and relationship to Town documents / Vision / Land use Development standards / Circulation/Mobility / Infrastructure and public facilities / Implementation / Administration Levels of Detail -High -Medium -General r:> - - ------ - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- ---------------------- �` 11/21/2011 High Level of Detail --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Includes the elements listed under typical Specific Plan above as well as: 1 Vision description, illustrations, images P Detailed site plan ■ Street design and locations ■ Building footprints ■ Landscaping plan Architectural building elevations Land uses: ■ Proposed number of residential units ■ Proposed square footages per use ■ Height maximums (can customize per district, per use, per location) 1 Development standards (heights, setbacks, percentage of open space, etc.) Advantages and Disadvantages --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advantages Comprehensively planned Town and Council know what to expect Plan implemented consistent with PC /TC's conceived vision A developer knows what to expect 1 No or minim additional environmental analysis for each future application Thorough technical analysis = clear project impacts / necessary mitigation Allows for a detailed phasing plan Disadvantages / Need a developer to control all/most parcels Difficult to finance (architecture before approved zoning) Time intensive Specific Plan process Requires a SP amendment each time buildings change --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- 3 11/21/2011 Medium Level of Detail Includes the elements listed under typical Specific Plan as well as: / Vision description, illustrations, images / Land uses: • Ranges of number of residential units • Ranges of square footages per use Height maximums (can customize per district, per use, per location) / Development standards (can customize per district, per use, per location) / Architectural design guidelines Conceptual street designs and locations a_. ----------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages / Comprehensively planned / Town and Council control for important aspects — i.e. height and density / Gives future landowners and developers a defined framework for applications / Amendments not needed for each small building change No or minimal additional environmental analysis for each future application Provides architecture guidance and height parameters, but allows for future review Disadvantages / More time intensive at the Specific Plan process 1 Could require more amendments than the general level of detail pl -----------°°°------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- 4 11/21/2011 General Level of Detail ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- -------------------------- Includes the elements listed under typical Specific Plan as well as: l Goals and policies / Vision statement / Land uses ■ Land use map (no concept plan) ■ Maximum residential units ■ Maximum square footages allowed / General development standards and guidelines K k Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages ► Faster and less expensive ► Defers significant Town Council/community input to project application stage Disadvantages / Piecemeal development may occur — results in lack of "sense of place" ► Require separate Planned Development applications ► Supplemental environmental analysis required ► Less teeth/control in the document ► Less Town Council/community /developer front -end clarity ► Limited understanding of potential impacts /required mitigation / Limited ability to control phasing 5 11/21/2011 DISCUSSION -SP Levels of Detail oHigh •medium "General ,ogroup 111 REVISED LAND USE SUMMARY rrm e , -ii.�,ngroup Oil 1.1 11/21/2011 Potential Residential Types to Include in Specific Plan - - -- ----------------- - - - - -- ---------------------- / Small lot single family 1 Townhouse Multi family 1 Mixed -use ------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - - 0A, o ft Specific Plan Land Use Table Use Exam Ranges Sq. Footage For Each Land COMMERCIAL UseCategory Sit Down Restaurant Sit -down: Small to large 60,000-99,099-80,000 Desttnation Anchor Retail Department store, appliances, 50,000 435,800 - •90,000 sq. ft. electronics, general merchandise 50,000- 160,000 Destination Major Retail Electronics, s sporting goods, appliances Tenant 18,000.50,000 sq, ft. 50,000- 150,000 Destination Flagship Retail Housewares, apparel, furnishings, 10,000- 25,000 sq, ft, sporting goods 75,000- 100,000 Destination Retail (In -Line) PParel, shoes, personal care 2,000. 10,000 sq. k. 60,000-90,000 Neighborhood- Retail (In -line) 800 -3,000 sq. ft. Service oriented, cafE -type food service 10,000- 25,000 Grocery or Specialty Market Market Hall, single store or multiple v endor 25,000- 40,000 Office 70,000.309;B99. 162,000 Hotel 100,000 - 150;000 Conference 10,000- 20 Health Club 25,000. 30,000 Entertainment Cinema with dining 40,000- 50,000 Live Entertainment Music, comedy club, live theater 10,000 x%=-30 RANGE OF TOTAL SQ. SF.. 435,000 - 535,000 sq.ft. -- new constructio n RESIDENTIAL UNITS Total Units )` 550 -7 7 50 •690 7 11/21/2011 Retail (Single-Use) Review Options --------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ■ Over 50,000 SF - Conditional Use Permit Or ■ Over 75,000 SF - Conditional Use Pennit SF = Gross square footage --------------- ---------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------- ----------- BUILDING HEIGHTS � 11/21/2011 Perspective Views ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PERSPECTIVE VIEW F. H€ M LARK AVENIUL f � Tapp .�� f..� T� £ Los Gatos North 40 NoremDei9,N II `"Y Perspective Views ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- PERSPECTIVE VIE 11/21/2011 Per§ e #yi Views P ------------ - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------- PEPSPECTiVE VIEW FROM HIGHWAY 17 10 ................... .....................................................,...................,. ...........- ....- .....- ........ k.osGatas Norkh 40 I I i Norembela,2on HN t 1 4 L; 4 p 10 ................... .....................................................,...................,. ...........- ....- .....- ........ k.osGatas Norkh 40 I I i Norembela,2on 11/21/2011 Example Tools for Regulating Building Form Commercial Development / No front setback required / 5 ft maximum front setback - Up to 20 ft setback may be granted by staff to accommodate outdoor dining, small plazas, courtyards, or similar features / Different tools to vary the massing ---------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ` �. i��.� 0 Example Tools for Regulating -- uilding_ Form ----------------------------------- - - - - -- Residential 20 ft setback to garage 15 ft setback to street - facing fagade / Balcony, deck, porch may project into setback a maximum of 6 f 11 COttr --------- ---- ----- ------------------------ 11/21/2011 Height Diagram Los Gakas Narth 40 ! DRAFT Building Height Diagram November 3 2011 Q -- Next Steps ► Study Parameters ■ Prepare technical analysis (view analysis, traffic, noise...) to facilitate better decision making to guide the Specific Plan process ► Town Council and Planning Commission Update — January 9th ► Specific Plan ► EIR ------------------ _____ -------------------------------------------------------------- ____---------------------------- 12 TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354 -6872 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NORTH 40 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2011, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOBBY, 110 E. MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA, The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Joe Pirzynski, ATTENDANCE Advisory Committee members: Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, John Bourgeois, Barbara Cardillo, Todd Jarvis, Gordon Yamate, Marico Sayoc, Matthew Hudes Advisory Committee members absent: Dan Ross, Marcia Jensen, Jim Foley, Tim Lundell, Deborah Weinstein Town Staff: Wendie Rooney, Community Development Director; Sandy Baily, Planning Manager; Joel Paulson, Senior Planner; Jessica von Borck, Economic Vitality Manager Town Consultants: Debbie Rudd and Jami Williams, RRM Design Group Project Team: Glenn Wood and Paula Krugmeier, BAR Architects; David Janes, SGPA; Don Capobres, Whitney Sylvester, and Alan Chamorro, Grosvenor VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Larry Arzie referenced a letter to the editor from the Community Alliance and a meeting between Grosvenor and the Community Alliance. Requested that the North 40 Specific Plan Market Study be available on the Town's website. 1. INTRODUCTIONS/PURPOSE OF MEETING Members of the committee, staff, and audience were introduced. Wendie Rooney outlined the expectations of the meeting. 2. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PLAN — OPTIONAL APPROACHES Debbie Rudd explained the elements of a specific plan and the levels of detail (high, medium, and general). Discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each level of detail. Matthew Hudes questioned lower cost of a "general" specific plan. Questioned how the planning application process fits in with specific plans and with the different levels of a specific plan. ATTACMENT 3 North 40 Advisory Committee November 3, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Barbara Cardillo questioned ranges and how one ensures that the maximums for all aspects of the specific plan are not applied for by the developer._ Gordon Yamate stated that all levels sound theoretical. Not sure committee can comment on levels. Asked what examples there were regarding the success of each of these levels. Joe Pirzynski questioned why any jurisdiction would use the "general" level. John Bourgeois thought the Town was going with the medium level. Questioned the purpose of this discussion. Barbara Spector explained that Town staff had originally thought a "high" level specific plan was the direction to go. Vote was put to the Committee as to what level the Specific Plan should be. Seven members voted for "medium" level; and one voted for in- between "medium" and "general" levels. 3. DISCUSSION OF USES (DEVISED LIST OF USES AND RANGES) Jami Williams discussed the potential types of residential uses for the specific plan (small lot single family, townhouse, multi - family, mixed use) Joe Pirzynski brought up senior housing and that it did not fit in these categories and was concerned that it got lost in this discussion. Wendie Rooney explained that senior housing was not lost and could be in any one of these housing types. In addition, the Town requires inclusionary housing, and would be part of the specific plan. Joe Pirzynski questioned if every one of these uses were approved, what if the Town wanted to create a senior housing development. Barbara Spector stated that a specific plan is a contract with the Town and could define senior housing as a possibility. Todd Jarvis discussed phasing and questioned how senior housing could be accommodated in the phases. Marico Sayoc questioned if the lots would follow the Town's residential design guidelines and standard subdivision requirements. Vote was put to the Committee regarding types of residential uses. North 40 Advisory Committee November 3, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Vote Tally: Small lot single family: 8 votes to include Townhouse: 8 votes to include Multi- family: 8 votes to include Mixed use: 7 votes to include 1 vote to not include Single family: 8 votes to include Jami Williams discussed specific land use categories and requested input from the committee regarding the categories and the ranges. Marico Sayoc questioned after net land area and open space' has been calculated, how much land area is available to be developed and how this relates to the input being requested based on the land use table presented. Todd Jarvis commented on density concerns with land availability for housing. Did not want to see 30 units per acre. Matthew Hudes expressed concern that there is not analysis yet on potential impacts to the downtown with the destination retail proposed in the land use tables. Jessica Von Borck discussed economic balance analysis. Barbara Cardillo requested that when we are looking at open space, consider the maximum square footage for the district to ensure it is balanced. Joe Pirzynski noted that the area will not be maximized with all the land uses. Questioned how destination retail would work out there and if it is to the Town's advantage. Thought the lower range was more important to focus on, not the higher range. Asked what neighborhood the Town is dealing with that will use the North 40. Barbara Spector commented that she agreed with all comments made, but could not agree to the minimum range. Suggested starting with zero. Priority is not to compete with the downtown. Commented she does not understand all the retail categories (i.e. flagship, in- line). Commented that she likes the market hall, comfortable with hotel. Cinema with dining would compete with downtown. Does not want noise next to residential uses. John Bourgeois commented that he also does not fully understand the full ranges of uses. Commented the main emphasis is to not compete with downtown. North 40 Advisory Committee November 3, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Barbara Cardillo commented she would like to see significant reduction in allocation to retail. There needs to be more of a neighborhood. No destination retail, no anchors, no appliance stores. Todd Jarvis commented we are looking for a theme. He noted an objection he has is that a destination anchor business at that site would set the tone. Commented that the main goal is not to meet the leakage needs, but to maintain the Town's character. Need a walking community. Point of attraction should be a collection of the vision. Barbara Spector commented retail at the North 40 should meet the community's needs. Anticipate land use would be beyond neighboring service businesses. Land use table presented is challenging. Matthew Hudes commented he did not feel prepared to address this matter at this time. Need to know the pluses and minuses of having retail here. Gordon Yamate asked if the Town is trying to capture all freeway traffic since the site is conveniently located along the freeways. Barbara Cardillo wanted follow -up regarding the incubator office center in San Jose that failed that was noted in the paper. Jessica Von Borck responded to San Jose's issues. Matthew Hudes discussed differences between innovations and incubator centers. Barbara Spector commented that it would be challenging to use the land use chart presented to prepare the technical studies needed for the EIR in that it may not be accurate. Joe Pirzynski noted that the minimum range number is probably what works for the developer, is viable; and the maximum range number is the ceiling that could' go there. Minimum range number should drop off. Jami Williams discussed the thresholds of a single use retailer review options. Requested input regarding the thresholds for triggering review. Barbara Spector commented she was looking at using conditional use permits (CUP) to control development uses to reduce impacts to the downtown. Questioned the threshold range of the square footages proposed. Not prepared to buy into a 50,000 square foot pad. Joe Pirzynski commented if the intent of using a CUP is to control uses to protect downtown, why have square footage ranges. Suggested staff relook at this and bring the matter back. North 40 Advisory Committee November 3, 2011 Page 5 of 6 4. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDING HEIGHTS Debbie Rudd summarized previous meetings regarding._ height, and presented slides on perspective views and height diagrams. Marico Sayoc questioned why the Los Gatos Boulevard heights were not carried around to Lark Avenue. Concerned there will be a diagonal wall along Lark Avenue. Barbara Cardillo commented there is too much mass. There needs to be a significant and compelling reason to deviate from Town height standards. Joe Pirzynski noted he understood how architects feel about designing buildings and the height issues; however, the character of the Town is what matters. If certain uses require heights that do not meet the Town's character, then maybe those uses should not be part of the North 40. Barbara Spector commented the two -story component shown for the Lark Avenue corner looks good, but the heights proposed are a concern. Marico Sayoc commented heights proposed along Los Gatos Boulevard should extend along Lark Avenue. Perimeter zone should not have a minimum height; range should be one to three stories, not two to three stories. Needs reasons for the ceiling heights proposed. The word "allowed" should be eliminated. Commented she was not convinced that all residential should be on the south end. Barbara Spector commented that she agrees with comment on placement of residential on the south end. Joe Pirzynski commented it depends on vendors to determine heights for boutique hotels. Commented he did not want to focus on "allowed" heights for hotels and offices. Wants heights in character with the environment, more of a human scale since the site is highly visible. Need to prove we need to go beyond three stories /55 feet. Needs to be an exception. Can go with a maximum of 55 feet. If a higher height is proposed an "exception" level of review should be required. Todd Jarvis commented that maybe 45 feet should be the maximum, not 55 feet, since that is the highest height permitted by Town code. Barbara Cardillo commented it needs to be the maximum permitted by Town code. Cannot assume we need subterranean parking. With less square footage, less parking would be required. Joe Pirzynski commented we could use the height limit in the downtown which is 45 feet, and that higher heights may be permitted with justification as an exception. North 40 Advisory Committee November 3, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Don Capobres commented on reasons for heights and requested 'options to allow heights needed. A 45 -foot height would not work for multi- family developments. Joe Pirzynski reiterated that if the heights do not work for certain uses, then maybe those uses should not be in the North 40. Height exception reviews can still be an option to justify exceptions. Barbara Spector commented that it sounds like the consensus of the group is that the maximum height is 45 feet and that a discretionary review' is required to go higher. Questioned heights for various land uses; Matthew Hudes was concerned that 45 -foot height limits would impact allowing multi- family developments. An alternate may be to show where multi- family is proposed and note a higher height just for that area which should be in the interior. Commented that he could not commit at this time what the height should be. Vote was put to the Committee regarding heights. Five members voted for a maximum height of 45 feet with discretionary review to exceed that height. Two members thought a limit above 45 feet may be appropriate. Joe Pirzynski commented the slide that showed a sliver of hills within the development did not give him a comfort level in the height. More analysis is needed to determine if there is an area where taller buildings may be permitted. 5. NEXT STEPS Debbie Rudd discussed that the next steps would be to study the parameters. A Town Council and Planning Commission joint study session is scheduled for January 9, 2012, and the committee is invited to attend. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Prepared by: / fiandy L. Baily Planning Manager N: \DEV \North 40 \N40AC \N40AC Minutes \N40AC- min 11031 Ldoc