258 Union Avenue AppealZoWN op MEETING DATE: 3/17/2014
ITEM NO. ri
�0s sAios COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 7, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER ✓ / / %`/
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U -13 -012, SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-
13 -004, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S -13 -020 THROUGH
S -13 -027, NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND -13 -002. PROPERTY
LOCATION: 258 UNION AVENUE. APPLICANT: CHRIS KUMMERER.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: VALLEY ONE INVESTMENT, LLC.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT EIGHT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY ZONED C -1. APN 527-
44 -012 AND 527 -44 -013.
RECOMMENDATION:
After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that the Council:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision denying the
Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision application, and Architecture and Site applications
(motion required); and
2. Adopt the resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying the
subject applications (Attachment 9) (motion required).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
Determine that the Planning Commission's decisions should be reversed or modified and
find one or more of the following, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
PREPARED BY: SANDY L. BAILY, �`Y
Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: u `— Assistant Town Manager -�*Town Attorney Finance
N:\DEV \TC REPORTS \2014\Union258 -appe Ldmx Refo�tied: 5/30/02 Revised: 3/7/14 2:49 PM
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 Union Avenue/U -13 -012, M -13 -004, 5 -13 -020 through S -13 -027, ND -13 -002
March 7, 2014
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision; and
2. Adopt the resolution granting the appeal and remand the project to the Planning
Commission with specific direction (Attachment 10) (motion required); or
3. Adopt the resolution granting the appeal making the required findings and considerations
(Attachment 11) and approve the subject applications subject to the conditions in
Attachment 8 and the development plans (Exhibit 13 to Attachment 2) (motion
required); or
4. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction (motion required).
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the east side of Union Avenue, south of Los Gatos - Almaden
Road. A commercial building on the property was demolished in 2001 and the site has since
remained vacant. The former commercial building was last occupied by O'Shea's.
On November 14, 2012, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) considered
plans for an eight unit condominium project (see Exhibit 3 of Attachment 2). The applicant
made revisions to the plans based on the CDAC comments and submitted a formal application
package in March 2013.
On December 11, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Subdivision, and Architecture and Site applications.
The Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and denied all of the
development applications. A verbatim transcript of the Planning Commission hearing was
prepared (see Attachment 5).
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the property owner on December 20,
2013.
DISCUSSION:
A. Proiect Summary
The applicant is proposing to construct eight residential condominiums, inclusive of a
Below Market Price (BMP) unit. All of the units are two - stories with heights ranging
from 22'8' to 2712 ". Each unit has a different exterior design and color palette. The
applicant's letter of justification (Exhibit 11 to Attachment 2) includes additional details
on the project, as does the December 11, 2013 Report to the Planning Commission
(Attachment 2).
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 Union Avenue/U -13 -012, M -13 -004, S -13 -020 through 5 -13 -027, ND -13 -002
March 7, 2014
B. Planning Commission Action
On December 11, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the subject applications.
The Commission denied the applications, expressing concern about the impact of the rear
units on neighbors living behind the site, the proposal to have detached condominiums
without the same land area that would be required for single family residences, and the
density of the proposed design. A verbatim transcript of the Planning Commission
hearing was prepared (see Attachment 5).
C. Appeal
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on December 20, 2013 (see
Attachment 6). The appeal is based on the belief that the Planning Commission erred or
abused its discretion in that the Commission did not accept that a condominium project
can be approved with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and did not support detached
condominiums.
The applicant has provided additional information about condominium ownership and the
proposal for freestanding condominiums, and states that this is new information that the
Commission did not have available in making its decision. Exhibit I to the applicant's
letter is a legal opinion on condominium ownership. The applicant has also made
revisions to the plans to address neighbors' concerns, including reducing the size of units
6, 7 and 8, increasing the setbacks for both the first and second floors of these units and
increasing the distance between units 6 and 7. The revised plans (Attachment 14) also
have a more accessible common area. The Commission did not have the benefit of
seeing the revised plans.
Lastly, the applicant asserts that there is a policy issue in that the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan and Housing Element as well as zoning requirements
and that a CUP is an appropriate means of achieving approval of the project.
The applicant has provided a revised letter of justification that includes additional detail
on the proposed condominium form of ownership (see Attachment 12). The letter also
addresses the CUP application, the proposed residential use of the property,
neighborhood compatibility, General Plan conformance, and a summary of changes that
have been made to the plans to address neighborhood concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the project by the
Town's Environmental Consultant, Geier & Geier. The 20 -day public review period ended on
December 9, 2013. No written comments were received. Mitigation measures are required for
Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials and Noise. The Mitigation Monitoring
Plan is Exhibit 2 to Attachment 2. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 Union Avenue/U -13 -012, M -13 -004, 5 -13 -020 through 5 -13 -027, ND -13 -002
March 7, 2014
conditions of approval (Attachment 8). The Planning Commission certified the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Plan on December 11, 2013.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the subject applications, and adopt the appropriate resolution in
Attachment 9. If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific findings as
to how the Planning Commission erred must be incorporated into the resolution remanding the
application to the Commission (Attachment 10) or the resolution granting the appeal and
approving the project (Attachment 11). The recommendation section includes the steps needed
for all of the alternatives.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Attachments:
Previously received January 17 2014 under separate cover:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. December 11, 2013 Planning Commission staff report (with Exhibits)
3. December 11, 2013 Planning Commission Desk Item (with Exhibits)
4. Photo submitted by Chi -Ping Siu, received December 11, 2013
5. Planning Commission verbatim minutes (53 transcribed pages)
6. Appeal statement (one page), received December 19, 2013
Received with this staff report:
7. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
8. Recommended Conditions of Approval (14 pages)
9. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal (three pages)
10. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
(three pages)
11. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project with Exhibit A (14 pages total)
12. Applicant's letter with exhibits (12 pages total), received February 24, 2014
13. Letter from Berliner Cohen (two pages), received March 10, 2014
14. Revised development plans, received February 24, 2014 (20 pages)
Distribution
Shawn Wang, Valley One Investment, LLC, 12280 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Suite 107,
Saratoga, CA 95070
Chris Kummerer, CKA Architects, 2089 Avy Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025
SLB:SA:cg