Loading...
Attachment 2WM � TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: December 11, 2013 PREPARED BY: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Senior Planner savila(o)loseatosca,gg_v APPLICATION NO.: Conditional Use Permit Application U -13 -012 Subdivision Application M -13 -004 Negative Declaration ND -13 -002 Architecture and Site Applications S -13 -020 through S -13 -027 LOCATION: APPLICANT/ CONTACT PERSON: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICATION SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DATA: 258 Union Avenue (north side of Union Avenue, east of Los Gatos - Almaden Road) Chris Kummerer, Architect Valley One Investment, LLC Requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision and Architecture and Site applications to allow construction of eight residential condominiums on property zoned C -1. APN 527 -44- 012 and 013. DEEMED COMPLETE: November 20, 2013 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: a. Subdivision Application: January 9, 2014 b. Conditional Use Permit and Architecture and Site applications: May 20, 2014 Approval, subject to conditions. General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Applicable Plans & Standards: Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: Neighborhood Commercial C -1 General Plan Subdivision Map Act Residential Design Guidelines 32,708 square feet �,___ Existing Land Use 1 General Plan 7.nnino ! M11 1 West Low Density Residential_ Office Professional Neighborhood Commercial R -1:8 O C -1 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 258 Union Avenue/U 13 012 M 13 004 ND -13 -002 S -13 -020 through S -13 -027 December 11, 2013 EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attached to this report 2. Location map (one page) 3. Excerpt from November 14, 2012 CDAC minutes (two pages) 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (four pages) 5. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 6. Recommended Conditions of Approval (14 pages) 7. Architectural Consultant report (seven pages), received July 12, 2013 8. Arborist report (30 pages), received April 15, 2013 9. Letter from Barbara & Terry Johnston (one page), received December 3, 2013 10. Petition from Howes Court and Hershner Court residents four pages total), received December 3, 2013 11. Project description and letter of justification (five pages), received November 22, 2013. 12. Color and material exhibits (eight pages), received November 20, 2013 13. Development Plans (33 sheets), received November 20, 2013 An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been CEQA: prepared for the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FINDINGS: ■ As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit. ■ As required by Policy HOU -9.1 of the Housing Element for new housing developments of three units or more. ■ That the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. As by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act if ■ required the Planning Commission denies the subdivision application. CONSIDERATIONS: n As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed ACTION: within ten days. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attached to this report 2. Location map (one page) 3. Excerpt from November 14, 2012 CDAC minutes (two pages) 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (four pages) 5. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 6. Recommended Conditions of Approval (14 pages) 7. Architectural Consultant report (seven pages), received July 12, 2013 8. Arborist report (30 pages), received April 15, 2013 9. Letter from Barbara & Terry Johnston (one page), received December 3, 2013 10. Petition from Howes Court and Hershner Court residents four pages total), received December 3, 2013 11. Project description and letter of justification (five pages), received November 22, 2013. 12. Color and material exhibits (eight pages), received November 20, 2013 13. Development Plans (33 sheets), received November 20, 2013 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 258 Union Avenue/U -13 -012. M -13 -004 ND -13 -002 S -13 -020 through S-1 3 027 December 11, 2013 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. The CDAC summary minutes are attached as Exhibit 3. The applicant made revisions to the plans based on the CDAC comments and submitted a formal application package in March 2013. Revisions include adding guest parking spaces, modifying the garage entries and orientation, reducing the size of the units and modifying the architectural styles of the units. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located on the east side of Union Avenue, south of Los Gatos - Almaden Road. The adjacent property to the north contains a townhouse development that is in the City of San Jose. An office building abuts the site on the south side. Behind the site to the east are single- family residences. Across the street to the west is the Downing Center which includes retail, restaurant, office, bank and personal service uses. The project site and the shopping center are zoned C -1. The residences behind the site are zoned R -1:8. The adjacent office building is in an O zone, followed by duplexes that are zoned RD. B. Conditional Use Permit Condominiums are allowed in the C -1 zone with a Conditional use Permit (CUP). Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code includes required findings for the granting of a CUP (see Exhibit 5). C. Architecture and Site Approval Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of the eight new residential condominiums. Considerations for the review of Architecture and Site applications are included in Exhibit 5. D. Subdivision Application While the property is not being subdivided into individual lots, a condominium map is required. The State Subdivision Map Act includes seven findings to deny applications for subdivisions of land (see Exhibit 5). If any of the findings can be made, it is grounds for denial of the Subdivision application. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 258 Union Avenue/U 13 012 M-13-004. ND -13 -002 5 -13 -020 through 5 -13 -027 December 11, 2013 E. Zoning Compliance The proposed project is compliant with lot coverage, maximum height, parking, open space and setback requirements. Pursuant to Town Code, greater setbacks are required for commercially zoned properties that abut residential properties. Therefore, a 20 -foot rear setback and 20- foot north side setback are required which the applicant has complied with. Open Space The Town Code requires a minimum of 200 square feet of private open space per unit and 100 square feet per unit for community open space for condominiums. An 800 square foot common area is proposed in the center of the site, and each unit has a private yard(s). The private yard sizes are as follows: UnittLocation Private Yard Size 1 671 s uare feet (front and rear) 2 671 square feet (front and rear) 3 667 square feet front and rear 4 801 square feet front and rear 5 1,105 s uare feet (rear) 6 1,115 square feet (rear) 7 1,115 square feet (rear) g 1 650 square feet (rear Parkin The Town Code requires two parking spaces per residential unit which the project complies with (each unit has a two car garage). The requirement for guest parking is one space per unit. The Planning Commission has the discretion to require more or allow less guest parking based on the size or type of residential unit. The applicant has proposed; six uncovered guest spaces. There is also street parking available on Union Avenue, although this does not count toward required parking for the project. ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site 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 27'2 ". Each unit has a different exterior design and color palette (see sheets A3.Ib, A3.2b, A3.3b, A3.4b, A3.5b, A3.6b, A3.7b and A3.8b of the development plans, Exhibit 13, and color and materials (Exhibit 12). General project data is shown on sheet A.0.1 of the development plans. The applicant's letter of justification (Exhibit 11) includes additional details on the project. Proposed unit sizes are as follows: Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 258 Union Avenue/U -13 -012 M -13 -004 ND -13 -002 S-13-020 through S-1 3 027 December 11, 2013 The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the plans and visited the site, and commented that the project is well designed and that the units are interesting and well detailed in a manner that is consistent with their architectural styles (see Exhibit 7). The consultant made the following recommendations (staff comments follow each item): Some of the guest parking spaces will be difficult to exit. The parking spaces are functional as proposed and it is desirable to have on -site guest parking. 2. Side by side units with small distances between them pose potential privacy issues. The applicant modified window sizes, and heights to minimize privacy impacts. Pages 5 and 6 of the Architectural Consultant's report, Exhibit 7, show original and revised elevations. If units 6 and 7 were attached, privacy impacts would be reduced further as it would increase the spacing between units 5 and 6 and between units 7 and 8. If the Planning Commission determines that attaching units 6 and 7 is appropriate, condition of approval #4 should be retained, and staff and the Architectural Consultant will work with the applicant to incorporate the change when construction plans are prepared. While the applicant prefers to have all of the units detached, staff believes that attaching two units would provide better spacing for the rear units. 3. The porch depth is not consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines which calls for at least 6 feet. The porches in question are on units 3, 4 and 5. The covered porch for unit 4 is primarily a covered entry, and not intended to be a usable front porch. The Architectural Consultant commented that the less than optimal porch depth could be acceptable given the low fenced yard areas facing onto Union Avenue, where distinct personalities can be created for each house. 4. The facades for units 6, 7 and 8 could be improved as focal points. The Architectural Consultant commented that changes that were made to the design are acceptable. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 258 Union Avenue/U 13 012 M-13-004, ND -13 -002 S -13 -020 through S -13 -027 December 11, 2013 5. The belly band on homes with shingle siding is too deep and heavy. The depth of the belly band was reduced as recommended. 6 The use of fiber cement shingles rather than wood is a lesser grade siding material. Staff viewed a recently built house with the proposed synthetic shingles and believes it is an acceptable exterior material. The appearance will be similar to that of wood shingles and the proposed siding will be painted, making it difficult to discern that the material is not wood. If the Planning Commission determines that wood shingles would be more appropriate, a condition of approval can be added requiring this change and it will be incorporated into the construction plans. Story poles have been placed on the site to aid in the review of the project. The poles and netting have been in place since October 22, 2013. B. Below Market Price Unit Unit 2 has been designated as a Below Market Price (BMP) unit. The proposed unit is just over 2,200 square feet and includes three bedrooms, two baths, and a two -car garage. This will be one of the larger BMP units in the Town's inventory and the first for -sale unit in this area of Town. The only existing affordable housing in the area is senior housing on Anne Way. As required by the BMP Guidelines, the unit will be a low income unit (80% of the median area income). Conditions #5 and #6 pertain to the provision and sale of the BMP unit. C. Floor Area and Building Coverage There is not a floor area ratio (FAR) for the C -1 zone. The FAR for the proposed eight units is .62 which is not uncommon for a multiple family or small lot single family project. For comparison purposes, FARs for surrounding properties are as follows: Townhouses on the north side: .48 to .66 Single - family homes to the east (rear): .19 to .40 Office building on the south side: .23 Duplexes to south of office building: .24 to .28 The single - family homes behind the site range in size from 1,487 to 3,165 square feet. The townhouses to the north range in size from 1,261 to 2,005 square feet. The office building to the south is 2,606 square feet and the duplexes beyond are 1,974 to 2,440 square feet. At 31% building coverage, the project is consistent with the allowable coverage of 50% for the C -1 zone and with the 40% allowable coverage for the R -1 and RM zones. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 258 Union Avenue/U -13 -012 M -13 -004 ND -13 -002 5 -13 -020 through S-13-027 December 11, 2013 D. Neighborhood Compatibility The density of the proposed project is 9.3 units per acre which is in the Medium Density Residential range (5 to 12 units per acre). The BMP unit has not been included in the density calculation as allowed by General Plan Policy. Given the mix of single family homes, higher density townhomes, duplexes and commercial uses in the immediate area, the proposed project would be a transition from the townhomes to the north to the duplexes to the south. The rear setback is consistent with that required for the single - family homes behind the site. The design of the units is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines, the architectural styles would fit into the existing streetscape, and the proposed building heights are compatible with existing buildings in the immediate area. E. Green Buildine The project was reviewed using the Build It Green standards adopted by Town Council on June 2, 2008, and it was determined that certification requirements can be met. A preliminary checklist completed by the applicant shows that the project will exceed the minimum number of points (50) needed to achieve certification with a score of 61. Condition #9 requires the project to be certified as green prior to issuance of building permits. The checklist must be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional. F. Trees and Landscaning The development plans were reviewed by the Town's Consulting Arborist, Deborah Ellis, and a report was prepared (see Exhibit 8). Eight existing trees are all located along the east (rear) property line. One Black Walnut is dead and will be removed. The remaining trees are in fair to poor condition. Although the Consulting Arborist recommended that two trees be removed and noted that five trees are debatable for retention since they are growing into overhead lines, the applicant would like to retain the trees since they provide screening for the home behind the site. New trees will be planted along the rear property line to fill in gaps and provide additional screening (see landscape plan, sheet LP -I of the development plans, Exhibit 13). Additional planting will be done around the units, in the common area, and along the property frontage. Landscaping along the side property lines will be vines on trellises. G. Fencing The applicant is proposing six -foot high wood fences for private yards and trash enclosures (see sheet LP -3 of the development plans, Exhibit 13). The noise study that was prepared for the project recommends an eight -foot barrier at the rear of private yard for unit 3. Section 29.40.030(4) of the Zoning Ordinance allows fences up to eight -feet in height when there is a privacy concern. Staff believes that this section of the Code supports a fence higher than six feet as it would provide more privacy for the private year for unit 3 as well as reducing the noise impact from Union Avenue. Unit 2 is the only unit with a rear yard facing Union Avenue. Condition of approval #5 has been included allowing the higher fencing in this location. The fence will be setback 25 feet from Union Avenue leaving adequate space for landscaping between the fence and street. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 8 258 Union Avenue/U 13 012 M-13-004, ND -13 -002 5 -13 -020 through 5 -13 -027 December 11, 2013 The applicant has also proposed to add a two foot extension to the existing 6 -foot wall along the rear property line, bringing the height of the barrier to eight feet. The intent is to increase privacy for residents living behind the site as well as for future residents of the project. Condition #5 includes approval of the eight foot high barrier. H. Traffic Pursuant to the Town's Traffic Impact Policy, the traffic generation associated with the former use of a site is factored in when determining the traffic impact of a proposed development, and for purposes of determining if a traffic impact mitigation fee will be required. A traffic impact analysis was not required because the former use (high turnover restaurant and bar) generated more average daily trips than the proposed eight residential units, and because the proposed residential use will not generate more than 19 peak period trips. I. General Plan Conformance Applicable goals and policies of the 2020 General Plan include the following: • Policy LU -1.4: Infill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. • Goal LU -4: To provide for well - planned, careful growth that reflects the Town's existing character and infrastructure. • Goal LU -6: To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in residential neighborhoods. • Policy LU -6.5: The type, density and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood • Goal LU -7: To use available land efficiently by encouraging appropriate infill development. • Policy HOU -2.4: Demonstrate that all new residential development is sufficiently served by public services and facilities, including pedestrian and vehicular circulation, water and wastewater services, police, fire, schools, and parks. • Goal HOU -4: Ensure that all persons have equal access to housing opportunities. • Policy HOU -9.1: All approvals of residential developments of three or more units shall include a finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 9 258 Union Avenue/U -13 -012 M -13 -004 ND -13 -002 S-13-020 through S-13-027 December 11, 2013 J. CEOA Determination 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 ends on December 9, 2013. Mitigation measures are required for Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials and Noise. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is Exhibit 4. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval (Exhibit 6). PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the project site. House occupants are noticed in addition to the property owner where the owner does not reside on the property. All apartment occupants living in complexes within the notice area were included in the noticing. The applicant contacted surrounding residents and made modifications to the plans to address privacy concerns. A summary of the applicant's outreach efforts is contained in the letter of justification (see pages 4 and 5 of Exhibit 11). Exhibit 9 is a letter from residents on Thomas Drive and Exhibit 10 is a petition from Howes Court and Hershner Court residents. Neighbors are concerned about the number and size of proposed units, and visual and privacy impacts. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The project complies with applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with applicable provisions of the Residential Design Guidelines. The proposed project will provide one BMP unit in an area of Town where there are not presently any affordable units, and the new homes will be compatible with surrounding development in terms of the architectural style, size, height and massing. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the actions outlined in the recommendation section below to approve the subject applications. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to approve the applications: 1. Make the Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Exhibit 4); 2. Make the required findings for the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit 5); 3. Make the required findings for a residential project with three or more units (Exhibit 5); 4. Find that the project is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 5); Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 10 258 Union Avenue/U-13-012, M-13-004, ND -13 -002 S -13 -020 through S -13 -027 December 11, 2013 5. Find that the project is consistent with the considerations for approval of Architecture and Site applications; and 6. Approve Conditional Use Permit application U -13 -012, Subdivision application M -13 -004 and Architecture and Site applications S -13 -020 through S -13 -027, subject the conditions in Exhibit 6 and the development plans (Exhibit 11). Alternatively, the Commission may take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the applications with additional and/or modified conditions of approval; or 2. Continue to a date certain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on desired plan changes; or 3. Make the findings to deny the subdivision and/or Conditional Use Permit and deny the applications. Prepared by: Approved by: Suzanne Avila, AICP any L. Baily, AICP Senior Planner Director of Community Development SLB:SA:ct cc: Valley One Investment, LLC, 12280 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Ste.107, Saratoga, CA 95070 Chris Kummerer, CKA Architects, 2089 Avy Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025 N: \DEV\PC REPORTS \2013 \Unian258 -TM -A &Salo