Attachment 3w. TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM
Meeting Date: December 11, 2013
PREPARED BY:
Suzanne Avila, AICP, Senior Planner
savilaWosgatosca gov
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:
258 Union Avenue (north side of Union Avenue, east of Los
Gatos - Almaden Road)
APPLICANT/
CONTACT PERSON:
Chris Kummerer, Architect
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Valley One Investment, LLC
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
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
EXHIBITS:
1.-11. Previously received under separate cover.
12. Letter from Lee Quintana (two pages), received December
9, 2013
13. Email correspondence from Shigong Liu and Hui Li (one
page), received December 10, 2013
REMARKS:
Exhibits 12 and 13 are correspondence that was received after the Planning Commission packets
had been delivered.
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
258 Union Avenue/U 13 012 M-13-0o4. ND -13 -002 S -13 -020 through S -13 -027
December 11, 2013
�
Ya
Prepared by:
Suzanne Avila, AICP
Senior Planner
SLB:SA:ct
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2013\Union258- TM-dsk.dm
Approved b
Sandy L. B ly, AICP
Director of Community Development
RECEIVED
To: Chair Charles Erekson and Planning Commissioners DEC 10 2013
From: Lee Quintana TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISIOA
Subject: Agenda Item #5 December 11, 2013
258 Union Avenue
Applications U -13 -012, M -13 -004, ND -13 -002, A &S S -13 -20 to S -13 -27
This application raises two important questions not addressed by the CDAC, the Negative
Declaration or the Staff Report.
While the request for a CUP to allow a residential use over the entire site zoned C -1 is
creative, is it an appropriate use of a CUP? residential use over the entire C -1 site? If the
CUP is not approved by the Planning Commission how will it affect the remaining applications
for this project?
What are the appropriate General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations for this project at
this site?
I request that the Planning Commission address both of these questions. If the CUP is not
appropriate and not approved it could affect the Commissions ability to approve the Sub - division
application and /or the A &S application.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
There are numerous C -1 and C -2 sites in Town that have approved CUP's allowing residential
uses.
Most if not all, of those CUP's allow residential uses either above or behind a commercial use
1. They do not foreclose the possibility commercial use on the site. 2
In this case there would be no commercial use and the application for a CUP therefore, would
circumvent the need for a General Plan Amendment and a rezoning consistent with the
residential use proposed.
The applicant also stated he applied for a CUP because the site is too small to allow a PD
application. Even if that were not the case, the use of a PD for this project would also to be an
attempt to circumvent the need for a General Plan Amendment
I For example:
Living units over the Le Boulanger, Living units over the offices behind the building that houses Willow
Pizza and Main Street Burgers, Living units over the commercial building on the corner of Main and
College, and over various businesses on the North side of Main Street near the Town Center. There are
also living units over retail or office on Santa Cruz to the north of Highway 9.
2 Given the fact that there has been no interest for commercial development on this site and the life span
of new residential construction, the possibility of commercial development on the site within the horizon of
the 2020 General Plan is extremely
EXHIBIT 12
ofAttachment 3
The approval of this CUP (or a PD if it were possible) would add to the number of sites in
Town where the General Plan Land Use Map not longer accurately reflects the actual use on
the ground. 3
While the Table of Conditional Use includes several possible residential uses for the C -1
district,
Section 29.20.180. however states ,, ...the listing of a conditional use does not indicate that the
use must be allowed. There will be locations or instances where a specified conditional use is
inappropriate in a zone regardless of the extent of regulation (emphasis added).
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR CUP Sec. 29.20.190 list 4 findings applicable to this application:
a. The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public convenience
or welfare;
b. The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone
c. The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare,
and (emphasis added)
d. The proposed uses of the property are n harmony with the various elements and
objectives of the general plan and purposes of this chapter.
Exhibit 5 of staff report lists the required findings including how the project meets the findings.
I disagree with staffs finding for #2 which states: 'The proposed uses will not impair the
integrity and character of the zone. The project density will provide a transition between the
townhouses to the north and the duplexes to the south, will fit into the existing streetscape,
and will improve the appearance of the site which has been vacant since 2001"
1. Whether or not one agrees with Staffs statement is not the issue.
2. The issue is that the statement does not address the required finding that the CUP
does not impair the integrity and character of the zone.
c The .... . CUE! impairs ._
the permitted uses in h
Thank you for your consideration,
Lee Quintana
3 The approval of a CUP (or a PD, if it were possible) for this project will add to the growing number of
sites where the General Plan is not consistent with the actual use on the ground - I refer here to relatively
recent projects not to ones that were built in the past and the General Plan Land Use Category was
subsequently changed.
Suzanne Avila
rom:
,ent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Commissioners,
Shigong Liu <liu_shigong @yahoo.com>
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:24 AM
Suzanne Avila
Hui Li; Shigong Liu
Concern about the 258 Union development
We're writing to express our concerns regarding the house development project at 258 Union Avenue
Union Orchards ".
From the poles that were setup to outline the future buildings, the proposed 2 -story houses are too
high and too close to the wall of our backyard and our home. And as our house is at the bottom of the
court, the wall of our backyard to the new house development is very long, there will be 2 -3 new
houses directly face our backyard, our living room and our master bedroom. We have two 10 -year old
kids, a boy and a girl, they stay at the living room, backyard and master bedroom most of the time
when we are at home. With the proposed new houses, we feel we don't have the precious privacy
anymore, as our normal activities are possibly all under others' eyes. On the other hand, our 2 side
yards, backyard, our living room and master bedroom will be blocked from sunshine from noon to the
evening with the proposed new buildings. You can imagine how our life will be affected with less and
shorter sunlight time, and living under the stress of being peeked.
'e hope the constructor could decrease the number of new houses and increase the distance to our
,ckyard. Meanwhile, we hope the constructor could lower the height of new buildings to single story
houses.
Please do not allow this planned development to be built.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Shigong Liu
Hui Li
259 Howes Ct.
Los Gatos, CA, 95032
EXHIBIT 13
ofAttacbtnent 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank