Addendumto x F MEETING DATE: 04/14/14
ITEM NO.
I ADDENDUM
s sAt COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 11, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION U -13 -020, ARCHITECTURE
AND SITE APPLICATION S -13 -050. PROPERTY LOCATION: 16268 LOS
GATOS BOULEVARD. PROPERTY OWNER: FOX CREEK FUND LLC
APPLICANT: GARY KOHLSAAT, ARCHITECT. APPELLANT: MARSHALL
SMITH.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OFFICE BUILDING ON
PROPERTY ZONED C -1. APN 532 -06 -060.
REMARKS:
The attached letter (Attachment 10) was received from the appellant after the staff report for this
item was distributed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Previously provided on March 28.2014:
1. February 26, 2014 Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits 1 -11
2. February 26, 2014 Planning Commission meeting verbatim minutes (35 transcribed pages)
3. Appeal Statement, received March 10, 2014 (one page)
Received with staff report:
4. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
5. Draft Resolution for denial of the appeal and approval of the project (three pages), with
Exhibits A and B
6. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission (three
pages)
PREPARED BY: SANDY L. BAILY P
Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager -f-WON
N:\DEV\TC REPORTS\2014\LGB 16268- appwL4.DD.dm Reformatted: 5 /30/02
Attorney Finance
Revised: 4 /11/14 9:31 AM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Appeal for 16268 Los Gatos Blvd./U- 13- 020/S -13 -050
April 11, 2014
7. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the project (three pages)
8. Letter from the property owner's attorney (four pages)
9. Letter from the applicant (one page)
Received with this Addendum:
10. Letter from the appellant (14 Pages)
Distribution
cc: Florian Barth, Fox Creek Fund, LLC, 15466 Los Gatos Boulevard, Suites 109 -153, Los Gatos,
CA 95032
Gary Kohlsaat, Architect, 51 University Avenue, Suite L, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Marshall Smith, 129 Greendale Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
SLB:SA:cgt
N:\DEV\TC REPORTS\2014\C.GB16268 -appe LkDD.dm
Re: 16268 Los Gatos Blvd.
Los Gatos CA 95032
Honorable Mayor and members of the Town Council:
My name is Marshall Smith; I live in Los Gatos as do my brothers
Marlon Smith and Myron Smith. We own the property located on
the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Shannon Road,
immediately north and adjacent to the subject property. Our
property has been in our family for two generations. We lived and
grew up on the property. We graduated from University Avenue
School, attended Louise Van Meter school the first year it opened
and we graduated from Los Gatos High School. We are proud to
members of this Community.
We appealed the Planning Commission's approval of this project
to the Town Council and you considered our appeal on December
16, 2013. The Town Council agreed with our concerns about this
project and remanded the matter back to the Planning
1 ATTACHMENT 10
Commission with specific comments and requested the
Commission give the matter further consideration. On February
26, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
matter and subsequently approved the revised project with
conditions.
It is indeed unfortunate that we are at this point because, as
business owners, we do not appreciate delays and in the
business world, time is money. My Brothers and I have reached
out to the applicant on several occasions. Recently we had a
dialog with the architect about the property. The changes that we
discussed follow:
• Push the building back an additional 10' with one row of
parking in front which will require eliminating two - three
parking spaces in the back thereby forcing a reduction the
building size by approximately 470 - 705 sf.
• Possibility of removing a tree to gain parking
Unfortunately none of these ideas were incorporated in the
current design. There has never been any kind of neighborhood
meeting regarding this project. Perhaps if there had been, we may
have been able to avoid the time delays and achieve an
acceptable solution for both parties. Sometimes there is even a
mutual benefit to merge smaller parcels but that is not why we are
concerned about this project. We are concerned because it will
set a precedent and direct future applicants, staff, and the
Planning Commission as to the design preference for not only this
section of the Boulevard but for the entire Boulevard. We believe
this is not in the best interest of the Community.
We feel that there have been mistakes made on the design of
new buildings along the Boulevard over the years and even
recently on new developments south of Blossom Hill Road where
projects have turned their backs to the Boulevard. These
concerns primarily focus on the site layout, specifically the front
setback from the Boulevard and the issue of providing at least
3
limited parking in front of buildings. We should learn important
lessons from these mistakes. Forcing all of the parking to be
located behind the new commercial buildings will create false
front doors facing the Boulevard that are never or rarely used so
virtually all access and pedestrian activity will be from the back of
the buildings. This is certainly not neighborhood or community
friendly design.
The Cornerstone Shopping Center has virtually all of its parking in
the front and that shopping center has received many accolades
for being a well designed shopping center. Can you imagine if all
the Cornerstone buildings were located up close to the street and
all the parking was behind the buildings? The Boulevard
Commercial Design Guidelines clearly address this issue in the
Introduction to Section 5A on Page 41. We believe that the
concept envisioned by the Guidelines was to avoid creating "seas
of poorly designed parking lots" as you see on El Camino and
Stevens Creek Boulevards. We believe that locating parking
behind buildings was never intended to be an edict for all new
a
development. In fact what the Commercial Guidelines say in
section 5.A.2.4 on page 43 says "Parking lots should be located
behind or to the side of buildings facing Los Gatos Boulevard,
whenever possible." With words 'Whenever possible" its hard to
understand how the Planning Commission, staff , architect
consultant and applicants are interpreting the Council's direction
on this project.
We recognize and appreciate that Los Gatos Boulevard is and
has been in transition and something new will eventually be built
on this site. We are not here to request you deny anything to be
built on this site. We are, however, requesting the appropriate
building be built on this site because it will set the Council's
direction for other future projects.
This area of Los Gatos Boulevard is evolving as demonstrated by
the new Laurel Mews project, Yoga Source, which does not have
sufficient parking, and Van Meter School. Eventually there will be
new construction on the other parcels in the immediate vicinity.
The applicant feels that he is following the Los Gatos Boulevard
Plan, the Commercial Design Guidelines as well as direction from
staff and Council but this building is just too big and is not
compatible with the area. With a reduced setback and all parking
behind the building, this building will destroy the visual continuity
of the open space associated with this area and will turn its back
to the Boulevard, not from an architectural perspective but from a
use and functional perspective.
The Town Council previously concurred with our concerns on
these points. While we appreciate the increased setback of
approximately 10' proposed by the applicant, we feel this is a
token gesture so the project could be approved as a "reasonable
compromise" but it misses the point about neighborhood setback
compatibility and about parking in front.
25
Section 5.A.2.4 of the Boulevard Guidelines states that, "Parking
lots should be located behind or to the side of buildings facing Los
Gatos Boulevard, whenever possible." It does not say "shall' as
erroneously stated previously. It is critically important to read all
of Section 5 of the Boulevard Guidelines in context. The
Guidelines, just as all standards and guidelines, must be read in
their totality and specific provisions should not be taken out of
context. Nowhere in the Guidelines does it say that all parking is
required to be located behind the building(s).
There are many statements in Section 5 of the Guidelines that are
on point to the issue of parking and Boulevard site design. This
building should reflect the setback of the Church as well as the
fact that the Church has parking in front of the building. Our
concerns are all about neighborhood context and neighborhood
compatibility.
At the first Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked
if the applicant had looked at moving the building back and the
possibility of providing a row of parking in front. The applicant
responded that this would greatly affect the parking arrangement
in the back and the size of the building would have to be reduced
which means that this arrangement will affect the economic
viability of the project. We respect the economic impacts these
kind of improvements may have on the new owner but this
developer is a seasoned veteran in the development business so
we believe that he must have anticipated these types of changes
were a possibility.
If the proposed building is approved with a 25' setback and all
parking in the rear, it will set a precedent for not only this section
of the Boulevard but for the entire Boulevard.
This portion of the Boulevard is two lanes in each direction
transitioning to 3 lanes heading north towards Blossom Hill Road,
and heading south towards Main Street transitions at Louise Van
Meter School to 1 lane each way. This portion of the Boulevard is
distinctly different from the six lane portion from Magneson Loop
to Lark Avenue and should reflect the existing visual continuity of
8
nearby buildings that have a greater setback starting with the
Trinity building and continuing to Magneson Loop.
The new residential project, Laurel Mews, has 13 to 16' setbacks
along the Boulevard and there is no pedestrian access to these
homes from the Boulevard. All access is from the backside or
from the side streets. We should learn from this project because it
fails to respect the neighborhood context and literally turns its
back to the Boulevard so we get to see the backs of the homes
and their HVAC units as we travel along the Boulevard. At a
minimum, there should have been an attractive, well landscaped,
and decorative wall constructed along the Boulevard as the Town
required on other recent projects located along busy arterial
streets throughout Town.
The proposed building has an entry facing the Boulevard, but all
parking is behind, underneath with some parking on the side of
the building. There is no street parking allowed on this two lane
stretch of the Boulevard. The front entrance will seldom be used
9
or more than likely the door will be locked for security reasons. If
visitors do try to use the "front door" they will have to walk all the
way around the building and there's no sidewalk so they will have
to avoid the cars that will be entering or leaving on the common
driveway used by the new building and our building. We anticipate
that all employees and visitors will enter from the back of the
building. That's not pedestrian or neighborhood friendly design.
The door on the street to the Morgan Stanley office facing
Blossom Hill Road is a good example. The door is always locked.
Anyone who wishes to go to Morgan Stanley enters from the
parking lot behind. Across the street where Chipotle is located
none of the doors on Blossom Hill Blvd are used.
Previously, at the Boulevard Charrettes, also known as
Community Meetings, there were presentations illustrating the
use of frontage driveways to create a more pedestrian friendly
atmosphere of the buildings facing the Boulevard.
This arrangement allows vehicles to drive in and park in front of
the building without impeding traffic movement and is buffered
10
from the street with a wide, dense landscape buffer. The larger
parking area is located behind the buildings similar to the Church.
There are examples of newer buildings with this arrangement on
the Boulevard north of Lark Avenue. These buildings are on a
section of the Boulevard that has no on- street parking just like the
section where the proposed building in question is located. If
these buildings had a 15'- 25' setback from the Boulevard and all
parking was located behind the buildings, there would be no
reason for pedestrians to come around to the front to enter the
building. The result would be a wall of buildings for several
hundred feet with no foot traffic in front. On page 41 of the
Commercial Guidelines is a picture of these buildings
demonstrating the landscaping and parking in front.
The same frontage drive arrangement is possible on the site of
the proposed building with a single row of parking. We believe
that this design change for the proposed building would be GOOD
FOR THE COMMUNITY because it will be sensitive to the
transition of the character of the area and the residents of Los
FFI
Gatos would prefer buildings with a low visual impact on the
Boulevard. We respect that the Town is trying to address the
visual impact of parking lots adjacent to the Boulevard but we feel
that the goal envisioned by the Boulevard Plan was to prevent a
sea of parking and that, it may be better to allow parking in front
of a building if it is appropriately screened from the street.
Some of the members of the Planning Commission originally
expressed their concern for having this building placed so close to
the Boulevard. However, when the Commission more recently
considered the project they did not even discuss the possibility of
a row of parking in front because, as one Commissioner
commented, "putting parking in front of the building isn't
something we should consider." We believe that the Commission
was reacting to individual Council comments as Council direction.
Their comments, both pro and con, about the building setback
and limited parking in front of the building are well founded and
should have been exhaustive so they could assist the Council
when deliberating our appeal.
12
Another issue that the Planning Commission and Town Council
discussed was setting the second story back and installing a
balcony in front. The balcony is included and this will greatly
improve the articulation of the building but simply creating
covered balconies on the upper level with the roof still extending
to the front of the lower floor is an insufficient change to make a
significant difference architecturally. If the second story roof were
also pulled back, it would create a dramatic difference on this
section of the Boulevard. An example of our suggested
modification is obvious on the Yoga Source building across the
street.
We believe that the Town Council was correct in remanding this
application back to the Planning Commission. The site is NOT
TOO SMALL, THE BUILDING IS JUST TOO BIG AND TOO
CLOSE TO THE STREET. THE BUILDING SHOULD ALSO
HAVE A SINGLE ROW OF PARKING IN FRONT.
13
Trying to squeeze as large of a building as possible onto this site
is the economic approach which is at the expense of the visual
continuity of the area and doesn't contribute anything to the
neighborhood.
On behalf of all of the residents of the Community, we thank you
for carefully considering our concerns. If you have any questions,
please call me at (408) 888 -0002.
Sincerely,
Marshall Smith
14