Loading...
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