Staff Reportto M of MEETING DATE: 06/02/15
_ ITEM NO. � a
YRr,• j l
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MAY 27, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANA
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U -13 -012, SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-
13 -004, AND ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S -13 -020
THROUGH S -13 -027. 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 APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT EIGHT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY ZONED C -1. APN 527-
44 -012 AND 527 -44 -013.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving
Conditional Use Permit application U -13 -012, Subdivision application M -13 -004, and
Architecture and Site applications S -13 -020 through S -13 -027 (Attachment 11).
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. The site has
a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial and is zoned C -1
Neighborhood Commercial.
On November 14, 2012, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) considered
plans for an eight unit detached condominium project. The CDAC summary minutes are
attached as Exhibit 1 I of Attachment 1. The applicant made revisions to the plans based on the
CDAC comments and submitted a formal application package, including a Conditional Use
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI
Assistant Town Manager /Co Dev &ent erector
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Klein own Attorney N/A Finance
N: \DEV\TC REPORTS \2015 \Union258- appeal.docx Reformatted: 5 /30/02 Revised: 5/27/15 9:14 AM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/U -13 -012, M -13 -004, 5 -13 -020 THROUGH S -13 -027
May 27, 2015
Permit (CUP), in March 2013. The revisions included adding guest parking spaces, modifying
the garage entries and orientation, reducing the size of the units, and modifying the architectural
styles of the units.
On December 11, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Subdivision, and Architecture and Site applications.
The Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and denied all of the development
applications based on concerns about the proposed development intensity, the proposal for
detached condominium units, and the impact on the single - family homes located behind the
project site.
The decision of the Planning Commission on the CUP, Subdivision, and Architecture and Site
applications was appealed by the property owner on December 20, 2013.
On March 17, 2014, the Town Council considered the appeal of the applications. Following the
public hearing and Council discussion the Council adopted Resolution 2014 -013 (Exhibit 2 of
Attachment 1) granting the appeal and remanding the applications back to the Planning
Commission for further consideration of the proposed project in terms of the site layout and
number of units in relation to the General Plan, Conditional Use Permit findings (Town Code
Section 29.20.190), Architecture and Site considerations (Town Code Section 29.20.150),
Residential Design Guidelines, and Subdivision Map Act (see Attachment 7 for the verbatim
transcript).
On June 11, 2014, the applicant submitted a revised application package for the proposed project
to address the issues previously raised by the Planning Commission and the Town Council. Over
the next five months, staff worked with the applicant to refine their revised proposal prior to
review by the Planning Commission.
The revised application package was originally noticed and scheduled for the December 10, 2014
Planning Commission meeting. However, the property owner requested and was granted a
continuance of their item.
On January 28, 2015, the Planning Commission received public testimony, discussed the
proposed project, and continued the applications to February 25, 2015 with the following
direction:
• To study the shade and shadow impacts to the neighbors, and return with potential
solutions, as needed, to address these impacts such as removing or modifying the second
stories.
On February 25, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the applications with a
condition requiring three of the four rear units (Units 6, 7, and 8) to be revised to be single -story,
not two -story (see Exhibit A of Attachment 11 for the project conditions). This condition was
intended to address the concerns of the neighbors living east of the site.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/U -13 -012, M -13 -004, S -13 -020 THROUGH S -13 -027
May 27, 2015
The vote of the Commission was 4 -3 with the majority of the Commission (Commissioners
O'Donnell, Erekson, Kane, and Chair Burch) determining that the required findings could be
made for the proposed project as modified. Commissioners Talesfore, Hanssen, and Badame
provided a number of concerns which included, but was not limited to traffic, circulation, safety,
provision of ground floor bedrooms, and that a General Plan amendment and zone change should
be pursued instead of a CUP. Attachments 8 and 9 contain a verbatim transcript of each
Planning Commission meeting, respectively.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Lee Quintana on March 23, 2015,
The Town Council is the deciding body for the appeal (see Attachment 10).
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to construct eight residential condominiums, inclusive of one
Below Market Price (BMP) unit. All of the units reviewed by the Planning Commission in
2015 were proposed to be two- stories with heights ranging from 25 feet 2 inches to 27 feet 8
inches. Each unit has a different exterior design and color palette. Attachments 1 through 6
include additional details and analysis of the project reviewed by the Planning Commission
in January and February 2015.
B. Appeal
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Lee Quintana on March 23, 2015
(see Attachment 10). The applicant submitted a letter in response to the appeal (see
Attachment 14).
The appeal is based on the appellant's assertion that the Planning Commission erred or
abused its discretion, that new information was not provided to the Commission that should
have been, and that this is an issue or policy that is vested in the Town Council. The
appellant raises issues that consist of (1) process and application types and (2) project
specific concerns. This report does not give a point by point analysis of all of the concerns
mentioned in the appeal. Instead, the major issues are consolidated and summarized below
(in italic type) with responses (in non - italic type). If the Council would like responses to
specific items in the appeal, staff can provide them in a Desk Item or verbally at the Council
meeting.
Process and Application Types
One of the fundamental concerns raised by the appellant is that a residential use of the
property should not be considered through a Conditional Use Permit process but rather
through General Plan land use designation change and rezoning processes.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/U -13 -012, M -13 -004, 5 -13 -020 THROUGH S -13 -027
May 27, 2015
The Town Code provides for a change of use with a Conditional Use Permit and requires
findings to be made, including a finding that the proposed use is in harmony with the various
elements or objectives of the General Plan. Specifically, the Zoning Ordinance currently
allows an applicant to apply for a CUP for residential condominiums in the C -1
(Neighborhood Commercial) zone (the designation of the subject property). Additionally,
residential condominium projects may also permitted with an approved CUP in the O
(Office), C -2 (Central Business District), CH (Restricted Commercial Highway), and LM
(Limited Manufacturing) zoning designations.
Many of the process issues raised by the appellant will be considered by the Planned
Development Study Committee recently appointed by the Town Council. This Committee's
work will examine Planned Development Zoning and Conditional Use Permits, and
recommend potential Code modifications. Any proposed Code amendment would include
Planning Commission review and recommendation, and Town Council consideration. The
Study Committee provides an appropriate forum address many of the appellant's concerns.
The Commission did not have the verbatim transcript of the Town Council's March 17, 2014
meeting and therefore, it did not have a consistent understanding of the Council's remanding
of the item.
The Town's practice, until now, has not been to prepare verbatim minutes of items remanded
back to the Planning Commission. The staff report to the Planning Commission identified
the major issues associated with the remand and the video of the Council's discussion is
available on the Town's website. At the applicant's expense, a transcript of the 2014 Council
meeting has been be prepared and is provided in Attachment 7. Staff has also worked with
the appellant in response to requests for information.
Project Specific Concerns
The current appeal is also based on an interpretation of Council's direction from the 2014
appeal, which was to evaluate the proposal against the Town's multiple - family development
standards and policies as contained in the Zoning Ordinance and other Town documents.
In common parlance, condominiums are typically thought of as a single building with
multiple - family units. A condominium development also communicates ownership units and
not rental units. In this case, the applications propose single - family homes with commonly
owned open space and private streets. The proposed Tentative Map for condominium
purposes is a mechanism to create the commonly owned open space, private streets, and
single- family condominium units. Since the proposed units are single- family homes,
multiple - family standards do not apply to this development proposal.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE /U -13 -012, M -13 -004, 5 -13 -020 THROUGH 5 -13 -027
May 27, 2015
The appeal asserts that the proposed project does not adhere to the standards and
regulations for the C -1 designations. Instead, the proposed project cherry picks standards
and regulations from various zoning districts.
The proposal meets all of the C -1 development standards in the Town Code.
CONCLUSION:
Staff does not believe the Planning Commission erred and there is no new information. The
condition they placed on the project to reduce three of the four rear units to single -story units
was a reasonable compromise to address the neighbors' concerns regarding privacy and solar
access. Therefore, it is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve the subject applications, and adopt the
resolution in Attachment 11 approving the subject applications subject to the conditions
contained in Exhibit A of Attachment 11.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has three alternatives to the staff recommendation:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 12) granting the appeal and remanding the project to the
Planning Commission with specific direction. This alternative requires the determination
by Town Council that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or
modified based on one or more of the following findings, 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
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.
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 13) granting the appeal and denying one or more of the
proposed applications. This alternative requires the determination by Town Council that
the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified based on one or
more of the following findings outlined in Section 1 of the Alternatives section above.
Additionally, this alternative also requires a determination by Town Council regarding
one or more of the following required findings for denial of one or more of the
applications:
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/U -13 -012, M -13 -004, S -13 -020 THROUGH 5 -13 -027
May 27, 2015
a. One or more of the following findings required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town
Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit could not be made:
1. The proposed use of the property is essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare;
2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
3. The proposed use would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general
welfare; and
4. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the various elements or
objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the Town Code.
b. The proposed development is not consistent with Policy HOU -8.1 of the Town's
Housing Element does not address the Town's housing needs as identified in the
Housing Element.
c. The project is not in compliance with the Town Code and Residential Design
Guidelines for single- family homes not in hillside residential areas.
d. One or more of the following findings can be made, as required by Section 66474 of
the State Subdivision Map Act to deny the subdivision application:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans
as specified in Section 65451.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision.
e. One or more of the considerations required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for review of an Architecture and Site application could not be made for this project.
3. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific facts supporting the findings
as to how the Planning Commission erred or that additional information was provided or that this
was an issue or policy which is vested in the Council must be incorporated into the resolution
(Attachment 12 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 13 if denying one or
more of the applications).
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE /U -13 -012, M -13 -004, S -13 -020 THROUGH S -13 -027
May 27, 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the previously proposed
project. The Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan on December 11, 2013. No further environmental analysis is
required for this project.
COORDINATION:
The evaluation of the application was coordinated with the Town's Parks and Public Works
Department and the County Fire Department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
1. December 10, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report (including Exhibits 1 — 16)
2. December 10, 2014 Planning Commission Desk Item
3. January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report
4. January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Desk Item (including Exhibits 17 -19)
5. February 25, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (including Exhibits 20 and 21)
6. February 25, 2015 Planning Commission Desk Item (including Exhibits 22 -23 )
7. March 17, 2014 Town Council Verbatim Minutes (57 transcribed pages)
8. January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (80 transcribed pages)
9. February 25, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (76 transcribed pages)
10. Appeal from Lee Quintana, received March 9, 2015 (seven pages)
11. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and approve the applications with Exhibit A (20 pages)
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the applications to the Planning Commission
(four pages)
13. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the applications (five pages)
14. Letter from applicant, received May 26, 2015 (12 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
LRP:JSP:cg