Loading...
Desk Item # 10 15975 Union Ave.1pW N OF !p8 GASpS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: MAY 3, 2016 MEETING DATE: 05/03/16 ITEM NO: 10 DESK ITEM TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL ����� FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGE SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M -15 -001. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S -15 -009 THROUGH S -15 -011. PROJECT LOCATION: 15975 UNION AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: BETCHART UNION AVE JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP. APPLICANT /APPELLANT: GARY KOHLSAAT, ARCHITECT. CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE, SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO THREE LOTS, CONSTRUCT THREE NEW SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:10. APN 523 -42 -017. REMARKS: The attached emails (Attachment 14) were received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday April 28, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday May 3, 2016. After the distribution of the Town Council packet, staff received a number of questions from a Council Member. The questions are in bold followed by staff's response. There is some question of safety going from two houses to three houses using the shared driveway on to Union Avenue. After the dedications at this corner, the three proposed units seem much safer than before. The corner currently is very narrow and there is no room for bikes or pedestrians to go around the corner without being in the travel lane. The resulting intersection will now have a sidewalk and a much wider pavement area for bicycles allowing them to stay out of the car travel lane. PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON Community Development Director Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Yj own Attorney *Finance S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016 \5- 3- 16 \10. Union Ave 15975 \Staff Report - DESK. V2.doc 5/32016 2:39 PM EW PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE /M -15- 009 /S -15 -009 THROUGH S -15 -011 MAY 3, 2016 REMARKS (CONTINUED): a. What is Engineering's opinion on this? Staff considers the project's frontage improvements to be an upgrade for the safety of pedestrian and bicycle movements at this intersection. In addition to the new sidewalk that would provide connection between Blossom Hill Road and Union Avenue at the northwest corner of this intersection, there would also be new green bike lanes installed and an east -west crosswalk with pedestrian signals at the intersection of Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road. The right -of -way improvements would be required regardless of the number of homes. b. Further down Union Avenue there is a middle turn lane where cars can turn into before entering the traffic lane and wait in while making a left turn. Can we have one of these lanes in the area now that the street would be wider allowing easier turns from this drive and both of the courts nearby (across the street and the one down on the same side)? Currently there is not enough transition distance to meet required traffic engineering standards and allow for a middle lane both to the north and south of the development entrance. The parking along southbound Union in front of the development could be removed to gain the required transition distance. The applicant has proposed the left hand turn lane from northbound Union Avenue into the development, which could be accommodated but is considered non- standard for use of only three homes. c. Would it be safer to require the westernmost lot to have an entrance onto Blossom Hill Road instead, reducing to only two houses exiting onto Union Avenue? Is safety a big enough concern to require this? Staff does not believe it would be safer than the proposed access on Union Avenue. Access from Union Avenue is preferred over Blossom Hill Road because: the traffic volumes on Union Avenue are lower than those on Blossom Hill Road; residents will be able to turn left or right; there are adequate gaps in traffic flow to allow left turns onto Union Avenue; and the distance from Blossom Hill Road allows adequate visibility. d. There seems to be a CDAC direction to use the shared drive rather than entrances on Blossom Bill Road. Please clarify what direction was given the developer at CDAC? Preliminary plans were reviewed by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) on August 13, 2014. CDAC meeting minutes are included as Exhibit 3 of Attachment 1. The applicant provided responses to the CDAC comments in Exhibit 6 of Attachment 1. PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE /M -15- 009 /S -15 -009 THROUGH S -15 -011 MAY 3, 2016 REMARKS (CONTINUED): At the August 13, 2014 CDAC meeting, site access off of Union Avenue was preferred for the subject site (Exhibit 4 of Attachment 1). Access from Union Avenue is preferred over Blossom Hill Road because the: traffic volumes on Union Avenue are lower than those on Blossom Hill Road; residents will be able to turn right or left; there are adequate gaps in traffic flow to allow left turns onto Union Avenue; and the distance from Blossom Hill Road allows adequate visibility. 2. There is some question about a shared driveway with easement being a problem. It seems this is not uncommon in Los Gatos. In fact, the homes just behind the project have four houses using a shared drive from Blossom Hill Road. Please comment if the Town has any policy /ordinances that discourage this or prevent? There are four parcels located directly west of the proposed project which utilizes one driveway access onto Blossom Hill Road. A forty-foot ingress - egress easement exists for the benefit of the parcels located to the rear. The Town does not have a policy or ordinance that discourages or prevents shared driveways with easements. 3. The Planning Commission made the finding that this project does not follow the General Plan. What about the General Plan is the project not following? Is the project following zoning or setbacks? The staff reports mentions keeping a small town character but adding two units does not affect small town character especially when compared to other approved projects in Town. Does the General Plan say the Town should reject a project that adds a house? Planning Commission stated that the project does not meet two of the General Plan's Land Use Element's goals, specifically: Goal LU -1 - To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small -town character and quality of life within Los Gatos. Goal LU -4 - To provide for well - planned, careful growth that reflects the Town's existing character and infrastructure. The proposed project meets all of the technical zoning standards for the R -1:10 zone including lot size, floor area, lot coverage, setbacks, height, and on -site parking. The General Plan does not say that a project should be rejected if a project adds an additional home. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE/M -15- 009 /5 -15 -009 THROUGH 5 -15 -011 MAY 3, 2016 REMARKS (CONTINUED): 4. Does staff have suggestion for changes to the project that could save trees? Is there any tree(s) that would be more important to save? The applicant is proposing to remove all on -site trees due to the proposed project's public improvements, on -site grading, drainage plan, and location of the building footprints. The project site contains 112 trees (on -site and adjacent): 67 are protected trees and 45 are not protected. Two protected trees are dead; and 19 protected trees are in poor condition. 15 protected trees are in fair condition and three trees which are in good condition are located within the proposed public right -of -way dedication and would be required to be removed. The applicant provided an Arborist report for the site (Exhibit 8 of Attachment 1) which was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 9 of Attachment 1). The Consultant made recommendations for protecting the four trees on the neighbor's property. The Consulting Arborist also made recommendations to attempt to save the redwood tree (tree #1723) located on the eastern portion of the site. The Consultant found, like the applicant's arborist, that the tree is only in fair condition. Due to the new public sidewalk and dedication, required biotreatment swale, and the house's front porch, the tree could not be saved. Staff and the applicant has considered saving the following additional trees: Tree #1666 —16 -inch Deodar Cedar, Good Condition (in Northwest property comer) 0.5- 1 foot of fill in the area. Tree #1735 — 36 -inch Stone Pine, Fair Condition (in back yard of Lot 1) - The plan proposes three feet of cut in the area and the tree is only six feet from the house foundation, a three to four feet high retaining wall around the tree would need to be added. Tree #1740 — 8 -inch Coast Oak (in east side yard of Lot 2) — The plan proposes three feet of cut in this area, the applicant could move the swale to reduce the amount of cut, however a two -foot retaining wall would be required around the tree. Of the three, the Deodar Cedar at the Northwest corner ( #1666) possibly could be saved pending a formal review by the Town's Consulting Arborist. Saving other two trees would require changes to the project and result in an undesirable situation for the trees because of the proposed grading and proximity to the proposed home on Lot 1. PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE /M -15- 009 /S -15 -009 THROUGH S -15 -011 MAY 3, 2016 REMARKS (CONTINUED): 5. The neighbors say the houses will block their views of the bills but walking the site I could not see how they have views of the hills with the existing screen of trees on the north side of the property and then the large trees on the south side. Removal of the south side trees as per the project seems like it could open their view of the hills. Is staff aware of a view of the hills I did not see? Neighbors to the north have expressed concerns that the proposed two -story homes will block their views to the hilltop above Blossom Hill Road and a partially block their views of the sky. Staff agrees that the site's existing trees and the neighbor's existing trees currently block views to the hill above Blossom Hill Road and portions of the sky. Staff is not aware of any additional views of the hills. Lot 1's proposed second story setback would be 100 feet from the existing house to the north. Lot 2's proposed second story setback would be 90 feet from the existing house to the north (however neighbors to the north have existing mature redwood trees). Lot 3's proposed second story setback would be 82 feet from the existing house to the north (see Exhibit 17 Sheet A4.4 of Attachment 4). 6. Some neighbors have said this project will cause drainage problems but there seems to be significant additions in the project for drainage. I understand the drain grate on Union Avenue in front of the house does not go anywhere and that it will be connected across Union Avenue the storm drain system. The neighbors are concerned because of an earlier three -lot subdivision at 15928 Union. The issues caused by the nearby development were due to overland drainage being directed into the properties of that project's adjacent neighbors, in conjunction with the failure of a sump pump. hi this proposed development, any overland release would be directed down the shared driveway and into the public right -of -way. Installation of a sump pump or any mechanical equipment to convey and disperse stormwater is not required. The storm drain structures within both the shared driveway area and Union Ave will be connected to the storm drain system. a. Can staff give an assessment of how adequate the drainage plan is? The drainage plan is improved as compared to earlier iterations. The original design resulted in recommendations from the Town's peer review consultant that needed to be addressed and was not initially approved. The consultant has subsequently stated that the measures provided are "acceptable and in compliance with Provision C.3. The proposed treatment measure design is also acceptable." PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE /M -15- 009 /S -15 -009 THROUGH S -15 -011 MAY 3, 2016 REMARKS (CONTINUED): b. There is an above ground drain that runs above the west end of the property. How will it be affected? The construction of new curb and gutter along Blossom Hill Road and Union Avenue may assist in conveying some of the drainage past the above ground drain, along Blossom Hill Road, and to the proposed swale and ultimately into the public storm drain system. o - 8'L0SS0M 'HILL ROAD u � r �• r M ~ i I L�� r.-1 y E I� �I II c. The applicant has stated that it would get better because some of the water will go past the existing drain on Blossom Hill Road into the new project drains. Is this realistic? Yes, it is feasible to assume that some of the stormwater would flow past the existing drainage structure — see response above. d. After the project there will be gutter all the way down a steep hill to the Union Avenue/ Blossom Hill corner. Can we be assured we will not create a puddling problem in the middle of the intersection during heavy rains? Yes, the slope along the gutter (aside from the ADA- compliant portion at the crosswalk) in comparison to slope across the roadway will convey the drainage around the corner. PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE /M -15- 009 /5 -15 -009 THROUGH S -15 -011 MAY 3, 2016 REMARKS (CONTINUED): e. This project will create a lot of hardscape where there is now open ground to absorb water creating more run off. Can the Town require permeable hardscape in parts of this project? Is it necessary to? Where? The driveway? Elsewhere? The proposed impervious surfaces for this project cannot be modified to be replaced by permeable hardscape due the site conditions and high water levels. 7. After the lot provides its dedication and is divided in three are the lots abnormally small? How do they compare to typical lots in the area or Los Gatos? After the required dedication, each of the proposed lots would exceed the required 10,000 - square foot minimum lot area for R -1:10 zoned properties. The lot size is similar to the lots located to the north, west and east, which are zoned for the same or higher density. The proposed lot sizes meet the Town Code requirements. Attachments previously received with May 3, 2016 Staff Report: 1. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1 -14) 2. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 15) 3. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes 4. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 16 -19) 5. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 20) 6. Comment from Public provided at the March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing 7. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes 8. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received March 16, 2016 9. Letter from Appellant, received March 28, 2016 10. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings) 11. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission 12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings and Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval) 13. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, April 28, 2016. Attachments received with this Desk Item: 14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday April 28, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday May 3, 2016. Proposed Lot Area Required Lot Area -1:10 Lot 1 12,886 s.f. 10,000 s.f. Lot 2 11,351 s.f. 10,000 s.f. Lot 3 11,353 s.f. 10,000 s.f. Attachments previously received with May 3, 2016 Staff Report: 1. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1 -14) 2. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 15) 3. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes 4. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 16 -19) 5. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 20) 6. Comment from Public provided at the March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing 7. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes 8. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received March 16, 2016 9. Letter from Appellant, received March 28, 2016 10. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings) 11. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission 12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings and Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval) 13. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, April 28, 2016. Attachments received with this Desk Item: 14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Thursday April 28, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday May 3, 2016. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Erin M. Walters S- K:7-crq -41 i M -15 -0oi From: Jan Murray <alwaysmurrayjl @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 5:05 PM MAY 0 3 2016 To: Erin M. Walters Cc: planning @losgatos.ca.us TOWN OF LOS GATOS Subject: May 3rd -- Neighbor Comments regarding the streePpWNRiGAOi igpU Town Council - conceptual traffic plan Attachments: SCDDPLAN16041412480.pdf Dear Erin, LG Town Council Members, and LG Planning Department, 1. The attached traffic plan does not show how the proposed new lanes interface with the adjacent lanes on union Avenue. There is not enough information to review the proposal's impact on union Avenue traffic and union Ave neighbors. As drawn, the map omits transition information along Lasuen Court and does not document many of the planning departments' and commission meetings previously discussed modifications to the northbound lanes on union Ave, and the transitions from Blossom Hill, to accommodate the unprecedented shared driveway intersection that is proposed just yards from Blossom Hill. 2. The attached traffic plan shows only a disconnected piece of the roadway that impacts overall traffic flow and cannot be implemented in isolation without causing dangerous driving conditions for access to /from 15975 driveway, Lasuen Ct. and Leewood Ct. Please do not approve this or any lane striping development in a piecemeal fashion. The many lane and speed adjustments along union Avenue confuse drivers and pedestrians, create hazards, and stimulate erratic driving. 3. wide open 4 lane roads invite speeding accidents such as those that have occurred on Leigh Avenue with tragic consequences. Since union Avenue traffic is only heavy during limited commute hours, it's important to emphasize lane design plans that yield safety for residents rather than maximizing throughput for wazers seeking to bypass highways 85 and 17. Please consider keeping union Avenue to 2 lanes wide (1 southbound and 1 northbound) with a turning lane only at least until such time as the entire stretch from Los Gatos Almaden to Blossom Hill can be developed in a coherent and consistent manner. 4. Please maintain clear and limited lanes along union Avenue with consistent speed limits to avoid erratic and unpredictable driving. 5. If union Avenue in front of Lasuen Court is to be widened, please consider all alternatives that yield safer residential access: a. Maintain union Ave as a 2 lane road with 1 northbound and 1 southbound lane, along with a center turning lane. b. Lower the speed limit to 25mph for the entire stretch of union Avenue within the town of Los Gatos. (25 mph is routinely used in residential areas that have high commuter traffic to maintain safer driving, pedestrian and bicycling pathways.) C. Add traffic signals on union that will allow both Lasuen Court and Leewood Court residents to access union safely. Anne way and Lynn are also in need of traffic control support during peak school and commute times. ATTACHMENT 1 4 Please take a look a area, and let's keep residents, past and Thank you, ]an Murray t the whole of Union Avenue, as part of a residential Los Gatos roadways safe and accessible for all our future. From: Erin M. Walters <EWalters(o)losgatosca.gov> To: Jan Murray <alwaysmurrayil(a )yahoo.com >; "susannebelshe(cilg mail. com" <susannebelshe(a)gmail.com >; Ili mgimlan(a)gmail.com" <imgimlan(oilgmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:41 PM Subject: Appeal to Town Council- conceptual traffic plan Hello, The applicant has appealed Planning Commission's decision to Town Council for the applications associated with 15975 Union Avenue. The appeal is set for the May 3, 2016 Town Council public hearing at 7pm. I have attached a copy of the conceptual traffic plan. Please forward this email to your neighbors. Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Erin Walters Associate Planner I Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 1110. E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408. 354.68671 ewalters(a)Iosgatosca.gov Community Development Counter Hours: 8:OOAM —1:00 PM, Monday — Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: May 30, 2016 — Memorial Day AThink Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. The information contained in -this email may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. Ig s i 3AV NOW U - ' a----- - - - - -- J i N. II 5 II � y9 11£ 11 q�i26 , 11`y II ( I II I 11 1 m t U , O i e I J I I E II I i 3AV NOW U - ' a----- - - - - -- J i E V i W 1 O m U I U r W 0 1- N4ZOr . a2'W� /G d ~0NW K J p= m > Q Z 00 z ogA �dW=W (W.J ZVO¢w I Z 3aZ�w C)xzoz� II � y9 11£ 11 q�i26 , 11`y II E V i W 1 O m U I U r W 0 1- N4ZOr . a2'W� /G d ~0NW K J p= m > Q Z 00 z ogA �dW=W (W.J ZVO¢w I Z 3aZ�w C)xzoz� This Page Intentionally Left Blank Erin M. Walters From: Peter Costigan <pcostigan @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 S:28 PM MAY 012016 To: Erin M. Walters Cc: Jan Murray OWN OF LOS GATOS y PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Appeal to Town Council- conceptual traffic plan 15975 Union Avenue. Hello Erin, This is Peter Costigan. I live at 104 Lasuen Ct. I'm writing with my concerns about the proposed traffic plan for 15975 Union Ave, which was included in your email attached immediately below. My concerns are: 1. There is no description or drawing of the changes (or lack of changes) that will take place north on Union Ave from the current plans. Will there be restriping there? 2. The proposed plan will encourage hazardous driving by drivers of cars during peak traffic (weekday afternoons at 5PM plus or minus about 1.5 hrs, and also morning commute hours). I refer to southbound drivers on Union Ave that are "off the map" provided. As they approach Lasuen Ct on the right and Leawood Ct on the left, the road widens out. They will be encouraged by the striping they see further ahead to the south (as shown on the plan) to move into a "right lane" that may or may not exist (your map does not show what happens north of Lasuen Ct). Once in that "right lane" they will be encouraged to accelerate towards the intersection of Union and Blossom Hill to make a right turn. They may not see cars turning. The risks are from cars turning left from northbound Union into Lasuen Ct, and cars turning left from Lasuen into northbound Union Ave. Thank you, Peter - - - -- Forwarded Message - - - -- From: Erin M. Walters <EWalters(a2losgatosca.gov> To: Jan Murray <alwaysmurrayil(d).vahoo.com >; "susannebelshe(a gmail.com" <susannebelshe(o )gmail.com >; "imgimlan(d)gmail.com" <Imgimlan cDgmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:41 PM Subject: Appeal to Town Council- conceptual traffic plan Hello, The applicant has appealed Planning Commission's decision to Town Council for the applications associated with 15975 Union Avenue. The appeal is set for the May 3, 2016 Town Council public hearing at 7pm. I have attached a copy of the conceptual traffic plan. Please forward this email to your neighbors. Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Erin Walters Associate Planner I Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 1110. E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.354.6867 1 ewalters(EDlosgatosca.gov Community Development Counter Hours: 8:OOAM — 1:00 PM, Monday — Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: May 30, 2016 — Memorial Day i L��� `7 Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. The information contained in -this email may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message from your computer. Thank you.