Attachment 101 Agenda Item 12 . March 20, 201 7 To w n Council Meeti ng
To: Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: PD-15·001 15125 Shannon Rd
From: Lee Quintana
Date: March 20 , 2016
Please consider the my comments on the Planned Development PD -15·001 for 15125
Shannon Road
A. Calculation of average slope, minimum lot size and Maximum Number of Lots.
• Please ask staff to clarify whether the calculations on Sheet 3 are consistent with
Section 29.40.250(5) of the Zoning Code
Section 29.40.250(5) of the zoning code states:
(5) Where any part of the land slopes more than fifty (50) percent, that part may be
treated separately and the number of dwelling units permissible on that part may be
added to the number permissible on the rest of the land to compute the total number
of allowed dwelling units .
• Sheet 3 indicates the maximum number of dwelling units were calculated separately
for the area above and below 50% slope. These numbers were then added together,
to determine the maximum number of lots allowed, without rounding them individually
down to the nearest whole number. This resulted in the maximum number of 5 lots
when rounded down (4.96 + .06 = 5.02). Had they been rounded down before adding
them together the maximum number of units would have been 4
• Are the calculations on Sheet 3 consistent with Sec. 29.40.250(5)? Or was this section
only intended to apply if the area above 50% slope is large enough for a complete
unit?
• To complicate matters further, HMH Letter of Justification dated November 15, 2016
(Exhibit 5 of Dec. 14, 2016 Staff Report) states:
" .... The updated topographic base was used as a basis for computing the required
minimum lot size.
• Please ask staff to.what are appropriate contour intervals to use for determining slope
and minimum lot size in the hillsides?
Sec. 29.40.250(a)(1 ). Density formulae (Oust before Sec. 29.40.250(a)(2)) states:
A topographic map shall be used which meets the requirements for obtaining
approval of tentative maps.
Contour intervals shall not exceed ten (10) feet.
Sec. 24.20.030(16) Contents (Tentative Map) states:
ATTACHMENT 10
2 Agenda Item 12. March 20, 2017 Town Council Meeting
Contour lines showing one-foot contours for ground slopes of less than 5 feet
vertical and one hundred feet horizontal distance, and t feet contours for ground
slopes in excess thereof ....
The application for a grading permit form Public Works/Engineering requires contour
intervals of no more than 2 feet.
• In my past life as a Planner my experience has been the use of 1 or 2 foot contour
intervais provides a better depiction of topography and slope in hillside areas than 1 O'
contours due.
B. Retaining Walls for Proposed access drive.
• Over 1100 feet of retaining wall is required for the access drive. Over more than 750
feet of these walls are between 5 and 6 feet in height. (Sheet 9 Conceptual Private
Street Grading Plan)
• Chapter VIII Subdivision and Planned Developments D. 3. Exception to development
within the LRDA states: "Access to a development within a least restrictive
development area can only be attained by developing a road or driveway outside a
least restrictive development area.
• In this case the site has been developed under the HR 5 zoning already and the need
for the road outside the LRDA is only. required if the zoning were changed to HR 2 1 /2
with 5 lots.
• In my opinion this is not consistent with the objectives of the HDS&G.
• Both David Weissman and Ken Anderson (See Exhibit 5) suggest alternatives that
would both reduce the length of the required drive which would reduce the amount of
grading and/or reduce the number of trees impacted and drastically reduce the
amount of retaining wall necessary by reducing the number of lots.
C. Requirements for a Planned Development
• HMH makes the following comments on page two of the justification letter:
As noted in the staff report, a planned development approval is required for any subdivision
of land into five (5) or more residential building sites within the Hillside Residential Zone as
stated by Town Code Section 29 .40 .255.
PD zoning is further required for the proposed project because access for each lot is proposed
to occur using a private street; there is no public street frontage for any of the lots.
While PD zoning is often used to obtain reduced setbacks and/or increased density, this
application seeks neither.
The project being proposed is identical to what would be proposed if the applicant could
apply for a straight rezoning to HR 2~.
• Please ask staff to clarify the following :
3 Agenda Item 12. March 20, 2017 Town Council Meeting
Can an applicant requesting a PD Zoning in the hillside area for a subdivision of less than 5
lots?
Can PD requesting less than 5 lots incorporate a private road or access drive?
If an applicant were to request a straight zoning for this 13 acre site what would be the
maximum number of lots possible?
ATTACHMENT 1
HMH Letter of Justification dated Nov 15, 2016 Exhibit 5 Dec.14,2016 PC Staff Report.
VIII. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY The proposed project includes five lots with an area of 2.59
acres each over the 13-acre site. With the proposed zoning of HR-2.5, the minimum required lot
size has been determined using the Town methodology for determining the average slope and
minimum lot area. At the time of our CDAC meeting , we produced a preliminary calculation
based upon the available aerial topographic base map ·and determined that the site's average
slope was about 24.1 % and the minimum lot size should be about 2 .5 acres. Since the CDAC
meeting of December 10, 2014, 1Th1H has performed a field topographic survey to locate existing
trees and obtain spot elevations to field-check the elevations shown on the topographic base map
(since the existing map was compiled by photogrammetric methods, an accuracy of one-half the
contour interval is expected-one foot in this ca·se). It also must be noted that much of the site
ground surface is obscured from view under a dense tree canopy, requiring guess-work when
producing the contour map -this can lead to expected errors of several feet in those locations. As
expected, we found the topographic base map elevations to be within a foot or less of our
obtained spot elevations over the open areas of the site. However, in the steeper, heavily wooded
areas of the site we found elevation differences of several feet. Using our obtained spot
elevations, we adjusted the contours on the base map to fit the elevations determined by field
survey. The updated topographic base was used as a basis for computing the required minimum
lot size. As shown on the development density calculation included on the PD Zoning plan set,
we added the minimum lot size resulting from the average slope for site areas less than 50% to
the minimum lot size resulting from the site areas greater than 50%. This analysis demonstrated
that the provided lot size of 2.59 acres meets the minimum required lot size, supporting the five
lot proposal.
T~: M;y.o r M~t!t~o s.w!.l'.,:;
an~~ r.~.cmG ri:~ :)f ~!°'?.':· Lc~s •.J ~tr}~ To v.:~~ Co i:~~ .. ~:
! 1J3 ~·. rv'iain ;)J~~~t
L~r: G· to~. CA 9!.'~.n f;
LCS G;;i:..~;, {.;\ ~):;~}~2
l~'l ::!~.~. 2~¥ ~Ul '"/
l ~~~ :."'!:~!~f.~C! tu !~tJ li7)'..>~ ttit: :.1 ?~~!r ~t ~Q·1, ;)~tr-:~ :~t~:-t dt.~!.:i ~tr;i~hhtJ t tt' ·:~.~ ... ~•~!;t
FfC:•{J sa.h ra~~L "{{) ;'"~' . .iJ.,1 1'h~ h -;~ ~~A ~)~er ·~1 . 'h~~~,c ~j\~;r ii'":i ~ ~~· t'i O ·!~ a i l S.'i()! S!iar;;--:~::n ~t··n i:"J .~
l ,.. ....... ,-.. ~-...... ~ r~· "l:~~~ -~r: · ····n"'c_.-· ""r' ........ '."T .... ~ :a..1--,..;.. o-• .. 1,r :~ •i·."!t to c ·..,"~J ·, ;:; :f", ,,,;,~., .• ,,..., •. ...._ ...... :<-"'~f" .. .,.~. "''"?';;h.y ~·, ..,~, .. __ ,~; .. ,,.:. , .. ;1 ,;·h . • .... >T. ~·,,1 y tt•J. "'' :-t. '~ ... ''~.:..;. ~ J r.u ...... -'~ .... Ji. ,.;·:..t°h'~-,,·,t_~~t~ •· ... -~·
aff~!: t:.zt:h, on B :::1 i:;~5 m s 1;.;-;tt l..\<!~t: ':1 ·~· ~-!;m;1irilii ng !.~:-.!:! .i se~.
~P t r.t~ i'~~~t_, Fr~d ~.,~,-;~~:~ at! S\.t• r~trP~!ri3 n,;;it'!C•tJ t:;. •r£~-r ,:1i r,.: rrt t\. ~n i't1~0 h ~=g
•:1nh:r '\ervit~'! t~ bi:: );.lr'O\•ided bv ~n .;n.;i;>-Viil'YF.r Ct'•· .·p i.it}". f hls ~~-N r.=r~~fr:tt ;Ni !! bf'ri:-:11t
!i'l:::>: n,:!g!~hortm;a ~; pmvidfn!:; 8ddi1~o~;~! fr·~ pru t:-!C~1 o r. id 'l (: ~V!~ .':!c t~~~. Per~~:ic;;:y, i
Cl~'i ;~uf-i,i ii~ forw<:!'G ·~i.J b!'l n.g ;;;,:t' 1·0 ~!lrt ~i~~ riw l :~f!iP. ~<) it'i!• S',:;o;it ;;::·.f ~t?'Nef \ h n~ ~;".f.:
~=-ojec! v.ri!I pr:..w:c~, whk:h ;!: ~ r?.;il :.e~p eriti :1<:.t€t.y b:<:ttP.f t .
l t:~m~rgi1 i;i.•~710;~ i h:~ pfn ;c t.~"l:c:-~i l ~-,f th~::~ ::-0 ~i:in~ ci•:~l ho ;it ym.: ~N ;;l ~p pr'>vt
t'.~f' re.£.~u"~~ ~p p ;irn ·~!tm.·
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent
To:
Subjed:
Brian Bershad <bershad@gmail.com >
Tuesday, March 21, 2017 10:17 AM
Jennifer Armer
Feedback for 15215 Shannon Road
My name is Brian Bershad and I live at 15285 Shannon Road, which is the property directly adjacent to the
proposed sahadi 15215 Shannon Road. My property, and home, is adjacent to the proposed development site
for Sahadi.
For reference, attached to this note is how my property (pen point) relates to 15215 . As is clear, the proposed
project site is quite close to my property. In particular, proposed site 4 is directly adjacent to my home.
Because there is not a specific construction project under proposal, it is possible that the Mr. Sahadi's project
will impact the view from my home, as well as its privacy. The privacy concern arises because lot 4 is not only
directly adjacent to my property, it is also directly abov e it. Parts of lot 4 are visible from my property.
Unfortunately, the proposed project plan from Mr. Sahadi does not discuss impact on my adjacent
property. While it is entirely possible that there may be no impact on my property, we should perform siteline
impact analysis, including privacy, for all adjacent properties (as was done with Smits property; see image
below) PRIOR to project approval .
Sincerely,
/Brian B ershad
Brian N . Bershad
-
Analysis for Smits property
-t IM l-t-
1llllHlty lnllll IM 5"1111 Fro~
".~• >s' 0:1!1y<1'1!'/l's P""",,..~ by ~c 1~!;:1.'!I a'~M<:·st••:.ic lhl ~~e P'.'11-.-.C ce~·c~:r = 02,..,ot oe
S.."t~ r·om t :l'.'tMt '""' !:r-.;::1=,, Mrl. ~fls p~. ;iliata :frs':Q~O:C ~C!lcll·:l ~Unl\f~o:r ~l~~:ll'Ul\ttl
so ... T.~ liCA Cf Sh.IM:::I~ IJc..a:i :C-&"i"ci ~ .i~. 1!\Ci Q-Q~Hd Q.ln~e~·~,..l~ " .. ~~W:iJ !:S S~.11 h::'i'r.t; 1"-tr.'.I
loui~Q~ /i..~ a~1 l1s1s O\' ·~r~lf 1,;;1 pctforrKl t~~ N~2'CUf!!i~::·o(o ••::.sd110J;.i1<<j :~If'~ !J ~al :c
i ... rn~~t ~t-,z st:'.?"~V'~Y r.-~~ • C";:u,:1~J ~~,. ~:s~a "t.;1 ll' ~,':" tu;:i'1.:Ji:-[ "'t:t~:.h ... ~s.2.:-c ;.;-ri~),ti:-:N-1,-.....-}. t \:_;r'1tcl
,.,,l~!':r.:? !m:Aon :.C~5 in~=••'e«t~•~ftr a ic:r,~, Thatr.;riv~~ti••'.fd:i'alcr.u 1ni:.?Oft·••,
~11~~~~o~wa..;id~\'it,b~a-: 1".l'i1af1t'iJ i»"'ll:':Ftflo'!!ii, o~str...rctld"'"o:T•V,fM·tl,rt~~'lr.U"lf :ir"C
rc ·<l:,
11 ]~--------
NOTE: The following note was submitted in December to the planning commission:
Hearing for 15215 Shannon road
Brian Bershad <bershad@grnail.com>
To: "planning@losgatosca.gov" <planning@losgatosca.gov>
Hello
Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12 :35 PM
This is In reference to the planning commission review of 15215 Shannon road. I am the owner of 15285 Shannon roe
which is directly adjacent to the project property.
I have reviewed the docs on file at your office. The material on file shows only the view and ridge impact via mocks
two of the four new properties. For the others it is not possible to determine siteline impact on affected sites of the tw•
ridge properties.
May I request that we either produce a full set of impact mocks so that we can determine impact and any mitigation
opportunities for all proposed new construction.
Thanks
Brian