The URL can be used to link to this page

2010081606 - Attachment 9r .~°W" °`: TOWN OF LOS GATOS •°~• PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ~ s cez°s Meering Date: June 9, 2010 PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner sdavis(r~,los¢atosca. gov ITEM NO: 2 DESK ITEM APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Applications 5-08-30, S-09-33, and 5-09-34 Subdivision Application M-08-13 LOCATION: 15928 Union Avenue (east side of Union Avenue, just north of Leewood Court) APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.LS. Design PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC CONTACT: Tony Jeans APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots and to construct two new residences on property zoned R-1:8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 527-42-008. DEEMED COMPLETE: May 20, 2010 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: July 9, 2010, for Tentative Map; November 20, 2010, for Architecture and Site applications. EXHIBITS: 1.-21. Location map 22. Revised project data sheets 23. August 26, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes (six pages) DISCUSSION: There was an error on the project data sheet for proposed Parcel 2 and missing information on the data sheet for proposed Parcel 3. Revised project data sheets are attached as Exhibit 22. Minutes from the August 26, 2009, Planning Commission meeting are being provided for background information as requested by Commissioner Sayoc (see Exhibit 23). The chart provided in the staff report under the Neighborhood compatibility section shows the maximum allowable house and garage sizes rather than the actual numbers for the proposed project. The following chart has been revised to reflect the applicant's proposal for the new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. ATTACHMENT 9 Planning Commission Desk Item -Page 2 15928 Union Avenue/M-08-13, S-08-30, S-09-33, 5-09-34 June 9, 2010 Address Lot Size Hottse size House FAR Guru e 112 Panorama Way 7,942 2,311 29.0 430 115 Panorama Way 8,018 1,589 19.8 487 110 Panorama Way 8,668 1,924 22.1 470 111 Panorama Way 8,668 1,568 18.0 484 118 Cambrian View 20,909 3,705 17.7 560 15910 Union Avenue 18,450 1,753 9.5 714 Address Lot Size Hottse size House FAR Guru e 101 Leewood Court 9,583 3,128 32.6 560 103 Leewood Court 9,583 3,086 32.2 632 105 Leewood Court 10,019 3,131 31.2 560 107 Leewood Court 12,197 3,164 25.9 632 Parcel2 10,087 3,054 30.2 682 Parcel3 11,390 3,242 28.5 677 Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, AICP Associate Planner /~ ~~.e,doy~~_ Approved by: Wendie R. Rooney Director of Community Development WRR:SD N:1DEW 2EPORTS\2010\Uuion15928-TM3-dak doc ~;~ ~ `~' ~ '~~ 3 i ~'' X5928 ~1N~ON ,4VEN EXISTING CONDITIONS UE ~ PbRCEL ~ ~ PROPOSED PROJECT "'L r. REQUIRED/ PERMITTED Zoning district R-1:8 same - Land use vacant single family residence - General Plan Designation low density residential same - Lotsize (sq. ft.) 40,579 10,087 8,000 sq. ft. minimum Exterior materials: siding - stucco, stone - trim - stone, limestone - windows - wood clad - roofing - composition slate - Building floor area: first floor - 1,679 - second floor - 1,375 - cellar - - - garage - 682 911 sq. ft. maximum Setbacks (ft.): front - 64' 25 feet minimum rear - 32' 20 feet minimum side - 8' 8 feet minimum side - 8' 8 feet minimum Maximum height(ff.) - 23'11" 30 feet maximum Building coverage (%) - 29% 40% maximum F/oorArea Ratio (%J house - 3,054 3,120 sq. ft. maximum garage - 682 865 sq. ft. maximum Parking - 4 two spaces minimum Tree Removals - included with TM canopy replacement Sewerorseptic sewer same - NaDENSUZANNEIORCIPROJECT5IUN ION15928\U NION 15928-PCL2DATA. DOC Exhibit 22 1 75928 UNiQN ~AUEN EXISTING CONDITIONS UE PARCEL 3 PROPOSED PROJECT ~. REQUIRED/. PERMITTED Zoning district R-1 :8 same - Land use vacant single family residence - Genera/ Plan Designation low density residential same - Lotsize (sq. ft.) 40,579 10,925 8,000 sq. ft. minimum Exterior materials: siding - shake, shingles - trim - stone - windows - wood clad - roofing - composition shingle - Building floor area: first floor - 1,690 - second floor - 1,552 - cellar - - - garage - 677 - Setbacks (ft.): front - 25' 25 feet minimum rear - 65' 20 feet minimum side - 8' 8 feet minimum side - 8' 8 feet minimum Maximum heighf (ft.) - 24'6" 30 feet maximum Building coverage (%) - 3,017/28% 40% maximum Floor Area Ratio (%J house - 3,242 3,404 sq. ft. maximum garage - 677 935 sq. ft. maximum Parking - 4 two spaces minimum Tree Removals - - canopy replacement Sewerorseptic sewer same - GIUSERSISDAVISIOESKTOPIUNION15928-PCL3.DOC ~ ..}, CONSENT CALENDAR *1. 8 Station Wav. Conditional Use Permit U-09-005. Requesting approval t uct classes on property zoned C-2:LHP. APN 529-03-020. PROPE ER: Phil Brouwer. APPLICANT: Spencer Belideau. PLANN nnifer Savage, Assistant Planner. 1VIotion by Commissioner to approve Consen ] carried 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore 2. 15928 Union Avenue. Subdivision Application M-08-13, Architecture and Site Application S-08-30. Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family residence and to subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42- 008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC. APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.LS. Design. PLANNER: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner. (Continued from January 28, February 25, March 25, May 13, June 24, and August 12, 2009) Associate Planner Suzanne Davis presented the staff report and stated that Desk Item #2 included a petition from Panorama Way residents stating an objection to the proposed reduced cul-de-sac, a letter addressing the State Subdivision Map Act conditions, a letter raising concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, and a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Philip Micciche • Asked if Parcel 2 becomes a flag lot if the garage door on Parcel 3 is on the driveway side. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that Parcel 2 is not technically a flag lot. It has that configuration to provide a greater setback from the north property line, but it is not required to be that way. Chair Thomas O'Donnell Commented that he was going to allow the applicant an additional two minutes to respond to the numerous items in Desk Item #2, and opened the public hearing. Tony Jeans gave a presentation on the proposed project commenting specifically on neighborhood compatibility, Mr. Mangands viewshed, the requested cul-de-sac sidewalk, and maximum separation between Ms. Lynott's and Mr. Mangano's houses. Commission Questions: • Asked if there was an alternate design for Parcel 2 that would not have a flag lot configuration. • Asked if applicant examined coming in off Union Avenue with two homes. Planning Commission Page 3 August 26, 2009 Exhibit 23 • Asked if applicant's comments on drainage mitigation referred to existing conditions or previous project design. • Asked about the proposed soundwall on Union Avenue. Tony Jeans answered Commission questions: • Commented the proposed configuration of Parcel 2 pushes the house back 35 feet and allows for the maximum separation from Mr. Mangano's house and maintain neighbors' view of the hills. • Commented he did not consider coming in off Union Avenue for two homes because he does not have enough frontage. • Commented the drainage system will dramatically reduce impact on the immediate neighbors based on existing conditions. • Commented the soundwall was a leftover from the 4-lot proposal and the applicant is no longer proposing one. Cecelia Holmberg • Commented the development detracts from the neighborhood and that she does not want a S- lot development. • Commented the only legitimate option is a 2-lot subdivision with a 42-foot cul-de-sac bulb. Thomas Mangano • Commented the houses have gotten bigger with the 3-lot development. • Questioned the legality of the joint driveway on Parcel 2 and how the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) was calculated. • Commented the garage is 35 feet away from his breakfast porch with a 60 DB noise level. • Commented that the 3-lot development affects his viewshed. • Commented the flag lot is a runaround using the cul-de-sac rule to provide less frontage. Commissioner Marico Sayoc • Asked Mr. Mangano if the reduced width would impact his viewshed and about his thoughts about two lots with bigger FARs. Thomas Mangano • Commented the 37-foot width could be worse because it could result in a bigger house. • Commented a 2-lot subdivision could give him a larger view. John Schwarz • Commented that some of the desk items were in response to the staff report. • Commented there is a staff report recommendation that still references the categorical exemption under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) not the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Asked Commission to consider his recommendations for conditions of approval (in Desk Item #2) regarding drainage, construction noise barriers, and construction traffic and access. • Commented the requested Initial Study is very good and that he had some questions regarding conclusions on biological resources, esthetic impact and land use compatibility. Planning Commission Page 4 August 26, 2009 k i • Commented he disagrees with Mr. Jeans's findings on the (State) Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Marico Sayoc • Asked Mr. Schwarz why he preferred the standard width cul-de-sac over the reduced width. John Schwarz • Commented he would support the standard width for safety due to the number of turnarounds they get on their street, if this design works for Mr. Mangano. Geoff Mitchell • Commented the proposed turning radius in the cul-de-sac does not allow for any parking. • Commented they need something wide with a sidewalk and a turnaround. • Commented lot sizes and home sizes aze not consistent with the neighborhood. • Commented that previous builders were told they could only build two houses on these lots. Orv Buesing • Asked for clarification on the required publicright-of--way on Union Avenue because the staff report dated August 26, 2009, stated that the owner is required to dedicate 10 feet and the Initial Study stated 20 feet. • Asked that Engineering take a look at the storm drain elevations, requested multiple drains, and that they be as long as possible. • Asked how Parcel 1 could accommodate a circular driveway with a 25-foot setback. Luis Martinez • Commented that the plan is to remove all the trees from his backyard view and requested that developer be required to replace the trees. Stephanie Lynott • Commented all three houses will obstruct her view, lighting and privacy. • Commented that four years of construction will occur if this is approved. • Commented that houses need to be in harmony with the neighborhood. Ray Davis • Commented that Mr. Jeans has put up a gigantic house on Lot 4 on Reservoir Road. • Commented he believes staff colludes with developers for property taxes. • Commented the Initial Study prematurely said that the project would not obstruct or remove public scenic views or vista since the project has not submitted building plans or constructed story poles to support that statement. Lee Quintana • Commented she would like to support the neighbors. • Commented that she believes the analysis and conclusions on the Negative Declaration and Initial Study were not based on all the facts, and the facts in evidence did not support the conclusions. Planning Conunission Page 5 August 26, 2009 j '.. Commented she believes the neighbors have presented convincing evidence to support that compatibility has not been addressed. Commented the land use section does not address conformance with General Plan or Zoning Code policies or regulations with Guidelines for Residential Development. Questioned Mr. Jeans's drainage calculations. Tony Jeans • Commented that no specific points were made on the General Plan that it does not meet. • Commented storm drainage is currently at 1 % slope, but will look at reducing it, and that calculations have been submitted to.Engineering. • Commented that Mr. Martinez has been told that a row of redwood trees will be planted along their property line and they have expressed their support. This will come up during A&S (Architecture and Site). • Commented he supports keeping the Chinese Elm tree, and putting a replacement tree on Ms. Lynott's property. • Commented a 6-foot fence will be put up along the property line as soon as permits aze granted which will reduce the noise. • Commented all the houses on Panorama Way have 8-foot setbacks and they are proposing a 50-foot setback for Mr. Mangano. • Commented Parcel 2 is not a flag lot, it is compatible with neighborhood houses, and it provides a much better view corridor. They will agree to a full size cul-de-sae if that is what is determined to be the best way to go. Commissioner Philip Micciche • Asked staff if Exhibit 27 sketch of lot configuration is accurate. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented the sketch is accurate. Commissioner Philip Micciche • Asked Mr. Jeans if he agreed that all the houses that have entrances on Union Avenue and Panorama Way were two-lot areas (Exhibit 27 in staff report). Tony Jeans • Commented he agreed, but that Exhibit 27 shows lots that are 80 feet wide as opposed to 110 feet wide. • Commented he believes the lots aze compatible and consistent with the neighborhood, including all adjacent homes, based on what he has been told by the Town. Commissioner Philip Micciche • Asked staff if they agree with Mr. Jeans's statement. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented the only difference in this particular lot and those to the north of it that were split in the 2-lot configuration is that this has a cul-de=sac. Planning Commission Page 6 August 26, 2009 Chair Thomas O'Donnell closed the public hearing and asked staff to clarify the point made by Mr. Buesing regarding dedication on Union Avenue. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented it is a 25-foot dedication on Union Avenue and it is shown on the plan. Commissioner Philip Micciche Asked about the September 1, 2009, deadline. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis Commented once a Subdivision Application has been deemed complete, the Commission has 50 days to take action on it; however, the applicant can choose to waive that requirement. Comassioner Marico Sayoc • Asked about comment made by Mr. Mangano regarding a law pertaining to shared driveways and reduced square footage. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis Commented she is not aware of the statute, but believes he was referring to when you have a flag lot you do not count the flag stem when calculating the land area used to base the maximum floor area. In this case, the whole lot is being considered to determine maximum floor area for the property. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked about parking in the cul-de-sac. Trang Tu-Nguyen • Commented there would be no parking only with the reduced size cul-de-sac. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked if there was anything in the denial of the 4-lot proposal that would have given a suggestion to a subsequent applicant fora 3-lot or 2-lot proposal. Cmnmissioner Philip Micciche • Commented he did not recall any direction about number of lots and that it was just a denial. Chair Thomas O'Donnell • Commented, in his recollection, the Commission did not try to design the lot. Associate Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that staff recommended it be reduced from 4 to 3 lots, but the motion states that the number of lots should be reduced without specifying 3 or 2. The denial was based on the applicant not being willing to reduce the number of lots. Planning Commission Page 7 August 26, 2009 j Motion by Commissioner Philip Micciche and seconded by Commissioner Marcia Jensen to deny Subdivision Application M-08-13 and Architecture and Site Application 5-08-30 based on size not physically suitable for this development because it has two entrances and it appears like a third lot is trying to be fit into it resulting in the appearance of a flag lot. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that although the proposal is calling it a shazed driveway, it presents the same issues as a flag lot. • Commented she supports the motion due to traffic and the strong neighborhood pattern of two lots. Vice Chair John Bourgeois • Asked for clarification if the motion included both the Subdivision Application and the A&S Application: Chair Thomas O'Donnell called for a recess at 8:51 p.m. to allow Town Attorney Orry Korb time to review the Town Code. Meeting was reconvened at 8:58 p.m. Town Attorney Orry Korb • Commented that it is staff s recommendation that you not approve an A&S Application separate from a Subdivision Application. Town Code states that the Planning (Community Development) Director can approve a permit application for demolition if there is already an approved replacement project, but if there is no approved replacement project, an A&S application is required to get a demolition permit. The sole reason why the demolition is required by the proposed subdivision in this situation is because the subdivision would result in the house straddling the property line, which cannot occur. Based on the facts, the two applications should not be sepazated. Chair Thomas O'Donnell Confirmed that motion to deny is based on subsections C and D of the (State) Subdivision Map Act, which would include the demolition. Motion carried 7-0. Town Attorney Orry Korb recited appeal rights. 159 Stacia Street. Ar~ute and Site Application 5-09-013. Requesting approval to construct a new second story addition, '~~D~ss~ory structure greater than 450 sq ft, and to exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio on property~or -1:30. APN 532-31-024. PROPERTY OWNER: Stefanie Zilka. APPLICANT: Robert Frtc . ER: Marni Moseley, Assistant Planner Assistant Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. Planning Commission Page 8 August 26, 2009