Conceptual Development Advisory Committee

TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 12, 2025 The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a regular meeting on March 12, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:00 PM ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Kendra Burch, Councilmember Mary Badame, Councilmember Maria Ristow, Commissioner Steve Raspe. Absent: Chair Jeffrey Barnett due to a conflict of interest with the proposed project. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approval of Minutes – February 12, 2025 MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Raspe to approve the consent calendar. Seconded by Councilmember Badame. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 235 Oak Meadow Drive Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-25-001 Consider a Request for Preliminary Review of a Planned Development Amendment and a Proposal for Construction of a Multi-Family Residential Development (12 Units) on Property Zoned O:PD. APN 529-10-132. Property Owner: Michael Shields, Dog Friendly Rentals, LLC Applicant: Kurt Anderson, Anderson Architects Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman Project Planner presented the staff report. 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov PAGE 2 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2025 Open Public Comment. Kurt Anderson, Applicant There is a high street and low street, and based on our current proposal of five stories, we are 31 feet in height from the high street. We are asking to utilize the state density bonus law to allow this. We are willing to consider changes in the height and reducing one level from the building. We are including a roof deck, which the neighborhood could use for private events once a month. We are also including a public dog park for use by the neighborhood. We have parking per the requirement for both residents, guests, and bikes. We understand that there are concerns about the architecture, but you do see contemporary throughout Los Gatos these days. Mike Shields, Property Owner The bulk of the building is at the lower level of the building with no residential. The dog park is open to public and will be maintained by the HOA. Kurt Anderson, Applicant The rooftop deck will be usable for neighbors once a month free of charge. For the side setback relief, we have one spot where we are encroaching a little bit that we are asking for relief. For the possibility of dropping the height, the building could go down to 53 feet from 63 feet if we change the height. On level 1, we would have a 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3- bedroom. If we lower the height, the roof deck would be lower, but still available. Paul Vieth, Neighbor The building size and architecture is completely out of proportion with the area. This lot is subject to CC&Rs, so this means that the HOA has the power to approve any architecture that comes into the neighborhood. After reviewing with the Town Attorney, we have this confirmed. The Board will not approve of this project, as is. This will also cause traffic issues and road damages. The environmental impact will be bad too and cause a strain on cable and electrical. Lee Fagot, Resident It’s interesting to see this type of building going in this neighborhood. The fact that there is an HOA with the ability to determine what is going to be built in this community. This does not fit the neighborhood here. Perhaps there is a way for the applicant team to consider modifying the plan to align with the neighborhood. The safety risk with this site as the egress and egress is tight. Safety is the number one concern at this site. Jody Knister, Neighbor The reason we bought the house across from this location about a year ago and chose this location is because it was a nice, quiet neighborhood. It’s very disturbing to see that this could be built across the street. We don’t need a roof top deck to gather on as we already gather anyway. We enjoy the trees that are currently there, but we assume that those trees will not be there with this project. This is going to negatively impact our livelihood. C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser17\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp7744.tmp PAGE 3 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2025 Laura Vieth, Neighbor We don’t have any interest in the rooftop deck. We already connect with our neighbors daily. We have no interest in the dog park either. The structure does not fit in this community. Marty McFarland, Neighbor We had a project go before the Planning Commission in this neighborhood, so we are familiar with the process. I am not opposed to this lot becoming residential, but the issue is the height of the building and how it would block the views. It needs to be compatible with the neighborhood and the stress on the roads and traffic is concerning. Mike Shields, Property Owner The first issue is the CC&Rs, Lot 12 is not subject to the CC&Rs and is not a part of the HOA. This property does have a responsibility to maintain the road and a 25 percent cost of the maintenance of the road. We are happy to meet with an attorney to verify that the CC&Rs do not apply to this lot. The second thing is fire service and safety, Oak Meadow Road is a through street. We designed the project, so much of the traffic comes off from Blossom Hill Road, so its minimal impact at the top of the road. We will cut it down a floor to be more compatible with the neighborhood. We also made this a condominium building rather than apartments to help minimize the traffic. Closed Public Comment. Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following questions and comments:  The issues between the CC&Rs and whether they apply to this property for architectural control need to be determined prior to a formal application.  Concerned about safety, evacuation routes, and Fire’s review of the project.  The architecture is a concern as it is out character with the wooded area.  The height is a concern as it still seems out of character with the neighborhood, even with the discussion of removing one level.  The architecture could use further refinement because of privacy concerns with the amount of glass proposed. Frosted glass or other details should be considered to mitigate privacy concerns.  The project feels too big, intense, and out of scale for the wooded neighborhood.  Not opposed to a modern design, but the project could use more wood details and better placement with the existing trees to mitigate privacy concerns.  The dog park does not add value to the project and the roof top deck makes more sense for a denser project.  Before you re-draw this project based on feedback from the Committee, deal with the HOA and CC&Rs. Speak with staff to help with getting direction when changing your plans as they are very helpful with this. C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser17\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp7744.tmp PAGE 4 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2025 OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the March 12, 2025, meeting as approved by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. /s/Joel Paulson, Community Development Director C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser17\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp7744.tmp