Loading...
2010081606 - Consider an appeal of a planning commission 15928 Union Avenue~a~vn of MEETING DATE: 08/16/10 / ITEM NO. r COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SOS GASOS DATE: August 6, 2010 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG CARSON, TOWN MANAG SUBJECT: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH ASINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO SUBDIVIDE A .93 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS AND TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. NO SIGNIFICANTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS IIAVEBEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. APN 527-42-008. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S-08-30, 5-09-33 & 5-09-34; SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONM-08-13; NEGA"1'IVEDECLARATIONND-09-2. PROPERTY LOCATION: 15928 UNION AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'CONNOR LLC. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: TONY JEANS. RECOMMENDA"1TON: 1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Architecture and Site applications S-08- 30, S-09-33 and 5-09-34 and Subdivision application M-08-13 (motion required). 4. Adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) finalizing denial of the appeal and applications (motion required). If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified relative to the appeal: 1. The Council needs to find one or more of the following: (a) Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part ofthe Plam7ing Commission; or PREPARI.1)13Y: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: ~S~ Assistant Town Manager "town Attorney ~, (~, Community Development Clerk Finance Revised: K/6/10 12:41 PM Reformatted: 5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE /FILE #5-08-30, 5-09-33, S-09-34, M-08-13 & ND-09-2. August S, 2010 (b) The new information that 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. If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission is new inforration as defined in Subsection (b) above, it is the Town's policy that the application be returned to the Commission for review in light of the new information unless that information has a minimal effect on the application. 3. If the appeal is granted, use the findings in Attachment 2, make the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 3 of Attachment 8), adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 3) and modify the conditions (Attachments 4 and/or 5) as appropriate (motion required). 4. Adopt the resolution (Attachment 2) granting the appeal and approving the Subdivision and Architecture and Site applications (motion required). The Architecture and Site application for demolition of the existing house (5-08-30) should be approved with the Subdivision application. The Architecture and Site applications for the new residences (5-09-33 and 5- 09-34) may be acted on independently. For example, one or both applications may be remanded to the Planning Commission for redesign, one application maybe approved and one remanded, etc. BACKGROUND: The subject property iszoned R-1:8 and is currently developed with a 1,010 square foot single-story home with a 528 square foot garage. The existing parcel is 40,579 square feet (.93 acres). If the proposed subdivision is approved the property owner will dedicate 25 feet of frontage on Union Avenue and the Panorama W ay cul-de-sac to the Town for publicright-of--way. The dedications will reduce the land area to 32,936 square feet. On June 25, 2008, the Planning Commission denied a Tentative Map application for afour-lot subdivision. The property owner subsequently filed an application to split the property into three lots. On February 25, 2009, the Commission considered the three lot subdivision and continued the matter, requesting that the applicant provide an exhibit showing a conforming cul-de-sac for Panorama Way, and that any required environmental analysis be completed. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negafive Declaration were prepared for the project. The environmental documents were released for public review on July 17, 2009. The 30-day review period ended on August 17, 2009. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE /FILE #S-08-30, 5-09-33, 5-09-34, M-08-13 & ND-09-2. Augzast 5, 2010 On August 26, 2009, the Planning Commission considered two alternatives for the subdivision, one with a reduced size cul-de-sac at the end of Panorama Way and one with a conforming cul-de-sac. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the applications due to cited inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision. On November 2, 2009, the Town Council denied the appeal. Prior to approval of a Resolution confirming the action, the applicant requested that the Council reconsider its decision and that the applications be remanded to the Planning Commission for fmtlter consideration. On December 7, 2009, the Council decided to reconsider its decision, deferring the discussion to the meeting of February 1, 2010. Council ultimately decided to remand the matter to the Planning Commnission based on submission of new information. Exhibit 9 to Attachment 8 is a verbatim transcript of the Council discussion and action. On June 9, 2010, the Plaiming Commission considered two revised lot layouts for the tluee-lot subdivision along with plans for two new residences. The Commission denied all applications, citing concerns about inconsistency with the neighborhood, density, intensity of land use, and the suitability of the proposed development for the site. The applicant appealed the Commission's decision on June 10, 2010. A verbatim transcript was prepared for the June 9, 2010 Commission meeting (see Attachment 7). DISCUSSION: A. Proiect Summaa•y The project site is located at 15928 Union Avenue, on the east side of the street just north of Leewood Court. Adjacent properties are all occupied by single family residences. Homes to the south, east, and across the street (west) are two-stories. The two abutting homes to the north are one- story. Existing home sizes range from 1,630 to 3,705 square feet. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and garage, to subdivide the property into three parcels and to construct tluee new single-family residences. Architecture and Site (A&S) applications have been filed for new homes proposed on Parcels 2 and 3. Should the subdivision be approved, a separate A&S application would be required for a new residence on Parcel 1. Refer to the Planning Commission report for additional information on the proposed project (Attachment 8). B. Plaunin~ Commission The Plaruring Commission considered the subdivision applieafion on June 9, 2010. The motion for denial of the subdivision passed on a 3-2 vote. The Commission cited a number of issues and concerns as follows: PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE /FILE #5-08-3Q, S-09-33, 5-09-34, M-08-13 & ND-09-2. August S, 2010 • Subdivision is not compatible with the existing lot and development pattern in the neighborhood • Subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan • Site is not physically suited for proposed development • House designs are not consistent with Residential Design Guidelines • Incomplete development package (no plans for proposed Parcel 1) • Loss of view/visual hnpact • Drainage Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act includes the following seven findings relative to subdivisions of land. These criteria are in essence reverse findings; should the deciding body make any of the findings, it is grotmds for denial. a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and speciftc plans as specified in Section 65451. b. "That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c. 'that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is notphysically szitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or szEbstantially and avoidably injure ftsh or wildlife or their habitat. f That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acduired by the public at large, for access thrroztgh or use of, prroperly within the proposed subdivision. Staff recommended a soft approval of the proposed subdivision when it was returned to the Commission as it met the technical requirements to split the parcel (the density is within the allowable range, the minimum lot size can be provided for each lot, frontage and lot depth requirements have been met, and there are adequate building sites) and is compatible with the existing development pattern in the area. The Commission exercised its discretion in determining that the project is not consistent with the General Plan (finding b), the site is not suitable for the proposed development (finding c), that the proposed parcel configurations and resulting development are not consistent with existing development, and that the site is not suitable for the proposed density (findings d). Refer to Attachment 7 for the Commission's detailed discussion and articulation of reasons for not supporting the subdivision. Although the Cormission did not specifically deny the Architecture and Site applications, there was a defacto denial of those cmnpanion applications based on denial of the Subdivision application. PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE /FILE #5-08-3Q 5-09-33, S-09-34, M-08-13 & ND-09-2. August 5, 2010 C. Lot Pattern and Neighborhood Compatibility The existing lot pattern has been a point of discussion at many of the public hearings for the proposed subdivision. There is a mix of small and large lots in the area surrounding the project site (see Exhibit 20 to Attachment 8). Immediately to the north the pattern is one large lot of 18,000 to 20,000 square feet fronting on Union Avenue with a smaller lot of about 8,000 square feet fronting on Panorama Way. Parcels to the south on Leewood Como are approximately 10,000 to 12,000 square feet in size. The lots closest to Union Avenue are square shaped while the lots fionting on the cut-de-sac are pie shaped. The lot to the east is over 20,000 square feet. Lots across Union Avenue to the east are 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. At the February 1, 2010, meeting the Town Council indicated that properties on Puiorama Way and the east side of Union Avenue are the most relative to the project site for purposes of evaluating neighborhood compatibility. While proposed parcels 2 and 3 are pie shaped lots, they are oriented differently than the lots on Leewood and Lasuen Courts. The primuy reason for this configuration is the long, narrow nature of the project site. "fhe resulting location for the two homes pushes them closer together than is typical for a more standard cut-de-sac. Ifthe new residences were reduced in size and/or restricted to one-story designs, they would be more compatible with the Panorama/Unien neighborhood and less obtrusive to immediate neighbors. The Commission had some discussion on this aspect of the project, but was unable to reach a consensus on the issue of house size and height. D. Appeal The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision based on his belief that the Planning Cormnission erred or abused its discretion in fmding that the subdivision application is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and in finding that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and/or type of development. Attaclunent 6 is the applicant's appeal statement. Attachment 15 is a supplemental letter and exhibits further explaining the applicant's position. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: As required by the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared (see Exhibit 3 of Attaclunent 8). The environmental review was completed by the Town's consultant, Strelow Consulting. As part of this process a biology report was prepared by Ecosystems West, an archaeological review was completed by Pacific Legacy and an arborist report was prepared by the Town's Consulting Arborist, Arbor Resources. The public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration ended on August 17, 2009. Protection of nesting birds is the only potentially significant impact identified. A mitigation measure has been included in the conditions of approval (Attachment 4) and in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 3). The Initial Study also uicluded several recormnended conditions that have been included in the conditions of approval. PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 15928 UNION AVENUE /FILE #5-08-30, S-09-33, 5-09-34, M-08-13 & ND-09-2. August S, 2010 CONCLUSION: The three-lot subdivision which would allow development of three new residences is within the density range allowed by the General Plan, and complies with minimum frontage, depth and lot size requirements. However, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed parcel layout and configuration is not consistent with the existing lot pattern to the north and that the proposed density is not physically suitable for the site. If the Council upholds the Commission's decision and denies the appeal, the steps in the recommendation section on page one of the report should be followed. If Council decides to grant the appeal, it should determine if the reduced right-of--way is appropriate given the characteristics of the property and existing improvements in the area. Additionally, the Council should indicate which version of the Tentative Map is being approved, TM-1 or TM-2. The applicant prefers TM-2. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution for detual of the appeal and applications (3 pages) 2. Draft resohttion for granting appeal and approving applications (4 pages) 3. Mitigation Monitoring Program 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval for Tentative Map (10 pages) 5. Recommended Conditions of Approval for Architecture and Site applications (3 pages) 6. Applicant's Appeal Statement 7. June 9, 2010, Platming Commission Verbatim Minutes (99 transcribed pages) 8. June 9, 2009, Planning Commission Report with Exhibits 1-20 9. June 9, 2010, Platming Cormmission Desk Item with Exhibits 22-23 10. Petition and supporting information submitted by applicant (8 pages), received Jmie 9, 2010 1 L Applicant's suggested conditions of approval, received June 9, 2010 12. Docmnentation on previous subdivisions submitted by Geoff Mitchell (6 pages), received Jtme 9, 2010 13. Union Avenue data connections submitted by Thomas Mangano, received JLme 9, 2010 14. Letter from Orv & Karen Buesing (3 pages), received July 30, 2010 15. Applicant's letter and supporting information (7 pages total), received August 2, 2010 16. Tentative Maps and development plans (15 pages), received August 2, 2010 (originally submitted on May 20, 2010) Distribution: Jeff Grant, 39 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tony Jeans,l'.H.LS Design, P.O. Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 WRR:SD:ah N:\DEV\SUZANNE\COUNCIC\RF.PORTSIFWD. TO'1'QANYIvV,SUNlON15928-081610 DOC