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