Bella Vistag ovtra of MEETING DATE: 04/02/12
f/ ITEM NO. 3
S OS�pSO S COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 29, 2012
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S -06 -046 AND S- 06 -64: LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION M-06-09. VARIANCE APPLICATION V-
11 -001; NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS ND -08 -003 AND ND -08 -003
PROPERTY LOCATION: 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: DAN ROSS AND JAKE PETERS.
APPELLANT: DAN ROSS.
CONSIDER APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS DENYING
A REQUEST FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, VARIANCE FOR REDUCED
DRIVEWAY LENGTH AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8. APNS 529 -23 -015 AND 529 -23-
016.
RECOMMENDATION
After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that:
1. The Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to
deny the subject applications (motion required).
Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the
subject applications (Attaclmient 14) (motion required).
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatively, the Council may:
In accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300 determine that the Platming Commission's
decisions should be reversed or modified and find one or more of the following:
PREPARED BY :: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager _Town Attorney Finance
N: \DEVSPC REPORTS \2012 \IIellaV ista339- 341- appeal.doe
Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised:3 /29/12 12:16 PM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE /5 -06 -046, S -06 -064, M- 06 -09,
V -11 -001, ND -08 -002 and ND -08 -003.
March 29, 2012
a. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
or
b. The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process
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.
Grant the appeal, make the required findings and considerations (Attachment 12), adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 11) and approve the Subdivision, Variance and
Architecture and Site applications, subject to the conditions in Attachment 13 (motion
required).
Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction (motion required); or
Grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission with specific direction
(motion required).
BACKGROUND
The subject properties are located along awooded stretch of Bella Vista Avenue. Immediately below
the site (west) are townhomes accessed from Maggi Court. Properties across Bella Vista (east) are
developed with single - family homes. Although there are existing single - family residences along the
west side of Bella Vista, there is a gap in the vicinity of the project site, and there are no abutting
homes on the either side of the two parcels.
On October 12, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the subject applications and continued
the matter to January 11, 2012, directing the applicant to significantly reduce the size of the proposed
homes, reduce the bulk and mass, and to address the requested variance for reduced driveway length,
reduced setbacks, and pedestrian and cyclist safety.
The applicant submitted revised plans and materials in December 2011. Due to the need for
additional time to complete the Commission report, staff requested that the applications be continued
to February 8, 2012.
On February 12, 2012, the Planning Connnission unanimously denied the applications, citing
concerns about safety relative to the proposed driveways, the request for a reduced rear yard setback,
and lack of compliance with the directive to significantly reduce the size of the houses. Verbatim
transcripts of the two Planning Commission hearings are provided in Attachments 6 and 9. The
applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision on February 21, 2012 (refer to Exhibits 10
and 17).
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE /S -06 -046, S -06 -064, M- 06 -09,
V -11 -001, ND -08 -002 and ND -08 -003.
March 29, 2012
Staff initially recommended soft approval of the project for the following reasons:
• Proposed house sizes are within the size range of existing homes in the immediate area.
• Architectural style is appropriate for the neighborhood and the homes would fit into the
Bella Vista streetscape (refer to Consulting Architect's letter, Exhibit 8 to Attachment 3).
• Variance for driveway length is supported by the need for access and parking, and because
it will allow installation of a more functional driveway and require less site disturbance
than a conforming driveway (moving the garages further down the slope would require
more grading and result in a steeper driveway and would place them closer to the
townhouses below). In addition, 7 of 10 existing homes on the west side of Bella Vista
have driveways that are less than 18 feet in length.
• Reduced setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood pattern; other homes on Bella Vista
have reduced setbacks and a number of existing homes on the west side of Bella Vista have
a reduced front setback.
• Grading cut and fill exceptions are warranted by the need for access, to provide a
functional driveway and backup for the garage, and to lower the houses into the site.
• Building outside the LRDA is supportable because there is no LRDA on the site (the entire
property has a slope greater than 30 %).
Following the October 12, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended that the
applications be continued for redesign because the applicant had not made a significant reduction in
floor area as directed by the Commission.
DISCUSSION
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to adjust the lot line between the two lots to make them more similar in
size and to construct two new single - family residences with attached garages. A variance is
requested to allow a reduced driveway length. The homes are one -story at the front and two- stories
at the rear. General project data is included in Exhibit 6 of Attachment 3. The building sites are very
constrained due to small lot sizes, steep slopes and presence of mature trees.
B. Lot Line Adjustment
A lot line adjustment is requested to shift land between the two parcels so they are of similar size.
Both parcels are nonconforming as they are smaller than the 8,000 square foot minimum required by
the R -1:8 zone. The lot line adjustment would result in lot 1 (341 Bella Vista) becoming less
nonconforming since the parcel size would increase, while lot 2 (339 Bella Vista) would become
more nonconforming because the parcel size would decrease. Although Section 24.10.030(a)(1) of
the Town Code states that boundary changes cannot create any new lack of conformity or increase
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE /S -06 -046, 5 -06 -064, M- 06 -09,
V -11 -001, ND -08 -002 and ND -08 -003.
March 29, 2012
the degree of nonconformity, Code Section 24.10.040 includes provisions to allow a deviation as
follows:
Sec. 24.10.040. Modifications
(a) Whenever the Development Review Committee finds the land included in a subdivision is:
(1) Of such size or shape;
(2) Subject to such title limitations of record;
(3) Affected by such topographical location or conditions; or
(4) Is to be devoted to such use; that it is impossible or impractical in the particular case for
the subdivider to conform fully to a regulation contained in this chapter; the
Development Review Committee may recommend such relief from the regulations as it
determines is necessary.
(b) To support each recommendation for relief the Development Review Committee must find that
a special, individual reason makes the strict letter of the regulation impossible or impractical to
observe and that the modification conforms with the spirit and purpose of the Subdivision Map
Act, the general plan, and this chapter. The Development Review Committee transmits a
written report to the advisory agency, setting forth each modification recommended and the
facts relied on to support the recommendation. The advisory agency may approve or deny each
such relief.
As the deciding body, the Town Council would need to determine that the justification for allowing
one of the parcels to become smaller is sufficient. Staff initially supported approval of the lot line
adjustment as it will make the two parcels similar in size and the largest oak tree on the site (located
between the two proposed houses) would be saved.
C. Driveway Length
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced driveway length on both lots. While the
proposed driveways comply with the requirement for a minimum 18 -foot length, part of that length
will be within the public- right -of -way rather than entirely on the project sites. Paving would be done
within the right -of -way to provide a comiection between the edge of pavement and the face of the
garages regardless of where the garages are located. Increasing the driveway length on the site would
push the garages further downslope and closer to the residences located below the site. In addition, it
would increase the amount of impervious surface and site disturbance and require higher retaining
walls. Elimination of the garages would not eliminate the need for driveways as a minimum of two
on -site parking spaces are required for each residence.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE /5 -06 -046, 5 -06 -064, M- 06 -09,
V -11 -001, ND -08 -002 and ND -08 -003.
March 29, 2012
D. Appeal
The decisions of the Planning Commission were appealed on February 21, 2012 (Attachment 6).
The applicant's appeals are based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion in that the denials were based on the following (staff comments follow each item in
italics):
Home sizes of 2,400 square feet are not being proposed
The proposed residences include a cellar which is not counted toward the FAR. The cellar
is 399 square feet for 339 Bella Vista and 481 square feet for 341 Bella Vista. Proposed
home sizes are 1, 803 square feet and 1, 838 square feet respectively. The garages are 441
square feetwith both plans. Ifthe house and garage numbers are added together the total
square footage is 2,244 (339 Bella Vista) and 2,279 (341 Bella Vista).
A variance is not requested for the rear yard setback
This comment appears to bean error in semantics. A reduced rear setback is requestedfor
339 Bella Vista (15 feet 6 inches rather than the required 20 feet). Reduced setbacks can
be considered for nonconforming lots pursuant to Town Code Section 29.40.015.B(1.
Reduced setbacks do not require a variance. The Commissioner's concern is the request
for a reduced rear yard setback that would result in the house being located closer to
residents living below the site than if the 20 foot rear setback was complied with.
A perceived safety concern with the driveways was not substantiated by fact
Engineering staff evaluated the plans and did not have any safety concerns. The project
engineer also believes that the driveways are appropriately located. Driveways are an
essential element of the proposal as a minimum of two on -site parking spaces need to be
provided for each residence.
Project opposition was factored into the denial
There are a number of immediate neighbors who have voiced concerns about the
proposals, including residents living below the site on Maggi Court and residents on Bella
Vista Avenue. Concerns include privacy, visual impact, pedestrian and cyclist safety on
Bella Vista, tree removals, variance and the number of requested exceptions.
The applicant's letter addresses the above comments in more detail (see Attachment 19).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for each of the proposed
residences. The environmental analysis was completed by the Town's Environmental Consultant,
Geier & Geier Consulting. The 20 -day public review period ended on July 11, 2011. In addition to
architectural review, arborist and geotechnical peer reviews were completed for the project (initial
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE /S -06 -046, S -06 -064, M- 06 -09,
V -I1 -001, ND -08 -002 and ND -08 -003.
March 29, 2012
reports were prepared by outside consultants and submitted by the applicant). The geotechnical
investigation concluded that the site is buildable from a geoteclmical perspective. The arborist who
prepared the initial tree survey and evaluation, Deborah Ellis, is now one of the Town's Consulting
Arborists. A peer review of the arborist report was conducted by Arbor Resources.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeals and uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the subject applications, and adopt the resolution in Attachment 13. If the
Council determines that the appeals should be granted, specific findings as to how the Planning
Commission erred must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 14). Staff recommends that
if the Council grants the appeals, the matter be remanded to the Planning Comrission with specific
direction to the applicant on desired plan changes. If the house sizes are reduced, the Planning
Commission's concerns about house size and bulk and mass can be addressed and the visual impact
to residents below the site will be lessened.
The Council also has the option to approve the project as proposed, or to continue the matter to a
date certain and request that the applicant make changes and return to Council with revised plans.
There are required findings or considerations to approve the applications for each of the following
aspects of the project:
• Variance for reduced driveway length
• Compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (exceptions requested for
grading cut and fill depth and LRDA)
• Increase in FAR
• Reduced setbacks
• Lot line adjustment increasing the degree of nonconformity for one lot
Each of the above items is individually addressed in the required findings and considerations
(Attachment 12). While there is a mechanism for approval of each of the requested exceptions,
considerations and variance, the Council may determine that there is not sufficient justification and
that the required findings or considerations cannot be made. When a development proposal is made
it is considered independent of previous applications and is based on the individual site
characteristics and constraints. Approval of any of the requested exceptions, the variance, reduced
setbacks and /or lot line adjustment would not set a precedent if appropriate findings are made that
are specific to this proposal and properly.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE /S -06 -046, S -06 -064, M- 06 -09,
V -11 -001, ND -08 -002 and ND -08 -003.
March 29, 2012
Attachments
Previously received under separate cover
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration for 339 Bella Vista
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for 314 Bella Vista
3. October 12, 2011, Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits 1 -11
4. October 12, 2011 Planning Cornrnission Desk Item with Exhibit 14
5. Applicant's presentation from October 12, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
6. October 12, 2011, Planning Commission verbatim minutes
7. February 8, 2012 Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits 15 -20
8, February 8, 2012 Planning Commission Desk Item with Exhibits 21 -23
9. February 8, 2012 Planning Commission verbatim minutes
10. Appeal statement, received February 21, 2012
Provided with this report
11. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (three pages)
12. Required findings and considerations (two pages)
13. Recommended conditions of approval (10 pages)
14. Draft resolution for denial of appeals (three pages)
15. Draft resolution to grant appeals and remand the project to Planning Commission (three
pages)
16. Draft resolution to grant the appeals and approve the project (three pages)
17. House size exhibit submitted by Mary Badame, received February 14, 2012
18. Letter from Mr. Ron and the Reverend Rebecca Wilson, received March 12, 2012
19. Applicant's letter (12 pages), received March 22, 2012
Distribution
Dan Ross, 188 Villa Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Jake Peters, P.O. Box 3486, Ketchum, ID 83340
David Britt, Britt Rowe, 108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
WRR:SA:cgt
N:\DEV\TC REPORTSW IMellaV ista339- 341- appeal.doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank