258 Union Ave Appealtown oo MEETING DATE: 03 /03/14
ITEM NO.
SOS sA� "os' COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S -13 -071 and S -13 -080
PROPERTY LOCATION: 16560 SHANNON ROAD PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT: JG BUILDING, LLC. APPELLANT: JEFF CURRAN
JG BUILDING. LLC.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A PRE -1941
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT TWO NEW SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8. APN 532 -04 -001.
RECOMMENDATION:
After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that the Council:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision denying Architecture and Site applications
S -13 -071 and S -13 -080 (motion required); and
2. Adopt the resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying
Architecture and Site applications S -13 -071 and S -13 -080 (Attachment 7) (motion
required).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
Determine that the Planning Commission's decisions should be reversed or modified and
find one or more of the following, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
b. New information 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; and
PREPARED BY: SANDY L. BAILY,
Director of Community Development is 63
Reviewed by: —6) Assistant Town Manager —1461'own Attorney Finance
N:\DEV \TC REPORTS12014\Shannonl6560 _appeal.do x Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 2/20/14 1:00 PM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16560 Shannon Road/S -13 -071 & S -13 -080
February 20, 2014
2. Adopt the resolution granting the appeal and remand the project to the Planning
Commission with specific direction (Attachment 8), make the required findings and
considerations, and approve Architecture and Site Applications S -13 -071 and S -13 -080
subject to the Conditions in Attachment 6 and the Development Plans (Attachment 10)
(motion required); or
3. Adopt the resolution granting the appeal (Attachment 9) (motion required); or
4. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction (motion required).
BACKGROUND:
The subject Architecture & Site applications and a Subdivision application for creating two lots
were referred to the Planning Commission on January 8, 2014, because the proposed single -
family dwelling on Lot 2 would create the largest house in the immediate neighborhood in terms
of square footage. In addition both proposed dwellings (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would create the largest
FAR's in the immediate neighborhood.
On January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the applications. The Planning
Commission approved the Subdivision Application M -13 -010 and denied Architecture and Site
Applications S -13 -071 and S -13 -080.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on January 10, 2014.
DISCUSSION:
A. Proiect Summary
The subject property is flat and is currently 20,300 square feet in area. On January 8, 2014,
Planning Commission approved Subdivision Application M -13 -010 allowing subdivision of
the property into two lots.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1,290 square foot single - family
residence. The applicant proposes to construct a two story single - family dwelling on each of
the lots with attached garages, and to remove seven trees.
Lot One: Lot one contains 8,015 square feet with a proposed 2,611 square foot single - family
residence and a 540 square foot attached garage. The height of the two -story structure would
be 25 feet -9 inches.
Lot Two: Lot two contains 9,672 square feet with a 3,062 square foot single - family residence
and a 626 square foot attached garage. The two -story structure would be 26 feet -3 inches.
See Attachment 1 (Report to the Planning Commission dated January 8, 2014) for additional
information.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16560 Shannon Road/5 -13 -071 & 5 -13 -080
February 20, 2014
B. Planning Commission Action
On January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject applications. The
Planning Commission approved Subdivision Application M -13 -010 and denied Architecture
and Site Applications 5 -13 -071 and 5 -13 -080.
Planning Commission identified the following concerns regarding the proposed Architecture
and Site Applications:
• Neighborhood Compatibility with regard to massing and the appropriateness of two story
homes in this location;
• Size of the proposed home located on Lot 2 being 148 square feet larger than the next
largest home in the immediate neighborhood; and
• Architectural detailing with regard to garage setbacks, garage door style and use of
wood/stucco combination for exterior materials.
Attachment 2 is a verbatim transcript of the two Planning Commission meeting.
C. Appeal
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on January 10, 2014 (see
Attachment 3). The applicant's appeal is based on his belief that the Planning Commission
erred or abused its discretion in that (staff response follows each item):
1. The Commission erred in stating that they are restricted only to the immediate
neighborhood when considering neighborhood compatibility and cannot consider beyond
the immediate neighborhood.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission discussed that the definition of neighborhood
is something the Town has adopted through the Residential Design Guidelines. The
Residential Design Guidelines are intended to reinforce and clarify the policies and
guidelines included in the Town of Los Gatos General Plan.
Section 1.6 of the Residential Design Guidelines states, "the greatest attention will be
given to the immediate neighborhood where nearby homeowners are most likely to be
confronted with the new house or addition on a daily basis, and where other residents
driving by are most likely to see the new structure in the context of the nearby homes."
The Residential Design Guidelines also state that common sense should be used when
applying the immediate neighborhood diagram to a specific site context. There are
several factors in determining an immediate neighborhood when this diagram may not be
applicable. These factors include, but are not limited to, location and visibility of the
building (e.g. lots with multiple frontages and diversity of parcel size.)
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16560 Shannon Road /S -13 -071 & 5 -13 -080
February 20, 2014
Chapter 2 of the Residential Design Guidelines states that, "sensitive additions and new
homes will vary from neighborhood type to neighborhood type and from parcel to parcel.
However, the broad intent of these guidelines is to respect the scale and character of each
Town's individual neighborhoods. The emphasis is on "neighborhood compatibility"
with recognition that some change is inevitable, may be an improvement to the existing
structure /or neighborhood, and may be desired by the neighborhood.
2. The Commission refused to acknowledge the church that is 45 feet tall.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission was provided the neighborhood context in
the staff report (Attachment 1) which included stating the church across the street from
the project is 45 feet tall. Planning Commissioners stated that the height and massing of
the church did not have relevance to the proposed two story residential homes in the
immediate neighborhood. The Residential Design Guidelines state, "some neighborhoods
have a distinct character and scale while others are much more mixed and transitional."
The Guidelines also state that "aberrations will not be considered when analyzing a
neighborhood."
3. The Town's consulting architect deemed the project compatible.
Staff Response: On October 18, 2013 the Town's Consulting Architect provided
comments with regards to the proposed project. (See Exhibit 8 of Attachment 1). The
Town's Consulting Architect commented, "The two homes are, in my judgment, well
designed with good visual variety and detail. They are similar in scale to other nearby
two -story homes, and are compatible in scale with the large church structure across from
Shannon Road. I have no recommendations for changes to the proposed design."
Recommendations and comments provided by the Consulting Architect are just one of
many considerations in the Planning Commission's decision making process for
Architecture and Site Applications.
In addition to the appeal submitted on January 10, 2014, the applicant submitted a supplemental
letter and supporting map on February 5, 2014. (See Exhibit 4)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15303 of the State
Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town because the project consists of the demolition
of one single family residence and construction of single - family residences.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the subject applications, and adopt the resolution in Attachment 7.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific findings as to how the
Planning Commission erred must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 9).
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16560 Shannon Road/S -13 -071 & S -13 -080
February 20, 2014
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Report to the Planning Commission dated January 8, 2014
2. Planning Commission meeting verbatim minutes of January 8, 2014
3. Appeal of Planning Commission decision, received January 10, 2014
Received with this staff report:
4. Supplemental Letter and Map from Appellant, received February 5, 2014 (four pages)
5. Required Findings and Considerations (one page)
6. Recommended Conditions of Approval (nine pages)
7. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal (three pages)
8. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
(three pages)
9. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal, includes Recommended Conditions of Approval as
Exhibit A (12 pages)
10. Development Plans, received January 30, 2014 (13 pages)
Distribution
JG Building LLC, Greg Pinn, 1475 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, CA 95129
Greg Simpson, 16185 Los Gatos Blvd, Suite 205, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Melissa Lander, HMH, 1570 Oakland Road, San Jose, CA 95131
SLB:EW:cgt
NiDEV\TC REPORTS120IMShannon 16560_appmWocx
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK