Loading...
Reconsider Appeal of Planning Commission - 16560 Shannon Rdtow„ of MEETING DATE: 04/14/14 ITEM NO. I fps 6Atpb COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: APRIL 10, 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. RECONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A PRE - 1941 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT TWO NEW SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8, AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 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: PREPARED BY: SANDY L. BAILY, Director of Community Deve oI pment Reviewed by: U tU Assistant Town Manager JA&own Attorney Finance N:\DEV\TC REPORTS\2014 \Shannonl6560_ appeal- monsidemtion.4- 14- 14.dox Reformatted: 5 /30/02 Revised: 4! 10 /14 9 :42 AM PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION FOR 16560 SHANNON ROAD /S -13 -071 & S -13 -080 April 10, 2014 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 2. Adopt the resolution granting the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission with specific direction (Attachment 8) (motion required); or 3. Adopt the resolution granting the appeal (Attachment 9) 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 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. Planning Commission 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. Appeal The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on January 10, 2014. Town Council On March 3, 2014, the Town Council approved an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to demolish a pre -1941 single - family residence and construct two new single - family residences located at 16560 Shannon Road on two separate lots. Town Council remanded the applications to the Planning Commission for further consideration with direction to consider not only reducing the square footage of the house on Lot 2 but considering a new concept and comments provided by the Planning Commission at the January 8, 2014, public hearing and the Town Council at the March 3, 2014, public hearing. Request for Reconsideration On March 17, 2014, the applicant requested that the Council reconsider its decision to remand the applications to the Planning Commission for further consideration. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION FOR 16560 SHANNON ROAD /S -13 -071 & 5 -13 -080 April 10, 2014 Motion to Place Reconsideration of a Prior Action on a Future Council Aeenda Per the Town Council's Procedures Policy, the maker of the Motion must specifically articulate the circumstances that warrant reconsideration of the prior action. On March 17, 2014 the Council voted (4 -1) to reconsider the prior remand of the two applications to the Planning Commission on a future Council agenda articulating the following circumstances in the motion: 1. Confusion at the time of the making of the motion; 2. Consideration of the Presbyterian Church across the street from the parcels; 3. Consideration and clarification of County parcels on three sides of the subject property; and 4. Consideration of the immediate neighborhood and policies related to how that is defined when making residential decisions. In addition, one Councilmember voted for the motion noting new information that the applicant did not want the application remanded to the Planning Commission. Full Reconsideration of the Prior Action Per the Town Council's Procedures Policy, Architecture and Site applications S -13 -071 and S- 13 -080 have been previously acted upon by the Council and have subsequently been approved for full reconsideration by the Council. Per Council Policy, this reconsideration will be a full hearing of the matter as if it is being considered by the Council for the first time. The full reconsideration of the prior action (whether sustained, reversed or otherwise modified) will be the final action on that item, and no further reconsiderations will be considered. DISCUSSION: A. Project 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. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION FOR 16560 SHANNON ROAD /5 -13 -071 & S -13 -080 April 10, 2014 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. 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 S -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): 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 PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION FOR 16560 SHANNON ROAD /S -13 -071 & S -13 -080 April 10, 2014 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). 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 staring 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) PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION FOR 16560 SHANNON ROAD /5 -13 -071 & 5 -13 -080 April 10, 2014 D. Town Council Action On March 3, 2014, Council received a modified development plan for the proposed single family house located on Lot 2, at the corner lot of Shannon Road and West La Chiquita Avenue (Attachment 11). The plans include a modified site plan, floor plan, and elevations. The proposed plan reduces the house by a total of 158 square feet and reduces the garage by 14.5 square feet. The changes are minor and the elevation details remain the same. The reduction in square footage of the house is achieved by shrinking the total house by 1 foot on all four elevations on both the first and second floors. By reducing the square footage by 158 square feet the proposed house would no longer be the largest home in the immediate neighborhood based on total square footage. The modified house on Lot 2 would be the second largest FAR in the immediate neighborhood (FAR 29.6 %) with the proposed house on Lot 1 (Attachment 10) being the largest FAR in the immediate neighborhood (FAR 33 %). Both homes are within the allowable FAR for each lot. Section 29.20.300(c) of the Town Code states if the only or predominant reasons for modifying or reversing the decision of the of the Planning Commission is the availability of new information as defined by subsection (b)(2) which states "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" it is the policy of the Town that the application will be returned to the Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new information has minimal effect on the application. Staff believes the revised plans have a minimal effect on the application. Therefore, staff does not feel that this new information triggers a remand to the Planning Commission as this reduction would not be the predominate reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt a two story house was not compatible with the neighborhood. If Council finds merit to grant the appeal with the inclusion of Attachment 11, Town Council should add the following condition (deletions stricken, additions underlined); APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved on March 3, 2014 and noted as received on Thleve ber '", '^" November 14, 2013 (Lot 1) and February 27, 2014 (Lot 2). Any changes or modifications made to the approved plans shall be approved by the Director of Community Development, the Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or the Town Council depending on the scope of the changes. Attachment 12 is a copy of the appellant's Power Point presentation presented at the March 3, 2014 Town Council meeting received at the March 3, 2014 Town Council Meeting as an Addendum. Attachment 13 includes public comments received at the March 3, 2014 Town Council Meeting as a Desk Item. PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION FOR 16560 SHANNON ROAD /S -13 -071 & 5 -13 -080 April 10, 2014 In response to a Council member's inquiry, a map (Attachment 14) illustrating which properties surrounding the subject property are located in the County was provided at the March 3, 2014, Town Council Meeting as a Desk Item. The Council's action on the appeal and subsequent action regarding reconsideration of that action are discussed earlier in this report 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 there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or new information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or 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 must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 9). FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: I . 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 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) 11. Modified Development Plans for Lot 2, received at the Town Council Meeting March 3, 2014 as an Addendum (four pages) PAGE 8 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION FOR 16560 SHANNON ROAD /S -13 -071 & S -13 -080 April 10, 2014 12. Appellant's Power Point Presentation, received at the Town Council Meeting March 3, 2014 as an Addendum (15 pages) 13. Public Comments, received at the Town Council Meeting March 3, 2014 as a Desk Item (three pages) 14. Map of subject project and the surrounding Town and County properties, received at the Town Council Meeting March 3, 2014 as a Desk Item (one page) 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:ct