Appeal Architecture and Site Application 15540 El Gato LntpW X dF
��S GAtpS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 08/19/14
ITEM NO. 1
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AUGUST 6, 2014
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
ARCHITECT. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: FLETCH AND
FLORENCE SULLIVAN.
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8. APN 523-
23 -021.
RECOMMENDATION:
After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that the Council:
Adopt the resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying
Architecture and Site application S -14 -003 (Attachment 11) (motion required).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Determine that the Planning Commission's decision 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
2. Adopt resolution (Attachment 12) granting the appeal and remand the project to the
Planning Commission with specific direction (motion r rred); or
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTIAirectorg"_XfCommunity Assistant Town Managed Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Wk-
Finance
NADMTC REPORTS\2014TIGato 15540_appeal.doex Reformatted: 5 /30/02 - Revised: 8 /7/14 628 PM
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15540 EL GATOS LANE /5 -14 -003
August 6, 2014
3. Adopt resolution (Attachment 10) granting the appeal, make the required findings and
considerations, and approve Architecture and Site application S -14 -003 (Attachment 13)
subject to conditions (motion required); or
4. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction (motion required).
MTi1:(ef:ZiI041R]
The application was considered by the Planning Commission because the project would result in
the largest residence in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage and floor area
ratio (FAR), and would create the only two story home in the immediate neighborhood. Due to
the scope of the applicant's proposal, annexation to the Town was required by the County. The
annexation application was processed concurrently with the Architecture and Site application,
and the annexation was final in July 2014.
On May 28, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application. The Commission
unanimously continued the project to allow the applicant time to redesign their proposal. The
Commission directed the applicant to come back with a one -story house. The applicant did not
make any changes to the plans previously reviewed at the Planning Commission and, on June 25,
2014, the Planning Commission denied the project.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on June 27, 2014. The Town Council is
the deciding body for the appeal.
DISCUSSION
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1,110- square foot single - family residence
and 405- square foot detached garage, and to construct a 2,581- square foot single - family
residence and a 588- square foot detached garage.
The two story single - family residence would be 25 feet, 6 inches high. Materials would
consist of fiber cement hardi -plank horizontal and shingle siding, wood trim, wood -clad
windows, stone veneer at the porch, and a composition shingle roof. The garage would be 14
feet, 8 inches high and consist of the same materials. A color and materials board is
available for review.
See Attachment 1 (Report to the Planning Commission dated May 28, 2014) for additional
information.
B. Planning Commission Action
On May 28, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application. The
Commission unanimously continued the project to allow the applicant time to redesign their
proposal. The Commission directed the applicant to come back with a one -story house.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15540 EL GATOS LANE /5 -14 -003
August 6, 2014
The applicant did not make any changes to the plans previously reviewed at the Planning
Commission and, on June 25, 2014, the Planning Commission voted 4 -3 to deny the
application.
Attachments 4 and 7 are verbatim transcripts of the two Planning Commission meetings.
C. Aral
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on June 27, 2014 (see Attachment
8). The applicant's appeal is based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred or
abused its discretion. A staff response follows each item:
1. Did not consider extended neighborhood as provided by Residential Guidelines and two
reports from Architectural Consultant. The subject property is infill from the county and
requires broader interpretation.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission specifically discussed the Residential Design
Guidelines and the Architectural Consultant reports. The Commission considered the
context of the application in the immediate neighborhood, pursuant to the Residential
Design Guidelines, and the broader neighborhood. The Commission discussed
supporting the creation of the largest house in the immediate neighborhood if the scale of
the structure was in keeping with the immediate neighborhood (see verbatim minutes,
Attachments 4 and 7).
2. Inserted personal opinions unrelated to this forum — that the project would open the
floodgates and take away affordable housing.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission expressed that if this project is approved,
then it may set a precedent for other property owners on this street to expect approval for
large, two story homes. The Commission also discussed that the Town needs housing
types with a variety of prices, consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the General
Plan encourages a variety of housing types and sizes balanced throughout the Town and
within neighborhoods. The Commission also commented on the compatibility of the
proposal with the character of the surrounding neighborhood (see verbatim minutes,
Attachments 4 and 7).
The applicant's appeal is also based on his belief that the Planning Commission did not have
discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town Council.
A staff response follows each item:
1. Affordable housing.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission did not discuss the project or neighborhood
as affordable housing in the context of below market price housing. Rather, the
Commission considered the project's impact on the balance of housing types, prices, and
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15540 EL GATOS LANE /5 -14 -003
August 6, 2014
sizes in the Town and in the vicinity of the project. Specifically, the Commission
considered the proposed project, the potential change it would create to the immediate
and surrounding neighborhood, and the potential precedent for other properties in the
area (see verbatim minutes, Attachments 4 and 7).
2. Square footage limitations below this FAR.
Staff Response: Staff understands that the appellant believes that the Commission does
not have the discretion to consider the square footage of the home. Per Town practice,
the Commission does have discretion to address square footage limitations and FAR (see
verbatim minutes, Attachments 4 and 7).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15303 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as adopted by the Town because the project
consists of the demolition and construction of a single - family residence.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the subject application, and adopt the resolution in Attachment 11.
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 12, if
remanding to the Planning Commission, or Attachment 13, if approving the application).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
1. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of May 28, 2014 (including Exhibits 1
— 11)
2. Desk Item to the Planning Commission for the meeting of May 28, 2014 (including Exhibit
12)
3. Desk Item 2 to the Planning Commission for the meeting of May 28, 2014 (including
Exhibit 13)
4. Verbatim minutes from the May 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting
5. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of June 25, 2014 (including Exhibit 14)
6. Addendum to the Planning Commission for the meeting of June 25, 2014 (including
Exhibit 15)
7. Verbatim minutes from the June 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting
8. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received June 27, 2014
9. Required Findings and Considerations (one page)
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15540 EL GATOS LANE /S -14 -003
August 6, 2014
10. Recommended Conditions of Approval (eight pages)
11. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal (three pages)
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
(three pages)
13. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project with Exhibit A (12 pages)
Distribution
Chris Spaulding, 801 Camilla Street Suite E, Berkeley, CA 94710
Florence & Fletch Sullivan, 15540 El Gato Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032
LRP:JS:cgt
N:\DEV \TC REP0RTS \2014\E1Ga1o15540_appml.docx
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK