Staff ReporttOYI N F
(� GAtOg
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 05105115
ITEM NO: 9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
APRIL 29, 2015
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANA
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S -14 -072. PROJECT
LOCATION: 15343 SANTELLA COURT. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT•
DAVIDON HOMES. APPELLANT: DAVE WEISSMAN.
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVING AN
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR- 2 %2:PD. APN
527 -09 -016
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and approving Architecture and Site Application S -14-
072 to construct a new single family residence on property zoned HR- 2 %:PD.
BACKGROUND:
A. Project Summary
The subject property is lot 7 in the Highlands of Los Gatos, a 19 -lot Planned Development
(PD), approved by the Town Council in 2005. The property is located towards the end of
Santella Court. The proposed residence would be two stories but only the second floor
would be visible from the street. The residence would contain 4,687 square feet (sq. ft.) of
living floor (plus an additional 3,003 sq. ft. of cellar) and 712 sq. ft. of garage floor area.
Attachment 1 (Report to the Planning Commission dated March 11, 2015) contains
additional information. The applicant has provided an exhibit (Attachment 10) showing the
approved color averaging for the project site based on the PD modification approved by the
Town Council on April 7, 2015.
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI �. of Assistant Town Manager/Dire ctorcommunity Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager V tP i own Attorney Finance
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS\2015 \Santella 15343 - appeal.docx Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15343 Santella Court/5 -14 -072
April 29, 2015
B. Development Review Committee
The Development Review Committee (DRC) held a public hearing for the proposed
Architecture and Site application on January 13, 2015 (Exhibit 9 of Attachment 1). Written
public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants (minimum of
30). David Weissman, a nearby property owner on Francis Oaks Way, was present at the
DRC hearing and provided testimony regarding the project's compliance with the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS &G).
The DRC found that the application was in compliance with the HDS &G and the approved
PD Ordinance, and that the proposed residence was in the most appropriate location on the
site considering the site's constraints which include: a steep entry at the driveway and a small
Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA). The LRDA accounts for tree preservation of
the healthier trees. On January 13, 2015, David Weissman appealed the DRC decision.
C. Planning Commission
On March 11, 2015, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Development
Review Committee's decision to approve the subject application. The Planning Commission
denied the appeal and approved the application with the findings that the proposed residence
complies with the HDS &G.
The Planning Commission discussed the care of the trees within the development throughout
construction and included a condition for a certified arborist to conduct periodic monitoring
during construction to ensure the implementation of the tree protection requirements.
Additionally, the Commission discussed the language regarding established viewing
platforms within the HDS &G. The Commission found that the visibility analysis met the
HDS &G (Attachment 4). The verbatim minutes of the meeting are provided in Attachment
3.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by Mr.
Weissman on March 16, 2015.
D. Appeal Considerations for the Town Council
Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the
Planning Commission hearing and in this case, by May 6, 2015. The Council must at least
open the public hearing for the item on May 5 and may continue the matter to a date certain
if the Council does not complete its work on the item.
In the Council's consideration of an appeal and the full record contained in this report and its
attachments, the Council should determine, pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300:
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15343 Santella Court/S -14 -072
April 29, 2015
1. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. 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.
If the Council cannot make one or more of the above findings, the appeal is denied and the
project may be approved (see draft resolution in Attachment 11). If the Council can make
one or more of the above findings, the Council can uphold the appeal and remand it to
Planning Commission with direction (see draft resolution in Attachment 12) or deny the
application (see draft resolution in Attachment 13). The Council should identify specific
facts to substantiate any of these actions.
DISCUSSION:
A. Appeal to the Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the appellant on March 16, 2015
(see Attachment 4). The appeal identified that the Planning Commission erred in its
interpretation of the viewing platforms and analysis from the HDS &G. Subsequent to the
appeal, the appellant submitted further documentation to support his appeal which is included
in Attachment 6 and discussed below. In addition to the Appellant's initial reasoning, he
believes there is new information in that based on prior Town Council discussion
(Attachments 7 and 8), the Commission had the discretion to deviate from the established
viewing platforms to determine visibility of the proposed residence. The Appellant provides
the following questions and information for the Council to consider in Attachment 6 (staff
responses are included in italics).
How should the viewing platform for Lot 7 be chosen? Using "common sense," as
discussed by the Town Council on June 15, 2009 (Attachment 8), the comer of Los Gatos
Boulevard and Blossom Hill Road (viewing platform #1) should be construed to mean
anywhere along the corner to obtain an unobstructed view. An unobstructed view of the
proposed residence can be seen 140 feet south of Blossom Hill Road. A revised analysis
should be provided at this location to determine visibility of the proposed residence.
The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS &G) do allow the deciding
body to determine additional appropriate viewing platforms when relevant (page 13).
2. Why is this application incomplete? The HDS &G require that a potential visibility
analysis be completed which takes into consideration trees that will be removed as part of
the application. The applicant should re- evaluate the potential visibility of the residence
at both the corner and the modified location discussed above taking into account the trees
that will be removed or severely impacted by construction.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15343 Santella Court/5 -14 -072
April 29, 2015
The appellant also requests that the Council require the CC &Rs for the Highlands be
modified to restrict disturbance of the oak woodland understory when more than 30 feet
from the residences.
The application was deemed complete in that the proposed residence was determined to
not be visible from the established viewing platforms. The deciding body (in this case,
Council) can determine additional viewing locations for analysis subject to page 13 of
the HDS &G. While the Development Review Committee was the initial deciding body on
the application and would have the discretion per the HDS &G, the Development Review
Committee did not consider additional locations for analysis. This was because the Town
Council review and approval of the Planned Development did not include a discussion of
additional viewing platforms.
3. What constitutes screening? The discussion by the Town Council on June 15, 2009
utilized healthy on -site and healthy neighboring trees in the viewscape of the project as
screening. Due to the impact that varying levels of foliage of deciduous trees can have
on visibility, the analysis should be required to be completed during the winter months.
Tree screening is at its lowest after the leaves have fallen, and the potential impact would
be better understood in the winter. The Council has the opportunity to provide
clarification for the record.
Per the HDS&G, a potentially visible home should be determined by considering the site
without existing screening. When a visibility analysis is conducted to determine if a
potentially visible home is actually visible (greater than 25 9yo) the existing screening
should be taken into account. The HDS&G does not speak to off -site screening,
obstructions, deciduous native trees, or time of year for the visibility analysis.
4. How should viewing platforms be analyzed? The Town Council should provide further
direction as to when and how the visibility analysis should be conducted to provide for a
more realistic impact of applications to the views of the hillsides.
The Council could direct staff to take a broader approach to viewing locations or
considerations of screening. These recommendations could be incorporated into the
HDS&G with the recent Council direction to address color averaging.
The Appellant believes there are alternative building options for the Applicant which would
consist of reducing the size (footprint) of the proposed residence to better conform to the site
constraints.
The Applicant provided the following information relating to the discussion by the Planning
Commission and the Appellant's comments at the Planning Commission meeting of March 11,
2015 (Attachment 5).
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15343 Santella Court/S -14 -072
April 29, 2015
The Appellant claims that the existing vegetation should not be used as screening in the
Visual Analysis Calculations. The trees included in the Visual Analysis are either outside
the construction limits or within the Scenic Easement on the lot and would not be
permitted to be removed without a permit from the Town.
2. The Appellant claims the photos should be taken in the winter months when the
deciduous trees have lost their leaves. The Visual Analysis was completed on January
22, 2015.
The Appellant claims the house is visible 60 feet to the south. The valley floor covers
many square miles, providing a visual analysis for every location that the story poles may
be visible to the valley floor is impractical and not what the HDS &G call for.
Additionally, the applicant provided its reasons about why the appellant appealed the decision of
the Development Review Committee:
Removal of four heritage oaks near Santella Court. The Appellant categorizes the four
oak trees proposed for removal to accommodate the residence as heritage oaks. The
Town does not currently have a definition of "heritage" and based on the health and size
of the trees the applicant believes it would be unlikely that any arborist would categorize
the trees proposed for removal as such.
2. Alternatives exist to locate house to the west. The Applicant studied additional house
locations on the site. The analysis and discussion are included in Exhibit 11 of
Attachment 1.
The applicant also discussed compliance issues with the development as a whole discussed by
the appellant at the Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 2015 (Attachment 5). Staff has
worked with the Applicant and the Town's Consulting Arborist to further address the concerns
regarding the health of the trees at this development and additional ongoing inspections will
occur at active sites throughout the development at the cost of the Applicant (see Exhibit A of
Attachment 11).
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the appeal of the subject application, and adopt the resolution in
Attachment 11 approving Architecture and Site application S -14 -072 subject to the conditions
contained in Exhibit A of Attachment 11.
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15343 Santella Court/S -14 -072
April 29, 2015
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has three alternatives to the staff recommendation:
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 12) granting the appeal, remanding the project to the
Planning Commission with specific direction, determining that the Planning
Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, and finding 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.
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 13) granting the appeal, and denying Architecture and
Site application S -14 -072, and finding 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.
3. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific facts supporting the findings
as to how the Planning Commission erred or that additional information was provided must be
incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 12 if remanding to the Planning Commission or
Attachment 13 if denying the application).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Planned Development (Ordinance 2147)
and was certified by the Town Council on December 19, 2005. No further environmental
analysis is required for the individual lot development.
COORDINATION:
The evaluation of the application was coordinated with Parks and Public Works and the Fire
Department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15343 Santella Court/S -14 -072
April 29, 2015
Attachments:
1. March 11, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (including Exhibits 1 — 12)
2. Materials submitted to the Planning Commission at the meeting of March 11, 2015
3. March 11, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
4. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received March 16, 2015
5. Letter from Applicant
6. Letter from Appellant
7. August 27, 2003 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
8. February 2, 2004 Town Council Action Minutes
9. Required Findings and Considerations
10. Color averaging exhibit
11. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and approve the project with Exhibit A
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
13. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the project
Distribution
Steve Abbs, Davidon Homes, 1600 S. Main Street, Suite 150, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dave Weissman, 15431 Francis Oaks Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
LRP:MFM:cg