Loading...
Staff Report Quail aveMEETING DATE: 11/03/15 �. ITEM NO: t tos cntos COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2015 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL -/// FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS-] 4-027 PROJECT LOCATION: 15925 QUAIL HILL ROAD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: KEVIN HWANG AND SABRINA DONG. APPELLANT: BRAD KROUSKUP. CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR -1. APN 527 -02 -007. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal and approving Architecture and Site Application S -14- 027 to demolish an existing single - family residence and to construct a new single - family residence on property zoned HR -1 (Attachment 7). BACKGROUND: A. Project Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located on the south side of Shady Lane just west of Drysdale Drive and is accessed through a driveway easement at the end of Quail Hill Road (see Attachment 1, Exhibit 1 for a location map). The property is surrounded by single - family residential uses. B. Application History The applicant began working with the Town regarding redeveloping their property prior to purchasing it in late 2013. The project scope and design changed several times due to PREPARED BY: Joel Paulson Planning Manager Reviewed by:4 -VAssistant Town Manager own Attorney finance N:ADEVATC REPORTS/2015 \Quail Hill -75925 - appeal.doex Reformatted: 5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15925 QUAIL HILL ROAD /5 -14 -027 OCTOBER 29, 2015 undocumented utility easements and input from neighbors. The applicant has worked with her neighbors and staff to try to address site and design issues. The current application scope is to remodel and add to the existing residence to the extent that the proposed project would be considered a demolition due to the removal of existing elements of the structure. The proposed residence is predominantly a single -story home with a day - lighted cellar at the rear of the residence. Staff began meeting with the appellant (Brad Krouskup) and his consultant (John Livingstone) in May of 2015. Staff discussed the site and provided information to the appellant regarding appropriate access and development of the property based on the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS &G). C. Development Review Committee The application was considered by the Development Review Committee (DRC) over the course of three meetings: July 21, August 11, and August 18, 2015 (Exhibit 7 of Attachment 1). Written public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants (minimum of 30). Brad and Dana Krouskup were present at all three meetings along with Mr. Livingstone; they provided testimony regarding the site and the project's compliance with Town standards and guidelines. Their main concern stated at the three meetings was the access across their property and concerns with the recorded easement. (Mr. Krouskup is the Appellant for the appeal before Town Council.) The DRC continued the item from the July 21, 2015 meeting to provide the applicant time to have her surveyor further document the location of the existing easements for access to the site. The DRC considered the application again on August 11, 2015 and continued the item based on a title report provided by the appellant at the meeting which provided different easement information from the two title reports provided by the applicant. The continuance was granted to allow the applicant's title companies to review the discrepancies in the reports. Based on an evaluation by the Town Attorney, the DRC found that the subject site had legal access sufficient to proceed in the entitlement process and that the application was in compliance with the HDS &G. The application includes a condition that requires the improved driveway to be located within an appropriately defined access easement prior to occupancy. The application was approved by the DRC on August 18, 2015. The application was appealed on August 20, 2015. D. Planning Commission On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the DRC's decision to approve the subject application (see Attachment 1 for the staff report to the Planning Commission). The Planning Commission denied the appeal and approved the application with the findings that the proposed residence complies with the HDS &G and the Hillside Specific Plan. PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15925 QUAIL HILL ROAD /S -14 -027 OCTOBER 29, 2015 The Planning Commission discussed the appellant's concerns regarding the placement of the residence and the concern of privacy and visibility of the residence. The verbatim minutes of the meeting are provided in Attachment 2. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by Mr. Krouskup on October 1, 2015. E. Appeal Considerations for the Town Council In the Council's consideration of an appeal and the full record contained in this report and its attachments, the Council should determine if, pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300: 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 7). If the Council can make one or more of the above findings, the Council can grant the appeal and remand it to Planning Commission with direction (see draft resolution in Attachment 8), or grant the appeal and deny the application (see draft resolution in Attachment 9). 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 October 1, 2015 (see Attachment 3). The appeal identified that the Planning Commission erred in its decision because the application does not meet the requirements of Town Code, the HDS &G, or the Hillside Specific Plan (LISP). Additionally, the appellant states that there is new information in that a letter from their attorney to the applicant's attorney was not included in the Planning Commission's packet, and that the application exceeds the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Finally, the appellant states that the Planning Commission does not have the discretion to grant exceptions or variances to the HSP. The appeal (Attachment 3) includes documentation provided to the Planning Commission that was included as Exhibit 13 of the September 23, 2015 Planning Commission report. The main points of the appeal are identified below with staff comments in italics. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15925 QUAIL HILL ROAD /S -14 -027 OCTOBER 29, 2015 1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because the project does not meet Town Code, the HDS &G or the HSP. The appellant states that while staff has responded to their inquiries regarding the project's consistency with Town standards and guidelines, the answers were insufficient. The Planning Commission approved the application based on information presented in the staff report, which the Commission found to be sufficient to make the required findings that the project is consistent with the referenced documents. 2. There was new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission. a. The house exceeds the maximum allowed FAR. The applicant is proposing a day- lighted cellar which per the definition in Town Code (Section 29.10.020) is not counted in the FAR calculation. The applicant has recently provided additional information to clarify the cellar calculation (Attachment 5). From this information, 110 square feet from the proposed lower level would count towards FAR based on the Town Code definition. The residence would still be 213 square feet under the maximum allowable FAR of'4,900 square feet for the property. The HSP requires access to be taken from a public road. The appellant states that he provided plans for a home accessed from the public road which meets all Code requirements. The site is accessed from Short Road through means of an existing easement. Staff appreciates the appellant suggesting alternatives, however, the appellant's proposal would place the residence entirely outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA), and would not meet the requirements of the HDS&G. The HDS &G require development to occur only within the LRDA whenever possible (see page 1 ofExhibit 14 of Attachment ].for the LRDA). Relocating the residence further down the hill, having to connect utilities, and needing to provide new access and improvements would further impact the site and conflict with the HDS &G and other elements of the HSP. 3. The Planning Commission did not have the discretion to make parking exceptions to the HSP as discussed by Mr. Livingstone in the appeal. The Commission did not make an exception to the HSP by allowing the additional guest spaces to be provided in the front setback. The Planning Commission understood the requirement.for the additional guest spaces and the fact that the HSP permits these additional spaces to be provided in the required front yard (page 9 ofHSP). These facts were provided to the Commission in writing within the staff report and were discussed at the meeting. The Commission made the findings based on the facts in the record and the testimony provided at the public hearing. PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15925 QUAIL HILL ROAD /5 -14 -027 OCTOBER 29, 2015 CONCLUSION: In the Council's consideration of an appeal and the full record contained in this report and its attachments, the Council should determine if, pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300: 1. Whether 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. It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 7 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Architecture and Site application S -14 -027 with the findings provided in Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, the Town Council could: Adopt a resolution (Attachment 8) granting the appeal and remanding the Architecture and Site application 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 9) granting the appeal and denying the Architecture and Site application, 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. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction. PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15925 QUAIL HILL ROAD /5 -14 -027 OCTOBER 29, 2015 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 November 18, 2015. The Council must at least open the public hearing for the item but may continue the matter to a date certain if the Council does not complete its work on the item due to the length of the agenda. 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 8 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 9 if denying the application). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This is a project as defined under CEQA but is Categorically Exempt (Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). A Notice of Exemption will not be filed. COORDINATION The evaluation of the application was coordinated with the Parks and Public Works Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department, and the Town Attorney. Attachments: 1. September 23, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1 -12 and 14. Exhibit 13 is included in Attachment 3 to this Town Council Staff Report) 2. September 23, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes 3. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received October 1, 2015 4. Letter from Appellant's Attorney, received September 8, 2015 5. Letter from Applicant, received October 26, 2015 6. Emails from Appellant, received October 29, 2015 7. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibit A and B) 8. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission 9. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the project Distribution: Sabrina Dong, 15925 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos CA 95032 Brad Krouskup, 15921 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos CA 95032