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