Staff Report
PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Community Development Director
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
_________________________________________________________________________
N:\SHARE\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\08-02-16\08 Overlook Road\FINAL Staff Report Overlook Road.docx
7/28/2016 4:00 PM EW
MEETING DATE: 08/02/16
ITEM NO: 8
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JULY 22, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-14-056. PROJECT
LOCATION: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER: RONALD M.
TATE. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: URBAN WEST, LLC, NICOLE
KING/LANCE TATE.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND
OBTAIN A GRADING PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN 510-40-
146.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying Architecture
and Site application S-14-056 (Attachment 11).
BACKGROUND:
The existing 7,000-square foot, R-1:8 zoned property contains a 1,646-square foot, two-story
single-family residence and a 422-square foot garage built in 1971.
The subject site is located on the north side of Overlook Road, three properties west of the
intersection of Wissahickon Avenue and Overlook Road (see Exhibit 1, of Attachment 1). The
immediate neighborhood is a mix of single-family residences and multi-family housing and
contains one- and two-story homes.
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two-story house and construct a new 2,326-
square foot, two-story residence with an 819-square foot cellar and a 244-sqaure foot attached
garage.
BACKGROUND (CONTINUED):
The proposed project meets all technical requirements including parking, setbacks, height, floor
area, and building coverage.
On April 13, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the project. Concerns raised by the
Planning Commission and neighbors included building height, building mass, and privacy for the
rear neighbor. The Commission continued the application to the May 25, 2016 agenda and
directed the applicant to lower the building height and address the rear neighbor’s privacy
concerns. The verbatim minutes for the April 13, 2016 meeting are provided in Attachment 3.
At the May 25, 2016 Planning Commission meeting staff requested that the application be
continued to June 8, 2016 in order to provide more time for the applicant to work with the rear
neighbor (see Attachment 4).
The continued application was considered by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2016. To
address the direction provided by the Planning Commission, the applicant lowered the finished
floor elevation of the house by six inches. The proposed building height was reduced from 28
feet, three inches to 27 feet, nine inches (the existing height of the two-story house is 25 feet). In
order to address privacy issues for the rear neighbor, the applicant proposed lowering the second
floor rear bedroom window by eight inches in addition to the installation of obscure glass in the
rear elevation bathroom window. The applicant and the rear neighbor worked together and
explored options for planting trees on the rear neighbor’s property adjacent to their rear property
line to address privacy concerns but ultimately were not able to come to an agreement (see
Attachment 5, Exhibit 20 and 24).
After holding a public hearing and asking questions of the applicant and rear neighbor, the
Planning Commission denied the application. With a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission
determined that the project is not in compliance with the Town’s Residential Guidelines because
the proposed project is not similar in bulk, mass and scale to the immediate neighborhood and
privacy concerns of the neighborhood have not been addressed. In addition the motion included
a statement that the project does not meet the intent of the Town’s cellar policy and does not
meet the goals of the General Plan regarding land use (to preserve and protect the existing small
town character and quality of life for the neighbors). The verbatim minutes of the meeting are
provided in Attachment 7.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by Lance Tate, a
member of the applicant’s team on June 13, 2016 (Attachment 8). A letter was provided by the
applicant/appellant on June 21, 2016 (Attachment 9), and a sight-line drawing diagram provided
by the applicant/appellant on July 27, 2016 (Attachment 10).
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing a 2,326-square foot, two-story residence with an 819-square foot
cellar and a 244-square foot attached garage. The proposed contemporary craftsman style
residence would include the following materials: wood shingles, stone veneer, wood trim,
wood clad windows with casings, and a composite roof. A color and materials sheet is
provided in Attachment 1, Exhibit 15. A color and material board will be available at the
Town Council meeting.
Site Conditions and Constraints
The R-1:8 lot is non-conforming due to the lot size and lot frontage. The required minimum
lot size for a R-1:8 zoned property is 8,000 square feet and the subject property is 7,000
square feet. The required lot frontage for a R-1:8 zoned property is 60 feet and the subject
property has a 50 foot frontage creating a narrow lot. The subject lot is compatible with
adjacent lot widths.
Due to the existing topography the property slopes downward from the west (left) to the east
(right) and from the south (front) to the north (rear). The natural topography creates a
condition in which the properties to the north (rear) and to the east (right) are located at a
lower elevation which creates privacy challenges.
Development on the 7,000-square foot lot could potentially affect 12 protected trees (6 on-
site and 6 on adjacent properties).
B. Appeal to the Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on June 13, 2016 (see Attachment
8). The appeal states that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because the
Commission ignored the fact that the project is compliant with the Town’s Residential
Design Guidelines and the Town’s Consulting Architect found the project to be compatible
with the neighborhood in size, mass, height, and character. The applicant/appellant also
states that new information was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning
Commission decision, which includes the applicant/appellant resolving privacy concerns
with the rear neighbor.
The appeal includes a letter from the applicant/appellant that was received on June 21, 2016
(see Attachment 9). The applicant/appellant states “the Planning Commission (and Planning
staff, for recommending denial) erred or abused their discretion by disregarding the Town’s
own policies, standards and guidelines.”
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
DISCUSSION (CONTINUED):
The main points presented by the applicant/appellant are outlined below and staff’s responses
are identified in italics.
1. The applicant/appellant states that the current Town policy is to refer a project to
Planning Commission if the proposed home is larger than any in the immediate
neighborhood. The applicant/appellant states the proposed home is not the largest in the
neighborhood and is adjacent to a much larger home (on a larger parcel) as well as a
condominium complex.
At the June 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission could not make the
finding that the project was in compliance with the Town’s Residential Design
Guidelines. With a unanimous vote the Planning Commission found that the project was
not in compliance with the Town’s Residential Guidelines as the proposed project is not
similar in bulk, mass and scale to that of the immediate neighborhood and privacy
concerns of the neighborhood have not been addressed.
Architecture and Site applications are heard by the Planning Commission for many
different reasons, not only because a project will result in the largest house in the
neighborhood. The subject application was heard by the Planning Commission because
neighborhood concerns regarding mass, height, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility
could not be resolved.
To assist the Planning Commission in its deliberations, staff prepared a comparison of
homes in the immediate neighborhood with regard to square feet and floor area ratio.
Four of the properties in the immediate neighborhood were excluded in the analysis as
they are not comparable to the subject property due to their lot size, including the large
estate property across the street and the condominiums (see Attachment 1, page 4).
While the proposed two-story residence is not the largest in the immediate neighborhood
by square feet or floor area, it is the second largest.
2. The applicant/appellant states that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion because the Commission ignored the fact that the project is compliant with the
Town’s Residential Design Guidelines.
The Planning Commission considered the application in light of the Town’s Residential
Design Guidelines and although the applicant has incorporated many of the residential
guidelines into the proposed two-story design, the Commission discussed that the
proposed project was too big and was not compatible with the immediate neighborhood.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
DISCUSSION (CONTINUED):
The applicant has placed more floor area on the first floor with less area on the second
floor to reduce the mass of the second story. The second-story is set back 20 feet from
the first story at the front elevation, and the second story is set back three feet from the
first story on the side elevations to reduce bulk and mass. The windows on the side
elevations have been located to protect privacy of the side yard neighbors. The windows
on the second-story rear elevation include one small frosted bathroom window and one
bedroom egress window. The applicant has proposed trees for screening and to address
the rear property owner’s privacy concerns.
The Planning Commission stated that the proposed project was not sufficiently similar in
bulk, mass and scale to that of the immediate neighborhood to meet the Town’s
Residential Design Guidelines, and address privacy concerns.
3. The applicant/appellant describes that the project was sent to the Town’s Consulting
Architect multiple times for an impartial review. The Consulting Architect deemed the
house well designed and compatible with the neighborhood in terms of size, scale, height,
and character. The applicant/appellant feels that both reports have been ignored.
The role of the Consulting Architect is advisory to the Town and this advice is not
binding on any of the Town’s deciding bodies pursuant to Council Resolution #2014-040
(see Attachment #11). The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the project on three
occasions and had minor recommendations that the applicant included in the design.
The Town’s Consulting Architect found that the scale of the proposed house is
appropriate and should blend well with the one-story structures nearby (see Attachment
1, Exhibit 12). The Planning Commission is not bound to agree with the Consulting
Architect.
4. The applicant/appellant states that the Planning Commission disregarded the Town’s
cellar policy highlighted by one of the Commissioners referring to the proposed home as
3,000 plus square feet, although the Town’s Guidelines define the home as 2,326 square
feet. In addition to minimizing floor area, in this case the cellar also does not add any
height to the proposed home.
The proposed two-story home is 2,326 square feet. The proposed cellar is 819 square
feet. The cellar does not add height or mass to the proposed home as it is below grade.
The Cellar Policy (see Attachment 12) states that in reviewing plans for cellars staff shall
consider the following: “A cellar shall not extend more than four feet above the adjacent
finished grade at any point around the perimeter of the foundation. Below grade floor
area must meet the above definition to be excluded from the floor area calculations for
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
the structure.” Therefore the proposed project’s cellar square footage is not included in
the countable floor area for the home.
DISCUSSION (CONTINUED):
The Cellar Policy also states that the purpose of the policy is generated from the General
Plan policy L.P.2.3- “Encourage basements and cellars to provide ’hidden’ square
footage in-lieu of visible mass.”
The proposed project is a two-story house with a cellar (the proposed 819-square foot
cellar does not encompass the entire 1,380-square foot first floor area). The proposed
home is 12 square feet under the site’s maximum allowable floor area. The applicant has
added “hidden” square footage in-lieu of adding additional visible mass of the proposed
two-story home.
A concern was expressed by the Planning Commission that the proposed cellar does not
reduce the proposed floor area above ground. Therefore the proposed cellar did not
appear to reduce Planning Commission concerns regarding the project’s bulk, mass, and
scale.
5. The applicant/appellant states that they have worked for over a year to address all of
staff’s concerns and revised the plans to address staff’s comments, retain protected trees,
and assure proper site drainage. The applicant/appellant notes that between the
recommendations of the Town’s consulting arborist and engineering staff, the location
and floor elevation of the home cannot be lowered or shifted without harming a tree or
creating a drainage problem.
The applicant has worked with staff to address grading and the location of the proposed
building envelope in order to protect the existing trees on-site. The protected trees
driving the building footprint and grading include the 16-inch diameter birch (Tree #4)
located on the neighboring property to the west, the 23-inch diameter oak (Tree #6)
located on the neighboring property to the east, and the 35-inch diameter oak (Tree #14)
located in the rear yard of the proposed home (see Attachment 1, Exhibit 16, Sheet A1).
While it was clear from the proposed plans, staff report, and applicant’s comments that
there were many constraints on the site with regard to preservation of existing trees,
there was not specific discussion of this topic at the Planning Commission hearing.
6. The applicant/appellant states that the rear neighbors, the Kellys, located at 9 Chestnut
Avenue have privacy concerns with the proposed project and in response the applicant
states they offered multiple solutions that would solve their neighbors’ privacy concerns.
The applicant/appellant states that the Planning Commission essentially granted a single
neighbor veto power over the project even with a reasonable solution available.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
DISCUSSION (CONTINUED):
The applicant/appellant and the rear neighbor explored options for planting trees on the
rear neighbor’s rear property line to address privacy concerns but ultimately were not
able to come to an agreement (see Attachment 5, Exhibit 20 and 24). The
applicant/appellant has provided a sight-line drawing diagram, received on July 27,
2016 (Attachment 10), showing the line of sight between properties, the setbacks between
homes and the location and height of the landscape screening on the subject property.
The applicant/appellant notes that they would have considered a one-story design with a
cellar for the property, however, they are constrained by the location of the existing 35-
inch diameter oak tree (Tree #14) located in the rear yard of the proposed home (see
Attachment 1, Exhibit 16, Sheet A1).
The Planning Commission discussed methods to address the privacy concerns between
properties including placement of mature landscaping at the property line, and reducing
or eliminating the second story rear windows. The Planning Commission discussed that
in order to address privacy concerns the mass of the house would need to be reduced.
The Planning Commission found that the proposed project is not sufficiently similar in
bulk, mass and scale to that of the immediate neighborhood, to address privacy concerns.
7. The applicant/appellant also states that new information was not reasonably available at
the time of the Planning Commission decision, which includes the applicant resolving
privacy concerns with the rear neighbor.
While this is the viewpoint of the applicant/appellant, staff has received correspondence
provided by the rear neighbor at 9 Chestnut Avenue (see Attachment 14) that indicates
the applicant/appellant and rear neighbor have not come to an agreement on privacy
concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This project is Categorically Exempt Section pursuant to the adopted guidelines for the
implementation of California Environmental Act, Section 15303: New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures. A Notice of Exemption will not be filed.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff has received a public comment supporting the denial of the appeal of the subject
application (see Attachment 16).
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 13 denying the
appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site
application S-14-056 with the findings provided in Exhibit A of Attachment 13.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Town Council could:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 14) granting the appeal and remanding the Architecture
and Site application back 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.
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 15) granting the appeal, making the required findings and
considerations (Exhibit A of Attachment 15), approving Architecture and Site application
S-14-056 subject to conditions (Exhibit B of Attachment 15), 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.
3. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction.
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 August 3, 2016. 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
PAGE 9
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 18151 OVERLOOK ROAD/S-14-056
JULY 22, 2016
incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 14 if remanding to the Planning Commission or
Attachment 15 if approving the applications).
Attachments:
1. April 13, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-16)
2. April 13, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 17-19)
3. April 13, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
4. May 25, 2016 Staff Report (request to continue)
5. June 8, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 20-26)
6. June 8, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 27)
7. June 8, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
8. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received June 13, 2016
9. Letter from Appellant, received June 21, 2016
10. Sight-Line Drawing Diagram, received on July 27, 2016
11. The Roles and Responsibilities of the Architectural Consultant Resolution
12. Cellar Policy
13. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings)
14. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
15. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibits A and B)
16. Public Comment, received by 11:00 a.m., July 28, 2016
Distribution:
Lance Tate, 22 S. Santa Cruz, 2nd Floor, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Urban West LLC/Nicole King, 22 S. Santa Cruz, 2nd Floor, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Ronald M. Tate, 22 S. Santa Cruz, 2nd Floor, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Chris Spaulding, 801 Camelia Street, Suite E., Berkeley, CA 94710
Super Structures, Inc., 1251 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008