Staff Report Hilow Road
PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Community Development Director
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
_________________________________________________________________________
N:\SHARE\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\09-20-16\14 16362 Hilow Road\Staff Report FINAL.docx 9/15/2016 1:45 PM JP
MEETING DATE: 09/20/16
ITEM NO: 14
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-011. PROJECT
LOCATION: 16362 HILOW ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT:
VALY JALALIAN.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN 532-04-082.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying Architecture
and Site application S-16-011 (Attachment 5).
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located on the east side of Hilow Road south of Shannon Road (Exhibit 1 of
Attachment 1). The property is surrounded by single-family residential uses.
The existing 11,779-square foot site is currently vacant. The site previously contained an 1,056-
square foot single-story residence with an attached carport. Prior to annexation to the Town, the
applicant received approval from the County to demolish the existing residence and the existing
home and carport have been removed. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story
residence with an attached garage.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the item on May 3, 2016 (Exhibit 8 of
Attachment 1).
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
BACKGROUND (Continued):
The following neighbors spoke at the hearing:
- Mr. and Mrs. Wagner – Residents of Hilow Road
- Jeanne Driedger – Resident of Shady View Lane
- Shannon Sussick – Resident of Shady View Lane
The main issues that were raised by the neighbors included: height, size, and mass of the
proposed residence. Staff continued the item to the May 17, 2016 DRC meeting so that the
applicant could work with the neighbors to address the concerns.
At the May 17, 2016 DRC hearing, the neighbors listed above spoke as well as Perry Hariri
(resident of Hilow Road). The main issues that were raised by the neighbors included: height,
size, mass, cellar size, drainage concerns, loss of views, and neighborhood compatibility (Exhibit
9 of Attachment 1). Staff continued the item to the June 7, 2016 DRC meeting so that the
applicant could continue to work with the neighbors to address these concerns.
The applicant made the following changes to the proposed project prior to the June 7, 2016 DRC
hearing:
1. Reduced the height by two feet from 28 feet to 26 feet
2. Agreed to build an eight-foot fence prior to beginning construction
3. Reduced the square footage of the cellar from 3,026 square feet to 1,800 square feet
4. Agreed to increase the sill height of the windows on the side elevations to five feet to
mitigate privacy impacts
5. Agreed to remove one tree instead of two
6. Changed overflow drainage to direct storm water to the front of the house
7. Agreed to relocate the proposed heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) condenser
At the June 7, 2016 DRC hearing, only the Wagners provided testimony. The Wagners
commented that there had been positive improvements to the project, that they prefer no trees
along the northern property line, and that the construction should be carefully monitored (Exhibit
10 of Attachment 1).
The DRC approved the application at the June 7, 2016 DRC hearing because it found that the
application was complete and in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. The DRC
also included an additional condition (Condition #11 of Exhibit 3) to require two 48-inch box
trees to be planted in the front of the proposed home.
The DRC approval was appealed to the Planning Commission on June 15, 2016.
On July 27, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the project. Concerns raised by the
Planning Commission, appellant, and neighbors included building height, building mass, and
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
BACKGROUND (Continued):
privacy for the rear neighbor. The verbatim minutes for the July 27, 2016 meeting are provided
in Attachment 3.
After holding a public hearing and asking questions of the applicant and appellant, the Planning
Commission granted the appeal and denied the application. With a 6-1 vote (Commissioner
Erekson opposing), the Planning Commission determined that the project is not in compliance
with the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines because the proposed project is not similar in
bulk, mass, and scale to the immediate neighborhood.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the property
owner, Valy Jalalian, on August 1, 2016 (Attachment 4).
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 September 21, 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.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted and that the Planning Commission's
decision should be reversed or modified, the Council must make one or more of the following
findings, 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.
To support the finding, the Council must also identify specific facts for incorporation into the
resolution (Attachment 6 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 7 if approving
the applications).
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing a 3,479-square foot two-story residence with a 932-square foot
attached garage and a 1,800-square foot cellar. The project would have a maximum height of
26 feet. The proposed materials include: stucco and wood siding, stone veneer, and a
composition shingle roof. A color and materials board will be available at the Town Council
meeting and Exhibit 4 of Attachment 1 includes general project data.
The proposed project meets all technical requirements including parking, setbacks, height,
floor area, and building coverage.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
DISCUSSION (Continued):
B. Appeal to the Town Council
The appeal (Attachment 4) states that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion
for two reasons. Staff responses to the reasons are provided below in italics.
The Commission did not consider the two-story home next door to be in the
immediate neighborhood since the home is in the County and not in the Town of Los
Gatos.
All of the homes in the immediate neighborhood are located in the County. The
Planning Commission did consider the existing two-story home to the left of the
proposed project as well as the other homes in the immediate neighborhood.
However, they determined that the proposed home was not compatible with the
immediate neighborhood even though there is an existing two-story home to the left.
The project complies with all design guidelines and is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood.
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 stated
that the proposed two-story home was not appropriate, was too big, and was not
compatible with the immediate neighborhood.
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 (Attachment 8).
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 5 denying the
appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site
application S-16-011 with the findings provided in Exhibit A of Attachment 5.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Town Council could:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 6) 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 7) granting the appeal, making the required findings and
considerations (Exhibit A of Attachment 7), approving Architecture and Site application
S-16-011 subject to conditions (Exhibit B of Attachment 7), 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.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific facts supporting the findings
as to how the Planning Commission’s decision was not appropriate must be incorporated into the
resolution (Attachment 6 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 7 if approving
the applications).
Attachments:
1. July 27, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-17)
2. July 27, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 18)
3. July 27, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
4. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received August 1, 2016 (two pages)
5. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings)
6. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
7. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibits A, Findings
and B, Conditions of Approval)
8. Public Comment received by 11:00 a.m., September 15, 2016
9. Rendering provided by the applicant, received on September 14, 2016
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
Distribution:
Valy Jalalian, 140 Clover Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Shannon Susick, 16407 Shady View Lane, Los Gatos CA 95032