Appeal 134 Loma Alta Ave�ow� of MEETING DATE: 2/3/2014
ITEM NO. q
cos sAjpe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 24, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S -13 -049. PROPERTY
LOCATION: 134 LOMA ALTA AVENUE. PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT: DONALD J. PROLO II. APPELLANT: LEZLI
LOGAN.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A PRE -1941
SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8. APN 532 -29 -033.
RECOMMENDATION:
After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that the Council:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision approving Architecture and Site application
S -13 -049 (motion required); and
2. Deny the appeal, make the required findings and considerations (Attachment 8) and
approve Architecture and Site application S -13 -049, subject to the conditions in
Attachment 9 and the development plans (Attachment 13) (motion required); and
3. Adopt the resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving
Architecture and Site application S -13 -049 (Attachment 10) (motion required).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
Determine that the Planning Commission's decisions should be reversed or modified and
find 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
PREPARED BY: SANDY L. BAILY, 6L/'�:'
Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: �& Assistant Town Manager W Town Attorney
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS \2014 \LomaAltal34_appeal.docx Reformatted: 5/30/02
Finance
Revised: 1/24/14 2:30 PM
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 134 Loma Alta Avenue /5 -13 -049
January 24, 2014
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; and
2. Adopt resolution granting the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
with specific direction (Attachment 11) (motion required); or
3. Adopt resolution granting the appeal and deny the application (Attachment 12) (motion
required); or
4. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction (motion required).
BACKGROUND:
The subject application was referred to the Planning Commission because the project would
create the largest home in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage.
On October 9, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application and continued
the project to allow the applicant to redesign the project to address neighborhood concerns. On
December 11, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised design and approved the
project with additional conditions of approval to address neighborhood concerns.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on December 20, 2013.
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 979 square foot single- family residence
and 298 square foot detached garage, and to construct a 2,249 square foot single - family
residence and a 516 square foot detached garage with a 36 square foot half -bath.
The two -story single - family residence would be 24 feet, 9 inches high. Materials would
consist of HardiePlank horizontal and HardieShingle siding, clad wood windows, decorative
stone veneer, and a comp shingle roof. The garage would be 14 feet, 3 inches high. Garage
materials consist of HardiePlank horizontal siding, clad wood windows, and a comp shingle
roof.
See Attachment 4 (Report to the Planning Commission dated December 11, 2013) for
additional information.
B. Planning Commission Action
On October 9, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application. The
Commission continued the project to allow the applicant to redesign the project to address
neighborhood concerns. The Commission directed the applicant to:
• Meet with the neighbors;
• Provide a shadow study showing a one -story vs. a two - story;
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 134 Loma Alta Avenue /5 -13 -049
January 24, 2014
• Reference the Residential Design Guidelines to show how the proposed design meets the
guidelines, specifically regarding a second story addition; and
• Show how the architectural style fits with the neighborhood.
On December 11, 2013, the Commission determined that the applicant had addressed the
concerns expressed and direction provided at the October 9 meeting, and voted 5 -2 to
approve the application. The approval included additional conditions of approval.
Attachments 3 and 6 are verbatim transcripts of the two Planning Commission meetings.
C. Appeal
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on December 20, 2013 (see
Attachment 7). The applicant's appeal is based on her belief that the Planning Commission
erred or abused its discretion in that (staff response follows each item):
1. Inadequate consideration was given to the massing square footage of the second story
master bedroom above the covered patio area, which negatively impacts solar access and
privacy for 132 Loma Alta.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission specifically discussed the secondary story
bedroom and questioned the applicant regarding its design. The applicant provided
justification for the location of the master bedroom and the location of the covered patio
area. After exploring the possibility of locating the master bedroom on the first floor, the
applicant determined that for livability purposes, the master bedroom should be located
on the second floor with bedrooms two and three. The patio area was originally located
on the west side of the property but was relocated to the eastside to reduce shadow
impacts to the downhill neighbor (132 Loma Alta). See verbatim minutes, Attachment 6.
2. The Commission did not adequately consider options to reduce second story square
footage to reduce negative impacts to solar access and privacy for 132 Loma Alta.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission considered the reduction in second story
square footage, relocation of portions of the second story, and reconfiguration of the
second story proposed by the applicant to increase solar access for the neighboring
property. See Attachment 4 for additional information regarding the applicant's efforts to
reduce impacts to the neighbor.
3. The applicant provided misleading information regarding the building heights in the
immediate neighborhood as a basis for neighborhood compatibility.
Staff Response: The applicant provided streetscapes for the immediate neighborhood. In
addition, the applicant provided photos of the neighborhood including photos with story
poles of the proposed project.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 134 Loma Alta Avenue /S -13 -049
January 24, 2014
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15303 of the State
Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town because the project consists of the demolition
and construction of a single - family residence.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve the subject application, and adopt the appropriate resolution in
Attachment 10. If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific findings as
to how the Planning Commission erred must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 11,
if remanding to the Planning Commission, or Attachment 12, if denying the application).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
Previously received January 17, 2014 under separate cover:
1. Report to the Planning Commission dated October 9, 2013
2. Desk Item to the Planning Commission dated October 9, 2013
3. Planning Commission meeting verbatim minutes of October 9, 2013
4. Report to the Planning Commission dated December 11, 2013
5. Desk Item to the Planning Commission dated December 11, 2013
6. Planning Commission meeting verbatim minutes of December 11, 2013
7. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received December 20, 2013
Received with this staff report:
8. Required Findings and Considerations (one page)
9. Recommended Conditions of Approval (10 pages)
10. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal with Exhibit A (13 pages)
11. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
(three pages)
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the project (three pages)
13. Development Plans, received January 29, 2014 (four pages)
14. Public Comments received through 12:00 p.m. Thursday, January 30, 2014
Distribution
Donald J. Prolo, II, 19841 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
LezLi Logan, 136 Loma Alta Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
SLB:JS:cgt
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS\20MLomaAlta l 34appmWocx