Staff Reporttown of MEETING DATE: 04 /21/15
" ITEM NO.
cos "sjtos COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT to
DATE: April 16, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
W
FROM: 4�ES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S -14 -036. PROPERTY
LOCATION: 240 EL CAJON WAY. APPLICANT /PROPERTY
OWNER/APPELLANT: DMITRY LEBEDENKO.
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCT A NEW
SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FLOOR
AREA ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8. APN 424 -24 -042.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying Architecture
and Site Application S -14 -036 (Attachment 7).
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single story home and garage at 240 El Cajon
Way and replace them with a two story home and single story garage. The application was
considered by the Planning Commission because the proposal would result in the largest
residence in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage and floor area ratio (FAR),
and would create the only two story home in the immediate neighborhood.
On March 11, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied the application for the
reasons discussed in this report. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the
applicant (property owner) on March 23, 2015. The Town Council is the deciding body for the
appeal.
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI �att & r �
Assistant Town Manager /Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager _P�fown Attorney hLK Finance
N: \DEV \TC REP0RTS \2015 \E1Cajon240_appeal.docx Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 4 /16/15 12:56 PM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 240 EL CAJON WAY /S -14 -036
April 16, 2015
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
At the Planning Commission, the applicant was proposing to demolish the existing 1,148 -
square foot single - family residence and 433 - square foot attached garage, and to construct a
3,122- square foot single - family residence with a 600 - square foot garage. Of the 3,122 square
feet, 625 square feet was attic space that counts towards the floor area ratio. The applicant
was also proposing a 1,698- square foot cellar that does not count towards the floor area ratio.
The height of the two story single - family residence would have been 21 feet, 10 inches. See
Attachment I (Report to the Planning Commission dated March 11, 2015) for additional
information.
The applicant submitted revised plans for the appeal (Attachment 10). The applicant is now
proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a 2,542- square foot single - family
residence with a 592- square footage attached garage. The applicant is no longer proposing a
cellar. The height of the two story single - family residence would be 19 feet, 10 inches.
Materials would consist of hardie shingle siding, hardie lap siding, brick siding, fiber glass
windows, and a composition shingle roof.
The application was considered by the Planning Commission because the proposal would
result in the largest residence in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage and
floor area ratio (FAR), and would create the only two story home in the immediate
neighborhood. The revised proposal (Attachment 10) would also result in the largest
residence in the immediate neighborhood in terns of square footage and floor area ratio
(FAR), and would create the only two story home in the immediate neighborhood (see table
below).
Neighborhood Analysis
Address
House SF
Garage SF
Lot Size SF
House FAR
232 Las Miradas
1,292
428
6,386
0.20
230 El Cajon
1,148
428
.7,700
0.15
244 El Cajon
1,148
428
8,400
0.14
248 El Cajon
1,148
428
6,072
0.19
245 El Cajon
1,539
428
8,500
0.18
241 El Cajon
1,148
428
6,324
0.18
239 El Cajon
1,148
428
6,256
0.18
235 El Cajon
1,566
389
7,350
0.21
231 El Cajon
1,292
428
9,398
0.14
227 Las Miradas
1,501
428
6,716
0.22
240 El Cajon (N)
2,542
592
7,772
0.33
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 240 EL CAJON WAY /5 -14 -036
April 16, 2015
B. Planning Commission Action
On March 11, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application. The
Planning Commission denied the application on the basis that the Planning Commission
could not make the required findings and that the project conflicts with the Residential
Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission considered whether the applicant could
design a smaller house in terms of square footage and number of stories.
The Commission considered the whole neighborhood, beyond the immediate neighborhood,
and found that the broader neighborhood does not have comparable house sizes in terms of
square footage. The Commission found the one story homes in the neighborhood were
upgraded without adding a second story and that the applicant should reduce the square
footage of the home, particularly the attic space that counts towards floor area. The
Commission also noted that the proposed cellar provides square footage for living space.
The Commission considered that El Cajon Way does not have any two story homes, except
for the house at the corner of El Cajon and Arroyo Grande Ways, and that the Residential
Design Guidelines discourage two story homes in one story neighborhoods. The immediate
neighborhood consists of one story homes. The Commission considered that a two story
home may work with modifications to reduce the visible mass and the square footage.
However, the majority of the Commission commented that the applicant should eliminate the
second story.
The Commission commented that they could not support impacts to the large oak tree.
Attachment 3 contains a verbatim transcript of the Planning Commission meeting.
C. Anneal
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant on March 23, 2015
(see Attachment 4). The appeal identified that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion. A staff response follows each item raised by the applicant/appellant.
1. The Planning Commission did not support a two story home even with the applicant's
efforts to make the two story look like a one story.
Staff Response: The Commission considered the context of the application in the
immediate neighborhood, pursuant to the Residential Design Guidelines, and the broader
neighborhood. The Commission discussed that there were no two story homes in the
immediate neighborhood and that there was a two story at the corner of El Cajon and
Arroyo Grande Ways that appears out of character with the neighborhood. The
Commission was concerned that if this application was approved, it would set a precedent
for the neighborhood. Other property owners might also request floor area increases and
second stories inconsistent with the Residential Design Guidelines and the immediate
neighborhood. The Commission also discussed that the square footage was not
compatible with the immediate neighborhood (see verbatim minutes, Attachment 3).
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 240 EL CAJON WAY /S -14 -036
April 16, 2015
2. The Planning Commission would support a project that would impact the Oak tree in the
rear yard.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission did not express support for a one story design
that would impact the oak tree (see verbatim minutes, Attachment 3). The Commission
commented that they would not support impacts to the tree.
The appeal also identifies that the Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address a policy or issue that is vested in the Town Council. A staff response follows each item
raised by the applicant/appellant.
The Planning Commission found that the one story neighborhood character should be
maintained.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission considered the project's impact on the
immediate and broader neighborhood. The Commission discussed the one story
immediate neighborhood and the potential precedent for other properties in the area if a
two story residence is approved (see verbatim minutes, Attachment 3). The Planning
Commission's consideration is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines, which
discourage two story homes in one story neighborhoods.
2. The Planning Commission failed to recognize the neighborhood is in transition and
compare the proposed project to homes beyond the immediate neighborhood.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission discussed remodeled homes in the vicinity
and considered the project's impact on the immediate and broader neighborhood. The
Commission found that other homes were upgraded without adding a second story. The
Commission considered the square footage and number of stories in the immediate
neighborhood and beyond the immediate neighborhood (see verbatim minutes,
Attachment 3).
The applicant submitted revised plans that further reduce the height of the two story residence,
reduce the amount of attic space, and reduce the mass of the second story (Attachment 10). The
applicant accomplishes the height reduction by lowering the ceiling height of the first floor from
ten to eight feet. The applicant reduced the mass of the second story by reducing the amount of
attic space.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the subject application, and adopt the resolution in Attachment 6.
PAGES
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 240 EL CAJON WAY /S -14 -036
April 16, 2015
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has three alternatives to the staff recommendation:
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 7) granting the appeal, remanding the project 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 8) granting the appeal, making the required findings and
considerations, approving Architecture and Site application 5 -14 -036 (Attachment 11)
subject to conditions (Exhibit A of Attachment 8), 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 findings as to how the
Planning Commission erred must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 7, if
remanding to the Planning Commission, or Attachment 8, if approving the application). If the
Council determines that the appeal should be granted, the required findings and considerations
(Attachment 5) must be modified.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15303 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as adopted by the Town because the project
consists of the demolition and construction of a single- family residence.
COORDINATION:
The evaluation of the application was coordinated with the Town's Parks and Public Works
Department and the County Fire Department.
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 240 EL CAJON WAY /S -14 -036
April 16, 2015
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
1. March 11, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (including Exhibits 1 —13)
2. March 11, 2015 Planning Commission Desk Item (including Exhibit 14)
3. March 11, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
4. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received March 23, 2015
5. Required Findings and Considerations
6. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal (three pages)
7. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
(three pages)
8. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project with Exhibit A (11 pages)
9. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. March 11, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. April 16, 2015
10. Revised Development Plans received April 15, 2015 (13 pages)
Cc: Dmitry Lebedenko, 240 El Cajon Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
LRP:JLS:cg
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS \2015 \ElCajon240_appml.docx