Loading...
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