Desk ItemSpW M OF
`o CRtps.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REMARKS:
MEETING DATE: 04/21/15
ITEM NO. 6
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
April 21, 2015
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MAN
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.
Staff received the following questions from a Council Member and the responses are below.
Attachment 12 includes additional correspondence received after the Addendum was distributed.
1. Did the applicant address the issues raised by the Town's Consulting Architect?
Yes, prior to Planning Commission, the applicant modified the house design to address the
issues raised by the Consulting Architect, such as the height of the cave. The Consulting
Architect provided choices to the applicant with respect to the dormers, and the applicant's
preference for a shed dormer was reviewed by the Planning Commission.
2. What changes have been made since the Planning Commission's review?
On April 15, 2015, the applicant submitted revised plans and they are included in Attachment
10. To assist with the identification of the differences between the plans, staff has prepared
the following table to compare various aspects of the project that was reviewed by the
Planning Commission (Exhibit 13 of Attachmei 1) versus t currently proposed design
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI
Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager N/A Town Attorney N/A Finance
N: \DEV\TC REPORTS\ 2015\ ElCajon240_appeal_Deskltem.docx Reformatted: 5130/02 Revised: 4 /21/15 2:38 PM
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 240 EL CAJON WAY /5 -14 -036
April 21, 2015
Comparison Table
Planning
Commission
Town Council
Difference
House Floor Area Ratio FAR
0.42
0.33
-0.09
Cellar (not counted in FAR)
1,698 sq. ft.
0
-1,698 sq. ft.
First Floor (counted in FAR)
1,698 sq. ft.
1,582 sq. ft.
-116 sq. ft.
Second Floor (counted in
FAR)
799 sq. ft.
960 sq. ft.
161 sq. ft.
Attic (counted in FAR)
625 sq. ft.
0
-625 sq. ft.
House Size
3,122 sq. ft.
2,542 sq. ft.
-580 sq. ft.
Garage
600 sq. ft.
592 sq. ft.
-8 sq. ft.
Height
21 ft. 10 in.
19 ft. 9.5 in.
-2 ft. 0.5 in.
(Attachment 10). The building height is now proposed to be less than 20 feet and a cellar is
no longer included in the project. Cellars are not counted in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
The key issues associated with the revised proposal are the same considered by the Planning
Commission in that the project continues to be two stories within a single story neighborhood
and the largest FAR and square footage (see the Neighborhood Analysis table on page 2 of
the April 21, 2015 Town Council Staff Report).
Should the Council determine that a two story home of this size is appropriate, then staff
recommends that the Council add the following condition of approval:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: The applicant shall pay for the Architectural
Consultant to review the revised rooflines and transitions between the first and
second stories. The Consultant shall make recommendations for potential
modifications and the Community Development Director will determine which
modifications shall be included in the building permit plans. The applicant will
detail how the modifications have or will be addressed in the building permit plans.
This condition is necessary because there was not sufficient time between the receipt of
revised plans (April 15) and the appeal hearing (April 21) to complete the necessary design
review on the new design.
Attachments Dreviouslv received with April 21, 2015 Staff Report:
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
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 240 EL CAJON WAY /S -14 -036
April 21, 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)
Attachment previously received with the April 21 2015 Addendum:
11, Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. April 16, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. April 17, 2015
Attachment received with this ApnI 21, 2015 Desk Item:
12. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. April 17, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. April 21, 2015
LRP:JLS:cg
cc: Dmitry Lebedenko, 240 El Cajon Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Jennifer Savage
To: Janette Judd; '
Subject: RE: S 12 036 Lebadenko
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Kim'
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 1:22 PM
To: Council
Subject: S 12 036 Lebadenko
As a neighbor just a few doors down from this family I believe the revised plans are in keeping with the theme of the
neighborhood and follow the town plan far better than new structures allowed in other parts of our town. Sincerely
Kimberly Russell (256 El Cajon Way)
Sent from Kim's phone
ATTACHMENT 12