Loading...
2001-100-Granting An Appeal Of The Decision Of The Planning Commission Approving A Request To Construct A New Single- Family Residence On Property Zoned R-1:8 And Remanding Application To The Planning CommissionRESOLUTION .2001-100 RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COIVIMISSION.APPROVING AREQUEST TO CONSTRUCT ANEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8 AND REMANDING APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARCHITECTURE & SITE APPLICATION: 5-00-123 PROPERTY LOCATION: 315 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER /APPLICANT:IVIII~E GRABILL APPELLANT: DUINO GIORDANO WHEREAS: A. This matter came before Council .for public hearing on .August 20, .2001 on an appeal by Duino Giordano (appellant) from a decision of the Planning Commission, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State .and Town law. B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council .considered all testimony and materials submitted, including. the record of the Planning Commission. proceedings and the packet of material contained in the CouncLAgenda Report dated August 16, 2001., along with the addendum dated August 17, .2001, and subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. Applicant is proposing to construct a 2,545 square-foot craftsman-style two-story residence with a 576 square-foot detached garage and 1,019 square-.foot cellar. The lot is currently vacant and heavily wooded, including two very large specimen oaks located towards the .front of the parcel. One of the oaks, a 40-inch diameter tree, is proposed .for removal. A detached ,garage is to be located 25 feet from the rear property line. An existing 20 foot access easement is located on other adjacent parcels which provides vehicular access to the subject property. D. The Development Review Committee originally denied the application because it could not approve the removal of atree of this size. The applicant appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. On June 27, 2001., the Commission grantedthe appeal and approved the application with specific conditions. E. The appeal is based on the appellant's belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion with regard to the proposed rear access and garage location and thatthe decision was not based on evidence in the record. The-appellant and applicant have been unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable reciprocal access easement agreement. F. The project as proposed would result in the removal of a large and venerable oalc tree. The protection of such trees has long been of significant concern to the Town. Council also recognizes that the applicant should be able to develop the.subject property in amanner that is consistent with its zoning. The record of these proceedings thus far is lacking in evidence sufficient to convince Council that the only ..available option for the construction of a residence on the subject parcel would require removal ofthe tree. While there has been a difference of opinion .among experts regarding. the viability of the tree if a house is built around it, Council notes that Ian Geddes, an expert hired by the Town, is of the opinion that the tree can be saved with a .house built .around it. Therefore Council concludes that the application should be remanded to the Planning Commission to consider whether other options exist that could both allow development of a residence and save the tree. Council believes that all reasonable options should be considered, including those that would necessitate variances from setback requirements. This information shall be obtained from an independent architectworkingfnr the Town who,. in consultation with the Town's arborists, can advise the Commission on whether a house can be built around the tree. However, the advice of an independent architect shall be necessary only in the eventthat theapplicant determines that he cannot or will .not design a house that will save the tree. G. The access issue raised by the appellant with regard to the current proposal is a private matter that need not be further addressed by the Planning Commission. However, access issues may be considered by the Commission to the extent. that they are relevant to a significantly revised proposal. 2 H. Council finds pursuantto Town Code section 29.20..300 that he Planning Commission erred by not requiring applicant to provide plans showing how a home could be constructed around the subject tree. Council notes, however, that the Planning Commission directed the applicant to provide such plans, but the applicant failed to do so, electing instead to provide evidence from an arborist about the condition of the tree. RESOLVED: The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site Application 5-00- 1.23 is granted and the application remanded to the Planning Commission for redesign of the residence with emphasis on saving the oalc tree consistent with Town development regulations, policies and guidelines, including the possibility of granting a variance. There shall be no additional fees for further review of this application. PASSED .AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California held on the 4t" day of September, 2001 by the following vote. COUNCIL 1VIEMBERS: AYES: Randy Attaway, Sandy Decker, Steve Glicl~man, Mayor Joe Pirzynski. NAYS: None ABSENT: .Steven Blanton ABSTAIN: None SIGNED: AYOR E TOWN DF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ---.. ATTEST C~ _ ~__ _..~ C ~~~ CLERK OF THE TOWN OF S GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA