Loading...
2001-041-Denying An Appeal Of A Decision Of The Planning Commission To Approve An Unlawful Demolition Of A Single Family Residence And The Construction Of A New Residence On Property Zoned Hr-2 1/2RESOLUTION 2001- 41 RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE AN UNLAWFUL DEMOLITION OF A ..SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF .ANEW RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2 '/2 ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5-01-015 PROPERTY LOCATION: 471 SANTA ROSA DRIVE PROPERTY OWNER: DAVE AND ANITA SHRIGLEY .APPLICANT.: HUGH KENNEDY APPELLANT: RAY DAVIS WIIEREAS: A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on Apr12, .2001., on an appeal by Ray Davis (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 t11e record ofthe Planing Commission proceedings and the paclcet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report dated March 29, 2001, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. The applicants applied for and received approval to significantly remodel their existing residence numerous times since January 1997. The applicants propose tobuild athree-story residence containing 8,852 square feet of living space, a 940 ..square-foot attached .garage and a 624 square-foot basement on a parcel slightly .larger than one acre. D. The P1ailning Commission considered .and approved this application, subject to conditions, on February 28, 2001. E. The appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it approved the unlawful demolition and failed to heed the General Plan when it approved the proposed residence. F. Town Council finds: 1. That while the applicant demolished the house during the remodel process pursuant to section 29.10,260(a) of the Town Code, the applicant had proceeded with the construction in good faith reliance upon a valid building permit and 'had made considerable investment in the property, paid double building permit fees, and applied and paid required fees .for architecture and site approval. 2. The Planning Commission decision was correct. RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site Application S-Ol -15 is denied. 2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil .Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, on the 16t'' day of April, 2001 by the following vote. COUNCIL MEMBERS.: AYES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Mayor Joe Pirzynslci. NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~ ~~ SIGNED: AYOR E TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: v ~ ~~ CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS {JATOS, CALIFORNIA