2002-009- Denying An Appeal Of A Decision Of The Planning Commission Approving Construction Of A New Single Family Residence On Property Zoned R-1d With ConditionsRESOLUTION 2002 - 9
ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
ZONED R-ID WITH CONDITIONS
ARCHITECTURE AND .SITE APPLICATION: S-O1-75
PROPERTY LOCATION: 160 VILLA AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER: WESTHILLS INVESTMENT INC..
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: JAMES ROGERS
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on January 7, 2002 , on an appeal
by James Rogers (applicant/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 Council Agenda Report dated January 3, 2002, along with subsequent
reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a one story, craftsman style residence
with a cellar on a 9,130 square foot undeveloped parcel. The proposed 19'6" tall structure will include
a 2,329 square foot first floor and a 1,485 square foot cellar, totaling 3,814 square feet. There is also
a detached two-car garage totaling 411 square feet. The application proposed that the garage be
located in the front of the residence.
Page 1 of 3
ID. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the application with conditions on
November 7, 2001. One condition required that the garage be located behind the :residence. At that
meeting, the Commission again identified Villa Avenue as having two separate and distinct styles to
the street -and concluded that both sides of Villa Avenue form two distinct neighborhoods. 'The
location of the .garage behind the residence was more consistent with the neighborhood in which the
proposed residence would be located..
E. Appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion and that
new information is .available that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning
Commissions decision. The thrust ofthe appeal is that the Planning Commission erred by requiring
that the garage be located behind the residence.
F. The Planning Commission decision was correct.
RESOLVEDc
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site
Application 5-01-75 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
pursuantto the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time
as required by State and Federal law.
Page 2 of 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, on the 22°a .day of January , 2002 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS.:
AYES,: Sfeven Blanton, .Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, .Joe Pirzynski,
Mayor Randy Attaway
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: G ~
.MAYOR OFT TOWN OF OS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNI
ATTEST:
%~~~.f c~~~ZC~
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
.LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Page 3 of 3