Item 9 Staff Report Review Planning Commission Decisions: Appeals SurveyDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 2122197
ITEM NO. Planning
Commission #9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 14, 1997
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS: APPEALS SURVEY
RECOMMENDATION: Information only.
BACKGROUND:
In 1996, the Council experienced the consideration of what seemed a high rate of appeals. This matter was discussed at the
February 8, 1997 Town Council Study Session. Council requested that staff prepare a summary of the 1996 Planning
Commission appeals and resulting Town Council action.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment 1 includes the summary of appeals and is broken down to include the categories of findings for the appeal
actions. The summary indicates that most often the Council specified finding #2 for modifying or reversing a Planning
Commission decision. The Council findings for overturning projects are excerpted from Town Council Resolutions and
included as Attachment 2. The findings required by Town Code Section 29.20.300 for Council to modify or reverse the
decision of the Planning Commission are listed below:
(1) Where there was error or abuse on the part of the Planning Commission: or
(2) New information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably
available for submission to the Commission: or
(3) 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
(c) If the only predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission is the
availability of new information as defined in subsection (b)(2) above, it is the policy of the Town that the
application will be returned to the Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new
information has minimal effect on the application.
The number of items appealed in Calendar 1996 is approximately 17% of the total project and development applications
filed. Project applications include Architecture and Site, Conditional Use Permit, and Minor Residential applications.
Development applications include Subdivision, Lot Merger, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Planned
Development applications. Approximately 122 applications were filed in the project category; 9 in the Development
category. No Tree Removal Permit appeals reached the Town Council level in 1996.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Appeal Summary for 1996
2. Summary of Council Findings, 1996
LEB:KS:sm
N:IDE VCNCLRPTS\APPL. S SN
PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Reviewed by:
Attorney Finance
Revised: 2/14/97 4:12 pm
Reformatted: 10/23/95
to
�0)\
VI
Ce
0
U m
2
J
W
a
D.
z
0
r_
Y/
5N
5G
0
V
0
z
z
a
0
.E
E
O
U
c,I
c IY)
cn
N d C
O D
C
'O
a)
0
E
a)
Denial Upheld
N
t
_O
.( c
(" 0
E U
U 0.
D) C
c • a)
a 0
O
(i, o
� •V)
Q) U
CI ia)
a0
Approval Upheld
M
N
0
a)
4-
N
a)
Q
Q
w
\1
N
0
z
Sw /P*1- y of C-o uNclL F-iNb/N&S P1-4N1N1N ,
CO/ 115S I D N DV51z.7'1,C.12Nal), 1 4:116
1603301-es GafvS emlevard Resc. Jgglo -16
K. The Planning Commission was compelled by the State Permit Streamlining Act to
take final action on this application, although some of the Commissioners expressed a desire to
seek a redesign of certain aspects of the plan before taking action, and therefore did not have the
discretion by law to seek a redesign such as is approved in this decision.
L. The planning process has resulted in significant redesigns of the master plan to
accommodate concerns of the community, the Commission, and the Council, and given the
extensive examination of all the issues by both the Commission and the Council and the complete
record before the Council, it does not appear necessary or appropriate to extend the process by
referring the matter back to the Commission.
157.60 Los Gafttis Sera. Ieva.rd /Peso. 1'f % - l `1
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site
Application S-95-46 is therefore granted in so far as it is returned to the Planning Commission for
-Airf11H Act, ra[i1 P1i7
2. The Planning Commission is to make a final decision on this application under the
Town Code, and such a decision maybe appealed to the Council pursuant to the Town Code.
3. By this decision, the Council expresses no opinion on the merits of the application
itself.
This decision does not constitutes a final administrative decision of the Town.
veryAve-. . .so . 1q4? -2 4-
I. The Planning Commission did not have the discretion to amend the Zoning Code
nor to allow service of alcohol past 10 p.m. Only the Council has that authority.
152q �f fri Gnn ed y Road geso. Mgt, -Z ?-
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site
Application S-95-43 is granted only insofar as Condition No. 4 is amended to allow either grey
or green for the court color, and the requests for withdrawal of the appeals are approved.
17050 JPob.er 5 ?oa4 Reso _/996 - 44-
C. The Applicant has provided a redesign of the proposed subdivision that was not
readily and reasonably available to the Planning Commission that addresses many of the concerns
raised by the Commission.
1
zpes &tchryia r v e. QPso 1g910 -5 '
F. The decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed pursuant to Town
Code § 29.20.300(b), because:
1. The applicant has had extensive meetings with the Development Review
Committee to resolve issues that were left unresolved before the Planning Commission
regarding the awning, fireplace, glass panels, and service bar, which constitutes new
information that the Commission did not have before it; and
2. The Council has the discretion, which the Commission does not, to interpret
the meaning in the Town Code of "intensification of use," which the applicant's proposal
is not, and of "minor exterior alteration," which the applicant's proposal is.
kote9e3 Lo<5 Caws Blvd. Reso. ,gq&' - 58
C. The issues for which the application was returned to the Planning Commission
were not adequately addressed: the hours of operation remain the same; the proposed uses on
the site remain undefined; and there is no resolution to the neighbor disagreement on the
easements.
D. A restaurant use on this site does not appear appropriate.
E. The direction of the current planning effort on the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan
indicates that restaurant use south of Shannon Road is not appropriate.
F. Approval of the application might lead to additional confusion on the unresolved
easement issue.
C�.
The Commission abused its discretion in approving the application under these
circumstances, and further, the Council has the ultimate policy discretion to determine whether
a particular use under a conditional use permit is appropriate.
-11 B M'c_k5 ,e,oad Re6v_ 1cYl&--__.t2�
E. The conditions developed by Town Staff and attached as Exhibit A hereto also
mitigate the effects of this application. In addition, the Council is applying 2 additional
conditions:
i. One regarding traffic circulation (Condition # 2) to reduce the usage of Hicks
Road and effects on neighbors; and
ii. Another regarding a pedestrian/bicycle trail along the Hicks Road perimeter of
the property (Condition # 1) that will enhance the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists that use Hicks Road and also come to the project site.
These conditions will further mitigate the project's possible effects. The Property Owner has
offered and agreed to these additional conditions. Conditions regarding the length of time during
which the temporary structures will be used should be and are revised in Exhibit A.
M. It appears that the Planning Commission erred by giving insufficient weight to the
public benefit derived from the current and proposed uses of the project site and the traffic effects
being mitigated by the short distance on Hicks Road to the project site and the majority of the
vehicle trips occurring in off-peak hours.
�a 8rvad w 4uj Ave Reno. q , -131
I. The Planning Commission erred in approving a design that is not compatible
with the neighborhood in its height, mass, scale, and interruption of scenic views, and the
project should be redesigned.
7-1 N• 5a.ie2-c ent5 797.6. fes4. 4, -13S
I. This combination of increased seating in the existing space with beer and wine
service for on -premises consumption as enhancing the sit-down quality is new information not
available to the Planning Commission, and it is appropriate for the Council to grant the appeal in
this limited way.
/ 21 Z Los GatAS Sl vd p eso.19% - /39
L. The Council has received new information that the Commission did not have, and
the Planning Commission erred in its interpretation of the Los Gatos Boulevard planning process
with regard to this application.
M. The application should be returned to the Planning Commission for further review
in conformance with the direction of this resolution.
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Project Application PRJ-
96-96 is granted insofar as the use of the property for a vehicle sales dealership is approved in
concept, and the application is returned to the Planning Commission for redesign and further
review consistent with this resolution.
2. The Planning Commission may take final action on the application.
This decision does not constitute a final administrative decision by the Town.
4
275_ Z os 6t vs & rea.. o j&. ,d . Peso 19% -151
C. The Zoning Code existing when the Planning Commission denied this application
prohibited the concurrent use of a parcel as a service station with a convenience market or snack
shop, so the Commission correctly denied the application.
D. Following that denial the Council has considered and adopted an ordinance
amending the Town Code to allow such concurrent use as part of an express approval under a
conditional use permit, or for minor alterations, under an architecture and site application
approval.
E. The Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the application and
recommended approval if the ordinance allowed such a concurrent use.
F. The appeal should therefore be granted because the Commission did not have
discretion under the Town Code to approve the application at the time of its review.
5