11 Staff Report - 15350 Suview DriveMEETING DATE: 10/16/06
~Ow N OF
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
!ps GA~pS
DATE: October 6, 2006
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
DENY A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED
ARCHITECTURE & SITE APPLICATION RELATED TO GRADING AND
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-21/2.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15350 SUVIEW DRIVE. FILE #S-06-66.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT & APPELLANT: CHARLES HACKETT.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny Architecture & Site application S-06-66
(motion required).
4. Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution (no motion
required).
If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or
modified relative to either or both appeals:
The Council needs to find one or more of the following:
(1) Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
or
(2) The 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
PREPARED BY: u . Lortz, Director of Community Development
N:\DEVISUZANNE\ComcR\Reports\Fwd. to TC\appea1s\Suview15350.wpd
Reviewed by: IPjS Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 10/6/06 9:39 am
Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION - 15350 SUVIEW
DRIVE; FILE #S-06-66.
October 6, 2006
(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.
2. If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning
Commission is new information as defined in Subsection (2) above, it is the Town's policy
that the application be returned to the Commission for review in light of the new information
unless the new information has a minimal effect on the application.
3. If the appeal is approved, use the findings and consideration of the Architecture and Site
applications (Attachment 2), and modify the conditions in Attachment 3 as appropriate.
4. Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution(s).
BACKGROUND
On August 22, 2001 the Planning Commission approved an Architecture and Site application for a
new hillside home and pool on the subject property. The project went through an extended review
process including multiple Planning Commission hearings before being approved. The applicant
secured a building permit in March 2002, but did not commence construction prior to the expiration
date for the architecture and site approval (August 22, 2003).
On May 26, 2004 the Planning Commission approved a new Architecture & Site application for a
new residence and pool. The project has been under construction since July 2004. During the course
of construction the applicant modified the retaining wall design in the pool area and behind the
house, added entry walls, constructed a pergola along the rear property line and backfilled the side
yard to an existing wall on the south property line. The applicant has since removed the
unauthorized fill and filed the subject application seeking approval of the improvements that were
done without prior planning approvals, as well as some changes that have not yet been implemented
On September 13, 2006 the Planning Commission considered the subject application and decided
to deny the request for approval of the improvements that were made without Town approval or
necessary permits. The applicant appealed the Commission decision on September 22, 2006 (see
Attachment 1). The applicant is requesting that the Council refer the matter back to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION - 15350 SUVIEW
DRIVE; FILE #S-06-66.
October 6, 2006
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting approval of a revised site plan for a previously approved Architecture
& Site application. The approved site plan is shown in a gray tone and the changes that are being
requested are shown in black (see Exhibit H to Attachment 7). The pool, spa and arbor on the south
side of the house have been approved and were constructed with building permits. The
improvements that are pending approval are as follows:
1. Entry walls along driveway
2. Expansion of driveway turnaround (not yet installed)
3. Three terraced retaining walls on east side of pool (one 41/2 feet, two 312 feet high)
4. Retaining wall with planter wall along east property line (41/2 feet and 1 Meet high)
5. Two new stairways and relocation of approved stairway above pool area
6. Grape arbor (pergola) on east side of the house
7. Stairs at grape arbor
8. Two retaining walls on either side of the grape arbor (previously approved, but location was
changed)
9. Mechanical equipment pad and enclosure
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On September 13, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the subject architecture and site
application. The Commission received public testimony and discussed the project. The Commission
voted 5-1 to deny the application. The consensus of the Commission was that the amount of grading
and the number of retaining walls was not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town's
Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. An abutting neighbor expressed concern about some
of the improvements (see Attachment 6).
Due to technical problems with the FTR system, there is no audio recording of the Planning
Commission meeting and a verbatim transcript cannot be provided. Attachment 4 is written
comments from five of the six Commissioners who participated on this item. Attachment 5 is staff
log notes of the meeting. The photo that Commissioner Quintana refers to in her written comments
will be available at the meeting.
Appeal
Attachment 1 includes the applicant's appeal letter. The applicant's attorney states that he is unable
to provide a complete basis for the appeal due to the lack of a transcript. The applicant is requesting
that the Council refer the application back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, to allow
the applicant to present additional evidence to the Commission.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION - 15350 SUVIEW
DRIVE; FILE #5-06-66.
October 6, 2006
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments:
I. Applicant's appeal statement (two pages), filed Septem'er 22, 2000'
2. Required Findings and Considerations (three pages)
3. Conditions of Approval (two pages)
4. Planning Commission comments (seven pages)
5. September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Log Notes (three pages)
6. September 13, 2006 Planning Commission desk item with Exhibit I
7. September 13, 2006 Report to Planning Commission with Exhibits A-H
Distribution:
Bob Steuer, 1133 Fairview Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125
Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
BNL: SD
N.\DEV\SUZANNE\Council\Reports\Fwd. to TC\appea1s\Suview15350.wpd
T -n of'
FILING FEES
X277 041lesidentiaY Office of the Town
fr
49 2.2006
p ...,y 11.00 per-Commerckd~11117 it Main St.,. Loy Gat ~l W-,
CK- + a-71
nily or Tentative
. . ~ C)F PLANNI 1 CO C DFROMON LERK DEPARTMENT ~Scc
cijc uiidefftned: do hereby appeal a d .;Ision of 01c. ?~Sd :4 Coniriussion gs follows: (PLEASE : yPE O R PP,IJ,TT NEATLY)
DATE OF PLANNING CONMISSIONDEG191ON- September. 13, 2006 -
PROJECT/APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Applic. S-06-66
ADDRESS LOCATION: 15350 Suview Drive
Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning. Commission decision in most matters if the
Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Council members. Therefore,
please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal:
1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because there are no official minutes
available due to-technical difficulties; hence, there can be no
meaningful review of the Planning Commission's actions.
OR
2. There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is
(please attach the new information if possible): OR
3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council: _
IF MORE SPACE I5 NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
1. Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minute9. A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of fill g.
2. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Co sion Decisio,A 4gcompanied by-the, requir~Ci fi fee.
Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the 10`' day following the decision. If the 10`h day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10`x' day, usually a Monday.
3. The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
4. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals.
5. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the applicatio 1 usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.
PRINTNAME: Charles Hackett SIGNATURE:
DATE: Sept. 22, 2006 ADDRESS: 15400 Suview.Drive
PHONE: (408) 356-2200
Los Gatos, CA 95032
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: I~~ I CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT: Date:
Pending Planning Department Confirmation TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY:
DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION: `ir I j Er1(e-° Cis
DATE OF PUBLICATION:
Law Offices of Charles T. Kilian
20410 Town Center Lane, Suite 210 • Cupertino, California 95014 -Telephone (408) 777-3403 /FAX (408) 777-3401
Cbades T. Mffan
Eileen Murray
September 22, 2006
Town of Los Gatos
Office of the Town Clerk
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Appeal of the denial of site and architecture
Application #S-06-66 by the Planning Commission
at its Meeting of September 13, 2006 (Owner- Charles Hackett),
Site Location: 15350 Suview Drive
Dear Town Clerk:
This office represents Charles Hackett regarding the above-described
matter. Attached is the Town's form application executed by my client together
with his filing fee of $277. Normally, Mr. Hackett would request that the Town
prepare a transcription of the minutes, but I understand from the Planning
Department that due to technical difficulties at the meeting, no minutes will be
available.
Without minutes, we are unable to ascertain whether the Planning
Commission "erred or abused its discretion" and hence are unable to provide a
complete basis for Mr. Hackett's appeal. I therefore will be requesting that the
Town Council return this application to the Planning Commission for re-
consideration. This will allow Mr. Hackett to present additional evidence to the
Commission and will further allow him time to explore additional options with his
neighbor.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.
Sincere[ ,
Charles T. Kilian
CTK/djb
Enc.
TOWN COUNCIL - OCTOBER 16, 2006
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15350 Suview Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Requesting approval of modifications to an approved Architecture and Site application related to
grading and landscape improvements on property zoned HR-212. APN 537-24-010.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Hackett
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions
of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted
as received by the Town on August 18, 2006 and approved by the Planning Commission on
September 13, 2006. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved
by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission depending on the
scope of the change(s).
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. The Architecture and Site application will expire two years
from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335
defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance.
3. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM. The applicant shall prepare and submit amemorandum
with the building permit, detailing how each of these Conditions of Approval have or will
be addressed.
4. PRIOR CONDITIONS. All conditions of approval from Architecture & Site application 5-
04-44 shall be complied with unless modified by the conditions contained herein.
Building Division
5. PERMITS REQUIRED: Revised building plans shall be submitted for the alterations of
existing site and retaining walls.
6. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on
the cover sheet of the revised plans. A compliance memorandum shall be prepared and
submitted with the building permit application detailing how each condition will be
addressed.
7. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36."
8. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is requiredbyUBC Section 1701, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted
to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town
Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties and
be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the
Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov.
Conditions of Approval
15350 Suview Drive/S-06-66
Page 2 of 2
9. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the
second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter
for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
10. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before
issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development: Suzanne Davis at 354-6875
b. Engineering Department: Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
N:\DE V \CONDTTNS\2006\Suvi ew 15350-TC.wpd
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
15350 Suview Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Requesting approval of modifications to an approved Architecture and Site application related to
grading and landscape improvements on property zoned HR-21/2. APN 537-24-010.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Hackett
FINDINGS:
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303
of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
■ The proposed project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards &
Guidelines, and/or an exception has been granted by the deciding body.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 29.20.150. Considerations in review of applications
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect
to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and
walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the
location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the
circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing, lighting and
handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
a. Any prof ect or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections
shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following matters:
1. The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate
existing traffic;
2. Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied; and
3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one
(1) year after occupancy.
b. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic
roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1) of the following
determinations:
ATTACHMENT 3
15350 Suview drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Page 2 of 3
1. Theprojectwill notimpact anyroadways and/or intersections causing
the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2. The project will impact a roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) causing
the roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available
capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.l. may
proceed. Any project receiving Town determination subsection
(1)b.2. must be modified or denied if the deciding body determines
that the impact is unacceptable. In determining the acceptability of a
traffic impact, the deciding body shall consider if the project's
benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined
by specific sections from the general plan and any applicable specific
plan.
(2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size, height,
lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation
of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Specialized
lighting and sign systems may be used to distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as
the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls, fences,
hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal
storage areas, utility installations, parking lots or unsightly development; the planting of
ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary destruction
of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use of planter boxes with seasonal flowers to add
color and atmosphere to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by
the Director of Parks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special
criteria, including climatic conditions, maintenance, year-round versus seasonal color change
(blossom, summer foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and open
spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of the
neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g. downtown, Los
Gatos Boulevard, etc.). Buildings should maximize preservation of solar access. In the
downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new
parking facilities shall be encouraged, and shall include such crime prevention elements as
good sight lines and lighting systems.
15350 Suview drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Page 3 of 3
(5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and structures. The
effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and
structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and
purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and site
approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale, massing, materials,
color, texture, reflectivity, openings and other details.
(7) Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and building
lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town. Street
furniture and equipment, such as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire hydrants, street signs,
telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters, drinking fountains, planters, kiosks,
flag poles and other elements of the street environment should be designated and selected so
as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image.
(8) Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons. The adequacy of the site
development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons.
Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total valuation of alterations,
structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution of the
Town Council, shall require the building to be modified to meet the accessibility
requirements oftitle 24 ofthe California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.
In addition to retail, personal services and health care services are not allowable uses on
nonaccessible floors in new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail, health care,
or personal service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that
floor to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify the
building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements. This
provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of this chapter. All
new residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility
requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution.
(9) Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility. A
hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public or private
school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18). An application for such
a facility will require an environmental impact report, which may be focused through the
initial study process.
N.\DEV \FINDINGS\Suview15350-A&Smod.wpd
I
I
t
I
September 27, 2006
John Bourgeois
420 Alberto Way, #37
Los Gatos, California, 95032
Los Gatos Town Council
c/o Director of Community Development
Town of Los Gatos
Re: 15350 Suview Drive (A&S Application S-06-66)
Dear Council Members,
Due to the problems encountered with the FTR system during the Planning Commission
meeting of September 13, 2006, the Director of Community Development has requested that we
prepare written comments summarizing our closing remarks on the above referenced project.
I voted to deny the application, but did not make substantial closing remarks. I felt my fellow
commissioners had already clearly expressed the reasons to deny this application. The burden
of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that an exception is warranted. It is my opinion that,
even when directly asked, the applicant presented no evidence to justify an exception.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 314-8859.
;Regar ,
ois
anning Commissioner
ATTACHMENT 4
Los Gatos Town Council
c/o Director of Community Development
Town of Los Gatos
Comments from Commissioner Stephen M. Rice sent in an email on 9/27/06.
15350 Suview Drive (A & S Application S-06-66)
In this instance, "the burden of proof' was on the applicant to show why we should not force him
to restore the project to the originally approved specifications. The applicant made no attempt to
prove that what was done was done for any reason other than that was what he decided to do. I
really believe the applicant did whatever he wanted with the assumption that he would "get away
with it." Quite frankly, it appears he would have done just that if a neighbor had not brought the
issue to the attention of the Town. That being said, the infrastructure that Mr. Hackett has
installed is WAY more than was originally approved, and is not in keeping with the Hillside
Design Standards, and should be removed.
N:\DEV\MINUTES\ 153 50SuviewCommentsTC.wpd
September 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
15350 SUVIEW DRIVE
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-06-66
FROM: LEE QUINTANA
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
The following is in response to Bud's request to provide a summary of the comments I
made during the September 13, 2006 public hearing for S-06-66. I have included
questions I asked the applicant and staff as well as comments I made during the
Commission's discussion.
ADDITIONAL PROJECT BACKGROUND
I stated that I was a Planning Commissioner in 2000 when the applicant's original
proposal came before the Commission. I commented that this project probably holds the
record for the number of times (four) it appeared before the Planning Commission. And I
added to the project's background history:
In 2000 Mr. Hackett filed an Architecture and Site Application (S-00-22). After three
appearances before the Commission the application was denied. My recollection is that
the Commission's main concerns were:
1. The size /mass of the home
2. The number (four or five) and total length of the proposed retaining walls
3. Maintaining the existing slope on the previously extensively graded lot
The applicant appealed the decision to the Town Council. The Town Council returned
the application to the Planning Commission.
The A&S subsequently approved on August 22, 2001 was for a smaller home/garage with
minimal changes to the existing slope along the eastern side of the lot. The approved
plans included one retaining wall at the base of the slope east of the pool, one retaining
wall that created a small level area immediately behind the house and one exterior
staircase. This approval lapsed.
In 2003 a building permit was approved an enlarged terrace area the house and two
additional retaining walls not included in the 2001 A&S approval.
A new A&S was approved in May 2004. This approval was subject to the HSD&G.
The new approval also incorporated the 2 additional retaining walls approved by the 2003
Building Permit.
SLOPE STABILITY: I asked a question regarding the stability of the grading approved
by the new 2004 A&S. In response Mr. Hackett's landscape contractor stated that when
the two approved retaining walls were relocated further into the existing slope additional
retaining walls were then needed to stabilize the slope.
PHOTO OF EXISITNG TERRACING: I requested that a photo be placed on the
overhead projector. The photo was taken looking east across the pool to the 5 currently
existing retaining walls.
FENCES - SOUTHWEST CORNER: In response to my question regarding the existing
fences at the southwest corner of the parcel (shown in gray on sheet 2 of Exhibit H) staff
clarified that permits are pending for them. I commented that while these fences are
located within the15350 Suview parcel these fences visually and functionally separates
this corner making it appears that this area is part of the parcel to the west.
REQUESTED APPROVAL: I stated that I did not think I could support a motion to
retroactively approve the requested grading and landscaping modifications for the
following reasons:
The requested modifications are not minor adjustments to 2004 A&S approval. Based on
my recollections the proposed grading and landscaping modification more closely
resemble the original plans submitted in 2000, which were not approved, than they
resemble the plans of the lapsed 2001 approval or the existing 2004 A&S approval.
The proposed modifications are not consistent with the stated goals, objectives or
applicable standards and guidelines of the HSD&G. Nor are they consistent with the
goals and policies of General Plan with respect to the hillsides development.
No compelling evidence was presented by the applicant to support granting an exception
to the rear setback or to any other hillside standard.
September 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
15350 SUVIEW DR./A & S APPLICATION S-06-66
FROM: D. MICHAEL KANE, COMMISSIONER
Per Mr. Lortz's request, below are my comments, questions and discussion fom the Planning
Commission meeting of September 13, 2006 as best I can recall.
The staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 7, 2006 for the September 13,
2006 meeting states on Page 2, Section B - Remarks that there are "nine improvements pending
approval." These are in addition to a previously approved A & S application.
I asked Mr. Hackett, properly owner, if work had been, in fact, completed or initiated on all nine
of the items. He said "yes." I asked why such work would be performed without necessary
permits/approvals. He said he didn't think any permits or approvals were necessary.
Commissioner Quintana stated that Mr. Hackett had over the years appeared before the Planning
Commission on a number of occasions seeking exceptions to limitations, had been denied, and
had taken the matter(s) to Town Council where the appeal(s) were denied. Commissioner
O'Donnell commented that such learned experience put in doubt the question of ignorance and
gave rise to the question of intent; i.e., go ahead and seek permission later ...or words to that
effect.
Mr. Lortz offered that the Planning Commission ought to focus on what would have been
approved had proper application been made. Commissioner O'Donnell and I expressed
reservations that such an approach might set a very negative precedent. Commissioner
O'Donnell also said that a "retrospective approval" denies "due process" regarding public notice
and a public hearing - to include an absence of neighbor comments.
In "retrospect", I believe few, if any, of the nine items would have been approved unscathed
given obvious conflict with the Hillside Guidelines (HDS&G). I made a comment to that effect
during the hearing.
I (and I believe all or most of the other commissioners) commented or asked questions about Mr.
Gorovitz's (adjacent neighbor) email dated September 13, 2006 (Exhibit I). Too few of those
concerns/accusations were rebutted and staff supported many of them. However, we were
advised by staff and Mr. Korb that many of those issues were not properly before us. It was
either me or Commissioner O'Donnell who said nonetheless the unrefuted points did provide
some assistance with our decision.
As I recall, Chairman Micciche's lone dissenting vote reflected not an approval of the
application, but rather a compassionate view that we approve a few of the nine items that perhaps
we would have had they been properly presented.
Commissioner Rice made a "strong" motion to deny and I seconded.
September 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
15350 SUVIEW DR./A & S APPLICATION S-06-66
FROM: PHIL MICCICHE, COMMISSIONER
Comments Torn Chair Miccic he sent in an email dated 9/29/06
Of the nine improvements submitted for approval on the subject application, I approved seven to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
However, I do not believe compelling evidence was submitted to approve the exception to the
HDS&G regarding Item 6, the arbor setback and also would require the amount of retaining walls
be reduced again to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Planning Commission - September 13, 2006 Council Chambers
Time Speaker
Note
8:33:44 PM :Chair Micciche
:Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Quintana voting no and
:Commissioner Talesfore excused. BREAK
8:41:16 PM :Chair Micciche
:Item #3 -15350 Suview Drive - Architecture and Site
:Application S-06-066 - Requesting approval to modify an
:approved Architecture & Site application relating to grading and
:landscape improvements on property zoned HR-2'h. APN 537-
24-013
:PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Hackett
<
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8:46:18 P M C harles Hackett
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Explained process they went through and how the changes
:came about.
8:50:35- PM :onox Gorovitz
Own two -ro °Yties in the vicinity Looked at the approved
:plans, and ended up with something different. The height of the
:lot increased. Now no view of the city lights. Used to have a 180
:degree view and now have zero view. The retaining wall is
:huge. Concerned about where the water will go. All of these
:projects appeared and want to see rules consistently and fairly
¢
:applied.
8:54:16 PM :Commissioner
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Clarified comments on wall. Mr. Gorovitz said the wall is
:Kane
:supposed to be five feet high and is 8 feet high. It is also much
:longer than shown on the plans. Commissioner Kane asked
:what he wants. Mr. Gorovitz said he wants a view. Didn't object
:to something he can live with when the project was approved,
:but now faced with something he can't live with.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8:56:28 PM :Commissioner
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
:Asked Mr. Gorovitz to show where his property is in relation to
:Quintana
:the applicant's. Mr. Gorovitz indicated on the site plan and said
:he has no view through the corridor he used to be able to see
a
:through.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8:58:37 PM :Cha**' rles Hackett
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Before I started construction on my home, I talked to all of the
:surrounding property owners. Mr. Gorovitz did not own the
:property at the time. He indicated where Mr. Gorovitz's house is,
:and disagreed that he would have a view of the city through the
:existing oak trees because of the angle. Several hundred cubic
:yards of dirt were exported from the site. There is a fence that is
:about 80 feet long. There is another wall that is six feet high that
:another neighbor wanted for privacy. Feels the arbor is an asset
:to the property and he requested approval of the project.
<
9:03:09 PM :Commissioner
:Did you build the arbor without a permit? Mr. Hackett said yes
:Kane
:he did, but he did not realize it would be considered an out
:building. It is an open structure that plants can grow on.
:Commissioner Kane asked about the wall. Mr. Hackett said the
:wall is seven feet at the highest point ...it was built with a permit
:and is about 80 feet long. Kevin Rohani said the wall was
:approved for 96 feet and it is longer than that. Mr. Hackett said
:there is a stucco fence that extends from the approved wall.
o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9:05:57 PM :Commissioner
. . . . . . . . .
e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Questions about walls and responses from applicant.
:Quintana
Planning Commission - September 13, 2006 Council Chambers
Time Speaker
Note
9:08:58 PM :Commissioner
:Clarifed location of trees behind arbor.
:O'Donnell
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9:1030 PM Commissioner
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6"1"1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G", . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Are we dealing with jthe aror or all of the as-builts? Randy
:Rice
:Tsuda said all of the improvements. Commissioner Rice asked
:if items aren't approved they would need to be removed (yes).
a . . . . . . . . . .
9:12:03 PM :Commissioner
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Has staff visited Mr. Gorovitz's property? Mr. Rohani said yes,
:O'Donnell
:and concurred that he was able to see the arbor. He also
:clarified that the wall that is currently functioning as a retaining
:wall was approved as a five foot fence for a length of 96 feet.
:Commissioner O'Donnell asked which of the pending approvals
:can be seen from the neighbor's property.
o.......................................................
9:15:18 PM :Commissioner
:The complaintant precipited the site visit (yes). Clarified that the
:Bourgeois
:water tank was approved and the wall was approved as a block
a
:wall as opposed to a fence.
_
9:21:15 PM :Commissioner
:There are nine items listed ...there are recommendations. Asked
:Kane
:staff what is acceptable. Mr. Lortz clarified that the arbor needs
:an exception to the hillside standards, not a variance. The
:question is what can the Commission live with? What would
:have been approved had it been before the Commission
:initially?
9:23:13 PM :Chair Micciche
:Clarified that items are pending approval because they have
:been applied for, but a decision has not been made.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:24:10 PM :Commissioner
:It is unfortunate that this happens all too often. The question is if
:O'Donnell
you had come to us before, what would we have done. Don't
:want to make you undo things just to undo things. The reason
:we go through this is so people can get approval and build what
:is approved. The arbor is very large and I'm not at all impressed
with the retaining wall/fence.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9:2658 PM :Commissioner
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Requested that Commissioner O'Donnell put that into a motion.
:Kane
a
o
. . . . . . . .
9:27:19 PM :Chair Micciche
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Agree on the arbor. Walls that are 3-4 feet high are typically
:approved. Six foot fences can be added anytime. Have no issue
:with any fences that don't exceed six feet and retaining walls
:that don't exceed four feet.
. . . . . .
9:30:15 PM !:C-6- mmissioner
o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Asked for clarification on the wall height. Kevin Rohani said it
:Rice
:varies, but is from 7 to 8 feet. Randy Tsuda said the fence is
d
:inconsistent with the building permit.
.
a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9:33:51 PM iCommissioner
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Portion of wall closer to driveway that cuts off a portion of the
:Quintana
:lot. Read excerpts from the HDS&G relative to landscaping.
:Does not feel the project is consistent with the HDS&G.
-9/13/200
Planning Commission - September 13, 2006
Council Chambers
9:36:56 PM :Commissioner :Motion to deny application. Cannot find that the applicant has
:Rice :met the burden of proof that an exception to the HDS&G is
:warranted. Seconded by Commissioner Kane. Motion passed 5-
:1 with Commissioner Micciche dissenting.
Charles Hackett :Asked Commissioners to visit the site.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . e
Chair Micciche :.Item. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lanned. .
#4 - Kennedy. . . . . . . . Road. . Forrester. . . . . . . . . . Road. . . . -
:Development Application PD-06-03
:Negative Declaration ND-07-04 - Requesting approval of a
::Planned Development to construct a new residence, pool,
:tennis court and accessory structures on property zoned HR-
:2'/2. No significant environmental impacts have been identified
:as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
:has been recommended. APNS 537-29-007 & 008.
:PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust
:APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
9:47:10 PM :Rob DeSa is :Three goals: meet family's needs, work with environment and
:respect Town's goals and neighbors. Have worked on project
:for a long time. Exceptional site, over 600 trees. Will see large
:grading numbers than is typical with a single family home, but
ave reduced the grading significantly. Another important
:a ect is the visibility, not visible from any viewing platform,
pro ct is well concealed by the tree line. Prior to going to
:Plan ' g Commission, contacted neighbors.
9:50:36 PM :Richard Landry :Presented d ign with emphasis on Hillside Standards. Clients
:program calls r the design of one home as opposed to a two
:home scheme. velopment area encroaches slightly beyond
:the LRDA, but will ve the least impact to the site. Second floor
:covers 55% of first fl r providing varied roof lines. Some areas
:of the roof exceed the foot height limit, needed for
:architectural consistency. ave worked for the past 18 months
:to reduce the site disturba e. Modified house location, stepped
: house, moved pool closer to ouse, raised elevation of rear yard
:and removed 1,000 linear feet retaining walls. Only 26 trees
:will be removed and two will be r ocated. Over 100 new trees
:will be planted.
9:58:28 PM :Rob DeSantis :Believe that this is truly an exceptional pro rty. The PD will
:bring land use closure. This will be the total velopment on the
site.
9:59:45 PM :Chair Micciche :Opened public hearing.
100032 PM:Henry Hancock :Most affected neighbor. Have spent a lot of time tal ' g to Rob
:and enthusiastically supports the project. Have only o
:concern... that traffic control plan be put in place while
:excavation is being removed.
John Farone :Neighbor directly to the south. Supports development of
:homes in the area and supports the project.
Date: September 13, 2006
For Agenda Of: September 13, 2006
Agenda Item: 3
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
LOCATION: 15350 Suview Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Requesting approval of modifications to an approved Architecture and Site
application related to grading and landscape improvements on property zoned
HR-2'/2. APN 537-24-010.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Hackett
EXHIBITS: A.-H. Previously submitted
I. Email from A. Gorovitz (2 pages) received September 13, 2006.
REMARKS:
The attached information was received after the staff report was prepared.
Approved by:
Bud N. Lortz,
Director of Community Development
BNL:mdc
N:\DEV \SUZANNE\PCMPOATS\Suview l5350\Suview l5350A&Smod. dskitem.wpd
Page 1 of 2
Mr. Hacket application for 15350 Sueview DR.
From: "Alex Gorovitz" <agorovitz(acmn.com>
To: <sdavis(a-),losgatosca.gov>
Date: 9/13/2006 5:22 PM
Subject: Mr. Hacket application for 15350 Sueview DR.
CC: <blortz(a,losgatosca.gov>, "'Kevin Rohani"' <KRohani(a),losgatosca.gov>, <Planning cr losgatosca.gov>
September 13, 2006
TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Alex Gorovitz, property owner of 15335 Top of the Hill Rd. and 15315 Top of the Hill Rd.
Regarding : Construction violations at 15350 Suview Dr. by Mr. Hacket
• . I Alex Gorovitz have been a property owner and lived in Los Gatos for the past seventeen years. One of the
properties borders 15350 Sueview Dr. and the other one is next door to it. I am very familiar with the lot on which
Mr. Hacket built his home for resale and I also made a point in being present at the planning meeting when this
project was approved. One of the reasons for living in Los Gatos is the magnificence of the nature and the beauty
of the view on both sides of my property , the green hills on one side and a view of the city on the other side. The
parcel used for the Hacket construction has been altered physically by bringing dirt from the outside by truck
loads and by shifting dirt around from one side of the property to the other and as a direct result of these illegal
actions the grade was raised by at least 10 to 15 feet. I remember vividly the panoramic view we had before the
Hacket home was built, a view which was reduced to a big ZERO. We are now looking at retaining walls and
other massive additions which totally block our views. A 25 feet setback was mandated as a corridor in order to
allow us some restricted view of the city, but Mr. Hacket decided to ignore the city directions .given to him and
build a number of structures without permits from Los Gatos, structures which resulted in a 100% obstruction of
our views. Mr.Hacket showed total disrespect towards his neighbor and the Planning Commission. Due to the
raised grade the home totally blocks any views we had before and the structure built in the 25 foot set back
completes the total coverage of any views. Not only that the view was taken away but the flow of water during
rainy season will cause erosion of our land. Mr. Hacket was allowed a 5 foot fence and not an 8 foot 50 feet long
retaining wall built without a permit. It became my responsibility to call the town officials and expose these
violations created by Mr. Hacket at our detriment. The town engineer and head inspector came to see the
violations and agreed with my findings. I was asked to write a detailed email to the city and I did it months ago. I.
was informed that a red tag was issued but no results were to be seen in the fields regarding this huge retaining
wall and the other non permitted structures. Mr. Hacket's crew continued to work during the red tag period
including Saturdays and Sundays from dusk to dawn. More things were added and more violations continued as if
there was no red tag and totally ignoring the town demands and my requests.
All of us have to play by the rules set by the Planning Commission and sometimes we have to wait for years to
have our plans approved before we start building our homes with permits and approvals in hand, but not Mr.
Hacket. If you look at the left side of the illegal retaining wall you will see it's been painted and stucco covers it
based on a deal made with that neighbor who wrote a favorable letter to the planning commission. They endorse
the wall as a protection against traffic, when the only traffic in the evening is created by them and their guests
while use the other road, noise from cars, not mine but their cars, privacy when we cannot even see each other's
property. Obviously this letters were written at Mr. Hacket's request and as a favor to him. This person mentions
that they worked with Mr.Hackket from day one of this retaining wall's life and they had full knowledge of his
activity. They did not care what he does because they were not loosing any views whatsoever. Why did Mr.
Hacket omit or ignore to consult with his other neighbor, Alex Gorovitz ? The answer is simple, I was the only
file://C:\Documents and Setting:. :.\Local Settings\Temp\GWJ00001.HTM Exhibit I
Page 2 of 2
one who had anything to loose, his spectacular view of San Jose at night.. The other neighbor Mr. Olson writes on
behalf of his family, he does not even live at that address and part of his purchase agreement of his property from
Mr. Bower prevents him from objecting when it comes to Mr. Racket's construction. I also have to mention that
none of Mr. Olson's view is affected by Mr.Hacket's home. There are only three properties around Mr. Hacket's
new home and only two neighbors were approached that Mr Haket's home is larger than to loose. Why was I
directed to reinforce my hill against erosion at a cost of over $185.000 before I can get my permits and why is Mr.
Hacket allowed to change plans and build without permits as he pleases without any concern for his neighbor
and the town's rules and regulations. Using the mapping provided by Google it appears that the home in question
is larger than 6000 square feet allowed by the town for which I request a careful measurement to take place at
Mr.Hacket's residence. Has the town verified that the home was built on the original grade or can somebody
explain to me how this lot grew in height by 10 to 15 feet without a miracle from God or importing dirt from the
outside ?Sure it's a beautiful home, but why not build it with approvals by the Plainn ing Comr-Lussion and the
people who live next door. Why do certain Los Gatos residents have to obey by the rules and pay for their
mistakes and why not the same rules for Mr. Hacket ? Why build and than request for forgiveness and approvals
after the fact.
Law for one it is law for everybody. Mr. Hacket thinks he is special and that anybody and everybody will jump
and approve his demands. In the letter from the "Development Review Committee" to the Planning Commission,
prepared September 7, 2006 , in Paragraph B it says and I quote : " Adjacent neighbors submitted letters in
support of the privacy wall I am a neighbor and I do NOT endorse Mr. Hacket's blunders including the
retaining monster wall and all the other constructions done without permits and any construction which blocks our
family's views. It is also mentioned in the report that the arbor is not visible from the offsite, but somehow it
blocks the only view I have left and it was buit without approvals and permits. The fences or retaining walls were
approved for a height of five feet, not a height. It is not OK to build a home and than decide to present it to the
town of Los Gatos as a completed project and try to force the town and the neighbors to accept it. This type of
illegal action will only create chaos and once the word gets out and it will everybody will have a new hero in
town, Mr. Hacket, a man who fought the town by doing all illegal possible things and be rewarded for it, let's all
do it, I do NOT think so.
Respectfully,
Alex Gorovitz
15335 Kennedy Rd.
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
408 358 7769
P.S.
Would you please include this email in tonight's meeting, I would highly appreciate it and I thank you for your
honest help
f11P-//l'-\Tlnr 1irnPntc nnri CPttinac nasal lP.ttinfTC\TPrnn\CTW~00001 .NTM 9/1 V9.006
Date: September 7, 2006
For Agenda Of:-.September 13, 2006
Agenda Item: 3
REPORT TO
FROM:
LOCATION
FINDINGS:
The Planning Commmission
Development Review Committee
15350 Suview Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Requesting approval of modifications to an approved Architecture and Site
application related to grading and landscape improvements on property zoned
HR-2%2. APN 537-24-010.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Hackett
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 18, 2006
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: February 18, 2006
■ As required by Section 15301 of the State Environmental Guidelines as
adopted by the Town that this project is Categorically Exempt.
CONSIDERATIONS : ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and
Site applications.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten
days.
ENVIRONMENTAL It has been determined that this project is categorically exempt pursuant to
ASSESSMENT: Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the
Town.
EXHIBITS: A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Location map (one page)
Required Findings & Considerations (three pages)
Conditions of Approval (two pages)
Letter from Bob Olson (one page), received July 31, 2006
Letter from Mark Beaudoin, Landscape Architect (two pages with
three page attachment), received August 18, 2006
Email from Ian & Ivonne Felix (two pages), received August 21,
2006
Letter from Bob Steuer, Civil Engineer (two pages), received
September 5, 2006
Development plans (six sheets), received August 18, 2005
The Planning Commission - Page 2
15350 Suview Drive/S-06-66
September 13, 2006
A. BACKGROUND:
On August 22, 2001 the Planning Commission approved an architecture and site application for a
new hillside home and pool on the subject property. The project went through an extended review
process including multiple Planning Commission hearings before being approved. The applicant
secured a building permit in March 2002, but did not commence construction prior to the expiration
date for the architecture and site approval (August 22, 2003).
On May 26, 2004 the Planning Commission approved a new Architecture & Site application for a
new residence and pool. The project has been under construction since July 2004. During the course
of construction the applicant modified the retaining wall design in the pool area and behind the
house, added entry walls, constructed a pergola along the rear property line and backfilled the side
yard to an existing wall on the south property line. The applicant has since removed the
unauthorized fill and filed the subject application seeking approval of the improvements that were
done without prior planning approvals, as well as some changes that have not yet been implemented.
B. REMARKS:
The applicant is requesting approval of a revised site plan for a previously approved Architecture
& Site application. The approved site plan is shown in a gray tone and the changes that are being
requested are shown in black (see sheet 2 of Exhibit H). The pool, spa and arbor on the south side
of the house have been approved and were constructed with building permits. The improvements
that are pending approval are as'follows:
1. Entry walls along driveway
2. Expansion of driveway turnaround (not yet installed)
3. Three terraced retaining walls on east side of pool (one 41/2 feet, two 31/2 feet high)
4. Retaining wall with planter wall along east property line (41/2 feet and 11/2 feet high)
5. Two new stairways and relocation of approved stairway above pool area
6. Grape arbor (pergola) on east side of the house
7. Stairs at grape arbor
8. Two retaining walls on either side of the grape arbor (previously approved, but location was
changed)
9. Mechanical equipment pad and enclosure
The applicant has provided a letter explaining the above changes and providing rationale for their
approval (see exhibit G). In addition, a letter from a landscape architect has been submitted
addressing the proposed landscape plan (see Exhibit E). Adjacent neighbors submitted a letter in
support of the privacy wall (see Exhibit F).
The walls and columns near the entrance to the property are on a separate parcel and are being
constructed under a building permit issued for 15400 Suview Drive. These improvements are not
located on the subject property.
The Planning Commission - Page 3
15350 Suview Drive/5-06-66
September 13, 2006
Grape Arbor
The grape arbor (columns with a trellis top) is located five feet from the east (rear) property line.
While Zoning Ordinance provisions for accessory structures allow a five foot setback from the rear
property line, the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G) includes a standard that
accessory structures be outside required setbacks. The rear setback in HR zones is 25 feet. Although
the project was originally approved prior to adoption of the HDS &G, the arbor was constructed after
the HDS&G became effective (February 2004). The applicant is requesting an exception to the
HDS&G to allow the arbor to remain. The structure is not visible from off the site, and the adjacent
neighbor supports the current location (see Exhibit D). The HDS&G state that the burden of proof
is on the applicant to demonstrate that an exception is warranted. The Commission should discuss
this and decide if enough evidence has been submitted to justify the exception.
Retaining Walls .
All of the retaining walls that have been constructed are lower than five feet as recommended in the
HDS&G. Two of the lower walls on the east side of the pool were approved under the vested
Architecture & Site application. Two walls were also approved between the house and the east
property line although the location of these walls changed.
C. CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Consider the information submitted by the applicant;
2. Make a determination on whether it is appropriate to grant an exception to the HDS&G to
allow the grape arbor to encroach into the side setback,
3. Make the findings in Exhibit B; and
4. Approve the Architecture & Site Application subject to the conditions in Exhibit C.
If the Commission decides that some of the modifications are acceptable and others are not, the
approval may be modified through additional conditions and staff will work with the applicant to
revise the plans accordingly.
C2~.f'Q
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
BNL: SD
Approved by:
Bud N. Lortz,
Director of Community Development
cc: Bob Steuer, 1133 Fairview Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125
Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
15350 Suview Dr
al
W
cn
it A
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
15350 Suview Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Requesting approval of modifications to an approved Architecture and Site application related to
grading and landscape improvements on property zoned HR-21/2. APN 537-24-010.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Hackett
FINDINGS :
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303
of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
■ The proposed project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards &
Guidelines, and/or an exception has been granted by the deciding body.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 29.20.150. Considerations in review of applications
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Considerations relating to trcf7c safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect
to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and
walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the
location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the
circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing, lighting and
handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
a. Any prof ect or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections
shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following matters:
1. The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate
existing traffic;
2. Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied; and
3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one
(1) year after occupancy.
b. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic
roadway/intersection capacity and make one (1) of the following
determinations:
B
15350 Suview drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Page 2 of 3
1. The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing
the roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2. The project will impact a roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) causing
the roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available
capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b. I. may
proceed. Any project receiving Town determination subsection
(1)b.2. must be modified or denied if the deciding body determines
that the impact is unacceptable. In determining the acceptability of a
traffic impact, the deciding body shall consider if the project's
benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined
by specific sections from the general plan and any applicable specific
plan.
(2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size, height,
lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation
of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Specialized
lighting and sign systems maybe used to distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as
the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls, fences,
hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal
storage areas, utility installations, parking lots or unsightly development; the planting of
ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary destruction
of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use of planter boxes with seasonal flowers to add
color and atmosphere to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by
the Director of Parks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special
criteria, including climatic conditions, maintenance, year-round versus seasonal color change
(blossom, summer foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and open
spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of the
neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g. downtown, Los
Gatos Boulevard, etc.). Buildings. should maximize preservation of solar access. In the
downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new
parking facilities shall be encouraged, and shall include such crime prevention elements as
good sight lines and lighting systems.
15350 Suview drive .
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Page 3 of 3
(5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and structures. The
effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and.
structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and
purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and site
approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale, massing, materials,
color, texture, reflectivity, openings and other details.
(7) Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and building
lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town. Street
furniture and equipment, such as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire hydrants, street signs,
telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters, drinking fountains, planters, kiosks,
flag poles and other elements of the street environment should be designated and selected so
as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image.
(8) Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons. The adequacy of the site
development plan forproviding accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons..
Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total valuation of alterations,
structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution of the
Town Council, shall require the building to be modified to meet the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.
In addition to retail, personal services and health care services are not allowable uses on
nonaccessible floors in new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail, health care,
or personal service on a nonaccessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that
floor to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify the
building for unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements. This
provision does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of this chapter. All
new residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility
requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution.
(9) Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility. A
hazardous waste.facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public or private
school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18). An application for such
a facility will require an environmental impact report, which may be focused through the
initial study process.
N:\DEV \FINDINGS\Suview 15350-A&Smod.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15350 Suview Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-06-66
Requesting approval of modifications to an approved Architecture and Site application related to
grading and landscape improvements on property zoned HR-21/2. APN 537-24-010.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles Hackett
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions
of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted
as received by the Town on August 18, 2006 and approved by the Planning Commission on
September 13, 2006. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved
by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission depending on the
scope of the change(s).
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. The Architecture and Site application will expire two years
from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335
defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance.
3. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM. The applicant shall prepare and submit a memorandum
with the building permit, detailing how each of these Conditions of Approval have or will
be addressed.
4. PRIOR CONDITIONS. All conditions of approval from Architecture & Site application S-
04-44 shall be complied with unless modified by the conditions contained herein.
Building Division
5. PERMITS REQUIRED: Revised building plans shall be submitted for the alterations of
existing site and retaining walls.
6. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on
the cover sheet of the revised plans. A compliance memorandum shall be prepared and
submitted with the building permit application detailing how each condition will be
addressed.
7. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36."
8. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is requiredbyUBC Section 1701, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted
to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town
Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties and
be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the
Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov.
Conditions of Approval
15350 Suview Drive/S-06-66
Page 2 of 2
9. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the
second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter
for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
10. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before
issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development: Suzanne Davis at 354-6875
b. Engineering Department: Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
N:\DEV\CONDITNS\2006\Suvimv 15350.wpd
The Olson Family
15300 Suview Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
July 27, 2006
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
Attn: Bud Lortz
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Commissioners,
JUL 100E
,S LOS u TOS
<t's0 DIVISIOIq
I am writing to you on behalf-of my-family in reference to-new trellis built•on Charles Hackett's
16350 Suview Drive property. One of our property lines is common with the Hackett property.
The trellis runs parallel to this shared property line, but is located solely on Hackett property.
I am writing to request that the trellis be allowed to remain on the Hackett property. The trellis is
low enough that it does not block our views. The trellis provides an estetically pleasing barrier
between the two properties. I cannot imagine a more pleasing use of the land.
Please approve the permit request for this existing trellis.
I am hopeful from the above comments that you see we are supportive of this project; it brings
with it numerous benefits our neighborhood. If you would like to discuss this matter with me, I
can be reached at 408-316-2399.
Yours s' erely,
wb_~_ (0 ca"
Bob Olson
TgRIUTt_D
MARK BEAUDOIr '
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A.S.L.A.
Arborist - International Society of Arboriculture
C.A.P.C.A. Pest Control Advisor
P.O. Box 2032 • San J:o..se, California 951'09
Tele.ph.one (408) 395-2:8`62.
LA8DS(-1'APE RVvTEiW
HACKETT RESIDENCE
15350 SUVEIW DRIVE
LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA 95032
TEL. NO.408-356-2200 FAX 408-358-6435
Dear Charles,
On August 4, 2006, I reviewed the landscape at 15350 Suveiw
Drive, Los Gatos and have the following observations:
1)The house is nicely tucked into the side of a hill so it does not
block any neighbor's valley views.
2) Because of the house location there is a substantial change of
elevation in. the landscape from the first floor pool terrace to the
second floor bedroom terrace but this transition is gracefully made
with a series of low retaining wall planters that will be ideal for
cascading plants such as rosemary or asparagus ferns.
3) The second floor bedroom terrace requires privacy and
screening from the uphill neighbor above the easterly property line.
This privacy and screening is provided by an attractive pergola
constructed on another terrace above the bedroom terrace. Once
this pergola is covered by a mass of flowering vines, the uphill
neighbor will have an attractive downhill view and the people in
the bedrooms will have an attractive uphill view.
i 1- F.
4) The views from the upper terraces are spectacular.
5) When the landscaping of the pool terrace is complete it will also
offer an attractive view from the house's first floor level and also
from the uphill neighbor's property.
In summary, this Tuscan style estate property will be a real
additional landscape asset to the beautiful town of Los Gatos,
California.
If there are any further questions, please call me at my office 408-
395-2862.
Sincerely ours,
AL,\C
Mark Be udoin
. . c4
r ,
Y
1 i• ; ,F c ir,;i ~r
-
Lea*
~ F ! rp6~.A v,t
{ Z
-t-
YYY"`
1
li
.t
'i
3
i~
,
z'
ti's .l. 't At - J I
V
i
1
I
i
l
S
f
I
,r
411
J
i
t.~ t
,i
4 r _
~~f..t
a1
t
I
4
a: 1
aY
-v y...........
5..
4 ~ ~t
I
r
1
a
k
4
y .
r
■
L
/
y
~Z~ jV
1~~
~N
f f ~
~
i
~
}tt~:"
JJ~•.~
~
l''i
~
..~y, Jl
'
f
F
~
~
,
~n
~
,
',6 #
- - ,i Page l of 2
Suzanne Davis - Fw: Privacy Wall
X
From:
"Charles Hackett"
To:
"Suzanne Davis"
Date:
08/21/2006 11:07 AM
Subject:
Fw: Privacy Wall
Suzanne,
Attached is a letter from Ivonne & Ian Felix, my neighbor
that share the southern property line.
Comments are welcome.
Charles Hackett
Original Message
From: ivonne valdes
To: Charles Hackett ; ivonne valdes
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:19 AM
Subject: Privacy Wall
August 19, 2006
To Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Re: Privacy Wall Constructed by Mr. Charles Hackett
The purpose of this letter is to express our support and appreciation for the wall
which Mr. Charles Hackett has built. The wall is a well engineered wall which serves
various purposes:
1. Ensures privacy for all neighbors.
2. Blocks the headlights of cars.
3. Blocks noise of cars as well as the neighbors.
4. Aesthetically pleasing.
In addition Mr. Hackett has been extremely communicative and has worked
diligently to ensure that his new construction has met our needs.
If you should have any questions please contact us.
Regards,
Exhibit F
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\SDavis\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\44E99404TO... 08/22/2006
Page 2 of 2
Ian and Ivonne Felix
15333 kennedy Road
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
file://CADocuments and Settings\SDavisEocal Settings\Teinp\XPgrpwise\44E99404TO... 08/22/2006
ROBERT W. STEUER
CIVIL ENGINEER
1133 FAIRVIEW AVENUE
SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA
August 30, 2006
Town of Los Gatos
Building Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn: Suzanne Davis
Project: Hackett Residence
15350 Suview Drive
Los Gatos, CA
Subject: Site Application S-06-66
APN 537-24-010
Dear Ms. Davis:
In August of 2003 plans were completed for the construction of a single family residence
at 13500 Suview Drive in Los Gatos, CA. The Architectural Plans were prepare by
Robert Aviles Design, 4833 Soguel Drive, Soquel, CA 95073, and the Civil and
Structural Plans were prepared by Steven Arnold Civil Engineering Inc., 1885 The
Alameda, Suite 135, San Jose, CA 95126.
After permits were issued by the Town of Los Gatos construction staking for the grading
of the house pad, and the location of the house, pool and retaining wall was completed by
Arnold Engineering. All construction staking was done according to the approved set of
plans. Construction was begun shortly thereafter. The house and garage were constructed
according to the approved set of plans with no modifications.
During the construction process it was determined that the original plans did not address
the privacy issue and slope stability of the cut bank to the rear of the residence
satisfactorily. At that time Robert Aviles Design and Mark Beaudoin Landscape
Architect were approached to present solutions.
It was determined that the second floor children's bedroom and bathroom terrace required
privacy and screening from the uphill neighbor at the easterly property line. A pergola
was proposed to provide the privacy and screening. The pergola was constructed on a
terrace above the bedroom and bathroom terrace. Mark Beaudoin has suggested that the
pergola be covered by a mass of flowering vines, providing an attractive downhill view
for the neighbors and attractive uphill view for the occupants.
Robert Aviles Design notes that the pergola is an attractive site element which is
discreetly located and was proposed to create a privacy area off the rear bedrooms and
bathrooms for both the occupants and the uphill neighbors to the east. The construction
of the pergola was begun and completed in the fall of 2005.
Please note that the uphill neighbor completely support the construction of the Pergola
per the attached letter.
The original grading and drainage plan utilized a series of retaining walls and a fairly
large cut slope in the area to the east of the residence and pool pad. This design may
have invited erosion problems in the future because of the large cut slope.
Mark Beaudoin and Robert Aviles proposed that because there was a substantial change
in elevation between the pool terrace and the second floor bedroom terrace a series of low
retaining walls and planters would provide a more gentle transition between the lower an
upper terraces.
The new design required a realignment of the retaining walls proposed on the approved
set of plans. The attached plan sheet 5 shows the original and as-built retaining wall and
terrace configuration.
Construction of the new realigned retaining walls was begun in the summer of 2005. The
construction was inspected and approved by me and by Town of Los Gatos Building
Department inspectors.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Steuer
Civil Engineer
CE 37251 .
cc: Charles Hackett
PLEASE NOTE:
ATTACHMENT 7 EXHIBIT H
IS AVIALABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CLERK DEPARTMENT