1999-106-Denying Two Building Permits To Construct A New Single Family Residence With An Accessory Structure On Property Zoned HR-5RESOLUTION 1999 -106
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING TWO BUILDING PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SIGNLE
:FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-
5, AND DENYING REQUEST TO REFUND PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION
FEES FOR ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
BUILDING PERMITS: B-99-000373' & B-99-000388
PROPERTY .LOCATION: 15299 TOP OF THE HILL .ROAD
PROPERTY OWNER /APPELLANT: DR. JAMSHIDI
APPLICANT: MAURICE CAMARGO
WI3EREAS:
A. This matter came before the Council for public hearing on June 21, 1999, on an
appeal by Dr. Jamshidi from a decision of the Planning Commission and was regularly noticed in
conformance wit11 State and Town law.
B. The Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and
all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Council considered all
testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings
and the packet of material contained in t11e Council Agenda Report dated June 10, 1999, along with
subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C. Appellant is seeking building permits to construct a new single family residence and
an accessory structure pursuant to an .Architecture acid Site application that was approved by the
Town on October 7,1996 (TowirCouncil ResolutionNo. 1996-125). Buildingpermitstyere denied
by the Planning Director on grounds that the approval had not been used within two (2) years and
thus expired pursuant to Town Code §29.20.335 stating that: "an approval is used if substantial
construction work specifically for the project is lawfully performed after the approval is granted, in
reliance on the approval and in reliance on validly issued building.permits." Whilethe appellant had
done certain work on the property regarding water tanks located in the County of Santa Clara prior
to aruiexation as a condition of.approval, the work was done under a permit issued by the County and
not a building permit issued by the Town as a consequence of the approval. The appellant was
required to have vested the approval by October 7,1998 unless an application for extension had been
filed prior to that date. No such application was timely filed.
D, The appellant .made a new application for architecture and site approval, including
the payment of fiill .fees therefor, but elected not to prosecute that application upon learning that his
previously approved design no longer.meets Town building height standards as currently measured
in :response to recent amendments of the Town Code.
E. Tl1e Planning Director denied the permits on February 11,1999. Appellant appealed
the Plaiuling Director's decision to the Planning Commission which then denied the appeal on April
14, 1999.
F. Appellant appealed the Planning Commission decision because, as he states in a letter
to the Town Council dated Apri128, 1999,. he had invested eight (8) years of continuous meetings
and designs and plan revisions, had a completed building plan check approval and had met all the
conditions imposed by Council for the .approval.
G. Council finds as follows:
That in this unique factual setting where the approval was conditioned upon
obtaining a building. permit .from another public entity for work done in anticipation ofannexation,
appellant 11as used the approval as required pursuant to Town Code §29.20.335 by having obtained
a building permit from the County and having done substantial work on the water tower, both having
been done in reliance on the approval.
2. That for purposes of Town Code §29.20.300, the decision of the Planning
Commission is reversed because the question of whether the approval was used for purposes of
Town Code §29.20.33 5 in light of the unique factual circumstances presented in this appeal requires
the interpretation of the Town Code, which constitutes an issue of policy over which the
Commission did not have discretion to modify or .address,. but which is vested in the Council to
modification or decision.
T11at t11e appellant is responsible for the delay t11at resulted in the failure to
obtauz a Town building permit within two (2) years of the approval, and is further responsible for
the failure to file a timely application for extension, Consequently, and in order to avoid any further
delays, t11is appeal is granted upon the. unusual and unique factual circumstances discussed above
on the additional condition that the appellant obtain a Town building permit, construct the building
.foundation, and have the foundation inspected by the Town, all within six (6) months of the date of
2
this resolution.
4. Because the appellant is responsible for the delay in obtaining a Town
building permit and the failure to timely file for an extension, Council rejects the appellant's request
for a refiuld of Planning Department application fees for architecture and site approval of a new
single family residence.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission upholding the
Plamzng Director's denial of Building Permits B-99-000373 and B-99-000388 is, therefore, granted
on the condition that the appellant obtain a Town building permit, construct the building foundation,
and Have the foundation inspected vy the Town, .all within six (6) months of the date. of this
resolution.
2. T11e request. for a refund of Plasuling Department application fees for
architecture and site approval of .anew single family residence is denied.
This decision does not and s11a11 not constitute any precedent for any particular uses or
developments in the Town, and t11e Town shall continue to examine any such request on a case by
case basis in light of the relevant facts and under the Town Code and Town policies.
This decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
§1094.6 as adopted vy section 1.10.085 of t11e Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any
application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant
to the pracedures established by Code of Civil Procedure § 1094:6, or such shorter time as required
by state or federal law.
3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 6t~' day of July, 1999 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS.:
AYES: Steven Blanton, Linda LuUeclc, Joe Pirzynslci, Mayor Jan Hutchins.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Randy Attaway
SIGNED;
MAYO OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK °OF TAE TO~J1~T OF S GATOS
LOS GATOS,:G.~~I,,I~iORNIA
4