2000-121-Deny An Application For Construction Of A New Single Family Residence On Property Zoned Hr - 2 1/2. Application: S-99-39. 280 Wooded View Drive Owner: John And Cheri LeroyRESOLUTION 2000 -121
RESOLUTION REMANDING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANEW-:SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2 %2
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5-99-39
PROPERTY LOCATION: 280 WOODED VIEW DRIVE
PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN AND CHERI LEROY
APPLICANT: MARK TERSINI, ITT PROPERTIES
APPELLANT: TERRY SZEWCZYK
WHEREAS:
A. T11s matter came before the Council for public hearing on October 2, 2000., on an appeal by
Terry Szewczyk from a decision of t11e Planning Commission and was regularly noticed in conformance wit11
State and Town law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested
persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted,
including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in tl~e
Council AgendaReport dated September 21,.2000, addendtun dated September 29, 2000, and desk item dated
October 2, 2000, .along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C, The applicant is proposing to construct a 7,637 square foot residence with an 800 square foot
detached garage on an undeveloped 2.5 acre lot. The garage would be connected to the house with an open
beam trellis. A Porte cochere would extend from the front of the house (east elevation) out over the circular
potion of the driveway..
TD. The grounds for the appeal .are appellant's belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused
its discretion and that the decision was not based on evidence in the record but, instead, on the concerns of the
adjacent .neighbor.
E. Council finds as follows:
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.300 that this was an issue or policy over which
the Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or :address; to wit,. the appropriate site for the
proposed development pursuantto the considerations setforth in Town Code §29.20.150(4) in light ofneigllbor
testimony .alleging a lack of harmony with adjacent development.
2. Pursuant to Town Code §2.9.20..150(4) and (6), the Hillside Specific Plan and related
development standards, the site for development as proposed is generally appropriate, although Council
encourages the applicant to make such adjustments to the siting of the development within the generally
approved area that are reasonably possible, including, but not limited to, changing the orientation of the
development to neighboring structures, in order to increase harmony with and minimize visual impact on
adjacent development. However, the design of the development as proposed is inconsistent with the natural
hillside environment and adjacent development in terms of mass and scale, orientation of the development,
especially the garage, materials and the length of the driveway.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site .Application
5-99-39 is remanded to the Plamling Commission for redesign consistent with this action, including Council
findings, and Town development regulations, plans, policies and guidelines. Applicant shall pay appropriate
fees for additional review consistent with this decision.
2
PASSED .AND .ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the. Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California field on the 16t'' day of October, 2000 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Linda Lubeck, Joe Pirzynslci,
Mayor Steven Blanton
NAYS : None
ABSENT: Jan Hutchins
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
NPAYOR O'F THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
3