2001-013-Denying A Request To Construct A New Family Residence On Property Zoned Hr-2 1/2 And Remanding The Application To The Development Review Committee Architecture And Site Appli
RESOLUTION 2001-13
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED HR-2 '/2 AND REMANDING THE APPLICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COMMITTEE
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5-00-22
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15350 SUVIEW DRIVE
PROPERTY OWNER /APPLICANT 1 APPELLANT; CHARLES HACI~ETT
WIIEREASs
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on January 8, 2001, on an appeal by
Charles Hackett. from a decision of the Planning Commission andwas regularly noticed in conformance with
State and Town law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested
persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials
submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material
contained in the Council Agenda Reports dated December 27, 2000., along with subsequent reports and
materials prepared concerning this application.
C. Applicant is proposing to construct a 7,272 square foot two- toryresidence including a 1.,284
square foot basement, and an 849 square foot garage on an undeveloped 1.023 acre lot.
D. The Planning Commission first considered the application on July 26, 2000 and continued
the matter to allow the applicant to review the plans in response to concerns raised. The Commission
considered revised plans on .September 13, 2000 and again requested revisions to .address concerns. On
November 15, 2000 the Commission considered revised plans that reduced the house by 482 square .feet
from t11e previous set of plans and found that the applicant had not satisfactorily addressed the concerns
raised by the Commission.
1
E. The appellant is ~r ~~ealing the Planning Commission deci~~ a because he believes that the
Commission erred or abused its discretion and that the applicant followed the General Plan.
F. Council finds pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.300 that this matter presented an issue
or policy over which the Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address, but which is
vested in the Council for modification or decision, specifically, what in this situation constitutes
neighborhood compatibility..
RESOLVED:
The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site Application 5-00-
22 is granted and the application is remanded to the Development Review Committee to consider a revised
design reducing the overall mass and scale of the proposed development in a manner consistent with the
Hillside Specific Plan, applicable hillside development standards and considerations for Architecture and
Site application approval.
PASSED .AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California held on the Sty' day of February, 2001 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman,
Mayor Joe Pirzynsl~i.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN.: None ~ ~ ~~
SIGNED:
AYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST ~+'~/
C~-~~ ~~ r/l r J^
CLERK'~F THE TOWN O-FV~ S GATOS
LOS GA"~l'OS, CALIFORNIA
2