2002-121-Denying Appeal Of A Planning Commission Decision Approving Construction Of An Accessory Structure And To Legalize A Tennis Court Fence On 104 Crider Ct.RESOLUTION 2002 -121
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND TO
LEGALIZE A TENNIS COURT FENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-1.
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5-02-8
PROPERTY LOCATION: 104 CRIDER COURT
PROPERTY OWNER: PFFIEFER RANCH INVESTORS I,1NC.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: PINK BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
WHEREAS;
A. This matter. came before Council for public hearing on June 17, 2002 , on an appeal
by Finn Brothers Construction, Inc. (applicant/appellant) from a decision of the Planning
Commission, and was 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 Report dated June 7, 2002, along with .subsequent
reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C. An application for construction of anew residence was approved by the Planning
Commission on October 11, 2000.. Two issues have surfaced since- that approval: First, the
construction of a tennis court fence that was not shown on the approved plans; and second, the
applicant's request to construct an accessory structure, a pool cabana.. Neither of these two matters
was mentioned at thepublic hearing held on October 11,2000. Appellant's application for approval
of these .items was granted with conditions by the Commission April 24, 2002. The conditions
included limiting the pool cabana to the size of the original cottage that had been demolished and
to a maximum height of 15 feet.
D. Appellant claims thatthe Planning Commission erred or abused its discretionand that
there is new information available that was not reasonably .available at the time of the Planning
Commissions decision. Specifically, the appellant objects to the conditions placed on the pool
cabana, which was not the subject of objections by neighbors and that there was new information
not present before the Commission concerning the actual size of the original cottage.
E. The Planning Commission decision was correct. No :new information of .substance
was presented by the appellant to warrant reversal of the decision of the Planning Commission. The
findings of the Commission made on Apri124, 2002, are, by this reference, incorporated herein.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of 'the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and'Site
Application 5-02-8 is denied.
2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil
.Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the 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 procedures established by Code of Civil 'Procedure section 1094.6, or such
shorter time as required Eby State and Federal law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, on the l st day of July, 2002 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:.
AYES: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski,
Mayor Randy Attaway.
NAYS : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
MAY OF'THE TO OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALI ORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LO GATOS
LOS C~JATOS, CALIFORNIA