Loading...
2009-130-132 Teresita WayRESOLUTION 2009-130 RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL AND REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE WITH REDUCED SETBACKS AND AN ABOVE GRADE POOL ON A SLOPE GREATER THAN 30% ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-1, AND REMANDING THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION 5-09-017 APN: 532-40-023 PROPERTY LOCATION: 132 TERESITA WAY PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: DAVE AND HEATHER MAGETTI WHEREAS: A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on December 7, 2009, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law. B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the owner/appellants 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 November 25, 2009, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. The appeal concerns a Plaiming Commission decision to deny Architecture and Site application 5-09-017 to demolish an existing single family residence and construct a new residence with reduced setback and above grade pool on a slope greater than 30 percent on property zoned HR-1 notwithstanding the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines ("HDSG"), which, among other things, prohibits pools constructed on slopes in excess of 30 percent. D. The owner/appellants made clear to Town staff that they would proceed with the project only if they could gain approval of the swimming pool. In light of the conflicts between the proposed project and the HDSG, Town staff processed the still incomplete application for a hearing before the Planning Commission in order to save the applicant the time and expense of completing the application which was likely to be denied based on the lack of compliance with the HDSG. E. On October 14, 2009, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the application on the basis that the owner/appellants did not provide compelling evidence to obtain exceptions from the HDSG. F. On October 21, 2009, the owner/appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, claiming that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion. The owner/applicants allege that the staff misled them and the Planning Commission in regards to the Commission's discretion with acting on the project. The owner/applicants stated that they and the Commission were led to believe that the Commission's only authority in this case was to deny the project when conversely they could have approved it through granting exceptions to the HDSG. Therefore, based on their understanding that the Planning Commission did not have the discretion to grant exceptions to the HDSG, they were not fully prepared to defend their project and request for exceptions to the guidelines. G. Notwithstanding the owner/applicants understanding of the events, during the hearing, planning staff and the Town Attorney stated that the Planning Commission could make an exception to the requirements and prohibitions in the HDSG, including the prohibition against construction of a pool on a slope in excess of 30 percent, if there was sufficient justification. H. The decision of the Planning Commission is hereby reversed and the application is remanded to the Planning Commission. I. Council finds as follows: 1. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300, that significant new information was provided subsequent to Planning Commission review and action that warrants remanding this matter back to the Planning Commission; to wit: (i) the owner/appellants' willingness to alter the plans for the proposed residence to avoid being classified as a demolition and to modify the proposed setbacks in order to comply with the requirements of the Town Code, or to take such other steps as are required to ensure that the setbacks of the proposed residence are consistent with the requirements of the Town Code; and (ii) The owner/appellants' willingness to consider alternative pool structures.to avoid or minimize conflicts with the HDGS. 2. A complete application is necessary in order to fully evaluate all aspects of the proposed project and the applicability of Town ordinances, standards and guidelines. RESOLVED: The Planning Commission's decision denying Architecture and Site Application 5-09-017 is reversed and the application is remanded to the Planning Commission for further consideration subject to the following direction: A. Only a completed application with all required studies and information will be scheduled and noticed for Planning Commission consideration. Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendation for or against approval of the application will be based upon the facts of the completed application and relevant ordinances, standards and guidelines. B. No policy direction or determination has been made as to the owner/appellants' request for a pool related to the 30 percent slope standard of the HDSG. If the owner/appellants propose such a pool, they bear the burden of proof to provide in writing the compelling reasons for an exemption from the HDSG, subject to subsequent staff and Planning Commission evaluation. C. The completed application must fully present the cut and fill required for the project for evaluation and recommendation by staff and the Planning Commission, including consideration of an alternative pier system or other structures for the pool, if pursued by the owner/appellants. D. The requested project shall avoid falling under the Town Code definition of a "demolition." E. The completed application should avoid variances or other changes to the required setback and encroachment standards for this designated nonconforming lot. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California on the day of December 2009, by the following vote. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~ l ~~ ~ L/VG~ SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTE T: ,~ CLERI MINISTRATOR TOWN~Q. LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\MGR\Town Attorney\Council Reports\Resolution Upholding 132Teresita .doc