2007-094-Granting An Appeal Of A Planning Commission Decision Denying Modification Of An Approved Architecture & Site Application Relating To Grading And Landscape Improvements On Property Zoned Hr -2 1 /2 Apn: 537 -24 -013 Architecture And SRESOLUTION 2007 -094
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPLICATION RELATING TO GRADING AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED HR -2 1 /2
APN: 537 -24 -013
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S -06 -066
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15350 SUVIEW DRIVE
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT /APPELLANT: CHARLES HACKETT
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on June 18, 2007, and
was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the applicant /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 14, 2007, along with
subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C. The applicant /appellant is requesting an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to
deny a request for modifications to an approved Architecture and Site application related to grading
and landscape improvements on property zoned HR- 2 1 /2..
D. On August 22, 2001, the applicant /appellant originally secured approval for a new
hillside home and pool on the subject property; however, construction did not commence before the
architecture and site approval expired on August 22, 2003. The Planning Commission approved a
new Architecture & Site application for the same construction on May 26, 2004, and construction
began in July 2004. Since that time, applicant /appellant has made certain improvements on the
property without prior planning approvals, for which the applicant /appellant now seeks approval.
E. The application was considered and denied by the Planning Commission on
September 13, 2006. The applicant /appellant appealed this decision on September 22, 2006. On
October 16, 2006, the Town Council considered the appeal, and continued the matter to allow the
applicant additional time to address the Planning Commission's concerns. On January 16, 2007, the
Town Council granted the applicant /appellant's appeal and remanded the Architecture and Site
application to the Planning Commission for review. The remand was based on the introduction of
new information that was not available to the Commission at the time the application was denied.
The Council also stated that the Commission did not support its decision to deny the application with
clearly articulated findings.
F. On March 2 007, the Planning Commission consider, the information submitted
by the applicant and asked questions of the applicant /appellant and staff before continuing the
application to April 11, 2007. On April 11, 2007, the Commission received public testimony and
discussed each of the applicant /appellant's requested items. The Commission granted a partial
approval, remanded one item for further analysis, and denied the remainder of the requested
modifications. The applicant /appellant appealed the Commission's decision on April 20, 2007.
G. The applicant /appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion in that there was insufficient evidence to support its findings, and that the Commission
added introduced new items without prior notice to the applicant /appellant.
H. The decision of the Planning Commission with regard to the pergola, entry wall B and
the terraced retaining walls is reversed.
I. Council finds as follows:
i. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300 that the appeal raises an issue or
policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or address, but which is vested
in the Council for modification or decision; to wit, the interpretation of the Hillside Development
Guidelines regarding granting exceptions, grading and constructing retaining walls.
ii. Evidence presented by the applicant/appellant in writing and testimony, and
additional evidence through the testimony of the Ian Felix, the neighbor at 15333 Kennedy Road and
Lynn Olson, the neighbor at 15300 Suview Drive, along with the direct observations of the members
of Council, demonstrates that the modifications made without permits provide reasonable solutions to
a number of privacy issues. The pergola provides a privacy barrier between the applicant/appellant's
property and the neighboring property at 15333 Kennedy Road without blocking views of the Town
from the neighboring property. The entry walls, which will be faced in stone and landscaped, will
block disruptive light from headlights and fully define the driveway. The existing retaining walls
compliment the development such that their replacement with walls as originally approved would not
justify the resulting disruption, grading, truck trips and soil compaction concerns.
iii. The opposition of Alex Gorovitz, the neighbor residing at 15335 Kennedy
Roads unconvincing. Mr. Gorovitz fails to demonstrate that views of the Town from his property are
significantly impacted by the pergola. The staff report and the testimony of Lynn Olson, on the other
hand, demonstrate that the pergola is visible only from the property located at 15300 Suview Drive.
Mr. Gorovitz's concerns about the use of stucco walls as opposed to wood fences is countered by the
conditions of approval requiring natural surface treatment and landscaping of the walls. Testimony of
the applicant/appellant's landscape architect demonstrates that stucco walls are more appropriate to
the site given high wind conditions during the winter.
iv. The! lside Guidelines allow exceptions and 0 ntegrity of the Guidelines is
not compromised by granting exceptions where warranted. The modifications to the project were not
originally permitted. Consequently, the applicant/appellant ran the risk that some or all of the
modifications would not be approved, requiring their removal. The applicant/appellant's subsequent
application for the necessary permits must be considered on its merits as land use matter rather then
as punitive proceeding. The record demonstrates that the subject property presents a number of
unique and difficult issues resulting in seven public hearings before the Town Council and Planning
Commission. The modifications improve the project from what was originally approved.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site
Applications S -06 -066 is granted, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
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 by State and Federal Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California on the 6th day of August 2007, by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steve Glickman, Diane McNutt, Mike Wasserman, and Mayor Joe Pirzynski
NAYS: None
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Barbara Spector •
SIGNED:
MAYOR � �THETOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
C
CLER OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
TOWN COUNCIL — JUNE 4, 2007
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15350 Suview Drive
Architecture and Site Application S -06 -66
Requesting approval of modifications to an approved Architecture and Site application related to
grading and landscape improvements on property zoned HR -22. APN 537 -24 -010.
PROPERTY OWNERJAPPLICANT: Charles Hackett
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted as
received by the Town on March 6, 2006 and approved by the Planning Commission on
March 28, 2007, Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by
the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission depending on the scope
of the change(s).
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. The Architecture and Site application will expire two years
from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335
defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance.
3. PRIOR CONDITIONS. All conditions of approval from Architecture & Site application
S -04 -44 shall be complied with unless modified by the conditions contained herein.
4. ENTRY & RETAINING WALLS. The driveway entry and retaining walls shall be faced
with stone or other natural material, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development.
Building Division
5. PERMITS REQUIRED: Revised building plans shall be submitted for the alterations of
existing site and retaining walls.
6. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue - lined in full on
the cover sheet of the revised plans. A compliance memorandum shall be prepared and
submitted with the building permit application detailing how each condition will be
addressed.
7. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to
the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special
Inspection form must be completely filled -out, signed by all requested parties and be blue -
lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at tivi-vi-v.losgatosca.gov.
8. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36."
9. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the
second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for
a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
ATTACHMENT 2
Conditions of Approval
15350 Suview Drive /5 -06 -66
Page 2 of'2
10. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before
issuing a'building permit:
a. Community Development: Suzanne Davis at 354 -6875
b. Engineering Department: Fletcher Parsons at 395 -3460
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
11. PROPERTY LINE WALL. Unauthorized fill shall be removed to the lines and grades
reflected on the topography of Architecture and Site Application 5- 04 -44. The wall shall be
modified to provide a maximum six foot height as measured from the downhill side, and the
wall drainage system shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
I'C pd