2009-095 -Denying The Construction Of A New Single Family Residence On Property Zoned Hr-2 1/2 Pd And Remaining Application To The Planning Commission-Property Location: 20105 Foster RoadRESOLUTION 2009 -095
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED HR -2 '/Z PD AND REMANDING APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
APN: 537 -33 -003
PROPERTY LOCATION: 20105 FOSTER ROAD
PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL & SHARON HSING
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: BILL CHIOCCHI
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on June 15, 2009, 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 May 29, 2009, along with any
and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C. The appeal concerns a Planning Commission decision denying a request to approve a
plan for a 5,531 square foot two -story residence with an attached 839 square foot three -car garage in
the McCarthy Planned Development. Approved homes on lots 2 and 6 were required to comply with
the 18 foot height limit imposed on visible building site pursuant to Hillside Development Standards
& Guideline (HDS &G) The Applicant /Appellant was advised of this requirement, but believed that
his project would not meet the criteria that limits the height of hillside structures to 18 feet. Staff
disagreed and forwarded the application to the Planning Commission for a determination of whether
the 18 foot height maximum should be applied to the property. Story poles were installed to assist
the Commission and staff in evaluating the visibility of the proposed residence.
D. On March 11, 2009, the Planning Commission considered plans for a new two -story
residence. The Commission continued the matter to April 22, 2009 and directed the
Applicant /Appellant to redesign the house. The Applicant /Appellant did not wish to redesign the
house and returned to the Commission on April 22, 2009 having made no changes to the plans. The
Commission determined that the proposed residence would be visible from location other then the
defined viewing platform pursuant to HDS &G section II.B.1.5, and denied the application based on
non - conformance with the HDS &G.
E. The Applicant /Appellant appealed the Planning Commission's decision on April 27,
2009. The application had not been deemed complete as plan deficiencies provided by staff to the
Applicant /Appellant on September 12, 2008 were not completed. The deficiencies include revision of
the grading and drainage plan and provision of a landscape plan. Should the appeal be granted and the
application be approved, the Applicant /Appellant will need to complete these plans.
F. The Applicant /Appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion by not following the Town's ordinances, guidelines and policies and lacking the authority
to modify Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
G. The decision of the Planning Commission was incorrect and is hereby reversed and the
application is remanded to the Planning Commission for consideration of a complete application
consistent with this resolution.
H. Council finds as follows:
Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300, new information that was submitted
to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission
to the Commission; to wit, the Applicant /Appellant's response to information showing that less then
25 percent of the proposed structure would be visible from alternative viewing platforms, which
information was not available when the issue of alternative viewing sites was presented at the last
meeting of the Planning Commission, This new information is significant to the consideration of the
application because it addresses how height must be determined under the HDS &G, consequently the
application must be remanded to the Planning Commission for further consideration in light of this
information.
ii. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300, the application presents 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, whether vegetation such as trees and shrubs located
on properties other then a project parcel may be considered in determining the visibility of a proposed
structure in the hillside development area. Shielding by off- -site vegetation (i,e., trees and shrubs
located on parcels other than the hillside parcel which is the subject of a development application),
may be considered in determining whether a proposed development will be visible under the HDS &G,
so long as the vegetation will not be damaged or removed by construction. The application must be
remanded to the Planning Commission for further review consistent with this policy determination.
iii. In addition to the findings above, the project application must be remanded to
the Planning Commission for further review after the Applicant /Appellant completes the application
by submitting to the Community Development Department a landscape plan and a grading and
drainage plan. In the subsequent review by the Planning Commission, the Applicant /Appellant must
also address neighborhood compatibility of the project architecture as well as privacy concerns raised
by the immediate neighbors of the project site as evidence in the testimony of the owners of adjacent
properties and /or their representatives.
iv. Council further finds that, based on the new information and policy
determinations made herein, the height of the project structure is not limited to 18 feet under the
HDS &G because not more than 25 percent of the structure is visible from the four viewing platforms
identified in the HDS &G or from the additional viewing platform identified on Glenridge Ave. The
additional viewing platform is relevant to the review of this application given the unique perspective
of the project site from that location. Consideration of this additional viewing platform for this
application is not in itself intended to make it or any other viewing platform in addition to those
specified in the HDS &G relevant in the review of any future applications.
RESOLVED:
The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architectural and Site
Application S -08 -87 is granted and the application is remanded to the Planning Commission for
further review consistent with this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California on the 17` day of August, 2009, by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, Steve Rice, Barbara Spector, and Mayor
Mike Wasserman
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
CL RK ADMINISTRATOR
TO N OF LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA