2003-084 - Granting An Appeal Of A Planning Commission Decision To Deny A Request To Demolish A Pre - 1941 Single Family Residence, Construction A New Residence Which Will Exceed The Floor Area Ratio And A Variance To Reduce The Required Driveway Length ARESOLUTION 2003 - 84
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A PRE -1941 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE WHICH WILL EXCEED THE FLOOR
AREA RATIO AND A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY LENGTH
ON A NON - CONFORMING LOT ZONED R -11).
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5 -02 -013.
VARIANCE APPLICATION: V- 03 -01.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 546 SAN BENITO AVENUE.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: DARREN CARROLL.
APPLICANT: DEREK VAN ALSTINE
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on June 2, 2003, on an appeal by
Darren Carroll (property owner /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 May 27, 2003, Addendum dated
May 29, 2003, and Desk Item dated June 2, 2003 along with subsequent reports and materials
prepared concerning this application.
C. The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing 2,625 square foot pre-
1941 single family residence, and construct a new residence which will exceed the floor area ratio
(FAR). The proposed single family residence contains a total of 2,436 square feet, including the
cellar, and is situated on a 3,680 square foot non - conforming lot zoned R -113. The applicant is also
seeking a variance from the minimum 25 -foot driveway requirement in order to construct a 15 foot
driveway.
D. The Planning Commission first considered this matter on January 22, 2003 and
continued the application with directions to April 9, 2003. On April 9, 2003 the Planning
Commission denied the Architecture and Site and Variance applications because they were not able
to make the required findings to exceed the FAR and because they believed that the mass and scale
of the proposed structure was not compatible with the neighborhood.
E. Appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in that
they overlooked neighborhood support and compatibility for the proposed home, and the intent of
the FAR.
F. Council notes that the project as initially proposed by the applicant was larger, less
articulated, and significantly in excess of the FAR; but in working with the Planning Commission
and staff, the applicant has made significant progress in redesigning the project to be consistent with
the neighborhood and is only in excess of the FAR by 313 square feet..
G. Council finds as follows:
1. The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to section 15303 of the State
Environmental Guidelines, as adopted by the Town..
2. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.40.075(c), the FAR may be exceeded because the
record demonstrates that the scale, exterior materials and details of the project are consistent with
residential design standards and because lot coverage, setbacks and FAR of the proposed project are
also compatible with the surrounding development which features an eclectic mixture of designs.
3. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.170, that the granting of a variance for the
proposed driveway is justified by the fact that the lot is non - conforming in size and shape and would
2
not constitute a grant of special privileges because many neighboring properties have been developed
with driveways that are less than 25 feet in length.
4. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.150, the considerations for approval of
Architecture and Site applications have been made.
5. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300(b), the grounds for overturning the decision
of the Planning Commission are that the Commission erred in denying the project which was
significantly redesigned to be far more consistent with the neighborhood and with Town standards,
and only marginally in excess of the FAR. Nevertheless, Council appreciates and commends the
efforts of the Commission and Town staff in working with the applicant to produce a quality project
that should be an amenity to and has garnered the support of the neighborhood.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the-Planning Commission on Architecture and Site
Application 5 -02 -013 and Variance Application V -03 -01 are therefore granted.
2. The elevations shown on Exhibit T of Attachment 10 to the Council Staff Report
dated May 27, 2003, are the approved elevations.
3. The conditions of approval as set out in Attachment 2 to the Town Council report
dated May 27, 2003 are hereby adopted as the conditions of approval of this application.
4. 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 or federal law.
3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California held on the 161h day of June, 2003 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steve Glickman, Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, Mike Wasserman,
Mayor Sandy Decker.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
MAYO OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS TOS
LOS GAT OS, CALIFORNIA
:l