2006-088-Denying An Appeal Of A Planning Commission Decision Denying Approval To Construct A New Single Family Residence On Property Zoned Hr-2 1/2 PropertyRESOLUTION 2006 -088
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION DENYING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR- 21/2PROPERTY
APN: 527 -56 -022
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S -06 -022
PROPERTY LOCATION: 107 COLORADO COURT
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT /APPELLANT:
STEWART AND COLETTE FAHMY
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on June 19, 2006, and was
regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant/applicant 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 8, 2006, along with subsequent reports and
materials prepared concerning this application.
C. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,775 square foot house with an attached 1,230
square foot garage. The total floor area is 7,005square feet including the garage. There is also 1,875
square feet of covered terraces and porches proposed, adding to the bulk and mass of the house. The
proposed house exceeds the maximum allowable floor area ( "FAR ") of 4,800 square feet, excluding 400
square feet for the garage. The proposed height of the house exceeds 30 feet and thus exceeds the Town
wide Zoning Code maximum height of 30 feet and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
limit of 25 feet. Requires excessive grading, retaining walls and oak tree removal in that it is a large
house proposed for development on a slope that is greater than 30 percent. Additionally, the project
includes a pool to be located on a slope greater than 30 percent in violation of the Town Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
D. The application was considered by the Planning Commission on May 10, 2006, which
acted to deny the project as not being in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines.
E. The applicant/appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion
because the decision denying the application constitutes illegal reverse spot zoning and because the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines are ambiguous with regard to floor area because the
requirement to be in compliance with all standards and applicable guidelines conflicts with the ability to
request an exception.
F. The decision of the Planning Commission was correct.
G. Council finds as follows:
1. The proposed project violates the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
in that the house and driveway are not sited within the least restrictive development area; the overall
square footage exceeds the maximum allowed and the applicant/appellant has failed to justify and
exception thereto; the height limitation is exceeded by more than five feet; the proposed amount of
development exceeds the capacity of a sensitive hillside lot and the pool is improper on a slope in excess
of 30 percent; will result in a significant number of tree removals; will result in excessive grading and will
exceed the cut and fill criteria; and will requires extensive and unattractive retaining walls.
2. The proposed project conflicts with policies and implementing strategies of the
General Plan including: L.P.8.4 (minimizing grading); L.P.8.8 (tree preservation); L.I.8.10 (conform
houses to contours); CD.P.2.3 (avoiding mass grading in new construction); CD.P.2.4 (reducing visible
mass); and CD.P.2.6 (hillside landscaping to preserve natural beauty).
The decision of the Planning Commission and application of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines does not constitute reverse spot zoning. Reverse spot zoning
occurs when a land -use decision arbitrarily singles out a particular parcel for different, less favorable
treatment than that enjoyed by neighboring parcels. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978)
438 U.S. 104, 132. A generally applicable rule applied to a single project does not constitute reverse spot
zoning. San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 643, 676. The decision
of the Planning Commission was based on the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, which
apply equally to all development in the hillside areas of the Town.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architectural and Site Application
S -06 -022 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 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 7' day of August 2006, by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski, Barbara Spector, Mike Wasserman,
Mayor Diane McNutt
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: l
I G�b1 C 440
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
DEPU ERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA