01 Staff Report - Addendum Schedule of Public Hearingsgo w" 0 MEETING DATE: 04/04/05
ITEM NO. 1
ADDENDUM
!pS . G A:~OS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 1, 2005
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION:
No action is necessary. This item is for your information.
DISCUSSION:
The appeal of 310 Santa Rosa Drive was not submitted until after the Public Hearing Schedule was
prepared for Council. Therefore the schedule has been amended to reflect this appeal. The
following hearings are currently scheduled for the Council meeting of:
May 2, 2005
107 DRYSDALE DRIVE/APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying approval to construct
a single family residence on property zoned HR-l. No significant environmental
impacts have been identified and a Negative Declaration is recommended.
Architecture and Site Application S-05-16 Negative Declaration ND-05-05
PROPERTY LOCATIONA07 Drysdale Drive PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Howell & McNeil Dev. LLC
May 2, 2005
310 SANTA ROSA DRIVE/APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to
construct a second story addition to a single family residence that will result in a
]ionic that exceeds the Floor Area Ration on property zoned HR- 2 '/2 . APN 527-55-
036. Architecture and Site Application S-05-017. PROPERTY LOCATION 310
Santa Rosa Drive. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: John Versgrove.
PREPARED BY: MARLA/N-J. RA- lNIUSSEN
Clerk Administrator
CLK:PH1 10104.TC
Reviewed by: Attorney Manager Asst. Town Manager Community Development
Police Dept. , Parks/Public Works Finance Community Services __Library
Reformatted: 10/27/04 Revised: February 28. 2005 (I0:08am)
FILING FEES
$262.00 Residential
$1047.00 per Commercial, Multi-
family or Tentative Map Appeal
Town of
Clerk Di
110 E. Main St., Los
APPEAL OF PLANNING
I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows: (PLEASE
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: M F1V_C 4 %Z_5t L00! >
PROJECT / APPLICATION NO: LS -o,5 - n
n
ADDRESS LOCATION: 310 SR'Y►7'N ko.5,a 1D(-
Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission
Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3
e specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal:
'9
l . The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because
sC-6- A7_ r l4CH155-L, SUHRv42-Y
i'nt y ie
os CA 95030
ZISSION DECISION
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
T
stun in most matters if th
inc~lmeanbzrs_..Therefor
~e
OR
2. There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is
(please attach the new information if possible): OR
3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council:
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
1. Appellant is responsible for tees for transcription of minutes.
2. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee.
Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the 10`h day following the decision. If the 101' day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10`h day, usually a Monday.
3. The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
4. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals.
5. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.
If I
PRINT NAME: Ga? S l ~//c'G % c SIGNATURE:
11-3 / DATE: jfa-S ADDRESS: C S
PHONE:'' )3 - _ Z'.~ S f a%/a-72 ~=5 (/`'L'7
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
f ,
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: 4
Pending Planning Department Confirmation
DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION
CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT: Date:
TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY:
DATE OF PUBLICATION:i ~3°N: CLKWORMSTIanning Commission Appeal.wpd Rev: 12-20-04
John Versgrove Appeal to Town Council April 1", 2005
310 Santa Rosa Drive 5-05-17
Los Gatos, CA 95032
The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion in three ways:
1. One of the reasons given for rejecting the proposal was that it was not
compatible with the existing architecture. We have been led to understand
that it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make this
determination. Fees were paid by the applicant; and the Consulting Architect
undertook a formal review of the plans for the proposed project and
determined that it is both compatible and appropriate in terms of architecture.
This should not have been a part of the decision process.
2. The Hillside Guidelines provides for an'Exception to FAR' only if the applicant
can demonstrate that a set of criteria is met with the project design. The
majority of the criteria are objective, and Planning Dept. staff has determined
that these criteria have either been met, or are not applicable. In the initial
Planning Commission submission, the Planning Director determined that the
criteria for granting an Exception had been satisfied.
The Hillside Guidelines states that meeting the Exception criteria does not
guarantee approval; so we addressed the only subjective criterion that remained
(9): There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
In the resubmission, the applicant rigorously reworked the proposal to ensure
that the proposal not only had 'No Significant Impact', but demonstrated
objectively that there would in fact be a'Positive Impact' by the reduction of
visible mass. This is a unique property ['U' shaped house] which permits this.
It is our contention in this appeal that the Planning Commission should be
required to approve this project because it is more compliant with the Hillside
Guidelines in terms of Visible Mass [the only subjective criterion] than the
structure that is presently there. If this project is not granted an Exception,
then there is No Discretion, and there is no Exception in the Hillside Guidelines,
which was not the intention of the Town Council in approving an Exception rule.
3. The Planning Commission denied this project primarily so as not to "set a
precedent and open the floodgates of applicants wishing to exceed the FAR".
That is not a reasonable basis for denial. Each project should be considered on
its individual merit, and the creation of 'precedent' is secondary.