01 Staff Report - 15350 Suview DriveWgNfof
GAS"' COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: ADOPT 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 I/2.
ARCHITECTURE & SITE APPLICATION S-02-066. APN 537-24-013.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15350 SUVIEW DRIVE. PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT: CHARLES HACKETT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution granting an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny modification
of an approved Architecture & Site application relating to grading and landscape improvements
on property zoned HR-2 '/2.
DISCUSSION:
On January 16, 2007, Council decided to grant 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 i/2, and to have the application remanded to the
Planning Commission for review. The attached resolution finalizes that decision.
Attachment: Proposed Resolution
Distribution: Bob Steuer, 1133 Fairview Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125
Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Charles T. Killian, 20410 Town Center Lane, Suite 210, Cupertino, CA 95014
PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY OPKLMBfwp [N'\ATY\Report suview Drive-pd]
Reviewed by:Own Manager Assistant Town Manager Clerk
Finance Communitv Development
Rev: 2/1/07 2:50
Reformatted: 7/19/99
MEETING DATE: 02-5-2007
AGENDA ITEM:
File 301-05
RESOLUTION
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 %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 January 16, 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 January 16, 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 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 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.
D. The application was considered and denied by the Planning Commission on
September 13, 2006.
E. The applicant/appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion in that the proposed improvements are consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Town's Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines.
F. Based on the introduction of new information, the decision of the Planning
Commission is reversed and the matter is hereby remanded to the Planning Commission for review.
G. Council finds as follows:
1. New information has been presented that was not readily or reasonably
available for submission to the Planning Commission at the time the applicant/appellant's
application was denied.
ii. The Planning Commission abused its discretion by failing to support its
decision to deny the application on written findings.
RESOLVED:
I . The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site
Applications S-06-066 is granted and the application is remanded to the Planning Commission for
review.
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 day of February 2007, by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:AMGR\AdminWorkl'iles\Town Att0r11ey\C0t111011 Reports\RESO 15350 Suview Drive_I.wpd
2