09 Staff Report - 15350 Suview DrivetpW N OF
~oA~ S COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY'
MEETING DATE: 08-6-2007
AGENDA ITEM:
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-21/2.
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-21/2.
DISCUSSION:
On June 18, 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-21/2, 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 ATTORNEYDPK:LMB/wp [N:\ATY\ReportARepon Suvicw Drive (Second Appeal>.wpol
Reviewed by: Town Manager Assistant Town Manager Clerk
Finance --v Community Development
Rev: 8/1/07 2:31 pm
Reformatted: 7/19/99 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-21/2
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 June 18, 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 June 14, 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 1/2..
D. 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 the
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.
E. The application was considered and denied by the Planning Commission on
September 13, 2006. The applicant/appellant appealed this decision on September 22, 2006. On
October 16, 2006, the Town Council considered the appeal, and continued the matter to allow the
applicant additional time to address the Planning Commission's concerns. On January 16, 2007, the
Town Council granted the applicant/appellant's appeal and remanded the Architecture and Site
application to the Planning Commission for review. The remand was based on the introduction of
new information that was not available to the Commission at the time the application was denied.
The Council also stated that the Commission did not support its decision to deny the application with
clearly articulated findings.
F. On March 28, 2007, the Planning Commission considered the information submitted
by the applicant and asked questions of the applicant/appellant and staff before continuing the
application to April 11, 2007. On April 11, 2007, the Commission received public testimony and
discussed each of the applicant/appellant's requested items. The Commission granted a partial
approval, remanded one item for further analysis, and denied the remainder of the requested
modifications. The applicant/appellant appealed the Commission's decision on April 20, 2007.
G. The applicant/appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion in that there was insufficient evidence to support its findings, and that the Commission
added introduced new items without prior notice to the applicant/appellant.
H. The decision of the Planning Commission with regard to the pergola, entry wall B
and the terraced retaining walls is reversed.
Council finds as follows:
i. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300 that the appeal raises 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, the interpretation of the Hillside Development
Guidelines regarding granting exceptions, grading and constructing retaining wails.
ii. Evidence presented by the applicant/appellant in writing and testimony, and
additional evidence through the testimony of the Ian Felix, the neighbor at 15333 Kennedy Road and
Lynn Olson, the neighbor at 15300 Suview Drive, along with the direct observations of the members
of Council, demonstrates that the modifications made without permits provide reasonable solutions
to a number of privacy issues. The pergola provides a privacy barrier between the
applicant/appellant's property and the neighboring property at 15333 Kennedy Road without
blocking views of the Town from the neighboring property. The entry walls, which will be faced in
stone and landscaped, will block disruptive light from headlights and fully define the driveway. The
existing retaining walls compliment the development such that their replacement with walls as
originally approved would not justify the resulting disruption, grading, truck trips and soil
compaction concerns.
iii. The opposition of Alex Gorovitz, the neighbor residing at 15335 Kennedy
Roads unconvincing. Mr. Gorovitz fails to demonstrate that views of the Town from his property are
significantly impacted by the pergola. The staff report and the testimony of Lynn Olson, on the other
hand, demonstrate that the pergola is visible only from the property located at 15300 Suview Drive.
Mr. Gorovitz's concerns about the use of stucco walls as opposed to wood fences is countered by the
conditions of approval requiring natural surface treatment and landscaping of the walls. Testimony
of the applicant/appellant's landscape architect demonstrates that stucco walls are more appropriate
to the site given high wind conditions during the winter.
iv. The Hillside Guidelines allow exceptions and the integrity of the Guidelines
is not compromised by granting exceptions where warranted. The modifications to the project were
not originally permitted. Consequently, the applicant/appellant ran the risk that some or all of the
modifications would not be approved, requiring their removal. The applicant/appellant's subsequent
application for the necessary permits must be considered on its merits as land use matter rather then
as punitive proceeding. The record demonstrates that the subject property presents a number of
unique and difficult issues resulting in seven public hearings before the Town Council and Planning
Commission. The modifications improve the project from what was originally approved.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site
Applications S-06-066 is granted, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
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 August 2007, by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steve Glickman, Mike Wasserman, Diane McNutt,
Mayor Joe Pirzynski
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Barbara Spector
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
4