2001-041-Denying An Appeal Of A Decision Of The Planning Commission To Approve An Unlawful Demolition Of A Single Family Residence And The Construction Of A New Residence On Property Zoned Hr-2 1/2RESOLUTION 2001- 41
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE AN UNLAWFUL DEMOLITION OF A ..SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF .ANEW RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
ZONED HR-2 '/2
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5-01-015
PROPERTY LOCATION: 471 SANTA ROSA DRIVE
PROPERTY OWNER: DAVE AND ANITA SHRIGLEY
.APPLICANT.: HUGH KENNEDY
APPELLANT: RAY DAVIS
WIIEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on Apr12, .2001., on an appeal
by Ray Davis (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 t11e record ofthe Planing Commission proceedings and the paclcet of
material contained in the Council Agenda Report dated March 29, 2001, along with subsequent
reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C. The applicants applied for and received approval to significantly remodel their
existing residence numerous times since January 1997. The applicants propose tobuild athree-story
residence containing 8,852 square feet of living space, a 940 ..square-foot attached .garage and a 624
square-foot basement on a parcel slightly .larger than one acre.
D. The P1ailning Commission considered .and approved this application, subject to
conditions, on February 28, 2001.
E. The appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion
because it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it approved the unlawful demolition and
failed to heed the General Plan when it approved the proposed residence.
F. Town Council finds:
1. That while the applicant demolished the house during the remodel process
pursuant to section 29.10,260(a) of the Town Code, the applicant had proceeded with the
construction in good faith reliance upon a valid building permit and 'had made considerable
investment in the property, paid double building permit fees, and applied and paid required fees .for
architecture and site approval.
2. The Planning Commission decision was correct.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site
Application S-Ol -15 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 16t'' day of April, 2001 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS.:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman,
Mayor Joe Pirzynslci.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None ~ ~~
SIGNED:
AYOR E TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
v ~ ~~
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS {JATOS, CALIFORNIA