Loading...
2009-052 - Denying An Application For Construction Of A New Single Family Residence On Property Zones Hr-- 2 1/2 Apn: 527-56-010 Architecture And Site Application: 5-05-115 Property Location: 520 Santa Rosa Drive Property Owner/Applicant/Appelant:Mac SabiRESOLUTION 2009 -052 RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR -2 1 /2 APN: 527 -56 -010 ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5 -05 -115 PROPERTY LOCATION: 520 SANTA ROSA DRIVE PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT /APPELLANT: MAC SABIERI & JOHN JAHAN WHEREAS: A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on May 4, 2009, 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 April 27, 2009, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. The appeal concerns a Planning Commission decision denying an application for construction of a new single family residence on property zoned HR -2 %. On August 22, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a proposal for a new residence on the site and denied the application due to concerns about the home exceeding the allowable floor area and height, the overall bulk and mass and development encroaching onto slopes greater than 30 %. On October 4, 2004, the Town Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Council determined that the Commission's decision was correct and denied the appeal. The appellants submitted a new application in June 2005 intended as a significant redesign of the project to achieve compliance with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS &G). On August 13, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the new application. The application was continued three additional times at the appellants' request. D. The application and revised plans were considered and denied by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2009. E. The appellants claim that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in that the redesign of the single family residence is consistent with the goals and objectives of the HDS &G. F. The decision of the Planning Commission is reversed and the application is remanded to the .Planning Commission for review with the following instructions: i. Reduce the appearance of the house from the front or street perspective from an apparent two -story to an apparent one -story house ii. Reduce the appearance of the house from the rear perspective from an apparent three -story house to an apparent two -story house. iii. Consider expanding the cellar to reduce visible height and mass. iv. Height may exceed 18 feet. V. No specific reduction in square footage is required. G. Council finds as follows: Pursuant to Town Code Sec. 29.20.300(b)(3),the appeal presents 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, specifically, the staff report states that the Planning Commission's deadline for action on the application consistent with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act had been reached before the Commission was satisfied that the application had been sufficiently amended to meet the requirements of the HDS &G. Because the application did not meet the requirements of the HDS &G, it was denied by the Commission. Council alone has the ability to extend the time to consider an application beyond the time mandated by the Permit Streamlining Act. RESOLVED: The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site Applications S -05 -115 is granted, the decision is reversed and the application is remanded to the Planning Commission for further review consistent with the direction contained herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California on the 18` day of May 2009, by the following vote. COUNCIL: AYES: Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, Steve Rice, Barbara Spector, and Mayor Mike Wasserman NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ;%�� � 1 ' 4 � 1 MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLE OF TIIE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ATOS, CALIFORNIA