2001-114- Denying An Appeal Of The Decision Of The Planning Commission Denying A Two Lot Subdivision Construction Of A New Single Family Residence At 220 Garden Hill DriveRESOLUTION 200.1-114
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE'DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. NO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.AND ANEGATIVE DECLARATION
HAS BEEN PREPARED
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M-O1-7
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-O1-46
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ND-01-0008
PROPERTY LOCATION.: 220 GARDEN HILL DRIVE
PROPERTY OWNER: TERRY SCHILLINGER
APPLICANT /APPELLANT: LESLIE A.G. DILL
WHEREAS.:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on October 1, 2001,. on an appeal by
Leslie A.G. Dill (Applicant/Appellant) .from a decision of the Planning Commission and was regularly
noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
B. Council receivedtestimony 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 the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet. of material
contained in the Council Agenda Report dated September 26, 2001 and Desk Item dated October 1, 2001,
along with subsequent reports and materials prepared .concerning this application.
C. The Applicant is .requesting :approval to subdivided a .58 gross acre parcel into two lots
consisting ofa parcel containing 9,778 square feet and aparcel containing 11;840 square feet. The project
will also include the construction of a 1,954 square foot two story home. The architectural style of the
proposed development has been described by the Applicant as traditional, neo-colonial.
D. The Planning Commission considered this item on August 22, 200:1 and denied the
Subdivision Application and the Architecture .and Site Application, which could not be approved without
the approval of the Subdivision Application. In denying the subdivision application, the Commission found
thatthe proj ect is inconsistent with the General Plan in that the proposed subdivision would create a building
site with significant development constraints and that the proposed house would be incompatible with the
.neighborhood.
E. The Appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion .and
.erroneously denied the subdivision application because, according to the Appellant, the proposed two lot
subdivision conforms with the Town's Zoning Code, residential design guidelines and General Plan.
F. The Planning Commission decision was correct.
G. Pursuant to California Government Code '§66474 (Subdivision Map Act), Council finds as
follows:
1. Thatthe proposed reap and the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision
would not be consistent with all elements of he General Plan, specifically:
a. L.P.1.7, because in-fill projects shall contribute to the .surrounding
neighborhood rather than result in the development of an oddly configured parcel and an awkwardly placed
residence;
b. L.P.1.8, because in-fill projects shall be designed in context with the
neighborhood rather than being larger than most neighboring development and designed primarily to fit a
large structure on a very limited development area;
c. L.L 1.3 and 4, and L.L3.2 and 3, because a strong_community benefit must be,
but was ~ot~emonstrated for this in-fill project;
d. L.P.4.2, because new development must be a positive addition to the Town's
ironn~nt rather than result in the development of an oddly configured parcel and an awkwardly placed
residence;
e. L.P.4.3, because new development shall maintain the .character and identity
of existing neighborhoods and be compatible with the blend of the existing neighborhood rather than being
larger than most neighboring development and designed primarily to fit a large structure on a very limited
developrent area.
2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed development in that the
proposed second parcel is extremely limited by the slope of the parcel, which averages 22 percent, and the
existence of multiple utility easements.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Subdivision Application M-O 1-7
and Architecture and Site Application 5-01-46 is denied
2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.0.85 of theTown 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 15t" day of October, 2001 by the .following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
.AYES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman,
Mayor Joe Pirzynski.
NAYS : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN.: None ~ - _
SIGNED:
MAYOR O E TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
AT~TE~S®T:
U u-
CLER'K OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA