2001-089- Appeal Of A Planning Commission Decision And Denying An Application To Construct A New Single Family Residence On A Nonconforming Parcel Zoned R-1dRESOLUTION .2001- 89
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION AND DENYING AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A NONCONFORMING PARCEL ZONED R-1D
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5-99-36
PROPERTY LOCATION: 65 COLLEGE AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER.: LEE QUALLS
APPLICANT: TODD AND MARLENE JOHNSON
APPELLANT:. COLLEEN WILCOX AND CHRISTOPHER FARMER
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on June 18, 2001, on an appeal
by Colleen Wilcox and Christopher Farmer (appellants) 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 the record of the .Planning Commission proceedings and the
paclcet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report dated May 3 0, 2001 and the addendum
.dated June 15, 2001, along with .subsequent .reports and materials prepared concerning this
application.
C. The applicant is .requesting approval of plans to construct a 1,001 square foot single
family residence on a 6,506 square foot nonconforming lot. The lot is nonconforming since it dose
not have a street frontage. Access to the site isfrom aningress/egress/underground utility easement
that cuts through portions of the two neighboring properties to the north of the lot. The applicant
is also proposing a 400 square foot garage underneath the house.
D. On August 28, 2000, the Council continuedthe matter withthe direction that a peer
review, using an engineering and geotechncal consultant of the Town's choice, be conducted on the
applicant's geotechnical report. Council .continued the matter with directions that the applicant
return to the Development Review Committee to .redesign the plans to address the issues noted by
the geotechnical consultant.. On January 16, 2001, the Council continued the matter at the
applicant's request to allow additional time to prepare the work requested by the Council. On June
4, 2001, the Council considered the appeal and continued the matter to allow the appellant an
opportunity to review information about the landslide and drainage mitigation.
E. The appellants are appealing the Planning Commission decision because they were
unable to attend the neighborhood meeting set up by the applicant and that they were unable to attend
the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2000.
F. Council finds pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300, that there was an error on
the part of the Planning Commission which .failed to obtain sufficient geotechnical information
concerning the safety of developing this steep and unstable building site. The :additional
geotechnical information indicates a number of available methods to mitigate the safety concerns,
but that the availability and ultimate selection of any one of these methods can effect the
configuration and appearance of theultmate development, such as to potentially require a significant
redesign of the entire project. Thus, rather than remanding this application to the Planning
Commission for further review, Council finds thatthe current applicationshould berejected infavor
of a new application that :fully addresses the findings of the geotechncal studies and .appropriately
incorporates one or more of the alternative methods for mitigating the problems with the site.
RESOLVED.;
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site
2
Application 5-99-:36 is therefore granted and Architecture and Site Application 5-99-3$ is denied
without prejudice to a new application to be submitted at any time. Full application fees will be
required with any new application.
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 or federal law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California held on the 16t1i day of July, 2001 by the following vote.
COUNCIL :MEMBERS
AYES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker,. Steve Glickman,
.Mayor Joe Pirzynsk.
NAYS : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None ~ ~~N
SIGNED: G(~,~C.J
AYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST
T
CLERK OF Tl'~E TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,'CALIFORNIA
3