08 Staff Report - 15928 Union AveMEETING DATE: 12/9/09
ITEM NO:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2009
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: 15928 UNION AVENUE
APN: 527-42-008; ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-08-30; SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION M-08-13; NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-09-2; PROPERTY OWNER:
217 O' CONNOR LLC; APPLICANT /APPELLANT: TONY JEANS
A. ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO SUBDIVIDE A .93 ACRE PARCEL INTO
THREE LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8; or
B. DECIDE WHETHER TO RECONSIDER DECISION DENYING APPEAL
(requires motion and approval by a majority of the quorum)
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt the proposed resolution or, in the alternative
2. Vote to reconsider the prior decision denying the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
On October 20, 2009, after the conclusion of a public hearing, Council voted to deny an appeal of the
planning commission's decision to demolish a single-family residence and subdivide the parcel into
three lots. The attached resolution (Attachment 1) finalizes that decision.
On November 29, 2009, the applicant/appellant sent an e-mail message to members of the Town
Council (Attachment 2) requesting that Council refrain from action on the proposed resolution and,
instead, remand the applications to the Planning Commission. A remand would permit the
applicant/appellant to modify the subdivision application in order to address the issues that led to the
denial of the current applications.
PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB
Town Attorney
OPK:pg
N:\MGR\Town Attorney\Council Reports\12-7-09 15928UnionAve.doc
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager „�O�fewn Manager
Clerk Administrator Finance, Community Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15928 UNION AVENUE
DECEMBER 2, 2009
DISCUSSION: (continued)
In order to remand the applications, Council must first decide whether to reconsider its prior decision.
That decision requires a motion to reconsider approved by a majority of the quorum. Should this motion
be made and approved, staff would schedule a further discussion of the applications on a future Council
agenda. Neighbors would be notified. Council would have full discretion to decide the applications,
including the power to grant the appeal solely for the purpose of remanding the applications to the
Planning Commission for redesign of the proposed subdivision. The proposed resolution would be
tabled indefinitely in the event Council elects to reconsider its prior decision. A new resolution would
be prepared in the event Council elects to remand the applications.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. E-mail communication from Tony Jeans dated November 29, 2009.
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO
SUBDIVIDE A .93 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS ON PROPERTY
ZONED R-1:8.
APN: 527-42-008
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-08-30
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-08-13
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-09-2
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15928 UNION AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'CONNOR LLC
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: TONY JEANS
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on November 2,
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 October 20, 2009.
C. The applicant/appellant proposes to demolish an existing single family residence
and garage, to subdivide the property into three parcels, and to construct three (3) single-family
residences. Architecture and Site approval is required for the demolition of the existing single
family residence and garage. The Planning Commission considered the Subdivision and
Architecture and Site applications on February 25 and August 26, 2009. After continuing the
matter on February 25' , the Commission, on August 26, 2009, voted unanimously to deny the
applications.
D. The Subdivision Map Act, specifically Government Code section 66474, lists
findings that, if supported by evidence in the record, require denial of an application for a
tentative map. In denying the subject application, the Commission made the findings in
subsections (c) and (d) of section 66474, specifically that site is not physically suitable for the
type of development and that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the
development. The Commission determined that the proposed parcel configurations are not
consistent with the development pattern to the north of the property (on Panorama Way) and that
the site is not suitable for the proposed density of development. Because the house demolition
was required for the subdivision, the Commission also denied the Architecture and Site
application.
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 1
E. Applicant/appellant asserts that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion in finding that the subdivision application is not consistent with surrounding
neighborhood, and in finding that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density
and/or type of development.
F. The decision of the Planning Commission should not be overturned, but should be
modified with regard to the findings for denying the subdivision under the requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act.
G. Council finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300(b)(1), the Planning Commission
erred by failing to make a finding under the Subdivision Map Act, specifically subsection (b) of
Government Code section 66474, because the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with the Town General Plan, specifically policies L.P 3.5 (the land
use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood) and CD.P. 1.5 (avoid changes
abrupt changed in scale and density). These findings are supported by the following facts:
i. The immediate neighborhood of the project site is identified as the
single story residences located along Panorama Way and Union Avenue to the north of the
project site and at the same elevation as the project site. The neighborhood on Leewood Court
located directly south of the project site is identified as a different neighborhood because it is
physically separated from the project site by an eight (8) foot wall and a five (5) foot grade
separation.
ii. The configuration of the proposed subdivision would result in
parcels that are oriented at angles that are opposed to the uniform rectilinear orientation of the
parcels in the immediate neighborhood (i.e., Panorama Way and Union Avenue).
iii. The configuration of the proposed subdivision as described in
paragraph 1.ii. herein above and fully incorporated herein by this reference would potentially
result in houses oriented at angles that would be inconsistent with the existing homes in the
immediate neighborhood.
iv. The configuration of the proposed subdivision as described in
paragraph 1.ii. herein above and fully incorporated herein by this reference would result in a lot
that has the appearance of a "corridor" or "flag" lot, which is discouraged under the Town
General Plan, specifically policy L.P.3.8 and implementing strategy L.I.3.9.
2. Also pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300(b)(1), the Planning
Commission erred by failing to fully identify the facts in the record of the applications
supporting the findings under subsections (c) and (d) of Government Code section 66474, which
decision is hereby modified to include the facts cited in paragraphs 1.i through and including
1.iv. herein above and fully incorporated herein by this reference.
3. Also pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300(b)(1), the Planning
Commission erred by failing to identify the immediate neighborhood to the project site as
identified in paragraph 1.i herein above and fully incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, specifically subsections (b), (c), and
(d) of Government Code section 66474, the design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with the Town General Plan and the site is not physically suitable for the type and proposed
density of development based on the facts cited in paragraphs 1.i. through 1.iv. herein above and
fully incorporated herein by this reference.
Page 2 of 3
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and
Site Application S-08-30 and Subdivision Application M-08-13 is denied and the decision of the
Commission is modified as described herein above.
2. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the final decision of the Town on the
appeal and any action challenging this decision must be filed within ninety (90) days pursuant to
Government Code section 66499.37.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California on the day of December 2009, by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\MGR\Town Attomey\Council Reports\12-7-09 15928UnionAve Resolution.doc
Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 1
Greg Larson - Brief meeting request re: Union Resolution
From: "Tony" <tony@thisdesign.com>
To: <Jpirzynski@losgatosca.gov>, "Diane McNutt" <dmcnutt@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 11/29/2009 10:10 AM
Subject: Brief meeting request re: Union Resolution
Dear Diane & Joe:
I have given a great deal of thought since the "denial" of the Union Ave/Panorama 3 lot subdivision.
I would like to thank you both for your rational discussion and deliberations on the matter at the hearing. I have since met
briefly with each of the dissenters - Steve, Barbara and Mike to better understand the true basis for their objections. It really was
my unusual approach to the 'lot layout' - giving the appearance of a 'flag lot' that gave them the real concern. It would appear
that this time my creativity shot me in the foot.
I also showed at the hearing a 'conventional pie' configuration - that I had originally discarded, but which almost every dead-end
street in Los Gatos uses for cul-de-sac terminations. It would appear that this configuration eliminates much of the concern
posed by the 'pseudo flag lot' approach.
I would like to meet / chat briefly with you [at the Town offices?] about the possibility of pulling the resolution from the consent
calendar on Monday next week. I think that it is unfair to put Jeff Grant through the time/expense of a full resubmission when
'justice would best be served' by remanding the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the
'conventional cul-de-sac' approach.
What time do you have prior to the meeting?
Thanks [Call me at 354-1833 or email me with 'good times to meet']
Tony
ATTACHMENT 2
file://C:\Documents and Settings\pgarcia.LOSGATOSCA\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B1_ . _