2011-015-381 Pennsylvania Avenue Remand AppealRESOLUTION 2011 -015
RESOLUTION REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF A TWO -LOT
SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8
APN: 510 -41 -057
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M -10 -007
PROPERTY LOCATION: 381 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER: 381 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE LLC
APPLICANT: GREG HOWELL
APPELLENT: MATTHEW HABERKORN
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on March 7, 2011,
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
Connnission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report
dated February 24, 2011, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this
application.
C. The applicant proposed a two -lot subdivision on property zoned R -1:8 located at
the southeast corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Wissahickon Avenue. The 24,433 sq. ft.
property is currently developed with a 1,794 square foot two -story residence, detached garage,
guest cottage, pool house, and barn. Properties to the north, south, and east are all developed
with single- family homes while the property to the west is a multifamily residential complex.
D. The application was approved by the Development Review Committee on
November 16, 2010, and appealed by Matthew Haberkorn on November 16, 2010, based on his
belief that the application was not consistent with the Town's General Plan, Town Code, or
CEQA requirements.
E. The Planning Commission considered the appeal on January 26, 2011. After
considering all testimony and materials, the Planning Commission was unable to make the
required findings to deny the subdivision and consequently voted to uphold the decision of the
Development Review Committee to approve the application and denied the appeal.
F. The action of the Planning Commission was appealed by Matthew Haberkorn
based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in that the
application did not conform to the legally required process and that the findings provided lacked
supporting evidence.
G. Council has determined that new information has been provided that the Planning
Commission did not have at the time of their decision. On March 3, 2011, Appellant
submitted additional information that was not provided by Appellant to Planning Commission.
RESOLVED:
1. The project application is remanded to Planning Commission for consideration
and action.
2. The decision does not constitute a final administrative decision and the
application will be returned to Planning Commission for further determination.
3. Town staff should complete appropriate environmental assessment prior to
Planning Commission's consideration and action.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California, held on the 7` day of March 2011, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Diane McNutt, Steve Rice, Mayor Joe Pirzynski
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Steven Leonardis
SIGNED:
MAYOR THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
C ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA