2000-117-Denying A Request To Subdivide A Residential Parcel Into Four Lots And Demolish A Pre-1941 Single Family Residence On Property Zoned R-1:10 Subdivision Application : M-9RESOLUTION 2000 X17 ~
RESOLUTION GRANTING AND REMANDING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL
INTO FOUR LOTS AND TO DEMOLISH APRE-1941 .SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:10
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: 1VI-99-18
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: 5-99-40
PROPERTY LOCATION: 130 NINA COURT
PROPERTY OWNER: JERRELL WILSON,. PAUL BOONE
APPLICANT: DIVIDEND HOMES, INC..
APPELLANT: RICHARD B. OLIVER
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on September 18, 2000 on an
appeal by Richard B. Oliver, appellant, from a decision of the Planning Coii~mission 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, but not limited to, the record of the Planning Commission proceedings, the packets
of material contained in Council Agenda Reports, Addeiadums and Deslc Items dated July 27, 2.000,
September 14, 2000 and September 18, .2000.
C. The applicant applied for a Subdivision Application (M-99-18) and an Architecture and Site
Application (5-99-40) on December 8, 1999 to subdivide a 1.5 acre residential parcel into four lots and to
demolish an existing pre-1941 single family residence. The proposed parcels range from 10,000 square feet
to 21,650 square feet in an area.
D. On Marc1116, 2000,. the Planning Commission denied this application, which decision was
appealed to Council. On June 5, .2000, Council considered the appeal and remanded the application to the
Planning Commission in light of new information in the form of a revised proposed map. The P1ainling
Commission considered the new information at its meeting on June 28, 2000 and found that ofthe five items
1
the Council requested theme., consider, the only significant change ~ sin the retaining wall along the
roadway. Because the applicant was unwilling to consider additional major modifications, the Planning
Commission again denied the application.
E. This appeal is based on appellant's belief that the Planning Commission erred or abused its
discretion in denying the project because the findings for denial were not supported by credible evidence
or facts that would justify a denial.
F. Council finds pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.3 00 that new information was submitted
to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably available; to wit, that several
:alternative site plans were presented including. alternative No. 3, identifiedas Exhibit 37 to the Council Desk
Item dated September 18, 2000, a three lot subdivision with a standard road. Because alternative No. 3 is
anew map that would reduce the density of the subdivision from four to three lots, that new information has
more than a minimal effect on the application and must, therefore, be reviewed by t11e P1amling Commission
pursuant to section 29.20.300(c).
G. Council further finds that alternative No. 3 with a standard road merits approval and is
consistent with the General Plan, the Hillside Specific Plan and applicable 1lllside standards and
development policies. However, Town plaiuling staff must review the applications to determine whether
any other issues :raised during the public hearing, suc11 as those concerning tuldergrotuld .storage tames,
drainage and geoteclniical issues have been frilly considered in accordance with Town policies. The other
alternatives presented are either inconsistent with Town development policies, such as those. discouraging
corridor lots, or too dense, hence, inconsistent with the neighborhood .given the limited access to .and
location of the site, which is on top of a knoll overlooking existing homes.
RESOLVED e
The appeal of the decision of the Plannning Commission on Project Applications M-99-18
.and 5-99-40 is therefore granted and the applications are remanded to the Planning :Commission for review
2
of alternative No. 3 as identii... a above, the proposed standard subdivi~ _~ with three lots, a cul-de-sac and
a road that complies with hillside standards.
2. Planning Department staff is directed to review whether any other issues raised during the
public hearing, such as those concerning underground storage tanks, drainage and geotechnical issues Have
been frilly considered in accordance with Town policies.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Counoil of the Town of Los Gatos,
California held on the 2ND day of October, 2000, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Jan Hutcliins, Linda Lubeck, Joe Pirzynsk,
.Mayor Steven Blanton
NAYS : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
.TOS
ATTEST.:
CLERI~'C3F TIDE TOVJN'OF L GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
3
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA