1999-086-Granting Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision Denying A Two Lot Subdivision On Property Zoned R-1:8 And Remanding The ApplicationRESOLUTION 1999 - 86
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1:8 AND REMANDING THE
APPLICATION.
PROJECT APPLICATION: PRJ -98 -235
PROPERTY LOCATION: 320 AND 324 JOHNSON AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER: GEORGE AND JANET KENNEDY
APPLICANT / APPELLANT: JOHN LIEN
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Council for public hearing on June 7, 1999, on an appeal by
John Lien from a decision of the Planning Commission and was regularly noticed in conformance with
State and Town law.
B. The Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all
interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Council considered all testimony and
materials submitted, including the record of the Planing Commission proceedings and the packet of
material contained in the Council Agenda Report dated June 1, 1999, along with subsequent reports and
materials prepared concerning this application.
C. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 324 Johnson Avenue (14,373 square foot
lot) and approval of a lot line adjustment between 320 Johnson Avenue (9,147 square foot lot) and 324
Johnson Avenue. The lots each have a single family house and detached garage. Both lots have double
frontages, with the front of the residences and access on Johnson Avenue.
D. The December 15, 1998 the Development Review Committee considered the request and
denied the application because the proposed subdivision did not meet the minimum subdivision
requirements for the R -1:8 zone. Following an appeal, on February 24, 1999 the Planning Commission
returned the application to the Development Review Committee for additional design review. On April
1
14, 1999 the Commission denied the application.
E. Appellant is appealing the Planning Commission decision because he believes that the
Commission abused its discretion and made findings that were not supported by the evidence in the record
and unreasonably interpreted Town Code Section 29.10.020.
D. Council finds as follows:
1. That the majority of the lots surrounding the subject property have 50 foot frontages so that
the application for a subdivision creating lots with 50 foot frontages, though inconsistent with the current
minimum 60 foot frontage requirement, would nevertheless be consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. That Council would be inclined to grant this subdivision application if a variance
application allowing a 50 foot frontage had been filed and the findings therefor could be made. Because
such variance application had not been filed, it is appropriate to remand this application to the Planning
Department to allow the applicant an opportunity to file the appropriate variance application and then to
process that application in the normal course through DRC, the Planning Commission and, if necessary,
Council.
3. That without a variance application and the ability to make the required findings, Council
would be inclined to deny this subdivision application for failure to meet Town Code zoning requirements
for minimum lot frontages.
4. That Council takes no action, states no opinion and makes no decision on whether the
findings for a variance can be made.
5. That appellant errs in his attempt to interpret the definition of "Lot, [sic.] frontage" at Town
Code §29.10.020 to allow for the sum of the frontages on a double fronting lot to be used to calculate the
minimum lot frontage. Appellant's interpretation is expressly rejected by Council.
2
6. That pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.300, the appeal is granted and the matter
remanded because the question of whether the subdivision application could be granted with 50 foot lot
frontages rather than the required 60 foot frontages raised an issue of policy over which the Planning
Commission lacked discretion.
RESOLVED:
The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Project Application PRJ -98 -235 is,
therefore, granted and the subdivision application is remanded to the Planning Department to process in
conjunction with a second application for a variance, subject to standard fees and to be processed in the
normal course, that may be filed by the applicant.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California, held on the 21 st day of June, 1999 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steven Blanton, Linda Lubeck, Joe Pirzynski, Mayor Jan Hutchins.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Randy Attaway
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
C�
CLERK OF I'HV TOWN
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
3