 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Despite changes by developer, council nixes hillside project
By Gloria I. Wang
Nineteen homes are still too many for a 34-acre hillside parcel, the Los Gatos Town Council recently decided.
The initial plan was to build 30 houses on the land at Hicks and Shannon roads. Instead, on July 16 the council recommended that the property be the site of up to 14 homes--and sent the proposal back to the town's planning commission.
The property developer, Greenbriar Land Company, tried to appeal the April 25 denial of the project by the planning commission. Project manager Katja Kamangar cited five key benefits of the development: a new trail system on the property, better water runoff, millions of dollars in fees for the town, additional housing and open space. The parcel actually totals 80 acres; Greenbriar has agreed to reserve 46 acres as open space, which preserves the area's wildlife and create trails for the public.
To proceed with their development, Greenbriar needed some regulatory changes for the parcel. Currently the land is zoned so that up to 11 homes can be built. Greenbriar requested a higher-density zone change, allowing for up to 30 homes.
At the same time, Greenbriar needed an amendment to the General Plan. The land-use designation for that space is agricultural use, and Greenbriar wanted it changed to hillside residential.
Of the more than 20 members of the public who spoke at the town council meeting, only a handful were in support of the project. Most of the speakers were in agreement that a development was inevitable at the site. Just how many homes, however, was the source of conflict.
Brush Street resident Julie Rask said that the zone change should be granted because the 19 homes were custom, not tract, homes. Rask pointed out that Greenbriar would be careful in its landscaping and planting of vegetation to ensure that the houses did not look out of place. Rask also said that she was excited about the open space trails made possible by the development.
A representative from the Dagney Group, which owns the property, said that when a proposal to build a Challenger School, a private school with multiple locations in the area, came to the table in 1996, the town had denied the application and suggested that the space be used for housing instead.
"This project flies in the face of the General Plan," countered Mike Abkin, former planning commissioner and member of the General Plan Task Force. Abkin said that the project would require significant destruction of the natural topography, increase the density of structures and people and impact nature with the proposed road widening and installation of curbs and gutters.
Town council members agreed that 19 homes were too many for the site, but had trouble deciding on a solution.
Councilwoman Sandy Decker made a motion to deny the request for a zone change, limiting the maximum to 11 homes. Due to a lack of a second, Decker's motion died.
Councilman Randy Attaway moved to deny the appeal; if Greenbriar wanted to pursue the application, it would have to start over at the initial town planning committees. That motion also died for lack of a second.
"I think this is a quality project," Councilman Steve Blanton said. Blanton made a motion to send the application back to the planning commission, with a suggested maximum of 16 homes. The motion ultimately failed because the majority voted against it.
Finally, Mayor Joe Pirzynski moved to send the project back to the commission. Instead of a zone change, there would be explicit instruction for the applicant to construct 14 homes at most. Pirzynski did recommend that a land use change from agricultural to residential be approved by the planning commission.
Pirzynski added that both Hicks and Shannon Roads would not be widened and kept the restriction for all the houses to be around 4,000 square feet each. "My thought is that the fewer homes that are out on that property at the same size as proposed allows for greater open space," Pirzynski said.
With the exception of Blanton, all the council members were in favor of the motion.
|
 |
|
|