Council mandates study session for a proposed Nina Court subdivision
The divided council almost upholds commission denial
Second appeal continued
By Nathan R. Huff
The game of follow the bouncing application continued on Aug. 7, as the town council narrowly voted to continue a four-lot subdivision development to a town-mediated study session.
Faced with a council majority pressuring for a study session with neighbors, the reluctant developer agreed to sit down and address neighborhood concerns of traffic, grading, privacy and access to the site.
A divided council narrowly defeated a motion to uphold the planning commission decision before voting 4-1 to have a study session and continue the appeal to Sept. 18. Council members Linda Lubeck and Jan Hutchins favored overturning the appeal, while Joe Pirzynski and Steve Blanton wanted the commission's decision upheld. Councilman Randy Attaway eventually led the successful motion for a continuance.
It was Dividend Homes' second appearance before the council on the same application in two months. The developers appealed the planning commission's first denial in May, were sent back to the commission by the council, and promptly denied again. Commissioners said the developer failed to solve any of the issues the council had raised in the first appeal and was unwilling to try a study session.
Before the council once again, several council members scolded Dividend Homes for not meeting with neighbors. Councilman Randy Attaway said he believed issues could have been resolved earlier with more communication. "I'm very disappointed that the developer did not meet with neighbors one last time," Attaway said, "because I think it shows good faith."
Neighbors, who have organized strong opposition to the development of the sloping, knoll-top property, showed up in force once again. Unofficially led by neighbor Willis Flood, residents took turns lambasting the amount of grading, the removal of vegetation, the proposed access road off Pinta Court and the developer's unwillingness to meet with neighbors.
"If only the owner and developer had met with us, they would know our feelings instead of just guessing," neighbor Laverne Nolan said. Dividend Homes has resisted a study session, saying the neighbors are intent on finding a different access to the property, which isn't legally possible.
Other neighbors complained that the proposed density was too high for the area, though the lots' sizes are fairly consistent with other parcels in the area.
Some have suggested maintaining the property as a flag lot with one home, which is something the town discourages in its hillside plan.
The issue of the access road, placed against the rear property lines of Causey Lane residents, has also been a bone of contention. Those residents say it creates double-fronted lots; town staff says, technically, it does not.
Alexander Henson, Dividend Homes' lands use attorney, said neighborhood concerns over grading, privacy and house size were premature. "The issues that the neighbors have raised are the kinds of issues that are resolved at the time that the house is proposed for construction," Henson said, adding that Dividend had met all the town and state subdivision requirements.
Councilman Jan Hutchins agreed, and voted against the motion to continue. "I would love to validate the neighbors' interest or the study session process," Hutchins said. "But this application map is consistent with the specific and general plans, the site is physically suited for the proposed development and the density is suited for the [area]."
Councilwoman Linda Lubeck had even stronger words, criticizing the planning commission for its "study session or denial" approach with the applicant.
"This is one of those cases where the planning commission, to call a spade a spade, somewhat knee-jerked," Lubeck said.
In the end, however, Lubeck joined the other three council members in voting to continue the application. Both Mayor Steve Blanton and Councilman Joe Pirzynski voted with Lubeck and Attaway, after their own motion to uphold the planning commission's denial was defeated on a 2-3 vote.
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
