Loading...
02-11-04 Minutes - GPCTOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, FEBRUARY 11, 2004 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Chair Michael Burke. ATTENDANCE Members present: Josh Bacigalupi, Michael Burke, Steve Glickman, Diane McNutt, Phil Micciche, Morris Trevithick, Mark Weiner. Members Absent: Barry Bakken, Mark Sgarlato Staff present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner; Judie Gilli, Assistant Planner. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM 1 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT A-03-4 Bud Lortz introduced the item, explaining that the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is being pursued after discussions between staff, the applicant and neighbors of the site. Suggested language for the text amendment was presented. Rodger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, representing Courtside, provided some history of the site. The property consists of three parcels. The only buildable portion of it fronts on Newell Avenue. The applicant has been searching for a way to benefit the Town by improving the property and providing some additional parking. The proposal is to allow use of it for parking and open space. The applicant has worked with neighbors to accomplish this without a zone change. Jack Aiello, 135 Newell Court, said he has not talked to anyone regarding the application. He thinks the wording is vague and would allow a parking lot on any R-1 zoned lot. The property has been for overflow parking for the Elks Club activities. Currently there is parking on the property by Courtside. There have been many previous meetings on this and he thought everything had been resolved. The Elks were originally going to develop residences on the site. Dale Miller, 115 Newell Court, said he abuts the site and although it sounds ok in principle, he is concerned about the impact it could have on his property. He wants the property to remain residential. This is a Town-wide amendment and he wondered if people in other areas have been notified. He feels a traffic analysis should be done. The goal of the neighborhood is to keep it R-1 so that it remains residential in the event it is development independently from Courtside Larry Fried, 112 Newell Avenue, said he has not been asked for input on this proposal. His concern is that Courtside will continue to sell memberships and even with this lot there will be a parking problem. It is difficult to exit from the street in the morning. He is concerned about parking impacts in the neighborhood. Max Perlman, 183 Newell Avenue, noted that his home backs up to the Elks property. He feels that the Elks are in violation of their use permit by allowing Courtside to park on the site. A parking lot is an impact. Fumes from vehicles release pollutants, and there is a noise factor. He also commented that there should be a bike lane along the Winchester frontage. Mary Rose, 501 Clearview Drive, representing the Wimbledon Homeowners Association, said 25 homeowners have submitted written comments; 15 prior to the meeting and 10 additional letters that she presented. She was contacted by the applicant regarding access to the subject property through the Wimbledon HOA property on the corner of Wimbledon & Winchester. The Wimbledon HOA Board objected to the use of the site as a parking lot at that time. Traffic and parking are concerns to the neighborhood. She read a letter to the Committee stating her objection to the proposed Zoning Code Amendment and submitted a copy of the letter for the record. She does not want to see any commercial use of the site or any increase in membership at Courtside Club. Mike Burke asked and received input from Ms. Rose that there are 111 homeowners in the Wimbledon Association. He asked what would be the objection to an entrance from Wimbledon. Ms. Rose said that parking on Wimbledon is only a problem when there are large events such as a tennis tournament. Ann Burns, 140 Newell Avenue, said when neighbors and Courtside met, the neighbors were very supportive of the Courtside proposal provided that there is not a driveway on Newell Avenue. The amendment can be utilized all over Town. There has already been a notice that the Planning Commission will be considering this at an upcoming meeting. The Newell neighborhood has been fighting the Town for 10 years over various projects. The neighborhood will work with the Town and applicant, and she feels the proposal will alleviate much of the parking issues associated with Courtside Club. Barbara Perlman, 183 Newell Avenue, said she feels like she is on a slow seesaw going up and down. She asked that the Committee please take the proposed amendment very seriously, and if it has to pass, please tighten it up so it won’t impact neighborhood streets. Rodger Griffin noted that many of the items that have been discussed this evening have been worked into the plan. The Elks Lodge will not be using the site for overflow parking. This is a good neighbor solution and the intent is to protect the neighborhood while keeping a viable business going. Mark Weiner asked for clarification on the parking problems. Mr. Griffin said that the goal is to get more people off the street. Employee parking could be on the site so patrons can park closer General Plan Committee Regular Meeting of February 11, 2004 Page 3 of 5 to the club. There is limited street parking on Winchester. Steve Glickman asked if the parking lot would be available to the general public. For example, what if the neighbors had a large party. Mr. Griffin responded that he would discuss that with Courtside and he feels it is something that can be taken into consideration. Perhaps neighbors could use the lot on request if it didn’t conflict with an event at Courtside. There will not be any ingress or egress onto or from Newell Avenue. Phil Micciche asked if the property is being used for parking by the Elks. Lisa Graf, General Manager of Courtside Club said the Club is on a wait list status. Useage of the proposed lot would be for prime time during the day. Phil Micciche asked if memberships are frozen. Ms. Graf said they don’t use that term. The Club is not adding any memberships at this time, but memberships are filled as others are dropped. Mike Burke asked if the memberships would be increased. Ms. Graf clarified that there is not a cap on membership but that the number is not being increased under her management. This past year the club has experienced increased usage without an increase in the number of memberships. Steve Glickman clarified that the membership is not driving the memberships, but that more parking is being sought for the current membership. Ms. Graf said Courtside tracks members carefully. Steve Glickman said it is important to know if memberships will be increased Ms. Graf said she has no intention of increasing the membership this year. Bud Lortz noted that there is not a maximum number of memberships for any of the sport or athletic clubs in Town. The CUP runs with the land so it is parcel specific. Phil Micciche asked how the proposal might impact other properties in the Town. Bud Lortz said when the language was crafted, the intent was to make it as narrow as possible. There are only three undeveloped parcels that are zoned R-1:12 that are on an arterial. Mark Weiner asked what the risk of the property being converted from R-1 to a commercial zoning. Bud Lortz sais that a General Plan amendment and rezoning would be required to accomplish that. If the text amendment is approved, the applicant would have to file subsequent applications for a conditional use permit and architecture and site approval that would be considered by the Planning Commission. Use of the property including lighting, landscaping and hours can be controlled through the use permit process. Josh Bacigalupi asked if the parking lot can be limited to employee use which might help General Plan Committee Regular Meeting of February 11, 2004 Page 4 of 5 alleviate some of the neighbors’ concerns. Bud Lortz said that it could be a condition, and neighborhood use of the lot could also be considered. Steve Glickman commented on potential impacts such as headlight intrusion. He would like a mechanism to address future impacts should they arise. Mike Burke asked if the language could be further refined to state that ingress and egress would be from an arterial. Bud Lortz noted that the wording has to be legal language and it already limits it to these three parcels. Conditions can be imposed through the CUP process. Diane McNutt asked for clarification on the process. Bud Lortz said the General Plan Committee is an advisory body and the recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The recommendation could be for approval or denial. The Council makes the final decision on whether to approve or deny the proposed text amendment. Diane McNutt said the application will go forward, but she stressed to neighbors not to make any assumptions on how the Council is going to vote. Often, a decision isn’t made until the hearing is held. She has some concern about the proposal as it is unusual language that focuses on three specific parcels. Bud Lortz said that the Town is trying to be respectful to the neighbors. There are some other items in the CUP table that have been addressed through a narrow perspective. The language is very narrow because the Town doesn’t want to see more parking lots in residential zones. Mike Burke clarified that General Plan Committee minutes will be provided to the Commission. Bud Lortz said that the minutes and all correspondence will be provided to the Commission. When it goes on to the Council a verbatim transcript is prepared. Steve Glickman clarified that commercial parking lots are not desired in residential zones but other parking lots may be appropriate. For example, recreational uses might be located in a residential zone. Bud Lortz agreed and said that other uses such as churches and parks are allowed in residential zones and they have parking lots. Steve Glickman made a motion to recommend favorably. Phil Micciche seconded the motion. Steve Glickman noted that there is already a parking lot there. In this particular case the Town is trying to achieve the neighborhood’s goal and keep the property zoned residential. Josh Bacigalupi said he would speak favorably to this, but that although the property has been used as a parking lot, it will be intensified under the proposal and that needs to be considered. Mike Burke said he won’t be supporting the motion as he doesn’t like the use of such specific language even though it is tight. Mark Weiner said he doesn’t support the usage, but asked that if it goes forward, the impact on General Plan Committee Regular Meeting of February 11, 2004 Page 5 of 5 the neighborhood be minimized through controlling the hours of use of the parking lot. Diane McNutt said that there may need to be some traffic calming and/or parking management in this area. There are many different aspects of this that need to be examined at the Commission and Council levels. She thinks the language is unique and pinpointed and that concerns her. She will be asking staff to identify other residential property on arterial streets. The motion passed four to three (Mike Burke, Mark Weiner and Diane McNutt dissenting). ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Phil Micciche made a motion to approve the minutes of January 28, 2004 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Steve Glickman and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm by Mike Burke. The next meeting of the General Plan Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, February 25, 2004 at 5:00 pm. Prepared By: ___________________________ Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner N:\DEV\SUZANNE\GENPLAN\GPC\2004minutes\GPC-2-11-04.wpd