Loading...
10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 13, 2021 The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on October 13, 2021, at 4:30 p.m. This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with Government Code Section 54953, as Amended by Assembly Bill 361, in response to the state of emergency relating to COVID-19 and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.). Consistent with AB 361 and Town of Los Gatos Resolution 2021-044 this meeting will not be physically open to the public and the Council and/or Commissioners will be teleconferencing from remote locations. Members of the public can only participate in the meeting by joining the Zoom webinar. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:32 PM ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Council Member Mary Badame, Council Member Matthew Hudes, Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen. Absent: Planning Commissioner Reza Tavana. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approval of Minutes – June 9, 2021 MOTION: Motion by Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen to approve the consent calendar. Seconded by Council Member Mary Badame. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 4-0 PAGE 2 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC.docx PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 15171 Los Gatos Boulevard Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-002 Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for a Specific Plan amendment to the North Forty Specific Plan for construction of a commercial building on property zoned North Forty Specific Plan. APN 424-07-060. PROPERTY OWNER: MBK Enterprise/Bahram Najafzade APPLICANT: FNZ Architects Inc. PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. Applicant presented the proposed project. Committee members asked the following questions of the applicant and owner: • Why are you asking for so many exemptions now? Applicant: The existing gas station must remain until their ten-year lease expires. The owner would like to demolish the current one-story minimart, mechanic shops, and surrounding fence to build a two-story building with a convenience store on the ground floor and office space on the second floor. • You mentioned a verbal agreement with the planner. The planners couldn’t promise anything since they are not the deciding body. What did you mean? Applicant: I mis-used the phrase: “verbal agreement.” There was no verbal agreement. It was a discussion of options to develop the site and possible amendments. • What did the owner request of the North Forty Specific Plan Advisory Committee at the North Forty Specific Plan meetings? Or was this a different owner? Owner: The same owner was present at the meetings. He didn’t realize their property was affected by the North Forty Specific Plan. No formal request was made. Surprised to learn of a twenty foot setback requirement once the construction began. He has not read the Environmental Impact Report. • Why discontinue the gas station? Owner: The gas station contract with Conoco Philips runs until 2034. There will a huge penalty if the contract is broken. In the future, gas stations may not be a viable business. • Any thought of transitioning to alternative energy services?Owner: They are considering alternative energy use such as a hydrogen power or fast charge site. If anything is added, the gas portion would need to be removed to make room. PAGE 3 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC.docx • Have you received any offers for alternative energy facilities? Are there other similar facilities offered in the North Forty? Owner: Have not received any offers. There are no other facilities to his knowledge. • At first, we thought the gas station was going to remain. But now, it seems the building will be removed. Owner: We will tear down the minimart and mechanic shops. There will be a new building moved further back with just a convenience store. • What is the purpose of the circular portion in the design? Applicant: It is for aesthetic reasons and it houses portions of the office space and convenience store. • Why include office space since the market for office space is slow now? Owner: It is for personal use for their employees. They are currently renting various office space elsewhere. • How does this architectural concept fit in with the surrounding property at North Forty? Owner: Nothing is decided yet. Trying to first determine placement, setbacks, and parking. • Owner: The owner is a resident of Monte Sereno and drives daily by the property. He hopes to improve the look of the property and provide a financially viable function. Visually and architecturally representative of where the whole neighborhood is going. Closed Public Comment. Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following questions and comments: • This is an important corner that merits redevelopment. It should mirror the North Forty architecture. • Neighborhood compatibility is important. However, the project does not have to just match the architecture nearby. It can be superior and very attractive. • This visible corner is the gateway to a modern architectural development. • It should mirror the design intentions of the North Forty Specific Plan to make the area more pedestrian and bicycle friendly with added sidewalks. • The number of requested exceptions is high: a height limit that is 36 percent in excess from allowed twenty-five feet, a four feet setback versus the required 20 feet, a likely lot coverage that exceeds the maximum of 50 percent, non-compliance with the open space requirement of 30 percent, failure to provide for the orchard planting landscape, and a 47 percent discrepancy from the required number of parking spaces. • There are many constraints due to the lot size and shape. The project may have to be scaled back to avoid the multiple exceptions requested. PAGE 4 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC.docx OTHER BUSINESS - None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the October 13, 2021 meeting as approved by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. /s/ Joel Paulson, Community Development Director