Loading...
Minutes - 07-24-13 - PC Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 July 24, 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chair Charles Erekson, Vice Chair Margaret Smith, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Kendra Burch, Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell Others: Principal Planner Joel Paulson, Associate Planner Marni Moseley, Associate Planner Jennifer Savage and Town Attorney Judith Propp PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Commissioner Sayoc WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Desk items for Agenda Items 2 and 4 were distributed. REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS - NONE VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 656 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite B. Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-016. Requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Pilate’s studio on property zoned C- 1. APN: 5-29-10-145. PROPERTY OWNER: Showers Park, LLC. APPLICANT: Cathy Hancock. PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 24, 2013 Motion by Commissioner Talesfore and seconded by Commissioner Sayoc to approve Conditional Use Permit U-13-016 subject to the findings in Exhibit 2 and conditions in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated July 24, 2013. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that this use is both essential and desirable for public convenience. The use is in harmony with the objectives of the zoning and the Town’s General Plan. Motion carried 6-0. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard. Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-014. Requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a retail wine and beer shop with tastings on property zoned CH. APN 523-06-010. PROPERTY OWNER: 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard, LLC. APPLICANT: Joseph Prang and Christine Tran. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley. Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented his wife’s company has a relationship with the property owners leasing parking spaces for this use, but he has no direct conflict; therefore he will not recuse. Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. Vice Chair Smith  Asked for verification from staff that the Town’s Alcohol Policy is currently under review.  Asked whether there are any restrictions on the placement of an establishment selling or serving alcohol within the proximity of any school, as there are several schools within a tenth of a mile from this location. Marni Moseley  Commented that the recommendations were incorporated.  Commented that a portion of the policy is under review with the rest to remain intact.  Commented that’s correct and the provision in the current policy is not intended to change.  Commented that the only type of CUP that restricts placement is for service stations that sell alcohol. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked for confirmation that this property owner still intends to pursue residential development of this site and that this is just a temporary use.  Asked how temporary. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 24, 2013 Marni Moseley  Commented that there is no end date to this CUP as currently proposed, but CUPs have been approved in the past with an end date.  Commented that this property owner is pursuing an application for a residential development on this site and whether that proceeds is ultimately up to the property owner. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that the CUP runs with the land and has no expiration date as staff indicated.  Commented that any future use would come by future application submitted by the property owner. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked whether approving this CUP would prevent the property owner from continuing to pursue residential development of the site, and if the applicant is aware of that. Judith Propp  Commented that nothing hinders the owner’s ability to use the property in any way they see fit that was ultimately approved by the Town Council. Marni Moseley  Commented that she is understood the applicants are aware of the owners’ intentions for the property. Vice Chair Smith  Asked staff for an example of when a temporary CUP or one with an end date would be approved. Marni Moseley  Commented that a temporary CUP was issued to allow the continuation of the auto shop use on the Honda site while the owners were pursuing a different type of use for the property. This allowed the temporary continuation for up to 18 months or until the lease ended.  Commented that this is the only one of which she is specifically aware. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented on parking lot lighting concerns and asked if low-level lighting can be used. Marni Moseley  Commented that parking lot modifications are not a part of this approval, but staff reviews these details during the building permit submittal. Joseph Prang, Co-Owner/Applicant, Artisan Wine Depot of Los Gatos, introduced his business partner, Christine Tran, and gave a presentation. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 24, 2013 Commissioner Burch  Asked if the outside tasting area would only be used for tastings.  Asked if private events or parties would also be held. Joseph Prang  Commented that the outdoor area would be used for specific times only, pre-announced to their customers typically via email invitation.  Commented that they have corporate events that are structured as tastings.  Commented that there are no additional events planned and nothing past the allowed hours. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked the applicants why they would spend time establishing in a location that could be pulled from under them. Joseph Prang  Commented they are aware of the temporary nature but are assured of a two-year lease, and this facility fits their needs perfectly. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked if the neighbors were contacted directly to discuss the plans for outdoor tasting events.  Asked about any proposed changes to outside lighting. Joseph Prang  Commented that they had spoken with some but not all nearby neighbors.  Commented that when they close at 7 or 8 p.m., the lights will not be left on.  Commented there are no proposed changes to the outdoor lighting other than changing out burned out bulbs. Commissioner Talesfore  Asked if the shop would sell anything beyond beer and wine.  Asked why the gate at the outside area is there.  Asked if there is something dividing the tasting area from the planting bed. Joseph Prang  Commented that they would sell glassware, stemware, decanters, artwork associated with wine, corkscrews, and other related items.  Commented that they didn’t want the space completely cordoned off, but rather to have this gate as a possible third exit, and would have a sign directing patrons to use the front entrance.  Commented there is a hip or half-wall dividing the tasting area from the planting bed area. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that this building is a rather contemporary Craftsman architecture and that the proposed gate is a predominate cottage style that clashes with the clean architecture.  Commented the planters could be integrated by painting them the same base color as the building. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 24, 2013 Joseph Prang agreed. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented on the completeness of the proposal provided.  Commented on the two types of ABC licenses – Type 48 and Type 21 – one of which allows minors and the other that does not.  Asked if it is common to have two separate types of liquor licenses with two very different sets of regulations and which rules are followed if they are in conflict.  Asked if they would also have an indoor tasting area that would be clearly marked. Christine Tran  Commented that using planters or borders to separate tasting areas from other parts of the business is typical.  Commented that during tastings, ABC does not allow children in the tasting area.  Commented there would be a sectioned-off indoor tasting area. Per ABC requirements, it does not have to be separated by a wall. Planters or similar divisions can be used to create the separation. Vice Chair Smith  Asked if wholesale or catering pickups would occur at the back of the building.  Asked if the Sunday pick up hours would begin at 9 a.m. as they do on the other weekdays.  Commented that it appears that store deliveries can occur between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. daily. Christine Tran  Commented that they would open at 11 a.m. on weekends.  Commented that they don’t do deliveries or allow pickups by commercial or wholesaler customers on weekends. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that if there were to be pickups or deliveries, they shouldn’t occur before 11 a.m. Marni Mosley  Commented that the hours included in the conditions are standard delivery hours that the Town uses for commercial businesses such as this.  Commented that delivery hours are often different from business hours, which is why they are limited differently.  Commented that if the applicants are amiable, changes can be made prior to Town Council. Vice Chair Smith  Commented she is concerned residents in the back will hear bottles being disposed of.  Commented that the current conditions allow bottle disposal between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. Christine Tran  Commented that tasting portions are small and empty bottles are set aside to be inventoried weekly. It is usually never more than a case (12 bottles). Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 24, 2013 Commissioner Talesfore  Asked if the neighbor located adjacent to the parking lot has been contacted. Joseph Prang  Commented that they contacted the neighbors residing at the property located behind the dumpsters. Anthony Abene  Commented that he’s a 10-year resident and wine connoisseur who supports this business. Dan Phillips  Commented that he’s a 10-year resident who is a wine connoisseur and supports the project. Danijela and Juergen Berthel  Commented that their home is behind this business location.  Commented that they are the residents closest to the garbage/recycle containers.  Commented that the applicants spoke with someone else and not with he and his wife.  Asked for details about site lighting plans and use of security cameras, asking for assurances that the family’s privacy won’t be impacted by the cameras when using their backyard.  Commented that bottles in the disposal container could draw insects and is located close to their outdoor seating area.  Commented that they want their concerns to be captured somewhere. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked the Barthels if their concerns for noise impacts arise from the outdoor wine tastings based on volume and day of week or the entire use in general. Danijela and Juergen Barthel  Asked about plans for music and entertainment.  Commented that as it has been described this evening this use sounds very pleasing.  Commented that he did note some discrepancies between what was offered tonight with the written application. Commissioner Talesfore  Asked what parts of their home are located closest to this property line.  Commented that there appears to be no vegetation on either side of this wall. Danijela and Juergen Berthel  Commented that their son’s room and a master bedroom are located on that side of the house.  Commented there are a couple of trees on their side of the property and a few low bushes on the other side.  Commented that they can see a bit of the site lighting from their home. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 24, 2013 Jim Douglas  Commented that he’s a 20-year resident and customer of the business.  Commented the business would keep commerce within Los Gatos.  Commented the location and planned hours of operation will not be intrusive on the area. Ray Bloker  Commented that he’s a 20 year resident and customer of the business.  Commented that the tastings are more of an educational event.  Commented that neighboring businesses could benefit from the customers. Sheree Williams  Commented she is a 25-year resident and customer of the business.  Commented on keeping her sales tax money local. Dean Devincenzi  Commented that he’s not a resident of Los Gatos, but does own three restaurants in Town: Double D’s, Forbes Mill, and Palacio.  Commented that this is a good proposal and he looks forward to conducting winetasting dinners at his restaurants using their wines.  Commented that he respects the residents’ concern about trash dumping but it is routine to utilize pest control around dumpsters. Randy Bolanos  Commented that he’s a customer from San Jose.  Commented that this is an opportunity for Los Gatos to obtain a professional business and keeps the tax dollars in town. Robert Enns  Commented that he’s a 10-year resident and has children in schools near this location.  Commented that he is a customer of the business, has used their catering services, and supports the project. Marlene Rodman  Commented that she’s a 40-year resident and knows the owners.  Commented she likes their location and supports this project.  Commented that this will bring additional retail tax revenue. Al Miller  Commented that he is a long-time customer, his wife is their bookkeeper.  Commented that Artisan gives opportunities to the small wineries and breweries by featuring their product even if they can supply for only a short period of time per year. Tom Harrington  Commented that he’s a 25 year resident and a customer of Artisan.  Commented the wine tastings are not parties, but educationally structured. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 24, 2013 Pam Shepard  Commented that this business conducts discrete events and she supports the project. Isa Moe  Commented that she owns two businesses in Los Gatos.  Commented that she has attended events at Artisan.  Commented that it is in a good area. Scott Plautz  Commented he’s a 20-year resident and owns this property with a partner.  Commented that Joe Prang is a local resident and this is a good opportunity for him to establish his business at this location in the short term and relocate elsewhere after this site is ready for redevelopment.  Commented that the property was originally purchased as a redevelopment investment. Vice Chair Smith  Asked Scott Plautz if the approximately 18 foot tall monument sign on the street side would be used or removed.  Asked if the sign was internally illuminated. Scott Plautz  Commented the sign is still in place and the tenant will determine what signage is needed.  Commented that the sign is illuminated from inside. Vice Chair Smith  Asked if there would still be the opportunity for traffic to go 360 degrees around this building or would the side driveway be closed off.  Asked if the chain across one of the driveways helped to divert teenagers from using the site with their skateboards. Scott Plautz  Commented that site access would remain identical to how it was before.  Commented that the tenant could make changes or use it as it is.  Commented that the only restriction is that no changes will occur to the building itself.  Commented that the chain blocking the driveway did not divert the skateboarders. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented on the neighbors’ concerns about noise and light intrusion.  Commented that there is little vegetation there on his site.  Asked how more privacy and noise mitigation could be provided to these neighbors. Scott Plautz  Commented that Joe Prang has spoken with these neighbors.  Commented that Joe and Christine have done things to improve the site aesthetically. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 24, 2013 Terese Hall  Commented that she is a 14-year resident and a customer of Artisan.  Commented that she’s attended tastings and can vouch for the applicant’s personal integrity. Duke Lambert  Commented that he is a 22-year resident and a customer of Artisan.  Commented this business is not a chain and will be a great fit for Los Gatos Chris Tanimoto  Commented that he is a 7-year resident and supports this use permit. Rick Tinsley  Commented that he is a 12-year resident and thrilled the business is locating within his neighborhood, since there is nothing like this in Los Gatos. JB Wood  Commented that he is an 18-year resident, and co-owner of Manresa and Chavelle’s.  Commented that this is a calm business that occurs mostly during the daytime hours. Ethan Jackson  Commented that he is a customer and everything he knows about wine he learned from them.  Commented that Artisan conducts low-key and polite events. John Paulidis  Commented to the integrity and knowledge of these business owners. Kelly Douglas  Commented that she is a 20-year resident and lives near the Downtown.  Commented that she has experienced the noise impacts from Downtown patrons who park in her neighborhood.  Commented that the tasting events conducted by Artisan are low-key social events.  Commented that an occupied property is good for a neighborhood over a vacant one.  Commented that the property already looks cleaner and less abandoned.  Commented that having lighting and security cameras on site is a good thing. Joseph Prang expressed his appreciation for the support he has received this evening. Vice Chair Smith  Asked the applicant about his plans for the existing large monument sign on site.  Asked about the use of video surveillance. Joseph Prang  Commented that they’ll create an artistic sign and use the existing monument sign.  Commented that they don’t plan to leave that sign lit 24/7. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 24, 2013  Commented that they plan to utilize a motion sensor system on the back part of this building.  Commented that video will be utilized inside and in the tasting area, not in the back of the building. Vice Chair Smith  Asked about the plans for music and if it would impact them to eliminate use of music. Joseph Prang  Commented that the sound level would be such that a winemaker can be heard while explaining his processes with the tasters.  Commented that a lack of music would have an adverse impact as it helps set a mood for the tasting event. Vice Chair Smith  Asked if recycle containers could be kept locked.  Asked about the delivery of wine from their Los Gatos location to nearby local restaurants. Joseph Prang  Commented that the gate to the trash enclosure is kept locked.  Commented that deliveries would not occur often and they use mini vans rather than box trucks for their deliveries. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented on Exhibit 3 and proposed tightening conditions 5, 6 and 8.  Commented that Condition 5, referencing store deliveries, should be amended to limit the hours for deliveries to the store from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends.  Commented that Condition 6, referencing tasting event notifications, the adjacent residential neighbor should also receive notification of each outdoor tasting event.  Commented that Condition 8, referencing bottle disposal, the hours should be modified to just 10 a.m. through 6 p.m. on Sundays and from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Mondays. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented further on Condition 6, as the neighbor is asking for more specificity.  Commented that a CUP runs with the land rather than a specific operator.  Asked if they could set a specific number of tasting events, as currently the number of tasting events is left open-ended. Christine Tran and Joseph Prang  Commented that the tastings occur between 4 and 7 p.m. on Fridays and between 2 and 5 p.m. on Saturdays. However, sometimes events are held on a Tuesday or Wednesday.  Commented that they average two tastings per week on Friday and Saturday but there are exceptions.  Commented that they don’t want to see a limitation as to what days of the week that they can schedule a tasting event. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 24, 2013 Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked if they could create a maximum limit per month, perhaps 8 to 10 per month.  Asked if the applicants understand the comments and concerns over exterior lighting. That there is a difference between security and perimeter lighting.  Asked the applicants if they support an added condition regarding use of lighting. Christine Tran and Joseph Prang  Commented that the exterior lighting would not be left on 24/7.  Commented that they use sensor motion lighting in the Mountain View location and propose a similar system to that. If someone walks out back, the lights come on.  Commented that they could support an added condition regarding use of lighting. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that the proposed limitation for tastings is for the outdoor area only. If necessary, a tasting that must occur on another day could be held indoors.  Asked about the use of speakers with the outdoor music. Joseph Prang  Agreed but cautioned that many vintners prefer to be outdoors for their tastings.  Commented that they use portable speakers with an iPad. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented on the use of motion sensor lighting at the back and its impact on the rear neighbors given that their bedrooms are located on that side of their house.  Asked the applicants to work out installing some form of screening hedge with the neighbors. Joseph Prang  Commented that there is a large fence in place there already. Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Vice Chair Smith  Asked staff to clarify Condition 2 that reads, “…two years unless the approval has been vested.”  Asked if there is a process for a temporary CUP. Marni Moseley  Commented that there is not a different process for a temporary versus a normal CUP.  Commented that some CUPs have had time limits imposed. Joel Paulson  Commented that it is the same process but the Commission could forward some sort of direction for consideration by the Town Council. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 24, 2013 Judith Propp  Commented that the CUP runs with the land and could be assumed by another tenant.  Commented that there are limited reasons or rationales for Town Council to impose an expiration date for a permit that runs with the land. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented on the need for the architecture of the proposed gate to be more integrated with the overall architecture of the existing building.  Commented on the desire to provide the neighbors privacy through additional landscaping. Joel Paulson  Commented that staff will implement those added requirements.  Commented that Town Code does not allow lighting to spill off the site onto adjacent sites.  Commented that staff can look at the motion lighting that is currently there and it may need some kind of shielding device to help direct the lighting downward.  Commented that the Commission’s suggestion for added landscaping can be forwarded to Council for its consideration. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that she is looking forward to adding retail to Los Gatos Boulevard. Motion by Commissioner Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Bourgeois to recommend approval by Town Council of Conditional Use Permit U-13-014 subject to the findings in Exhibit 2 and conditions in Exhibit 3, as modified, of the staff report dated July 24, 2013. Commissioner Sayoc  Proposed modifications to the draft Conditions of Approval as follows: o Condition 5 (store delivery hours); o Condition 6 (tasting events and times with addition that adjacent neighbor be notified of each scheduled outdoor tasting event) and that when this Use Permit is brought to the Town Council the applicant will provide specifics about the number of tastings proposed; o Condition 8 (time of bottle disposal limited to Sunday and Monday); o Condition 3 add language as follows, “…non-formula retail wine…” Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked to add the following items: o The applicant is to come back with a revised gate plan when they bring this CUP to the Town Council. o Staff to review the motion lighting and potentially create a new condition pending their review. Commissioner Sayoc accepted those added items to her original motion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 24, 2013 Commissioner Talesfore  Asked if the maker of the motion and the second would support asking the Town Council to take another look at the landscaping between this site and the adjacent residential property. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that she did not want to see that added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that this would not be as a condition but rather as a direction. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that because this is a temporary use, she would hate to ask this applicant to provide landscaping that is not to their benefit in the long term.  Commented that she does ask the applicants to work with their neighbor and bring back to the Town Council any solutions reached. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that she strongly supports the motion.  Commented that she knows this is a temporary location and hopes they have a Plan B to continue business in Los Gatos for many years. Chair Erekson  Confirmed the motion maker and seconder of the motion were in agreement. Motion carried 6-0. 3. 146 Gemini Court. Subdivision Application M-12-007. Architecture and Site Applications S-12-099, S-12-100, and S-12-101. Requesting approval to subdivide one parcel into three lots, demolish two single-family residences, and construct three single-family residences on property zoned R-1:8. APN 507-64-043. PROPERTY OWNER: Amelia Gemini Investments, LLC. APPLICANT: Richard Hartman. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage Chair Erekson opened the public hearing Associate Planner Jennifer Savage presented the staff report. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that it appears per the story poles that the garage for Unit 1 is forward of the adjacent house, while on the site plan it is not. Jennifer Savage deferred to the applicant to respond. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented he reads that replacement trees are required pursuant to the Town Code but the landscaping plan is just depicting three new trees being planted. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 24, 2013  Commented that these are significant trees coming out. Will the balance of the required replacements be going into the tree fund?  Asked if it is the intention to have all required replacement trees planted on site. Jennifer Savage  Commented that this property is not in the Hillside so a more complete landscape plan was not required at this time.  Commented that at the Building Permit stage, more trees will be shown on the plan and will be required to be planted on site. Rick Hartman, Project Architect, gave a presentation. Commissioner Talesfore  Asked Mr. Hartman if the garage for Unit 1 is closer to the sidewalk than the adjacent residence.  Commented that all of the neighbors’ houses appear to be in alignment and if they are proposing to match it to the house next to it. Rick Hartman  Commented that they put the new house at a 25-foot setback.  Commented that he didn’t visit the site to see the story poles, but assumes that they were put in the right location but assured that this setback is at 25-feet. Vice Chair Smith  Asked what rooms in the new second floor include windows facing the smaller adjacent house. Rick Hartman  Commented that the room setup is to have a bed located in the middle and secondary windows on either side.  Commented that there are two bedrooms that do that on this side of the second story.  Commented that the last window is over the stairway and obscure glass is used there to ensure privacy for these homeowners. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that this elevation is facing the neighbor’s garage, which has a tree there and asked if that tree is coming down, as it would serve to screen those windows. Rick Hartman  Commented that this property has so many trees in such horrid shape.  Commented that trees (5, 6 and 7) are ranked “debatable” that he’d like to retain. There are others that are outside the building envelope they want to remove because they’re hacked up.  Commented that they would be planting nicer trees in better locations. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 July 24, 2013 Vice Chair Smith  Asked Mr. Hartman to confirm that he has met with that adjacent neighbor personally. Rick Hartman  Commented that they have met with her, shown her the design, and she’s happy with it. Commissioner Burch  Asked what is the elevation of the windows in those rooms from the inside. Rick Hartman  Commented all are set at a 6’8” height to match the door height and sills are at a 4’8” height.  Commented that these windows are not to provide vista views but rather natural light and ventilation. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked Mr. Hartman what made them decide not to include masonry for Unit 3. Rick Hartman  Commented that was simply to break it up and added the architect was ok with it. Chair Erekson  Commented that the applicant wanted these new units to fit within the existing development.  Asked how it was determined where to place single-story versus two-story units.  Asked what is the particular pattern in this neighborhood. Rick Hartman  Commented that there is a mixture of one and two-story homes.  Commented that most new homes are two-story to preserve more useable backyard space. Commissioner Talesfore  Asked how far to the side the second story feature is setback on Unit 1. Rick Hartman  Commented that there is a large one-story element before you get to the second story wall in that unit, which is set back by 10 feet. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented she observed a cohesive use of stone in this neighborhood and asked if there is anywhere on this unit that they might consider adding some stone.  Commented that down the street there are two homes without stone and don’t really fit with the neighborhood. Rick Hartman  Commented that he is open to adding a stone porch element to that home. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 July 24, 2013 Francisco Servano  Commented he’s a 15-year resident and happy the eyesore property is being developed.  Commented he’s concerned about traffic increases and that no traffic study was done. Rick Hartman  Commented that there will be just one additional house than is there today.  Commented that originally this subdivision was to have three homes on this parcel. Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that three new homes here will be a good addition.  Commented that she is not concerned about the square footage due to the massing that does not make these homes over-bearing.  Commented that she is satisfied with the setback for Unit 1.  Commented that she supports the consideration of adding stone to Unit 3 to incorporate a stone porch detail.  Commented that demolition of the existing two homes can be supported as they are being replaced with three new homes.  Commented that this project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines.  Commented that there are no findings that can be made to deny the subdivision application. Motion by Commissioner Talesfore and seconded by Commissioner Burch to approve Subdivision Application M-12-007; Architectural and Site Applications S-12-099, S-12-100 and S-12-101 subject to the findings in Exhibit 2 and conditions in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated July 24, 2013. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that she will support this but asks the applicant to remind construction workers to be aware of kids living in the neighborhood when coming and going. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that the applicant has been sensitive to the neighbor and the project is well done and appropriate. Motion carried 6-0. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. 4. 100 Heintz Court. Architecture and Site Application S-13-038. Requesting approval of a grading permit for a swimming pool and retaining walls on property zoned HR-1:PD. APN 527-19-055. PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Randy & Mona Whitney. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 July 24, 2013 Chair Erekson opened the public hearing Associate Planner Jennifer Savage presented the staff report. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that staff’s recommendation is denial and asked if staff’s view of the project has changed, given the additional desk item information provided by the applicant. Jennifer Savage  Commented that the staff recommendation was conservative per recommendations received by the Planning Commission several years ago that required any proposed pool on a slope greater than 10 percent should be brought before the Planning Commission.  Commented that they are not exceeding the 30 percent slope, but they are close.  Commented that the other conservative part of the staff recommendation comes from the pool wall heights. Although not retaining walls, staff wanted to bring those forward because they are higher than five feet.  Commented that the desk item did not alter staff’s recommendation but does give the Planning Commission cause to approve the project. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that he had trouble reading these plans and said that either a cross section or plan view would have been helpful.  Asked where the retaining wall is at five feet and what a pool wall actually means.  Asked if the pool wall means to the bottom of the pool, as it is not clear based on review of the 11 x 17 plans. Chair Erekson  Commented he had the same problem on the 11 x 17 plans. He directed the question to staff. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that he would like a response both from staff and the applicant. Jennifer Savage  Commented on the plans, indicating the walls depicted as speckled are for the flat yard and deck area and are five feet or less. She showed a larger scale plan on the overhead projector.  Commented that just two small areas are at 9 feet in height. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that a pool wall isn’t technically a retaining wall; asked staff if it complies. Jennifer Savage  Commented that this is a guideline and not a standard.  Commented that staff offered a conservative recommendation in order to bring this request to the Planning Commission for review and discussion.  Commented that while tall, it is modest in overall design area. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 July 24, 2013 John Rigo, Applicants’ Representative, Stoneridge Pools & Development, made a presentation. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that this pool is quite an engineering feat for a constrained site and asked about the use of the V-ditch. John Rigo  Commented that there are underground drains going to the V-ditch and water will be absorbed and not removed.  Commented that there has to be an under drain beneath the whole pool structure. If water ever leaks or builds up under the pool, it will dissipate out. It never holds water underneath. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked Mr. Rigo for an estimate on the amount of water being directed to that V-ditch.  Commented that there is less permeable surface on site but they’ve got water being diverted. John Rigo  Commented that when on a hillside like this, water from above is dissipated on the properties below it.  Commented that their system here is going to catch all of the water and leave it out.  Commented that they would be taking water that is currently going down through the neighborhood and putting it into the V-ditch.  Commented that they have done this for several yards where they solved existing drainage for a neighborhood. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that the concern is for the downslope neighbor and should improve the situation. John Rigo agreed. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that Mr. Rigo has made her comfortable with this application.  Asked if the placement of the pool equipment would be taken care of. John Rigo  Commented that yes, they would do whatever necessary to move it, leaving the final location up to the Town. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that the applicant has gone through a lot to make sure this project fits within a very difficult site.  Commented that it is still the philosophical idea in the Hillside Plan that if a pool is this difficult to build on a hillside then maybe it shouldn’t be placed there. That’s the underlying Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 July 24, 2013 concept behind why that language was developed in the Hillside Development and Standards Guidelines.  Commented that as he struggled with the question of why approve a pool on such a steep slope, one reason to do so is that this pool has undergone quite a bit of engineering to make it work. John Rigo  Commented that he is doing another job currently in Los Gatos that calls for 35-foot piers but at this location, most of the piers will be 15-feet.  Commented that he has had approved jobs where they are 22 feet out of the ground. It’s never been a problem. Those pools are now old and they’re still here.  Commented that this style pool is compatible for the Los Gatos Hills. Chair Erekson  Commented that the caution about building pools on hillsides was neither arbitrary nor capricious within the standards and guidelines. Another reason was to prevent problems.  Commented it could be based on trees needing to be removed to accommodate a pool.  Commented there are challenges with this parcel on what was clearly a man-made slope on which graded pads were cut to allow development, which is why staff brought this forward.  Commented that just because it is less than a 30 percent slope, does not necessary mean a site can have a pool on it, but rather provides the Planning Commission with some latitude to make a determination in this particular circumstance.  Asked staff if the challenges of this particular site have been adequately addressed. Joel Paulson  Commented yes, the engineering of this pool installation is adequate to meet the Building Code. It’s been through peer review and from a technical standpoint the pool is feasible.  Commented that from direction from the 2004 Planning Commission, anything of this nature was to be brought forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. John Rigo  Commented that every type of engineer was used for this project, including a soils engineer. The soils engineer worked directly with the homeowner and not for him. He provided the homeowner with direct proof that this would be a very safe pool for a hillside property. Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that she had been quite concerned with the 27 percent slope of this site, but is now comfortable with it. The nine-foot portion is limited and this pool makes the backyard more usable and thus improves the economic benefit for the property owner.  Commented that there are other properties like this in Los Gatos.  Commented that this is a pretty “green” pool with its use of solar heating. Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 July 24, 2013 Motion by Commissioner Talesfore and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to approve an Architecture and Site Application S-13-038 subject to the findings in Exhibit 2 and conditions in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated July 24, 2013. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that he struggled with this application, as he is protective of the hillsides and the guidelines for them, but he will support this request as it is warranted.  Commented that this is not a typical hillside lot. There is no ecology on site. The design of this pool is pretty impressive. Motion carried 6-0. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. NEW OTHER BUSINESS 5. Report from Director of Community Development Joel Paulson reported the Development Review Committee approved two projects on July 23, 2013: 1) 14180 Blossom Hill Road – Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-013 and Architecture and Site Application S-13-039 to operate a small restaurant with outdoor seating and to allow exterior alterations to a commercial building in a C-1 zone. 2) 16930 Mitchell Avenue – Architecture and Site Application S-13-051 to construct a new single-family residence and detached garage with reduced setbacks on a non- conforming lot on residential property in an RM:5-12 zone. 6. Commission Matters - None ADJOURNMENT - Meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 24, 2013 ___________________________________________ Charles Erekson, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: ____________________________________ Joel Paulson, Principal Planner