Loading...
Minutes - 08-28-13 - PC Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 August 28, 2013 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 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 Thomas O’Donnell, Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore None Others: Community Development Director Sandy Baily, Planning Manager Joel Paulson, Associate Planner Marni Moseley, Captain Michael D’Antonio, and Town Attorney Judith Propp PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Vice Chair Smith APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 24 AND AUGUST 14, 2013 Vice Chair Smith  Commented that although she was not at the August 14, 2013, meeting, she has reviewed the minutes. Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to approve meeting minutes of July 24, 2013, and August 14, 2013. Motion carried 7-0. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 28, 2013 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Preservation Committee Commissioner O’Donnell  Reported that the HPC met on August 28, 2013, to consider three items.  Commented that the HPC recommended approval of an awning for a new men’s store at 35 W. Main Street.  Commented that the HPC recommended the DRC allow the demolition of a pre-1941 residence located at 16560 Shannon Road.  Commented that paint color changes were reviewed for 23-35 University Avenue (at the newer portion of Old Town). Some of the proposed colors were unacceptable so HPC asked the applicant to return with more details and colors. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR – NONE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 17265 Wedgewood Avenue. Architecture and Site Application S-12-094. Requesting approval to demolish a pre-1941 single-family residence and to construct a new residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 409-14-008. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Kamran Shafiei. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley. Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. Vice Chair Smith  Asked if the additional comments from Mr. Cannon dated August 8, 2013, were incorporated into the latest plan set dated August 20, 2013. Marni Mosely replied that all recommendations were incorporated. Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Kamran Shafiei, Property Owner and Applicant, gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented he was pleased with the changes made and the outreach efforts. Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Talesfore to approve Architecture and Site Application S-12-094, subject to the findings in Exhibit 2 and conditions in Exhibit 3, of the staff report dated August 14, 2013, with the added comment that the project is in compliance with the design guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 28, 2013 Motion carried 7-0. Planning Manager Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 36 Peralta. Tree Removal Permit T-13-070. Appeal of a decision by the Community Development Director denying a Tree Removal Permit on property zoned R-1:8. APN 510-42-034. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPELLANT: John and Marni Balletto. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley. Chair Erekson opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report. Cynthia Mertens, Representative for the Property Owners/Appellants, gave a presentation. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked why the offered alternatives to the removal of this tree were not pursued.  Asked the period of time during which this damage occurred and when the issues with the foundation of the garage were discovered. Cynthia Mertens  Commented that a Variance would be required to move the garage and would not be consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood.  Commented that chopping roots could make the tree unstable.  Commented that retention efforts would be expensive and not certain to be successful.  Commented that the garage was constructed about 50 to 60 years ago and she does not know the amount of time that led to the existing condition of the garage but the Ballettos have owned the home for three or four years. Commissioner Talesfore  Asked why Ms. Mertens is acting as the Ballettos’ representative. Cynthia Mertens  Commented that she is an attorney and has known them for many years. Gilbert Decker  Commented that the Town works hard to save its trees  Commented that there are alternatives to removal available.  Spoke in favor of retention of the tree. Mark Wainright  Commented that he is 31 year resident of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 28, 2013  Commented that he researched Town Permits and believes this structure was a carport that was later turned into a garage and is not a permitted structure.  Spoke against removal of this tree. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked Mr. Wainright to leave copies of his information with staff. Sandy Decker  Commented that a circa 1940’s photo shows this tree and that is 76 years before the unreinforced concrete garage slab was poured.  Commented that the tree is more than 100 years old and received an 85 rating out of a possible 100.  Commented that 4 of 5 arborists are recommending retention.  Commented that the tree helps to purify the air and there is an ordinance in place to protect it.  Spoke against removal of the tree. Cynthia Mertens  Commented that the Ballettos respect the Town’s ordinances and trees as well.  Commented that this structure is becoming unsound because of this tree and the alternatives offered to retain the tree are economically disastrous.  Commented that the Code allows approval of a tree removal permit if the tree is causing structural damage. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked if the tree trimming that occurred recently was after the inspections.  Asked if the trimming impacted the tree structurally or aesthetically. Marni Mosely  Commented that she believes the trimming occurred prior to the inspections but would ask Arborist Debbie Ellis to confirm that.  Commented that she was informed of the trimming but not the specific date that it was done. Debbie Ellis, Consulting Arborist for Town of Los Gatos  Commented that she did not think she saw any recent trimming and that her last site visit was on July 16, 2013.  Commented that she believes the pruning occurred after that site visit. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked if it is common for an arborist to testify about impacts of roots on structures and how long Ms. Ellis has been a practicing arborist and if she had evaluated impacts of a tree on a structure during her years as an arborist.  Asked if such a structural evaluation is something an arborist is taught or learns over time.  Asked if she saw roots from the tree when the L-shaped portion of the concrete was taken out. Did she conclude that roots caused the cracks in the concrete.  Asked if she observed whether the trunk of the tree was impinging on the side of the garage. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 28, 2013  Commented that one arborist has said that the root flare was pushing in on the wall of the garage so there was some deformation. Was that also Ms. Ellis’ impression? Debbie Ellis  Commented that she has been an arborist for more than 30 years and has evaluated a structure for tree root impacts many times.  Commented that if one sees roots near the point where there are cracks, it is logical to presume that the trees caused those cracks and she could see roots when the section of the slab was removed.  Commented that a large buttress root can be seen outside the garage that enters beneath the slab. It is about 8-inches in diameter.  Commented that it was more the root collar of the tree (where the buttress roots flare from the trunk) that was contacting the slab.  Commented that she would have to go back and read her complete report to respond to the question of the wall deformation. Agreed that she had noted the window of the garage was no longer square. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that Ms. Ellis’ report indicates that the buttress root could be retained and covered by a steel plate or PVC pipe and inquired how that would help this situation.  Asked Ms. Ellis to provide an estimated percentage of certainty between 1 and 100 that the tree caused damage to the garage.  Commented that the option for minimizing impacts from the tree with the installation of a steel plate is available. Debbie Ellis  Commented that once a steel plate is installed, a structure could be built upon it. However, this is a technique for extraordinary situations and not typically in a situation like this.  Commented that it appears the large buttress root is causing damage to that slab.  Commented that the installation of the plate would not minimize the existing damage but it would help if something were to be rebuilt in its place. That’s a way to preserve the roots while building a foundation on top of them. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that another arborist estimated that this tree grew by two feet per year.  Asked how the remedial action proposed accounts for continuing growth, if it would be difficult to calculate where the roots would go and if there could be additional roots growing under this structure. Debbie Ellis  Replied yes. It would be difficult to calculate where the roots could go in the future and agreed it is highly likely that there are many additional roots under the concrete slab. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that everything has a lifespan. Even a concrete slab has a 40 to 50-year span. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 28, 2013  Asked if it were possible that with a new slab this structure would last another 40 to 50 years or would problems caused by the roots reoccur more quickly than that. Debbie Ellis  Commented that there are studies that calculate how long it takes before roots cause additional damage after remediation. It is commonly quoted to be 7 years.  Commented that in this situation it is likely to recur. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked staff to comment on the permits found by Mr. Wainwright and the issue of carport versus garage. Marni Moseley  Commented that permits from that period are different from today. It is unclear whether it was for a garage or carport as the same permit was issued for both at that time. Vice Chair Smith  Asked about the options available to the homeowner if they were to attempt to build a garage somewhere else on their property.  Commented that the existing site plan would not allow this garage to be relocated. Marni Moseley  Commented that staff does not actually have an existing site plan for the property.  Commented that the house steps closer to the property line the closer one gets to the garage. The garage is 3 to 5 feet from the property line.  Commented that there are Building Code issues in moving the garage forward and it would require consideration of Exceptions and/or Variances to allow it. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that people would love to save this tree and the Commission’s duty is to either grant or deny removal of this tree.  Commented that there is no question from the experts that the roots are causing damage but the things that “could” be done are not within the Commission’s purview. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that the required standards of review include proximity to structure. It is logical to presume this tree is causing damage.  Commented that this tree is a significant one in a neighborhood dominated by mature trees.  Commented that he is having trouble granting this appeal as there are reasonable things that could be done to preserve it. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that there is nothing in the record that says what reasonable thing would be possible. There is no cost data and reminded that it is infeasible to move this garage. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 28, 2013  Commented that a proportional judgment must be made between the size of this tree versus the cost of any imposed remediation. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that she is not convinced that only roots caused this situation with the garage. The unsupported 50-plus-year-old concrete was installed without supporting rebar.  Commented that this is a heritage oak tree that is about 100 years old and there are options available to retain it. It would not be cheap to cut it down either.  Commented that the Town often designs around trees. Trees represent the ambiance and character of the Town. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that the arborist spoke of trunk flare that is touching the outside wall and the trunk base that is leaning into the structure.  Commented that she is struggling with her decision about removal, as she loves trees, as well as with the standards of review. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that creative solutions could be considered to deal with the tree growing into the garage wall. Perhaps an alcove could be cut into the garage wall.  Commented that all options have not been fully explored as to retaining this tree.  Commented that she cannot support this appeal. Commissioner Bourgeois  Stated that he concurs that there are no costs provided to compare options.  Commented that Exceptions have been granted for lesser reasons than to save such a significant tree. Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Talesfore to deny an appeal as the required findings in Exhibit 2 could not be met and there has not been enough information provided on options for retention of this tree. Motion carried 4-3; with Chair Erekson, Vice Chair Smith and Commissioner O’Donnell voting against. Planning Manager Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. Chair Erekson called for a brief recess at 8:04 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 28, 2013 3. Town Code Amendment Regarding Home Occupation Permits, Duties of Council and Planning Commission, and Land Use Regulations for Businesses Engaged in the Sales of Firearms and Ammunition. Zoning Code Amendment Application A-13-01. Consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding: (1) home occupation permits; (2) land use regulations related to the sales of firearms, ammunition and /or destructive devices, revocations; and (3) duties of the Planning Commission and Town Council. It has been determined that this project could not possibly have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061(b)(3)). LOCATION: Town-wide. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos. PROJECT PLANNER: Sandy Baily Chair Erekson opened the public hearing Community Development Director Sandy Baily presented the staff report. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that the map (Exhibit 4) is confusing as it appears that Templar will become a non-conforming use.  Asked why one particular parcel was chosen.  Asked staff to clarify that the issue of amortization time frames will be left up to the Town Council. Sandy Baily  Commented that this is a Town-wide Ordinance rather than considering specific locations.  Commented that Council would welcome any comments and/or recommendations from the Planning Commission on the issue of amortization. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked the Town Attorney to give an opinion on the 60-day amortization period mentioned. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that there is no set formula but rather it would be case specific. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that some uses may be granted an extended amortization period, while others are given 60 days.  Commented that staff has not yet identified in what cases a shorter timeframe for amortization might be applied.  Commented that in the Downtown, non-conforming uses exist without an end date. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked staff to provide a definition of Downtown Area.  Commented on existing non-conforming uses that may be annexed into the Town. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 28, 2013  Asked if rather than getting 20 years to conform, would non-conforming uses within a residence that has been annexed into Town automatically be required to cease because their use is prohibited from being in a residence?  Commented that per the map provided, three sites are identified.  Asked if those owners were notified that their zoning could change as well as owners of the surrounding properties. Sandy Baily  Commented that the Downtown Area and Central Business District are two different areas. The Downtown area goes to Blossom Hill Road.  Commented that the amortization will depend upon how the ordinance is written.  Commented that the site zoning for these locations is not changing. What is changing are the uses permitted within that zoning.  Commented that this is a Town-wide ordinance so notices were not sent but rather this hearing was advertised in the newspaper and outreach done on the What’s New website. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that her concern with a Town-wide policy is the lessons learned from the Affordable Housing Policy that when a site is identified that may have a change, the residents surrounding those parcels have a lot to say about it.  Expressed concern that there was no targeted notification especially since it is only for three sites within the Town. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that most questions have been asked and answered.  Commented that with the map provided, there are three parcels throughout the Town where firearm sales would be allowed but other language reads that additional parcels not shown on the map may be available for retail firearm sales (per page 4 of the staff report).  Commented that this is a very nebulous statement that confused him and asked for clarification of Permitted Uses-Subsection B.  Commented that for some parcels the setback line bisects the parcel, perhaps just touches the corner of it. Depending on the specific location of the building, that space may also be eligible. Sandy Baily  Commented that the distance is measured from wall areas and the buffer zone could possibly extend onto another parcel. Commissioner Sayoc  Asked for clarification that an existing use that had not previously required a Conditional Use Permit would not have to secure one unless their use is modified or expanded.  Asked if that also includes simply a change in ownership. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 28, 2013 Sandy Baily  Said that changes to the existing use that might trigger further review could include additions to the facility, a change in use, and/or a change in operator. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that he thought that a Conditional Use Permit ran with the land. Sandy Baily  Commented that there are different firearm sale licenses and that a license change for the operator would trigger additional Town review. Judith Propp  Commented that when the Town Council adopted the requirements for a permit for firearm sales, it addressed the issue of when those permits would have to come back to the Town Council for further hearings. One trigger was the change of ownership of the business. It has nothing to do with land use but more as a part of the regulatory permit.  Commented that it was contemplated that change in ownership would be a change of use that would also allow the Town Council to look at the land use issues. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked if that occurred after the Conditional Use Permit was granted to Templar.  Commented that typically a Conditional Use Permit runs with the land and that an ownership change does not impact it.  Commented that there appears to be a conflict in what is being said. It is his understanding that if Templar were to change ownership, it would require reapplication with the Town. Judith Propp  Commented that there was no Conditional Use Permit issued for Templar.  Commented that Town-wide, for any use that becomes non-conforming, a period of time will be determined as to if and when that use would need to come into conformance within a specified period of time. Town Council has not yet determined that time period.  Commented that if a determination is made that a business is non-conforming, that use becomes non-conforming and the Town Council will address what that triggers. The way the ordinance currently reads, that would not trigger a Conditional Use Permit.  Commented that staff will not know until the Council makes a determination. Sandy Baily  Commented that per Item 5, Section A-1 of the staff report, any change in the type of firearms license, certificate of eligibility or any other required State license or permit would require a review of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that if adopted, he assumes that the only such existing use in Town would become non-conforming and that a change of ownership requiring some sort of new Federal or State certification would be enough to require a new application for that use. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 August 28, 2013  Commented that the Town may not know if a new firearm sales license is issued or if a business has been sold. Judith Propp  Commented that the Town doesn’t regulate how ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) views applications for Federal firearms licenses or the State governs its certificate of eligibility but if either license must be changed it would trigger review by the Town.  Commented that if such a business were sold, a new certificate of eligibility and Federal firearms licensing would be required. Captain Michael D’Antonio, Los Gatos Police Department  Commented that any time a firearms business is sold or the entities of that business are changed, they would have to apply for a new firearms license. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that because there is pending legislation that may require all current stores selling firearms to apply for or expand their licensing or permits, if that legislation is adopted, any retail outlet currently operating in Town could be brought back before the Town Council.  Asked if that is correct. Judith Propp  Commented that the Federal and State governments govern most of the regulations regarding firearms.  Commented that the State has carved out a few exceptions in land use whereby a local jurisdiction can exercise its own discretion to adopt regulatory permits.  Commented that Vice Chair Smith is correct that if the State or Federal laws change in a way that applies to an existing business, the Town’s ordinances would apply accordingly. Chair Erekson  Commented that the Commission is not considering a specific application or business here or whether the Town should or should not sell firearms. The Commission is focusing its consideration to proposed changes to the Town Code. Gilbert Decker  Commented that he served in the Army with responsibilities for acquisition of high volume weapons. He does not feel that automatic weapons are needed by civilians at their residences or belong in the hands of the average citizen, and that the sale of massive weapons should be forbidden within a local gun store. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that California is already more restrictive than other states.  Commented that this issue of high volume weapons sales is not what is being dealt with through this ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 August 28, 2013 Judith Propp  Commented that it is outside of the purview of the Zoning Ordinance to regulate what types of weapons specifically could be sold. Deborah Weinstein  Commented that she has received messages from about 27 other people in this community who wanted to be here tonight but could not be.  Commented that this Commission should provide its input to the Town Council on the different options. For example, the 60-day period should be the time frame by which a Use Permit application should be submitted once a use becomes non-conforming.  Commented that staff has stated that Templar is not within the Downtown and questions that. Shannon Susick  Commented that the issue of Internet sales in addition to retail sales has not been mentioned and that is important to consider as well.  Commented that per the Templar website, they offer automatic weapons and will ship those as well as bulk ammo.  Commented that the last thing Los Gatos wants is to have a weapon used in the next tragedy to have been purchased from Templar. Jess Guy  Commented that Templar’s license does not allow them to sell to individuals on-line but rather just to other licensed dealers.  Commented that he is glad that the laws are complex. He is a former ATF agent who is now an attorney with the Public Defender’s Office. He added that the proposal for this ordinance is not bad and that requiring a Conditional Use Permit is a good idea and the appropriate approach but thinks this issue should not be so divisive.  Commented that it took Templar a million dollars to set up its business. It would be unreasonable to require them to move elsewhere within a 60-day period.  Commented that since the DMV Office is across the street from Templar and is a governmental office, is that not already making them non-conforming? Chair Erekson  Commented that in the Definitions Section of the draft ordinance, Internet transactions are referenced on the first page of Exhibit A (4th paragraph). Vice Chair Smith  Asked Captain D’Antonio if additional licensing is required for a firearms dealer to also sell on the Internet. Michael D’Antonio  Commented that he is not sure. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 August 28, 2013 Judith Propp  Commented that neither the Town Council nor the Ad Hoc Committee directed staff to look at Internet sales. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that the reason for her questions is because any change to a business structure and/or license would bring the use back to the Town for permission. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that normally when an ordinance such as this is drafted staff takes into consideration what has been adopted by other jurisdictions.  Commented that the amortization period could range from 20 years to as short as 60 days and the Town Council will decide how this would be applied but the Planning Commission can offer suggestions. Judith Propp  Commented that information from other jurisdictions in California with similar zoning and Use Permit requirements was researched.  Commented that suggestions by the Planning Commission would be relayed to Council. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that she questions the difference between terms used this evening. One is “modified high volume weapons” as mentioned by a speaker and the other is “destructive devices” as appears in the definitions.  Asked if destructive devices include modified high volume weapons.  Asked what are the exact boundaries that comprise the Los Gatos Downtown. Judith Propp  Commented that the ordinance adopted in August had defined terms and descriptions.  Commented that there is a separate type of Federal Firearms license and Federal law defines the types of weapons that can be sold. Sandy Baily  Commented that the Central Business District is the C-2 zoning that is south of Highway 9. The Downtown Area encompasses a larger area going outward from Main Street to Los Gatos Boulevard, down to Blossom Hill Road and down to University and Winchester. It also encompasses the Central Business District.  Commented that the Downtown definition is important because that is what regulates the parking Downtown. Commissioner Sayoc  Said that regarding amortization of existing uses, there is so much information that she wishes was readily available. There are three options offered and there are pros and cons to each. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 August 28, 2013  Asked staff if, based on their research of other communities, they can advise the Commission what amortization periods other jurisdictions have for non-conforming uses; if there are different regulatory requirements for a commercial retail business to follow versus retail done from one’s home; and how selling firearms from a home using the Internet would fall under this draft ordinance, saying that one can’t just separate retail from Internet sales.  Commented that she understands that currently there is no such home firearm use but is concerned about when one might be annexed into the Town of Los Gatos. How much time should the Town give that homeowner to amortize? Are their regulation uses different? Michael D’Antonio  Commented that the Federal Government has different licenses.  Commented that for home uses, the license is called FFL3 and would include curio and collector licenses and not a retail license. This license gives collectors the opportunity to trade items with other FFL3 license holders. Sandy Baily  Said that staff would have to give some more consideration to the issue of home occupations and provide the answers to the Town Council. Vice Chair Smith  Asked if there is a special license to sell high capacity firearms.  Asked Captain D’Antonio for his opinion on the different options on page 10 as they relate to both home-based and brick and mortar business locations in regards to how much time the Commission should recommend the Town Council allow for amortization of non-conforming uses.  Commented that a non-conforming home business is different from a non-conforming commercial business location with a big difference in the investment made by a brick and mortar location as compared to a home location. Michael D’Antonio  Commented that there are several different Federal firearm licenses but he is not an expert in defining those.  Commented that his presence at this evening’s meeting is from the standpoint of public safety issues within the Town of Los Gatos. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that when he was studying law, amortization had to be reasonable.  Commented that the period for a home-based business could be short but the Commission doesn’t have to reach this decision tonight but rather can see what the Town Council decides especially since three of the Planning Commissioners are stumbling over that issue.  Asked the Town Attorney for her opinion. Judith Propp  Commented that the issue before the Commission this evening is the land use and not a policy issue. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 August 28, 2013  Commented that Commissioner O’Donnell is correct that courts look to reasonableness on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Burch  Asked about the Town’s procedure when a Conditional Use Permit is proposed within 250 feet of an existing business.  Asked about established grounds to base the suspension or revocation of an existing use upon. Sandy Baily  Commented that it is the deciding body’s evaluation that is applied and the basis for decisions is already established in the Code.  Commented that consideration of the triggers for additional Conditional Use Permit review would be for the Town Council to decide. Commissioner O’Donnell  Asked for the reasoning behind prohibiting uses located near schools and/or government buildings.  Commented that it makes more sense not to allow some uses to establish near existing gun sale locations.  Commented that some uses go in without need for a Use Permit if it is an allowed use in that zone. Sandy Baily  Commented that is a part of the application evaluation process.  Commented that most youth-oriented businesses require a Conditional Use Permit including dance or karate studios or a school. Commissioner Bourgeois  Asked what if a use, such as the ballet school, goes out of business.  Commented that there has been a lot of discussion over things this Commission is not obligated to comment upon. The Ad Hoc Committee did an admirable job and has come up with a good and reasonable approach. Sandy Baily  Advised that the same or a similar use would be allowed to go into that location within one year. Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Chair Erekson to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to adopt this amendment as outlined in Exhibit 3 with the findings for consistency with the General Plan outlined in Exhibit 2. Commissioner Talesfore  Commented that this should go forward to Council and she agrees the Ad Hoc Committee did a great job developing this series of amendments to existing land use codes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 August 28, 2013  Commented on the amortization issue by saying that 60 days is too little time and 20 years is too much. She would recommend that the Town Council go somewhere in the middle. Commissioner Sayoc  Commented that the Ad Hoc Committee did a great job on a controversial and complicated subject and pointed out that there are three sites within the Town where retail firearms sales could be permitted through issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.  Commented that her concern is the notification process going forward and said that she is not supportive of the overall recommendations.  Asked that whether Templar is considered to be within the Downtown be clarified. Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Chair Erekson to modify their original motion to recommend that the Town Council consider requiring more targeted noticing be sent to surrounding property owners of sites impacted by the changes. Vice Chair Smith  Commented that when the Town Council determines the amortization period, the difference in investment between a brick and mortar location and home-based business should be considered. Commissioner O’Donnell  Commented that he would support the motion but has more questions than answers.  Commented that he is glad to send this on to the Town Council. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Sayoc voting against. Commissioner Bourgeois  Commented that he agrees the amortization options should be different between home-based versus brick and mortar business locations. He added that 60 days is not reasonable but neither is in perpetuity. The question remains what number of years is reasonable and it’s probably some middle ground.  Commented that there are only three qualifying parcels in the Town. Sandy Baily  Commented that the Town Council would set specific time frames for the amortization periods. NEW OTHER BUSINESS 4. Report from Director of Community Development Sandy Baily reported that at the last Town Council meeting, the retail wine business proposed for 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard was approved. The Council commended the Planning Commission for its thorough evaluation of the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 August 28, 2013 5. Commission Matters - None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 28, 2013 ___________________________________________ Charles Erekson, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Joel Paulson Planning Manager