Loading...
M03-05-07 1 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MARCH 5, 2007 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, Council Member Steve Glickman, Council Member Diane McNutt, and Council Member Mike Wasserman. Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - LED BY FUTURE LEADER Brittany Nelson, Vice President, and Katie Lamson, Class Historian, both from Blossom Hill School led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. CLOSED SESSION REPORT CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Vasona Property Negotiating parties: Town of Los Gatos (Negotiator: Debra Figone, Town Manager) County of Santa Clara: (Negotiator: Pete Kutras, County Executive) Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment Mr. Korb stated that direction was given and no action was taken. 2 PRESENTATIONS Project Cornerstone - "Community Values Youth Award" Los Gatos-Saratoga Recreation Department Mayor Joe Pirzynski presented the commendation to the Los Gatos-Saratoga Recreation Department. Mr. Loya and Mr. Rauwolf accepted the "Community Values Youth Award" on behalf of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Recreation Department and the Venue/Teen Center. Mr. Loya and Mr. Rauwolf  Commented regarding the community projects hosted by the Venue/T een Center which values the teens in the community, and regarding the Town’s support of teens. Proclamation Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month Mayor Joe Pirzynski read the proclamation regarding the awareness of colorectal cancer and proclaimed March, 2007 as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. TOWN COUNCIL CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approve Council minutes of February 12, 2007 Study Session 2. Ratify payroll for the month of January 2007 3. Ratify accounts payable for the month of January 2007 4. Equipment Purchase - Adopt resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Victory Auto World Dealer Group for the purchase of one new 2007 Dodge Sprinter Van in the amount of $38,128 from the equipment replacement fund. RESOLUTION 2007-024 5. Project 06-33 - Tree Pruning and Removal. a. Adopt resolution declaring Valley Crest Tree Care Services to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project and awarding a tree pruning and removal contract in the amount of $32,890. RESOLUTION 2007-025 b. Authorize staff to issue change orders to the contract up to an amount of $5,000. 3 Consent Items Continued TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6. Approve Council/Agency minutes of February 20, 2007 . REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 7. Ratify accounts payable for January 2007. Council Member Steve Glickman pulled Consent Item# 1 Mr. Davis pulled Consent Item #6 MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman to approve Consent Items #2-5, and #7. Seconded by Council Member Steve Glickman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Davis  Commended the Council regarding the construction of the sidewalks along Blossom Hill Road.  Commented that he feels there was a discrepancy relating to the amount of the Town’s Reserves and the amount stated by the Mayor at the State of the Town Address.  Commented regarding the DeSantis project. Closed Verbal Communication PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Consider a request to modify a Conditional Use Permit (I Gatti’s) to allow the service of full liquor on property zoned C-2. APN 529-28- 037. Conditional Use Permit U-06-005. Property location: 25 E. Main Street. Property owner: Hoo Gee Hom. Applicant: I Gatti Italian Bistro, Inc. Staff report made by Randy Tsuda, Assistant Director of Community Development. 4 Public Hearings Continued – Item #8 Open Public Hearing Neda Voyles, Applicant  Commented on trying to keep up with the times and changes in the restaurant industry.  Commented regarding her family’s history in the community.  Commented that the approval would be a nice addition for the restaurant and community. Council Comment  Questioned the timeframe for the renewal of their ABC license. Closed Public Hearing Council Discussion MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Glickman to approve a request to modify a Conditional Use Permit (I Gatti’s) to allow the service of full liquor on property zoned C-2, and to add the required findings from the staff report in attachment #2. APN 529-28-037. Conditional Use Permit U-06-005. Property location: 25 E. Main Street. Property owner: Hoo Gee Hom. Applicant: I Gatti Italian Bistro, Inc. Seconded by Council Member Diane McNutt. Council Discussion  Commented regarding the Planning Commission’s concern relating to the policy for a beer and wine license being expanded to a full alcohol license.  Commented that a discussion of the alcohol policy will take place at the Council retreat on March 9 and 10, 2007.  Commented regarding the consideration given established restaurants when making alcohol policy decisions. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 5 Public Hearings Continued – Item #9 9. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request for a two lot subdivision on property zoned HR-2 ½ . No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 527-11-005. Subdivision Application M-06-4. Negative Declaration ND-06-4. Property location: 15500 Francis Oaks Way. Property owner/applicant/appellant: Mike and Ann Moffat Staff report made by Randy Tsuda, Assistant Director of Community Development. Council Comments  Clarification regarding the slope density formula.  Questioned the Planning Commission’s facts for denial of the proposed project.  Questioned if the subdivision plans were to be considered this evening.  Clarification regarding the consistency between the General Plan, Hillside Guidelines and Development Standards, and the Town’s Zoning Code relating to the proposed project.  Questioned if the Planning Commission considered the conceptual design issues relating to the subdivision map.  Questioned if the applicant felt committed to a smaller design for the home. Mr. Korb  Clarified the Town Code relating to the findings for the application. Council Comments  Questioned the minimum lot size relating to the lot.  Clarification regarding the Town Code policies relating to the slope density formula.  Questioned if the second lot would be considered a buildable site on the property. Mr. Korb Clarified how the slope density formula is determined in the Town Code. 6 Public Hearing Continued – Item #9 Council Comments  Questioned if the house could be redesigned smaller to fit on the second parcel.  Clarification regarding the formula for slope density relating to the second parcel.  Commented regarding the inconsistency between the Hillside Guidelines and the Town’s Zoning Code relating to slope density formula for hillsides.  Commented regarding lot size and parcel size relating to the amount of dwellings which could be built on a site.  Suggested that the General Plan Committee review the General Plan and Hillside Standards and Guidelines f or clearer language relating to discrepancies regarding the slope density formula. Open Public Hearing Mr. Moffat, Applicant  Commented regarding the issues relating to the General Plan.  Commented on addressing the neighbors’ concerns relating to the project.  Commented that they have followed all requests from the Community Development Department relating to the proposed project.  Commented that the proposed project complies with the Hillside Standards.  Commented regarding the decrease in the lot size.  Commented regarding the conceptual design of the home.  Commented regarding the concerns for the large oak tree on the site. Council Comments  Questioned slope density and setback requirements.  Questioned where the setback measurements begin. Ms. McLaughlin  Commented against the proposed subdivision.  Commented that a previous owner was not allowed to sub divide that lot.  Commented that she feels that the proposed setbacks are inconsistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Mclaughlin  Commented against the proposed subdivision.  Commented regarding the Hillside Standards relating to the proposed project.  Commented on conflicts relating to the private roads.  Commented that he feels that the lot is not a sub-dividable lot. 7 Public Hearings Continued – Item #9 Mr. Harwin  Commented against the proposed subdivision.  Commented that the proposed project does not meet the minimum requirements to qualify for the slope density formula.  Commented regarding the 2004 Hillside Standards and Guidelines relating to the buildable sites on the property. Mr. Weissman  Commented against the proposed subdivision.  Commented that he feels the proposed project does not meet requirements relating to the Hillside Guidelines.  Suggested that the lot is inappropriate for a subdivision. Mr. Davis  Commented against the proposed subdivision.  Commented that the Town Code conflicts with the slope density guidelines.  Commented that there was no verbal report from the Planning Commission.  Commented that he feels that staff had made recommendations relating to the proposed project. Ms. Quintana  Commented regarding the discussion of log notes by the Planning Commission.  Commented regarding the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size.  Commented regarding the use of the Hillside Guidelines. Mr. Moffat, Applicant  Commented regarding the timeframe in which the property became sub dividable.  Commented on the different setbacks in the neighborhood.  Commented regarding scenic easements.  Requested that Council give direction to Planning Commission if the project is remanded.  Commented on the setbacks and conceptual home design relating to the proposed project.  Commented regarding the year the current home on the property was built.  Questioned the 30% slopes on the property.  Commented regarding the previous owner's land use issues. Closed Public Hearing 8 Public Hearings Continued – Item #9 Council Discussion  Commented regarding presentation of the conceptual design of the home and the ability to subdivide.  Commented on the new acreage proposal and new plans submitted to the Community Development Department.  Clarification regarding the accuracy of the slope as measured.  Questioned if the lot is buildable and sub dividable by the Town’s regulations.  Commented regarding the determination whether the Planning Commission erred.  Commented that the Planning Commission had the facts to make the finding under the State Subdivision Map Act "C", that the site is not physically suitable for that type development; that the site was too close to street, the issue of the tree, lot was too narrow, and lack of outdoor space.  Commented that there should be some idea of what the home will be like when making Subdivision decision. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Barbara Spector remand back to Planning Commission with the new plans and new layout. Request that the Planning Commission review the entire application with the new plans and pursue the application with the ordinances that are in place at this time. Motion is to include the finding that the Planning Commission did not err. Seconded by Council Member Steve Glickman. Council Discussion  Suggested that every precaution is looked into relating to the parcel being a buildable site.  Requested giving clear direction to the Planning Commission regarding Council concerns relating to the size of the lot and creating a lot that is buildable.  Questioned the analysis relating to calculations for the slope density formula.  Commented on sending direction to the planning Commission suggesting that by approval of the motion, Council is agreeing that there is new information relating to the application.  Commented that the conceptual design of the home does not guarantee the size of the home that could be built on the site.  Commented that language relating to the proposal be completely analyzed by the Planning Commission. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Joe Pirzynski called for a recess. 9 Public Hearings Continued – Item #10 10. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to approve exterior modifications to a commercial building and to modify an existing conditional use permit to allow expansion of an existing restaurant (Vittoria) and a change in alcohol service on property zoned C-2. APN 510-44-033, 034, and 035. Conditional Use Permit U-07-09. Architecture and Site Application S-07-12. Property location: 23-27 N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property owner/applicant/appellant: Santa Cruz Real, LLC Staff report made by Randy Tsuda, Assistant Director of Community Development. Council Comments  Clarification regarding loss of a potential retail space to restaurant space.  Clarification regarding the available space at the time Apple Computer h ad submitted their application.  Questioned the findings for the Architecture and Site Application and the appeal.  Clarification regarding the findings relating to the Conditional Use Permit and the Architectural and Site Application. Open Public Hearing Mr. Giovannotto, Applicant  Requested approval of a liquor license and approval of a larger space.  Commented that the space in the back of the restaurant has always been used for storage and food preparation.  Commented that the addition to the restaurant is very small.  Commented that he feels he has a unique situation relating to the space surrounding his restaurant.  Commented that the restaurant is allowed 84 seats per the parking requirements.  Commented that there would never be a bar since the size of the restaurant is so small and hours of operation would not be conductive to bar operation.  Commented that the space in question has never been used for retail. Council Comment  Questioned the public safety record relating to the restaurant’s previous alcohol use. Mr. Tsuda  Commented that the restaurant has a clean record regarding public safety. 10 Public Hearings Continued – Item #10 Mr. Arzie  Commented regarding the previous retail spaces at that location.  Commented regarding the extra seating from the previous restaurant.  Commented regarding acoustics in the restaurant. Mr. Giovannotto  Commented regarding the space leased by Apple Computer.  Commented regarding the acoustics in the restaurant, and commented that the only way to improve it would be to widen the space. Council Comments  Questioned the Conditional Use Permit relating to alcohol use for the establishment.  Questioned if applicant would consider adding a phrase to the Conditional Use Permit stating that a bar shall not be permitted in the premises.  Commented that the conditions of approval only allow alcohol with food service.  Questioned if alcohol could be served as customers were waiting for a seat. Closed Public Hearing Council Discussion  Commented regarding policies relating to retail uses.  Commented that the request for alcohol use is consistent with the General plan and the Alcohol Use policy.  Requested clarification from applicant regarding possible approval of either the Conditional Use Permit for alcohol or the restaurant expansion. Re-Open Public Hearing Mr. Giovannotto, Applicant  Clarified that they would like to continue with application for the alcohol use even if the expansion issue was denied. Closed Public Hearing MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to approve the change in alcohol service under U-07-09. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 11 Public Hearings Continued – Item #10 Council Discussion  Commented that the alcohol policy is scheduled for discussion at the council retreat this weekend.  Commented regarding the expansion of the space in the rear of the restaurant.  Clarification regarding emergency exits and restrooms if the appeal was denied. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt approve the Architectural and Site and Conditional Use Permit applications as proposed with the findings as listed:  The project is categorically exempt from environmental review.  The proposed use of the property is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare.  The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the zone.  The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan and purposes of the Town Code.  The basis for reversal is that an error was made by the Planning Commission relating to a policy decision. Seconded by Council Member Steve Glickman. Council Discussion  Commented regarding the change of fact relating to the Planning Commission’s decision.  Commented regarding supporting the motion.  Commented that the issue of policy should not be the Planning Commission’s role.  Commented regarding the successful balance of retail and restaurants in the downtown area. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 12 PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Consent Item #1 Approve Council minutes of February 12, 2007 Study Session. Council Member Steve Glickman  Commented that he felt there was a lack of content under "Council Comments" relating to the February 12, 2007 study session. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to approve Consent Item #1. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed 4/1. Council Member Steve Glickman voting no. Consent Item #6 Approve Council/Agency minutes of February 20, 2007. Mr. Davis  Commented regarding the lack of information in action only minutes in general.  Commented that he feels written minutes are the only archival minutes.  Commented that the minutes from February 20, 2007 were exceptional.  Commented regarding the lack of information relating to the State of the Town Address. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman approve Consent Item #6. Seconded by Council Member Diane McNutt. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS None this evening. 13 COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 11. Council Matters Council Member Barbara Spector  Requested that the two ordinances relating to slope density and land area and the provision in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines relating to land use be sent to the General Plan Committee for review and consistency. Mayor Joe Pirzynski supported the request. Mr. Glickman  Commented regarding the approval of the Apple Store and the denial of the American Apparel application.  Commented that both stores are formula stores.  Commented on his concerns regarding the denial of stores relating to teens.  Questioned if Los Gatos is a teen friendly Town.  Would like to see more actions to make the Town a kid friendly one. Mr. Pirzynski  Clarified that the downtown area has been saturated with apparel shops and has no electronics.  Commented that Apple Computer will be popular with teens.  Commented that he feels that Council Member Glickman had overstated his case and underestimated the community.  Commented that this is not an agendized matter. Mr. Wasserman  Commented regarding kid related projects going on in Town.  Commented on the youth sports programs in Town.  Commented that the Youth Commission is a community benefit.  Commented that the Town’s Teen Center was recognized for their youth programs. Mr. Glickman Commented that he feels the Town Government does not support teens. Mayor Joe Pirzynski  Reminded Council that this is not an agendized matter. 14 12. Manager Matters None this evening. ADJOURNMENT Attest: Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator