Loading...
Draft Mins 05.23.12Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 May 23, 2012 DRAFT TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012 Chair Marcia Jensen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Marcia Jensen, Vice Chair Charles Erekson, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell, Commissioner Marico Sayoc, Commissioner Margaret Smith, and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore. Absent: None Others: Community Development Director Wendie Rooney, Town Attorney Judith Propp, Planning Manager Sandy Baily, Senior Planner Suzanne Avila, Associate Planner Jennifer Savage, Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia, and Recording Secretary Linda Rowlett. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Chair Marcia Jensen noted that there was a desk item for Item #3. REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Preservation Committee - Commissioner Charles Erekson reported that the committee met this afternoon to review an Architecture and Site Application for 238 Bachman Avenue to demolish a two-family dwelling. This item was continued due to a lack of a quorum because some committee members had to recuse themselves. The committee also had a discussion regarding the demolition of a residence at 16922 Mitchell Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 23, 2012 General Plan Committee - Commissioner John Bourgeois reported that the committee met this afternoon and continued discussion on the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and on the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Design Guidelines. North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee - Commissioner Marico Sayoc reported that the committee met on May 16 to continue discussion on the Six Principal Land Use Categories. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2012 Motion by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore and seconded by Commissioner Margaret Smith to approve meeting minutes of May 9, 2012. Motion carried 7-0. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. *109 Sund Avenue - Architecture and Site Application S-12-024. Requesting approval to construct an addition to a single family residence resulting in a floor area over 5,000 square feet on property zoned HR-1. APN 529-39-041. PROPERTY OWNER: Marthin and Karin D. De Beer. APPLICANT: Scott Cunningham PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila. Motion by Vice Chair Charles Erekson and seconded by Commissioner Marico Sayoc to approve Consent Item #1. Motion carried 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 14251 Winchester Boulevard - Conditional Use Permit Application U-11-020, Architecture & Site Application S-11-091. Requesting approval to demolish an existing office building and construct a new office building on property zoned C-1. APN: 406-30- 011. PROPERTY OWNER: Khojasteh Family Trust. APPLICANT: John Lien. PROJECT PLANNER: Heather Bradley. (Continued from 4/25/12) Chair Marcia Jensen opened the public hearing. John Lien, Applicant, summarized the changes that were made per the Commission’s direction on April 25. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Asked about the setback on Winchester Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 23, 2012 John Lien  Commented that the project meets the required setback from the property line of 15 feet. The difference is the public sidewalk will be located partly on their property but there is no change in the property line location. The proposed building is 8-10 feet closer to the street than the existing building. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that she still sees essentially the same building except that the building is now even closer to the street.  Asked how the applicant came up with the redesign and if he came up with any other concepts.  Asked about the trees in front of the towers at maturity and if they could provide the same presence as the towers. She believes that significance can happen without towers and she is not sure how towers enhance the Town.  Asked about the Oak tree on Capri Drive that is being saved. John Lien  Commented that this building is 18 feet tall, excluding roof elements, which is a requirement of the medical tenant. They wanted some presence on the street. It has 14 foot ceilings inside with four feet above for utility equipment.  Commented that he believes that he can meet the tenant’s requirements and the needs of the Town.  Commented that the trees will not give the same presence as the towers. This is a plain building and the towers give the building some presence on the street.  Commented that the Oak tree surface will be covered by pervious landscape as recommended by the arborist. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked about the footprint of the existing building versus the proposed building. The building seems to crowd Winchester Boulevard.  Asked if the setback has changed. John Lien  Commented that the existing square footage is 5,000 square feet and the proposed building is 13,889 square feet. The story poles have changed to reflect the change in building height.  Commented that the setbacks have not been changed. Lee Quintana  Submitted a written document and commented that this project design was dictated by the tenant and that the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) was not discussed at the last meeting. The staff report lists four findings that must be made in order to approve the project; however, the report does not note that the Commission can also deny the project if any one of the four findings can be made. She gave examples of findings for denial.  Commented that there are other areas of town that can also accommodate medical offices. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 23, 2012  Apologized for the late delivery of documents, particularly to Commissioner O’Donnell because she believes that he gets irritated with late submittals. Chair Marcia Jensen  Commented that proper submission of documents is necessary in order for the Commissioners and applicants to have time to consider comments and respond appropriately. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Responded that the comment that he is irritated by late submittals is correct; however, he is not irritated by this late submittal. He has gone over it and his decision will not be a result of irritation. John Lien  Commented that all of the findings can be made for approval and does not see any reason to deny the CUP.  Commented that there are no neighbors protesting the project or requesting a commercial development at that site.  Commented that he would appreciate a denial if the Commission cannot approve the project tonight. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that the revised plan is better but he is still concerned about hillside views and wants to know if the height reductions will still work architecturally. John Lien  Commented that he is happy with the height as it is now, but would not want it any lower. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Commented that he is concerned about the setback to Winchester Boulevard. He has no problem with the height, but as a building gets closer to the street, it gets more noticeable. He is concerned that it creeps onto the street. One solution is to make the building not so big. John Lien  Commented that a solution would be to put parking on the street and the building behind, but it is not what he would prefer. Winchester Boulevard is six lanes and is not a pedestrian environment, and putting the parking on the street will make that situation worse. Buildings on the street create a friendlier environment.  Commented that he agrees with comments about the building creeping onto the street, but he disagrees with the effect. Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Chair Marcia Jensen  Asked if there would be a new CUP in the future. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 23, 2012 Planning Manager Sandy Baily  Commented that if the use changed to a non-medical use or a non-office use, a new CUP would not be required; however, parking would need to be evaluated. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Asked if the applicant was asked to provide the island on Knowles Drive.  Confirmed that the driveways are existing driveways. Chair Marcia Jensen  Commented that it was a suggestion that the applicant provide the island on Knowles Drive. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Recommended that Ms. Quintana’s suggestion regarding the island on Knowles Drive be conditioned if the project moves forward. Commissioner Charles Erekson  Confirmed that the owner of the property is allowing the Town to build sidewalks on their property with an easement. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked if a sidewalk is a requirement with a building of this size. Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia  Commented that a sidewalk would be required, but since the Town is planning on redesigning that area, it was decided to work jointly with the applicant. Chair Marcia Jensen  Confirmed that the sidewalk was being offered as a Community Benefit.  Read the rule stating that debate occurs following a motion noting that she did not want to debate the motion. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that the Town has a CIP (Capital Improvement Program) project for this intersection. If the Town is unable to work with the applicant, the Town will move forward with the plan but will have to acquire the necessary right of way through some other mechanism.  Read from the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures regarding motions and debates. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked if the entire sidewalk is being replaced. Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia  Commented that the frontage improvements for the sidewalk on Winchester Boulevard will go past the property and the entire block on Knowles Drive. The sidewalk improvements will stop before you get to the fruit stand. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 23, 2012 Commissioner Charles Erekson  Confirmed that the staff’s recommendation was approval of the project if the project meets all of the findings.  Asked what the nature of the findings would need to be for denial of the project. Planning Manager Sandy Baily  Commented that findings would not be required for denial, but reasons would have to be clearly articulated. Typically this would be a continuance matter if a redesign was requested, but the applicant has requested a denial rather than a continuance. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that when the Commission cannot make the required findings on a project, it can speak to those specifically. This gives the Council and applicant a clear understanding of the reasons for denial. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked when the Knowles Drive improvements will be on the CIP. Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia  Commented that the CIP project could go into design this fall and construction late this year or early next calendar year. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to deny Architecture & Site Application S-11-091 for the reasons that the Community Benefit is not there and the setback is inadequate. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Commented that there are not enough facts to approve the project and that is the basis for his motion. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that architecture is subjective, but in some cases towers are becoming trite in this town and as a Commissioner, she believes she has to defend the guidelines. Commissioner Charles Erekson  Asked for clarification on the setback if this project does not move forward.  Commented that he supports the motion because of the Community Benefit, but does not agree that the project does not meet setback requirements. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that generally staff would measure the setback from the property line. Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia  Commented that if this project does not move forward, staff will look at road right of way requirements and make recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 23, 2012 Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that he is not supporting the motion because this is a rare case where the applicant is doing something to help facilitate a project that has a direct nexus to the impact which is rare with Community Benefits. He personally agrees with the applicant regarding the setbacks and believes the building will add to the experience on Winchester Boulevard as a focal point. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Commented that she will not support the motion. She agrees with Commissioner Bourgeois’s comments and she does like that this proposal gives a different feel to that particular area. Community Benefit is a circular issue, that intersection does need improvement and the applicant is working with the Town. She would be in support of the CUP if it were on the table. She would look to Vasona Station for more commercial uses. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that she will not be supporting the motion. She agrees with the reasons given but also that another building further down Winchester Boulevard has a similar setback. The use is appropriate for that corner. There was a neighbor here at the last meeting who supported the project and there is no opposition. Chair Marcia Jensen  Commented that she cannot support the motion because she believes there is no adequate basis for denial. She is disappointed in the redesign because it does not adequately respond to the Commission’s comments and in the parking situation because it does not give any flexibility. However, she does not believe that the project can be denied due to setbacks when it does meet the setbacks, and she believes that the Community Benefit does allow the Town to go forward with the intersection improvements. Motion failed 3-4 with Chair Marcia Jensen, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Margaret Smith dissenting. Motion by Commissioner John Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Marico Sayoc to approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-11-020 and Architecture & Site Application S- 11-091 subject to the revised conditions as noted in Exhibit 14 of staff report dated May 23, 2012, and Exhibit 4 of staff report dated April 25, 2012, with the added condition of an island or strip on Knowles Drive. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of staff report dated April 25, 2012. Motion carried 4-3 with Vice Chair Charles Erekson, Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore dissenting. Planning Manager Sandy Baily recited appeal rights. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 23, 2012 3. Zoning Code Amendment A-12-001. (Heard out of order.) Public hearing to consider amending the Zoning Code to incorporate the State’s Density Bonus law. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos. PROJECT PLANNER: Wendie Rooney. (Continued from 5/9/12) Chair Marcia Jensen opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney gave a slide presentation on the proposed Zoning Amendment. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Commented that he is in favor of what staff is doing.  Asked for clarification on one of Ms. Quintana’s written comments regarding BMP (Below Market Price) requirements.  Asked if the Town should eliminate its inclusionary housing requirements to avoid double counting.  Commented that the State is 35 percent bonus and the Town is 20 percent bonus. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that there is debate in municipal governments on whether an inclusionary housing requirement could be used to qualify an applicant for the density bonus program. Staff is not recommending that the Town add language in the Density Bonus Guidelines that would disqualify an applicant that has provided the BMP units because that would be a more restrictive interpretation of the State law.  Commented that inclusionary housing is imposed upon a developer, and State Density Bonus is requested by the applicant.  Commented that 30 percent affordable units would get you a 35 percent density bonus. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that State Law says that if a developer applies for a density bonus under State Law and they provide units per the statute, it shall be granted unless findings to the contrary can be made.  Commented that the Town’s inclusionary housing requirements apply to a lot of projects that would never qualify for a State Density Bonus. If these requirements were eliminated, most communities would lose affordable units on smaller projects. There is no double counting because once you meet the State Law requirements, you are entitled to the density bonuses provided under State Law and local rules regarding inclusionary housing are inapplicable to that program.  Commented that there is a General Plan Policy that Council has already taken action and direction and is incorporated whereby affordable units do not count toward the density. Council was very clear in giving staff direction whereby if you apply for a density bonus project under State Law, you are not entitled to density under the General Plan Policy.  Commented that in the Commission's recommendation to Council, it cannot recommend changes to the State Density Bonus Law but it can recommend that Council direct staff to make changes to the inclusionary requirements. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 23, 2012 Chair Marcia Jensen  Clarified that many Commissioners sent very detailed questions to staff and what is being summarized is in answer to those questions. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked if the Town’s guidelines are modifications or interpretation of the State’s guidelines.  Asked how a handicap bonus would be encouraged when it is more expensive for the developer. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that most of the language is verbatim from the State, but there are seven recommended additions to the program (Exhibit A of Exhibit 2).  Commented that handicap housing is an underserved population and by allowing a density bonus provision as well as the concession and parking requirements, this would be an incentive. It would not be anything greater than the affordable units are receiving. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that State Law does not require the Town to provide density bonus for handicapped units, but there was General Plan Policy language that encourages other types of affordable housing concessions. Chair Marcia Jensen  Commented that the Commission could include or preclude the recommended additions to the program. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked if a developer has to comply with the inclusionary program if they come in with a plan but do not ask for the density program. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that an applicant must request the State Density Bonus Program; however, they must comply with the Town’s inclusionary requirements if they meet that threshold whether or not they request the State Program. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that there would not be an influx of State Density Bonus applications due to the lack of affordable housing monies. Commissioner Charles Erekson  Asked if the entire development has to be designated for the physically handicapped to be entitled to a percentage of a bonus.  Commented that he would suggest that the Commission consider recommending that an applicant could receive a density bonus with a smaller percentage of housing serving the handicapped.  Asked about density bonus for child care facilities. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 23, 2012 Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that the General Plan Committee (GPC) did not have detailed discussions regarding a handicapped program. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Commented that the GPC did not discuss child care. They did have a speaker come in and talk about child care offerings. She would support that. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that it would be difficult to make the findings to deny a child care facility. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that if someone made a finding about adequate child care facilities that were misused, it would be subject to litigation. Commissioner Charles Erekson  Referenced Section IV. B.1. where it appears the Commission could be bypassed in referring an application for a density bonus to Council.  Referenced Section IV.A.5. and suggested the addition of "could not otherwise be provided" to the end of the second sentence. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that bypassing the Commission was not the intention of the language in Section IV.B.1. Chair Marcia Jensen  Received a consensus of the Commission that language in Section IV.B.1. needs to be redrafted regarding bypassing the Commission.  Received a consensus to add the suggested language to the second sentence of Section IV.A.5. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that the program was never intended to be for 100 percent physically handicapped. His recollection at the GPC is that any handicap units would be included in the affordable housing count. Chair Marcia Jensen  Commented that she agrees that the intent at the GPC was that any handicap units would be included in the affordable housing count.  Asked for clarification on incentives, concessions, and waivers and if these are included or if an applicant has to make a request and the Town has discretion to grant based on the effect on the economic feasibility of the project. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that incentives and concessions are development standards such as height, setbacks, open space requirements, and site requirements. Waivers apply to the same Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 23, 2012 development standards but also could include conditions. If the Commission were to recommend the submittal criteria along with the pro forma requirement, the applicant has to demonstrate that the incentive, concession or waiver is needed to make the project economically feasible. If the applicant clearly shows the need and the Town cannot make the findings that the concession or waiver would not create an adverse impact and it is not legal by state or federal law, the Town is obligated to approve it. Chair Marcia Jensen  Confirmed that the only adverse impact if the Town does not adopt its own density bonus law is that the developer could request to go forward with the State Law without any of the additions identified such as pro forma requirement, etc.  Asked if there are economic problems to the Town if the Town does not adopt a density bonus law. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that if the Town does not adopt an ordinance, it is in violation of state law, and housing advocate groups and the State Housing Department could make it difficult when the Town comes in for review of its housing element. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked about adverse impacts on public health. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that there is a very narrow definition in State Law as to public health impacts. Chair Marcia Jensen  Asked how questions regarding impact on public health would be addressed in an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that the only time it could be determined that there is an adverse impact is if the EIR could not mitigate that impact. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that you cannot use the EIR as a sword to deny the concessions, waivers and incentives that are allowed under State Density Bonus Law. An adverse health impact rises to a much higher level when applied than a general finding of an adverse impact to the community due to type of use. Staff can provide language to the Commission for information on the actual standard. Lee Quintana  Commented that the proposed code amendment needs to be clear in order for it to be understood. There is confusion regarding how the State Density Bonus Law, the Town's General Plan policies on Density Bonus, the Town's BMP requirements and the increased density allowed under the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone apply under the proposed Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 23, 2012 Chair Marico Sayoc  Commented that it is understandable that there is some confusion and reviewed Ms. Quintana's areas of concern. Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Confirmed that there is a General Plan Density Bonus Policy and asked if a developer chooses between the State or Town Density Bonus Policy.  Asked if Council has fixed the BMP language.  Asked what the process is for compiling the Commission’s recommendations.  Asked if percentage of handicapped housing has been resolved. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that if the applicant elects to proceed using the State’s Bonus Density Program they shall not be eligible for any density increases under the Town’s General Plan Bonus Policies.  Commented that staff would need to revise the BMP guidelines because State Density Bonus Law cannot be made more restrictive.  Commented that staff’s intent is to apply the exact same requirements for handicap housing as applied to senior housing which is a minimum of 35 units dedicated to handicapped housing to be eligible for a 20 percent density bonus. Chair Marcia Jensen  Confirmed consensus regarding the change to the BMP element.  Confirmed that the Affordable Housing Overlay Zones are not specifically addressed in this material and that the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Ordinances will contain language that says if a developer elects to proceed under the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone they may not proceed under the State Bonus Density Program.  Commented that, regarding process, since the Commission has reached consensus on three recommendations, she would suggest that the consensus recommendations be made part of the motion.  Confirmed that all Commissioners have read Desk Item #3 and understood that the corrected language will be part of the motion.  Confirmed that all Commissioners were in agreement with Ms. Rooney’s statement applying the same requirements for handicap housing as senior housing. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that she wanted to acknowledge the staff for its hard work and wanted to include a sentence from the California Real Property Journal, Volume 29, No. 4 into the record stating "the statute is confusing, convoluted and subject to endless debate about its requirements." Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 May 23, 2012 Motion by Chair Marcia Jensen and seconded by Commissioner John Bourgeois to recommend to the Town Council adoption of Zoning Code Amendment A-12-001 using the minutes from this meeting, comments received both oral and written, questions that have been asked and answered by the Commission, and the four consensus motions that were agreed to with respect to changes that the Commission would like to see recommended to Town Council. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Confirmed that the motion includes adoption of the Zoning Code Amendment as well as the Resolution and Program Guidelines. Motion carried 7-0. Community Development Director Wendie Rooney  Commented that this item has been calendared for Town Council on June 4 with the understanding that it would be moved if the Commission did not make a recommendation tonight. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (Heard out of order.) 4. 424 N. Santa Cruz Avenue - Conditional Use Permit Application U-12-004. Requesting approval to operate a wine bar on property zoned C-1. APN 529-07-003. PROPERTY OWNER: Jim Zanardi/Los Gatos Shopping Center LLC. APPLICANT: Michael Guerra & Joe Cannistraci/San Calogero, Inc. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage. Chair Marcia Jensen opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage commented that she had nothing to add to the staff report. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Asked how far this wine bar is from the applicant’s other business.  Asked about parking enforcement. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that this business is two commercial spaces from the applicant’s other business. This proposal is for a total seating for 20.  Commented that seating limitation arises out of parking limitation. Staff does enforce parking and maximum number of seats.  Commented that staff is comfortable with the parking situation. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked about the status of updating the Alcoholic Beverage Policy (ABP). Planning Manager Sandy Baily  Commented that the ABP is on staff’s work program but Council has given staff other higher priorities. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 May 23, 2012 Commissioner John Bourgeois  Confirmed that the ABP discourages new standalone bars. Chair Marcia Jensen  Asked if this project qualifies as a standalone bar since it specifically calls for food service. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that this proposal does not fit into the category of a bar or a restaurant and this issue will be addressed in the forthcoming ABP. Michael Guerra, Applicant, commented that rather than restate what the Commissioners have in front of them, he will just make himself available for questions on the proposed project. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Asked why the project does not fall into the category of a bar or a restaurant. Michael Guerra  Commented that he believes a bar primarily serves alcohol on premises, stays open until 2:00 a.m., and food is not often part of the offering. His business model is based on Enoteca only with a Spanish theme where food and beverage go hand in hand. No hard alcohol will be served and the latest they will be offering food and beverage service will be 11:00 p.m. They are not a traditional restaurant because they do not have a full kitchen or a formal seating area. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked about the rationale of opening another business two doors down from Enoteca.  Asked if there will be retail sales. Michael Guerra  Commented that this model is different enough because the other business has an Italian focus and this one will be a Spanish-themed tapas bar. The two concepts are synergistic.  Commented that there will be no set aside retail space for wines. Wines that are poured will be available for purchase but the retail focus will be on foods. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked if the business will be closed on Sunday.  Asked if any part of the business is not subject to sales tax.  Asked how much square footage will be devoted to retail space.  Asked where parking spaces will be purchased. Michael Guerra  Commented that they plan to be open on Sunday from 3:00 -10:00 p.m.  Commented that all of the business is subject to sales tax. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 May 23, 2012 Joe Cannistraci, Business Partner  Commented that retail will be very minimal. The current location has a small shelf at about 5’ x 4’ where they fit a large amount of product that has a quick turnover. The products here will be imported from Spain and are not readily available elsewhere. The retail will be up toward the front.  Commented that the parking will be purchased from the Town and it is located behind the building. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked how the parking will work. Joe Cannistraci  Commented that they are not open during the early part of the day because it is a wine business. The bulk of their business occurs at night when most of the parking spaces are available. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked why a long bar rather than small tables with chairs and how the crowds will be controlled.  Asked if they plan to expand seating to outside. Joe Cannistraci  Commented that the intention is to have someone posted outside and model it like a tapas bar in Spain. The environment will be much more intimate and controlled than Enoteca. There will be 20 seats.  Commented that there is no plan for outdoor seating. Jorge Bianchi  Commented that he is from Spain and he is collaborating with the applicant on the project. He believes that this is an exciting food service offering for the Town. Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked how applicants buy parking from the Town. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that the Town Council did adopt a resolution and Town Code allowing this area of town to purchase parking spaces in the north side lot. There is a one-time $4,000 payment required per space. Planning Manager Sandy Baily  Commented that not every business in that area can participate in paying for parking spaces. This shopping center has been allocated a certain number of spaces they can purchase. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 May 23, 2012 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked how many businesses at this location are vacant at this time.  Asked how many people will be allowed inside at one time. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented there is only one vacant space.  Commented that building capacity is covered by the Building and Fire Code and is not included in the Conditions of Approval. Motion by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore and seconded by Vice Chair Charles Erekson to recommend approval to Town Council of Conditional Use Permit Application U-12-004 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 3 of staff report dated May 23, 2012, based on the applicant’s previous experience of doing business well within the confines of the ABP. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of staff report dated May 23, 2012. Chair Marcia Jensen  Confirmed that the Conditions of Approval need to be amended to include Sunday hours of operation. Commissioner Charles Erekson  Commented that he is seconding the motion and that it is clear that this is not a standalone bar. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that it sounds like a fantastic business but he feels constrained by the language that the Commission needs to work under and he sees this as a standalone bar and cannot support the motion. Chair Marcia Jensen  Commented that she supports the motion but does point out the need for a new ABP. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that the menu offers a large variety and is more than chips and salsa. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that it is easier to classify a standalone bar when hard alcohol is served. He would like to have this business remembered when the ABP is revised. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that she will support the motion but wants to comment that because the applicant’s other business has been successful for two years does not mean that this will be successful. She is concerned about the retail component and she is concerned that there may be some crossover of kitchen use with both businesses. She also has concerns about the concentration of alcohol service in this area. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 May 23, 2012 Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that they are purposely orienting the seating to be different from a restaurant. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner John Bourgeois dissenting. Chair Marcia Jensen called for a recess at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m. CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS - NONE NEW OTHER BUSINESS 5. Report from Director of Community Development - None 6. Commission Matters - None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 23, 2012 ___________________________________________ Marcia Jensen, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Sandy L. Baily Planning Manager