Loading...
Draft Mins 07.11.12Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 July 11, 2012 DRAFT TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 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: Town Attorney Judith Propp, Planning Manager Sandy Baily, Senior Planner Suzanne Avila, Associate Planner Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner Marni Moseley, Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen, and Recording Secretary Linda Rowlett. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Chair Marcia Jensen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Motion by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore and seconded by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell to approve meeting minutes of May 23, 2012. Motion carried 7-0. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE Chair Marcia Jensen noted that there was a desk item for Item #2. REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 11, 2012 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS General Plan Committee -- Commissioner John Bourgeois reported that the committee met on June 13 and finished the Affordable Housing Overlay Design Standards for the final parcels. This item will be coming back to the General Plan Committee for final review prior to review by the Planning Commission. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee -- Senior Planner Suzanne Avila reported that the committee met on June 13 to review the former County property on Knowles Drive that has been split into two lots and sold to two different prospective developers. The committee reviewed a housing proposal for the larger lot. Historic Preservation Committee - Senior Planner Suzanne Avila reported that the committee met on June 27 and approved an Architecture and Site Application (A&S) for exterior modifications at 112 Wilder Avenue and reviewed a proposal for the demolition of a pre-1941 residence at 16922 Mitchell Avenue. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Placer Oaks Road - Architecture and Site Applications S-12-006 through S-12-015. Requesting Architecture and Site approval for 10 single-family homes within an approved Planned Development on property zoned R-1:8:PD. APNs 529-16-073, 529-14-012 and 067. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Canyon Oaks Los Gatos, LLC. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila. Chair Marcia Jensen opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila noted that she had nothing to add to the staff report. Rodger Griffin, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked about the architectural variety of the project. Rodger Griffin  Commented that there will be four color schemes with different stone work. This will provide a great variety in the change and feel of the homes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 11, 2012 Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Commented that she is pleased that the BMP (Below Market Price) unit has four bedrooms.  Asked about adding one additional guest parking spot.  Asked about privacy between Lot 7 and Lot 8. Rodger Griffin  Commented that in order to adhere to the setbacks they were unable to add another parking space.  Commented that a frosted or patterned glass could be used for privacy on the lower parts of the windows on Lot 7 that overlook the courtyard. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked for clarification on the green screen for neighborhood compatibility. Rodger Griffin  Commented that the green screen is a wooden structure with vines planted on it. It will be constructed on the proper directly across Placer Oaks Road to obscure headlights coming out of the driveway at night. Lee Quintana  Asked if the changes in the law regarding proximity to highways for residential were reviewed in relation to this proposal.  Asked if there was a noise analysis done. Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Commented that this project was approved prior to the law changes for proximity of homes to freeways.  Asked when noise analysis happens. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Confirmed that no further review is required since the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance was approved by Town Council in May 2010, and it cleared environmental review. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that part of the noise analysis is dealt with during the building plan check process and there are checks before final review of the houses. The sound wall heights were dictated by the acoustical report. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 11, 2012 Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Margaret Smith to approve Architecture and Site Applications S-12-006 through S-12-015 subject to the performance standards as noted in Exhibit 3 and conditions as noted in Exhibit 4 of staff report dated July 11, 2012. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of staff report dated July 11, 2012. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that she will not be supporting the motion because while she supports development of a property, she does not support a housing development next to a freeway. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Joanne Talesfore dissenting. 2. 160 W. Main Street - Conditional Use Permit U-12-008. Requesting approval to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a restaurant with separate bar and full alcohol service on property zoned C-2:LHP. APN 529-03-020. PROPERTY OWNER: Robert and Muriel Brouwer. APPLICANT: B and G Group LLC. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage. Chair Marcia Jensen opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage noted the desk item. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that during a history walk of Los Gatos, he stopped in at the restaurant and was told that the partitions in the building are the original teller stalls. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that the records do not indicate that the wall was part of the bank because there was no wall in the 1970s and a new wall was proposed in the 1980s. Linda LeZotte, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Asked for clarification on the square footage.  Asked about hours of operation and the Police Department’s (PD) recommendation.  Asked if the applicant is accepting staff's recommended hours of operation. Linda LeZotte  Commented that she does not have the square footage but noted that it is not a bar but rather six seats for patrons to sit while waiting for a table. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that the hours that staff is recommending are noted in Exhibit 3 (Conditions of Approval). The PD is recommending hours of operation consistent with the Alcoholic Beverage Policy (ABP). Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 11, 2012 Linda LeZotte  Commented that they would like to be open Sunday through Wednesday until midnight and Thursday through Saturday until 2:00 a.m. to be consistent with other establishments in the area and to be competitive. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked about the DJ and where they will be located in the restaurant.  Asked what percentage of business will be done between 11:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. and how revenue driven the extended hours will be.  Asked about valet parking.  Asked for clarification on the seating.  Asked about the cuisine. Linda LeZotte  Showed where the DJ will be setting up noting that they will remove two bar seats. The DJ will act as a host but there will not be dancing. Bobby Sarnevesht  Commented about 35-40 percent of the revenue will come from the later seating. They are trying to improve on a model they have seen in different cities. They feature Japanese cuisine and they do not have a high alcohol-based revenue.  Commented they would like to offer valet parking but have not yet worked out the details.  Commented that the seating is fixed with long booths that cannot be moved.  Commented that they have partnered with the head chef of Nobu and will offer Japanese fusion cuisine. Linda LeZotte  Commented that the staff report does not require valet parking. They have not investigated valet parking because parking has not been an issue. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked about bar seating on Sundays referenced in the Conditions of Approval. Bobby Sarnevesht  Commented that they do not plan to use the bar on Sundays. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Asked why food service would stop at 11:00 p.m. if the food is primary.  Asked if a sample menu is available.  Asked about entertainment and if the DJ is for private events only. Linda LeZotte  Commented that the staff report (pages 6 and 7) is incorrect. Food will always be served when alcohol is served.  Commented that the DJ is being requested eight times per month for special occasions. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 11, 2012 Bobby Sarnevesht  Commented that the menu is on the website.  Commented that the DJ will provide background music and also provide louder music for private events. Chair Marcia Jensen  Commented that she is familiar with Nobu and is familiar with what a DJ does. The staff report reads as a restaurant converting to a club. Bobby Sarnevesht  Commented that the DJ is primarily for private events. There is no dance floor. There is no intention of turning the restaurant into a nightclub. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked about the notation of special parties rather than private parties.  Asked for a change in Condition #11 in how it reads. She would prefer changing the language to state that private parties would require renting out the entire space and to clarify when the DJ entertainment would be provided. Bobby Sarnevesht  Commented that the DJ is for private events that are booked rather than special parties.  Confirmed that the DJ would only be there for private events. They are comfortable with modifying the language. Maria Ristow  Commented that she lives on Broadway and she and the neighbors are feeling the intensification of entertainment in the area. She is in favor of later dining hours but is concerned about more entertainment and more alcohol. She would like that this CUP be deferred until the ABP is in place and that the hours be modified. Linda LeZotte  Commented that this is a DJ rather than live entertainment and they have agreed to abide to the ABP that comes into place. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Proposed some changes to the Conditions of Approval. Condition #6 - Delete last sentence; replace it with language that the bar will be closed until 5:30 p.m. on Sundays and add that the bar would close one hour before closing on all days of operation. Condition #7 - Hours would be as stated but change the 1:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday. Condition #9 - modified to change the DJ allowed only for private closed parties and that the DJ would need to end one hour before closing hours. #11 - Deleted. Linda LeZotte  Asked for clarification on closing the bar until 5:30 p.m. on Sundays. They may want to offer Mimosas with brunch.  Asked for clarification on proposed change in hours of operation. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 11, 2012 Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that his intent was not to delete alcoholic beverage service on Sundays until 5:30 p.m. but rather to close the bar seating section.  Commented that the hours of operation would remain as stated, but change the 1:30 a.m. closing to 2:00 a.m.  Commented that he proposed that the bar would close one hour prior to closing. Bobby Sarnevesht  Asked if music could be extended to one-half hour before closing during private events. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked Vice Chair Erekson for his justification in extending the hours. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Proposed that the music would cease one hour before closing.  Commented that he was taking this business to operate as a restaurant and he could envision having a glass of port with dessert. The applicant provided a reasonable business plan and he is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Confirmed that the only day for daytime food service is Sunday and that alcohol will be offered from 9:30 a.m. until closing. Chair Marcia Jensen  Confirmed that Sunday morning is only brunch service. Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commission Comments/Questions:  Asked why the PD does not support the increase in hours of operation.  Asked about the status of the ABP and the Entertainment Ordinance.  Asked about the "wait and see" practice for hours of operation.  Asked if hours of operation are specified in a CUP (Conditional Use Permit).  Asked if the Commission can make as part of the Conditions a date certain for the operation to return to the Commission to review how the business is doing under the CUP once the Town Council has approved it. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that part of the PD’s concern is the amount of people coming onto the street at one time.  Commented that the Planning Commission has the option to recommend "wait and see," but staff is not recommending that. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 11, 2012  Commented that there are no hours stated in the existing CUP. The hours of operation were discussed within the staff report and in discussions with the applicant during the public hearing for the existing CUP.  Commented that the Commission could recommend a future CUP review after it has been approved, but the Council would have to approve the recommendation. Planning Manager Sandy Baily  Commented that staff has just re-started working on the Entertainment Ordinance. Staff will review the ABP after determining how the Entertainment Ordinance works with the ABP. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Commented that she is in tune with public policy and currently the Town’s ABP is very clear on hours of operation but there is nothing on entertainment. Concerns were expressed by a neighbor along with the PD. She does not believe that this application is clear and she will be recommending denial. Motion by Commissioner Marico Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit U-12-008 to Town Council based on the fact that the application goes against current Alcoholic Beverage Policy regulations regarding making a finding that the business would not create an adverse impact on residential neighborhoods and the Police Department's concern regarding the request for increased hours for alcoholic beverage service. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Commented that one option is to follow the PD’s recommendation. The DJ discussion gets into whether or not it is considered live music. The applicant is very reasonable on limitations. He is very sympathetic with the neighbors but that this use is not a nightclub. He does not believe this business will bother the neighbors more than any other business.  Commented that he will not be supporting the motion because there are options to just saying no. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that there is an intensification of late night alcoholic-focused businesses in the downtown. Most of the discussion was on the service of alcoholic beverages rather than bringing a fine dining restaurant to Town. She will support a denial and wait for a more thorough understanding of the business and look for further clarification on the DJ. Motion failed 3-4 with Chair Marcia Jensen, Vice Chair Charles Erekson, Commissioner John Bourgeois and Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell dissenting. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that he shares Commissioner Sayoc’s concerns but he believes that there is a lot of merit with this proposal.  Recommended that the applicant have a very clear plan in place for how, what, when and where the DJ will be operating when this proposal goes before the Town Council. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 11, 2012 Motion by Commissioner John Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit U-12-008 to Town Council subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 3 of staff report dated July 11, 2012, with the added conditions that the hours of operation would be consistent with the Town’s Alcoholic Beverage Policy and that the DJ entertainment would be deferred until the Entertainment Ordinance is in place. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of staff report dated July 11, 2012. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Clarified that the hours of operation stated in the ABP are different than the hours recommended by the applicant. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that where the applicant is asking for more time than that allowed in the ABP, it would be changed to meet the policy. Any hours of operation that are less than required by the ABP would remain the same. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that allowable hours under the ABP are Sunday through Thursday until 11:00 p.m. and Friday, Saturday, holidays and evenings before holidays until 1:00 a.m. with the exception of establishments in good standing may continue the hours of operation of the existing CUP. In this case, that would be 1:30 a.m. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that he is in agreement with the hours stated, but that since there is a new operator, he would like to keep the hours to 1:00 a.m. rather than 1:30 a.m. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked if alcohol service would end one-half hour or one hour before closing time. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that the ABP does not require that alcoholic beverage service end at a certain time before closing but it is her understanding that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department does require that service stops one-half hour before closing. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that she will support this motion because of the clarification of it and she would like to make a note for Town Council that she would support the DJ in this restaurant under the condition that the Conditions of Approval were changed to specify private parties only. Chair Marcia Jensen  Confirmed with Commissioner Bourgeois that the motion states that there would be no DJ allowed until the Entertainment Ordinance is in place. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 11, 2012 Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Asked if the motion specifies that the hours of operation are to be consistent with the ABP because the ABP does not address the hours of operation but rather hours of alcoholic beverage service. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Confirmed that his intent of the motion is that the hours of alcoholic beverage service would match the ABP. Chair Marcia Jensen  Asked Commissioner Bourgeois if the hours of operation stated by Ms. Savage are the hours that he intended with the alcohol service to match the ABP. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that his intent is for the alcoholic beverage service to match the ABP and that the hours of operation could extend one-half hour beyond that. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Confirmed that everything would cease at 1:30 a.m. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Confirmed that the applicant would have to come back before the Commission regarding the DJ once the Entertainment Ordinance is in place. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Asked Commissioner Bourgeois’s intent regarding the two seats allowed at the bar before 5:30 p.m. on Sundays. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that he recalled the applicant stating that he is amenable to not having chairs at the bar on Sunday mornings, so that language will be made clear in Condition #6. Chair Marcia Jensen  Confirmed that the restriction on Sunday mornings is for seating only and not for bar service. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Marcia Jensen called for a recess at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m. 3. 357 Pennsylvania Avenue - Architecture and Site Application S-12-028. Requesting approval to demolish a single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. APNs 510-41-069 and 070. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: David and Cynthia Lazares. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley. Chair Marcia Jensen opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 11, 2012 Associate Planner Marni Moseley commented that she had nothing to add to the staff report. David Lazares, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked about the impact on the neighbor at 347 Pennsylvania Avenue and why they flipped the driveway. David Lazares  Commented that the neighbors at 347 Pennsylvania Avenue have no windows on that side. If the garage is on the other side, the house would have been seven feet higher and looked out of scale. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked about the solar shadow study.  Asked about neighborhood compatibility and commented that all the homes on Pennsylvania Avenue are different but they all have gables facing the street.  Commented that the proposed gable design looks more like dormers than gables. Chris Spaulding, Architect  Commented that the property aligns north/south and the worst shadows fall in the applicant’s front yard and a little on the east property. The shadow is created by the one story portion of the new house.  Commented that the houses at 360 and 363 Pennsylvania Avenue have a similar dominant ridge that goes side to side. The highest gable runs parallel with the street at 363 and the secondary gable faces the street. The proposed design has a secondary double gable that faces the street. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Commented that the roof line is very long and appears high and asked why this design was chosen. Chris Spaulding  Commented that this house is wider and not quite as tall as the other houses; it is a different style than the Victorians. This is also the widest lot. Neil MacNaughton  Commented that he lives at 347 Pennsylvania Avenue downhill from the proposed project. He strongly objects to the proposal because the house is not centered on the lot and it would loom over his house blocking light and his view of the hills. He has two windows on the ground floor which provide light. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked Mr. MacNaughton if he has spoken with the owners of the property about his concerns. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 11, 2012 Neil MacNaughton  Commented that he has sent an e-mail to staff but has not talked to the owners of the property. Heather Roberts  Commented that she lives on the uphill side of the property at 361 Pennsylvania Avenue. Since the previous owner’s death, the property has fallen into disrepair and detracts from the neighborhood.  Commented that she talked to the property owners regarding her concerns about privacy and they flipped the floor plan to address her concerns. They were also concerned about vegetation and the owners met with the Town Arborist about maintaining the health of the trees. The property owners also reduced the garage footprint.  Commented that the house is a good addition to the neighborhood and she urges approval. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked about the impact to her house if the proposed house was moved closer to her. Heather Roberts  Confirmed that moving the house closer would impact all privacy and light for her house. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked Ms. Roberts where her company parks their cars. Heather Roberts  Commented that she has a long single width driveway that spans into a two-car garage and her company parks on the street or in their driveway. Leonard Pacheco  Commented that he lives on Hernandez Avenue and that the neighborhood has historic homes that are considered historic assets.  Commented that he believes Mr. Spaulding is sensitive to the Town’s guidelines but the design does not meet established proportions, it overwhelms the down slope home, it has massive scale and does not match the rhythm of the street. The design falls short of the guidelines.  Recommend continuing the application with specific directions to address the guidelines. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked Mr. Pacheco to identify which specific guidelines he is referring to. Leonard Pacheco  Commented the ridge line is horizontal and parallel to the street which is rare for the neighborhood. The rhythm of the street is gable ends. The massing is also different and the attention has been given to the uphill slope house rather than the downhill slope house. The dormers do not break up the street mass. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 11, 2012 Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Asked Mr. Pacheco if he believes they could keep the square footage with a redesign. Leonard Pacheco  Commented that in order to maintain the square footage, they may have to reorient the footprint, downsize the garage and bring it in on its sides. Lee Quintana  Showed illustrations from the Residential Design Guidelines that show the position of houses on a lot and also where to place the mass of the house. Front facing gables are the major roof forms followed by hip roofs.  Showed an illustration of trees that will remain and which ones that are being removed.  Commented that the design is not consistent with the intent of zoning codes under R-1.  Commented that within 500 feet of this house, there are at least 10 properties that have 15,000+ square feet of property and these are the houses that should be considered when comparing FARs (Floor Area Ratio).  Commented that she is an adjacent neighbor and she was not given plans or contacted. She did advise staff of her objections but she was never contacted. From her house she sees nothing but roofline. Bill Hirschman  Spoke in support of the proposal and complimented the quality of the design. Diversity is important in the Town along with consistency in a neighborhood. He would encourage shying away from words like massing because the alternative could be two houses. Good design should be taken into account. David Lazares  Commented that the landscape plan that was referred to earlier was the recommendation of the Town Arborist and they are doing something entirely different.  Commented that he left a plan and a business card at the downhill neighbor’s house but he never received a call.  Commented that his house has the third lowest FAR of the 12 comparable houses. Chris Spaulding  Commented that a gable would impact the neighbors more. The downhill neighbor would get more shadow and the uphill neighbor would lose more of their view. They could make one dominant gable out of the two dormers in front and could put Dutch gables on the sides. Michael Rosenberg, Landscape Architect  Commented that the arborist recommended removal of three trees and they plan to save them along with planting more trees. They could also remove the parking area and make it a walkway.  Showed landscape design under development. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked about the proposed trees in front. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 11, 2012 Michael Rosenberg  Commented that they will install the trees at 36-inch box and they would be approximately 15 feet tall. Specific species have not yet been identified. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Asked about the proposed parking area in front. Chris Spaulding  Commented they prefer two parking spaces in the front setback to get the parking off the street. David Lazares  Commented that the two parking spaces would be a permeable surface. If required, they will give up those two spaces. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked about alternatives to the ridge line. Chris Spaulding  Commented they went through about ten different designs and this was the only design that the client liked. A single large gable in front is a consideration and also clipping the ends. This would not have an adverse impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked about the front landscaping and what the surface will be if parking is disallowed.  Asked if further landscaping could soften the house. Chris Spaulding  Commented the front surface will be blue stone. It will be hard surface regardless of parking. If there is no parking, they would still need a walkway to the front door. Michael Rosenberg  Commented that this is not a final landscape plan, but they could add more evergreen trees in the front. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Asked how much time would be needed if the item was continued for modified design. Chris Spaulding  Commented that they could ready for the August 22 meeting. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Referenced page 14 of the Residential Design Guidelines and asked how this design fits within the "do" category. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 July 11, 2012 Chris Spaulding  Commented that this is the largest lot in the streetscape and this footprint best utilizes the lot. If they matched the Guidelines exactly, it would be detrimental to the neighbors. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked about privacy issues for the downhill neighbor.  Recommended that Mr. Spaulding speak to the downhill neighbor regarding concerns. Chris Spaulding  Commented that there is privacy and then there is light and air. The house has been moved as far forward as possible on the lot. If he narrowed the building, it would marginally help. Chair Marcia Jensen closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Asked if staff considered any options to soften the impact on the street.  Asked if staff heard from the downhill neighbor regarding concerns.  Asked about the merged status of the lots. Associate Planner Marni Moseley  Commented that massing was not a concern expressed by the Consulting Architect. Staff did not see the dominant issues that the neighbors have raised when they reviewed the plans and looked at the story poles.  Commented that the only contact by the downhill neighbor is the letter in the packet. Planning Manager Sandy Baily  Commented that the lots are considered merged now since the house straddles the property line. If they demolished the structure then it would be two legal lots. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that part of the character of the neighborhood is variety so he is less concerned about size but is concerned about impact. He would prefer that the applicant consider the Commission’s recommendations and have Mr. Cannon review any revised design. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Commented that Vice Chair Erekson’s recommendation would delay the project for six weeks. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that the architect suggested a change. The landscaping is going to soften the house and the applicant has agreed not to park cars in front. She is not sure why they have to go back to the drawing board with everything. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 July 11, 2012 Motion by Vice Chair Charles Erekson and seconded by Commissioner John Bourgeois to continue Architecture and Site Application S-12-028 to August 22, 2012, and direct the applicant and his consultants to present their response to the Commission’s comments. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Seconded the motion and confirmed that a (complete) landscape plan should also be included in the motion. Chair Marcia Jensen  Asked Vice Chair Erekson if he wants to include any specific references to Residential Design Guidelines in the motion. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that he did not want to give specific direction for redesign and wants the applicant to have the choice on what they decide to bring back to the Commission. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that the Commission gets criticized for not giving specific direction. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that his motion is directing the applicant to respond to the Commission’s comments but he can remove that part of the motion if the Commissioners feel that gives a lack of direction. Chair Marcia Jensen  Suggested that the motion remain as it is, but direct the applicant to specifically respond to why the decision was made and how they have incorporated the comments from tonight’s meeting. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that he appreciated the clarification but he assumed that Chair Jensen’s comments were part of the intent of the motion. Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell  Commented that since the Commission is not supposed to redesign and that the Town Architect said the design was okay, he is comfortable with the language of the motion. The street impact is a concern but he is not qualified to specify a particular design. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that the Town Architect gave a positive comment, so he wants to give the applicant the opportunity to respond to tonight's comments or they can come back with the same design. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that the Commission is the decision maker even though they weigh Mr. Cannon’s comments. He believes clear direction has been given. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 July 11, 2012 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that she does not believe that direction is clear. She would like to give the applicant the direction that he deserves. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that he would like to withdraw the motion. Town Attorney Judith Propp  Commented that once a motion is withdrawn, the seconder has an option to agree or not. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that he does not agree to withdrawal of the motion. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner Joanne Talesfore dissenting and Vice Chair Charles Erekson abstaining. Vice Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that he feels the Commission spent a lot of time debating over the meaning of words that was largely a waste of everyone’s time. He attempted to withdraw the motion due to the controversy over the use of words, so he is abstaining because he is not comfortable with the nature of the motion. CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS - NONE NEW OTHER BUSINESS 4. Report from Director of Community Development a. Planning Manager Sandy Baily reported that the Town Council approved the State Density Bonus Ordinance and it commended the Planning Commission for its thorough analysis and the recommended changes which made its review much easier. 5. Commission Matters - None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 July 11, 2012 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 11, 2012 ___________________________________________ Marcia Jensen, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Sandy L. Baily Planning Manager