Loading...
M10-17-11P a g e 1 Council/Agency Meeting 11/7/11 Item #8a MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2011 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, October 17, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Vice Mayor Steve Rice, Council Member Steven Leonardis, Council Member Diane McNutt, and Council Member Barbara Spector. Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Devon and Jade Schreiner from Daves Avenue Elementary School led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. CLOSED SESSION REPORT There was no Closed Session for this meeting. TOWN COUNCIL MATTERS Mayor Joe Pirzynski - Commented that members of the CERT Team did a commendable job educating the public about emergency preparedness at various locations over the weekend. - Commented that on October 18, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. at 930 University Avenue the kick-off for the Los Gatos Creekside Sports Park will occur. - Commented that today is the anniversary of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. P a g e 2 TOWN MANAGER MATTERS Greg Larson, Town Manager - Commented that Steve Souza is a Town Engineering Inspector who is the “Rotating Talent” this month. - Commented that the Police Foundation luncheon will occur at the Los Gatos History Club on Thursday, October 20, 2011 at noon. - Commented that the new Los Gatos Library will open on February 11, 2012. Did You Know?? Kerry Harris, Sgt. Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department - Commented that there are evacuation plans to address the substantial hazard of a wild land fire or a failure of Lenihan Dam after an earthquake. - Commented that for wildfires, citizens should follow designated primary and secondary evacuation routes. - Commented that for flood inundation, citizens should follow designated routes to safe elevations. - Commented that more information is available at www.LosGatosCa.gov/LosGatosPrepared. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Accept Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Annual Report. 2. Accept Fourth Quarter Investment Report for FY 2010/11 (April through June 2011). 3. Adopt an ordinance amending the Town Code effectuating a zone change from CH to CH:PD for the property located at 16213 Los Gatos Boulevard. Property Owner: Margaret R. Bishop. Applicant: Santa Clara Development Company. ORDINANCE 2203 4. PPW Job No. 11-09 Lark Avenue Traffic Signal Improvements Project 471 -812- 0116. a. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a construction contract with Tennyson Electric Inc., in an amount not to exceed $387,847. b. Authorize staff to execute future change o rders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $10,000. P a g e 3 Consent Items – Continued 5. PPW Job No. 10-4 Wedgewood Avenue Improvements (Mulberry Drive to Granada Way). a. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a construction contract with Duran & Venables Inc., in an amount not to exceed $864,373. b. Authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $80,0 00. c. Authorize a revenue and expenditure budget adjustment in the am ount of $45,000 to 471-812-0112 6. PPW Job No. 10-05 Blossom Hill Road Improvements (Cherry Blossom Lane to Camino del Cerro) Approve plans and specifications for the Blossom Hill road improvements (Cherry Blossom Lane to Camino Del Cerro) and authorize staff to advertise the project for bid. TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 7. Approve Council/Agency minutes of October 3, 2011. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to approve Consent Items #1-7, exclusive of Item #3. Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to approve Consent Item #3. Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector. VOTE: Motion passed 3/2. Council Member Steven Leonardis and Council Member Barbara Spector voted no. P a g e 4 VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each speaker to address matters that are not on tonight’s agenda.) Mr. Verga - Expressed concerns about the current practices of the Los Gatos Bar and Grill. Mr. Larson - Commented that staff is continuing to work with neighbors and owners for enforcement of the conditional use permit, which does not give the Town authority to prohibit egress from the back or front access point. - Commented that staff will continue to monitor the situation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Planned Development Application PD-11-003. Project Location: 15055 & 15075 Los Gatos Boulevard. Property Owner/Applicant: William Hirschman & Elizabeth Dodson Consider a request of approval to amend a Planned Development to convert existing structures into commercial condominiums and allow uses permitted in the CH Zone on property zoned CH:PD. APN 424-07-096. Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Council Comments - Commented that staff provided Council with a Desk Item with comparable lease rates for other properties on the Boulevard. - Commented that making a motion with the phrase "as recommended by staff" would be vague for future reference, so the motion should reference Attachment 2 for clarity. Mr. Larson - Clarified that the Planning Commission’s and staff’s recommendation are the same. P a g e 5 Public Hearing Item #8 – Continued Mr. Hirschman, Applicant - Commented that the application is for a conversion from office to condominiums, which would present ownership opportunities. - Commented that the building will not change physically at all. - Commented that any buyer or tenant should be allowed to move in. - Commented that the Planning Commission suggested retaining the retail component; however, there are valid reasons to forego this requirement. - Commented that the applicant was not trying to avoid a traffic study. Council Questions - Questioned whether a document was created by staff to address the deed restriction issue. - Questioned whether the retail units would be located in specific suites with deed restrictions, if the retail component were retained. Mr. Larson - Commented that there is a modified ordinance, which proposed designating a certain number of square feet for non-medical use so as to avoid the need for a traffic study. Mr. Hirschman - Commented that the way the modified ordinance has been drafted, it allows for flexibility concerning the mixed uses. Judith Propp, Town Attorney - Commented that staff recommended to the Planning Commission that when the condominium map gets recorded, the particular units reserved for retail would be deed restricted to provide future buyers with notice of the restriction. - Commented that the Town is not a party to the Conditions Covenants and Restrictions and would not be able to bring an action to enforce them. - Commented that Council could direct staff to amend the Planned Development or make changes to the deed restrictions. P a g e 6 Public Hearing Item #8 – Continued Mr. Hirschman - Commented that the deed restrictions are appropriate. - Questioned how an amendment to the Planned Development would take place. Ms. Propp - Clarified that Council could provide guidance as to whether the applicant should file a Planned Development amendment or delegate to staff to make minor changes to the deed restrictions. Council Comments - Questioned whether condominium prices for retail would be higher than condominium prices for office condominium. - Questioned examples of businesses that occupy retail condominiums. Mr. Hirschman - Commented that many factors affect rental rates, which vary over time. - Commented that businesses such as restaurants, real estate offices, and salons invest in retail condominiums. Mr. Larson - Clarified that there are three actionable versions of the ordinances. - Commented that Attachment 2 contains staff’s and the Planning Commission’s recommendations, which required retail in the specified square footage. - Commented that Attachment 2(a) is a variation of Attachment 2; Attachment 2(a) eliminates the retail component and designates certain square footage for non- medical use. Council Comments - Commented that the challenges of retail are very different than any other business. - Commented that retail only goes to a location where it will be successful. - Commented that this space should be developed in a way that makes sense, which will likely be a mix of office, retail and medical. - Commented that the Planning Commission made sound recommendations and agreed with the conversion to condominiums. - Commented that the community benefit should go to the Sports Park. - Commented that the timing will be such that the condominiums will be purchased by non-retail uses before the advantage of the North 40. P a g e 7 Public Hearing Item #8 – Continued MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to make the required findings (Attachment 1) and approve the Planned Development Application PD -11- 003 as represented in Attachment 2a and the unchanged pages in Attachment 2; to waive the reading of the proposed ordinance; and to accept the Applicant’s proposal that the community benefit go to the Los Gatos Sports Park. Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 9. Architecture and Site Application S-11-001. Property Location: 16161 Short Road. Property Owner: John and Elvie Scott. Applicant: Chris Spalding. Appellants: Robert and Lois Mallison, David Clarke, and Debra Fetters. Consider an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission decision approving demolition of a single family residence and construction of a new single family residence on property zoned R-1:20. APN 523-09-029. Council Comments - Commented that this is an approved application from the Plann ing Commission that was appealed. Marni Moseley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Council Questions - Questioned the width of the access road and whether it comported with the Town Code. - Questioned whether the impervious area would include the swimming pool. Ms. Moseley - Commented that one of the conditions of approval is to bring the driveway in compliance with current code standards. Ms. Propp - Commented that the Town has been led to believe that the parties have worked out the easement. P a g e 8 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Trang Tu-Nguyen, Assistant Civil Engineer - Commented that the swimming pool does not create any storm drain flow. Mr. Clark, Appellant - Commented that the proposed house is twice the size of the current house and that the proposed house will obstruct his view. - Commented that there are many ways to address the view obstruction issue. Mr. Mallison, Appellant - Commented that Planning Commission did not evaluate the project and consider preserving the view sheds from Mary Way. - Commented the General Plan states that protection of view sheds to adjacent property owners during new development is a major consideration. - Commented that the Town residential development guidelines also emphasize the preservation of view sheds. Mr. Spalding, Applicant - Commented that the house is located on the site in such a way to accommodate fire apparatus turn around and mature redwood trees. - Commented that they lowered the house 18 inches and re-designed the second story so the new revised design reduces view obstruction. - Commented that there is a six foot sill height for windows in the master bedroom for privacy reasons. - Commented that they reduced the size of the house and increased setbacks. - Commented that the house is much smaller than it could have been. Mr. Szewczyk, Applicant - Commented that if the design changed to a one story house, it would reduce the backyard size and there would be significant drainage issues because the lot would lose about 1200 square feet of pervious area. - Commented that the current design represents the best self-contained solution to the drainage issues. - Commented that the driveway will be widened. - Commented that the swimming pool is connected to the sanitary sewer. P a g e 9 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Council Comments - Questioned the length of the setback and the type of foundation. - Questioned whether more of the garage could be moved. Mr. Spalding - Commented that the orientation of the door does not affect the setback . - Commented that the foundation will be a raised floor. - Commented that the house cannot be pushed any f urther down because of grading. - Commented that the fire apparatus turn around restricts the garage placement. Mr. Guilardi - Commented that the property owners have done everything they can to design a home that is compatible with the site. Mr. Scott, Applicant - Commented that the easement for the access road will be recorded soon. Mr. Mallison - Commented that the size of the house is not an issue, but the height is because of the impacts on view corridors. - Commented that previously he had a 180 degree view, and after the proposed house is built, he will have 30 degree views. - Commented that the setback was calculated from the fence, not the property line. Council Questions - Questioned whether moving the house south or the east would improve the view. Mr. Mallison - Commented that moving the house slightly south would not help that much, but that moving the house to the east would help. P a g e 10 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Closed Public Hearing. Council Comments - Commented that the flag lot is not configured in the same way as the remainder of the neighborhoods, so a direct comparison of the lots is not especially informative. - Commented that there would be significant blockage of the Mallison’s view, especially from the second story balcony. - Commented that there are competing values because drainage issues are exacerbated by a single story house and other neighbors’ views would be blocked by a single story house. - Commented that the applicants have done everything the Planning Commission requested. - Commented that the Town Council can overturn the Planning Commission’s 5/1 approval due to abuse of discretion, error, introduction of new information, or because the commission acted on a policy for which it did not have authority to act. - Commented that there have been mitigation efforts, such as reducing the mass, size, and elevation of the house. - Commented that the Planning Commission did not err. - Commented that this is an uncomfortable decision, but one that must be made in accordance with the Town Code. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve architecture and site application S-11-001 and to adopt the resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve an architecture and site application on property zoned R-1:20. RESOLUTION 2011-067 Seconded by Council Member Steven Leonardis. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. P a g e 11 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business for this meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Attest: /s/Mazarin A. Vakharia Clerk Administrator