Loading...
03 Staff Report - Town Council/Parking Authority Redevelopment Agency MinutesDRAFT Council/Agency Meeting 11/16/09 Item # MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 2, 2009 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, November 2, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Mike Wasserman, Vice Mayor Diane McNutt, Council Member Joe Pirzynski, Council Member Steve Rice, Council Member Barbara Spector Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Hillbrook School Students Boo Yuen, Student Council President, Emily Richardson, Student Council Member, Morgan Brost, Student Council Member Boo Yuen, Emily Richardson, and Morgan Brost, from Hillbrook School Student Council led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. PRESENTATION Commendation -Los Gatos High School New Millennium Foundation • Mayor Mike Wasserman presented a commendation to the Los Gatos High School New Millennium Foundation for their dedication and support to Los Gatos High students. • Mr. Bakken thanked the community for their support. BOARDS/COMMISSION/COMMITTEES APPOINTMENTS Council appointed applicants to the following Boards, Commissions, and Committee: • Architectural Standards Committee (1 vacancy, 0 applicants) - Staff is recommending to sunset this Commission and will return to Council with report. • Arts and Culture Commission (3 vacancies, 2 applicants) - George Havelka and Colleen Wilcox were appointed to the Arts and Culture Commission. - One Vacancy will be re-advertised. • Building Board of Appeals (3 vacancies, 4 applicants) - Tom Dodge, Adrienne McGrath, and David Zicovich were appointed to the Building Board of Appeals. • Community Services Commission (3 vacancies, 1 applicant) - Barbara Cardillo was appointed to the Community Services Commission. - Two vacancies will be re-advertised. • General Plan Committee (1 vacancy, 1 applicant) - One vacancy will be re-advertised. • Library Board (2 vacancies, 2 applicants) - Deborah Behrman and Lyn Dougherty were appointed to the Library Board. • Parks Commission (1 vacancy, 1 applicant) - One vacancy will be re-advertised. • Personnel Board (1 vacancy, 0 applicants) - One vacancy will be re-advertised. • Rent Advisory Committee (2 vacancies, 2 applicants) - Susan Fish was appointed to the Rent Advisory Committee as a neutral member. - The vacancy for a property owner/manager will be re-advertised. • Transportation and Parking (1 vacancy, 0 applicants) - One vacancy will be re-advertised. • Planning Commission (2 vacancies, 4 applicants) - John Bourgeois and Marcia Jensen were appointed to the Planning Commission. 2 Board/Commission/Committee Appointments -Continued Council consensus to delay the appointment to the Parks Commission to allow all applicants the chance to interview. Mr. Larson • Commented that the Architectural Standards Committee did not have any applicants and has not met in at least two years. Staff recommends rather than re-noticing the vacancy that they review the history of the Architecture and Standards Committee and bring forward a recommendation to Council for elimination of the committee. • Clarified that the Town does contract with a professional architect that provides the review service needed for the community. Mayor Mike Wasserman directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to re- advertise all vacant positions on the Town's Boards, Commissions, and Committees. CLOSED SESSION There was no Closed Session scheduled for this meeting. TOWN COUNCIL COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Council Matters There were no Council Matters for this meeting. Manager Matters Mr. Larson • Commented that the Union Pacific Railroad has repaired their tracks which cross Winchester Boulevard and the Town has completed the paving process to complete the project. • Commented that the Town has started the repaving of Parking lot 6 on Main Street to incorporate the expanded Town parking that the Council had previously approved. • Commented that a portion of the parking lot will be closed for less than a two week period for the construction time frame. • Acknowledged the Police Chief and the Police Department for their cooperation as good customers and stewards of public safety in our community in their efforts regarding the Police Operations Building. • Commended Parks and Public Works Department for their leadership and dedication in constructing the facility. 3 Manager Matters -Continued Chief Scott Seaman • Presented Council with commemorative plaques from the ribbon cutting event for the new Police Operations Building. • Thanked Council and staff for their support. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approve Council minutes of October 19, 2009 Study Session 2. Adopt ordinance amending Town Code Chapter 14, Article V, Sections 12.50.010 through 14.050.010 through and including 14.050.240 regarding Police alarms.. ORDINANCE 2182 3. Adopt resolution approving the operation of a retail wine establishment with food, beer, and wine service on property zoned C- 1. APN 529-07-047. Conditional Use Permit U-09-007. Property Location: 414-416 N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property Owner: Jim Zanardi Applicant: Michael Guerra/Joseph Cannistraci. RESOLUTION 2009-114 4. Adopt resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute the agreement by and between the Town of Los Gatos and with Los Gatos Music and Arts concerning the funding and administration of the Music in the park Program for Fiscal Years 2011- 2014. RESOLUTION 2009-115 5. PPW Job No. 09-01 -Civic Center HVAC Upgrades Project 411-821- 2103 Adopt a resolution accepting work of Therma Corporation and authorizing the Town Manager to execute a Certificate of Acceptance and Notice of Completion for recording by the Clerk Administrator. RESOLUTION 2009-116 6. PPW Job No. 09-26 -Tree Trimming Project. Adopt resolution approving plans and specification for the tree trimming project and authorize staff to advertise the project for bid. RESOLUTION 2009-117 7. PPW Job No. 04-68 -Roberts Road Bridge Replacement Project 411- 818-0802. Adopt resolution approving plans and specification for the Roberts Road Bridge Replacement project and authorize staff to advertise the project for bid. RESOLUTION 2009-118 4 Consent Items -Continued TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 8. Approve Council/Agency minutes of: a. October 19, 2009 b. October 26, 2009 Special Meeting Mr. Larson • Commented that staff had distributed two Desk Items regarding the Consent Calendar, one concerning Item #8a which stated that there was an administrative change to Page 5 of the meeting minutes to clarify that Council did not approve the application that was before Council at that time. The other was regarding Item #4, the resolution of agreement with Los Gatos Music and Arts which included modified language incorporating Town representatives in the presentation of MIP Concerts including participation in each concert's opening as explicit language. • Commented that on Page 1 of the actual agreement, there was a correction to a typographical error referring to the end of the term. It is listed as June 30, 2014. September 30, 2014 was agreed upon as the end of term, so that there would not be a turn over during the middle of a performance season. Mr. Davis pulled Consent Items #4 and #8a. Mayor Mike Wasserman stated that Council would hear the pulled Consent Items prior to Verbal Communications. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to approve Consent Items #1-3, and #5-7. Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 5 PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Mr. Davis Pulled Consent Item #4 • Expressed concerns about too much noise during the Music in the Park events. • Would like to see the volume of the events be regulated for the kids that attend. Pulled Consent Item #8a • Expressed concerns that he was not acknowledged when requesting an administrative correction to the minutes of October 19, 2009. Mr. Knowles • .Expressed concerns about the kids that sit against the speakers at the Music in Park events. • Commended Regina Falkner, Teri Hope, Valerie Hopkins, and Marianne Hamilton for their support for the Music in the Park events and the Los Gatos Music and Arts organization. • Commented that Elke Groves and Joanne Talesfore have both agreed to serve on the Board of Directors of Los Gatos Music and Arts and the organization is reaching out to the community for support. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to approve Consent Items #4 and 8a with the correction to Page 5 of the October 19, 2009 meeting Minutes as stated in the Desk Item. Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Reichwein •. Commented against attending Mayor Mike Wasserman's invitation to a dinner party to raise money for his campaign. • Would like Mayor Mike Wasserman to work with the. youth that skate and bike in Los Gatos. • Expressed concerns about Mayor Mike Wasserman spending money to stop the skatepark. 6 Verbal Communications -Continued Mr. Davis Commented that he welcomed "trick or treaters" at his daughter's home and was approached by one of the moms who had recognized him. He stated that it shows that his message is spreading. Commented that he is pushing for a name for the mountain above-Los Gatos and suggested that it be called Mt. Magnificent. Commended the Parks and Public Works Department for a great job on the striping of the streets and suggested that the crosswalks around the schools be painted. Mr. Davis received his first warning for disrupting the meeting. Mr. Guardino • Invited the community to participate in the Silicon Valley Turkey Trot which will be held on Thanksgiving Day. • Commented that there will be a 5k walk, a 10k run, and the Mayor's Cup Challenge. • Commented that Akeena Solar will be sponsoring the Mayor's Cup Challenge and that Mr. Cinnamon would like to extend the invitation to participate. Mr. Cinnamon • Commented that Akeena Solar would be sponsoring the Mayor's Cup Challenge and invited the community to participate in the Turkey Trot event this Thanksgiving. Mr. Denevi Thanked Council for meeting with him and encouraging his project. Expressed concerns about a letter received from the Town stating that his project has no merit. . Commented that he was going to give five acres of the property free to the Town if the Town was willing to participate in his project. Mr. Greer and the Exploded Robots • Commented that as a group project the Exploded Robots have chosen to transport someone or something to a different spot safely. The Exploded Robots have studied the intersection at Kennedy Road and Los Gatos Boulevard and have determined that over 80 kids use that crosswalk to get to and from school each day and about 20 cars run the red light each morning. • Commented that the intersection is not a safe route to school for the kids and suggested that the Town add a crossing guard during school hours to help make the intersection a safe route to school. 7 Verbal Communications -Continued Mr. Larson • Thanked the Exploded Robots for raising the issue of the unsafe crosswalk and that the Town does have a relocation of that crosswalk with new markings scheduled for the renovation of the Thrash House that the Council has previously approved. • Commented that he will ask the Police Chief and the Director of Parks and Public Works to look into any interim improvements that might be possible prior to the Thrash House project going forward. Closed Verbal Communications PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. -Adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of Supplemental Local Law Enforcement Services funds (SLESF) to provide funding for two (2) full-time Police officers assigned as motorcycle traffic officers. RESOLUTION 2009-119 Staff report made by Chief Scott Seaman, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department. Open/Closed Public Comments Motion: Motion by Council Member Joe Pirzynski to adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of Supplemental Local Law Enforcement Services funds (SLESF) to provide funding for two (2) full-time Police officers assigned as motorcycle traffic officers. Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 8 Public Hearings -Continued 10. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries a. Adopt urgency ordinance extending the interim ordinance imposing a moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. ORDINANCE 2183 b. Accept written report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 on the measures taken to date to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of an Urgency Interim Ordinance imposing a moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Staff report made by Orry Korb, Town Attorney Open Public Hearing Mr. Adona • Commented that the city's tax money would increase and that people need to get their medicine without driving a long distance. Closed Public Hearing Mayor Mike Wasserman directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to read the title of the ordinance. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Diane McNutt to waive the reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Diane McNutt to adopt urgency ordinance extending the interim ordinance imposing a moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 9 .Public Hearing Item #10 -Continued MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Diane McNutt to accept the written report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Mike Wasserman directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to publish the ordinance. 11. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to demolish a single family residence and subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots on property zoned R-1 :8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 527-42- 008. Architecture and Site Application S-08-30; Subdivision Application M-08-13; Negative Declaration ND-09-2.Property location: 15928 Union Avenue. Property owner: 217 O'Connor LLC. Applicant: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design. Staff report made by Suzanne Davis, Planner. Council Comments • Requested clarification and description of how the proposed application fits into the application comparison list provided by staff. • Questioned if the Architecture and Site approval would be heard at Planning Commission. • Questioned if the 30 feet of frontage shown on parcel two includes the driveway onto the cul-de-sac. • Requested clarification on the size of the proposed cul-de-sac and the impacts a larger cul-de-sac may have on the proposed subdivision and surrounding neighborhood. • Questioned if the neighbors would prefer the larger cul-de-sac. • Questioned if the larger cul-de-sac would reduce the size of the proposed lots. . 10 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Ms. Davis • Commented that the proposed lot sizes after right-of-way dedications and streets would be about 8,p00 square feet each. • Commented that the subdivision shows a lot that appears to be a "flag lot." It is not technically a "flag lot" because it has thirty feet of frontage on a cul-de-sac. • Commented that the lot configuration was submi#ted by the applicant to provide a better buffer for the immediate residents to the north. • Commented that the shared driveway is not a requirement, but has been proposed by the applicant to reduce the amount of impervious coverage and if Council prefers, they could have two separate driveways. • Commented that lot depth is another element that staff considers and that the applicant has met the minimum lot depth requirements as stated in the staff report. • Commented that staff looks at access to and from the subdivision and that the minimum frontage for Union Avenue is 60 feet which is the reason the property can not be split in a different manner along Union Avenue. • Commented that the applicant can provide all utilities for the proposed subdivision with a few easements that are currently in place for the utilities. • Commented that the tree removal impacts have been shown on the plans and arborist review has been incorporated into the environmental review. • Commented that replacement trees, fencing, lighting, and landscape will be looked at during Architecture and Site Application. • Clarified that the building envelope is within the proposed plans before Council, but the design of the homes would be approved during the Architecture and Site Application process. • Clarified that the maximum height for the proposed project is 30 feet, but staff will take. into consideration neighborhood compatibility and the size of homes in the neighborhood. • Clarified that the proposed property on Union Avenue will be required to have an on-site turn-a-round. • Clarified that the Architecture and Site review would be done with the Development Review Committee. Given the history of this project, staff may request that the project be heard at Planning Commission. • Clarified that the driveway is included as part of the 30 feet of frontage on parcel two. 11 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Ms. Davis -Continued • Clarified that staff recommended the smaller cul-de-sac because they felt it was appropriate to serve the two lots off the cul-de-sac and it seems to fit into the neighborhood with the other cul-de-sacs in the vicinity.. • Clarified that there would be no impacts with alarger cul-de-sac and. that the applicant could still meet the required lot size. • Commented that the house placement would be shifted to the west and more into the view lines if the larger cul-de-sac was approved. Open Public Hearing Mr. Jeans, Applicant • Clarified that the planter strips would be eliminated with the larger cul-de- sac design. • Commented that they have designed the lots to achieve the most views for the neighbors and have spaced the homes to avoid privacy issues. • Commented that one of the neighbors had expressed the desire to keep his views and positioning the homes as they are in-the proposed plans would achieve his request. • Commented that the paved cul-de-sac would allow parking for the proposed homes. • Commented that a low profile home on the end of the cul-de-sac and a single story home on Union Avenue would be appropriate. • Commented that if they eliminate the shared driveway, the neighbors would be looking at parked cars. • Commented that there is a 50 foot separation from Mr. Mangano's home and that a conventional subdivision would only require 16 feet. • Commented about the concerns of a "flag lot" and stated that a low profile home and 50 feet of separation would not create a "flag lot" on the site. Mr. Matteoni • Commented about the focus on the Sub-division Map Act for the basis of denial and that there are no substantiating facts to deny the proposed project. • Clarified that there were no facts to back up the denial which was based on the configuration of the site. • Commented that the rectangle site does work with the proposed density and exceeds the minimum lot size. • Commented that the Subdivision Map Act does not talk to the compatibility with the neighborhood except as to Sub Part B which states that the Council would have to find that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Town's General Plan. 12 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Mr. Davis • Expressed concerns about the public land use permitting process for the Town. • Commented that the Chairman from the Planning Commission should be present during appeals to Council so that they can answer questions and to explain discretionary actions of others. • Commented that Mr. Jeans has a lack of respect for neighborhood compatibility and stated that he had the same lack of respect when he came forward with the Reservoir Road project. Ms. Lynott • Clarified that she has a small one room rental, not a large home for rent, adjacent to the location of the proposed subdivision. • Commented against the proposed project and would like the homes to be more compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. • Expressed concerns that she would lose her views and see a huge wall from two of her bedrooms windows. • Suggested that the homes be single story to fit in with the neighborhood and protect the view sheds for the adjacent homes. Council Comments • Requested clarification on single story verses two story and questioned if Ms. Lynott was suggesting two lots for the proposed sub-division. Ms. Lynott • Commented that she would prefer two lots and that the configuration is creating the problem, three lots are not compatible with the neighborhood. • Expressed concerns about the utility poles and where -they would be placed. Mr. Esche • Expressed concerns about the density of the proposed sub-division. • Commented that the neighborhood is predominately ranch style homes and single story. • Would like the developers to develop the land with the current neighbors in consideration. Council Comments • Questioned if Mr. Esche would prefer a two lot sub-division verses a three lot sub-division. 13 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Mr. Esche • Commented that he prefers a two lot sub-division and that a two lot sub- division would be more compatible with the neighborhood. • Commented that the current neighborhood is a 1960's grid neighborhood with ranch style single story homes. Mr. Mangano • Commented against the proposed sub-division and stated that the sub- division does not fit into the Town's General Plan. • Commented that the proposed sub-division does not fit into the current neighborhood and it fails to benefit surrounding properties. Council Comments • Questioned if Mr. Mangano would prefer the smaller or the larger cul-de- sac. • Questioned if Mr. Mangano's view shed would be hindered by the fences that would be built on the property. Mr. Mangano • Commented that he is in favor of the largest cul-de-sac possible which would push the home farther from his home and allow more view sheds. • Commented that Mr. Jeans is providing distorted view sheds and that he would lose views with the proposed project. Mr. Schwarz • Commented against the proposed project and that the findings in the Sub- division Map Act do not support the project. • Requested that Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Council Comments Questioned if Mr. Schwarz prefers a larger cul-de-sac verses the smaller cul-de-sac. Questioned what evidence Planning Commission provided stating that the site could not support the three lots. Questioned if Mr. Schwarz preferred the garage at the end of the cul-de- sac. 14 Public Hearing Item #11 =Continued Mr. Schwarz • Commented that he prefers the larger cul-de-sac. • Expressed concerns about the flag lot and that the lot violates the Sub- Division Map Act and the Town's General Plan Policies. • Commented that the Town's General Plan discourages this type of corridor line project. • Commented that the lot may meet the technical portion of the 30 foot frontage, but it seems that it does not meet the spirit -and intent of that type of cul-de-sac frontage for a proposed lot. Ms. De Bella Commented that she lives adjacent to the proposed project and feels that there is not enough room to build three homes at the end. of Panorama Way. Expressed concerns about having shared driveways and cars parked along the cul-de-sac. Commented on supporting a two home subdivision at the location. Mr. Mitchell • Commented that the view from his home is the entire length of the property. • Commented that the Planning Commission's unanimous decision was based on suitability of the subdivision, Subdivision Map Statutes, Section 644674, which refers to Section 66473.5, which states no local agency shall approve a tentative map unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. • Commented that the General Plan of Los Gatos does contain numerous references including, but not limited to, assuring that the type and intensity of land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood, promoting and protecting view sheds, and avoiding abrupt changes in scale and density. • Commented that the Los Gatos Town Code Section 29.21.060 under conditions of approval, states the deciding body may enforce reasonable requirements more stringent than the minimum zone requirements when necessary or appropriate to make sure a development is compatible to and harmonious with the particular neighborhood and the established use therein. • Commented that Panorama Way is the immediate neighborhood and the other streets have no direct access, connect to or front Panorama Way. • Commented that the homes on Leewood Court have a full length wall over 8 feet high which separates the homes and that neighborhood. 15 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Ms. Hickey • Commented that she supports the neighbors and that it is important to the neighbors to keep the neighborhood compatible. Mr. Buesing • Expressed concerns about compatibility with the proposed project. • Commented that the two story homes would be too high and would block their views. • Commented that single story homes would be more compatible with the neighborhood. • Commented about the drainage problems within the area and that a three lot subdivision may have a greater impact. Mr. Holmberg • Commented against the proposed three lot subdivision. Mr. Jeans, Applicant • Commented that drainage issues would be dealt with during the Architecture and Site process. • Requested consideration for the project and commented that the Planning Commission had requested that the applicant reduce the sub-division from four lots to a three lot-sub-division. • Commented that the Planning Commission had requested that the project be sent for CEQA review. • Commented that a cul-de-sac with the 37 foot sidewalk would be a good addition to the neighborhood. - Council Comments • Questioned if it would be conceivable for the applicant to develop two lots instead of three lots. • Questioned the size of the homes on a proposed two lot sub-division. • Questioned if Mr. Jeans has envisioned views and compatibility for a two lot subdivision with larger homes. • Requested clarification on the configuration of the homes and the standard configuration of the current neighborhood. • Questioned the option if the applicant did not do a shared driveway. 16 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Mr. Jeans • Commented that it would n.ot be economically feasible for the applicant to move forward with two lots. • Commented that the applicant feels that the three lot subdivision is very viable and would create a compatible neighborhood. • Clarified that the homes would be larger in design with a two lot subdivision. • Clarified that the homes would be larger and deeper and neighbors like Ms. Lynott and Mr. Mangano would lose their view sheds. • Commented that when you put a cul-de-sac at the end of the neighborhood you can not keep the same compatibility of grid lots like the lots on Panorama Way. • Commented that the applicant has done nothing but consider views for the neighbors and that the cul-de-sac at the end of the street is a recommendation from staff. • Clarified that he would have to shift the home to accommodate single . driveways and stated that the neighbors at the end of the cul-de-sac would not have as nice of a view. Closed Public Hearing Council Discussions • Questioned if staff could clarify the parking with the reduced version of the cul-de-sac. • Questioned why staff feels that the third lot is not considered a "flag lot." • Commented that the appeal is based on the. Planning Commission having erred. • Clarified that to determine if the Planning Commission had erred you must look to the Subdivision Map Act, Sub Section "C" and "D" which the Planning Commission used. The Planning Commission determined that the site was not physically suitable for the type of development and that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. • Commented that the Planning Commission looked at facts that included the shared driveway, the inconsistent lot configurations, the potential for inconsistent house configurations, and the neighborhood incompatibility, all of which is evidence that relates to the Subdivision Map Act. • Commented that the third parcel does look like a "flag lot." • Expressed concerns about three lots verses two lots for the proposed project. • Expressed concerns about a three lot subdivision off Panorama Way and the height issues with a two .lot subdivision. • Expressed concerns about the Planning Commission recommending a three lot subdivision at previous meetings then denying the application. 17 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Council Discussions -Continued • Requested clarification on the recommendations and interpretations before Council. • Commented that the testimony heard from the neighbors, the staff reports that Council has read, and the mitigated negative declaration, are not specific enough to validate a real finding. • Commented that the immediate neighborhood is Panorama Way and Union Avenue. • Requested clarification whether or not Council could amend the decision to fill in what the Planning Commission had done or should it go back to the Planning Commission. • Commented that a two lot sub-division with single story homes could be an option. • Commented that a larger single story home would protect the view sheds of the surrounding neighbors. • Expressed concerns about the application comparisons for sub-divisions and Architecture and Site Applications. • Commented that there is a clear distinction in neighborhoods within the surrounding area. • Questioned if the specific areas of the General Plan, Town Code, and Government Code are applicable to the sub-division. • Commented that the Sub-Division Map Act facts need to be applied to the proposed project. • Would like to define what constitutes a neighborhood for the Union Avenue area. • Questioned if there would be an issue if the proposed lot configurations were rectangular like the surrounding neighborhood. • Commented that because of the shapes of the lots, the applicants may be forcing two story structures. Ms. Davis • Clarified that the paved width is the same with either the large or small version of a cul-de-sac. The smaller cul-de-sac would have less parking and landscaping would be provided with either version. • Clarified that the third lot has the appearance of a "flag lot," but meets the 30 foot frontage requirements for a parcel fronting on a cul-de-sac. 18 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Mr. Korb • Clarified that Council has the authority to uphold, reverse or amend the decision of the Planning Commission, but Council must make a finding in order to deny and refer to facts that support the finding. • Commented that if Council feels that the Planning Commission's decision was in any way deficient, then Council has the right to make their own decision and make their own findings. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to deny the appeal on the basis that the Planning Commission did not err. The Planning Commission did not err because under Subdivision Map Act "B" that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable General and Specific Plans and the reason for that is under the General Plan, Section L.P. 3.5 statement that the land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood and Section C.D. P. 1.5 policy to avoid abrupt changes in scale and density. Additionally, Subdivision Map Act Section "C" the site is not physically suitable both for the type of development and that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development based on facts relating to the inconsistency of the lot configuration which would lead to inconsistency in house configuration which was also supported by neighborhood compatibility mentioned in Subdivision Map Act "B". Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice. 19 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued Council Discussions • Clarification from the Maker of the Motion that she is upholding the Planning Commission decision on the basis that their decision was validated by the actual findings that they made. • Maker of the Motion stated that she is upholding and amending the Planning Commission's because they had facts before them that-would apply to the Subdivision Map Act and Council had facts put before us which applied to the Subdivision Map Act and the challenge that the Planning Commission had was their failure to designate when they made their motion which facts that they were using under the Subdivision Map Act. • Expressed concerns about applying the findings to the motion. • Expressed concerns that during the previous Planning Commission meetings they had made statements about the fact that they were determining that a four home subdivision which was proposed by the applicant was too much and a two home subdivision which was proposed by the neighborhood was not sufficient for the applicant and somehow the proposed project turned into a three unit compromise and then to process this for a series of months and come to a decision that the project was denied on the basis that it was not substantiated in the motion and to say that it is not compatible or consistent and feels that it is to vague. • Expressed concerns that the end lot gets saddled with a cul-de-sac and that in order to get three lots on the subdivision one lot becomes a "flag lot" which is not appropriate. • Commented that Panorama Way is the neighborhood and does not feel that the lots are consistent with the immediate neighborhood and it does not feel right to have three lots. Mr. Korb • Clarified that based on the required findings in the Town Code for reversing or amending a decision of the Planning Commission you must make a finding of error or new information or an issue or policy and it sounds as though the Maker of the Motion does find an error and that error would be: 1) failure to articulate clearly what constitutes the neighborhood for consideration and the facts that support that determination, and 2) the additional grounds under the Subdivision Map Act, Sub Section "B" and the policies that relate to those grounds. • Requested clarification from the Maker of the Motion if the motion does include a denial of the Architecture and Site Application. 20 Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued The Maker of the Motion and the Seconder of the Motion agreed that the motion did include a denial of the Architecture and Site Application. VOTE: Motion passed 3/2. Vice Mayor Diane McNutt and Council Member Joe Pirzynski voted no. OTHER BUSINESS 12. Update on Disposal Program for unwanted prescription medications ("Take-Back Program") Staff report made by Chief Scott Seaman, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department. Council Comments • Commented that the medicine drop-off program makes sense and questioned if there could be a day set aside that could be considered as a drop off day. • Questioned if the Household Hazardous Waste Program could partner with the Town, West Valley Sanitation District, and West Valley Recycling several times a year to designate a drop off location for unwanted medicine. • Questioned if the Town could post current drop off locations on the website to educate the community on these locations. • Questioned if Chief Seaman would be willing to take the lead to raise awareness in the community. Chief Seaman Commented that the option of a shared program would be possible, but the Police Department would still have to apply for the certification from Drug Enforcement to handle medications in that way. Commented that the Police Department may have the opportunity to partner with other cities that do not currently have a program in place. 21 Other Business Item #12 -Continued Open Public Comments Mr. Davis • Commented that the whole idea of the program is to serve the public. • Commented that this is a great public interest program for the Police Department. • Expressed concerns that a pharmacy should be taking in used drugs. Closed Public Comments MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to accept the update on Disposal Program for unwanted prescription medications ("Take-Back Program.") Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Attest: Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator 22