Loading...
PC Min - 03/27/2012CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. MARCH 27, 2012 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2012, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Alster and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Theresa Alster Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Brian Brennan Mark Ebner Elizabeth Gibbons Paul Resnikoff Bob Roseberry None Community Development Director: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: Assistant Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Kirk Heinrichs Paul Kermoyan Steve Prosser Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012, were approved. (7-0) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Alster read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2012-36 Public Hearing to consider the application of Sushi Confidential Sushi for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2012-36) to allow late night Confidential hours and general alcohol sales fora new restaurant on property located at 247 E. Campbell Avenue in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Said that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a site in Downtown Campbell between First and Second Streets. This space is one of five that share a common parking lot in the back and formerly housed Twist Cafe. • Advised that the zoning is C-3 (Central Business District) and the General Plan designation is Central Commercial. • Stated that a beer and wine license was held for this location which is allowed in the C-3 Zoning District without requirement for a Conditional Use Permit. • Added that a Conditional Use Permit is required for general alcohol sales and late night operations with a 12 a.m. closing time. • Said that a building permit has been issued to combine both tenant spaces. The floor plan is largely the same with the kitchen and storage areas remaining in place and the removal of demising walls to create a space to accommodate an 11-seat sushi bar, five bar seats and 76 dining room seats. The project complies with the sites Zoning and General Plan designations as well as the provisions of the Downtown Alcohol Policy, which allows general sale alcohol in conjunction with restaurants as long as said alcohol sales are subordinate to food service. This is a full service restaurant per the menu provided in the staff report. • Said that the hours of operation are to be no later than 12 a.m., which requires a Use Permit for any hours of operation after 11 p.m. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 3 • Informed that staff can make the necessary finding that this use would not present an over concentration of restaurants with alcohol sales. Chair Alster pointed out that Twist was unable to open both sides at the same time. Planner Daniel Fama said that is correct. They had two separate tenant spaces with an opening between them. To comply with Building Codes, a tenant improvement permit is necessary to create one tenant space in order to use both spaces as one tenant space. Commission Gibbons asked about the restriction on the total number of seats as a Building Permit issue. Planner Daniel Fama explained that the maximum allowed occupancy is 99 occupants before a Fire Department requirement kicks in to require installation of fire sprinklers. Commissioner Gibbons said that it appears that a maximum of 92 occupants are proposed and 93 would be allowed per Building Code. Planner Daniel Fama said that occupancy is also restricted per the Conditions of Approval. Chair Alster opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Randy Musterer, Applicant: • Introduced himself and explained that he is the business owner and executive chef of this new restaurant. • Reported that he has lived in Campbell for 10 years and was born and raised in California. • Recounted that he was introduced to sports fishing as a young kid and to the fishing industry as a young man at which time he was also introduced to the art of sushi. He moved to Cal Poly for five years of college where he studied biology and made sushi for himself and his roommates. He secured his BA in biology and went to work as a cancer research biologist who made sushi part-time. • Explained that at some point he questioned "why no sushi" in Downtown Campbell and came up with his first business plan in 2004 for this restaurant. His target area was Downtown Campbell but 2004 was not right as he didn't feel he had enough experience at that time. However, in 2011 he decided to go forward when the Twist Cafe location became available. • Stated that with the support of his business partner, loyal guests, friends and family, dreams can come true. • Asked that Commission to please approve his Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Musterer if he is aware of the special events held in Downtown Campbell that closes off streets as well as the weekend Farmer's Markets. Is he okay with that? Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Randy Musterer replied definitely. That's the reason why he chose Downtown Campbell. He said that everything that the Downtown has to offer is what they want to be a part of. Chair Alster said that she agrees that sushi seems to be a wonderful fit for Downtown Campbell. Chair Alster closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Ebner: • Said that this will be a great addition. • Joked that he wished he had had a roommate in college who made sushi. He just ate cold pizza. • Asked if the alcohol sales would be up to midnight every night. Chair Alster: • Said that a sushi restaurant is one at which people would easily stay until midnight eating sushi and drinking. Commissioner Reynolds admitted that he has never been big on sushi but is intrigued by this menu. It looks good and will be great for the Downtown. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said he sees nothing out of the ordinary in this request. • Added that the proposal meets the standard criteria and there is no reason not to support this application. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Ebner, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4052 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2012-36) to allow late night hours and general alcohol sales for a new restaurant on property located at 247 E. Campbell Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Brennan, Ebner, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Alster advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Alster read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 5 2. PLN2011-294 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. John Miller for PLN2012-45 a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2011-294) to allow Miller, J. the exterior remodel of an existing commercial building that is listed on the City's Historic Resource Inventory (Water Tower II) as well as on-site improvements and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2012-54) to allow the removal of five protected trees on property located at 307 Orchard City Drive in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Described the project site as being on the northeast corner of Orchard City Drive at S. Central Avenue. It is a currently developed project site that was constructed between 1909 and 1912 and formerly housed the Farmers Packing House as well as Sunsweet. It is an historic resource that is included on the City's 1984 Historic Resource Inventory list. • Explained that the application is for a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow a minor exterior remodel that includes the removal of a covered entryway; installation of a new hardscape entry; reconfiguration of the roof lines; upgraded landscaping and removal of five trees (two Japanese Maples and three Alder trees). • Said that the hardscape entry is facing Orchard City Drive and Central and will include the modification of pedestrian access and interior access. They will remove a later addition feature (gable entry) and replace it with an outdoor entry and reconfigure it as a shed roof. A solid barrier railing will be removed for a walkway and replaced with asee-through style of railing. Five skylights will be installed on the north building that faces onto Central Avenue to help increase natural lighting. • Reported that this application was considered by the Historic Preservation Board for review and recommendation at its December 2011 meeting. The HPB determined that the historic integrity of the exterior has already been compromised enough to allow this proposed remodel. HPB recommended support for this application as it benefits the overall site. • Advised that SARC reviewed this proposal on March 13t" with two SARC members and one HPB member in attendance. SARC forwarded this project on to the Planning Commission without any changes. • Said that five protected trees are proposed for removal that are ranked as being in "less than fair" condition. They are located in an area so small so as not to allow them to grow to their potential. These trees would be further impacted by the proposed hardscape. Additionally, the Alders create a visual barrier to the visibility of the building from the street. Replacements are proposed for the removed trees that will help improve the visibility of this historic structure to those passing by. • Suggested the adoption of two resolutions to allow the Site and Architectural Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit for the removal of five trees. • Stated that the applicant is present this evening. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 6 Commissioner Brennan asked for further information about the required criteria to support tree removals. Are the criteria different when considering a commercial property versus a residential property? Planner Steve Prosser explained that there are three required findings. He added that the main difference between consideration of tree removal requests for residential versus commercial properties is that on commercial properties most on-site trees are protected. Chair Alster said that it appears there is intent to attempt to relocate some of the trees and if that relocation is not successful to replace them. Planner Steve Prosser said that while it is desirable for the applicant to attempt to relocate them elsewhere on site, the need for replacement is more likely and that is staff's recommendation. Commissioner Brennan asked about the size of the trees to be removed in relation to the size of the replacement trees. Planner Steve Prosser said that the existing trees are over 12-inches in diameter, which requires replacement trees to be 24-inch box trees. A 24-inch box tree is approximately four to five-inches in diameter. Commissioner Brennan said that he hasn't yet seen trees ranked in "less than fair" condition. He asked what that ranking triggers. Planner Steve Prosser: • Said that there are three required findings to support tree removal that include: o The trees are diseased or dying; o The trees are in danger of falling or to damage a main structure; or o The trees result in an economic hardship that is causing the owner hardship that is not seen on other properties of similar nature. • Added that the health of the trees is not the issue here. Of the five proposed for removal, only two are ranked as being in "less than fair" condition. Commissioner Ebner asked how staff determines economic hardship. Planner Steve Prosser: • Replied that there is no quantitative standard. • Explained that in the C-3 (Central Commercial) Zoning District the requirements for landscaping are limited. • Added that a prominent visibility of the storefront is limited with this site. • Said that the goal is for prominent storefronts to be visible from the public right-of- way and for pedestrians. • Said that the existing landscaping minimizes the view of the main structure on this property. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 7 Director Kirk Heinrichs: • Agreed that this is a different application than the Planning Commission is used to seeing. • Added that this is not a redevelopment site. • Said that the mature landscaping currently affects the visibility of this building. • Advised that the Commission could determine that these trees should be retained. Commissioner Roseberry asked if Alders are protected trees. Planner Steve Prosser clarified that there are only four protected species on R-1 residential properties but all trees on commercially zoned properties are protected. Commissioner Roseberry asked if these trees were planted by the developer who currently owns the buildings. Planner Steve Prosser said yes, these trees were planted in the 1980s. Commissioner Roseberry said that he is skeptical about the potential for success in relocating trees of this size elsewhere on site. He added that 24-inch box trees are pretty small. He asked what type of replacement tree is proposed. Planner Steve Prosser said he was not sure. Commissioner Gibbons pointed to page 2.2 of the plans. Commissioner Roseberry read the plans as indicating the replacement trees as Ornamental Cherry. He said that those ought to be pretty. Commissioner Ebner asked the potential for growth of those trees and whether they would be miniature or dwarf. Planner Steve Prosser said no, they are neither dwarf nor miniature but the Ornamental Cherry will not grow as large as the existing trees. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that the front entry helps with the identification of a building. • Pointed out that it is hard to find the front entry on this site, which equals an economic hardship. • Cautioned that while a 36-inch box tree may be lovely, 24-inch box trees have a better chance of succeeding when planted. Commissioner Resnikoff said that it appears that a case can be made for economic hardship because denial of this tree removal would not allow this owner to create this new entry, which will be something that can be seen and walked to by people approaching this location. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 8 Commissioner Brennan: • Questioned the case being made for economic hardship. • Pointed out that there is no parking allowed in front of this building. • Stated that there are different types of businesses using this location. • Suggested that the claim of economic hardship for someone wanting to remove a protected tree from their backyard might not be so easily reached as is being made for this project. Commissioner Ebner: • Said that perception is relative. • Stated that he finds this corner to be attractive with its mature trees. • Advised that he has no problem with the proposed facade changes but does have a problem with the proposed tree removals. • Agreed that some uses don't necessarily need visibility such as an architect's office. • Reported that he does not agree with the case being made for the finding of economic hardship if these trees are not removed. Commissioner Reynolds provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this proposal on March 13t" and recommended bringing it forward to the Planning Commission for discussion as a group without specific recommendation. Chair Alster opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. John Miller, Applicant: • Said that he is appearing for the property owner, Mr. Tom Harrington. • Reported that Mr. Harrington has his company within this building and has plans to expand his space there. Mr. Harrington enjoys Campbell and being in its Downtown. • Stated that in terms of the building, their proposal is a simple program. Some things just don't go with it. • Stressed the need to create a "real" main entry. A strong open facade with a new entry offers an obvious way to reach the interior atrium. Currently, people cannot find the front entrances due to the trees. • Added that the trees are root bound and would be difficult to move. One tree is dying and has a split in its trunk. It will be gone soon no matter what. The two Japanese Maples are located tight to the building. It would be hard to construct around them. • Reminded that of the five trees proposed for removal, three are either dying or necessary for removal due to their close proximity to the area to be reconstructed. • Reiterated the need to create a broader entry and said that the owner really wants to create a front entry feature. • Advised that the owner has no problem adding trees and re-landscaping. He will put in nice trees in the enclosed patio area for use by employees. • Added that the use of this flowering tree (Ornamental Cherry) will be attractive. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 9 • Said that replacing the solid railing with an open railing will give a nice lightness as well as removing the siding. • Agreed that these buildings are what they are. Commissioner Roseberry asked if the atrium will be available for public access or serves only for the use by tenants of the building itself. Mr. John Miller said that the space is intended for use by tenants although the public can walk in. Commissioner Roseberry asked how many Alder trees there are. Mr. John Miller said that there are seven Alders trees in total on site. One is dying and two are in front of the building. Commissioner Roseberry sought verification that four of the existing Alders would be retained. Mr. John Miller replied yes. Commissioner Ebner asked if an arborist report has been prepared in support of the applicant's position on the health of these trees or are the conditions being reported about the trees this evening just the opinion of the applicant. Mr. John Miller said that the opinions offered are just obvious ones. He admitted that there is no arborist report. One of the trees is almost dead now as it has a split trunk. Commissioner Gibbons said that the railing that will be replaced across the front has stone underneath but she doesn't see stone depicted on the elevation near the ramp. Mr. John Miller said that is right. It is wood frame construction. Commissioner Gibbons said that there are two different qualities there. Mr. John Miller said that there is ship lap siding and a porch that is pushed out. A stone element will be added outside but the building itself will be maintained as ship lap siding. Commissioner Gibbons said she wanted the use of two different materials on one fagade to be understood. Chair Alster closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Roseberry: • Said that these proposed updates are a great thing as he has always found this to be an unapproachable building. • Stated that he can understand the issues Commissioner Brennan has raised on the tree issue. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 10 • Added that these trees proposed for removal have been here 30 years but are not a common species to the area. • Added that it is important to open the building up and tie this side of town with the rest of the Downtown. As is, the building does not draw people in to it. • Suggested that perhaps a future discussion of the Tree Protection Ordinance might consider regulations for tree removals on the issue of economic enjoyment. • Stated that there is really not enough light for the Japanese Maples where they are located here. • Reminded that the applicant is retaining four of the seven Alders. • Said that he thinks this is a good project. Commissioner Ebner: • Agreed that he has no problem with the proposed facade changes. • Said that his problem is with the argument made for financial hardship if the trees cannot be removed. • Said that this is an historic building but it is a warehouse. • Added that he personally enjoys the appearance of these trees. • Stated that if removed he would like to see them replaced with trees that will become larger as they mature. • Said that some compromise is needed here. • Reiterated that he can approve this facade update with inclusion of larger replacement trees. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Advised that he supports this project that will open up the front entrance and provide a facade change. • Pointed out that the trees need to be moved to help open up the front entrance to public visibility and that the justification for supporting the tree removal can be made. • Said that commercial uses are different from residential uses. • Pointed out that some things can be done for single-family properties that cannot be done for commercial properties. • Said that it makes sense to allow this project and he likes how it will look when updated. • Said that he supports the removal of trees with the new landscaping that is proposed to replace them. • Agreed that relocating the trees likely will not work. • Suggested using larger replacement trees if it makes sense to do so. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that she supports this project. It is a great project. • Added that the case for the Tree Removal Permit can be made on the issue of economic hardship. • Explained that this is a commercial office building and it needs a front door to help support the viability of the businesses operating there. • Suggested that it might be awkward to have stone on one side and different material (lap siding) on the other side of the same facade. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 11 • Reiterated that overall she is supportive. This will represent a nice improvement. Commissioner Reynolds: • Joked that perhaps this can be reverted back into the original use as a cannery with the tearing down of buildings and planting of orchards. • Said that he supports the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Board. • Stated that there is a give and take on the issue of trees. Some will need to come out but new trees will also be put in. This will help beautify our Downtown. Commissioner Brennan: • Said that he is sympathetic about pulling some of the trees out. • Added that his understanding of the Commission's role is to determine if an economic hardship can be found to support the tree removals. He said that it is made more difficult without a corresponding arborist report but rather is a discretionary determination by the Commission as to whether these trees adversely effect the operation of this business location. • Stated that he is comfortable with the fagade improvements but not with the economic hardship argument made in support of the tree removals. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that there appears to be a hang up on the issue of establishing economic hardship to support the tree removals. • Suggested there is a difference when arguing the cost of repairs to a driveway or sidewalk on a residential property and a business especially if the owner of a business cannot do something because a tree is there. • Stated that this is a subjective decision based on seven different opinions here on the Commission. Commissioner Roseberry: • Said that buildings like this are an asset to the community and are not currently being maximized as they currently appear dark and unwelcoming. • Agreed that part of the equation is the issue of economic hardship. One can see cracks in the trunks as shown in the photo of the trees provided. • Cautioned that he is not sure that use of bigger replacement trees would be better. • Added that planting Ornamental Cherry trees will offer a taste of the orchards from days gone by and will be gorgeous in spring time. • Said that the drawings indicate that this remodeled facade will create a showplace. Commissioner Gibbons: • Stated that this building serves as an important presence in this community. It needs to be inviting and attractive. • Said that the planting of Ornamental Cherry trees will be a nice addition and will represent pedestrian scale trees that will contribute to the building site, street and community as a whole. • Said that the Tree Ordinance is not a problem and that the seven Planning Commission members are here to provide thoughtful evaluation and consideration of tree removal requests such as this one. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 12 • Reminded that actions of the Commission can be appealed to Council. Commissioner Resnikoff said that the site contains a single tenant using two floors and multiple tenants on the other floors. Chair Alster: • Said that she once had reason to go to this building and had a difficult time finding its front door, which was of concern since she was attempting to make it to an appointment on time. • Stated that the existing entrance doesn't relate to the street. • Suggested that it was a logical move to allow this change. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4051 approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2011-294) to allow the exterior remodel of two existing commercial buildings that are listed on the City's Historic Resource Inventory (Water Tower II) as well as on-site improvements on property located at 307 Orchard City Drive, subject to conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Brennan, Ebner, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4052 approving a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2012- 54) to allow the removal of five protected trees on property located at 307 Orchard City Drive, subject to conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: Brennan and Ebner ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Alster advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Kirk Heinrichs reminded the Commissioners that their respective Conflict of Interest Forms are due to the City Clerk. Commissioner Gibbons asked if anyone attended the Planners Institute. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 27, 2012 Page 13 Chair Alster: • Advised that she attended the Planners Institute held in San Jose. • Said that she attended one session entitled, "The New Normal." • Reported that one fact she learned was the projected growth of single person households. Single-person households represent 42.3 percent of the population while another 28.5 percent of households are married couples without children. • Added that she attended a session by former Campbell Planner Geoff Bradley on the topic, "Doing More with Less," at which he made interesting points on customer satisfaction and related issues. • Stated that there were a couple of presentations on the benefits of Specific Plans for cities. • Said that a speaker from San Diego representing SANDAG (like ABAG) stated that a lot of time is spent planning but not enough on marketing a plan. • Expressed her thanks to the City of Campbell for sending her to this conference. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 2012. SUBMITTED BY: ~ Corin inn, Recording Secretary 1/ ° i , APPROVED BY: "~~`/ ~ ~-''~"~ ~~~ Theresa Alster, Chair ATTEST: Kirk inric s, Secretary