Loading...
PC Min - 04/10/2012CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. APRIL 10, 2012 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2012, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Acting Chair Reynolds and the following proceedings were had, to wit: TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Brian Brennan Elizabeth Gibbons Paul Resnikoff Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair: Commissioner: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Theresa Alster Mark Ebner Paul Kermoyan Steve Prosser William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Brennan, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of March 27, 2012, were approved. (6-0-1; Chair Alster and Commissioner Ebner were absent) COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Acting Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2011-166 Public Hearing to consider the application of Kirkorian PLN2011-167 Enterprises, LLC, for a Zone Change (PLN2011-166) from M-1 PLN2011-168 (Light Industrial) to P-D (Planned Development); Tentative PLN2012-69 Parcel Map (PLN2011-167) to subdivide a parcel into two lots; Kirkorian and a Planned Development Permit (PLN2011-168) and a Enterprises, Parking Modification Permit (PLN2012-69) to construct a 6,698 LLC square foot industrial building on property located at 1075 Florence Way. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 1, 2012. 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 south side of Sunnyoaks Avenue between Dell and San Tomas Expressway. It is currently developed with a 6,400 square foot industrial building that was approved in 1962. At the time of approval in 1962, two buildings were approved but the front building was never constructed and the front portion of the lot has been undeveloped since then. • Said that the applications requested include a Zone Change from M-1 (Light Industrial) to P-D (Planned Development). This Zone Change is necessary based on current lot configuration and site situation. Properties must attain access from a public street. Usually residential properties would be subdivided to create flag lots whereby the flag pole access to a rear parcel is part of that rear parcel. However, alternately Campbell Municipal Code allows properties to be subdivided without the inclusion of flag pole access to the rear parcel for a P-D zoned property. • Stated that a second request is for a Tentative Parcel Map to create two lots. Both will be 14,000 square foot lots and will both take access through Sunnyoaks Avenue using an access easement agreement. • Added that the third request is fora Planned Development Permit to allow construction of a new building. Also necessary to support this PD Permit is a Parking Modification Permit to allow one less parking space than required. • Reminded that the site was originally developed in 1962 as shown with aone-story commercial building located at the back. At no time did the front parcel serve as parking for the rear lot. There is currently a one space deficit for the rear lot, which can be supported due to the historic uses of the back lot and its location in relation to the public right-of-way. The building has been used as warehouse space for many years with limited staff on site. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 3 • Said that a Tentative Parcel Map is requested to divide one lot into two lots with access through an existing easement. o Parcel 1 (rear parcel) contains a 6,400 square foot building representing 34 percent lot coverage; 60 percent paving coverage and 6 percent landscaping. Parking is deficient by two percent as 15 spaces are provided when 16 are required thus a Parking Modification Permit is necessary. o Parcel 2 (front parcel) will consist of 40 percent lot coverage, 45 percent paving coverage and 15 percent landscaping where only 8 percent is required. Twelve parking spaces are required for the front parcel and 12 will be provided. o Stated that the overall landscaping would represent 21 percent of both parcels combined when only 8 percent is required. • Reported that the proposed architecture for the new building incorporates contemporary design, masonry, flat roof, a tower element, accents, significant glazing and metal details at the edge of the roof. • Reiterated that a Parking Modification Permit is necessary to serve Parcel 1 (rear parcel) for a deficiency of one parking space. The Planning Commission has the authority to allow such a Parking Modification Permit if warranted. Staff is recommending approval of said Parking Modification Permit. • Reminded that the parking proposed for the Parcel 2 (front parcel) is 12, which meets the requirement. The parking is at a ratio of 1 per 225 square feet and two per service bay. • Recommended that the Planning Commission find this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA as an infill development; a speculative commercial building and the division of a property in an urbanized area. • Said that SARC reviewed the project and made no modifications to the proposal. • Recommended the adoption of three resolutions recommending that Council approve a Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map and a Planned Development Permit with corresponding Parking Modification Permit for Parcel 1 (rear parcel). Commissioner Roseberry asked staff how many P-D rezones have occurred in M-1 zoned properties. Planner Steve Prosser advised that this one would be the third. The other two are off Dell and off McGlincy. Commissioner Roseberry clarified that the site usages would still comply with M-1 allowed uses. Planner Steve Prosser said that is correct. He added that the General Plan land use designation also will remain as Light Industrial. Commissioner Roseberry pointed out that the parking ratio being provided for on site is that for an auto facility but thus far there is no Conditional Use Permit issued for an auto facility on this parcel. Planner Steve Prosser explained that an Administrative Planned Development Permit would be required to establish any use in this building. It could be approved at Director level or brought forth to the Planning Commission at the Director's discretion. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 4 Commissioner Gibbons asked for clarification of page 4 of the staff report in relation to parking. Planner Steve Prosser: • Said that parking standard for a speculative building is usually based on retail uses, which requires the highest standard of parking provision to provide for any possible future tenants. • Added that for this particular speculative building the desirable tenant is auto repair and the use of the retail parking standard would severely restrict this site. Commissioner Gibbons asked how the use limitations would be enforced. Planner Steve Prosser reminded that an Administrative Planned Development Permit is processed for any new use and/or change of use on a PD zoned property. Commissioner Gibbons verified that a tenant gets a business license and staff validates the parking demand for that particular use. Planner Steve Prosser: • Said that the Admin PD process ensures the site can accommodate a proposed use and would be required prior to issuance of a business license. • Added that restrictions are built in for a PD Zone. There are no outright permitted uses. Every proposed use is evaluated. In other words, there is a discretionary review of every use. Commissioner Gibbons said that is assuming that someone properly comes in for licenses. Planner Steve Prosser said that a business is illegal without issuance of a business license. Commissioner Gibbons: • Provided an overview of the project as proposed. • Said that the applicant seeks to subdivide a property into two parcels. • Reminded that one of the two parcels could eventually be sold off to a separate owner. • Said that she has no problem with the rear parcel being short one parking space but the new business will result in a more dense development on the site. • Calculated that there are three proposed service bays in the new building and three spaces per bay; with one or two persons working and one car waiting. That is asking a lot for a business. In other words there are four spaces for three bays for a total of 12 parking spaces. • Asked if it would be possible that three separate businesses could occupy this new building. Planner Steve Prosser replied yes. He added that the building could also be occupied by a single business utilizing all the bays. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 5 Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that there is a 10-foot setback on the side of the property that contains abio-swale. That is not a place where cars can be parked. Planner Steve Prosser added that there is also an underground water easement and above-ground PG&E lines easement in that area. This area must remain unobstructed. Commissioner Gibbons said that often even with an easement there is potential to park but since there. is the bio-swale that might prevent parking. Planner Steve Prosser pointed out that there are no openings or curb cuts to facilitate use of that area for parking. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan clarified that the bio-swale area would be depressed and it would be impractical to park there. He added that this owner is creating their own limitations on the possible land uses as the parking provided will serve limited uses of the site. Commissioner Gibbons cautioned that this limitation can result in enforcement issues. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan reminded that the business license review process allows staff to look at the floor area for a proposed use and evaluate against parking requirements. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that the site could be converted to other uses. • Reiterated that the owners are self-limiting themselves. • Reminded that there is no opportunity to park on the side. • Said it was important that site enforcement not become a burden to the City in the future. • Asked if review of new uses is most often solely based on review of business licenses. Planner Steve Prosser replied yes. Commissioner Gibbons asked if there is proactive enforcement of the need for business licenses. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan replied yes. Commissioner Roseberry: • Pointed out that had this site been zoned for retail uses the parking required to serve the site would have been at a higher ratio. • Asked where in the range of parking provision does this use fall. Is it at a low or mid-range of parking requirement? Planner Steve Prosser said that it was relatively low. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 6 Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan added that the existing use on site is warehousing. Acting Chair Reynolds provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project at its meeting on March 27, 2012. • Stated that SARC extensively reviewed the project. • Reminded that the intent of a P-D zoning designation is to allow some flexibility to create a development that is more consistent; offers adequate open space and incorporates good design. • Said that this project offers good design. • Said that the Zone Change to P-D would allow development that would not be allowed under the existing zoning designation. • Reported that SARC recommended bringing this project to the Planning Commission without modifications for a decision. Commissioner Gibbons asked for clarification about in-fee access. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan: • Explained that the only way for this land split to occur is with a change of zoning to P-D. This zoning is the only way to allow a site to be created without direct access to a public street within its own property lines. The P-D zone allows for a superior development. • Said that the "flag pole" access to the back lot should be owned "in fee" and not through an access easement for use by the back lot. Acting Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Dan Brodnik, Applicant: • Explained that they had just finished another auto service project at 175 Cristich Lane. • Assured that they are aware that they are "painting themselves into a corner" with the possible uses of this property. • Reported that they will be removing a significant of existing auto repair space that they currently own on properties off San Tomas Aquino Road in order to redevelop that area with different uses. They hope to move some of their auto repair tenants to this new building. Acting Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission took the following actions: 1. Adopted Resolution No. 4054 recommending approval of a Zone Change (PLN2011-166) from M-1 (Light Industrial) to P-D (Planned Development); Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 7 2. Adopted Resolution No. 4055 recommending approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2011-167) to subdivide a parcel into two lots; and 3. Adopted Resolution No. 4056 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2011-168) with associated Parking Modification Permit for the construction of a 6,698 square foot industrial building on property located at 1075 Florence Way, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alster and Ebner ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Reynolds advised that this project would be considered by City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012, for final action. *** Acting Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2012-63 Public Hearing to consider the City Initiated application for the Staff designation of up to three properties as Historic Resource Inventory Properties (PLN2012-63). The following properties are under consideration as Historic Resources: 649 EI Patio Drive; 705 EI Patio Drive; and 58 S. 3`d Street. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 1, 2012. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that this is aCity-initiated application to designate three properties as Historic Resource Inventory Properties. • Stated that in 1984, the original list of potential historic properties was developed with 84 properties included. Fifty-five properties were designated Landmarks, both public and private properties and included the Ainsley House, Campbell Community Center and the Alice Avenue Historic District. • Said that there was a decision made to evaluate potential additions and 75 properties were identified. The three under consideration this evening were among the 75 potentials. • Advised that in the 2010/2011 Work Plan, staff was allowed to begin the work to update the Historic Resources Inventory by evaluating potential sites and bringing them forward for consideration and addition to the HRI. • Said that in 2011, the Historic Preservation Board held a joint study session with the City Council and developed the process to begin designation of these potential additions to the HRI. The first to be considered were 13 properties for which the Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 8 HPB held public outreach. On March 28, 2012, the HPB held a public hearing to recommend designation of these three properties with the full support of their owners. Two are located on EI Patio and one on Third Street. All three are developed with single family residences. • Reported that the Planning Commission's purview in this process is to consider HPB's original evaluation and determine if findings are appropriate to include the properties on the HRI. The three criteria/findings include the site being important culturally, architecturally and/or geographically. • Stated that inclusion on the HRI is the lowest level of historic designation. The other levels are Landmark and Historic Districts. • Described briefly the merits of the three properties under consideration for inclusion on the HRI as follows: 0 649 EI Patio Drive was constructed in 1931 and was owned by the Morleys. The HPB found this property to be significant due to its residents. Edith Morley is the namesake of a City park. Another level of importance is its setting within the first development of this area of Campbell. 0 705 EI Patio Drive is within Rancho EI Patio development and was constructed by John Smith, a local developer. 0 58 S. Third Street is located south of the Downtown and was owner built. It is culturally significant because of its Craftsman style constructed by a local builder. It is also highly regarded by both its design and compatibility with its neighborhood. • Said that the Historic Preservation Board recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to recommend Council add these three properties to the City's HRI. Commissioner Resnikoff asked staff what the obligations of such designation might be on the owner. Are there tax incentives? Why did five owners ask to be removed from consideration? Planner Steve Prosser said that one of the three owners of a property under consideration this evening had initially wanted additional time to consider if they wanted to have their home designated. They are now in full support. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if there is a downside to inclusion on the HRI. Planner Steve Prosser: • Said that the process started in 2000. • Stated that some residents had concerns at that time and opposed any additional restrictions being placed on their properties as a result of inclusion on the HRI. Those five owners feel the same today. • Explained that a property included on the HRI is subject to review by the Director to determine if any proposed changes are appropriate to the architectural style of the home. If proposed changes are found to be consistent, the standard review process is followed. • Added that HRI designation offers protection to all owners to develop their properties in a way that remains consistent with a historic site. • Reported that the City of Campbell adopted the Mills Act. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 9 • Stated that most of the properties on the HRI are in a Historic District. Often the same level of review is required regardless of HRI inclusion or not. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan: • Said that a perceived downside could be for some the additional layer of review through the HPB. On occasion, the Director can decide to forward a proposed change to an HRI designated property for review by the HPB. On the flip side, if the change is seen as compatible, the review process is no different than standard. • Pointed out that people who live in historic homes tend to take great pride and want to do the right thing to preserve that home. Others prefer not to be on HRI as they feel there is too much down side and too little up side to such designation. • Added that the City at this time only has a voluntary process for additions to the HRI. • Said that further discussions will be had on whether inclusion will remain only voluntary or if mandatory inclusion may someday be imposed. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that the master list of HRI potential properties has over the years been developed and expanded. • Said that there are no real constraints on that. The two overlays add more constraint including the Alice Avenue Historic District and Landmark Designation. • Said with the two overlays there is a level of review that is not voluntary. Some such reviews have gone really well while other owners have been real upset with the process. • Reported that this is another layer of specific designation that results in constraints being put on what a homeowner can do to modify their property. It can result in additional limitations. There is no guarantee an owner can do whatever he or she wants. • Added that this impacts people who feel strongly about their houses. • Advised that there are some potential tax benefits for designated properties. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan: • Agreed that there are limitations in the form of design. • Added that Secretary of the Interior's Standards must be met. For example when replacing old windows, use of vinyl is not supported but rather matching old windows with modern wooden windows is better than use of vinyl replacements. Commissioner Resnikoff reminded the Commission of a recent review of a historic property on Peter Drive. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan advised that the Peter Drive property is a Historic Landmark structure. Changes to an HRI listed property are handled more at a staff level as long as changes adhere to design specifications. Acting Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Acting Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 10, 2012 Page 10 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Brennan, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4057 recommending that the City Council designate 649 EI Patio Drive, 705 EI Patio Drive and 58 S. Third Street as Historic Resource Inventory Properties, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alster and Ebner ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Reynolds advised that this project would be considered by City Council at its meeting of May 1, 2012, for final action. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan provided the following update: • Reported that he attended a LAFCO hearing on April 4, 2012, as part of the on- going annexation processing. • Advised that three members of the neighborhood association were there and it was a positive hearing with a unanimous vote to approve the request. • Informed that he is working with LAFCO on detachment proceedings for the sliver of San Jose that is coming into Campbell. • Stated that this annexation process should be completed by August or September. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. to Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 2012. SUBMITTED BY: Corinne inn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Philip C. Rey olds, Jr., Act' Chair ATTEST: -- Kirk Heinrichs, ecretary the next Regular