Loading...
PC Min - 05/22/2012CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 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: MAY 22, 2012 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Theresa Alster Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Paul Resnikoff Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Staff Present: Interim Community Development Director: Assistant Planner: Land Development Engineer: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brian Brennan Mark Ebner Elizabeth Gibbons Paul Kermoyan Daniel Fama Ed Arango William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Reynolds, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of May 8, 2012, were approved. (4-0-3 Commissioners Brennan, Ebner and Gibbons were absent) COMMUNICATIONS Memo regarding Agenda Item No. 1. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 2 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. PLN2011-255 (PD) Public Hearing to consider the application of Arcadia PLN2011-256 (TS) Homes, Inc., for a Planned Development Permit PLN2011-257 (ZC) (PLN2011-255); a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map PLN2011-258 (GPA) (PLN2011-256); a Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2011- PLN2012-100 (TRP) 257); a General Plan Amendment (PLN2011-258); a Fletcher, M. Parking Modification Permit (PLN2012-43); and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2012-100) to allow the construction of a new 25-unit small-lot single-family subdivision on property located at 125 S. San Tomas Aquino Road in a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: June 19, 2012. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this project has been under review since 2007. Two separate pre- applications for different developments have been reviewed including a previous townhome-style apartment complex. In 2009, the applicant brought forth a different concept of a small-lot single-family development. • Said that in April 2011, Council granted authorization to proceed with the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment for this project. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Study Session. In October 2011, the formal application was submitted. • Described the project site as 125 S. San Tomas Aquino Road at Bucknall Road. It is known as the Kirkwood Auto Center and is surrounded by residential uses to the west; retail to the north; a school to the south and residential/commercial uses to the east. • Said that that proposed General Plan Land Use is proposed to change from the existing Neighborhood Commercial to Low-Density Residential. The Zoning is proposed to be amended from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to P-D (Planned Development. The Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map would create 25 single- family lots and two common lots; The Planned Development Permit with Parking Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 3 Modification Permit would allow the construction of 25 new small-lot single-family homes; and a Tree Removal Permit would allow the removal of two protected trees. • Explained that the 25 lots would range in size between 1,800 square feet and 3,300 square feet with an average of 2,087 square feet. The residential units would be on an interior look style street. The homes along Bucknall will face that street and the remaining will face the interior. There are 71 parking spaces and aseven-foot high pre-case wall on the north and west elevations and wood fences elsewhere. Perimeter landscaping will help buffer the project and provide an aesthetic environment. • Stated that the elevations include two and three-story models ranging in size between 1,800 square feet to 2,600 square feet, including garage. There are three architectural styles, French, Traditional and Spanish. The structures incorporate traditional building forms and materials including plaster stucco, lap siding, brick and stone trim and composition or the roofing. • Said that the massing is most noticeable from inside the site and less evident along Bucknall. The site plan indicates the three-story models in red and the two-story models in blue. The applicant has offered to modify the plan for units 8 and 9 with two-story units rather than three, if requested by the Planning Commission. • Said that there is 8,600 square feet of open space or 345 square feet per unit. This includes 240 square feet on average; eight foot wide side yards and 2,600 square feet of common open space area. While this is less than similar development sides, such as 700 Gale, they offer different development concepts with this one being within a more densely developed area. Therefore, the open space areas while small are proportional to the lots. In comparison, the open space average for condo units is 500 square feet and for R-M (Multi-Family) zoned projects the average is 300 square feet. This project meets the 300 square foot standard but not the 500 square foot standard. • Advised that the 71 parking spaces equals 2.85 per unit. The parking required is three spaces per unit. The site is deficient by four spaces thus requires a Parking Modification Permit. It is believed that the installation of 14 new off-site street parking spaces along Bucknall will satisfy this minor deficiency. • Reported that traffic was studied by an outside consultant and a trip analysis was performed. It was found that there would be a reduction in traffic with 60 fewer in the a.m. peak hour and 72 fewer in the p.m. peak hour. The traffic study looked at the use of Bucknall Road that already has a lot of traffic with Harker School. This development could impact the LOS. Therefore, staff is recommending that Bucknall not be used for site access. • Added that traffic data for 11 years of left turn movement from the site onto San Tomas Aquino was evaluated. Only two left accidents occurred from this site turning left. • Reported that two land use/zoning changes will occur as part of this project. These are legislative acts. Even if no project is ultimately constructed, these changes are permanent. They are independent of the project at hand. The General Plan Amendment would allow 6 to 13 units per gross acre. This project is proposed at 9.2 units per gross acre, which is consistent. A small-lot single-family development is consistent with the General Plan. One of the General Plan policies calls for compatibility between new and existing uses. In this case, anon-conforming auto repair use is being removed and replaced with a residential development that better Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 4 offers a transition from commercial to residential using medium-density residential design. The General Plan land use for the adjacent shopping center is Neighborhood Commercial. Having asmall-lot single-family project is consistent with the General Plan. • Said that the P-D Zoning requires development that is not greater than the number of units that would be allowed under comparable zoning. In this case, the comparable zoning is R-M (Multi-Family Residential), with one unit per 3,000 square foot in lot area. This site could max out at 29 units but 25 are proposed. • Informed that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires 15 percent of the units be BMR (below-market-rate) units. That standard would require 4 units on site. In lieu of that, the applicant is proposing an alternative dedication of 8 existing units off side that would be deed restricted as BMR units. • Said that the Planning Commission would have to make a determination that the provision of these 8 off-site BMR units is consistent with the requirement or could require that the necessary units be provided on the project site. The off-site units would have to be of comparable quality as the intent is to develop new units comparable in quality to the new market-rate units of this project. Staff is recommending improvements to the off-site units to bring them to new condition if they are accepted in-lieu of dedicated new units on this project site. Additionally, dependant upon the number of bedrooms for the owner-occupied units, additional BMR units may be required if not equal. The applicant's proposal is going from the required on-site four units to 8 BMR units being provided off-site. The increase in square footage and bedroom count meets the requirement. The two properties where BMR units would be deed-restricted are located at 45 Fulton and 12 Kim- Louise Drive. • Pointed out that the proposed units to honor this project's BMR requirement are already affordable. They would need to be modified to provide some net benefit to the City. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said that one obvious benefit is that these affordable units would be locked in for 55 years. Planner Daniel Fama: • Added that perhaps these existing units could be reduced in rent so to qualify being categorized as extremely-low-income units. • Reported that while there are 30 average income BMR units, there are currently no extremely-low-income units in Campbell. • Stated that adding new extremely-low-income units would equal a greater public benefit along with a 55 year deed restriction to keep them at that level. • Said that it is staff's recommendation to reject the applicant's proposal for off-site BMR units. If the off-site BMR units are allowed by the PC, it would be better to require that all eight of them be extremely-low-income units as well as requiring that these units be brought to a current like-new standard. • Added that if the Commission allows the off-site BMR units, additional findings would be necessary as well as a modification to the conditions. A table item this evening provides the proposed language to be added to the motion. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 5 • Reported that public improvements would be necessary along San Tomas Aquino Road and Bucknall Avenue frontages. These improvements include replacing the sidewalks and undergrounding the utilities. • Said that an Initial Study was prepared as required under CEQA and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was drafted. The comment period ended today and no comments were received. • Recommended adoption of resolutions approving this project. Commissioner Roseberry said he couldn't make out 15 street parking spaces. Planner Daniel Fama pointed out on the site plan eight street parking spaces along Bucknall and six along San Tomas Aquino Road. He added that nothing new is being provided with this existing street parking. Commissioner Roseberry asked what the likelihood is of this project going forward. Planner Daniel Fama advised that the applicant has expressed a strong desire to go forward with the project. Commissioner Roseberry asked if there are pictures available of the proposed off-site affordable units, Planner Daniel Fama directed Commissioner Roseberry to Attachment 19 in the staff report. Commissioner Roseberry looked at Attachment 19 and said that this exhibit was helpful. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if it is realistic to count on the use of street parking given the current uses in the area and existing traffic on Bucknall. Planner Daniel Fama said that the nearby school brings drop off and pick up traffic but not daylong parking demand on the street. There would be different hours of use between these residences and the school. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if converted existing rentals into BMR units to satisfy this project's obligation for affordable units meets the intent to add to available affordable housing units. He questioned what might happen to existing tenants in these existing units. Would people be moved out? Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said that if existing tenants don't qualify as extremely- low-income households, they would not qualify as tenants for these BMR units and would have to move. If they do qualify, the BMR rents could be reduced as appropriate. City Attorney William Seligmann added that once a lease expires, the landlord could replace a tenant with a qualifying extremely-low-income tenant. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 6 Commissioner Roseberry said he doesn't fully understand the inclusionary housing provision and how this proposal for off-site BMR units qualifies under the intent of the law. Commissioner Reynolds provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on April 24, 2012, and was supportive. • Said that SARC felt that asphalt was appropriate and lower cost that offered less tire noise. • Agreed that access from Bucknall was not desired. • Agreed that there was adequate open space with this project. • Stated that the color schemes were muted and requested additional colors be added. • Said that there was concern about the three-story units creating a heavy massing presence on San Tomas Aquino Road. Chair Alster opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jerry DeYoung, Applicant's Representative: • Said that it was a year ago that this group was together at a study session for this project. • Thanked staff for the complete report that makes his job easy this evening. • Said that he is accompanied this evening by several people including Michael Fletcher with Arcadia Homes and Dan Brodnik with Kirkorian Development. • Added that Dan Brodnik slipped away from his wife's birthday party to speak briefly to the Commission this evening after which he needs to get back. Mr. Dan Brodnik, Kirkorian Development: • Said he is here to represent the Kirkorian Family. • Said that after hearing the discussion about the BMR units, he proposes to take the request for off-site units out of consideration and return the four affordable units to the project site. • Added that the off-site provision is too convoluted and he would rather see this project move ahead. • Joked that by seeing the nodding heads of the members of the Commission, this removal of off-site BMR units from consideration appears to make them happier and more comfortable. • Said that making this project feasible for all parties involved, they need to maintain the number of homes at 25. • Thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak first and excused himself to return to his wife's birthday party before getting "into a lot of hot water". Mr. Jerry DeYoung: • Said that modified plans have Units 8 and 9 as two-story units. • Stated that the open space provided is slightly above minimum. • Agreed with Dan Brodnik that 25 units are necessary to make the project work. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 7 • Said that they are willing to live with the conditions of approval on issues of tree species. • Assured that there is no competition for use of street parking in the evening. • Said that the project architect is here this evening if the Commission wishes to discuss color options in any detail. • Stated his hope that the Commission would forward a recommendation for approval on to Council. Ms. Denise McCoy, Resident on John-Kirk Court: • Explained that she purchased her home 23 years ago and her property backs to this project site. • Advised that she is not concerned about the project itself but more so about her built-in pool and deck and their future use of it. • Asked what accommodations she can expect to make sure that her use of her home is not taken away. • Expressed concern about parking. Said that there are nine cars parked there every night because there is no parking available on her street. Street parking is first come, first served. • Said that because there is an existing easement where her deck is located, this project could take up some of her yard and deck. Commissioner Roseberry advised that applicants are encouraged to conduct neighbor outreach. He asked Ms. McCoy if she attended that neighborhood meeting held by the applicant. Ms. Denise McCoy replied no, she was ill. Commissioner Roseberry pointed out that there is an existing 7-foot tall fence separating the site that should alleviate her concerns about access onto her site from this project site. Ms. Denise McCoy said that 7-foot fences can be scaled. Since she has a pool, she is concerned about people coming over the fence into her yard and pool. She said they have complete safety as it currently is but this project changes things. She reiterated that if this project takes away some of her yard she will also lose a part of her deck. Commissioner Reynolds asked staff about these concerns over loss of pool and/or deck on Ms. McCoy's property. Is there an easement in place? Interim Director Paul Kermoyan: • Explained that when looking at an aerial photograph of these sites (applicants and Ms. McCoy's properties) it is evident that there is a solid masonry wall with wood fences behind that wall. Many of the neighbors have removed the wood fences over the years and began using the space that had been blocked off between that wood fence and the masonry wall. • Reported that the City would never approve improvements (such as a deck) over a property line and that it is possible that this deck was installed without approvals. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 8 Commissioner Roseberry asked if this use is considered "grandfathered" if the space has been used over the years by this property owner. City Attorney William Seligmann said that if said use had continued over more than five years it may be possible. However, if it was done without the permission of the actual owner the parties might need to go to court to allow such use of this land to continue. Commissioner Roseberry asked if this owner would therefore be responsible for property taxes for that portion of land as well. City Attorney William Seligmann said that if the title to the property changes hands, yes, but, if the use is allowed simply through easement rights, no. Ms. Denise McCoy asked about the rights of an easement. Commissioner Roseberry: • Suggested that Ms. McCoy talk with her own legal representative to determine what her rights are. • Added that when this property is developed a survey will be done to define the property lines definitively. • Said that if her use of the area at the back encroaches on the legal property line there may be contention. • Advised that this Commission is not the deciding body for that determination. • Reiterated that she would need to consult with her own legal representative to see if this potential dispute is worth pursuing. Mr. John Kirkorian, Applicant: • Said that he would be happy to meet with Ms. McCoy to work this concern out. • Stated that there appears to be some unpermitted construction and there is no easement in place. • Added that he will work with neighbors and has resources to work this out. Commissioner Roseberry asked if the area in question represents one, two or ten feet. Mr. John Kirkorian said that he is not sure. He said that they can consider the situation with each respective backyard. He said that he is happy to work issues out. Commissioner Resnikoff asked where the fence would be put. Planner Daniel Fama said that page C-2 of the civil drawings shows that it appears as if the fence would run across two existing decks. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said that it appears to represent approximately 8 feet. Commissioner Resnikoff said that what could be done once the survey has been completed. Would changes impact the approved layout of the site? Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 9 Commissioner Roseberry cautioned that this is a civil issue between two property owners. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said that if the property lines were to be realigned as a result of some agreement between this owner and the residential neighbor(s), lot line adjustments would be necessary to legally do that across all properties. Commissioner Reynolds sought verification from staff that the Commission's purview for this review is to the property line. Any question regarding establishing the legal property line is beyond the scope of the Commission. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan agreed. Chair Alster closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Roseberry: • Thanked staff and the review system in place to consider projects such as this one. • Said that the use of study sessions to vet out a proposal, ask questions and give input early in the design process is a nice opportunity. • Stated that the lot line issue is a bit of a wrinkle but it is a private legal issue. • Said that this is a well though out project. The applicant made adjustments asked for so that it has become a vastly superior project with the requested changes. It fits into its location and neighborhood. It is similar to a project just behind. • Added that the smaller size of outdoor space meets the changing needs and desires of today's property buyers who may prefer not to have to take care of a bunch of grass. • Stated that this is a great project and he hopes it goes forward. Chair Alster: • Expressed agreement with Commissioner Roseberry's comments. • Said that she thinks the proposed colors are nice and disagreed with the concerns raised by SARC on the issue of colors. • Stated that as designed, this development doesn't present like a "project" but rather as varied homes with varied design elements. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Agreed and said that changes resulting from the original comments made at the study session resulted in a resituated site resulting in the loss of a few units from the original proposal. • Stated that the provision of alternate off-site BMR units was a concern to him and is now off the table per the applicant's comments this evening. • Said that this project fits in well and he has no issue supporting it. Commissioner Reynolds: • Said that he agrees with all the previous comments. • Stated that this is a fantastic project. • Advised that he would also be supportive. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 10 • Stated that the Planning staff and the applicant did a good job. • Thanked the applicant for removing the proposal for off-site BMR units from consideration. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Reynolds, the Planning Commission took the following actions: • Adopted Resolution No. 4067 recommending that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Adopted Resolution No. 4068 recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment (PLN2011-258) to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units per gross acre); • Adopted Resolution No. 4069 recommending that the City Council approve a Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2011-257) to amend the Zoning Designation of the project site from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to P-D (Planned Development); • Adopted Resolution No. 4070 recommending that the City Council approve a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLn2011-256) to create 25 residential lots and two common lots; • Adopted Resolution No. 4071 recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2011-255) with a Parking Modification Permit (PLN2012-43) to allow the construction of 25 small-lot single-family residences; modifying Condition 6 to have two-story homes constructed on Lots 8 and 9 and Condition 10 to require on-site BMR Units; and • Adopted Resolution No. 4072 recommending that the City Council approve a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2012-100) to allow the removal of two protected trees on property located at 125 S. San Tomas Aquino Road, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Brennan, Ebner and Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Chair Alster advised that this item will be considered by the City Council for final action at its meeting of June 19, 2012. *** Chair Alster read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 11 2. PLN2011-318 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Kenneth PLN2011-319 Rodrigues for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2011-318) to Rodrigues, K. allow the construction of a new 5,393 square foot, one-story commercial building and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2011-319) on property located at 2135 Winchester Boulevard in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: June 19, 2012. Project Planner: Paul Kermoyan, Planning Manager Mr. Paul Kermoyan, Interim Director, presented the staff report as follows: • Described the subject property, located at Winchester Boulevard and Rincon Avenue, as consisting of a 17,000 square foot lot. It is a former A&W site and has an old boarded building remaining on the property. • Said that the property is zoned P-D (Planned Development) with a Central Business General Plan land use designation. The site falls within the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan area. • Gave an overview of recent activity in regards to this site. In 2006, a similar project was processed for this site with a slightly large building at 5,500 square feet and four tenant spaces and 26 parking spaces, six on the street. The redwood tree at the back was to be preserved with this proposal. The Planning Commission recommended approval of that project in October 2006 and the Council approved it in November 2006. That approval expired in 2009. • Explained that what is proposed with today's project is a less than 5,500 square foot project with a maximum height of 22 feet. The design utilizes three different building elevations equaling four tenant spaces. The design includes a breezeway, 26 parking spaces located at the back and six off-site parking spaces along the street. New features include four bike stalls and the removal of the redwood at the back. Additionally, a setback adjustment is necessary. • Said that Winchester is anticipated to be a vibrant boulevard similar to Downtown. The Winchester Boulevard Master Plan calls for large sidewalks to engage pedestrians and a more convenient shopping experience. • Added that the question is raised, "how to draw pedestrians to the front of this building?" • Responded that the use of the breezeway will facilitate easier access to the street side of this new building. There are three different storefronts. There will be entries for each business at the back (parking lot) side of the building as well but the Winchester frontage will represent the main entries for these businesses from a street perspective. • Added that issues raised are building setback. Additionally, there are above- ground utility cabinets, signs and tree removal issues. • Said that with the call for wider sidewalks (15 feet) represents 10 feet in the public right-of-way and five-feet on the site itself to reach a width of 15 feet. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 12 • Advised that there are planters to the property line propose that are subject to adjustment. • Said that staff has determined that the columns along the front elevation are encroachments but supportable. • Stated that Public Works has reviewed the proposed planters and staff's recommendation is to remove them from the design and use potted plants to provide some greenery. • Reported that 26 parking spaces are provided on site where 27 are required. This is a deficiency of one space for which a Parking Modification Permit is necessary. Additionally, there are four bicycle spaces and new street parking being introduced. Staff is recommending that the Parking Management Plan allowing one less parking space be supported. • Added that the applicant believes that the above-ground cabinets should remain in place as they are costly to relocate. However, leaving them in place is contrary to the City's practices and the goals of the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan. While staff is not suggesting that this equipment be vaulted underground, it is recommended that these cabinets be relocated to the Rincon Avenue side of the property. • Reiterated that the business entries are oriented to the street. A breezeway has been added to the design to incorporate the rear parking access to the front and to help increase leas ability while also de-emphasizing the rear entries. • Said that the building rear entrances might offer the easiest ingress to these business locations. Staff is anticipating that it may be difficult to manage window signs located at the Winchester frontage. The concern is that these windows may predominately be used for display signs. • Explained that signage allowed per business is one wall, one window and one projecting sign. The Downtown Sign Ordinance doesn't allow window signs and staff is recommending the Commission consider that issue. • Reported that the tree retained with the previous application is not recommended for retention by an arborist at this time and staff concurs. • Said that this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The necessary findings can be made to support approval. • Suggested that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of this project by City Council. Commissioner Roseberry asked if the rear entrances would be limited to employee use or general access. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said that they would be available for general access. The applicant feels that access is necessary to make these spaces leasable. Commissioner Resnikoff asked staff where the six off-site parking spaces would be located. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan pointed to the site plan and explained that these six spaces would be installed along the Winchester frontage in new bulb outs. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 13 Commissioner Roseberry clarified that these spaces are not there now. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said no, they are not there now. These bulb outs will be installed per the continued requirement for boulevard treatments called out by the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if it is not difficult to regulate signage content. City Attorney William Seligmann said that is essentially correct. He said that the objective is a legislative enactment on types and quantities of signs allowed per business and not ad hoc controls over signage content Commissioner Resnikoff restated that this means the City can disallow signs but not what the signs might say. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan agreed that the City cannot regulate what a sign says. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if lettering on windows is counted as a sign. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan replied yes. Commissioner Resnikoff asked the cost of relocating the cabinets. Is there someone from Public Works available to answer this question? Interim Director Paul Kermoyan: • Replied yes. • Added that one cabinet holds the electrical equipment for the traffic lights. The smaller cabinet provides the power meter for that cabinet. • Stated that staff does not believe it makes sense to keep these cabinets in their current place along the Winchester frontage of this new development. Mr. Ed Arango, Land Development Engineer, Public Works Department: • Said that he is available for any questions. • Advised that City staff takes its direction directly from the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan when imposing conditions on a project. Commissioner Reynolds asked where these two cabinets are located. Mr. Ed Arango said they serve the signalized intersection at Rincon and Winchester. They will be relocated from Winchester Boulevard to the Rincon Avenue side. Commissioner Reynolds asked if this requires new technology and/or boxes. Mr. Ed Arango explained that it is not practical to relocate existing equipment to another placement. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 14 Commissioner Reynolds asked if the equipment necessary is smaller and/or if it can be combined into a single cabinet. Mr. Ed Arango said that the existing technology is consistent with what is installed new today. Commissioner Reynolds asked if the utilities along Winchester would be undergrounded. Mr. Ed Arango said that the overhead lines would be placed underground. The City has submitted an application to PG&E for undergrounding along the west side of Winchester Boulevard to Budd Avenue. Commissioner Reynolds reported that during his site visit he noticed mid-span coax cables down Rincon. He asked if this would be including in the undergrounding requirement. Mr. Ed Arango said he was not sure of the limits but any utility line within 100 feet gets undergrounded. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if Mr. Ed Arango can provide the cost to relocate this equipment. Mr. Ed Arango said that staff generally doesn't provide estimates as it is not in the business of relocating specific pieces. He offered a ballpark figure of between $20,000 and $25,000. Commissioner Resnikoff said that the applicant believes that this expense is cost prohibitive. Commissioner Roseberry clarified whether existing cabinets and/or equipment are not re-used if relocated. Mr. Ed Arango clarified that neither the cabinets nor the equipment contained therein are re-used if relocated to another location. Commissioner Reynolds provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on May 8, 2012. • Said that SARC was supportive and found that this project would contribute to Winchester Boulevard. • Said that SARC had concerns about use of excessive window signs in these new business storefronts as a potential detraction aesthetically when seen from Winchester Boulevard. • Added that the retention of the two cabinets on Winchester would also detract aesthetically. He said that joint trenching options might be possible while undergrounding the other utilities. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 15 Chair Alster opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues, Project Architect and Applicant: • Said that he has a couple of issues to discuss. • Reported that he can agree with the staff report except for the requirement to relocate the boxes. • Pointed out that in comparison to the originally-approved project for this site, this project contains more design including more costly design details. Additionally, they are losing some square footage. • Reminded that it has been five years since the last approval. • Stated that the cost to replace and relocate the controller boxes is between $20,000 and $25,000. That is a City of Campbell item. If the City wants to relocate that equipment, they should assume that expense. • Added that boxes such as these are typical and can be found throughout the City. • Suggested that while it may aesthetically good to relocate these boxes, it is something the City should do rather than to burden this project with the additional cost of doing so. The applicant still has that opinion. This is one item they are asking not be imposed. • Stated that they share the concern over use of window signage. The applicant will restrict use of window signs on the leasing agreement. • Added that there is no sign program submitted this evening. Signs on the exterior plaster facades will be necessary. Drawing national tenants will require a good signage program. • Recommended that this project be forward for Council approval. Commissioner Reynolds asked Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues if he can offer some idea of the cost of trenching. Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues said that they are looking into that. He reiterated his belief that the requirement to relocate the boxes is an unreasonable cost being imposed on this applicant by the City. Commissioner Roseberry asked Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues why those boxes are not depicted on the project's elevations. He said that he is on the fence on the issue of relocation. While on one hand he can agree with the question of why relocate. On the other hand, he can see it being aesthetically a good thing to relocate them. Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues said the reason these boxes are painted in a light green is to help them blend in and somewhat invisible. He added he based the building design on where these boxes are located. He said that he is trying to appeal to the Planning Commission to help out with this request to not require the relocation of these two cabinets over to Rincon. Commissioner Roseberry asked Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues his thoughts on the removal of permanent planters with potted plants. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 16 Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues said that is not a problem. He said he actually likes the idea of pots and is okay with that change. Chair Alster closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that he does not want to see multiple window signs plastered across the windows of these businesses but can understand that the issue may be restrictive. • Asked staff if there is a difference between paper signs and lettering directly placed on windows to identify a business. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said that the definition of a sign is very broad. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Asked staff what the difference might be over the proposed relocation of these controller boxes versus other public improvements that are the responsibility of the applicant. • Reminded that there is a Master Plan for this whole area whereby the wires will be undergrounded. • Stated that this is the time to move these boxes. • Said that as for the issue of moving versus replacing these boxes is a struggle without knowing the actual cost of relocation. • Agreed that these boxes shouldn't be there. Chair Alster said that it is important not to impose stricter rules for signage than are in place for other businesses, which are so often violated any way. That doesn't make sense and is not logical. Commissioner Roseberry agreed that may be the case until the Sign regulations are strengthened. Chair Alster: • Said that consideration of whether to move the cabinets is handled on a case-by- case basis. • Stated that she is neither sure nor comfortable with this requirement. • Added that it is not the scope of this Commission to consider financial concerns. • Suggested that with a huge project such a requirement might make sense but perhaps less so with a smaller project such as this on. For a smaller project a $20,000 to $25,000 expense is a sizeable chunk. • Reminded that this property has been blighted for years. • Stated that she is not 100 percent sure these cabinets must be moved. Commissioner Roseberry: • Stated that the signage argument is one for a different day. • Agreed that signs always come up as an issue. • Said that there is an overall plan for utilities within the Winchester Master Plan. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 17 • Suggested perhaps the imposition of some sort of in-lieu fee, a nominal amount that could be set aside for the eventual relocation of these cabinets. • Pointed out that these cabinets will be visible when passing by. • Added that this is a great project and will be nice looking. • Stated that he is hung up on keeping versus relocating the cabinets and will defer to the rest of the Commission on this issue. Commissioner Reynolds: • Stated his agreement on signs saying that signage can often represent a can of worms. • Said that he would like to see the boxes moved. • Pointed out that this will be a gorgeous building. • Added that down the road, Winchester Boulevard will be a beautiful area. These boxes would stand out like a sore thumb. • Stated that an outdoor dining area is possible in front there. • Agreed that the Commission should not take a cost factor into consideration when making this decision. These boxes are a huge distraction there. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Stated that this is a great project. • Stressed the fact that there is a Master Plan for the whole street and block. • Questioned, if not now, these boxes will be there for years. Now is the time, if ever, to move these boxes. • Agreed that there is potential for a restaurant with outside seating and these boxes would be obtrusive to that use. • Said that not relocating the boxes will be regretted. This requirement is consistent to help improve the whole block. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4073 recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2011-318) to allow the construction of a new 5,393 square foot one-story commercial building and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2011-319) to remove four trees on property located at 2135 S. Winchester Boulevard, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Brennan, Ebner and Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Chair Alster advised that this item will be considered by the City Council at its meeting of June 19, 2012 for final action. *** Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 18 Chair Alster read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. CIP2013-2017 Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell's 2013- Staff 2017 Capital Improvement Plan for citywide projects for consistency with the City's General Plan. Staff is recommending that the project be deemed Statutorily and Categorically exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: June 5, 2012. Project Planner: Paul Kermoyan, Planning Manager Mr. Paul Kermoyan, Interim Director, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the purpose of the Planning Commission's review is not to consider specific items of the CIP but rather to identify how the items can be found to be consistent with the City's General Plan. • Explained that the Capital Improvement projects are those costing over $25,000. Each project is evaluated against how they will further the objectives and goals of the City's General Plan. • Reported that there are 17 items within the CIP, five of which are new and 12 which were included on the last CIP. Worksheets for these 17 projects have been provided within the staff report. • Said that findings supporting the CIP have been drafted and the Commission is asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan. • Clarified that it is Council's role to determine whether to proceed or not with the specific CIP items. Council has already reviewed the items in light of the recent budget discussion. Commissioner Roseberry pointed out that the Hacienda Avenue road improvement project is not included among these items. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that that project is in the process of being designed. Commissioner Roseberry questioned why it is not within this CIP. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said staff does not have that answer tonight. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission took minute action to find the City's proposed Capital Improvement Plan 2013- 2017 consistent with the City's General Plan and to forward a recommendation that the City Council adopt said Capital Improvement Plan 2013-2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Brennan, Ebner and Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 22, 2012 Page 19 Chair Alster advised that this item will be considered by the City Council at its meeting of June 19, 2012 for final action. Interim Director said that he would look into the status on the Hacienda Avenue road improvements and get back to the Commission with an update. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Interim Director Paul Kermoyan said that he had not additions to the written report. Chair Alster congratulated Interim Director Paul Kermoyan for his appointment. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan thanked her and said that he is following in big shoes and hopes to be as effective as Director Kirk Heinrichs has been. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 12, 2012. ~'vl SUBMITTED BY: rin nn, Recording Secretary ~~ APPROVED eY. Theresa Alster. Chair ATTEST: \~ o l I ~ `~ Paul Kermb~ian, Secretary