Loading...
PC Min - 06/26/2012CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JUNE 26, 2012 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 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: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chair: Commissioner: Interim Community Development Director: Associate Planner: Associate Planner: Planning Intern: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Brian Brennan Elizabeth Gibbons Paul Resnikoff Bob Roseberry Theresa Alster Mark Ebner Paul Kermoyan Steve Prosser Daniel Fama Erin Fitzgibbons William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of June 12, 2012, were approved. (4-0-2-1 Chair Alster and Commissioner Ebner were absent and Commissioner Brennan abstained) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 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 Acting Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: PLN2010-271 Public Hearing to consider the application of Imwalle Imwalle Development for Minor Modifications to apreviously-approved Development Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2010-271) to allow minor design detail changes on property located 276 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 within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Paul Kermoyan, Interim Director Mr. Paul Kermoyan, Interim Director, presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that this hearing offers the opportunity for staff to provide an update on this almost-completed project and to discuss a couple of changes that staff is still working with the developer on. • Reminded that this project was approved by this Commission in March 2011 and construction began in October 2011. • Pointed out that minor changes occur during construction and the Community Development Director has the authority to approve minor changes. • Reported that several changes were not authorized by staff and are the reason this review is occurring this evening. • Distributed two material boards. One represents the materials reviewed and approved at the Planning Commission meeting. The second was provided to staff at time of building permit submittal. • Stated that a site plan was distributed at the last meeting along with the approved elevations. The Commissioners were encouraged to visit the site and compare it with these approved project plans. • Advised that when staff considers changes to an approved project they look to see if those changes are consistent with the spirit of the original approval. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 3 • Said that the colors were not discussed much by the Planning Commission at time of approval. He added that a green color was approved but it looks greyer as applied on the building. However, staff accepted that color. • Listed other changes as including modifications to window systems. While metal window frames in a champagne color were approved, black frames were installed. Staff approved that change as it looks good. • Said that anot-yet-installed proposed modification is a change of canopies from the approved metal to redwood. Staff feels this change still meets the intent of the original approval and looks good but is concerned whether there may be long-term maintenance issues with wood. • Reported that the applicant is proposing to paint out a concrete block wall rather than putting stucco onto it. Staff is recommending some sort of texture be placed on this block wall. • Advised that trim color is also an issue. When approved the trim was intended to create a contrast through use of a distinctive trim color. The applicant continues to work on trim color and has tried several, including blue. At this time, staff feels that the trim should be different, darker and contrasting from the wall color. Staff leaves this issue up to discussion and decision by the Planning Commission. • Recommended that the Commission support the changes to windows and canopies but require the use of textured finish on the block wall and careful selection of a contrasting trim color. Commissioner Gibbons reported that she walked over to the project site prior to this meeting and encountered the applicant there. They introduced themselves to one another. Acting Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Don Imwalle, Applicant and Developer: • Introduced his associate, John Rezinich. • Thanked staff for pushing and supporting them with this project to do more to make it better, especially Paul Kermoyan and Kirk Heinrichs. • Expressed admiration for the work of the Campbell City Council and Planning Commission over the last decade to improve Downtown Campbell. • Added that he is excited to be in this downtown. • Advised that he would go ahead and stucco the block wall. • Explained that the colors have been difficult. • Agreed that the colors look different once applied. • Said that he had thought that the trim color would be dark enough as painted but it is not. Therefore, the trim will be painted black for maximum contrast. • Added that there are other finishing touches including lighting that are pending that will help enhance the final project. Acting Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Gibbons: • Stated that this is a good project and is still the project this Commission approved. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 4 • Added that staff has done an excellent job working with the applicant during construction. • Reported that she has no concerns with the changes to the wood doors, black metal canopies and pavers. • Agreed that inclusion of stucco in back is a good thing. • Said that the dumpster enclosure in block is fine but she hopes that it is done soon. • Advised that she has two points to make. One is that the main position of the Commission was the desire to break up the massing of this building through use of materials and colors. That goal of breaking up the massing has been lost with the current color palette. • Stated that a big issue remains that the body color should be brighter. It is too dark and gray instead of the originally proposed green. It needed to be green to go with the stone work and should have been brighter and more striking. There should have been three colors distinctively to break up the massing. • Added that the details are what they are. • Said that the only thing she noticed is the removal of a planter and the height of two installed poles, which she found to be too high and reaching into the existing street tree canopy. • Assured that overall she is supportive but would like to see more work on the colors. Commissioner Roseberry: • Echoed the comments of Commissioner Gibbons. • Said that there is disappointment that this building appears to be monolithic and gothic in the dark color scheme. • Added that only color is the issue. He likes the building shape itself. • Said that he does not see how the developer can achieve the contrast desired even with the use of black trim. • Stated that the incorporation of seat walls at the property edge was intended to create a "town square" type of element where passers by could plop down and sit for awhile. They are now set back further onto the property. Acting Chair Reynolds: • Said that he is glad that the blue trim color the developer tried out is gone. • Added that he likes the black. • Agreed that the walls themselves should be lighter in color but he supports leaving this issue up to staff to work out with the applicant. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan: • Advised that staff has accepted the wall color and it would be contrary at this time to go back to that issue to change it. • Agreed that the paint color looks greyer as applied to the building than the anticipated green but the color was approved prior to installation. • Said that staff at this time is asking the Commission for its position on what should be done with the trim color. Staff recommends a stark contrast to be achieved with a trim color that is either much lighter or darker than the wall color. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 5 Mr. Don Imwalle, Applicant/Developer: • Said that what they have attempted to do is create two very different looking buildings. One building (the original Odd Fellows building) is more organic using wood doors and a wood awning in redwood. They have used a stone veneer on the the there to tie it also into a more organic appearance. They used a traditional stucco on the new building portion. To that end, they hired ahigh-end residential stucco company who used ahigh-gloss stucco that will catch the light. Painting over that special stucco would lose that effect totally. • Declared that he "loves" this building and has spent a lot of time and money to achieve its design and stay true to the vision. • Added that when called to make material and design decisions throughout the process he always went for the higher end finishes available. • Said that the goal of that building (new portion) is to be very slick and modern in contrast to the more organic building (former Odd Fellows hall). • Said that he had rejected several versions of the the material in an attempt to get what they presented in their original concept, which is a high gloss concrete look together with metal doors. • Assured that both units (designs) should tie in together well. • Said that while the installed poles are high, when they are strung with lights like the rest of the downtown and have planted pots hanging down from them, there will be more massing on the poles that will be well below the tree canopies. • Said that he would not be asking the City to touch its public right-of-way trees and they have no banners planned. • Agreed that he likes the inclusion and use of seat walls. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan: • Explained that the originally proposed seat wall placement encroached into the public right-of-way and had to be relocated. • Reminded that the building body color is what has already been approved. • Said that the question remaining is how to counter balance that color. Commissioner Gibbons: • Questioned whether the the material order has been finalized. • Stated that this material would make the building even more monolithic. • Agreed that the Commission must honor the staff-approved main body paint color. • Suggested that that the top trim be painted black but the wood pieces and soffit might be better painted a different color to separate the building from the fascia and decorative top perhaps using redwood soffits and kickers. Mr. Don Imwalle agreed that black would help tie in. Commissioner Gibbons: • Reiterated that the problem remains that there is no contrast with the roof. • Agreed that the existing body color will lighten up over time. • Stated that she does not want to ask too much of this applicant who has made good faith efforts together with staff. • Added that the third building in back should be a different color. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 6 Mr. Don Imwalle said that the third building was always intended to be the same color. Commissioner Roseberry said that it is not a good idea to try to repaint the already installed Venetian plaster. That looks great. He added that when the light fixtures are installed they may shine back on the building to help create contrasting shadows. Mr. Don Imwalle agreed. He added that pending details such as tenant signs and the base material will also help. He said that the polished concrete is much lighter and there are more break ups in the appearance that are coming. Commissioner Roseberry: • Said that this is a good project. • Added that he is happy to see it there but it does find that it looks somewhat monolithic. • Advised that he is okay with the high poles. • Assured that nothing about this project design represents a deal breaker and he sees that the applicant is trying to fix issues of concern. • Cautioned that imposing the wrong changes could end up making this building look too contrived. Commissioner Gibbons: • Agreed with Commissioner Roseberry. • Said that this is a great project. • Added that she is still a bit disappointed as it could have been a better project. It's just too dark. • Cautioned that the pending base color could make it appear even darker. • Suggested the applicant provide nice large samples of the stone to show staff how it would look on the building. • Reiterated that she would like to see some contract at the base. • Concluded that it is what it is at this point. Interim Director Paul Kermoyan agreed that the color of the proposed base material is in the same palette as the existing main body color. Unless it is lighter or darker, it will blend in. However, the textures are different. Commissioner Brennan suggested that staff and the applicant be provided with very clear direction if they are being asked to show samples of materials. Commissioner Gibbons suggested asking the applicant to see if they could provide two variations to add more color. Mr. Don Imwalle: • Reported that the project is 25 percent over budget. • Stated that they have enjoyed working with staff. • Expressed willingness to work with this Commission to get this right. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 7 • Stated that he has spent years working on this project and he wants to do anything he can do to make this Commission more excited about the end result. • Said that he would even consider discarding the ordered materials and do it right. • Reminded that he has gone above and beyond in the design and its execution. Commissioner Roseberry asked Mr. Don Imwalle when the samples are expected to arrive. Mr. Don Imwalle said he is not sure. Commissioner Roseberry suggested having staff some look at it when it arrives. Mr. Don Imwalle; • Said he would take it a step further. • Pointed out that he personally did not like the first three samples provided. • Said that if the materials on order have not yet been manufactured, he may change them again. • Added that once these tenant spaces are occupied and details such as lighting have been installed and people are eating meals in the outdoor seating area, the appearance at this corner of downtown will be much improved when compared to the old building and parking lot that existed prior. • Stated his desire to make everyone happy with this building. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Stated that he likes this building and finds it beautiful. • Pointed out that pleasing 100 percent of people is unlikely. • Reiterated that the existing wall color has been approved and is final. • Recommended that the issue of wall tiles be looked at and approved by staff. • Questioned the proposal for the trim at the top. Commissioner Roseberry: • Cautioned that this building was not designed by the Commission. • Said that if the Commission tries to fix it, those fixes might not be right and may look more wrong. • Said that while the building as painted looks dark that is not a deal breaker. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Agreed that the wrong changes could ruin the whole thing. • Said it appears that the remaining issues that fall within the Commission's ability to change is the color of the trim and roof details. • Suggested that black may be the most contrasting color available. Acting Chair Reynolds: • Stated that this building is beautiful. The use of wood trim on the doors is beautiful. • Added that the project shows quality and craftsmanship. • Agreed that use of black trim will help and that over time the main paint color will lighten. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 8 • Said that he will support staff's recommendations and asked for a motion. Commissioner Gibbons said that she would like for staff to see a sample of the base material and review the final selection with the applicant. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4075 approving Minor Modifications to a previously-approved Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2010-271) to allow minor design detail changes on property located at 276 E. Campbell Avenue with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: • Modify Condition 3 to reflect stucco finish; • Modify Condition 6 to require the applicant to review the base material with staff prior to final installation, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Roseberry and Reynolds NOES: None ABSENT: Alster and Ebner ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Reynolds advised that this item is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Acting Chair Reynolds advised that he must recuse from participation on Agenda Item No. 2 due to a professional conflict. He turned the gavel over to Commissioner Roseberry and left the dais and chambers. Acting Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2, PLN2012-41 Public Hearing to consider the application of Sprint for a Sprint Conditional Use Permit (PLN2012-41) to allow modification of an existing Sprint wireless telecommunications facility on a PG&E tower on property located at 1849 Pollard Road in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the project site is at Highway 85 and Pollard Road within an easement. The site is zoned P-D (Planned Development) and the General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Medium Density Residential. Explained that the Wireless Ordinance requires modifications and additions to existing cell sites to be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 9 • Added that the existing approval for this installation was granted four years ago and will expire in November 2013. Changes require approval of a new CUP. • Explained that the original application sought approval to add three new antennas to replace three existing obsolete ones at a 50-foot height. For a limited six-month period, all six antennas would be in place and after that time the three old antennas would be removed. H-frames would be installed and remain in place even after the old antennas have been removed. • Advised that following SARC's review of this proposal, the applicant has revised the application and there is no longer a need for a transition period. Instead the old will be removed and replaced with the new antennas immediately. • Reported that the new Conditional Use Permit will be effective fora 10-year period from the date the existing CUP expires on November 13, 2013 through November 2023. Commissioner Resnikoff presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC considered this item at its meeting on June 12tH • Advised that while SARC was supportive of this application, the members were concerned about the six-month transition period and use of H-frames. • Added that SARC asked the applicant to work on a revised plan that would not require that transition, which was done. Acting Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Acting Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Gibbons: Complimented staff and SARC for their work with the applicant on this item Stated that this application proves the benefit of SARC review. Commissioner Resnikoff said that it is also a credit to the applicant for coming up with a revised proposal to meet the request by SARC and staff. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Brennan, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4076 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2012-41) to allow modification of an existing Sprint wireless telecommunications facility on a PG&E tower on property located at 1849 Pollard Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Gibbons, Resnikoff and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alster and Ebner ABSTAIN: Reynolds Acting Chair Roseberry advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Acting Chair Reynolds returned to the chambers and dais to resume the gavel. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 10 ** Commissioner Gibbons advised that she would recuse from participation on Agenda Item No. 3 because the project's architect is a professional colleague and friend. Acting Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2012-37 Public Hearing to consider the appeal by Mr. Raj Singh of an Singh, R. Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2012- 37) that approved a new single-family residence on propriety located at 1690 Westmont Avenue in an R-1-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the subject property is a 9,100 square foot parcel on Westmont near Harriet Avenue and Westmont High School. The site is zoned R-1-9 (Single Family Residential) and falls within the regulations of the STANP (San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan). • Explained that this vacant parcel is the remaining portion of a subdivided property that was split in 2006. • Said that the home recently approved for construction on this parcel is a two-story design with 2,500 square feet of living space and a 580 square foot garage. • Reported that the application for this home was received in February 2012. The application was found to be complete and noticed on April 24, 2012. The comment period ended on May 3, 2012. The Director approved the design review on May 14th. The appellant filed an appeal on May 24th. The appellant is the adjacent neighbor. His major concern is privacy and the potential for views into his bathroom. • Stated that sight line distances were considered. The rear window of the subject house is 55 feet from the nearest window on the appellant's home at a 30 degree angle. Another window has a 65 foot sight line distance. The ridge of the garage roof is at 17 feet in height. The window ridge of the window in question is at 16 foot height and will prevent view impacts. • Said that staff has concluded that there are nominal impacts on privacy from this proposed home onto the existing adjacent home. • Added that the director reduced the size of one window from 2 square feet to 1.5 square feet to help mitigate concerns. • Informed that the appellant is claiming insufficient notice, inadequate project plans, and concealment of communications by staff. • Clarified that there was six weeks' time between the time the appellant was notified of the proposed project until its approval. The project plans were prepared by a licensed architect. Staff provided the appellant with requested communications and project information via digital report and emails. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 11 • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying this appeal and upholding the Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit approval. Commissioner Brennan asked if there are additional Ordinances, in addition to the guidelines of the STANP, that deal with privacy impacts. Planner Daniel Fama explained that there are required findings in place for Site and Architectural Review Permit approvals. One finding to be considered is whether a proposed project "aids in the harmonious development of the immediate area." Commissioner Brennan clarified that there is nothing more explicit than the provisions of the STANP. Planner Daniel Fama replied correct. Acting Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Terry Martin, Project Architect: • Said that he and his client spent a lot of time on the siting of this house on this lot. • Reminded that the garage serves as a buffer between this new house and the adjoining neighbor's home. • Said that there is not much more that they can do. • Pointed out that this new home is just two-thirds the size that it could be. It is a modest home. • Stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Roseberry: • Agreed that when designing and siting a house, the architect takes privacy into consideration. • Stated that it is tough to have a house from where one could not see another home's windows. Mr. Terry Martin: • Explained that they focused all windows to the front and back and not to the side. • Added that the side windows facing the appellant's property are six to eight feet off the property line. Mr. Raj Singh, Appellant: • Said that the core issue is privacy. • Added that three of four windows are directly looking into his bedroom window. • Advised that he had previously been told that the side windows would be removed. • Stated that the rear windows see into his master bedroom and bath. Commissioner Brennan: • Thanked Mr. Raj Singh for being here. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 12 • Pointed out to Mr. Singh that this was a parcel with the potential for a building to be constructed upon it. • Asked Mr. Singh what his hope had been for use of this parcel. Was it for asingle- story home? • Said that he senses that Mr. Singh has frustration with the process. • Agreed that the process can be frustrating. Mr. Raj Singh said that he had hoped for asingle-story home. He added that he is simply asking for a higher height window at six feet instead of 5.5 feet. Commissioner Brennan said that seems to be above most people's line of sight. Mr. Raj Singh said that another concern he has about this application is the level of communication. Acting Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Brennan: • Said that while he feels for the appellant here, he does not feel that it is reasonable to limit Mr. Singh's adjacent property owner to asingle-story home. • Added that it doesn't seem reasonable to raise the window height to a point that they can't see out of them or to fundamentally change the project or delay it. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Agreed. • Said that there can be impact issues when one wants to build on adjacent properties. • Advised that following the original application windows were reduced and trees added to the landscaping. • Said that he cannot see large changes to the project as it is now. Commissioner Roseberry: • Agreed that there is always a balance. • Said that we live in a city and there are always adjacencies. Most of us will see a neighbor's windows even with asingle-story home. This issue cannot be solved by allowing no windows on houses. • Pointed out that his own bathroom window can be seen and he has installed blinds on that window and planted trees. • Said that there is a good opportunity for trees and shrubs to help block views. Perhaps an awning could be installed to help mitigate impacts. • Said that no matter what is done, there is the chance that someone can see in one window. Acting Chair Reynolds: • Reported that he did a site visit and saw that there are blinds in place on the appellant's adjacent home windows. • Agreed that this is a common need with suburban living. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2012 Page 13 • Recounted that he has atwo-story home located behind his home. Every window on their second floor faces his bedroom window. He said that he closes his blinds when he needs privacy and opens the blinds when he doesn't. • Stated that any additional changes to this home would be unreasonable. • Advised that he would support the Director's decision to approve this home. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4077 denying an appeal and upholding an Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2012-37) that approved a new single-family residence on propriety located at 1690 Westmont Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Resnikoff, Roseberry and Reynolds NOES: None ABSENT: Alster and Ebner ABSTAIN: Gibbons Acting Chair Reynolds advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Interim Director Paul Kermoyan had no additions to the written report: ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m. immediately to a study session and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 10, 2012. SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY APPROVED BY: Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary /~ ~~ Philip C. Reynolds, Jr., A ing Chair for Items 1 and 3 rry, ¢~izting Chair for Item 2 Bob ATTEST: Paul a oyan, Secretary