PC Min 01/22/2002CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
JANUARY 22, 2002
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2002, was called to order at 7:30 p.m.,
in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairman
Francois, and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chair:
Vice Chair:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Tom Francois
Joseph D. Hernandez
Bob Alderete
George Doorley
Elizabeth Gibbons
Felicia Leonard
Commissioners Absent:
Commissioner:
Brad Jones
Staff Present:
Community
Development Director:
Senior Planner
Associate Planner:
Planner I:
City Attorney:
Reporting Secretary:
Sharon Fierro
Geoff I. Bradley
Tim J. Haley
Stephanie Willsey
William Seligmann
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Vice Chair
Hernandez, the Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 2002,
were approved. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Jones was absent and
Chairn0an Francois abstained)
COMMUNICATIONS.
1. Modified Findings for Agenda Item No. 1.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no agenda modifications or postponements
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 2
ORAL REQUESTS
Ms. Sally Howe, 45 Budd Avenue, Campbell:
· Advised that she had attended the Olympic Torch Run in downtown San Jose on Friday,
January 18th, to watch Chairman Francois run with the torch.
· Distributed photographs that she had taken at the event.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Expressed that the Olympic Torch Run event was a wonderful event and that he was proud
to be there in support of Chairman Francois, who had many supporters among the crowd in
attendance.
· Added that he was looking forward to the expansion of the Light Rail System into
Campbell and pointed out that he and Sally Howe had taken Light Rail to Downtown San
Jose in order to attend this Olympic Torch Run.
Chairman Francois:
· Stated that participating in the Olympic Torch Run was the most exhilarating thing that has
happened in his life since the birth of his children.
· Called the experience "magical."
· Thanked all his supporters for their love and support.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Francois read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
PLN2001-139 (PD)
PLN2001-140
(PM)
Black, T.
Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Tom
Black for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2001-139) to allow
the construction of a new single-family residence and a Tentative
Parcel Map (PLN2001-140) to create two lots on property located at
132 Sunnyside Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning
District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Tentative City
Council Meeting Date: February 5, 2001. Project Planner: Tim J.
Haley, Associate Planner. Continued from the Planning Commission
meeting of January 8, 2002.
Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant, Mr. Tom Black, is seeking approval of a Planned Development
Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for property located on the south side of Sunnyside
Avenue, between Industrial and the Union Pacific right-of-way.
· Said that a new single-family residence is proposed to be constructed behind an existing
residence. The existing residence consists of 2,192 square feet and the proposed residence
would include approximately 2,500 square feet with a two-car garage. The lot would have
30 percent coverage and 52 percent landscaping. The FAR would be .46. The General
Plan density allows 6 to 13 units per gross acre and this proposal represents 7.4 units per
gross acre, well within the allowable range.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 3
· Advised that this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Planned Development
Zoning. It is also consistent with the Downtown Development Policies and compatible
with the surrounding properties.
* Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation for Council's approval of
this request for a Planned Development Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map.
Commissioner Gibbons asked staff for the side and rear yard setback requirements.
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that there are no established setbacks for a Planned
Development Zoning District. For Residential Zones, the standard for both side and rear yard
setbacks is five feet or half the height of the wall.
Vice Chair Hernandez presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this project on December 11, 2001, and was supportive as proposed since
all issues have been addressed.
Chairman Francois opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman Francois closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Gibbons:
Stated that this project is similar to other projects where too much is proposed for a piece
of property.
· Expressed concern for the five foot setbacks and pointed out that the driveway is but 12
feet from the property line without allowance for a fence or landscaping on the property
line.
· Said that she could not be supportive although this is a nice project and house but simply
too much for this property.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Stated his agreement with the concerns raised by Commissioner Gibbons.
· Added that the proposal does not seem to pass a logic test.
· Said that he would not be supportive.
City Attorney William Seligmann:
· Cautioned that there are specific legal requirements regarding denial of residential projects
and allowable densities.
· Clarified that if the Commission wishes to deny a project that falls within allowable density
and development requirements, the Commission must make a finding of specific
detrimental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Commissioner Alderete:
· Said that he agrees this project represents a lot for this property.
Added that he will, however, be supportive.
· Pointed out that no neighbors have elected to object to this matter at this Public Hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 4
· Reminded that there is an alleyway located behind the property, which adds to the distance
between the existing building located behind this proposed new home site.
· Said that the existing home is what will be visible from the public right-of-way and added
that he thought the new home would look nice.
Commissioner Leonard asked if it is acceptable to have the driveway in the side yard.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied yes.
Associate Planner Tim J. Haley added that it is a traditional residential format for a detached
garage in the rear.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley added that the minimum width of a flag is 15 feet.
Chairman Francois said that he agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Alderete
and supports this project specifically because there have been no objections from the neighbors
and because the development is within the allowable General Plan densities.
Motion:
Upon motion of Vice Chairman Hernandez, seconded by Commissioner
Alderete, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3407
recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2001-139)
to allow the construction of a new single-family residence and Resolution
No. 3408 (PLN2001-140) recommending approval of a Tentative Parcel
Map to create two lots on property located at 132 Sunnyside Avenue, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Francois, Hernandez and Leonard
NOES: Doorley and Gibbons
ABSENT: Jones
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Francois advised that Council would consider this item on February 5, 2002.
Chairman Francois read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
2. PLN2001-77 (S)
Aquilina, C & K
Public Hearing to consider the application of Craig and Kisha
Aquilina for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2001-
77) to allow a second story addition to a single-family residence
on property located at 1125 Wekiva Avenue in an R-l-8 (Single
Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically
Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner:
Stephanie Willsey, Planner I
Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 5
· Stated that the applicants are seeking approval for a second story addition to an existing
single-family residence on property located on the northeast comer of Wekiva and Peggy
Avenues.
· Described the proposed density as being 2.6 units per gross acre, which is consistent with
the General Plan. The Zoning is R-l-8 and this project is consistent with all zoning
requirements including setbacks, heights and parking requirements.
Advised that the garage would be relocated so as to be accessed from Wekiva. The second
story addition will run along the west side of the house, along Peggy Avenue.
· Said that no trees will be removed in conjunction with this addition and that the five trees
required by the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan are already located on this parcel.
· Recommended approval.
Vice Chairman Hemandez presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this application twice, on January 8th and 22"a.
· Advised that SARC held lots of discussion regarding the garage.
· Said that with the additions requested by SARC to soften the impact of the garage,
including a trellis feature, SARC is supportive of this proposal.
Chairman Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Chairman Francois closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner
Leonard, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3409 granting
a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2001-77) to allow a second-
story addition to a residence on property located at 1125 Wekiva Avenue,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandcz and
Leonard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jones
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Francois advised that this action is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk
within 10 calendar days.
Chairman Francois read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 6
o
PLN2001-141 (PM)
PLN2001-142 (S)
PLN2002-001 (TRP)
Shakeri, O.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Omid Shakeri, on
behalf of the Ridgecrest Group, for a Tentative Parcel Map
(PLN2001-141) to allow the creation of three lots, a Site and
Architectural Review Permit (PLN2001-142) to allow the
construction of three new single-family residences and a Tree
Removal Permit (PLN2002-001) to allow the removal of five trees
on property located at 1274 Walnut Drive in an R-l-10 (Single
Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically
Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Stephanie
Willsey, Planner I
Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
Advised that this application is for a Parcel Map, Site and Architectural Review Permit and
Tree Removal Permit for property at 1274 Walnut Drive.
· Stated that the existing single-family residence will be demolished.
· Said that this project is proposed to be developed at 2.9 units per gross acre, which is
consistent with the General Plan allowance of less than 3.5 units per gross acre.
· Added that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of the R-l-10 Zoning.
· Described that three homes will be constructed, each of which will be accessed from
Walnut. Each home has a distinctive design with different exterior treatments for each one.
· Advised that five trees are proposed for removal, four walnut trees (12 to 17 inches in
diameter) and one coast live oak (16 inches in diameter). The Arborist's report states that
the walnut trees are suffering from structural decay and recommends their removal.
Recommended approval.
Vice Chair Hemandez presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this project on January 8, 2002, and was supportive.
Chairman Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. David Brady, 1360 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Stated that his home is located at the comer of Walnut and Chapman and that he has
resided in this neighborhood for 18 years.
· Said that while he likes the idea of this land being developed, he does not like the "cookie
cutter" approach of these homes within an established neighborhood.
· Advised that he had remodeled his own house but managed to keep the integrity of the
surrounding neighborhood.
· Declared that these may be beautiful homes but wished they would conform better to this
neighborhood.
· Pointed out that three-car garages are not typical and asked if perhaps the third garage
space could be made less visible such as being accessed from the side.
· Expressed concern over the privacy of the adjacent neighbor.
· Suggested that one of the oak trees that offers privacy to the neighbor be retained instead of
removed as proposed.
· Stated that a key reason people reside in this area is to enjoy big lots.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 7
· Suggested that the project be redesigned with single-story structures.
Mr. Craig Simmons, 1305 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Said that his home, located across the street from proposed Parcel #3, has
been in his
family for a number of years.
Pointed out that these three homes are identical and represent big tract homes.
Reminded that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan requires new homes to conform
with the neighborhood. These homes, which are twice as big as any in the neighborhood
do not conform. Additionally, the 35-foot front setback is not consistent with the typical
25-foot setbacks on this street.
Mr. Mitchell Stermer, 1312 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
Advised that he has resided adjacent to this project site since 1988 with his wife and son.
· Thanked the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Association for informing him of this Public
Hearing.
· Pointed out that Walnut is one of the last areas with a rural feel to it.
· Said that he had several concerns with this project, the potential removal of an oak tree at
the property line that he states is healthy and essential to retaining the privacy of his home.
Added that he is not as concerned about the removal of the other proposed four trees.
· Declared that these homes will dwarf those already in the neighborhood, probably twice as
large as his home, and that having a three-car facing the street changes the character of this
street.
· Opined that these are three identical tract type homes.
· Asked that the 35-foot front setbacks be reduced to 25 or 30 feet.
· Suggested the inclusion of six-foot fences with lattice or, as an alternative, to match the
existing fence separating the property from the P-Com commercial site.
· Asked that the power lines be placed underground.
· Expressed concern for the potential impact of construction noise and asked that no evening
or weekend construction be permitted.
· Restated that he wants to retain the rural atmosphere of this street and does not want to see
the installation of curb, gutters or sidewalks with this project.
· Said he is not surprised that this property is being developed and will welcome new homes
as long as they match the neighborhood.
Distributed several photographs of two-story structures in the nearby area.
Said that the residents have a long-term commitment to this neighborhood and that this is
not a tract home neighborhood. They will have to live with the impact of these homes in
their neighborhood for the long term, not the developer.
Asked that the Commission consider requiring detached garages at the back of the property
or limits to two-car garages.
Commissioner Doorley asked about rear yard landscaping requirements.
Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I:
· Replied that a requirement for landscaping for the rear yards could be included.
· Added that construction hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays, with construction prohibited on Sunday and Holidays.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 8
· Clarified that new utility hookups would be underground but that existing service would
remain as it is.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley added that per development standards, any new service drops
must be placed below ground but that existing lines along the frontage would not be placed
underground.
Chairman Francois asked if there is decay in the oak tree at the shared property line.
Planner Stephanie Willsey replied no. She added that according to the Arborist's report, it is
believed that the tree would be adversely impacted by construction, if not immediately than in
the foreseeable future, and should be removed at this time.
Commissioner Doorley sought assurance that there are no street improvements planned.
Planner Stephanie Willsey replied that he is correct that there will be no street improvements.
City Attorney William Seligmann clarified that if the tree is on the property line or on the
adjacent property owner's parcel, this applicant could not remove it. The owner may have to
have a survey prepared to determine on which property the tree in question is located. This
refers to the location of the trunk and not the branches.
Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Identified herself as a representative of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Association.
· Stated that she has reviewed the plans and agrees that it meets the established standards for
the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and thanked staff for that fact.
· Pointed out that she is also a resident of Walnut Drive with a home on a large lot.
· Described the area as rural with wonderful character.
· Said that these are tract style homes that do not fit into the neighborhood.
· Said that she had originally assumed that this property would be developed with two homes
rather than three.
· Pointed out that typically lots in the neighborhood, while zoned for 10,000 square foot lots,
typically have 14,000 square foot lots or larger.
· Asked that this project be sent "back to the drawing board" and revised a bit.
Ms. Joanne Carroll, 1395 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Advised that she and her husband moved into the neighborhood three years ago and that
their next-door neighbors constructed a second story addition shortly after they arrived.
· Said that this neighbor modified his design to ensure their privacy.
· Agreed with the comments made by her neighbors regarding this proposal.
Mr. Omid Shakeri, 3131 S. Bascom Avenue, Campbell:
· Identified himself as the project representative.
· Said that he has worked closely with staff to design this project and took privacy issues into
consideration when designing these homes.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 9
· Pointed out that for the two homes on either side (Lots 1 and 3), the elevation facing the
existing homes have but two windows, one of which is a frosted bathroom window and the
other of which is a shower window without any visibility.
· Clarified that his company builds custom homes not tract home, including two homes at
Pecan and Hazelwood as well as homes on Sunnyside.
· Stated that they changed the elevations so they do not look alike, including varied
materials.
· Added that with so many trees, these houses will not be very visible from the street and
therefore will not be intrusive to the neighborhood.
· Said that, without counting the covered porches, these houses are only developed at 25
FAR.
· Said that the large setbacks were provided at staff request to conform with the townhome
project to the left but that they are willing to bring the homes forward if necessary.
· Advised that an oak tree needs to be trimmed and that the large walnut tree will be saved.
Agreed to install a taller fence if the neighbor would prefer.
· Pointed out that a second story is a matter of right for all neighbors as it is permitted
through the Zoning Ordinance. They have tried to make the two story structures less
intrusive through design, including articulation.
· Said that he has worked in Campbell before, has been a Campbell resident for the last five
to six years and cares about Campbell.
· Concluded by saying this is a viable project for Campbell.
Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Omid Shakeri if he has had an opportunity to see the
pictures provided by the residents.
Mr. Omid Shakeri replied no. After looking at them he said that one house is even larger than
they are proposing and another has a flush second story while theirs are set back. He added
that two of his homes have large porches that wrap around to be compatible with the
neighborhood. Additionally, they have matched colors to the surrounding area.
Mr. Mitchell Stermer:
· Added that there are only three two-story houses in the immediate area and that the home
on Chapman is on an L-shaped lot.
· Suggested that a two-car garage would be less massive than the proposed three-car garages.
· Said that these homes are nice but too massive and therefore they detract from the
neighborhood.
· Pointed out his concern for privacy with a two story looming over his yard and encroaching
on the privacy from his master suite's large picture window.
· Asked that the removal of the healthy oak tree be reconsidered.
Mr. Craig Simmons said that while residents would work together to ensure that any second
story additions are compatible to the neighborhood, these are spec homes for which such
consideration is less likely. Added that these homes do not have to be that big.
Ms. Lisa Herbert, 1295 Walnut Drive, Campbell:
· Said that she has lived in the family home since 1961.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 10
· Disagreed that this project would not be intrusive to the neighborhood.
· Begged the Commission to reconsider this plan.
· Pointed out that this is not a neighborhood of million dollar homes.
· Stated that the neighborhood is predominately single level homes and that monster homes
would look weird in this neighborhood.
Chairman Francois closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Hemandez asked for reasons to have 35 foot setbacks instead of 25 foot.
Planner Stephanie Willsey replied that the minimum required front setback is 25 feet. Staff
decided to set these homes back further to try to maintain the predominate block pattern and to
give a transitional and more open space look in the front.
Commissioner Gibbons:
· Stated that these issues are not unexpected in that the San Tomas Neighborhood is unique.
· Agreed that the points raised have relevance, particularly the fact that the three homes do
look a lot alike despite the use different materials.
· Added that the dominance of these proposed three-car garages is not consistent with the
neighborhood.
· Said that the Commission has not supported projects in the past that did not fit into the
neighborhood.
· Said that the front setback issue is not much of a problem. However, side yard setbacks are
an important issue in a community.
· Pointed out that 5 of 12 on site trees are proposed for removal and that she did not find it
acceptable to remove the oak tree.
· Added that the applicant may have to increase its landscaping.
· Stated that these homes reflect a cookie cutter design rather than being diverse in
architectural style like is typical in this neighborhood.
· Said that these are big lots and that the project is consistent with the San Tomas
Neighborhood Plan but that there may be other ways to design including having the
garages placed at the back, if possible.
· Stated that she is not supportive.
Commissioner Hemandez asked Commissioner Gibbons to rank the top two to three reasons
why this project does not fit into the neighborhood.
Commissioner Gibbons replied the similar redundant massing, size versus design and the
dominance of the three-car garages.
Commissioner Leonard said that she agreed with Commissioner Gibbons that the rendering
shows that the three proposed homes look alike and that she would like to see them developed
with more diversity and more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Said that the three homes are appropriate and that he does not have a problem with two
story homes.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2002 Page 11
· Agreed that the project has a cookie cutter approach.
· Added that the oak tree issue is an important one.
Commissioner Alderete said that the applicant and community have things to work out so he
will not support the application as presented.
Vice Chairman Hernandez said that infill development is what is prevalent these days. The
applicant has tried to create a project that falls within the guidelines provided. Agreed that an
opportunity to involve the neighbors is needed.
Chairman Francois:
· Agreed that the guidelines are established.
· Supported the suggestion to move the garages to the rear.
Asked staff for a suggestion at this point.
Director Sharon Fierro said that staffhas taken notes and can come up with a compromise with
the applicant.
Chairman Francois asked for a suggested continuance date.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the applicant has made an effort to make a quality project
and they are to be commended.
Commissioner Doorley asked if there is a way to include the community.
Director Sharon Fierro:
· Said that staff would notify those neighbors who spoke this evening, using the Speaker
Cards for addresses. The question is not whether three homes can be constructed but rather
what design changes need to be incorporated to make them fit better into the neighborhood
such as looking at more architectural diversity, preserving the oak tree and moving the
garages.
· Suggested February 26, 2002, as the best meeting date to continue this hearing.
Motion:
Upon motion of Vice Chairman Hernandez. seconded by Commissioner
Gibbons, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project
at 1274 Walnut Drive (PLN2001-141/142 & PLN2002-001) to the Planning
Commission meeting of February 26, 2002. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jones
was absent)
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as
presented with the following additions:
· Announced that Council took second reading for the townhome project on Apricot.
Advised that the next Commission meeting is on February 12th and will include a
modification to the commercial building under construction at 368 E. Campbell Avenue.
Planning Commission Minutus of January 22, 2002 Page 12
Upon consultation with the Commissioners, a Study Session on the Zoning Ordinance
Update was scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2002, at 6 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. to the next Regular Public Hearing
on February 12, 2002, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
California.
"'%~ri-nne A. Shinn, Rec rding Secretary
APPROVED BY: ~~,~,,? ~r~ rancois, Chair _~
ATTEST: ~,~'l,~i~ ~
Sharon Fierro, Secretary