Loading...
PC Min - 01/22/2013CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2013, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Reynolds and the following proceedings were had, to wit: JANUARY 22, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Paul Resnikoff Brian Brennan Pam Finch Elizabeth Gibbons John Razumich Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner: Interim Community Development Director: Associate Planner: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Bob Roseberry Paul Kermoyan Steve Prosser Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Brennan, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of January 8, 2013, were approved with minor changes to pages 8 and 24. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Roseberry was absent and Commissioner Gibbons abstained) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS *** Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2012-156 Continued Public Hearing (from the meeting of January 8, 2013) Heritage to consider the application of Heritage Realty Group, LLC, for a Realty Group second Extension of Approval (PLN2012-156) of a previously- approved Planned Development Permit (PLN2007-44) to allow the construction of five townhome units on properties located at 258 & 268 Union Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously adopted for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: February 19, 2013. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this item was originally presented at the January 8th Planning Commission meeting to consider the second Extension of Approval for a Planned Development Permit for a project at 258 and 268 Union Avenue. • Said that the project included a Tentative Subdivision Map, a Zone Change and a Planned Development Permit to allow a five unit townhome development. • Stated that the original project was approved in 2008 for atwo-year period. In 2010, the first Extension of Approval was granted extending the project entitlements until June 3, 2012. Prior to that date, the applicant requested a second Extension of Approval. • Added that after the initial Planning Commission hearing held on January 8, 2013, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of this second Extension through June 3, 2015. The Commission asked staff to development performance measures/benchmarks for the project with a specific and directed timeline for the progress of this development. • Informed that this second Extension of Approval for this Planned Development Permit will now expire at the same time as the Tentative Subdivision Map, which is on June 3, 2015. • Directed the Commission to Condition 4, which provides six recommended performance standards. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 3 • Assured that these performance standards have been reviewed and are supported by the Public Works Department and represent achievable and realistic benchmarks. • Cautioned that failure to meet any of these benchmarks will result in the voiding of the approval for the Planned Development Permit. • Announced that the project applicant received this evening's staff report and was present at the January 8th meeting. Commissioner Razumich asked staff if it was verified that the applicant received this meeting's staff report. Planner Steve Prosser replied yes. He added that no comments were received from the applicant. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if any action to pull this permit approval due to a failure to meet a scheduled benchmark can be appealed to Council. Planner Steve Prosser replied no. He said that as the benchmarks are part of the Conditions of Approval with established and tangible end results (benchmarks) and not subjective in nature, the deadline dates are drop-dead. Director Paul Kermoyan said that it could be integrated into the Conditions of Approval that the Community Development Director could determine compliance with these benchmarks. Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Gibbons: • Stated that while she was not present for the first hearing on this project held on January 8th, she had the opportunity to review the project materials thoroughly, including the comments made by the Commissioners in the meeting minutes. • Recounted that this was a challenging project when first considered by the Planning Commission in 2007/08. • Advised that the developer made a deliberate choice to not include the third contiguous parcel with this project. At that time, the Commission would have preferred the use of all three parcels for this development. • Stated that this Extension of Approval is being done with a good approach by establishing benchmarks. • Opined that not much effort seems to have been made to progress this project. • Pointed out that building permits require a project to secure progress and inspections within six-month timeframes. • Admitted that the economic times over the last several years have been challenging. • Stated that this is actual a good case study. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 4 • Informed that the City used to have few Extensions of Approval prior to about five years ago. The economy changed and allowing for Extensions of Approval is a realistic approach for the community. • Said that although this is possibly pushing the envelope in regard to the number of Extensions of Approval, she will nevertheless support this one. Commissioner Finch: Joked that she was quoted in the minutes of the last meeting as having bluntly said, "Put up or shut up" regarding this project. Stated that staff did a good job in developing this project's benchmarks. They are pretty black and white. Expressed appreciation for staffs' efforts. Commissioner Razumich: • Cautioned that the July 22"d benchmark deadline will come quickly, which is to meet the new Building Code requirements. • Expressed disappointment that staff received no feedback from the applicant regarding these proposed benchmarks. Supported proceeding forward but he was taken aback at the lack of response on the part of the applicant. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Expressed his agreement with Commissioner Razumich's comments. • Added that he is happy to support this Extension of Approval request. • Said that whether or not to add having the Director confirm compliance to the benchmarks, he is fine with either option. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Finch, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4092 recommending that the City Council grant an Extension of Approval (PLN2012-156) of apreviously-approved Planned Development Permit (PLN2007-44) to allow the construction of five townhome units on properties located at 258 & 268 Union Avenue, with the modified condition of approval that establishes specific performance standards to have the added text, "as verified by the Community Development Director," by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Finch, Gibbons, Razumich, Resnikoff and Reynolds NOES: None ABSENT: Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Chair Reynolds advised that this item would be considered by the City Council for final action at its meeting of February 16, 2013. *** Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 5 Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2011-154 Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated Text Amendment City (PLN2011-154) to amend the Campbell Municipal Code (Sec. 21.18.140 - Undergrounding of Utilities and Sec. 20.36.150 - Utilities), to clarify provisions pertaining to the undergrounding of utilities. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: February 19, 2013. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner: • Advised that this hearing item was continued from a meeting held on November 13, 2012, in consideration of a proposed Text Amendment. • Added that the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments and provided staff with direction in order to return with improved clarity of this Ordinance. • Said that a 50 percent project valuation threshold to require undergrounding of utilities was considered as was 15 percent of overall cost of improvements. • Stated that since the last meeting, staff rewrote parts of the draft Ordinance to clarify the language, eliminating the assessment provision, and taking consideration of a combination of remodel and addition square footage for a project to reach a level to require the undergrounding of utilities. • Discussed a spreadsheet that staff prepared that demonstrates the differences in calculating when the undergrounding of utilities is reached. • Added that staff is recommending the elimination of the provision in the Ordinance to consider waivers to the requirement for the undergrounding of utilities. • Said that the Commission proposed that staff look at revising the requirements for the undergrounding of utilities. • Stated that the first proposed amendment is pertaining to underground utilities from the pole to the property. • Added that construction of new residential units (single-family, secondary living units and/or apartment units) will required underground utilities as will any newly constructed non-residential development, any subdivision or properties subject to Title 21. • Stated that a new provision is the combined 50 percent or more of the square footage that includes both additions and any remodeling. This replaces the previous recommendation, which was a straight 50 percent threshold (and all new single family residences) using a job valuation per the project's building permit and based on assessed value. • Said that this is a fair standard that is relative to that property and based on current square footage. There is no differential effect and 50 percent is 50 percent. This is fair and just standard. • Describe a spreadsheet model that highlights what types of projects qualify under the 15 percent rule. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 6 • Said that if the cost to underground utilities exceeds 15 percent of the total projected project cost, the requirement would be waived. • Pointed out that for smaller homes, perhaps between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet, that 50 percent expansion of square footage is quickly reached and qualifying that project for a waiver of the undergrounding requirement. • Stated that that level of waivers issued is actually undermining the intent of the City's General Plan. • Reiterated that staff is recommending that the Underground Utility Waiver process be eliminated so that this process will capture all substantial remodels and additions to a structure. • Explained that frontage utilities run parallel to a site and are located in the public right-of-way. This Ordinance requires the removal of existing utility poles but only on arterial and collector streets and only if a likely possibility of substantial future such local undergrounding is evident. • Said that those projects that would require undergrounding include developments with five units or more, non-residential development, commercial and industrial development and religious sanctuaries. • Informed that on the advice of the City Attorney there is no specific criteria provided in the current Ordinance for waiving the undergrounding of frontage utilities and felt there was no reason to keep that provision in the Ordinance. Rather a reference to the Variance Section should be included instead. If it is believed there are reasons not to underground frontage utilities for a site, an applicant can go through the Variance process. • Said that other miscellaneous proposed amendments include exemptions for minor changes to overhead utilities for minor upgrades; if a project crosses the rear yard of an adjacent property owner; is precluded by an environmental condition; or if there are changes to the Subdivision Code inconsistent with this requirement. • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve an Ordinance adopting a Text Amendment amending the Campbell Municipal Code (Sec. 21.18.140 - Undergrounding of Utilities and Sec. 20.36.150 -Utilities), to clarify provisions pertaining to the undergrounding of utilities. Chair Reynolds asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Finch asked how 25 percent of a remodel and/or expansion is determined. Planner Daniel Fama replied that it is part of the building permit process to determine what level of work is being done. For a remodel, the conservative definition is based upon square footage. Director Paul Kermoyan added that developing a definition of remodel is on the Planning Department's work plan. He said that factors considered include floor plan, walls to remain, walls to be removed and walls to be added. Commissioner Finch said she would feel comfortable if the definition were more subjective. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 7 Planner Daniel Fama added that a remodel's percentage has a direct relationship to fees charged so the Building Official is very careful when calculating percentages for consistency's sake. Commissioner Brennan thanked staff for the report and asked if instead of eliminating the 15 percent rule consideration should be given to changing that percentage instead. Planner Daniel Fama said that number is pretty high. He added that the point is to make it simple for homeowners to understand. Commissioner Razumich asked if in the definition of square footage whether garages are counted. Planner Daniel replied yes. Commissioner Gibbons: • Stated that this is a fairly significant topic for her. • Commended staff on the material provided that was very well done and very helpful. • Reminded that she had served on the General Plan Update Committee and tried to go back and revisit some of this. • Advised that she thinks staff may be overextending the intent of the General Plan on this subject. • Added that her feeling is that it was not the intent of the General Plan to have interior remodels considered as substantial remodels. • Said that she thinks the intent was to consider only additions of new square footage. • Pointed out that a lot of Campbell's housing is smaller homes. • Reiterated that she did not think that the General Plan intended to refer to remodeling but rather to additions. • Stated that at the time of the General Plan Update construction activity was busy and the GP Committee was looking at all the new stuff that was anticipated. Chair Reynolds suggested that this is more a part of the discussion phase than the questions for staff phase of this item. Commissioner Finch proposed an amendment to the mention of utilities that "substantially" cross a neighbor's yard from something that is subjective to something that is more defined. Planner Daniel Fama said that the Commission could establish a specific distance such as 5 to 10 feet. He reminded that there are PG&E easements back there. Commissioner Gibbons said that the Commission may want to discuss this as well as how the Variance process comes in to this Ordinance. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 8 Director Paul Kermoyan: • Agreed that it is important to discuss what "substantially crossing a neighbor's property" means. • Cautioned that if that is honed too much, it becomes an absolute. • Advised that including the Variance process in this section would allow some flexibility and Planning Commission involvement. • Added that often utility poles are so integrated that it impacts cost, physical conditions and topographical conditions and therefore this section requires some flexibility. Commissioner Gibbons said her concern is not pole removal but rather it's the concept of complete undergrounding of utilities. Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Reynolds: • Offered his expertise on the technical aspects of utility drops. • Informed that there are strict guidelines for lines for one property crossing over other properties. If they exist, an owner can request that they be removed. • Added that lines are not allowed to go over spas and pools. • Said he has a feeling that a lot of this undergrounding under discussion is more about front yards. • Pointed out that utility easements are recorded on a property deed. Planner Paul Kermoyan said that the intent is both front and rear of properties. He added that there is a higher cost imposed when undergrounding means crossing a street. Commissioner Gibbons: • Reiterated her belief that the intent of the General Plan was not to consider the remodel of an existing structure without new square footage additions. • Suggested that if a remodel falls within the existing four walls and roof that it not be included. • Recounted that she lives in a typical residential neighborhood with about 50 houses on her street. Of those, about 37 have already been substantially remodeled without undergrounding of utilities. • Added that her house is currently 800 square feet so if she were to remodel simply her kitchen that would already represent more than 25 percent of her total square footage. • Continued that if she were to add an additional bedroom and bathroom that would be more than 50 percent improvement. • Opined that the goal is not to add a burden. • Pointed out that meeting the requirements of the new Building Code already costs extra for things such as fire suppression sprinklers. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 9 • Cautioned that we have to be thoughtful about how the Commission approaches this when considered against construction costs. That's a lot of money. • Questioned what the value is to the community to have acitizen/resident spend that money to underground utilities, especially in a neighborhood where there is unlikely to be much future undergrounding. • Said that to get to the pole serving her house, it is not located in front but rather it's off to the side. • Added that she would have to go across her neighbor's sidewalk and beneath street trees. • Said she has trouble with disrupting anyone's backyard at all since most have landscaping in place rather than having left the easement area fallow. • Said that of the remaining houses on her street there are only about four to five that have not yet been remodeled. • Added that there are wires everywhere. • Stated that she thinks it's a penalty to impose undergrounding. It bothers her as it is a lot of money so it's important to make sure it's productive for the community and for the homeowner. • Said that if there is additional square footage it can be done if it makes sense to do so. • Said that she understands the removal of the waiver process but owners should have the opportunity to appeal this requirement through a Variance process, which she believes costs about $1,500 to process. • Pointed out that the fee for processing an Underground Utility Waiver is less. • Suggested reviewing the criteria for a Variance. • Said she needs to understand how that criteria applies. Planner Daniel Fama said that the application fee for a Variance is now $1,800 for residential and $5,000 for non-residential. Commissioner Gibbons: • Supported limiting this requirement for undergrounding of utilities to arterial and collector streets. • Added that expanding this to include non-residential is okay. • Questioned what kind of criteria would be used to determine when undergrounding should occur. • Suggested that merely relocating a panel should not trigger the undergrounding requirement. • Added that any panel upgrade itself or with an interior remodel should not trigger undergrounding. • Pointed out that she has 100 amp service in her house. To have more she will have to install a panel upgrade. The cost for that is about $15,000. Adding another $10,000 or more to that cost is questionable and arbitrary. • Reiterated that this requirement should not be involved at all when a homeowner is simply relocating a panel. • Added that the front yard issue also needs to be considered but they should not do rear yards at all. • Suggested being careful about what we're being asked to do by the General Plan. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 10 • Concluded that we are heading in the right direction but still going too far. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that staff believes that where this started and where it is now, is where we want to go today. • Added that this is the reason the City has an Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance. • Said they are typically located in some cities' Safety Elements whereas Campbell's is within its Land Use/Transportation Element. • Added that the intent behind this is more than simply an aesthetic. • Pointed out that dropped wires equal a safety issue and there are many benefits and reasons for requiring them. • Said he understands undergrounding comes at a high cost and that the consideration of public benefit versus cost must be considered. • Stated that it is not a secret why with requirement exists in California. • Suggested that it be clarified what represents an addition as well as to further clarify if it will include when someone wants to remove and rebuild a roof at a different pitch than it originally was. • Agreed that this requirement should not kick in if someone is simply replacing their kitchen cabinets. • Added that perhaps they should when relocating a panel if undergrounding reduces risk. Perhaps the relocation will result in a larger drop. • Stated that it is up to the Planning Commission and staff will help the Commission get to where it wants to go with this issue. Commissioner Gibbons: • Expressed the need to balance fairness in the community with safety. • Said that she is pretty sure that there was a much healthier economy at the time of the last General Plan Update. • Added that at the time there were lots of grants available and there was an overall positive and enthusiastic development attitude. The world was different then but everyone is being more cautious now. • Stated that she does agree with the importance of the issue of safety. Chair Reynolds: • Suggested that the Planning Commission keep in mind that there are some problems with overhead lines including those caused by squirrels. On the other side, the there are also hazards with undergrounded utilities through digging and puncturing them. • Added that there are pros and cons to both of them. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if this is being discussed now just for those with increases in square footage -with additions? Commissioner Gibbons suggested that significant remodeling should not be counted when it occurs within the existing walls of a residence. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 11 Commissioner Resnikoff: • Questioned what if someone was to change out their windows or alter their roofline. • Said that most homeowners would likely disagree with what the City is defining as "substantial". • Stated that Campbell has a lot of smaller houses, many without HVAC systems. • Added that the added cost of undergrounding may make some projects impossible. • Asked for the definition of local street that is being exempted. Planner Daniel Fama said that the Transportation Diagram included in the General Plan delineates the types of streets in the City. He added that Cherry is defined as a local residential street. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if that street is exempt on the requirement for pole removal. Planner Daniel Fama advised that only significant projects on arterial and collector streets would require pole removal. Undergrounding would be required on all types of streets. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Pointed out that Commissioner Gibbons has indicated that about 70 percent of the homes on her street, Cherry, are already remodeled. • Added that means that undergrounding will likely never be triggered for those homes while a few other lots can still accommodate more square footage. • Concluded that this undergrounding requirement would in effect penalize those few remaining homeowners on this street who may want to add on to their home in the future. Commissioner Gibbons said that the existing poles will remain on her street. They are always going to be there. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Admitted that he can see that if undergrounding is not started somewhere, it will never get anywhere. • Added that it appears there will be little impact on local streets. Director Paul Kermoyan said that the Public Works Department wants an exemption on local streets. Planner Daniel Fama added that Public Works doesn't see the need and/or possibility of requiring pole removal on local streets such as Cherry. Director Paul Kermoyan said that any project with five or more residential units would have to remove poles. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 12 Commissioner Resnikoff said that since there will be an exemption for local streets from removing the poles would it be possible to exempt the undergrounding of utilities on these streets as welt. Director Paul Kermoyan replied yes. He added that if the Commission wants to recommend that, it would need to justify why, what streets and/or whether that exemption should apply to all local streets. Commissioner Resnikoff said it makes no sense to force undergrounding on local streets. Commissioner Finch: • Thanked Director Paul Kermoyan for his comment on the issue of safety that is provided through undergrounding. • Admitted that she was having difficulty on this issue of undergrounding but those comments about safety got her. • Added that it would be better to have even just some lines underground rather than none. Commissioner Gibbons: • Stated that she agrees that any new project should be placed underground. • Added that she is okay with having developments with five or more units underground their utilities. • Suggested removing the requirement for pole removal on local streets. • Added that except for new projects, she also thinks that the requirement to underground services on local streets should also be exempted. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that he likes the idea of undergrounding with new development. • Agreed that this is one means of enhancing safety. • Added that it is easier to build undergrounding into a project as it comes in but for an existing homeowner, the expense of that requirement might prevent that owner from doing a project. • Asked staff if there is any conflict for members of this Commission who live on streets designated as "local" from voting on this issue. City Attorney William Seligmann explained that there is an exception in determining a conflict of interest for a Commissioner. If the impact on that Commissioner is the same impact experienced by the rest of the public, that Commissioner may participate. Commissioner Brennan: • Questioned whether this process offers public good or private benefit. • Suggested that if it represents both a public and private good that there is a cost share between the City and the property owner. • Stated that the spreadsheet provided by staff was really helpful. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 13 • Said that undergrounding can cost $10,000 and having to go across a paved street could reach a significant cost. It's also possible that it could cost much less than $10,000. • Added that if that is the case then maybe not as many properties would be exempted as estimated. Perhaps the waiver system is not exempting as many people as we think. • Added that it seems reasonable when there is a cost cluster of $5,000 or $6,000. That cost leaps when it must cross a street and becomes more significant. • Admitted that he is not ready to throw out the waiver process right away. • Said that he can support undergrounding if the cost is proportionate to the overall project cost. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Stated that the share of the cost is not a bad topic to discuss. • Asked who determines when an appropriate cost percentage has been reached. • Added that there is a level of inequity as the location of a pole varies property to property. • Pointed out that a lot of homes will never be touched. That creates a different inequity. Commissioner Brennan: • Pointed out that inequity exists all the time. • Added that a third party often makes a judgment. Gave the example of an arborist making a judgment in consideration of a tree removal request. • Agreed that it can be a messy thing and there is no easy way. Commissioner Gibbons: • Commented that nothing in construction costs less than $10,000. • Said the issue of inequity is in relation to the value in any project and/or house being required to underground their service. Commissioner Razumich: • Said it appears that excluding residential remodels and offering exemptions of the undergrounding requirement for homes located on local streets will resolve some concerns. • Added that the cost estimate for undergrounding is obtained through a request of PG&E. They come up with the cost. • Said that the General Plan seems to indicate adding value to a home with a remodel and adding value to the street. • Stated that he would hate to see a project not be done because of the cost to underground the utilities. • Suggested that unless a home remodel includes new construction, there should be no requiring the undergrounding of utilities and they should also be allowed to relocate their panels without undergrounding. • Proposed giving staff the discretion on relocation of panels and more leeway on things. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 14 Commissioner Ribbons said it would be reasonable to continue consideration of this item and bring it back after staff has consolidated what they have heard from the Commission tonight. Director Paul Kermoyan said that is an acceptable option as staff wants the Commission to be comfortable. He asked they provide staff with clear direction to allow time to be used effectively and for staff to return with something that is more tightly knit. Chair Reynolds said the issues raised include exempting local streets and remodels without new square footage, keeping it isolated to new construction and for panel relocation when extending local drops. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that Commissioner Razumich made a couple of good points. • Said one is limiting waivers to staff level, which is not easy to do. • Added that staff can come back with a couple of options on the issue of panel relocation. • Advised that she still thinks that panel relocation and/or upgrades should not trigger the requirement to underground the service. City Attorney William Seligmann said that allowing waivers without notice would required establishment of objective criteria to allow that waiver. He suggested perhaps using the criteria used for Variances. Director Paul Kermoyan said that in the past there seemed to be no difficulty with issuing Underground Utility Waivers. In fact, 99 out of 100 would be approved effectively invalidating the Code requirement for undergrounding utilities. Commissioner Brennan asked if undergrounding was imposed just on new construction, haw many wires would be undergrounded based on the history of the last five years. Director Paul Kermoyan said that would be problematic. He said that in some cases people would tear down existing homes while others would keep and use them. Commissioner Brennan asked about waivers granted for new versus remodeled homes. The theory behind it is important. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that this does not compare "apples" with "apples". • Reminded that the utility undergrounding requirement was consistently being waived. • Advised that as a result there is no real way of comparing that process with the process that occurred over the last five years when waiver requests were no longer always granted. • Added that the only ones required to underground were homes with large additions or construction of new homes and only if the pole is located in the backyard. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 15 Commissioner Resnikoff said if it is not new living space the undergrounding would not be triggered. Adding a new bay window or changing a roof pitch would not affect or create additional living space. Requiring undergrounding of utilities might scare owners off from doing those types of improvements to their home. Planner Daniel Fama said that one option would be to align this to the existing criteria to determine when public improvements are required, which kicks in when there is 50 percent or more in additional square footage added. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if this includes both additions and remodeled space. Planner Daniel Fama said that if a homeowner has a 1,000 square foot home and remodels the entire 1,000 square feet, that still does not trigger the requirement by Public Works for public improvements. It kicks in when there is a 50 percent or greater addition in square footage. Commissioner Finch asked how staff defines "new" square footage. Is it when there is anew area of foundation? Is it when three of four walls are removed? Asked for clarification. Director Paul Kermoyan said that staff would work on a definition of remodel. Commissioner Gibbons: • Reminded that Public Work's recommendation is to eliminate the pole removal requirement on local streets. • Asked what the relevance is for drops on local streets. • Said that there is value in this for all new construction. Director Paul Kermoyan asked if she supports it for any new construction. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said any new construction from the ground up. • Added that for remodels located within existing walls and roof where living area is not increased should not require undergrounding. • Said that if a removed wall is to change, that is new. • Suggested retaining the provision to require pole removal for developments with five units or more. • Reiterated that panel upgrades/relocations should not trigger the requirement for undergrounding and neither should replacement windows. Commissioner Brennan asked Commissioner Gibbons if she means any wall that moves. Commissioner Gibbons said not if area increased is less than 50 percent. Commissioner Brennan said that getting rid of drops is important too from a safety perspective. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 16 Commissioner Finch expressed her agreement with Commissioner Brennan Commissioner Resnikoff said that if garage square footage is included in the total square footage when considering the 50 percent rule, what about a detached garage? Planner Daniel Fama said that currently attached garage space is counted but detached garage space is not but is rather considered an accessory structure. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if an addition to a garage triggers undergrounding. Planner Daniel Fama said if a detached garage is attached to a house that would then be counted as new square footage. This ordinance pertains to residential structures and not to detached accessory structures. Commissioner Razumich asked about a secondary living unit above a detached garage. Planner Daniel Fama explained that a secondary living unit is not allowed above a detached garage. If a new secondary living unit is constructed that is counted against site square footage. Secondary living units are limited to 640 square feet. They would have to underground from the subpanel of the main house to the secondary living unit. Commissioner Gibbons said that the garage space should be counted in both cases, whether detached or attached. Either count or don't count it in both cases. Commissioner Razumich said someone could "game" the system and keep their garage detached. He said he is not against it being counted against the FAR. Planner Daniel Fama said that square footage for a detached garage does count as FAR but just not against this requirement for undergrounding. Commissioner Resnikoff said he likes the idea of including the garage in the square footage. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission continued to a date uncertain consideration of a Text Amendment (PLN2011- 154) to amend the Campbell Municipal Code (Sec. 21.18.140 - Undergrounding of Utilities and Sec. 20.36.150 -Utilities), to clarify provisions pertaining to the undergrounding of utilities. (6- 0-1: Commissioner Roseberry was absent) *** Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 22, 2013 Page 17 REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that he had no changes to the written report. • Advised that City Manager Amy Brown is taking a new job and will leave at the end of February. It has been great working with her. Commissioner Reynolds asked for an update on attendance at the Planning Commissioners Academy. Director Paul Kermoyan advised that Commissioner Finch will attend and there is still one spot available. He added that usually the newer members are encouraged to participate if they wish to do so. Chair Reynolds welcomed back Commissioner Gibbons. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2013. SUBMITTED BY: rinne inn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Philip: C:--Re olds, Jr., C r ATTEST: ~~ ,,: ~µ t__----- Paul Kermoyan, Secretary