Loading...
PC Min - 03/25/2014CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 2014, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Resnikoff and the following proceedings were had, to wit: MARCH 25, 2014 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Paul Resnikoff Pam Finch Yvonne Kendall Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner: Commissioner: Comm. Dev. Director: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Cynthia L. Dodd Michael L. Rich Paul Kermoyan Aki Honda Snelling Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of March 11, 2014, were approved. (4-0-2; Commissioners Dodd and Rich were absent) COMMUNICATIONS 1. One desk item for Agenda Item 3 was distributed. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. **~ PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2013-201 (S) Public Hearing to consider the application of Gonzalez PLN2013-202 Architects for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (TRP) (PLN2013-201) and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2013-202) to Gonzalez allow site and architectural improvements to the Pruneyard Architects Shopping Center including the removal and replacement of existing palm trees, modification of a parking island, re- landscaping, and new exterior building improvements on property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Richard Smeaton, Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the project site is the Pruneyard shopping center, which is located in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District with a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. • Advised that the applicant is seeking Site and Architectural Review Permit approval to allow modifications to the buildings' materials and colors, re-landscaping utilizing WELS (Water Efficient Landscape) Standards. Also proposed is the removal of 22 palm trees to be replaced with 24-inch box trees. The building changes include changing the existing rough stucco into a more smooth stucco finish, smoothing over some brick. The proposed paint colors are white body and tan trim. The existing green painted wood columns are proposed to be changed to grey but staff is proposing that a darker brown color be considered. Existing wrought iron railings are proposed for removal and replacement in some areas with low seat walls. The main entrance would be modified to include the reconfiguration of parking and a new circulation pattern that will incorporate one-way traffic with no cross traffic to help reduce tie-ups in the lot with no loss of parking. All of the shopping center landscaping would be replaced with native grasses and flowers, again consistent with WELS guidelines. • Added that the request for removal of 22 palms is based upon the on-going maintenance that equates to the economic hardship finding. The Commission can decide if that is an adequate reason for said removals. If so, staff is recommending Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 3 that Tree #22 be retained as it is a higher quality specimen that is located separately from the others. • Explained that the applicant had originally recommended that the replacement trees be Magnolias. After the SARC meeting, the applicant provided three potential alternative replacement species including Birch, Ginko or Rosebud. • Stated that the Commission's motion should indicate which species it recommends for the replacement trees. • Recommended the adoption of a resolution approving the Site and Architectural Review Permit subject to the conditions of approval and the adoption of a second resolution approving the removal of 21 palm trees subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Finch presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on February 25, 2014. • Said that SARC inquired whether any of the tenants' spaces would remain as they are and were told that a few have specific approvals for their frontages. • Added that SARC requested three proposed alternate tree species be offered and the applicant has since done so. • Concluded that SARC also asked that on-site directional signage be incorporated to allow traffic to flow safely and a condition of approval has been added requiring said on-site directional signage. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling added that included in the staff report is the staff recommendation that the wood columns and rafter tails be painted a darker brown color. She added that there is currently no condition of approval for that recommendation and it would have to be added if the Commission so chooses. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Jose Gonzalez, Project Architect: • Advised that he is here representing the owners of the Pruneyard Shopping Center. • Added that staff has well represented their case. • Said that their only concern arising from the staff presentation is the recommendation for a color change on columns. He urged the Commission not to request that change in color as a condition of approval. • Explained that the reason for the update is to freshen the color palette so it is more in keeping with a contemporary design while respecting the center's historical context. • Advised that were these columns currently natural wood, they wouldn't be painting them. These columns have been painted many times over the years. • Asked that their proposed color palette be left alone, if possible. Their colors will respect the center but also keep it fresh. He referenced the appearance of Santana Row. Commissioner Finch asked if the palms are simply being removed or would they be salvaged for reuse elsewhere. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 4 Jose Gonzalez said that they would be glad to donate these palms for a park should the City want them. He said that it requires cranes to save them. Commissioner Finch pointed out that they (palms) are worth a lot of money. Jose Gonzalez said that the cost is in moving them rather than in the value of the palm trees themselves. Commissioner Finch asked if the change in traffic pattern would also result in a change of parking stall sizes. Jose Gonzalez said no, they would be using the City's standard sizes. Commissioner Kendall asked the reason for changing out the existing wrought iron railings. Jose Gonzalez said that they were not needed. These railings are old and tired and make the center look dated. He added that they would add low walls instead. They want to open it up and make it more inviting. Commissioner Resnikoff asked Mr. Gonzalez if they have proposed three alternative species for the tree replacements. Jose Gonzalez replied yes. Chair Resnikoff asked Mr. Gonzalez to comment on the three species suggested as alternative tree replacements. Jose Gonzalez said that their preference is the Western Redbud due to its strength of canopy and pretty branching system. He added that they would be happy with any of their three proposed tree species. Commissioner Resnikoff said that Pruneyard is giving the need for regular pruning and falling seed pods as their reason for replacing the existing palms. Jose Gonzalez said that all trees have some form of "clutter" to be maintained. There will be maintenance requirements with all three of the proposed species. They are comfortable with all three as each is an indigenous species that will do well in this area. Chair Resnikoff asked if these trees are suited per the WELS (Water Efficient Landscaping) Standards. Jose Gonzalez said that all three are hardy species that are suited to the area's climate and soils. That was the reason for picking them. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 5 Commissioner Finch: • Said that there are three replacement tree species to consider. The applicant's original choice was the Magnolia. • Added that she agrees with the applicant's preference for the Western Rosebud. It is a native tree to California. • Stated that she also agrees with the applicant on the issue of color for the columns. They have already been painted over the years. • Admitted that she is concerned about the maintenance of white painted surfaces but the changes will be more upscale as this center had become sort of hodge- podge looking over the years. • Concluded that she also agrees with staff that Palm #22 should be retained. Chair Resnikoff asked Commissioner Finch to confirm that she supports the applicant's preferred color scheme. Commissioner Finch said that she does. Commissioner Kendall: • Stated her support for the Western Rosebud as well as the retention of Palm #22. • Admitted that she hates the idea of pulling out grown palm trees. However, if maintenance of the existing palms is an issue, it does makes sense to put in replacement trees that don't require too much water. • Said that she "hates" the color scheme as it gives a "hospital" look to the center. • Pointed out that while the applicant may have referenced Santana Row as a reason to support the proposed color scheme, Santana Row has more contrast and more colors there and a different identity. • Stated lightness in colors is okay in general but not as an institutional look. It is not as modern or enticing as it should be. Chair Resnikoff asked Commissioner Kendall her opinion on the modification of the parking lot and associated circulation and parking pattern. Commissioner Kendall said she was fine with the proposals. Commissioner Finch said she is fine with it as well. She said that use of one-way traffic is an excellent idea as long as the directional signage is adequate. Commissioner Reynolds: • Said that he agrees with everyone including the retention of Palm #22 and the applicant's preferred color choice. • Added that he also supports the tree species of Western Rosebud. • Admitted that he likes the use of Star Jasmine in drought tolerant landscaping, for its color and appearance. Chair Resnikoff said that he has no problem with the replacement tree being the Western Rosebud. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 6 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Finch, the Planning Commission took the following actions: • Adopted Resolution No. 4143 approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2013-201) to allow improvements to the Pruneyard Shopping Center including the modification of a parking island, materials, colors and re- landscaping; and • Adopted Resolution No. 4144 approving a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2013-202) to allow the removal and replacement of 21 existing Palm trees with Western Rosebud trees; on property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue, with the retention of Tree #22, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finch, Resnikoff, and Reynolds NOES: Kendall ABSENT: Dodd and Rich ABSTAIN: None Chair Resnikoff advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *~~ Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2013-264 (S) Public Hearing to consider the application of Alok Ventures, PLN2014-20 (PMP) LLC, for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2013- PLN2014-52 (V) 264) with a Parking Modification Permit (PLN2014-20) and Alok Ventures, a Variance to the open space requirement (PLN2014-52) to LLC allow afour-unit apartment building (fourplex) on property located at 778 Sharmon Palms in an R-2 (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the subject property is an 8,000 square foot parcel south of Waldo Road and surrounded by fourplexes on all sides. The site has an R-2 (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning designation and aMedium-Density Residential General Plan land use designation. • Advised that the site originally contained a 1960's-era fourplex that was destroyed by fire in October 2010. The previous owner didn't reconstruct this non-conforming structure although approved to do so and said approval then lapsed. • Added that this is a new applicant bringing forward a new design. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 7 • Described the proposal as a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow the construction of a 3,500 square feet fourplex with a corresponding Parking Modification Permit to allow them to retain their existing carport. Additionally, a Variance is sought to allow a reduction in the requirement standard for open space for this location. • Said that the new building will incorporate smooth stucco and lap siding. It will provide a 20-foot setback at the front where the previous structure was previously setback 15 feet. • Added that the alley would be retained as it serves as a shared drive to the north property. • Explained that the original building design submitted was simplistic to match what occurs in the surrounding area. However, staff was concerned with that original design and recommended an improved architectural design. • Reported that a Parking Modification permit is necessary as the parking requirement is two spaces per unit for a site total of eight while the existing carport contains six spaces. That was per the previous 1960's standard of 1.5 spaces per unit. • Advised that staff is recommending approval of the Parking Modification permit based on the grounds that there is limited space for adding new parking and because of the small size of these units at less than 1,000 square feet with just two- bedrooms. Additionally, there is a shared parking agreement in place with adjacent properties. This Parking Modification permit is a method to allow existing conditions to continue. • Said that a Variance is required to the open space requirements. Three hundred square feet of open space per unit is required to consist of balcony, patio, deck or large open space. The applicant originally had proposed a rooftop deck when this proposal was brought to SARC. However, the Building Official determined that elevator access would be required per ADA regulations and that cost and provision rendered that option infeasible. • Reported that there are several lot constraints including the fact that a third of the lot is encumbered by easements. The front yard does not count as recreation space but rather is counted as landscaping. However, residents of this property can use a patio on the property to the south so staff is recommending that the Variance component also be approved by the Commission. • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit with a Parking Modification Permit and Variance subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Finch presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on January 28, 2014, and was supportive of the proposed design. There were some concerns about privacy, access and safety of the then-proposed roof deck but given the elevator requirement that deck is now moot. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 8 Alok Damireddy, Applicant: Said that he represents the company that owns this property. Thanked staff for their assistance. He did a lot of work with them to solve all issues of the site including the fact that there are easements on three of the four sides. This is a challenging lot. Stated that he hopes their design now meets all requirements. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Kendall: • Stated that given all the site restrictions, this is a pretty good plan and this new fourplex will be nicer than those near by. • Added that she is not concerned about parking as there was a building here before with six spaces and it was fine. • Said that the shared open space concept is fine. • Concluded that she likes this project. It is a good plan and she likes the colors. Commissioner Reynolds said he was fine with this project. Commissioner Finch said she agreed that the Variance is supportable for reduced parking since these are small two-bedroom units. She asked staff if sharing open space on an adjacent property could impact the density of its (open space) use. Planner Daniel Fama explained that this zoning district has a minimum amount of open space. The applicant did a good job trying to come up with open space on site. However, the standard used to be half of what the current open space standard is today. Commissioner Finch said she agrees that it is okay. Chair Resnikoff said that he has no problems with this application and the concessions sought are appropriate. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Finch, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4145 approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2013-264) with a Parking Modification Permit (PLN2014-20) and a Variance to the open space requirement (PLN2014-52) to allow afour-unit apartment building (fourplex) on property located at 778 Sharmon Palms, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finch, Kendall, Resnikoff, and Reynolds NOES: None ABSENT: Dodd and Rich ABSTAIN: None Chair Resnikoff advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 9 *** Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2014-35 Public Hearing to consider the application of Regale, LLC, for a Regale, LLC Conditional Use Permit (PLN2014-35) to allow a new wine bar/restaurant with a beer and wine license, late night operation (11 p.m. public closing time), and live entertainment on property located at 394 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 in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the subject site is a 6,600 square foot building located in Downtown Campbell. It is atwo-tenant building to the east of Naschmarkt restaurant. The Growers Bank building is on the other side and will soon be occupied by a Wine Bar to be operated by the same applicant as for tonight's request. • Explained that this proposed use would occupy 2,900 square feet of the building and the site is zoned C-3 (Central Business District). A Conditional Use Permit is required to establish a wine bar and restaurant with a beer and wine license. This business is also seeking late night operational hours with an 11 p.m. closing to the public and midnight operational closing to allow staff clean-up after the public closing. Additionally, the applicant seeks live entertainment approval to allow up to four musicians to play background music, which will also require Council approval of a Live Entertainment Permit. • Advised that the original proposed floor plan proposed 69 seats. A revised plan has been submitted with 101 seats, which is the maximum permitted by building occupancy standards. • Reported that there is no set parking provision ratio for restaurants establishing in the Downtown. The only limitation for occupancy standards is the Building Code allowances. • Said that this project must comply with the Downtown Development Plan, which is a part of the City's General Plan, as well as with the Downtown Alcohol Policy. • Added that under the DT Alcohol Policy, wine bars are subject to 11 p.m. closing. Additionally, the kitchen would have to be open and food service available but patrons won't have to eat in order to be served alcohol. All patrons will be seated. • Advised that findings must be made that such a use is not a nuisance, will not disturb the neighborhood, would not increase the demand for City services and/or will not result in an over-concentration of said uses. • Reported that there are 24 existing alcohol serving establishments in the Downtown. These include restaurants and bars serving alcohol. This proposed wine bar would be the 25t" alcohol-serving establishment and the third wine bar. • Recommended the adoption of a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions of approval. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 10 Commissioner Kendall asked what other businesses are near this location. Planner Daniel Fama said that other nearby businesses include Naschmarkt, the pending wine bar coming to the former Gaslighter, Liquid Bread, Blue Line Pizza, City Bikes and a hair salon. Commissioner Kendall asked what portion of the 101 patrons would be bar patrons. Planner Daniel Fama said that the number of bar seats would increase by one to 10 from the original proposed nine. There is a condition that seating capacity of the bar cannot exceed 10 percent of entire capacity. Commissioner Finch asked about the Breakfast Joint included on the list of uses selling alcohol. Director Paul Kermoyan said that restaurant is called Mo's Breakfast Joint. Chair Resnikoff asked for additional differences between a restaurant and a wine bar other than whether someone has to order food with alcohol service. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that one requirement is that the bar area cannot stay open later than the attached restaurant. However as long as food remains available, they could keep the bar area open as an eating location. • Added that meal service is required in a bar for a restaurant but not at this location (wine bar). • Said that in a restaurant one cannot sit and only order alcohol. • Said that Tessora's is one of the approved wine bars that has opened in the Downtown. Regale has been approved but not yet opened. This application (Rendezvous) would represent the third wine bar approval in the Downtown. Commissioner Finch asked if the applicant this evening, who is also the business owner for the wine bar coming in next door, is it his intention to start here and move next door later. Planner Daniel Fama said that the applicant wants to open and operate both businesses separately. Director Paul Kermoyan said that the distinction is that this is a proposed restaurant/wine bar that is different than the use approved for next door which is simply a wine bar. There are distinct differences between both uses. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Larry Schaadt, Applicant: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 11 • Explained that he has been waiting a year or more to establish at 400 E. Campbell but the landlord ran out of money and the lender foreclosed on the owner. It has been a long process. • Pointed out that Downtown Campbell businesses keep developing and right now due to the situation with the property he cannot open his original location as quickly as he had hoped. • Added that they may get into 400 E. Campbell by May but opening there could extend out to the summer or in reality perhaps as late as the fall. • Pointed out that this space next door at 394 E. Campbell is a much smaller location. Establishing here will allow them to get a foothold into this community. It will incorporate beautiful decor in a different design than will be used next door. • Explained that a problem came up during the Building Department approval process. A private dining area on the second floor, which is quite important to their business concept, including accommodating private events, which had to be eliminated to leave sufficient ingress and egress for emergency exiting. • Added that as a result their corporate clients desiring a private dining event will be able to use space in this second location at 394 E. Campbell. There will be two useable areas for the wine bar itself, one being a mezzanine where the corporate private parties will be accommodated. • Advised that they need the maximum allowed building occupancy of 101 to accommodate these corporate private events. • Stated that this location (394 E. Campbell) can open within two months. • Clarified that they operate two wine labels -Regale and Rendezvous. Their two DT Campbell locations will correspondingly be called Regale and Rendezvous. Commissioner Finch asked about the style of music anticipated for Rendezvous. She understands the plan is for light jazz at Regale. What about Rendezvous? Will the music be amplified? Larry Schaadt • Said that the Regale (400 E. Campbell) location's decor will have a more historic look of the 20's, 30's and 40's. The Rendezvous (394 E. Campbell) location's decor will be brighter and more contemporary. • Said that they would usually have just a couple of musicians rather than up to four. • Pointed out that it is not that big inside. • Added that, if necessary, they could accept a limit of up to two musicians. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Reynolds: • Stated that he likes this concept and was on the Planning Commission when the use was approved at the Gaslighter location. • Stated that this applicant's approval rating with his neighbors was phenomenal as a result of his outreach efforts. As a result, the neighbors welcomed the applicant with open arms. That serves as a wonderful model for the Downtown. A wine bar related use at this end of the street will help to create a balance and help bring in a more mature crowd. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 12 • Said that he didn't think that this creates an over-concentration. • Pointed out that Campbell Avenue going east will be opening up into the Downtown in the future. • Concluded that this is a wonderful application that he will support and he is okay with approving occupancy to 101. Chair Resnikoff asked Commissioner Reynolds if he wants to modify the condition regarding the maximum number of musicians allowed for the live entertainment. Commissioner Reynolds said that he is okay with leaving it up to four and he is also okay with amplification of the music. This is still a restaurant setting. Commissioner Kendall: • Said that she also likes the idea of this. • Admitted that while she may not find an over-concentration in this part of the Downtown but there is only a bicycle shop and hair salon nearby that are non food/restaurant uses. What other retail is there on this end of town? • Added that she is not concerned about the amplification of the live music. Commissioner Finch said that she tends to take her cue from the Police Department and they are fine with this proposal. Chair Resnikoff: • Stated that he has no problem with this application and has an understanding of the difference between wine bars versus a hybrid. • Said that he too gives a lot of consideration to what the Police Department's concerns might be. They have no problem with this. • Said that he likes the design and that this business will help develop a better mix of uses for the Downtown. • Pointed out that there are other vacant tenant spaces along Campbell Avenue. The problem is finding the right business to come there. • Agreed that the Downtown will expand outward both to the east and west of the existing core Downtown. This use will not impede that from happening. This is good for the Downtown. • Stated that it s important to get this business owner Downtown sooner. He has no issues as any concerns have been addressed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4146 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2014-35) to allow a new wine bar/restaurant with a beer and wine license, late night operation (11 p.m. public closing time), and live entertainment on property located at 394 E. Campbell Avenue, subject to the revised conditions of approval to include an occupancy of 101, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finch, Kendall, Resnikoff, and Reynolds NOES: None Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 13 ABSENT: Dodd and Rich ABSTAIN: None Chair Resnikoff advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record as follows: 4. PLN2012-150 (ZC) Public Hearing to consider the application of David Perng PLN2012-151 (PM) for a Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2012-150) from R-M PLN2012-152 (PD) (Multiple Family Residential) to P-D (Planned PLN2012-285 (TRP) Development); Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2012-151) to Perng, D. divide one parcel into two parcels; a Planned Development Permit with a Parking Modification (PLN2012-152) to allow a new two-story single-family residence on the rear parcel; and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2012-285) to remove one walnut tree on property located at 108 E. Latimer Avenue in a R-M (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: April 15, 2014. Aki Honda Snelling, Planning Manager Ms. Aki Honda Snelling, Planning Manager, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the project site is located on the south side of E. Latimer Avenue, east of Winchester and west of Third Street. • Added that this proposal requires a Zoning Map Amendment to change the designation from R-M (Multiple Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development); a Tentative Parcel Map to allow two lots including a flag lot; a Planned Development Permit with a Parking Modification Permit to allow atwo-story, 2,014 square foot residence on the rear lot and a deficiency of one guest parking space; and a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of a walnut tree. • Explained that the Parking Modification is required because five parking spaces are required and four are proposed, three covered and one uncovered. • Said that the current zoning is R-M (Multiple Family Residential) and the General Plan land use designation is Low to Medium Residential (6-15 units per gross acre). The proposed development density is 7.9 units per gross acre. • Reminded that this project had to be postponed from the March 11, 2014, meeting due to noticing issues. Since that time, four letters of concern have been received with issues including: • Privacy impacts • Insufficient open spaces • Small setbacks. • Some feel that this project sets precedent in this area. • Others report that street parking is already over crowded. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 14 • Some raised concerns about additional noise. • Some felt the site use was not well designed. • Reported that two homes back this site, one of which has a pool. • Stated that this project site consists of 9,130 net square feet. Lot 1 would be 4,713 square feet in size and Lot 2 would be 4,417 square feet in size. Access rights to Lot 2 would be through Lot 1. Lot 1 has a 1,550 square foot residence and for Lot 2 a new 3,014 square foot home is proposed as a two-story with atwo-car garage. • Reiterated that five off-street parking spaces are required while four are proposed including three covered and one uncovered space. This shortage requires approval of a Parking Modification. • Explained that a change in zoning to Planned Development is intended to provide flexibility not otherwise available in other zoning districts in order to deal with site constraints. However, development is expected to be consistent with its neighborhood. The PD Zoning is intended to help reach good design. • Pointed out that flag lots are not prevalent in this neighborhood. Most are single- family or small-lot single-family. • Advised that the Commission can decide to leave the existing R-M (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning rather than supporting the requested change to P-D (Planned Development). • Added that three units could fit on this property as zoned without subdividing the lot that currently fronts along Latimer. • Reminded that the back adjacent neighbor is asingle-family residential parcel with a pool in the yard. • Listed possible alternatives available to the Commission including: have the existing home remain asingle-family residence and deny this project; revise the project to incorporate a two or three-unit attached multi-family development; develop the project as the applicant proposes; or revise this development to include greater open space area. • Described the proposed elevation for the new structure as a two-story, 20-foot high home with stucco walls in Navaho White and with a tan the roof. • Stated that four resolutions would be required to recommend approval of this proposal including a Zoning Map Amendment; Tentative Parcel Map; Planned Development Permit with a Parking Modification; and a Tree Removal Permit. • Concluded that in light of the concerns raised, the Planning Commission can consider other alternatives as well to forward onward to Council. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Explained that since the time that the first staff report was prepared public comment was received that could not be ignored as it raised valid concerns. • Said that the second staff report acknowledges those comments and provides options for the Commission to consider. • Reported that the proposal is consistent with City practices. • Said that the zoning would have to change to develop as proposed. • Clarified that PD Zoning does not provide the option to toss development standards. Instead it is an opportunity to create a unique development with a greater amount of open space. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 15 Commissioner Kendall asked if the site remains R-M would it be possible to construct a second unit in the back without separating the parcel into two lots. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling replied yes. Commissioner Kendall asked what size home would be possible for the second unit. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that this lot size is large in area and configuration. The allowable FAR (floor area ratio) is restricted to the confines of the setbacks from all sides and distance from existing buildings. Using those standards one creates a spatial envelope that would create limitations for placement of the building on the lot. Chair Resnikoff: • Clarified with staff that if this parcel is not split the owners can still have two houses on the single lot. One could be rented out but they couldn't sell the second home to a different owner. • Asked if the parcel could simply be left "as it is" with a smaller house to be constructed at the back. • Reiterated that the difference with the lot split is that they could sell one lot or the other. If the parcel remains one, there could be two homes but only one owner. Commissioner Finch asked what is located on the R-M zoned property to the east of the subject site. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that it is asingle-family residence. Commissioner Reynolds: • Referenced Attachment 2 (page 2 of 8) that indicates that the gross lot is measured out to the centerline of the street while the net lot takes that area out. Commissioner Resnikoff asked what would be on the front parcel should this lot be split. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that there would be one single-family residence on the front parcel and a new two-story residence on the back parcel. Chair Resnikoff asked what if the existing front house was to be removed. What could go there? Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that it could be developed with the same density as exists. Director Paul Kermoyan explained that the General Plan density standard for this site is multi-family residential. He added that technically a duplex could be placed on the 4,700 square foot front parcel but there would not be enough room available for them to provide adequate parking to meet requirements. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 16 Chair Resnikoff asked if a two-story home could be constructed on the front lot in the future. Director Paul Kermoyan said that could happen. Commissioner Finch presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on February 11, 2014. • Added that SARC recommended support with additional recommendations including moving the tree to Lot 2; applicant outreach to his neighbors; and a new six-foot tall good neighbor fence to the east. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. David Perng, Project Architect: • Thanked staff for their help with this project over the last two years. • Said that they are happy to reach this stage in the process. • Explained that in the beginning they were designing two units for the back of the lot. • Added that at the pre-application stage, it was suggested that one unit would offer better site coverage and open space so they followed the recommended design standards. • Admitted that the big struggle is the FAR. There is 65 percent maximum FAR in the P-D Zone and they are proposing a project at 58.7 percent. • Said that in response to concerns about privacy and setback concerns, they are providing a 12 foot setback where 10 foot is required. They are adding two major trees to the site for additional privacy. • Assured that they did their best to deal with setbacks and privacy. Commissioner Kendall asked about proposed landscaping between the two homes. David Perng said that there is a privacy tree there. Commissioner Kendall asked if the space around this tree is paved. David Matsuo, Property Owner & Applicant: • Thanked the Commission for its consideration of his request. • Reported that he purchased this site about two years ago. At the time it had atwo- car garage that was an unpermitted structure. There were additional unpermitted structures to the back against the Montessori School building. • Stated that he was surprised by community opposition to his proposed project for this site. • Pointed out that the Montessori school is right at its property line and their structure helps shield that. • Advised that there are two cottages on the adjacent R-M zoned parcel. • Reported that he has invested significant money on this property. • Added that he believes that his proposed structure will be blocked from direct view by neighbors through screening landscaping. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 17 Vivian Matsuo, Applicant and Owner: • Explained that when they originally looked at this parcel two years ago, it was suggested by staff that it could be developed much like Sunnyside was being developed at that time. • Said that they are just trying to do what they can with what they have got. • Added that anything that they can do to make their neighbors' life better helps make their life better as well. Stefan Zschiegner, Resident on Third Street: • Expressed appreciation for being heard by the Commission. • Reported that he had provided a letter and PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission in advance. • Advised that he relocated here from Europe. In 2001 they drove into this area and found this property. • Listed four points he has against this proposal. They include privacy impacts on his backyard that offers open space with big orchard trees. His neighborhood has an existing nice consistency and this project could create precedence for this neighborhood. • Cautioned that their continued use of their "dream" backyard is at risk here. They installed a pool, which represented a big investment. • Suggested that this owner limit his second structure to a granny unit. • Pointed out that parking overflow already occurs in this neighborhood given its proximity to apartments, a school, as well as the School District's administrative office that is nearby on Third Street. • Recounted that the newer carport on this subject property is rarely used even though there are generally four cars parked on the property. • Added that he noticed today someone trying to utilize this carport but the vehicle didn't fit beneath it. • Stressed that their property value represents their retirement. • Reiterated that this is a fantastic neighborhood and Downtown area. Bev Zschiegner, Resident on Third Street: • Stated that they had purchased their home because of its charm. • Reported that she is from England while her husband is from Germany. • Advised that they have put a lot of money into their home. • Said that traffic and parking are already issues in this area. • Advised that she has a granny unit on her property that is the 640 square foot size that is allowed in Campbell. Alisa Burmeister, Resident on Third Street: • Reported that their lot is 10,000 square feet and is their long-term investment. • Said that changing the zoning of this adjacent parcel just to allow its development is not a reason to change the zoning. • Stated that they have seen major issues with traffic develop over the last few years. • Pointed out that there is a family living in the houses at each of the four corners at Third and Latimer. Each family has between one and three young children. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 18 • Said that there is a charm aspect to their neighborhood that they didn't want to see change. • Stated that past renovations in the area have retained the Downtown charm and design aesthetic. • Reiterated that they have major concerns about this proposal and that she is speaking for both herself and her husband, Eric. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Reynolds: • Said that this is a tough one for him. • Admitted that he tends to be a proponent of personal property rights and flexible on a property owner's use of their property but there has to be a line. • Stated that the P-D zoning has an open and grey area in regards for development allowances. For example, this site would never accommodate an eight story hotel on it. • Said that he has to draw a line on this one. It appears this project as proposed would change the character of this neighborhood. Therefore, he has a difficult time approving something like that. • Advised that it is not the intent of the P-D Zoning to allow more units on a parcel. • Pointed out that this property has an allowable density of 6 to 13 units per gross acre and the applicant's proposal is at 7.9 units per gross acre. However, it is a rather large structure often referred to as a "McMansion". There are places for such large homes. For example, one is going up on Christopher but that is an extremely large lot. In this case, this neighborhood has been around since the beginning of Campbell. What's being asked for would modify the character of this neighborhood and would set precedence. That's a line he does not want to cross. • Said with the four options outlined by staff for this request, he will go with the first option that is to deny this proposed project. • Advised that he is open to expanding the size of the existing house on this property and would support a secondary living unit and even a second story on the existing house. However, whatever is built needs to be in character with this neighborhood. Chair Resnikoff pointed out that those other suggested alternatives are not on the table today. Commissioner Reynolds said that his recommendation would be that the City Council denies this proposal. Commissioner Kendall asked what Commissioner Reynolds could support. Commissioner Reynolds said he could support increasing the existing house to meet the needs of this expanded family. Director Paul Kermoyan said that another possible alternative is to build a second home on the property without subdividing the lot. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 19 City Attorney William Seligmann cautioned that State law does not allow the Commission to require this applicant to develop their property at a lesser density than allowed under the General Plan without making specific findings of a negative impact to the health, safety and welfare unless said density is reduced. There are very specific findings required to support this reduction. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Clarified that although the applicant says he has rights per the zoning, the request to change the existing zoning is not a right but rather a concession. • Said that if the Commission has concerns with the proposal in front of them, they should identify their specific concerns and see if they can be mitigated. • Added that the applicant could ask to go forward to Council with whatever recommendation the Commission decides upon or else they can consider offering a change to their proposal. Chair Resnikoff reiterated that if the parcel is not divided, it could remain zoned as R-M (Multiple Family) Residential. Director Paul Kermoyan agreed and said that the R-M zoning allows single-family residential as a permitted land use. City Attorney William Seligmann said that if that's all the Commission would allow they would have to clarify that and give reasons why. Commissioner Reynolds asked staff if the Commission could suggest continuing this item in order to send this project back to SARC. The applicant could then work with SARC now that they have a better understanding about the direction the Commission would like to see including more compatibility to the neighborhood's character. He suggested inviting the applicant to come back with revisions more supportable by the Commission and more in line with what the neighbors are requesting. Director Paul Kermoyan said that is possible. It's important to articulate and clarify the points that make this project achievable and how to get there. Commissioner Kendall said she needs clarification. She said she is not opposed to retaining the R-M Zoning with multiple units on the site but not supportive of the creation of a separate flag lot at the back. Director Paul Kermoyan asked if Commissioner Kendall would be supportive of the front house being modified. City Attorney William Seligmann cautioned that is not a part of this application. At this time the Commission has before it a Planned Development Permit application. If the Commission chooses to leave this site as an R-M (Multiple Family) Residential Zoning, the Commission's choice is to deny the project before it. Director Paul Kermoyan: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 20 Said that if the applicant withdraws their P-D Zoning request they can build at a higher density on this site without it. It seems the Commission is not opposed to multiple units on this property. Added that per the City Attorney, the Commission can deny this request or suggest to the applicant that they modify their proposal. Said that it depends on the applicant's willingness to go that route. However, he may prefer to move forward with the Commission's recommendation moving on to the Council for final action. Chair Resnikoff said that regardless of what happens, this item would move on to Council. Director Paul Kermoyan cautioned that if the vote this evening is a split vote (tie) the recommendation is automatically to deny the request. The applicant can request a continuance to get a new vote when additional Commissioners are present to possibly break that tie. City Attorney William Seligmann said that is correct. Any Commissioners absent this evening would simply need to view the meeting tape before they could vote. Commissioner Kendall said she would deny the PD as she doesn't feel it is right to have the larger house at the back and a smaller house at the street frontage. That doesn't fit into this neighborhood or for the future of the neighborhood. She said if the back structure is much smaller she would feel better. Since this parcel is already R-M, she has no objection to amulti-family structure offering good open space. Commissioner Finch stated her agreement with Director Kermoyan. Having a zoning change is a privilege and a City's zoning maps are not created lightly. She supported keeping the property zoned as R-M. She agreed with Commissioner Kendall that the larger house should be located at the front and the smaller house to the back. Commissioner Resnikoff asked Commissioner Finch what has changed since SARC initially supported this proposal. Commissioner Finch: • Said that additional neighbor outreach and feedback has been received since SARC considered this application. This feedback is important. • Added that although she is a proponent of property rights there are difficult issues raised here. • Said that she would not support the Zoning change to P-D (Planned Development). • Advised that she would like to see a less intrusive structure at the back of this parcel with the bigger dwelling located at the front. Commissioner Reynolds stated that he keeps property rights in mind but those rights need to be balanced by the potential of this project encroaching onto other properties. Director Paul Kermoyan suggested that the Commission could require modifications to the existing property and require a smaller unit be constructed at the back. That way Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 21 the applicant could achieve their same goal by allowing them to separate the parcel at the back. Commissioner Reynolds said that he would not support the lot split. He added that he is fine with a smaller unit being constructed at the back. Commissioner Resnikoff asked for clarification that Commissioner Reynolds is supportive of a smaller second structure but while also retaining this lot as a single parcel. Commissioner Reynolds said that was correct. Commissioner Finch said she agrees with that as she too is against the lot split. Commissioner Kendall also agreed. Chair Resnikoff: • Admitted that he is having a difficult time supporting the lot split as well. • Reported that he lives in the Downtown area. • Added that the zone change is a game changer and he questions a zone change just to allow more development. • Advised that he doesn't like the idea of a rezone here to Planned Development. • Pointed out that this owner seems to have purchased this property with expectations of a zone change but the existing neighbors have also invested in their properties. • Reminded that the existing R-M (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning is already in place and allows a second home to be constructed on this property. However, leaving the site with R-M Zoning mandates something smaller than proposed. • Reiterated that he feels there is no reason to rezone to P-D. A second unit to serve this family remains possible although the R-M zoning wouldn't allow the owner to sell the second home to a separate owner. • Concluded that he would rather see the second structure fit within the existing R-M standards or to see an extension to the main house to meet this family's space needs. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Advised that this applicant has options. • Said that they have the right to request that their project go forward with whatever recommendation the Planning Commission may determine. • Stated that the applicant could also request a continuance to allow them the opportunity to modify their proposal as a Planned Development but with a redesign. • Said that they could elect to withdraw their application altogether. At staff's recommendation, Chair Resnikoff called for a recess at 10:05 p.m. to allow staff to consult with the applicant on how they would like to proceed. He reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 22 Director Paul Kermoyan said that he had the opportunity to speak with the applicants and provided them with their options and/or scenarios. The applicant now wants to address the Planning Commission. Chair Resnikoff re-opened Public Hearing No. 4. David Matsuo, Applicant and Property Owner, advised that he would like to request a continuance of this hearing. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Reported that the applicant has heard the concerns raised this evening and he wants to re-evaluate their proposal. • Added that they could come back "as is" or may change their proposal. • Said that they want to take the time to reflect on the comments of the Commission. • Concluded that the recommendation by staff is to continue this item to a date uncertain. Chair Resnikoff asked if additional outreach might occur. Director Paul Kermoyan said that it would have to go back to SARC if a different proposal is prepared. If they chose to retain their existing project, it would be voted upon by this Commission and then forwarded onward to Council for final decision. Chair Resnikoff restated that if no changes are proposed this item would still need to come back to the Planning Commission even if just for a recommendation of denial and then forwarded to Council for final decision. Chair Resnikoff re-closed Public Hearing No. 4. Commissioner Reynolds: • Said that he would encourage the applicant to do more neighborhood outreach. • Added that open communication goes a long way and helps resolve a lot of issues on both sides. Chair Resnikoff reminded that this R-M zoned property would allow another building that could be approved. He suggested the applicant work with the neighbors to help formulate something that works for everyone. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Finch, seconded by Commissioner Reynolds, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment from R-M (Multiple Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development); Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a parcel into two lots; a Planned Development Permit (PLN2012-151) with a Parking Modification to allow the construction of a 3,014 square foot two- story, single-family residence on the rear flag lot and a deficiency of one parking space on site; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove one 15-inch diameter Walnut tree to allow the Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 2014 Page 23 development of the project on property located at 108 E. Latimer Avenue. (4-0-2; Commissioners Dodd and Rich were absent) *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan advised that the League of California Cities Planning Commission Academy would be taking place for the rest of this week in South San Francisco. Commissioner Kendall will be attending as will he and Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling. Chair Resnikoff reminded staff that he would like to include a Report of the Mayor's Meeting on the second Planning Commission meeting agenda each month to allow him an opportunity to report back to the Commission on recent discussions. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 8, 2014. SUBMITTED BY: Corin hinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: < <---~ ~`~~~ Paul Resnikoff, Chair / %" ATTEST: ~~ ~~.~ „/ ~- Paul Kern'f6~n, Secretary