Loading...
PC Min - 11/11/2014CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. NOVEMBER 11, 2014 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of November 11, 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: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL 01= MINUTES Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Community Development Director: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Paul Resnikoff Pam Finch Yvonne Kendall Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Michael L. Rich Cynthia L. Dodd Donald C. Young Paul Kermoyan Aki Honda Snelling Stephen Rose William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of October 28, 2014, were approved. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Dodd and Young were absent and Commissioner Rich abstained) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 3 • Reported that these dormers were discussed at the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) meeting. • Advised that there is no livable space above plate height within those dormers. The dormers simply represent an architectural articulation to give the building an improved appearance from that elevation. Commissioner Rich asked what difference there is in number of affordable units with the use of this density bonus. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling explained that in a rental project the City cannot require BMR units per the Palmer case decision. With a purchase project there would be the requirement for one low-income and one moderate-income BMR unit. Chair Resnikoff: • Offered clarification that the allowance for reduced parking as part of the density bonus is something the City cannot avoid. However, this applicant is not building extra units as a result but rather using that provision to allow this development with the provision of fewer parking spaces. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that the applicant is offering the BMR units with this proposed rental development on a voluntary basis using a density bonus on parking provision. City Attorney 1/~Jilliam Seligmann added that the BMR units trigger development options that allow for increased density and parking decreases as well as other incentives. Chair Resnikoff asked if there are different levels of low-income BMR units when comparing a rental versus "for-sale" units. How are the BMR units identified? Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that the units are the same as any other unit in the development. Director Paul K:ermoyan said that it is open to negotiations with the applicant. Staff is recommending a balance in the BMR units with one one-bedroom and one two- bedroom allocated as BMR units. Chair Resnikofi~ asked who decides. Director Paul k;ermoyan said that it could be a part of the Commission's decision. It used to be left up to the Community Development Director but he personally is uncomfortable and prefers to see the Planning Commission make that final determination instead as part of this open process. That way it is clear within the record. Chair Resnikoff asked if the Commission would have the opportunity to hear from the Traffic Engineer and/or Traffic Consultant this evening. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 4 Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that both the City's Traffic Engineer, Matthew Jue, and the City's Traffic Consultant for this application, Mark Spencer, are present and available for questions this evening. Commissioner Rich questioned the need for a map since this project is proposed to be a rental developpment under one ownership. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that this is what is being asked for by the applicant. He c;an still rent these units out even if they are condo-ized. Commissioner Rich asked if a rental development is usually mapped out. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling replied no. Director Paul K:ermoyan: • Explained that the applicant intends to eventually sell these units but perhaps far into the future. • Added that the applicant has the right to request a subdivision. The question is whether the City has to accept. • Assured that there is a process in place in the event that the owner wants to turn apartments into individually owned condos. • Advised that the applicant is minimizing some of his risk by establishing the condo map at time of construction even though he plans to retain ownership and rent these units out at first. Commissioner Finch provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this proposal on October 14, 2014 and was generally supportive with a few recommendations. • Supportive of the architectural design with additional enhancements. • Use of building height dormers at the front but not at the back. • Use of durable materials including stone on the elevations. The applicant revised his plan to add stone wainscoting to the exterior elevations. • Use of unobstructed storefront glazing as seen from Winchester. The applicant supports a condition of approval mandating that these storefront windows not be obscured. • Architectural elevations were revised to provide greater vertical wall articulations along the Winchester Street frontage. • Admitted that SARC feared insufficient parking. • Reported that this applicant met with a group of neighbors and has agreed to incorporate a "right turn only" exit from this site onto EI Caminito leading vehicles directly to 1~Jinchester rather than onto EI Caminito. • Revised the proposed landscape planters so they are smaller in front of the storefront columns. A condition of approval was added. • Concerns about limited open space provisions. A condition will be included in the CC&R's that prohibits the use of balconies for storage to leave them available for Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 5 open space use by residents. These balconies will have open rail along Winchester and solid wall at the rear of the building. • Said that there will be the provision of 10 bike lockers. The garages are 15 feet high. TherE; will be an 8-foot fence with landscape screening being provided on the adjacent property to the west. This has been added as a condition of approval. Chair Resnikoff said that at some point he would like to hear from the Traffic Engineer as to why he thinks the incorporation of a physical barrier/island to prevent left turns onto EI Caminito from this site is not a good idea. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Jeff Warmoth, ,Applicant and Property Owner: • Thanked the Planning Commission and acknowledged the comprehensive staff report provided this evening. • Said that his architect is here tonight. • Reported treat his partnership group for this project is the same that worked on the Downtown project at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue (where Aqui's is located) as well as the Courtyard Marriott project on Creekside. • Said that preparation of this proposal involved a collaborative effort with staff. It was clear that there was a clear need to adhere to the provisions of the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan (WBMP). This project design has had five prior iterations. • Added that they have incorporated every recommendation made by SARC within these current plans. • Assured that this will be a nice addition to Winchester Boulevard as part of the long-term plan to transform Winchester into a vibrant mixed-use and pedestrian- oriented retail environment. • Added that inclusion of a lot of storefront glass for retail helps create vibrancy. • Explained that his Downtown development has a 15-foot sidewalk depth that allows rooms four outdoor dining tables. • Said that this proposed project is similar to other projects that are being constructed most recently along Winchester. • Reiterated that his goal has been to fully comply with the WBMP and said there is no aspect of their proposal that is not completely compliant with the WBMP. • Advised that they are trying to articulate the building's appearance so it enhances the surrounding area more so than for any impact from within the building itself. The dormers are an architectural element intended to provide building articulation and enhanced appearance. • Said that it would be easy to remove the dormers from the back elevation if the Planning Commission does not want those there. • Assured that this development will result in a good place to live, shop and be a retailer. • Said that there will be 10 private garages and secure bicycle parking lockers. • Pointed out that the younger generation uses mass transportation more than previous generations. This site will provide a very active streetscape that serves the residents and neighbors. Campbell Plannning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 6 • Recounted that the community outreach meeting concentrated on three topics of concern including two-story versus three-story design, traffic impacts and sufficiency of parking. • Said again ithat the project is fully compliant with the regulations of the WBMP. • Reminded that the WBMP was developed through an extensive process that included eight public hearings over anine-month period. It included lots of staff time in the preparation. The Planning Commission approved it by a 6-1 vote in favor and thie Council adopted it by unanimous vote of 5-0. • Stated that they wanted to do a good job, to follow all of the rules and standards and have done a good job in following them all. • Said that "rules" are a consensus. They are the standards that a community has chosen to accept and are in place to be followed. There are tough standards within the WBMP including in relation to sight-line slope. This standard starts at zero. First a 10-foot landscaping setback is required. Then the building setback standard from the rear property line is 70 feet. • Reported that the Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by a Consulting Traffic Engineer that was selected and supervised by the City at his expense. • Advised that the previous project was projected to be 97 percent higher than his project will be. It has been determined by the third-party consultant that traffic with this development should not impact EI Caminito. It results in just 25 percent of the trips necessary before this development would result in a perceptible impact. • Stated his willingness to install a median island to skew the driveway and help direct traffic: off site over to Winchester. However, he would need City approval since it would be located within the public right-of-way. • Said that he has several of his own parking impact concerns. He is concerned that others from off-site locations would begin utilizing these spaces due to their own inadequate parking provision. • Advised that they will be controlling the use of their parking. They will not rent out to tenants with more than one car per one-bedroom unit or two cars per two- bedroom unit. • Reiterated that they are fully parked per State law standards as well as per City standards. Their estimated demand is 29 maximum on weekdays and 27 maximum on weekends. They provide 42. • Said that the density bonus they are asking for includes a provision for parking. If they provide 5 percent or more in very-low income BMR units, they are entitled to park their site per State law. • Added that in regards to his future plans to hold on to this development for many years, he also has to admit that he doesn't know what might happen in the future. While his goal is to retain this development and hand it down to his children, banks like to see an "exit" strategy in place as well. That exit strategy is the condo map that would allow individual sale in the future through a specific process. Commissioner Kendall asked for elaboration on this proposal for an island. Is he referring to the public sidewalk or street? Jeff Warmoth advised that the first 10-feet of the driveway apron are considered public-right-of-way. Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 7 Commissioner Finch: • Thanked Jeff Warmoth for his cooperation with SARC's recommendations. • Advised asked whether construction standards are different and more stringent with condos than with apartments. Jeff Warmoth said that even big apartment developments are being built to the higher condo standards these days. Commissioner Finch asked if that is so they can later be sold individually. Jeff Warmoth said that they are constructed with higher design and quality of materials including features such as granite countertops. Commissioner Rich questioned how the project might be impacted if it were mapped as an apartment development rather than as a condo development. Jeff Warmoth said that he would have to provide just one very-low income unit if the project is rental. He voluntarily is providing two very-low income units and one moderate-income unit while this is a single-owner rental development. Commissioner Rich asked what the difference would be with this project if there was no density bonus included. Jeff Warmoth said that there would be fewer and larger units that would not be compliant with the City's General Plan for this site. He advised that this development is proposed at the minimum number of units per gross acre per the General Plan's land use designation for this property. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Pointed out that there are other nuances with asingle-owner rental development versus individually owned condo units. • Explained that a BMR unit comes with a 30-year obligation to remain BMR. After 30 years it can convert to market rate. However, every time that a BMR unit turns over, the clock starts again fora 30-year timeframe as BMR. Emma Davis, Resident on EI Caminito: • Identified herself as a 12-year-old who has lived on EI Caminito for her entire life. • Advised that she and her sisters are all students at St. Lucy School. They all walk to school each day. • Expressed concern that if there are cars parked on the street it would become harder for drivers to see kids walking to school. • Added that right now it is safe for her family to ride bikes on EI Caminito but they are concerned that new traffic will come from this development onto EI Caminito and change that. Nancy Fomenko, Resident on EI Caminito: • Said that this is a watershed project that will come with consequences. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 8 • Said that she appreciates that this is a complex issue and hopes for awin-win for all sides. • Asked that a reduced scope be considered for this proposal. • Reported that her neighborhood is concerned with a lack of protections to the adjacent residential neighbor of this project site. • Suggested that there are omissions to the staff report. It is void of language relating to protection of adjacent neighborhoods. Carol Whelan, Resident on EI Caminito: • Read excerpts from the General Plan -Land Use and Transportation Element. Highlights of read material included: not infringe on residential neighbors; improve livability. Control intensity of development based on street capacity, it is incompatible when residential homes are located adjacent to non-residential or higher density residential uses; attention to scale, height and form; circulation and parking -discourage traffic into residential zones; traffic calming measures -safe and reasonable speeds in residential neighborhoods. Patrick Hallinan, Resident on Cherry Lane: • Continued to read excerpts from Code. • Said that the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan (WBMP) has a 45-foot maximum height and must be stepped down when adjacent to single-family areas. Areas 1 and 3 of the WBMP allow up to three-stories and asingle-story within Area 2. There are deeper side yard setbacks. • Read from the Housing Element. • Reported that big rigs come onto Cherry Lane to make deliveries to Casa Lupe. LeeAnn Kuntz, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Opined that. there is justification to reduce the scope of this project. • Stated that this site is not big enough to support what is being proposed. • Said that the intent of City Codes is to "first not do harm to existing neighborhoods" and to pay attention to scale and height. Angelia Banz, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Said that this project seems so big. It is too big! • Suggested that athree-story building is not required. • Said that the WBMP calls for one, two orthree-stories. • Added that 16 units are being proposed on a .56 acre lot. • Stated that there is precedent to deny this request and referenced a previous denial by the City for a request to subdivide one parcel at Tubby & Harrison into two. • Said that she wants to make sure that this project is compatible with the lifestyles of those already living in the area. Commissioner Reynolds: • Asked staff to verify the drawing provided by the neighbors. There seems to be a discrepancy with the plans in the packet. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 9 • Asked if a greater setback is required than has been provided as it seems the building is encroaching into the 70 foot setback as seen by the neighbors' exhibit brought forth. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling clarified that the minimum setback is 70 feet. Chair Resnikoff referenced plan sheet 6-A from the packet. Commissioner Finch said that this sheet (6-A) demonstrates that the building's garage doors are at a Sa6-foot distance from the back property line. Director Paul K:ermoyan: • Said he would like to clarify. • Acknowledged that he understands the public's impression that the rear setback for this site must be a minimum of 70 feet. • Clarified that in actuality, per the existing General Plan, this site falls within C-3 Zoning. Under C-3 Zoning, there is a 1.5 percent FAR allowance and a zero rear yard setback requirement. • Added that the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan (WBMP) was developed and was sensitive to this neighborhood and instead created a more stringent 2/1 ratio and pulled the buildings away from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Reynolds asked staff if the footprint of the structure is supposed to begin at the 70-foot setback. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that the line shown on the new exhibit provided by the neighbors represents the building envelope slope. Chair Resnikoff' sought confirmation that the building can start at 70 feet distance. Liz Gibbons, Resident on Cherry Lane: • Said that per the three diagrams they have seen relative to this, it appeared clear to them that the first 70 feet from the rear property line must be void of building footprint. • Asked staff what regulations apply? Chair Resnikoff said that the drawing is accurate and it appears the question is in interpretation. Liz Gibbons: • Questioned whether it was even appropriate to apply the parking incentive given that it is intended to result in a density that is over the maximum allowed but this applicant is not seeking an increase in number of units but rather a reduction in the number of parking spaces serving the site. • Opined that this proposal doesn't meet the requirement of the density bonus program whereby they should be creating at least five more units than they proposed to create. This project does not comply. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 10 • Stated that the lowest affordable rent for a BMR must be in place a minimum of 55 years. • Said that this proposal has the developer opting to reduce his parking requirement and offerings a temporary increase in the number of affordable units and to lower the income-level for those affordable units. • Concluded that this proposal doesn't meet State law. Commissioner Reynolds asked the City Attorney to provide a legal evaluation. City Attorney V~/illiam Seligmann: • Advised that added unit density is not required for this developer to request the incentive to allow for reduced parking. • Added that this project does qualify for a density bonus. • Admitted that he would to do more of a review of the statute to respond any further. Commissioner Reynolds said he'd like to have the legal question cleared up. Chair Resnikoff reminded that the Commission is to forward a recommendation for action on to Council. Commissioner Reynolds pointed out that Liz Gibbons had challenged the term for BMR units as being 55 years rather than just 30. Chair Resnikoff suggested that the public comment period continue and that issue can be discussed further afterwards. Judy Pisano, Resident on Fourth Street, read further excerpts into the record. Sam Wood, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue, read further Code excerpts into the record and stated that this project does not comply with the staff recommendation. Vida Davis, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Expressed concern with the limited parking proposed for both residential and retail uses on this development. • Pointed out that there are no private driveways in front of the garages to allow additional parking. • Suggested that there are more drivers per households in a condo development as compared to an apartment complex. This project consists of six one-bedroom and 10two-bedroom units. • Said that even if some of these residents utilize public transportation and may not drive their cars daily, they will still own cars and need a place to park them. Shannon Thomas, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Discussed retail parking and said that per the restaurant parking standard the site has a shortfall of 27 spaces should a restaurant be located here. She added that 69 parking spaces would be required. The shortfall is obvious. • Suggested reducing the units, specifically the third story. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 11 • Opined that: this project will be disastrous to the area. • Added that she lives close by and is concerned about the traffic coming and going from this site. • Reiterated her suggested to limit this building to two stories. Daniel DeBiccari, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Opined that this proposed development is a terrible example for future projects in Campbell and is not the model for future development. • Stated that this project as proposed is not meeting minimum parking. Roxanne Melinat, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue, read from Code Excerpts. Joanne Danforth, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Opined that, the trip distribution analysis is inaccurate. • Pointed out that there is already a trend to use EI Caminito to reach California in order to avoid traffic on Winchester. Therefore, this project will likely funnel more drivers onto Winchester from Kennedy. • Reiterated Iher belief that the minimum assumption numbers are not an accurate depiction. Russell Pfirrman, Resident on California Street: • Said that while it may sound fatalistic, there are big changes coming to Campbell. It is happening everywhere. Building is going upwards and not outwards. • Added that: development assumes transit systems can support this level of development but the true capacities of transit are not factored into our local policies. • Predicted that the streets will fill with traffic, noise will be generated and more cars will be parked in this neighborhood. • Referenced "voodoo" urban planning. It is often wrong. We must learn from our mistakes and laugh. • Suggested that the neighbors have provided tools to reduce the scope of this project. It doesn't fit. It's too big. • Stated that if approved as proposed, would the members of this Commission be proud of their decision. Dr. Ed Melinat, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Said it is important for the strong to protect the week. • Explained that Mrs. Paul, who lives next door, is a vulnerable widow who says this project is just "too big". • Asked who is going to listen to Mrs. Paul and consider the impacts of this project on the sanctity of her home. • Said that this hearing offers the Commission an opportunity to take a stand. To be strong and to protect Mrs. Paul. Joseph Gemigr~ani, Resident on Union Avenue: • Said that although he doesn't live close to this project and while he finds this proposed building to be attractive, it seems the developer is squeezing as much as Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 12 possible into building heights. The design does respect "Old Campbell" and actually reminds him of Campbell High School. • Added that it is unusual to see clay the as proposed here. Merrill Gardens used steel tile. • Stated that he is glad that this project is not like some on Bascom Avenue but he wishes they were two-story rather than three but he doesn't know if that is economically feasible. Jim Paul, Business Owner on Winchester: • Said that this is a beautiful project and building but it is grossly under parked and too big. Thiis is the wrong spot for it. Ron Pfirrman, I~esident on California Street: • Said that per the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan (WBMP) and as was done for the old A&'W site, building height along Winchester was lowered to two-stories when adjacent to residential. • Said that Mrs. Paul's property would be subject to noise impacts and she will experience diminished property values. • Admitted that he understands that one cannot stand in the way of progress but implores the Commission to look at the City's planning doctrines when reviewing this proposal. Kevin Farley, Resident on EI Caminito Avenue: • Opined that, this is a flawed plan and development. • Said that while this developer has the right to request this project's approval, there is no obligation on the City's part to grant it. • Concluded that he hopes the Commission grants the "right" thing. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Reynolds expressed concern about the disparity in the length of terms that a BMR must remain affordable. Is it 30 years or 55 years? Does this project meet Housing Authority requirements? City Attorney V~Jilliam Seligmann: • Said that BPVIR units must remain affordable for 30 years or longer if so required. • Explained that within Campbell, for-sale BMR units are required to have 45 years of affordability while rental BMR units are required to remain affordable for 30 years. • Advised that within the definition of density bonus being for an increase in density, that provision does not mean that a developer cannot simply seek the parking modification. If a proposed project meets the criteria to qualify for a density bonus, that project's developer is entitled to request a reduced parking standard without actually hawing to create any additional units in order to secure that standard. The developer is required to apply for the density bonus when an application is first made as part of the application itself. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 13 Commissioner Reynolds asked if this applicant had requested the density bonus for reduced parking from Day 1. Chair Resnikoff clarified by asking staff if anything has been heard tonight that would preclude the Commission from moving forward in consideration of this project with its requested density bonus this evening. City Attorney V~Jilliam Seligmann replied no, not with what has been heard so far. Commissioner Rich asked for clarification on what basis this project qualifies for the density bonus 1~or reduced parking. City Attorney V~Jilliam Seligmann said that it provides the required number of affordable units. Commissioner Finch: • Expressed appreciation for young Emma Davis' comments. • Reported that she lives in the neighborhood that was affected by the Kohl's project. Her neighborhood was concerned much like this one is. • Advised that the use of restricted egress via left turns mitigated their concerns of traffic coming into their neighborhood. • Added that she has experienced seeing Campbell Police watching closely to ensure the signage is followed. • Said that she would like to think that the same sort of protections or treatment will be given to this project and neighborhood. It took time to get people trained but they have not ended up experiencing Kohl's traffic further down Almarida. • Assured that she thinks this concern can be handled. • Said that there is a conflict in opinion. More units are seen as necessary to trigger a density bonus. People nearby want fewer units in a smaller project. • Added that she appreciates the City Attorney's comments. • Stated that SARC appreciated this developer's response to its comments. • Said that thus project's design does have a sense of Campbell. • Cautioned that the Commission must work within the City's guidelines. The Commission cannot create policy but rather must follow adopted policy. Using these guidelines, the Commission can forward a recommendation on this project on to Council. • Said that should a restaurant be proposed for this site, the associated parking demand would be evaluated at that time. A Use Permit would be required. It's very possible that this site would not be feasible for a restaurant use. • Said that question was raised, "why must development go up?" The answer is there is not enough room anymore. Campbell is a small City to start with. People want to live in Campbell. • Opined that this developer has created a project that is aesthetically pleasing. Said that if a project must be built up two to three stories, she appreciates this developer's work with including dormers to improve appearance yet not having a line-of-site onto the adjacent single-family residential property. • Advised that she would be supportive. Campbell Plannning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 14 Commissioner Rich: • Said that he; has a couple of concerns. • Questioned whether the dormers at the back elevation are within a required setback. • Added that site parking is a major concern. • Stated that the structure of this proposed density bonus surprises him. It seems that inclusic-n of BMR units allows for reduced parking. He struggles with that but it seems the law is what it is in that respect. • Admitted that he has concerns about people parking along EI Caminito and walking to this development. However, 42 proposed spaces meets the standards allowed under the Density Bonus provisions. • Questioned the plan to map this development as condos. He suggested that since these units will be rented out, this development should perhaps be mapped as apartments instead of condos. Perhaps a discussion on whether this project is being mapped appropriately or if apartment mapping is more applicable. • Inquired whether atwo-story design is feasible. Commissioner Kendall: • Stated that the Commission has heard the public's concerns and questions. • Agreed that it can seem scary and that this project can seem big in a little spot. • Pointed out that the site as it is represents blight. There needs to be something there. • Pointed out: that the General Plan calls for mixed-use at this site. The density cannot be reduced per the assigned land use designation. Director Paul Kermoyan said that the City has approved less density if appropriate. City Attorney William Seligmann: • Said that in order to decrease a density that is allowed by the General Plan and zoning, very specific findings must be provided and entered into evidence into the record. Reasons could include that there is no other way to mitigate the negative impacts of a project but for a reduction in the density. It must be found that a project withiin the allowed density would result in a negative impact on public health and safety. • Said that the applicant could voluntarily go below the density standard but the Planning cannot require a lesser density without specific findings. Commissioner Kendall: • Recounted that her 21-year-old son recently stated that the new Merrill Gardens development is a sort of development that he would like to live in. • Pointed out that what is being built today is for future generations. The younger generation has a different lifestyle and housing need. They like ecologically minded developments. They tend to use more mass transit and bikes. • Added that there are people who want to live in a denser development such as this, perhaps not. her but others do. Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 15 • Said that 1:his is a trend of a more New York or European-style cities with residences over shops. Such development can be safer, with better access and less of a need for cars. This offers a more social living style that is less isolated. • Advised that she would be supportive of this project but without any potential leasing to a restaurant use given the parking constraints. Commissioner Reynolds pointed out that the open space is counted on the balconies. However, the balconies that are back facing are 100 square feet while those facing onto Winchester are just 50 square feet in size. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that a condo development must have 500 square feet of open space per unit cumulatively. It can include either private and/or common space. There is no minimum for each individual unit. Commissioner Reynolds asked for verification that this project meets the minimum open space requirement. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling said that it does per the C-3 Standards. Commissioner Reynolds: • Pointed out that the bio-swales are on the west property line. The applicant has agreed to install landscape screening on the adjacent property if the neighbor so agrees. However, he does not support that proposal due to the liability and maintenance it will impose on that adjacent property owner. That burden should be on the applicant and not the adjacent neighbor. Suggested that perhaps the bio- swales be relocated. • Opined that this appears to be the direction the City is going in as far as development. Development is being built for future use of our transit system. • Stated that right now the area's transit system is broken. • Pointed out that he would love to utilize taking public transit to work but it would result in a two-hour commute to his office near the Mountain View light rail. • Questioned how much high-density housing has to be built before transit works. • Admitted that he has a lot of sympathy for the nearby neighbors. This project is proposed for next to a single-story residence. • Asked if it might be possible to ask the applicant to reduce the massing somehow. • Suggested that the right-turn only signs are potentially unenforceable. He recounted that Maravilla has such signs and he sees people making left turns in and out of the development dispute those signs. • Recounted that there is a higher Police presence near the Kohl's site because it is a known dumping ground for stolen vehicles. • Stated that he is hesitant to approve this and wants to ask the applicant if there is a way to reduce this proposal. Commissioner Finch said that she'd like to see the applicant's proposed tenant parking restrictions to one vehicle per one-bedroom unit and two vehicles per two-bedroom unit documented as a condition within the project's Conditions of Approval as well as being a part of the lease agreement between the property owner and his tenants. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 16 Commissioner Kendall: • Said that the CC&Rs should also indicate that there will be no allocation of specific parking spaces for specific uses or any charge for parking on site. Additionally, the garages shall be used for vehicle parking. • Said that K>ermits on cars could reduce overflow off this site onto the nearby residential streets. Chair Resnikoff: Asked if it i:s possible for the Commission to restrict the number of cars and, if so, how is that enforced. Where's the "teeth" in that restriction? Is it legal? City Attorney William Seligmann said it is legal with the right findings but admitted that enforcement is hard to do. Chair Resnikoff: • Asked how transferring a rental project into a "for sale" project is enforced. • If it qualifies as BMR, it can't change per State Law. • Asked how to mitigate the issues raised including walls, landscaping and the balconies with barriers versus open format. • Said that he doesn't agree that "right-turn only" signs won't work. • Inquired if there is some barrier that can be installed to further discourage left turns off this site. • Said that issues to consider include whether this project is the right size or should it be reduced. Is this the right amount of commercial space? • Added that a restaurant should be restricted from this site to prevent problems that would likely arise due to insufficient parking to serve the needs of a restaurant. • Stated that he is trying to mitigate uses without worsening parking demands. Commissioner Rich: Said that if this project were mapped for apartments it would later have to adhere to future regulations if and/or when it is converted into owned condos. City Attorney William Seligman advised that the Commission would have to make findings that the proposed density bonus raises issues that cannot be mitigated. Commissioner Reynolds asked if the City could adopt a "right turn only" regulation in the City's Code throughout the community. Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer said that the Police Department will enforce no-left-turn signs if that requirement is a condition for approval upon approval of a project. Commissioner Kendall questioned what happens if residents of this neighborhood stop to shop and then need to turn left to get home. To make right turn only, it would take them three rights to get to their street over one left turn. Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 17 Commissioner Rich said that the pros outweigh the cons and supported the imposition of a condition of approval restricting departures from this development upon right turns only. Commissioner Finch agreed with that condition of approval. She said that it doesn't hurt to do it and the benefits of right-turns only will be visible. Commissioner Kendall said that SARC did a good job with its review and recommendations. Chair Resnikotf asked if sufficient mitigations are in place regarding noise, privacy impacts and traffic impacts. Commissioner Rich said that his questions remain whether the right-turn only signs would be effective, whether this project should be mapped as apartments versus the proposed condos and whether the applicant has been asked if a two-story design might not be feasible. Commissioner Reynolds expressed agreement with Commissioner Rich's comments. Commissioner Finch advised that this project will include air conditioning as a noise abatement issue so the windows would not need to open. Chair Resnikoff asked staff what the ramifications are between apartments versus condos. City Attorney V~Jilliam Seligmann said that if they were to be apartments rather than the proposed condos, this project could not be approved as presented here. They would have to come back with an entirely different project. Chair Resnikoff asked if an apartment project is better for the neighborhood. He added that he thought that would typically not be desired. Commissioner Finch asked staff to comment on that question. Director Paul Kermoyan pointed out that there are five resolutions to be adopted for this project as proposed: Mitigated Negative Declaration; a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning designation from the current P-D (Planned Development) to C- PD (Condominium/Planned Development); a Tentative Subdivision Map, which would not be required should this site be developed as apartments; and a Planned Development Permit for the proposed mixed-use development. These draft resolutions are forwarded as recommendations to Council for final action. City Attorney William Seligmann agreed. Commissioner Finch asked if there is a difference between apartment and condo zoning. Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 18 Director Paul K:ermoyan advised that a lot of this project's conditions are intermeshed. If they go the route of apartments over condos, staff would recommend a continuance to allow staff to clean up the conditions and findings accordingly. However, the applicant prefers the project to move forward regardless of the decision by the Commission. Commissioner Kendall asked Commissioner Rich what concerns he might have about the future individual sale of these condos. Commissioner Rich said that there is too much leeway given if this project is mapped as condos rather than as an apartment development. Director Paul K:ermoyan advised that there are condo conversion ordinances in place. He added that cities tend to want to preserve ownership stock. Commissioner Kendall said she would support approval as condo units with the understanding that it comes back to staff when it is time to convert them from rentals to individual ownership. Director Paul K:ermoyan said that when this Property Owner decides to sell, the other level of affordability kicks in. Chair Resnikoff' re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item 1. Commissioner Reynolds asked Applicant, Jeff Warmoth, if it might be possible to reduce his three-story proposed building into atwo-story design. This might help reduce impacts of massing. Jeff Warmoth, Applicant and Property Owner: • Reiterated that he now owns this property. • Pointed out that the previous owners tried to sell their already-approved development project for several years with no interested buyers with what had been approved. That was a more impactful project than what he is now proposing. • Stated that atwo-story design is not feasible. • Advised that upon careful consideration of the Winchester Boulevard Master Plan (WBMP) he realized that a better plan for this location was possible and that is what he has brought forward. Chair Resnikoff' re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item 1. Commissioner Reynolds: • Said that he can sympathize with that adjacent neighbor and the immediate neighborhood and would love to see some kind of reprieve for them. • Admitted that it appears that this project meets the standards of the General Plan and the Winchester Boulevard Master plan. • Suggested that the bio-swale be moved and that privacy trees be installed to help cut any noise impacts on the immediate neighbor. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 19 • Said that he recently talked with a realtor and asked that realtor if this project would drop property values in this immediate area. He said no. It would either have no impact or help improve values versus what is there now. Chair Resnikoff asked about establishing delivery hours. Director Paul K:ermoyan said that issue can be managed when the specific uses come into these retail spaces. They would be processed through an Administrative Planned Development Permit and conditions could be imposed as to allowed delivery hours. Commissioner Rich: • Said that he is sensitive to the impact on neighbors. • Said that he> too has little ones and is concerned about their safety in teaching them to safely cross their busy street. • Agreed that this is a blighted site. • Expressed support for the "right-turn only" signs from this site onto EI Caminito and directed outward to Winchester. • Pointed out: that SARC's recommendations were quite thorough and have been implemented. • Concluded that he would be in favor of this project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kendall, seconded by Commissioner Finch, the Planning Commission took the following actions: • Adopted Resolution No. 4171 recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Adopted Resolution No. 4172 recommending that the City Council approve a Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2014-142) from P-D (Planned Development) to C-PD (Condominium Planned Development); • Adopted Resolution No. 4173 recommending that the City Council approve a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2014-141) for condominium purposes including vacation and abandonment of a public service easement and building setback line; • Adopted Resolution No. 4174 recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2014-140) to allow construction of a mixed-use project with density bonus parking standards (16 residential condominium units and 3,200 square-feet of ground floor retail space) with the following changes to the conditions: ^ Restrict delivery hours to between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. with none on Sundays. ^ Trash pick up times should occur no earlier than residential trash collection times ^ Prohibit a restaurant use within this commercial space. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 20 ^ No parking spots shall be allocated for one specific use within the development; ^ It shall be added to the CC&Rs that there will be no charge imposed for use of site parking; ^ The bio-swales shall be moved and a living fence installed on the applicant's site; ^ The CC&R's will limit one-bedroom units to one vehicle and two-bedroom units to two vehicles as a condition of tenancy; ^ Permit parking will be put in place; ^ Review and consider the potential of installing aright-turn island to direct traffic off site onto Winchester and away from EI Caminito; and • Adopted Resolution No. 4175 recommending that the City Council approve a Tree Removal Permit (PLN20140143) for properties located at 2295 and 2305 S. Winchester Boulevard, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finch, Kendall, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Rich NOES: None ABSENT: Dodd and Young ABSTAIN: None Chair Resnikoff advised that this item would be considered by the City Council for final action at its meeting of January 6, 2015. Chair Resnikoff called fora 10-minute recess at 10:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:05 p.m. *~* Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2014-157 Public Hearing to consider the application of Metrovation Metrovation for a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN2014-157) to allow the construction of a new 5,172 square foot, 113-seat quick service restaurant building with beer and wine service on property located at 2000 S. Bascom Avenue. 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: Stephen Rose, Associate Planner Mr. Stephen Rose, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling advised that two conditions have been added. One requires the periodic refinishing of the wood accents on the building elevation in Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 21 the event that iit becomes faded and/or damaged in appearance. The other is that the venting occurs through the roof. Commissioner Kendall asked whether this design was the only one brought forward. Planner Stephen Rose replied yes. Commissioner Finch presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC appreciated the inclusion of the terra cotta color on the metal features to match the nearby uses of terra cotta roof tiles. • Said that the applicant has agreed to install a green screen to screen the trash enclosure. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mika Bisel, Applicant: • Made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Kendall pointed out that this building design doesn't match the rest of the site. It is very modern in design. She asked if he would consider aMission-style architecture or something that is more in keeping with the nearby Pruneyard. Mika Bisel said that they wanted to present a design that is more forward thinking and thinks this design accomplishes that. Ken Skates, Project Architect: • Agreed that this design is clearly a decided shift from what's already there on Bascom Avenue. • Said that it does play homage to what's there. • Admitted that he doesn't think what's in place architecturally in this immediate area is done particularly well. • Said that this building design will be largely transparent with lots of open glass to expand outward into the neighborhood. • Said that Early-California style architecture is mismatched with their design and use goals. They prefer simplicity in design and color. They propose wood colored canopies and columns for warmth. They have incorporated terra cotta colored metal accents that stand out against the sky. • Agreed that: this design is clearly a shift but it is intentional and respectful of the surroundings. Commissioner Rich said that he likes this proposal. He asked if any consideration had been given to a renovation rather than a demolition and then rebuild. Mika Bisel said that they considered all options but the cost of renovation would exceed the cost of new construction. Joseph Giminetti, Resident on Union Avenue: Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 22 • Opined that there is nothing to like about this project. It looks like a warehouse building with lots of windows in it. He sees nothing to like about it. • Stated he lis surprised that the City's planners didn't ask for a more traditional building design. • Said that he is upset. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Finch: • Said that SARC was originally concerned but started looking more closely at the Pruneyard. Pacific Catch looks like this so there is precedence. • Admitted that the drawings don't do justice to the design and said she feels like what is proposed is better than what is currently there. The existing Thai Pepper building needs to be imploded. • Stated that this design offers a nice and clean look. Besides it's nice to have some variety as having everything the same gets boring. Commissioner Kendall: • Said that she is on the fence about this proposed building style. • Admitted that it is good to know that Pacific Catch looks like this which equates to some balance. • Agreed that variety is a good thing. • Said that she likes the use of wood details on this building. • Pointed out that the Downtown has its own identity. Winchester is starting to have its identity as well. • Said that she would like to see follow through with design along Bascom as well. • Questioned whether this might be the new identity for Bascom and/or if this look will fit in on Bascom. • Said that she is on board with staff's recommendations. • Advised that she is reluctant to approve alcohol service in advance for two currently unknown restaurants. That makes her uncomfortable. Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Kendall what her alcohol concerns are. Commissioner Reynolds said that one concern is that he does not want to sign a blank check. It's important to understand what demographic a particular business will be serving. Director Paul K:ermoyan said that was staff's concern as well. Condition 5 has been incorporated to mitigate that concern. Commissioner Reynolds said he had highlighted that condition as well. It does cover that concern so he is okay with that. It offers a safeguard. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 23 Chair Resnikoff: • Said that he agrees with Commissioner Kendall. He finds this design to be boxy and glassy. It's not what he expected and he doesn't particularly like this design. It doesn't fit the flavor of Campbell. • Recommended that any uses with alcohol service be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. He'd rather see it come back with a specific operator. • Said that at that time the standard condition of approval should be made that upon three verifiable complaints within a year that use would come back before the Planning Commission for evaluation. • Said that he doesn't agree with Condition 5. That is the Planning Commission's job. • Reiterated that he is not a fan of boxy, glassy buildings. It just doesn't fit. Commissioner Rich said that having the beer and wine alcohol service approval in advance would make it easier for them to secure tenants for these two restaurant spaces. Commissioner Reynolds: • Agreed with Commissioner Resnikoff. • Added that a restaurant tends to need alcohol service to be profitable and compete. • Said that he doesn't want to set up future restaurants at this location to fail or to result in an empty storefront. Commissioner Resnikoff said that the City doesn't usually give pre-approval for alcohol service. A recent example is the A&W site. Commissioner Kendall: • Said that she too is reluctant on the issue of alcohol approval without a known operator. • Reiterated that she is a bit stuck on the proposed architectural design. While it is very attractive, she just doesn't think it fits in there. She'd like it in Cupertino or on Creekside Way. Commissioner Finch said that if the Commission approves this, staff will keep the Commission updated. Commissioner Reynolds asked what triggers a study session on a particular application. For example, like the one held for the new Safeway on Hamilton. Planning Manager Aki Honda Snelling advised that the trigger is the size of a project under review. It must be of a certain size to require a study session via pre- application. Commissioner Rich asked if it is possible to request another building design. He said he too is struggling with this proposed architecture. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 24 Chair Resnikoff asked if it could be referred back to SARC for additional modifications to make this design more in line with what's already happening along Bascom Avenue. Director Paul K:ermoyan said that this application is in two parts. One is the proposed Use Permit to~ allow alcohol sales for two separate restaurant uses in a newly constructed building. The other is the Site and Architectural Review for a newly proposed commercial building. If the Commission wishes to send it back to SARC for further revisions, members should articulate what exactly would make the building design more cc-nsistent with the surrounding area. Commissioner Reynolds said that it should incorporate architecture that displays the history of Campbell. It should incorporate wood details. It should address the heritage of The Orchard City. He agreed that he and the rest of the Commission are not comfortable with the building design that is currently before them. Commissioner Rich said that the Commission must provide this applicant with more feedback. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Reminded that this new building will share this site with another development that is already in place. • Added that there is no established design theme in this City. • Suggested that perhaps this proposed building should be more in keeping with development that is already on the site. • Added that perhaps they could incorporate a tower element while still saving some of the architect's design details. Commissioner Finch referenced Attachment 6 that depicts all of the the roofs in the immediate area. Chair Resnikoff re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item 2. Ken Skates, Project Architect: • Agreed that the color elevation provided is not particularly good. • Added that the "easiest" thing to do would be to build something with a mansard roof with tile, arches and use of wrought iron details. However, they have chosen a different approach. • Stated that their design incorporates the richness of indigenous architecture with contemporary materials and glass, woods, color, etc. • Assured that there is more to their design than evident by what they are seeing on this elevation. • Added that he would like to receive more direction if it must be changed from what is proposed. • Asked that the Commission please provide that specific feedback and help them move forward. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 25 Commissioner Kendall: • Said that this design doesn't need to be Mission style. • Admitted that she personally hates mansard roofs. Perhaps a gable roof with some the and even a low gable. • It can be more modern that what's already around but also complimenting existing architecture more. Director Paul kermoyan said it appears the direction is to save the proposed building form but integrate other materials, softer materials, beef it up somehow perhaps with heavy timbers. Leave the roof. Integrate with wood. Commissioner Finch: • Admitted that she would hate to see Spanish the on top of this new structure. • Added that the proposed use of wood is gorgeous. • Suggested that they be allowed to keep the proposed wood details and not be required to add Spanish tile. • Said that she personally really likes the clean lines of this design. • Reiterated her plea for no Spanish the on top of this building. Chair Resnikoff asked staff if they have enough feedback to work with the applicant. Director Paul Kermoyan said that he has a sense of where the Commission is going with its recommendations and can work with the architect, take it back to SARC and then bring a revised plan back to the Planning Commission. Chair Resnikoff: • Said that there are not enough votes to approve a motion for approval as currently proposed. • Suggested .a motion to continue to a date uncertain to allow further revisions to the design to incorporate design elements from the surrounding area and in consultations with the Community Development Director and SARC. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN consideration of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review (PLN2014-157) to allow the construction of a new 5,172 square foot, 113-seat quick service restaurant building with beer and wine service on property located at 2000 S. Bascom Avenue, to allow the applicant to incorporate some of the design elements seen in the surrounding area, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kendall, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Rich NOES: Finch ABSENT: Dodd and Young ABSTAIN: None Campbell Planining Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 26 Chair Resnikoff advised that this item would return to the Commission following further design review with SARC and modifications to the current architectural design. *** Prior to the start of Item 3, Commissioner Reynolds recused himself from this item due to a professional conflict of interest. He left the dais and chambers for the duration of the hearing. Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2014-38 Public Hearing to consider the application of Modus, Inc., Modus, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2014-38) to allow the installation of a new cellular antenna within a cupola addition on top of an existing building tower housing a total of 12 antennas and associated equipment (21 RRU's, two GPS antennas, 4 surge suppression units) in the existing tower on property located at 330 E. Hamilton Avenue. 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: Stephen Rose, Associate Planner Mr. Stephen Rose, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Finch provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on October 14, 2014 and was supportive subject to some changes. The applicant has revised the location of the service ladder, muted the buildings color choice (if the landlord is willing to allow), and requested the provision of a photo simulation, which has been provided. Chair Resnikoff pointed out that page 5 references Verizon when it should read AT&T. Chair Resnikoff' opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Erik James, Applicant and Representative for AT&T, said he was available for any questions. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Resnikoff said that a condition is included to leave the final building colors to the discretion of the Community Development Director. The Planning Commission can make the recommendation. Commissioner (Finch said that SARC felt that a color change was important. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 27 Chair Resnikoff asked Commissioner Finch whether SARC had a particular preference. Commissioner Finch said her preference is for the tan. It stands out more. Commissioner Kendall said her preference is the beige. She dislikes the proposed grey. Commissioner Rich said that he has no strong preference between the three proposed schemes. Chair Resnikoff said he too prefers the tan. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Finch, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission Adopted Resolution No. 4176 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2014-38) to allow the installation of a new cellular antenna within a cupola addition on top of an existing building tower housing a total of 12 antennas and associated equipment (21 RRU's, two GPS antennas, 4 surge suppression units) in the existing tower on property located at 330 E. Hamilton Avenue, with the recommendation for the tan paint color for Condition 11, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finch, Kendall, Resnikoff and Rich NOES: None ABSENT: Dodd and Young ABSTAIN: Reynolds Chair Resnikoff advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Commissioner Reynolds returned to the chambers and dais following the conclusion of the hearing for Agenda Item 3. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan had no changes to his written report. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 11, 2014 Page 28 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:18 a.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of Nov , SUBMITTED BY Corinne ~rir~n-;~ee6fding Secretary APPROVED B`~': ~''~ -~-~ ~' ~~' Paul Resnikoff,, Chair ATTEST: ~4~ ,~(~~ ~, ~ Paul Kerr~"ioy~rb', Secretary