Loading...
PC Min 01/23/2001CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JANUARY 23, 2001 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2001, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairperson Lindstrom, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom George Doorley Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Tom Francois Joseph D. Hemandez Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Tim J. Haley Kristi Bascom William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission minutes of January 9, 2001, were approved. (5-0-2; Commissioners Francois and Hernandez were absent) COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Letter re Agenda Item No. 3. Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2001 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. PLN2000-157 Hernandez, J. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Joe Hemandez, on behalf of Edward and Janice Costa, for a Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-157) to allow the construction of two new single-family residences on property located at 61 Shelley Avenue in an R-M-S (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Ms. Kristi Bascom, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Stated that the applicant is seeking a Site and Architectural Approval to allow the construction of two new two-story single-family residences. Advised that the subject property is located on the north side of Shelley Avenue, east of its intersection with White Oaks Road. Informed that the zoning designation is R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential). · The proposal is configured as two flag lots. Lot A totals 11,363 square feet. The House on Lot A totals 4,411 square feet and provides 27% lot coverage. Lot B totals 8,250 square feet and is developed at 31% lot coverage. Both are below the maximum allowable. The sites will utilize a common access and include three car garages. · Advised that the proposed residences meet all single-family residential zoning requirements. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be provided at the public street level. The project site is surrounded on three sides by townhome projects and on the west side by a single-family residence. · SARC reviewed this project on January 9, 2001, and is supportive. · Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Gibbons sought clarification about the requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalks. Wondered if the requirement for these improvements would include along the access driveway. Ms. Kristi Bascom, Planner I, replied that the requirement for curbs, gutter and sidewalks was at the public street level not for the private access driveway. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Advised that SARC was supportive of this project. · Added that despite an unusual-shaped lot, the applicant did an excellent job in designing this project. Planning Commission Minutes of January 23,2001 Page 3 Chairperson Lindstrom opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Chairperson Lindstrom closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3322 granting a Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-157) to allow the construction of two new single-family residences on property located at 61 Shelley Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: Francois and Hernandez ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this action is final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. PLN2000-145 Gachina, J. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. John Gachina, on behalf of Gachina Landscape Management, for a Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-145) to allow the establishment of a storage yard for a landscape maintenance business on property located at 930 Dell Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Stated that this application seeks a Site and Architectural Approval to allow the establishment of a landscape maintenance storage yard on a pie-shaped parcel adjacent to San Tomas Expressway at Dell. · To the south of the site is a Public Storage facility and to the west is Dell Avenue. · The zoning for this property is M-1-S (Light Industrial) and the General Plan Land Use designation is Industrial. The Draft General Plan Update proposes to change the Land Use designation from Industrial to Research and Development. · Advised that the applicant will provide a substantial amount of landscaping to mitigate the visibility of this site from the public right-of-way. · SARC reviewed the proposal and recommends approval. · Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Gibbons asked what the impact would be if the proposed change to the General Plan Land Use designation is approved. Planning Commission Minmcs of January 23, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the use becomes non-conforming. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the applicant was aware of that fact. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that the applicant was aware. Commissioner Gibbons expressed concems about the proposal to plant Bradford Pear trees, saying that species of tree spreads fire blight. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the applicant is a professional landscaper. Commissioner Doorley sought clarification as to whether a non-conforming use could continue indefinitely and also if staff believed this site could be developed with a building due to its unusual shape. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner, advised that staff has considered that question and believes that a 5,000 to 10,000 building could conceivably be constructed on this parcel. However, staff believes that it is fair to apply the current General Plan at this time when considering this proposal. Commissioner Jones inquired what safety net could be placed to prevent dumping on the site or excessive storage. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that there would be a large trash container on site but that anything in addition to that would be considered inconsistent with the approved site plan and become an enforcement matter. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley added that this applicant has similar facilities in other communities, which are well maintained. Commissioner Jones inquired whether this business could still be sold if the General Plan Land Use designation should change. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, advised that the business could be sold. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Advised that SARC reviewed this proposal on January 9, 2001, and was supportive. · Added that the applicant, John Gachina, has gone out of his way to develop a quality project for this site. Chairperson Lindstrom opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jack Bonno, Real Estate Consultant to both the Applicant and Property Owner: · Disagreed with staff's perspective regarding the feasibility of an alternative development for this site. Said that in his opinion commercial development of this property is not viable. Planning Commission Minings of January 23, 2001 Page 5 · Advised that the Clodfelters have owned this property since 1968 and have not realized a dime in rental income in 33 years. · Added that the former Community Development Director, Steve Piasecki, had suggested that the Clodfelters sell the property to the Public Storage business. · Said that the applicant has gone out of his way to accommodate staff concerns with mitigating measures including the planting of 137 bushes and trees, both on and off-site, to screen this site from public view. There will be 20 Redwood trees planted along Dell Avenue and an addition 19 on-site, 21 Bradford Pear trees, 37 oleander bushes on the crown of San Tomas Expressway as well as an addition 37 oleander bushes across on the other side of San Tomas Expressway. They will remove one dead tree and construct an eight-foot wall with a decorative wrought iron gate. · Urged the Commission to approve this request. Mr. Norman Clodfelter, Property Owner, 930 Dell Avenue: · Advised that he has owned this property since 1968 and that this represents his first opportunity to install a clean tenant on the site. Mr. John Gachina, Applicant and owner of Gachina Landscape Management: · Advised that he owns Gachina Landscape Management. · Explained that the purpose for this location is to better serve the customer base he has in this area. His headquarters are in Menlo Park. To have his employees drive from this area to Menlo Park to retrieve necessary equipment prior to returning to this area to work is inefficient. · Assured that he runs a first-class operation and that this will be a model type facility that will raise the bar for the rest of the area. · Added that for many years he maintained City Hall's landscaping before the City returned that function in-house. Mr. Jack Bonno took a moment to thank staff for the professional manner in which they have worked to help facilitate this proposal. Chairperson Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3323 granting a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2000-145) to allow the establishment of a landscape maintenance business on property located at the 368 E. Campbell Avenue with the added language to Condition 2(k) that "the property shall be retained in a clean and sanitary condition consistent with the approved site plan", by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: Francois, Hernandez ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minu~,s of January 23, 2001 Page 6 Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this action is final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. PLN2000-160 Moorad, C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal by Ms. Cecile Moorad, on behalf of the Central Park II Homeowners Association, of an Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-160) to allow the removal of thirteen (13) pine trees on property located at 213-229 Central Avenue in an R-M-S (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Ms. Kristi Bascom, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this application is for a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of 13 pine trees located on a townhome development at the southwest comer of Latimer and Central Avenues. These trees line the perimeter of the property on two street frontages and were planted in 1981 when the development was constructed. The trees are part of the approved landscape plan for this development. Informed that staff initially reviewed the request and three trees were approved for removal, as they were located within 10 feet of a building. The request to remove the remaining 10 trees was denied. · Said that the applicant's own hired arborist confirmed that the trees are not diseased but did recommend the removal of three additional trees, No. 5, No. 7 and No. 8. · Added that the applicants are also seeking authorization to replace the removed trees with 15-gallon trees in lieu of the required 24-inch box. · Said that SARC reviewed this request and forwarded no recommendation. · The options before the Commission include, upholding the denial; upholding the appeal and allowing the removal of all the trees or continuing the application for further information or consideration. Commissioner Gibbons inquired when the street trees were planted. Ms. Kristi Bascom advised that she does not have that information available. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Said that SARC reviewed this request at length and was tom. Ultimately, SARC chose to defer making any specific recommendation. Commissioner Doorley asked what reasons the consulting arborist gave for recommending the removal of three additional trees. Wondered if the reasoning was consistent with the standards used by staff. Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2001 Page 7 Ms. Kristi Bascom advised that staff must find that the trees are either diseased, in eminent danger of falling or substantially damaging a main building. Added that staff must determine that actual damage to the building has already occurred. Commissioner Jones asked the difference between a 15-gallon and 24-inch box tree. Ms. Kristi Bascom replied that the 15-gallon is younger and smaller than the 24-inch box tree. Ms. Sharon Fierro added that there is approximately seven years in difference. Commissioner Jones asked what the cost difference is between the two sized trees. Ms. Kristi Bascom advised that a 24-inch box tree costs approximately $350 to install, requiring professional equipment and assistance, while the 15-gallon tree can be purchased for less than $100 and can be planted by the property owners. Commissioner Doorley asked if there have been other similar requests considered by the Commission of if this would represent a precedent. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that that in no other instances has a request been considered for the removal of an entire site of healthy trees. Added that the Commission recently considered a request to remove trees on the Social Security building site because the trees were interfering with the building and threatening to undermine four different underground utilities located below those trees. Commissioner Doorley asked if the removal of healthy trees could be allowed simply due to the impact of needles. Commissioner Gibbons advised that the City's Tree Ordinance is fairly new and therefore the track record is limited. Added that when the Tree Ordinance was developed, the Committee drafting that Ordinance felt that 24-inch box trees were essential in replacement for mature trees being removed. Stated that she will not support an exception to the Tree Ordinance. Commissioner Jones asked how many townhome units are on site. Ms. Kristi Bascom replied nine. Chairperson Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Cecile Moorad, President, Central Park II Homeowners Association, 221 N. Central Avenue: · Suggested that the growth difference between a 15-gallon and 24-inch box tree is only one to two years and that a 15-gallon tree will actually grow more quickly. · Said that the cost difference between the two is $150 to purchase the 24-inch box versus $43 to purchase the 15-gallon, prior to the removal and installation costs. Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2001 Page 8 · Declared that these trees are overgrown for the site. · Pleaded economic hardship for this small complex to require the larger replacement trees. · Said that they want to remove these inappropriately large trees with Podocarpus, Nyssa sylvatica and Shumard Red Oak trees. These trees represent both evergreen and deciduous species. · Added that while the deciduous trees will lose their leaves, it will happen once a year and those trees would be located near the driveway and therefore easy to clean up after. Commissioner Doorley asked Ms. Moorad why her arborist is recommending the removal of an additional three trees. Ms. Cecile Moorad replied that they are located too close to structures. Commissioner Doorley asked if these three trees are the cause of the most onerous problems. Ms. Cecile Moorad agreed that the impact of these three trees are the biggest issue. Mr. Robert Huntley, 227 N. Central Avenue: · Stated that while these trees may be beautiful, they have overgrown the continuously clog the drainpipes. · Added that the trees prevent sunlight on the units as well as the use of his porch. · Said that the City will benefit with this change. site and Ms. Sharon Ward, 225 N. Central Avenue: · Advised that she and her husband were unable to use their fireplace for more than three years as a result of these trees. · Added that their gutters are always filled with pine needs, preventing the gutters from serving their function. As a result water streams down the building and ruins their door. They have had to refinish their back door twice in the past six years as a result of water damage this runoff has caused to that door. · Said that the tree also impacts the parking lot. The trees have sap, which drops onto cars destroying their paint jobs. · Said that most of the owners in the complex have lived there for more than 14 years. · Advised that they are concerned about the appearance of their complex. These trees represent a burden both cost wise and maintenance wise. Mr. Rich Mallonee, 217 N. Central Avenue: · Said that he is one of nine homeowners in this complex and the only one who does not agree with this request. · Added that his neighbors are also his friends and that he has lived here for 15 years. · Said that he feels it is ridiculous to cut down 13 healthy trees primarily because they are a mess. · Said that he agrees with the arborist's recommendation to remove an additional three trees. · Advised that the trees were trimmed extensively a few years ago at a cost of approximately $3,000. Planning Commission Minutes of January 23,2001 Page 9 · Added that they need to do a better job taking care of these trees, saying that these trees are what they have and they need to take better care of them. They have a weekly gardening service. · Agreed that it is difficult to access the gutters in order to clear them of the needles. · Joked that he could actually personally enjoy one benefit if the trees are removed, Wireless DSL. Commissioner Lowe asked Mr. Mallonee where his living unit was located in relation to the trees. Mr. Rich Mallonee pointed out his residence on the site plan. Commissioner Doorley asked Mr. Rich Mallonee whether he had experienced a tree sap problem with his vehicles. Mr. Rich Mallonee replied that he personally had not experienced damage to his vehicle but that he deferred to his neighbors as to whether they had. Mr. Robert Huntley, 227 N. Central Avenue: · Said that until they are allowed to remove these trees, they will be unable to plant what they want on the site. They want to change the landscape design and leaving these pine trees would inhibit their plans. Ms. Sharon Ward: · Stated that Rich Mallonee is a good neighbor but that his home and parking spaces are not impacted directly by any trees. · Advised of one neighbor, who recently moved, who had major damage to her automobile's paint. · Added that the acidity of the pine needs would hinder any other trees' growth on this property. · Said that the extreme height of these existing trees is bothering the gutters. · Assured that there has been structural damage and that even when cleaned out, the gutters are refilled with pine needles within days of being emptied. Mr. Robert Huntley added that their complex is nearing 20 years old and that the owners take care of the property on a regular basis including repainting as necessary. Commissioner Gibbons asked staff to point out which trees have already been removed per staff' s original approval. Ms. Kristi Bascom pointed out two trees on Central and one on Latimer, which have already been removed. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether these trees have been replaced. Planning Commission Minmes of January 23,2001 Page 10 Ms. Kristi Bascom advised that those trees were removed without the requirement for replacement. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that locating a replacement location on site was problematic. Commissioner Gibbons sought clarification that, if approved, there will be a total of 13 trees removed but only 10 replacement trees planted. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied yes. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the removal of those trees was at the recommendation of the Fire Department for safety reasons. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that this is correct. Commissioner Lowe asked the City Attorney to clarify the replacement requirements under the Tree Ordinance. City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that the Ordinance requires a minimum 24-inch box tree in replacement of those removed. There is no provision to allow smaller replacement trees. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner, advised that staff expedited the removal of the three trees because of the recommendation to do so by the Fire Department. Ms. Cecile Moorad: · Advised that trees knocked down the cinder arrester from one unit three times. · Added that requiring 24-inch box trees provides a financial hardship, as they are more expensive to buy and install. · Reminded that they are a self-managed and small complex. Commissioner Lowe cautioned Ms. Cecile Moorad that there is no case for 15-gallon replacement trees per the City's Tree Ordinance. Commissioner Doorley asked Ms. Cecile Moorad what the monthly homeowner fees are for the complex. Ms. Cecile Moorad replied that the monthly fee was recently increased to $200 per month. Additionally, they imposed a special assessment of $1,000 per unit for this tree removal and replacement project. Commissioner Jones inquired whether the Commission has any discretion in this matter. City Attorney Seligmann advised that the Commission has no discretion, as there is no exception provided in the Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of January 23,2001 Page 11 Commissioner Jones asked if any motion was possible despite the Ordinance. City Attomey Seligrnann cautioned that to do so is in excess of the Commission's authority. Chairperson Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Gibbons: Informed that the City of Campbell was one of the last in the County to develop a Tree Ordinance and did so only within the past couple of years. · Said that the Commission has the commitment to uphold this Ordinance. · Expressed her support for the 24-inch box tree replacement standard. · Recommended a continuance in order to allow staff to continue to work with the applicant, perhaps with the removal of the three additional trees and then a staged removal of the remainder of the trees. · Stated her problem with the idea of removing all trees on site at once. · Pointed out that the street trees on Downtown Campbell Avenue were 36-inch while those planted on the side streets of the Downtown were 24-inch box. Mentioned the obvious difference in the size of those two areas in the nearly ten years since these trees were planted. · Said that the applicants have demonstrated valid concerns but that the solution should be reached over a period of time. · Suggested that no more than three more be removed at this time with a continuation plan for future removals. Commissioner Doorley: · Advised that he too lives in a townhome. · Added that large mature trees have a value to the community and that he is not convinced that these large trees are impeding the site. · Said that he is open to the possibility of removing an additional three trees but that he is not supportive of the eventual removal of the rest at a later time. · Added that pruning is key and not topping the trees. Rather serious pruning in order to thin out the trees. Commissioner Jones: · Declared that these homeowners should be allowed to cut down trees impacting their homes and property. Added that he would support the replacement with 15-gallon trees. Stated that there are enough regulations and that the Ordinance should allow the Planning Commission the leeway to reduce the replacement trees to 15-gallon. Commissioner Lowe: · Expressed his concurrence with Commissioner Jones. · Said that all trees should be removed at once but that replacement should be with 24-inch box as required under the Ordinance. Planning Commission Minings of January 23, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Doorley: · Said that he disagreed that the Ordinance is unreasonable. · Added that what occurs on an individual's property impacts adjacent properties too. community must have its standards. This is a reasonable one. A Commissioner Lowe asked staff to verify that notices were sent regarding this hearing. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley advised that the notices were sent. Commissioner Lowe pointed out that no neighbors have chosen to attend in protest of this request. Added that these property owners have the right to the use of their property. Commissioner Gibbons mentioned the provision in the Tree Ordinance that allows payment into an in-lieu fund if space is not available to plant required replacement trees. A contribution for the value of the removed tree is made into a City fund. The fund is used to plant trees in the public right-of-way. Asked staff what the established replacement value would be toward this fund per tree. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley advised that the current rate is $350 per tree. Commissioner Gibbons asked if trees could be planted in the park strip along this project. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley replied that the City tries to plant in the immediate vicinity as applicable. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3324 upholding this Appeal and granting a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-160) to allow the removal of thirteen (13) pine trees on property located at 213-229 Central Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: Doorley, Gibbons ABSENT: Francois, Hernandez ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this approval is final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk.0 Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. Planning Commission MinuLes of January 23,2001 Page 13 4. PLN2000-177 Staff Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application for approval of a Text Amendment (PLN2000-177) to require uses that are non-conforming due to their late-night operations come into compliance with all applicable regulations of Chapter 21.66 of the Zoning Code. This Project is Categorically Exempt. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: February 6, 2001. Chairperson Lindstrom advised that since the press notice was inadvertently published with an incorrect meeting date, this item must be continued to allow proper publication of this public hearing. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Commission continued consideration of a Text Amendment (to require uses that are non-conforming due to their late night operations come into compliance with all applicable regulations of Chapter 21.66 of the Zoning Code) to the meeting of February 27, 2001. (5-0-2; Commissioners Francois and Hernandez were absent) REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Advised that as there are no agenda items pending for the February 13, 2001, Planning Agenda, staff is recommending its cancellation. · Reminded the Commission to notify staff if they plan to attend the League of California Cities Planners Institute from March 21 through 23, 2001. Commissioner Gibbons inquired about the recent Study Session to consider a live/work unit project on the Water Tower site. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that loft units are proposed on property adjacent to the Water Tower. These high ceiling apartments would include one and two bedroom units and would be architecturally compatible with the cannery buildings. At the Study Session, Council expressed support if issues raised are satisfied including the provision of adequate parking and fire access concerns. Suggested a future Study Session with the Planning Commission to review the proposal in its early stages. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjoumed at 8:58 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of February 27, 2001, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, Califomia. Planning Commission Minm,~s of January 23, 2001 Page 14 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Corinne A. Sh~nn, Recording Secretary Mel Li'ndj~m, C~la]r .... " ""'" // Sharon Fierro, Secretary