Loading...
PC Min 02/27/2001CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY FEBRUARY 27, 2001 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of February 27, 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: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Tom Francois George Doorley Elizabeth Gibbons Joseph D. Hernandez Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Tim J. Haley William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission minutes of January 23, 2001, were approved. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Francois and Hernandez abstained, as they were absent from this meeting.) COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Letter from Gachina Landscape thanking Commission for approval. 2. Two letters regarding Agenda Item No. 1. 3. Modified site plan for Agenda Item No. 4 Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 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. 1. PLN2001-05 Haun, G. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Gene Haun for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2001-05) to allow conversion of an existing accessory building into a second single- family residence on property located at 1071 El Solyo Avenue in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing accessory structure into a secondary living unit. · Advised that the property was developed in 1985 with a new two-story residence at the front of the property and this two-story accessory structure at the rear of the property. The accessory structure was limited to use for parking, storage, office area and a workshop. The accessory structure is attached to the front unit with a trellis feature. There were to be no kitchen or living uses of this accessory structure. · Informed that as of approximately 1997, the structure was illegally converted into a four- unit apartment. · Approval of this Use Permit will allow the conversion into a secondary living unit. · Advised that under the Zoning, properties greater than 12,000 square feet can have a secondary living unit. If the property is 2.5 times greater than the minimum lot size under that particular zoning designation, there is no limitation to the size of the secondary living unit. Typically secondary living units are limited to 640 square feet. · This particular structure is 2,600 square feet and two-story. It meets the setbacks, parking and open space requirements of the R-l-6 Zoning. · Staff is recommending approval. Within the proposed Conditions of Approval is a requirement that the applicant allow routine inspections to ensure compliance that this secondary structure is being used as a single unit. Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Haun if he was the property owner when the Code Enforcement action began in 1997. Mr. Gene Haun replied that he was. Commissioner Francois questioned the delay in obtaining compliance with this Code Enforcement. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that Code Enforcement is a slow process that takes time. Added that the owner was ultimately cited for these Zoning Code violations. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the pad where the air-conditioning unit is installed meets required setbacks. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that such a pad is not defined as a structure and therefore there are no specific setbacks. Additionally, there is no Noise Ordinance to enforce noise impacts from such equipment. Ms. Sharon Fierro added that there are no building permits on file for that particular equipment. Clarified that Code allows such placement of equipment as long as the noise levels do not cross property line. Commissioner Gibbons asked about impacts on landscaping in order to install the garage and turnaround space. Mr. Tim J. Haley admitted that changes would be required to obtain the necessary turning radius into the garage. Commissioner Gibbons recommended that an existing door that allows access from the stairs into the family room be removed to ensure that the unit not be turned back into a multi-tenant unit again in the future. Commissioner Hemandez asked staff to explain Council's intention when they imposed use restrictions on this unit when it originally received approval. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the unit was approved as a detached accessory structure. The fact that the accessory structure was two-story was unusual. Since the approval of the accessory structure, Zoning regulations have changed which now allows secondary living units. This unit was later illegally converted into four living units. Commissioner Lowe asked what would occur if the rules had not changed. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that the applicant would not be allowed to have a second living unit on the property. Added that this lot is a large one with lots of area. However, it does not lend itself to be split into a flag lot due to its inadequate width. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: Advised that SARC included just one member who was not comfortable making a recommendation. The fact that the structure has been used illegally caused concern. Chairperson Lindstrom opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Patrick Murphy, 1084 Arroyo Seco Drive: · Advised that his family has owned their home, located directly behind the subject property, since September 1993. · Said that he has outlined problems, in a letter distributed this evening, that his family has experienced with having people illegally living in this accessory structure over the last seven years. · Disagreed with the proposed findings outlined in the staff report. · Said that this property owner has shown a disregard for rules. · Invited the Commissioners to visit his property in order to see first hand the negative impacts this unit causes on his property and the enjoyment of his home and yard. · Added that at the present time, no one is living in the units so it is actually nice for the first time in seven years not to have people peering into his window or speaking to them while they attempt to enjoy family time in their rear yard. Added that he should have some reasonable expectation of privacy when using a rear yard that is not possible with a two story residential structure located at the property line. · Said that this situation has the potential of negatively impacting his property values. · Plead for the Commission's consideration. · Admitted that he has never officially complained about the situation. They just lived with it. · Mentioned one occasion when one of the tenants of this structure threatened him because he was mowing his back lawn one Saturday morning at 9 a.m. Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Murphy what he would prefer to see here. Mr. Patrick Murphy replied that it is not for him to say. Added that while zoning laws may have changed since this structure was constructed, the right to privacy has not. Added that there are opportunities for compromise including changes to the eastern exposure, which overlooks his rear yard and windows, with features such as fixed windows. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Murphy whether he was aware that the proposed approval is for a single-family occupancy. Mr. Patrick Murphy replied that he was aware of that fact. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Murphy for the height of the shared fence between the two properties. Mr. Patrick Murphy replied that the fence is six feet but that the E1 Solyo site is approximately 1.5 feet higher in elevation than his property. Mr. Richard Shilling, 1115 E1 Solyo Avenue: · Stated that he has lived on E1 Solyo for the last 54 years and that this request is a gross stretch of zoning regulations that negatively impacts a neighbor's property. · Added that it does not make sense to him to infringe on the privacy of another property owner. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 5 · Said that while this is a well-built structure, he would object if this were directly adjacent to his own property. Chair Lindstrom advised that the applicant is trying to make an existing structure's use legal. Mr. Gene Haun, 1071 E1 Solyo Avenue: · Advised that there are no windows on the back of the building and added that the windows overlooking the Murphy home will be moved/removed in order to make room for the new garage. · Informed that this structure was constructed in 1986, before Mr. Murphy purchased his home, so its existence was no surprise to Mr. Murphy. · Said that he is making an effort to comply. · Expressed his objection for Condition No. 8 which he feels allows extraordinary access for unlimited inspections. Commissioner Francois disagreed and advised Mr. Haun that as long as he complies with the Conditions of Approval, he will have no problem. At this time, there has been a history of complaints since 1997. Added that the inspections will require 24-hour advance notice. Commissioner Doorley asked Mr. Haun to clarify his past use of this structure. Mr. Gene Haun stated that he had what he believed to be an oral agreement with the person who served as the City Attorney at that time. City Attorney William Seligmann informed that Commission that he has spoken with the former City Attorney, also someone with whom he used to practice, and Mr. Dempster offered assurances that he never authorized illegal use of this structure. Commissioner Hemandez stated that Mr. Haun has clearly admitted to non-conforming uses in the past. Asked what assurances the City has that compliance will be achieved in the future. Mr. Gene Haun replied that he does not want to experience future problems with the City. Commissioner Hernandez suggested that perhaps more than 24-hour notice might be appropriate for the inspections. Mr. Gene Haun added that perhaps having an expiration date for these inspections within a few years rather than on going might be more reasonable. Commissioner Doorley asked for the possible options. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the unit is currently configured into four separate units. The existing floor plan dictates the use as four units. Staff has worked with the applicant to create a traditional single-family floor plan. Agreed with Commissioner Gibbons' recommendation to remove a door that offers the opportunity in the future to isolate the unit into multiple units Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 6 should that door be retained. Said that another option for the Commission is to deny the second living unit and require the removal of any living facilities from the structure. Chair Lindstrom added that the applicant could come back in the future to have the Conditions of Approval modified. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the setbacks have been verified. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that she had visited the site with the Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Tim J. Haley added that the setbacks as depicted on the plans are consistent with the rules. Commissioner Gibbons asked if a professional survey had been conducted. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied no. Commissioner Lowe suggested adding a requirement for a survey to the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Sharon Fierro added that the building itself is legal what is being evaluated is the use of that building. Mr. Tim J. Haley added that the building was approved and inspected by the Building Department at the time it was constructed. Commissioner Jones asked what criteria is generally required in order to allow the City to conduct a site inspection. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the City must demonstrate reasonable cause or go to court for an order and then wait 24 hours. Commissioner Hernandez asked how long that process would take. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that the time consuming aspect of the process is gathering the evidence and preparing documents. Commissioner Jones asked what type of evidence would be required. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that typically it consists of a declaration from the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Tim J. Haley suggested a modification to the Condition of Approval requiring inspections to be in effect for five years or until the property is sold. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 7 Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that this review process does not represent the way in which the City typically evaluates a building. This is an existing building. Plans are typically reviewed prior to construction not after. What has to be evaluated at this point is how the floor plan can and will be used. Commissioner Gibbons suggested relocating two windows, in the master bedroom and sewing room, so that they do not overlook the neighbor's property. Additionally, the windows should be sound rated. Storage or equipment at the rear should be prohibited. Ms. Sharon Fierro proposed the elimination of the wall between the sewing room and master bedroom. Chair Lindstrom suggested that this item might warrant a continuance to work out the details. Commissioner Gibbons said that perhaps everything could be dealt with through the Conditions of Approval. Chairperson Lindstrom closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Jones re-stated that this is an existing legal building. Inquired whether the setbacks are met for residential uses. Ms. Sharon Fierro clarified that it is legal as an accessory building and not for residential uses. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the setbacks for accessory and living units are the same. Commissioner Gibbons stated that this is an awkward and unfortunate situation and that the City is somewhat stuck. There is not a lot of flexibility. The Commission has the ability to include conditions to mitigate. Suggested the following: require that one of two windows in the master bedroom be relocated as far away as possible from the property line; use of sound proof windows; filing of a covenant to ensure that no storage, equipment placement or dog runs occur behind or around the structure; require a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director as a result of site changes to accommodate placement of the garage and required backup space; require a survey to confirm the position of the structure. Chair Lindstrom stated that it appears that there are lots of areas of concerns and it is better to continue this application. Commissioner Hernandez agreed with Commission Gibbons' suggestions and said the Commission can recommend a list of items for staff and the applicant to rework. If there are too many, perhaps a continuance is warranted. Said that he had concerns about the floor plan as the temptation is clearly there to use the structure for more than a single-family residence. Said that there are a lot of bathrooms for a single-family residence and one solution may be the removal of at least one of the bathrooms. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Lowe asked what would occur should the site survey determine non-compliance with setbacks. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the options are limited since this is an approved building with permits. Commissioner Lowe replied that in that case the site survey would appear to have no value. City Attorney William Seligmann suggested that the survey might substantiate the need for additional mitigation conditions. Commissioner Doorley said that the single-family use is a better option to the past four-unit apartment use as long as there is no diminishing of inspection criteria. Commissioner Jones said that he is not in favor of the condition for inspections upon demand and said that to him it seems rather like a punishment. Commissioner Doorley said that in a way that condition is a punishment for a past history of infractions. Commissioner Jones said that he might support that condition if it has an expiration date. Commissioner Francois said that the condition for inspections is necessary based on the history of the property. Supported having that condition terminate upon sale of the property. City Attorney William Seligmann advised the Commission that they couldn't impose a condition based upon the sale of the property. Commissioner Gibbons advised that the applicant could come back to the Commission in the future to seek a change to the conditions of approval. Chair Lindstrom reopened Public Heating No. 1. Commissioner Lowe said that he feels that there are a lot of issues and recommendations already outlined by the Commission, including: removal of one bathroom; moving/removing windows in the upstairs master bedroom/sewing room so that they face the front of the structure instead of into the rear yard of the adjacent residence; inclusion of soundproof windows; landscape requirements to make up for the addition of a garage and the related backup space which will eliminate some of the site's existing landscaping; and filing of a covenant restricting the use behind the structure to prohibit storage, equipment and/or a dog run from being placed there. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the application of Mr. Gene Haun for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2001-05) to allow conversion of an existing accessory building into a second single- Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 9 family residence on property located at 1071 El Solyo Avenue, to the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2001, by the following roll call vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe None None None Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. PLN2001-07 Staff Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application for approval of a Text Amendment (PLN2001-07) to amend Sections 21.80.020, and 21.80.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code to require the payment of an application filing fee for appeals. This Project is Categorically Exempt. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: March 20, 2001. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this is a staff-initiated application for a Text Amendment to add a filing fee for appeals. · Said that at the present time, the City does not have a current appeal fee for appeals of administrative decisions of the Community Development Director to the Planning Commission or decisions of the Planning Commission to Council. · Informed that on February 6th, Council authorized staff to proceed with this Text Amendment. · Said that other local cities in Santa Clara County have appeal filing fees that range from $50 to $1,167. · Staff recommends adoption of a resolution recommending a fee for filing appeals. Commissioner Lowe asked Mr. Haley what the recommended fee is based upon. Mr. Tim J. Haley answered that the Government Code requires that such fees be based upon cost recovery. Ms. Sharon Fierro added that the proposed fee is actually much lower than actual cost. It is set at an amount that is intended to help discourage frivolous appeals without discouraging appellants. Said that the proposed fee is $100. Commissioner Doorley suggested that the filing fee be reimbursed to the appellant if their appeal is upheld. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that Council adopts the actual fee schedule but that staff will recommend that this appeal fee be refundable if the appeal is successful. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 10 Chair Lindstrom said that he was uncomfortable with an appeal fee of Planning Commission decisions to Council. Said that such an appeal is a tight for the applicant. Commissioner Jones agreed and declared that he is adamantly against any filing fee for appeals. Commissioner Doorley suggested that the Commissioners table their specific comments until after the Public Heating has occurred. Commissioner Lowe asked who pays the appeal fee. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that whomever files the appeal pays the appeal fee. Ms. Sharon Fierro added that the actual cost to process an appeal is closer to $1,000. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Gene Haun, 1071 E1 Solyo Avenue: · Inquired whether continued items would have such a fee. Chair Lindstrom replied no. Chairperson Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Doorley stated that this fee seems reasonable as long as the successful appellant is refunded their fee. Commissioner Gibbons asked for a comparison with other City filing fees. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the fees for single-family residences are subsidized while other types of development fees are based upon actual costs. Commissioner Gibbons stated that there is more merit in recovering fees in original application fees rather than for appeals. Suggested adjusting application fees. Commissioner Francois said that he concurred with Commissioner Gibbons and that $100 is not enough, $200 would be better. Said that such appeal fees would eliminate frivolous appeals such as have been filed in the past. Reminded that it actually costs $1,000 to process appeals. Commissioner Jones asked how many appeals have occurred in the last year. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that there were 15 appeals in 2000. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Jones stated that this fee proposal is ridiculous and that taxpayers pay for the right to appeal through their property taxes. Commissioner Doorley disagreed and reminded that fees for licenses and such are standard and appropriate for governmental agencies to handle administrative functions. Commissioner Lowe said that this fee is not in the public's interest. Chair Lindstrom stated that there should be a right to appeal Planning Commission decisions without a fee. Commissioner Jones said that it was even more important that appeals be available for administrative decisions than Commission decisions. At least with Commission decisions, a Public Hearing is held. Commissioner Hernandez said that although it appears that recovering cost is the intent, this revenue does not add much to the City's coffers. Therefore, this proposed fee does not match the goal for establishing that fee. Commissioner Lowe asked how many of the appeals last year were successful. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied about half. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3325 recommending that Council not adopt a Text Amendment (PLN2001-07) to amend Sections 21.80.020, and 21.80.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code to require the payment of an application filing fee, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom, and Lowe NOES: Doorley, Francois ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this item will be considered by Council at its meeting of March 20, 2001. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. PLN2000-177 Staff Public Heating 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. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 12 Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised this is a staff-initiated application for a Text Amendment. Currently non- conforming uses are allowed to continue in perpetuity within a structure. In 1993, the City adopted late hour permits requirements. · Added that this amendment would require non-conforming uses, based upon late night operations, to come into compliance within 24 months of the effective date of the ordinance or from the day the use becomes non-conforming should regulations change in the future. Commissioner Hernandez asked for the reason behind 24 months. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the 24-month period is his recommendation. Commissioner Gibbons said that the requirement to comply with the non-conforming uses is for late hours of operation only. Said that she would support a shorter time frame, such as a year. Commissioner Lowe asked how the non-conforming businesses would know. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that there are some uses of which the City is not even aware. In many cases, the City will act upon complaints. The City would notify those uses of which it is aware. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Jim Zimmer, 1251 Fewtrell Drive: · Stated his support of the proposed Text Amendment. · Advised he has been working with staff based upon his experiences with late operations at Taco Bravo which include having one of that restaurant's customers arrested right outside his bedroom window at 2 a.m. · Said that the 24 month period for compliance is too long and encouraged shortening that time frame. · Added that there is no good reason for a business to be open to 3 a.m. Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that it is a little unusual keying in one just one part of a use rather than the entire use. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3326 recommending approval of a Text Amendment (PLN2000-177) to require uses that are non-conforming due to their late-night operations to come into compliance with all applicable regulations of Chapter 21.66 of the Zoning Code within 24 months, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Francois, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 13 NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this item will be considered by Council at its meeting of March 20, 2001. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. PLN2000-172/175/176 & PLN2001-19 Chen, E. Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Emily Chen for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2000- 172) to create two lots; two Site and Architectural Approvals (PLN2000-175/PLN2000-176) to allow the construction of two single-family residences; and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-19) to allow the removal of seven trees on property located at 1826 Regina Way in an R-l-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this application is for two new single-family residences on Regina Way in an R-l-9 Zoning District. · The application includes a Parcel Map to create two lots. One lot is on the street frontage and the second is a flag lot. Both lots meet minimum requirements. · Additionally, Site and Architectural approval is sought for two new single-family residences, one on each lot. · Staff is recommending approval of resolutions to approve the Parcel Map, two Site and Architectural Approvals and a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of seven trees. · Advised that this project is consistent with the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and the R-1 Zoning. · SARC reviewed the project and is supportive with proposed changes which have been incorporated into the revised plans. Commissioner Gibbons asked if trees were permitted within the five-foot easement area. Mr. Tim J. Haley said he was uncertain but would defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Gibbons said that the eight-foot area is not large enough to plant a tree long term. Added that this is a nice project but she is not satisfied with the position of the buildings on the property. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 14 Advised that SARC reviewed the project, expressed some concerns which have been addressed on the revised plans. Added that staff had two additional recommendations which are not yet reflected on the plans. Mr. Tim J. Haley agreed and advised that those two recommendations include a hip roof over the garage and a trellis treatment on the west elevation. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission took the following action: 1. Adopted Resolution No. 3327 approving a Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2000-172) to create two lots; 2. Adopted Resolution No. 3328 granting two Site and Architectural Approvals (PLN2000-175/PLN2000-176) to allow the construction of two single-family residences and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001- 19) to allow the removal of seven trees on property located at 1826 Regina Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this action is final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. MISCELLANEOUS 5 PLN2001-06 Rosciano Construction Hearing to consider the application of Rosciano Construction, Inc., on behalf of DentPro, for approval of a Sign Application (PLN2001- 06) to allow a second wall sign for a business located at 2205 S. Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. The 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: · Advised that the applicant is seeking an exception to the Sign Ordinance in order to have a second wall sign for a new commercial building, which will be occupied by DentPro. · The Sign Ordinance allows one wall sign and one freestanding/monument sign. In lieu of the one wall sign and one freestanding/monument sign allowance, the applicant is asking for two wall signs. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 15 · Informed that the two wall signs will total less than the total allowable square footage of signage. While the site could accommodate 38 square feet of signage space, the applicant is proposing a total of 32 square feet. One sign will face Winchester and the second would face Catalpa. The signs will be placed over the building entrance. · Staff finds the request to be consistent and not excessive. Commissioner Lowe clarified that the applicant will have two signs total plus a small directional sign. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that Commissioner Lowe is corrected. Added that the directional sign is permitted and does not count against the allowable square footage for signs on site. Commissioner Gibbons asked that the applicant be required to have each sign wired separately so that each sign can be switched on or off separately when energy conservation might be required. Chair Lindstrom provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this request and was supportive. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3329 approving a Sign Application (PLN2001-06) to allow a second wall sign for a business (DentPro) located at 2205 S. Winchester Boulevard, with the added Condition that the two wall signs be wired separately in order to provide an option to reduce electrical use during power shortages. (7-0). 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 March 13, 2001, Planning Agenda, staff is recommending its cancellation. Commissioner Gibbons asked for a General Plan Update. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the EIR is being prepared and the Traffic Study is proceeding. It is anticipated that the General Plan will be back before the Commission on July 9th. Added that design guidelines will be funded in the next fiscal year budget. Commissioner Gibbons recommended that staff consider imposing more moratoriums to ensure that projects not proceed, particularly in residential zoning districts, that might conflict with any proposed General Plan amendments. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2001 Page 16 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission cancelled the Planning Commission meeting of March 13, 2001. (7-0). ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2001, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: xCa>ri~e A.- S~j]nn, Recor-'~-~g Secretary Mel LD 'om, Chair