Loading...
PC Min 04/24/2001CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY APRIL 24, 2001 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 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. Hemandez Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: None 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 Francois, the Planning Commission minutes of April 10, 2001, were approved. (7-0) Planning Commission MinuL,:s of April 24, 2001 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Letter regarding Agenda Item No. 3. 2. Letter regarding Agenda Item No. 4. 3. Letter regarding Agenda Item No. 5. 4. Letter regarding Agenda Item No. 6. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Agenda Item No. 2 (PLN2001-37 - 2350 Winchester Boulevard - Modification to Use Permit at St. Lucy Parish to allow construction of a science classroom) was removed from the agenda to a date uncertain. This application will be re-noticed once a new meeting date is set. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. CIP 2001-2008 Staff Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell's 2001-2008 Capital Improvement Plan. A Negative Declaration has been prepared which concludes that no significant impacts are associated with these projects. Many of the projects are considered Categorically Exempt. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2001. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the CIP is a seven-year plan that forecasts future capital needs and schedules maintenance of public-owned properties. The current CIP covers the period between 2001 and 2008. · Several categories for the CIP include the Community Center; Parks; Public Facilities - Buildings; Public Facilities - Equipment; the Redevelopment Agency and Streets/Signals. · Informed that the projects contained in the CIP are all consistent with the City's General Plan and Strategic Plan and that most are exempt from environmental review. The exception is the Community Center. · Advised that staff is recommending the adoption of a Negative Declaration and that the Commission find the CIP to be consistent with the City's General Plan. Commissioner Francois asked if he should recuse himself from consideration of one of the CIP projects (the Traffic Improvement Project on Harriet at McCoy) since that is his street. City Attorney Seligmann advised that Commissioner Francois should indeed recuse himself from that particular project and the recommendation of the Negative Declaration but that he could participate in the discussion and vote on the balance of the CIP review. Commissioner Doorley mentioned that the Gateway Features Project is not contained in the CIP. Planning Commission MinuLcs of April 24, 2001 Page 3 Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, advised that this is not yet a project bur rather is a proposal at this time. The CIP represents a construction plan for projects that have already received Council approval. Staff is presently preparing a design plan for the Gateway Entry Feature. Commissioner Gibbons added that once the project is approved, it could be added to the CIP, as it is updated each year. Mr. A1 Bito, Administrative Analyst, City Manager's Office, advised that the Gateway Features Project is listed in the CIP in the unfounded projects section. Commissioner Doorley suggested that this project might warrant being elevated in importance to the City. Chair Lindstrom asked Mr. Bito for clarification regarding the SOCA (South of Campbell Avenue) Redevelopment. Mr. A1 Bito advised that this is a first-year project with one million dollars available. Ms. Sharon Fierro clarified that this is a placeholder amount to be available in the event that a viable project is proposed. Chairperson Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chairperson Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Gibbons opined that this is a good list of CIP projects, which she supports. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the CIP 2001-2008, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Francois Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3338 recommending that Council approve CIP 2001-2008 (exclusive of the Harriet vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Avenue Street Improvement Project), by the following roll call Doorley, Francois, and Lowe None None None Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 4 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3339 recommending that Council approve the Harriet Avenue Street Improvement Project within the CIP 2001-2008, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Doorley, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe None None Francois Chairperson Lindstrom advised that item will be considered by Council at its meeting of May 15, 2001, for final approval. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No 3 into the record. 3. PLN2000-161 Hagman, B. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Bill Hagrnan for a Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-161) and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-38) to remove five of 13 existing trees to allow the construction of two two-story research and development buildings, with a total of 80,000 square feet, on property located at 700-750 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. 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 this project site consists of 4.5 acres and is located 350 feet from the intersection of McGlincey Lane and Union Avenue. · The current use of the site is for a recycling business. · The applicant proposes to construct two two-story Research and Development buildings consisting of 40,000 square feet each. The buildings will be centered on the site with parking surrounding on the front and sides. · The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site as well as with the Redevelopment Area guidelines. · Surrounding uses include town homes to the west, single-family residences to the south and industrial uses to the west, east and north. · An eight-foot masonry wall will separate this project from the adjacent residential uses. · The architectural style is contemporary, utilizing pre-cast concrete and tinted green glass. Parking will consist of 320 spaces and three driveways will access the site from McGlincey Lane. · A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared which predicts 79 additional trips in the morning and 63 additional tips in the evening over existing industrial uses. · Advised that both the Applicant's and City's Traffic Engineers are present for questions. Planning Commission Mintt[es of April 24, 2001 Page 5 · Informed that 28 percent of the site will be landscaping and that 10 existing trees on site will be retained and young recently planted redwoods will be relocated elsewhere on site. · Staff is recommending the relocation of one of the proposed trash enclosures so that it is further removed from adjacent residential uses. · Advised that a letter has been distributed this evening from the applicant seeking a two- year approval rather than a one-year approval and the elimination of a draft Condition of Approval, which limits operation hours on site to the hours of 7 a.m. through 11 p.m. · Said that staff is recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration for this project and that a Resolution be adopted that approves the Site and Architectural and Tree Removal Permit applications. Commissioner Gibbons asked why staff is proposing limitations on operational hours. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that the restriction is due to the proximity of the site to residential uses. Added that the City typically restricts hours of operation for Commercial Uses. Said that the applicant would be more supportive of limitations on delivery hours but not to operational hours on site. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Advised that SARC reviewed this proposal on April 10, 2001, and was supportive. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Bill Hagman, Project Architect, 1990 The Alameda, San Jose: · Stated he was available for questions as were the project owner, Mr. Jim Chalmers and Mr. Hopper, the project's Traffic Consultant. · Advised that they have worked closely with staff over the past eight months and have developed a quality project that meets all City requirements without need for any Variances. · Asked the Commission for its approval. · Stressed his objection to the limits on operational hours and stated that to do so would hinder the leasing of these buildings to potential tenants. Chair Lindstrom sought clarification that Mr. Hagman does not oppose restrictions to delivery hours. Mr. Bill Hagman replied no. Commissioner Lowe sought clarification that manufacturing would not occur, specifically third shift. Added that he has problems will uses after 11 p.m. or midnight. Commissioner Gibbons disagreed and stated that early morning hours within offices are normal in this valley. Commissioner Jones asked for comparisons with the P-Com use on Winchester. Planning Commission Minu[¢s of April 24, 2001 Page 6 Ms. Sharon Fierro: · Advised that the problems between PoCom and its adjacent residential neighbors were a key reason for imposing the operational hours restriction on this project. P-Com operates 24-hours a day, including shipping and receiving at all hours. Additionally, growth of that business has created a space problem and extensive and unsightly outdoor storage resulted. · Suggested that any business seeking 24-hour operation at this site be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Gibbons: · Stated that McGlincey is a different area since the business uses in the area pre-date any residential uses. · Suggested that restrictions on late truck delivers and outdoor storage are appropriate. · Added that this use will be less intensive than the existing use of the site and that she wanted assurances that no hazardous materials would be permitted on the premises as well as no outdoor equipment such as generators and chemical tanks. · Said that the intent of R&D is to create an office-like appearance. Commissioner Lowe asked if the Traffic Study is based on 24-hour operation. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that peak hour impacts are what are evaluated. Those peak hours are 8 a.m. in the morning and 5 p.m. in the evening. Commissioner Lowe asked whether operational hours were restricted for the Campbell Technology Park at the former Winchester Drive-In Site. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied no. Commissioner Hernandez asked what is the main issue for the restriction of operational hours. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied any type of noise, including cars, people and production. Mr. Bill Hagman reminded that an eight-foot sound wall would separate this property from the adjacent residences. Commissioner Lowe asked Mr. Hagman to remove the existing pine trees on site. Mr. Bill Hagman said that he had no problem removing those trees. Mr. Mike Harms, 613 Union Avenue: · Stated that he is not objecting to this project but his concerned about the potential for noise since his residence is adjacent to this site. · Added that since the recycling center has limited hours of operation and is closed on Sunday, the noise impacts were manageable. · Said that access to his town home project may be adversely impacted by this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 7 · Asked that the pine trees be retained to help serve as a buffer between this site and the residences. · Added that there is the potential for him to lose his view of the hillsides. · Expressed concern about the positioning of one of the delivery docks, as it appears to face his unit. Chair Lindstrom assured Mr. Harms that staff looks carefully at impact on residences. Ms. Sandy Piano, 661 Regas Drive: · Said that her main concern is the hours of operation. · Added that she is thrilled to see the recycling center going out. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that a larger landscaping planting strip separates this site from the adjacent residences than between it and the adjacent industrial uses on the other side. This is a deliberate means of ensuring a buffer. Mr. Tom Gregory, 677 Regas Drive: · Stated that it is good that the City is considering noise impacts. · Advised that while the houses may have been constructed after the businesses, many of the current owners were unsuspecting of the noise impact when purchasing their homes. · Asked for assurances that future uses will not create noise impacts. Commissioner Gibbons asked which trees are proposed and why. Also sought to ensure that on-site lighting not impact adjacent residences. The lighting should be placed on the perimeter pointing inward rather than centered on the site facing out. Commissioner Lowe advised that the lighting would be positioned on the property line and baffled. Added that SARC considered lighting carefully. Mr. Bill Hagman added that they are using shoe boxed light fixtures and that staff has approved the trees. Added that he is comfortable that the trees will satisfy everyone. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley added that Condition of Approval No. 3 requires approval of a detailed landscape plan. The current plan is simply a conceptual plan. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 4 requires that a detailed lighting plan be approved. Ms. Sharon Fierro assured the Commission that staff would look at tree placement very carefully on the final landscape plan. Mr. Bob, 613 Union Avenue: · Expressed his disagreement with Commissioner Gibbon's comment that the industrial uses predate the residential uses and therefore they have less rights. Mr. Richard Hopper, Project Traffic Engineer, advised that he is ready for any questions. Commissioner Hemandez asked how the impact analysis was done. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Richard Hopper advised that the net increase in traffic from current use plus forecasted future uses were evaluated. Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Hopper whether McGlincey can support the projected extra 79 a.m. trips and 63 p.m. trips. Mr. Richard Hopper replied yes. Added that this project will have no impact on McGlincey Lane. Commissioner Lowe asked for clarification between parking spaces on site versus trips generated to and from the site. Also asked if cars were actually counted for the preparation of the traffic study. Mr. Richard Hopper advised that he looks at the highest peak hour in both morning and evening use. Added that traffic generation is not related to parking. Established statistics are used to evaluate traffic impacts. Said that they did count cars. Commissioner Hernandez asked if the statistics represent national or local standards. Mr. Richard Hopper replied national. Added that if a specific future user is identified, then that use can be evaluated more specifically. Commissioner Gibbons added that large trucks cause more traffic impact than does car traffic. The area will have fewer truck deliveries as the area is redeveloped with R&D instead of Industrial uses. Chair Lindstrom asked Mr. Hopper for clarification on his recommendation regarding the placement of the west driveway per page 20 of his report. Mr. Richard Hopper advised that, when possible, it is better to offset driveways. Existing equipment prevents that in this case. Mr. Matthew Jue, City Traffic Engineer: · Advised that he agrees with the Traffic Study prepared by Mr. Hopper. · Reiterated that parking requirements are based upon the square footage of a building. Mr. Jim Chalmers: · Expressed his concern about the limitations on operational hours proposed. · Added that the Campbell Technology Park has 24-hour operational hours. · Said that he does not know yet who will occupy his buildings but these proposed operational hour restrictions could be the death of the project and represent a hardship. · Suggested retaining the pine trees for a while until the new trees mature sufficient to create an acceptable buffer. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 9 Commissioner Lowe stated that until the potential tenants are identified, it is difficult to evaluate uses of the site. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the proposed Condition of Approval regarding operational hours seeks to prohibit business during normal sleeping hours. Said that a potential modification of that Condition might require review of any proposed late hour uses. Removing the Condition altogether creates the potential of impact since we don't know who the tenants will be at this time. Mr. Tim J. Haley clarified that evaluation of noise impacts are a standard Condition of Approval for Use Permits. Commissioner Brad Jones advised that he has no problem with 24-hour office use but does have problems with any manufacturing and/or outdoor activity potential. Mr. Tim J. Haley assured that there is a requirement that all activity occur entirely within the buildings. Commissioner Gibbons wanted to be sure that construction hours were honored. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that allowable hours of construction are called out in the Municipal Code. Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Doorley stated that the interests of the City, the property owner and the nearby residents must be balanced. Added that this is a better project than the existing use of the site. Said that the City can address noise issues if they arise. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that palm trees not be incorporated into the landscape plan. Said that the landscape plan is a nice one but expressed concern about the high ratio of compact parking spaces on the site. Commissioner Hemandez stated that this is an excellent project and that there is an obligation that residential and R&D uses get along. Agreed with Commissioner Jones regarding support for 24-hour office uses but not manufacturing. Said that the Commission has to buy into the experts' recommendations and hope for the best regarding traffic impacts. Commissioner Francois stated that a two-year approval is not unreasonable. Said that he could support limits on uses between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. out of consideration for adjacent residential uses but not to prohibit outright. Commissioner Lowe said that any palm and pine trees should be removed and that operational hour restrictions should not be imposed if such restrictions were not imposed on the Winchester Drive-In Site project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Gibbons said that she would not support a two-year approval. Added that there is already a process available for obtaining an extension of an approval if necessary. Commissioner Doorley agreed with Commissioner Gibbons. City Attorney William Seligmann added the following language to Condition No. 8: · "In the event that the Community Development Director determines that noises are being generated by the project, that unreasonably interfere with the neighboring properties, the Community Development Director may limit the hours of operation and/or require the preparation of a Noise Management Plan to be submitted by the applicant, consisting of an acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer for recommendations to attenuate the noise. The Noise Management Plan shall require implementation of the mitigation measures found necessary to mitigate the unreasonable interference with the neighboring properties." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration and adopted Resolution No. 3340 granting a Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-161), and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-38) to remove five of 13 existing trees, to allow the construction of two two-story research and development buildings, with a total of 80,000 square feet, with the amendments to Condition No. 2 to prohibit exterior equipment and Condition No. 8 per the City Attorney's proposed modification, on property located at 700-750 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Lindstrom and Lowe Hernandez, Jones None 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. 4 into the record. PLN2001-33 (PD) PLN2001-39 (ZC) PLN2001-40 (TRP) SCV Habitat for Humanity Public Hearing to consider the application of Silicon Valley Habitat for Humanity and the Campbell Redevelopment Agency for approval of a Zone Change (PLN2001-39) from R- 1-6 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2001-33) to allow the construction of four new single-family homes and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-40) to allow the removal of three existing trees on property located at 975 W. Campbell Avenue and 10-30 Victor Avenue in an R-l-6 (Single Family Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 11 Residential) Zoning District. prepared for this project. Date: May 15, 2001. A Negative Declaration has been Tentative City Council Meeting Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this project seeks a Zone Change from R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development) and a Planned Development Permit and Tree Removal Permit to allow the construction of four one-story, single-family residences on a vacant site. This site has been held for a potential third fire station location for the Community. However, with the use of County Fire Services, this additional station was deemed to be unnecessary to serve the City of Campbell. · Advised that the proposed lots are consistent with the General Plan density. The project is being developed at 4.6 units per gross acre. · Said that these homes, being constructed by Habitat for Humanity, will be four bedroom and 1.5 bath homes of approximately 1,400 square feet. Two units will have two-car garports and two units will have one-car garports. · The surrounding uses are single family residential to the north, south, east and west with a school and church also located to the west. · Said that three homes will be accessed from Victor and the fourth from Campbell Avenue. The Campbell Avenue home will have turnaround access on site so that cars will not have to back out onto the busy Campbell Avenue. · The architectural style is bungalow. · Most of the crepe myrtle trees on site will be retained. A California Black Walnut is recommended for retention although the applicants seek its removal. · SARC reviewed the project on April l0th. · Staff suggests that the Commission support a Negative Declaration for this project, adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Zone Change and adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the Planned Development and Tree Removal Permits. Commissioner Doorley asked why a garport is being proposed instead of simply enclosing the structure into a traditional garage. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that Habitat is more concemed with housing people than cars. Commissioner Gibbons asked if neighborhood meetings were held. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the neighborhood meetings were conducted at the church across the street from the site. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Advised that SARC reviewed this project on April l0th and was highly supportive. Commissioner Jones asked about the front setbacks for units 2 and 3. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that those two homes have the required 15-foot front setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 12 Chair Lindstrom pointed out the correspondence of support from the church across the street, which was distributed this evening to the Commission. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Walter Surdacki, 31 Victor Avenue: · Advised that he works for the church and is very supportive of this project but has traffic issues. · Discussed the existing Pac Bell equipment box on Victor, which has workers with their trucks parked there daily, effectively reducing traffic flow and visibility on Victor. · Said that traffic measures are needed at Hedegard, Victor and Campbell Avenues to help alleviate traffic impacts. · Said that these units create 16 bedrooms while only parking for six cars. This may cause parking concerns on the street (Victor). Mr. Gary Bortz, 21 Victor Avenue: · Said that he is excited about this project and Habitat's involvement. · Shared the concerns regarding traffic on Victor as just expressed by Mr. Surdacki. · Reiterated that he is supportive of the project. Mr. John Emery, 91 Victor Avenue: · Advised that he was unaware of the neighborhood meeting. · Said that this project will be detrimental to the existing traffic situation, which already has a continuous flow of traffic. Mr. Dale Krahn, Project Architect, Sugimura & Associates: · Said that working with staff has been a positive experience. · Clarified that the Black Walnut tree is a sensitive tree that, per the arborist's report, is at risk of injury during construction that could lead to the death of the tree is a couple of years. · Said that having the tree removed in the future would create a financial hardship for the low-income homeowners. · Emphasized their desire to remove that tree now. Commissioner Francois asked staff for additional information about the potential for the tree. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley stated that, absent this development, the tree has the potential to live many more years. Staff envisions the protection of the tree. The arborist is concerned about impacts that construction and future landscaping will have on the health of the tree. Added that the Redevelopment Agency is prepared to pay for the removal of this tree in the next couple of years should the tree die due to damage caused by construction. Mr. Dale Krahn further clarified the reason for using garports over garages in addition to the philosophy of providing homes for people not vehicles. Said that if enclosed, a garage has the potential of being inhabited. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Doorley asked why not just construct a traditional carport. Mr. Dale Krahn replied that the garport allows a door to help screen the items stored as recommended by staff. Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission took the following actions: 1. Recommended that Council adopt a Negative Declaration; and 2. Adopted Resolution No. 3341 recommending approval of a Zone Change from R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and 3. Adopted Resolution No. 3342 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of four new single-family residences and a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of three trees. On properties located at 975 W. Campbell and 10-30 Victor Avenue, 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 item will be considered by Council at its meeting of May 15, 2001, for final approval. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 5 into the record. PLN2001-12 (TS) PLN2001-16 (ZC) PLN2001-17 (PD) Eurocrafl Development Public Heating to consider the application of Eurocraft Development for approval of a Zone Change (PLN2001-16) from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2001-12) to create six lots and a Planned Development Permit (PLN2001-17) to allow the construction of a five unit town home development on property located at 247 Shelley Avenue in a R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2001. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 14 Ms. Kristi Bascom, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this project consists of five town home units on property located on the north side of Shelley Avenue, one parcel west of Bascom Avenue. · The proposal includes a Zone Change from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of five town home units and a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the creation of five town home lots and one common lot). · This project is being developed at 11 units per gross acre, which is lower than the allowable 13 units per gross acre under the General Plan density. · The project will have two attached two-unit building and one single unit building. · Architectural features include stucco, hip roof, bay windows and porches, divided lights and arch features. · The project is consistent with design guidelines. · Trees will be preserved, including seven cedars. · Standard street improvements will be installed. · Upon review, the project has no impacts per CEQA and staff is recommending a Negative Declaration, adoption of a Resolution supporting the Zone Change, adoption of a Resolution supporting the Planned Development Permit and adoption of a Resolution supporting the Tentative Subdivision Map. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Advised that SARC reviewed the project on April l0th and was supportive. Chair Lindstrom pointed out the letter from Peppertree Properties opposing this application. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Richard Awl, 235 Shelley Avenue: · Advised that he resides adjacent to the project site. · Expressed his support and enthusiasm for this project and asked that the Commission approve this application. Commissioner Lowe asked the applicant to address the front door placement for one of the units. Mr. Marty Williams, Project Designer: · Stated that this particular door was placed off-center for no apparent reason other than to have additional lighting through a side panel window adjacent to the door. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that this feature could be adjusted at staff level. Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission took the following actions: Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 15 On AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1. Recommended that Council adopt a Negative Declaration; and 2. Adopted Resolution No. 3343 recommending approval of a Zone Change (PLN2001-16) from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and 3. Adopted Resolution No. 3344 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2001-17) to allow the construction of five town home units; and 4. Adopted Resolution No. 3345 recommending approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2001-12) to create six lots, property located at 247 Shelley Avenue, by the following roll call vote: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe None None None Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this item will be considered by Council at its meeting of May 15, 2001, for final approval. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 6 into the record. 6. PLN2000-152 Schlaefer, P. Public Hearing to conduct a 120-day review of a previously- approved Modification to a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2000- 152) relative to an extension of the allowable hours for on sale beer and wine sales to 2 a.m. in conjunction with an existing billiard establishment (Champions Pool & Games) on property located at 2097 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S General Commercial) 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: · Clarified that while the description states that the applicant is seeking extension of liquor sales to 2 a.m., that request has been modified to 1:30 a.m., Sunday through Thursday. · Added that this establishment received a Use Permit approval for on-sale liquor sales to midnight Sundays through Thursdays and to 1:30 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays with a Condition that this approval be reviewed following 120 days of operation with the expanded hours. · During the past 120 days, the City has received a number of disturbance calls from neighbors. · Staff has outlined four potential alternatives in the staff report ranging from approving the expanded hours to reducing the approved hours. Commissioner Doorley asked if staff has a specific recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 16 Ms. Kristi Bascom replied that staff originally recommended approval to 1:30 a.m. daily. Commissioner Lowe pointed out that 68 calls to the site have occurred. Ms. Kristi Bascom clarified that the 68 calls documented include officer-initiated patrol checks. Commissioner Lowe asked what the Police Department is recommending. Sergeant Rich Shipman, Campbell Police Department: · Advised that it is one of his duties to review plans and applications on behalf of the Police Department. · Said that he does not have any objection to the extension of hours for this business. · Reported that upon evaluation of the calls to the site, there have not been a significant number of calls. The vast majority of the 25 disturbance calls are from one address. There have been two arrests, one for public intoxication and the second a warrant arrest. Commissioner Lowe asked if this is a normal rate of calls for similar businesses. Sergeant Shipman replied that it is not abnormal. Commissioner Francois restated that it appears the majority is from one person. Sergeant Shipman clarified that the calls are from one address but two callers. Usually, when officers arrive at the site, it is quiet and whatever situation caused the call has left. Of the 68 calls, 36 of them were officer-initiated patrol checks where no significant activity was found. The calls that are received generally come between 7 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. with occasional calls at 3 a.m. Stressed the importance of having neighbors call when problems are occurring to allow officers to respond promptly. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out the letter from First Funding, an adjacent neighboring business, which was distributed this evening. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Mr. Steve Gerrito, 970 Michael Drive: · Advised that he and his wife make the majority of the calls on record. They make two to three calls per week. · Said that they share approximately 100 feet of wall with this business. While the wall is seven feet high from his property, with the differences in elevations on the two properties, the wall is only five feet high on the Champions side. With that low height, garbage is being thrown into his rear yard. · There is just 40 feet distance between the wall and his bedroom window and just 70 to 80 feet distance between the front door of Champions and his bedroom window. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 17 Added that Champions staff has been unresponsive to requests to encourage their patrons to stay indoors. · Said that since both minors and adults patronize Champions, there is potential for juvenile drinking. · Asked if there is a curfew for minors. · Recommended that noise testing be conducted. · Asked for the denial of any extension in hours for this business. Mr. Charles Garcia, 962 Michael Drive: · Said that this business results in noise, yelling, trash being thrown into his yard, particularly on weekends. · Advised that he is often awakened by noise. · Said that he does not want to have to make a Police report at midnight and that the Police Department might want to patrol this site more regularly. Commissioner Hemandez asked Mr. Garcia if there are days of the week that are worse than others. Mr. Charles Garcia replied that the disturbances are random but that weekend impacts are later. Added that loud music being played in cars rattle their residential windows. Commissioner Hemandez asked Mr. Garcia if he felt the noise was generated just be people leaving the property or by smokers congregating. Mr. Charles Garcia replied that he felt that the greatest impact to his home is when people leave the site or sit in their cars for long periods of time with loud music playing. Another problem is the trash being thrown over the fence into his yard. Commissioner Hemandez asked Mr. Garcia if he has attempted to call the business owner. Mr. Charles Garcia replied no. Mr. Terry Gordon, First Funding, 2077 S. Bascom Avenue: · Advised that he wrote a letter that was distributed this evening in which he outlines his concerns regarding this business. · Concurred with the concerns expressed by the residents, including having lots of garbage thrown onto his property. · Said that this business brings a bad element into the area and that it is against the public interest to extend the hours of operation. · Said that this is an oversized business for its location with too many tables and people and too little available parking. · The character and nature of the people who patronize Champions is a problem. · Requested denial of extending drinking hours. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page t 8 Commissioner Francois expressed the importance that the Police are called immediately upon problems arising. The response time from anywhere in the City is just three to five minutes. Mr. Terry Gordon stated that he does not call the City for every problem. Instead he takes care of issues himself such as cleaning up the messes in his parking area. Mr. John Roberts, Resident of Michael Drive: · Suggested that disallowing alcohol sales is another alternative for this site. · Said that he had no problem with the Police Department's response time. Said that he called one time at 1:30 a.m. and sat out in his yard with the responding officer to demonstrate the noise from the site. · Added that the pizza business is also a contributor to the noise problem. Mr. Peter Fleming, 972 Michael Drive: · Concurred with the comments made by Mr. Roberts · Advised that he has three small children who are constantly being woken up due to loud noises. · Said that this business is incompatible with the residential uses. · Suggested the revocation of this approval. Mr. Phil Schlaefer, Owner, Champions Pool & Games: · Said that contrary to what has been said by some speakers, the Police have approached the site in several ways in order to attempt a surprise inspection. · Added that there has never been an instance where a minor was caught drinking at his business establishment nor have any minors been served alcohol on his premises. · Suggested that raising the wall height would help alleviate some concerns from the neighbors but that neither the residential property owner nor his property owner were willing to do so. · Said that he had a letter from his property owner authorizing his shared after-hours use of the parking used by First Funding. Added that the property owner owns both sites. Once problems arose, he suggested that Mr. Gordon post the property as a tow away zone for unauthorized parking, which was done. · Said that he has installed a camera at the back of the property and gave all his private phone numbers to adjacent neighbors but never received a call. · Expressed concern about many unsubstantiated claims made by neighbors of juvenile drinking on his property. Said these comments are unfair and untrue. Said that he does not allow minors on the premises after 9 p.m. unless accompanied by an adult. · Said that they have discontinued emptying trash each night into the dumpster but that Green Valley continues to empty the dumpsters at 3:30 p.m. each Thursday. Added that Green Valley has refused his request to change the collection schedule. · Added that he regularly checks with the Police Department regarding any complaint calls received. · Said that this is not a "punk" hangout. Many of his patrons are professionals. Commissioner Lowe asked whether any outside drinking is permitted. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 19 Mr. Phil Schlaefer replied no. If patrons have alcohol outside, they are bringing it on site themselves. Commissioner Francois mentioned the limo business and the amount of parking it takes up. Mr. Phil Schlaefer agreed and advised that this business was illegally established at this location without required the Use Permit. Added that his business is a 16-year business that is quieter and smaller under his ownership that it had been previously. Commissioner Francois asked about the operational hours for the pizza business. Mr. Phil Schlaefer replied that the business has varied hours. Mr. Frank Dolle-Molle: · Said that he met about 11 months ago with Mr. Schlaefer to work out issues. · Said that contact since that time has been unnecessary since the City established a procedure for reporting noise concerns to the Police Department. · Said that the walls in place are already quite tall (11 feet) from the condominiums. Mr. John Roberts asked who owns the wall. Asked if the business owner is responsible for cleaning up the trash his patrons throw over the wall into residential yards. Mr. Charles Garcia wondered what the Police Department would consider to be a substantial number of noise complaints. Sergeant Rich Shipman replied that while 25 calls is significant; all but three were generated from one residence, which does not demonstrate a far-reaching problem. Mr. Peter Fleming stated that he has not called, as it is not convenient to get up at 1 a.m. to make a phone call to the Police. Mr. Charles Garcia asked Sergeant Shipman exactly what he needs to do to demonstrate that there is a problem. What information does he need to provide. Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Garcia how long he has resided adjacent to this business. Mr. Charles Garcia replied two years. Mr. Richard Alt, Co-Owner, Champions Pool & Games: · Stated that they are not trying to make enemies of their neighbors. · Added that noise issues are not a result of his alcohol sales hours but rather to the fact that this legal commercial building exists directly adjacent to residential uses. · Said that they want to conduct a viable business and work with the Police to do so. · Added that he both lives and works in the City of Campbell. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 20 Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Commissioner Gibbons wondered if the recent Text Amendment regarding non-conforming late night operational hours impacts this use. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that this Text Amendment does not apply to this business since it obtained the necessary permits to have its late night operational hours. Commissioner Lowe stated that it is helpful to hear the impacts of the business from the adjacent residents. Said that he currently cannot support any expansion in alcohol sales hours but would be willing to reconsider in six months (180 days). Commissioner Jones agreed. Commissioner Francois said that while he is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors, he is also sympathetic to the business owners. Advised that he has visited the site twice recently. Added that the Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit allow revocation if a sufficient number of substantiated complaints are received by the Community Development Director and/or Police Department. Said that he would support Recommendation No. 1 from the staff report. Commissioner Doorley reminded that at the original heating there was no record of Police calls. However since the extension of hours was approved, there are a number of complaints. Said that he notices a difference in the intent of the business owner, who was more pro-active in his activities before. Stated his support for Recommendation No. 3. Commissioner Gibbons stated that this is not an easy issue. Pointed out that one of the calls on the Police Log occurred around 3 a.m. on a Thursday, when Green Valley empties the dumpster. Added that other uses in the area are contributing to the noise problems. Agreed that the neighbors have a problem and suggested leaving the business with its current hours for the next six months. Said that the main problem is the close proximity of residential to commercial uses. Commissioner Doorley stated that alcohol sales and consumption does increase the noise factor. Chair Lindstrom said that this is a difficult situation but that either the Community Development Director or the Police Department can shut down this use. Encouraged the adjacent residents to continue to call when problems occur and that is was important that the calls come from more than one household. Added that there are enough Conditions of Approval in place. Said that he was not willing to extend the hours to 1:30 a.m. every day at this time. Said that at this time, those hours should be limited to Friday and Saturday. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3346 denying an extension in hours for the on-sale liquor sales and reverting the allowable hours to 11 Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2001 Page 21 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and to 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, on property located at 2097 S. Bascom Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Doorley, Hernandez, Jones and Lowe Francois, Gibbons and Lindstrom None None Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this action is final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. City Attorney Seligmann added that the approval period is indefinite but that the applicants cannot re-file their application for one year. 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 SARC will meet on March 8th but the Planning Commission will be cancelled. (Note that Commissioner Lowe will be unavailable for SARC on that date.) · Invited the Commissioners to attend Community Meetings on the General Plan Update to be held on Monday, April 30, 2001, and Thursday, May 3, 2001. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the noticing that occurred for the Habitat project. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that she would investigate the notification list used on that project. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 2001, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: ~.~~. . . APPROVED BY: ~, -.. .~ ~, Sharon Fierro, Secretary