Loading...
PC Min 05/22/2001CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY MAY 22, 2001 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 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: Planner Il: Planner I: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Darcy Smith Kristi Bascom Stephanie Willsey William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission minutes of April 24, 2001, were approved (the meeting of May 8, 2001 was cancelled). (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Lowe abstained.) Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS. There were no communication items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. PLN2001-37 St. Lucy Continued Public Heating to consider the application of St. Lucy Parish for a Modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PLN2001-37) to allow the construction of a science classroom at St. Lucy School on property located at 2350 Winchester Boulevard in a PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 2001.) Ms. Darcy Smith, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: Advised that St. Lucy's is seeking approval of a Modification to a previously approved Use Permit to allow the construction of a new science classroom on an existing parking lot. Provided a history of the Use Permit, which was originally approved in 1978 and modified in 1998 to allow an activity building and office. · Said that the proposal is for a 1,440 square foot, single-story building to be used to provide a science curriculum with planter areas in a courtyard to be used as an instructional activity. There is no anticipated increase in enrollment as a result of this addition. · Advised that the Land Use Designation for the site is Public/Semi-Public and the Zoning is PF (Public Facilities). · The proposal meets setback, height, lot coverage, parking and landscaping requirements. The building will use matching materials that existing on site. It will be painted to match in eggshell with chocolate brown trim. · Twenty parking spaces will be lost as a result of this construction. Staff finds that the shared parking between the church and school functions well as peak use times vary between the two. The loss of 20 spaces is not considered significant. · Informed that SARC reviewed this application on April l0th and was supportive and that staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Gibbons asked if a review of parking during church services has been done. Ms. Darcy Smith replied that the parking was analyzed during school hours rather than church hours. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Gibbons expressed concerns that it appears that applications for this site are coming in piecemeal. Asked if a master plan has been developed. Ms. Darcy Smith replied no, adding that the school does not have any funding for five to ten years down the line in order to create such a master plan. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, added that the school was asked about future growth plans when the modification was processed and approved in 1998. The plans they had at that time have since changed. There may be other projects in the future but available funding drives them. Such growth cannot be anticipated in location and/or size at this time. Ms. Darcy Smith pointed out to the Commission that revised Findings have been distributed as a table item this evening. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed the application on April 10, 2001, and had no problems with this project. Chairperson Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Sally Howe, 45 Budd Avenue, Campbell: · Advised that she lives across the street from St. Lucy's and that they are the "best neighbors." · Expressed support for this excellent project, stressing the importance of science education. Chairperson Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3347 approving a Modification (PLN2001-37) to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 78-09) to allow the construction of a new science classroom at St. Lucy School on property located at 2350 Winchester Boulevard, 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. Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No 2 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 4 2. PLN2001-40 Watson, D & L Public Hearing to consider the application of Doug & Lorri Watson for approval of a Variance (PLN2001-40) to the garage setback to allow a residential addition on property located at 1353 Cameo Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Ms. Darcy Smith, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking a Variance to allow the construction of a garage addition with a 19-foot, 6-inch setback to the public right-of-way when 25 feet is required. · The project site is in the east Campbell neighborhood, on the north side of Cameo Drive. The single-family residence and an attached garage was constructed in 1956. · The applicants are proposing a five-foot, two-inch addition to the garage for a total garage depth of 24 feet, 9 inches to accommodate the applicant's boat. This garage will be re- oriented to face the street. The proposal also includes the addition of a new entryway and living room off the front of the house, which meets the required setbacks. · Advised that the Zoning for this property is R-l-6 (Single Family Residential). · With the exception of this one setback Variance request, all other development standards are met with this project. · Explained that the proposed garage is actually 25 feet from the sidewalk but that the property line is actually on the residence side of the sidewalk on this particular street. · Informed that there are five required findings in order to be able to approve a Variance. These required findings are included on page three of the staff report. Staff finds that only one of the five findings can be supported while the other four cannot. There is nothing unique in this case, no privilege is being denied and approving this Variance would be in itself a special privilege. · Advised that SARC reviewed this proposal on May 8th and was supportive. · Staff is recommending denial and advised that revised findings for denial have been distributed as a table item this evening. Commissioner Hemandez asked for clarification on how the setbacks are being calculated. Ms. Darcy Smith replied from the edge of the front property line, or five feet, six inches away from the back of the sidewalk. Commissioner Lowe pointed out Attachment No. 5 from the staff report identifies other variances. Ms. Darcy Smith replied that one received a Variance on Fewtrell in 1994 for a 16-foot, nine- inch setback. The other variances are legal non-conforming properties with no building or planning approvals on file. These properties were under County jurisdiction at the time they were constructed, where there were different setback regulations. Added that the intent for the 25-foot setback requirement is to allow off-street parking with out having vehicles projecting into the sidewalk. Demonstrated this by showing a photo of the aforementioned Fewtrell property on which a large vehicle (SUV) is projected halfway across the sidewalk. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Gibbons asked what the basis was for the Variance approved on Fewtrell. Ms. Darcy Smith replied that the finding was made that there is significant open space in the rear yard of this property, which would have been adversely impacted, as well as trees requiring removal, should the Variance not be granted. Commissioner Hernandez asked whether there are any other alternatives or flexibility for the calculations of setbacks. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that it is very clear that setbacks are measured from the property line. Commissioner Doorley asked whether Council could approve such a Variance. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that Council would not be able to do so without amending the Zoning Code or on appeal of a Planning Commission decision. Council could issue a Variance on appeal. Commissioner Doorley said that Council has given the Planning Commission the authority to decide upon Variances based upon specific criteria. Commissioner Gibbons asked if this criterion is also based on State law. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that State law has the same criteria. Commissioner Hemandez suggested that Council be asked to consider an amendment to the Ordinance. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that this project couldn't go forward without a Variance approval. Commissioner Hemandez asked if there is a fast track way to amend the Code. City Attorney William Seligmann replied no. Commissioner Jones asked whether there are sidewalks on this street. Ms. Darcy replied yes. However, there is no planting strip. Commissioner Jones asked if the City has any plan to install a planting strip. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director advised that this public right-of-way is not just for sidewalks. The right-of-way varies from five to seven, even 10, feet throughout the City. It is used for placement of utilities. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Jones asked if this is fairly typical. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied yes. Commissioner Jones questioned whether Planned Developments are held to the same standards, as it doesn't appear to be the case. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that development standards for a PD Zone are different and can vary from the Zoning Code. In single-family zoning districts, the 25-foot setback is required. Reiterated that a lot of equipment and utilities are located in that public right-of-way area. Commissioner Francois presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Advised that SARC reviewed this proposal on May 8, 2001, and asked staff to investigate alternatives to measuring the setback on this property. · Said that a comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Code will occur next year. · SARC was supportive of this request as presented. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Doug Watson, Applicant, 1353 Cameo Drive, Campbell: · Said that he understands that the intent of the Ordinance is to provide 25-foot driveway to park vehicles off street. Despite the actual property line, his proposed driveway would be 25 feet long. · Explained that he wants to construct this larger garage to house his boat. · Expressed that his neighbors would appreciate the boat not being parked in the driveway. · Added that he has the option to build a second story onto his home but prefers not to as there are currently no two-story homes on his street. · Advised that none of his neighbors object to his proposal. · Reminded that the driveway approved (by Variance) on Fewtrell is only 16-feet, nine- inches while his would be 25 feet. Commissioner Jones asked staff if the surrounding neighbors were notified of this proposal. Ms. Darcy Smith replied that proper noticing was done and no neighbors have called with concerns and/or questions. Mr. Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, added that staff made a site visit and spoke with the immediate neighbor, who expressed no concern with this proposal. Mr. Oscar Wittrock, 1367 Cameo Drive, Campbell: · Said that he lives next door and has no problem with this application. Commissioner Doorley stated that it appears the City is putting the cart before the horse. Said that he was supportive of Mr. Watson's intent but is not able to make the necessary findings. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 7 Said that the Commission has to be able to state that the five necessary findings of fact are true. Added that it seems clear that these findings are not true. Commissioner Lowe said that this request is logical and the applicant has made sufficient justification for the need for this Variance. Commissioner Gibbons said that it appears that granting this Variance would actual provide a special privilege to this property. That is a significant finding. Added her personal experience with a neighbor who has a garage large enough to hold a boat who does not use the garage to do so. Commissioner Hemandez suggested that a Condition of Approval was included added requiring this owner to park the boat in this garage. Said that it appears that there is an inconsistency between the purpose of the Ordinance and the method of calculating the setback. City Attorney William Seligrnann said that if the Commission can make the five necessary findings of fact, it could approve this Variance. Staff has made every effort to find a way to make this application work. Mr. Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, added that staff was able to make one finding, that this Variance would not negatively impact the area, but could not make the other four required findings. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director: · Reminded that the Zoning Ordinance sets the standards for throughout the City. It is law. To deviate from the law, a City must have compelling reasons such as a unique characteristic of the property. This could perhaps be a heritage tree or a stream that runs through a property that restricts the options for that property. These are things beyond anyone's control and without a variance; owners have no ability to meet requirements. Said that staff is sympathetic to the applicant's desire to construct this garage but is bound to enforce the Zoning laws. Added that every effort was made to make the necessary findings but it was impossible. Additionally, the City Attorney was consulted. He too was unable to make these findings. Commissioner Francois: · Stated his sympathies for the applicant's situation. · Said that there is a letter and spirit of law. · Added that he is saddened that the Commission cannot help. Said that the Zoning will need to be changed. Commissioner Jones: · Agreed that there is a letter and spirit of law. · Expressed his problem with following laws just for the sake of following laws. There are cases where such rules need to be overridden. It is a disservice to the community to enforce this rule, as it does not make sense. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 8 · Said that this applicant is well within the spirit of the law and is actually providing a 25- foot driveway. Commissioner Doorley said that it is clear everyone agrees that they would like to support this request. Asked how any Commissioner proposes to do this, as the Commission would have to be untruthful to make the necessary findings of fact. Chair Lindstrom asked if the applicant was made aware of the stringent finding requirements when he applied for this Variance. Ms. Darcy Smith said yes. Added that Mr. Watson was provided with a copy of the Variance Ordinance. Additionally, he spoke with several staff planners in his search for information. Said that in the future, staff will ask Variance applicants to write how their particular request/situation meets the required findings for a Variance. Mr. Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, added that staff discourages Variance applications but if an applicant is insistent, staff proceeds with the application process. Commissioner Gibbons said that it appears the applicant can reorient his garage and still go forward with his home expansion. Ms. Darcy Smith, Planner Il, clarified that the garage would only be 19 feet, 6 inches deep when the minimum standard is 20 feet. Commissioner Gibbons suggested a Variance for that negligible six inches. Chair Lindstrom asked Mr. Watson if staff explained the difficulties of achieving a Variance when he applied for his. Mr. Doug Watson replied that the actual five required findings were new to him when he attended SARC. While he realized his was a Variance request, he thought it was a reasonable one. Asked if garage depth is determined internally or externally. Commissioner Gibbons said that the City Code requires garages have a 20-foot depth. Mr. Geoff Bradley added that the size of a garage must be at least 20 feet by 20 feet according to the Zoning Code. Commissioner Gibbons said that it would take a Variance too in order to deviate in the garage depth. Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3348 denying a Variance (PLN2001-40) to the garage setback to allow a residential addition on Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 9 property located at 1353 Cameo Drive, with the latest amended findings, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Hernandez, Lindstrom and Lowe NOES: Francois and Jones ABSENT: None 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. 3 into the record. 3. LN2001-41 Public Hearing to consider Appeals of an Administrative Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-41) to allow the removal of an oak tree on property located at 1312 Ridgeley Drive in an R-l-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. Ms. Kristi Bascom, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking a Tree Removal Permit to remove one oak tree on property located at 1312 Ridgeley Drive. · This matter was brought before the attention of the Planning Department as a result of a citizen complaint following recent drastic trimming occurred. In response, a Code Enforcement letter was sent. · Said that the owner responded to the complaint letter and explained that the trimming was required by PG&E due to the proximity to the overhead power lines. As a result, this owner applied for the Tree Removal Permit. · Advised that the Community Development Director approved the Tree Removal Permit based upon the potential for inference with the nearby power lines. · Informed that two nearby households appealed this approval. · Said that the applicant's arborist has reported that the tree is not in a good location for its size. This arborist recommended the tree's removal and replacement with a more appropriate tree. · Explained that the Commission has several options this evening. It can deny the appeal and thereby uphold the decision of the Community Development Director. It can uphold the appeal and overturn the decision of the Community Development Director. Lastly, it can continue this matter to a future meeting. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether PG&E has to comply with the City's Tree Ordinance. Ms. Kristi Bascom replied that PG&E has the right to trim as necessary to maintain power lines. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 10 Ms. Sharon Fierro added that a lot of the trimming has occurred over time and some quite a while ago. Commissioner Hemandez asked if there is any eminent danger with this tree. Ms. Kristi Bascom replied that the arborist considers the tree unbalanced and not of good structure. There is potential for falling branches. However, the tree is not diseased. Other than the location and its impacts on the lines, it appears to be a healthy tree. Commissioner Hernandez questioned whether the tree should be allowed to recover from the most recent trimming and come back in the future with a request for removal in the event that the tree does not recover. Ms. Kristi Bascom advised that the tree has survived trimmings in the past and there is reason to believe the tree will survive the most recent trimming. However, the arborist states that this tree will never restore itself and because of the location will never be allowed to grow in such a way as to become an attractive oak. Commissioner Francois stated that he drove by and saw the tree. It lists to one side and is very ugly as a result of the pruning. This tree seems to be tilting toward the neighbor at 1304 Ridgeley Drive. Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Aliza Peterson, 1305 McBain Avenue, Campbell: · Informed the Commission that the trimming is recent, within the last several months. · Said that the trimming was not done by PG&E but rather by a private trimmer hired by the property owner. · Advised that a few years ago they had consulted with PG&E and was told that there is no reason to trim this tree. · Said that despite the fact that the tree has been trimmed several times, it should be given a chance to come back as it appears to be surviving. Commissioner Francois said that, according to the staff report, PG&E performed the trimming. Ms. Aliza Peterson replied that she had called PG&E in order to confirm that fact and was told they did not trim that tree. Ms. Kristi Bascom advised that she too had called PG&E to confirm but had never received a return call. Mr. Dennis Johnstone, Applicant, 1312 Ridgeley Drive, Campbell: · Said that PG&E came out to his property twice recently. During the first visit, he was advised that the problems with the tree would be recurring and the tree should be removed. On another occasion two tree trimmers were sent (by PG&E) to trim the tree. · Thanked Planner Kristi Bascom for her assistance. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 11 · Stated that the key issue is safety. · Added that the person who sold him this home had warned him about problems with the tree. The previous owner said that the tree had shorted out power in the past and once caught fire. · Said that he recently put an addition onto his home, which is closer to the tree, and he considers the tree to be a danger to him and his neighbors. · Opined that this tree will always be just a big head of broccoli and never an oak. · Advised that he plans to install a 36-inch box tree, a Pear, to replace this removed tree. Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Lowe said that it is sad that the tree was badly trimmed. However, the first priority is safety to the public. Removal of this tree is a positive thing in order to safeguard the surrounding residents. Commissioner Hernandez agreed that public safety is first and foremost. However, he thought the tree had not been given enough time to recover from the heavy trimming. Suggested more time prior to removal. Removal may be approved at a future date. Commissioner Jones suggested allow the property owner to do what he wants to do regarding his own tree. Commissioner Francois said that he saw the tree yesterday and found it to be ugly and dangerous as it was listing heavily. Said that he thought the tree would eventually go down, as it is top heavy. Said that from McBain the tree appears to be beautiful while from Ridgeley it is not. Commissioner Doorley expressed his agreement with Commissioner Hemandez. Suggested that the tree was over trimmed in order to get approval to cut it down. Commissioner Hemandez stated that he is not an arborist but that he looked at the tree from the Peterson yard. Commissioner Lowe asked City Attorney Seligrnann whether the City incurs any liability of litigation by deferring the removal for one year. City Attorney William Seligmann said he doubted it. The Commission is simply using its discretionary action. Chair Lindstrom provided a private experience with PG&E trimming rear yard trees over years, which eventually resulted in the requirement to remove and replace the trees with more appropriate trees. Said that the safety of the neighborhood is the most important thing and this tree should be removed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3349 denying two Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 12 appeals and upholding the Community Development Director's approval of a Tree Removal Permit, on property located at 1312 Ridgeley, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe NOES: Hernandez ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Jones asked if the Appeals Fee had been charged in this application. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, advised that the appeals were filed prior to the effective date of the Appeals Fee. The Appeals Fee is effective as of May 17, 2001. Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this action is final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. MISCELLANEOUS Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. 4. Determination Finding by Planning Commission that "Unity Center" is similar to other uses allowed by Use Permit in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the Unity Center is occupying approximately 6,400 square feet of space at the Gateway Project, located at 125 E. Campbell Avenue. The space was approved for retail and office uses. This use went into the site as office/retail. · Said that church uses are not listed as a permitted use, either with or without a Use Permit, in the C-3-Zone. · Advised that staff has been working with the Unity Center to either comply with Zoning or to come to the Planning Commission for appropriate approvals. · Informed that the Zoning Districts list the uses permitted and conditionally permitted. · Said that if the church is considered to be similar to a commercial school, it could be approved without a Use Permit. However, staff finds that a church is more like a theater, which would require a Use Permit. · Advised that staff believes that considering church uses in the C-3 with a Conditional Use Permit could meet the goals for the Zoning. · Said that the applicant is available. · Said that the bookstore portion of the current use is considered retail and compatible. The assembly is considered similar to theater seating. The current church use is between 30 to 50 attendees for service. The site has the potential to seat slightly more than 200 persons. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 13 · Informed that staff has distributed revised findings as a table item this evening for this application. Commissioner Doorley asked staff how churches fit into other zoning designations. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley replied that churches are typically permitted within PF (Public Facilities) Zoning Districts. This is the same zoning district used for schools. Commissioner Doorley stated that most PF zones are probably completely developed throughout the City at this point. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley concurred. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, added that staff would be revisiting the zoning for churches with the comprehensive zoning update. Commissioner Gibbons said it appears the Commission is being asked to approve bad behavior. Parking issues are key for a project that was very dense to begin with. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley advised that staff has been working with the church for some time to achieve zoning compliance. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, said that the Commission is not looking at a specific case now. That will come at the Use Permit process. Commissioner Gibbons said that the Commission with this determination is setting the stage for appropriate review. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, agreed and said that currently churches are not allowed in C-3 Zoning. With this determination, churches will be allowed with Use Permits. Commissioner Gibbons cautioned that this has broad range implications. Commissioner Lowe asked what the next step is in this process. Commissioner Gibbons said that there are no guarantees that this particular use (Unity Center) will be issued a Use Permit upon review. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that this is an administrative avenue to deal with this request since churches are simply not listed rather than being prohibited. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, added that the applicant has not been charged any filing fees at this point. They are in operation on site. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 14 City Attorney Seligmann clarified that if a use is not listed as a permitted use within the Zoning Code, it is prohibited. Chair Lindstrom said that even if the church use were added as a permitted use with a Use Permit, parking would be a problem when the application is reviewed. City Attorney Seligmann said that it is important to use the generic term church rather than Unity Center. This determination is not just for the benefit of Unity Center but impacts the C-3 Zone. Commissioner Gibbons asked for the boarders for the C-3 District. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley advised that it represents the Downtown and will be expanded with the General Plan Update in include portions of Winchester Boulevard. Commissioner Doorley said that he was surprised by the Commission's reluctance to support a church use when it approved after the fact projects such as the recent E1 Solyo project. Said that he had no problem supporting adding churches as permitted uses with a Use Permit. Reminded that the public parking garage is coming in the next few years. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, cautioned that the Downtown is probably the least likely place in the City to accommodate church uses. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that Stacks has peak business in conflict with the church and that the local residents living above this property are more likely to be home on weekends. Said that she did not want to see a preferential action. Added that they need a generic and independent understanding of the right uses for the C-3 Zoning District. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission moved to adopt a Resolution allowing a bookstore and church establishment as a permitted use in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, per the revised findings, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, NOES: Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the Commission must make some sort of affirmation action. It can be a motion to deny. Commissioner Gibbons said that she prefers more discussion. Suggested a Study Session where more information can be provided. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, said that the decision goes beyond Unity Center. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 15 Commissioner Gibbons said that she wants to understand more what this means. Commissioner Lowe said that with the added local housing constructed in or near the Downtown, perhaps a ministry is needed nearby to serve them. Said that this is such a narrow definition. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, reminded that the Zoning Update would recommend inclusion of churches in other districts. Commissioner Lowe said that is seems so specialized and just for this Unity Church. Commissioner Francois advised that he had encountered a young cleric Downtown during the Prunefestival who stated that he was establishing a ministry at the Gaslighter Theater. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the Zoning for the church on Railway Avenue. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley replied PD (Planned Development). Commissioner Gibbons asked about the churches on Alice and Rincon. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, advised that these are historic structures that predate Campbell's incorporation. Commissioner asked if this is action is final. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, replied that Commission's action would be final unless appealed to Council. Commissioner Gibbons asked how this would be handled if voted upon this evening. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, reminded that this is not a Zoning Amendment tonight. Therefore, the Commission cannot add criteria to the analysis process this evening. Commissioner Gibbons clarified that by saying the churches are permitted with a Use Permit in a C-3 Zone allows the City to consider applications on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Hemandez asked what defines a church. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that there is no definition in Code. The Commission could elect to define a church in its motion and perhaps classify the use as an assembly hall. Commissioner Hernandez said that there is not enough data to do this. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 16 Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, said that equating the church use to a theater was staff's struggle to make it fit. Reminded that the Use Permit runs with the property. The City looks at the physical impact of a use and not the religious definition. Agreed that staff could put together a Study Session. Added that the most significant impact of church uses is parking and circulation. Commissioner Hemandez suggested tabling this item so the Commission can make an informed decision. Commissioner Francois agreed that more data and information would be helpful. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, the Planning Commission moved to continue consideration of a determination, which would allow a bookstore and church establishment as a permitted use in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District, to a future date to be preceded by a Study Session and to consider all Zoning Areas, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, per the revised findings, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Lindstrom and Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 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 Council approved the Habitat and Shelley Avenue projects. · Informed that there are six items scheduled for the June 12th Planning Commission meeting. · Said that the newest Planner I, Stephanie Willsey, has joined the staff. Stephanie comes to Campbell from the San Mateo County Planning Department. · Invited the Commissioners to a Community Meeting on the Water Tower Loft Project, which will be held on May 31st at 7 p.m. in Room 80 of the Community Center. · Notified that Campbell has a short feature in the current Sunset Magazine. · Asked the Commission if it was interested in conducting a Study Session on Parking and Traffic (note that all Commissioners replied yes). ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 12, 2001, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Mel Lir~f~m, Cha~ir Simon Fierro, Sec etary Page 17