Loading...
PC Min 08/28/2001CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY AUGUST 28, 2001 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 2001, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Lindstrom, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Tom Francois George Doorley Elizabeth Gibbons Joseph D. Hemandez Brad Jones Commissioners Absent: Chair: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Dennis Lowe Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner II: City Attorney: Attomey for Item #2 Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Tim J. Haley Darcy Smith William Seligmann Robert J. Logan Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, the Planning Commission minutes of August 14, 2001, were approved. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Lindstrom and Lowe were absent) COMMUNICATIONS. Three were no communication items. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda Modifications or Postponements. ORAL REQEUST There were no Oral Requests. PUBLIC HEARING Acting Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. PLN2001-93 Staff Public Hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (PLN2001-93) for the City of Campbell General Plan Update (PLN2000-150). The General Plan Update applies to the entire City. The General Plan Update will receive further review by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2001. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the EIR for the General Plan was distributed on July 27, 2001, for a 45-day review period, ending September 10, 2001. · Said that during this review period, members of the public are invited to submit written comments, which will be incorporated into the Final EIR document. · Pointed out that the EIR is intended to identify significant environmental impacts and potential physical changes. Tools include both a Traffic and Noise Study and evaluation of any changes in geology as a result of the General Plan Update. · Clarified that the focus of this evening's public comment period is to receive feedback on the adequacy of the analysis. Staff will gather all comments after September l0th and incorporate them into the Final EIR. Commissioner Gibbons asked if another hearing would occur to review the Final EIR. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that it would be considered at the same heating where adoption of the Final EIR will occur. Cautioned that this review period of the Draft EIR is the time for comments. Commissioner Gibbons asked what the final deadline is for the Final EIR. Director Sharon Fierro advised that the Final EIR will go to Council on November 6th, after having been considered by the Planning Commission on October 23ra together with the General Plan Update. Acting Chair Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. There were no parties present wishing to address the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 3 Acting Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. PLN2001-82 Calloway, D. Public Heating to consider the application of Ms. Deborah Calloway, on behalf of Green Valley Corporation, for approval of a Site and Architectural Permit (PLN2001-82) to allow the construction of a two-story retail/office building of 30,050 square feet on property located at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue in the C-3-S (Central Business District) zoning District. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2001. City Attorney William Seligmann advised the Commission that he has a conflict of interest and will be unable to advise the Commission on this Agenda Item. Arrangements have been made with Robert J. Logan to act as counsel on this proposal. (Note: City Attorney William Seligmann left the dais and Acting Counsel Robert J. Logan joined staff at the dais.) Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicants seek a Site and Architectural Permit for a Downtown project that includes a number of lots that have been combined on E. Campbell Avenue between Second and Third Streets. Informed that seven lots were acquired by the Redevelopment Agency. A portion of the property is under construction with the City's new parking structure. This portion along the southerly side of the property is proposed to be developed with a mixed-use retail/office building. The first floor would be occupied by restaurant and/or retail uses and the second floor would be occupied by office uses. · Pointed out that the RDA entered into a Downtown Development Agreement (DDA) in February 2001. Barry Swenson Builders was selected with a proposal to construct a 30,000 square foot, two-story building. · Added that the proposal is consistent with the DDA proposal, with the C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning and development standards. · Said that if restaurant uses are proposed, the specific restaurant use will require a Conditional Use Permit for approval of a liquor license, operational hours later than 11 p.m. or inclusion of any live entertainment. · Advised that the Downtown Development Policies encourage traditional building architecture. · Said that the proposed building incorporates five different facades along Campbell Avenue, ranging from Mediterranean to Traditional design styles. · Informed that the developer will be paying an in-lieu parking fee of $600,000 for non- exclusive use of the public parking structure, a three level parking garage with 300 spaces. The project requires 90 spaces. · Staff is recommending that the Commission grant a Negative Declaration and adopt a Resolution approving this project. Commissioner Hemandez asked staff for more details about the future requirement for Use Permits for restaurant uses. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that this Site and Architectural approval is for the building shell and not for any specific tenants. If a restaurant tenant leases space in this building and plans uses requiring a Use Permit, that tenant will need to obtain any necessary Conditional Use Permits through the City. Commissioner Hernandez asked whether the parking credit will accommodate any potential uses of the building. Director Sharon Fierro clarified that the upstairs space will be limited to traditional office uses, exclusive of any medical/dental uses since they have a greater parking requirement standard than other office uses, and the downstairs space will be limited to retail or restaurant uses. Commissioner Gibbons inquired whether the parking demand for this site is satisfied by the parking garage. Questioned the impacts of other traffic such as delivery vehicles on this area. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that such traffic was also considered in the analysis. Acting Chair Francois presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this application on August 14th and was supportive. · Added that SARC believes this project will be a good compliment to the Downtown. Said that SARC had asked for operable windows on the second floor, enhancement of a blank wall near the lobby entrance and improvements to a pedestrian walkway. Acting Chair Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Deborah Calloway, Green Valley Corporation/Barry Swenson Builders, Applicant: · Declared that it has been a pleasure working with City staff on the development of this proposal. · Expressed confidence that they will bring this building to occupancy on schedule and at about the same time that the City's parking structure is completed. Mr. Bruno Marcelic, Project Architect, 365 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell: · Informed the Commission that he has amended the elevations and made the additions requested by SARC including the addition of operable windows on the second floor and enhancing the elevation next to the lobby. Acting Chair Francois expressed appreciation and commended Mr. Marcelic on his diligent work on this project. Acting Chair Francois closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hernandez, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3372 adopting a Negative Declaration and granting a Site and Architectural Permit Planning Commission Minut.s of August 28, 2001 Page 5 (PLN2001-82) to allow the construction of a two-story retail/office building of 30,050 square feet on property located at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue. AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez and Jones NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom and Lowe ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Francois advised that this project will be considered by Council at its meeting of September 18, 2001. Acting Chair Francois read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3 PLN2001-27 Ferrari, C. Public Heating to consider an Appeal by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of Rose Villas II Homeowners Association, of an Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) to allow the removal of an ash tree on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision 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 through an Administrative Procedure the applicant was denied a Tree Removal Permit to remove an evergreen ash located within an interior courtyard of a 28- unit townhome complex constructed in the mid 1970s. · Described the tree as being 28-inches in diameter. The tree is healthy and its age is unknown. The tree is situated within three feet of a walkway and wall and is lifting the wall, patio and walkway, has caused damage to lighting and irrigation and caused difficulty in opening the door of a water heater closet. · Said that despite these problems, this request does not meet the required findings for a staff level approval under the provisions of the City's Tree Ordinance. · Upon the Administrative denial, the applicant has appealed the decision to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, the Secretary of the Homeowners' Association as well as the property owner most impacted by this tree, is the appellant in this matter. · Pointed out that the applicant's arborist has documented that the amount of pruning of the root system required would be detrimental to the health of the tree and could lead to the tree's future demise. The arborist is recommending that this tree be removed and replaced with a more suitable species for the location. · Advised that the Commission has three options this evening. It can adopt a Resolution upholding the denial and denying the appeal; it can adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal and overturning the administrative denial; or it can continue consideration to a future date. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Doorley requested clarification on attachment #3 in the staff report. Ms. Darcy Smith clarified that these are Conditions of Approval in the event that the Commission elects to uphold the appeal and allow the removal of this tree. Commissioner Hemandez asked for the criteria whereby such a request could be approved. Ms. Darcy Smith replied that visible cracking of the structure is a key piece of evidence that a tree is undermining a main structure. Agreed that there is a fine line as the Code says that there just needs to be the potential for damage. At this time, there is no structural damage (walls, walkways and patios are not considered structures). Commissioner Hernandez asked staffhow far this tree is from the structure. Ms. Darcy Smith replied 15 feet from the main structure but that the tree is closer to the wall. Acting Chair Francois asked if the claim of difficulty in opening the water heater door has been verified. Ms. Darcy Smith said that it appeared to be slightly difficult but not impossible. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner, interjected that he had made two site visits and at the second visit the owner did demonstrate that it is impossible to open the closet door at this time. In order to do so, the applicant must remove the door hinges. Commissioner Hernandez asked staffwhat is the purpose of the Tree Ordinance. Ms. Darcy Smith replied that the intent of the Tree Protection Ordinance (adopted in 1998) is the protection of healthy live trees, which are a benefit to all the residents of this complex and area. The Tree Ordinance protects a variety of trees over 12-inches in diameter. Added that this particular tree would be protected even in an R-1 Zoning District as it is a specifically protected species. Acting Chair Francois opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Nancy Mars, Vice President, Rose Villas II Homeowners Association, 109 W. Rincon Avenue: · Provided a board of photographs demonstrating the damage to the sidewalk and patio. · Pointed out that the sidewalk has been raised one foot, the patio wall has been raised and the water closet door can no longer be opened. · Added that an arborist has warned that roots from this tree will compromise sewer facilities in the future. · Added that it is not economically feasible for this property owner, a single woman, to fix all the potential future damage caused by this tree. · Said that they all love this tree and wish it could be retained. It is being replaced reluctantly after careful consideration. Planning Commission Minings of August 28, 2001 Page 7 · Added that if the roots are now cut on the house side, the tree would be compromised per the arborist. · Reminded that there are 24 trees on this property. Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, Applicant and Owner of 110 Salice Way, Campbell: · Said that one of the key reasons she purchased her home was the abundance of trees. · Reminded that there are 24 trees for a 28 units complex. · Pointed out that the impacted utility closet is indeed a part of the main structure. · Advised that a plumber has recently warned her of the potential for roots resulting in plumbing and sewer problems. · Clarified that this is not just a tree removal request but rather a request to replace a tree causing troubles with a more suitable species. Commissioner Jones asked Ms. Ferrari if she was supportive of the request to plant a 36-inch box tree. Ms. Carolyn Ferrari said that the arborist is recommending a deciduous tree such as a maple and that she is interested in installing a mature tree. Commissioner Jones asked staff for a ballpark cost for a 36-inch box tree. Director Sharon Fierro replied approximately $500 depending upon species. Ms. Carolyn Ferrari said that she is willing to pay that much. Added that even if the Homeowners Association does not authorize that much, she will assume the difference. Acting Chair Francois asked Ms. Ferrari if the neighbors have been consulted. Ms. Carolyn Ferrari replied that it was actually her next door neighbor who brought the problems to her attention and suggested that this tree be replaced. Said that the benefits of the tree are the provision of shade and therefore cooling of her home during the summer months. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the Homeowners Association is supportive of this replacement plan. Ms. Nancy Mars said that she did not believe the issue was put to a general vote. Ms. Carolyn Ferrari advised that actually the HOA did vote on the issue months ago and prior to Ms. Mars moving to the complex and joining the Board. The vote was in support of the removal and replacement of this tree. Acting Chair Francois closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Doorley: Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 8 Said that he is typically a defender of the Tree Ordinance but after speaking with the neighbor and viewing the damage on site, this instance is an example of when the letter of the Ordinance does not suit. · Pointed out that the gate doesn't close properly, the water heater closet does not open and there is considerable patio damage. · Added that he is convinced that the residents of this complex are removing and replacing this tree grudgingly. Commissioner Jones stated his support for this replacement and there is an obvious need. Suggested to lower the replacement tree size to 24-inch box instead of the more expensive 36- inch box. Acting Chair Francois disagreed to that recommendation, adding that a "mature" tree is the key phrase and the applicant is willing to replace this tree with a large mature tree. Commissioner Jones said that it is his personal opinion that this requirement is a heavy financial burden on the applicant. City Attorney Seligmann advised that the Commission actually has no discretion to reduce the size of the replacement tree. The requirements are spelled out in the Code. Commissioner Hemandez added that it is a tough call but that the Commission must live by the Ordinance. Agreed that there is the potential to cause damage and that he could support the replacement of this tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hernandez, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3373 upholding an appeal and granting a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) to allow the removal of an evergreen ash tree on common area property located at 108 and 110 Salice Way. AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez and Jones NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom and Lowe ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Jones asked if this applicant paid the $100 Appeal Fee. Director Sharon Fierro replied yes. Commissioner Jones asked if there is a provision for refund. Director Sharon Fierro replied no. Commissioner Jones suggested that the Commission consider asking Council to refund the $100 Appeal Filing Fee to this applicant. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 9 Commissioner Gibbons asked why an exception to this fee is warranted. Commissioner Doorley explained that he was one of the few supporters on the Planning Commission on the appeals fee. His support was contingent on the fact that the City Council could refund the appeals fee in worthy circumstances, and he feels that this is such a worthy circumstance. Commissioner Jones agreed. Added that he specifically does not like to see an Appeal fee on Administrative decisions. Commissioner Gibbons cautioned that this discussion has already been held and Council adopted the imposition of the Appeal fee. Director Sharon Fierro added that Council had discussed the potential for refunding fees for successful appeals but rejected that idea. City Attorney William Seligmann said that Council does have the authority to refund if it elects to do so. Acting Chair Francois suggested a minute action asking Council to consider the refund of this Appeal fee in this case. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission took minute action asking that Council consider issuing a refund of the $100 Appeals Filing Fee paid by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari in order to Appeal the Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) on property located at 108 and 110 Salice Way. AYES: Doorley, Francois, Hernandez and Jones NOES: Gibbons ABSENT: Lindstrom and Lowe ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Francois advised that this action is final in 10 days unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk and added that the request for refund is solely at the discretion of Council. 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 there will be two agenda items at the September 11th Planning Commission meeting. · Informed that Council is forming an Anniversary Planning Committee to plan the celebration of the City's 50th mllniversary. Each Board and Commission is asked to appoint a representative on this Committee. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 10 · Announced that Chair Lindstrom has submitted his letter of resignation from the Planning Commission effective at the end of September. Commissioner Doorley expressed his desire and interest in serving on the City's 50th Anniversary Planning Committee. The other Commissioners thanked Commissioner Doorley for his willingness to take this responsibility on. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. to a Study Session immediately following on the Housing Element and subsequently to the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 2001, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. _ ~ SUBMITTED BY: ~, ~nne A. Shinn, Record~n-~'S~cretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Tom Francois, Acting Chair Sharon Fierro, Secretary