Loading...
PC Min 04/11/2000CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY APRIL 11, 2000 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 2000, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairperson Gibbons, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Elizabeth Gibbons Tom Francois Brad Jones Susan A. Kearns Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Joseph D. Hernandez Staff Present: Interim Community Development Director: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Tim J. Haley Aki Irani William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of March 28, 2000, were approved. (5- 0-2, Commissioners Hernandez and Lindstrom were absent) COMMUNICATIONS. 1. Letter from VTA re Agenda Item No. 2. 2. Revised Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No. 2. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Gibbons advised the Commission that Agenda Items withdrawn from consideration at the request of the applicants. No. 1 and 3 are being Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. PLN2000-25/ PLN2000-26 Grayson, B. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Brock Grayson, on behalf of Legacy Partners, for approval of a Site and Architectural Application (PLN2000-25) to allow modifications to existing commercial buildings and approval of a Parcel Map Application (PLN2000-26) to create four parcels on property located at 200-254 Hacienda Avenue and 1315-1357 Dell Avenue in a CM/B-80 (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicants are seeking a Site and Architectural Approval to remodel an existing commercial development at the intersections of Hacienda and Dell Avenues. The project site is 20 acres and contains seven buildings with a total of 308,000 square feet of interior space. The site was redeveloped in the early 80's. · Stated that as part of this application, the applicant is seeking approval of a Parcel Map subdividing the site into four parcels. Added that the parking lot will be reconfigured, adding additional spaces and dock doors will be eliminated. Landscaping will be added and a redefined site entry from Dell Avenue. · The applicants proposed to complete exterior painting and landscaping by September 2000. · The buildings are currently occupied with leases nearing their expiration dates. Buildings will be refurbished as they are vacated. · The proposed uses will be more Research and Development with an emphasis on office use. The original uses included office, warehouse and manufacturing. · The General Plan designated use is Industrial and the Zoning is CM-80 (Controlled Manufacturing with minimum lot sizes of 80,000 square feet. · The proposed Parcel Map creates four lots at or above 80,000 square feet. · Staff recommends the requirement for CC&R's to ensure the maintenance of common areas. · The project site is currently known as the Hacienda Business Park and will be renamed the Vasona Technology Park. · Street improvements will include the installation of sidewalks while the specific location for the sidewalks has not yet been identified. · A letter from VTA was distributed as a Communication Item as this site is adjacent to the future Light Rail Station at Hacienda and Winchester. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 3 · Staff recommends that the Commission adopt two Resolutions recommending that Council approve a Site and Architectural Application and Tentative Parcel Map for this project. Commissioner Lowe asked why the applicant wishes to subdivide the site. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that by subdividing the property, opportunities for individual ownership of the commercial buildings is possible. Commissioner Lowe expressed concern about the potential to lose continuity of the site if the buildings are separately owned. Mr. Tim J. Haley agreed that that was possible but that the applicant could better address their reasons for parcelization. Commissioner Lowe asked about a sign program for the site. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that there is no signing program proposed at this time for the site. The Conditions of Approval contain a provision requiring that a Sign Program be developed and approved by the City at a later date. Commissioner Francois asked if the City had any obligation to the VTA for the comments in its letter. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the letter represents feedback and recommendations. They suggest providing less parking but the site is developed with parking ratios of 1:250 or four per 1,000 square feet, consistent with Campbell's Parking Standards. Chairperson Gibbons clarified that staff is recommending that parking be provided that meets the City's Parking Ordinance. She asked about the suggestion for providing parking for bicycles contained in the VTA letter. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the applicants are not adverse to accommodating bicycles on site. The Public Works department is addressing accessibility issues on the site in relation to a future Light Rail Station. Chairperson Gibbons asked why the Tree Ordinance is not mentioned. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that staff will consider trees when a specific landscape plan is provided and reviewed. Chairperson Gibbons asked if the landscape plan will be reviewed by staff or the Commission. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the Commission would review and approve the landscape plan, if trees are removed. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 4 Chairperson Gibbons expressed concern about eliminating all loading docks, stating that having a place for trucks to park and unload which do not block circulation on site is a good thing. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that while the majority of the loading dock areas will be eliminated, some loading doors would be retained. Much of the warehousing space is being converted into office space. Commissioner Francois presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee review as follows: · This project was reviewed by SARC on March 28, 2000. · SARC was supportive of the project with a request for revised color palette. Chairperson Gibbons asked if the revised color palette has been received. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the applicants are still working on the revised color palette. A Condition of Approval requires submittal and approval of the color palette. Chairperson Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. No one was present wishing to address this project. Chairperson Gibbons asked that a representative of the applicant approach the podium for questions. Commissioner Lowe asked for an explanation for the desire for parcelization. Mr. Brock Grayson, Applicant's Representative, 5000 Executive Parkway, San Ramon: · Advised that the today's market demands the ability to sell land and buildings in such a project. Chairperson Gibbons asked what would be done to ensure the maintenance of the campus. Mr. Brock Grayson advised that the CC&R's would cover maintenance issues. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Interim Community Development Director, added that architectural compatibility is not required amongst the buildings on this site. It is not required that it look like an office park. Commissioner Lowe expressed concerns about having widely divergent landscape schemes such as a "jungle" versus "desert" scene. Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that significant changes to the site would come before the Planning Commission and the Community Development Director would approve minor changes. She added that circulation and parking issues would be covered within the CC&R's to ensure that they remain shared. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 5 Chairperson Gibbons reiterated to Mr. Brock Grayson that the landscaping, sign program and project color scheme will need to be finalized in the future. Added that she is not thrilled with the parcelization of the site. Commissioner Lowe asked if this project meets the City's General Plan. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that each proposed parcel is larger that the 80,000 square feet required. The applicants had originally wanted to split the site into seven parcels but to do so was inconsistent with the Zoning, as not each parcel would have including the 80,000 square foot minimum lot size. Chairperson Gibbons suggested refining the CC&R's to require the continuity of the buildings' appearances. Added that the project should meet any HazMat requirements of the Fire Department within the Conditions of Approval. Chairperson Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission took the following action: 1. Adopted Resolution No. 3266 granting a Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-25) to allow modifications to seven existing commercial buildings on property located at 200-254 Hacienda Avenue and 1315-1357 Dell Avenue with the revisions of Condition 14 to require that the appearances of the buildings provide continuity and that HazMat Plans be filed with County Fire for uses on the site; and 2. Adopted Resolution No. 3267 approving a Parcel Map (PLN2000-26) to create four parcels on property located at 200-254 Hacienda Avenue and 1315-1357 Dell Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: Hernandez, Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Gibbons advised that this item is final in 10 days unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 6 PLN2000-32 (ZC)/ PLN2000-33 (TS)/ PLN2000-34 (PD)/ PLN2000-38 (TRP) Cahoon, G. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Glen Cahoon, on behalf of Shelley Properties, LLC, for approval of a Zone Change (PLN2000-32) to change the zoning of property from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2000-33) to create five parcels; approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2000-34) to allow the construction of five townhomes; and approval of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-38) on property located at 122 Shelley Avenue in an R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 2, 2000. Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicants are seeking approval of a Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development Permit and Tree Removal Permit, as well as adoption of a Negative Declaration for a five-unit townhome project at 122 Shelley Avenue. · Stated that the project site is on the south side of Shelley Avenue, west of Bascom Avenue and East of Whiteoaks Road. · The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and is being developed at a density of 10.4 units per gross acre. · The proposed zone change from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development) would allow five townhome units on individually owned lots. · Staff recommends a Negative Declaration, as there are no significant impacts from this project. · The proposal includes two two-story buildings, one containing three units, which would face Shelley Avenue and the other containing two units at the rear of the site. A 20-foot common interior driveway would provide access. There would be common front and side landscape areas. · Included is a Tree Removal Permit application to remove nine trees. A certified arborist's report states that these Pine and Cedar trees are in poor condition. Other trees are undersized and not protected under the Tree Ordinance. A replanting plan is required per the Tree Removal Permit. Staff advised that a letter was received from a concerned citizen asking that an attempt be made to save some of the trees. · Advised that 18 parking spaces are provided, 3.5 per unit, which meets the City's Parking Ordinance. · The Parcel Map creates six lots, five residential lots and one common driveway and landscape area lot. · Added that a Homeowner's Association would be formed. Staff recommends that the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to Council for this project. Chairperson Gibbons asked if additional information about the proposed windows for the project is available. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 7 Ms. Aki Irani advised that at this time added information about the specific windows is not available. Chairperson Gibbons wondered if the windows depicted on the drawings were actually those proposed or were simply generic windows. Ms. Aki Irani answered that the windows depicted were actually those being proposed for the project. Commissioner Francois presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting as follows: · This project was reviewed by SARC on March 28, 2000. · SARC was supportive of the project with the requirement of added decorative paving in the front of each garage and on the common driveway. Chairperson Gibbons asked whether that requirement has been met. Ms. Aki Irani advised that the requirement for decorative paving has been added to the Conditions of Approval but the plans have not yet been resubmitted depicting that addition. Chairperson Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Glen Cahoon, Applicant's Representative, 296 Kansas Way, Fremont: · Advised Chairperson Gibbons that the windows he proposes to use are International Vinyl Windows. These windows look like wood but are made of vinyl for easy maintenance. They do not have to be painted. · Added that they have not yet submitted landscaping plans which will depict the required decorative paving in the driveway and in front of the garages. Said that they are willing to make that addition at the request of SARC. Chairperson Gibbons asked about a letter received which seems to state that a tree has already been removed from the site. Mr. Glen Cahoon advised that, to his knowledge, no trees have been removed to date. Ms. Theresa LaVoy, 112 Shelley Avenue: · Advised that she lives adjacent to the project site in a single family residence, one of the only single family homes remaining in the neighborhood. · Expressed concern about loss of privacy with a two-story structure adjacent to her home and asked that anything possible is done to ensure privacy. · Asked that the proposed new fence be painted on her side to seal the fence and prevent deterioration. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 8 · Asked about the $10,990 credit in Park Impact Fees and whether she has any responsibility for such fees. Ms. Aki Irani advised that a developer, in lieu of providing open space, pays the Park Dedication Fee. The money is placed in a fund used to purchase future public parks. The $10,990 credit is as a result that a single-family already exists on the site. A Park Fee will be paid for the remaining four units. Mr. Glen Cahoon suggested that adding additional fast growing trees, such as Italian Cypress, would help with screening. Offered to remove a smaller, secondary window in one of the bedrooms which would look out onto this single family residence. Ms. Theresa Laboy said that would be a satisfactory solution. Chairperson Gibbons asked Mr. Cahoon about the request to paint the neighbor's side of the new fence. Mr. Glen Cahoon advised that the proposed fence is a normal, six-foot high good neighbor fence. If the Commission conditions the requirement to paint the neighbor's side of the fence, they could do so. Ms. Theresa Laboy advised that there is an existing fence but that it is not in good condition because it was never sealed. Commissioner Lowe stated that it is not fair to ask the applicant to paint the neighbor's side of the fence. The new fence will be better than what is currently in place. Commissioner Francois concurred. Stated that it would be precedent setting and intrusive to ask the applicant to paint the neighbor's side of the fence. Ms. Theresa Laboy clarified that they are not concerned about paint but rather that the fence be sealed. Commissioner Lowe stated that since Ms. Laboy is not being asked to pay for half the new fence, she could assume the cost of sealing the fence on her side of the property. Ms. Melinda Foss, 134 Shelley Avenue: · Advised that she has looked at the proposed plans and has a problem with the driveway, which is located adjacent to the fence shared with her property. · Expressed concern that no landscape strip is planned adjacent to the driveway, separating it from her backyard fence. · Also expressed concern about noise issues with the driveway and no landscape barrier as the bedroom and kitchen windows in her development face that new driveway. · Said that removing trees creates privacy issues. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 9 · Stated that having no landscaping between the driveway and fence creates added heat on her development. Said this area would not look good without trees and/or shrubs. Mr. Glen Cahoon: · Stated that the driveway width is 20 feet minimum, the backup width is 25 feet and parking spaces are 20 feet long. The garages are 20 feet, 8 inches. · Suggested a two-foot strip for shrubbery, with Italian Cypress being an excellent fast-growing type, which would quickly provide good screening. · Added that there is also a curb separating the driveway from the fence. · Stated that the windows for the new units are 45 feet from the property line to Ms. Foos' property. Aki Irani advised that staff has reviewed the proposed project and that if the buildings are moved back a couple of feet, a two foot planting strip can be placed separating the driveway from the fence. Mr. Ray Rasolas, 130 Shelley Avenue: · Asked that the trees (or shrubs, he was not sure which) on the northeast corner be retained. · Stated that they are tall and provide excellent screening. Ms. Aki Irani:s · Stated that she is not sure whether these shrubs/trees are slated for retention or removal as they are not depicted on the site plan. · Said that they might even be located on the adjacent property rather than on the project site. · Suggested that the project arborist to take a look at them. Mr. Glen Cahoon advised that he is not aware of those trees and they may or may not be on the project site. They also may be too small to be included on the arborist's report. Ms. Aki Irani advised that the diameter of the trunk would have to be at least 12 inches at four feet above grade. Mr. Ray Rasolas stated that these trees/shrubs are less than 12 inches in diameter but still encouraged that they be retained to act as a buffer in providing screening. Chairperson Gibbons suggested that the applicant work with the neighbors as appropriate. Ms. Ann Bastovan, 132 Shelley Avenue: · Said the trees are 12-year-old Fruitless Mulberries at the property line as she gave the trees to her neighbors in pots. · Asked that the landscape buffer be included to help prevent cars from coming through the fence into their yards and homes. · Expressed concern about safety without the landscape buffer. · Asked that as much green be salvaged and maintained as is possible. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 10 Commissioner Lowe asked about the size of the trees in question. Ms. Ann Bastovan said what she can say is that those trees are 12 years mature. Mr. Kevin Riley, Tenant, 122 Shelley: · Said that he has lived on the project site for the last seven months and that he was aware of the future plans for the site when he moved in on a month-to-month basis. · Advised that there are 17 different bird species living in these trees on site slated for removal. · Said that he has talked with several arborists who have had differing opinions on the viability of the trees proposed for removal. Chairperson Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Lowe pointed out that eight significant trees will be retained on site. Chairperson Gibbons expressed concern about the proximity of the driveway to the adjacent property. Commissioner Kearns suggested moving the buildings to allow space for the planting strip along the fence adjacent to the driveway and suggested trying to retain the Mulberry trees at the property line as requested by the neighbor. Commissioner Lowe asked for clarification about SARC's position on trees. Commissioner Francois clarified that SARC did not spend a lot of time discussing the tree removal. SARC was supportive of this project with the addition of decorative paving on the driveway and in front of each garage. Commissioner Lowe: · Pointed out that the adjacent parcel is of a similar size to the project site and is developed with six townhome units. · This project fits into the neighborhood. · Stated that density issues are tough and that he does not like to see crowding but this is a good project. The applicant has mitigated issues as much as possible. · Said that pushing back the placement of the buildings does not make sense as it means losing rear yard space. · This project is reasonable and prudent. Commissioner Jones asked for the reasons behind the PD Zoning for this project. Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the current zoning permits apartments of up to six units. The PD zoning allows this parcel to be developed with units that can be individually owned. A PD Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 11 zoning designation can be applied if the project developed under that zoning is superior to what can be developed under the current zoning. Commissioner Jones asked what variations from the current zoning this project has. Ms. Aki Irani advised that the front setbacks are met while the side yard setbacks are not. The PD Zoning offers more flexibility. Chairperson Gibbons stated that she would like to see the placement of the building adjusted to allow the landscape buffer along the driveway. Said that overall this is a good project, similar to others. Expressed support for the project and suggested that the site plan be returned to staff regarding the landscaping issues. Commissioner Kearns stated her agreement for the need for the landscape buffer along the driveway. Commissioner Lowe asked just how much landscape was suggested along the driveway. Chairperson Gibbons suggested leaving that up to staff. Commissioner Lowe asked what would be gained by adding the landscape buffer. Chairperson Gibbons stated that privacy, head build up, and shade, aesthetic and good neighbor issues are met with the landscape buffer. Commissioner Jones suggested flipping the project over. Chairperson Gibbons reopened the Public Hearing to allow the applicant to return to the podium to respond to that suggestion. Mr. Glen Cahoon replied that there are similar townhome projects on both sides of this project site. Similar issues would occur whether the project orientation is flipped or not. Commissioner Lowe asked for a recess to allow staff time to provide a clearer aerial photograph of the area. Chairperson Gibbons called a recess at 8:52 p.m. Chairperson Gibbons reconvened the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Interim Community Development Director: · Provided an overview of the discussion to this point. · Advised that planning staff has worked closely with the applicant on this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 12 · In looking at the aerial, it is clear the building can be moved back two feet which would allow more landscaping on the easterly property line. To retain the trees at the entrance of the driveway, the project arborist can be consulted to determine the viability of those particular trees. Chairperson Gibbons re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission took the following action: 1. Recommended that Council adopt a Negative Declaration for this project; and 2. Adopted Resolution No. 3268 recommending approval of a Zone Change (PLN2000-32) from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development) for property located at 122 Shelley Avenue; and 3. Adopted Resolution No. 3269 recommending approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2000-33) to create five parcels; and 4. Adopted Resolution No. 3270 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2000-34) and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000- 38) with an amendment to Condition 3-E to have the applicant submit a revised site plan to the Community Development Director adjusting the placement of the front units to accomplish a two-foot wide planting buffer on the easterly side of the project along the driveway and to try and retain the existing Fruitless Mulberry trees at the front easterly property line; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Kearns NOES: Jones, Lowe ABSENT: Hernandez, Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Gibbons advised that this item will go before City Council for final approval on May 2, 2000. Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 5 into the record. 5. CIP 2000-2007 Staff Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell's 2000-2007 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 2, 2000. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 13 · Advised that the CIP is prepared each year to plan for the acquisition and maintenance of publicly owned property such as the Community Center, City Hall and Public Parks. · Any expenditure over $25,000 is incorporated into the CIP. · Government Code Section 65403-C requires that the Commission make the determination that the CIP is consistent with the City's General Plan and make an environmental determination. · Staff conducted an Initial Study on three projects within the CIP. The majority of the projects within the CIP are exempt. · Advised that the Commission received a copy of the CIP at it's last meeting to allow two weeks time to review the material prior to this evening's meeting. · Staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be supported, that the Commission find the CIP to be consistent with the City's General Plan and that the Commission recommend that Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the 2000-2007 CIP. Commissioner Lowe asked for clarification about Deferred Street Maintenance, asking if the City has to pay to defer street maintenance. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the fact that Deferred Street Maintenance is within the CIP means that it is now funded. Chairperson Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Chairperson Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission moved to find the CIP 2000-2007 to be consistent with the General Plan and recommended that Council adopt a Negative Declaration for CIP 2000-2007. (5-0-2; Commissioners Hernandez and Lindstrom were absent.) Chairperson Gibbons advised that this item would go to Council for final action at its meeting of May 2, 2000. Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 6 into the record. 6. Staff Update on Home Depot code violations and neighborhood complaints. Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the code violations and neighborhood complaints regarding the Home Depot were brought to the attention of the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 8, 2000, during Oral Requests. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 14 · The Commission asked staff to bring this matter back before the Commission in two months for a status report. · Staff is pleased to report that Home Depot has made good faith efforts to correct the issues. · Home Depot hosted a neighborhood meeting on March 24, 2000, and 12 neighbors attended. · Home Depot has changed their operations, specifically late night operations; posted operating hours for specific functions in the Home Depot Manager's Office; plans to conduct regular neighborhood meetings; and has plans to begin work replanting the damaged landscaping and curbs. · Advised that the neighbors and Home Depot have settled on Redwood Trees to replace the diseased Pine Trees that need to be removed. · Stated that neighbors report an improvement with the reduction of truck traffic. · Advised that Mr. Robert Nicholas, the person who originally addressed the Commission of February 8, 2000, called to say that work prevents him from attending this evening's meeting but that he wanted to express his appreciation to Home Depot and Planning Commission on the efforts to date. Asks that Home Depot continues the good job and makes efforts to maintain the landscaping on the property. · Informed that staff will continue to work with Home Depot and the neighbors. Commissioner Lowe stated that as long as Mr. Nicholas is happy, he is happy. Chairperson Gibbons thanked staff for their efforts in facilitating a solution to these problems between the neighbors and Home Depot. Ms. Sharon Fierro extended her congratulations to the Home Depot Manager who is present this evening. Chairperson Gibbons said that the manager's personal commitment as well as his company's commitment is evident. Thanked him. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Interim Community Development Director, was accepted as presented, with the added comment: · Advised that the Scandinavian Concepts sign request was continued to the Council meeting of May 2, 2000. The Planning Commission recommended denial. · Informed that the Urgency Ordinance was adopted by Council granting a 45 day moratorium on development in the Harrison/Central area. Staff has been directed to prepare a permanent Ordinance that would be in effect until September when the General Plan Update is scheduled to be completed. · Advised that SARC will meet on April 25, 2000. Planning Commission Minutes of April 11, 2000 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2000, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, ~S~cretary APPROVED BY: ~b~eth-~il~b~)ns, Chair- ATTEST: Sharon Fierro, Secretary