Loading...
PC Min - 11/26/20197:30 P.M. CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2019 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of November 26, 2019 was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Rivlin and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Senior Planner: Planning Intern: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Andrew Rivlin Mike Krey Adam Buchbinder Stuart Ching Nick Colvill Terry Hines Maggie Ostrowski Paul Kermoyan Daniel Fama Cindy McCormick Theo Dubus William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Buchbinder, seconded by Commissioner Ching, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of November 12, 2019, were approved as submitted with changes provided by Commissioners Buchbinder and Ching that have already been implemented. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Ostrowski was absent and Commissioner Colvill abstained as he was not yet appointed nor in attendance at the November 12, 2019, PC meeting) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS Director Paul Kermoyan listed the following item(s): • Desk item providing two corrected draft resolutions for the Chick-Fil-A project at 2060 S. Bascom, which are attachments to the draft minutes for November 12, 2019, which were adopted this evening. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL REQUESTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Rivlin asked if there were any disclosures on Item 1. There were none. Chair Rivlin read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2019-144 (ASA) Public Hearing to consider the appeal of Ortal Liberty of PLN2019-196 (TRP) denial of an Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2019-144) and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2019-196) to allow construction of a 2-story 3,600 square -foot single-family residence and removal of two (2) protected Deodar Cedar trees located in the front yard, on property located at 505 Sunnybrook Drive. Staff is recommending that this item be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, provided the staff report. Chair Rivlin asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner Ching asked when the appellants purchased this property. Planner Daniel Fama said that is unknown. Commissioner Buchbinder asked whose privacy staff is attempting to protect with the provision for side walls on the balcony at the back. Planner Daniel Fama replied the side neighbors' privacy. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 3 Commissioner Krey: • Clarified with staff that the requirement for an inset balcony is not specifically required but rather is what has evolved. • Asked who pays for an independent arborist should one be secured for this project. How much might it cost? Planner Daniel Fama said the applicant and it would range between $600 and $700. Commissioner Krey pointed out that the power lines are within the canopy of these two trees. Planner Daniel Fama advised that the appellant's arborist found the structure of these two trees to be in fair condition and still structurally stable, notwithstanding trimming by PG&E. Chair Rivlin said it seems the interpretation is to move the proposed new home back by 10 to 20 feet, but the appellant objects. Planner Daniel Fama reported that the appellants want to maximize the size of their backyard. Chair Rivlin opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Ortal Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Stated that her household consists of her, her husband, four young kids and her parents. • Explained that this property was bought with the intention of tearing down the existing home and rebuilding it to better accommodate their three -generational household. • Admitted that their arborist rated the trees as healthy but still recommended their removal for several reasons: o Interference with power lines o Proximity to the home o Creation of an unusual hardship o Creating a drastic lowering of value of the property. • Pointed out that being asked to push their house back to a 60-foot front setback takes away a large area from their proposed backyard. • Added that they are planning both a pool and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the future and this reduction in rear yard space will limit their options for both. • Reported that their neighbor to the left was allowed to remove a similarly placed tree when they reconstructed the home on that property. • Stated that it is her dream to build a house much like her neighbor's house. • Advised that their home design included a large balcony on the second floor that the City would not support. They were requiring either two small balconies on either side of what they had initially proposed or a smaller one centered where they wanted it placed. • Said that changes are expensive to them. They are currently paying both the mortgage on this property as well as rental on the house they currently are residing in. • Stated that she is seeking the same permissions her neighbor received. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 4 Commissioner Hines thanked Ms. Liberty for considering Campbell for her family. Mr. David "Mor" Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Stated if they were to go with a one-story home, it would take up a large amount of their backyard. • Added that they are being asked to provide a minimum 40-foot distance from the tree's canopy and root system by pushing the house further back from the front property line. • Admitted that he knows the trees are currently healthy but pushing the setback further back leaves them with just a 30-foot rear yard for their children. • Said that the balcony would be right on top of their back neighbors if their house must be pushed so far back and closer to them. Ms. Ortal Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Stated that she has been dreaming for many years to build her "dream house." • Said that right now she can't because the City will not allow them to although two nearby neighbors were allowed to remove their front yard trees in order to construct their dream homes. That includes the home at 540 Sunnybrook Drive as well as the one right next door to their property. Commissioner Hines asked the appellants if they have other landscaping plans for their property. Mr. David "Mor" Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Said that they have general plans. • Added that they are willing to donate and/or to plant similar trees in their backyard to replace what must be removed in front. Ms. Ortal Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Added that they also will want an ADU in the future for their parents as well as a swimming pool later. Commissioner Colvill: • Stated that he understands that the reason the neighbor was able to remove their tree was the result of an error on the City's part. Mr. David "Mor" Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Pointed out that the staff error was not just one mistake for one neighbor, but it happened twice. Commissioner Colvill: • Said that he simply wanted to clarify that the tree removals they have brought up were allowed in error. • Pointed out that the first house plans submitted by these new owners after they purchased their property required the removal of these two trees. • Asked if there was ever any plan to try and keep these trees. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 5 Mr. David "Mor" Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Replied no. Commissioner Colvill: • Asked if the appellants were aware of any City Ordinances that might prevent their intended removal of these trees. • Inquired if they had sought any City approval for their removal. Mr. David "Mor" Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Stated that they wouldn't have purchased this property if they had known removal of the trees would be any problem. Ms. Ortel Liberty, Appellant and Owner of 505 Sunnybr000k Drive: • Recounted that it was a very hot real estate market and there were 15 offers made on this property. • Added that there was no time available to check in with the City first. They just had to go ahead and buy. Commissioner Colvill asked in what manner is this situation preventing them from achieving the full enjoyment of their future home. Mr. David "Mor" Liberty said that they will likely sell the property and move on if they are not able to build as they want to build. Commissioner Krey: • Said that these trees that are currently there. They are big and beautiful trees. • Stated that consideration of removal of these trees must include questions such as whether these trees are an asset. Would keeping them lower the property value as claimed? Are these trees a detriment? Are they a negative or a positive? Mr. David "Mor" Liberty, said that they had thought it would be easy to remove these trees. They didn't anticipate having to include a 40-foot front setback from the root system of these trees. Commissioner Krey asked the appellants if they are certain that they would not be able to put in an ADU if their house must be pushed further back on the lot? Mr. David "Mor" Liberty, said that they are likely to be required to push the house's setback by 40 or more feet, which would leave them with no backyard anymore. Chair Rivlin asked the appellants to clarify the drawings they provided this evening. Mr. David "Mor" Liberty explained that there are three depictions. The second one is what was initially submitted and the third is what is now being required minimally in regard to setback from the trees. Ms. Ortel Liberty said that their house would look very weird if it must be pushed back so far onto their lot. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 6 Commissioner Buchbinder asked how the original house was put there anyway? Planner Daniel Fama replied that the original house was constructed in the 1950's and these trees were likely also planted either before or at the same time. Commissioner Buchbinder asked if these mature trees were not there would a greater front setback be allowed on this property? Or would it be a problem? Planner Daniel Fama said it could potentially be a problem. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Reminded the Commission that tree preservation is a development standard. • Pointed out that staff had recommended the appellants letting staff hire a neutral arborist to identify how best to build their house while preserving these trees. They didn't want to do that and so we are here on appeal. • Stated that if the house is set back because of unique environmental conditions that would be okay. Commissioner Hines asked if there is a development standard option of tree replacement in lieu of retention. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said tree replacement is required if a tree removal permit is approved. • Advised that the first priority is tree retention. • Explained that economic enjoyment is impacted if they are not able to enjoy the reasonable use of their property in the same way as their neighbors. It has been proven that there is no loss of economic enjoyment. Chair Rivlin asked if the 40-foot front setback comes from the City or the owners' arborist. Planner Daniel Fama replied it was a recommendation from their arborist. Chair Rivlin sought confirmation from staff that in order to "prove" that these owners can safely build their new home closer than 40-feet from these protected trees, it would require a third -party arborist's report. Planner Daniel Fama stated that the property owners didn't want to fund that third -party arborist's report due to concerns about project delays. Commissioner Buchbinder asked if this project with the larger front setback would preclude these property owners from having an ADU in the future. r Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that is not the case as they would only need a four -foot rear setback with the new ADU Ordinance standards. • Stated that they would be allowed an ADU up to 800 square feet above their maximum -allowed FAR. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 7 • Added that their proposed covered patio columns could be removed thus opening more of the rear yard as usable open backyard space. Chair Rivlin thanked the appellants/property owners and asked if there are any other people present this evening who want to speak to this project. There were no others present wishing to speak to Item No. 1. Chair Rivlin closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Buchbinder: - • Said that the question is whether this is a reasonable requirement for the City to make. • Opined that the larger front setback would change the character of this house. • Admitted that the owners have the option to pay for the preparation of a neutral arborist's report to possibly figure out how to build their home closer to the front property line. Commissioner Hines: • Admitted that when looking at these two trees he sees the PG&E lines entwined throughout them. • Added that is going to have an impact down the road. • Asked if there was any feedback from PG&E. Planner Daniel Fama said that PG&E maintains their lines and has the right to trim trees beneath its lines. Commissioner Hines: • Said that he would support a two -for -one tree replacement tradeoff where the appellants are able to plant four new protected -species trees on site replacing the two they remove. Commissioner Colvill: • Said that it seems like a misunderstanding is causing financial/emotional concerns for these appellants. • Added that it is hard to decide here based on a misunderstanding caused by the error that allowed the neighbor to remove a tree. The appellants are using that mistake as a reason to allow them to do the same action (tree removal). • Stated that the appellants are providing a lot of push back regarding any change to their original proposal. They want a backyard as big as possible. • Admitted that he would like to see more enthusiasm by the appellants to work with the space they're given in their backyard. Commissioner Ching: • Admitted that he struggles with this one. These owners bought a house with big trees. Now they just want to cut them down. • Reminded that Campbell is "The Orchard City". • Suggested that these owners should have studied the development standards and what is possible before buying and planning for construction of a property. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 8 • Said that he understands that there were multiple buyers interested in this property, so these owners moved fast to buy it. • Commented that the STANP (San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan) was created in order to maintain the unique semi -rural character of this neighborhood. • Stated that here these owners plan to build a large house and to do so want to remove two big trees located in the front of the property. • Added that he has heard nothing this evening that compels him to allow this appeal for the removal of these two trees. Tree retention is a development standard in Campbell. • Stated that he also doesn't accept replacing these mature trees with younger smaller trees that would take 25 years to grow anywhere near the size of these. • Said that it is up to PG&E to trim away trees from their lines. • Concluded he supports keeping these trees. Commissioner Krey: • Agreed that this is a tough issue. • Admitted that he agrees with the comments just made by Commissioner Ching. These trees were there. They are beautiful trees. • Said that while it may be a hardship for these new owners to keep the trees, it's not enough of a hardship to change the Administrative denial decision for both the house as proposed and the tree removal. • Stated that it is a shame that an error allowed a neighbor to remove a tree under similar circumstances of these owners. • Said that there is room for compromise with recommendations from a neutral arborist. • Stated his support for the staff recommendation to deny this appeal. Chair Rivlin: • Thanked the appellants for the materials they brought forward tonight that depict that they could do different site layouts. • Suggested that perhaps use of some sort of substructure would allow them to construct their new home closer to these trees than currently projected. • Added that they will have the opportunity to have an ADU in their backyard in the future if they wish. • Pointed out that their front yard, if the larger setback is used, would also serve as enjoyable open space for this family. • Said that he is leaning toward denial. While it may seem unfair and/or unjust, this body has no leeway but rather must follow the Ordinance standards, which are the "laws" of our community. • Reiterated that the proposed third -party arborist's report might be helpful as would working further with City staff. Staff is willing to work with these owners to make their dream house come true. • Thanked the owners for adopting the changes required for their balcony at the back of the home. Commissioner Colvill: • Said that these owners have indicated that if they are not allowed to remove these trees, they may instead just sell this property and move on. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 9 • Stated that he would love to see them take a step back and reconsider that option. • Added that he can understand their frustration, but he thinks they should continue to work with Planning staff. • Pointed out that lots this size are not very common. • Concluded that he appreciates these owners being a part of Campbell. Chair Rivlin asked if staff is aware of any trees in this neighborhood being removed without permits. If so, perhaps Code Enforcement should investigate it. Planner Daniel Fama explained that code cases against single-family properties are complaint initiated. Opening such a case by staff is prohibited by Council policy unless a neighbor complains. Director Paul Kermoyan clarified that staff does respond to illegal removals unless they occur in real time. We can't go back years later for such enforcement. We have to catch the removal underway, document it and issue a violation. Commissioner Buchbinder: • Reiterated that the intention of the Tree Protection Ordinance is to preserve trees. • Stated that these owners could still build on their property, still have a yard and still have an ADU at a future date. • Said that with the suggested third -party arborist's report these owners may not have to go back quite so far from the front property line. Chair Rivlin reminded that the third option brought forward by the appellants this evening shows that there is no problem putting a new home on this property. Planner Daniel Fama agreed that Option 3 complies. Commissioner Colvill: • Questioned the subjectivity regarding the balcony at the back. • Pointed out that there is only one backyard behind this property. • Said that the bigger issue is the trees and the desire for the largest backyard possible for these appellants. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that no standard identifies specific heights and distances. It is important to use common sense. • Pointed out that an inset balcony diminishes your view angles. • Added that what is proposed is a "party deck" that is pretty big. • Concluded that views are reduced with an inset balcony. Commissioner Hines: • Said that the STANP has language about minimizing views from balconies onto adjacent properties. • Suggested the preference of using the front yard for open space and preserving the trees in that front yard. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 10 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Ching, seconded by Commissioner Krey, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4551 DENYING the appeal of Ortal Liberty of the denied Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2019-144) and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2019-196) to allow construction of a 2-story 3,600 square -foot single-family residence and removal of two (2) protected Deodar Cedar trees located in the front yard, on property located at 505 Sunnybrook Drive, with recommendations for use of an insert balcony on the back second floor and to have the revised home design subject to Administrative Site and Architectural Review and approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Buchbinder, Ching, Colvill, Hines, Krey and Rivlin NOES: None ABSENT: Ostrowski ABSTAIN: None Chair Rivlin advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. STUDY SESSION(S) Chair Rivlin read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. Presentation of Parking Analysis Report — Project Planner: Theo Dubus, Planning Intern Mr. Theo Dubus, Planning Intern, provided the staff report: • Reminded that Commissioners Buchbinder and Ching had requested a study on parking near transit be provided. • Added that at its meeting on July 9, 2019, the Commission considered an application for a Conditional Use Permit for Strike Brewing Company, located at 469 E. Campbell, which is in easy proximity to Light Rail. • Said that consideration of Strike Brewing's Use Permit generated a general discussion regarding the provision of commercial parking when near Light Rail. • Reported that he studied nationwide standards, state and local and learned the following: o Nationwide/American Planning Association ■ Reports that transit -oriented parking is best considered through local parking standards/studies, which are better than blanket nationwide standards. ■ Finds that small communities are generally well served in terms of parking provision. ■ Provides three areas of consideration with parking: 1. Determine land uses, available modes of travel, and cost of parking. 2. Review studies from other jurisdictions. 3. Survey the existing parking situation of your jurisdiction. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 11 • Added that at the July 9t" PC meeting, Commissioner Ching also suggested that staff look at other transportation options including rideshare and other newer transportation services. • Said that there are programs in other cities including providing credit for employee/customer use of public transportation; buying employee bus passes. • Stated that these options are still fairly rare and case -by -case. • Reminded that Campbell has three VTA Light Rail stations. Campbell has specific reduced parking requirement standards for residential zones located near public transit but there are no established standards for reduced parking for commercial uses that are located near public transit. The reduction is up to 25 percent. • Reported that the C-3 (Central Business District) that is the Downton, has free public parking within shared parking structures. Both the Downtown and ECAMP (East of Campbell Avenue Master Plan) Area have close proximity to two of the three Light Rail stations. • Said that other nearby communities such as Mountain View, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and San Jose surveyed their parking versus mass transit options. Parking reductions are provided based on specific uses. o Mountain View has limited or no parking requirements in their Central Commercial Area. o Santa Clara has two precise plan areas (Lawrence and Tamsen). o Sunnyvale offers parking reduction within half -mile walk from mass transit. o San Jose has very few transit -oriented parking adjustments/standards except for single -room (SRO) occupancy located near transit, which results in a 10 percent reduced parking provision requirement. • Concluded that each city is unique and needs to develop parking standards based upon an understanding of its own existing circumstances. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Thanked Intern Theo Dubus for his work on this presentation to clarify parking near transit. • Added that many of the parking reduction provisions that Campbell uses are State - mandated. • Said that the Downtown (C-3) zone has different development standards. The City does not charge for provision of parking, which is a conscious decision on the City's park. • Added that the parking for Downtown are the City -constructed parking structures. The relaxation of parking standards for Downtown don't apply anywhere else in Campbell. • Suggested that it may well be time to pull back on the relaxations allowed Downtown uses since it is now so busy. • Reiterated that the ECAMP area is use -specific regarding required parking. Downtown is not use specific. ECAMP follows the same parking standards as everywhere else in Campbell but the Downtown. • Agreed that Campbell equals a different environment and constraints. Commissioner Hines commended Intern Theo Dubus on his research and presentation. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 12 Commissioner Ching: • Agreed it was a well-done and detailed report and also thanked Intern Theo Dubus for his hard work. • Stated that it will be nice to get the City's General Plan updated. • Admitted that he would hate to see the City go back on its parking regulations for the Downtown parking. He wouldn't be in favor. Commissioner Buchbinder stated that Intern Theo Dubus provided a thoroughly excellent report and thanked him. Chair Rivlin: • Added his agreement to the compliments and thanks given to Intern Theo Debus for his work on this parking presentation. • Pointed out the chart provided on page 5 of the report and said it helps us to understand what we have. • Added that the nearby transit center is located just outside of the zone. • Stated that he is hoping that this research will be leveraged with the ongoing work of the General Plan. Specifically, how transit could offset required parking. • Reminded that many years ago, the Planning Commission approved projects in the Downtown only if funds were taken in for the provision of future parking. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that Chair Rivlin is referring to a Parking In -Lieu Fee that was in place for projects being developed in the Downtown. • Added that funds collected would go to financing new parking. However, the cost per parking space/stall is approximately $40,000 whereas $6,000 per stall is what was collected on deposit. • Concluded that although this policy was enacted, it was never used and ultimately it was abandoned. • Added that when adding new floor space in Downtown, they will have to park it. • Reported that the applicant for the Opa addition voluntarily offered to pay the parking in -lieu fee that is approximately $180,000 for use in installing electronic "parking available" notification signs for the Downtown to direct the public to garages where space is currently available to park. • Said that the project for these electronic parking signs is currently included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Those funds will be collected after the project is completed. However, Public Works will find the funds to install these signs and replenish the funds back into the budget line when the project is completed. Chair Rivlin asked if this information could also go to GPAC. Director Paul Kermoyan said he would forward this information to GPAC when they next meet. He added that the draft General Plan will likely be brought to the Planning Commission in June or July 2020. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 13 Commissioner Buchbinder asked about the fact that Campbell has three Light Rail Stations and pointed out that there was no Attachment 1 included with the provided Parking Analysis Report. Intern Theo Dubus said it appears Attachment 1 didn't get through with the rest of the report. Director Paul Kermoyan said it would be forwarded to the Commissioners by email. Commissioner Buchbinder asked staff if there were any examples found whereby a program for reducing parking requirements caused problems. Intern Theo Dubus said he learned of no revocations or negative consequences stemming from the implementation of a reduced parking standard. Commissioner Buchbinder asked staff if the City has specific information on how heavily the City's Downtown parking structures are being used. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that both the Public Works and Planning Departments were monitoring the parking structures quite frequently. • Reported that previously the First Street Parking Structure was rarely used, especially the top floor. The Second Street Parking Structure has been well used but the top floor was rarely full. • Added that these days both are pretty much always well in use. • Advised that the City may really need to do another .DT parking study. The last parking study, known as the Walker Study, was prepared approximately 20 years ago, at which time the land use assumptions for Downtown were: 70 percent retail; 25 percent restaurant and five -percent (5%) office. Factoring square footage and parking standard equated the number of parking spaces needed to serve the Downtown. At that time the parking demand was 300 parking spaces. • Pointed out that today there are more restaurants in the Downtown and fewer retail and office uses so we need to recalibrate and create new assumptions for parking supply versus demand under current uses. Commissioner Buchbinder: Pointed out that restaurants are more impactful than retail on parking demand. Asked if there is any comparable community to Campbell where they have just Light Rail as far as mass transit options that has established a reduced parking standard. Intern Theo Dubus: Said that he had not found any other than Mountain View's precise plans and Santa Clara, for which Tasman East offers a 50 percent reduction. The highest percentage available is a 100 percent reduction. Added that the goal of the Tasman East is to be heavily residential. Commissioner Buchbinder said it seems that people are welcome, but their cars are not. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 14 Commissioner Ching said he has visited Strike Brewery several times and found no parking issues. He personally either walked or biked when he went there. Commissioner Krey said that the State is mandating a lot of things around mass transit, which in Campbell is Light Rail, with the goal that lowering parking standards might promote more use of mass transit. Commissioner Hines said that Smart City Concepts can be utilized including such things as apps that indicate where parking is available in real time. Commissioner Colvill: • Suggested being careful when considering regulation versus deregulation. • Stated that you may end up creating more of a mess when you create regulations. • Reminded that people will decide how best to get to where they are going and by what means. Chair Rivlin suggested that this parking analysis be forwarded to GPAC for consideration with the General Plan. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said he would do so. • Added that he would forward the missing attachment(s) to the members of the Commission as well as to the General Plan consultants. • Reminded that once the draft General Plan is ready, the Planning Commission would review that draft. Chair Rivlin read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. Study Session to review the application (proposed floor area and architectural design) of Akbar Abdollahi for a proposed Planned Development and Tentative Subdivision to create nine (9) new homes and a common lot on property located at 202 W. Rincon Avenue. Project Planner: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner Ms. Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner, provided the staff report. Chair Rivlin asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner Ching asked what the criteria is for this being considered a subdivision. Planner Cindy McCormick replied that there are required findings by the Planning Commission for each component (Planned Development Permit / Tree Removal Permit). There are criteria for Site and Architectural Review and Planned Development. This property is not located within an area plan. Commissioner Ching asked the height of the existing nearby homes to this site. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 15 Planner Cindy McCormick advised that she was unaware of any three-story developments in that area. Some of the existing developments nearby are attached. The townhome development to the right has a maximum 20-foot height. Commissioner Buchbinder pointed out that the Kennedy development is denser and asked why. Planner Cindy McCormick replied that the Kennedy location is located closer to a Light Rail Station. Commissioner Krey asked staff if the garage square footage is always counted with the FAR. Planner Cindy McCormick replied yes. Chair Rivlin opened the public comment period for Item No. 3. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi, Applicant/Property Owner/Developer: • Gave an overview history of this project by reporting that in March 2018, the previous owner of this property applied for an eight -unit project that was rejected. An alternative seven -unit project was also rejected. • Reported that he than bought the property from the previous owner and put together a five -unit development. • Said that the City staff learned that Campbell needs more housing units per State requirements so he was told that he would need to go up to nine -units on this site. • Pointed out that a five -unit project is both more profitable and easier to build. • Stated that it would be very difficult to build nine units on this property. • Said that the design for his nine -unit project is not a good one. • Admitted that he would be "delighted" to be able to build five units. • Reiterated that nine units equates to more time and cost but less value. • Said that the 83 percent FAR is not enough. The ground floors need to be large enough to allow usable living spaces on the two floors above it. He needs to build 1,800 square foot units. • Said that he is asking for an increase of FAR from 83 to 86 percent to be able to have enough room to include dining rooms. • Cautioned that placing guest parking over at the end near Unit 9 is not practical either for the occupants of Unit 9 in terms of privacy as well as being practically useable by the other eight units on site. • Asked for five-foot setback for upper floors along the Rincon facing elevation but straight up walls at the back of the homes. • Reiterated that he really doesn't want to build nine homes. The lot is not large enough and he prefers to build five homes on it. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Reminded that the City's General Plan identifies the different densities for development of parcels in Campbell. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 16 • Advised that the density for this parcel has a density range between 9 and 11 units per gross acre. It is slated for higher density residential. • Suggested that this developer could have an attached -unit project, and have it fit on this parcel. Attached units is not what this developer builds. He builds detached homes. • Explained that the reason staff brought this project to the Commission is staff needs guidance as well from the Commission as does the developer. There need to be some principles applied to match the existing neighborhood. The question arises, "Where does this averaging come in?" • Added that the project was brought to PC before the developer begins with any redesigning. The Commission will be making no design decisions tonight but rather should deliberate on what an acceptable FAR level might be for this development. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi reiterated that this project is a hardship financially. He has spent $500,000 to date. Again, he said he doesn't want a nine -unit development but rather the five -unit development he had intended when he purchased this property from the previous owner. Commissioner Colvill asked staff if we have record of allowing smaller density projects than projected for a lot. Planner Cindy McCormick advised that the City did not reject the project. The neighbors didn't want to see an eight -unit development on this site as had been proposed by the previous landowner. They wanted fewer units. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi submitted his plans and got incompleteness comments. Commissioner Colvill: • Reiterated that the previous owner wanted and submitted for eight units and was turned down by the City and told to build fewer units. Now this current owner, Mr. Akbar Abdollahi, wants just five units but is being told to build nine. • Opined that a FAR at 83 percent is not too much but rather it's what it needs to be. • Admitted that although he thinks two to five parking spaces are not enough to serve guests for nine units, he's not in support of requiring more guest parking. • Said that this is one of the only large lots in this area. We need to look at the area surrounding it and determine whether Mr. Akbar Abdollahi's vision can be accommodated. Planner Cindy McCormick: • Reminded that the parking requirement is three stalls per unit. That includes two garage spaces per unit and half a guest space per unit. The inclusion of nine guest spaces would reach the three spaces per unit standard. • Added that with that there would be no need to reduce the building footprints or FAR. Chair Rivlin questioned whether the parking requirement is the same if these units were attached versus detached. Planner Cindy McCormick: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 17 • Clarified that FAR is based on net lot size. • Reminded that minimum density for this lot is nine units. Commissioner Buchbinder pointed out that requiring more units means requiring more parking spaces but less FAR. Is that what Campbell is pushing here? Planner Cindy McCormick advised that staff is not making a recommendation for this project but has provided information in the report this evening for further consideration. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Clarified that staff is not pushing anything but rather is asking the Commission for guidance here. To be unified, staff needs the Commission's help with determining what is an acceptable FAR standard for this project. • Added that having a high parking demand standard creates a conflict. There is a difference between a small -lot development project and attached development project. • Reiterated that a development consisting of small -lot single-family dwellings requires two -and -a -half parking spaces per unit. Two must be covered and the one-half space of designated guest space is required per unit. • Compared that to a multi -family development with two or more bedrooms that requires two -and -a -half covered spaces and one-half space for guests per unit for a total of three. For a one -bedroom unit in multi -family, the parking requirement goes down a bit. Chair Rivlin pointed out that most people want at least two to three bedrooms. Director Paul Kermoyan said that a Parking Modification Plan gives the developer the ability to relax/deviate/adjust its parking provided so it's not as onerous. Commissioner Buchbinder asked his fellow Commissioners what they think of the requested and proposed FAR standards. Admitted that he would not consider duplicating the density of the Kennedy project at this location. Director Paul Kermoyan clarified that the Kennedy project may have had FAR at 1.27 for the frontage units along Kennedy but the attached units at the back have a lower FAR than that. Chair Rivlin asked Mr. Akbar Abdollahi why not go with an attached project rather than his proposed detached. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi said that this lot is wide/long and narrow. Single-family is more practical than attached on this lot configuration. Attached units are not possible. Commissioner Krey: • Said that SARC reviewed this project on August 27th and struggled with it. Since that time, the FAR was reduced quite a bit. While there are still issues with density, FAR and parking, the proposed 83-percent FAR is fine, and the design is nice. • Pointed out that usually the developer wants more units but, in this case, this applicant wants fewer units than are required on his lot. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 18 • Added that this is a tough street for parking. • Admitted that he would hate to allow a reduction on required parking. • Stated his empathy for Mr. Akbar Abdollahi for his unique situation. Commissioner Hines said he agrees with Commissioner Krey's comments on parking. It is tough to reduce the required parking thus creating overflow onto the street. Commissioner Colvill asked Mr. Akbar Abdollahi how many projects he has developed in Campbell. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi said he has constructed four projects in Campbell. All were detached units. He also has developed in Saratoga, Los Gatos and Mountain View. Commissioner Colvill asked if any of the projects outside of Campbell were attached. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi: Replied that he got approvals for one town home'development in another city but sold that project before construction began and didn't build it himself. Reiterated that there is no room for more parking, or he would need to reduce by one unit to do so. Commissioner Colvill said the question remains whether this applicant should be required to include two additional parking spaces to serve as guest parking to this project. Planner Cindy McCormick cautioned that the project is still shy three guest parking spaces on site as proposed. Including the two as suggested by staff means there is less of a deficiency in on -site guest parking. Commissioner Colvill: • Said that there seems to be three possible options here. o Option 1 - No new development but just an existing small single-family residence on a big lot. This is the least desirable option. o Option 2 — Requiring the nine -unit project as per the General Plan's land density for the property with a Parking Modification Plan (PMP) playing a lesser role of importance. o Option 3 — Changing the plan to add more parking therefore not requiring a PMP. • Advised that his preference is Option 2. Chair Rivlin said Commissioner Colvill has provided thoughtful input. Commissioner Buchbinder: • Said that the worst thing would be having no new housing built. • Suggested allowing the applicant to perhaps vary the parking standard requirement or require he construct an attached unit project. • Stated he is okay with either including nine units, this height and parking. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 19 Commissioner Colvill reminded that the developer indicated this lot is not large enough for a nine -unit attached project. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that is right if the developer uses his same design plan. • Suggested taking the forms, putting them together, create tandem parking and relocate the front doors to the back. • Pointed out that there are different ways to design. • Stated that the Commissioners are making good points. • Assured that staff is not dead set on a floor area ratio or parking. • Said that staff and the applicant can work together further on design. Commissioner Hines asked if the Commission could even consider a smaller project with five or six units. Director Paul Kermoyan replied no. Planner Cindy McCormick said that this project originally came in with five units and was taken to Council for consideration of lowering the number from the required nine down to five. Council denied that request and calls for the minimum of nine units as required under the assigned medium high -density standard for this property. Commissioner Hines said that this Commission works for Council so that decision is final. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that the first required finding to support this project must be that the proposed project conforms to the standards of the General Plan. The densities are on the General Plan Land Use map. The ranges for this property are between 9 and 11 units per gross acre. • Pointed out that under that density, we could ask for more units up to 11 on this site but not fewer than nine. • Reiterated that this project is at the low end of the spectrum. Chair Rivlin: • Said this is a sort of puzzle or mathematic equation of land size versus what can fit on that land that meets the minimum development standards. • Said that Council has already spoken to the density. • Cautioned that if tandem parking is used for this project there is no guarantee that all three spaces within a garage would be used for parking. One space may end up as storage. He speaks from personal experience. • Questioned the suggestion to relocate the front door to the back as that option would reduce any backyard that exists on the current design. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi agreed with Chair Rivlin. Director Paul Kermoyan said that is how the Kennedy project's attached back units are oriented. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 20 Chair Rivlin said that it seems we're fighting to fit a square peg into a round hole. He said that the proposed FAR standard was fine with him. Commissioner Colvill asked how often a Parking Modification Permit is approved. Planner Cindy McCormick said when approved it is usually for a commercial project and not a residential one. Director Paul Kermoyan said we did see it with the Kennedy project as it is located close to the Light Rail and got a density bonus. Commissioner Buchbinder: • Said that FAR is not a problem here. He is even okay to see it rise further. • Added that nine units is an excellent use of space. • Suggested having three -car tandem garages for three of these units and to increase the FAR to account for those three -car garages and allow for additional living space as well for those units. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi reiterated his hope for an 87 percent FAR as the current 83 percent does not allow for dining rooms in these units. Commissioner Krey: • Said he could go for that as well. • Stated that being short three parking spaces on site is not good and would be a bad precedent to set. • Suggested that perhaps with a major redesign this developer may come up with something better. Chair Rivlin: • Said that he would not want to see a big monolithic building. • Agreed that he too can support the proposed FAR and perhaps slightly increased. • Stated that the nine -unit minimum is non-negotiable. While he might personally prefer eight units instead, nine units are required. • Said he is open to consider a Parking Modification Permit to make this project work. • Admitted he is not crazy about tandem three -car garage parking. Commissioner Hines said he would like to see the nine -unit requirement reduced. That would help solve the parking and FAR. It just doesn't fit. Commissioner Colvill: • Said he is not a fan of a three -car tandem garage but is ready to recommend approval to move this project forward with its layout and FAR. He agreed that the tandem parking may not be used. • Added that parking remains the main issue. • Concluded he would not call for adding the two missing guest parking spaces to the plan. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 21 Commissioner Ching: • Said that the road (Rincon) is bad as far as parking. There is a parking issue on that street. It must be livable. • Said he was open to all the homes having three car garages but having them will require more living space above further increasing the project's FAR. • Admitted that he likes the idea of these homes having a small backyard for kids to play in. • Stated that the project design is good, but he has privacy concerns for the neighbors as this project is out of context with the other buildings in the area. Commissioner Buchbinder: • Said that tandem garage parking is the best option. Planner Cindy McCormick advised that with three tandem garage spaces and two cars at the end of the driveway, this project meets parking. Chair Rivlin: • Stated that tandem parking is not used by guests, which leaves a gap for visitor parking. Director Paul Kermoyan said that it seems the Commission is 6-0 in support of the proposed FAR and perhaps even increasing it further. It seems the parking is 4-2 for tandem garage parking. Mr. Akbar Abdollahi asked if there is the option for a Variance for parking. Director Paul Kermoyan replied that Mr. Abdollahi could propose one or seek a Parking Modification Permit and make the strongest argument. Planner Cindy McCormick said that the project with nine units meets the minimum required density but not the minimum FAR. Few homes are much smaller. Commissioner Buchbinder suggested seeking reduced parking with a Parking Modification Permit. Chair Rivlin asked staff which process, a Variance or Parking Modification Permit, is the best option. Planner Cindy McCormick replied that the required findings for a Variance are more difficult to meet than those for a Parking Modification Permit. Commissioner Colvill suggested the applicant return with a PMP proposal and a project design that adheres to the parking ratio with tandem three -car garage parking. Chair Rivlin said one or the other but not both would be required. Commissioner Buchbinder said that the PMP is preferred. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 26, 2019 Page 22 Commissioner Krey said he'd like to see required parking provided as there are ways to redesign the project to achieve that goal. Chair Rivlin asked staff to verify how many stalls short the project current is. Planner Cindy McCormick replied that the project is short five spaces. If the two proposed by staff are added, the project would still be three spaces short. Chair Rivlin said he supports submittal of a Parking Modification Permit. Commissioner Hines said this project is trying to fit too much on too small a parcel to handle it. Planner Cindy McCormick said that the State's required findings to lower density means the City would have to make that reduction up elsewhere in the City. Commissioner Colvill said he too would suggest including a Parking Modification Permit. Chair Rivlin asked staff if they have received enough guidance from the Commission. Director Paul Kermoyan replied yes. Chair Rivlin thanked Mr. Akbar Abdollahi and suggested he continue to work with staff as this evening's discussion was a study session for guidance on how best to proceed. Staff will continue to guide him. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan had nothing new to add to his written report: ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting Dece 10, 2019. SUBMITTED BY: orinne S,4inn, Recordint Secretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: