SA 96-171875 S. BASCOM AVE. SA 96-17 1 OF 1
CITY OF CAMPBELL
L I I
a
a
o
v
v
o
a VtA
U Vl
o
r
U
ii
t A
V
s J
o W
a
a
C U. W
z O GC Z
€
G W
J
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Devdnpment Department Current Planning
May 31, 19%
Mr. Matthew Howarth
Hollywood Entertainment
Director, Real Estate
670 West Napa Street, Suite G
Sonoma, CA 95476
Re: SA %-17 — 1875 S. Bascom Avenue — Hollywood Video
Dear Mr. Howarth:
Please be advised that at its meeting of May 28, 19%, the Planning Commission
approved your signing request to allow two 57 square foot wall signs at the above -
reference address. This approval is subject to the condition that you obtain any
necessary building or electrical permits for this sign installation. This approval is
effective in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing prior to that time.
The design for the proposed backgrotmd mural will be worked out with City staff for
final approval. If you have any questions regarding this decision, ?tease do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned at (408) M&2140.
Sincerel ,
Steve iaseckt —
Community Development Director
co Jerry Lenzora (Sign Company)
Ellis & Ellis Signs
1111 ioellis Way
Sacramento, CA 95358
Mr. Chris Meany (Property Owners)
Pruneyard Associates, L.P.
1999 S. Bascom Avenue, #200
Campbell, CA 95008
Building Division
70 N-th Firrt St—t Campbell, (:alH9rnla 95008. 1411 - 408. 866 2140 Mf 408. 179 2572 ton 408. 866.2790
Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1996 Page 2
MISCELLANEOUS
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. I into the recori.
1. SA 96-17 Continued Hearing to consider the application of Hollywood
Video for approval of a Sign Application to allow two wall
signs on property located at 1875 S. Bascc m Avenue in a C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, presented the staff report
as follows:
• Applicant is seeking approval for two 57 square foot wa71 signs that exceed the
50 square foot size allowed under ti a Sign Ordinance.
• This application was first considered at the Planning Commission meeting of
May 14, 19%, and was continued to this meeting to allow the applicant to
work out design issues.
• Contained in the staff report are a list of previous exceptions to the City's Sign
Ordinance.
• Staff suggests that the Commission separate this application into two issues.
The first, the size of the lettering. The second, the consideration of the
background.
• Staff finds that the lettering size is warranted due to the building setback from
the street. Previous exceptions have been allowed when a building is distant
from the public street.
• The proposed increase from the Ordinance is minor (57 s.f. versus 50 s.f.)
• Typically, the background behind a sign is not counted as part of that sign.
There is a fine line between the background serving as an architectural
element or an advertising message.
• Advised that the grey background depicted in some of the sample
photographs is not recommended by staff for the Prnieyard sign.
• Staff is recommending that the mural reflect a realistic depiction of a hillside.
• Staff finds that an artistic rendering adds life and color to the building and
center.
• Such a mural is not cheap. One example in Los Gatos cost S35,000. Not a lot
of people will jump at the idea of paying for such a mural.
• Advised that the Commission can approve or deny the sign. If denied, the
applicant will be limited to one 50 square feet sign.
• If the Commission chooses to approve the lettering, they can refer the
consideration of the mural background to staff and/or SARC.
• A third option is that the Commission can elect to count the mural as part of
the sign area.
• Applicant needs to know to order the sign.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 28 1996 page 3
Commissioner Alne asked staff to repeat the proposed sizing of the sign.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that if the background is counted, the Bascom Avenue
frontage sign would be 153 square feet and the Campbell Avenue fronta Ze sign
would be 177 square feet.
Commissioner Gibbons advised:
• That she concurred with staff to separate the two issues.
• Stated that she felt the lettering size can be considered reasonable.
• The neon outlining the hills leads her to consider that feature a component
of the sign.
• By separating the two issues, the applicant can proceed with the lettering part
of the sign while mural studies can go forward (without use of additional
neon).
Mr. Steve Piasecl,i agreed that questions, regarding whether the use of neon is
appropn..�, ,.- good questions and make a valid point.
Chairman Lindstrom asked the Commission for a recommendation of action.
Should the sign lettering be considered first?
Commissioner Alne advised that the sign application Ziv. Hollywood Video 325
square feet of sign area instead of 50 square feet.
Chairman Lindstrom asked Commissioner Alne whether he felt the need to
consider the background as part of the sign.
Commissioner Alne responded that the proposed letter was acceptable and
tastefully done.
Chairman Lindstrom asked for a motion.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons. seconded by
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy, the Planning Commission moved
to approve the 57 square foot lettering of the two Hollywood Video
wall signs (SA 95-17). (6-0-1; Commissioner Lowe was absent)
Chairman Lindstrom asked the Commission for a iiscussion regarding the
proposed mural background and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
e
Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 19% Page 4
Mr. Matthew Howarth, Applicant.
• A rendering has bees provided however staff has requested more detail to
the mural to make it more lifelike. He has no problem enhancing the details
of the mural.
• They have used earth tone colors which were approved for the Pruneyard.
• The proposed use of neon serves as an accent (outlining the hills) and
lighting for evening hours. During the daytime hours, the neon is not
visible.
• The store at San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek is an example of what
they are proposing.
Commissioner Alne stated that' a felt it is a mistake to use earth tones to mask
the fiction that the mural is an architectural feature of the center. If a mural is to
be used, make it as attractive as possible, using all colors necessary. It is a
disservice to the building and the sign. Let them use whatever colors needed to
make a tasteful mural.
Chairman Lindstrom asked Mr. Howarth what the mural conception was at this
time.
Mr. Matthew Howarth responded that there are probably ten conceptions in the
room at this time alone. The conception could change if they are able to use more
colors rather than the original earth tones discussed. He is in favor of using more
colors as it gives their graphic artist more freedom. He will bring more detailed
drawings for staff to review. They can order their signs and come back with a
design for the mural.
Commissioner Jones added his view that the painted hillside is not an
architectural feature but rather a part of the sign. He stated that he can't vote
when he's not even sure what the Commission is voting on. It is important to
select the best design possible for this center. It is difficult to allow a 300 square
foot sign for one business.
Commissioner Gibbons advised that she agrees with Commissioner Jones'
concerns. Using neon to outline the hills makes it a part of the sign. She
recommends that the use of neon be eliminated.
Commissioner Kearns stated that she likes the sign as presented to SARC. Neon
adds to the sign's appearance in the evening. She added that she trusts staff
regarding the use of colors on the mural. SARC can review if staff feels it is
necessary. She is ^omfortable with, and supportive of, the sign.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 213, 1996 Page 5
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy admitted that she is torn. While she likes the idea
of the mural she does not like neon. However, other uses of neon in the City
have been well done. She feels that neon, as prop.sed, is part of the sign. If used
in a tasteful way, neon may enhance the sign. She has concern regarding
extensive use of neon in the center.
Chairman Lindstrom reminded the Commission that the lettering at 57 square
feet has already been approved. He stated that he feels the mural is a part of the
sign. There is a fine line between the mural and the sign. Is tMs a precedent?
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that it was a precedent rnd that findings to support the
approval would be required. The Commissioners can decide that they don't want
to allow murals as part of a sign in Campbell or the ✓ can say a mural is a good
feature with careful scrutiny. Andy's Pet Shop in Star Jose had a mural depicting
animals on their site.
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy advised that the Sign Ordinance is old and asked,
"are we sticking to old rules when trying to modernize a shepping center. Maybe
the Sign Ordinance is outdated!" She continued that perhaps if a sign is tastefully
done, it cart be larger than allowed under the current Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Alne admitted that the Sign Ordinance is old and the Planning
Commission has relaxed its use of the Ordinance. The Commission has the
authority to exercise discretion.
City Attorney William Seligman advised the Commission that if they consider
the background a part of the approved sign they will need to adopt findings to
support the approval as follows:
• The use would not be adequately identified;
• The site is difficult to locate; and/or
• The use is of such size or so located in reference to other uses and traffic that
a larger sign is necessary.
Commissioner Alne advised:
• That backgrounds have been allowed in the past.
• The Ordinance has not been changed in any magnitude.
• In the past the use of backgrounds has been ignored.
• This particular backgrov.td is more pronounced than previous backgrounds.
• Asked whether the Commission could argue that the Sign Ordinance is not
being gutted.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 19% Paee 6
City Attorney William Seligmann again advised that if the background is found to
be a part of the sign, findings of fad will be required.
Commissioner Alne recommended that the Planning Commission ignore the
background and simply approve the lettering.
Chairman Lindstrom asked whether a mural could be installed without Planning
Commission approval.
Commissioner Alne said it could if the mural is just a part of the background and
not a part of the sign.
Chairman Lindstrom advised that he felt they should consider the background.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the neon be removed and that he would need to
see a final rendering of the mural. The mural should simply represent a
background and not provide an advertising message.
Chairman Lindstrom advised that the applicant should work with staff to obtain
the final approval on the mural.
Mr. Steve Piasecki asked Mr. Howarth how long he would need to design the
mural.
Mr. Matthew Howarth responded two to four weeks. He will know better at the
end of this week.
Commissioner Gibbons asked for clarification. Was the background to be
considered a feature of the sign.
Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the interpretation is that staff is satisfied with the
mural, the mural will be treated as a background and not fall under the
jurisdiction of the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Jones asked whether the Sign Ordinance was out of date and
needed to be revised. Was the Commission stepping outside of the bounds of the
Sign Ordinance? Suggested that something be added to the Ordinance to offer
guidelines for future requests such as this. In effect, the sign approved is 300
square feet rather than 100 square feet.
Chairman Lindstrom advised that he agrees that a review of the Sign Ordinance is
in order.
Commissioner Jones asked whether the Commission can approve exceptions
Planning Commission Minutes of May 28 1996
Page 7
Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that they could.
Commissioner Alne advised that he chooses to conclude that any lack of
specificity in the Ordinance allows his di: cretion. Council has given that
discretion to the Commission to do what their good judgement tells them to do.
In good conscience, the Commission can to what they feel is appropriate.
Motion: Upon motion of CommW-ioner Alne. seconded by Commissioner
Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to direct staff to review
the applicant's plan for a mural background and if staff has
concerns to bring the proposal back to the Commission. (6-0-1;
Commissioner Lowe was absent)
The decision of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed in writing to
the City Clerk within 10 days.
BEPORT OF THE rn
The written report of Mr. Steve hawing ommunity Development Director was
C
accepted as presented with Bye following comments:
• SAW meets on Thursday, May 30th.
Commissioner Alne advised that he will be out of town from late June through
July. He will be present for the June 11th meeting but not for the June 25th
meeting nor either of the July meetings.
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy asked about the carriage house.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this project would be brought to the Commission
in June. The Rogers and Bruce Bowen have come to an agreement. The Rogers
will seek a Variance because the structure is too high.
Chairman Lindstrom asked whether Oil Changers denial was upheld by Council.
Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the decision of the Commission was upheld and
Oil Changers will have to remove the canopy.
Chairman Lindstrom asked if a time frame has been established.
Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that no time frame has been established as staff has
not received response to phone calls.
ITEM NO. 1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF MAY 28,1996
SAW17 Continued hearing to consider the application of Mr. Matthew Howarth on
Howarth, M. behalf of Hollywood Entertainment, for approval of an sign exception to
allow two wall signs which exceed the sign ordinance, on property located at
1875 South Bascom Avenue in the C-2-S (General Commercial) zoning
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Approve a sign exception request to allow two wall signs and to allow signs which
exceed permitted sign size per the ordinance, subject to the attached findings. (Staffs
recommendation does not include the mural background at this time).
DISCUSSION
Background: This application was previously considered at the May 14, 1996 Planning
Commission meetir g. Several issues were raised regarding the design of the sign,
clarification of the sign ordinance, the proposed number of signs and the design and colors
of the sign. Consequently, the Planning Commission took action to continue this item to
the May 28, 1996 meeting to allow the applicant time to provide examples of similar signs
on other stores. The applicant is requesting an exception to the sign ordinance to allow two
wall signs, each exceeding 50 square feet.
ANALYSIS
Planning Commission Policy: The guideline commonly used by the Planning
Commission to evaluate sign exceptions is if the proposed sign(s) represents 659; or less of
the linear frontage cf the business, and to allow a maximum of five (5) wall signs. The
Planning Commission has previously approved larger signs and more signs for tenants
within shopping centers when the applicant has demonstrated that the size of the building
and/or number of signs is warranted.
PreviQlls Exceptions: Previous sign exceptions approved by the Planning Commission are
summarized below on page 2 of this report. The chart is provided to assist the
Commission in its review of this request in comparison to previous approvals. Previous
approvals have ranged from 31 % to 150% of the linear frontage of the business.
Typically the criteria used by the Commission to review sign exceptions includes the linear
istance of the tenant's building frontage; the size of the sign; the number of signs; the size
of the letters in the sign; sign to business frontage relationship; and if the business is a
major tenant. in addition to the criteria previously outlined, the Planning Commission
has considered the scale of the sign and distance of the sign from the street.
Staff Report — Planning Commission Meeting of May 28,
1996
SA 96-17 — 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 2
PREVIOUS SIGN EXCEPTION APPROVALS
Project / Business
Tenant
Sign
Letter
Distance
Sign to
Frontage
Area
Size
to Street
Frontage
(linear feet)
(square feet)
7No.
()
(inches)
(linear icet)
Ratio
Campbell Plaza
Safeway
236
74
36"
265
31 %
Kirkwood Plaza
Nob Hill
234
135
3
36"
350
58%
The Right Stuff
180
108
2
30" & 18"
140
60%
Hamilton Plaza
Barnes & Noble
120
105
1
30"
300
88%
Whole Foods
94
81
1
30"
300
86%
Office Max
210
160
1
11" & 5"
300
76%
Longs Rx
195
109
1
40"
300
56%
Ross
164
94
2
46" & 18"
300
57 %
Wing Center
MacFrugals
160
82
2
28"
120
51 %
Home Depot
740
290
2
60"
480
120%
Breuners (on;y)
1.90
88
1
42"-48"
400
59%
Frys Electronics
135
112
1
96" & 48"
280
83%
Nostalgia Motors
109
164
3
48" & 24"
9
150%
(260 total)
(5 total)
PROPOSED SIGN EXCEPTION
Project / Business
i Tenant
Sign
No. Of
Letter
Distance
Sign to
Frontage
Area
Signs
Size
to Street
Frontage
(linear feet)
(square feet)
(front only)
(inches)
(linear feet)
Ratio
PruneYard
Bascom Ave
55
57
1
32" & 20"
330
103%
Campbell Ave
Totals
90
145
57
114
1
2
32" & 20"
1
160
63%
1 83% +vs.
Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 28, 1996
SA 96.17 - 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 3
Visibility/Street Setbacks: The tenant (Hollywood Video) will be located in the corner
space of the new commercial building (see attachment #5). The tenant storefront is
located 330 linear feet from Bascom Avenue and 160 Feet from Campbell Avenue. The
setbacks from the street are among the larger setbacks from the street to comparison to the
setbacks of other tenants and their sign exception approvals. lae increased setback
typically requires larger signage to allow adequate motorist visibility to the business
identified by the sign.
Included for the Commission's review is a site plan that diagrams the distance of the
building and tenant space to Bascom and Campbell Avenues. The site plan gives an
indication of how visible the business will be from the two adjacent streets given its
setbacks. In addition to the setbacks from the street the building will be further screened by
trees at the perimeter of the site.
Architectural Features
The Sign Ordinance allows architectural features, such as neon lighting, that are integral
decorative or architectural features of buildings, and are exempt from the sign ordinance
per Section 21.53.040. Other examples of buildings in the community that have utilized
neon accent lighting include:
• Jack in the Box, which has neon tubing around the top edges and roof line of the
buildings on W. Campbell Avenue and on Bascom Avenue. It outlines the
building and is an architectural lighting element of the building.
• Spoons Restaurant on Hamilton and Bascom Avenues also has neon tubing
around the building and in the sign.
• LZ Premiums and Bradley Videos in Downtown Campbell have neon tubing on the
face of the sign and/or in widows.
• Several tenants in Hamilton Plaza
Sign Ord'n nc • Section 21.53.070 of the Sign Ordinance defines how the surface area of a
sign is to be measured, background area is not specifically addressed. if the Commission
interprets that the background area of a sign is part of the sign, it will be calculated as part
of the total sign area permitted as part of the exception if approved. Staff estimates this
additional area to be 153 square feet ',Wscom Ave iue) and 177 square feet (Campbell
Avenue).
Sign backgrounds and details should be architecturally compatible with the building.
Discussions have ensued with the applicant regarding the paining of a mural background
to enhance the aesthetics of the building and add visual diversity to the facade. The sign
ordinance allows a maximum of 50 square fret per wall sign if the business has 50 linear
feet or more of frontage. The ordinance does not regulate letter height for business signs
0
Staff Report — Planning Commission Meeting of May 28, 1996
SA 96-17 — 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
Page t
specifically, but letter height and length is used to calculate the total sign area. The
applicant's original proposal included a letter size of 36" for Hollywood, and 24" for Video.
The modified proposal includes 32" and 20" letter heights respectively.
The application for the sign exception is based on the following facts:
A) The applicant's tenant space is partially screened by the freestanding building
immediately adjacent to the intersection of Bascom and Campbell Avenues, and
trees at the perimeter of the site;
B) The applicant's tenant space is part of a new building, and has frontage on two
adjacent streets; and
Q Additional signage is necessary to adequately identify the business.
The sign ordinance allows the Planning Commission to approve larger and/or more signs
when the use or used for which the signs are to be erected would not adequately be
identified. Exceptions are also permitted if the site is unusually difficult to locate in
comparison to similar uses or the use is of such a size and so located in reference to the
surrounding uses or traffic, that a larger sign or more signs are warranted.
Design, The design of the proposed signs is intended to replicate the "Hollywood" sign
located in the hills of Hollywood, California and "Video" describes the service or product
provided. As previously discussed, the applicant proposes to include a darker but related
paint tone of the main building for the proposed background design. The colors for the
main building are identical to those of the new Bank of America building and will not be
modified except for the proposed mural background.
The background will be significantly enhanced with the creation of a mural on tht.
building facade, and will add to the overall quality of the sign. The precedent for this type
of creative and artistic signage was established with the approval of the Nostalgia Motors
signage. This sign exception approval acknowledged the gas pump and other architectural
features as unique features to the signage at the site. The Hollywood Video mural sign
background would also De a artistic and unique feature complimenting the sign proposal.
At night yellow neon tube light borders will be used to replicate searchlights, and red
neon will be used to highlight the outline of the background. The word "Hollywood"
will have white individual letters in a staggered line, and the word "Video" will have red
individual letters positioned at a 30-degree angle. Both will be internally illuminated and
are identical on both frontages of the building.
Staff Report — Planning Commission Meeting of May 28, 19%
SA 96-17 — 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 5
Examples: Included in this report are pictures of other Hollywood Video Stores in the
area to give the Commission an idea of how the actual signage and background painting
scheme will be graphically represented on the two building frontages (see attachment k4).
However, the applicant has not provided a rendering of the mural background at the
writing of this report. Because staff has not seen the revised rendering, staff is unable to
make a recommendation to the Planning Commission at this time. Staff is supportive of
the Commissions request to review the details of the background before making a
decision. If the applicant presents a rendering at the time of the meeting that is acceptable
to staff and the Commission, a recommendation and decision can be made at that time.
Attachments:
1. Findings
2. Conditions of Apr roval
3. Drawing of Sign
4. Examples of Existing Signs
5. Site Map
6. Location Map
Prepared by:_ AJ Od-_
Darry es, nior Planner
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director
Attachment #ri
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. SA 96r17
SITE ADDRESS: 1875 S. Bascom Avenue,
APPLICANT: M. Howarth
P.C. MEETING: May 28, 19%
Fin ins for Approval of Sign Application for signs for Hollywood Video which exceed
ORreautrements of the Sign Ordinance
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. SA 9617:
1. The proposed signage preserves the visual quality of the City and does not create a
visually cluttered environment.
2. The proposed signage ensures the architectural compatibility with adjacent building
and the surrounding environment.
3. The proposed signage promotes the economic vitality of the City by providing
adequate identification, visibility and the individual character of this business.
4. The use for which the signs are to be erected would not be adequately identified.
5. The use is so located in reference to surrounding uses that larger signs best serve the
public welfare and is in keeping with the principles and purposes of the Sign
Ordinance.
6. The business is located such a distance from the street that an exception to the sign
ordinance is necessary.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
1. The proposed prc�ect is consistent with the General Plan and zoning.
2. The size of the signs will not be detrimental to the public welfare or person in the
neighborhood or the City as a whole.
3. The signs will not unnecessarily detract from the p iblic health, safety and welfare
and are not indecent or offensive to the senses. They do not unnecessarily clutter
the environment and do not constitute a public nuisance.
Attachment 12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. SA 96-17
SITE ADDRESS: 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
APPLICANT: M. Howarth for Hollywood Video
P.C. MEETING: May 28, 1996
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet
the following conditions is accordance with the Ordinance of the City of Campbell and the
State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified
on each condition. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to
comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified:
APPROVED PROTECT
1. The Planning Commission approval shall substantially comply with the plans
prepared for Hollywood Video dated May 3, 1996, allowing two wall signs as
modified by staff and recommended by the SARC on May 14, 1996. The total sign
area shall not exceed 114 square feet.
2. Applicant shall obtain any necessary Building or Electrical permits prior to
installation of the signs.
3. Applicant shall provide a detailed rendering of the background mountainscape-
mural and all final sign colors, proposed lighting and related details to the
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of
a Building or Electrical permit for the signs. Documents shall include a sample of
the painters references subject to review and approval of the Community
Development Director.
4. All signage shall be illuminated only during operating hours for the business, not
to exceed 11 p.m., Sunday through Saturday. Applicant shall apply for a
Conditional Use Permit if hours are to exceed 7 a.m. or 11 p.m.
5. All other requirement of the sign ordinance shall be strictly followed and enforced.
O • Attachment 13
� � Z
a i.4 z
n 4 90 >
1
OF f
Ca
a z
l---- W d
— - -- W }
a
W CL
w: J
T
i
—
\—'
o t�
z
1
~L
I
w
IT
n �IL
IL
al Q
►a
�
U
xx
Ze 9161, ILL 916
]Nj
• • Attic men wo
41
r of
I
- I
� I
fill c
. � I
SOU�-H BASC
„F 4 441
t �I.
CITY uF CAMPBELL
( --inns D-1,)pmcnt Dcparmicnt Current Planning
May 16, 19%
Mr. Matthew Howarth
Hollywood Entertainment
Director, Real Estate
670 West Napa Street. Suite G
Sonoma, CA 95476
Re: SA 96-17 — 1875 S. Bascom Avenue — Hollywood Video
Dear Mr. Howarth:
At its meeting of May 14, 1996, the Planning Commission continued your request
for two wall signs at the above -reference address to its meeting of May 28, 1986.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (4.18)
866-2140.
Sincerely,
DarryN J�
Senior Planner
co Jerry Lenora (Sign Company)
Ellis do Ellis Signs
1111 Joellis Way
Sacramento, CA 95358
Mr. Chris Meany (Property Owners)
Pruneyard Associates, L.P.
1999 S. Bascom Avenue, #200
Campbell, CA 95008
70 Nnrth Flr.r Street Camphell. Callfnrnta 95009 1423 IF, 408 866 2140 x 408 87Q'172 408 866 2740
Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 19% Page 3
at 10 E. Hamilton Avenue formerly occupied by the French Bread Cafe.
• The Use Permit for the French Bread Cafe allowed outdoor seating.
• Proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations
and staff finds it consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Restaurant will operate in a similar fashion to the previous restaurant with
the addition of the on -sale beer and wine.
• Campbell Police has reviewed this application and has no objection.
• Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Lowe thanked staff for the diagram depicting other establishments
in the vicinity with beer and wine licenses and had no other questions.
Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
There were no parties interested in addressing this item.
Chairman Lindstrom closed Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy, seconded by
Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission moved to adopt
Resolution No. 3027 approving a Modification to a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 93-06) to allow on sale beer
and wine sales in conjunction with a restaurant (California
Chicken Rollers) on property looted at 10 E. Hamilton Avenue, by
the following vote:
AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer -Kennedy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The decision of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed in writing to
the City Clerk within 10 days.
MISCELLANEOUS
3. SA 96-:7 Hearing to consider the application of Hollywood Video for
approval of a Sign Application to allow two wall signs on
property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General
Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
Planning Commission Minutes of May 14 1996 Page4
• Applicant is seeking an exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow two wall
signs for Hollywood Video of 57 square feet each. The Ordinance allows 5C
square feet.
• Hollywood Video will occupy new space in the Pruneyard and this space will
be partially obscured by the new Bank of America building.
• Staff worked with the applicant to modify their eriginal proposal.
Compromises were made and the applicant has centered their sign rather
than off -setting them and has reduced the initially proposed background
details.
• A corner site is allowed two wall signs. The two proposed 57 square foot
signs exceed the sign ordinance by a total of 14 square feet.
• The h;icko c:und detail was reduced but embellished.
• The ,,ARC meeting at which the application would normally have been
considered had' already been canceled by the time this application was
received. Thetefore, SARC held a special session meeting this evening (May
14, 1996) at 7 p.m , just prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Kearns presented the SARC report as follows:
• SARC apports the revised sign proposal with the signage to be centered and
the reuuction of the proposed background.
Chairman Lindstrom asked for verification of the square footage of these two
signs.
Mr. Darryl Jones responded that each of the signs would be 57 square feet.
Commissioner Alne asked why the applicant was proposing 57 square :eet when
only 50 square feet are allowed under the Sign Ordinance. Can any compelling
reason be provided to overlook the Ordinance?
Mr. Darryl Jones responded that staff evaluated established criteria and found
three to apply to this request:
1. The tenant space is partially obscured from the street frontage.
2. This is a new building with frontage on two sleets.
3. The proposed signage is necessary to identify the business.
Commissioner Alne reiterated his question, what reason is there for a 57 square
foot sign when the Ordinance allows 50 square feet?
Mr. Darryl Jones responded that the larger sign fits with the scale of the space in
the shopping center. Additionally, the space is partially obscured.
Commissioner Alne asked how this possible exception might impact future
application review.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page s
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that criteria is reviewed for all requests for eAceptions.
Commissioner Alne asked if there was a legal comparison to substantiate this
approval.
Mr. Darryl Jones mentioned that there are factors such as the setback distance, the
fad that the site is partially obscured by another building and that a larger sign
allows greater visibility and identification.
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy asked for clarification about the yellow neon
lights proposed.
Mr. Darryl Jones advised the Commission that the yellow neon lights are used to
replicate search lights.
Mr. Matthew Howarth, Hollywood Entertainment, Applicant:
• The neon appears above the mural. It is not flashing but rather simply
exposed neon tubing.
• Their proposed color scheme is similar to that used on the Bank of America
building.
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy asked whether the Hollywood Video sits la west
of the current Bank of America location.
Commissioner Gibbons responded that the site was formerly occupied by Pool,
Patio do Things.
Commissioner Lowe advised that the applicant has reduced the lights from four
to two.
Chairman Lindstrom asked whether the lights are counted as part of th, sign.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the lights are not counted but rather are an
architectural feature.
Chairman Lindstrom asked whether the awning in the Oil Changers request was
counted as part of the signage area.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the awning was not counted, just the lettering. The
wording was acceptable, however, the architectural compatibility of the awning
was not.
Commissioner Alne asked whether the Commission could object to the
architectural background of this proposed sign.
Planning Commission Minutes of MaT 14, 1996 Pace 6
Chairman Lindstrom expressed his concern that exceptions to the Sign Ordinance
were supposed to be limited.
Commissioner Lowe mentioned that the background was painted and highlighted
by neon.
Mr. Matthew Howarth concurred with Commissioner Lowe
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy asked where else in Campbell is neon utilized.
Has concerns about flashing neon.
Mr. Matthew Howarth advised the Commission that the neon would not be
flashing and cited Bradley Video as a business using neon.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that most of the
neor. used in Campbell is used in windows but cited LZ Premiums in addition to
Bradley Video as an example of a sign with neon.
Commissioner Alne asked who would be painting the portion of the building
(background for sign). He stated that the background is part of the sign and is too
large for the building.
Mr. Matthew Howarth advised that any elevation must be approved by the
property owners, William Wilson & Associates.
Mr. Steve Piasecki added that staff, as a rule, does not count the background as sign
area. Additionally, the applicant has modified their signing proposal to meet staff
requirements to shrink the sign and to provide an interesting background with a
mural like appearance. This should make the Agn more interesting.
Chairman Lindstrom opined that it would be better if they could see what the sign
and the background mural are supposed to look like.
Commissioner Lowe added that the rendering provided does not do justice to the
sign.
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy asked whether SARC was comfortable with the
proposed sign.
Commissioner Lowe responded that they were comfortable. The second drawing
provided this evening is misleading. The final proposal is more muted in color
palette.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Paee 7
Mr. Matthew Howarth added that they have tied in and toned down the colors
with the center.
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy again asked whether SARC was satisfied and
comfortable.
Commissioner Lowe advised that he was supportive of the toned down colors and
he was personally happy with the sign proposal.
Commissioner Kearns added that staff has also reviewed the proposal.
Mr. Matthew Howarth stated that he would work closely with staff in the final
sign details.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the mural is intended to serve as an
architectural feature to tie the sign in with the building. The sign includes
plexiglass individual letters with neon serving as accent features.
Mr. Matthew Howarth advised that cities measure lettering size in different
manners. Some measure the highest and the lowest point. Their lettering style is
staggered which using that format makes it appear to be larger than it actually is.
If their lettering was positioned in a straight line, the lettering could be larger.
Commissioner Lowe asked staff if they could confirm this point.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that Mr. Howarth was correct.
Commissioner Alne asked how much area is represented in :he mural of the
Hollywood Hills that is proposed to appear below the lettering? He added that he
felt it was a stretch to call this element ar, architectural feature. This area should
be calculated as part of the sign. Therefore, the actual sign of the applicant's
proposed sign is significantly larger.
Mr. Matthew Howarth also mentioned that the Conditions of Approval allow the
sign to be illuminated until 11 p.m. He asks that the language be modified on that
condition as he will be filing a Conditional Use Permit application to obtain
approval of operational hours to midnight.
Commissioner Jones advised that he would like to see a sample Hollywood Video
sign prior to making a decision. Stated that he agreed with Commissioner Alne.
This is a major intersection. Anything approved risks generating other extreme
signing requests. Suggested a two week continuance to allow the Commissioners
to visit one Hollywood Video site to observe the sign.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 14 1996 Paee 8
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commission would need to continue this item
to the June IIth Planning Commission meeting as the May 28th meeting has been
canceled.
Commissioner Jones asked whether this delay would adversely impact the
applicant.
Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that it would not.
Mr. Matthew Howarth interjected that it would because they have a scheduled
grand opening date of June 22nd. The builders will be delivering a shell to
Hol!ywood Video who wi!I then handle the completion of the interior.
Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that the continuance should then be for the meeting of
May 28th or that temporary signage be used by the applicant until final approval is
obtained.
Chairman Lindstrom again stated that they should get away from too many
exceptions to the Sign Ordinance or other applicants will want exceptions. The
main question appears to be whether the background proposed should be counted
as sign area or as background.
Commissioner Lowe stated that a delay is a disservice to the applicant and a
decision should be .nade this evening. The sign has been tastefully done and
meets the center's needs. The signs should be up when the business opens up.
Commissioner Kearns stated that she agreed with Commissioner Lowe.
Commissioner Alne stated that these were artificial impediments. If the City were
responsible for creating the problem, the Commission might have reason for
concern. However, no one but the applicant is responsible for creating the design
of this sign. 'The problem is the applicant's, not ours."
Commissioner Lowe stated that the premise regarding the backdrop is a "grey"
area that is left to interpretation by the applicant, the City and the Planning
Commission. Applicant has done what they could.
Commissioner Gibbons said that she supported Commissioner Lowe's opinion.
The effort taken indicates lot of thought. Based on staff review, the background is
not counted in previous approvals. Recommends action on the proposal.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that time is of the essence and a meeting can be held in
two weeks, on May 28th.
0
Planning Commission Minutes of May 14 1996 Page 9
Commissioner Jones stated that this is an important center in the City. It is worth
a delay to be sure that the Commission's decision is right. It needs to be looked
into further. A determination needs to be made if the background is counted as
an architectural feature or part of the sign.
Commissioner Meyer -Kennedy added that she is concerned about future requests.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jones. seconded by Commissioner
Atne, the Planning Commission moved to continue the Sign
Application (SA 9517) for Hollywood Videos to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 28, 1996. (6.0)
Mr. Steve Piasecki asked the applicant to bring a mural depicting the background.
Additionally, staff can bring examples of past sign approvals.
Chairman Lindstrom added that the sign itself is already 14 square feet larger
before consideration of whether to count the background.
Commissioner Kearns asked where the nearest Hollywood Video is locally.
Mr. Matthew Howarth responded that the nearest is at El Camino Real and San
Tomas Expressway.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that staff will photograph the Hollywood Video sign.
He added that the typical Hollywood Video sign is drab, not to insult the applicant.
The proposed mural would make it more interesting.
REPORT OF THE COMMI rtvrry ncvrr nva ENT QIREC10R
The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was
accepted as presented with the following comments:
• Announced that the City Msnager is leaving for the City of Cypress. His last
day is in late June.
• Governor Wilson signed SB 1073 which extends the deadline for Housing
Element Updates for two years, to 1999.
• The Historic Preservation Board Tea is scheduled for Wednesday, May 15,
19%, at 5:30 p.m.
• Two Planning Commission decisions have been appealed, the Oil Changers
sign which was denied and the Site and Architectural Approval for 1222
Harriet Avenue, which allowed five new single -story residences, had two
appeals. Staff believes that the issues will be resolved prior to the Council
meeting on the Harriet Avenue project.
Commissioner Jane Meyer -Kennedy advised that she had seen a photograph of
the barn in the paper. "It looks burned out"
ITEM NO.3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF MAY 14,1"6
SA %-17 Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Matthew Howerth, on
Howerth, M. behalf of Hollywood Entertainment, for approval of a sign
application to allow an awning sign on property located at 1875
South Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) zoning
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Approve a sign exception request to allow two wall signs on a corner
building subject to the attached findings.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is Categorically Exempt in accordance with Section 15311, Class 11
(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No further
environmental action is required.
PROJECT DATA
Building Proposed
Orientation
Sign Area
(square feet - s.f.)
Tenant Frontage
(linear feet - I.f.)
Bascom Avenue
57s.f.
551.f.
Campbell Avenue
57 s.f.
90 l.f.
Total
114 a.E.
145
Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 14, 1996
SA Q6-17 - 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 2
ANALYSIS
Gg)leral Plan and Z&ning Consistency: The site is located in a Commercially
designated property as shown on the General Plan Land Use diagram and is
located in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. Both land use
designations allow commercial uses. The proposal is a commercial use and is
consistent with both the General Plan and the C-2 zoning district.
Sign Ordinance: According to the sign ordinance, each sign shall be no greater
than one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of business frontage, and
no sign shall be greater that 50 square feet unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission. The sign ordinance does allow 2 walls signs to be
placed on a building if the building is located adjacent to two streets. Under
the ordinance, the maximum sign area allowed would be 100 s.f. for a corner
building. This application exceeds the ordinance by 14 square feet. This
application does not exceed the 1 square foot to 1 linear foot requirement.
The applicant is proposing two wall signs that exceed the sign ordinance
regulations based on the fad that:
A) The tenant space to be occupi-.d is partially obscured by a
freestanding building (Bank of America) immediately adjacent
to the intersection of Bascom and Campbell Avenues;
B) The applicant's tenant space is part of a new building with
frontage on two adjacent streets (Bascom and Campbell) ; and
C) The additional sign area is necessary to adequately identify the
business.
Sign Dimensions
Letter Size (height)
Bascom Avenue and
Campbell Avenue
2'-8" X 17' ("Hollywood" - 45 s.f.)
F-8" X 7' ('Video" - 12 s.f.)
32"
20"
Design: The design of the proposed signs is intended to replicate the
"Hollywood" sign located in the hills of Hollywood, California and 'Video"
describes the service or product provided. Additionally, the applicant
proposes to include a darker paint tone to replicate the Hollywood hills, and
will serve as the background to the sign. The background will be significantly
embellished, creating a "muralized" effect on the building facade, and will
enhance the overall quality of the sign. At night yellow neon lights will be
0
Staff Report — Planning Commission Meeting of May 14, 19%
SA 96-17 — 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 3
used to replicate searchlights beyond the hills, and red neon will be used to
highlight the outline of the hills. The word "Hollywood" will have white
individual letters and the word "Video" will be red individual letters. Both
will be internally illuminated and are identical.
Architectural Compatibility: The wording and backgroun I are located over
the center of the tenant space and balances the sign with the dimensions of
the tenant space. With the additional background detailing of the
mountainscape provided by the applicant, staff is supportive of the proposed
design and the architectural compatibility of the sign.
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The regularly scheduled Site and Architectural Review Committee of April
25, 1996 was canceled because ti.ere were no applications. The current sign
application was not ready for thak meeting in April. The applicatien is ready
for Planning Commission consideration and SARC review prior to the May
14th Planning Commission meeting. The SARC has not reviewed this
application, consequently a recommendation is not available at the time of
writing this staff report. The SARC will meet immediately before the
Planning Commission meeting and a recommendation will be presented at
the Planning Commission meeting.
Attachments:
1. Findings
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Exhibits
4. Location Map
Prepared by
Da ne for Planner
Approved b
Steve Piasicki, Community Development Director
0
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. SA 96-17
SITE ADDRESS: 1975 S. Bascom Avenue,
APPLICANT: M. Howerth
P.C. MEETING: May 14, 19%
Finding for or Approval of Sign Application for sierts for Hollywood Video
which exceed the requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. SA 96-17:
1. The proposed signage preserves ",e visual quality of the City and does
not create a visually cluttered environment.
2. The proposed signage ensures the architectural compatibility with
adjacent building and the surrounding environment.
3. The proposed signage promotes the economic vitality of the City by
providing adequate identification, visibility and the individual
character of this business.
4. The use for which the signs are to be erected would not be adequately
identified.
5. The use is so located in reference to surrounding uses that larger signs
best serve the public welfare and is in keeping with the principles and
purposes of the Sign Ordinance.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further
finds and concludes that:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning.
2. The size of the signs will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
person in the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
3. The signs will not unnecessarily detract from the public health, safety
and welfare and are not indecent or offensive to the senses. They do
not unnecessarily clutter the environment and do not constitute a
public nuisance.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. SA 96-17
SITE ADDRESS: 1875 S. Bascom Avenue
APPLICANT: M. Howerth for Hollywood Video
P.C. MEETING: May 14, 19%
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is
required to meet the following conditions is accordance with the Ordinance of
the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with
which the applicant will work is identified on each condition. Additionally,
the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply will. all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified:
APPROVED PROM
1. The Planning Commission approval shall substan!ially comply with
the plans prepared for Hollywood Video dated May 3, 19%, allowing
two wall signs as modified by staff and/or the SARC. Total sign area
shall not exceed 114 square feet.
2. Applicant shall obtain any necessary Building cr Electrical permits
prior to installation of the signs.
3. Applicant shall provide a detailed rendering of the background
mountainscape-mural and all final sign colors, proposed Lghting and
related details to the Community Development Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of � Building or Electrical permit for the
signs. Documents shall include a sample of the painters references
subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Director.
4. All signage shall be illuminated only during operating hours for the
business, not to exceed 11 p.m., Sunday through Saturday.
5. All other requirements of the sign ordinance shall be strickly followed.
• .t)F C44a • � aw
` — _ Darryl Jones
Senior Planner
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Depar—ent Current Planning
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONINM- EE
TUESDAY, MAY 14,19%
7 p.m.
Citv Council Chambers
70 N. First Street
Campbell, California 95M
(408) %6-2140
TIME FILE# ADDRESS APPLICANT PROJECT
1. 7.00 p.m. SA 9Fr17 1875 S. Bascom Ave Jerry Lenzora Two wall mounted signs
for Hollywood Video
70 North First Street Camphell, Cahforiaa 95009 1423 , 1 408. 966.2140 ta>< 409.979 2571 - rnu 408 966 2790
rOF c4M •
CITY of CAMPBELL
Communit) Development Department Current Planning
May 9,19%
Re: SA 96-17 — 1875 S. Bascom Avenue — Hollywood Video
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that the above -referenced applic__:on has been accepted as
complete. This matter has been scheduled for the following meetings:
Site and Architectural Review Committee Meeting
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 19%
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
Planning ;ommission Meeting
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 1996
Time: 730 p.m.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(408)866-2140.
Sincerely,
Darryl
Senior anner
cc Jerry Lenora, Ellis & Ellis Signs (Applicant)
Matthew H. Howarth, Hollywood Entertainment
Chris Meany, Pruneyard Associates
70 North first Strcrt ( amphell. (.ahlornla 9S()08 1411 Ili 408 .66 2140 Itt 409 479 2572 tnn 408. h6h 2790
05'03�1996 10:53 DE KLEER + ASSM INC 916 711 4916 P.01
[�E._KLL E_IL R���
A1S S C_ C�I.1_!APi I
P o.1 o t ,• d
Akc_Illlh(.Tl1kF INTCRIOR Dt'SI N
t APJI' �'I ANNINt
` FAMI►1IJ.ETRANSMISSION VFRSIIFEI
Date: N A 3 _Ivy Time:
This ru isdirected b: R Y 'ONES _
Compas�:C+ �(,L
Phone:_--- FAx PHONE:_ OS'. 86 6. 8 3 p /
DK+A Job Namber(Name: O LL pp i-
uuE A-Ro srbPP�i0 c�,t/TER
ELE�j4 I�it1S �TEl�ol2
HAVE PLEA) FA- 7a
Az VEST of
k4TT ML._ -�—_
'%is faa ba■ baem seat by:
Tom Ds Kker
Jim Petldos _ _ OrWual will be mailed.
See" Barry Orlin —I will not be mailed.
Mary Cloedeu
Number of paaea lacludia` cover sbeet:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE AI,L PACES OR ARE DISCONNE(TF,D, PI EASE
NOTIFY US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT TItF TELF,PIIONF NUMBER BELOW.
u/57 I ST RF[ T SACRAMENTO, CA V5819 41
6 01 472h la- /11 491
fl
IA
a �Jps
,,.
Q
--
_
�
cc
Jo 9I6b ILL
916
JNI
)OSW 0311 33
—01
9661 LO GO
• CO'd ieuna •
�J
�FZ
1 W
�.
CO'd 9I6> SCL 916 ]+I Jg55N • tl331a 30 LL"i 9661£0-SB
04,25. 19%. 11:31 CE VLEEA • ASSOC INC 916 731 4916 P.01
WQ K LlE'E'k
X+ S SK)iCr1 �A; T; E ;
r
AW IliiH il1hL INIfkIC>R(C`,1(_rJ IAt V ''IAIJNIN(
FA IMV T A S ISSiOW COVE]$HW
Dater. 2s 19% Time: 12' 30
This his is dittoed to: DArR R `( ?° NHS
ComPao�: CAHP[3ELL� Cam{ _ Dept: 84AJA1Mle
Phone: ___— FAX PHONE. _4eL6 (6. 838
DK+A Job Number/Name: HOW-Y woo p V/ IDEO
DA F=P_)(L - 7yese — EX TER.10R
��yA TioNs H �vE _ SEEN _�XE.�
Lo You A-11- THE_ R.E cpv E -- - OF
PA jr 00WAf;'jj-F. PLEA_5E cALL
MATT TO ,p! scuss
Thla fa: has been sent by:
Tom De Kher
Jim Perkins _ _ Original will be mailed.
Steve Barry X, Original will not be mailed.
Mary Gkieden
Number of Pages Including cover sheet:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALI- PAGES OR ARE DIM-ONNEUTFI), PLEASE
NOI'IFY US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER 81F.LOW.
cc,: HAT r HowA fZTH
.111.7 1 :,'kHT ,A(-RAMENIO CA 95819 k. 14916
SB •'9�•105�1'LO!�D TP.US7• 108?2 �=F 18'St1
.01
emu 9A K
Sign
Application
pa•"rq Dsp.nawr >o North h+s SMr, w •ph++. G iJwrar SYOoe r so
Ll
RNMINAME
A17[. esb, lo5
Lx- --Iv,)_Aw.* 1 ill c • Acre y o -
C1YRrA'M �' 1`1-P.T75r1 X%Z . m Go
11yr.-.7-MullwL,
• l •y- .tom ti:'rI
•
wv�•. r ,� > r r i j
In accordance with Sections 2133.030 and 21.33.110 of the City of Campbell Munidpal Code, the
herby makes application for approval of the attached sign plans and agrees to abide by the Sign of
the City and the Conditions of Approval to, this application.
� 4G cc�
A 's St tune Date I'robtelyOtvr.n' run
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY D
Approved as Presented:
Conditionally Approved:
Q Denied:
by: —
for Steve Pisacki. A.I.C.P., DPracior of Plannirq JDue
Rrd.7/l /92
To: City Clr
'•tgRleNo: 1b�ji
Pkease * and receipt
for the to.. wing rnorues.
.
•w(wa.o rtOm
1m5
air Ihrr
1. My[ZI;
A. 1+acres- General Plan Amendment
$4,425
Zone Qtange
4A25
Planned Development Permit
4,425
EIR Review
toss
B. 0-1 a. -re General Plan Amendment
3,225
Zone Change
3,225
Planned Development Perrrut
3,225 --
EIR Review
3,225
It. Minor
A. Subdivision Map (5+ lots)
Site and Architectural 10. K S.F.
Tentative Parcel Map Wl-ots)
B. Site and Architectural 610 K S.F.
Variance (Non-residential)
Text Amendments
Use Permit
111. Mi_�ellaneuux
A. Variance (Residential)
Modifications of Approval
Modification PD Penrut
Reinstatements
Revised Development Schedule
Extensions of Tune
B. Lot Line Adjostnumts
Site and Architectural (Res.) (Each House)
Signs (Each Sign)
Fence Exception
Promotional Events
C. Appeals
Downtown Development Perrot
Historic Preservation Zone. Use Permit, HP Peanut
IV Other:
Maps
General Plan Text
Zoning Orc inance
Copies (per page)
Refundable Deposit - Account 2203
Fire Department Review - Account 01.303.3322
Architectural Approval
Project Plan Review
Subdivision
Park Impact Fee - Account 295535.4920
3=
2,150
Z150
1,550
1,550
1550
1,550
960
960
%0
960
960
960
500
120
120
120
120
0
0
0
6.25
I&M
22
1
50
190
1 W+ 10 per lot/uNt
For City Clerk Only: Recap) No. A (ir 02 RECEIVED
Amaaa Paid; _
yA (P`RFF 1 8CC 1(n9� 9F6
Exception for Major Projects: It is anticipated that the application jproc$W n�KclSat4FA�CE
selected rtujor Projects will significantly exceed the above fees. In these cases, the
Community Development Director may collect a deposit and charge actual time spent to
process the application based upon current hourly rates.
Note Adopted by Resolution No. SRI by City Council, City of Campbell, 6/20/95