The URL can be used to link to this page

TS 83-09CITY OF CAMPBELL 1106,1130,1142 AUDREY AVE. TS 83-09 1 of 2 lads of OBLRV 0 LA 1 AVE TS 83-09 OWER: Kennet' 1106 A Steven 1082 L Cmpbel 3 I-NGrNM: Ste U NCB />L i� 9� 1211 San10e / /Xly a .b►- All ps- OW MEMORANDUM CITY OFCAM►BELL To. JOE ELLIOTT Date OCTOBER 17, 1985 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F, ART KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR Subo" TS 83-09/S 85-13 1106, 1130 [ 1142 Audrey Ave. ----APAN4-2--3---------------------------------------------- At its meeting of October 8, 1985 the Planning Commission considered Site and Architectural plans for the development of single family homes at the above -referenced address, also known as OBurn Court. In addition to approving the proposed homes, the Commission took action to recommend that the street improvements for OBurn Court be standard, rather than alternative as appro•vd by the Council on February 5, 1985 under File No. TS 83-09. The reasons expressed by the Commission for this recommendation of standard street improvements are: improved drainage conditiors for the home sites, improved driveway placements, street aesthetics, improved maintenance conditions, and the high quality of the hones. Pursuant to Council Resolution No. 6002, this matter should be referred to the Council for their consideration, Id cc: Bill Nelms Jim Penoyer Attachment: P. C. Minutes - 10/8/P.5 i a � r MEMORANDUM _ CITY OFCAMPBELL t To Joe Elliott 0.1. January 11, 1985 Director of Public Works From Arthur A. Kee Planning Director subwt Alternative Street Inprovements Lards of Oburn (TR 7624) At its meeting of January P, 1985, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to construct alternative street improvements for the subject single family subdivision. After the review of the infor- mation presented at this hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adapt such improvements for this development. Pursuant to Resolution 6002 of the City Council, this matter should be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. TJli:lj V11Y Of P.AMPHILL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE C AM P 8 E L L, C A L I F 0 R N I A 95008 I1081 378 8 14 1 De—trt T: Planning January 4, 1985 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 8, 1985 will conduct a hearing to consider alternative street improvements for an approved subdivision located on properties as delineated on the enclosed map. The Planning Commission welcomes your oral or w,;t'-n comments re- garding alternative street improvements for this proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 p.m. - January 8, 1985 - City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First St., Campbell, CA. If you have any questions regarding this hearing, please call the Planning Department at 866-2140. Sincerely, AR'I" A. KEE PLAMINC DIRECMR Id T-T �r � a I � I • I a I w I . T n r la— N � �Ta 'T" I \\ I I e I I I I I I I •7 h� r� L � `�. `� � �.... i t 1 .. 1 I I I I I se I n i +. I AU-REY .LOC. I I IE+! •CBEs a � � ` � � I_ .• �R re � 7: Q t7 lel !' I� � � � iR 1 aw T_J lyEl 0 1 e e I lTe �__ I f' B I» �� sT a i as a' » 1 R I I 9� - a l. 1 �S ,p 3 N 13 n I 7v I �e >•1 . ... �r / ; it r: 1 R: I _��_ __ i e 1 li w i • i ee. I .., it _CT E LUC0T s W 1 z IiB� `____R r / • 1 I I I j j CO to 4 a y I q sl •'r+ � ;�i'• `'•'-�_ V LR � letL/_gL__rL_n�-1_- L_T_L_1_J_'• •� - n [MLR erg _ 'rJt__+`� {_•1! nr tf is t7 #I I� Z• i » u j !i !O •f LV i �R WES"PARR AVENUE it . Nees I 1 � I a A •t L.3 S �4 e w. I suc RET � R {.,T .0 NET MI M. SI FILE NO: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Obum ADD;EM: 1106, 1130, 1142 Audrey Ave. P.C. MTG.- 1/10/84 TILLINGHASI JOHN P ET AL BRADSHAW BONNIE ANDERSON ST IEN B 6 EVA 1160 SIEINWAY AV 1187 AUDREY AV 2S SPRINGHILL DR CMiPBELL CA 95008 CMB'BELL CA 9SO08 CAZADERO CA 95421 APN 406-16-011 APN 406-24-009 APN 406-24-018 YOUNGBLOOD FRANKIE J F DIANE x LOPEZ DAVID D $ ELAINE OBURN DANNY E 1156 SIEINWAY AV 1079 AUDREY AV 1106 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 CMEBELL CA 95008 CAMELL CA 95008 atJ,,N 406-16-012 APN 406-24-010 APN 406-24-019 PASSANTINO RAYMOND 6 MARGARET CREIGHTON EMA B OBURN DANNY E 1126 SI'EINWAY AV 1089 AUDREY AV 79 S FIRST ST CMEBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-16-015 APN 406-24-011 APN 406-24-020 PETERSON DAVID C ET AL t SWANSON DELMAR G E MAIMRIE FAVRE GEORGE R 1120 SIEINWAY AV 1097 AUDREY AV 1102 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-16-016, 17 APN 406-24-012 APN 406-24-021 ARCHIBALD EVA M NIELSON GEORGE J & JOAN SCHOLZ CRAIG M 751 BRIARhDOD WY 3219 FRANZ VALLEY RD 1090 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 SANTA ROSA CA 95404 CA! —BELL CA 95008 APN 406-16-064,65 APN 406-24-013 APN 406-24-022 LARRY B GRATTAN M:OOWN JAMES R 6 GERTRUDE M4RAHRE4S HENNING ET AL 15184 ELM PARK 1115 AUDREY AV 1080 AUDREY AV LOS GATOS CA 9SO30 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-16-066, 67 PPN 406-24-014 APN 406-24-023 CLOUGH HAROLD $ JOANNE ODENHEIMER JOHN T $ NANCY KINXEN ROBERT C ET AL 1050 STEINWAY AV 1129 AUDREY AV 1068 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CMTBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406- 17-043 APN 406-24-015 APN 406-24-024 CA70 BERTHA L MITCHELL NELLIE R I.OWE JATES T 6 "NNE 1046 STEINWAY AV 1139 AUDREY AV 1037 LUOOT WY CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-17-044 APN 406-24-016 APN 406-24-031 ODD DAVID T 8 SHIRLEY PETERSON LEE R 6 JULIT, SPENCER LEVY JUDITH 1040 STEINWAY AV 1156 AUDREY AV 1049 LUCOT WY CAMPBEIL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-17-045 APN 406-24-017 APN 406-24-032 FLOYD GLENN E $ NAOMI !C5 B IEVA F 1028 STEINWAY AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 7SK ILL DR APN 406-17-046 IL f I FILE NO: IS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Obian Page 2 WILDT ROBERT A 6 MARY 1061 LUCOT WY CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-033 MALIORY CHESTER L ET AL 1073 LUCDT WY CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-034 ALLEN CAROLINE M 6 W H 1081 LUCOT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-035 HOLMAN ROBERT W 6 MAUDE 1091 LUODT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-036 SCHICKER 1OTHAR R 6 SOPHIA 1092 LUCOT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-038 SHEPARD JOSEPH E 6 SHIRLEY 1074 LUCOT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-040 FRI-AS ROSENDO 6 NANCY 1062 LUCOT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-041 ESTEPA JOHN 6 CHARLOTTE 1047 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-049 GONZALES ARTiW 6 ALICE 1057 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN A06-24-050 IL 1 BEN7I.EY WALSH E SUZANNE 1067 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-OSI HALL JADES H ET AL 1079 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-052 HJLDE4 HARVEY 6 TV44M 1089 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-053 MCCURDY BILLY 6 FRANCES 1099 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-054 PERRY WILLLAM A ET AL 1113 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-055 JCHNSON THEIM M 1127 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-056 WALCOTT ROGER A 6 INEZ 1139 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-057 HUNTER TODD L 6 JANET 1584 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-058 SANTAGA PATRICIA 1566 HACK AVE CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-OS9 1 41 Hhh'19lMAIM} C 6 MAIM 19kN AV �4� CA 9SO08 APV'406-24-060 ALFORD CAL 6 SIBYL L 1536 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-061 LffMEYER LINIA S ET AL 1518 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-062 GRAHAM-ARMSTRONG ELEANOR 1500 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-063 IESM)ND FRANK G 6 MARGARET 1491 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-001 GARIM HAImLD S B BEVERLY 1511 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-002 SAKAMDTO HATSUYO 1525 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-003 HENDRIX HAROLD E 1543 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 9S00B APN 406-25-004 McGIN Y LESTER G 6 ALM4 82S IRIS AV SUN?MALE CA 94087 APN 406-25-005 FILE NO: TS 83-09 APPLICWr Lands of Obum 11 PAGE 3 IDOTA TOSHIAKI $ AKIE 1581 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-25-006 ENFANTIND JOSFPH F, ELIZABFIH 770 W PARR AVF LOS GAIDS CA 95030 APN 406-26-016 HENDRIC)[SON HENRY E B VIOLET SCHUt4OIER FRED M F, IREFNE 1597 HACK AV 20303 CALLF T(74TALIRI CAMPBELL CA 95008 SARA7UGA CA 95070 APN 406-25-007 APN 406-26-017 BRO T ROGER C & ALICF J 1190 AUDREY AV C41PBELL CA 9500E APN 406-25-025 RASPER GDETZ H 1149 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-026 STUCKY ALLEN L $ IDA 1159 AUDREY AV CA PB11L CA 9SO08 APN 406-25-027 MVELL CHARLES n F, MARY A 1169 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-028 VERTIOIA ALBEKT P ET AL 1179 AUDREY AV C4PBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-029 BRADSHATV ALICE 1187 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-25-030 �030 37B E MA LOS 06726 02 5030 APN 4 26-028 OO ttmmT1' IT ' LOS GATOS 815 POLLARD LIDS GA 9 30 APN-26-008 L1ERE17 CROES 1550 BACK AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-060 BRUCE CHRISTENSON, TRUSTEE Ill 11 ST. J01 Q' Cr. P 700 SAN JOSE CA 95113 APN 406-26-28 WE IDSPITALS INC 815 POLLARD RD LOS GAMS CA 95030 APN 406-26-32 yid CITY OF CAMPBELL �1- 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE 'Cl. CAMPeE LL. CAL FORNIA 95008 (408) 378 8 14 1 --v Department- Planning December 21, 1983 NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the hour of 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 1984 in the Cit,, Hall Council Chambers, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California as the time and place for public hearing to consider the Tentative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue, and to consider an exception to the subdivision regula- tions allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback of S' rather then 1S' from a street property line, located in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, less then 3.S units per gross acre) Zoning District for the creation of ten residential parcels. TS 83-09 APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 Ft 37 Map and legal description of subject property is on file in the Office of the Planning Department, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California. Interested persons may appear and be heard at said hearing. CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COWSSION AKIHUR A. KEE SECRETARY /1 11 17 71, '» AUDREY e KeLocR I .., 1 1 IIEN ACRES i i.. k IIF la' n 1 •A,. 1,ti.. �_ ±r tr !4 �'at ; �; —�____ I C . � � a• \ v � as I as i a. i » ar CT W9 x-- _Lrt __ i Eo Lt ,Rt M' .� e�`� x: I � / � ,_ ' as � .. I •• I �� _L_ —L_ J_F I _ • I . , I a I s I I No ,Nf.It �t'L �1 x Is v Ii LP w i a ? t I WEST x�PARR—° ......�M�S] C.e, i I I OI�aM iOtuL+.! I I N ,np--irr7�L I I rcL:J � i = r JJ !CL S 'f 90 ! I �P r• �—rlLfL-..S? AC MET �fR • r !°\ A I * n. CITY (IF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAM P 8 E LL. CA LI F 0 R N I A 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department Planning !,cember 21, 1983 NOTICE OF DARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the hour of 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, JanLary 10, 1984 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California as the time and place for public hearing to consider the Tentative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue, and to consider an exception to the subdivision regula- tions allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback of 5' rather then 15' from a street property line, located in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, less then 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District for the creation of ten residential parcels. TS 83-09 APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 a 37 Map and legal description of subject property is on file in the Office of the Planning Department, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California. Interested persons may appear and be heard at said hearing. CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING 03MSSION ARAM A. KEE SEOMIARY J :_rl� 12�3 "° 1 - - 1C �'\ I• I I 1 t I � I a» AUDREY � .VIEW A(:NES 9 I± F. tJ g I 7 N tJ � � � 2 'a s � j � x• � ar � ze I { - - _ _ . W -�� r I x• I ra o f ! e 11 ,-3e�--- a; � I \ I a I as I s• I n I —r�..� � ! � b'J i s• � n 1 a I I I � l 37 I g I aE 61 '" ♦ '��TI rr ; _ n0 e] �' 11 i eo I 10 I •° 1w 1 --a _ eia to ' P'p �-3 � � � I I I I I •� Al _ __� X 19 •� / •� I = I I T_ 1"- �L9 IS., r f =� ,� II 1 I • I . I s 1 Af I^ I ffi _.�, I• n� I i I I I W - - AVENUE—�-- —'--'I - WEST � PAI111�ar sit— s a� I 1 oeirN'oauv I I € sG !�'► aim a � !I - �e►w -A'R__ ly O(eJJ� 11b PECL.x A ' I 161 " NE* / pa �o k p%1� h• \r 11 Al NET •"I �- _ 1.1 llIll ♦ r c i Y I I r-v-" rom"n? r1 r" " u 4T A 40 1 A` f '`� o G � � �—�'"-"Gi' � p. /✓ � r �w 6 : c J rf L p i' :.. yL�. f/ � y 4 I ` --- AUDREY a ,. BLOCK „ 1 o, EN IcBE] a _ I 17 Ig .: ly �� I I.ef' I•� 8 $ ii Ix li c r! I! 2. I= t! F I f • - v: i� li-~ice-irr1-1-NN_1_9�710 _�_�'�!'- u �so1 CT nos f WI W._ LUCOT _ ., W, - - ,i � I •g- per. t ��ji.� - CO f9 �b d 1 "r IIP f II • I I I I If I M i Il I ZEST —PARR `e.."t -- I n••AVENUE—T•-----fin N I I I ONK[• IONN...40 I i I ti9 M /I Ise fc BET I PC I �4 NM fI; f MI �f54. IL f. ]r AC NET I =I 000\.. ` z l �.. Nrn ...� li4r qI FILE NO: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Oburn /, PAGE 3 IDOTA T0SHIAKI 6 AKIE 1581 HACK AV CMnELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-25-006 HENDRICKSON HENRY E 6 VIOLET 1597 HACK AV CMPBELL G 95008 APN 406-25-007 BFVTT LmGER C 6 ALICE J 1190 AUDREY AV CMPBELL G 95008 APN 406-25-025 KASPER GOETZ H 1149 AUDREY AV CMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-026 MICKY ALLEN L 6 IDA 1159 AUDREY AV CMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-25-027 HOWFLL CHARLES I) 6 MARY A 1169 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-25-028 VERTIOIA ALBERT P ET AL 1179 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL G 95008 APN 406-25-029 BRADSHAW ALICE 1187 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-030 FRMWI-ZLRDY OIANNE 37B E MA LOS GA G 5030 APN 4 -26-028 ENFANTINO JOSEPH F ELIZABFM 770 W PARR AVE LOS GA7OS G 9SO30 APN 406-26-016 SOMACHER FRED M A IRFV^E 20303 CALIF. ?MALVD SARATOGA G 95070 APN 406-26-017 0OP4UNITY IT LOS GATOS 815 POLLARD LOS GA 9 30 APN-26-008 EVERETT CROSS 1550 HACK AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-060 BRUCE CHRISTENSON, TRUSTEE III W ST. JOM CI. #700 SAN JOSE CA 95113 APN 406-26-28 N1E HOSPITALS INC 815 POLLARD RD LOS GATOS G 95030 APN 406-26-32 FILE NO: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Obuun Page 2 WILIIT ROBERT A 6 MARY 1061 LUCOT WY CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-033 M41IARY CHESIER L ET AL 1073 LUODT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-034 ALLEN CAROLINE M & W H 1081 LUCOT WY CWBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-035 HOMMAN ROBERT N G MAULS 1091 LXDT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-036 SCHICKER LOIVAR R 6 SOPHIA 1092 LUOOT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-038 SHEP.ARD JOSEPH E 6 SHIRLEY 1074 LMODT WY CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-040 FRIAS ROSENDO $ NANCY 1062 LUCOT WY CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-041 ESIEPA JOHN 6 CHARLOTTE 1047 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 AIN 406-24-049 GONZALES ARTHUR 6 ;ITCE 1057 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 AIN 406-24-OSO BE? J;T EY WALSH E SUZANNE 1067 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-051 HALL JAMS H ET AL 1079 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-052 HOLDEN HARVEY $ TAMARA 1089 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-053 McORM BILLY 8 FRANCES 1099 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-054 PERRY WILLIAM A ET AL 1113 W PARR AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 AIN 406-24-055 JOHNSON THEL MA M 1127 W PARR AV CAAPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-056 WALOOTT ROGER A & INEZ 1139 W PARR AV CAPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-057 HWNTER TODD L 6 JANET 1594 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-058 SANTAGA PATRICIA 1566 HACK AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-059 C 6 wim 1941 HAMAO AV C4nja CA 95008 AT 406-24-060 ALRW CAL 8 SIBYL L 1536 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-24-061 LUMEYfR LINDA S ET AL 1518 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-062 GRAHAM-ARMSTRONG ELEANOR 1500 WICK AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-24-063 LESMTND FRANK G 6 MARGARET 1491 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-001 GARINER HWLD S B BEVERLY 1511 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-25-002 SAKA OTO HATSUYO 1525 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-25-003 HENDRIX HAROLD E 1543 HACK AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 AIN 406-25-004 MCGINTY LESIER G & ALMA 825 LOIS AV SItOMALE CA 94087 APN 406-25-005 J FILE NO: IS 83-09 APPLIrMT: Lands of Obum ^ ^ ADDRESS: 1106, 1130, 114Z Audrey Ave. P.C. MTG.: 1/10/84 TILLINGHAST JOHN P ET AL BRADSHAW BONNIE AN ERSON STEVIN B 8 EVA 1160 STEINWAY AV 1187 AUDREY AV 25 SPRINGHILL DR CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAZA1ERD CA 95421 APN 406-16-011 APN 406-24-009 APN 406-24-018 YOUNGBLOOD FRANKIE J 8 DIANE r LOPEZ DAVID D & ELAINE OBURN IANNY E 1156 STEINWAY AV 1079 AUDREY AV 1106 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 aAPN 406-16-012 APN 406-24-010 APN 406-24-019 PASSANTINO RAYMOND & MARGARET CREIGHTON EDNA B OBURN IANNY E 1126 STEINWAY AV 1089 AUDREY AV 79 S FIRST ST CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-16-015 APN 406-24-011 APN 406-24-020 PETERSON DAVID C ET AL > SWANSDN DELMAR G 6 MARJORIE FAVRE GEORGE R 1120 STEINKAY AV 1097 AUDREY AV 1102 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 95008 APN 406-16-016, 17 APN 406-24-012 APN 406-24-021 ARCHIBALD EVA M NIELSON GEORGE J $ JOAN SCHOLZ CRAIG M 751 BRLARbDOD WY 3219 FRANZ VALLEY RD 1090 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 SANTA ROSA CA 9S404 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-16-064,65 APN 406-24-013 APN 406-24-022 LARRY B GRATTAN MOWN JADES R E GERTRUDE KUWfl;FNS EETNING ET AL 1S184 ELM PARK 1115 AUDREY AV 1080 AUDREY AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-16-066, 67 APN 406-24-014 APN 406-24-023 CLOUGH EAROLD 6 JOANNE OIENHEITER JOHN T & NANCY KINAMN ROBERT C ET AL 1050 STEINWAY AV 1129 AUDREY AV 1068 AUDREY AV CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406- 17-043 APN 406-24-015 APN 406-24-024 CATO BERTHA L MICHELL NELLIE R LOWE JADES T 6 JOANNE 1046 STEINWAY AV 1139 AUDREY AV 1037 LIXDT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 95008 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-17-044 APN 406-24-016 APN 406-24-031 000 DAVID T & SHIRLEY PETER:,JN LEE R 6 JULIE SPENCER LEVY JUDITH 1040 STEINWAY AV 11S6 AUDREY AV 1049 LUODT WY CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-17-04S APN 406-24-017 APN 406-24-032 FLOYD GLENN E 6 NAOMI 1028 STEINWAY AV 725SFTLL7DPB $ EVA F CAMPBELL CA 9SO08 APN 406-17-046 CITY OF C.AIMPBEII 70 NORTE FIRST STREET CAM PBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 0",i e t Planning January 4, 1985 Mr. Kenn eth 0burn 1106 Audrey Ave. Cmapbell, CA 95008 RE: TS 83-09 ]ands of Oburn 1106, 1130 F, 1142 Audrey Ave. Please be advised that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the hour of 7!30 p.m. on Tuesday, January F, 1985 in the City Hall Council Chanters, 70 N. First St., Campbell, Gilifornia, as the time and place to consider alternative street improvements for the above _referenced subdivision on Oburn Court. A copy of the sgenda and the Staff Comment Sheet is enclosed for your information. It is advisable that you, or an authorized representative be present at said meeting. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at 866-2140. Sincerely, Qef. �� MMM A. KEE "4c PLMQJING DIRECTOR ld r'1 ItLL L February 11, 1984 Members of the City Council 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 RE: Tentative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue. Dear Council Memb— , As a resident of :riis area for many years, I would like to exnress my concerns regarding this subdivision. My home is on the perimeter of this subdivision so I will be directly affected. According to the map that I have my property is situated so that parts of two lots will be in back of my property. I am concerned about the 5' rear setback, first of all. I feel that this is inadequate for our existing neighborhood. Other cities in Santa Clara County have 20' - 25' rear setbacks and I feel that a larger setback would be more in keeping with our neighborhood and its larger lots. Another concern I have is the loss of my and my family's privacy should two to two -and -a -half story buildings be built with windows facing our yard and rear windows. I feel that a lower building height would be more appropriate for t,ie character of our neighborhood and would not hurt existing property values. Lastly, I would like to ask that Campbell City Council review the subdivision plans and keep in mind the concerns of the existing residents in this area. Thank You, Linda K. Lindemeyer 1518 Hack Avenue Campbell, California 95008 0 CITY COUNCIL DfrC,. FEBRUMZY 4, 1986 Civic Inprow ent Administrative Assistant Lee - Report dated February 4, Commission Reco men- 1986. dation to retain the "Cburn Court" street MIS: Watson, Podgorsek - that the City Council not nave �, C rename Oburn Court at the recamendation of the Civic Irprovenent Cartnissiou. Motion adopted unanimously. 404 cc rtrf; NN 19, 1985 Minute Action - Public Works Director Elliott - Report dated approving modi- November 19, 1985. fications of conditions of Councilmember Podgorsek had questions regarding the approval - type of street improvements being recommended. tentative sub- division 83-09 Public Works Director Elliott responded. Tract 7624 The Council referred the subject of street naming to the Ci,ic Improvement Commission. Lee Petersen, 1156 Audrey Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the Council, and spoke against the installation of standard street improvements objecting to the white concrete, and also requested that the street be renamed. Following discussion, M/5: Ashworth, Doetsch - apr-owing modifications of conditions of approval - tentative subdivision map 63-09 - Tract 7624. Motion adopted by a 4-0-1 vote, Councilmember Podgorsek voting "No". RM I PLANNING COR41SSION t OCTOBER 22, 1985 t Staff Report Information: O'burn Court (S 85-13). It was the consensus of the Commission that this information be noted and filed. • • i 1 i tt { CITY ()p WIL • FEBR MY 5, 1985 STAFF FXPW1S - NEW ITEMS RF7QJIRING OXNCIL ACTION coning Dept. - Planning Director Kee - Report dated February 5, 1985. Minute Action - alternative street M/S: Kotowski, POdgorsek - to approve staff recomaendation inpruveQents - adopting alternative street Lquwe ants for TS 83-09, 13 83-09 - Lands Lands of Qx=. Motion adopted unaninously. of Oburn - 7- CITY O"CIL IHM. PaRlIm 5, 1985 STAFF REP RM - NEX ITEMS FEWIRING OXMIL ACTION Planning Dept. - Planning Director Kee - Repast dated February 5, 1985. Minute Action - alternative street M/S: Kotowski, Pbdgorsek - to approve staff recomwndation inp oveaents - adopting alternative street irprove ants for TS 83-09, IS 83-09 - Lands Lands of Cburn. Motion adopted unanimoaisly. of Oburn - 7- PLANNING COMMISSION P.ECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt alternative street improvements for TS 83-09 (Lands of Oburn). DISCUSSION At its meeting of January 24, 1984 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map which allowed the creation of 10 single family lots. The City Council subsequently approved this proposed subdivision at its meeting of February 21, 1984. Condition 7 of the subdivision map approval required the subdivider to install street improvement in accordance with the Council policy on Alternative Street Improvements. The subdivider, at this time has submitted a proposal which indicates the provision of street improvements for this project. The proposed street improvements would provide a street width of 40 ft. with an asphalt curb and walkway along the sides of the street for the proposed cul-de-sac. The two lots having frontage along Audrey Ave. would additionally be provided with street improvements similar to the cul-de-sac improvements. The proposed street improvements would be consistent with the City Council policy adopted in December 1980. Additionally, the provision of alternative street improvements in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Public Works Staff is prepared to discuss the street improvements for this project, if the Council has any questions. At its meeting of January 8, 1985 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt alternative street improvements for this subdivision with a 5-2-0 vote (Comm ssioners Kasolas and Toshach voting "no"). A copy of the minutes is attached. COST Not applicable. FWPAWD ry FDA Planning Department 2/5/85 _ PIAWINC Oa1�fIS1ION KMI. JN1lM 8, 1985 Mr. Fatholah Harandi, applicant, to speak in favor of his application. Mr. Harandi noted the number of places which sell alcohol in the immediate vicinity, as well as other stations in the City. He stated he did not know by he should not get a use permit for his station when everyone else has one; and, if the decision was up to the Police Department, why was his applicatio. taken --why wasn't he just told to ask the Police Department. Mr. Kee explained the application procedure, and noted that it was up to the Commission to make a decision --not Staff. Staff only makes a recommendation, and the Police Department comments are only a part of the information that is presented for the Commission's information. Commissioner Kasolas asked the applicant if he would like a continuance in order to review the issue further to see if it might be possible to come up with another type of proposal. Mr. Harandi stated that he would like a continuance. Mr. Kee explained the time frames, and there was a brief discussion with the applicant regarding deadlines for presenting new plans. M/S: Toshach, ^_hri;t - That UP 84-18 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1985 in order that the applicant might consider additional proposals. Motion carried with a vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Perrine voting "no". The Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m; the meeting reconvened at 9:19 P.M. MISCELLANEOUS TS 83-09 Hearing to consider Alternative Lands of Oburn Street Improvements for an approved subdivision (Oburn court), located in an R1-10-S (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Helms reported that Audrey Avenue is indicated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as one of the streets which might be a condidate to alternative street improvements. Oburn Court is a recently approved subdivision off of Audrey Avenue. The alternatuive street improvement approach provides that something other than the standard city street might be used to allow for a more rural appearance; or, more specifically, that asphalt maybe used in place of standard concrete curbs and gutters, and the alignment of sidewalks may deviate. The applicant has indicated his interest -n possible alternative street improvements for Oburn Court and has submitted this request to the Public works Department, as is called for under the General Plan. The procedures provide that a hearing be held at the Planning commission level so that neighborhood input may be obtained. Mr. Helms noted indicated that notice has been mailed to the neighborhood in order that input might be received at this eveiing's meeting. Commissioner Toshach asked about the lifetime of asphalt as compared to concrete. Mr. Helms noted that, ;n Staff's opinion, concrete would last several times longer. However, there are some extenuating circumstances that come into play. The City has an extensive sidewalk repair program because of the damage done by street trees displacing the crete. One of the things about asphalt is that it is more flexible, and would result in a more elastic situation with the tree roots, might result in being able to keep the asphalt in place longer. Commissioner Toshach asked if the City paid for the repair of the curbs and gutters. Mr. Helms explained that the monies are taken from a maintenance district formed with funds levied on all property owners in the City. The district was established primarily to maintain street trees and lighting. Commissioner Toshach noted that he was under the impression that .ltox native street improvements were something which would be allG-,able to provide for lower cost housing. The lots on Oburn Court are large lots which will probably result in larger homc= being developed, homes which will not be constructed as low cos: housing. Therefore, it would seem that this street would not be appropriate for alternative street improvements. Commissioner Toshach continued that he wondered if the ultimate result would be the City subsidising a developer. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the plans called for a monolithic sidewalk. Mr. Helms responded that the plans call for a 5' sidewalk adjacent to the curb, with a rolled curb. The standard 5' right-of-way will be placed behind the sidewalk and trees will be placed in that area. Commissioner Kasolas asked if it would be safe to as: e that the City will not have the sane problem in the future because of the types of trees being required for street planting today. Mr. Helms noted that the problem will certainly diminish in the future. There was a brief discussion regarding funding being used for street repairs. Commissioner Toshach cited the section in the General Plan (page 58) - Removal of Government Constraints - which indicates the possibility of alternative street improvements, which in turn, could be passed onto the consumer in the form of lower housing costs. Chairman Fairbanks explained the background of the alternative street improvement issue, noting that it was the result of hearings and citizen input indicating that the residents would like to see the rural atnosphere maintained in certain sections of the City, and one way that was suggested which might provide this would be the use of street improvements which were something other than the standard City improvements. Chairman Fairbanks noted that she did not believe there was a connection drawn between the size or the cost of the housing as it relates to ashpalt paving. Commissioner Kasolas asked how the provision of a 5' monolithic asphalt sidewalk lent itself to the making of a rural character when the Commission has no control of the types of architecture, colors, or siding on houses that will be built on these lots. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he had understood that discussion of alternative street improvements would take place in instances where we would be retaining_ the rural character of a neighborhood. In this case, we do not know chat is coming up, as far as the character of the street. Commissioner Christ added that he thought the street improvements on Oburn Court should match those planned for Audrey Avenue, if and when Audrey is improved. A lack of consistency in the improvements could create an eyesore, rather than a rural character. Commissioner Kasolas noted that we wouid be setting the type of improvements for Audrey Ave. if alternate street improvements are approved for this subdivision. Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission is going over old ground. One of the conditions of approval for this tentative subdivision map was that the developer consider alternative street improvements, which is what he is attempting to do at this point. Chairman Fairbanks asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this issue. Mr. Steve Arnold, 1211 Park Ave., San Jose, engineer for this project, indicated that the improvements could easily be changed to provide a rolled concrete curb, thereby providing the life expectancy of concrete, but with a rural atmosphere. The owner and the builder has not objection to constructing a rolled concrete curb. The street would look better and it doesn't cost that much more, fir. Arnold A 0 -12- continued that asphalt street are ^ery durable; the soil in this area is excellent, and will support concrete or asphalt. Mr. Arnold stated that he would ask that the Commission consider the sidewalks optional, because of the small amount of foot traffic anticipated on this court; and that the Commission consider a rolled concrete curb in lieu of vertical asphalt curbs. Mr. Helms stated that the City's ordinances do not allow either of these options. The ordinances provide for vertical curbs only, and sidewalks along both sides of the cul-de-sac. A rolled curb is considered mountable, not usually depressed at the driveway, thereby creating safety problems. Additionally, rolled curbs create problems for the street sweepers. Commissioner Howard asked if the sidewalk might be a meandering one. Mr. Arnold stated that he didn*t believe the City would allow this, in that there would be problems with the easements and maintenance; however, easements could be granted. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Arnold if he was suggesting the use of portland cement rather than asphalt for the sidewalk. Mr. Arnold noted that he was suggesting the removal of the sidewalk completely. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Arnold what his opinion was of Portland cement vs. asphalt. Mr. Arnold indicated that he believed asphalt looks more rural, and that is why he proposed the use of asphalt on his plans. Commissionar Kasolas noted that it would not be known whether the driveways would be concrete or asphalt, which could create an undesirable effect. Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Ave., asked if something other than the standard street light might be provided; if perhaps colors could be added to the concrete, which might achieve a desired rural look; and, why can't asphalt sidewalks be made to last as long as asphalt streets. Mr. Helms responded that the subdivision ordinance, at this time, provides only for the provision of standard street lights. Regarding the coloring of concrete, Mr. Helms noted that it can be done, and has been done. The trouble with the colored concrete comes when it is repaired. It is difficult to match the colors, thereby creating a undesirable patchwork effect. Mr. Helms added that asphalt sidewalks are as durable as asphalt streets. -13- M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission agree with the recommended street improvements; and, that the Piannina Commission recommend that the City Council adopt such street improvements for this subdivision. Amendment to Motion M/S: Toshach, Kasolas - That the motion be amended to substitute portland cement for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in this subdivision. Discussion on Amendment Commissioner Dickson asked if the Portland cement s�uld work on the plans as presented. Mr. Helms concluded, after brief discussion, that the Portland cement would work with the presented plans. Commissioner Christ stated that the only problem with concrete is that Audrey Ave, is one of the street proposed for alternative improvements, and he felt that Audrey and Oburn should be consistent to avoid a patchy effect. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the issue was not one of Portland cement or asphalt, but rather to consider alternative street improvements and alternative sidewalk plans. He felt that is exactly what the Commission is doing at this time. Them are many types of cement and designs, and plans. Mr. Helms pointed out that a decision on ttis subdivision will also be establishing improvements for those lots fronting onto Audrey, thereby establishing a precedent for Audrey Avenue. Mr. Peterson stated that he believed he and h.s neighbors would prefer asphalt to white concrete. Commissioner Toshach asked about storm drains in this area, and what impact the type of gutter material would have on the storm drain system. Mr. Helms explained the storm drain system in this area. Vote on Amendment AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Toshach, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Howard, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. a -1a- Discussion on Motion for Approval as Presented Commissioner Kasolas stated that he was concerned with the issue of asphalt in the summer time. Additionally, this housing tract will probably have small children. The asphalt is very hot in the summertime and tends to be iradequate for children to play on. He felt that the objective for rural atmosphere could be accomplished by using some more imagination. Commissioner Kasolas felt that a mistake would be made in just considering asphalt. Commissioner Dickson note(' that the Commission was going over old ground, again; and, that perhaps a report from Public Works Staff regarding alternative street improvements might be appropriate. Commissioner Toshach spoke regarding the durability of the subject materials, and noted that the comment has been made that the asphalt sidewalks are as durable as asphalt streets. Commissioner Toshach commented that the sidewalks are not framed in by concrete, whereas streets are. Ile continued that the asphalt sidewalks he has seen are crumbling and required a great deal of maintenance. He believed that, in adopting an asphalt sidewalk, we will be creating an immense maintainence burden on the City that could be avoided by a creative use of portland cement --a maintenance problem which he would like to see the City avoid. Vote on Motion to Approve AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Howard, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Toshach ABSENT: Commissioners: None. PD 83-04 Referral from City Council regard- Kavar.augh, L. ing 600 E. Hamilton Ave. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance, in that the applicant has not submitted the information requested by Staff. M/S: Dickson, Toshach - That PD 83-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1985 in order that additional information may be received by Staff. Motion carried unanimously 0-0-0). tv r } a l 1 1 1 r• i i I I 1 � 1} ; 1• 1 1 i � tr [• Lt W —�•+ �.'� iE—rF—ir l I N I » I ry \ 1 w » I 1 • • iL__-- f: i t• t• 1 1 uie —46— LUCOT s w .o d ♦ F •n • Y I y }i t 1 1 I tr r✓1 1 �� i w 1 _I _ 1 1.^, 1 y !''•_ •--[). [ 1 �. -'- -VENUE--' —�� .ST — PAR" --I,. o,7..Ss- �. 1 Kl 1 1 Li �Z •.11 AC. w91 _ y r •t♦ • 1 L_ •Ao w . i (: I I PLANNING O"ISSION • w JARM 8, 1985 MISCELLANEOUS TS 83-09 Hearing to consider Alternative Lands of Oburn Street Improvements for an approved subdivision (Oburn Court), located in an R1-10-S (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Helms reported that Audrey Avenue is indicated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as one of the streets which might be a condidate to alternative street improvements. Oburn Court is a recently approved subdivision off of Audrey Avenue. The alternatuive • _10_ w street improvement approach provides that something other than the standard city street might be used to allow for a more rural appearance; or, more specifically, that aal sphalt maybe used in place of standard concrete curbs and gutters, and the ignment of sidewalks may deviate. The applicant has indicated his interest in possible alternative street improvements for Oburn Court and has submitted this request to the Public works Department, as is called for under the General Plan. The procedures provide that a hearing be held at the Planning commission level so that neighborhood input may be obtained. Mr. Helms noted indicated that notice has been mailed to the neighborhood in order that input might be received at this evening s meeting. Commissioner Toshach asked about the lifetime of asphalt as compared to concrete. Mr. Helms noted that, in Staff's opinion, concrete would last several times longer. However, there are some extenuating circumstances that come into play. The City has an extensive sidewalk repair program because of the damage done by street trees displacing the crete. One of the things about asphalt is that it is more flexible, and would result in a more elestic situation with the tree roots, might result in being able to keep the asphalt in place longer. Commissioner Toshach asked if the City paid for the repair of the curbs and gutters. Mr. Helms explained that the monies are taken from a maintenance district formed with funds levied on all property owners in the City. The district was established primarily to maintain street trees and lighting. Commissioner Toshach noted that he was under the impression that alternative street improvements were something which would be allowable to provide for lower cost housing. The lots on Oburn Court are large lots which will probably result in larger homes being developed, homes which will not be constructed as low cost housing. Therefore, it would seem that this street would not be appropriate for alternative street improvements. Commissioner Toshach continued that he wondered if the ultimate result would be the City subsidizing a developer. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the plans called for a monolithic sidewalk. Mr. Helms responded that the plans call for a 5' sidewalk adjacent to the curb, with a rolled curb. The standard 5' right-of-way will be placed behind the sidewalk and trees will be placed in that area. Commissioner Kasolas asked if it would be safe to assume that the City will not have the same problem in the future because of the types of trees being required for street planting today. A A Mr. Helms noted that the problem will certain.'.y diminish in the future. There was a brief discussion regarding funding being used for street repairs. Commissioner Toshach cited the section in the General Plan (page 58) - Removal of Government Constraints - which indicates the possibility of alternative street improvements, which in turn, could be passed onto the consumer in the form of lower housing costs. Chai—an Fairbanks explained the background of the alternative street improvement issue, noting that it was the result of hearings and citizen input indicating that the residents would like to see the rural atmosphere maintained in certain sections of the City, and one way that was suggested which might provide this would be the use of street improvements which were something other than the standard City improvements. Chairman Fairbanks noted that she did not believe there was a connection drawn between the size or the cost of the housing as it relates to ashpalt paving. Commissioner Kasolas asked how the provision of a 5' monolithic asphalt sidewalk lent itself to the making of a rural character when the Commission has no control of the types of architecture, colors, or siding on houses that will be built on these lots. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he had understood that discussion of alternative street improvements would take place in instances where we would be retaining the rural character of a neighborhood. In this case, we do not know what is coming up, as far as the character of the street. Commissioner Christ added that he thought the street improvements on Oburn Court should match those planned for Audrey Avenue, if and when Audrey is improved. A lack of consistency in the improvements could create an eyesore, rather than a rural character. Commissioner Kasolas noted that we would be setting the type of improvements for Audrey Ave. if alternate street improvements are approved for this subdivision. Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission is going over old ground. One of the conditions of approval for this tentative subdivision map was that the developer consider alternative street improvements, which is '•hat he is attempting to do at this point. Chairman Fairbanks asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this issue. Mr. Steve Arnold, 1211 Park Ave., San Jose, engineer for this project, indicated that the improvements could easily be changed to provide a rolled concrete curb, thereby providing the life expectancy of concrete, but with a rural atmosphere. The owner and the builder has not objection to constructing a rolled concrete curb. The street would look better and it doesn't cost that much more. Mr. Arnold -12- w continued that asphalt street are very durable; the soil in this area is excellent, and will support concrete or asphalt. Mr. Arnold stated that lie would ask that the Commission consider the sidewalks optional, because of the small amount of foot traffic anticipated on this court; and that the Commission consider a rolled concrete curb in lieu of vertical asphalt curbs. Mr. Helms stated that the City's ordinances do not allow either of these options. The ordinances provide for vertical curbs only, and sidewalks along both sides of the cul-de-sac. A rolled curb is considered mountable, not usually depressed at the driveway, thereby creating safety problems. Additionally, rolled curbs create problems + for the street sweepers. Commissioner Howard asked if the sidewalk might be a meandering one. Mr. Arnold stated that he didn't believe the City would allow this, in that there would be problems with the easements and maintenance, - however, easements could be granted. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Arnold if he was suggesting the use of portland cement rather than asphalt for the sidewalk. - Mr. Arnold noted that he was suggesting the removal of the sidewalk completely. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Arnold what his opinion was of Portland cement vs. asphalt. Mr. Arnold indicated that he believed asphalt looks more rural, and that is why he proposed the use of asphalt on his plans. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it »ould not be known whether the driveways would be concrete or asphalt, which could create an undesirable effect.? Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Ave., asked if something other than the standard street light might be provided; if perhaps colors could be added to the concrete, which might achieve a desired rural look; and, why can't asphalt sidewalks be made to last as long as asphalt streets. Mr. Helms responded that the subdivision ordinance, at this time, provides only for the provision of standard street lights. Regarding the coloring of concrete, Mr. Helms noted that it can be done, and has been done. The trouble with the colored concrete comes when it is repaired. It is difficult to match the colors, thereby creating a undesirable patchwork effect. Mr. Helms added that asphalt sidewalks are as durable as asphalt streets. .rwlll; °sf w w -13- M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission agree with the recommended street improvements; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt such street improvements for this subdivision. Amendment to Motion M/S: Toshach, Kasolas - That the motion be amended to substitute portland cement for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in this subdivision. Discussion on Amendment Commissioner Dickson asked if the portland cement would work on the plans as presented. Mr. Helms concluded, after brief discussion, that the Portland cement would work with the presented plans. Commissioner Christ stated that the only problem with concrete is that Audrey Ave. is one of the street proposed for alternative improvements, and he felt that Audrey and Oburn should be consistent to avoid a patchy effect. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the issue was rot one of Portland cement or asphalt, but rather to consider alternative street improvements and alternative sidewal' flans. He felt that is exactly what the Commission is doing at this time There are many types of cement and designs, and plans. Mr. Helms pointed out that a decision on this subdivision will also be establishing improvements for those lots fronting onto Audrey, thereby establishing a precedent for Audrey Avenue. Mr. Peterson stated that he believed he and his neighbors would prefer asphalt to white concrete. Commissioner Toshach asked about storm drains in this area, and what impact the type of gutter material would have on the storm drain system. Mr. Helms explained the storm drain system in this area. Vote on Amendment AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Toshach, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Perrin@, Christ, Howard, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. 0 n -14_ Discussion on Motion for Approval as Presented Commissioner Kasolas stated that he was concerned with the issue of asphalt in the summer time. Additionaily, this housing tract will probably have small children. The asphalt is very hot in the summertime and tends to be inadequate for children to play on. He felt that the objective for rural atmosphere could be accomplished by using some more imagination. Commissioner Kasolas felt that a mistake would x made in just considering asphalt. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Commission was going o:c! old ground, again; and, that perhaps a report from Public Works Staff regarding alternative street improvements might be appropriate. Commissioner Toshach spoke regarding the durability of the subject materials, and noted that the comment has been made that the asphalt sidewalks are as durable as asphalt streets. Commissioner Toshach commented that the sidewalks are not framed in by concrete, whereas streets are. He continued that the asphalt sidewalks he has seen are crumbling and required u great deal of maintenance. He believed that, in rdoptinq an asphalt sidewalk, we will be creating an immense maintainence burden on the City that could be avoided by a creative use of Portland cement --a maintenance problem which he would like to see the City avoid. Vote on Motion to Approve AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Howard, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Toshach ABSENT: Commissioners: None. STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PUVMIN6 COMMISSION MEETING OF JP`UARy S. 1985 TS 83-09 Hearing to consider alternative Lands of Oburn street improvements for an approved subdivision (Oburn Court) in an RI-10-S (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. STAFF RECOFMF.NORTION 1. That the Planning Commission consider the Staff analysis of recommended street improvements in this area; and If the Commission agrees with the recommended street improvements, that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt such street improvements for this subdivision. Atits meeting of January 24, 1904 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map which allowed the creation of 10 single family lots. The City Council subsequently approved this proposed subdivision at its meeting of February 21, 1984. Condition 7 of that subdivision map approval required the subdivider to install street improvements in accordance with the Council policy on Alternative Strest Improvements. The subdivider at this time has submitted a proposal which indicates the provision of street improvements for this project. The proposed street improvements would provide a street width of 40` with an asphalt curb and walkway along the sides of the street for the proposed cul-de-sac. The two lots having frontage along Audrey Ave. would additionally be provided with street improvements similar to the cul-de-sac improvements. The proposed streat improvements would be consistent with the City Council policy adopted in December 1980. Additionally, the provision of alternative street improvements in the Circulation Eleeant of the General Plan. The Public Works Department Staff is prepared to discuss the street improvements for this project, if the Commission has any avestions. so f-3 — 0 1 T. 'o fF AuDMEY .,Oc. �4 AC.IS 9 lit Is f. , 's 'D IF T LjZOT r if T to i 10 1 V E N U E .0 EST- PA R OCL I o 0 PLM a v At PIT I WR CITY COUNCIL W17ING KWH 6, 1984 COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS Letter - Lee R. A letter was received from Lee R. Peterson, 1156 Audrey Peterson re: city Avenue, Campbell, regarding City setback requirements. se'.hack requirements M/S: Chamberlin, Ashworth - that the letter from Mr. Peterson be refer::ed to the Planning Commission for review and report back to the council. Motion adopted unanimously. CITY COUNCIL WETP.4G Wt CH 6, 1984 Letter - Linda K. A letter was received from Linda K. Lindemeyer, 1518 Lindemeyer express- Hack Avenue, Campbell, expressing concerns re: properties ing concerns re: of 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue. properties of 1106, 1130 and 1142 M/S: Kotovski, Chamberlin - authorizing the Planning '!ev Avenue Director to respond to Mrs. Lindemeyer's concerns. Motion adopted unanimously. Letter Lee R. Peterson - 1156 Audrey Ave. - City setback requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the letter from Mr. Peterson, dated February 14, 1984, be referred to the Planning Commission fcr review and report back to the Council. STAFF DISCUSSION The attached letter to the City Council raises some concerns regarding buildinq setback requirements in the residential zones in Campbell. In addition, there is also a concern expressed regarding building height restrictions which pertain to the residential zones. A table comparing the setback requirements of the City of Campbell with several other cities in the county was attached for the Council's consideration. If the Council jetermines that further review of this issue is necessary, then Staff is recommending that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for review and report back. COST Not applicable. PREPARrD " Planning Staff ACWNDA March 6, 1984 1 ...r.,,,...,w.�,r.,,,,w«>r.a. vigK�i�,W ,r, �wewKah.��u�.v::. �.KA.�.--•�----_ PITY [IF CAMPRELL 15 NDH TH CENTRAL A `E N U E CAMPBELL. CA L I F 0 A N I A 95008 (4081 378 8141 Department CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE February 24, 19e4 Mr. Lee R. Peterson 1156 Audrey Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Peterson: Please accept my apology for a misunderstanding which occurred at the February 21 Council Meeting. Your letter of February 14 on the subject of rear yard setbacks had been scheduled by my office for the March 6 meeting because it was received too late for inclusion on the February 21 agenda. When you began to speak on that subject during the C:al Communications, you will recall that I indicated I felt that was inappropriate since the matter had been scheduled for the next meeting. It was not until the next day that I realized you had not been in- formed of that action. Understandably, you were curious as to how your concerns would be addressed. I must admit that some- times the routine procedures which we take for granted at the staff level are not well understood by the public, and there is no reason to expect that they would be. As a result of this incident, I am instituting a policy of answering letters such as yours with a response indicating when and how the letter will be handled by the City. I hope that this forestalls the kind of confusion and embarrassment which occurred on Tuesday night. For your information, your letter has been referred to the Planning Department for a report. I suspect that the department will recommend that the issue be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Sincerely, Edward G. Schilling In( u C E RM DD City Manager U U FED 2 7 1984 bso CITY t3F CAMPBELL CC: City Council PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Director Y February 14, 1984 The Honorable Mayor, Norman Paul Members of the City Council Rec.",V D 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 jigr Dear Gentlemen: rfY 4�gQ'f n(� It has recently come to our neighbcrhoods attention that the City of Campbells setback requirements are clearly inadequate for our neighborhood. As you will recall, as a result of the neighborhood meetings in the San Tomas area, we were re -zoned in the year 1983 from R1-6 to R1-10. The re -zoning made the cities minimum zoning re- quirements more realistic and compatible with our neighbor- hood which averages over 12,000 square feet per lot. Although the lot sizes were increased, the minimum setback requirements were not changed to coincide with the larger lot minimums. The setback requirements may be adequate for RI-6 zoning, however, they are clearly inadequate for R1-10 zoning as the attached city by city setback comparison clearly shows. For example, a five foot rear setback requirement (that the City of Campbell has) is not even close to the 20 and 25 foot setback requirements in other cities in Santa Clara County. In addition, front yard setbacks, side setbacks, and lower building height restrictions should be addressed so that previously expressed neighborhood concerns regarding two- story buildings can be met and so that Campbells own building restrictions are more consistent with other cities. I am therefore requesting that the city council take the necessary action to bring Campbells setback requirements into harmony with the neighborhood and with what other cities provide their residents. Thank you. - p�L Lee R. Peterson 1156 Audrey Avenue Campbell, California 95008 J' C17Y BY CITY • )MPARISON OF SETBACK REOUIR2* , FOR R1 ZONING FRONT %lDF CITY ZONE DESIGNATION YARD YARDS REAR CAMPBELL R-1 15' HOUSE 5' S' OR 25' GARAGE } HEIGHT OF BUILDING WALL LOT COVERAGE NOT TO EXCEED 40% MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35' LOS GATOS R1-8 25' 8' 20, R1-10 25' 10, 20' CUPERTINO 1ST STORY 20, S' A 10' 20' 2ND STORY 20' 10, 6 10' 25' SANTA CLARA R1-6 20' S' A 5' 20' R1-8 20' 6' A 9' 20' PALO ALTO INTERIOR OF BLOCK 20' 6' 20' CORNER HOUSE 20, 16, STREET 20, SIDE LOT COVERAGE NOT TO EXCEED 35% LOS ALTOS R1-10 INTERIOR OF BLOCK 25' 10, FIRST 25' FLOOR 1'.5 SECOND 25' FLOOR CORNER HOUSE 25, 20, STREET 25' SIDE LOS ALTOS (REDEVELOPED FLAG LulS) ONE STORY 25' 25' 25, 2ND STORY 32.5' 25' 32.5' SUNNYVALE 20' 15, TOTAL 20' (6' MIN.) SARATOGA INTERIOR OF BLOCK 25' 10, 25' CORNER HOUSE 25' 25, STREET 25' SIDE 2ND STORY 25' 10, 35' MAXIMUM HEIGHT 30' LOT COVERAGE NOT TO EXCEED 35% BUILDING A PAVEMENT NOT TO EXCEED 60% SAN JOSE (R1B1 ZONING, MIN. 10,000 Sp. FT.) INTERIOR OF BLOCK 25' 10, 25' CORNER HOUSE 25' 12.5' 25' �l TS 83-09 Response to letter from Ms. Linda K. Lindemeyer regarding Lands of Oburn TS 83-09 (1106, 1130 F, 1142 Audrey Avenue). STAM REOMEgMTION That the Council authorize the Planning Director to send the attached letter in response to W. Lindemeyer's concerns. DISCUSSION The attached letter from Ms. Linda K. Lindemever was received by the City Council regarding TS 83-09 (1106, 1130 $ 1142 Audrey Avenue), expressing concerns which included setbacks, building height, and loss of privacy. Also attached for the Council's review is a letter responding to W. Lindemeyer's concerns. COST Not applicable. • I LLL'IVLQ February 18, 1984 1$ah+i$ 1411.1 Member} of the City Council 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 RE: Tentative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue. Dear Council Members, As a resident of this area for many years, I would like to express my concerns regarding this subdivision. My home is on the perimeter of this subdivision so 1 will be directly affected. According to the map that I have my property is situated so that parts of two lots will be in back of my property. I am concerned about the 5' rear setback, first of all. I feel that this is inadequate for our existing neighborhood. Other cities in Santa Clara County have 20' - 25' rear setbacks and I feel that a larger setback would be more in keeping with our neighborhood and its larger lots. Another concern I have is the loss of my and my family's privacy should two to two -and -a -half story buildings be built with windows facing our yard and rear windows. I feel that a lower building height would be more appropriate for the character of our neighborhood and would not hurt existing property values. Lastly, I would like to ask that Campbell City Council review the subdivision plans and keep in mind the concerns of the existing residents in this area. Thank You, l Linda K. Lindemeyer 1518 Hack Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Rwmp FEB 2 11984 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT -.>Y„ w�':F, +� ..., �.. ,. to •'�+."iwt n'y�.+':..w .a.wir.—� _ -_ 1'1TY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL. CA L I F 0 R N I A 95008 1408) 378-8141 Depa.tmmt Planning Nts. Linda K. Lindemeyer 1518 Hack Avenue Campbell, CA 9SO08 RE: 15 83-09 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey .Avenue Dear Ms. Lindemeyer: Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1984 in which you expressed your concerns regarding the referenced subdivision. These concerns in- clude setbacks, building height, and loss of privacy. This application was considered by the City Council at its meeting of February 21, 1984. After hearing testiruny from several residents in the area of the proposed subdivision, the Council took action to approve the application. Due to the concerns raised by neighboring residents regarding this subdivision, at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels, the application was approved subject to several conditions. A copy of the conditions of approval is attached for your reference. In particular, please note conditions 15 and 16 which place specific requirements for review of site plans by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. In summary, it is important to note that both the Planning Commission and the City Council are aware of the concerns expressed by your neighbors pertaining to this subdivision. The conditions of approval imposed as part of this subdivision are intended to assure that concerns such as those expressed by yourself are addressed. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call or write again. Sincerely, Edward G. Schilling, City Manager CIn CAMIL REELING FEBMMY 21, 1984 Public Hearing - This is the time and place for a public hearing to Tentative sub- consider the application of Steven Arnold for approval division amp - 1106. of a tentative subdivision map to create ten single family -1130 c 1142 Audrey parcels, and to allow a setback of 13' rather than 15' on Avenue - TS 83-09 - an existing home, TS 83-09, 1106, 1130 S 1142 Audrey Avenue. Lands of Cburn Planning Director Kee - Report dated February 21, 1984. Mayor Doetsch declared the public hearing op6n and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. Steven Arnold, 1211 Park Avenue, Sa•. loso, t:)peared before the Council to answer any question= regarding this project. Mr. Arnold stated that he was not in favor of Condition of Approval •15. Dis Lnussion followed. Ken Cburn, 1106 Audrey Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the Council and expressed concerns regarding Condition of Approval Nos. 15 and 16. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the Council and expressed concerns regarding the project. Jim Lyle, Pacific Design Group, 150 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the Council and expressed concerns regarding Condition of Approval 016. Mr. LVle pointed out that the variance is being requested for one parcel only. Lowell Schicker, 1092 Lucot Way, Campbell, appeared before the Council and expressed concerns regarding the project. Viere being no one elue wishing to be heard, MIS: Ashworth, Chamberlin - that the public hearing be closed. Motion adopted unanimously. Discussion followed regarding Condition of Approval #16. Du Wayne Dickson, Planning Commission Chairman, appeared before the Council and cited reasons for the Planning Commission rec.xn endation regarding this project. M;S: Ashworth, Kotowski - to approve the staff recommendation granting a request for an exception to allow a street yard setback cf 13' rather than 15' for an existing home: and approval of tentative subdivision man, subject to the conditions of approval. Motion a,'.rpte-1 unanimously. N • 0 CITY COUiCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Lee Peterson - Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Avenue, ^_aspibell, appeared K, setback require- before the Council to express concerns regarding the ments setback requirements in th± San Tomas Area. (ECG //3c //% City Manager Schilling advised Mr. Peterson that this matter should be formally agendixed for the March 6, 1964 City Council Meeting. 42, TS 83-09 Lands of Oburn Public hearing - Mr. Steven Arneid. Approval of tentative -:.bdivision map to create ten single family parcels, and to allow a setback of 13' rather than 15' on existing home. 1106, 1130 5 1142 Audrey Avenue. PLANNING OOPMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City Council grant the applicant's request for an exception tj allow a street yard setback of 13' rather than 15' for an existing home, and, 2. That the City Council approve this map, subject to the attached conditions. nTsnI.SRTnN The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map which would allow the creation of 10 single family lots. The project site currently consists of 4 parcels with 3 existing residences. The gross acreage of the project site is approximately 3.07 acres. The creation of 10 lots at this location would allow a project density of 3.25 units per grass acre. This density would be consistent with the Low Density Residential (less than 3.5 units per gross acre) designation as shown on the General Plan for this area. The proposed lots range in size from approximately 10,000 sq. ft. to 11,120 sq. ft. and are provided access by way of a prop sed cul-de-sac. Exhibit "A attached for the Council's review, illustrates the lot sizes surrounding this proposal. The applicant has indicated the width of the cul-de-sac as 56' rather than 60' as typically required for a residential street. The Commission recommended a reduction in the width of the cul-de-sac for the following reasons: 1. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the 350' limi. by only 15'. 2. The minimum lot sizes of 10,000 sq. ft. has reduced the number of lots served by the cul-de-sac. 3. Larger lot sizes and less pavement areas would be consistent with the intent to encourage "rural character" in this area. PREPARED w PLANNING STAFF AGmDA FEBRUARY 21, 1984 TS 83-09 Lands of OSutn• -2- February 21, 1984 ExCEPfICN M THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS As part of this application, the subdivider is requesting approval of a street yard setback of 13', rather than 15' as typically required be- tween a building and the street property line. Staff is of the opiniun that the removal of this structure to accommodate the 15' setback creates a hardsh;p and that the modification to the cul-de-sac alignment to pro- vide a 15' setback does not create a more desirable subdivision layout. Consequently, Staff could support the granting of the requested exception. A concern had been expressed regarding the fact that a two-story single family house could be constructed on the lots to be developed while tS, surrounding area is developed with one-story structures. The R-1 zoning district allows a single family home to be 2� stories, or 35', in height. This height limitation applies uniformly to the proposed subdivision and the surrounding neighborhood, as well as other property in the city zoned R-1. The Commission to address the concern of how these properties might develop is recommending that the improvement plans of these lots be reviewed by the Planning Commission per Condition 15 of this approval. The Planning Commission additionally recommended that alternative street improvements be installed per Condition 7 of this approval. At its meeting of January 24, 1984, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2254 recommending approval of this subdivision subject to the attached conditions. The subdivider has objected to Condition 15 of this approval as recom- mended by the Planning Commission, as expressed in the attached letter. l 4 � a RE90LUTICN NO. 2254 BEING A RESOLUTION OF 711E PLANNING 0Obb1ISSIGN OF THE CITY OF fAWBELL RE0 WNDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TS 83-09, LANDS OF OBURN, APN 406-24-37)- 1106, 1130, 6 1742 AUDREY AVENUE. After notifiation and public hearing as specified by law on the applica- tion for approval of a tentative subdivision map: Lands of Obum, APJ 406-24-37, 1106, 1130 B 1142 Audrey Avenue, as per the application filed in the Office of the Planning Departtnent on December 2, 1983, and after presentation by proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Commission did find as follows: 1. That this tentative subdivision map is in oonforntance with the General Plan. Based on the above finding, the Planning Gommis,ion does hereby recommend approval of this map to the City CDulcil, subject to the Conditions of Approval, hereby attached as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January 1984 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Campos, Meyer, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABS34T: Commissioners: Howard APPROVED: DuWavne Dickson lIiman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee cretary CONDITIONS OF APPRDVAL: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Oburn P. C. Mtg.: 1/10/84 SITE ADDRESS: 1106, 1130, 1142 Audrey Ave. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARDEN T 1. Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said District No. 4. 2. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Water Works. Water service to be provided bj said water company. Fire hydrants and appurtences shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $195 per fire hydrant. 3. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the installation of any and all public utilities and/ or facilities. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell Mnicipal Code. S. Subdivider to pay Storm Drange Area Fee. 6. Subdivider to furnish copy of Preliminary Title Report. 7. Subdivider shall install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work ; and that this work be done in accordance with Cvtncil policy on alternative street improvements (per policy of 12/80). 8. Dedicate right-of-way for proposed Oburn Court to 28' from centerline, and for Audrey Ave, to 30' from centerline. 9. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right-of-way. 11. Subdivider required to pay fee in lieu -of dedication of land for park purposes. PLANNING DEPART1t-7TP 12. Prior to approval of final map, subdivider to construct garages or carports for Lots 1 and 9 as approved by Planning Director. 13. Prior to approval of final map, subdivider to construct 6' wood fence along perimeter property lines of Lots 1 and 9 per City code. 14. Suubdivider to provide evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that pedestrian access easements or rights -of -way have been abandoned. OONDITICNS OF APPR" 1L: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Obum SITE ADDRESS: 1106,1130, 1142 Audrey Ave. PAGE TWO 15. Site plans for constriction on proposed parcels will be reviewed by the Site Committee and Planning Commission, prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Approval includes site review of existing structures which are pro sed to remain, in order that these structures be brought up to compatible architectural standards with the surrounding neighborhood and new construction. I YL lZa- -�N S l • ,�' • s My E_ITIIBIT A - APFRO\I�WTE ITT % - SI—'�S FOR N'EICJ-WRIVC PROPERTIES OF TI-B PTIDFOSEn _J y TE\T.4TI\'E SIIBDI\'ISIO' MAP. c ��_ a �•,1_l a �•° LOT SIZES IN (SQ. F1. X 10T 14 � ,ter � 9 ► ytlL , �� 60 Lop U • .. ] . t -� ' is _ � 3 � � I •r- � -- Project Site �• :mar- —T ,� r— I ` ,'-xE` - JAN 0 41984 Planning Department CITY OF CAMPBELL City Of Campbell PLANNING DEPARTMENT Campbell, CA 95008 Pei Oburn Property Subdivision January 30 1984 Attnj Mr. Art Kee I would like to make a request that on exception be made In regards to the set -back requirements on my home at 1106 Audrey. My reasons are as follows, 1. Moving my house would crcate an unnecessary economic hardsAlp. 2, Moving my house would be disruptive and/or destructive to the existing landscape. This would be counter productive In regard to maintaining the existing character and feeling on Audrey Avenue. 3. While the new prosposed street is deeper than the stated maximun length for sub -standard width streets, It does have, in the current proposal, a low density and the view of, and entry into, Audrey Avenue will not be unreasonably restricted by approval of th- request ror exception, 4. In your 'Notice Of Hearing' letter dated December 21, 19B3 there 1s an error on the reduced sat -back. It should read "with a set -back of 9' rather than 15' from a street property line." not 5' as In the letter. Thank you, otammv & oA,tr-1, Danny E. Oburn, owner A,% Audrey Ave. CCU Mr. Steve Arnold C.E. Campbell, CA 95308 Mr. Jim Lyle GC' �iY10i1 ; (iTY h[Rn4 4;,a ^ITY ❑. CAMPBELL ANT RTN_ Z am wrm-G, `1h;, le ert on b�ha►�F o `ml z3on, -banny Obvrn, Who ►s CK,4- o; awn o,-t fire F►tescP4 -hme . .Ianni O�JnS -ii@ 4olbu;inc, pqc. es or, %udesl Auenoe I1016, uZoo, llwa and o,too plus acne par-x-,41► located beh�r.el -he about, Known % -n)e pard< . The- 66JRr) -�Xm l hos O<'�ned and ci,-4u'ac!'j e pkope2+' ea oueec the last 38 Meares, SO 4. See we o2Q na+ t� e Cr,mpw l w a.. the plao()Inc carnmiss16n O.- fih@,R 1* h'aG mi, CaQOe gppaouo,l 4oa 0. -re.rstz) io' c subdiu►sior, Rapfog rthe O.boue Paecel w,ih G ItcJ, all cbanu35 and rk-w bu, Idnc,s WAuld ilo�ue � Go ��Qeu�h, 'tF,e S��'e cnd �ann�n� _ Grnm ,5lon P2(cm 'b i%Gwce 4 bU Id;r,c, 4t ( 5 15 and I b on tF,� I�+ o� Rst�v r��herrlS�, WC' cb,e�� to this u�2c�ncrri' 0.' A 'is S►OSl,ncl QC+ Out pfPpe,-z� fort SP,o,l 2ofwn4 cird is f4 IfrJudinct -Mc pR es SURRounCin4 �i x1�u,;,orn . �J1�a� �, 'tC s o 4ny the �negto6n5 �2oQe2f� OwnC.RS ;2Dm chan4'incl t-r, OLt cls- ► fYlr s o2 Sy -ale, stYas w'n'id) lwov Id no+ c9rkp-m -ko -hx exis*n4 hornct? 74 hay als hgppa d on Pwzz and Add I Auc fue5 M Ily- A( u-wG �rK 1f4 � Wb►ch we Ct1R1��yQ pQ2t X. _ Z-4 't'F�es�, end rh onS mc+3� CA t r1� ette�t Indu&c atl rrye Su2fZourf�l„Xi O,f� P4 Just te kn4S -34 1 �I t1C�2C' �' trl lo� a�� f�vc CAMpb.,r►, CA. 95W .J PLANdING COMISSION ON ^ JANIARY 24, 1984 TS 83-09 Continued public hearing to consider the application Lands of Obum of W. Steven Arnold for approval of a tentative sub- diuision map to create ten single family parcels, and for an exception to the subdivision regulations allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback of 9' , rather than IS', from a proposed street property line on properties known as 1106, 1130 $ 1142 Audrey Avenue in an R1-10 (Single Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reviewed this application, noting that a reduction in the size of the proposed cul-de-sac has changed the requirement for an exception to the sub- p division regulations, thereby requesting a setback of 13' rather than 151. A setback of 9' was originally requested. Mr. Kee also noted that a concern was expressed regarding the fact that a two-story single family house would be constructed on the lots to be developed, while the surrounding area is developed with one-story structures. He concluded that Staff would not have a problem with referring applications for single family residences on these sites to the Commission when they are presented. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it was his understanding that this application was for a tentative subdivision map only, and did not include any proposals for homes. He continued that it was also his understanding that if this proposal was in any other R-1 zoning District, the review of the construction of the homes would not come back to the Commission. Mr. Kee stated that this was correct, the homes would be reviewed at Staff level Commissioner Kasolas asked what changes could be made at Staff level if the normal procedure is followed. Mr. Kee responded that the plans would be reviewed by Staff for compliance with the zoning cedes if normal procedure is followed. GDmmis3ioner Kasolas expressed concern that by bringing these homes to the Commission for review, the Commission would enter into the situation of singling out specific landowners for special restrictions. Mr. Dempster stated that he did not see any problem with the Commission re- viewing the proposed homes for these lots, provides a reason was stated that :his is an exceptional case, or the Commission may end up reviewing all such proposals. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she is aware that Staff is require3 to give City Council policy regarding development in this area to developers. She continued that this was satisfactory to her; however, if Staff for some reason is uncomfortable with anything being placed on these particular pro- perties, she would certainly be happy to have Staff bring them to the „";;,,.... ,.. '_N I-. Commission and have it looked at. Chairman Lhickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Steven Arnold, applicant, appear d before the Commission to answer any questions it might have. Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Avenue, appeared before the Commission to remind them of the concerns of the area residents as expressed during the many public hearings on the area --location of buildings, height, window treatment and sidewalks. He expressed concern over loopholes in the existing law; and, asked if any changes were made in the setback requirements when this area was re -zoned from R-1 to R1-10. Chairman Dickson responded that setbacks were not changed whan the area was rezoned. Mr. Kee added that the setbacks, and building heights, are built into the ordinance. The setback depends on how high the building is. Mr. Peterson stated that in his opinion, the current setbacks were quite inadequate as they relate to R-i zoning, more specifically the S' setback. He felt that the proposed street could be made more narrow than it is, and requested that this application be denied on the basis that a setback variance is requested for the front yard. He continued that the setback requirement is already liberal when compared to other cities. Additionally, he questioned the retention of 1142 Audrey Avenuc in that ha believes that it does not meet current building codes. He recommended that staff, developer, and residents work together on t:ds development. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Peterson if the house at 1142 Audrey is similar to other hones in the surrounding neighborhood. He expressed his concern that older homes were being retained and surrounded by newer construction, when the older structures were uncompatible with the neighborhood. :hr. Peterson indicated that he felt the house at 1142 Audrey was a blight on the neighborhood, in that it had a flat roof and was built over a septic tank. Mr. Arnold, applicant, stated that the request for an exception to the front yard setback is for an existing residence. The proposed new residences would be constructed to meet existing setbacks under this zoning district. The structure that is proposed for removal is in the middle of the proposed street. He concluded that the property owner, Mr. Obum, is not asking for any benefit that the surrounding property owners do not enjoy, that the subdivision meets existing zoning, and the homes that will be constructed on these parcels will be attractive. Mr. Jim Lyle, Pacific Design Group, noted that 1142 Audrey is a flat roofed structure with a mansard that is not seen from Audrey Avenue. Secondly, Mr. m Lyle continued, a design for a project that did allow extensive architectural t ' review was previously denied by the Council because of neighborhood feelings. He felt that any problems with the new homes fitting into the neighborhood would take care of itself because of the cost of `_'ne properties. The developer K is prepared to consider various parking ideas on the street if need be, and is open to alternative sidewalks. Mr. Lyle concluded that the property owners are asking for a subdivision conforming to the City's regulations after waiting for the zoning to be completed in this area; and, that he knows of no reason why the Building and Planning Apartment would not be adequate to handle concerns expressed by the neighborhood. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, asked questions regarding the variance, size of roadway, and sidewalk construction. Mr. Kee noted that the applicant's request is not a variance, but rather a "conditional exception." Mr. Helr,Ls explained the method for determining street sizes and sidewalk alternatives, as well as the Council policy for alternative street improve- ments in the San Tomas Area. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Gommissioner, Meyer, that the public hearing be closed. %tion carried unanimously (5-J-1). Commissioner Fairbanks asked that an addition be made to Condition 7 which would stipulate that the street improvements be done in accordance with the Council policy on alternative street improvements for the San Tomas Area. Mr. Helms noted that this would not create a problem in that the recently adopted Circulation Element identifies Audrey Avenue as one of the streets acceptable for this type of alternative improvement. Commissioner Kasolas noted that when the Commission reviews areas where existing structures have remained, with new homes built around them, advan- tage,,has not been taken of the improvements to the neighborhood and surrounding property values. He continued that, in his opinion, there was not a good track record with leaving existing structures; and, that when someone is being pro- vided with the privilege of subdividing their property- there should be require- ments made to upgrade the remaining structures. Commissioner Kasolas asked that a condition be added to this application that would provide for archi- tectnn al review of the two structures that are to be retained, and that these buildings he brought up to a standard of architectural compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Chairman,mDickson indicated that he felt the request for an exception to the setback requirement was valid in that the developer is trying to utilize an existing home, as well as trying to make the lots as large as possible. It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by commissioner Campos, that the Plannin;; Commftissior, adopt Resolution No. 2254 finding TS 83-39 in accord with the General Plan, and recommending that the city Council approve this tentative subdivision nap and grant the applicant's request for an exception to allow V. street yard setback of 13' rather than 15, for an existing hone. Reoommm(lation for approval subject to conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the following changes: CITY OF CAMPBELL 1106,1130,1142 AUDREY AVF. TS 83-09 1 of CITY OF CAMPBELL 110611130,1142 AUDRFY AVE. TS 83-09 2 of (1) Subdivider shall install street inprovements and post surety to guaranty work; and, that this work be done in accordance with Council policy an alternative street improvements (per policy of 12180) . (2) A. Dedicate right-of-way for proposed Oburn Court to 2' feet from centerline, and for Audrey Avenue to 30 feet from centerline. (3) 15. Site plans for construction on proposed parcels will be reviewed by the Site Committee and Planning Commission, prior to issuance of building permits. (4) 16. Approval includes site revicv of existing structures which are proposed tr remain, in order that these structures be brought up to compatible architectural s-andardis with the surrounding nei- ghborhood and new construction. MDtien carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissionars: Kasolas, Campos, Meyer, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Cammissioners: Nome ABSENT: Commissioners: toward RESOUMON NO. 2254 BEING A REED IITION OF TT{E PLANNING C0*(ISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECi)MMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (IS 83-09, LANDS OF OBURN, APN 406-24-37)- 1106, 1130, & 1142 AUDREY AVENUE. After notification and public hearing as specified by law on the applica- tian for approval of a tentative subdivision map: Lands of Obum, APN 406-24-37, 1106, 1130 6 1142 Audrey Avenue, as per the application filed in the Office of the Planning Department on December 2, 1983, and after presentation by proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Conmissian did find as follows: 1. That this tentative subdivision map is in conformance with the General Plan. Based on the above finding, the PLaming Commission does hereby recommend approval of this map to the City Council, subject to the Conditions of Approval, hereby attached as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January 1984 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Campos, Meyer, Fairbanks, Dickson WIES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Howard APPROVED: DuWayne Dickson �iarrman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary COMMONS OF APPFCVAL: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Oburn P. C. Mtg.: 1110194 SITE ADDRESS: 1106, 1130, 1142 Audrey Ave. PUBLIC PARKS DEPARDENT 1. Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said District No. 4. 2. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the plans of the San Jose water Works. water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurtences shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $19S per fire hydrant. 3. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the installation of any and all public utilities and/ or facilities. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell Municipal Code. S. Subdivider to pay Storm Drar,ge Area Fee. 6. Subdivider to furnish copy of Preliminary Title Report. 7. & bdivider shall install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work ; and that this work be done in accordance with Council policy on alternative street improvements (per policy of 12/80). 8. Dedicate right-of-way for proposed Oburn Court to 28' from centerline, and for Audrey Ave. to 30' from centerline. 9. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Ihgineer. 10. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right-of-way. 11. Subdivider required to pay fee in lieu -of dedication of land for park purposes. PLANNING DEPARIM Nf 12. Prior to approval of final map, subdivider to construct garages or carports for Lots 1 and 9 as approved by Planning Director. 13. Prior to approval of final map, subdivider to construct 6' wood fence along perimeter property lines of Lots 1 and 9 per City code. 14. Subdivider to provide evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that pedestrian access easements or rights -of -way have been abandoned. n GCNDITICNS OF APF^' AL: TS 83-09 APPLICWWT: Lands of Oburn SITE ADDRESS: 1106,1130, 1142 Audrey .Ave. PACE TWO 15. Site plans for construction on proposed parcels will be reviewed by the Site Gommittee and Planning Commission, prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Approval includes site review of existing structures which are proposed to remain, in order that these structures be brought up to compatible architectural standards with the surrounding neighborhood and new construction. PUBLIC IIEARING HE— BEFORE 711E PLANNING ODIMISSION ON JANUARY 24, 1984. RES. NO. 22S4 REC3KNI)ING APPROVAL - SUBI)MSION —Oct OF TEN SINGLE FAMILY LAPS. (VM: S-0-1). 1 1 I 1 I 1 • I � I 1 n a\ a n i Ei y i Ll l r i I j I I • .,•l•. .. 1 � 1 w 1 1 .r. .r• rr• ... '!\OCa rr a .... AUOREY waoc. ~ . � . 1 ACRES ,.n. I 1 1 1 / 1 (i �! ` ! , i •• » .• if j !• .• t• 1 � AS IS as I o•/ Alp r s Y LUCOT s f '-- w t ¢4 qP .o � a' Y I •l it � r ;N U Nl y v i t� i y igo gp; i'J, j ... 1 1 Zp n • .• 1. ..—�.. a _._ _ _ 3 IE ST—►ARR �--�T-N--"VENUE— F r� 1 I.N K.MET •Ea • 1 M4 9.37 Acr[t III .► •ta • 1 t-.wa'•iif•l0• 10�ITFM NO. 5 STAFF CAMENT SHE'Ef - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 1984 TS 83-09 Continued public hearing to consider the applica- Lands of Oburn tion of Mr. Steven Arnold for approval of a tenta- tive subdivision map to create ten single family parcels, and for an exception to the subdivision regulations allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback of Worather than 15', from a proposed street property line on properties known as 1106, 1130 $ 1142 Audrey Avenue in an R1-10 (Seigle Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District. STAFF RECOKENDATION 1. That the Planning Commission find that proposed Tentative Subdivision Map to be in accord with the General Plan; and 2. That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve this map, subject to the attached conditions and grant the applicant's request for an exception to allow a street yard setback of 13' rather than 15' for an existing home. STAFF DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map which would allow the creation of 10 single family lots. The project site currently consists of 4 parcels with 3 existing residences. The gross acreage of the project site is approximately 3.07 acres. The creation of 10 lots at this location wouff.d allow a project density of 3.25 units per gross acre. This dersity would be consistent with the Low Density Residential (less than 3.5 units per gross acre) designation as shown on the General Plan for this area. The proposed lots range in size from approximately 10,000 sq.ft. to 11,120 sq.ft. and are provided access by way of a proposed cul-de-sac. Exhibit A", attached for the Commission's review, illustrates the lot sizes surrounding this proposal. The applicant has reduced the width of the cul-de-sac from 60' to 56' with the submittal of a revised map. Additionally, the revised map indicates an improvement in the property line between lots 9 F, 10. These two changes address the concerns previously expressed by Staff. As the Commission may recall, Staff recommender' a reduction in the width of the cuff -de -sac for the following reasrms: 1. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the 350' limit by only 15'. 2. The minimum lot sizes of 10,000 sq.ft. has reduced the number of lots served by the cul-de-sac. 3. Lamer lot sizes and less pavement areas would be consistent with the intent to encourage "rural character" in this area. n TS 83-09 Lands of Oburn -2- January 24, 1984 Exception to the Subdivision Regulations Ps part of this applicant, the subdivider is requesting approval of a street yard setback of 13',rather than 15' as typically required be- tween a building and the street property line. Staff is of the opinion that the removal of this structure to accommodate the 15' setback creates a hardship and that the modification to the cul-de-sac alignment to pro- vide a 15' setback does not create a more desirable subdivision layout. Consequently, Staff could support the granting of the requested exception. A concern has been expressed regarding the fact that a two-story single family house could be constructed on the lots to be developed while the surrounding area is developed with one-story structures. It should be noted by the Commission that the Zoning Code allows property zoned R-1 in the City to have a single family house 2-1/2 stories, or 35 feet, in height. These R-1 zoning regulations apply uniformly to the proposed subdivision and the surrounding neighborhood, as well as other property in the City zoned R-1. x�• n n STEVEN A. ARNOLD — Civil ZSglneer " 1211 PARK AVE SUITE 215 • SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95126 • TELFPMONE 14091 2W9111 Mr. Arthur A. Kee, Planning Director, January 11, 1984 City of Campbell, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell CA 95008. Subject: Tentative Map for Danny E. Oburn, Audry Ave, Campbell. TS 83-09. Our Ref: 209-83. Dear Sirs, Attached hereto are ten prints and one sepia of the revision of the subject tentative map. Pursuant to our meeting on January 10, 1984 the following have been revised: 1. The common lot line between parcels 9 and 10 is now a straight line with a minor exception at the .rear of the lots. The existing house prohibits a straight line with 10,000 s.f. 2. The proposed right of way is now 56'. Please note that Mr. Danny E. Oburn is the owner of the site. Respectfully submitted, teven A. Arnold, Civil Engineer c.c. Pacific Design Group D.E. Oburn R EC�od� CITY OF CANWOELL PLANNING DLPARI,-IL.NT STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND SURVEYING • BUILDING INSPECTION GENERAL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES AN 0 41984 Planning Department City Of Campbell CITY OF C�IMPBELL Campbell, CA 95008 PLANNINO DEPARTMENT Rs: Oburn Property Subdivision January 3, 1984 Attn: Mr. Art Kee I would like to make a request that an exception be made in regards to the set -back requirements on my home at 1106 Audrey. My reasons are as follows: 1. Moving my house would create an unnecessary economic hardship. 2. Moving my house would be disruptive and/or destructive to the existing landscape. This would be counter productive In regard to maintaining the existing character and feeling on Audrey Avenue. 3. While the new prosposed street is deeper than the stated maximun length for sub -standard width streets, it does have, in the current proposal, a low density and the view of, and entry into, Audrey Avenue will not be unreasonably restricted by approval of the request for exception. 4. In your "Notice Of Nearing" letter dated December 21, 1983 there is an error on the reduced set -back. It should read "with a set -back of 91 rather than 151 from a street property line." not 51 as in the letter. CC: Mr. Steve Arnold C.E. Mr. Jim Lyle Thank you, otE.0A1n,1,_, Danny E. Oburn, owner 1106 Audrey Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 .J OXDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Oburn P. C. Mtg.: 1110184 SITE ADDRESS: 1106, 1130, 1142 Audrey Ave. PUBLIC WORKS DEPAVDEE T 1. Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said District No. 4. 2. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Water Works. Water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurtences shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $195 per fire hydrant. 3. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easenent and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the installation of any and all public utilities and/ or facilities. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell Municipal Code. S. Subdivider to pay Storm Drange Area Fee. 6. Subdivider to furnish copy of Preliminary Title Report. 7. Subdivider shall install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work. 8. Dedicate additional right-of-way to widen proposed Oburn Court to 30 feet from centerline. 9. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right-of-way. 11. Subdivider required to pay fee in lieu -of dedication of land for park purposes. 12. Prior to approval of final map, subdivider to construct garages or carports for Lots 1 and 9 as approved by Planning Director. 13. Prior to approval of final rr,p, subdivider to construct 6' wood fence along perimeter properly lines of jots 1 and 9 per City code. 14. Subdivider to provide evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that pedestrian access easements or rights -of -way have been abandoned. 11i.. "11y i � S s w C i � t � s� -•»t• s �� I , R_ «+ IN EXHIBIT A - APPROXIMATE ILYI K1R NEIGDORINC I ° PROPERTIES OF 711E PROPOSED J A TENTATI\'E SUBDIVISION MAP. LOT SIZES IN (SQ. FT. X 100) 11 - kr yr/ 40 W Project Siteul ' y • _ 1 i I ji% - 183 L� 1 . 7ii-af ._r • T • Y -Tw- T— T� r �t \ a 1 • I I • I f i0 I . TT q I N I I I I 1 I I i I I I I •a ' •UDREY � �eLoc.» ,, .,.. .. .r I ».. ,... .... a. I Iv •CKES f •• I I �. . I•ti �� W _ � ll �, tl G it It !t 13 {7 1 I it r tl - � _ • 2 �• n � a• � ea j to ; Er � .• —1-.. • .. r< ., • fl �• � i- i a• \ ar I I �'}\ � � >r W J! I 7[ I 11 T JUL COT .,. »w .«. .,.e •w 'fix- - �► a I •: I I I 1 / 1 I I I I Ap tl fx I I I --__ ' ' 1i.. L__ti__�_tt�_1—_r _L_T_1_, J_+ lis• f -_no . lar '—=x'-�'� •_ _•rr � IEST'•--PARR-�-- ��—,� 4� --AVENUE—� r 1 I I I �ot�ac •'ea.a• • C 4 � e w• � e E \ e ,ems ♦ •" � I cu•c IT ' I pj! •. ]7 AC MET I ]I I .i CITY COUNCIL WITTING JANIARY 17, 1984 COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS tier - Maggie A letter was received from Maggie Desmond regarding Desmond - re: TS 83-09, a continued item which will be heard before TS 83-09 - Planning the Planning Commission on January 24, 1984. Commission Hearing of 1/24/84 Following discussion, M/S: Ashworth, Doetsch - to note and file the letter received from Maggie Desmond re: TS 83-09. Motion adopted unanimously. i1 PLANNING COMtiOSSION KM. JN"W 10, 1984 TS '-09 Public hearing to consider Uie application of Mr. 4 of Oburn Steven Arnold for approval of a tentative subdivision map to create ten single family parcels, and for an exception to the subdivision regulations allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback of 9' , rather than IS,, from a proposed street property line on properties known as 1106, 1130_ and 1142 Audrey Avenue in an R1-10 (Single Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that this application was before the Site and Archi- tural Review Committee. The applicant is requesting a continuance to the meeting of January 24, 1984 to consider items mentioned in the Staff Comment Sheet. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Schicker, 1098 Audrey Avenue, asked about the City's policy on the construction of fences between developments, noting that he would make it an absolute condition that fencing be constructed by the developers. Mr. Kee explained that there is no requirement on a subdivision itself for fencing. When each single family home is built, the builder would normally construct a fence if it is necessary. Mrs. Maggie Desmond, 1491 Hack Avenue, noted her disappointment that the Site and Architectural Review Cmna ttee apparently went out to the site and she had been told that they would not visit the site. She asked what the procedure is for a subdivision after it leaves the Planning Commission, as well as the procedures for voicing opinions regarding this subdivision. Mr. Kee explained the procedure that is followed for a tentative subdivision. It was noted by the Commission that it is not the procedure for the Site Committee to visit site, and this site had not been gone to by the Committee. Mr. Lee Petersen, 1156 Audrey Avenue, expressed his concern about the type of sidewalks that would be installed in this subdivision, where the buildings would be located on site --especially the rear yard setbacks, anl the building heights. He noted that 1142 Audrey is indicated to remain and he did not feel it met current building codes. 9e, C�Z:`P.. el) C 8- Mr. Kee commented that the height limit in an R1 zoning district is 2-112 stories, and that this is consistent throughout the city. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it is his understanding that the application before the Commission this evening is for a tentative subdivision map; and, the homes that will eventually be located on these '.ots only have to conform to the zoning ordinance. lie asked if the reason that a PD (Planned Development) zoning is some- times put on a property is so that public input can be taken regarding the develop- ment of the site. Mr. Kee noted that this is correct. In an R1 zoning district, there are no public hearings. commissioner Dickson asked if there is any way for the Planning Commission to review plans in the R1 district, or could they go through site review. Mr. Dempster stated that he would question whether or not the commission would want to set a policy wherein only certain subdivisions are taken to the Site Review Committee. Chairman Fairbanks noted her concern for the privacy of the residents in this area, noting that perhaps there could be some things done with design to pre- serve this privacy. Mr. Kee noted that Staff could come back to the Commission with a report on these concerns, if it was the desire of the Commission. No one else wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that TS 83-09 be continued to the meeting of January 24, 1984. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). e'1 r',w No. 10 STAFF OODW4T 9EFT - PLANNING OOWSSION HEFTING OF , W!',RY 10, 1984 TS 83-09 Public hearing to consider the application of 1tr. Lands of Oburn Steven Arnold for approval of a tentative subdivision map to create ten single family parcels, and for an exception to the subdivision regulations allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback of 9', rather than 151, from a proposed street property line on properties known as 1106, 1130, and 1142 Audrey Avenue in an R1-10 (Single Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District. STAFF REO31*F.NnkTI0N 1. That the Planning Commission continue the consideration of this map, in order that a revised map may be submitted; or 2. If recommended for approval: A. That the Planning Commission find that the proposed tentative map is in conformance with the General Plan, and B. That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve this map, subject to the attached conditions and grant the applicant an exception to allow a less than standard street yard setback. STAFF DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map which would allow the creation of 10 single family lots. The project site currently consists of 4 parcels with 3 existing residences. The gross acreage of the project site is approximately 3.07 acreas. The creation of 10 lots at this location would allow a project density of 3.25 units per gross acre. This density would be consistent with the Low Density Residential (less than 3.5 units per gross acre) designation as shown on the General Plan for this area. The proposed lots range in size from 10,000 sq.ft. to 11,120 sq.ft. and are provided access by way of a proposed cul-de-sac. The lot shapes are considered generally acceptable, with the exception of Lots 9 and 10. Staff would recommend that the lot line between these lots be modified to create a straight line. The proposed cul-de-sac for this development has a width of 60 ft. and a length of approximately 365 ft. The subdivision regulations allow a width of 56 ft. if a cul-de-sac is shorter than 350 ft., or if a developer can demonstrate that the small number of lots served by a street justify's a less than 60 ft. standard width. TS 83-09 n Lands of Obu n January 10, 1984 Staff would rec-amnend a reduction in the cul-de-sac to 56 ft. for the following reasons: 1. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the 350 ft. limit by only 1S ft. 2 The minimum lot sizes of 10,000 sq.ft. has reduced the number of lots served by the cul-de-sac. 3. Larger lot sizes and less pavement areas would be consistent with the intent to encourage "rural character" in this area. Exception to Subdivision Regulations As part of this application the applicant is requesting approval of a street yard setback of 9 ft. rather then 15 ft. as typically required between a building and a street property line. Staff is of the opinion that the removel of a structure to accommodate the 15 ft.setback creates a hardship and that the modification of the proposed cul-de-sac to a new street alignment does not create a more desirable subdivision layout. Consequently, Staff could support the granting of the requested exception. Additionally, if a S6 ft. width is approved for this cul-de-sac, a setback of 13 ft. my be provided. To address the concerns expressed regarding the width of the proposed cul-de-sac and the property line between Lots 9 6 10, Staff is recommending a continuance of this application. R R R JAN 0 4 1984 Planning Department CITY OF CAMPBELL City Of Campbell PLANNINO DEPARTMENT Campbell, CA 95008 Re: Oburn Property Subdivision January 3, 1984 Attn, Mr. Art Kee I would like to make a request that an exception be made in regards to the set -back requirements on my home at 1106 Audrey. My reasons are as follows, 1. Movino my house would create an unnecessary economic hardship. 2. Moving my house would be disruptive and/or destructive to the existing landscape. This would be counter productive in regard to maintaining the existing character and feeling on Audrey Avenue. 3. While the new prosposed street is deeper than the stated maximun length for sub -standard width streets, it does have, in the current proposal, a low density and the view of, and entry into, Audrey Avenue will not be unreasonably restricted by approval of the request for exception. 4. In your "Notice Of Hearing' letter dated December 21, 1983 there Is an error on the reduced set -back. It should read "with a set -back of 9' rather than 15' from a street property line." not 5' as in the letter. Thank you,, Danny E. Oburn, owner 1106 Audrey Ave. CC, Mr. Steve Arnold C.E. Campbell, CA 95008 Mr. Jim Lyle i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TS 83-09 APPLICANT: Lands of Oburn P. C. Mtg.: 1/10/84 SITE ADDRESS: 1106, 1130, 1142 Audrey Ave. PUBLIC NARKS DEPAR7MTIT 1. Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said District No. 4. 2. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Water Works. Water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurtences shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance fees shall be paid City at the rate of $195 per fire hydrant. 3. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the installation of any and all public utilities and/ or facilities. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell Municipal Code. S. Subdivider to pay Storm Orange Area Fee. 6. Subdivider to furnish copy of Preliminary Title Report. 7. Subdivider shall install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work. 8. Dedicate additional right-of-way to widen proposed Churn Court to 30 feet from centerline. 9. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right-of-way. 11. Subdivider required to pay fee in lieu -of dedication of land for park purposes. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12. Prior to approval of final map, subdivider to construct garages or carports for Lots I and 9 as approved by Planning Director. 13. Prior to approval of final map, suuHivider to construct 6' wood fence along perimeter property lines of Lots 1 and 9 per City code. 14. Subdivider to provide evidence satisfactory to tM City Attorney that pedestrian access easements or rights -of -way have been abandoned. V I I i 1 1 )n — 1 \ M M•. It+ I I 1 » 1 rl 1 •. .. •1 t 1. � ACHESit L 1 tl 1•' i � Zl I = '• •f � t• � es � » � et � » t d• is _ ' a Na It IF Los a 4 i• s i y >r i Z. ;1 _L IF e S. �- , I r 11 • I . I I I 1 > SQ ! --R'X__ � r •_ � ._t�h a � :s M!S L• i �� i x � tl I' P i � 1 � i ~ 1 1 II 1 I I I I I p 1 II 1 n tl• t ...—==---�.-'VENUEMY Wo ST � MIIII--tI— .r f� ,•, t�— •r ns "�- •. I 1 I I•EI.'■ •Ka! �71 •} i � �1a {t • � •s.� - t � � G• � LEuc NIT � f � rea 1 ow •.n ic.tt+� v t r ••. A • i L — 1 CITY OF CAMPBELL RE: 2 acre parcel - Audrey Ave. August 11, 1984 APN: 406-24-37 Letter of 7/26/84 Dear Marty C. Woodworth: Pleased be advised that your indication of a possible violation of section 21.08.020 of the Campbell Municipal Code is incorrect. I currently own homes 1106, 1130, 1142, Audrey Ave. and the 2 acres adjacent. I consider the 2 acres an extension of my homes, not a single bare lot to itself. Being such, I have my right to locate my vehicals on my property as any other home owner. Many vehicals are used to maintain my property at this address. I am very upset about the statement of the trailer being used as a living unit. This is definatly not the case. At the time of the complaint, I had guests visiting and I reserve the right for friends to visit with me as I wish. No one lives in the trailer, or will be "living" there. Sincepply, ,4 is t(4t—'tV✓ 1 1 0 E A. 1, -,/ A, r a CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAMPBELL, C A L I F 0 R N I A 95008 (:08) 379 8141 Oepartma t: Planning July 26, 1984 Kenneth and Audrey Oburn 1106 Audrey Ave. Campbell, CA 95008 RE: 2 acre parcel - Audrey h e. APN: 406-24-37 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Oburn: It has been brought to the attention of the Planning Depart- ment that the above referenced property is being used for the storage of trucks and also a house trailer is being used as a living unit. These uses are in violation of Section 21.08.020 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Please be advised that within 15 days of receipt of this letter the trucks and trailer must be removed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please con- tact the Planning Office. Sincerely, ART11A1 A. KEE PLANING DIRECTOR c.,.�� MWIT . NWDNORIH PLANNER II lj CERTIFIED MAIL Ir TRACT NUMBER REQUEST County of Santa Clan Environmental Mana90manVG0nara1 Serv,cea Agency Central Permit Office 70 w. Hawing St.. San Joee. CA 95110 Ph29e-245e PLEASE TYPE OR PRIN EAVILY - YOU GET THE LAST Co►r a_ SEE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW CAMPBELL 2. Proposed Tract Name Recorder's BpprovM SOUTHSIDE OF AUDREY AVE., FAST OF HACK AVE.yes I Number of Lots 14. Aboroximate Acreage 1 5. Date of Planning Commission I ' Approval of Tentative Map JANUARY 10, 1984 7. Ownees Address 1106 AUDREY AVE. 11iYxABB1t2Y CAMPBELL, CA. X=XX 95008 i 9. Engineer's Address and Phone Number 1211 PARK AVE. SAN JOSE, CA. 95126 Proposed 12. If the answer to 10 or 11 is yes, What City? Not 10 6. Owner's Name BAN OBURN S. Engineer's Name STEVE ARNOLD 10. Is the Proposed Tract in 11. Is the an 1 rporated City? for Ar Yes No Yes 13. Remarks: P INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING TRACT NUMBER REQUEST FORM: 1. Existing frontage and intersecting adjacent streets or reference to existing tract limits. "i 2. If unkown, so state. Name must be provided prior to recordation if name is to be used. Tract name must be approved by the County Recorder. = 3. Self explanatory. 5. Thetract numberwill be issued only after the Tentative Map has been approved by the Planning Commission. S. through 12. Self explanatory. 13. For additional comments by private engineer/surveyor. NOTES: 1. Enclose ccpy of approved Tentative Map. 2. The form shall be filled out and the gold copy retained by the engineer. 3. All other copies must be forwarded to Central Permit Office, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose 951 :0 4. Where development involves more than ono unit, submit a separate Tract Number Request for each unit. 5. Tract Number is automatically void itnot used within oneyearfrom thedateof issue and request inwriting for renewal has not been received. 6. A request for renewal shall be in writing and shall include the date of the re -approval or extension and the length of time for such extension. 7. The assigned number is not transferable, except upon written re -application. 6. Check all copies for legibility. Routing: White - Land Development Coordinator L Green Owner's Engineer Canary - Planning Commission Pink - City Engineer _ Gold - Owner's Engineer (Preliminary Copy) J - OON- -- _ __ -^ - CITY (IF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAM P a E LL. CALIFORNIA 95008 (4081 378-8141 O",tm t: Planning March 6, 1984 Ms. Linda K. Lindemeyer 1518 Hack Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 RE: I5 83-09 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue Dear Ms. Lindemeyer: Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1984 in which you expressed your concerns regarding the referenced subdivision. These concerns in- clude setbacks, building height, and loss of privacy. This application was considered by the City Council at its meeting of February 21, 1984. After hearing testimony from several residents in the area of the proposed subdivision, the Council tor.x action to approve the application. Due to the concerns raised by neighboring residents regarding this subdivision, at both the Plannitg Commission and City Council levels, the application was approved subject to several conditions. A copy of the conditions of approval is attached for your reference. Jn particular, please note conditions 15 and 16 whi:h place specific requirements for review of site plans by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. In summary, it is important to note that both the Planning Commission and the City Council are aware of the concerns expressed by your neighbors pertaining to this subdivision. The conditions of approval imposed as part of this this are intended to assure that concerns such as those expressed by yourself are addressed. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call or write again. n Q MM A KEE DATE MAILED PLANNING DIRECTOR MAR 91984 ld �„(l cc: Fdward G. Schilling, City Manager February 14, 1984 The Honorable Mayor, Norman Paul Members of the City Council �t L£/ 75 North Central Avenue VC Campbell, California 95008 Dear Gentlemen: rlrr 44"" "IN..F ' It has recently come to our neighborhoods attention that the City of Campbells setback requirements are clearly inadequate for our neighborhood. As you will recall, as a result of the neighborhood meetings in the San Tomas area, we were re -zoned in the year 1983 from R1-6 to R1-10. The re -zoning made the cities minimum zoning re- quirements more realistic and compatible with our ne'jhbor- hood whi.:h averages over 12,000 square feet per lot. Although the lot sizes were increased, the minimum setback requirements were not changed to coincide with the larger lot minimums. The setback requirements may be adequate for R1-6 zoning, however, they are clearly inadequate for R1-10 zoning as the attached city by city setback comparison clearly shows. For example, a five foot rear setback requirement (that the City of Campbel- has) is not even close to the 20 and 25 foot :;etback requirements in other cities in Santa Clara County. In addition, front yard setbacks, side setbacks, and lower building height restrictions should be addressed so that prew.Lously expressed neighborhood concerns regarding two- storl buildings can be met and so that Campbells own building restrictions are more consistent with other cities. I am therefore requesting that the city council take the necessary action to bring Campbells setback requirements into harmony with the neighborhood and with what other cities provide their residents. Thank you. Lee R. Peterson 1156 Audrey Avenue Campbell, California 95008 F�"� WE Do u IT34 CITY OF CAMP jL:LL PLANNIN7 D-PARTMrNT ^COMPARISON OF SETBACK REOUTAEM'rRS FOR R1 ZONING ' FRONT SIDE ZONE DESIGNATION YARD YARDS R-1 15' HOUSE 5' 25' GARAGE SANTA CLARA R1-6 R1-8 SIDE LOT COVERAGE NOT TO EXCEED 35% LOS ALTOS R1-10 INTERIOR OF BLOCK 25' 10' FIRST 25' FLOOR 17.5 SECOND 25' FLOOR CORNER HOUSE 25' 20' STREET 25' SIDE LOS ALTOS (REDEVELOPED FLAG LOTS) ONE STORY 25' 25' 251 2ND STORY 32.5' 25, 32.5' SUNNYVALE 20' 15' TOTAL 20' (6, MIN.) SARATOGA INTERIOR OF BLOCK 25' 10' 25' CORNER HOUSE 25' 25' STREET 25' SIDE 2ND STONY 25' 10` 35' MAXIMUM HEIGHT 30' SAN JOSE (R1B1 ZONING, MIN. 10,000 SQ. FT.) INTERIOR OF BLOCK 25' 10' 25' CORNER HOUSE 25' 12.5' 25' M A. ARNOLD — Crvd i''gIneer 4 1211 PARK AVE SUITE 215 • SAN .IOSF CALIFORNIA 95126 • TELEPHONE 14061 266-9111 Mr. Arthur A. Kee, Planning Director, City of Campbell, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell CA 95008. January 11, 1984 Subject: Tentative Map for Danny E. Uburn, Audry Ave, Campbell. TS 83-09. Our Ref: 209-83. Dear Sirs, Attached hereto are ten prints and one sepia of the revision of the subject tentative map. Pursuant to our meeting on January 10, 1984 the following have been revised: 1. The common lot line between parcels 9 and 10 is now a straight line with a minor exception at the rear of the lots. The existing house prohibits a straight line with 10,000 s.f. 2. The proposed right of way is now 56'. Please note that Mr. Danny R. Oburn is the owner of the site. Respectfully submitted, taven A. Arnold, Civil Engineer c.c. Pacific Design Group D.E. Oburn CI?Y OF CAMPBELL PLANNING OEPANTMENT STRUC IURAL DESIGN • LAND SURVEYING • BUILDING INSPECTION GENERAL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES U ' \ �;�. 1 • I N I ,..'� wn ".. 1 r.N1otR n ' n AUDREY 1[• ACRE[ i I I i �� w'R • � . _CT. _ I. r V Lf 71 "lT � t.r' —�JL__ 1 —_••JE —fir ,N �; !? i�i y ui I i •llT--PARR --�" h't— —"VENUE t11011, —•CA I A.[T AC N[T W. i' I 1 -- I-p1ir—... J PROOF OF PUBLICATION (201S.5 C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Santa Clara 1 am a citizen of the United Stales and a resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the CAMPBELL PRESS 10W N. Blaney Ave.. Cupertino, California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the City of Cupertino, California, County of Santa Clara. and published in city of Campbell, California, County of Santa Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Case Number 810111; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type 00 smaller than non-pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said news. paper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: February 8 all In the year 19 84 1 certify for declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated ar. Cupertino. California, this 8th Day of Feehru(a'r/y 19 84 ,J1)=L }lip✓ Signature r� This space Is for the County Clerk-9 Filing Stamp AD M52-CP PROOF OF PUBUCA71ON OF Noti£e of Hearing t 1491 Hack Avenue Campbell, California 95008 17 January 1984 RE"FIV7ri Mr. Norman Paul, Mayor - JAN 17 1384 Campbell City Council -laws 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Re: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR THE LANDS OF OBURN TS-83-09 Continued Date of Planning Commission Hearing 1/24/84 Dear Mr. Paul and Fellow Councilmen: I am writing this correspondence out of concern for a proposed subdivision application set for continued hearing on January 24, 1984, at the Planning Commission. Upon examining more closely the proposed subdivision residents have determined that under "subdivision zoning" all of these proposed lots could have building heights of 2 � stories, the requirement for planting of shrubbery and landscap_ng do not fall anywhere within the criteria for a subdivision application, window placement locations are not considered, the less than standard street improvements suggestion is not being utilized to its maximum and most importantly harmony and computability are not even considered with this potential development because it is a subdivision application. City Staff have advised concerned residents that when this subdivision application is resubmitted with the slight modifications suggested by City Staff it prot.ahly will be approved and will not routinely come before this City Council for i approval or ratification or anything. At that point in time we will be exactly where we were over three years ago when this room was packed with residents objecting to the Planned Development Zone Change for this same parcel of land. Although the application is being made as a subdivision and not a Planned Development the end result to our neighborhood will be even more harmful. Based on t e City Council opinion that "the development is not compatible with the area, aesthetically it is incorrect and it would be deterimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood" on November 3, 1981 that zone change was denied. If granted this subdivision application will allow the developer even more leeway that what he would have had with the Planned Development that was deemed inappropriate for our area. Mr. Norman Paul, M^pr ^ 17 January 1984 Page 2 Further at that same council meeting a unanimously motion was passed directing, in the words of Norman Paul, the "Planning Commission . to hold hearings to re-evalute the guidelines for development in the San Tomas Area, including lot sizes, walkways/sidewalks, and everything that goes into making a neighborhood that all may live in and enjoy." As you may or may not recall there were five hearings in the San Tomas Area and the concerns expressed at these hearings were not just density. Again and again, harmony and compatibility with existing homes was brought up. Building heights and intensity were of a concern in each area. The number of units allowed under a Planned Development continued to be expressed as distressing to residents. The present application for a subdivision, although it meets subdivision requirements, is still not compatible, and potentially devastating to the existing neighbcrhood. Again, a "policy statement" that Planning Commission pays no attention to is of no use whatsoever in protecting residents. The Planning Commission doesn't even mention to the developer that conforming to that statement is a criteria for building. It would appear that as soon as the subdivision requirements alone are met, the developer is home free. Each of the five individual hearings in all areas were attended by not less than 50 persons. An obvious majority again and again indicated that building heights, traffic, harmony an,1 computability were of equal concern to residents as was density. Now right in the heart of the area desiring "rural character" we have an application for a subdivision that, if approved, would irreparably harm the character of the neighborhood. If this s�ibdivision is allowed, then it appears that we still have not established adequate residential protection against unsightly and unharmonious development. The changed zoning in the area was inadequate and did not address all the concerns of the nighborhood. Even now after the San Tomas Task Force Report, and the review of that report through the five public hearings, we still have a Planning Commission Staff ready to approve a subdivision, basically the same, except for density, completely contrary to everything discussed over the last three years for this very area. Because they attended one or more of these public hearings there are members of this Council who are well aware of the amount of interest and personal response given to the Planning Commission. It is obvious that something more is required combining the new zoning with a design standard compatibility/landscaping criteria and which addresses the ot� ential impact of any kind of development, whether it be PD, su Hion or whatever in our area. That is to say any SIR Mr. Norman Paul, M^ipr 17 January 1984 Page 3 development should be required to meet standards of more than merely minimal application requirements. I feel that our Planning Ccrimission will not take a "rural character" stand until they have been directed to. All the public hearings mean not a thing to the Pinning Commission. They find escape behind the skirts of saying: The developer met the standards for his application. I was not aware that during the public hearings that the many concerns expressed pertained only to a particular type of development, i.e., P.D.'s or subdivision applications. In fact they did not. The concerns of 3i ' residents are without regard for whether an applicant is applying for a subdivision or PD zone change or some other form of I application for building. Our concern has been and continues to be, what will the end result (impact) of this development on my neighborhood be? I feel the Planning Commission only listened to the matters they wished to. They picked and choose at their own whim what matters to make ordinances, homing in on density and to some extent less than standard street improvements, however, Planning Commission completely resisted efforts to establish the type of controls and protection we need. As residents once we have set forth the nature of our concerns and expectations we should be able to leave the details of how that protection is worked out to the professionals on the City Staff. However, it seems Planning Commission staff is interested only in making sure developers have loopholes and in cramming in as much development as possible. To allow this subdivision is to sidestep the intentions of the concerned residents over the last three years and the direction of this City Council, over the very parcel which precipitated the study into the San Tomas Area in the first place. Planning Commission has made it clear that they will not trigger anything to do with enforcing the policy statement of April 28, 1978 unless forced to do so by this City Council. Why is is so difficult for Planning Commission staff to understand that the "policy statement" which is ignored, is just what we want for our protection? 1 would request that this council put into motion adequate intervention for residents impacted by this potential subdivision by requiring some kind of controls over building heights, set backs, landscaping, harmony and compatability and less than standard street improvements. I feel that with the application coming before the Planning Commission again on Janury 24th that time is of the essence and I request that the Planning Commision receive guidance from our City Council prior to January 24th in i` 1 Mr. Norman Paul, *-Nor 17 January 1984 l Page 4 this matter of grave concern to residents. Respectfully submitted, -sp�0a^0xd MAGGIEDESMOND and cc: Ms. Joann Fairbanks, Planning Commission Chairperson CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 17, 1984 COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS Letter -- Maggie Desmond - re: TS 83-09 - Planning Commission Hearing of 1/24/84 05 0 A letter was received t:om Maggie Desmond regarding IS 83-09, a continued item which will be heard before the Planning Commission on January 24, 1984. Following discussion, M/S: Ashworth, Doetsch - to note and file the letter received from Maggie Desmond re: TS 83-09. Motion adopted unanimously. CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAM PBEL L. C A L I F 0 R N I A 95008 (4081 3788141 Department: CITY CLERK January 25, 1984 NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Campbell has set the hour of 7:30 p.m., or soon thereafter, on Tuesday, February 21, 1984, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California, as the time and place for public hearing to consider the Tentative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue, and to consider an exception to the subdivision regulations allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback off rather than 15' from a street property line, located in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District for the creation of ten residential parcels. TS 83-09 APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 i 37 Map and legal description of subject property is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California. Interested persons may appear and be heard at (ssaaiidhearing. " / ANNE G. COYNE, CITY CLERK CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA PUBLISH ONE TIME ONLY: FEBRUARY 8, 1984 ol� n ry "-01 dr— AF I '« AUDREV r•.oc•,,,� � It. ACRES a I I h f �„• I•� •• — n s ti � N 4 t� ti 1! IE t• ' E V I 1 1 B j +p r t1 ! 2 �• n I e. i of j f• j •• � e• IF I - ' a� _�lq I �� r'-1-Mfi-•1-'-'r-�-�'•r- CT IM •76— t w I .• I f• 1 •c ■ • war- i I n t A F .o « I y l u Iu I 1+_L_—DL__rL_H�_1__r aff I • _ '= 1 I I r `_RL AMR!7 x j !� i P I y S i E>• rIf ! I I 1 I I a I I I I w I I 1 w ... ,. ... u• a wEf"►ARR —� �'�—•�— ---"VENUE—'•'--' s r•si aE, Nf I I I u•■• r•n■•. `c I I I r I - �J rlll I I i • I r I Kt. I KLEJ I ••"c NET f \ f •sa I .y A � s.» •O NET QI ►]ti• 1 / � 1 CITY (IF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL .AVENUE CAMPBELL, CA LI FORN IA 95008 (408) 378 8 14 1 Department. Planning January 20, 1984 Mr. Steven Arnold Mr. Dan Oburn 1211 Park Ave. 1106 Audrey Ave. San Jose, CA 9S126 Campbell, CA 9S008 W. Steven Anderson 1082 Lucot Wav Campbell, CA 95008 RE: 7S 83-08 Lands of Oburn 1106, 1130 $ 1142 Audrey Ave. Please be advised that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell i has set the time of 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 1984 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California as the time and place to consider the above -referenced application. A copy of the Staff Comment Sheet and agenda for the Planning Commission meeting is enclosed for your information. It is advisable that you, or an authorized representative, be present A at said hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department. Sincerely, AKIHM A. KEE PLAMING DIRECMR Id Enclosures I CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE CAM PBELL, CA L I F 0 R N I A 95008 14081 378-8141 pp,r,m,,,,: Planning DATE: January 6, 1984 TO: Mr. Steven Arnold Mr.- Kenneth Oburn 1211 Park Avenue 1106 Audrey Ave. San Jose, CA 95126 Campbell, CA 9SO08 FILE NO: TS 83-09 ADDRESS: 1106, 1130, 6 1142 Audrey Ave. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision map - 10 residential parcels SITE 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPOINTMENT: Date: Tuesday, January 10, 1984 Time: 9:45 a.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MTG: 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 10, 1984 Please be advised that the Architectural Review Committee of the Campbell Planning Commission will review your plans for approval of the above - referenced project at the appointment time noted above, in the North Wing Conference Room, City Hall, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. The Committee Chairman will then make recommendation at the regular meet- ing of the Planning Commission which is held at 7:30 p.m. on the above - referenced date, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. A copy of the Staff Comment Sheet and recommendation, and the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting are enclosed for your information. It is necessary that you, or your authorized representative, be present at said Architectural Review Committee meeting and the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the Planning Department. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR Id cc: Mr. Steven Anderson Enclosures 1082 Lurnt way Campbell, CA 9SO08 "-44F-S a.IJV AIPPQE'Z-16� or- JoipjVVUAaS wHo itJ Aoorrio►J To TOE AVVt i c,Ai rr Aj.tjD ow of c22 , 5+loU t,o -2Ec ► Evr✓ Ay E►.1ciA 1WFo MATIO�J �k SAI--F V-EIP (LTC- . { P�eiF�c ,Iqo c-Ivo"Q I60 &-. CAMPOELC. M1e SUlTt- cAnnPeEu- , CA qG5 oe, (`foe) 374-- 5W STEVEN A. ARNOLD — Civil Engineer 1211 PARK AVE.. SUITE 215 • SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95126 • TELEPHONE (406) 286-9111 December 19, 1983 Planning Department City of Campbell 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Subject: Tentative Subdivision Map (TS83-09) Dear Mr. Haley: Vie proposed tentative tract map for Dan Oburn shows a 5-foot setback from the right side of the existing Oburn residence to the right-of-way line of the proposed cul-de-sac. The alignment of the proposed cul-de-sac would be awkward if the required 15-foot setback were used at this location. We are therefore requesting an exception to the subdivision regulations to allow for the substandard setback. Sincerely, Robert W. Steuer RCE 37251 RWS/ras encl STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND SURVEYING • BUILDING INSPECTION GENERAL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES N PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P. STATE. OF CALIFORNIA. ('ounly of Santa Clara 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident or the County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer or the CAYPBELLPRESS 10950 N. Blaney Ave., Cupertino, California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino, Calfornia, County of Santa Clara, and published in city of Campbell, California, County of Santa Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general ^ircuiation by dne Superior Court of the County of Sant; Clara, State of California, Case Number 84048; that tie notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non-pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said news- paper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: all In the year 19 1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Cupertino, Califonda, this Signature r. This apace to for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF N tIW M�is Pullin pooft "agP110Jifa�Masa• ddwW 1N of M prrplsa�4Mani AssnM, ti, tI 0M 4" PROOF OF PUBLICATION t 2015.5 C.C.P. STATE 11F CALIFONNIA, County of Santa (Tara 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the CAMPBELL PRESS 10%% N. Blaney Ave., Cupertino, California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino, California, County of Snnla Clara, and published in city of Campbell, California, County of Santa Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, Case Number UM: that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non-pareiU, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said news- paper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: 13r_c, n hor 1, all in the year 19 i I certify (or declarer under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Cupertino, Calilornia, this Signature This apace Is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF MEMORANDUM CITY Of CAMPBELI To ARTHUR A. KEE Da I J«_ 16 19 Fh Planning Director From. JOSEPHTT Direct r of Public Director of Public Works I(((JJJnVVU( U IJ Subject Tentative Subdivision Map '' 1"+ 1983 Lands of Odbu/rn e CITY CF CAMPGcLL The following conditions of approval are recommended concerning the subject tentative subdivisicn map submitted by Ar nolA Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the sub- division in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said District No. 4. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the sub- division in conformance wi'.h the plans of the San Jose Water Works. Water service to be provi-Jed by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurte- nances shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance 2, fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $105 per fire hydrant. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the �. installation of any and all public utilities and/or facilities. Compliam,e with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell �. Municipal Code. S . Subdivider to pay Storm Drainage Area Fee. �— Subdivider to furoish copy of Preliminary Title Report. Subdivider shall (install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work) _ 7 Dedicate additional right-of-way to widen PreyoszA 06urn cc>,r� to b _ _ 3 0 _ _ feet from centerline. C.C.SF.'s to lie approved by City Engineer to insure provisions for maintenance of buildings and common area. Provide a gra.'ing and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. Ubtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right of way. If 11Ub1�1v m pit. (�EC3`-' 1 R/b°✓l � (ham( t w 1.� 1� �—,)�_F �� 1 t.pr"�l,w C/(r Rv' Rml 1 m urn ur �r mo h c� ago yr 5 f' i�S1�26 ' 6--5 tvi-e lie ' i } 3— 2. &1 i 4� �J ■ CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL .AVENUE CAMPBELL, C A L I F 0 R N I A 95008 (408) 378-8141 DePwt--t: Planning December 21, 1983 NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the hour of 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 1984 in the ;:.ty Hall Council Chambers, 7S N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California as the time and place for public hearing to consider the Tentative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106, 1130 and 1142 Audrey Avenue, and to consider an exception to the subdivision regula- tions allowing the retention of an existing structure with a setback of S' rather than 1S, from a street property line, located in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, less then 3.S units per gross acre) Zoning District for the creation of ten residential parcels. TS 83-09 APN 406-24-18, 19, 20 F, 37 Map and legal description of subject property is on file in the Office of the Planning Department, 7S N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California. Interested persons may appear and be heard at said hearing. CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COM•IISSION ARINUR A. NEE SECRETARY PUBLISH ONE TIME: December 28, 1983 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR the Tenatative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106,1130, and 1142 Audrey Ave for the creation of ten residential - parcels. TS 83-09 THIS PROJECT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ON �,903 jXw,N;o -j Ibl l9 E115 INTERESTED PERSONS MAY REVIEW A COPY OF SAID NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE Planning DEPARTMENT, CAMPBELL CITY HALL, 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA. PUBLISH ONE TIME: DECEFBER 28, 1983 CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE C AMP8ELL, CA L I F 0 R N I A 95008 (408) 378-8141 Department: Planning EIR - 3 File N TS 83-09 DECLARATION THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL j IMPACT REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED (NEGATIVE DECLARATION) I APPLICANT : Mr. Steven Arnold on behalf of Mr. Dan Oburn ADDRESS 1211 Park'Ave. N215 San Jose, CA 95126 PROJECT NAME Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 83-09) ADDRESS 1106 1130 and 1142 Audrey Ave. Campbell, California Pursuant to the applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and City of Campbell Resolution No. 5164; Ind After review of plans and intormation supplied by the applicant pertaining to the captioned project, and after completing the attached initial study, the undersigned does hereby determine that the captioned project will have no sigificant ef'ect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act and Resolution. Executed at Campbell, California, this 29th day of Dedember , 19�i . Arthur A. Kee Director or Official By: Tim Haley Planner II 'NIT OF LAMeOUL, utiirunnih ^ NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: _ Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1416 Ninth Street. Room 1311 City of Campbell Sacramento. CA 95814 75 North Central Avenue Campbell. CA 95008 XX County Clerk's Office Santa Clara County 191 North First Street San Jose. CA 95113 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance wits, Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: (TS 83-09) STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If Any) CONTACT PERSON Tim J. Haley Tel. No. (408) 378-8141. Ext. 236 PROJECT LOCATION 1106 1130 8 1142 A,,drry A•a PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Subdivision Mao creatingio Single -Family Lots This is to advise that the CITY OF CAMPBELL has made the followinV de'arminations regarding the above described project. 1. The project has been _ approved by the City of Campbell. disapproved 2. The project _ will have a significant effect on the environment. will not 3. _ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. _ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: The Planning Department. City of Campbell. 75 North Central Avenue. Campbell. CA 95008. 4. Mitigation measures _ were made a condition of the approval were not of this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations _was adopted for this project. was not DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: SIGNATURE — TITLE CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE C AMVBELL. CALIFORNIA 95008 1408) 378 8 14 1 Department: Planning December 1S, 1983 Mr. Steven Arnold 1211 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 9S126 RE: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP rT 83-09) 1106, 1130 AND 1142 AUDREI AVE. Dear Mr. Arnold: The Planning Director has conducted a preliminary review of the referenced application and found a number of discrepancies between this proposal and the subdivision regulations. Specifically, the following items were noted in a preliminary review of this proposal: 1) Insufficient setback shown on Lot 1, along the proposed cul-de-sac 2) Failure to indicate pprovision of parking facili- ties for Lots 1 and 9, per Zoning Ordinance require- ments 3) Failure to indicate appropriate radius at entrance to the cul-de-sac. 4) Property line between Lots 3 and 4 is awkward. In light of these items, the Planning Department must receive a request of exception to the subdivision regulations to allow the substandard setback and would recommend changes to address the other items. Additionally, please find enclosed an application form for this applica- tion. Please complete and submit with the request for an exception. This material should be submitted by December 20, 1983. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Office. Sincerely, ARTHUR A. KEE ING �jR'EC TIM J. t{.G�%`�JEj'y� l/ PLANNER II CITY (IF CAMPRELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE C A M P 8 E LL, CA LI FO R N IA 95008 140a1 378 8141 Department: Planning Notice is hei,h) given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the hour of 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 27, 1983 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California as the time and place for public hearing to consider the Tentative Subdivision Map for properties known as 1106, 1130, and 1142 Audrey Avenue located in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential - less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District for the creation of ten residential parcels. TS 83-09 APN 405-24-18, 19, 20, 6 37 Map and legal description of subject property is on file in the Office of the Planning Department, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, Cal4fornia. Interested persons may appear and be heard at said hearing. CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING OOMISSION AR'11W A. KEE SECRETARY F-> PUBLISH ONE TIME: December 14, 1983 f- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ENVINONNENTAL CNNONL19T TO iC VIED eT TNN CITT OI CAN►iaLL IN MAKING INITIAL NTUDT t . MO03FIDUND NAME OF PROPONENT: �fV ferry ,.1D I.j�/} ALA F ADDRESS OF PROPONENT: b4)G. TELEPHONE: DATE OF CHECKLIST SUBMITTED: AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST: my CP 4;0-1-yrm� NAME OF PROPOSAL (IF APPLICABLE): OtIQH J L 11. RNIIIDWAENTAL IMMCTS (ZI LANATIONi OF ALL XKJ AND YSYI< ANSWERS ARM MQUINND ON ATTACHED 2-1 T[i MATNN NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ❑ ❑ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? D ❑ ❑ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ❑ ❑ ❑ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? D ❑ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? o D g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? o D K I of 6 pages .J TSa "Tea " 7. AIR. Will proposal result in. a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ❑ ❑ X b. The creation of objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or tempera- ture, or any change in climate, either locally ❑ ❑ or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? ❑ ❑ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ❑ ❑ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ❑ ❑ �[ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ Al e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any altera- tion of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ❑ ❑ f. Alteration to the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ❑ ❑ 1K g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or , through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ❑ ❑ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ]C I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ❑ ❑ 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflvra and aquatic plants)? ❑ ❑ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ❑ ❑ h' C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species,- ❑ ❑ d. Reduction In acreage of any agricultural crop? ❑ ❑ �( 2 of 6 pages L, 'iorojjs%�' O'- 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish- benthic organisms, insects or microfaura)? 0 x O b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 0 0 c. Introduction of new species of animals int. an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? 0 0 �C d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 0 0 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 b. Exposare of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 7. LIGHT ANU GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 0 )' 0 S. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 0 0 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 0 0 N' b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 0 0 10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not liudted to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 0 0 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 0 p 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 0 0 ; _f 6 paps 13. TRANSPa-TATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of su.stantial additional vehicular movement. D D ,x b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ❑ ❑ x c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ❑ ❑ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? D D e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? D ❑ D 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal ha•,e an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: A. Fire protection? D ❑ x b. Police protection? D D -� c. Schools? D D d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ hK ❑ f. Other goverrunental services? o D 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Gse of substa.'tia2 amounts of fuel or energy? D D b. Substantial Increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? D D 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: D o a. Power or natural gas? D D k" b. Communications systems? D D C. Water? ❑ D d. Sewer or septic tanks? D A D e. Storm water drainage? D k{ ❑ f. Solid waste and disposal? ❑ D I of 6 pages f 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mertal health)? ❑ ❑ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ❑ 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ❑ ❑ I9. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ 70. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? ❑ ❑ 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Dues the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Celifcrnia history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a re.'a- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ❑ ❑ c. Does the project have impacts which are indiv- idually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the e:.,iroimient is significant.) p p x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ 5 of 6 pages 111. DIECUESIOH OF 04VII13N.ENTAL [VALUATION r L 1V. DETEMINATION AFTER REVIEEINO TMC ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SUEMITTSO BY THE A►►ICANT. MO AFTER COM►LETING THE CMVIRONMLNTAL CHECKLIST USE RY TIt CITY OF CAM►EELL IN -ING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATE .::1...MRo ^ , ❑ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the miti- gation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE PECUIRITION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. SIGNATURE TITLE FOR 1 J 6 of 6 pages I CITYOF C A M P B E L l PLANNING COMMISSION AVPL 1 CATION �'..:'.. PLEASE NOTE: STAFF IS REQUIRED BY SPATE LAW TO hJOTIFY APPLICANTS OF THE MIPLE1'R"M OF THEIR APPLICATIONS. ONLY THOSE APPLICATICNS WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE COMPLETE CAN BE POSTED ON A PLANNING W.NTIISSION AGENDA. IXTE: IQ q" FILE NO: 1-'b �3( -%e) PROPERTY LOCATION: I lao , 11�4 114�L ApN: 4Ct2 - t} - L3� 20 ry'�7 ALh29 2:( AVp-taAr, aAlf?el- CA , zONING: ea-ElVEA-311AL, APPLICATION: Architectural Approval UFe Permit Planned Development Permit Zone Change General Plan Amendment Variance Other:{y�/V�VIy loll Nw ------------------------------------- APPLICANT: Name: 0'rVE0 A APkU) _ Telephone: �0 twG— `LII Address: 1211 PA2K &VG 21� City/State: -_jV �ICJSE CA . Zip: cie)M2 ------------------------------------- PROPERTY OhNM: Name: �GAJ *J'i 09L)17-a Telephone: Address: I10ra ALlPfZ&,f AVP City/State: C,AMPF3� CA . Zip: 5co� ------------------------------------- I/We the undersigned person(s) having an interest in the above described property hereby make the above application(s) in accordance with the pro- visions of the Campbell Mmicipal Code, and I/We hereby certify that the information given herein is true and co' t to the bggt of myna know- ledge and belief. 1 /l REC.k AMr. perty Owner'ignat e Date INFOR"ATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT 1. Eavinvnmentat Injovwtimi Faun. ! Dcscaiption r•6 ncqucei/Euop�•sal. (�L.t�f � (�K.CE,�'ilCti� A bue6 aummty r•6 project Ib',"x 11" 6onaat). 0Legaf Dcacn.iptinn (attach one o6 the 6oltowing): a.. Ptcti+ninany Titte Repast b. Photo Copy o6 Deed c. Recorded Nap /I.� Names and addneesee o6 individuate who, in addition to the applicant and � oueren, should ic-cive agenda in6onmation and eta66 neponte. 5. Appticant " t ch 6ive (51 copies o6 site ptans, elevations, and 6teen ptau ind.ca usa"o6 buitding in squaAe 600tage. (16 pnopeAty abuts land ouaied by tht4ajita Ctana Vattey Waters DistAict, the applicant must attach six (6) copieeb6 the Bite ptans, elevations and 6lon4 ptans.) (SEE CHECK SHEET OF ITEAS) 6. PLANNED DEVELOP'IENT PU11IT QNLV: Deveta nt Schedute - A written statement g<v� ig t7ie eei date a k —ay Vounc appnnv , on which conaAuetioi: wilt begin and date by uW c� h amptevements wilt be compteted (!'s" x 11" 6onmat)• 7. FILING FEE: SEE ATTACHED FFE SCH L£.^ S. PARY. DEDICATION: Residential projects which involve a subdivision of land may be affected by the City of Campbell's Park Dedication Requirements (Chapter 20.22 Campbell Municipal Code). Please check with the Planning or Public works Depart.nents to determine the impact of these Park Dedication Requirements on your project. APPLICANTS: Attention is eepeciatty Batted to the un nt-ce o6 bein rep Butt at public henninas. The burden o pneeentin mat�e�t to theg the main-cnq oConft"eion id on the a ticant and 6aituae to be present at a heating may ddveUZZY dijeCt the apptieant's chances 06 obtaining the devetopment he/she uqueets. 7/1/B1 ✓� � EIR-1 C-iY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA INITIAL STUDY ENVIROIMNTAL INFORN_kTION FORM - TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Date Filed: V��1t%_F- 1$_ffkr% GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: 6�'W A, ARJU-o 121( 1'AfZV- AMP_ GA�J.k)SE CA. g5M., 2. Address of project: 1001WK41 AltMEEy AV6 CAMO>u1C:A. Assessor's Block and Lot Number 1 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted i concerning this project: (408) 2.t,4rp-QI I I STefeO A , AlXw 01 OW-t- Ate SSW Job, G _ 1DC2fv 4. Indicate number of the permit ap lic tion for t e project to which this form pertains: '(S ti1-%� ct- {!U. 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including thos required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:• 6. Existing zoning district: {r-02OE!22 g1N51- LA-E - S,QJQt-�g RVVgl-`( 1 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): La"rjli$plVC►) ' /� t'i 11L t ¢� ® �pl TIOIJQ4/ t L71S 6i IC, ncr3 _ca . Fr. M m . Ft_t& W T , PROJECT DESCRIPTION (ATTACHED ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) -/8. Site size. F✓.2�? N-, mlo 9. Square footage. 10,tV06 l "h o -10. Number of floors of construction. 2 M AyL "11. Amount of off-street parking provided. uv1C(_,%fe A -12. Attach plans. '13. Proposed scheduling. `��T, (qe} Irll llriN ' ��,a�m 1q�0 "14. Associated projects. IJQ - �15. Anticipated incremental development. LA 1 of 3 pages 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range o sale prices or rents, aqd type of household size expected. AT1Ac F)� i # T +jk 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. PA 18. If industrial, ind.cate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. U 4.19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employ- ment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, tat:e this and indicate clearly why the application is required. �G,Ei� pt�E� c_.ETr�� Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 21. Change in existin; features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scen*c views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. i< 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of pruject. A 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. K 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quanity, or alteration of existing drain- age patterns. 1� 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more. 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flamwbles or explosives. L1 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water; sewage, etc.) 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) 32. Relat.tonahip to a larger project or series of projects- 2 of 3 pages L i M ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struct— es on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photograph of the site. Snapsho s or polaroid photos will be accepted. �>EEArtX0E17 SNE�_� 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scalp of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, Etc.). Attach photo- graphs of 5he vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. (5z!}1'rxilto_sj T] CERTIFICATION \ / I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the hest of my knowledge and belief. bat�m�e iq i983 2&7 l Signature 9A?U Y e . For 3 of 3 pages a B-96- 4/21/81 NOTICE TO APPLICANTS REGARDING EFFECT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PURRSUANT TO DEVELOPMENT OF APN 400-Zf - 11, Please take notice that no vested right to a building permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land development approvals, and applications. Pursuant to the adoption of ordinance 9.045 by County Sanitation District No. 4 of Santa Clara County, the agency providing the above described parcel(s) with sewer service, if the District's Manager and Engineer makes a deter- mination that the issuance'of a sewer connection permit to a building, or proposed building, on the above described property, will, in his opinion, caase the District to exceed its ability to -eat adequately the wastewater that would result from the issuance of such connection permit, then said permit may not be issued, and, hence, no building permit may be issued by this agency. If the sewer connection permit is issued, it may contain sub- stantive conditions designed to decrease the wastewater associated with any land use approval. ACKNOWLEDGMENT By signing below, applicant acknowled cs, at the time of application, that he/she fully underst d�e�a ve2� /�Z APPLICANT APN 40(;P 2 -18%��20, Fj%fj Distribution: 1 Original to County Sanitation District No. 4 Copy to issuing City, Town or County Copy to applicant STEVEN A. ARNOLD — Civii Englnecr 1211 PARK AVE. SUITE 215 • SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95126 • TELEPHONE 1409) 2W9111 , 16. There will be eight additional residential units added ranging in size from 3000 to 4000 square feet. The i sale price of the units will range fro1� $150,00+ to $200,000+. 33. The existing site consists of four. parcels, APN 406-24-18, 19, 20, and 37. The residences on lots 18 and 20 will remain and the residence on lot 19 will be moved elsewhere (see attached photos M1 and M2). The plants on lots 18, 19, and 20 are typical residential ornamental types. The remainder of the site, lot 37, is vacant, flat, and grass -covered with several large ornamental trees (see photo M3). There are no cultural, historical, or scenic aspects to the proposed site. 34. The surrounding properties are all single-family residential. The average lot size in the are is approximately 1/3 Acre. The area is flat. The plants in the surrounding area are typical residential ornamental types. The types of houses are similar to the existing houses on lots 18 and 20 (see attached photos M1 and N2). RYi STRUCTURAL DESIGN LAND SURVEYING BUILDING INSPECT ION , GENERAL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 NORTH CENTRAL A V ENUE C A M P B E L L. CA LIF0RN..4 95008 (408) 378.8141 Depwt—t Public Works December 2, 1983 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 RMOVED of_ r o 1 1983 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Tentative Subdivision Map of: LANDS OF OBURN APN 406-24-37 18� I", Zv The enclosed Tentative Subdivision Map has been filed with the City Engineer for approval. A copy is being sent to you for the puroose of obtaining any comments or suggestions you may have with respect to it. If your comments or suggestions are not received prior to December 16 , 19 83 , it will be assumed that no comments are ort caning. Very truly yours, Joseph Elliott Director of Pu.7ic Works syy James Penoyer (vl Engineering Technician JP/le enclosure PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 27, 1983 CITY OF CAMPBELL 1106,1130,1142 AUDREY AVE. TS 83-09 2 of 2