Loading...
PC Min 06/22/1999CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING CO1V}MISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JUNE 22, 1999 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of June 22, 1999, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairman Jones, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Brad Jones Elizabeth Gibbons Tom Francois,i Joseph D. Her~ndez Susan A. Keams (~7:35 p.m.) Mel Lindstrom Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Planner I: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Sharon Fierro Aki Irani Barbara Schoetz Ryan William Seligmann Corinne A. Shirm APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, the Planning Commission minutes of June 8, 1999, were approved. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Lindstrom abstained and Commissioner Kearns arrived after this vote.) COMMUNICATIONS. There were no communication items. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Jones read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. M 99-04 Musselman Public Hearing to consider the application of Elena and Gerald Musselman for approval of a Modification (M 99-04) to the sideyard setback requirement to allow a residential addition on property located at 261 Cherry Lane in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Ms. Barbara Schoetz Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicants are seeking approval of a Modification to the sideyard setback requirement to allow a second story addition to a single-family residence. · The Modification would allow a 5-foot sideyard setback on the west sideyard of this property to allow the continuation of the roof line. The required setback is 7-feet, 4-inches. · This project is consistent with all other setback requirements. The sideyard requirement is whichever is greater, five (5) feet or one-half the building height. The proposed wall height is 14.7 feet which requires the 7.4 sideyard setback. The proposed area requiring a reduction in the necessary setback is 24 feet in length. · Findings must be made that the reduced setback will not be detrimental to heath, safety, etc., and that the Modification will not interfere with the adjacent property owner's use and enjoyment of their property. · Staff can make these required findings. · All of the adjacent neighbors have been notified and none of them have any objection. · This project was reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee at its meeting of June 8, 1999. However, there was no quorum at that meeting. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the addition was for a second story. Ms. Barbara Ryan replied that the applicants would be installing a window to allow future construction of a second-story bedroom; however, living space is not proposed on the second level at this time. Commissioner Gibbons added that the applicants have been good about obtaining the support of the neighbors regarding issues such as window placement. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Gibbons presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met on June 8th without a quorum. · Advised that she resides on Cherry Lane. However, staff has determined that her property is not located within 300 feet of the project site so she is eligible to review this project. · Stated that she is supportive of the proposal. Chairman Jones opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Elena & Jerry Musselman, Applicants and Property Owners, 261 Cherry Lane: · Stated that they had no questions but were available if the Commission had any questions of them. Chairman Jones closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3229 approving a Modification (M 99-04) to the sideyard setback requirement to allow a residential addition on property located at 261 Cherry Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This approval is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Chairman Jones read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 4 R 99-02 (S 96-12/ UP 96-13) Scala, R. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Roger Scala for approval of a Reinstatement (R 99-02) of a previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 96-12) and Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-13) to allow a commercial building and auto- related use on property located at 2205 S. Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration was previously approved for this project. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Ms. Barbara Schoetz Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicants are seeking approval of the Reinstatement of a 1996 Site and Architectural Approval and Conditional Use Permit. · Project site is a vacant lot on the west side Winchester, between Cherry Lane and Catalpa. · The Site and Architectural Approval was for a one-story commercial building and the Use Permit allowed an autobody repair business to be conducted within this new building. · The site is zoned General Commercial. Uses surrounding the site include small commercial/retail, a residential fourplex, single- family residential and a vacant residential parcel. · The proposal is for the building to be placed at the front of the site, near the street. The building design will give the impression of a retail use, including glass windows and awnings. The business that will occupy this building, DentPro, performs small auto body repairs for door dings, etc. The applicant states that he has never had any noise or odor complaints as a result of his business as conducted at his other locations. Advised that she had visited the Redwood City location. Stated that the business operates until 8 p.m. during the week and 5 p.m. on Saturdays. SARC reviewed this project on June 8t~ despite not having a quorum at that meeting. The applicant has made minor changes from the original approval including the removal of planter bowls located on the pedestals at the driveway. It was feared that these bowls would be used to dump trash. Additionally, the sidewalk has been narrowed and landscape planter area increased. A wall will be constructed of slump stone with column caps. The applicant is seeking approval for the removal of one window but staff is not supportive as they believe that it would present an unbalanced appearance for the building. Advised that the adjacent neighbors to the north and south object to the site design. One neighbor has a concern about the building height as it might impact lighting at their apartment complex. Their building is legal, non-conforming. Staff advises that the living space at this part of the building is sleeping space rather than living, dining and kitchen space. The second neighbor who objects has concerns about the placement of the building on the site. Her concern is that the building at this location will block the visibility of her retail building. Her second concern is the use of her parking lot by DentPro customers. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Lowe asked if signage is part of this proposal. Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that signage would be addressed separately and is not a part of this proposal. Commissioner Gibbons advised that the proposed wall will look much like the wall recently installed at the Pulte Project at Hamilton and San Tomas Expressway. Asked about whether the proposed plant material has been discussed with the neighbors. Ms. Barbara replied that the landscaping has not been reviewed as of yet. Commissioner Gibbons asked about site drainage. Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that Public Works/Engineering is still considering drainage issues. Commissioner Gibbons presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC was supportive of the reinstatement. SARC wanted to ensure coordinating with neighbors regarding issues such as the wall height and site drainage. Chairman Jones opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 Ms. Monique Ernst, 1009 Mallard Ridge Court, San Jose: · Advised that she owns the retail building adjacent to this proposed project. · Questioned the City's reasoning for wanting the building to be situated at the front of the property, near the street. · Stated that such placement of the building would block her building from view. · Expressed concern about safety when parking at the rear of a building rather than having the parking visible from the street. · Stated that the proposed parking is of concern with only seven regular spaces and one handicapped space provided. Questioned where anyone else would park once four employees and the owner have parked on this site. · Stated that this use belongs more in a Light Industrial area rather than within a Commercial Zone. · Stated that this use will have a detrimental impact on her building and tenants. · Suggested changing the site design to include the building at the rear of the site and parking in front. This would eliminate the need for a 20-foot wide driveway and would allow for more parking on the site if the building is built at the front of the site. · Stated that her proposal made common sense. · Advised that she is faced with a daily battle on another property she owns on Camden Avenue in San Jose. An adjacent auto use often parks in her parking lot and she has to chase them away. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Francois asked how she handles this problem on Camden. Ms. Monique Ernst replied that she has had vehicles towed in the past however the towing company with which she worked has dropped her contract because they lost money. Oftentimes, once they arrived after being called to tow a car, the owner would have returned and removed the car from the premises. Commissioner Francois suggested hiring a guard. Ms. Monique Ernst stated that she did not want to pay that cost. Ms. Linda Price, 91 Catalpa Lane: · Advised that she had a negative reaction when she received the heating notice about this project. · Stated that there are already plenty of auto-related uses in the area and that the proposed use is not a good one for this area. · Said that most people with whom she has spoken regarding this proposal are not supportive of this use. Ms. Carolyn Small, Manager, Monique's Draperies, 2235 S. Winchester: · Stated that she agrees with Ms. Ernst's concerns about the placement of the building on this site. · Said that they do not want to lose visibility of their location from the street. · Advised that they have no objection to DentPro using the site but that the building should be located to the rear of the property with parking at the front. Commissioner Lowe stated that there are already existing sites in the vicinity with the building placed at the front of the property and parking to the rear. Mr. Roger Scala, Applicant: · Stated that he has operated his business for the last nine years. · Said that he understands the concerns expressed by the other speakers and said that he too would be concerned about an auto-related use being installed near his home. · Advised that his business includes about six to eight cars a day which will be worked upon within the building. His use of this site will primarily be office use. There will be only two employee cars. · Said that his is a quiet and clean business. No noise will interfere with the surrounding area. The goal traffic would be 20 to 25 cars per day and it will take time to develop that amount of business. Commissioner Francois asked whether the customer load is four to five cars per hour? Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Roger Scala: · Said that his San Jose location has six employees. Each technician does a maximum of 10 cars per day. The work is performed off-site. At his Redwood City location, which has been in operation for three years, they handle seven to eight cars per day. At the Las Vegas location, open for one and a half years, they serve three to four cars a day. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that Mr. Scala describe his process, the fact that they send technicians out to locations and that no paint is used nor components replaced. Mr. Roger Scala advised that they take nothing apart. They go down the window to push dings out of car doors. There are neither chemicals nor touch up paint used. Added that the vehicles are not kept overnight. If on occasion a car is kept overnight, it would be stored within the building for safety. Commissioner Lowe asked where the service vans are stored. Mr. Roger Scala advised that his employees drive the vans home each night. They may keep one at this location but it too would be stored within his building. Commissioner Kearns asked why the project was delayed. Mr. Roger Scala answered that getting his financing took longer and delayed the process. Chairman Jones asked about the placement of the building on the property. Mr. Roger Scala advised that the placement was at the suggestion of the City staff. He added that it is his desire to be a good neighbor and that he does not intend to ruin the neighborhood. Stated that he runs a quiet, clean business. Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that staff encouraged the placement of the building based upon design standards. Advised that several buildings are already located right at the street on Winchester Boulevard. It is believed that storefronts are highly visible to traffic when so placed. Chairman Jones asked when the property to the south was built. Ms. Monique Ernst: · Answered that the property was developed in 1976. · Added that she cannot accommodate DentPro's customers with her parking spaces. · Said that if he sets his building back on the site, he can include more parking spaces on his property. · Said that it would be aesthetically better if the building is located at the rear of the site with parking at the front. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 8 Questioned why other projects in the City were recently improved and were allowed to maintain parking at the front of the site with the building to the rear. Commissioner Lowe asked about the brick proposed on the driveway and whether it was being used to differentiate the driveway. Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that there are entry pillars to highlight the driveway. Ms. Carol Small stated that they are not opposed to DentPro but to the location of the building on the site. Commissioner Hemandez asked if a Condition of Approval can be added to prohibit parking on the adjacent lot by this DentPro's customers. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the applicant can be instructed to work with his customers. Added that the proposed parking for this project meets code requirements. Commissioner Lowe stated that he likes the proposed building and feels that it will be an excellent addition for the City. Says that while he may have questions about the location of the building, experts say that is the way site planning is going. Added that he would approve this Reinstatement. Chairman Jones asked for more information about the placement of the building on this site and the reasoning behind the decision to place the building at the front of the property. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that this placement of the building, using attractive landscaping between the new building and existing residential, also buffers the properties behind from this use. The alternative would have a larger building pushed up against adjacent residential uses. Added that the other shopping centers mentioned by Ms. Ernst were existing uses being remodeled while this project is a new building on a vacant lot. Commissioner Lowe wondered whether the building should be pushed back just far enough to allow two consultation parking spaces in front. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner, suggested that one way to prevent parking on Ms. Ernst's lot is to caution DentPro that they should not give estimates on any cars parked on his neighbor's lot. Commissioner Lowe sought clarification that the reason for the retail-like appearance of this building is so that this building will lend itself to retail use should DentPro outgrow the location. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this is correct. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 9 Chairman Jones asked whether a traditional autobody shop could operate at this location in place of DentPro. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that that was not possible in this zoning. Mr. Roger Scala advised that customers come on an appointment basis to have the work performed. Cars would need to be parked on his property in order to be serviced. Chairman Jones closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2. Chairman Jones suggested a Condition of Approval requiring that all estimates be performed on this property. Commissioner Lowe questioned how this could be enforced. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that upon receipt of complaints, which staff would have to verify, this approval could always come back before the Planning Commission to discuss the Use Permit. Suggested a small parking directional sign to help direct DentPro customers to the property. Commissioner Lowe suggested a Condition stating, "Applicant shall install directional sign at the front driveway directing customers to the rear parking lot." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3230 granting the Reinstatement of a previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 96-12) and Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-13) to allow a commercial building and auto-related use on property located at 2205 S. Winchester Boulevard, with the added Condition that a directional sign be installed directing customers to the rear parking lot, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: Jones ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This approval is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Advised that Council has approved a Park Program for the Winchester Drive-In Site. · Informed that the City has hired a new Building Official, Mr. Bill Bruckart, who comes to Campbell from the Town of Los Gatos. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1999 Page 10 · Reminded that the General Plan Task Force will be taking a multi-jurisdictional tour of local cities on Saturday, June 26, 1999, from 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Commissioner Lindstrom informed that he has been appointed to the Downtown Parking Committee much to his surprise. He is please to serve. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that there are no items pending for the next Planning Commission meeting and recommended the cancellation of that meeting. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 1999, was canceled due to a lack of pending agenda items. (7-0) ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1999, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: C~~ecretary Br~d~ha~ Steve'~ase~'"'- ~' ~'" ' ' ~' 'a~-yck~, Secret -