Loading...
PC Min 10/26/2004 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY OCTOBER 26, 2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2004, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Doorley and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Plan..'1er: Planner I: Plallner I: Redevelopment Manager: Traffic Engineer: City Attorney Recording Secretary: George Doorley Elizabeth Gibbons Tom Francois Joseph D. Hernandez Michael Rocha Bot! Roseberry Bob A !derete Sharon Fierro Geoff 1. Bradley Tim J. Haley Stephanie Willsey Melinda Denis Kirk Heinrichs Matthew Jue William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, the Planning Commission minutes of October 12, 2004, were approved as submitted (4-0-1-2; Commissioner Alderete was absent and Commissioners Francois and Rocha abstained.) COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING *** Commissioner Gibbons advised that she would have to recuse herself from this item as her company has a professional affiliation with this project. She left the dais and the Council Chambers for the duration of this hearing. Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.1 into the record. 1 PLN2004-95 (ZC) PLN2004-96 (PD) PLN2004-97 (TS) Warmoth, J. Continued Public Hearing (from the Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 2004) to consider the application of Mr. Jeff Warmoth, on behalf of Campbell Avenue Associates, LLC, for a Zone Change (PLN2004-95) from C-3-S (Central Business District) to C-PD (Condominium Planned Development); a Planned Development Permit (PLN2004-96) and Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2004-97) to allow the construction of a three-story mixed-use building accommodating 22 residential condominiums, 11,240 square feet of retail and 4,760 square feet of retail mezzanine space on property owned by the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency located at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue in the C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that a Negative Declaration be adopted for this project under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: November 16,2004. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that this item was continued from the September 28th Planning Commission meeting at which time the Commission gave direction to the applicants regarding proposed changes to the elevations. . Described the changes provided including more varied building colors, pilaster feature details, a different center section, roofing material changes for the corner tower elements from zinc to terra cotta tile. . Explained that the revised plans have addressed the items raised by the Commission. . Recommended adoption of resolutions to forward this project on to Council for final approval. Chair Doorley asked if there has been a reduction at all in total elevation height. Planner Tim 1. Haley replied no. The center portion has risen a bit to provide a greater slope to the roof but that overall mass and height of the building is the same. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Hernandez questioned whether the brick treatment along the Second Street frontage has been addressed and, if not, why not. Planner Tim 1. Haley replied that the pilaster treatment has been addressed but the brick treatment along the Second Street frontage has not been addressed in the revised plans. He deferred the explanation of why this has not been depicted on the plans to the applicant. Commissioner Hernandez asked staff if they felt strongly about this element. Planner Tim J. Haley replied yes. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 1. Mr. Joseph Gemignani, 3705 Union Avenue, Campbell: . Reminded that he spoke at the last meeting. . Advised that he likes the new elevation quite a bit and that he hopes the Commission approves it. . Stated that the developer has incorporated lots of things that had been requested. . Pointed out that the building is not out of scale as there are other three-story buildings nearby and that the Stoddard's building across the street is also tall. . Suggested that there would probably be even more two to three-story buildings in the area as the downtown redevelops. . Thanked the developer for listening to concerns raised. . Stated that it is time to approve and get this parcel developed. Mr. Jeff Warmoth, Project Applicant: . Said he would introduce his architect shortly. . Stated that regarding the Second Street elevation, he is willing to work with staff to make this project better. . Explained that the wainscoting of brick on the bridge ties in strongly with the parking structure. . Said that this detail could be worked out further between the architect and staff. . Displayed an exhibit that depicts the outdoor seating potential. . Introduced project architect Peter Spellman. Mr. Peter Spellman: . Apologized for missing the last meeting but explained that he and his wife were welcoming their first child. . Assured that they had taken the comments of the Commission to heart and that the four major points raised have been addressed. 0 Point One, Building Colors - there are now four color schemes for the residential components with the building delineated as individual bays with three different base colors. 0 Point Two, Vertical Pilasters - they have introduced new cornice detail, pre-cast coping and fluted column details for two columns. 0 Point Three, Delineate Center Bay - a more traditional clay tile has been incorporated with a slope feature. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 4 0 Point Four - Roof Material - the zinc tile previously proposed has now been replaced with more traditional clay tile in a terra cotta color. Explained that they also propose a variety of canopy types to include metal and canvass. Stated he was available for any questions. . . Chair DoorIey thanked Mr. Peter Spellman for taking the Commission's concerns into account. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Commissioner Francois: . Expressed appreciation that the applicant took the concerns into consideration. is more articulation and a building that is a lot more appealing. . Stated that this is a dynamic project for the City. . Stressed that he is strongly supportive ofthis project. The result Commissioner Roseberry: . Thanked the architect and developer. . Said that he likes the project and the strong colors. . Agreed that this is a dynamic addition to the downtown. . Stated that it is time to support this project. Commissioner Hernandez: . Pointed out that this building has the height of a four story building as opposed to a three story building. . Agreed that this building is very well designed and that he likes the look of it. . Said that this would be a nice addition but said that he was not sure the project had fulfilled its potential. However, the Redevelopment Manager says that this project provides a commercial stock that is required in the downtown. Commissioner Rocha: . Said that he appreciated the change from zinc to tile roofing. . Said he likes the overall design. . Agreed that there was a mandate to incorporate a retail component. . Stated that this project is as good as it will get. . Expressed concern about the building height. . Advised that he is supportive. Chair DoorIey: . Stated that he too is supportive and that he too had concerns over the overall height. . Pointed out that the residential component is critical to the downtown and will be equally important to the commercial component. . Said that this is a good solid project that he will support. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission took the following actions regarding properties located at 175-201 E. Campbell Avenue: Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 5 . Adopted Resolution No. 3592 recommending that Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; . Adopted Resolution No.3593 recommending that Council approve a Zoning Classification Change (PLN2004-95) fromC-3-S to C-PD; . Adopted Resolution No. 3594 recommending that Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2004-96) to allow the construction of a three-story mixed use building accommodating 22 residential condominiums, 11,240 square feet of retail and 4,760 square feet of retail mezzanine space; . Adopted Resolution No. 3595 recommending that Council approve a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2004-97) to allow the creation of 23 condominium lots; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Doorley, Hernandez, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: Gibbons Chair Doorley advised that Council would consider this application for final action at its meeting of November 16,2004. Commissioner Gibbons rejoined the Commission at the conclusion of Agenda Item No.1. *** Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.2 into the record. 2. PLN2004-68 Gamble, R. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Russ Gamble, on behalf of AI-Mor for a Master Sign Plan and Sign Exception (PLN2004-68) for the San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center on property owned by AI-Mor located at 90-180 N. San Tomas Aquino Road in a C-I-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Master Sign Program and Sign Exception for the shopping center located at the corner of West Campbell Avenue and North San Tomas Aquino Road. . Reminded that earlier, the Commission approved a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow the remodel of this center with a condition to require the applicant to process a Master Sign Program. . Explained that the Master Sign Program includes wall signs, two freestanding signs, entry signs and pedestrian signs over the arcade. The Sign Exception is required to allow more Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 6 signs than are typically permitted. applicant is asking for two. Reported that staff is supportive and that SARC reviewed the project and will provide a report. Usually one freestanding sign is allowed and the . Commissioner Roseberry provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . SARC reviewed this application in June and had significant concerns. SARC reviewed the revised proposal on October 12th at which times the concerns had been addressed. . Reported that SARC is now supportive. Commissioner Hernandez questioned the notation on the plan in reference to letter sizes as being negotiable with the City. Planner Tim J. Haley explained that this is in the event that a national tenant is secured. That tenant would be able to work with the City on the letter size for individual letter signs. Commissioner Hernandez asked if this Sign Program is consistent with letter size as allowed within the Sign Ordinance. There is no exception regarding letter size. Planner Tim J. Haley replied yes. freestanding sign. The only Exception is the consideration of a second Chair Doorley pointed out that there are some new signs on site and questioned if these new signs are consistent with this proposed Sign Program. Planner Tim J. Haley explained that the signs for businesses on the northerly end of the center and the pad buildings were applied for prior to the submittal of a Sign Program plan for the overall center. These already installed signs are consistent both with the proposed Sign Program and the Sign Ordinance. Chair Doorley brought up the color scheme for this center and asked if what has been installed matches what had been approved. Planner Tim J. Haley replied that one color was changed from pink to orange but that the colors used are generally consistent with the color scheme the Planning Commission reviewed. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 2. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3596 approving a Master Sign Plan and Sign Exception (PLN2004-68) for the San Tomas Plaza Shopping Center on property owned by Al-Mor located at 90-180 N. San Tomas Aquino Road and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 7 AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None Chair Doorley advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.3 into the record. 3. PLN2004-113 Zargari, M. Continued Public Hearing (from the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2004) to consider the application of Mr. Mehran Zargari for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2004-113) to allow a second story residential addition and floor area ratio of .5 on property owned by Mr. Mehran Zargari located at 281 Virginia Avenue in an R-I-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Site and Architectural Review permit to allow a single family addition to an existing single-family residence 10cated at 281 Virginia Avenue. . Described the Zoning Designation at R-I-6. . Explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a FAR greater than .45. Since the recent Zoning Code Update, FAR limits of .45 were established as well as a provision to apply for a FAR of .5 for residential additions. . Reported that this addition includes a new living room and second story. . Reminded that this item was continued from the October Ith Planning Commission meeting. . Recommended approval. Commissioner Gibbons provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . SARC reviewed this proposal on September 28th and October 12th. . Explained that SARC is supportive with the revisions provided. . Reported that this was a challenging applicant with new FAR standards having been adopted with the Zoning Code Update. . Stated that hard work was done to make this project work and that the applicant worked closely with staff and SARC to reach this proposal. Commissioner Hernandez sought clarification that no side elevation windows would overlook neighboring properties. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 8 Planner Tim J. Haley replied correct. Commissioner Hernandez asked if the 22 foot rear setback results in no intrusion on the rear neighbors. Planner Tim J. Haley replied that it is a more substantial rear setback than required. The more typical setback is 10 feet. Chair Doorley asked about the driveway length. Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the driveway is 24 feet and that no adjustments are proposed to this existing driveway. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 3. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.3. Commissioner Rocha: . Reported that he viewed the site and street and found only three other two-story homes in the immediate area. . Said that this home would stand out and set a new standard as it is quite a bit larger than the homes surrounding this site. . Stated that he would be supporting this request. Chair Doorley said that he had similar thoughts but that a second-story addition is a by-right Issue. Commissioner Roseberry clarified that SARC worked with this applicant as the original second story element was originally forward on the lot. It was moved back so that it is now less visible from the street. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3597 approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2004-113) to allow a second story residential addition and floor area ratio of .5 on property owned by Mr. Mehran Zargari located at 281 Virginia Avenue and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and Roseberry None Alderete None Chair Doorley advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 9 Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.4 into the record. 4. PLN2004-124 Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Robert and Stephanie Mosley, R & S Mosley appealing an Administrative Decision (PLN2004-124) to deny a Fence Exception for property owned by Robert and Stephanie Mosley located at 109 Rio Serena Avenue in an R-I-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Project Planner: Stephanie Willsey, Planner I Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is appealing to overturn an Administrative denial for a zero side yard setback for a fence with five feet is required. . Explained that this fence came to the attention of the Community Development Department in the form if a citizen complaint. The site was investigated by staff and three fencing violations were confirmed. . Added that two of the tree violations have since been corrected. The property owners reduced the height by removing lattice and created a vision triangle. The last violation, the zero setbacks, resulted in the filing for a Fence Exception. . Reported that the Community Development Director denied the Fence Exception administratively as staff was unable to make the required findings to approve it since the fence as constructed is not more desirable but is more detrimental. . Added that zero setbacks do not offer visual relief or room for landscaping. . Informed that under the former Zoning Ordinance regulations corner lots were considered as corner 10ts or other corner lots. This parcel is considered to be an other corner 10t in that the rear property line abuts its neighboring property's side property line. . Reiterated that the required street side setback established with the Code update was five feet. Commissioner Hernandez sought clarification that although a visual streetscape is the intended result for requiring this five foot setback there is no requirement for a property owner to plant screening landscaping in this setback. Planner Stephanie Willsey replied correct. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the neighbor who initiated the complaint considers that complaint to be resolved or standing. Senior Planner Geoff 1. Bradley reported that complaints are treated confidentially but that the original complainant still has issues. Chair Doorley stated that it seems like most corner lots having fencing that goes to the property line. He asked if fencing that pre-dates the updated fencing regulations is considered legal non-conforming. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 10 Planner Stephanie Willsey reminded that there were different requirements for corner lots versus other corner lots. Some of these existing fences are likely to be legal non-conforming while others are simply illegal. She added that the five-foot setback was deemed reasonable with the Ordinance amendment. Chair Doorley asked if legal non-conforming fencing would have to be property set back at which time that they are reconstructed. Planner Stephanie Willsey replied yes. Commissioner Francois asked the length of the north side fence. Planner Stephanie Willsey estimated that it is approximately 20 feet. Commissioner Francois asked if the concern is with the line of vision at the corner. Planner Stephanie Willsey replied that the main issue is the ability to back out of the driveway for the adjacent rear neighbor whose driveway runs along this fencing. Commissioner Hernandez sought clarification that the fence has been modified and is fine at both the corner and from the driveway and that the issue now is just the setback. Planner Stephanie Willsey replied correct. Commissioner Gibbons provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . SARC reviewed this request on October Ith and elected not to make a recommendation but rather advised the applicant to make a presentation to the full Planning Commission. . Reminded that two of the three original problems were reconciled. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 4. Mr. Robert Mosley, Appellant & Property Owner, l09 Rio Serena, Campbell: . Said that he had spoken with the neighbor he believed had complained and was under the impression that everything was now okay. . Reported that they had taken down the lattice and notched the corner. . Explained that they had built their fence like those in the neighborhood. . Expressed hope that they will be able to keep their fence. Chair Doorley questioned whether the Mosleys had sought City guidance about fencing regulations and had received information. Mr. Robert Mosley said that they requested such information only after the fence was constructed. Reiterated that they tried to make their fence fit into this neighborhood and that it matches 9 of 12 fences on nearby corner lots. Chair Doorley asked staff for clarification. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page II Senior Planner Geoff 1. Bradley reported that staff responded to email correspondence from Stephanie Mosley in July. Ms. Stephanie Mosley, Appellant and Property Owner, 109 Rio Serena Avenue, Campbell: . Explained that they installed their fence on July 20th and when some friends expressed concern that the fence appeared high. At that time, she referred to the Codes. . Added that a couple of weeks later they received a Notice of Violation. . Said that she had thought that their rear neighbor was the one behind the complaint and that this neighbor had subsequently signed a consent form for the fence so they thought the issues had been resolved. Mr. Eric Quinn, 1707 Villarita Drive, Campbell: . Said he wanted to defend the moral character of his new neighbors. . Explained that the Mosleys have worked diligently for months to improve their property. . Stressed that the neighborhood is thrilled to have the Mosleys in the neighborhood. . Said that he looks at this new fence from his own home and that it looks fine to him. . Stated that the efforts made by the Mosleys results in an overall improvement to the neighborhood. Ms. Sharon Taylor, Villarita Drive, Campbell: . Expressed her agreement with Mr. Quinn's comments. . Said that she is here to defend this fence and assures that it results in no traffic impacts. . Pointed out that all properties have fences on the property line. . Said that this is a beautiful fence, yard and house. . Stated that she hopes the Commission allows the Mosleys to keep this fence. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.4. Commissioner Francois: . Stated that this situation represents the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. . Said that he does not believe that the Mosleys had the intent to violate fencing regulations and that he would hate to see them have to take this fence taken down. . Expressed his support for this appeal. Commissioner Rocha: . Reminded that a lot of time was spent last year in the review of the Codes to avoid the need for fence disputes to need to come to the Planning Commission. . Said that he understands that zero lot line fences create a different feel. . Said that on principal he supports the denial of the fence and would like to see more enforcement of regulations. . Agreed that this is a tough call. Commissioner Hernandez: . Said that this is an unfortunate situation. . Pointed out that the Mosleys quickly took care of the safety issues and have made good faith efforts. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 12 . Reminded that the neighbors across the street are fine with the fence. Stated that even if the fence were relocated there could simply been a five foot section with just dirt running along the fence. Agreed that this is an issue of letter versus spirit of the law and that common sense should be used. . . Commissioner Gibbons: . Said that this situation is tough. . Reminded that so much time was spent on the issue of fencing regulations and that it is important not to set any precedents. . Added that it appears that 9 of 12 corner lots in the neighborhood have the same fencing situation. . Stressed the importance of being clear that this is an Exception. Commissioner Rocha said that this request will have impacts on future requests but that in the future he would still have to be convinced to support exceptions. Commissioner Francois: . Reminded that there is a reason that appeals processes exist. . Stated that each appeal is considered on a case-by-case basis. . Agreed that the Ordinance requirements are important. Commissioner Hernandez: . Stated that findings must be adopted to support this exception. . Pointed out that one finding might be that this fence is not out of character with the neighborhood. . Suggested bolstering the draft findings provided by staff. Commissioner Gibbons said that she was amiable to that approach. Commissioner Hernandez asked staff and the City Attorney for suggestions on findings that are appropriate. City Attorney William Seligmann reminded that the findings must not be about the worthiness of these specific applicants but rather the use of land. Commissioner Gibbons suggesting adding text to one finding that reads, "The majority of the homes have a standing tradition of fences on the property line." Chair Doorley expressed concern at that proposed language. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that due to the timing of the Ordinance, all parties acted in good faith regarding the installation of this fencing. Director Sharon Fierro reported that this would not be helpful language. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page l3 Commissioner Hernandez asked whether the finding could be made that this fencing has the consent of the neighbors. qty Attorney William Seligmann reported that consent only determines who makes the decision not ensure compliance with the Code. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3598 granting an appeal and overturning an Administrative Decision (PLN2004-124) to deny a Fence Exception for property owned by Robert and Stephanie Mosley located at 109 Rio Serena Avenue and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, Hernandez, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: Gibbons ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None Chair Doorley advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.5 into the record. 5. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Larry Fernandes, on behalf of the Fernandes Family Trust, for a Modification (PLN2004-105) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow interior improvements to an existing office building on property owned by the Fernandes Family Trust located at 2110 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning district. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Project Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner I PLN2004-105 Fernandes, L. Ms. Melinda Denis, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking a continuance. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 5. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission continued consideration of PLN2004-105 to allow a Modification (PLN2004-105) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow interior improvements to an existing office building on property owned by the Fernandes Family Trust located at 2110 S. Bascom Avenue to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 9,2004. (6-0-1; Commissioner Alderete was absent) Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 14 *** Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.6 into the record. 6. PLN2004-130 Rodrigues, K. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues, on behalf of Hardtke World of Baseball, for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2004-130) to allow an indoor health/fitness facility in an existing building on property owned by Harry and Marianna Brix located at 541 Division Street in a C-M-S (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Project Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner I Ms. Melinda Denis, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to establish an indoor recreation facility on the rear portion of a site within a 14,000 square foot tenant space. The front space is occupied by a warehouse/manufacturing use. . Described the location as being on the north side of Division Street, between Winchester and Dell Avenues within a light industrial area. . Said that the Land Use is Research and Development and the Zoning is C-M (Controlled Manufacturing). A Conditional Use Permit is required. . Said that the proposed use is for indoor recreation with baseball and softball instruction. . Stated that Hardtke World of Baseball is currently operating at San Tomas Plaza with batting cages, bull pens, etc. The business would have a maximum of 40 students and five staff. On site, typical use is 12 to 20 students with three staff. . Explained that the parking provided on site is 103 spaces. This use requires 43 spaces and the other uses require 54 spaces. Therefore parking exceeds that required. . Recommended approval. Commissioner Gibbons asked staff to list uses allowed in the CM Zoning. Planner Melinda Denis replied that some uses permitted with just a business license include support, food, furniture, laundry, manufacturing, medical products, etc. Uses permitted with a Conditional Use Permit include recording, health, medical, storage yards, etc. Commissioner Gibbons asked if office uses are permitted. Planner Melinda Denis replied yes. Commissioner Hernandez asked if a Use Permit was required for their current location. Planner Melinda Denis replied yes. Commissioner Hernandez asked if retail is inconsistent with the zoning. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 15 Planner Melinda Denis replied no. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 6. Mr. Ken Rodrigues, Project Architect and Applicant: . Said that he helped the Hardtkes locate in their current location but they have since outgrown it. . Pointed out that the Hardtkes want to stay in Campbell. . Said that this proposed site is convenient to 85, which is good for their students who come from a larger regional area. . Concurred with staff comments and said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Ken Rodrigues if he has the current World Series game score. Mr. Ken Rodrigues reported that the score is 4-0 in favor of the Red Socks. Commissioner Rocha: . Pointed out that there would be no conveniently located places at which the students could get something to eat. . Suggested that vending machines be considered. . Said that this is a unique use to the area. Mr. Ken Rodrigues said that they have some vending currently and would have some available in the new location. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.6. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3599 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2004-130) to allow an indoor health/fitness facility in an existing building on property owned by Harry and Marianna Brix located at 541 Division Street and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None Chair Doorley advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.7 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 16 7. PLN2004-114 zc) PLN2004-115 PD) PLN2004-116 (TS) PLN2004-117 (TRP) Ho,A. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Anthony Ho, on behalf of the Pang Brothers Investment Corporation, for a Zone Change (PLN2004-114) from P-D (Planned Development) to C-PD (Condominium/Planned Development); a Planned Development Permit (PLN2004-115) for the construction of a new four-story mixed-use building containing 45 new residential condominium units, 5,100 square feet of retail/restaurant space and 125 parking spaces; a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2004-116) to subdivide the property; and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2004-11 7) to allow the removal of five protected trees on property owned by the Pang Brothers Investment Corporation located at 1815 S. Bascom Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this project under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: November 16,2004. Project Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner 1. Ms. Melinda Denis, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicants are seeking approval of the Maple Grove Project and pointed out that a plan sheet with an additional section of the garage was provided. . Described the parcel as 1.2 net acres and located at the southwest corner of Campisi and Bascom Avenue. . Stated that the existing 12,000 square foot restaurant was constructed in 1973. . Said that the Land Use designation is CommerciallProfessional Office/Residential and the zoning is Planned Development. The site is also included in the PruneyardlCreekside Special Project Area. . Said that surrounding uses include a shopping center to the north, apartments to the south, a shopping center to the east and offices to the west. . Described the applications as including a Zone Change from PD to C-PD; a Planned Development Permit to allow a four-story mixed-use building with 45 residential condominiums and 4,850 square feet of commercial space and a below grade garage; a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the property; and a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of five protected trees. . Said that the project includes the 4,850 square feet of retail, 45 attached condominium units with stairs and elevators from the garage to the residences and four site access walkways. The parking includes 23 for retail and 103 for residents. With a ration of 1 :210, 25 parking spaces are required. The ratio of 3.5 spaces per residential unit creates a requirement for 158 spaces and 103 are provided. However, the Planning Commission may adjust parking for transit-oriented development if sites are located within a quarter mile of Light Rail. . Explained that the existing trees and shrubs would be removed for construction including five protected trees. These trees would be replaced by 16 medium to large trees and 43 small to medium trees. Additionally streetscapes would be installed along Bascom and Campisi. Mr. Mark Spencer, Traffic Engineer, DKS Associates: . Said that they have revised the traffic analysis. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 17 . Reported that he has the final World Series score which is 4-1 in favor of the Red Socks and that he predicts that traffic is terrible at the stadium. Advised that he has had several conversations with the City's Traffic Engineer, Matthew Jue. Reported that potential trip generation was compared to existing restaurant trip generation and trip surveys were conducted on a Thursday and Friday. Said that am trips would result in 25 new vehicle trips. The daily total would be 483 daily vehicle trips compared to the current 959 daily trips for the existing restaurant. This is a significant reduction and results in air quality benefits. Explained that traffic engineering focuses on peak hours. While currently there is no a.m. activity from the site, with the project there would be 25 new vehicle trips in the a.m. The trips projected in the p.m. are 42, which is significantly less than now (38 less). . . . . Chair Doorley expressed his personal difficulty in understanding how the traffic can be projected to be cut in half with this proposed project. Mr. Mark Spencer: . Reminded that this is a hug restaurant site with over 12,000 square feet in space. . Assured that counts were done and this site currently is getting hundreds of vehicles per hour. . Pointed out that the new development would consist of only 4,800 square feet of retail space. The site would have a mix of uses and a mix of peak hours. . Reported that a Traffic Impact Analysis was deemed to not be warranted with this projects resulting reduction in both p.m. and peak trip generations. Chair Doorley asked Mr. Mark Spencer if he had looked at the impacts on the intersection of Bascom and Hamilton Avenues. Mr. Mark Spencer replied that this intersection is currently ranked as LOS E and is on its way to LOS F. He added that this downgrade would occur regardless of what happens to this site. The reductions gained with this project are not enough to help that intersection's LOS in any way. Commissioner Hernandez asked if another project recently approved in the area was also taken into consideration in the traffic analysis. Mr. Mark Spencer replied no. He looked at existing plus project. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the potential number of cars on site with the 45 residential units and 103 parking spaces provided. Mr. Mark Spencer said that the 45 units require 103 spaces. Also a parking agreement is in place with the Sherwin Williams location, which will continue. Commissioner Gibbons asked how the trip generation and number of spaces on site is factored. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 18 Mr. Mark Spencer said that there are two, three and four bedroom units. He added that it is unlikely that there would be four vehicles per unit. They would be likely occupied by small families rather than adults for each bedroom. Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the Commission does not allow parking off-site to meet on-site parking requirements. She added that the easement road is not parking. Senior Planner Geoff 1. Bradley reported that the access easement is recorded and irrevocable. There is also a parking agreement for 14 spaces, which is not recorded and therefore revocable. No credit is given for that parking. He added that the condominiums have enough parking but that the commercial parking is 2.5 spaces short or the commercial space is 400 square feet too big. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that the bank of spaces near the columns appear too small for many cars to access. She said these areas might better serve two cars rather than the three spaces indicated. Mr. Mark Spencer asked if perhaps indicated these spaces for compact only might resolve this concern. Commissioner Gibbons replied that this has not been allowed in previous approvals. Mr. Mark Spencer said that he did not view these spaces as problematic but that it is fair to discuss. Commissioner Gibbons provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . Reported that SARC had recommended that the applicant provide an enlarged elevation, provide more shading on the Bascom Avenue elevation, provide a roof plan, show a comparison between the site plan and elevations, depict people and cars on the elevations and provide more visual interest. . Added that the applicant was responsive to SARC's requests. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 7. Mr. Patrick Mochler, Pruneyard Limited Partnership: . Identified himself as a co-general partner of the Pruneridge Apartments. . Stated that he is a proponent for this project that creates a positive live/work/play atmosphere. . Suggested that high density development allows people to live, work and play in the same place and has a lot to offer. . Said that this is an exciting site on a visible corner with an impact on his own site. . Advised that they plan to improve their site in the future and that they had sold a portion of their site to create the easement into Pruneyard. . Said that he is very excited about this project and hope that it is approved. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.7. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 19 Commissioner Gibbons: . Said that this project was reviewed at a Study Session and by SARC. Quite a bit of modification and adjustment has occurred as a result. . Stated that she greatly appreciates those changes. . Said that this is an important site for the community and is the first major project to kick off redevelopment of this particular area and represents a zero lot line building with underground parking. . Stated that she does not see this project as a prototype for other projects due to limitations on landscaping on such sites. . Advised that the applicant has worked carefully. . Said that due to potential traffic impacts during construction Condition #47 should be amended to require a construction plan submitted to the City prior to construction subject to traffic management. . Said that she is surprised that the streetscape improvements do not turn onto Campisi. Senior Planner Geoff 1. Bradley said that these improvements only apply to image streets such as Bascom and Hamilton. However, there would be trees planted at the curb line on Campisi. He advised that the applicant would like a moment to address the issue of on-site parking. Chair Doorley re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.7. Mr. Anthony Ho, Project Architect: . Said that while there are only 23 on-grade parking spaces for the retail space, there are two additional parking spaces in the garage that can be assigned to the retail business owners. . Added that this means that the total number of parking spaces required is satisfied. Chair Doorley re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.7. Chair Doorley: . Said that this is an important and proper project for this area. . Said that issues of traffic and parking are considered against a transit-oriented project, although this site is a decent walking distance from the Light Rail station. . Pointed out that the BascomlHamilton intersection is already at LOS E. . Expressed support for the concept of live/work/play development. . Stated that this project has been well thought out and designed. Commissioner Hernandez: . Said that this is a pretty exciting project. . Stated that his biggest concern was traffic but that he is more comfortable now with the sensible, plain English explanation by Mr. Mark Spencer. . Said that this is a unique spot but that traffic has been addressed. The site has multiple access points and not just one way in or out. This is the place to do this sort of project and is placing a bet on the Light Rail. . Suggested the need for provisions within the CC&Rs to prohibit towels, laundry and other such storage off the balconies. . Expressed support. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 20 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hernandez seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission took the following actions regarding property located at 1815 S. Bascom Avenue (Maple Grove Project): . Adopted Resolution No. 3600 recommending that Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; . Adopted Resolution No. 3601 recommending that Council approve a Zone Change (PLN2004-114) from PD to C-PD; . Adopted Resolution No. 3602 recommending that Council approve a Planned Development Permit (PLN2004-115) to allow the construction of new four-story mixed use building with the added conditions requiring approval of a construction plan by the Community Development Director to deal with traffic impacts during construction and amending Condition #4 to assure that the CC&Rs prohibit storage on the balconies; . Adopted Resolution No. 3603 recommending that Council approve a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2004-116) to subdivide the property; and . Adopted Resolution No. 3604 recommending that Council approve a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2004-117) to remove five protected trees, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None Chair Doorley advised that Council would consider this application for final action at its meeting of November 16, 2004. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: . Advised that the next agenda consists of five items. . Reminded that the Annual Commissioners Dinner would be held on Thursday. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 9, 200 , SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: