Loading...
PC Min 10/12/1999CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY OCTOBER 12, 1999 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1999, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Acting Chair Gibbons, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Acting Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chair: Elizabeth Gibbons Tom Francois Joseph D. Hemandez Susan A. Keams Mel Lindstrom Dennis Lowe Brad Jones (arrived at 8:15 p.m.) Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner II: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Sharon Fierro Tim J. Haley Katrina Rice Schmidt William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission minutes of September 14, 1999, were approved. (3-0-1-3; Chairman Jones was absent and Commissioners Lowe, Lindstrom and Hernandez abstained.) Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS. The following communication items were distributed: 1. Revised Study Session Agenda with corrected applicant's name. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Acting Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. S 99-04 Smith, J. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. James Smith for approval of a Site and Architectural Application (S 99- 04) to allow a new commercial building on property located at 3245 S. Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a new commercial building on property located on S. Winchester, which is currently developed with a single family residence which will be demolished as part of this development. · The proposed building consists of 3,330 square feet and represents 29% of the site with 23% landscaping. The remainder will be paving. · The proposed parking ratio is 1 for each 208 square feet which staff finds adequate for the proposed use. · Surrounding uses include a daycare center to the north, a retail rug cleaning business to the south, single family residences to the west and Union Pacific and industrial uses to the east. · This project was continued from September to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise plans based on SARC feedback. · The General Plan designation for the site is Commercial and the Zoning designation is C-2-S (General Commercial). The proposed use is consistent. · Staff is not supportive of the project due to the placement of the building at the rear of the project site. The design standard for Winchester Boulevard is to have buildings built at the street level while the applicant wants to build at the rear portion of the site. · Staff reasoning for developing buildings at the street level is to develop a more attractive appearance, stronger pedestrian connection and to buffer the use due to the proximity of the residential lot to the rear of this site. · Advised that the applicant has lowered the height of their building to accommodate the residential rear lot. Both the rear and side of the building will be built at the property line. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 3 · Staff recommends the adoption of a resolution denying this project due to the placement of the building on the site. Commissioner Francois asked if the rear property owner was contacted. Mr. Tim J. Haley replied that it is customary to contact property owners within 300 feet of a project site and that the adjacent property owners, including the rear residential property owner, had received notification regarding this evening's hearing. Commissioner Kearns asked what the setback is for the house currently on the project site. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that he was unfamiliar with that setback but that the applicant could probably provide this data as he lives in the structure. Commissioner Kearns asked about the trash enclosure. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the proposed glass storefront conflicts with the placement of the trash enclosure area in that it would be visible from the windows. The applicant made changes to deal with this concern. Commissioner Hernandez sought clarification that staff's sole basis for recommendation of denial is the community design standard for the area. Commissioner Lowe asked for the proposed use of the site. Asked if it would possibly become an auto related use. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the applicant plans to sell upholstery cleaning supplies and equipment. Advised that auto related uses would require a Use Permit. Acting Chair Gibbons asked about the building materials, particularly for the siding. Mr. Tim J. Haley answered that a combination split-face block and stucco would be used. Additionally, canvas awnings and glass would be featured. Commissioner Lindstrom presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Advised that SARC met and reviewed this project on September 28, 1999, and was supportive with some proposed modifications to the initial proposal. Acting Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bruce Johnson, Project Architect, 80 Alice Avenue: · Thanked staff and SARC for their efforts. · Stated that what they proposed is a good-looking building with an abundance of landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 4 · Advised that the trash enclosure will not be visible from the street. · Stated that is was ludicrous to deny this project solely on the basis of the placement of the building. · Said that his client has security concerns that cause him to want to develop the building to the rear of his site. · Added that they have secured privacy for the residential neighbor by changing the slope of the roof. · Stated that with the building at the front of the site, they would be unable to provide the required 16 parking spaces. With parking at the rear, those using the parking lot would not be visible from the street, which is a safety concern. · Advised that his client has lived on the property for 30 years and that many accidents from Winchester end up on the property. If the building is constructed at the front of the site, the risk is great that accidents from Winchester may result in the building being hit by a car(s) thereby getting damaged. · Said that all the buildings along Winchester from Chapman to W. Parr are built at the rear of their respective lots such as they are proposing to do. Theirs would be the only building in the immediate area constructed at the front of the property thereby making them "guinea pigs." · Thanked the Commission and staff for their help and stated he would be available for any questions. Commissioner Lindstrom asked about the type of retail proposed. Mr. Bruce Johnson advised that the proposal is for rug cleaning equipment and supplies. Mr. Von Goesling, 1384 Walnut Drive: · Stated that he has resided in his home since 1990. He is not interested in looking at a 16-foot brick wall from his home. · Said that he would rather see the structure located at the front of the property and that he had confidence in the Campbell Police should any disturbance occur in the parking lot at the rear of this site. Commissioner Kearns asked if the wall is the neighbor's main concern rather than security and possible loitering. Mr. Von Goesling stated that residential properties have setback requirements and wondered why such setbacks are not required on commercial developments. Asked the Commission to have sympathy for him and his family. Commissioner Lowe asked staff to address Mr. Goesling's concerns and questions. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Tim J. Haley: · Advised that the Ordinance requires a 10-foot setback for commercial developments but that the Commission may be authorize a lesser setback if it does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Commissioner Gibbons asked for clarification about how the height of required walls is determined. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that for Fire Code protection purposes, the required wall would have to be 3 feet higher. Commissioner Lowe asked whether there would be any hazardous waste issues with this proposed use. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the applicant could better respond to this question but that it is customary for businesses to file a HazMat Report with Fire which would document the types of materials kept on site and safe storage and handling requirements. Mr. Gary Gairaud, 615 Louise Court: · Advised that he is a representative of the San Tomas Neighborhood Association. · Reminded the Commission that they recently reviewed a development, also on Winchester Boulevard, north of Budd Avenue, in which the building was required to be developed at the street. · Cautioned the Commission about the need for consistency. Acting Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Francois advised that he felt valid arguments have been provided by both sides. He agreed with Bruce Johnson that this proposal is consistent with what is already developed in the immediate area. Also agreed that there are compelling facts on both sides. Commissioner Keams advised that the residential neighbor directly behind the project site is impacted by this proposal. Expressed regret that more neighbors were not present to express similar concerns. Commissioner Lowe stated his agreement with Commissioner Francois but added that he is leaning in favor of the homeowner's concerns. Said that the building should be placed up front and stated his support of a Resolution denying this application. Commissioner Hernandez also said he agreed with Commissioner Francois that good arguments have been presented representing both sides of this issue. Stated that they have to consider not just now but also future uses. Stated that he leaned toward Commissioner Lowe's viewpoint on denying the application. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Lindstrom asked to having the Public Hearing re-opened. Acting Chair Gibbons re-opened Public Hearing No. 1. Mr. Bruce Johnson, Project Architect: · Stated that his client likes the building at the rear of the site. It looks good. · His client had wanted to construct a 4,000 square foot building but it had to be reduced to 3,330 to accommodate the 16 parking spaces. · Advised that they cannot fit the required spaces and 3,330 square foot building if the building is constructed at the front of the site due to driveway requirements. To accommodate moving the building, staff would have to give up something such as landscaping. Mr. Von Goesling stressed to the Commission that he and his family live at their home 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year and are concerned about this potential building being constructed at the property line behind their home. Acting Chair Gibbons re-closed Public Hearing No. 1. Commissioner Kearns asked whether the wall would still be 16-feet if the building was set back from the property line. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that a 6-foot high wall is required to separate Commercial and Residential uses. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that in addition to the 6-foot wall, a 10-foot landscaping strip would also be required should the building be moved off of the property line. Staff is not supportive of that option as that strip would become a maintenance issue. Acting Chair Gibbons: · Stated her support of Commissioner Francois' comments. · Advised that the project came before SARC on two different occasions. Quite a bit of time has been devoted to the review of the project. · Stated that two main issues include the placement of the building on the property and the desired size of building and the impact the placement has on the possible size of building allowed on the site. Another issue is the proximity to residential uses. · Placement of the building at the front of the property is a long-term approach to development planning. · Stated that having the residential property adjacent to a commercial site is always a challenge and that issue is not ignored. · Stated that mitigations have been implemented and others proposed. If the building is built at the rear of the site, it should be all the way back. The 10-foot setback does not benefit either property owner. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 7 The proposed wall has been enhanced in respect to the residential property owner. It would be constructed of slump block with an accent band. A slope roof has been designed to reduce the mass and height. Reminded that the proposed commercial use is consistent with zoning for the property. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, the Planning Commission moved to adopt a Resolution denying a Site and Architectural Approval (S 99-04) to allow the construction of a 3,330 square foot commercial building at the rear property line, on property located at 3245 S. Winchester Boulevard, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hernandez, Lowe NOES: Francois, Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom ABSENT: Jones ABSTAIN: None The motion failed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3237 granting a Site and Architectural Approval (S 99-04) to allow the construction of a 3,330 square foot commercial building at the rear property line, on property located at 3245 S. Winchester Boulevard, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom NOES: Hernandez, Lowe ABSENT: Jones ABSTAIN: None The motion passed. Acting Chair Gibbons advised those in attendance that this approval is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Chairman Jones arrived at 8:15 p.m., at the conclusion of Item No. 1, joined the Commission and assumed the gavel from Acting Chair Gibbons. Chairman Jones read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 8 2. M 99-09 (PD 97-03) Tersini, M. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Mark Tersini, on behalf of KT Properties, for approval of a Modification (M 99-09) to a previously-approved Planned Development Permit to allow revised elevations and an additional room in each unit to a previously-approved plan allowing the construction of four residential units on property located at 760 Duncanville Court in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: November 2, 1999. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Modification to a previously-approved Planned Development Permit to allow the addition of an additional bedroom on the second story of each of the four townhome units within this project. · Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that Council approve this Modification. · SARC reviewed the proposal. Commissioner Gibbons presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met on September 28, 1999, to review this project. No consensus was reached. Chairman Jones opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mark Tersini, KT Properties: · Expressed his appreciation for the Commission's time and advised that staff has done an excellent job articulating the proposal and Options A or B. Option A was developed as a result of feedback from SARC. Stated that he was in support of either Option that suited the Commission. · Stated his support of the staff recommendation. · Advised that he plans to keep this project as a rental project. Chairman Jones asked for clarification about the differences between Option A and B. Mr. Mark Tersini: · Advised that Option B has a more articulated entryway for the rear units. · Informed that their buildings are actually shorter than the surrounding buildings which are between 32 and 38 feet in height. Commissioner Gibbons clarified that Option B is the original concept brought forward by the applicant and Option A is the revised plan based upon feedback from SARC. Chairman Jones closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 9 Commissioner Gibbons reiterated the concerns expressed at SARC: · The size of the building and the change in the footprint of each bldg by 200 square feet. · Concern over massing and proportions. Commissioner Kearns asked whether SARC recommended Option A. Commissioner Gibbons answered that SARC does recommend Option A over Option B. Commissioner Lindstrom clarified that the footprint actually only increases by about 6 inches. Changing a vaulted ceiling into floor space on the second floor creates the 200 square feet of additional living space. Stated that he has no problem with the outside structure and recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Gibbons stated that substantive changes have been made to what was a quality project. The project is no longer as good as it was. Commissioner Lindstrom disagreed and stated that with the changes the project is now better than before. Commissioner Gibbons stated that five different types of windows are used. Said that the design needs to be refined. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that the window variations do not detract from the project. Chairman Jones asked if the Resolution is a recommendation to Council and what the options are for the Commission. Mr. Tim J. Haley: · Advised that this application is a Modification to a previously approved Planned Development Approval. The applicant purchased the project from the original developer of the site and felt the plans were not marketable. · The two choices include Option A, the applicant's plan with changes suggested by SARC, or Option B, the applicant's original submittal. Staff recommends Option A. · A third option would be to deny the Modification. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that a continuance would be a fourth option. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3238 recommending approval of a Modification (M 99-09) to a previously approved Planned Development Permit (PD 97-03) to allow Option A changes that add approximately 200 square feet to each of four residential units, on property located at 760 Duncanville Court, by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 10 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Francois, Hernandez, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe Gibbons None None This item will be considered by Council at its meeting of November 2, 1999. Chairman Jones read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. Staff Update Review of preliminary station design plans for the Vasona Light Rail Project. Ms. Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that VTA is present to obtain feedback regarding proposed station design. Two themes are presented, including General Vasona Corridor (using a pitch roof) and the Downtown Campbell Station design. The Historic Preservation Board reviewed the three proposals at its October 5, 1999, meeting and voted to support Plan C. The HPB found this design to be complimentary to Historic Downtown Campbell. HPB feels that a significant impact would be felt if the Downtown Campbell is the end of the line, particularly on parking. Advised that the Winchester Station is not currently funded. The proposed site for this station is at what is now the Woolworth Garden Center. Commissioner Kearns asked if there would be just one station in Campbell Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that three Light Rail Stations are proposed for Campbell. Two are currently funded and the third is not. One station would be located at Hamilton Avenue (near the Apple Building) and the second in Downtown Campbell. The third would be located at the Woolworth's Garden Center site on Winchester Boulevard. Mr. Mark Robinson, Project Manager, Vasona Light Rail Project: · Advised that they are operating on an aggressive schedule. They are 12 months into a 24- month design period for the project. A key ingredient in the project is the provision of shelters. Advised that the designs being presented are outside the current scope and budget but reflect potential enhanced designs that could represent the City of Campbell if the necessary supplemental funding is obtained. Gregory Montgomery, Architect, Vasona Light Rail Project: · Three options are presented. · Advised that he researched the former Campbell Station at the Campbell Library and that Option C includes a roof style reminiscent of the old station Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner Gibbons advised that VTA is providing nice options and analysis. Asked how much shelter is being provided. She expressed support for Option C. Commissioner Lowe stated that the plans are well done and give the feel of Campbell. Stated that he like Option C the best. Commissioner Francois stated that he appreciated the research done by the project architect and expressed his preference for Option C. Commissioner Lowe asked for the project time frame. Mr. Mark Robinson advised the schedule as follows: · November 1999 - Environmental documents to be completed · Summer 2000 - Environmental documents adopted · December 2000 - Complete design · 2001 - Begin construction · Spring 2004 - Completion Commissioner Kearns asked if the three stations in Campbell would be designed like Option C. Mr. Mark Robinson replied if the funding could be secured that would be a possibility. Advised that the cost would be about $150,000 beyond the standard shelter approach for each shelter. Chairman Jones advised that he liked Option C and would like to see all three stations in Campbell constructed with that design. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that he too was in favor of Option C. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to support Design Option C for the proposed three Light Rail Shelters for Campbell, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 1999 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. to the Planning Commission Study Session to be held immediately following this meeting. Following the Study Session, the Commission adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 26, 1999, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: Connne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: ! abeth Gibbo~s, ,~cting Chair (Item No. 1) Br~d~ Chis No. 2 and 3) ~ Ste~P~as~c~ ~e-cretary