Loading...
PC Min 05/27/1997CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY MAY 27, 1997 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1997 was called to order at 7:35 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairwoman Keams, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Susan A. Keams Dennis Lowe I. Alne Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Mel Lindstrom (arrived at 8:30) Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: None StaffPresent: Community Development Director: Associate Planner: Planner I: Planner I: City Attomey: Redevelopment Manager: Traffic Engineer: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Tim J. Haley Gloria Sciara Aki Irani William Seligrnann Kirk Heinrichs Peter Eakland Corinne A. Shinn Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of May 13, 1997, were approved. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Lindstrom was absent for this vote. Commissioner Gibbons abstained but advised the Commission that she has listened to the meeting tape in preparation for this evening's meeting) COMMUNICATIONS. There were no communication items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Steve Piasecki advised that Agenda Item No. 2 be removed and that Agenda Items No. 3 and 4 be heard prior to Agenda Item No. 1 as they are simpler projects to consider. Motion: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission removed Agenda Item No. 2 (S 97-04/UP 97-02/SA 97-14 - 2000 S. Bascom Avenue - Buca di Beppo). (6-0-1; Commissioner Lindstrom was absent for this vote.) ORAL REQUESTS Mr. John Dimberger, 1200 Steinway Avenue: · Advised that he participated in the development of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · Stated that he found the house at 1270 Burrows to be too high and too close to the property borders. · Said that he did not like what has been added on Van Dusen. · Expressed concerns about the ratio between paved and unpaved portions of the residential properties being developed. · Said that the big house on Harriet dwarfs the others in the neighborhood which makes him angry when he drives by. · Stated that he believes the STANP guidelines have not been followed and others in his area agree with him. Chairwoman Keams asked Community Development Director Steve Piasecki whether the City has complied with the guidelines set forth in the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the STANP is being complied with. He suggested that Mr. Dimberger come to the Planning Department to go over the approved plans with staff for these projects he has expressed concem about. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 3 Commissioner Gibbons suggested that Mr. Dimberger might be interested to know that a project at 1270 Burrows Road is to be discussed at this evening's meeting. Mr. John Dimberger: · Replied that he has seen the plan. · Stated that he finds 1270 Burrows Road to be an eyesore. · Said that he is concerned about the neighborhood. · Said that 1270 Burrows Road is too high and that he does not like it. Commissioner Alne asked whether Mr. Dirnberger simply did not agree with the standards or did he feel that the standards are being violated? Mr. John Dimberger replied that he cannot find his copy of the STANP but that he does not believe that the guidelines are being followed. Mr. Steve Piasecki reiterated his invitation to Mr. Dimberger that he come to the Planning Department to review the plans and rules rather than to speculate here tonight. Mr. John Dimberger advised that he will do so. Stated that he has been busy during the last year. PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. S 97-06 through S 97-O9 Bowen, B. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Bruce Bowen for Site and Architectural Approval for four single-family homes on properties located at 1365 Harriet Avenue (S 97- 06); 1375 Harriet (S 97-07); 1397 Robnick Court (S 97-08) and 1395 Robnick Court (S 97,09) in an R-l-9 (Single Family Residential) 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. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking to construct four single-family dwellings on four lots located at Harriet Avenue and Robnick Court. The site is off of Harriet between Hacienda and Pollard. · A Parcel Map with four lots was approved for this site which is 52,000 square feet. · Two lots front onto Harriet and two front onto Robnick Court. · Robnick Court will be enlarged to access the new houses. · Map is being recorded and finalized. · Lots are from 9,700 to 12,000 square feet. · There is one dwelling per lot. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 4 · There are two design and floor plans. · Lots 1 and 3 are 3,800 square foot ranch style homes. Lot 1 is stucco with tile roof. Lot 3 is masonite with composition shingle roofing. · Lots 2 and 4 are 4,100 square foot traditional/updated colonial style homes with high pitch gable roofs, masonite and composition shingle roofing. · Staff reviewed the exterior designs and recommended enhanced entryways for Lots 2 and 4. · Applicant has modified the designs for these two lots. · The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Designation for the site and meets all San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan requirements. · A CEQA study was done and it has been found that there are no significant negative impacts as a result of this project. · Staff recommends that the Commission approve the project and adopt a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC considered this project at its meeting of May 15th and is supportive of the project with the condition that the front treatments of Lot 2 and 4 be modified. Chairwoman Keams opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Avenue, Campbell: · Asked for the setbacks. Commissioner Lowe responded that the setback is 20 feet. Ms. Gloria Sciara added that the sideyard setbacks range from 8 to 12 feet. Ms. Susanne Waher asked if curbs and gutters would be installed. Ms. Gloria Sciara: · Advised that Robnick is fully improved improvements are a part of this project. and Harriet is more that 50% improved so Ms. Susanne Waher stated that she will challenge the street improvements on Harriet. Mr. Henry Vina, 1329 Harriet Avenue: · Agreed with Ms. Waher about the street improvements. · Expressed concern about trees and asked how he could learn removed and which trees kept? which trees would be Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that all trees would be maintained with the exception of one multi- trunked walnut tree. The site plan shows that the trees along the side property line will be retained except for the one walnut tree. Trees in the right-of-way will be retained. Commissioner Lowe sought clarification that the setbacks meet standards in the STANP. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that was correct. Commissioner Gibbons asked how far back from the property line the second floor begins. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied more than 12 feet. Mr. Bruce Bowen, Developer: · Said that he is available for any questions. · Stated that this is a nice piece of property. · There are good buffers between neighbors. · These houses will fit into the neighborhood. · Extensive landscaping will be provided in the front yards. Commissioner Lowe asked about the modifications required by SARC to the front elevations of Lot 2 and Lot 4. Mr. Bruce Bowen advised that the changes have been implemented. Commissioner Lowe asked that the changes be finalized before the final plans are approved. Mr. Bruce Bowen said that was ok. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3093 granting a Site and Architectural Approval to allow the construction of four single- family residences on properties located at 1365 Harriet Avenue (S 97-06), 1375 Harriet Avenue (S 97-07), 1397 Robnick Court (S 97-08) and 1395 Robnick Court (S 97-09), by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Planning Conunission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 6 Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record: 4. R 97-03 (S 95-12) Smith G. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Greg Smith for the Reinstatement (R 97-03) of a previous Site and Architectural Approval (S 95-12) to allow a new single-family home on property located at 1270 Burrows Road in an R-l-10 (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. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · This application is for the Reinstatement of a previous Site Approval to allow the construction of a new single-family home on property located at 1270 Burrows Road. · The site is a rear flag lot which was created in 1988. · In addition to the Reinstatement, the applicant is asking for a minor modification to allow an additional 196 square feet to add a fifth bedroom and to expand the master bedroom. · Total proposed square footage is 3,252. The previously-approved site plan will be used with the addition of 196 square feet. · The lot is legal, non-conforming and consists of 8,964 square feet. The lot was legally created prior to adoption of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · Project meets all development setbacks, floor area ratios and requirements of the STANP. · The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning District. · Proposed residence is compatible with the neighborhood. · There are two two-story residences adjacent to this site. · Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lowe asked if the driveway was counted among the 8,900 square feet. Ms. Aki Irani replied that with the driveway the site has 11,648 square feet. The driveway area is not counted when determining building lot size. Commissioner Gibbons asked how wide the driveway is? Ms. Aki Irani replied that it is 12 feet paved as per the requirements. Commissioner Gibbons asked how long the driveway is? Ms. Aki Irani replied 140 feet. Commissioner Gibbons asked what materials the adjacent houses are constructed from? Ms. Aki Irani answered that the site is surrounded by single-family residences with a mix of one and two-story homes. A two-story is in front of the site and next door. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 7 Commissioner Gibbons asked what surrounds the project site. Ms. Aki Irani replied that mostly rear yards. Next door is another flag lot that is currently vacant. Chairwoman Keams mentioned that the Zoning is listed as R-l-6 in the original resolution. Is the lot not zoned R-l-8? Ms. Aki Irani admitted that the lot is R-1-8. Also the incorrect address was provided when the application was originally submitted in 1995. Chairwoman Keams asked about curbs and gutters. Ms. Aki Irani replied that she does not believe that are required. Mr. Steve Piasecki corrected that Burrows is a collector street so improvements are required. Commissioner Alne asked if only one-half of the street would be improved. Mr. Steve Piasecki answered that the whole width of a street is improved as development occurs. The Public Works Department will sometimes accept a deferred street improvement agreement if improvements are impractical at this time. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee as follows: · SARC considered this application at its meeting of May 15, 1997, and is supportive. Chairwoman Keams opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. John Dimberger, 1200 Steinway Avenue: · Said that a 3,200 square foot house will destroy the privacy of the adjacent property owners. · Said that he would hate to have a house of that size adjacent to his. · Single-story homes lose privacy when two-story houses are constructed beside them. · The home at the front of 1270 Burrows is much higher than older two-story homes. · Said that heights were stressed when the STANP was developed. · Said that he is concerned. Mr. Henry Vina, 1329 Harriet Avenue: · Said that he shared Mr. Dimberger's concerns. · Asked where the Commissioners live? "What is going up around your houses?" Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 8 Commissioner Lowe: · Exclaimed that he resented any implication that the Commission would treat this project any differently if it was in one of their own neighborhoods. · Stated that the Commission works hard reviewing each proposal. · This house meets all the requirements of the STANP. Mr. Henry Vina disagreed, saying that the lot is too small. Commissioner Lowe said that all setbacks have been met. Mr. Henry Vina stated that there are always exceptions. There can always be an exception. Commissioner Lowe replied that property owners within 300 feet of this project site were notified of this meeting by mail. No one fi.om the adjacent properties is here to complain. Commissioner Gibbons advised that there are strict guidelines that prohibit the Commission from preventing such projects if they meet regulations. City Attorney Seligrnann added that it is the Commission's job to determine if a project meets guidelines but that the Commission cannot change the guidelines. Mr. Henry Vina stated that the guidelines are selective. Are not lot sizes spelled out? Commissioner Lowe stated that the lot was approved prior to adoption of the STANP. Ms. Aki Irani added: · The lot was created prior to the STANP. · The site plan includes a 40 foot rear lot setback which is twice the required setback. · There is a 15-foot setback at the northern property line and 12-foot at the southern property line. · The project meets the requirements of the STANP. · Building coverage is 23% with a .36 Floor Area Ratio. · Maximum lot coverage for an R-l-10 lot is 35%. Commissioner Gibbons clarified that this means that this project is meeting the more stringent requirements of the R-1-10 while it is actually only obligated to meet the requirements of the R-l-8 Zone. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that there is a privacy concern expressed in the STANP but there is no provision for private yard spaces and no prohibition of two-story residences. The STANP will be reviewed next year and at that time residents can raise the privacy issue. This review is part of Council's 1998 work program. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 9 Ms. Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita: · Said that she is in favor of this development as it meets the STANP so accurately. · Stated that there has been a frustrating and astounding amount of development in their area over the last 10 years. · The STANP was a compromise. Commissioner Lowe asked if the applicant is present and whether there will be a turnaround for fire or if the house will be sprinklered. Mr. Greg Smith, Applicant: · Not certain which will occur. · Stated that they have positioned the house in consideration of the neighbors and have built a new fence. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the applicant must be sure to check out the requirement for either fire access or sprinklers. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Alne made a statement about the "fair use of discretion" and asked how the Commission can explain 1170 Latimer being required to have a single-story structure when this one is not required to limit itself to a single-story? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Council heard an appeal of a Variance denial. They asked the applicant to go back to SARC. SARC's recommendation went directly back to Council. The one-story limitation is a concession on part of the applicant to approve his Variance request. Applicant is willing to impose this restriction in order to further his cause for the Variance. Commissioner Alne opined that the Commission ought to know about SARC recommendations to Council. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that Site approvals for R-l-6 Zoning are not required to come to the Planning Commission. Latimer came to the Commission because it was a Variance request. City Attorney Seligmann added that the prior application was for a Variance. Extraordinary relief from the Zoning Code was sought. Commisisoner Lindstrom arrived at the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she appreciates the discussion but said that tying the Latimer project to this one is problematic. Latimer was unique in that the site was large Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 10 enough for large two-story home. The applicant wanted to subdivide. The whole situation is different and not applicable to this one. Commissioner Alne disagreed in that two-story residences were not allowed due to privacy concerns. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that with the Latimer project, there was an opportunity to negotiate the issue. There is no opportunity to negotiate in this instance. The Ordinance allows two- story. The Variance request allowed negotiation on one-story versus two-story structures. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3094 to allow the Reinstatement (R 97-03) of a previous Site and Architectural Approval (S 95-12) to allow a new single-family home on property located at 1270 Burrows Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams called for a 10 minute recess at 8:30 p.m. Chairwoman Keams reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Chairwoman Keams read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. GP 96-03/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Be Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page Dw Eo creation of five lots. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. Find that this project is consistent with the project previously described in the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. A Supplemental EIR was prepared for this project and was certified by City Council at its meeting of January 7, 1997. Chairwoman Keams advised that the Public Hearing remained open at the conclusion of the May 13, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting. She asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak. Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, provided the staff update: · To date, three public meetings have been held: April 22, 1997; April 30, 1997 and May 13, 1997. · On April 22, 1997, public testimony was heard. · On April 30, 1997, the Commission gave staff direction to include open space fi.om four to seven acres. · On May 13, 1997, the Commission could not reach a majority decision and continued the application to this meeting. · Council is seeking Planning Commission input on the merits of changing the zoning from Commercial to Industrial. · The first question to consider is whether the Commission believes that industrial land use on this site is appropriate. · An open space component can be included. Including a 4 to 7 acre open space leaves the applicant's plan reasonably feasible. · If the General Plan Amendment is appropriate, the second question is whether the Planned Development Permit is appropriate? · If the General Plan Amendment is appropriate, which conditions are necessary? · If the Commission finds the General Plan Amendment is not appropriate, the Commission should recommend denial of the PD application. · Reminded the Commission that Commissioner Gibbons has listened to the meeting tape from the May 13, 1997, meeting which she was unable to attend. Therefore, she is now prepared and able to consider and vote on this project. · Stated that Commissioner Gibbons has expressed concern that 27% landscaping of this site is too low. · A second issue is that the traffic projections don't correspond with the parking provided on site. · Advised that the number of employees allowed on this site can be restricted. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 12 · Additionally, parking can be reduced to correspond with a reduced number of employees. · Suggested that the Commission discuss the land use issue first. Second, the merits of the Planned Development and under what conditions it might be acceptable. · The Amendment to the General Plan can: · Change use from Commercial to Industrial without an open space component; or · Change use from Commercial to Industrial with an open space component. · If the Commission reaches a majority, the project can be sent to City Council. Commissioner Lowe questioned how the employee limitations could be enforced. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised: · That a Condition of Approval could be added to the Planned Development Permit which states that the number of employees cannot exceed a certain number. · The condition could be recorded as a covenant on the property. · Employee counts can be obtained. Commissioner Lowe asked what happens with the space. Do the buildings remain vacant? Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the buildings do not remain vacant. It simply means that a larger square footage of building space per employee is available. Commissioner Gibbons stated that there are mechanisms available to limit employees. One is having a parking ratio of one space for every 400 square feet of space. Commissioner Alne questioned how the restriction on employees can be handled as this project consists of five lots. If one of more of the lots is sold to another owner, how is the restriction on the number of employees applied? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that if the Commission gets to that point, the Commission can direct staff to provide a correlation between the square footage versus the number of employees. Additionally, the covenant can be applied to each lot. Commissioner Alne also stated that employee use of public transportation might cause a reduced need for parking and allow more employees on site. Mr. Steve Piasecki again stated that the convenant would be in effect. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, provided the following report: · Advised that he has reviewed two similar projects in Campbell. · Hacienda Business Park was developed in the early 1980's at Hacienda and Dell Avenues. The project includes 27% landscaping, mostly located along the street frontages and throughout the parking lot. · The Old Campbell Lumber Yard, located at Campbell and Winchester, has 22% landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 13 Two projects in Cupertino were evaluated. The Apple headquarters buildings in Cupertino have 34% landscaping, including hardscape areas. The HP project on Homestead Road in Cupertino has 39% landscaping. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the 27% landscaping includes hardscape areas such as plazas between the buildings? Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the two plaza areas, including water features and seating, are counted in the landscaping percentages. Commissioner Gibbons asked how trees are calculated. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the tree wells are four feet by four feet. There is a heavy concentration of trees. At first it will look like a lot of hardscape until the trees mature. Chairwoman Kearns sought clarification from the Commission as to whether they felt that the Industrial land use was appropriate. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she has no problem with the change from Commercial to Industrial land use but that she does want some open space. She suggested four acres, including the percolation ponds. Commissioner Jones asked how many acres were the percolation ponds. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the percolation pond portion that would be useable as part of this open space is from one to one and a half acres. The other portions of the percolation ponds are not immediately available. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she supports the General Plan Amendment to change land use from Commercial to Industrial. Commissioner Lowe stated that seven acres is an appropriate amount of open space, not including the percolation ponds. Commissioner Jones stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lowe. Said that the City should set aside as much land as possible. In fact, seven acres might be light. Commissioner Alne stated that he preferred including enough open space to make the industrial use of the site impractical. Suggested 10 acres or more of open space plus the percolation ponds. Chairwoman Keams stated that she is in favor of the industrial use with the inclusion of some open space. Suggested leaving it to Council as to how much open space. Expressed concern about maintenance of the open space. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 14 Commissioner Gibbons stated that the reason she supports four acres of open space is that she is recommending a change in the proportion of landscaping on the site. Commissioner Lowe asked if she was referring to the open space as landscape area. Commissioner Gibbons replied that open space component does not mitigate the need for additional landscaping on the site. Chairwoman Keams stated that it appears that there is consensus in approving the General Plan Amendment to Industrial with an open space component ranging from four to ten acres. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commission can close and decide on this issue as there appears to be consensus on the Industrial land use and open space component. Commissioner Lowe stated that the Commission should not be worded about budgetary concerns about park maintenance. Whether the City can or cannot afford to maintain park space is not the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gibbons:· Stated that while she agreed it is not the purview of the Commission, it is a relevant concem. · Development of the site is costly. · Too large an open space component could cause the project to collapse. · Four acres offers an opportunity for the City to obtain open space. Commissioner Lowe stated his concern that the ratio of park area in Campbell is the lowest in the Bay Area. Commissioner Gibbons: · Advised that she would not veto a larger park. · Suggested eliminating the beginning part of Finding No. 4-B of the General Plan draft resolution, "Although the site is not easily accessible,..." · Suggested adding Finding 4-E to read, "The provision of a significant open space area of a contiguous acreage, bordered by the public street created as part of this project, provides access for the public to the site." · Suggested adding Finding 4-F to read, "The specific location and configuration of the open space area, of a minimum four acres, exclusive of the percolation ponds, will best suit the needs of the industrial users and the neighborhood is refined as part of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Process." · Stated that no road configuration should go through the public open space. · Suggested that the Commission vote against the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map without a proper reconfiguration of the plan. Either place the project on hold or deny until the project is legally clarified. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 15 Commissioner Alne stated that four acres of open space is the most allowed without requiring a significant change to the DDA or development plan. A seven to ten acre open space requires a significant redo of the plans. Mr. Steve Piasecki admitted that four acres leaves enough land to develop the project while seven or more acres will require more significant changes in the project. Commissioner Lowe again asked about the landscaping ratio of 27% . Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the hardscape is counted among the 27% of landscaping. Commissioner Gibbons reminded about the 50-foot boundary of landscaping between the mobile home park and the project site. She suggested making a motion. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that it is proper to make a motion and allow discussion. Commissioner Jones stated that he agrees that too large a open space risks killing this project. He stated that if this was the best decision for the City and it kills the deal, so be it. Once the project is built, the land is gone forever. Caution is the better way. Commissioner Alne agreed. Commissioner Gibbons stated that Commissioner Jones makes a good point. She added that the development is proposed to be built in stages. This gives some control which can be utilized to advantage. Commissioner Alne asked if the 50-foot buffer was really required. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the Commission has no control over this aspect. The buffer is a positive feature and increases the percentage of landscaping. Commissioner Alne asked if there would be public access to this space (buffer)? Commissioner Gibbons replied, "Good question." She said that it would be prudent to go through each motion, one by one. Wondered why the developer could not be made responsible for maintenance of the open space. City Attorney Seligrnann stated that the nexus question is whether this development is creating the need for this park space right here. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the Commission is a recommending body that is saying to Council that the industrial use of this site, with open space, is appropriate. If Council agrees, the project will come back to the Commission for a noticed heating. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 16 City Attomey Seligrnann added that the Commission can make any recommendation it wants. If re-noticing is necessary, it will come back for another look by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alne stated that the Planning Commission is a body making governmental decisions which require public notification. Can the Commission really go ahead at this point? City Attorney Seligmann again stated that the Commission could continue to consider this application. He added that the Planning Commission is not making a final recommendation. The project would come back to the Commission before it could be final. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3089, recommending approval of a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GP 96-02) from Destination Commercial to Industrial/Public/Semi-Public with modified findings provided by Commissioner Gibbons, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Alne, Jones, Lowe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairwoman Keams asked for discussion regarding the Planned Development Permit. Commissioner Gibbons: Said that she wanted to make a couple of points. · As currently worded, the conditions of approval are for development of a 330,000 square foot project. · Approval of a PD also acts as a Site review. · Asked if open space and the proposed project could be accommodated on the project site? · Said that if it is the consensus of the Commission to go forward, she has many comments. If it is not the consensus to go forward, there is no point in her making her comments. Commissioner Jones questioned how the project can be reviewed when four acres have been removed from the site for use as open space? Said he can't conceive how to vote. Mr. Steve Piasecki said that there are several options including a statement that the project is not to exceed 330,000 square feet. The project can be moved along although some adjusting will be required in the future. Commissioner Alne asked why consideration of public access from Paseo de Palomas has never been analyzed by staff?. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 17 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that when the project began, it was determined that there is ample access off McGlincey. There was no reason to impact the private dirveway as there is acceptable access to McGlincey Lane. The Traffic Engineer has determined that McGlincey can handle the traffic generated by this project. Commissioner Alne again asked why the possibility of accessing the site directly from Union Avenue, using the private drive, was not even examined? Mr. Peter Eakland, Traffic Engineer: · Stated that the projected traffic is consistent with industrial collector streets within the City. · It is appropriate for its purpose. · Traffic will stay within an acceptable range. Commissioner Alne again asked why there has been no analysis of the use of this alternative (Paseo de Palomas access to site)? Is there any merit to the idea? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that the there would be negative traffic impacts on Paseo de Palomas. Mr. Steve Piasecki wondered if the other Commissioners shared this concern. Commissioner Alne again asked why no consideration of this option was taken. Chairwoman Keams suggested that the allowable square footage be reduced. Commissioner Gibbons: · Suggested either making a motion to deny or to approve with specific terms. · At the present time the project described is not consistent with the General Plan action just taken. · Since the project site has been reduced by 17% with the open space component, the square footage could be reduced by 17%. Commissioner Alne stated that the lack of specificity is unacceptable. Commissioner Lowe said he agreed. Commissioner Jones also concurred. Commissioner Gibbons: · Suggested a motion to deny. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 18 · Stated that if Council overrides the denial, the project might get approved without benefit of Commission input. Suggested a refinement of the motion with modified findings. · Said that it was not appropriate for Council to lose the benefit of comment by the Commission. · Suggested that the motion include: · Denial is made because of inconsistency. · Plans need to restrict parking · Landscaping should be increased to 33% · With the phased development of the site, a Condition should be added that provides for additional traffic analysis at time of building permits for each phase to ensure that traffic impacts are consistent. · Suggested 24 gallon trees be required in place of the current 15-gallon trees. · Suggested that 36-inch box trees be required for each removed tree. · Suggested fencing with a sound level of 50db. · Asked why one year of landscaping maintenance is required? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the one year maintenance agreement for public right-of-way landscaping is to ensure that the plant materials are healthy and growing. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked why the Commission is denying instead of approving with the conditions outlined by Commissioner Gibbons. Commissioner Gibbons replied that at this time, the Commission has no idea what this project is going to be. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that the suggested reduction in allowable square footage equals approximately 277,000 square feet. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy said that it is important that the Commission have opportunity to review the ultimate project for this site. What is the best action to take to ensure that the Commission have that opportunity? Mr. Steve Piasecki answered that a condition requires that the project comes back to the Commission. Specifics must come back. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked what happens upon approval or denial by Council. Mr. Steve Piasecki answered if Council denies the project, it dies. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the project would come back to the Commission if Council approves it? Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Steve Piasecki: · Advised that if the Commission recommends approval, it can add a condition that the project come back to the Commission with specific plans. · If the Commission denies the application, it is important to provide its concerns regarding landscaping, sound walls, etc. · The four acre open space can be reasonably accommodated. Commissioner Alne stated that there is a host of issues. Denial is the only way to go. The project does not go with the General Plan action just taken. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3090, recommending denial of a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park on property located at 535 Westchester Avenue and 571 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe, Gibbons Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy None None City Attorney Seligmann advised that the recommendation of denial will now go forward to Council. If Council approves the project, it does not have to honor the Conditions of Approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3091 recommending denial of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) and Resolution 3092, recommending denial of a Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off-premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 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 SARC on Thursday may either have to begin later or another Commissioner attend. Commissioners Alne and Lindstrom will attend SARC beginning the meeting at 5 p.m. instead of 4 p.m. There is one item for review. Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1997 Page 20 · Announced that a Percolation Pond Public Meeting will be held at Hazelwood School on Thursday, June 12th, at 7:30 p.m. The Commissioners are invited to attend. Commissioner Gibbons: · Suggested that 300 foot notices be expanded to 1,000 foot notices when a project that includes liquor licenses is considered by the Commission. · Also suggested that heights be marked on construction sites. · Asked for higher quality reproduction of plans in packets as occasionally they are difficult to read. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked that the Commission be kept updated regarding the progress on the percolation pond project as she cannot make the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting meeting of June 10, 1997, in the Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: adjourned at 10:32 p.m. to the Planning Commission Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary Steve Piasecki, Secretary