Loading...
PC Min 04/23/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY APRIL 23, 1996 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1996, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Acting Chair Kearns, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: Commissioners Present: Acting Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Susan A. Kearns I. Alne Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: Chair: Mel Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Darryl M. Jones Tim J. Haley Gloria Sciara William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission minutes of April 9, 1996, were approved. (4-0-1-1; Chairman Lindstrom was absent and Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy abstained.) Plannin~; Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Pa~;e 2 COMMUNICATIONS Two newspaper articles were distributed regarding percolation pond development and the Littleton-Martin House. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REOUESTS: There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Acting Chair Kearns read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. S 96-01 through S 96-05 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Bruce Bowen for Site and Architectural Approval to allow five single family homes (previously approved subdivision - TS 92-01) on property located at 1222 Harriet Avenue in an R-l-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking approval to construct five single family homes on property located at 1222 Harriet Avenue, located between Hacienda and W. Parr. · A tentative subdivision map was approved in October of 1992. The tentative map was handled in two phases. Phase one divided the lot into two parts. One lot is known as 1228 Harriet Avenue. Phase two divides the second lot into five residential lots for which the tentative map is currently being processed. · A Negative Declaration was prepared to support the Tentative Subdivision, and future development was considered at that time, therefore, no further environmental action is required for the Site and Architectural Approval. · The proposed project is consistent with the Zone and General Plan designations for the property. The proposed residential structures meet the guidelines of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP). · The proposed Floor Area Ration (FAR) for these homes does not exceed .29 while the STANP allows for up to .45. · Staff worked with the applicant to develop alternative front elevations to offer sufficient variations to satisfy the requirements of the STANP. There is now significant articulation for each structure. · The buildings have a traditional building style with porches and differing window styles. Each structure is two-stories with a two-car garage. One unit has a detached garage. · Project was reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) as well as the Historic Preservation Board (HPB). The HPB reviewed Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 3 the project at a special meeting held on Thursday, April 18th. supportive of the design of the residential structures. Staff is supportive of this proposed project. They are Commissioner Lowe brought to the attention of the Commission that Lot 5 actually includes a three car garage while the description in the report says two. He also advised that a mature tree on the site has been declared diseased and must be removed. Ms. Gloria Sdara added that the tree, a 60-inch in diameter oak, is located in what will be the middle of the cul de sac. This tree will be removed. It has been determined that the tree was too diseased to be saved according to two licensed arborists. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC requested more variation in the front elevations of the five residences. The applicant has complied and SARC supports the project. Acting Chair Kearns opened Public Hearing No. 1. Mr. and Mrs. David Rogers, 1228 Harriet Avenue. · Advised that they are impacted by this subdivision and would like to see it delayed until several issues, including historical issues, can be resolved. Action Chair Kearns asked the Rogers for specifics on why they are seeking to delay this project. Mr. David Rogers replied: · That he could not be specific about everything. However, they have concerns about the carriage house, the Historic Preservation Board review, valuable trees, Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Subdivision, safety issues and questions of gates and fences. Commissioner Alne stated that he believed that the HPB supported this project. Mr. David Rogers advised that they did not support. Commissioner Alne reminded the Commission that according to Ms. Sciara's presentation the HPB supported and that one tree, an oak, was beyond preservation. Did Mr. Rogers intend to challenge that fact? Mr. David Rogers replied that he was interested in a second opinion. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 4 Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Rogers whether he was challenging the competence of the arborist. Mr. David Rogers reiterated that he wanted a second opinion. Commissioner Lowe advised that the HPB position is outlined in the staff report. Mr. David Rogers thanked the Commission for considering his position. Ms. Laura Taylor Moore, Chair, Historic Preservation Board, addressed the Commission as follows: · Advised that additional time was necessary to consider this project properly. Many things have changed. · Declared that the position of the Historic Preservation Board has not been accurately presented. Commissioner Alne asked whether Ms. Taylor Moore participated in the HPB meeting of April 18, 1996. Ms. Taylor Moore replied that this HPB meeting was actually an emergency meeting that was called due to the historic nature of the site and structures on the site. Commissioner Alne inquired whether staff had not presented the HPB views. Ms. Taylor Moore responded, "not completely." Commissioner Alne asked whether historic facts have changed. Ms. Taylor Moore advised that the Historic Resources Survey was not done in 1992. Commissioner Lowe stated that he was confused. What was the HPB concerned about? The carriage house? Ms. Taylor Moore replied that they were concerned with saving the carriage house and barn. She stated that there is no proof that the availability of the barn was adequately publicized. Issues need to be looked at more closely. Commissioner Lowe asked Ms. Taylor Moore what the goal of the HPB was for this project. Ms. Taylor Moore informed the Commission that the HPB was interested in saving the carriage house and barn, if possible. If a willing person can be located to Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 5 save the structure(s), the HPB would hate to lose these structures simply because they were one or two weeks too late. Commissioner Lowe asked for further details about the HPB meeting held on April 18th. Ms. Taylor Moore advised that this meeting was an emergency meeting. At this meeting the HPB found the design of the proposed houses to be acceptable. However a difference between the contractor and the adjoining homeowner, the Rogers, have not been addressed. The HPB felt that they have not been adequately informed about what is happening on this property. Commissioner Lowe asked if they were not informed, how did they know to schedule a meeting. Ms. Taylor Moore replied that through word of mouth, they learned by happenstance that a meeting was warranted. Feels that the HPB has deliberately not been keep totally informed. Commissioner Alne announced that if they as a Commission cannot accept staff presentation of the HPB recommendation, he is unsure about what to do. Perhaps Council can help. City Attorney William Seligmann suggested that one way of determining the accuracy of the staff presentation with the actual discussion at the April 18th HPB meeting is to wait for the approved minutes. Ms. Taylor Moore advised that the final five minutes of the nearly three hour meeting were spent supporting the architectural design of the five houses. The first three hours were spent discussing many topics which have not been represented or settled. Commissioner Alne asked whether the position stated in the staff report accurately reflected the position of HPB regarding the design of the homes. Ms. Taylor Moore replied, "No." Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy added that it is normal procedure to have the HPB review new developments proposed next to historical properties. Ms. Taylor Moore added that new issues have cropped up in the last four years since the October 92 approval of the tentative subdivision. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether in 1992 everything was found to be Plannin~ Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Pa~e 6 acceptable. Ms. Taylor Moore advised that new issues have developed. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that the project has been carried forward by staff simply because the subdivision had already received review and approval in 1992. Commissioner Alne asked Community Development Director Steve Piasecki to make a statement of recommendation on how to proceed. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: The Commission has two issues before it. One, the Site and Architectural Approval of the five proposed residential structures. Two, the historic significance of the two structures on the site, a carriage house and barn. In 1992, it was determined that the barn and carriage house could be removed. The HPB did discuss attempting to save the carriage house. At this time, the HPB is concerned that saving the carriage house might not happen. Staff thought the issue had been resolved four years ago. It is possible for the Commission to treat the approval of the five new residential structures separately from the fate of the carriage house and allow further attempts to save this structure. Advised that no one is trying to misrepresent anyone. Commissioner Alne advised: · The HPB reviews historical buildings. · The Commission relies on staff to provide information and it is imperative that they can rely on the information provided by staff. · This is unfair to the applicant but it is impossible to go forward. Ms. Donna Bernardi, 1228 Harriet Avenue. · Expressed concern regarding trees. Commissioner Alne advised that historical issues are considered by the HPB not the Commission. City Attorney William Seligmann clarified that while the HPB considers historic structures, the Planning Commission can also consider the fate of historical assets. If the Commission feels that a project may have a detrimental impact on a historic structure, it can require additional review. Commissioner Alne asked that additional review be given to this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Pa~;e 7 "Things have come up' people keep saying. What has come up? What has changed? Requested that any of the speakers tell him what actually is wrong. Ms. Donna Bernardi: The developer bought a piece of property with historic significance. The tree they propose to remove is alive and healthy and beautiful. Advised that she had personally had a conversation with an arborist that had looked at the tree. This arborist said that the disease has healed itself. Tree looks healthy. Take a second look. This property has historic significance and the developer needs to work around that historic significance. Advised that she has friends ready to begin a tree movement. Commissioner Alne stated that the staff declares a report has been prepared by a certified arborist regarding this tree. Is Ms. Bernardi challenging the qualifications of this arborist? Is she qualified to make a determination on the health of the tree? Ms. Bernardi responded that it is possible to get an expert to provide any opinion desired. Commissioner Alne opined that the City has done what is required by asking the applicant to seek the opinion of a qualified arborist. Ms. Bernardi asked, "what about second opinions?" Commissioner Alne asked Ms. Bernardi how many opinions before she is satisfied. Does the arborist not know what he or she is doing?" She cannot challenge an expert opinion frivolously, based on hearsay. City Attorney William Seligmann advised Commissioner Alne that the formal rules of evidence do not apply. Ms. Mollie Sellman, Historic Preservation Boardmember. People are asking for consideration of some serious issues. · These people do not have to prove or disprove these issues. · This is a very significant property and there is a problem with how this property impacts the estate. · They have a right to speak out and not to be intimidated. Commissioner Alne asked Ms. Sellman whether she had participated with the HPB statement in the report. Ms. Sellman said that she had. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner Lowe asked Ms. Sellman what the issues were. Nothing specific has been identified. Ms. · · · · · · · · · Sellman: Some issues are flighty. Some are not. Informed that she has just recently visited the site for the first time. The developer must work around the historic site. There is a dispute over boundaries. Questions regarding the status over the oak tree. There is the "kidnapping" of the carriage house. There is a question of where garages will go. They are looking for a couple of weeks to re-evaluate. Finally, there are nine exotic parrots on the property. Commissioner Lowe stated that in summary they are concerned with the carriage house and this large old oak. They are running out of time to save the carriage house. Ms. Sellman: A couple of weeks don't mean much. · Give the parties time to negotiate. · "If not now, when? If not you, who?" The tentative map is still pending. Mr. Bruce Bowen, Applicant. · Advised that the biggest issue is the carriage house. · At the HPB meeting, he left with the understanding that he would work with Mr. Rogers to save the carriage house. · He is waiting for Mr. Rogers to complete a site plan to determine where on Mr. Roger's property the carriage house can be placed. · Have not heard from Mr. Rogers whether this site plan will be ready for the HPB meeting on Wednesday, April 24th. · Wants the carriage house to be saved without compromising his project. The historic property is important to his project too. · He needs a plan to react to however he cannot wait if nothing is to be proposed or approved. · Expressed that he had no problem waiting 60 days to demolish the carriage house. It will take that long before he is ready to even consider demolishing. In addition, he will need approval from the HPB next month. · Advised that a photo survey of the property was done. · In the event that the building cannot be saved, a survey regarding the salvage of portions of the building had been done. · All issues have already been addressed. · When he bought the property, he didn't feel anything had changed that would put the project in jeopardy. Planning Commission Minutes of Al~ril 23, 1996 Page 9 Advised that he is happy to work with the Rogers to preserve the carriage house. Also stated that he would love to save the tree. It's gorgeous. However, there are structural problems with the tree. Mr. Barry Coates is an excellent arborist who gave a second opinion. According to Mr. Coates there is no way to save this tree. It can fall apart. It is dangerous. A third arborist, the one who spoke with Ms. Bernardi, was on site to look at another tree. He may have stated that he thought the tree look all right but he didn't know about the cavities in the middle of the tree. As far as boundary issues are concerned, he is unaware of any such issues. He also mentioned that he had not heard about the nine exotic parrots on the site. Stated that he wants to go forward. If the carriage house can be saved, he is willing to wait up to 60 days before attempting to demo the structure and give the Rogers the time to develop an appropriate site plan for placement of the carriage house on their property. Commissioner Lowe asked what was involved in saving the structure and moving it onto the Rogers property. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that a Site approval would be required. Commissioner Alne asked what the applicant still faced. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that the applicant had Conditions of Approval to comply with as well as the finalization of the tentative map. Commissioner Alne asked if there was any reason not to approve this project. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that she cannot make that determination for the Commission. Commissioner Alne asked if staff felt there were any outstanding issues. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied there were not. She also advised that there was a hearing for the Tentative Subdivision approval. In 1994, the HPB also held a hearing at which time all information was presented. Commissioner Alne clarified that if this project is not approved, the applicant would be forced to wait. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that the condition regarding the carriage house must be met. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 10 Commissioner Alne again clarified that if this project is denied or delayed it would be through no deficiency of the applicant. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied, "yes." Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the applicant is willing to wait 60 days which could be added to the conditions of approval. He suggested adding language to Condition No. 18, "The applicant agrees to wait for 60 days following this Planning Commission approval (June 23, 1996) for the demolition of the carriage house to allow all possible efforts to preserve the structure." Mr. Rick Bernardi, Life Web. · Participated in a similar situation in San Jose and was able to save an old oak tree that had been declared structurally compromised. · Questioned how this tree can be replaced "in kind" when it is 6 feet in diameter. · Questioned the decision to cut the tree to accommodate a design change of a home. · Stated that the point of historic preservation laws is to stop and think about what we have and how to work with and preserve it. · Why demolish a structure when someone is willing to take it. · Asked that the Commission wait until another arborist can be consulted about the tree. Mr. Harold Gass, 1069 Denver Drive. · Advised that his wife, Ruth, is a member of the Historic Preservation Board. · Feels that the HPB was notified too late in the process. · The HPB is willing to work. Give them the time to do their work. Acting Chair Kearns closed the Public Hearing for Item No. 1 and asked the Commission for any discussion. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised: · That she understood the applicant's and HPB's positions. · Suggested a two week continuance to make a decision. · Feels that there are a lot of unhappy people in this situation. point in forwarding this item at this point. Don't see a Commissioner Alne asked what the applicant felt about a delay. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that it would be necessary to re-open the Public Hearing. Acting Chair Kearns reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Bruce Bowen, Applicant: · Advised that he is happy to work to save the carriage house. · A variance will be required, no matter where the carriage house is placed on the Rogers' property. · It would not be fair to hold up his project to allow the Rogers' to obtain the variance. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that within 60 to 75 days, everything can be worked out. Mr. Bruce Bowen advised that the location Mr. Rogers has selected on his property for placement of the carriage house is one that he cannot support as he feels it would be detrimental to his project. Commissioner Lowe asked if the size of the carriage house is compatible with the site. Stated that he felt it looked tight. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that a site plan has yet to be prepared to depict how the structure will fit on the site. Commissioner Jones asked whether a review of the placement of the carriage house on the Rogers property could be finalized within two weeks. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that this time frame was tight. Commissioner Alne stated that it is wrong for the City to hold the applicant ransom while the City sorts itself out. This is unfair to the applicant. Whatever it takes to give an answer to the applicant should be done. Mr. David Rogers: · He and Mr. Bowen do not agree where to place the carriage house. The spot Mr. Bowen disputes is only 15 feet away from a spot he supports. To place the house where Mr. Bowen wants it, he will be forced to demolish a twenty thousand dollar swimming pool. He met on site with Mr. Bowen and Ms. Sciara. They have three plans for three possible placements of the carriage house on his property which will be considered by HPB at its meeting on April 24th. Final placement is not up to him or Mr. Bowen but rather the HPB would have to consider. As for his "kidnapping" of the structure, he stated that he had had the carriage house moved onto his property with the understanding that Mr. Bowen had given it to him. Planning; Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Pase 12 Commissioner Alne said that Mr. Bowen has stated that he has other options for the carriage house. If the house were to be moved to Gilroy, would Mr. Rogers have any problem with that as long as the structure is saved? Mr. Rogers responded that the carriage house was a part of the Littleton-Martin house which is now his residence. Acting Chair Kearns again closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. City Attorney William Seligmann suggested that the hearing be kept open in the event that the Commission elects to continue this item. Acting Chair Kearns rescinded the closing of the hearing and recommended a continuance to the May 14th meeting. Commissioner Lowe stated that a continuance is not necessary. The applicant has meet the criteria. While he can sympathize with everyone's position, the applicant deserves an answer. Waiting 60 days before any demolition of the carriage house is a valid concession. He is supportive of the project going forward. Commissioner Alne concurred. The applicant has done everything called for. He has consulted two arborist and a third did a cursory review. The tree should be removed under those circumstances. City Attorney William Seligrnann advised Acting Chair Kearns that if a motion to approve is proposed, the Hearing should be closed. Commissioner Jones asked what would happen in 60 days. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that the carriage house would be removed or demolished. Acting Chair Kearns again closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motiom Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No. 3026 approving a Site and Architectural Approval to allow the construction of five single family homes on property located at 1222 Harriet Avenue with the added language to Condition of Approval No. 18 that requires 60 days (June 23, 1996) prior to demolition of the carriage house to allow all possible efforts to preserve the structure. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 13 Prior to the roll call vote, Commissioner Jones asked what the incentive was for the applicant (Mr. Bowen) to agree to the placement of the carriage house on the Rogers property. Mr. Steve Piasecki said there was none. Commissioner Alne stated that the applicant has demonstrated good faith in his efforts to try and save the structure. Commissioner Jones asked about the difference of 15 feet in the placement, of the structure on the Rogers' property. Acting Chair Kearns reopened the Public Hearing to allow continued discussion. Mr. Bruce Bowen: · The Littleton-Martin house is a beautiful historic house with a large beautiful porch. The placement of the second structure (carriage house) should be such that it doesn't block the view of the historic structure from the new street. · Feels that the historic structure is an important feature of his development. · Wants to see the front of the Littleton-Martin house rather than a side view of the carriage house from the new cul-de-sac. Commissioner Alne stated that he felt there was doubtful jurisdiction in requiring something from another property owner as part of this approval. Mr. Steve Piasecki again stated that a site plan for the 1228 Harriet Avenue property is still required to determine the best placement of the carriage house and that a variance might be required. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked who would review this placement. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that the Planning Commission would review. Acting Chair Kearns again closed Public Hearing No. 1 and the motion was restated. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No. 3026 approving a Site and Architectural Approval to allow the construction of five single family homes on property located at 1222 Harriet Avenue with the added language to Condition of Approval No. 18 that requires 60 days (June 23, 1996) prior to demolition of the carriage house to allow all possible efforts to preserve the structure, by the following voice vote: Plannin~ Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Pa~e 14 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Lowe, Alne, Meyer Kennedy Jones, Kearns Lindslxom None Steve Piasecki announced that this decision is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Acting Chair Kearns read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. M 96-03 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Mark Robson, on behalf of Santa Clara Development, for approval of a Modification to a Tentative Subdivision (TS 95-02) to allow two streetlights on a newly created residential street to be known as Summerfield Drive (former address 1522 McCoy Avenue) in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Acting Chair Kearns announced that the applicant has requested a continuance to the meeting of May 14, 1996. Acting Chair Kearns opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. There were no parties present wishing to discuss Agenda Item No. 2. Acting Chair Kearns closed Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne. seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 14, 1996. (5-0-1; Chairman Lindstrom was absent.) MISCELLANEOUS 3. SA 96-13 Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Seth Bland, on behalf of Oil Changer, Inc., for approval of a Sign Application to allow an awning sign on property located at 1820 S. Winchester Boulevard in a ¢-2-S (General Commerdal) Zoning District. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 15 Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · In May, 1994, the Planning Commission approved a remodel of this site. Applicant had an energy analysis conducted which deduced the need for an awning. A sign was previously approved for individual letters on the front facade of the building. · Without appropriate City approvals, the applicant combined the need for an awning with the sign and installed a large awning including lettering. · When the sign was brought to the attention of the Planning Department, staff has denied approval because the awning is neither compatible nor proportionate to the architecture of the building. · Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny this application. · The issue before the Planning Commission is the architectural compatibility not the size of the sign. Commissioner Alne presented the SARC report: · This awning sign should have been approved before installation. · When an application is considered, we must consider whether the request would be approved if it had not already been installed. If the answer is yes, the applicant should be admonished but the approval should be granted. If not, there is no reason to approve something that would not have been approved if it was not already installed. That application should be denied. · Staff has found this request inappropriate and would not have approved had the applicant inquired prior to installation. · There is no justification to approve after the fact. · SARC supported staff recommendation to deny this request. Acting Chair Kearns opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. John Reed, Vice President, Oil Changers, Inc. · Awning is actually 46 feet long not 53 as depicted. · A three foot awning was required following the energy evaluation. · A 23 foot sign was approved. This is the size of the sign on the awning. · This sign would not be visible with a separate awning and sign. · The sign is currently back lit. If necessary, they can remove the back lighting. · They have spent $300,000 in improvements on the site. Despite this, they are still left with a 1950's era building. They painted the entire building white to try to modernize the look. · They are trying to hide the dated look of the building. The awning installed cost $15,000. · Staff has not indicated that any negative complaints have been received regarding their awning and sign. · If they must be fined for installing this awning improperly, they have no problem paying the fine. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 16 If the back lighting must be removed, they have no problem removing the backlighting. They have made a building which was an eyesore look like something. Commissioner Alne asked whether any other alternatives other than the awning were possible to meet Title 24 requirements. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this was not the only solution. Other solutions include installing a trellis treatment or to place a film on the glass. Architectural approval is required even when the applicant is trying to meet Title 24 requirements. Mr. John Reed mentioned that another alternative may have been to remove the glass windows and brick in the opening. He stated that the awning was depicted on the plan. Commissioner Alne questioned this. Was the City given fair warning that this awning was planned. Mr. Tim J. Haley advised that the building elevation did not depict this awning. Acting Chair Kearns closed Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Lowe stated that the awning is out of compliance and it is the duty of the Commission to declare it as non-compliant. Motiom Upon motion of Commission Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission voted to deny the applicant's request for approval of an awning sign on property located at 1820 S. Winchester Boulevard (Oil Changer) (5-0-1; Chairman Lindstrom was absent.) Steve Piasecki announced that this decision of the Planning Commission was final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was accepted as presented with the following comments: * The Pruneyard is cutting asphalt on Campbell Avenue to begin the street improvements. Work is underway on the interior drive. · On Monday, April 29th, the Council will interview a potential candidate for appointment to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1996 Page 17 · · · · · · Construction has begun on Jack Fischer Park. The Summerfield residential tract has begun construction. Joe Escobar Diamonds had moved into its new site on Hamilton Avenue. Work on Staples is progressing. Work on Snappy Lube is progressing. Renzo's was demolished at Kirkwood Plaza and construction will begin on the new retail space. Commissioner Lowe expressed his discouragement and disappointment at the overturning of the approval for the liquid nitrogen tank at P-Com. Acting Chair Kearns inquired whether there had been a groundbreaking celebration for Fischer Park. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that there had not been a groundbreaking to this date. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. to the next Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITI'ED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary Steven Piasecki, Secretary