Loading...
PC Min 04/26/2005 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY April 26, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2005, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Gibbons and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner Elizabeth Gibbons George Doorley Mark Ebner Tom Francois Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Bob Alderete Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Tim J. Haley Stephanie Willsey William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission minutes of April 12, 2005, were approved as submitted. (6-0-1; Commissioner Alderete was absent) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter regarding Agenda Item No. 1. 2. Revised findings for Agenda Item No.2. 3. Letters regarding Agenda Item No.4. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING *** Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No.1 into the record as follows: 1 PLN2004-151 (S) PLN2004-152 (UP) PLN2005-32 (TRP) McLean, R. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Rex McLean, on behalf of Two-Forty Associates, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2004- 151) and Conditional Use Permit (PLN2004-152) to allow the construction of a new multi-tenant retail building and a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2005-32) to allow the removal of seven protected trees on property owned by Two-Forty Associates, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, located at 330 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for the redevelopment of the site, which is currently developed with a vacant restaurant. . Described the property as being located on the south side of E. Hamilton Avenue in between Central Avenue and Third Street. The parcel is 1.17 net acres. . Explained that the proposal is for a new multi-tenant single-story retail building with an L- shaped parking lot. A Site and Architectural Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit are required to allow this construction. The proposal includes an approximately 11,000 square foot building and 82 parking spaces. The proposed hours of operation are between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. . Stated that surrounding uses consist of commercial to the north, condominiums to the south and office uses to the east and west. . Reported that a Tree Removal Permit is required to remove seven protected trees from the site. . Said that the Zoning for this property is C-2-S (General Commercial). Retail uses are consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use designations for this property. . Stated that an existing driveway is to be retained and a new driveway is to be added to the east of this driveway. . Advised that staff has recommended a Condition of Approval that states if a mutual access agreement can be worked out between this property owner and the adjacent property Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 3 owner, the two parking lots are to be connected, which would result in the elimination of three spaces. . Recommended that the Commission take action to adopt three resolutions adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Site and Architectural Review Permit/Conditional Use Permit and the Tree Removal Permit. . Reported that SARC reviewed this project and will provide a report. . Informed that a letter was received from an adjacent neighbor as a desk item. Commissioner Doorley asked for clarification on the term Speculative Retail. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley said that there are no specific tenants for this building at this time. The standard retail parking requirement is one space for every 200 square feet of tenant space. Commissioner Doorley asked about the joint use of parking with the adjacent property. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that General Plan policy encourages shared circulation, driveways and access. However, the applicant has not been successful in negotiations with the adjacent property owner for a joint driveway concept. Commissioner Doorley asked if the two existing driveways for this property are to stay. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley said that the easterly driveway is to be eliminated. Commissioner Roseberry asked staff to compare the rear setback from the existing versus proposed buildings. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the setback is 87 feet right now. Chair Gibbons pointed out that Drawing Sheet C-l shows the existing footprint. She asked staff if the Public Works Department concurs with the proposal for these two driveways to be so close together. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed this proposal. He advised that there is a median on Hamilton Avenue and that larger vehicles could not make a left turn from the median. Chair Gibbons asked ifthere is sufficient area for a two-way driveway. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied yes. Chair Gibbons pointed out the site plan which depicts a new driveway, landscaping and another driveway. Associate Planner Tim 1. Haley explained that the existing curb cut stays and the site will maintain the existing two-way driveway. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 4 Chair Gibbons asked staff who hired the arborist for this site, the City or the applicant. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied the applicant. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley clarified that the policy for having the City to coordinate the hiring of consultants applies only to Traffic Studies. Commissioner Doorley asked staff if there would be any retail frontage on the Hamilton Avenue elevation. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the retail entrances are on the side elevation. There are no retail entrances on the Hamilton Avenue elevation. Chair Gibbons asked about the adequacy of parking if there is a restaurant use on this site. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that this project is significantly over parked. The parking requirement for restaurant uses is one space for every three seats. Commissioner Rocha presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . SARC reviewed this proposal on April 12, 2005, and was supportive. . Stated his belief that the applicant has done the best they could to move this project as far from the rear property line as possible. Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Mr. Monty Lucas, 421 N. Central Avenue, Campbell: . Stated that his home is adjacent to the southeast corner of this proposed development. . Said that he prepared a list of concerns which he provided in written form. . Advised that he has spoken with both the developer and the architect regarding his screening and security concerns. . Reported that in the past there have been security problems on this site with people hanging out in the corner rear parking lot near his yard. Said that there have been people working on cars there as well as homeless living in cars there. . Expressed concerns about impacts from ambient lighting from the parking lot that could impede his enjoyment of his home and property and said that the proposed removal of some trees will take away some of the existing screening. . Said that he also has concerns about the proposed 32 foot high elevation at the rear of the building. This may look large when seen from his property. . Reported that he has arranged to add lattice to an existing fence that separates his property from the office property adjacent. He added that there has been an on-going problem with people climbing over this fence to access the town home project. . Explained that he is an architectural designer. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 5 . Suggested altering the planting plan and adding additional screening and perhaps a permanent visual break. Perhaps a permanent barrier, some type of trellis structure with landscaping, could be added to help prevent people from hopping over the wall. . Asked about the reasoning for the gate from this lot onto the town home development property and about the proposal to relocate this gate closer to his property. . Suggested that the gate be left in its current position. . Said that air quality during and after construction is also a concern. . Reported that garbage blows into his yard and that he would appreciate any steps that could be taken to prevent this from happening. . Said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Rocha said he applauded Mr. Monty Lucas for the detail of his comments and said it was clear Mr. Lucas had taken a couple of hours to prepare his material. He pointed out that it seems that many of Mr. Lucas' concerns were directly with the operation of Coco's Restaurant. Mr. Monty Lucas said that it was both when Coco's was in operation on this property as well as since the building has been vacant. Commissioner Rocha said that it appears that a part of the problem is the condo development. Mr. Monty Lucas agreed. He said he asks that the developer do something to mitigate the impacts of light and sound from their property to his. He reminded that it is not known what types of businesses will go into this new retail center. Commissioner Rocha advised Mr. Lucas that he is in the commercial real estate business. He advised that if a restaurant is to go into this building, it would be a small one only. Commissioner Ebner asked if the existing fence and cinder block wall are consider common and/or shared. Mr. Monty Lucas said that the fence separating his property from the neighboring office building at 441 N. Central is on the neighbor's property. As for the fencing separating 441 N. Central from 330 E. Hamilton Avenue, he is not sure which property owns it. Commissioner Ebner asked the height of this fencing. Mr. Monty Lucas replied that as seen from the property at 444 N. Central, the wall is three feet, three inches high. However, from his property, the wall is five feet, five inches tall. He said that the wall is about five feet high on the Coco's side. This doesn't meet the bear minimum standard for residential fencing and will not block out ambient lighting. Commissioner Ebner asked if these walls are easy to scale. Mr. Monty Lucas replied yes. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Lucas if he had made his security concerns known to the condo complex. Mr. Monty Lucas replied no. He said that he plans to do so. He reported that he recently found a group of seven to eight year olds sitting on his fence. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Director Sharon Fierro said that Mr. Lucas has very valid concerns and staff is happy to address all his issues with amended conditions. Commissioner Doorley asked about making the fencing/walls higher. Director Sharon Fierro said the heights are currently inadequate because the pad on the commercial side was raised. The height of the wall should be raised to provide more security and privacy. Chair Gibbons pointed out that necessary grading and drainage could alter the elevation even more. Director Sharon Fierro: . Stated that the issue of ambient lighting is addressed by Condition 14 that calls for a photometric study. . Added that security concerns can be addressed by raising the height of the wall. . Said that removal of some of the trees can be reconsidered if the Commission chooses to alter the conditions for replacement trees. . Advised that noise issues can be controlled by the hours of operation. Commissioner Doorley asked why the gate leading from the town home project to this commercial site is there at all. Is this a required access? Director Sharon Fierro advised that it was required when the residential development was constructed as a means for people who live there to access Hamilton Avenue. Commissioner Doorley asked if this pedestrian connection to Hamilton Avenue includes a recorded easement on this property. Director Sharon Fierro asked staff if the Condo Association still wants the gate. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley said that there had been no specific request. Director Sharon Fierro reported that it is her understanding that retention of this gate is desired. Chair Gibbons asked that the condition of approval be very clear that hours of operation mean that all activity on site must cease by II p.m., with the limitation on dumping trash into the enclosure by 6 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 7 Director Sharon Fierro said that language should be added that restricts hours for clean up and maintenance of the site. Chair Gibbons asked about restrictions on garbage collection hours. Director Sharon Fierro reminded that commercial sites have a more liberal pick up allowances. Perhaps the dumpster could be relocated further away from residences. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley cautioned that staff has worked with the applicant to relocate the dumpster to where it is presently. This present location is the most desirable as it is the furthest from residents while still being convenient to the tenants ofthis building. Director Sharon Fierro reminded that it is difficult to control garbage collection hours for commercial properties. Chair Gibbons: . Said that she too is concerned about the height of the tower element to the rear and questioned if there would be a light element to this feature. If so, it should be conditioned that this lighting not be left on all night long. . Stated that abutting commercial and residential uses is not the friendliest combination. . Advised that she would like to keep as much landscaping as possible. . Said that she would like to see a maximum height established for light standards in a commercial parking lot and expressed support for the requirement for a photometric study of lighting on this site. . Suggested clarify the language on Condition 13 to include".. .Fire Department Stand Pipe Connections." . Reminded of the importance to collect vent pipes for the building. . Added the need to post contractor contact information on the project site. . Supported the addition to the fencing heights to help screen the residents from the commercial use. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley cautioned that it is not known who owns this wall. He suggested that the applicant work with staff to provide security. Chair Gibbons suggested that the fencing issue be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Doorley expressed support for leaving the gate where it is currently located. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley cautioned that people would walk into the parking lot from this gate and that with its retention in this location one to two parking spaces may need to be eliminated. Commissioner Doorley stressed that the gate should be kept where it is. He questioned why the currently driveway and circulation conditions could not continue since they are jointly owned. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 8 Director Sharon Fierro reported that there is no recorded document showing that. Therefore there is no known easement or right to use this as a shared driveway. The applicant is building completely on his own land. The adjacent property owner has not returned any calls made by this property owner to discuss this issue. Commissioner Rocha added that this applicant has chosen to go forward with their project in this way as a result. Chair Gibbons suggested removIng parking to allow cross circulation between the two properties. Commissioner Doorley asked if a grandfather clause might not apply since this shared situation has gone on for years. City Attorney William Seligmann said that the only way to legally establish this is to bring action to have this shared access declared a prescriptive easement. However, such a legal action could delay the project significantly. Commissioner Doorley asked if it can't simply be assumed that this owner owns half. Director Sharon Fierro replied no. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that half of the shared drive runs along the property line. Commissioner Doorley asked why this applicant cannot simply add a new second half to this existing driveway on their own property. Chair Gibbons said that this would result in the loss of an entire row of parking and would be very detrimental to the overall parking layout and reduce landscaping. Commissioner Doorley said that having these two driveways so close together really bothers him. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley reminded that this street is median controlled so that only right turns are permitted in both directions. Commissioner Roseberry: . Advised that he is supportive of this project. While it is not a perfect project, it is the right use for this zoning. Some of the problems raised are already there. This project gives this applicant the opportunity to mitigate some of those problems. . Reminded that a nice planting plan has been prepared that will provide screening in the future. However, perhaps larger box trees could be incorporated into that plan. . Said that the fencing and walkway issue could be worked out. Chair Gibbons re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Monty Lucas reminded that the corner of the parking lot is already a gathering place for teenagers. Chair Gibbons re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Commissioner Roseberry: . Stated that he is in favor of increasing the fence height. . Said he supports the landscape plan with inclusion of larger box trees. . Reiterated his support of this proposal with minor modifications. . Asked about parapet heights and roof screening. Commissioner Ebner asked about the façade of the tower and whether this is useable space or simply a decorative element. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that it is an architectural feature to identify the rear tenant. There might be some signage on this element facing Hamilton Avenue but not the rear residences. Chair Gibbons: . Supported increasing the size of box trees planted. . Supported placement ofthe garbage enclosure as far away from residences as possible. . Suggested that the fence height issue be left to the discretion of the Community Development Director to approve the height and location. . Supported leaving the existing gate in its current location and adjusting the parking accordingly. . Suggested that no lighting be included on the tower element. . Asked that one more look be given to the driveway connection. . Said that stand pipes should also be screened. . Reminded that contractor contact information must be posted on site. Commissioner Ebner asked about retention of existing trees. Chair Gibbons said that either they could be retained or if removed the replacement trees could be larger box size than proposed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission took the following actions for property located at 330 E. Hamilton Avenue: . Adopted Resolution No. 3645 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; . Adopted Resolution No. 3646 approving a Site and Architectural Review permit and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new multi-tenant commercial building with modified conditions; and . Adopted Resolution No. 3647 approving a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of seven protected trees, Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 10 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Ebner, Francois, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Commissioner Rocha announced that he must recuse himself from the next item as he has a conflict. He left the dais and Council Chambers prior to the commencement of this hearing. Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No.2 into the record as follows: 2 PLN2005-16 Battista, R. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Richard Battista, on behalf of the Professional Culinary Institute, for a Sign Application (PLN2005-16) to allow an expressway-oriented sign on property owned by Mr. Scott Cooley located at 700 W. Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 17, 2005. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of an expressway-oriented sign along the eastern elevation of the building at 700 W. Hamilton Avenue where tenant improvements are underway to house the Professional Culinary Institute on the third floor. . Described the surrounding uses as the Riverside Plaza Shopping Center to the north; San Tomas Expressway to the east, residential and commercial uses to the south and commercial uses to the west. . Reminded that expressway-oriented signs must be approved by Council upon recommendation from the Planning Commission. . Explained that the building design limits wall signs due to extensive use of glass. The front elevation has a sign for Gold's Gym. . Reported that revised findings have been provided this evening. . Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to Council. Chair Gibbons asked about other similar signs such as for Fry's and Home Depot. Are there any comparisons available? Associate Planner Tim J. Haley said that each building is unique as to size and style. There is a much larger sign at Home Depot. However, signs are tied proportionately to their buildings. This proposed sign is consistent with the Gold's Gym wall sign. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 11 Chair Gibbons asked if this business is included on the freestanding sign as well. Associate Planner Tim 1. Haley advised that there is a 50 square foot sign for the entire multi tenant building. Commissioner Roseberry presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . SARC reviewed this project on April 12, 2005. . Pointed out that this business has lots of letters in its name. . Said that SARC was supportive of this request using two colors rather than the originally proposed three colors. Chair Gibbons asked ifthe square footage includes the logo. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied yes and said that the logo is a dinner plate. Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.2. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.2. Chair Gibbons: . Said that she is not supportive of this request as this sign is too large and fills the entire façade distance between the windows and the roof. . Suggested that this sign could be made smaller. . Added that she supports the idea of such a sign but not as shown. Commissioner Ebner: . Pointed out that since this business is a school and does not solicit business from passing traffic such as retail and restaurant uses do, he too has problems with the size of this sign as it seems very large. . Suggested that a more modest sign would do the job. Commissioner Roseberry: . Reminded that this business has a big long name that is impressive and sounds good. . Stated his support of recognizing this community asset. . Pointed out that the students ofthis school may be in the area for the first time. Chair Gibbons reminded that revised findings were distributed as a table item. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3648 recommending approval of a Sign Application (PLN2005-16) to allow an expressway-oriented sign on property owned by Mr. Scott Cooley located at 700 W. Hamilton Avenue with revised findings, by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 12 AYES: Doorley, Ebner, Francois and Roseberry NOES: Gibbons ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: Rocha Chair Gibbons advised that this item would be considered by Council for final action at its meeting of May 17,2005. Commissioner Rocha returned to the dais upon completion of Agenda Item No.2. *** Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No.3 into the record as follows: 3 PLN2004-188 Ramirez, S. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Sam Ramirez for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2004-188) to allow late night activities for a restaurant in Downtown Campbell on property owned by Mr. Robert Raffanti located at 266 E. Campbell Avenue in the C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Stephanie Willsey Planner I Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Use Permit for a single-story multi- tenant building that was constructed in 1947 in Downtown Campbell. . Explained that there are three tenant spaces in this building. One space is occupied by Cardiff Lounge, the second by a restaurant and the third space is retail. . Advised that a Use Permit is required to allow operations after 11 p.m. or prior to 6 a.m. . Said that the Zoning is C-3. . Informed that the applicant seeks hours to 11 p.m. from Sunday to Wednesday and to 3 a.m. from Thursday to Saturday. Staff is recommending hours to 2 a.m. as there are no other businesses operating beyond 2 a.m. in the Downtown. The Redevelopment Agency agrees with staffs recommendation. . Recommended approval and advised that this applicant is participating in the Redevelopment Agency's Storefront Improvement Program. Chair Gibbons asked about an outdoor patio area depicted on the plans. Planner Stephanie Willsey advised that outdoor seating issues are handled at staff level for the Downtown. Chair Gibbons asked if operational hours for outdoor areas are considered. Planner Stephanie Willsey replied yes. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 13 Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.3. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.3. Chair Gibbons asked staff to be sure that all standard noise conditions typically imposed on businesses operating to 2 a.m. be included in this request. Commissioner Rocha agreed, saying that consistency is important. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3649 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2004-188) to allow late night activities for a restaurant in Downtown Campbell on property owned by Mr. Robert Raffanti located at 266 E. Campbell Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Ebner, Francois, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. ** Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No.4 into the record as follows: 4 PLN2005-19 Smith, D & P Public Hearing to consider the application of David and Patty Smith for a Minor Modification to a Side Yard Setback (PLN2005-19) for an addition to an existing single-family residence on property owned by David and Patty Smith located at 901 N. Central Avenue in an R-I-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Stephanie Willsey Planner I Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 14 Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised Commissioner Rocha presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Minor Modification to a Side Yard Setback to allow a second story addition to an existing single-story residence. . Informed that the minimum required side yard setback is five feet or half the proposed wall height. The applicant is proposing a 19 foot wall height which results in a setback requirement of nine feet, six inches. . Reported that issues such as air, privacy and sunlight impacts are taken into consideration. . Said that there are other similar two-story homes and that this request is not considered radical. Four other Minor Modifications have been approved in the last five years. . Advised that two letters in opposition have been received as well as a petition with signatures indicating support of this request. . Recommended approval. Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.4. Ms. Poay Ng, 870 Monica Lane, Campbell: . Said that she is the back fence neighbor to this property. . Advised that she and the Smiths recently shared expenses to upgrade their shared fence. . Said that she has lived in her home for 14 years and gets along well with her neighbors, including the Smiths. . Said that she opposes this request due to impacts on her privacy. With windows and a balcony on this second story addition, her privacy is lost. . Informed that she spoke of her concerns with Mr. Smith who said that the existing landscaping should block any view of her home and yard. . Advised that even if this is true now, there is no assurance that future owners might not cut this screening landscaping down. . Said that this project creates bad fung shei that is important for harmony and serenity. . Stated that she does understand the right to have a second story, she asks the Commission to reconsider the inclusion of French doors and a balcony on the second floor. . Asked the Commission to consider smaller windows on this second floor. Commissioner Rocha thanked Ms. Ng for her letter and comments. He asked Ms. Ng how she would mitigate a second story on her own property if she were to choose to have one. Ms. Poay Ng: . Replied that she would discuss her addition with her neighbors. . Advised that although her name appears on the petition supporting this request, she does not actually support it. . Said that she only realized the full impact of this addition on her own property after seeing the plans. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 15 . Reiterated that while she understands the rights to expand a home, she asks that Commission to reconsider what is being proposed. Commissioner Rocha cautioned that the Commission cannot serve as arbiters of Fung Shei Issues. Mr. Laurence Hanson, 843 N. Central Avenue, Campbell: . Said that he has lived in this neighborhood for 30 years and Dave Smith has been his friend for all of those years. He is here to serve as a character witness for him. . Assured that the Smiths would not spend their time looking at their neighbors from their second story. . Said that they would handle their addition in a classy way and that the Smiths are wonderful people. Ms. Sahar Madani, 887 N. Central Avenue, Campbell: . Said that she lives next door to the Smiths and has for the last 2.5 years. She had her baby 1.5 years ago. . Said that the Smiths are her favorite neighbors. . Advised that the Smiths showed her their plans a couple of months ago. . Informed that she objects to this addition because all of her bedrooms are on the side of the addition and close to the shared fence. There is not enough light already in these rooms. . Stated that this addition would invade her privacy in her home, pool and Jacuzzi. All windows in this addition will have full view of her house and yard. . Pointed out that she has no assurance that future neighbors in this home would be as nice as the Smiths. . Stated that the most important thing to her is light and privacy impacts. . Pointed out that on this street there are only a few two-story homes. . Said that she does not object to the concept of an expansion, as she has one in her own home. However, if she were to construct a second story on her own home, she would respect her neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Ebner asked what the setback to the fence is now. Ms. Sahar Madani said she is not sure but that it is very close. Dave Smith, Applicants, 901 N. Central Avenue, Campbell: . Thanked staff and the Commission, particularly planners Stephanie Willsey, Tim Haley and GeoffBradley. . Said that staff has been fair and pleasant to deal with and represented the City well. . Thanked the Commission for volunteering their service to the City. . Stated that this is a 53 year old house that they have lived in for 45 years. . Said that they are asking to be allowed to build six feet from the property line when nine feet, six inches are required. . Said without the modification their stairs would have to be relocated. . Added that they are constrained with the shape of their existing home. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 16 . Said that not much is seen now due to mature trees. . Pointed out that Campbell Code allows the Commission to reduce a required setback if it is determined to not be detrimental. . Assured that privacy and sunlight would still be provided to his neighbor by a 20 year old Yucca tree and a 15 year old Orange tree. . Pointed out that there are many two-story homes and that their second story would be well hidden. . Said that this project will upgrade their home and neighborhood. Ms. Patty Smith, Applicant, 901 N. Central Avenue, Campbell: . Thanked her neighbors. . Said that her family has lived in this home for 45 years and it has always been small. . Advised that she taught in Campbell Schools for 28 years. . Informed that she has a nice backyard and wants to preserve it. . Expressed her hope that the Commission will approve their request. Commissioner Doorley asked why the second story is situated to one side of their house. Mr. Dave Smith said that this would be an unobtrusive house and that views are blocked. This design makes the most sense for them. Ms. Patty Smith: . Added that a single-story addition would take out a huge chunk of her yard and her yard is special to her. . Said that she had thought of moving but didn't want to do so. . Reiterated that this house is simply too small. Commissioner Doorley: . Said he has a similarly styled house and can understand that this is the easiest way to do an addition and still live in the house during construction. . Pointed out that this addition will occur over the garage and would be less expensive than other types of additions. . Stressed the importance of considering the ramifications of this addition on other properties. Chair Gibbons asked about the balcony on the second floor. Ms. Patty Smith said that she likes the look of it but is willing to eliminate it if necessary. Chair Gibbons asked ifthe Smiths could consider smaller windows on the second floor. Mr. Dave Smith replied yes. Commissioner Ebner asked about the existing trees at the rear of this lot. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 17 Ms. Patty Smith said that there is a huge hedge there. Mr. Dave Smith said that photographs were provided. Ms. Patty Smith pointed out that the rear neighbors have a structure at the back of their property. Mr. Dave Smith pointed out that this structure is located just two feet from the property line. Mr. Robert Erwin, 900 N. Central Avenue, Campbell: . Advised that he has lived in the neighborhood since October 1981 and lives across the street. . Pointed out that neighbors to the south and north have remodeled their homes. . Said that this proposed design is fine and would add value to the neighborhood. . Stated that he and his wife support the remodel and addition to this home. Ms. Sahar Madani: . Said that the Smiths have lived in their home for 45 years and got along without a second floor while they raised their family there. . Questioned why two people would now need a nearly 4,000 square foot home. . Expressed concern that this addition might be built and the Smiths move on. . Pointed out that the Orange tree would need to be removed to build and only a Palm tree would be left to screen. Mr. Dave Smith said that he and his wife both still work and need home offices. Additionally, they want a master bedroom and bathroom as well as a guest room. He added that some day his mother would likely need to move in with them. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.4. Commissioner Roseberry: . Said that he had felt like the bearer of bad news when he told the Smiths at SARC that they should meet established setbacks. . Pointed out that the City has worked hard to establish guidelines for property improvements. . Assured that issues considered do no include character or quality of the people making the request. . Said that if this were a new project, there is no question that the second story setback would have to be met. . Said that there is an opportunity to build along existing lines, in this house along the garage. . Said that during the SARC meeting, they tried to steer the applicants to go back to their architect to make changes since there is plenty of opportunity to have a second story on this house while staying within guidelines and be aesthetically pleasing. This would be easy for their neighbors to understand and appreciate. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 18 Commissioner Ebner: . Said that the Smiths are sensitive to their neighbors. . Suggested smaller windows on the south side. . Said this project is extremely attractive and well done and has existing screening trees. . Said that the only impact would be to the neighbor to the left and smaller windows would help assure their privacy. . Said this project is well done and he has no problem with it. Commissioner Doorley: . Said he agrees with both points made by Commissioners Roseberry and Ebner, which is somewhat confusing to him. . Said that modifications to setbacks have been previously approved but in those cases there was broad consensus. The problem here is that consensus does not exist in this case. Such a modification fits when everyone agrees to it. . Stated that this request doesn't comply with Code and he cannot find any compelling reason why it shouldn't given neighbor objections. Chair Gibbons said she too agrees with all points made, which is very confusing. She reminded the Commission of a project on Virginia considered by the Commission for a modification that was eventually redesigned to meet guideline standards. Commissioner Doorley said that these applicants should be able to find some design that better uses this property. Chair Gibbons: . Said that she finds this request very difficult. . Said that she tries to apply the rules in fairness to everyone. . Stated that the way this addition has been designed, it is the most convenient being located over the existing garage. . Added that other additions done in this neighborhood fit into their sites better. . Expressed concern over the proposed balcony, saying that it is fairly large and would likely be heavily used as extra living space. However, the applicant has expressed a willingness to let that feature go from the design. . Said that this is a good design for what it is trying to achieve but that she is inclined to say no to this request. . Stated that if this request is to be approved, it needs some modifications. If it is to be denied, modified findings are required. Commissioner Ebner questioned what windows might be supported with the removal of the balcony. Chair Gibbons said that the issue for her is not the windows but rather the balcony itself. Commissioner Rocha asked the City Attorney if he can initiate a motion he does not support. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 19 City Attorney William Seligmann replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, Seconded by Commissioner Ebner, the Planning Commission recommended adopting a Resolution to approve a Minor Modification to a Side Yard Setback (PLN2005-19) for an addition to an existing single-family residence on property owned by David and Patty Smith located at 901 N. Central Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Ebner and Francois NOES: Doorley, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None The motion failed. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that a motion for denial is now required. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha. Seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3650 DENYING a Minor Modification to a Side Yard Setback (PLN2005-19) for an addition to an existing single-family residence on property owned by David and Patty Smith located at 901 N. Central Avenue with revised findings in support of this denial, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: Ebner and Francois ABSENT: Alderete ABSTAIN: None Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: . Announced the hiring of a new City Manager. Mr. Dan Rich will begin on May 31 st. He comes to Campbell from Belmont. . Said that there is a one item agenda for the next meeting. A Study Session on the issue of Site and Architectural Review and SARC will be held at 6:30 p.m. on May 10th. . Advised that she attended a League of California Cities where she made a presentation on architectural review and infill development. Many Commissioners from throughout the State were unable to attend this year due to budgetary constraints. A one day seminar will be held locally on May 19th. . Advised that Historic Preservation training will be held on June 22nd at 11 a.m. with the State Architect presenting on the implementation of Secretary of the Interior Guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 20 She encouraged the Commissioners to consider attendance at this session and will send additional information when it is available. This will be a multi-jurisdictional presentation. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 1:~ SUBMITTED BY: ~ orinne Ã. SliInn, Reco . g Secretary , ATTEST: - i ç ¿ftt~ APPROVED BY: