Loading...
PC Min 05/14/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY MAY 14, 1996 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 1996, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairman Lindstrom, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: Chairman Lindstrom took a moment to welcome and introduce newest Planning Commissioner, Elizabeth Gibbons. Commissioner Gibbons expressed her appreciation of her appointment to the Commission. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Susan A. Kearns I. Alne Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Senior Planner: Darryl M. Jones Planner I: Aki Honda City Attorney: William Seligmann Reporting Secretary: Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of April 23, 1996, were approved. (5-0-0-2; Chairman Lindstrom and Commissioner Gibbons abstained from the vote as neither was in attendance at the April 23rd meeting.) Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS: There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. M 96-03 Continued 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. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director advised the Commission that the applicant, Mr. Mark Robson, has again requested continuance to the meeting of June 11, 1996., Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission moved to continued this application (M 96-03) to the Planning Commission meeting of June 11,1996. (7-0) 2. M 96-04 Public Hearing to consider the application of Pacific Concept Systems for approval of a Modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 93-06) to allow an on- sale beer and wine license for a new restaurant, California Chicken Rollers, on property located at 10 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Ms. Aki Honda, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Modification to a previous Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine sales in conjunction with a new restaurant (California Chicken Rollers) in the space Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 3 at 10 E. Hamilton Avenue formerly occupied by the French Bread Cafe. The Use Permit for the French Bread Cafe allowed outdoor seating. Proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations and staff finds it consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Restaurant will operate in a similar fashion to the previous restaurant with the addition of the on-sale beer and wine. Campbell Police has reviewed this application and has no objection. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lowe thanked staff for the diagram depicting other establishments in the vicinity with beer and wine licenses and had no other questions. Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. There were no parties interested in addressing this item. Chairman Lindstrom closed Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No. 3027 approving a Modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 93-06) to allow on sale beer and wine sales in conjunction with a restaurant (California Chicken Rollers) on property located at 10 E. Hamilton Avenue, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy None None None The decision of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. MISCELLANEOUS 3. SA 96-17 Hearing to consider the application of Hollywood Video for approval of a Sign Application to allow two wall signs on property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 4 Applicant is seeking an exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow two wall signs for Hollywood Video of 57 square feet each. The Ordinance allows 50 square feet. Hollywood Video will occupy new space in the Pruneyard and this space will be partially obscured by the new Bank of America building. Staff worked with the applicant to modify their original proposal. Compromises were made and the applicant has centered their sign rather than off-setting them and has reduced the initially proposed background details. A corner site is allowed two wall signs. The two proposed 57 square foot signs exceed the sign ordinance by a total of 14 square feet. The background detail was reduced but embellished. The SARC meeting at which the application would normally have been considered had already been canceled by the time this application was received. Therefore, SARC held a special session meeting this evening (May 14, 1996) at 7 p.m., just prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kearns presented the SARC report as follows: SARC supports the revised sign proposal with the signage to be centered and the reduction of the proposed background. Chairman Lindstrom asked for verification of the square footage of these two signs. Mr. Darryl Jones responded that each of the signs would be 57 square feet. Commissioner Alne asked why the applicant was proposing 57 square feet when only 50 square feet are allowed under the Sign Ordinance. Can any compelling reason be provided to overlook the Ordinance? Mr. Darryl Jones responded that staff evaluated established criteria and found three to apply to this request: 1. The tenant space is partially obscured from the street frontage. 2. This is a new building with frontage on two streets. 3. The proposed signage is necessary to identify the business. Commissioner Alne reiterated his question, what reason is there for a 57 square foot sign when the Ordinance allows 50 square feet? Mr. Darryl Jones responded that the larger sign fits with the scale of the space in the shopping center. Additionally, the space is partially obscured. Commissioner Alne asked how this possible exception might impact future application review. Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Darryl Jones replied that criteria is reviewed for all requests for exceptions. Commissioner Alne asked if there was a legal comparison to substantiate this approval. Mr. Darryl Jones mentioned that there are factors such as the setback distance, the fact that the site is partially obscured by another building and that a larger sign allows greater visibility and identification. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked for clarification about the yellow neon lights proposed. Mr. Darryl Jones advised the Commission that the yellow neon lights are used to replicate search lights. Mr. Matthew Howarth, Hollywood Entertainment, Applicant: · The neon appears above the mural. It is not flashing but rather simply exposed neon tubing. · Their proposed color scheme is similar to that used on the Bank of America building. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the Hollywood Video site is west of the current Bank of America location. Commissioner Gibbons responded that the site was formerly occupied by Pool, Patio & Things. Commissioner Lowe advised that the applicant has reduced the lights from four to two. Chairman Lindstrom asked whether the lights are counted as part of the sign. Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the lights are not counted but rather are an architectural feature. Chairman Lindstrom asked whether the awning in the Oil Changers request was counted as part of the signage area. Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the awning was not counted, just the lettering. The wording was acceptable, however, the architectural compatibility of the awning was not. Commissioner Alne asked whether the Commission could object to the architectural background of this proposed sign. Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 6 Chairman Lindstrom expressed his concern that exceptions to the Sign Ordinance were supposed to be limited. Commissioner Lowe mentioned that the background was painted and highlighted by neon. Mr. Matthew Howarth concurred with Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked where else in Campbell is neon utilized. Has concerns about flashing neon. Mr. Matthew Howarth advised the Commission that the neon would not be flashing and cited Bradley Video as a business using neon. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that most of the neon used in Campbell is used in windows but dted LZ Premiums in addition to Bradley Video as an example of a sign with neon. Commissioner Alne asked who would be painting the portion of the building (background for sign). He stated that the background is part of the sign and is too large for the building. Mr. Matthew Howarth advised that any elevation must be approved by the property owners, William Wilson & Associates. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that staff, as a rule, does not count the background as sign area. Additionally, the applicant has modified their signing proposal to meet staff requirements to shrink the sign and to provide an interesting background with a mural like appearance. This should make the sign more interesting. Chairman Lindstrom opined that it would be better if they could see what the sign and the background mural are supposed to look like. Commissioner Lowe added that the rendering provided does not do iustice to the sign. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether SARC was comfortable with the proposed sign. Commissioner Lowe responded that they were comfortable. The second drawing provided this evening is misleading. The final proposal is more muted in color palette. Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Matthew Howarth added that they have tied in and toned down the colors with the center. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy again asked whether SARC was satisfied and comfortable. Commissioner Lowe advised that he was supportive of the toned down colors and he was personally happy with the sign proposal. Commissioner Kearns added that staff has also reviewed the proposal. Mr. Matthew Howarth stated that he would work closely with staff in the final sign details. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the mural is intended to serve as an architectural feature to tie the sign in with the building. The sign includes plexiglass individual letters with neon serving as accent features. Mr. Matthew Howarth advised that dties measure lettering size in different manners. Some measure the highest and the lowest point. Their lettering style is staggered which using that format makes it appear to be larger than it actually is. If their lettering was positioned in a straight line, the lettering could be larger. Commissioner Lowe asked staff if they could confirm this point. Mr. Darryl Jones replied that Mr. Howarth was correct. Commissioner Alne asked how much area is represented in the mural of the Hollywood Hills that is proposed to appear below the lettering? He added that he felt it was a stretch to call this element an architectural feature. This area should be calculated as part of the sign. Therefore, the actual sign of the applicant's proposed sign is significantly larger. Mr. Matthew Howarth also mentioned that the Conditions of Approval allow the sign to be illuminated until 11 p.m. He asks that the language be modified on that condition as he will be filing a Conditional Use Permit application to obtain approval of operational hours to midnight. Commissioner Jones advised that he would like to see a sample Hollywood Video sign prior to making a decision. Stated that he agreed with Commissioner Alne. This is a major intersection. Anything approved risks generating other extreme signing requests. Suggested a two week continuance to allow the Commissioners to visit one Hollywood Video site to observe the sign. Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commission would need to continue this item to the June llth Planning Commission meeting as the May 28th meeting has been canceled. Commissioner Jones asked whether this delay would adversely impact the applicant. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that it would not. Mr. Matthew Howarth interjected that it would because they have a scheduled grand opening date of June 22nd. The builders will be delivering a shell to Hollywood Video who will then handle the completion of the interior. Mr. Steve Piasecki agreed that the continuance should then be for the meeting of May 28th or that temporary signage be used by the applicant until final approval is obtained. Chairman Lindstrom again stated that they should get away from too many exceptions to the Sign Ordinance or other applicants will want exceptions. The main question appears to be whether the background proposed should be counted as sign area or as background. Commissioner Lowe stated that a delay is a disservice to the applicant and a decision should be made this evening. The sign has been tastefully done and meets the center's needs. The signs should be up when the business opens up. Commissioner Kearns stated that she agreed with Commissioner Lowe. Commissioner ^lne stated that these were artificial impediments. If the City were responsible for creating the problem, the Commission might have reason for concern. However, no one but the applicant is responsible for creating the design of this sign. "The problem is the applicant's, not ours." Commissioner Lowe stated that the premise regarding the backdrop is a "grey" area that is left to interpretation by the applicant, the City and the Planning Commission. Applicant has done what they could. Commissioner Gibbons said that she supported Commissioner Lowe's opinion. The effort taken indicates lot of thought. Based on staff review, the background is not counted in previous approvals. Recommends action on the proposal. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that time is of the essence and a meeting can be held in two weeks, on May 28th. Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 9 Commissioner Jones stated that this is an important center in the City. It is worth a delay to be sure that the Commission's decision is right. It needs to be looked into further. A determination needs to be made if the background is counted as an architectural feature or part of the sign. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy added that she is concerned about future requests. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jones. seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission moved to continue the Sign Application (SA 95-17) for Hollywood Videos to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1996. (6-0) Mr. Steve Piasecki asked the applicant to bring a mural depicting the background. Additionally, staff can bring examples of past sign approvals. Chairman Lindstrom added that the sign itself is already 14 square feet larger before consideration of whether to count the background. Commissioner Kearns asked where the nearest Hollywood Video is locally. Mr. Matthew Howarth responded that the nearest is at E1 Camino Real and San Tomas Expressway. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that staff will photograph the Hollywood Video sign. He added that the typical Hollywood Video sign is drab, not to insult the applicant. The proposed mural would make it more interesting. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was accepted as presented with the following comments: Announced that the City Manager is leaving for the City of Cypress. His last day is in late June. · Governor Wilson signed SB 1073 which extends the deadline for Housing Element Updates for two years, to 1999. · The Historic Preservation Board Tea is scheduled for Wednesday, May 15, 1996, at 5:30 p.m. · Two Planning Commission decisions have been appealed, the Oil Changers sign which was denied and the Site and Architectural Approval for 1222 Harriet Avenue, which allowed five new single-story residences, had two appeals. Staff believes that the issues will be resolved prior to the Council meeting on the Harriet Avenue project. Commissioner Jane Meyer-Kennedy advised that she had seen a photograph of the barn in the paper. "It looks burned out." Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the photograph was of the barn. The carriage house is the building that the neighboring property owner is interested in preserving. The City has authorized an arborist to review the oak tree to make a final determination whether the tree can be preserved. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. to the next Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: ( .K? ~ ,~ .~tt~; c~rin~e ~. Shin~, Recording Secretary ~ Stev~n Piase~, Secreta~