Loading...
PC Min 07/23/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JULY 23, 1996 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 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: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mel Lindstrom Susan A. Kearns I. Mae Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: None StaffPresent: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Darryl M. Jones Tim J. Haley Aid Honda William Seli~mann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission minutes of July 9, 1996, were approved with minor corrections. (7-0) COMMUNICATIONS: There were no communication items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS: There were no agenda modifications or postponements. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Pa~e 2 OUAI l gtmSXS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. S 96-09 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr Gary Kohlsaat, on behalf of Mr. John Townsend, for a Site and Architectural Approval to allow a new single-family residence on property located at 1460 Capri l)rive in an R-l-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Ms. Aki Honda, Planner I, presented the staffreport as follows: · Applicant is seeking a site approval to allow a new single family residence on a flag lot at the rear of 1458 Capri Drive which was created in 1989. · Density is 3.4 units per gross acre. · Zoning is R-I-10. · Proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Designations for this site as well as the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · Property is surrounded by residential uses. · Proposal is for a residence with 3,034 square feet of living space and a 505 square foot two-car garage. · Setbacks are 25 feet for front and side yard, 12.5 feet on the north side and 25 feet in the rear yard. · SARC reviewed the project and was supportive. · Staffrecommends approval. Commissioner Kearns presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report follows: · SARC met on July 11th and was supportive of this project. as Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell. · Expressed that his only concern with the proposed project at this time is the fact that illegal units are currently located and inhabited on the property. · When the lot was originally split, property owner, Mr. John Townsend, promised to get rid of the illegal mobile home units. · Stated his belief that the lot should comply with City standards before approval is issued for this project. Chairman Lindstrom asked Planner Aki Honda what she knew about these illegal units. Hannin[g Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Pa[ge 3 Ms. Honda responded that the Community Development Department has an open Code Enforcement file which is being handled. The illegal units will be removed as a part of this project. Mr. Bruce Reid advised that there is more than just a single mobile home. There are also two large storage sheds on site as well as a camping trailer that has been occupied. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised Mr. Reid that staff has just assured him that all illegal structures will be removed. Mr. John Townsend, 1458 Capri Drive. · The storage on site has been for construction storage. · All storage units will be removed. Chairman Lindstrom closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No. 3034 allowing the construction of a new single-family residence on property located at 1460 Capri Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy Jones None None Community Development Director, Steve Piasecki, reminded those in attendance that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. M 96-09 Public Heating to consider the application of P-Com for a Modification to a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction ora 10-foot high liquid nitrogen tank at the rear of the building located at 3175 S. Winchester Boulevard in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Aki Honda, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking a Modification to a Planned Development Permit to install a 10 feet tall and 27 feet long liquid nitrogen tank at the rear of the building. · This is the applicant's second request. The previous request for a 27.5 foot high tank was denied by City Council on April 16, 1996, as Council was concerned about the visibility of the tank_ · In 1984, the site was approved for Research and Development uses. · Applicant states that the tank is critical for their operation. · Applicant further states that there is no proposed change as to the use of the site. · Surrounding properties include residential/percolation ponds to the north; single-family residences to the south and west; and an industrial park to the east. · Proposed tank is 10 feet high, 11 feet when counting the bracing and support of the structure. · There will be a single 2-inch pipe to bring the liquid nitrogen into the building. · The pump is located inside the building, therefore, no noise is expected outdoors. · SARC was supportive of this request with the additions of additional landscaping, fencing and concrete planters and the elimination of a parking space to the north of the tank. Additional SARC recommends issuance of a fence exception to allow for a 12-foot high fence. Finally, SARC recommends that the applicant be directed to install two redwood trees at the northwest comer of the site for additional screening. · Staff supports SARC's additions. · Parking on site is 249 spaces. Required parking is 246. With the elimination of the spaces for the tank and screening landscaping, 243 parking spaces will remain. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward this application to Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Keams presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC is requesting additional landscaping on the north, south and western sides with use of some sort of evergreen vine as well as planters complete with irrigation. · SARC also recommends that the fence be extended to encompass the parking space to the north of the tank. · A 12-foot high fence should be installed as well as two redwood trees to help screen the tank from the adjacent residences. Commissioner Alne advised the Commission that he drove onto the site this week and found that approximately 10 percent of the parking spaces seem to be used for long term storage. That means that approximately 25 spaces are currently not useable for parking vehicles. Additionally the loading dock is fifll of boxes. When he visited, at 10 a.m, the lot was already 90 percent occupied. Asked staffwhether this outdoor storage was legal. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Aki Honda advised that staff has requested that P-Com dear the outdoor storage fi.om their parking lot and leave the spaces available for parking vehicles. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, suggested that a Condition of Approval be added to require removal of the outdoor storage and containers. Commissioner Alne asked why it is necessary to require them to obey the law. Can the applicant be asked to comply. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the site plan does not seem to show the changes based upon SARC's recommendations. The redwoods are not depicted. Commissioner Lowe asked if Central Fire could discuss the nature of liquid nitrogen. He asked if there was any danger to the public. Chairman Lindstrom invited Mr. Steve Gubber, Central Fire District, to step forward. Mr. Steve Gubber, Central Fire District: · Liquid nitrogen is not toxic. The tank can be installed in a safe way. · There is no danger of toxicity or explosion. · It is safe to install and operate this tank. Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Gubber whether Central Fire is supportive of storage on the lot with the loss of 25 parking spaces as well as the reduction in width of the fire lane to just six feet due to the mount of outdoor storage. Mr. Steve Gubber agreed that Fire would be concerned. Mr. Walt Pauwels, 458 W. Hacienda Avenue: · Advised that his property is adjacent to this site. · Site currently has four trailers on site and garbage all over. · The boxes are not empty. · Parking spaces are not available for vehicle parking. · Trucks are parking in the fire lane. · Has concerns about the tank as he sees no mention of protection. · Disagrees that nitrogen is not toxic. · If a truck hits the tank, it could be a problem There are at least 15 trucks on site every day and they are large trucks (40 foot). · His concerns about pump noise has been answered. · Asked about hours of operation. Currently P-Corn is operating 24-hours a day. · As he lives fight next door, noise is a concern Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 6 · If this business is a Research and Development business, why is manufacturing occurring? Commissioner Alne advised Mr. Pauwels that the design of the tank itself is protection. Safety features are built in as Central Fire can confirn~ Mr. Walter Pauwels asked why no I-beams are included to protect the tank. Mr. Rollins Cushman, 1274 Walnut Drive: · Advised that he sold the land on which this business is now located and was promised that the R&D use would pose no problems. · This use is already in violation of its PD Permit. · Provided photos of the boxes and storage on the parking lot. · Stated his opinion that P-Corn is operating as a mostly manufacturing business rather than as a R&D business. · Advised that he has requested on three different occasions that P-Com clean up its site. They will for the short term but the material always comes back. · Stated that there appears to be a conflict with the Council, the Planning Commission and staffand the applicant's representative who has connections with Council. · Believes that this is a gross and flagrant misuse of the property. · Trucks deliver on-site 24-hours a day. · Applicant intends to pipe nitrogen throughout the building of 61,000 square foot building. · Assumes that there will be compressors and pumps. · There are thousands of boxes, many empty, in the parking lot. · Three times, P-Com removed excess storage. Each time they return. · There is graffiti on site. There have been roof rat problems and vector control has visited the area. · Noise factor is considerable. · This use is worse that the previous lumber mill. · There were two alarms last Sunday for more than an hour. · Car alarms ot~en go offin the parking lot. · Applicant has a "fake" good neighbor policy. · A compressor is being used on site, sometimes runs night and day. · Fire doesn't seem to realize the potential for hazard if the nitrogen is mixed with something such as mustard gas or other substance. This is not a completely innocent substance. Under certain conditions, it can be lethal, not innocent like water. · Garbage bin on site is moved at night, waking adjacent residents. · Tracks ('Yoach coaches") honk and vibrate residences. · It is a fight to not have the garbage picked up at 4 a.n~ · A basketball hoop on site is used at night. · P-Corn has quarterly celebrations which are loud and late. · One of his neighbors has considered trying to have the site declared a public nuisance. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 7 Commissioner Lowe advised that this is dearly an emotional issue. Mr. Cuahman has a point about the boxes and trailers. However, he emphatically declared his resentment of the implication made by Mr. Cushman that there is some sort of collusion between staff and the commission with the applicant. The staffdoes a good job and is professional. Mr. Cushman advised Mr. Lowe that he feels that a Council member has a conflict. City Attorney Seligmann stepped in and advised that Mr. Cuahman is speaking of the mayor, whose father is involved with the applicant in a professional capacity. He advised that the mayor has excused himself from this issue and will continue to do so. Chairman Lindstrom suggested that a condition of approval requiting noise management and maintenance of the site should be continually met by the applicant. Mr. Cushman asked, %vhat do we have to do?" Commissioner Alne advised Mr. Cu,qhman that he should not leap to the conclusion of chicanery. He should limit his comments to the impact this project has on him_ Mr. Cushman apologized to the Commission. He asked what his options are if the applicant does not maintain the property. Is he required to hire an attorney? Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director advised Mr. Cughman to call the Community Development Department and lodge a code enforcement complaint. If the conditions of this approval are not met, it is a violation and the approval can be canceled or revoked. Commissioner Gibbons suggested language in the conditions that state that the site "has to be clear" before building permits are finaled. Mr. Cushman again stated his concern that this use is primarily manufacturing. Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested that the applicant address this concern. The zoning allows up to 25 percent manufacturing along with 75 percent research and development. Mr. Walter Pauwels asked who they could talk to about this on-going problem? Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, gave his name and phone number as the contact at the City. Mr. Waker Pauwels asked for a time frame for the clean up. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested before the issuance of building permits. He advised that no matter what occurs with this application, his staffwill pursue the code enforcement of this site. Mr. Brett Catterall, P-Corn: · Advised that P-Com has just hired a Traffic Director, Kathy Ebert, as business is good with $20 million in the last quarter. · P-Corn will be obtaining an additional 5,000 square feet of space on Dell Avenue. · Trucks are bringing in finished components to the Winchester site. · Advised that the fence being installed around the tank is for cosmetic purposes not safety. The pipe bringing the liquid nitrogen into the building is ¼" pipe, 50 psi and is silent. · Said that he was unaware of the neighbor's concern about the lunch tracks. Said he would do what he could to control that noise. · Informed that P-Corn is strictly R&D and not a manufacturing business. · The boxes in the parking lot are empty. The components are stored inside and take up less space out of the boxes. · Advised that he was aware of the alarm on Sunday as he was called at home to respond. · The compressor is completely silent and small and was needed on an emergency basis. Use was stopped once a neighbor, Mitch, advised that it was a problem · Disagreed that their efforts at being a good neighbor were 'Talse". He mentioned that he recently sent a letter to neighbors and heard nothing back. · Asked that the final language in the conditions require a hold on final permits rather than building permits. · Informed that one truck on site is empty and will be soon used to move material to the new 5,000 square foot building. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the boxes currently stored outdoors will be stored at the new site. Mr. Catterall advised that 80 percent would and 20 percent would go to other parts of the country. Commissioner Alne asked for clarification as to whether more than 25 percent of the activity of P-Corn is manufacturing. Mr. Brett Catterall responded that the entire top floor of their site is engineering, marketing and development. The bottom floor is storage and testing of equipment before shipping to clients. Commissioner Alne asked why the boxes are outside. Mr. Catterall responded that the manufacturing occurs out of the area. The products are shipped to their facility and removed from boxes for storage indoors to take up less space. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 9 Commissioner Alne asked what Mr. Catterall called this aspect of their business. Mr. Catterall replied, distribution. Chairman Lindstrom suggested that noise be covered in the conditions. Commissioner Jones asked if this location was currently P-Com's only site. Mr. Catterall responded that P-Com also has branches in the United Kingdom for testing, purchased a new company in Italy; has an office in France and another in China. Commissioner Alne stated that he finds it strange for the applicant to request that the City not limit the issuance of building permits tmtil the illegal outdoor storage is removed. They need to "get their plate clean" before asking for consideration. This is an on-going violation. Commissioner Gibbons advised that she agreed with Commissioner Alne regarding the timing and the incentive. A commitment is needed from the applicant to clean up the site. Commissioner Alne stated that it could be a long time if delays are allowed as the applicant has a year to start construction of the tank and a year thereafter to finish. The applicant has the primary responsibility to fix up the deficiencies. Mr. Brett Catterall agreed that the outdoor storage has been a mistake that has gone on for too long. If the City wishes to impose a fine, do so. A fine might catch their attention. This tank will eliminate the need for many of the truck trips. City Attorney William Seligmann: · There are several tacks to correcting this site: voluntary enforcement by the applicant; a nuisance abatement can be declared by Council; and/or the Council can order the site abated and place a lien on the property. Criminal citations can be issued with penalties of up to $1,000 per day and jail time. Chairman Lindstrom closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Lowe stated that he supported the tank with no problem. However, immediate steps should be taken to clean up the outdoor storage. Commissioner Jones had questions regarding the late hour truck deliveries. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that, except for Planned Development Zones such as this site, the rest of the City is limited to after 6 a.n~ until 11 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 10 Commissioner Jones asked if the compressor was allowed. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that use of a compressor is not covered by City approvals. If it is too noisy, it can be treated as a nuisance condition. Commissioner Jones asked about outdoor storage. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that outdoor storage is not permitted. He advised that he has drafted suggested language for the conditions of approval to cover this item. Commissioner Jones asked if complaints have been received about this site. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised the he is not aware of complaints in the past. Commissioner Jones advised that he is opposed to approving tiffs application. P-Com has exceeded the capacity of its site and has not been a good neighbor. only increase capacity. It is not being a good neighbor to leave boxes outside. more than 25 percent of this business is manufacturing. It appears that This tank will In his opinion, Commissioner Lowe advised that the tank will reduce truck traffic on site. Commissioner Jones stated that it appears that most trucks are not delivering nitrogen but rather are delivering inventory. Commissioner Alne stated that he had no problem with the tank and its safety. The City should withhold approval until the applicant does what is required. The only "stick" the City has over the applicant is their desire to quickly install this tank. In this instance, he agrees with the idea that the applicant be made to comply with City Ordinances by removing the illegal outdoor storage. This can be a torch to the applicant's feet. He asked whether the applicant would simply remove the material for a short time and return to their practice of illegal outdoor storage. Commissioner Gibbons suggested a compromise. She is supportive of the application in principal. Suggested a two week continuance to allow the applicant time to develop a written plan and schedule for the clean up of the site. Suggested a parallel schedule. Chairman Lindstrom advised that the Planning Commission's decision is not final. The Commission can forward to Council with requirements for a time table for cleating the illegal outdoor storage. Commissioner Jones expressed concerns about six months down the road once the tank has been installed. The applicant has a history of non-compliance. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 11 Commissioner Gibbons advised that the neighbors now know how and whom to call. Commissioner Alne asked why this matter was going to Council. City Attorney Seligmann advised that aH Planned Development Permits are approved by Council. Chairman Lindstrom asked stafffor proposed language. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that determining the percentage of manufacturing being conducted on site is not a matter that should be added into the conditions of approval. However, the applicant should concur that they will have a plan ready for review by Council at the August 64 meeting regarding a schedule for clean up of the site. Commissioner Alne suggested a recess. Chairman Lindstrom called a recess at 8:50 p.m Chairman Lindstrom reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m Chairman Lindstrom asked for wording of the condition of approval. Mr. Steve Piasecki: · Suggested the following condition: Outdoor Storage: Outdoor storage is not allowed. Any outdoor storage shall be removed prior to issuance of building permits. · Suggested that the applicant work with staff to assure the limit of manufacturing to 25 percent to avoid excessive trucks and deliveries. Chairman Lindstrom asked if this represents two actions. Mr. Steve Piaseki agreed that there are two actions. One to investigate percentage of manufacturing at the stafflevel. Two is to develop and approve a clean up plan and establish a condition of approval. Chairman Lindstrom re-opened Public Heating No 2. Mr. Brett Catterall advised that the financial report dearly shows through the flow of dollars that the business is chiefly R&D. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that it is best to study the square footage devoted to each aspect of the business. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 12 Commissioner Alne informed that the reason for limiting manufacturing uses on this site is to avoid noise, dirt, etc. These were conditions imposed when approving this site for this use. Attack these problems. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the applicant was prepared to commit to a plan to clean up the site. Mr. Brett Catterall asked whether this plan needed to be ready for August 6th and whether the clean up would be required prior to final approval. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that no storage is permitted in the parking lot. Ii'Mr. Catterall has a problem with that fact, express it now. Commissioner Jones stated that he would not consider supporting this project until applicant complies with the law. Mr. Brett Catterall stated that P-Com is a good neighbor. He hears of problems only when he comes to City meetings. Chairman Lindstrom again closed Public Heating No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No. 3035, recommending approval of the installation of a 10- foot high liquid nitrogen tank on property located at 3175 S. Winchester Boulevard, with the added condition (#9) that all outdoor storage be removed from the site prior to issuance of building permits and that the applicant prepare a written plan and schedule for the removal of existing outdoor storage prior to the August 6t~ City Council meeting, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer- Kennedy Jones None None Mr. Steve Piascki advised that this matter was scheduled for the August 6th City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 13 Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. TA 96-01 Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application for a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require greater sideyard setbacks for comer residential lots. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staffreport as follows: This item was continued from the July 9t~ Planning Commission meeting to allow staff additional time to work with the City Attorney on the language of the Text Amendment as it pertained to non-conforming buildings. · The proposal is for City-wide rather than just the San Tomas Area. · Staff:is recommending 12 foot setbacks. · Staff recommends the adoption of a Negative Declaration and a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt this Text Amendment, including a change in the STANP as it pertains to sideyard setbacks. Chairman Lindstrom asked the Commission if they had questions for staff. Commissioner Jones asked City Attorney Seligmann whether he should abstain since his home is on a comer lot. City Attorney Seligmann advised him to abstain from this vote. Chairman Lindstrom opened Public Hearing No. 3. There were no parties present to address Item No. 3. Chairman Lindstrom closed Public Hearing No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No. 3036, recommending approval of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require greater sideyard setbacks for corner residential lots, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alne, Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer- Kennedy None None Jones P18nning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 14 Mr. Steve Piascki advised that this matter is scheduled for the meeting. September 3rd City Council Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. 4. SA 96-31 Heating to consider the application of Mr. George Laine, on behalf of Barnes & Noble, for approval if a Sign Application to allow three wall signs for a book store to be located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2- S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows: · Many changes have occurred at Pnmeyard. Outback will open in August. Barnes & Noble in October. The project is coming to some closure. · Barnes & Noble is located adjacent to Hollywood Video. · The applicant started with a request for signage reading Barnes & Noble Music & Caf6 with a total of 320 square feet. · The second proposal was for 208 square feet of signage, eliminating the words Music & Caf6. · The third proposal was for 124 square feet of signage with 2-foot, 8-inch letters. · In relation to the building frontage, this is a sign ratio of 64%. · Lettering is white with green return or shadow line. On the tower signs, a bronze brown background is used. · In the staffreport, a matrix listing previous Planning Commission decisions and criteria used is provided. · This site is closer to street than Hollywood Video · SARC reviewed this proposal and will present a report. Commissioner Lowe asked if any signs are proposed on the street. Mr. Darryl Jones advised that a sign application for a center sign proposal will be presented at the upcoming SARC meeting. A panel for Barnes & Noble is proposed. Commissioner Lowe asked for clarification as to how many signs a business is allowed. Mr. Darryl Jones replied two signs. One wall, one monument. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 15 Commissioner Keams presented follows: the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as · SARC finds that the request is appropriate to the nature of the business and scale of the building. · SARC is supportive. · The applicant worked well with staff and the extra sign is justified due to the distance of the site from the street. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that she felt the signage proposed balanced the building. Commissioner Lowe expressed his belief that the third sign is not appropriate. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the upcoming sign proposal. Mr. Darryl Jones advised that the upcoming sign proposal is for a sign program for the entire shopping center. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she felt it was appropriate to postpone this sign application in order to see the other proposal. She asked if center monument signage counts against the allowable signage for an individual business. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked why the Barnes & Noble signage was not considered at the same time as the center signage program Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the sign program will include Pmneyard signs. Tonight's application is for Barnes & Noble. There is no direct relationship between the two. Commissioner Alne stated that he feels the Sign Ordinance is specific and gives the Planning Commission discretion. This discretionary action is not secondary now but primary. He stated that he did not agree that a decision on this request sets a precedent. He finds it appropriate and can support the request. Commissioner Lowe asked why separate the Barnes & Noble and the center's signage. Four signs for Barnes and Noble is not warranted (when adding a panel on monument sign). Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Darryl Jones advised that the applicant is allow two signs and is asking for three. The center's freestanding sign request is a separate issue. A freestanding sign has already been approved for Pnmeyard, including a panel for Barnes & Noble. However, the center is proposing design changes. Commissioner Alne advised that the Sign Ordinance recognizes that larger tenants need larger signs. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that this is a major tenant. The center is depending on this tenant to draw business for the other tenants. One proposed sign is directional, showing the public how to get into the site. The rest show exactly where a business is located within the center. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that it appears that the balance would be off if one of the proposed signs is removed. Commissioner Alne stated that as a major tenant with 32,000 square feet of space on site, this signage was not excessive. Commissioner Gibbons asked when two wall signs are allowed. Mr. Darryl Jones replied when a property is on a comer with two street frontages. Commissioner Gibbons asked if this site was considered a comer site. Mr. Darryl Jones answered it was not. Chairman Lindstrom invited anyone in the audience to address this issue to step forward. Mr. George Laine, Applicant. · Barnes & Noble has 32,000 square feet of tenant space and is the anchor tenant for the site, a center that was "down the tubes." · They have reduced their request per staff direction. Commissioner Lowe stated that 'knight is right" is really the call here. Commissioner Gibbons asked for clarification regarding the Barnes & Noble facades. There appears to be more than one frontage. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Darryl Jones outlined the Barnes & Noble facade and advised that there is quite a bit of facade frontage. Commissioner Alne advised that it is difficult to take a high road. "Might is right" is harsh. The fact that the center is devoting space on its monument sign to Barnes & Noble shows the clout the tenant has with the Pnmeyard not the City. There is not much support for the argument against this sign request. He will support. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission moved to approve Sign Application 96-31 to allow three wall signs (one 124 square-foot sign and two 46 square-foot signs) for a new Barnes & Noble bookstore on property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue (5-2-0; Commissioners Gibbons & Lowe voted no.) The decision of the Planning Commission is 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: · City Council encouraged the Summeffield applicant to apply for streetlights that meet City standards. · There are three items on the upcoming SARC agenda. Chairman Lindstrom suggested that a study session be scheduled to re-evaluate the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested that general roles for major tenant signage might be developed and a study session is appropriate. Additionally, the Commission can ask Council for authorization to re-study the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Lowe opined that the large tenants tend to come to SARC with obviously oversized signs, reduce after SARC comments and pat themselves on the back for what "good guys they are." Commissioner Jones advised that were he a smaller tenant at the Pnmeyard, he would want Barnes & Noble to have the largest signs possible. Planning Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996 Page 18 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that a study session to analyze and identify what changes are desired. Any dates suggested? Commissioner Lowe asked about October. Commissioner Jones stated that was too far away. Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested holding this discussion at a Planning Commission meeting with a light agenda. Perhaps the second meeting in August. A1)JOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.n~ to the next Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1996, at 7:30 p.n~, in (~_~,~ Chambers, CiW~_~ 70 Nortl the Council Chambers, City Ha 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED Mel L'n~str~m ATTEST: