PC Min 08/13/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
AUGUST 13, 1996
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 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:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Mel Lindstrom
I. Alne
Elizabeth Gibbons
Brad Jones
Dennis Lowe
Jane Meyer-Kennedy
Commissioners Absent:
Vice Chair:
Susan A. Kearns
StaffPresent:
Senior Planner:
Planner I:
Planning Assistant:
City Attorney:
Reporting Secretary:
Darryl M. Jones
Barbara Schoetz Ryan
Phil Noteware
William Seli~tnnann
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Alne seconded by Commissioner Meyer-
Kennedy, the Planning Commission minutes of July 23, 1996, were
approved. (6-0-1; Commissioner Kearns was absent.)
COMMUNICATIONS:
There were no communication items.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS:
There were no agenda modifications or postponements.
Plannin8 Commission Minutes of August 13, 1996
Pal~e 2
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
ZC 96-02/TS 96-01/
PD 96-14
Nicoli, John
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Robert Nicoli
for approval of a Zone Change (SC 96-02) to change the zoning
from R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned
Development); approval of a Tentative Subdivision (TS 96-01)
for the division of a single residential lot into six detached
residential units plus one common lot for vehicle and public
utility access; and approval of a Planned Development Permit
(PD 96-14) for the site and architectural design of six detached
residential units sharing a common road/drive, on property
located at 1681 Bucknall Road in an R-2-S (Multiple Family
Residential) Zoning District
Ms. Barbara Schoetz Ryan, Planner I, presented the staffreport as follows:
· Site is one-and-a-half acres with an existing single family home at the front and a small unit
behind it
· Site is near the intersection of Bucknall at Weston.
· To the south and the north are single-family dwellings. To the east and the north are four-
plexes.
· Applicant is proposing six two-story homes with a common private drive.
· Two of the homes will front onto Bucknall. The remaining four will be behind with front
porches facing the driveway.
· Application includes a Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Development
Permit.
· The proposed Zone Change is from R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned
Development.
· The Planned Development Zoning allows more flexibility.
· Under the R-2-S Zoning, up to 10 attached units could be constructed on this site.
· Applicant proposes subdividing into seven lots, six single family detached houses and a
common drive.
· As there were a number of mature trees on the site, an arborist's study was required.
It was desired by all parties to save as many of the mature trees however significant
structural problems exist.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 13, 1996
Pase 3
· A determination was made to remove the mature trees and replace them with a si~ificant
number of large new trees.
· The final landscape plan will be forwarded to SARC for final approval.
· An environmental study was conducted and no si,%mificant impacts identified. Therefore,
staffrecommends approval of a Negative Declaration.
· SARC recommended approval with minor changes.
· Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows:
· SARC recommended approval.
Commissioner Lowe asked what would be the impact if this Zone Change is approved and the
project does not get built. What would prevent a 20-unit project bom being proposed for the
site?
Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that the General Plan would prevent this t~om occurring.
Mr. Darryl Jones added that the density allowed under the General Plan would restrict the
number of units on this site.
Ms. Barbara Ryan reiterated that ten attached units would be allowed.
Commissioner Alne asked for confirmation that the current Ordinance allows 10 units.
Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that that was true.
Commissioner Alne stated that a PD Zoning offers more flexibility of development standards
than another zoning district and a balance is struck on the project between the City and the
applicant. Why rely on the applicant to keep density down.
Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that small lot single-family detached structures are more desirable
on this site. She added that the area has been earmarked for multiple family residential in the
General Plan.
Commissioner Alne asked if these six detached units would be allowed without the Zone
Change and Planned Development Permit.
Ms. Barbara Ryan answered that they would not meet the setback requirements.
Commissioner Alne asked what the benefit was in approving this project. Was it fewer houses
on the lot?
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au[erst 13, 1996
Pa~e 4
Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that the benefit was the lowered density of the project as well as
the design of the project.
Mr. Darryl Jones added that there are greater setbacks and yard areas with this project than
could be accommodated with attached units.
Commissioner Lowe sought clarification. The current R-2 Zoning would currently allow 10
attached units. Changing the zoning will allow six detached units.
Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that the PD setbacks would not be exactly the same as Single Family
Residential Zoning setbacks but more than for attached units.
Commissioner Gibbons added that the PD Zoning allows for more of a transition t~om
apartments to single family residences. She questioned the three-foot setbacks between Unit A
and Unit B. She wondered if three-foot setbacks were allowed as she thought the minimum
was five-feet.
Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that the PD Zoning allows for less than a five foot setback.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that she found the project reasonable although tight. She
questioned the large paved area near Unit C in the rear of the site. She advised that she found
this paving excessive.
Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that the larger paved area is necessary to allow the rear units room
to maneuver in order to back cars out of the rear parking areas and garages.
Commissioner Gibbons inquired which parts of the site would be "shared" areas.
Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that the common area is the drive and areas in which cars are not
parked. The common lot has a T-shape.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that astm angle study should be conducted to pick the location
for replacement trees.
Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that the landscaping plan included in the current report was prepared
prior to learning that the mature trees were not savable. A final landscaping plan will be
presented to SARC for review.
Commissioner Gibbons added that it would be a benefit to add this condition to the
reqnirements.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 5
Commissioner Alne stated that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan emphasizes openness.
How does this project fit into that goal?
Ms. Barbara Ryan stated that the project is approachable. The two front tmits face the street
with front doors and walkways to the sidewalk.
Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Bruce Johnson, Project Architect, 80 Alice Avenue, Campbell:
· Advised that he is available for questions and thanked stafffor their efforts.
· Stated that the three-foot setback that Commissioner Gibbons inquired about was a trade
off Ifa larger setback was used, that unit would lose two feet ofbackyard space.
Chairman Lindstrom asked about trees.
Mr. Bruce Johnson advised that trees were a hot issue. All parties are in agreement that the site
will be replenished with trees. They are prepared to work with staffto accommodate. Mr. Jeff
Hyde will be the landscape architect. Assured the Commission that tiffs is a quality project.
Commissioner Lowe asked the price of these proposed homes.
Mr. Bruce Johnson deferred this question to the developers.
Commissioner Lowe asked what the benefit was in building six smaller homes as opposed to
four larger homes.
Mr. Bruce Johnson replied that the area is surrounded by fourplexes. These homes will be from
1400 to 1600 square feet with wood siding. The advantage of this project is affordable single
family homes.
Mr. Tom Sweeney, Developer, 917 Frankhead Avenue, San Jose:
· Advised that he was one of the developers and was available for any questions.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the applicant deserves praise for selecting to build detached
single family dwellings. It is a positive step to have two units facing the street.
Mr. Dan Griffin, 1685 Bucknall Road:
· Stated that his home was directly adjacent to this site.
· His property is the most affected by this project.
· Advised that the developers have been very responsive to his questions/concerns.
· Is pleased that there are no second story windows in the new units which overlook his site.
Plannin$ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 6
· Concerned about the loss of big trees.
· This project is going to be "squished" close to his fence.
· Expressed concerns about the parking of cars, particularly in front of his home.
Chairman Lindstrom agreed that everyone is concerned about the loss of trees. He asked staff
to address the parking situation.
Ms. Barbara Ryan:
· It can't be mandated that people park in their garages.
· City doesn't enforce CC&Rs which could mandate parking in garages.
· Parking required is three spaces, two covered and one uncovered.
Commissioner Alne advised that in the past, conditions have been placed to require that garages
be left available for the parking of vehicles. Can this be a condition of this project?
Mr. Darryl Jones advised that it could be included in the conditions of approval. A couple of
projects have included the provision for leaving garages available for parking of vehicles.
Commissioner Gibbons asked whether is was appropriate to place replacement trees for this site
on adjacent sites to benefit both sites. Feels this is a favorable thing to consider.
Mr. Darryl Jones stated that this could be done with the neighbors' consent.
Mr. Phil Grincewich, 4420 Bucknall Road:
· Expressed concern about parking as parking is already bad in the area.
When there are
parties, people park all over.
· Advised that there are lots of accidents in the area and people rrm the stop sign.
· Overall has concern about traffic impacts.
· Implored the Commission to consider parking impacts.
· Stated that he welcomes these proposed homes as they will improve the neighborhood.
Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that the applicant is required to provide covered parking and the
CC&Rs can ensure use of garages for parking as well as conditions in the Planned Development
Permit.
Commissioner Gibbons added that neighbors can address their concerns through the Planning
Department if parking becomes a problem once parking is placed in the conditions of the
project approval.
Mr. Phil Grincewich thanked the Commission for their consideration. He asked what about
when people back out of their driveways.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au[~ust 13, 1996
Pal~e 7
Mr. Darryl Jones suggested that staff speak with the City's Traffic Engineer and the Police
Department for enforcement of the traffic laws. Perhaps larger signs are required.
Mr. Phil Grincewich advised that there are lots of problems.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that all of the garages are inside the lot. Even the front
units'. There will be no backing out from these six new units directly onto Bucknall. All cars
will leave the lot facing forward.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the placement of stop signs is out of the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. If this a concern, this project can be continued.
Chairman Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Lowe expressed concern, stating he takes the job of Planning Commissioner
very seriously. Stated that it is not in the best interest to tear down single family homes and
pack a lot with multiple units.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by
Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission moved to approve this
project with the added Condition of Approval that automatic garage door
openers shall be installed on each garage and that the garages be made
available for the parking of vehicles.
City Attorney William Seli~nann suggested the following language for the new Condition of
Approval: "The garage shall be available for the parking of vehicles at all times and this
Condition shall be included in the CC&Rs for the project."
Commissioner Jones suggested that the number of units be reduced.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy advised that the zoning for the site is already in place. This
project is preferable as is includes fewer units than would be allowed under the existing zoning.
Commissioner Lowe stated that no matter what project is proposed, the Planning Commission
would have the opportunity to review.
City Attorney William Seli~mnann advised the Commission that State law prohibits a reduction
in units if an applicant's project falls within the density allowed under a City's zoning. The
Planning Commission cannot require the applicant to reduce their density unless a finding can
be made that the project would impact the health, safety and welfare of the public or create
other negative impacts.
Plannin$ Commission Minutes of August 13, 1996
Pa~e 8
Commissioner Alne stated that he agreed that this may represent the packing of a small lot.
The zoning does not seem to reflect the Planning Commission's concern and allow up to 10
attached units. The Planned Development Zoning allows flexibility with the applicant giving
up something and the City giving up something. The applicant's reducing the number of units
from 10 to six is what they give up while the City relaxes its setback requirements. The City
should zone accordingly. Can't object to this project.
The Commission adopted the following resolutions:
1. Resolution No. 3037 recommending approval of a Zone Change from
R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and
2. Resolution No. 3038 recommending approval of a Tentative
Subdivision for the division of a single residential lot into six residential
lots plus one common lot for vehicle and public utility access; and
3. Resolution No. 3039 recommending approval of a Planned
Development Permit for the site and architectural design of six
detached residential units sharing a common road/drive with the added
Condition of Approval regarding the availability of the garages for
parking of vehicles.
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Lindstrom,, Meyer-Kennedy
NOES: Lowe
ABSENT: Kearns
ABSTAIN: None
This item will be considered by City Council at its meeting of September 17, 1996.
MISCELLANEOUS
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
2. SA 96-35
Meany, Chris
Heating to consider the application of Mr. Chris Meany, on
behalf of the Pruneyard Shopping Center, for approval of a Sign
Application to establish a Sign Program for the Pmneyard
Shopping Center located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District.
Plannin$ Commission Minutes of Au[~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 9
Mr. Darryl Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows:
· This application is for a sign program for the Pnmeyard and includes modifications to three
freestanding signs already approved by the Planning Commission.
· Preparation of a sign program which was a Condition of Approval for the Site and
Architectural Approval.
· Included in this sign application are:
· A freestanding sign at Bascom and Campbell Avenues.
· Two freestanding signs, one at the northerly drive (Bascom) and the second near the
Towers (off Campbell Avenue).
· The Sign program includes directory and directional signs as well as tenant signs.
· An additional portion of this sign request is for Bank of America. Bank of America
wishes to add a wall sign on the north, south, east and west sides of the building
with the BolA logo and the spelled out "Bank of America."
· The concept is that the signs blend with the new architecture and existing architecture.
· A logo of three prime trees is incorporated on each sign.
· The location of the major sign will be moved 30 feet to the north of the current location.
· Staffhas prepared a chart comparing what signs are already on site with what is proposed.
· Staff recommends approval of all but the Bola sign for which the findings required could
not be substantiated.
Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· Applicant has decided not to refurbish their old signs but rather to replace them with new.
SARC finds the new signs more attractive than the existing signs.
Commissioner Lowe asked why so much is being considered under one sign application. Finds
the number of signs for Bank of America to be excessive.
Mr. Darryl Jones advised the Commission that staff was under the impression that the
Commission preferred to consider the entire site's signage at one time. The Prtmeyard signage
is being considered because such a review was included in the project's Site approval's
conditions of approval. Bank of America wants additional signage.
Commissioner Lowe stated that it is confusing to address the Bank of America signs together
with the center's signs.
Mr. Chris Meany, Pmneyard Associates:
· Advised that staff asked that all these sign requests be presented together.
· The Bola building is a 5,000 square foot building that is approached from all sides.
side should have a sign.
Each
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if the freeway sign was included in this request.
Plannin$ Commission Minutes of Au~cxst 13, 1996
Pa~e 10
Mr. Chris Meany responded that it was not. They have already lost that request.
Commissioner Lowe asked about Trader Joe's.
Mr. Darryl Jones responded that the Trader Joe's sign was previously approved and is not
included in this request.
Commissioner Gibbons asked about interior signs.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that these signs include directory and directional signs.
Commissioner Gibbons asked whether interior signs were irrelevent.
Mr. Darryl Jones responded that they are still considered by the Commission.
Mr. Chris Meany:
· Introduced Steve Tsuruda, Designer for Pmneyard signs, and Tom Hunt, Acme Wiley Sign
Company, on behalf of Bank of America.
· Their application includes an overall sign program - required under the Conditions of
Approval.
· Additionally, the application includes Pylon signs.
· Building materials for the center have changed from old tile roofed buildings to new stucco
buildings
· Large tenant signs are considered on a case by case basis.
· The overall sign program allows a new look for the center and allows an "easy fix" so that
the entire sign package works. This is a family of signs.
· Colors for the signs are plum, terra cotta and gold.
· They propose to change existing signs for Wells Fargo and Marshall's at their expense.
· Additionally, the request six directory signs whereas at the present time they have five. If
necessary, they are willing to give one up.
· The primary pylon sign will be moved 30 feet from the existing location.
· Two secondary signs will be located near Wells Fargo Bank and near the Outback
Steakhouse.
· The major tenant signs are six feet high and will be placed for Wells Fargo, Marshall's and
Bank of America.
· Existing directory signs will be changed. Three directory signs will be placed on the new
street nmning through the center, one at each end and one in the middle.
· They plan to reuse the existing tenant cabinets and place new caps over them
· Bank of America has been a good corporate citizen when approached about the major
changes at the center, including the relocation of the BofA to an outer building. Their new
building is approached from all directions.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 11
Commissioner Lowe asked whether Bola was asking for two signs per side.
Mr. Chris Meany asked that the Bola sign representative be allowed to address questions
regarding their sign plan. He added that they are not asking for any new signs with the
exception of one additional directional sign. No new tenant signs are included in this sign
progran~
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked for clarification regarding directional signs.
Mr. Chris Meany responded that directional signs say '~ou are here."
Mr. Darryl Jones advised that directional signs are exempt from the Sign Ordinance if 6 square
feet or less.
Commissioner Gibbons asked that the applicant be certain that ADA requirements regarding
height of signs be met.
Mr. Chris Meany assured Commissioner Gibbons that that would be done.
Commissioner Gibbons asked how many prime tenants in additional to Wells Fargo and
Marshalls.
Mr. Chris Meany replied that he anticipates one more sign in approximately 6 months.
Commissioner Gibbons asked what about Barnes & Noble.
Mr. Chris Meany replied that Barns & Noble will be included on all three pylon signs as they
are the biggest draw to the center.
Mr. Tom Hunt, Acme Wiley Sign Company:
· Advised that there are two signs requested for the south elevation.
BofA logo.
· This branch is the first to implement BofA's newest sign program
· BofA plans to redo all of its branches with this new sign program
· The building is visible from the middle of the center to the corner.
visible.
· Signs requested include:
· Sign 1 - North elevation reads "BofA."
·
The second sign is the
All four elevations are
Sign 2 - East elevation (Bascom Avenue) - reades "BofA Versateller."
· Sign 3 - Wall sign with BofA logo is akeady permitted.
· Sign4- Logo
· Sign 5- Logo
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 12
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy clarified that BofA was seeking approval for two Bank of
America signs, two Bola logos and one Versateller sign.
Commissioner Jones reminded that they also have a monument sign on Bascom Avenue.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that the monument sign has already been approved.
Commissioner Lowe asked whether staffrecommended approval.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that staff could not make the findings/criteria fit for this request and
therefore recommends denial of the request.
Commissioner Lowe asked what the criteria is for approving an exception.
Mr. Darryl Jones responded that if the building were not readily identifiable, that adequate
signage is not provided, that signage would help circulation, that signage is not detrimental to
the City.
Commissioner Lowe asked why this request was different from Barnes & Noble.
Chairman Lindstrom clarified that BofA is asking for Signs 1, 2, 4 & 5 with signs 4 & 5 being
logos.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if this was considered a comer site.
Mr. Darryl Jones said that it is a comer site.
Commissioner Alne stated that BofA is approached from four sides. Customers approach from
Bascom, Campbell and from within the center. It is not unreasonable to be able to notify
customers from all directions
Commissioner Gibbons asked how big the logo is for BolA.
Mr. Tom Hunt replied that it is four feet by four feet.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that she has a problem with the Versateller sign but no problem
with the remaining signs. The point is well taken that this business is seen and approached
from aH four sides.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy said that the signs are hard to see.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of August 13, 1996
Pa~e 13
Mr. Tom Hunt advised that they could drop the Versateller sign.
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy suggested that they drop Sign No. 2 and make Sign No. 5
larger than the proposed logo.
Commissioner Gibbons asked the size of the monument. She agreed with Commissioner
Meyer-Kennedy's proposal to drop Sign No. 2 and enlarge Sign No. 5 to read "Bank of
America."
Mr. Tom Hunt stated that the sign is 8 feet tall and 6.5 feet wide.
Chairman Lindstrom stated that the discussion appears to be going in circles at this time.
Suggested two motions, one for the Pmneyard Sign Program and one for the Bank of America
sign request.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if this approval is in concept only.
Chairman Lindstrom advised that they have approved the design and implementation.
Mr. Darryl Jones added that the tenant signs under the roof are also included but roof signs are
not included with this proposal.
Commissioner Lowe added that the directional signs for the hotel are not included
Mr. Darryl Jones restated that directional signs were included as part of the design concept but
are not regulated under the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Chris Meany offered to drop the directional signs and bring them back if needed in the
future.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe,
the Planning Commission moved to approve SA 96-35 for a signing
program for the Pruneyard Shopping Center to include three pylon
signs, tenant sign replacement and six directory signs. (6-0-1; Kearns was
absent)
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 14
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, with no second, the Planning
Commission moved to deny Signs No. I and 2 and approve Signs No. 4
and 5 for the Bank of America (SA 96-35). This motion died for lack of
a second.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by
Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission moved to deny Sign No 2
and approve an enlarged Sign No 5 (to be identical to Sign No. 3) for the
Bank of America (SA 96-35). (3-3-1; Commissioners Lindstrom, Meyer-
Kenney and Alne voted aye; Commissioners Jones, Gibbons and Lowe
noe, Commissioner Kearns was absent)
City Attorney William Seligamnn stated the revised findings are required to approve any of the
additional signage:
· Finding No. 1 - Strike the word "not"
· Finding No. 2 - Add the word "not"
Commissioner Gibbons suggested that Sign No. 1 and No. 2 be eliminated and Sign No. 5 be
extended to read, '~Bank of America."
Commissioner Lowe stated that he would not support any additional signage as he has to be
consistent with his last vote pertaining to Barnes & Noble.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, with no second, the Planning
Commission moved to deny Signs No. 1 and 2 and approve Signs No. 4
and 5 for the Bank of America with Sign No. 5 being enlarged to be
exactly the same as Sign No. 3 (SA 96-35). This motion died for lack of
a second.
Mr. Tom Hunt stated that if the number of signs is what is of concern to the Commission, they
would be willing to give up Sign No. 4.
Chairman suggested a motion for continuance.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by
Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission moved to deny Signs No 2
and No. 4, Approve Sign No. 1 and approve Sign No. 5 to be made
identical to Sign No. 3 (SA 96-35). (4-2-1; Commissioners Alne, Meyer-
Kennedy, Lindstrom and Lowe voted aye; Commissioners Jones and
Gibbons voted noe; and Commissioner Kearns was absent)
City Attorney Seli~nnann advised that the revised findings are in effect.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 15
This approval if final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days.
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
3 SA 96-34
Pham, Sandra
Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Sandra Pham, on
behalf of Kirkwood Dental, for approval of a second wall sign
for a dental office located at 75 S. San Tomas Aquino Road
in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Phil Noteware, Planning Assistant, presented the staffreport as follows:
· The applicant is seeking an exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow a second 23 square
foot sign on the west elevation of a dental business located at 75 S. San Tomas Aquino
Road (Kirkwood Shopping Center).
· Sign Ordinance allows for one wall sign unless a site is situated on a comer lot. This site is
not a comer lot site.
· Staff?was unable to substantiate any findings to support this request.
Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows:
· SARC was sympathetic to the needs of the applicant and recommends approval.
Commissioner Lowe asked whether the doors over which this sign is proposed to be placed
lead into the dental office.
Mr. Phil Noteware replied that they did.
Commissioner Jones inquired whether the proposed second sign was identical to the existing
sign.
Mr. Phil Noteware answered that it was an identical sign being proposed.
Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the doors over which the existing sign is place lead into
this dental practice.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that those doors lead into the private office of one of the dentists.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of August 13, 1996 Pa~e 16
Mr. Patel, Architect:
· Applicants are proposing the placement of an identical sign in a second location on the
tenant space to direct patients to the dental office.
· Dental office is sandwiched between two buildings.
· The main entrance to the site is in the middle of the west elevation.
· The designated parking for this tenant is directly in front of the western elevation.
· This sign is needed to clearly orient patients to the front door.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if there was a sign program for Kirkwood Plaza.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that there was no sign program in place.
Commissioner Lowe asked for the color of the lettering.
Mr. Patel replied that the lettering is green and white.
Commissioner Gibbons asked for the sign area.
Mr. Phil Noteware replied that the area is 23 square feet.
Commissioner Gibbons asked who square footage is allowed under the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied, 50 square feet.
Chairman Lindstrom clarified that this application is before the Commission because it requests
a second wall sign not automatically allowed.
Commissioner Gibbons admitted that she is inclined to support this request since the total sign
area is less than allowed and she does not fred that this sign will be adding to street clutter.
Mr. Patel advised that the sign would be back lit. This site is somewhat of an alleyway. This
sign will help patients get into the front door.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons seconded by Commissioner
Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission moved to approve Sign
Application 96-34 to allow a second wall sign for Kirkwood Dental on
property located at 75 S. San Tomas Aquino Road. (6-0-1; Commissioner
Kearns was absent).
Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au[~ust 13, 1996
Pa~e 17
City Attorney William Seligmann amended the findings as follows:
· Finding No. 1 - insert -- "does not".
· Finding No. 2 - insert -- '`not" ...
· Finding No. 3 - remove -- "not"...
· Finding No. 4 - remove -- "not"...
The decision of the Planning Commission is final, tmless 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 by Senior Planner Darryl Jones:
· Nothing to add.
· Update regarding the tree at 1222 Harriet. Council has approved map. Applicant still
willing to attempt to save the tree if possible.
· Council found that P-Corn was not acting as a "good neighbor" and denied their request for
the installation of the 10 foot high liquid nitrogen tank, finding that the use has developed
into more of a manufacturing site than a research and development site.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m to the next Planning Commission
meeting of August 27, 1996, at 7:30 p.n~, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First
Street, Campbell, California.
Corinne A. Shinn, Recording ~ecre-Y~ary
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Darryl M. Secretary