Loading...
PC Min 08/27/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY AUGUST 27, 1996 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 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: Mel Lindstrom Susan A. Kearns I. Alne Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Jane Meyer-Kennedy StaffPresent: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Planner I: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Darryl M. Jones Gloria Sciara Aki kani William Seli~mnann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of August 13, 1996, were approved. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy was absent; Commissioner Kearns abstained.) COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter t~om Hawkins Family, 1675 White Oaks Road, regarding Agenda Item No. 2. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS: There were no agenda modifications or postponements. Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1996 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. M 96-11 (S 95-14) Marrone, TJ Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. TJ Marrone for approval of a Modification to a previously-approved Site & Architectural Approval (S 95-14) allowing construction of an office/industrial building on property located at 555 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the staffreport as follows: · Applicant is seeking a modification to a previous Site & Architectural Approval. · Included are elevation changes and architectural revisions. Original materials were concrete block and applicant is proposing stucco, decorative cohmms and an added roll down door. · Original approval was for 5,400 square feet and applicant is seeking 6,000 square foot building. · Additional square footage results in the requirement for an additional parking space for a total of 16. · Staffis recommending the addition ora trellis feature along the eastern elevation. · Staffis supportive of this project. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC met on August 15th and was supportive of this application with the addition of the trellis feature. Commissioner Gibbons inqtfired about the access easement. Ms. Gloria Seiara advised that the site is accessed through an easement from McGlincey Lane. This is a recipficol easement. Commissioner Gibbons asked why the agreement is not needed between the applicant and the City rather than the City and Redevelopment Agency. Additionally, she expressed concern about the paved area behind the handicapped parking space and whether that space would be used as a driveway to the paved area. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of August 27, 1996 Pa~e 3 Ms. Gloria Sciara responded that the paved area behind the handicapped parking space is simply a storage area and not for vehicle use. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that language be added to the Conditions of Approval that the space be maintained available for handicapped access. Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3040 approving a Modification to a previously-approved Site & Architectural Approval for 555 McGlincey Lane, adding the provision that the handicapped parking space not be used as a driveway to access the paved storage area behind it, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: Meyer-Kennedy ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission decision is final, unless appealed to the City Clerk in writing within 10 days. Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. S 96-10 Chen, Emily Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Emily Chen for a Site & Architectural Approval (S 96-10) to allow a move-on home to be located at 53 Shelley Avenue in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Ms. Aid Irani~ Planner I, presented the staffreport as follows: Applicant proposes to move on a 1,902 square foot single family dwelling and a 440 square foot two-car garage on property located at 53 Shelley Avenue, just east of White Oaks Road. · A four-lot subdivision map was previously approved. Subject lot is Lot No. 4. · Proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. · Site is surrounded by one-story single family residences to the north, south and west and by two-story multiple family residences to the east. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~[ust 27, 1996 Pa~e 4 · Structure is a one-stow batten and board. Exterior is brown and trim is green. The roof is of composition material. · Applicant plans to attach the detached garage and convert a portion into a family room · Project meets setback requirements. · SARC meet on August 15th and requested a roOf plan and revised elevations prior to the issuance of building permits. As there was no quorum of SARC, there is no formal recommendation. · Staff recommends approval Chairman Lindstrom asked where the structure is currently located. Ms. Aki Irani replied that the house is located in Cupertino. Chairman Lindstrom asked for a SARC report. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Supports application. · Applicant is moving the garage in next to the house. · Project is consistent with ordinance requirements. Chairman Lindstrom asked whether this was the fourth house being place on site. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that it was the third. Ms. Aki Irani advised that the first house was relocated from the rear of the property to the front. Commissioner Gibbons mentioned the letter from the Hawkins Family and asked when this project actually began. Ms. Ald Irani responded that two move-on houses were placed last year (1995). The Parcel Map was approved in November 1995. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the Commission can require the clean up of the site prior to approving this Site Approval. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that they could. Commissioner Gibbons suggested adding wording that no building permits will be issued until the site is cleaned up. Plannin$ Commission Minutes of Au[lust 27, 1996 Pa~e 5 Ms. Ald Irani brought to the Commissions attention Condition of Approval No. 10 which calls out for the maintenance of the site. City Attorney William Seligmann added that that Condition No. 10 pertains to this particular parcel. The Commission can withhold action until the site is cleaned up. Commissioner Alne asked what the schedule was with the earlier approvals. Ms. Aki Irani replied that a Site approval is good for one year. Commissioner Alne advised that this seems to be an enforcement issue. The Commission should withhold any approvals until resolution of any deficiencies. Commissioner Gibbons added that Condition of Approval No. 10 is consistent with the other approvals and which have not been met on the other sites. Commissioner Alne suggested referring this back to staffuntil applicant is in compliance with the conditions of the previous approvals. Commissioner Lowe stated that he felt this situation is much like the problem with P-Com where existing problems on a site need to be resolved. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that there must be a distinction. There are four lots. The Commission cannot make an action on another lot a Condition of Approval for this specific lot. Commissioner Aine again stated that this is an enforcment issue. Chairman Lindstrom advised that the Commission must consider the application before them City Attorney William Seli~mnann advised that the Commiasion can continue this matter by finding that approving it might add to a blighted condition. Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Sid Nash, Applicant's Representative. · Asked which lot is in question. * Advised that the improvement plan is under review by the Public Works Department for the Shelley Avenue street improvements. Planning Commission Minutes of Au~ust 27, 1996 Page 6 · The house on Lot No. 1 (on Shelley) is not able to be completed until the Shelley Avenue improvements are approved. The debris on site is clearly in violation and should be removed. · As far as the other parcels (fronting on White Oaks) the landscaping is done and the undone work is the walkway and driveway, again awaiting Public Works approval. · The applicant has a deadline of September 25th or they must obtain an extension. Commissioner Alne asked whether City delays still require the applicant to file an extension. Mr. Sid Nash responded that the delays were both from their engineering and the Public Works Department. Commissioner Alne asked whether approvals were good for 18 months. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that unless an extension is granted, the applicant would be required to obtain a new approval. Commissioner Alne asked if this is the case even if the City causes delays. Mr. Steve Piasecki reminded that the applicant is responsible for completing the street improvements amd removing trash and debris from the site. Commissioner Gibbons thanked stafffor the clarification regarding street improvements and the fact that final approval of the street improvements has not been granted. Is an extension fairly normal? Also when does Mr. Nash anticipate the completion of the street improvements. Mr. Sid Nash replied that it is anticipated that Public Works will approve the street improvement plan some time this week. His client will likely need an extension and he feels it is prudent for them to request an extensiont. However, the work would be completed prior to the rainy season or by late October. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the maintenance concerns appears to be reason to delay Commiasion approval ofthia Site application. Commissioner Alne asked what would happen if an extension is not granted. City Attorney William Seli~mnann advised that the applicant would lose approval and be unable to obtain occupancy. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~xtst 27, 1996 Pa~e 7 Mr. Sid Nash advised: · That some of the debris on site is being dumped by others not related to the project. · Asked that the applicant be asked to apply due diligence, and through appropriate Conditions of Approval, the Commission grant this approval. · This project is causing a hardship for the applicant and investors due to the length of time it is taking to complete. Chairman Lindstrom asked if any of the other houses is yet occupied. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that none were occupied. Chairman Lindstrom reminded that this approval and the other lots are separate. City Attorney William Seli,%nnann advised again that the Commission cannot attach a Condition of Approval for other parcels to the application on this parcel. If the Commission is concerned that this approval will increase debris problems, consideration should be continued until the other problems are taken care of. Recommended that staff follow up with the applicant to correct the problems outlined. Commissioner Alne asked what the specific deficiencies are and whether the letter from the Hawkins is substantiated or not. Commissioner Gibbons assured Commissioner Alne that she can substantiate the problems with this site as she has driven by and seen them herself. Chairman Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission continued S 96-10 to the next Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1996, to have staff verify the concerns outlined by the Hawkins Family letter and report back to the Planning Commission, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe NOES: None ABSENT: Meyer-Kennedy ABSTAIN: None This item will be reconsidered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 10, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1996 Page 8 MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3 SA 96-41 Chau, Patrick Heating to consider the application of Mr. Patrick Chau for approval of a Sign Application to allow a roof-mounted sign and additional signage for a restaurant located at 2200 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff?report as follows: · Applicant is seeking approval of an exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow two roof- mounted signs, attached to the lower portion of the roof.. · Site is located on Bascom Avenue, at Apricot Avenue. · Building was developed in the 1960's under the County's jurisdiction. · Site was annexed into Campbell in the 1980's. · Building is currently vacant and was formerly occupied by a fast food restaurant. · All signs from previous tenant have been removed. · Staffapproved a freestanding sign. · Applicant proposes to remove the freestanding sign and replace with the two lower roof- mounted signs and one wall sign. · Site constraints, site layout and architectural features of the building, limit the visibility of wall signs and make the roof-mounted sign a more viable option. · Applicant also proposes a cabinet sign with channel letters. · Signs will face each ~ontage, the parking lot and Bascom Avenue. · Two signs are allowed under the Sign Ordinance. · Stafffmds the proposal reasonable and recommends approval. Commissioner Lowe presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Signage requested is three instead of the two allowed under the Ordinance. · Sign area, however, is less than allowed under the Ordinance. · Request is reasonable. · Applicant will remove freestanding sign. · A good job was done by staffand applicant. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether wall space appears behind the sign. Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that the signs are on a raceway which is not visible nor lighted. Commissioner Alne asked if wall signs were not more appropriate. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of August 27, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Gloria Sciara answered that wall signs are not visible from the street due to the buildings architectural design and low hanging roof line which leaves little wall space visible. Commissioner Alne identified wall area on the south wall and asked why no signage was proposed for that location. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that that space is too small to accommodate the required signed. Commissioner Alne asked why not place a dormer on the building much like the Pnmeyard had to do. Campbell does not want roof-mounted signs. This is unfair to treat this application differently from the Pruneyard. Commissioner Lowe replied that this is not really the roof but rather on a rail at the bottom level of the roof. He is still supportive. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to approve SA 96-41 to allow two roof- mounted signs and one wall sign on property located at 2200 S. Bascom Avenue. (5-1-1; Commissioner Alne voted against and Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy was absent.) The decision of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. At this juncture, Chairman Lindstrom asked Community Development Director Steve Piasecki to present his report. Immediately following, the Commission will convene to the Alcove to conduct the two Study Session discussions in a round table format. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was accepted as presented with the following comments: · The position of Landscape Advisor is currently vacant as Ms. Susan Landry resigned to accept a contract position with the City to design the Percolation Pond Project as potential open space. Former Planning Commissioner David Fox has expressed his willingness to serve the City in this capacity. Commissioner Alne stated that Mr. Fox is well qualified to serve in this capacity. Chairman Lindstrom suggested a continuance in order to get new people into the system Commissioner Lowe said that he was unfamiliar with Mr. Fox. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au[gtst 27, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised the Commission that traditionally this position is one for which it is difficult to recruit. Commissioner Jones asked what the likelihood would be of having a Campbell resident in this capacity. Mr. Steve Piasecki answered it was unlikely. Susan Landry has been reappointed several times because there is generally limited interest. Mr. Fox himqelfis no longer a resident of Campbell which is why he resigned flrom the Commission. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to appoint David Fox as Landscape Advisor. Mr. Steve Piasecki added to his report that each Commissioner has been invited to a reception to meet Miss. Amy Chow of the women's gold medal Olympic gymnastic team on September 3ra during the Council meeting. Chairman Lindstrom advised that he will have to leave at 9 p.n~ at which time Vice Chair Keams will ass~me the Chair for the remainder of the meeting. Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 5 into the record: 5. Study Session Staff Criteria for wireless antenna installation. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the three upcoming antenna applications made this review more time sensitive. Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that the three pending applications will be continued f~om the September l0th meeting to the September 24th meeting. Mr. Darryl Jones advised · That the Commission has previously approved several antennas. · Staffis trying to determine criteria in order to establish guidelines for antenna applications. · Staffhas reviewed criteria t~om other jurisdictions and summaries have been included in the staffreport. · Asked whether minimizing visibility and requesting site enhancement through landscaping are goals the Commission supports. Chairman Lindstrom asked where this process will lead. Mr. Darryl Jones answered that staffwill develop draft guidelines based upon input this evening and come back to the Commission with a more formal proposal. Plannin~ Commigsion Minutes of Au~ust 27, 1996 Pa~e 11 Commissioner Lowe thought that the report offered some good alternatives and that the best guidelines could be selected. Commissioner Gibbons: Stated that is was good of staffto bring forward the information from other jurisdictions so that comments could be made. · Advised that San Francisco and Millbrae have just approved installation of cellular antennas onto street lights which are less obtrusive that building a whole new element. · Suggested that it would be helpful to clarify the types of antennas and to be sure that whichever standards developed are not geared to one specific type. All types of antennas should be identified. Commissioner Lowe advised the Commission that the antennas on San Tomas Aquino Road and Hamilton Avenue has brought him the most "grief' from people who learn he is on the Commission Chairman Lindstrom sought clarification that the City of San Francisco allows placement of cellular antennas on poles. Ms. Gloria Sciara advised that the Sprint representatives with whom she is working on these new applications has made her aware of that fact. Commissioner Alne promised to make his point with just "a few words." · This is an excellent oppommity to go beyond what other jurisdictions have done. · Finds it disturbing to consider requesting that the applicant identify any antennas in the immediate vicinity of their proposed site. Feels City should be able to identify these sites for the applicant. · Suggested having technical advisors participate in the establishment of guidelines so that requirements that are not feasible are not included. · Stated that Campbell should develop a good list of requirements that will be copied by everyone around, technically correct and aesthetically pleasing · Advised that a city is prohibited by law to unreasonable restrict the placement of these antennas. Chairman Lindstrom asked if Commissioner Alne was suggesting that a consultant be obtained. Commissioner Alne suggested inviting vendors (Sprint/PacBel Mobile Services/MCI, etc.) to participate in a study session. Any of their "exaggerations" can be filtered out. Chairman Lindstrom agreed with Commissioner Alne that it is better to have technical advisors involved in the development of these guidelines. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 27, 1996 Pa~e 12 Commissioner Jones also agreed with Commissioner Alne's suggestion and added that it would be good to have other cities involved in this process too. Commissioner Alne disagreed with the need to have other cities involved. We can share our final product with other cities after the guidelines are finalized. Chairman Lindstrom again agreed with Commissioner Alne. He asked the Sprint representative in the audience for his input on this idea of setting up a study session with vendors to develop workable guidelines for placement of antennas. Mr. Don Pierce, the representative for Sprint Spectrum, advised that this is an excellent approach. Having a set of developed standards helps themin identifying sites. Advised that he would be happy to participate in such a study session and perhaps to help mitigate existing situations. Chairman Lindstrom added that other representatives would need to be invited. Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested continuing this discussion to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to invite three to four representatives to help determine limitations that they can live with and those which they cannot. Commissioner Alne added that there are all sorts of alternatives. Commissioner Gibbons added that height requirements are an issue that need to be understood. Asked staffto prepare a map of existing antenna sites for this next meeting. Mr. Steve Piasecki clarified that the Commission has no disagreement with the objectives. Providers pull their hair out trying to meet requirements. Commissioner Alne stated that the providers will support reasonable requirements. Mr. Don Pierce advised that providers tend to gravitate to the same sites. Pac Bell and Sprint often end up with equipment on the same roof. Chairman Lindstrom asked what action needs to be taken this evening. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commission should continue this discussion to the next meeting and invite representatives to attend. Commissioner Lowe asked that safety issues be considered in order to be able to reassure the public that no harm will come from the placement of these antennas. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of Au~ust 27, 1996 Pa~e 13 Commissioner Aine agreed that people are still concerned with radiation. Mr. Don Pierce agreed and stated that they have access to experts on this subject. Chairman Lindstrom excused himself from the meeting at 9 p.m. and mined the gavel over to Vice Chair Keams. At 9:02 p.m., Vice Chair Keams reconvened the meeting. Vice Chair Keams read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record: 4. Study Session Staff Criteria for exceptions to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Darryl Jones presented the staffreport as follows: · The Commission has expressed concern regarding the trend of applications for exceptions to the Sign Ordinance. · In past, up to 65 percent of frontage and a maximum of five signs have been used as the Commission's guideline for approving exceptions to the Sign Ordinance. · The Sign Ordinance allows one wall sign and one freestanding sign with a total square footage of 50 each. Comer lots are allowed two wall signs under the Ordinance. · Objectives need to be developed: · Comer tenants · Hidden tenant spaces (such as Home Depot) · Anchor tenants · Asked Commissioners to raise their specific concerns. · Staffwill work on a more formal set of criteria and bring back to Commission for continued discussion. Commissioner Gibbons advised that it would be helpful to develop a definition of terms. · What is a logo? · Do logos count? · What represents sign area? · Size of lettering only? · Count in the background? · How can signs be reviewed in context? · How to avoid reviewing in bits and pieces? Cmmissioner Lowe added that the Barnes & Noble application seemed to come in bits and pieces. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of August 27, 1996 Pal~e 14 Commissioner Gibbons continued: · There appears to be no context. · What is a comer? · What about a site such as Bank of America that is approached from all sides? · These need to be defined. · The Kirkwood Dental request was a good one. · Exceptions are more acceptable when the request remains within the allowable square footage. · Agreed that the Rasputin Records sign, using large disks, is monstrous. These disks were not counted as part of the sign but rather as architectural features. · Wants to see definitions for everything: logos, sign areas, features such as murals, etc. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the Sign Ordinance was acceptable as it is today, is it reasonable? Commissioner Alne said it was not. A more sensible approach may be to determine types of businesses and locations and develop appropriate constraints and different standards for each one. Commissioner Lowe stated that he wants to get away from considering "anchor" tenants any differently from any other business. Commissioner Gibbons advised that sales tax revenue is derived from anchor tenants. Commissioner Lowe stated that the Sign Ordinance needs to be reasonable for the applicant and good for the City. Big applicants come with unreasonable sign requests, reduce their requests slightly and end up with more signage anyway. Commissioner Alne stated that the City needs benchmarks. Commissioner Lowe stated that a difference needs to be determined between logos and signs. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that window signs (up to 50% of area allowed) are not controlled by the City. Commissioner Alne stated that the City can rely on the developer of a shopping center to identify the anchor tenants. Commissioner Jones admitted that he agreed with Commissioner Lowe as far as anchor tenants. Signage seems to meet their advertising (corporate image) needs rather than directing patrons to the site. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of August 27, 1996 Pa~e 15 Commissioner Alne stated that Los Altos Hills allows only three foot high monument signs with no exceptions granted. Therefore no one even asks for exceptions. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that developers percieve the need to dangle larger signs to get big tenants. Early in the process, Barnes & Noble may have walked away. The Commission needs to identify what is good for the community. What it likes against what it does not like. Is the perception of shopping center viability important or not? There are not a lot of large tenants in Los Altos Hills and they like it that way. Vice Chair Kearns stated that she has no problem with exceptions for larger tenants. When she drives through Campbell, she does not see any signs that the Commission has approved that seem too large including Hollywood Video. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the City discourages signs on primarily residential streets. For example, staffwould not be supportive of signage fronting onto Harrison Avenue for Joe Escobar Diamonds. Commissioner Jones said that perhaps the City is better off with a strict Sign Ordinance and handling exceptions on a case by case basis. Mr. Steve Piasecki told the Commission that while Safeway has the most signs and largest signs granted under the exception process, their ratio to frontage is rather small. The Commission must identify what they like and don't like as far as existing signage. Commissioner Alne stated that maybe a formula is desirable to provide consistency and drew a diagram Mr. Steve Piasecki advised the Commission that in actuality, they have not granted a lot of exceptions. Commissioner Gibbons stated she struggles with definitions and context. Her comfort level is disrupted by too many variables. Commission Alne suggested no hard and fast rules be developed. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that signs are types of speech and require definite criteria. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that if a sign request can't be accomplished within the Sign Ordinance, exceptions can be made with specifically defined criteria. Planning Commission Minutes of Au[~ust 27, 1996 Page 16 Commissioner Lowe advised that it is the number of signs per business that concerns him the most. Mr. Steve Piasecki noted that the number of signs is sometimes an advantage as they can be smaller. Suggested adding a criteria that for any request for exceptions for a tenant in a center, the applicant be required to submit a sign program Commissioner Jones stated that he likes some aspects of the Sign Ordinance and doesn't want to be backed into a corner. The Ordinance does seem to give the Commission some flexibility. Commissioner Gibbons asked why the Commission is discussing this at all. Are there too many exceptions? Commissioner Jones advised that maybe the alternative is worse than the existing situation. Commissioner Gibbons stated that specifying may leave a bigger problem Commissioner Jones admitted that they can't foresee too many Pnmeyards in Campbell. Commissioner Alne stated that maybe continuing to use discretion is alright. Commissioner Lowe stated that there are several shades of grey. Everyone has a different opinion. Vice Chair Kearns suggested averaging the increased signage amounts already approved and increasing the square footage allowed under the Sign Ordinance by that amount. It appears that 50 square feet is not s~fficient. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the Commission has been relatively consistent in granting exceptions. Commissioner Gibbons asked the other Commissioners why they are uncomfortable with the system as it pertains to granting exceptions? Commissioner Lowe answered that he felt the Commission is often bullied by large tenants. Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested that the Commissioners review sign exceptions and identify what they like and don't like. These can be analyzed. This matter will be brought back to the Commission in a couple of weeks. Perhaps a criteria can be developed between the relationship to the property line and setbacks. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of August 27, 1996 Pa~e 17 A1}JOURNMENT The Planning Commi,~sion meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.n~ to the next Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1996, at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: C Corinne A. Sbinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: ,_--~" Stev~Piasecki,~S~retar~ -