Loading...
PC Min 09/10/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1996, was called to order at 7:38 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 Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Dennis Lowe StaffPresent: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Planner I: Planner I: City Attorney: City Engineer: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Darryl M. Jones Barbara Ryan Aki Irani William Seligmann Michelle Quinney Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission minutes of August 27, 1996, were approved with one minor correction. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Lowe was absent and Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy abstained.) COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Letter from Diversified Capital regarding Agenda Item No. 2. 2. Amended Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No. 2. 3. Letter from A&S Engineering regarding Agenda Item No. 6. Plannin[[ Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pa~e 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS · Agenda items 3, 4, 5 and 6 are to be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1996. · As there are guests present to discuss Agenda Item No. 8, staffrecommends that this item be heard before Agenda Item No. 7 for which there are no guests present. Commissioner Lindstrom inquired whether there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address one of the items recommended for continuance to September 24th. There were no parties present wishing to address Agenda Items 3, 4, 5 or 6. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to continue Agenda Items No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1996. (6-0-1; Commissioner Lowe was absent.) ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. S 96-10 Continued Public 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- 1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Ms. Aki Irani~ Planner I, presented the staffreport as follows: · Applicant is seeking a Site approval to allow the placement of a move-on house on property located at 53 Shelley Avenue. · This item was first considered at the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1996. · When concerns about lack of property maintenance were raised and the possibility that approval of this project would result in the intensification of blighted conditions currently found on the three other lots being developed by the applicant as part of this parcel split, the Planning Commission instructed staff to conduct a site visit and report back. · Staff conducted site visits on September 3fa, 5th and l0th. The latest visit occurred today (9/10/96) at 3:30 p.m Staffproduced photographic evidence of the property conditions at this time. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pa~e 3 · Staff finds that some lots have actually increased amounts of debris while some debris has been removed. · Current debris on site includes piles of dirt, gravel, steel rods and many used paint tins. · Staff finds that a significant effort has been undertaken to clean up 59 Shelley Avenue. However, the fencing has not been removed. Staff finds no major property maintenance issues on the two lots fronting onto Whiteoaks Road. Commissioner Keams asked staff whether any si~tmificant clean up has occurred on the subject property, 53 Shelley Avenue. Ms. Aid Irani replied that it appears not. Most of the effort has been directed on 59 Shelley Avenue. Commissioner/klne asked Ms. Irani whether she advises the Commission to allow the applicant to proceed. Ms. Aki Irani responded that the Commission should tie the clean up of the site to their ability to obtain building permits. Commissioner Alne asked whether staff favored approval over postponement. Ms. Aki Irani again stated that the project could be approved with Conditions of Approval requiring that the lot be cleaned up before any permits are issued. Commissioner Gibbons sought clarification that some improvement may have been made on one lot but not on the other three. Ms. Aid Irani replied that that was correct. Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Emily Chen, Applicant: · Advised that she was on vacation at the time of the last meeting. · Informed that 59 Shelley Avenue has been cleared. · Stated that the materials remaining at 53 Shelley are useful materials for construction including dirt, base rock for the road imi-,rovements, and wood and rebar for the foundation. · Concrete has been removed. · The paint cans on site were lef~ by people not related to the project. · The two lots facing Whiteoaks only need the driveways to be completed. She is waiting for improvements to be approved. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pal~e 4 · At the end of June, she put one of the houses up for sale. The fact that the driveway is not complete hinders her ability to sell the home. · Suggested that she complete the improvements on the two Whiteoaks Avenue homes and the Shelley Avenue improvements later rather than as requested by Public Works who wants all improvements at once. · Informed the Commission that she and her investors have $1 million invested in this project. They are anxious to finish. · Request City approval of street improvement plans and encroachment permit and promises that once approved, the project will be completed quickly. · Advised that she tries to comply but some things are beyond her control. · Stated that dumping is occurring on this site including furniture currently there. · Advised that the fence will be removed but that it is needed for now to prevent dumping on site. Chairman Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Alne advised that the property owner is responsible for property conditions. He believes that the Commission's confidence is misplaced in approving this fourth lot. Recommended withholding approval until all concerns are cleaned up. Commissioner Gibbons stated her concurrence with Commissioner Alne's position. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the matter can once again be continued to the next meeting and that the Public Heating would have to be re-opened. Chairman Lindstrom re-opened Public Hearing No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission moved to continue Agenda Items No. 1 to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1996. (6-0-1; Commissioner Lowe was absent.) Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pa~e 5 2. TS 96-02/PD 96-03 Neale/Emami Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. David Neale and Mr. Robert Emami for approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TS 96-02) to divide a parcel into 22 building lots and one common lot and approval of a Planned Development Permit (PD 96-03) for the site and architectural design of 22 nnits, consisting of five attached live/work units and seventeen detached residential units on property located at 100 Harrison Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Ms. Barbara Ryan, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant is seeking approval for the construction of fffieen detached single family residences and 5 attached townhome buildings (live/work units) which is two units fewer than originally requested for a total of 20 units. This reduction was made to allow more on- site circulation and open space. · Site is 1.5 acres and is located on the northeast comer of Civic Center Drive and Harrison Avenue. · Site has been vacant since 1978. · To the east of the site are railroad tracks and to the north is a warehouse. · The five three-story attached live/work units front onto Civic Center Drive. · Five two-story detached residences face Harrison Avenue. · The design of this project picks up the flavor of the Craftsman design found on First Street. · This project will serve as a transition in scale and use to the downtown. · An orchard plaza is slated to be installed across Civic Center Drive in front of the attached traits. Fruit trees will be planted three deep to simulate an orchard. · The five live/work units allow an optional use of 240 square feet on the ground floor (facing Civic Center Drive) for commercial use under the C-3 Zoning Ordinance (Central Business District) as long as the uses are compatible with the residential uses. · SARC requested that the color palette be extended for this project and the applicant has added three. Color elevations are provided with the exhibits displayed. · The General Plan designation is for Commercial/Professional Offices/High Density Residential. Twenty-seven units per acre would be permitted. Proposed project has 11 traits per acre in density. · Site is located within a Redevelopment Area. This requires that fffieen percent of the residential units be offered at BMR (Below Market Rate). This requirement has been added to the Conditions of Approval. · Staffhas prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Conditions of Approval outline the mitigation measures required. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the live/work units front on Civic Center Drive and whether that is where the trees would be planted. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Page 6 Ms. Barbara Ryan replied that both assumptions were correct. The trees will help create a plaza effect. Additionally, she reminded the Commission that these work spaces would be limited to 240 square £eet with a half bath on the first floor. Commissioner Keams asked whether a fence or wall would be installed at the easterly property line near the railroad tracks. Ms. Barbara Ryan responded that this would be a solid block wall. The design of this wall will be considered at the same time as the landscape plan. Commissioner Gibbons inquired about whether the impacts of the expanded Light Rail have been considered particularly the crossing bells. Ms. Barbara Ryan replied that the Light Rail system has been considered in the noise study. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether a mixture of 24" and 36" box trees could be used. Ms. Barbara Ryan answered that the landscaping has not be considered at that level of detail as of yet. The landscape plan will be forwarded to SARC at a later date. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that to ensure an attractive uniform appearance to the units that consistent window treatments be utilized for the lower level live/work units.. Ms. Barbara Ryan advised that that requirement could be handled through the CC&Rs. Commissioner Alne asked whether the applicant was comfortable with the requirement for BMR units. Ms. Barbara Ryan answered that they agreed to that requirement. Commissioner Keams presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: SARC supports the application. · Suggested that a livelier Color palette be used for this project. · Asked for vines to enhance a rather bland wall elevation. Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Garrett Hines, Dahlin Group, San Ramon. · Vines have been added to the plans for the building elevation. · Window covetings can be handled architecturally. Highest windows are uncovered. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pa~e 7 Mr. David Neale, Applicant: · Advised that he was available for any questions. · Thanked staff for their efforts. Through tough negotiations with stall; the project meets the needs of the City. · Stated that he has developed in the City of Campbell before. Chairman Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that this is a lovely project and the best proposal seen for this site since it has been vacant (1978). Thanked the staffand the developers and stated that she is pleased. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; adopted Resolution 3041, recommending approval of TS 96-02; and adopted Resolution 3042, recommending approval of PD 96- 03 with the attached and amended Conditions of Approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alne, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: None ABSENT: Lowe ABSTAIN: None This item will be considered by the City Council at its meeting of October 7, 1996. Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 8 into the record. 8. Study Session Continued discussion of criteria for wireless antenna Staff installations. (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1996.) Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows: · This subject was previously discussed at the August 27th meeting and samples of ordinances from other cities distributed. · Staffwas directed by the Commiasion to invite providers to participate in this session. GTE and Sprint representatives are present tonight. · The goal of the Commission is to develop criteria that is consistent. Commissioner Gibbons added that attached to the staffreport are news articles. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pa~e 8 Commissioner Alne: · Admitted that he was surprised that there is any controversy in the Bay Area about wireless antenna installations. · Advised that San Francisco has decided to forbid the installation of wireless antennas within its city limits, despite it being against the law to prevent such installations in a reasonable · Informed that the providers have paid billions to the federal government for the fights to t~equencies. · Displayed a sample of an antenna mounted atop a light pole and suggested that the City of Campbell suggest to providers that they develop an antenna that can be installed atop light poles. Suggest that they design them aesthetically. · Further suggested that providers identify pole locations that they want and replace them with their own pole including an antenna. Applicant pays necessary fees for installation. · Poles would be licensed for 10 years and if no problems extensions allowed thereat~er. · Wireless communication is in keeping with the Silicon Valley. · Asks that the City place itself in a position to set a standard and provide other cities with something to look at. · Does not understand why it becomes adversarial when providers seek to install antennas. · Stated that his suggestion would limit arguments and leave this City with no expense. · Suggested that staff take his recommendation to Council for consideration. If Council agrees, all constraints will disappear. People will not object. Campbell will set the pattern for the rest of Silicon Valley and California. Chairman Lindstrom invited the provider representatives to come to the microphone to provide input. Mr. Darryl Jones advised that the providers have come to answer any technical questions. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked the providers why the antennas are all different. Mr. Don Pierce, Sprint Spectrum. · Advised that different technologies are being used. · Mature technology is being used by older carders. · Newer technology is being used by newer carders. · GTE Mobilnet uses two to three poles which is found to be less intrusive by cities. Commissioner Alne asked what kind ofteclmology is depicted in his light pole sample. Mr. Don Pierce responded that that is a cross polar antenna. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pa~e 9 Commissioner Alne asked if such technology was compatible with cellular and digital systems. Mr. Don Pierce responded that it was. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether separate poles are required by each carrier or whether they can be shared. Mr. Don Pierce replied that some sharing is possible and is already occasionally done. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether small antennas more t~equently placed would eliminate the need for large antennas. Would this cause the need for an antenna on every other pole. Mr. Don Pierce said that was not necessarily the case. Mr. Derrick Empey, GTE Mobilenet. · Advised that he is eager to participate in this process. · Campbell is one of dozens of jurisdictions considering wireless antennas at this time. · What is implemented is critical. Mutually beneficial guidelines are needed. · Asks that the City be open minded to unique ways of installation. New concealment techniques are currently being developed. Chairman Lindstrom asked whether providers are still concentrating on public space rather than residential for placement of antennas. Mr. Derrick Empey: · Responded yes. · They are looking to be as visually unobtrusive as possible. · Suggested that cities not look of antenna placements as traditional land use applications. · Give discretion and flexibility. · They are anxious for clarification. · Two buzz words in industry: · PCS -Personal Commnnication Services · Cellular Technology/Networks · Cellular antennas require specific heights. Lowered heights creates interference and less coverage and creates the need for more antennas. · Industry is still evolving and changing. New technology allows them to lower antennas by a third. · PCS systems require more sites but lower and smaller antennass. Commissioner Jones asked what kind of system is depicted in Commissioner Alne's sample. Mr. Derrick Empey said that cellular systems can use such an antenna. Pl~nnin$ Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pal~e 10 Commissioner Jones asked what height is required. Mr. Derrick Empey replied 60 to 80 feet. Commissioner Alne asked if the technology is compatible with the light pole standard. Mr. Derrick Empey answered that he could not speak for all providers. Commissioner Alne asked if the pole could work for most with t~eedom in the height allowed. Mr. Derrick Empey said it could. Commissioner Alne asked whether all providers could use. Mr. Ken Stroube, GTE Mobilenet Representative: · Advised that GTE had originally requested a 60 foot mono-pole at the 700 W. Hamilton Avenue site. · Announced that they plan to remove one pole and three antennas currently on the roof to clean up the site. Chairman Lindstrom stated that there were two providers present. Asked if there were any problems with Commissioner Alne's suggestion as an approach for the City. Mr. Ken Stroube answered that heights will be a consideration for mature systems. Commissioner ABe asked if life would be easier if this suggestion is adopted. Mr. Ken Stroube answered that micro-cell design is not mature in cellular industry as it is in PCS. Micro-cell currently requires unit six feet high by three feet long by three feet wide. Commissioner ABe asked if the unit could be submerged. Mr. Ken Stroube replied it was a possibility. Commissioner ABe asked what difficulties could be anticipated by submerging. Mr. Ken Stroube answered servicing the units. Commissioner Alne asked if there was any point to propose to Council the light pole standard. Mr. Ken Stroube said he recommended that the Commission go forward but realize that the standard will not work for everyone. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Don Pierce advised that they need an antenna height of 45 feet. Commissioner Alne asked how high a typical light pole is. Ms. MicheHe Quinney, City Engineer, replied 35 feet. Commissioner Alne asked if the equipment box of 6x3x3 was a standard. Mr. Don Pierce answered that they require 8 x 16. Commissioner Alne asked what a typical rent was currently for placement of an antenna. Mr. Derrick Empey: · Answered that the price varies dramatically. There is no standard. · Asked what the objective was in establiahing criteria. · Other alternatives are possible including within other public utilities such as PG&E Substations. · Lots of exceptions are needed for where antennas are placed. Tall structures come into play. · Stated that they could work with the suggested light pole standard. · Added that they are looking for direction t~om the City. Commissioner Kearns asked if every pole will need a ground level box. Mr. Derrick Empey said that was correct. Chairman Lindstrom reminded the Commission that tonight's discussion is simply a study session. Commi,qsioner Meyer-Kenney advised that she likes hiding the antennas as trees as per the news article. Added that she wants to see antennas hidden rather than perched atop light poles. Commissioner Keams asked if each company needed its own equipment box. Mr. Don Pierce replied they did. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, asked how many providers are in the local market at the present time and how many are projected within the next five years. Mr. Ken Stroube answered that there are five providers today. Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Page 12 Commissioner Gibbons added that it is possible that there will be three more in the next three months or so. Mr. Don Pierce added that a third type of system is SMR (Special Mobilize Radio) which provides service to businesses and police departments. Mr. Steve Piasecki asked how many installations are anticipated in Campbell. Mr. Don Pierce answered five are planned, three have been submitted for consideration but none are installed. Mr. Ken Stroube replied that they have two sites in Campbell and are looking for one more. Added that the box needs to be no more than 100 to 150 feet away from the antenna. Commissioner Gibbons stated that it appears that each type of technology has a solution that works a little better. Other alternatives need to be considered. Can't put all technology into one system Ms. Jennifer McCook, Sprint Spectrum · Advised that utility easements with PG&E for the proposal of using light standards may cause problems. · Clarified that when the supporting unit is placed in bushes/under trees, it is necessary to place it on a cement pad. This may rain some of the landscaping but it is replaced Commissioner Alne asked that all of the provider representatives leave a business card. Chairman Lindstrom stated that there is no requirement to make a decision this evening. Asked the industry people to put their feedback about Commissioner Alne's proposal in writing and offer any other suggestions. Mr. Steve Piasecki suggested continuing this item for 30 days rather than two weeks. Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 7 into the record: 7. Study Session Staff Continued discussion of Sign Ordinance exceptions. Mr. Darryl Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows: · At the August 27th meeting, the Commission agreed to look at signs within the City and identify those that are acceptable and those that are not. · Provided photographs of signs that were granted an exception by the Planning Commission. Planning Commigsion Minutes of S~tember 10, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that when considered on a case-by-case basis, the approvals are not as bad as it was thought. Commissioner Jones agreed that maybe the Sign Ordinance is good. It is difficult to write something that meets all circummances. After this review, he has determined that he likes the process as it gives the Commiasion the oppommity to discuss each situation. Commissioner Alne asked whether it may be necessary to address some additional standard situations (comer lots, middle of block lots, etc.). Commissioner Gibbons expressed discomfort with having to make exceptions. Stated that more guidance on typical scenarios would be helpful Commissioner Jones stated that there are so many possibilities that to outline too many may put the Commission into a comer. The current policy gives the Commission the opportunity to express its views on what is in the best interest for the City of Campbell. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the allowable signage may need to be increased. Expressed concern when applicants bring forward an exceptionally large sign request, slightly reduce it at SAKC's request and end up with more signage when the Planning Commission grants an exception. Mr. Darryl Jones suggested including guidelines for three areas that the Commission has concern including comer lots, anchor tenants and sites with extensive setbacks. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that upon review, the exceptions granted do not look that bad. One site that he did not like was the multiple signs approved for Fry's which he found excessive. The rest of the approvals are good. Time does not seem to be well spent on tweaking the Sign Ordinance for the limited exceptions considered and granted. The Commission should continue to monitor and look at the next exception requests with a more critical eye. Chairman Lindstrom asked how much potential for large exceptions really exists at this point. Commissioner Jones asked whether the Pruneyard buildings were modified mostly to accommodate signage. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that the developers found more visibility of the business t~ontages was required to make the site more visible. Commissioner Gibbons suggested that the Commission play close attention to any architectural features that come along with future sign requests. One example she mentioned was the Rasputin Records sign with the large disks considered architectural features. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of September 10, 1996 Pa~e 14 Commissioner Alne asked why the mountains do not appear behind the Hollywood Video sign as approved by the Commission. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the applicant has not pursued the mural. Commissioner Jones asked how many sign applications do not come to the Commission. Mr. Steve Piasecki responded that most do not. Most often the sign request complies with the Sign Ordinance and is approved at stafflevel. Commissioner Gibbons stated that it was a good point that the Commission hears only exceptions to the Si~n Ordinance and not all sign applications considered by the City. Therefore the number of exceptions is actually very small. Chairman Lindstrom suggested that the Commission continue as before in reviewing sign exceptions. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY I)EVELOPMENT I)iRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was accepted as presented with the following comments: It was enjoyable to meet Miss. Amy Chow, Gold Medal Gymnast t~om the Summer Olympic team, at the September 3ra City Council meeting. AI)JOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m to the next Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1996, at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Mel Lind~t~m, Chat~ ' '