PC Min 11/12/1996CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M.
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1996, was called to order at 7:36 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. Keams
I. Alne
Elizabeth Gibbons
Brad Jones
Dennis Lowe
Commissioners Absent:
Commissioner:
Jane Meyer-Kennedy
Staff Present:
Senior Planner:
Planner I:
City Attorney:
Reporting Secretary:
Darryl M. Jones
Aki Irani
William Seligmann
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner
Gibbons, the Planning Commission minutes of October 22, 1996, were
approved with one minor correction to page 5. (6-0-1; Commissioner
Meyer-Kennedy was absent.)
COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Two newspaper articles regarding rent control and controlled growth.
2. Planning Commissioners Journal, Fall 1996 Issue.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no modifications or postponements.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996 Page 2
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
1. UP 96-14
Blue Chalk Caf6 Corp.
Public Heating to consider the application of Blue Chalk Caf6
Corp. for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP 96-14) to
allow the establishment of a new restaurant (Left at
Albuquerque) with on-sale beer and wine license, outdoor uses
and operational hours after 11 p.m. on property located at 1875
S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning
Commission decision final, unless appealed within 10 days to
the City Clerk.
Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Applicant is seeking a Use Permit to allow outdoor uses, operational hours past 11 p.m.
and on sale beer and wine sales. However, a clarification is necessary as the applicant is
actually seeking a general liquor license rather than a beer and wine license only.
· Staff recommends opening the public hearing, allow anyone present to address this
application and then continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow
staff the opportunity to re-advertise this project to reflect the general liquor license. This
Use Permit can be considered in conjunction with the Site approval that is scheduled for
the November 26~h meeting.
Chairman Lindstrom restated that staff was recommending a continuation.
Mr. Darryl Jones responded that that was correct. The advertising was not accurate.
Commissioner Lowe stated that the outdoor seating would be utilized until 10 p.m. while the
indoor service would continue until 2 a.m.
Mr. Darryl Jones added that the applicant actually wants to have outdoor service until 2 a.m.
Commissioner Alne asked whether these hours were reflected in the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Darryl Jones said that they were.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that the Conditions of Approval should be clarified. Finding No
4 should be changed from "past 11 p.m." to "until 10 p.m."
71~i~ Commission ~inutes o£~, I
Pa~e 3
Commissioner Alne stated that if the outdoor use disturbs the surrounding residents, the hours
for outdoor uses should be restricted. However, if the outdoor use is not disturbing to the
surrounding residents, the hours should not be restricted.
Lindstrom reminded the Commission that staff was asking for a continuance.
Commissioner Lowe stated that he would like to see the outdoor uses cease at 10 p.m. He
believes this restriction is owed to the neighboring apartment residents. He asked if this
application would be referred back to the Site and Architectural Review Committee.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that it would not go back to SARC. Advised the Commission that
the proposed Conditions of Approval restrict outdoor uses to conclude by 10 p.m. Asked if
this was acceptable to the Commission.
Commissioner Gibbons replied that that was acceptable.
Chairman Lindstrom opened Public Hearing No. 1.
Mr. Duke Rohlen, Owner, Blue Chalk Caf6 Corp.
· Advised that his company owns and operates four restaurants, each of which includes
outdoor dining.
· Stated that it is problematic to close the outdoor dining at 10 p.m. To do so would required
that service actually conclude at 9 p.m. to allow patrons to complete their meal prior to the
10 p.m. closure of the outdoor dining area.
· The availability of outdoor dining provides vital revenue to the restaurant.
Chairman Lindstrom stated that it is his understanding that service can occur until 10 p.m.
Mr. Duke Rohlen stated that if he can serve until 10 p.m., he would be satisfied.
Commissioner Alne stated that he reads the Condition of Approval to say that all outdoor
activity concludes at 10 p.m. This needs to be clarified if allowing service until 10 p.m.
Commissioner Jones asked if restrictions had been placed on the Outback Restaurant regarding
the outdoor waiting area.
Commissioner Lowe advised that there are no residences within 75 feet of the Outback.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the
Planning Commission continued UP 96-14 to the meeting of November 26,
1996, to allow additional advertising to include the general liquor license
rather than a beer and wine license.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996 Page 4
2. SA 96-53
Staples, Inc.
Heating to consider the application of Coast Sign Company, on
behalf of Staples, Inc., for approval of a Sign Application (SA
96-53) to allow two wall signs and a freestanding sign on
property located at 500 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District. This project is
Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final,
unless appealed within 10 days to the City Clerk.
Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· Applicant is seeking approval of a sign application to allow two wall signs (one 48 s.f. and
one 84 s.f.) to be placed on the east elevation, facing Salmar Avenue.
· There is an inability to place signs on the Hamilton Avenue frontage because of mature
trees and the fact that the front entrance does not face Hamilton Avenue.
· In June, staff approved a 42 square foot freestanding sign and a 50 square foot wall sign.
· Applicant is asking for a Modification to allow a total of three signs (two wall and the
freestanding).
· The request exceeds signs allowed under the Sign Ordinance in square footage and number
of signs.
· Proposed signs are 36 and 48-inch channel letters attached to the canopy.
· Staff supports two wall signs because the site is on a comer, has a lack of street frontage
and the canopy of trees obstructs the signs.
· SARC reviewed the request on October 24th and is supportive of two wall signs (one 80 s.f.
sign and one 50 s.f. sign) that represents 65% of the linear frontage. They were not
supportive of the request for one 135 s.f. sign and one 178 s.f. sign.
· Staples has modified their request per the SARC recommendation.
· Staff recommends approval.
· Carl Robertson from Staples is available for questions.
Chairman Lindstrom asked for the SARC report.
Commissioner Keams presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· Stated that SARC was not supportive of the initial request for 135 & 178 square foot signs,
finding them excessive.
· SARC did support two walls signs on the eastern elevation for a total of 130 square feet
because of the L-shaped lot, trees and the proximity to Hamilton Avenue.
Commissioner Gibbons asked about the 80 and 50 square foot sizes.
Ms. Aki Irani advised that Staples has standard sizes in their sign and selected the signs closest
in size to the square footage acceptable to SARC.
Commissioner Alne asked to have the sign placement pointed out on the exhibit.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996 Pa~e 5
Commissioner Lowe stated that the signs face Fry's and Salmar Avenue.
Commissioner Alne asked for the sizes.
Ms. Aki Irani advised that one sign is 84 square feet with 4 foot high lettering and the other is
48 square feet with 3 foot high lettering.
Commissioner Alne asked why so big.
Commissioner Lowe responded that there is a distance of 200 feet from Salmar and that the
Shell gas station partially obscures the site.
Commissioner Gibbons added that it will help identify the driveway entrance.
Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. Carl Robertson, Applicant, 9055 Artesia Boulevard, Bellflower, CA.
· Stated that Staples has opened 20 stores and this is the only one without signs.
· Requested that his original sign proposal from January be approved.
· Stated that he was unaware of the maximum allowable sign area of 50 square feet.
· The Campbell store is a million dollar project. It has been open four months without signs
and sales are down. Right now, the project is not working out.
· Had placed temporary signs but was forced to remove them.
· Believed that his signs were approved under the original Site Approval.
· Again requested original signs be approved. Stated that he does not agree with the smaller
reduced signs.
Chairman Lindstrom clarified that the applicant is now asking for the original signage and
does not agree with the reduced signs as recommended by SARC and staff.
Commissioner Alne stated that he was present at the January meeting and there was no
separate sign application. It is not likely that staff or the Commission would approved signs
that represent several hundred percent more sign area than is allowed under the Sign
Ordinance. This is difficult to believe. Campbell has a Sign Ordinance. Asked Mr. Robertson
if he had read the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Carl Robertson answered that he had not read the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Alne advised Mr. Robertson that the Sign Ordinance restricts the amount of
sign area that staff can approve.
Mr. Carl Robertson stated that signs had been discussed throughout the process.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996
Page 6
Commissioner Alne again stated that staff is prevented by law to authorize sign area above that
allowed under the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that as she understands the applicant's position, he feels that
things have not been properly handled. Asked staff for copies of minutes and appropriate
materials from the January meeting.
Commissioner Alne stated that since the applicant is now asking for more signage than SARC
was prepared to support, this application should be continued to the next meeting.
Commissioner Gibbons asked about temporary banners.
Commissioner Alne advised that there is a process for placement of temporary signs under the
Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Darryl Jones advised that the temporary signs placed by Staples were too large and that no
temporary sign permit had been obtained. Under the Temporary Sign Ordinance, temporary
signs of up to 40 square feet can be displayed for up to 120 days per calendar year.
Commissioner Lowe suggested tabling this item long enough to handle Agenda Item No. 3 and
return to finalize this request.
Chairman Lindstrom tabled Agenda Item No. 2.
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
3. SA 96-52
Rasputin Records
Heating to consider the application of Young Electric Sign
Company, on behalf of Rasputin Records, for approval of a
Sign Application (SA 96-52) to allow three building-mounted
signs which exceed the Sign Ordinance on property located at
1830 S. Bascom Avenue in a PD (Planned Development)
Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt.
Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed within 10
days to the City Clerk.
Ms. Aki Irani, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
· Applicant is seeking two building signs along the Bascom Avenue frontage, one 70 square
foot sign over the entrance and the second 24 square foot sign to the right side of the
building.
Planninl~ Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996 Pa~e 7
· This request represents larger and more signs than allowed under the Sign Ordinance.
· The Planning Commission approved a Use Permit to allow the establishment of Rasputin
Records in June, 1996.
· Staff recommends that the applicant be required to clean up the site prior to issuance of
building permits for these signs. There have been several complaints regarding trash at the
rear of the property as well as graffiti. There were no responses to staff calls and letters to
the property owners to request clean up of the site.
· This sign request is consistent with sign exceptions granted by the Planning Commission
and represents approximately 65% of the linear frontage of the property.
· SARC reviewed this request on October 24th and recommended reducing the facia sign to
20 square feet. Applicant agreed and modified proposal.
· Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Keams presented the Site and Architecture Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC was not supportive of the applicant's initial request but did support one 20 square
foot and one 70 square foot sign. Applicant agreed with this reduction.
Commissioner Alne asked for clarification as to whether there were three signs. There are two
exhibits in the staff report.
Ms. Aki Irani answered that the exhibit was too large for one page but there are only two signs.
Mr. Tom Huff, Applicant's Representative:
· They have conformed to the Planning Department's requirements.
· Added that he is available for any questions about the signs.
Commissioner Alne stated that he found the site to be an average construction site. The old
plantings have been removed. The site's untidiness will be corrected as construction is
completed.
Mr. Darryl Jones advised that staff's concerns were related to site maintenance of garbage,
landscape maintenance and graffiti, not construction.
Mr. Tom Huff added that it is unfair to tie the clean up of the site to the ability to obtain sign
permits.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the
Planning Commission moved to approve SA 95-53 with the elimination of
Condition of Approval No. 3
Commissioner Jones expressed concern that the trash and graffiti on site are not being
addressed.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996 Page 8
Commissioner Gibbons stated that approving the signs with the requirement for site
maintenance will not hamper the installation of the signs but requires the site be maintained.
City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that as written, building permits would not be
issued until the Condition of Approval for site maintenance is addressed.
Commissioner Alne asked if the applicants were seeking to install the signs after construction
is completed.
Mr. Tom Huff replied that they want to install the signs as soon as possible to begin building
anticipation for the impending business.
Commissioner Alne asked if the site could be maintained to City maintenance standards during
construction.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the site could be maintained to City maintenance standards
during construction.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Kearns,
the Planning Commission moved to approve SA 95-53 with the inclusion of
Condition of Approval No. 3.
Commissioner Lowe stated that this is a disservice to the applicant.
Commissioner Alne advised that staff feels that the site can and should be cleaned up before
the signs are installed.
Commissioner Lowe responded that no new business is going to open up before their site is
tidy.
Mr. Tom Huff asked what specifically needed to be done.
Ms. Judy Liu, Manager, Rasputin Records, 1017 Ashmont Avenue, Oakland.
· Stated that they have painted over the graffiti once.
· Once the store is open an employee is sent out to pick up trash every day.
· Construction debris is to be expected until the building construction is completed.
· The color of the building is to be decided in a couple of days.
Chairman Lindstrom stated that he finds Condition of Approval No. 3 to be unfair.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe,
the Planning Commission moved to approve SA 95-53 with the
elimination of Condition of Approval No. 3. (6-0-1)
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996
Pa~e 9
Chairman Lindstrom called for a break at 8:32 p.m.
Chairman Lindstrom reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m.
Chairman Lindstrom continued discussion of Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Alne stated that the applicant should be aware that cities govern signs through
the use of a Sign Ordinance. There is clear cut evidence that the Planning Commission
needed to approve signs. At the January 9, 1996 meeting there was no clear information
included regarding signs. Usually signs come back to the Commission at a later date.
Commissioner Keams pointed out Condition of Approval No. 22, Section B, from the January
9th staff report which reads: ".4 sign application shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department in accordance with provisions for the Sign Ordinance for all signs.
No sign shall be permitted until the application is approved and a permit is issued. '
Commissioner Gibbons asked for information about the June 12th application.
Ms. Aki Irani advised that one 50 square foot wall sign and one 50 square foot freestanding
sign were approved at staff level as they fell within signage allowable under the Sign
Ordinance.
Chairman Lindstrom clarified that these two signs met Code.
Ms. Aki Irani reiterated that these were approved under the Ordinance.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if this sign request was handled at the counter.
Ms. Aki Irani replied yes.
Commissioner Gibbons stated that it appears that the applicant wants what they originally
requested and the signs reflected in the current report do not match what they want.
Ms. Aki Irani answered that the applicant originally requested signs as depicted on the site
application which included one 135 square foot sign and one 178 square foot sign. The color
elevations presented this evening were prepared by the applicant's sign company.
Commissioner Lowe asked if the signs depicted were to scale.
Ms. Aki Irani replied that they were to scale.
Commissioner Alne stated that it appears the applicant feels they were under duress of SARC
and staff to submit the reduced signs.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996
Pa~e 10
Commissioner Lowe responded that there was no duress. The reduced signage was required to
obtain SARC's recommendation of approval. This was simply an advisement.
Commissioner Alne corrected himself that the applicant's reduction was through the influence
of SARC and staff. The applicant is now asking that his original sign request be reinstated.
Commissioner Gibbons invited Mr. Robertson back to the podium. She asked him about the
approval process that occurred on June 12th.
Mr. Carl Robertson stated:
· That they had to relocate the pylon sign to widen the driveway.
Advised that he had spent several hours with Planning staff to obtain approval of signs and
elevations.
· Stated that he is familiar with the Sign Ordiance and realized that he had to pull permits.
Commissioner Lowe advised that an entrance sign is permissible although limited to 6 square
feet.
Mr. Carl Robertson said that he is aware of that fact and the fact that it can even read "Staples"
and be illuminated.
Commissioner Lowe stated that there appears to be difficulties in communication between Mr.
Robertson and the City. SARC went through a lot to come to agreement with Mr. Robertson.
Doesn't see why the City should now change its position.
Commissioner Alne stated that it is hard to reconstruct what occurred in previous discussions.
Stated that it would help if the Commission could get a sense of what is appropriate and
acceptable for this project.
Commissioner Lowe stated that SARC discussed location of signs, sizes of signs and entrance
signs as they could be evaluated fairly against other approvals made by the Planning
Commission. The front elevation off of Hamilton Avenue is not visible due to mature trees.
The signs recommended by SARC are reasonable and already over the Sign Ordinance
Commissioner Gibbons stated that she supports the recommendation made by staff and SARC.
Commissioner Keams stated that she stands behind the SARC recommendation.
Mr. Carl Robertson said that he was told in SARC that he could place the sign where he
wanted.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 1996 Page 11
Chairman Lindstrom replied that should he decide to place one of the signs over the front
entrance that would be acceptable.
Mr. Carl Robertson asked for clarification about the Conditions of Approval. Upon review, he
stated that he agreed to the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Jones clarified that the applicant would be allowed two wall signs and one 6
square foot directional sign.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner
Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to approve SA 95-53 with
the amendment to Condition No. 1 ("...to be located on the southern
portion of the eastern elevation or the southern elevation. ") (6-0-1;
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy was absent.)
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted as
presented with the following additions made by Senior Planner Darryl Jones:
· Advised that each Commissioner had been provided with a copy of the fall issue of the
Planning Commissioners Journal.
· Announced that Council approved the project at 100 N. Harrison Avenue.
· Informed that the Council also approved the elimination of the window details for the
Cobblestone project by a 3-2 vote.
· Mentioned an article in the Business Journal that mentions the Pruneyard.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. to the next Planning Commission
meeting of November 26, 1996, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street,
Campbell, California. ~
SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Me~sTm, Chair ~' r . _
D ~e~, Secretary