Loading...
PC Min 01/24/1995CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JANUARY 24, 1995 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1995, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairwoman: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Jane Meyer-Kennedy Mel Lindstrom I. Alne Alana S. Higgins Susan A. Kearns Dennis Lowe Jay Perrine Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Planner I: City Engineer: Traffic Engineer: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Darryl M. Jones Gloria Sciara Robert Harary Ron Marquez William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn Plannin~ Commission Minutes of ]anuary 24, 1995 Pa~e 2 yRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO OUTGOING CHAIR: Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy presented 1994 Chair, Jay Perrine, with Resolution No. 2948, in recognition of his leadership. Chairman Perrine thanked his colleagues and recognized their contributions to the success of the year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of December 27, 1994, were approved (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy abstained). COMMUNICATIONS 1. Revised Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No. 3 (S 94-08/UP 94-19). 2. Business Journal article regarding the Pruneyard. 3. Introduction of new City Engineer, Robert Harary, and new Traffic Engineer, Ron Marquez. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Community Development Director Steve Piasecki recommended that the Commission postpone Agenda Item No. 1 (R 94-03 - 80 Dot Avenue) and Agenda Item No. 4 (SA 94-38 -- Winchester and Hamilton Medical/Dental Center, 1580 S. Winchester Boulevard) continuing them to the next Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1995. Motiom On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue Agenda Item No. 1 (R 94-03 -- 80 Dot Avenue) to the Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1995. (7-0) Motion: On motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue Agenda Item No. 4 (SA 94-38 -- Winchester and Hamilton Medical/Dental Center - 1580 S. Winchester Boulevard). (7-0) ORAL REOUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. Planning; Commission Minutes of January 24,1995 2. PD 94-02 Page 3 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Redelsperger, on behalf of Snappy Lube, for approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of a 5,000 square foot retail and automotive building on property located at 535 W. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development Zoning District. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following: · Applicant is seeking approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of a 5,000 square foot commercial building on property located at the corner of Hamilton and Millich Avenues. · Snappy Lube would utilized 3,200 square feet of the site with an unknown retail tenant proposed for the remaining 1,700 square feet. Snappy Lube will utilize the tenant space facing Millich and the second retail use would face Hamilton Avenue. · Staff has recommended the extension of the decorative trellis depicted on the plans as a Condition of Approval. The applicant agrees to this requirement. · The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning District and staff recommends approval of this project. Commissioner Lindstrom inquired what was the proposed use for the site. Ms. Sciara replied that the business involved solely oil changing. No other automobile repair work will be performed. Commissioner Lindstrom presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · The applicants have met all of staff's requirements and SARC recommends approval. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jeff King, Project Architect with Integrated Architecture, addressed the Commission as follows: · Stated that they have been working closely with staff to mitigate concerns raised by this project. Key concerns included: 1. Initial proposal was for two separate buildings on site for two tenants. 2. City staff had reservations about automotive use at this site. 3. Staff was also concerned about the mixed use of the site. In fact we have abandoned a prospective tenant to provide a more retail-oriented use. 4. Architectural concerns. We have agreed to City staff request to add to the trellis element and to increase landscaping on Millich by five feet. This project represents a gateway into a residential area. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 4 Mr, Tim Redelsperger, Snappy Lube, addressed the Commission as follows: Introduced the concept of Snappy Lube as a family-run business, operating out of Monterey, with ten locations, primarily in upscale locations. They are pleased with the building design presented and excited about the new location. Snappy Lube provides only oil changes. There are no tire rotations and no tune ups being performed. Vehicles are on site for a short stay. There are no parked vehicles for extended periods of time. All service is performed within the building, at service bays. No pneumatic tools are utilized. All work is done by hand, therefore, the business is quiet. Commissioner Perrine inquired about the flow of traffic onto the site. Mr. Tim Redelsperger replied that the primary entry was on Hamilton and exit onto Millich. Mr. Jeff King added that the stacking of vehicles on site would be done inside the site, away from view from the street. He added that the project included a generous amount of landscaping. Mr. Tim Redelsperger added that the business generates traffic of about 5.5 to 6 cars per hour. Commissioner Alne stated that the applicant, Snappy Lube, should be commended for their exceptional response to the needs of the surrounding area. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy added her agreement to that statement. Mr. Dennis Belluomini, 1303 E. Campbell Avenue, addressed the Commission as follows: As a Little League Board Member with an interest in the area adjacent to their Little League field, announced that he is 100% supportive of this project and feels that the traffic impact will be compatible with the area versus another more intensive use. Commissioner Perrine inquired whether the trellis depicted on the plans represent staff's recommendation. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that the plans did not include the expanded trellis treatment as required by the Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 5 MOTION: MOTION: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Higgins, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to dose the Public Hearing. (7-0) On motion of Commissioner Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2949 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of a 5,000 square foot retail and automotive building on property located at 535 W. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District, by the following roll-call vote: Alne, Higgins, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy, Perrine None None None Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. o S 94-08/UP 94-18 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. David Word, on behalf of William Wilson & Associates, for approval of a Site and Architectural application to reconfigure existing retail space; construct new retail space; on-site pedestrian and vehicular circulation; parking and landscaping; and a Use Permit to allow hotel expansion; the sale of alcohol and outdoor seating in restaurants; and the provision of shared parking facilities for property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue (the Pruneyard) in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · The project approval has two components: 1. Site approval 2. Use Permit · The project includes major site improvements including: landscaping, the reconfiguration of existing retail space; demolition of some existing retail space, and a new driveway from Bascom Avenue through the center of the shopping center and a proposed new retail building with 42,000 square feet of space. · Applicant is proposing a specific number of restaurants, landscaping of the Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 pase 6 site per streetscape and zoning district standards, hotel expansion and the construction of pad buildings. The proposed Use Permit will serve as a blanket Use Permit for the shopping center to allow existing and new restaurant uses to utilize outdoor seating and to sell alcohol with meals. The Use Permit will also allow the addition of an outdoor kiosk, to be operated by Swensen's Ice Cream Parlor, to offer food service in the courtyard right outside the movie theaters. A parking analysis has determined that based on current standards the shared parking is adequate. In fact, parking will be improved by the addition of 73 spaces through this redevelopment of the site. The office towers are primarily unchanged with basic cosmetic upgrades in the lobby and the transformation of the former Sebastian's Restaurant on the top two floors of the taller tower being converted into office space. The proposed changes in the parking areas around the towers are expected to encourage additional use of the space. Enhanced landscaping will add to the aesthetic quality of the area. The independent (pad) buildings along Campbell Avenue are not specifically proposed at this time. When the applicant is ready to proceed with these pad buildings, their proposed plans will come before SARC for review. The project includes a total of 575,00 square feet of gross floor area. Applicant may eventually propose changes to the Pruneyard Inn sign. As this sign is freeway-oriented, any changes to the sign will come before the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. SARC reviewed and received this project well. SARC members expressed concerns regarding the Bascom Avenue site entrance as it pertains to traffic circulation. In addition, SARC found the upper facade to be plain. This concern was resolved at the SARC meeting. SARC recommended approval. Two issues remain to be resolved between the applicant and City staff, Conditions of Approval No. 4 and No. 6(F). Condition No. 4 concerns the parcel maps/lines. Condition No. 6(F) pertains to future participation in the Campisi extension and the driveway approaches on Campbell Avenue. Commissioner Lindstrom presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · Concerns raised by $ARC included the driveway from Bascom Avenue, the expansion/demolition of buildings and curbs and walkways. SARC had no specific recommendation but rather chose to leave the matter open to the Commission to decide. Commissioner Perrine inquired whether there were to be any limits or conditions as far as liquor licenses were concerned. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Darryl Jones replied that each new business is subject to a business license approval. Staff would review each business license and consider the appropriateness of the use. Commissioner Perrine asked who approves restaurant uses. Mr. Darryl Jones answered that Planning staff reviews and approves. Commissioner Lindstrom sought clarification regarding the proposed hotel expansion, believing that this expansion was something that was to be discussed further at a later date. Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the expansion would go before SARC and the Planning Commission when a Site application is submitted. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the Use Permit would allow any restaurant at the Pruneyard to serve alcohol. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, replied that the Use Permit would be a blanket Use Permit which would allow any sit-down restaurant to serve alcohol with meals and to offer outdoor seating. Commissioner Kearns asked about the hotel expansion and whether the Campisi extension would occur in the future. Also whether the Campisi extension would be a Condition of Approval for the hotel expansion. Mr. Darryl Jones responded that the hotel expansion was not expected to cause requirement for the Campisi extension or Condition of Approval. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. David Word, Partner, William Wilson & Associates, addressed the Commission as follows: · William Wilson & Associates purchased the Pruneyard in April 1994 from Bank of America and Home Federal. · They are working hard, planning the future for the Pruneyard. · Expressed his pleasure at seeking approval for the proposed plans. · Thanked City staff, particularly Steve Piasecki and Darryl Jones, for their professionalism and the professional relationship that has been developed. · They are interested in coming up with solutions that are good for the company and good for the community. · Stated that he was delighted to answer any questions. · Presented a color-coded site plan depicting the retail space currently leased Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 8 out at the Pruneyard and which also demonstrates the large amount of retail space that is currently vacant. Announced that gross sales at the Pruneyard last year were approximately 25 million dollars and "heading south." Projections have sales doubling with this proposed renovation. Redevelopment of the site is anticipated to be completed in 1996. William Wilson & Associates is currently in negotiations with lessees at this time. Final details/designs are to be worked out. They continued to make improvements to the office towers. In April, the renovations of the lobbies for both towers will be completed. The Pruneyard Inn is doing very well with 118 rooms. Of the space earmarked for the hotel expansion, none of it is currently leased. They are anxious to be a part of the community. William Wilson & Associates is headquartered in San Mateo. The Pruneyard represents their first investment in Campbell. They are here for the long haul. Introduced his associates, Mr. Chris Meany (Retail), Mr. Jack Bonno (Leasing), Ms. Mollie Choate (Property Manager) and Mr. Don Logan (Principal, ELS Architecture). Stated that he is confident that the two issues that are not yet 100% settled can be worked out with City staff. Mr. Don follows: · Two 1. Logan, Architect, ELS Architecture, addressed the Commission as issues were brought up at the SARC meeting: Circulation as a result of the Bascom Avenue driveway. This can be solved through alternate designs. Presented three additional proposals and discussed a fourth proposal suggested by Community Development Director, Steve Piasecki, just prior to this evening's meeting. Felt confident that between all the parties, a workable option can be developed. The high mass in the new building was seen as too plain. He recommends using joinry in the stucco which creates a pattern effect. Commissioner Lowe inquired whether the driveway neck allowed room for two cars. Mr. Don Logan replied that it did. Mr. Chris Meany, William Wilson & Associates, addressed the Commission as follows: · Identified himself as the person responsible for working out the small points with Steve Piasecki and Darryl Jones. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Pase 9 As a clarification point regarding restaurant uses and liquor sales, advised the Commission that specific spaces have been identified for restaurant uses. Only those spaces will be utilized by restaurants. · They are interested in creating a downtown feel with a good mix of restaurants. · Asks the Commission to approve the master site plan and the proposed square footage for the project. · Stated that some portions of the building design are done. Any portion not yet designed will be approved at a later date with future Planning Commission review. · Questioned the need for the 20 foot easement to be granted to the City of Campbell along the westerly property line. It is his understanding that there is no definite plan for this easement by the City at this time. After consulting with a Civil Engineer, he is recommending that the easement, if necessary, be reduced to 15 feet and asked that the easement not be recorded. Commissioner Lindstrom requested clarification regarding Conditions of Approval 6(E & F). Mr. Darryl Jones replied that the intersection at Campbell and Bascom Avenues may require modification. Additionally, the driveway on Campbell Avenue near the Union Avenue light might need to be moved so that the driveway is directly across the intersection from Union Avenue. The applicant is not supportive of these requirements at this time. City Attorney William Seligmann suggested that the City's Traffic Engineer discuss the reasons for these requirements. Mr. Ron Marquez, City of Campbell Traffic Engineer, addressed the Commission as follows: · Staff has reviewed this project at length. · A traffic study was conducted which particularly those concerns which are focuses on regional concerns, a priority to the Congestion Management Agency. There are currently 1,700 trips per hour at this site. Conflicts already exist with the high number of traffic movements being accomplished in a small space. He gave as an example the exit driveway from the Pruneyard onto Campbell Avenue near Union. A small amount of roadway separates the exit from the Union Avenue signal. For vehicles attempting to reach the left turn lane leading onto Union Avenue, vehicles must cross two lanes which are blocked if the Union and Campbell Avenue signal light is red. However, this area does not experience a major problem in relation to accidents. Approximately two accidents per year have occur in this area Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 10 (Campbell near Union) over the last four years. Staff has evaluated options to address these traffic issues, including the joining or merging of the driveways entering and exiting the Pruneyard to Union Avenue where movements would be controlled by signal lights and offer a good level of service. Ingress and egress issues equal safety issues. Mr. Darryl Jones added that the City Traffic Engineer would work closely with the applicant's Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Alne stated that he appreciated the analysis. He added that when circulation between the site and public right-of-way arise, it is difficult to overlook the requirements detem-~ined necessary by the City's Traffic Engineer. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy inquired whether there were any proposed changes on Bascom Avenue signals. Mr. Ron Marquez replied that details were still being worked out. However a need has been identified for additional stacking space. One option being considered is the provision of two left turn lanes at the signal. Mr. Darryl Jones added that Condition of Approval 6(H) addresses this issue. Commissioner Perrine stated that he is very supportive of the blanket Use Permit approval for alcohol service at restaurants. Inquired what would trigger the Campisi extension. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that this project being considered is removing more retail space that it is adding. At this time the extension of Campisi is not warranted. In the future, discussions with the applicant will be needed. One possibility is to tie these discussions in with the Parcel Map. The expansion of Campisi is part of the City's General Plan and will need to be taken into consideration at a future date. Commissioner Higgins inquired about the no-build area on the site. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that, at this time, a no-build area is not required on the site. Commissioner Lindstrom inquired the intent and necessity for Conditions of Approval 6 (E & F). Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that they relate to technical traffic issues. The applicant is concerned with the costs relating to these two items. He suggested that the Planning Commission Minutes of January 24,1995 Page 11 Commission allow the details to be worked out between the applicant and staff with ultimate approval by the City Council of the final agreement. This can be accomplished without delaying the project. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Perrine, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to close the Public Hearing. (7-0) Commissioner Lindstrom made a motion to approve the project, with a second by Commissioner Lowe. City Attorney William Seligmann proposed a modification to the Findings for this project as follows: Remove existing Finding No. 9: "Traffic ~--'v. Frevc-'z'-.e:'.~-~ are rcq'a~-rcd hazed Replace Finding No. 9 as follows: "The project will result in intensification of the use of the site, eenerating additional vehicular trips in and out of the project site. Unless mitiga-'ted, thes-e additional trips will adversely impact the already substantial traffic flow at the points of ingress and egress to the project sit~ resulting in a higher incidence of traffic accidents and congestion. The provision~ contained in Conditions of Approval 6 and 8 are necessary and reasonable tv mitigate this traffic and circulation impacts and proportioned to the nature and extent of the project." At this point Mr. David Word and Mr. Chris Meany inquired if they had the right to speak to this new finding. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 was reopened. Mr. David Word, Applicant, William Wilson & Associates, addressed the Commission as follows: · The new finding proposed by Mr. Seligmann is not supported by fact and does not conform to the City's own Traffic Engineer's recommendations. Mr. Chris Meany, Applicant, William Wilson & Associates. · The third party traffic engineering report concludes that no traffic mitigation measures are required at this time. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 12 City Attorney William Seligmann responded that his proposed finding is based upon the Traffic Engineer's oral report. Mr. Chris Meany: · Only findings based on fact should be included. Expressed that they are interested in working things out and feels that there is a solution out there. · In his discussions with Mr. Ron Marquez, Traffic Engineer, no traffic mitigation was deemed appropriate. · The accident count does not warrant this finding being read into the record. It is constraining and contains inappropriate language. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that the language has a factual basis based on expert opinion. Mr. Ron Marquez, Traffic Engineer. · Clarified that the traffic study focused on regional interests not the driveways at Bascom and Campbell Avenues. There was no discussion of these driveways in the analysis. · There is no disagreement between City staff and the consultants that performed the analysis. City Attorney William Seligrnann asked Mr. Ron Marquez whether his proposed finding of fact was consistent with his understanding of this project. Mr. Ron Marquez said that it did. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the applicant's opposition of (and disagreement with) this finding of fact will be duly noted in the minutes. Mr. Chris Meany added: · He is vigorously opposed to the addition of this finding. He believes it inappropriate to have Mr. Seligrnann's finding included as a finding of fact. · Stated that staff had laid out the constraints under which the traffic study was done. They have not seen any traffic study by the City. Commissioner Alne asked whether two traffic studies were conducted, one by a third party and another by the City. Mr. Chris Meany replied that he has yet to see a traffic study conducted by City staff. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24,1995 Page 13 City Attorney William Seligmann replied that both studies had been done. Commissioner Alne asked whether a summary had been provided. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the staff report represents the summary. Commissioner Alne opined that the Commission benefits from both the internal and external traffic reports. Whether the applicant agrees with the findings has no bearing. Asked whether this finding of fact proposed by the City Attorney has an adverse effect on the development of this project. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that it would not. Any recommended approval by the Commission is later reviewed by the City Council for final approval. This finding could be removed and/or changed. Mr. Chris Meany stated that staff is doing an admirable job keeping them in line. Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Meany whether he felt their position was being jeopardized by this proposed finding of fact. Mr. Chris Meany replied that he would back down from his opposition but still wants to express his disagreement on the record. Agrees that the Commission can find as it wishes. Having worked closely with Mr. Ron Marquez, he is surprised by City Attorney Seligrnann's finding. Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Meany a second time whether he felt his position was being diminished in any way. Mr. David Word replied that perhaps "mountains were being made out of mole hills." However, their position is not diminished. They are surprised by the last minute addition to the findings of fact. In a practical sense, it is difficult to leave the project site. They will work with staff to find a solution they can afford. They were simply concerned by the "hammer" language of this finding. It does not diminish their project. Commissioner Alne asked the City Attorney what City interests are served with this finding. On the other hand, what City interests are damaged if this finding is not included. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that it depended on the point of view. The Commission is obligated to justify the conditions for traffic mitigation. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 14 Commissioner Alne asked what would be the basis for future mitigation. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that mitigation would be required on a factual basis as found by the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Alne clarified that the Commission is concerned with the public's interest. He believes that future interpretation concerns are misplaced. This finding of fact can be added without jeopardizing this project. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director proposed an additional Condition of Approval as follows: 16. Liquor Licenses: Approval is granted to allow the serving qf alcoholic beverages (including beer and wine) with meals, at existing or future sit- down restaurants as designated on the approved site plan. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to again dose the Public Hearing. (7-0) Commissioner Lindstrom at this time reminded the Commission that his motion for approval was still open. However, he was not supportive of the revised finding of fact proposed by Mr. Seligrnann or the additional condition of approval suggested by Mr. Piasecki. Commissioner Alne stated that is was difficult for him to discount the City Attorney's recommendation. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that he did not believe that the wording was necessary. The way the Conditions of Approval are worded is sufficient. Commissioner Perrine inquired whether a middle ground could be reached by toning down the language, removing some of the adjectives. Commissioner Higgins stated that the Commission should benefit from the City Attorney's expertise and the clarifying language should be included. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy agreed with Commissioner Higgins and added that the additional Condition of Approval proposed by Mr. Piasecki should also be included. Commissioner Kearns stated her agreement. Commissioner Alne asked Commissioner Lindstrom whether he would accept as Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 15 a friendly amendment the inclusion of the City Attorney's finding of fact language. Commissioner Lindstrom replied that he would accept the additional Condition of Approval but not the revised Finding of Fact as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Alne suggested that the proposed Finding and the additional Condition of Approval be added. Commissioner Kearns asked that Mr. Seligrnann's proposed Finding of Fact be repeated. City Attorney William Seligmann read the proposed finding as follows: "The project will result in intensification of the use of the site, generating additional vehicular trips in and out of the project site. Unless mitigated, these additional trips will adversely impact the already substantial traffic flow at the points of ingress and egress to the project site resulting in a higher incidence of traffic accidents and congestion. The provisions contained in Conditions of Approval 6 and 8 are necessary and reasonable to mitigate this traffic and circulation impacts and proportioned to the nature and extent of the project." Commissioner Alne asked what would cause added trips since the site will include less square footage. Mr. Ron Marquez informed the Commission that the traffic study indicates 146 additional trips during the peak hour. There will be 50 additional hotel rooms. Currently the site has a 30% vacancy rate with is expected to decrease to approximately 6%. Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Marquez what changes in circulation might be required if the site is fully leased. Mr. Ron Marquez responded that staff estimates using the reality of the present with projections. Basically what can be counted today versus what is estimated for tomorrow. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy asked if a similar finding of fact was included on the approval for the Hamilton Plaza remodel a few years ago. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that the Hamilton Plaza project was also required to make modification to the site due to traffic conditions. He further stated that the existing traffic circulation pattern on Campbell Avenue is bad traffic engineering practice. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1995 Page 16 Commissioner Lindstrom opined that all necessary wording was already in place. Commissioner Lowe stated his concern that a project of this quality is being tied up due to the wording of one finding. Commissioner Higgins asked whether Mr. Lindstrom was supportive of Mr. Piasecki's proposed Condition of Approval regarding the Use Permit as it pertains to the sale of alcohol at restaurants. Commissioner Lindstrom replied that he would support that added Condition. However existing language in the Findings and Conditions of Approval covers the point being attempted through the City Attorney's proposed finding of fact. Commissioner Perrine asked the City Attorney what clout the City is left with without this language. Expressed that problems are already there. City Attorney William Seligmann stated that the Findings establish the need for Conditions of Approval. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy inquired whether the original finding (#9) could be retained. City Attorney William Seligrnann stated that it could. Commissioner Perrine suggested adding the following language to the original finding of fact: "Due to intensification of retail activity on reduced square footage, traffic improvements are required based on potential traffic conflicts as a result of the proposed project." Commissioner Lindstrom reiterated his belief that existing Conditions of Approval cover this issue. Commissioner ^lne inquired why the proposed language of the finding was necessary. City Attorney William Seligrnann replied that it provides specifity. The original language was rather broad. His revised language is more specific. Commissioner Alne asked whether the need for this language was overstated. City Attorney William Seligmann answered that he did not believe so but that it was the Commission's decision. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24,1995 Page 17 Commissioner Perrine asked the Commission for a volunteer to make a friendly amendment to include the language recommended by the City Attorney. Commissioner Lindstrom again stated that this amendment was not acceptable to him. Commissioner Alne cautioned the Commission that it did not want to send the wrong message on to the City Council regarding its overall support of this project based on a disagreement over the wording of one Finding of Fact. After further discussion by the Commissioners regarding the proposed amendment to the original motion, a roll call vote was taken. MO~O~ On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of the Site and Architectural application (S 94-08) and to approve a Use Permit (UP 94-19) for property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue (The Pruneyard) in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District, to include the City Attorney's amended language for the Finding of Fact No. 9 and to include the clarifying Condition of Approval as it pertains to on-sale liquor sales by restaurants, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kearns, Meyer-Kennedy, Perrine Alne, Higgins, Lindstrom, Lowe None None The amendment to the previous motion was defeated on a three to four vote. MO~O~ On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of the Site and Architectural application (S 94-08) and to approve a Use Permit (UP 94-19) for property located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue (The Pruneyard) in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District, to exclude the City Attorney's amended language for the Finding of Fact No. 9 and to include the clarifying Condition of Approval as it pertains to on-sale liquor sales by restaurants. Therefore the Committee approved Resolution 2950 recommending City Council approval of S 94-08 (Site and Architectural approval) and a Use Permit (UP 94-18), by the following roll-call vote: Planning Commission Minutes of Januar~ 24,1995 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Page 18 Alne, Higgins, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy, Perrine None None None ItEPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECrOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted with the following highlights: Announced that the City Council approved the Design Guidelines at its meeting of Monday, January 23, 1995. · At the same meeting, the appeal of the Fence Exception for 1265 Burrows Road and the Sign Application for 500 Railway Avenue were continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 1995. · Advised the Commissioners of the American Planning Association Planners Institute scheduled for March 22-24 in Monterey. Asked any interested Commissioners to notify the department secretary if interested in attending. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m., to the next Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITrED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary J e~~e~nn~~~Chfwoma~1 ~t~e~i~ecki,~ommunity Development Director