Loading...
PC Min 02/14/1995CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY FEBRUARY 14, 1995 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 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: Commissioners Present: Chairwoman: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: jane Meyer-Kennedy Mel Lindstrom I. Alne Susan A. Kearns Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Commissioner: Commissioner: Senior Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Alana S. Higgins Jay Perrine Darryl M. Jones Mark A. Rhoades William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of January 24, 1995, were approved (5-0-2; Commissioners and Higgins were absent). Planninl~ Commission Minutes of February 14, 1995 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter from Ron Lewis, Owner of Theta Line Dental Lab, in support of Agenda Item No. 2. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REOUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. I into the record. 1. PD 94-02 Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ted Borns for approval of a Reinstatement of a previously- approved Planned Development Permit (PD 90-06) and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow a five-unit townhome project on property located at 80 Dot Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following: · Applicant is seeking the Reinstatement of a five-townhome project that was originally approved in 1990 (PD 90-06). · In addition the applicant submitted a new application for a Tentative Subdivision Map late last year which was continued by the Planning Commission. · The Tentative Subdivision Map will be forwarded to City Council for final approval. · Project changes include alterations to the rear elevation of Building D. The roof line has been broken and dormer windows added per the recommendation of the Site and Architectural Review Committee who found the original elevation to be unbroken. · Staff supports the recommendation to add windows to this rear elevation that match the windows used in the front elevation. · The Condition of Approval that required the submittal of a Tentative Subdivision Map will be eliminated since the applicant has already complied with that requirement. · Applicant is seeking a two-year Reinstatement and Tentative Subdivision Map applications to run concurrently. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy asked whether the Condition for the changes in the rear elevation are included in the Conditions of Approval or if it should be included in the motion. Plannin~ Commission Minutes of February 14, 1995 Pase 3 Mr. Mark A. Rhoades replied that it should be added to the motion and to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Alne inquired whether the Planning Commission is operating under an informal agreement with City Council not to extend Reinstatements for more than one year. City Attorney William Seligmann responded that there is an informal agreement in place. However even if the Planning Commission recommends a two-year Reinstatement, City Council can go along with that recommendation or limit the Reinstatement to one year. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy clarified that Tentative Subdivision Map approvals are for two years while Reinstatements are approved for one year. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades agreed that she was correct. City Attorney William Seligmann added that this application is unusual. It is not common to have a Tentative Subdivision Map application filed at the same time as a Reinstatement application. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that it would be easier to have the Tentative Parcel Map and Reinstatement applications with the same approval period. Commissioner Alne inquired whether there was any harm to the applicant if the Reinstatement is limited to one year. Mr. Darryl Jones, Senior Planner, replied that there was no harm to the applicant. However, the applicant would have to refile for another Reinstatement if they did not begin construction within one year. There is no filing fee involved so there is no additional cost to the applicant. Commissioner Kearns added that there was a commitment of time involved on the part of the applicant if he is required to return in one year. Commissioner Alne stated that if the City approves a two-year Reinstatement of the Planned Development Permit, the project is held to current standards. If the approval is limited to one year, the City can make adjustments in Conditions of Approval to accommodate any changes in City standards since the last approval if it comes back again for another Reinstatement process. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades concurred with Commissioner Alne. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Mark A. Rhoades informed the Commission that had the Tentative Subdivision Map been submitted with the original Planned Development application, the approval would have been for two years. Commissioner Lindstrom added that the intent of the project has changed from the original submittal. Originally the units were to be rental units with one owner. The Tentative Subdivision Map became necessary when the applicant decided to sell the units rather than rent them. City Attorney William Seligmann added that design changes were possible as long as the Tentative Subdivision Map did not change. Commissioner Alne sought clarification that the two issues were independent. City Attorney William Seligmann said that they were independent issues. Mr. Darryl Jones added that if the applicant sought to change the footprint of the buildings, the applicant would be required to submit a new development application. Commissioner Alne asked what benefit there was in approving a two-year extension. Mr. Darryl Jones answered that the benefit was efficiency. Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Ted Borns, Applicant, addressed the Commission as follows: · Requested that the Commission grant the two-year extension to coincide with the Tentative Subdivision Map approval. Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Borns whether a one-year approval would create any difficulties for things such as financing of the project. Mr. Ted Borns replied that it could create problems with the project financing. MO~O~ On motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to close the Public Hearing. (5-0-2; Commissioners Perrine and Higgins absent.) Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1995 Pase 5 MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2951 recommending approval of a two-year Reinstatement (PD 90-06) to allow the construction of five townhome units and Resolution No. 2952 recommending approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map on property located at 80 Dot Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District, by the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kine, Keams, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy None Higgins, Perrine None Chairwoman Meyer-Kennedy read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. SA 94-38 Continued Hearing to consider the application of Pro Signs, on behalf of Winchester & Hamilton Medical & Dental Center, for approval of a signing request for an additional freestanding sign located on property located at 1580 S. Winchester Boulevard in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · This application was continued from the meeting of December 13, 1994. · Applicant has modified the freestanding sign into a monument sign. · Using the Gateway Square sign as a sample, the applicant proposes two elements. At the top, the Center is identified. Below that is the word "entrance." Below that is a directory of tenants with suite numbers. · SARC reviewed this revised design. · Staff recommends approval with a reduction in tenant identification. Commissioner Lowe asked whether this application complied with the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades replied that it did. Total sign area will be 100 square feet which is permitted for a professional center. Approval of three signs is what represents an exception to the Ordinance. Commissioner Alne inquired what is the frontage footage of the site on Hamilton Avenue. He also inquired what the footage was for the existing wall (directory) sign on the building and whether that wall sign was in compliance with the Ordinance. He asked how many signs were allowed. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Mark Rhoades replied that one freestanding sign is allowed per site under the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Alne asked what was allowed if a property fronts onto to streets. Mr. Darryl Jones replied that if the property fronts on two streets, a sign is permitted on each street with Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Alne clarified that there is no deviation from the Ordinance with the exception of the number of signs being sought. There is no deviation from the square footage of signage allowed. Commissioner Lindstrom presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC found the revised design to be good and saw no reason to reduce the number of tenants identified on the sign. · Sign is acceptable with the monument base in place of poles originally included in the design. Commissioner Kearns stated that the staff recommendation to reduce the number of tenants identified on the sign is not in the best interest of the tenants. This revised sign proposal represents a good compromise. SARC is happy. Stated that she would support the applicant's proposal. Commissioner Alne added that he too would support the applicant's proposal. Mr. Jack Kent, 51 E. Campbell Avenue, attorney for applicant, addressed the Commission as follows: Project site has limited visibility. Many tenants have expressed concerns as often patients can't find the building. Proposed sign will help reduce confusion. · The final design, the fourth, includes several changes: Shortened name for the Center (Winchester/Hamilton Center); the word entrance added; suite numbers added and a lettering style change. In addition, the name and number for the leasing office has been removed. · This is a 30 year old project and the existing signage is inadequate. A new sign will assist in locating the site. · Request that the Commission approval the sign request. Dr. William Hoffman, Tenant at 1580 $. Winchester, addressed the Commission as follows: · Tenants have asked for years to have improved signage. They have to use San Jose Camera for a landmark to assist patients in locating the building. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1995 Page 7 New signage proposed will benefit patients who get confused in locating the site. Advised that from 1% to 5% of new patients are generated from walk-in patients. Asked for a vote of approval. Dr, James Carter, Hughes Dental Care, addressed the Commission as follows: · Has practiced in Campbell for 40 years. · Medical and dental practices have changes over the years. Where 90% of patients used to come to him from Campbell, now patients come from a wide range of cities from Palo Alto to Milpitas. · It is important that new patients find his office. · Hughes Dental Care has 28 employees and sees 100 to 120 patients per day. Dr. Donald M.Foulk, Tenant at 1580 S. Winchester, addressed the Commission as follows: · Respects City's concern for aesthetics. · The sign must be both functional and aesthetic. · Has practiced in Campbell for less than two years and could use help with patients finding where he is. · A dental practice is a small business. While it is a profession, it is also a small business. · Questioned the viability of reducing tenants on sign. How is that determined? · Asked Commission to accept the sign proposal as presented. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Sign Application (SA 94-38) for the Hamilton/Winchester Center). (5-0-2; Commissioners Higgins and Perrine were absent.) REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted with the following highlights made by Senior Planner Darryl Jones: · The appeal of the Fence Exception approval for 1265 Burrows Road went before City Council on Tuesday, February 7, 1995. The Council upheld the Planning Commission approval but reduced the height of the fence to four feet. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 1995 Page 8 The Sign Application for 500 Railway (Canyon Creek Apartments) went before City Council on Tuesday, February 7, 1995. Council eliminated the word "Apartments"; reduced the length of approval to 1 year or 75% occupancy and eliminated the illumination of the signs. City Council reviewed Pruneyard project and approved. Commissioner Alne added that it was determined that if the 95% occupancy rate was the criteria by which the signage could stay, the signs conceivably could be there forever as many projects remain below 95% occupancy at all times while still operating profitably. Commissioner Lindstrom inquired why the Pruneyard project went to City Council. Was it required? Mr. Darryl M. Jones replied that the review by City Council was a courtesy review due to the visibility and importance of the site to the City. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m., to the next Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary Ja/n~eyer-Kennedy, C/hairwoman C/ Sterne Piti, ~mmunity Development Director