Loading...
PC Min 02/08/1994CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY FEBRUARY 8, 1994 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1994, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairperson Perrine, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Chairperson: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Jay Perrine Jane Meyer-Kennedy I. Alne Susan A. Kearns Mel Lindstrom Dennis Lowe Commissioner: Lee Akridge Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Associate Planner: Tim Haley City Attorney: William Seligmann Reporting Secretary: Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission minutes of January 25, 1994, were approved (5-1-1; Commissioner Alne abstained and Commissioner Akridge was absent.) COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Agenda Item No. 2 (Sign Ordinance Amendments) will be heard after Item No. 3 and the discussion will take place in the Alcove Area of the Council Chambers to allow for round table discussion. ORAL REOUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Perrine read Item No. 1 into the record. 1. UP 93-16 Public Hearing to consider the application of Girma Bekele, on behalf of Shebele Restaurant, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license and operational hours after 11 p.m., for an existing restaurant located at 422 E. Campbell Avenue in a C-3-S (Central Business District Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Tim Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting the following: · Applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license and operational hours after 11 p.m. (until 2 a.m.) on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. · Restaurant is located on the site of the former Campbell Diner and has 45 seats as did the Campbell Diner. · Staff finds the use compatible with the former use and with the existing district. The Police Department reviewed the request and had no objections. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this request and forward a Resolution to the City Council with the recommendation that they approve a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Perrine opened the Public Hearing on Item No. 1. Public Hearing re Item No. 1 There were no parties interested in addressing this item. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Alne seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission moved to close the Public Hearing. (6-0-1; Commissioner Akridge was absent.) Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 3 MOTION: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 2899 approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing a beer and wine license and operational hours after 11 p.m., by the following roll-call vote: Alne, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy, Perrine None Akridge Chairperson Perrine read Item No. 3 (out of order) into the record. 3. PC Determination Hearing to consider a tattooing establishment in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) and/or C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District as a permitted use similar to massage or tanning establishments subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Tim Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting the following: · If a requested use is not specifically listed within a zoning district, the Planning Commission has the option to review the request to determine whether said use is compatible to those uses specifically listed as being allowed under the zoning district. Staff has reviewed both the C-1-S and C-2-S Zoning Districts. Specifically listed personal services permitted in these zones include Barber Shops and Beauty Salons. Uses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit include tanning salons and massage establishments. Staff finds that a tattooing establishment is similar in nature to tanning salons and massage establishments (as the need to partially disrobe is involved) and recommends that tattooing establishments be allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Kearns inquired what controls would be in place to prevent too large a concentration of such establishments. Mr. Tim Haley replied that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to take that matter into consideration each time an applicant submits a request for a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Lindstrom inquired what is charged for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Tim Haley replied that the fee for a Conditional Use Permit is $1,495 and that the processing of the application runs approximately two months. Commissioner Alne expressed his concerns regarding health and safety for patrons of tattooing establishments. Specifically his concern in preventing unsafe practices which could contribute to the spread of HIV and/or AIDS. He mentioned his understanding of the difficulties the medical profession had in installing safe precautionary measures and his belief that it would be even more difficult to have an industry that is unregulated undertake the necessary precautions. He stated his intention to oppose this request. Commissioner Lowe inquired about other local cities and their requirements for tattoo establishments. Mr. Tim Haley replied that staff had not researched other cities. Commissioner Kearns stated her opposition of this request. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy inquired what Federal regulations exist for supervising tattoo establishments and compared the major regulations that were in place when tanning salons began operation. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that there are no State or Federal regulations in place for tattoo establishments. Commissioner Alne reiterated that the Planning Commission has the responsibility not to place the public at risk. Chairman Perrine asked Commissioner Alne whether his concerns were strictly health. Commissioner Alne replied yes. City Attorney Seligmann added that the Commission has other options but they would require passage of an Ordinance. Chairman Perrine asked what would happen if the Commission found that the tattooing use is not similar to tanning parlors and/or massage establishments. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 5 City Attorney Seligmann replied that zoning districts are not designed to prevent lawful businesses from operating and that tattooing establishments are currently a lawful business. Ms. Dawn Vadbunker, 1360 Burrows Road, Campbell, addressed the Commission as follows: · Introduced herself as a Registered Nurse who has taught HIV education. Stated that no reputable tattooing establishment uses a needle on more than one client. Needles are discarded after one client. The only time it might be kept is if that client is having an elaborate tattoo applied that requires multiple visits. There are no documented cases of the spread of HIV through tattooing establishments and only five cases of exposure through medical care, by a dentist who deliberately infected his patients. Stated that signs should be posted warning customers of a tattooing establishment that they should expect a new needle. Suggested that the City Attorney review possible County regulations or Ordinances that regulate tattooing establishments. City Attorney Seligmann replied that while he investigated State and Federal regulations, he did not look into County regulations. Commissioner Susan Kearns stated her concern for the youth of the area (potential clients of tattooing establishments) and her discomfort with establishing tattoo parlors in the City of Campbell. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated her belief that Federal regulations are needed to guide tattooing establishments to ensure the health and safety of the public. Commissioner Alne suggested that the City of Campbell come to the front line on this issue and deny the establishment of tattoo parlors in Campbell. Campbell does not need a tattoo parlor. If they are allowed to be established, tattoo parlors need extensive review prior to being established. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki clarified three options for the Commission as follows: Decide that tattoo parlors are allowed by right. · Determine that tattoo parlors are not allowed at all since they are not specifically listed within the Ordinance. · Required the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for any proposed tattoo parlor and develop practices and procedures that would be imposed upon such businesses. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 6 Chairman Perrine asked which option was the most rigorous. Community Development Director Piasecki replied that the most rigorous option was to not allow tattooing establishments as they are not listed in the Ordinance as a permitted use. Commissioner Alne inquired where an appeal to this decision would be heard. Community Development Director Piasecki replied that the City Council would hear any appeal to this Planning Commission determination. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked whether it would be appropriate to allow the Council to make this decision. City Attorney Seligmann replied that it was more appropriate for the Planning Commission make this determination and the City Council handle any appeal of the decision. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner/kine, seconded by Commissioner Kearns, the Planning Commission denied the request to include tattooing establishments as a permitted use in Commercial Zoning Districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit because "a tattoo parlor is not similar to other uses in a C-1 or C-2 Zoning District as it involves the puncturing of skin as well as the need to disrobe on occasion," (6-0-1; Commissioner Akridge was absent.) This determination is final unless appealed within 10 days. To utilize a round table format, at this juncture, the Commission moved over to the Alcove section of the Council Chambers to discuss Agenda Item No. 2. Chairperson Perrine read Item No. 2 into the record. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 7 2. TA 94-01 Continued Public Hearing (from Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1994) to consider amendments to the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code) which will mainly affect provisions of the Ordinance regulating temporary signs and freeway- oriented signs. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, presented the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance noting the following: · Asked Commissioners to disregard copy of the amended Ordinance that was distributed for the January 25, 1994, meeting as there have been many changes since that time. · Problems existed with regard to temporary signs and enforcement of temporary signs staying up for extended periods of time. The Sign Ordinance currently has conflicting elements which make enforcement difficult. · The City Council authorized Planning staff to amend the Sign Ordinance with a focus on temporary signs and those signs which are freeway- oriented. · In its current format, the Sign Ordinance is missing key definitions, and the procedures and regulations are intermingled and not clear. Staff has added definitions, developed a separate procedural section and listed the regulations at the end. A new provision was added to charge the property owner the cost of illegal sign removal in a similar way to the Trash Ordinance. · Staff worked with the Chamber of Commerce and the San Jose Real Estate Board. · The Planning Department will establish a phone-in permit process for temporary signs to track the duration of temporary sign postings. This database will provide a useful tool in enforcing the Sign Ordinance restrictions on temporary signage. · The Sign Ordinance has no environmental impact. · Section 21.53.010 -- Purpose, includes new language as follows: D, To promote the economic vitality of the City by maintaining the identification, visibility and individual character of each business. · Section 21.53.020 -- Definitions. New definitions include: Animated, Business, Civic Event, Civic Organization, Freeway-Oriented Signs, Height, Promotional Devices, Real Estate Sign, Temporary Sign and Window Sign. · Section 21.53.030 -- Administrative Procedures. Minor edits. · Section 21.53.040 -- Exemptions. New Sections include: B) Construction Signs; C) Garage Sale Signs; G) Maintenance of Legal Signs; L)Window Signs; with said additions changing the current order of the Section. In Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 8 addition, minor edits to existing language is provided. Section 21.53.050 -- Permitted. No change. Section 21.53.060 -- Prohibited. Reorganized and new sections as follows: D. Portable signs which are not permanently attached to the ground or a permanent structure, such as A-frame signs and sandwich board signs. E. Promotional devices, except as permitted in Section 21.53.080. G. Signs attached to any tree or other landscape material. Section 21.53.070 -- Number and Surface Area. Minor edits only. Section 21.53.080 -- Temporary Signs and Promotional Devices. Greatly edited including guidelines for temporary signs and promotional devices; on-site civic event signs; off-site civic event signs; civic event banners; real estate signs (freestanding and building-mounted); and all other signs not specifically permitted. Section 21.53.090 -- Permanent Signs--General. Changes in freeway- oriented signage and remainder of Section has minor edits. Section 21.53.100 -- 21.53.140 deleted and 21.53.150, 160 & 170 renumbered 21.53.100, 21.53.110 and 21.53.120. If a sign application exceeds signage allowed under the Sign Ordinance, the application is reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director has the option of forwarding any sign application to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Alne expressed concern regarding flashing yellow signs and wondered whether there is a vehicle code prohibiting them as they can be confused with emergency vehicles. He also inquired whether offensive signs would be approved. City Attorney Seligmann responded that the City does not restrict the language on signage unless the content is pornographic. He clarified that the Sign Ordinance does not restrict free speech. Content does not fall within the purview of the Sign Ordinance. Public Hearing re Item No. 2 There were no requests to address this item. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission moved to close the Public Hearing. (6-0-1; Commissioner Akridge was absent.) Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 1994 Page 9 MOTION: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission adopts Resolution 2900, approving the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance with the additional provision that all motion, moving lights and strobe lights be prohibited, and forwards the amended Sign Ordinance to the City Council for adoption, by the following roll-call vote: Alne, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy, Perrine None Akridge REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted with the following highlights: Announced the resignation of Commissioner Lee Akridge who will be relocating to Virginia with his Company in approximately two months. · The California Supreme Court will hear the appeal on Measure A. · A press release was issued Tuesday, February 8, 1994, announcing the purchase of the Winchester Drive In Site (24.5 acres) by the Campbell Redevelopment Agency for $3.84 million dollars. A public process will be initiated to review how the site can best be developed. The deal is final in 30 days. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m., to the next Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1994, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Stree~bell, California. Corinne A. Shinr~ Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ' ' Jay Perri..~'Chair ~rson (,__--St~ve P~ecki, Secretary - --