Loading...
PC Min 10/25/1994CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY OCTOBER 25, 1994 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning commission meeting of October 25, 1994, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairman Perrine, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Jay Perrine Jane Meyer-Kennedy I. Alne Alana S. Higgins Susan A. Kearns Mel Lindstrom Dennis Lowe Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki Planner II: Curtis Banks Planner I: Mark A. Rhoades City Attorney: William Seligmann Reporting Secretary: Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motiom On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission minutes of October 11,1994, were approved 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 1994 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Perrine read Item No. 1 into the record. Development Review Working Session to discuss City-initiated revisions to the Development Review Process. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following: Staff has worked to streamline the process for development review in order to make it more efficient. A key area of concentration was the pre-application process which now allows applicants to provide information for staff review prior to formally submitting a project and paying filing fees. This pre-application process is elective. Applicants can directly file an application and pay filing fees without being required to undergo the pre-application process. · The pre-application process is now formalized. Staff receives pre-application and does a preliminary review together with other City departments and gives a preliminary report to the applicant. · Additionally, staff has streamlined the Design Review Committee (DRC) process. A process that might have taken 56 days previously, is now streamlined to approximately 35 days. · A project planner takes responsibility for a project from the pre-application phase to occupancy. · In addition, staff has undertaken the preparation of informational brochures for the public which outlines requirements and processes for all applications: Use Permits, Site & Architectural Review, Variances, etc. Commissioner Alne asked Mr. Rhoades what the success/failure rate has been for initial project applications submitted for pre-application and whether the requirements are made clear to applicants. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, replied that the concrete requirements such as setbacks are clearly written down. The more nebulous requirements are not. Staff is working to increase written documentation of requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 1994 Page 3 Commissioner Alne inquired why Planning felt the need to forward applications to other City departments for comment when their requirements are more concrete. Commissioner Lowe commended staff for actively pursuing the improvement of the process rather than settling for the status quo. Mr. Mark Rhoades replied to Commissioner Alne's question that the other City departments have made the commitment to shorten their review time of project applications. Chairman Perrine inquired how this improved development review process would deal with lower quality projects. Mr. Mark Rhoades replied that the pre-application process should help the applicant to know what they need to do to make an application acceptable and that marginal proposals may not ever be filed as applications. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the pre-application process would mean that staff will review more projects than will actually end up filing before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lowe inquired whether a pre-application fee is charged. Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that there was no fee charged for pre-application review. Commissioner Alne asked whether the filing fees would be reduced since this new updated development review process takes less time. Mr. Mark Rhoades stated that staff had not antidpated reducing application fees because of the upfront time required for pre-application review. Commissioner Lindstrom inquired how long this new process has been implemented. Mr. Mark Rhoades replied that staff began in June and the new process was fully implemented by August 1994. Chairman Perrine read Item No. 2 into the record. 2. Design Guidelines Working session to review and adopt new City- Plannin$ Commission Minutes of October 25, 1994 Pa~e 4 initiated guidelines for single-family homes and low- medium density residential projects. Mr. Curtis Banks, Planner II, presented the staff report noting the following: · Staff has undertaken to develop guidelines that stress basic design principals. Many homeowners now design their own homes. These new guidelines provide consistency in what staff will evaluate when looking at a potential project. · The design guidelines work with the Zoning Ordinance. · The design guidelines do not try to dictate one specific design. · Staff has developed three different sets of guidelines: 1. New single-family homes 2. Additions to existing single-family homes 3. Low-Medium Density Residential Projects · For additions, integration with the existing home is reviewed. Single-family homes need to fit into the neighborhood and privacy issues are reviewed (particularly as to two-story structures). Townhome designs must consider open space, neighborhood compatibility. · The design guidelines are not necessarily new ideas however they have been formalized and put in writing. Commissioner Alne discussed his confusion regarding some terminology specifically "not desirable" and "should be avoided." He asked which term was stronger. Mr. Curtis Banks stated that the guidelines are more nebulous that a Zoning Ordinance. It states what staff is looking for in project design however the terms of the guidelines are not set in stone. Commissioner Alne inquired whether the Planning Commission could deny a project simply because it did not hold up to these guidelines. City Attorney William Seligmann clarified that the guidelines are intended to refine the more general criteria set forth in the Ordinance. It outlines standards that staff look at to determine compatibility. It is an attempt to be clear, to establish what the Planning Commission will be looking at. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the staff is already looking at these items without any written documentation to hand out to applicants. He added that Curtis can look into the consistency in terms utilized within these documents. The review process is judgmental. Commissioner Alne recommended that a paragraph be added to the guidelines which notifies applicants that variances/variations from the design guidelines can Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 1994 Page 5 be considered. He added that he has read all the material and has no objections. He found the guidelines well thought through. However, he did not understand the design concern with two-story entryways. Commissioner Kearns asked why the requirement for an entryway to be visible from the street was included and whether this requirement was "set in stone." Mr. Curtis Banks replied that staff is trying to avoid having backyards facing the street. The intent is to show visitors to the residence how to reach the entryway. Ms. Dawn Vadbunker, a resident on Burrows Road, brought an incorrect illustration caption to the attention of staff on page 4 of the Low-Medium Density Residential Guidelines. She expressed her approval of private outdoor space and was pleased with many of the guideline's similarities to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Study. Chairman Perrine suggested that a section be added to the Single-Family Residential Additions Guidelines to advise how to obtain building permits. Commissioner Kearns asked for clarification as to what a "garage apron" was. Mr. Curtis Banks replied that the garage apron is the area in front of a garage in a multi-family development. Commissioner Alne asked the difference between area/neighborhood. Mr. Curtis Banks stated that the terms were interchangeable. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission moved to continue this review to the Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 1994. (7-0) REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted with the following highlights: · Reminded the Commissioners of the Commissioners Dinner set for Friday, October 28, 1994, at Renzo's Restaurant in Campbell. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 1994 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m., to the next Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 1994, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: C°'~,~e A~hin~t~Y Jay P~~ri e, Chai~erson Steve Pia~cki, ~ecretary '