Loading...
PC Min 12/13/1994CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY DECEMBER 13, 1994 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 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: ROLL CALL 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 Senior Planner: Planner I: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Darryl M. Jones Gloria Sciara Mark Rhoades William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission minutes of November 22, 1994, were approved (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Pase 2 COMMUNICATION~ 1. Letter from Daniel E. Murphy, Director of Apartment Development, Bay Apartment Communities, Inc., re Agenda Item No. 1. 2. Letter from Mr. Jim Mackay re Agenda Item No. 2. 3. Letter from Ms. Susanne Waher re Agenda Item No. 2. 4. Eight letters from doctors/dentists re Agenda Item No. 3. 5. Revised Findings for Agenda Item No. 4. 6. Revised memorandum for Agenda Item No. 5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENT~ There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REOUEST~ There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Perrine read Item No. 1 into the record. 1. SA 94-31 Public Hearing to consider the application of Arnold Pierce & Associates, on behalf of Bay Apartment Communities, for approval of a signing request to allow off-site advertising signage and on-site freeway-oriented signs for the Canyon Creek Apartments located at 500 Railway Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following: · Bay Apartment Communities is seeking approval of its signing program to include: 1. 72 square foot, freeway-oriented wall sign. Bronze 24-inch letters. 2. Temporary freeway-oriented banner signs. 3. Four 25 square foot off-site directional signs (temporary) to be located: a. Hamilton Avenue at Highway 17 offramp. b. Winchester Boulevard (south of San Tomas Expressway). c. Orchard City Drive d. Campbell Avenue 4. Applicant will negotiate with private property owners for permission to install these temporary directional signs · Staff is recommending two off-site directional signs instead of the proposed four. Staff feels that the proposed Winchester & Hamilton location is too far removed from the project to be warranted. · Staff recommends 18-inch letters in place of the proposed 24-inch letters for the freeway-oriented permanent signs. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 3 Commissioner Alne inquired what the rationale was for requiring the reduction in letter size from 24 inch to 18 inch size. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades replied that staff found the smaller size to be adequate. Commissioner Alne inquired if an analysis was made to determine the readability from the freeway. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades answered that using the smaller letters was not found to be a major impact and acknowledged that larger letters would be slightly more visible. Commissioner Lowe inquired whether the signs would be back lit. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades replied that the applicant proposes that the signs be back lit but that staff was not supportive. Commissioner Lowe asked whether there was a formula in place for signage. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades answered that there is no formula for residential projects. Therefore, this request will go forward to City Council for final approval. This apartment complex signing request is not considered commercial in nature but rather as residential. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC is supportive of: 1. One 54 square foot permanent sign 2. Banner signs totaling 480 square feet. 3. Four 25 square foot monument signs. Recommends approval for one year of until project is 75 percent occupied. SARC is interested in seeing this project fully leased. Commissioner Alne asked if SARC was supporting the 18 inch letters and why. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy replied that SARC did support the requirement for 18 inch letters. Commissioner Lindstrom, a member of SARC, added that the 18 inch letter size was what was presented to SARC. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy added that SARC found that to be adequate. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Lowe asked how long the signs would be up and what plans are in place for their removal. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades replied that the sign approval would last one year. If the project is not 75 percent leased, the applicant can return for an extension. Chairman Perrine opened the Public Hearing for Item No. 1. Mr. Mike Meyer, President of Bay Apartment Communities, Inc., address the Commission as follows: Asking for all the requests made in the original sign application with no reductions. · Stressed his company's major commitment to the City to improve the downtown. · Bay Apartments is spending $35 million to build 348 units with 69 very-low income units which will help Campbell meet State requirements for affordable housing. · In addition, Bay Apartments is spending $600,000 to realign roadways. · The City of Campbell has committed to reduce property taxes by $200,000 a year for the next 20 years, a long term financial commitment by the City. · Bonds will be issued to pay for the permanent financing. · Their request reflects everything they believe necessary to properly advertise the location which is slightly out of the way. Mr. Dan Murphy, Director of Apartment Development, Communities, addressed the Commission as follows: Bay Apartment He has worked closely with staff for some time now. Bay Apartments needs to create awareness of its project and direct people to its leasing office. They have studied the distance from the freeway and it is 200 to 300 feet. A minimum of 24 inch letters is required as well as back lighting to make the signage readable from the freeway. Feels strongly that all four requested directional signs are mandatory. Objects to the limitation of time for the signage and finds that the 75 percent occupancy standard is inadequate. It takes approximately two to three years to reach stabile occupancy. For a project to be considered successful, it requires a six month period with 95% occupancy. Thanked staff for its input. Commissioner Lowe inquired whether the proposed signage was the only method of advertising planned. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Dan Murphy replied that a full campaign was planned including newspaper advertising, inclusion in rental guides and all other means. This project is challenging to market as is in an out-of-the-way location. MO~O~ On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to close the Public Hearing (7-0). Commissioner Higgins stated that the sign request was less than Breuner's or Fry's as far as freeway oriented signs are concerned and that this request was not out of line. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades clarified Finding No. 2, adding the language "Denial of this application..." to the beginning of the sentence. Commissioner Alne stressed the long-term commitment the developer has made to this project and to the City as well as the City's financial commitment through a reduction in property taxes. The City has a joint need to see this project succeed. What is important is to reach occupancy. The Commission cannot ask for a reduction in signs until the project as appropriately leased. Don't make it difficult for the developer to sell this project. Get it built. Get it sold. Commissioner Lindstrom added that the need for four directional signs is supported and that he is not opposed to the use of 18 inch letter on the freeway- oriented sign. Has no problem extending the time for the signs. The 75 percent occupancy standard reflects commercial projects rather than residential. Commissioner Lowe stated that he felt SARC has developed a good plan which he supported. Commissioner Higgins expressed her support with the SARC plan but with the use of 24 inch letters for the freeway-oriented sign. Commissioner Higgins expressed her belief that the wording needed to include the word "Apartment" rather than simply "Canyon Creek." Commissioner Lowe questioned the accuracy of the final drawing depicting the larger lettering. Mr. Dan Murphy advised that the drawing was to scale and that the lettering is spaced closer together to allow the additional word, "Apartment," to be added while enlarging the lettering from 18 inches to 24 inches. Commissioner Lowe stated his intent to support the staff recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 6 MO~O~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: This item will 1995, meeting. On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the applicant's off-site signage and on-site freeway-oriented signage request for Bay Apartment Communities, located at 500 Railway Avenue, to include: 1. 480 square foot banners on building 2. 72 square foot sign (using 24 inch bronze letters which are to be illuminated) to read, "Canyon Creek Apartments." 3. Four 25 square foot monument signs (temporary until project is 95 percent leased) to be located on private property at four locations with the property owners' permission. by the following roll-call vote: Alne, Higgins, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy, Perrine Lowe None None be forwarded to City Council for final approval at its January 17, MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Perrine read Item No. 2 into the record. 2. E 94-04 Hearing to consider the appeal of Ms. Judith De Bernardi of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a fence exception for a six foot high fence enclosing the front yard of property located at 1265 Burrows Road in an R-l-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following: · Applicant proposes to place a six foot high fence at the property line in the front yard of the residence. · Problems have been encountered by the property owner, including littering, loitering, property damage and theft, that the property owner attributes to the dose proximity of a bus stop (20 feet from front door). · Proposal includes a five foot fence, with one foot lattice at the top, for a total of six feet in fencing. · Zoning Ordinance requires a finding that the exception will not prove detrimental to neighboring property owners. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 7 The San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan requires a front entry that is visible from the street. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Community Development Director denying this fence exception. Staff is not supportive based upon the following: 1. The San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan requirement for a visible front entry. 2. The belief that other options are available in lieu of fencing in the entire front yard to the property line. Staff is looking for visibility of the home from the street. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC finds that the applicant's request is not unreasonable and recommends that the applicant be allowed to place this fence at the property line for security and privacy. Commissioner Kearns inquired if there were any plans for landscaping. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy answered that the applicant intends to incorporate landscaping. The use of the home will be improved with the installation of the requested fence. Ms. Judy De Bernardi, 1265 Burrows Road, addressed the Commission as follows: · Compared her small property to the preceding multi-million dollar apartment complex and called her home her sum total investment. · Stated three concerns which lead her to want to install this fence: Security, Privacy and Aesthetics. · Her front door is 20 feet away from the bus stop. The bus stop handles 77 buses per day. · She has been advised by a Santa Clara Police Department Burglary Division officer that corner lots experience 40 percent of all residential burglaries. Close proximity to the bus stop leaves her property vulnerable as the stop draws many people 20 feet from her home. · Provided anecdote about finding two people standing on her porch during a recent rain storm who were waiting for a bus. · Has suffered theft, the destruction of small plants and a bb shot into her front window. Her homeowner's insurance provider has notified her that they will cover damage only one time unless she takes measures to prevent further damage. · Has made significant improvements to the property since her purchase of the home last spring. · Concerned about lack of privacy. Her conversations can be heard at the bus stop and conversations at the bus stop can be hear in her home. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Pal~e 8 Displayed a bag of trash which she collected from her front yard last weekend. Neither the Public Works Department nor the Police Department have an objection to her adding a fence to her front yard. Similar fencing is already in place in the neighborhood. It harms no one. Would appreciate the support of the Commission in this request. Ms. Dawn Vadbunker, 1360 Burrows Road, addressed the Commission as follows: Asks that the Commission not approve this fencing request. Stated that all sample fences from the area are located 15 feet or more away from the property line. The use of a bus stop is a public activity. Stressed the importance of good visibility and lighting and neighbors looking out for neighbors. Expressed concern for safety of property owner in that someone could be waiting in her yard, hidden behind the fence. Stated that should a young woman be waiting at the bus stop and require assistance, no one would notice. Recommended a fence located closer to the house. Reminded that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan calls for front entry visibility and an openness of neighborhood. This request would negatively impact the neighborhood and would not be aesthetic for the surrounding neighbors. Advised that other neighbors have installed fencing but shorter so that visibility is not impacted. Chairman Perrine inquired whether the property line has been established. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades replied that the property line depicted in the sample drawing is correct. Ms. Pat McCullough, 771 Old Orchard Road, addressed the Commission as follows: · Agrees that exceptions to the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan should not be allowed. Ms. Deborah DiSalvo, 1376 Burrows Road, addressed the Commission as follows: · Recently moved into the area in August. · Very high traffic for a small two lane road with Los Gatos commuters zooming by at 70 miles per hour. · Wanted to put up a fence herself at one point. · Was informed about the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan by her neighbor, Dawn Vadbunker, and is inspired by its goals. · Would like to see something other than a large fence on the property. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Alne discussed the following: · There are obligations to living in a city. · Within the City there are 80 bus stops which represents a bus stop in front of roughly one home out of every 100. · Individual rights give way to necessary systems. This is a price that sodety has to pay. · If the bus stop is moved, it then becomes another property owner's problem. · Remedies are available for illegal activities. · The illegal activities plaguing the applicant are of a nature that no one is ready to do anything about, such as littering. · According to one person who addressed the Commission, the applicant has the obligation to watch out for people at the bus stop. · Visited the area and found lots of 6 foot fences in front yards in that vicinity where the front door is not visible. In fact, he found one home with a 10-foot fence. · Applicant seeks to insulate herself from these illegal activities. · The applicant has agreed to take responsibility for emptying a trash can if the Transit Authority will install one at the bus stop. The Santa Clara County Transit Authority has agreed to install the trash can as long as the City of Campbell indemnify's them from liability. · Applicant deserves some slack. In fairness, he feels the request should be granted. Commissioner Lowe stated that it saddens him to hear of the problems of the applicant and the need for security but feels that the 6 foot fence is a "quick fix" solution. Questioned whether a fake brick and wrought iron might not be used instead of wood. A wrought iron fence would close off the property while still allowing visibility. Commissioner Alne asked, "what about the other fences?" Commissioner Lowe replied that the Commission was dealing with this one fence request only. Commissioner Lindstrom advised that he too had visited the neighborhood and felt that the proposed fence fits in with the area and is in character. Chairman Perrine clarified that most of the fences are at least 15 feet from the property line. Commissioner Lindstrom opined that the fence proposal will flow with the other fences and that, in fact, this property almost looks out of place without a fence. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 10 Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC took into consideration the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · The property owner has rights and something needs to be done for their privacy and use of living space. Commissioner Alne stated that there are other properties with fences at the roadway. Ms. Audrey Fitzgerald, 1265 Burrows Road, addressed the Commission as follows: · The house is very close to the street. Therefore, there is no room to go back 15 feet before putting in the fence. Commissioner Alne added that to require the 15 foot setback, the applicant is left with an unusable front yard with only five feet separating the fence from the house. Commissioner Lowe stated his disbelief that this proposal could receive support just because other homeowners have installed fences in front of their homes. Commissioner Higgins announced her support of the SARC position and the comments made by Commissioner Alne. Supports applicant's proposal. Commissioner Kearns also stated her support of the applicant's request. She suggested the addition of landscaping in front of the fence and an entry gate. Chairman Perrine suggested that the fence step back beyond the bus stop. He inquired whether the applicant might consider a compromise design and bring that design to the next meeting. Ms. Judy DeBernardi, 1265 Burrows Road. · Stated that she was willing to install landscaping. · Advised that the lattice work at the top of the proposed fence would be cut to allow the existing branches of the trees to remain. · Discussed the fact that a $1,200 front window requires replacement which she wants to have done before Christmas. · Would rather not delay a decision to the next meeting. Chairman Perrine called a 10-minute break at 9 p.m. Chairman Perrine reconvened the meeting at 9:09 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 11 Commissioner Lowe stated that the fence was not aesthetic and would serve only to isolate the homeowner. The only difference between this property owner and any other is the bus stop. Proposed denial of the request. MO~O~ On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Planning Commission approved a fence exception for property located at 1265 Burrows Road in an R-I- 10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, per the drawing on Attachment #5 with the following changes: 1. Move fence back two feet from property line and landscape the two-foot strip in front of the fence. 2. Add an entry gate into the property at the driveway side of the lot. This motion was approved by a vote (6-1; Commissioner Lowe voted no). Ms. Judy DeBernardi accepted the changes to her fencing proposal and agreed to comply with the landscaping and requirement for a gate. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, announced that this decision is final unless appealed within 10 days. Chairman Perrine read Item No. 3 into the record. 3. SA 94-38 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 Rhoades, · Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: Applicant is seeking to replace an existing freestanding sign. Site is located at the comer of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue with San Jose Camera hiding the building from the comer. Currently, there are two signs on Winchester Boulevard. One advertising the drug store and the second advertising the medical center. The applicant is proposing three signs in all. Staff recommends the following: 1. Reduction of the height of the monument sign on Hamilton Avenue from 13 feet to 10 feet. Reduction in the number of tenant panels included on the sign for the center. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 12 o Removal of the individual names of the doctors and dentists from the sign. Removal of one sign on Winchester Boulevard. Commissioner Alne inquired why staff was seeking the elimination of the individual names from the sign. Mr. Mark A. Rhaodes replied that the sign was unreadable by people driving by on the busy road with that amount of copy. The sign represents visual clutter. Commissioner Lowe mentioned that the purpose for the sign is to help patients locate the building. The point about the sign, with all names included, creating visual clutter is a valid one. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC is supportive but requires the simplification of copy on the sign by the removal of the individual panels. · Limit the Hamilton Avenue sign to 44 square feet. · Two freestanding signs to be reduced by 6 square feet. Commissioner Alne inquired whether Hughes Dental represented the entire group of was one of many tenants in the building. Mr. Mark A. Rhoades stated that he would defer that question to the applicant. Mr. Bob McCann, Pro Signs, addressed the Commission as follows: · Hughes Dental is the third floor tenant. Eleven individual professionals have offices on the first and second floors. Commissioner Alne inquired why it was necessary to list all doctors/dentists on the sign. Would not one sign work for the whole group. Mr. Bob McCann replied that each tenant was individual professional business. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC had a problem with the 14 names at street level and recommends placing the individual names on a sign closer to the building to help patients locate their doctor/dentist. Commissioner Alne asked how many panels would be allowed on a retail freestanding sign. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 13 Mark A. Rhoades replied that anywhere from 3 to 7 depending on the size of the center and size of the sign. He added that a simplified sign design would help identify the center. Chairman Perrine inquired whether the applicant would be able to develop a simplified sign design if the item were to be continued. Commissioner Alne stated that the existing proposal incorporates too many panels. Mr. Wayne Hop, Owner of 1580 W. Hamilton Avenue. · Each tenant deserves recognition. It is difficult to leave some out and include others. This is intended as an effective means of advertising for each tenant. Commissioner Alne gave the example of his own dentist located in a medical center that is identified only by the center's name and not by the individual names of all practicing at that center. There is more on this sign than the Planning Commission would be willing to accept. Mr. Wayne Hop advised that the building is 200 feet from Hamilton Avenue and the building cannot be seen from the street. Therefore the building is difficult to find. Commissioner Alne opined that the reader of this sign will be driving down the road at 45 miles per hour. That person would be able to read "Hamilton & Winchester Medical & Dental Center" but would have to stop on the sidewalk to read the names of 14 individual panels. Commissioner Higgins suggested that professionals such as doctors, dentists and/or attorneys do not obtain business by people driving by the street. Agrees with staff that the sign is too cluttered. Chairman Perrine stated that the Commission agreed with the applicant's need for signage but that readability was important. Asked them to work out an alternative design. Suggested that the sign read, "Hamilton & Winchester Medical & Dental Center, 1580 W. Hamilton Avenue." MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to continue this item for 30 days to the January 10, 1995, meeting (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 14 Chairman Perrine read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. 4. SA 94-39 Hearing to consider the application of Cai Neon, on behalf of Kirkwood Plaza Shopping Center, to allow a modification to an existing freestanding sign located at 1630 W. Campbell Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Applicant seeks to modify a previously approved Sign Permit. · The original approval requires an individual raised letter design. applicant no longer wishes to utilize these raised letters. · Staff is not supportive of the request for modification for two reasons: 1. The The change will not integrate with the sign program approved for the center. A desire to keep the signage consistent for the center. Commissioner Alne asked why the applicant was seeking the change. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that the applicant has stated a cost factor and the fear of vandalism. Commissioner Lowe inquired how many tenant panels were involved. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that three tenant panels were involved. Chairman Perrine asked how many of the tenants wanted the waiver. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that all three were looking for the waiver. Vice Chair Meyer-Kennedy presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows; · SARC recommends approval of the staff position to deny the modification in an effort to maintain the architectural compatibility. Mr. Craig Maynard, Cai Neon Signs. · Apologized for his inattentiveness when the original approval was made by the Commission. · Seeking to use lexan faces for the sign panels, a material which resists vandalism and weather. · Individual letters resist glue and cannot be done in the lexan material. · Installing the individual letter signs require several steps and is labor intensive. · Agrees with the need to coordinate the signing program Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 15 Stated that the Wing Center (directly across the street) has a sign done exactly as he is proposing. Commissioner Lindstrom advised that the Wing Center sign was done as it was approved to be done. The approval for the Kirkwood Plaza required the raised lettering. Commissioner Alne clarified the intent of the Commission was to provide consistency in the signage for the center. If the applicant were to change the portions of the sign already installed (raised letters) to lexan materials it could be supported because it would be consistent. Mr. Craig Maynard stated that the difference would be negligible and most people would not notice a difference. Clarified that the use of raised letters was a requirement raised by staff and he simply did not catch it. Commissioner Alne inquired if the goal was simply to used raised letters or to offer the appearance of raised letters. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that the appearance of raised letters was the goal. Mr. Craig Maynard stated that the client was not supportive because some corporate lettering/logos do no include raised letters. Commissioner Lowe inquired whether any vandalism had occurred yet. Ms. Gloria Sciara replied that not as far as she was aware. Commissioner Lowe mentioned his appreciation for the area with the walkways, landscaping. He often passes by the area. Commissioner Alne stated that if consistency is a valued goal, staff must be invested with authority to maintain consistency. He is inclined to support the staff position. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to deny this request for a modification to a sign approval for a freestanding sign located at Kirkwood Plaza Shopping Center, 1630 W. Campbell Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District (7-0). Ms. Gloria Sciara offered to work with the applicant to develop an alternative that will offer the appearance of raised letters. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 16 Chairman Perrine agreed that if staff can develop an acceptable alternative with the applicant they should do so. Chairman Perrine Read Agenda Item No. 5 into the record: 5. Selection of Architectural Advisor and Landscape Advisor for 1994795. Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Professional organizations were notified that the positions of Architectural Advisor and Landscape Advisor were open. · Three candidates for Architectural Advisor were interviewed on December 1, 1994, by a selection committee comprised of Commissioners Alne and Lindstrom. · The selection committee recommended that the incumbent continue for an additional year of service. · The candidates will be notified by letter and the two not selected will be encouraged to apply again next year. Commissioner Alne presented the selection committee report as follows: · He and Commissioner Lindstrom met with the three applicants and then discussed the qualifications of each with staff. · All three candidates are highly qualified and it was difficult to select one. However, the selection committee recommends the reappointment of Mr. Jeff Bowlsby for a second year. Ms. Susan Landry, the Landscape Advisor, is also willing to serve a second year. No other parties applied for the position of Landscape Advisor. Commissioner Lowe apologized to the Commission for missing the selection committee meeting due to a work conflict. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Planning Commission unanimously moved to reappoint Mr. Jeff Bowlsby as the Commission's Architectural Advisor and Ms. Susan Landry as the Landscape Advisor (7-0). REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, was accepted with the following highlights: · City Council item No. 4 does not require a Site and Architectural approval. Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1994 Page 17 The General Plan is a document of the City Council. An application went before City Council on December 6, 1994, to request a Zone Change for property located on San Tomas Aquino Road. This matter must receive the permission of the Council before it can be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration, review and a recommendation to the Council. The Council has allowed the consideration of this General Plan Amendment which will come before the Planning Commission soon. Chairman Perrine announced that the election for Chair and Vice Chair will take place at the next Planning Commission meeting, December 27, 1994. Mr. Darryl M. Jones announced that at the meeting of December 27, 1994, the Commission will consider one project consisting of five separate housing sites on Van Dusen Lane. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m., to the next Planning Commission meeting of December 27, 1994, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Jay Perri~, Chalrpers~ Steve Piasecki,"Secretary