Loading...
PC Min 10/25/2005 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY OCTOBER 25, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 2005, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Gibbons and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Elizabeth Gibbons Bob Alderete George Doorley Mark Ebner Tom Francois Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Sharon Fierro Jackie C. Young Lind Tim J. Haley Stephanie Willsey William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission minutes of October 11, 2005, were approved as submitted with one edit. (7-0) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Revised Conditions of Approval for Agenda Item No.1. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no Agenda Modifications or Postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. *** PUBLIC HEARING Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No.1 into the record as follows: 1 PLN2005-113 Abtahi, H. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Hamid Abtahi for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2005-113) to allow the construction of a new single- family residence on property owned by Mr. Shahbas Taheri located at 1786 Regina Way in an R-1-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking Site and Architectural approval to allow the construction of a new single-family residence on a property zoned R-1-9 located within the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan area. The project site is located on the south side of Regina Way, between Del Loma Drive and Harriet Avenues. . Explained that the Community Development Director approved a three-lot Parcel Map in April. . Said that at this time, the applicant is proposing the development of street frontage lot with the construction of a new residence. . Said that the property is surrounded by single-family residences on all four sides. The General Plan density is less than 4.5 units per gross acre. The proposed development is at 3.8 units per gross acre, which is consistent and meets the policies and strategies of the General Plan. The project is also consistent with the provisions of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. . Described the proposed residence as being two-story with an attached two-car garage. The home is centered within the property and satisfies setback requirements. Eight new trees would be planted predominately along the southern property line. Staff is recommending that one of the trees be planted along the street frontage. . Said that SARC reviewed the project at its meeting of September 27, 2005, and that the applicant has addressed issues raised by SARC. . Recommended the adoption of a Resolution approving this project subject to the revised Conditions of Approval as submitted this evening as a Communications Item. The revised Condition modifies the building colors. This Condition Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 3 recommends the resolution of the building colors with the Building Division submittal. . Said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Alderete presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . SARC reviewed this project at its meeting of September 27, 2005, and was supportive. . Said that SARC recommended that the elevations be revised with simpler roof style, including gable and hip elements, that a bay window be lowered, that an arched window be incorporated for the second story bedroom, that a simpler garage door be used and that decorative pavers or a stamped concrete material be used for the driveway. Chair Gibbons asked if SARC's recommendations have been addressed. Commissioner Alderete replied yes. Chair Gibbons said that she thought a goal of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan was that the garage not be as prominent as this appears to be. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the STANP calls out for a less than 50 percent garage frontage visible from the street frontage. This project's garage is less than that standard. Chair Gibbons added that not a lot has been done to make this two-story house look like a single-story building. Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Mr. Dale Lewis, 1776 Regina Way, Campbell: . Stated that his only concern is two walnut trees located on this property that offer a lot a shade onto his property. . Pointed out that lots of larger limbs were removed from this tree already and he wanted to know the plans for these trees. Would they be kept or removed? Associate Planner Tim J. Haley deferred this question to the applicant. Mr. Hamid Abtahi, Project Applicant: . Stated that he did not have anything done to these trees. . Said that two trees on the front of the property were done by the Public Works Department. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley clarified for Mr. Hamid Abtahi that the concern from Mr. Dale Lewis is the future for the two walnut trees on the eastern property line. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Hamid Abtahi assured that these walnut trees would be kept. Chair Gibbons asked why these trees were trimmed recently. Mr. Hamid Abtahi replied that he is unsure who has cut limbs from these trees. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley reported that a demolition permit had been issued for the existing single-family residence and that the trimming of these trees might have been done to facilitate that demolition. Mr. Hamid Abtahi reported that upon a quick discussion with Mr. Dale Lewis, it is clear that the tree limbs were cut during demolition. He assured that there are no plans to remove these walnut trees from the eastern property line. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Commissioner Rocha asked if the retention of the two walnut trees could be conditioned. Director Sharon Fierro replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Ebner, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3685 approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2005-113) to allow the construction of a new single-family residence on property owned by Mr. Shahbas Taheri located at 1786 Regina Way, with the addition to Condition #10 to require the retention of the two walnut trees on the eastern property line, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, François, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry None None None NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No.2 into the record as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 5 2 PLN2005-97 Petit, J. Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Julie Petit, on behalf of Equity Office, for a Modification to the Master Sign Plan (PLN2005-97) for the PruneYard Shopping Center on property owned by Equity Office located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Stephanie Willsey, Planner I Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Reported that the applicant is seeking three modifications to the approved Master Sign Plan for the PruneYard Shopping Center. The request includes allowing Buca di Beppo to retain its existing sign, to allow a new wall sign for PizzaMyHeart and to allow a second wall sign for Bankers Network. . Explained that the existing Master Sign Plan was approved by the Commission in August 2004. . Outlined staffs recommendations as requiring Buca to mount its existing sign on a new frame that is consistent with the current Master Sign Plan; to deny the sign for PizzaMyHeart and to allow a second sign for Bankers Network. . Advised that the Master Use Permit for the PruneYard allows a total of 18 restaurants. At this time, there are currently 18 restaurants at the shopping center. . Recommended that if a 19th restaurant is to be approved for the PruneYard that their Master Use Permit be properly modified. Commissioner Alderete asked if the two signs for Bankers Network are intended to replace the two illegal signs. He asked if those illegal signs had yet been removed. Planner Stephanie Willsey replied not yet. Commissioner Alderete presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . Reported that SARC reviewed this project on October 11, 2005. . Stated that the recommendations of SARC were to have Buca reinstall their existing sign on the modified larger sign frame in its same location; to deny an exterior wall sign for PizzaMyHeart and to allow the second wall sign for Bankers Network. Chair Gibbons asked whether SARC's requirements had been accommodated. Commissioner Alderete replied yes. Chair Gibbons pointed out that these changes are not reflected in the drawings. Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.2. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Jeff Forster, 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 1100, San Jose: . Identified himself as the representative for Bankers Network. . Said he has nothing specific to add. . Said that Equity Office has been told to remove the improper flag signs from the Prune Yard. This removal is in the works. . Explained that the second wall sign is need to help clients locate this service provider (Bankers Network). Commissioner Alderete thanked Mr. Jeff Forster but asked him to further explain the need for this second sign as it appears that the existing one sign offers visibility from one direction only. Mr. Jeff Forster agreed, saying that there is sign visibility only when coming from the west. There is no sign when coming from the east. People often get lost and can't find this business and end up calling for help. This second sign would help immeasurably. Commissioner Alderete again thanked Mr. Jeff Forster, saying that this information clears up the need for this second sign. Mr. Jeff Forster added that Bankers Network is a service business and not a retail business. Ms. Deborah Kerr, 4655 Cass Street, San Diego: . Explained that she is here to represent Buca di Beppo. . Said that the options available are to approve staff's recommendations or to allow Buca to keep its existing sign. . Questioned who would benefit from staffs recommendation. . Stated that Buca loves its existing sign and received a Sign Exception for this sign in 1999. . Added that Equity Office does not benefit from this change either and had attempted to include Buca in the exceptions to its newest Master Sign Plan. . Said that the City's benefit to this is to enforce this Sign Program. . Pointed out that Rock Bottom was able to have an exception retained for a sign that is very similar to Buca's. . Said that this discrepancy is prejudicial to Buca. Why should Rock Bottom get to keep its sign and not Buca? . Said that she is asking the Planning Commission to let Buca keep their sign as constructed. . Assured that when their sign is replaced in the future, they would meet the Sign Plan requirements at that time. Ms. Julie Petit, Equity Office: . Stated that she is the representative for the PruneYard. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 7 . Said that she is here in support of their three tenants. Commissioner Doorley asked Ms. Julie Petit why Rock Bottom's existing sign exception was protected when the new Master Sign Plan was processed but Buca's was not. Ms. Julie Petit: . Said that she is not sure how that happened. . Explained that there were 14 tenants with sign exceptions. . Stated that Buca got left off inadvertently. The intent had been to keep exceptions as is. Commissioner Doorley asked if this omission was Equity Office's or the City's. Ms. Julie Petit: . Stated that their first letter in the processing of the new Master Sign Plan asked that all the existing exceptions be kept, including Buca's. . Added that only Trader Joe's and Le Boulangerie's sign exceptions were to be eliminated and updated to meet the new program. Mr. James Zuur, Managing Partner; Camera Cinemas: . Said that they are proud to be a part of Campbell. . Stated that it has been a tough year for them. . Explained that PizzaMyHeart is not the one asking for this sign, Camera7 is. . Pointed out that a huge percentage of theatre patrons go out to dinner before attending a movie. . Said that Camera7 brings a strong tax base to the City. . Said that 50 cents of every dollar for a movie ticket goes to the film distributor. Theatres must make their revenues from concession sales. . Stated that Camera7 is the only movie theatre in the Bay Area where one can truly have dinner and a movie in one location. This is an important part of their theatre. . Assured that the employees selling this pizza are their employees and are not employees of PizzaMyHeart directly. . Asked the Commission to please consider this sign request as these concession sales are an important revenue source that will allow them to stay in business in Campbell. Commissioner Francois extended congratulations to Mr. James Zuur for his 30 years in the industry. He asked about the overall menu and whether this concession can be considered more of a restaurant and/or café. Mr. James Zuur: . Said that it is more a café than a restaurant. They sell pizza by the slice. Patrons can take this pizza into the theatre. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 8 . Reminded that they had initially started with Willow Street Pizza but that arrangement didn't work out because the pizza took too long to prepare. Commissioner Francois asked if it is true that 90 percent of the available patrons already eat prior to attending a movie. Mr. James Zuur explained that this sign is needed to identify the availability of pizza to those planning to attend a film as well as others passing by. He said that he understands that their request represents a variance. He added that they are having a tough year. Commissioner Francois said that he understands that concession sales are necessary to support the theatre. Commissioner Ebner asked how many Camera7 patrons are repeat patrons. Mr. James Zuur replied that lots of their patrons are repeat patrons. They are in the process of doing a survey but don't have specific numbers to offer right now. Commissioner Ebner asked if it is fair to say that between 50 and 60 percent of their patrons are repeat clients. Mr. James Zuur said that they are hopeful that the repeat business represents between 40 and 50 percent. Commissioner Ebner pointed out that if this is the case, the most patrons already know about the pizza service and questioned the need for a sign. Mr. James Zuur explained that there are always new people coming to this area and others leave. They need to develop new patrons all the time. Commissioner Ebner asked Mr. James Zuur if he believes the movie or the pizza is the draw for his patrons. Mr. James Zuur replied that it is a combination of both. Commissioner Alderete congratulated Mr. James Zuur on winning the battle to be able to serve up commercial movies at his Camera Cinemas. Mr. James Zuur thanked Commissioner Alderete. Commissioner Alderete said that he hopes this ability is good for business and good for Campbell. He asked if pizzas can also still be bought as a whole pie rather than just by the slice. Mr. James Zuur said he is not sure. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Alderete said that if so it makes it seem more like a restaurant than a concession. He asked if other sign options had been considered. Mr. James Zuur: . Said that since the theatre is set back so far, it is hard to see other signs. A wall sign would be more visible. . Said that the window glass is tinted so any window signs would not be visible. It would be too expensive to change out the glass on these windows and besides it is often necessary to block bright sunlight into the lobby. Chair Gibbons pointed out that this proposed sign does not conform to sign standards. Mr. James Zuur said that they would consider modifying their sign request. Chair Gibbons said that it does not fit into anything that she could easily work with. Commissioner Roseberry asked Mr. James Zuur to clarify the relationship between PizzaMyHeart and Camera7. He asked if they are independent businesses. Mr. James Zuur: . Replied that they are both independent businesses. . Added that PizzaMyHeart does not own this location. . Said that the employees at this location are theatre employees. . Explained that they simply use the formula owned by PizzaMyHeart. . Assured that this would not be operated as a restaurant. . Pointed out that staff would let this landlord come back to the Commission to revise the total number of restaurants allowed at the PruneYard. Commissioner Francois asked if Willow Street had a sign. Planner Stephanie Willsey replied that she could only answer that Willow Street had no approved sign. Perhaps a window sign was used. Commissioner Rocha asked staff to describe for the Commission sign alternatives discussed at SARC. Planner Stephanie Willsey said that up to 25 percent window signage can be used. Additionally, the PizzaMyHeart logo could be incorporated into the directory sign. Commissioner Doorley said that although this is being described as concession, they do make pizza on site and no theatre ticket is required to purchase pizza. He asked how this is not considered a restaurant as it seems to be a restaurant. Planner Stephanie Willsey said that staff does not want to get into the day to day activities of the concession portion of this business. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Doorley said he thought that this is why Willow Street did not work. Director Sharon Fierro: . Said that when staff first looked at this use, it was considered a concession with incidental traffic impacts. . Reminded that the maximum allowable number of restaurants was determined when the last major expansion occurred. A specific number of restaurants was allowed. . Stated that staff finds that as long as PizzaMyHeart is simply a concession of the theatre, it is simply ancillary to the movie theatre and not an additional restaurant. Commissioner Doorley asked how this cannot be considered a restaurant. Director Sharon Fierro: . Reported that staff has concerns here about establishing a precedent with allowance of this additional sign. . Added that if this is to be run as a restaurant, they need to go through the approval process for an additional restaurant. . Advised that she was not sure that a traffic study would support another restaurant use. . Said that going through this sign request is a back door way of getting this use approved. The proposed sign is quite large. However, the Commission can reduce the proposed sign. . Stated that philosophically she has a problem with this request that seeks to establish identification for another restaurant. Commissioner Rocha: . Pointed out that all other restaurants at Prune Yard have direct leases with the center. . Said that this entity (PizzaMyHeart) is part of Camera? and is supposed to remain a concession for the theatre. . Stated that the other restaurants have complied with requirements and that PizzaMyHeart would be competing with them. Commissioner Alderete asked for the sake of compromise what type of sign would be allowed if this were a restaurant. Chair Gibbons added to the question. If this were an independent entity, which sign from the Master Sign Plan would be allowed and who assigns said signage rights. Commissioner Alderete said that the sign as proposed would not make it. Commission needs to find a way to help this business. The Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 11 Planner Stephanie Willsey advised that the Tenant Identification 3 (TID3) sign would be the appropriate sign. It is a standard small wall sign, a frame sign mounted to the wall. They are the same dimension as a small tenant roof-mounted sign. Chair Gibbons: . Said that the question for the Commission is whether the requested sign would be appropriate for PizzaMyHeart or not. . Explained that the Commission could alternately consider a TI D3 sign from the Master Sign Plan, the alternatives offered by SARC or nothing. . Asked for clarification as to whether staff or the applicant left Buca off the list of retained sign exceptions when the current Master Sign Plan was processed. Where did it get dropped? Is there a specific reason why it was dropped? Planner Stephanie Willsey: . Replied that the applicants initially met with former Senior Planner Geoff Bradley. . Said that all documentation provided by the applicant does not call out for the retention of Buca's sign exception. . Added that Buca's sign was not included during discussions with SARC nor with the material provided for the Planning Commission hearing. . Pointed out that no one brought it up as a mistake. . Chair Gibbons said that Bankers Network is seeking approval of a second roof- mounted sign and will remove to existing inappropriate signs . Pointed out that no one brought it up as a mistake. Chair Gibbons: . Reported that Bankers Network is seeking approval of a second roof-mounted sign and will remove to existing inappropriate signs. . Asked the City Attorney if the signs in this request can be considered one by one. City Attorney William Seligmann said yes but that one Resolution would need to be adopted ultimately for all requested signs. Ms. Julie Petit, Equity Office: . Distributed a letter and exhibit. . Stated that the original application for the Master Sign Plan included a list of excepted signs to be retained that included Buca's. . Said that a July ih letter states that all exceptions are to be retained except for Trader Joe's and La Boulangerie. Commissioner Rocha asked if a picture of the Buca sign was included in that request. Ms. Julie Petit said yes. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.2. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Rocha asked if the Commission is able to dissect the three signs. Chair Gibbons replied yes. Commissioner Roseberry asked whether the exception received by Buca in 1999 normally stays in effect until removed. Director Sharon Fierro explained that the new Master Sign Plan later approved for the PruneYard superseded that exception. Equity Office called out those specific sign exceptions they wanted to survive and Buca's was not one. Commissioner Doorley said that assuming that Buca's sign was unintentionally left off, was there a concern in place that would have prevented staff from allowing its retention. Director Sharon Fierro replied that the Buca sign is similar to Rock Bottom's sign. She said that she could not second guess but that the argument could likely have been made just as strong for Buca as for the Rock Bottom sign. Chair Gibbons: . Said that she had no problem with the Buca sign remaining and feels it being left out was simply an oversight. . Said that she had no problem with the Bankers Network sign. . Said that she does have a problem with the PizzaMyHeart sign and feels it cannot go forward as proposed. . Added that she is open to consider a motion. Commissioner Rocha asked staff for any suggestions. Director Sharon Fierro said that it is up to the Planning Commission at this time. Commissioner Francois: . Agreed that the present sign proposed for PizzaMyHeart is too big. . Said he might support a sign more similar to Cold Stone. . Advised that he was a small business owner and understands the importance of advertising. . Stated that it is important to try to help Camera? Commissioner Alderete: . Said that the City is looking for consistency and conformance to the Master Sign Plan. . Added that he could go either way in regards to the Buca sign. . Stated he could support the TID3 sign (or something similar) for PizzaMyHeart as appears on Page 14 of the Master Sign Plan. . Advised that he could not support the PizzaMyHeart sign as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 13 . Expressed support for the Bankers Network sign request. Commissioner Ebner asked if the PizzaMyHeart sign were to be approved would it be grandfathered for any future tenant of this space. He asked if there are plans to propose adding an approved 19th restaurant at this center in the future. Chair Gibbons said that this is a good question. Would this approval be setting a precedent. Commissioner Roseberry pointed out that if another business were to be located in this space a sign would be allowed. Chair Gibbons reminded that there are potential changes to the traffic and parking analysis if a 19th restaurant were to be allowed at the PruneYard. Commissioner Ebner asked if there is a full kitchen for this use. Director Sharon Fierro replied that there is a full pizza kitchen. Commissioner Ebner asked if there are dishwashers, etc. Chair Gibbons said that she doesn't mind pizza as a concession service in support of the theatre but does have a problem supporting an additional sign. Commissioner Ebner asked if it is possible to support two of the tree signs requested. Commissioner Roseberry asked if this space used by PizzaMyHeart has a separate lease or if it is simply part of the Camera? Chair Gibbons replied that it is a part of the Camera? Commissioner Roseberry pointed out that in that case another tenant cannot come in as a restaurant. Chair Gibbons stated that a tenant space can have a sign. However, this is not an individual tenant space. Camera? is the tenant here. Director Sharon Fierro advised that the Commission could approve any portion of this request and/or continue any other portion. The options range from approving, continuing and/or denying this request. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the Commission might elect to take a straw poll to see the direction the Commission is leaning toward. Commissioner Alderete asked about the existing neon sign in the window for PizzaMyHeart. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 14 Chair Gibbons: . Began a straw vote. . Asked for a show of hands as to how many Commissioners are supportive of the Buca sign: as is, as proposed by staff or not at all. Five Commissioners voted to support the Buca sign as is. Two Commissioners voted to support the sign for Buca as proposed by staff. . Questioned how many Commissioners support the request by Bankers Network for a total of two small roof-mounted signs. All seven Commissioners voted in support. . Asked the Commission if they support the sign as proposed by the applicant, to deny it or to allow an alternate sign to be approved by the Community Development Director within the standards of the Master Sign Plan for minor tenants. All seven Commissioners voted to allow an alternative sign to be reviewed and approved by the Director in conformance with the approved Sign Plan. Commissioner Ebner said that if a new wall sign for PizzaMyHeart is allowed, he would not support the retention of the neon sign currently in the window. It would have to be removed. Commissioner Roseberry asked about provisions in the Sign Ordinance for incidental window signs and if this neon sign would fall under that. Director Sharon Fierro said typically yes. However, the Planning Commission can include the removal of this in its approval conditions. Commissioner Francois asked why it should be removed. Commissioner Ebner said that it would be redundant with the new wall sign and he was not sure if it would be legal with the approval of a wall sign. Chair Gibbons clarified that up to 25 percent of window area can have incidental signage under the Sign Ordinance. City Attorney William Seligman suggested combining Findings 1 and 2 to state that the Buca sign is consistent with other sign exceptions. He also offered modifications to Conditions 1 and 3 and the elimination of Condition ? Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3686 approving a Modification to the Master Sign Plan (PLN2005-97) for the PruneYard Shopping Center on property owned by Equity Office located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue, as follows: . To allow Buca di Beppo to keep its existing sign; Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 15 . To require PizzaMyHeart to submit a Sign Application for the Community Development Director's approval within the existing Master Sign Plan criteria as a minor tenant sign; and . Approving a total of two wall signs for Bankers Network with the conditioned removal of two existing flag signs; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, François, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry None None None NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No.3 into the record as follows: 3 PLN2004-109 (ZC) PLN2004-110 (PM) PLN2004-111 (PD) PLN2005-65 (TRP) Adlparvar, H. Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Hamid Adlparvar, on behalf of Mr. Jack Bates, for approval of the following applications: . Zone Change (PLN2004-109) from R-1-9 to P-D; . Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2004-110) for a two-lot subdivision; . Planned Development Permit (PLN2004-111) to allow the construction of two new single-family homes; and . Tree Removal Permit (PLN2005-65) to remove six protected trees (five Incense Cedars and one Acacia); on property owned by Mr. Jack Bates located at 1819 W. Hacienda Avenue in an R-1-9 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: November 15, 2005. Project Planner: Stephanie Willsey, Planner I Ms. Stephanie Willsey, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: . Reported that the applicant is seeking to develop property on the north side of W. Hacienda Avenue, between Harriet Avenue and Del Loma Drive. . Described the surrounding uses as being townhomes to the east and south and single-family residences to the north and west. The property is at the San Jose border. . Stated that the General Plan Land Use is Low to Medium Density Residential that allows 6 to 13 units per gross acre. The proposed development is at 4 units per gross acre. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 16 . Said that the Zoning is R-1-9. . Explained that the General Plan designation allows for a higher density than the R- 1-9 Zoning. Therefore, a Zoning Classification Change is proposed to P-D (Planned Development) to bring the Zoning and General Plan designations into consistency. . Advised that this parcel falls under the jurisdiction of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. . Stated that the applicant is seeking a Tentative Parcel Map to split one lot into two with one fronting the street and the second a flag lot. . Said that parking required is four spaces per parcel, with two covered and two uncovered. Staff finds this parking to be sufficient. . Explained that six trees would be removed under a proposed Tree Removal Permit. They have been ranked as unhealthy by an arborist and are located in the proposed driveway area. . Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions to forward recommendations for Council approval of the Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map, Planned Development Permit and Tree Removal Permit for this property. Commissioner Roseberry asked for further clarification on the need to change to P-D zoning. Planner Stephanie replied to achieve conformance with the General Plan designation that currently offers higher density than the current Zoning. Chair Gibbons pointed out that the current General Plan designation would allow apartments on this property. Commissioner Alderete presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . Reported that SARC reviewed this project at its meeting of October 11 th and was supportive as presented with no changes in Conditions. Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.3. Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.3. Commissioner Alderete: . Pointed out that this applicant sat through the SARC meeting for the same Sign Application as was heard earlier this evening. . Advised that he was in the Nation's Capitol and that Washington has nothing on us as far as debate. . Thanked the applicant for his patience with the process. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 1? Commissioner Rocha quipped that the applicant received more time this evening than he did at the SARC meeting since the previous application ate up most of the time available. Chair Gibbons pointed out that no neighbor concerns were raised. Commissioner Alderete pointed out that again there are no representatives from the San Tomas Neighborhood Association. He said it is most helpful when they are present. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission took the following action: . Adopted Resolution No. 3687 recommending approval of a Zone Change (PLN2004-109) from R-1-9 to P-D; . Adopted Resolution No. 3688 recommending approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2004-11 0) for a two-lot subdivision; . Adopted Resolution No. 3689 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2004-111) to allow the construction of two new single family homes; and Adopted Resolution No. 3690 recommending approval of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2005-65) to remove six protected trees (five Incense Cedars and one Acacia); on property located at 1819 W. Hacienda Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, François, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry None None None . NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair Gibbons advised that this item would be considered by Council for final action at its meeting of November 15, 2005. *** 4. Cancellation of the Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 2005. Motion: Upon motion and second, the Planning Commission cancelled the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 2005. (7-0) *** Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 18 REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: . Reminded that the Annual Commissioners Dinner would be held on November 3rd at which time a State of the City address will be provided by the City Manager. . Reported that the Ainsley House has been placed on the National Register. Chair Gibbons asked if the arborist for Item #3 was hired by the City or the applicant. Director Sharon Fierro replied that arborists are hired by the applicant but must be certified. On the other hand, the City does directly hire any traffic consultants when necessary. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:1? p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 22, 2005 (the Regular Meeting of November 8, 2005 has ~ SUBMITTED BY: ('J Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: ~'- /? /~ /Sharon Fierro, Secretary