Loading...
PC Min 01/12/1993CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City Council Chambers 7:30 P.M. 70 North First Street Campbell, California The Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1993, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, by Chairperson Fox, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROIL Commissioners Present: Outgoing Chairperson: David Fox Incoming Chairperson: I. (Bud) Alne Commissioner: Jay Perrine Commissioner: Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioner: Mark Wilkinson Commissioner: Alana Higgins Commissioner Absent: None Staff Present: Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki Associate Planner, Tim J. Haley City Engineer, Joan Bollier City Attorney, William Seligmann Reporting Secretary, Karon Shaban APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: On motion of Commissioner Aln~ seconded by Commissioner P~rdne, the Planning Commission minutes of ~ 8, 1992, were unanimously approved modifu~l to reflect the correct resolution numbers, (5-0-1), Commissioner Hig~ins abstaining due to her absence at the last Planning Commission meeti~ AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no modifications or postponements. COMMUNICATIONS: Items of communication were included with the packet distribution. The following items were received after the packets were delivered: - Flyer from the League of California Cities - Memo relating to Item No. 4 - Staff report for Item No. 7 - Newspaper clipping regarding Fry's Electronics' Sign proposal - Packet for the San Tomas Policy ORAL ,REQUESTS: There were no oral requests. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Outgoing Chairperson David Fox presented the gavel to the newly elected Chairperson of the Campbell Planning Commission, I. (Bud) Alne. Chairperson Alne accepted the gavel noting that he had no intention to make ambitious changes in the upcoming year. He assumed the position of the Chair. Chairperson Alne read Resolution No. 2838, commending outgoing Chairperson David Fox for his se~,ice as Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the 1992 Calendar Year. Further, Chairperson Alne presented the plaque and gavel to Commissioner Fox, noting his conduct, competence, grace, and humor. Mr. Fox accepted the commendation with appreciation. Chairperson Alne read the application into the record. S 92-10 Finnigan, P. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Patrick Finnigan, on behalf of Mr. Tony Chang, for approval of a Site and Architectural Permit to allow the construction of a single-family residence on property located at 1689 Walters Avenue, in an R-l-9 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, noting the following: * The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new family residence on a parcel that is small relative to surrounding lot sizes within the zoning district. Staff concerns include the size of the building, the massing and the lot coverage, which is not consistent with the rural character outlined in the San Tomas Policy. The applicant is currently working with the proposed owner to address those concerns. Staff suggests continuing the item to February 9, 1993. Chairperson Alne opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Richard Warfield, 1632 Walters Avenue, spoke in opposition of the project because approval would take away from the rural character of the San Tomas area. Mr. Danny Harms, 1667 Walters Avenue, spoke for his grandfather who could not attend, but lives across the street from the proposed project. He is opposed to the project's design because a "dead wall" would face his (his grandfather's) property. No one else came forward to address the Commission on this item. Chairperson Alne reported that the item did come before the Site and Architectural Review meeting, and the Committee concluded that the building was too massive for the lot and if the applicant had not requested a continuance, the Committee would have recommended denial. MOTION On motion of Commissioner Fox, seconded by Commissioner M~jer-Kennedy, the Public Hearing was unanimously continued to the regular Plarming Commission meeting of February 9, 1993. Chairperson Alne read the application into the record. 4. R 92-10 Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Stanton Elliott for approval of a Reinstatement to a previously approved Site and Architectural Permit (Planning Department File No. S 88-10) on property located at 201 East Hamilton Avenue, in a C-I~S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, noting the following: * The applicant's request is for reinstatement of a previously approved application to construct a two and one-half story office building, and to allow minor changes to the proposed building design. Description of the property layout and surrounding uses. Parking adjoins a lobby with a storage area at grade level, general office use on the second floor, and storage area on the third floor. Revised plans have been submitted indicating changes to the landscaping, roof line element, and providing a stucco finish instead of wood siding. Staff is supportive of the application, however, is asking for a Boulevard Treatment including a ten foot landscape strip, a seven foot sidewalk and a 13 foot set back. Similar to Campbell Gateway Square. The applicant is asking for approval of a "Monolithic sidewalk" instead. Before the Commission is a memo suggesting alternate approaches regarding sidewalk improvements, and proposing that a minute action be taken requesting that City Council direct staff to prepare an interim policy for sidewalks along arterial streets. Commissioner Fox, noted that ten foot monolithic sidewalks currently exist along Hamilton Avenue, and asked how the boulevard sidewalk would connect to what currently exists. Mr. Haley explained that the driveway would be relocated, and demonstrated how the Boulevard Sidewalk Treatment would be implemented into the current sidewalk design. Chairperson Alne provided a brief review of the Site and Architectural Review meeting of December 31, 1992, noting that the Committee was supportive of the application with revisions to include a 5-7 foot setback along the western property line, and a Boulevard Sidewalk along the front of the property. Chairperson Alne opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Dana Pefferle, 197 East Hamilton Avenue, property owner, stated that he was in agreement with all conditions as outlined by Staff, except for Condition Nos. 18 and 21. His concern was that the suggested parldng would place patrons' cars against the landscape strip creating a safety hazard for anyone trying to enter their car. They would be forced to enter on the traffic side of the street, that car doors would be hard to open on the sidewalk side due to the plants, foot-traffic would cut across the landscaped areas, through the mud and dirt, women with high heels would get stuck. He suggested that a Boulevard Sidewalk Treatment be used in areas where street parking is prohibited. Mr. Jack Slaughterbeck, 160 Harrison Avenue, expressed agreement with Mr. Pefferle. No one else asked to speak. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Meyer-K~, seconded by Commissioner Higgins, the Public Hearing was unanimoudy dosed. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked how many on-street parking spaces there were for the proposed project. Mr, Haley responded that there may be 2 or 3. Commissioner Fox expressed agreement with the Mr. Dana Peffefle, and suggested that a standard be established. Commissioner Perfine concurred with Mr. Fox, and asked if Public Works preferred one type of sidewalk treatment over another. Ms. Joan Bollier, City Engineer, noted that the Public Works Department has no opinion as to whether one type would be preferable relative to design. She stated that there is no policy nor standard established for parking and sidewalks along major arterials. Commissioners Fox and Perrine discussed alternatives with staff and about the potential of having a standard established by the City Council within six months. Director of Planning, Mr. Steve Piasecki, indicated that it could be done within six months. Chairperson Alne asked who would be burdened with removal of the diagonal connecting the sidewalks, and Ms. Bollier stated that the applicant would be financially responsible. The Chairperson expressed a concern, referencing another application previously reinstated by the City, located along Grace at Hamilton Avenues. Subjecting an applicant to a large expense based upon a potential policy or a potential standard seems unfair to the applicant. On motion of Commissioner Fox, sa~onded by Commissioner Perdne, Resolution No. 2839 was adopted with the recommmded findings, amended to include a Condition that the applicant install or agree to install street improvements amsistent with the adopted City Coundl policy if established within a six month period of time; if the policy is not aaablished at the end of the six months, the applicant is free to build the monolithic, style sidamlk. The motion carded by the following roll call vot~ AYES' NOE X' ABSENT.: ABSTAIN: Commissioner~ Commissionem. Commissione~'.. None Commissionen. None Higgins, Perrine, Meyer-Komedy, Wilkinson, Fox, Alne None Item No. 4 resum$ after the following item. MISCELLANEOUS: Chairperson Alne read the application into the record. SA 92-37 Slaughterbeck, J. Consider the application of Mr. John Slaughterbeck, for an exception to the Sign Ordinance for property located at 160 Harrison Avenue, in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Director of Planning, Mr. Steve Piasecki, presented the staff report, noting the following: * The applicant's request for two wall-mounted signs, totaling 75 square feet. * The item is before the Commission, because the Sign Ordinance allows only one wall-mounted sign of 50 square feet. Staff supports the application due to the configuration of the parcel. Chairperson Alne asked the Commission if they had any questions of Staff. The Chairperson invited the applicant to address the Commission. There was no response. Item No. 4: MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Meyer. Komedy, seconded by Commissioner Fox, Item No. 5, was unanimously approved as pr~nte~ (6-0-0). Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if the Commission had intended to forward the memorandum prepared by Staff back to the City Council for consideration, relative to Item No. 4. Consensus of the Commission indicated that it did, subsequently, the following motion: MOT/ON, On motion of Connnissioner Mey~-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Petting staff was unanimously authorized to refer a recommendation to the City Council directing staff to adopt a policy for s~k standards dong arterial streets, 6-0-0. Chairperson Alne read the application into the record. SA 92-47 Gibbings, E. Consider the application of Mr. Earle Gibbings, on behalf of Tower Records, for approval of two wall signs on property located at 1900 South Bascom Avenue, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, noting the following: * The applicant's request is for signage in excess of the number of signs permitted by the Sign Ordinance. * The property has two business operations. * Staff will support the application, due to the size of the building, length of the building, and the fact that the building is being occupied by two different businesses. Chairperson Alne asked the Commission if they had any questions of Staff. He provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee's report of December 31, 1992, recommending approval stipulating that the sign dimension not exceed the current square footage. Chairperson Alne invited the applicant to speak, however, the applicant declined. The Chairperson asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this item. MOTION~ On motion of Commissioner P~ne, seconded by Commissioner Meye~ Kennedy, Item No. 6 was urumimously approvea~ as submitted, (6-0-0). Chairperson Alne read the application into the record. 7. Fence Request Consider the City-Initiated application to permit soundwalls along the north side of West Campbell Avenue between Victor Avenue and San Tomas Expressway (11-33 Del Prado Ddve; 16-15 Darryl Drive; 10 Jim Elder Drive; 11 Jim Elder Drive, 18~25 Shereen Place) in excess of the maximum height limitation of six (6) feet. Mr. Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer, Public Works, presented the staff report, noting the following: * The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department was petitioned by 180 citizens requesting mitigation of traffic noise along San Tomas Expressway, as noted above. The sound study indicated that raising the height of the soundwall from 6 feet to 8 feet would decrease sound levels. The City Council directed staff to bring this issue to the Commission. He provided an alternative which is to reconstruct the existing soundwalls. The cost would be extreme. He explained that expansion of the existing fences (soundwalls), was not possible. He provided supports for the extension was another alternative; however, no cost analysis is available. Chairperson Alne asked the Commission if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Wilkinson asked who would fund the project, and what design is being proposed. Mr. Kruger stated that the City would allow the residents to add to their fences, and that that staff recommends uniform appearance, suggesting concrete block with a stucco finish. Further, staff is recommending that the soundwalls be implemented by contiguous property owners all at the same time. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if the residents were aware of the cost, and Mr. Kruger responded that the petitioners are aware. Commissioner Fox initiated discussion of design-types for the soundwalls, and the syncronisity issue. Ms. Joan Bollier, City Engineer, added that the City Council intended to allow applicants to increase the size of their fences without going through the Planning Process. Chairperson Alne asked if staff is suggesting that the Commission modify the ordinance or simply make an exception to it. Mr. Haley explained that currently fence exceptions can be approved by the Planning Department Director and the Public Works Engineer, if there are no objections from adjoining neighbors. The recommeneded action is to provide those specified property owners along West Campbell Avenue with a "blanket fence exception." Commissioner Wilkinson would support the recommendation presented by staff if clarification for the word "uniform" and for the expression "all at the same time," were clearly defined. Commissioners Meyer-Kennedy and Higgins agreed. Commissioner Fox asked Mr. Haley about the spirit intended by the City Council for this request. Mr. Haley indicated that the City Council would expect the Commission to consider the design and the conformity of the fences at this location. Mr. William Seligmann, City Attorney, interjected that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider the design and the conformity at this time, for this project. Mr. Piasecki, Director, suggested that the project could be divided into two components, east or west of Jim Elder Drive. Chairperson Alne asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commisison. Mr. Robert Cushman, 10 Darnel Drive, noted that his application had already been approved. He expressed concerns contained in the Enqineer's Report, page three, item (b), referring to a three foot differential for noise mitigation.- He stated that properties identified do not have the exact elevations; that to specify an 8 foot height limitation would not provide the intended mitigation measures. Additionally, he pointed out that some of the residents are elderly and could not afford or build the fence, and some of the properties are rentals, suggesting that the property owners would not want to pay for the fencing. Therefore, the rest of the property owners could not extend their fences. He was also concerned that Staff intended to have him provide a soundwall for the entire street section. Chairperson Alne assured Mr. Cushman that this application does not apply to him, since he was granted approval previous to this application. Mr. Cushman offered an alternative for residents: building another fence on one's own properrty as close as possible would eliminate costs associated with demolishing the existing soundwall, and the costs associated with repairing torn up sidewalks. Mr. Cushman also asked what happened to the street trees removed by the City along his property frontage. Discussion ensued between Commissioners and Staff relating to the potential that some property owners may not be allowed to increase their fence height because another neighbor can or will not. Chairperson Alne suggested a motion worded so that the uniformity and height could be approved by staff and that would not preclude an individual property owner from extending his fence if others decide not to. Commissioner Fox asked that a three foot differential be considered, measuring from the highest grade level up to 8 feet, and suggested that the material and design could be determined by staff. Discussion of an assessment district was initiated by Commissioner Wilkinson, and Ms. Bollier explained why such a district was not feasible at this time. MOT/OA~ On motion of Commissioner Fox, seconded by Commissioner P~rrine, the exception to the Fence O~dinance was unanimously approve~ segnu~ing the area into two portions for fencing s~yles and imple~un~tation, those ~ to be id~ti~ed as properties located to the east and those properties located to the west of Jim Elder Driv~ additionally, that the fencing be a ma~dmum of 8 feet measured from the higt~t adjacent ~ and that the design shall be approved by sta~, and that individual proper~y owners be allou~l to ~ their propertie~ (6-0-0). Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked about the street trees that were removed as pointed out by Mr. Cushmann, and Ms. Bollier indicated that she would investigate and get back to the Commission and Mr. Cushmann with a response. Chairperson Alne appointed Commissioners Fox and Wilkinson as representatives on the Site and Architectural Review Committee for the year of 1993. ~so, he appointed Commissioner Higgins as an alternate to represent the Commission on the Committee. REPORT OF THE PI.A~NIIqG DIIIEC'I'OR The written report of the Planning Director was accepted. The Director of Planning, Mr. Steve Piasecki provided a brief oral report to the Commission noting the date for the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners' Conference, and asked that the Commissioners contact that Planning Department regarding travel arrangements. Further, Mr. Piasecki suggested that the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1993, be canceled since there are no items for that meeting. MOT/O~. On motion of Commissioner J/~j~r-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Higgins, the meeting of January 26, 1993, was unanimously canceled ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m., to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1993, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. Resp~ully Submitted by: Karon Shahm, Reporting Seovtary Phnuing Mmbst~l MIm~t4s ~f Jamr~ 12, ~[~3 11